Election 2009?

[Cloud Cover]

"The Conservatives have portrayed him as an elitist carpetbagger."

... and nicely done, too!

 

[GAP]

How rep follows pop – and what it means for Quebec

The province that has driven much of this country's political agenda will go from belle of the political ball to wistful debutante

Brian Lee Crowley  Sep. 26, 2009 03:56AM EDT
Article Link

And so it begins.

The front-page news in this paper yesterday was the pending announcement of an increase in the size of the House of Commons of 30 seats or so. Such an increase is made necessary by the flourishing of three provinces over the past few decades: British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario.

Every other province will see its representation remain stable as the Commons increases in size, meaning a relative loss of political influence. This increase in the size of the Commons is only the first in a series that will be necessary to keep us even close to one person, one vote.

Statistics Canada maintains population projections for Canada in 2031. On all six of their scenarios, within two decades two-thirds of the Canadian population will live in the same three provinces that are about to get extra seats.

It is politically explosive to try to reduce the parliamentary representation of provinces that are losing population relative to the others, and especially so in the case of Quebec. So the Commons in 2031 will count 375 seats; virtually all the increase will go to this new three-province power coalition that will increasingly dominate Canadian politics. A party that could win three quarters of the seats in B.C., Alberta and Ontario would have a parliamentary majority without a single seat from any other province.

Quebec, the province that has driven much of this country's political agenda for the past half century, will go from belle of the political ball to wistful debutante. Its ability to win benefits for itself by consistently sending sovereigntists to Ottawa and denying any party a parliamentary majority will be severely reduced. And even if Quebeckers start voting for federalist parties in larger numbers, they will be unable reliably to deliver parliamentary majorities as they did for nearly a century.

Here's the question that really matters, though: Why are some provinces losing and others winning?
More on link

 

[Dennis Ruhl]

And the reason it Happens from same link:

Tellingly, it is those provinces that have footed the bill that have outstripped Quebec on almost every measure and are reaping the benefits in higher levels of in-migration, political influence, growth and opportunity. Quebec's big-state strategy in both Ottawa and Quebec City has been the distinct society's undoing, while those provinces that have worked hard and invested while keeping government, social programs and taxes under control have become lands of opportunity. The Commons is only just catching up to this new reality.

You could never convince someone from east of the Ottawa River that federal subsidization has kept them poor.  What is the surprising result of paying people not to work?  They don't work and they don't pay taxes.  Not only does Quebec suck up a large transfers from the federal government, it also has the highest taxes in Canada by far, thus discouraging new economic development.  There are a lot of ex-Quebecers in Alberta and we love them.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here, reproduced under the fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Ottawa Citizen, is a thoughtful comment by historian Michael Behiels:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/opinion/time+pull+plug/2034340/story.html

It’s time to pull the plug

By Michael Behiels, The Ottawa Citizen

September 26, 2009
 
It is the burning question of the day: Do Canadians need an election?

The media have largely embraced the mantra shouted out by all the political spin meisters who have taken their lead from the pollsters. Canadians are being told ad nauseam that Canadians don’t want and don’t need an election.

But a growing number of Canadians are beginning to realize that Canadian democracy is in a tailspin. They are fed up with the constant shenanigans of unproductive and divisive minority governments. They now understand that an election is required to enable voters to exercise their democratic rights over the political process and their parliamentary institutions, which are being maligned and weakened every day.

Canadians want and need to make a choice between two clearly defined options of what sort of society and governance they want for the 21st century. Will it be the Republican-lite option of the Harper Conservative party that pines for a much reduced role of the state, or the liberal centrist option of the Ignatieff Liberal party that proposes to call upon the state when and if necessary?

There are some very big issues that Canadians have to face and come to terms with. First, there is the increasingly bloody civil war in Afghanistan and its negative impact on Canada/U.S. and international relations. How will Canadians be able to say no to a major increase in NATO forces in Afghanistan? Canada’s Armed Forces can’t remain in the Kandahar region to undertake governance development projects — Stephen Harper’s proposal — while depending on U.S. and U.K. forces to defend them from the Taliban insurgents.

Second, the Harper government is in the process of reconstructing by stealth the nature and scope of the Canadian federal system by decentralizing programs and undermining Ottawa’s power to tax and spend. Is this the direction that a majority of Canadians want to take? Canadians deserve a national debate before such a radical change is consolidated by the Harper minority government.

Third, there is the looming threat of a second sharp dip in our battered economy that will increase and prolong unemployment. There is an increasing need to have clear proposals on how to deal with the burgeoning deficit and growing debt that is beginning to spin out of control. Canadians need to hear from the Liberal and Conservative parties about how their leaders propose to deal with this crisis.

And, finally, there is the continuing duplicity of our politicians and their spin meisters who claim to operate on principles but then violate them at the mere smell of a partisan political advantage. Prime Minister Stephen Harper denounces a hypothetical Liberal/NDP coalition, one backed by the dreaded separatists, and pleads for a majority to head it off. The next minute he pleads with the NDP and the Bloc to support his government or else the economy and the unemployed will suffer.

Three minority governments have corroded Canadian democracy and our political culture to the point that it will be difficult to rehabilitate. Canadians need to put their collective head around the necessity for a majority government so that Parliament can work effectively to address their needs.

Why do our political leaders want to thwart the natural functioning of our parliamentary democracy? If Parliament is dysfunctional, which all our political leaders tell us it is and Canadians’ instincts confirm every time they watch Question Period, then why should it not be shut down? Why should Harper not revisit the Governor General and request that she call an election in order to sort out the mess on the Hill? He violated his fixed-election day law once with impunity when he called a snap election in the fall of 2008. He could do so again and this time for a very good reason. The health of our parliamentary and constitutional democracy is at stake.

Minority governments reflect deep divisions within Canadian society. There are always fault-lines present in Canadian society but for the most part these remain in abeyance because politicians and Canadians ignore them or work around them to the best of their abilities. But, every now and then, due to a convergence of circumstances, these fault-lines dominate the national agenda and undermine the political stability of Parliament and the Canadian federation.

When this happens it is incumbent on our national social, economic and political leaders to show a higher level of leadership, an internal statesmanship so to speak. To date, our political leaders, especially those who lead the two major parties, Liberals and Conservatives, have not displayed this internal statesmanship. They have not opted to propose broad-ranging policy agendas that will enable Canadians to move beyond their profound and deeply entrenched differences and to focus on shared goals and aspirations.

This near political death experience and the onset of the worst economic recession since the Great Depression of the 1930s apparently knocked just a little bit of “common sense” into Harper and his faltering minority government. To stave off defeat of the new budget, Harper and his minister of finance became practising devotees of John Maynard Keynes’ theory of counter-cyclical financing.

The necessary but rather crude stimulus package will help kick start the economy but will leave a huge deficit for Canadians to deal with over the next decade. Stephen Harper and Jim Flaherty argue that their conversion to Keynesianism is only temporary. Once prosperity returns they will, once again, reconvert to Milton Friedman’s economic theory and practice.

Canadians now face some very tough choices about their economic and political future. It is time that the plug be pulled on this all-too-dysfunctional Parliament. It is time for Canadians to decide which of the two major parties, Liberals or Conservatives, is best equipped to lead Canada out of the economic recession.

Canadians need to chose: Which of the two national parties is willing and able to navigate around, rather than exploit for partisan benefit, the many fault-lines in Canadian society. Which of the two national parties is capable of proposing and putting into action a range of shared policies and programs, domestic and foreign, that will benefit all Canadians rather than just targeted groups of Canadians?

The future of Canadian democracy is at stake. The deadlock of divisive minority governments has to be broken. Canadians need to move forward into the future, not simply tread water while the rest of the world, including our closest and most important neighbour and ally, the United States, moves on.

Michael Behiels is a professor of Canadian history and University Research Chair of Canadian Federalism and Constitutional Studies at the University of Ottawa.

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen​

Some excellent questions from Prof. Behiels and I am pretty certain that neither Harper nor Ignatieff wants to answer any of them – and no one cares what Jack and Gilles think.

 

[GAP]

Just for some Iggy fun....here are some of his ad outtakes.......

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H2xJstJ_2nw&

 

[ModlrMike]

Here, reproduced under the fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Ottawa Citizen, is a thoughtful comment by historian Michael Behiels:

From my perspective it reads more like a one sided, partisan rant.

 

[Edward Campbell]

It is one sided. Behiels is a "liberal centrist" as is, probably, the largest of Canada's many, many minorities. He doesn't want Harper;s "Republican-lite" but he is honest enough to admit that it is an option, maybe, when the ballots are counted, the governing option.

But he is right: we have not had any debate about several important issues. Part of that is a result of PM Harper's political tactics and part of it is the very nature of too many consecutive minority government.

 

[GAP]

Coderre expected to step down as Que. lieutenant
Article Link
By: CTV.ca News Staff  Mon. Sep. 28 2009 9:44 AM ET

Denis Coderre is expected to step down Monday as Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff's Quebec lieutenant, CTV News has learned, over a disagreement about the political comeback of one of the Quebec MP's main rivals.

Coderre will hold a news conference today at 11 a.m. in Montreal where it is expected that he will announce his decision, CTV's Ottawa Bureau Chief Robert Fife told Canada AM.

To announce the news conference, Coderre issued a press release Monday that for the first in months did not include the title, "Michael Ignatieff's Quebec lieutenant."

According to Fife, Michael Ignatieff's office was completely unaware of Coderre's plans and said the Liberal leader had not been in contact with his lieutenant over the weekend.

"The most important thing here is nobody can win power in this country if they can't govern their own party," Fife said. "And Mr. Ignatieff is in a real bind here because polls are falling, he's trying to force an election, and now the party is split. And it's split in an area where Liberals needs to win seats -- in Quebec"
More on link

 

[Edward Campbell]

Given two headlines, both of which are temporary in nature, Stephen Harper must be casting about for something, anything – anything other than campaign financing which is too obvious – which is so poisonous that not even the election shy Dippers[ can support him in a confidence vote:

Stimulus ‘beginning to bear fruit,' PM says; and

Liberals prepare confidence motion – but lose Quebec lieutenant.

The stimulus “news” enhances Harper’s reputation, shown in recent polls, as the better manager of the economy/recovery.

The Coderre stab-in-the back of Prince Michael tells Canadians that the Liberals are still deeply divided and not, yet, “ready for prime time.”

For Tories it’s ELECTION time! But all of Iggy Icarus, Taliban Jack Layton and Gilles Duceppe have to be provoked into acting against their own best interests and forcing the election for which the Tories now so desperately wish.

 

[Edward Campbell]

The Good Grey Globe’s politics editor, Adam Radwanski, makes the case that losing Coderre is rather like getting rid of a dose of clap, a bit painful in the short arm term, but worth it later on, in this blog spot which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail web site:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/radwanski/addition-by-subtraction/article1304167/

Addition by subtraction

Adam Radwanski

Monday, September 28, 2009

Are we really going to go through the motions of pretending that Denis Coderre is a huge loss to Michael Ignatieff?

You can blame the Liberal Leader for putting himself in this situation - first by placing his lot with someone who represents the very worst of old-school Quebec politics, and then by initially standing by him when he was clearly putting his own interests ahead of his party's. But it's a sign of just how facile our political culture has become that we interpret recognizing your mistakes, and correcting them, as a sign of weakness.

It's also indicative of short memories. The last Liberal Leader to show undue loyalty, Paul Martin, paid a significant price for it. By insisting on dancing with the ones that brung him, he failed to make the tough personnel decisions expected of someone at his level. The people who are good at winning leaderships, or at least muscling competitors out of the way, are not necessarily the same people you need once you're in power or close to it.

As for the angle that Coderre is now going to make Ignatieff's life miserable, I'm sure he'll create a few headaches. But you can't bring people into your tent just because you're afraid of what they're going to do outside it. As a general rule, those are precisely the kinds of people who are going to make a mess inside the tent as well.

***

Update: Lots of chatter in the comments below about who will replace Coderre. There's no question that the Liberals will have an organizational void to fill. But I'm inclined to agree with Rob Silver that this would be a good time to put the notion of "Quebec lieutenants" to rest.

He (and Silver) has a point. Coderre was is a bully and a buffoon, rather like his patron ’tit Jean Chrétien. The down side for Ignatieff’s Liberals is that Coderre IS popular in Québec and the BQ and the Conservatives will, both, be able to exploit this, probably unfairly, to be sure, to their advantage. It is time to get rid of the Québec lieutenants; Lester B Pearson was the last PM who really, really needed one. 

 

[a_majoor]

Why do the Conservatives have to "engineer" an election with clever ploys. All they need is to have a few members not show up in the house when the next money bill is being read...

it worked for Stephan Dion!  ;D ;D ;D

 

[Old Sweat]

I think Mister Radwanski is putting too positive a spin on Iggy's actions. He first backed Coderre and then caved to outside pressure. I suggest that the little matter that he took advice from a Toronto Anglo MP and overruled his Quebec lieutenant will not be soon forgotten, not least of all because the Bloc and the Tories will keep the issue alive for as long as possible.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail web site, is some interesting speculation by long-time Liberal insider Andrew Steele:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/andrew-steele/notable-by-absence/article1304415/

Notable by absence

Andrew Steele

The third update on the stimulus package, delivered today by Prime Minister Stephen Harper in a New Brunswick rail facility, was more notable for what was not in it than for what was.

Like the updates last spring, it was an unaudited declaration that the cheque is in the mail. According to the Prime Minister, 90 per cent of the infrastructure and other stimulus spending have been “allocated.”

However, exactly how much of the allocated dollars are actually translating into action remains an unanswered question. That is also the key question, as budgets and actuals are often two very different things.

The report issued by the Liberals last week raises the spectre that the spending on the ground is far less than in the imagination of civil servants. If 90 per cent of the money is allocated and just 12 per cent has actually flowed, what is the source of the delay?

But the real story was what was not done.

Leading up to today’s report, there was considerable speculation that it would include the poison pill designed by the government to engineer their own downfall.

The somewhat twisted logic goes like this:

-- The Conservatives are doing better in the polls now than at any other time when they realistically could hold an election.

-- Therefore, the Conservatives actively wish to have an election.

-- However, the Conservatives' boost in the polls may be due to the electioneering machinations of their rivals.

-- If they are to hold an election, they must not be caught holding the trigger.

-- Instead, they must gently force a circumstance whereby the opposition parties all agree they cannot support a confidence bill and the government falls.

Here is where the problem stands.

Today’s update is before the Liberal confidence motion later this week. There will be no greater opportunity to get their desired election on the circumstances of their preference, think the imaginary Conservatives in this exercise, than if the Liberals are actively seen to be bringing the government down. Better to test those waters before resorting to anything more dramatic that may get our fingerprints on the knife.

As you can tell, all this intrigue is a bit mind-boggling.

It also goes against my experience.

Typically, governments want to stay in power until they decide its time for an election. They will scratch and claw and bite to hold onto office (see Martin, Paul c. May 2005 and Harper, Stephen c. December 2008). Or they can drop everything and call an election on instinct (see Chrétien, Jean c. May 1997, Chrétien, Jean c. September 2000 and Harper, Stephen c. August 2008.)

But it’s pretty rare to try and finagle an election through the back door on hopes and dreams.

Electoral machinery doesn’t crank up suddenly. It’s more like a car that wasn’t plugged in on a cold morning: best to let it warm up a bit.

The only advantage that the “you forced an unnecessary election” high road conveys is placing a little earned media coverage at your back during the first week.

The “unnecessary election” story typically runs aground after a few days, once real stories open up. The example that everyone dotes on is the 1990 Ontario election, where the Liberal government, cruising at 50 per cent in the polls, got caught up on why the election was being called. The difference is that no one expected a contest and so the election conditions were never drowned out by a debate about real issues. It just became a door that allowed pent-up voter anger about the economy and the Meech Lake deal to seep through.

My bet is that the Harper Conservatives are sticking with their plan since the Coalition Crisis:

-- Get through 2009 and put the worst of the recession behind us.

-- Use the stimulus fund to demonstrate action, particularly in key constituencies.

-- Set up a withering pre-writ of earned and paid media, including the Olympics, a throne speech, budget and copious advertisements.

-- Only then, if conditions are right, do you pull the plug.

If the above plan is executed properly, as Mike Harris did in 1999, the result is saturation coverage for the government in the weeks leading upto the election. In essence you turn the five-week writ into eight weeks, and win the first three by default.

Or, the government could fall Friday, but who knows? That’s why they print new newspapers every day, instead of just reading the old ones.

Food for thought.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Denis Coderre asked:

”Who should the leader of the Liberal Party of Canada listen to on decisions that strictly affect Quebec? Should he follow his Quebec lieutenant while working closely with a credible team? Or to his Toronto advisers who know nothing about the social and political realities of Quebec?" (Source: CTV News web site)

What he’s really saying is that the Liberal Party of Canada has, really, devolved into the Liberal Party of Toronto. That’s what we already knew, isn’t it?

 

[ModlrMike]

The Bloc will use this quote to great advantage in the next election, I'm sure. Are we looking at the possibility of the Liberals being shut out of Quebec?

 

[dapaterson]

The Bloc will use this quote to great advantage in the next election, I'm sure. Are we looking at the possibility of the Liberals being shut out of Quebec?

No.  The anglo Montrealers will continue their blind voting patterns, supporting the Liberals regardless of their inaction on behalf of the community - not noticing that their children have all moved away, due in no small part to continued federal pandering to a vocal minority.

We remember Falardeau.  We forget O'Neill, MacWilliams, Pinisch, Morin, St-Germain and Laporte.  Je me souviens.

 

[Edward Campbell]

The Bloc will use this quote to great advantage in the next election, I'm sure. Are we looking at the possibility of the Liberals being shut out of Quebec?

I think not, the Liberals have a veritable stranglehold on certain parts of Montreal. Many Anglos resemble some Atlantic Canadians in their mindless loyalty to one party.

 

[Cloud Cover]

Ignatieff has introduced a no confidence vote- http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20090928/harper_report_090928/20090928?hub=TopStoriesV2

The NDP say they will continue to support the government. I think on the day and time of the vote, the Cons should leave the building and go volunteer at soup kitchens, sweep streets and return constituent phone calls. Let the opposition go at each other. Can the NDP out vote the liberals? No. Will the liberals have to rely on the NDP and the Bloc to vote against them to defeat their own motion- yes. The Liberals will have to withdraw the motion or vote against their own leaders motion.

 

[ModlrMike]

I think not, the Liberals have a veritable stranglehold on certain parts of Montreal. Many Anglos resemble some Atlantic Canadians in their mindless loyalty to one party.

Quite true. Just the same, it's not unreasonable to presume they might be reduced to single digits.

 

[a_majoor]

This seems almost like the prelude to the First World War. No one seems to be actually prepared for an election (even the CPC for all its electoral horsepower really hasn't got a positive message to why they should be elected, just "Stay the Course" and "the election isn't necessary right now").

This blogger thinks the NDP should be the ones waiting for Archduke Micheal by the bridge, and they seem to be one of the few parties to potentially benefit from this:

http://canadaconservative.blogspot.com/2009/09/coderre-just-gave-layton-his-opening.html

Coderre just gave Layton his opening

Unbelievable. if anyone of you thought we weren't going to the polls, this just changed everything... by suddenly up and quitting today, Denis Coderre has perhaps give Jack Layton just the cover he needed to join the Liberals in forcing an election.

With the Liberals in complete disarray, and their Quebec organization is shambles, there's never going to be a better time to go to the polls for Jack Layton's NDP. They're going to be able to poach a whole whack of seats, perhaps even a couple in Quebec, from the disorganized and demoralized Liberals.

I've been checking the Parliamentary website today, watching for the official tabling of the Liberal's non-confidence motion. If they're going to table it, it will be after Question Period around 3:00PM today.

If they Liberals are really worried, watch for the unthinkable... watch for them to take a pass on introducing their motion!

UPDATE: But it shall not come to pass... Layton will continue to prop us up. Wonder how long he can keep this up without his own caucus revolt...