Summer election or not: Part 2

But that's FD, which contains its own built-in marginality.  Remember how FD's Mark Fournier got 137 votes and 0.28% as a Freedom Party candidate in Kingston + TI in the 2007 Ontario election....

I dunno - we keep hearing about these various "to the right of the Tories" splinter groups that are supposedly a big threat to split the right-wing vote and then they fizzle out on election day. Remember how the Alberta Alliance was going to make life miserable for Ed Stelmach?

The more I watch the Liberal pundits and hears Denis Coderre talk, the more I think that Iggy will offer some sort of compromise instead of a flat out 'yes or no' committment tommorrow.   So, while I think it is clearly in the Liberals' interest to go (polling, economics, momentum, etc), I think they will try to pin Harper down to some sort of committment to fix EI, or the forestry sector, or on isotopes, or....

On the Conservative base...while their donor base appears to be resilient, I would be inclined to think that the base as a whole must at the moment, be demobilized.  Down in the polls and three years of government later and what the hardcore righties have to show for it?  Massive spending increases, and now massive deficits.  Gun registry still in place.  Same-sex marriage is off the table once and for all it seems.  Plus, Harper's reputation as a god-like political tactician have been proven false since the last campaign.  If an election is the outcome of this week's events, then the Con base would have to ask themselves what the hell has Mr. Harper done for them over the last three years, and is putting up signs and canvassing really worth it when the cottage or that road trip is waiting.

I still think the timing is perfect for the Liberals, but they appear to be really hedging - at least since Friday.  If they don't go, then I think they are unlikely to have a shot at even a minority when the economy starts to turn a corner in late 2009, and early 2010.

Never a dull moment eh....?

Oh...and I think they could likely wriggle out of this by presenting the Conservatives with a stark choice using their Opposition Day Motion.

The Liberal motion could state that the House calls on the gov't to reform EI (to some sort of middle ground) this summer, to fix the isotope crisis once and for all, fix all future budgets to the numbers arrived at by the Parliamentary Budget Officer, etc....

They would tell the Conservatives that if they don't vote for and/or agree to implement the Liberal motion then their caucus would vote against the government's Estimates that will follow.

Outcomes...

Election  - the Liberal benefit would be that they could legitimately say they tried to make parliament work until the end, that they stood up for the right issues when it mattered, and that the Conservatives actually caused the election by refusing to compromise in the context of a minority parliament.

No Election - then the Liberals can brag how they made the Conservatives cave, that they acheieved something for those who have lost or may lose their job and others who have or know someone that has cancer, etc., and above all they avoided a summer election that no one wanted.

I think the Conservatives would have to cave in such a scenario and the Liberals could argue that they didn't support Harper, but made him follow their lead and that they got something done.

Anyways, that's a total hypothetical, as the vote on the Main Estimates will take place on Thursday, while the Liberal Opposition Day is not scheduled until Friday.

Back to the drawing board, Red Rover....

No...they can't. 

There is another vote to come after the Opposition Day Motion...the Estimates.  In the scenario I outlined...Harper would have to accept the Liberal motion and publicly commit to implementing what it calls for (ie: EI Reform) by the next "probation" report.  If they agree, take the summer off, and do nothing - then Iggy could again pull the plug at the next progress report.

If Harper rejects the motion and all its components, then the Liberals can then vote against the estimates to kill this government before the summer break.

I heard Robert Fife say it was Thursday on CTV the other day.

RedRover wrote:

The more I watch the Liberal pundits and hears Denis Coderre talk, the more I think that Iggy will offer some sort of compromise instead of a flat out 'yes or no' committment tommorrow.   So, while I think it is clearly in the Liberals' interest to go (polling, economics, momentum, etc), I think they will try to pin Harper down to some sort of committment to fix EI, or the forestry sector, or on isotopes, or....

"Pinning Harper down" as in having things like making him give more report cards in the future?

RedRover wrote:

Jack and Thomas were just handed a gift beyond all gifts among soft lefty Liberals. Let's hope they can open it.

Could you elaborate on what you meant by this a bit more, RedRover.  I have a good guess, but I'm not sure.

Meantime, of course NO-ONE is going to call out that airhead Jane Taber who didn't even listen to what was being said to her two weeks ago on QP, and reported that Jack Layton had let the government off the hook about an election.  That story lasted days before people realized he had said no such thing.

IT is official their is a coalition government in Ottawa. It is the officially teh Liberal - Tory coalition government of PM Harper and Deputy PM Ignatieff.

Well, I've just watched the At Issue panel again, and between them and all the other nationally-recognized pundits, scribes and lowly reporters, I'd have to declare that Michael Ignatieff's honeymoon with the national media is Officially Over.

And not a moment too soon.

Let the Liberal in-fighting begin ....

She sure didn't mince any words, that's for sure.

I have been watching the debate over an election call with interest then I started a little number crunching - for the Liberals to have a chance to form a minority they probably would need somewhere between 125 and 130 seats or a gain of  50 to 55 seats from there total now - so from which party will these seats come from - from the NDP - it is possible that a couple could go to the Liberals and there is also a good chance that the NDP could gain some seats from the Cons - so next up is the BLOC - perhaps a shift of 10 - 15 to the Liberals.

That would leave the Liberals somewhere around 85 - 90 seats to the Cons perhaps 140 - so the Cons lose 10 in Quebec and 20 in Ontario you are starting to look at a scenario where either Libs or Cons  would have the most seats around 120 each with perhaps the BLOC holding the balance of power. Yes it is possible that the NDP could come third and we could have a repeat of 2004 with a virtual stalemate and no guarantee that Harper will be gone unless the Party throws him out

In other words unless there is a larger shift in Ontario I don't see the Libs getting enough seats in other areas of the country to give them a decisive edge over the Cons.

The people in BC and NS have just been to the polls and aren't likely to want to go again so there could be a backlash against any party that brings on the election.

I am sure those more political astute than me will nail it down much better.

The only advantage that I see from a summer election is that I will get a few more days of work from Elections Canada

And now let's tally the cost of two elections in less than one year to make a lib/NDP coalition govt - because make no mistake the libs would sign their death certificate if they triggered a summer election and ended up with Harper in a weakened minority and them with more seats and Canadians poorer.

Bookish Agrarian wrote:

I didn't catch the panel, but the inteview with Mansbridge was embarrassing- especailly around the meeting questions.  And someone needs to tell Ingnatieff to stop blinking so damn much.  It borders on scary creepy.  I know the lights are bright - but bejeezuz.

Iggy has a nervous blink for sure. Mansbridge asked him whether he has a bottom line or ultimatum for Harper. He began blinking and rambling even moreso after that. It must be difficult for Iggy to act tough when he knows deep down he's really just an alternate bag man for the rich. Liberal, Tory, it's the same old story.

Stockholm wrote:

So, this takes us back to the old scenario from last December. Let's say that hypothetically, the Tories get 124 seats, the Liberals 118, the NDP 38 and the BQ 38 - what then? The first thing that has to happen after the election is parliament meeting for a Throne speech. If Igantieff caves and votes for the tories again like he did in early Nov. '08 - then it means several years of Tory minority government again and Iggy probably loses his only chance to ever become PM. But what if all three opposition parties vote down the Throne Speech right away? We are back to the scenario of December where the GG then has no choice but to invite the opposition to form a government and we are back to some facsimile of the coalition of last December.

Back to the beginning of your scenario. With that few seats for the Bloc, and that many for the Liberals, there is no chance the BQ is going to let the Liberals into government. The Throne Speech would pass.

I think that even if the BQ was in a somewhat stronger position they would still greatly not want the Liberals in power.

Debater we agree - Ignatieff is a tool!

Michael Ignatieff at a Drive-Thru Window:

"My stomach is sending a very direct signal to my brain. While I have serious doubts about the nutritional value of quote-unquote fast food, I am craving a Double Original Cheeseburger. What's that? Lettuce? Tomatoes? Pickles? Onions? You have presented me with an urgent platform of garnish options. I shall return Friday with my final decision."

Michael Ignatieff Changes his Outgoing Voicemail Message:

"I'm sorry I missed your call. Unless you don't want me to be sorry, in which case, I'm glad I missed your call. As a pragmatist, your call was probably a waste of my time. This is not to say that I don't have time for you or, for that matter, any other Canadian who wants to waste my time. Have a nice day."

http://www.thestar.com/news/columnist/article/651332

Rex Murphy absolutely eviscerated Iggy last night - even more so than the At Issue panel. He had Iggy in his university days in a photo playing Hamlet, and described Iggy as a modern day "To be or not to be" type. Hilarious!  And one of Don Newman's pundits (or maybe it was someone on the At Issue panel) said he heard a Liberal insider say "we dumped Stephane Dion for this guy???"

Rex Murphy last night: Hamlet or Hotspur? (you have to view the video to see the photo of Iggy as Hamlet)

excerpt:

Michael Ignatieff is definitely Hamlet.

Hamlet was a very elegant Count - sorry, Prince - who mainly had a lot of trouble making up his mind. He was very educated, had a tendency to think out loud a lot, more or less drifted into making decisions, rather than actually making them. Hamlet was an eloquent vacillator. "To be or not to be" was his theme song.

excerpt:

We might put this manoeuvring down to end-of-Session jitters - but I think it's more than that. Mr. Ignatieff's shifting ultimata - the report cards, probation tactics, the expanding list of what he "demands" - are really tokens of indecision, trying to wear the face mask of its opposite. It's Hamlet pretending to be Hotspur.

Straight from the mouth of one of the brightest lights Liberals have assumed are saving and restoring them.

Full speed ahead!

Debater wrote:

And why do you always view it as a good thing if there is trouble for the Liberals?  Afterall, that simply increases the likelihood of Stephen Harper being in power for longer.

In any event, I'm not really a big fan of Ignatieff - I just view him as the best tool with which to get rid of Stephen Harper.  But I agree that he risks ending this session looking weak and indecisive compared to Harper after his performance this week.

Why, Debater?  Because I do not see Ignatieff as being ANY different from Harper, nor the Liberals (particularly in their current incarnation) as any different from the Conservatives ... with the one notable exception that at least Harper is more decisive.  Getting rid of him and replacing him with Ignatieff would be NO better, a position that has now been fully vindicated by the Liberal voting record over the last few weeks (on C-15, the NDP's other EI bill, etc., etc.).

If I believed otherwise, I'd be a Liberal.  Thankfully I gave up that delusion 30 years ago.

ETA: I guess, on the bright side, at least we did not wind up in a coaltion with "Michael Indecisieff" as Prime Minister (term courtesy of a commenter on the hilarious story Ken S linked to above from the Toronto Star).  We can at least thank M.I. for that.