2011 Canadian Election Thread

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Slava

If Harper wins a smaller minority will he pursue a coalition? Fact is that its not undemocratic at all. It's totally legitimate and in a parliamentary democracy you sometimes need to build concensus. Obviously Canadians are fairly divided right now, so what's the big deal about a parliament that reflects those divisions?

Why don't you ask them? Ignatieff is already dodging the coalition question. If it isn't that big of a deal, then the parties themselves should be making it plain that they will consider a coalition government in the event of another minority.

Ignatieff won't touch the word with a 100 foot pole for two reasons:
1. He would have to admit he is in bed with the separatists
2. Having the NDP in any real position of influence would drive blue Liberals right in a damn hurry.

IMO, the surest path to a Conservative majority is Ignatieff admitting that he would form a coalition out of this election.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Inferno099

Unreal.... another waste of about $300M of taxpayer money on yet another federal election.

I'm not a conservative supporter, nor do I agree with a number of their decisions; however from looking at the polls - I think people will focus on one party to get a majority & probably will be the Tories this time.

I do not see Canadians electing the Liberals as a majority government.... especially after all the waste that occurred during their time in power as well.

Unfortunately.... no matter who is in control... their always seems to be lies, wasted money & scandals.

I agree that it is a waste. The only other alternative though is for the parties to pass a budget that they don't feel represents their constituants... and that is not democracy. Parties should not vote for something over fear of an election. The opposition doesn't really have a lot to gain by having an election right now, but I think Harper forced their hand.

Minority governments should work together with opposition parties to come up with budgets that will pass. Harper seems like he wants to run a minority government as a majority as excludes the majority of parliament from participating in the process.

[Bertuzzied]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

My Lord, the opposition has triggered an election



Wipe them out . . . all of them

Now that is a tshirt people will buy!

[John Doe]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Please show me anywhere where the Conservatives had a governmental agreement laying out the government.

There is nothing in that letter showing that the opposition were going to form a government, you do know that the GG has the right to refuse the disolution of government.

Please show me where that letter was in any way equivalent to the agreement signed by all three opposition parties breaking down the rolls in a coalition government.

Ok, the GG has the right to refuse the dissolution of government. Let's say that she did. What do you think that the 2004 coalition was suggesting for her to do then? Do you think they wanted her to re-appoint the Liberal government? Do you think that they wanted the GG to take over herself? What other possible actions could have she taken if she refused to dissolve parliament that the 2004 coalition wanted to talk to her about?

Do I have a letter breaking showing the roles each party in the 2004 coalition would play? No, but when it looks like a coalition, walks like a coalition,talks like a coalition and smells like a coalition, it is disingenuous at best to deny that it is a coalition.

[transplant99]

In your opinion, hence the false dichotomy. I see the money as providing value to Canadians. Are doctors leeching off the taxpayer's back?

Are doctors getting funding to try and represent me in government? What a goofy analogy.

And yes my opinion is, has been, and always will be that any group who claims to have the ability to run a complex and large group like the federal government should be able to have the ability to create their own wealth (including keeping the donation cap at 1,100 bucks a person)in order to try and do so and quit requiring taxpayer money instead. Again, its a really simple concept.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Mccree

Harper running on a platform on the economy, during a period where Canadians are all filing their taxes, gives the conservatives an advantage. When everyone is writing cheques to the Receiver General the economy will be first and foremost in the minds of Canadians.

It also helps the Conservatives that job growth is relatively good right now.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by Azure

It also helps the Conservatives that job growth is relatively good right now.

Everything about the timing of this election serves to benefit the Conservatives. That's why I can't believe some people think that the opposition are the ones bringing it. The opposition is probably doing exactly what the Conservatives were counting on and hoping for.

Whether you love Harper or hate him, he is a very smart politician.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Why don't you ask them? Ignatieff is already dodging the coalition question. If it isn't that big of a deal, then the parties themselves should be making it plain that they will consider a coalition government in the event of another minority.

Ignatieff won't touch the word with a 100 foot pole for two reasons:
1. He would have to admit he is in bed with the separatists
2. Having the NDP in any real position of influence would drive blue Liberals right in a damn hurry.

IMO, the surest path to a Conservative majority is Ignatieff admitting that he would form a coalition out of this election.

I think that he should come right out and say he won't do it. It's certainly not too late to make that clear, and there are a number of reasons why he should say it outright.

I also think that the media should ask Harper point blank whether he would form a coalition though. Going by his track record it appears as though he would. So, just play along and say he says he would form a coalition with the NDP. Who would you vote for?

[John Doe]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Are doctors getting funding to try and represent me in government? What a goofy analogy.

And yes my opinion is, has been, and always will be that any group who claims to have the ability to run a complex and large group like the federal government should be able to have the ability to create their own wealth (including keeping the donation cap at 1,100 bucks a person)in order to try and do so and quit requiring taxpayer money instead. Again, its a really simple concept.

Fair enough, you feel that they should have the capability to create their own wealth. Once they are elected, however, do you still think that they should spend their time and energy looking for donations for the next election? Do you think that should do it while being paid by taxpayer money? Do you think that they should use resources paid by the taxpayers?

[transplant99]

If Harper wins a smaller minority will he pursue a coalition? Fact is that its not undemocratic at all. It's totally legitimate and in a parliamentary democracy you sometimes need to build concensus. Obviously Canadians are fairly divided right now, so what's the big deal about a parliament that reflects those divisions?

IMO it is when one of the parties involved is not a federal party and has stated goals to break up the country. If its among the Cons/Libs/NDP then yes it legitimate...but otherwise? No way.

As resolute points out....Ignatieff wont give a simple answer to a simple question when it comes to this whole idea. He saw the corner Dion was painted into previous to his debacle and doesn't want to repeat that.

Funny thing is that Ignatieff himself stated just recently that he wanted no part of a coalition either...

"I don’t want to create a coalition,” he told the Vancouver Sun. “I’m the guy sitting here who turned down a coalition in 2008. The Liberal Party of Canada wants to form the next government of Canada.”

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Opp...447/story.html

Now that was spoken just 2 months ago, but now he has no definite answer?

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by John Doe

Once they are elected, however, do you still think that they should spend their time and energy looking for donations for the next election?

there are people within the party that hold no seat or elected psoition who's job it is to do that. What's the problem?

Do you think that should do it while being paid by taxpayer money?

Who? Fundraisers are not on the public payroll.

Do you think that they should use resources paid by the taxpayers?

Again...who?

If you are talking about elected members appearing at fundraising dinners etc, no I have no problem whatsoever with that.

[dissentowner]

I have a better idea. Instead of having them spend three hundred million dollars on setting up this election just so it will be the same damn thing afterwards we all agree to just leave the government the way it is and divide that money amongst the citizens of Canada.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Slava

I think that he should come right out and say he won't do it. It's certainly not too late to make that clear, and there are a number of reasons why he should say it outright.

Dion said he would have no truck with separatists in 2008, and we saw how that changed afterward. So really, Ignatieff denying is also dangerous, as it opens up a "hidden agenda" argument against him. But yes, I would rather he makes his intentions clear there. If he campaigns on the Liberals as the best government, but open to coalition, and the people elect him and Layton with enough seats to make it happen, I could accept that result, even if it would be incredibly bad for the country to have Layton in any place where he could legitimately put his delusions into practise.

I also think that the media should ask Harper point blank whether he would form a coalition though. Going by his track record it appears as though he would. So, just play along and say he says he would form a coalition with the NDP. Who would you vote for?

Your hypothetical is invalid. Harper's track record as Prime Minister has been to dare the opposition to stop him by forcing an election, so really no, his "track record" is not what you suggest. The question you ask is pointless, as his only answer will be that he would always be willing to work with the opposition if they reciprocate.

Harper as opposition leader might have a different viewpoint, but if he loses this election, the only thing we'll be hearing from him is his resignation as leader so from this perspective the question would be moot.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Are doctors getting funding to try and represent me in government? What a goofy analogy.

So government funding for healthcare is not leeching. Why isn't government funding for informed democracy analogous?

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Everything about the timing of this election serves to benefit the Conservatives. That's why I can't believe some people think that the opposition are the ones bringing it. The opposition is probably doing exactly what the Conservatives were counting on and hoping for.

Whether you love Harper or hate him, he is a very smart politician.

Except...they are.

They don't vote the way they did today, there is no election. That much is clear.

I understand that the budget may not have given everything to everyone that they wanted, I have yet to EVER see a budget that pleases everyone in parliament as a matter of fact, but they still had a choice. This one baffles me to no end though and now the 4th election in 7 years is thrust upon Canadians...by the opposition.

Truth is this will be a fascinating watch to me. If the Cons stay on point and keep pounding the same message repeatedly, don't fall over themselves with some idiot making some stupid remark...they should cruise to an easy win. That is so much easier said than done with them though.

[dissentowner]

Originally Posted by SebC

So government funding for healthcare is not leeching. Why isn't government funding for informed democracy analogous?

anal-what? Never heard of that word.

[Slava]

^i know what your saying about his handling of the coalition question and I think he is being given bad advice on it. Really if he would just state that he won't do it then the whole question goes away.

As far as the democracy of it though, it's totally democratic. Sure most of us out west dislike the BQ and their goals. They shouldn't be anywhere near power and I can understand that sentiment. Frankly a coalition with MPs elected in every province and of a few political stripes is more representative than one party holding a minority of the seats.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by dissentowner

anal-what? Never heard of that word.

http://tinyurl.com/yhnae6b

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by SebC

So government funding for healthcare is not leeching. Why isn't government funding for informed democracy analogous?

Informed democracy? Sorry...taking out attack ads against political opponents doesn't qualify as informing anyone about anything.

So yes, funding doctors to save lives is about as different as funding political parties as it gets.

Yikes.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Slava

^i know what your saying about his handling of the coalition question and I think he is being given bad advice on it. Really if he would just state that he won't do it then the whole question goes away.

As far as the democracy of it though, it's totally democratic. Sure most of us out west dislike the BQ and their goals. They shouldn't be anywhere near power and I can understand that sentiment. Frankly a coalition with MPs elected in every province and of a few political stripes is more representative than one party holding a minority of the seats.

I cant imagine that Ontarians and everyone East of Quebec is too thrilled with the concept either.

And in truth a TRUE coalition would be fine if there is another minority, but that would include members from the other party(s) holding cabinet posts and positions of influence. Unfortunately there isnt a single leader among them willing to do that and would be lynched by their party members if they did.