# Election 2010?



## Edward Campbell (5 Oct 2009)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_ is John Ibbitson’s take on the _consequences_ of Prime Minister Harper’s recent foray into the performing arts:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/world/harpers-harmony-ignatieffs-discord/article1311842/


> Harper's harmony; Ignatieff's discord
> *Despite efforts to bring down his government, a confident Prime Minister wows the crowd in Ottawa and calls four by-elections; while Liberal Leader navigates setbacks*
> 
> John Ibbitson
> ...




The key, I think is that The PM _”was crooning for middle-aged, middle-class suburban voters in the swath of edge ridings throughout Southern Ontario and the Ottawa region, where the next election will be decided, whenever it is called.”_

Of course the Conservatives want to keep ALL their Québec seats but they can afford to lose half, five, of them, IF they can pick up 17 or more *new* seats: one or two in Atlantic Canada; one or two in BC; and 15± (from the Liberals and NDP) in ON; that’s enough for a razor thin majority and it (a big shift in ON) is not out of the question. Such sifts have been, in fact, fairly common in ON.

But, if Ibbitson is right, if Harper does get _a little help from his friends_, however unwitting, then we are not going into a general election until the spring of 2010, at the earliest.


----------



## Rifleman62 (5 Oct 2009)

Interesting to note that the Comments to the article as of this time are only six. Usually there are hundreds, especially an article about Mr.Harper.


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Oct 2009)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _National Post_ is another political observer’s assessment that we are not having another election until, at least, 2010:

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/story.html?id=2065241


> Ivison: Harper gets by with a little help from his arts friends
> 
> John Ivison, National Post
> 
> ...




As an aside, I think Harper displayed uncharacteristically reckless courage; he could, as Ivison points out, have made himself into a laughingstock and done serious harm to his election chances – I know he’s a skilled pianist and an accomplished “performer” but remember that Robert Stanfield displayed considerable football drop kicking skills, making long punt after long, well aimed punt, (I believe he played rugby at Dalhousie in the 1930s) before being photographed fumbling the ball, a fumble that played a HUGE role in his electoral failure.


----------



## Infanteer (5 Oct 2009)

...and if you want to see the PM try out his hand at the newest version of Rock Band....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JOt2Qp0H9G8


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Oct 2009)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_ is more on the recent polls in which it is noted that voters are not so much liking Harper *more* as they are liking _Prince Michael_ *less*:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/liberal-support-in-perilous-slide/article1313066/


> Liberal support in perilous slide
> *New poll for Strategic Counsel/Globe and Mail/CTV shows Tories at 41-per-cent support, to 28 per cent for the Liberals*
> 
> John Ibbitson
> ...




With regard to Québec, and at the risk of repeating myself, Harper *wants* to keep all his seats and even pick up a couple but he *needs* to hold just a handful – maybe as few as just five – primarily in _Francophone_ ridings.

Equally he needs to hold just a handful of seats, again five will do, in Atlantic Canada.

If he can, then, get 145 of the 201 seats (72% of the seats from about 50±% of the vote) in “New Canada” (Ontario plus the West and North) he can have a majority government and a “national” party.


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Oct 2009)

But, here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_ web site is a (Liberally) biased but quite plausible scenario for _Prince Michel_ to become Prime Minister of Canada in 2010:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/its-deep-breath-time-for-liberals/article1313942/


> It's deep-breath time for the Liberal Party
> *There's hard work to be done, but don't start writing Ignatieff's political obituary just yet*
> 
> Greg Fergus
> ...



Fergus is right, _Iggy_ _Iffy_ _Icarus_ *can* turn it around; he *can* “redeem” himself with Canadians and draw them out of their “funk” as Ibbitson put it. But, mainly, Fergus is right that *Harper can defeat himself* – and that, rather than Ignatieff doing things right, is the biggest threat to the Conservatives.


----------



## GAP (6 Oct 2009)

I think Greg Fergus is either off his meds or has found some strange new ones.......he's whistling in the dark...


----------



## Journeyman (6 Oct 2009)

GAP said:
			
		

> I think Greg Fergus is either off his meds or has found some strange new ones.......he's whistling in the dark...


Sadly, I think he may be right.....but for no reason other than Canadian voters have short attention spans, and seldom (if ever) vote for rational, policy-based reasons.

Harper "defeating himself" falls into the short attention span catagory of "10 'atta-boys' trumped by one 'aw sh1t'."


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Oct 2009)

It is the _conventional wisdom_ in Canada, based on pretty solid historical evidence, that, "opposition parties don't win elections, governing parties lose them," or "opposition parties don't defeat governing parties, governments defeat themselves."


----------



## Old Sweat (7 Oct 2009)

The following article by John Ivison in today's National Post is reproduced under the Fair Comment provisions of the Copyright Act. On reading the opening paragraphs, one could be excused for thinking that the Scottish-born Mister Ivison had been flavoring his porridge with Drambuie, but he soon gets back on track.

Parliament Hill was abuzz with rumours about Liberals crossing the floor to join the Conservatives yesterday - a mystery all the more intriguing because no one could track down the identity of the potential defectors. 


Here's a thought -- maybe the apostate is Michael Ignatieff himself. How's that for a plan so cunning, in the words of Blackadder, you could pin a tail on it and call it a weasel? The Liberal leader pursues a scorched earth policy, reduces the party's support to sub-Stephane Dion levels and then deserts his post for the Tories. Far-fetched admittedly but it's the only account that adequately explains the leadership's apparent infatuation for self-immolation. 


Okay -- not really. But the words "amateur hour" are being whispered by even the most senior members of Mr. Ignatieff's shadow cabinet. 


The latest gaffe defies rational explanation. Mr. Ignatieff nearly blew his own toes off last week in his spat with Denis Coderre, the former Quebec lieutenant who resigned after finding his authority undermined by his leader. 


Mr. Ignatieff limped back from Quebec City on Sunday and you might have thought he'd try really, really hard to rally his party around the Liberal standard. Instead, he took aim at his other foot and let loose both barrels. An unprompted press release issued by Judy Sgro, the Liberal seniors critic, said the leader and the party would vote against a private members' bill that proposes to shorten the residency period required before seniors can claim partial payment of old age security to three years from 10. 


The bill's merits, or lack of, need not concern us. The head-scratching aspect was that it was sponsored by a Liberal MP, Ruby Dhalla, and seconded by foreign affairs critic, Bob Rae. No one on the Hill can remember a party publicly nuking a private members' bill brought forward by one of its own MPs. 


The incident was handled with a cack-handedness that is becoming characteristic. For one thing, the bill is not likely to reach debate stage for another three years. For another, private members' bills are considered sacrosanct by everyone in politics, with the apparent exception of the Opposition Leader's Office, since they are the one chance that MPs have to bring forward their own legislation, without regard for party discipline. Ms. Dhalla's bill was built on older legislation supported in previous sessions by members from all parties and was an attempt to curry favour with a key Liberal constituency, the immigrant community. 
Quite why Mr. Ignatieff felt the need to create new divisions within his own party is unclear. The Liberal leader displayed the political sophistication of a bull -- which is appropriate given his office is starting to resemble a china shop. 


The Sgro press release was likely issued in response to rumours that Ms. Dhalla is set to cross the floor and join the Conservatives. There appears to be no substance to that one -- or to related speculation that other MPs like Martha Hall Findlay, Gerard Kennedy or Keith Martin are also bound for the government benches. The Conservatives have been trying to make the most of the chaos on the Liberal side of the House by tempting the disaffected. But one suspects that the big fish won't bite and any who do make the trip across the two swords length in the Commons' chamber will be minnows or bottom-feeders.  


Mr. Kennedy, Ms. Dhalla, Mr. Martin and Ms. Hall Findlay all ruled themselves out. "I have said publicly many times that, even if someone is no longer happy in their original party, they must sit as an independent until such time as they can put themselves to election under the banner of their new party," said Ms. Hall Findlay, who lost the 2004 election to Belinda Stronach, only to see her defect to the Liberals. 


Still, if the floor of the House of Commons is unlikely to be sullied with Liberals crossing the aisle, that does not mean that anyone - anyone - is happy with the leadership's performance. 


Mr. Ignatieff has been the very antithesis of grace under pressure in recent days, commenting sourly in a Newstalk 1010 radio interview that Stephen Harper's singing "is not all that much better than mine". 


Mr. Ignatieff was walking the line he himself drew -- that everything Mr. Harper does is inept, including his ability to carry a tune. 
Since he called time on the government at the Liberal caucus meeting in Sudbury last month, Mr. Ignatieff has been adamant that his party will oppose the Conservatives in Parliament. 


The Liberals insist that they will stick with this strategy and vote against all confidence measures in the House. But there is heavy pressure from his caucus for Mr. Ignatieff to declare he will consider legislation on a case by case basis and even support the government on matters of confidence, if the alternative is an untimely election.  


"We've been too ardent in our opposition and that has to change. Sure [Mr. Ignatieff] would lose face, but he'd save a lot of skin," said one Liberal.


Mr. Ignatieff's best, perhaps only, hope is to repeat to himself the consoling advice of Abraham Lincoln that "this too shall pass", learn good judgment from his bad experiences and resign himself to an extended period in the wilderness of opposition. 
If the recovery withers, and fear turns to anger, he may be able to re-invent himself as a credible alternative to Mr. Harper, in the same way that opposition leaders who disappointed early -- like Dalton McGuinty and even Jean Chrétien -- took advantage of the changing tide of events. 


But this would require Mr. Ignatieff to show patience, competence and a compelling slate of policies. There are few signs to date that the Liberal leader has any of those attributes.


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Oct 2009)

Another poll, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the CBC News web site, which, I think means no election before Spring 2010, at the earliest:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/10/07/ekos-poll-federal-conservative-liberal-ndp-green-bloc.html


> Conservatives extend poll lead over Liberals
> 
> Thursday, October 8, 2009
> 
> ...




At the risk of repeating myself: *do not count Ignatieff out*; not yet; not so soon. And, as Harold Wilson said




“A week is a long time in politics.”

Six months, then, until Spring 2010, is an eternity and a lot can go right for _Prince Michael_ and wrong for Prime Minister Harper in an eternity.


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Oct 2009)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_ is an important column/book review by Neil Reynolds:
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/commentary/canadas-downward-path-from-nation-to-fiction/article1280143/
> 
> ...




Now here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_ web site, is an idea from a *L*iberal strategist to use _Fearful Symmetry_ as the base for the _BIG Idea_ that so many people say _Prince Michael_ and the Liberals need:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/silver-powers/its-still-not-us-its-him/article1321702/


> It's still not us, it's him
> 
> Robert Silver
> 
> ...




Liberals! They boggle the mind. Fortunately for us Conservatives the vast majority of Liberals will shrug off this (excellent) idea.


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Oct 2009)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _National Post_ is Don Martin’s take on why we are heading for a 2010 election:

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/10/13/don-martin-harper-s-year-of-governing-dangerously.aspx


> Don Martin: Harper's year of governing dangerously
> 
> October 13, 2009,
> 
> ...




Martin appears to be suggesting that Harper might even survive 2010, too.


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Oct 2009)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_ website, is a _Blog_ by former _Decima_ (polling firm) CEO Bruce Anderson:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/bruce-anderson/blue-sky-ideas/article1323618/


> Blue-sky ideas
> 
> Bruce Anderson
> 
> ...




It would be nice to hear/read some _grownup_ ideas debated by Duceppe, Harper, Ignatieff and Layton, in the run-up to an election, wouldn’t it?


----------



## Brad Sallows (14 Oct 2009)

Regarding point (1) above, all pundits must learn: do the arithmetic, do the arithmetic, do the arithmetic.  Show that the contribution of the "alternative" can amount to more than a few percentage points of net consumption without requiring ridiculous sums to initiate or wholesale destruction of the resource which provides the energy.  In short, do a back-of-the-envelope calculation to determine whether the proposal is practical or asinine.  Failure to do so amounts to selling Dr Quack's Cure-all Ointment on a say-so.


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Oct 2009)

This report, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from yesterdays _Globe and Mail_, indicates to me that Prime Minister Harper is unconcerned about a quick election in 2010, or he is less worried about Québec than we might think, or he believes that he can offset losses in Québec with gains elsewhere:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/securities-case-a-battle-that-will-test-the-nation/article1327827/


> Securities case a battle that will test the nation
> 
> John Ibbitson
> 
> ...


----------



## GAP (18 Oct 2009)

Ah...empires bloom/flourish/die.....as does this one need to.....Securities control needs to be consistant for the entire country...Harper may well get his majority without Quebec, so now is the time to strike....(and a whole lot of other considerations/politics/etc)


----------



## The Bread Guy (22 Oct 2009)

From an e-mail newsletter (highlights mine):

"Our latest Nanos poll shows that support for the *Conservatives continues to increase while Liberal support is in decline*. With the Tories holding a ten point advantage over the Liberals this represents the widest gap between the two parties since the last federal election.

Of note, since last months polling, *the Liberal Party's support in Quebec has noticeably decreased - from 32.5% in early September to 24.6%.*

The number of undecided voters, nationally, has dropped in the past month from 24.6% in early September, down to 17.5%, likely owing to the subdued election buzz.

(....)



> Methodology
> 
> Nanos conducted a random telephone survey of 1,005 Canadians, 18 years of age and older, between October 10th and October 18th. A survey of 1,005 Canadians is accurate to within 3.1 percentage points, plus or minus, 19 times out of 20, for 829 committed voters, it is accurate to within 3.4 percentage points, plus or minus, 19 times out of 20. Margins may be larger for smaller samples.



Ballot Question: For those parties you would consider voting for federally, could you please rank your top two current local preferences? (Committed voters only - First Preference)

The numbers in parenthesis denote the change from the last Nanos National Omnibus survey completed between August 28th and September 2nd, 2009.

National (n=829)
Conservative 39.8% (+2.3)
Liberal 30.0% (-3.4)
NDP 16.6% (+1.8 )
BQ 8.9% (-0.8 )
Green 4.6% (NC)
Undecided 17.5% (-7.1)

More on latest numbers in a news release here (PDF).


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Oct 2009)

And here is the latest from _Ekos Research_, done fo rthe CBC:





Source: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/10/21/ekos-polls-conservative-liberal-ndp-green-bq.html

The CBC says (same source) that: "The latest EKOS poll was conducted by phone between Oct. 14 and Oct. 20. EKOS asked 3,270 Canadians how they would vote were an election held tomorrow. Both landline and cellphone users were included. The results have an error margin of plus or minus 1.7 percentage points, 19 times out of 20."

The trend, according to _Ekos_, since 3 Sep 09, is that Conservatives have moved up (from 32.6%) and maybe _plateaued_ at 38.3% and the Liberals have declined (also from 32.6%) and maybe _bottomed out_ at 27.1%. For reference: at the last general election the popular votes was:

Cons:    37.65%
Libs:      26.26%
NDP:      18.18%
Greens:   6.78%
BQ:          9.98%

The latest poll would seem to indicate that the mudslinging over the Conservative cheques and the disparity in stimulus spending between Tory and other ridings is not doing much, if any, damage to the Conservatives and only the tiniest bit of good to the Liberals.


----------



## Rifleman62 (22 Oct 2009)

From your link:

"A detailed analysis by The Globe and Mail of more than 750 projects funded by Ottawa's Recreational Infrastructure Canada (RInC) program showed that Tory ridings received an average of $2.1-million, compared to $1.5-million on average for opposition constituencies. RInC funds the building or renovation of recreation infrastructure, from rinks and recreation centres to playgrounds and pools".

A good comeback would be that these long term Liberal constituencies have had so much federal money over the years, that hardly anything new is required!


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Oct 2009)

I have a hunch that, while most reporters and editors are trying to _spin_ a story that is detrimental to Harper and the government of the day, the end effect is to help the Tories by suggesting that a vote *for* Harper's Conservatives is a vote *for* your own pocketbook.

Certainly Wayne Easter and _Prince Michael_ have had all kinds of TV, radio and print _exposure_ over the past week as they harp on and on about _partisan_ stimulus spending, but the _Ekos_ and _Nanos_ data - taken over the past week or so - shows the two parties are roughly _steady_ in a range of support that, translated into election results, would produce a HoC with a seat distribution very much like what we have now.

The Tories need polls that show a _consistent_ level of Conservative support of 40% or more and that tell them that the Liberals and the _Dippers_ are duking it out for the _left_. That will mean that the Conservatives can secure a slim majority because it means that several BC and ON seats will fall to them as they _come up the middle_ in three way races.


----------



## a_majoor (22 Oct 2009)

The big question even in 2010 is going to be "what is the issue?"

There are a lot of potential issues which are lying under the carpet, including:

The economy:
How do we get the deficit under control and stop passing a huge debt problem on to our children?
How do we get real productivity increases out of the Canadian economy?
How do we reduce our dependance on the US economy as our single biggest export destination?
Do we have a plan to deal with massive inflation in the United States? 

Afghanistan:
Did we accomplish our goals?
Should we stay in Afghanistan, and if so, in what role? (all options on the table)
Is the CF capable of carrying out missions like this in the future? If not, how will it get fixed?

Demographics:
How will the economy function with the Boomers starting to retire?
Do we have a means of getting enough skilled workers to power the economy in the future?
Will our society be able to adapt to the changing demographics (including immigrents) and shifting political power?

Diplomacy
How do we deal with demands to implement "Cap and Trade" or other international wealth transfer schemes which are detrimental to Canada's self interest (or even hostile acts aimed at us?)
how far should we go in defending our position on human rights, free speech etc. when many powerful nations are openly hostile to such concepts? Are we willing to restrict trade etc. to support our positions?

You can think of many more, but perhaps we should take the time to assemble these questions and send them to our MP's and the varous party leaders and see what their answers are. Any takers?


----------



## Edward Campbell (24 Oct 2009)

This, reproduced from Norman Spector’s blog on the _Globe and Mail_ web site, is some news on what may become an election issue - Language *”rights”* in Québec: 



> In Le Devoir, we read a couple of reactions to the Supreme Court’s decision on Québec’s language law that may come as a surprise to English-only ears.
> 
> Who would have known that Justin Trudeau supports Québec’s objective of franco-ising immigrants, and thinks the only problem with the PQ government’s law was that it was not sufficiently subtle? He also tells reporter Helene Buzzetti: "Immigrants to Québec should learn French first and foremost" — a sentiment that we did not often hear from his father, who tended to put the accent on the bi when it came to lingualism. I’m also betting that my neighbours and I won’t hear many B.C. New Democrats hewing to deputy leader Tom Mulcair’s line on the Court decision:
> 
> "The Supreme Court talks a good talk about Québec’s right to protect French, but it says the measures are excessive. So what can the government do?" Repatriation of the Constitution without Québec’s agreement "caused the problem."




This issue helps only the BQ. If any of the federalist parties try, _hors de Québec_, to argue the case _against_ the _supremes_’ decision,  as Trudeau and Mulcair have done inside Québec, then they will pay a price in _New Canada_ - West of the Ottawa River.


----------



## Rifleman62 (24 Oct 2009)

Quebec, Quebec, Quebec.

I think that many in the "New Canada" are getting more and more peeved with the continued opting out of Canada, with the retention of full benefits of being part of Canada, by a very large majority of the population of Quebec. And the continued on the knees, frontal position of politicans of all parties, especially the LPC and CPC. 

Soon I hope, everyone will wake up, especially the younger generations.


----------



## a_majoor (26 Oct 2009)

The answer to "Quebec,Quebec, Quebec" is the ever increasing demographic shift of people, jobs and economic power towards the New Canada. The government has been working on creating new ridings in Ontario and the West, and even in the absence of legislation in the near future, new seats will have to be created based on the data from the Census (probably to take effect around 2014). 

As noted in other threads, it will be possible to create a majority government without any seats in Quebec within a decade; at which poit I think the voters will abandon the PQ in droves so they will still continue to have the ability to affect the governance of Canada.


----------



## ModlrMike (26 Oct 2009)

Ironic that Quebec praises decisions from the SCC that go in the province's favour, while claiming those that don't were decided by "the Supreme Court of another country".


----------



## Rifleman62 (27 Oct 2009)

Thank -you Thucydides.

The QQQ symbolizes my frustration of constantly hearing the wailing. I am aware of your points and understand. I just wish Canadians, especially the new generations, would stand up _*now*_ and say enough is enough. Either your in or you are out.


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Oct 2009)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_, is a report that indicates the Liberals are trying to get ready for a 2010 election:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ignatieff-moves-to-replace-top-aide/article1341069/


> Ignatieff moves to replace top aide
> *Former Chrétien staffer Peter Donolo to become Liberal Leaders new chief of staff*
> 
> Campbell Clark and Jane Taber
> ...




And here, also reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_ website, is the best comment I have seen thus far:



> Dept. Of Communications: Great Moments
> 
> Dan Cook
> 
> ...




Jean Chrétien had a formidable political _team_. If, and it’s a big IF, _Iggy_ _Iffy_ _Icarus_ can reassemble some of it he will get ready to fight and maybe even win an election. But it’s not clear, to me, that this is much more than rearranging the deck chairs on the _Titanic_.


----------



## GAP (28 Oct 2009)

Well, next I fully expect the announcement of Peter Mansbridge and company as a secondary communications wing of the Liberal Party.....that way, nothing will have to change on the CBC National broadcasts.....


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Oct 2009)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_ web site, is more on the changes to _Prince Michael_’s political front office:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/bureau-blog/this-is-a-game-changer/article1341425/


> 'This is a game-changer'
> 
> Jane Taber
> 
> ...




This _might_ be a game changer:

•	IF Donolo is still as _connected_ (to what matters to most many enough Canadians) as he used to be – i.e. IF Donolo still understands the issues;

•	*IF* Donolo can bring back enough of that powerful, highly effective ‘old’ team or recreate it from new blood;

•	*IF* the Toronto _gang_ do not rebel, as the Québec _gang_ did and, thereby, recreate the problem that brings Donolo on board to replace Davey;

•	*IF* _Iggy_ _Iffy_ _Icarus_ will listen to his new team and *do something*; and

•	*IF* the Conservatives are asleep at the switch.


----------



## ModlrMike (28 Oct 2009)

Donolo's only weapon in his bag of dirty tricks will be "Steven Harper: the big, bad, ugly." I think the Canadian public is tired of that tack and the comparisons to GW Bush that go with it. I agree though, that this can go badly for the Conservatives if they fail to take notice of it and make plans accordingly.


----------



## a_majoor (1 Nov 2009)

Some sort of clear message is a must, although some messages (i.e. the "Green Shift" ) are not likely to be accepted. The firestorm over the recent Suzuki Foundation/TD Bank report on the true costs of "climate change" legislation should be a clear indication.

The Government needs some clear messaging as well: a detailed road map of the post stimulus economy would be nice.

I suspect the Christmas break, the Olympics and waiting for the Obama Administration to stop dithering on issues like Afghanistan and what sort of Carbon Tax they will implement will put election fever aside until late spring as all sides digest the new information and make new plans.


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Nov 2009)

Ho-hum, according to this report, reproduced under the fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/bureau-blog/back-where-we-started/article1351941/



> Thursday, November 5, 2009
> 
> Back where we started
> 
> ...




<yawn>


Conservatives - 37.3%

Liberals - 26.8%

NDP - 16.3%

Greens - 10%

BQ - 9.4%


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Nov 2009)

Yet another reason we are unlikely to see an election anytime soon,* according to this bit, reproduced under the fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_ web site:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/bureau-blog/follow-the-leader-not-these-liberals/article1354792/


> Follow the leader? Not these Liberals
> 
> Jane Taber
> 
> ...




Taber appears to be on the verge of panic over the fate of her beloved Liberals. *The End Is Near! *


----------
* Soon = spring/summer 2010


----------



## a_majoor (9 Nov 2009)

The future of the Liberal Party:

http://www.stephentaylor.ca/2009/11/justin-trudeau-demands-10000-speaking-fee-from-liberals/



> *Justin Trudeau demands $10,000 speaking fee… from Liberals*
> 
> From Saturday’s Times Transcript,
> 
> ...



Heh


----------



## Rifleman62 (10 Nov 2009)

What happened to the family money?

This guy is a waste of rations just like his father.

I wonder if CBC will report this item. Probably it will be reported that he personally forked over $10 K as well as speaking.


----------



## ModlrMike (10 Nov 2009)

Certainly today's results can't be good news for the Count.


----------



## a_majoor (11 Nov 2009)

A bit of a diversion via Jerry Pournelle. If you are disturbed by the "Liberal Lite" philosophy that is currently running the CPC, then here are some lessons from the NT-23 election that people who are thinking about a principled approach to government can use:

http://www.jerrypournelle.com/view/2009/Q4/view595.html#Wednesday



> Newt Gingrich said last night that he had endorsed the Republican candidate in upstate New York because she was the unanimous choice of the eleven Republican County Chairmen in the District. Precisely why they endorsed someone who would later withdraw and endorse a Democrat candidate is not known to me, and I doubt that Newt knows either. His advice to local party officials in New York state (where the Conservatives get to run a candidate or can endorse a candidate of another party; that's not a common situation in most states, and makes New York state politics unique) is that the Republican Party has to pay at least some attention to the local Conservative Party people in choices like this.
> 
> *My observation is that parties and movements who can't generate party workers generally don't win. The ground game -- getting out the vote on election day -- remains fairly decisive, and one key to political influence remains: become a party activist and you get some influence.* It is no longer true as it was in the 1950's and much of the 1960's that the US is in effect governed by about 50,000 self-selected Party Officials. Their influence and power have been greatly diluted by fund raisers and professional campaign people .
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Nov 2009)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_, is an interesting, somewhat insightful and slightly bitter column by Lawrence Martin:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/its-only-been-a-decade-but-the-conservative-way-is-redefining-us/article1368762/


> Lawrence Martin *It's only been a decade, but the conservative way is redefining us*
> *The celebrated advent of Barack Obama makes Canada's trend line look all the more remarkable*
> 
> Lawrence Martin
> ...




The nub of Martin’s concern is that _”the old Canadian consensus had become imperilled.”_ Of course there never was a _Canadian_ consensus; there was an _urban Central Canadian_ consensus built around Montreal, Ottawa/Gatineau and Greater Toronto with 22±, 13± and 35± seats in the HoC, respectively. During the post St Laurent era, the past 50 years, the Liberal Party of Canada (led by Mike Pearson, _Pierre Trudeau_, John Turner, _Jean Chrétien_, Paul Martin, _Stéphane Dion_ and Michael Ignatieff) has, studiously, *divided* Canada into new _making Canada_ and old _taking Canada_* - _making_ Canada lies West of the Ottawa River and _taking_ Canada is East of that river (Québec and Atlantic Canada _take_ more from Canada - economically, socially, politically, productively - than they contribute).

What Martin fails to discuss is that immigration is also driving Canada towards a more *Conservative* position. Most immigrants, especially those from South and East Asia but also Middle Eastern immigrants, are fiscally prudent and socially _conservative_; they are less and less attracted to *Liberal* positions. The deep political _roots_ that some immigrant communities have had in the Liberal Party of Canada are weakening. Prime Minister Harper is offering a newer, more comfortable face:





Prime Minister Stephen Harper, second from left, gestures as Punjab state deputy chief minister Sukhbir Singh Badal, third from left, looks on in front of the Golden Temple, Sikhism's holiest site, in Amritsar, India, on Wednesday.
(Associated Press)

The “funny hat” photo-ops can and do translate into political support back home when they show some _sensitivity_ towards the aspirations of ethnic groups. See here, click on the Video “Political reaction in Canada.”

The _Toronto 18_ are an aberration. Most Muslims in Canada are _relatively_ secular – less secular than, say, _most_ Christians, Jews and, of course, irreligious Chinese and, probably, more secular than e.g. some Sikhs. There are Islamic extremists in Canada, just as there are dangerously extremist Sikhs and _nutjob_ fundamentalist Christians. We should not tar any _community_ with allegations of being _terrorists_ just because a few members of that community insist upon adhering to extreme ‘values’ and want to “fight” old, _foreign_ wars here in Canada.

Canadians are not irredeemingly Conservative but a very large minority of them are, now, _comfortable_ with the Conservative (*liberal*) values that Stephen Harper enunciates and demonstrates. (But, many died in the wool _red neck_ Reformers are less and less happy with Harper’s directions - few of which lead towards imposing on us all the _collectivist_ social/religious ‘values’ they hold.) The Liberals can recapture the _centre_ if they cast aside their _particularist_ wings: gays, feminists, etc, etc, etc. But that’s a dangerous proposition because they will migrate towards the NDP which is already making inroads in the Liberals’ urban ‘base.’

All of which makes a 2010 election more and more problematical for _Iggy_ _Iffy_ _Icarus_ but, conversely, may make it essential to go sooner rather than later because failing to _pull the trigger_ (if he can the BQ and _Dippers_ to join in) just serves to strengthen the Tory’s growing base of support.


---------------
* As described by Brian Lee Crowley in _*Fearful symmetry*: the fall and rise of Canada’s founding values_, Toronto, 2009


Edit: punctuation and grammar


----------



## Brad Sallows (19 Nov 2009)

"Civil liberties seemed to take a back seat – Canadians... applauded a Conservative initiative to dismantle the gun registry. "

What an odd mindset that man has.  Untrammelled ownership rights are more liberal than constraints and restraints.


----------



## Kirkhill (19 Nov 2009)

I couldn't quite make up my mind whether the emphasis should be on "old" or "consensus".  Is he perturbed that there is "no consensus" or worse, in his eyes, that there might be a "new" consensus.

What really caught my interest in that article is that after years of declaring the "old consensus" and its advocates as being "moderate" and "mainstream" he now is explicitly acknowledging the old model as "leftist" and "statist" and being promoted by the media generally and Macleans and the CBC in particular.

I still have vivid recollections of a CBC documentary of the 2006 election (???) where Lawrence and two other pundits with other media were discussing Harper's response to some staffer calling Paul Martin's Liberals pedophiles or some such.  Harper came out and slammed the comment.  The other two seemed to think that was the end of the matter but Martin said something to the effect "how can we present that?"  causing me to infer that he was actively trying to spin up the outrage against Harper and, in the process, convinced the other two pundits to come on board with his line.  That resulted in Harper being held to a minority.  (I remember the documentary but am foggy on the details - I have tried to find it since on CBC but without success - It was about the media and the way they followed the campaign).


----------



## a_majoor (21 Nov 2009)

It would seem the LPC can use a prolonged "breather". No election until 2011:

http://uknowiamright.blogspot.com/2009/11/climbing-up-just-to-reach-rock-bottom.html



> *Climbing up just to reach rock bottom
> *
> That;s the latest predicament the Liberals find themselves in as the latest Angus-reid polls shows the Liberals behind the Tories by 15 pts:
> 
> ...



This can break two ways; the LPC tries another "Dear Leader" or two (Bob Rae and the Young Dauphin?) and devolves into irrelevance with the left wing of the party breaking to the NDP and Greens;

or,

They pull their heads out of their collective a***s, purge the old guard who are entitled to their entitlements and really sit down and define themselves for a new century.

They may have enough time and resiliance to survive one more "Dear Leader" if they isolate him/her/it and work frantically in the background to reorganize and rebuild (after a failed election they will hold a leadership review and eliminate the "Dear Leader"), but after that, the combination of internal divisions and frustration and external events like the continuing demographic and economic shifts in Canada will make recovery very unlikely.

Many political parties with long and established roots have rapidly disintigrated in Canada, the United States and the UK, so it's not like this is a historical surprize...


----------



## ModlrMike (22 Nov 2009)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Many political parties with long and established roots have rapidly disintigrated in Canada, the United States and the UK, so it's not like this is a historical surprize...



One might argue that the Conservatives having already re-invented themselves already, are ahead of the curve in this scenario. Perhaps that can account for some of their current popularity. On the other hand, it may be that the Liberals are so bad that many "small l" liberals can't bring themselves to support them.


----------



## SeanNewman (22 Nov 2009)

Yes the Conservatives have reinvented themselves already.  Maclean's did a good cover on it last year called "The death of Canada's Right" (or something along those lines).

Instead of having a (by our standards) Left (NDP), Centre (Liberal), and Right (Con), what we now have is a Left and 2 x Centres.

Great for votes, bad for balance.


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Dec 2009)

Based on the old adage that _”if you haven’t heard a good rumour by coffee break: start one”_ this is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-buzzing-with-talk-of-proroguing-parliament/article1400284/


> Ottawa buzzing with talk of proroguing Parliament
> *Tories said to be considering shutting down government until after the Olympics
> Gloria Galloway*
> 
> ...




There are some good *political* and *policy* reasons to proroguing parliament for the winter:

1.	Finish _stacking_ the Senate to ensure that Conservative legislation can move through, unamended;

2.	Rewrite the economic agenda and present it in a new budget – it’s probably time;

3.	Get the Conservative Party on an election footing – do what is necessary to push Conservative support up and Liberal support down;

4.	After the budget passes, introduce a bill that will be so toxic to all three opposition parties that none can afford to do anything except show up, _en masse_, and vote down the government – provoking a general election in 2010, when the numbers are good.


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Dec 2009)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Donolo's only weapon in his bag of dirty tricks will be "Steven Harper: the big, bad, ugly." I think the Canadian public is tired of that tack and the comparisons to GW Bush that go with it. I agree though, that this can go badly for the Conservatives if they fail to take notice of it and make plans accordingly.



It appears you are quite right.

Jane Taber's most recent Ottawa Notebook blog on the _Glone and Mail_ we site talks a about a Liberal photo contest that offered prizes and asked supporters _"to have some fun by putting the Prime Minister anywhere but in Copenhagen: “Your mission, should you accept it, is to pick an image that will haunt Stephen Harper forever,” the Liberal Party website says."_

This was the result:







Taber says, _"a senior Liberal official said the picture had been taken down. “That one slipped by and should not have been posted,” he said."_

A senior Tory, she notes, said, _"the Conservatives “won’t dignify this with a response.” He added: “Mr. Ignatieff should comment, not us, as this incident reflects on Mr. Ignatieff’s judgment.”"_


----------



## Rifleman62 (15 Dec 2009)

Lets hope that some kid did not get a hold of that picture and takes it to school to bully one of the PM's children.

Jane Taber and the Liberals. are they out of their minds???

The LPC and the media are out of control. 

The two cheapest words in the English language: 'Sorry" and "Love'.


----------



## a_majoor (15 Dec 2009)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Donolo's only weapon in his bag of dirty tricks will be "Steven Harper: the big, bad, ugly." I think the Canadian public is tired of that tack and the comparisons to GW Bush that go with it. I agree though, that this can go badly for the Conservatives if they fail to take notice of it and make plans accordingly.



The CPC learned this one quite well, actually, since they have lifted the attack mentality from the Liberal playbook against Stockwell Day and have replayed it at huge levels of amplification against Stephan Dion and Micheal Ignatieff.



> Nigel Tufnel: The numbers all go to eleven. Look, right across the board, eleven, eleven, eleven and...
> Marty DiBergi: Oh, I see. And most amps go up to ten?
> Nigel Tufnel: Exactly.
> Marty DiBergi: Does that mean it's louder? Is it any louder?
> ...


----------



## ModlrMike (15 Dec 2009)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> The CPC learned this one quite well, actually, since they have lifted the attack mentality from the Liberal playbook against Stockwell Day and have replayed it at huge levels of amplification against Stephan Dion and Micheal Ignatieff.



To which the Liberals responded by wailing about dirty tricks, attack ads, etc, etc, etc. In my view, it's hardly your opponent's fault if they have better command of your tactics than you have.


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Dec 2009)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Based on the old adage that _”if you haven’t heard a good rumour by coffee break: start one”_ this is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_:
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-buzzing-with-talk-of-proroguing-parliament/article1400284/
> 
> ...




More fuel for the prorogation fire, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _National Post_:

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=fae7ba06-7294-494d-a9e8-58c9749d358d&p=1


> Last Senate stand bizarre spectacle
> *Proroguing Parliament again an option for Harper*
> 
> John Ivison, National Post
> ...




As I said, prorogation makes good political and policy sense.

A guesstimate is that Harper will delay the announcement until just before parliament is scheduled to return in late Jan 10. That is based on the fact that the Conservatives have found a way to derail the detainee issue by, simply, boycotting the committee, effectively shutting it down.

But it might be better, from a _machinery of government_ point of view to do the deed sooner, rather than later and letting selected ministers and bureaucrats get on, formally, with developing a new agenda.


----------



## GAP (1 Jan 2010)

Mark April 13th in your new 2010 calendar as election day
Friday, January 1, 2010 9:04 AM
Article Link

Here’s why you’ll be going to the polls on that tuesday

    * It will have been almost 18 months to the day since the last federal election, about the average life of a minority government. With Mr. Harper slated to host the G8 and G20 meetings in June, he has a narrow window to get an election out of the way before the delegates arrive.
    * Notwithstanding the continued strength of the Bloc in Québec, Mr. Harper is now within shooting distance of achieving a majority government, a goal sought by all (and all potential) prime ministers.
    * Based on the latest Nanos poll, Michael Ignatieff — Mr. Harper’s only potential replacement — has fallen below Jack Layton in the eyes of Canadians on the issue of leadership, and Mr. Harper runs little risk of not being in the chair for the G8 and G20 meetings after a spring election.
    * If Mr. Harper’s decision to prorogue Parliament was designed to thwart further investigation into the Afghan detainees issue (why else would he have done the dirty deed?), he will be looking to ensure from the get-go that the opposition parties don’t pick up where they left off as soon as the new session begins. A quick election call would neatly do the trick, especially given Canadians’ apparently lukewarm interest in the issue.
    * The Throne Speech will be read by the Governor-General on Wednesday March 3rd and the budget will be tabled by finance minister Flaherty the next day; both will situate Canada on the path to gradual economic recovery and stress the need for a firm hand on the tiller, and on the till. With these documents on the public record, Mr. Harper could then cross the street to Rideau Hall to request a vote on Tuesday April 12th, explaining to voters that Canada needs a single set of safe hands on the wheel (namely, his!) to deal with the next phase of the economic recovery through gradual expenditure restraint and no tax increases.

Here’s why Mr. harper won’t wait until the fall to call an election

    * Several polls have indicated that Canadians are increasingly uncomfortable with the shenanigans in Ottawa during minority government situations. However, whether the election is in the spring or the fall, the big unknown remains whether that sentiment can survive a five-week campaign during which voters are staring the prospect of a Harper majority government directly in the face.
    * Waiting until the fall to call an election would allow economic concerns — Mr. Harper’s trump card—to further fade as the top of mind issue for voters in an improving economy.
    * The HST comes into effect in Ontario and British Columbia — key provinces in a possible Harper majority — on July 1st. Waiting until the fall to call an election would mean that the Conservatives would reap the anger at the new tax — and normally it’s the first government to go to the polls that does — at a time when back to school purchases would still be very fresh in the minds of voters.
    * Waiting until the fall would also give Michael Ignatieff more time to recover from his disastrous 2009. On the other hand, dropping a quick writ in the spring — a page straight out of the Jean Chrétien playbook — would throw a spanner in the Liberals’ thinkers conference, planned for Montréal from March 26 to 28.
end of article


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 Jan 2010)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_, is still more 2010 election speculation:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/winning-voters-hearts-and-minds-its-all-about-managing-the-message/article1416775/


> Winning voters' hearts and minds: it's all about managing the message
> *While Ottawa may be quiet as parliament is prorogues, the federal parties will be taking the time to prepare for the prospect of a vote in 2010*
> 
> John Ibbitson
> ...



While I would not want to bet against people as well connected and observant as John Ibbitson _et al_, there are some powerful _cons_ that must be telling the *Cons* to ‘stay the course’ until 2012, if they can: this appears to be a ‘jobless recovery,’ to the degree that it is a recovery at all; Canadians *are tired* of elections and of partisan politics in general; and there is no compelling _issue_ for electing Conservatives again.


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 Jan 2010)

And here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_’s web site, is one of the _cons_ from *Con* back-roomer Tim Powers’ blog:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/silver-powers/opposition-aikido---wholl-end-up-on-the-mat/article1413365/


> Opposition Aikido - Who'll end up on the mat?
> 
> Tim Powers
> 
> ...



Given that Québec remains wedded to the _Bloc_ out of  … what? spite? self-delusion? … then the next election must be won in Ontario (106 of the remaining 270± seats (giving the BQ a ‘lock’ on 45± seats in _la bell province_)) and Ontario is hard hit by the recession and Ontarians are grumpy – not a good time to ask them to vote for the current team.

Harper is, however, well positioned to offer Canadians an alternative to Harper – a quiet, competent _manager_ who keeps his own partisan rhetoric in check and keeps shovelling money into Ontario’s suburbs.


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Jan 2010)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_, is some Tory _spin_, regurgitated by the _Canadian Press_’ Joan Bryden, suggesting that a Spring 2010 election is unwanted:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/pm-has-no-appetite-for-spring-election-insiders-say/article1420065/


> PM has 'no appetite' for spring election, insiders say
> *Harper focused on economy, sources tell CP amid rampant speculation around decision to prorogue*
> 
> Joan Bryden
> ...



I agree that Harper does not want to be the one who triggers the election. He needs to trick the opposition parties into voting down his government on some matter that is not a clear and obvious “poison pill.”


----------



## GAP (5 Jan 2010)

I think some of the goodies that were in the 2008 fall budget will come back to haunt Iggy, especially now that the herd would have a difficult time creating another coalition.....that, and to just plain stick it to the Liebrals for old times sake..... ;D


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Jan 2010)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _National Post_, is the transcript of an interview Prime Minister Harper gave to John Ivision and sometimes Army.ca contributor David Akin:

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=2413394


> Prime Minister Stephen Harper, word for word
> 
> John Ivison and David Akin, National Post and Canwest News Service
> 
> ...




The upshot: no spring election – unless, I guess, he can find a way to trick the opposition into defeating his government, IF the polls are going his way.

Afghanistan: the _military_ mission ends. The bureaucrats are casting about for a safe place for civilians to work.


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Jan 2010)

And here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright from today’s _National Post_ , is John Ivison’s _take_ on what Harper really means:

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2010/01/06/john-ivison-relaxed-harper-sees-hope-on-the-horizon.aspx


> *John Ivison*:
> Relaxed Harper sees hope on the horizon
> 
> Posted: January 06, 2010
> ...




My best guess: Harper’s “expectations for the future of Afghanistan” were always bleak. I think he _embraced_ the mission, and the military, to practice “divide and conquer” politics in Ottawa – against the Liberal Party of Canada which remains divided on the issue.


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Jan 2010)

Speaking of “divide and conquer” politics, here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, is a comment by Conservative insider and former Harper advisor Tom Flanagan:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/polarization-ad-hoc-alliances-fear-of-election/article1419988/


> Polarization, ad hoc alliances, fear of election
> *How the Conservatives wage their permanent political campaign
> Tom Flanagan*
> 
> ...



Principles:

1.	*Polarization* – divide and conquer;

2.	*Compromise* – form _ad hoc_ alliances, when necessary, to stay in power; and

3.	*Fear* – always ensure at least one opposition party is afraid to force an election.

So far it seems to be working.


----------



## Rifleman62 (7 Jan 2010)

Forming ad hoc alliances, is "making Parliament work", but the opposition will never admit it. The media will continue to repeat the opposition whining.
At a luncheon in Kelowna during the summer, the CDS  stated the same message: no troops.
IMO, I also think that, as a husband, as a father  (despite the media's best efforts to protray him as evil), and as the PM, the casualties are a heavy load for Mr. Harper.


----------



## a_majoor (16 Jan 2010)

While my opinion of the Globe and Mail is about the same as most other people on this board, this piece has a nugget of truth (just not the one the author thinks). Aggressive cost cutting is really the only way out now, given tax increases will be politically toxic (and ineffective, see the John Galt strike in the US), pressures to increase spending on the elderly will only increase and economic growth will be modest at best given Canada's economic base and small population. This should be THE issue next election, and a potential winner for the CPC if they  have a viable plan to do so.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/fiscal-math-tax-hikes-to-balance-the-budget/article1431298/



> *Fiscal math = tax hikes to balance the budget *
> Will politicians tell the budgetary truth, and would we punish them if they did?
> 
> Jeffrey Simpson
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Jan 2010)

This, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_’s web site, *might* be interesting and also *might* be bad news for Stephen Harper and his Conservatives:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/bureau-blog/liberals-could-skate-ahead-of-tories-on-prorogation-poll-finds/article1438655/


> Liberals could skate ahead of Tories
> on prorogation, poll finds
> 
> Jane Taber
> ...




And here, on the CBC’s web site is their rep[ort on the poll. The results, graphically, are:







As _EKOS_’ Frank Graves says, “public opinion sometimes lags the news by a few days” so the _bounce_ I anticipated from the Haiti mission *may* yet materialize.

On the other hand, the mainstream media, especially the _CBC_ and _Globe and Mail_, have done a first rate job of keeping the prorogation pot boiling – Jane Taber, herself has _blogged_ on it on an almost daily basis. It may be that they have actually managed to make a silk purse out of a soiw’s ear for the Liberals or, more fairly, against the Conservatives. I do not believe the media is, mainly, pro-Liberal but I think it is, very broadly anti-Conservative and, especially, anti-Harper.

There is not enough here to cause _Iggy_ _Iffy_ _Icarus_ to provoke an election but it should serve to rally the Liberal faithful.

Spending cuts will not be overly popular for the Conservatives; Haiti, coupled with a firm commitment to scurry out of Afghanistan, tail firmly clutched between legs, will be popular.

The unemployment rate may the key to the next election timing and result.


----------



## GAP (21 Jan 2010)

I've had lots of practise finding my mute button whenever Tabor on Powerplay gets ernestly spouting off with her garbage. The CBC has been flogging this on Radio & TV constantly. 

Sometime you just want to  :brickwall:


----------



## Brad Sallows (21 Jan 2010)

It would be more interesting if we were two months down the road in spring election territory and the numbers were still the same.  Until then, it makes about as much sense as getting all excited when the Conservatives are temporarily up by 5 or 10 points.


----------



## Kirkhill (21 Jan 2010)

Tories fall from 35 to 30
Libs rise from 25 to 30

Headline - 5% of Canadians Change Their Mind, For Now.


----------



## GAP (21 Jan 2010)

One comment on Power Play was that the CF is getting all the Haiti credit, not the PM....might be a factor....


----------



## RangerRay (21 Jan 2010)

I don't remember the press flogging perogygate this much when Chretien prorogued before the release of the Auditor General's report into Adscam...

...but the press still contends it's "objective".  :


----------



## Kirkhill (22 Jan 2010)

Ray, 

In fairness to the PRESS, Chretien's prorogation was hidden in the foul stew that was ADSCAM.  It was just another questionable act amidst a bucket of felonies and misdemeanours.

It is possible to argue that the reason this prorogation is getting so much press is that there is so little else on which to report.  Harper, therefore, may be seen as running a clean, as well as tight, ship in comparison.

The Afghanistan issue actually wasn't gaining that much traction against the Government before Christmas.  The 5% of the population that I alluded to above hadn't had their attention diverted.


----------



## a_majoor (24 Jan 2010)

This should be _*the*_ issue in any upcoming election; crafting a program of spending cuts to eliminate the deficit and attack the debt. (Since excessive debt is the underlying cause of the global financial crisis, then paying down as fast as possible is the only prudent course of action available). This blogger thinks it can be done, and I would go further; recognizing cutting transfers to individuals would be electoral suicide, adding transfers to governments, subsidies and crown corporatiosn together, we have the total of $84 billion/year that could be cut from the federal budget [this does not take into account any virtuous circle effect savings in government operations, nor carrying cost reductions on the $30 billion/year nationsl debt].

Applying this level of saving to the debt (and not considering potential follow-on savings) we could pay off the national debt in six years and fund all unfunded liabilties like federal pensions and CPP in twelve years. Think of this as the "upper bound" and eliminating $19 billion/year spending as the lower bound.

The upper bound program has the advantage of allowing increasing tax relief as operations costs and debt charges come down, and allowing us to eliminate debt and liabilities befroe some of our children finish school rather than passing the debt to our grandchildren.

http://backoffgov.blogspot.com/2010/01/days-spending-problem.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+BackOffGovernment+%28Back+Off+Government%21%29



> *Day's Spending Problem*
> 
> With the upcoming federal budget, Stockwell Day has been appointed as the new Treasurer minister to be Harper's pointman heading up spending cuts. There's been a lot of talk about whether the Tories can even cut enough to balance the books. I think Day does have his work cut out for him, but it's not as bad as some people think.
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 Feb 2010)

As if it were really necessary to reinforce the impression that Québec is a deleterious force in Canadian politics, consider this _blog_ spot, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_ web site, suggests that _Prince Michael_ and his team are _*”discussing*_ [with the NDP] _*the option of knowingly introducing an unconstitutional bill”*_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/does-michael-ignatieff-really-want-this-constitutional-dance/article1452501/


> Does Michael Ignatieff really want this constitutional dance?
> *By going back to his coalition partners, the Liberal leader opens a door for the Bloc*
> 
> Norman Spector
> ...



Once again Canadian Constitutional politics or, perhaps, the politics derived from Canada’s continuing constitutional constipation threaten the country’s _governance_.


----------



## a_majoor (21 Feb 2010)

The coalition livvvvvves! Igor, bring me Jack Layton's brain!:

http://canadiansense.blogspot.com/2010/02/has-coalition-learned-from-their.html



> *Has The Coalition Learned From Their Mistakes?*
> 
> A former NDP national campaign director, he writes uncommonly well for someone who's been in the business of clip and spin.- Norman Spector on Brian Topp's book.
> 
> ...



If they want to run as a coalition, then fine; I'll look at the coalition platform and decide if they deserve my vote. IF they do not run as a coalition and pull that stunt again, then I would suggest it is time for Canadians to take to the streets in a "Maple" revolution.

Quite frankly, pulling a coup wouldn't work anyway since the various parties would quickly be at odds (and the various voters who voted for the various parts of the coalition would be pulling members in every direction), leading to a messy government melt-down. IF we want to have fun, at every all candidates meeting next election ask the Liberal candidate if they will be reporting to the NDP candidate or the Bloc (or the other way around).


----------



## Fishbone Jones (21 Feb 2010)




----------



## Kat Stevens (21 Feb 2010)

recceguy said:
			
		

>



Blah, blah, blah.... 8)


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Mar 2010)

John Ibbitson, a pretty astute observer of te national political scene, forecasts a 2010 election in this column about the budget, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/budget/pm-gambles-that-voters-care-about-the-deficit-little-else/article1490643/


> PM gambles that voters care about the deficit, little else
> *Stephen Harper's government has brought down the most austere, deficit-fighting document since Paul Martin set out to balance his budget in the nineties*
> 
> John Ibbitson
> ...




The Tories *hope* they understand what a large minority of Canadians want – unexciting, uncharismatic, competent, boring (remember _Brampton Billy_ Davis and “bland works?”) government. They also hope that another, smaller minority, is driven by pure greed: bash the civil service; no new taxes; etc. Finally they hope that there is another minority that will vote Conservative even if they offer the village idiot for election. If those minorities, and a few others, all add up to about 40% of the electorate then they have a majority government.

It sounds like a reasonable strategy to me – if, big IF, they really do understand what how those minorities think.


----------



## GAP (5 Mar 2010)

The Conservatives set the tone with this budget....imagine how well Iggy's 5-10 Billion daycare proposal will sound during an election, his cap & trade desires( oops that was Dion, but what the hey!!), raising taxes/GST/dog pound fees/whatever......

Now......how is Harper going to pull the trigger...?


----------



## Rifleman62 (5 Mar 2010)

I am sure there is another minority, a fairly large one, possibly a small majority, that wish the Tories would forget about the majority of the 23% of the population that constantly whines, always have their hand out, then slaps the hand after the money has been taken, year after year.


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Mar 2010)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> I am sure there is another minority, a fairly large one, possibly a small majority, that wish the Tories would forget about the majority of the 23% of the population that constantly whines, always have their hand out, then slaps the hand after the money has been taken, year after year.



You are *sure* and Harper *hopes* that you are right.

We need to recognize that nearly 60% of Canadians wouldn't vote for a Conservative even if she was a mix of Churchill and Mandela. The Tories need to split that vote - and most of the anti-Conservative vote resides outside of Québec – between the Liberals and the NDP so that a few more Conservative candidates can come ‘up through the middle’ in a few more ridings.

The Conservatives have 145 seats; assume for a moment that they can hold on to 140 of them; they need to win 15 *new* seats, out of the 160+ that remain _in play_; that’s a 10% _shift_ in ‘available’ seats from the BQ, Liberals and NDP to the Conservatives. That’s a big shift but it may just be achievable in 2010 if a whole lot of dominos, including a steady *global* recovery (save the PIIGS!), fall in order.


----------



## GAP (9 Mar 2010)

Travers: As the heat builds, expect PM to spark an election
Article Link

Facing three tough questions about his government, Stephen Harper has a single answer. The annoying queries are about the politics of stimulus spending, the credibility of last week's rosy federal budget, and complicity in Afghanistan prisoner abuse. The response is a sooner-than-later election.

Not much cleans the slate better than a campaign. Rarely has a ruling party so urgently required an eraser.

That hunger for a fresh start helps explain the Prime Minister's controversial winter suspension of Parliament, as well as what looms this spring, summer and fall. Padlocking the Commons and Senate bought Conservatives priceless time by resetting the political clock. It will be weeks before committees disbanded in December are again able to harass the ruling party. By then, the focus will be shifting to the season of barbecue-circuit electioneering, followed by a slow autumn return to a capital preoccupied by how Conservatives will engineer their own defeat.

Harper, who loathes leaving his fate to others, ignored his own fixed-date election law in 2008 to run against the hapless Stéphane Dion simply by declaring Parliament dysfunctional. Back then, the Prime Minister wanted an election that he had reason to expect would deliver the majority Conservatives covet. Now he desperately needs one, even if the prospects of a decisive victory are less certain.

Understanding Harper's hurry begins with a flashback. It was Sheila Fraser's scathing 2004 report on Jean Chrétien's Quebec sponsorship program that triggered Paul Martin's eventual downfall.

Six years later, the auditor general is taking a first look at the nearly $50 billion Conservative stimulus plan that already has the opposition screeching foul over how projects are chosen and the plan promoted to voters.

It would be as reckless for Harper to wait for Fraser's late fall audit as it would be to bring down a bad-news budget before the next election. It will take a loaves-and-fishes miracle for Finance Minister Jim Flaherty's dreams about economic growth and bureaucratic belt-tightening to come true.

Instead, Canadians are more likely to grasp that all those home renovations and construction projects weren't free and that the bill to be delivered in 2011 includes fewer government services, higher taxes or both.
More on link


----------



## Rifleman62 (9 Mar 2010)

If the Liberals, NDP and Bloc want to get to the bottom of the detainee issue, bring down the government, take the chance the Liberals will form the government. Then the Liberals will  have the access to all the documents. Ah, I can see the ash rising from the burn barrels if the Liberal win.


----------



## GAP (9 Mar 2010)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> If the Liberals, NDP and Bloc want to get to the bottom of the detainee issue, bring down the government, take the chance the Liberals will form the government. Then the Liberals will  have the access to all the documents. Ah, I can see the ash rising from the burn  barrels.



I love the smell of napalm(well diesel anyway) in the morning!!! What? You don't like the smell of sanctimonious outrage with Iffy and his twin Bobby Rae stirring the contents to ensure there is an even burn.....all without knowing that the smell is going to stick to them all day because they didn't have the sense to not stand downwind...... ;D


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Mar 2010)

GAP said:
			
		

> Travers: As the heat builds, expect PM to spark an election
> Article Link
> 
> Facing three tough questions about his government, Stephen Harper has a single answer. The annoying queries are about the politics of stimulus spending, the credibility of last week's rosy federal budget, and complicity in Afghanistan prisoner abuse. The response is a sooner-than-later election.
> ...




I rather like Travers' analysis, less the bit where he tries to shift Liberal responsibility for the flawed 2005 Afghan detainee agreement to Rick Hillier. A fall 2010 election seems a reasonable, even probably scenario.


----------



## Rifleman62 (9 Mar 2010)

I clarified my comment to indicate my thought that the Liberals would wipe their responsibility clean via burn barrels.


----------



## a_majoor (11 Mar 2010)

Speaking of responsibility, check out the list of shirkers who were absent for the budget vote (you know, that budget that does nothing for the ordinary Canadian). Not only should they be told in no uncertain terms to STFU whenever they open their mouths about the budget in the future, but their future prospects need to be looked at very closely given their actions undermine their words (yeah, I'm talking about YOU there Trudeau). Contact information is a click away on the site:

http://thealbertaardvark.blogspot.com/2010/03/29-liberal-mps-that-ignatieff-would-not.html



> *The 29 Liberal MPs that Ignatieff would not let do their job*.
> 29 Liberals were absent from Parliament for a confidence vote on the budget earlier tonight.
> 
> 29 Liberals were not there to do their job and represent the people who elected them to office, which is a bit ironic considering their biggest complaint over prorogation was that they were not allowed to do their job, in Ottawa, in Parliament.
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (11 Mar 2010)

An interesting scenario plays out here:

http://pragmatictory.blogspot.com/2010/03/how-deep-are-liberal-divisions.html



> *How deep are the Liberal divisions?*
> 
> I am beginning to sense that there are deeper divisions within the Liberal Party than has been made public. They are moving forward with complaints that cast a pox on the previous Liberal Government, that actually highlights negligence of the previous administration. Perhaps the strategists are willing to throw Paul Martin under the bus because his life is out of politics, but how about the ten or so current sitting Liberal MPs who sat in cabinet from 2002-2005? I have yet to hear any rebuttal from these former cabinet ministers as to why they would not have included a monitoring mechanism if they were fully aware of the possibility of torture.
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (20 Mar 2010)

The title belies the thrust of the argument, but this piece by Paul Wells has very interesting insight into how the CPC is preparing the battlespace for a 2010 and subsequent elections. Reading closely, the Harper team is fighting an insurgency against the arrayed forces and institutions of "Progressiveism", and are winning the Low Intensity Conflict quite handily. 

To pull the analogy farther out of shape, while the CPC is comfortable in the first two stages of a Maoist revolutionary war (beginning by establishing a "revolutionary base area". As they grow in power, they enter stage two, establishe other revolutionary base areas and spread their influence through the surrounding countryside, where they may become the governing power and gain popular support through such programmes as criminal justice reform),  they are much less effective(for now) in prosecuting the third stage (building their own forces for a frontal confrontation with the established power).

http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/03/19/harper%E2%80%99s-hard-right-turn/print/



> *Harper’s hard right turn*
> Mar 19, 2010 by Paul Wells
> 
> It says in all the papers the well has run dry. The commentators keep writing that Canadian conservatism has died on the vine, that four years into his reign of tactical obsession and fiscal profligacy, Stephen Harper has forgotten why he ever went into politics.
> ...


----------



## Kirkhill (20 Mar 2010)

> ....I think we’ll be a stronger society when we have .........



per MP Mike Savage above.

And therein we find, yet again, the ultimate expression of the left wing ideology: the communal enterprise.  Despite his later assertion, it is not about the individual and choice.


----------



## GAP (26 Mar 2010)

Hébert: Will Speaker's ruling on detainees spark election?
Article Link
By Chantal Hébert National Columnist

Over his nine years as Speaker of the House of Commons, Peter Milliken has ruled on hundreds of points of privilege but none of his many decisions falls in the same high-stakes category as the ruling he will soon have to render as part of the latest battle of wills between the opposition parties and Stephen Harper's minority government.

As Milliken – a lifelong student of Parliament – is well aware, his verdict on the handling of the documents pertaining to the Afghan detainees issue is bound for the history books.

It will almost certainly come to the attention of the Supreme Court and it also could set off an election campaign.

If he rules that the government is within its rights to ignore a House order to hand over the documents until they have been vetted by an outside party of its choice, Milliken will have clipped the wings of Parliament in a way that stands to accelerate its current decline into irrelevancy.

The executive powers of the government will have been reinforced for all time at the expense of Parliament.

But if he rules in favour of the opposition and orders the government to find a process that allows parliamentarians to be the judges of the balance between national security and accountability, the Speaker could set the ground for a spring election.

The opposition parties and, in particular, the Liberals are adamant that they are not seeking a snap campaign. But the matter is increasingly out of their hands and into those of the Speaker and, eventually, the Prime Minister.

No one who watched Harper in action over the time of the 2008 parliamentary crisis doubts that he would be sorely tempted to take his latest conflict with the minority Parliament to the people rather than bow to the opposition and the Speaker's will.

A campaign triggered by this showdown would stack a prime minister wrapped in the Maple Leaf flag and claiming that it is standing on guard for national security and the Canadian military against three opposition parties waving the more virtual standard of parliamentary democracy.

The last thing Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff needs is to spend his first campaign fending off Conservative assertions that he would be willing to give the Bloc Québécois – a party described by its leader as a resistance movement only last weekend – an inside track on national security matters.

While polls have blown hot and cold on the election prospects of the Conservatives since the New Year, the Liberals have so far proven to be devoid of momentum. Ignatieff is not as ready to fight a campaign now as he might be in six to 12 months and Jack Layton is functioning on less than full capacity while he is undergoing cancer treatment.
More on link


----------



## Edward Campbell (26 Mar 2010)

Interesting (ongoing) poll from CARP (The Canadian Association of Retired Persons); thus far 1188 members have voted. Here are their views on the next federal election:

http://www.imakenews.com/eletra/mod_input_proc.cfm?mod_name=multisurvey&XXDESXXuser=carp&mode=new&XXDESXXthanks=Thank+you+for+participating+in+our+survey.&XXDESXXbgcolor=%23FFFFFF&named=F&XXDESXXbackto=http://www.imakenews.com/carp/index000432199.cfm&XXDESXXsubscriber_id=b3TDwdNR&XXDESXXlog_id=bgKkVSk&XXDESXXsurvey.type=multi&XXDESXXsurvey.id=37371&XXDESXXsurvey.directory_id=&XXDESXXsurvey.show_results=T&XXDESXXshow_votes=T&XXDESXXsurvey.q000023371=4&XXDESXXsurvey.q000023372=1&XXDESXXsurvey.q000023373=3&XXDESXXsurvey.q000023374=1&XXDESXXsurvey.q000023375=1&XXDESXXsurvey.q000023376=3&XXDESXXsurvey.q000023377=1&XXDESXXsurvey.q000023378=4&XXDESXXsurvey.q000023379=4&XXDESXXsurvey.q000023380=8&XXDESXXsurvey.q000023381=3&XXDESXXsurvey.q000023387=7&XXDESXXsurvey.q000023382=3&XXDESXXsurvey.q000023383=4&XXDESXXsurvey.q000023384=3&XXDESXXsurvey.q000023385=1&XXDESXXsurvey.q000023386=2&B1=Submit


> *If a FEDERAL election were held tomorrow, which party’s candidate would you vote for?*
> Conservative	605 Votes	 50.9 %
> Liberal	383 Votes	 32.2 %
> NDP	113 Votes	 9.5 %
> ...



Of those 1188 votes, 967 were cast by those in the 55-74 year old _cohort_ which is, if memory serves, the age group with the _best_ voter turnout in general elections. They are the voters you need to win.

<s><i>Iggy</i></s> <s><i>Iffy</i></s> <i>Icarus</i> is falling faster and faster towards the trash heap of history.


----------



## larry Strong (26 Mar 2010)

"Iggy's last stand"  by Micheal Den Tandt in todays Calgary Sun

http://www.calgarysun.com/comment/columnists/michael_dentandt/2010/03/25/13359271.html


> Michael Ignatieff has one last chance to shore up his position ahead of an election later this year. That is his keynote speech to the Liberal faithful, and some notable non-Liberals, at this weekend’s policy nosh in Montreal.
> 
> If he blows it, he’s done. Within a year he’ll be gone, striding the moors somewhere, looking Byronic, writing a book.
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (8 Apr 2010)

The long term disarray of the Liberal Party bodes ill for their electoral chances in the near future (indeed probably into 2011-2012). The economy, demographics and new electoral seats in Ontario and out West change the ground from under them (their "Thinker's Conference" was unable to conceptualize many of these issues) and the many corruption scandals from their time in power still haunt them. Because they have a dedicated voter base who will vote for potted plants running as Liberals, they will not get the Kim Campbell treatment in the next election; but since they are posing as NDP lite, they may take a lot of damage  from the NDP, Greens and BQ; *real* socialist parties who won;t sit back and have their lunch eaten by someone else. The CPC is running an effective insurgency against the forces of Progressiveism in Canadian society (in Maoist terms they are now at "Stage 2"; creating parallel structures to oppose or undermine the legitimacy of Progressive institutions), which makes the job of the Liberals that much harder. I still think the NDP will be able to successfully unite the left and fracture the Liberal Party, with the "Blue Grits" having to move to the CPC or risk irrelevance.

http://www2.macleans.ca/2010/04/07/the-end-of-the-liberal-emp



> *The end of the Liberal empire*
> Apr 7, 2010 by Andrew Coyne
> 
> Going into the Liberal policy conference in Montreal last weekend, the papers were full of comparisons to the Aylmer conference of 1991, or even the Kingston conference of 1960—places of lore, where deep thinkers conjured up new ideas that later propelled the party to victory.
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (16 Apr 2010)

Words of wisdom, and can be applied to any election (municipal, Provincial or Federal...)


----------



## a_majoor (7 May 2010)

Having the supposedly impartial arbitrators politicized or seeming to be politicized is a recipie for disaster, especially since it makes them targets or to risk being rendered irrelevant:

http://chasingapplepie.blogspot.com/2010/05/elections-canada-liberals-and-loans.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+ChasingApplePie+%28Chasing+Apple+Pie%29



> *Elections Canada, Liberals and Loans*
> 
> What's with Elections Canada, Liberals and loans?
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (12 May 2010)

The attempt by "New Labour" in the UK to form a coalition with the Liberal Democrats fell flat, our experience with an attempted left wing coalition should have been a warning to them, and their experience shows this isn't an isolated phenomena:

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/uk-chaos-labour-lib-dems-coalition-of-losers-angers-britain/?singlepage=true



> *UK Chaos: Labour, Lib Dems ‘Coalition of Losers’ Angers Britain*
> 
> Posted By Mike McNally On May 11, 2010 @ 10:46 am In Column 1, Europe, World News | 18 Comments
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (20 May 2010)

Here is yet another poll, this one from EKOS:

BQ:  10.8%
*Cons: 34.4%*
Greens: 12.0%
*Libs: 25.1%**
NDP: 15.3%
Other: 2.5%

I ‘plotted’ that polling data under a bell curve with eight standard deviations: Extreme Left through Extreme Right (0.1% each) with Centre Left and Centre Right in the middle with 34.% each. I then ‘allocated’ Conservative, Liberal and NDP voters to each standard deviation so that their shares equalled their current share of voter preference as expressed in this poll:

•	The Cons got 0% of the Extreme Right vote, 15% of the Hard Right vote, 85% of the Right vote, 63.5% of the Centre Right vote and 2.5% of the Centre Left vote.
•	The Libs got 2.5% of the Hard Right vote, 5% of the Right vote, 10.25% of the centre Right vote, 55% of the Centre Left vote and 2.5% of the Hard Left vote.
•	The NDP got 2.5% of the Centre Right vote, 25% of the Centre Left vote, 35% of the Left vote and 65% of the small (2.1% of Canadians) Hard Left vote.
•	That left 25% of the vote for all other parties. I did not consider the Greens, at all, because I believe their vote will collapse, during an election campaign, to 6 or 7% and a I ignored Québec/BQ because I believe a solid majority of Québecers (65%?) do not vote for Canada but, rather, they vote for Québec’s delegation in Ottawa, it’s embassy to Canada, if you like.

The outcome that I found interesting is that the ‘room’ left for the parties to find new votes is:

•	On the Left and Hard Left; and
•	In Québec.

At the risk of repeating something I say over and over again the Conservatives, if they really want to govern Canada, must learn how to do so without Québec.

But Québec cannot be left alone. To govern with a majority the Conservatives need to:

•	Hold the West;
•	Make a Big Gain in Ontario;
•	Hold at least half of its Québec seats; and
•	Make a Small Gain in Atlantic Canada.

To make the big gains in Ontario the Conservatives need to help both the Liberals and the NDP in order to allow Conservative candidates to “come up the middle” in closely contested ridings. This means that wedge politics, carefully targeted, riding by riding and special interest by special interest, policies and campaigns.

The Conservatives should want to do the same, albeit to a lesser degree, in Québec . Québec does not vote like the rest of Canada. It is, broadly, more left than the rest of Canada and it should be good ground for the NDP but the BQ is both a Québec nationalist and a left wing party. The Conservatives should try to help the NDP, in Québec to eat away at the BQ’s left wing vote, making the overall federalist side more representative of the rest of Canada.

Atlantic Canada will be tough. The politics that work, the old Liberal model, is to throw good money after bad. There is some, faint, hope that the Conservatives will actually be responsible – a winning policy in Ontario, where it’s needed most – and will gut the regional development (pork barrel) programmes like the Atlantic Canada Opportunity whatever – a losing policy in Atlantic Canada.

In the much longer term, waaaay beyond 2010, Québec must either:

•	Be reconciled to Canada; or
•	Leave Canada. 

Neither will be quick or easy.



*


----------



## Rifleman62 (20 May 2010)

Or Alberta leave Canada. Or Alberta/British Columbia leave Canada. Then see how Quebec survives which it does only with huge amounts of Canadian dollars.

No comment on Altlantic Canada. SH said it before and got in the shidt.

Time Canada got serious with the take, take, take entitlement of Quebec.


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Jun 2010)

This, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_ is good economic news but, for Stephen Harper’s Conservatives it is much better political news:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/harper-scores-foreign-policy-victories-in-lead-up-to-summits/article1594274/


> Harper scores foreign policy victories in lead-up to summits
> *On funding for maternal health, a proposed bank tax and efforts to combat climate change, the agendas of the June summits reflect Canada’s priorities, leaked documents show*
> 
> John Ibbitson
> ...



The media, predictably unwilling to give Harper and the Conservatives much credit for anything, will remain focused on:

1.	the $1 Billion security bill for the G8/G20; and

2.	(quite properly) on the vandals who will hijack the G8/G20 and turn the meetings into nihilist street theatre.

But, if, and it is still a big IF, we have an election in 2010, Canadian voters will notice that Euro-American pressure, including highly undiplomatic, indeed downright ‘unfriendly,’ *bullying* by Hillary Clinton, failed to move Harper of the *right* courses of action on the silly bank tax, abortion and the green thingy.


----------



## vonGarvin (7 Jun 2010)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> But, if, and it is still a big IF, we have an election in 2010, Canadian voters will notice that Euro-American pressure, including highly undiplomatic, indeed downright ‘unfriendly,’ *bullying* by Hillary Clinton, failed to move Harper of the *right* courses of action on the silly bank tax, abortion and the green thingy.


This guy?






(This guy makes more sense than those other "green" things of which I hear)


----------



## Old Sweat (7 Jun 2010)

And what would the media do without speculation? The following story from the 7 June Hill Times is reproduced under the Fair Comment provisions of the Copyright Act:

Conservatives can't wait to 'get out of here and change the channel.' 
By TIM NAUMETZ
 Published June 7, 2010   View story  Email Comments To the Editor 
        
Government and opposition MPs are targeting an early adjournment for Parliament's summer recess, with a leading pollster and one of the most politically savvy NDP MPs saying a fall election call is likely, possibly before the scheduled return in September. 

If all goes as planned, and the government and Liberals are able to overcome NDP delaying tactics on the budget implementation bill in the House, Parliament could adjourn as early as June 18, rather than its scheduled recess the following week. Signs were abundant last week that an early departure for the summer BBQ circuit was in the works, with four committees holding in-camera sessions to complete reports on a range of bills and the House several times sitting beyond the normal evening adjournment time. 

But after nearly three months of wrangling over the controversy of former Conservative MP Rahim Jaffer's unregistered lobbying and contacts with Cabinet ministers to allegedly get money from the government's $1-billion green fund, other confrontations over government interference with Access to Information Act document requests and pitched battles over the treatment of combat detainees in Afghanistan, New Democrat MP Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre, Man.) said he believes the next clash will be on the hustings. 


"I think the Conservatives can't wait to get out of here and change the channel and I'll bet you dollars to doughnuts we never come back," Mr. Martin told The Hill Times. "Sometime late in the summer or early in the fall, Harper will meet the governor general and say he's lost the ability to govern and we should go to the people." 


Prime Minister Harper could be building his argument now, preparing to make the case, as he did prior to the 2008 October election, that his government faces a dysfunctional Parliament. His plea for a dissolution of Parliament by the Governor General would be based on the bitter battles that are taking place in two key Commons committees over ministerial accountability and a confrontation that has begun over whether Cabinet documents as well as Defence Department and Foreign Affairs emails should be subject to review by opposition MPs in the confrontation over detainee transfers and possible torture in Afghanistan. 


Mr. Martin and Ottawa pollster Nik Nanos both say Prime Minister Stephen Harper (Calgary Southwest, Alta.) would want to build as much momentum as possible after the world spotlight he and Canada will be under for the G8 and G20 summits beginning June 25—although Mr. Nanos said controversy over the mushrooming cost of those meetings could be a drawback for the Conservatives—and the fact that Canada suffered least among its trading partners from the economic downturn and fiscal crisis of the past year-and-a-half. 

"That would be their first choice, because running a campaign on the economy by default aligns with the core Conservative brand, which is usually stronger than the Liberals on the fiscal issues," said Mr. Nanos. "The other thing that the Conservatives have in their favour is that it's pretty clear that the narrative in the public domain is that Canada has done better through the economic downturn basically than all of our other trading partners. We know that pocketbook issues drive people's behaviour." 

"I think there's a very high likelihood of there being an election before the next budget," added Mr. Nanos. "And I think the Conservatives are going to want to time the election in synch with continued positive economic news, so I think there's a pretty high likelihood of a fall election, but that's in terms of what the Conservatives want." 

Mr. Martin agreed a ballot-box question on the economy would be Mr. Harper's No. 1 preference. He said the government would obviously want to avoid a campaign battle over recent controversies that have boiled over in Parliament. They include allegations of unregistered lobbying and the use of government services and cabinet contacts by Mr. Jaffer, his wife Helena Guergis's (Simcoe-Grey, Ont.) dismissal from Cabinet over unknown, but apparently related actions, and the government's insistence that Cabinet ministers, not political staff, must appear to testify at committees over the Jaffer allegations and a controversy over political interference with documents that the Public Works Department intended to release under the Access to Information Act. 

"I think Harper would love to run on the economy as opposed to scandal, the culture of secrecy or the irritants that are hounding and plaguing this session of Parliament," said Mr. Martin. "You know, have a nice cooling-off period over the summer, go to the people with some kind of a track record of economic security and stability and roll the dice there. If he lets it go on any longer, it can't get any better for them. They're taking some pretty serious body blows in terms of their accountability and transparency record." 

Certainly, the kind of heated exchanges that took place last week in the Government Operations committee inquiry into Mr. Jaffer's lobbying activities might not be favourable for Mr. Harper before an election. The confrontation over whether three Cabinet ministers could appear as witnesses instead of political staff peaked as Transport Minister John Baird (Ottawa West Nepean, Ont.) appeared to lose the characteristic self-control he displays in Question Period and loudly and repeatedly yelled, "Point of order, point of order!" as he attempted to wrest control of the meeting from committee chair and Liberal MP Yasmin Ratansi (Don Valley East, Ont.). 

When Mr. Baird turned his attention to Liberal MP Sibhoan Coady (St. John's South-Mount Pearl, Nfld.) the determined Newfoundlander refused to back down. 

"You are trying to intimidate not just the chair, but this entire committee," Ms. Coady shot back at Mr. Baird after he sniped at her relative inexperience in Parliament. 

"I've been in business for a very long time, been on lots of boards of directors, this is ridiculous," Ms. Coady continued, reiterating her insistence the committee had the right to later call ministerial staff even if it agreed to hear from Mr. Baird, Science Minister Gary Goodyear (Cambridge, Ont.) and Natural Resources Minister Christian Paradis (Mégantic-L'Érable, Que.) during the stormy meeting. 

"The chair was ruling on that and then it disintegrated into this muck. Are you trying to intimidate me Mr. Baird? Because I will put myself up against you any day on intimidation factors. Don't try and intimidate me, ever."


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Jun 2010)

More, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, about <i><s>Iggy</s></i> <i><s>Iffy</s></i> <i>Icarus’</i> flipflop on the immigration issue, reported here, in the “All Eyes on Ignatieff” thread:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/kill-the-immigration-bill/article1594516/



> Kill (the immigration) bill
> 
> Jane Taber
> 
> ...


_


I think immigration reform is a “winner” amongst Canadians and if Kenny offers a *strong*, nearly xenophobic, bill and it is defeated by the Liberals then it will further erode Liberal support from the centre – some will go to the NDP but some will shift right, to the Conservatives. It could be worth two or three, maybe even more, seats.

_


----------



## Fishbone Jones (7 Jun 2010)

When it comes to immigration and the Liebrals, they are only concerned if the immigrants are going to create a larger base of voters for their party, IMHO


----------



## Journeyman (7 Jun 2010)

recceguy said:
			
		

> When it comes to immigration and the Liebrals, they are only concerned if the immigrants are going to create a larger base of voters for their party, IMHO


Did you just say 'Tamil Tigers Fundraiser'? 

Canada remains the world's largest financial contributer to Tamil terrorism, and Liberal ministers routinely attend their fundraisers (despite CSIS repeatedly saying "WTF?!"), because the Tamil communities are in Liberal ridings.1


1. Stewart Bell, _Cold Terror_, Mississauga: Wiley & Sons, 2005: 70-74.


----------



## observor 69 (7 Jun 2010)

recceguy said:
			
		

> When it comes to immigration and the Liebrals, they are only concerned if the immigrants are going to create a larger base of voters for their party, IMHO



Well I live in the GTA and Harper and his henchmen have quit clearly spent an abnormal amount of time and program spending on the large immigrant population in my area.

Kettle black.


----------



## ModlrMike (7 Jun 2010)

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> Well I live in the GTA and Harper and his henchmen have quit clearly spent an abnormal amount of time and program spending on the large immigrant population in my area.
> 
> Kettle black.



Maybe so, but they don't attend terrorist fundraisers or parades.


----------



## The Bread Guy (8 Jun 2010)

....from Nanos Tracking Poll:


> The latest Nanos Tracking Poll suggests that the Conservatives continue their lead over the Liberals (35.6% for the Conservatives, and 29.2% for the Liberals) even though both have dropped in popularity (-1.6 for the Conservatives and -4.0 for the Liberals). The NDP continues to show marginal gains from the last Nanos Tracking Poll (+4.5).
> 
> Research suggests that the Conservatives continue to enjoy an advantage over the Liberals but remain in minority territory.
> 
> ...



Tracking of this company's numbers attached.


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Jun 2010)

It appears, according to Don Martin’s latest column, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _National Post_, that a 2010 election may be a bit more likely because the Tories may find fighting an election against <i><s>Iggy</s> <s>Iffy</s> Icarus</i> and a fractured Liberal Party too tempting to resist:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/06/07/liberal-woes-begin-to-add-up/


> Liberal woes begin to add up
> 
> By Don Martin  June 7, 2010
> 
> ...




The Tories may well want to strike before the Liberals can find a way to replace <i>Prince Michael</i>.


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Jun 2010)

CARP (the Canadian Association of Retired Persons, affiliated with the AARP (American Association of Retired Persons)) does some _rolling polls_ on voter intentions for their age group. It bears remembering that the CARP people are the most reliable voters – report after report shows that older people (>40) vote and younger people (<40) don’t and “old” people (55 – 75) vote most.

This data, from an ongoing poll about pensions is interesting:

*If a federal election were held tomorrow, which party’s candidate would you support?*
*Conservative*: 831 Votes *40.5 %*
Liberal: 540 Votes 26.3 %
NDP: 181 Votes	 8.8 %
Green Party: 81 Votes 3.9 %
Bloc Quebecois:	 5 Votes 0.2 %
OTHER: 14 Votes 0.7 %
UNDECIDED: 401 Votes 19.5 %
Total	: 2053 Votes

*If a federal election were held tomorrow, and a Coalition of the Liberals, NDP and Green Party, led by Michael Ignatieff faced the government, which party’s candidate would you vote for?*
*Conservative*:	936 Votes	*45.6 %*
Coalition Liberal/NDP/Green:	710 Votes	34.6 %
Bloc Quebecois:	4 Votes	0.2 %
OTHER:	49 Votes	2.4 %
UNDECIDED:	354 Votes	17.2 %
Total	: 2053 Votes

*If a federal election were held tomorrow, and a Coalition of the Liberals, NDP and Green Party, led by Jack Layton faced the government, which party’s candidate would you vote for?*
*Conservative*:	938 Votes	*45.7 %*
Coalition Liberal/NDP/Green:	657 Votes	32.0 %
Bloc Quebecois	: 5 Votes	0.2 %
OTHER:	77 Votes	3.8 %
UNDECIDED:	376 Votes	18.3 %
Total	: 2053 Votes



Notwithstanding the poor grammar (the questions should have read _” … for which party’s candidate would you vote?”_) it appears that older does equal wiser and if only CARP members could vote Harper’s Conservatives would have a solid majority despite anything and everything the opposition parties might do.

Caution: these polls, being _voluntary_, are not as accurate as _random_ samples. Just look at the BQ vote; CARP members are, overwhelmingly, _Anglo_ and, therefore, the results really reflect Canada (-).


----------



## Old Sweat (15 Jun 2010)

Jeffrey Simpson, in today's Globe and Mail, apparently is attempting to take some of the heat off the Liberals by creating a threat to Stephen Harper's leadership. The opinion piece is reproduced under the fair comment provisions of the Copyright Act.

"The media, as is customary, have developed a one-dimensional narrative about Canadian politics around the travails of the Liberal Party, up to and including asking breathlessly if the party can be saved.

Everything is wrong in the Liberal world, especially its leader Michael Ignatieff, about whom barely a good word can be spoken. Internal disarray, policy incoherence, fundraising difficulties, Bob Rae envy. It’s so bad for the Liberals that the absurdity of a merger with the NDP has been raised.

Assume for the sake of argument that this description is valid, that the Liberal Party is in complete chaos. Would it not logically follow, then, that if the Liberals are so down, the Conservatives should be so up? A parallel narrative, then, with the Official Opposition in terrible shape, should have Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his Conservatives safely in majority government territory.

Instead, the Conservatives are going nowhere. Just as the Liberals seem to be stuck at 27- to 30-per-cent in the polls (for whatever they are worth between elections, especially the unhelpful weekly polls the media seem to love), the Conservatives are caught between 31- and 35-per-cent, well shy of a majority. 

The NDP, by the way, is in its usual 15- to 18-per-cent range. Should we not be wondering, if the Liberals are so weak, why the NDP is going nowhere either? The 13- to 18-per-cent range, after all, is where the NDP has been in almost every election since the party’s founding in 1961. Between elections, the NDP sometimes goes above 18 per cent – as in May, 1987, when the party hit an astounding 39 per cent in one poll, only to tumble in the election the next year.

But back to the Conservatives. Under Mr. Harper, this Conservative Party is less popular than the previous iterations of the party during the past four decades. Joe Clark, for example, won the 1979 election with 36 per cent of the vote. Robert Stanfield usually had the Conservatives in the mid- to upper-30s. Brian Mulroney won 50 per cent of the vote in 1984 and was re-elected handsomely four years later.

The only time conservative forces were weaker than today came with the arrival in the 1993 election of the Reform Party (including Mr. Harper), a development that shattered the political right for more than a decade. Today, therefore, the Harper Conservatives are the weakest united right-wing government or party the country has seen in our lifetime.

The Bloc Québécois, of course, skews everything, taking about a 10-per-cent share of the national vote away from federalist parties. The Conservatives tried everything to woo Quebec, but their affections went unrequited to such an extent that the party has now all but given up on improving its standing there.

It doesn’t seem to matter what the Conservatives do: They cannot win or get into majority government territory. They have spent money, before and since the recession, as no self-respecting right-wing party would ever have dared. They have tried to buy political favour (remember the GST cut, the tax credits for itsy-bitsy things, the “fiscal imbalance”), and backed that spending with enormous public advertising.

They have raised tens of millions of dollars to demonize their opponents and praise their own accomplishments. They jettisoned their own law on fixed election dates and called a premature election, thinking a majority government beckoned. They have controlled messages and gagged dissidents as no previous government has done. In short, they have enjoyed all the advantages of incumbency, avoided scandals (the Guergis/Jaffer business is more a joke than a scandal), yet have fallen short in three elections of a majority – and appear unable to win one the next time.

Which leads to another narrative about leadership: How many times will the Conservatives allow Stephen Harper to fail to win a majority government? If he only wins a minority next time, that would make four “victories” that could also be interpreted as failures – especially, as we keep hearing daily – against a hopeless, dispirited Liberal opposition.

Should we therefore not develop a parallel narrative to the Ignatieff death watch: the Harper death watch? Yes, he is secure for the moment, but his caucus fears, rather than loves him. It would not take more than a fourth failure to win a majority for him, or the party, to say this isn’t working."


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Jun 2010)

It is, generally, custom, including in the Liberal Party of Toronto,  to allow a leader to fight one election before he is toppled; I expect that courtesy to be extended to _Iggy_ _Iffy_ _Icarus_, too.

The Conservatives must not write off _Prince Michael_ as a total ineffective; I recall that the Ontario PCs dined out on _Dalton McWhimpy_ for quite some time but, last time I checked, Dalton McGuinty was still premier of Canada's largest province and the Tories are still out in the cold. Despite the fact that McGuinty has offered up bad policy after bad policy - the HST is good policy so it is the exception that proves the rule - he is out politicking the PCs.

I cannot imagine that there are not two or three potential _revolts_ in the Conservative caucus, right now. Harper needs to win a majority or accept the fact that he, himself, is the problem and make way for someone who can win.


----------



## a_majoor (16 Jun 2010)

This might put paid to any notions of an election this year. The one thing that swept the Liberals out of office was ADSCAM, and the mess that it left behind will continue to plague the Liberals for years to come:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/rcmp-lays-out-first-allegations-of-bribery-in-liberal-sponsorship-scandal/article1605650/



> *RCMP lays out first allegations of bribery in Liberal sponsorship scandal*
> 
> RCMP suggests Montreal advertising firm Groupe Everest committed $1-million in fraud and bribed Chuck Guité and his wife
> 
> ...


----------



## The Bread Guy (21 Jun 2010)

...in a Reuters interview with the PM:


> ....  "It continues to be my strong view that the Canadian people want us, want the government, want Parliament to focus on the economy. That's what we've been doing. And as long as we can get from Parliament what we need from Parliament in terms of the economy, then I think it's important that Parliament continue to sit, that Parliament continue to work. I don't think people are looking for an election."
> 
> "All of the opposition parties have at one time or another been threatening to bring down the government or threatening an election ... I don't think that's where peoples' heads are at. I think people want this government to focus on the economy and that's what we're going to continue doing. So I'm not looking to have an election in the fall and I don't think that's what Canadians are expecting us to do either."



A bit more here.


----------



## dapaterson (21 Jun 2010)

The Liberal's main problem, to my eyes, is that they have done nothing to explain why their technocratic, emotionless academic leader would be better that the Conservative's technocratic, emotionless academic leader - and Canadians, being of a pragmatic bent, are more inclined to stick with what they know.

That being said, I suspect the current PM has peaked in terms of popularity and ability to enlarge his hold on the House of Commons; he may have the promised land in sight, but I do not think he will ever inhabit it.

Another hung Parliament could lead to the interesting spectacle of both major parties deposing their leaders more-or-less simultaneously... which, for those of us for who Parliament is a spectator sport, promisees to be every bit as exciting the World Cup.


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Aug 2010)

Readers will know that I usually have little good to say about the _Good Grey Globe's_ Lawrence Martin's prognostications, but, now and again, he gets its right – especially when he stays in his lane, as he does in this column, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/and-in-this-corner-the-great-grit-slayer/article1662057/


> And in this corner, the great Grit slayer
> *Stephen Harper’s primary political goal has been to tear down the historically dominant party. So far, his mission has succeeded*
> 
> Lawrence Martin
> ...




There is no doubt that the Liberals have suffered, badly, in the political realm while Harper has led the Conservatives; equally there is no doubt that Harper has, as Abba Eban famously said of the Palestinians, “never missed an opportunity to miss and opportunity” when the choice was between “good,” “constructive” (for the Conservative) policies and “destructive” (for *both* the Liberals and Conservatives) ones. Whether there is a correlation is an open question, but it makes some sense.

Perhaps Harper is laying the foundation for subsequent Conservative PMs to lead “Canada's natural governing party.”


----------



## Fishbone Jones (5 Aug 2010)

I _think_ he may be putting too much weight on the census scandal and todays polling numbers. Both of these are occurring during the dog days of summer. If anyone is actually paying attention, I doubt that they will even allow either to be a consideration when the parties return and we start, in earnest, to seriously consider an election.

As far as 'Michael Ignatieff showing signs of life on his grand national bus tour', goes, I call that a crock. I can't find any indication that anyone, the media included, has the slightest inclination to pay this jaunt any attention whatsoever.

As for Martin himself, he never misses an opportunity to roger the incompetents within his party, providing he can somehow make it Harper's fault.


----------



## GAP (10 Aug 2010)

Tories rebound after mid-summer slump, hold six-point lead: poll
By: Joan Bryden, The Canadian Press  10/08/2010 
Article Link

OTTAWA - Stephen Harper's Conservatives have rebounded from a brief mid-summer slump, taking a six-point lead over the Liberals, a new poll suggests.

The Canadian Press Harris-Decima survey puts Tory support at 34 per cent, with the Liberals at 28, the NDP at 15, and the Greens at 12.

Recent polls suggested the Tories had slipped below 30 per cent support and into a statistical tie with the Liberals.

Harris-Decima chairman Allan Gregg said the latest recovery is in keeping with the pattern over the past few years, with the Tories quickly recovering from periodic setbacks.

"What you see is an ongoing resilience in the Conservative support base," he said. "If they get a little period of relative quiet, their vote comes back quite quickly whereas the Liberals have a very, very hard time getting any sustained traction."

The poll also suggests some modest improvement for the Liberals, who had been hovering around 25 per cent earlier in the summer. Gregg said they've picked themselves up off the mat in British Columbia and are more competitive in vote-rich Ontario.

Gregg said the latest numbers give no inducement to either the Conservatives or Liberals to force an election any time soon.

The poll suggests an election today would produce a third consecutive Conservative minority government, albeit a weaker one with the Tories wiped out in Quebec and likely losing some seats in Ontario as well.

Gregg said the poll suggests there's been little change in overall voting behaviour since 2005.

"Neither of these major political parties have given Canadians sufficient reason to either vote for them or, quite frankly, to vote against them," he said.

"There's continuing pockets of resistance to the two major parties that they just can't seem to break through."

The poll put the Bloc Quebecois comfortably ahead in Quebec at 39 per cent, while the Liberals were at 25 per cent. The Tories trailed far behind at 14 per cent, just ahead of the NDP at 12 and the Greens at seven.

The Tories and Liberals were neck and neck in Ontario, with 35 and 34 per cent support respectively. The NDP were at 16 per cent and the Greens at 12.

The Liberals held a slight lead in Atlantic Canada, with 38 per cent to the Tories' 34, the NDP's 20 and the Greens' seven per cent.

As usual, the Tories dominated western Canada. In B.C., they were 15 points ahead with 37 per cent, compared to the Liberals' 22. The NDP and Greens were tied at 20 per cent.

In Manitoba-Saskatchewan, the Tories stood at 49 per cent, while the Liberals were at 25, the NDP at 14 and the Greens at 11.

In Prime Minister Harper's Alberta stronghold, the Tories stood at 61 per cent — almost double the support of all the other parties combined. The Greens were at 14 per cent, the Liberals at 13 and the NDP at eight.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (10 Aug 2010)

> The Tories and Liberals were neck and neck in Ontario, with 35 and 34 per cent support respectively. The NDP were at 16 per cent and the Greens at 12.



So, NDP 16% (Windsor, St Thomas & Bramelea) Liberals 34 & Greens 12 (GTA) CPC 35 (the rest of Ontario) 8)

j/k Don't get cranky :blotto:


----------



## ModlrMike (10 Aug 2010)

> In Prime Minister Harper's Alberta stronghold, the Tories stood at 61 per cent — almost double the support of all the other parties combined. The Greens were at 14 per cent, the Liberals at 13 and the NDP at eight.



There's more to be said when the Greens in Alberta out poll the Liberals.


----------



## The Bread Guy (18 Aug 2010)

....via the _Toronto Star_ - highlights mine:


> .... *“If we have one duty to this country, it is to make sure a Liberal, NDP, Bloc Québécois coalition can never govern this country,”* Harper told a crowd of a few hundred at the Deer Creek Golf and Banquet Facility. “Canadians don’t want an election, and our government is not seeking an election.” .... “*The next election will be a choice between a coalition government of the Liberal, NDP and Bloc Québécois, or a stable Conservative majority government for this country*,” he said ....


So _that's_ who he seems to think is the electorate's _other_ choice in the coming campaign, whenever it comes.


----------



## a_majoor (18 Aug 2010)

Regardless of what Jack, Giles or Iggy say or do, they have left that impression deep in the minds of the Canadian public (and this includes the severely normal, who are generally uninterested in politics), so they really only have themselves to blame.

Some real game changers would include a "coalition of the winners", where Blue Liberals cross the ailse and caucus with the CPC, or the demographic shift of 2014, where there will finally be enough seats outside of Quebec to allow a majority government (of ay sort) to be formed without reference to Quebec. A NDP/Liberal merger where the Orange Liberals go over to Jack Layton is a lesser possibility, unless the caucus is tired of having empty suits as leaders. This is more natural perhaps than the "coalition of the winners", since the Liberal party has been shifting ever farther Left since Paul Martin became PM, and many high ranking Liberals have come over from the NDP in the past. Maybe Bob Rae's real goal is the bring the Left wing of the liberal party home with him...


----------



## Edward Campbell (26 Aug 2010)

Although I regard Tom Kent as one of the principle architects of the decline (and at least stumble of not, yet, fall) of Canada (see: _Kingston Conference_, 1960) I agree with what he says in this piece, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/paying-for-politics-and-putting-power-where-it-should-be/article1685363/


> Paying for politics and putting power where it should be
> *The issues aren’t whether there should be a limit to personal donations, but what it should be and how far giving it should be encouraged by tax remissions*
> 
> Tom Kent
> ...



First: I agree with Kent that a *2011* election is more likely than one in 2010.

Second: I am not unalterably opposed to ALL public financing of political parties but the formula for whatever funding is to be provided should be much, much less generous than today. (Today parties get $1.75 per vote; I think $0.05 per vote, multiplied by the number of provinces and territories in which the party gets, say, 7.5% of the vote, which would produce a maximum of $0.65 per vote, would be more than generous and would, as any public financing scheme should, actively penalize e.g. the _Bloc Québecois_ for being a provincial party in a national legislature.) ($0.65 per vote would have netted the Liberals about $2.3 Million; $0.05 would have netted the BQ nearly $69,000 rather than the $2.4 Million they actually got.)

Third: I think $2,500.00± is a fair personal donation limit – offset by a sliding scale of tax deductibility: something generous like 85% of the first $750.00, 70% of the next $750 and 50% of the remaining $1,000.00 - aiming to reward the small donor. I would favour an absolute prohibition on any donations of money *or services* from any other _entity_ like a corporation, firm, union, church or any other group; individual donations by individual Canadian citizens only should be the rule.

Finally: Prime Minister Harper should make election financing reform a major platform plank; it will appeal to many (most?) Canadians and it is the *right* thing to do.


----------



## Rifleman62 (26 Aug 2010)

My position is no public financing, but your proposal would be acceptable. Of course, Quebec will be upset, but not as upset as the addition of 30 new seats in parliament will be. Too bad those seats will more than likely be after the next election.


----------



## Rifleman62 (31 Aug 2010)

In West Kelowna, I picked up a summer special of home delivery of the G & M @ $30 per month.

It seems the papers direction is to constantly take any and all shots at the PM and the government. Even the Health Editor (or whatever she is called) the other day.

The following is a column on tonight's TV, the program "So You Think You Can Dance Canada". What does this to do with an election? Read on. 

These people who write for the G & M need to get out more.

*In the Official Canada, being nimble is being naughty. So You Think You Can Dance Canada shows us the flipside *

John Doyle 

Globe and Mail Update 
Published on Tuesday, Aug. 31, 2010 12:00AM EDT

I come back with news – there are only two Canada’s. Coming to grips with this crazy place has nothing to do with multiple regions and this coast or that coast. There’s the Official Canada and the Real Canada. That’s it. Stick with me here. 

First, this: Barack Obama is all over TV tonight. A Presidential Address at 8 p.m. on multiple U.S. channels, about Iraq, Afghanistan and what happens next. You can say a lot about Obma, and people do, but you can never say he’s hiding. Guy shows up, speaks directly to the camera and gets on with it. Can’t imagine him on TV, posturing on an ice floe, pretending to be on-guard for the free world and stuff. Not like some people. 

Last week, watching TV at home as a civilian, was vastly entertaining. On occasion, without a drop of drink taken, I was in stitches. It seemed that every time I turned on the darn machine, there was Our Glorious Leader, up North. OGL waved at the people of the North. He made speeches for the TV cameras, and carefully positioned himself to ensure that there was a navy ship behind him and some military plane above him. The alleged charisma of OGL, a grey-haired, bespectacled, potbellied, middle-aged career economist, was meant to be enhanced by the setting and the props. And fair enough. Military boats, planes and waving at the people for the TV cameras. It’s a Glorious Leader thing, wherever the grass grows. 

Next thing I knew, there was real news out of this stunt. OGL got jiggy with the locals. Or, at least, he was seen on TV waving his arms slightly and suggesting a faint movement of the hips, while others danced around him. And that’s not all – later he got into an ATV, strapped on a helmet and took the vehicle for a spin along the airport tarmac. Unscheduled moment, people. Thus he moved and he danced, sort of. While the sound of an amazed and admiring country gasping in disbelief echoed across the land, I tuned in to So You Think You Can Dance Canada. 

Around about then, it struck me – there are currently two Canada’s existing side-by-side. Official Canada and Real Canada. You can see both on TV most nights of the week. 

In the Official Canada, obviously embodied in Our Glorious Leader, one gets the impression that fun is rare, frowned upon, free movement of the body practically gets you arrested and being nimble is being naughty. Bounding and romping is pretty much banned and grinding your hips could land you in the hoosegow. The best things in life are discipline and routine. And going to Tim’s for a double-double. There’s no time for the art and pleasure of dance in this Canada. 

In a country that considers it a newsworthy revelation that the Leader might occasionally loosen up and be having a little fun, it is downright bizarre to watch So You Think You Can Dance Canada (CTV, 8:30 P.M.). On the show, dancing and movement are life itself. Oh sure, it’s camp and occasionally outrageous, but it embodies joy and it’s dead sexy. Some of the routines would make you blush, such is the unrestrained celebration of sensuality and the beauty of movement – all those sensations and emotions that cannot be expressed in words, but only in movement. That’s the Real Canada, I think. The Canada not so concerned with words and slogans and talking points. 

Ironically, mind you, the joy and beauty of dance only arrive after rigorous discipline and routine. Hard work – the events not seen on TV – is what makes it look glorious. And that includes the sexy tango and the salsa routines. 

We’re in a sad state when the sight of the Leader loosening up a little is major news. The leader needs to visit So You Think You Can Dance Canada and then the two Canada’s can meet, as they must. On TV. Don’t count on it though.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (31 Aug 2010)

Mop & Pail imbeciles.

R62,

You wasted $30/ month. You should have bought beer.


----------



## a_majoor (31 Aug 2010)

Laughter is also good for you (although if you are laughing at the completely jaw dropping level of stupidity exhibited by the article in the previous post, maybe you should get out more! Incidently, John Doyle seems to have missed things like the faux Greek Temple props used by a certain candidate during the election, or the fact that the POTUS is totally enthralled by the teleprompter, which explains the weird tennis match thing during speeches as he swivels from teleprompter"a" to teleprompter "b". Maybe John Doyle needs to get out more as well....)


----------



## ModlrMike (1 Sep 2010)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Mop & Pail imbeciles.
> 
> R62,
> 
> You wasted $30/ month. You should have bought beer.



Better yet, when you're done with beer you get money back.


----------



## HavokFour (2 Sep 2010)

Well while the topic is on stupid articles...


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 Sep 2010)

This, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_ is interesting for its speculation on how the 'issues' are being framed and when we might expect he next election:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/pms-top-adviser-leaving-after-months-of-tory-turmoil/article1694725/


> PM’s top adviser leaving after months of Tory turmoil
> *Harper looking to make changes after Tory support erodes during politically troubled summer*
> 
> John Ibbitson
> ...



I agree that the “two party” _narrative_ is a good one, albeit a bit dishonest, and I also agree that “competence” is the *right* 'brand' for the Tories to give themselves.

The Liberals will do well with the 'cruel and irrational' _narrative_ unless or until someone asks them how they plan to tackle the deficit and what they plan to do about e.g. national defence.

I also hope that Harper campaigns, in 2011, on a platform that includes:

1. More seats in parliament for AB, BC and ON; and

2. An end or, at least, major cuts to election financing.


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Sep 2010)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, is what I regard as a pretty fair analysis of the political situation in Canada:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/john-ibbitson/heckling-howling-and-hijinks/article1711087/


> Heckling, howling and hijinks
> *Parliamentary theatrics ‘like a hockey fight. Everyone tut-tuts, but everyone watches’*
> 
> John Ibbitson
> ...




I think Ibbitson is right: the ‘bad conduct’ in parliament, especially in question period is *driven* by the electronic media’s insatiable appetite for controversy – when no real controversy exists the media, especially the electronic media, will create, *fabricate* it because they must fill hours and hours and hours of ‘air time’ with something. They are selling audiences to advertisers – and let us be very clear about this, *the media is not in the business of informing Canadians, that’s a self serving, self perpetuated lie, the media is in the business of selling audiences to advertisers, nothing more nor less, and it is a business and the journalists are only one part of the ‘marketing’ machine*. Advertisers want eyes and ears on their ‘product’ and it is the sole duty of journalists and editors to deliver them. Journalists and the media have no other function; ditto the _alternative media_, the _blogosphere_ and so on; informing us is the farthest things from the bloggers’ minds – they want to *direct* our thinking.

I also think Ibbitson has hit upon a key factor in Canadian politics – we are, by and large, a _centrist_, fiscally _conservative_, cautious but socially _liberal_, disengaged people who are lucky enough to live in a just well enough managed country. We have a narrow political spectrum: there is a small left wing, a tiny, nearly invisible right wing and a HUGE _centre_ occupied by both the Conservative and Liberal parties who overlap one another - each having its own right, centre and left wings. Does anyone really think that Michael Ignatieff is anything more than a carbon copy of Stephen Harper? *I don’t.* Do you think Scott Brison would be even the tiniest bit different in Finance than Jim Flagherty? *I don’t.* How about Bob Rae? Would he be a different Foreign Minister than Lawrence Cannon? *I don’t think so.* And would Dominic LeBlanc make any difference at all in National Defence? *Nope, he’s a carbon copy of Peter MacKay.* So, why do we care? The answer is: *we don’t.* Politically, we don’t _chose_ our governments we just, periodically, _throw the rascals out_.


----------



## TangoTwoBravo (17 Sep 2010)

I find it funny that a commentator seems to think that Canada has an underlying consensus and the United States does not.  The literature would suggest otherwise.  

Question Period will differ from what we see in the US not because of TV, but because of the parliamentary system.  There is always a bit of theatre because it is the Loyal Opposition's duty to poke at the government.  Question period pre-dates TV.  It isn't meant to be a briefing or committee meeting.


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Sep 2010)

While _question period_ was only rarely a substantive _answer_ period, as late as the 1950s and '60s it was still a time when, after the ritual duelling between the PM (St Laurent/Diefenbaker/Pearson) and opposition leader (Drew/Pearson/Diefenbaker), members could poke away at substantial policy issues and could expect, at least, a high standard of rhetoric and some good humour. It is now dominated by attempts at TV worthy 10 second sound bites.

In most government departments, five days a week, select senior officials (and senior military officers) are required to drop everything and sit at a conference table at about 1030 hrs with a bunch of _twenty-something_ political staffers who have the unenviable chore of guessing the questions - based on the morning papers and TV news shows - that might be put to their minister and crafting non-answers based, almost exclusively, on their TV potential. This may be repeated over lunch if when things change.

Admirals and generals are not immune to the _beck and call_ of these young political staffers and heaven help anyone who suggests that something so unimportant as, say, ongoing combat operations might take priority over preparing the minister's daily QP briefing notes.  

QP is a uniquely parliamentary form; in some (indeed, I think most) parliaments it still resembles Canada in the 1950s and '60s - we, almost uniquely, moved away from civility, decorum and, periodically, _answers_ and we did so, in the 1970s, '80s and beyond, in lock step with the rise of the electronic media.


----------



## Kirkhill (17 Sep 2010)

A cousin of mine used to work for Bass breweries in Britain.  Red Triangle trademark.  Been around since John signed the Magna Carta.  They were having trouble with declining market share in a concentrating market.  They decided to expand.  To China.  They bought a brewery that produced more beer than all the other breweries they owned around the world.  They still sold up and went out of business.  The problem?  That one massive brewery still owned only 1% of the Chinese market.  They were still a marginal player.

No replace China with the US.  Replace that brewery with Glenn Beck and the Daily Kos.  Replace Bass with your Bete Noire of Choice (Soros or Koch) and you have a similar dynamic.  

The difference is that now, for a relatively small fortune, hobbyists like Soros and Koch can indulge themselves and play king maker in a market place that matters.  They use/support/buy pulpits in the only church that the world pays attention to anymore - the US of A.  They can pull a crowd to fill a TV screen (or Monitor) because:


A the US has more bodies than us
B those bodies are concentrated in more cities of 1,000,000 than us
C the US is affluent enough so that both the affluent and the poor have time to spare from surviving to indulge in showing up for demonstrations

The extreme left and extreme right in the US are no more significant in terms of their relative market share in the US than they are in Canada.  They are both 1 percenters, like that Chinese brewery.

The difference is there are 10 times as many of them, it is 10 times easier to get a crowd to create those electronic images for distribution, and they can attract the money to buy them a suitable megaphone to amplify their voice.  Their market, their pulpit, matters.

Ours doesn't.

Their pulpits are worth money.  Ours aren't.


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Sep 2010)

Two items of interest, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/confidence-scenarios-make-king-byng-look-like-a-walk-in-the-park/article1734601/


> *VICE-REGAL CHANGEOVER*
> Confidence scenarios ‘make King-Byng look like a walk in the park’
> 
> JANE TABER
> ...



And

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/lawrence-martin/policy-pinched-liberals-eye-home-care-plan/article1733342/


> Policy-pinched Liberals eye home-care plan
> 
> LAWRENCE MARTIN
> 
> ...




First, a bit of math; Jane Taber is not quite right: there are party leaders who can deliver a majority – Stephen Harper and, in a pinch, Michael Ignatieff:

•	To do it the Liberals need to build upon the 35± seats they are *guaranteed* in Québec and Atlantic Canada by winning 120+ in Ontario and the West. Since they are highly unlikely to get 20 or more seats in the West that means they must _sweep_ Ontario, as Jean Chrétien did in the 1990s; and

•	The math is a tiny bit easier for the Conservatives who must add to the 60± seats they are nearly *guaranteed* West of Ontario by getting 95 or so in Ontario, Québec and Atlantic Canada. It’s not easy but it can be done. The 5% of Liberals who might be enticed to vote Tory IF the _coalition_ bogeyman can be played well might bring several seats with them.

But, it is policy that might serve the Conservatives best. Lawrence Martin is almost certainly correct in his analysis of what most Canadians want, most. But what he fails to mention is that they also want law and order and jet fighters and so on – in effect the great Canadian _muddled middle_ wants everything. The Tory base wants less and less and less – except for prisons and fighters; they must be ignored while _Team Harper_ actually addresses issues like home care in a _conservative_ manner – tax breaks for families providing care for family members, for example, rather than just more unionized, publicly funded home care workers. There are _conservative_ ways to buy votes – which is what most Canadians want – and, thereby, buy a majority government. The key to that majority is in South and South-West Ontario - policies that appeal to the 519 and 905 area codes will do the trick because those folks are the classic _muddled middle_ they want some of everything, but they want it well administered in a _moderate_ manner.


----------



## a_majoor (3 Oct 2010)

Something which might become an issue, given the current emphasis on deficits and spending (even though the issue should be local, I'm sure a bail out call will be coming soon and the government will be in a no-win situation, either heartlessly leaving the city on the hook, or bailing out developers at the expense of the taxpayer....)

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/british-columbia/city-goes-after-assets-of-games-developer/article1736121/



> *City goes after assets of Games developer*
> FRANCES BULA
> VANCOUVER— Special to Globe and Mail Update
> Published Thursday, Sep. 30, 2010 6:50PM EDT
> ...


----------



## Kirkhill (22 Oct 2010)

I just read this article about Nick Clegg and the impact of the Liberal Democrat coalition with the Conservatives on the fate of the Liberal Democrat party.

It might give Jack and Mike pause.....

The Liberal Democrats are now polling in the same zone as the Bloc Quebecois and the Greens over here.....flirting with single digits.

A coalition may mean a battle won but a war lost.


----------



## a_majoor (23 Oct 2010)

The recent vote on the long gun registry might have been a test drive of the Coalition; seeing who is reliable and who is not and if there is enough "common ground" (the common cause is the seize the keys to the treasury) for a coalition to be actually workable in a parliament.

My own best guess is "no"; since the prime motivation is simply greed the coalition partnership will rapidly unravel in a fight over the spoils. Since *we* are the spoils, this is an outcome I would accept...


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 Nov 2010)

Two issues that point towards an Ignatieff led Liberal/NDP coalition next year:

1.	The Conservatives are losing support on the F-35 deal. Canadians, broadly, do not like spending money on national defence; they may wear red t-shirts on Fridays but they will not vote *for* the F-35. Canadians liked it when Chrétien cancelled the EH-101; they like it, now, when Ignatieff promises to cancel the F-35;

2.	Omar Khadr – opinion appears split: the Conservative base hates him, pretty much unanimously, everyone else - 70% of Canadians - buy into the “innocent” child soldier narrative and want him home.

But a coalition is still problematical because of the BQ.

*IF* - and it's a really BIG and unlikely IF - the Liberals and _Dippers_ can get a combination of 155 seats – say 110 Liberals and 45 NDP – then they are home and dry and a coalition it will be.

But if the coalition depends upon even tacit BQ support then Canadians will find it suspect. The current polling suggests that were an election held today we might see something like 120± Conservatives; 100± Liberals, 35± _Dippers_ and 50± in the BQ caucus. Enough to easily defeat a Conservative government on a budget and enough to persuade the Governor General to give a Liberal/NDP coalition a chance to govern but not enough to do it without unwavering BQ support. The Conservatives woul then paint both the Liberals and NDP as being “in bed” with the separatists and that might be enough to give each a “kiss of death” in the next election – thereby guaranteeing a Conservative majority.


----------



## ProudNewfoundlander (1 Nov 2010)

Harper seems content to continue to alienate Eastern Canada. He could get as many as 30 seats combined in Quebec, The Maritimes, and Newfoundland & Labrador.

Mind you its pointless to bring the point up to any conservative as they will just make quips about Danny Williams and all the money Quebec gets, nothing constructive will be said.

For the time being he's got enough of a grip on Ontario to keep the Liberals out of power.


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Nov 2010)

See Lawrence Martin, in his (sometimes) perceptive analytical mode, here on what _might_ be the real reason we are might be staying in Afghanistan: to hamstring the Liberals, again.

IF, as appears increasingly likely, we are going to the polls six or seven weeks after the 2011 budget (i.e. March or April) then Harper may have taken most of the issues - except "who is the best PM?" off the table. And see this for an explanation of why Harper likes it that way:






Source: _The Globe and Mail_

In other recently reported polling Harper is well ahead of Layton (generally 2nd place) and Ignatieff (usually in 3rd place) in every single "leadership" and "competence" issue; Layton is the "best liked," but even there Harper beats Ignatieff.


----------



## Kat Stevens (9 Nov 2010)

The bottom row certainly tells the "tale of the tape".  We're boned.


----------

