http://www.cbc.ca/news2/interactives/po ... index.html

Fr those of you who might be interested.
A genuinely close and interesting election.
Popular vote is remarkably close. Seats too. (be sure to scroll down on link.)
Vote in 10 days ....

rickyp wrote:http://www.cbc.ca/news2/interactives/poll-tracker/2015/index.html

Fr those of you who might be interested.
A genuinely close and interesting election.
Popular vote is remarkably close. Seats too. (be sure to scroll down on link.)
Vote in 10 days ....

Any billionaires with model wives running?

google images of

sophie gregoire

.

Justins not a billiionare, just a millionare (assuming he inherited half of his fathers fortune) . And his wife was a television reporter for E Talk (entertainment)

How accurate were the polls in 2011?

The question would seem to be whether a Lib-Dipper coalition can govern or not.

http://www.threehundredeight.com/2011/0 ... sults.html

danivon

How accurate were the polls in 2011?

Not very. (see above) Mostly because they missed the late shift in Quebec.

The FPTP system makes a true three way race really hard to predict I think. (And its 4 way in Quebec to the extent that the Bloc still has presence that is significant in some ridings).
There are more polls this time, and they've all tried to adjust their methodologies for seat predictions.

Trudeau has said he won't form a coalition government. And he said that some weeks ago when he was running third. But everyone expects that if the Tories do sneak in with a minority the speech from the throne will be voted down and it will down to the GG to make a call....
If the Liberals (or as it appeared a few weeks ago, the NDP) have a plurality they'll try to govern as a minority.

The speech from the throne: that's essentially the government's plan for the coming year? The House must take a vote on it?

Also why'd y'all increase the size of the House?

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canad ... of-commons

this is the first election with the additional seats.
Yes, a government introduces their plan in the speech from the throne and the vote on is acceptance is considered a question of confidence.

We covered all this when I explained what the Queen's Speech is. Obviously the Queen doesn't fly over to open the Canadian Parliamentary session, but it's the same principle.

There are a lot of questions then.

After Jack, are the NDP going to hold up well, or could they collapse?

Can BQ make a comeback, and would that hit the NDP and Liberals more than the CPC?

If Trudeau will not form a coalition and tries to govern as a minority, he needs support from either the NDP or the CPC. Which one he courts would be interesting and how long he could keep it up.

danivon

Can BQ make a comeback, and would that hit the NDP and Liberals more than the CPC?

Apparently not enough to win more than 1 or 2 seats. But it hurts the NDP more, as their support was mostly in francophone parts of Quebec where Liberal support was in Montreal or other more English parts. The raison d'etre for the Bloc is independence and that issue appears finally to be dead with anyone under 40.

Trudeau would be unlikely to find constant support from the Conservatives, but could on specific issues. On the other hand, he could make deals with Mulcair and get pretty constant support.
However, the election seems to be turning on a rather silly issue... The wearing of the niqab at citizenship ceremonies. Its a very big deal in Quebec particularly.
And it works for the Tories as they seem to be losing the economic debate, the debate on foreign policy and on social policies... but they are all over stamping out niqab wearing at citizenship ceremonies..

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada- ... -1.3254167

To be consistent would they also ban medical face masks?

Never be surprised at the bullshit conservatives will use to scare people into voting for them.

Any face covering... so yes to surgical masks. Or halloween masks. But turbans and headscarfs are okay...
The Conservatives brought a ban in, but it was challenged under the Charter of Rights and the government lost and lost a stay on the ban while they appeal to the Supreme Court.
Why is this a non issue but been fannd into being an issue.

The ban was first introduced in 2011. Since then, more than 680,000 citizenship ceremonies have been held — and only two women have refused to abide by the ban.

But its killing the NDP in Quebec. (Mulcair defended wearers of the niqab to ceremonies in a debate. Trudeau simply said the ban was contrary to the Charter of Rights).Harper was all over it as a womens rights issue.
And Conservatives are benefitting from the issue in Quebec mostly. Part of that is from nativists, part from women's rights proponents ... its confused.

We covered all this when I explained what the Queen's Speech is. Obviously the Queen doesn't fly over to open the Canadian Parliamentary session, but it's the same principle.

Right I remember, I have a Word file I took this stuff down in on the British system/HMG/etc. Didn't want to automatically assume Canada worked the same way as there is diversity between the parliamentary systems of the [former] British Empire. Yeah, I figured it was the GG, not the Queen in person (or else why would there be a GG). Tipping your hats to British tradition, I understand the GG's (Queen's) speech is made before a joint session of Parliament packed roughly inside the Senate Chamber, as the GG (you also have a dude called Black Rod, don't you?) etc., aren't allowed to set foot in the House of Commons, ever. Right? (Eh?) That's the case in Australia I understand. Black Rod and their GG can't set foot in the lower house (House of Representatives). I was told (could be wrong) that, even though they have abolished it, the New Zealand House of Representatives must sit inside the now-disused Legislative Council (upper house) chamber for the Queen's Speech. Not sure if you explained why that was, I don't seem to have that in the file.

It's largely irrelevant and harks back to the days when the monarch and Parliament were in competition for political power. That battle has long since been lost by the monarch, the Queen's speech is simply a statement of the government's legislative agenda for the coming session, which is broadly accepted as a confidence vote.

Ok, gotcha.

I actually seem to have lost the file, and I'm trying to reproduce it. Don't worry though, I won't ask anything again, I am fairly cognoscente of what I've asked you already.