Will there be a Federal Election in 2009?

[Jack Weber]

I think it is quite possible that the Tories would whip people up so much that we could see a lot worse that just acrimony.

Even if there was an agreement to rule for two years, I believe there would be an attempt to bring the government down by any means.

Then the blood of those actions will be on the hands of the Tories,and no one elses....

[Wild Bill]

Then the blood of those actions will be on the hands of the Tories,and no one elses....

So? It will still be Liberal blood!

Some Tory supporters actually wanted Harper to sit back and LET the Opposition form a coalition, being confident that it would enrage Canadians so much that at the next election it would guarantee a Tory majority.

Polls and gossip seemed to support the idea. The idea of a coalition seemed to tick off far more Canadians than it pleased. It only seemed to please a small percentage who were rabidly anti-Tory anyway. This time around even with Dion no longer a factor it's doubtful things have changed much.

The idea is moot anyway. Ignatieff has made it quite plain he doesn't favour a coalition. It would set a precedent that could make a mockery of Parliament anyway. No matter which party got the most votes the others could almost always promptly topple them with a coalition, just changing the players each time. Things could easily become more of a joke than they already are...

[jdobbin]

So? It will still be Liberal blood!

I was thinking a possible turn to violence. You think people who were Liberals would be killed?

[Jack Weber]

I was thinking a possible turn to violence. You think people who were Liberals would be killed?

The violence thing was what I was thinking....

[Wild Bill]

I was thinking a possible turn to violence. You think people who were Liberals would be killed?

I took it figuratively, to mean Liberal losses at the next election.

Violence is not the mainstream Canadian way, jdobbin. As you well know yourself! We have to import our violence, with a few exceptions such as nutbars like Marc Lepine and the odd mad trapper.

We would instead jam our ballots hard into the slot in the polling box! Before we even got to the polling station we would have fired off at least 3 very firm letters to the Editor of the local newspaper!

We would sit in our Tim Horton's, decrying "It's people like that wot cause unrest!"

And I wouldn't have it any other way!

Edited September 5, 2009 by Wild Bill

[Remiel]

While I look forward to another chance to toss Harper out (for good), I do not really look forward to an election messing up first semester again. This school year is more important than the last, as well.

Speaking of which, it is time, I think, to quit these boards until the the normal school year is over again in May, as I have the past two years.

Until next time!

[Molly]

I don't believe that coalitions are popular-- but I believe they should be.

Their usual outcome isn't so much the happy acceptance of one or the other of the participants as it is the erasure of the one seen to have capitulated/turncoated to the enemy. That's a shame, because the country desperately needs the pendulum to swing back to a much more co-operative, mutually respectful approach to lawmaking.

I would welcome a coalition-- honestly any combination-- over this stupid internicene warring to the death. All of the parties have some valid perspective to offer; all of them represent some number of the people and should be heard accordingly.

It's a coin-toss whether we will end up with an election or not. It's particularly asinine that we might end up with one, and if there was even the faintest modicum of compromise, respect and statesmanship on the hill, we wouldn't be contemplating the question in any seriousn way..... but we have a minority governing party that conducts itself like a pack of feral dogs instead of as the crew of the ship of state.

If we do have an election, I've got all sorts of time available to campaign.

Edited September 6, 2009 by Molly

[jdobbin]

I took it figuratively, to mean Liberal losses at the next election.

Violence is not the mainstream Canadian way, jdobbin. As you well know yourself! We have to import our violence, with a few exceptions such as nutbars like Marc Lepine and the odd mad trapper.

Hasn't happened in a while but we do have a history of violence over politics. Members of my family remember well the bombings they went through in Montreal.

I thought you might be referring to whipping up of such anger as what happened with the violent response in Quebec.

[fellowtraveller]

You have some inside poll information that has him winning big?

Winning big is not the sole desireable outcome for Harper.

[jdobbin]

Winning big is not the sole desireable outcome for Harper.

Really? What is it?

[August1991]

Winning big is not the sole desireable outcome for Harper.

Well, Harper may get it.

----

If media reports are accurate, it looks now as if Layton won't blink and so we may have a fall campaign. Amazing.

I can't say that Harper (and even Layton) are against the prospect if they can pin this situation on Ignatieff.

I'm more surprised with Ignatieff. IMV, he should have waited, lulled the government into a false sense of security and then pounced at the first PR mistake.

-----

I wonder whether Ignatieff is getting advice from Chretien and his cronies who remember 1993. Well, Campbell was the unknown quantity then and Chretien very well known.

[jdobbin]

I can't say that Harper (and even Layton) are against the prospect if they can pin this situation on Ignatieff.

And when has the issue of an election been the main issue in an election?

[Wilber]

And when has the issue of an election been the main issue in an election?

When has it not been?

[jdobbin]

When has it not been?

When has the issue of an election being called dominated the campaign and caused a party to be defeated at the federal level? I can't think of any.

[August1991]

And when has the issue of an election been the main issue in an election?

When was the last time that a relative newcomer, an unknown, provoked an election?

Chretien called two early elections and won both - against a divided opposition. Trudeau provoked an early election (in 1979) on an unpopular measure.

In general though, voters hold the politician responsible.

I agree that once a campaign gets under way, other issues often dominate but I don't think the optics look good for Ignatieff.

IMV, Layton is calling his bluff.

[Smallc]

In general though, voters hold the politician responsible.

What examples do you have? All you've done is provide examples to the contrary.

[jdobbin]

When was the last time that a relative newcomer, an unknown, provoked an election?

You say this as if it is one party that could do this.

I agree that once a campaign gets under way, other issues often dominate but I don't think the optics look good for Ignatieff.

I can't think of one election where one party or person was blamed for it and went down in defeat federally. Not one.

IMV, Layton is calling his bluff.

And doing what with it exactly?

[Wilber]

When has the issue of an election being called dominated the campaign and caused a party to be defeated at the federal level? I can't think of any.

You know as well as I do that our governments almost never go full term because someone who has the power to force an election does so because they see it as being in their own best interest. Whether we have an election or not before full term is always about gaining, maintaining or increasing power. Nothing else. In the political mind, it is always about whether we should have an election.

Chretien was a master at putting the country through elections that weren't needed in order to exploit any weakness he saw in the opposition, in spite of the fact he already held majorities. Except for the possibility that Harper may not be as successful, I see little difference between them in this respect.

[fellowtraveller]

Really? What is it?

What is what?

Usually your answers are incomprehensible, now you've expanded to questions too.

"Winning big" is not necessarily Harpers only positive outcome. Winning small - a minority- is preferable to him to both a LIberal majority or Liberal minority.

Source: "Insider Polling"

[jdobbin]

What is what?

Usually your answers are incomprehensible, now you've expanded to questions too.

Ah, there is that personalization from the right wing that we know and love. What is about some Tories who maje them decide to act with personal hostility all the time? Can you answer me that?

"Winning big" is not necessarily Harpers only positive outcome. Winning small - a minority- is preferable to him to both a LIberal majority or Liberal minority.

Source: "Insider Polling"

And again, I ask why? Why is it important when he blames the minority for deficits and all of the other things he says he can't do? Moreover, how is a positive outcome when his own party has to be asking if the leadership is the main factor in not getting a majority?

[jdobbin]

You know as well as I do that our governments almost never go full term because someone who has the power to force an election does so because they see it as being in their own best interest.

It is why I pointed out since 2006 that the term limit law is useless. It doesn't matter if it is a majority or minority, a prime minister can find a reason to call an election.

Chretien was a master at putting the country through elections that weren't needed in order to exploit any weakness he saw in the opposition, in spite of the fact he already held majorities. Except for the possibility that Harper may not be as successful, I see little difference between them in this respect.

Except Harper espoused term limits to curb the Chretien-like behaviour only to turn his back on it.

Was he punished for it? Not electorally. Nor was it an issue during the election.

I doubt if it was illegal either. And even if it was, what could the punishment be? An election?

[Wilber]

It is why I pointed out since 2006 that the term limit law is useless. It doesn't matter if it is a majority or minority, a prime minister can find a reason to call an election.

As it stands now, yes but not if the constitution was amended.

Except Harper espoused term limits to curb the Chretien-like behaviour only to turn his back on it.

Was he punished for it? Not electorally. Nor was it an issue during the election.

I doubt if it was illegal either. And even if it was, what could the punishment be? An election?

It's all part of the political game you love so much. I doubt very much whether you really care that much about the legality of any of it. The point is, both of were acting in their own selfish interests, not the interests of the public. In that respect, there is zero difference between them.

[capricorn]

The point is, both of were acting in their own selfish interests, not the interests of the public. In that respect, there is zero difference between them.

I totally agree. Politicians are in it for winning and power. It's just that some are better at masquerading their true motives and making us buy into their message. It's all good if we end up with the best of a bad lot. Heck, sometimes we are treated to Ministers who exceed expectations.

[jdobbin]

As it stands now, yes but not if the constitution was amended.

So that under no circumstances that an election can be called whether the government called it or if confidence was lost?

It's all part of the political game you love so much. I doubt very much whether you really care that much about the legality of any of it. The point is, both of were acting in their own selfish interests, not the interests of the public. In that respect, there is zero difference between them.

Let's try to knock off becoming personal about it.

I said way back when the law was first introduced that I didn't think it had any teeth. I also wondered if it would not simply bog down things in Parliament because any party could hold up the works because there was no threat of an election.

I can look back but I believe you thought it was not going to happen that an election would be called early. Moreover, I was raked over the goals for even suggesting it could happen.

In my view, an election would be unlikely with today's poll numbers if the Liberals could trust that the Tories were not able to call a snap election any time they felt like it. Or do you disagree with that?

[jdobbin]

I totally agree. Politicians are in it for winning and power. It's just that some are better at masquerading their true motives and making us buy into their message. It's all good if we end up with the best of a bad lot. Heck, sometimes we are treated to Ministers who exceed expectations.

To whit, I usually respond that if you are the answer to honesty in government, run.