CANADIEN Posted May 2, 2011 Report Share Posted May 2, 2011 That's true...there's also just a feeling I have...I have this feeling that people are getting nervous about an NDP government, even if the polls don't show it...it's simply something I can feel, but I can't pinpoint it. I think most people realize that the NDP are not winning the election. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CANADIEN Posted May 2, 2011 Report Share Posted May 2, 2011 Bin Laden's death will be perceived as good news by most Canadians, and they also associate Jack Layton as a happy guy and good news guy, compared to miserable Harper, so the good news of Bin Laden's death will be associated with Layton and will help the NDP tomorrow. Those who know of both men's stand on the war will not associate this news with Layton. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted May 2, 2011 Report Share Posted May 2, 2011 I think most people realize that the NDP are not winning the election. It's not about winning the election though. A coalition with the NDP at the head has become a real possibility if the Conservatives are wounded too bad. We'll just have to wait and see, but I'm not sure English Canada will deliver for the NDP the way that Quebec will. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CANADIEN Posted May 2, 2011 Report Share Posted May 2, 2011 I think the distinction might be prominent in Quebec, where much of the newfound NDP support is concentrated. -- It's not that Canada deserves credit for this. It's that fighting in Afghanistan at all could seem less thoroughly futile to some people. Most of the opposition to the war is in Quebec. The voters there are unlikely to turn away from the NDP to... the anti-war Bloc? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evening Star Posted May 2, 2011 Report Share Posted May 2, 2011 Urban voters could conceivably turn back to the LPC or CPC. It's quite possible they won't as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CANADIEN Posted May 2, 2011 Report Share Posted May 2, 2011 It's not about winning the election though. A coalition with the NDP at the head has become a real possibility if the Conservatives are wounded too bad. We'll just have to wait and see, but I'm not sure English Canada will deliver for the NDP the way that Quebec will. They will not get that much more seats outside Quebec than what they had last time. The Conservatives still are not getting a majority. The number of seats they will get in Ontario is unlikely to offset their losses in BC and Quebec AND give them the extra seats they need for that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted May 2, 2011 Report Share Posted May 2, 2011 That's true...there's also just a feeling I have...I have this feeling that people are getting nervous about an NDP government, even if the polls don't show it...it's simply something I can feel, but I can't pinpoint it. I was never as super-optimistic as say, nittany or punked. So, I've always been a little apprehensive about claiming the NDP are going to gain any more than say 70 or so seats (my 308 prediction aside... anything can happen, right?). It's easy enough for there to be a swing in popular support, but our electoral system is broken. House representation does not at all mirror the actual political spirit of the populace. Some think this is fine. I beg to differ. We need a better form of representation. Some sort of PR hybrid because I don't believe straight PR is the answer either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted May 2, 2011 Report Share Posted May 2, 2011 Some sort of PR hybrid because I don't believe straight PR is the answer either. Given the disparity in the population of the provinces, it would be almost impossible to implement properly. Them ost we could do right now is put in proper rep by pop, to better represent things that way. Every province and territory gets at least one seat, and after that, it's one seat per 125K (rounded, of course). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Posted May 2, 2011 Author Report Share Posted May 2, 2011 Quite the contrast for voters to choose from- should be an excellent day tomorrow for the NDP. This election comes down to a choice Harper and his feral campaign Mr. Harper and Mr. Ignatieff are not players in the battle for Quebec (who would have thought that, three weeks ago?). So what about them? Mr. Harper, clearly, has decided to try to win this election on the ground. He had a mainstream, majoritarian appeal available to him. But it would seem that appealing to Canada's majority is not in Mr. Harper's DNA. Instead he is seeking to squeak into a mandate through “micro-targeting.” What Mr. Harper has had to say – on the road, in the debates, in his advertising – is all about voter suppression. Basically, Mr. Harper is trying to persuade non-Conservatives to stay home and not vote, by sliming his opponents. There is a feral grubbiness to this Conservative campaign – not unlike Mr. Parizeau's “boil them like lobsters” stealth separatism strategy. It might work, barely. But it is not a quest for an inspiring and transformative mandate. And like Mr. Parizeau, it probably doesn't have lasting appeal. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/second-reading/brian-topp/this-election-comes-down-to-a-choice/article1997456/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted May 2, 2011 Report Share Posted May 2, 2011 I think he said what he needed to say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ninjandrew Posted May 2, 2011 Report Share Posted May 2, 2011 If anybody wanted Canada out of the war before, I dont think Osamas death is any reason for them to change there minds now. If anything they may want out even more now that hes been taken care of. Why would it be a reason to stay involved? To try and get in on the glory of killing him? It's been done, by Americans. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted May 2, 2011 Report Share Posted May 2, 2011 Speaking of the election coming down to a choice. I think we will see record numbers turning out to the polls, as has been expected. The question is why? What could possibly bring people out in record numbers to this election, whereas they stayed home before. Quite simply, voters actually have a choice. In many past elections a big complaint from the electorate is that politicians are "all the same" and that there's nothing to choose from. The LPC is a brokerage party that is centrist (-ish) with the CPC to the right of them. On any given issue the LPC could be right leaning or possibly left leaning. I think this left voters with a choice between two parties with few key differences and many similarities. In this election, however, Layton has called voters to pay attention to the third party. Look at us. We're different. You do have a choice. This woke up voters to the possibility that maybe elections are for a reason. Maybe their votes do mean something. It also helped solidify the Conservative base, however. Their numbers have been rock solid. Nonetheless, the LPC leaked support from a bored electorate looking for a real choice in our elections. Tomorrow is going to be, for the first time in as long as I can remember, an election about two very different visions of Canada. We will have record numbers of voters at the polls and for the first time in a long time, it's good to see people feeling like our electoral system finally means something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperFreak Posted May 2, 2011 Report Share Posted May 2, 2011 It's not about winning the election though. A coalition with the NDP at the head has become a real possibility if the Conservatives are wounded too bad. We'll just have to wait and see, but I'm not sure English Canada will deliver for the NDP the way that Quebec will. Why would the liberals want to do that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smallc Posted May 2, 2011 Report Share Posted May 2, 2011 Why would the liberals want to do that? They're going to have some terrible choices ahead. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted May 2, 2011 Report Share Posted May 2, 2011 Why would the liberals want to do that? I tend to agree. The Liberals agreeing to join another party as the junior member of a coalition would solidify in voter's minds that they are now the third party. I think after this election, the Liberal elite will still be thinking/hoping that they can recover to their traditional forefront status in Canadian politics. It will take coming in third several elections in a row to make the Liberals start to accept a new reality. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CANADIEN Posted May 2, 2011 Report Share Posted May 2, 2011 I tend to agree. The Liberals agreeing to join another party as the junior member of a coalition would solidify in voter's minds that they are now the third party. I think after this election, the Liberal elite will still be thinking/hoping that they can recover to their traditional forefront status in Canadian politics. It will take coming in third several elections in a row to make the Liberals start to accept a new reality. I believe the Conservatives will be short of a minority, with the NDP anywhere from the mid-60's to the low 90's (will depend on their results in Quebec), the Liberals in the 40`s to low 50's, and the Bloc anywhere from the 10`s to upper 30's (depending on the concentration of the NDP vote in Quebec). Based on this, I see two scenarios, both of which involve the departure within one to two years of Harper (if he cannot get a majority this time, he will never will), Ignatieff (obvious) and Duceppe (obvious). 1 - The Conservatives offer a throne speech and a budget with just enough to get them the support of either the Bloc or the Liberals. They go at it that way over the next two thre years, but a bit less of a confrontational attitude towards the 3rd and 4th party, while the Liberals lick their wounds and prepare for the future (the Bloc is basically gone). 2 - The Conservatives present the same budget they presented in March, and a Throne Speech that makes it clear that they are in more of a mood to work with the opposition than before. Within four months, there's a non-confidence vote, the NDP forms government, with support (but no participation) from the Liberals. Some of the measures in the NDP program will get through, but some will not see the light of day. This will last for as long as the Bloc doesn't cause the defeat of the Government, but this may take time if the party is in turmoil (which it will be). Similarly, if Harper goes, the Conservatives may not want to cause an election until they have a new leader. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted May 2, 2011 Report Share Posted May 2, 2011 our electoral system is broken. House representation does not at all mirror the actual political spirit of the populace. Some think this is fine. I beg to differ. We need a better form of representation. Some sort of PR hybrid because I don't believe straight PR is the answer either. there are many versions of PR systems in use around the world I'm sure we can find one that works for us...what we have now is completely screwed up... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperFreak Posted May 2, 2011 Report Share Posted May 2, 2011 (edited) The liberal message of late is the NDP don't have what it takes to lead. As they never have had a prominent role its unknown. The liberals will hope the NDP can't handle all the attention and scrutiny that comes from being official opposition or pm. If liberals were part of coalition they really couldn't criticize too much and say see, told you so. If it worked well the NDP would get all the credit. If you form a coalition with someone its much harder to pass them. As liberals were always ahead of NDP before its the top priority of the liberals to do so. Egos alone wouldn't allow them to work under NDP. Edited May 2, 2011 by SuperFreak Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted May 2, 2011 Report Share Posted May 2, 2011 I was never as super-optimistic as say, nittany or punked. So, I've always been a little apprehensive about claiming the NDP are going to gain any more than say 70 or so seats (my 308 prediction aside... anything can happen, right?). It's easy enough for there to be a swing in popular support, but our electoral system is broken. House representation does not at all mirror the actual political spirit of the populace. Some think this is fine. I beg to differ. We need a better form of representation. Some sort of PR hybrid because I don't believe straight PR is the answer either. I experienced a stranger result in sask when the devine conservatives defeated the NDP government, no one saw it coming there was some inkling the conservatives were gaining strength but when election day came it took everyone by surprise even the conservatives...of the three pools today two show the NDP closed ground Ekos had the NDP trailing by only 3 points Forum had the NDP only 2 points back...Nanos the odd one out had a 6 point spread...which one is right, I don't know but Nanos has been the pollster at odds through out the campaign...to close to call IMO depending on the splits and FPTP system anything could happen but a liberal opposition Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted May 2, 2011 Report Share Posted May 2, 2011 (edited) I think it's silly to say they don't have what it takes to lead. The CPC is a younger party, merged with a defunct PC. If Stephen Harper can lead, the NDP can lead. In fact, Jack Layton has done more from a position of weakness than any other party in the history of this country. I think that speaks quite well to their leadership abilities. Edited May 2, 2011 by cybercoma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wyly Posted May 2, 2011 Report Share Posted May 2, 2011 I think it's silly to say they don't have what it takes to lead. The CPC is a younger party, merged with a defunct PC. If Stephen Harper can lead, the NDP can lead. In fact, Jack Layton has done more from a position of weakness than any other party in the history of this country. I think that speaks quite well to their leadership abilities. exactly what experience did harper have, other than a brief stint in a mailroom he's never even had a real job that wasn't a political appointment...the conservative cabinet was among the weakest we've ever had... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Evening Star Posted May 2, 2011 Report Share Posted May 2, 2011 (edited) People like Baird and Flaherty did have experience from ON. Day had experience from AB. Edited May 2, 2011 by Evening Star Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
amorris1123 Posted May 2, 2011 Report Share Posted May 2, 2011 Prime Minister Harper has always claimed he doesn't watch the polls, but it seems he might want to start. The Tories might be in for a very rude awakening tonight. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted May 2, 2011 Report Share Posted May 2, 2011 there are many versions of PR systems in use around the world I'm sure we can find one that works for us...what we have now is completely screwed up... My only uneasiness with any of this is that I think we lose sight of the fact that we don't elect governments. That's Parliament's job. We elect a representative to Parliament. If we had no ridings and no notion of constituencies as such, then I suppose you could construct a nearly-perfect electoral system. The bulk of the problems with our democracy, or the democratic deficit, if you will, is not how we get people there, but what happens to those people once they get there. I know of no voting system that undermines party dominance, and some, like party list systems, in fact further entrench it. We should put the effort in reform where it really belongs, in crippling political parties, giving elected caucuses absolute control of the process, as opposed to having political leaders, the backroom boys (and gals) and a whole of bunch extra-Parliamentary groups being able to guide policy. Like someone said here a week or two ago, the only influence that the actual party should have over MPs is via voting to decide who their candidate will be in the election. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CPCFTW Posted May 3, 2011 Report Share Posted May 3, 2011 lol @ this thread Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
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.