2011 Canadian Election Thread

[John Doe]

Originally Posted by Slava

I'm sure that this will make Alberta thrilled, but rumour floating around right now that the NDP might not field a candidate against Justin Trudeau. That would all but guarantee the BQ takes him out. Very interesting and bad news for the Liberals if true.

(I know that there are no fans of the BQ here, but I figure that most of you are thrilled when a Liberal loses a seat, nevermind one named Trudeau)

To tell you the truth, I wouldn't be surprised if some Liberals were happy if this came true!

[Slava]

Maybe CC or Resolute can explain this one to me? If the Liberals, BQ and NDP want this coalition so bad then why are they bothering with the election? Why wouldn't they have just drafted an agreement and taken control? If that is really the plan than why give Harper a shot at a majority in the first place?

(I know, these three parties are wasteful and just wanted to spend the money on an election before they did this!)

[old-fart]

Originally Posted by Slava

Maybe CC or Resolute can explain this one to me? If the Liberals, BQ and NDP want this coalition so bad then why are they bothering with the election? Why wouldn't they have just drafted an agreement and taken control? If that is really the plan than why give Harper a shot at a majority in the first place?

(I know, these three parties are wasteful and just wanted to spend the money on an election before they did this!)

You know they can't right? The best they could have done is draft said agreement and take it to the GG and ask him that before he disolves parliment at the request of the PM that they give them a chance to govern.

There is virtually zero chance the GG would have allowed it, and instead would have done exactly what he did do, which is send us back to the polls. The only difference is that instead of going there thinking the Libs have a "hidden agenda" of forming a coalition with the BQ seperatists, we'd be going knowing full well with documentation that that is exactly what Iffy wants to do.

Based on how the public reacted after the last failed coup attempt by the coalition of losers, this would have ensured a PC majority. There only hope really is a major misstep by the PM on the campaign trail.

[Slava]

^right, but they still have the same obstacle after the election? The GG doesn't have to allow them to form a government.

[Resolute 14]

I haven't argued that they still want a coalition, only that past activities have left them open to the accusation. Early on, the Liberals hope "ethics" will be the wedge issue, and the Conservatives "coalition". So far the latter is being discussed, not the former.

But to use the hypothetical argument, I can't see any great reason why the GG would precipitate what would amount to a constitutional crisis by overruling the PM's wishes and allowing a coalition now. 2.5 years after the last election, the safer option is to accept the PM's request to dissolve Parliament and call a new vote.


Also, I obviously don't know the riding Trudeau is running in very well, as I would have thought the NDP not running a candidate would actually strengthen the Liberal hopes rather than the BQ. What's up with that?

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

I haven't argued that they still want a coalition, only that past activities have left them open to the accusation. Early on, the Liberals hope "ethics" will be the wedge issue, and the Conservatives "coalition". So far the latter is being discussed, not the former.

But to use the hypothetical argument, I can't see any great reason why the GG would precipitate what would amount to a constitutional crisis by overruling the PM's wishes and allowing a coalition now. 2.5 years after the last election, the safer option is to accept the PM's request to dissolve Parliament and call a new vote.


Also, I obviously don't know the riding Trudeau is running in very well, as I would have thought the NDP not running a candidate would actually strengthen the Liberal hopes rather than the BQ. What's up with that?

On Trudeau, I would've thought the same thing...and its just a rumour that I heard that I figured people would be interested in. Who knows?

On the coalition though, there is no constitutional crisis just because there would be an attempt at a coalition. Its completely legitimate and doable. Harper in effect tried this in 2004 (although he phrases this as a cooperation now, but its all semantics). Bottom line though if the house loses confidence in th governing party then the GG can allow a coalition to try to form government. There's no crisis.....if this was actually the plan of the other three parties then they could've pursued that avenue.

[North East Goon]

anyone know what riding Chestermere falls under and whom is running?

[Resolute 14]

Not sure, but I would guess either Wild Rose or Crowfoot.

Slava - For the GG to reject the PM's wishes would put the Queen above the Prime Minister's wishes. That would run counter to how pretty much every Commonwealth country is run. Such actions have always been deeply controversial (i.e.: the King-Byng Affair) and carry consequences. An election call is the safer option. If the opposition were to try another coalition six weeks after this election, it might turn out different, as the GG may decide to risk the controversy rather than call yet another election.

Speaking of coalition, people aren't buying Ignatieff's denials:

http://www.calgarysun.com/news/decis.../17776701.html

Leger Marketing surveyed 1,119 Canadians Saturday and Sunday and asked, among other things, if they believe Ignatieff when he says he's "ruling out a coaliton." Only 17% of those surveyed were prepared to take him at his word.
And even among those who identified themselves as Liberal voters, 35% do not believe their leader's claim while just 32% do believe him. Nearly half of all NDP supporters, two-thirds of BQ supporters and 86% of Tory supporters aren't buying what Iggy's selling when it comes to the coalition.

[transplant99]

Yeah...I dont believe for a second that Ignatieff wants a coalition, but right now there seems absolutely no other way he could govern. Layton on the other hand likely does want one for the exact same reason....he will never get enough seats to form a gov't. I do believe that he may be able to form the official opposition though with the way the Libs have lost support in key areas and the vote split on the left that is most assuredly part of the equation this time more than ever.

It's early in the campaign and still lot's of things can happen, but this may turn out to be the absolute bleakest performance the Liberals have ever seen.

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by Slava

I'm sure that this will make Alberta thrilled, but rumour floating around right now that the NDP might not field a candidate against Justin Trudeau. That would all but guarantee the BQ takes him out. Very interesting and bad news for the Liberals if true.

(I know that there are no fans of the BQ here, but I figure that most of you are thrilled when a Liberal loses a seat, nevermind one named Trudeau)

I think most Albertans quite like the BQ... or maybe it's jealousy...

[SeeBass]

Originally Posted by zuluking

I think most Albertans quite like the BQ... or maybe it's jealousy...

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by zuluking

I think most Albertans quite like the BQ... or maybe it's jealousy...

They might like the idea of a provincial party being represented at the federal level, but the BQ is a left of centre party. When was the last time Alberta preferred that?

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Not sure, but I would guess either Wild Rose or Crowfoot.

Slava - For the GG to reject the PM's wishes would put the Queen above the Prime Minister's wishes. That would run counter to how pretty much every Commonwealth country is run. Such actions have always been deeply controversial (i.e.: the King-Byng Affair) and carry consequences. An election call is the safer option. If the opposition were to try another coalition six weeks after this election, it might turn out different, as the GG may decide to risk the controversy rather than call yet another election.

Speaking of coalition, people aren't buying Ignatieff's denials:

http://www.calgarysun.com/news/decis.../17776701.html

I think that you need to re-read your history. The King-Byng was just that; King lost the election in terms of seats and Meighen was denied forming government. King governed, then his government lost the confidence motion.

Basically King-Byng is a good example of why coalitions are totally legit and within the rules.

[Resolute 14]

I wasn't referring to King-Byng in terms of coalitions being good (they can be, this one would not), but the fact that a GG overruling a PM will always be deeply controversial. And King-Byng happened at a time when England didn't interfere with Canada's government out of lack of interest rather than Canada's being independent. The controversy that incident created led directly to the Statute of Westminster, which significantly altered how Canada, Australia, New Zealand and others were governed.

Also, you are wrong in calling Meighan's government a coalition - it wasn't. At least no more so than the Liberals and NDP cooperating on an issue would have been today. The comparable scenario would have been if Johnston refused Harper's request for an election and asked Ignatieff if he could form a minority government, irrespective of the NDP or Bloc's involvement.

The only other example I am aware of of a GG using reserve powers in this fashion was in Austrailia in 1975, and led directly to three constitutional changes. GG's don't interfere without very good reason.

[Parallex]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle1959804/

Blah, color me unimpressed by a plan backdated 5(!) years only if everything goes as well as expected. C'mon, if your gonna make a campaign promise at least make one that can be reasonably executed during the mandate that you're seeking. Really before this is expected to kick in another election will be mandated by law leaving aside all the optional elections.

[GirlySports]

Trudeau's riding is Papineau.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Papinea...toral_district)

He took it from BQ MP Vivianne Barbot. He only won be 3%.
She's back to run against him again. probably better prepared this time.
If memory serves, she thought it would be an easy re-election until Trudeau came in last minute to take it.

The NDP and Conservative candidates at 8% and 6% respectively are seen to be non-factors.

[CaptainCrunch]

I don't know if Trudeau has done enough to really hold onto his seat. After he was parachuted in, the only thing that I've really seen that has garnered my attention is the whole immigration handbook smoozle.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I don't know if Trudeau has done enough to really hold onto his seat. After he was parachuted in, the only thing that I've really seen that has garnered my attention is the whole immigration handbook smoozle.

As Lee Richardson, Rob Anders and most other Calgary area MPs show.... actually doing something is probably not a good idea for an MP. The ones with the most job security are the ones with the laziest attitude toward the job.

But you may well be right--things are different in swing districts, and the Liberals are looking like they're about to be hammered by the Bloc in Quebec anyway.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Parallex

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle1959804/

Blah, color me unimpressed by a plan backdated 5(!) years only if everything goes as well as expected. C'mon, if your gonna make a campaign promise at least make one that can be reasonably executed during the mandate that you're seeking. Really before this is expected to kick in another election will be mandated by law leaving aside all the optional elections.

In all honesty I was at first pretty impressed with this. Would my vote be bought? Possibly (I'm a total whore)....maybe even have another kid and really cut those taxes! But seriously making plans to spend the money before we have it....thats just stupid. I won't be promising my wife a house that we can look at buying five years from now based on an increased income either. So much for fiscal responsibility I suppose.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

I wasn't referring to King-Byng in terms of coalitions being good (they can be, this one would not), but the fact that a GG overruling a PM will always be deeply controversial. And King-Byng happened at a time when England didn't interfere with Canada's government out of lack of interest rather than Canada's being independent. The controversy that incident created led directly to the Statute of Westminster, which significantly altered how Canada, Australia, New Zealand and others were governed.

Also, you are wrong in calling Meighan's government a coalition - it wasn't. At least no more so than the Liberals and NDP cooperating on an issue would have been today. The comparable scenario would have been if Johnston refused Harper's request for an election and asked Ignatieff if he could form a minority government, irrespective of the NDP or Bloc's involvement.

The only other example I am aware of of a GG using reserve powers in this fashion was in Austrailia in 1975, and led directly to three constitutional changes. GG's don't interfere without very good reason.

I didn't mean to imply that Meighen had a coalition. He won the most seats, but King convinced the GG that he could form a coalition with the 28 progressives forming a coalition. He did and everything was fine for the year.

Bottom-line is that a coalition is totally legitimate, and had the opposition gone to the GG and said they lost confidence and wanted to have a shot to form government it could've happened. With the Liberals and NDP targeting each others ridings though its fairly obvious that Harper is just wrong with his coalition assertion. Its all smoke and mirrors.