A Fall 2007 Federal Election?

[capricorn]

He runs into problems when he tries to fix things like the "fiscal imbalance" and it appears to be good for Quebec, not so good for others.

It seems the term "fiscal imbalance" has been replaced with "fiscal balance" in recent Conservatives pronouncements. They used the new terminology in the budget surplus announcement.

[Visionseeker]

With MMP, there will be 39 fewer ridings. In the reconstitution of ridings, constituencies will be larger in size. Many have said this will be detrimental to rural areas whose residents are already complaining of poor representation. Consequently, MMP will benefit the larger cities where population is concentrated. I see this as a valid concern raised by rural residents. I am not in a rural area, I reside in the city of Ottawa. (Although many outside this city consider it as a hick town. )

I don't think MMP will be voted in for 2 main reasons.

1. Too many voters don't understand what it is so will vote against it or leave the ballot blank.

2. Too many Ontarians don't like change and will vote status quo.

I voted in the advance poll today and voted against MMP. My main objection is the 39 unelected persons who would be appointed by the party directly. Unelected representatives without constituents to serve who are given voice/vote in the Legislature just doesn't seem democratic.

The same issues will come up with a federal PR electoral system.

I would add a couple of reasons to your list:

1- the 60% provincial total with 60% of ridings approving formula

2- concerns about the undemocratic nature and public accountability of lists candidates

3- Concerns with failings of PR models in places like Belgium

4- MMP not representing a preferable alternative to first-past-the-post (you want to see a system that creates members for life even more than FPTP, than MMP is your model)

I too will be voting against the proposal for a number of reasons. While I am grateful for the efforts of the citizen’s assembly, their reformation task was at the outset configured to find a replacement rather than consider reforms within the existing process. The unproven premise was that the current system was irreparably broken.

Three measures I think would greatly help the first-past-the-post model would be the institution of a public financing model (as exists federally) and doing away with the disproportionate weight of rural constituencies vis-à-vis their urban counterparts. A vote in Brampton must be as valuable as a vote in Algoma. Lastly, any party that earns 10% or more of the popular vote must be invited to participate in the televised debates during the next electoral contest. With 10%, a party earns credibility and a right to promote itself in the debates IMO. Maybe that promotion can eventually be leveraged into seats.

I for one am not convinced that FPTP is so onerous.

Edited September 29, 2007 by Visionseeker

[maldon_road]

I would add a couple of reasons to your list:

1- the 60% provincial total with 60% of ridings approving formula

2- concerns about the undemocratic nature and public accountability of lists candidates

3- Concerns with failings of PR models in places like Belgium

4- MMP not representing a preferable alternative to first-past-the-post (you want to see a system that creates members for life even more than FPTP, than MMP is your model)

I too will be voting against the proposal for a number of reasons. While I am grateful for the efforts of the citizen’s assembly, their reformation task was at the outset configured to find a replacement rather than consider reforms within the existing process. The unproven premise was that the current system was irreparably broken.

Three measures I think would greatly help the first-past-the-post model would be the institution of a public financing model (as exists federally) and doing away with the disproportionate weight of rural constituencies vis-à-vis their urban counterparts. A vote in Brampton must be as valuable as a vote in Algoma. Lastly, any party that earns 10% or more of the popular vote must be invited to participate in the televised debates during the next electoral contest. With 10%, a party earns credibility and a right to promote itself in the debates IMO. Maybe that promotion can eventually be leveraged into seats.

I for one am not convinced that FPTP is so onerous.

I would vote for another system if it entailed voting for candidates not parties. Such as STV. I hope it fails and Ontario can come up with a better alternative.

[August1991]

Stephen Harper went fishing for a federal election Wednesday at his first formal news conference in Ottawa as prime minister.

The baited hook was a parliamentary ultimatum -- if opposition members bite on his Throne Speech in two weeks, they've swallowed the entire Conservative agenda.

An extension of the Afghanistan mission, tough love justice bills, a deep tax cut and a missing climate change bill are subject to de facto approval on Oct. 16. Should his rivals reject the master blueprint or defeat any one of his priorities, this make-my-day prime minister will deem it a lost vote of confidence.

Obvious translation: Capitulation or election. In the case of white-flag-flapping Liberals, that also means political strangulation.

...

Just in case Mr. Dion is still tempted to wave the white flag, Mr. Harper will apparently insert a poison pill in the Throne Speech to make it even more difficult to support. It's only an unconfirmed whisper, but the speech will apparently commit Canada to an extended Kandahar mission for military-backed humanitarian, redevelopment and security training purposes.

If so, the Liberals can only support it in thumb-screwed horror as their oft-sullied dignity is finally, irretrievably lost.

Of course, it's a brilliant strategy for Mr. Harper to unleash parliamentary inflexibility to force an election he pretends to abhor.

"It's time to fish or cut bait," the Prime Minister told reporters, after he somehow found his way to the National Press Theatre to face media he's gleefully ignored for 600 days.

Don Martin in NP

"Fish or cut bait". That's a Lyndon Johnson type expression. I guess Harper has access to polling numbers that the rest of us are not aware of. Anyway, he could run a good campaign on these issues and he's got the opposition exactly where he wants them.

Now then, dates.

The Throne Speech is scheduled for Tuesday Oct 16 with votes later that week. If the government falls, we need at least 35 days so that would put an election, at the earliest, on Monday 26 November or Monday 3 December.

The campaign would include the 11 November ceremonies.

[jennie]

Don Martin in NP

"Fish or cut bait". That's a Lyndon Johnson type expression. I guess Harper has access to polling numbers that the rest of us are not aware of. Anyway, he could run a good campaign on these issues and he's got the opposition exactly where he wants them.

Now then, dates.

The Throne Speech is scheduled for Tuesday Oct 16 with votes later that week. If the government falls, we need at least 35 days so that would put an election, at the earliest, on Monday 26 November or Monday 3 December.

The campaign would include the 11 November ceremonies.

Is that good?

An extension of the Afghanistan mission,

COMBAT or SECURITY?

It makes a difference.

tough love justice bills,

YAYA ... SHELL OUT THE EXTRA MONEY FOR FACILITIES, CUSTODY AND PEOPLE ON THE STREET AND WE'LL BELIEVE HIM.

OR GET SERIOUS ABOUT PREVENTION.

a deep tax cut and a missing climate change bill are subject to de facto approval on Oct. 16.

NOW HARPER COULD PULL THIS OUT IF HE MOVES TOWARD CONSUMPTION TAXES INSTEAD OF PERSONAL AND CORPORATE TAXES. THAT WOULD FLY.

Should his rivals reject the master blueprint or defeat any one of his priorities, this make-my-day prime minister will deem it a lost vote of confidence.

HE MAY WELL COLLABORATE AND PROVE TO BE A REAL LEADER ... DO YA THINK?

[maldon_road]

An extension of the Afghanistan mission, tough love justice bills, a deep tax cut and a missing climate change bill are subject to de facto approval on Oct. 16. Should his rivals reject the master blueprint or defeat any one of his priorities, this make-my-day prime minister will deem it a lost vote of confidence.

Ya gotta love it. Decision making time for the Libs. They stand on "principle" (such as they have in the Liberal Party) and force an election which they can only lose or hold their nose, allow the Speech from the Throne to pass, and look like fools.

[jdobbin]

"Fish or cut bait". That's a Lyndon Johnson type expression. I guess Harper has access to polling numbers that the rest of us are not aware of. Anyway, he could run a good campaign on these issues and he's got the opposition exactly where he wants them.

You gotta wonder though that even after two terrible weeks, the Tories can't seem to move up in the public polls we've been seeing. He must have a lot of confidence in his own polling or his own abilities to win a majority or be happy with the prospect of a continued minority.

Many former Liberal candidates will be campaigning hard if for no other reason than their own leadership aspirations will be made more difficult if they are sitting outside of Parliament.

If you recall, I said I thought the Liberals might try to have many members abstain from the vote for the throne speech. Last week, that idea was presented as an option by the party. Harper made sure to say that if the throne speech was passed, he expected the Opposition to stop opposing and pass all his bills. That obviously isn't going to happen.

Dion has cancelled a meeting to the north this week. I expect he will deal with this shuffle in his office and shadow cabinet and tell the party that November is when the election will happen whether the party likes it or not.

[Michael Bluth]

You gotta wonder though that even after two terrible weeks, the Tories can't seem to move up in the public polls we've been seeing.

Hmmm, what was the timeline for that last poll you presented?

[August1991]

There you go:

Tories eye early December election

Federal Conservative organizers say they have been told that their election campaign offices should be ready for opening on Oct. 20 and that candidates should begin canvassing constituents immediately.

They also say campaign chairman Doug Finley told candidates in a conference call yesterday that there will be four or five items in the Throne Speech that will be absolutely unacceptable to the other parties. And they say Mr. Finley told them the Conservative brass is currently trying to decide between three different election dates.

G & M

I'd say either Monday 26 November or more likely Monday 3 December or possibly 10 December.

Hmmm, what was the timeline for that last poll you presented?

My feeling too. Harper (and Tory polls) are looking at a moving target. Edited October 5, 2007 by August1991

[jdobbin]

I'd say either Monday 26 November or more likely Monday 3 December or possibly 10 December.

Harper (and Tory polls) are looking at a moving target.

What moving target would that be? Do you think they have polls that show they are in majority territory? Or do you think that Harper is supremely confident that he will move into majority territory over the course of the election?

If he doesn't get a majority this time, will there be consequences?

As for the unacceptable items, the Liberals could simply abstain from the throne speech vote and handle each issue as they come up thereafter.

[Michael Bluth]

I'd say either Monday 26 November or more likely Monday 3 December or possibly 10 December.

Can't be the 26th. No way to squeeze it into the timeline of a minimum five week campaign.

December 3rd is a five weeker and December 10th is a six weeker.

As for our resident Liberal cheerleader...

As for the unacceptable items, the Liberals could simply abstain from the throne speech vote and handle each issue as they come up thereafter.

Yeah, abstain from the Throne Speech vote. That sounds like a sure way for the Official Opposition to show it is ready to govern.

[old_bold&cold]

I love all the speculation about dates and timing etc.. But I will just have to put in my guess as the set election date in Oct of 2008. There will not be an election call this fall and it defies me as to where anyone would think it would be done. The Liberal party finances will not be in any shape to run an election the way they would like, and I do not think the NDP would be either. The Bloc will have less as the ruling liberal provincial government in Quebec, will not be as easy coming thru with the cash and the provincial PQ also will have less money to help out their federal cousins. Also are the facts that no one stands to gain any seats except the CPC, and all at the expense of the other parties. Does not even come close to being fertile ground for an election call.

The Liberal will not be ready and Dion definitely has not unified the party yet and is in no position to run an election. But maybe the party does not care and only wants to have an election so Dion is defeated and leadership convention can be called. While I do not think it is that way, I will not say that it is without merit.

Layton and the NDP, did ok last time out, but I do not see them winning much in an election at this time and to be exact, they may well lose the only seat they hold now in Quebec. It would be somethig they should be leary of. They relly would not have much to add to their last platform and right now voters will be more concerned with tax cuts then using that for more social spending. Just the general public feelings should tell them that it is not their type of time, for their ideas to be accepted.

Even with all the pomp and posturing, I do not feel that the government will fall on the throne speech, and I do not see any real ripe times for that call, before the set date coming next year. I also think that most of the voters also feel this way and backlashes will be big for anyone calling an election before then.

[Michael Bluth]

Even with all the pomp and posturing, I do not feel that the government will fall on the throne speech, and I do not see any real ripe times for that call, before the set date coming next year. I also think that most of the voters also feel this way and backlashes will be big for anyone calling an election before then.

The fixed date is October 19th, 2009. Link Not next year.

That leaves a lot of time for things to happen before the fixed date.

Backlash? Meh, the Liberals tried to use that line as they attempted to save their arses before the 2006 election. Didn't see much of a backlash that time around. It will honestly take all four parties wanting an election this time for one to happen. Who would the backlash effect?

[old_bold&cold]

The fixed date is October 19th, 2009. Link Not next year.

That leaves a lot of time for things to happen before the fixed date.

Backlash? Meh, the Liberals tried to use that line as they attempted to save their arses before the 2006 election. Didn't see much of a backlash that time around. It will honestly take all four parties wanting an election this time for one to happen. Who would the backlash effect?

My bad the set date is 2009. But as for who would the backlash be? Well, for one it would be for the opposition parties as a whole but mostly the LIB, and NDP. The bloc being in Quecbec will not face the same kind of backlash as most quebecers see them as perenial force against federal government. It is almost expected of them to vote down goverment. But they have recently lost a lot od the soft seperatist to become federalists, so their seats are all going to be in play, with many that will go CPC. The LIB in Quebec are not finished yet with scorn of the voters and so I think they will lose seats as well. Being that the NDP only won its recent quebec seat, I think it more of a protest vote then actually idealism, they will probably lose that seat as well. So I think Quebec will be the ripest place of all for Harper. As for the Ontario side of things, it will be a mirror of the last time but with maybe some seats in the cities going CPC just to hedge these areas bets. It will be strategic voting in the cities and Harper will still have all of the rural with maybe a seat ot two more in that.

The NDP as I said will probaly lose the quebec seat, and Laytons cut and run approach to Afghanistan may well cost him a couple more, but of all the parties the NDP will lose but they will lose less. I personally think Harper will still get more seats. If not enough to a majority, then it will be a very slim minority.

[Fortunata]

Yeah, abstain from the Throne Speech vote. That sounds like a sure way for the Official Opposition to show it is ready to govern.

Abstaining would absolutely be the more responsible choice. Steve has said that if the throne speech is supported that means all the bills and policies arising from it must be supported (that's democratic?). In order to support some things and reject others, the Liberals apparently (according to Steve) cannot vote for. If they vote against the throne speech an election would be called which the people clearly don't want and would be called irresponsible by both the "new" government and the people as well, not even taking into account the Liberal party is in major crisis. Abstaining, imo, is a win for the Libs.

[Michael Bluth]

If they vote against the throne speech an election would be called which the people clearly don't want and would be called irresponsible by both the "new" government and the people as well, not even taking into account the Liberal party is in major crisis. Abstaining, imo, is a win for the Libs.

So the Liberals are going to allow a throne speech to pass that they don't agree with because they are in major crisis.

Yup, a responsible choice and a win for the Liberals indeed.

[August1991]

What moving target would that be? Do you think they have polls that show they are in majority territory? Or do you think that Harper is supremely confident that he will move into majority territory over the course of the election?

If he doesn't get a majority this time, will there be consequences?

The moving target is the popular support for the Liberals under Dion. Polls done a week or so ago show one number but those numbers are changing and they'll change further once a campaign starts. Moreover, when people (particularly those who tell a pollster now that they'll vote Liberal) concentrate their minds, they're choice might be different.

The federal Liberal Party (or at least those who no effectively control it) no longer stands for anything at all. It certainly doesn't stand for National Unity since it will have no seats in French Quebec after this coming election (whereas the Conservatives will have 30 or more). Once this fact is understood in Ontario, then many Liberal voters will change parties and Liberal seats there will go Tory.

As for the unacceptable items, the Liberals could simply abstain from the throne speech vote and handle each issue as they come up thereafter.

That is simply not an option.

As a "Liberal strategist" admits, Harper has cornered them and the Liberals will have no choice but defeat the government:

«Harper nous a coincés, a affirmé hier un stratège influent. Il vient de démontrer qu'il veut des élections cet automne. On ne peut pas voter avec le gouvernement sur des questions de confiance toutes les deux semaines. On est un gouvernement en attente. Si on vote tout le temps pour le maintenir au pouvoir, on va avoir l'air d'un gang de clowns. Des élections semblent donc inévitables», a-t-il ajouté.

La Presse

There is no doubt whatsoever in my mind that we will have an election this fall. All the parties have agreed to it.

Edited October 5, 2007 by August1991

[Fortunata]

So the Liberals are going to allow a throne speech to pass that they don't agree with because they are in major crisis.

Yup, a responsible choice and a win for the Liberals indeed.

It's a win in the fact they can reject any part that they don't agree with when the time comes without being labeled as flip floppers as Steve is trying to do by dictating that it's all or nothing. Hmmmmm, that sounds familiar doesn't it? You are either with us or with the terrorists. Same thing Steve's trying to pull.

[old_bold&cold]

Harper in his throne speech will have an method of tax cuts and many other really wanted and wished for thing in there, just hoping that the opposition takes them down. First off he will have offered these cuts, so any party to then offer the same will be seen as coping the CPC format. There will be many other tidbits that will be there as well, so that voting this down will infuriate the voters to the point of them seeing the opposition as denying them these cuts. Lets face it, until we see the speech it will all be speculation. I still stand by my feelings that there will not be any election this fall, and if by any means I am wrong and one is called, it will be the people, who will be mad at the opposition rather then the CPC.

[Michael Bluth]

It's a win in the fact they can reject any part that they don't agree with when the time comes without being labeled as flip floppers as Steve is trying to do by dictating that it's all or nothing. Hmmmmm, that sounds familiar doesn't it? You are either with us or with the terrorists. Same thing Steve's trying to pull.

This Government has already lasted longer than most minority Governments. They have achieved the five priorities.

What's wrong with putting forth a plan, and if the opposition doesn't agree with it going to the election over it?

The NDP and Bloc have stated their positions and will act in accordance with their consciences. Why can't the Lbierals do the same?

The Liberals flexible ethics is what cost them the last election. Do they really want to prove their flexibility again?

[Fortunata]

This Government has already lasted longer than most minority Governments. They have achieved the five priorities.

What's wrong with putting forth a plan, and if the opposition doesn't agree with it going to the election over it?

The NDP and Bloc have stated their positions and will act in accordance with their consciences. Why can't the Lbierals do the same?

The Liberals flexible ethics is what cost them the last election. Do they really want to prove their flexibility again?

There is nothing the matter with having a plan and putting it forth. What is the matter is that Steve has said if you accept the plan you must accept all "their" solutions and paths to the plan. It's dictatorial to say the least. You may agree in theory with something and yet, not agree to the map to get there especially if you see a better way to a better outcome.

I don't want an inflexible government. I want a government that can see what others' say has value. Brain storming views and experiences for solutions is stronger than Steve in a room thinking he has them all.

Edited October 5, 2007 by Fortunata

[Michael Bluth]

There is nothing the matter with having a plan and putting it forth. What is the matter is that Steve has said if you accept the plan you must accept all "their" solutions and paths to the plan. It's dictatorial to say the least. You may agree in theory with something and yet, not agree to the map to get there especially if you see a better way to a better outcome.

Are you so sure the Liberals will agree with the Conservatives plan?

There was no attempt at mutual compromise on the part of all the opposition parties in the last session.

They tried to push Harper around with the Gwyn Morgan appointment and it degenerated from there.

If the Liberals really are ready to compromise they are working with the Conservatives behind closed doors to reach an agreement on the Speech from the Throne as we speak. The NDP and BQ have proven they aren't willing to compromise.

Throw out words like dictatorship all you want. It is in no way related to the actual situation and it is merely as childish as your use of 'Steve'. Interesting how the mods have let you get away with that one for so long. Different rules for different people I guess...

[maldon_road]

There was no attempt at mutual compromise on the part of all the opposition parties in the last session.

In fact it was almost warfare. And I don't things will be any different come the week after next.

[Michael Bluth]

In fact it was almost warfare. And I don't things will be any different come the week after next.

So Harper has presented Dion with two options.

1. Get along and work together on the Government's agenda.

OR

2. Call it a day and let the voters decide.

Harper doesn't want open warfare anymore and refuses to govern under those circumstances. It's his perogative. Power to him for making the choice clear for the Liberals.

[August1991]

1. Get along and work together on the Government's agenda.

OR

2. Call it a day and let the voters decide.

I think Harper is getting advice from Mulroney on this. We had an election in 1988 on free trade because the Liberal-controlled senate refused to pass the legislation. Mulroney had to stack the Senate with special senators to get his GST legislation through.

In this parliament, the Liberals held up the accountability legislation and rewrote entirely the Conservatives' environmental law.

Harper can't govern under such conditions (although he's managed well up to now). Harper is right to call the Liberals on this.

-----

When the writ drops and the campaign starts, the cause of the election usually gets forgotten. But I think Harper will have the edge in saying that the Liberals were obstructionist and Harper was patient to deal with them as long as he did.

Edited October 5, 2007 by August1991