Federal Election Called for Oct 19, 2015

[corporatejay]

She should have doubled down on the dick joke. "Come on guys they do look like penises, Facebook didn't have geotagging back then, I didn't know it was a concentration camp, obviously I wouldn't disrespect something like that. Also, it was eight years ago, so let's move on."

Instead.

Idiot trustee doesn't know what auschewitz is in 2015.

[zamler]

Originally Posted by flylock shox

As for not knowing what Auschwitz was, I suppose that could be forgiven too - a person could have a general knowledge of the Nazi concentration camps without knowing their particular names.

I don't see how ANYONE with a degree (or even without) would have never heard of Auschwitz this is in common knowledge territory. Either way I would never vote for a person that is apparently so clueless or simply a liar.

[JohnnyB]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

AND a BA in Social Justice and Peace Studies. Is that even real? And it never once mentions Auschwitz? I suppose she could always go back to teaching.

???

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Oh look. A nonsense, distraction, no bearing on anything issue for everyone to get excited about.

How many more weeks of this?

[rubecube]

Something I just considered, if the CPC win and the opposition immediately triggers another election, the Duffy findings would come out right around the time of another election, wouldn't they ?

[peter12]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Oh look. A nonsense, distraction, no bearing on anything issue for everyone to get excited about.

How many more weeks of this?

It is a little bit alarming to see how low the bar is set for someone to govern this country.

[Dogbert]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Something I just considered, if the CPC win and the opposition immediately triggers another election, the Duffy findings would come out right around the time of another election, wouldn't they ?

The long electoral campaign was designed to bleed the LPC's and NDP's coffers dry. They won't be able to afford another election for quite a while.

We're actually going to hand Harper and his cronies another majority government, aren't we?

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Something I just considered, if the CPC win and the opposition immediately triggers another election, the Duffy findings would come out right around the time of another election, wouldn't they ?

Canadians would surely punish an unnecessary election much more than further investigation into a minor Senate spending account scandal. I can't imagine anyone would have the appetite for another campaign.

Much smarter move would be to work together with a Conservative minority as much as possible, and you can bet your bottom dollar the higherups in the Liberal Party will be telling Justin to do exactly that.

[John Doe]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

Canadians would surely punish an unnecessary election much more than further investigation into a minor Senate spending account scandal. I can't imagine anyone would have the appetite for another campaign.

Much smarter move would be to work together with a Conservative minority as much as possible, and you can bet your bottom dollar the higherups in the Liberal Party will be telling Justin to do exactly that.

Or, the NDP and Liberals (and Greens if any are elected) do not support a Conservative minority but go to the GG with a proposition of a coalition when Harper asks the GG to dissolve parliament.

[killer_carlson]

I think the higher ups in the Liberal party would be telling Justin to call a leadership race.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by John Doe

Or, the NDP and Liberals (and Greens if any are elected) do not support a Conservative minority but go to the GG with a proposition of a coalition when Harper asks the GG to dissolve parliament.

The Liberal Party has unequivocally stated that they would not enter into a coalition government.

I think the GG would have to dissolve parliament if the Liberals tried to pull an about face and take power through the back door of a coalition (such as we saw in 2008). I don't believe there is a precedent to this, but outright lying to Canadians would create a very strong case to head back to the polls in that situation. Which would allow Canadians to vote on the acceptability of such a coalition instead of being deceived.

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

The Liberal Party has unequivocally stated that they would not enter into a coalition government.

I think the GG would have to dissolve parliament if the Liberals tried to pull an about face and take power through the back door of a coalition (such as we saw in 2008). I don't believe there is a precedent to this, but outright lying to Canadians would create a very strong case to head back to the polls in that situation. Which would allow Canadians to vote on the acceptability of such a coalition instead of being deceived.

That's not how this works. The GG can go to another party and ask them if they can lead the house. If the Liberals and NDP agree to put together a coalition and agree with Trudeau as the PM, then they are allowed to govern. It's not illegal. It's not against the rules. Its how this was set up. Just because the Liberals changed their stance does not make it illegal.

If we want to look a dissolving parliament, we should be doing it over actual illegal things (Like.... say.... proven cases of election fraud), not because two parties opted to use the parliamentary system the way it was designed.

[nik-]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Something I just considered, if the CPC win and the opposition immediately triggers another election, the Duffy findings would come out right around the time of another election, wouldn't they ?

If they want to reduce the number of seats they have, then yeah.

People get annoyed with that.

[John Doe]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

The Liberal Party has unequivocally stated that they would not enter into a coalition government.

I think the GG would have to dissolve parliament if the Liberals tried to pull an about face and take power through the back door of a coalition (such as we saw in 2008). I don't believe there is a precedent to this, but outright lying to Canadians would create a very strong case to head back to the polls in that situation. Which would allow Canadians to vote on the acceptability of such a coalition instead of being deceived.

They have also unequivocally stated that they would not support Harper as PM, and have done that more recently than the coalition statement. If the choices are to back Harper as PM, form a coalition government or force a new election, I would bet on the coalition.

As for the GG dissolving parliament because a politician lied, you can't be serious.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Blaster86

That's not how this works.

How does it work then?

Any examples of Canadian Coalitions where the parties broke an election promise to not form a coalition?

Why was the coalition government rejected in 2008?

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

The Liberal Party has unequivocally stated that they would not enter into a coalition government.

I think the GG would have to dissolve parliament if the Liberals tried to pull an about face and take power through the back door of a coalition (such as we saw in 2008). I don't believe there is a precedent to this, but outright lying to Canadians would create a very strong case to head back to the polls in that situation. Which would allow Canadians to vote on the acceptability of such a coalition instead of being deceived.

Yeah, I am not against coalition governments in general, but I think they need to be upfront about it before the people vote so they know what they are voting for. Just because someone supports one party, it doesn't mean they would want a coalition. I would be pissed if they formed a coalition after voting for them on the basis that there would be no coalition with the NDP.

I would probably support a CPC/Liberal coalition, but I know that is extremely unlikely.

[EldrickOnIce]

If the CPC only had only a couple more seats than the LPC and NDP, we might see this play. If results are similar to projections from today (125 to 106/106) then I really doubt it. The biggest losers in a coalition play might be the LPC, even if Trudeau was acting Prime Minister. And if he wasn't PM, it might be disastrous for the LPC.

[John Doe]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

How does it work then?

Any examples of Canadian Coalitions where the parties broke an election promise to not form a coalition?

Why was the coalition government rejected in 2008?

Was it rejected? Was it even formally proposed? The only formal proposal that I know was that Harper made a proposal to prorogue parliament to avoid a non-confidence vote, which was allowed by the GG.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

Canadians would surely punish an unnecessary election much more than further investigation into a minor Senate spending account scandal. I can't imagine anyone would have the appetite for another campaign.

You're probably right, but I think you're also underestimating the extreme distaste to downright hatred of Harper that the 65-70% of Canadians who won't be voting CPC have.

Much smarter move would be to work together with a Conservative minority as much as possible, and you can bet your bottom dollar the higherups in the Liberal Party will be telling Justin to do exactly that.

I doubt it. The Liberals did that under the last two Conservative minorities and all it did was make them look week when Canadians went to the polls again.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

How does it work then?

Any examples of Canadian Coalitions where the parties broke an election promise to not form a coalition?

Why was the coalition government rejected in 2008?

It wasn't rejected in 2008. Harper prorogued parliament to avoid a confidence vote and then capitulated on a number of demands from the opposition parties in order to stave off the coalition.