There are only two possible outcomes on Tuesday. Either Harper will be the PM, or Dion will. Do you want a cautious approach by someone who saw this coming and put us in the best possible position, or do you want some $80B in spending promises with a Carbon Tax to pay for them by someone who gets flustered by the simplest of questions?
Choose wisely.
Nope. there's only one option: Conservative minority. At this point, it's all but a statistical certainty; there just aren't enough seats in play for either party to sway the election from this outcome. Even if the Conservatives win every seat they have in play, they'll top out around 147. The Liberals top out around 105. It's foolish for an undecided to pick between the Conservatives based on fear: either fear of what a Liberal minority would do or fear of what a Conservative majority would do. Neither are realistic scenarios.
Pretty sure we are going to have pretty close to the exact same percentages of seats for the parties as we do now, maybe the NDP and Green picking up a seat or two at the expense of the bigger parties. A lot of the gains that the conservatives saw have vanished but they are still ahead fairly decisively.
P.S. I've already voted in an advance poll so everyone who hasn't gotten out, I sure hope you do! Exercise your right to be disappointed!
I'll give Anders credit for at least attending an all candidates meeting at the UofC.
But the rest of the Calgary Conservatives aren't going to do any.
Quote:
Conservatives won every seat in Alberta during the 2006 election.
Calgary Centre-North candidate Jim Prentice participated in one debate last week.
The Conservative candidates in Calgary who don't have any local all-candidates debates planned: Calgary Southeast's Jason Kenney, Calgary-Nose Hill's Diane Ablonczy, Calgary Northeast's Devinder Shory, Calgary East's Deepak Obhrai and Calgary Southwest's Stephen Harper, who is the prime minister and leader of the Conservative party.
Shory is the only one of the bunch who isn't an incumbent.
There is supposed to be an all candidates meeting in my riding tonight (I saw one of the roadside signs yesterday, and am trying to find the details). I was going to go and ask a few questions of Shory. Although if he isn't going to be there, then there isn't much point.
__________________
"The problem with any ideology is that it gives the answer before you look at the evidence."
—Bill Clinton
"The greatest obstacle to discovery is not ignorance--it is the illusion of knowledge."
—Daniel J. Boorstin, historian, former Librarian of Congress
"But the Senator, while insisting he was not intoxicated, could not explain his nudity"
—WKRP in Cincinatti
Off to the races. I gotta say, I much prefer the Canadian system of essentially a 5 week campaign to the 2-year campaign in the US.
I'm sure some people will not appreciate my opinion but these are my preferences for this election (although some rather unlikely):
1. NPD minority - The Liberals and Conservatives have both had their shots and neither has done particularly well. Time to give the NDP a shot. Maybe they can repair some of our ailing social programs and health care system.
2. Liberal minority - The Conservatives have not impressed me. Time the pendulum swings back a bit.
3. Conservative minority - Don't want a Conservative government but if we have to have one, definitely needs to be a minority. If the Conservatives get a majority, you will see the social conservatives come out of the woodwork.
We should also get a poll going here, see who would win right now in an election if only Calgarypuckers were voting.
I will probably vote for the NDP, but this NPD sounds very similar..
Looks like things have leveled off in recent polls (at least on a national level), with the Tories between 30 and 34, and the Liberals between 26 and 30. In the Nanos polls (traditionally the most accurate, but I don't really believe them here), the NDP are up to 35% in the maritimes and 19% in Quebec, while Harris-Decima shows them at 22 and 7 in the two regions.
Right now, I'd say that the Conservatives will make gains in BC, but suffer more or less offsetting losses in Atlantic Canada. There won't be much movement at all on the prairies, and now that the Bloc looks to be on solid ground, the Conservatives will be hard-pressed to pick up any ground. Which means, just as it does almost every election, that this election comes down to Ontario (and when I say 'comes down to' I mean the difference between a CPC minority with more seats, a CPC minority with the same number of seats, or a CPC minority with fewer seats).
In Ontario, Nanos had an almost 10 point Liberal lead a few days ago, but that's dropped down to 1. Harris Decima shows it tightening from 4 to 2. Even in a best-case scenario for the Conservatives, I can see them picking up a maximum of 13 in Ontario and losing at least 2. That would bring the Conservatives in around the high 130s.
Is it completely out of the question for the NDP-Liberals-Bloc to form a coalition government? A Conservative-Bloc coalition would be a majority, but I think their politics too dis-similar to work together. There are major policy differences between the three other parties, but they might just work together to take power?
Or maybe now is not the right time for a powerplay given the current financial situation. What is going on south of the border is going to cause even more of an economic slowdown than what we have seen thus far.... such a move would be seen as destabilizing.
^^^ Actually I believe the Conservatives are more in line with the Bloc than the Liberals and far more in line with them than the NDP. Both the Conservatives and Bloc agree that more power for the provinces is desirable. Since Quebec got its distinct society recognition, that's the Bloc's main talking point, more power to Quebec.
^^^ Actually I believe the Conservatives are more in line with the Bloc than the Liberals and far more in line with them than the NDP. Both the Conservatives and Bloc agree that more power for the provinces is desirable. Since Quebec got its distinct society recognition, that's the Bloc's main talking point, more power to Quebec.
Are not the Bloc's social policies more in line with those on the left, however? I.e. that is something the Conservatives and Blocs would likely disagree on.
Plus the optics, for any party, of partnering oneself with a separtist entity.
Is it completely out of the question for the NDP-Liberals-Bloc to form a coalition government? A Conservative-Bloc coalition would be a majority, but I think their politics too dis-similar to work together. There are major policy differences between the three other parties, but they might just work together to take power?
Or maybe now is not the right time for a powerplay given the current financial situation. What is going on south of the border is going to cause even more of an economic slowdown than what we have seen thus far.... such a move would be seen as destabilizing.
Good question. Here's how it would work, as I understand it, from a constitutional perspective: following the election, the governor general invites the leader of the party with the most support to form the government. This would be the conservatives, and obviously, Harper would accept. If the other parties formed an alliance, obviously they could defeat any motion the government put forward, and as soon as they defeat a non-confidence motion, this would cause an election. Prior to a non-confidence motion, Harper could also simply ask the GG to dissolve parliament and call an election.
However, the GG cannot simply take the position away from Harper and ask Dion to form the government. This was the center issue of the King/Byng affair, following which the GG's powers were reduced.
The Liberals/NDP/Bloc would need to declare this as a coalition before the election, essentially forcing the GG to come to them first to ask them to form the government.
Anyway, the only way I could imagine that happening is if there was some extremely polarizing issue, such as the conscription crisis.
I would say that a Liberal-NDP, Liberal-Bloc or Liberal-NDP-Bloc coalition are completely out of the question.
In all cases, Dion gets to wear the Prime Minister's sash, but in all cases, he is a puppet, and nothing more. Given some of his huffy comments about fighting for Canadian unity, he's not about to want his strings pulled by a separatist.
Same thing with Layton. Even the Liberals know a government where Layton and his band of looney toons hold any real power is going to end up a disaster. Dion would have to enact NDP policy to maintain his government while facing the fallout from the damage NDP policy will do.
In as much as everyone likes to paint the Liberals and Conservatives as mortal enemies for whom no price is too high to knock the other one out, I also think most everyone realizes that Canada is better off if the balance of power lies within these two parties. We're in trouble if the fringes start to get too much influence.
Is it completely out of the question for the NDP-Liberals-Bloc to form a coalition government? A Conservative-Bloc coalition would be a majority, but I think their politics too dis-similar to work together. There are major policy differences between the three other parties, but they might just work together to take power?
Or maybe now is not the right time for a powerplay given the current financial situation. What is going on south of the border is going to cause even more of an economic slowdown than what we have seen thus far.... such a move would be seen as destabilizing.
Now's not the time for the NDP having a hand on power given the current financial situation. If it came to that I would rather have a Liberal majority. The last thing the country needs in tough economic times is a socialist party having a legitimate say on legislation.
I also think most everyone realizes that Canada is better off if the balance of power lies within these two parties
Except for the 40% that doesn't.
How is it "completely out of the question". You made a statement, then went on your typical fearmongering and didn't address the issue. Very Palin-esque.
Octothorpe: If no party is able to form government, there is time given for the other parties to present to the governor-general their their ability to form a government via a coalition. The leader of the party with the most seats in the coalition is named prime minister.
Actually, I did. You just prefer to stick your fingers in your ears and go "lalalalalala I can't hear you lalalalalala."
A coalition gives the fringes all the power because the government is beholden to them to maintain itself.
Dion has made too many statements about unity and nationalism for him to swallow his pride to the point of being controlled by a separatist. Agree or disagree?
Dion's already flat out rejected Layton's begging for power by rejecting NDP suggestions of a coalition. NDP economic policy is not good for Canada. Agree or disagree?
The governing party in a coalition will bear the brunt of policies it enacts, even if said policy is driven by a fringe party. Agree or disagree?
This isn't a liberal vs. conservative answer, even if you want to paint it as one. A Conservative led coalition would be met with the same challenges.
I know this has already been discussed, but this clip actually has his real answer at the end.
I don't know about anyone else, but his real answer made me cringe even more than when he was struggling to understand the question. Is this really the best the Liberals have to offer?
A coalition gives the fringes all the power because the government is beholden to them to maintain itself.
That's not exactly how it works. The parties have to work together on policies, like what happened when Tommy Douglas worked with the Liberals to get nationalized health care. It's sybiotic, not parasitic.
Quote:
Dion has made too many statements about unity and nationalism for him to swallow his pride to the point of being controlled by a separatist. Agree or disagree?
Again, not CONTROLLED. But anyhow, like I mentioned in the french debate thread, throughout Duceppe and Dion were nodding at each others policies. They seem to agree on a lot of issues with separatism being the only major difference. I guess it depends on what is more important to Dion - forming power and working together with a separatist, or letting the Conservatives govern.
Quote:
Dion's already flat out rejected Layton's begging for power by rejecting NDP suggestions of a coalition. NDP economic policy is not good for Canada. Agree or disagree?
I obviously disagree wholeheartedly. But as for Dion rejected the coalition, I can see him saying that during the campaign. But he didn't "flat out reject" ... he did not completely rule it out. He said they "might" not be able to work with the NDP ( http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNew...on2008&no_ads= )
Quote:
The governing party in a coalition will bear the brunt of policies it enacts, even if said policy is driven by a fringe party. Agree or disagree?
Again, it is a symbiotic relationship. The two (or three) parties would find issues that they could all agree on and work together to come up with plans they can all agree on. Yes, most times the larger party is seen as the one implementing the proposal, so they would have to agree with it before presenting it. Nationalized Health Care being an obvious exception as most realize that was driven by the NDP.
Quote:
This isn't a liberal vs. conservative answer, even if you want to paint it as one. A Conservative led coalition would be met with the same challenges.
But that is exactly what they are - challenges. I don't necessarily see any of them being insurmountable.
Octothorpe: If no party is able to form government, there is time given for the other parties to present to the governor-general their their ability to form a government via a coalition. The leader of the party with the most seats in the coalition is named prime minister.
Right, but only once Harper resigns. And he has no obligation to resign if his party gets the most votes, even if the other parties say they are forming a coalition. Harper can go to the governor general, say that he intends to form a government, and then rule until this new government is defeated on a confidence vote, at which time he'd ask the governor general to resolve parliament and call a new election. At this point, the governor general could refuse to resolve parliament and ask the coalition to form the government, as Byng did with Meehan, but it's really questionable whether that's the correct thing for a governor general to do.
Are not the Bloc's social policies more in line with those on the left, however? I.e. that is something the Conservatives and Blocs would likely disagree on.
Plus the optics, for any party, of partnering oneself with a separtist entity.
They are more on the left of the Conservatives, but not terribly so. I think they share more with each other than the Bloc and other parties. The fact that the Conservatives made more in roads into Quebec last time than the Liberals would seem to suggest that too.
I agree with the optics being bad, but then you'd have to say that for any coalition that would include the Bloc whether the Conservatives were involved or not.
But to stick to that pledge in a deep recession would not only be folly, as Mr. Rubin suggested; it would repeat what was arguably one of the biggest errors of Depression. In both Canada and the U.S., governments were hesitant to try to spend their way out of the problem. It wasn't until 1935 that the Bennett government proposed a Canadian version of the "New Deal" that included unemployment insurance, farm support and a pension scheme.
