Fall Election

[madmax]

Your thoughts!!!

Are we going to the polls? Conservatives are making calls asking people to take election signs in the fall. Are they going to go for it or not?

[Topaz]

I say there more of a chance but the it depends on the polls. the stimlus package stops the end of March, then there's a good chance that EI will go up again and that would be bad for the Tories. He made Oct9th election day and I would think if the polls are in the Tories favour Harper will call for one, since he's the only one that has. Harper would probably wait until after the provincial election that are going to be held, for the results. I still think Harper also pushed the HST, knowing voters would be angry at the province of Ontario and vote out the Libs and in the Tories. He wants Canada blue and what better way then to peeve off the provincial voters. As an Ontarian, I never vote for the Tories because of Harris, but its time for the Libs to go.

[fellowtraveller]

It does not depend on the polls, it depends on the economy. If it continues to go reasonably well, and Canada continues to get accolades for financial mgmt in troubled times(earned or not)- he will use that as his main platform. Given the disarray of the Libs and the non-relevance of the NDP- he may well finally get a majority. But only if the economy is relatively healthy at the time.

[Remiel]

I would like an election.

[dre]

I would like an election.

I think its unlikely that an election would change anything at all, besides possibly shifting a few seats from the Liberals to the NDP and maybe a couple to the greens.

This site has a graph of polling data over the last few years.

http://www.sfu.ca/~aheard/elections/polls.html

Both the Liberals and Conservatives are trending downward, and neither of them have much to gain from an election right now.

[Remiel]

Both the Liberals and Conservatives are trending downward, and neither of them have much to gain from an election right now.

Of course that is always what it comes down to it seems. Never an election when you ought to, only when its good for you.

[Bonam]

Didn't we just vote near the end of 2008? Why do we need to vote again just 2 years down the road? Not like anything would change as a result. Save the cost, hassle, and political pandering and don't have an election until one is required, in 2012.

[Remiel]

Didn't we just vote near the end of 2008? Why do we need to vote again just 2 years down the road? Not like anything would change as a result. Save the cost, hassle, and political pandering and don't have an election until one is required, in 2012.

Of course nothing will change as long as we hold onto the belief that we should have elections based on what we think the outcome will be. That is, if you ask me, part of the malaise that is gripping our political system.

And frankly, the cost, hassle and political pandering of an election suddenly seems somewhat less significant ( and just less) compared to the crap we have been going through since the last one.

[Shakeyhands]

Didn't we just vote near the end of 2008? Why do we need to vote again just 2 years down the road? Not like anything would change as a result. Save the cost, hassle, and political pandering and don't have an election until one is required, in 2012.

We should save this quote. I wonder, Dear Bonam, if you would then be willing to wait until 2016 if the Liberals were to win a minority then. I imagine that the CPC would allow them to get on with the job of governing.... Right?

[madmax]

It does not depend on the polls, it depends on the economy. If it continues to go reasonably well, and Canada continues to get accolades for financial mgmt in troubled times(earned or not)- he will use that as his main platform. Given the disarray of the Libs and the non-relevance of the NDP- he may well finally get a majority. But only if the economy is relatively healthy at the time.

I agree with FellowTraveller. Never thought to work that into the poll but it makes sense.

[madmax]

Didn't we just vote near the end of 2008? Why do we need to vote again just 2 years down the road? Not like anything would change as a result. Save the cost, hassle, and political pandering and don't have an election until one is required, in 2012.

I used to think the cost of an election campaign was high at $300 million for the 6 or 7 weeks it runs.

In comparison to blowing a Billion on security alone for the G20 and more for the fake lake, It becomes clear why governments do not worry about the cost.

And its not about when elections are required.

If you think about it, the moment the economic report shows growth and jobs, expect the hammer to fall.

[ToadBrother]

It does not depend on the polls, it depends on the economy. If it continues to go reasonably well, and Canada continues to get accolades for financial mgmt in troubled times(earned or not)- he will use that as his main platform. Given the disarray of the Libs and the non-relevance of the NDP- he may well finally get a majority. But only if the economy is relatively healthy at the time.

Oh good grief. It has everything to do with the polls. If the polls keep hovering in the low 30s with the Liberals biting in the high 20s, no one, least of all the Tories, is going to pull the plug. There ain't gonna be an election this year, period.

[ToadBrother]

Of course nothing will change as long as we hold onto the belief that we should have elections based on what we think the outcome will be. That is, if you ask me, part of the malaise that is gripping our political system.

And frankly, the cost, hassle and political pandering of an election suddenly seems somewhat less significant ( and just less) compared to the crap we have been going through since the last one.

Having gone through three regular term-limited elections in BC, I can tell you that it isn't any better than elections called for reasons of expediency. At least in those elections, the campaigning is relatively short, whereas in BC, we now basically see a quarter of the government's term spent campaigning, which is also how it largely works in the US.

In this case, expediency weighs heavily against any election soon. While I dislike governing from polls, it does seem pretty clear that Canadians are relatively satisfied with the current situation, and all in all, we've weathered the economic storm fairly well compared to, say, the UK, whose majority Labour government basically oversaw deficit spending gone mad.

The Opposition is doing its job of keeping Harper from playing too fast and loose with the constitution, and all in all, I think Harper isn't doing that bad a job. So I think the status quo seems pretty good.

[Remiel]

The Opposition is doing its job of keeping Harper from playing too fast and loose with the constitution, and all in all, I think Harper isn't doing that bad a job. So I think the status quo seems pretty good.

What exactly do you count as the " status quo " ? If the " status quo " involves a proroguation every year, more attempts to bury the rights of Canadians to see information that may be important to holding their government accoutable, punishing regions that do not vote for you, making commitees into circuses, and a number of other such travesties of Canadian parliament, then I do not think " more " of the " status quo " is pretty good at all.

Edit: And just to note, I did not necessarily mean that we needed regular term-limit elections. More like, " Enough crap has gone down that maybe we should see if Canadians actually want more of the same crap, or different crap. "

Edited June 30, 2010 by Remiel

[nicky10013]

Holy agenda, Batman...look at those questions!

[ToadBrother]

What exactly do you count as the " status quo " ? If the " status quo " involves a proroguation every year, more attempts to bury the rights of Canadians to see information that may be important to holding their government accoutable, punishing regions that do not vote for you, making commitees into circuses, and a number of other such travesties of Canadian parliament, then I do not think " more " of the " status quo " is pretty good at all.

The status quo is that the Tories certainly have the power to play certain games, but when it comes down to it, they are effectively limited. Yes, the prorogations were bad, but the second one, in particular, has done sufficient damage to the Tories that they've never recovered the polling figures that they had had in the fall of last year. It's very obvious that most Canadians feel the same way. There is simply no appetite for an election, not from the politicos and not from the electorate.

Edit: And just to note, I did not necessarily mean that we needed regular term-limit elections. More like, " Enough crap has gone down that maybe we should see if Canadians actually want more of the same crap, or different crap. "

There's so much about this that's vague that it's hard to say what you mean. Do you have some sort of crap-o-meter that determines when too much crap has happened? Do you honestly think calling an election now would change anything? But it's hard to say, because what you're proposing is so nebulous as to be almost meaningless.

Edited June 30, 2010 by ToadBrother

[nicky10013]

I say there more of a chance but the it depends on the polls. the stimlus package stops the end of March, then there's a good chance that EI will go up again and that would be bad for the Tories. He made Oct9th election day and I would think if the polls are in the Tories favour Harper will call for one, since he's the only one that has. Harper would probably wait until after the provincial election that are going to be held, for the results. I still think Harper also pushed the HST, knowing voters would be angry at the province of Ontario and vote out the Libs and in the Tories. He wants Canada blue and what better way then to peeve off the provincial voters. As an Ontarian, I never vote for the Tories because of Harris, but its time for the Libs to go.

The tax was Harper's idea and Hudak won't say whether or not he's going to repeal it. Also considering that Hudak has the maturity and intelligence of a 12 year old, I see another McGuinty term. Majority or not, I'm not sure. However, as of today even with all this talk of the HST, the Liberals hold a health lead in the polls.

[Remiel]

There's so much about this that's vague that it's hard to say what you mean. Do you have some sort of crap-o-meter that determines when too much crap has happened? Do you honestly think calling an election now would change anything? But it's hard to say, because what you're proposing is so nebulous as to be almost meaningless.

Well, at this point, I am certainly leaning in the direction of " too much crap " because otherwise I would not be thinking that we ought to have an election regardless of X, Y, and Z seemingly pragmatic reasons that have already been stated, and even if it could actually turn out worse for the party I am a member of.

I do not know if an election would change anything. But, as I have already said, what we think would happen should not be the sole determining factor of if their is an election, as it is now. I think it is foolish, however, to assume we know how things would go. And too, we should not be surprised that it looks like nothing would change if we called an election because nothing has changed: the parties are still using the same playbooks they have been using for years: go to the polls when you think you are going to win. What I am saying is, the party that actually shows some principle in determining when they want to go may be enough of a game changer as to render all the pre-election polls so much wasted effort.

[ToadBrother]

Well, at this point, I am certainly leaning in the direction of " too much crap " because otherwise I would not be thinking that we ought to have an election regardless of X, Y, and Z seemingly pragmatic reasons that have already been stated, and even if it could actually turn out worse for the party I am a member of.

And here's the problem. It's pretty clear most Canadians don't share your point of view.

I do not know if an election would change anything. But, as I have already said, what we think would happen should not be the sole determining factor of if their is an election, as it is now. I think it is foolish, however, to assume we know how things would go. And too, we should not be surprised that it looks like nothing would change if we called an election because nothing has changed: the parties are still using the same playbooks they have been using for years: go to the polls when you think you are going to win. What I am saying is, the party that actually shows some principle in determining when they want to go may be enough of a game changer as to render all the pre-election polls so much wasted effort.

The conditions are practically identical to 2008. It's possible there would be an upset, but at most it would be trading a Tory minority for a Liberal minority, but I doubt even that.

As to principles, political parties don't have any. They are, at best, amoral entities bent solely upon achieving power. Yes, they have lots of willing little helpers who are convinced that Harper/Layton/Iggy/Duceppe are Messianic figures who will deliver us from our tribulations, but they amount to the useful idiots that the politicos rely on. Democracy works despite political parties, and not because of them, and frankly, I wish we had an election every six months, because the parties would go broke trying to keep up.

[Remiel]

Yes, they have lots of willing little helpers who are convinced that Harper/Layton/Iggy/Duceppe are Messianic figures who will deliver us from our tribulations, but they amount to the useful idiots that the politicos rely on.

Your hyperbole reeks. Maybe there are some in parties that think that way, but I imagine there are also many who work for their party despite who leads it, not because of them.

[ToadBrother]

Your hyperbole reeks. Maybe there are some in parties that think that way, but I imagine there are also many who work for their party despite who leads it, not because of them.

Well, if they want to be collaborators, then that makes them worse than chumps.

What I can't figure it is why any person with more than a dozen working neurons would ever give money to a political party.

Edited June 30, 2010 by ToadBrother

[PIK]

If we go by this poll( AS OF NOW) ,harper get 50% and a majority. LOL

[Remiel]

What I can't figure it is why any person with more than a dozen working neurons would ever give money to a political party.

I guess your imagination just is not working hard enough then.

[ToadBrother]

If we go by this poll( AS OF NOW) ,harper get 50% and a majority. LOL

Only in the acid trip we call your mind. You are aware that there have only been eight governments in the history of Confederation that ever achieved 50%+ of the popular vote, right? Or maybe not, knowledge and reason don't seem to be your strong suits. But you do represent the kind of useful idiot I was telling Remiel about.

[ToadBrother]

I guess your imagination just is not working hard enough then.

So what party have you sold your soul to, and why did you do it?