How the Conservatives will win their majority

That's very amusing.

I can't figure it out for myself, so I might as well just ask: Barts, is this fantasy a nightmare or a wet dream to you?

You have to watch support for the Bloc among Francophone voters. So long as it remains high, the Bloc has a certain autonomy, and will vote Harper out, for a convincing reason. However, by and large, I agree, the Bloc is Harpers hole card. They will not let Ignatieff determine the election date on his own.

The Conservatives are doing an appraisal of where they went wrong in the last election, and have brought in new faces in Quebec to plan the next campaign. Given voter amnesia, a convincing programme could give bring 10 to 20 seats to the Conservatives in Quebec.

Though Duceppe ran against Harper and produced the result he promised (no Tory majority) he has no stake in helping anyone other than his party. Given a stronger Liberal party he will run against them, or the NDP for that matter.

True, Duncan - except that, as we have seen, a Harper majority is a worst case scenario for Duceppe. For which progressives across the country can only be grateful.

However, this does not take into consideration the possibility that Gilles Duceppe will be leaving federal politics in the not-too-distant future.

A new Bloc Quebecois leader would have an effect on the way the voters may look on the party they've been voting for since 1993.

That could mean a shift towards the Conservatives (doubtful!); the bleeding of support towards the Liberals and NDP (starting to look that way), or the status quo.

A by-election in LAURIER-STE. MARIE would be interesting to watch.

This was really the Conservatives' plan for last election but it didn't work. I don't see much reason why it would work now. The likelier path for a Conservative majority lies goes through Ontario.

Are you talking about the new seats for Ontario?

"a Harper majority is a worst case scenario for Duceppe"

 Really? I see it the opposite way - a Tory majority would bring in policies that would be such anathema to Quebec that support for sovereignty would sky-rocket and Duceppe might realize his dream of one day being President of the Republic of Quebec.

David, Duceppe is not Lucien Bouchard, the founder of the Bloc. There are some strong contenders to replace him, notably the ex-CSN Secretary-Treasurer Pierre Paquette, should he leave.

Doug, the Conservatives threw away their majority with stupid moves that hurt them in Quebec. Why would they do this again? 

Are those the only three options you can suggest? What would you do if you were Stephen Harper? Alienate the Bloc? If so, to what end? What strategies and tactics to you see Harper developing to secure a majority?

--

Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd. -- Voltaire

Why is a Harper majority a worst case scenario for Duceppe? The Bloc will be just fine regardless of who is in 24 Sussex. The Bloc did fine under Chretien, because they have a solid base vote. Also, it's not just about issues, sometimes with politicians it's about their careers and pensions. The worst case for the Bloc, politically but not on the issues, is improved Liberal fortunes.

--

Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd. -- Voltaire

It would have worked had Harper held his tongue on cultural funding. Harper's worst enemy is himself.

--

Doubt is not a pleasant condition, but certainty is absurd. -- Voltaire

The Conservatives can make gains in Ontario and BC, at both the Liberals' and NDP's expense.

ETA: and don't forget Edmonton Strathcona.

I'd say that the next election is almost certain to lead to another hung parliament. Some would say that what we really need is a hanged parliament, but that's something else altogether.

I agree that a minority parliament is the more likely outcome of the next election. It would be interesting to see how many ridings are actually in play and where. Quebec and BC seem to be more fluid than elsewhere. And with Ontario going to get hit harder than anywhere else by the recession, who does that help? The Conservatives hang tough based on the inability of the NDP or the Liberals to overcome the Reform inheritance of the Conservative ground won in the Diefenbaker sweep of 1958.

The year 1958, Duncan, was also important for its preoccupation with pipelines. The Conservatives have done well partly because of the product carried in those pipelines.

But they have also had to depend on Mulroney's free trade accomplishments.

All those things are now entering into speculative ground.

Barts - It seems that answering a question is beyond you. Just as well, given your questionable conjecture so far; the latest as strange as the first:

Why would improved Liberal fortunes be worse than improved Conservative (or even NDP) fortunes for the Bloc?

I can easily support my argument beyond the example of Duceppe's focus last election: the Conservatives are against the vast majority of the values espoused by the Bloc (with the glaring exception of their common wish to cripple the Federal government, for very different reasons).

The opening post has more flaws in it than I care to get into.

But overarching those, and every similar consideration, is that NO ONE has a good chance of getting a majority until the Bloc crumbles to marginality.

Under that condition, there is no combination of feasible strategic moves that can definitively lead to a majority. All the moves may be seperately feasible, but them all bearing fruit in the same election is not likely. [If for no other reason than one of them ends up biting the other in a way that isn't planned by the campaign in question, but is inevitable in the pizza approach to a fractured electorate.]

Not to say that a majority won't happen. It could. But it is not something for which there is a march with certaintude as expressed in the opening post. [Let alone the contradictions there in the suggested strategic moves and assumptions outlined in the opening post.]

Besides.... the reality is that the Harper Crew has to be stopped- but because they are governing, not because they might get a majority.

One of said flaws:

"Base" means core supporters: the people that vote for a party just about no matter what, and who do pretty much see no other option.

But you don't win elections in ridings only by securing your base. You don't take them for granted, and you need them for more than their votes... but you don't win elections with only your base.

What is required is that while doing everything else the Conservatives maintain their vote share in the West and the rural and suburban East. Those people are not all 'base', they are by no means all right wing, and the better chunk of them most do have somewhere else they consider parking their vote.

This is especially true in a LOT of seats in BC where the Cons are in two way races with the NDP, and in the Lower Mainland / Vitoria area where they are in both two ways with the Liberals and 3 way races.

 No way the conservatives are heading for a majority...Quebec and Duceppe have both tasted the rotten fish known as the Harper conservatives....and they are not going to fall prey to conservative putridity again.

Unlike the western voter that just blindly votes based on the color of a tie, the eastern voter has a better memory. Albeit the Ontario right wing red neck is a permanent fixture...they will drink the radioactive waters of southern ontario and say..so what we are gullible and stupid...there is no hope for them.

Iggy had his chance and he blew it..he is going to risk it all on a gamble that Canada will be falling apart and that the harper conservatives are unfit to govern. He is right, Canada will fall to pieces during this economic disaster and plenty of conservatives will be getting the biggest kick in the head they ever experienced..so harper is out.

The question is going to be ..do they want another power hungry madman (Iggy) as a leader who is - besides watching a disaster unfold is supporting it, or will they have learnt their lesson standing in the bread lines and begging in the streets..and vote for a more honest Canadian named Jack Layton ? Will Quebecers notice this also and continue to support the Bloc? Each are the real McCoy.

It's all up to the media how and who Canadians support anyways....yes they are simpletons, so anything is really possible. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AkM5eyN8ytI&feature=user

If they were going to pick them up anywhere, it would be here. I don't consider that highly likely now, but if the Tories were going to get a majority, it's largely in the 905-area seats that would have to happen.

I think the damage has been done. I also don't think there's quite the same appetite for conservative politics in Quebec as there was getting to be a couple of years ago. Look what happened to the ADQ in the last Quebec election.

I think this is true.

The day Ignatieff flopped, Tom Mulcair was on CBC's Politics programme saying that Duceppe would have no reason to co-ooperate with Ignatieff in calling an early election: Duceppe has nothing to gain from an early election. Mulcair predicted Ignatieff would turn 65 and get his pension before the next election -- except that, Mulcair grinned, Ignatieff hasn't worked in Canada long enough to get CPP.

The Bloc got a mandate to stop Harper. But Ignatieff just proved the Liberals are no better. The Liberals have gained in the polls in Quebec recently. They are now the Bloc's main enemy. This should be fun to watch.

They won't be in effect until after the 2011 census, which won't be in time for new Boundaries Commissions in time for the 2012 election. Try 2016.

Thought this was as good of a place as any.

Harper and Flaherty who did so well as FM in Ontario have some splannin to do. Did I say no recession?

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty said Monday that weak tax revenue and higher government expenses will mean Canada will run a larger deficit than was predicted in his January budget

How did you say you liked your crow? Perhaps with a side of a hundred BILLION dollar deficit. Please tell me why anyone believes these liars are fiscally prudent? He did the same thing in Ontario leaving a giant deficit that the cons tried to blame on the next government. Add to this all the assest they have sold off to cover for part of this mess.

What will they do when they have sold off all the crown assets to their criminal friends for pennies on the dollar? Oh wait I know, spend the government into debt with constructing government buildings to agains sell them off and re-lease them for 99 years at more than it would cost to keep them. Hodl on,  I think they are doing that already aren't they. Hmmm.

Oh check out Jim's Smile...nothing says honest like his evangalist "stealling your money" grin. He looks constapated. My old garfield boardgame said "never trust a smiling cat" which is so very true when you live in mouseland.

The Liberals are done, toast, finito, and this is exactly how Harper will ensure his majority, unless.......

Ottawa moves to reshape the House

  federal government official said that in the new legislation, "there will be different numbers," ones that should please Ontario voters. The final figure, said an official, would be closer to the 21 seats that a representation-by-population formula would suggest the province is entitled to than the 10 seats offered in the previous bill.

Alberta could be awarded up to six seats and British Columbia up to seven, taking the current Parliament from 308 members to around 340.

Adding so many seats to the Ontario, British Columbia and Alberta totals could transform the political map, potentially putting an end to this decade's chronic run of unstable minority governments.

The Conservatives could be expected to dominate any new Alberta seats, would be favoured in added British Columbia ridings, and would be competitive in many of the new ridings in Ontario, which may be why they are keen on redistribution. Being just 12 seats shy of a majority, they would have the best shot at winning a majority in an enlarged Commons.

Still, the Liberal Party is the party of cities. Apart from their Atlantic redoubt, the party's remaining strength is mostly concentrated in Toronto, Montreal and Vancouver. The new ridings should offer fertile ground for Liberal victories.

But downtowns and older suburbs, where Liberals tend to dominate, are not the locus of population growth. Cities are growing at their edges, as new suburbs replace farmlands. It is no coincidence that Prime Minister Stephen Harper forsook the United Nations earlier this week for an event at Tim Hortons, or that Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff spent Thursday in Burlington, in the Golden Horseshoe, decrying what he claimed were the inadequacies of the government's stimulus efforts.

One obvious loser in any parliamentary reform would be the Bloc Québécois, which seems to be in permanent possession of about 50 seats, delivered by Quebec voters who prefer to have a sovereigntist voice representing them in the House of Commons.

But the province isn't growing, and may even be on the cusp of population decline. Expanding the size of the House of Commons would weaken the influence of Quebec's voice in Parliament and the Bloc along with it.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-moves-to-reshape-the...

According to figures in the Globe today Alberta, BC and Ontario would gain 6, 7 and 21 seats respectively. That would give each of them an average of about 90,000 people per riding.

Quebec would remain at 75 seats, an average of 96,000 per riding. On these figures shouldn';t Quebec be getting about 7 new seats instead of none?

Tories risking Quebec ire with proposed Commons seat shuffle: Experts

http://www.canada.com/news/Tories+risking+Quebec+with+proposed+Commons+s...

Harper will get a majority next time. he does not need Quebec. he will pick up one seat in Alberta, a couple in BC and probably 15-20 in Ontario. He may lose afew seats in Quebec but he does not need Quebec.

It will be the end of Canada as we know it when that monster psychopath gets a majority.

He won't get his majority way things are going, but this blatant attempt at gerrymandering should be challenged anyhow.  Quebec should be for more seats too, as are more purely urban centres.  

(Double post, sorry)

Adding seats to a Parliament of regional strongholds will give no voice to the political minorities in those strongholds.

In six elections Toronto's Conservative voters have elected no one. In 2008 it took an average of only 21,887 Toronto Liberal voters to elect an MP, yet 244,732 Conservative voters have no voice.

In Alberta in 2008 it took 449,013 non-Conservative voters to elect one MP, but only 30,450 Alberta Conservative voters, as usual.

It took 86,203 federalist voters to elect one Quebec MP In 2008, but only 28,163 Bloc voters. They keep electing more than one-and-a-half times as many MPs as their vote share deserves, over the past six elections.

These chronic regional bonuses are bad for Canada. Adding seats to regional strongholds will only intensify them.

Of course I don't mean all voters...Looking at polls ..something is beginning to look really clear and that is the fact that the conservatives are getting their support from the over 65 crowd and the uneducated. This is really sad because the over 65 crowd has been brainwashed the longest and the uneducated are easily maiplulated. The other danger from this blindly voting for a conservative problem is the fact that they are electing crack heads to parliament as has been in the news lately.

I think the other parties should be looking at the gun registry like the conservatives do. That is a big issue for the over 65 crowd /rural and uneducated. It wouldn't surprise me if that issue was bigger than most people think. It's been a boon to the reform party and conservative alike in western Canada.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AkM5eyN8ytI&feature=user

I don't think he will get his majority but I think one of the biggest problems is he didn't get his majority years ago..so Canadians haven't learnt the lesson and experienced the danger of having a real conservative government. As a result all the warnings the other parties spouted off didn't happen.

All one has to do though is look at all the contempt for law and all the outragous problems the conservatives have conjoured up to get but a tiny taste of what is in store for them should they do get a majority. After that (assuming a majority) it will take a generation of media brainwashing for them to return.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AkM5eyN8ytI&feature=user

I am more than willing to bet money that the Conservatives won't win a majority if an election is called within the next 12 months.

For every seat they might be able to win:

Avalon, Moncton-Riverview-Dieppe, Bramalea-Gore-Malton, Brampton-Springdale, Brampton West, Don Valley West, Guelph, Kingston & the Islands, Welland, York Centre, Elmwood-Transcona, Winnipeg South Centre, Edmonton-Strathcona, Western Arctic, Burnaby-Douglas, Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca, Newton-North Delta, New Westminister-Coquitlam, Vancouver South...

there would be the potential to lose seats as well:

Central Nova, South Shore-St. Margaret's, West Nova, Egmont, Fredericton, Mirimichi, Saint John, Beauport-Limoulou, Charlesbourg-Haute-St. Charles, Pontiac, Roberval-Lac St. Jean, Brant, Kenora, Kitchener Centre, Kitchener-Waterloo, London West, Mississauga-Erindale, Oak Ridges-Markham, Oshawa, Ottawa-Orleans, Nunavet, Palliser, Saskatoon-Rosetown-Biggar, North Vancouver, Surrey North, Vancouver Island North...

and we would be back with another Conservative minority government.

Better a conservative majority than separatist sympathizing Iggy and Layton. These 2 nimrods would give all of Canada's money to  the black financial cesspool hole that is Quebec. The federal government bailsout every major and minor industry in Quebec (aerospace industry, Bombardier, Just For Laughs etc) . Here's an idea how about funding Canadian artists in parts of Canada other than Quebec who gets 70 % of arts funding in this country. Fund Canadian artists outside Quebec for a change who don't hate Canada and want to separeate Quebec from Canada. What a thought - giving money to Canadians who actually love and respect Canada.(I'm looking at you dead Falardeau)  Not Iggy and not layton will do that., They'll continue giving most of the Arts funding to Quebec artists who will continue to grow their art and push for separatism on our dime.

Time to take away the political subsidy to all Canadian political parties. Work and hustle for a living you lazy bitches like most Canadians do.

Let the Conservative Majority begin you extreme left wing bitches!

and ....

God Bless Canada!

You and your Nazi god can go to hell, taking Stephen Harper for good measure.

Is there a God? Have who seen her/him? Are we in the USA? Bye

Testicles not dropped yet...check

Interesting list but I don't think it really proves anything one way or another - if anything, you are saying that Peter Mackay would lose his very solid seat and if the Cons lose that one, I don't think they are going to win an NDP stronghold like Elmwood-Transcona.  Converseley, if the Cons are knocking off Liberal and NDP incumbents in the Lower Mainland, I don't think they will lose incumbent seats in affluent North Vancouver.  The trend will be in one direction (strong Conservative gains or retrechment/losses) rather than cancelling each other out, in my view.

I'm not sure where you are getting your population figures.  According to these hot-off-the-press Stats Can estimates, after the seats are added, these four provinces would be in the range of 102,907 (Ontario) to 105362 (Alberta) people per seat.  I seriously question Harper's motives and I certainly don't want to see him with a majority but the way the country is growing, something will have to give.  Currently, Alberta and BC have a combined population greater than that of Quebec but have 17% fewer seats.  If current trends continue, that will only get worse over time.

I think Harper is not be above playing off regions against one another to improve his odds outside of Quebec.  The concept of "2 founding peoples" plays well in Quebec but is treated as selective history west of Ontario.

I agree completely.

The polls are now showing that harper is now aaproaching his 2008 vote level in Quebec, the one province where he looked like losing seats.

I have never understood why the Conservatives (and the ADQ) have been able to turn Quebec City into something of a fortress. Can someone explain?

Also, what are the prospects for the Quebec City ridings in the next election?

Ontario to get 18 more seats in House of Commons Parliament overhaul boosts strength of Ontario, B.C. and Alberta

Bay Street Gerrymandering their way to a phony-baloney majority?

It may be something to do with the degree to which Quebec City has a sense of itself as the heart of the "old Quebec"-not only francophone, but traditionalist on religious and cultural matters, and where, at the worst, "francophone" identity shades into Euro-supremacism.  Perhaps also the Tories and ADQ have been able to make a case to Quebec City voters that votes for those parties were votes to "stop Montreal", which is the home of the modern, progressive and multicultural Quebec sensibility.

Can someone tell us if the Creditistes did well there during the Sixties and Seventies?

The new redistribution bill may well help the Conservatives towards their majoity. Presently they have 145 out of 308 seats plus the Independent Arthur who always votes with them and whom they did not oppose in the last election.

They will likely gain all 5 new Alberta seats. Of the 7 new BC seats, most would go to the Okanagan and the Fraser Valley where they are strong. So they stand to gain maybe 5 of these.

The 18 Ontario seats will be more competitive but I would guess the Conservatives stand to gain at least half of these. Few if any of the new seats would go to the Conservative wastelands of Northern Ontario and the City of Toronto. Most would go to the 905 region and perhaps Ottawa and Kitchener. (I would be interested in a more sophisticated analysis which I suspect Wilf Day has already done).

The bottom line is that the Conservatives stand to gain about 19 new seats and the opposition about 11. That would give the Conservatives effectively 165 seats out of 338 on the same vote as last time. They would only need  4 or 5 more for a majority , depending on who is the Speaker.

Unfortunately the new bill, however advantageous it may be to the Conservatives, is also equitable in repairing the imbalance in the Commons. It is hard to oppose except perhaps in that it diminishes Quebec's proportionate share of the seats by about three. Quebec has 23.1% of the population which would transalte into 78 seats instead of the 75 it would keep under the new prposal.

When you look at the 26 seats the Creditistes won in the 1962 election in rural Quebec, and overlay the results of the Diefenbaker Conservatives (41 seats), the Mulroney Conservatives (47-49 seats) and the B.Q. (33-46 seats), the results are remarkably similar.

With the exception of the 1979-1980 elections, since the 1958 election, there has been a 500,000-1,000,000 block of voters that have consistently not voted for the Liberals outside of Montreal.

Unless Harper can tap into that group of non-Liberal votes, he won't be getting a majority, at least not before the new seats are added to Parliament post-2011 Census.

Someone on Evan Solomon's show said the new seats are an attempt for the Conservatives to get a majority without having to go through Quebec.

ETA: did anyone catch that idiot Stephen Fletcher say that if Quebec separates, it will have no seats in Parliament at all? And this is the minister responsible for unity? *major rolling of eyes*

The new seats just give the Conservatives a very marginal advantage. IE, odds are they will get more than 15 of the 30. But not 20 of the 30.

And with more of them going to Ontario than the original proposal, odds a little less in their favour. Not to mention we're talking long ranfe here- not the next election.

re: OP on rural voters;

'those right wingers have no where else to go'

they can find somewhere else to go. 

Harper's complicity in the rape of children in Afghanistan, as he covers up the war crimes of his government and their allies, forcing soldiers to witness rape and not report, leading to PTSD as well as ongoing abuses of children is completely disgusting.

No one can support a liar and one who forces witnesses to crime to silence.

And for all Harper's and his MP's supposed support for 'tough on crime' legislation !! What hypocrites.

whited sepulcres.

The opening post was poor whan it came out over a year ago, let alone now.

And if we had PR, Harper could never get more then 40% of the seats in Parliament.

Under PR, centre-left coalitions would become the rule in Canada.  Unless the Liberals and Cons joined in a formal coalition. And even in that case, Harper's dream of a neo-conservative Canada via false-majority governments would be ruled out.

If only Canada was a democracy.

From the Star link....

The Cons must be getting desperate....

No way is a more representative commons going to deliver a majority to a party with 33%.

Yes it might help the Cons avoid a huge loss of seats but this alone will not bring a majority.

 It's Bay Street and "the market" that doesn't care which of the two parties possess phony-majority dictatorial power as long as one of them does. Liberals or Tories in power makes no difference to the elite and foreign interests. This rigging of electoral boundaries is merely an investment for the near future to break the deadlock and has nothing to do with trusting Canadians with democracy.

The government proposes 30 more MPs.

Unfortunately, this shrinks Quebec's representation to below the Canadian average population per MP, for the first time ever. Another lame Harper move. Sometimes I think he wants Quebec to secede.

They could have proposed only 16 more MPs: 10 for Ontario, 4 for BC, and 2 for Alberta. Then Quebec's ridings would have remained at the national average. But I guess it's too late to suggest that now.

So the only answer is five more MPs for Quebec. With 343 MPs, the 2011 projected average population per riding in Canada will be 98,862. Quebec would be 98,017. Problem solved.

Do we need more MPs? Yes, of course. We need a more accountable government, that represents Canadians better. The fast-growth provinces are under-represented. Taking away MPs from the six smaller slower-growth provinces is not going to happen.

Rebalancing provincial seats in the House of Commons will not create full voter equality. [56] Provincial seat inequities pale in comparison to voting system distortions. In the last election the weight of a Bloc vote was 2.4 times that of an NDP vote. A Conservative vote was worth 1.3 times that of a Liberal vote. A Green vote had no weight at all.

But more MPs for growing regions is a start.

That's a bit of a slander against the Capitale Nationale (Quebec City) region.

True, when the Creditistes elected 26 Quebec MPs in 1962, that included Quebec East, Quebec West, Quebec-Montmorency, Portneuf and Charlevoix. Only Quebec South went Liberal, and stayed, as Louis-Hebert.

Quebec West was regained by the Liberals in 1965: Jean Marchand. It became the new Langelier riding in 1968, and stayed Liberal.

Quebec East was also regained by the Liberals in 1965, and stayed.

Quebec-Montmorency was also regained by the Liberals in 1965, and stayed.

Rural Portneuf stayed Credististe until 1974 when even it went Liberal. 

Rural Charlevoix was interesting. The Conservative Martial Asselin got his seat back in 1965, pushing the Creditiste into third. When he stepped down in 1972, Gilles Caouette (Real's son) parachuted in, and won, but it went Liberal in 1974 and 1979.

In 1974 the Creditites elected 11 MPs, but none in the Capitale Nationale region. In 1979 they elected only six MPs, none in that region.

For those of you interested, here is a map showing how Ontario could redistribute its 124 federal ridings (114 - South, 10 - North).

Thanks for your hard work Krago!

Krago, has StatsCan released 2011 population estimates yet, or are these yours?  Thanks for the very interesting resource.

Historical and projected Ontario population by census division, selected years - Reference scenario

Thank you. I really should learn my way around their data offerings.

I love this Central Canada shit.  BC has the the worst ratio of voters to seats and I think has had for maybe forever.  No no non non We have to ensure that BC gets fucked so Quebec can have theirs.  Why don't we set up a system that allows for equal representation and not one that routinely screws the same part of the country.

Its bad enough that according to our Ottawa elite and most posters on this board that only 7% of the population of BC could become PM but at least we should get to vote for as many MP's as other parts of the country. 

Well, krop, as Wilf pointed out, the regional disparities are substantially overshadowed by party disparities.  I would rather have PR than a few more Harperites from BC in government.

BC has the highest percentage of NDP members from any part of the country but hey we are all Harperites out here.  The national equivalent to BC's seat count is the NDP would have 77 nationwide. When central canada starts electing the same percentage of progressive MP's maybe I'll buy into this central Canadian fear of the evil Harper hordes in the west.  BC'ers don't buy the liberal bullshit as much as people in Upper and Lower Canada. 

So lets continue to screw BC until we get electoral reform because that is real democracy. All hail the centre of the universe and continued liberal/ conservative prominence.

Kropotkin-- can you link your concern to a specific post because I can't find what you are talking about-- who was saying BC or any province should be screwed or seriously underrepresented?

I recognize that there are a few areas that need to be over represented (Atlantic Canada, and the North) because their populations are so small that even minimal representation will be over representation. However, they don't add up to much. If a population percentage is 23% and the seat count is 22% how is this difference going to actually impact the national voice of the region? We should be able to accommodate those small pop regions without huge problems and the differences should be spread over other provinces.Gross inequities should be fixed.

I am really trying to see where this becomes a central Canada screwing BC though as central Canada is also underrepresented so you won't find your missing seats here. That would be true even if it is popular in some parts to blame central Canada for whatever it is the want to blame it for.

If you mean Reefer's Post I don't think that was targeting BC so much as making a point about PR which is another inequity issue.

But did anyone actually propose for BC not to get more seats?

There you go.

___________________________________________

Soothsayers had a better record of prediction than economists

Now this topic is laughable the Conservatives winning a majority as not in their life time especially after the latest controversay party will be lucky to win a minority.

Which controversy?  The Jaffer-Guergis scandal is winding down and people are pretty much over it.

The Cons are basically tied with the Liberals,  both under 30% in today's poll. The dreams of a Con majority are long gone,  and who knows at this point who is even going to win the most number of seats in the next election.

Whatever it is that Harper's selling, it's obvious Canadians are not buying it, and Harper should start looking over his shoulder at Peter MacKay.

Peter MacKay is a red Tory and is disliked by the Conservative base.  He also doesn't even speak French.  He is not a serious contender to be leader.

People will always remember him for running to the potato patch in Nova Scotia and crying like a baby when Belinda dumped him.  Men in particular think he is a wimp.

Augustus, the controversy where Jim Prentice admitted today that his aide had met Rahim Jaffer about a company's proposal for federal government funding in Helena Guergis' office, not in Calgary.  Rahim Jaffer was not a registered lobbyist, and his wife, a minister of the Crown, was using her offices to promote the private interests of a family member.

That controversy.

The HST is actually kicking the shit out of the Conservative polling numbers as well, as they are involved up to their eyeballs in this hated tax.

It is Gordon Campbell and Dalton McGuinty who are responsible for that.

Wait, what?

I'm pretty sure I've heard MacKay speak French while watching CPAC

Don't try and shift the blame Augustus. Harper made these HST agreements with BC and Ontario, and now he is paying the price.

Such low polling numbers are unprecedented.

http://www.topix.com/ca/vancouver-bc/2010/04/jack-layton-urges-stephen-h...

Well he can read pre-written statements in French, yes.  But if you watch Question Period you'll notice that's pretty much all he can do in French.  When was the last time you saw him have an extended exchange in French or do an interview in French?

He had a french communications director during the PC leadership race, and I'm pretty sure was doing a fair bit in french then.  I'll concede he hasn't spoken much non-statement french lately, but if we see that shift, I think we can conclude he's starting to look down the road again.

Yes he had some French training for the PC leadership race - that was 7 years ago.

But in recent years he has hardly spoken any French, and rarely answers questions in French in the House.

Peter MacKay's attempt to speak Franglais is made fun of in this YouTube clip:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gY_G_aVt0Yg

I wonder how much damage this will do to Prentice's leadership aspirations as well.
Guergis, Bernier, and the PM's secrets

 This started out as a story about the things Rahim Jaffer and Helena Guergis should be ashamed of. It's starting to look like they're not the only ones.

http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/04/23/guergis-bernier-and-the-pms-secrets/

The Prime Minister is being very open about all of this.  He is asking anyone who has knowledge of Rahim Jaffer's dealings to come forward:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/get-those-j...

According to census data of languages the number of bilingual French/English speakers makes this particular elitist rule quite undemocratic.  The rule even in Quebec means only 40% of the population could be a leader.  In BC the number drops to only 7% of the population would be eligible to be leader.  In Ontario it is better at about 11 or 12%.  Hell even in bilingual NB it would only allow about a third of the population to be leader.  

But this "rule" is an undeniable political truth. 

Actually French emersion has been very popular in both BC and AB, so I'm sure we could find lots of bilingual BCers who could fill the bill. What percentage of BCers actually want to realistically be pm. I bet it is less than 1%.

Unlike your idle speculation I was using Census Canada numbers.  

No one is forcing anyone to learn any language but......Canada has 2 official languages. The least we can expect is for our prime minister to speak both of them.

Most Europeans speak a minimum of 2 languages, and often 3 or 4. What's the big deal with learning English and French?

It's immersion.

Not trying to be picky, but it's important to know the difference between the two.  

Augustus, it's considered impolite here to point out people's spelling mistakes.  Also, it adds nothing to the debate, and makes people think you're a know-it-all.

ottawaobserver, there is nothing wrong with politely pointing out when someone has confused the meaning of a word.

Incidentally, if a person wants to be taken seriously in a discussion, they need to be aware of what terms they are using.  Look at the type of credibility problems that people like George Bush and Sarah Palin have because they make those sorts of mistakes.

In the world of political discourse, good spelling, pronunciation and understanding are important.  You mentioned to me in another thread that you don't take an argument seriously if someone doesn't provide evidence/proof.  In the same way, an argument is taken less seriously when the wrong words or terminology are used.

To answer the question (if it is a question) of the thrread title.

They will see their numbers drop-- they will pull a John A. MacDonald and then while sleeping they will dream. And that will be the only majority they will get with Steven Harper.

Nice elitist view of the world.  Using correct language when you screw people over is so important.

Flaming spells are the lamest of the lame and only people who suffer what I term the centre of the universe syndrome would think that they had the right to correct others because of their superior education and social status.  Around here I tend to take those kinds of arguments by my "betters" as proof they are elitist and merely using classism to silence the voices of the marginalized.

"In the world of political discourse, good spelling, pronunciation and understanding are important."

Politicians and journalists etc... need to have good spelling and grammar etc...since they are in public life. People who post anonymously in blogs like this can misspell all they want!

We all make the odd typo, and that's fine.  I do it myself too of course.  But consistent and major spelling mistakes and sloppy writing is another matter.

If you are interested, you can do a quick google search and you will find many books and articles which document the deterioration today of writing and spelling skills, particularly by the younger generation, as a result of people thinking it's no big deal to "misspell all they want" online.

I consider careful writing to be an important quality, and I wouldn't hire someone to work on my staff if they didn't bother to proofread what they write or if they used the wrong terminology and language when making an argument.

Fine, don't hire him then.  However, before you get too hoity-toity, go read the Babble rules of posting.  And then, act accordingly.  Because you're really starting to get very annoying very quickly.

Are you ever annoying?  Or are you always perfect?

You called a post of mine silly on another thread earlier.

Augustus, just curious what your purpose is in being here, seeing as this is supposed to be a progressive board? Don't you think you would fit in better at Freak Dominion. Your right-wing nonsense is wearing a bit thin.

I am not right-wing.  You should be able to tell from my previous posts that I am socially liberal (eg. pro gay-rights).

And what is your purpose here?  You seem to often trumpet pro-BQ polls.

Btw, "Freak" is name-calling.

Agustus on this board we don't give corporations the rights of individuals. So I can call Freak dominion anything I fucking want.  You see it is your confusion on things like who has individual rights that makes most of us think you are merely her for a little fishing.  I just don't understand your pouting when people spit the lure back at you.

At times I work on my posts and pay attention to spelling -- other times I am trying to respond quickly to something in real time.

I don't think that a professional standard applies or that there are significant optics to posts. Clarity has value but a spelling mistake where it is obvious what you mean hardly seems important. I'd like to think most people here are interested in the content and a lot of people here are truth seeking (as well as advocating) and so they are unlikely to be deterred by spelling errors.

It is true that someone with a lot of spelling errors may look like they were being a bit sloppy, but by the same token the person who points them out will look like a person who cannot distinguish the importance of an argument from the spelling, is petty and is unable to apply good judgment. That too, colours the reception of their argument-- perhaps more (at least for me) than someone who misspells a word here or there.

(And no I am not going to go back and proof read this so that Augustus will take me "seriously.")

He is going to use that new Faux News North TV station to undermine the bloc and drum up conservative votes in Quebec rather give into the Bloc which would alienate his alienated ( by their own government) western conservatives nuerotic rotten reformist bloc voters-those who would rather dumpster dive than spend the first dollar they ever had-because they can never have enough,  and those immigrants are, why do we need two languages, everyone should speak Canadian English in Canada, we are not bilingual, and a women's place is in the home, next time keep your legs closed,  and lock them up and throw away the key, you should have known  better, and it is your own fault and I never got, and why should they, my taxes, get a job, welfare users spend money on beer and cigarettes, we built this country, lunatic fringe groups. 

RR

Augustus, the culture of babble has evolved to not encourage commentary or corrections in spelling errors if the meaning is clear. Sometimes, between babblers who know each other, there are jokes about spelling errors, deliberate and otherwise. Sometimes these jokes work, sometimes they don't. All this is to tell you that while your standards regarding correct spelling are appropriate for the world of paid employment, they are not appropriate for a discussion board such as babble.

Since babblers come from a range of education levels and backgrounds, as well as the fact that some post while feeling intensely emotional about certain issues (and I include myself in that), typos, spelling errors and other grammatical pieces are generally left alone and not critiqued. Others have already expressed my thoughts on this. I hope the thread drift on this is over. If people would like to continue on this topic, please start a thread in "rabble reactions".

As for the name calling, some babblers have a habit of calling another discussion board, which leans to the extreme right, all sorts of nasty names. While I don't partake in that, it's considered fair game given that participants on that board seem to relish mocking babble, rabble and all things lefty.

RockyRacoon, that rant is scary, and is basically going to be the talking points loop when Fox News comes north. Thanks for nothing.

Hey, 102 posts. Closing for length.