Election 2009?

[jeffb]

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]

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]

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

Wednesday, Sep. 16, 2009

Albatross time for Jack Layton.

The NDP Leader is going to wear the Conservatives' thin gruel offer on employment insurance around his neck whether he supports the government on the proposal or pulls it down.

If he backs the government, he'll be accused of accepting a plan that at best benefits about 60,000 workers a year while at least 400,000 unemployed Canadians have no access to the program. If he rejects the proposal, he'll be blamed for being indifferent to thousands of workers whose benefits are about to be exhausted and whom the Conservatives' plan might help.

The Bloc Québécois, in Parliament's bumper-cars game, gave Mr. Layton a few days' grace Tuesday to think about what he's going to do, meaning what narrative he can craft to put the most politically appealing face on his willingness to prop up the government for the sake of its move to extend employment insurance.

McMaster University political scientist Peter Graefe, a specialist on the NDP, said the odds are Mr. Layton will be seen as unprincipled. “It's a high-stakes gamble for him,” he said.

Mr. Layton could claim that he got substantive change to EI whereas Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff made promises over the summer of what he would achieve but didn't get a cent.

“So he may be able to package it that way, as the more effective voice of the opposition than Michael Ignatieff plus the guy who can make Parliament work,” Prof. Graefe said. “But the more likely response will be, ‘Well, you spent the last eight months dancing on Ignatieff's head for supporting the government and now you're just doing the same thing. So it wasn't a principled position you took, it was simply an opportunistic one.' ”

Confounding Mr. Layton's problems, said Toronto economist and public finance expert Hugh Mackenzie, is that by ruling out the idea of co-operating with the opposition parties, Mr. Ignatieff has taken away the NDP's once plausible threat of a coalition to topple the Tories.

Pollster Frank Graves of Ottawa-based Ekos Research agreed that Mr. Layton appears to have wound up in a fix. “It's hard to see an easy out for him.”

But Mr. Graves also said he is puzzled by why Mr. Layton is shifting from his previously stalwart opposition to propping up the minority Conservative government. “And I am certain that current and potential NDP supporters will be similarly flummoxed. NDP supporters are quite negatively disposed to the Harper government,” he said. “We have had the NDP running at 17 points, which is slightly better than their relative position last year at this time. So they may either be misreading the polls or there are other factors at play, [that] they have very few candidates nominated and their coffers may be drained.”

Mr. Graves also said that it would be, as he put it, “a bit of a stretch” for Mr. Layton to claim that, “unlike the weak-kneed Liberals who have folded like cheap tents under Conservative pressure with no concessions,” he has won real benefits for workers.

The Conservatives' EI proposal would help only “long-tenured workers,” those who have contributed to the EI program for at least seven out of 10 calendar years and who have received regular EI benefits for no more than 35 weeks in the past five years. It would extend their benefits by between five and 20 weeks.

But as Toronto labour economist Armine Yalnizyan points out, the program's restrictions act against the nature of much of Canada's industry – manufacturing, the oil patch, forestry and, increasingly, the service sector – that is subject to periodic layoffs.

Plus, she said, the government is not addressing what the program was designed to be: an economic stabilizer that would prop up consumer spending during an economic downtown and a cushion to prevent middle class unemployed workers from slipping into destitution if they were suddenly hit by major expenditures.

Laurel Ritchie, national representative of the Canadian Auto Workers, said few laid-off members of her union – “only handfuls” – have been able to meet the long-tenure definition.

Canadian Labour Congress economist Andrew Jackson said his understanding of the new proposal is that it would fully apply only to unemployed workers who have initiated a claim to EI benefits since the beginning of the year.

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]

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]

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

Wednesday, Sep. 16, 2009

We need an election, notwithstanding the view of most pundits. They are wrong on this one.

Some say, “But it will cost $300-million!” C'mon. Ottawa spends that much every nine hours, every day of the year. So between midnight and 8:42 a.m., you've paid for the election. As a sidebar for those who criticize the government for delay on economic stimulus spending and “shovel ready” projects, this also creates thousands of instant jobs across the country. (Most of the Elections Canada expense is payroll.)

Some say, “The election won't change anything. We will still have a minority government. That is what the polls say.” This opinion is based on an incomplete reading of the polls and of the existing Parliament.

The most important element of the polls is not in the party standings. It is in the fact that public opinion has swung strongly from support for minority governments to a wish for majorities again. The previous view was based on the not unreasonable idea that a minority Parliament would keep a government under control. The new view is based on the fact that it hasn't worked out well.

In a more mature political culture than exists in Ottawa, minorities can work well – and have done so spectacularly in the Canadian past. But that outcome requires a spirit of co-operation and some “win/win” being available to the smaller parties. With a government in “we win, you lose” mode, that won't happen – and that, alas, has been the Harper approach.

The current Parliament is totally dysfunctional. Everything is about electoral advantage. The atmosphere is poisoned, and the poison will be drawn only by a new mandate and a new beginning.

Little is happening in the way of legislation, though, in truth, that is not urgent because we have lots of laws in the country already. Little is happening on policy because the government is afraid of the environmentalists and the Americans on the climate-change issue, afraid to offend interest groups by cuts on the budgetary side, afraid to offend Quebec on anything, and so on.

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 right of the people's representatives to deny funding to the Crown until satisfied that the money and the associated taxation are absolutely required and being efficiently used.

What is required to do this job is a detailed understanding of the policies and plans of the departments of government and the line-by-line spending forecasts. That done, the next job is to look at expenditures after the fact to see whether they were made as promised and whether they did the good things they were supposed to do.

Now, this is pretty important stuff. Unfortunately, it's hardly being done at all these days. As the size and complexity of government has increased, so has the job. At the same time, the capacity of Parliament to do its basic work has been undermined by our truly vicious partisan climate.

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. Alas, committees are allowed almost nothing in the way of staff experts, and committee membership is routinely shuffled to discipline or reward MPs.

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.

So the consensus being discovered by the pollsters in favour of a majority government is well based in the public good. And if the public wants a majority, it will find a way to get one.

What this means is that voters are going to have to choose between Stephen Harper and Michael Ignatieff, the only two with any chance of forming a majority. The necessity of making this choice will squeeze the New Democrats and the Greens, as many of their former supporters pick either the Conservatives or the Liberals. Which way will they go? Who knows? But Parliament is sick and needs to be rebuilt by an election. Let's get on with it.

ggibson@bc-home.com

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]

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]

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]

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

Chris Alexander hopes to run for the Conservative Party in the next election in Ontario's Ajax-Pickering

Sonia Verma

Toronto — Globe and Mail Update Last updated on Thursday, Sep. 17, 2009 02:15PM EDT

Chris Alexander, Canada's former ambassador to Afghanistan, has announced he is seeking nomination in Ajax-Pickering for the Conservative Party in the next federal election.

Mr. Alexander, 41, was seen as a star diplomat when he served as a Liberal-appointed envoy to Afghanistan after the fall of the Taliban. He stayed on in the country following that posting, as the deputy special representative for the United Nations Secretary-General.

Today, he is widely considered the most qualified Canadian observer of Afghanistan, with Richard Holbrooke, the U.S. special envoy to the region , and Kai Eide, the top UN official in the country, regularly seeking his advice.

Speculation had been mounting that he would seek political office when he decided to return to Canada with his wife and their young baby last month. However, his decision to seek nomination with the Conservatives comes as a surprise to some observers who predicted he would have sought to ally himself with the Liberals.

Mr. Alexander, in an interview with The Globe, hinted that his choice to run for the Conservatives reflected his belief that the party's view on Afghanistan was more in line with his own.

He pushed back against growing doubts over the merits of Canada's mission there, calling for more international troops on the ground and a renewed focus on attacking militant targets in Pakistan. Mr. Alexander has called on Canada and its allies to hold an international conference on Afghanistan later this year to set new goals to reflect the changing reality on the ground.

“Yes, this mission is taking longer than everyone had hoped, or than we expected because the conflict is getting worse. So we need to have a serious discussion about how we can succeed with the investments that we are prepared to make,” he told The Globe and Mail on Wednesday.

His comments coincide with a mounting debate in both Canada and the United States over how the war should evolve.

Yesterday, U.S. President Barack Obama set new goals to boost the ability of Pakistan and Afghanistan to fight militants, but he is struggling to muster support within his own party to approve a surge of fighting forces. Ottawa has also just issued a grim assessment of its Afghan operations, outlining in a quarterly report how Canada's mission is falling short of its military and reconstruction goals as instability worsens.

There are a multitude of problems facing Afghanistan, and foreign involvement there, but they are not insurmountable, Mr. Alexander argues.

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]

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

Friday, Sep. 18, 2009

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.

While he acknowledged having conversations with Mr. Ignatieff and other party members, he and the Liberals have markedly different accounts about what transpired and whether Mr. Alexander ever intended to join the party.

In an interview, Mr. Alexander termed the Liberals' account of his encounters with them “simplistic.”

He said that, from the beginning several months ago when he made his decision to enter public life, he planned on running for the Conservatives, the party with which his Toronto family has had a long-time association.

The Liberals' narrative is that Mr. Alexander met several times with Mr. Ignatieff and senior party officials in Ottawa and Toronto and that he approached them months ago, before he returned to Canada. They say the conversations ended when Mr. Ignatieff made clear there would be no change in party policy.

Mr. Alexander, however, said he met with the Liberals as a courtesy, after they approached him about being a candidate, but he never at any time had serious conversations about candidacy “and I made it clear why it wouldn't happen.”

He said he at no time demanded the Liberals change their policy on ending Canada's combat role as a condition for running for them. He said he would not challenge a decision made by Parliament. The 2011 deadline was approved both by the Liberals and the Conservatives.

Mr. Alexander has said there should not be a deadline for terminating combat operations and there should be more international troops on the ground.

Mr. Alexander – who at age 34 was sent to Afghanistan in 2003 as Canada's first resident ambassador – became 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, observers say.

One observer described him as formulating Canadian policy riding around Kabul in an open Jeep.

Brigadier-General Dave Fraser, the one-time Canadian commander of NATO forces in southern Afghanistan, described him as “an amazing man.” He was named a Young Global Leader by the World Economic Forum and one of Canada's top 40 under 40.

Rather than take a reassignment from the Department of Foreign Affairs, he took a leave of absence to become the United Nations special representative in Kabul until he and his Danish-born wife and their infant daughter left Afghanistan in May.

He has surprised few people by his choice to enter politics rather than return to Canada's diplomatic service and its bridle on what he says and does.

Peter Harder, who was deputy foreign minister during much of Mr. Alexander's time in Afghanistan and was in close contact with him when he made his choice to take leave from the foreign service and work for the UN, said that at the back of his mind he saw in Mr. Alexander exactly the personality who would be comfortable in political life.

Mr. Harder described Mr. Alexander as having likely experienced at a young age the limitations of public service and wanting to go into the broader arena of politics.

Mr. Alexander said he based his decision to join the Conservatives “on a very broad agenda.” He also said it's been the party he's had ties with all his life.

Former prime minister Joe Clark was an usher at his parents' wedding and attended Mr. Alexander's wedding in Denmark last year. Mr. Clark said in an e-mail yesterday, “Chris is emphatically my kind of candidate. He would be an adornment to public life, and we need some.”

With a report from Katie-Marie Gardner

Hell hath no fury like a woman party scorned, with apologies to William Congreve (the playwright, not the artillery’s Congreve).

 

[GAP]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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

Ottawa
Saturday, Sep. 19, 2009

The future of Stephen Harper's minority government now apparently rests in the hands of Jack Layton's New Democrats, who have previously made a virtue of opposing Tory legislation.

As expected, Mr. Harper's Conservatives survived a parliamentary confidence vote on several budget measures Friday after both the Bloc Québécois and NDP voted in their favour – with the Liberals opposing.

But later that day, Bloc Leader Gilles Duceppe took to the microphone to make it clear that the Tories should not count on his party's support in future confidence votes.

Mr. Duceppe emphasized that while he continues to support a popular home renovation tax credit approved in yesterday's budget vote, he has no interest in propping up the Tories on a regular basis. He suggested the NDP would be the only party keeping Mr. Harper in office.

He said the Bloc would vote against the Conservatives in motions that test parliamentary support for Mr. Harper.

“If they ask if we have confidence in that government, the answer is clear: N-O, no.”

How long the Conservatives can continue to govern before facing another election apparently depends on how long Mr. Layton can justify propping them up. The Tories can survive as long as one rival supports them, or abstains, during confidence votes.

The NDP has shown scant enthusiasm for an election, which might cost it seats. It latched on to extensions to the Employment Insurance program unveiled by the Tories this week as a reason to delay a trip to the polls. The New Democrats say they're now prepared to keep the Conservatives in power until the EI changes become law, a process that could take roughly six to eight weeks to complete.

While Mr. Layton can rely on election fatigue among Canadians to buttress his position right now, he still faces the risk of a backlash from left-leaning supporters for backing the right-wing Conservatives.

Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff returns to the House of Commons after speaking to reporters in the wake of the minority Conservative government's budget motion passing with the support of the NDP and Bloc Quebecois on Sept. 18, 2009.

Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff, whose party has pledged to defeat the Tories as soon as possible, is planning a no-confidence motion for early October. He needs both the Bloc's and the NDP's support to succeed, but was gleeful Friday at the prospect of political misfortune for his rivals if they keep backing the Conservatives.

“Jack and Gilles have gone up the hill, and we know how that little fairy tale ends,” Mr. Ignatieff joked Friday.

Mr. Layton played down concerns expressed by others in his party – NDP president Peggy Nash and caucus members such as Windsor-area MP Joe Comartin – that the Tory EI bill is inadequate and will leave out many unemployed, particularly former auto sector workers.

He said NDP supporters can live with the decision to back the Tories if it leads to improvements to EI. “Our supporters prefer that we work for them rather than having an election that no one wants.”

But Tories Friday showed no interest in amending Bill C-50, the new EI legislation, to address NDP concerns.

Mr. Layton was unfazed, saying he hopes to use private members' bills to make more changes to the EI program.

“It's true there are a lot of people who need help that this legislation will not give them, but we have 12 bills before the House of Commons to try and correct the issues with EI in order to help seasonal workers for example.”

Mr. Layton's plan to remedy NDP concerns about EI through private members' bills – legislation not sponsored by government – is a long shot. Only a handful of these ever become law because it often takes years for them to move through the system.

Mr. Duceppe said he cannot support the government's EI bill, which he says does nothing for Quebec's unemployed forestry workers. He also blocked efforts by the other parties to have the bill sent quickly to committee for study after a second reading vote.

He said the only reason the NDP is voting to avoid an election is because the party knows it will lose seats. “They are scared of having an election, period,” Mr. Duceppe said. “Look at the polls.”

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]

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]

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]

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

MONTREAL — With files from The Canadian Press
Monday, Sep. 21, 2009

In Montreal they call it the "Guerre Cauchon-Coderre" - the increasingly public and nasty battle between two Liberal heavyweights over who will get the party nomination in the high-profile Outremont riding.

Martin Cauchon is the former Member of Parliament for Outremont and a former justice minister who would like to make a political comeback.

Denis Coderre is the Liberal Party Quebec lieutenant who is determined to throw his political weight around by offering the nomination to a star candidate.

And the war they are waging is as personal as it is internecine.

The two men, former cabinet colleagues, are not particularly fond of each other. More importantly, the ambitious young politicians are both vying to be top Quebec dog in the Liberal party, a key role that traditionally alternates its leadership between anglophones and francophones.

The irony of course is that the long-time Liberal stronghold of Outremont - once the seat of none other than Pierre Trudeau - is currently held by the New Democratic Party and deputy NDP leader Thomas Mulcair does not plan to give it up without a fight.

As the parties prepare for another federal election, nominations are taking place in all 304 ridings. But the 75 ridings in Quebec have taken on a particular importance because it is virtually impossible to win a majority without winning a significant number of seats in the province.

Because every seat counts, the Liberals are determined to win back Outremont. If they do, and that helps them to a majority, the MP for the riding is a virtual shoo-in for cabinet.

Mr. Coderre does not want the riding himself. He already has a seat in Bourassa, another Montreal riding.

But as the Quebec lieutenant for Michael Ignatieff, Mr. Coderre is responsible for approving candidates for the Liberals in Quebec, and he believes the best bet is to go with a star.

The candidate he wants in Outremont is Nathalie Le Prohon, the former president of Nokia Canada and vice-president at IBM Canada, who is a breast cancer survivor.

Mr. Cauchon, who was the MP for Outremont from 1993-2004, believes he has the best chance of winning back the riding for the Liberals. He also has the backing of the riding association, which is not fond of the idea of a parachute candidate, no matter how impressive her credentials.

Complicating matters further is Comlan Amouzou, a hard-working party volunteer, who announced he plans to run for the nomination as well.

The former party candidate in Outremont, actor Sébastien Dhavernas (he was narrowly defeated by Mr. Mulcair in the October, 2008, federal election) said he was keen to try again, but it was "made clear" to him that the nomination was reserved for a star candidate.

Meanwhile, it remains unclear when the next federal election will be.

Last week, the New Democrats and the Bloc Québécois voted with the Conservatives on a ways-and-means motion, allowing the government of Stephen Harper to survive.

NDP Leader Jack Layton said he grudgingly supported the government to ensure that proposed changes to Employment Insurance, including help for long-tenured workers, get through Parliament.

But yesterday Mr. Ignatieff offered to speed passage of those amendments, getting them through by early October and just in time for a motion of non-confidence, which could bring down the government and trigger an election.

Speaking on CTV's Question Period, the Liberal Leader said he was not trying to embarrass Mr. Layton or play parliamentary games, but that the NDP will have to make a choice on whether they believe the Tories are going in the right direction.

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]

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

Monday, Sep. 21, 2009

It is Michael Ignatieff, not Stephen Harper, who has been “saved” by Jack Layton. Instead of berating the NDP for propping up the government during the weeks to come – thus postponing an election until next spring – the Liberals should be grateful for having been rescued from a battle they were in danger of losing.

Not only was the Liberal Party clearly not ready for an election, this time the Harper government had a real chance of obtaining a majority. The Conservatives are only 12 seats away from a majority, and all recent surveys showed them much ahead of the Liberals.

Of course, voters were angry at the Liberals for raising the prospect of an unnecessary election. But Mr. Harper has manoeuvred well these past few months. His government has positioned itself centre-right. Canada has sailed through an economic crisis that devastated most other developed countries. The government is delivering goodies – public works, EI reform, home-renovation programs. At long last, Mr. Harper is taking a more mature look at foreign policy by reigniting, for instance, relations with China. With an electorate increasingly fed up with minority governments, Mr. Harper was poised to make gains, enough maybe to reach a majority.

Meanwhile, Mr. Ignatieff still hasn't delivered on the promise of a renewed Liberal Party. While Mr. Harper spent the summer at work, Mr. Ignatieff vanished from the radar for most of the time. His speeches in Parliament are often lame, as were the first TV ads featuring him in a bucolic setting. His image is still blurred. He still looks like a visiting professor, unable to explain in concrete terms what exactly he would do to make Canada better, apart from high-speed rail between Quebec City and Windsor – a tired idea to be sure.

In the week when the opposition was supposed to overthrow the government, Mr. Ignatieff unveiled a foreign policy platform – not exactly the kind of thing that generates excitement around kitchen tables. Those few who paid attention must have been puzzled to hear Mr. Ignatieff complain the country has stopped engaging in “muscular internationalism,” when Canada has been taking on the riskiest tasks in Afghanistan.

The Liberal foreign policy plan was a rehash of previous Liberal policies, from Lester Pearson's peacekeeping efforts to Jean Chrétien's trade missions in Asia and Paul Martin's push to replace the G8 with the G20. And why a new “secretariat of peace, order and good governance,” a duplication of the Pearson Peacekeeping Centre?

In Quebec, the Liberals are almost invisible. And the ridings the Conservatives might lose will go to the Bloc Québécois because they are all located in homogenously francophone areas. So far, Mr. Ignatieff hasn't managed to attract a single high-profile French-Canadian candidate.

Even in Outremont, one of the rare ridings that the Liberals should count on – it's now held by Thomas Mulcair, the lone NDP MP in Quebec – there still is no Liberal candidate and the riding association is divided. Denis Coderre, the MP who is Mr. Ignatieff's Quebec lieutenant, reportedly wants Nathalie Le Prohon, an Ontario-born former businesswoman who had a successful career but is a rookie in politics, over Martin Cauchon, the former MP for Outremont and justice minister who is said to be interested in returning to politics. Mr. Cauchon's supporters have asked Mr. Ignatieff to overturn Mr. Coderre's decision.

Some Liberals privately mutter that Mr. Coderre is excluding anyone who could eventually become a credible candidate for the leadership. Next time indeed, it will be the turn of a francophone – and both Mr. Coderre and Mr. Cauchon have leadership ambitions. Such is the state of the Liberal Party in Quebec that leadership hopefuls are already considering the post-Ignatieff period.

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]

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]

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