Liberals will move to topple Conservative Gov't

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Suave

I guess I jumped the gun a little there, I'm just too used to seeing people dismiss poll results because "only 1000" people were surveyed. And by "regular" polls I wasn't specifically referring to political polls but rather to the general polls we hear about everyday.

Well, I really only meant "only 1000" in a very strict sense--that the margin of error is a sizable smidge higher than it is for 2000--and that it leads to even smaller sample sizes at the regional level.

For me, if you're going to survey only 150 voters in the entire West, you might as well not bother. The margin of error is so high that the results become very dubious. This particular poll shows a Tory drop of 10%--but my feeling is that this is far likelier to be statistical noise, and with only 150 respondents that becomes even more probable.

Since prediction of electoral outcomes in Canada hinges so clearly on regional results, this is a big methodological flaw. But I wasn't questioning the overall methodology of using samples in general, in case that's what you thought.

[BlackEleven]

Originally Posted by oilers_fan

A federal party should absolutely be forced to run at least one candidate of every province and territory within Canada. I am sick and tired of the provincial Bloc Quebecois being allowed to call themselves a federal party.

Despite that, Gilles Duceppe has always been my second favorite person in the leadership debates.

That would change nothing though. The candidate would just lose and they'd have the same number of seats (and thus federal votes) as they would otherwise.

The BQ are taking advantage of the Canadian electoral system where the results of many small regional elections combine to determine makeup of the federal government. Their voting base is concentrated over a relatively small geographical area where they're popular enough to beat out candidates from any of the other federal parties.

It's easy to see when you look at the popular vote which the BQ gets about 10% of and control 54 (~18%) of the seats. Compare that with the NDP that doesn't have one big concentrated area of support (with maybe the small exception of the automotive manufacting sector of southern Ontario) and the results are exactly reversed. They get about 18% of the popular vote and gets about 10% (29) of the seats.

If you don't like the BQ being a federal party the solution is much more complex than just running one party per province.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by BlackEleven

If you don't like the BQ being a federal party the solution is much more complex than just running one party per province.

Under proportional representation, the BQ would be hard pressed to get 8% of the seats in Parliament.

But there's a whole host of issues that come along with that too. Unfortunately, no system is perfect.

[BlackEleven]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Under proportional representation, the BQ would be hard pressed to get 8% of the seats in Parliament.

But there's a whole host of issues that come along with that too. Unfortunately, no system is perfect.

I realize that as well. But I deliberately left out the proportional representation part of the argument as that could derail the thread and is a bit off-topic. I just wanted to make the point that the BQ have the power they do because of the way our current system works.

[Slava]

The BQ running in rural Alberta might do fantastically well. Maybe the CPC would lose seats if some of the wackos thought that they could get rid of Quebec by voting for them!

[Bownesian]

If you asked the callers to Cross Country Checkup on CBC Radio Sunday, the polling would probably have been 70% Liberal, 15% NDP and 15% Conservative. There are some lefties out there that *hate* the current government with the burning fire of a thousand suns but those poll numbers (and the comment section of cbc.ca) really haven't changed since before the last election.

I can't see the NDP directly supporting the government so I don't know how we can avoid another fall election. I see two possible outcomes from this:

1) The Conservatives make the pitch to form a majority government and the country goes along with them.

2) Liberal Minority with no NDP balance of power. I can't see the Libs and NDP adding up to a majority without a significant collapse in the conservative vote, which I think to be extremely unlikely.

3) Conservative minority that collapses after the throne speech resulting in a "Coalition if Necessary"

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Bownesian

If you asked the callers to Cross Country Checkup on CBC Radio Sunday, the polling would probably have been 70% Liberal, 15% NDP and 15% Conservative. There are some lefties out there that *hate* the current government with the burning fire of a thousand suns but those poll numbers (and the comment section of cbc.ca) really haven't changed since before the last election.

I can't see the NDP directly supporting the government so I don't know how we can avoid another fall election. I see two possible outcomes from this:

1) The Conservatives make the pitch to form a majority government and the country goes along with them.

2) Liberal Minority with no NDP balance of power. I can't see the Libs and NDP adding up to a majority without a significant collapse in the conservative vote, which I think to be extremely unlikely.

3) Conservative minority that collapses after the throne speech resulting in a "Coalition if Necessary"

I agree to a certain extent, but there is one major difference between the polls now and last fall--and it's Quebec and Ontario. If Harper goes the "anti-coalition route" he's all but guaranteed to lose 10 seats in Quebec. He also currently holds 51 seats in Ontario and his poll numbers there don't look great (though.. regional sample, high MOE etc. etc.). If these polls are accurate, we could easily see a swing of 30 or 40 seats to the BQ and Liberals without the topline numbers moving much at all.

[mykalberta]

I still find it strange that Quebecers are turned off by Harper attacking the Bloc's coalition. The Bloc hates Canada and wants to leave, can Quebec not see that?

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by Blaster86

Yes there is, unless you're a troll.

apparently, everyone's sarcasm detectors are on the fritz.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

I still find it strange that Quebecers are turned off by Harper attacking the Bloc's coalition. The Bloc hates Canada and wants to leave, can Quebec not see that?

Many people in Quebec view the Bloc as a "pro-Quebec" regional party, not necessarily the "anti-Canada" separatist party the rest of us see them as.

Here's a quote from a member of another forum I visit regarding the Bloc. For context, it's important to note that he's an anglophone and not even from Quebec originally.

The Bloc is a fantastic party when they are forced to work with others, because a lot of their aims for quebec apply equally to other people. Canadians need to get over their kneejerk reaction to OMG SEPERATISTS! Gilles Duceppe is a fantastic political leader because he's been forced to acknowledge reality. I am reminded of a quote from a debate last year: "Three of us aren't going to be Prime Minister, and I'm the only one willing to admit it."

The things he pushes for are always pro people, and if they were Canada-wide it would be a win for Canada as well as Quebec.

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Many people in Quebec view the Bloc as a "pro-Quebec" regional party, not necessarily the "anti-Canada" separatist party the rest of us see them as.

Here's a quote from a member of another forum I visit regarding the Bloc. For context, it's important to note that he's an anglophone and not even from Quebec originally.

I agree. The Bloc is a regional party with its particular region's interests at heart. The fact the region is very identifiable, and coupled with the topic of separation, provides them a focus and rallying point that other regional parties would be unable to attain. Separation, although discussed as the overall goal of the party, is merely the big stick pulled out now and again to bring a patriotic brand of interest and support back to the party.

So long as they're able to maintain the regional-specific aspects of language and culture (a mere offshoot of language), they'll be able to maintain support that translates to a national scale due to the nature of Canada's electoral system. For those same reasons, other regions (read: Alberta) will find it extremely difficult to cultivate a regional-interests-only party and have any national impact. (The Reform party started in the West, but I don't believe it was intended to be a regional party.)

All in all, Quebec's got something that works for them (and only them.) If it ain't broke, don't fix it!

[mykalberta]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Many people in Quebec view the Bloc as a "pro-Quebec" regional party, not necessarily the "anti-Canada" separatist party the rest of us see them as.

Here's a quote from a member of another forum I visit regarding the Bloc. For context, it's important to note that he's an anglophone and not even from Quebec originally.

Wow, I guess some people love the Bloc, and some think they are complete trash. Anyone who calls themselves Canadian first, Quebecer second who votes for them is a traitor. I would rather them vote NDP or Green.

To each his own.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

I still find it strange that Quebecers are turned off by Harper attacking the Bloc's coalition. The Bloc hates Canada and wants to leave, can Quebec not see that?

A friend of a friend from rural Quebec was telling me how she and the people that she knows don't really see the Bloc as a separation party, even though it's part of their platform. They (the voters) know that they can use the Bloc as a Quebec special interest party, while not letting the Bloc proceed with separation. Which is fine, except that the dominion would be completely unworkable if every region had their own special interest party.

[mykalberta]

Is she blind.

Shoppers Optical is having a buy the frame get the lens free sale going on now. Lasik eye surgery is also available.

All you have to do is go to their website to see what they stand for.



What do those same people say about transfer payments - do they believe its a Quebec right to be bankrolled by the rest of Canada?

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by Bownesian

1) The Conservatives make the pitch to form a majority government and the country goes along with them.

I still can't see a Conservative majority. People aren't as "afraid" of Harper and his Pro-Bush stance as they were four years ago, but I suspect people still have him on a shorter leash just because of his opinion of Bush and the party he runs with.

Part of the problem is that he is so uncharismatic and because of that he has a hard time soothing over the undecideds who lean to the left or center. He is like that strange uncle you first meet when you are three or four years old. He's family and he won't kill you, but just to be safe, you know he probably won't do anything to hurt you if you keep a bit of distance from him.

Originally Posted by mykalberta

Is she blind.

Shoppers Optical is having a buy the frame get the lens free sale going on now. Lasik eye surgery is also available.

All you have to do is go to their website to see what they stand for.



What do those same people say about transfer payments - do they believe its a Quebec right to be bankrolled by the rest of Canada?

Perhaps if you reread his post you'd understand. The lady knows of the seperist aspect, she doesn't believe that it would come to fruition, but because of the threat, it will keep the Canadian government lining their pockets.

No need to be insulting because they don't agree with you, unless you're saying that I can go to town on you for some of your sillier comments.

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

Is she blind.

Shoppers Optical is having a buy the frame get the lens free sale going on now. Lasik eye surgery is also available.

All you have to do is go to their website to see what they stand for.



What do those same people say about transfer payments - do they believe its a Quebec right to be bankrolled by the rest of Canada?

This was my comment from above: "The Bloc is a regional party with its particular region's interests at heart. The fact the region is very identifiable, and coupled with the topic of separation, provides them a focus and rallying point that other regional parties would be unable to attain. Separation, although discussed as the overall goal of the party, is merely the big stick pulled out now and again to bring a patriotic brand of interest and support back to the party."

What I should have mentioned is that their region's interests revolve more around how to get concessions ($$$) from ROC rather than actual separation. I think most of them would agree that Quebec would be pretty screwed if it actually separated. So far, the strategy is working quite flawlessly.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by zuluking

What I should have mentioned is that their region's interests revolve more around how to get concessions ($$$) from ROC rather than actual separation. I think most of them would agree that Quebec would be pretty screwed if it actually separated. So far, the strategy is working quite flawlessly.

Yup, nobody in Canada plays the game of politics as well as the voters of Quebec. It's almost like they all get together, and say "okay, we're going to mostly elect Bloc because they'll effectively lobby on our behalf and can give us the balance of power in a minority government, but we'll give a few representatives each to the Conservatives and Liberals so that they think that they actually have a chance of winning us over if they give in to our demands. And we'll even throw the NDP a bone and see if they'll support us from time to time."
Compare that with Alberta, where it's as though we get together and say, "Okay, we're going to unanimously elect the same party that we always do, even though it means that nobody cares about us, since our own party doesn't need to give us concessions and there's no point in the other parties even trying to win votes here."

[Bownesian]

Originally Posted by octothorp

Compare that with Alberta, where it's as though we get together and say, "Okay, we're going to unanimously elect the same party that we always do, even though it means that nobody cares about us, since our own party doesn't need to give us concessions and there's no point in the other parties even trying to win votes here."

The alternative being to vote for a party whose platform included destroying our economy with an oppressive tax designed to filter money out of our region and into the poorer parts of the country.

[BlackEleven]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

Is she blind.

Shoppers Optical is having a buy the frame get the lens free sale going on now. Lasik eye surgery is also available.

All you have to do is go to their website to see what they stand for.



What do those same people say about transfer payments - do they believe its a Quebec right to be bankrolled by the rest of Canada?

I think you're the one that's missing something here.

The BQ cannot separate Quebec from Canada. Period. A referendum can only be triggered on the provincial level (ie by the PQ) and not on a federal level. Even if the leader of the BQ became the PM, which is a virtual impossibility considering they only run in 75 out of 308 ridings, he still couldn't call a referendum.

Everyone in Quebec knows this. So even though they may fly the flag of separation to appeal to a sense of patriotism (or whatever you want to call it), they are in essence nothing more than a Quebec special interest party.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Blaster86

I still can't see a Conservative majority. People aren't as "afraid" of Harper and his Pro-Bush stance as they were four years ago, but I suspect people still have him on a shorter leash just because of his opinion of Bush and the party he runs with.

Part of the problem is that he is so uncharismatic and because of that he has a hard time soothing over the undecideds who lean to the left or center. He is like that strange uncle you first meet when you are three or four years old. He's family and he won't kill you, but just to be safe, you know he probably won't do anything to hurt you if you keep a bit of distance from him.



.

The question has to be, does the Bush agenda or pro america even count anymore. If you follow Ignatieff's statements while he was living in the U.S. he came across as a far more pro bush hardliner then Harper ever has. So if people are going to judge Harper on perceived political ideology (He's a conservative, he must be for Bush), then you also have to judge Ignatieff based on actual statements.

You can no longer say Harper would have taken us to war in Iraq without also balancing that Iggy was calling for Canada to get involved in Irag.

I think political beliefs are going to take a back seat in this election due to these two leaders being pretty close in terms of belief.

Here's hoping that there's not an election, because I still can't see any issues that are worth toppling this government over.