Thursday, March 24, 2011

I disagree, Warren - the best time for an election is now

If we're not going to go for an election now, when will we?

The fact is that we can't cower every time we see a poll that doesn't go our way. This government has to end now, when it's already clear that this budget is pointless, and the corruption has already permeated deep enough to send out the warning shots of the ridiculous. Canadians, frankly, have to buck up and learn to deal with an election. It's not even for the benefit of the politicians, it's for them - it's their decisions, their choices that affect the outcome. If they really feel that calling an election now is such a horrible thing, then we take that bruising; but I guarantee you that it won't be an issue once we start getting into a campaign, much like how it wasn't for the 2008 election for Harper.

Or we could do it your way, and keep up the charade of being anything close to an opposition. Is it better we stand our ground and maybe get knocked for it, or is it better we cower and waste away because of our refusal to do something useful? Either way it's clear the odds aren't in our favour, so why not at least go out with a bang?


  1. I agree. If we don't go now, we look weak by supporting the Tories yet again and then we go to an election on Harper's terms. If we happen to lose badly, we rebuild the right way.

  2. I'm going to play contrarian here and this is unrelated to your post, but the latest IR polls are scary.

    It would be nice & helpful if Iggy could come right out and flat out denounce any coalition agreements after the fact.

    I think that would explain the latest Ipsos-Reid numbers putting the Harpercons at 43% and Liberals at 24% (poll today).

    Let's face it. Jane and Joe Frontporch really REALLY don't like coalitions, particularly all progressive ones and those formed after an election. I've been to enough town halls and listen to enough talk radio call in shows to know this.

    Co-workers of mine who have been known to vote Liberal once upon a time, are now voting Harpercon because that whole coalition debacle of 2008 is not forgiven and they're afraid they'll try it again.

    We're trying to talk and reach CAnadians with democracy, but we set a bad example by attempting to shove something down the throats of the Timmy Horton's crowd they clearly don't like or don't want. Particularly an arrangement with the Bloc, who are hated in all of Canada.

    On a side note, one thing the media and the pundits are leaving out; a coalition government isn't that easy to form after the fact. It assumes that the GG will jump at it and he won't if he likes his position at Rideau Hall. Anyone who's read Lawrence Martin's Harperland would remember pages 187-188, from Chapter 14 to understand why.

  3. I can't remember the late Pierre Trudeau's exact quote about his opposition to the now defunct Meech Lake Accord. In spite of all the political parties, major newspapers, and important people in Canadian society supporting the accord because they didn't want Quebec to separate, Trudeau stated that he would rather see Canada go out with a bang than with a whimper. It's better to fight for what you believe in even if most of the political elite oppose your views. I do believe that this belief is important for the current Liberal Party. If Liberals strongly believe in something, they have to fight for it even if the current polls may not be to their advantage. To cower and hope for the best one year from now will not improve Liberal fortunes. It's better to fight hard and possibly lose the election to a Conservative majority than to play dead and see a Conservative majority take place one year from now. Then again, if the Liberals fight vigorously, they may win the election with a minority or majority of the seats. Anything can happen during an election campaign.

  4. CK, Michael said no to a coalition(he doesn't expect defeat), only if necessary, afterwards to keep Harper out.
    Ipsos Reid is an Ultra Conservative poll.CARP does not like he budget and they don't like the Government in Contempt.

  5. I completely agree with you. Besides the occasional deviations, polls have basically remained the same for the past three years. Without an election, we shouldn't have expected them to change in the next year either.

    The campaign will be Michael Ignatieff and the Liberal Party's moment of truth.

  6. A Eliz. CARP may not like the scandals or the budget. But I would hazard a guess that many of them would hold their noses to vote Harpercon if they believed the opposition parties get together for a coalition after an election result.

    And I don't just base on the IR poll, which just because they may be Harpercon shills, doesn't mean they should be ignored (power of suggestion), I also base it on the callers of talk radio shows and town halls I've attended.

    Coalitions are still very much a dirty word in this country, particularly where the Bloc are concerned.


    Yes, I know Timmy Powers is a weasel and a Harpercon cheerleader, but he has a point here.

    If Iggy is going to play the democracy and accountability card, he's going to have to practice what he preaches here. And it is in his interests to come out now and categorically refuse a coalition.

    I agree with the harpercon cheerleader, the coalition could well be Dion's carbon tax.

  8. If the LPC really wanted and intended a coalition, they could just do it - TOMORROW, right after then non-confidence vote.

    But they won't, because they don't want it: they want to win and become their own government (albeit only a minority one, most likely).

  9. Fine, then Iggy should come out, look reporters straight in the eye and say he and his party will not form a coalition now or after election yields a Harpercon minority.

    Right now, he is dodging the question and he looks like he's being coy and playing games with it. As it is, most don't trust him and that kind of evasiveness certainly isn't helpful.

    Today's majority voter, Jane and Joe Sixpack, are fearful. And one of their fears is that 'coalition of losers' as the media and pundits put it. They need to be pandered to; soothed.

    As Timmy Powers says, that coalition question could well be Stephane Dion's carbon tax.

  10. Whig Whag, the coalition would only come into play after an election result; not before. That's what makes Jane and Joe hate it so much and to them, it looks like a power grab.

  11. It's too bad that good policy sometimes has to lose.

  12. CK, re: it "would only come into play after an election result; not before" --

    no, not necessarily, and that's the point: if Ignatieff was really 'the leader of a coalition' blah blah or was seriously willing to form one to wrest power -- he WOULD just go to the GG today, instead of just defeating the gov't. After all, they still HAVE the signed (and only by 2 parties!) written agreement to go with, right now.

    There's a year and a half left in this mandate -- they could get the country used to the idea that it's not so sky-is-falling by then, to show it actually in action.

    But they're NOT going to do that, which exposes the claim that they are so hot for a coalition as: a lie.

  13. Just fyi, keep the debate going - I don't even have to do anything and my own arguments are being put forward!

  14. But, seriously, thanks for the interest, folks.