Election 2009?

[Larkvall]

According to the National Post 74 MPs risk losing their pensions if an election is called before next summer. So if an election is called we can do a nice purge and save taxpayers some cash.  ;D

 

[RangerRay]

I still believe that Layton and the NDP looked a gift horse in the mouth last winter and continue to feel the effects of it.

Last fall, the NDP won the most seats since Broadbent made their record in the '80s.

In a bid to gain "influence", they joined the Liberals in a coalition over public funding for political parties (I know the decision for coalition was made before this time).

Had Layton told Dion to "get stuffed", he could have voted with the Tories on a fiscally responsible bill and destroyed the ability of the Liberal Party to raise funds.

If I recall correctly, the NDP are second only to the Tories in raising funds from individuals, whereas the Liberals and Bloc rely almost exclusively on public subsidy.

Had Layton sided with the PM, the NDP would have stood a good chance at usurping the Liberals as the Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition.

Instead, the NDP sided with Dion.  Since then, their polling numbers have tanked.  People do not take them seriously, and left wing Liberals are now going back to the Liberal Party.  This is unfortunate, because a strong NDP result usually results in a strong Conservative showing.

Layton lost his chance at relevance.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Taliban Jack Layton is damping down the election rumours, Globe and Mail columnist Jeffrey Simpson explains why in this column, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/jack-layton-chooses-not-to-hear-the-sound-of-his-voice/article1287616/

Jack Layton chooses not to hear the sound of his voice
There's strange vibrations in the little world of Peace Tower politics

Jeffrey Simpson

Tuesday, Sep. 15, 2009

Something weird is happening when NDP Leader Jack Layton, who has never failed to fall in love with a microphone, refuses to speak into one.

Yesterday, however, Mr. Layton read a two-paragraph statement after Question Period, then turned heels on the media and left their microphones at a loss for his words. Jack Layton refusing to answer questions? To hear the sound of his own voice? Weird, even unprecedented.

But, then, strange vibrations are emanating from the little world of Peace Tower politics, as all parties face the prospect of an election Canadians do not want, and one that carries severe risks, certainly for the Liberals and the NDP.

For years, the New Democrats have been berating the Harper Conservatives, while chiding the Liberals periodically and unmercifully for propping up the government. The NDP even has a list of the number of times the Liberals voted with the government.

This voting record proves, according to the NDP's orthodoxy, that the Liberals are carbon-copy Conservatives, lacking spine, principle and all things desirable in politicians. Since hell hath no fury mightier than NDP sanctimony, the party's denunciations of the perfidious Liberals have been predictably fierce.

Yet, what have we here? All of a sudden, the NDP, faced with the prospect of an election – and the possibility (probability) of losing seats – is sounding conciliatory and sniffing around for a possible deal with those awful Conservatives, the very strategy for which the NDP gleefully excoriated the Liberals month after month after month. No wonder the voluble Mr. Layton suddenly grew quiet.

The focus of Mr. Layton's two-paragraph statement was an unemployment insurance change announced by the Conservatives. It was a bone compared with the whole body of reforms sought by the New Democrats, yet they snapped it up, calling it a “step in the right direction.” The party quickly added: “There is much more that needs to be done as well,” as if to say our support really can be bought – not for money, of course, but with some modest additional changes.

Yesterday, too, Mr. Layton was back on the NDP line that the party wants a minority Parliament to work – which is not what the party has consistently wanted in voting against almost everything the government has proposed. Parliament works, in the NDP's world, when the government does what the NDP wants, but it doesn't work when the government pays little heed. Such is the hubris of the small.

The Conservatives are playing coy: sticking to the script that they don't want an election and being determined to work on the economy – which means raining spending announcements on every corner of Canada.

They don't want to be seen doing anything that leads to an election. They would much rather the Liberals or the NDP or the Bloc Québécois, or all three, carry that can. Heaven forbid, the Conservatives are saying, that we would call an unnecessary election – which is exactly what Stephen Harper did in 2008. Heaven forbid, too, that the Conservatives would vote against a Liberal no-confidence motion only to find themselves kept in office by the NDP, whom a senior Conservative minister recently described as a bunch of left-wing ideologues who only drink their own Kool-Aid.

Principles, then as now, are for garbing the pursuit of political self-interest, as in the NDP's tentative desire to roll over for the government. The NDP doesn't want an election because it needs more time to raise money, some of its seats would be in danger and it can see looming the party's ultimate nightmare, a Conservative majority.

The trouble for all the parties is that their hyper-partisanship has led each to make dreadful statements about the other, to draw lines in the political sands, to carry on in ways that make compromise awkward and political face-saving difficult.

If the Conservatives devoutly wished to avoid the election that the Liberals have threatened by withdrawing support, they would negotiate one or two little deals with the NDP and carry on.

But then the Conservatives would be having a political affair with the “socialists,” as Mr. Harper recently called them, and would forgo their secret wish – rolling over both the Liberals and the NDP en route to a majority.

Layton’s problem are financial and political, as Simpson says. They are a truly “national” party – the federal and provincial parties are one-in-the-same – they have one, single pot of money which has been depleted by recent (successful) provincial elections. They are threatened by both resurgent Liberals and oncoming Greens in several seats. It’s the wrong time for an election.

The problems are compounded because Harper might win a majority – he’s only 12 seat away – and then Jack and the Dippers return to political oblivion. To make matters worse the Liberals are doing better and for Jack to turn about, now, and support Harper makes this week a win/win for both Harper and Ignatieff.

Even worse: Harper gets credit for EI reforms that benefit older, already more conservative, workers who live in suburbs and he gets a photo-op with Obama, who is still much loved in Canada.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Ottawa Citizen, is an interesting bit of speculation by Andrew Cohen:

http://www.carleton.ca/jmc/facultystaff/cohen.html

Calling the election


By Andrew Cohen, Citizen Special


September 15, 2009

After a summer of threats, cries and laments, the politicians have returned to Ottawa promising more of the same. Let the games begin.

There will be an election this autumn only because the myopic political class wants one. Like the outbreak of the First World War, the principals have set in train events that they cannot control, with consequences they cannot foresee.

Those who confidently predict that things will stay the same underestimate the fatigue of the electorate. They ignore the impact of a fourth election in five years, the alienation that it will foster and the opportunity it will create for the smartest party.

Here are four ways the campaign of 2009 could play out:

A Conservative minority.

The government, trying to gain an upper hand, engineers its own defeat in Parliament at the earliest opportunity. It immediately blames the Liberals. It makes much of the election itself, an argument that would usually cut no ice. After all, as historians note, the country has had two elections in two years (1925, 1926; 1957, 1958; 1962, 1963; 1979, 1980), two elections in three years (1972, 1974) and three elections in four years (1962, 1963, 1965).

But four in five years? Never! The Conservatives argue that the election costs $300 million and will endanger the fragile economic recovery.

But as the campaign goes on, this argument wanes. Canadians don't like an election but that isn't enough to make them vote Conservative any more than they did in 2008. The Conservatives lose half their 10 seats in Quebec, some in B.C., and make modest gains in Ontario.

The Conservatives paint Michael Ignatieff as aloof, elitist and opportunistic. He offers few new ideas and attracts few star candidates. His organization is shallow and his staff is inexperienced. There are gaffes and missteps aplenty, but the party is saved by its brand.

Voter turnout falls to a new low, especially among young Canadians, but hard-core Conservatives, identified by the party's sophisticated tracking system, turn out. Organization makes the difference for the Conservatives.

A Liberal minority.

The Liberals succeed in explaining why they are different from the Conservatives and why this seemingly unnecessary election is pivotal to the country's future. In his first campaign as leader, Michael Ignatieff performs beyond expectations. He is disciplined, focused and charming. He points out that he has sat in the House longer than Pierre Trudeau or Brian Mulroney had when they became prime minister, and presents his international experience as an asset. Amid withering attack ads, his intelligence shines, especially in the debates.

The Liberals win 15 more seats in Quebec and retake ridings in Ontario. The combination of Conservative losses in suburban Toronto and Liberal gains outside Montreal make the difference; the country has returned to its "natural governing party."

A Conservative majority.

The Conservatives run a superb campaign. Stephen Harper, running for the fourth time as leader, persuades Canadians that he isn't so scary after all. He argues that the country cannot afford minority government. He says it has made Canada "dysfunctional." He repeats his call that the opposition and their "little coalition" must "be taught a lesson."

Meanwhile, Ignatieff stumbles. Like Edward Kennedy running for president in 1980, Ignatieff cannot articulate why he wants the top job. His stamina wanes, his nerves fray, his impatience shows.

Canadians have had enough. Persuaded that the Conservatives are better economic managers, cheered by their tax cuts, unafraid of "a secret agenda," they vote blue, especially in Ontario.

Curiously, though, the Conservatives lose all but one of their seats in Quebec. Here they make history: never has a party won a majority without a substantial showing in Quebec -- or with as little share of the popular vote. The election leaves a fragmented Canada.

For Harper, after nearly losing power last December to the coalition, he has redeemed himself. His long march to a majority is complete; he is the master strategist, after all.

A Liberal majority.

The Liberals differentiate themselves from the Conservatives. They present a compelling vision of a country of ambition, at home and abroad. They unveil plans for inspiring national projects, such as high-speed rail.

Atlantic Canada votes massively for the Liberals. The NDP vote collapses in Ontario and British Columbia, going Liberal. But the big news is Quebec, where Québécois warm to the cerebral, cosmopolitan Ignatieff. Leaving the Bloc Québécois and its humourless leader, they give the Liberals 20 more seats.

Ignatieff erases doubts about his aptitude and appetite for politics. His is the most improbable ascent in Canadian political history. He's no longer just visiting; he's here to stay, as prime minister of Canada.

Andrew Cohen is president of The Historica-Dominion Institute. E-mail: andrewzcohen@yahoo.ca

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen​

I place Cohen’s four scenarios in this order of probability:


1. Highest: Conservative minority;
2. High: Conservative majority;
3. Low: Liberal minority; and
4. So low as to be laughable: Liberal majority.

See, also, here; another Conservative minority – with a slightly enlarged Liberal opposition, is the most likely outcome but a razor thin Conservative majority is within the realm of possibility if three conditions described by Cohen obtain:

1. The Conservatives run a superb campaign;
2. Ignatieff stumbles; and
3. Canada are persuaded that the Conservatives are better economic managers.

 

[dapaterson]

Here, from today’s Ottawa Citizen, is an interesting bit of speculation by Andrew Cohen:

http://www.carleton.ca/jmc/facultystaff/cohen.html

I place Cohen’s four scenarios in this order of probability:


1. Highest: Conservative minority;
2. High: Conservative majority;
3. Low: Liberal minority; and
4. So low as to be laughable: Liberal majority.

See, also, here; another Conservative minority – with a slightly enlarged Liberal opposition, is the most likely outcome but a razor thin Conservative majority is within the realm of possibility if three conditions described by Cohen obtain:

1. The Conservatives run a superb campaign;
2. Ignatieff stumbles; and
3. Canada are persuaded that the Conservatives are better economic managers.

If the public perceives the Liberal Party as opportunists in bringing down the house that also could shift the ground sufficiently without any explict Ignatieffian stumble (if that's an adjective.  To add to Canada's political lexicon, much like "Clarkian" refers to mis-counting your own seats in the house, "Martinian" refers to forcing out a popular leader for no reason other than because you perceive it's your turn, and "Raeving" is the act of moving from one level of government to another, hoping everyone forgets your past record).

 

[GAP]

Methodology
Nanos conducted a random telephone survey of 1,002 Canadians, 18 years of age and older, between September 3rd and September 11th. A survey of 1,002 Canadians is accurate to within 3.1 percentage points, plus or minus, 19 times out of 20.


  LEADERSHIP INDEX QUESTION: As you may know, [Rotate] Michael Ignatieff is the leader of the federal Liberal Party, Stephen Harper is the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, Jack Layton is the leader of the federal NDP, Gilles Duceppe is leader of the Bloc Quebecois and Elizabeth May is leader of the federal Green Party. Which of the federal leaders would you best describe as:

The most trustworthy leader
National (n=1,002)
Stephen Harper: 31%
Michael Ignatieff: 14%
Jack Layton: 14%
Gilles Duceppe: 8%
Elizabeth May: 8%
None of them/Undecided: 25%

The most competent leader
National (n=1,002)
Stephen Harper: 36%
Michael Ignatieff: 20%
Jack Layton: 11%
Gilles Duceppe: 7%
Elizabeth May: 2%
None of them/Undecided: 24%

The leader with the best vision for Canada's future
National (n=1,002)
Stephen Harper: 32%
Michael Ignatieff: 20%
Jack Layton: 15%
Gilles Duceppe: 4%
Elizabeth May: 4%
None of them/Undecided: 25%

Leadership Index Score
Stephen Harper: 99
Michael Ignatieff: 54
Jack Layton: 40
Gilles Duceppe: 19
Elizabeth May: 14

 

[dapaterson]

With 25 / 24/ 25 undecided, knowing the leanings of that group are key to where things may go.

 

[GAP]

Even if the undecided fall within 10-20% of the pattern, Harper still comes way out ahead....Iggy may have just shot himself in the foot.

To be fair, by refusing to back the Conservatives right now, the Liberals take away that taint of Dion/Iggy backing the government.....which put Duceppe and Layton on the hotseat....

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s National Post, is Don Martin’s perspective:

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/politics/story.html?id=1993883

No need for PM to capitulate

Don Martin, National Post

Tuesday, September 15, 2009

Don Martin: [Stephen Harper] has the winning conditions now -- and he knows his opponents are off balance, underfunded and unprepared to argue the justification for yet another campaign.

The dynamic has suddenly changed in the standoff paralyzing the House of Commons as it returns to confront endless fall election speculation.

The suspense is no longer which party will prevent the government from falling. That would be the New Democrats, in full white-flag mode yesterday as Employment Insurance reforms were released that they will undoubtedly support.

The better question is whether this Conservative government even wants to be saved from a campaign.

With a latest Ipsos-Reid poll for Canwest putting Conservative support in near-majority territory and the public appetite to end the annual minority government collapse starting to grow into a vote-defining consideration, there's no incentive for Prime Minister Stephen Harper to capitulate or compromise to avoid a campaign showdown.

He has the winning conditions now -- and he knows his opponents are off balance, underfunded and unprepared to argue the justification for yet another campaign before election-adverse voters.

NDP leader Jack Layton, languishing at 12% in this poll, could not have looked more uncomfortable if he had been wearing a dirty diaper as he tried to rally his troops ahead of the Commons comeback.

Charging into a committee room configured into an election rally format with MPs and staff lined up as a backdrop, he vowed to fight an election if necessary. A few hours later, however, it no longer sounded necessary when he pledged to play nice in the Conservative sandbox -- subject to change without notice.

Which brings us to the serenely confident Stephen Harper, who fended off questions yesterday with spontaneous zingers.

Over and over he repeated how determined his government was to avoid an election, even while sizing up his opponents with the calculated look of a hungry lion eyeing a limping gazelle.

What's even more encouraging for Mr. Harper was the speech and hapless Question Period performance of Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff, which suggests a curious lack of strategic acumen for a party poised to fight a critical election.

Mr. Ignatieff's speech on the world and Canada's diminished role in it, sprinkled with repeated references to his diplomat father, was so sleepy the Canadian Club crowd delivered an extremely tepid standing ovation started by his own MPs.

Imagine entering a week potentially leading to an election by demanding: a return to Team Canada junkets to China, a G20 secretariat, Arctic community dialogues, more peacekeeping blue helmets and fewer combat fatigues.

A global affairs lecture from a politician who is open to criticism for being a foreign Canadian most of his adult life? It defies belief.

The challenge for Mr. Harper now is to find a way to trigger an election without appearing to be the culprit. To be seen as precipitating the vote by devious means would deny him the high ground of being the guy who tried to make Parliament work, albeit on his terms, against an irrational opposition trio.

He also needs to give the New Democrats just enough credibility to prevent their vote from collapsing toward the Liberals. If Mr. Layton's 12% support dips further into single digits, seats would likely gravitate toward Mr. Ignatieff 's party.

That's why the Employment Insurance issue is a perfect fit with Conservative strategy.

It will deliver targeted help to laid-off Ontario workers in the manufacturing heartland -- a province where Conservatives hold a 10-point lead and need seat gains to offset potential losses in Quebec.

If the Conservatives can sell themselves as the victims of an unpopular campaign, receive political credit for a recovering economy and keep the Liberals focussed on inexplicable big vision and worldly affairs issues, well, their majority mandate is not beyond reach.

Their secret agenda, then, is electoral not ideological. The key to winning any fall election is to pretend they don't want it.

It's warped thinking, but that's become normal behaviour on Parliament Hill.

dmartin@nationalpost.com

Even another minority can suit the Conservatives’ needs – provided they do not get trapped into a confidence issue that permits a Liberal/NDP coalition. (A Bloc/Liberal/NDP coalition is, probably, something the Tories would relish because it would, almost certainly, govern badly and in Québec’s interests and, in the next election, all three parties, but mainly the Liberals would pay dearly for their folly. Inviting the Bloc to help govern Canada will be, broadly, unacceptable to most Canadians; very bad politics – even if Celine Stéphane Dion didn’t see that.) Another Conservative minority will be allowed to “govern (nearly) as if it has a majority” because the other three parties will be politically unwilling and financially unable to fight another campaign.

 

[Rifleman62]

A issue the Conservatives could use to cause an election is the elimination of public election funds (as attempted previously) and legislative revision of private political financing. It could be sold to the electorate as a method to prevent opposition parties (including themselves), bring down a government whenever by forcing political parties to raise all their election funds instead of receiving taxpayer funds. No political party would threaten an election when it's treasury was empty. Right now it is too easy to to threaten a election, especially when the party's treasury has millions of taxpayers dollars.The LPC, NDP and the Bloc would go ballistic again.

 

[kratz]

cross-posted at the Swine Flu Argument thread.

I was not certain the best place to post the above Winnipeg Free Press news item re: H1N1 concerns could affect the election.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I have argued that Harper and the Tories should take a wrecking ball to the bridges they tried to build in Québec (borrowing words from Chantal Hébert, below). Chantal Hébert disagrees in this column, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from last Friday’s Toronto Star:

http://www.thestar.com/comment/columnists/article/694101

PM's horror stories might not pay off


Chantal Hébert

MONTREAL—The mathematics of a Conservative campaign based on the spectre of a post-election unholy alliance between separatists, socialists and the federal Liberals does not easily add up to a majority.

There are no guarantees such a campaign would result in a decisive Conservative victory and many reasons to doubt that it would or, at least, not without exacerbating tensions on the unity front.

In the heat of last year's parliamentary crisis, the prospect of a Liberal-NDP coalition designed to govern with the support of the Bloc Québécois briefly propelled the Conservatives into majority territory.

But rekindling those passions in the hope of channelling widespread fatigue with short-lived minority Parliaments into a Conservative majority could be a lose-lose game both for the Prime Minister and the fractious country he seeks to continue to govern.

Each of the ingredients of last year's coalition mix played a part in its rejection by the public, but some are no longer operative while others are hardly as viral as the Conservative rhetoric makes them out to be.

The fact that Stéphane Dion would have become prime minister was certainly a big minus for the coalition. He had just been rejected by a massive majority of voters, including almost a million Liberals who opted to stay home on voting day. On the competence scale, Dion simply was not seen to stack up to Stephen Harper.

A year later, though, many disenfranchised Liberals have come back to the fold. Lost in the shuffle of polls that show Michael Ignatieff's popularity plummeting is the fact that the rookie leader's overall score is actually within range of Harper's, a two-time winner and tested incumbent.

The fear of more so-called socialist input into Canada's governance may give the Conservative base an extra reason to mobilize. It may even resonate in some quarters of Ontario, where lingering Rae-days memories die hard.

But it is a bit of a stretch to assume that the potential of more NDP influence on the next federal government is a source of universal trepidation at a time when Harper has just reached into New Democrat ranks to appoint Manitoba's Gary Doer as his envoy to Washington and the NDP is basking in the afterglow of winning power in Nova Scotia.

That leaves the Bloc Québécois, a separatist bogeyman whose irritant potential often cuts across party lines outside Quebec. But using that bogeyman to spook voters into supporting his party could be a zero-sum game for Harper.

For the other by-product of last year's fiery anti-separatist Conservative rhetoric was a massive rejection of the party in Quebec. There, Harper's spin on the coalition was widely seen as Quebec-bashing. That sense was not exclusive to francophone nationalists.

A Conservative party analysis obtained by Le Devoir reveals that if an election had been held last month, the government could have expected to lose at least six of its 10 Quebec seats.

There has been a modest rebound over the past few weeks. But stirring the embers of last year's crisis over a full-fledged campaign would scorch the Quebec earth for the Conservatives for the next election and probably beyond.

Harper is currently 12 seats shy of a majority but that presumes he also hangs on to all the seats he already holds, including the 10 in Quebec.

If he does take the road of a demonizing fear campaign to a majority, the Prime Minister will in essence be asking voters in the rest of Canada to reward him for taking a wrecking ball to his party's bridges to the province of Quebec.

Chantal Hébert is a national affairs writer. Her column appears Monday, Wednesday and Friday.

I think Hébert is right that “coalition bashing” is not popular in Québec, where, uniquely in Canada, the idea of the coalition – including the Bloc as a senior partner – is very popular. Once again Québec is disconnected from Canada and “out of step.”

But, I expect Harper to sacrifice some more popularity in Québec because, for a whole variety of reasons, nearly 70% of Canadians, which means about 90% of Canadians outside of Québec, oppose the coalition IF it includes the Bloc.
 
I’m going to assume that the Liberals and the Bloc will take some seats away from the Conservatives in Atlantic Canada, Québec and Ontario and, maybe, Western Canada, too – say 10 in all – leaving the Conservatives to find 22 more seats, almost all in Ontario. That’s a big hill to climb but it is not impossible.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Further, this article, by former Liberal campaigner Andrew Steele, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail website, acknowledges Hébert’s reasoning (above) and explains just how a Tory majority might be crocheted from electoral scraps:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/andrew-steele/is-majority-possible/article1287813/

Is majority possible?

Andrew Steele

There is a growing theory that a majority is not possible for Stephen Harper in this election because his argument against a Liberal-NDP-Bloc coalition will undermine him in Quebec.

Chantal Hebert puts forth the idea with insight and verve here.

But turning the Conservatives from the provincialist party to the Canadian nationalist party is hardly a losing proposition.

In the days after the last election, I argued that this was exactly the strategy they should pursue to create a durable Conservative Party of Canada. The alternative, the Mulroney alliance of Western So-Cons, Ontario Fiscal-Cons and Quebec nationalists was always doomed to be a boom and bust alternative to the Liberals, rather than the natural governing party of Canada.

“If [the Conservatives] are to build a durable coalition, they must adjust their position on the National Question either in Quebec or outside it. Theoretically, Mr. Harper could attempt to mimic the Liberal coalition by moving both sets of supporters closer to the middle ground. But the Tories' base in English Canada is large, powerful and unlikely to moderate on this fundamental question.

The surer course is to capture the federalist pole from the Liberals in Quebec. This might mean fewer seats in Quebec in the short-term, but it would form a solid intellectual foundation that could be maintained for generations. This position would have coherence - pro-Canada in both Quebec and the rest of the country - as opposed to being contradictory, like the existing coalition of 'francophones and Francophobes.'”

Mr. Harper didn’t read the above and say “Eureka!” Rather, he fell into this strategy during the Coalition Crisis when he was forced to hammer the “separatist” button to survive. Astonished by the popular support that surged against the coalition proposal, Mr. Harper realized the power of nationalism.

Let’s recall, the polls after the crisis demonstrate how miserably unpopular the idea of a Liberal-NDP coalition with support from the Bloc was.

Harper could make a single argument in the looming election of “Harper or the Separatists (or sometimes Socialists)” in an attempt to polarize the electorate and goose the Conservative vote in English Canada.

Mr. Ignatieff has taken some strong steps to inoculate himself to this charge, but it remains to be seen if any type of inoculation will work. Clearly, the Conservative party is not taking yes for an answer, running ads charging Mr. Ignatieff of plotting a “reckless coalition” despite his pleas of innocence.

Generally speaking, this strategy is reminiscent of Dalton McGuinty’s polarization strategy around religious school funding. It is an attempt to turn the election from a referendum on the government or a multiplicity of issues into a single ballot question of “Harper or the Separatists and their Liberal-NDP allies.”

Harper could hammer the point again and again and again until it’s the only thing people are talking about. It should drown out issues like the deficit, Afghanistan or the economy where there is a broad consensus that no party wants to take a risky position outside rhetorical generalities. If executed properly, it could force Ignatieff and Layton completely on the defensive in English Canada.

The polling taken immediately after the coalition crisis showed a huge swing to the Conservatives. If they can replicate that swing in part or in whole, there is a major opening for the Conservatives to flip seats to their column.

Let’s consider how that kind of strategy might play out in English Canada first.

First, we will make the assumption that the Conservatives will lose no English Canadian seats with this strategy. This may be false. Conservative-held Ontario seats with a significant francophone population like Stormont-Dundas-South Glengarry could be in trouble if the “anti-Separatist” rhetoric moves to “anti-Quebec” and then “anti-French” in perception.

However, I will try to balance this with the broad assumption that Conservatives will not beat Liberal incumbents in Toronto, using this strategy or any other. Ontario was second to Alberta in opposition to the coalition, so it’s not impossible to conceive of a seat like Don Valley West or Scarborough Southwest shifting, albeit really unlikely.

So where is movement possible?

The fact is that the NDP are hitting above their weight currently, and are the party with the most vulnerable new incumbents for the Conservatives to target.

Northern Ontario has six vulnerable NDP MPs, Southern Ontario has two and British Columbia another five. A polarization strategy based on anti-separatist rhetoric may work very well to push these seats away from the NDP and toward the Conservatives. The fine people of Welland, Thunder Bay and Burnaby are not known for their abiding love of Gilles Duceppe. If the Conservatives can run the table and supplant the NDP in these swing seats, they are up 12.

The Liberals have a few vulnerable incumbents in B.C. as well. British Columbia has always had a strained relationship with “over the mountains” and should respond well to this messaging. In addition, there are some loose fish in Ontario that could come to the Conservatives in such a scenario, although it will be tougher than the NDP seats. Let’s say another 5 are low-hanging fruit and then it gets pretty tough.

Atlantic Canada has almost no fertile ground for the Conservatives, with this strategy or another. There might be one or two seats here and there, but the coalition crisis did not create the sudden shift in public opinion in the East it did in Ontario and the West. There is the possibility of a mass swing to the Conservatives drawing along some opposition seats here, but short of that there little to count on.

The sum from English Canada appears to be the potential to be up around 15 or a maximum of 20.

The question for Quebec is how serious the blowback will be against Harper.

For that, we can consult the polling taken at the time of the Coalition Crisis. While the coalition was an unpopular idea for about 60 per cent of Canadians, a majority of Quebecers did support the idea.

However, almost 30 per cent in Quebec did not support the coalition.

The high water mark for the Conservatives in Quebec was 2006, when they received 24.6 per cent of the vote.

Certainly, the coalition crisis and the Conservative response had an immediately and negative impact on the Conservative vote in the province. But it was not a demolition. Harper retained support levels around 15 per cent in Quebec.

It’s notable that Harper retained his ten seats in Quebec in 2008, despite losing about 3 per cent of the vote (24.6 per cent down to 21.7 per cent) from his 2006 high.

There is a long-established trend in Quebec to note the government choice of English Canada and then throw their weight in whole or in part behind that choice to have a voice in government.

Richard Johnston, in Letting the People Decide, notes the existence of two somewhat contradictory claims about Quebeckers' political behaviour. The first is that the party will hew to one party over all the others despite what the rest of the country is doing. This was the Liberals before 1984, the Conservatives in 1984 and 1988, and the Bloc Quebecois since.

The other is that Quebec monitors the situation in the rest of the country and follow them. “As a national minority living under a Westminster-style single-party majority-government system, francophone Quebec cannot afford the luxury of being in opposition. They must identify the party most likely to form the government and support it. Sometimes their support can make the difference between a minority and a majority government.”

His longitudinal study of the 1988 elections shows that part of the Quebec electorate was indeed waiting to see which way the rest of Canada would go.

So it is reasonable to expect that Quebec will continue to do what it has done throughout history: cleave to one party – currently the Bloc – to create a large block of Quebec seats that can be used to defend and promote Quebec’s interests.

It is also reasonable to expect that there is a segment of Quebec voters who will run to power, likely found in the same places where Quebecers ran to power in 2006 and 2008, namely the 10 seats they hold.

It is not a sure thing that Harper would be wiped out in Quebec for running an anti-separatist campaign. If Harper comes out of English Canada clearly positioned to form another government, he may be able to appeal to enough Quebecers wishing to back the winner to hold some of his Quebec seats and form a majority.

It, a Conservative majority without Québec (with, say, only four, five, maybe six Québec seats), is possible – just.

 

[Larkvall]

It would be nice if we could replace a dozen NDP seats with Libertarians.
I don't agree with all their policies, but at least they believe in balanced budgets.

 

[Old Sweat]

A local radio station is repeating a CP report that the Bloc has announced that it will support the ways and means motion on Friday. That means that the government will not be defeated. My question is what does the NDP do, support the EI changes or indicate a lack of confidence in the government?

Edit: Link to story on nationalnewswatch.com

http://www.canada.com/news/Bloc+support+Tories+means+election/1996762/story.html

 

[Edward Campbell]

A local radio station is repeating a CP report that the Bloc has announced that it will support the ways and means motion on Friday. That means that the government will not be defeated. My question is what does the NDP do, support the EI changes or indicate a lack of confidence in the government?

If I - a card carrying dues paying Tory - was Taliban Jack Layton, I would vote against the government, saying "Too little, too late!" because I do not want to give Iggy Icarus any chance to tar me as a Harper sympathizer.

 

[Old Sweat]

That was my first reaction, but then I wondered if there was not an advantage to isolating the Liberals as the only ones who voted against the EI improvements and the other goodies. The trouble with trying to predict what politicians will do is that their thought processes are way out of sync with those of normal humanoids.

 

[GAP]

If I - a card carrying dues paying Tory - was Taliban Jack Layton, I would vote against the government, saying "Too little, too late!" because I do not want to give Iggy Icarus any chance to tar me as a Harper sympathizer.

It's too late....he's already intimated that he is prepared to support the Tories. The preception is fixed in the public's eye, and Jack has dodged and wove so much on other issues, he has no credibility on changing now....

 

[len173]

Like most Canadians, I did not want an election. However, now that the liberals have said it's on, I think we have to have one. The liberals can't just go back to supporting the government. Taliban Jack can try it, but he will probably just piss his base off even more. So we end up with a frozen govt. and nothing getting done because of the ever looming threats of an election over every bill read in the house. Let's get it done, let the liberals know that yet again, we do not want them, let the NDP feel the wrath of how people really felt about that little coalition escapade.

Iggy is a smart guy, but he is simply power hungry and dying to be PM. He's been leader of the opposition for less than a year, in a major economic crisis, and suddenly he feels he's entitled to be PM. So screw what the country wants/needs, I'm movin to 24 Sussex!

 

[Edward Campbell]

That was my first reaction, but then I wondered if there was not an advantage to isolating the Liberals as the only ones who voted against the EI improvements and the other goodies. The trouble with trying to predict what politicians will do is that their thought processes are way out of sync with those of normal humanoids.

Poor Jack.

The “great white hope” of the NDP is the total collapse of the Liberal Party of Canada and for that to happen it (the LPC) needs a leader who is dumber than Dion but has charisma. (”Allo! Justin! You listening, monsieur?”) Then he needs to repeat in Canada what happened in Britain nearly 100 years ago. That was the dream, anyway, when the CCF was stabbed in the back swallowed up by the Canadian Labour Congress and the NDP, Canada’s answer to the UK’s Labour Party, was formed. If that miracle can be accomplished then the Dippers become the second party. Redistribution after redistribution means that eventually, in a 400+ seat parliament, no one cares how Québecers vote - their 75 seats are no longer enough to prevent majority governments elected West of the Ottawa River.

The second best thing is a series of Liberal minorities. The halcyon days for the Dippers were in the early/mid ‘60s and in 72/73 when they propped up Liberal minorities (Pearson and Trudeau) and forced them to enact some of the most destructive socio-economic policies and programmes in Canadian history.

Neither looks very likely right now and Jack has to be looking over his shoulder waiting for the knives to come out. He (Jack) would probably be glad to lose his only Quebec seat and his ambitious, telegenic and experienced deputy leader Thomas Mulcair because he has a very long knife, indeed, and its barely hidden under his toga.

Edit: typo