Fall Election

[Bonam]

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?

If the liberals think it is to their advantage to vote down a confidence motion and trigger an election, that is their right. Similarly, if the liberals were in minority government and the conservatives could do the same, that would be their right. My post was related to whether we should have an election this fall. I don't think we should, because nothing would change, and because it is a waste of time and money. If the liberals have reason to believe they can win, or the conservatives have reason to believe they could win a majority, then I'm sure they'd try to start an election, but I don't think either is particularly likely, so no party has any reason to go for it.

[Remiel]

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

My soul is my own. I am a federal Liberal, but I am hardly in the mainstream of the party. I love (when I do not hate) politics, and would like to pursue it. I was very non-committal in terms of parties only a couple of years ago, but a friend of mine suggested that our age it was time to get serious about it, and to be part of federal politics you have to join a federal party. I joined the Liberal's for a couple of reasons, one being that as they are the middle party, there is less ideological restraint than my other options. I am on the Left of the party, but that does not mean I wish to be shackled to the types of solutions the Left usually favours if I thought something else could work better. Another reason is that I am from a rural riding, which means that if I ever wanted to actually represent my riding my only chance would be as a Liberal, since I am against the Conservatives and the Liberals are the only real contender.

I certainly have no love for Ignatieff, though I do not detest him either. He is not the Liberal party, however; neither is Stephen Harper the Conservative Party, nor Jack Layton the NDP. But, before you start feeling self-righteous and start calling me names, like " collaborator " , I could just as easily consider you a " collaborator " of apathy and defeatism, which would be at least as much of a sell-out as joining a party would be, if that is indeed what it is.

[ToadBrother]

My soul is my own. I am a federal Liberal, but I am hardly in the mainstream of the party. I love (when I do not hate) politics, and would like to pursue it. I was very non-committal in terms of parties only a couple of years ago, but a friend of mine suggested that our age it was time to get serious about it, and to be part of federal politics you have to join a federal party. I joined the Liberal's for a couple of reasons, one being that as they are the middle party, there is less ideological restraint than my other options. I am on the Left of the party, but that does not mean I wish to be shackled to the types of solutions the Left usually favours if I thought something else could work better. Another reason is that I am from a rural riding, which means that if I ever wanted to actually represent my riding my only chance would be as a Liberal, since I am against the Conservatives and the Liberals are the only real contender.

I certainly have no love for Ignatieff, though I do not detest him either. He is not the Liberal party, however; neither is Stephen Harper the Conservative Party, nor Jack Layton the NDP. But, before you start feeling self-righteous and start calling me names, like " collaborator " , I could just as easily consider you a " collaborator " of apathy and defeatism, which would be at least as much of a sell-out as joining a party would be, if that is indeed what it is.

When did I ever advocate defeatism or apathy? Being critical of political parties, made of cowards who put their party before their constituents because the leader and the whip tell them to is not advocating defeatism and apathy. Quite the opposite, I advocate any measure that weakens parties and makes elected representatives more accountable to their constituents. Ponying up to political parties just to get elected is not a sign of a healthy democracy, it's a sign of a sick one.

[Remiel]

When did I ever advocate defeatism or apathy? Being critical of political parties, made of cowards who put their party before their constituents because the leader and the whip tell them to is not advocating defeatism and apathy. Quite the opposite, I advocate any measure that weakens parties and makes elected representatives more accountable to their constituents. Ponying up to political parties just to get elected is not a sign of a healthy democracy, it's a sign of a sick one.

Well, part of the reason I consider myself outside the mainstream is because I think candidates need to be able to advocate a platform that works for their constituency, not just parrot the national plan.

[Open Government]

Right now, the polls for all Parties are so bad that a coalition would have to be formed to control Parliament. The Conservatives have seen their support drop nearly 10 percentage points in the past 9 months and the Liberals seem mired in the mid to high 20's. If one or more of the Parties try pulling a snap election in the fall, they do so at their own peril. Canadian voters may be disengaged from the political process (with only 58.8% of registered voters picking up a pencil and marking an "x' in 2008) but we are still very connected with the idea that spending $250 million on yet another minority government is a colossal waste of finite taxpayers' dollars.

http://viableopposition.blogspot.com/

[msdogfood]

No The PR problems with security at g8/20 killed that idea!!

Than there is going to the Ag's report into cost when the PMOS base sees the total bill thay will set there hare on fire than internally at CPC it will get bloody!!!

[Jack Weber]

No The PR problems with security at g8/20 killed that idea!!

Than there is going to the Ag's report into cost when the PMOS base sees the total bill thay will set there hare on fire than internally at CPC it will get bloody!!!

I suspect that the Tories could'nt care less that they have probably lost most of the ridings in Toronto in the next election over this..They don't have much to lose,but they were making some inroads.

They've written off Quebec...All that's left for them is rural Ontario and the Prairies.Most of those people are financially AND socially conservative and they may not care about the financial stuff if they get social conservative "red meat" thrown their way...Many of them are quite happy with the maternal health bill that government passed and would love to have a fight over those issues...

[capricorn]

Canadian voters may be disengaged from the political process (with only 58.8% of registered voters picking up a pencil and marking an "x' in 2008) but we are still very connected with the idea that spending $250 million on yet another minority government is a colossal waste of finite taxpayers' dollars.

There's no guarantee that a general election would result in another minority government. I know that's what the polls indicate but we really don't know, do we? I recall one election where Martin was leading in the polls but he lost to Harper. And about the $250M price tag. Geez, the government wastes that much money on any given day. What's wrong with spending that amount of money if it gives Canadians a voice to elect a government more in line with what Canadians want which could in fact confirm they want the status quo? In my view, that's money, our money, well spent.

[Bryan]

Rather than looking at the economy or the polls, I'd rather see the Conservatives go for an election based on the condition of the Liberal Party. Wait until a bout of particularly fractious infighting (perhaps during a leadership review) to torpedo them when they are unable to mount a useful campaign.

[Wild Bill]

Rather than looking at the economy or the polls, I'd rather see the Conservatives go for an election based on the condition of the Liberal Party. Wait until a bout of particularly fractious infighting (perhaps during a leadership review) to torpedo them when they are unable to mount a useful campaign.

Ah, the 'Chretien Manoever'! I remember it well.

All this 'sound and fury' to depose Harper. What a waste of brain power! So many folks reading the entrails and spinning out possibilities as to how an election would go.

It really doesn't matter! If an election is called all the soothsayers will run up against the same brick wall: despite any dissatisfaction with Harper when it comes time to mark the ballot voters will be faced with Ignatieff! As I keep saying, any salesperson knows well that it's not enough to knock down the incumbent competitor's product. You also have to give good reasons for people to switch to yours!

This is where Ignatieff has failed and this is why Harper will win the next election. He may get yet another minority but he is NOT likely to lose!

I guess we Canadians are doomed forever to have only poor choices...

[Mr.Canada]

I'm done with Harper but I cannot vote for Ignatieff and wouldn't ever consider the anti Semitic NDP so I'm stuck with the Tories and whomever the leader happens to be.

[Remiel]

In my view, that's money, our money, well spent.

This is one of those rare times where we agree.

[nicky10013]

Right now, the polls for all Parties are so bad that a coalition would have to be formed to control Parliament. The Conservatives have seen their support drop nearly 10 percentage points in the past 9 months and the Liberals seem mired in the mid to high 20's. If one or more of the Parties try pulling a snap election in the fall, they do so at their own peril. Canadian voters may be disengaged from the political process (with only 58.8% of registered voters picking up a pencil and marking an "x' in 2008) but we are still very connected with the idea that spending $250 million on yet another minority government is a colossal waste of finite taxpayers' dollars.

http://viableopposition.blogspot.com/

The polls just look that bad. That 10% that fled the Tories never really went to any other party. They're in the undecided column that rarely gets printed. If they haven't come back by now, I doubt that they're going back, but hey it's politics and anything can happen. If the Liberals come out with a strong campaign (it's possible, like I said I saw Ignatieff speak and I was shocked about how good it was) then they could easily win a strong minority. That being said, you could say that about either the Liberals or the Conservatives. The field is actually shockingly wide open. A lot of room for gain.

[msdogfood]

Rather than looking at the economy or the polls, I'd rather see the Conservatives go for an election based on the condition of the Liberal Party. Wait until a bout of particularly fractious infighting (perhaps during a leadership review) to torpedo them when they are unable to mount a useful campaign.

you do not want to do that with this economy if he srows it up bye bye CPC/PMO!!

[msdogfood]

I suspect that the Tories could'nt care less that they have probably lost most of the ridings in Toronto in the next election over this..They don't have much to lose,but they were making some inroads.

They've written off Quebec...All that's left for them is rural Ontario and the Prairies.Most of those people are financially AND socially conservative and they may not care about the financial stuff if they get social conservative "red meat" thrown their way...Many of them are quite happy with the maternal health bill that government passed and would love to have a fight over those issues...

I dont think so!!!.

Yes there happy with the maternal health bill but I am still going with the financial stuff because If they go "red meat" women will not vote in that case the socially conservative will marginalise them self for good!!

[ToadBrother]

Well, part of the reason I consider myself outside the mainstream is because I think candidates need to be able to advocate a platform that works for their constituency, not just parrot the national plan.

Do you actually think if you ran as a Liberal candidate that you would be able to do any of that. They pay for most of your campaign, and if you get to uppety, always remember the party leadership ultimately controls the riding association.

[Remiel]

Do you actually think if you ran as a Liberal candidate that you would be able to do any of that. They pay for most of your campaign, and if you get to uppety, always remember the party leadership ultimately controls the riding association.

I certainly do not think it would be easy. But to give up without having tried, well, see my previous comment on " defeatism " . There is nothing particularly special about the leadership of a party. They are just people, like everyone else. They can be persuaded to change their ways. It is merely a steep uphill battle.

[ToadBrother]

I certainly do not think it would be easy. But to give up without having tried, well, see my previous comment on " defeatism " . There is nothing particularly special about the leadership of a party. They are just people, like everyone else. They can be persuaded to change their ways. It is merely a steep uphill battle.

No, it's a losing battle. Look at Chretien's years. He ruled the party, quite literally. The factionalism was only permitted to come to the surface when he decided it was time to go, and even then he still had the clout to tell Martin and his supporters to quiet down.

I think you're incredibly naive. You clearly don't know how parties are actually run. They have you by the balls. They control the riding association, or can at least exert that control if they need to. If you get bounced out of caucus, in almost all cases that's where your career ends. Believe me, you are expected to sell your soul and become an intellectual whore for the leadership when you accept the nomination for your riding.

[Remiel]

I think you're incredibly naive. You clearly don't know how parties are actually run. They have you by the balls. They control the riding association, or can at least exert that control if they need to. If you get bounced out of caucus, in almost all cases that's where your career ends. Believe me, you are expected to sell your soul and become an intellectual whore for the leadership when you accept the nomination for your riding.

I think you are incredibly jaded and pessimistic. Of course it will always be that way if you do not have the balls to try and change it.

[ToadBrother]

I think you are incredibly jaded and pessimistic. Of course it will always be that way if you do not have the balls to try and change it.

By what? Buying a membership card in your favorite party and maybe getting the chance for a sixty second rant? Please...

I vote. That's how I stay involved. Political parties don't need my help, and I certainly couldn't tolerate the idea of having someone else's ideas and philosophies shoved down my throat. I'm watching the BC Liberal Government here in BC go down the tubes, and all those elected representatives (save one) are following their leadership into the political grave. I don't admire such a system, I look at it and think "Surely these MLAs must have had some wits and some notion that their real boss is their constituents, but still they'll follow the leader into the abyss."

Thanks but no thanks. Political parties are for the intellectually lazy and the easily lead. I'll keep my independence and my vote.

I suspect most elected representatives start off like you, but you'll find out awfully fast political parties view elected representatives as voting slaves, not as independent voices.

Edited July 2, 2010 by ToadBrother

[Remiel]

By what? Buying a membership card in your favorite party and maybe getting the chance for a sixty second rant? Please...

I vote. That's how I stay involved. Political parties don't need my help, and I certainly couldn't tolerate the idea of having someone else's ideas and philosophies shoved down my throat. I'm watching the BC Liberal Government here in BC go down the tubes, and all those elected representatives (save one) are following their leadership into the political grave. I don't admire such a system, I look at it and think "Surely these MLAs must have had some wits and some notion that their real boss is their constituents, but still they'll follow the leader into the abyss."

Thanks but no thanks. Political parties are for the intellectually lazy and the easily lead. I'll keep my independence and my vote.

If you really think if you are sufficiently " involved " in the political process merely by voting, then you should not be lecturing anyone on naivety. The system is going to hell precisely because of people sitting on their ass in between elections and doing nothing to show some initiative.

[ToadBrother]

If you really think if you are sufficiently " involved " in the political process merely by voting, then you should not be lecturing anyone on naivety. The system is going to hell precisely because of people sitting on their ass in between elections and doing nothing to show some initiative.

I think you probably should know me considerably better before you start making these absurd proclamations. I write several letters to my elected representatives a year. I write letters to the editor. I make my voice heard. One doesn't have to be a whore for a political party to consider himself "involved", my friend.

[Remiel]

I think you probably should know me considerably better before you start making these absurd proclamations. I write several letters to my elected representatives a year. I write letters to the editor. I make my voice heard. One doesn't have to be a whore for a political party to consider himself "involved", my friend.

The conclusion I drew from what you said was not illogical. You could have said, " I vote and maintain correspondance in order to stay involved, " but you did not. It would have been a larger assumption for me to think you did more than what you said.

Why do you bother writing to your elected representatives if you think they are whores? Why do you write to your editors? Newspapers are media whores. If supporting a political party as a member makes one a whore, wouldn't everyone who votes for them also be their whores? Or maybe just johns. Because, you know, being a john is such a big step up from being a whore.

[Molly]

I think you probably should know me considerably better before you start making these absurd proclamations. I write several letters to my elected representatives a year. I write letters to the editor. I make my voice heard. One doesn't have to be a whore for a political party to consider himself "involved", my friend.

One doesn't need to be 'a whore for a political party' in order to be deeply involved in that party, either.

On the whole, it's naive to believe that you'll have much influence on what is actually done in absence of having some involvement in party activity. A bit, maybe, in very narrow parameters, but in broader, pholosophical ways, your letters to the editor and passionate rants to your representatives don't accomplish much beyond the venting of your spleen.

None of the parties are static. The nature of them is determined entirely by the folks who choose to support them, and not at all by those who don't.

[ToadBrother]

The conclusion I drew from what you said was not illogical. You could have said, " I vote and maintain correspondance in order to stay involved, " but you did not. It would have been a larger assumption for me to think you did more than what you said.

Why do you bother writing to your elected representatives if you think they are whores? Why do you write to your editors? Newspapers are media whores. If supporting a political party as a member makes one a whore, wouldn't everyone who votes for them also be their whores? Or maybe just johns. Because, you know, being a john is such a big step up from being a whore.

Underlying this is this notion that you have to be a card-carrying party member to have influence. If you're right, our democracy is very sick indeed. I write letters to my MP because he's my MP, and whether he accepts it or not, it's his job to listen to what I have to say (even if he doesn't agree with it). I sent him a rather long-winded letter, for instance, on the nature of our constitution and why the Executive has no right or power to deny Parliament's requests for any and/or all information on anything Parliament so chooses. At the end of the day the Tories folded (sort-of, enough to satisfy the majority of Parliament), and while I doubt my letter can at all be attributed to that recognition of the fundamental laws of the land, I think it was sufficient as being one more demonstration of an angry Canadian who wanted the Tories to stop playing games.

I'm sorry. You seem to want to defend your choices to join a political party to me, and I won't have any of it. Our country needs less political party influence, not yet another person jumping into the shark tank with delusions that the leadership gives a damn what they say. I'm more apt to encourage people to vote independent, myself.