# Election 2009?



## Edward Campbell (15 Jun 2009)

*Too bad!*

According to this report, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the CBC’s web site, _Iggy_ and _Steve_ will find a way to avoid a summer election:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/06/15/ignatieff-economic-report-response834.html


> Liberals to set conditions on Tories to avoid election: report
> 
> Last Updated: Monday, June 15, 2009 | 7:02 AM ET
> 
> ...




I think a national general election this summer would be a good thing for the economy. It’s principle effect – because it will be of little real political consequence – will be to stop the inflationary “stimulus” projects in their tracks, never to be resurrected.

I think there will be few real political consequences because I expect that the Liberals will make a few (single digit) gains in Québec and Ontario – maybe, just possibly, enough to form their own very weak minority government or, just as likely, another, but weaker, Conservative minority. The winners will be the civil service: especially the _mandarins_ in Finance who are already nervous about the size and speed of the government’s “stimulus” programme. Their nervousness has two facets: the consequential deficits and inflation caused by too much spending too quickly.

Stimulus spending will stop, like a car hitting a stone wall, as soon as the election writs and dropped. After the election the next prime minister will confront a phalanx of middle aged, middle class civil servants in charcoal grey suits – most with PhDs in economics, all saying: *“Stop!* It is time to reign in the stimulus spending. The recovery is underway and, now, inflation is the bigger enemy. None of our programmes are going to do much of anything about the collapse of employment in Ontario’s manufacturing sector. There are excellent arguments for a sustained, but much slower, programme of _infrastructure_ repair and maintenance and for some new spending on things like public transit. We (the bureaucracy) accept the political necessity of sustaining Chrysler and GM through a process of “_graceful degradation_” as they decline and, finally, fall away entirely, but it is important to realize and tell Canadians, as PM Harper did, that it is good money sent after bad and it is not an investment. We will never get it back. What you do not have to do *TO* your country, now, Prime Minister, is to burden it with a huge deficit and unnecessary inflation – which eats savings and kills jobs.”

But, sadly, it appears that _Iggy_ doesn’t care enough believe he can win at least a strong minority, so he will continue to put Liberal Party partisan advantage ahead of Canada’s best interests.

_*Election now!*_



_edited for title update_


----------



## dapaterson (15 Jun 2009)

The impact of a quick election on DND could be significant; even if the result is _status quo ante bellum_ an election means months of delays in advancing even the most basic of issues; a change of MND would mean further losses of time, and a new government would essentially derail much of the current work as priorities would shift and the old government's pet projects would be relegated to the woodshed until they could be repainted and refurbished.


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Jun 2009)

Elections rarely do much for the defence procurement programme but, in my experience and except for the turmoil of the 1960s,* they rarely do much damage, either. The exception, in those same ‘60s, was the 1967 general election which brought in a government that set about, quite determinedly, to emasculate, if not fully destroy, the Canadian military.

During one or two election campaigns I observed some hard, serious work in NDHQ as projects were re-evaluated for cost and necessity. In a couple of cases, without regard for the likely outcome of the election, ill-considered projects were moved so far “out” to the edge of the spending envelope as to be, effectively, scrapped. But, mostly, the hiatus imposed by a campaign was just a blink in the eye for most projects, which, typically, take years, even decades, to move from concept to delivery.

But defence spending – at about $20± billion out of a federal spending plan of $200+ billion (not counting $30+ billon interest on the national debt) – is only 10% of the “problem” and will likely be even less involved in the “solution.” DND can/should/must shoulder part of the burden of solving the country’s economic crisis – especially when the ”solution” is likely to have minimal impact on the national defence. 


--------------------
* When all governments in the West tried – and mostly failed – to come to grips with the rapid increases in the requirements for and costs of technologically sophisticated military hardware and the concomitant requirements for and costs of the people to use it. It was that – costs – that drove Minister Hellyer’s _experiment_ with the unification integration of the armed forces.


----------



## Loachman (15 Jun 2009)

http://www.ctvbc.ctv.ca/servlet/an/local/CTVNews/20090615/Ignatieff_report_090615/20090615?hub=BritishColumbiaHome

Backed down again...

" 'I think Michael Ignatieff took a big stick and drew a line in the stand. And then he took that stick and erased parts of the line big enough that you could drive a prime-ministerial limousine through. Look, there's not going to be an election over this,' (Tom) Clark (host of CTV's Power Play) told CTV News Channel."


----------



## a_majoor (20 Jun 2009)

Other reasons might have been in the back of "the Count's" mind as well:

http://unambig.wordpress.com/2009/06/18/liberals-in-and-out-expense-audit-caused-ignatieff-to-back-down/



> *Liberals In-and-out Expense Audit Caused Ignatieff To Back Down?*
> June 18, 2009 — Raphael Alexander
> 
> The Harper and Ignatieff showdown is over and through it all the Liberals are still leading in the polls, according to the most recent EKOS offering. A tiny lead was carried over from the confrontation, although the Liberals have slipped to a 33-32 lead over the Conservatives, hinting that an actual election would have been anybody’s game. That’s down 2 points for the Liberals from the same polling company a week ago, a significant drop that could possibly indicate the short-term consequences of Mr.Ignatieff’s performance.
> ...


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (20 Jun 2009)

33 ministers of national defence in the last 50 years.

http://www2.parl.gc.ca/Parlinfo/Legacy/pages/DepHist.asp?Language=E&Dept=J&SubDept=All&Key=44

Does anyone wonder why the military seems to lack any consistent long-term equipment procurement goals?  At least MacKay has some stroke and may reappear as Conservative leader at some time.

I don't think that Ignatieff is willing to will wait past September 30 to force an election.  I don't think he wants to wear out the feigned outrage as Dione did while supporting the government.  Ignatieff will call the bluff.  Military issues will not show up in the campaign - they rarely do as other than as minor promises.


----------



## Edward Campbell (20 Jun 2009)

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> 33 ministers of national defence in the last 50 years.
> 
> http://www2.parl.gc.ca/Parlinfo/Legacy/pages/DepHist.asp?Language=E&Dept=J&SubDept=All&Key=44
> 
> ...




Why should they?

What major strategic/security issue faces Canada?

What is the problem for which the Canadian military is the solution?

Who is the enemy that threatens our security or sovereignty or vital interests at home or abroad? What military action should Canada take against that enemy?

What *major promise* are you seeking? Why?


----------



## Edward Campbell (20 Jun 2009)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the _CBC_ web site is an opinion piece by retired soldier, teacher and freelance journalist/commentator Robert Smol:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/06/19/f-vp-smol.html



> Why I should be paying more taxes
> 
> Friday, June 19, 2009
> 
> ...




I don’t fully agree with Smol, I rarely agree, much, with anyone, but his _little list_ of things upon which we should spend wisely and well is correct:

•	Health care;

•	Education;

•	Security; as well as

•	The infrastructure that makes for a highly mobile and efficiently telecommunicating society.

He wants these services, _inter alia_, to be properly funded for the sound and selfish reason that: _”I want to be assured of the services that will ransom me and those who might one day take care of me from the harsh realities that life will inevitably leave on my doorstep, whether it be sickness, old age, natural disaster or economic meltdown.”_ Amongst those “services” are the armed services and police and other agencies that provide our national and local “security.”

Those key services are also important to our national productivity which is, at the end of any discussion, *the* keystone for our future prosperity.

I part company with Smol because I’m not convinced that I need to pay more taxes to get better- even much better – health care, education, security and infrastructure. In fact, contrary to Smol’s opinion, I suspect I can have more and better core, essential services even as I pay less taxes. Of course I am willing to do without some services which you, perhaps, might think are “vital.”

I’m willing to do without (100% reduction): *A*tlantic Canada Opportunities Agency; *B*usiness Development bank of Canada; *C*adets Canada and so on down the alphabetical list. To govern is to choose, said Pierre Mendes France, a French prime minister back in the 1950s. Canadian governments, driven by an insatiable desire compelling political need to buy our votes with our money, have chosen to give us everything. We are to be denied nothing. The cult of entitlement – started y Pierre Trudeau – is firmly embedded in our national psyche and people like Mr. Smol can see no way “out” except to pay more and more and more.

Of course we should pay less and less, but based on getting less, being _entitled_ to less, for “free.”


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (20 Jun 2009)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Why should they?



I am not sure they should.  Stacking defence against social issues isn't going to make defence a winner.



> What major strategic/security issue faces Canada?



NATO/NORAD issues, terrorism, coastline sovereignty and airspace sovereignty issues.



> What is the problem for which the Canadian military is the solution?



We have only prepared for one war in advance and that one was never fought - the Cold War.



> Who is the enemy that threatens our security or sovereignty or vital interests at home or abroad?



When I hear, I'll let you know.  Our past enemies have all arisen unexpectedly.



> What military action should Canada take against that enemy?



Canada should be prepared to defend its sovereignty and meet its treaty obligations as required.



> What *major promise* are you seeking? Why?



None.  I was simply stating that defence is not a big part of campaigns.  I was not saying it should be.


----------



## Old Sweat (21 Jun 2009)

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> We have only prepared for one war in advance and that one was never fought - the Cold War.
> 
> When I hear, I'll let you know.  Our past enemies have all arisen unexpectedly.



The two above statements are catchy and have at least a grain of truth. Unfortunately they also are irrelevant.

We did not prepare for the Cold War; we prepared for what could have come after it - general war between the West and the Warsaw Pact. There also were mature plans in existence for various contingencies.

As for your second statement, what exactly do you mean? We knew that war was inevitable between the British empire and the Transvaal and had prepared contingency plans. I will agree that Laurier and the Quebec wing of his Liberal party were against sending a contingent to South Africa, but relented when faced with overwhelming pressure from the rest of the country. We also had plans for mobilization in the event of a war against an European power (read Germany) in both 1914 and 1939. The fact that Sam Hughes scrapped the plans in 1914, that does not alter the fact that the plans existed. These plans were written on the premise that we would have time for an orderly buildup of forces in the UK, followed by deployment to the continent. The Pacific may or may not be another matter, but that is a subject to debate separately. The US and the UK were attempting to avoid war against Japan. This strategy failed because Japan was not deterred by the feeble build up in the Far East including Force C to Hong Kong. Korea and the recent conflicts in SW Asia may be a different matter. However we were able to deploy naval, air and land forces to those theatres in a relatively timely manner.


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Jun 2009)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Ottawa Citizen_, is a piece by the paper’s municipal affairs writer that illustrates why we spend way too much on entitlements:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/Life/When+numbers+drop+enlist+some+francophoneys/1718149/story.html


> When numbers drop, enlist some francophoneys
> *The Ontario government is using dubious tactics to boost its francophone minority population*
> 
> BY RANDALL DENLEY, THE OTTAWA CITIZENJUNE 21, 2009 5:04 AM
> ...




There is a subtext here about the perceived _unfairness_ of French _immersion_ vs French schooling but that’s not the issue.

The issue is _entitlement_.

Franco-Ontarians are _entitled_, as a matter of *constitutional right* to certain services “where numbers warrant,” or some such weasel-wording. An entitlement, once met, is nearly impossible to change.

Clearly, if the number of Franco-Ontarians is declining then the “correct” solution is to close schools, fire teachers and so on. But that is, politically, the least palatable solution. Most members here can recall, in their own communities, the regular political battles over school closings. Residents *feel* entitled to a neighbourhood school – *their neighbourhood* school which mustn’t be closed, despite inadequate enrolment, until their children have finished with it. Some may also remember the _Montfort Hospital_ saga. The _Montfort_ is a perfectly good hospital here in Ottawa; it is the “host” for our new military medical centre. It is, also, completely “unnecessary” – by the Ontario Health Ministry’s guidelines, based on numbers, etc. But it is a *French* hospital, rather than a bilingual hospital like, for example, the Ottawa Hospital. In reality, of course, it isn’t a French hospital anymore because part of the federally and locally funded rescue plan involved expanding the Montfort’s “base" to justify its continued existence, and that required it to become a bilingual hospital – just about like its “competitors.” But Franco-Ontarians *felt* entitled to “their own” hospital – in addition to a  fully bilingual hospital – so politicians jumped through every imaginable hoop to provide it. The “correct” solution was to close the Montfort or the nearby _General_ campus of the Ottawa Hospital. It was, and remains, the least likely solution because politicians are chronically unable to manage entitlements.

Thus, faced with a simple problem - how to manage entitlements when the entitled population base is, slowly but surely, disappearing - the bureaucrats and politicians decide that the solution is to falsify the data because it is easier to misspend taxpayer’s money than it is to actually manage the problem in a fiscally responsible manner.

We, taxpayers, "need" to pay lower taxes, overall, and government*s* "need" to do less for and to us with the reduced resources at their disposal. To govern is to choose and we, voters, need to choose those government services without which we are willing - and able - to live our lives.


----------



## Brad Sallows (21 Jun 2009)

"Why I should be paying more taxes"

He can, as a matter of feasibility, write cheques to the Receiver-General for Canada.  If he feels he should be paying more taxes - and has convinced himself it would indeed yield him an advantage - I wonder that he does not.  I suspect what he means is that he wants everyone to pay more taxes.

The assumption that "more taxes" will be used to fund the necessities of which he writes is necessary to state his case, but it is an invalid and unreasonable assumption.  So much for the Estimate Process.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (21 Jun 2009)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> As for your second statement, what exactly do you mean? We knew that war was inevitable between the British empire and the Transvaal and had prepared contingency plans. I will agree that Laurier and the Quebec wing of his Liberal party were against sending a contingent to South Africa, but relented when faced with overwhelming pressure from the rest of the country. We also had plans for mobilization in the event of a war against an European power (read Germany) in both 1914 and 1939. The fact that Sam Hughes scrapped the plans in 1914, that does not alter the fact that the plans existed. These plans were written on the premise that we would have time for an orderly buildup of forces in the UK, followed by deployment to the continent. The Pacific may or may not be another matter, but that is a subject to debate separately. The US and the UK were attempting to avoid war against Japan. This strategy failed because Japan was not deterred by the feeble build up in the Far East including Force C to Hong Kong. Korea and the recent conflicts in SW Asia may be a different matter. However we were able to deploy naval, air and land forces to those theatres in a relatively timely manner.



I don't know if plans by themselves are much preparation.  I believe defense against the United States was our over-riding concern until the plan was scrapped in the 1930s.  In 1914 we had 1 battalion of infantry and 2 cavalry regiments with plans for 20 divisions - I only count the 3.  Up until the week before WWII we had 3 understrength infantry battalions and 2 cavalry?/motorcycle?/armoured car? regiments.  There was no physical preparation.


----------



## Old Sweat (21 Jun 2009)

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> I don't know if plans by themselves are much preparation.  I believe defense against the United States was our over-riding concern until the plan was scrapped in the 1930s.  In 1914 we had 1 battalion of infantry and 2 cavalry regiments with plans for 20 divisions - I only count the 3.  Up until the week before WWII we had 3 understrength infantry battalions and 2 cavalry?/motorcycle?/armoured car? regiments.  There was no physical preparation.



We are getting into semantics, but in both cases the plan was to mobilize an initial force and then expand. In both cases it had been appreciated that the maximum land force we could sustain overseas was one cavalry and five infantry divisions. In the late-1930s there was a large - for Canada - increase in the defence budet, with most of the effort going to the RCN and the RCAF. The small permanent force was entirely in line with the strategic thinking of the era, and not just in Canada. As a result, and as there was no threat of invasion and ample time to crank up the industrial effort, the government had done what it considered to be prudent.

Having said that, you are in part correct as wilful neglect and hoping for the best have been the traditional pillars of Canadian defence planning. Remember the story of the little Dutch boy who kept the dyke from breaking by plugging the hole with his thumb. If he had been a Canadian, he would have been castigated for alarmism and sent to bed without his supper.


----------



## Edward Campbell (23 Jul 2009)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_, are Lawrence Martin’s latest thoughts on the Liberals – the party he believes most likely to defeat the _Great Satan_ (Stephen Harper) and his band of hated _Bushites_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/will-liberals-roll-no-dice-strategy-work/article1227753/


> Will Liberals' roll-no-dice strategy work?
> *A good many in the party want to reboot, but senior strategists remain unmoved*
> 
> Lawrence Martin
> ...




I’m sure the Liberal _politburo_ has a plan, one of which they are mighty proud, too. But I think they are whistling in the dark. There is, simply, nothing substantial to differentiate the Liberals from the Conservatives. The Tory economic “plan” (wait for the American and Chinese _recoveries_ to rescue Canada) is working; the Liberals have no new, exciting social policy plans – especially not in health care; the civic workers' strikes in Windsor and Toronto will, likely, make Canadians suspicious of parties, like the Liberals and NDP, that espouse big government; the Liberals have no exciting, new economic or industrial policies; there is nothing, at all, to differentiate Liberal foreign and defence policy from Conservative foreign and defence policy. September is too late to suddenly roll out policies. November is too late for an election campaign.

Ignatieff and the Liberal _brain trust_ gambled, in the Spring, that the economy would sink Harper and that Canadians would not forget how much they dislike him. The economic gamble backfired. Harper has stayed out of the public spotlight; Canadians will remember, when parliament resumes, that they dislike him but the problem for the Liberals is that Canadians do not like Ignatieff, either. They may not dislike him as much as they loathe Harper but they have not warmed to him. The _Canadians detest Harper_ gamble didn’t pay off, either.

Too little, too late from the Liberal Party of Toronto's _politburo_, I think and, therefore, no election until spring/summer 2010, at the earliest.


----------



## George Wallace (23 Jul 2009)

An interesting point that I got in an email, not verified as the truth, but still a thought to be considered:  80 Members of Parliament are two years shy of their "Golden Handshake (Pension) Dates".  Will they gamble everything and perhaps loose those pensions?


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 Jul 2009)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_, is Jeffrey Simpson on a topic about which he actually does know something: Canadian electoral politics:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/until-something-changes-the-road-to-majority-is-blocked/article1234181/


> Until something changes, the road to majority is blocked
> *Parties and voters have been boxed in by the unchanging nature of Canadian politics*
> 
> Jeffrey Simpson
> ...



I don’t dispute Simpson’s analysis but I think there is a possible “work around” for the Conservatives.

First: The Conservatives must hold their base:

22 of 36 seats in BC;
27 of 28 seats in AB;
22 of 28 seats in SK/MB; and
50 of 106 seats in ON.
_________
*121 of 208* seats West of the Ottawa River

Second: The Conservatives must hold on to at least five seats in QC and 8-10 seats in Atlantic Canada. But they need to recognize that they are highly unlikely to break through in QC and there are too few seats in Atlantic Canada to make much of a difference.

121+14 = 135 of 308 seats

Third: The Conservatives must take about 20 (mainly suburban) seats away from the Liberals and the NDP, mostly in BC and ON.

135+20 = *155 of 308* (a razor thin majority, but a majority all the same)

It will be a hard row to hoe but it can be done.


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 Jul 2009)

Another factor: At some undetermined point in the future the seat distribution in the House of Commons will change as follows:

•	Territories: From 3 to 3 – no change – percentage of seats remains at >1
•	BC: From 36 to 43 – *+ 7* – percentage of seats rises to 12.6
•	AB: From 28 to 35 – *+5* – percentage of seats rises to 10.2
•	SK/MN: From 28 to 28 – no change – percentage of seats falls to 8.2
•	ON: From 106 to 127 – *+21* – percentage of seats rises to 37.2
•	QC: From 75 to 75 – no change – percentage of seats falls to 21.9
•	Atlantic Canada: 32 to 32 – no change – percentage of seats falls to 9.3

The redistribution will cause changes to riding boundaries to give more and more seats to areas of (recent) high population growth. That will be the suburbs: areas where the Tories can and must do well if they want to win a majority.

The new challenge will be to win 171 of 341 seats or to keep the 155 I described above and get 16 of the 33 new seats.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (30 Jul 2009)

Redistribution is way overdue.  My understanding is that it is to be based on the 2001 census, already 8 years old.  We are living with constituencies based on 18 year old population numbers.  The House of Commons is going to be getting really big unless they drop the guarantee that no province will lose seats.  A fall election is almost a guarantee.  The old Liberal guy isn't getting any younger and the economy can only get better.


----------



## a_majoor (30 Jul 2009)

You can see why Quebec and the Maritimes (and to a lesser extent Ontario) bitterly resist redistribution; political power is flowing away like water through their hands. This is a long term trend and unless some Ontario politicians get their heads out of their a** the long term trend for Ontario is bleak; we will be the Canadian rust belt.

As Edward has pointed out, the traditional Ontario/Quebec axis is losing relevance in Canada, if I were to make a bold prediction, the new alignment should be to draw a great circle from Cornwall to Prince Rupert, extending out to the Pacific Rim nations and India. Of course an "intellectual" would never think of such a thing, it dosn't fit on socialist kitchen tables, the BQ is far to parochial (hence the great circle dosn't start in Montreal of Quebec City) and the current party is seemingly too engaged in hanging on to what they have to look upwards and outwards. Perhaps I am too cynical.

I don't think there will be a fall election, the costs are too high and the expected return too small to justify forcing an election in the normal course of events. Only some scandal of outragious proportions would rock the boat enough to make this work for any party.


----------



## The Bread Guy (30 Jul 2009)

....over at Elections Canada, according to the latest MERXINT.  Note to foil-hatters:  this appears to be routine "have vendors in place if/when" - from one of the postings:


> .... This Request for Proposals takes into account that* the date of the 41st general election is not known in advance*. The work described is expected to be completed between the day the election is called and the 120th day after election day (a period of 168 consecutive days). Contractors must undertake to begin the work at any time between October 1, 2009, and March 31, 2011 ....




"As part of Elections Canada’s evaluation program, the agency is seeking a proposal to conduct a telephone survey with the total population of candidates, following the 41st federal general election."
"As part of Elections Canada’s evaluation program, the agency is seeking proposals to conduct a post-election survey with a representative sample of polling staff selected among Deputy Returning Officers (DRO), Central Poll Supervisors (CPS) and Information Officers (IO) who worked during the 41st federal general election."
"As part of Elections Canada’s evaluation program and in the context of the 41st federal general election, the agency plans to conduct a survey of electors to evaluate their opinions, experience, attitudes and knowledge of the agency’s services and various aspects of the electoral process. The research objectives are to measure opinions on various election-related issues, to assist in evaluating and refining Elections Canada’s programs and services to the electorate, and to provide information that will help develop the Chief Electoral Officer’s recommendations to Parliament."


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Jul 2009)

This, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_, might be “good news” on two fronts:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ignatieff-hints-at-forcing-fall-election/article1235216/


> Ignatieff hints at forcing fall election
> *Liberal Leader toughens line, as opposition MPs are tired of propping up Tories*
> 
> Daniel Leblanc and Bill Curry
> ...



The two good reasons for an election are:

1.	Unnecessary ”stimulus” spending stops before too much is spent and it will be harder to restart when we are in the “recovery” mode; and

2.	It is *likely* that we get another Conservative minority. Ignatieff had his chance, in the Spring; he blinked, he misjudged, and it is now too late to toss the Tories out because _”Tory time are hard times.”_ The Liberal Party of Toronto will get another chance to play the leadership sweepstakes.


----------



## Brad Sallows (3 Aug 2009)

1) Elections are often contests to pledge the most spending.
2) We already have a Conservative minority.

I can't think of any "good" reasons to hold an election.  All the reasons I hear and read are self-serving rationalizations by the parties and individuals who believe they see an opportunity to slightly shift the makeup of Parliament to their benefit.

The "good" reason to hold an election is when one or more of the parties have one or more major ideas worth putting to a popular vote.  Normally such ideas impose additional and significant costs, which means this is an inappropriate time.  That leaves the ideas which are not costly.  The "good" reason to hold an election at this time is to debate the linchpin of good governance: fiscal management.  None of the parties apparently has any stomach to explain how federal spending is going to be made commensurate with "average" revenues rather than the preceding 10-year boom.


----------



## a_majoor (11 Aug 2009)

Perhaps election fever in the Liberal ranks is being fanned by something else?

http://stevejanke.com/archives/290778.php



> *A cynical and slightly paranoid view of the Liberal Party leadership*
> Tuesday, August 11, 2009 at 10:18 AM
> Comments: 5
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 Aug 2009)

Nanos aggress, as evidenced by this article, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _National Post_:

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/story.html?id=1878868


> Liberals and Tories in dead heat: poll
> *Harper still leads Ignatieff as best for PM*
> 
> Megan O’Toole, National Post
> ...



This is the worst most hyped economic crisis since 1929. The Liberal Party of Canada ought to be poised to repeat 1935 when King gained 90+% in seats against R.B. Bennett’s Tories. It ought to be a slam dunk. But, it ain’t; instead, the Conservatives and Liberals are _neck-and-neck_ and, worse, for _Iggy_, the economy is turning around; the worst is over.

In 1935 Canadians *hated* Bennett; they dislike Harper but it’s not the same, intensely personal antipathy Bennett _enjoyed_. King made himself likable, he campaigned as a _moderate reformer_ with a modest but sensible plan to make things a little better. _Iggy_ is not likable, he’s not modest, as _’tit Jean_ Chrétien was perceived to be. Harper, neither likable nor modest, either, is, however, perceived as being competent. _Iggy_ is untested.

I think the Liberals should have pulled the plug on the Tories when they had the chance, in the late Spring. If they had we would likely have a popular Liberal government presiding over the recovery. Instead, even if we do have a fall election, we are going to have, in 2010 and, likely, in 2011 and maybe even in 2012, an unpopular Conservative minority government.


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Aug 2009)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_ is yet further explanation of why Ignatieff waited too long and, now, _should_ wait even longer:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ignatieff-earns-same-rating-as-dion-pre-election/article1248753/


> Ignatieff earns same rating as Dion pre-election
> *Advisers fear Liberal Leader hasn't offer voters sense of who he is, how he diverges from Harper*
> 
> Campbell Clark
> ...



Two points:

•	Nortel could work for the Liberals *IF* they could make it an anti-American issue. But _Ericsson_ is a _Swedish_ multi-national with a large Canadian subsidiary, in Montréal and opposing the sale of Nortel’s LTE technology could backfire in Québec – which is notoriously sensitive to “threats” to its industrial base/jobs; and

•	EI is more attractive as a news story than as an election strategy. Harper can say: “We are already spending so much on “recovery” that we have to run deficits for several years. Now the Liberals want to spend even more and more and more of your money on months of EI benefits for a few people who only want to work for a few days.” 

I have no doubt that the Liberals strategists can find an election winning _tactical_ plan, but it will be an uphill battle against a skilled and determined “enemy.” A 2009 election is not, in any way, a sure thing for either party so, for Ignatieff and the Liberals, it is a bad bet. The case *for* forcing an election seems to me to rest, solely, on a need to make _Iggy_ look stronger than Celine Stéphane Dion; that may be all it takes.


----------



## Rifleman62 (12 Aug 2009)

I do not get it, probably because I would never vote Lieliberal or NDP, but why is Mr. Harper not liked in Eastern Canada? Has he not bent over backwards for the East coast, Quebec and Ontario? "Liked'?? Is running this country a popularity contest? Unfortunately it appears that it is to just over 50% of Canadians who bother to vote.

Ignatieff is going to cry wolf once too often. It seems every couple of weeks he is going to bring down the government. The good reasons to hold an election for the LPC is power. They want it. The NDP; power. They want it. The LieLiberals will do what they do best: lie through their teeth with their little red books. They may win a slim majority, with the NDP holding the hammer. How about a LieLiberal/NDP coalition with Jack as Deputy PM? Say anything to get elected with no accountability.

The LieLiberals held true to form here in BC in the recent election. 

Possibly it is time to find a job for 360 hours/9 weeks as a Wal-Mart host to supplement my retirement income. Just have to line up several employers to skip to every year when my EI runs out.


----------



## a_majoor (13 Aug 2009)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> I do not get it, probably because I would never vote Lieliberal or NDP, but why is Mr. Harper not liked in Eastern Canada? Has he not bent over backwards for the East coast, Quebec and Ontario? "Liked'?? Is running this country a popularity contest? Unfortunately it appears that it is to just over 50% of Canadians who bother to vote.



The answer, I believe, is cultural, especially the "culture of entitlement". The current political setup is designed to siphon wealth from some regions of the nation to buy off other regions for political gain. Ontario has consented to be "siphoned" for generations as a price to pay for maintaining political and economic supremacy in Confederation. Quebec and the Maritimes have used wealth transfers to pay for the political ambitions of their own elites (otherwise the money spent would have made these parts of the country the richest by far). The West, having relatively few votes due to the lower population, hasn't been in a position to do anything effective about this until now.

Prime Minister Harper and the Conservative Party are the visible manifestations of the great social and demographic changes which are tearing these old patterns apart (Edward has spoken of this before), and the hatred of the MSM and traditional political parties is really based on the fact that Toronto is no longer the centre of the Universe (just like in the middle of the last century, Montreal woke up in surprise and discovered they were no longer the center of the Universe). 

The realignment is still in the fluid and unstable phase, is the new center going to be centred on Alberta and its resource wealth or Vancouver and its access to the Pacific rim? (A silly distinction, of course, since each needs the other, but regional politics will have a huge effect on the future of Canada).

Other stressors include the urban/rural divide. Just like the United States, our "Progressives" tend to be concentrated in the urban regions while the "Classical Liberals" tend to be out in the more rural parts of the nation. (Check out the Red/Blue distinction in the United States. if you can find a map with very high granularity, you will see even in the "Blue" states, the blue ends at the suburbs.) This explains why the Liberals could run a potted plant in many Toronto ridings and win, and why the great battlegrounds for electoral politics is in the suburbs and exurbs (like the 905 belt and the "Tech Triangle" in Ontario). Here the argument is reversed, rural dwellers resent the seeming concentration of power in the cities (even though it is city ridings that are under represented), while cities and teir elites practice "tin cup federalism" and demand even more taxpayer support.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (14 Aug 2009)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> The answer, I believe, is cultural, especially the "culture of entitlement". The current political setup is designed to siphon wealth from some regions of the nation to buy off other regions for political gain.



And these transfers have done nothing to develop industry east of the Ottawa River and may contribute to continuing economic stagnation.

A couple somewhat relevant examples follow.  From the 16th century Spain relied on the gold and silver from its colonies to maintain a high standard of living and missed the industrial revolution which it really didn't join until it entered the European Economic Community.  

After WWI Germany had to provide reparations that included commodities.  As a result Germans mined coal for France while French workers didn't.  Also the only way for Germany to pay cash reparations was by exporting to its former enemies.  The money was not used to purchase French goods in return but was paid in cash.  The system was untenable and collapsed.

Simply put, you don't get something for nothing.  The US rust belt rusted while the New South with more pro-business politics thrived.  Creating a climate for business in world capital markets is more important for long-term economic success than any redistribution of income.


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Aug 2009)

This article, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_, suggests that the Conservatives may be to blame for the latest attack on Michael Ignatieff’s _Liberal_ credentials:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/prankster-uses-bbc-address-to-harass-ignatieff/article1254993/


> Prankster uses BBC address to harass Ignatieff
> Ottawa — The Canadian Press
> Monday, Aug. 17, 2009
> 
> ...



A copy of the quite lengthy article follows.

I’m not so sure the Liberals are right. This doesn’t “smell” like a Tory attack. It appears to be from the _left_, not the _right_ and my guess is that it comes from one of his many academic rivals *within* the Liberal Party of Canada.

If that is the case, if _Iggy's_ enemies within his own party are on the hunt, then he may be provoked into forcing an election to head of an internal, LPC, civil war.


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Aug 2009)

Here, in two parts, is a copy of the lengthy article referenced above:

 http://newhumanist.org.uk/1299

Part 1 of 2



> No more Mr Nice Guy: Laurie Taylor on Michael Ignatieff
> *Once a liberal pin-up and intellectual leader of the global human rights movement, Michael Ignatieff has now fallen out with some of his closest friends. Laurie Taylor tracks an acrimonious battle*
> 
> Everyone knows Michael Ignatieff. Some first encountered him during the late 70s when his painstaking historical analyses of the evolution of the British penal system provided a valuable empirical complement (some would say antidote) to Michel Foucault's Discipline and Punish. Others will have come to respect him for his novels, family memoirs, or his outstanding biography of his great hero, Isaiah Berlin. Many more will remember the suave, querulous, intellectual contributions he made to BBC 2's culture-based talking shop, The Late Show. By the time that programme stuttered to a close in the mid-90s news of his fame had even made it back to his country of birth. In 1997 MacLean's magazine included him in its 'Top Ten Canadian Who's Who' and four years later exultantly promoted him to Canada's 'Sexiest Cerebral Man' because of "his made-for TV looks and effortless eloquence". What so endeared Ignatieff to the thinking classes was his cosmopolitan liberalism. His Russian family background, North American childhood and easy mastery of several languages seemed to qualify him as a citizen of the world. It was not too surprising, therefore, when he set off for what he described as "the landscapes of modern ethnic war" - Serbia, Croatia, Bosnia, Rwanda, Burundi, Angola, and Afghanistan - in search of an answer to a classic liberal question: why do we in the west feel that we have a moral obligation to become embroiled in the internal conflicts of distant lands? His answer helped to transform him into a leading figure in the human rights movement. We could, he argued, only overcome the ethnic particularism that lay behind so many of today's conflicts by treating others -whatever their religion, class, gender, race - as rights-bearing equals rather than as members of a group. Such whole-hearted advocacy of human rights meant that he was a natural choice for the prestigious post as Carr Professor of the Practice of Human Rights in the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University.
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Aug 2009)

Part 2 of 2 



> Ignatieff does admit that he cannot expect any "immunity from criticism" as a friend of the magazine, but surely any "person, friend or not, whose views and moral reputation are attacked in this form is entitled to elementary exercises of editorial due diligence. If your editorial staff had spent five minutes checking Mr Gearty's insinuations against the text of my book, they could have spared me this insult to my reputation and might have protected your editorial reputation as well."
> 
> Owen replied to Ignatieff regretting that Gearty's piece had caused him quite so much distress. She had realised that he might like to respond to the article but never expected him to be so outraged and insulted as to reject the standard form of academic response. Gearty had not accused him of supporting torture, on the contrary, he specifically says of Ignatieff that 'he does not approve of the use of torture'. All he had said was that Ignatieff's position provided a moral framework for others to do so. "It seems to him that to hold such a position is to render less than definitive the accompanying rejection of torture." She concluded by hoping that Ignatieff would change his mind and reply to Gearty's piece in the next edition of the magazine.
> 
> ...


----------



## GAP (18 Aug 2009)

Ignatieff seems to have painted himself into a corner, and I think it's going to be more than a 15 second soundbite to get himself out.....


----------



## The Bread Guy (18 Aug 2009)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> The answer, I believe, is cultural, especially the "culture of entitlement". The current political setup is designed to siphon wealth from some regions of the nation to buy off other regions for political gain.


Some recent, newly-minted examples of one mechanism ensuring this:
"PM launches new regional economic development agency for Canada’s north"
"New Regional Development Agency for Southern Ontario"


----------



## GAP (20 Aug 2009)

Tories changing election tune to stress majority 
Daniel Leblanc and Campbell Clark
Article Link

Ottawa — From Thursday's Globe and Mail Last updated on Thursday, Aug. 20, 2009 09:12AM EDT

The Conservatives are breaking their own taboo by starting to call on Canadians to award them a majority government in the next election.

The tactic will be part of an appeal for stability in a recession if the opposition defeats the government in the Commons early this fall, a year after the last election.

The Conservatives expect to contrast their call for a majority with two other potential scenarios they hope will prove less appealing: a Liberal minority and a Liberal-NDP coalition.

The Harper Conservatives have long kicked themselves for asking for a majority in the 2004 election, which they narrowly lost, believing it caused many skittish voters to turn back to the Liberals. In the two elections since, in 2006 and 2008, they have tried to dispel qualms about a Conservative majority, or avoid the word entirely.

But Conservatives are spelling out their wishes for a stable, majority government at partisan rallies this summer.
More on link


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Aug 2009)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_ is another _guesstimate_ about what *might* trigger a fall election:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/review-of-cost-analysis-of-ei-reform-could-set-the-stage-for-a-fall-election/article1259259/


> Review of cost analysis of EI reform could set the stage for a fall election
> *Ignatieff has opportunity to put forward a no-confidence motion in late September if he is not happy with the working group's results*
> 
> Gloria Galloway
> ...




I assume that the _Good Grey Globe_ meant to say that _” Mr. Page responded to Mr. Savage's request by asking the Human Resources Department for the data, analysis and assumptions that were used to calculate the cost of the Liberal Conservative plan.”_

I still think that, since 92% of Canadians do not collect EI, it is a weak election issue.

I remain convinced, as a Conser4vative partisan, that an election is welcome because:

•	It brings the entire _stimulus_ package to a grinding, shuddering halt – much of it never to be restarted; and

•	It is highly unlikely to return a Liberal government. Thus it will throw the Liberal leadership back into disarray.


----------



## Old Sweat (21 Aug 2009)

I twigged on the Liberal instead of Conservative plan as I read the story. On reflection, I think the story is right. He is requesting an analysis of the study that lead to what the Grits obviously feel are high ball figures for their 360 hour across the board proosal. Just wondering if using the Parliamentary Budget Officer (PBO) to undertake what is a partisan task is within his terms of reference. It probably would be another thing if the request came from a parliamentary committee, but that is just a guess.

Having said that, assuming that poll numbers same approximately the same, what happens:

a. if the data requested is delayed so that the PBO analysis can not be completed and verified before  late September, the Liberal's first opportunity for a non confidence motion;

b. the PBO analysis shows that the figures cited by the Conservatives fall within the range of possibilities given the data used;

c. the PBO demonstrates that the Liberal figures are too low; or

d.the panel reaches a rough consensus except for the widegap in party figures?


----------



## observor 69 (21 Aug 2009)

Sorry Old Sweat I hurt my brain trying to extrapolate the four choices into real politik.
As Edward says I can't believe Iggy is actually going to run an election on EI, shades of Dion's Green Plan.
It's time Ignatieff started presenting himself and his reasons for voting in a Liberal government.


----------



## Rifleman62 (21 Aug 2009)

You would hope that many of the 92% of Canadians who do not collect EI would not want their EI deductions increased to make the standard 360 hours.  It is a system originally established by the LPC. 

I thought Gloria Galloway was married to LPC hack of some sort.


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Aug 2009)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> ... assuming that poll numbers same approximately the same, what happens:
> 
> a. if the data requested is delayed so that the PBO analysis can not be completed and verified before  late September, the Liberal's first opportunity for a non confidence motion;



They have two choices:

1.	Find another, better issue, and force an election. This will be a desperate gamble for power before the economy is chugging along, again and Canadians will see it as that; or

2.	Wait until there is something useful that can be used against Harper and the Tories.



> b. the PBO analysis shows that the figures cited by the Conservatives fall within the range of possibilities given the data used;



Find another, better issue, and force an election. This will be a desperate gamble for power before the economy is chugging along, again and Canadians will see it as that.



> c. the PBO demonstrates that the Liberal figures are too low; or



Change the subject, quickly then find another, better issue, and force an election. This will be a desperate gamble for power before the economy is chugging along, again and Canadians will see it as that.



> d. the panel reaches a rough consensus except for the widegap in party figures?



Change the subject, quickly then find another, better issue, and force an election. This will be a desperate gamble for power before the economy is chugging along, again and Canadians will see it as that.

--------------------

Waiting is, I think the toughest choice for the Liberals. If the recession is, indeed, almost over – no serious _double dip_ – then they have to go NOW! Otherwise Harper says, “Look. I carefully steered us through the big, bad recession. Don’t I remind you of Paul Martin? A skilled fiscal manager, trustworthy and so on?”

I still think going to polls on more _pogey_ for more Maritimers is a bad idea, but, as a Conservative partisan I hope the Liberals give it a try. I expect it to “earn” the Liberals a very few more seats in Atlantic Canada and Québec and cost them many more in Ontario and BC.

_Iggy_ misjudged the economy in the Spring. He _coulda, shoulda_ forced an election then; he might have won a minority of his own. I suspect some (many?) Liberals are already mistrustful of his political judgement.


----------



## Old Sweat (21 Aug 2009)

There are only a few of us here old enough to remember the UI mess when it was introduced circa 1972. The qualifying period was ridiculously low because the NDP dictated the terms in return for supporting the Liberal minority government. The press was full of stories of young people who spend the winter skiing (with UIC Ski Team T Shirts) on pogey. That was only the most obvious abuse and it set off an orgy of boondoggles.

It may be that Iggy and his gang see this as a way to gain popularity with the world owes me a living crowd.

Rifleman62. I think you are correct about her husband.


----------



## Edward Campbell (23 Aug 2009)

Although we have a thread in which this subject is discussed, I put this item, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the CBC website, here because I think it might be a suitable “trigger” for a fall election if the Liberals get either caught or smart on the EI issue:

http://www.cbc.ca/technology/story/2009/08/21/ottawa-nortel-opposition-review-sale-ericsson.html


> Nortel sale review required by law: Opposition
> 
> Friday, August 21, 2009
> 
> ...



As I mentioned, elsewhere, there are two problems with this as a “trigger:”

1.	Ericsson is not an American conglomerate. Being anti-foreign *can* be “good” but being anti-American is a sure fire way to win votes; and

2.	There is a big time Québec vs. Ontario issue here. Québec wants this deal; Ontario isn’t keen but is somewhat reluctant to make too much noise.

________________

Mods: might a name change be in order? Say to just Summer *Election 2009*? A summer election is, now, a practical impossibility.


----------



## GAP (24 Aug 2009)

Harper’s Tories open big lead over Liberals, poll says
Andrew Mayeda, Canwest News Service  Published: Sunday, August 23, 2009 
Article Link

OTTAWA -- Prime Minister Stephen Harper's Conservatives have surged to a big lead over the opposition Liberals in the eyes of Canadian voters, reveals a new poll, a trend that could dampen speculation of a fall election.

In a discouraging sign for the Liberals, party leader Michael Ignatieff trails the prime minister on bread-and-butter issues at the forefront of many Canadians' minds, such as the ability to steer the economy through recovery and rebalance the country's finances. If the trend continues, Ignatieff could soon be facing roughly the same poll numbers as his beleaguered predecessor, Stephane Dion.

The Conservatives now command 39% in support among decided voters, compared with 28% for the Liberals, according to the survey, conducted exclusively for Canwest News Service and Global National by Ipsos Reid. Since the last Ipsos poll two months ago, the Tories have climbed five percentage points, while the Grits have slumped seven points.

The NDP stand in third at 14% of the vote, up one point; followed by the Green party at 10%, up two points. The Bloc Quebecois posted 8% in support nationally, while 7% of respondents were undecided.
More on link


----------



## Edward Campbell (24 Aug 2009)

According to this, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_, the  Canwest News Service-Global Nationa/Ipsos Reid poll may have been anomalous:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/tories-liberals-mired-in-dead-heat/article1262562/


> Tories and Liberals mired in dead heat
> *Amid talk of fall election, Harris-Decima survey suggests parties remain in statistical tie*
> 
> Ottawa — The Canadian Press
> ...



My suspicion is that it was that magical 20th time (out of 20) for Ipsos Reid, but the Liberals *should have gained* on several Tory missteps over the summer – but they didn’t.

See: http://v1.theglobeandmail.com/cartoon

They, the Liberals, appear to have wasted the summer.


----------



## Rifleman62 (24 Aug 2009)

Any bets the LPC will try and make the H1N1 an election issue, i.e. the government contingency plan is inadequate, not enough vaccine, not enough qualified personnel to administer the vaccine, we (LPC) can do better, etc, etc. Delivery of health care is provincial responsibility, but the LPC will be aided by the usual suspects: The Parliamentary Press Gallery, the CBC, etc, etc.


----------



## GAP (24 Aug 2009)

I suspect that if you have been a particular political party's polling firm for XXX years, that the pool of respondents canvassed each time depending on the issue doesn't vary all that much.....if you already know how they will respond, and you want to collect a paycheque, then why would you reinvent the wheel each time you do a survey...


----------



## Edward Campbell (25 Aug 2009)

The Liberals are reported to be gearing up for 9 or 16 Nov 09, according to this item reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/liberals-gear-up-for-fall-election-after-an-uneventful-summer/article1262998/


> Liberals gear up for fall election after an uneventful summer
> 
> *Party says it's ‘in good shape' as it prepares campaign, eyeing Nov. 9 and Nov. 16 as potential voting days*
> 
> ...




I remain hopeful. An elections is, in my view, a good thing because it stops all _stimulus_ spending and, thereby, rescues Canada from an inflationary spiral – better late than never.


----------



## Bianca (25 Aug 2009)

I work for Service Canada, and a group of us are usually recruited to work for Elections Canada when something is coming up... last week they asked for us to get a team together and have everyone trained by October 1st. So I guess everyone is expecting something to happen soon!


----------



## Rifleman62 (25 Aug 2009)

“*It's notoriously tough for opposition parties to get much national ink* (especially in the summer). Where Michael has been coverage has been positive and response has been good,” said Toronto Liberal MP Bob Rae. 

Bob Rae continues to smoke something causing hallucinations. What a ray of sunshine he is.


----------



## observor 69 (25 Aug 2009)

Well you can't say he hasn't been out there meeting the people!  

http://www.liberal.ca/en/michael-ignatieff/videos/16126_quebec-maritimes-tour---gaspe


Michael Ignatieff in Saint John, NB
17 Aug, 2009 | Excerpt from Michael Ignatieff's speech to the Saint John, NB, Board of Trade, August 13, 2009.Michael Ignatieff @ Miramichi Acadien Festival

15 Aug, 2009 | Michael Ignatieff's remarks at the Acadien Festival in Miramichi, NB.MI Visits Tri-Star

12 Aug, 2009 | Michael Ignatieff visits Tri-Star, the ambulance manufacturerMichael Ignatieff @ Port Morien Wharf

11 Aug, 2009 | MIchael talks with Cape Breton lobster fisherman.Quebec Maritimes tour - Gaspé
2 Aug, 2009 


What's New?
Liberals recall agriculture committee to get food safety answers
Harper government inaction on border travel devastating tourism industry
Ukrainian Independence Day celebrations
Etobicoke-Lakeshore Protective Services BBQ
Liberals call for public investigation into abandoned Canadians abroad
Harper government playing political games with cancer patient care
Statement by Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff on the observance of Ramadan


----------



## Edward Campbell (27 Aug 2009)

Well, according to this report, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_, the Liberals understand that EI isn’t the “right” (or left) hot-button issue:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/liberals-wont-topple-tories-over-ei/article1267252/


> Liberals won't topple Tories over EI
> *Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff takes questions after speaking to a luncheon audience hosted by the Saint John Board of Trade on Aug. 13, 2009. The Canadian Press
> Senior party official dampens election speculation, but notes government could still face no-confidence vote on other issues*
> 
> ...




Maybe I’m just whistling past a graveyard but it appears to me that Harper has recovered from a bad winter/spring - when _Iggy_ *might* have beaten him, and the economy appears to be recovering (at least it has bottomed and should not get any worse), and Canadians appear to see no compelling reason to “throw the rascals out.”

I remain convinced that the Liberals missed their chance for 2009.

I guess I sortta understand an argument that an election is necessary just to prove that _Iggy_ is not a wimp/clone of Celine Stéphane Dion and that even if the Liberals don’t win they will, likely, pick up a few seats and that will “strengthen” Ignatieff. I sortta understand it, but I don’t buy it.


----------



## a_majoor (27 Aug 2009)

I suspect one of the reasons the Liberals are not keen on an election with EI or the Economy as the trigger is lurking on the Left, rather than across the House.

The NDP can clearly take EI and the economy as "their" issues, and point to clearly articulated positions that clearly predate Mr Ignatieff's pontifications on these subjects. As well, any reading of the Liberal's positions (I can't really say "platform", since there is none) reveals them to be "Socialist Lite". While this is nothing new, what is different is the Liberals have moved much farther left in the last decade or so, and are now fighting in the same ideological territory as the NDP.

Perhaps Prime Minister Harper should make the contest explicit, telling voters the contest is between the CPC and NDP, and the Liberals and Greens are "me too" socialists and irrelevant for voters. An interesting thought....


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Aug 2009)

Susan Riley is, pretty much, a charter member of Canada’s _loony left_, she probably thinks Jack Layton is a reactionary. But I guess she embraces Michael Ignatieff as the last, best hope to unseat Stephen Harper and the hated Conservatives. Anyway, here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Ottawa Citizen_, is her _advice_ to the Liberals:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/columnists/Ignatieff+problem/1937471/story.html


> Ignatieff's big problem
> 
> 
> By Susan Riley, The Ottawa Citizen
> ...




I think Riley is, broadly, correct. The Liberals have failed, thus far, anyway, to capitalize of Harper’s many weaknesses. He stumbled, badly, in the late winter/spring and Ignatieff did not pull the trigger when the target was clear and steady. Since then he (Harper) appears to have recovered (most? some of?) his poise and confidence.

Riley is right: _Iggy_ appears diffident but Harper, more and more, appears confident and competent: essentially what Canadians want.

Canadians do not like Stephen Harper. That would be a problem if, but *only IF* they like Michael Ignatieff – but they appear not to like him. They do not _dislike_ Ignatieff, but not being disliked (as Mulroney and Harper were actively disliked) is not enough; as Jean Chrétien understood you need more – you need Canadians to like you. Canadians liked Chrétien, as they liked Mike Pearson and Louis St Laurent. They “liked” Bob Stanfield, too, but they were awed by Trudeau and his charisma. Harper will work very hard to make sure that Canadians do not develop any real affection for Ignatieff. Harper will work, even harder, to make sure they respect him (Harper) for his steady hand on the economy.

I agree with Riley that _Iggy_ needs a team of _” twitchy, obsessive partisans with no personal lives, no particular need for sleep and a pathological loathing of Conservatives”_ to run an aggressive counter-offensive but the “suggestion” (IF I read it right) that Warren Kinsella is the necessary guy to lead it is wrong, I believe. Kinsella has made himself the message, not the messenger; he is past his “best before” date and will do more harm than good by allowing the Tories to do even muddying of the Liberals’ message.



Edit: typo (misspelled Riley)   :-[


----------



## Rifleman62 (28 Aug 2009)

*"a pathological loathing of Conservatives"*. Is that not the Canadian media, led by the parliamentry press gallary? Wafergate is a example: 10 days of making news instead of reporting it.

Ignatieff is going to cry "Wolf" once too often. Possibly a walk in a snow storm to contemplate will propel a reason for another election.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (28 Aug 2009)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Canadians do not like Stephen Harper. That would be a problem if, but *only IF* they like Michael Ignatieff – but they appear not to like him. They do not _dislike_ Ignatieff, but not being disliked (as Mulroney and Harper were actively disliked) is not enough; as Jean Chrétien understood you need more – you need Canadians to like you. Canadians liked Chrétien, as they liked Mike Pearson and Louis St Laurent. They “liked” Bob Stanfield, too, but they were awed by Trudeau and his charisma. Harper will work very hard to make sure that Canadians do not develop any real affection for Ignatieff. Harper will work, even harder, to make sure they respect him (Harper) for his steady hand on the economy.



Everyone and I mean everyone in the west loved Diefenbaker.  Talk to someone in Quebec and they hought he was an idiot.  I thought Pearson was a fumling idiot.  I thought Stanfield was a fumbling idiot.  I thought Trudeau should have been tried for treason and shot at dawn for playing regions against each other at election time, almost destroying the country.  I thought Mulroney was a self-centred ass.  I thought Chretien to be a devious fumbling idiot.  I like Harper - no personality cult like Iggy.

We musn't assume what people's general opinions on politicians are.  Based on actual polling results for the last 51 years people really liked Diefenbaker and Mulroney best followed by Chretien and Trudeau.


----------



## Old Sweat (28 Aug 2009)

And another poll shows the CPC in the lead (34 to 30) over the Liberals.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/687829


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Aug 2009)

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> Everyone and I mean everyone in the west loved Diefenbaker.  Talk to someone in Quebec and they hought he was an idiot.  I thought Pearson was a fumling idiot.  I thought Stanfield was a fumbling idiot.  I thought Trudeau should have been tried for treason and shot at dawn for playing regions against each other at election time, almost destroying the country.  I thought Mulroney was a self-centred ass.  I thought Chretien to be a devious fumbling idiot.  I like Harper - no personality cult like Iggy.
> 
> We musn't assume what people's general opinions on politicians are.  Based on actual polling results for the last 51 years people really liked Diefenbaker and Mulroney best followed by Chretien and Trudeau.




In the 24th general election (1958) Diefenbaker swept Canada, *including Québec*. Diefnbaker had ups and downs in the West, too. _Prairie populism_ is well named and “the Chief” was adept at playing to it but only four years later, although he was re-elected, parts of the West, especially BC, abandoned him.

I don’t know what polling results you have at hand but while Canadians gave Diefenbaker and Mulroney huge majorities, once each, they did so for the same reason they gave Chrétien three successive majorities: no viable alternative.  “Likeability,” an important political _assist_, didn’t enter into those polls.


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Aug 2009)

More, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_ web site, on poor _Prince Michael_’s dilemma:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/mulling-possible-election-liberals-look-to-boost-profile/article1269899/


> Mulling possible election, Liberals look to boost profile
> *As the Liberals' caucus retreat takes place this week, Grits are agonizing – yet again – about if and when they should force an election*
> 
> Joan Bryden
> ...



Repeating myself, over and over again:

•	An election is a welcome thing because –

o	It stops the *inflationary* stimulus spending before it does serious harm, and

o	It return another Conservative minority, at worst; and

•	The reason it returns the Tories is that _Iggy_ took counsel of his fears, last spring, and waited too long.

But it may be that the Liberals have painted themselves into a corner: go now, to an unnecessary and unpopular election, even with no good reason, or lose more and more ground by supporting Harper.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (30 Aug 2009)

How apropos that the national Liberal director is someone named Rocco Rossi


----------



## Edward Campbell (31 Aug 2009)

This report, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_ web site, makes life even more difficult for _Prince Michael_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/mark-it-in-your-calendar-the-canadian-recession-ended-in-june/article1270472/


> * What analysts are saying*
> 
> ‘Mark it in your calendar – the Canadian recession ended in June'
> *Economists weigh in as Canadian economy shows first faint signs of recovery*
> ...




The Liberals will claim that they forced the evil Tories to adopt sound economic policies that _saved_ the country, but it’s a tough sell.

If the recession is, indeed, over, then what is the compelling reason to take Canadians into a general election in November?


----------



## Edward Campbell (31 Aug 2009)

More on _Prince Michael_’s dilemma, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_ web site:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/liberals-split-on-triggering-election/article1270965/


> Liberals split on pulling election trigger
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I think am about 99% certain that most Liberal Mps heard their constituents’ message, loud and clear. The message was: “Election? *What @#$% election!?! We don’t need no @#$% election!*”

_Iggy_ = too little, too late. Poor _Prince Michael_!


----------



## Edward Campbell (31 Aug 2009)

Sorry to be hogging this thread, but this, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_ web site, is an interesting piece by Norman Spector re: why the Liberals are, suddenly, such reluctant warriors:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/spector-vision/a-wise-liberal/article1270476/


> A wise Liberal
> 
> Monday, August 31, 2009
> 
> ...







 The Hon. David P. Smith, P.C., Q.C., B.A., LL.B. 
Biography from _Fraser Milner Casgrain__




_


----------



## Edward Campbell (31 Aug 2009)

We can expect to hear this message, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_ website, every time there is one, tiny bit of economic good news:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/baird-ups-anti-election-rhetoric/article1270791/


> Baird ups anti-election rhetoric
> *Fall vote would impede stimulus spending, Transport Minister says*
> 
> Ottawa — The Canadian Press
> ...



_Caveat lector_: I *want* an election because I want the stimulus spending to *stop* because I think it is inflationary and I think inflation is a worse enemy than unemployment.

Apologies, again, for monopolizing this topic.


Edit: stupid @#$% typo


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 Sep 2009)

Yet more, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_, on _Prince Michael_ and his minions in Sudbury:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ignatieff-shows-his-hawkish-side/article1270965/


> Ignatieff shows his hawkish side
> *Hints of tension emerge as caucus chair says ‘there is no real unanimous mood in there' for an election*
> 
> Jane Taber, Senior Political Writer
> ...



Oh, the Canadian media must be just about peeing their pants with glee! It’s been years, decades, in fact, since they could talk about a “gunslinger!”

There is, as I have mentioned before, here in Army.ca, a problem with _Iggy_’s new narrative – on the Conservatives’ handling of foreign acquisitions: it may backfire, by setting off inter-regional squabbles.

It’s still hard, very hard, to find a good useful barely acceptable reason for yet another election.

38th General Election: 28 Jun 04 – Liberal minority
39th General Election: 23 Jan 06 – Conservative minority
40th General Election: 14 Oct 08 – Conservative minority
41st General Election: __ Nov 09? – *another* Conservative minority?

Can anyone recall any *issues* in 04, 06 or 08?

Despite my own, personal, views on the matter, I think Canadians may punish the Liberals if they foist yet another, quite unnecessary general election on us.


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 Sep 2009)

I know I'm still monopolizing this topic, but see here for a platform plank the Liberals *could* and *should* (but likely will not) use.


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 Sep 2009)

Macleans political columnist Kady O’Malley was on Kathleen Petty’s _Ottawa Morning_ radio programme saying that the Liberals, rightly or wrongly, believe that they control the parliamentary/election agenda – especially as regards to timings.

If they are saying that out loud then they have blundered, I think. If the pollsters and I are right and Canadians really do not want an election – and will not really want one after they start paying attention, again, either – then saying that the election decision is entirely within ones’ power is not a smart move. Baird _et al_ will hammer even harder on the theme that this unnecessary election is all the fault of the Liberals.

I’m sure the “we control the agenda; we’re the big, tough guys in parliament” stuff goes over well with the caucus and the true believers but, overall, it probably helps the Conservatives.


----------



## dapaterson (1 Sep 2009)

Prince Mikhael has announced that he will topple the tsar.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20090831/tories_election_090901/20090901?hub=TopStories


----------



## COBRA-6 (1 Sep 2009)

Leeeeeeeeeeeroy Jeeeeeeenkins!


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 Sep 2009)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Prince Mikhael has announced that he will topple the tsar.
> 
> http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20090831/tories_election_090901/20090901?hub=TopStories




Oh, goody!    There is a Santa! But he has a blue suit ...


----------



## Old Sweat (1 Sep 2009)

And there's always a chance Iggy will pull his punches and find a way to huff and puff, but not blow the house down.

If not, the worst thing the Liberals could do would be to justify their action as an attempt to return to power for no other reason than the Canadian people miss them, or we secretly want them back, or his cronies are entitled to their entitlements.


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 Sep 2009)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> And there's always a chance Iggy will pull his punches and find a way to huff and puff, but not blow the house down.
> 
> If not, the worst thing the Liberals could do would be to justify their action as an attempt to return to power for no other reason than the Canadian people miss them, or we secretly want them back, or his cronies are entitled to their entitlements.




Quite right, I think. So far, at least in what I've heard/read, he has been carefully vague about *when* he might pull the plug. All reports say that his caucus is split and the doves want to wait until Spring 2010, at the earliest.

But we might have a nice fall "battle" of TV attack ads.


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 Sep 2009)

More good political sense from Norman Spector, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/spector-vision/its-not-the-polls/article1271550/


> Tuesday, September 1, 2009
> 
> It's not the polls?
> 
> ...



I maintain: even with a $2 million attack ad campaign, *too little, too late!* The Tories will have an $_n_ million attack ad campaign (where _n_ >> 2) and, as Spector says, everything is going Harper’s way. Hell’s bells, even an election call works in Harper’s favour. Sen. Smith and the Liberal _doves_ are smart; _Iggy_ and Dosanjh and the _hawks_ - not so much.


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 Sep 2009)

According to the local news here (Ottawa) my local MP, Paul Dewar is already suggesting the issues which *might* cause the NDP to support the government. A couple are almost certainly non-starters for the Tories but one, pension protection, has been discussed by all parties, off and on, and the time may be ripe for some _reform_ on that issue. It would be expensive - an excuse to cut some stimulus projects? - but very popular.

Also, if the Liberals are, indeed, up in the polls in QC then the Bloc may be far less interested in an election than it was in the spring.

_Iggy_ is, probably, now committed to oppose, oppose, oppose, non stop. But Harper can be defeated only when all three opposition parties unite, and bring most of their members to the House to vote. Neither is a sure thing.


----------



## owa (1 Sep 2009)

I do support the Liberals most of the time, but I'm getting sick of this election stuff.  I'd support a different party if an election were called.  Unless I saw something from the Liberals that made sense and wasn't just them kicking the tires again to see what happens, and I don't much care for that waste of resources.

Plus I'd rather the Conservatives in power while I'm working on the enlistment process


----------



## dapaterson (1 Sep 2009)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> _Iggy_ is, probably, now committed to oppose, oppose, oppose, non stop. But Harper can be defeated only when all three opposition parties unite, and bring most of their members to the House to vote. Neither is a sure thing.



Aha - but the Tories can count as well.  Arrange for a few convenient, plausible absences when the opposition parties plan a failed confidence motion and it could carry the day - "We were too busy governing" or some such claim.

Spin might be difficult - but there are plans within plans and plots within conspiracies when the whiff of a writ is in the air.


----------



## GAP (1 Sep 2009)

owa said:
			
		

> Plus I'd rather the Conservatives in power while I'm working on the enlistment process



Whatever brings you over to the dark side....


----------



## owa (1 Sep 2009)

GAP said:
			
		

> Whatever brings you over to the dark side....



Haha, yeah, I have a couple buddies who are going to be happy to know that I've moved closer to the darkside.


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 Sep 2009)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Ottawa Citizen_, is a good column by Don Martin:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/business/Gunslinger+Ignatieff+aims+foot/1952876/story.html


> Gunslinger Ignatieff aims for his foot
> 
> By Don Martin, Calgary Herald
> 
> ...




I think Martin has it *nearly* right:

•	_Iggy_ has blundered into this position because he cannot go on “supporting” Harper without be made into a clone of Celine Stéphane Dion. That’s why he’s taking this position, it has little to do with polls and nothing to do with principles;

•	Jack and Gilles (I wish I’d thought of that!) may well decide to prop up the Tories – almost certainly will if the Liberals are going up in the polls;

•	Harper can, likely will win any fall 2009 election – but I’m not sure he can get a majority.


----------



## dapaterson (2 Sep 2009)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> •	Harper can, likely will win any fall 2009 election – but I’m not sure he can get a majority.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Nu9dfdYCZhM



> All my life's a circle;
> Sunrise and sundown;
> Moon rolls thru the nighttime;
> Till the daybreak comes around.
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 Sep 2009)

I’m tossing a couple of ideas around in my own mind:

•	For Jack Layton – _Iggy_ is the real enemy. The _Dippers_ have to recapture the left wing of the Liberal Party, as Ed Broadbent did in the 34th (1988) general election by capturing previously “solid” Liberal seats in, especially, BC and ON. A 2009 election *should* be highly desirable – the Liberals will be weak and the NDP can advertise itself as the only *real* national opposition to Harper’s _forces of darkness_®.

•	For Gilles Duceppe – _Iggy_ is the main enemy if, Big IF, he (the LPC) is making real gains in Québec. Duceppe needs/will be “happy” with 40+ seats but he fears an NDP breakthrough because a NDP success (which equals a Liberal failure) might reduce him to 4th party status.

•	For _Prince Michael_ – see my earlier post. The only objective is not to be Dion_ized_.

•	For Stephen Harper – the only goal is a majority. Another minority means that the knives will be out. A majority gives him the platform he needs to fundamentally change Canada. His changes *may* condemn the Conservatives to another “decade of darkness”® à la 1993-2003 or they *may* lead to a succession of Conservative governments, à la King/St Laurent (1935-57).

My _interim_ thoughts:

•	_Iggy_/Liberals must vote against the government, again and again and again;

•	_Layton_/NDP should vote against the government, consistently;

•	_Duceppe_/BQ *may* need to vote with the government IF the LPC is gaining in Québec but is losing ground to the _Dippers_ in Canada, _proper_; and

•	_Harper_/Conservatives should want an election IF the Liberals are not gaining outside of Québec. That may mean having a lot of absentees when a confidence vote comes along.


----------



## dapaterson (2 Sep 2009)

Ed Broadbent understood the role of the NDP was to act as the conscience of Parliament - not to rule, but to influence.  My respect for him in that context is why I voted for him in Ottawa Centre - I voted for the man, not the party or ideology. 

Jack, on the other hand, fancies himself a Canadian Tony Blair.  Together with the younger wing of the party (lead by a gunner colonel's son) they are seeking power and thus moving more towards the centre in some respects- and in doing so leave themselves open to erosion on their left flank by the Greens.

The non-Quebec dynamics promise to be extremely interesting in the next running of the reptiles; the Tories covering the right and pushing well into the centre, the Liberals trying to define themselves as fiscally prudent ("Remember Paul Martin - as Finance minister, not PM!") yet also "socially responsible"; the NDP staking out more common ground with the Liberals on the centre-left, and the Greens attacking the Libs and NDP.

The Liberals are getting caught in a squeeze - unless they can create a defining product to sell, they risk being the bland middle ground between two better-defined identities.


----------



## George Wallace (2 Sep 2009)

Let's face it; the days of Canada ever having a Majority Government are long gone.  Between the lack of any "real" leaders, almost as many Political Parties as the Italian government, and voter apathy, the best we can hope for is a strong Minority Government.  

It has now come to the state that we will have the Government, for which no one has elected (Voter Apathy).


----------



## mariomike (2 Sep 2009)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> It has now come to the state that we will have the Government, for which no one has elected (Voter Apathy).



Reminds me of a biography I read about Huey Long: "‘One day Louisiana is going to get good government, and they’re not going to like it."


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 Sep 2009)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Let's face it; *the days of Canada ever having a Majority Government are long gone*.  Between the lack of any "real" leaders, almost as many Political Parties as the Italian government, and voter apathy, the best we can hope for is a strong Minority Government.
> 
> It has now come to the state that we will have the Government, for which no one has elected (Voter Apathy).




Not so.

There are three ways to win a majority, even with five parties, in the current situation:

1.	For Liberals: Sweep Ontario and make significant gains in the West, à la Jean Chrétien in 1993 and 1997 (35th and 36th general elections) – this involves reducing the Conservatives back to a Western rump;
2.	For Liberals: Sweep Ontario and Atlantic Canada take about half of Québec’s seats – this is a more probable outcome for the Liberals; or
3.	For Conservatives: hold the West and take 20± seats away from the Liberals in Ontario.

See here, too.

Plus, for the Conservatives: After the next redistribution of (an increased number of) seats (see: here) win half the 33 new seats, all of which are in BC, AB and ON.


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 Sep 2009)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_ web site, is *good news* for those few of us who actually want an election:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/senior-tory-nixes-deal-with-ndp/article1273588/


> Senior Tory nixes deal with NDP
> *Reaching common ground with ‘hard-core left-wing ideologues' not possible, Kenney says in response to Ignatieff's election threat*
> 
> Steven Chase and Bill Curry
> ...




Of course this is, primarily, red meat for the _Refoooooorm_ faithful and such, but it’s good to hear.


----------



## GAP (2 Sep 2009)

Ignatieff's list
Norman Spector Wednesday, September 2, 2009 08:31 AM
Article Link

By the end of the year, Michael Ignatieff could very well be the prime minister of Canada. Alternatively, voters may feel we need an election like a hole in the head — as he once famously put it — and they may punish him for putting partisan interests ahead of economic recovery, as Stephen Harper is suggesting.

If we are now to have the election he thought unnecessary in June — which today appears likely though still not certain — one would hope that Mr. Ignatieff will not repeat one part of his speech to the Liberal caucus yesterday. “A Canadian is a Canadian is a Canadian,” he said, and slowly enunciated the names of individuals whom, in his view, the Harper government had failed to defend abroad: “Suaad Mohamud. Omar Khadr. Makhtal. Bahari. Mohamed. Abdelrazik” — leaving it to viewers to infer that the Conservatives were bigots in dealing with immigrants, visible minorities and Muslims, in particular.

Notably, Mr. Ignatieff left one name off his list that would belie that thesis — Ronald Smith, a Canadian who’s on death row in Montana for murdering two aboriginal men. Aside from Mr. Smith being white and Alberta-born, the case stands in stark contrast to that of Mohamed Kohail, a young Montreal Muslim who’s been convicted of murder in Saudi Arabia. For, whereas the Harper government for the longest time insisted that Mr. Smith should be dealt with by the U.S. justice system, which includes the possibility of capital punishment, it has been making every effort to spare Mr. Khohail from being beheaded. 
More on link


----------



## a_majoor (2 Sep 2009)

I don't see any issue the Liberals can seize upon for electoral advantage (and sorry Edward, I really don't see the need for an election at all).

In fact, along with the ongoing economic recovery, the CPC could gain a huge advantage by posting a detailed plan to balance the books in the "post stimulus" era to demonstrate they have long term economic management plans and skills. 

Add the relative financial positions of the parties and the Liberals look to be in the position of masons busily working to remove the keystone of an arch suspended above them by calling for an election.......


----------



## a_majoor (3 Sep 2009)

OK, so maybe counting on people's rationality isn't the best way to make predictions (see post above). Finances will still make this a very dicey proposition for the Liberals, and watching them empty their treasure chest and go further into debt won't cause me to shed any tears....

http://unambig.wordpress.com/2009/09/02/ignatieff-throws-down-his-magic-gauntlet/



> Ignatieff Throws Down His Magic Gauntlet
> September 2, 2009 — Raphael Alexander
> 
> CANADA-IGNATIEFF/
> ...



Now Edward's got me started....

The Liberals will have a very tough row to hoe looking at these numbers:

http://climbingoutofthedark.blogspot.com/2009/09/i-agree-with-iggy.html



> This is music to my Conservative ears. Instead of having to wait another year or so for a Conservative majority, we now have Iggy giving it to us on a golden platter. Now this could be my own bias, but remember this post of mine?
> 
> *Vancouver South 22
> Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca 68
> ...


----------



## retiredgrunt45 (3 Sep 2009)

The last election is a prime indication that Canadians as a whole have become very disengaged with our political process, I think its mainly due to the caliber of the politicians we now have to choose from. I agree with George that until this country has politicians with some charisma and are actually able to engage and excite the voters, we are doomed to have minority governments for the forseeable future.

Of the four party leaders only one comes across as having any idea of what he's doing and it pains me to say it's Gilles Duceppe. It's to bad he's a separtist.

The other three are well the 3 stooges. Harper is "Moe", Igatieff is "Larry" and Layton is "Curly"

If these three are the only choices we have, it's no wonder Canadians don't vote...


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 Sep 2009)

More from Norman Spector, reproduced under eth Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/spector-vision/its-not-a-game/article1274200/


> It’s not a game
> 
> Norman Spector
> 
> ...



First point: If, as I rather hope he will, _Prince Michael_ manages to pull this off – forces a completely unnecessary election – then he will, almost certainly lose. I suspect that, if the Conservatives campaign well, he might end up with even fewer seats than now. He may, probably will, grab two or three Québec seats from the BQ and he and/or Duceppe may take three or four Québec seats from the Conservatives, but my _guesstimate_ (_waaaaay_ too early on) is that he will lose one or two in BC and as many as ten or fifteen of his 35+ ON seats – maybe even enough to give the Conservatives a very slim majority. He will, then, face a leadership challenge from with the LPC which, most likely, he will also lose and, according to tradition, he will be replaced by a Québecer. The most likely Québecer, right now, is this asshat dimwit gasbag:







Denis Coderre.

I’m guessing we are going to see some interesting poll results after Labour Day. That’s when Canadians, traditionally, start to think (as much as some ever do) about politics. I’m also guessing that the polls are going to scare the hell out of Ignatieff and _Taliban Jack_ Layton.

I don’t think the Conservatives will go for hope the Conservatives will reject a “four for four” deal – it’s fiscal nonsense. If the poll numbers show both the Liberals and NDP going down then there is no reason for Harper to avoid an election. If, on the other hand, the Conservatives are going down, too or instead of the Liberals, then Harper may need hold his nose and deal with the _Dippers_.


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 Sep 2009)

And here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_, is the “response” from Harper and Layton:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/no-backroom-deals-to-avert-election/article1274520/


> No ‘backroom deals' to avert election
> *Breaking silence, Layton says it's up to Harper to ‘reach out,' but PM shuns idea as poll shows Liberals and Tories tied down to a decimal point*
> 
> Bill Curry and Steven Chase
> ...



The _” bills and motions on pension reform, employment insurance and credit-card rules”_ that the _Dippers_ have put forward are all fiscally irresponsible but as I mentioned above there may have to be a deal IF public opinion does not move away from _Prince Michael_ and towards Prime Minister Harper.

Additionally, the Conservative fundraising _machine_ called this morning, looking for *more* money – I’m already a regular, monthly, donor. I gave extra; the lady tells me I’m now nearing my legal limit. I asked her how her calls were going. “More than half donated right off, just like you,” she said, “many said they would donate more if an election is called. Only a very, very few gave a flat ‘no.’” I wonder how the LPC fundraisers are doing.


----------



## a_majoor (3 Sep 2009)

If the Liberals force an election through accident or on purpose they will either remain in the same position in parliament or go even further south. Given the various numbers (financial, number of competitive ridings [7000 votes nation wide between a minority and majority CPC government], lack of momentum in the polls etc.) this seems to be a very expensive and desperate vanity project for Mr Ignatieff, a calculated move to throw him under the bus by Liberal party rivals or maybe something else is in the air:

Another coup attempt by the coalition of the inept?


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (3 Sep 2009)

The good thing is that the Liberals are saving up Bob Rae to give the Conservatives another victory in the future.


----------



## Shec (4 Sep 2009)

The concern that another election would put the brakes upon the rate of recovery is, IMHO, a very legitimate one.   Economic prosperity is in many ways a function of business confidence;  confidence is in many ways contingent upon stable government, and a 4th election in 5 years is hardly a stable governance environment.  Partisan considerations aside, and without denying the democratic process,  an election is the last thing we need _right now_.  

Now to get partisan.  Having worked in the federal bureaucracy under both Liberal and Conservative political masters I will observe that under the latter there is much more of an emphasis upon both accountability and results.  What is wrong with that?


----------



## Edward Campbell (4 Sep 2009)

If we are going to have an election in 2009 then we will need to re-accustom ourselves to dealing with “lies, damned lies and statistics” from all sources.

This column, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _National Post_, shows that the distortions, misinformation and bald-faced lies come well before the writs are dropped:

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=3cb1853b-a034-4ca2-b4a6-bd9f2382e234


> Liberals playing with numbers
> *Canada holding up well, says BMO economist*
> 
> John Ivison, National Post
> ...




We are going to be bombarded with conflicting economic information propaganda in any forthcoming election campaign. The Conservatives will tell us, falsely, that all is going well, the recession is over (probably true) and good times are here (not so). The Liberals will tell us, even more falsely, that we are going to economic hell in a hand-basket (not true) and that only they can save us (how? by “doing better?”).


----------



## GAP (4 Sep 2009)

Lorne Gunter: Harper is no more "divisive" than Trudeau
September 04, 2009, 9:30 AM by NP Editor Lorne Gunter, Canadian politics
Article Link

Earlier this week, I wrote that the Liberals' pledge to force an election at the earliest possible juncture was motivated by pure vanity on their part. They have no overarching issue, scandal or policy to present to voters. The Liberals simply can't stand being in opposition any longer. They believe government is their rightful place. So at a time when our economy is just beginning to recover and would be threatened by the uncertainty an election brings, the Liberals are nonetheless willing to risk the nation's fragile growth merely to wrest the tiller of minority power from the Tories.

Not surprisingly, many Liberal readers objected to my line of reasoning. Plenty of them argued that replacing the Tories was reason enough to force an election. The Tories are "ruining Canada," one claimed, without citing specifics. In order to save the nation before it is entirely demolished, it is necessary to toss out Stephen Harper and his caucus and "replace them with a party that understands Canadian identity and values."

How convenient for the Liberals that theirs is the only party, in their minds, that possesses a full understanding of Canada. How convenient for their election excuse-making, too: nation in peril. Ours the only party that can stave off oblivion. Therefore, forcing an election is not selfish, but rather a national imperative in the public's best interest.

But my favourite justification offered for forcing an unwanted, premature election was this: "Stephen Harper is the most divisive prime minister we have ever had. Getting rid of him will bring our country together again."

To this reader, I replied, "Don't you mean the most divisive prime minister since Jean Chretien? Mr. Chretien was pretty divisive in my part of the country."
More on link


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Sep 2009)

The Liberals are "first out of the gate" with new TV ads, here and here.

Interesting, maybe, that in the French ad he singles out _le gouvernement Harper_ rather than e.g. _"le gouvernement conservateur"_ or_"la partie conservateur."_ Possibly trying to capitalize on the fact that Harper, himself, is not as popular as the _blue_ brand in QC.


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Sep 2009)

The first poll of the pre-election season, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/new-poll-gives-tories-the-edge/article1278722/


> New poll gives Tories the edge
> *Survey puts support for Harper's Conservatives at 35 per cent, five percentage points ahead of Ignatieff's Liberals*
> 
> Michael Valpy
> ...




I suspect this trend, *away* from an election rather than *towards* the Tories, will hold for a bit unless or until either the Liberals or Conservatives can frame a “ballot question” that actually makes Canadians want an election. Or, more likely, until the Tories can make Canadians dislike or mistrust _Prince Michael_ because he's forcing an election out of personal ambition.


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Sep 2009)

The tactics are becoming more obvious, I think. The Tories would really like an election, assuming the polls (see above) are anything like accurate. This report is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/tories-to-introduce-own-ei-reform/article1278718/


> Tories to introduce own EI reform
> *Human Resources Minister says changes to come in fall session; Liberals question why proposals weren't made to the bipartisan working group*
> 
> Rhéal Séguin
> ...




The Conservatives need to convince Canadians that:

1.	An election is unnecessary, even a bad idea, because they (the Tories) are doing a good job managing the country in difficult times; *but*

2.	_Prince Michael_ Ignatieff is *forcing* an election because of his own personal ambition and sense of _entitlement_; and, therefore

3.	Canadians need to hold their noses, go to the polls, again, and punish the Liberals.


----------



## GAP (8 Sep 2009)

> Canadians need to hold their noses, go to the polls, again, and punish the Liberals.



And they very well may....the Conservatives have been steady in their management, which takes the wind out of the Liberal sails for the most part. Gone is the hidden agenda, the firewall, etc....doesn't leave much...


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Sep 2009)

I think we can count on the *hidden agenda*® being resurrected because so many left leaning/anti-Conservative Canadians (a pretty solid majority of the population, I think) really want to believe it.

The *firewall*® should be resurrected as a legitimate issue because it *may* be the rock upon which Harper’s political philosophy rests. Now, personally, I like the idea behind the firewall. Even though we are, already, the most decentralized federation in the world – not by design intent (the _Fathers of Confederation_, with the US Civil War fresh in their minds, wanted a strong central government) but rather by inept drafting in London. (In fairness, British civil servants had no experience in drafting written constitutions or in _designing_ federal systems; it’s not surprising they failed to see the future when they crafted the division of powers part.) In my view the only way the country will be kept together – if, Big IF that is even a good idea – is to decentralize even further. Maybe Joe Clark was on the right track, for the only time in his life, when he proposed a “community of communities” model.

The Liberals will have a tough time framing an acceptable “ballot question” - convincing Canadians that there is some issue that *demands* a new, Liberal government; they will, therefore, have to reinforce Canadians existing dislike of Stephen Harper while making Ignatieff a whole lot more likable. But _Prince Michael_ is not anything like _’tit Jean_ Chrétien who, despite being a bully and an old line political pro was able to “sell” himself as an _ordinary_, likable “little guy.” Watch for real, nasty attack ads from both sides. Canadians do not “like” Harper, but they appear to have developed a grudging respect for him – something upon which the Conservatives can build IF the economy continues to improve – slowly though such improvements may arrive. The Liberals have to convince Canadians that Harper’s policies have made the recovery slower than its should/could have been – that’s one area where the *hidden agenda*® will come into play.

The Conservatives need to counter on three fronts:

1.	Portraying _Prince Michael_ and the Liberals as power hungry egomaniacs – not too hard since a whole lot of Liberals are just that;

2.	Finding a handful of Conservative *star* candidates who can, at least, pretend to care about the travails of the unemployed. (This will be tough because real, _principled_ Conservatives will care little about unemployment, understanding that the market will, eventually, address the problem and

3.	Continuing to try to frighten Canadians into believing that an election will prevent some useful projects that *might* be of some measurable, material to them. (“The Liberals will stop you from getting something for nothing. Bad Liberals!”)


----------



## a_majoor (8 Sep 2009)

I agree and disagree.

The points about what, if any issues can be used for an election are quite true and believable, but given the additional data of sliding Liberal fortunes at the polls (or at least firm NDP support) along with the other negative factors and I am more inclined to believe that we will be seeing some sort of Parliamentary set up for another coup attempt and another "Coalition".

Why spend a fortune from the party treasury and leave the results to the whims of the fickle voters? 

In fact, given the steady change in Canada's demographic, economic and social profile, I suspect it is really now or never for the LPC, the historical electoral trend is not in their favor and another election defeat might be enough to splinter the Liberal left and send those voters to the NDP and Green parties.


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Sep 2009)

The coalition is problematical.

Given that we have had ten months of parliament and given that, despite the economy, there is no real *crisis*, the GG, even were she so inclined, has no constitutional grounds to do anything except drop the writs.

Assuming the Conservatives “win” – have the most seats – she is, again on constitutional grounds, highly unlikely not going to call on anyone except the Conservatives to form a government.

If, Big IF, a Liberal/_Dipper_ (and maybe BQ, too) _alliance_ decides to topple the government very early on and then ask the GG for a _coalition_ she will, likely, have to give them a chance. *But* they will then be toast. A coalition that includes the _Dippers_ *will* pursue policies that *will*, fairly quickly, provoke an economic crisis – disinvestment. There will be a _popular revolt_ that will sink both parties – and they know it.

Harper screwed up in the late fall of 2008. He made a Joe Clark style rookie mistake: proposing to _“govern as if he had a majority.”_ he didn’t; it was near death experience. But it was a near death experience for everyone, including _Taliban Jack_ Layton. For better or worse, Canadians are incredibly ignorant about their own constitution and system of government and they – a large majority of them - believe, wholly and completely incorrectly, that coalitions are unconstitutional or, at least, _improper_. That fact was not lost on anyone. Coalitions are out of fashion unless there is a “good” issue – another rookie mistake by Harper.

I agree with Thucydides on the _historic_ moment for the Liberals. Demographics are against them – see my “new Canada” comments elsewhere; “new Canada” tends to be neo-liberal, not Liberal.


----------



## Rifleman62 (8 Sep 2009)

*Harper's 2008 election call to be challenged*
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/09/08/democracy-watch008.html

Last Updated: Tuesday, September 8, 2009 | 6:30 AM ET 

The Federal Court of Canada is scheduled to hear arguments Tuesday against the election call last fall by Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

Democracy Watch, a citizens' group that monitors ethics in government, is to argue before the court in Ottawa that Harper violated his own legislation by calling the election before he'd served four years in office.

The only way an election could have been called then was if the government had fallen on a vote of no-confidence, said the group's founder, Duff Conacher.

Under Harper's fixed election date law, which was promised in the 2006 campaign by the Tories, the vote was not supposed to be held until Oct. 19, 2009.

When the law was introduced and passed in 2007, the minister of democratic reform, Rob Nicholson, who is now justice minister, said the measures restricted the prime minister from calling an election unless a vote of no-confidence occurred before October 2009.

The legal challenge comes as the Liberals unveiled campaign-style ads on the weekend. Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff said last week that his party intends to vote against the minority Conservative government at the earliest opportunity after Parliament resumes on September 14. 

With files from The Canadian Press


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (8 Sep 2009)

The Governor-General dissolves parliaments and calls elections at her pleasure and her decision is beyond review by the courts.  Lacking a constitutional amendment, her powers cannot be altered.  I would also suspect that any conversation that took place between the prime minister and the governor general may be privileged.  My recollection is that the prime minister isn't even mentioned in the constitution but it's been 30 years since I read it.


----------



## Journeyman (8 Sep 2009)

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> ...her decision is beyond review by the courts.


The Federal Court seems to disagree. I suspect they'll be phoning you shortly to sort all this out.


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Sep 2009)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> The Federal Court seems to disagree. I suspect they'll be phoning you shortly to sort all this out.



*IF* I understand what I've been reading - not always a good assumption - Conacher/_Democracy Watch_ are not challenging HE's *right* (or duty) to drop the writs, they are challenging Stephen Harper's *right* to ask for an election, absent a vote of non-confidence.


----------



## dapaterson (8 Sep 2009)

Besides, this broadside is Politics, not politics.  The intent is to draw negative attention to the PM, regardless of the outcome of the case.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (8 Sep 2009)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> The Federal Court seems to disagree. I suspect they'll be phoning you shortly to sort all this out.



I don't think that they phone everyone with an opinion.  Should I feel guilty about having an opinion?

Constitution Act 1867



> 13.  The Provisions of this Act referring to the Governor General in Council shall be construed as referring to the Governor General acting by and with the Advice of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada.
> 
> 50.  Every House of Commons shall continue for Five Years from the Day of the Return of the Writs for choosing the House (subject to be sooner dissolved by the Governor General), and no longer.



Section 50 indicates that the Governor-General is solely responsible for dissolving the House of Commons before the end of its 5 year life.  My guess is that the law was ultra vires in that parliament passed a meaningless law beyond their purview.  Absolute authority to call elections still rests with the governor general and not with the House Of Commons.

Bill C16 as passed in 2007



> 56.1 (1) Nothing in this section affects the powers of the Governor General, including the power to dissolve Parliament at the Governor General’s discretion.



http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=2475836&Language=e&Mode=1&File=27


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Sep 2009)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> ...
> Harper screwed up in the late fall of 2008. He made a Joe Clark style rookie mistake: proposing to _“govern as if he had a majority.”_ he didn’t; it was near death experience. But it was a near death experience for everyone, including _Taliban Jack_ Layton. For better or worse, Canadians are incredibly ignorant about their own constitution and system of government and they – a large majority of them - believe, wholly and completely incorrectly, that coalitions are unconstitutional or, at least, _improper_. That fact was not lost on anyone. Coalitions are out of fashion unless there is a “good” issue – another rookie mistake by Harper.
> ...




Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_, is a suggestion that the Conservatives will try to exploit Canadians’ ignorance:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/tories-to-stoke-fear-of-opposition-coalition/article1279929/


> Tories to stoke fear of opposition coalition
> *Election strategy will feature attack on Liberal propensity for making deals with 'socialists and separatists'*
> 
> Steven Chase and Campbell Clark
> ...




I suspect Prof. Flanagan is right: this will be (another) election fought on _fear and loathing_ rather than issues. There are no issues. The economy is recovering, slowly and joblessly, for now. It requires careful, prudent management. _Prince Michael_ is promising a faster recovery without tax increases; that’s easy to do; Chrétien/Martin did it by _downloading_ their deficit to AB, BC and ON. Harper has promised not to download Canada’s problems to the provinces; he also promised, back in 2006, not to call an election before 19 Oct 09.


----------



## GAP (9 Sep 2009)

> Harper has promised not to download Canada’s problems to the provinces; he also promised, back in 2006, not to call an election before 19 Oct 09.



Well, he can still make it, albeit with a few days either way......oh, we had one preview about a year ago...


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Sep 2009)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Another factor: At some undetermined point in the future the seat distribution in the House of Commons will change as follows:
> 
> •	Territories: From 3 to 3 – no change – percentage of seats remains at >1
> •	BC: From 36 to 43 – *+ 7* – percentage of seats rises to 12.6
> ...




See here – especially this bit:

_” The population of Quebec will shrink to barely one-fifth of Canada's by 2031 - implying, according to economist Brian Lee Crowley in an important new book, "a big drop in the province's relative weight in the House of Commons." In fact, he calculates, Quebec's influence will fall from 75 out of 308 MPs to 75 out of 375. The political implications would be profound. 

British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario together would have roughly 250 members," Mr. Crowley says. "Winning three-quarters of those seats would give a political party an overall majority in the Commons without a single Quebec seat, or indeed a seat in any other province." Ottawa's long bidding war with Quebec for the loyalty (and votes) of Quebeckers would end - and an historic transformation of Canada would begin.”_

And not a moment too soon, either.


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Sep 2009)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _National Post_ is a report that bodes ill for the _Prince Michael_ and the Liberals:

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/09/08/liberals-mutter-darkly-over-ignatieff-election-bravado.aspx


> Liberals mutter darkly over Ignatieff election bravado
> 
> September 08, 2009
> 
> ...



I agree with the unnamed Liberal strategist that _”Ignatieff has shown real leadership by taking the issue off the table.”_ There can be little doubt that the caucus was chaffing under the continued “need” to keep supporting Harper.

But _Prince Michael_’s “leadership” would have been much, much better had he pulled the plug in June when he had a very good chance of beating Harper who, just a few short months ago, looked weak and was dealing, fitfully, with an economic crisis.

Now? Not so much. Harper has regained his footing; he looks strong; the economy is inching forward again. It may be good leadership but its not “very good” or “exceptional” and I suspect it’s not going to be good enough. I looks, to me, like _Iggy_ is being a leader, however good or not so good, but the only alternative is be Dion_ized_ for not being able to lead.


----------



## dapaterson (9 Sep 2009)

A former ministerial staffer (Liberal) explained to me that he'd periodically talk politics with his mother, back home, far from Ottawa.

If the issues he raised didn't resonate he'd know that they were artifacts of the game of politics - and not real political issues outside the Ottawa bubble.

It seems that Mr Ignatieff (aside: Why has the press settled on the somewhat dismissive diminutive Iggy?  Because "Mike" was already taken by Lester B.?) lacks that voice of reason from outside the Ottawa bubble - there will be an election because Ottawa insiders think there should be an election, not because of any grassrooots demand or compelling issue that would make the grassroots rally.


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Sep 2009)

Jeffrey Simpson detests the 21st century Conservative Party; he can barely bring himself to call them _Conservatives_, preferring, instead, the derogatory _Harperites_. But he is equally dismayed by his only other choice, _Prince Michael_, and he tells us why in this column, reproduced under the fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/on-truth-fear-and-broken-political-promises/article1279733/


> On truth, fear and broken political promises
> *As an intellectual, Michael Ignatieff didn't have to settle for a world of rationalizations*
> 
> Jeffrey Simpson
> ...




Poor Jeffrey Simpson, his idol has feet of clay.

But this is a stunning indictment of Ignatieff and it is from a wholly unexpected source. A lot of Liberals will be in shock.


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Sep 2009)

Here, reproduced under the fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_ web site, is more *early* polling data:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ignatieffs-support-slips-on-sabre-rattling/article1280965/


> Ignatieff's support slips on sabre-rattling
> *Election threat prompts 15-point spike in Liberal Leader's negative ratings, poll suggests*
> 
> Ottawa — The Canadian Press
> ...




Conservative partisans should not read too much into this; it is, probably, expected by all sides.

IF we really are going to have a fall election then the Liberals have to find an issue and the Conservatives have to reinforce _Prince Michael_’s “negatives.”


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Sep 2009)

Here, reproduced under the fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_, is another “shot” from a normally Liberal friendly source:



> *Globe editorial*
> 
> An off-putting air of entitlement
> *Michael Ignatieff is asking Canadians to choose between his party and the alternatives, without presenting any solid reason to make such a choice. He, more than anyone, needs to do better*
> ...



_Prince Michael_ has to work very, very hard, very, vary quickly, to prove that there is some need for an election. Even his friends are not convinced.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (9 Sep 2009)

'We can do better'. When I first saw that, I thought they were speaking of their own party and not Canada in general.

I'm sure I'm not the only one.

So their first salvo, and the pompousity has already produced something that is confusing and can smack them back.

I like it ;D


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Sep 2009)

More polling, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _CBC_ web site:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/09/09/ekos-poll.html


> Liberal support softening, poll suggests
> 
> Thursday, September 10, 2009
> 
> ...









The big news is not the support or, rather, lack of same for any of the _national_ parties, it is that 70% of Canadians do not want an election. This is something about which all party leaders must worry. IF there is going to be an election it may be won or lost on the basis of which party Canadians *blame* for calling the damned thing.


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Sep 2009)

I think the biggest political _problem_ lies in the centre of the chart in my adjacent CBC polling post. The _Dippers_ will be attacking the Liberals, hard, for a few seats in Vancouver and Toronto and to defend their lone Québec seat and, perhaps, to gain another. Meanwhile the _Greens_ will be going after the committed environmentalists who are, disproportionately, concentrated in the NDP.

That brings us to this story, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/may-tosses-hat-into-ring-for-bc-riding/article1279346/


> May tosses hat into ring for B.C. riding
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Neither the Greens nor Ms. May are quite ready, yet, for prime time. She will face internal dissention over her choice of ridings from two flanks: the _activist_ who has been working the riding for a long time and wants to be the candidate, and from the few _”political pros”_ in the Party who wonder why she wants to take on high profile, hard to beat, Conservatives. Is she really running for a seat or is she just trying to help a Liberal unseat a Tory minister?


----------



## dapaterson (10 Sep 2009)

Peripheral question:  With the jungle drums beating an election rhythm, why has Robert Fowler chosen now to break his silence with the media (albeit with hand-picked media only)?  The man is nothing if not a creature of political Ottawa; why come out now?  What is is attempting to influence?

Games within games...


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Sep 2009)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_, is a suggestion that the Conservatives will try to exploit Canadians’ ignorance:
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/tories-to-stoke-fear-of-opposition-coalition/article1279929/
> 
> I suspect Prof. Flanagan is right: this will be (another) election fought on _fear and loathing_ rather than issues. There are no issues. The economy is recovering, slowly and joblessly, for now. It requires careful, prudent management. _Prince Michael_ is promising a faster recovery without tax increases; that’s easy to do; Chrétien/Martin did it by _downloading_ their deficit to AB, BC and ON. Harper has promised not to download Canada’s problems to the provinces; he also promised, back in 2006, not to call an election before 19 Oct 09.




Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _National Post_, is Don Martin’s take on one *possible* outcome of a fall election:

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/09/09/don-martin-tories-to-warn-of-second-coalition.aspx


> *Don Martin*: Tories to warn of second coalition
> 
> September 09, 2009
> 
> ...




I agree with Martin:

•	A coalition, formed after the opposition parties vote “no confidence” in a re-elected Conservative minority, is *constitutionally probable*; and

•	A coalition is _Prince Michael_’s best choice IF it doesn’t include the BQ. 

But, the second _condition_ implies that the Liberals can and will grab a whole slew of seats away from the Conservatives and the NDP and the BQ. I find that highly unlikely.

Where is disagree with Martin is on Canadians. I think they really are _afraid_ of a coalition (because they are totally uninformed about how their parliament and the parliamentary “system” work) and I believe that their ignorance and fears can be stoked and exploited to the Conservatives’ advantage.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (10 Sep 2009)

May's ego won't let her run against some small time neophyte. She sees herself as a dragon killer and is delusional enough to think she can succeed.

What they have to do is lock her out of the Leader's debates. She's not entitled to be there and she doesn't have Dion bleating to include her.

Is Ralph Benmurgie still her campaign manager? One can only hope.


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Sep 2009)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Peripheral question:  With the jungle drums beating an election rhythm, why has Robert Fowler chosen now to break his silence with the media (albeit with hand-picked media only)?  The man is nothing if not a creature of political Ottawa; why come out now?  What is is attempting to influence?
> 
> Games within games...




Without knowing or even wanting guess at what motivates a guy as smart as Bob Fowler, I might suggest that:

•	His interest in *making* public policy is undiminished;

•	He believes that African _instability_ is at least as big a long term threat to the American led West as is radical, fundamentalist, _jihadist_ Islam; and

•	He believes that the UN is still the “best hope” for world peace and that a UN *mandate* is still an essential tool for action in the world; but

•	He believes that the UN is organizationally incapable of mounting and managing the sorts of complex, *robust* _peacemaking_ operations that are required in the 21st century.

I emphasize: that’s what I think he *might* believe - can I be any more indefinite?

Does he want us out of Afghanistan? He certainly did 18 months ago when he said something like _”The opportunity costs are too high. We are spending way too much on Afghanistan and ignoring growing problems in e.g. Africa.”_ and _”Success, military or diplomatic is problematical. There are several “conditions” which will make success, for Canada, impossible. When any of these conditions obtain we should have the political “smarts” and will to withdraw, quickly.”_

Does he want us “in” Africa? I think he does – and I am very sure he understand how complex, bloody and deadly it may be – because I suspect that he cannot see any less *robust* way to sort Africa out – something he thinks is a *vital interest* of the American led West.

Is he a Liberal (or Conservative) partisan? Is he trying to provide _ammunition_ for _Prince Michael_ (or for Prime Minister Harper)? No, I don’t think so, even though he is related (through his wife) to Liberal MP Dominic LeBlanc.

I believe Mr. Fowler’s political instincts are as sharp as ever - and that means very sharp, indeed, but I also believe that he “bleeds” the apolitical, old time public service ethos. 

I hope I am clear that I *do not know* what Mr. Fowler is "doing." I know I don't know and I suspect that no one in politics, the media, academe or the bureaucracy does, either.


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Sep 2009)

This report, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _National Post_, is more bad news for _Prince Michael_:

 http://www.financialpost.com/story.html?id=1979270


> Bank of Canada holds rates, sees quicker recovery
> *Holds benchmark rate at 0.25%*
> 
> Paul Vieira, Financial Post
> ...



If the economy is getting better faster than expected why do we need an election to change “managers?”

Even the strengthening dollar – which is *bad* for our exports – is political “good news” because Canadians “like” a strong dollar, because they don’t understand or care about economics.


----------



## GAP (10 Sep 2009)

During the second part of Mr. Fowler's interview last night he was asked about Afghanistan and basically came across as "Canada will not invest the blood and treasure enough to make a difference, because it is so different and difficult....we cannot hope to win, because others have tried and failed"

I think that pretty firmly puts him in the camp that wants to leave, but I also think ER is right in thinking that Mr. Fowler wants us in Africa, however we get there...that was evident throughout his interview....


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Sep 2009)

GAP said:
			
		

> During the second part of Mr. Fowler's interview last night he was asked about Afghanistan and basically came across as "Canada will not invest the blood and treasure enough to make a difference, because it is so different and difficult....we cannot hope to win, because others have tried and failed"
> 
> I think that pretty firmly puts him in the camp that wants to leave, but I also think ER is right in thinking that Mr. Fowler wants us in Africa, however we get there...that was evident throughout his interview....




Mr. Fowler's interest in Africa, which includes a genuine, human concern for Africans, is long standing. It was clearly evident when he was our Ambassador to the UN and, I think it went beyond the strict confines of his mandate from Primer Minister Mulroney's government. And Mr. Mulroney was very "active" on the African file.

I have heard Mr. Fowler speak on why we must "fix" Africa before it explodes in our faces. I find his reasoning very persuasive. He, not Stephen Lewis or Roméo Dallaire, really "sees" Africa in a strategic sense. Not everyone agrees with his vision but I haven't heard anyone suggest it is anything but clear and coherent.


----------



## dapaterson (10 Sep 2009)

I concur with the underlying motives of Mr Fowler - his interest in Africa is well known.  My question is more to do with timing.  Not "Why Africa?" but rather "Why now?"

* An interview with a generally sympathetic news outlet

* Immediately after Labour day, when the house is gearing up to sit again

* Just before the 8th anniversary of the Sept 11 attacks

* While opposition parties are promising to bring down the government

* When the question of Canada's post-2011 military commitment to Afghanistan remains opaque - and what that may mean for the ability of the CF to project to another location


Bob Fowler is not stupid; he suffers from the smartest man in the room affliction (in part, the reason others in NDHQ disliked him - he was smarter than them, could see through many of their ploys, and was not easily baffled with bullshit).  Knowing that, the question remains:  Not what is he doing, but why is he doing it at this time?


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Sep 2009)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_ web site, is another _blog_ by Norman Spector:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/spector-vision/harpers-nutty-suggestion/article1281783/


> Harper's nutty suggestion
> 
> Norman Spector
> 
> ...



Yup! Mr. Harper has already disavowed “backroom deals” with the BQ or the _Dippers_. He should have no problem saying no to a post election *coalition* with those two parties. _Prince Michael_ could then be pressed to do the same, much to his discomfort.

I am fairly sure that Canadians will punish anyone who brings the BQ into any sort of *formal* “arrangement.” The political optics are – or can easily be made to be – too bad.

About 60% (I guess) of Canadians will conclude that any sort of *formal* arrangement with the NDP is bad policy and they will punish anyone who makes such an arrangement.

It, eschewing “deals ” with either the _Bloc_ or the _Dippers_, should be a no-brainer for the Conservatives but it may be a harder sell for that segment of the Liberal Party of Canada that is both incurably power hungry and on the socio-economic left wing of the Party.


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Sep 2009)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> I concur with the underlying motives of Mr Fowler - his interest in Africa is well known.  My question is more to do with timing.  Not "Why Africa?" but rather "Why now?"
> 
> * An interview with a generally sympathetic news outlet
> 
> ...



OK, then stripped of all the speculation in the middle, my answer remains:



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> 1.	His interest in *making* public policy is undiminished; and
> 
> 2.	Mr. Fowler’s political instincts are as sharp as ever - and that means very sharp, indeed, but I also believe that he “bleeds” the apolitical, old time public service ethos.



I can only guess that he sees now as an opportune moment – maybe before we get caught up in _election fever_ – to get his views out in the open. And national TV is a much bigger “tool” than he has used before.

2011 is not, in policy terms, very far away.

I am prepared to bet that arguments are raging amongst the _high priced help_ at _Fort Fumble_ (NDHQ) and in _Festung Pearson_ (DFAIT) about what if any Canadian military forces are to remain somewhere in Afghanistan after 2011. My guess is that Mr. Fowler would like to see as few as possible – he might want the rest to be rested, re-equipped and prepared for missions in Africa.

I think he is correct in concluding that Canadians, broadly, are unwilling to invest the blood and treasure that the Afghanistan mission needs. That means you, the CF, will not be allowed to fight and win. *Perhaps* it is better to come home and then try something – equally important - that *might* be achievable.


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Sep 2009)

One more thing: Mr. Fowler knows how to “reach” politicians. He is very much at home in the _corridors of power_ and in the business of _speaking truth to power_. So he must understand that, accustomed as they are to listening to smart men in grey suits speaking quietly but forcefully, politicians really “listen” to and act upon the loud, uniformed bellows of the _ lumpenproletariat_.

Perhaps he is trying, right now, to move the herd in his direction.


----------



## dapaterson (10 Sep 2009)

Edward: I'd argue against any real chance for success in Africa, but can find little flaw in your logic.  It's just that, a decade ago, if anyone said "Bob Fowler will willingly talk to the media" they'd have received more than a few odd looks.

[mode set politically correct OFF]

So I guess Fowler is now Canada's answer to Kipling, calling on us to wage



> The savage wars of peace--
> Fill full the mouth of Famine
> And bid the sickness cease;



http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/Kipling.html


----------



## GAP (10 Sep 2009)

If they think Afghanistan is hard, they haven't seen anything yet if they consider going into Africa....but I'm preaching to the choir... :


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Sep 2009)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Edward: I'd argue against any real chance for success in Africa, but can find little flaw in your logic.  It's just that, a decade ago, if anyone said "Bob Fowler will willingly talk to the media" they'd have received more than a few odd looks.
> 
> [mode set politically correct OFF]
> 
> ...




I think his recent sojourn in academe (University of Ottawa/Centre for International Policy Studies) opened him to a more _active_ approach. The days of “great men” enjoying a quiet retirement amongst the ”dreaming spires” are long gone. Some of the senior fellows are, I suspect, re-energized and, indeed, find a new focus through their contacts with one another and the university community – which is, my constant grumblings notwithstanding, full of bright people.

But even an _active_, _public_ Bob Fowler picks each word with care. He is another of those people that Brian Mulroney so delightfully described as those “who think in complete sentences.”



Edit: corrected punctuation


----------



## dapaterson (10 Sep 2009)

Ah, the classics.  I still remember muffling a laugh when the-then GG, Ms Clarkson, selectively quoted Tennyson's Ulysses in a speech.  I got odd looks for my laughter; apparently, knowing classic poetry is a fading skill.

Her words to describe the CF in 2001:



> And as such you are, like Ulysses in Tennyson's poem,
> 
> "One equal temper of heroic hearts
> .... strong in will,
> To strive, to seek, to find and not to yield."



Of course, Tennyson's words were even more appropriate unredacted:



> Tho' much is taken, much abides; and tho'
> We are not now that strength which in old days
> Moved earth and heaven, that which we are, we are;
> One equal temper of heroic hearts,
> ...



I'm sure that whichever political flack proof-read her speech and missed the underlying message was later flogged.


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Sep 2009)

The campaigning for an election – the one that most Canadians believe ought not to happen at all - is well under way, according to this report, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_ web site:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/flaherty-to-unveil-blueprint-to-balanced-budget/article1282292/


> Flaherty to unveil blueprint to balanced budget
> *Meant to bolster Tory credentials ahead of possible election, Finance Minister's plan would see Ottawa back into the black by 2015 without tax hikes or cuts to provincial transfers*
> 
> Steven Chase
> ...



Flaherty’s _quesstimate_ of a balanced budget by 2015 – I presume Fiscal Year 2015/16 – appears to be _roughly_ in line with what Kevin Page said and with which Dale Orr agreed less than two months ago – IF the plan includes some spending cuts.

The Tories have pledged not to download social spending to the provinces, as Chrétien/Martin did in the 1990s, and many, but not all, cuts to social programmes would be politically dangerous – *sacred trusts* and all that. So, where might they cut?

The National Portrait Gallery is a good if only very, very tiny start.

Can the defence budget be far behind?


----------



## Old Sweat (10 Sep 2009)

Defence is always an attractive target as it makes up a hefty chunk of discretionary spending. I wonder, however, how the projections in growth in tax revenue during a recovery match up against scaled back growth in overall spending, especially if both inflation and interest rates remain low? 

The gnomes in Finance probably have tons of informed speculation fiscal forecasts. If all the players - various economic think tanks, the Parliamentary Budget Office, etc - roughly agree in their input data, then their results should not be too out of whack with one another.


----------



## dapaterson (10 Sep 2009)

Most economists I know spend their time either building models to predict the future or explaining after the fact why their models failed so badly.  It's not called "the dismal science" for nothing.

"Economics" is about as scientific as reading entrails, but has a better collection of journals, better parties, and slightly less exposure to decaying fecal matter.


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Sep 2009)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Most economists I know spend their time either building models to predict the future or explaining after the fact why their models failed so badly.  It's not called "the dismal science" for nothing.
> 
> "Economics" is about as scientific as reading entrails, but has a better collection of journals, better parties, and slightly less exposure to decaying fecal matter.




:blotto:  I'll drink to that!  :cheers:


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Sep 2009)

More, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_ web site, on the down and dirty campaigning for the election that almost nobody, except _Prince Michel_, wants:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/could-have-been-pm-ignatieff-says-but-i-turned-it-down/article1282210/


> Could have been PM, Ignatieff says, ‘but I turned it down'
> *Liberal Leader points to his decision to abandon coalition as proof he's not aiming to cut a deal with ‘separatists and socialists,' as Harper accuses him of in leaked video*
> 
> Campbell Clark
> ...




Now let’s be clear: both Harper and _Prince Michael_ lie like sidewalks. 

“Taxes” is a great word; it is infinitely flexible in what it can include or exclude. Harper may promise not to raise taxes but, dollars to donuts, after the next election you are going to have less money in your pay packet, it will have gone to Ottawa as a “fee” of something.

But, _Iggy_ appears reluctant to specifically exclude a coalition and he can expect to be whipped with that until he does.


----------



## Old Sweat (10 Sep 2009)

Do I detect hints of a hidden agenda in the piece, and not a little pro-Liberal bias? This speech was hardly to CPC insiders. It was a campaign style speech to party members/supporters and no political pro or semipro would expect that an outsider or two wouldn't be in the room.

Now Iggy is presuming a lot in his claim that he could have been PM. He is working on the theory that Dion would have become PM last winter after the CPC lost a confidence vote without an election, or after the PM turned power over to opposition after the government lost a vote of confidence, or after winning an election with popular support outside Quebec running against the coalition, and then that Celine Stefane would have stepped down, and last that Iggy would have moved up automatically. An academic solution?


----------



## GAP (10 Sep 2009)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Do I detect hints of a hidden agenda in the piece, and not a little pro-Liberal bias? This speech was hardly to CPC insiders. It was a campaign style speech to party members/supporters and no political pro or semipro would expect that an outsider or two wouldn't be in the room.
> 
> Now Iggy is presuming a lot in his claim that he could have been PM. He is working on the theory that Dion would have become PM last winter after the CPC lost a confidence vote without an election, or after the PM turned power over to opposition after the government lost a vote of confidence, or after winning an election with popular support outside Quebec running against the coalition, and then that Celine Stefane would have stepped down, and last that Iggy would have moved up automatically. An academic solution?



That's a lot of domino's Iggy would have to line up, especially with all the knives in his back at the time.....(I wonder if Bob Rae retrieved his for future use....)


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Sep 2009)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_, is Jeffrey Simpson on a topic about which he actually does know something: Canadian electoral politics:
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/until-something-changes-the-road-to-majority-is-blocked/article1234181/
> I don’t dispute Simpson’s analysis but I think there is a possible “work around” for the Conservatives.
> ...




Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the _National Post_ web site, is a good “take” on the Harper speech:

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/09/10/gerry-nicholls-the-strategy-behind-harper-s-secret-speech.aspx


> *Gerry Nicholls*: The strategy behind Harper's 'secret speech'
> 
> September 10, 2009
> 
> ...



This is, evidently, part of “holding on to the base.”


----------



## Edward Campbell (10 Sep 2009)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The campaigning for an election – the one that most Canadians believe ought not to happen at all - is well under way, according to this report, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_ web site:
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/flaherty-to-unveil-blueprint-to-balanced-budget/article1282292/
> Flaherty’s _quesstimate_ of a balanced budget by 2015 – I presume Fiscal Year 2015/16 – appears to be _roughly_ in line with what Kevin Page said and with which Dale Orr agreed less than two months ago – IF the plan includes some spending cuts.
> ...




And still more, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_ web site:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/flaherty-unveils-murky-blueprint-for-balanced-budget/article1282292/


> Flaherty unveils murky blueprint for balanced budget
> *Blaming ‘divergence of forecasts,' Finance Minister pledges to put Ottawa back in the black but won't promise to eliminate deficit by specific date*
> 
> Steven Chase
> ...



Given that this is consistent with Kevin Page’s forecasts it is going to be hard – not impossible - to challenge.

It is smart politics to get this “out” early.

"A week is a long time in politics," former British PM Harold Wilson once said. Five or six years is nearly an eternity.


----------



## Rifleman62 (10 Sep 2009)

The video I saw of the event indicated that the person with the fairly high resolution  (cell phone???) was close to Mr. Harper and holding the "cell phone" up to get Mr. Harper in the aperture. Hardly photographed surreptitiously. Possibly the "grainy" video was enhanced for TV.

Additionally, if I read or hear one more member of the media write or say   "*the coalition * was short-lived and *is largely forgotten" * .......


----------



## RangerRay (11 Sep 2009)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Given that this is consistent with Kevin Page’s forecasts it is going to be hard – not impossible - to challenge.
> 
> It is smart politics to get this “out” early.



I agree.  During our election last spring, Premier Campbell and Finance Minister Hansen were informed by officials that revenues were way down and that the deficit would be much higher than what they are campaigning on.  However, instead of telling this to voters, they continued to campaign with the low-ball numbers.  It was not until last week's budget update that the public was informed that the premier and finance minister knew that things were worse than they said.

Now because they weren't up front with voters (and by bringing in the HST while promising not to bring one in) the BC Liberals are now trailing the NDP in the polls.

At least they have 3 1/2 years to rebuild some trust, but they should have been up front with the voters when they knew that things weren't as rosy as they said they were.


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 Sep 2009)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I’m tossing a couple of ideas around in my own mind:
> 
> •	For Jack Layton – _Iggy_ is the real enemy. The _Dippers_ have to recapture the left wing of the Liberal Party, as Ed Broadbent did in the 34th (1988) general election by capturing previously “solid” Liberal seats in, especially, BC and ON. A 2009 election *should* be highly desirable – the Liberals will be weak and the NDP can advertise itself as the only *real* national opposition to Harper’s _forces of darkness_®.
> 
> ...




I think that Jeffrey Simpson has it about right in this column, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/appearing-decisive-is-a-poor-rationale-for-the-liberals/article1282716/


> Appearing decisive is a poor rationale for the Liberals
> *None of the usual conditions for an opposition victory is objectively present*
> 
> Jeffrey Simpson
> ...


----------



## observor 69 (11 Sep 2009)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Most economists I know spend their time either building models to predict the future or explaining after the fact why their models failed so badly.  It's not called "the dismal science" for nothing.
> 
> "Economics" is about as scientific as reading entrails, but has a better collection of journals, better parties, and slightly less exposure to decaying fecal matter.



Noble prize winning economist and New York Times blogger Paul Krugman wrote a long but excellent piece on this theme recently in the New York Times:

How Did Economists Get It So Wrong?  LINK


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 Sep 2009)

RangerRay said:
			
		

> I agree.  During our election last spring, Premier Campbell and Finance Minister Hansen were informed by officials that revenues were way down and that the deficit would be much higher than what they are campaigning on.  However, instead of telling this to voters, they continued to campaign with the low-ball numbers.  It was not until last week's budget update that the public was informed that the premier and finance minister knew that things were worse than they said.
> 
> Now because they weren't up front with voters (and by bringing in the HST while promising not to bring one in) the BC Liberals are now trailing the NDP in the polls.
> 
> At least they have 3 1/2 years to rebuild some trust, but they should have been up front with the voters when they knew that things weren't as rosy as they said they were.




Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _National Post_, is a fair analysis of what Jim Flaherty is doing:

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=1982867


> The rush to bury a stink bomb
> 
> Comment
> 
> ...



I think the key points (all from one paragraph) are:

•	“The Grits issued a news release that claimed Canada is suffering the worst economic performance in the G7. This is nonsense”;

•	“Net debt to GDP is half of the G7 average; unemployment is one percentage point lower than it is in the United States for the first time in a generation (the jobless rate is forecast to peak at about 9.5% early next year); and the budget deficit, at 3.7% of GDP, is well below the peak of 5.6% during the last recession, in 1992-93”;

•	“The public is likely inured to larger deficits at this stage, particularly when it reads about the situation in the United States, where the deficit is in the trillions”; and, therefore

•	“Voters are much more likely to buy Mr. Flaherty's line that "this is not the time to create instability out of narrow, partisan self-interest."”

Getting this “out,” early, is indeed good politics. The sub-text, that I am sure we will see and hear – from both the Conservatives and the _Dippers_, is that this is _Prince Michael_’s deficit, too. His Liberals demanded a big stimulus programme and they voted for it, too.


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 Sep 2009)

And here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_, is a report on _Prince Michael_’s plan to eliminate the deficit:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/spector-vision/ignatieffs-deficit/article1283454/


> Ignatieff’s deficit
> 
> Norman Spector
> 
> ...




So, if I’m reading this right, _Iggy_ is saying, _”I’ll do what he’s going to do – same thing in the same time frame – but since I’ll “do better” we ought to have an election so I can be “in” and he can be “out.”_

_*Jeez!*_, _Prince Michael_, m'lord, ya gotta do better than that!


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 Sep 2009)

And, according to this article, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_ web site, _Prince Michael_ tries to counter one of the Tories’ main thrusts by denying himself the _coalition_ option:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/blunting-harpers-attack-ignatieff-rules-out-coalition/article1283713/


> Blunting Harper's attack, Ignatieff rules out coalition
> *Liberal Leader vows not to cut a deal with NDP and Bloc after leaked video offers preview of PM's stump speech*
> 
> Campbell Clark
> ...




Good *campaign* politics but a position he may come to regret IF there is an election and IF the combined Liberal and NDP seat count is greater than the Conservative seat count.

While I think any coalition involving the BQ would be disastrous for the “lead” partner (the Liberals), a Liberal/NDP coalition *would* be acceptable top the GG and *might*, if it “worked” well enough, be acceptable to Canadians, too. But I also think that he cannot do it – not soon, anyway – after this promise.


Edit: corrected format


----------



## Old Sweat (11 Sep 2009)

While he probably would not attempt a formal coalition (a coalition if necessary, but not necessarily a coalition), he might emulate the Trudeau/David Lewis arrangement in 1972. In that election the Liberals were reduced to a minority with only two more seats than the PCs led by Robert Stansfield. The price the NDP exacted for supporting the Liberals was an orgy of spending everywhere (except in DND) that led to two decades of huge deficits, extravagent social programs, a devalued dollar, high unemployment, skyrocketing interest rates, and virtually every other nasty thing one could think of except a pandemic of acne.


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 Sep 2009)

Now that the Conservatives have taken the budget deficit off the table and now that the Liberals have taken the coalition off the table, too, any election is about “management” and why it is necessary, or not, to change it during, or just at the end of an economic crisis.

It’s all about raw power and why _Prince Michael_ thinks he ought to have it.

The arithmetic is easy and it is, pretty much, all about Ontario.

Right now:

•	The BQ has 48 seats (0 in ON)
•	The Conservatives have 143 seats (51 in ON)
•	The Liberals have 77 seats (38 in ON)
•	The NDP has 36 seats (17 in ON)

Let’s suppose that the Liberals can take 10+ seats away from the _Bloc_, Cons & _Dippers_ in Canada beyond Ontario. They still need to get a *turnover* of about 25 seats in ON to raise their total to above 120 and lower the Cons to under 120 – i.e. in the next election the totals, *for ON*, need to be:

•	Conservatives – 26
•	Liberals – 63
•	NDP – 17

That’s no easy task.


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 Sep 2009)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> While he probably would not attempt a formal coalition (a coalition if necessary, but not necessarily a coalition), he might emulate the Trudeau/David Lewis arrangement in 1972. In that election the Liberals were reduced to a minority with only two more seats than the PCs led by Robert Stansfield. The price the NDP exacted for supporting the Liberals was an orgy of spending everywhere (except in DND) that led to two decades of huge deficits, extravagent social programs, a devalued dollar, high unemployment, skyrocketing interest rates, and virtually every other nasty thing one could think of except a pandemic of acne.




Agreed, and even after a *turnover* of 35 seats the Liberals would still need tacit NDP and or BQ support - at a price, to be sure - to govern. It's not a pretty thought, is it?

_Prince Michael_, m'lord, what were you thinking, sir?


----------



## DBA (11 Sep 2009)

The chances of a liberal majority are low, that leaves at best a minority government that since they can no longer work with the conservative government works with the NDP and the Bloc. Sure it won't be a coalition in name as they wouldn't need it to form the government but it would be in function as they need that support to govern. 

My questions for the liberal leader are: 
Q. If you win a minority government will you work with the NPD and/or Bloc or will you work with the Conservatives?
A. NPD/Bloc: Q. How is this different from the coalition in anything but name only? 
A. Conservatives: Q. How can this work when your stated reason for defeating the current government is the inability to work with them?


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 Sep 2009)

<Yawn> Another day, another government spending promise from the Conservatives, according to this, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act  from the _Globe and Mail_ web site:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-pledges-190-million-for-toronto-infrastructure-upgrades/article1283999/


> Ottawa pledges $190-million for Toronto infrastructure upgrades
> *More than 500 projects to upgrade roads, water, sewage and transit*
> 
> Jennifer Lewington
> ...




I’m in a bit of a quandary here. Broadly I oppose _stimulus_ project spending because I think it does/will do more to fuel inflation than to fuel growth or sustain jobs. But I support federal and provincial spending on municipal infrastructure because *most* cities and many smaller towns, too, in most provinces have been wholly irresponsible by spending money on welfare and other _social_ programmes rather than on sewers and garbage collection – which is what really “matters.”


----------



## Rifleman62 (11 Sep 2009)

In the "surreptitiously-recorded " video, Mr. Harper says something similar to - they will deny (the forming of a LPC/NDP/Bloc coalition) till they are blue in the face. Is this in the article? Is it repeated as often as the theme of Harper's secret speech? Is it in every clip as a highlight?

It does not help the CPC cause when the media members do lazy reporting/exaggeration/spin to get print space.


----------



## GAP (11 Sep 2009)

With a possible election coming, it can't hurt.....


----------



## Brad Sallows (11 Sep 2009)

Ignatieff is farting through his teeth.

1) The Liberals were relieved to drop the idea of a coalition last January only because they could read the polls in December.

2) Whatever Ignatieff promises now is only a commitment by Ignatieff.  If the Conservatives retain the largest minority, but one which is less than the LPC + NDP seat count, the Liberals will find a way to drop Ignatieff - and his promise - eg. for the crime of failing to do better than Harper.  If the Liberals believe the CPC minority should be removed now, presumably it should also be removed for the same reasons after an election which returns a similar parliamentary makeup.

3) Strictly speaking, it's a promise not to formalize a coalition after an election.  Nothing has been said about what happens if the G-G refuses Harper's request for an election (_after_ he has lost the confidence of Parliament) and asks if anyone else can retain the confidence of Parliament.

4) The NDP can't afford to go around the election circuit once, let alone twice.  They'll take an informal arrangement to start, and demand a formal one later after some arbitrary face-saving grace period for Ignatieff's "promise".

A renewed Conservative majority will be followed shortly by some other party arrangement on the government side.  Whether or not it is "formal" is just a paint job.


----------



## The Bread Guy (11 Sep 2009)

1)  The countdown (allegedly) begins (I'll believe when I see), according to the Canadian Press:


> A critical vote that could bring down the minority Conservative government has been tentatively scheduled for next Friday, sources tell The Canadian Press.
> 
> The so-called ways and means motion is usually a routine matter that signals an impending vote on a budget bill, but this time might very well act as the trigger that launches an election.
> 
> ...



2)  Looky who the Conservatives are harvesting for old quotes to bash Iggy - Saint Justin, Son of Saint Pierre of the Red Rose - from the Canadian Press:


> There's a surprising new star making a cameo appearance in Conservative ads attacking Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff: his name is Justin Trudeau.
> 
> French-language TV ads that have begun airing in Quebec show the rookie MP blasting a few volleys of friendly fire at his leader.
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Sep 2009)

The claims and counter-claims, some with ragged shreds of “truth” still attached, roll out, as in this article reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawas-deficit-plan-would-hike-ei-premiums/article1285249/


> Ottawa's deficit plan would hike EI premiums
> *Plan belies Tory pledge not to balance budget by raising taxes, economist says*
> 
> Steven Chase
> ...




As Jason Myers points out, over-collecting EI (then UI) premiums was one of the ways the Liberals resolved their deficit problems – but it appears that some commentators feel it is, now, wrong for the Tories to do the same thing, even though Liberal finance critic John McCallum acknowledges that the EI account needs to be balanced over any “cycle.”


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Sep 2009)

And then, sauce for the goose being sauce for the gander and all that, there’s this story, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_, about a bit of Tory propaganda:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/ignatieffs-no-on-coalition-is-really-a-yes-tories-say/article1285395/


> Ignatieff's 'no' on coalition is really a 'yes,' Tories say
> *Parties are releasing campaign-style advertisements as they prepare for next week's resumption of Parliament*
> 
> CAMPBELL CLARK
> ...



I, personally, hate government propaganda, even when it is done by the party I support. It is a colossal waste of money and it cannot help but give Canadians the _impression_ of chicanery, even when (rarely) none exists.


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Sep 2009)

Norman Spector provides the _justification_ for the Tory _coalition_ ads in this _blog_ piece, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_ web site:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/spector-vision/what-ignatieff-didnt-say/article1284562/


> What Ignatieff didn't say
> 
> Norman Spector
> 
> ...



So, it appears, there is a “ragged shred of ‘truth’” in the Tory ads. _Prince Michael_ *might* have left himself some wiggle room.


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Sep 2009)

Jeffrey Simpson makes the case for a majority in this column, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_:



> Minorities: all politics, all the time
> *Every decision is taken with short-term political calculations in mind*
> 
> Jeffrey Simpson
> ...



No, it’s not a typo; there was no period at the end of _”It's a helluva way to run a country”_ in the print edition, either.


It is, indeed a “helluva way to run a country” but Canadians, with absolutely stunning – but very typical - inconsistency, proclaim themselves “happy” with minority government, presumably because the government cannot implement its *hidden agenda*®, and “unhappy” with “all politics, all the time.”


Here, from Simpson's column, is why we don’t need another minority government:

•	_”Minorities in our system centralize even more power in the hands of the prime minister and his political operators.”_ That’s a _structural_ problem that produces bad politics and bad policy;

•	_”Important policies are"_ [have been and will be again]_ "held up, or never see the light of day, because they don't meet short-term political requirements”_;

•	_”Minority governments take easy decisions, but avoid hard, although often necessary, ones;”_ and

•	In a minority parliament _”posturing and partisanship overwhelm the theoretical possibilities of co-operation.”_


I think Simpson’s logic is unassailable. We need a majority government for this, ongoing, critical period. The question is:

•	A Conservative majority – for which they need to capture barely a dozen “new” seats from the _Bloc_, Liberals and _Dippers_, while, of course, hanging on to all of the 143 they currently hold; or

•	A Liberal majority – for which they need to *double* their seat count, from 77 to 154. 

I think the answer, even for those opposed to Harper’s Conservatives, is obvious. The Liberals *cannot* (barring some Conservative disaster) get a majority; they will be hard pressed to find a minority. The Conservative *can* do it, just, even with the *dislike* Canadians have for Harper and the *mistrust* they have for _Canadian Conservatism_.

If Simpson’s analysis and the numbers are correct then a Conservative majority is the only “right” answer for Canada in 2009.


_Caveat lector_: I am a card carrying Conservative. I am not an unbiased observer.


Edit: typo


----------



## Old Sweat (12 Sep 2009)

And just to roil the waters a bit, Taliban Jack now claims that an election is not inevitable. The following report from CTV is reproduced under the fair comment provisions of the Copyright Act:

Fall election not inevitable, Layton says
Updated Sat. Sep. 12 2009 2:10 PM ET

CTV.ca News Staff

NDP Leader Jack Layton says he doesn't believe an election is inevitable, despite speculation that a non-confidence vote next week could topple the Conservative government.

A ways-and-means motion is expected to be introduced in Parliament next Friday. If the opposition parties -- including the NDP -- vote against the Tories, Canadians would have their fourth election in five years.

At a Liberal caucus meeting two weeks ago, Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff declared that he no longer supports Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government. Not long after, the party released a series of election-style ads, and the Bloc Quebecois followed suit.

Layton said Saturday he would prefer that the parties work together on Employment Insurance reform, a job-creation plan, help for the elderly and consumer protections. 

"We'll side with the Canadian people, that's who we'll side with," Layton told CTV News Channel on Saturday. "And I guess I'm looking for results for Canadians. And I'm not ready to say that an election is somehow inevitable. We should be trying to make Parliament work." 

Layton called on the party leaders to "put some of these partisan considerations -- the focus on how many seats you've got, how large your caucus is, and so on -- aside and instead get results for people that are in need." 

But Strategic Counsel pollster Peter Donolo said each party will likely weigh how an election might sway their fortunes before deciding whether to support the government.

"The Liberals have made a calculation that I think makes sense for them -- that the longer they keep on supporting the government, the less they can differentiate themselves and set themselves up as an alternative," Donolo told News Channel.

Layton refused to say whether he would act as kingmaker and side with the Liberals should the Tories win the most seats in an election, or vice versa. He said he would not speculate on "hypothetical scenarios." 

Layton would only say that should the opposition parties force a fall vote, the responsibility will be with the prime minister.

"In a minority Parliament you either work with people or you go into an election. That's a choice that Stephen Harper has got to make," Layton said. "I think leadership would suggest that he should work with other Parliamentarians."

Donolo said Layton may have other motives for propping up the Conservatives, beyond a legislative agenda.

"In Canadian history, minority governments have always had third parties keeping them in office, not the official opposition," Donolo said. "So Mr. Layton's probably considering that. Mr. Layton also has to consider how the NDP might fare in an election going forward."

Donolo said it is difficult to speculate where -- or if -- each party would make gains should Canadians go to the polls this fall.

Western Canada, with the exception of parts of B.C., is Conservative territory, while Atlantic Canada will largely support the Liberals, Donolo said. The Bloc will hold much of Quebec.

That may put Ontario in play as the province that could make or break an election fortune.

"The Conservatives have the most seats in Ontario and remember, they only need 12 more seats to win an election. But they have to hold on to everything they currently have," Donolo said. "So a race to a majority I think is what both leading parties want the election to be. And maybe Canadians are fed up with minorities and want a majority."


----------



## Old Sweat (12 Sep 2009)

Further to the above, here is David Akin's blog re Taliban Jack's statements, reproduced under the fair comment provision of the Copyright act:

OTTAWA — Does Jack Layton want an election?


Last spring, it certainly seemed that way. As his caucus voted against the minority government of Prime Minister Stephen Harper in one confidence vote after another, Layton and the NDP taunted Michael Ignatieff and the Liberals for propping up the Tories.


They even took out radio ads that challenged Ignatieff to "take a stand" and defeat the government.


But now, as MPs prepare to return to the House of Commons Monday and with the Liberal declaration that they will no longer support the Tories and will indeed push for an election at the first opportunity, Layton's springtime ardour to "stand up" to Harper has changed.


"I think some Canadians are going to be looking for a new direction," Layton said in an interview with Canwest News Service and Global National. "There's two ways we can get it: either by Mr. Harper working with other parties to establish a new approach on some key issues — that's what we're offering — or by rattling the cages and trying to take us off into an election."


Layton has been here before, ready to "offer" a prime minister with a minority government the chance to continue governing.


In 2005, with Liberal prime minister Paul Martin's government teetering as a result of the sponsorship scandal, a deal was struck. Martin postponed a corporate tax cut and committed to billions in new spending on public transit, affordable housing, and post-secondary training — all key elements of the NDP policy agenda. In return, the NDP voted in support of Martin's government even as Harper, who was then Opposition leader, was trying to engineer a Liberal defeat.


"I think Canadians saw that as a way minority Parliaments can be made to work," Layton said.


But the rest of that story did not end so well for Martin. A few months later, Layton withdrew his support and Martin would lose to Harper.


Layton did well in that 2006 campaign, winning 29 seats, partly by convincing voters that the spending concessions he extracted from Martin were evidence his party could be influential. In last fall's election, Layton's campaign built on that idea and he did even better, winning 37 seats, second best in the party's history to Ed Broadbent's 43-seat haul in 1988.


Harper, according to some of his advisers, believes Layton is now angling to do the same thing to him that Layton did to Martin: extract concessions to advance the NDP agenda, then withdraw that support and campaign on the party's achievements in advancing that agenda.


"Harper will be damned before he lets Layton do that," said a former member of the prime minister's communications staff, speaking on condition he not be identified.


Darrell Bricker, president of pollster Ipsos Reid, says Layton's strategy was a good one for 2005 — but it won't work now.


"He has to have somebody like Martin who's afraid to go to the people," Bricker said. "The problem he's got with Harper is that Harper probably wants an election."


For Layton, then, the week in Parliament that is about to unfold will be one in which he will try to advance his party's agenda on a case-by-case basis.


"We're trying to get Parliament working on behalf of Canadians instead of having an election," Layton said.


Both Layton and Harper have said there will be no pacts for support as there were in 2005.


"I don't think Canadians are looking for backroom deals," Layton said. "I think Canadians are looking for parties working together on their behalf. It's sort of a common sense point of view we're bringing to this discussion."


Among other things, Layton is seeking an improved employment insurance program. The Conservatives will, in fact, be introducing legislation next week to do just that but the Conservatives may only be agreeing to extend the EI benefits period, while Layton has been calling for changes to make it easier to qualify for benefits. Would those changes be enough for the NDP?


"There's thousands of people who are being denied the help that they need right now. There's an area where Mr. Harper could work and actually help people," Layton said. "We're prepared to work in these areas but what we're not seeing is a willingness on the part of Mr. Harper to make (a) minority Parliament work. That's the unfortunate situation we find ourselves in right now. But maybe there's still time."


Sweatie wonders if the NDP are trying to create an image as the only voice of reason that does not want to dash to the polls at this time. This could, repeat could, again be because the party believes that it will not be able to increase its seat count and may even be facing losses. Or is it that they dread the prospect of an increase in the CPC seats with the chances of a Tory majority increasing. I am not skilled enough at comprehending what appears to be, crudely put, political ADD so as to get to the bottom of it.


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Sep 2009)

Norman Spector ask some pertinent questions is his _blog_ which is reproduced under the fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_ web site:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/spector-vision/questions-for-our-leaders/article1285487/


> Questions for our leaders
> 
> *Norman Spector*
> 
> ...




Good questions.

I remain convinced that relying, formally, on the _Bloc_ for support will do real, measurable damage to either the Conservatives or the Liberals.

The party that wins the most seats can “accept” _Bloc_ support – but they must never have any sort of an “arrangement.” First: it will *never* be a *secret*. It *will* be leaked to the press. Second: Canadians will not accept an “alliance” that includes the _Bloc_. Con/Lib? Yes. Lib/NDP? Yes Anyone/_Bloc_. No.


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Sep 2009)

It appears that _“Harper”_ [who is reported to believe that] _”Layton is now angling to do the same thing to him that Layton did to Martin: extract concessions to advance the NDP agenda, then withdraw that support and campaign on the party's achievements in advancing that agenda”_ and David Aiken are correct in assessing _Taliban Jack_ Layton’s motives according to this report, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from yesterday’s _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/layton-strikes-conciliatory-tone-amid-looming-showdown/article1285726/


> Layton makes conciliatory noises
> amid looming showdown
> *NDP Leader ratchets down election rhetoric with soothing words about making Parliament work*
> 
> ...




Layton is between a rock and a hard place. He can “grow” his brand, a bit - but only, really, at the expense of the Liberals – in some of the major urban centres: Vancouver, Winnipeg, Toronto, Montreal, Halifax and St. John’s. Other Western Canadian and _Franco_ cities and most suburbs seem immune to the NDP's siren song.

None of the _national_ leaders, including _Taliban Jack_, are very attractive to Canadians, so there is no advantage in “being Jack Layton.” That leaves policy and/or accomplishments as the only way to “beat” the _Dippers_’ *two* enemies: the Greens and the Liberals. Policy has not proven to be a popular election topic with Canadians. That leaves “accomplishments” – something Layton did use, with success, in the last elections: “We made parliament work for your benefit.”

That – establishing a list of “accomplishments” – appears to be his current tactic. He can, then, bash the Liberals on two fronts:

1.	They propped up the Tories when they (Conservatives) were making bad policy choices; and

2.	We listened to Canadians and made parliament work when the power hungry Liberals wanted to force an election over nothing at all.


----------



## CougarKing (13 Sep 2009)

And tensions continue to rise at Parliament Hill.

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/s/capress/090912/national/fedelxn_confidence_vote_2



> *Government could fall as early as Friday: sources*
> 
> Sat Sep 12, 12:39 AM
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Sep 2009)

The second Liberal English ad is out, on You Tube.


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Sep 2009)

Lysiane Gagnon asks another good question in this column, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_ web site:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/playing-the-coalition-card-is-risky/article1285011/


> Playing the coalition card is risky
> *Are the Conservatives resigned to writing off Quebec?*
> 
> Lysiane Gagnon
> ...




“Writing off Québec,” not totally, but being content with winning a half dozen seats at ecstatic at winning a whole dozen, IS the *best* long term strategy for the Conservatives. Electorally, Québec *matters*, less and less as time moves on. The route to political power lies, increasingly, West of the Ottawa River. From a politics and policy perspective Québec is _disconnected_ from Canada – especially from the “new Canada.” 

So, Mlle. Gagnon, “Yes, I hope the Conservatives are resigned to writing off Québec.”


Edit: spelling (twice)


----------



## Brad Sallows (14 Sep 2009)

"Are the Conservatives resigned to writing off Quebec?"

Is Quebec resigned to writing off Canada?  Each time Quebeckers return a large number of Bloc MPs, the message is that in our national parliamentary assembly they choose to place the interests of Quebec before the interests of the nation.


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Sep 2009)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the CTV News website, is a snapshot of the “election fever” as Parliament prepares to meet, today:

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20090914/parliament_election_090914/20090914?hub=TopStories


> Election talk rampant as Parliament resumes
> 
> Mon. Sep. 14 2009
> 
> ...



The advantages, it appears, to me, are still all with the Conservatives. I suspect most Liberals are hoping and praying that _Taliban Jack_ Layton will pull their irons out of the fire but I cannot see why Layton would want to do that. IF the election is as unpopular as the polls suggest and IF the Tories and the _Dippers_ can make the unnecessary election, itself, an issue then they (the NDP) get to attack both the power hungry Liberals and the stubborn, doctrinaire Conservatives for forcing an expensive, wasteful election that no one wants.


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Sep 2009)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> "Are the Conservatives resigned to writing off Quebec?"
> 
> Is Quebec resigned to writing off Canada?  Each time Quebeckers return a large number of Bloc MPs, the message is that in our national parliamentary assembly they choose to place the interests of Quebec before the interests of the nation.




L. Ian MacDonald is a Conservative _hack_ and a long time Mulroney apologist but that doesn’t mean he doesn’t have valid insights about Québec, his home province. Some of those insights are reflected in this opinion piece, reproduced under the fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _National Post_:

http://monroelab.net/blog/wp-content/uploads/2006/03/Daedalus-and-icarus.jpg


> L. Ian MacDonald: The Conservatives are back in the Quebec game
> 
> September 14, 2009
> 
> ...




As a Conservative partisan I, of course, hope MacDonald is right. As an experienced observer I am confident that Gilles Duceppe will find ways to set new, better “value traps” to ensnare Harper, who often demonstrates a tin ear for Québec’s issues.

As a Canadian I hope Harper ignores the “value traps” and puts Canada first. You remember Canada? It’s that country that includes Québec as a province – a large and  important province, but a province _comme les autres_ all the same.


----------



## GAP (14 Sep 2009)

If the Conservatives are able to eek out a small majority without Quebec being a large factor the power of the Quebec seats will diminish dramatically....


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Sep 2009)

The Tories have lobbed a softball towards the _Dippers_ according to this story, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the CBC News website:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/09/14/employment-insurance.html


> NDP to mull over Tories' EI benefit extension
> 
> Monday, September 14, 2009
> 
> ...




The Conservatives, who (I think) want another election, are in the catbird seat. If the _Dippers_ (and the Liberals) desperately want to avoid an election all they have to do is vote _with_ the government or (in the Liberals’ case) stay away in sufficient numbers to allow the government to survive. Either way they (the Liberals and NDP) get branded as Tory supporters – just Celine Stéphane Dion clones.

If the _Dippers_ vote against the government then the Tories can go to the polls saying, “We tried. We offered extended EI benefits but the power hungry *coalition* of the separatists and socialists defeated us."

Win-win.


----------



## Old Sweat (14 Sep 2009)

The following opinion pieceby Kelly McParland which is posted on the Full Comment section of the National Post's web site is reproduced under the fair comment provisions of the Copyright Act.

Note that I have only read reports of Ignatieff's speech, but it appears it was full of nostaliga for the good old "pro Bono" days of Liberal foreign policy.

Kelly McParland: The new, insufferable Ignatieff. Arrogance personified
Posted: September 14, 2009, 2:24 PM by NP Editor 
Kelly McParland, Full Comment Canadian politics

It appears Hedy Fry was telling the truth when she claimed she had nothing to do with a demeaning flyer sent out by the Liberal Party, which suggested Canada is no longer a country worth being proud of. Badmouthing Canada and its place in the world appears, bizarrely enough, to be a new Liberal party strategy.

That became evident in an insulting, offensive speech delivered by party leader Michael Ignatieff to a lunchtime gathering of the Canadian Club of Ottawa today, the day of Parliament’s return. If you were wondering what Mr. Ignatieff did all summer, now you know: drinking deeply at the well of Liberal arrogance, filling himself with huge draughts of the conceit and self-importance so central to the party’s existence, to the point he is now capable of casually writing off whole sections of the country’s history and millions of Canadians because they don’t comply with the one essential element of true Canadianism: they aren’t Liberals.

The essence of the flyer sent out under Fry’s name is that Canadians can no longer be proud of their country, because it is run by Conservatives. That message was reinforced again and again by a sneering, dismissive Ignatieff. Never mind the democratic system, never mind that true Canadians love and respect their country no matter who occupies 24 Sussex or has the most seats in Parliament. To Ignatieff, as to so many Liberals before him, Canada only counts when it’s run by Liberals.

Listen to this hogwash:
“After the last four years, it’s hard to remember how much Canada once mattered,” Ignatieff claimed nonsensically, writing off the risks, sacrifices and achievements of Canada’s troops in Afghanistan as nothing. Canadians may care deeply about the men and women who have sacrificed their lives there -- they line the highway in honour every time another body comes home -- but to Ignatieff and his Liberals this is nothing to be proud of, not enough to make us “matter”. 

Or this drivel:
“For the Conservative government of Stephen Harper, the international scene exists only to score points on the domestic scene. And our credibility on the international scene has suffered in consequence. The Conservatives are giving up Canada’s place in the world.”

So the Conservatives’ principled stand against China based on its human rights abuses is dismissed as a cheap grab for votes. From who, the huge Canadian Taiwanese community? Ignatieff is far more upset that we’re not angling for more trade with Beijing, as the Chretien government did so vociferously, because human rights can always be ignored when money’s on the line. Harper’s strong line on the Middle East -- which Mr. Ignatieff happens to share, though he neglected to mention it -- is forgotten. Far better to pander to fashionable assaults on Israel by leftwing cranks who think the only democracy in the Middle East is the equivalent of apartheid.

No, Mr. Ignatieff, in the unctuous, condescending tone he gets when he’s angling to establish his innate superiority, has concluded that Canada’s voice has gone mute: “They note our silence in international councils and ask: Where is Canada?”  -- a notion that might come as a surprise to President Barack Obama Wednesday when he sits down for his latest face-to-face discussion with the Prime Minister.

Mr. Ignatieff is all trite talk and happy history. He hauls out all the hoary old Liberal icons -- blue helmets, peacekeeping, multilateralism, Lester Pearson. In what can only be classified as a direct accusation of racism, he asserted that Conservatives only care about white Canadians, charging that “if their name is Souad Mohammed, our government abandons them.” Ottawa may have mishandled the case of Suaad Hagi Mohamud -- Mr. Ignatieff’s deep concern apparently doesn’t entail spelling her name properly -- but deliberately mistaking bureaucratic bungling for deliberate government bigotry is beneath contempt.

Mr. Ignatieff declared that under Liberal plans for a “Big Canada” (because Canada under any other party is small, weak and unimportant) we would stay in Afghanistan beyond 2011, a position that ignores the fact the Liberals had to be dragged kicking and screaming into endorsing the Conservatives’ desire to keep them there even that long.

“Our Canada will champion an agenda of international governance reform ... and to ensure a truly inclusive global forum, we would offer to host and fund a permanent G-20 secretariat in Canada.” Oh boy, a new building full of civil servants in Ottawa. Now THAT will make us important.

Best of all, he pledges: “Our Canada will renew our relationship with the U.S. At a time when Europe is tearing down its borders, North America is raising fences between friends. The number of visitors to Canada from the United States has fallen to its lowest level in a generation. The impact on cross border trade will hurt the United States as much as it hurts us.”

So after Liberals spent eight years mocking, lampooning and insulting the U.S., when Liberal MPs stomped on replicas of the President and paraded around self-righteously denouncing a war in which American troops were giving their lives, after all that Mr. Ignatieff will now sail in and “renew our relationship.” Well gee, I bet they can hardly wait.

If this is the “new” Michael Ignatieff, the one who’s been in the development stages for the nine months since he assumed the Liberal leadership, they should stuff him in a crate and ship him back to Harvard. Canadians don’t need to be insulted by a man who thinks we’re small and unimportant and can only be made suitable for the world stage through the leadership of him and his insufferable party. Canadians took their measure of the Liberal party over decades of exposure, an experience Mr. Ignatieff didn’t share while he was living and working elsewhere. The party lost the last two elections as a direct result, and I can’t believe this kind of imperious sermonizing from a visiting professor is going to win back any of that lost respect.

National Post


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Sep 2009)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright from today’s _Globe and Mail_ website, is a report on _Prince Michael_’s attack on the current government’s foreign policy:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ignatieff-blasts-tory-foreign-policy/article1286916/


> Ignatieff blasts Tory foreign policy
> *Liberal Leader uses Ottawa speech to criticize Harper government's decision to redirect aid away from Africa*
> 
> Jane Taber
> ...




Part of Ignatieff’s attack is well aimed: Canada has, for the past few years, stumbled badly in our relations with Asia, especially with China. In fairness, the current government is playing catch-up but it is a bit late.

The shift in focus, away from Africa and towards the Western Hemisphere is, contrary to _Prince Michael_’s assertion, a good move on two grounds:

1.	The Western Hemisphere is our “backyard” and we should tend to it; and

2.	Our – the whole “West’s” – aid to Africa for 50+ years has done more harm than good. It is time to reassess.

As to the G20: it doesn’t need a permanent secretariat, yet, and we, Canadians, do not need the expense of hosting it – and rest assured, if we want the G20 secretariat hosted here we will have to pay for it. We need to focus on getting rid of our new deficit: the G20 secretariat can join the National Portrait Gallery on the rubbish heap.


----------



## Brad Sallows (14 Sep 2009)

"The Conservative government is proposing legislation to extend employment insurance by up to 20 weeks for long-tenured workers, raising questions as to whether the measure will be enough to garner NDP support and stave off an election."

Whether or not it is enough to garner NDP support is Layton's problem.  Ignatieff has pulled the pin on Layton's sanctimonious game, and Layton is pooched.  He either has to whitewash a sudden change of face and vote with the government, or face an election short on funds, short on new ideas, short on favourable poll numbers, and with the dead weight of the "coalition" hanging around his neck.  Commenters should stop trying to spin the issue as if it is the Conservatives who have to reach out in desperation to preserve this parliament.


----------



## Brad Sallows (14 Sep 2009)

"For the Conservative government of Stephen Harper, the international scene exists only to score points on the domestic scene."

Wrong party, Iggy.  Yours is the party that deals in superficial foreign policy initiatives designed to help Canadians feel holier.  Where will the Liberals next send soldiers and then obfuscate all the messier parts of the mission?


----------



## Larkvall (14 Sep 2009)

According to the National Post 74 MPs risk losing their pensions if an election is called before next summer. So if an election is called we can do a nice purge and save taxpayers some cash.  ;D


----------



## RangerRay (14 Sep 2009)

I still believe that Layton and the NDP looked a gift horse in the mouth last winter and continue to feel the effects of it.

Last fall, the NDP won the most seats since Broadbent made their record in the '80s.

In a bid to gain "influence", they joined the Liberals in a coalition over public funding for political parties (I know the decision for coalition was made before this time).

Had Layton told Dion to "get stuffed", he could have voted with the Tories on a fiscally responsible bill and destroyed the ability of the Liberal Party to raise funds.

If I recall correctly, the NDP are second only to the Tories in raising funds from individuals, whereas the Liberals and Bloc rely almost exclusively on public subsidy.

Had Layton sided with the PM, the NDP would have stood a good chance at usurping the Liberals as the Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition.

Instead, the NDP sided with Dion.  Since then, their polling numbers have tanked.  People do not take them seriously, and left wing Liberals are now going back to the Liberal Party.  This is unfortunate, because a strong NDP result usually results in a strong Conservative showing.

Layton lost his chance at relevance.


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Sep 2009)

_Taliban Jack_ Layton is damping down the election rumours, _Globe and Mail_ columnist Jeffrey Simpson explains why in this column, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/jack-layton-chooses-not-to-hear-the-sound-of-his-voice/article1287616/


> Jack Layton chooses not to hear the sound of his voice
> *There's strange vibrations in the little world of Peace Tower politics*
> 
> Jeffrey Simpson
> ...




Layton’s problem are financial and political, as Simpson says. They are a truly “national” party – the federal and provincial parties are one-in-the-same – they have one, single pot of money which has been depleted by recent (successful) provincial elections. They are threatened by both resurgent Liberals and oncoming Greens in several seats. It’s the wrong time for an election.

The problems are compounded because Harper *might* win a majority – he’s only 12 seat away – and then Jack and the _Dippers_ return to political oblivion. To make matters worse the Liberals *are doing better* and for Jack to turn about, now, and support Harper makes this week a win/win for both Harper and Ignatieff.

Even worse: Harper gets credit for EI reforms that benefit older, already more _conservative_, workers who live in suburbs and he gets a photo-op with Obama, who is still much loved in Canada.


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Sep 2009)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Ottawa Citizen_, is an interesting bit of speculation by Andrew Cohen:

http://www.carleton.ca/jmc/facultystaff/cohen.html


> Calling the election
> 
> 
> By Andrew Cohen, Citizen Special
> ...




I place Cohen’s four scenarios in this order of _probability_:


1.	Highest: Conservative *minority*;
2.	High: Conservative *majority*;
3.	Low: Liberal *minority*; and
4.	So low as to be laughable: Liberal *majority*.

See, also, here; another Conservative minority – with a slightly enlarged Liberal opposition, is the most likely outcome but a razor thin Conservative *majority* is within the realm of possibility if three conditions described by Cohen obtain:

1.	The Conservatives run a superb campaign;
2.	Ignatieff stumbles; and
3.	Canada are persuaded that the Conservatives are better economic managers.


----------



## dapaterson (15 Sep 2009)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Here, from today’s _Ottawa Citizen_, is an interesting bit of speculation by Andrew Cohen:
> 
> http://www.carleton.ca/jmc/facultystaff/cohen.html
> 
> ...



If the public perceives the Liberal Party as opportunists in bringing down the house that also could shift the ground sufficiently without any explict Ignatieffian stumble (if that's an adjective.  To add to Canada's political lexicon, much like "Clarkian" refers to mis-counting your own seats in the house, "Martinian" refers to forcing out a popular leader for no reason other than because you perceive it's your turn, and "Raeving" is the act of moving from one level of government to another, hoping everyone forgets your past record).


----------



## GAP (15 Sep 2009)

Methodology
Nanos conducted a random telephone survey of 1,002 Canadians, 18 years of age and older, between September 3rd and September 11th. A survey of 1,002 Canadians is accurate to within 3.1 percentage points, plus or minus, 19 times out of 20. 


  LEADERSHIP INDEX QUESTION: As you may know, [Rotate] Michael Ignatieff is the leader of the federal Liberal Party, Stephen Harper is the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, Jack Layton is the leader of the federal NDP, Gilles Duceppe is leader of the Bloc Quebecois and Elizabeth May is leader of the federal Green Party. Which of the federal leaders would you best describe as: 

The most trustworthy leader 
National (n=1,002) 
Stephen Harper: 31% 
Michael Ignatieff: 14% 
Jack Layton: 14% 
Gilles Duceppe: 8% 
Elizabeth May: 8% 
None of them/Undecided: 25% 

The most competent leader
National (n=1,002) 
Stephen Harper: 36% 
Michael Ignatieff: 20% 
Jack Layton: 11% 
Gilles Duceppe: 7% 
Elizabeth May: 2% 
None of them/Undecided: 24% 

The leader with the best vision for Canada's future
National (n=1,002) 
Stephen Harper: 32% 
Michael Ignatieff: 20% 
Jack Layton: 15% 
Gilles Duceppe: 4% 
Elizabeth May: 4% 
None of them/Undecided: 25% 

Leadership Index Score
Stephen Harper: 99 
Michael Ignatieff: 54 
Jack Layton: 40 
Gilles Duceppe: 19 
Elizabeth May: 14


----------



## dapaterson (15 Sep 2009)

With 25 / 24/ 25 undecided, knowing the leanings of that group are key to where things may go.


----------



## GAP (15 Sep 2009)

Even if the undecided fall within 10-20% of the pattern, Harper still comes way out ahead....Iggy may have just shot himself in the foot.

To be fair, by refusing to back the Conservatives right now, the Liberals take away that taint of Dion/Iggy backing the government.....which put Duceppe and Layton on the hotseat....


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Sep 2009)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _National Post_, is Don Martin’s perspective:

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/politics/story.html?id=1993883


> No need for PM to capitulate
> 
> Don Martin, National Post
> 
> ...



Even another minority can suit the Conservatives’ needs – provided they do not get trapped into a confidence issue that _permits_ a Liberal/NDP coalition. (A _Bloc_/Liberal/NDP coalition is, probably, something the Tories would relish because it would, almost certainly, govern badly and in Québec’s interests and, in the next election, all three parties, but mainly the Liberals would pay dearly for their folly. Inviting the _Bloc_ to help govern Canada will be, broadly, unacceptable to most Canadians; very bad politics – even if Celine Stéphane Dion didn’t see that.) Another Conservative minority will be allowed to “govern (nearly) as if it has a majority” because the other three parties will be politically unwilling and financially unable to fight another campaign.


----------



## Rifleman62 (15 Sep 2009)

A issue the Conservatives could use to cause an election is the elimination of public election funds (as attempted previously) and legislative revision of private political financing. It could be sold to the electorate as a method to prevent opposition parties (including themselves), bring down a government whenever by forcing political parties to raise all their election funds instead of receiving taxpayer funds. No political party would threaten an election when it's treasury was empty. Right now it is too easy to to threaten a election, especially when the party's treasury has millions of taxpayers dollars.The LPC, NDP and the Bloc would go ballistic again.


----------



## kratz (15 Sep 2009)

cross-posted at the Swine Flu Argument  thread.

I was not certain the best place to post the above Winnipeg Free Press news item re: H1N1 concerns could affect the election.


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Sep 2009)

I have argued that Harper and the Tories should take a wrecking ball to the bridges they tried to build in Québec (borrowing words from Chantal Hébert, below). Chantal Hébert disagrees in this column, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from last Friday’s _Toronto Star_:

http://www.thestar.com/comment/columnists/article/694101


> PM's horror stories might not pay off
> 
> 
> Chantal Hébert
> ...




I think Hébert is right that “coalition bashing” is not popular in Québec, where, uniquely in Canada, the idea of the coalition – including the _Bloc_ as a senior partner – is very popular. Once again Québec is _disconnected_ from Canada and “out of step.”

But, I expect Harper to sacrifice some more popularity in Québec because, for a whole variety of reasons, nearly 70% of Canadians, which means about *90% of Canadians outside of Québec*, oppose the coalition IF it includes the _Bloc_.
  
I’m going to assume that the Liberals and the _Bloc_ will take some seats away from the Conservatives in Atlantic Canada, Québec and Ontario and, maybe, Western Canada, too – say 10 in all – leaving the Conservatives to find 22 more seats, almost all in Ontario. That’s a big hill to climb but it is not impossible.


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Sep 2009)

Further, this article, by former Liberal campaigner Andrew Steele, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_ website, acknowledges Hébert’s reasoning (above) and explains just *how* a Tory majority might be crocheted from electoral scraps:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/andrew-steele/is-majority-possible/article1287813/


> Is majority possible?
> 
> Andrew Steele
> 
> ...




It, a Conservative majority *without Québec* (with, say, only four, five, maybe six Québec seats), is possible – just.


----------



## Larkvall (15 Sep 2009)

It would be nice if we could replace a dozen NDP seats with Libertarians.
I don't agree with all their policies, but at least they believe in balanced budgets.


----------



## Old Sweat (15 Sep 2009)

A local radio station is repeating a CP report that the Bloc has announced that it will support the ways and means motion on Friday. That means that the government will not be defeated. My question is what does the NDP do, support the EI changes or indicate a lack of confidence in the government?

Edit: Link to story on nationalnewswatch.com

http://www.canada.com/news/Bloc+support+Tories+means+election/1996762/story.html


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Sep 2009)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> A local radio station is repeating a CP report that the Bloc has announced that it will support the ways and means motion on Friday. That means that the government will not be defeated. My question is what does the NDP do, support the EI changes or indicate a lack of confidence in the government?




If I - a card carrying dues paying Tory - was _Taliban Jack_ Layton, I would vote against the government, saying "Too little, too late!" because I do not want to give _Iggy_ _Icarus_ any chance to tar me as a Harper sympathizer.


----------



## Old Sweat (15 Sep 2009)

That was my first reaction, but then I wondered if there was not an advantage to isolating the Liberals as the only ones who voted against the EI improvements and the other goodies. The trouble with trying to predict what politicians will do is that their thought processes are way out of sync with those of normal humanoids.


----------



## GAP (15 Sep 2009)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> If I - a card carrying dues paying Tory - was _Taliban Jack_ Layton, I would vote against the government, saying "Too little, too late!" because I do not want to give _Iggy_ _Icarus_ any chance to tar me as a Harper sympathizer.



It's too late....he's already intimated that he is prepared to support the Tories. The preception is fixed in the public's eye, and Jack has dodged and wove so much on other issues, he has no credibility on changing now....


----------



## len173 (15 Sep 2009)

Like most Canadians, I did not want an election. However, now that the liberals have said it's on, I think we have to have one. The liberals can't just go back to supporting the government. Taliban Jack can try it, but he will probably just piss his base off even more. So we end up with a frozen govt. and nothing getting done because of the ever looming threats of an election over every bill read in the house. Let's get it done, let the liberals know that yet again, we do not want them, let the NDP feel the wrath of how people really felt about that little coalition escapade.

Iggy is a smart guy, but he is simply power hungry and dying to be PM. He's been leader of the opposition for less than a year, in a major economic crisis, and suddenly he feels he's entitled to be PM. So screw what the country wants/needs, I'm movin to 24 Sussex!


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Sep 2009)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> That was my first reaction, but then I wondered if there was not an advantage to isolating the Liberals as the only ones who voted against the EI improvements and the other goodies. The trouble with trying to predict what politicians will do is that their thought processes are way out of sync with those of normal humanoids.




Poor Jack.

The “great white hope” of the NDP is the total collapse of the Liberal Party of Canada and for that to happen it (the LPC) needs a leader who is dumber than Dion but has charisma. (_”Allo! Justin! You listening, monsieur?”_) Then he needs to repeat in Canada what happened in Britain nearly 100 years ago. That was the dream, anyway, when the CCF was stabbed in the back swallowed up by the Canadian Labour Congress and the NDP, Canada’s answer to the UK’s Labour Party, was formed. If that miracle can be accomplished then the _Dippers_ become the second party. Redistribution after redistribution means that eventually, in a 400+ seat parliament, no one cares how Québecers vote - their 75 seats are no longer enough to prevent majority governments elected West of the Ottawa River.

The second best thing is a series of Liberal minorities. The halcyon days for the _Dippers_ were in the early/mid ‘60s and in 72/73 when they propped up Liberal minorities (Pearson and Trudeau) and forced them to enact some of the most destructive socio-economic policies and programmes in Canadian history.

Neither looks very likely right now and Jack has to be looking over his shoulder waiting for the knives to come out. He (Jack) would probably be glad to lose his only Quebec seat and his ambitious, _telegenic_ and experienced deputy leader Thomas Mulcair because he has a very long knife, indeed, and its barely hidden under his toga.










Edit: typo


----------



## jeffb (15 Sep 2009)

Enter the Bloc, exit the election scare.  :

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/09/15/bloc-election-motion.html?ref=rss



> The Bloc Québécois will support the Conservative government's budget motion on Friday, averting a federal election call this week.
> 
> The government is bringing forward a financial ways-and-means motion, which includes the popular tax credits for home renovation. It is considered a confidence issue and its defeat could trigger an election.



I don't think there's another money bill before the house until at least October.


----------



## ModlrMike (15 Sep 2009)

Gilles is nothing if not politically astute. I'm sure he realizes that if he defeats a bill that will directly benefit a large portion of his constituency, he'll ultimately wear it at the polls.


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Sep 2009)

Here, from a somewhat suspect source (Michael Valpy is a former NDP candidate who “specializes” in _touchy-feely_ issue pseudo-journalism), is an interesting analysis of _Taliban Jack_ Layton’s predicament, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/on-ei-layton-has-nowhere-to-turn/article1289183/


> On EI, Layton has nowhere to turn
> *Whether he accepts Harper's plan or turns it down, the NDP Leader will wear the consequences*
> 
> Michael Valpy
> ...




The _Dippers_, especially the _toney_, _trendy_ Toronto variety, and the trade unions are wilfully blind about the people they want to represent.

Industrial workers, unionized or not, are, broadly:

•	Well paid – IF they have jobs; and

•	Cautious – one might even say *conservative* in their outlook on almost anything.

As the election outputs show, the _Dippers_ do not do especially well in the big _industrial_ ridings – in many, even most cases, the Conservatives and Liberals are, at the very least, competitive and often win those seats. That’s because, despite the unions’ leadership’s exhortations, the members vote, like most Canadians, in their own perceived self-interest and they seldom see that reflected in the _loony-left_ positions espoused by so many federal NDP members.

The manic-depressive/split personality nature of the NDP was on display at its recent national convention. There was a visible split between the “true believers” (in the socialist nirvana) from the federal party, led by _silk stocking socialists_ Layton and Chow and the “pragmatists” who have won and exercised political power in provinces like Manitoba and, most recently, Nova Scotia.

_Taliban Jack_ Layton’s NDP is appealing to a “base” that is just as _disconnected_ from Canada as Québec. (Part of his problem is that his positions have much appeal in Québec – more than almost anywhere except urban Toronto and Vancouver – but they are always “bettered” by the social-democrat _Bloc_.)

Poor Jack!


----------



## Larkvall (16 Sep 2009)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> As the election outputs show, the _Dippers_ do not do especially well in the big _industrial_ ridings – in many, even most cases, the Conservatives and Liberals are, at the very least, competitive and often win those seats. That’s because, despite the unions’ leadership’s exhortations, the members vote, like most Canadians, in their own perceived self-interest and they seldom see that reflected in the _loony-left_ positions espoused by so many federal NDP members.



This is true. Look at Jim Flaherty in Whitby-Oshawa. Althougth I am sure there are a lot of commuters in that mix as well. I think most NDP MPs get elected on the candidates' personal charmisa/strengths/personality alone as opposed to any national policies.

Edit A Conservative also holds the Oshawa riding. (Ed Broadbent's old riding)


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Sep 2009)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_, is an interesting take on why we do need an election:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/parliament-is-sick-and-we-need-a-new-beginning/article1288903/


> Parliament is sick, and we need a new beginning
> *If the public wants a majority, it will find a way to get one*
> 
> Gordon Gibson
> ...




It is risky to disagree with an old political pro like Gordon Gibson but disagree I do if when he says, _”minorities can work well – and have done so spectacularly in the Canadian past”_ – he is referring to the Pearson (1960s) and Trudeau (1970s) minorities. They “worked” to the degree that the governing party danced to the tune of the third party and then produced some of the worst socio-economic policies in Canadian history.

I do agree, wholly, with Gibson when he say _”The most important gap is in the central work of Parliament, the very reason for which its ancestor was invented in England hundreds of years ago. That is what used to be called “the power of the purse” ... The only way MPs can begin to tackle their most important job is with a functioning set of committees with a continuity of membership and expertise of staff ... Instead of defending the people against the government, Parliament and its committees have been twisted into agencies to defend the government from the people. This has been a long time coming – it's not just the current bunch that's to blame. But the situation is worse than ever due to non-stop partisan jockeying.”_ He’s right, parliament is broken and, likely, only a majority government can have enough political capital and political courage to fix it.

It’s not clear to me that a majority government, Conservative or Liberal, even a series of, say, three majorities in a row, will have the political courage to make things right. The problems are deeper than just irresponsible government.


----------



## jeffb (16 Sep 2009)

It looks like Jack Layton figured out what he is going to do. The upside, no election this fall. This will make a lot of folks happy in Ottawa right now. The volunteers on the ground are probably even happier! 

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/09/16/ndp-election-tories.html?ref=rss



> The NDP says it plans to prop up the Conservatives in order to pass a Tory plan to extend employment insurance for long-tenured workers — a move that appears to rule out a fall election.
> 
> New Democrat MP Thomas Mulcair told reporters that Prime Minister Stephen Harper has "shown movement" with the new EI plan — which translates to nearly $1 billion for 190,000 workers — and is a step in the right direction for what they've been asking for.
> 
> "So we’re not going to do anything to block that money. And an election campaign would definitely block it," Mulcair said. "That money wouldn’t flow to those families who need it and that's not something we're going to do."


----------



## The Bread Guy (17 Sep 2009)

This just out...

DUFF CONACHER AND DEMOCRACY WATCH v. THE PRIME MINISTER OF CANADA AND OTHERS (32 pg. PDF)
Summary: The applicants seek judicial review, in the way of a declaration by the Court, with respect to a decision of the Prime Minister to advise the Governor General to dissolve the 39th Parliament. Upon review, the Court concludes that the applicants have not established that a declaration is appropriate. The application is therefore dismissed, but without an order of costs due to the nature of the proceeding.


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Sep 2009)

While the fall election *might* be off – unless/until the Tories can find a way to provoke one, this report, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_, shows that they, too, are recruiting star candidates:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/former-afghan-envoy-seeks-nomination/article1291148/


> Former Afghan envoy seeks nomination
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Mr. Alexander, if he wins the nomination and if he wins the seat, will bring some much needed foreign and defence policy _weight_ to a caucus that is lacking it. (I’m sorry, I do not consider either O’Connor or Hahn to be policy wonks; they were, both, good military officers but a military career and policy “smarts” rarely go together.)


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Sep 2009)

More on Conservative hopeful Chris Alexander, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/the-liberals-wanted-him-the-tories-won-him-over/article1292241/


> The Liberals wanted him, the Tories won him over
> *After several attempts to recruit a diplomatic star, it was Ignatieff's policy on Afghanistan that sent the prized candidate Chris Alexander to the other side*
> 
> Michael Valpy
> ...




_Hell hath no fury like a woman_ party _scorned_, with apologies to William Congreve (the playwright, not the artillery’s Congreve).


----------



## GAP (18 Sep 2009)

The Liberals wanted him, the Tories won him over 
Article Link
Michael Valpy Globe and Mail Friday, Sep. 18, 2009 09:21AM EDT

Michael Ignatieff attempted to recruit diplomatic celebrity Chris Alexander to be a candidate for the Liberals, but disagreements over party policy on Afghanistan prompted him to reject the offer and join the Conservatives instead.

As recently as six weeks ago Canada's former ambassador to Afghanistan met with Mr. Ignatieff for what party sources said were talks about a Liberal candidacy – a conversation culminating with Mr. Ignatieff stating the party would not budge from its support for ending Canada's combat role in Afghanistan in 2011.

This week Mr. Alexander, 41, made a surprise announcement that he would give up his foreign service career and seek the Conservative nomination in the suburban Toronto riding of Ajax-Pickering.

He is viewed as a prized catch for any political party, given his credentials as one of the world's leading authorities on Afghanistan. 
More on link


----------



## Infanteer (18 Sep 2009)

A shame that Foreign Affairs lost what appears to be real talent to a racket where people who are _"deeply involved with the country, superbly knowledgeable about its politics, sensitive to its culture, persuasive, committed, hard-working and audacious in a job that needed audacity"_ seem to drown in the drudge of politiking....


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Sep 2009)

There is some _collateral damage_ from Alexander's retirement from the foreign service: he is (reliably) reported to have been the only effective _link_ between Richards Holbrook and the American _strategy_ and Kai Eide and the UN Mission in Afghanistan or, at least, he kept the two in some sort of balance.
---------------------​

I don't think it is surprising that he - and others like him - are leaving national and international _public service_ and moving towards politics.

The days are past when "wise men" in national or international public service, people like Bunche and Urquhart, could "manage" the world or even "create" a new one. Now politicians have eschewed the advice of "wise men" and replaced it with their own, personal glimpses into one another's souls and, by so doing, they have made strategy and policy the domain of enthusiastic amateurs - partisan politicians who are, of necessity, short term "thinkers." But they, the short term "thinkers" get to make the decisions so the career diplomats and public servants retire to write book reviews or they run for elected office.


----------



## a_majoor (18 Sep 2009)

I suspect the angriest people in the room right about now are:

1: Bob Rae, who didn't get his "et tu, Brute?" moment, and

2. Those who were waiting to throw Bob and Iggy under the bus and anoint the "young Dauphin"

Just about everything about this election circus seemed to be all about the Liberals and virtually nothing about the wants and needs of the taxpayers. If the CPC or the NDP could extract some sort of advantage out of Micheal Ignatieff's "all about me" moment, then of course they would, but when you get right down to it, were there any real issues? reasons? demands by the electorate?

*No.*

Send a bill for $300 million to Micheal Ignatieff and the LPC, payable to the Receiver General of Canada and end this nonsense until at least fall 2010. Then the electorate will have _at least_ one real question to ask: *Afghanistan, what are we going to do in 2011?*


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Sep 2009)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> A issue the Conservatives could use to cause an election is the elimination of public election funds (as attempted previously) and legislative revision of private political financing. It could be sold to the electorate as a method to prevent opposition parties (including themselves), bring down a government whenever by forcing political parties to raise all their election funds instead of receiving taxpayer funds. No political party would threaten an election when it's treasury was empty. Right now it is too easy to to threaten a election, especially when the party's treasury has millions of taxpayers dollars.The LPC, NDP and the Bloc would go ballistic again.




Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_ web site, is an interesting analysis of the current situation:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/layton-delves-into-uncharted-waters-to-keep-harper-afloat/article1293969/


> Layton delves into uncharted waters to keep Harper afloat
> *'[The NDP] are scared of having an election, period. Look at the polls,' says the Bloc's Duceppe*
> 
> Steven Chase and Bill Curry
> ...



I think Harper can, for now, have *confidence* in the fact that neither the _Bloc_/Duceppe nor the Liberals/_Prince Icarus_ will support him on any matter of confidence. I’m not sure, polls and money taken into account, how long the _Dippers_/Layton can afford, politically, to prop up Harper.

Reports say the Liberals and the _Bloc_ will cooperate with the Conservative government to _fast track_ the EI bill – which *ought to be unsatisfactory* to the _Dippers_ – through parliament thereby taking the “we’re just helping to pass EI reform” card off the table and force _Taliban Jack_ Layton’s hand.

The next useful opposition opportunity to move “no confidence” comes in early Oct. I doubt the EI bill can be _fast tracked_ far enough to deprive the _Dippers_ of their “protective” argument.

The government can bring forward a _toxic_ proposal – but not so _toxic_ that it is a transparent attempt to force the _Dippers_ back “on side” with the BQ and the Liberals, i.e. not a return of the election financing proposals – in time to allow for a late Nov election.

_If_ the Conservatives put their election financing proposals, somewhat modified, in their platform and *if* they win – even if it is another minority, and *IF* they then bring the proposal forward, very early in the new parliament, then it will be very, very hard for the opposition to defeat them. If the opposition defeats a new government on a matter that was in the winning party’s platform then the GG, on solid, albeit controversial, constitutional grounds, *might* not allow the opposition to seek the confidence of parliament because they will have played fast and loose with the _”people’s choice”_. The result would be yet another (unpopular hated)general election, clearly *forced* by a power hungry opposition leader who ignored the “will of the people,” and the people would punish him and his party for that.


----------



## Old Sweat (19 Sep 2009)

The next few weeks will be very interesting. The NDP can not be happy to be supporting the Conservatives and will be even less so if they are the lone party allowing the government to survive in the House. Certainly, from the footage of the vote I saw, many of the Dippers looked like they would prefer french kissing a rattlesnake to supporting the Tories.

Layton is in a very difficult position of his own making. Whether he lasts as party leader is an open question. I don't think too many of his caucus would really dread seeing him go to the socialist equivalent to the elephants' graveyard.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (19 Sep 2009)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> The next few weeks will be very interesting. The NDP can not be happy to be supporting the Conservatives and will be even less so if they are the lone party allowing the government to survive in the House. Certainly, from the footage of the vote I saw, many of the Dippers looked like they would prefer french kissing a rattlesnake to supporting the Tories.



At 14% in the polls, down from over 18% last election the NDP could lose half its members.  They need to hold their noses and support the Tories while Taliban Jack works on his exit strategy.  He looks too smug and privileged to be a socialist.


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Sep 2009)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_, is a report on one of the many problems bedevilling the Liberal Party of Canada:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/liberal-heavyweights-square-off-over-outremont/article1295135/


> Liberal heavyweights square off over Outremont
> *Cauchon and Coderre lock horns in fight over who will get party nomination in high-profile Montreal riding*
> 
> ANDRE PICARD
> ...



More on Martin Cauchon here.

As I have mentioned before I do not think the current Liberal tradition is to alternate _"its leadership between anglophones and francophones.”_ I believe that Québecers now contend that the leadership alternates between _Franco_ Québecers and _Anglos_ from everywhere. In other words, I think that a _Franco-Ontarian_ (a “constituency” represented by Paul Martin Sr.) or e.g. Dominic LeBlanc must seek the Liberal leadership in the ranks of _les autres_.





Paul Martin Sr. And W.L. Mackenzie King at the opening session of the UN General Assembly in 1946

Outremont is a valuable seat. Thomas Mulcair will be hard to beat and even though _Taliban Jack_ Layton fears Mulcair as a leadership rival he will pour everything he has into a campaign to keep his only Québec seat in the hopes that his own _inkblot_ strategy can work.

Coderre is risking at lot. If he succeeds in keeping Cauchon out and then the _Dippers_ keep the seat his credibility as _Québec lieutenant_ and potential next Liberal leader will take a hit.


Edit: one typo and one spelling error


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Sep 2009)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_ is a useful analysis of just who was “saved” by _Taliban Jack_ Layton’s decision to support the government, plus a bit more on the contretemps in _Outremont_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/the-liberals-get-a-reprieve-for-now/article1293601/


> The Liberals get a reprieve – for now
> *Ignatieff still hasn't delivered on the promise of a renewed party*
> 
> Lysiane Gagnon
> ...



I think her analysis on Harper’s performance after the campaign financing _near death experience_ is good – he did, indeed, _manage_ the financial crisis competently, and foreign policy is looking like there is, at last, a grown-up at the helm, somewhere.

Equally, I see nothing new, nothing _exciting_ in _Prince Michael_’s lone foray into foreign policy.


----------



## dapaterson (21 Sep 2009)

Interestingly, Ms Le Prohon was appointed to the National Defence Audit Committee last December (http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/iac-cvi/mem/prohon-eng.asp).  The position is significant inasmuch as it provides the individual with a good overview of the departmental program (albeit on a part-time basis); a good primer on both the specific department and some larger governmental agenda items.

Interesting also that her appointment was made by Treasury Board on the advice of the President of the Treasury Board, the Hon Mr Toews, QC.  I suspect his political staff are now trying to keep a low profile; such appointments should go to party faithful, not potential political foes - and that the staff who vetted her missed her political affiliation does not bode well for them...


(EDIT to reflect the proper honorifics to the President of TB)


----------



## GAP (21 Sep 2009)

Ignatieff has 'put absolutely nothing on the table,' say Liberal insiders
 The Hill Times, September 21, 2009
Article Link

'We're looking at a massacre' in next election if Grit Leader Michael Ignatieff doesn't put anything substantive on the table.
By Abbas Rana
Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff is lagging behind Prime Minister Stephen Harper in recent public opinion polls because Canadians still don't know what the Grit leader stands for. To get their leader elected as the next Prime Minister, Liberals should be more proactive in communicating his positions on important public policy issues, political insiders and pollsters say.

"He's put absolutely nothing on the table. It's just empty rhetoric," a top Liberal who supported Mr. Ignatieff (Etobicoke-Lakeshore, Ont.) in both of his leadership campaigns told The Hill Times last week. "It's not enough to say, 'That in good times we're going to bring forward the progress...' If he goes into an election and doesn't really have anything substantive to put on the table, we're looking at a massacre."

Throughout the summer months, the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party ran neck and neck in public opinion polls and, in some cases, Liberals were even slightly ahead of the Conservatives.

An Angus-Reid online poll released last week showed that the Conservatives were leading the pack with 36 per cent support followed by the Liberals with 29 per cent, the NDP 17 per cent, the Bloc 10 per cent and the Green Party seven per cent. This poll showed that 58 per cent of Canadians oppose forcing an election while 31 per cent support it. The poll has a margin of error of plus or minus 3.1 per cent 19 times out of 20.

Before that, an Ipsos Reid poll showed that the Conservatives have the support of 39 per cent of Canadians compared to the Liberals who were at 30 per cent, the NDP at 12 per cent, Bloc Québécois at nine per cent and the Green Party at eight per cent. The poll of 1,001 Canadians was conducted from Sept. 10-13 and has a margin of error of 3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.
More on link


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Sep 2009)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Interestingly, Ms Le Prohon was appointed to the National Defence Audit Committee last December (http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/iac-cvi/mem/prohon-eng.asp).  The position is significant inasmuch as it provides the individual with a good overview of the departmental program (albeit on a part-time basis); a good primer on both the specific department and some larger governmental agenda items.
> 
> Interesting also that her appointment was made by Treasury Board on the advice of the President of the Treasury Board, the Hon Mr Toews, QC.  I suspect his political staff are now trying to keep a low profile; such appointments should go to party faithful, not potential political foes - and that the staff who vetted her missed her political affiliation does not bode well for them...
> 
> ...



Here is a profile of Nathalie Le Prohon.

If she becomes a Liberal candidate then the government may have _cause_ to ask her to resign her position.


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Sep 2009)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_ web site, is a report on _Prince Michael_’s speech in Toronto:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/recovery-isnt-good-enough-ignatieff-says/article1295523/


> ‘Recovery isn't good enough,' Ignatieff declares
> *Liberal Leader focuses on ‘growth' at luncheon speech unveiling economic plank of what would have been his election platform had New Democrats not propped up the Tories*
> 
> John Ibbitson
> ...



It is mostly and typically vacuous Liberal hot air, except for this bit, which is a real whopper, even for _Iggy_ _Icarus_: _ “Liberals say no. We don't believe in big government, but we do believe in good government”_ The Liberals are, and have been since 1929, the big party of big business, Big labour, *BIG* banks and so on – culminating in a steady succession of bigger and bigger governments.

The speech is wasted; _Taliban Jack_ Layton reset the election timetable. If Harper had already lost a vote of confidence and had gone to Rideau Hall to ask the GG to call an election then this would have been an important campaign speech – as it is, it means nothing.

For the rest: Ibbitson is right – _Iggy_ _Icarus_ is picking fiscal flyshit out of the economic pepper; there is nothing about Mr. Harper’s response to the economic crisis with which Liberals (or most Canadians) can, legitimately, take a lot of issue. Harper did what Ignatieff asked; it worked well enough. <yawn>


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Sep 2009)

And the Liberals have probably made a mistake, according to this report, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_ web site:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/cauchon-rebuffed-in-outremont/article1296034/


> Cauchon rebuffed in Outremont
> *Woman will run for Liberals in former Montreal stronghold, Ignatieff announces amid feud between his Quebec lieutenant and Chrétien's former justice minister*
> 
> Ottawa — The Canadian Press
> ...



Coderre is pretty well the best only choice _Prince Michael_ has for Québec lieutenant. The other Québec MPs are:

•	Stéphane Dion
•	Raymonde Folco 
•	Bernard Patry 
•	Marcel Proulx 
•	Marlene Jennings
•	Irwin Cotler 
•	Massimo Pacetti 
•	Pablo Rodriguez 
•	Francis Scarpaleggia
•	Marc Garneau
•	Alexandra Mendès 
•	Justin Trudeau
•	Lise Zarac

There are too few _pur laine_ Francophone MPs, and fewer still *experienced* MPs. Cauchon would have been, may still be, a good _back-up_ if they can find him a good seat and if he still wants in.


Edit: typo


----------



## ModlrMike (21 Sep 2009)

Hell hath no fury? I wonder if Mr Cauchon will make an attempt at a return to Ottawa under different colours.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (22 Sep 2009)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> best[/s] only choice _Prince Michael_ has for Québec lieutenant. The other Québec MPs are:
> 
> •	Stéphane Dion
> •	Raymonde Folco
> ...



Justin Trudeau, blessed with his mother's brains and his father's looks.  I hope the Liberals aren't looking to him as their next savior.


----------



## Journeyman (22 Sep 2009)

> Leader Michael Ignatieff has announced *the nod will go to a woman*, amid reports the party is courting Nathalie Le Prohon.



I sure hope Ms Prohon agrees to run for the Libs....otherwise there'll be an embarrassed ad in Job-hunting.qc: "Seeking political candidate: only qualification - _must_ be a woman"


----------



## Old Sweat (22 Sep 2009)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> I sure hope Ms Prohon agrees to run for the Libs....otherwise there'll be an embarrassed ad in Job-hunting.qc: "Seeking political candidate: only qualification - _must_ be a woman"



Not to despair. There has got to be another Heddie Fry out there somewhere.


----------



## a_majoor (22 Sep 2009)

Dennis Ruhl said:
			
		

> Justin Trudeau, blessed with his mother's brains and his father's looks.  I hope the Liberals aren't looking to him as their next savior.



The most hilarious post EVER! 

Of course they are pinning their hopes and dreams on the "Young Dauphin". They need to do it soon while the name still has resonance. If what Edward said in another post (A leader fromn Quebec, an Anglo leader, then its his turn when he is @ 50, the right age to attempt to be Prime Minister), then the only people who will remember the Trudeau name with nostalga (good or bad) will be 70 years old....and we will have had 20 years to educate people on the real legacy of P.E.T. to boot.


----------



## Edward Campbell (22 Sep 2009)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_ web site, are Gordon Bell’s thoughts on _Prince Michael_’s recent, almost election speech in Toronto:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/douglas-bell/


> Douglas Bell: Ig the Inevitable
> 
> Tuesday, September 22, 2009
> 
> ...



Well, I don’t think _Ig_ is inevitable, at all. In fact I still think he is more likely to be _Icarus_.

But I loved Boris Johnson’s example of why we do not axe the _”politically correct non-jobs”_ – those that Neil Reynolds said consist, in Canada,of  _”vast numbers of federal and provincial "pseudo-jobs"- which inexorably corrupted the work ethic_ [of Canadians]”


----------



## Edward Campbell (23 Sep 2009)

When he’s back in his lane the _Good Grey Globe_’s Jeffrey Simpson deserves out attention, as in this column which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/tired-rhetoric-and-not-much-more/article1297662/


> *Jeffrey Simpson*: Tired rhetoric, and not much more
> *Michael Ignatieff's critiques have done little to separate the Liberals and Conservatives on the deficit, stimulus or foreign affairs*
> 
> Jeffrey Simpson
> ...




As I read/see/hear more and more of _Prince Michael_ I also see, in my mind’s eye, a TV commercial in which _Prince Michael_ makes one “demand” after another and after each I see Stephen Harper saying, “done,” as a check mark appears on the screen.

Simpson is dead right, the G20 secretariat and some sort of “peace institute” are just plain silly – he wants to spend money on this crap while we are just beginning to recover from a severe recession? Add them to the portrait gallery on the list of _ordinary Canadians_’ spending priorities.


----------



## a_majoor (23 Sep 2009)

Liberals laying the groundwork for a successful campaign in Quebec..... ;D

http://torydrroy.blogspot.com/2009/09/when-grits-rumble.html



> *when grits rumble *
> 
> L.Ian Macdonald writes that the facade of party unity among Quebec grits has pretty much evaporated. Without the sacks of money in brown paper bags, what unity? It's apparently more than just Outremont. coderre is trying to oust dion and several other mps. coderre actually believes he can one day be prime minister of Canada. How frightening.
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (24 Sep 2009)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_ web site, is a comment by Norman Spector in Prime Minister Harper’s leadership, or lack of same, on foreign policy issues:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/spector-vision/mr-harpers-leadership/article1299634/


> Mr. Harper's leadership
> 
> Norman Spector
> 
> ...




I give Harper’s Tories full marks for walking out on Ahmadinejad, I’m a little depressed that we appear to have kept a bum in a seat for _Goofy_ Gadhafi’s tirade a bit earlier in the day.


----------



## Edward Campbell (24 Sep 2009)

And here is the _Nanos_ poll to which Spector referred.

In summary: Harper leads all the other leaders on all five issues by wide margins (The Economy and Taxes), moderate margins (Healthcare) and narrower margins (The Environment and National unity).


----------



## Edward Campbell (24 Sep 2009)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Another factor: At some undetermined point in the future the seat distribution in the House of Commons will change as follows:
> 
> •	Territories: From 3 to 3 – no change – percentage of seats remains at >1
> •	BC: From 36 to 43 – *+ 7* – percentage of seats rises to 12.6
> ...




Good news! According to this report, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_ web site, legislation to expand the House of Commons should be introduced this fall:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-moves-to-reshape-the-house/article1300709/


> Ottawa moves to reshape the House
> *Legislation, potentially to be introduced as early as this fall, would see Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia gain seats in Parliament*
> 
> John Ibbitson
> ...




Parliament must act. The numbers may be slightly different than the ones I used but the principle is the only possible one. Not to act is to admit that we are not quite a democracy, yet.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (25 Sep 2009)

Constitution Act 1867

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/const/c1867_e.html



> Readjustment of representation in Commons
> 51.  (1) The number of members of the House of Commons and the representation of the provinces therein shall, on the coming into force of this subsection and thereafter on the completion of each decennial census, be readjusted by such authority, in such manner, and from such time as the Parliament of Canada from time to time provides, subject and according to the following rules:
> 
> Rules
> ...


 
Regardless of actions authorized under these sections, at what point should someone ask the courts to redistribute?  The Charter of Rights and Freedoms also recognizes democratic rights.  The country is electing governments according to the 1991 population distribution and that is simply wrong.


----------



## Edward Campbell (25 Sep 2009)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the CBC web site, is more on the Coderre vs. Cauchon imbroglio:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/montreal/story/2009/09/24/cauchon-ignatieff-outremont-0924.html


> *Key Liberals back Cauchon in riding fight*
> Ignatieff offers Cauchon chance to run in Bloc riding
> 
> September 24, 2009
> ...




This is the sort of thing that ought to be done “behind closed doors.” That it is out in the open, all over the media, suggests that _Prince Michael_’s grip on the leadership is not as strong as it should be. That's not a good thing IF a late fall election is probable possible.


----------



## GAP (25 Sep 2009)

You are right ER...this is creating divisions (ah la...Martin/Chretien) that will be a long time healing. Cauchon should be welcomed back to run in his old riding...this shows leadership support, while Nathalie Le Prohon should have been offered the Bloc riding to run....what we have now is Ignatieff overruling not one, but two Liberal Riding Associations. This just aggravated the situation.


----------



## Rifleman62 (25 Sep 2009)

_And_ Bob Rae openly challenging Ignatieff's leadership.

P.S. I do not think Iggy should do TV close ups. He is scaring children looking like the old wicked witch (quoting my grand daughter).


----------



## GAP (25 Sep 2009)

Cauchon to run again as Liberals settle Quebec squabble  TheStar.com - Canada September 25, 2009 THE CANADIAN PRESS
Article Link

OTTAWA – Former Liberal cabinet minister Martin Cauchon will get the chance to make a political comeback in his old riding after all.

Party insiders say Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff has decided to allow an open nomination contest in the prized Montreal riding of Outremont.

Earlier this week, Ignatieff declared that the riding had been reserved for businesswoman Nathalie Le Prohon.

Ignatieff made that decision despite Cauchon's expressed interest in making a comeback in the riding he represented for 11 years before retiring from politics in 2004.

But insiders say Ignatieff relented in the face of a fierce party backlash and decided to give Le Prohon another Montreal riding – Jeanne-Le Ber.

Outremont was a longtime Liberal fortress until it was snatched away by New Democrat Thomas Mulcair in a stunning 2007 byelection upset.
End


----------



## dapaterson (25 Sep 2009)

The Economist has an article on Canada's deadlocked parliament.  Worth reading, if only to get an outside perspective.

http://www.economist.com/world/la/displaystory.cfm?story_id=14506460


----------



## Cloud Cover (25 Sep 2009)

"The Conservatives have portrayed him as an elitist carpetbagger."

... and nicely done, too!


----------



## GAP (26 Sep 2009)

How rep follows pop – and what it means for Quebec

The province that has driven much of this country's political agenda will go from belle of the political ball to wistful debutante

Brian Lee Crowley  Sep. 26, 2009 03:56AM EDT
Article Link

And so it begins.

The front-page news in this paper yesterday was the pending announcement of an increase in the size of the House of Commons of 30 seats or so. Such an increase is made necessary by the flourishing of three provinces over the past few decades: British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario.

Every other province will see its representation remain stable as the Commons increases in size, meaning a relative loss of political influence. This increase in the size of the Commons is only the first in a series that will be necessary to keep us even close to one person, one vote.

Statistics Canada maintains population projections for Canada in 2031. On all six of their scenarios, within two decades two-thirds of the Canadian population will live in the same three provinces that are about to get extra seats.

It is politically explosive to try to reduce the parliamentary representation of provinces that are losing population relative to the others, and especially so in the case of Quebec. So the Commons in 2031 will count 375 seats; virtually all the increase will go to this new three-province power coalition that will increasingly dominate Canadian politics. A party that could win three quarters of the seats in B.C., Alberta and Ontario would have a parliamentary majority without a single seat from any other province.

Quebec, the province that has driven much of this country's political agenda for the past half century, will go from belle of the political ball to wistful debutante. Its ability to win benefits for itself by consistently sending sovereigntists to Ottawa and denying any party a parliamentary majority will be severely reduced. And even if Quebeckers start voting for federalist parties in larger numbers, they will be unable reliably to deliver parliamentary majorities as they did for nearly a century.

Here's the question that really matters, though: Why are some provinces losing and others winning? 
More on link


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (26 Sep 2009)

And the reason it Happens from same link:



> Tellingly, it is those provinces that have footed the bill that have outstripped Quebec on almost every measure and are reaping the benefits in higher levels of in-migration, political influence, growth and opportunity. Quebec's big-state strategy in both Ottawa and Quebec City has been the distinct society's undoing, while those provinces that have worked hard and invested while keeping government, social programs and taxes under control have become lands of opportunity. The Commons is only just catching up to this new reality.



You could never convince someone from east of the Ottawa River that federal subsidization has kept them poor.  What is the surprising result of paying people not to work?  They don't work and they don't pay taxes.  Not only does Quebec suck up a large transfers from the federal government, it also has the highest taxes in Canada by far, thus discouraging new economic development.  There are a lot of ex-Quebecers in Alberta and we love them.


----------



## Edward Campbell (26 Sep 2009)

Here, reproduced under the fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Ottawa Citizen_, is a thoughtful comment by historian Michael Behiels:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/opinion/time+pull+plug/2034340/story.html


> It’s time to pull the plug
> 
> By Michael Behiels, The Ottawa Citizen
> 
> ...



Some excellent questions from Prof. Behiels and I am pretty certain that neither Harper nor Ignatieff wants to answer any of them – and no one cares what _Jack and Gilles_ think.


----------



## GAP (26 Sep 2009)

Just for some Iggy fun....here are some of his ad outtakes.......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2xJstJ_2nw&


----------



## ModlrMike (26 Sep 2009)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Here, reproduced under the fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Ottawa Citizen_, is a thoughtful comment by historian Michael Behiels:
> 
> From my perspective it reads more like a one sided, partisan rant.


----------



## Edward Campbell (26 Sep 2009)

It is one sided. Behiels is a _"liberal centrist"_ as is, probably, the largest of Canada's many, many minorities. He doesn't want Harper;s _"Republican-lite"_ but he is honest enough to admit that it is an option, maybe, when the ballots are counted, the _governing_ option.

But he is right: we have not had any debate about several important issues. Part of that is a result of PM Harper's political _tactics_ and part of it is the very nature of too many consecutive minority government.


----------



## GAP (28 Sep 2009)

Coderre expected to step down as Que. lieutenant
Article Link
 By: CTV.ca News Staff  Mon. Sep. 28 2009 9:44 AM ET

Denis Coderre is expected to step down Monday as Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff's Quebec lieutenant, CTV News has learned, over a disagreement about the political comeback of one of the Quebec MP's main rivals.

Coderre will hold a news conference today at 11 a.m. in Montreal where it is expected that he will announce his decision, CTV's Ottawa Bureau Chief Robert Fife told Canada AM.

To announce the news conference, Coderre issued a press release Monday that for the first in months did not include the title, "Michael Ignatieff's Quebec lieutenant."

According to Fife, Michael Ignatieff's office was completely unaware of Coderre's plans and said the Liberal leader had not been in contact with his lieutenant over the weekend.

"The most important thing here is nobody can win power in this country if they can't govern their own party," Fife said. "And Mr. Ignatieff is in a real bind here because polls are falling, he's trying to force an election, and now the party is split. And it's split in an area where Liberals needs to win seats -- in Quebec" 
More on link


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Sep 2009)

Given two *headlines*, both of which are _temporary_ in nature, Stephen Harper must be casting about for something, anything – anything other than campaign financing which is too obvious – which is so poisonous that not even the election shy _Dippers_[ can support him in a confidence vote:

Stimulus ‘beginning to bear fruit,' PM says; and

Liberals prepare confidence motion – but lose Quebec lieutenant.

The _stimulus_ “news” enhances Harper’s reputation, shown in recent polls, as the better manager of the economy/recovery.

The Coderre _stab-in-the back_ of _Prince Michael_ tells Canadians that the Liberals are still deeply divided and not, yet, “ready for prime time.”

For Tories it’s ELECTION time! But all of _Iggy_ _Icarus_, _Taliban Jack_ Layton and Gilles Duceppe have to be provoked into acting against their own best interests and forcing the election for which the Tories now so desperately wish.


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Sep 2009)

The _Good Grey Globe_’s politics editor, Adam Radwanski, makes the case that losing Coderre is rather like getting rid of a dose of _clap_, a bit painful in the short arm term, but worth it later on, in this _blog_ spot which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_ web site:

 http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/radwanski/addition-by-subtraction/article1304167/


> Addition by subtraction
> 
> Adam Radwanski
> 
> ...




He (and Silver) has a point. Coderre was is a bully and a buffoon, rather like his patron _’tit Jean_ Chrétien. The down side for Ignatieff’s Liberals is that Coderre IS popular in Québec and the BQ and the Conservatives will, both, be able to exploit this, probably unfairly, to be sure, to their advantage. It is time to get rid of the _Québec lieutenants_; Lester B Pearson was the last PM who really, really needed one.


----------



## a_majoor (28 Sep 2009)

Why do the Conservatives have to "engineer" an election with clever ploys. All they need is to have a few members not show up in the house when the next money bill is being read...

it worked for Stephan Dion!  ;D ;D ;D


----------



## Old Sweat (28 Sep 2009)

I think Mister Radwanski is putting too positive a spin on Iggy's actions. He first backed Coderre and then caved to outside pressure. I suggest that the little matter that he took advice from a Toronto Anglo MP and overruled his Quebec lieutenant will not be soon forgotten, not least of all because the Bloc and the Tories will keep the issue alive for as long as possible.


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Sep 2009)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_ web site, is some interesting *speculation* by long-time Liberal insider Andrew Steele:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/andrew-steele/notable-by-absence/article1304415/


> Notable by absence
> 
> Andrew Steele
> 
> ...




Food for thought.


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Sep 2009)

Denis Coderre asked:

_”Who should the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada listen to on decisions that strictly affect Quebec? Should he follow his Quebec lieutenant while working closely with a credible team? Or to his Toronto advisers who know nothing about the social and political realities of Quebec?"_ (Source: CTV News web site)

What he’s really saying is that the _Liberal Party of Canada_ has, really, devolved into the *Liberal Party of Toronto*. That’s what we already knew, isn’t it?


----------



## ModlrMike (28 Sep 2009)

The Bloc will use this quote to great advantage in the next election, I'm sure. Are we looking at the possibility of the Liberals being shut out of Quebec?


----------



## dapaterson (28 Sep 2009)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> The Bloc will use this quote to great advantage in the next election, I'm sure. Are we looking at the possibility of the Liberals being shut out of Quebec?



No.  The anglo Montrealers will continue their blind voting patterns, supporting the Liberals regardless of their inaction on behalf of the community - not noticing that their children have all moved away, due in no small part to continued federal pandering to a vocal minority.

We remember Falardeau.  We forget O'Neill, MacWilliams, Pinisch, Morin, St-Germain and Laporte.  _Je me souviens._


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Sep 2009)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> The Bloc will use this quote to great advantage in the next election, I'm sure. Are we looking at the possibility of the Liberals being shut out of Quebec?




I think not, the Liberals have a veritable _stranglehold_ on certain parts of Montreal. Many _Anglos_ resemble some Atlantic Canadians in their mindless loyalty to one party.


----------



## Cloud Cover (28 Sep 2009)

Ignatieff has introduced a no confidence vote- http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20090928/harper_report_090928/20090928?hub=TopStoriesV2

The NDP say they will continue to support the government. I think on the day and time of the vote, the Cons should leave the building and go volunteer at soup kitchens, sweep streets and return constituent phone calls. Let the opposition go at each other. Can the NDP out vote the liberals? No. Will the liberals have to rely on the NDP and the Bloc to vote against them to defeat their own motion- yes. The Liberals will have to withdraw the motion or vote against their own leaders motion.


----------



## ModlrMike (28 Sep 2009)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I think not, the Liberals have a veritable _stranglehold_ on certain parts of Montreal. Many _Anglos_ resemble some Atlantic Canadians in their mindless loyalty to one party.



Quite true. Just the same, it's not unreasonable to presume they might be reduced to single digits.


----------



## a_majoor (28 Sep 2009)

This seems almost like the prelude to the First World War. No one seems to be actually prepared for an election (even the CPC for all its electoral horsepower really hasn't got a positive message to why they should be elected, just "Stay the Course" and "the election isn't necessary right now").

This blogger thinks the NDP should be the ones waiting for Archduke Micheal by the bridge, and they seem to be one of the few parties to potentially benefit from this:

http://canadaconservative.blogspot.com/2009/09/coderre-just-gave-layton-his-opening.html



> *Coderre just gave Layton his opening*
> 
> Unbelievable. if anyone of you thought we weren't going to the polls, this just changed everything... by suddenly up and quitting today, Denis Coderre has perhaps give Jack Layton just the cover he needed to join the Liberals in forcing an election.
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Sep 2009)

Wheels within wheels according to Norman Spector’s _blog_ which is reproduced here under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_ web site:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/spector-vision/connecting-the-coderre-dots/article1304052/


> Connecting the Coderre dots
> 
> Norman Spector
> 
> ...




A “fissure” indeed!


----------



## Brad Sallows (28 Sep 2009)

The mantra that the NDP are "propping up the Conservatives" has become amusing.  Aside from the likelihood that the Conservatives don't really wish to be propped up by anyone at this point, the reality is that the NDP are propping themselves up by frantically stalling an election they are ill-positioned to contest.  I find openly laughable every attempt by their spin doctors to put a good face on their ongoing "oh sh!t" moment which has followed Ignatieff's change of direction, especially on the heels of their self-righteous posturing since December.

Someone should tell Layton, Lavigne, and the rest of the prominent NDP members beaking off to the media about their solemn wisdom that they already have plenty of crap over their faces and there's no need to smear it around some more for better coverage.


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 Sep 2009)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_, is the first of a handful of articles dealing with the Coderre imbroglio:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/wounded-ignatieff-faces-test-of-leadership/article1304791/


> Wounded Ignatieff faces test of leadership
> *Liberal Leader loses Quebec lieutenant as party puts forward no-confidence motion*
> 
> Daniel Leblanc and Les Perreaux
> ...




Coderre has dealt a real _body blow_ to his own party – something he may think is a necessary prelude to his own attempt to become leader and, he hopes, prime minister, sooner rather than later.

There are, still, some hints of the old left/right St Laurent vs Trudeau etc, _debate_ that has fractured the Liberals for 40+ years but it is not clear to me that it is at the core of this dispute. _Prince Michael_’s “team” in Toronto looks, to me, like a bunch of unreconstructed Trudeauites – but maybe most Liberals “activists” and _true believers_ are that way.

I remain unsure of where _Iggy_ _Icarus_ *stands* on most issues; I have hear/read the platitudes but for about a year now there has been *nothing of substance* from anyone in the Liberal Party of Canada. (In fairness there hasn’t been much any substance from the Conservatives, either.) Ignatieff simply _slithers_ from position to position in order to satisfy some particularist audience’s _cause du jour_.

I think this is, rather than a continuance of the old fracture, three simple “power plays” that have, accidentally, merged into one:

1. *Coderre vs Cauchon* for the “leadership” of Québec’s federal Liberals because one or the other plans to take over when _Iggy_ _Icarus_ does fly too close to the sun. Both of these _ugly ducklings_ have to move fast before the Québec Liberals find a _swan_ to lead them;

2. *Rae vs Ignatieff* for the “leadership” of the Liberal Party of Canada because many, many Liberals are frustrated that _Prince Michael_ was _anointed_ (by a gang of Toronto insiders) rather than elected at a convention where the very active left wing of the party might have prevailed; and

3. *Québec vs Canada* for the _soul_ of the Liberal Party. I think that some (many?) Québec Liberals believe that _Conservatism_ (which isn’t very _conservative_) is overtaking _Liberalism_ (which is certainly not _liberal_) in “New Canada” – the growing regions West of the Ottawa River. They note that, since 1947, only _Francophone_/Québec leaders have “succeeded” as Liberal prime ministers of Canada. (St Laurent, Trudeau and Chrétien all won multiple majorities, Pearson, Turner and Martin all won minorities or failed to win at all. Dion is the exception that proves the rule and they think Ignatieff will follow suit.)


----------



## Old Sweat (29 Sep 2009)

There also was a theory that was fashionable or perhaps popular or held as an article of faith by the "old Canada" crowd that only a Quebecker, English or French, could ever become Prime Minister. This was because, the true believers proclaimed, because the Quebec voters would always support on of their own, and without a majority of seats in Quebec, no outsider could win enough seats to form a government.

Given the shift in population towards "New Canada" and the failure of proposals to guarantee Quebec a fixed proportion of the Commons seat, that theory is destined to join the flat earth and centre of the universe as concepts whose time is passed. The next few years may be the last chance for the "Old Canada" crowd to gain power and the unseemly squabbling in the Liberal party reflects the growing desparation. Perhaps desparation is too strong a word for a party which believes that its rightful place is as the government, and it is frustration we see manifested.


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Sep 2009)

Here, reproduced under te Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_ is what I can only describe as a _puff piece_ about _Prince Michael_ in Québec:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ignatieff-stands-firm-in-quebec/article1306236/


> Ignatieff stands firm in Quebec
> *Liberal Leader attends party fundraiser, hoping to show he is not intimidated by resignation of provincial lieutenant, Denis Coderre*
> 
> Jane Taber and Ingrid Peritz
> ...




The oft cited *requirement* for journalistic _balance_ appears to not apply to stories about _Iggy_ _Icarus_. Critical analysis is neither required nor welcome by some “fair and balanced” journalists.


----------



## Rifleman62 (30 Sep 2009)

You Got It Pontiac!


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Sep 2009)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_ web site, is more from Norman Spector’s _blog_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/ignatieff-and-harper-will-need-this-election-advice-soon-enough/article1305856/


> Ignatieff and Harper will need this election advice soon enough
> *There's still time to reconsider coalitions and Quebeckers*
> 
> Norman Spector
> ...




I agree, broadly, with Spector on _Harper in Québec_, including_”subjecting federally regulated companies to the province's language laws.”_ I, especially agree with the idea of telling _”Quebeckers that he respects their right to vote for whomever they like and that he welcomes Bloc Québécois MPs supporting his government's legislation”_ [but] _”... he should explain that no government of Canada can be beholden to a party committed to secession and that the Bloc's acknowledged strategy of thwarting the formation of a majority government of any stripe is unacceptable in these uncertain times.”_

I don’t know when the soonest practical and legal opportunity to enlarge the House of Commons will arise but Harper should must do it at that “soonest” moment, Québec’s _worries_ be damned, but assuaged with soft words.


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 Oct 2009)

The Liberal Party’s problem, according to the Red Star’s Jim Travers, is not _Prince Michael_, their _Iffy_ leader, it is, instead, Liberals. His column is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Toronto Star_:

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/703677


> Deluded Grits fail to see faults in their leaders
> 
> James Travers
> 
> ...




No matter where they try to place the “blame” the political fact is that, while the Liberals may have fixed some of their membership and financial problems, they are not ready for an election: their leader is _suspect_ and the policy cupboard is, pretty much, bare.


----------



## ModlrMike (1 Oct 2009)

> ...deluded Liberals who persuaded themselves that returning to power was inevitable and no more demanding than a beauty pageant.



This passage sums things up for me. Until the Liberals divest themselves of the notion of the "natural governing party" they won't make real progress at self reform. They need to realize that governing this great nation is a privilege and not a right.


----------



## Edward Campbell (4 Oct 2009)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from last Friday’s _Globe and Mail_, is another take on _Prince Michael_’s manifold problems:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/radwanski/ignatieffs-ottawa-problem/article1310657/


> Ignatieff's Ottawa problem
> 
> Adam Radwanski
> 
> ...




I think Radwanski is on to something. A really smart Liberal, back nearly a year ago, would have said: “Congratulations, Prime Minister. The people have spoken and we have listened. We are cognizant of the deteriorating economic situation and we understand that the people think you have the better ideas. We will support you in every effort to solve our, national economic crisis and we will also respect your *earned right* to govern according to the platform on which you ran. So long as whatever you propose was in your platform and unless or until the economy deteriorates further, we will support you.”

Canadians would have said, “*Attaboy!* That’s what we want from minority governments: cooperation.” _Iggy_ _Iffy_ _Icarus_ would be standing tall, today, ready and able to win an election because he would have the *respect* of Canadians.


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Oct 2009)

Here, in summary form, are the results of a recent Angus Reid poll that tells us why we are, most likely, not having an election this years:

*Canada*:

BQ: 11%
*Cons: 37%*
Greens: 6%
*Libs 27%*
NDP: 17%


*Ontario*:

Cons: 44%
Libs: 30%


*BC*:

Cons: 42%
Libs: 23%


----------



## RangerRay (5 Oct 2009)

According to Strategic Counsel:
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20091005/strategic_poll_091005/20091005?hub=QPeriod

    * Conservatives: 41 per cent (+6)
    * Liberals, 28 per cent (-2)
    * NDP: 14 per cent (none)
    * Green Party: 9 per cent (none)
    * Bloc Quebecois: 9 per cent (-3) 

Ontario
# Conservatives: 46 per cent (+5)
# Liberals: 30 per cent (-9)


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Oct 2009)

RangerRay said:
			
		

> According to Strategic Counsel:
> http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20091005/strategic_poll_091005/20091005?hub=QPeriod
> 
> * Conservatives: 41 per cent (+6)
> ...




From the look of it *everyone* is going to take turns sustaining Harper if need be. He's the only guy who wants an election.


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Oct 2009)

Norman Spector offers some more GST related advice that *would* make good economic sense and *would* discomfit the Liberals, especially, and that *could* provoke an election in this _blog_ entry which is reproduced here under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_ web site:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/spector-vision/hst-now/article1312951/


> HST now
> 
> Norman Spector
> 
> ...




The _Bloc_ and the NDP will both, have to vote against this. For the _Bloc_ it is an intrusion into Québec’s _sovereignty_ and must be opposed on principle; for the _Dippers_ it is a big political issue in BC and ON, where by-elections are being held and where the _Dippers_ oppose the HST.

The Liberals will, therefore, have to, either:

•	Back away from _Iggy_ _Iffy_ _Icarus_’ “gunslinger” position (oppose! Oppose! OPPOSE!) and support the government and risk being Dion_ized_ again; or

•	Stand on “principle” – what principle? – and bring down the government and trigger a winter election.

Not a nice choice for _Prince Michael_: good policy or good politics? Principle or a dreaded election? Tough guy or wimp?


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Oct 2009)

And here, reproduced here under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from yesterday's _Ottawa Citizen_, a perfect image of _Prince Michael_'s current situation:









_Cannon to right of them,_ - the dwindling support from women, _ethnics_ and other _traditional_ Liberals
_Cannon to left of them,_   - Coderre and the Québec _thing_
_Cannon in front of them_  - *Harper at the piano, singing* "I get by with a little help from my friends"
_   Volley'd and thunder'd;
Storm'd at with shot and shell,
Boldly they rode and well,
Into the jaws of Death,
Into the mouth of Hell
   Rode the six hundred._


----------



## GAP (6 Oct 2009)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> And here, reproduced here under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from yesterday's _Ottawa Citizen_, a perfect image of _Prince Michael_'s current situation:
> 
> _Cannon to right of them,_ - the dwindling support from women, _ethnics_ and other _traditional_ Liberals
> _Cannon to left of them,_   - Coderre and the Québec _thing_
> ...


----------



## Rifleman62 (6 Oct 2009)

"Michael Ignatieff has promised Premier Dalton McGuinty that federal Liberals will respect Ontario’s agreement with Ottawa"

Yes, bring the HST legislation forward. The Lieliberals will have to vote with the government or go back on their word (flip flop; their "word" means nothing, etc). By voting with the government it takes the wind out of the NDP election rhetoric in the rest of Canada (ROC), as only the CPC or the LPC can form a government.

I must say that in BC, if you really want examples of how Lieliberals operate in elections/government, there are lots of examples. A huge majority do not understand the HST. They only see more taxes.


----------



## The Bread Guy (6 Oct 2009)

....for Iggy?  This, from the _Toronto Star_:


> A Conservative government official said Monday there have been discussions with three Liberal MPs interested in crossing the floor to the Tory side over the past month.
> 
> Liberals immediately dismissed the talk as Conservative "mischief" and said it is the government that is on a raiding mission.
> 
> ...


----------



## ModlrMike (6 Oct 2009)

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> .........and let me add my personal take, stuffy = Harper.



Perhaps his appearance at the NAC is part of an effort to dismantle that opinion? The Torries know full well that women are their largest untapped source of votes.


----------



## observor 69 (6 Oct 2009)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_BHs82Qhp0

Workin' it, workin' it!!   ;D


----------



## a_majoor (6 Oct 2009)

Another one from the rumor mill (I overheard it on the radio, but didn't get the station call sign); Mr Ignatieff is trying to force an election to give _himself_ an exit strategy and return to Harvard.

I have to admit this makes about as much sense as anything else coming down the pike, and is even consistent with the Ignatieff as a Narcissist narrative (well, he's in good company, the "Big O" also seems a lot more interested in himself than what's going on around him...).

Time will tell.

BTW, judging politicians or public figures by their media persona's is very dangerous. Mr Harper in person is quite a warm figure, the "Young Dauphin" is very dull in person, and I can name other public persons from media, politics and academia who I have personally observed to be quite different from their "public" persona.


----------



## Bass ackwards (6 Oct 2009)

Here's a youtube video of our "stuffy" Prime Minister singing a duet with Yoyo Ma at a surprise appearance at the National Arts Centre:

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


----------



## old medic (7 Oct 2009)

Kelly McParland: Liberals flee Dhalla and her pension bill
Posted: October 06, 2009

Read more: http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/10/06/kelly-mcparland-liberals-flee-dhalla-pension-bill.aspx#ixzz0TE700S98




> Here's why I'll never be a member of Stephen Harper's super-secret cabal of strategic advisers.
> 
> Last week I explained why Ruby Dhalla's private members bill, Bill C-428, was nothing to worry about, because a) private members bills rarely pass and b) the cost, at less than $500 a year per elderly immigrant, wasn't a big deal. (A Liberal blogger pointed out the Conservatives proposed something similar in 2004)
> 
> ...


----------



## Rifleman62 (7 Oct 2009)

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/dhalla-pledges-fealty-to-liberals/article1315656/

Even though Jane Taber wrote this, it appears to be factual:

Dhalla pledges fealty to Liberals 

Jane Taber
Ottawa — The Globe and Mail 
Last updated on Wednesday, Oct. 07, 2009 03:51PM EDT

Beleaguered Liberal MP Ruby Dhalla swore allegiance to her party, denied she was crossing the floor to the Tories and was given a standing ovation by her colleagues. 

All this happened behind closed doors at the national caucus meeting Wednesday morning. 

See link.

Funny having to stand up in caucus and swear allegiance. I wonder who ordered her to do it. Bad precedence.


----------



## RangerRay (7 Oct 2009)

The Tories probably told her to get lost!  ;D


----------



## ModlrMike (7 Oct 2009)

Ms Dhalla can be more useful to the Torries as a Liberal rather than a Conservative.


Now for the speculating... Who do you think is a potential to cross the floor?


----------



## TCBF (8 Oct 2009)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Now for the speculating... Who do you think is a potential to cross the floor?



- A bunch of Liberals who don't want to be in the same party as Ms. Dhalla.


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Oct 2009)

Two points:

1. *Don't count Ignatieff out.* He is a very, very bright guy and he is supported by some of the best partisan political _strategists_ and _operators_ in Canada. He *can recover* and he _might_ recover and if he does he might well become our prime minister; and

2. Ignatieff has loyalty troubles on two fronts -

a. the *hard left*_ of the Liberals Party is, still, convinced that he is a Bushite, and

b. the *hard right* of the Liberal Party is becoming convinced that he will be turned (by his operators) into some sort of Trudeau lite.

If, and it's a very big IF, there are going to be any Liberal defectors to the Tories they (all one of them?) may come from the latter group.

By the way, I agree that the Conservatives want nothing at all to do with Dhalla - she's poison and a loose cannon and she's a one trick pony, serving an ethnic constituency._


----------



## Rifleman62 (8 Oct 2009)

I agree, unfortunatly " Don't count Ignatieff out ". 

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

*Conservatives extend poll lead over Liberals*
Last Updated: Thursday, October 8, 2009 | 9:40 AM ET CBC News

 The federal Conservatives have widened their lead over the Liberals when it comes to voting intentions, a new poll suggests.

As the Tories' support shows signs of growing, disapproval ratings for Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff are also going up.

The EKOS poll, released Thursday exclusively to the CBC, found that 39.7 per cent of respondents supported the Conservatives, while the Liberals had 25.7 per cent backing. The New Democratic Party had the support of 15.2 per cent of respondents, with the Green Party and the Bloc Québécois both at 9.7 per cent.

Conservative support was up 3.7 percentage points from a poll released last week, while Liberal support was off by four points. The NDP's support was up by 1.3 points, the Green Party was off by 0.8 points and the Bloc slipped by 0.1.

Since early September, when the Conservatives and the Liberals were in a virtual dead heat in the polls, the Tories have pulled ahead.

The latest poll was conducted between Sept. 30 and Oct. 6. The polling period included the Oct. 1 vote on the Liberals' motion of no-confidence in the minority Tory government — a motion the Conservatives defeated as the NDP decided to abstain. The NDP has vowed to keep the government in power to ensure passage of legislation extending employment insurance benefits.

Liberals lose ground with voter base
EKOS president Frank Graves said the Liberals have lost ground with voters in traditional strongholds, including in Toronto and among women, university graduates, visible minorities and recent immigrants.

"Even visible minorities and recent immigrants who were like almost an automatic vote for the Liberals, have shifted," said Graves.

"They're running about equally now with the Conservatives. All these other groups are lining up more on the conservative side of the equation."

As his party has slipped in the polls, Ignatieff's disapproval ratings have grown.

The percentage of respondents who disapproved of the way Ignatieff is handling his job was 51 per cent, up from 38 per cent in August.

Ignatieff's approval rating was 19 per cent, down from 29 per cent two months ago.

Ignatieff addresses poll numbers
Graves said it is difficult to pinpoint why Ignatieff's popularity has plummeted in such a short time.

"Perhaps some of the framing that was put in place by the Conservatives and some of the so-called negative ads have stuck with Mr. Ignatieff," he said. "Because it's hard to line up anything he's said or done specifically."

Ignatieff, speaking Thursday morning in London, Ont., after addressing the local chamber of commerce, said there is "no question" the Conservatives have characterized or "framed" him in a certain way.

"I've got to lift that big frame off and let Canadians see who I really am, and we will be doing that," he said.

"If there are things I need to do better, I am certainly going to be ready to try, because I want to listen to Canadians and improve my performance any way I can," he said.

Harper approval rating rises
As for Prime Minister Stephen Harper, his disapproval rating was 42 per cent, compared with 47 per cent in August. The percentage of respondents who approved of how Harper was doing his job was 39 per cent, for a gain of three percentage points.

NDP Leader Jack Layton had a disapproval rating of 31 per cent, an improvement from 33 per cent in August. Layton's approval numbers held steady at 34 per cent.

The poll randomly sampled 3,333 Canadians aged 18 and over. The margin of error associated with a sample of that size is plus or minus 1.7 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.


----------



## ModlrMike (8 Oct 2009)

There's no doubt that Iggy can rehabilitate himself or be rehabilitated by the party. What the Conservatives have been handed is an opportunity to maximize coverage of Liberal dissent, thereby reinforcing the public's impression that Iggy is not a leader.


----------



## Kirkhill (8 Oct 2009)

The problem that all the opposition parties have is that the longer Harper continues to operate with the rotating support of the various other parties the harder it will be for them to paint him as anything worse than a pragmatist at the next election.  That may not go down well with the fringes of any party, including the Tories, but will secure the middle ground.  And, as we have discussed before, the real agenda is the one that Iggy is just now starting to identify and fight ..... the intention to decentralize government and reduce its ability to act on the economy. 

How better to do that than create a deficit in a time of financial stress and then demand that the government be required to refill the coffers in good times when the citizenry can look after themselves.  The argument then becomes that if it doesn't refill the silos in the good times it wont be in a position to assist when the next recession comes along 11 years from now.


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Oct 2009)

According to this report, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s _Globe and Mail_, even when the Liberals try to do something right – legislation can, almost always, be improved – they end up doing damage to their electoral prospects:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/liberal-senators-break-with-ignatieff-on-law-and-order-bill/article1317860/


> Liberal senators break with Ignatieff on law-and-order bill
> *Upper chamber grits amend legislation that the Liberal Leader had championed*
> 
> John Ibbitson
> ...




This will be just another tempest in a teapot; it is unlikely to have “legs” but it is another nail in the 2009 election coffin.

But it complicates life for Harper, in a way. While it helps the already solid Conservative _law and order_ base to refocus its anger at the Liberals and the Senate for being _soft on crime_, it highlights Harper’s failure to reform the Senate – another _”wish list”_ item for other Conservatives.


----------



## Rifleman62 (9 Oct 2009)

From what I saw from the interview yesterday on CTV's Power Play ( 2 LPC & 1CPC Senators), one Liberal Senator (can't remember who: George Baker maybe _it was Larry Campbell, former Mayor of Vancouver_), said he would not be whipped. Apparently while some of the Liberal Senators where out at lunch (vice out to lunch), the Conservatives had a majority in the Senate. Because of this, the story circulating (and probably originated by the Liberals), was that the the Bill was not voted on at that moment as the Conservatives wanted the preception to continue that Ignatieff cannot control/lead the LPC, and that the Liberal Senate is soft on crime. Additionally, the Liberal senators who are spearheading this amendment to the Bill are Rae's supporters which adds to the story.

Global and the CTV both said it was The Senate holding up the Bill, not the Liberal dominated Senate or the Liberal Senators. Sloppy reporting or the Parliamentary Press Gallery continued game of revenge against Mr. Harper??

There is also another crime bill being held up. I think if this gets enough traction, and the lazy Canadian public pays attention, it will not bode well for The Senate. All Mr. Harper has to say WRT his recent Senate appointments, is that he is attempting to get a majority in the Senate in order to be in a position, as the Canadian government, to execute Senate reform.


----------



## Kirkhill (9 Oct 2009)

But.....

In the fight to redistribute seats in the Commons Harper is facing stiff opposition from Quebec as it fears losing clout there.  The logical answer is to ensure that it maintains Geographic Clout, as opposed to Demographic Clout, in a counter-balancing institution - A reformed Senate.

Every time that the Senate acts against the will of the Commons and the PM it demonstrates that it does still have effective powers. All that is required is that it be legitimated through some universally agreed form of selection (not necessarily election).  As to the third E - equal - how do you define equal?  Two equal founding nations?  Three equal nations?  Four equal regions? Five equal Regions? 13 equal provinces and territories?   And what does equality imply?  Equal voice in a consensus?  Equal vetoes?  Equal opportunity to voice concerns?

I think it is too early to write off Senate reform as a failure.... I believe that the ball is still in play on that one.


----------



## Rifleman62 (9 Oct 2009)

How many times lately have you read, heard, saw commentators and other media types say that being the leader of the official opposition is a difficult job or whatever when referring to Ignatieff? If you can remember 4/5 + years back, how many times was the same said about Harper?

The Canadian media are mainly (not all) in the pocket of the LPC. Often they are creators of news.


----------



## Rifleman62 (9 Oct 2009)

I think Canadians, ever so very slowly, are realizing that Quebec is a noose around Canada's neck. Dammed if you do, dammed if you don't. Quebec is never, never, ever satisfied. I was surprised at some of the posts here at Army.ca that speak to this.Watch/tape Question Period in the HOC. It will make you sick, especially the Bloc's continued sniveling. 

Anyway, the fate of Canada and Senate reform are not the subject of this topic.


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Oct 2009)

I suggest that *almost* everything from here on down is off topic: not about Ignatieff, _per se_, but, rather, about the 2009 election - the one that is increasingly unlikely to happen.


----------



## old medic (9 Oct 2009)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I suggest that *almost* everything from here on down is off topic: not about Ignatieff, _per se_, but, rather, about the 2009 election - the one that is increasingly unlikely to happen.




I agree, so I have moved everything over to the 2009 election thread as suggested. 

With the dislike for winter and christmas elections, the minimum 36 day campaign length, and
Layton pushing out TV ads claiming he'll make this parlament work, It is nearly time to retire
this thread.


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 Oct 2009)

Agreed. That's why I started an Election 2010? thread, but there is still a chance for 2009, either through an opposition miscalculation or a Tory motion that is both a test of _confidence_ and sufficiently toxic as to require the opposition to unite against it. Now that parliament has been in session for more than eight months I doubt the GG would not grant an election after a loss of confidence.


----------



## Edward Campbell (24 Oct 2009)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/dhalla-pledges-fealty-to-liberals/article1315656/
> 
> Even though Jane Taber wrote this, it appears to be factual:
> 
> ...




Something is working for the Conservatives according to this article, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s  _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/toronto/the-battle-for-brampton/article1336750/


> The battle for Brampton
> *Sikhs from Ruby Dhalla's riding are defecting in droves to the Conservatives, marking a huge shift in immigrant politics and giving Stephen Harper his first foothold in the traditionally Liberal GTA*
> 
> Joe Friesen
> ...




There are dangers in ethnic politics: embrace the Sikhs, too much, and you risk alienating the Hindus; placate the Hindus and you annoy some Chinese and many Muslims, and so on. Jason Kenney has done a brilliant job of focusing on narrow, wedge, _social_ issues and keeping ethnic concerns away from e.g. foreign and trade policy.

But this should put paid to any notions that Ruby Dhalla would be welcomed into the Tory caucus. It would not, on the other hand, be too surprising if she was pressured to leave the Liberal Party of Canada and sit as an independent, despite her protestations of loyalty. Her loyalty isn't the problem: she's a loser and, as with playing bridge, it may be most advantageous to get rid of losers early if you cannot find a way to _finesse_ them.


----------



## GAP (24 Oct 2009)

Ruby is another Belinda....only without the political connections/money to be that ambitious......


----------



## Rifleman62 (24 Oct 2009)

And another loser upcoming with the same well to do background as young Tredeau: Ross Rebagliati


----------

