Unless the left unites after the election to form a coalition.
Or succeeds in a non-confidence motion, and asks the Governor General to let one of them run the show rather than call an election.
Yes, that worked so well last time.
Too many people don’t understand the concept of confidence in the parliamentary system for that to ever be seen as legitimate.
Yeh, today I couldn’t even remember the name of the Liberal leader who tried it in 2008.
On a similar vein, I wonder if Harper has learned his lesson about proroguing Parliament, for if he pulls that stunt again in the face of a non-confidence motion, I expect that it would hurt him in the polls. He’d be better off to push for an election.
Ah yes. Mean old Harper, who prorogued parliament. Yeah, he better not pull that unprecedented stunt again.
Oh wait. I see it’s been prorogued 105 times in its history.
Never mind.
ETA: Stéphane Dion
Kindly spare us those same old talking points, Leaffan. It’s disingenuous in the extreme to suggest that there’s any comparison.
Proroguing is normally used as a break between legislative progammes, meaning that the agenda set out in a session’s speech from the Throne has been completed, and it is time for a break before putting forth a new agenda. Harper prorogued to avoid a non-confidence motion that most likely would have led to either his being replaced by Dion, or to a general election. Although legal, that’s not cricket, so if he did it again simply to avoid a non-confidence motion, I expect that it would turn more undecided voters away from the Conservatives that it would attract.
Yes, but it’s a moot point this time anyway as the government will undoubtedly fall on a budget confidence vote tomorrow.
Anyway, as Le Ministre stated in the OP let’s continue with “a respectful exchange of opinions as the events unfold.”
What annoys me is that, even after years in the wilderness, the Libs simply don’t have their act together. They just don’t. That bodes badly for this election. The most likely (and possibly best) outcome is another Conservative minority, with Iggy being dumped and the libs, finally, getting their game on. In short, that the next election will be the “real” election.
Worst case? Conservative majority, allowing the Cons to get just as complacent and corrupt as the libs used to be - there are worrying signs already in that direction. It seems part of the natural life cycle of Canadian politics that some party get imbedded into power like a tick on a dog’s balls, grow increasingly corrrupt, and then spectacularly implode - to make way for another party to do the same …
I kind of hope that happens, because I can hardly imagine anything happening in politics that would be more entertaining. 
I don’t think the Conservatives would prorogue again - it’s about time for an election now (which it wasn’t then).
Nice description, Malthus - I especially like the exploding tick part. 
ETA: Oops, imploding, not exploding. I do like the mind picture of an exploding tick as politician, though.
Heh, “exploding” is the better word choice there, anyway. I’d edit my post to adopt it, if I could.
“Imploding,” ironically, works best to describe what the Liberals have done in opposition.
It is difficult to imagine that they could have done worse than Stephane Dion in choosing a leader, but they did. While I admit I’ve alwys liked Stephane Dion, so I’m a bit biased, Ignatieff is just a terrible choice for party leader. I’m talking Stockwell Day bad.
That said, I think the Liberals need to fix their party before they can appoint a capable leader. The fact that people can even talk about the “left uniting” suggests that the Liberal Party no longer serves a purpose. If they should simply unite with the NDP, why should they even exist? The “unite the right” movement of a few years ago was a reflection of the fact that the right wing actually had splintered into two parties, both largely regional - and even then, it really wasn’t a union as much as it was the unconditional surrender of the PC party.
But the Liberals and NDP are not the product of the schism of a previous party, and the Liberals are historically a moderate, not left-wing, party. If in fact we’ve reached the point that they should consider merger, then the Liberal Party is, like the PC party, a zombie party. They might as well just fold up. I don’t think they’re actually there at all, but logically, if they were at merger, that would be where they would be; a nothing party.
So if it fact the other parties united to form a coalition, as Muffin suggests, what you have is a “party” that exists for the sole reason of winning the election so the Conservatives don’t. What would such a party do, exactly? What’s their platform? That Stephen Harper shouldn’t be PM? Seriously? He’s not very warm and fuzzy but he’s not Pol Pot, so on Day 2 of the Ignatieff Era, what does he do? Who sets the agenda; the left wing party, the party with no clear direction, or the party that wants to wreck the country? I mean, politics is a pretty cynical game, but actually standing up and saying “We’re uniting for absolutely no reason other than to make it practically impossible for us to lose” is way too cynical even for me. I’d probably vote against that just on principle.
My question is whether, should the Libs lose, they will (finally) dump Iggy and get their game on; have they been in the wilderness long enough?
I’m hoping so.
Worst case ? To me either a Liberal or if not a Conservative majority would be the best case. You don’t get major innovative programs or policy shifts from minority governments. Just a lot of half assed measures to stay in power.
As for corruption,it appears to me that it doesn’t matter whether the government has a majority or not given the recent ruling of contempt for a minority government.
Tories lose a few seats
Libs wins a few seats
Bloc wins a few seats
NDP lose a few seats
In the end the minority government will hold power and there will be no Lib-Bloc-NDP merger. All leaders will keep their job except Layton who will be replaced due to poor performance and ill health. Duceppe will probably retire from the Bloc to go on as PQ leader and become premier of Quebec.
What I’m saying is that, bad as things are now (and in historical terms, they really are not bad), things could get a hell of a lot worse with a long-lasting majority government.
What I’d like to see is a Liberal party that is less anemic. Having two parties competing with each other, with some others jabbing at them, makes for a healthier democracy, in my view. Right now, I don’t think the Libs are all that healthy.
As long as the Bloc exists forget it.
There’s a new type of voter in Québec where some are against an independent Québec but believe in getting the most they can for Québec and themselves so they have no problem voting in the Bloc. Every election to come they will be gaining seats not losing them.
If you ever have the chance to have a conversation with any of these individuals don’t ever call the Bloc separatists because it really upsets them. Last time I checked though Gilles is still advocating for an indepent Québec.
Having a party that represents one province or a group of people is a really bad idea.
If people in Quebec vote for the Bloc, it’s because their experience with the other parties has shown that they do not act for their interests. I don’t know if you’d agree with this or not, but that’s why they do it. And when it seems that people in the rest of Canada view anything that’s bad for Quebec as good for them and for the country, it’s hard to blame them.
And while Duceppe is in favour of Quebec independence, it’s not with the Bloc that he’s going to accomplish this. The Bloc works like a federal party like any other.
Let the elections begin…
First of all, I am surprised that Harper’s numbers are so high. The guy just does not strike me as trustworthy or that he knows what he’s doing – I mean he is very skilled politicians in the game of politics but no substantial difference from the rest of the pack.
Secondly, I already made a bet with a friend that I will contribute to dethroning only one Conservative federal MP in Peel Region so I have a financial motivation. However, listening to some of the Conservative ministers makes me somewhat ideologically motivated. Just the other day Peter Kent was on AM640 describing Chrétien’s years as “dark times in Canadian history” and overall tone of his monologue was extremely impolite and flat out disgusting. And, he’s a freaking Cabinet Minister.
So, yeah, Mr. Conservative MP in Peel Region kiss your chair goodbye 
Yeah, we’ve never had a majority government with the Bloc around.
No wait, we have. Three times.