Canada Election 2015

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by geotag277

That's fine, but your answer here is just "Trust me, I know better, and I refuse to put in the effort of educating anyone on why the cost is necessary, even as Canadians in this very thread have no avenue or recourse or public resources to justify the expense of this particular Department."

Personally I think we can and should do better at holding these entities accountable for the value add to Canadians and certainly at justifying their operating budget. And I certainly expected a more satisfying response from you after that rather silly string of personal insults.

geo, it won't answer all your questions, but a look at the Dept of Justice website ( http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/index.html ) does give an impression of the range of activities in which they are involved.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by Migs

Yup, this is playing out similar to the 2011 election.

Now Trudeau is saying that he would topple a minority Conservative govt. Another election would really sit well with voters.

With the sort of numbers that the polls are suggestion, another election might not follow. There would be nothing to prevent the GG from asking the NDP or Liberals to try to form a government first.

[O-tacular]

I think I found MIGS' idea of impartial media:

[Aylmer]

Well, there goes my breakfast.

Though perhaps we should all tone the rhetoroc down a notch (myself included). The discussion is getting ever more cacophonous and ever less pleasant to follow...

[kwoldtimer]

Although a bit off-topic and relating to the fraught subject of niqab oaths. I found that this G&M article (based on government messaging) gives a very good idea of how the Government/Bureaucracy relationship works under the Harper Conservatives.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/nati...nact-niqab-requirements/article26486680/

The decisions have always been a matter of ministerial prerogative, but the top down, my way or the highway approach is new and has consequences as we have seen time and again in recent years.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by Stingray2004

Today's Nanos:

Wonder what the projected distribution of seats will look like with that... we'll have to wait a couple days to see.

Of all three the CPC have the best FPTP spread and the LPC the worst FPTP spread, so based on past TCTCs and 308s I would expect this 32%/32%/29% to correspond approximately to something like 121/108/108/1.

[mr.John]

Originally Posted by Migs

Good. We have a Prime Minister who's being smart about shipping folks over here from the most dangerous region on earth.

Totally agree, if it wasn't for the brave work of field marshal Harper (directing operations from his home closet) Regina would be ruled by ISIS today, thank GOD for Harper

[travis3000]

Originally Posted by lio45

Wonder what the projected distribution of seats will look like with that... we'll have to wait a couple days to see.

Of all three the CPC have the best FPTP spread and the LPC the worst FPTP spread, so based on past TCTCs and 308s I would expect this 32%/32%/29% to correspond approximately to something like 121/108/108/1.

Depends on Ontario. Whoever leads there should come out on top nationally.

[lio45]

Originally Posted by travis3000

Depends on Ontario. Whoever leads there should come out on top nationally.

Totally. If anyone "takes" Ontario, they'll get at least a minority easily.

But last I checked rural and suburban Ontario seem very CPC, urban Ontario very LPC, with some NDP pockets.

Ontario isn't helping break the logjam...

In fact, with Ontario mostly CPC/LPC and Quebec very NDP, currently, the two biggest provinces together at the moment would probably have each of the three parties get approximately a third of their combined MPs.

Then add to that Atlantic mostly red, Prairies mostly blue, and BC maybe leaning orange (last I checked), and you have a pretty evenly divided Parliament.

[Aylmer]

I think that one thing to watch carefully is the reaction to the French-language debate tomorrow evening: if Trudeau or Duceppe perform well, it might signal a change in Quebec, the second most seat-rich province in the country. Both parties have little to lose (the LPC and BQ are currently projected to win about 16 and 0 seats respectively) but everything to gain. The NDP can't gain much more than what it's already projected to get. The CPC could gain some seats, but probably not more than a half-dozen in the best case scenario.

I think that, similarly to the first English-language debate, if Trudeau doesn't screw up, it'll be a win since the expectations of him are still so low among francophones. I don't expect he'll get attacked much by the BQ even on the issue of the Sherbrooke Declaration since the BQ has extremely little to gain from LPC voters on that issue (they tend to be highly federalist) and they might risk making the NDP (the BQ's real target) look good in comparison. However, it will probably come up from the side of the NDP (though Mulcair will want to refrain saying something too pro-sovereignty which might cost him in the RoC). Trudeau will have to go hard at the NDP's recent rightward shift (F35s, infrastructure and taxes) and Harper for all the usual stuff in order to present Mulcair as the Harper-lite and himself as the anti-Harper so desired by Quebec voters. His biggest potential weakness is the Niqab "issue" which I expect both Harper and Duceppe to target since it appeals to shockingly large portion of the population (though I'm not convinced it's ultimately a ballot-box issue). Trudeau and Mulcair will have to find a way to dismiss the issue since taking a stand one way or another might cost them. Trudeau will also have to defend his position on Energy East from the BQ. But Trudeau's job in the debate will essentially be to attack Mulcair and Harper and defend himself mainly from the NDP.

It'll be more difficult for Duceppe from whom people expect repeats of his past debate performances; if he doesn't meet the high expectations, it'll be considered a loss. But even if he does perform very well, I don't believe that he has all that much to gain - perhaps a dozen seats at most. I expect he'll be gunning for the NDP's support since it's both much more massive and more accessible than the CPC vote and largely anglo LPC vote. The advantage of having literally nothing to lose is that no one will be attacking him, but he then might risk getting sidelined and ignored.

I think that Mulcair will need to perform much better than Trudeau in order to maintain his current numbers; expectations are pretty high for the NDP, so just matching the Liberals won't be enough to prevent leakages and certainly won't be enough to cement his support. If he does come off significantly better than Trudeau, however, the NDP could have this in the bag. One thing Mulcair will have to contend with this time around is the BQ whom I expect will be targeting the NDP to a large extent (they have little to gain from the LPC or CPC) on issues such as Energy East, "austerity", the Niqab "issue" and perhaps even the senate and F35s. Mulcair will have the difficult task of having to defend himself from the BQ and LPC while also attacking Harper (and Trudeau, to a lesser extent).

Harper's only potential gain is on the Niqab and refugees, IMO. I don't expect any surprises from him. He only really needs to sit back and occasionally launch jabs at Mulcair and Trudeau.

If the English-language debates are any indication, I don't think that a clear winner will emerge from the debate. But I think that no clear winner is a win for the Liberals, a loss for the NDP and no change for the BQ and CPC.

[eternallyme]

I think the Ontario numbers are quite misleading since both the CPC and LPC seem to be solidifying their cores. The refugee issue is playing very differently in urban and rural, which only solidifies their bases. A good comparable election might be the 2011 Ontario provincial election. If anything, the NDP could LOSE seats in Ontario as they might face a squeeze play...

[kiwi]

“a snowball’s chance in hell” that NDP would help the Conservatives to govern in a minority environment.



http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/poli...-up-tories-mulcair-says/article26496756/

The NDP would categorically refuse to prop up a Conservative minority in the House of Commons, making it even harder for Stephen Harper to stay on as Prime Minister if he does not win a majority on Oct. 19.

NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair said there is not “a snowball’s chance in hell” that he would help the Conservatives to govern in a minority environment. The comment comes one day after Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau said he would not support a Conservative minority in the House.

The Bloc Québécois has also stated at the start of the election that it would not prop up the Conservatives.

As a result, the Conservatives would likely need to win a straight majority of the 338 seats up for grabs in this election to form a government.

“Anybody who has attended a single Question Period over the course of the last several years would be able to tell you that there is no likelihood that the NDP would ever, under any circumstance, be able to support Mr. Harper,” Mr. Mulcair said on Wednesday, at a joint news conference in Montreal with Mayor Denis Coderre. “The short answer to your question is: There isn’t a snowball’s chance in hell.”

In reference to an eventual collaboration with the Liberals, Mr. Mulcair was less categorical, stating that “every time we have tried, they have slammed the door.”

Speaking in Montreal on Tuesday, Mr. Trudeau said if he doesn’t win the next election, the Liberals would not prop up a Conservative minority government.

“There are no circumstances in which I would support Stephen Harper to continue being Prime Minister of this country,” Mr. Trudeau said.

He was less emphatic in reference to the NDP, stating Parliament can function in the context of a minority government and he is confident that Canadians will make the “right choice” on Oct. 19.

Mr. Harper has said that he would not try to form a government if the Conservatives were to finish in second place, as would be his constitutional prerogative. It remains to be seen what he would do in the event of a minority.

For now, Mr. Harper has urged voters to offer his party a “solid, stable, national majority” in the election.

[kwoldtimer]

Originally Posted by kiwi

“a snowball’s chance in hell” that NDP would help the Conservatives to govern in a minority environment.



http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/poli...-up-tories-mulcair-says/article26496756/

Well that settles it - a new Conservative minority government would be short-lived. How long does a new government have before Parliament needs to sit/before a first Speech from the Throne?

[geotag277]

Originally Posted by kiwi

“a snowball’s chance in hell” that NDP would help the Conservatives to govern in a minority environment.



http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/poli...-up-tories-mulcair-says/article26496756/

This sounds like whiny baby politics to me. It's a legislative assembly. If a proposed piece of legislation is characteristic of the representation that NDP representatives agree wtih, why wouldn't they support it?

I feel like these types of immature "take my ball and go home" politics are poisonous to our democracy. I think the likely outcome of these babies obstructing governance is exactly what happened last time there was a no confidence vote, and it didn't turn out well for the opposition.

In all honesty, there is no reason why a minority government cannot be fully functional and why the parties cannot compromise with each other on providing a wide net of representation. Clearly we have strong support for all three parties in this country, which means Canadians expect to be represented in some capacity by all three.

Hows about we all grow up, talk to each other, and show some maturity by actually attempting to have a functioning minority government in this country for once.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by kwoldtimer

Well that settles it - a new Conservative minority government would be short-lived. How long does a new government have before Parliament needs to sit/before a first Speech from the Throne?

Given the time of year, I imagine the house won't meet until after the New Year, at which time the Throne Speech would be presented. This would be the first opportunity for a vote of non confidence.

So, if Harper wins a minority government, he would likely remain PM until February. If the government fell this quickly in the mandate (especially if the second party's seat count is not too far behind the Conservatives), I imagine the GG would use his prerogative to allow the official opposition a chance to form government.

If this were to happen, I'm sure Harper would resign. A leadership convention would be held within the year and the new Conservative leader would take a year to get his balance before actively seeking to force an election. Minority parliaments usually only last a couple of years anyway. I therefore predict another election in early 2018.

[Me&You]

Originally Posted by geotag277

This sounds like whiny baby politics to me. It's a legislative assembly. If a proposed piece of legislation is characteristic of the representation that NDP representatives agree wtih, why wouldn't they support it?

I feel like these types of immature "take my ball and go home" politics are poisonous to our democracy. I think the likely outcome of these babies obstructing governance is exactly what happened last time there was a no confidence vote, and it didn't turn out well for the opposition.

In all honesty, there is no reason why a minority government cannot be fully functional and why the parties cannot compromise with each other on providing a wide net of representation. Clearly we have strong support for all three parties in this country, which means Canadians expect to be represented in some capacity by all three.

Hows about we all grow up, talk to each other, and show some maturity by actually attempting to have a functioning minority government in this country for once.

That would be nice, but it's wishful thinking...

[Me&You]

Another post, just trying to bump to the next page, to avoid any chance of seeing O-Tac's disgusting picture.

Mods - really?

[kiwi]

Originally Posted by geotag277

This sounds like whiny baby politics to me. It's a legislative assembly. If a proposed piece of legislation is characteristic of the representation that NDP representatives agree wtih, why wouldn't they support it?

I feel like these types of immature "take my ball and go home" politics are poisonous to our democracy. I think the likely outcome of these babies obstructing governance is exactly what happened last time there was a no confidence vote, and it didn't turn out well for the opposition.

In all honesty, there is no reason why a minority government cannot be fully functional and why the parties cannot compromise with each other on providing a wide net of representation. Clearly we have strong support for all three parties in this country, which means Canadians expect to be represented in some capacity by all three.

Hows about we all grow up, talk to each other, and show some maturity by actually attempting to have a functioning minority government in this country for once.

If you have ever watched questioned period you will understand why this is not possible.

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by Me&You

Another post, just trying to bump to the next page, to avoid any chance of seeing O-Tac's disgusting picture.

Mods - really?

I'm sure he'll just re-post that disgusting picture on the next page anyway just to annoy all the Tories on the forum.........

[MonctonRad]

Originally Posted by kiwi

If you have ever watched questioned period you will understand why this is not possible.

Indeed, whether you agree with Harper or not, his particular style of governance has created a toxic atmosphere in parliament. A Harper minority would not last long.