With signiifcant lead in the polls and Liberals in disarray, is it only a matter of time until Harper pulls the plug?

Rabble acting up again..triple post on one click....

I've made the point a number of times that Harper looking like getting a majority is within his grasp is not good enough for him to want to pull the plug.

"Want"... maybe. Go ahead and do ? ....another story.

They have to be able to reasonably expexct a majority outcome.

Not, "if everything goes just right we can get a majority."

It has to be, "the numbers support us getting a majority unless something goes really wrong."

Because what thay have now works for them- they govern and drive the agenda without a majority. While if they go for an election and don't get a majority- they are very exposed to losing it. The Libs don't need a Coalition or a formal accord of any kind... just the government going down in the Throne Speech. That is by no means a certainty to happen, and under normal conditions it wouldn't be vey likley to work. But we aren't in normal- so its pretty risky for Harper to take that chance when what he has now works.

All that said, he is now getting into majority range in the polls. Not enough polls to confirm that. And the real test is what thier own intensive and analytical polling tells them- which will never be public.

But even in the not very likely event they are already there, they also have to engineer their own defeat, or just pull the plug again. On those two I'm going to repost what I've already said yesterday in the polling thread.

..... it would be political suicide for Harper to just call an election because he's ahead in the polls. For the near future at least.

Think ahead to Spring and the Budget, Olympics glow, etc. May not get better a time for Harper to have an election. But if hes clearly poised to get a majority [not just having it 'within reach'] then the opposition parties will vote for almost anything. The Budget is going to have to be good enough to please swing voters- no posion pill there. Even next Spring, faced with not being able to enginner an election, I just can't see Harper being able to hold the positive polling numbers after just pulling the plug and calling an election. Then he's back to all his negatives with the swing voters he needs.

I can see one, maybe even two of the opposition parties come Spring seeing it in their strategic interest to have an election even if Harper is most likely to get a majority. But there is no chance that all 4 parties can see it as in their selfish interest to have an election.... so no matter how things change it would appear to me that if Harper has winning conditions for getting a majority, he'll never poison pill all 3 opposition parties into swallowing it.

On the other hand- a year from now we can expect he'll be able to just call an election without any significant blowback. But we'll see whether he's positioned for a majority then. A year is a LONG time in Canadian politics. We could have 5 turnabouts by then.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/10/09/ignatieff-strategy-harper.html

Quote:

"What I said was we lost confidence in the government. I didn't say we're going to move more motions of non confidence. We did that, we stood up, we took a position of principle," Ignatieff said.

"What I've said consistently for a month is in those cases where the government brings forth legislation we can support or approve or amend, we'll do so. My strategy is not to make parliamentary government impossible."

Ignatieff would not say whether his party would try to topple the government the next time there's an opposition day or a bill that's a motion of confidence.

"I'm not going to discuss what we're going to do moving forward," he said. "It's very important for me to keep the capacity to make decisions as they arise."

 Notwithstanding his pro forma denial, that is most definitely an unequivocal message of turnabout.

You are ignoring the 'details' of how they would pull it off.

I surmised above that there might barely be enough time to engineer an election. But now that Iggys changed his mind [again] they'd have to flat out pull the plug and call the election.

And thats such a non-starter that I don't know if they would even bother with the polling and focus group questions to see if its possible they can do that without backlash.

Even the Spring seems to me unlikely that they could pull off just calling an election. But we're not there yet and who knows what things will be like.

But right now: not a chance. There's no way that research is going to tell them they can do that and expect to get a majority.

Were talking conservative here and if they feel they can get a majority they will call an election. It is probably knawing at them bigtme. There brain is echoing with a hypnotic  " opportunity only knocks once"....

Don't be fooled about all this ..Canadians don't want an election crap. When the conservative propaganda machine wants one believe me you will be begging to vote just to be like the majority who now will feel like having an election if it means a harper majority....or Canadians want certainty and would love to vote while christmas shopping ....just watch how they play the public off as gullible fools.

I don't think the conservatives are going to wait till they drop in the polls .....and there sure not going to wait a year and face 100's of thousands of Canadians whose extended UI has run out and they lost everything...and there sure not going to wait for the US to start recovering and not buy Canadian, and look like failures.

Nope they will seize the opportunity.

Here's what I think we are going to get if Harper Crews internal polling tells them they really are in territory where they can expect a majority if an election happens, but not if they call it.

For virtually all the time Dion was leader the Conservatives saw it as to there advantage if there was another election- regardless of whether they could expect a majority. The prospect of beating down the Liberals was a good thing in its own right, and Coalition or something like it just wasn't on any radar.

Harper changed all that for good by massively overeaching a year ago. And no matter how much Harper is able to use the bogeyman of Coalition to scare people, he can't put the genie he loosed back in the bottle. Because in the immediate aftermath of an election, no formal arrangements are required to thorw the government out at the Throne Speech.

I've already said I'm convinced that Harper is not going to think he can get away with calling an election and still getting majority support. Not at least until Spring, and only possibly then.

But if polling tells him he'll get a majority as long as he doesn't call the election, then he can go back to being pure bully boy like he was when Dion was around.

Not that the somewhat leashed version of Stephen Harper we've been seeing since last Christmas has been willing to compromise. But if polling tells him he gets a majority, then were going to get back the eye poking Harper who governs as if he has a majority, instead of the temporary version we've had who won't compromise like minority governments are suppossed to but hasn't enough rope to do as he pleases either.

[And Iggy is doing his part of morphing into a hapless Dion II.]

Its hard for an opposition paty to set a trap. So you can count out the Liberals.

How can Harper pull the plug on his own phony minority government? Alright-alright, so he's watching the polls for the green light to make a grab for phony majority dictatorial power Brian Baloney style. I get it. Boy, Steve "I was a lap poodle for Crazy George II" Harper is a bleetin' genus.

.

.

Dear Jan, according to Linda McQuaig's column (Oct., 6), the Peace Dept. initiative is a private member's bill by NDP MP Bill Siksay and Liberal MP Jim Karygiannis.

I imagine that it would be seen for what it is - fairly naked patronage / vote-buying. Quebec City and the surrounding regions are the base of CPC support in Quebec, so why not reward them with some federal pork?  It's not like the Cons are going to be winning any seats in Hamilton anytime soon, although it might make life a little uncomfortable for David Sweet and Dean Allison.

autoworker wrote:

remind wrote:

Now in respect to Harper's QC problem, apparently a new hockey arena is be proposed for Quebec City, so that they can get a new NHL franchise.

I wonder how this story will play in Hamilton?

Was wondering the same myself, in respect whathisname billionaire wanting to buy the Coyotes, and the NHL refusing, when they are in Canada now looking for cities to move struggling southern states teams to as  they see Canada as the place to be.

Seems to me there is something very political going on with the denial of his bid, and the seeking of others to take up NHL franchises. I am just not sure what it is yet.

Tommy - Yep.  I'm leaning toward early spring.  It should be interesting to see how much attitudes toward another election have changed with another 5-7 months behind us, and with Iggy first challenging the government with fightin' words and then backing off.

Jan - Exactly.  There's no way (none!) that Iggy looks authentic as an advocate of peace.  He has too long a record of enthusiasm for war, empire, and "lesser evil" slippery slopes to square that circle.  He would only hurt himself by giving his critics occasion to bring up his past.  I'm sure you remember this.

Tommy_Paine wrote:

 

I think Harper wants to go into an election with a good cushion in the poll numbers, knowing he's likely to go down some during the election campaign. 

I think the question now is early or late spring.

I agree that the Cons want a cushion before pulling the plug. But I don't think they'll wait until spring.  The polls are about as good as it'll get for them.  If they think they can hold on to their current numbers, they'll call an election, and come out swinging.  There's too much uncertainty, over the near horizion,  for Harper to hope for better numbers in the spring.  Besides, the Cons have been on an election footing for some time, and they can't stay poised indefinately, without losing some of their advantage. 

Trick or Treat...Harper's Haunted House,  Iggy's Tales from the Crypt,  Jack's-O- Lantern,  the Bloc's mummified option, and Lizzie's Creature from the Tar Pits...they'll all be making their scariest pitches real soon...BOO!

No election this year.

Spring: not very likely.

No way. The campaign minimum is 36 days with voting day on a Monday. Conference starts Dec 7 which is a Monday. This means to have an election before that day (no way they would have people voting with that in the day's news) voting day would need to be November 30. To Vote November 30th the election would need to be called within the next 12 days.

That ship has sailed.

The Cons do not have enough of a cushion in the polls to be confident that they can take the backlash of an unwarranted snap election. We keep hearing the Cons are so well off but the best poll they have had places them only 5 points more than where they were and they won many seats by a hair last time. A drop of 5-10 points during a campaign can happen easily and that is enough to put them either where they were or out of government. They have campaigned against the opposition on opportunism for the last year-- they have a weak spot themselves there-- an election call now would create a retroactive backfire on all the opportunistic attacks on the opposition. They are not that stupid. If they did this-- before seeing the first poll, I'd bet against them hanging on to power.

The other thing is I believe them when they say that if they don't get a majority they think a coalition will form-- of course it won't be called a coalition but if they were to drop below something around 130 seats -- even if they the Liberals did not get more seats there would be an accord to ditch them. (Even a few more than 130 and this could happen as long as it was a drop from where they are now.) I also think they are right-- the opposition would pounce if they showed any electoral weakness.

The strong numbers they have in the polls are people who are not very committed and could be convinced to go the other way.

All that said-- the Liberals are also weak-- if they force an election then they are going to face a difficult campaign where they could lose a handful more seats. While they have few vulnerable seats they can't afford to go down further. Harper likely will just wait and see on this one. I am betting the budget will be the time. The HST is possible but not a nationwide issue-- but that could be enough-- otherwise wait for the budget.

Parity with the Greenback could be by the end of next week.

For the Spring election to happen Harper either has to have a huge "majority cushion"... which just isn't going to happen;

Or, public opinion has to shift so that it has changed to the norm of people SAY, they don't want an election.... but negligible numbers of the critical swing voters will not have their decision 'tip' against Harper over them calling the election.

Remember: it will not be people tipping against Harper [or not] directly because of "he's calling an election."

It is that Harper calling an election will play upon very durable suspicions of Harper even among swing voters favourable didposed to him and his governance.

Even just "in principle" its easy to see how Harper Crew can trump those semtiments about his ruthlessness. They did that last year. But it never goes away and its never the done deal people around here brush it off as.

Last year swing voters were willing to give Harper the benefit of the doubt on his claim that he was "unable to govern" with the staus quo, and needed a "new mandate." But they didn't go iinto pulling the plug last year knowing they would get that outcome. And last year was different: no one saw them as risking their ability to govern. [No majority- we still govern.]

Next time around, they are putting their ability yo govern on the line if they seek a majority. And at  best for them, the old reservations about Harper as alive and latent as ever.

I think that come Spring Harper is going to have to do a much more definitive job than they did last year of portraying the opposition parties as obstructing him being able to govern effectively.

Thats going to be a classic talk and chew gum challenge. All their good news announcements are reinforcing among swing voters that they are getting what they need. They won't care about the growing deficit and most of them who would consider the Conservatives are not left hanging by the 'jobless recovery'.

What that people really want to see will they not be getting because of the opposition parties? Nothing.

Demonizing Iggy and give away your money Layton and traitor Gilles will no doubt make all of them more unlikeable to swing voters.... but it will be no mean feat to connect that to the 'oppostion is stopping us' meme.... and to insulate Harper from being seen as untrustworthy.

SCB4 wrote:

Is it possible that we could be into a Pearsonian or late 1970s  Bill Davis-type situation where a Harper minority gov't lasts 2-3 years or more prior to an election?

And the more recent precedent of several years of Nova Scotia PC minority govt.

I think it could easily go that long. But even if it does, will be nothing like the predecessors.

There was a large amount of civil society consensus of and popularity around those governments. There is none of that around Harper and never will be. Just exhaustive power games,  mixed liberally with farce and shadow boxing.  

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

The other thing is I believe them when they say that if they don't get a majority they think a coalition will form-- of course it won't be called a coalition but if they were to drop below something around 130 seats -- even if they the Liberals did not get more seats there would be an accord to ditch them. (Even a few more than 130 and this could happen as long as it was a drop from where they are now.) I also think they are right-- the opposition would pounce if they showed any electoral weakness.

I think its worse than that for the Cons- even more risky.

They have so polarized and so left the Liberals without options that it is not unlikely that the opposition parties would pounce even if the Cons gain a few seats or stay the same. In other words: even without the opposition parties being able to claim progress in the election outcome.

Of course, the fewer seats the opposition parties have, the harder it is to pull that off. And indirectly: the more likely that at least one of the opposition parties suffered more than moinor losses and becomes easier for the government to rope into a deal to survive the Throne Speech.

But those relative probabilities don't matter. What matters is what is known now. And what Harper Crew knows is that things have changed such that unless they are confident of achieving a majority- which includes being able to withstand any erosion of support over calling the election- then they are risking losing the reigns of power.

Not to mention that what they have to lose looks be even more now. Because even if there is the massive condition around being in majority territory [as long as they don't call the election] then they can drop even the shreds of restraint they have shown in the last several months over pushing the Liberals into corners.

Don't forget the simpleton factor...If harper went on an election tour and there was a piano placed in the hall, his supporters would get him to play a song. This will be covered by the media and the talk shows and project him into majority territory on a daily basis.

Hell if he charged money and donated it to a worthwhile cause he would be supported even more by the media and simpleton canuck would suck every note up. Oh yeh he is going to call an election asap while he's on a roll.

So does Jack Layton have any talents?....Canadian idol fed style..hahaha

In any case, these stunts only work when they allow you to run counter to how you are stereotyped. Harper is steroetyped as this cold, aloof automaton (and there is more than a a graon of truth to that) - so for him to play the piano and sing was a good way for him to try to change the public perception of him. Layton is already seen as a HOAG (hell of a guy) who most people would choose as the party leader they would most like to have a drink with etc... and people probably already think of Layton as someone who probably likes to sing and dance etc... so there is nothing to be gained for him to put on a performance like that. Layton has the opposite problem of harper. He has to prove that he is a serious guy and get past the "bonhommie".

This case is different. The bottom is falling out for Iggy, and there has to be a reason given for the change of tactics. "We're listening" is the order of the day.