Election 2009?

[Edward Campbell]

I think we can count on the hidden agenda® being resurrected because so many left leaning/anti-Conservative Canadians (a pretty solid majority of the population, I think) really want to believe it.

The firewall® should be resurrected as a legitimate issue because it may be the rock upon which Harper’s political philosophy rests. Now, personally, I like the idea behind the firewall. Even though we are, already, the most decentralized federation in the world – not by design intent (the Fathers of Confederation, with the US Civil War fresh in their minds, wanted a strong central government) but rather by inept drafting in London. (In fairness, British civil servants had no experience in drafting written constitutions or in designing federal systems; it’s not surprising they failed to see the future when they crafted the division of powers part.) In my view the only way the country will be kept together – if, Big IF that is even a good idea – is to decentralize even further. Maybe Joe Clark was on the right track, for the only time in his life, when he proposed a “community of communities” model.

The Liberals will have a tough time framing an acceptable “ballot question” - convincing Canadians that there is some issue that demands a new, Liberal government; they will, therefore, have to reinforce Canadians existing dislike of Stephen Harper while making Ignatieff a whole lot more likable. But Prince Michael is not anything like ’tit Jean Chrétien who, despite being a bully and an old line political pro was able to “sell” himself as an ordinary, likable “little guy.” Watch for real, nasty attack ads from both sides. Canadians do not “like” Harper, but they appear to have developed a grudging respect for him – something upon which the Conservatives can build IF the economy continues to improve – slowly though such improvements may arrive. The Liberals have to convince Canadians that Harper’s policies have made the recovery slower than its should/could have been – that’s one area where the hidden agenda® will come into play.

The Conservatives need to counter on three fronts:

1. Portraying Prince Michael and the Liberals as power hungry egomaniacs – not too hard since a whole lot of Liberals are just that;

2. Finding a handful of Conservative star candidates who can, at least, pretend to care about the travails of the unemployed. (This will be tough because real, principled Conservatives will care little about unemployment, understanding that the market will, eventually, address the problem and

3. Continuing to try to frighten Canadians into believing that an election will prevent some useful projects that might be of some measurable, material to them. (“The Liberals will stop you from getting something for nothing. Bad Liberals!”)

 

[a_majoor]

I agree and disagree.

The points about what, if any issues can be used for an election are quite true and believable, but given the additional data of sliding Liberal fortunes at the polls (or at least firm NDP support) along with the other negative factors and I am more inclined to believe that we will be seeing some sort of Parliamentary set up for another coup attempt and another "Coalition".

Why spend a fortune from the party treasury and leave the results to the whims of the fickle voters?

In fact, given the steady change in Canada's demographic, economic and social profile, I suspect it is really now or never for the LPC, the historical electoral trend is not in their favor and another election defeat might be enough to splinter the Liberal left and send those voters to the NDP and Green parties.

 

[Edward Campbell]

The coalition is problematical.

Given that we have had ten months of parliament and given that, despite the economy, there is no real crisis, the GG, even were she so inclined, has no constitutional grounds to do anything except drop the writs.

Assuming the Conservatives “win” – have the most seats – she is, again on constitutional grounds, highly unlikely not going to call on anyone except the Conservatives to form a government.

If, Big IF, a Liberal/Dipper (and maybe BQ, too) alliance decides to topple the government very early on and then ask the GG for a coalition she will, likely, have to give them a chance. But they will then be toast. A coalition that includes the Dippers will pursue policies that will, fairly quickly, provoke an economic crisis – disinvestment. There will be a popular revolt that will sink both parties – and they know it.

Harper screwed up in the late fall of 2008. He made a Joe Clark style rookie mistake: proposing to “govern as if he had a majority.” he didn’t; it was near death experience. But it was a near death experience for everyone, including Taliban Jack Layton. For better or worse, Canadians are incredibly ignorant about their own constitution and system of government and they – a large majority of them - believe, wholly and completely incorrectly, that coalitions are unconstitutional or, at least, improper. That fact was not lost on anyone. Coalitions are out of fashion unless there is a “good” issue – another rookie mistake by Harper.

I agree with Thucydides on the historic moment for the Liberals. Demographics are against them – see my “new Canada” comments elsewhere; “new Canada” tends to be neo-liberal, not Liberal.

 

[Rifleman62]

Harper's 2008 election call to be challenged
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/09/08/democracy-watch008.html

Last Updated: Tuesday, September 8, 2009 | 6:30 AM ET

The Federal Court of Canada is scheduled to hear arguments Tuesday against the election call last fall by Prime Minister Stephen Harper.

Democracy Watch, a citizens' group that monitors ethics in government, is to argue before the court in Ottawa that Harper violated his own legislation by calling the election before he'd served four years in office.

The only way an election could have been called then was if the government had fallen on a vote of no-confidence, said the group's founder, Duff Conacher.

Under Harper's fixed election date law, which was promised in the 2006 campaign by the Tories, the vote was not supposed to be held until Oct. 19, 2009.

When the law was introduced and passed in 2007, the minister of democratic reform, Rob Nicholson, who is now justice minister, said the measures restricted the prime minister from calling an election unless a vote of no-confidence occurred before October 2009.

The legal challenge comes as the Liberals unveiled campaign-style ads on the weekend. Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff said last week that his party intends to vote against the minority Conservative government at the earliest opportunity after Parliament resumes on September 14.

With files from The Canadian Press

 

[Dennis Ruhl]

The Governor-General dissolves parliaments and calls elections at her pleasure and her decision is beyond review by the courts.  Lacking a constitutional amendment, her powers cannot be altered.  I would also suspect that any conversation that took place between the prime minister and the governor general may be privileged.  My recollection is that the prime minister isn't even mentioned in the constitution but it's been 30 years since I read it.

 

[Journeyman]

...her decision is beyond review by the courts.

The Federal Court seems to disagree. I suspect they'll be phoning you shortly to sort all this out.

 

[Edward Campbell]

The Federal Court seems to disagree. I suspect they'll be phoning you shortly to sort all this out.

IF I understand what I've been reading - not always a good assumption - Conacher/Democracy Watch are not challenging HE's right (or duty) to drop the writs, they are challenging Stephen Harper's right to ask for an election, absent a vote of non-confidence.

 

[dapaterson]

Besides, this broadside is Politics, not politics.  The intent is to draw negative attention to the PM, regardless of the outcome of the case.

 

[Dennis Ruhl]

The Federal Court seems to disagree. I suspect they'll be phoning you shortly to sort all this out.

I don't think that they phone everyone with an opinion.  Should I feel guilty about having an opinion?

Constitution Act 1867

13.  The Provisions of this Act referring to the Governor General in Council shall be construed as referring to the Governor General acting by and with the Advice of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada. 

50.  Every House of Commons shall continue for Five Years from the Day of the Return of the Writs for choosing the House (subject to be sooner dissolved by the Governor General), and no longer.

Section 50 indicates that the Governor-General is solely responsible for dissolving the House of Commons before the end of its 5 year life.  My guess is that the law was ultra vires in that parliament passed a meaningless law beyond their purview.  Absolute authority to call elections still rests with the governor general and not with the House Of Commons.

Bill C16 as passed in 2007

56.1 (1) Nothing in this section affects the powers of the Governor General, including the power to dissolve Parliament at the Governor General’s discretion.

http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?DocId=2475836&Language=e&Mode=1&File=27

 

[Edward Campbell]

...
Harper screwed up in the late fall of 2008. He made a Joe Clark style rookie mistake: proposing to “govern as if he had a majority.” he didn’t; it was near death experience. But it was a near death experience for everyone, including Taliban Jack Layton. For better or worse, Canadians are incredibly ignorant about their own constitution and system of government and they – a large majority of them - believe, wholly and completely incorrectly, that coalitions are unconstitutional or, at least, improper. That fact was not lost on anyone. Coalitions are out of fashion unless there is a “good” issue – another rookie mistake by Harper.
...

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail, is a suggestion that the Conservatives will try to exploit Canadians’ ignorance:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/tories-to-stoke-fear-of-opposition-coalition/article1279929/

Tories to stoke fear of opposition coalition
Election strategy will feature attack on Liberal propensity for making deals with 'socialists and separatists'

Steven Chase and Campbell Clark

Ottawa
Wednesday, Sep. 09, 2009

Stephen Harper's Conservatives have decided their election strategy will rely in part on reviving the ghosts of last December.

The fleeting, four-day coalition that opposition parties formed in late 2008 to unseat Mr. Harper's Conservatives was deeply unpopular outside Quebec. The Tories plan to resurrect its fading memory to rattle voters, warning that backing opposition parties will bring instability.

This strategy is also the reason that Mr. Harper will not make a deal with the NDP or Bloc Québécois to avert an all but inevitable election.

He is gearing up to attack the Liberal propensity for making deals with “socialists and separatists” – as the party did last December – and Mr. Harper would be unravelling his own campaign plans if he struck an accord with the NDP or Bloc.

Conservative strategists want to remind their base, and swing voters, of the alliance the Liberals forged with the NDP and Bloc – and frighten them with the notion Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff might try it again. The accusation plays right into existing Tory attacks that paint the recently installed Liberal chief as a political carpetbagger who's returned to Canada after a long absence merely to win power.

“They can tie the two together and say ... ‘He will force an election even when there is no reason for it and there is no policy distance between the two parties on any major issues. And he's forced an election which will lead to him rebuilding the deal with the other two parties,' ” said University of Calgary political scientist Tom Flanagan, a former Harper adviser.

“It doesn't have to be true. It just has to be plausible and it strikes me as plausible.”

The anti-coalition campaign strategy is also an argument in favour of a Tory majority because it paints this outcome as the only way to avoid the risk of another alliance between the Liberals, NDP and separatist Bloc Québécois.

The Conservatives are toying with how much weight to give two different themes for their election strategy: running against the threat of a coalition and campaigning as the party to protect Canadians from tax hikes as the country digs out of deficit.

Running full-bore against a coalition, however, is a high-risk strategy.

Most Canadians, especially swing voters, have all but forgotten the coalition's brief existence, said pollster Greg Lyle, managing director of Innovative Research Group.

Reviving it as a bogeyman for ordinary Canadians would probably backfire in Quebec, so the Tories would risk losing their 10 seats in the province.

To resurrect memory of the coalition, the Tories would need to again vilify the role of the separatist Bloc – the aspect of the December deal that angered many Canadians. But Quebeckers resented Mr. Harper's attacks on the Bloc's role, and Tory support plummeted in the province.

“What made the coalition radioactive for about five days in December was the idea that the separatists were going to get to call the shots in Canada,” Mr. Lyle said.

“But it was a moment. It was there and it was gone for the average voter. So to re-awaken that, basically means giving up on Quebec. But it is potentially emotional enough to push them over the majority finish line.”

The strategy's effectiveness lies more in its ability to spur Conservative supporters to head to the polls to vote than it does in converting swing voters to the Tories, he said. Most swing voters barely recall the coalition – but its memory still pushes Conservatives' buttons.

And now that Canadian elections have low turnouts like U.S. campaigns, a get-out-your-vote strategy can win an election in Canada, much as it did for the American Republicans in 2000 and 2004.

“With turnout down to 50 per cent, it is now arguably a better strategy to mobilize your voters and de-mobilize the other guy's voters than it is to pitch for swing voters,” Mr. Lyle said. “Things like the coalition get the base going.”

The Conservatives also have another possible major theme: running as the party that won't raise taxes as the country digs out of deficit. It means turning one of the biggest challenges of the next decade, the deficit, into an argument for Tory rule.

In a struggling economy, Canadians are looking for a party to talk to them about their pocketbook, Mr. Lyle said. The Conservatives are always rated hands down as the best party to keep taxes low, and Mr. Ignatieff has given them ammunition by musing in April that his Liberals cannot rule out raising taxes to trim a deficit that now tops $50-billion.

Prof. Flanagan said while he thinks the anti-coalition message is a risky venture, he believes it will play a dominant role in the next election

“I think the coalition theme will come to override all others by the end.”

He said it would likely make sense to wrap up the campaign with a major appeal that warns the Liberals can't be trusted not to ally with the Bloc and NDP if the election produces another minority Parliament.

“I would be arguing for saving the big barrage until the final week,” he said. “To me it looks like a good closer: ‘Don't let the coalition come back.' I would raise it during the campaign … and then really hammer it during the final week,” Prof. Flanagan said.

I suspect Prof. Flanagan is right: this will be (another) election fought on fear and loathing rather than issues. There are no issues. The economy is recovering, slowly and joblessly, for now. It requires careful, prudent management. Prince Michael is promising a faster recovery without tax increases; that’s easy to do; Chrétien/Martin did it by downloading their deficit to AB, BC and ON. Harper has promised not to download Canada’s problems to the provinces; he also promised, back in 2006, not to call an election before 19 Oct 09.

 

[GAP]

Harper has promised not to download Canada’s problems to the provinces; he also promised, back in 2006, not to call an election before 19 Oct 09.

Well, he can still make it, albeit with a few days either way......oh, we had one preview about a year ago...

 

[Edward Campbell]

Another factor: At some undetermined point in the future the seat distribution in the House of Commons will change as follows:

• Territories: From 3 to 3 – no change – percentage of seats remains at >1
• BC: From 36 to 43 – + 7 – percentage of seats rises to 12.6
• AB: From 28 to 35 – +5 – percentage of seats rises to 10.2
• SK/MN: From 28 to 28 – no change – percentage of seats falls to 8.2
• ON: From 106 to 127 – +21 – percentage of seats rises to 37.2
• QC: From 75 to 75 – no change – percentage of seats falls to 21.9
• Atlantic Canada: 32 to 32 – no change – percentage of seats falls to 9.3

The redistribution will cause changes to riding boundaries to give more and more seats to areas of (recent) high population growth. That will be the suburbs: areas where the Tories can and must do well if they want to win a majority.

The new challenge will be to win 171 of 341 seats or to keep the 155 I described above and get 16 of the 33 new seats.

See here – especially this bit:

” The population of Quebec will shrink to barely one-fifth of Canada's by 2031 - implying, according to economist Brian Lee Crowley in an important new book, "a big drop in the province's relative weight in the House of Commons." In fact, he calculates, Quebec's influence will fall from 75 out of 308 MPs to 75 out of 375. The political implications would be profound.

British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario together would have roughly 250 members," Mr. Crowley says. "Winning three-quarters of those seats would give a political party an overall majority in the Commons without a single Quebec seat, or indeed a seat in any other province." Ottawa's long bidding war with Quebec for the loyalty (and votes) of Quebeckers would end - and an historic transformation of Canada would begin.”

And not a moment too soon, either.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s National Post is a report that bodes ill for the Prince Michael and the Liberals:

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fullcomment/archive/2009/09/08/liberals-mutter-darkly-over-ignatieff-election-bravado.aspx

Liberals mutter darkly over Ignatieff election bravado

September 08, 2009

Michael Ignatieff's decision to call time on the Conservatives appears to have unified his party as never before -- it seems he now presides over an entire caucus of what Jean Chrétien famously called "nervous Nellies."

Maybe that's going too far. There must be a Liberal MP somewhere, sitting on a fat majority, who welcomes the chance to test the patience of voters less than a year after the last election.

But many members of the caucus have come down with a bad case of cold feet since Mr. Ignatieff announced his decision to bring down the government at the first opportunity last week. Speaking privately yesterday, a number of MPs and backroom Liberals professed extreme disquiet at Mr. Ignatieff's strategy.


One MP said  the mood at the caucus meeting in Sudbury was "near unanimous" against a fall election. Yet, less than an hour after caucus had debated the issue, the Liberal leader emerged to hand down his decision. "We might as well have stayed in bed," said the MP. 

Another Liberal said Mr. Ignatieff should have explained to Canadians why the Conservatives have to go, and why the Liberals deserve to replace them, before saying he intends to bring down the government.

"I'm waiting for Mr. Ignatieff to make that case. The cart is before the horse," he said. "We need to provide a compelling road-map."

The MP said it is not too late to pull back from the edge. "If the membership and the public clamour loudly that this is not what we need at this point, cooler heads may prevail. If not, we risk a significant backlash over spending $300-million on an election at a time when the country can't afford it -- a backlash that could push the Conservatives into majority territory."

One grassroots Toronto Liberal said that most members he talks to understand there is no compelling need for an election.

"There's no credibility in voting against a government which stimulates the economy with $10-billion because you think it should be $12-billion. If I had his ear, I'd tell him to wait until there's a real reason, not some artificial excuse. The voters can understand the difference between a national issue that will affect the country and a political issue that is intended to benefit the Liberals and no-one else," he said.

Liberals were speaking in the wake of yet more bad poll news. A Strategic Counsel poll for the Globe and Mail had the Conservatives five points up on the Liberals at 35% and appeared to confirm recent polls in Le Devoir and La Presse, which suggested  the Grits have slipped badly in Quebec.

Mr. Ignatieff's team is hoping the release of two new television ads will boost Liberal support. But one veteran Grit said the opportunity has been botched by "amateur" advisers around Mr. Ignatieff. In particular, he criticized the English language ad, "Worldview," in which Mr. Ignatieff urges Canadians to vote for a "government that thinks big and has a global perspective."

"How can they sell him on his weakest point -- that he was out of the country for 35 years?" the Liberal asked. "The focus of the ads should be on what he's done in Canada."

The French language ads are more direct and attack Stephen Harper's record on the economy and the environment, even if the focus on the Conservatives, rather than the Bloc Québécois, seems curious (last time, the Tories and Liberals were either first or second in just eight ridings).

There are MPs who profess to be agnostic about the timing of an election and say they are sick of propping up the Conservatives. "I think we have room to grow and we'll form a minority," said an Ontario Grit.

One Liberal strategist said that caucus is probably split 50:50 on whether to force an election but that Mr. Ignatieff has shown real leadership by taking the issue off the table. "My take is that his decision has not spurred greater debate internally, it's ended that debate and focused folks on the task ahead," he said. "The challenge for the Liberals is not whether we're running, it's to refine the message around why we're running. To be fair, a lot of work has been done in that respect and things are getting into ship-shape pretty fast."

Liberal MPs like Ujjal Dosanjh, who won his riding of Vancouver South by just 20 votes last year, must be hoping against hope that this confidence is not misplaced.

National Post
jivison@nationalpost.com

I agree with the unnamed Liberal strategist that ”Ignatieff has shown real leadership by taking the issue off the table.” There can be little doubt that the caucus was chaffing under the continued “need” to keep supporting Harper.

But Prince Michael’s “leadership” would have been much, much better had he pulled the plug in June when he had a very good chance of beating Harper who, just a few short months ago, looked weak and was dealing, fitfully, with an economic crisis.

Now? Not so much. Harper has regained his footing; he looks strong; the economy is inching forward again. It may be good leadership but its not “very good” or “exceptional” and I suspect it’s not going to be good enough. I looks, to me, like Iggy is being a leader, however good or not so good, but the only alternative is be Dionized for not being able to lead.

 

[dapaterson]

A former ministerial staffer (Liberal) explained to me that he'd periodically talk politics with his mother, back home, far from Ottawa.

If the issues he raised didn't resonate he'd know that they were artifacts of the game of politics - and not real political issues outside the Ottawa bubble.

It seems that Mr Ignatieff (aside: Why has the press settled on the somewhat dismissive diminutive Iggy?  Because "Mike" was already taken by Lester B.?) lacks that voice of reason from outside the Ottawa bubble - there will be an election because Ottawa insiders think there should be an election, not because of any grassrooots demand or compelling issue that would make the grassroots rally.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Jeffrey Simpson detests the 21st century Conservative Party; he can barely bring himself to call them Conservatives, preferring, instead, the derogatory Harperites. But he is equally dismayed by his only other choice, Prince Michael, and he tells us 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/on-truth-fear-and-broken-political-promises/article1279733/

On truth, fear and broken political promises
As an intellectual, Michael Ignatieff didn't have to settle for a world of rationalizations

Jeffrey Simpson

Wednesday, Sep. 09, 2009

An intellectual lives in truth, or in the pursuit of it; a politician lives in truth's shadows while pursuing power.

A person can be intelligent in politics, but cannot be an intellectual, because an intellectual, if true to world of ideas, must be fearless, whereas a politician usually lives in fear of defeat for himself, party or government.

Intellectuals who move into politics must begin to make compromises with the truth, to move around its edges, to forget the core of what it means to try to live in truth and to settle instead for a world of rationalizations.

It is fascinating, therefore, to observe the transition of Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff from a fine public intellectual to a politician, and in particular the playing at the edges with truth of the kind he would deplore were he not in public life.

A small matter, really, but a revealing one occurred the other day when, having said the country should “wait and see” how he, as prime minister, would deal with the deficit, Mr. Ignatieff referred to his party's record of ending deficits under prime minister Jean Chrétien and finance minister Paul Martin. “We dug the country out of it without raising taxes,” he declared. “We did it before. We'll do it again.”

Alas, this was not so. In the famous 1995 budget that put Canada on the road to eliminating the deficit and set the stage for more than a decade of balanced budgets and prosperity, Mr. Martin raised taxes on corporations, financial institutions, tobacco and gasoline, and made other corporate tax changes and alterations to retirement plans that added about $1.5-billion to Ottawa's coffers each year.

True, most of the deficit-reduction work came in cutting spending on federal programs and transfers to provinces, but the Chrétien-Martin Liberals did raise taxes, Mr. Ignatieff's proclamation to the contrary.

His error was one of those rhetorical flourishes that characterize all politicians who know that not all their statements are checked by the media. If checked, the statements are usually reviewed by other political parties whose own record for veracity is so potted as not to be taken seriously.

An intellectual makes no promises, because he does not know where his inquiries will lead, whereas a politician must make promises, because he seeks power and must purvey hope for a better future to get it.

Political promises, of course, are often broken – as Mr. Ignatieff's pledge to go to China one day and his cancellation of the trip the next – because circumstances change, the promise was dumb at conception, the promise costs too much, whatever.

Even that Chrétien-Martin budget of 1995 broke a promise, in a good sense, since it set the Liberals toward a balanced budget, whereas Mr. Chrétien had campaigned on merely reducing it to 3 per cent of gross domestic product.

Other promises are dumb but get fulfilled, so that later governments have to undo them, as some prime minister will by undoing the Harper government's two-point all-politics-all-the-time cut to the goods and services tax.

It is fear that drives many political calculations – fear that the electorate will not understand or will react badly or is very stupid or very self-interested. This fear paralyzes politicians from talking seriously, as in the case of Mr. Ignatieff and all politicians these days, about the country's fiscal deficit, which can be reduced in a short period of time, say within five years, only by a combination of resumed economic growth, spending reductions and tax increases.

Politicians, living in fear while purveying hopes, fear the electoral consequence of living in truth if they outlined what kind of spending cuts and tax increases will do the trick of achieving the surpluses Canada will need.

It is easier to live in the shadows of truth, or to play around its edges, as all the politicians are now doing, by saying growth alone will do the trick, or referring misleadingly to successes of previous governments, or accusing the other side of mismanagement.

Get ready, therefore, for an election campaign sought only by the political class, in which leaders, politicians all, will play around truth's edges, fearing the voters' reaction to serious measures, and counting instead on the seduction of illusion and the crafting of image.

Poor Jeffrey Simpson, his idol has feet of clay.

But this is a stunning indictment of Ignatieff and it is from a wholly unexpected source. A lot of Liberals will be in shock.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here, reproduced under the fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail web site, is more early polling data:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ignatieffs-support-slips-on-sabre-rattling/article1280965/

Ignatieff's support slips on sabre-rattling
Election threat prompts 15-point spike in Liberal Leader's negative ratings, poll suggests

Ottawa — The Canadian Press
Wednesday, Sep. 09, 2009

A new poll suggests Canadians think Michael Ignatieff is wrong to try to force an election this fall and the Liberal Leader's popularity has nosedived as a result.

The Harris-Decima survey conducted for The Canadian Press also suggests Liberal fortunes have dipped, with the Conservatives taking a slight lead nationally – 34 per cent to 31.

The NDP was at 15 per cent, the Greens at 10, and the Bloc Québécois at eight.

According to the poll, respondents with a negative impression of Mr. Ignatieff jumped 15 points from March, to 41 per cent.

Thirty-nine per cent had a favourable impression, down six points.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper isn't doing much better – impressions of the prime minister remained virtually unchanged with 44 per cent having a favourable opinion and 45 per cent having an unfavourable opinion.

The poll of just over 2,000 Canadians was conducted Aug. 27 to Sept. 6 and is considered accurate to within 2.2 percentage points 19 times in 20.

Conservative partisans should not read too much into this; it is, probably, expected by all sides.

IF we really are going to have a fall election then the Liberals have to find an issue and the Conservatives have to reinforce Prince Michael’s “negatives.”

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here, reproduced under the fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail, is another “shot” from a normally Liberal friendly source:

Globe editorial

An off-putting air of entitlement
Michael Ignatieff is asking Canadians to choose between his party and the alternatives, without presenting any solid reason to make such a choice. He, more than anyone, needs to do better

Tuesday, Sep. 08, 2009

If there is one thing Michael Ignatieff, the much-travelled author, academic and descendant of Russian (not to mention Toronto) nobility, least wants to have trailing behind him, it is any whiff of entitlement. The party he leads, the Liberals, is already notorious for acting as if it had a natural right to govern. Adding his own sense of destiny to the mix can only hurt the Liberals' chances in the fall general election that he has all but made an inevitability.

Thus, it is not the smartest move for the Liberals to feature Mr. Ignatieff in a new English-language television ad that sells his party with the slogan, “We can do better,” and then defines “better” as having a government that “thinks big, has a global perspective.” A Conservative spokesman has already written off this vague bromide as an appeal to “snobs.” In the sense that “snob,” to a Conservative, means a Toronto sophisticate with a well-stamped passport and a sense of superiority, that spokesman may have a point.

There are, indeed, many things Canada can do better, both domestically and in its foreign relations. A quick survey of the issues raised in this space in recent weeks provides some useful examples: managing the economic recovery and the deficit it has spawned; the rights of Canadians held in foreign lands; preparedness for the swine flu; our future role in Afghanistan. There are plenty of specific areas in which the Liberal Leader could clearly differentiate his vision from that of the Harper government.

But that is not what Mr. Ignatieff has done in his first foray into our living rooms since announcing on Sept. 2 that his party will no longer support the Conservative minority government in the House of Commons. Instead, appearing in a sylvan setting that implies some kind of emergence from a political wilderness, the internationalist Mr. Ignatieff has grafted the faintly headmasterish admonishment “We can do better” to the logo of the Liberal Party, and then left it to viewers to imagine what he means by that.

This is not a message that is going to woo away Conservative voters, who are rightly suspicious of anything that implies that global perspectives and thinking big are qualities only a well-travelled Liberal can possess. Nor does it give third-party voters a reason to jump ship. So what is the real purpose of the ad, if not to reinforce Liberal supporters' misguided belief that theirs is the natural governing party of this country?

Michael Ignatieff wants Canadians to vote in their fourth federal election in six years. He is asking them to choose between his party and the alternatives, without presenting any solid reason to make such a choice. He, more than anyone, needs to do better.

Prince Michael has to work very, very hard, very, vary quickly, to prove that there is some need for an election. Even his friends are not convinced.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

'We can do better'. When I first saw that, I thought they were speaking of their own party and not Canada in general.

I'm sure I'm not the only one.

So their first salvo, and the pompousity has already produced something that is confusing and can smack them back.

I like it ;D

 

[Edward Campbell]

More polling, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the CBC web site:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/09/09/ekos-poll.html

Liberal support softening, poll suggests

Thursday, September 10, 2009

CBC News

The federal Liberals appear to be losing some ground in popularity, a new poll suggests, with the Tories taking a slight overall lead.

The EKOS poll, commissioned for the CBC and released Thursday, shows the Tories with 34.2 per cent support, followed by the Liberals with 30.8 per cent, a bigger gap between the two parties than any seen all summer.

The New Democratic Party follows with 14.8 per cent support, while the Green Party has 10.1 per cent and the Bloc Québécois with 10 per cent.

Respondents were asked which party they would vote for if a federal election were held tomorrow.

The poll was taken as Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff said the Liberals will try to trigger the defeat of Stephen Harper's minority Conservative government at the earliest possible date this fall.

Liberals also appear to be losing some ground in both Ontario and Quebec.

In Ontario, the gap between the Tories and Liberals continues to narrow, with both parties virtually tied.

The Bloc remains on top in Quebec with nearly 40 per cent support followed by the Liberals (28 per cent). The Tories are in third with around 15 per cent.

The poll also found that more than 70 per cent of Canadians believe a federal election should be held some time later than this fall.

The survey of 2,825 people was conducted by telephone between Sept. 2 and Sept. 8, 2009, and has an error margin of plus or minus 1.8 percentage points, 19 times out of 20. EKOS used voice-recognition software, allowing respondents to answer by punching the phone's keypad. A mix of landline and cellphone households was addressed.

The big news is not the support or, rather, lack of same for any of the national parties, it is that 70% of Canadians do not want an election. This is something about which all party leaders must worry. IF there is going to be an election it may be won or lost on the basis of which party Canadians blame for calling the damned thing.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I think the biggest political problem lies in the centre of the chart in my adjacent CBC polling post. The Dippers will be attacking the Liberals, hard, for a few seats in Vancouver and Toronto and to defend their lone Québec seat and, perhaps, to gain another. Meanwhile the Greens will be going after the committed environmentalists who are, disproportionately, concentrated in the NDP.

That brings us to this story, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/may-tosses-hat-into-ring-for-bc-riding/article1279346/

May tosses hat into ring for B.C. riding

Green Party Leader seeks nomination in Saanich-Gulf Islands, where she will square off against Tory minister responsible for Vancouver Olympics

Bill Curry

Ottawa
Tuesday, Sep. 08, 2009

Having failed last year to knock off a veteran Conservative cabinet minister on the East Coast, Elizabeth May is now on the shores of the Pacific taking on a Vancouver Island Tory minister who boasts a string of five straight victories.

And this, according to the Green Party, is the easier road to the House of Commons.

Ms. May announced Tuesday in Sydney, B.C., that she will run for the contested Green Party nomination in Saanich-Gulf Islands. The Green Party Leader made the decision in spite of earlier vows to only run in the Nova Scotia riding of Central Nova, where she ran and lost last year to incumbent Conservative minister Peter MacKay.

She says the party, as well as Canadians at large, convinced her Central Nova was too hard and that she should find a riding where she stood a better chance of getting elected.

“I was persuaded by the Greens across the country and by members of the public – complete strangers – who have come up to me since last October to say, ‘We really wanted you in the House of Commons. Don't run where you ran last time,'” she said in an interview.

But some are scratching their heads at Ms. May's decision to once again challenge a sitting cabinet minister; this time Gary Lunn, the federal sports minister. Mr. Lunn won the riding last year – his fifth consecutive victory – with 43 per cent of the vote, defeating Liberal Briony Penn, a former Green Party activist. The Green candidate finished third with 10 per cent of the vote. The NDP candidate, Julian West, withdrew from the race during the campaign yet still received the support of 6 per cent of voters.

Mr. Lunn is also taking on an increasing media profile as the federal minister responsible for Vancouver's 2010 Olympics.

“Why not go after a backbencher?” asks Dennis Pilon, a political scientist with the University of Victoria. “Why not go after a bottom feeder, rather than these people who've already got some profile and are regularly featured on the television, which is very, very important in terms of people recognizing the name.”

Mr. Pilon said the Green Party Leader would likely have had a better chance running in a Liberal-held riding where the incumbent has retired. Further, he said the NDP, Liberals and Conservatives are all competitive in Saanich-Gulf-Islands and so Ms. May will have a hard time getting large numbers of voters to abandon their traditional party and swing her way.

Mr. Pilon nonetheless suspects the riding's large number of environmentalists will embrace her decision and make the Greens competitive in the riding.

Ms. May said the riding's environmental leanings make it a good fit. She also expects the Greens to be an attractive choice for voters who will blame a fall election on the overly partisan nature of the four parties in the Commons.

“We have a very dysfunctional, overtly toxic system,” she said in an interview yesterday. “I'm alarmed by the level of combativeness and unnecessary abuse in the House of Commons. It's not necessary, it's counter-productive and it turns people off voting.”

For his part, Mr. Lunn said Ms. May's announcement does not come as a surprise but that he does not think her candidacy will have a significant effect on the local political dynamics.

“I think the last thing we need is an election. I think all that election talk is complete craziness,” he said, rejecting Ms. May's characterization of the government. “The Prime Minister, I thought, has reached out, but at the end of the day, he's got a mandate to govern.”

The decision to choose Saanich-Gulf Islands comes after extensive party polling and visits to other ridings. Ms. May finished second, with 25 per cent support, when she ran in a 2006 by-election in London North Centre. In the 2008 campaign running in Central Nova, she again finished second with 32 per cent.

The nomination in Saanich-Gulf Islands is set for Sept. 19. Environmental activist Stuart Hertzog has already declared his intention to run and has launched a vocal campaign against Ms. May's leadership. Mr. Hertzog has criticized what he sees as a move toward top-down decisions in the Green Party since Ms. May took the helm in 2006.

She says the fact that Canadians may be faced with a fourth federal election in 51/2 years shows the current parties in the House of Commons have not figured out how to make a multi-party, minority Parliament work.

Some have suggested the solution to Ottawa's political instability through minority Parliaments lies in fewer parties, not more. Ms. May obviously disagrees.

“The culture of politics right now, with so many old-line parties being so combative, makes people yearn for something different, which is why the Greens are growing,” she said.

Neither the Greens nor Ms. May are quite ready, yet, for prime time. She will face internal dissention over her choice of ridings from two flanks: the activist who has been working the riding for a long time and wants to be the candidate, and from the few ”political pros” in the Party who wonder why she wants to take on high profile, hard to beat, Conservatives. Is she really running for a seat or is she just trying to help a Liberal unseat a Tory minister?