Election 2009?

[Old Sweat]

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]

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]

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.

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.

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

The media has pounced on Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s “secret” speech declaring it evidence that the Tories have some sort of “hidden agenda.”

But, as usual, they got it wrong.

That speech had one purpose and only one purpose: to mobilize conservatives unhappy with the government’s left-wing tilt.

What he is saying in that speech is this: "You may not like some of the stuff I have been doing lately but the only alternative to me is the scary and dangerous “Socialist- Separatist- Coalition” party.

Strategically it's a good idea because no two words will push a conservative’s hot buttons like “socialist” and “separatist.” Put them together and you have dynamite.

The drawback of this scheme, of course, is that by embracing such ideologically-tinted language, the Prime Minister is undermining his “Don't be afraid I’m really a Liberal” strategy of the past five years.

Hence the need to deliver this message in secret.

Of course, in this day and age where everybody has a camera in their hip pocket, there is no such thing as a secret speech.

That’s why rather than delivering the “Socialist-Separatists are threatening Armageddon” message himself, he should rely on friendly Third Parties to do to the deed.

This is the kind of thing the National Citizens Coalition used to do so well.

The only other alternative is for Harper to speak like a conservative in public as well as private.

National Post
Gerry Nicholls is an independent political consultant and freelance writer. He was formerly vice president of the National Citizens Coaliton.

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

 

[Edward Campbell]

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.

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?

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

Ottawa
Thursday, Sep. 10, 2009

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty says Canada's economic recovery will bring Ottawa very close to balanced budgets in five years but is refusing to promise exactly when the Tories will eliminate the federal deficit.

The announcement, which comes just weeks before an expected election, is an attempt by the Conservatives to reassure voters of their ability to slay the federal deficit.

But while Mr. Flaherty had promised last week to explain to Canadians “how we will move back to surplus,” the effort presented today fell well short of this.

The Finance Minister vowed, however, in a Victoria speech Thursday that the Conservatives would enact measures to balance the budget as soon as the economic outlook grows clearer.

The Conservatives blamed their reluctance to lay out a detailed plan to return to surplus as reticence in the face of economic uncertainty.

They noted the outlook is so cloudy in 2013, for instance, that budgetary revenues could swing $7.5-billion higher or lower than what private-sector projections would suggest.

“This is the largest divergence of forecasts since the Department of Finance began conducting these surveys,” Finance Canada said.

Mr. Flaherty nevertheless laid out the bare bones of an approach to deficit reduction, saying the Tories would cut future growth in program spending in order to get the books back into the black.

In a partisan shot at the Liberals, who are gunning to defeat the Harper government as soon as possible, the Finance Minister said the Tories wouldn't balance the budget by cutting transfers to provinces or their planned increases. The former Chrétien government slashed these payments in the 1990s to balance the books.

“They made devastating cuts to the funding that provinces rely upon to fund health care, education and social services,” Mr. Flaherty said.

He promised the Tories would also not cut transfers to individuals to eliminate the deficit. These protected areas would include programs such as Old Age Security payments.

“That is not to say that returning to balance will be easy,” Mr. Flaherty said in his speech to the Greater Victoria Chamber of Commerce.

“It will require leadership and sustained discipline, especially with such a historic degree of uncertainty for the months and years ahead.”

In a hurried update to deficit-swamped Ottawa's fiscal picture released Thursday, the Department of Finance revealed that it expects red ink to persist two years longer than earlier forecast.

The department is now expecting Ottawa to run a deficit in 2013-14 and 2014-15 whereas this past January it had predicted a return to surplus by 2013-14.

But both the Conservatives and the Department of Finance played down the size of the deficit five years out, saying the new projections of a $5.2-billion shortfall in 2014-15 suggest a gap that can easily be covered with future restraint measures.

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]

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]

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]

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 Dionized.

• 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.

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

Friday, Sep. 11, 2009

The ghosts of past failures often influence political actors.

The ghosts lay their hands upon a party leader, or an entire party, bidding them to learn lessons, often the wrong ones, while guiding them to fresh errors.

As in, the ghost's hands have laid themselves upon Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff and his advisers, who, fearful of being perceived as weak and indecisive as predecessor Stéphane Dion, have plunged the party and the country into an election they cannot win.

They might have convinced themselves that victory might be at hand if absolutely everything broke their way, in which case they have been gripped by a severe case of self-delusion.

In part, the decision had to do with some adolescent hyper-partisanship that clouded the Liberals' intelligent judgment, and perhaps with some lingering but deep-seated perception of themselves as the natural governing party.

The decision also had to do with Mr. Dion's ghost – more than any rational calculation of self-interest, let alone the country's interests, which certainly do not lie in another election just a year after the previous one.

Seldom, if ever, do voters tell pollsters that they welcome an election. But when 80 per cent of them think it's a bad idea, it is a foolhardy party that flies into those winds, which is of course what the Liberals have done. With predictable initial results: a slight fall in public polls.

Polls, of course, are the most overreported aspect of politics. They drive far too much of what passes for discussion, and they mesmerize political elites. It is, rather, to the underlying factors of politics that observers should look for explanations and anticipations. None of these is running in the Liberals' favour.

Past experience suggests, for example, that opposition parties do not win elections so much as governments lose them. And they lose elections for one (or more) of four broad reasons or perceptions: corruption, incompetence, time for a change, or major issues on which the government is far out of step with public opinion.

No one can accuse the Conservatives of corruption. Incompetence is often in the eye of the beholder. People who dislike the Prime Minister and his party will think both are incompetent, but those who are more objective do not generally see the government as incompetent. Wrong-headed, maybe, but not grossly incompetent, at least not in the past six months.

Time for a change? After fewer than four years in office? Again, people who dislike the government will think that one day has been too many for the Conservatives in office. For the rest, the notion that it's “time for a change” because the government has been in office for 31/2 years is risible.

Out of step with public opinion? Maybe, but the Liberals voted for the Conservatives' stimulus budget. All they can say critically of the budget rollout is that the money didn't flow fast enough – a charge of dubious validity belied, at least in the perceptions of politics, by the showering of money on every corner of Canada by Stephen Harper and his ministers.

The announcement machine never stops – Saskatoon, yesterday. The strategy is crass, since the announcements are photo-op repeats of things in the budget. It is largely useless, since most of the money will be spent long after the recession. But how can the steady rain of announcements and photo-ops not do some political good?

So, if the Liberals cannot win because the government is beating itself, can they win by offering something more appealing?

“We can do better,” appears to be the emerging Liberal slogan, but in which way? This is a question the Liberals are not yet ready to answer, so that having launched a pre-election, they now must say “wait” before they put anything enticing in the political window.

Again, the ghosts of elections past shape strategy, since the Liberals remember Mr. Dion's carbon tax promise, and how it was systematically bent out of recognizable shape by the Conservative attack machine. Better to offer nothing than do a Dion.

Mr. Ignatieff evidently felt himself pushed to appear decisive by provoking an election, when none of the usual conditions for an opposition victory is objectively present.

 

[observor 69]

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]

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

John Ivison, National Post
Friday, September 11, 2009

The Conservatives rush-released their fall fiscal update yesterday, claiming it was a sound plan to bring the budget back into balance.

In fact, the update was neither sound nor a plan -- rather, it was an attempt to give some solidity to pure gas and bury the bad news that the deficit has grown by another $5-billion.

The closest Jim Flaherty, the Finance Minister, came to specifics was his pledge that the Conservatives would come up with a course of action to restrain program spending and eliminate the deficit "when the time is right." Since this is like asking an alcoholic to burn down a brewery, don't hold your breath.

The real reason for rushing out a cobbled-together jumble of best guesses dressed up as an exit strategy is that the government is obliged to deliver a third report to Canadians on the nation's financial state later this month and does not want this particular stink bomb going off in the middle of a possible election campaign.

The news yesterday was not good from the government's point of view.

The deficit for the current year has grown to $56-billion, thanks to weaker-than-expected tax receipts, an increase from June's estimate of $50.2-billion and more than $20-billion higher than forecast in January's budget. Deficits are projected for the next five years, when the country is forecast to be $5.2-billion in the red.

Even these numbers are predicated on the government limiting spending to just 3% for the latter four years of the five-year outlook -- which will require the Conservatives to show a fiscal discipline for which they've shown little inclination.
It fell to the Liberals to point out that the Harper government has increased program expenses by more than 30% since it came to power, though it wasn't clear whether they meant the Tories hadn't spent nearly enough.

The only iron-clad assurances given yesterday by Mr. Flaherty were that the budget will return to balance in the "medium term," taxes will not be raised and transfers to individuals and provinces will be protected.

The government's preemptive strike may have been overly cautious since the news was not disastrous -- certainly not as bad as the Liberals would have you believe.

Last week, the Grits issued a news release that claimed Canada is suffering the worst economic performance in the G7. This is nonsense. True, the second-quarter numbers were disappointing but Canada's economy grew marginally in June and its position remains the envy of most of our rivals. 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. Even with yesterday's bad news, it hardly justifies Michael Ignatieff's claim that the Harper government has to go because it is mismanaging Canada's economic recovery. 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. 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."

The government will make much of the claim that the bureaucracy will grind to a halt during an election campaign -- since it is at a standstill much of the time, how could they tell?-- but Mr. Flaherty is correct in saying that anxiety levels around the world have subsided and the path ahead looks brighter.

This situation will scarcely be helped by the prospect of yet another trek to the polls.

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]

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

Friday, September 11, 2009

Last week, Michael Ignatieff told Canadians that we’d have to “wait and see” how a Liberal government would ”clean up” the deficit without raising taxes. Well, as of today — when the October issue of L'actualité hits the newsstands — the wait will be over.

Le Devoir’s Hélène Buzzetti got an early look at an interview with Mr. Ignatieff in the magazine, and she reports that Canada will still be in deficit in five years if the Liberals form government.

Here’s how the Liberal Leader puts it, in his own words:

“We will not reduce the deficit to zero, but we will place it on an unequivocal reduction path. … We will propose a 5-year target, a certain percentage of GDP that will represent a threshold that we should not exceed. This will give a clear direction to the fiscal policy of the government. … I think it’s unreasonable to predict that the deficit will be eliminated in 5 years. Canadian will accept a deficit if it’s to stimulate the economy and if we have a target to eliminate it.”

Yesterday, finance minister Jim Flaherty forecast a deficit in 2014-15 of $5.2-billion. Though he insists that’s a manageable number from which to restore a balanced budget, he’s not telling us how or when he’d do it. As to how Mr. Ignatieff would go about implementing his fiscal plan, here he echoes Mr. Flaherty’s clarity on what he wouldn’t do, and lack of clarity on what he would do to cut federal expenditures:

“Let’s be clear: I don’t want to increase taxes for individuals and businesses, particularly when we’re trying to get out of an economic crisis. That’s crucial. We’ll have to examine everything in the federal budget to see where we can make savings. Avoid transferring the burden to the provinces. That’s another mistake we made in the 90’s and must not repeat.”

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]

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

Ottawa
Friday, Sep. 11, 2009

Michael Ignatieff is trying to neutralize a key Conservative weapon before an election campaign begins, by flatly ruling out any prospect that his Liberals would form a coalition government with other parties after the next election.

This week, the Liberals released a surreptitiously-recorded video of Prime Minister Stephen Harper speaking to party loyalists in Sault Ste. Marie last week – and warning that unless the Conservatives win a majority government, Mr. Ignatieff will try to form a coalition with the New Democrats and the Bloc Québécois.

It was a preview of Tory campaign tactics, and Mr. Ignatieff sought Friday to kill the attack before his opponents can use it in earnest.

“The Liberal Party would not agree to a coalition. In January, we did not support a coalition. And we do not support a coalition today or tomorrow,” Mr. Ignatieff said.

Former Liberal leader Stéphane Dion mounted a bid last December to unseat Mr. Harper with a Liberal-NDP coalition government that would have been propped up in the Commons by the Bloc. But when Mr. Ignatieff took over, he chose not to defeat Mr. Harper's government on the January budget.

“I have a certain credibility on the coalition issue. I could be standing here as the prime minister of Canada. I turned it down. We turned it down in January,” Mr. Ignatieff said today.

“That's not what Canadians want. I agree with Canadians.”

The Conservatives still insist a coalition is one of Mr. Ignatieff's secret schemes – and it's not yet clear if ruling out will help de-fang the issue for the Liberals, or simply bring more attention to it.

If it became clear in an election campaign that the Liberals might be able to win government, but not a majority, Mr. Harper would use the coalition attacks to argue that only a Conservative majority would stop the NDP and Bloc from gaining a hand in running the country.

Mr. Ignatieff said the video of Mr. Harper's closed-door speech – recorded by a young Liberal who bought a ticket to the fundraiser and released the video to the CBC – showed that Mr. Harper feels he's entitled to a majority, and willing to make false accusations about a coalition in order to get it.

The Liberal Leader has warned he intends to have his party vote to defeat Mr. Harper's government this fall, and said Friday that he will lay out details next week about the timetable.

Mr. Ignatieff also presented a report by the parliamentary budget watchdog that he says proves the Tories exaggerated the cost of a Liberal proposal to reform employment insurance.

The parliamentary budget office report, which the Liberal Leader said shows again the Tories can't be trusted to work with the opposition in good faith, pegs the cost of Mr. Ignatieff's EI plan at $1.15-billion – far less than the $4-billion suggested by the Tories.

“We have worked in good faith with the [EI] committee and the Harper government, they introduced numbers which are not credible,” Mr. Ignatieff said.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

<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

Toronto
Friday, Sep. 11, 2009

Work is set to begin shortly on more than 500 projects to upgrade roads, water, sewage, public transit and community centres in the city, after the federal government today pledged $190-million in stimulus funds.

With three federal cabinet ministers, including Finance Minister Jim Flaherty on hand for the announcement this morning at Exhibition Place, Toronto Mayor David Miller thanked them and quipped “I could get used to this.”

Under a $4-billion federal stimulus fund, Ottawa is putting up one-third – with two-thirds from municipalities across the country – to pay for “shovel-ready” projects to be largely completed by March 31, 2011.

In Toronto's case, the federal share of $190-million and $378.7-million from the city adds up to more than half-a-billion dollars worth of projects.

“We're doing it because we need to protect jobs and create jobs,” said Mr. Flaherty, also the political minister for the Greater Toronto Area. “We are doing it because we are in the midst of the most difficult year economically, globally, since the Second World War.”

The announcement comes after a false start – Ottawa rejected the city's request this spring for stimulus dollars to help buy 204 replacement streetcars – and some behind-the-scenes bickering over which projects on a revised city list would qualify under the federal program.

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]

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]

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

 

[Brad Sallows]

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]

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.

Conservative sources say the motion is likely to be introduced on Sept. 18, and as per parliamentary rules must be voted on immediately. Prime Minister Stephen Harper will have just returned from a trip to the United States, and would be ready to visit the Governor General and kick off an election.

A spokesman for Government House Leader Jay Hill said meanwhile that "the final timing decision has not yet been definitely made." ....

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.

The ads include clips from an interview Trudeau did during the 2006 Liberal leadership race.

Trudeau was not yet an MP at the time but, being the son of the most revered figure in the party, his comments about Ignatieff made headlines during the race .... (Justin's response  "If I accused him of lacking wisdom, when I look at those words today and all the trouble they could cause even three years later, taken out of context . . . I am prepared to admit that maybe I'm the one who lacked wisdom," he said in an interview.