The Canadian Federal Election of 2011

[NAB]

Well, each party leader has staked out their turf and related message, and it's quite clear what the differences are (as well as the similarities to past elections). It's also quite clear that the Liberals have a different taxing and spending agenda than the Conservatives, although, much like Christy Clark in BC, Ignatieff is talking about an agenda related to "families", but fails to define what constitutes "a family", but along those lines he asserts he will raise the needed money by holding the corporate tax rate at 18%, and suggests that spending money on new jets and prisons expansions is another area of savings (somehow I think that is a red herring in practice, but we shall see I suppose). He is also quick to say he will implement the change he promises by NOT RAISING TAXES, then in a low key qualification mutters "on WORKING families". That little seemingly innocuous detail is frought with dangers and potential abuse of those who do not fit his definition of "working families", whatever it is (probably elitist in any event).

But all that aside, the media continues to press him on the coalition question, and he is careful to say that, should he and his Liberals get to form a government (by virtue of being the party that wins the most seats) he has no intention of forming a coalition with any other party. And in response to another question states that his view is that a coalition IS however a legitimate enterprise. BUT again, NO coalition, absolutely, should he win the most seats, minority or majority. OK, I believe him (I honestly do).

But the media didn't ask, nor did he volunteer, the more important question associated with forming a coalition government....

What will be the Liberals intention if they DO NOT win enough seats to form a minority or majority government? Would he and his Liberals once again try to steal power by forming a coalition with the NDP and/or the Bloc? He obviously still believes it is legitimate to do so without a mandate from the people and it may well be. But in my view it is not very principled, or even democratic. And it continues to make it look like he has a hidden agenda on the coalition question and is spinning hard to try and keep his options open in that regard.

Yet he tries to frame his whole campaign on the principle of Democracy, and his unwavering dedication to it, and which is his whole argument for bringing down the government and forcing yet another election in the first place. Taxpayers are going to foot an unnecessary 3 - 400 million dollar bill, on top of delays in the economic recovery agenda to give Ignatieff an opportunity to try his campaign wings the first time, and dammit we deserve to get our money's worth. Otherwise he should remember what happened to Dion could very well happen to him.

He MUST come clean about this coalition question, and I hope the media beat on him the entire campaign until he does so. For if instead of a majority the election results in another Conservative minority, all we can look forward to is more opposition games, .....and potentially a government configuration that does not have a mandate from the people next time. And to me that is just plain undemocratic and wrong. How else can we see what is behind the red door, ...and make sure that there isn't some Bloc black, NDP orange, or Enviro green paint ready to paint the rooms behind it if the Liberals don't win the most seats of any single party?

Nab

[Ken7]

we try to teach our kids to work together , try to work things out . pointless , another huge waste of MY money .

_____________________________________



I'm with you on that.

I used to think a politician was in it for the BEST interest of all Canadians. They were elected on their intelligence and what they stated they would do for this country. Do they not swear to work together in the best interest of Canada??

I was fooled!

Yes, $300 MIL would help in cutting some debt!

[nolanrh]

I'd have no problem with a coalition government, nor do I see it as illegitimate. I'd prefer to see the parties involve announce it ahead of time, but for me a Liberal-NDP coalition is preferable to a Conservative government, even if it hasn't been announced ahead of time.

The Conservative government has done a pretty well, but the billions for prisons is a massive waste of money. I don't care about the fighter jets, but the attack ads on Ignatieff for calling America "our country" are petty and rattle my cage.

What I'd like to find is a good article setting out who is responsible for this election. It's disingenuous to assume that the opposition parties caused it just because it was their vote that triggered it. Didn't the NDP provide a list of budget amendments that could be implemented to avoid the vote? If so, why didn't they do it? let's find some decent info.

[nolanrh]

"We will not enter a coalition with other federalist parties," Ignatieff said in a statement issued early Saturday morning. "In our system, coalitions are a legitimate constitutional option. However, I believe that issue-by-issue collaboration with other parties is the best way for minority Parliaments to function."

http://www.windsorstar.com/news/Ignatie ... story.html

[NAB]

"We will not enter a coalition with other federalist parties," Ignatieff said in a statement issued early Saturday morning. "In our system, coalitions are a legitimate constitutional option. However, I believe that issue-by-issue collaboration with other parties is the best way for minority Parliaments to function."

http://www.windsorstar.com/news/Ignatie ... story.html

Thanks for that nolan. As you can see, he doesn't answer the most important part of the question.

Edit to add for clarification: The quote attributed to Ignatieff is by and large correct based on the various responses he gave live on TV. However the question the article links it to is not the question that was asked in the context of his responses. As far as I know, no one so far has asked him what he would do vs vs consideration of a formal or informal coalition with the NDP and the Bloc in the event the Conservatives return with another minority (the most probable result). And if it was asked and I simply missed it, I have no information that he answered it directly and clearly.

Edit further to add: It seems clear, at least to me, that the only possibilies for a clear mandate from the electorate as to their judgement of the direction they wish for Canada as a result of this election is either a Conservative or a Liberal majority. Anything else will result in continued unclear direction, at least in any lasting way.

Nab

[steven lloyd]

Are you satisfied in any way with what your local politician has done for you? Then why give him support even though he may be the lesser of the evils. If there is no one on the ballot capable of getting his constituents desires heard then what is the point except to give that individual an expense account with which to waste taxpayers money so he/she can affectively do NOTHING for the communities they represent.

If I'm not satisfied with what my local politician has done for me (and by the way, I’m not after he forwarded a motion to put out “closed for business” signs along our west coast), then I will vote for someone else – perhaps a Conservative. Not voting accomplishes nothing. No one will even notice if you don’t vote. By not voting you are essentially telling all the politicians you are so dissatisfied with, “All right – you win”.

I’m not a huge Harper fan, but I would have benefited by the budget. Tax breaks for renovating my home to be more energy efficient would be a huge benefit for me, and corporate tax breaks that have led to increased corporate tax revenue (by enticing more corporations to set up in Canada) benefit everyone.

You’re never going to get everything you want. The question is what government will give you (and everyone) the most in both the short and long term. Our system isn’t perfect (not by a long shot), but by making the decision not to participate you have given what little influence you have away. Let us know how that worked out for you after May 2.

[kelofornia]

Are you satisfied in any way with what your local politician has done for you? Then why give him support even though he may be the lesser of the evils. If there is no one on the ballot capable of getting his constituents desires heard then what is the point except to give that individual an expense account with which to waste taxpayers money so he/she can affectively do NOTHING for the communities they represent.

Not voting accomplishes nothing. No one will even notice if you don’t vote. By not voting you are essentially telling all the politicians you are so dissatisfied with, “All right – you win”..

Actually voter's lists are reviewed after elections and those who haven't voted are notarized although I am uncertain as to the purpose.
A mass group in one constituency that refused to vote would send a message of discontent and that is what needs to be heard.
It could also be construed that the message was that of rebellion, and that is usually what discontented people do is to rebel until they are listened to. Have you not payed attention to what is going on in the middle east. We could learn from them.

[nolanrh]

The people in the middle east are dieing for the right to vote. Not voting out of protest doesn't seem like something they would agree with.

[steven lloyd]

It could also be construed that the message was that of rebellion, and that is usually what discontented people do is to rebel until they are listened to. Have you not payed attention to what is going on in the middle east.

Ya, people who are too lazy to get out and vote are going to organize and uprise against our government
Have you not been paying attention to what is going on in Canada, and even here in BC ?
Even you propose we should all act like sheep.

[steven lloyd]

A mass group in one constituency that refused to vote would send a message of discontent and that is what needs to be heard.

Ya, again - let us know how that works out for you after May 2

[Merry]

I'd have no problem with a coalition government, nor do I see it as illegitimate.

I agree. I don't understand all the fearmongering with regards to a coalition. To be honest, I think it might be preferable in some ways to having a dictatorial majority government. At least in a coalition the parties would all have to work together and be willing to compromise on some issues, and isn't that what true democracy is all about? What the heck are people so afraid of if the oppostion were to form a coalition? Between them they represent the majority of Canadian Citizens, which the Conservatives most definitely do not, so how is having a coalition government undemocratic? I think it would be the MOST democratic form of government we could have.

[kelofornia]

The people in the middle east are dieing for the right to vote. Not voting out of protest doesn't seem like something they would agree with.

I know the history on the "right to vote". That was back in the day where the people mattered more than money or at least appeared that way.
Election campaigns are fueled by corporations not the general public. The money used by those corporations to sponsor a party (more than a mere candidate) is created from the huge profits created for those companies by you and I the consumer.
They support whichever party will give them what they want. What the corporations want has little if anything to do with what you and I want.

[Bagotricks]

I'd have no problem with a coalition government, nor do I see it as illegitimate.

I agree. I don't understand all the fearmongering with regards to a coalition. To be honest, I think it might be preferable in some ways to having a dictatorial majority government. At least in a coalition the parties would all have to work together and be willing to compromise on some issues, and isn't that what true democracy is all about? What the heck are people so afraid of if the oppostion were to form a coalition? Between them they represent the majority of Canadian Citizens, which the Conservatives most definitely do not, so how is having a coalition government undemocratic? I think it would be the MOST democratic form of government we could have.

Its called negative imprint advertising. If you never heard of Sidney Crosby before, or hockey - and your first impression of Sidney was that he screwed his best friends girlfriend in highschool on prom night ( or whatever ) - no matter what - you will always think of that *first* - even if he wins the Stanley cup 10 times in a row.

Harper loves to use words like "separatist" and "coalition". He is now telling Canadians that either we give him a majority or we will have a "separatist coalition".

Funny thing is, leader of the Bloc produced the very letter that Steven Harper signed - when he tried to form a "separatist coalition" with the NDP and Bloc in 2004 - its in black and white people! He is lying directly to your face! I don't think Harper could lie anymore than he has in the last 2 days. Its virtually impossible, he would have to grow 2 mouths.

So Mr Harper - if you trying to make Canadians scared of their own democracy and your counting on dumbed down Tim Hortons line up understandings of how our Parliamentary system works - maybe you shouldnt have tryed to form a COALITION with the Bloc in 2004. People may be dumb, but not that dumb ( I hope )

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadav ... ponse.html

I like Gilles Duceppe, his press answers seem the most factual and straight to the point. If Mr Harper didn't want a election why did he spend 26 million dollars of taxpayer money in the last 9 weeks? If Mr Harper is trying to make Canadians afraid of the Bloc and of a coalition, why did he himself try it in 2004?

"So let's not play games with history. He has to take responsibility."

[I Think]

Rather than withholding your vote, why not vote for the Green Party? They need to get a high enough vote count to qualify for federal party funding, and will send a clear message to ottawa.

If I thought the vote in my area was going to be close, I would vote liberal, but if my vote won't change anything, I will vote Green.

[Glacier]

The Conservative government has done a pretty well, but the billions for prisons is a massive waste of money. I don't care about the fighter jets, but the attack ads on Ignatieff for calling America "our country" are petty and rattle my cage.

I'm so glad I don't have TV right now because - no attack ads!

When it comes to the fighter jets, they are a huge waste of money (moreso than the prisons). These jets are touted as being versatile wherein they will be capable of doing a lot of things, but what they don't tell you is that these planes cannot do any of these tasks well. The government should, in my opinion, scrap these things and opt for getting a fleet of jets consisting of several different kinds, each with it's own specialty. There are serious concerns over the design of these planes, hence the reason Norway and Denmark are also considering scrapping their orders.