Beyond The Commons

Aaron Wherry covers all the goings-on in and around Parliament Hill. Follow Aaron on Twitter: @aaronwherry

Categories: Beyond The Commons, Capital Read

Hypothetical math

by Aaron Wherry on Friday, December 17, 2010 2:44pm - 66 Comments

Eric Grenier considers Stephen Harper’s hopes for a majority.

The Conservatives may have hit their ceiling under the leadership of Stephen Harper. Targeting specific groups with individual pieces of legislation and policy may net the party a few more seats here and there, but it will take a flawless campaign for the Tories to keep the seats they currently have and turn those piecemeal gains into a slim majority.

Tags: democracy, election, Eric Grenier, majority, Ottawa, Stephen Harper

More by Aaron Wherry

alfanerd

A conservative majority would be good for the country, and paradoxically, good for the Liberal Party.

ZestyMordant

Why? What do you think they would do differently than they are now? What do you think Harper's priorities would be with a majority?

alfanerd

I cant answer that question for sure, but I can say for sure what their priority wouldnt be: it wouldnt be about surviving the next confidence vote. And that would allow them to actually govern taking a longer and broader view of things. Also, the country wouldnt be standing on the edge of an election 24/7, and the Liberal party could rejuvenate itself, even have one of those "leadership contests" that they use to have in order to remove leader-appointee Ignatieff, which in turn would allow the Liberal party to ask itself what its about beyond simply gaining power.

Emily

Obviously the country disagrees with you.

alfanerd

Well, according to the latest polls, about 60% of people disagree with me. However, considering you're an Iggy cheerleader, and only 29% want to vote Liberals, and of those, 40% want Iggy gone, 82% of the country disagrees with you.

Not that it matters Im just voicing an opinion, and Im very well aware of the fact that not everybody agrees with me. The point of voicing an opinion is not to have everybody agree with you – unless that is you're trying to show how 'progressive' you are to gain friends at a greenpeace rally or something. If you're actually trying to tell the truth, you will find that most people will disagree with you most of the time. One example of this is the ratings for these posts – i usually get high ratings for my lamest posts, and my best posts usually hit -50 (because the truth hurts, and in particular, it hurts delusional Liberal macleans readers).
Emily

No alfanerd, repeating nonsense doesn't make it true, sorry.

2 polls in the last ten days show both parties tied, and another poll shows they've both dropped….so there is no 60% agreeing with you. The country is 50/50 like it's been for the last 5 years.

Secondly, I don't like Iggy, so stop pretending I do.

Thirdly, try not to say dumb things like you get thumbs down a lot because you're right….that one is absurd. LOL
alfanerd

whatever, equivocate on #s if you must, then 69% of the country disagrees with me and 71% of the country disagrees with you. it means nothing.
Emily

It means Harper will never have a majority.
alfanerd

it means that if you believe the latest poll, he's unlikely to win a majority right now. Geez, i thought you liberals were all about nuance and stuff.
Emily

LOL nuance…yup it's been 'nuance' for 5 years now.
MostlyCivil

"If you're actually trying to tell the truth, you will find that most people will disagree with you most of the time/"

That's nonsense. If your reality consists of message boards, then sure. When I post something in a Steyn thread and go -75, I must be telling the truth, right?

You're calling liberals delusional?
brooster2

"One example of this is the ratings for these posts – i usually get high ratings for my lamest posts, and my best posts usually hit -50 (because the truth hurts, and in particular, it hurts delusional Liberal macleans readers)."

Let me guess…you're that prophet who is not without honor save in his own country. Must be a dirty, thankless job.
hollinm

Not really but keep trying Emily.
Emily

Yes, really….and I don't have to 'try'

ZestyMordant

Not sure about your notion that it would be good for the Liberals in the long term, but I don't immediately disagree. I need to think about it more before I opine.

But we often hear from Harper supporters how much better everything would be with a majority, because they could do things that are not possible in a minority situation. It makes me wonder exactly what they would do with a majority beyond quickly passing bills they have on the books already. That is something that we should definitely hear from Harper prior to or during the next election.

alfanerd

well, for one they could remove the $1.75 per vote party subsidy… :)

and they could also actually tackle the deficit. im well aware that the Liberals slashed spending in the 90s and were good financial managers (although a lot of their cuts were just offloading responsibilities to the provinces), but they got the financial house in order – however, that doesnt mean that the current Liberals would support an austerity budget, which this country definitely needs. im just a supporter and i have no clue whats in the works for the next budget, but i suspect that if the budget is a real austerity budget, that the Liberals wont be able to resist voting it down in order to fight an election against the "mean" conservatives who cut healthcare, education and all that (notwithstanding that the Liberals cut healthcare and education in the 90s and boast about it still today).
gottabesaid

The Liberals are staking out positions opposing the extension of corporate tax cuts and opposing the immediate purchases of those fighter jets — if those two things are in the budget, it doesn't sound like the Liberals will support said budget. Haven't heard anything about opposing austerity measures; also it's important to note that the Liberals' rhetoric has been to paint the Conservatives as spending money like drunken sailors. I could see the Liberals fighting an election on spending priorities, but as far as fighting an election on austerity… if they DO, it'll be unwise, since I think most folks probably want to see an austerity budget.
alfanerd

i hope you're right. and if so, i hope the Conservatives do introduce an austerity budget. i think they're afraid to, but maybe im wrong.
gottabesaid

I think it goes against conventional wisdom to bring in an austerity budget before you head off on an election, but I'm not sure if conventional wisdom holds true in the case.
alfanerd

i think they should. like you said, many voters realize its needed. and running on a record of deficit is just bad, specially for a conservative government.
EeeOar

well, for one they could remove the $1.75 per vote party subsidy… :)

That was a throw away line, right?
hollinm

Perhaps we could deal with the problems facing the country ie healthcare agreements expiring, effective pension reform that works for ordinary Canadians, lower taxes, making the cuts necessary to cover the deficit. How is that for a starter.
Jenn_

Wow, that's awesome for a starter! Are you sure you are hollinm? Is hollinm (the handle) still being hacked?
LaxAtlDfwYow

We've had the past, oh, say, at least 5 years to deal with those perfectly legitimate priorities. Instead, the current government chooses to piss their mandate and our taxes away introducing, reintroducing and re-reintroducing the same old moronic wedge legislation.

I'd be thrilled to vote for a party – any damn party – that set a few real national priorities and pursues them in a manner that befits a real democracy.

Instead, we get iPod ads. It just friggin' depressing.
hollinm

We also had Liberal governments for the past century that did not deal with the serious issues facing the country. More recently we had 13 years of Liberal do nothing majority governments where many of these things could have been addressed. What did we get….. zilch…nada…not a damn thing. So vote for any party you want but lets be realistic.
You're right. It is depressing watching the inept opposition parties fighting anything and everything the government tries to do and in their spare time passes legislation i.e. the environment, bilingual judges which would hurt the country. Don't give me your sanctimonious b.s.
http://dougsamu.wordpress.com dougrogers

The past century? Man you are really digging for grudges.
hollinm

No…no grudges. Just want to point out the Liberal party has been governing the country most of the last century. That's it. All of these problems that we have were because of the Liberals and their failure to fix them since they had many opportunities over the years.
Why is the healthcare system still broken despite promising to fix it for a generation?
Why is there child poverty in this country when the Libs promised to fix it by the year 2000?
Why did the Liberals not implement Kyoto?
Why is the immigration system a mess?
Why were personal income taxes under the Liberals the highest among the G7?
Why did the Liberals allow the military to evolve into a state of disrepair and low morale (decade of darkness)?
Why did the Liberals commit us to a war in Afghanistan in the "killing fields" of Kandahar (quote from Chretien)?
Why did the Liberals promise to eliminate the GST and then keep it?
Why did the Liberals promise to re-negotiate NAFTA but did not?
Where is the national daycare program the Liberals promised for five elections.
Why are aboriginals still living in poverty?
I could go on.
http://dougsamu.wordpress.com dougrogers

Aawoooooh! I'm singing the blues!
The lying scheming failing
lib'ral blues!
Ah woooooah the lib'ral blues

Sing it brother, sing it!
hollinm

I am singing Rudolph the Red Nose Reindeer as I type this. All in the Christmas spirit.

I guess my comments made you speechless as there was no denying the issues that the Libs failed to address lo these many years. Yet Harper is suppose to fix the country in a minority parliament after five short years after having faced a recession the worst since the great depression.
http://dougsamu.wordpress.com dougrogers

A hundred years o' liberals has left us in the dust
And now we got a guvamint that can't do what it must
Cause it's got
The liberal blues
The lying cheating failing us
The liberal blues

Oh yeah….
EeeOar

I could go on.

Please do!

JoeC

"I cant answer that question for sure"

You don't know what they'd do, but you know it would be good for the country. Good plan…

"And that would allow them to actually govern taking a longer and broader view of things"

They could be doing that now, if they'd grow the @#$% up and start working with other parties in a more constructive manner. Guess what? When you have a minority, you have to work with other parties in a constructive way to get things done! But then again, their plan seems to be trying to not get anything done, or they just don't have any ideas left…

alfanerd

So who are you going to vote for JoeC? The Liberals maybe? They have a platform out yet? No, so you dont know what they'd do but you'd vote for them?

Or is it the NDP? at least that's the safe vote, because although you dont know what they'd do if in power, you know for sure they wont be in power.

They could be doing that now, if they'd grow the @#$% up and start working with other parties in a more constructive manner.

That's a very cute cliche. I really dont want the Conservatives to work with "other parties in a constructive manner". I want the Conservatives to implement what they think is right for the country. To quote the great Mark Steyn, if you mix vanilla ice cream with dog poop, the result tastes more like the latter than the former.
Emily

Well you guys eat up enough political sh*t to know.
Jenn_

You don't want the Conservatives to work with other parties in a constructive manner, in spite of the fact that the electorate, as a whole, has instructed that very thing–not once, but twice?
Thwim

CPC supporters only support democracy when it does what they want.

Loraine Lamontagne

You seriously think that the government's priority has been to survive the next confidence vote? The same folks who made every vote a confidence vote in their first term? I disagree. This government's priority has been to win the next election, and if they get a majority, their priority will still be to win the next election. Sound governance has not, is not and will never be a priority of this group.

alfanerd

That's based on your prejudiced assessment of Conservatives. I think you're confusing Liberal party talking points for the truth. The fact is, all parties want sound governance, they only have different views of what sound governance is.
Loraine Lamontagne

Noticing that this governement made every vote a confidence vote in their first term is not a prejudiced assessment, it is a fact. I think you're confusing reality with Conservative talking points. Martin's government was always about surviving the next confidence vote – but not Harper's. In fact, as you well know, Harper himself pulled the plug on his government in 2008.

All parties want sound governance, but not all governments give it. Harper's record is what it is in legislative matters and in managing the public purse: a failure. That's my opinion. I don't read LPC talking points.

Jenn_

I agree it would be good for the Liberal Party. I most emphatically do not agree it would be good for the country.

john g

It would be good for the Liberals in that they would have 4 years guaranteed to work on renewal without having to worry about fighting an election at a moments notice.

And if they really believe that the Conservatives would be scary with a majority, then after 4 years presumably things will have gone so horribly wrong that Canadians will be ready for a change.

Emily

Assuming there'll even be salvage left by that time.

alfanerd

First order of business after the majority: get rid of all the "salvage".
http://twitter.com/jonatwitan @jonatwitan

*giggling*
Emily

You want to get rid of the country?

I've always suspected as much.
alfanerd

No I was just making a joke at your expense.
Emily

And ended by making one at yours…..
Jenn_

And that's the problem. Heck, I'd vote for the Conservatives myself to give the Liberals the breathing space we need if I thought the Conservatives wouldn't completely ruin the place.

Mike T.

Y'know, yesterday I might have agreed with you about having tamed their uglier right wing aspects – but this morning it became clear how many CPCs voted against extending human rights protection to transsexuals.

http://twitter.com/jonatwitan @jonatwitan

Wow, I didn't realize how utterly predictable elections are. Guess there's no point in having them when we can just count on folks like Eric Grenier to simply employ "a more sober aggregate" and determine where parties will mostly likely gain and where they will most likely lose. Sure would save a lot of money. Right everyone. What? Are you saying that you want to waste tax payers money? Humph, how dare you!

hollinm

Yep….leaders performance, policies, voter turnout, split voting, issues, events during the campaign. None of these will have a material effect. Lets just appoint a new parliament. Never mind voting. After all we know the pundits, columnists and pronostigators are always right.

john g

Disagreed completely with the premise of this column. He says that there are 12 seats in which the Conservatives were within 4% in the last election, but then suggests that only 3 of them are vulnerable? That makes no sense. If they were within 4%, the seat is vulnerable. Only takes a few more star candidates to flip the balance in a few seats.

I guess it depends entirely on which poll you believe. If you believe the polls that had the CPC at 38 or 39 per cent, those polls showed a greater lead in Ontario than they got in the last election. If you believe that Rob Ford's election in Toronto bodes well for the Tories, they might be poised to flip a few seats in the 416 and a majority is definitely within reach.

If you believe the EKOS/Harris Decima polls, then of course there is no chance.

Emily

This column only holds true for the present moment….as in if there was an election tomorrow.

It shows hard slogging, a seat-by-seat fight….because we've been sitting at 50/50 for 5 years.

If some major issue/crisis/event comes along….this column and all the polls are out the window.

hollinm

Oh don't you wish Emily. There is no hard slogging in the West for the Conservatives. They will win the majority of seats. There is no hard slogging in Quebec. The Bloc will take the majority of seats, Harper will be lucky to hang on to the 10 he has and the Liberals will hang on in Montreal. However, not sure about Outremont.
Agree Ontario will be a fight but the Libs have most of those seats now and they could lose some of them. The Maritimes. Who knows but it probably will continue to show Liberal.
My point is there is no real seat -by-seat slogging as you suggest. As you rightly point out a poll is a poll is a poll and matters not. Campaigns and elections count.

Emily

Cons are doing hard-slogging everywhere, and still can't get past minority status….and should there be a major issue/crisis/event even Alberta won't be able to save them….assuming it wants to.
Dave

Yes, the Tories will win the majority of seats in the west.

But will they win every seat they currently hold in the west?

hollinm

Unlike some columnists, pundits and some on this board i.e. Emily I have not become clairvoyant yet :-)

hollinm

Sounds like a lot of wishful thinking.
However, he failed to mention one thing…Michael Ignatieff himself. While you can analyze the polls but when an election comes we shall see if the leadership polls currently experienced by Ignatieff come to bare.
It is hard to conceive that Libs who want him out would make a huge effort to come out to the polls. Vaughan was a recent case in point.
Every leadership poll no matter the firm has Ignatieff leadership numbers behind even Layton. It is hard to conceive that Canadians would forget how they feel about him during an election and widely swing their votes to him..

Emily

I don't think Canadians 'feel' anything about him, good or bad….they just want more policy.
Mike T.

His ace in the hole, though, is that he only has to be better than harper.

They say people don't start paying attention until an election. I bet Stephen is up nights worrying that this is true.

hollinm

Only better than Harper? You got to be joking. Just look at Ignatieff comparing himself to Rob Ford the small c Conservative who just won the mayors race in Toronto. Ignatieff looks like a fool. He must be drinking his own bath water. We can expect many more gems coming from the mouth of the elitist Russian snob as he tries to convince Canadians he is one of them.
Ignatieff is going to have three experienced leaders running against him and with his propensity to stick his foot in his mouth I am looking forward to the next election.

Mike T.

no.

hollinm

You must agree with my points. You came back with…..no. What does that mean?

hollinm

One other point. The opposition parties are going to be faced with a question each day of the campaign on how they feel about a coalition. They can prevaricate all they want but the point will come across to Canadians.
A Conservative minority will result in an attempt by the Libs and the NDP (maybe the Bloc) to form a coalition to get rid of the Conservatives. So Harper's main issue in the campaign will be challenging the public about a coalition.
Canadians who do not like Ignatieff including Liberals and don't want him PM and also those who do not want the NDP near the treasury will have to think carefully before casting their ballot.

Emily

Yes, it will remind Canadians every day how much 'phantom-fighting' the Cons do.

I don't want Cons near the treasury either….what's left of it that is.

chet

Quick way to spot an agenda is to look to the use of the term "may" and consider which side of the possiblity is being postulated.

Harper "may" have hit a ceiling. Or he "may" be able to gain more seats. The latter is clearly not the focus.

It's always nice to point to recent history to put matters in context.

In his first general election the "experts" said Harper has hit a natural ceiling. Then he gained seats.

Then approaching the next general election, this time he surely has hit his ceiling. Then he gained more seats.

Then approaching the last general election, the "experts"…ahem…wishful thinkers….said he'd hit his ceiling. Then he gained more seats.

Harper should hope for more such experts predicting he's hit his ceiling come the next election.