Will there be a Fall 2007 election?

[jdobbin]

Last point. To survive without a tacit coalition, minority governments require adept, flexible leadership. Harper has demonstarted this and this fact won't be lost on many voters. Harper knows this. I think the polls now are not an accurate indicator of what the final votes in an election will be.

According to the Toronto media, Harper is supposed to be a thin-skinned, mini-dictator. He's not a people person. And yet Harper will have led one of the longest minority governments in Canadian history.

I think the Toronto media has read this guy wrong.

I guess when he is defeated, you can blame the media. The polls have shown that he has fallen quite a ways back from getting majority. Some have even shown the Tories below the Liberals in popular support.

Harper has one ace. He has the BQ as allies. The BQ love Harper. He makes their party popular for every dollar they are able to wrangle out of the budget.

[August1991]

I guess when he is defeated, you can blame the media. The polls have shown that he has fallen quite a ways back from getting majority. Some have even shown the Tories below the Liberals in popular support.

Harper has one ace. He has the BQ as allies. The BQ love Harper. He makes their party popular for every dollar they are able to wrangle out of the budget.

Harper doesn't have the BQ as allies.

The BQ presented a motion recognizing Quebec as a nation. The motion was intended to break apart Harper's caucus and set the stage for a federal election in which the BQ would dominate in Quebec. Instead, Harper adroitly lobbed the motion back at the BQ. Harper kept his sang-froid and not only impressed many in Quebec, he kept his voters in English-Canada relatively happy.

It isn't money that makes this minority work. It's the fact that Harper is attuned to the other parties and he knows how far he can push them.

There has always been (and there will always be) a perception in English Canada that Quebec gets more than its fair share of federal largesse. At the same time, in Quebec, there has always been (and there will always be) the impression that Quebec must struggle against the odds in Ottawa. Such is the nature of our country. Regions trump ideology.

[jdobbin]

Harper doesn't have the BQ as allies.

The BQ presented a motion recognizing Quebec as a nation. The motion was intended to break apart Harper's caucus and set the stage for a federal election in which the BQ would dominate in Quebec. Instead, Harper adroitly lobbed the motion back at the BQ. Harper kept his sang-froid and not only impressed many in Quebec, he kept his voters in English-Canada relatively happy.

It isn't money that makes this minority work. It's the fact that Harper is attuned to the other parties and he knows how far he can push them.

There has always been (and there will always be) a perception in English Canada that Quebec gets more than its fair share of federal largesse. At the same time, in Quebec, there has always been (and there will always be) the impression that Quebec must struggle against the odds in Ottawa. Such is the nature of our country. Regions trump ideology.

What kept Quebec happy was a huge windfall in the budget. It is how Harper was able to get his budget passed. It is how Quebecers regarded it. It is how people outside of Quebec regarded it.

[Michael Bluth]

Bluth, you ask the key question - will Harper beat Pearson's second minority for longevity?

It is hard to read Harper. He seems to keep a few surprises deliberately in store. So, I wouldn't be surprised if we had an election in the fall 2007 or the spring 2008.

Previously, I thought that every day Harper was in power, it brought him one day closer to a majority. Harper needed time to show people that he could govern. He has done that in spades. He has been a calm and steady PM.

There is no marginal value in this strategy any more. If Harper senses that he can arrange an election, then he'll go for it knowing that Canadians are now comfortable with him as PM.

Last point. To survive without a tacit coalition, minority governments require adept, flexible leadership. Harper has demonstarted this and this fact won't be lost on many voters. Harper knows this. I think the polls now are not an accurate indicator of what the final votes in an election will be.

According to the Toronto media, Harper is supposed to be a thin-skinned, mini-dictator. He's not a people person. And yet Harper will have led one of the longest minority governments in Canadian history.

I think the Toronto media has read this guy wrong.

If anything the BQ are the Conservatives allies out of convenience for the short-term. Once it's to the advantage of either party the friendship will end.

I really can't see a general election in the fall. Harper will call a slew of by-elections for the fall then go from there.

Harper has set the table for a potential election in the spring of 2008.

There were 12 polls released by major firms this past May and June link. Five had the Conservatives with a clear lead and seven had the Conservatives and Liberals within the margin of error. If the polls continue to favour the Conservatives we may have an early election, but that's the only way I see it happening.

You are completely correct about the Toronto media's sterotype of Harper. Here is a quote from Jeffrey Simpson's column in yesterdays Globe. (Sorry no link, subscriber only.)

There is a kind of robotic quality to the Harper government that wistfully casts the mind back to Pierre Trudeau's freestyle lectures, Joe Clark's question-and-answer sessions, Brian Mulroney's improvisations (which sometimes got him into trouble), Jean Chrétien's quips, and Paul Martin's verbal meanderings.

It kind of makes sense that reporters are wistful for the mentioned behaviour of previous Prime Minister's. It made the reporter's jobs more interesting and exciting. However, it is not the role of the Prime Minister to provide reporters with interesting and exciting jobs. It is the role of the Prime Minister to provide calm and steady government when the times dictate. We are living in such a time and the Prime Minister is providing the leadership the people need.

[jbg]

For the record, here are Canada's past minority governments:

William Lyon Mackenzie King 14th Liberal 1921 – 1925 3 years and 326 days

William Lyon Mackenzie King 16th Liberal 1926 – 1930 3 years and 317 days

Lester B. Pearson 27th Liberal 1965 – 1968 2 years and 229 days

Pierre Trudeau 29th Liberal 1972 – 1974 1 year and 221 days

Lester B. Pearson 26th Liberal 1963 – 1965 1 year and 182 days

You left out the government created by the "King-Byng" affair, two of Diefenbaker's governments, the Paul Martin 1004-6 government, and the Joke Lark government.

[Michael Bluth]

You left out the government created by the "King-Byng" affair, two of Diefenbaker's governments, the Paul Martin 1004-6 government, and the Joke Lark government.

Fair enough. It appeared to me that August was posting the length of time for those minority governments that last longer than the current one has.

[jbg]

You left out the government created by the "King-Byng" affair, two of Diefenbaker's governments, the Paul Martin 1004-6 government, and the Joke Lark government.

Fair enough. It appeared to me that August was posting the length of time for those minority governments that last longer than the current one has.

That appears to be true but you won't find that qualification in his post.

[August1991]

You left out the government created by the "King-Byng" affair, two of Diefenbaker's governments, the Paul Martin 1004-6 government, and the Joke Lark government.

As Bluth noted, I should have added that these are minority governments lasting longer than Harper's.

Bluth provided a link to the Wikipedia article.

[August1991]

There were 12 polls released by major firms this past May and June link. Five had the Conservatives with a clear lead and seven had the Conservatives and Liberals within the margin of error. If the polls continue to favour the Conservatives we may have an early election, but that's the only way I see it happening.

You are completely correct about the Toronto media's sterotype of Harper. Here is a quote from Jeffrey Simpson's column in yesterdays Globe. (Sorry no link, subscriber only.)

For me, reading the Toronto media is almost as hard as reading Harper.

I reckoned that since Harper is ostensibly from Calgary, the Toronto media wouldn't like him. (In general, the Toronto media only likes/respects a francophone who says what the Toronto media wants to hear - that Canada is a cool place. Harper doesn't meet that criteria at all.)

How the Toronto media disliked Harper has been a work in progress. They seem to have gone from *scary, scary* neocon secret agenda through Bush poodle to one-man show, insensitive, badly-dressed dictator. Dunno.

Anyway, it's obvious to everyone that Harper's gotten along with three other big-egoed men in a room of 300 in which he could only count on the support of 125. And he's done that with aplomb.

Many Canadians want their government to function well without much fanfare. The polls don't show the preference of these people because they're busy with their lives, not worrying about the latest political scandal.

When it comes to the next election, and these people have to decide how to vote, they're going to realize that Harper has been a smart, steady guy who got the job done.

I'd say Harper will get a 3-4% boost in the booths over the polls.

[Michael Bluth]

I reckoned that since Harper is ostensibly from Calgary, the Toronto media wouldn't like him. (In general, the Toronto media only likes/respects a francophone who says what the Toronto media wants to hear - that Canada is a cool place. Harper doesn't meet that criteria at all.)

How the Toronto media disliked Harper has been a work in progress. They seem to have gone from *scary, scary* neocon secret agenda through Bush poodle to one-man show, insensitive, badly-dressed dictator. Dunno.

Many Canadians want their government to function well without much fanfare. The polls don't show the preference of these people because they're busy with their lives, not worrying about the latest political scandal.

When it comes to the next election, and these people have to decide how to vote, they're going to realize that Harper has been a smart, steady guy who got the job done.

I'd say Harper will get a 3-4% boost in the booths over the polls.

Harper being from Calgary definitely plays a role in the Toronto media objecting to him.

George Stombolopolous' The Hour sooooooo typifies the "too-cool-for-school" attitude the Toronto media wants to hear. It's good for George that he works for an outlet that isn't too concerned about profit or ratings.

Chretien eventually morphed into cool, but it took a long time or him to get there. Who knows, maybe Harper will get there after winning his majority?

[jdobbin]

Many Canadians want their government to function well without much fanfare. The polls don't show the preference of these people because they're busy with their lives, not worrying about the latest political scandal.

When it comes to the next election, and these people have to decide how to vote, they're going to realize that Harper has been a smart, steady guy who got the job done.

I'd say Harper will get a 3-4% boost in the booths over the polls.

If Harper thought he had an easy boost like that coming from just announcing going to the polls, he would have done that in the Spring.

Let's see what we have in your post: Harper is being unfairly portrayed in the media. Harper's true strength in the polls is not being reflected.

You say he has aplomb. Let's see him win over the media as well as the poll numbers. So far he has not done it.

[jbg]

You say he has aplomb. Let's see him win over the media as well as the poll numbers. So far he has not done it.

He's never going to win over the media. Even Reagan was portrayed as a dunce by the media, until he left office.

[WestViking]

If the majority of MPs support Kyoto, why would they vote against it?

Favouring the principles of Kyoto is one thing. Agreeing to the painful costs of meeting Kyoto targets is another kettle of fish.

No one wants to be seen as not supporting a 'save the earth' campaign; however facing constituents with higher costs, loss of jobs, and pumped up inflation is not nearly as comfortable.

[Michael Bluth]

Favouring the principles of Kyoto is one thing. Agreeing to the painful costs of meeting Kyoto targets is another kettle of fish.

No one wants to be seen as not supporting a 'save the earth' campaign; however facing constituents with higher costs, loss of jobs, and pumped up inflation is not nearly as comfortable.

Exactly. Dion and his rhetoric about Canada getting rich while getting green is just insulting.

Let people know the true costs involved with Kyoto.

[KO2]

I wonder if we will reach 100 sacrificed soldiers before we get to vote on this again?

I don't agree at all that Steve the GWB's buddy, has the mandate to say Canadians want this war.

He barely got a third of those eligible to vote for him.

I'd say one third of those were discontented Liberal voters driven to Harper because they saw no other alternative.

To me, who knows how to train a dog fairly well, voting for either of these party dictatorites reinforces their feeling of entitlement and allows a campaign of blaming each other with lies.

That way they never have to deal with the issues but only spin against each other.

We've tried them both several times more than necessary. Had enough of Bulroony, Chretien?

It doesn't matter who, but it is time to teach them all that our patience is fleeting.

Give either of the other two parties your vote and maybe we'll get a good mix.

The lesson these MPs must learn is not to ignore us, to talk truth and not bullshit, and do something constructive that actually means something to the Canadian people.

The only way to train them is to turf them occassionally, so that they don't feel like they are the ruling class.

The true dangers are those institutions like religions, whose leaders-like the Pope, wish to subvert our individual power of the vote, the very foundation of freedom, by telling us which Candidates are "approved" by the Catholic Church.

The last Pope had the audacity to call on our elected members and demand they vote their religious concience on the same sex issue.

The sophistication of our government led it be silent over what is a direct attempt to interfere in the sovereignty of our country.

Think about how you would feel if Osama Bin Laden

had rallied his troops to vote a certain way on certain issues, openly.

Many people like our Prime Minister are blind to the following facts, because they are ideologues unable to use rational deduction to solve problems. They feel that using their own religious beliefs would serve all well.

I know enough about the religions practicing in this country to be able to call them all terrorist organizations.

As the Pope felt, so his church believes.

In the catholic creed of beliefs, as in many others, there is the statement "Should man's laws conflict with God's laws a true believer is bound to follow the laws of your religion"

That my friends is the textbook definition of a terrorist organization.

Any Organization that says its laws are above those of the state is by definition a terrorist organization. Bet you haven't reasoned that one out before?

What do you think drove those guys to fly into the world trade towers, shoot abortion doctors and other acts of oppression and racism practiced by our church groups on natives?

By their religious laws they were entitled to do as they wished, as today in BC, the Mormons in Bountiful get to raise young woomen for sexual purposes against our criminal laws. Because they are religious nuts, a generic group of which our PM subscribes to, they don't have to obey the laws, like those people who wish to grow their own herbal medicine/intoxicant.

Why these Conservative nuts have deemed this action of consuming a benign safe herb immoral and warfare a great future for Canada, is hard for me to understand. I don't wish to ban the bible, I think that it is a great piec of literature and human wisdom. Although I know many people have been killed by religious nuts of all stripes, I would stil not wish to criminalize someone's freedom of choice and the right to suffer the consequences.

Harper, though, has no quams like any ideologue dictator, running over my right to freedom of choice, although using marijuana has never hurt anyone and with only about 1/3 of the vote available in this country, oppress me with state force and allows organized crime to flourish so that his religious moral foundation is satified.

Think what this GWB, clever wannabe, would do with a majority? Where would we be in ten years?

3000 of our men and women dead and victory just around the corner with the Taliban on the run?

Oh, but now we would have so much more of a reason to honour our committment and stay "the course."

Atrophied thinking from myopic men doesn't do you, or me, any good..

The blood will flow and we will dither and do as our role model the USA wants us to because we owe them.

They are always claiming that we would not be independent if it wasn't for the Americans looking out for our safety. Are we a country with an independent ehtical core or not?

Isn't 140 years enough of this continuous bullshit? Lets turf the crooks we know so that we can try to teach the next generation of MPs to listen to the voters, not the lobbyists and American bosses.

When do we get another chance to roll the dice?

Edited July 10, 2007 by KO2

[Michael Bluth]

According to John Reynolds there are six by-elections likely to be called in the fall. Link

Here's a summary of what Reynolds said.

Mr. Harper is not obliged to set dates for all vacant seats. He is, however, likely to do so now that general election fever has cooled. Mr. Reynolds said he "would not be shocked" if there is no general election until the fall of 2009, as specified in legislation fixing elections every four years, unless the government is defeated first.

Here are the seats that are vacant.

Listed below are the six ridings that are or will soon be vacant, the MPs who last

occupied them, and their

announced departure dates:

Outremont, Liberal Jean Lapierre, Jan. 28

Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot, Bloc Quebecois Yvon Loubier,

Feb. 21

Roberval, Bloc Quebecois Michel Gauthier, no date

announced yet

Toronto Centre, Liberal Bill Graham, July 2

Willowdale, Liberal Jim

Peterson, July 12

Vancouver Quadra, Stephen Owen, July 27

If the Conservatives can snatch one of these seats they are looking good. Two and they are in a really strong position.

[jdobbin]

He's never going to win over the media. Even Reagan was portrayed as a dunce by the media, until he left office.

Reagan had ups and downs with the media his entire career.

[Michael Bluth]

Reagan had ups and downs with the media his entire career.

Like most politicians.

It's a really love-hate relationship between the politicians and the media.

So What Are The Boys Saying? An Inside Look at Brian Mulroney in Power by Michel Gratton is probably the best Canadian book on the relationship between a Prime Minister and the media.

Paul Wells' Right Side Up is a good look at the relationship between the media and both Stephen Harper and Paul Martin from the 2006 campaign.

[WestViking]

I know enough about the religions practicing in this country to be able to call them all terrorist organizations.

As the Pope felt, so his church believes.

In the catholic creed of beliefs, as in many others, there is the statement "Should man's laws conflict with God's laws a true believer is bound to follow the laws of your religion"

That my friends is the textbook definition of a terrorist organization.

The United Nations definitions are:

“Terrorist organization” means a group of two or more persons, including unauthorised armed groups and paramilitary groups, whose objectives or activities are directed toward the commission of terrorism;

“Terrorism” means the commission of one or more of the following offences, as defined in the applicable law, with an intent to create a serious threat to public order, to coerce a government or international organization, or to intimidate or endanger a civilian population:

(i) murder;

(ii) grave bodily injury;

(iii) hostage-taking;

(iv) kidnapping;

(v) unlawful detention;

(vi) poisoning of food or water;

(vii) causing general danger;

(viii) destroying or damaging public utilities;

(ix) making or procuring weapons or instruments;

(x) unlawful possession of weapons or exploding substances;

(xi) endangering internationally-protected persons;

(xii) hijacking of aircraft;

(xiii) jeopardising the safety of an aircraft’s flight;

(xiv) unauthorised acquisition or use of nuclear materials; or

(xv) jeopardising safety by nuclear materials.

I am not aware of any mainstream religious organization operating in western democracies that quality. Your concept of terrorism, amongst other issues, seems a bit warped.

[M.Dancer]

All I can say is closing threads for no good reason is starting to piss me off.

[Michael Bluth]

All I can say is closing threads for no good reason is starting to piss me off.

Fair enough. It's a fine line to draw though. The board appeared to have been far too lightly moderated for a while. So maybe a heavier hand is necessary.

[KO2]

"to coerce a government or international organization, or to intimidate or endanger a civilian population"

The trouble with you forum dominators is that you can paste word's, but can't apply them to real life situations.

Did I not say that the Pope interfered with our government by truing to coerse catholic members of parliament to vote their religious creed?

Maybe you think that Romes decrees should have precedence over my rights in Canada, but I don't.

I can call that religious terrorism, because the Pope wishes to terrorize Canada with religious rule direct from Rome.

Of course others might see that as benign concern, his right because he is god's rep on earth.

[WestViking]

"to coerce a government or international organization, or to intimidate or endanger a civilian population"

The trouble with you forum dominators is that you can paste word's, but can't apply them to real life situations.

Did I not say that the Pope interfered with our government by truing to coerse catholic members of parliament to vote their religious creed?

Maybe you think that Romes decrees should have precedence over my rights in Canada, but I don't.

I can call that religious terrorism, because the Pope wishes to terrorize Canada with religious rule direct from Rome.

Of course others might see that as benign concern, his right because he is god's rep on earth.

You referred to a "textbook definition of a terrorist organization". I simply gave you one and it does not fit your posted hypothesis. It is hardly subversive for the head of the Catholic Church to ask Catholics to adhere to their teachings when making decisions. That is his job.

You are entitled to your opinion but that does not render your opinion of any particular value. Calling people or groups names and hurling out accusations does not validate your opinions.

Our elected representatives are bombarded with requests from various groups to ‘do the right thing’. The definition of the ‘right thing’ depends on the agenda of the particular group. They seem able to chart a course between the extremes.

[KO2]

Yet you feel that your values are automatically worth more than mine based on your tradition of religious dominance, because you can't understand that it is not a valid reason to say this based on a belief system.

".....the head of the Catholic Church to ask Catholics to adhere to their teachings when making decisions. That is his job."

That is exactly why we have so much trouble in the world few people are actually capable of using rational judgement.

"That is his job" It is only his job if you are a believer.

To a person of reason it is an abomination.

A member of parliament if he is worthy of the title should represent the electorate, not his particular allegiance to Rome.

You misconceive that doing what is right means applying your particular religious creed.

Doing what is right in this case means for the people of Canada not what the Pope believes.

How dare you would ignore the plees of a majority of your electorate to vote the way the pope wants you to.

Who are you to suggest that this abomination of a religious idea, that Pope rules in Canada, trumps my reasoning.

"You are entitled to your opinion but that does not render your opinion of any particular value."

Neither is yours, to a thinking man who can use logic.

"Calling people or groups names and hurling out accusations does not validate your opinions."

This has been the tried-and-true method used by all religious fanatics, of every stripe and every era;

"Heathen, Savages, Infidels, Evil Doers, godless drug addicts, Al-Quada supporters to Jack Layton when he proposes a different policy."

You people don't look in the mirror very often do you?

It's really easy to snare you by the words of your mouths.

[Michael Bluth]

To a person of reason it is an abomination.

People have the freedom to base their decisions in consideration of their faith.

Considering the motivations of these people an abomination is not the attitude of a person of reason.

It is the attitude of a close-minded bigot.