Blue, Red, Orange, Green, or Gray - Canadian Federal Election 2019

Please feel free here to discuss the upcoming Canadian federal election. I opened it in Purgatory because I think adults should be able to discuss politics with civility.

For those who don't know our colours (yes, with a "u"):

Blue - Conservative
Red - Liberal
Orange - NDP
Green - Green
Gray - Independents

We do have a couple significant names running as independents this time, so I have included them.
«13456

Comments

  • I was very unhappy with the Stephen Harper Conservative gov't not allowing scientists to say anything at all about anything. This looked like deciding to route all discourse through spin doctors and politics. His relentless control of everything. Including science. Despicable. Is his successor likely to do precisely the same sorts of things The beef I have about the Conservatives is their marriage with large corporations and excessive handouts to business. I'd never vote for these guys. I did vote for Progressive Conservative when they weren't of American style of ugly conservative.

    The Liberal brand has suffered from the SNC Lavalin affair. But I don't understand why Alberta and other parts of the west blame the Libs for everything about oil and pipelines. The processes were set by the Harper gov't, and the pieces are being all attributed to Liberals. There's more than enough to hang on the Cons. It doesn't really matter if someone from Sask hates or likes the Liberals, they are non-players federally here. They do the same handout to business, but don't seem as dishonest as the Harperites.

    The NDP appears to have allied itself federally with big eastern labour and unions over time. This is a vote getting strategy that has worked, but it has abandoned its socially responsible self-employed agrarian roots.

    Green? I think people find them odd. I do like the environmental aspects.

    I want the young people to vote. When they don't you get awful people voted for by grumpy old baby boomers. Just look at Ontario and Alberta provincially. The basic message is to be angry and have no real ideas about anything.
  • Gramps49Gramps49 Shipmate
    Rooting for the Greens there too.
  • PigletPiglet All Saints Host, Circus Host
    I find Mr. Scheer very disturbing - I get the feeling that he's a Trump wannabe, but with rather better manners, and I wouldn't trust him with our healthcare system, such as it is.*

    * As a Brit, I was horrified to discover that while the health provision here leaves our neighbours to the south standing, it's still not free in the sense I'm used to, unless you have insurance.
  • MarsupialMarsupial Shipmate
    As I said elsewhere I think the Ontario result was somewhat inevitable - the Liberals had worn out their welcome and the NDP was uncompetitive outside its traditional strongholds. The Tories had also been working hard at making themselves look both moderate and competent, and had built up some goodwill among the electorate that carried with them into the election despite the last-minute leadership race that suddenly made Doug Ford the probable next premier of Ontario. I don't really have a clear sense of what a Patrick Brown or Christine Elliot Tory government would have looked like but I'm fairly confident it wouldn't be the tire fire we're presently seeing from Ford et al.

    Likewise, I don't think Notley's NDP government in Alberta had much of a chance after the Federal Court of Appeal delayed Trans Mountain. I don't know if she would have had much a chance anyway, but that seems to have sealed the deal. It looks like we're going to get the pipeline anyway, so basically the main effect of some rather expensive litigation by pipeline opponents was to help Jason Kenney get elected for the Conservatives. Not sure that was money well spent.

  • Marsupial wrote: »
    As I said elsewhere I think the Ontario result was somewhat inevitable - the Liberals had worn out their welcome and the NDP was uncompetitive outside its traditional strongholds.

    Er, rather, the Liberal vote collapsed, the NDP soared, and had the campaign gone on another week, it would have been Premier Horwath. https://newsinteractives.cbc.ca/onvotes/results/

    See also polling results: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2018_Ontario_general_election

    I was there, once that NDP spike started the lawn signs flew out of our campaign office. That was the first time in the history of the riding that the NDP ever ran out of lawn signs.

    Thirdly, I would not call the Brampton a traditional NDP stronghold, but we hold all three of the city's provincial seats. Plus Kingston and the Islands.
  • MarsupialMarsupial Shipmate
    edited June 3
    Sorry, poor choice of words about traditional strongholds. But that said, I don't think the NDP was seen as a serious contender until they became the beneficiary of a flurry of strategic voting aimed at keeping Doug Ford out of the premier's office. And even then, Ford ended up with a comfortable majority. Given the parlous state of the other two major parties, the election should have been a shoe-in for the NDP if they were actually in a good position to win it.
    Piglet wrote: »
    I find Mr. Scheer very disturbing - I get the feeling that he's a Trump wannabe, but with rather better manners, and I wouldn't trust him with our healthcare system, such as it is.

    It's incredibly hard to get a sense of what Scheer actually wants to do if he gets elected. At the moment they seem to be running on a platform of "not quite as scary as the Liberals say we are", and while I'm inclined to believe that may be true, as far as it goes, it's not exactly a positive reason to vote for them.

  • The Ontario Liberals weren't that parlous until after the election; before that they were still contenders. It was the first debate that sent the NDP's numbers soaring. Being Number Three beforehand hath its downside.

    Then again, it would also require major media outlets giving the NDP the time of day (they didn't before the election), and there was the not so small matter of the coterie of outright lies and equivocations the Ontario Liberals put out in the last days of the campaign.

    Par for the course, but they were irritating none the less.
  • PigletPiglet All Saints Host, Circus Host
    Marsupial wrote: »
    ... The Tories had also been working hard at making themselves look both moderate and competent ...
    By promoting Ford? :confused:
  • MarsupialMarsupial Shipmate
    I meant before that. I'm not too sure what to make of Patrick Brown, and the question is now a bit academic, but until Ford took over the Tories were looking like a party that sensible people might conceivably vote for. I wasn't planning on voting for them, but if the voters were inclined to give Brown a kick at the can I thought it was a result I could live with (not that I really have any choice in the matter...).

    I have to disagree with SPK about the state of the Liberals before the election - I don't think anyone expected them to do well, least of all their own people. It was just a question of how far they were going to fall.
  • Ford's rise is the logical progression of the Frank Miller/Mike Harris line of Blue Tories. Ford's takeover was simply the Blue Tories reasserting control over the Tory party from the Red Tories.
  • MarsupialMarsupial Shipmate
    It's complicated, I think. Brown was, at best, a pragmatic purple Tory, and I think the Ford brothers introduced a whole new level of sociopathy to Ontario politics that Mike Harris, for his many faults, couldn't quite pull off.
  • LeafLeaf Shipmate
    I am, if not quite dreading, certainly not looking forward to the next election. I am at best "meh" toward the Liberals (people don't forget about electoral reform promises made then broken, Mr. Trudeau). I would never, ever, ever vote for the Andrew Scheer Conservatives. I don't think Singh's NDP has the traction in Quebec it would need... for better or worse, he's not Jack Layton, and that rather noticeable headgear may not play well to hardcore secularists in la belle province. (I encourage SPK not to attempt to persuade me otherwise, re the electoral prospects of the federal NDP.) The Greens are nowhere near as progressive in policies as people seem to think they are, so they are not really my cup of tea. Independents - also meh.

    The Branch of the Leaf is calling a Liberal minority government, which seems about right. The Liberals may be able to ride a slight tide of apathy just enough to get into power again, but not as strong as the Anyone But Harper wave that carried them into majority.
  • CaissaCaissa Shipmate
    I fear the final election results may be Scheer madness.
  • Re: Jack Layton, I always draw a line at 2011. Before that, his electoral record was decidedly mixed, decent but not spectacular. Then he hit the jackpot.
  • Re leaders of the parties, my ordinal is:
    Elizabeth May (Green) ties with Jasmeet Singh (NDP). Both are real people with principles and something substantive to say. I'd probably give the edge to May if I had to choose one.

    Justin Trudeau gets third place as a leader. I have wondered if he is actually leadership material when he lets situations get out of control. It also makes me think he's maybe somewhat of a talking head with more able people telling him what to do and say.

    Andrew Scheer gets fifth place. I've left fourth place out as anyone from any other party if there is one has to be better than him. I don't agree with his ideology, lack of policy and his associations no matter how intense with racists and bigots.

    It actually doesn't matter if I vote or not. A dead person could run here for the Cons and they'd get elected. The only thing to do is to figure out who is likely to finish second and vote for that person.
  • MarsupialMarsupial Shipmate
    Leaf wrote: »
    The Branch of the Leaf is calling a Liberal minority government, which seems about right. The Liberals may be able to ride a slight tide of apathy just enough to get into power again, but not as strong as the Anyone But Harper wave that carried them into majority.

    I definitely agree they're not going to be able to pull off 2015 again - that was a case of frenzied strategic anti-Harperism. I'm inclined to agree a Liberal minority is probably a reasonable result. What I hope we don't get, though, is a replay of the unedifying process that ultimately pushed Dalton McGuinty out of office when he got a minority government in 2011 - the opposition used their committee powers to hound the McGuinty government for months about the gas plants scandal, until McGuinty found himself in an untenable position and had to resign. If the voters are going to turf JT because of SNC, I'd rather they do it all at once in an election rather than have a situation where Parliament is tied up for months on end while nothing else gets accomplished.

    As I've said elsewhere, I think the Liberals have generally been doing a reasonably good job, and for now at least I think there's value in maintaining continuity. I'm doubtful that the NDP would actually govern much to the left of the Liberals once they actually got into power and had the opportunity to figure out what is realistically possible and what isn't. (The reality, as the Liberals discovered early in their tenure, is that rabbits don't live in hats.) I'm also really not impressed with Jagmeet Singh as a leader. I don't see anything positive coming out of the Conservatives. I don't really think Andrew Scheer is a Trump (or even a Doug Ford), but given who some of their supporters are you never know.



  • edited June 5
    Then there's Michael Cooper who read the New Zealand shooter's manifesto at a House of Commons committee. The CBC on As It Happens has it that Cooper had an actual printout of the manifesto at the committee. Conservatives are doing what exactly about extremist racist views?

    https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/michael-cooper-remove-from-caucus-call-1.5160629
  • CaissaCaissa Shipmate
    Canada now has 4 minority provincial governments. This is the most every at a given time. Three Atlantic Canadian provinces have minorities, with NS being the exception. In Nfld, two former Lib cabinet ministers won as independents. I am not sure if this is a prescription for Philpotts and Wilson Raybould in their ridings. The Libs swept Atlantic Canada in 2015. The Libs and Cons are running neck and neck in polls in AC. Can the NDP win back any of their "traditional" seats in NS? Quebec as always will be a wild card. Will they support Trudeau for his support of SNC lavalin? This issue will definitely play well in Quebec. Can they stomach Scheer? Will Bernier play well in some of the rural areas? In Ontario, Ford could be the Cons greatest liability. The Libs can probably hold on to Redmonton and BC will likely be a three way fight. Sask will have its rural/urban divide. This could be an interesting election race to watch.
  • sharkshootersharkshooter Shipmate
    Caissa wrote: »
    ... Quebec as always will be a wild card. Will they support Trudeau for his support of SNC lavalin? This issue will definitely play well in Quebec. ...

    Why? Because corruption is ok in Quebec? Sorry, but Trudeau is as corrupt as any prime minister in the past, even Chretien.
  • CaissaCaissa Shipmate
    No, because the issue was never about corruption. The issue has been about the choice between a DPA and prosecution of SNC-Lavalin. Both would have consequences for the company. And before you ask, I'm Orange. As an historian I would suggest that calling Trudeau "as corrupt as any prime minister in past" is ahistorical hyperbole.
  • sharkshootersharkshooter Shipmate
    Caissa wrote: »
    No, because the issue was never about corruption. The issue has been about the choice between a DPA and prosecution of SNC-Lavalin. Both would have consequences for the company. And before you ask, I'm Orange. As an historian I would suggest that calling Trudeau "as corrupt as any prime minister in past" is ahistorical hyperbole.

    Actually, the story is about Trudeau interfering in a judicial decision. That is corruption.
  • There is a point to be made that corruption is commonplace in federal politics. I've already mentioned the Harper gov't's corrupt practice of suppressing science and information for the sake Stephen Harper's desire to politically control everything - do we expect Scheer to be better/

    The SNC Lavalin issue is one that Trudeau is responsible for. If we're scoring on the basis of corruption and misbehaviour, I do think the Conservatives are winning unless there's a longer list than this shortened version: think Tony Clement's $50 million redirection of money into his own riding in 2011 for the G8 meeting, the retroactive re-writing of law so the RCMP's destruction of long gun registry info wasn't a crime in 2012. Dean Del Mastro conviction for elections offences in 2008. 2011 contempt of parliament x2. Maxime Bernier (who has since left the Cons) dating a biker gang connected woman who he brought to a ministerial swearing in. Peter McKay flying around in a military helicopter on personal trip.

    The key issue I think for Canada is that whatever Trudeau has done, we cannot have another Conservative gov't. Harper was a disaster, so will Scheer be. Just as Ford is in Ont.
  • The key issue I think for Canada is that whatever Trudeau has done, we cannot have another Conservative gov't. Harper was a disaster, so will Scheer be. Just as Ford is in Ont.

    Except we don't have a voting system that allows that. You can't vote "Not Tory" and be sure you won't end up with a Tory, even if a majority agrees with you. Drat, the Electoral Reform geeks are getting to me.

    Mind you, I live in Maryam Monsef's riding, and we (the NDP) are going to make a considerable amount out of the broken electoral reform promise.
  • Yes well at least this guy isn't running this time. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brad_Trost

    But he replaced the equally <insert something awful here> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_Vellacott
  • sharkshootersharkshooter Shipmate
    Trudeau is a believer in the "my truth might be different than your truth" concept: He refused to take responsibility for his own sexual misconduct with a journalist. He is a fake ( a "feminist" who fires strong women for being strong women) and a liar (balancing the budget in 4 years, electoral reform). He is the first prime minister found guilty of ethics violations. There is much more ...

    Some of Trudeau's scandals
  • So you are hopeful for an Andrew Scheer Conservative government?
  • sharkshootersharkshooter Shipmate
    Your concerns about "the Conservatives" are historical. The question is, who is willing to vote for someone as untruthful, unethical and corrupt as Trudeau? He is willing to apologize for the "sins" of people who lived and died ages ago, but not for his own.
  • MarsupialMarsupial Shipmate
    Ok @sharkshooter, we get it loud and clear that you don’t like Trudeau. Who would you vote for instead and for what positive reasons?
  • sharkshootersharkshooter Shipmate
    It's not a matter of not liking him. He is untrustworthy. Totally unfit. Think Big Brother all over again - you must believe this or that or you cannot be a Liberal MP, or get funding for summer students. The list goes on and on.

    Obviously, Conservative is the only way to go. Reducing taxes, controlling immigration, breaking down inter-provincial barriers to trade, making Canadian energy available across Canada instead of relying on foreign oil, having some sense of decorum internationally, etc.
  • CaissaCaissa Shipmate
    Our Liberal MP has voted against the party several times and only received minor discipline (temporary removal from committees).

    Taxes are how we sustain our common needs; immigration has always been "controlled" although the First Nations might beg to differ about all of the illegal European immigration and land expropriation; inter-provincial trade issues are governed in the BNA Act; the distribution of Canadian energy is governed by recent court cases. A Conservative Gov't will not solve these perceived problems.
  • It's not a matter of not liking him. He is untrustworthy. Totally unfit. Think Big Brother all over again - you must believe this or that or you cannot be a Liberal MP, or get funding for summer students. The list goes on and on.

    Obviously, Conservative is the only way to go. Reducing taxes, controlling immigration, breaking down inter-provincial barriers to trade, making Canadian energy available across Canada instead of relying on foreign oil, having some sense of decorum internationally, etc.

    I can see blue hats emblazoned with 'Make Canada Great Again' coming! There is no more thoughtless political slogan anywhere than 'reduce taxes'. It would be more honest to say 'reduce services, reduce health care, lay off nurses and teachers, let the infrastructure crumble, make the wealthy wealthier'.
  • Canada is going to keep merrily using foreign oil. There's not going to be a change. It's cheaper the refining the very expensive tar/oil sands which will continue to be shipped as raw sludge to refineries in other countries at a subsidized discount. Of course the Conservatives are the business as usual group when it comes to energy, and anti-conservatively don't support internalizing the pollution costs being actually paid.

    Reducing taxes? On who is the question. The tax burden has shifted toward the average person, and shifted away from wealthy and corporations under conservative gov'ts.

    But I go back to my first major criticism of the Harperites: which was massive suppression of actual information and data in favour of whatever they wanted to do politically. Plus omnibus bills. My second discomfort is racism, as shown by the Scheer involvement with the alt-right, and the recent Michael Cooper issue.
  • sharkshootersharkshooter Shipmate
    ...Plus omnibus bills. ...
    Didn't Trudeau set the record for the largest omnibus bill?

    And, yes, reduce taxes means cut services. We are living beyond our means.
    immigration has always been "controlled"
    um, haven't you read the news?

    One example, of many.
  • @sharkshooter

    So we agree now that omnibus bills are bad? That's good.

    Re reducing taxes. Could we also stop subsidizing industries? Such as the $7-15 billion to the oil industry? Could we either save the money or redirect it?

    Should I be allowed to take money out of a corporation I own at 16% when the marginal income tax rate is over $210k federally is 26% and was higher in the past, and combined with provincial rates is 40-50% total? The issue is not "reduced taxes" but who pays.

    Immigration. Here's some actual numbers for what you're concerned about. It's not very many (about 20K/year) given a 350,000 target currently, 400K next year. And some of these are legit refugees. And we know the causes are specific policies and acts by other countries for illegal border crossings. Or may be you don't like 350-400k immigrants coming into Canada each year?
  • sharkshootersharkshooter Shipmate
    Re reducing taxes. Could we also stop subsidizing industries?

    Should I be allowed to take money out of a corporation I own at 16% when the marginal income tax rate is over $210k federally is 26% and was higher in the past, and combined with provincial rates is 40-50% total? The issue is not "reduced taxes" but who pays.

    As to subsidies, yes, stop them. Especially green energy industry (including wind farms, Tesla and other electric autos, and solar, and Loblaws freezers!) and media (including the CBC)!

    If you refer to dividends, the reason you pay less tax on your personal return is because the dividend is paid after being taxed in the corporation.
  • Ok. I see where you're coming from >green energy subsidies< which is at some $200 million in the face of billions for oil/gas Right: you don't want to stop the really big subsidies. And do you care about climate at all?

    What I am talking about with corporations is the facilitation of greatly reducing taxation. There is a low taxation rate on the corp to start with, with the capital gains/dividends also at a low rate, which combined do not come close to the personal rate.
  • It's not a matter of not liking him. He is untrustworthy. Totally unfit. Think Big Brother all over again - you must believe this or that or you cannot be a Liberal MP, or get funding for summer students. The list goes on and on.

    Obviously, Conservative is the only way to go. Reducing taxes, controlling immigration, breaking down inter-provincial barriers to trade, making Canadian energy available across Canada instead of relying on foreign oil, having some sense of decorum internationally, etc.

    Unless and until oil companies decide an All-Canadian crude pipeline is economic (hasn't happened in the last 70 years) there won't be one, unless you'd like it developed by a Crown Corporation, but I am guessing not.

    Interprovincial Trade Barriers? Problem is the weak interpretation given the federal Trade and Commerce power by the Privy Council/Supreme Court. The solution in this case is judicial, not political.

    Reducing Taxes? Ok, what services do you want cut, in which order?
  • Sharkshooter, you forgot one thing...

    "Hey, you kids! Get off my lawn!"
  • To be fair, sharkshooter, we agree on interprovincial trade barriers.
  • sharkshootersharkshooter Shipmate
    ...

    What I am talking about with corporations is the facilitation of greatly reducing taxation. There is a low taxation rate on the corp to start with, with the capital gains/dividends also at a low rate, which combined do not come close to the personal rate.

    Note:
    There is a tax concept called integration that legislation aims to implement. The idea is that there should be little to no difference in the overall income tax paid (personal tax + corporate tax) when comparing dividend payments and wage payments of the same amount. How this works:

    Wages reduce corporate taxes but create higher personal taxes than dividends.

    Dividends do not reduce corporate taxes, but create less personal taxes than wages.

    That's the theory. The problem is that, over the years, changes in the tax rates have messed that up to some degree, So let's fix it so it does work.
  • sharkshootersharkshooter Shipmate
    ...

    Reducing Taxes? Ok, what services do you want cut, in which order?

    Pretty much all of them. Equally for a start.
  • Do you want to pay directly for health care? Pay for directly for road use? User fees instead of public funding?
  • sharkshootersharkshooter Shipmate
    Do you want to pay directly for health care? Pay for directly for road use? User fees instead of public funding?

    Of course you overstate the issue. A small cut across the board will not require any of those things.
  • CaissaCaissa Shipmate
    I wonder what the Conservatives will say about these jobless numbers?
    https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/may-jobs-statscan-1.5166200
  • Do you want to pay directly for health care? Pay for directly for road use? User fees instead of public funding?

    Of course you overstate the issue. A small cut across the board will not require any of those things.

    Ah yes, the "Assume waste" argument. Poor assumption, though. Second, our federal deficit is 0.9% of GDP, which is less than inflation plus economic growth, so the net cost of this debt is 0.

    And you are against free lunches why, exactly?

    Before the "repaying the debt" zombie resurfaces, the Government of Canada has never repaid its entire debt since 1867, and the United Kingdom, who invented the modern concept of government debt, has been continually in debt since 1694.
  • sharkshootersharkshooter Shipmate
    ...

    Before the "repaying the debt" zombie resurfaces, the Government of Canada has never repaid its entire debt since 1867, and the United Kingdom, who invented the modern concept of government debt, has been continually in debt since 1694.
    Just think how many more social programs or infrastructure improvements could be made with the $26B the government pays in interest annually? Every Billion added to the debt is another, what, $20 to $40 Million a year? Do you think it is the middle class or the poor earning all that interest the government is paying?

    My personal financial goals are to reduce those wasteful interest payments. I wish my governments had the same goals. The only exceptions, that I can think of, are when government spending is intended to stimulate the economy to avoid, or mitigate, a recession.
  • 1) That debt is a private-sector asset. Much of it goes into pensions and mutual funds.
    2) Federal Debt charges are 1% of GDP. Inflation plus growth at even modest rates equals 2.5% of GDP in Canada. The private sector is paying the Government of Canada, essentially, 1.5% of GDP to hold a AAA asset.

    Now, do you want to issue bonds costing 1% of GDP to fund services to keep up with economic activity, yielding 1.5% or raise taxes which withdraws that 1.5% yield from the private sector completely? Most of the time, and this is borne out by history, national governments can run deficits within limits (below the r+g threshold) and it is safe and healthy to do so. To do otherwise contracts the private sector gratuitously.
    My personal financial goals are to reduce those wasteful interest payments. I wish my governments had the same goals

    Surely we can agree that you aren't a business managing a corporation. A business does not pay off its debt when it earns more than the interest on its debt. A government that gets more in taxes from increased economic activity for a given debt level (actually, most of the time) likewise does not pay off its debt and never will. Where do you think our WWII debt went? It's still there, in nominal terms. It's just the economy has swamped it.
  • stonespringstonespring Shipmate
    Question from an outsider: What kinds of swings in what parts of the country would be needed to produce a Conservative victory? If the Conservatives became the largest party in Parliament but were still a minority, would they most likely form a minority government as has been the norm in Canadian politics or might this be the time that the polarization between the right- and left- of center parties allows for enough cooperation between rival parties who share the Conservatives as their common enemy to defeat the Conservatives in a confidence vote and cobble together some other government, minority or not, that could command a majority in the House of Commons?

    Or, if the Liberals are still the largest party after the election but need to try to form a minority government, would the likely numbers in Parliament and the broader trends of politics in the country - aside from any specific scandal like Lavalin - make it harder than usual for them?
  • stetsonstetson Shipmate
    edited June 13
    Question from an outsider: What kinds of swings in what parts of the country would be needed to produce a Conservative victory? If the Conservatives became the largest party in Parliament but were still a minority, would they most likely form a minority government as has been the norm in Canadian politics or might this be the time that the polarization between the right- and left- of center parties allows for enough cooperation between rival parties who share the Conservatives as their common enemy to defeat the Conservatives in a confidence vote and cobble together some other government, minority or not, that could command a majority in the House of Commons?

    Or, if the Liberals are still the largest party after the election but need to try to form a minority government, would the likely numbers in Parliament and the broader trends of politics in the country - aside from any specific scandal like Lavalin - make it harder than usual for them?

    Your first-paragraph scenario would probably depend on a lot of variables that aren't foreseeable right now.

    When Stephen Harper came to power in 2006, there was a lot of "KKKonservatives are our common enemy!!" sentiment raging about on the centre-left, but he was able to fend off non-confidence votes for a while, by always convincing one of those supposedly outraged centre-left parties not to vote against him, for one reason or other.

    When the left-wing parties finally got their sh*t together and tried to bring the government down in 2008(in favour of a planned coalition, thus avoiding another election), Harper prorogued parliament, with the approval of the Liberal-appointed Governor-General. Again, Harper was portrayed as a ruthless tyrant, spitting in the face of democracy, but that didn't prevent voters from finally giving his his majority in 2011(granted, it didn't help that the Liberals had as their leader Michael Ignatieff, a man with almost no political experience, chosen largely for alleged celebrity cache and family connections to a romanticized Liberal era of the 1960s.)

    Long and the short, Liberals, New Democrats, and the BQ talk a good game about how the Conservatives are such an affront to the "values held by most Canadians[or Quebec, in the BQ's case]", but that doesn't always neccessarily translate into victory for the left.

    All that said, I'm still predicting that the Liberals will win another majority in the fall, if only because of voter inertia. But whenever the day does come that the electorate decides to turf the Liberals out, I wouldn't neccessarily count on anti-Conservative panic to get them promptly back into power.

  • CaissaCaissa Shipmate
    Proportional representation would almost always turn into victory for the so-called Left.
Sign In or Register to comment.