[beanmedic]

no.

Isn't there a minimum amount of time that the Tories have before other's can call an election?

[j-monster]

prz, doesn't Ontario have a provincial election for 2007? That's likely to delay a federal election.

You are right and I was thinking about that too. So then that may give all the reason to push with a Spring 2007 vote? Do you really see the Libs waiting till 08? If they do wait ill the first chance in 08 the election will not come till the spring of 08.

At the same time, what if the conservatives fall and then the Liberals and NDP attempt to form a coalition government. That could happen too.

Perhaps I'm wrong... but isn't Quebec due for a provincial election in 2007 as well? Something else to consider. And something interesting to look at as well... how much REAL strength will the separatist movement have by then?

Skippy... your analysis of Harper as a failure is interesting, but flawed, in my opinion. You are right when you say:

He's had some success, in that he has managed to pull the conservatives together, present a united front, moderate his party's policies and become prime minister. To give Harper the credit he deserves, he was dealt a shitty hand by the legacy of Reform and still did a good job.

However, I think it is unfair to pin the blame on Harper for "only" winning a slim majority, despite the almost perfect campaign by the CPC and the absolutely disastrous campaign by the Liberals. I think many voters who consider themselves to be left-wing, or progressive, or whatever label they want to choose, still had reservations about Harper, and were looking for any excuse to not support him. And I think many of them ultimately bought into Martin's accusations that the Tories would ban abortions when in power (a ridiculous charge, in my opinion), and also bought into Martin's idea that only a Liberal vote could stop a Tory majority or at least reduce the size of the minority. Ultimately they chose the devil they knew. When people have that kind of mindset, it's hard to break them out of that. You need to actually have time in power to prove that you're not scary. Now that the Tories will form the government, they will get the chance to accomplish this. If they don't mess it up (and I'm confident they won't), then they can point to an actual record, and people can see they accomplished things for the good of the country, and didn't do anything scary.

Am I generalizing? To some extent I suppose I am, and I'm sure there are other reasons people voted Liberal (i.e. favoured the local candidate, etc.). Yet my reasoning above is the best that I can think of right now that helps me understand the behaviour of most of the people who voted Liberal.

And now, a question for you, skippy. How do you judge Jack Layton's performance in this election? He did increase the NDP's popular vote and the number of seats, yet he fell short of the goal the party had of holding the balance of power in a minority government. They will certainly have an impact, but the numbers just don't work well enough for them to truly say they have the balance of power. So what sayeth you on that?

[skippy the wonder dog]

Well, j-monster, I agree: the voters don't trust Harper. And Harper is going to have to govern moderately. That's the only way he'll avoid being swept out in the next election, because as it is he's just an interim PM. I don't share your confidence that he'll succeed, though, as there are plenty of morons in the Conservative back benches. He can't afford another Grewal.

Jack Layton: better performance than 2004. None of the dumb gaffes of last time. Might have been more effective had he behaved less like a tape recorder, and responded more spontaneously to questions, but you can't say he didn't stay on message.

Not meeting the objective of holding the balance of power isn't a big failure, considering that goal is variable -- how can you know how many seats that will require? Had the Conservatives won more seats, as was widely expected, that goal probably would have been met. There are too many variables to treat that as a serious goal. By every reasonable measure, the NDP did well this time out: ten more seats, another increase in the popular vote, record number of seats in Ontario, and both major parties actually spending money to produce attack ads going after the NDP, instead of pursuing the usual strategy of just ignoring them ... that's success.

[das_hips]

Am I generalizing? To some extent I suppose I am, and I'm sure there are other reasons people voted Liberal (i.e. favoured the local candidate, etc.). Yet my reasoning above is the best that I can think of right now that helps me understand the behaviour of most of the people who voted Liberal.

You're having a hard time understanding the behaviour of people who voted Liberal? I think you pointed a few good reasons on your own...

I think many voters who consider themselves to be left-wing, or progressive, or whatever label they want to choose, still had reservations about Harper, and were looking for any excuse to not support him.

Well... I suppose the reservation that these left-wing, or progressive voters had about Stephen Harper and the Conservatives is that, well, they are neither left-wing or progressive. I don't have a hard time at all understanding why I voted Liberal, and I can tell you it isn't because of my electorial districts candidate (who did lose to Paul Dewar of the NDP).

It's as if somehow Conservative supporters imagine their party as an actual alternative to the Liberal party, and in not supporting the Conservatives, citizens who voted Liberal are voting for corruption, or are scared or blinded by Liberal fear-mongering. It's ridiculous, the Christmas investigation of Ralph Goodale is ridiculous, the Canadian media's waning attention to non-partisan broadcast is ridiculous, and the fact that in the minds of most Canadians (due mostly to the above mentioned points), Paul Martin's accomplishments as an MP for 14 years, and his short-lived term as Prime Minister will be completely ignored because of the sponsorship scandal, a mess he inherited from Jean Chretien.

It is a tad frustrating for myself, and it should be for many, knowing that the Prime Minister of Canada doesn't share values that 60% of the country does. Either way, I'll enjoy this self-inflicted ticking time bomb Stephen Harper has created. Ironically enough, it won't be broken promises to the public that bring his party down, it will be broken promises to his party.

As far as I can tell, the NDP wouldn't truly hold the balance of power in any Government besides the last. Honestly, how many issues will the Conservatives and NDP see eye-to-eye on? They are on opposite sides of the political spectrum. I am truly hoping that the Conservatives 'GST-cut' won't pass in parliament, but I'm afraid it will be the one time the Bloc will step-up to support the Conservatives. Has anybody actually stopped to consider how much GST they have paid in the last week?

Cup of coffee? Nope. Six-pack of beer? Nope. Carton of milk? Nope. McChicken Value Meal at McDonalds? Nope. Rent? Nope.

I'm curious as to how the parliament system works though. Can opposition parties put forward tax breaks and spending initatives, or can only the governing party do that. If the Liberals or NDP were to put forward a tuition deduction that all three of the opposition parties supported, and had the numbers to pass it, would it pass?

[skippy the wonder dog]

It is a tad frustrating for myself, and it should be for many, knowing that the Prime Minister of Canada doesn't share values that 60% of the country does.

Well, many people have felt that way for a long, long time.

I'm glad to see another convert to proportional representation.

[fingernailsonhull]

It is a tad frustrating for myself, and it should be for many, knowing that the Prime Minister of Canada doesn't share values that 60% of the country does.

Statements like this are so blatantly partisan it's not even funny. In 2004, the Liberals formed a minority government with 36.71% of the popular vote. Yet no one goes around saying that we have a prime minister with whom 2/3 of the population disagree. I read something almost entirely similar to this in the Toronto Star yesterday. Of course, that paper has a ridiculously obvious editorial bias.

Out of curiosity, does anyone else here favour proportional representation? I have always been a fan of this, believing it to be more democratic.

If people are interested, our current election would have shaped up like this (with a pure PR system, not a hybrid system Canada would adopt):

Conservatives - 112 seats
Liberals - 93 seats
NDP - 54 seats
BQ - 32 seats
Greens - 14 seats
Independents (if they were a party) - 2 seats
Christian Heritage - 1 seat

[cferneyh]

It is a tad frustrating for myself, and it should be for many, knowing that the Prime Minister of Canada doesn't share values that 60% of the country does.

Uh, so what would the alternative be given that Harper had he highest percentage of the popular vote? It seems to me that 82% of Canadians do not share the "values" of the NDP and 70% do not share the "values" of the Liberals.

[fingernailsonhull]

It is a tad frustrating for myself, and it should be for many, knowing that the Prime Minister of Canada doesn't share values that 60% of the country does.

Uh, so what would the alternative be given that Harper had he highest percentage of the popular vote? It seems to me that 82% of Canadians do not share the "values" of the NDP and 70% do not share the "values" of the Liberals.

This also suggests, as you imply, that Liberal and NDP "values" are the same and the Tory "values" are radically different. This is the nature of a multi-party, single member plurality system. das_hips wouldn't complain about this if the Liberals won, but as soon as Harper wins it's, "He doesn't share the values of 60% of Canadians!" Please.

[skippy the wonder dog]

Well, he doesn't share the values of 60% of Canadians.

das hips's mistake is to assume that 60% share the same values, which they don't.

Bring on proportional representation, sez I. You know, the saddest thing about the whole PR debate is that the parties that will benefit most from PR are the same parties that resist it most strongly.

[Sam]

How would you decide which 2 independents got to sit in the PR House? And, am I the only person squidged out by the Christian Heritage Party getting 1 whole seat in a PR system? Eeee.

[skippy the wonder dog]

Depends on how your PR system works. There would be some mix of representation by people elected to specific ridings and people elected proportionately -- independents could only get in the first way, so you would never have to figure that one out.

As for the CHP (and perhaps the Greens) there is also typically a threshold level of support below which you don't get any seats at all, to keep fringe lunatics from forming a peanut gallery.

[das_hips]

It is a tad frustrating for myself, and it should be for many, knowing that the Prime Minister of Canada doesn't share values that 60% of the country does.

Uh, so what would the alternative be given that Harper had he highest percentage of the popular vote? It seems to me that 82% of Canadians do not share the "values" of the NDP and 70% do not share the "values" of the Liberals.

This also suggests, as you imply, that Liberal and NDP "values" are the same and the Tory "values" are radically different. This is the nature of a multi-party, single member plurality system. das_hips wouldn't complain about this if the Liberals won, but as soon as Harper wins it's, "He doesn't share the values of 60% of Canadians!" Please.

You're right, it isn't an entirely fair comment. But I feel that the Liberals, the NDP and the Bloc all share a fairly mainstream set of values (except for the one glaringly different approach to Federalism from the Bloc) as you shift from left to centrist left. As far as I can tell, the Bloc and the NDP are almost interchangable in terms of social policy, with the Liberals supporting some social policy, but putting a bit more emphasis on some right-wing policy like bigger business and crime.

I'm all for PR, but won't it result in minority governments for all time to come? I'm not too sure how it would work...

[j-monster]

Well, j-monster, I agree: the voters don't trust Harper. And Harper is going to have to govern moderately. That's the only way he'll avoid being swept out in the next election, because as it is he's just an interim PM. I don't share your confidence that he'll succeed, though, as there are plenty of morons in the Conservative back benches. He can't afford another Grewal.

Jack Layton: better performance than 2004. None of the dumb gaffes of last time. Might have been more effective had he behaved less like a tape recorder, and responded more spontaneously to questions, but you can't say he didn't stay on message.

I do think Harper realizes another "Grewal" will blow up in his face, so I think he'll exercise tight control on his caucus to ensure it doesn't happen. You may not have faith he'll pull it off... I do. Time will tell who is right.

As for your thoughts re: Layton... can't really argue with them. And your response to my "balance of power" question is fair... I guess it's difficult to blame someone for not meeting a floating and inherently unknowable target. I just have this nagging feeling that he didn't improve enough, that he could have done even better than he did. Maybe if he went on the offensive against the Liberals earlier than he did, then the NDP would have even more seats today. But despite my misgivings, I can't argue that the NDP and Layton are better off now than last election, and could have a chance to build on that momentum in the future.

[j-monster]

It's as if somehow Conservative supporters imagine their party as an actual alternative to the Liberal party, and in not supporting the Conservatives, citizens who voted Liberal are voting for corruption, or are scared or blinded by Liberal fear-mongering. It's ridiculous, the Christmas investigation of Ralph Goodale is ridiculous, the Canadian media's waning attention to non-partisan broadcast is ridiculous, and the fact that in the minds of most Canadians (due mostly to the above mentioned points), Paul Martin's accomplishments as an MP for 14 years, and his short-lived term as Prime Minister will be completely ignored because of the sponsorship scandal, a mess he inherited from Jean Chretien.

It is a tad frustrating for myself, and it should be for many, knowing that the Prime Minister of Canada doesn't share values that 60% of the country does. Either way, I'll enjoy this self-inflicted ticking time bomb Stephen Harper has created. Ironically enough, it won't be broken promises to the public that bring his party down, it will be broken promises to his party.

As far as I can tell, the NDP wouldn't truly hold the balance of power in any Government besides the last. Honestly, how many issues will the Conservatives and NDP see eye-to-eye on? They are on opposite sides of the political spectrum. I am truly hoping that the Conservatives 'GST-cut' won't pass in parliament, but I'm afraid it will be the one time the Bloc will step-up to support the Conservatives. Has anybody actually stopped to consider how much GST they have paid in the last week?

Cup of coffee? Nope. Six-pack of beer? Nope. Carton of milk? Nope. McChicken Value Meal at McDonalds? Nope. Rent? Nope.

1. What do you mean, the Conservative party is not an alternative to the Liberal party? Of course it is! Just like the NDP is an alternative to the Liberal party, and the Green Party is an alternative to the Liberal party, etc.

2. I'm not saying everyone who voted Liberal were affected by Liberal fear-mongering... but some were. It's disingenuous to suggest that no one was so affected.

3. Why is the RCMP Income Trust investigation ridiculous? Something happened that could have been criminal, so the RCMP need to investigate. I don't know if Goodale is guilty or not, but something stinks with the whole thing. And, for what it's worth, it was an NDP MP who asked the RCMP to step in and investigate.

4. I don't know what kind of point you're trying to make with your media comment.

5. Well, that's life. People don't remember what individual MPs did, but they remember what Prime Ministers did. And yes Martin was handcuffed by the sponsorship scandal, but he was around at the time it happened... and you can say all you want that he was vindicated, I personally have my doubts in believing Martin's claim that he had absolutely no idea what was going on. All that aside, you cannot dispute the fact that Martin, in his term as PM, was absolutely terrible. Well, I guess you could dispute it, but you would not be very credible, in my humble opinion.

6. Jeff and skippy already debunked on your "60% of Canadians don't share CPC values" comment, so I'll leave it at that.

7. "Self-inflicted ticking time bomb"? Give me a break. The Conservatives will be able to pass their primary platform planks into legislation... yes there will have to be compromise in certain areas, but no one can afford another election now, so things will get done and none of the main promises will be broken. The CPC will be just fine, thank you. Of course, if you want to continue to underestimate Stephen Harper, then be my guest. Recent history will suggest that doing so will be a big mistake.

8. The NDP and the Conservatives both agree in cleaning up government, so the CPC's Federal Accountability Act will pass with support from the NDP. The NDP also had some toughening on crime measures in their platform, so the Conservatives should be able to work something out to pass legislation there. And while the NDP didn't call for GST cuts in the campaign, they are on record in the recent past as supportive of GST cuts. So that's more areas of agreement than you might think (and I for one find this intriguing).

9. You hope the GST cut doesn't get passed? What, you like paying more taxes????? Plus, how much GST do you pay on your hydro bill? Phone bill? Cable bill? Gas for your car (or public transit fares)? Clothes? I could go on and on here... and all this isn't even considering big-ticket items. More important, low-income Canadians who don't currently pay income taxes (and this is not a small portion of the population) will benefit and have more money to spend on essentials... why would anyone want to deny this to people who badly need the money?

I'm curious as to how the parliament system works though. Can opposition parties put forward tax breaks and spending initatives, or can only the governing party do that. If the Liberals or NDP were to put forward a tuition deduction that all three of the opposition parties supported, and had the numbers to pass it, would it pass?

The governing party sets the agenda and dominates what can be put forward as legislative initiatives. If opposition parties want to put anything forward, they can only do so via private member's bills... and those types of bills are always very low on the priority list, and have almost zero chance of being passed. That's the way it is... the winning party calls the shots.

[j-monster]

First of all, sorry for the 3 posts in a row... guess I really am a geek about this stuff, eh? :oops: :lol:

But I'm intrigued by the idea of PR. On the one hand the intentions of voters are much better represented than first-past-the-post. So a voter like me, living in a Liberal-dominated part of Canada, can feel like my vote has much more meaning than it does now. Same for a Liberal or NDP voter in Alberta.

On the other hand, minority governments are nearly guaranteed in a situation like Canada has, where there are more than two major political parties.

Of course, the way things are now, minority governments may be more the norm than the exception... who the hell knows?

Still, I don't think I'd have any objections to some form of PR in future elections... the question is what form is the best.

To the BC 'basers... I know there was the whole initiative to have a citizens' group study this and come up with a possible system, and I think it went to some sort of referendum but it didn't reach a certain level of support so it wasn't implemented. Why was that? Problem with the system suggested, or more a case of apathy with most of the public? Just curious...