Election 2011

[a_majoor]

The issue wasn't a coalition per se, but rather the nature and timing of the event.

During the last election, all parties protested vigorously they were not interested in a coalition, and after the results were announced seemed content to accept the will of the people. Only after about six weeks (and triggered by an austerity plan that would have forced political parties to get off the taxpayer dole and generate all their funds from their base) did a coalition suddenly materialize.

If two or more parties were to stand up today and announce they will run as a coalition, or will combine forces after the votes are counted, then I will take it under advisement and make an informed choice.

One thing that might cme back to bite the Liberals is the CF-35 purchase. The Conservatives can say they are simply bringing home a project initiated by the Chretien government in 1997, and neither Chretien, Martin, Dion or (until recently) Ignatieff have ever said or done anything to stop or protest the participation of Canada in the program. I'm sure there are a lot of programs the Liberals will claim to be against which will be, on examination, projects started by previous Liberal governments between 1993 to 2006. What, pray tell, are they going to replace these with?

 

[ModlrMike]

It's is not undemocratic to lead by constitution. The misinformation and ignorance of some Canadians when that issue came up made me livid. The only questionable aspect was that it would have involved the Bloc, who only pull for Quebec and rarely all Canadians.

Then again, Harper was ready to do the same in 2004.

A completely different kettle of fish. The letter in question only asked the GG to consider all constitutional options. It did not say "we've formed a coalition, give us the job", as the 2008 letter did. The two letters are significantly different.

Here's the Conservative one: http://nickcoulter.posterous.com/harper-letter-to-clarkson-2004

And the Liberal/NDP/Bloc one: http://www.scribd.com/doc/51479794/Liberal-NDP-Bloc-Coalition-Policy-Framework

I agree, though that it's not unconstitutional to have a coalition. It is however, dishonest to categorically state you won't form one, then engage in backroom dealings immediately after the vote.

 

[Haletown]

A completely different kettle of fish.

ya got that right . . . .  having BQ members sitting in the government Caucus, having seats at the Cabinet table, having direct access to the Privy Council  . . .  the rape of Canada's bank account, also known as the BC, Alberta, Saskatchewan economies would proceed at a rapid pace.

Lorne sums it up quite nicely

http://tinyurl.com/4mtrbvw

 

[DCRabbit]

A Liberal gov't or Liberal/NDP/Bloc coalition: Gutting of the CF to pay for more diplomats and social programs.

A Conservative gov't: Reduced spending on the CF during deficit but no gutting and probable spending growth when the deficit is done.

IMO the choice is clear.

What also galls me is Iggy saying he'll form a coalition if the Libs lose. If the people vote in a monitory conservative gov't.. that's their will. That is democracy. It's not up to one of the losing parties to thumb their noses at that and grab power anyways. There are coalitions elsewhere.. but it's almost always the party that got the most seats that gets first chance to form a coalition. That's why they work.. the people's will is still respected.

 

[Haletown]

A Liberal gov't or Liberal/NDP/Bloc coalition: Gutting of the CF to pay for more diplomats and social programs.

A Conservative gov't: Reduced spending on the CF during deficit but no gutting and probable spending growth when the deficit is done.

IMO the choice is clear.

Works for me too . . .  same assessment, same conclusion.

 

[a_majoor]

What also galls me is Iggy saying he'll form a coalition if the Libs lose. If the people vote in a monitory conservative gov't.. that's their will. That is democracy. It's not up to one of the losing parties to thumb their noses at that and grab power anyways. There are coalitions elsewhere.. but it's almost always the party that got the most seats that gets first chance to form a coalition. That's why they work.. the people's will is still respected.

Which is a bit underhanded, but at least he is being clear that he will form a coalition ahead of the election. We need to press Liberal candidates to provide details about this putative coalition (for example, will London North Center MP Glenn Pearson be taking his marching orders from London Fanshawe MP Irene Mathyssen?). At least we now have an informed choice in the matter, and know what we are going to get if the vote breaks a certain way.

A bit OT, but a successful coalition *could* be formed between the "Blue" Liberals and the CPC as a "Coalition of the Winners", somewhat in the manner of the recent UK election. This would be far more palatable than a "Coalition of the Losers", which is what Ignatieff would represent. The real trick would be how to woo dissociated Liberal MP's to cross the floor; perhaps as part of a "National Unity Government" dedicated to keeping Canada on an even keel as the global economy continues its turmoil?

 

[ModlrMike]

A Liberal gov't or Liberal/NDP/Bloc coalition: Gutting of the CF to pay for more diplomats and social programs.

A Conservative gov't: Reduced spending on the CF during deficit but no gutting and probable spending growth when the deficit is done.

IMO the choice is clear.

What also galls me is Iggy saying he'll form a coalition if the Libs lose. If the people vote in a monitory conservative gov't.. that's their will. That is democracy. It's not up to one of the losing parties to thumb their noses at that and grab power anyways. There are coalitions elsewhere.. but it's almost always the party that got the most seats that gets first chance to form a coalition. That's why they work.. the people's will is still respected.

I agree with that assessment. I also agree with your conclusions on a coalition. There's gold here for the Conservatives... they can hammer the Libs over this issue.

Just the same, for any left leaning coalition to work, the Bloc would have to be full participants, not just stage managers. The Lib/NDP will not have enough seats to form the government outright, and they'll need the Bloc. I think Canadian's reactions would be similar to last time.

In order for the Lib/NDP to form an above board coalition, they have to gain more than 30 seats at the expense of the Conservatives. I don't see that happening. I suspect the Bloc will pick up a couple of seats from both the Lib/Cons, the rest of the country might continue status quo, with the possibility of the Torries picking up seats in Ont and the Maritimes. Remember, there's no Danny Williams lead ABC campaign this year, so we might see a reversal of fortunes out east. The job for the Torries is slightly easier, they have to pick up 11 new seats while protecting their current numbers. They may be able to do this without Quebec this time.

 

[a_majoor]

Is Wile E. Coyote planning the opposition strategy?

http://onthehill.ca/2011/tories-lead/

Election Watch: Tories have large lead
Posted on March 24, 2011 by Brett Caven

BUDGET 2011 SPECIAL FEATURE

Today, the National Post reported that the Tories have a nineteen-percentage point lead over the Grits. This is the first poll to be released with data from after the budget released on Tuesday, 22 March 2011. This poll puts Harper’s Tories at forty-three per cent, Ignatieff’s Grits at twenty-four per cent, and Layton ‘s Dippers at sixteen per cent. The Bloc Québécois remains at ten per cent and the Greens are at six per cent.

This is the first indication that the Harper Conservatives may be able to get their coveted majority that they have been trying to get since the party merger in 2003. This shows that the opposition is ignoring the public, as no reasonable party would force an election when the party they want to defeat has a lead of almost twenty percentage points.

Based on the IPSOS Reid polls from just before the last federal election, this could be fairly accurate, and the Tories just may be headed for that majority.

 

[Edward Campbell]

The latest, from ThreeHundrenEight.com, which aggregates polling data and provides its own analysis. The site explains it's "weighting" system here.

Source: http://threehundredeight.blogspot.com/

Source: http://threehundredeight.blogspot.com/

 

[Redeye]

What also galls me is Iggy saying he'll form a coalition if the Libs lose. If the people vote in a monitory conservative gov't.. that's their will. That is democracy. It's not up to one of the losing parties to thumb their noses at that and grab power anyways. There are coalitions elsewhere.. but it's almost always the party that got the most seats that gets first chance to form a coalition. That's why they work.. the people's will is still respected.

What's galling about a coalition?  That's entirely constitutional.  If he can present a coalition to the Governor-General that can form a working government and has a majority of seats in Parliament, nothing stops that coalition from forming the government.  Frankly, it would be about as effective as a minority government because it would reflect the interests of three parties that rarely agree.

Our voting system does not allow voters to express that a minority government headed by any particular party is their will, it reflects their choice for their local representation alone.  The rest is extrapolation.

Of course, in this case, I'd rather just see the Conservatives hear out amendment suggestions to the budgets and put off an election for a while, since it looks like the changes to composition of the Parliament will be minor.

 

[Container]

Redeye-

Can you explain why anyone would vote for parties with such different views that would just put aside their beliefs just so they can be in charge? It wouldnt appear that their convictions mean very much. I wouldn't appreciate any con/bloc alliances either. If I liked the NDP or Green ideas I would vote for them. I dont. SO why would I chance voting for the guy who'll do anything to be in charge?

I dont see that marriage to be a happy one? Or am I missing something?

 

[MJP]

Of course, in this case, I'd rather just see the Conservatives hear out amendment suggestions to the budgets and put off an election for a while, since it looks like the changes to composition of the Parliament will be minor.

The budget vote is not what is going to send us to the polls but rather the contempt of Parliament vote later this afternoon.  The budget vote was pushed into next week on Wednesday.

 

[Redeye]

Can you explain why anyone would vote for parties with such different views that would just put aside their beliefs just so they can be in charge? It wouldnt appear that their convictions mean very much. I wouldn't appreciate any con/bloc alliances either. If I liked the NDP or Green ideas I would vote for them. I dont. SO why would I chance voting for the guy who'll do anything to be in charge?

I would expect the motivation to be that the parties could, or would attempt to find some common ground on policy issues to govern.  A minority government must do the same - find someone to add the additional votes necessary to pass the bills they wish to - either way theoretically forces the views of more people to be reflected.  To the specific point about "putting aside their views", any party I would submit would do that for power if need be.

Further, everyone votes for the party that reflect their views.  Where there is no clear majority, what happens is either a clearly estabilished coalition where parties agree to govern based on whatever policy objective they can concur on, or a series of ad hoc coalitions where the party that forms the government cobbles together whatever support they need to govern as they go along.  In the case where there is no majority, a leader of a party which can form a coalition submits to the G-G their proposal to do so.

I dont see that marriage to be a happy one? Or am I missing something?

I don't know how much common ground they really would have, if any voice came to dominate, the system would basically fall apart.  I'm not even really interested in seeing one.  Certainly not Lib/NDP/Bloc, anyhow.  But it can happen, it is within the bounds of our constitution.

 

[GR66]

If the seat projections above hold true I think it would be the worst of all possible worlds.  Still stuck with a minority government that is too biterly split to work effectively and a $300 million bill added to the deficit to boot.

- Liberals still the "official" opposition and not getting the drubbing required to force them to make any REAL changes to the party. 
- NDP clinging on with still less than a snowball's chance in hell of forming a government but still being large enough to be pandered to in any government's efforts to remain in power. 
- The Bloc effectively maintaining Quebec's sense of being "separate" from anything Canada does as a nation while at the same time preventing any other party from getting enough seats to form the majority needed to be the driver of national change.
- A Conservative party with a leader that's incapable of winning a majority even when up against Huey, Duey and Luey as opponents.  Compromises with potential leadership rivals in order to stay in control will be added to the compromises resulting from the public opinion poll based governing required to keep in power.
- Finally, the disdain that the governing conservatives have for the incompetent opposition parties will likely continue the current style of governance that many non-traditional Conservative voters find off-putting and arrogant which keeps them from making a major election breakthrough.

 

[Infanteer]

Just watched the vote on CPAC - Harper adjourned the house and it is officially on!

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail, is a pretty fair analysis of the choices being offered to Canadians:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/harper-and-ignatieff-two-leaders-two-visions-of-canada/article1956860/

Harper and Ignatieff: Two leaders, two visions of Canada

JOHN IBBITSON

Ottawa— Globe and Mail Update
Posted on Friday, March 25, 2011

In politics, ideas matter. In the election made certain by this vote of no-confidence, two conflicting political world views will compete for government: the night-watchman state of Stephen Harper versus the modern liberal state of Michael Ignatieff.

Students of political philosophy will raise their eyebrows. All Canadian governments govern from the centre, and Mr. Harper’s Conservative government is no exception. On his watch, spending has increased in good times and bad. Finance Minister Jim Flaherty’s budget, which is now the Conservative election platform, contains hundreds of millions of dollars to relieve seniors in poverty and to encourage energy-efficient home renovations.

But Mr. Harper is, in his bones, a libertarian: educated at the University of Calgary, where those minimalist principles are warmly viewed; first elected to Parliament as a Reformer; once the head of the National Citizens’ Coalition. He comes as close as any prime minister ever has to embracing the concept of the night-watchman state.

The term refers to those who believe that the duty of government is to guard the borders, patrol the streets and enforce contracts. In all other matters, the individual should be free to pursue his own ends, unfettered by government restraint. Mr. Harper does not believe those are the only priorities of government, but he does believe they should be its first priorities.

“The first duty of a national government, everywhere and always, is to protect its people, and its territory, from external threats,” he often says.

That is why the Conservatives have spent so much money on rebuilding the military, why they want to acquire the F-35 fighter jets, why they focus so heavily on toughening crime legislation, why they are so keen to eliminate the long-gun registry.

There are many other elements to this government, which betrays the night-watchman-state principle more often than it enforces it. But the emotional bond to the idea resides within the Prime Minister, and all of us recognize this.

Michael Ignatieff has a very different political soul. For the Liberal Leader, government is about mediation: meeting the needs of business while limiting the damage that amoral market forces can inflict; smoothing the excesses of wealth and poverty through income redistribution and high-quality public education; using government resources to encourage desirable behaviour and deter acts that can harm the self or others.

This pendulum swings back and forth – and will for as long as democracy lasts. For five and a half years, enough Canadian voters have believed that at least the values of the night-watchman state need reaffirming, however much the government’s actual agenda contradicts it, to keep Mr. Harper in power.

Those who want to further entrench the modern liberal state have repeatedly split their vote, which means they don’t take their vote all that seriously.

Right now, that state of affairs seems set to continue. Unless and until the pendulum starts to swing again.

Of course, about 25-35% of Canadians habitually vote for other visions, those of the NDP, BQ and even the Greens and fringe movements. These votes are cast, sometimes, as Ibbitson suggests, because people don’t take their votes very seriously, but more often, in my opinion, because of greed – because the NDP, BQ and Greens promise something for nothing, they plan to make you and me pay for something she wants.

In any event I will, as I have since the 1960s - when (pre-Trudeau) I used to vote Liberal, cast my vote for the “night watchman state,” in part because I find the Liberal vision, the Ignatieff vision, described by Ibbitson, as being of a "modern liberal state," neither “modern” nor “liberal.”

 

[The Bread Guy]

Just watched the vote on CPAC - Harper adjourned the house and it is officially on!

The vote:
Final vote in House on Non- Confidence Motion.

Yays:  156

Nays:  145

 

[dapaterson]

And so, as the late lamented Frank would have said, the Running of the Reptiles begins...

 

[Dennis Ruhl]

If the seat projections above hold true I think it would be the worst of all possible worlds.  Still stuck with a minority government that is too bitterly split to work effectively and a $300 million bill added to the deficit to boot.

We went almost half a full term.  Given that the bitterness is contrived I wouldn't worry too much.  I remember most of 50 years and there was no time without bitterness.  It seems pretty mild today.

- Liberals still the "official" opposition and not getting the drubbing required to force them to make any REAL changes to the party. 

They have just had two A** Kickings.  Maybe three is the charm.  The party gurus seem to think there is fertile ground on the left and a loss in the election will probably lead them further to the sinister side.

- The Bloc effectively maintaining Quebec's sense of being "separate" from anything Canada does as a nation while at the same time preventing any other party from getting enough seats to form the majority needed to be the driver of national change.

The mystery of why Quebecers decided to start electing short sighted ignorant backwoods fascist hillbillies as MPs when the Quebec element in the Liberal and Conservative Parties set the national agenda for so many years.  Before they governed, now they whine.

- A Conservative party with a leader that's incapable of winning a majority even when up against Huey, Duey and Luey as opponents.  Compromises with potential leadership rivals in order to stay in control will be added to the compromises resulting from the public opinion poll based governing required to keep in power.

Well he's up against Luey and Luey is going down.

- Finally, the disdain that the governing conservatives have for the incompetent opposition parties will likely continue the current style of governance that many non-traditional Conservative voters find off-putting and arrogant which keeps them from making a major election breakthrough.

Again, I don't see any more feigned disdain today than 50 years ago.

 

[medicineman]

The mystery of why Quebecers decided to start electing short sighted ignorant backwoods fascist hillbillies as MPs when the Quebec element in the Liberal and Conservative Parties set the national agenda for so many years.  Before they governed, now they whine.

And still make more in retirement than I do in annual salary (and for less time served)...so who's really ignorant or short sighted I might ask?

MM