Talk:40th Canadian federal election

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Confidence Motions 2 Next election could be later than January 2011 3 NPOV/Unsourced 4 The Conservative Record on Minority Parliaments 5 Unsourced claims 6 Titles of Canadian General elections 7 French version 8 Too much info on the 39th election

[edit] Confidence Motions

I read that Harper announced a while back the Softwood Lumber vote (in the fall) would be a confidence vote, and all three opposition parties are opposed to the deal. However, just a day or so ago, David Emerson flip-flopped and said that if the industries don't approve it, they won't go ahead with the vote. However, isn't it quite possible the could have that vote, and still lose that vote triggering an election? As of now, with the latest Decima poll they are neck and neck. I haven't added this to the page, but should we? KFlack Wednesday, August 03, 2006, 08:25 (EST)

Coming up on the vote, it's unlikely that the government will fall. Although the Liberals are still pledged to oppose the bill, recent news reports say that the BQ is being coy about the issue. Also, Quebec lumber producers signed on to the deal at a 95%+ rate. Majromax 22:10, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball which means you should not speculate. SFrank85 18:28, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

If, however, you have a credible source for that, feel free to add it -- *WITH* the source, of course. —Nightstallion (?) 10:44, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

The Decima poll may be just an outlier considering that the Strategic Counsel poll which was conducted at the same time shows a very different result (Tories up by 9 points). I guess we need to wait for new polls to see if the Decima figures are indeed a new trend or not. 161.24.19.82 13:41, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Next election could be later than January 2011

The rule is that parliament can't sit for more than 5 years. But the election can be called then, and then be held 2 months later. It could actually not sit for a while too ... and then there could be a war or something, that creates a special situation.

But I doubt we will get any later than 2009, and probably sooner. I can't see this parliament playing well together for long. Nfitz 06:50, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that the next election will be called in 2007 after the Conservative Party decreases the tax from 7% to 6% ... see Diefenbaker for more details ... Stephen Harper will do this to get more seats (majority government) in parliament. - Schentler Tuesday, March 7, 2006, 04:58 (UTC)

[edit] NPOV/Unsourced

This article is far too speculative and lacking in sources, particularly when it comes to reasons why the governmetn may fall.Homey 06:30, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure what it looked like when you commented but there are no mentions of why it might fall and I have sourced the particulars surrounding the lengths of parliaments. - Jord 19:56, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Conservative Record on Minority Parliaments

I was going to make some edits, but I thought I'd bring it here first. The wording discussing the history of minority governments is misleading.

From the article: Though the average length of a minority government in Canada is 1 year, 5 months and 22 days; the longest Conservative minority was just 6 months and 19 days.

The subject is minority government, but when the Conservative number is brought forward (6m, 19d) - that is, in fact, the length of how long parliament sat...and that was a full three months after the election. Diefenbaker's minority government was in excess of 9 months.

Anyway, I'll make a change if no one else does, but if the original author is reading, I'll leave first crack to him/her since they knew what they were trying to say with the article.

(FWIW, it was interesting - I had no idea that no Conservative minority had lasted a year, but that seems to be the case). --Otter Escaping North 15:10, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

It is not actually the date that parliament sat, it is the date that the writs were returned - i.e. the earliest that parliament could sit. The descrepency in terms of time is the period between when the writ was dropped and when the election was held. So the question would be - when do you consider the end of the government? The three dates for the most recent election would be November 29 (when parliament was dissovled), January 23 (election day) or February 13, the return of the writs. Using the model that the Parliament of Canada uses - Martin's minority would be deemed to have ended on November 29, while Harper's will have been deemed to have begun on February 13 with the interim time being "dead space". I think that that is a reasonable measure - do you disagree? - Jord 16:57, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

I think referring to the government must include a POV outside parliament, but I realise that creates other confusion since the term "minority government" only makes sense from a parliamentary perspective. It might be one of those things that's difficult to make clear without a lot of technical explanation.

I honestly don't know what to suggest. You could say that Harper's minority government begins on February 13th, if that's when the writs are returned, but of course, he and his cabinet will be sworn in on February 6th - which would be the start of "the Conservative government."

Perhaps we can just quote the average time minority governments have sat (as taken from Parliament's web site) and say that Conservative governments have all sat for less than the average. Dunno - open to alternatives. --Otter Escaping North 17:56, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, to answer your question more directly, I think Martin's government ends when he and his cabinet have been replaced (planned for February 6). Should such an issue arise - Martin is still PM, McLellan is stil Minister for Public Safety, etc.

Maybe the line Though the average length of a minority government in Canada is 1 year, 5 months and 22 days; the longest Conservative minority was just 6 months and 19 days. should just be changed to Though the average length of a minority parliament in Canada is 1 year, 5 months and 22 days; the longest Conservative minority was just 6 months and 19 days. Assuming, of course, that the change in terms keeps the numbers accurate. --Otter Escaping North 18:02, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

This makes sense, I'll make the change. Thanks for the help. - Jord 19:23, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Unsourced claims

" Some pundits have suggested that whereas there have been two elections in less than two years, parties will be weary of voter fatigue and avoid causing an early election, however, the lessons of the minority governments of the 1960s suggest this will not be the case."

This isn't an acceptable passage - it's purely speculative and unsourced. If a pundit says something then quote him or her or paraphrase and footnote.

And what are the lessons of minority governments of the 1960s? This seems like original research (as well as quite incomplete). If there's a lesson then quote someone who has said what it is. Please, no more unsourced claims or references to anonymous gatherings of pundits. Homey 01:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Homey - in terms of the pundits speaking of voter fatigue - virutally every commentator who has commented on the timing of the next election has said this, it would be cumbersome to source them all, what would you recommend? I can expand unpon the 1960s - we had three elections in three years - something which, if you believe in the adage "history repeats itself", suggests that the punditry may be wrong about this. - Jord 15:08, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

"virutally every commentator who has commented on the timing of the next election has said this"

Then that makes your task of identifying a commentator who has said this all the more easier, doesn't it? I don't understand why, despite several requests, you have refused to cite a source.

", it would be cumbersome to source them all, what would you recommend?"

Where have I said you have to source them all? Just cite one source (a credible source, ie a published journalist or an academic - not a blog).. and your "lessons of the sixties" bit is original research unless you can attribute it to someone. Homey 05:44, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Titles of Canadian General elections

Given the situation we are in now, and the potential of two elections in one year, the present method of numbering the election by year would break down and become confusing. Most of the media and the government in Canada styles the elections by their number IE the last was the 39th General election. Given the risk that under the Canadian political system, even with a move to fixed election dates, there could be two elections in one year I think this system needs to change. (2 elections in one year even with fixed election dates because no one is talking about eliminating the no confidence mechanism, meaning that the fixed election date would be on a formula, and only come to fruition in the light of a majority government.)--24.222.65.32 20:38, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

The style of Canadian federal election, 2006 is the standard in Wikipedia:Naming conventions so we would need to discuss a change there, however, in the instance of an unlikely event of two elections in the same year, there is precedent at UK general election, 1974 for what to do. - Jord 22:21, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Unlikely event? This is the likely event isn't it? As discussed above, and at parliamentry website, Conservative minority governments have never lasted long. From the start of Parliament to the fall of government, the longest lasted 132 days, the shortest 66 days, and the other one lasted 110 days; and these were all Parliments where the Conservatives held a greater percentage of seats than they do now! If history is the best predictor of future events, then it will be surprising if Parliment lasts for more than 132 days before falling (and perhaps the only thing that might save it is an early summer recess!). Nfitz 15:59, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

It was my view that it was unlikely because the Liberals will not have a leader in place until late this fall at the earliest and the Bloc have said they will prop the government up for the time being. That said, regardless of my opinion, the naming convention with year is the best method and, as we've seen in the UK example, can work fine in the cases where there are two elections in one calendar year. - Jord 16:12, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Liberals didn't have a leader in place when the Clark government fell either - same scenario. Sure Bloc says they will prop up government ... let's see which way they actually vote when push comes to shove on budget issues; will only work if Tories pay-off Quebec over child-care ... but will Tories risk alienating TROC by having the appearance of a pro-Quebec Tory-Bloc alliance. Though I do agree with you about what to do. Nfitz 18:15, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

In any event, as I said, my opinion (and yours for that matter) are not really relevant, the question here was whether or not to change the naming convention and I don't think that you are arguing in favour of a change? - Jord 18:24, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Correct, I'm not in favour of a change. I just feel that expected scenario is another election this year, as a Tory minority government has never lasted more than 6 months (it's interesting to note that the shortest Liberal minority government, and there have been a few), are longer than the longest Tory minority government. Nfitz 20:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

I am well aware, I in fact a bit of revert fight with Homey on whether or not to include the fact that the Tory minorities have all been very short [1] and was the first person to include that information [2] - Jord 20:16, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

This article was nominated for deletion on 29 January 2006. The result of the discussion was keep.

[edit] French version

Is there a French version of this page ?

Looking at the French Wikipedia article on the 2006 election, I don't see any links to an article about the future election, but that does not mean that it doesn't exist. I would suggest asking on the Talk page of that article. —Cuiviénen, Sunday, 16 April 2006 @ 16:15 (UTC)

There is no French version of this article. Until recently, there was no french article for any of the elections but the last one. I'm currently in the process of translating them all. I've almost finished the texts for most of the elections, but I have yet to translate the results tables for many of them (a time-consuming process), and of course I haven't even begun to start working on the articles about the associated Parliaments. If anyone here feels sufficiently comfortable in french to come over to fr.wikipedia to give me a hand, it would be most appreciated. There are only a handful of us working on Canadian politics articles at the best of times. (If anyone actually is interested, you can go to the fr:Projet:Canada talk page or my user talk page there for coordination.)

DH | 2¢ | 19:50, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Too much info on the 39th election

There is way too much information on the 39 Canadian Federal Election in this article... After all, there IS an article for the 39th election, where the info about it should go. --Deenoe 11:08, 17 October 2006 (UTC)