We can also push the Conservatives on whether they will renounce support from the BQ on any confidence votes and for Harper to declare that if he has to depend on the BQ to stay in power - he will resign.
There will be no federal election in 2010
Mon, 2010-03-01 15:50
#52
Mon, 2010-03-01 22:56
#53
I guess Hebert doesn't buy the IR Kool-Aid. It appears she prefers the EKOS spin.
Hébert: With voters deadlocked, don't expect early election
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/773119--h-eacute-bert-with-vo...
Tue, 2010-03-02 11:57
#54
I'm starting to see some merit in what Sean is proposing as positioning for the NDP relative to the Liberals in the next campaign.
And, with each passing election, the strategic voting argument gets weaker and weaker for them.
Tue, 2010-03-02 12:26
#55
I don't see how you can push the Liberals towards declaring where they stand on governing possibilities, when making anything more than the vaguest of statements is suicidal for them.
I realize that pushing them in that direction can have positioning value even when you know they cannot afford to do it. But to reap those positioning benefits, it has to at least look like a credible prospect to some chunk of the public and/or media.
It takes more than Jack saying "I think Canadians deserve to know the choices the Liberals have in mind.?"
Let alone that he would have to say that while hedging against it being spit back at him in any number situations. For example, giving the proper 'rule nothing out' answer to questions of cooperating with the Conservatives for the purposes of passing particular legislation.
That said, I can see some positive impact from a sort of 'overarching narrative' that 'wonders' what is the guiding purpose behind the direction challenged Liberals, contrasted with explicit substantive goals coming from the NDP.
As potentially harmful as the Coalition positioning was to the NDP early in 2009, that was rooted in issues that are more resolvable for the NDP, and we can benefit from promoting more concrete governing alternatives.
Tue, 2010-03-02 12:28
#56
Harper has lost a lot of his ability to benefit by default from Candians looking for more certainty- his hyper-partisan games have torched a lot of his benefit of the doubt credibility on that. That will change what people will entertain.
[Not to mention that even Gilles Duceppe knew he was a liability last time. That mistake will not be repeated. Let alone people forget there will in the first place no need to go down that road. In the immediate aftermath of an election all the Liberals and NDP need is the absence of an agreement between the Conservatives and the Bloc.]
Tue, 2010-03-02 13:17
#57
That said, I can see some positive impact from a sort of 'overarching narrative' that 'wonders' what is the guiding purpose behind the direction challenged Liberals, contrasted with explicit substantive goals coming from the NDP.
An example, or closely related narrative, being something like what Sean is talking about in another thread [and following posts]
Tue, 2010-03-02 13:47
#58
Perhaps I should have been more clear-- the question in many respects is rhetorical-- it is designed to make people think about the role the Liberals play in parliament-- the direction they take is fundamental to what the next parliament does if they continue to get a large block of seats, yet nobody can predict what they will do. All the other parties you know what you will get except them. They are very much the Dr. Jeckyl and Mr Hyde of politics. One moment they are promoting national daycare and pharmacare, the next they are willing to cut what we already have to make peace with the Cons or Baystreet. What is the point of voting for a party that you have no idea what it might do -- what guides it? What kind of choice is that? This is a party that has not only lost its way, they have reached the point where there is no longer even the scantest of outlines of what a Liberal government would look like. the are so busy vacillating between out NDPing the NDP and out-Conservating the Conservatives that they now have no meaning at all.
The point is that the Liberals have been left at times in their history and right at times. Today they are both and nowhere at the same time if you believe what they are saying and you observe what they are not saying. Calling them out can only expose the fact that this party has gone from a centre of the road party that seemed to have answers to a party of contradiction where there is no middle on too many issues.
Tue, 2010-03-02 13:54
#59
I can't disagree with any of that analysis, and would onle add that their own smarter folks are also privately bemoaning the lack of direction; although they're still hoping it will come from the March conference.
Tue, 2010-03-02 14:09
#60
I read the Hébert article although I don't really buy the conclusion. The article itself is mostly entertainment as she does not seem that certain herself. I don't think this parliament can go on for long and the reason is that the images of the parties and leaders are becoming clear. The public, I think is less patient with the weaknesses of the leaders. Each party should soberly look at their weakest points in the public eye. I suspect that the next display of arrogance and power-tripping on the part of the Conservatives in general and Harper in particular could prompt an election -- indeed the Cons could drop like a stone in the polls. On the other hand the lack of direction of the Liberals if somehow confirmed could be devastating for them. The BQ's problem is relevance and if an issue should confirm that the shift in the polls could tilt one of the other parties far enough for them to want an election.
As well the issues before parliament are leaving less and less wiggle-room and the parties may be forced in to a conflict none of them want through an inability to support each other or find compromise. Indeed, I think that is what will trigger the election -- the Cons may be forced to bring something forward because they have no choice and the opposition may equally have no choice but to vote it down. I agree with Hébert that the parties may not want an election but do not think that they are guaranteed cover for avoiding one. The Liberals have very little room left to support the Cons on a budget without it being suicidal for them. The NDP is in the same position. In fact if this budget is contentious or controversial, I can't see it passing.
This of course puts the Cons in a difficult position-- if they take any initiative in the budget-- likely it will cause an election. If they do not they will live to fight another day but will lose all cover for the prorogation and the reception of the budget will centre around -- you needed a two month break for this??? Already that is the theme of the analysis so far. I don't expect it to change.
That said the Cons, masters of political manipulation may have some things up their sleeves-- as I have said elsewhere-- they better because they are caught now between policies that could force an election that could leave them out of power or the spectacle of them having a much ballyhooed recalibration to come back with no ideas.
Tue, 2010-03-02 14:29
#61
I don't think coming back from the 'recalibration' with no ideas will have any significant negative effect.
An indication that they are essentially lost. Which is complicated because what they planned to recalibrate is the artillery, not the ideas...but since the artillery was stillborn... it would llook like lost for ideas... except it isn't, because its all just lost in the shuffle...
But ultimately theres a negative effect for not landing on anything.
Tue, 2010-03-02 14:52
#62
Sorry Ken I don't follow your post maybe I should read it again later-- it seems the first sentence is saying the opposite of the last-- I think you might be on to an interesting distinction between the two so can you try to clarify a bit? I agree with the mid part.
Tue, 2010-03-02 15:41
#63
clarify... hmm, do you happen to have a mud seive handy?
but the first and last sentences are referring to different things.
1- it wont matter that there was no recalibration, no new ideas. [lost in the flow]
2- but in the end it amounts to the same thing. they lose because [if] they land nowhere. if not take a hit- they lose in the sense that they eventually have to make gains or they will not remain governing... the clock ticks by, and it doesn't look the odds of recovering are improving. they MUST break out of status quo. and the failures to do so are probably having an effect, on top of the unmistakable trend of terminally pissing off more people that at least had been wiling to give them the benefit of the doubt.
Harper has previously suffered wounds from self inflicted UNforced errors. I won't be suprised if we start seeing forced errors. It would be vastly overstating to say they are getting desperate. But running out of time will eventually have its effect... especially when its apparent that time has been on the side of the opposition, and they are now showing concrete signs of improvement.
Tue, 2010-03-02 16:28
#64
Ok-- yes that makes sense-- could even add to it that when they are doing something we talk about what they are doing and unless they get it wrong while it might tick off people like me it may please their base. When they are not doing anything they look like a tired government and journalists will need to write about something else like the gaffes of the day. When a government is busy the gaffes have to be serious to be reported and they don't last long in the consciousness but when there is nothing to report that is what people focus on.
I am not sure if I totally agree that coming back without ideas will be lost in the flow-- I think there is a risk of that being a focal part of the budget discussion if there is nothing of substance. After all -- there will be many experts gathered to talk about the news and a good many will be upset if they go through lock-up and have nothing newsworthy-- they might then take a stab at a government that needed all that break -- for this!
Anyway, I am still thinking the budget may have something controversial or a surprise -- if for no other reason than for this one. The smartest thing the Cons could do is pick something that will enrage their enemies who would not vote for them, or something to give people something to talk about but not irritate their potential voters just to provide smokescreen for the lack of anything else being in the budget. Right now they need some budget controversy on some limited things because the bigger controversies will not serve them-- the prorogation, lack of ideas, the actual debt numbers, their previous mistakes in predicting where this has gone. They, cannot have a no-news budget because the commentary will all be on negative things if they do that.
Thu, 2010-03-04 16:41
#65
God, I'm shocked. What a surprise!
Liberals won't bring Tories down over budget
Liberal support will be crucial given that NDP Leader Jack Layton said he cannot support a budget that leaves behind the victims of the recession but allows billions of dollars in tax breaks
for banks.
-----------------------------
"We can't support a budget that gets the priorities so wrong," Mr. Layton told CBC shortly after the budget was tabled.
Mr. Layton said the budget doesn't do enough to help unemployed Canadians.
"They're making a very serious mistake. Really the only way to get the economy back functioning ... is to get people back to work," he said.
The NDP Leader also said he was unhappy that Prime Minister Stephen is cutting funding for environmental assessments and protection in addition to housing.
The Bloc Québécois is also opposing the budget, saying it will not help Quebec economy. Leader Gilles Duceppe said his party will vote against the budget.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/budget/liberals-wont-bring-...
Thu, 2010-03-04 17:45
#66
Boom Boom
The Libers are chickenshits, and their leader has a new nickname: Two-Face.
Fri, 2010-03-05 01:18
#67
Back to the thread topic, I agree with John Ibbitson (for once!) that a federal election is very likely in fall 2010 - the Flaherty budget focused on the deficit in terms of messaging but also includes another year of big stimulus spending and ribbon cutting before the Conservative axe comes out in March 2011. Harper will say he needs a majority mandate to wrestle the "deficit monster" to the ground and will force Iggy to come out for either tax increases, big program cuts or big deficits going forward. As Ibbitson writes:
"With a vote almost certain before this time next year, the Conservatives have presented a blueprint for a campaign in which they will sell themselves as tough, disciplined and determined to rein in federal government spending.
There is nothing in the document of substance on global warming. Or early childhood education. Or the ongoing need to renew infrastructure after the stimulus money runs out this year. Or pretty much anything else.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper and Finance Minister Jim Flaherty believe that is what you want. They believe you want them to take on the public service over future wage hikes, to slash planned spending by $17.6-billion over the next five years, and to give up on any meaningful effort to combat global warming.
Let the opposition parties fight over who is greener, let them rage at the Conservatives' callous disregard for needed investments. They'll split the vote, such as it is."
As I argued in the budget thread, as long as the other parties buy into the "we gotta kill the deficit" frame, even if we are saying Flaherty is not credible on the issue, Harper wins every time. We need to reframe the debate in terms of investing in the future, in building a green, low-carbon economy with jobs in renewable energy and energy efficiency, which will help reduce GHG emissions and mitigate the devastating consequences of climate change, which will be far more costly in both economic, environmental and human terms than the current deficit in the federal budget.
We need to lift seniors out of poverty because it is the right thing to do and because it will save untold millions in health care costs going forward. We have to invest in national child care and early learning to raise a healthy generation of kids, fight childhood obesity, improve our competitive position in the global economy, etc.
Deficits are symptoms of a sick economy, not the cause of the sickness. Until we take on that issue head-on and reframe it to support progressive values, Harper will win and his agenda will prevail, even if his party is defeated.
Fri, 2010-03-05 08:56
#68
Come next years budget the government will have to either start the deep cuts, or meet with absolute derision from all corners that they are bullshitting about the deficit. Nobody beleives them this year even. And by next year the big cracks in their rosy forecasts will already be apparent. Departmental spending will not have been frozen, and the 5 year forecast assumptions of US economic growth and interest rate optimism will have been downgraded from 'unlikely' this year, to impossible next year.
Its not a pretty picture. So unless something new and unpredictable makes things bad for them in the Fall, we have to expect they are going to pull the plug and call an election. Stage manage some things of opposition parties shooting down legislation like freeing the telcoms from foreign investment limits. We need a mandate. Blah, blah. Easily done.
But as far as what the opposition parties do, I don't really think it matters whether or not the election actually comes in the Fall or not.
As noted in the "Budget Speculation" thread, the fact the NDP is on record for taking back the corporate tax cuts means that unlike the Liberals they dont have to worry about being dogged by 'how are you going to pay for that'. In the present context even coming out against particular spending cuts is going to keep Iggy pushed back to squaring that and criticsm of the budget with being opposed to any tax increases the same as the government. It will dog him also when talking about what we need to be doing that isn't in the budget. While Jack Layton can be out of the gate with that front and centre on the first day after.
Mon, 2010-03-08 11:39
#69
This is pathetic. Let's all get down on our hands and knees and pray for a miracle.
We could even be 2 years away from the next election which gives the NDP lots of time to organize each riding on the ground. I think Ignatieff had his one chance with the coalition and he blew that. Now it's unlikely he will ever be PM.
Tories in control of own destiny, Liberals need scandal to trigger election: Nanos
Libs need a 'political smash and grab' to boost numbers and pull election trigger, says pollster Nik Nanos.
Former Liberal MP Jean Lapierre says his onetime colleagues in the House of Commons were seized with a "malaise" as they meekly acknowledged they could not force an election over the budget and-despite two months of protest over Parliament's winter suspension-could not even utter the word "election."
Two Liberal MPs reflected the mood of caucus as they privately told The Hill Times an election is unlikely even before next year unless there is a dramatic shift in the polls and party leader Michael Ignatieff (Etobicoke Lakeshore, Ont.) miraculously catches on with the public.
"The leader's numbers are not good," said one of the MPs. The other replied "it's fine with me" when a reporter suggested it might even be two years before an election.
Former Liberal MP Jean Lapierre says his onetime colleagues in the House of Commons were seized with a "malaise" as they meekly acknowledged they could not force an election over the budget and-despite two months of protest over Parliament's winter suspension-could not even utter the word "election."
Two Liberal MPs reflected the mood of caucus as they privately told The Hill Times an election is unlikely even before next year unless there is a dramatic shift in the polls and party leader Michael Ignatieff (Etobicoke Lakeshore, Ont.) miraculously catches on with the public.
"The leader's numbers are not good," said one of the MPs. The other replied "it's fine with me" when a reporter suggested it might even be two years before an election.
Mon, 2010-03-08 13:26
#70
Chantal Hebert also made the comment during the At Issue panel last week that she was surprised, given the media's more positive recent re-assessment of Ignatieff's performance, to encounter so many Liberal MPs who had no confidence in him at all, when she was in Ottawa covering the Throne Speech and Budget last week.
If so, that's really telling, because they're the ones who see him up close all the time, and if they are afraid to follow him into battle right now, well I guess either he's a strategic genius and they're all nervous nellies, or else they also suspect that he would not do well under the relentless daily scrutiny of a campaign.
It doesn't say much for the Liberal caucus' political judgement, though, does it. Because Iggy had the support of the vast majority of them during *both* of the recent leadership races. Knowing what I know about that party and what motivates its members, however, I'm inclined to believe that their support was based on a perceived self-interest to get behind the perceived winner. Too bad for them that they'll have to wear those misperceptions now.
Mon, 2010-03-08 14:55
#71
Hébert also makes the point that the anniversary of Paul Martin's 2004 election is important because the 6 years are up this June allowing some 75 MPs full pensions. After that an election in the fall could be good for a number of agendas.
I hate the thread title because it is an opinion rather than a subject to discuss although one could argue a lot of threads are that but this opinion is not one that is even a progressive consensus it is basically just an election prediction opinion.
The government has a pass till after June and but any of the following could cause an election:
1) news the "recovery" is not going so well -- job numbers - what happens after the HST in Ontario and BC.
2) Scandalous news re the Afghan inquiry-- would need to be major but it could be.
3) More clarity in terms of what the Cons actually plan to cut to balance the deficit.
4) A more complete understanding in the public that the budget deficit will not heal itself with a little help from public servants -- the public will feel some pain.
5) Any other reason for a move in the polls-- some other issue not on the radar could materialize.
Many people do not like Harper's style and eventually some of this could stick.
As they say a week is a long time in politics-- I would not put down any money but this parliament is fragile and any time after September it could break-- it is anyone's guess if it can go to a 2011 budget, a fall statement or fall by something else. It could even last to 2012 but I would not bet on it.
Mon, 2010-03-08 18:39
#72
we will onhly get a federal election when the libs get a leader with a bit of a backbone. jack is ready to go, the bloc is ready to go....but the libs no they are too busy propping up harper
Mon, 2010-03-08 20:41
#73
Sean, someone I know who went through the list of MPs who are becoming pensionable in June, said that virtually all of them are in pretty safe seats. I do know that MPs are fully aware of those dates, but I don't honestly believe that at the end of the day it would be the only criterion in such a decision. Most of them were Conservatives, and had the Prime Minister believed that they could have won a majority, he would have pulled the plug himself and virtually none of them would have lost out. Many of the others are bloquistes, and few of them are in much trouble in their seats either.
That one column of Greg Weston's on the pension threshold was insightful, but it's now been accorded 100% predictive value by the Press Gallery, as though the pension eligibility date is the only factor in the equation. I don't believe that's the case.
Tue, 2010-03-09 08:59
#74
Boom Boom
Travers: Expect PM to spark an election
excerpt:
Facing three tough questions about his government, Stephen Harper has a single answer. The annoying queries are about the politics of stimulus spending, the credibility of last week's rosy federal budget, and complicity in Afghanistan prisoner abuse. The response is a sooner-than-later election.
Not much cleans the slate better than a campaign. Rarely has a ruling party so urgently required an eraser.
Tue, 2010-03-09 09:01
#75
yup here goes the msm trying once again to convince iggy to kill the government. it will be a hard thing to do.
canadians have shown in poll after poll that while they hate harper they dont trust iggy.
so unless the ndp jumps up huge in their numbers nothing will change or harper will get that majority he wants. the libs are just that bad right now
Tue, 2010-03-09 09:26
#76
Boom Boom
Huh? Travers was expressing his opinion of what Harper will do. Where in the article does Travers say anything that could be construed as encouraging Iggy and others to "kill the government"? And at the end of the article, he warns: None of those three questions is about to go away. So coming soon is the election Harper hopes will erase the past and give Conservatives majority control of the future. That warning, JJP, is the exact opposite of what you claim he is doing.
Tue, 2010-03-09 11:04
#77
Sean, someone I know who went through the list of MPs who are becoming pensionable in June, said that virtually all of them are in pretty safe seats. I do know that MPs are fully aware of those dates, but I don't honestly believe that at the end of the day it would be the only criterion in such a decision. Most of them were Conservatives, and had the Prime Minister believed that they could have won a majority, he would have pulled the plug himself and virtually none of them would have lost out. Many of the others are bloquistes, and few of them are in much trouble in their seats either.
That one column of Greg Weston's on the pension threshold was insightful, but it's now been accorded 100% predictive value by the Press Gallery, as though the pension eligibility date is the only factor in the equation. I don't believe that's the case.
I don't think the issue is about them losing their seats in such an election. I am sure that is not Hébert's point either. I suspect it more has to do with those who don't want to run again-- even a small number in that position would cause the party to want to delay a little because that is a chance to open some safe seats for new blood and all parties have people that might be reconsidering moving on and unless there is something compelling they may wait.
The next big date is October: anyone wanting to force an election may want to consider that date. That is the two year mark for this government. Two years is quick for the government to call an election but not so much for an opposition to pull down a minority government. It is about that length of time when people no longer say they have not been "given a chance."
Around the same time-- this fall there are also a few key updates both in terms of the deficit and the economy itself. People have long been saying we are in recovery-- by fall this better show in the jobs numbers or there will be some reconsideration.
Another important date is July 1-- after this date the people of BC and Ontario face the new HST. How they respond to the "sticker shock" on services and fuel will be interesting -- especially come winter heating but even the summer electrical bills. How those provinces and the general economy fares after the introduction of the HST will also be interesting although won't be apparent until close to the end of the year once we have figures for September.
In the middle of all this there are all the committees including the Afghan detainee "inquiry" issue.
Finally the Liberal party is preparing and trying to pay off its debt and is expecting to reach some milestones on that score over the summer.
For all these reasons I think that we are likely good till the fall but once we pass labour day an election is more likely and after the two year anniversary in October, I'd say the parliament will reach its best before date and an election will be a near certainty sometime between November 1st and the budget vote in early 2011. I do not expect the governemtn to last past that budget vote even if it gets that far.
Tue, 2010-03-09 11:07
#78
As I said before-- nobody will actually want the election but it will be more tolerable and less avoidable than today.
The issue is not so much if the parties desire a vote as can they find enough common ground between their supporters and right now the rank and file of each party is on a collision course where they will not tolerate their party making the kinds of compromises required to keep the government going.
Tue, 2010-03-09 11:30
#79
So in other words the prediction I made, and many poo-pooed of a fall 2010 election, is still going strong.
Tue, 2010-03-09 11:47
#80
What goes round comes around. Except for our erstwhile thread namer, I'll bet the rest of us said 'things change a lot every few months, etc'. But you still get the brownie points.
I can still see Harper coming to the conclusion that it doesnt get better than the next 2 months. Not as likely- hard to imagine what opportunity they could arrange that will give them at least a bit of a boost- but not out of the question despite how bad they are looking right now.
Looking really good is now enough out of the question that they aren't going to wait on that, or just run out the clock. So what 'good as it is going to get' will be for them- who knows?
Tue, 2010-03-09 12:37
#81
I am not predicting the next election to happen this Fall- but I certainly consider that a possibility- I'd say if you want me to base odds on my prediction-- perhaps 5% by summer; 10% in the early fall; 30% in the late fall (November); 40% on the next budget next Feb-March; 5% next Spring and 5% fall of 2011. I'd give going in to 2012 just about a zero.
I also admit that I could also have it all wrong-- but I'd be confident that nobody else right now knows any better-- even the parties themselves.
Tue, 2010-03-09 12:52
#82
So far I have bragging rights though, until I don't. 
That was my election night prediction based on nothing but my spidey sense.
I think an election is a least 'likely' this fall. However, like Sean I think it could be almost by accident in that everyone will box themselves into a corner, not really wanting an election, but have no way out.
Otherwise my target would be spring 2011 on a budget vote.
Tue, 2010-03-09 15:51
#83
Sean, you make a good point on the MPs in that group who may not want to run again. Some of the Conservatives are no spring chickens, although a lot of who the Bloc gets elected these days are very young (all the better if they want people who'll follow the leader without too much backtalk).
There are a lot of municipal elections this fall, I remind everyone. Either this will serve as a disincentive to someone, or else we're all going to be very very busy.
Tue, 2010-03-09 16:42
#84
Election in May - you heard it here first.
Harper has no better time. The fall will be filled with municipal elections where many, many Tories sit and it would be better to get it over with now then having to wait and deal with the reality of their economic and budgetary mismanagment.
Tue, 2010-03-09 22:30
#85
I looked up the G8 meeting dates, because they may have an influence on the timing. Here's what I found:
* [of course, the G8 Finance Ministers already met in Iqaluit, Feb 5-6]
* Minister of Foreign Affairs, Lawrence Cannon, will host the foreign ministers of G8 countries for a meeting on March 29 and 30, 2010, at the Château Cartier in Gatineau
* the Development Ministers from G8 countries will meet in Halifax on April 26-28, 2010
* the G8 Leader's Summit will be held on June 25-26 in Canada's Muskoka region
* the G20 Summit is in Toronto from June 26-27
So, it looks like there might be a window in May.
Mon, 2010-03-15 11:34
#86
Did Ignatieff blow it?
Did Michael Ignatieff miss an opportunity to display strong leadership and defeat the Conservative government?
Quite likely, yes
http://telegraphjournal.canadaeast.com/opinion/article/984342
Mon, 2010-03-15 11:56
#87
While I don't get any sense of "I'm mad as hell, and I'm not going to take it anymore", still I nevertheless get the sense that folks would not be horribly upset to go to the polls sooner rather than later, after the prorogation fiasco and resulting dual non-events in the Throne Speech and Budget.
The Leger poll that Stockholm posted in the other thread reports that after seeing the Speech from the Throne and Budget, the vast majority of Quebeckers believed in retrospect that prorogation had not been justified. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see those numbers repeated nationally if the question were asked that way.
Mon, 2010-03-15 14:04
#88
Rising house prices during a recession is do to supply and demand as governments say the sky is the limits as immigrants promised good paying jobs and free health care. What are inflated house prices good for? Inflation for one and Stagflation in BC for second as land developing premier knows a deal when he sees ones. What is in store for Canadians if they continue on the Harper trail? Those in BC will bask in Staglation and no more worrying about the poor as will be worrying about how to pay the bills as interest rates climb ans job losses can be counted on along with business closures.
What is driving up house prices or who? Government of course and Canadians will be crying about it for sometime to come as economic futuires are dimming along with the health care Canadians used to enjoy as now have to pick up the tab for millions of new Canadians. How does it work when you pack in immigrants when there are no jobs? Like I said don't worry about the poor, worry about yourselfs because I can see it all now as inflation bites at the heals of consumers bringing down many a business as cash strapped consumers cry foul. Makes you wonder if Canada was at the world bank borrowing money as BC is set to bring in boat loads of unqualified immigrants to help out with the unemployment faced by many British Columbinas by provinding plenty of cheap labour. House prices rising because of wage increaces? Not likely. I can think of a trillion and a half reasons why the above is most likely to become a reality.
Mon, 2010-03-15 14:15
#89
The Statistics Canada report underscored the central bank's warning that one of the main inflation risks is soaring house prices, especially in Western Canada, and that they would spill over into higher prices for other goods and services.
Tue, 2010-03-16 17:42
#90
Whatever happened to the government's post-Olympic popularity surge?
The new election date scenario from inside both major parties? That would be the spring of 2011, which would mesh with the start of the government's deficit elimination program
http://network.nationalpost.com/NP/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2010/03/16/...
Wed, 2010-06-30 18:10
#91
Boom Boom
Rosemary Barton interviewed on P&P today Speaker Peter Milliken about his announcement to retire, and Milliken said he will remain in office until the next election, which he believes will be in... get this, 2012!!! 
Wed, 2010-06-30 19:31
#92
Quite possible. I'm almost positive there will be no election this year, and probably not next Spring either.
2012 is the projected date for the economy to turn around as there will be a presidential election in the USA that year, so the economy will be pumped to re-elect Obama. That's when Harper will want to go to the polls, and there is no way the Liberals will be ready, nor will the Liberals want to go to the polls before that.
Wed, 2010-06-30 20:24
#93
My mother commented the other day about how tired and gaunt Jack Layton looked on TV. Another reason for no election this fall.
Wed, 2010-06-30 20:36
#94
Boom Boom
If it's not until 2012, there's time for the Libs to dump the albatross around their necks (Iggy) and find someone at least halfway decent. And, if Layton is indeed tired (I'm not saying he is!) then the NDP has time to consider another leader - although Layton is still the best of the leaders no matter how tired he may be. But two more years of Harper? Dear God.
Wed, 2010-06-30 20:54
#95
My Cat Knows Better
The only reason you might see an election sooner than later, would be because Harper saw the support for his regieme unraveling. The longer he waits to pull the plug the less his chances of holding on to what support he has. This past weekend in Toronto did nothing to help him with the electorate. The announcement today that the economy was once again deteriorating did nothing to help. He will in the final analysis be the one who makes the descision. Wait, and watch all hope vanish, or go for a general election this fall, and likely end up in opposition. Personally, I think he will wait and will be wiped out, and the much vaunted unity of the right will fall apart like a house of cards.
Wed, 2010-06-30 23:05
#96
Boom Boom
In the Lib's favour is that Harper inherited a substantial surplus, and is now in a substantial deficit. Good for the other two Opposition parties, too.
Wed, 2010-06-30 23:23
#97
If it's not until 2012, there's time for the Libs to dump the albatross around their necks (Iggy) and find someone at least halfway decent. And, if Layton is indeed tired (I'm not saying he is!) then the NDP has time to consider another leader - although Layton is still the best of the leaders no matter how tired he may be. But two more years of Harper? Dear God.
The thing is that its not as if there will be some joint newsconference of Harper and all the opposition leaders formally announcing no election until 2012. A vastly more likely solution is that we would go through two more years of endless games of Russian roulette - the country will seem to be on the brink of an election in the fall, then again in the spring, then again in the fall, then again in the spring - so even if we we actually did make it to 2012 with no election - there will be no break from the never ended speculation of an election and so no chance for the Liberals to collectively breathe a sigh of relief and say to themselves "phew!! we have two years to force out Iggy and pick a new equally bad leader!"
AS for Layton, of course he looks tired. He has been undergoing cancer treatment for the past five months and if he was a typical person and not the everready energizer bunny that he is - he would probably have spent the last 5 months taking it very easy and getting a lot of sleep. I heard a reporter on CTV say that he was sticking around Toronto most of the summer and having radiation treatments - but once that's finished - I'm sure he'll be bright-eyed and bushy-tailed again.
I think that there is unlikely to be an election this fall. Harper will get zero momentum from the G8 (if anything he will have anti-momentum) and with a provincial election in NB and municipal election in various provinces - no one really wants an election in the fall. I think the government will fall on their budget in Feb of 2011 and we will have an April 2011 election.
Wed, 2010-06-30 23:31
#98
Boom Boom
Regardless of whoever wins the next election, I think it will be another minority government, and there may be maneuvering for some kind of agreement/accord/coalition with at least one Opposition party to make the next government more stable (although Harper has a stable government and is governing as if he has a majority, thanks to the Liberal's endless support on matters of confidence).
Wed, 2010-06-30 23:32
#99
Northreport, Obama will definitely not be riding any kind of economic high come 2012.
I can't see another year and a half of minority governance. The Libs will force something before then, if only to ditch Iggy.
Wed, 2010-06-30 23:37
#100
Harper will get zero momentum from the G8 (if anything he will have anti-momentum)
Do you think the next batch of national polls will show the Tories losing support?
Wed, 2010-06-30 23:50
#101
BTW, apparently Layton told the conference call of candidates the other day that he is feeling a lot better. He has lost weight because of his new very strict vegetarian diet though, along with the treatment.
Personally, while I realize that all the pre-election scenarios Harper keeps trying to set up don't always turn out the way he wants, I still believe that looking at the underlying strategic fundamentals for him: (i) they've run out of agenda, (ii) Ignatieff seems to be getting weaker and weaker, (iii) the provincial governments seems to be the ones wearing the HST change, and (iv) the worst of the cuts are yet to come.
Why would Harper want to drag it out? If Iggy fails too spectacularly, Bob Rae will move in to fill the void, and he can campaign a lot more effectively. The Ontario municipal election takes a lot of challenger candidates out of the running against the Conservative incumbents, and stretches their opponents' resources more than theirs. I might agree they don't want to step on their provincial cousins who have a chance at forming the government in New Brunswick, but what's the downside for the Conservatives in overlapping even somewhat with the Ontario campaign?
They could even call a general election in a month for mid-September for that matter. Turnout would be down, they'd be organized, and it would be their best chance to survive for another 2-3 years.