• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Tory minority in jeopardy as opposition talks coalition. Will there be another election?

Although Prime Minister Harper would like to have a majority government, why is it constantly necessary to suggest he will engineer his defeat in the house to have an election. Politics is like warfare; the enemy do have a vote (literally in this case) and it seems to me that we should be looking to see what the opposition parties have in mind; either individually or as part of a "coalition of the inept".

The suggestion in the Blogosphere that the NDP and BQ form a coalition and become the official opposition should Ignatieff ignore the "Troika" may have been whimsical, but it is actually a compelling idea:

The BQ and NDP together outnumber the Liberals.
The NDP is a Democratic Socialist Party while the BQ is a National Socialist Party; their philosophical differences would not be so great to prevent them working closely together.
The Official Opposition is entitled to more funding and perques in Parliament; a bonus for them and it sticks a fork in the Liberals (especially fundraising and organization).
As the Official Opposition, they also get more media coverage. How could Jack Layton turn that down? It also drives another fork in the Liberals, as their message slips down into soundbites following Jack Layton's pontifications.

Many other possibilities also come to mind. I will be interested to see how the usual suspects praise the Obama administration for trying to extend the Bush tax cuts while attacking Prime Minister Harper for tax cuts in the Jan 27 Budget. That might be the most incoherent possible election platform in history.
 
Thucydides said:
That might be the most incoherent possible election platform in history.

As opposed to their previously incoherent attempts?
 
And on the subject of incoherence:

....Prime Minister Stephen Harper panicked so badly as to destroy, certainly for 2009 and likely forever, his chance of attaining a majority government......

.....If, alternatively, Mr. Harper could provoke an election now, he would almost certainly get the majority he longs for.....

Je suis confuseed.

You say he used to advise Pearson hunh?



 
Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail, is a report that suggests Harper’s plans for the forthcoming year – without an election:
--------------------
I have highlighted a bit about the ‘order of business on 26/27 Jan 09.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090108.wsenate08/BNStory/politics/home

Harper pushes to gain control of Senate
PM changes course, backs down on confidence votes

GLORIA GALLOWAY AND JANE TABER

From Wednesday's Globe and Mail
January 8, 2009 at 4:00 AM EST

OTTAWA — Facing an emboldened opposition and the possibility of defeat, Prime Minister Stephen Harper is making a significant switch in tactics, dropping his reliance on confidence votes and moving even further toward stacking the Senate with Tories.

A top aide said yesterday that Mr. Harper will no longer threaten elections to force opposition compliance on secondary policy matters.

He is also planning to fill Senate seats as they become vacant and will not stop until next January when his Tories will finally have the majority in the upper chamber, according to two senior government officials.

Reversing his promise not to name senators until the chamber is reformed, Mr. Harper made 18 appointments last month. Now senior government officials say he is expected to appoint two more in March, when the next vacancies occur. He will make 10 more by the end of the year, keeping with his new strategy to control the Red Chamber to make reforms.

"Now that the decision has been made to fill the seats, delaying on appointments does not make sense, and as such, expect that the government will fill seats as they become open," said a senior Harper official.

Like the Senate plan, the reduced emphasis on confidence votes is a dramatic change for the government, which will face a stronger opposition and a declining economy when Parliament returns later this month.

"We are in a different situation," said the aide, referring to the past session of Parliament, in which the government held 43 confidence votes that the Opposition Liberals allowed to pass.

"If you have interpreted a shift in position, that's correct. But it's appropriate that we shift in economic circumstances ..." said the aide, who spoke to reporters on condition of anonymity.

Mr. Harper's priorities are the drooping economy and the budget plan to revitalize it, he said.

"It would not be possible, not be correct not to proceed on other issues, and we intend to proceed on a number of issues. But those issues will be secondary to the economy," he said.

During the fall campaign, and even after the Conservatives were held to a second straight minority, spokesmen for the Prime Minister said matters such as the Tory crime agenda would be subject to confidence votes.

Former Liberal leader Stéphane Dion had sanctioned repeated abstentions rather than campaign without money or an organization. But just before Christmas, newly appointed Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff said it would be "unacceptable" to make all votes a matter of confidence. "We've got our act together, got a leader chosen, and [Mr. Harper] can't keep making these misjudgments of the mood of the House and hope to survive," Mr. Ignatieff said.

Parliament returns with a Throne Speech and the swearing-in of new senators on Jan. 26 and the budget the next day.
The Throne Speech, said the aide, will be perfunctory.
"The event that we're all waiting for is the budget. This will be one of the most important budgets in Canadian history, certainly in recent Canadian history."

Both the speech and the budget are automatically confidence matters. The aide said no decision has been made as to which will be voted on first.

The Liberals and the New Democrats say they are willing to form a coalition government with the support of the Bloc Québécois should the Conservatives lose a vote.

But polls suggest the idea is not popular. And it would be difficult for the opposition parties to justify taking down the Conservatives if the economic package contains the large stimulus they have demanded.

The Governor-General allowed Mr. Harper to prorogue, or suspend, Parliament last month as he faced a no-confidence vote that would have defeated his short-lived government.

Government officials said there is a view that the Conservatives should make the Senate appointments in case the government is defeated when Parliament returns, giving the opposition parties the opportunity to fill the vacancies.

Breaking his vow to appoint senators only in rare circumstances, Mr. Harper appointed 18 new Senators - mainly strong Conservative partisans - late last month.

Conservatives say this does not mean they are abandoning Senate reforms that the Liberal majority in the chamber has blocked.

"We've become more realistic in terms of what is necessary to actually achieve it and to achieve it we need to have the votes in the Senate because the current occupants of the office are just not interested," said an official.

There are 105 seats in the Senate: 58 Liberals, 35 Conservatives, three Progressive Conservatives, four independents and one independent New Democrat.

Conservative Senator Marjory LeBreton said that if the government fills the seats upon vacancy, by the end of 2009 there will be 49 Conservatives and 50 Liberals.

But by the next month - in January, 2010 - the numbers will reverse and the Tories will have 50 Senators and the Liberals will occupy 49 seats with the retirement of Toronto Liberal Senator Jerry Grafstein.

--------------------

This, the Senate filling plan, does not depend upon not having an election – it does depend upon Harper winning whatever election might occur.


 
Thucydides said:
Although Prime Minister Harper would like to have a majority government, why is it constantly necessary to suggest he will engineer his defeat in the house to have an election. Politics is like warfare; the enemy do have a vote (literally in this case) and it seems to me that we should be looking to see what the opposition parties have in mind; either individually or as part of a "coalition of the inept".

The suggestion in the Blogosphere that the NDP and BQ form a coalition and become the official opposition should Ignatieff ignore the "Troika" may have been whimsical, but it is actually a compelling idea:

The BQ and NDP together outnumber the Liberals.
The NDP is a Democratic Socialist Party while the BQ is a National Socialist Party; their philosophical differences would not be so great to prevent them working closely together.
The Official Opposition is entitled to more funding and perques in Parliament; a bonus for them and it sticks a fork in the Liberals (especially fundraising and organization).
As the Official Opposition, they also get more media coverage. How could Jack Layton turn that down? It also drives another fork in the Liberals, as their message slips down into soundbites following Jack Layton's pontifications.

Many other possibilities also come to mind. I will be interested to see how the usual suspects praise the Obama administration for trying to extend the Bush tax cuts while attacking Prime Minister Harper for tax cuts in the Jan 27 Budget. That might be the most incoherent possible election platform in history.


The only parties that actually want an election in 2009 are, in my view, the BQ and the Tories. Both think they can make some gains.

I believe the Liberals' financial crisis is acute. They have a long, long way to go (years, certainly) before they get near the Conservatives' fund raising skills. Borrowing, for everyone - but especially political parties with huge debts and little prospect of victory, is tough right now. The NDP have suffered just as much as the Liberals from the coalition fiasco; their "conscience of parliament" reputation is badly soiled - they have been shown, at last, for what they are: power hungry, professional politicians, comme les autres.

Neither Ignatieff nor Layton wants an election and either can deny one to Harper. Harper must hope for a miscalculation (against political advantage) on an issue that neither can afford not to vote against.

 
According to this report, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail web site, Ignatieff is talking sense:
--------------------
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20090108.wPOLignatieff0108/BNStory/politics/home

Cut taxes to spur spending, Ignatieff says

The Canadian Press

January 8, 2009 at 4:50 PM EST

HALIFAX — Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff says if he was prime minister, he would look at giving low- and middle-income Canadians tax cuts to try to jump-start the economy.

Asked at a meeting with business leaders in Halifax today what an Ignatieff government would do in its first 100 days in power, the Liberal Leader said the tax cuts would be aimed at boosting the purchasing power of the average Canadian.

He said the Liberals also want “shovel ready” infrastructure projects funded by the federal government to create jobs as quickly as possible.

To achieve that goal, Mr. Ignatieff said he would hire a team of people who would call mayors to ask what projects they have ready to go, because the quickest way to spend infrastructure money is through the municipalities.

He also said the Liberals would overhaul Employment Insurance to ensure that unemployed people receive their benefits in less than 40 days and accused the Conservative government of being unprepared for the recession.

Halifax is the first stop in Mr. Ignatieff's national tour on the economy, which will also include visits to Montreal, Toronto, Calgary and Vancouver.

--------------------

These are demands that Harper/Flaherty will have no trouble accepting.

But, Iggy need not “hire a team of people who would call mayors to ask what projects they have ready to go” – there are enough highly paid and grossly underemployed executive level civil servants in Ottawa to call every mayor of every city with a population over 12,500 in one day. The resulting list could be prepared on a week-end (it would be the first time some of those executives had ever worked between `1500 Hrs Friday and 0900 Hrs Monday) and money could be allocated before lunch on a Monday by some very hard working bureaucrats in Finance.

It looks like the budget passes with ease.



 
E.R. Campbell said:
he would look at giving low- and middle-income Canadians tax cuts to try to jump-start the economy.

Why only low and middle class income earners.  Who's going to jump-start the economy?  Low income-earners with little disposible income or middle-to-upper class Canadians who buy shit from Chapters, Future Shop, Ford Motor Corp and the Bay like it's going out of style?
 
The middle class is what matters.

The top 10% don't really need too much help. They are, already, using the tax system to shelter a significant share of their income. They are, also, more careful spenders - that's one of the reasons they're in the top 10%. (By the way the "top 10%" = 1.5 to 2.5 million Canadians).

We really should aim to get about 1,000,000 Canadians off the (income) tax rolls. That means raising the 'floors' - national and provincial. That should, also, be accompanied by (provincial) welfare reform that allows for graduated welfare for low income earners - to make low income jobs useful. The bottom 10% to 25% (2 to 5 million Canadians) of taxpayers already spend everything they get.

But the middle class (about 15 million taxpayers) will spend any tax savings - and even if only 10% of what they spend stays in Canada (not a bad guesstimate, I guess;) it's still worthwhile.



 
[size=10pt]Hey, What About Us Seniors? [/size]

(first time I have said that!)

 
Rifleman62 said:
[size=10pt]Hey, What About Us Seniors? [/size]

(first time I have said that!)


What!?!

They let you youngsters be 'seniors' out there on the left coast?

--------------------

I am skeptical about tax breaks for most seniors. We are, broadly, (75% of us?) fairly well off and we are, broadly again, great savers. Bad targets for tax breaks - at a policy level.

We also vote in disproportionately high numbers - way more than the 'youth' cohort (18-35 year olds) so politicians are interested in buying our votes with someone else's money. We'll get our break; we always do.


 
And Edward, who is having an uncharacteristic attack of consicience, and I and many other seniors will be spending a lot of money outside Canada for the next two months and a bit. If asked, however, on my return to the Great White North and after I hide my six figure RV, I will grant an interview to a gullible journalist, if that isn't redundant, and offer him/her a lovely snack of cat food on dry bread and wilted lettuce which will have been my proclaimed diet for many, many years.
 
>“shovel ready” infrastructure projects

It's getting harder to find a discussion of "fiscal stimulus" which doesn't include that term.

Along with "robust rules of engagement", it reveals the speaker to be someone incapable of actually articulating the details and specifics of what should be done.
 
Old Sweat said:
And Edward, who is having an uncharacteristic attack of consicience, and I and many other seniors will be spending a lot of money outside Canada for the next two months and a bit. If asked, however, on my return to the Great White North and after I hide my six figure RV, I will grant an interview to a gullible journalist, if that isn't redundant, and offer him/her a lovely snack of cat food on dry bread and wilted lettuce which will have been my proclaimed diet for many, many years.

Would that explain your "feline" physique?
 
That's what I call it, the left coast.

I am in San Antonio spending/living. Gas is $1.55 US for a US gallon. The cost of living is a lot cheaper in the USA. We poor seniors.

Go up young Canadian dollar, go up!
 
How long will you be there? We will be in the Fredericksburg area area around the 20th or so of February.
 
Until 3 Apr. Gerry W may be visiting us for a week or so. No date yet. We are planning to go up there to the Museum of the Pacific.
 
Our plan is to head to Mission and then head home on 31 Mar.
 
Hey there; who's economy are you supposed to be stimulating!  ;)
 
Back
Top