[Canadian Election Results] Harper vs Iggy vs the 'stache

[Habbaku]

If you choose not to decide you still have made a choice.

I haven't watch any Golf on tv this year. Did I made that choice is I wasn't aware that golf was on tv?

Was what fuck.

[Grey Fox]

is=if?

[Malthus]

First, nobody predicted this would happen. Most assumed the results of this election would be more or less the same as the last - the implosion of the liberals, the extermination of the Bloc, the rise of the NDP and the Con majority came as a surprise to almost everyone - the "joke" being, most of all a surprise to the NDP, who fielded "candidates" in Quebec who were supposed to be purely nominal and in some cases did not bother to campaign (one was a part-time bartender who took a trip to Vegas during the short election period).

There were lots of people, including me, who predicted that the Cons could very well end up with a Majority and for that reason the opposition forcing an election at this time was a daft idea.  You just need to go to the beginning of this thread to see that.  What surprised everyone is that the NDP would replace the Bloc in Quebec and that the Liberals would be destroyed.  I thought it would be the NDP who would suffer the most.

However, as much as Jack is going to enjoy teaching the kids how to function as MPs, he still had more clout under a minority government then he does now.  So the answer Valmy is Yes, it was a huge miscalculation for the opposition to force this election.  Iggy's only hope was that the polls would change during the election.  They did, but unfortunately for Iggy not in the way he was hoping.

Heh, just for laughs I looked at what was said in the other thread - we both were tentative about the possibility of a con majority (I did not like it, for the same reason I don't now - fear it will lead to corruption etc.). I was more correct in predicting the lib implosion, though. Neither of us commented on the Bloc, and your one firm prediction was that the NDP would lose seats.

Your post was that the cons had a "shot at a majority or the status quo":

This feels a bit contrived to me.  There is no burning issue to go to the polls over.  It seems to me the Liberals motivation is to see if Iggy will sink or swim and if he sinks to move on to another period of party "renewal".  I have no idea what Layton's motivation is.  The NDP will lose seats. The conservatives can't be all that unhappy because they have a shot at a majority or the status quo.  I dont know enough about politics within Quebec to know what the Bloc is thinking but they might be forced to vote against the budget because they didnt get all the funding they wanted.

Mine, that a con minority was "most likely", but that the election did not "bode well" for the libs:

What annoys me is that, even after years in the wilderness, the Libs simply don't have their act together. They just don't. That bodes badly for this election. The most likely (and possibly best) outcome is another Conservative minority, with Iggy being dumped and the libs, finally, getting their game on. In short, that the next election will be the "real" election.

Worst case? Conservative majority, allowing the cons to get just as complacent and corrupt as the libs used to be - there are worrying signs already in that direction. It seems part of the natural life cycle of Canadian politics that some party get imbedded into power like a tick on a dog's balls, grow increasingly corrrupt, and then spectacularly implode - to make way for another party to do the same ...

Only time will tell if my "worst case" prediction will come true.

You are correct in that neither of us saw calling an election as being a particularly good idea for the opposition.

[crazy canuck]

I was thinking more about my post in response to Josephus:

What a terrible rationale for forcing an election in which your party is going to lose seats.  Not that I am complaining too much.  Chances are the conservatives will finally win a majority and we can forget about the threat of the NDP trying to influence any policy in this country.

They can go back to heckling in the back rows as is their customary place.

The thing I got wrong was what would happen to the NDP.

http://languish.org/forums/index.php?topic=4648.msg233121#msg233121

[Valmy]

Malthus:

What I meant was that it seemed like people were predicting the Conservative majority if the Liberals forced an election.  The other stuff: their implosion, the NDP wave of powah, and the Lettowist collapse were surprising but I presumed the very reason to force an election in the first place was to get a new government not change the nature of the opposition.  Iggy miscalculated but it does not even sound like it was a very sound calculation to begin with.

[Malthus]

Malthus:

What I meant was that it seemed like people were predicting the Conservative majority if the Liberals forced an election.  The other stuff: their implosion, the NDP wave of powah, and the Lettowist collapse were surprising but I presumed the very reason to force an election in the first place was to get a new government not change the nature of the opposition.  Iggy miscalculated but it does not even sound like it was a very sound calculation to begin with.

Not necessarily: the issue was whether, following an election which gave the cons a minority, Iggy could cobble together a coallition gov't and become PM. That's what Harper accused him of, anyway, and it sorta stuck since it seemed likely enough.

In short - a con majority was always a possibilty, but no-one right up to election night thought it was a shoo-in; anything less than a majority would provide good grounds for a coallition gov't; assuming of course that the Libs were alive to lead it.

In sum, Iggy was gambling on the vote spread panning out more or less the same (if not picking up some seats), which would enable him to create a governing coallition. The Lib implosion made that impossible - even assuming the Cons got a minority (which they didn't).

One of the factors that led to the current results was the dislike on the part of the public for having such an unstable coallition - I think that scared a good number of voters over to the Cons. It was of course assumed that the coallition would be led by the Libs but be beholden to the socialists and the seperatists.

[crazy canuck]

Iggy miscalculated but it does not even sound like it was a very sound calculation to begin with.

It was a gamble that things would break his way.  The thing is there was no particular reason why he had to take the gamble other than the fact he had been ratcheting up the rhetoric for a while but even so one gets the impression he was being pressed by the party to do something.  They were not making gains in the polls and I wonder whether a lack of patience/confidence in Iggy's leadership is what drove him to the fateful decision to bring down the government.

Layton just got lucky.  The early polls showed that the NDP were going to lose seats. 

[Barrister]

Iggy miscalculated but it does not even sound like it was a very sound calculation to begin with.

It was a gamble that things would break his way.  The thing is there was no particular reason why he had to take the gamble other than the fact he had been ratcheting up the rhetoric for a while but even so one gets the impression he was being pressed by the party to do something.  They were not making gains in the polls and I wonder whether a lack of patience/confidence in Iggy's leadership is what drove him to the fateful decision to bring down the government.

Layton just got lucky.  The early polls showed that the NDP were going to lose seats.

I'm sure it will leak out eventually.  I do wonder what the reasoning behind bringing down the Conservatives was.

Of course at the time nobody expected the NDP surge, and Liberal collapse, but even absed on the polls at the time it seemed a curious move.

[Zoupa]

Iggy miscalculated but it does not even sound like it was a very sound calculation to begin with.

It was a gamble that things would break his way.  The thing is there was no particular reason why he had to take the gamble other than the fact he had been ratcheting up the rhetoric for a while but even so one gets the impression he was being pressed by the party to do something.  They were not making gains in the polls and I wonder whether a lack of patience/confidence in Iggy's leadership is what drove him to the fateful decision to bring down the government.

Layton just got lucky.  The early polls showed that the NDP were going to lose seats.

I'm sure it will leak out eventually.  I do wonder what the reasoning behind bringing down the Conservatives was.

Of course at the time nobody expected the NDP surge, and Liberal collapse, but even absed on the polls at the time it seemed a curious move.

I thought we were forced into election because the gov was found in contempt of parliament.

[Barrister]

I thought we were forced into election because the gov was found in contempt of parliament.

And how do you think found the Conservatives were found in "contempt of Parliament"?

It was by the opposition getting together and voting on a motion saying they were - which I believe was felt to be a vote of no-confidence.  It's not as if there was some neutral, independent party that made that pronouncement.

[Zoupa]

Yep, fact is 40% of the popular vote is considered a healthy majority by Canadian standards.  50% is almost impossible to achieve.  Ironically for the left the last two governments to achieve that were both Conservative.

Also, Josephus should apply the same math to the percentage of people who voted for the NDP....

Huh what?

[Zoupa]

I thought we were forced into election because the gov was found in contempt of parliament.

And how do you think found the Conservatives were found in "contempt of Parliament"?

It was by the opposition getting together and voting on a motion saying they were - which I believe was felt to be a vote of no-confidence.  It's not as if there was some neutral, independent party that made that pronouncement.

I know all that my dear. My point is I don't think Iggy was full of shit. He said repeatedly during the campaign that he doesn't trust Harper with our democratic institutions.

Being found in contempt is pretty serious IMO. Obviously, not to 40% of canadians though.

[Barrister]

I know all that my dear. My point is I don't think Iggy was full of shit. He said repeatedly during the campaign that he doesn't trust Harper with our democratic institutions.

Being found in contempt is pretty serious IMO. Obviously, not to 40% of canadians though.

You said IMO, which I can respect.  I found it meaningless, personally.  Nobody has ever been held in "contempt of Parliament" because the opposition invented it.

If you have a majority of votes in Parliament, you can declare anyone, anything.  You could be declared in contempt of Parliament tomorrow with 155 votes.

I can understand if Iggy didn't like, or didn't trust, Harper.  But he should know it doesn't matter what he thinks - it matters what he thinks the voters will do.

[Zoupa]

I know all that my dear. My point is I don't think Iggy was full of shit. He said repeatedly during the campaign that he doesn't trust Harper with our democratic institutions.

Being found in contempt is pretty serious IMO. Obviously, not to 40% of canadians though.

You said IMO, which I can respect.  I found it meaningless, personally.  Nobody has ever been held in "contempt of Parliament" because the opposition invented it.

If you have a majority of votes in Parliament, you can declare anyone, anything.  You could be declared in contempt of Parliament tomorrow with 155 votes.

I can understand if Iggy didn't like, or didn't trust, Harper.  But he should know it doesn't matter what he thinks - it matters what he thinks the voters will do.

Sometimes you need to do what honor demands 

Professor Ignatieff has a certain panache, a je ne sais quoi. I don't expect you to understand. 

[Josephus]

I was thinking more about my post in response to Josephus:

What a terrible rationale for forcing an election in which your party is going to lose seats.  Not that I am complaining too much.  Chances are the conservatives will finally win a majority and we can forget about the threat of the NDP trying to influence any policy in this country.

They can go back to heckling in the back rows as is their customary place.

The thing I got wrong was what would happen to the NDP.

http://languish.org/forums/index.php?topic=4648.msg233121#msg233121

And the one thing I will give you credit for is you stuck by "the Conservatives have a very good chance of winning a majority" from beginning to end, even when top analysts were starting to have doubts. At least you've been consistent from the get-go.