A spring election.

[jbg]

You must have read my fingers before I posted.

If the numbers in Quebec were higher, there may call for a breakthrough. There has been that type of increase. It might come but as the moment the polls are really static. In other words, they look like more of a repeat of the last election.

Again, the CPC was not expected to do well in Quebec. They did better than expected in Quebec, worse than expected in 905. I expect better results in both places next time, simply because they have done at least a workmanlike, and possibly superlative, job governing.

[jdobbin]

Again, the CPC was not expected to do well in Quebec. They did better than expected in Quebec, worse than expected in 905. I expect better results in both places next time, simply because they have done at least a workmanlike, and possibly superlative, job governing.

All true. But does it mean a breakthrough in Quebec? They have to something extraordinary for Quebecers now just like any party that has won a majority in Canada. What will that be? Will it go over well with western Canada?

[Ricki Bobbi]

The Liberals in Ontario were defeated in 1990 for pulling the trigger in the election early.

Still waiting fort just *one* Federal example from you....

[jdobbin]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_fede...lection%2C_1965

Pearson pulled the plug in 1965. It was issue. It changed nothing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_fede...lection%2C_1974

The NDP and Conservatives pulled the plug in 1974. It was an issue. The Liberals won a majority.

[August1991]

Still waiting fort just *one* Federal example from you....

Joe Clark was smiling when Bob Rae pulled the plug on John Crosbie in December 1979.

Is that federal minority government enough for you, Ricki Bobbi?

Every day Harper is PM, that's one day closer to a majority government. Harper's claim to political success is that he'll get the older boomer women vote (secretly placed) because he's a reliable man.

----

Bourassa famously went to an election in 1976 and lost.

[Ricki Bobbi]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_fede...lection%2C_1965

Pearson pulled the plug in 1965. It was issue. It changed nothing.

So you're saying you can't provide a Federal example of a party forcing an early election while in a majority and "paying for it".

Thanks for providing the support. It takes a big man to admit a mistake

[jdobbin]

Every day Harper is PM, that's one day closer to a majority government. Harper's claim to political success is that he'll get the older boomer women vote (secretly placed) because he's a reliable man.

I agree. The longer he is in, the better are his chances to improve how Quebec and parts of Ontario see him.

I still think Afghanistan can be an issue. I don't think it will go away and it can change things in a multi-party country such as Canada.

I think if Harper was able to just go on his record now, he might win a few more seats but there are still a few places out there that are waiting to see what Harper will do for them. It's the politics of Canada.

[jdobbin]

Is that federal minority government enough for you, Ricki Bobbi?

He no longer wants minority examples, it seems. Don't know what a majority example has to do with Harper's minority government.

[Ricki Bobbi]

Is that federal minority government enough for you, Ricki Bobbi?

He no longer wants minority examples, it seems. Don't know what a majority example has to do with Harper's minority government.

My bad, I misspoke when talking about minorities. Didn't see August's post.

August, are you actually claiming that Clark engineered that loss thinking he could win big in the 1980 election?

Clark's I'll govern as if I had a majority was ill-conceived and stupid but *no one* has suggested it was a ploy to force an early defeat of his Government.

Do you have any support for Clark forcing the early election or is this phantom smile all the support you have?

jdobbin, still waiting for your example from *any* Federal election.

[August1991]

August, are you actually claiming that Clark engineered that loss thinking he could win big in the 1980 election?

"Engineer" is a bit strong but Clark welcomed the defeat. Clark intended to do as Diefenbaker who turned his 1957 minority government into a majority in 1958. Clark specifically thought that he would gain seats in Quebec.

Keep in mind to that Trudeau had resigned when the government fell and the Liberals were leaderless.

[watching&waiting]

I was around the hill the day Clark made his MISTAKE not intentionally. What had transpired was that Clark just could not keep track of things in the house that day. He went ahead calling for a vote thinking that he ahd enough members sitting in his sides seats, but the facts were several had left and were not to be found and the Liberals also had a few more members come into the house. His error was that he had thought he had caught the opposition where they did not have enough members sitting to make the vote go his way. When the truth was he did not see or know that sevral of his members had left and the opposition had a few more come in. The is why Clark is teased about his ability to be able to count while on the fly.

Now, if people want to say that he engineered this, I would have to point out that it was so soon after the last election that he must have known it would be him the people would blame, and this was proven to be true.

[Ricki Bobbi]

Clark intended to do as Diefenbaker who turned his 1957 minority government into a majority in 1958. Clark specifically thought that he would gain seats in Quebec.

Keep in mind to that Trudeau had resigned when the government fell and the Liberals were leaderless.

The last part of your post is a good argument for why Clark thought he could pass the budget. Not for wanting an election.

[August1991]

Now, if people want to say that he engineered this, I would have to point out that it was so soon after the last election that he must have known it would be him the people would blame, and this was proven to be true.

"Must have known" is not a phrase that goes well with Clark.

w&w, I agree with your description of events. The defeat of the government occurred live on TV for every one to see. I'll add that if there was an engineer, it was Allan MacEachen. He noticed that Clark was not conferring with Fabien Roy and the six Creditistes and he was aware of polls showing the Liberals in the lead. The government fell when the Credististes abstained. (Among the ironies of this story, the six were defeated in the 1980 election. Another irony is that MacEachen is supporting Rae for the current Liberal leadership.)

None of this changes the fact that Clark expected to be defeated in the House and sincerely believed the result would be a majority PC government. In particular, Clark thought Quebecers would vote for him if he campaigned as PM. In English Canada, Clark would run against an arrogant Liberal party who had cravenly brought down a young government.

With hindsight, it appears that Clark blundered. At the time, Clark considered himself a smart tactician and well on his way to getting a majority.

[Ricki Bobbi]

None of this changes the fact that Clark expected to be defeated in the House and sincerely believed the result would be a majority PC government. In particular, Clark thought Quebecers would vote for him if he campaigned as PM. In English Canada, Clark would run against an arrogant Liberal party who had cravenly brought down a young government.

With hindsight, it appears that Clark blundered. At the time, Clark considered himself a smart tactician and well on his way to getting a majority.

I don't know if that is a known fact. At the time the story was that Clark didn't count properly and thought he could win without appealing to the Creditistes.

[jbg]

None of this changes the fact that Clark expected to be defeated in the House and sincerely believed the result would be a majority PC government. In particular, Clark thought Quebecers would vote for him if he campaigned as PM. In English Canada, Clark would run against an arrogant Liberal party who had cravenly brought down a young government.

With hindsight, it appears that Clark blundered. At the time, Clark considered himself a smart tactician and well on his way to getting a majority.

I don't know if that is a known fact. At the time the story was that Clark didn't count properly and thought he could win without appealing to the Creditistes.

I also think that increasing the gasoline tax in 1979, when prices were surging, was a great election issue - for the Liberals. Thus, the Liberals would have wanted to see the government fall on that issue. I doubt that any of the issues Harper has pushed are good election issues for anyone but the CPC.

[Ricki Bobbi]

I also think that increasing the gasoline tax in 1979, when prices were surging, was a great election issue - for the Liberals. Thus, the Liberals would have wanted to see the government fall on that issue. I doubt that any of the issues Harper has pushed are good election issues for anyone but the CPC.

Good point. It seems like the only thing the opposition can fight on is that Harper hasn't fulfilled the five priorities. i.e. patient wait times and fixing the fiscal imbalance.

Both issues are so complex and murky it would be tough to use those as reasons to vote against the Conservatives.

[August1991]

I don't know if that is a known fact. At the time the story was that Clark didn't count properly and thought he could win without appealing to the Creditistes.

Fair enough. Change "the fact" to "my point" in the paragraph above.

And my point remains that Clark at the time did not see his defeat in the House as a disaster. He thought it was evidence of Liberal arrogance and believed voters would agree with him.

[Higgly]

If Jean blocks an election, her ass is grass, and so is the position of GG. She needs a constitutional crisis before she gets anywhere near that sort of thing.

[mcqueen625]

From today's Toronto Star. Hebert made the case in the context of Michaelle Jean preventing a spring election, which is pretty doubtful. But part of it is a good read on why we'll probably go to the polls again sometime before next summer.

Duceppe, who has his finger on the pulse of Quebecers, knows that Harper's current policies could shift part of the Bloc's support to the Liberals in the next election. As things stand today — and contingent on the identity of the next Liberal leader — many Quebec voters might prefer to reconcile themselves with the party of Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin than risk a Conservative majority government.

The prospect of a Liberal resurgence is an even larger concern for the NDP. Next spring, Jack Layton will have less incentive than Duceppe to support the budget. And while the Liberals would probably want to avoid a spring election, their new leader would be unlikely to want one of his first acts to be ensuring the safe passage of a Conservative budget.

Having experienced first hand the difficulties of going straight from a leadership victory to an election campaign, the Prime Minister himself might not be inclined to make it easy for any of the opposition parties to ensure the survival of his government beyond the end of next winter.

Given all that, it may be that Jean will end up being all that stands in the way of Canada heading to the polls, for the third time in less than five years, a little more than six months from now.

Seems like a pretty plausible scenario.

I really don't want another election, but I feel Harper is doing a great job considering the lying, corruption, and arrogance we have experienced for tha past 12 years for the Liberals. Relationshipships with the U.S. under the Liberal's had reached all-time lows, which isn't the smartest thing to do considering they are our largest trading partner.

What I don't want to happen is for the Bloc to be in a position to virtually blackmail the government of Stephen Harper into handing over huge percentages of any surpluses to a Province with representatives who's sole reason for being is the destruction of Canada. If anything the Feds should give them only their share and cancel any side deals that were made by teh Liberals with the Bloc. or the Province of Quebec, unyil such time as they get the message, "They are not special and deserve no more and no less than the rest of the partners in Canada.

[Ricki Bobbi]

Wouldn't Jean trying to stop an election be a constitutional crisis?

She definitely has the arrogance to believe that because she *technically* would have to power to try and thwart the will of the PM she *morally* has the power to do so as well.

It would actually be a big plus for the CPC if Jean tried to thwart an election. She would necessarily turn to the Liberals. And they would probably try and accommodate her wishes. The *new* government would fall right away. An election forced and a defining issue born.

If Jean blocks an election, her ass is grass, and so is the position of GG. She needs a constitutional crisis before she gets anywhere near that sort of thing.

[gc1765]

The *new* government would fall right away. An election forced and a defining issue born.

Which defining issue? Changing the role of/Removing the GG?

[Ricki Bobbi]

Which defining issue? Changing the role of/Removing the GG?

Coupled with all parties but the Liberals attacking the party for their horribly unqualified choice for the role.

[jbg]

If Jean blocks an election, her ass is grass, and so is the position of GG. She needs a constitutional crisis before she gets anywhere near that sort of thing.

Excuse my almost total ignorance about Canada, but isn't it true that a mnority PM cannot advise the GG to call an election other than on a non-confidence vote, but must first turn to HM's Loyal Opposition?

[gc1765]

Coupled with all parties but the Liberals attacking the party for their horribly unqualified choice for the role.

I don't think any party wants to fight an election on amending the constitution. Nor do I think that many people care enough about who is GG to have it affect how they vote.

[Ricki Bobbi]

I don't think any party wants to fight an election on amending the constitution. Nor do I think that many people care enough about who is GG to have it affect how they vote.

No party will fight the election on amending the constitution.

The opposition would fight the election on the very real case that Jean's choice still signifies that the Liberals need to remain on the sidelines for their arrogant and terrible choice of GG.

The Conservatives, Bloc and NDP all see the Liberals as their main opposition.

That's how the issue will form.

The Liberals could try and argue that a consitutional change is needed. The other parties will reply that it just takes a government that doesn't treat the choice of GG flippantly i.e. not the Liberals.