2011 Canadian Election Thread

[Addick]

Originally Posted by zamler

I highly doubt you are a traditional Conservative supporter.

Someone who just shuts up and votes for the Conservative candidate of the day regardless of who the best candidate is?

Originally Posted by WilsonFourTwo

That was one of Ignatieff's ineffective knock-out punch attempts.

Perhaps I read too much into it, but I think Ignatieff was trying to establish a larger point. The Liberals have been trying to paint Harper as a secretive autocratic leader that just does what he wants.....stating that Harper isn't interested in discussion (just bickers back and does what he wants) falls in line with the narrative.

Perhaps they were words of convenience at that moment, but I suspect Ignatieff was trying to establish a larger point. Dunno, just sort of how I interpreted the moment(s).

I agree. Even if the opposition wasn't bickering and offering useful debate, Harper would still call it bickering; it's what autocrats do.

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

The Libs paint Harper as disrespecting democracy and poisoning parliament. Yet Harper has led the longest lasting and most successful minority government in Canadian history. It's really hard to square those two statements.

Ignatieff paints Harper as passing off serious democratic debate as simply 'bickering', Yet Canadians clearly do not want nor understand why we are having an election. As much as the Libs try and make the bogus contempt of parliament charges stick, most people agree it just looks like more political opportunism to have an election than anything else.

I believe that the voters punished the Tories last election for the clear political angle when nobody wanted an election, and this time the Opposition will be punished for the exact same reason.

It's not that hard to square the comments up when you consider the parts in bold.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by transplant99

I diagree with this to a point. Eventually, if the ruling party truly is poor and un-wanted, then the opposition parties can jump on it and point at them and say "see they are the ones responsible we are the better option". When the same results keep occuring maybe it is time to admit that the country as a whole doesnt want a change right now?

As for not having an issue with voting, fine....but "exhaustion" is not why people are tired of it. They have done this now 4 times in 7 years. The message is clear, they want the CPC forming government...again. And in no small part is the cost of repeating this excercise to the tune of 300+ million dollars each and every time. A colossal waste of money when an election is simply un-needed.

No, the message is clear that people are divided. The CPC wins more seats than the others but that is hardly an endorsement to implement all of your policies. If the election is totally unnecessary then it just means that we're back in the same situation in terms of seat counts and a minority. That might have the biggest impact of all for all of the parties though, and by next time around you might see a full slate of new leaders.

[CaptainCrunch]

I think that no matter the result, we're going to see at least 4 new leaders

I think Ignatieff knows this is his swan song, I think he realizes if he doesn't see a seat improvement that he's done since he wouldn't be any more effective then Dion. Even if the Liberal's see gains, he's still gone. My gut tells me that this is an election that he didn't want.

I think Jack is gone, I think they have to look at his health, I think they have to look at the fact that the NDP under him over the last 4 elections while making some gains isn't taking big enough steps, and he's starting to get that NDP smell to him.

I think certainly Elizabeth May is gone, I think she's hurt the Green Party Image, I don't think she's politically brilliant in her search for a seat that she can win. I also think she's just not political leadership material.

What happens in this election could dictate whether Harper sticks around or not, right now he's polling out to a increase in seats, but he needs a majority. If he gets the majority that he wants then he's not going anywhere.

If/when he wins the election, he's not going to step down, he's going to govern and they'll have a leadership convention a couple of years down the road. But he's not going to win an election majority/minority and walk away.

[WilsonFourTwo]

Originally Posted by Ford Prefect

IMO, if you're relying on the TV debates in any way to form your voting decision, you probably shouldn't be voting.

Dunno, I think that's kind of a silly statement. I'm a 24/7/365 politics guy, yet the topics discussed last night and the responses (or in some cases, lack of) has really helped me sort out my thoughts.

Live debates are the one place that a candidate can't easily hide, and that's EXACTLY why they're so valuable.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Slava

No, the message is clear that people are divided. The CPC wins more seats than the others but that is hardly an endorsement to implement all of your policies. If the election is totally unnecessary then it just means that we're back in the same situation in terms of seat counts and a minority. That might have the biggest impact of all for all of the parties though, and by next time around you might see a full slate of new leaders.

So unless its a majority it doesnt speak for what Canadians want? 4 times in 7 years. Remarkably the same results everytime. Just because there is a split, doesnt mean there isnt a concensus. Nevermind the now 1.2 BILLION dollars spent to get the same thing.


Time to let the majority rule (meaning who wins the most seats not which 3 parties can combine and have the most seats)...which is what these elections are all about and why a coalition is NOT part of the answer since both Dion and Ignatieff now have said they want no part of it.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by transplant99

So unless its a majority it doesnt speak for what Canadians want? 4 times in 7 years. Remarkably the same results everytime. Just because there is a split, doesnt mean there isnt a concensus. Nevermind the now 1.2 BILLION dollars spent to get the same thing.


Time to let the majority rule (meaning who wins the most seats not which 3 parties can combine and have the most seats)...which is what these elections are all about and why a coalition is NOT part of the answer since both Dion and Ignatieff now have said they want no part of it.

Thats just silly though; a coalition is majority rule in this case (assuming there is no change in seats, or no majority). At some point you have to recognize that people are divided and as a government they should work within that boundary.

A coalition doesn't have to be so negative. Why don't the Conservatives pursue a coalition with the NDP if the seats allow? Harper can still be PM and there is just some give and take. Its not my first choice, but hard to argue with.

[Hack&Lube]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I didn't see anything about pummeling in that article.

The headline was coined by Matt Drudge who makes his headlines on the Drudge Report for shock value.

[WilsonFourTwo]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I think that no matter the result, we're going to see at least 4 new leaders

Absolutely agreed. I suspect they'll all be gone within 24 months.

I think Ignatieff knows this is his swan song, I think he realizes if he doesn't see a seat improvement that he's done since he wouldn't be any more effective then Dion. Even if the Liberal's see gains, he's still gone. My gut tells me that this is an election that he didn't want.

I think Ignatieff has the makeup to be a quality MP, but he doesn't have the political instincts to be up on the big stage. Frankly, he's probably more valuable to Canada as a policy thinker than a politician. And ya, I'm sure he sees this as his swan song.

I think Jack is gone, I think they have to look at his health, I think they have to look at the fact that the NDP under him over the last 4 elections while making some gains isn't taking big enough steps, and he's starting to get that NDP smell to him.

Jack has done really good things for the party and (imo) brought it to a point where Canadians are actually willing to listen. I think he's done, and will bow out for the exact reasons you've listed.

I think certainly Elizabeth May is gone, I think she's hurt the Green Party Image, I don't think she's politically brilliant in her search for a seat that she can win. I also think she's just not political leadership material.

I don't know if they would have come this far without her (I suspect, yes), but they aren't going any further until she's replaced, and the party hires some friggin' strategists.

What happens in this election could dictate whether Harper sticks around or not, right now he's polling out to a increase in seats, but he needs a majority. If he gets the majority that he wants then he's not going anywhere.

If/when he wins the election, he's not going to step down, he's going to govern and they'll have a leadership convention a couple of years down the road. But he's not going to win an election majority/minority and walk away.

We disagree a little on this one. I think that if there's another minority, you'll see the Conservative knives come out. They'd need to replace him reasonably quick (a year??) in order to allow his successor a chance to connect with the voters. And as we've learned, a minority government isn't going to last too long....lol

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Slava

Thats just silly though; a coalition is majority rule in this case (assuming there is no change in seats, or no majority). At some point you have to recognize that people are divided and as a government they should work within that boundary.

A coalition doesn't have to be so negative. Why don't the Conservatives pursue a coalition with the NDP if the seats allow? Harper can still be PM and there is just some give and take. Its not my first choice, but hard to argue with.

But it isnt...especially in this case and even moreso in 08. Not a single Canadian voted for a Liberal/NDP/Seperatist ruling government...not one.

Both Dion and now Ignatieff, campaigned on the premise they want no part of forming a coalition especially when needing the Bloc to do so. Both specifically said it before the election. In that case there very well may have been enough votes for them to win some seats they otherwise would not have. Thats usurping the will of the people.

Now I would agree that if they had NOT said specifically they would not form a coalition (particularly with the Bloc) then yes it would be a lot easier to stomach...but that is not the case here nor was it with the ill-advised coup.

As for a PC/NDP coalition, I actually believe that is a real possibility at some point. But in order for it to be both real and effective the Dippers would have to have at least one major portfolio as well as other significant seats on committees and such. I just don't see that happening as the Tories and the Dips are about as far apart philosophically as they can be. Colluding with the NDP would also really disenfranchise a lot of the CPC base IMO.

If the Dippers and Libs can win enough seats to form a minority without needing Bloc help, then I am all about it. That would represent the wishes of the voters (something that seems to be completely void in this discussion everytime) moreso than a single party sitting and making decisions with every bill facing defeat no matter what.

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by WilsonFourTwo

We disagree a little on this one. I think that if there's another minority, you'll see the Conservative knives come out. They'd need to replace him reasonably quick (a year??) in order to allow his successor a chance to connect with the voters.

Wonder who his successor would be. Honestly, the only guy from the past government (thou not currently running) that I'd even remotely be comfortable with would be Jim Prentice maybe Peter McKay (to a much lesser extent), I swear that if I ever hear the words Prime Minister Kenney or Bernier I'll vomit on the spot.

[transplant99]

As an aside....if there is anyone in the Liberal party who has the ability to sit down with the NDP and form a union with a new name and brand, I think a party like that could absolutely raze the canadian political landscape and become a long-term solution for anyone on the left....as long as they can find a competant leader.

[Bertuzzied]

And you guys are complaining about Liberal bias from the CBC..... The Calgary Sun on the frontpage is comparing Ignatieff to Mao..... hahahahahhahahahaa.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by transplant99

So unless its a majority it doesnt speak for what Canadians want? 4 times in 7 years. Remarkably the same results everytime. Just because there is a split, doesnt mean there isnt a concensus. Nevermind the now 1.2 BILLION dollars spent to get the same thing.

Why have we had four elections in 7 years?

2004: the Liberal majority government was compelled by law to call an election because their term limit was nearing its end. The Liberals won the election but were reduced from a majority to a 135-seat minority.

2006: Harper led the opposition parties in a non-confidence motion to defeat Martin's minority government. The CPC won the ensuing election with 124 seats.

2008: Harper ignored his own fixed election date law and asked the GG to dissolve parliament despite the ruling party still having the confidence of the House. The election sees The Harper Government(TM) increase the size of its minority from 124 to 143 seats.

2011: Ignatieff, Layton, and Dion pass a vote of non-confidence against The Harper Government(TM). The results are TBD, but the likely outcome appears to be either a similar-sized minority for Harper or perhaps a slight majority.

I know you're trying to paint the Liberals as the reason we've had four elections since 2004, but they only voted to bring down the government once (2011) during that period. Harper and the CPC were the cause of both the 2006 and 2008 elections.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Bertuzzied

And you guys are complaining about Liberal bias from the CBC..... The Calgary Sun on the frontpage is comparing Ignatieff to Mao..... hahahahahhahahahaa.

No...they aren't

they are comparing a quote he made to one Mao made.

“Let some flowers bloom here,” Ignatieff said as he chastised Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s record on promoting democracy as part of Canada’s foreign policy.

The line is similar to one used by Mao Zedong, the leader of China from the revolution in 1949 until 1976. In the summer of 1957, Mao launched a slogan of reform, often translated into English as “Let a thousand flowers bloom.”

http://www.calgarysun.com/news/decis.../17972986.html

At least attempt to be truthful.

But yes, QMI is biased...so is the CBC.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Why have we had four elections in 7 years?

2004: the Liberal majority government was compelled by law to call an election because their term limit was nearing its end. The Liberals won the election but were reduced from a majority to a 135-seat minority.

2006: Harper led the opposition parties in a non-confidence motion to defeat Martin's minority government. The CPC won the ensuing election with 124 seats.

2008: Harper ignored his own fixed election date law and asked the GG to dissolve parliament despite the ruling party still having the confidence of the House. The election sees The Harper Government(TM) increase the size of its minority from 124 to 143 seats.

2011: Ignatieff, Layton, and Dion pass a vote of non-confidence against The Harper Government(TM). The results are TBD, but the likely outcome appears to be either a similar-sized minority for Harper or perhaps a slight majority.

I know you're trying to paint the Liberals as the reason we've had four elections since 2004, but they only voted to bring down the government once (2011) during that period. Harper and the CPC were the cause of both the 2006 and 2008 elections.

No I am painting this election as completely and utterly unnecessary.

Which every single shred of evidence suggets as well.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

4 elections in 7 years

Originally Posted by transplant99

4 times in 7 years

Whilst this is technically true, it's a bit goofy to count the 2004 and the 2011 election as belonging to the same time frame. It's only the 3rd election since 2004, and the 4th since 2000.

[WilsonFourTwo]

Originally Posted by Parallex

Wonder who his successor would be. Honestly, the only guy from the past government (thou not currently running) that I'd even remotely be comfortable with would be Jim Prentice maybe Peter McKay (to a much lesser extent), I swear that if I ever hear the words Prime Minister Kenney or Bernier I'll vomit on the spot.

Jim Prentice would be a solid leader, but I doubt we'll ever see him back in politics. That's not to say he wouldn't be welcomed back, imo.

As I've said in the past, it will likely depend on what the Liberals do. If they put young Trudeau up, the Conservatives will match the move to youth with Peter McKay. Frankly, I think Peter McKay could be a helluva leader.

If Bob Rae (or type) is the next Liberal Leader, I think we'd be looking at Flaherty.

One guy that I'd like to suggest (and likely get laughed at) as a potential dark horse, Lee Richardson. Long time ties to Progressive Conservative roots, decades in Ottawa, well respected and pretty clean (to my knowledge). Doesn't hurt that he's a smart, level headed guy either.

[Bertuzzied]

Originally Posted by transplant99

No...they aren't

they are comparing a quote he made to one Mao made.



http://www.calgarysun.com/news/decis.../17972986.html

At least attempt to be truthful.

But yes, QMI is biased...so is the CBC.

What is that link? is that the front page of the Calgary sun? go look at the front page and tell me whats truthful.

What a joke of a paper.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by transplant99

As an aside....if there is anyone in the Liberal party who has the ability to sit down with the NDP and form a union with a new name and brand, I think a party like that could absolutely raze the canadian political landscape and become a long-term solution for anyone on the left....as long as they can find a competant leader.

If the Libs and NDP ever merged into a single party like that, it would alienate many moderate Liberals (like myself) who are opposed to the NDP's free-spending ways and irresponsible fiscal management. If that ever happened, I would hope a new centrist party forms from an alliance of "blue Liberals" and "red Tories" (former PC Party members who disagree with the Reform branch of the CPC).

I know there are many Liberal supporters who would abandon the party if former-NDPer Bob Rae ever becomes leader. I can imagine it would only be even worse if there was a full-on merger with the NDP.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by transplant99

As an aside....if there is anyone in the Liberal party who has the ability to sit down with the NDP and form a union with a new name and brand, I think a party like that could absolutely raze the canadian political landscape and become a long-term solution for anyone on the left....as long as they can find a competant leader.

And maybe the Bloc and the Green party can merge and form the irrational hatred of all things party.