The leaders are off touring the country, hugging infants and making promises. I created this forum to discuss the happenings of the campaign as they arise.

So, let’s get the ball rolling...
An early feature of this election has been the “coalition question.” Michael Ignatieff of the Liberals has, after a period of uncertainty, stated that a coalition is not an option. Stephen Harper of the Conservatives insists that should Michael Ignatieff lose the election, the Liberals will form a coalition government with the New Democratic Party and with the support of the Bloc Quebecois.

What are your thoughts on the idea of a coalition?

Well, it would be nice to see the NDP get a stint of power, although I'm wary of the BQ, and coalitions tend to damage junior partners most of all.

Sometimes it is better to give confidence and supply, rather than buy into a coalition. Ultimately, I think it's all conjecture and politicking before the actual election from either side.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canadav ... tecompass/

An interesting "questionnare" that determines which party you should be supporting given expresed attitudes .

The coalition issue has ended up hurting Harper. it should. I look fondly back to the coalitions of Pearson when most of the great advancements were made. i think anyone over 50 does.
Recent polling has indicated that most don't mind the idea of coalitions... Plus, the 2004 letter to the Governor General pretty clearly showed that Harper was willing to consider a coalition he was part of...

Surely it's the fact that the coalition would include the BQ that's the problem, not coalition government per se.

Imagine if the SNP were needed to form a government in the UK? We'd have whinging Scots and Blimpish little Englanders shouting at each other for years.

That nearly happened of course. It's the main reason why the Lib Dems had to join a coalition with the Tories, because the alternative would have been a disastrously unstable coalition involving all the nationalists and single issue groups.

Well, I doubt that it 'nearly' happened. The 'rainbow' coalition to keep Labour in as part of the government was always a non-starter. From my point of view we lost the election and such a coalition would have been a terrible idea even if it hadn't had to rely on the likes of the SNP, PC or DUP with their particular concerns. The SDLP are slightly different, as they are the sister party of Labour over there, but would be too small to make much difference.

I don't know why 'confidence & supply' was not seen as an option by the Lib Dems. The Tories were expecting that as the opening offer, as far as I can tell. Now the Lib Dems are paying a high price, which is what I would think might be a lesson for the NDP (the BQ I couldn't care less about).

I can see that after the last election, talk of coalition to keep the Harper Tories out could be damaging - it was a very adventurous idea back then and would have been very unstable. If the Liberals are the largest party and only need the NDP to get a secure majority, then I expect they would sack the BQ off. It would depend on how Layton positions himself then, I guess. What is the NDP position on coalition, as far as you can tell?

The BQ has helped secure a few minorities in the past. They'll support anything that they consider benefits Quebec.
And Harper went to the BQ in 04 and asked for their support if he were to form a minority govenrment....
No one, including the Liberals have ever made a serious offer to include the BQ in cabinet.
The one that fell through a couple years back when Harper perouged parliament, was the first that considered seats in cabinet for the NDP...We really havn't had official coalitions.,.. Usually minority governments have simply made deals with one, or sometimes two minor parties on policies or budgets.
Harper dealt with the NDP for instance on a budget a few years back.

I just looked at the polling history. It's really weird - pretty much each of the five largest parties are on about the same as they got in the last election. Clearly, nothing really happens in Canada, eh?

Dare to be dull.
The current Conservatives are the result of a merge between the old Progressive Conservative Party and the Canadian Alliance. The Canadian Alliance was the sucessor to the Reform party, a Conservative regional party that was all about western alientation.
When the right wing parties split the vote the Liberals were almost guaranteed govenrment. Now, the unified Conservatives tend poll in the high 30%, and never have been over 42%. Based on how races split 40% to 44% almost always means a majority of seats. 38 -40 is iffy...
On the left the NDP and Liberals split the vote, and now the greens too as they poll 8-10 %
In Quebec the Bloc are a very left wing party but are all about Quebec only and actually are sovereigntists. That the sovereignty movement is all but dead in Quebec, and yet they survive is down to Quebecois figuring they get more out of confederation by voting the Bloc in, and their leader has been effective...plus they get about 40% of Quebec votes and the other parties split the rest. A lot of the English seats in Quebec make up a part of the 60% who vote federalist parties so the Bloc have enough to win the lions share of seats when spread out in primarily francophone seats.
Its been static like this pretty much since the Liberals imploded on corruption charges. (Buying votes in Quebec with shabby federal projects. Now, the vote buying in Quebec is more in the open. Harper just promised Federal money for an NHL quality arena in Quebec City. (We take hockey very seriously)
As the election grinds it looks like Harper is bleeding support very slightly.... Perhaps enough to put a majority out of reach.
Thank goodness its only 38 days long.

Federal money for a hockey rink? Americans take football seriously, but you don't see Barak Obama promising the Redskins a new stadium. In fact, he's probably giving them a hard time over their name!

Found this recently:

http://shitharperdid.ca.nyud.net/

Is he even 1/4 as bad as this makes him seem?

geo

Federal money for a hockey rink? Americans take football seriously, but you don't see Barak Obama promising the Redskins a new stadium. In fact, he's probably giving them a hard time over their name

Haven't most of your NFL stadia been built with State and City grants and loans ?
Just wondering.
As for the Quebec City rink deal, it plays well in Quebec and poorly in Alberta. But in Alberta the Tories have such a lock they are willing to create a little ill feeling.
We're all a titter over NHL clubs coming home. Phoenix to Winnipeg and Atlanta, probably to Quebec...
If it happens it'll distract the masses for two years..
Since the debates it appears that the Tories are on the edge of a majority . Debates which no one lost, and only the third party NDP leader seems to have won. It may help him in quebec and hurt the Bloc there. The Liberals are going after Harper on Health Care now, because lieing, cheating and corruption charges aren't having an effect. Apparently we'll all suffer some of that as long as the economy keeps humming along. When you have a short election cycle its much easier to control the process...

Haven't most of your NFL stadia been built with State and City grants and loans ?

Oh, no doubt, local gov'ts especially are falling all over each other to throw money at sports teams. You want to buy a Yankee Stadium or Ciit Field bond? You can! But the Federal gov't, they stay out of that business.

When you have a short election cycle its much easier to control the process...

But it increases the stakes, doesn't it? It takes longer for themes and memes to stick and it lessens the debate (both healthy and unhealthy) about the leadership and direction of the country. What is it, like 60 days? Is that enough time to dish all the dirt there is on Mr. Harper and make sure it sticks? [Slightly tongue in check, slightly serious.]

Sorry, I see above 38 days. Doesn't seem like enough time for a thorough debate. How did they arrive at that number?

I think the legal minimum is 30 days, and the maximum arounf 50. And voting day has to fall on a Monday...Harper picked a number that worked out to be close to the minimum.
Time enough for a thorough debate? Based on the boring affair that the English language leaders debate was ... I don't know if we could survive much more debate.
In effect the campaign is just an extension of the daily political battle and debate. I'm not sure that more time in a formal campaign really makes a helluva lot of difference.Well, it has in the past, but not the last three elections.
Since the Right wing parties combined and the left have become three alternatives splitting the vote we're kind of locked into ennui. Our problem is a certain complacency that comes from expecting every governing party to be reasonable. The problem is that with a majority, you essentially have an enfranchised dictator . In our system of governance, we have no where near the checks and balances of the US, or even the UK. Occassionally that leads to governing parties that exceed their mandate (Harris in Ontario) and effect changes that are too severe for the public appetite, or become corrupted through the lack of a decent opposition. (Chretien)
I think a rep by pop system, and the resulting constant minority government, would lead to a culture of compromise that has worked in the past. But our current government doesn't really beleive in compromise. And they are on the verge of a majority.