jdobbin Posted October 8, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 (edited) All data suggests that the only party losing ground is the LPC. All commentary likes to suggest that the NDP polling is down. The NDP polling #s would have fallen like a rock, like the LPC had they turned their backs on the Unemployed for political gain. The very mistake Ignatieff made. The NDP numbers remain below their election result. If they think they are on the upswing, they will vote down the government in the next confidence vote. I take it you think they will pull the plug, right? Edited October 8, 2009 by jdobbin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted October 8, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 Well, this time he's stated he doesn't think there should be an election regardless. And if he does call one, you will think it is brilliant, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chuck U. Farlie Posted October 8, 2009 Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 And if he does call one, you will think it is brilliant, right? Forgive my political ignorance, but why would he need to call an election? Wouldn't all he need to do is introduce something the other parties wouldn't possibly support - like scrapping the $1.95 per head for the parties, for example, and let the resulting non-confidence vote spring an election? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Keepitsimple Posted October 8, 2009 Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 The NDP numbers remain below their election result. If they think they are on the upswing, they will vote down the government in the next confidence vote.I take it you think they will pull the plug, right? I seem to remember the NDP always doing better in the elections than the polls suggest beforehand. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted October 8, 2009 Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 I seem to remember the NDP always doing better in the elections than the polls suggest beforehand. This is correct last election the NDP polled 16-18% before the polls while the Liberals were in the 28-31%. Watch what you wish for Liberals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Triple M Posted October 8, 2009 Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 Reasons why Harper wont call a snap election this time. 1) He has only been in office for 1 year compared to 2.75 last year. 2) Despite what the polls say Conservative support is not very solid. 3) Winning a majority is a must in the next election and there is no guarantee he wins it at this time. If Harper only gets in with a minority people within the party will be looking for change. 4) People really don't want to head to the polls for the 5th time this decade especially if it delivers a similar government. 5) It will totally go against his rhetoric of this not being a good time for an election because of the fragile economy. Stephen Harper may be a lot of things but he is no dummy. In November he will be mainly on the World stage at Apec, India, and the Common Wealth. in Dec/Jan the House will be mainly prorogued In Feb will be the Olympics nobody should be in the mood for an election. In March should come the Budget, but this Gov has had earlier budgets- this will be the first oportunity for an election. Personally I'm projecting a late Summer/early Fall Election. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted October 8, 2009 Report Share Posted October 8, 2009 And if he does call one, you will think it is brilliant, right? Nope, I think it'd be a big mistake. Let Iggy engineer a snap election, and have Canadians take it out on him and the Liberals. When you're opponent is self-destructing, you stand back, and let him continue. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted October 9, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 Nope, I think it'd be a big mistake. Let Iggy engineer a snap election, and have Canadians take it out on him and the Liberals. When you're opponent is self-destructing, you stand back, and let him continue. Ignatieff can't call an election. It is up the NDP now since they are the main supporters of the government. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
punked Posted October 9, 2009 Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 Ignatieff can't call an election. It is up the NDP now since they are the main supporters of the government. 2 votes is main support. Thanks Liberals for being crazy maybe why you are in free fall. We will see who supports the HST and the Free trade with Columbia. I will give you a hint the Liberals. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted October 9, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 Forgive my political ignorance, but why would he need to call an election? To win a majority. Wouldn't all he need to do is introduce something the other parties wouldn't possibly support - like scrapping the $1.95 per head for the parties, for example, and let the resulting non-confidence vote spring an election? He could try that. It kicked him in the balls last time and since he promised not to do it again, it makes him out as a liar as well. All he has to do is say Parliament is dysfunctional. We'll see if he can sell it. He did last time. He doesn't believe in fixed election terms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shady Posted October 9, 2009 Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 Ignatieff can't call an election. Iggy tried to engineer a snap election last week and failed. I guess he doesn't believe in fixed election terms either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted October 9, 2009 Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 I don't think Ignatieff ever said that he did believe in fixed election dates. Harper on the other hand.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Canada Posted October 9, 2009 Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 I don't think Ignatieff ever said that he did believe in fixed election dates. Harper on the other hand.... How is it possible to have fixed election terms in a minority parliament situation? The other parties wouldn't agree to let a minority parliament go for 4 years. Are you guys saying that you support a fixed election term of 4 years even for minority governments? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted October 9, 2009 Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 Are you guys saying that you support a fixed election term of 4 years even for minority governments? No, I'm saying Harper is a giant hypocrite. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Canada Posted October 9, 2009 Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 No, I'm saying Harper is a giant hypocrite. How's that? Would Dion in a minority parliament have let Harper rule for four years? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted October 9, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 Iggy tried to engineer a snap election last week and failed. I guess he doesn't believe in fixed election terms either. The only one who call a snap election is the prime minister who can go to the Governor General. The Opposition can't do that ever. Minority governments depend on confidence to operate. Fixed election terms don't apply to confidence and the Opposition. Harper said that his government would only go to an election with loss of confidence. He lied. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Canada Posted October 9, 2009 Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 The only one who call a snap election is the prime minister who can go to the Governor General.The Opposition can't do that ever. Minority governments depend on confidence to operate. Fixed election terms don't apply to confidence and the Opposition. Harper said that his government would only go to an election with loss of confidence. He lied. Is any election the Tories call a snap election? Did Martin and the Liberals call a snap election in 2006, much less than 2 years after the last election? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted October 9, 2009 Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 How's that? Would Dion in a minority parliament have let Harper rule for four years? That wasn't the purpose of the law. The government was always allowed to fall. Harper didn't even let that happened. He broke the spirit of his own useless law. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted October 9, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 How's that? Would Dion in a minority parliament have let Harper rule for four years? Harper would call an election if it suited him even he had a majority. And you would still call him amazing and that he needed to do and was right and that he was so handsome while doing it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted October 9, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 Is any election the Tories call a snap election? If it is before the fixed term, yes. Did Martin and the Liberals call a snap election in 2006, much less than 2 years after the last election? No. That was a loss of confidence in a vote courtesy of Harper. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Canada Posted October 9, 2009 Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 (edited) That wasn't the purpose of the law. The government was always allowed to fall. Harper didn't even let that happened. He broke the spirit of his own useless law. Many here have claimed that a law without a place in the Constitution is unenforceable. So which is it? Is it a law which can be enforced or not? Harper would call an election if it suited him even he had a majority. And you would still call him amazing and that he needed to do and was right and that he was so handsome while doing it. Didn't Jean Chretien call elections in a majority situation? I recall him calling one when he had a majority a few months after the CA got a new leader. I'm sure this suited no one but himself. If it is before the fixed term, yes. I see so the Tories aren't allowed to ask the GG for an election and must wait for the Natural Governing Party to tell them when they may call an election? No. That was a loss of confidence in a vote courtesy of Harper. Well Harper and the Tories only had 99 seats at the time while the Martin Liberals had 135. Did he do it all by himself or did the other parties vote against the Liberals as well? Edited October 9, 2009 by Mr.Canada Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jdobbin Posted October 9, 2009 Author Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 Didn't Jean Chretien call elections in a majority situation? I recall him calling one when he had a majority a few months after the CA got a new leader. I'm sure this suited no one but himself. He did. But then he didn't make legislation on not calling elections for a fixed date now, did he? I see so the Tories aren't allowed to ask the GG for an election and must wait for the Natural Governing Party to tell them when they may call an election? Well, since Harper did do that already, he is perfectly entitled to do it. Problem is that it means his legislation is useless. Harper will call an election when he wants. Well Harper and the Tories only had 99 seats at the time while the Martin Liberals had 135. Did he do it all by himself or did the other parties vote against the Liberals as well? No, he had a coalition of socialists and separatists to help him. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted October 9, 2009 Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 Many here have claimed that a law without a place in the Constitution is unenforceable. So which is it? Is it a law which can be enforced or not? I don't think you're paying attention. I said he broke the spirit of the law. He didn't break any law because there really never was one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr.Canada Posted October 9, 2009 Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 He did. But then he didn't make legislation on not calling elections for a fixed date now, did he?Well, since Harper did do that already, he is perfectly entitled to do it. Problem is that it means his legislation is useless. Harper will call an election when he wants. No, he had a coalition of socialists and separatists to help him. Many here have said the legislation was useless before Harper even voted on it as it cannot be enforced due to it not being in our Constitution. I didn't study Constitution Law so I'm just going on sound bites here. Pm Harper has stated that Canada doesn't need or want an election. Lol, awe c'mon dobbin...a coalition of socialists and separatists? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted October 9, 2009 Report Share Posted October 9, 2009 Many here have claimed that a law without a place in the Constitution is unenforceable. So which is it? Is it a law which can be enforced or not? Who says that? The problem here is that the Constitution defines a maximum term of Parliament. Anything else is legislative window dressing. As Harper himself demonstrated, such a law holds little weight. In other words, it's a pointless law. Besides, it is just a law, and thus exists solely at the pleasure of Parliament. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.