[kEiThZ]

Did the Tories take a hit for calling an election for no real reason in direct violation of their own fixed election date law? Nobody remembers it by election day.

Nope they didn't. Largely because they turned the election into a referendum on Dion. This time around they don't want an election and they'll be able to blame any bad economic news during the campaign period on the Liberals for triggering "an unwanted election".

Moreover, I would not underestimate the cumulative effect of having an election virtually every year. At some point, it is going to look like the Liberals only care about getting back into power and aren't too concerned about the best interests of the country. That's why I like the way Iggy is going about trying to get Harper to trigger the election.

 

[afransen]

Nope they didn't. Largely because they turned the election into a referendum on Dion. This time around they don't want an election and they'll be able to blame any bad economic news during the campaign period on the Liberals for triggering "an unwanted election".

And absolutely no one will believe them...

Moreover, I would not underestimate the cumulative effect of having an election virtually every year. At some point, it is going to look like the Liberals only care about getting back into power and aren't too concerned about the best interests of the country. That's why I like the way Iggy is going about trying to get Harper to trigger the election.

The Liberals haven't triggered the last two elections--they were triggered in part or in their entirety by the CPC.

I think it will be debatable who triggered this election. I'm not sure the Liberals are really aching for an election right now, but they don't want to give the government or the NDP any leeway in accusing them of continuing in the vein of Dion's capitulations.



Now, for the matter of Ignatieff not articulating a platform: what leader has a full, coherent platform released two months after they are elected leader? It is not at all unreasonable for the Liberals to keep their platform secret while it is being developed, and any pronouncements now only serve to limit the development of their platform/the directions it can take.

Furthermore, releasing policies at this point will only serve to give the CPC ammunition to distract voters away from their record in government now. We don't need any more Inky the Splot telling Canadians about the Permanent Tax on Everything. Personally, I think Iggy is doing exactly what an opposition should be doing: asking tough questions and making the government perform by setting deadlines and expectations in exchange for confidence, as well as critiquing government policies. If Harper wants Iggy's policies, he should let him run the government.

The NDP is an utter waste of space--a shame. For a party that will always be in opposition, you'd think they know how to do it appropriately. Voting against everything is utterly useless.

 

[unimaginative2]

Are you speaking as yourself, or playing out at a strategy for the Liberals? Strategically, I think he should get Harper to play ball on E.I., and then start selling some sort of vision (deficit exit strategy). If he's only going to attack Harper on gaffs, he'll always look like the leader of the opposition. A fall election is more acceptable, but a summer election needs a little more justification. "I'm not Harper" isn't good enough.

Frankly, that taxpayer-funded infomercial with that disgrace of an ex-"journalist" was reason enough. It was an insult to Parliament and to the electorate. Harper has been in power now for nearly a year. He has not a solitary legislative achievement (not that he had much during his previous two years, either). His cabinet has been through a parade of gaffes and missteps that I don't need to list. He lied through all of last election claiming that there was no deficit, only to pop and say there was a $36 billion deficit shortly thereafter. Then it rose to $50 billion. I understand the need for deficit spending in a recession, but he seems utterly incapable of getting his hands on the finances. Generally speaking, he's been a complete disappointment as Prime Minister. Even his own supporters, like Tom Flanagan, are saying it.

This isn't about Ignatieff. In a parliamentary system, this is about Harper and whether the opposition can have confidence in his government. If the PM is running a lousy government and you don't have confidence, you've got to vote against him.

Dion factor. When the candidates are playing at the same level, I think these kind of things start to matter.

Harper forced an election over Christmas when "Canadians didn't want one." Didn't hurt him. Chretien called an early election in 2000. He won a massively increased majority. The Liberals forced a quick election in 1980 when they didn't even have a leader. They won a huge majority.

The Dion factor became so extreme only because Harper had month after month to saturate the airwaves with negative ads about Dion being a wimp, and the dozens of missed opportunities to bring Harper down did little to dispel that image.

Regardless of what the self-appointed tribunes of the Canadian People in the media have to say, election timing is almost never a significant issue. More importantly, the Ottawa media absolutely pile on to any leader who looks weak. Look at the column that literally said, "Where do the Liberals get these beta males?" Leaving aside the question of whether having the disposition of a schoolyard bully or overly hormonal jock is the most important qualification for running the country, these prejudices colour their coverage and that moves votes.

As an aside, is it just me or do the NDP look absolutely ridiculous in all this? Their position, frequently repeated, is "We don't want an election. We will be voting against the government on this confidence motion." If that contradiction isn't a crystal clear illustration of why they can't seem to ever become a governing party, I don't know what is.

Moreover, I would not underestimate the cumulative effect of having an election virtually every year. At some point, it is going to look like the Liberals only care about getting back into power and aren't too concerned about the best interests of the country. That's why I like the way Iggy is going about trying to get Harper to trigger the election.

I completely agree with you about the latter point, but the Conservatives triggered all of the recent elections. Doesn't it seem much more like they're the ones who will do anything, including throwing their own election date law in the garbage, for the chance at a majority?

I'm not sure the Liberals are really aching for an election right now

Haha...in case it isn't already clear to everyone, I'm really aching for an election right now.

Now, for the matter of Ignatieff not articulating a platform: what leader has a full, coherent platform released two months after they are elected leader? It is not at all unreasonable for the Liberals to keep their platform secret while it is being developed, and any pronouncements now only serve to limit the development of their platform/the directions it can take.

This is one of the most odious aspects of the media coverage. The hounding of Ignatieff about apparently needing to release a platform immediately after being elected while in opposition is particularly ridiculous when you realize that Harper didn't even bother to release a platform last election until after the advanced polls had closed--and even then the document was only released after the Liberal economic action platform started to gain traction and the document had more pictures of Harper than it did text.

That being said, I think Ignatieff should do more to at least outline broad strokes about his vision for the country. Not to make an Obama comparison, but Obama was rarely particularly specific in his speeches, but he gave people a good idea of his perspective and orientation.

 

[afransen]

^ I think he has been saying things in generalities, but no one seems to be covering it. He's mentioned things like high speed rail, for instance. But that's not policy-y enough. Apparently he should have released a new Red Book at the Vancouver convention.

 

[jade_lee]

Linda McQuaig in today's Toronto Star:

"It wouldn't have exactly brought the Canadian Establishment to its knees. But late last fall, the Liberal-NDP coalition did briefly seem poised to become the most progressive Canadian government in a generation, possibly ever.

Then before you could say "corporate welfare bums," it was all over. The Conservatives had mounted a hysterical campaign, the media had joined in trashing the coalition, and the Governor General had shown it no more mercy than she would a tasty seal.

By the end of January, the Liberals, now with Michael Ignatieff in charge, had come full circle, voting in support of the Conservative budget. Having briefly dallied with the NDP, the Liberals had returned to the corporate fold.

The full story of how the Establishment closed ranks against the fledgling coalition has yet to be told, but a small piece of it may have inadvertently come to light last week.

It was an unlikely source – the controversial secret tape in which Natural Resources Minister Lisa Raitt, speaking privately to an aide, describes the shortage of medical isotopes as "sexy" and muses about using it to her political advantage.

The media, apparently over the moon that a cabinet minister used the word "sexy" in a secret tape, had little time for another passage on the tape that was titillating in its own way.

Raitt describes how, at a closed-door meeting of politicians and corporate CEOs last January, bank presidents threatened to cut off funding to the deeply indebted Liberal party if Ignatieff voted against the Conservative budget:

"They did it at the Canadian Council of (Chief) Executives, there was three presidents of major banks who stood up in the room – and this is not from cabinet so I can talk about it – stood up and said, `Ignatieff, don't you even think about bringing us to an election. We don't need this. We have no interest in this. And we will never fund your party again.'"

It's hard to know what to make of Raitt's comments. She wasn't at the meeting, which suggests she may have heard about it from the CEOs – possibly from bankers boasting they had Ignatieff on a tight leash?

Liberal finance critic John McCallum, a former chief economist at the Royal Bank who was at the meeting along with Ignatieff, firmly denied the bankers made any threats. "There was not even a hint of a veiled threat by any CEO," he said yesterday by phone.

McCallum acknowledged that some CEOs at the meeting had opposed the Liberal-NDP coalition, as well as opposing an election. And he also acknowledged that it was likely the Liberal party borrowed money from the banks, although he said he didn't know any details.

The taped comments raise questions about what role the banks may have played in nixing the coalition, and also what power they wield over the severely financially strapped Liberal party.

Certainly the bankers were anxious to see the passage of the Conservative budget, which included a measure called the Extraordinary Financing Framework that provided the banks with up to $200 billion in loans and asset swaps.

Back in 1998, then Liberal finance minister Paul Martin infuriated the banks when he refused to allow four of them to merge into two – a refusal that was popular with Canadians and is credited with helping shield Canadian banks from the excesses south of the border.

Could we count on Iggy to do the same?"



All said and done it just cracks me up to hear Harper talk about making it easier for people to borrow money when they are so deep in debt as it is.

When Canadians are told by experts in the field that early education would benefit our children this conservative government brags about the $100 bucks given to families, $1200 per year for which they pay taxes on will educate these kids how?

The constant reference to the G8 praise of Canada by dim Jim as if the world doesn't know by now that the G8 is a big part of the problem in this global recession is rich. This G8 good old boys school thinks it can function outside the of G20? Ridiculous and delusional.

 

[Brandon716]

Anything the Liberals make Harper do will essentially give Harper the edge, especially as the recession comes to an end. Canada weathered this global recession better than most any advanced nation, and with that means Harper will take less slack.

So if the Liberals push Harper to make good on promises his government doesn't even want to participate in, like stimulus funding, in the end it'll be a net benefit to the Conservatives despite the reality behind the scenes.

Hence why I don't think the 'on Probation' strategy that Ignatieff is pushing to keep the Harper Tories alive is healthy for the Liberal party or Canada as a whole. Harper is on record stating his government wants to pull the funding for many of these projects after the recession is over. So if a lot of the capital projects get de-funded before they really get started, what good did it do to make Harper look like a moderate?

Not good strategy for the Liberal party IMO. No political party should make its core strategy to force the other leading party to sound and look more moderate and reasonable, especially after the height of a recession that is coming to an end.

 

[urbanfan89]

I don't think so. The longer this government goes on, the more the "incompetence" label sticks on, regardless what happens with the economy. Just ask Jim Flaherty's constant revisions in his budget.

Remember that in Britain in 1992 the Conservatives had their reputation for economic management trashed after a brutal recession and currency crisis. The economic recovery for the next five years didn't save them from landslide defeat.

 

[Brandon716]

I don't know, do you really think that Canada will treat Harper with the same disdain as Thatcher given that Britain was feeling the grips of a severe depression and Canada has by all reports weathered this recession better than any other society in the Americas or Europe or Asia?

Canada has the most solid banking industry of the western world, entered this recession last, and appears to be pulling out the quickest. The hardest hit is Ontario's manufacturing industry due to reduced exports, and they traditionally vote NDP or Liberal anyway.

I don't imagine Harper being hurt as bad as Thatcher or other nations that had a more severe recession reaction. ESPECIALLY if he is seen as willing to negotiate and bring EI reform to the people, which he wouldn't have done if he were in majority status. The moderation force of this 'on Probation' campaign is quite possibly a net benefit to the Conservatives instead of the Liberals.

The on Probation campaign Ignatieff is running has actually hurt his poll numbers in key areas over the last several weeks. He is positioning himself as an obstructionist with a threat of election and also helping Harper appear more moderate when Harper doesn't believe in these programs.

 

[kEiThZ]

Brandon,

You keep going on about Iggy making Harper look moderate. What part of minority government don't you understand? This is exactly what's supposed to happen in a Parliamentary minority. The Opposition is supposed to exercise some influence over the Government and moderate their agenda. It's not some effort to make Harper look moderate. Iggy is not Harper's keeper. Should Harper decide the conditions to be too onerous, he's free to call an election any time. And if Iggy thinks he can govern better he's certainly free to withdraw his party's confidence in the government. For now they are working together for the betterment of Canada, exactly as they should.

The following G&M editorial puts it well. I think too many Canadians and definitely too many of our politicians forget the realities of what minority governments are like. And if they don't like this feeling, then they had better re-think coalitions because coalitions are just minority-lites.


PUBLICATION: GLOBE AND MAIL
DATE: 2009.06.16
PAGE: A20
BYLINE:
SECTION: Editorial
EDITION: Metro


MINORITY GOVERNMENT An election always around the corner

After five years of minority governments, Canada has arrived at a point at which every issue of federal policy is viewed through the lens of election speculation. So it was that Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff spent 40 minutes yesterday morning tying himself in knots as he refused to rule out a summer campaign that he insisted he, like the voters, did not want, from which he backed away further, later that afternoon.
There is no logical reason why the government should be brought down this month over an economic stimulus package that the Official Opposition voted in favour of in January. Nothing dramatic has changed in the Conservatives' approach, and the Liberals have not developed any serious alternative plan of their own. (Their call for employment-insurance qualification standards to be loosened does not fit the bill.) Nor have the Liberals explained how they would reduce the $50-billion federal deficit, which makes their criticism of the Conservatives' failure to do so ring hollow. The same goes for the government's management of Canada's supply of medical isotopes, seemingly thrown into yesterday's list of grievances because it is topical.
Yet because the current political calculus dictates that an opposition leader who does not seek to bring down the government at every turn lacks fortitude - a notion perpetuated by both the Conservatives and the other opposition parties - Mr. Ignatieff evidently felt obliged to manufacture a showdown. He then pounced on the slightest hint of concessions from Prime Minister Stephen Harper, a willingness to meet face-to-face, as evidence that a campaign could be avoided after all.
This jockeying, unlikely to produce an election before next fall at the earliest, is not as harmless as it may seem. When there is no defining difference between government and opposition, it should be possible to foster a co-operative atmosphere that allows for thoughtful give-and-take on the policies that can help Canada emerge strongly from the recession. Instead, Mr. Harper and Mr. Ignatieff do not even sit down with one another until they have backed themselves into corners. Meanwhile, individual policies do not receive serious attention, because politicians are too busy drawing meaningless lines in the sand (and pundits are too busy trying to read them).
"I'm not playing games with Canadians," Mr. Ignatieff said yesterday.
But games seem to be all anyone in Ottawa knows how to play. The more experience the parties get with minority parliaments, the less they make them work.

 

[Brandon716]

Keith,

I know you're goal is to say anything to support Ignatieff, which is a little bizarre for me because I had to listen to you say anything to support Harper last fall. I'm not sure how that qualifies anyone to be a centrist, but that isn't for me to worry about...

You bashed me for bringing in an ignorant American attitude to an entirely different nation (where I had to remind you I care more for Canada than my birth nation yet again), while you are now parading Ignatieff's out of country - mostly American and British - experience as the savior he is.

At this point I'm actually supportive of Ignatieff (despite him not being my first choice) as I was for Dion, but I'm applying some critical thinking to his platform as I think it isn't a winning one. I don't want to see Ignatieff go down in the polls and get stuck in a malaise like Dion did. I want him to use better, smarter strategy.

Stephane Dion enjoyed a post-convention bounce and was more popular than Ignatieff is at present, and it dwindled down to nothing very quickly. The same can happen for Ignatieff if he doesn't play the right strategy. I don't want that to happen, hence I am questioning his 'on Probation' strategy.

 

[lordmandeep]

lol, Harper still has his support.


Iggy needs to really be able to get a lot of people who voted for Chretien to vote for him. If he can do that he would easily win the election.

NDP is usless, they are going down in the next election.


Plus many of how have successful argued for minority govts, but the latest charades show that proper successful minority govts will not be possibile for a long time. The only way it work is if the party in power has wide spread popular support so the opposition would not dare to bring them down. The thing is if you have that kind of support you would have a majoirty govt.

Let the majority govts come back, sure its a 5 year dictatorship but at least there are fewer election and the govt in power can do something proper...


No Dion looked weak and people looked at him and dismissed him.

I think Harper ads have failed against Iggy and really Iggy can speak well and that will easily allow him to get more support then Dion in Ontario. Also he is popular in Quebec.


No matter what next election will be a battle for power, not a calculated decision to increase power by Harper.

 

[Brandon716]

lol, Harper still has his support.


Iggy needs to really be able to get a lot of people who voted for Chretien to vote for him.

Thank you, thank you, THANK YOU. Someone needs to remember the NDP has risen substantially since the Chretien years. Its not just the unified right. Jack Layton's heart and mind is in the right place: he campaigns for common causes even the Liberals forget to mention, but voting for his party in rural Ontario is especially helping Harper.

The NDP has exponentially gained ever since Chretien left and Martin, Dion, Ignatieff took over. In all these blue rural Ontario ridings the Liberals could use an extra 10 or 20% of the vote they are missing from the Chretien era, and most of those votes went to the NDP, not the new Tories.

 

[kEiThZ]

Brandon,

This is not about me supporting or not supporting Ignatieff. I am trying to point out here that what's happening is exactly what is supposed to happen. Minority governments are supposed to be give and take. I would not want Iggy or any other leader to seek an election at every opportunity just because it suits their political ends. Indeed that kind of behaviour from Harper is exactly why I'll be voting against him. Should Iggy start behaving like that, I think he'd loose a lot of budding support.

 

[unimaginative2]

No, I really don't think that it is supposed to happen. People complain about Ignatieff not having any policies, but pretty much all of the major policies that Harper has implemented have been forced on him by Ignatieff. Harper is going to run his next campaign pointing to his wonderful stimulus spending (dragged into kicking and screaming by coalition threat) and his EI reform. It is not the Liberals job to force Harper to adopt popular policies. It's blindingly obvious, by virtue of the fact that Harper keeps taking credit for Liberal initiatives, that the Liberals could provide a better government. They should bring him down.

Nobody's ever going to give Ignatieff credit for whatever reform Harper brings out for EI just as nobody's going to give him credit for the stimulus spending. Harper is weathering this economic storm relatively well for two reasons: the fantastic financial situation he inherited from the Liberals and the fact that he appears more-or-less middle of the road with pragmatic policies. As you recall, though, his only plan for fighting the recession was slashing party funding. The popular policies that he introduced after were forced on him by the opposition. The NDP never got any credit for the policies that they forced on the Liberals from 85-87 and 72-74 and in both those cases (though the NDP policies were hardly the only cause) the Liberals went on to win massive majorities at the next election.

 

[lordmandeep]

It appears that the recession alone I mean the dip in tax revenue has caused less then a 1/3 of the deficit.

Meaning when the spending is done and things are gone back to normal the federal govt if it is run well should either be back to being balanced or having small deficits.

Imo if Harper cannot it clearly shows conservatives are not as fiscally conservative as the Liberals, which imo they never were anyways. Tory have spending on a level or greater then the Liberals ever imagined.

I would imagine Harper is trying to stall the election and not give a reason for Iggy to angry and rally behind.

For the next few months the man being bullied will be Harper...