Who's afraid of an election?

I have a question. Let's say that the NDP decides to keep parliament alive for a few more weeks so that the Tory changes to EI can be passed and that takes us past the date of the Liberal confidence vote - what then? Is that the last opportunity for the opposition to bring down the government before Xmas? or scould there be more opposition days and non-confidence motions after that

Stockholm wrote:

I have a question. Let's say that the NDP decides to keep parliament alive for a few more weeks so that the Tory changes to EI can be passed

This is no longer a theoretical possibility, it would seem: NDP to prop up Tories to pass EI changes.

Quote:

The NDP says it plans to prop up the Conservatives in order to pass a Tory plan to extend employment insurance for long-tenured workers - a move that appears to rule out a fall election.

...

Mulcair said his party will support the Tories until they pass the legislation, unveiled Monday. That means a Liberal no-confidence motion expected the first week of October is likely to fail.

I believe there are three opposition days from now until Christmas.  Each opp party has one.  Harper never lets others determine his destiny therefore I believe that there will be a poison pill bill brought forth.  Steve Fletcher has been working on the vote subsidy.  Cons will introduce this bill as a confidence bill, the opps will have to either vote infavor of abolishing this subsidy or fight an election over the $1.95 (soon to be $2.05) and be seen in the public as only interested in their selfserving party funding.

The Cons will want to fight an election on their terms not what the opps want.  This Fridays vote will be the only chance for the opps to control the election agenda and it appears they blinked.

The Cons election machine is in full gear, signs are going up next week of incumbant candidates, picture posters and lots of local advertizing.  The election is on.

When is the next "fixed" election date?

It certainly would be sweet if the NDP could play brinksmanship of extracting concessions when their opposition day comes up.

But I suspect Harper will push those dates to the end of the legislative calender so that no one wants to trigger an election that would run to Christmas.

pass the legislation, unveiled Monday. What legislation revealed on Monday - nobody publicly saw it?

That said, Chesterdrawer, Harper would be stupid to provoke an election that supposedly nobody wants, would get in the way of his stimulous spending, and la, la, la.

If he did, his game is up - remember those who trigger a faux election will pay - and with Jaffer just busted with drunk driving and cocaine, their Mr. Clean [and we're not hypercrits] image would take a beating.

But sure this is the only chance, and the NDP should sacrifice workers' money for the liberal cause. That said, the latest poll really sucks for the libs so perhaps they might reconsider their bomblast.

Speaking of election fear, has anyone seen the HarpoCon ad that shows a picture of Rae saying "failed NDP leader" and a picture of Layton "untested NDP leader"?

janfromthebruce wrote:

no but I don't really watch tv

Nor me. You'd think they'd put it on the web so I can entertain myself with it.

MUN Prof. wrote:

Speaking of election fear, has anyone seen the HarpoCon ad that shows a picture of Rae saying "failed NDP leader" and a picture of Layton "untested NDP leader"?

Yeah. The Cons are not only going after Iggy but are also now targeting Bob Rae, Jack, and Duceppe in the same commercial.

Commercial break after commercial break. No Lib ads to be seen as the media reported a few weeks ago. Where do the Cons get the cash-flow for this kind of stuff?

Jack is propping up the Cons in terms of the EI legislation, etc., yet the Cons are attacking him again and again in everyone's living room?

Unreal.

what do you think are the "terms of the debate"? If you were leading an opposition party in Canada, how would you make the case that if people made you PM, the recession would instantly end and there would be a chicken in every pot?

Stockholm wrote:

what do you think are the "terms of the debate"? If you were leading an opposition party in Canada, how would you make the case that if people made you PM, the recession would instantly end and there would be a chicken in every pot?

First, I would break the frame that sees "recessions" as part of a natural cycle like the seasons over which people have little control. Economics is about the decisions of resource allocation. The first thing I would do is to shore up all income support programs, including EI, CPP, and OAS. People would notice that right away. The next thing I would do would be to implement job creation strategies, like building infrastructure which would improve the quality of life, and increase funding to Human Resources Development so that there are more resources for those seeking work.

Mr.Canada_ts wrote:

 

I think Jack and Ignatieff would have a hard time convincing Canadians that they'd raise everyone elses taxes to pay for people to take a paid year off after working for a little over 2 months.  It just wouldn't reasonate well.

 

Sounds like reasonate your capacity for logic. Besides your heartless attitude toward the unemployed, go read a book or something and figure out that EI isn't paid out of your precious taxes, whoever you are.

Excuse my cynicism but it seems pretty clear to me that the machinations of what party supports what other party are based completely on internal calculations of what will happen if there is an election.  If Jack is going to prop up the Cons, the simplest answer is that he thinks he might lose seats to Liberals.  The Bloc's motivations are a bit more complex because they different goals.  I'm sure they'd sacrifice a few seats in the short term to come up with a better shot at independence.

Now, if it were Elizabeth May propping up the Cons, some of you would be trumpeting this as absolute proof that the Greens are nothing more than Conservatives in drag.  

The bottom line is that all of this crap is the result of a dysfunctional electoral system.

George:

It isn't clear whether you're replying to my post or using my post as a launching point to reply to a whole bunch of people.  So, to clear up confusion, I'd like to emphasize a few points:

1. I did not say my position is "morally superior"
2. Obviously, PR would be a great improvement; but it isn't all that's needed.  The parties in Canada have succeeded in turning the system as originally designed on its head.  Originally, the PM was supposed to be a servant of parliament.  Now the MP's are servants of the party leaders (and their unelected hangers on).   Something needs to change.  Maybe we drain the power from the party and give it back to the MP's.  Maybe we directly elect a head of state.  BTW, the haggling is taking place between parties today.
3. I've accused nobody of "heartless behaviour".
4. I never said all is crap.  When I said "all this crap", I was referring to the public hand-wringing, moralizing and other positioning on the part of all the party leaders over why we should or should not have an election.  It's a direct result of a leveraged voting system where the difference of a few percentage points in popular support can turn into 20% more (or less) seats.  
5. That bastards don't need to play me.  Those of us who wish to challenge the status quo are sufficiently low in number that we can successfully be ignored.

A good system doesn't guarantee good results but it produces a tendency towards good results. 

And, to completely clear up any confusion, Reefer, the "bastards" are the Cons who buy their tacticians in the U.S. and "play" the electorate, the Great Unread, one against the other.

You see evidence even here, among the Great Read, that it works, and the moral ranking confusion continues, irrelevant as it is in this blessed system we seem to be stuck with for the time being.   

Premier NDP Dextor weighs in and gives a thumbs up for Layton

"Premier Darrell Dexter is happy the federal NDP has agreed to support the federal Tories’ plan to enrich Employment Insurance rather than sending the country to the polls next month, his chief of staff said on Wednesday.

"His own experience has been that it’s — for any political party — far better to focus on how to make the parliament work, and to look at where they can find common ground, what they can agree on," said Dan O’Connor.

"He certainly took the view in the two minorities here — ’03 and ’06 — from election night on, that was the approach we would take. We would pursue the things that were important to the NDP, but we would do it in the context of recognizing someone else was the government."

The province is glad EI is going to be enriched, Mr. O’Connor said."

SNIP

"This is certainly a step in the right direction.""

SNIP AND LABOUR CHIMES IN

"Rick Clarke, president of the Nova Scotia Federation of Labour, is upset the federal government isn’t doing more for the unemployed, but he is not sympathetic to Liberal criticism, since they set up the current EI system.

"I don’t have a real, real short memory, and when I think about something like that coming out of the Liberals, I remember (former Liberal minister) Doug Young," he said."

SNIP

Mr. Clarke says the Tories’ proposed changes are a "Band-Aid," that penalizes workers who were laid off in previous years, but he assumes Mr. Layton and the NDP have done their best for the unemployed.

SNIP

I’m still more angry at Harper for using this as an extortion issue because he’s playing with people’s lives."

Canapathy wrote:

Why is the NDP afraid of an election? 

I don't think anyone really belives it is because they want to the give the, less than adequate, Conservative EI proposal time to pass.  Nor is it the home reno credit, considering that prior to the summer Jack Layton was ready to vote against every bill/vote/update the Cons put forward without even reading them over.

Now, if the Con vote only includes the proposed EI changes and the home teno credit, then the opposition, including Iggy, would be crazy not to support it.  Opposing the government without first reading the bill just looks foolish to the public.

I somewhat agree with this Star article that suggests that Jack damaged his own credibility by opposing everthing regardless of content for 3 sessions and now supporting the Cons to buy time.  Maybe the party should have elected a new leader.

Current polls show the NDP would loose some seats if an election took place today.  I also hear the party is low on funds.  So I'm wondering if Jack, just like Dion, will be supporting the Cons until his fortunes improve.

So what does the party have to do to get back on its feet?  In my opinion they have to agressively seek donations and craft a vision with a handful of clear, well thought out plans.  I'd really like to see proportional rep, renewable energy, smart grid and tax reform listed in that plan...but that is probably best left to another thread.

Starting at the bottom, and least important. It makes for good copy, and a stick for Liberals to wave, but the NDP does not have a fundraising issue or problem. I've covered this extensively and don't want to repeat myself- but even with a slow start for this year [for predictable and predicted reasons] the NDP is in at least as good shape as the Liberals... which is that the Liberals [only recently] do not have financial reasons to be gun shy of an election. I've been saying for some time, that even with only an average fundraising year for the NDP, and a banner year for the LPC, the NDP will produce more of a surplus over expenses [which is the main driver of finances available for an election]. And being a regular watcher of all the party's finances and based on recent observations, I'll bet the NDP fundraises at least as well as the Liberals in the second half of the year. But even without that, like I said, the NDP will have more of a surplus available for an election. 

The vast majority of Canadians- of even those who care about politics, including NDP supporters- don't care whether or not the NDP was afraid of an election.

The punditry cares- its their stock and trade. But in that area, Jack has no credibility to lose with them. And they'll very soon tire of making jabs. Ignatieff is [was] very exposed to those kind of hits having impact. Layton was never and would never be in danger for being seen as Dion-like for 2 reasons.

One, is that however much people may beleive that the real reason is wanting to avoid an election, Layton will always have something to show. Much like the Bloc does when it cuts a deal [except for the short period of time 3 years ago when they were with reason afraid of their shadow and would vote for absolutely anything]. Dion looked just plain hapless, and Iggy knew that was happening to him. Unlike with Iggy, for the NDP there is a viable 'middle ground'... and when and if there isn't one, if Jack and the NDP are in danger of becoming like Dion and the Liberals then, at that point they'll pull the plug even if they'd still rather not be in an election.

So I don't think the party needs to 'get back on its feet'. But repositioning is definitely required.

Having earlier invested in some bigger issues / themes that take longer to develop- that would have come in handy now. Not to mention that its a good and practical thing to do anyway.

Never too late to start, even if it isn't going to float your boat in the immeidate future.

Unionist wrote:

Mr.Canada_ts wrote:

 

I think Jack and Ignatieff would have a hard time convincing Canadians that they'd raise everyone elses taxes to pay for people to take a paid year off after working for a little over 2 months.  It just wouldn't reasonate well.

 

Sounds like reasonate your capacity for logic. Besides your heartless attitude toward the unemployed, go read a book or something and figure out that EI isn't paid out of your precious taxes, whoever you are.

 

If they brought this through then Ei load would double therefore requiring more staff and more offices which equals more overhead which does come from every Canadians tax dollars.  This in turn makes for bigger government, not less.  Many Canadians think that government is big enough and doesn't want any more government control into their lives. 

It's important to take all Canadians views into account and not just our own.  We must think about what is good for everyone as equals and not just try to label a group as special therefore requiring more benefit then another group.

Me not supporting some working for 45 working days in order to collect EI for a year doesn't make me heartless.  It makes me responsible and I would wish everyone would take responsibility for themselves. 

I think it's set at 20 weeks atm or somewhere there abouts which is 5 months worked.  That is low enough in my books.  If we start paying a years benefits after 2 months worked it will quickly bankrupt the EI funds and EI premiums would likely triple or quadruple.  I don't wish to pay quadruple EI premiums so that someone can sit around for a year after only working for 2 months. 

Would everyone who collects after 2 months worked be like this?  Of coarse not the majority that collect EI are really trying to look for a new job, enlisting in job training programs, etc.  At the same time there is a group of people collecting EI who are habitual collecters who will work the minimum then collect for a year and do nothing over that time.  Then work again for the minimum...etc.  I personally know of people who do this.  A 2 month work year may lead to more people taking advantage of the system in this manner.  This doesn't make Canada a stronger country.

I support many many things that Jack Layton says and does but I wouldn't want this to happen as we still need to be responsible and fair to everyone across this land.  We cannot afford to give everything to the poorest and let everyone else pay for it.  This isn't responsible.

That being said if Jack brought forward a proposal getting rid of the ridiculous 5 week waiting period before getting benefits every Canadian would support that, no doubt about it.  A lot of people need help(people who have tried to help themselves first) so lets get the help out to them as quickly as possible.  That would be an easy sell for Canadians.

As I said I support many things about Layton but he would have a very hard time selling a 2 month work year to normal everyday suburban middle class Canadians such as myself.  I'm sorry if that offends you but that's reality. 

Absolutely we need to help the less fortunate but he 2 month work year just sets the EI fund up for abuse.  Why take that chance?

In answer to the question in the OP, I am afraid of an election unless there are WINNING CONDITIONS for an election. I want an election if I think there is a really good chance that the NDP and Liberals gain enough seats that we can have some sort of a quasi-progressive government.

My fear is that right now, neither the Liberals nor the NDP have enough money (compared to what they will have in six months) and as much as its good for the NDP when the Liberals fall flat on their face, there is a great risk that Ignatieff is not ready for primetime and that we could end up with a seat configuration similar to what we have now - or worse. Which would give Harper yet another lease on life.

I could be wrong, maybe once a campaign got going Tory numbers would tank down to the low 30s and this four year nightmare might end  - but I think that there is a better chance of that if the Tories are brought down on their budget in February.

George Victor wrote:

Jeez I wish you would give others some credit for having just a tad as much moral outrage as yourself, u. Some of the time, at least.  It's getting so I just have to respond in defence.

George, I used to read your posts with interest, but I stopped when you started referring to people as the Great Unread.

Now I don't know why I'm bothering, but you defended Mr.Canada_ts against my charge that he was "heartless".

In order to prove my point, he said (among many other offensive things):

Quote:

We cannot afford to give everything to the poorest and let everyone else pay for it.  This isn't responsible.

And how about this:

Quote:

Me not supporting some working for 45 working days in order to collect EI for a year doesn't make me heartless.  It makes me responsible and I would wish everyone would take responsibility for themselves.

And what about this:

Quote:

At the same time there is a group of people collecting EI who are habitual collecters who will work the minimum then collect for a year and do nothing over that time.  Then work again for the minimum...etc.  I personally know of people who do this.

You say I shouldn't feel morally superior to this Mike Harris sound-alike?

Ok, George, thanks for listening, I'm going back to ignore.

i'm with stockholm.

you read these newspaper jackasses assuming that jack's trying to avoid an election because the polls aren't looking good for the ndp. sure, that could be some of it, but the polls aren't all that for the ndp. the real issue is that jack doesn't want a cpc majoirty. that would be a very bad result for the ndp, it would mean irrelevance. with how things are, he just can't risk ending his leadership with four years of a completely irrelevant ndp followed by a smashing liberal victory, riding a consolidation of the left.

George Victor wrote:

 

Get a grip, u. You move easily from bullying to condescension.

You don't bother to respond to my post, because you can't possibly refute it.

Ha!  I'd say pots and kettles but that would be an insult to kettles everywhere.

Edited ..............