Justin Trudeau running for Liberal leadership

[MarchHare]

the default attacks I've seen conservative partisans foist on him have basically been "he's Pierre Trudeau's son" which is a pretty weak attack saince it says nothing about him personally.

And it's a completely useless attack against Justin anyway. Framing him as Pierre Jr. will hurt him in Alberta (where the Liberals aren't going to win many votes regardless of their leader), but that might actually gain him support in Ontario, Quebec, and Atlantic Canada where his father was and is very popular.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by Parallex

I've seen them... they were pretty mild. Winning the majority (and thus no longer needing to be in perpetual campaign mode) took a lot of bite out of the CPC attack machine. I don't anticipate we'll see much in the way of it until 2015. When it comes for Trudeau I don't see it as being as effective as it's been in the past. I mean the function of their earlier attacks was to define the opponent before he can define himself and Justin Trudeau has been in the spotlight (off and on) since the day he was born so he's a fairly known quantity (more people already have opinions on him) and the default attacks I've seen conservative partisans foist on him have basically been "he's Pierre Trudeau's son" which is a pretty weak attack saince it says nothing about him personally.

True... why waste the money on attack ads now when the next election is 3 years from now.
When the CPC had a minority government it was a completely different story. An election could happen at any time so continuous attach ads were the de riguer. ( did I spell that right?)

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Don't forget fixed election dates!

Did I miss something? I thought Harper implemented that?

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Rerun

Did I miss something? I thought Harper implemented that?

He did... and then broke it when it was convenient for him to do so.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Rerun

Did I miss something? I thought Harper implemented that?

He did...

...and then he ignored his own law so he could call an election at a time when it was favourable for his party.

[Edit]
Beaten by Parallex!

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by Parallex

He did... and then broke it when it was convenient for him to do so.

Originally Posted by MarchHare

He did...

...and then he ignored his own law so he could call an election at a time when it was favourable for his party.

[Edit]
Beaten by Parallex!

That's not the way I remember it and neither does Wikipedia...

The 2011 Canadian federal election (formally the 41st Canadian general election) was held Monday, May 2, 2011, to elect members to the House of Commons of the 41st Canadian Parliament.
The writs of election for the 2011 election were issued by Governor General David Johnston on March 26. Prime Minister Stephen Harper advised the Governor General to dissolve parliament after the House of Commons passed a motion of non-confidence against the government, finding it to be in contempt of parliament. A few days before, the three opposition parties had rejected the government's proposed budget.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadia...election,_2011


But go ahead. You remember it the way you want to if it makes you feel better.

[rubecube]

Didn't Harper attempt to pass a motion he knew was going to fail?

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Rerun

That's not the way I remember it and neither does Wikipedia...



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadia...election,_2011


But go ahead. You remember it the way you want to if it makes you feel better.

We were talking about the 2008 election.

In 2007, Parliament passed a law fixing federal election dates every four years and scheduling the next election date as October 19, 2009, but the law does not (and constitutionally cannot) limit the powers of the Governor General to dissolve Parliament at any time, such as when opposition parties bring down the government on a vote of confidence. In this election there was no loss of a non-confidence vote, but the Prime Minister asked the Governor General to call an election. The Governor General granted the Prime Minister's request.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadia...election,_2008

[EddyBeers]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

We were talking about the 2008 election.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadia...election,_2008

So Wikipedia does remember it the same way, Harper passed a fixed election law and then broke his own law. What a guy that Steve Harper is.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

We were talking about the 2008 election.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadia...election,_2008

If I remember back in 2008 parliament was totally disfunctional and there was absolutely no cooperation between the CPC and the other parties, which as everyone knows is absolutely crutial in any minority parliament.

Per wikipedia..

May 3, 2007: Bill C-16 receives Royal Assent. This bill states that the next election must be held on October 19, 2009, unless there is an earlier dissolution.

August 26, 2008: Harper indicates he may call an election for the fall of 2008; Parliament could be dissolved as early as the week of September 1–6.

August 29, 2008: Harper meets with Gilles Duceppe, the leader of the Bloc Québécois in an attempt to find common ground between the Bloc and the Conservatives.

August 30, 2008: Harper meets with Jack Layton, the leader of the New Democrats in an attempt to find common ground between the NDP and the Conservatives.

September 1, 2008: Harper meets with Stéphane Dion, the leader of the Liberals, in an attempt to find common ground between the Liberals and the Conservatives, and avert the dissolution of Parliament, allowing the fall session to continue as planned. However, after a twenty-minute meeting at 24 Sussex Drive, the PM's official residence, Dion emerges stating there is no common ground between the two parties, and that an election is certain.

September 5, 2008: The Prime Minister's Office (PMO) announces that Prime Minister Stephen Harper will visit the Governor General at 9 am on September 7, 2008 to ask for the dissolution of the 39th Parliament and a general election on October 14, 2008.[23]

September 7, 2008: Prime Minister Harper asks Governor General Michaëlle Jean to call a general election on October 14, 2008. She accepts the request.[24]

Harper tried to work with the other parties but they were intractable. He had no other choice BUT to dissolve parliament.

[MarchHare]

Go ahead. You remember it the way you want to if it makes you feel better.

These are the indisputable facts:

1. Harper's government passed a fixed election date law in 2007, setting the date for the next election for October 19, 2009.
2. The opposition parties did not defeat Harper's government with a non-confidence motion.
3. Harper asked the Governor General to dissolve Parliament, ignoring his own fixed election date law.

You can pull a Calgaryborn and continuing arguing even though the facts do not support your position, or you can admit that you were previously mistaken (perhaps you forgot about the events of 2008, nobody would hold it against you) and acknowledge that Harper did indeed ignore his own law but you consider it to be a minor issue. Maybe you even think Harper was justified to do what he did, but that doesn't change the facts of the situation.

[rubecube]

Harper supporters calling other parties intractable is pretty rich, especially when your guy has a history of taking his ball and going home whenever a session isn't going his way.

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Go ahead. You remember it the way you want to if it makes you feel better.

These are the indisputable facts:

1. Harper's government passed a fixed election date law in 2007, setting the date for the next election for October 19, 2009.
2. The opposition parties did not defeat Harper's government with a non-confidence motion.
3. Harper asked the Governor General to dissolve Parliament, ignoring his own fixed election date law.

You can pull a Calgaryborn and continuing arguing even though the facts do not support your position, or you can admit that you were previously mistaken (perhaps you forgot about the events of 2008, nobody would hold it against you) and acknowledge that Harper did indeed ignore his own law but you consider it to be a minor issue. Maybe you even think Harper was justified to do what he did, but that doesn't change the facts of the situation.

If he hadn't, wouldn't the logical result have been the government failing a confidence vote forcing Parliament to be dissolved?

Not saying you are wrong in your complaint, just saying that I don't see how it changed a whole lot.

[MarchHare]

If he hadn't, wouldn't the logical result have been the government failing a confidence vote forcing Parliament to be dissolved?

Well yeah, all minority governments are defeated eventually, but maybe we wouldn't have had an election in the fall of 2008 if Harper hadn't asked the GG to dissolve Parliament despite still having the confidence of the house at the time. Maybe Harper's government survives until the next year. Maybe we don't have the whole coalition and proroguing of Parliament debacle that followed the 2008 election. Maybe a lot of things happen differently. We'll never know what might have been because Harper chose to ignore his own fixed election date law and called an election at a time when the polls favoured the governing party, the exact scenario the law was designed to prevent.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Go ahead. You remember it the way you want to if it makes you feel better.

These are the indisputable facts:

1. Harper's government passed a fixed election date law in 2007, setting the date for the next election for October 19, 2009.
2. The opposition parties did not defeat Harper's government with a non-confidence motion.
3. Harper asked the Governor General to dissolve Parliament, ignoring his own fixed election date law.

You can pull a Calgaryborn and continuing arguing even though the facts do not support your position, or you can admit that you were previously mistaken (perhaps you forgot about the events of 2008, nobody would hold it against you) and acknowledge that Harper did indeed ignore his own law but you consider it to be a minor issue. Maybe you even think Harper was justified to do what he did, but that doesn't change the facts of the situation.

I didn't forget about the 2008 election. I thought we were referring to the last election. But now that you have clarified this, I do agree with you. Technically he did break his own law but he was left with no other choice by the opposition parties who had become impossible to work with. Harper's reason (and a valid one in my opinion) was that parliament had become untenable and was at a stalemate where the government could not proceed in the proper governing of the country.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Rerun

I didn't forget about the 2008 election. I thought we were referring to the last election. But now that you have clarified this, I do agree with you. Technically he did break his own law but he was left with no other choice by the opposition parties who had become impossible to work with. Harper's reason (and a valid one in my opinion) was that parliament had become untenable and was at a stalemate where the government could not proceed in the proper governing of the country.

The Conservatives had a minority, but they were trying to govern like they had a majority. It's not incorrect to state that the opposition parties were not working with the government, but they'll say that Harper was being inflexible and not acting in good faith when trying to find some common middle ground. Compromise works both ways.

And really, what reason did Harper have to compromise anyway? All the parties had access to polling information. Everyone knew the Conservatives were polling well and stood to gain seats if an election were called. So Harper could afford to be intransigent and refuse to work with the other parties, knowing that he had less to lose in an election than they did. Which, of course, is exactly what happened.

None of that changes the fact that Harper passed a fixed election law and then promptly ignored it a year later.

[Azure]

In terms of the actual thread...

There is a strong whiff of nostalgia in the air just now. A lot of people who should know better seem to have persuaded themselves that it is 1968 all over again. Among other things, that’s unfair to Justin, who is his own man and who is running, I am sure, for the best of reasons, but on whom many others seem to want to project their own fantasies. But the son is not the father, and a party that hopes to have a future cannot retreat into the past.

http://www.montrealgazette.com/busin...#ixzz27pNQfqvt

From our favorite writer, Andrew Coyne.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by Rerun

but he was left with no other choice by the opposition parties who had become impossible to work with.

You recall the events surrounding that with vastly different results then I. The opposition parties at the time were making no overtures about defeating the government nor were there any additional filibusters or other parliamentary/legislative delay tactics (at least not on the part of the opposition parties... I do recall the conservatives pulling shannanagons (deliberately not showing up for things so as to have a lack of quorum for example) and in fact had a handbook distributed to their members instructing them on various ways of obstructing business.

Harper broke his own his own fixed election legislation it's as simple as that... and in the process proved to me that despite all the right-wing whining about having fixed election date they (neither the parliamentarians nor it's supporters) actually really cared about it in the first place. Just another conveniently displaced faux-principle.

From our favorite writer, Andrew Coyne.

In a roundabout way the relative of a Trudeau (in genetics if not in name).

[Freeway]

The 2007 "fixed election date" "law" had no real ability to fix election dates and also, separately, had no weight as a law.

Functionally-speaking, it was an Canada Elections Act recommendation that was put into the legislation but had no real bearing or weight beyond that.

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by Parallex

You recall the events surrounding that with vastly different results then I. The opposition parties at the time were making no overtures about defeating the government nor were there any additional filibusters or other parliamentary/legislative delay tactics (at least not on the part of the opposition parties... I do recall the conservatives pulling shannanagons (deliberately not showing up for things so as to have a lack of quorum for example) and in fact had a handbook distributed to their members instructing them on various ways of obstructing business.

Harper broke his own his own fixed election legislation it's as simple as that... and in the process proved to me that despite all the right-wing whining about having fixed election date they (neither the parliamentarians nor it's supporters) actually really cared about it in the first place. Just another conveniently displaced faux-principle.

In a roundabout way the relative of a Trudeau (in genetics if not in name).

The law was/is flawed. He should have stated that this law would only apply when the government of the day has a majority in parliament.
You know and I know that in a minority government that the other parties do their best to disrupt the governance of the country. I mean really, what party other than the governing party wants the party in power to be able to enact legislation that is their party platform? To dispute this fact, in most cases, is to believe and put forth a lie.