2011 Canadian Election Thread

[SebC]

Ignatief is proposing a Lib minority. The only way a Lib minority would need BQ support is if the Cons vote against them, which is the exact same position the Cons would be in if the Libs and NDP vote against them.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Slava

Ok, so if Harper doesn't get a majority and fails to win the confidence of the house what are you all hoping takes place exactly? Another election?

At these numbers and projected seat totals him not having the confidence of the house means that none of the other three parties are going along with him. It's not a pure Liberal ploy here.

The old argument is that its a three way battle for power.

On the suppossed right/center there's the conservatives
On the suppossed left there's the NDP and the Liberals
On the regional destroy Canada there's the Bloc

so lets say the election ended today

The right wins 147 seats (308.com)
The left (NDP and Liberals) they win a combined 115 seats (308.c0m)
The bloc wins 45 seats

The argument that the Left outnumbers the right goes out the window, and in order to secure power you need to engage the destroy Canada Party who is only going to support the Left coalition if they get major concessions everytime there's a budget or possible confidence motion.

If the lib/NDP coaltion outnumbered the Cons and amalgamated to form the government thats one thing.

But this is a dangerous political move when you give the Bloc a swing.

One thing I'm fine with is that Ignatieff has put it out there, let the people vote on if they're interested in this kind of arrangement, but then Jack Layton has to be honest and support it in his stump speeches as does Ducceppe, do that and coalition away.

But I find it cynical that the Liberal's are already talking about working to topple a government within days or weaks of an election.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Slava

Ok, so if Harper doesn't get a majority and fails to win the confidence of the house what are you all hoping takes place exactly? Another election?

At these numbers and projected seat totals him not having the confidence of the house means that none of the other three parties are going along with him. It's not a pure Liberal ploy here.

Depends. If this blows up on the news and becomes the defacto ballot box question on May 2 and the CPC fail to gain a majority, then I could lend legitimacy to the idea that the people have spoken, and the results speak that a majority of people wanted a coalition government.

[Slava]

Well let's just agree on the numbers, and get down to business. So the CPC ends up with a minority-it's up to them to work to get confidence of the house. It's called compromise. The people voted and didn't give a majority in this case, so bring forward legislation that will supported by another party. That shouldn't be that difficult?

Sure, they could put a poison pill in every piece of legislation from now until the government falls, but why not try to work with the other parties? Why is that idea so distasteful to the CPC?

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Slava

Well let's just agree on the numbers, and get down to business. So the CPC ends up with a minority-it's up to them to work to get confidence of the house. It's called compromise. The people voted and didn't give a majority in this case, so bring forward legislation that will supported by another party. That shouldn't be that difficult?

Sure, they could put a poison pill in every piece of legislation from now until the government falls, but why not try to work with the other parties? Why is that idea so distasteful to the CPC?

yes...and compromise is a 2 way street. Why wont the Liberals compromise and support CPC bills? Why is it just the CPC that is required to do this when more canadians voted for them than any other party?

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by SebC

Ignatief is proposing a Lib minority. The only way a Lib minority would need BQ support is if the Cons vote against them, which is the exact same position the Cons would be in if the Libs and NDP vote against them.

But a lib minority would absolutely require a bloc support to survive.

A Conservative minority can defeat a combined Lib/NDP vote which means that the Lib/NDP would require the bloc to govern.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Slava

Ok, so if Harper doesn't get a majority and fails to win the confidence of the house what are you all hoping takes place exactly? Another election?

At these numbers and projected seat totals him not having the confidence of the house means that none of the other three parties are going along with him. It's not a pure Liberal ploy here.

Confidence of the house is so incredibly subjective. All it takes is the exact same makeup being re-elected, and all of a sudden he has support of the house when he didn't before? Hardly. It is up to the other parties to listen to Canadians and the output of the vote, no matter what their individual indications, or else we'll constantly be in this same loop.

While Harper would have reason to compromise to get stuff done, the other parties should compromise MORE because they don't have near the amount of support.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by transplant99

yes...and compromise is a 2 way street. Why wont the Liberals compromise and support CPC bills? Why is it just the CPC that is required to do this when more canadians voted for them than any other party?

The Liberals did support bills. That's how we made it so long before an election.

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Slava

The Liberals did support bills. That's how we made it so long before an election.

If by support, you mean not showing up on voting day to somehow obsolve ownership of said bills for election posturing. At least when Jack Layton says he disagrees with Conservative policy he has a leg to stand on.

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by Slava

The Liberals did support bills. That's how we made it so long before an election.

Support bills or just not show up in enough numbers to prevent the bill from being defeated?

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

If by support, you mean not showing up on voting day to somehow obsolve ownership of said bills for election posturing. At least when Jack Layton says he disagrees with Conservative policy he has a leg to stand on.

94% attendance rate for votes!

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

94% attendance rate for votes!

I might disagree with everything he stands for, but at least he stands for something.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Slava

The Liberals did support bills. That's how we made it so long before an election.

So long? They toppled them on this last budget, and they tried to wrestle away power from them on their first budget...yeah, quite the compromisers.

Where was the compromise on the gun registry?

[Slava]

I don't get it. If they took the hard line so that "they stood for something" the house would not have confidence. If they show up and vote in favour of the bill then they end up paying for it in an election. Just for one second pretend the shoe is on the other foot and tell me how they could come out of this and look reasonable to you?

Realistically the Harper Conservatives would do the same thing faced with the same situation.

Also Tranny, nice try bit that wasn't a budget in 2008. It was an economic update.

[Addick]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Well for one thing, they aren't going out of their way to paint Alberta as the nation's sacrificial lamb to pay for Ontario and Quebec.

Cowboy is right. Alberta, for all of its redneck stereotype, has been dominated for years by immigration from Eastern Canada and other countries, most of which are more likely to have a liberal mindset than conservative. But the Tories always dominate this province because the Liberals refuse to cultivate support in this province. Instead they treat it with disdain, and that registers with people.

It seems as though all it takes is the mere whisper of some intent to increase the regulation of the oil sands, be it right or wrong, for the Liberals and NDP to be accused of an Alberta-related hate crime. It is ludicrous to think that the Liberals and NDP would not do whatever is reasonably possible to gain seats in Alberta.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Addick

It seems as though all it takes is the mere whisper of some intent to increase the regulation of the oil sands, be it right or wrong, for the Liberals and NDP to be accused of an Alberta-related hate crime. It is ludicrous to think that the Liberals and NDP would not do whatever is reasonably possible to gain seats in Alberta.

Except and especially in the liberal's case they don't, they've made no effort to foster any kind of election strategy in Alberta.

Chretien used to merely fly over the provinces during the elections or make a one day appearance at the airport.

Instead of fostering his rare win here when Anne McClellon (sp?) won a seat in Edmoton, he promptly punished Calgary by shutting down CFB Calgary and moving the Superbase into her riding. He openly spoke about how he didn't understand Albertan's and how we were different from all other Canadians.

In every election there's been an attempted grab of Alberta wealth to prop up their fortunes in the East.

At least the Conservatives run seriously across the country, the NDP try but they have a counter message to Alberta interests, and the Liberal's just treat it like a lost cause and don't even bother, which is really wrong for a national party.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Slava

I don't get it. If they took the hard line so that "they stood for something" the house would not have confidence. If they show up and vote in favour of the bill then they end up paying for it in an election. Just for one second pretend the shoe is on the other foot and tell me how they could come out of this and look reasonable to you?

Realistically the Harper Conservatives would do the same thing faced with the same situation.

Also Tranny, nice try bit that wasn't a budget in 2008. It was an economic update.

Fine...did the Liberals compromise on it?

[The Yen Man]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

If by support, you mean not showing up on voting day to somehow obsolve ownership of said bills for election posturing. At least when Jack Layton says he disagrees with Conservative policy he has a leg to stand on.

This is one of the things I don't understand with Canadian politics. Shouldn't it be mandatory that, as an MP, you have to give your vote at all times? It seems like such a stupid cop out to be absent.

[old-fart]

Originally Posted by Ark2

If anyone wants to see journalism at its finest, click this link and watch the video. Peter Mansbridge interviews Iggnatieff and he doesn't use the kiddie gloves. Asks tough questions and doesn't let Iggnatieff skirt around the questions. Mansbridge is one of Canada's finest.

Agreed. Considering it is the usually Liberal loving CBC, this was a fantastic interview.

Frankly though, I don't think Ignatieff came off very well - didn't look remotely believable to me (yes, I'm partisan). Was asked about his attack ads that he said weren't attack ads yet proceeded to attack. Was asked what the worst thing Harper had said about him and couldn't make a coherent answer, then attacked Harper's trustworthiness. Was asked about the obvious contradiction in him saying people are listening to his message compared to his "no one cares" rise up speech. Was asked about forming a coalition and came up with the headline quote. Was asked about supporting Harper policies over the past few years and now claiming they are evil and could only sputter about trust again.

This interview is not likely to impress any non-hardcore Liberal supporter and will absolutely play well for both Crazy Jack and Harper. There have already been press releases by both roasting Iffy.

[Bertuzzied]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Except and especially in the liberal's case they don't, they've made no effort to foster any kind of election strategy in Alberta.

Chretien used to merely fly over the provinces during the elections or make a one day appearance at the airport.

Instead of fostering his rare win here when Anne McClellon (sp?) won a seat in Edmoton, he promptly punished Calgary by shutting down CFB Calgary and moving the Superbase into her riding. He openly spoke about how he didn't understand Albertan's and how we were different from all other Canadians.

In every election there's been an attempted grab of Alberta wealth to prop up their fortunes in the East.

At least the Conservatives run seriously across the country, the NDP try but they have a counter message to Alberta interests, and the Liberal's just treat it like a lost cause and don't even bother, which is really wrong for a national party.

Imagine what Harper would give Calgary West if all the voters told Anders to F off and voted in a Liberal or NDP.