Three Weeks

That's how long it might be until we're in an election campaign. Jim Flaherty confirmed the rumours today - budget day will be March 22nd, setting up a confidence vote later that week and a trip to the polls on May 2nd or May 9th. This isn't the first time Ottawa has come down with a case eleculation (short for election speculation - trademark Calgary Grit 2011), but this is likely the biggest bout of it since September 2009.

If you remember back then, Michael Ignatieff made it clear he was ready to bring down the government, the Conservatives flirted with 40% in the polls, and the little one said roll over. The story appears to be repeating itself, but that doesn't mean we won't get a different result this time. If Harper's not willing to give an inch or the NDP decides there's no point in putting off the inevitable, it's go time. As such, the parties are nominating candidates, running ads, and booking planes.

And what should we expect, if we do find ourselves in a campaign? Well, if the polls are to be believed, Harper is on the brink of a crushing majority. Or not.

So to summarize, we may or may not be heading to an election, and we really have no clue what will happen in the campaign.

Hope that clears things up.

Accidentally on Purpose

There's a lot of buzz around Don Martin's column today, titled "Speaker's ruling may trigger election nobody wants". Here's the crux of it:

It's a safe bet Milliken will deliver a balanced response aimed at forcing both sides to seek a middle ground. But there's considerable doubt it will offer a final solution.

Prime Minister Harper is ready to reject outright any Speaker order to surrender more unedited documents to this Parliament. If MPs are granted access to the files by the Speaker, they cannot run away from a fight lest their parliamentary precedent-setting victory ring hollow.

That risks turning the prime minister versus Parliament showdown into a no-win tug-of-war where everybody loses in an election nobody wants.

In minority governments, we hear about "accidental" elections quite often. After all, there needs to be some way to write election speculation columns at times when none of the parties are chomping at the bit to go to the polls.

But personally, I don't buy it. Short of a party whip telling his MPs to vote the wrong way (ha ha, like that would ever happen!), the parties generally know what the consequences of their actions are. Yes, issues can emerge to raise the temperature. But, if no one wants an election, there's always a compromise that can be reached. And when there isn't a compromise, they can simply say the electorate doesn't want an election, and vote accordingly.

Take this stand-off over detainee documents. Say the speaker rules the Tories must hand them over. Well, if Harper doesn't want an election, he can just bloody well hand them over. If he doesn't, well, it will still take a non-confidence vote to bring the government down - any one of the opposition parties can simply abstain on the vote to save the government. It certainly wouldn't be the first time.

I tend to doubt Canadians will be tuning in to Milliken’s ruling this afternoon as if it were a Tiger Woods press conference. So the political hit anyone will take for backing down on this is minimal.

The bottom line is this - if no one wants an election, we won't get one.

The Poison Pill

Although "poison pill" probably deserves to be added to the "overused political words" list, here's the latest on a possible poison pill:

The Conservative government plans to bring in legislation connected to the harmonized sales tax in the coming months, giving it the tool to bring about its own demise should Prime Minister Stephen Harper wish to capitalize on the Liberals' current misfortunes.

Government officials confirmed that the agreements under which Ontario and British Columbia will harmonize their retail sales tax with the federal goods and services tax call on Ottawa to bring forward HST legislation by March 31, 2010.

It seems obvious the Bloc would vote against this. The NDP would have a hard time supporting this but, you never know, maybe Jack will meet an unemployed single mother in Sudbury who pleads with him to vote for it, prompting a change of heart. Because, gosh darn it, he's thinking about the people!

But, failling that, the fate of the HST legislation would lay squarely in the hands of the Liberals.

Which would be, to put it bluntly, rather awkward. Having already split the party in Quebec, going to the wall against the HST would risk alienating many provincial Liberals in Ontario and British Columbia.

Which explains the rather...I guess the polite word would be "nuanced" position, that Michael Ignatieff has taken on the HST. In short: he's against it, it's a bad idea, but he'll honour the deal between Flaherty and the provinces.

So, given that, how do you vote against a piece of legislation you've promised to honour? Then again, how do you vote confidence in a government you've explicitly said you don't have confidence in? Presumably the Liberals will need to find an answer to one of those questions, unless Flaherty rolls the HST up into his next budget.

It's also a dicey situation for the Tories who probably don't love the idea of framing the election around their support for what is widely perceived to be a tax increase. After all, that makes it a lot harder for them to go on about Michael Ignatieff's secret plan to raise taxes.

So...yeah...fun times ahead!

Days of our Parliamentary Lives

Man, this fall election is more "on again / off again" than Ross and Rachel.

When we last left you, the election had been delayed, thanks to the NDP's courageous/cowardly decision to "get results for people"/"roll over". So, that was that, we could all sit back and focus on the new season of Survivor, and leave the drama behind.

Or so we thought. Dun dun dun!

The Liberals mischievously announced they'd help fast track the EI legislation, potentially getting it through the House by the time their non-confidence vote comes up in early October. Because, after all, nothing gets our parliamentarians working together like the thought of screwing each other over...

At this point, things get a bit murky - the NDP want to amend the legislation, an ideas the Tories are cool to.

Presumably the NDP are going to filibuster the stuffin' out of this legislation to avoid it passing, but it's unclear how long they can stall for. Jack has also suggested the somewhat comical notion that the NDP might keep parliament alive in the hope of getting private members bills through - that's a pretty small fig leaf that everyone in Ottawa will see through right away, but if he needs an excuse, that might be it.

So, stay tuned.

This Time We Mean It?

Well, at least according to "un proche collaborateur de M. Ignatieff, qui a requis l'anonymat", "une autre source libérale", and "un stratège libéral".

Les libéraux veulent provoquer des élections

(Ottawa) Les libéraux de Michael Ignatieff n'ont plus qu'une chose en tête à l'approche de la rentrée parlementaire: renverser le gouvernement conservateur. À moins d'un revirement majeur, les libéraux profiteront de la journée de l'opposition qui leur sera accordée fin septembre pour déposer une motion de censure envers le gouvernement Harper afin de provoquer des élections à l'automne.

Si les libéraux obtiennent l'appui du Bloc québécois et du NPD, ce qui semble acquis à en juger par les déclarations du chef bloquiste, Gilles Duceppe, et du leader du NPD, Jack Layton, des élections auraient lieu le lundi 9 novembre. Il s'agirait du quatrième scrutin en cinq ans et du deuxième en douze mois.

For equally credible speculation, there's always this.

Game Theory in Canadian Politics

OK, so what are the options?

1) Harper refused to compromise, opposition votes non-confidence -> ELECTION

2) Harper refuses to compromise, opposition rolls over -> NO ELECTION

3) Harper compromises, opposition votes non-confidence -> ELECTION

4) Harper compromises, opposition lets government survive -> NO ELECTION

5) Wild card (i.e. prorogation, Harper pulls the plug himself, etc...)

At this point, I just can't see option 2 coming to pass, as Ignatieff would look worse than Dion ever did and would be ridiculed by the press all summer long. I think rolling over was a very legitimate option today, but after issuing a new set of demands, it's just not in the cards. I suppose there remains a small chance the NDP or Bloc might keep Harper afloat, but they've been fairly definitive in saying they'll vote against him at every opportunity.

So, with that in mind, the ball is in Stephen Harper's court - what are his options?

Well, if he wants an election, he has three ways to go about it (1, 3, 5). Presumably, he'd want to shift the election blame on to the Liberals, which might lead us to scenario 3, where Harper agrees to some of Ignatieff's rather ambiguous demands, but not enough to earn their confidence. Or, he could sneer at the opposition and simply dare them to bring his government down, trying to look like a strong, confident leader (option 1).

Now, if Harper doesn't want an election, he has the opportunity to avoid it. Ignatieff's demands really aren't that onerous (a plan here, a promise there...), and Harper doesn't even have to cave to Ignatieff - there are two other opposition leaders out there who might relish the opportunity of getting some "results for people"/"results for Quebecers". And, quite frankly, when the deficit is over 50 billion dollars, is anyone really going to care much if Jack Layton gets a few billion for a pet project of his?

So, the decision is Harper's. And, truth be told, I have no friggin' clue what he'll decide.

Crossing The Border

I've generally been on the dovish side about bringing the Tories down. And I can buy the Liberal argument for voting against today's NDP motion - it's only fair to look at these immigration reforms in committee first.

BUT

Here's some of the language the Liberals are using:

"We believe the Conservatives are wrong when they treat newcomers who want to immigrate to Canada like commodities and not human beings,"
-Ralph Goodale

“This begs a simple question: What does the government have against refugees?”
-Michael Ignatieff

"For half a century Canada has pursued immigration goals based on fairness and objectivity.
Why is the Prime Minister trying to get rid of these principles of fairness and objectivity? Why does he want to replace them with abusive powers in the hands of his minister, to replace open arms with closed doors?"
-Stephane Dion

"Why is the government telling the world: 'Immigrants need not apply?"
-Stephane Dion


Forcing an election on your own terms makes sense. And trying to reform this bill constructively makes sense. But if these immigration reforms aren't altered, it's at the point where the Liberals have painted them as being so ghastly that they really have a moral imperative to vote against them.

Of course, that doesn't mean they will.

Monday Morning

A few random Monday morning thoughts, posted Sunday night:


1. I've generally been in the "no election" camp over the past two years whenever the "THE GOVERNMENT IS ABOUT TO FALL!!!" speculation has started up time and time and time again.

But, it's really looking like the moment of truth has finally arrived. I think it's safe to say Harper's ridiculous crime threat is going nowhere but, listening to the leaders this weekend, I don't see any way for the Afghanistan extension to pass. I just get the sense that the stakes are too high - both politically and for Canada - for anyone to compromise. Now, this might very well mean the budget gets rushed to ensure the Tories fall on it first but, I would be surprised if this government lives to see April.


2. Looking back at the first week of the Alberta election, it's hard to deny it's been a rocky week for Stelmach - in the words of ES: "Memo to the Premier's Staff: Don't take him "on the road" to make announcements unless you're 100% sure that the people who are present in the room will think the announcements are a *good* thing. You look like amateurs right now, and you're making your boss look like a fool in front of the cameras." It's no wonder Ed went into hiding this weekend.

And while I do think Taft has looked Premierial (what's the provincial equivalent of "Prime Ministerial" anyways?) so far, I am a bit concerned about the number of promises he's making every day. The "(insert city here) agendas" are a good idea, but the risk is always that you'll get portrayed as "tax and spend Liberals". Talking about being fiscally conservative and tossing out a few democratic reform ideas would probably net more votes than the wide range of spending promises we've seen so far. The kind of changes Kevin talked about in Democracy Derailed wouldn't cost much and go to the argument that the Tories have been corrupted by power - hopefully the focus shifts over to those sorts of promises shortly.

So, I'll reluctantly give NDP leader George Mason props for his plan to ban corporate and union donations. Especially since the NDP would be hurt a lot by the loss of the union donations.


3. Congrats to Daveberta on the trio of Canadian Blog Awards he picked up. As the runner up for two awards, I certainly don't mind losing to Dave, if only because it likely pissed off half the Tory war room. And a big thanks to everyone who voted for Calgary Grit!


4. Voting is now open in the Liblogs video contest.


5. Obama swept all four primaries this weekend and is expected to win three more on Tuesday. While Hillary does currently lead due to super delegates, I suspect many of the undeclared super delegates will go Obama's way. Most of the "hypothetical" polls out there show Obama doing better versus McCain than Hillary and when your re-election is the on the line, you certainly take a look at things like that. Personally, I think those polls are worthless, a dumb way to make a decision, and are probably what got Kerry the nom last time. But people still read them and Obama is certainly no John Kerry.

And with the momentum he's got going for him, he's certainly the one I'd be betting on right now.

The Manley Report

First of all, kudos to Stephen Harper for his wickedly brilliant selection of John Manley to chair this panel. I know, I know, the tendency is always to assume everything Harper does is some sort of evil strategic ganius coup de force but his time it really is, for reasons that a lot of other smart people have already mentioned.

As for the report...things like this take time to digest. John Manley's a pretty smart guy and my military knowledge is limited to Steven Spielberg movies so I'll try to focus on the political ramifications. And from a political perspective, the key recommendation is to extend the mission indefinitely if other countries pick up some of the slack. Presumably, this will be a big issue when NATO meets in Bucharest this April so one would think the vote won't come until after then...

...or not. If Harper's itching for an election, this might very well be the issue he uses to force it and, with the economy expected to stumble, it might make sense to get things rolling before the next budget. While I could see the Liberals abstaining on the budget, in the words of Stephen Colbert "we're at war, pick a side" - abstaining on this one just isn't an option. Siding with the government would mean the end of one of Dion's best wedge issues so this would be a very hard motion to support. (Then again...)

But let's assume for a minute that Harper takes Manley's recommendation and waits until after Bucharest to hold the vote. What happens if Harper can't talk NATO into ponying up the extra 1,000 troops? Does he pull out then? One presumes Harper's going to get that hypothetical question a lot between now and April and the bluff doesn't really work unless Harper's willing to go all in. Now on the flip side, if he talks NATO allies into picking up the slack and Canadian troops get rotated out of the hot spots, could the Liberals actually oppose it? Well...it'd be a hard vote for Dion to whip.

Interesting times ahead...


UPDATE: Radwanski hits the nail on the head with respect to vote timing:

What we've got is a bit of a chicken-and-egg scenario. Harper can't really go to other countries without first getting the Liberals on board, but if there's any chance at all of the Liberals coming on board it'll only be after those other countries commit to extra troops.

The obvious solution is for the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Official Opposition to sit down like two grown men and plot this thing out. It wouldn't exactly be unique; partisanship is supposed to occasionally take a back seat when your country is at war. But it remains to be seen if either of these two have it in them, let alone both at the same time.

Tory Times Are Tough Times

The buzz out of Kitchener is that the Liberals may do the honourable thing by not taking advantage of an impending economic slow down. Garth Turner explains:

"I think the most important thing for us is not to just say, 'Oh goody, here's an opportunity for us to bring the government down' when people are feeling most anxious about the future. That might be politically advantageous but it's not the right thing for Canada."

I agree 100%. I think the"right thing for Canada" would be to wait until things get bad enough that people are willing to toss Harper over the economy and then bring 'em down.

Galleons, Sickles, and Knuts

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty said distributors and retailers should lower prices "as soon as possible" to reflect a soaring Canadian dollar, and held up a copy of the latest Harry Potter book as an example of how some items are still much cheaper in the U.S.

[...]

Flaherty said he looked at a copy of the recent Harry Potter book in Washington this past weekend, which was selling for US$29.74 before tax. He came back to Ottawa and purchased the Canadian version, which was $36 before tax.

What the wire story forgot to include was the following:

Upon learning that Dumbledore was gay, a visibly shaken Flaherty promptly returned both the American and Canadian copies of the book.

In other Flaherty news, it appears Jim will be presenting a fall mini budget as part of he who cannot be named's devious scheme to plunge us into an election. The thinking is, I guess, that the Liberals will want to fight an election against tax cuts. Some advice to the dark lord - if the Tories really want an election, just put forward the "Kitten Genocide Bill" and it will happen. Proposing popular tax cuts is not going to do it, especially when the Libs support all the proposals except the GST cut.

Crime, Crime, Everywhere a Crime

Stephen Harper's new New Government appears to have survived the throne speech so its next test will be on an omnibus crime bill - most of it being composed of legislation sent to parliamentary purgatory this spring. It will be a matter of confidence which seems fair enough to me, given the size of it and the fact that it's one of the original "five priorities" that still hasn't come to pass (fun fact - "The 5 Priorities" is also the name of Stephen Harper's garage band).

Among the proposed highlights:

-tougher sentences on gun crimes (NDP has pushed for this before)
-raising age of sexual consent to 16
-higher penalties for impaired driving
-reverse onus for repeat offenders of violent crimes
-dealth penalty for anyone who doesn't pay back their leadership debt in time (that one is just speculation on my part)

Now, I do think there's a chance the NDP or Bloc might decide to support this legislation, but let's assume they don't for a minute. That leaves Stephane Dion in the unenviable position of, yet again, having to give Harper a de-facto majority or of triggering an election.

And while I think a lot of experts would agree that there are some very bad and very unnecessary proposals here, at the end of the day, this is politics. And there's enough popular policy in here that I don't think this is the hill Dion wants to die on. If he was debating this legislation against Harper in front of a law class, he'd probably win (well, at least a french law class). But explaining to Canadians why you don't want to get tough on drunk drivers and gun crimes? That's a bit harder to sell.

So this one probably falls into the "live to fight another day" category. I would advise the Liberals to let this one through and I suspect they likely will.

De-Throned?

They're baaaaaack!

Canada's New Government gave it's second throne speech tonight. And since we've had a month of daily election speculation around it, let's start there. With the Bloc and NDP against it, it's all in Dion's hands now. And while there are certainly some ominous promises, throne speeches are vague enough that the Liberals can likely let it pass.

That said, it's going to be a challenge to make it to Christmas without a lack of confidence vote given the following promises in today's speech:

-an elected senate
-previously defeated crime legislation
-repeal the gun registry
-limit federal spending powers

So...looks like we're in for a few months of election speculation stories.


UPDATE: Dion will let the throne speech pass but Harper says his first bill will be a crime bill that will be a confidence motion.

Random Wishes

Given that the throne speech is still 19 days away, I'd really rather not have to endure daily election speculation around it.

I mean, can't we talk about something a little more relevant, like Paris Hilton, or Britney?

You Know The Summer's Over...

...when election speculation starts up.

The Bloc threatening to bring Harper down over Afghanistan while the Dippers promise to vote against the Throne Speech over Kyoto.

Which means we're in for two months of speculation about "who blinks".

Provincial Matters

Unless you're a hockey fan, it figures to be a pretty slow news weekend. So I thought it might be a good time for a little election speculation. However, it certainly seems to me that there's a speculatory imbalance with all the hype being on the federal vote, so I figured I'd take a looksy at some of the provincial elections coming up this year. I'm certainly not an expert in the intricacies of Newfoundland or Manitoban politics, so this is more of an open thread for those closer to the action to give their two cents on the local scene.


Ontario

October 10th, 2007 will be voting day as Dalton McGuinty guns for a second term against the tory Tory. The latest SES numbers have the Liberals ahead, although not at their 2003 numbers quite yet:

Lib 41
PC 33
NDP 17

Despite the early flack for broken promises, I'd be surprised to see McGuinty lose this one.



Newfoundland & Labrador

King Williams seems to be the safest Premier in Canada these days, with opinions polls showing him miles ahead of an opposition in disarray. Despite a recent by election win by the Liberals, this should be another walk in the park for Danny as he runs on his anti-Ottawa platform.

It's weird - politicians who are adored outside of their home provinces like Bernard Lord and Jean Charest are usually reviled at home, while those who turn into punch lines like Danny Williams and Ralph Klein are the ones who cruise to record majorities.



Saskatchewan


Lorne Calvert will certainly be tempted to take a page from Premier Williams and wage war on Ottawa during the next campaign. Despite an economic boom, after 16 years in power, voters seem to be tiring of NDP government and the Sask Party (slogan: "Just like the old PCs, minus the kick backs!") has routinely been ahead in the polls over the past year. They are led by Brad Wall who I doubt anyone outside of Saskatchewan has ever heard of.



Manitoba


You probably want to check out Hack's blog for the low down on Manitoba politics, but it certainly sounds like the opposition are poised to knock off Gary Doer here.



PEI

Pat Binns is the Premier. Above and beyond that, I really don't have anything insightful to say about the state of PEI politics. Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

UPDATE: OK, here's some news on PEI.


Alberta

My money is on 2008 for the next election but it could be joining the 007 club if Ed Stelmach decides he wants to get his own mandate. It has been 36 years since the last government change here so, even by Alberta standards, we are due. The Liberals have their sights set on a Calgary breakthrough as the former farmer Stelmach is seen to be anti-Calgary in many circles (those circles usually comprising of Jim Dinning supporters). But with an electoral map which favours rural Alberta dramatically, it would take one heck of a stumble for the Tories to fall out of power.

Mindless Speculation

I know whenever anyone fires up the troops, it's perceived that an election is "imminent". I've said for a while that I don't think we'll see a federal vote until 2008, but the common consensus is certainly turning towards a spring vote these days.

So I'll toss the question out there for the comments section: Will we be having a federal election this spring?

Speculate away!


UPDATE: Libs and NDP to oppose the budget, Bloc to support it which puts Andre Boisclair in a rather uncomfortable position, to put it mildly.

I don't think this changes much vis-a-vis election speculation though since the Kyoto and Crime bills are the most likely roads to an election, not the budget.

Monday News Roundup

Daveberta has the run down on the new legislative session in Edmonton and the performance of Mr. Ed thus far. Speaking of which, Stelmach says he's not ready to pick a fight with Ottawa over the new equalization scheme but I'm guessing Danny Williams won't be quite so nice.


There weren't many leaks for the first Harper budget but it looks like secrecy may not prevail this year. The Globe has some speculation here:

The finance minister's “fix” [for the fiscal imbalance] is expected to include at least $3.5-billion extra for the provinces: about $1-billion more in annual equalization payments, $1-billion in annual transfers for post-secondary education, an already announced $1.5-billion fund to tackle climate change, and possibly more for other infrastructure projects.

Even though I tend to agree with Dion that the fiscal imbalance is the creation of provincial finance ministers with over active imaginations, it's hard to argue against money for education, the environment, and infrastructure. All the more reason I can't see the government falling on this budget. Still...I did find this cartoon pretty funny:





In Quebec, Mario Dumont is upset over the "witch hunt" being waged against ADQ candidates. I know! You find one or two candidates who worry that "the ethnics will swamp us" and complain that we "let them wear turbans" and suddenly everyone is on trial...


Out West, it appears the federal Tories are having problems of their own with a BC candidate who exaggerated his resume. As someone whose current resume has "2006 Time Person of the Year" under his accomplishments, I can sympathize with Mr. Pandher.

A Few More Tricks For This Pony

The fear among a lot of Liberals I've talked to is that Dion will run on the environment and nothing but, during the next campaign. Given that putting all one's eggs into one basket, no matter how eco-friendly that basket is, likely isn't a great strategy, today's speech by Dion is certainly a little reassuring. Some economic policy, money for innovation, money for education...sounds good to me. Obviously you don't give away the specifics now (gotta get headlines during a campaign, after all), but at least it shows he's thinking about more than Kyoto.

Green Answers - 3

Nick Nanos' blog put up the question yesterday about just how real the Greens' poll numbers are, leading to a wide range of answers. I asked the same question a while back so I figured today would be a good time to put up some of the answers.

(You can see the answers to some of the other environmental questions here and here)


3. Would Canadians actually vote for the Green Party? If so, who does that hurt the most?

Some Answers

-Green Party will get 5-10% of the vote in the next election. Probably hurts the Liberals the most as it might cost them some close seats in Ontario.

-It hurts the NDP the most as they've always been seen as the most environmentally conscious, and the Liberals the second most as they're now trying to cultivate a green image, but it hurts everybody a bit.

-The Green party will take young and urban votes away from the NDP and Liberals. It will have more of an effect on their dollars per vote financing than seats won.

-The Green Party's numbers will not change. They will only be supported by people who either a) actually care about the environment or b) are protesting the big three.

-No. (And I'll add: hahaha)


-Okay, but seriously - I say the NDP, in a perfect-storm sense when married with Jack Layton. If Ed Broadbent was leader, it would hurt the Liberals more, Dion or no Dion.

-if the Greens can't win a seat the next election (whenever that may be), with everyone talking about the environment, I don't see how they ever will.


My Take

The Greens always do better with hypothetical voters than with real ones and there's no reason to suspect that the next election won't be any different. True, they are hitting higher in the polls now than ever before, but when voting day comes, I can't see them with over 7 or 8%...which likely won't translate into any seats.

Still, they are taking votes away from someone and with politics being a zero sum game, that means someone loses when the Greens surge. In the past, studies into this showed that the Greens grabbed a lot of Conservative votes but I think that was because of Jim Harris being a Conservative and a lot of Red Tories looking for a home. Elizabeth May has quickly put her own stamp on the party such that people voting for the Greens are likely hard core environmentalists (or those casting a protest vote, in which case it doesn't really hurt anyone else since these people would be voting for the Canadian Action Party or staying home without the Greens). Given that, one imagines that any votes they drain are likely coming massively from the NDP and Liberals - probably more so from the NDP asI tend to think environmental idealists who don't care about voting for a party which can win would have left the Liberals for the Dippers a long time ago.

Thoughts?