Author
|
Topic: General election call in two weeks?
|
Doug
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 44
|
posted 22 August 2008 03:06 PM
quote: A senior Conservative says Prime Minister Stephen Harper could call a federal election as early as Sept. 2.The well-placed party official says no decision has yet been made but an election call is highly likely sometime within the next two to four weeks. According to the official, Harper could pull the plug on his minority government immediately after the Labour Day weekend or wait until shortly after Parliament resumes on Sept. 15. The prime minister will not make a final decision until after he meets with opposition leaders to determine whether there's any chance his government will be able to forge ahead with its agenda during the fall.
http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/484000 There's that wee issue of having a fixed election date law, but oh well...
From: Toronto, Canada | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
David Young
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14805
|
posted 22 August 2008 03:54 PM
The same thing happend in 2004 when the by-election in OTTAWA CENTRE was delayed by Paul Martin for as long as he could once Ed Broadbent announced he would be contesting the seat.When the election call came, the by-election was 'folded in' with the regular election. Perhaps in Steven Harper's mind, calling an election on September 2 for October 6th is his way of saving taxpayers approximately $1,000,000.00 in by-election expenses.
From: Liverpool, N.S. | Registered: Dec 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Boom Boom
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7791
|
posted 22 August 2008 06:45 PM
From yesterday: NDP leader against early election callexcerpt: The NDP leader said Harper's assertion that Parliament isn't working is at odds with the facts. "He's managed to get his entire program through with the help of the Liberals and the Bloc [Québécois]. So it's actually not a valid complaint," Layton said. "So he's up to something."
From: Make the rich pay! | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138
|
posted 23 August 2008 08:25 AM
I had a thought regarding what an early election call by Harper will mean.For almost a year, the Liberals voted for every single thing that Harper wanted and their excuse was that they wanted an election at a time of their own choosing, not Harper's etc... I think the Liberals were counting on finally joining with the NDP and BQ sometime in early October (or later) to bring down the government and then everyone would focus on that event and forget the year long farce of propping up Harper. If Harper calls and election before Parliament even meets then the Liberals are stuck having no buffer between them and a year of voting confidence in the Harper government and we can hammer them again and again and again about 43 straight non-confidence votes where the backed Harper - never to be counterbalanced by a vote against Harper. The Liberals are stuck looking like weak cowards right to the end and I hope the NDP makes that point every step of the way.
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
West Coast Lefty
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3697
|
posted 23 August 2008 08:40 AM
quote: I think Harper likes to revive this election speculation every so often because it sends the opposition into a panic. It also has the added benefit of causing them to do a lot of unneccessary spending (e.g. campaign jet, signs, staffers) that only the Conservatives can really afford and derails their fall parliamentary agendas/planning.
Until a couple of days ago, I shared this view, but I'm now convinced we are definitely going to an election this fall. I can't fathom what Harper stands to gain by going now, but I can't see any of the opposition parties agreeing to give Harper a blank cheque (except possibly Duceppe). One factor that tipped the balance for me is that Paul Wells has jumped on the fall election bandwagon. Wells is the best pundit in Ottawa and is usually immune to the election speculation drumbeats, but his sources are very reliable and he's now convinced that Harper is about to pull the plug. I'll post later re the pros and cons of a fall vote for the various parties, but one observation is that if Harper has decided to call the election, it is in his interest to do it very soon. Letting the Sept 8 by-elections take place and then dropping the writ a few days later will make Harper subject to the "wasting taxpayer dollars" critique, even more so if he waits beyond Sept 22nd for the the DVW by-election. Similarly, calling the House back and then pulling the plug the next week makes no sense for the same reasons. So, it's either a huge bluff or Harper visits the GG right after Labour Day, and I think the 2nd scenario is much more likely.
From: Victoria, B.C. | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138
|
posted 23 August 2008 08:46 AM
quote: Letting the Sept 8 by-elections take place and then dropping the writ a few days later will make Harper subject to the "wasting taxpayer dollars" critique,
Sorry, but those dollars have already been wasted. Almost all the costs to Elections Canada and to the candidates in the byelections have already been spent and the real waste will be cancelling the byelections literally days before they were to happen when votes have already been cast in advance polls etc... If Harper didn't want to "waste money" he should have either had the byelections back in June or set a date for them in late November.
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
West Coast Lefty
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3697
|
posted 23 August 2008 09:15 AM
quote: Sorry, but those dollars have already been wasted. Almost all the costs to Elections Canada and to the candidates in the byelections have already been spent and the real waste will be cancelling the byelections literally days before they were to happen when votes have already been cast in advance polls etc...If Harper didn't want to "waste money" he should have either had the byelections back in June or set a date for them in late November.
I agree but the optics are worse if the by-elections happen and then people have to go "re-vote" 6 weeks later. If the writ is dropped prior to Sept 8, most voters will just see it as a continuation of the campaign in those ridings (all candidates will be the same, etc)
From: Victoria, B.C. | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
V. Jara
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9193
|
posted 23 August 2008 09:59 AM
I'm going to wait and see. There are lots of reasons for why Harper would want to call an election. There are also good reasons for him to horse around with the opposition. One thing I know about politics though is you never willingly give up a lead, and Harper right now has the lead- he is the government.Besides the scandal and economy talk that has been whispered hoarse, one thing I am almost 90% sure about is that the Liberals (if they could possibly do it) would try to defeat Harper on the budget or, if necessary, shortly before hand to ensure an election this coming spring. They don't want to go in to an election on Harper's time table, because as Stockholm has already noted they desperately want the opportunity to say they stood up to Harper on something or told him "enough is enough" before triggering a campaign. I think the best Harper can get out of a fall election is a slightly improved minority mandate. He's just too toxic to voters out east still to make a majority happen. Pulling off another minority would buy him probably another two years in power, though, so maybe that is the weak gamble he could try to pull off. One thing that would be very odd about a fall election is the fact that the Liberals and Conservatives have almost nothing to differentiate themselves on in terms of the work they did in Parliament (from a center-left voter's perspective). This will make the old NDP meme, "Liberals, Tories same old story" unbearably obvious if it comes to any little surge for the Liberals.
From: - | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
TCD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9061
|
posted 23 August 2008 10:12 AM
When a government calls an election they always risk looking self-serving. Witness David Peterson's early election call in 1990, a move that was so transparently self-serving it drove voters to the NDP - who ultimately overcame a twenty point deficit to beat Peterson. However, the public will always forgive you if you have an excuse. Witness Chretien's equally self-serving writ drop in 2000. The difference between Chretien and Peterson was that Chretien's opponent - Opposition Leader Stockwell Day - demanded an election shortly after being elected Leader. Chretien could claim - and did - he was merely obliging him. Fast-forward to now. Harper has said, in fact quasi-legislated, that he doesn't want an election till next year. On the one hand, calling one earlier is flip-flopping. On the other hand, when two Opposition Leaders are demanding elections and the Official Opposition Leader is publicly ruminating that he will force an election when it's convenient for his party, it's hard to imagine Harper getting in too much trouble. What's Dion going to say? "I don't want an eleciton now because I don't think I can win. This is unfair!" What's Jack going to say? "We've been demanding an election for the last year but now we don't want one." I think Harper's realizing that there's no better moment than now. It's not perfect but things are more likely to get worse. He's got all the cover he needs. He's going to go for it.
From: Toronto | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138
|
posted 23 August 2008 10:20 AM
quote: What's Jack going to say? "We've been demanding an election for the last year but now we don't want one."
No, here is what I think Jack should say. "Setting the date of the next election is a decision that belongs to PARLIAMENT, not to the arbitrary whim of the PM. Harper pushed through a so-called fixed election bill specifically to get away from giving the PM of the day that kind of arbitrary control. Parliament is to resume sitting on September 15 - the process that should be followed is for Parliament to vote on a confidence motion and that and only that should set the wheels in motion for a dissolution of parliament. Canada should have an election based on a majority vote o our elected representatives, NOT PM Harper's arrogant, dictorial brinkmanship". If Harper wanted to play politics as usual and arbitrarily call an election whenever he feels like it, he should never have wasted Parliament's time with his farcical fixed election dates bill. This shows that Harper is a liar and cannot be trusted. [ 23 August 2008: Message edited by: Stockholm ]
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
TCD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9061
|
posted 23 August 2008 10:30 AM
I did see it - If, as Wells claims in the link above, Harper is going to sit down with each of the Opposition Leaders and see if he can work out a deal to govern until Christmas. And Jack is arguing "I'd love to see a prime minister who says lets all roll up our sleeves and work together." Then this an interesting opportunity for the NDP to test the theory that Harper really wants to make Parliament work. If Layton can cut a deal with Harper what will people say? I'm particularly interested in what we'll hear from the Laxers and Hargroves. If the NDP can get progressive legislation from the Conservatives will they accept it?
From: Toronto | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
TCD
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9061
|
posted 23 August 2008 10:36 AM
quote: Originally posted by Stockholm: No, here is what I think Jack should say. "Setting the date of the next election is a decision that belongs to PARLIAMENT, not to the arbitrary whim of the PM. Harper pushed through a so-called fixed election bill specifically to get away from giving the PM of the day that kind of arbitrary control. Parliament is to resume sitting on September 15 - the process that should be followed is for Parliament to vote on a confidence motion and that and only that should set the wheels in motion for a dissolution of parliament. Canada should have an election based on a majority vote o our elected representatives, NOT PM Harper's arrogant, dictorial brinkmanship".
Stockholm, you earlier argued - persuasively - how it was in the Liberals interest (and only theirs) to bring down Harper in a confidence vote that would put Dion centre stage.Why should Jack argue for exactly that now? Harper's actually handed Jack a gift. If he's bold enough to take it. If Jack can take Harper at his word and actually try and negotiate a deal to keep Parliament going he could put the party at centre stage.
From: Toronto | Registered: Apr 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138
|
posted 23 August 2008 10:49 AM
Look, I don't think for one second that Harper will be influenced at all by what Layton says. This is all about spin. If we have to have an early election, the NDP might as well be as sanctimonious as possible in denouncing Harper for being a dictator and a hypocrit (even if we don't actually mind robbing the Liberals of the optics of voting down the government) I also think that if Harper wants an election (which he clearly does), he will not make any deals with the NDP - why would he? I suppose that if Harper was in some state of desperation, the NDP could demand a shopping list of things in exchange for keeping the government alive (ie: reversing cuts to arts and culture, withdrawal from Afghanistan, aggressive action on climate change etc...) - but realistically there is no way Harper would ever go along with that. The Liberals can get away with propping up Harper because Liberal members and supporters tend to all think that "what's good for the Liberal Party is good for Canada". The NDP base would revolt if Layton were seen to be making a deal with Harper that was anything less than Harper implementing 100% of the NDP policy book! Maybe Layton can redo what he did with Martin in April 2005 and put forth a list of demands in exchange for keeping Harper in power - even if those demands are things that are so diametrically opposite to Harper's ideology that there is ZERO chance of him going along with it. At least we can then have talking points about how we tried to make parliament work and be constructive, but Harper was too aggressive and bull-headed and the Liberals idea of making Parliament work was putting up a white flag and declaring unconditional surrender. [ 23 August 2008: Message edited by: Stockholm ] [ 23 August 2008: Message edited by: Stockholm ]
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
damngrumpy
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 15425
|
posted 23 August 2008 11:59 AM
The Prime Minister will meet with the opposition to prove no one can work together. This government needs to go to the polls now. There is one hell of a downturn coming in the economy and they know it. I wouldn't be surprised if Harper isn't praying for a Liberal minority so he can dump them when the mess explodes. We have high interest, serious inflation and big numbers unemployment right around the corner. Real Estate prices are going to take a nose dive too. It would be great to have the conservatives to stay on until the new year, they will no friends left domestically or to the south of us. I view the conservatives sort of as locust, they come in swarms for a few years and then thank God they go away for awhile.I do think if they call it for this fall they will lose, as their fifteen minutes of fame is about over, they are present day conservative, Reform party fighting the old battle of the last twenty years and Canadians have moved on. The thing is, he's peaked so he will call the election for mid october
From: Kelowna BC | Registered: Aug 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
V. Jara
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9193
|
posted 23 August 2008 01:53 PM
quote: Originally posted by Stockholm: Layton should say that Canada is a democracy and not a dictatorship and that the NDP wants an election as soon as a majority of MPs vote non-confidence. An arbitrary election call by Harper is an act of contempt towards our democratic institutions and gives us more evidence of why we must end the Harper government as soon as possible.
This on the right track, and quote: ...the NDP could demand a shopping list of things in exchange for keeping the government alive
This on the wrong track. If Layton issues another list of demands (knowing they will not get accepted), he is showing himself as a one trick pony and Harper will be able to easily say, with a contemptuous laugh, the NDP is irrelevant. I think if Layton wants to really call the PM's bluff he should propose (before the election gets called) that the parties return to Parliament to do something about hospital wait times. This was part of the Conservatives 5 promises and they have done nothing about it. Let the NDP propose the outlines of a bill with good provision for debate and see the PM say no to that.
From: - | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Robo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4168
|
posted 24 August 2008 09:14 AM
In the past, I have said many times that opinion polls typically show that the public doesn't want almost any election to be called early, but that the issue disappears within days of the election actually being called. The best example of this in recent years was Jean Chretien calling the 2000 election only three years after the 1997 federal election; there was a lot of flack at first about the early election, which was not heard after the first week of the campaign. Having said that, I doubt the Conservatives will unilaterally call an election before the House of Commons returns. Given that s.56.2 of the Canada Elections Act sets the next election date as Oct 19/09, the Conservatives would have to violate the law that they were bragging about only months ago as "removing from the hand of politicians the decision of when the election will be held". Section 56.1 gives the Governor-General the right to dissolve Parliament, so the law need not be violated. But Harper asking the Governor General to do so flies in the face of s. 56.2. Harper supporters have used the Mike Harris-type line of "You may not like everything I do, but at least I keep my word" to promote his government (Harris kept some promises, violated others, and got away with it in "conventional wisdom"-- that's another thread). As much as Harper would like to have an election this fall, he won't risk losing use of that line of argument. If he really wants an election, he can just declare issues as confidence matters to force the Liberals to continue swallowing their pride and abstain or actually vote in accordance with their rhetoric. That's how they can have a fall election. But that timing of fall election won't stop the four by-elections in September. But that's the more interesting question. Why muse about calling an election before September 8? The only logical conclusion, given the problems I've just described, is that the Conservatives have internal polls showing their vote dropping in the four ridings to be contested in September by-elections. They had hoped the by-elections would confirm drop in Liberal support. (I still think the three on September 8 will show decreased Liberal support, but that's just what I think.) I can only deduce that the Tories must have polling results leaving them fearful of the Conservative results in the by-elecitons being worse than they had expected. Why else would the Conservatives risk the embarrassment of defying a law they had bragged about as one of their own accomplishments only months ago? [ 24 August 2008: Message edited by: Robo ]
From: East York | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Mercy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13853
|
posted 24 August 2008 03:28 PM
quote: Originally posted by Robo: In the past, I have said many times that opinion polls typically show that the public doesn't want almost any election to be called early, but that the issue disappears within days of the election actually being called. The best example of this in recent years was Jean Chretien calling the 2000 election only three years after the 1997 federal election; there was a lot of flack at first about the early election, which was not heard after the first week of the campaign.
As noted above, Ontario's 1990 election provides a contrast. Peterson called an election three years in and could produce no credible justification for doing so. The public concluded he was only calling an election because he thought he could win - and he consequently didn't. quote: Originally posted by Robo: If he really wants an election, he can just declare issues as confidence matters to force the Liberals to continue swallowing their pride and abstain or actually vote in accordance with their rhetoric. That's how they can have a fall election. But that timing of fall election won't stop the four by-elections in September. But that's the more interesting question. Why muse about calling an election before September 8? The only logical conclusion, given the problems I've just described, is that the Conservatives have internal polls showing their vote dropping in the four ridings to be contested in September by-elections. They had hoped the by-elections would confirm drop in Liberal support. (I still think the three on September 8 will show decreased Liberal support, but that's just what I think.) I can only deduce that the Tories must have polling results leaving them fearful of the Conservative results in the by-elecitons being worse than they had expected. Why else would the Conservatives risk the embarrassment of defying a law they had bragged about as one of their own accomplishments only months ago?
I think that's possible. I think it's equally likely, as Stockholm noted, that Harper would rather call an election than be forced into one by Dion, who would look like a Leader by doing so. It could be some combination of the two as well.As for breaking their fixed election date promise, I think Harper's already developed a pretty good excuse. He's going to meet with Opposition Leaders and see if he can get a commitment to keep Parliament going. If they all refuse then he's pretty justified in saying, "No one would agree to keeping this government going until 2009. It's clear we need an election. I'm calling one." As noted earlier, Dion will have a hard time complaining when he's already saying he might force an election this year. Now Dion is criticizing Harper for wanting an election before the fixed date which makes me think this may also be a way of Harper getting the Liberals to make a relatively airtight promise to keep Parliament going. Dion is going to look pretty dumb if he simultaneously claims that Harper can't call an election but he can. EDITED TO ADD: So will Jack. [ 24 August 2008: Message edited by: Mercy ]
From: Ontario, Canada | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stockholm
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3138
|
posted 24 August 2008 03:44 PM
quote: He's going to meet with Opposition Leaders and see if he can get a commitment to keep Parliament going.
No opposition party is EVER going to give a blanket commitment to keep Parliament going indefinitely with no concessions of any kind from the government. What if we have an election and we get another Tory minority government and the day after the election, the opposition refuses to give a guarantee that they will vote for everything the government puts forward? Does Harper then call a new election within two days of the last one? Why can't Harper understand that he has a MINORITY government and that it is up to him as much as the opposition to find common ground to make Parliament work. I think that this may all backfire on Harper. The thing that makes people most resistent to voting Tory and giving him a majority is the feeling that he's bullying and arrogant. This whole episode just reinforces that. It also seems odd that the Tories suddenly seem to be toying within killing the three byelections on Sept. 8. Maybe they are afraid of doing really badly in them. We know that in Westmount, the Tory campaign is almost non-existent and that they will finish a very distant third (if not fourth or even fifth). I have heard rumours that they are going nowhere in St. Lambert and may have an embarrassing fourth place finish there too. Maybe the news from Guelph isn't good either - so why not get away from these localized skirmishes where they stand to do badly and instead go for a national election?
From: Toronto | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stargazer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6061
|
posted 24 August 2008 03:50 PM
Great post and pretty much mirrors my thinking on this topic. quote: The Tories have already out lived their best before date and the time has come to pull the plug. Harper is doing so because they have nothing more to offer from a moderate standpoint. Everything else on his agenda comes from the far right wing, as he would remake the vision of this country. The Born Again crowd can't wait, they believe in gowing back the the Leave It to Beaver era, when every town was perfect and we all thought the same, loved God and worshipped the police and military. It always amazes me how we can't find money to reduce hospital wait lists, we can't find a way to help the less fortunate, or to look at post secondary education as an investment and make sure all our kids get equal access to knowledge. Yet we can find all kinds of money to buy military hardware to kill not only the enemy, but the kill our own children for the profit of others, while lowering the flag to half mast and singing glory glory halliuha. I can see going to war if the cause is just but the middle east, its about oil brother.
From: Inside every cynical person, there is a disappointed idealist. | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Webgear
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9443
|
posted 24 August 2008 04:20 PM
I look forward to an election; I find everything about them exciting.I hope the voter turnout will be above 90% for two reasons. 1. The people will elect a style of government that will meet the needs of the people and fix critical problems such as globe warming and health care and 2. That way Fidel can stop saying (I am paraphrasing) “This is the result of our obsolete electoral system and the fact that the NDP are underrepresented by seats in the House while the old line parties are overrepresented even though neither autocratic party was able to win 24 percent of the eligible vote.”
From: Montgomery's Tavern | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
West Coast Lefty
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3697
|
posted 24 August 2008 07:59 PM
quote: No opposition party is EVER going to give a blanket commitment to keep Parliament going indefinitely with no concessions of any kind from the government. What if we have an election and we get another Tory minority government and the day after the election, the opposition refuses to give a guarantee that they will vote for everything the government puts forward? Does Harper then call a new election within two days of the last one?Why can't Harper understand that he has a MINORITY government and that it is up to him as much as the opposition to find common ground to make Parliament work.
To be fair, I think what Harper has said is that he wants to meet with the Opposition parties to see if any of them can support his proposed fall 2008 legislative agenda, not that he's asking for a "blanket commitment to keep Parliament going indefinitely." It would actually be a reasonable approach on the government's part except for the Oct 2009 fixed election date. Harper has managed to get 3 budgets passed and got the Libs on board for the Afghan extension, obtained all-party support for the "Quebec is a nation within a united Canada" motion, generated good reviews from the opposition on the residential schools apology, etc, so he's shown he can work with the opposition when he feels like it. The trouble has been the totally spineless BQ in 2006 and the Libs from mid-2007 onward, who have given Harper everything he asked for with no concessions or negotiations. I do support Stockholm's earlier suggestion that Jack proposed a series of measures that the NDP could support in the fall session, knowing that there is a 99% chance that Harper won't accept them. It would mean the NDP is setting the agenda and taking the high road in trying to get positive changes passed and avoid an election that most Canadians still don't want.
From: Victoria, B.C. | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
statica
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1420
|
posted 24 August 2008 08:52 PM
salut!i posted this to start another thread, because i found this thread got a little over complicated for me when i'm trying to suss out practical information about the election, but Michelle sent me here even tho this thread is now over my head...could someone help me, i just need some practical/pragmatic opinion about the elections sans ethics, etc? i'm just a big dumb anarchist, after all. quote: salut everyone!can someone(s) on here please give me a quick summary of if they think the Fed. Tories will actually call an election this fall (early fall/late fall). i'm a little lost in the coverage right now: they will/they won't. merci tres lots!
From: t-oront-o | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ottawaobserver
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14981
|
posted 24 August 2008 09:10 PM
statica, I think Harper has laid out a strategic chessboard that gives him a few more moves before he decides, but one that tries to limit the options of his opponents. This is probably why all the back-and-forth sounds complicated. I think people are just trying to suss out what all the possibilities are at the moment.You do notice, number one, that no-one is talking about the Green Shift or In-and-Out ad scheme at the moment, because everyone (media and politicos alike) is suddenly consumed by election fever again. Also, maybe it gets some people to back off a bit in the by-election campaigns (which would be a mistake, but is only human nature). He takes away Dion's line about "I am the one who will decide when to have an election". And, if his internal polling in those seats is indicating weakness, then maybe he does actually decide to pull the plug. There are more factors that might come into play: (i) timing of US election, (ii) timing of next Elections Canada payment to the parties, (iii) how tapped out is the Liberal vs. Conservative donor base, given all the effort spent to pay off leadership debts, (iv) timing of Conservative and Liberal party conventions later this fall, (v) the uncertain situation with the economy, (vi) winter coming and home heating costs set to rise. What do you think?
From: Ottawa | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174
|
posted 25 August 2008 03:36 AM
quote: (ii) timing of next Elections Canada payment to the parties, (iii) how tapped out is the Liberal vs. Conservative donor base, given all the effort spent to pay off leadership debts, (iv)
That first item keeps coming up. It shouldn't. Parties borrow for the campaign against that revenue stream. When the payments come is immaterial. But the tapped out Liberals does make it the sooner the better. But again, there is more of a long term approach to that money than people think... so anything less than a year from now when Liberal fundraising might improve, one time is not much different from the other. Even if finances did affect timing for the Liberals more, the Cons have that advantage big time 24/7... so all Harpers juggling is going to be around the political factors.
From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
ottawaobserver
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14981
|
posted 25 August 2008 04:28 AM
quote: Originally posted by KenS: That first item keeps coming up. It shouldn't. Parties borrow for the campaign against that revenue stream. When the payments come is immaterial.
Fair enough. My question revolved around when they *stop*. I don't know the rules there. If the election were called before the next one was due, would it be made? Also, if fortunes change, the amount would go down after the campaign. That was the sense in which I raised the issue. Otherwise I agree with you. The other factor is that they're apparently already running on a 9%-interest operating loan now.
From: Ottawa | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mercy
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13853
|
posted 25 August 2008 05:03 AM
quote: Originally posted by statica: can someone(s) on here please give me a quick summary of if they think the Fed. Tories will actually call an election this fall (early fall/late fall). i'm a little lost in the coverage right now: they will/they won't.
Here's the summary:No one knows. We're all just guessing.
From: Ontario, Canada | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174
|
posted 25 August 2008 06:00 AM
quote: Fair enough. My question revolved around when they *stop*. I don't know the rules there. If the election were called before the next one was due, would it be made? Also, if fortunes change, the amount would go down after the campaign.That was the sense in which I raised the issue. Otherwise I agree with you. The other factor is that they're apparently already running on a 9%-interest operating loan now.
First of all for our friend making the valiant attempt to make sense: this kind of stuff is estoterica that no one except junkies follows. [And does anyone need it?] I also agree with mercy's 'big picture' summary as well: who knows? As noted already, there are many variables Harper would be considering, and not all the info for their decision is in yet, even for them. It looks complicated because there are a lot of those variables- but mostly because most of us are out here guessing what they all mean. So there is more than usual amount of speculating. All that said, chances seem significantly greater that things are going to fall in place in a way that Harper either wants to go, and/or the time is best whether he wants to or not. For all the reasons speculated above. As far as that quote above, and my reply is mostly about election financing in general... has not much to do I think with the timing of this election. While I do not know for certain, I would be very surprised if the quarterly payments to the parties do not go ahead regardless of an election campaign. Nor would the per vote basis of those payments change immediately afterwards. I'm quite confident that the possibility of those amounts going down some for the Liberals is not going to effect their planning. As to the Liberals already borrowing money, just to operate the party.... that certianly is not good. You are supposed to generate surpluses all other times than an election. That does effect their ability to spend. But again, they can't hope to match the Cons on spending anyway. The month to month changes in their financial picture are not going to significantly add to that dynamic. The Liberal Party of Canada has to operate on the assumption that their financial problems are temporary. If they don't assume that, it's game over. So they proceed with election spending as if fundraising will get better and dig them out of holes created now. If they don't do that, they aren't in the game. And when push comes to shove- if they keep creating financial holes that filling back up cannot be pushed aside, they will find a way. None of those ways will be pretty- but people know it can be done if it must be. Does that take on their finances- leaving aside whether there are those who would disagree- shed a somewhat different light on the degree of motivating importance frequently chalked up to the Liberals financial plight? I would summarise it as it doesn't help their 'organizational confidence' and internal credibility. And that matters for sure. But I don't think it puts the direct limits on election planning / readiness that people seem to attribute. [ 25 August 2008: Message edited by: KenS ]
From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174
|
posted 25 August 2008 06:46 AM
Actually, the only significant at all financial motivation I can see for the Liberals is one edging them towards sooner rather than latter.Regardless of their finances, the Liberals are going to spend the limit. They may not have $18million, but at least the Cons are limited to that too. The advantage in with the Cons bottomless war chest is in spending before an election to beat up on the Liberals. So for this factor at least, sooner is better for the Libs. And as noted, I don’t see their financial weakness as a timing inhibitor for them.
From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174
|
posted 25 August 2008 07:14 AM
Thinking about the Liberals and finances I think I see what just may be the Harper game plan: the role elections can play in governing.So we have an election where the Cons know going in that a majority is virtually impossible. Even if they cannot even make modest gains they can still execute the following. They can reasonably expect to at least stand still. Not a vindication, but not the boot either. They are loaded and ready for another election. The Liberals will have a Leader that at best does not have to resign immediately. So they either have a leadership race coming, or even worse: the knives have to come out in the open first, with a leadership race still to come. Either scenario not conducive to election readiness- even worse off than they were a year ago. And money? They already went into a deep hole without the demonstrated capability to dig them out. So now we'll think about spending 18 million more? There is a limit to planning/spending as if your problems are temporary. And then Harper continues- even more blatantly than last year- to govern as if he has a majority. If that is the scenario, then it is only a matter of Harper picking the best time to make the best of this election: only a question of soon or sooner. Even without such a game determining plan, Harper obviously has no appetite for trying to govern with the Liberals not cowed in a corner as they were last year. [ 25 August 2008: Message edited by: KenS ]
From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
V. Jara
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 9193
|
posted 25 August 2008 12:19 PM
A strategy of trying to bankrupt the Liberals with an election when they are likely to change leaders afterwards is risky.For one, you could lose the election. For two, the new leader could kick your ass, potentially raise a lot of money, and at the very least will cost a lot of money to define. For three, you don't have to actually trigger an election to make the Liberals spend money- you just have to make the threat of one look real. If Harper's strategy is to try and deliver a financial death blow to the Liberal party, then his best move is to keep his options open. In an ideal Harperian world, the Conservatives would get the Liberals to spend a lot of money preparing for an election this fall (money spent at the last minute is also usually the lowest value). They would then present a good news budget in the spring that the Liberals would not have the courage to vote down (e.g. "popular tax cuts for everyone!") In the Fall of 2009 they would issue a throne speech that promises an era of uninterrupted joy and prosperity. An election against the hapless Dion Liberals would occur. The deviation from the ideal Harperian world that may have occured, however, is that there may not be enough money in the kitty for a real "good news" spring budget. Harper has also made a real mistake with some of the clubs that he has used to beat the Liberals with, because they represent policies that have made him look almost as bad as the Liberals they were intended to hurt (e.g. quitting Kyoto). So Harper may be serious about pulling the plug just because he's got limited money in the Federal gift bag.
From: - | Registered: May 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174
|
posted 25 August 2008 05:41 PM
quote: A strategy of trying to bankrupt the Liberals with an election when they are likely to change leaders afterwards is risky.For one, you could lose the election. For two, the new leader could kick your ass, potentially raise a lot of money.... If Harper's strategy is to try and deliver a financial death blow to the Liberal party,
I wasn't suggesting a Harper plan of trying to bankrupt the Liberals. The suggestion is for a gameplan to govern. Maybe I should explicitly connect more of the dots. Harper got a lot of legislation passed that generally only a majority government could expect, by holding a gun to the Liberals head: calling everything a confidence vote. Whether or not they could continue doing that anymore, it had a time limit for how long Harper could expect to control the agenda. So we'll have an election. When that's over- even with no gains in seats, Harper will renew and even redouble his ability to stampede the Liberals. More confidence votes on ordinary legislation. And more ultimatums about any stalling tactics. And the Liberals will be in an even weaker position than last year. They will either be going into a leadership race, or worse: Dion is not leaving quieltly and the barely sheathed knives come out... THEN a protracted leadership race. And while the Liberals can write promissary notes to fund one $18 million election, they will not be able to simply do it again. So the gun will really be to their head for voting against Harper. Sure there is a risk Harper could lose this election. There are always risks. Standing pat is hardly risk free for Harper. The risk of losing government is pretty limited for Harper, and they have plenty to gain even if they do not increase their seat total. [ 25 August 2008: Message edited by: KenS ]
From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
MCunningBC
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14903
|
posted 25 August 2008 10:29 PM
quote: Originally posted by N.Beltov: My two bits: Harper wants to avoid going to the voters after an electoral drubbing of his Washington masters. So, sooner rather than later.
The exact opposite. Once Bush is gone, Harper's overall load to carry into an election is lightened considerably.
From: BC | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
MCunningBC
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14903
|
posted 25 August 2008 10:31 PM
quote: Originally posted by Daniel Grice: If the by-elections are cancelled after the close of nominations, (which is the case in the first three by-elections) all candidates will be reimbursted 100% of their expenses to date.
That's not what I was told by Elections Canada last spring during the Quadra byelection. They said if a general election intervened, all expenses incurred during those byelections became non-refundable.
From: BC | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
MCunningBC
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14903
|
posted 25 August 2008 10:48 PM
On the CBC National TV News tonite (Monday), their chief political correspondent Keith Boag did some date calculations, and then came up with Tuesday, October 14th, the day after Thanksgiving, as Election Day, with the writ being issued in the first week of September.Frankly, I just find Boag's whole story line to be totally unbelievable. Harper gained some credit with two process reforms, the Accountability Act, and the election date statute. It seemed clear at the time that he was promising no election till October of 2009 unless his government was defeated, and defeated for sure, in a Commons vote. No general elections on dog-pound act sub-amendments. If he reneges on that as his election opener, it could very easily become his election closer, and in a way that is not to his advantage. If Harper were to pull the stunt Boag is suggesting, his party would be the subject of some very considerable public anger. I have to assume that most of this election speculation is for the benefit of the Liberals, to cause that party increased internal strife and anxiety and further prostrate humiliation in public as they bend and twist to avoid a final countdown to an election they could probably win, given the likely public anger at Harper for calling it unnecessarily, but which they realize they have no money to fight. In the meantime, provincial office has used this opportunity to encourage us all to complete our sign orders at once. Which reminds me of a most urgent phone call we got this Spring from provincial office, demanding that we fill out some federal election readiness forms at once, because the official on the phone had it on very good authority that the election would be called by the coming Wednesday, absolutely for sure! Bank on it, kind of thing! Sorry, but I don't recall off hand if that particular Wednesday was in March or April.
From: BC | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174
|
posted 26 August 2008 01:22 AM
Sure looks like the script for calling the election.And I don't see that there is a lot of info for them to gauge in just one week that might make them turn away from pulling the trigger. What Harper said in bringing in the fixed election dates is ancient history to all but political junkies like us that don't like Harper anyway. Snuffing the byelections is more likely than that to produce a negative blip, and that will evaporate too. Sounds like the writ dropping Tuesday or Wednesday next week- and even earlier if thats what Harper wants and Dion and Duceppe continue to say they are in no hurry to meet Harper's demands for a meeting tout de suite. So he meets Layton and says "Mr. Layton has made it clear the NDP will not support our legislative agenda, Mr. Dion and Mr. Duceppe cannot even find time to meet with me...."
From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ghoris
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4152
|
posted 26 August 2008 10:31 AM
My suspicion is that Harper is thinking of calling an election now because all signs are pointing to a major economic downturn within the next year and he does not want to be running for re-election when it happens. He may not get a majority this time out either, but at least he gets a renewed mandate of sorts.Warren Kinsella (normally something of a Harper fan) has been asking - rhetorically - what the Conservatives can run on this time. They can't run on an outsider/change image (since they're the ones in power), they can't run on corruption/clean up Ottawa (in-and-out scandal), and they certainly can't run on the environment. All they can run on is the economy (maybe) and taxes (we cut the GST, Dion wants to tax everything, etc), and of course the amorphous 'leadership' issue. The 'leadership' issue could be a winner for them (viz. P.E. Trudeau, 1980), but if they wait too long and the economy really starts to tank, I can't see a clear path to re-election for them.
From: Vancouver | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Toby Fourre
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 13409
|
posted 26 August 2008 10:42 AM
quote: Originally posted by mimeguy: There is no real difference between the liberals and conservatives on SPP so I doubt Harper really worries that much.
There's no real difference between the Libs and Cons for just about anything yet they fight like cats and dogs. My question has more to do with Harper's perception. I really don't understand his sudden flip-flop on an election. Neither does anyone else. That's why I wonder if there is an external issue in the mix. I suggested a couple of possibilities but I am not committed to them. Most likely, the answer is simply domestic however I won't exclude external issues.
From: Death Valley, BC | Registered: Oct 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Daniel Grice
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7985
|
posted 26 August 2008 01:28 PM
The Tories Campaign will be Crime and Taxes. Simple, easy to articulate, but unlikely to give them a majority. The Tories are probably watching the three by-elections and seeing there numbers coming in second or even close to third or fourth in one or two of them. They do not want to place badly in the by-election, and then get stuck running against Obama in the US and risk an election where they come out with reduced seats.
From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Farmpunk
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 12955
|
posted 26 August 2008 03:31 PM
"He’s grounded her.STATEMENT BY THE PRIME MINISTER OF CANADA August 26, 2008 Ottawa, Ontario Lieutenant Governor of Ontario to Represent Canada at the Paralympic Games Opening Ceremony Prime Minister Stephen Harper today announced that His Honour the Honourable David C. Onley, Lieutenant Governor of Ontario, will represent Canada at the opening ceremony of the Beijing 2008 Paralympic Games, to be held on September 6, 2008. The Lieutenant Governor will travel to China instead of Her Excellency the Right Honourable Michaëlle Jean, Governor General of Canada." From here.
From: SW Ontario | Registered: Jul 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Doug
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 44
|
posted 26 August 2008 04:05 PM
quote: Originally posted by Farmpunk:
The Lieutenant Governor will travel to China instead of Her Excellency the Right Honourable Michaëlle Jean, Governor General of Canada."From here.
Well, that pretty much clinches it, since she'll need to be here in order to be properly visited and all.
From: Toronto, Canada | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
adma
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11856
|
posted 26 August 2008 04:59 PM
quote: Originally posted by N.Beltov: Well, let's hope Harper is wildly successful in modeling himself on Howard ... in defeat. Thing is, I think John Howard conducted a large scale anti-labour campaign in last year's election that backfired upon him. I doubt the Harper Conservatives will imitate that sort of self-inflicted political punishment.
Though maybe he's modelling himself after Thatcher in '83--albeit without a Falklands to ride upon--and with Dion rather obviously painted as a pathetic Michael Foot figure, and NDP/Green representing the Liberal/SDP dance, of sorts...
From: toronto | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MCunningBC
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14903
|
posted 26 August 2008 06:12 PM
quote: Originally posted by Daniel Grice: MCumming,It is only if the by-election is cancelled between day 21 and election day. If it is cancelled before, then no expenses are covered. Had the gov't fallen after Feb 24th in Quadra, we would have gotten our whole campaign reimbursted. Law here: http://tinyurl.com/6c459a
OKay, you're right. When I heard from the ELections Canada people it was at a session in late January, if I recall, and there was one of the dozens of election scares on at that time, so I guess the answer came in that context.
As I read the link, it sounds like reimbursement would not be for everything spent, but only for the amount by which spending exceeded donations, to a maximum of the allowable limit.
From: BC | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Labonza
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11935
|
posted 26 August 2008 06:22 PM
quote: Originally posted by Toby Fourre: Is there any Harper/Bush joint project that they both need to accomplish before Bush leaves office? SPP? Military commitments? What I'm getting at, does Harper's sudden urgency have anything to do with external pressures? Does he know that Afghanistan is going to blow back at us big time?
Well, Bush is going to push Georgia v. Russia as far as he can to help out McCain of course.The real pressures are economic.The US economy is heading for some nasty shocks and huge losses that even the corporate media wont be able to dance over.Harper has been advised by now that a major recession is coming. He has to roll the dice now before things get worse...much worse. The US govt. is pumping tons of money into markets and into propping up the mortgage markets.It's being guessed that this will continue til the Nov. election at least.After that, all bets are off. So Flaherty has told Harper, do it now before we start cranking massive deficits because of the tax cuts accelerating huge drops in govt. revenue and the next round of massive auto industry layoffs happen.Because those tax cuts are a time bomb for whoever forms the next govt. Nothing else makes sense;Harper's poll numbers arent going anywhere but he wont have Dion to kick around forever either.And Dion is Harper's best bet for winning an election. But it's all about the economy and that is going to be the major issue for the next 5 years, unless another neo-con war can be whipped up as a distraction.
From: Ottawa | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
MCunningBC
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14903
|
posted 26 August 2008 06:24 PM
quote: Originally posted by KenS: What Harper said in bringing in the fixed election dates is ancient history to all but political junkies like us that don't like Harper anyway. Snuffing the byelections is more likely than that to produce a negative blip, and that will evaporate too.
Well, that's not the feedback I get from voters. During one of the earlier election scares, I can recall phoning people and telling them that a federal election could be called soon, and the reaction was on the order of, "they should all be shot if they do that!"
I really don't think the public wants to be put through the process of an election when there is no clear favourite in sight who could end the gridlock. They want the people who got elected to work it out, and they expect them to compromise to do that, even if they have no particular idea what kind of compromises would be involved, or who is being obstinate about what. I am hearing the same basic sentiment expressed in some of the US political talk this season. Washington gridlock is childish, the politicians must grow up and act like mature responsible adults, etc. If Harper calls an election on his own initiative, without some kind of really good reason for it, I think he would probably reap the same kind of whirlwind that put an end to David Peterson's Ontario Premiership in 1990. And muttering that he had a couple of meetings and they weren't all rosy doesn't even get into the ball park of being a good enough reason. As for the federal fixed dates legislation, I cannot say how high its public profile is, but in BC it's one of the few genuinely popular things that Gordon M. Campbell has done as Premier, and once instituted it would be impossible to draw back from. Again, suspicious voters would savagely punish any party that tried to go back to the old random dates system. I have to reluctantly agree that this particular election scare does look more like the real McCoy than previous ones, but once you stand back six inches and ask yourself how this would play in Peoria, you've got to ask yourself whether or not Harper and his cronies have gone nuts or what. And since I doubt they lost all their marbles suddenly this summer, I have to think that this will turn out to be another game of chicken, the purpose of which is to expose Liberal self-doubt and broken confidence, just like last Spring. If the Conservatives can symbolically humiliate the Liberals enough times prior to the actual election, it will make that election easier for them, especially in terms of appealing to power-oriented voters in Ontario of the type who have switched effortlessly over the past ten years provincially from Harris Conservatives to McGuinty Liberals.
From: BC | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174
|
posted 26 August 2008 06:36 PM
Like I said earlier, Harper isn't nuts.Its not about 'winning' this election. All he has to do is stand still [and that would even include dropping a few seats], and he's got Dion and the Liberals over a barrel. Confidence votes on every piece of legislation, and the Liberals with substantially more reason to fear causing an election than they did in the last year. Nor do I think it would sound dictatorial and bullying to most voters. If it gets legislation passed, that beats infantile gridlock in most people's books. If thats the scenario, the bulk of voters are going to judge on what they think of the legislation, and be little concerned how it got passed. When people were telling you they don't see reason for an election they are passing judgement on the overall system, not on Hareper's essentially forgotten fixed election sales pitch. And I'll bet there is a substantial shift now in people resingned to the 'need' for an election.
From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276
|
posted 26 August 2008 07:22 PM
quote: Originally posted by MCunningBC: If Harper calls an election on his own initiative, without some kind of really good reason for it, I think he would probably reap the same kind of whirlwind that put an end to David Peterson's Ontario Premiership in 1990. Again, suspicious voters would savagely punish any party that tried to go back to the old random dates system.
Good to hear. quote: Originally posted by damngrumpy: There is one hell of a downturn coming in the economy and they know it.
Reason One. quote: Originally posted by janfromthebruce: I think he wants to pull the plug because of the "in and out scam" of ad expenses, and they will get hammered for being con artists, and worse "corrupt."
Reason Two. quote: Originally posted by Daniel Grice: They do not want to place badly in the by-election, and then get stuck running against Obama in the US and risk an election where they come out with reduced seats.
I thought that was reason Three. But then again: quote: Originally posted by Stockholm: I honestly don't think that the American election will have any impact at all on how Canadians vote.
I keep reading various pundits, and even pollsters, predicting that an Obama victory will somehow produce a bump for the Liberals in Canada. I don't know what this is based on. But I get the impression Harper believes it, and wants his election before the American one. Is he wrong?
From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
MCunningBC
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14903
|
posted 26 August 2008 08:54 PM
quote: Originally posted by KenS: Its not about 'winning' this election. All he has to do is stand still [and that would even include dropping a few seats], and he's got Dion and the Liberals over a barrel.
If Harper simply goes out and calls an election for no good reason, his party will have a great deal of difficulty keeping what they have. Populist voters would be angry, much more than they were by earlier signs of authoritarism such as the treatment of Bill Casey. One politician hardballing a lower ranking politician is a petty offence to these people. Pushing the general public around is a major one.
quote: Originally posted by KenS: When people were telling you they don't see reason for an election they are passing judgement on the overall system, not on Hareper's essentially forgotten fixed election sales pitch.And I'll bet there is a substantial shift now in people resingned to the 'need' for an election.
I don't think there's any greater appetite for an election now than six months or a year or eighteen months ago. The public has not lined up behind any one party, which means to me that they are in no mood to be asked to consider the question again. If an election is called for October, the public will demand to know why they are being forced to vote the day after Thanksgiving, their holiday ruined by revolting and dishonest TV commercials, and when the explanation is that some aide in the PMO tried to get the Opposition parties to agree to something and they didn't, that isn't going to wash with anybody.
From: BC | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
MCunningBC
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14903
|
posted 26 August 2008 09:01 PM
quote: Originally posted by Wilf Day:
I keep reading various pundits, and even pollsters, predicting that an Obama victory will somehow produce a bump for the Liberals in Canada. I don't know what this is based on. But I get the impression Harper believes it, and wants his election before the American one. Is he wrong?
Your list of reasons one, two and three might look like good reasons to Tory or other party hacks and spin doctors. But in the eyes of the average voter they would be considered offensive and highly improper reasons for an election.
One of Harper's biggest burdens is the fact that people believe, and they are right to believe, that his party is beholder to President George W. Bush and the Republican Party. It's often forgotten that the techical assistance in polling and advertising that has been extended to the Canadian Conservative Party by the US Republicans began during the tenure of former Tory leader Robert L. Stanfield. George W. Bush is a particularly unpopular American President, for reasons I don't fully understand, but there it is. After January 20th, when Bush is gone, Harper's road becomes an easier one to travel.
From: BC | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Centrist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5422
|
posted 26 August 2008 10:26 PM
Firstly, the NDP has been putting forth non-confidence motions in the House of Commons for a long period of time and blaming the Liberals for not bringing down the Harper gov't.Even on babble all I've read is the placing of the blame on Dion for not supporting the NDP in bringing the government down and having an election. Well, here we might finally have it... an election! Harper's mindset just might be that the economy is faltering and is the most important issue on people's minds. On the other hand, the perception is that the Liberals only focus is upon the Green Sh##, Shaft, um... Shift. The electorate might be more inclined in suburban/rural Canada to buy into Harper's "It's the economy, stupid!" version as opposed to Dion's "It's the Green Shift, stupid!". Harper's prime ministerial ratings are also double that of Dion's and the Liberals have some apparently severe financial problems. Get the picture????? knowing how Harper operates, he probably will give the opposition leaders an ultimatum regarding this fall's session to the effect... "Sh## or get off the pot". And Harper's reason for calling the election is that opposition party leaders are "not willing" to make the fall session "work" after the "response" from opposition leaders. [ 26 August 2008: Message edited by: Centrist ]
From: BC | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Centrist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5422
|
posted 26 August 2008 10:34 PM
quote: Originally posted by MCunningBC:
Well, that's not the feedback I get from voters. During one of the earlier election scares, I can recall phoning people and telling them that a federal election could be called soon, and the reaction was on the order of, "they should all be shot if they do that!"
The Harris/Decima survey from August 14 may have had an impact on Harper's decision if he decides to pull the trigger: quote: While 38% of Canadians think “it’s a waste of time” to have an election this fall, and only 14% “think its time”, 41% say they “can live with the idea of an election this fall”.
http://www.decima.com/en/pdf/news_releases/080818E.pdf
From: BC | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
MCunningBC
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 14903
|
posted 27 August 2008 07:53 PM
quote: Originally posted by Centrist:
http://www.decima.com/en/pdf/news_releases/080818E.pdf
Thanks for the link. I took a look at that press release, and it read like advice to Liberals on strategy. The entire thing was written from the point of view of how to increase the Liberal share of the vote by hammering this or that theme.
From: BC | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
KenS
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1174
|
posted 28 August 2008 04:24 AM
I don't get it Michelle.You suggested starting a new thread, and I did. [Although, I did wonder why you didn't close this one.] But when I started that new thread, you said there already is one and closed it. ??? Link to new thread. I'll import my opening post here if the new thread stays closed. But I do think its time for a new one. And 100+ posts often doesn't make it on my dial-up.
From: Minasville, NS | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|