Despite the fact I have already said I don't think Harper will have a problem spinning why we are having an election... the optics look problematic for a day after Thanksgiving election that no one believes we need. But that's a long time from now. In fact, I think they are deliberately planning an de facto full tilt extended campaign from this weekend until October 14. But thats getting ahead.

Tom Flannagan today on what is coming down.

CP article on Flannagan from last night. Which doesn't say anything different, but is Flannagan getting the jump on his own Op-Ed piece.

It seems to me, that the closer they leave dropping the writ to the Sept 8 byelection, the worse it looks. And they could call it this weekend [and also get in before Thangsgiving if that is a potential problem].

But the Cons TV media buy blitz begins tommorow. The idea for that is to get in a whack of spending before the spending limits for the actual campaign kicks in.

So I'm guessing a long week plus of that, with the writ dropping at the last minute the following weekend [6th to 8th]. But it won't look last minute because they will have made the actual writ dropping as anti-climactic as possible.

So the last couple of days they've been saying its inevitable, and this weekend they will talk in language that is as much more explicit as possible during one of the biggest holiday weekends when peoples minds are elsewhere.

[And those first waves of ads will be stage setting in nature. Leaving the full 5 weeks of the campaign for flat out attack ads and portrayals of the government that will bring you security.... instead of spending the first one week plus of the campaign to set the stage.
And I'll bet the ads that play during the week after Labour Day are designed to fit like a glove with the mindset of families returning to the concerns and routines of school, jobs getting back to normal, etc.]

Purely from and aesthetic and/or entertainmant/circus value, I hope the NDP has some levity or other kind of relief to inject into this machine.

[ 03 September 2008: Message edited by: KenS ]

General election – proclamation

57. (1) The Governor in Council shall issue a proclamation in order for a general election to be held.

By-election – order

(1.1) The Governor in Council shall make an order in order for a by-election to be held.

Contents

(1.2) The proclamation or order shall

(a) direct the Chief Electoral Officer to issue a writ to the returning officer for each electoral district to which the proclamation or order applies;

(b) fix the date of issue of the writ; and

(c) fix the date for voting at the election, which date must be at least 36 days after the issue of the writ.

...Polling day

(3) The day named in the new writ for polling day may not be later than three months after the issue of the new writ.

[ 28 August 2008: Message edited by: Caissa ]

1. He is trying to frame himself as the only leader that can "lead" Canadians through the tough times ahead, and the only leader that Canadians can "trust".

2. Harper admitted that most likely there would just be another minority government, considering the current political climate in Canada, but we should still have a election so his government could have a "fresh" mandate.

Pretty damn funny over all, though. As does he think Canadians want to hear about some "future" hard times in a political campaign? Moreover, would it not be seen by the majority of Canadians that it would be his goverment that created, or allowed to happen, the forth coming unknown hard times, seeing as they have been in power for 3 years?

And admitting that you do not have any "fresh" ideas to work cooperatively with Canadian's other elected officials on and stating that you are stale dated, seems not to make clear sense when asking people to vote for you. If you are stale dated now, what difference would an election make?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Caissa:
the date for voting at the election ... must be at least 36 days after the issue of the writ ... polling day may not be later than three months after the issue of the new writ.
[ 28 August 2008: Message edited by: Caissa ]

---

Methinks Harper is going to wait until the 5th because Duceppe has offered to meet him on the 5th, 6th, or 7th, and it will be played really badly here in Quebec if Harper 'stands up' Duceppe, even though the meeting will not be much more than an opportunity for photos and soundbites confirming the inevitable. (On the other hand Dion's offer of a meeting only on the 9th will be spun in such a way as to make Dion look like he's not a player).

Harper will probably call on the Governor General to dissolve the House immediately after meeting with Duceppe on Friday. Not sure if the writ can be issued the same day but probably Harper will try to swing it that way so that we have the weekend to know that the byelections are now officially off and to start campaigning.

So if the writ is not issued until the 5th at the earliest, then polling day has to be after Thanksgiving!?

I'm pretty sure that Duceppe has out-maneuvered Harper here and that Harper would have prefered to go to the polls before Thanksgiving.

[ 28 August 2008: Message edited by: montrealer ]

[ 28 August 2008: Message edited by: montrealer ]

Eday 14 October, which is 48 days from the unofficial launch of the Cons campaign tommorow. With spending limit not kicking in until about Day 10 of that 48 day campaign.

quote:

---

I'm pretty sure that Duceppe has out-maneuvered Harper here and that Harper would have prefered to go to the polls before Thanksgiving.

---

And I would disagree. That despite a Thanksgiving election not being ideal, the Cons wanted a long drawn out campaign [including lots of extra time that doesn't count for the spending limit] to grind down Dion. It worked well against the Liberals last time, and they're in worse shape now.

[ 28 August 2008: Message edited by: KenS ]

quote:

---

Given the distance from the last election the Governor-General would most likely agree to an election.

---

Not really. All things considered even the PM agrees that an election will result in another minority government so the question remains that this election may end up being a very expensive exercise with the same dysfunctional result. It's time to THINK differently. Canadians want a cooperative goverment. The PM obviously doesn't want one or is tired of the idea. Even if the GG disagrees and maintains tradition the NDP and liberals will have at least put a bold proposition forward which in turn may create a liberal minority with a stronger NDP presence.

quote:

---

Originally posted by montrealer:
Well since he's not going to be able to get it scheduled for before the 14th, and since he perhaps wasnt in such a rush anyway, and since there are a few religious holidays in the second two weeks of october, and since he legally has up to three!? months from the date of the writ, my bet is that we're not going to go to the polls until the 28th of October (just before Halloween).

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by robbie_dee:
Don't you think this saturation coverage will have some effect on how Canadians think about making their own choices?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by montrealer:
Perhaps if there is some seepage of election-fever across the border it will have the effect of polarising the electorate between the 'dems' and the 'right' and will put some squeeze on the middle

---

Harper, like McCain, can and will be tied to the unpopular Bush administration by his opponents. In light of the U.S. hooplah, that may hurt Harper significantly (which is another reason why I think this is a terrible time for him to call an election).

What Canada lacks, though, is a figure like Obama on the other side. Say what you will about his actual policies, Obama is truly a gifted politician with great charisma and transcendent rhetoric. Dion is a boring academic. Layton is a little better, but handicapped by leading a smaller party that the majority of Canadians still see as "too left wing" and "not ready to govern." It remains to be seen whether the general movement for "change" that is behind Obama's candidacy, will also get traction north of the border, and if so, for which party. My guess is it would probably help the Liberals, but in a less pronounced way because of the aforementioned problems with their leader.

[ 28 August 2008: Message edited by: robbie_dee ]

quote:

---

It's hard to say what will happen - all I can say is we're headed for minority government. Quebec will be hard to predict - I think Mulcair will keep his seat but I can't see the NDP picking up much more there. The Liberals aren't moving but a drop in Bloc support can help them in some Montreal tossups (like Papineau for instance) and the Conservatives are likely to take some seats in the Quebec hinterlands.

I can see the carbon tax hurting the Liberals out West (hopefully more to the benefit of the NDP than the Tories) as well as in Northern Ontario (this is where the NDP is most likely to pick up seats in my view). Harper's arrogance toward Southern Ontario could result in a return to Liberals - and Ontario conservatism is much more moderate and "Red Tory" than it Western counterpart. Seats like Burlington and Whitby-Oshawa could go to the Liberals, as could St. Catharines, Peterborough and Essex. Oshawa itself I think will be an NDP pickup. That being said, the NDP needs to watch their back in Parkdale-High Park, Trinity-Spadina, Ottawa Centre and Hamilton Mountain and Hamilton East-Stoney Creek - the Liberals will be present a serious challenge in those seats I think.

ETA: Come to think of it, Saskatchewan may see NDP pickups. The Liberals aren't much of a factor there and the carbon tax won't be popular, but with Harper privatizing the Wheat Board, etc. we might see some traditional NDP voters come home.

---

Why an election now? The Conservatives want to take advantage of Dion's weak leadership and Liberal infighting. Harper is gambling that there will be no one to take him on.

Today you and I can show him how wrong he is.

http://links.ndp.ca/a/l.x T=jkmhajckomncljljlbpgmnfgbifm&M=11

If it worked it would show an NDP committed to opposing the Cons and willing to work in the house-- it would give the NDP cabinet ministers and it just might get something happening on the environment without the Greens being involved-- that could leave them shut out over the long term.

If it did not work and the Liberals are the reason then the message about a Liberal Con partnership would resonate and the Liberals would be damaged badly.

If it did not work because Duceppe balked then Layton can campaign in Quebec against the BQ saying that there is no place for any progressive or person who wants to get anything done for the environment in the BQ-- for the BQ it would be a horrible situation-- because agreement means they bring Dion to power.

This strategy would definitely hurt Harper, Definitely hurt Duceppe, and might hurt Dion as well and it probably would hurt the Liberal Green relations (particularly with the Green leader).

Even if it did not hurt Dion in the short term (by Dion agreeing to the gambit) it would solidify the NDP as a national party capable of governance.

It would show the NDP ready and willing to govern, it would call out the other perties on if they want to get serious about the environment and jobs.

quote:

---

Only one week before they expect to be plunged into a federal election campaign, some Liberal MPs are still hoping to make “adjustments” to the centrepiece of their party's platform — the risky proposal to impose a carbon tax.

They want Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion to massage the so-called Green Shift to make it more palatable to farmers, truckers, rural residents and others who stand to be hardest hit by a tax on fossil fuels and who have not yet been appeased by the promise of offsetting income tax cuts and tax benefits.

---

quote:

---

The fact that some MPs are still hoping for last-minute changes to make the green shift more marketable is just one sign the Liberal party may not be firing on all cylinders by the end of next week, when Prime Minister Stephen Harper is virtually certain to pull the plug on his government.

.....

But even with an election looming, Easter said caucus still needs to discuss the green shift adjustments that constituents have told MPs are necessary.

---

quote:

---

Unlike Mr. Easter, who would like changes made before the election is called, Mr. Thibault said he thinks voters will accept that they won't get all the details until the plan is actually implemented.

“I think if we talk to people (and tell them) this is a statement of principles, of intent . . . and during the implementation that there's leeway to discuss with Canadians, I think that's the logical way to do it.”

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boom Boom:
The CBC interviewed Bob Rae at the Denver convention yesterday.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sean in Ottawa:
I think that Layton should publicly come out and ask Dion and Duceppe to govern with the NDP. It would be a good strategy.

If it worked it would show an NDP committed to opposing the Cons and willing to work in the house-- it would give the NDP cabinet ministers and it just might get something happening on the environment without the Greens being involved-- that could leave them shut out over the long term.

---

Isn't this just another way of saying that the NDP's only legitimate purpose is to help the Liberals, and it serves this role best when it stays small?

quote:

---

Originally posted by KenS:
I'm going to guess the Harper meets Duceppe Friday 5th. Writ dropping Sunday, possibly Saturday. Not as soon as Duceppe leaves door on Friday.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by robbie_dee:

What Canada lacks, though, is a figure like Obama on the other side. Say what you will about his actual policies, Obama is truly a gifted politician with great charisma and transcendent rhetoric.

---

quote:

---

Harper holding Governor General Michaëlle Jean back from the Paralympics is all the confirmation we need to know that an election call is afoot.

Our Tories are nothing if not a savvy bunch, with Harper the top strategist of them all. If they are mobilizing to minimize the impact of a potential Obama victory in November, we should all put money on one.

Harper wants to avoid a campaign on the heels of a political spectacle like Obama being crowned the second coming. Never mind any of the domestic factors.

The political logic is staggeringly simple. The Liberals – even the NDP – stand to be bolstered by such mainstreaming as will occur during the U.S. campaign of their positions on key issues like the economy, climate change, and the Middle East.

After six years of an increasingly ostracized war, the Bush administration lumbers to the end of its term amidst darkening deficit and debt, a brutalizing mortgage crisis, and soaring fuel costs. American voters not only regard Bush as the most unpopular president in U.S. history, they are clamoring for the very change that Obama so confidently guarantees.

Therein lies Harper’s problem.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
American voters not only regard Bush as the most unpopular president in U.S. history, they are clamoring for the very change that Obama so confidently guarantees.

---

Laudable enough. But hardly a virtue in someone for whom this is the only [and unconvincing] little bit he has to go on.

Scott Reid: Taking aim at Harper best bet for Liberals

Wasn't Scott Reid the "beer and popcorn" whiz? Its still good advice, and not inherently contradictory with Dion the decent guy.

Problem is that despite continued wariness of Harper in swing voters, the Liberals have been unable to use that opening and there is no sign they will suddenly pull the actual tools and capability together.

[not Reid, another article]:

quote:

---

The Liberals, backs to the wall, will counter with invective of their own: Stephen Harper is a human icicle, a wolf in sheep's clothing, an autocrat and a control freak.

---

Those are themes ready to be played on, but the Liberals succeed only with people who would never have voted for Harper anyway.

The Conservatives meanwhile are beginning their stage setting campaign ad blitz for the 48 day campaign [or 55 even?]: Harper the steady hand [they don't need to mention the other half of the message: 'for uncertain times coming'].

This is the problem with the left seeing what they want to see. Too many see Harper calling an election in a panic.

There is another possibility: the uncertain economy being both problem and opportunity for Team Harper. And there is plenty of evidence that they have all the assets and finesse they need to make it primarily the latter.

quote:

---

[The Conservatives] are planning to stage 6 a.m. EDT campaign announcements daily during the writ period at a hi-tech Ottawa TV studio set up to reach out to local news media nationwide. Hosted by cabinet ministers and MPs this setup will aim to get the Tory message on morning local-market TV and radio shows.

It will give the Conservatives a means to quickly counterattack stories from the previous night that threaten their campaign and reach target groups like women and families.

---

Its hard to emphasise how effective this could be. Free advertising of the message is only the smallest part of it.

This is the coup de grace to make sure they control the message at all times. Wearing away at a bunch of bumblers who don't know how to make even the most obvious messages work, and incredible as it seems under the circumstances are still discussing what they might say. Going to be a long campaign for them.

Maybe someone has noticed that I have lots to say about what can be expected from the Cons and Libs, but the partisan has nothing to say about NDP starategy and how it might fare. That's because I have nothing to go on. I can make my guesses about what they might do, but on them there is little of even partially hard material in the public space to chew over.

I will say that cards close to the chest makes sense when as a party you come into it with all the ducks lined up pretty good. [Which is something in relation to the NDP you cannot inferr out of horse race polls.] And that the media says nothing about the NDP at this stage in the game means nothing. It means even less when the general meme about both the Cons and the Libs is of low expectations and not much respect. Go ahead and let them 'bask' in it.

[ 29 August 2008: Message edited by: KenS ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boom Boom:

Even if Harper calls an election right now, many Canadians will have watched the Denver convention and have heard the clarion call for change, and that can't help but to be an echo up here, although to what degree I have no idea. I would prefer an election after Obama wins, though. I'd love to see a shot of Obama and Layton together - wouldn't that do wonders for the NDP!

---

I'm sure it makes a nice side benefit- but it could only possibly play a tipping point role in decision making when all the other [more strategically direct factors] are a complete wash.

And timing an election call is far from that kind of toss-up choice.

Mendes argues that

quote:

---

(...)The imminent violation of the fixed elections law is even more distasteful when one considers the second reason for Mr. Harper's claim to ignore his own law. He claims that he may seek the dissolution because Parliament is dysfunctional and will continue to be so with the next session to start soon after Labour Day.

Ignoring the fact that most of his agenda has passed through Parliament and become law, Mr. Harper and other Conservatives point to the dysfunctional nature of parliamentary committees such as the one examining whether the advertising expenses practices of the Conservatives breached the Elections Act. The parliamentary channel's coverage of the proceedings has revealed that it was primarily the disruptive antics of the Conservative party members on the Committee and the failure of Conservative witnesses to appear before the committee that was the cause of the dysfunction of this committee. The secret, 200-page Conservative guidebook to disrupt and manipulate parliamentary committees - including chairs storming out of meetings - is proof that it is the Conservatives who are orchestrating the dysfunction in Parliament and then blaming it on the opposition parties.

It is as if this Conservative government is convinced that opposition parties have no right to object and oppose policies and practices that they may find repugnant.(...)

If the prime minister does decide to ignore the fixed election date and ask the governor general to dissolve Parliament soon after Labour Day because it is dysfunctional, it would be akin to a person who has blown up his own house asking the rest of us to build him a new one.(...)

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by KenS:
I'll fight a clean campaign, Dion insists
[ 29 August 2008: Message edited by: KenS ]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MCunningBC:

Isn't this just another way of saying that the NDP's only legitimate purpose is to help the Liberals, and it serves this role best when it stays small?

Surely you don't think that Liberal frontbenchers, such as Dion, Rae and Ignatieff would do anything but laugh at the suggestion of NDP ministers in some kind of coalition? For the party to talk that kind of thing, it needs to be over 50 seats. For now, the Liberal approach is that we are a small, weak, defenceless organization which exists for the purpose of being bullied by the industry majors, themselves and the Conservatives.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sean in Ottawa:

To answer your first question, no. Please explain how you can possibly draw that conclusion from what I said.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by martin dufresne:
Harper is in a fix - Errol P. Mendes, in today's Mtl Gazette

Mendes argues that

---

We may disagree on the use of the colloquial term "lame". However, on this one we are in agreement. I think Harper is just nuts to do this, that across much of the country there will be considerable public anger over his unilateral call of an unneeded election, in violation of his own fixed dates law.

[ 30 August 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by martin dufresne:
But I don't think he's nuts; I think he's immoral.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by londoninium:
Does the sudden emergence of the Greens as force in the next election ... make it likely that Harper will reconsider his election date?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MCunningBC:

Past experience.

---

What an intellectually lazy and empty answer. Your initial comment was completely unrelated to what I said so there should be no surprise that I would ask you to share an explanation for such a comment. It appears, however, that you are more interested in being "provocative" than actually engaging in substance.

I am a little fed up with lazy arrogant people who are so quick to label those who offer any opinion they don't like as being somehow disloyal to the left in general or the NDP in particular and then when you call them on it for an explanation they can't come up with anything but a snarky cute empty reply.

This is a pity because this is the kind of commentary that drives people from this site realizing that real original thought and comment is often unwelcome and political correct orthodoxy rather than true investigation and imagination are the interest of a good many here.

Thank goodness for that small number of people here who actually read and reply in a thoughtful manner.

quote:

---

Mendes argues that

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(...)The imminent violation of the fixed elections law is even more distasteful when one considers the second reason for Mr. Harper's claim to ignore his own law. He claims that he may seek the dissolution because Parliament is dysfunctional and will continue to be so with the next session to start soon after Labour Day.

---

I find Pat Monahan in the Globe and Mail more persuasive when he argued that Harper's move, while politically suspect, is sound on legal grounds:

quote:

---

In fact, while the Prime Minister's election gambit may violate political commitments, it is perfectly consistent with constitutional norms and practices, and would not violate the fixed-date election legislation.

The first point to recognize is that, under Westminster-style parliamentary systems such as our own, a prime minister has virtually absolute discretion to determine the date of a general election. While the formal legal power to trigger an election rests in the hands of the governor-general, there is a firm constitutional requirement that she will exercise her powers only on the advice of the prime minister.

Thus when the prime minister asks the governor-general to dissolve Parliament and fix the date of the election, the governor-general is expected to automatically grant the request without making an independent assessment of its merits.

...

In fact, had the legislation attempted to impose legal limits on the power of the governor-general to dissolve Parliament, it would have been unconstitutional. The amending formula enacted in 1982 requires that changes to the powers of the governor-general can only be made through a constitutional amendment supported by the federal Houses of Parliament and the legislatures of all the provinces.

Nor does the legislation impose any limits on the discretion of the prime minister to advise the governor-general to dissolve Parliament. Any such limitation would have been unconstitutional in any event, as an attempt to indirectly limit the powers of the governor-general, without a constitutional amendment.

In short, the Governor-General (and thus, indirectly, the Prime Minister) retains full legal authority to dissolve Parliament and trigger an election at any time, regardless of whether the government has lost the confidence of the House of Commons.

---

Maybe the bottom line is Harper thinks Canadians will swallow enough paid propaganda (advertising) to elect him-- or in other words that Canadians are even dumber than I think they are.

I think Canadians are dumb enough to go back to the Liberals (unfortunately) but not so dumb as to miss the crap Harper is planning to lay out.

quote:

---

Originally posted by West Coast Lefty:

The GG has to grant dissolution when the PM demands it, except under very exceptional circumstances (war, national crisis, an election very soon after the last one) that do not apply to the current situation in Ottawa.

---

quote:

---

Liberal Deputy Leader Michael Ignatieff told CTV's Question Period on Sunday, Harper is panicking.

...

Ignatieff suggested there may be changes coming to Dion's "Green Shift" carbon tax plan, which is expected to be a central plank in the Liberal election platform. The Liberals have said the plan will be revenue neutral because it will offset new energy taxes on carbon producers by giving tax breaks for most Canadians.

Some critics have raised concerns the Liberal plan may add new burdens for farmers, truckers, and rural residents who may be most affected by new fuel taxes.

---

Did somebody say something about panicking?

quote:

---

Mr. Dion will sit down with the prime minister despite asserting that he had no time in his schedule before September 9th.

---

I don't think Dion changing his mind is signs of some kind of panic attack. But given their track record, we can't dismiss the possibility Dion is going to offer Harper some "compromise" on "cooperation" [surrender to terms] which will be impossible and/or just too good for Harper to pass up.

More likely its just Dion and his brain trust realizing it would probably look better if they make sure they can't be portrayed as uninterested in meeting with Harper. But if thats what it is, its examplary of people dithering over what to do while the speeding freight train is seconds away.

[ 31 August 2008: Message edited by: KenS ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Politics101:
Which boundaries will be used in this election?

---

quote:

---

I find Pat Monahan in the Globe and Mail more persuasive

---

I didn't find Monahan that persuasive. He criticizes Clarkson's 6 month rule as being too subjective then goes on to use equally subjective criteria for why the King-Byng case is irrelevant to our current situation.

First he says that the Harper government has lasted a long time which is a strange reason to give considering his earlier criticism of Clarkson.

The second is that Harper still enjoys the confidence of the House but King hadn't been defeated by a confidence vote yet, it was speculative that he would be and not based on anything that had actually happened.

The third reason he gives is "unlike in 1926, there is no suggestion that the Leader of the Opposition is in a position to form a stable minority government and thus no practical alternative to an election should the Prime Minister request one." This is true but as he notes the Meighan government immediately lost confidence within days of taking office so it isn't as if it would be unprecedented for an unstable government to take over.

[ 03 September 2008: Message edited by: Boom Boom ]

The amount Harper has been able to get done with a minority is greater than a lot of governments get done with a majority. I don't agree with the man but he's incredibly effective at his job. Now he's starting to nibble at the arts... I think he would start completely eliminating the arts, and then the sciences, and then useful crown corporations like the business development bank, atomic energy, export development, and many that I have not heard of perhaps even the CBC. It's far easier to destroy social infrastructure than to build it, and Canada would not recover from these changes for some time, if at all.

I do not believe it is in Canada's interests to become United States North.

[ 03 September 2008: Message edited by: 500_Apples ]

This is a case where you have to look at the overall probability of ALL the component variables going in Harper's favour.

That gives a different picture than the otherwise essentially visceral approach.

And as commanding as I expect the Harper campaign tobay, I would put their chance for a majority at under 13%... probably well under. I'd guess something like 9-10%

Their chances for 180 seats are close to nill.

A one in ten chance of a Harper majority may scare people. But remember, they already govern as if they have a majority.

I've made the point that what this election is about is relaoding the cornering of the Liberals into not voting against the many confidence votes. IE, more of the same. And I've argued that all they need for that is to maintain close to their existing seat total [ie, they could drop several and still execute this].

I'll note that the all the details I predicted a week and two back as to the Harper plan and how it would be executed, and that are just now being confirmed, have come to pass so far. They've been signalling all this for some time. Its the opposite of suprise attack.

[ 03 September 2008: Message edited by: KenS ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by KenS:
In the prediction thread I discussed probabilities of a Harper majority.

This is a case where you have to look at the overall probability of ALL the component variables going in Harpers favour.

That gives a different picture than the otherwise essentially visceral approach.

And as commanding as I expect the Harper campaign tobay, I would put their chance for a majority at under 13%... proabably well under.

Their chances for 180 seats are close to nill.

---

13%?

Why not 12.728654% ????

Its obvious from what I said that 13% is a very rough estimate- a guide, a high end possibility.

Thats at least as appropriate as your pulling a seat number out of thin air.

Try reading my simple guide to the overall probability when multiple variables have to fall into place. It makes intuitive sense too when you look at it. I plugged some numbers in as an example. It isn't meant to give accuracy- its meant to give people something a little more rigorous to go on than visceral guessing. Try your own variables out in your own rough model.

This thread at 29 August 2008 05:50 AM

[ 03 September 2008: Message edited by: KenS ]

Having a minority with a pathetic weak opposition is in some respects like a majority but it isn't one.

The difference is that if the government did something absolutely repugnant the opposition can bring it down-- if the Cons did something so unpopular or scandalous that they sank in popularity the Liberals who had been supporting them can and would bring them down. In a majority situation nobody but the government can call an election. This is no small distinction.

Those who say this is a coalition are closer to the mark in that a partner can abandon the coalition if they see a political reason to do so. However a coalition gives a voice for the junior party as well so this is not a coalition either.

This is a situation where the opposition is afraid of an election even though the government is not cooperating or trying to get majority support. This has happened before but normally the periods are shorter.

It is a seriously misleading statement to peddle the fiction that this is a majority because people may conclude that the Cons are behaving exactly how they would in a majority situation which is not true. In a real majority they could be certain there would be no election for some time and can entertain policies that could be electorally devastating in the short term with the knowledge an election will not be for a while. The Cons do not have that comfort.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sean in Ottawa:
I am fed up with people saying the Conservatives have a majority now. They don't and the distinction ought not to be lost on anyone.

---

quote:

---

Having a minority with a pathetic weak opposition is in some respects like a majority but it isn't one.

The difference is that if the government did something absolutely repugnant the opposition can bring it down-- if the Cons did something so unpopular or scandalous that they sank in popularity the Liberals who had been supporting them can and would bring them down. In a majority situation nobody but the government can call an election. This is no small distinction.

---

In the case we're in, it is not in practice as much of a distinction as you argue.

The difference with a minority government is that normally the government has to bring in legislation in a way that appeases other parties. Our present government doesn't appease, it offers up exactly the legislation it wants, and attaches a confidence vote. And the so called official opposition caves.

"If the Cons did something so unpopular or scandalous that..."

This is only barely less of a control on a majority government. While the main limit on minority government this government has bypassed as noted.

A sitting majority government has the same concern over its popularity as a minority government. They also will only do what they think will allow them to be re-elected come the next election.

If the Harper government had walked into a more compelling scandal than the ones they have in the last 2 years, then that MIGHT have given the Liberals enough nerve to vote against them... and you don't have that opportunity with a majority government.

But obviously it would have taken a hell of a scandal for the Liberals to use that opportunity. And it will be worse if there is a round 2 after the next election if Harper is back... because unless the Liberals gain AT LEAST 10 seats [which many of us would rate under 30% probability] they'll have far more compelling reason to duck every confidence vote than did last year.

One good spanner in the works for Harpers strategy to govern would be if the NDP makes substantial gains in seats. Just to illustrate rather than to say how many it would take- suppose the NDP has 47 seats, the Libs drop 10-12, and Harper ends up without a substantial net change.

This would give Layton more political capital and leverage for manouvering in the House. Being able to take more legislative initiative that lays traps for both the government and making it ever more pricey for the Liberals to cave.

There are more quite plausible potential scenarios than people are looking at. Too much thinking in static and formal positions.

[ 03 September 2008: Message edited by: KenS ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by KenS:

The difference with a minority government is that normally the government has to bring in legislation in a way that appeases other parties.

---

This is exactly where you are wrong. Minority governments don't appease the other parties-- they govern on an ongoing basis assuming an election *can* happen at any time and they try to appease the electorate. Only when they are behind in the polls might they try to appease the other parties-- otherwise that exercise is just for show. A Minority that is behind is trying to appease the electorate to improve its fortunes and one that is ahead is trying to capitalize so that it can pull the plug itself and get a majority. A minority is to an election like a cold war is to a shooting war. Effectively it is a continual stage of being in an election until there is the security of a majority and then things settle for 2-3 years until the countdown to a new election starts. In a majority you can get rid of the stinky stuff you want to do early knowing that you control the calendar enough to be certain years before an election. This dynamic does not exist-- you are always in pre-election mode whether that is your choice to go or the oppositions the dynamic is similar. Put another way-- in a minority you have an ever present threat against what you have and what you don't yet have but want (the majority you don't yet have). In a majority you have a long-term plan to retain what you have but short term security.

Sorry but to be blunt if you do not get the significant importance of these distinctions you won't understand how much more dangerous a real Harper majority can be over the functional daily control over the house he currently has.

And I think language like "if you don't get" and "to be blunt you're wrong" [vs. simply "yo are wrong"] is definitely lecturing. But my calling you on it might be the pot calling the kettle, so...

Anyway.

quote:

---

Minority governments don't appease the other parties-- they govern on an ongoing basis assuming an election *can* happen at any time and they try to appease the electorate. Only when they are behind in the polls might they try to appease the other parties-- otherwise that exercise is just for show.

---

But 'appeasing' the electorate is a constant. Ahead or behind in the polls, majority or minority, legislation has to be consistent with winning the next election.

I don't use the words 'you are simply wrong' as easily as you. But you are incorrect in saying that a [normal] minority government does not have to appease the other parties to get legislation passed.

Where we would agree is that currying favour with the voters has an immediate bearing on how much the other parties are needed at any given time. So its never as simple as 'its all about appeasing the other parties'.

But in the normal minority situation a governemnt does have to negotiate with the other parties- even if how much negotiation is blunted by how popular the governemnt and/or the particular legislation is.

But you have not shown how relevant any of this is when we have a minority situation where for the forseeable future everyone knows that the Liberals will not vote against legislation that all has confidence votes attached to it.

That was the situation we were in until Dion figured he had more to lose by continuing to duck. That Liberal change of heart had nothing to do with unpopularity of the government, and for all any of us knew up until a month ago they looked do be continuing the ducking.

But Harper beat them to it. All he has to do is maintain the status quo. After a campaign where they are HUGELY better prepared thats not at all difficult.

If Harper still has government, then its right back where we left off. EXCEPT, the cost to the Liberals for voting no confidence will be even greater.

It is a piece of cake for Harper to live with the limit of not bringing any legislation that will give the Liberals an opportunity to change the game. Because the Liberals were [and will be] so cowed that unless they can fight an election over that piece of legislation alone, they duck.

So we will be back to them ducking indefinitely, no matter what. Only worse, because the Liberals will be more behind the 8 ball.

Show me how this is operationally substantively different than a majority government.

quote:

---

A Minority that is behind is trying to appease the electorate to improve its fortunes and one that is ahead is trying to capitalize so that it can pull the plug itself and get a majority.

---

Thats the way it usually works and what Harper WAS trying to get to. But the actual goal is to govern, and they found a way.

They couldn't keep doing that, so we're having an election. We're having it earlier than the Liberals planned so that Harper can make sure to keep the status quo.

Status quo is all Harper needs to keep governing. And if he gets that status quo result the prospects are the identical power imbalance will last substantially longer than last time.

Bottom line: Harper is governing and the Liberals are doing nothing to upset the apple cart.

And saying the Libs are doing nothing understates the problem. They are congenitally locked into this feeble position for the forseeable future.

quote:

---

you [don't] understand how much more dangerous a real Harper majority can be over the functional daily control over the house he currently has.

---

It's not just a matter of 'functional daily control over the House'. Not by a long shot. It is a complete hobbling of the opposition for the forseeable future.

There is less security in that than there is in a 4 year majority mandate. But for as long as the indefinite hobbling lasts, these are shades of grey difference, not the black and white you and most aronund here see between Harper majority and minority potentials.

quote:

---

... that you can't see this important difference or can't see that the Cons could do things in the first year of a majority mandate that they would never do either in a later year of a majority or ever in a minority. The same crew advising this government when they were working with Mike Harris were quite candid about wanting to get the most painful stuff out of the way as quickly as possible after the election back in 1995.

---

[Point of order first. We 'see' the same things. We are arguing about the implications.]

That was the way Harris did it. And maybe the way the same and/or same-minded folks thought 2 years ago they would need to do it.

Whether they always knew, or discovered out of necessity there is another way, is immaterial.

Creeping strangulation works too. They've already constrained government revenues enough that no significant spending programs can be drawn out of the existing fiscal structure. Even if the Liberals were government in a few months they'd be totally cowed by that. Let alone adding to the problem by promising tax cuts in the carbon tax scheme.

Continuing Harper minority governments have all the dangers that people see in a Harper majority. And the Liberals just aren't in the running for stopping them.

[ 03 September 2008: Message edited by: KenS ]

quote:

---

The contest - Bully Boy v. Mr. Bean, as one pundit put it

---

I love that pithy label.

quote:

---

Someone said this race might be a tortoise-and-hare type of thing, with not enough time for the tortoise. But what happens if it's a threadbare hare and a footless turtle? Maybe we ought to watch out for Jack Layton and Lizzie May.

---

quote:

---

We all know what Jack Layton will do. His brain is as tightly wound as his Schwarzenegger physique.

---

Which is exactly what I predicted upthread a week ago:

quote:

---

I'm going to guess the Harper meets Duceppe Friday 5th. Writ dropping Sunday, possibly Saturday. Not as soon as Duceppe leaves door on Friday.

Eday 14 October, which is 48 days from the unofficial launch of the Cons campaign tommorow. With spending limit not kicking in until about Day 10 of that 48 day campaign.

quote:
-------------------------------------------------
I'm pretty sure that Duceppe has out-maneuvered Harper here and that Harper would have prefered to go to the polls before Thanksgiving.
-------------------------------------------------

And I would disagree. That despite a Thanksgiving election not being ideal, the Cons wanted a long drawn out campaign [including lots of extra time that doesn't count for the spending limit] to grind down Dion. It worked well against the Liberals last time, and they're in worse shape now.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boom Boom:
CTV just announced David Emerson is quitting politics.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Timetrvlr:

Best news I've heard in a while! I'm not sure there is a safe seat in BC for the turncoat Emerson. He is easily the most infamous politician in BC. Now, perhaps the people in his riding can elect an MP of the party they voted for.

---

[ 04 September 2008: Message edited by: Left Turn ]

excerpt:

"Stephen Harper wants to give George W. Bush a third term – in Ottawa," Dion jokingly told caucus colleagues yesterday in a speech during a meeting in Winnipeg.

Monte Solberg not running again:

Click!

There are two other possible reasons:

1. He never got to be finance minister after years as the critic.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Politics101:
Yes Monte not running again did come as a bit of a surprise - wasn't he first elected as a Reform MP which had in there platform term limits - he has served for something like 15 years so probably felt that that was enough time to be away from family etc.

There are two other possible reasons:

1. He never got to be finance minister after years as the critic.

2. He believes it will be another minority and doesn't want that added pressure.

---

Apparently he has a plum job offer which probably pays a lot more than being an MP with less stress and time from home. Also, apparently he didn't want to run again in prior elections but Harper convinced him to run.

Also, heard that people are not liking Harper's ads, about himself, the longer they run. And an actual clip of Layton was shown, on CBC.

I agree almost entirely with that Lawrence Martin Column, with the exception that Dion could never stumble so badly to give the Conservatives a majority. Everyone likes to go on about how good Harper is, and there's no doubt he's a wiley, efficient little robot, but it's just as true that Canadians have never liked him and I don't think they ever will.

Look at his pathetic so-called opposition, the Dion Liberals. Floundering about, knuckling under, and pandering to minor parties they should be ignoring, they still remain, against all logic, a solid contender for government. Why? Certainly it has nothing to do with their performance. It's only because Canadians don't want to vote for Harper. Three years he's been in the PM chair and while us political junkies can readily recite a laundry list of his faults, he's done very little for the average Joe to complain about, and yet his numbers have never edged into majority territory in all this time. We should be counting our lucky stars that Harper is still here, because if the Cons ever found a leader with a shred of charisma it would be game over.

It's also worth repeating how the dramatically lowered expectations of Dion will work in his favour. If he can pull off a merely half-decent performance, just on par with Harper's (which really shouldn't be hard) then it will be hailed a a triumph.

I've wanted this for ages now, because despite poll numbers I have always believed that Harper and the Cons will not weather an election very well. Governing parties always suffer a bit during campaigns, since everyone is going after them, and the Cons especially are the kind of shifty double-dealers that benefit from not being under scrutiny. Calling an election means that the vast majority of Canadians, who usually don't give a flying fuck about politics, will rouse themselves from their stupor and spend a half-hour or so actually paying attention to the parties, which is bad news for the Conservatives.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Michelle:
Long thread.

---