Home for all the speculation about elections, confidence votes, or not; bluffs, whatever.
For all the machinations there will be, and for which I have my theories.... in the end, I don't think there is more than a shred of a possibility there will be an election now. But there will be a lot going on anyway.
There is a discussion thread about the NDP's EI bill that [C-280] that come up for debate and voting next week. In the course of that there is a lot of discussion about potential confidence votes, how an election could be triggered, or not, etc. I was about to continue with that and decided it would be better to start a seperate thread about it.
http://rabble.ca/babble/canadian-politics/no-plans-bring-government-down...
In that discussion there is a lot of confusing back and forth about the exact role that C-280 could play in the overall parliamentary machinations. I'll summarise my understanding of that first.
Among other things, the NDP EI bill mandates the change to the national universal of 360 hours to qualify for EI. Both the Bloc and the Liberals have said they will support the bill. Some questions have been raised whether the Liberals will. But given that Iggy has [belatedly] called for the same, and that the idea has become popular with the broad public, I don't see how they could not support it even if they don't like conceding centre stage, and/or are worried by having to face Harper's counterattack about how much it will cost when the deficit is so large [which the Cons made sure was framed at the right time].
Since C-280 is a private member's bill, the government is free to ignore it. They will mercilessly criticise it, and are not required to do anything with it.
Not required by parliamentary process, but it does up the ante on an already existing serious problem for Harper. The clock is ticking towards a possible confidence vote put forward by the Liberals on June 23. We can debate whether the Liberals will or want to pull the trigger [and I'll put in my 2 cents], but at bottom: the Conservatives do not want an election and cannot be sure of getting even the required support of at least one party... unless they offer up something sufficient.
Either they need to make sufficient concessions and agree to an amended C-280; or they simply say no to that- "too expensive and we have our own plan"- and offer up enough goodies for Quebec to get the Blocs support on a concession vote. [If Harper just spurns the NDP EI bill, the NDP will vote with the Liberals if there is a confidence vote.]
I'm not sure what a bag of goodies for Quebec would like, and how expensive that would be in dollars and poltical costs to the Harper government. Certainly doable, and no matter how costly, better for them than an election. But it doesn't look like a snap.
Not a snap, and thats without consideration of the effect of the NDP EI bill. That bill muddy's the waters considerably for Harper. Before its advent, the Bloc had nothing to lose and everything to gain in cutting a deal to trade support the government for goodies. But now it would be clear they would be letting the government off the hook, not just generaly, but over a bill that is going to have visibility and popular support everywhere. It is not even clear to me in the first that the Bloc would rather have the 'bag of goodies' than an EI compromise that they would get the crdit for in Quebec.
The upshot is that I don't think that in practice Harper has a choice of bending on the NDP EI bill OR cutting a deal with the Bloc. I think he's going to have to do the former.
Then the horse trading question becomes how much he is willing to concede to get an agreed version of C-280, and how much for the opposition parties is too little to get their support.
That horse trading will take place during committee hearings on C-280- presuming all the opposition parties do vote for it. And Harper could wait right up until the 23rd to cut a deal on it.
The upshot is that I don't think that in practice Harper has a choice of bending on the NDP EI bill OR cutting a deal with the Bloc. I think he's going to have to do the former.
Yes, Harper probably thinks it is safer to be associated with the 'socialists' rather than the 'separatists'.
And finally: I don't expect at all the Liberals to just stand by and watch if this is basically the way it is to play out.
Not the masters of smoke and mirrors, and of parlimentary gamesmanship.
Can't even guess what they might come up with. And it may even be an effective monkey wrench pretty early in the game.
Except: not as obvious as simply not voting for the NDP bill when it comes up. Don't think they can afford that: at least not the simple way, without at least appearing to replace it with something.
And I keep saying they will "negotiate" with the Cons over the EI Bill, and try to cut the NDP out of it. ;)
People keep talking about whether the Liberals can be stymied in their desire to get an election.
The only thing we know for sure is that Iggy and the Liberals want to look like they are eager to have an election. They are the only party with somethingto prove on that score. That and Iggys game of looking to be in charge.
Leaving aside all the parliamentary machinations, it would already be getting to be something of a strain to square wanting to look tough and control, with the clear disinclination the public has for an election. Right now, 'tough and in control' is not easy to pull off at the same time as 'useful.'
At any rate, the Liberals do at a minimum want to look like they are pushing Harper and getting something out of him because he is afraid of an election. And to do that the threat has to be credible. And while it doesn't look like an election would be in their self-interets... no one but they knows whether they would be willing, or maybe even happy, to see it come to that. [Organizational and money problems, exposure to a withering campaign, and getting the blame for an election people really don't want this time, all that not withstanding: when the smoke clears, however many seats the Liberals have, the Harper government's days to survive will be limited.]
In some sense, the worm has turned. Under Dion, the Harper government could push the Liberals with impugnity, knowing they would cave. The tables have turned, albeit to an important lesser degree.
Not only is Harper much more inclined to limits on concessions he will make to avoid an election- he doesn't have to fear being wiped out as did the Dion Liberals. And, he is the one with most of the tools for controlling the legislative agenda. Not to mention, that the Bolc and NDP have no interest in being Liberal pawns.
Iggy's list of problems:
- He doesn't control the legislative agenda, and has only limited capability to set the political stage.
- He doesn't have any policy agenda, or a reasonable facsimile of.
- He is even at risk of being bested by the NDP, as seems about to happen with the EI bill.
[Not to metion the internal money and organizational problems; and the knowledge that even a ton of hubris cannot totally hide: that for the forseeable future they face considerable risk that even a Conservative party down in the polls (more than so far) can steamroller them in an election campaign.]
Back to where the NDP EI bill [C-280] may fit into all this.
If Harper prefers, all things considered, negotiations on an amended C-280 as the route to sufficient support against a confidence vote, that is not suffient in itself.
He could cut a deal, and the Liberals still bring a confidence vote, with the NDP voting for [notwithstanding not wanting an election], and the Bloc having to be bought off.
So I would think that if Harper negotiates, it will be a conditional trade: the government supports an amended C-280 in return for confidence motion support if there is one.
If so, I would think the Bloc and NDP would for mutual protection agree to negotiate as one... leaving the Liberals to decide whether they want to join or not. [Expecting not.] I suspect it would also be in the governments interest to keep at least the two parties in the negotiations: the NDP on its on would if anything have to be more demanding about how much they get in concessions on an amended C-280.
.
I am not sure what it is you are saying?
The ideological and substantive similarity is there.
But Iggy has way too much invested in I'm The One to cut this kind of deal with Harper.
Little as it is, Iggy has nothing else.
That Iggy has all his eggs in the basket on how harmful Harper is. And that Himself is The One to fix all.
You have suggested he would cut a deal with Harper that would absolutely gut the NDP EI bill. He can't do that after saying we need the substance of that bill, and the Liberals saying numerous times they were going to support the bill.
It would be in keeping with their past practice, and what they can possibly get away with among voters they are courting, to undermine the NDP bill and somehow supplant it by waving their arms and making promises. Not easy, or very likely in my books, but possible.
But they cannot up front gut the NDP bill by cutting a deal with Harper. They act they are very much banking on is to show that Iggy is, or is going to, 'put Harper in his place.'
The Liberals are good at pretending all sorts of things- but even they have their limits. [And for all their hubris, I think they have a generaly good sense of where those limits are.] Its just not possible for them to even pretend to be putting Harper in his place and cut a deal like you have been talking about.
A couple of points:
* If C-280 passes third reading on June 23rd, the NDP would not want to bring down the government yet, BECAUSE THEIR BILL WOULD STILL HAVE TO MAKE IT THROUGH THE SENATE, which would not happen if the government fell in the meantime.
* The Liberals will likely support C-280 at second reading ... the issue is what amendments they want at Committee, and whether they will support it coming out of Committee, try to amend it again at Report Stage, and whether they finally support it the amended version at 3rd reading. Again, if the Government doesn't support it at 3rd reading, it won't come to a vote anyway, so that's a moot point.
* To remind's point about the Government doing a deal with the Liberals and cutting the NDP out, if the NDP didn't agree with the outcome, they would just withdraw the bill themselves before it could come to a 3rd reading vote. So, whatever Ken thinks his motivations might be one way or the other, that's not a logical possibility right now anyway so far as I know.
L. Ian MacDonald has a slightly different take this morning. He thinks the pension vesting issue (one already raised by Greg Weston in a column a few weeks ago) is the critical one, and that being as the vote on the 23rd is the evening before St-Jean Baptiste, the requisite number of Bloquistes will "be in their ridings" and diplomatically miss the vote. No suggestion about what that might take from the Conservatives, but L.Ian seems to be suggesting that the Conservatives wouldn't have to give up much if anything in order for that outcome to transpire.
If it were to be that easy to cut a deal with the Bloc, then, yes, Harper can just thumb his nose at C-280.
But looked at the other way- its easy for the Bloc to say the price is adequate movement on C-280.
Just like my saying it is highly unlikely the Liberals really want an election: even if we were all to agree that is true, its not enough of a certainty for the government to take it to the bank.
The same goes for the Bloc: no matter how much it looks like they are disinclined to a non confidence vote, that doesn't mean they can be offered little or nothing to insure it.
And I'm not so sure the Bloc could just slough off charges that they were the ones that gave Harper the pass that let them ignore the EI bill.
At the very least, that pushes up the price of them going along with Harper. And the overall 'least dear' concession for Harper may well bring him right back to negotiating an amended C-280.
Holy shit. I better get some work done.
L. Ian MacDonald has a slightly different take this morning. He thinks the pension vesting issue (one already raised by Greg Weston in a column a few weeks ago) is the critical one
Yes, and the point raised by Greg Weston and L. Ian MacDonald highlights something about the BQ - this is a party that is supposedly committed to sovereignty first and foremost and was supposed to be a party that was only in Ottawa temporarily and yet it has now become a permanent part of the Canadian government. It is there election after election and enjoys having the same benefits as the other parties in terms of pensions and other perks.
Jean Chretien used this point against Gilles Duceppe in his last election against him - the BQ has moved very far away from its original raison d'etre into becoming career politicians.
It is there election after election and enjoys having the same benefits as the other parties in terms of pensions and other perks.
Are you suggesting they shouldn't get the same befefits?
It is there election after election and enjoys having the same benefits as the other parties in terms of pensions and other perks.
Are you suggesting they shouldn't get the same befefits?
It is about the contradiction and hypocrisy at the heart of the BQ. Re-read my post above, along with what L. Ian MacDonald wrote and what Jean Chretien said to Gilles Duceppe about the same issue.
Ken, I think you make some good points, and there seems little doubt to me that the Bloc are interested in leaving the EI issue to the Liberals when they have spent so much effort on it over the years. Why, they were even outlining shortcomings with C-280 at second reading debate, and may try to amend it in such a way that the Liberals can't support it.
You're right though: my head is spinning now too. Time to get on with other chores. In your case, like electing an NDP government down there!
ETA: Someone PMed me to say the above comment made no sense unless I said "that the Bloc are NOT interested in leaving the EI issue to the Liberals when they have spent so much effort...", which is indeed what I meant. Sorry, and thanks for the correction.
Debater, I call BS on this spurious point about the Bloc. It's a democracy. They have the right to run and say things you disagree with, and be entitled to get paid the same as you to do it. In fact they've been pretty successful at getting elected, so they must represent quite a few people in saying it. If you don't like it, don't whine about them being hypocrites. Just beat them at the polls in an Election. If you can.
L. Ian MacDonald has a slightly different take this morning. He thinks the pension vesting issue (one already raised by Greg Weston in a column a few weeks ago) is the critical one, and that being as the vote on the 23rd is the evening before St-Jean Baptiste, the requisite number of Bloquistes will "be in their ridings" and diplomatically miss the vote. No suggestion about what that might take from the Conservatives, but L.Ian seems to be suggesting that the Conservatives wouldn't have to give up much if anything in order for that outcome to transpire.
Interesting that MacDonald seems to skip over the fact that there are also some 35 Conservative MPs in the "class of 2004" whose pensions will vest at the end of next June.
Remind opened a thread on this bit from Iggy earlier in the week.
Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff is threatening to introduce a motion of non-confidence in the Conservative government as early as next week. Lashing out at the minority Conservatives over employment insurance, isotopes and the deficit, Ignatieff said his party "will make a serene and clear decision" by midweek about whether it wants to topple the Tories.
I read the story, but didn't think about the significance of the timing. "Middle of next week" = June 10 = second reading vote on NDP EI bill.
So here is about the most obvious script for the Liberals.
June 10: C-280 passes second reading, without government.
June 10 or 11: Iggy begins fulminating about how irresposible the government is. "Thats the last straw." Etc. "We are going to have to end this government.... June 23rd..."
Iggy continues to preach and issue ultimatums for the next 2 weeks.
June 22: Amended C-280 is tabled with government support.
Iggy: "See. Look what WE accomplished."
Now then, there is this....
... and there seems little doubt to me that the Bloc are not interested in leaving the EI issue to the Liberals when they have spent so much effort on it over the years. Why, they were even outlining shortcomings with C-280 at second reading debate, and may try to amend it in such a way that the Liberals can't support it..
Gets stickier, or harder to figure out if the Bloc does put in something new that gives the Liberlas there out, and the bill just dies. Though I would think the Bloc would have a stake in having the Liberals in... can't see what brownie points they get if a bill just dies in obscurity of procedures.
Whatever. Maybe the Liberals want to find a way out of the bill moving forward, and they find another pretext. Then [somehow] blame its death on the governments opposition... and are free to preach and posture without all the complications of C-280.
The part about scuttling the bill while blaming the government sounds like some pretty fancy footwork, but they've had a lot of practice, and a media that will just salute whetever it is.
So who knows.
So... right about today is when Iggy said last week the Liberals were going to decide about whether or not on a confidence vote. Which I read, still read, as meaning this is the time for saying they will [unless events change their minds].
And without any prior announcement or fanfare we have today a slick presentation- away from Ottawa- of the governments required "report card" on itself. Senator Duffy in a chummy interview format with Harper.
Are we reassured yet?
PM to try save gov't with report on stimulus spending
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics/2009/06/10/9757296-cp.html
Shades of Earnie Eaves. didn't work for him. But this is a less ambitious presentation. Rather than the bizarre attempt to present a Budget in the media, its a fireside chat to assure folks that an election is not in their interests.
Preemption?
And then, we have the government moving forward the Liberal opposition day when they can do the confidence vote, so that is only a week from now.
Pattern of upping the pressure on the Liberals, which makes sense. But with what denoument?
Orchestrated anticlimax of rushing things and tieing it off with a modest little plum for the Bloc to have the requisite number of MPS not show up for the vote next Friday?
For those who can't get enough of changes in parliamentary procedure manouvering, what it may indicate about what the goverments plans are, and what the other parties might/could do....
http://www.punditsguide.ca/2009/06/new-development-on-election-scare.php#links
Try your hand at making sense of it.
[/quote]
Interesting that MacDonald seems to skip over the fact that there are also some 35 Conservative MPs in the "class of 2004" whose pensions will vest at the end of next June.
[/quote]
Given the rise in Liberal numbers in the latest Quebec polling, there won't be a desire amongst the Bloc Quebecois M.P.'s to vote to bring the Harper government down until their 'Class of 2004' members get past June of 2010, when they qualify for their parliamentary pensions.
Besides, Iggy wants the Conservatives to bring in one more 'bad news' budget, so that when the Harper government does fall, he can go in front of the news cameras and say 'Elect moi! I will save Canada!'
Plus, with the thrashing that the Nova Scotia Conservatives just had in Tuesday's provincial election, I don't think Harper's Nova Scotia M.P.'s are very enthused about facing the electorate any time soon.
Let's wait for the up-coming by-elections.
Stay tuned!
I think something is the works given Iggy is cancelling speaking engagements, perhaps they are trying to create wiggle room now that their Opposition day has been moved ahead 6 days?
It is sickening to see that personal greed and fascist power brokers control our parliament.
I wonder who the fascits really are? A fascist under every stone eh? How obsurd.
Personal greed are those putting their pensions before democracy, and the fascists are the bankers telling Iggy, or indeed Harper, there will be no election.
What is absurb is to deny democractic interference and corporate control.
Harper's news conference to present the "report card" has been delayed apparently ...
well, perhaps there were parliamentary objections made to a senator doing a "fireside interview" of the PM? :D
Actually, turns out there was a little fracas over the fact that the "report card" had not been tabled in the House of Commons first. He's talking now, but just ruled out any further modifications to EI.
Wayne Easter put out a media release yesterday critizing the Ag Minister and the Con House Leader for cancelling a scheduled trip to China.
So did he present it? Or just talk?
And where does this leave actions on EI besides no where?
Well that is interesting BA are they expecting a confidence motion then?
The games afoot it would seem, but what game and when is for pointier heads than mine.
More interesting is what the Bloc is going to do about this and will it factor into a possible non-confidence motion:
Stephen Harper has hired Pierre Brien, formerly of the BQ and ADQ, to serve as chief adviser to Christian Paradis…the Conservatives intend to use his knowledge to attack the Bloc more effectively…According to reliable Conservative sources, Brien may eventually replace Dimitri Soudas
http://www.ledevoir.com/2009/06/11/254492.html
Mulcair on Newsworld just now: "Don't worry, the NDP is not going to be voting for these guys [i.e., the Conservatives] any time soon."
So did he present it? Or just talk?
And where does this leave actions on EI besides no where?
I guess Ted Menzies, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Finance Minister, just tabled it in the House. Harper's speech was pretty clear that he didn't think anything else about EI needed to be fixed.
it's down to the Libs and the Bloc now, I guess.
Harper gives a rosy picture, aka lies, about our economy today , in the face of:
Weak trade numbers in Canada and the United States point to a global economy saddled with sagging demand, little inclination to invest and still not at its bottom.Canada's trade surplus dipped back into deficit in April, Statistics Canada said yesterday, while the U.S. trade deficit widened, a stark reminder that North America remains in a recession.
"It's reflecting weak U.S. fundamentals and weak global fundamentals for demand and investment," said Grant Bishop, economist at Toronto-Dominion Bank. "There is room for continued weakness here, and for an export-focused economy like Canada's, it will have a drag on domestic demand as well."
Canada posted a slim $179-million trade deficit in April - its third deficit in five months. The 5.1-per-cent drop in exports far surpassed a 1.5-per-cent decrease in imports, as Canadian businesses saw a deep decline in sales of industrial equipment and materials.
"This is definitively a weak report for Canadian trade, reflecting a steepening decline in real exports just when many were proclaiming the worst behind us," Mr. Bishop said.
It seems that the Bloc has also apparently said they're voting against the government (not that CBC covered it), so Ignatieff is third out of the gate and is telling a newser right now that they're going to read the 234 pages first and he's "got to think about what's in the national interest", and will say "up or down" in a couple of days what they're going to do.
What's in the national interest? So now we are supposed to believe what is in the interest of the Liberal party and Iggy, is what the national interest is?!
Arrogant ass hat!
no more arrogant than Jack Layton when he says that he is spiaking for Canadians.
The only thing a summer election MIGHT do is move us from a Cons minority to a Lib minority. The question is can the NDP have any effect on the latter?
Too many MPs putting time in to collect a fat pension. Especially the Blog because they know they will lose seats.
The Bloc has every right to be in the House. I no more resent them then I do all the waste of flesh Conservative do nothing backbenchers filling up space and waiting for their pensions. There are a heck of a lot more of the latter in the House.
So we went from Mr Dithers, to bumbling Detective Clouseau back to Mr Dithers again. Great!
I like how you have to think over whether you have any principles to stand upon.
Summer election or not? NOT, says Paul Wells. Boy, and you do NOT want to get into Wells' firing line, by the way (yikes!). He can be brutal.
Newman is discussing the new EKOS poll which is good for the Liberals - the head of EKOS says the Libs can pick up 50 - 60 seats from where they are now. But the poll is bad news for the BQ, which has them below their traditional floor threshold, and unlikely to support an election call.
Like Wells, the report card thing from the beginning looked lie it would boomerang on Iggy. At the best of times, the Liberals are overly fond of the 'grand gesture'... and Iggy seems to have a personal proclivity to go even further.
There. He finally stopped [blathering endlessly without saying anything]. He's gonna read [Harper's 250 page report] tonight and make a decision. Except all week I've been hearing from Liberals about their vacation plans. Those plans don't involve door-knocking and debate prep. So if this whole election thing is still a live option, somebody forgot to tell the party.
Exactly. As I said above, when Iggy said "we'll decide next week" what he really meant was "we'll announce next week" [what we have already decided].
And so now we know what that particular anti-climax will be.
Breaking newz!!
[url=http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5g5bN-In6VDF... opposition leader contemplates opposing phony minority government...again![/url]
So the people that voted on both sides are phony? And don't belive everything you read in the newspaper. Some of the so called experts are phony.
If Iggy announces that he's going to vote against the government, there is some negotiating room for the Bloc and/or NDP if the government doesn't want to go to the polls. I think the government does want to go, in order to maximize their organizational advantage. But they may judge it just as damaging to Iggy to give a leg up to one of his competitors by making an agreement.
If Iggy announces he's going to abstain or worse to vote with the government, he's a laughing stock.
The Liberals think there may be some third way to look tough but avoid a campaign. Darned if I can think of it, but of course I'm not staring at the same guillotine.
Unfortunately, I think we are heading to the polls. I see no way around it.
It would seem that every opposition party is either married to defeating the government as soon as possible, or sees an immediate election as in their interests for one reason or another.
New Democrats - thanks to staking everything on being 'The Real Opposition,' the party is wedded to the strategy of unambiguously opposing this government at every opportunity. To climb down from that position, especially if the other parties choose to oppose the government, would invalidate all of the communication material produced by the party over the last two years - up to and including the cake they used in a recent photo-op to celebrate the Liberals 50th straight vote in support of the Harper agenda.
Bloc - secured more than 50 seats in the last election, but are unlikely to repeat this feat moving forward - especially if the Liberals continue their revival in that province. They will likely drop some seats in the next election, but how many? Would they lose more if they went now or later? If you believe that Harper will continue to wear the economic mess and that his poll numbers will continue to weaken, then you likely also agree that the Liberals will be the primary beneficiary, with the NDP and Greens also picking up some stragglers. In this scenario, the Bloc would benefit the most from going earlier and before the Liberals pick up another 5 percent in Quebec over the next 90 days or so.
Liberals - are in a position of strength. They are consistently ahead in the polls in the last month or so - anywhere from 5 - 7 percent - and can expect at least two more months of horrific economic numbers to be released before the stimulus money actually affects labour stats and GDP data. They have about a 60-120 day window of continuous bad news that will dominate media coverage on economic issues, and it likely started when the government announced their deficit would be $50 billion + instead of $34 billion. The Liberals could force an election now, win at least a minority, and take credit for the recovery which is not yet in sight for most Canadians.
In the case of all three opposition parties I see a summer election as being in their interests. Plus, since the NDP and the Bloc have already committed to voting against the government next week, it's now all up to Iggy. Frank Graves from Ekos says they can pick up 50-75 seats now, and that doesn't factor in the release of more bad economic data and further details of the Raitt tape - of which we've only heard 45 seconds out of 5 hours.
If I was advising Iggy - I would advise that he go as soon as possible, and do so knowing that a minority Liberal government is probably in the bag, and that there is a outside chance at a majority now, but definitely in the next election which should come after the recovery is well underway or even in its final stages.
