Yes or No: Will a federal election be called before the end of September 2009?

129 posts / 0 new
Last post
Krago
Yes or No: Will a federal election be called before the end of September 2009?

My vote: No

Caissa

No.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

This just in: Majority government in reach: Harper

excerpt:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper believes a majority government "is in reach" for the Conservative party the next time Canadians go to the polls for a federal election.

excerpt:

He said that if the Conservatives don't succeed in getting a majority he predicted the Liberals will govern in a coalition with the NDP and the Bloc Québécois.

"If they get together and force us to the polls, we have to teach them a lesson and get back there with a majority, and make sure their little coalition never happens," said Harper.

SCB4

No, and I'm willing to raise the stakes by betting that there will not be an election in 2009.

 

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Majority government in reach: Harper

Harper believes he can get a majority next time, and if he does, I shudder to think what he will do to the CBC for airing this story.

SCB4

The title of that article is a bit misleading. If you read the text, Harper states the need for the Cons to win a majority.

 

"Let me be clear about this, we need to win a majority in the next election campaign," Harper said. "I am not just saying that because we need to win a few more seats."

I can't find any statements about what he 'believes' will happen.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

It's clear to me from the article that Harper wants a majority.

Stockholm

Boom Boom wrote:

It's clear to me from the article that Harper wants a majority.

I'm SHOCKED! I never would have suspected that Harper wanted a majority. Why on earth would he want that???

SCB4

Well, what party leader doesn't? But wanting a majority does not equal "majority government in reach."

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

The significance is that Harper never talks about getting a majority in public - because he knows that would scare the bejesus out of Canadians. Here he is in a closed meeting talking about a majority.

janfromthebruce

And I believe it was a planned leak - so not sure of the significance. And in the past while it has been a meme of the conservatives to speak about a majority to "make parliament" work.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

If it was indeed a planned leak, then Harper is clearly trying to soften up the country for a possible Conservative majority - and one way to do that is to keep harping (sorry) on the big, bad Liberal-BQ-NDP Coalition, as was reported at that meeting.

Stockholm

I really don't thinki it was a planned leak. Harper was wayyy too gloating and "politically incorrect" for it to be him speaking when he knew he was being taped for a national audience.

janfromthebruce

Boom Boom wrote:

If it was indeed a planned leak, then Harper is clearly trying to soften up the country for a possible Conservative majority - and one way to do that is to keep harping (sorry) on the big, bad Liberal-BQ-NDP Coalition, as was reported at that meeting.

Well for record, Iggy the red conservative also has bashed the coalition idea, so there really is no difference there.

SCB4

Stockholm wrote:

I really don't thinki it was a planned leak. Harper was wayyy too gloating and "politically incorrect" for it to be him speaking when he knew he was being taped for a national audience.

 

I agree with Stockholm. I watched the clip on the National last night. Harper obviously thought he was speaking to a closed audience of party loyalists and true believers. He touched on too many hot button issues -- abolishing the gun registry, blocking judicial appointments -- for the speech to have been a planned leak.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

janfromthebruce wrote:
Well for record, Iggy the red conservative also has bashed the coalition idea, so there really is no difference there.

 

Harper knows that, but it's too good a bogeyman for him to let go of, which is why in the article I posted we read:

 

He said that if the Conservatives don't succeed in getting a majority he predicted the Liberals will govern in a coalition with the NDP and the Bloc Québécois.

Stockholm

Harper is probablly right about that. I firmly believe that any outcome other than a Tory majority will lead to Harper being dumped.

remind remind's picture

meanwhile the real coalition is between Iggy and Harper. Though they do try to smoke screen it.

No election.

Sean in Ottawa

It is bad for the Liberals to force an election now, very bad. It is suicide not to. The only thing that would have worked for them would be for Harper to be pressured to call one.

I am not going to even make a friendly bet as to whether this party will do what is in its self interest.

What Ignatief needed to do was to fom an arangement with the other opposition leaders to defeat the Cons on everything that is not a money deal and corner Harper into calling a vote-- this would have taken months to achieve but would ahve worked eventually. The quick way? See above.

I don't think the Liberals can back track on forcing a vote at the earliest opportunity right now as the other parties want them to pay for their mistake.

The only strategy now that Ignatief has left given that he has already supported the government more than he could afford and provided the other parties with free cover for not supporting the government, is to try to find some pressing thingg to bring down the government on. Harper knows this and is closing the loophole with the government EI proposal which is being brought in only to box Ignatieff.

I think the Liberals have been outplayed and are in a trap laid for them while Dion was in power.

the only other ace in the hole, besides a compelling reason to call an election is something scandelous on the government-- that might be possible but if the Liberals do not have it yet they are running out of time. that they had a tape of Harper speaking at a Con gathering is an indication that they might have the reach to get something worthwhile-- remember the tape was given to the Liberals not the media directly. They also have the headmaster of the dirty tricks school WK working for them again so maybe they can find a way.

Not only is the call unpredictable-- so might be the result. Frankly, I see scenarios for everything from a Con Majority to a Liberal Majority depending on the nature of the cards that remain face down on the table.

Stockholm

I think that now more than ever, it will all boil down to what happens during the campaign itself. Today is September 10. I expect we will have an elecyion about two months from now in early to mid-November. Right now, the main issue seems to be should we have an election or should we not have an election. When all is said and done, once the writ is dropped, that story will be dropped like a hot potato and then attention will shift to the campaign itself and to what the parties offer and how the campaign is going. Guaranteed that there will be unexpected twists and turns, gaffes and faux-pas by any and all leaders and of course we never know what events could intervene. One thing we do know is that once a campaign begins, its a whole new ballgame. Each party and leader gets coverage on the news and we get a barrage of unfiltered ads on TV etc...

I honestly think that all three national parties are probably paying relatively scant attention to national polling numbers right now and are instead thinking about their campaign strategies. They all know that in each of the last few federal elections, the campaign made a massive difference and the final results were quite different from what was projected at the start of the campaign. 

surfdoc surfdoc's picture

I can't see an election NOT being called within the next month.

madmax

YES!  The train has left the station. Its a fall election. There could be delays that drag things into October.

We could see the government fall in as little as 9 days.

SCB4

madmax wrote:

YES!  The train has left the station. Its a fall election. There could be delays that drag things into October.

We could see the government fall in as little as 9 days.

How? Iggy's over-hyped Liberal opposition day doesn't happen till early October. There is a supply motion on the home reno tax credit, but the BQ has already expressed their intent to support  that measure (as noted in another thread).

I just don't see how the gov't falls in 9 days unless there are MAJOR changes in the polling numbers.

Sean in Ottawa

I don't agree with Stockholm that the issue of having an election will fade this time-- I think that will remain an issue throughout the campaign. You can say it always fades but Canada has never had so many elections this close together and that will be an issue.

There will need to be, separate form issue campaigns: a defence of minority more government as more democratic and representative and the fact that it depends on parties willing to accept a mixed parliament and less than a complete party mandate. The issue of the election call itself must be attached to an understanding that this campaign is necessitated by a party taht does not work with others in parliament and in fact has derided such cooperation as undemocratic.

Secondly, I believe that the issue of a coalition will be central to the campaign -- and opinion in favour of a coalition must be won or a Harper majority becomes possible. The only way Harper can get a majority would be to win the air war on the issue of a coalition so overwhelmingly that people vote for him. This could happen and I suspect it will be the Cons strategy. The opposition parties cannot afford to ignore the issue otherwise it will be tagged as a hidden agenda. They have to win this debate and have enough people support the possibility of a coalition if they want to deny Harper a majority as the ballot box question may be do you want a coalition or a Harper majority.

For the opposition to win the coalition debate-- there needs to be a substantial groundswell of non-partisan support for a coalition in the event that another party other than the Cons does not win outright. People here and elsewhere will need to write letters to the editor and express themselves individually where they can on this topic. Organizations will need to publicly demand the opposition to work together and with respect to the Liberals offer to treat them like Conservatives if they act and vote like them or refuse to do what it takes to remove them if they do not have a majority on their own.

This is a dangerous election-- it is coming when people do not want one and brought by an opposition -- normally opposition parties pay a price when this happens and any price would elect a majority Con government since they are already so close.

As well, a third campaign needs to address the risk of strategic voting collapsing support to the Liberals. It is important that the aprties work together but their supporters should not abandon their first choices otherwise the next parliament could be unrepresentative of people's true wishes for that reason.

All that said-- on a lighter note I expect Harper to go to Afghanistan to learn how to run an election-- there will be seminars on intimidation, campaigning, vote stuffing etc.

Sean in Ottawa

The Liberals may want to continue to hype their opposition day in October to buy some time to campaign now as a short campaign could go sour for them.

I do not think that Canadian voters are going to follow patterns so no party is at a high water mark nor a low water mark-- yes the Liberals if they blow this can go lower-- the gamble of trading a few more progressive supporters who liked Dion for more centre-right Conservative voters might work but if it does not the Liberals could lose more votes than they gain.

The NDP could pick up additional votes from a more right wing Liberal party but it could lose some of the regional inroads that allowed new seats without the local factors (no ABC campaign in NL; no carbon tax backlash in Northern Ontario etc.) a revulsion at so many elections due to minority parliament etc. It is hard to know if the NDP will actually get mroe votes this time or if those votes will be more or less efficient at delivering seats.

The BQ may prove more robust than people thought and actually gain seats-- perhaps from Conservatives or lose as many as ten seats to the Liberals.

The Cons could end up anywhere between a majority on a successful campaign against a demonized coalition possibility or on the opposition benches looking for a new leader-- either losing outright or losing to a coalition following the electoral result.

Since the Greens have nothing, they are the only party with nothign to lose-- all the others ought to be frightened.

Economic news can bounce any direction- there could be news that smells of recovery or plant closures. There may be some discussion about which way the economy is going but little doubt that it is very fragile and unpredictable.

There will be a massive private-sector-sponsored propaganda war like we have never seen. They will be worried about who will be in charge of deciding how the stimulus will be paid for and by whom. Expect nastiness and a lot of resources in this.

Don't think you can predict a result now-- there are major public questions to be asked and answered before any kind of public opinion trend will be identifiable.

SCB4

Here's another potential wrinkle to ponder. What are the dynamics of having a federal election in the middle of an H1N1 flu pandemic?

I haven't bought into that scenario, but if some of the more dire predictions come true the number of flu cases (and sick, dying, incapacitated people) may be rapdily rising in the middle of a November campaign.

 

Sean in Ottawa

Not sure how that would play out-- parties should buy a boatload of N-95 masks to send deliver to potential supporters to help convince them to get out and vote if people were starting to wear them.

Public meetings might be curtailed but only partisan people go to those and they get little coverage so they do little to change opinion.

SCB4

And it could become the defining issue of the campaign -- in terms of the Harper govt's perceived competence in handling the outbreak. Yet another wild card in a deck with no shortage of wild cards.

 

KeyStone

Ignatieff has really been showing his inexperience.

He claims that he can't support the Conservatives any longer, and it just happens to coincide with a lead in the polls, and the party getting their finances together.

Of course, as soon as he starts talking about an election, everyone gets a little less impressed, and he drops in the polls again, blaming him for an election that very few non=sycophant Liberals want.

So now, of course, Ignatieff, will not call an election. One loss and he's finished.

He really needs to wait for a real reason to call an election - something by the Conservatives that is beyond their usual indifference to non-rich Canadians. That way he can appear to be less of an opportunist, and he won't be blamed for another election.

 

 

Sean in Ottawa

I doubt that any party would want to risk allowing it to be the defining issue so that is a long shot but it can influence deeply other issues and be a make or break on those-- as you say impressions.

Just as the comments about Wayne Easter and Listerosis could have gone furhter than they did but somehow did not.

Sean in Ottawa

the Liberals have made a tactical mistake in announcing this in advance-- I criticized the NDP for this--

Instead they should ahve made the decision secretly and then found an issue they could claim unable to vote with the government on and bring them down -- then there would be less of an air of consipracy and more focus on the issue and the fact that the Cons brought themselves down like they did in 79 by not having enough votes. Gunning for the government makes you look powerhungry when you say you don't care what issue. Just dumb-- especially when we saw the NDP pay for that earlier in the year and it took them about 4 months to recover. If the Liebrals do bring down the government they will not have time to recover.

SCB4

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I doubt that any party would want to risk allowing it to be the defining issue so that is a long shot but it can influence deeply other issues and be a make or break on those-- as you say impressions.

Just as the comments about Wayne Easter and Listerosis could have gone furhter than they did but somehow did not.

Parties don't always get to exercise complete control in  defining the issues though. Crises can take on a life of their own that overpowers any efforts to spin them.

I had Wayne Easter in mind when I posted about H1N1. I think listeriosis was one of the factors that cost Harper his majority last time out, and any perceived slip ups in the govt's H1N1 defenses would have a considerably greater impact on an election.

Sean in Ottawa

Without a compliant media the listerosis could have cost the election-- the majority it turned out was lost in Quebec over arts funding -- he was that close and only needed a few there and blew it.

That said the media is another variable. They have been very friendly in the past but this is not guaranteed. Many in the media are zealots and unhappy about the stimulus spending. A few might not care to run out to support Harper while others will say he did waht he had to do so give him a majority so he can do what he wants to do. there are right wingers thinking Harper is selling out for power. This too could bounce a couple ways.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Meanwhile, on Rabble.ca: Stephen Harper: Unfit to govern

 

 

Life, the unive...

Sean, the media also failed to report to any great extent that even with a very narrowly defined mandate the governments own hand-picked 'investigator' into the listeriosis issue was very critical.  In any other decade I would guess that Ritz would have been forced to resign.  Yet hardly a blip.  And then no one bothered to even report when the Liberals screwed up and gave the Conservatives a majority on the Ag committee and they used that majority to vote down any possible further or broader look at what caused those deaths.

With a media so compliant and incompetent towards their responsibility in a democracy what is the poor citizenry to do.

Sean in Ottawa

good question

KenS

My vote to the thread title question:

I waver between thinking its 50/50, and substantially more than 50% that Harper will cut a deal with the Bloc and no election.

Sean in Ottawa

Harper cannot afford to do that-- this would cost him the thunder he needs to get his base out-- he can't cut a deal with the BQ withou having some people stay home in western ridings that could be close-- even if they don't switch to other parties, he can lose seats. This is perhaps his greatest risk-- a combination of the stimulus spending and a deal with Quebec could see some conservatives completely unmotivated.

Besides-- Harper is inclined to fight rather than run and would prefer to fight for a majority than sit down to do a deal-- otherwise he would have governed differently the last few years.

David Young

Yes or No as to an election this fall?

I say No!

When it comes time to vote, the Liberals and/or Bloc will have a dozen or so of their members come down with 'temporary flu', and the government will survive until the spring budget vote, when I believe they will fall.

Stay tuned!

 

Ya_dont_say

Yup, it'll happen.  The only thing that's determining an election is the Liberal Party.  The NDP & Bloc are not going to be voting in favour of the Cons in any confidence vote based on principle.  The Liberals spent all spring and summer gathering money from the Bay Street boys, so their war chest is filled.  They've also nominated candidates all over the country.  So, it doesn't really matter what the media is saying - they're now prepared on the ground for an election, so they're gonna make it happen...

HeywoodFloyd

No. There will be no election this fall.

Slumberjack

The changing of the props. (or stools apparently)

Unionist

surfdoc wrote:

I can't see an election NOT being called within the next month.

I can't fail to see an election failing not to be called within no less than that time.

In other words, I agree fully with the thread title: yes or no.

 

mybabble

Yes. Its a battle cry no doubt about it so get over it Harper lovers because his days are numbered. Tons of issues, from daycare to seniors to HST to name a few while the war that never should have been takes it tole on Canadian soilders.  While Canada's deficit reaches record numbers while homelessness and poverty are becoming more than norm from coast to coast. 

 

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics/2009/09/08/10791701-cp.html

 

Life, the unive...

What is it you don't seem to get about it being LIBERAL governments that are implementing the HST provincially.  Expecting the federal LIBERALS to fight the HST under those conditions is like forgetting your towel on an inter-stellar journey.

mybabble

An election can only help as Harper's government continues to create a greater divide between the rich and poor.  And especially women as seniors are found homeless on the streets along with Canada's war vets. 

The people don't want an election nice try, whose people don't want an election?  Harper's people as he pushes through the HST as its a promise of further hardship to come as tax dollars turned over to corporations.  What has Harper got to say well Campbell made me do it as Harper gives Premier little alternative for cash strapped province in dire need of help.  There is no doubt about it, its Harper's Tax on the poor  and if your not poor well Harper's going to see to it your not left out.  And it looks like Campbell is helping someone else out also as money sure isn't making its way into much needed services or tax payers empty pockets.

Iggy needs to get rid of the HST as 80% don't want the Federal tax as already stuck with the GST forced down are throats by Conservatives in the past.  And stuck on giving away the farm to the rich well that's Harper for you as many Canadians left out in the cold.

An election isn't going to hurt the economy its going to help it as Canada's unemployment has had no real gains except a few part-time retail clerk jobs that wouldn't keep a flee alive.  And the recession isn't over how could it be as its just more propaganda from Harper's media cohorts who have to much to gain.

Life, the unive...

An HST deal with LIBERALS!

mybabble

Life, the universe, everything wrote:

What is it you don't seem to get about it being LIBERAL governments that are implementing the HST provincially.  Expecting the federal LIBERALS to fight the HST under those conditions is like forgetting your towel on an inter-stellar journey.

I get that the HST is Harpers as its his solution to the provinces cash shortfalls as if you sign you get the billions provinces need only it is going to cost the tax payer as coporations get all the breaks.

The Liberals call it Harper's tax, because it is Harper's creation and not the provinces as given no alternatives when seeking out the feds for help for Canadian citizens.

Harper's solution you scratch the backs of the rich and empty the pockets of the poor and we got a deal, a much hated HST deal. 

mybabble

Life, the universe, everything wrote:

An HST deal with LIBERALS!

Can the Liberals get rid of the HST?  Sure why not as promises were made to get rid of the GST but once it is implemented it becamex to difficult of a task.

The HST hasn't happend yet and those tax dollars have not been realized nor have coporations got their hands on the money with the government of their choice as the average tax payers are taken down a notch so sure why not it can be done.   The NDP is  heavily opposed to Harper's regressive tax.

 

janfromthebruce

Mybabble, HST deals are with lib prov led govts, eg. bc, on, and a liberal led federal govt will not change this. They swim in the same political pool. It was the liberals in opposition who backed the Conservatives on this.

If you go any lib blogs they sure aren't talking about this, ditto about poverty, homelessness. I hear you asking "somebody" to go talk to the liberals. Who do you have in mind?

Sean in Ottawa

The NDP should connect the Services portion of the tax as a direct tax on labour and remove all services taxes. We can make the money up on taxing profit and through higher goods taxes.

Other essentials should not be taxed-- I gave a list in another thread including essentials, insurance, heating and electricity, original art and cultural products and books, education courses, public transit etc. etc.

I added restaurant meals because taking the tax off is good for tourism and restaurants are more a service than a good and are heavily labour jobs. We need to stop taxing jobs.

Pages

Topic locked