Canadian federal election - 2015

[136or142]

Seat count is what matters, period.

That's what Frank Miller said as well.

Given that it looks like Sleazy Stephie (AKA he who hides in closets) and his presstitute sychophants, especially their house organ the National Post, are going to trying make an issue out of Calm Tom saying that Quebec should be able to separate from Canada with a simple majority, the idea that Scumbag Stephen (AKA he who cowers in closets) should be able to claim 100% of the power with 33% or so of the vote seems more than a little hypocritical, although I'm sure his vile enablers like John Ivison will say it's all perfectly logical.  

If Hypocrite Harper (AKA he who frightens easily like the little boy he is) (AKA the pretend economist) is unable to secure a majority, the opposition and the press should press the Lieutenant Governor to say before the election that whoever is able to command a majority in the House will be given a chance to govern.

Horrible Harper, people who cower in closets just aren't leaders.
Sicko Stephen, his ethics were just visiting when he was in opposition.
Cynical Stephen, he's just not ready to know how decent humans behave.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

Tbf I think criticising Harper for hiding in a closet when an armed gunmen is shooting is a bit low. He's elected to (ostensibly) run the country, not be a badass. I would probably piss myself if I thought someone was shooting at me.

[136or142]

Tbf I think criticising Harper for hiding in a closet when an armed gunmen is shooting is a bit low. He's elected to (ostensibly) run the country, not be a badass. I would probably piss myself if I thought someone was shooting at me.

Harper likes to portray himself as, if not a tough guy like Putin, then certainly as a 'strong leader.'  The strong leadership decision would have been to have been with his caucus as 'Angry' Tom and 'Just not Ready' Trudeau both were.

If Harper is going to make cheap shots against Stephane Dion, Michael Ignatieff and Justin Trudeau and likely soon Thomas Mulcair, then if he wants to come across as more than the typical right wing thug he is who loves to dish it out but can't take it, then referring to him accurately as 'he who cowers in closets' is more than fair.

Cowering in a closet is the exact opposite of strong leadership, but it is normal for right wingers, who like to portray themselves as tough guys, but are, in fact, nothing more than frightened little babies.

[Hash]

This thread is for serious discussion and analysis of an election, so please keep it as such. If you're going to post only rants without adding any content, please don't post here.

[2952-0-0]

I doubt the Liberals will allow the Conservatives to continue governing. Their campaign will have been all about replacing Harper with a fresh start, and Justin will likely get defenestrated by his caucus who would be fearful of the same fate as their UK cousins. And besides, the Liberals and NDP will have both gained seats. There is no popular mandate for the only party which lost seats to govern, at least from the popular perspective.

In that case, I think it probably depends on where each party ends up in the seat count. If the Conservatives end up at 160+, it might be particularly nasty to dislodge them from power. I think the Conservatives will probably need to be held under 150 seats, regardless of where the other parties stand. Of course, this is all a big guess considering the uncharted territory we're in in terms of Canadian politics (and I don't dare underestimate the volatility of the average Canadian voter).

I think it would also depend on their share of the vote.  If the Conservatives get 150+ seats (you said 160) but only get 33% or so of the vote, it would be difficult for them to declare themselves the 'clear winner' even if they do win 40 seats or so more than the second party.

As long as Liberal + NDP >169, the movers appear at 24 Sussex. I doubt the Liberals will allow another minority government, for the simple reason that Harper will use the constant threat of another election to engage in brinkmanship and raise more money from supporters, possibly leading to another majority government. For this reason the Liberals will oppose the throne speech.

It then depends on the seat count. If Liberals and NDP are roughly equal in seats, a coalition would be the most preferable option. If an NDP minority government results, the Liberals will be wise not to push it too hard. Otherwise, the NDP will accuse the Liberals of being so power-hungry they're willing to risk a return of the bad old days.

If the Bloc revives enough so that Con + Bloc > 169, Harper may be tempted to accuse the Liberals and NDP of plotting a coalition with the separatists while making a deal with the Bloc himself. His party caucus would probably rebel, though.

The real nightmare scenario is if Harper responds to his defeat by filling all Senate vacancies with party hacks purely to subvert the incoming government. His personality seems to take defeats very personally, so he won't leave in good taste. The ensuing constitutional crisis would, ironically, give the incoming government enough political power to reopen the constitution and majorly reform the senate, and make the Conservatives (or their successor parties) unelectable for a generation.

[adma]

As long as Liberal + NDP >169, the movers appear at 24 Sussex.

Though the optics would be awkward and a little kneejerk if it were CPC with around 165 and NDP and Lib with 85 apiece.  Just saying.

[2952-0-0]

As long as Liberal + NDP >169, the movers appear at 24 Sussex.

Though the optics would be awkward and a little kneejerk if it were CPC with around 165 and NDP and Lib with 85 apiece.  Just saying.

It's still a loss of seats for the Conservatives. A Liberal/NDP coalition would enjoy a stronger popular mandate than it did in 2008 (http://www.ekospolitics.com/index.php/2014/12/it-is-neck-and-neck-as-we-head-into-election-year/), especially since it will not involve the Bloc. And why will Justin risk a caucus revolt and support keeping Steve in 24 Sussex when, as leader of the only party which gained seats, he can move in himself?

[andrew_c]

Justin won't prop up the Tories in any circumstance. He will suffer the same fate as Nick Clegg and possibly kill the party if he lets Harper stay in #24.

[DC Al Fine]

Justin won't prop up the Tories in any circumstance. He will suffer the same fate as Nick Clegg and possibly kill the party if he lets Harper stay in #24.

Trudeau propping up Harper is something out of Mulcair's wet dreams It'd be suicide for the Liberals as Andrew said.

[DC Al Fine]

And it appears I haven't missed much since I was away. I was hoping for another major shift like at the end of June.

[adma]

As long as Liberal + NDP >169, the movers appear at 24 Sussex.

Though the optics would be awkward and a little kneejerk if it were CPC with around 165 and NDP and Lib with 85 apiece.  Just saying.

It's still a loss of seats for the Conservatives. A Liberal/NDP coalition would enjoy a stronger popular mandate than it did in 2008 (http://www.ekospolitics.com/index.php/2014/12/it-is-neck-and-neck-as-we-head-into-election-year/), especially since it will not involve the Bloc. And why will Justin risk a caucus revolt and support keeping Steve in 24 Sussex when, as leader of the only party which gained seats, he can move in himself?

That is, if one assumes that it's as cut and dried as "two left parties vs one right party".  *Which it isn't.*  And at 165-85-85 numbers, who's to say that the caucus revolt wouldn't be in the *other* direction?  I mean, to try and assemble a coalition out of *that* circumstance would be as airheadedly twerpy as things get: "oooh, we milquetoasts just *have* to get together to Stop Evil Evil Evil Stephen Harper" in the worst way.  And Harper would stomp the blazes out of such a Coalition Of The Wimps.

Of course, the "Coalition Of The Wimps-ness" reduces with every shave off Harper (i.e. it becomes more plausible in a 135-100-100 circumstance).  Though personally, I feel that even existing Con seat projections are a bit over-pumped-up through projection-from-2011 methodology, i.e. there's more "potential" in more seats than the opposition realizes...

[Krago]

And it appears I haven't missed much since I was away. I was hoping for another major shift like at the end of June.

Welcome back!  So tell us, what's going to happen in the three Nova Scotia provincial by-elections tomorrow?

[Gary J]

Would Canadians find a situation, like that in 1924 in the UK, where the second largest party forms a minority government and dares the third largest party not to bring it down; more acceptable than a coalition or formal agreement between the second and third largest parties?

The Labour Party strategy in 1924 was to demonstrate they could form a credible government, whilst deliberately refusing to do deals with the Liberals. This had the effect of limiting the ability of that Labour government to do very much legislatively, but cemented Labour's status as one of the two leading parties in future Parliaments. The UK Liberal Party never recovered major party status, although in the form of the Liberal Democrats it continues to exist.

[2952-0-0]

As long as Liberal + NDP >169, the movers appear at 24 Sussex.

Though the optics would be awkward and a little kneejerk if it were CPC with around 165 and NDP and Lib with 85 apiece.  Just saying.

It's still a loss of seats for the Conservatives. A Liberal/NDP coalition would enjoy a stronger popular mandate than it did in 2008 (http://www.ekospolitics.com/index.php/2014/12/it-is-neck-and-neck-as-we-head-into-election-year/), especially since it will not involve the Bloc. And why will Justin risk a caucus revolt and support keeping Steve in 24 Sussex when, as leader of the only party which gained seats, he can move in himself?

That is, if one assumes that it's as cut and dried as "two left parties vs one right party".  *Which it isn't.*  And at 165-85-85 numbers, who's to say that the caucus revolt wouldn't be in the *other* direction?  I mean, to try and assemble a coalition out of *that* circumstance would be as airheadedly twerpy as things get: "oooh, we milquetoasts just *have* to get together to Stop Evil Evil Evil Stephen Harper" in the worst way.  And Harper would stomp the blazes out of such a Coalition Of The Wimps.

Of course, the "Coalition Of The Wimps-ness" reduces with every shave off Harper (i.e. it becomes more plausible in a 135-100-100 circumstance).  Though personally, I feel that even existing Con seat projections are a bit over-pumped-up through projection-from-2011 methodology, i.e. there's more "potential" in more seats than the opposition realizes...

The entire Liberal campaign will have been entirely about providing a safer-than-NDP choice to replace Harper. It's conceivable the Liberals will support a Conservative minority government with a more Red Tory-style leader (so they can claim to have removed Harper), but there aren't any left. And Harper isn't the type of person who will quit unless he was truly forced to.

[136or142]

As long as Liberal + NDP >169, the movers appear at 24 Sussex.

Though the optics would be awkward and a little kneejerk if it were CPC with around 165 and NDP and Lib with 85 apiece.  Just saying.

It's still a loss of seats for the Conservatives. A Liberal/NDP coalition would enjoy a stronger popular mandate than it did in 2008 (http://www.ekospolitics.com/index.php/2014/12/it-is-neck-and-neck-as-we-head-into-election-year/), especially since it will not involve the Bloc. And why will Justin risk a caucus revolt and support keeping Steve in 24 Sussex when, as leader of the only party which gained seats, he can move in himself?

That is, if one assumes that it's as cut and dried as "two left parties vs one right party".  *Which it isn't.*  And at 165-85-85 numbers, who's to say that the caucus revolt wouldn't be in the *other* direction?  I mean, to try and assemble a coalition out of *that* circumstance would be as airheadedly twerpy as things get: "oooh, we milquetoasts just *have* to get together to Stop Evil Evil Evil Stephen Harper" in the worst way.  And Harper would stomp the blazes out of such a Coalition Of The Wimps.

Of course, the "Coalition Of The Wimps-ness" reduces with every shave off Harper (i.e. it becomes more plausible in a 135-100-100 circumstance).  Though personally, I feel that even existing Con seat projections are a bit over-pumped-up through projection-from-2011 methodology, i.e. there's more "potential" in more seats than the opposition realizes...

The entire Liberal campaign will have been entirely about providing a safer-than-NDP choice to replace Harper. It's conceivable the Liberals will support a Conservative minority government with a more Red Tory-style leader (so they can claim to have removed Harper), but there aren't any left

Lisa Raitt, if she's reelected.

[Boston Bread]

And it appears I haven't missed much since I was away. I was hoping for another major shift like at the end of June.

You want a major shift every month? Too much to ask I think . Canadians are already fortunate enough to see a major shift as often as they currently do.

[DC Al Fine]

And it appears I haven't missed much since I was away. I was hoping for another major shift like at the end of June.

Welcome back!  So tell us, what's going to happen in the three Nova Scotia provincial by-elections tomorrow?

The Liberals had an extended honeymoon with massive leads, but this recently decreased with their recent austerity budget. The province's finances chronically terrible and the government mishandled cuts to film subsidies. The polls are more or less match the last election results.

Dartmouth South should be an easy Liberal hold. A no-name Liberal won it comfortably last time, and there are no local factors at play.

The more interesting races are in Cape Breton Centre and Sydney-Whitney Pier. Both seats were barely saved by the NDP, in large part due to popular incumbents who have since retired. The Liberals would normally have been expected to pick up both seats but the seats in questions are the only bastions of NDP tribalism* in Nova Scotia and the Liberals have faltered in the polls recently. Both seats are tossups.

Success for the Liberals would be gaining either or both of the Cape Breton seats. The NDP would call it a success if they hold onto both of their seats convincingly. It would be a resounding success for them if they won Dartmouth South. The Tories will call it a win if they place second in Dartmouth South

*The kind of "I vote _____ because my father and his father voted _____" loyalty that the Tories and Liberals enjoy but the NDP almost never does.

[adma]

The entire Liberal campaign will have been entirely about providing a safer-than-NDP choice to replace Harper. It's conceivable the Liberals will support a Conservative minority government with a more Red Tory-style leader (so they can claim to have removed Harper), but there aren't any left. And Harper isn't the type of person who will quit unless he was truly forced to.

But again, if it were an extraordinary 165-85-85 circumstance--even if 85 + 85 = 170, it'd look ridiculous.  With those figures, the practical likelihood is that Harper would continue governing on a "conditional" basis a la 2006-11.  You don't like it?  I don't like it?  Tough titty.

[RogueBeaver]

Whoa: Yelich lost renomination. When was the last time a serving Cabinet minister lost their nomination?

[DL]

Whoa: Yelich lost renomination. When was the last time a serving Cabinet minister lost their nomination?

Sheila Copps in 2004?

[RogueBeaver]

Copps was out of Cabinet by that point though. I remember that one well...

[Hatman 🍁]

And it appears I haven't missed much since I was away. I was hoping for another major shift like at the end of June.

Welcome back!  So tell us, what's going to happen in the three Nova Scotia provincial by-elections tomorrow?

We have a separate by-elections thread for this question

[136or142]

Copps was out of Cabinet by that point though. I remember that one well...

I believe the person who defeated her, Tony Valeri was in cabinet by that point.

[MaxQue]

Copps was out of Cabinet by that point though. I remember that one well...

I believe the person who defeated her, Tony Valeri was in cabinet by that point.

He was House Leader, which was a Cabinet position in itself then (as minister of State).

[RogueBeaver]

Ivison says there's a decent chance Harper may call the election in 3-4 weeks.

Mulcair interview.