Predictions for Canada's next gov't, make your picks!

[Goofball]

Well, it looks like we Canucks are headed to the polls in January. Let’s see everyone’s picks.

I’m think the Conservatives are going to be disappointed. People just don’t like Stephen Harper. While he remains head of the party, they are doomed to not being able to form a government.

My prediction:

The only ones who will benefit from this election are the NDP and the Bloc. The liberals will lose a seat or two to each party, but still be able to form a minority gov’t. Harper and the Conservatives may even lose a seat or two.

[KukriKhan]

Are voters going to be kinda miffed, since they just had an election 18 months ago?

Having frequent elections here ended up working against our Governator, lots of folks voting against his proposals in sheer protest over the extra expense and inconvenience.

[Goofball]

Are voters going to be kinda miffed, since they just had an election 18 months ago?

Having frequent elections here ended up working against our Governator, lots of folks voting against his proposals in sheer protest over the extra expense and inconvenience.

Typically, voters being miffed at the frequency of elections works against the opposition party(ies), since it is their actions that precipitate the election. That's one of the reasons I don't think the Conservatives will do well.

I'm curious: who was it who picked the Conservatives to win a majority gov't, and what is your reasoning behind that pick?

[Beelzebub]

Dumb people are, but most people realised this govt was going nowhere with a minority power and no real coalition. It's amazing it even managed to stick around this long (avoided falling early this summer by 1 vote).

Right now a change is desperatly needed because Paul Martin is pulling out all the stops to stay in power, recklessly spending billions and making up everything as he goes along to try and boost poll #s.

Stephan Harper isn't well known by Canadians, and most of what they do know is from liberal attack ads that have painted him as some kind of cowboy american boogeyman (unfortunatly it works, just look at the stunts Shroeder pulled in 2 german elections to save his ass). Personally I think he is a good family man who's dedicated his life to the study of economics and genuinly wants to make a difference..Don't know why canadians would dislike him more than ambitous billionaire paul martin who just wants power.

edit: Another advantage the conservatives have is a huge amount more funding available, something like 11 million in their warchest, all from their good small donations grassroots network. The Liberal party on the other hand is practically in debt. The conservatives will be spending a lot more on ads, which if done right could really help alter their public image.

Anyways, I think the conservatives will win a minority, they almost won the last one, but in the end they were too disorganised and made mistakes and fell apart at the end. But since then theyve improved while the liberals have done a terrible job. Once the conservatives are in minority, power they will get their chance, in the spotlight, Harper will either become well known and liked by Canadians in which case they have a shot at a majority govt down the road, or Harper will be proven as not cut out for leader, in which case the Liberals could make a huge comeback with the right leader (NOT MARTIN).

[KukriKhan]

Not me; I went with Liberal Majority, guessing that our Canuckian brothers will slog thru the snow to give a firmer footing (closer to a mandate) to the party that most reflects their will.

But that's only a guess, and not a very educated one. Still, I'd bet $5 and a six-pack on it. :)

[Beelzebub]

Not me; I went with Liberal Majority, guessing that our Canuckian brothers will slog thru the snow to give a firmer footing (closer to a mandate) to the party that most reflects their will.

But that's only a guess, and not a very educated one. Still, I'd bet $5 and a six-pack on it. :)

Actually, former Liberal MP Carolyn Parish (a silly woman not known for holding her tongue) just recently conceded that -20c winter conditions will help the conservatives more, cuz conservative voters have more dedication to their civic duty while a liberal voter could be more easily catagorized as a "dude it's cold out, screw that and pass the joint" type.

ANyways, it's pretty much mathematically impossible the liberals will form a majority because they're going to be absolutely slaughtered in quebec by the bloc. Even this is assuming they can manage to somehow win all of ontario, which the polls indicate is very unlikely.

Also I think the whole "reflecting canadians' will" theory is very silly. The public can very easily have their opinions changed by good leaders, but Canadian politicians generally don't try and be leaders, they just try and offer easy solutions that boost poll #s. Even the conservatives fall into that trap because they think you need to, to win. History has proven time and time again that a charismatic leader can easily bring people along through anything (Recently Raegan, Trudeau, Thatcher), but these guys all just playing politician and don't want to step up and lead. There is no real canadian will, we are pretty much just like americans or any english (or non) western country but with crappier politicians.

[Hurin_Rules]

The problem for the conservatives is who their partner would be.

It is highly unlikely they will win a majority. A minority is a possibility (though I still think the liberals will win the most seats), but even if they win that, who will they form a government with? Not the liberals, obviously. The NDP is even further left than the liberals, and so obviously out of the question. That leaves the Bloc: a Quebec based separatist party, which is basically the antithesis of everything the conservatives stand for. So how are they supposed to form a government? They have no possible allies.

[KukriKhan]

I appreciate your interesting analysis, Beelzebub; I admit to staggering ignorance of the details of Dominion politics.

Hurin_Rules: isn't that dilemma what has led to this election being called in the first place?

[Beirut]

I'm going for a Liberal minority.

The Bloc-heads are going to rip through Quebec I'm sad to say. The NDP will certainly pick up one or two, but the Conservatives are going to stay where they are or lose. I don't see them getting more seats.

In the winter, people want a Liberal government that at least gives the illusion of being helpful. When it's -20, you don't want the Conservatives in power telling you to make do by yourself. Also, since everybody is sick right now, and the flu season hasn't kicked in at all yet, who wants to hear about cutbacks to health care and for-profit medicine?

When it's very cold outside, people seek stability, they don't want radical change, they just want to be warm, drink beer and watch hockey on TV. The Liberals, eternal scumbags though they may be, are always the "safe" choice.

Liberal minority with less seats. Bloc up. NDP up. Conservatives equal or down.

One great big huge mess. Wouldn't be surprised at all to see another election next summer.

[UglyandHasty]

Unfortunatly another Liberal minority... and i'm not saying that because i want them to have a full house ! We're stuck with the arrogant bandits again.... We're stuck with the darn Bloc in Quebec again, it might even be a record election for them.

On who i'm gonna waste my vote ? Conservative ? NPD ? Marijuana Party ?

mmmmh marijuana....~:cheers:

[Beelzebub]

I think a conservative minority could hold out a while. While they won't get too close with the bloc and form a real coalition, the bloc won't be in a hurry to bring them down since after winning all of quebec this election, they can only fall down from that pinnicle. You will see the bloc back them on confidence motions, economic initiatives.

The objective for the conservatives would be to not screw up badly, look good in the spotlight through sensible policy that provides alternative to the liberals (for example, instead of a govt run universal daycare program, instead just subsidize families with daycare credits so stay at home families benifit too), nothing radical, and build up the good image of stephan harper so people in quebec and toronto don't see him as such a monster.

[Hurin_Rules]

Hurin_Rules: isn't that dilemma what has led to this election being called in the first place?

Its a little different right now. The liberals made a coalition government with their natural allies, the NDP. But it was razor thin-- it came down to a one vote margin last spring, when only the defection of a former leadership candidate for the conservative party rescued the government (imagine if it had been John McCain that had done what Jeffords did in the US senate, and you'll get some idea of how dramatic the events were).


So it is a little different. The conservatives do not currently hold the most seats-- the liberals do, and that was why they were allowed to form a government. If the conservatives get the most seats, it will be somewhat different, but I still don't see who they could form a coalition with. Can any goverment survive with a minority of seats and no firm partners? I just don't see it happening.

[UglyandHasty]

I think a conservative minority could hold out a while. While they won't get too close with the bloc and form a real coalition, the bloc won't be in a hurry to bring them down since after winning all of quebec this election, they can only fall down from that pinnicle. You will see the bloc back them on confidence motions, economic initiatives.


Bloc priority and effort will be the next provincial election in Quebec. They're like a bull seeing the red flag. They think they are clause to the sovereignty, i dont think they'll take chance by meddling with the Conservative or any federalist party. Expect the next 2 years to be rough on everybody because of them. They already have "allied" with the Party Quebecois. The sh*t is about to hit the fan ....

[GoreBag]

When are the Bloc and the Parti Quebecois not "allied"?

I try to keep my hands clean of politics; I'm not voting. As such, I have no predictions other than that the Liberal party will take a beating because of this sponsorship nonsense.

[Byzantine Prince]

I would only vote conservative if I was voting for myself. ~D

[Papewaio]

I thought it would be the Democrats or Republicans. ~:joker:

No, don't throw the maple syrup at me! ~:cool:

[Tribesman]

No, don't throw the maple syrup at me!
No more waste of Maple Syrup , the new monopoly has made it too valuable to throw around .
You are too late with the elections , you have new masters .
http://www.geocities.com/beaver_militia/canada.html
Was it Beirut that helped them with clearcutting the forests to make barns ?

[Beelzebub]

There's a lot of posting in the parti quebecois to satisfy the hard line old guard, but realistly they have no shot at winning a referendum even now when riding the high tide of anti-federalist sentiment (due to liberal scandals). They get nice poll #s when they ask stupid "do you want to become a sovereign state but retain economic partnership?" questions, but when it's a flat out "do you want to seperate from Canada?" question it drops to about 30% support. Under the Clarity Act law they now have to ask the latter type of question on a referendum ballot.

[Hurin_Rules]

There's a lot of posting in the parti quebecois to satisfy the hard line old guard, but realistly they have no shot at winning a referendum even now when riding the high tide of anti-federalist sentiment (due to liberal scandals). They get nice poll #s when they ask stupid "do you want to become a sovereign state but retain economic partnership?" questions, but when it's a flat out "do you want to seperate from Canada?" question it drops to about 30% support. Under the Clarity Act law they now have to ask the latter type of question on a referendum ballot.


But can't they just use the Notwithstanding clause to word it any way they want?

[Beelzebub]

But can't they just use the Notwithstanding clause to word it any way they want?

Don't think so since the clarity act is a federal law (based on a supreme court recommendation). The Notwithstanding clause is for the govt to override a supreme court decision on a law judged illegal through their interpretation of the charter of rights. For example if the govt wanted to make a law that would let them throw all british columbians into the ocean, and the supreme court said that's illegal under the charter, the govt could invoke "notwithstanding the supreme court's decision, we're going to do it anyways" and it's fine.

[Beirut]

The separatists are going to have a hard time in the next referendum if Andre Boisclair is the leader of the party. No matter how liberal minded Quebecers are, having a homosexual, former coke-head as the father of your new nation just won't ring many bells. He's a definite detriment to their cause.

As for federal politics, I'll bet 100 push-ups that we get a Liberal minority government again and face another federal election next summer.

The six months following this election are going to be a wasteland of uselessness.

[Hurin_Rules]

Someone voted NDP majority? You gotta love optimism.

[lars573]

I like, both my parents (who are both orange flag waving socialists), vote NDP evey election (except civic as you don't really vote for parties in civic elections). But my reasoning is different that theirs. My reasons are give the NDP a chance to f**k things up too.

Now to the election;
Dream: NDP minority
Reality: Liberal minority

Why, the conservatives scare middle Canada. The way socialists scare middle america. Fear of a united right majority keeps Ontario (where 1/3 of the federal seats are) voting mostly liberal.

[Goofball]

I thought I would revive this thread for a few reasons:

1) We are now much closer to the election date
2) Political fortunes seem to have shifted drastically since the last post
3) The leaders' debate is tonight

Holy smokes. It's looking like the Conservatives just might pull out a win and be able to form at least a minority government after the next election, which would confound my earlier prediction of a Liberal minority gov't. Who would have thought the Liberals could continue to make such asses of themselves?

Anyway, my vote remains the same. As I have in just about every election since I was old enough to vote, I will again be voting conservative. This time hopefully, my vote won't go to waste.

Having said that, an easy was to go broke in Canada over the past 30 years would have been betting against the Liberal party. But every fifteen years or so, their arrogance and sense of entitlement to power causes the Canadian public to send a message, and they lose an election bigtime.

Maybe this is the year...

[Duke Malcolm]

The British Government should repeal the British North America Act 1867, then we would all be laughing and you could have Tony Blair in charge and one of his cronies as Governor-General...

[lars573]

The BNA doesn't exist as it once did. It was patriated in 1982. You in the UK have 0 power over our constitution and government.

[Goofball]

The BNA doesn't exist as it once did. It was patriated in 1982. You in the UK have 0 power over our constitution and government.

That's not technically true.

The Queen is the official head of state of Canada, represented by the Governor General.

Although by tradition the GG basically does what the Prime Minister tells her to, on paper she wields considerable power.

[Reenk Roink]

I remember seeing the "greatest canadian" polls on CBC a while back (I live in Michigan)...

Man it was a tough choice...

Neil Young

Wayne Gretzky

Don Cherry

Anyway, to actually get on topic, I support whoever Don Cherry endorses :2thumbsup:.

[lars573]

That's not technically true.

The Queen is the official head of state of Canada, represented by the Governor General.

Although by tradition the GG basically does what the Prime Minister tells her to, on paper she wields considerable power.
True, but before '82 the UK parliment had to sign off on our bills too. Functionally we cut the number of rubber stamps from 3 to two (Senate and GG).

[TheSilverKnight]

The British Government should repeal the British North America Act 1867, then we would all be laughing and you could have Tony Blair in charge and one of his cronies as Governor-General...

The North America Act of 1867 has no effect in the Commonwealth nations of the Americas today. After it was patriated in 1982, and the UK Parliament didn't keep signing off on bills by the Canadian parliament, the government of Canda has the right to do whatever it wishes seperate of the British government despite the fact that a GG is representing Her Majesty in Canada.

[Kaiser of Arabia]

Canada has a government now? When did this happen?

[Strike For The South]

During the NHL lockout I presume

[Kaiser of Arabia]

During the NHL lockout I presume
Probably.

[Strike For The South]

Probably.

indeed

[Sartaq]

And Wayne Gretzky wasen't made PM??

[Just A Girl]

You guys dont have Maggi thatcher :(

[Divinus Arma]

Canada. Phhhff.

[Byzantine Prince]

hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm :no:

[UglyandHasty]

I thought I would revive this thread for a few reasons:

1) We are now much closer to the election date
2) Political fortunes seem to have shifted drastically since the last post
3) The leaders' debate is tonight

Holy smokes. It's looking like the Conservatives just might pull out a win and be able to form at least a minority government after the next election, which would confound my earlier prediction of a Liberal minority gov't. Who would have thought the Liberals could continue to make such asses of themselves?

Anyway, my vote remains the same. As I have in just about every election since I was old enough to vote, I will again be voting conservative. This time hopefully, my vote won't go to waste.

Having said that, an easy was to go broke in Canada over the past 30 years would have been betting against the Liberal party. But every fifteen years or so, their arrogance and sense of entitlement to power causes the Canadian public to send a message, and they lose an election bigtime.

Maybe this is the year...

I also hope my vote wont go to waste. This year i'll vote Conservative, i have one of the leading Conservative candidate for the Quebec in my "circonscription"(dont know the right word in english and too lazy to search) Josée Verner. I'll vote for her in hope of a Conservative governement. If we can have a deputy wich is in the governement(for once) maybe some of the federal goodies will fall our way... Gah ! I was watching Harper in the debate, geez he is drab and dull. But he deserve a chance. They cant do worst than the Liberals crooks. Even if the Libs try to scare us by saying the Conservative will transform the Canada into a northern USA or kiss Bush butt (aarrghh), there's no chance that can happen. They might have some right wing policies, but there's things they will never dare try in Canada.

[Goofball]

They cant do worst than the Liberals crooks. Even if the Libs try to scare us by saying the Conservative will transform the Canada into a northern USA or kiss Bush butt (aarrghh), there's no chance that can happen. They might have some right wing policies, but there's things they will never dare try in Canada.

Seen the latest round of attack ads the Liberals have put out? Check this out:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20060111/ELXNADS11/TPNational

I've put my favorite part in bold:


Liberals step up attacks in new TV ads
With the Tories closing in on a majority, their leader becomes the target

MARKETING REPORTER; With a report from John Ibbitson

The long-expected Liberal attack campaign finally took to the air yesterday, painting Conservative Leader Stephen Harper as a scary extremist with close ties to the Americans and the Bloc Québécois.
The ads feature harsh, unflattering close-up images of Mr. Harper over an ominous drumbeat; one even suggests Mr. Harper's "rise to the top" was paid for by U.S. right-wingers.
Another, entitled "unity," claims that Mr. Harper and Bloc Québécois Leader Gilles Duceppe spent "lots of late-night secret meetings" together plotting the downfall of the Liberal government. "Unfortunately, their unity won't do much for Canada's unity," the ad says.
The Conservatives, who have been planning their response since the Liberals used the same tactic to win the 2004 election, reacted with outrage.
"It's just a desperate party trying to paint Stephen Harper as something he isn't," Conservative campaign chairman John Reynolds said.
The Liberals also prepared an ad that declares Mr. Harper would put "soldiers with guns" in Canadian cities.
It says: "Stephen Harper actually announced he wants to increase military presence in our cities. Canadian cities. Soldiers with guns. In our cities. In Canada. We did not make this up."
The ad was inadvertently posted on the Liberal website yesterday, then pulled because it is not currently running on television.
"Mr. Harper's plan does call for a greater military presence in Canadian cities," Liberal spokesman Ken Polk said.
The ad "was inadvertently posted," he said in an e-mail. Then he sent another e-mail, saying: "The ad has not been aired. It may still."
A few minutes later in another e-mail, he said: "The ad will not air in its present form and was never intended to."
Mr. Reynolds said the Liberal ads distort the facts and take quotes out of context. He took particular issue with one of the spots that states that Mr. Harper has admitted that "he'll have to either raise taxes or run a deficit to pay for" his campaign promises.
"That ad is absolutely misleading and wrong and a lie," Mr. Reynolds said.
Mr. Polk was unable to confirm that Mr. Harper himself has said he might have to run a deficit to pay for his campaign promises. But he said the ad referring to the deficit is backed up by a Liberal analysis of the Conservative plan.
Other Liberal ads pick up on themes Mr. Martin introduced in Monday's English debate. An ad called "hotel" makes reference to a speech Mr. Harper made to a "secret ultra-right-wing American think-tank," in which he said their conservative movement was a "light and inspiration."
The Liberal Party also introduced its first slogan of the campaign yesterday: "Choose Your Canada."
"This is about the kind of Canada you want and it's about values," Liberal MP Ujjal Dosanjh said. "The Prime Minister has laid out very clearly that this election offers a stark choice between the values of Stephen Harper and the Conservatives and we Liberals."
Mr. Dosanjh said the ads aren't negative because they are based on fact. "Truth is wonderful at any time and this is all about the facts and laying bare the facts about Mr. Harper," he said.
In late December during a campaign tour on Vancouver Island, Mr. Harper said major cities across the country should be given a regular army presence by the creation of territorial defence units. The units would have 100 regular troops and 400 more reservists, he said at the time.
In launching the attack ads, the Liberals are returning to proven territory by attempting to portray Mr. Harper as a radical right winger with un-Canadian values.
In the 2004 election, they knew voters were angry with the Liberals, but fearful about what a Harper government would do.
"This was an election in which people had to choose between anger and fear. Are you more angry at the Liberals or more worried about what the Conservatives might do?" Liberal adman Jack Bensimon asked on the eve of the 2004 election.
His agency, Bensimon-Byrne, is again behind the Liberals' English-language advertising.
The Liberals appear to be betting that voters will be swayed by the same strategy for a second straight election.
Jonathan Rose, a Queen's University politics professor, said that while the strategy worked in 2004, the ads "smack of desperation" in this campaign.
"The message of the ads is kind of incompatible with the way Harper has been comporting himself through the campaign," he said.
Mr. Reynolds said that in 2004, the Conservatives made a big mistake in letting the Liberals define Mr. Harper before he could define himself.
This time, the Conservative Leader has been busy defining himself, and the tone of the campaign, with a moderate policy announcement almost every day.
"What's really different this time is that Harper's had darned near five weeks to define himself to the Canadian public," Mr. Reynolds said.


What a bunch of crap. I've seen the ad. It actually gives the impression that Harper wants to install Canadian soldiers in cities for the purpose if enforcing some sort of totalitarian martial law. The liberals are basing this I believe, on Harper's stated platform of beefing up the Canadian military, which has been sadly neglected after over a decade of Liberal power, and that a large part of this "beefing up" would be in the form of reservists, who are typically stationed in or near major cities. The funny thing is, the current Liberal government policy is doing the exact same thing. So apparently if the Liberal Party increases the size of our military they're simply protecting Canadian sovereignity, but if the Conservative Party does it they're one step away from making Jews and gays wear armbands.

:dizzy2:

Also, although the Liberals say the ad never aired, that is not true. They aired it in Quebec in french, and they also had it on their website.

What a bunch of liars the Liberal Party are. If Canadians vote them back into power, we are the biggest suckers in the world.

[UglyandHasty]

Saw the Liberals add on tv yesterday evening. Its so big, i could only laugh. Like we'll see soldiers on every street corner if the Conservative got the power. They also say the Cons. will review the right of women to abortion, when the Cons. have adopt a motion against a review at their last congress.

The Liberals want to scare everybody. Harper may be dull and ugly, but at least he is not a proven crook, not a proven cheater ! They disgust me.


edit Gah ! I waste my 400th post on Liberals...:furious3:

[Goofball]

Don't forget to get out there and vote today, all of my fellow Canucks. Remember: If you don't vote, then you're not allowed to complain...

[GoreBag]

Nonsense. By not voting, I'm not responsible for putting into office whatever bunch of jerks make it in.

[Byzantine Prince]

Nonsense. By not voting, I'm not responsible for putting into office whatever bunch of jerks make it in.
Nonsense, even if one person votes in your entire region you are putting someone in office that is suposed to represent you. If you vote, you make your opinion known, assuming that opinion alligns itself with one of the platforms of the main parties (granted). Not voting doesn't bother politicians, it just makes democracy poorer, by rule of misrepresentation. :no:

[KukriKhan]

With the B.Prince on this one. The benefits of freedom obligate the citizen to:
-vote
-serve (military, Peace Corps, public office, whatever suits the individual), and
-judge (jury duty)

My own country has abysmal numbers in all of those areas, I ashamedly admit. But the truth prevails. When one doesn't vote, serve & judge actively, one passes on the tough jobs to the "other guy", and invites tyranny.

[GoreBag]

Nonsense, even if one person votes in your entire region you are putting someone in office that is suposed to represent you. If you vote, you make your opinion known, assuming that opinion alligns itself with one of the platforms of the main parties (granted). Not voting doesn't bother politicians, it just makes democracy poorer, by rule of misrepresentation. :no:

Assuming that democracy works effectively and is worth keeping around. I don't think it is/does.

[TheSilverKnight]

Canada has a government now? When did this happen?


During the NHL lockout I presume

Come off it. Canada's government is in a better shape than America's.

Anyway, back on topic, I'm interested to see how Canada's new conservative government will fare with foreign issues and how it's relationship with all of it's allies will be. Also, who is the new PM? Is he better than Martin (or seem better?):help: ?

[Goofball]

Anyway, back on topic, I'm interested to see how Canada's new conservative government will fare with foreign issues and how it's relationship with all of it's allies will be. Also, who is the new PM? Is he better than Martin (or seem better?):help: ?

See this thread for some scintillating and opposing commentary from your resident Canuckians:

https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=60179

[Strike For The South]

Come off it. Canada's government is in a better shape than America's.
?

man you need a sarcasm detector

[Byzantine Prince]

Assuming that democracy works effectively and is worth keeping around. I don't think it is/does.
If you would like, you could move to a country that doesn't have a democracy. We will see how happy you are in corrupt ridden state that tortures everyone, by starvation or other means.

Also democracy is working just FINE in Canada. It does what it sets out to do.

[GoreBag]

If you would like, you could move to a country that doesn't have a democracy. We will see how happy you are in corrupt ridden state that tortures everyone, by starvation or other means.

Also democracy is working just FINE in Canada. It does what it sets out to do.

If you'd like to pay for my ticket, lodgings and necessities, I'd be glad to do what you tell me to do.