Dave_ON

Oh come on KIS you're seriously still hanging on to the Tory Majority fantasy? They are already behind the 8 ball in Quebec and will likely lose seats there that they won't really be able to make up elsewhere. Ontario they are flat at best, they can't really manke any gains in the Prairies, and BC is the only other region that has any significant amount of seats. Even in the Atlantic they have no momentum. I agree there isn't a negative pall surrounding the CPC but neither is their a positive lift for them. They are flat at best, and a party that is not going up is bound to lose seats not gain them. At this point I'm guessing the CPC's will be in the low to mid 130's for their seat count, with a weakened minority perhaps we'll see a much more conciliatory Mr. Harper, though I doubt it. It will be interesting to see what happens, if Mr. Harper doesn't play nice I fully expect the throne speech to be defeated, and this time there will be no prorogue out of jail free card to play. At present the NDP have the following advantages 1) As a general rule most polls indicate that they actually like Jack Layton, we can't deny that a leader does have an impact on voter choice. 2) NDP are the only party with upward momentum even at this point. 3) Vote splitting is indeterminate, in most ridings it appears the NDP have eaten up the LPC other than their typical Ontario Urban strongholds, this means they are competing directly with the CPC, and three way splits will not be as common as we have seen previously. 4) If it is true that the NDP have essentially replaced the LPC as 2nd Party option in Canada, this will only strengthen their vote. Having said that if this goes as many are predicting we may indeed be very close to a return to majority governments. If the NDP does win official opposition, I think this will give them a chance to truly mature as a party. They will likely become a great deal more pragmatic in their policy approach, and hopefully move much more to the centre. If the LPC does in fact completely implode, it's likely that the moderate to left liberals will head to the NDP further strengthening their base, and moderating the party as a whole. If they can prove themselves to be far more moderate than they are currently perceived to be, they may in fact attain the "natural governing party of Canada" status the Liberals once enjoyed. Many people are celebrating the end of the LPC, but what most don't realize is this creates a political void in Canada, and the NDP are the most likely to fill it. If they want to continue to fill it, they will need to move more to the center fiscally, with politics being as regional as they are in Canada, compromise and pragmatism will win the day. This was the Liberal secret to 140 odd years of success, if the NDP doesn't cease the opportunity, I feel the LPC will be resurrected in some form to fill the void of fiscal conservatism combined with social liberalism.

Hmm the EKOS seat projection is interesting. Though I seriously question any methodology that concludes the GPC will actually win a seat. However, at this point given all the variables in play, any type of seat projection model is tantamount to electoral voodoo. 1) CPC: 130 to 146 seats 2) NDP: 103 to 123 seats 3) LPC: 36 to 46 seats 4) BQ: 10 to 20 seats 5) GP: 1 seat

I'm going with 77

wow seriously? A nigh on 3 decade old new story, this is the desperation level of the tories now? How very sad. That aside, why do I even care what any politician does in his free time, and further why is it anyone elses buisiness? Just a prime example of how the CPC wants to dictate peoples private lives.

I have to disagree, there's no way the CPC can win a majority, without taking the lions share of Quebec and Ontario. This is how the LPC ruled Canada for a decade and a half. The LPC's low 40% is far more efficient than the CPC's low 40%. You can't win a majority from the west, that's the reality of the situation. Back in the 90's you could go to bed when the polls were closed in Ontario, the governemnt was decided regardless of how the rest of the country voted. This election it will be a nail biter until the very end, and BC will definitely have a large impact on both the NDP and CPC.

I agree with you on this, I suppose my question is what motivation will the CPC really have to play nice now though? Yes of course it makes perfect sense for them to do so, and yes it's the smart thing to do, but when has Mr. Harper ever let common sense and pragmatism get in the way of his plans? I would actually not be the least bit surprised if Mr. Harper allowed the throne speech to be defeated and the NDP form some type of government, given his track record this would be completely consistent with his normal behavior. I agree, the NDP is a heretofore underestimated rival, and one the CPC has shown they are utterly unprepared to deal with. I see the things Harper is saying about the NDP, calling on a non existant track record of tax and spend as if they've already governed on the federal level. It's almost as if they're taking their LPC/Ignatieff attack adds and doing a find and replace with NDP/Layton. I'm not certain the Liberals are down and out yet, but they will most likely be marginalized for the forseeable future. They may never be the LPC again but I would not be surprised to see some other party rise up out of the ashes of the LPC. There are too many people such as myself that do not fit particularly well in either the CPC or the NDP. I've always felt that we need that third alternative. a relatively fiscally conservative but socially liberal party. This is something for all their brokering the LPC were indeed masters at. I can hardly see the CPC or the NDP ever turning into a big tent party and that makes me a little sad.

I agree 100% and in all honesty this is what I believe is the Liberals only hope. Most Canadians don't want tax and spend and in all honesty the LPC has not been a tax and spend government for the better part of 2 decades. Chretien and Martin were very different from Trudeau. I've said it before, I could stomach a vote for the CPC if I felt they'd keep there nose out of my personal business and purge the more religious supporters from their ranks. Morality and religion should never play a factor in government.

If the past is any indicator I sincerely doubt Mr. Harper will have suddenly found a new spirit of cooperation. The LPC's best chance at continued survival at this point would be to side with an NDP minority, over a CPC one. This would give them time to begin the rebuilding process. They have much soul searching to do and are in desparate need of renewal. This election is precisely the kick in the ass the LPC needed. Perhaps they'll get some new blood, new ideas and really turn the party around. Many have counted the Liberals out at this point, and perhaps they will eventually go the route of the PC's, however, I don't think we've seen the last of the LPC's, but I do think we've seen the last of the "natural governing partÿ" of Canada. I do enjoy this new dynamic the NDP surge has created, it's been one of the most exciting elections in quite some time.

Unlikely given the NDP's relatively soft level of support in Ontario, the Liberals have their strong holds in Ontario and the NDP and CPC have not managed to really chip away at these too much. It's looking like the lions share of seats the LPC will manage to win will be their typicl urban bastions. Many people forget how efficient the LPC voting block is, they derive much of it from densely populated areas in Ontario. On a map Ontario may look mostly blue, but the areas that were red are highly populated.

As I've said in other posts, I will be voting for Glen Pearson in London North Center. He does happen to be a Liberal but he's the only candidate that is actually known and involved in my community. Not everyone has the luxury of an involved and known community member running in their riding, and others perhaps don't care to look at it on a candidate by candidate basis. I'd vote for him regardless of the colour of his sign. If he weren't running however, that's a tough call, I'm just glad I don't have to make that call.

His recognition of the Senate is utterly immaterial, the constitution recognizes it and that is the only recognician it needs. If he wants to abolish it, he needs to work within the constitution not try to get around it. This is the folly that Harper has failed to understand I would hope that Layton would have learned from Harper's mistakes.

then you're utterly out of touch with reality, Harper is not way out in front in Ontario, he's failed to break into any of the urban centres which are fare more vote rich than rural Ontario, which is where most of their support derives from. It looks increasingly more likely that the few urban seats they squeaked by on in Ontario last election will be lost. The one in London west specifically is in danger. I'm not certain what dream world a party that has no support in Quebec and at best tenuous support in Ontario is going to form a majority.

Given that the senate is part of our constitution and requires a specific number of senators, if he did withold the senate appointments I'm certain the GG would be constitutionally bound to appoint them in place of the PM. The senate is not an optional body that exists at the pleasure of the PM.

Sorry but any model that awards the Greens a seat is inherently flawed as it clearly fails to account for the lack of concentrated support the Greens have.

That would not happen, the GG is not beholden to any PM and if there was just a federal election less than six months ago, as precedence has shown, another party would be asked to govern. Look back at previous Canadian parliaments and you will see a few examples.

Not so sure the CPC are safe, the new polls are showing an interesting trend in the Prairies where the CPC and NDP are neck and neck. BC is also a key battle ground between the two.

Hmmm you don't feel that that's an oversimplification? LPC and CPC favoring or not favoring big business is debatable. If this were the case why so very late in the election? What other undercurrents are going on that we may not be aware of? Why is it still not really impacting Ontario? How were they able to knock the CPC off their 60+ pedestal in AB? Further what internal polling results did the CPC have that made them so very afraid of an election. How is it the BLOC appear to be so very unprepared and utterly blind sided by the NDP upsurge? Many questions are unanswered I feel, and while the "vive la revolution!" argument is romantic, I'm not so certain it's entirely accurate.

And thank you for making my point.

And generally hot on it's heels is "We're no worse than the Liberals"

Wow I can't believe the numbers in AB I don't think I've seen the CPC that close to the wrong side of 50% ever. I don't see as much momentum for them in Ontario, than again it's still early and who knows what could happen? I'm quite surprised by this turn of events and it will be fascinating to see how it all translates. I'm given to wonder what has sparked this upsurge. I mean no one will deny how well Jack did in both language debates, but I personally have a hard time believing that they had that much impact.

These are rather immaterial examples, the PM is still an MP, the first among equals and he still answers to Parliament and is appointed, and serves at parliaments pleasure. He represents parliament as a whole and speaks on their behalf, he still only has one vote like the rest of the MP's, he has no veto power nor executive power. Are you truly suggesting that the PMO is equivelent to the office of the President in the US? He may meet with foreign leaders, but he's still not the head of state regardless of how many examples you offer. In fact the PM doesn't even have to be an MP at all, you or I could just as easily be invited to be PM. Convention and tradition extends this offer to the party leader with the most seats first, but this is by no means a legal obligation that the GG must abide by. I understand full well this is a "tradition" not a law, requirement or even the least bit obligatory. The only thing that this tradition does is give the leader with the most seats first kick at the can, if he can't hack it, ie. obtain and maintain the confidence of the house that he serves, he loses that position. The GG will then either have another election or ask the next party in line with the second highest number of seats to try and form the government. The only reason the tradition came about is, the party with the most seats offers the most stable government as presumably the party would never vote no confidence against one of it's own members. Minority governments do not have the luxuries that a firm majority government enjoys. As such they must tread lightly or risk losing the confidence of the house. This is what you apparently fail to understand, being PM is not a right, it is a privilege. It's is not the LEGAL or constitutional RIGHT of the party with the most seats to form the government, it's a pragmatic convention that was created and works well most of the time. We cannot pretend that it will work in all situations, minority governments are a prime example of when this convention does not work as designed. This is why over the years the Westminster parliamentary system has allowed remedies for such situations.

No my main contention is the constitution is not an "at a whim rule book" as you seem to imply. The constitution is the foundation of our democracy and should be regarded with a modicum of respect. Something that Mr. Harper appears to ignore whenever it is convenient. People may vote any which way they choose, but I honestly don't think it will be nearly as big a deal here as most of the CPC supporters are making it. I don't like Mr. Harper, that's not a secret, my reasons are manifold, not the least of which is his flagrant disregard for our entire system of government. Be that as it may, it appears his lack of cooperation and unwillingness to work within the confines of a minority parliament will cost him seats. My issue is misleading statements like "coalition of the losers" this is utterly inaccurate. Any MP that holds a seat is a winner in their riding. Even if you didn't vote for them, guess what, they're still your MP. Now our vote begins and ends with our MP, we entrust them from election day on to handle the day to day business of Parliament. That includes who forms the government, we have utterly no say in the matter, beyond election day. If we don't like it we don't vote THAT MP back in. Now it has been customary to vote for a party in Canada, however that doesn't change the constitutional reality that we are in fact voting for an MP candidate and nothing more. That MP may be a CPC today, get elected and cross the floor to the NDP tomorrow. He's still our MP regardless of what party he is a member of. That is precisely why when floor crossing occurs we do not hold a bi-election, the seat is not vacant, the MP remains, only his allegiance has changed, we don't vote a party in we vote an MP in. This I suppose is the fundamental rift that you and I are experiencing, and perhaps we're getting lost in terminology. Suffice it to say I do not vote for a candidate because of his party, I vote for the person themselves. Joe Fontana, now mayor of London, was the LPC MP for years, and I voted against him every single election. Then Glen Pearson comes along who has been a real part of my community and has done an amazing job thus far, he happens to be affiliated to the LPC. I would vote for him even if he was a member of the CPC, or the Green party because candidates he is currently running against are either unknown in my riding or party hacks. In short vote for who you wish and how you wish. But don't get upset if something happens you don't like, because you vote based on a party. This is not the way our system works nor will it ever work that way unless we re-write the constitution.

No we are a constitutional monarchy

The PM is not tantamount to the President, his office does not represent Canada as a nation, his office represents his riding in Calgary, those are the only people his office allows him to speak to or for in any official capacity. If he wants to address the nation as a private citizen that's well and good, but he can't use the office of the PM in such a capacity. What is disingenuous is exactly as I've already stated, apparently you don't understand the fundamentals of Canadian politics or so it would seem your word choice implies. There are no losers in parliament, only the winner in a riding gets a seat, the losers in a riding does not. From a traditional perspective all parties "lost" as no one had sufficient seats to form a majority government. As it is if one holds a minority, a coalition is essential if that party that has the most seats wants to remain in government. Now I'm not contesting the ill fated coalition, it was a bad idea, because of the players involved. If it had been left at this specific coalition is bad I would be fine with it. Instead what we have is a number of people calling a normal process in parliament a "coup d'etat", we have a PM acting like our head of state, and we have the blatant overall exploitation of political ignorance. This is where I take issue with the whole affair. It's all well and good to like or dislike something, but at least have the balls to defend your point of view without having to resort to misinformation, half truths or out and out lies.

So then my point remains. We should not abide by our constitution, it's not worth the paper it's printed on and we should basically be governed by the whim and ignorance of the masses? Does that about sum it up? It's not about rule books, it's about the rule of law and good government. This is the foundation of our society, it's a sad state of affairs that 75% of Canadians don't know the Queen is our head of state. Apparently you don't see the danger in abandoning tradition, and the foundation of our political structure because of commonly held misconceptions. You don't appear to realize the amount of power that gives to men of dubious character such as Mr. Harper. It allowed him to hold on to power that was traditionally no longer his through the use of yet another "lawyer's trick" which you apparently have no issue with. Why was proroguing parliament to avoid a confidence motion, which Canadians are familiar with, an acceptable constitutional process? Does that pass the "sniff" test?