[unimaginative2]

Yes but along with the Bloc Quebecois, the opposition still represents 65% of all votes that were cast (the silent majority), am I right?

But that has nothing to do with parliament. In parliament, the Tories only need the support of one other party to pass legislation.

The Liberals wanted the election called just as much as Harper did, to oust Dion before he caused any further damage to their public image.

Do you have any evidence for this? Why, then, did the Liberals repeatedly abstain from votes in order to delay an election as long as possible?

Nothing revisionist about that. Harper was able to pass bills yes, but was under a microscope of scrutiny the whole period; and especially the NDP saw to it that a lot of their own platforms got addressed by the Tories (settling on a end date for our military's involvement in the Afghan War; reaffirming the Kyoto Protocol; expanding healthcare to include prescription drug coverage; securing workers' interests in NAFTA, etc. ).

Uh, Harper didn't do anything about prescription drug coverage or NAFTA. Obviously Harper made some concessions to public opinion on things like paying lip service to withdrawal from Vietnam--after having already extended the mission. Of course Harper was under a "microscope of scrutiny"--all governing parties are, especially in a minority situation. That doesn't mean that he didn't have the ability to pass just about anything he wanted, including his immigration bill that Liberals overwhelmingly opposed.

It was getting to the point that people were starting to switch allegiances, especially in Quebec. If not for Harper's gaff on French Canadian Arts spending, coupled with the listeriosis aftermath and Bernier-Couillard affair and as you've cited the looming recession, the outcome might've swung more in his favor.

Of course. He played up to Quebec. This is a news to no one. Bernier did nothing to hurt Harper in Quebec. He remains their most popular politician in the province.

So in retrospect, it's not at all surprising that the CPC gov't has lasted as long as it has, second only to Mackenzie King's minority gov't stint, because of the alliances forged and failure of the leading opposition to party to produce a formidable challenger to power.

The latter point is obviously correct, but it kind of goes against your earlier statements about what a strong opposition Harper face, doesn't it?

Thank you very much. You've just supported my argument. Both Iggy and Harper are now eyeing the same Dion-led policies they once both vehemently opposed, if even begrudgingly. Politicians will say they are opposed to something then go right ahead and back it anyway. So if our leaders are going to advocate for or against something, dupe the public into believing their personal convictions, then betray all those who trusted in them, then what's following anything they have to say? Left, right, liberal, conservative-- all capable liars!

It's patently obvious that there are enormous policy differences between Canadian political parties, especially if they were in a majority government situation. This is the kind of thing that Americans used to say before Bush was elected. They don't talk like that anymore.

As for Dion-led policies...Ignatieff (as opposed to the party policy process) has rejected a carbon tax, while Harper is attempting do adopt whatever cap-and-trade system Obama introduces. Exactly what Dion did not favour.

What? Read the article I cited again. He may personally not support it but by censensus most Liberals do. He as their leader will have to champion it, if even begrudgingly. Isn't that obvious?

Not even slightly. Just because a resolution was passed at a policy conference doesn't mean that the leader has to champion it. The resolutions are effectively non-binding. I've been at policy conventions that voted overwhelmingly to legalize both marijuana and prostitution. Needless to say, neither made it into the party platform at the next election. Moreover, the policy resolution left open the option of cap and trade, an arguably less effective solution that Dion explicitly campaigned against.

Also centrist decision-making, which I believe for the most part Harper has tried to do, is the best way not to totally offend hardliners on either sides of the political spectrum.

Well, centrism tends to offend hardliners. That's why they're hardliners and not centrists. Fortunately, most swing voters are centrists and even a hardliner like Harper must adopt some centrist positions (while throwing a little red meat now and then to the base) until he gets a majority.

And Dentrobate?

Actually, I think I like your new name better.

 

[Amphibius]

Do you have any evidence for this? Why, then, did the Liberals repeatedly abstain from votes in order to delay an election as long as possible?

Stphane Dion was promised a viable opportunity at trying to become the next Prime Minister. It'd be in poor taste to purposedly have an election called during a time when the CPC still had a very high approval rating and more importantly citizens were fed up of being dragged to the polls. That would've denied him a fair shake. The belief was that in time Dion could build up momentum and legitimacy in the public eye before trouncing Harper. In more capable hands 2 years could've been the right amount of time to soldify a strong win, especially amongst swing-voters. However with Dion at the helm and his inability to defend himself against a clever attack ad campaign (notice how they're not so clever this time around against a more credible opponent), the Liberal's legitimacy had slipped to one of its lowest levels, as he demonstrated a lack of fight in him that would resonate in voter's minds.

I agree with you on a lot of the other stuff though. I wasn't necessarily defending Harper by any means, just expressing my evaluation of his governance thus far and why I suspect it'll more of the same ole from Ignatieff. If Canada's really to see some real dramatic change, it'll probably come via the clout of New Democrats in spite of whoever's Prime Minister.

 

[unimaginative2]

Stphane Dion was promised a viable opportunity at trying to become the next Prime Minister. It'd be in poor taste to purposedly have an election called during a time when the CPC still had a very high approval rating and more importantly citizens were fed up of being dragged to the polls. That would've denied him a fair shake. The belief was that in time Dion could build up momentum and legitimacy in the public eye before trouncing Harper. In more capable hands 2 years could've been the right amount of time to soldify a strong win, especially amongst swing-voters. However with Dion at the helm and his inability to defend himself against a clever attack ad campaign (notice how they're not so clever this time around against a more credible opponent), the Liberal's legitimacy had slipped to one of its lowest levels, as he demonstrated a lack of fight in him that would resonate in voter's minds.

Dion wasn't promised anything. He's the one who chose to wait it out, absolutely as you say because he was waiting for "winning conditions," as a very different kind of Quebecker would say.

It was indeed in very poor taste for Harper to violate his own election date law to call an election when he was high in the polls, but he did it anyway.

I agree with you on a lot of the other stuff though. I wasn't necessarily defending Harper by any means, just expressing my evaluation of his governance thus far and why I suspect it'll more of the same ole from Ignatieff. If Canada's really to see some real dramatic change, it'll probably come via the clout of New Democrats in spite of whoever's Prime Minister.

In some ways Harper has tried to operate a Liberal-lite kind of government in order to grab enough votes for a majority. He thought he had done it when he called the election last time.

The Liberals would never have implemented the insane changes to the immigration laws, the cutbacks to arts programs, the cuts to research funding, the attempts to get rid of the gun registry, the cuts to foreign aid programs, the complete rejection of Kyoto, among others. There are real, substantive actions that Harper has taken that differ dramatically from Liberal policies. Likewise, Harper's election directly resulted in the elimination of the National Daycare Program and the Kelowna Accord.

The NDP frankly haven't promised anything significantly different from the Liberals in decades. Like it or not, the differences in policy tend to be a matter of degree than of fundamentals--i.e. "We will spend $5 billion more on health care," rather than "We will spend $2 billion more on health care." In many ways, on their biggest policy difference in years--the carbon tax--the NDP chose the more status-quo-oriented and, arguably, right-wing position.

 

[King of Kensington]

Even Andrew Coyne and Peter Worthington don't like these ads!

Of course at this point the Liberals have nowhere to go but up.

 

[Brandon716]

I'm back to where I was before: I kind of wished Ignatieff would have forged the coalition and if it became a problem just backed off and said 'hey, it wasn't my idea, it was made before i got here' as his defense.

Anything would have been better than allowing Harper to both have power in office AND run these ludicrous ads.

Stephen Harper is hardly Captain Canada.

 

[Hydrogen]

If Ignatieff would have joined the coalition, and had it backfired (which it would have eventually), you can be sure it would have been made to stick to him. The Liberals are the only other party with a real chance of forming a government, so the knives of the other parties would have come out. Nothing would have made them happier than trying to drown the guy who brought them to lunch.

So good on Ignatieff for avoiding them and biding his time.

As for the Conservative "attack" ads, these will only serve to remind conservative voters of a supposed reason to continue to vote conservative. The other hoped-for attraction is to possibly divert attention from the record of the conservatives (which is not going so well these days).

As for Liberals, they'll vote Liberal and view the attack ads as attacks ads. Of the more "blue" Liberals that I know, none has voiced any support for the ad campaign, or indicated any deep fears over the leadership potential of Ignatieff.

What's pitiful is that so much of the messaging from the Conservatives appears to be handled by amateurs or by people with a very narrow sense of perception. This even manages to screw over or obscure the few good things the Conservatives have done.

 

[Brandon716]

I have a slightly different opinion and its not because of the Conservative Ads. Canada has a problem with the left, its split into several factions. Certain Quebec leftists drift to the Bloc, others drift to the NDP elsewhere in Canada. The Liberals are weakened because of this, not because Harper is particularly strong.

In a nation where consistently 70-75% of the voters vote centrist or left-centrist or left, I think its wise to not avoid the coalition model found in Parliamentary Democracies around the world.

While I'd like to see the Liberal party lead with a majority, the Liberals are running with a split left vote against a unified right. Its time for Canada to test the waters, and Dion set the stage for the best way to test it. I don't for a second believe that the Liberal-NDP coalition would have been less effective than what we have with Harper's idiocy.

While many on here disagree, its fine, its just an opinion of mine that a coalition would have gotten rid of Harper and weakened his strong right government. The only reason Harper isn't more extreme is because he is a minority leader.

 

[Hydrogen]

I have a slightly different opinion and its not because of the Conservative Ads. Canada has a problem with the left, its split into several factions. Certain Quebec leftists drift to the Bloc, others drift to the NDP elsewhere in Canada. The Liberals are weakened because of this, not because Harper is particularly strong.

Quebec - being Quebec - does not always follow what is typically found in other parts of the country. It has the greatest "regional" identification of any part of Canada, hence the drift to the BQ/PQ. Conversely, Ontario probably has the least measure of local (provincial) identification. Ontarians see themselves as Canadians - to a fault. We tend not to be all that sensitive to regional differences. The strong urban influence makes for fairly consistent liberal/centrist politics. The greater portion of liberal support is urban - even out west (and east).

I'm no big Dipper supporter, but at least they are legitimate nationally as a political party. I doubt they'll ever form a government, but they're a part of the political spectrum. So are the Conservatives.

In a nation where consistently 70-75% of the voters vote centrist or left-centrist or left, I think its wise to not avoid the coalition model found in Parliamentary Democracies around the world.

Well, I don't see a need to do something here because others opt to do it elsewhere.

If the Liberal party can garner enough support to form a government by themselves, they ought to. The NDP, in recent years, has taken aim at becoming the official opposition. They lack the capacity to form a government because they are perceived as too far left by too many voters. If they attempt to become more centrist, they would abdicate their very political existence to the Liberals (in effect, they'd eventually vanish). The Liberals, however, have had good success at generating policies and programs from different parts of the political spectrum. It does them no good to be identified as a leftist party. They have defined the centre (to degree of even being arrogant about it).

While I'd like to see the Liberal party lead with a majority, the Liberals are running with a split left vote against a unified right. Its time for Canada to test the waters, and Dion set the stage for the best way to test it. I don't for a second believe that the Liberal-NDP coalition would have been less effective than what we have with Harper's idiocy.

The Liberals have a good chance of forming a majority in the next election. In fact, down the road, they will probably be elected by pushing a policy of fiscal responsibility - simply because the ballooning deficit will eventually sink the conservatives. The NDP will certainly not win any points by promoting ever greater deficits, and that would put them in direct opposition to any party once again promoting fiscal responsibility. It's too late for the conservatives to sing that song next time around. The Liberals have that kind of a record under their belt; all they have to do is use it properly.

While many on here disagree, its fine, its just an opinion of mine that a coalition would have gotten rid of Harper and weakened his strong right government. The only reason Harper isn't more extreme is because he is a minority leader.

Sure, it would have put the Conservatives out of power. It also would have entrenched them as a viable party because anyone having suspicions over leftist coalitions would have avoided the coalition members like the plague. In effect, a Liberal-NDP coalition would have increased the Conservative chances of re-election (by creating a perceived vacuum in the centre). They could then begin to try and occupy the centre-right position and draw away some of the "blue" liberal support.

Chances are improved for the Liberals because they avoided a coalition government with the NDP (and with the Bloq singing chorus on the sidelines).

 

[afransen]

I don't think it's very likely that the Liberals will form a majority. They would have to get their support closer to 45% for that to be realistic, while holding the CPC to 30%. That, to me, would be a complete blowout for the CPC, even if it means they don't lose many of their traditional voters. Unless the BQ implodes, it is difficult to form a majority in this country, since about 35 or 40 seats aren't up for play in PQ.

The CPC couldn't do it with a severely weakened opposition, and the core support for the CPC is quite solid (and they are very effective at motivating this group).

 

[Hydrogen]

I said the Liberals had a good chance of forming a majority in the next election, not a guarantee. Their numbers are closer to that goal than they have been in a long time, and at the same time Conservatives are showing a number of holes with respect to fouls-ups and poor strategies/policies.

Deficits and massive stimulus spending are all fun now, but there will be a price to be paid later on. That political price will more likely be born by the Conservatives. In order to deal with a bloated deficit and rising debt, they will eventually have to start cutting spending severely, and if those cuts start to affect social programs adversely, they will be nailed politically.

 

[afransen]

My point is that it is very unlikely there will be a majority government after the next election, unless something drastic happens.

 

[adma]

I don't think it's very likely that the Liberals will form a majority. They would have to get their support closer to 45% for that to be realistic, while holding the CPC to 30%.

Though Jean Chretien never got as high as 45%--in fact, I'm not sure if *anyone* has over the past few decades save Mulroney in '84.

40% more likely than 45%.

 

[Brandon716]

I'm aware that Quebec drifts to the BQ/PQ for the said reasons.

But here's the scenario in my head: with the poll numbers as they stand, the most the Liberals can hope for is a minority government. The left is simply split, and there's no way getting around it. The Liberals had it easier when the right was split, but the right is no longer split so they will likely only get a minority win with Ignatieff.

So lets say Canada has to be dragged through another election this year or next year, and lets say Iggy wins a minority Liberal government. He's going to have to have an unofficial coalition with the NDP (and support from the Bloc as well if NDP support drops) just to get his bills passed.

Meanwhile, Harper is still PM today (and until that new election) which few people want, and Harper still has a chance at winning another minority government. There is NO GUARANTEE poll numbers will remain like this or that Harper won't squeak by again with another minority government.

I don't see Iggy's support raising enough to create a majority government for some significant time to come.

Meanwhile, the coalition could have been at work, Iggy would be PM with an official coalition with the NDP and the Bloc would be voting for the budgets for a few years.

Canadians could finally have a taste of what Parliamentary democracies around the world do when voices are split: learn to work together so that someone who has 30% of the population's support doesn't get to make the rules.

I see my opinion as very pragmatic. Seeing that the NDP won't ever be forming a national government, and seeing the Liberals be stuck in minority mode even if they do win, why should the coalition been given up on that early? Iggy could change his tune and work the coalition back up instead of heading into another pointless election if he wants. An election, remind you, that has NO guarantee that Harper wouldn't enjoy a small surge of a few percent and end up with yet another minority gov't.

What happens then? If they form a coalition after yet another election where the Liberals didn't win a minority, it would look like power hungry Liberals and Dippers gasping for air.

I say go for the coalition again, even though I know where Iggy stands and he's waiting for an election. And who says the NDP or Bloc will be as anti-Harper in the future as they are today. I can see the NDP remaining anti-Harper, but the Bloc?

These are extremely unstable variables in the political equation. Iggy shouldn't be sitting on his thumbs waiting for the right time to have an election. In order for him to win a majority its going to take years of party building, and there's no guarantee that will happen.

A vast majority of Canadians don't want Harper or his policies, so the coalition is a good idea in its concept. The left is split.

When you take out all the unstable variables and just take a stand on something, the Liberal-NDP coalition could take power immediately with support from the Bloc, without an unnecessary and unwanted election and represent what people voted for.

Some of you are too poll-hungry. Sometimes you just need to take a stand in politics, and when 2 political parties were willing to officially work together, with the 3rd party willing to not vote against the budget it is taking a stand.

Polls say one thing, but you can't build your politics or a party on poll numbers, you have to build it on substance. Polls may say the coalition was unpopular, polls may say the Liberals have a 2-3 point margin right now. But a poll is a poll, and the Liberal-NDP coalition could have had power already.

Power is more important than polls, especially when 2/3rds of Canadians voted that way.

I see things radically different than a lot of people, if Iggy and Layton seemingly work well together, they will be representing a team that will earn respect from the people, and the nation will get used to the coalition concept. As it stands today, the nation will have to get used to minority governments with an election every year or two. So who cares if a silly poll says the coalition was unpopular. Its not like it'd remain that way. Layton and Iggy could deliver results and the Liberals would be as much of a gainer in the situation as anything.

I could easily see people thinking "well, if this is working, why vote NDP next time" and it'd probably benefit the Liberals long term.

If it fails, it fails. But you can't pre-judge something that hasn't happened and base it entirely on a poll.

The only party in Canada right now that has a chance at winning a majority government is the Conservative party. All it takes is a change of heart and a new leader that people in Ontario and Quebec don't feel afraid of, and the Cons will be in majority potential status. Liberals, even with a most popular leader in Iggy, are having a hard time getting to minority status.

Liberals are going to have to come to terms with the fact that the left is split and the right isn't, and that means working with others to achieve your goals. I don't want to see another election where 60 to 70% of Canadians vote against the Cons and the Cons take power.

Its just an opinion though, and now you have my feelings on it.

 

[Hydrogen]

I guess I don't share your pessimism concerning the chances of the Liberals.

The Liberals and NDP are actually quite far apart on a number of issues, so they've never been a "natural" fit. If that were actually the case, then a similar argument could be made for the Liberals and the Conservatives forming a coalition (call it the Progressive Conservatives - which did form governments).

To speak of no guarantee of the Liberals forming a majority as the sole basis for forming an Lib-NDP coalition is rather thin reason for doing so. Such a relationship might easily sideline a portion of the Liberals (centre, and centre-right), leaving only the more left-leaning elements to set the course from the party. A sizable portion of the Liberals, if marginalized in such a scenario, might actually pull their support - leaving only the portion that is left (and left-leaning) to look like nothing more than NDP clones.

Once the NDP decided to pull their support in any coalition scenario, they would leave behind a Liberal party that would be in possession of a significant rift. That would suit the NDP's goal of gunning for the official opposition status.

The Liberals don't have to worry about the left being split. They already encompass enough support from that portion of the political landscape in order to be able to garner votes from it. The real risk is if the party begins to resemble the NDP, and nothing more. That's when the left will actually be split.

 

[Brandon716]

Its not pessimism, its what I view as the political cost-benefit analysis. What is the cost of another election where the Liberals might win a minority vs. working with the NDP.

And again, its just a point of view, I know Ignatieff has no hopes of starting the coalition back up. He's in it to campaign for a total win.

But really, what is it worth if during the next election they end up with a Liberal minority government that has to work with the NDP anyway? And what is it worth if Harper wins another minority? A majority is out of the question right now if an election is held this year. And I'm not sure with the setup of today the Liberals can recapture a majority even after several years, although its possible.

A matter of fact, I think it wouldn't be that bad if the Liberals and NDP formed a coalition pact BEFORE the election so that a majority would be possible now.

Coalitions come and go, just because they ran a coalition campaign once doesn't mean it would continue if it became unattractive or failed.

Lets face it, there are seats in the west that the Liberals will never compete in, and the NDP will never form a national government. A coalition is very suitable, its almost the natural choice.