Liberals...kickin' themselves when they're down

Wikileaks cables have revealed the tension within the Liberal Party of Canada since Ignatieff was given the reigns to the leadership, particularly from new interim leader Bob Rae, and former insider Rocco Rossi.

Why is this surprising?

I think many of us in the Conservative blogosphere, knew Bob Rae and his minions were behind the scenes in somehow undermining or planning to undermine Michael Ignatieff's leadership, like Iggy did to Stephane Dion.

Bob Rae knew over two years ago that the Liberal Party wasn't going to grow.  Maybe that's why he let Ignatieff take the reigns unchallenged just after the initial coalition agreement and Dion's resulting departure.

It's also more apparent that Bob Rae, although interim leader, will eventually be crowned permanent leader?  Why?  Because it will be ensured no one will run.

I know I've said on my Twitter that we shouldn't be focusing on the Liberals rebuilding.  I'm not though.  I'm focusing on their demise.

Bob Rae the Interim

It appears that Toronto-Centre MP and former Ontario NDP Premier, Bob Rae, will take the Liberal Party interim leadership for the next year and a half when they finally have a leadership vote in the fall of 2012.

This quashes any actual leadership or prime ministerial ambitions he has had.

I've always had my eye on him (politically!) and believed that he was quietly undermining Michael Ignatieff's leadership, especially after bowing out of any leadership race when Stephane Dion stepped down.

There is also no doubt that Bob wants to merge the Liberals and NDP, but with the NDP in a much, much, much stronger position than the Liberals, that possibility is off the table.

Bob's getting up there in age, but I think the Liberal diaspora saw the writing on the wall if Rae was elected their leader.  The Conservative Party would have a Rae hay day in slamming his record as premier of Ontario.

This is a good move for the Liberals.

Far from me to give advice to them, but I would suggest that they reconnect with their original roots and purpose.  They were called Grits back in the day.  Does anyone call them that anymore?  No.  They need to find that "grittiness" to garner attention and purpose to exist.  Rae is not gritty, but actually quite eloquent in the House of Commons, so whomever the Libs pick as leader, he or she has gotta have the grit, because their last three leaders didn't.

Election Post Mortem

I say, there's no better title to this blog post than "Post Mortem" due to the election's political death of leaders, cabinet ministers, and other high-profile MPs.

Lorne Gunter has some insight on the NDP "surge" and how it was the Tories who actually surged through splits.

I lament, however, at no longer having the bulk of my posts focus on Dr. Michael Ignatieff.  It was fun to challenge his intentions to become PM.  I look forward to the next victim, Justin Trudeau, who will surely woo young soft Dipper support in Quebec once Quebeckers see that their new crop of NDP MPs won't deliver on anything and will turn on them so fast to look for the next best thing.  However, older soft-sovereignists will surely halt any exodus reciting "Je me souviens" and how Justin's father helped ignite Quebec nationalism.

And speaking of Quebec nationalism, Mr. Duceppe, it's been a slice, but your party, like your province, no longer has any real relevancy or power in Parliament.  Conservatives have shown that a majority is possible without Quebec and this will continue in elections to come as more seats are added to BC, Alberta, and Ontario.  Now especially with a few Quebec Conservative cabinet ministers getting turfed, Quebec continues to choose to be on the outside of government and the national stage.  So be it.

"Jack and Gilles went up the Hill to fetch a pail of water
Jack fell down, sprained his hip, recovered, and Gilles tumbled all the way thereafter."

For American-born, dual-citizenship, Elizabeth May, she and her party survive another day, despite losing 380,000 votes from 2008, that's a almost $800,000 the Greens WON'T receive in vote subsidies, but now, they won't have to pay her a salary.  I may spend some time focusing on her and her policies in future posts.

Speaking of salaries... over 100 MPs lost or retired.  How many qualify for the gold-plated pension I'm not sure, but many long-time MPs, including Gilles Duceppe, will live very comfortably for the rest of their lives.

For Prime Minister Stephen Harper, it has been a very long time coming.  Over ten years actually to get here.  After his hiatus as a Reform MP and leading the National Citizens' Coalition for a few years, in 2000, seeing Stockwell Day's days numbered, he returned with one intention--to unite the right. 

This election, I maintain that Harper was the one who engineered the election, trapping Ignatieff into holding the gov't in contempt.

I maintain that Harper let Jack attack Ignatieff on his voting record in the English debate and let him go toe-to-toe with Duceppe in the French debate.  Harper knew he didn't need Quebec to win, which is why Harper didn't have to say much and actually sacrificed Quebec and some of his cabinet ministers to the NDP to win it all elsewhere.

With a loss, two minority wins, and now a majority, Harper has proven as a skilled tactician, there is only one winner in a game of chess, not only with opposition leaders, but from within as well.  He is and will remain for many years, the last man standing up high on the Hill, with the only pail of water.

Election notes - Day ??

I'm currently on an undisclosed tropical island enjoying a couple weeks off.  But that doesn't mean I haven't been keeping up-to-date on the election.

Here's what I know and what I think I know.

The NDP are gaining momentum which was triggered by Jack's performance in the debates.  I also think those on the left are comparing Iggy and Jack and liking Jack a lot more, especially in Quebec.  Iggy's "Rise Up" speech, I think, was a bit of a turn off for many, and many leftoids are confused as to what Iggy's intentions are with a potential coalition.  Not with Jack.  In Quebec, the NDP are ahead of both other federalist parties with the Bloc losing ground.

So who are these soft-separatists that are turning to the NDP?  They're coalitionists now!  By supporting the NDP and putting them above the Liberals, they've realized there is a potential for Jack Layton as PM in a coalition gov't with Gilles Duceppe in there somehow.  It's crazy, I know, but Jack's performance in the French debate was very good and convincing.

So now, this is where I'm going to speculate on some Conservative strategy.  Hear me out dear readers.  Consider...

- We all know, Stephen Harper's plan all along has been to replace the Liberals as the "natural governing party".

- With the Liberals moving to the right against the massive Conservative wall, the gap on the centre-left was left wide open.  Jack has successfully moved into it with some centrist policies like the small business tax cut and other family-friendly measures.  But it's more on personality than policy.  People simply like Jack a lot more than Iggy.

- So I think the Conservatives are helping Jack Layton.

- Did Stephen Harper willingly take a back seat in the French debate to let Jack do most of the talking?

- Is the recent Conservative attack ad on Jack Layton not really an attack ad at all but a way to draw attention to him so that lefties consider Jack as a potential leader of the opposition or the prime minister in a coalition gov't?   ... While at the same time, drawing away some soft NDP anti-coalitionists in BC and Ontario to the Conservatives themselves?

For this blogger, ideally, I would love to see the end or decimation of the Liberal party.  They were a terrible official opposition--Iggy's voting record notwithstanding.

While I disagree with them on many issues, I've always admired the NDP--they at least stand for something and would be a formidable official opposition to the Conservatives.  And I also think with a stronger NDP, it would quash the Liberals from wanting to merge, which is, of course, good for Stephen Harper.

Not only that, but having a Conservative majority is the best thing for our growing and prosperous country.  With lower corporate taxes, we are already seeing more investment and growth in the economy, which has had the positive effect of actually bringing in more revenue for the government, which is why the deficit is shrinking faster than expected.  I don't understand how many people don't get that concept.

And for national unity.  In a majority, we all know Harper will bring in legislation to eliminate the taxpayer-funding for political parties.  The Bloc relies on over 85% of their revenue from this funding.  Removing that, would hurt them big time.

So everything appears to be working in favour of Stephen Harper in his quiet campaign.  Like in 2004, after Canadian families got together for Christmas dinner and talked politics, the Conservatives surged.  The key polls will be after the Easter dinners where I think lefty Canadians at the table will see that the Liberals have no hope in defeating Harper, but they do see a potential for Jack Layton as official opposition leader or the leader and PM of a coalition government.

For an election about nothing, it seems to be an election about what those traditionally strategic-voting leftwing Canadians are thinking... that they're finally going to vote the party and leader they've always wanted to vote for.  And they're feeling pretty damn good about it.

Ok, now back to the beach and warm sunshine...

Debates and outcome scenarios - followup

English Debate...


Summary:  Harper calm & solid. Iggy stumbles. Layton feisty and passionate. Duceppe not as good as before.


I enjoyed this debate.  I thought each leader respected each other's time.  The first half they attacked Harper and it seemed it was on Iggy in the second half.  They started off with the leaked AG G8 info but it didn't last. I don't think this story is going to stick next week.


Jack wasn't interrupting as much as before and kept on the attacks while highlighting NDP policies.  He did really well.


Ignatieff seemed a bit uncomfortable when speaking and trying to bring together different anecdotes into some nonsensical train of thought and argument and reminded me more and more of a professor at Harvard for some reason .. or just a boring political science professor.


Duceppe was Duceppe.  Like a rambling neighbour but his quote on "I will never be prime minister of Canada, I can assure you that!" got some laughs.  People like Duceppe because he's straightforward and he didn't disappoint.


All that said, Iggy didn't deliver the knock out punch on Harper to make Harper trip, but Layton sure did... on Iggy that is.


Overall, I don't think this debate will change much other than halt the 2-4 point Liberal gain.  Harper made continual compelling and calm arguments why the Conservatives should be reelected with a majority.


At times, it seemed Harper's calmness seemed to frustrate Ignatieff, and for that, overall Harper beat Ignateiff, but I thought Jack won the debate overall.  He was enjoyable to watch.

Debates and outcome scenarios

I think all the debates comes down to is not really how Harper performs--he'll be his usual self.  It comes down to Iggy and if undecideds get comfortable with him and trust him.  Tough to do. Harper needs to be careful not to attack his personal history, but his numerous flip flops on policy.

You'll also notice that the Conservatives have been laying pretty low during this election and not trying to draw attention to themselves. Reminds me of Ralph Klein's election in 2004.  That said, the media attention has been quite negative on Harper and quite biasedly positive on Iggy.  Voter turnout will be low low low and the fewer that show up, that means there's less desire for change.  Conservative base is loyal as hell and the GOTV (Get Out The Vote) machine for the Conservatives is well oiled --- I've been a part of it and it's actually a lot of fun.

Polls are averaging out with about 153 CPC seats to 71 LPC.  If Harper survives the debate and even ties with Iggy, 

That said, closer to election day, watch Liberal numbers go up a couple points to 32 and maybe 33.  But that support won't be stolen from Harper, it's NDP and Greens.  NDP might get wiped out down to low 20's.  The Liberals have basically stolen NDP policy.  Makes me wonder if there isn't some secret plan to show that both parties are more similar than some think--all designed to setup the Coalition Gov't.

Why else would the Liberals cancel their June convention?  The NDP and CPC didn't.  Liberals are going to lose and at their conventions, after an election loss, the Liberals MUST vote on whether to keep Iggy around as leader.  But, if he becomes PM in a coalition, there is no need for a convention, right?

So anyone can get caught up in the mire of mini-scandals from both parties (Liberals are throwing stones at glass houses), but this election's main issue is simply:  do you want a majority or a coalition gov't?

With Iggy's approval and trust ratings at such a low level comparatively with Harper and Layton, Canadians will not accept Iggy as their PM.

A Conservative minority will result in a constitutional crisis again.  The Liberals and Dippers know that if it a minority, they're not voting for the same budget, which Flaherty said he'd table again.  Then the power turns to the Bloc.  If the budget gets voted down AGAIN, then the GG has to decide:

1. if we're going to have yet ANOTHER election, which Harper would win in a landslide because (see Dief in the 60's) as my bet is Canadians are sick of this
2. if the coalition should govern instead, while legal, most Canadians don't want to accept Iggy as PM
3. if he refuses the coalition and tells them to get along with Harper for a while then may accept another election.

Like I said, the debates are important, and it's Iggy's big chance to shine. Will Canadians be even watching?

Ignatieff claims to be an American 22 times in 2 minute speech

Listen to this two minute speech from Michael Ignatieff and how many times he says "us" and "we" in reference to Americans.  I just don't get how anyone can trust a word this guy says about anything, let alone calling our hockey-loving Prime Minister as "unCanadian".  Unbelievable.



h/t The Alberta Ardvark

Ignatieff thinks Harper is "un-Canadian"

Maybe the guy should look in the mirror...

• “You have to decide what kind of America you want...It’s your country just as much as it is mine.” (C-SPAN, June 17, 2004)
  
• “I want to make it clear; there isn't an anti-American bone in my body. I love the republic I live in.” (Sunday Edition with Michael Enright, CBC Radio, Sept. 16, 2001.)
  
• “I think that one of the ‐--‐ that almost the nemesis of American power is that we are deeply hated and simultaneously supposed to have magical powers.” (Charlie Rose Show, April 28, 2004)
  
• Ignatieff told an interviewer that “the only thing he missed about Canada was Algonquin Park”. (Maclean’s, November 20, 2006)
  
• Ignatieff described the Canadian flag as “a passing imitation of a beer label” (The Observer, July 8, 1990).
  
• Ignatieff said, "Quebeckers walk around with this fantasy of how different they are, but they are just North Americans who speak French...They take the minor difference and magnify it." (Globe and Mail. April 2, 1998)

The guy truly does speak for himself.

Election notes on week 1 - Momentum with Harper

The Conservatives gain over the week and the Liberals grab 4 points from the NDP, then steadily go down and the media says Ignatieff has the momentum?

I'm not saying that the Liberals didn't have a good week campaigning.  They did.  No gaffes and Ignatieff has come across as well spoken and sincere on the trail and in their TV ads.

Jack and the NDP had a good week campaigning but initially lost support to the Liberals and now they appear to be gaining it back.

What's becoming clear is that Conservative support is solidifying and not being lost to the Liberals.  With  the Liberal platform moving way to the left, it's an obvious attempt at winning over 'progressives' and stealing soft NDP support.  It's the usual Liberal strategy, but in this case, it's for survival and it won't work actually to win the election.  It's not centrist.

The Liberal Red Book is difficult to decipher on what the policies actually are.  All the campaigns are still guilty of yapping about billions and millions to be spent on this and this over so many years, but this doesn't translate to the average Canadian and street politics and they'll ignore it altogether.  Voters want to hear how that money applies to them directly. 

What is winning people over is when Ignatieff said "four grand for each student" and Harper said "Thousand buck tax credit for your kid in fitness and 500 for you now too".

These types of policies bug me, but politically, they work.  It almost seems that by the time they've targetted every demographic with a tax policy specific to them, in the end, it almost seems like everyone will be covered.  What it does do is speak to you directly.  "Hey parents, we're thinking of you, so soon you'll be able to write off your kids' karate class fees."

For Stephen Harper, the past week could have gone much better, but the polls show who has the momentum toward the coveted majority, and it's the Conservatives, not Liberals.

Election notes - Day 6: Liberals rise, NDP fall

Nick Nanos has released a poll showing the Liberals have gained up to 4 points nationally where the NDP have dropped by about the same amount.

I'm wondering if talk of the coalition by Harper has actually scared lefty voters to just support the Liberals instead of swallowing their ideological pride and go Conservative.  Or, they hate Harper more than they like Jack and now find Ignatieff palatable.  Or that stupid CBC Vote Compass has fooled Canadians with no views into believing they're Liberal.
 
Conservative support is stagnant, so Harper appears to be solidifying his base.  But I also believe the business community have left the Liberals for the most part and are mostly Conservative now, same with immigrants.  So I believe the fight for Harper will be to sway at least 3% of centrists in Ontario.

However, this movement on the left shows me that Canadians are paying attention more than I thought.

35 Years...

More Iffy...

TODAY:

Ignatieff said, "That's why we have a firm commitment not to raise taxes on small business or on Canadian families."

BEFORE:

Ignatieff has described himself as a “tax and spend” Liberal who is “not going to take a GST hike off the table.” 

THE OTHER DAY: 

Liberals announce they will raise the corporate tax rate from 16.5% to 18%.

Confused? 

Coalitions: comparing 2004 and 2008 again

A continual counterpoint being made by Liberals, NDP, and BQ supporters is that Harper is a hypocrite for denouncing the formal Liberal-NDP-BQ coalition when he tried to do it himself back in 2004.

Well he didn't.  He's not a hypocrite.

It bugs me that I feel compelled to have to regurgitate a post I made in May of 2010.

In 2004, there was no coalition.  Period.  All Harper, Layton, and Duceppe did was make the Governor General aware that she should consult the opposition parties before making a decision.

Here's a video to show you what Harper, Layton, and Duceppe said back in 2004.  It's VERY CLEAR.  No coalition.  Whereas early in this 2011 campaign, Mr. Ignatieff has not been clear on his intentions AND Layton and Duceppe have been calling Mr. Harper a liar regarding his intentions, when it is THEY who have been misleading.



And once again, here's the Stephen Harper 2004 letter (Bold emphasis mine):

September 9, 2004




Her Excellency the Right Honourable Adrienne Clarkson,
C.C., C.M.M., C.O.M., C.D.
Governor General
Rideau Hall
1 Sussex Drive
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A1

Excellency,

As leaders of the opposition parties, we are well aware that, given the Liberal minority government, you could be asked by the Prime Minister to dissolve the 38th Parliament at any time should the House of Commons fail to support some part of the government's program.

We respectfully point out that the opposition parties, who together constitute a majority in the House, have been in close consultation. We believe that, should a request for dissolution arise this should give you cause, as constitutional practice has determined, to consult the opposition leaders and consider all of your options before exercising your constitutional authority.

Your attention to this matter is appreciated.

Sincerely,

Hon. Stephen Harper, P.C., M.P.
Leader of the Opposition
Leader of the Conservative Party of Canada

(Also signed by Duceppe and Layton)

Note that while the letter reminds the GG that the three opposition parties constitute a majority in the House, nowhere does Stephen Harper suggest that the three opposition parties wish to form a government.  NOWHERE.  Yet Libs and Dips continue to use this as a gotcha tactic.  Well sorry. 
 
Now let's contrast that with Stephane Dion's infamous 2008 coalition letter...
 

December 1, 2008
 
 
 
 
Her Excellency the Right Honourable Michaelle Jean,
C.C., C.M.M., C.O.M., C.D.
Governor General
Rideau Hall
1 Sussex Drive
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A OA1


Excellency,

As Leader of the Official Opposition, I wish to inform you that, as of this writing, the opposition parties, who together constitute a majority in the House of Commons, have been in close consultation concerning the failure of the Conservative government to address the impact of the global economic crisis on Canadians.

As a result, I wish to inform you that my party and the other two opposition parties have lost confidence in this Conservative government.  The Liberal Party of Canada and the New Democratic Party of Canada are resolved to form a new government and to this end we have the support of the Bloc Quebecois for a period of 18 months. This new government will effectively, prudently, promptly and competently address the best interests of the people of Canada in these critical economic times.

In light of the significant economic challenges facing our citizens, and that the last federal election was held less than two months ago, we respectfully request that, should a call for dissolution arise, you consider exercising your constitutional authority to call on the Leader of the Official Opposition to form a new collaborative government with the New Democratic Party of Canada and supported by the Bloc Quebecois.

This new government should be allowed to demonstrate it has the confidence of the House of Commons.

Your attention to this matter is greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,
Hon. Stephane Dion, P.C., M.P.
Leader of the Official Opposition
Leader, the Liberal Party of Canada

Note the difference?

2004:  "to consult the opposition leaders and consider all of your options before exercising your constitutional authority."

2008:  "you consider exercising your constitutional authority to call on the Leader of the Official Opposition to form a new collaborative government with the New Democratic Party of Canada and supported by the Bloc Quebecois.... This new government should be allowed to demonstrate it has the confidence of the House of Commons."


Not only that but Dion, Layton, and Duceppe were shown in public meeting together, published a letter to the public the same day as well as put out cooperative and policy accords.  See below...

Monday, December 1, 2008




To our fellow citizens,

Canada is facing a global economic crisis. Since the recent federal election, it has become clear that the government headed by Stephen Harper has no plan, no competence and, no will to effectively address this crisis. Therefore, the majority of Parliament has lost confidence in Mr. Harper's government, and believes that the formation of a new Government that will effectively, prudently, promptly and competently address these critical economic times is necessary.

The contrast between the inaction of Mr. Harper's government and the common action taken by all other Western democracies is striking. We cannot accept this.

A majority of Canadians and Quebecers voted for our parties on October 14, 2008. Our Members of Parliament make up 55 percent of the House of Commons.

In light of the critical situation facing our citizens, and the Harper government's unwillingness and inability to address the crisis, we are resolved to support a new government that will address the interests of the people.

Today we respectfully inform the Governor General that, as soon as the appropriate opportunity arises, she should call on the Leader of the Official Opposition to form a new government, supported as set out in the accompanying accords by all three of our parties.

Respectfully,


Hon. Stéphane Dion
Leader, the Liberal Party of Canada

Hon. Jack Layton
Leader, the New Democratic Party of Canada

Gilles Duceppe
Leader, the Bloc Québécois

For anyone to say that Stephen Harper tried to form a coalition government with the NDP and Bloc in 2004 is dead wrong.

Oh, and did I mention that this agreement between the Liberals and NDP is still in effect until June 2011?

And only 17% believe Ignatieff when he says he won't form a coalition.

Why would they want an election?

Yesterday, the budget debate got postponed, meaning the government will likely fall on Friday over the Liberal non-confidence motion on the Conservative government being in contempt of parliament, which in my opinion, is still debatable being that the house affairs committee has a majority opposition.

So I've been thinking, why would the Liberals and Dippers really want an election?  Poll numbers would indicate that things aren't looking that good for either of them where the Conservatives have been inching up toward a majority.

Are Liberal backroom dealers making Iggy go for it because they want him to lose so they can replace him with a Liberal-NDP merger-friendly leader, say, like Bob Rae?

Same with the NDP?  This is likely Jack's last election anyway. 


Or, primarily, are the Liberals and NDP still thinking that if Harper doesn't get his majority (and it will be close), they have a chance at forming a coalition government of losers in cahoots with the Bloc?

Yesterday, the media directly asked Iggy if he'd form a coalition with the NDP and Bloc.  He didn't say 'no'. 

When pressed further at the news conference about whether he is prepared to accept the verdict of voters if they elect a minority Conservative government, Ignatieff returned to his previous answer.

"There's a blue door. There's a red door. We're going to form a Liberal government. Is that clear enough for you?" Ignatieff then abruptly ended the news conference and walked off.

Actually, Mr. Ignatieff, no, it's not clear.  Is that a Liberal government with an NDP/Bloc coalition?

Why else would you really want to head into an election then?  You are not going to win on your own.

Budget 2011 - Texas Hold 'Em

Budget 2011 is turning out to be a classic game of Texas Hold 'Em Poker.


Two cards are dealt to every player.
The Flop is like the first reading of the budget.

Harper's got pocket queens and bets over $200 billion.
Bloc leader Gilles Duceppe doesn't like cards with royalty on it, but he calls anyway.
Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff hasn't even looked at his cards, but he knows it can't be that good, but he still calls.
NDP leader Jack Layton calls Harper's hand, saying "there's always hope for amendments".

The Turn?

Harper sees a high card turn from the public, realizes he's still got a good hand and doesn't budge, maybe offering a GST cut on home heating to Layton, so he doesn't bet it as high as he thought.
Duceppe's got a good hand as always, he calls.
Ignatieff still doesn't look at his cards, except Harvard to run back to, so he calls
Layton calls but raises the bet.
Harper calls Layton.

The River?
It's a queen.
Duceppe's got a pair.Ignatieff's got a pair.
Layton's got a pair.
Harper wins with three queens and we go to an election.

Next round?   The election itself.

Election looming?

The big question on Parliament Hill is whether the Liberals are going to use a sneaky non-confidence motion to bring down the government.  Of course, for that motion to pass, they need the support of the Bloc and NDP, not one or the other.  Bloc will be there.

But will the NDP?  All indicators to me are no.  Jack doesn't want to.  He just got out of a successful hip surgery and reeling from prostate cancer treatment.  So I don't think he's in a mood to go to an election when his party is setting as high in seat total as it will for a while.  That dog won't bark.

So I believe the Liberals are using this to put a feeler out there to see what the NDP would do.  Now, Quebec NDP MP Thomas Muclair would appear to want an election and take the leadership, but is adamant this isn't true. Hmm.  The Bloc have supposedly made a quiet deal with the NDP in Muclair's riding to ensure he wins, and preventing the Liberal candidate there, former Liberal Quebec lieutenant Martin Couchon doesn't win.  Confused?  Moi aussi.

Even if the motion doesn't pass, the Liberals then get to see what the public reaction is to it and can then attack the NDP for supporting the government.  THEN, when the budget comes, the Liberals will know the NDP will also probably vote for it, potentially bleeding more support from the NDP.

This would seem the Liberals are trying to grab support from the left flank and ignoring the centre-right and even the centre where the Conservatives are becoming stronger.

OR, has Ignatieff been tricked into thinking that this is the wise approach?

If you were Bob Rae, you'd want to weaken the NDP, force an election so Ignatieff resigns, win the leadership, then make a deal with the NDP to merge the parties into the Liberal Democrats, and voila, possibly have more support than the Conservatives, then force another election next Spring.

So in summary, will there be an election soon?

Only if Jack can prevent it.

Conservative ads

You can find all the latest Conservative video ads here on their YouTube channel.

Since they were released the other day, there has been tonne of analysis done on them.  My opinion is that the ads aren't meant to gain support, but to reinvigorate and solidify existing hard and soft support, and because of that, they are effective.  I know it got me riled up again.

Some have said that attacking the Liberal/NDP/Bloc coalition doesn't rile up feelings.  I say B.S. Explain why in December 2008, when the Liberal/NDP/Bloc coalition agreement was at it's peak that Canadians flocked to supporting the Conservative government (support well above 40%)?  It's smart strategy.

These ads are in response to the heightened election speculation over the upcoming budget, where the political lines seem to be drawn over corporate tax cuts.  Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff has embarked on another tour and hit the ice (he can skate you know, and a young girl in the video kept addressing Iggy as 'Mr. Prime Minister' -- sneaky how the Liberals kept that subtlety in multiple times).

Now back to the Conservatives ads... Liberal-leaning pundits have swathed that the Conservative ads are senseless attacks, yet their hypocrisy is abound with past ads touting "soldiers with guns in the streets", and guns pointed and fired at you dear TV viewer.  Sure it draws up feelings, and supposedly, according to those pundits, that it's effective.  Yet I don't know about you, but Liberal ads like that, as opposed to the recent Conservative ones, make me feel angry back at Liberals.

I'd be interested to see what, if any, Liberal ads come out in response soon, or whether they feel Iggy on Ice will suffice.

Somehow I doubt that though.

Parliamentary numbers

Today, Prime Minister Stephen Harper appointed two folks to the Senate--former CFL commissioner Larry Smith and Toronto preacher Don Meredith, bumping the Conservatives' standings in the 105 seat Senate to 54, just short of a majority but enough to get bills from the House passed and defeat opposition bills. (Correction: strikeout "just short of a majority")

As well, the Globe and Mail has an interesting and easy to read article on seat standings in the House of Commons.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

	Current	Hypothetical*	Difference
Conservative	143	154	+11
Liberal	77	73	-4
BQ	47	47	n/c
NDP	36	32	-4
Ind.	2	2	n/c
Vacant	3		-3

* - if Conservatives win all vulnerable seats and incumbant parties win vacanies.
So in the hypothetical situation, the Conservatives would be in majority zone with 50% of the seats, plus the two independents who usually vote with the government.

Now let's look at the senate.


SENATE

	Current	Hypothetical*	Difference
Conservative	54	43	-11
Liberal	47	41	-6
BQ	0	14	+14
NDP	0	4	+4
Progressive Conservative	2	1	-1
Ind.	2	2	n/c

* - if an elected Senate were in place in 1995.  Now this isn't entirely accurate of today's political climate but shows why there's a push by the Conservatives to have 8-year term limits for senators to try and knock off as many Liberals as possible.

ELECTION SPECULATION

Opposition Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff has been throwing speculation balloons out there regarding the upcoming federal budget and that the Liberals will vote against it likely to trigger an election.  While at the same time, the Prime Minister has smartly said that there won't be a "poison pill" in the budget to vote against.  But that doesn't mean there might be a contentious one for the Liberals to trigger an election on and that issue may be the election focus among other things like a North American border for freer trade, refugee reform, and the continuing justice bills.

By saying he doesn't want to trigger an election, what the Prime Minister has done is put the ball in Ignatieff's hands.  The Conservatives are in power, have been leading in the polls, have way more money than the Liberals, and are also getting things through the Senate now so the momentum is with them for sure.  If the Liberals want to have an election, bring it on, but Canadians will know that it was Ignatieff who triggered it.  So in essence, Harper has once again out-manoeuvred Iggy once again.

MY PREDICTION

My guess is that secret backroom Liberals controlled by Bob Rae will push to defeat the budget, go for an election, sour the campaign to make Ignatieff look bad, reducing the number of Liberals seats to about 70, with the Conservatives barely winning a majority. Then a legitimate summer/fall Liberal leadership race will happen with Bob Rae going up against Trudeau, Kennedy, LeBlanc, and a handful of other candidates who want name recognition.

LIBERAL-NDP MERGER

If the Conservative get another minority, former NDP now Liberal leader Bob will push for the creation of the Liberal Democrats as a merger between the Liberals and NDP.  If a merger happens (although I don't think it will) the opposition will defeat the government again in late 2012 or 2013.  Bob may be in a good position here though as Canadians may grow tired of Stephen Harper, including Conservatives who wanted a majority.

In regards to the merger, there are a chunk of blue liberals who would probably jump ship to the Conservatives knowing there would be a strong socialist wing to the party.  And don't count out the Greens.  If they ever get a new leader who actually has political prowess, the Greens could cause vote splitting.

BACK TO THE PRESENT

So I think if Harper actually sees that the odds of a majority is above 40%, he'll poison the budget enough for the Liberals to have no choice but to defeat it.  If not, how long will Ignatieff wait as opposition leader and how long will Bob Rae sit and wait for his opportunity to strike?

In the meantime, Stephen Harper really has nothing to lose either way.

Election speculation 2011

Ah, speculation is in the air!  Journalists love to speculate.

There is speculation that upcoming bills may be defeated by the opposition. And any one of them may be a matter of confidence. And the Conservatives set it up this way so they'd head to the polls before their Spring bad news budget, which, rumours say, is full of spending cuts and freezes.

There is also speculation that the Conservatives will get by the bills, but make the budget so sour and very fiscally conservative that the Liberals will be trapped and have no choice but to defeat it because it "just goes too deep", forcing an election.  Or it could be tainted with the removal of the party funding thing.

The Conservatives are polling quite well right now, some having them 13 points ahead, 2 to 1 over the Libs in B.C., 7 points ahead in Ontario, and virtually tied in Quebec with the Libs.  Despite the efforts of Iggy and Co. in "crossing" Canada this summer and yapping against everything (and he certainly wasn't in the House to actually vote for or against either though), the Liberals have difficulty staying above 30% and are constantly near their lowest numbers ever.

Let's also not forget that this is the longest running minority government in Canadian history and could very well continue as long as the Liberals keep pumping out weak leaders.

And just ignore anyone from any party who says, "Canadians don't want an election right now."  Canadians don't necessarily determine when elections are so it's a meaningless statement.  I doubt the Prime Minister will prorogue again and is more interested in simply governing, but has no problem in possibly going to the polls by being defeated by the opposition led by the Liberals.

So the question is not whether the Conservatives want to fight an election, it's if the Liberals are.  More so, is Bob Rae willing to have Ignatieff die on his sword in losing in an election for Bob to take the reigns.

On the Conservative side, if Harper fails to achieve a majority, which they are very close to doing, the knives will be out.  With Jim Prentice taking a break from politics, with Peter Mackay waiting waiting waiting, Jason Kenney having a chunk of quiet support, there is also an outsider in the name of former New Brunswick Premier, Bernard Lord, who was recently opted by Toronto Star Harper-hater journalist Jim Travers. 

Lord apparently wants to run for MP and be a cabinet minister after the next election.  He's young at 46, so there isn't a rush to go for the prize.  He would simply need to wait, as the others have done. 

And let us not forget Quebec conservative crusader Maxime Bernier who's been giving speech after speech trumpeting core conservative values. He'd certainly be competitive.

But then again, never underestimate Mr. Harper's ability to relegate any seemingly competitive members to the sidelines, as he's successfully done with his cabinet ministers and Liberal leaders for that matter.

And if that's the case, we'll be reading in the headlines "Prime Minister Stephen Harper" for years to come.

Iggy's "game"

Former Liberal strategist, Scott Reid, you know, the "beer and popcorn" guy, has opined a piece on what Michael Ignatieff needs to do to be winnable--"up his game."


How many times does this guy need to be resurrected from continued contradictions, pretending to 'get back to work', having thinkers' conferences, a blah blah tour, and now 'open mike' sessions (how clever!)?

Reid says that Harper hasn't been able to grow his support and is not a successful leader in a united Conservative Party (although he is the PM), yet in the same breath says that the reason we have perpetual minorities is because of the Bloc.  So why doesn't this logic also apply to the Liberal Party, Scott?  Your fearless leader Paul Martin, who was set to sweep the nation, didn't even come close all thanks to... a brand-spanking new united Conservative Party, and guess what, the Bloc.

You know, you can go on and on about what Ignatieff needs to do to win. You can look at Canadian political history and the comeback stories all you want.

You want my advice?

First thing, Mr. Ignatieff, that you should probably do, is actually SHOW UP TO WORK!

You see, his voting record is the worst out of 307 MPs.

You can't up your game unless you actually show up to play now can you?

h/t Ardvark