Liberals will move to topple Conservative Gov't

[Dion]

Politicians are like diapers.

They need to be changed often.

For the same reason.

[Peanut]

I'm going to be quite angry if they (tories, liberals, some combination of the two) go back on the home renovation tax credit.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by Peanut

I'm going to be quite angry if they (tories, liberals, some combination of the two) go back on the home renovation tax credit.

And it is for exactly that reason that no party would be stupid enough to repeal it at this point. If the Liberals vote it down to launch the election, it will be right back on the table after the election and passed easily. Too many people have spent too much money for it to disappear. If it gets repealed permanently, the Canadian people will be extremely irate.

Actually, if this measure ALONE gets put up for a vote, I doubt the Liberals can bring down the government. The NDP and Bloc don't want to be associated with voting against it..... if it is a larger budget update, then maybe.

[CaptainCrunch]

Kinda interesting that the Liberal government would vote down budget items that they basically approved in the last fiscal update before the house shut down.

If they start playing politics with the home reno tax credits even if its part of a larger budget vote, Canadians are going to get extremely nervous because the Conservatives will then attempt to sink the government on it if they lose the election and are in a minority government.

Personally, I think I should run for PM with the single party platform of no more elections, no more voting, the Country of Canada ruled by one benevolent dictator.

I'd win in a landslide.

My first act would be to export Elizabeth May, my second would be to ban the NDP and inprison Jack LAyton for crimes against my temper.

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

What's the deal with Layton now saying he'll side with Harper in order to prevent an election? This sounds like one of two things:

1. "I'm still pissed at the Libs over leaving my attempted coup, so I'm going to screw them by siding with the PCs."
2. "Overtly, I'll make it look like siding with Harper will save us from an election... but overtly, I know that if Harper sides with me, Ignatief will demolish him in the election and that will be the end of the PCs."

or.. 3. "I realize that for the good of the country and its economic stability, this isn't the best time for an election that will just turn out to be a waste of hundreds of millions of dollars."

I know... I know... I'm giving a politician, especially Layton, WAY too much credit but I can at least dream that someone has a bit of sense, can't I?

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Sorry, but I like my link better. Here's why: mine gives an aggregate running average of polls. Yours is a single poll. Canadian polls are prone to high rates of error because they're so bad at accounting for regional shifts in vote. Add to that the various methodologies, where small differences in voter screens can add high rates of variation, and it adds up to a situation where you're better off not taking a single poll too seriously, especially when it contradicts the overall trend. This one is most probably an outlier.

In any case, 43% is one of those tricky numbers. It could give him a majority if the chips fall correctly, but also might end up giving him a minority again. He was never that strong; and that's pretty telling, given the stunning mediocrity of his opposition last fall.

Put another way: there's a reason that Harper panicked and started running attack ads when the Liberals switched leaders. He's smart enough to know that last fall was a profound reality check for him, even if some people out West are prepared to anoint him PM for life.

Your own link is only confirming what I was saying . . . .

http://www.sfu.ca/%7Eaheard/elections/polls.html

. . . . . in the link I later added . . . . . .

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/b...-majority.aspx

. . . . . that the Conservatives were trending towards a majority in early to mid-September.

Then the full weight of the economic collapse began to be reflected in heavy equity losses and gathering panic on a global basis as we marched into late September/early October where, again, a critical two week period at the end of the former/start of the latter had markets losing about 33% . . . . . and polling, which had already flattened, took a dramatic shift at pretty much the identical moment.

Again, others might argue there were other, political factors involved in the Conservative polling reversal. Fine. I don't believe it but everyone has an opinion.

However, the point that the Conservatives were trending towards a majority in early September still stands.

Cowperson

[Pastiche]

Conservatives and Liberals tied in latest EKOS poll:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/...ion090209.html

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by Phaneuf3

or.. 3. "I realize that for the good of the country and its economic stability, this isn't the best time for an election that will just turn out to be a waste of hundreds of millions of dollars."

So, if there is an election in the fall and the Liberals win that election, then for the good of the country and its economic stability, you would not want there to be yet another election for a very long time, for the good of the country and its economic stability. Right?

[nik-]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

So, if there is an election in the fall and the Liberals win that election, then for the good of the country and its economic stability, you would not want there to be yet another election for a very long time, for the good of the country and its economic stability. Right?

I see what you did there! Oh you're tricksy!

[mykalberta]

FYI, CPAC uses this company. If you want reliable polling data for Canada, this is the one I have used, in the last 3 elections they have been far and away the best polling option.

http://www.nanosresearch.com/main.asp

This is the guy usually on CPAC
http://www.nikonthenumbers.com/

Likely the reason the Libs are taking this stance now.

Here is the CPAC/Nanos Link.
http://www.cpac.ca/forms/index.asp?d..._id=594&lang=e

[Phaneuf3]

Originally Posted by Devils'Advocate

So, if there is an election in the fall and the Liberals win that election, then for the good of the country and its economic stability, you would not want there to be yet another election for a very long time, for the good of the country and its economic stability. Right?

Yes. That is exactly what I'm saying.
However, it would be best if there wasn't an election this fall. Unless there's some scandal they're sitting on and waiting to reveal at a more opportune time which points to widespread corruption and gross negligence on the part of the current government, this election is a bad idea.

[John Doe]

Originally Posted by FanIn80

What's the deal with Layton now saying he'll side with Harper in order to prevent an election? This sounds like one of two things:

1. "I'm still pissed at the Libs over leaving my attempted coup, so I'm going to screw them by siding with the PCs."
2. "Overtly, I'll make it look like siding with Harper will save us from an election... but covertly, I know that if Harper sides with me, Ignatief will demolish him in the election and that will be the end of the PCs."

Personally, I'm hoping that Harper sticks to his guns and kicks Layton to the curb. I don't want him anywhere near any kind of power in this country, I don't care who I'm voting for.

I have quoted this post because I think that it is very illuminating to what is happening (at least this is how I see it).

Since last fall, the NDP and BQ leaders have been running as fast as they could to the press microphones to say they will vote against whatever the Conservatives have put forward, leaving the Liberals to prop up the government. This left the Liberals in an unenviable position where they had to opppose the initiatives to distinguish themselves from the Conservatives, yet had to support them in order to keep from triggering another election that nobody (including the NDP and BQ) wanted. The Conservatives have been using this to their advantage.

I don't think that the Liberals necessarily want an election, but they are no longer afraid of one. What Ignatieff did was to beat the NDP and BQ to the punch, therefore putting the onus on propping up the government on them, thus ending especially Layton's free ride. I fully expect Layton to make every effort to keep the Conservatives from losing power, as I don't think that the NDP have made any gains in popularity in the last year. The support of the BQ will depend on where they sit in the polls in Quebec.

[Byrns]

Where's the coalition?

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

Your own link is only confirming what I was saying . . . .

http://www.sfu.ca/%7Eaheard/elections/polls.html

. . . . . in the link I later added . . . . . .

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/b...-majority.aspx

. . . . . that the Conservatives were trending towards a majority in early to mid-September.

Then the full weight of the economic collapse began to be reflected in heavy equity losses and gathering panic on a global basis as we marched into late September/early October where, again, a critical two week period at the end of the former/start of the latter had markets losing about 33% . . . . . and polling, which had already flattened, took a dramatic shift at pretty much the identical moment.

Again, others might argue there were other, political factors involved in the Conservative polling reversal. Fine. I don't believe it but everyone has an opinion.

However, the point that the Conservatives were trending towards a majority in early September still stands.

Cowperson

I don't really see what you call a "reversal." When looking at the numbers it's important to look at the average and not get too attached to a single, outlier poll. What I see is a slight downward correction as the campaign begins, from a peak of 38% to around 33-35%--both of which are VERY close to their final numbers of 37.5%.

When a single poll contradicts that trend, you have to ask yourself which explanation satisfies the test of Occam's Razor: that ALL the other polls are wrong, or that the single poll is probably an outlier.

The poll you cited has, you won't be surprised to learn, additional problems, because its prediction of a majority depends on smaller, regional samples. Their overall sampling error is based on a sample size of 1200--small but serviceable. But their "seat predictions" break that sample down into regions, and though they don't give us sample sizes for the smaller sub-groups, they have to be huge. How many Atlantic Canadians were in the poll? How many Ontarians? 200? 300?

If so--we're talking about a margin of error of somewhere between "this poll is utterly useless." and "this poll was made by Kevin Lowe."

In any case, we're splitting hairs: you claim they were polling at 43%, and they clearly never were apart from an outlier in September. (though indeed, they polled that high in May, and again in November). Even assuming that's true, those are hardly encouraging numbers for a PM who is literally opposed by nobody. As it happens, he was closer to 35-37% for most of the election cycle--and well before the stock market crash. If Harper wants to use that as an alibi, I suppose he can, but the numbers just don't bear it out.

Here's another listing of polls from last year and this--a bit more complete. You'll see what I'm talking about.
http://www.electionalmanac.com/canada/polls.php

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by mykalberta

FYI, CPAC uses this company. If you want reliable polling data for Canada, this is the one I have used, in the last 3 elections they have been far and away the best polling option.

http://www.nanosresearch.com/main.asp

This is the guy usually on CPAC
http://www.nikonthenumbers.com/

Likely the reason the Libs are taking this stance now.

Here is the CPAC/Nanos Link.
http://www.cpac.ca/forms/index.asp?d..._id=594&lang=e

Thanks for those links. It's refreshing to see that someone is doing a more profound analysis of the numbers than the MSM typically does. I'll be bookmarking that page.

And you're absolutely right--underneath the topline, some of the numbers stand out as being highly alarming for Harper. In particular the fact that nearly 60% think he's not doing a good enough job to be re-elected--which might lead to strategic voting against him in some key areas of the country.

The difference will come down to whether people like their choices better this time around. Harper has never been a particularly good leader or particularly good at inspiring enthusiasm in voters. But (and I say this as a lifelong Liberal) he was CLEARLY a better, more competent and safer choice than Stephane Dion.

Will people feel the same way about Ignatieff? Considering how poor Dion was, there's sort of nowhere to go but up...

[flamesaresmokin]

This is such a senseless attempt to justify a power hungry moron's attempt to take control of Canada. Gee i'm all for helping the economy and Canada's jobless...thats why i'm going to trigger a multi-million dollar election in one of the worst recessions in history.

Money well spent.

Not saying the Harper gov't is perfect but i can easily say that because of the last two and a half years combined with the adscam before that I will never vote liberal in my lifetime. I will be surprised if I vote at all in this sucker....here's hoping the conservatives form a majority with a voter turnout of around 30%.

[flamesaresmokin]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Kinda interesting that the Liberal government would vote down budget items that they basically approved in the last fiscal update before the house shut down.

If they start playing politics with the home reno tax credits even if its part of a larger budget vote, Canadians are going to get extremely nervous because the Conservatives will then attempt to sink the government on it if they lose the election and are in a minority government.

Personally, I think I should run for PM with the single party platform of no more elections, no more voting, the Country of Canada ruled by one benevolent dictator.

I'd win in a landslide.

My first act would be to export Elizabeth May, my second would be to ban the NDP and inprison Jack LAyton for crimes against my temper.

Thats liberal politics. They will start taxing everyone hard again in the middle of a recession. Cut programs across the country so they can say they have increased funding to them afterward. Then when things improve we will all be stuck with taxes that were supposedly temporary.

I'm no political scientist here but the liberals smashing the conservatives due to the deficit is pretty lame. What were they expecting in this recession....a 50 billion surplus? Sure anyone could get a surplus if they bumped the gst to 8% and raised income tax a few percentage point. Most of us have had it pretty good the last couple years.....the middle tax bracket is due to be bent over again. Anytime a government runs a surplus of any sort should be considered a moronic blunder.

[Pastiche]

This is such a senseless attempt to justify a power hungry moron's attempt to take control of Canada. Gee i'm all for helping the economy and Canada's jobless...thats why i'm going to trigger a multi-million dollar election in one of the worst recessions in history.

I just don't get alot of people's take on politics. I think people would be far less disillusioned with politics if they understood the nature of it better. Politics is about seeking power. Every competitive politcal leader on earth has their number one priority as obtaining power. Politicians actions are guided entirely by this one truth. There is no righteousness in pursuing political office.

Ignatieff is seeking power. You may not want him to achieve power but why would you castigate him for trying to do his job? You see, competitive power seeking parties are actually a good thing because it's the backbone of a democracy.

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

I don't really see what you call a "reversal." When looking at the numbers it's important to look at the average and not get too attached to a single, outlier poll. What I see is a slight downward correction as the campaign begins, from a peak of 38% to around 33-35%--both of which are VERY close to their final numbers of 37.5%.

When a single poll contradicts that trend, you have to ask yourself which explanation satisfies the test of Occam's Razor: that ALL the other polls are wrong, or that the single poll is probably an outlier.

The poll you cited has, you won't be surprised to learn, additional problems, because its prediction of a majority depends on smaller, regional samples. Their overall sampling error is based on a sample size of 1200--small but serviceable. But their "seat predictions" break that sample down into regions, and though they don't give us sample sizes for the smaller sub-groups, they have to be huge. How many Atlantic Canadians were in the poll? How many Ontarians? 200? 300?

If so--we're talking about a margin of error of somewhere between "this poll is utterly useless." and "this poll was made by Kevin Lowe."

In any case, we're splitting hairs: you claim they were polling at 43%, and they clearly never were apart from an outlier in September. (though indeed, they polled that high in May, and again in November). Even assuming that's true, those are hardly encouraging numbers for a PM who is literally opposed by nobody. As it happens, he was closer to 35-37% for most of the election cycle--and well before the stock market crash. If Harper wants to use that as an alibi, I suppose he can, but the numbers just don't bear it out.

Here's another listing of polls from last year and this--a bit more complete. You'll see what I'm talking about.
http://www.electionalmanac.com/canada/polls.php

Blah, blah, blah . . . .

Trending toward a majority . . . . very clearly.

Peaks then drops, coincidental with horrific economic events. . . . . very clearly.

A columnist in the Globe and Mail in March, under the headline "The Rise And Fall Of The Harper Majority" gives a different rationale than my own but still wonders why the Conservatives didn't get the majority they were trending when the election was called on September 7.

The opening paragraph for his column is: In late September, when a majority appeared likely . . . . .

On September 25, a left-wing blog called Excited Delerium wrote this:

However, every day, we are pushing them closer to a majority because we all have different views on who the strongest party should be. LIiberals? NDP? Greens? The Marijuana Party?

A blogger at the Laurier Institute for the study of Public Opinion and Policy wrote this:

The Conservatives did manage to move their numbers up in the early going in September. At one point they were flirting with a possible majority,

And that's just the first page of a google search of "Harper, September, Majority."

Seriously, what are you arguing this for?

Cowperson

[MarchHare]

Ignatieff is seeking power. You may not want him to achieve power but why would you castigate him for trying to do his job? You see, competitive power seeking parties are actually a good thing because it's the backbone of a democracy.

Haven't you picked up on this yet?

If the party you support is in opposition and attempts to topple the government, they're doing their job and protecting the interests of all Canadians.

If the party you oppose is in opposition and attempts to topple the government, they're just a bunch of power-hungry morons (or, even more tastelessly, "sluts" or "bitches" if senior members of the party are female).