The Canadian Federal Election of 2011

[Urbane]

And while Ignatieff was telling everyone how sacred the House was and important the rules were and how MP's had to have more say in things his attendance was abysmal. When Layton pointed that out in the English language debate it was the final nail in the coffin for Ignatieff.

[NAB]

Excerpt from: http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/201 ... et-agenda/

In a pre-election interview, Mr. Harper told the National Post that with a majority government he would be more concerned with governing than with self-preservation. And how would he govern? My take is that he will do exactly what he’s been saying he has wanted to do for the past five years — Senate reform, abolish the gun registry, get tough on crime and shrink the size of government. As someone who knows him well put it: “The hidden agenda has been sitting on the order paper in the House of Commons for five years.”

As one of his biographers, William Johnson, has noted: “Unlike most politicians, he almost always means what he says because he has thought long and hard about an issue before he speaks. He is consistent in his thinking and speaking because he is a conviction politician.”

Just in case anyone missed it...

Senate reform, abolish the gun registry, get tough on crime and shrink the size of government.

[Urbane]

Harper deserves a lot of credit:

Kathryn Blaze Carlson May 3, 2011

Despite the prevailing assumption about Stephen Harper, Monday’s election results proved that Canadians like the Conservative leader as much as they liked former Liberal prime minister and legendary politician Jean Chretien.

Mr. Harper’s camp ran away with 39.7% of the popular vote in the federal competition, nearly matching Mr. Chretien’s average of 40.2% popular support across three majority governments.

But while the “little guy from Shawinigan” is viewed as a font of wisdom and source of pride among Liberal loyalists, Mr. Harper is still widely characterized as a stiff prime minister with a secret agenda.

In watercooler conversation, people say the Tory leader is not well liked — that Canadians have not warmed to him and even fear his personal ideology. The election results show, however, that the mud slung at a Teflon-coated Mr. Harper is thick, but does not stick.

“Chretien and Harper have very different styles, and style is responsible for this,” said Harold Jansen, an associate professor of political science at the University of Lethbridge, adding that Chretien had a “warm” persona. “In [Mr. Harper’s] speech last night, we saw a smiling, more magnanimous man, which was more appealing that what we had seen of him before … Maybe, with Harper in a majority government, he can relax a little bit.”

Prof. Jansen pointed out that Mr. Chretien never led a minority government — a political scenario that tends to be more partisan and, of course, more tenuous and fragile.

“He was never balanced on a knife’s edge, and he faced a very divided opposition,” Prof. Jansen said. “He had it pretty easy.”

Darrell Bricker, president of Ipsos Reid, said Mr. Harper should be respected for his patience and strategic insight — his party has grown after all, from 29.6% popular support in 2004 to nearly 40% support, achieving the ever-elusive majority status.

“Stephen Harper, who gets derided by tons of people all the time, is unbelievably accomplished in terms of putting together something that nobody ever thought would happen,” Mr. Bricker said. “He should get credit for that.”

National Post
[email protected]

[steven lloyd]

Just in case anyone missed it...

Senate reform, abolish the gun registry, get tough on crime and shrink the size of government.

Three out of four ain't bad, and I'm still willing to see what comes out of the "get tough on crime" agenda. Harper's an educated man, right ? Certainly he knows how to read reserach, doesn't he ? Obviously, some changes to our criminal justice system are required. I'm still hopeful he will consider the evidence from research over some outdated ideological fallacies.

[butcher99]

You're so daft in believing Harper did not cause & want this election.




Of course he wanted it…..but even a rank partisan like you must conceded that in this case indeed it was created by the vote from the Liberals, the BLOC and the NDP.




if that is so, why all the ads for 3 or 4 months before the call? when quebec wanted so little to vote with him why did he not compromise? the ndp also would have dealt to have no call but again no movement. Harper wanted the election as much as every else if not more. Why were the cpc the only party fully ready at the call?

The call by harper worked out for him so it was a smart move. why take that away from him.

You've forgotten Butcher but the opposition were threatening to defeat the government for a long time. That's par for the course with a minority government in play and well within the rights of the opposition parties to make those threats. It's also well within the rights of the government to do some advertising in case it's defeated. It doesn't mean the government wanted an election however. I actually think that Harper would have been happy with Ignatieff hanging around for a while because he didn't wear well. Is Harper even happier now? Of course but he didn't vote to find himself in contempt and he didn't vote non-confidence in himself. The opposition did that. Those ads, most people agree, helped Harper get his majority so that shows he did the smart thing.

No, don't get me wrong. I am not saying that the others did not want it just as much. I am just saying the entire thing was orchestrated by Harper. When you compare the readiness of the Conservatives to the others it is pretty hard to lay all the blame on the others.

[butcher99]

Just in case anyone missed it...

Senate reform, abolish the gun registry, get tough on crime and shrink the size of government.

Three out of four ain't bad, and I'm still willing to see what comes out of the "get tough on crime" agenda. Harper's an educated man, right ? Certainly he knows how to read reserach, doesn't he ? Obviously, some changes to our criminal justice system are required. I'm still hopeful he will consider the evidence from research over some outdated ideological fallacies.

You left out lock up people for growing more than 6 marijuana plants for a minimum of 6 months. Sure hope it is not one of your kids or grandkids that is one of those that will get locked up.

Years ago Harper was very much in favour of reform of our electoral system to make it more of a proportional vote system. Wonder if he has changed his mind now that the proportions favour him?

[butcher99]

You're so daft in believing Harper did not cause & want this election.

Of course he wanted it…..but even a rank partisan like you must conceded that in this case indeed it was created by the vote from the Liberals, the BLOC and the NDP.

if that is so, why all the ads for 3 or 4 months before the call? when quebec wanted so little to vote with him why did he not compromise? the ndp also would have dealt to have no call but again no movement. Harper wanted the election as much as every else if not more. Why were the cpc the only party fully ready at the call?

The call by harper worked out for him so it was a smart move. why take that away from him.

The problem with "compromise" butcher is that no one gets what they want. I don't know much about "the ads" 3 or 4 months before the call because I don't recall seeing any of them, but if they involved refusing to bend over to the oppositions wishes then so be it. Sometimes when major principles or morals are involved, standing your ground is necessary no matter what.

As it has turned out, the electorate have agreed that compromise was not the right option in the best interests of Canada in this case. And I say again, Harper did not call the election, the NDP, The Liberals, and the Bloc did. And they worked very hard in the previous months to that end. It was no secret to anyone. No matter what Harper had done he knew there was no way to avoid it, so the only option was to prepare for it. It doesn't surprise me one bit that with the Liberals crapping on him from every corner with all this constant "contempt" and "anti democratic" crap of Iggy's, ..that the Conservatives would crap on them in return. You can only take so much of that BS before you say "enough is enough".

Nab

The ads were the same ones most Conservatives fell for about how Ignatieff was not a real canadian.

They sure seemed to work. Those who know nothing about him came to hate him and what he stood for. Even though they had no idea what he stood for.

[steven lloyd]

You left out lock up people for growing more than 6 marijuana plants for a minimum of 6 months.

You'll get no argument from me there butcher. As someone who works within the criminal justice system I have a first-hand view of just how ludicrous and counter-productive our existing marijuana laws already are, let alone any initiatives to make them even more ludicrous and counter-productive. Unfortunately, this wasn't the only issue in the campaign, and it certainly wasn't the defining issue - and the bottom line is that all the other parties failed miserably when it came to the issues that were going to affect the value of people's homes and their continued ability to put food on the tables of their families. We can only hope now that Harper will take a sober look (maybe even one based on evidence from research) before finalizing his agenda of "getting tough on crime". The fact is though, we do need to look at our criminal justice system, and even without changes to our laws we already desperately need investment in our aged prisons. Now is the time to be vocal on this issue and hope calmer heads might ultimately prevail. It is not yet a done deal.

[Urbane]

Here are some interesting and perhaps surprising numbers to take away from this election:

The election of 2011 had some numerical surprises.

The Conservative Party received 39.6% of the vote and 54% of the seats across the country as a whole. However, factor out Quebec — that is, examine the rest of Canada without it — and the Tory numbers rise to 47.7% of the vote and 68% of the seats.

The Conservatives’ 5.8-million vote tally Monday was the third-highest raw total for any party in any general election in Canadian history. It falls short of the 6.3-million-vote haul that led the Mulroney Conservatives to their 1984 landslide, but ahead of the 5.6-million the Chrétien Liberals garnered in the pivotal contest of 1993.

On Monday night, the Tories received almost as many votes in Ontario (2,455,900) as the Liberals did in the entire country (2,783,175).

The Liberal Party only held or lost seats; it did not take a single constituency away from its competitors.

The Bloc Québécois’ vote total withered from about 1.38-million to 890,000, a drop of 35.5%.

Adam McDowell, National Post

[butcher99]

Here are some interesting and perhaps surprising numbers to take away from this election:

The election of 2011 had some numerical surprises.

The Conservative Party received 39.6% of the vote and 54% of the seats across the country as a whole. However, factor out Quebec — that is, examine the rest of Canada without it — and the Tory numbers rise to 47.7% of the vote and 68% of the seats.

The Conservatives’ 5.8-million vote tally Monday was the third-highest raw total for any party in any general election in Canadian history. It falls short of the 6.3-million-vote haul that led the Mulroney Conservatives to their 1984 landslide, but ahead of the 5.6-million the Chrétien Liberals garnered in the pivotal contest of 1993.

On Monday night, the Tories received almost as many votes in Ontario (2,455,900) as the Liberals did in the entire country (2,783,175).

The Liberal Party only held or lost seats; it did not take a single constituency away from its competitors.

The Bloc Québécois’ vote total withered from about 1.38-million to 890,000, a drop of 35.5%.

Adam McDowell, National Post

Can we do the same vote tally and remove Alberta and Sask from the tally? You will find that your numbers drop the other way. Last time I checked, Quebec was a part of Canada the same as Alberta and Sask. Their votes count the same.

Removing Quebec from the pie is no different than removing alberta and Sask. In Alberta and Sask there are 1,200,000 votes cast for the Conservatives out of 1,800,000. Unless my math is wrong and feel free to correct it, remove Al. and Sask. from the equation and the conservs drop down to 34% of the popular vote.
Someone else can remove Al. Sask and Que. from the equation if they like to even it out.

[butcher99]

Here are some interesting and perhaps surprising numbers to take away from this election:

The election of 2011 had some numerical surprises.

The Conservative Party received 39.6% of the vote and 54% of the seats across the country as a whole. However, factor out Quebec — that is, examine the rest of Canada without it — and the Tory numbers rise to 47.7% of the vote and 68% of the seats.

The Conservatives’ 5.8-million vote tally Monday was the third-highest raw total for any party in any general election in Canadian history. It falls short of the 6.3-million-vote haul that led the Mulroney Conservatives to their 1984 landslide, but ahead of the 5.6-million the Chrétien Liberals garnered in the pivotal contest of 1993.

On Monday night, the Tories received almost as many votes in Ontario (2,455,900) as the Liberals did in the entire country (2,783,175).

The Liberal Party only held or lost seats; it did not take a single constituency away from its competitors.

The Bloc Québécois’ vote total withered from about 1.38-million to 890,000, a drop of 35.5%.

Adam McDowell, National Post

Do you have a link to the actual article please?

[Smurf]

Actually I don't think Harper could have compromised because they did not bring him down over the budget, they brought him down on a procedural vote. They didn't even give him a chance to compromise, there just a direct hit to cause an election. The vote did not even take into consideration how he worked with the other parties but how he had done things in parliament. Obviously the people didn't agree with them. They gave Harper a majority and they decimated the two main instigators of the take down.

Was Harper prepared for an election well ahead of time, yes. What smart person wouldn't be with what had been happening and all the threats. The fact that the ones causing the problem couldn't understand that is their own foolishness. If you (anyone out there) were in that position I would hope you would have the intelligence to be prepared. I would say that in a roundabout way the people voted in a high percentage for Harper. Too bad so sad, I don't feel bad.

[Urbane]

Can we do the same vote tally and remove Alberta and Sask from the tally? You will find that your numbers drop the other way. Last time I checked, Quebec was a part of Canada the same as Alberta and Sask. Their votes count the same.

Removing Quebec from the pie is no different than removing alberta and Sask. In Alberta and Sask there are 1,200,000 votes cast for the Conservatives out of 1,800,000. Unless my math is wrong and feel free to correct it, remove Al. and Sask. from the equation and the conservs drop down to 34% of the popular vote.
Someone else can remove Al. Sask and Que. from the equation if they like to even it out.

Butcher, I thought you would be interested in those numbers and the author certainly never said that Quebec was not part of Canada. The Conservative percentage throughout all of Canada was just under 40% but just under 48%. Interesting to me but I guess not to you. Here's the link you requested:

http://turniton.ca/blog/news/ottawa-com ... -election/

[butcher99]

Actually I don't think Harper could have compromised because they did not bring him down over the budget, they brought him down on a procedural vote. They didn't even give him a chance to compromise, there just a direct hit to cause an election. The vote did not even take into consideration how he worked with the other parties but how he had done things in parliament. Obviously the people didn't agree with them. They gave Harper a majority and they decimated the two main instigators of the take down.

Was Harper prepared for an election well ahead of time, yes. What smart person wouldn't be with what had been happening and all the threats. The fact that the ones causing the problem couldn't understand that is their own foolishness. If you (anyone out there) were in that position I would hope you would have the intelligence to be prepared. I would say that in a roundabout way the people voted in a high percentage for Harper. Too bad so sad, I don't feel bad.

The budget vote was next in line. He refused to compromise on it. He wanted a fight over that. The others just thought the non-confidence motion was a better bet.

[butcher99]

Can we do the same vote tally and remove Alberta and Sask from the tally? You will find that your numbers drop the other way. Last time I checked, Quebec was a part of Canada the same as Alberta and Sask. Their votes count the same.

Removing Quebec from the pie is no different than removing alberta and Sask. In Alberta and Sask there are 1,200,000 votes cast for the Conservatives out of 1,800,000. Unless my math is wrong and feel free to correct it, remove Al. and Sask. from the equation and the conservs drop down to 34% of the popular vote.
Someone else can remove Al. Sask and Que. from the equation if they like to even it out.

Butcher, I thought you would be interested in those numbers and the author certainly never said that Quebec was not part of Canada. The Conservative percentage throughout all of Canada was just under 40% but just under 48%. Interesting to me but I guess not to you. Here's the link you requested:

http://turniton.ca/blog/news/ottawa-com ... -election/

No, it is interesting to me, but that only tells one side. If you leave Alberta out and Sask out his numbers fall dramatically. Only saying, why give just one side?