Canadian parliament prorogued again; Part 3
Wilf posted an interesting link at the end of the last thread. ;)
And I believe OO's observations in the democracy thread about the Conservatives and Harper being bewildered about Canadians negative response to their proroguing again, and that they are trying to find an avenue out of their created mess, are accurate.
So does anyone know what the opposition parties are up to today?
From Brian White in previous threads on this topic:Our government in Ottawa is not democratically legitimate - and yet this is the government that is foot-dragging on international action on climate change, boosting the Alberta tar sands, and arbitrarily proroguing Parliament. This ends the Afghanistan torture enquiry, while conveniently giving time to appoint enough new senators to create a Conservative majority in the unelected Senate, locking in their influence for years to come.
It weakens the dignity of all Canadians to be ruled in such a manner. There is a direct line that can be traced from our ‘skunk of the world' reputation on climate change to our being governed like this.
---
Here here!! The NAYS have it.
Proroguing Parliament is clearly an act of self-preservation for Harper and the CPC, with the torture allegations breathing down their neck.
It is a betrayal for sure, and even CPC supporters should be outraged. If anyone votes for these hoodlums again it will be a disgrace to all of us.
In rural BC the opposition, especially the NDP, have to push the anti-democratic nature of Harper . He still benefits from some of the old Reform voters who actually wanted reform not the liberals on steroids. They need to get the message about democracy out and it needs to be loud and clear. I think it can mean wins in seats in the north and interior that the Reform used to own.
I am not so sure that the Cons can change the game here-- they can threaten but are not in a position to call an election themselves.
Do you really think so? I did, but not anymore.
Joan Bryden from CP is reporting tonight that key government insiders say Harper "has no appetite for an election" and doesn't think there is in the Canadian public either.
Which means to me that he WAS considering it and floated a trial balloon ... which he's just retracted and is now in serious damage control mode (otherwise why else would he go on the CBC).
Wilf, you linked to the wrong group. It is This one. Mind you, it is not just the rapid growth of this group that is amazing, but the number of similar groups that have sprung up.
Over 48,400 members of Canadians Against Proroguing Parliament. That's about 1,000 more in the last half hour. I've never, ever, seen this speed of growth. Even from the Ontario teen drivers' protest.
it is not just the rapid growth of this group that is amazing, but the number of similar groups that have sprung up.
Indeed. For example, Canadians Against Proroguing Parliament Planning Committee (Ottawa Chapter).
50,126.
Watched Harpo on The National - spin, spin, spin. He even says he's less partisan than before. The gall of the man!
Peter Milquetoast was pathetic. He barely even tried on the Afghan detainees question, and didn't touch the production of papers at all.
I am not so sure that the Cons can change the game here-- they can threaten but are not in a position to call an election themselves.
Do you really think so? I did, but not anymore.
Yes I do-- I wondered if he might a couple months ago-- it would have been a big risk but with Ignatief down he could have said-- well you asked for it, you want it let's clear the air because we can't have parliament work without getting it over with. No doubt that strategy was discussed and determined to be too risky. The upside of course would have been to capitalize on Liberal weaknes before any stinky stuff came out and before the next budget which is going to be difficult for the Cons to manage.
However, this latest tactic to shut parliament only works if some time is allowed for people to forget it so I think that means Harper is committed to go at least to the fall since he won't have anything to buy June votes with in this budget. I am thinking that Harper may now be playing to govern with a majority untill to the end of the mandate.
I suspect he will bring in the election financing changes he wants when the house comes back as part of the budget. It is his best play. Then he can say the opposition is only against the budget for selfish reasons and that is the only time they actually will get together and vote him down. I think he will prepare for them to do so but I don't think they will-- then he will govern till the end of the mandate with the financial squeeze growing cumulatively stronger on the opposition with each year. Otherwise he cold serve up the opposition screwing by itself as he knows that Canadians in a tight economy won't support them. The problem with doing so would be to have that measure seen as the screwing it is -- that is why putting it in the budget with other measures of fiscal restraint might be better then he can say well they have no trouble with this-- it is just the financing. The election financing card is also a reminder that the opposition is selfish and power-hungry and in bed with seperatists and socialists. Given he has little else this is his best card to play and timing is everything. He needs to hold it until he has some unpleasant news to mix that reminder with in order to prevent the opposition from a bad budget bounce.
A quick election is not something he can follow this shutting down of parliament trick but the election financing is the perfect channel changer mixed in with a budget. So no, I think the plan is to play this out a little.
Naturally the opposition needs to be prepared for both possible strategies the election call (which I feel is very unlikely and the financing pinch which I think is next.
The nice thing about the election financing is that it can distract from other troubles as well and might throw the opposition off the hunt and on to a defensive play for a bit.
Not enough cheap labour in Kanada:
http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics/2010/01/05/12358921-qmi.html
People don't care about Afghan detainee issue: Harper
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/746448--people-don-t-care-abo...
I'm pretty sure I read a quote today from a government or Conservative official, saying that the party financing would be in the next platform but not in the next budget. I think the opposition parties would see it as a poison pill. Would the Liberals cave to save it? God knows. Should the NDP intervene to save the Liberals from themselves again? I don't know why we bother, given the thanks we got for it last time.
Presuming we should take the Conservative official at his word now, then if the measure *does* appear in the March budget anyway, we can assume that Harper will have changed his mind and either wants to pull the plug the following weekend, or wants the opposition to force an election or deliver a complete humiliation of the Liberals. Such a move will grievously threaten the financial viability of the Liberal party, which has a MUCH more expensive overhead than either the Bloc or us because they maintain both a national office and a set of provincial-territorial associations. They also run campaigns using a mass-media strategy, which depends on having dollars available to lock down ad space, pay for lots of marketing-type polling and good production values, and run a snazzy leader's tour.
If the Libs cave, then I bet you will start to see a series of retirement announcements from their older MPs, with the PM moving to call by-elections as soon as possible in order to try and change the parties' relative momentums. They won't be able to concentrate on their march thinkers' conference. And pressure will build on Ignatieff, which he's demonstrated he's terrible at coping with.
I suspect he will bring in the election financing changes he wants when the house comes back as part of the budget. It is his best play.
Dont think so. Think Spectors idea of dissolution immidiately following Budget tabling, while not perfect for Harper, will work the best for a Spring election. Its certain, and unless polling in the next 2 months tell them the optics will look VERY bad, they'll go ahead and pull the plug.
Here's my take, modified from something I first wrote elsewhere.
I don't buy the logic of Spector and other pundits, and thinking popular on the left, that Harper is driven by the visceral goal of getting a majority- not anymore at least.
He has for most of his 4 years been governing as if he has a majorty- and constantly pushes the envelope to make it more like that here and now. "Go ahead and stop me."
He has consistently acted in a manner where he will not risk that bird in the hand for the mere possibility of getting a majority.
And ever since his stupid big overeach of a year ago, the next election we have, he HAS to get a majority, or he will most likely be out of power.
Because of the way he has governed, and because the Liberals have become too weakened to make the mistake again of waitng for the "better" chance to govern on their own.... even if Harper falls just 2 seats short of a majority, he's out.
Sure he'd rather have a majority, but he isn't going to risk what he has that works very well for him, for the mere chance to get a majority.
The closest they have ever gotten in the polls is "majority territory"- where if everything goes right for them they MIGHT get a majority. And it won't be any different in early March... not in terms of what can be EXPECTED, which is what all parties go on for their strategic choices.
Hence my initial raction that nothing has changed, and don't expect a Spring election.
BUT....
An election in 2011 is inevitable for a myriad of reasons.
Which is the same time that the situation gets really bad for fiscal manouvering room for the federal government. It is highly likely that Harper crew knows that even with all the spending cuts they have planned, the need for tax increases is inevitable.
The cuts in spending will already not endear them with the swing voters they need to get a majority. And bringing in tax increases for Harper would cost them with the same voters.
So the prospects of an election in 2011 may not look good at all for them.
That being the case, even if they cannot expect to get a majority out of an election now... "maybe" they can get a majority now, is better than "much diminished chance" later.
I'm not saying 2011 is necessarily going to look that bad for them now, but if it does, which seams quite likely....
And if it is going to be a Spring election, it would be that scenario of Throne Soeech, Budget presented the next day, pull the plug and call an early April election on the weekend.
I don't think they will get a better set up than that.
And it certainly doesn't hurt the jugular of the Liberals is quite exposed. Harper wouldn't go for that alone. But if an election in 2011 is inevitable, the fiscal situation then sucks, and the Liberals can get back in the groove by then... then now is the time. Unless polling tells then the chances for a majority are slim.
On CBC Power & Politics tonight
Evan Solomon: ". . . 132 top political scientists are calling for changes in the way we vote. But how can electoral reform address concerns over prorogation?"
Larry Gordon "This is just the latest blow-up, the latest problem that we've been seeing in Ottawa with the constant partisan bickering, the unstable government . . . We are using the world's worst voting system . . . The big parties know that 40% of the votes may be enough to give them 60% of the seats and 100% of the power. It creates a disincentive to work together in constructive co-operative partnerships with other parties to pass legislation that actually reflects the will of the majority of the electorate. . . I think there is a strong visceral anger that Canadian have about politics not working . . . The more we see democratic deficit crises erupt, the more people are going to start connecting the dots between their visceral anger about politics and the fact that we need to reform our democratic instutitions so that politics can work more for the benefit of the people rather than be just a power shell game that the politicians are playing. . . Canadians aren't going to put up with a lot more of this."
Evan Solomon: "If we had a different system, proportional representation, how would this prorogation, would that have been different, Dennis?
Prof. Dennis Pilon: "Oh, absolutely. Our current system creates incentives for the politicians not to co-operate with each other. There's always an incentive to throw the dice and see if you can turn 40% of the vote into 60% of the seats. The thing about a PR system is it would end that. Because now the politicians would know they wouldn't get anything more from going back to the electorate. In fact the electorate would punish them, and say "we elected you to work something out and that's what we want you to do." So all this talk about changing the parliamentary rules, that's not going to make a difference. This is the key institution that will alter the way the politicians act to power."
I think they judge that they still get a win if they come out with another minority but a Liberal party that can't sustain another campaign financially. That's as good as a minority unless the Liberals are so weak they go knocking on the NDP's door.
If the NDP can pass the Bloc in the number of seats they win plus take even a couple more seats in Quebec, then I think some things could really start to open up in that province, which might also keep the Conservatives interested in hanging around for one more try as well.
Joan Bryden from CP is reporting tonight that key government insiders say Harper "has no appetite for an election" and doesn't think there is in the Canadian public either.
Which means to me that he WAS considering it and floated a trial balloon ... which he's just retracted and is now in serious damage control mode (otherwise why else would he go on the CBC).
I read it as still ready to go both ways... this being another trial balloon, with more to follow. With this being part of a narrative of 'we didn't want to do this' if in the end they pull the plug.
And I don't think they need to do damage control... at least not this early. If they decide to use the prorogue followed by Budget only to change the channel [dump the election option], and it turns out to not be helping them.... no sweat, they've got another year to recover from that. Easily done.
And unfortunately, I think one possible development that Harper will be looking for is the opposition to overplay their hand, with ensuing grumblings from swing voters that don't have to be as strong as the backlash at Timmies against the Coalition last year. If that grumbling develops any momentum, it will be part of the narrative of "lets reslove this." Said narrative doesnt have to be convincing to provide sufficient cover for pulling the plug.
I'm afraid the manouvering room for the opposition parties is rather narrow. If there is little sustained reaction to the prorogue, he goes ahead and pulls the plug. If the rabble are at the gates, he uses that and pulls the plug.
I think they judge that they still get a win if they come out with another minority but a Liberal party that can't sustain another campaign financially. That's as good as a minority unless the Liberals are so weak they go knocking on the NDP's door.
Dont think this is true for the Conservatives any more. Used to think so.
Things have changed enough for the Liberals such that them going knocking on the NDPs door is predictable this time. It always did have its advantages, and the prospects of being on the ropes waiting for the still governing Conservatives to bring on yet another election they cannot afford... will push aside the downsides of partnering with the NDP.
While by no means certain this would be the Liberals choice after another minority result, at a minimum it is too likely for Harper to bank on it not happening.
![http://profile.ak.fbcdn.net/object2/1470/27/n260348091419_3725.jpg[/img]](https://profile.ak.fbcdn.net/object2/1470/27/n260348091419_3725.jpg[/img]){kind=link}
Kens -- I don't follow your logic-- on the one hand you seem to be saying Harper won't pull the plug becasue he does not need to and it is too risky-- that is entirely in agreement with what I am saying. However, you seem to think that the financing issue would force an election-- that is where I think we disagree-- I think it would be used to prevent an election because an election on that issue the Cons are more likely to win a majority than not-- the public is profoundly ignorant of the value party financing has to our democracy (such as it is) and Harper knows that and can crank out the propaganda accordingly. I think Harper will trot this out when he does not want an election rather than when he does. Things have changed since late 2008 when the opposition might have forced an election on the issue-- noiw they would rather see it go away. The opposition parties would like to bring Harper down on something other than somethign so self-serving as this given the population does not get the wider implications. In any case the resurection of the party financing changes are not going to increase the chance of an election -- only two things will do that: either 1) Harper thinks he can make gains-- (since he is so close this means a majority) or the opposition thinks they can defeat him.
When it comes to the opposition the parties have different reasons that add up to the same thing: the Liberals cannot afford more elections that result in them being out of power and broke-- even if they gained a few seats. The NDP also cannot afford another election that does not result in a change of government. In the NDP's case it is not about the money as it is for the Liberals. It is about the discrediting of minority parliament. In the first past the post system, a discrediting of a minority parliament is a prescription for people to leave the NDP, hold their noses and vote Liberal to avoid a minority. The NDP are keenly aware of the need to make minorities work because the party cannot return to the old days where it was powerful in a majority house -- it will either fade to next to nothing in a majority situation or prove that minorities are worth the risk and flourish-- hopefully to land on top at some point and govern. There is no standing still anymore- progress or loss. This is one reason the NDP will think twice before forcing any election. They have long term implications to consider. I admit the others do as well- more lost elections now could bankrupt the Liberals; elections where nothing changes could make voting BQ look increasingly futile especially since the Bloc does not appear to be securing anything from this parliament. The Conservatives only have to worry if they actually lose.
As for the Cons worrying about a coalition-- they don't. They believe it would fail and result in a majority Con government. So Harper is probably content to win another minority but does not want to risk a lose because that would end his leadership, expose the Cons to real examinations and inquiries and set them back where they started. So if the Cons are not safe there will be no election and if the Liberals are not safe, they will not force an election-- I am sure that has been explained to Ignatief. For the Liberals they are in an impossible position and the only way out is to be honest-- and say they won't force an election that will not change the government and will show opposition in other ways until we the people tell the pollsters we have had enough. Of course being honest is something the Liberals are just not good at doing.
Of course my above post does show a weakness for the Cons-- the fact they believe a coalition would fail. I don't know if it would myself-- it might. So I think the Cons could allow an election they believe they can only win a minority as long as they do not think they would lose outright. Still what would be the point of calling an election for a minority when you have a strong one already? Besides Harper I think would prefer to be brought down rather than pull the plug himself-- unless he could lose-- and around we go again with the same arguments.
Kens -- I don't follow your logic-- on the one hand you seem to be saying Harper won't pull the plug becasue he does not need to and it is too risky-- that is entirely in agreement with what I am saying.
Thats what I used to think. What has changed is the "need to" part, which is a 3 point argument:
1- Next time its majority or out for Harper. So he won't risk what he has for the mere possibility of getting a majority. Even "good possibility" of getting that majority is not sufficient to risk the bird in the hand.
2- BUT, an election in 2011 is inevitable, and its highly likely that Harper Crew sees conditions sucking badly enough that getting a majority then looks to be a very difficult row to hoe. That if they wait until then, the greatest likelihood is that they'll lose power.
3- March looks substantially better for the prospects of getting a majority. They aren't wearing the fiscal situation yet, and they couldn't hit the Liberals at a better time. Taking their chances now being considerably better than expecting to lose in 2011. [Of course the caveat: providing polling over the next couple months does not show that an election now is as unlikely to give them a majority as they fear 2011 will give them.]
However, you seem to think that the financing issue would force an election-- that is where I think we disagree-- I think it would be used to prevent an election because....
I suspect we have in common that our posts frequently confuse a lot of people around here... so confusing each other is to be expected. I confuse myself sometimes.
I don't think the resurfacing of the election financing issue in proposed legislation is anywhere on the horizon. They'll just dangle it out there now and again.
I have not digested the rest of your comment. My 3 point comment above should stand on its own, and if I add more right now Ill probably just muddy the waters.
Besides Harper I think would prefer to be brought down rather than pull the plug himself--
Agreed. But that does not contradict the logic of my 3 pointer.
I disagree; I think Harper thinks it's undignified to lose on a confidence vote most of the time, and would rather dissolve parliament when he's good and ready to do himself. The other issue that tipped it for me is the implementation date of the HST (July 1), which is why I think the March for April 12 reasoning is sound. I agree with most of the rest of what you guys are thinking though.
As for the Cons worrying about a coalition-- they don't. They believe it would fail and result in a majority Con government.
Freeze the frame.
Prior to that, your discussion about the logic for the Liberals and NDP, I generally agree with. Where we disagree is what is in the hopper for the Conservatives. In Harper's hopper. [and then there is the Harbour Hopper in Halifax]
There is my 3 pointer logic above that I think compells the Conservatives, and they make the choices.
In turn, the power to make the choices, which for Haper has meant he has been able to at all times pursue a multi-option strategy, and push the button on the one that looks best when choosing time comes... is precisely why he will not relinquish the reigns to power until he has to.
It is indeed very likely that a coalition or accord government would fail... but its by no means a certainty. And especially with the worm turning on who makes the choices. Caving to the NDP or the Bloc to keep the governemnt going would not be fun for the Liberals, but hugely less ugly than what they are going through now.
So if the Cons are not safe there will be no election...
Freeze frame again: there is no "safe" for the Conservatives.
They know getting a majority will always be hard. But if getting a majority next time is required, not just desired.... with 2011 looking bad, while going now looks like it may be OK... then OK it is.
House shut? Liberals to report for work anyway
OTTAWA–Liberal MPs have decided to defy Prime Minister Stephen Harper's shutdown of Parliament by showing up for work anyway in Ottawa the last week of January.
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/746615--house-shut-liberals-t...
Being present means just about nothing. The Caucus meeting they would have anyway is in Ottawa.
Wow.
But at least they are open to having hearings on the detainee issue.
Touche! - the bully is going to get one between the eyes!
Kevin Page to mess up orchestration of the election psuedo-Budget
Prorogation will not silence Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page, who plans to release three substantive reports in the run-up to the March budget.
With key decisions to be made as to the content of the 2010 budget, Mr. Page says he owes it to MPs to publish these reports while they are still timely.
And he particularly owes it to Mr. Harper, returning all the favours so to speak.
His next report, which could come out as early as next week, will explore an issue Finance Minister Jim Flaherty doesn't want to talk about.
It will provide an in-depth analysis in support of the view that Canada faces a "structural" deficit - meaning the country will be stuck in the red even when the economy bounces back.
It is a conclusion that strikes at the core of one of the Conservative government's most cherished accomplishments: slashing the goods and services tax rate to 5 per cent from 7 per cent.
In a November report, Mr. Page pegged this gap at $18.9-billion for the 2013-2014 fiscal year. His next report will provide more context to this finding, including how Canada's aging population will affect government revenues.
As well as not wanting this in the script now, this is the inescapable elephant in the room for 2011... couple with an inevitable election, spells big trouble for Harper Crew if they wait. [Not to mention that the opportunity may have passed for being able to mercilessly pummel the Liberals in a campaign.]
Mr. Flaherty consistently dismisses concerns regarding a structural deficit, insisting that phasing out the short-term stimulus and reining in routine spending - combined with a growing economy - will be enough to balance the books.
And thats why we are poised for an election now. Because Flaherty can get away with saying this now- they may well even be able to shout Kevin Page down.
But by 2011, the pretending will be over. Trimming program spending here and there will not do the job, and they know it. Its either cut into big ticket transfers to individuals that will make it impossible for them to woo enough swing voters to get a majority; or replace the tax revenues they took out with the GST cuts, and make it impossible for them to woo enough swing voters to get a majority.
"Our objective is to ensure parliamentarians have timely access to relevant analysis," Mr. Page told The Globe and Mail. "The government has not provided their own estimates of the structural balance or the impact of aging demographics on federal finances. In this respect, we are not providing a critique, but adding to the analysis required to have a thoughtful debate about the fiscal planning environment when Parliament resumes."
Mr. Page, on the other hand, can simply post his reports online. He said his office will also provide background briefings to interested MPs, members of the media and government officials when he releases his next report on the topic of a structural deficit.
Ah, what a helpful guy.
I still don't believe the spring election scenario - HOWEVER I think there is a distinct posibility that others are overlooking.
Everyone is assuming the next budget will be an icky one. But is doesn't have to be - especially if you plan to never actually implement it. What you do is load it up with one or two nice items - leaving out all the cutting anyone following politics knows is coming, but newsflash the vast majority of Canadians don't.
So you table a nice, fake budget, run on that- get your election out of the way - hope for a majority, but a demoralized opposition will do too, and THEN bring in your real slash and burn budget hoping all the pissed off feelings have blown over by the next election. Let's see who was involved in trying to do that when they were the Ontario finance Minister and can anyone think of a recent election where a big financial taxation piece was not even mentioned during the election. It is cynical beyond belief, but then this government has shown it to be more than willing to cynically use anything they can, and then to just make shit up when they need to.
i don't understand how the NDP could have planned a caucus retreat for what otherwise would have been a usual Parliament day.
It's not. Their retreat is scheduled for the week earlier. It's the Liberals who appear to have scheduled one for the 25th now.
L. Ian MacDonald weighs in, with similar comments to those I transcribed from CTV Newsnet last week. Noteworthy is this quote:
There can be only two reasons for lacing the budget with poison pills - the kind of measures, such as the announced end to taxpayer funding of political parties in 2008, that could bring the opposition parties together again.
The first would be that Harper thinks he can get away with it. And the second would be that he sees a majority in the offing, and wants to trigger the defeat of his government.
Either would be a big mistake, potentially a fatal miscalculation. The government has done very well over the past year by managing the economy through the recession to recovery. It has been seen as serious about staying in Ottawa and running the country, while the Liberals paid a huge price for trying to force an election the country didn't want. This just in - the country still doesn't want one, and the voters will punish anyone who plays that game in the short term.
so why did the article at the star posted by debater imply the NDP were taking a 'caucus retreat' instead of showing up for work?
and if libs are now taking a retreat on the twenty-fifth, then the star article is incorrect in that regard as well.
or are the libs just doing a PR stunt ?
Here here!! The NAYS have it.
Proroguing Parliament is clearly an act of self-preservation for Harper and the CPC, with the torture allegations breathing down their neck.
It is a betrayal for sure, and even CPC supporters should be outraged. If anyone votes for these hoodlums again it will be a disgrace to all of us.
Yes indeed. Let's hope we have all learned from our past mistakes.
the line in question:
"So on Jan. 25, when Parliament was originally scheduled to resume, the Liberal caucus will be in the capital. New Democrats, meanwhile, are to hold their caucus retreat in nearby Wakefield, Que., the previous week and at least some NDP MPs will likely be around Ottawa that final week in January."
it seems like the paper is just spinning the words a certain way. very confusing.
the reader sees "Liberals ...in the capital" and then "New Democrats, meanwhile...retreat".
when in actuality, as noted above, it is the Liberals who will be on retreat and the NDP available for work.
On CBC Power & Politics tonight
Evan Solomon: ". . . 132 top political scientists are calling for changes in the way we vote. But how can electoral reform address concerns over prorogation?"
Interesting, but I'm not seeing this text or the show on this topic at the link. Is this material there?
Bookish has a point in post 30-- I agree this is not being considered and I had not thought of it. But now that I do-- you can take it even further. The government can propose things in a budget and not do them-- the actual implementation can be in the budget but does not need to be. The money can be set aside in the budget for future legislation. This has been done before in order to get the benefit of doing something twice but it can also set up a budget and then quietly just not go through with implementation.
The other way to create cutbacks is not to limit the budget but use the terms and conditions. In a sense this is what was done with the stimulus money-- the conditions and terms limited the types of projects rather than the actual legislation.
There are many ways to do things if you are a government committed to impression rather than honesty. BA you have it right on this!
As well, the government can bury a lot of holes for a while by selling crown assets. Flaherty says we will not need deep program cuts or tax increases-- if he is wrong he can make it look like that is the case simply by selling crown assets for a couple years. Once they are gone however, the cuts/tax increases will have to come but the government can effectively buy two years with that smoke and mirrors. Since they do not believe in government ownership the squandering of national assets will not bother them.
Regardless, I am not convinced that we will go to the polls this Spring-- I am still assuming the fall at the earliest but you never know and all of us need to recognize that this is just a best guess-- even the government does not know as they may plan not to but certainly would take an opportunity if it arose so even hindsight will not answer the question.
I'm not at all convinced either that we will have an election now.
I'm just certain its being set up for that.
And that the 2 year fiscal situation is compelling enough that they will follow through and pull the trigger unless polling tells them going now is nearly as bad as waiting. Since there is a good chance their polling WILL be that bad, there is a good chance they will not pull the trigger.
Selling crown assets won't buy them 2 years time, even less so considering the lead times required even for a fire sale.
I actually voted for Harper and liked him [ya ya save it lol]
But after this he lost my vote.
Ken, when I say two years I do not suggest this will balance the books. But it does not need to. Any movement in reducing the deficit would provide an opening for the argument that it can eventually be balanced and that is all they need to get through the two years. After the massive stimulus the government only needs to show a little progress for a couple years before people will pay enough attention in the mainly compliant press. As well, budget provisions can also buy time. Sales of some assets can be very quick-- and many have been prepared for some time. So I do think that asset sales, along with some improved revenues from taxation and a reduction in stimulus spending will convince people we are going in the right direction for a couple years-- the issue of a structural deficit that will require more may be covered up that long. Of course, Page, the budget officer might sound the alarm earlier but the government will likely start showing movement quickly.
As well, I think the government may have under-estimated its deficit before going in deep and then over-estimated it at the bottom so that the valley looks sharper than it really is and progress (albeit a sham of progress) gets defined earlier and for a time. It will take two years for Conservative voters to finally grasp what has happened to the finances of the country. That the opposition already knows is irrelevant the only issue is moving votes from Conservatives and I think they can hang on to them on this issue at least for a couple years.
I actually voted for Harper and liked him [ya ya save it lol] But after this he lost my vote.
If your sitting MP is a conservative, have you written him/her to explicitly say as much?
Harper Crew will be paying for focus group research every week gauging just how much people mean it when they say they do not want an election.
And whatever it takes to get polling results with 2 days of the Throne and Budget Speeches, they are geared up for that.
And they'll have already of metrics they have to meet for pulling the plug.
I took all those ameliorating measures for the fiscal situation into account, and obviously they aren't expected to balance the books in 2 years. Bottom line, is that they have the Finance Department mandarins to work all that up. Its only my hunch that the greatest likelihood is that they won't be able to escape talking about significant tax increases.
Being able to put off implementing "new revenue sources" until 2012 or 2013, does not free you from being forced to fess up in 2011.
They are the only ones who know where that line is expected to fall. The more your hunch of sufficient manouvering room for now tends to be correct, and my 'crunch hunch' tends to be overstated.... then that takes off that much pressure on them for going ahead and pushing the button now despite the very real risks of being turfed out of power.
But I'm pretty certain that button is armed, and will stay that way right until [if] they determine that the cure of an election now is worse than the disease.
I actually voted for Harper and liked him [ya ya save it lol] But after this he lost my vote.If your sitting MP is a conservative, have you written him/her to explicitly say as much?
He is conservitive. i never thought to write him. Somehow I doubt he would care?
He is conservitive. i never thought to write him. Somehow I doubt he would care?
If he is like the Conservative MP of my riding, he will care but will just not respond to your letter. Ultimately, you will have no way of directly knowing.
Hard to say he would believe-- many people tell politicians they are changing their vote to try to get their attention when they never voted for them in the first place-- not saying you are doing this but becasue others do-- I don't see your opposition as mattering more to a Conservative than mine. Of course if enough of you move that the polling numbers change that's another story. As long as they are ahead in the polls they will look at you as an isolated case.
Peter Milquetoast was pathetic. He barely even tried on the Afghan detainees question, and didn't touch the production of papers at all.
The CBC has become a State media outlet not an independent public broadcaster. Ready Aye Ready is the overriding message from the Imperial mouthpiece. 20 years ago I thought our model of public broadcaster was superior to the American model but now if you watch PBS you get more real analysis of issues from a variety of sources than on our tax payer funded propaganda machine.
This is at the heart of why we are losing our democratic institutions. Without open and honest reporting with historic context our citizens don't even understand that what is being done is not only not normal but it is anti-democratic. I turned the local CBC radio off this morning when they began to vilify all politicians and chortle about how although few people trust journalists they are more trusted than politicians.
What Harper is doing is perfectly acceptable to the elite that controls not only our country but our media as well? The NDP needs to really push this issue because if Harper gets away with this kind of blatant disregard for the elected MP's then what is the point of voting for an MP?
___________________________________________
Soothsayers had a better record of prediction than economists
Peter Milquetoast was pathetic. He barely even tried on the Afghan detainees question, and didn't touch the production of papers at all.
He's always been the Canadian equivalent of Barbara Walters. But, the reality is that the Cons never would have made Harper available for the interview if they thought it would involve any tough questions.
The media is all that will be left-- Senate reform to shorten terms means it will reflect current politics of the House quicker so it will not oppose PM, GG is co-opted, parliament can be summoned and sent away, court decisions ignored by government. Only the media such as it is remains but with a compliant private press. The PM needs to control the CBC in order to make it a clean sweep. Then there will be no effective check or balance on PM power. That makes a perfect virtual dictatorship. Not all dictatorships come in suddenly-- some have had to consolidate power incrementally. A few examples come to mind but I do not feel the need to list them. Study your history friends.
How did this happen? I have a theory that there is a limit to social progress. When people are extremely uncomfortable they focus on survival and do nothing. When people are very uncomfortable but not to the point of being disabled by it, they make progress and fight strongly (we see that the best off people in bad situations lead revolutions). When people get comfortable they want to hold on to what they have and choose to deny the problems. We can move through these in a pendulum but cannot get past the comfort zone without sliding back enough for people to be uncomfortable again.
Of course a co-opted democracy functioning as a dictatorship is worse than an overt dictatorship when it comes to making progress. Then people do not see the source of the power or the loss of democracy as they would in a military dictatorship. They do not get involved-- they prefer to pretend it is okay because they are too invested to do otherwise.
Let us not forget the example the US gave in 2000. Bush lost the election and everyone knew it but the Democrats were so invested in the notion that the country was still democratic that they could not use the remaining tools that were available to enforce the actual will of the people. Gore knew that to admit that the country had failed in a democratic exercise would do a lot of damage to those who were well off and the economy itself and choose to ignore his victory and end legal challenges to assert it. While this tendency exists in Canada it is not so obvious and dramatic. However, here we do not want to admit that our democracy is failing and that it is so weak that a PM can chop parts of it off. Our desire to participate in the collective illusion will doom us to fail to act while there remains any ability to make a difference. We will swing, ever so slowly to the other end of the pendulum and leave it to the uncomfortable to do something about it-- and hope they can.
On the lighter side of things, last night Harper said that he prorogued Parliament so that his government could "re-calibrate it's agenda". I think that there's much to be said for "recalibration". I think everyone should just prorogue and re-calibrate things...taxes, credit card payments, student loan payments, laundry, vacuuming the carpets etc.
Thus the Facebook group "Just prorogue anything you don't feel like doing"
