[Motorcycleboy]

I'm hearing more and more talk that a Spring election isn't going to happen now because the Conservatives can't put together enough support for a majority.

I'm just speculating, but I'm not so sure.

First off, the Conservatives have come out of the gate swinging this week on the Environment file. Not only is Baird an attack dog in the house, but the Tories have got some NDP support for their initiatives, and with the new attack ads, the Liberals are going to be on the defensive on this file by mid-February.

The upcoming budget is going to be full of goodies for Quebec, and probably Ontario. Together with more tax cuts, I think the public is going to be in a pretty good mood by early April.

Finally, the Tories, because of their position on Afghanistan, can always engineer their own downfall over it. Face it, the Bloc and NDP are going to oppose Afghanistan no matter what. The Tories will support it. All the Tories have to do is "give in" to Dion's demands for more "debate" on the mission and table a declaration stating "The house recognizes and supports the efforts of Canadian Forces in Afghanistan to bring peace and prosperity to that country...."

That will put the Liberals in the uncomfortable position of either having to unequivocally support the mission, or force an election on it. With all the bleating Dion has done on that file lately, it would be political suicide for him to place the Libs as strong supporters of the mission. Down goes the writ.

Even if the Tories couldn't acheive a majority, another election would effectively hobble the Libs for at least another 18 months, maybe two years. That's because the Libs are broke, while the Tories have more money than the NDP and Libs combined. In fact, the Tories have enough cash to fight two elections, back to back (which is why they're spending some of it now on election style attack ads).

On top of that, the Libs are still putting their platform together, and with a new leader, they won't be ready to fight an election until at least the fall. I'm sure Harper would relish doing to the Liberals what Martin did to him in 2004, and what Chretien did to Day in 2000.

So hold on to your hat's Libs!

[Banff]

Two terms is about all either party can swing with Liberals being dominate in the electorate process . The bad part of both parties is neither seem to be willing to or unable to repair each others damages once they are voted in .If the Liberals did something large enough like destroy the GST instantly as Chretien had promised I might consider them.I still believe the Cons were voted in as a punishment to the Liberals which could also turn out to be very dangerous if and when they return . Making good on their promises and scandals is all they need to do, the question is , Will They ?

[hurley_108]

The way I see it, the Conservatives have bungled the environment file, paying it lip service only so far as they can bash the Liberals over the head with their failure on Kyoto. Now they've got, as you say, an attack dog on a file which really does need solid diplomacy. Not smart.

Not everyone is swayed blindly by tax cuts. Sure Albertans are, but Quebecers and Ontarians are a little more sophisticated.

Failure of passage of a motion such as you describe is not a confidence matter. Sure the Tories could claim it would be, but it's not. Non-confidence requires that either the government be denied permission to spend money, or passage of a motion which says that the house has no confidence in the government.

If the Tories don't achieve a majority, the "grassroots," I would think, would get a little tired of his inability to produce a majority. Dion is in Harper's position pre-June, 2004. Harper has lost an election and won a minority. Dion has a lot of "political capital," to use GWBs parlance. Harper's spent some with the loss and the minority.

You're right on one point, though. I don't think the Liberals are quite ready for an election yet. I just don't think the Conservatives are, either. They're awash with cash, but not a lot of popular spport.

[Banff]

A quick dominance in electoral confidence could be dominated to a majority government by scraping or reducing such things as Gas tax , Sin Tax , GST amongst other hidden taxes or at least "much" further , and pinning the taxes on export rather than import , unfortunately the global market has a way of preventing such strong measures ...although I still think it can be done and would create investor confidence .Where we are dominant over other nations these cuts could easily take place . Why should a measly 32 million people pay
pay higher as consumers than other nations when we may dominate in specific areas of resources or services .

[ReliableIntelligence]

If an election comes, Liberals will be ready.

However, the NDP seem willing to abandon their commitment to hold the Conservatives to their Kyoto targets in return for amendments to the clean air act if it will mean they don't have to go to the polls. The Conservatives seem more than happy to buy their support it seems unlikely we'll go to the polls soon.

[Motorcycleboy]

$1:

hurley_108
The way I see it, the Conservatives have bungled the environment file, paying it lip service only so far as they can bash the Liberals over the head with their failure on Kyoto. Now they've got, as you say, an attack dog on a file which really does need solid diplomacy. Not smart.

But wait and see what they come up with in the new Parliamentary session. I predict they'll work with the NDP and try to produce something a little more substantial. If they'd been more on the ball, they'd have read the writing on the wall and made this issue their own last summer when it was just starting to register on the public's radar.

As for Baird, he's an attack dog in Parliament, but among Ottawa reporters and MP's from all sides, he's known as a very capable minister who knows how to get cooperation from opponents on tricky files.

$1:

Not everyone is swayed blindly by tax cuts. Sure Albertans are, but Quebecers and Ontarians are a little more sophisticated.

Don't be so sure.

$1:

Non-confidence requires that either the government be denied permission to spend money, or passage of a motion which says that the house has no confidence in the government.

Or, anything the Prime Minister declares a Confidence matter. It wouldn't be that hard. All Harper has to do is say is"This is a matter of confidence because Canadian soldiers are risking their lives over this, what could be more important to the affairs of Parliament than the lives of Canadian soldiers..blah...blah...blah."

Then when the Libs vote against it, they wear the blame for forcing the election.

$1:

If the Tories don't achieve a majority, the "grassroots," I would think, would get a little tired of his inability to produce a majority. Dion is in Harper's position pre-June, 2004. Harper has lost an election and won a minority. Dion has a lot of "political capital," to use GWBs parlance. Harper's spent some with the loss and the minority.

In 3 years, Harper has united two parties who spent over a decade bickering, defeated Paul Martin, who in late 2003 was expected to take over 220 seats, and become Prime Minister. Conservatives aren't Liberals. We're more like the NDP in that we don't expect to be in power all the time, and we just appreciate the opportunity.

Harper won't be losing support amongst his caucus anytime soon.

$1:

I don't think the Liberals are quite ready for an election yet. I just don't think the Conservatives are, either. They're awash with cash, but not a lot of popular spport.

That's what people were saying in November 2005. Yet 7 weeks later we were the government. Not one pundit or reporter predicted that.

[Schleihauf]

If theres another election coming up it better not happen before April 28.

[Zipperfish]

The Conservatives don't have a chance on the environment agenda. They look worse in green than a longshoreman looks in drag. It's just not pretty.

The Liberals have their own weakness though--their position on Afghanistan. Global warming might be hot now (pun intended) but any Canadian deaths in Affghaistan will shoot the war to the front of the public policy agenda. The worst thing the Liberals can do is take the mealy-mouthed appraoch taken by the Democarts in the US where they supported the Iraq War--until it wasn't popular, and then they were kind of against it, but not really. The Liberals should take a stand one way or the other(hopefully in favour of staying the course, continuing to hunt down and kill Al Qeada and building stable governance instutitions in Afghanistan).

Personally, I like Harper. But I don't think he's got much to work with. Too many lightweights at the cabinet table. Get rid of Stockwell Day, Peter Mackay, Rona "Potted Plant" Ambrose and a few others. But other than that, I hope there's no election soon.

Harper's crticial error, if there is an election, will be underestimating Dion the same way Kim Campbell and the Conservatives uderestimated Chretien. If the Conservatives underestimate Dion, he'll wipe the floor with them.

[Motorcycleboy]

$1:

Zipperfish

The Conservatives don't have a chance on the environment agenda. They look worse in green than a longshoreman looks in drag. It's just not pretty.

Time will tell.

$1:

The Liberals have their own weakness though--their position on Afghanistan. Global warming might be hot now (pun intended) but any Canadian deaths in Affghaistan will shoot the war to the front of the public policy agenda. The worst thing the Liberals can do is take the mealy-mouthed appraoch taken by the Democarts in the US where they supported the Iraq War--until it wasn't popular, and then they were kind of against it, but not really. The Liberals should take a stand one way or the other

Good point. The Canadian public is evenly split on the Afghanistan mission. The Tories are the only party that unequivically supports it. That gives them half the voters on that issue.

The other three parties have to fight for the other half. And the Liberal's position on Afghanistan is unclear. Strong anti-war types can vote for the Bloc or NDP. But how can they go Liberal, when the Liberals are split on the issue themselves?

[hurley_108]

Motorcycleboy Motorcycleboy:

But wait and see what they come up with in the new Parliamentary session. I predict they'll work with the NDP and try to produce something a little more substantial. If they'd been more on the ball, they'd have read the writing on the wall and made this issue their own last summer when it was just starting to register on the public's radar.

As for Baird, he's an attack dog in Parliament, but among Ottawa reporters and MP's from all sides, he's known as a very capable minister who knows how to get cooperation from opponents on tricky files.

Except that they really don't care about the environment, which is why they weren't on the ball. They don't care so they don't understand. All they understand is trying to keep and build power, so they'll do the bare minimum to try and get some support without actually doing anything for the environment. They don't want this issue to be defeated in the house which is why they're working with the NDP. Harper was bandying about saying this was a confidence issue, then it looked like it was going to be defeated because it was a complete sham and Harper was backed into a corner so he sent the bill to committee.

Motorcycleboy Motorcycleboy:

Or, anything the Prime Minister declares a Confidence matter. It wouldn't be that hard. All Harper has to do is say is"This is a matter of confidence because Canadian soldiers are risking their lives over this, what could be more important to the affairs of Parliament than the lives of Canadian soldiers..blah...blah...blah."

Then when the Libs vote against it, they wear the blame for forcing the election.

And Harper goes down in history as being the PM who made every issue a confidence issue, tossing precident to the wind.

Motorcycleboy Motorcycleboy:

In 3 years, Harper has united two parties who spent over a decade bickering, defeated Paul Martin, who in late 2003 was expected to take over 220 seats, and become Prime Minister. Conservatives aren't Liberals. We're more like the NDP in that we don't expect to be in power all the time, and we just appreciate the opportunity.

Harper won't be losing support amongst his caucus anytime soon.

I just don't think he'd be able to hold on very much longer if he produces a loss and then two minorities. And I don't think the rift between the old Reformers and the old PC is fully sealed. Very well bridged, yes, but not sealed.

Motorcycleboy Motorcycleboy:

That's what people were saying in November 2005. Yet 7 weeks later we were the government. Not one pundit or reporter predicted that.

Sure, and I'll even help you out by noting that the Liberals were ahead in the polls until the last two weeks of the campaign. If Martin had set the election three weeks earlier, as he very well could have, things might have been very different. What does that mean? All bets are off in an election. All you can do is try and be as strong as you can when the election is called. The Liberals were reasonably strong in November '05. Neither the Liberals nor the Conservatives are very strong now.

[Zipperfish]

Motorcycleboy Motorcycleboy:

$1:

Zipperfish

The Conservatives don't have a chance on the environment agenda. They look worse in green than a longshoreman looks in drag. It's just not pretty.

Time will tell.

No, I don't expect any revelations as time unfolds. It's too bad becasue there are a lot of fantastic ideas for the environment that fall right within the Conservatives ideology. Lots of free-market mechanisms, lots of opportunities to remove existing subsidies. Conservatives, after all, do wish to conserve.

But the idea that protecting our environment is somehow "lefty"is now the comon orthodoxy. Thye can't escape from that way of thinking, which is a shame because the environment isn't a lefty issue any more than health care is.

[OnTheIce]

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

The Conservatives don't have a chance on the environment agenda. They look worse in green than a longshoreman looks in drag. It's just not pretty.

Then who does? The Liberals don't stand a chace with their failed record. The Conservatives may not be doing everything and anything, but their record in 1 year is clearly better than the Liberals were able to accomplish.

Zipperfish Zipperfish:

Harper's crticial error, if there is an election, will be underestimating Dion the same way Kim Campbell and the Conservatives uderestimated Chretien. If the Conservatives underestimate Dion, he'll wipe the floor with them.

Clearly, with the TV adds, the CPC isn't under estimating anything.

hurley_108 hurley_108:

Sure, and I'll even help you out by noting that the Liberals were ahead in the polls until the last two weeks of the campaign. If Martin had set the election three weeks earlier, as he very well could have, things might have been very different. What does that mean? All bets are off in an election. All you can do is try and be as strong as you can when the election is called. The Liberals were reasonably strong in November '05. Neither the Liberals nor the Conservatives are very strong now.

Incorrect.

The Conservatives pulled into the lead around the 20th of December...the virtual half way point of the campaign.

[Motorcycleboy]

$1:

Except that they really don't care about the environment, which is why they weren't on the ball.

Maybe they didn't care a year ago. They didn't run on an environmental platform. They told Canadians very clearly what their priorities were. Nobody can say they didn't know what they were voting for.

Now the public has grown increasingly concerned about the subject, so they've made considerable efforts to make it a priority.

Isn't that what governments are supposed to do in a democracy? Isn't that the essence of "responsive" government? You're NDP. You guys have been screaming about the environment for years. Now you've got a government that's willing to work with you. So what's the problem?

$1:

And Harper goes down in history as being the PM who made every issue a confidence issue, tossing precident to the wind.

There's tons of precedent for declaring contentious issues "confidence" motions. Particularly in a minority situation.

And what could be more contentious than an issue that has Canadian soldiers fighting and dying?

$1:

I just don't think he'd be able to hold on very much longer if he produces a loss and then two minorities. And I don't think the rift between the old Reformers and the old PC is fully sealed. Very well bridged, yes, but not sealed.

Agree to disagree I guess.

$1:

Sure, and I'll even help you out by noting that the Liberals were ahead in the polls until the last two weeks of the campaign. If Martin had set the election three weeks earlier, as he very well could have, things might have been very different. What does that mean? All bets are off in an election. All you can do is try and be as strong as you can when the election is called. The Liberals were reasonably strong in November '05. Neither the Liberals nor the Conservatives are very strong now.

For sure. All bets are off once the writ's dropped. That's why I think the Tories are still seriously contemplating an election. The Libs are weak and unfocused at the moment. They're not ready to fight an election campaign.

[hurley_108]

OnTheIce OnTheIce:

Incorrect.

The Conservatives pulled into the lead around the 20th of December...the virtual half way point of the campaign.

Incorrect. The Conservatives pulled into the lead over the first week of January. Source.

And I stand corrected, after further investigation, on the date. The earliest date would have been Jan 9, a point at which the Conservatives were demonstrably leading the Liberals, but as it stands, the current minority government is the smallest, by proportion, ever, and may have been yet smaller had the election been earlier.