.

[ReeferMadness]

Far more accountable than the Liberal track record. I can pick on so much crap that the Liberals campaigned on where they backtracked .Own it.

Yeah. You might want to direct that pathetic excuse towards people who have vote Liberal or intend to in the future. Maybe they'll care.

Meanwhile, you're still voting for a party that has shown zero integrity, zero accountability and zero respect for democracy. Seems like you're OK with that though - as long as you get that boutique tax break. Good on you for sharing your party's values.

Edited October 5, 2015 by ReeferMadness

[ToadBrother]

I don't disagree... but where you're wrong is in that the country can't be governed with a wink and a nod... in other words, there would need to be a formal coalition if the other parties didn't want the CPC in power with a minority, otherwise it's election time again.

I can't see how the GG could let a party govern with fewer seats with just a informal agreement.

I think we need to set our terms here.

To me, a formal coalition means a coalition in which two or more parties create a united cabinet. As an example, the Coalition government in the UK from 2010 to 2015, in which the Conservatives were the senior member, but the Liberal Democrats had cabinet ministers.

On the other hand we have more informal arrangements, which are generally called "confidence and supply" agreements. In this sort of an agreement, only one party forms the government (in other words, Cabinet is made up of members from only one party). The other parties that are part of the confidence and supply agreement basically commit to not defeating the government on matters of confidence; the best and most consistent example being budget bills, but in reality all supply bills (hence the "supply" in "confidence and supply").

Since the definition beyond supply bills as to what constitutes a confidence bill is often a matter of the Government declaring "this is a confidence vote", it's not as difficult as one imagines to govern in this way, and generally there aren't that many out and out confidence votes during a parliamentary session beyond the Throne Speech and the budget.

I cannot imagine the Liberals allowing the NDP into a formal coalition. I can well imagine the NDP agreeing to support a Liberal government on confidence, providing they have influence on policies and legislation. They likely have some of their own policies that they will want passed, and some Liberal policies they will want modified or rejected, you get a sort of a negotiated coalition arrangement without being deeply entwined.

[SpankyMcFarland]

Conservative 145

Lib 125

NDP 66

Green 1

Bloq 1

Other 0

Something like this. The Conservatives have shown they are good at pulling the ridings that really matter,

I expect the NDP to take a pounding as more and more people think that the libs will be the "Anyone but Harper" party

The ridings that really matter - sums up the madness of FPTP. The Bloc look like they will be on the receiving end of the weird effects of this system along with the Greens.

It's possible that there are closet Conservatives out there too embarrassed to admit their dark proclivities to pollsters, and who could blame them? It happened in Britain.

NL used to have a strong PC presence BTW.

Talk of what the Libs and NDP would do on Coalition or even union is very leader-dependent. Trudeau

may have to change his tune after the election.

Edited October 5, 2015 by SpankyMcFarland

[ReeferMadness]

The ridings that really matter - sums up the madness of FPTP. The Bloc look like they will be on the receiving end of the weird effects of this system along with the Greens.

NL used to have a strong PC presence BTW.

Yup. It's quite possible that the CPC will come in second in popular vote but still first in seats. That's the type of thing that tends to enhance support for PR.

[angrypenguin]

Yeah. You might want to direct that pathetic excuse towards people who have vote Liberal or intend to in the future. Maybe they'll care.

Meanwhile, you're still voting for a party that has shown zero integrity, zero accountability and zero respect for democracy. Seems like you're OK with that though - as long as you get that boutique tax break. Good on you for sharing your party's values.

Are you insinuating the Liberal party has 100% integrity, 100% accountability and 100% respect for democracy? Do I really need to remind the left about the Liberal's 13 year record?

[dialamah]

Are you insinuating the Liberal party has 100% integrity, 100% accountability and 100% respect for democracy? Do I really need to remind the left about the Liberal's 13 year record?

That was 13 years ago. It's not like the same people are running, eh? And the Liberal party got well and truly spanked for their sins. Perhaps they've learned their lesson, perhaps not.

In any case, what happened 13 years ago doesn't excuse current misbehavior/stupidity by the Conservatives, so the whole historical finger-pointing is about as useful as a five-year-old whining "But how come he never gets in trouble?"

[angrypenguin]

That was 13 years ago. It's not like the same people are running, eh? And the Liberal party got well and truly spanked for their sins. Perhaps they've learned their lesson, perhaps not.

In any case, what happened 13 years ago doesn't excuse current misbehavior/stupidity by the Conservatives, so the whole historical finger-pointing is about as useful as a five-year-old whining "But how come he never gets in trouble?"

So the equivalent of this is....getting tried and convicted of a heinous crime, like terrorism or rape of a minor, and then 20 years later...that person says "but i've changed! That was 20 years ago".

Look, what I'm saying is that the Conservative party, the Liberal party, AND the NDP party (for stealing money to upgrade their offices) are all political parties. And they are all corrupt to some extent. So let's stop pretending that one party is "holier than thou" vs another. It adds no value to a thread IMHO when we start mudslinging.

[dialamah]

Look, what I'm saying is that the Conservative party, the Liberal party, AND the NDP party are all political parties. And they are all corrupt to some extent. So let's stop pretending that one party is "holier than thou" vs another. It adds no value to a thread IMHO when we start mudslinging.

Yes, corruption can be found in all parties to some degree, sometimes more and sometimes less. That is the nature of politics and politicians, I agree. Nonetheless, as the leader goes, so go the followers. No matter how much Harper tries to distance himself from election fraud or payouts by saying "I didn't know", it's just not believable generally, and certainly not from a man who seeks to control so much of his staff and disseminated information.

So the equivalent of this is....getting tried and convicted of a heinous crime, like terrorism or rape of a minor, and then 20 years later...that person says "but i've changed! That was 20 years ago".

No, it's more like Joe Smith is tried and convicted of a heinous crime, and 20 years later, people point to Bill Smith and said "You are guilty, because your uncle was convicted of this crime 20 years ago."

Anyway, the Conservative party has been convicted of election fraud once; they've demonstrated their willingness to lie, they've demonstrated their willingness to cheat. They themselves, in this time period; not different people, 20 years ago. If we're concerned about corruption in political parties, why would anyone vote for them?

[angrypenguin]

Yes, corruption can be found in all parties to some degree, sometimes more and sometimes less. That is the nature of politics and politicians, I agree. Nonetheless, as the leader goes, so go the followers. No matter how much Harper tries to distance himself from election fraud or payouts by saying "I didn't know", it's just not believable generally, and certainly not from a man who seeks to control so much of his staff and disseminated information.

No, it's more like Joe Smith is tried and convicted of a heinous crime, and 20 years later, people point to Bill Smith and said "You are guilty, because your uncle was convicted of this crime 20 years ago."

Anyway, the Conservative party has been convicted of election fraud once; they've demonstrated their willingness to lie, they've demonstrated their willingness to cheat. They themselves, in this time period; not different people, 20 years ago. If we're concerned about corruption in political parties, why would anyone vote for them?

I have made no comments about how the Conservative party is perfect. They are not. The LPC isn't perfect, the NDP isn't perfect. As I've said before, pick the turd that smells the least smelly for the next election

[ToadBrother]

I have made no comments about how the Conservative party is perfect. They are not. The LPC isn't perfect, the NDP isn't perfect. As I've said before, pick the turd that smells the least smelly for the next election

And that's what people are doing. For me, it really comes down to the fundamental disrespect for our system of government that Harper has shown. We are supposed to be governed by a cabinet that is accountable to Parliament, not a small cabal of handpicked minions in the PMO that swear no oath to the Queen and owe no one save the Prime Minister fealty.

If the Tories want my vote back (that's right, angrypenguin, I am a fiscal conservative), then they can bloody well demonstrate actual accountability by putting the executive power back into the Cabinet, and reducing the PMO's power.

Maybe a few years in opposition will teach the Tories some humility. Heaven knows nine years in power has only taught them arrogance.

[angrypenguin]

And that's what people are doing. For me, it really comes down to the fundamental disrespect for our system of government that Harper has shown. We are supposed to be governed by a cabinet that is accountable to Parliament, not a small cabal of handpicked minions in the PMO that swear no oath to the Queen and owe no one save the Prime Minister fealty.

If the Tories want my vote back (that's right, angrypenguin, I am a fiscal conservative), then they can bloody well demonstrate actual accountability by putting the executive power back into the Cabinet, and reducing the PMO's power.

Maybe a few years in opposition will teach the Tories some humility. Heaven knows nine years in power has only taught them arrogance.

And the Liberals in their 13 year reign did not cause them to be arrogant? Please

[ToadBrother]

And the Liberals in their 13 year reign did not cause them to be arrogant? Please

Of coursed it did. And that's why governments should be thrown out.

Do you think the Tories will change if they get another term in government? Do you think a better government will be produced by a fourth term.

If the Tories want my vote back, get rid of Harper, commit to downsizing the PMO, and do not elect a right wing hyperpartisan like Kenney as leader.

[angrypenguin]

Of coursed it did. And that's why governments should be thrown out.

Do you think the Tories will change if they get another term in government? Do you think a better government will be produced by a fourth term.

If the Tories want my vote back, get rid of Harper, commit to downsizing the PMO, and do not elect a right wing hyperpartisan like Kenney as leader.

I disagree with you with how the Tories have performed.

[SpankyMcFarland]

Far more accountable than the Liberal track record. I can pick on so much crap that the Liberals campaigned on where they backtracked .Own it.

Is there any example you are willing to give where the Conservatives disappointed you on the issues of openness and accountability?

Edited October 6, 2015 by SpankyMcFarland

[SpankyMcFarland]

So the equivalent of this is....getting tried and convicted of a heinous crime, like terrorism or rape of a minor, and then 20 years later...that person says "but i've changed! That was 20 years ago". Look, what I'm saying is that the Conservative party, the Liberal party, AND the NDP party (for stealing money to upgrade their offices) are all political parties. And they are all corrupt to some extent. So let's stop pretending that one party is "holier than thou" vs another. It adds no value to a thread IMHO when we start mudslinging.

Actually, they have changed. Very few of the old mob are still around.

It's simply NOT good enough to excuse one's sins by pointing to those of others. Never has been. We live in an information age where so much is revealed - and where governments and private companies know more than they ever knew about us - and yet our federal government goes to great lengths to conceal what it is up to. Even parliament can't review what CSIS is doing any more. We deserve better, irrespective of party politics.

Edited October 6, 2015 by SpankyMcFarland

[SpankyMcFarland]

Things are bouncing around but the NDP vote seems to be sinking. Post-Niqabeast, the Bloc are de facto Conservative allies in Quebec, they help them chew up NDP votes, and elsewhere the Liberals seems to trending up. The Cons may get a boost from this trade deal and they have certainly prepared well to keep the farmers (and guys like LInamar) happy with our money but the auto unions may hurt them in Ontario. A long campaign has helped Trudeau meet more people and get that 'happy warrior' image better known. He's far better on the campaign trail than in formal debates and it may have a decisive effect.

[ReeferMadness]

I disagree with you with how the Tories have performed.

Of course but you lied to us and then denied there was anything wrong with it. So perhaps you operate under a different set of standards.

[angrypenguin]

Things are bouncing around but the NDP vote seems to be sinking. Post-Niqabeast, the Bloc are de facto Conservative allies in Quebec, they help them chew up NDP votes, and elsewhere the Liberals seems to trending up. The Cons may get a boost from this trade deal and they have certainly prepared well to keep the farmers (and guys like LInamar) happy with our money but the auto unions may hurt them in Ontario. A long campaign has helped Trudeau meet more people and get that 'happy warrior' image better known. He's far better on the campaign trail than in formal debates and it may have a decisive effect.

Margin of error

[SpankyMcFarland]

The hypothesis on what the election is about is now going to be tested. If the election is not about Harper, the NDP

vote should stay fairly solid. It if is, we will see more drift to the Libs.

[Triple M]

Cons 140

LPC 110

NDP 82

BQ 7

GP 1

[SpankyMcFarland]

Cons 140

LPC 110

NDP 82

BQ 7

GP 1

What percentage votes would give that result?

[Smeelious]

The hypothesis on what the election is about is now going to be tested. If the election is not about Harper, the NDP

vote should stay fairly solid. It if is, we will see more drift to the Libs.

Except....And I'll put this here as both and answer and explaination:

Quebec.

[angrypenguin]

Except....And I'll put this here as both and answer and explaination:

Quebec.

The NDP vote is apparently dying.

[ToadBrother]

Cons 140

LPC 110

NDP 82

BQ 7

GP 1

What percentage votes would give that result?

I'd wager he's thinking the Tories get 35% or thereabouts, the Liberals somewhere around 32%-33% and the NDP in the mid to high 20s.

It's not a terrible forecast, but the biggest problem is Nanos is hopelessly clouding the issue here. I think over a five to seven day spread, Nanos probably isn't bad, but low sample sizes on a daily basis may exaggerate or even create trends out of thin air.

[The_Squid]

The national polling numbers just don't translate well into seat counts...

that's why the poll tracker on the CBC website has such a huge range of potential seats for the parties... With a 2% change in support the CPC went from a minority to a strong majority in the last election because of how it broke out in the ridings.