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

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

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 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???

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

No election.

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. 

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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

good question

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.

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...

The changing of the props. (or stools apparently)

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

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 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, 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?