Inkless Wells

Paul Wells on all the latest out of Ottawa—along with the occasional post about jazz. Follow Paul on Twitter: @InklessPW
He also offers his thoughtful perspective of Stephen Harper’s last 10 years in his recent eBook, The Harper Decade.

Categories: Capital Read, Inkless Wells

Election windows in 2011: There's only one

by Paul Wells on Wednesday, December 29, 2010 11:53am - 146 Comments

“That doesn’t necessarily mean the Harper government is legislating less. Franks said the government pushed about half of a normal year’s legislation through in a single bill — this year’s massive budget implementation bill which included varied measures dealing with all manner of subjects from environmental assessments to the post office to the future of Canada’s atomic energy industry…

“‘What they’ve done is in this (budget implementation bill) is just whop, whop, whop, whop, whop, a whole bunch (of measures),’ he said.

“‘The country didn’t even know what happened.’”

— Canadian Press, today

As is so often the case, the prime minister isn’t even trying to hide what he’s up to. Before the G-20 this summer Stephen Harper sat down with reporters from Reuters. One of their questions was about his skimpy record of legislative achievement. Hey, big shot, didn’t you promise to recalibrate after you prorogued? Where’s the new direction?

“I think in the end we actually got some pretty good results,” Harper replied. “Particularly in the closing days. As you know, we got the budget implementation bill through.”

One bill? “The budget bill was wide-ranging legislation that had a lot, not just of important budgetary measures, but important measures for the Canadian economy. So I think the passage of the budget bill, in and of itself, made the parliamentary sessions productive.”

What I need to emphasize here is that Harper wasn’t waving around the one bit of work he’d got done to claim he’d implemented a lot of change. He had actually implemented a lot of change. As Ned Franks notes in Joan Bryden’s story above, this budget implementation bill was a whopper: 900 pages, with amendments to five dozen laws. It changed environmental assessment of energy projects. It provided for the sale of AECL. It ended the Canada Post monopoly on overseas mail. And more more more.

At the time, Michael Ignatieff was stinging from his autumn 2009 attempt to “bring the government down,” something the Liberals have never been able to do without other parties’ help. As a direct result he had a new OLO senior staff who had come on board expressing a strong preference that he give them a year to fix up his office and platform. So he was out of the business of voting against the government on confidence bills. Knowing this, the New Democrats launched a little campaign against the budget bill. They kept at it. And at it, soon making the Liberals as much the target of their critique as the Conservatives. They put together a video of Jack Layton’s critiques of the “Trojan Horse” bill:

But that was last year. Times change.This year Jim Flaherty seems to view the NDP as likelier partners in passing his budget. The Ottawa air is thick with sweet talk, and of course there is precedent: In 2009 — as soon as Ignatieff dropped his party’s habit of voting for government bills, or voting against them in insufficient number to defeat them, and actually started sending every Liberal MP to vote against the government — Layton immediately abandoned his own habit of voting against the government. Of course he dressed that pig up in high-gloss lipstick, announcing that unlike the miserable obstructionist Liberals he was interested in getting “results for Canadians.” And Harper and Flaherty were happy to toss a billion or so toward something that could be portrayed as an NDP priority. Of course it was a fig leaf. These days Flaherty spends over $200 billion a year on programs.

Anyway, the Liberals stopped being afraid of voting against the government, so the NDP became afraid of voting against the government, and as soon as the Liberals got their scaredy-cat back on, the NDP went back to making fun of the Liberals. One day, if both of them get it together to vote against the government, Gilles Duceppe will look down his nose at them and tell Bloc MPs to vote with the government. This is why, when Harper gives a speech about the evils of The Coalition and somebody tells him there’s no such thing, I am quite sure he says to himself, I know. That’s what makes it so great.

But my point today is that while they all dance this tedious process dance, stuff is happening. A 900-page budget bill changes the country, and a decision to let such a bill pass is a decision to let Harper change the country. Some Liberals yesterday were elated over the game of footsie between Flaherty and the NDP. That means he’s afraid of an election! He’s afraid of Ignatieff! Their internal polls must show it’ll be a slaughterhouse! Victory is ours! Maybe not. Maybe it meant Flaherty wants his budget to pass because it’ll be another 1,000 pages of changing the country, which is what Conservatives are in business to do, and as long as there’s no election they can keep right on doing it.

But here’s the thing. The process dancers are always telling themselves that if there is no election now there can always be one later. This makes it easier to live a life of constant capitulation. There are, in 2011, two flaws with this thinking. First, Trojan-horse budget bills mean one vote is not the same as others: if the budget implementation bill passes, Ned Franks will tell you that’s half a year’s Conservative work done in one swoop. Whop whop whop whop whop.

Second, there will certainly be elections this year — in several provinces and territories. Newfoundland and Labrador, Manitoba, Ontario and Saskatchewan all go to the polls in October and November, along with others I’ve forgotten (that‘ll get me into trouble). Now, there’s actually no rule that says you can’t have simultaneous federal and provincial campaigns, but the provincial caucus in each of those provinces will scream blue murder at any leader who tries. In some parties that’s a manageable problem — the Liberal Saskatchewan caucus is not large enough to make a mighty noise — but when they’re all clustered together like this, it’s enough to make already-leery leaders leerier.

So. It is almost impossible to imagine a fall election this year. And if Harper and Flaherty get another omnibus budget bill through the House this spring, there will be no need for an election because they will have implemented half, or more, of the year’s Conservative agenda.

The opposition parties will realize this, decide it matters, and stop this government over its budget. Or they will lose the year’s only window and we will have a 2012 election.

My money’s on 2012.

Tags: election speculation, Jack Layton, Jim Flaherty, Michael Ignatieff, Ned Franks, Stephen Harper

More by Paul Wells

http://farnwide.blogspot.com/ Steve V

" Harper and Flaherty were happy to toss a billion or so toward something that could be portrayed as an NDP priority. Of course it was a fig leaf. "

There is a bit of revisionism going on here with this 1 billion dollar "extraction" the NDP "achieved". If you go back, when the Libs and Cons were holding those EI discussion in the summer, Finley spoke about the initiative, it was already on the table for the government, it had NOTHING to do with an NDP demand. What happened, when the Libs found a spine, the NDP put the BEAR HUG on this EI reform, adopted it as their own, even though it was a reform the government first articulated to blunt criticism that the EI panel had failed. The NDP extracted nothing from the government, what they did is attach themselves to Finley's proposal. The only reason the government agreed to the NDP "demand" is because it was their reform to begin with! Old news, but the chronology is important.

I say 2011, unless the Bloc props up because they get a HST payoff for Quebec.

madeyoulook

I see Harmonization working in Quebec this year. The feds can't lose on it (the beast in Quebec is already harmonized in all but name anyways), Charest is desperate for something, anything, to show Quebecers that they should care whether he is alive and kicking, and the Bloc can posture as if it was their idea all along, getting ~~concessions~~ results for Quebec.

With that in mind, with that one little trifle out of the way, I see little reason for the CPC to care at all what Ignatieff and Layton think of the budget this year. Make that budget-with-several-hundred-extra-pages.

Tim

The problem is many Federal Conservatives or at least natural consituencies of the Federal Conservatives hate harmonization in BC and to a lesser extent in Ontario. Giving HST money to Quebec could result in Bill Vander Zalm and rebel BC MLA's Blair Lekstrom and Bill Bennett forming a federal splinter hard right populist party against Harper. Remember most of the Fight HST movement in BC believes the money BC received to implement the HST is illegitimate and should not have to be paid back if BC wants to get rid of the HST.

Harmonization money for Quebec would also put the NDP in ahem interesting position given certain pro HST musings of an MP named Thomas Mulcair but that will have to wait for another post.

madeyoulook

But the federal Tories have kept their noses (relatively) unbloodied with the it-was-for-the-provinces-to-decide-yes-or-no line on GHST.

Does anyone know what kind of electoral shape monsieur Mulcair is in? His musings may not matter a whole lot to the NDP's position anyways.

A reader

The NDP is at between 17-20 percent in Quebec, according to the large-sample Quebec pollsters. Mulcair last won his seat with the party at 12%. His riding association had more money in the bank than the Liberal one at the end of 2009, and he's on french language television several times every week. It's not a guarantee, but let's say he's hardly been asleep at the switch, and he sure doesn't look like someone who's afraid of his shadow.
madeyoulook

Thanks. Are you aware of any poll results from just his riding? I am sure they are being done, but I would be surprised if they would be public knowledge.
A reader

No, none that I'm aware of. But there's no doubt it will be a fascinating riding to watch: the battle of the dauphins, as it were.
Leo

Feeling the force of the Mulcair effect
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opin…
Tim

Up to now the federal Tories have kept their noses unbloodies with up to now being the operative term. By bringing up retroactive compensation for Quebec they are going to dump the whole HST bucket of mud over themselves all over again. Mulcair's problem is that he committed the NDP to supporting HST compensation funding for Quebec despite the obvious contradiction in policy the NDP would have vis a vis the other provinces. Several connected Conservative bloggers such Stephen Taylor are already warning the Conservative base that the HST issue could blow up in everyone's face in the coming year. The really interesting rumor is that the HST compensation funds will be used by the Quebec govt to build the infamous hockey arena in Quebec City.

At the end of the day I still have a hard time seeing the NDP actually supporting a Tory budget unless it is so totally watered down of any ideology. I definately could see the Bloc supporting a Tory budget if it included something like HST funding for Quebec. The question is whether the Conservatives can afford to open that can of worms in the rest of the country.
madeyoulook

If Ottawa gives away heaps o' cash when a province harmonizes, then this bonanza has to apply just as equally to Quebec.

Quebec effectively harmonized a long time ago, by being the sole administrator (and collector) of GST-QST, and got squat for it. If Quebec strikes a deal at whatever the current terms are for harmonization, then the ROC has precious little to say about extending the deal. Whatever Charest does with the bag of loot (and I wouldn't put it past him to be so stupid as to plunk heaps into Colisée-Deux), that will be between him and the Quebec electorate.

Inkless

I buy that. But it's also worth remembering what happened next: the NDP experienced an uptick in the polls, which they took to mean Canadians bought and appreciated their "Results for Canadians" line. They do not believe fall 2009 went badly for them, and will be tempted to repeat it if Ignatieff gets frisky.

Inkless

That was supposed to be a reply to SteveV

Leo

Good interview with Bill on CKNW

http://farnwide.blogspot.com/ Steve V

Yes, they did pivot and were able to look like the "make Parliament work" party. Then, the question becomes- do the same dynamics present in fall 2008 still apply a year and half later? It looks like the electorate is slowly coming to the conclusion an election is likely, which is far different from the maelstorm the Liberals set off with their "we will oppose" stance a year after the vote.

I have a hard time seeing how the NDP can support corporate taxcuts, but these are very early days, for all the parties…

hollinm

Ah but Jack had no problem supporting the Afghan mission and supportinh corporate tax cuts when he thought he could be part of the government. Principles are great but when they get in the way of self interest they can be jettisoned for the "greater good".
Anybody who follows politics knows the Libs are not ready for an election. They have no money and the policy platform is devoid of anything meaningful i.e. homecare and no F35's. So the opposition will play chicken but one of them is going to blink. It could be the Bloc but I suspect given Mulcair's recent comments the NDP are going to "make parliament work" and force Ignatieff to endure another year as leader of the Liberal party of Canada.

Observant

HEY …. a Tory-Dipper detente is like kinky sex … quick and dirty, but satisfying too …!!!!

Emily

And yet all year columnists and pundits have been telling us absolutely nothing was going on.

The cartoonist at the G&M even got into the act the other day, portraying a TV discussion that had to be cut because everyone had fallen asleep.

Meanwhile the basic structure of the country is changing, and not for the better….yet people are unaware of it.

http://myblahg.com Robert McClelland

Meanwhile the basic structure of the country is changing, and not for the better….yet people are unaware of it.

Shush, we have more important matters to discuss…like when the next election is going to be.

Kaplan

Or, we can allude to some important things happening to the structure of our country right under our nose, and then wrap it all up in an election speculation piece!! It's the best of both worlds – giving lip service to the real story, and giving readers what they want! Win win.

NorthernPoV

Yup
The stuff in the monster-budget-bill were the things that they couldn't change with a simple order-in-council.

Canadians are just like frogs being slowly warmed up to the eventual boil.

Emily

And zik-all about it in the media all year…or just mentioned in passing….but always polls-polls-polls!

Only the 'horse race'.

hollinm

Its cheaper that way. Then media owners don't need to pay for reporters who are actually reporters. They prefer to pay for gossip columnists (Wells not included).

http://nottawa.blogspot.com Mark

"along with others I’ve forgotten"

PEI and the North West Territories

madeyoulook

"(that‘ll get me into trouble). "

PEI & NWT: Ooooooh, already, tens of thousands of people are miffed at the slight, in a country of tens of millions.
M_A_D_world

Not sure about the North West Territories but Pei's won't change anything there or anywhere else. General apathy has set in for Island voters.

Anon 001

The Bloc is not going to vote for Harper. Duceppe wants an election out of the way so that he can go home and be the PQ leader.

Layton is the wild card. He supported Harper in 2009 because he had no money back then. He is sounding pretty optimistic these days — on Sunday's QP, he sounded like a man ready and set for an election.

Harper will see if he can get Layton or Iggy to dance until about early Jan 2011, then start a 2-week negative ad campaign barrage to get poll numbers down, and then go to the GG.

Harper doesn't want an election because — actually, I don't know why he doesn't, unless his internal polls are telling a grim story.

DBM

It's probably true that the NDPs taste for an election probably has as much to do with their credit rating as anything else.

A reader

They have entirely paid off their debt from the last election, and have secured financing to spend the national limit as of last September. Moreover, they've been putting a lot of emphasis on getting their riding associations to start raising money locally well in advance of the write, to help more of them spend the limit as well.

As I said, the NDP does not live or die by the public domain horse-race numbers. They have been doing a ton of organizational work. I'll admit that Winnipeg North probably caught them by surprise, but it's not a good indicator of their overall election readiness by any means.

A reader

Sorry, well in advance of the WRIT, not write. d'oh.

Andre1958

Gilles Duceppe has no taste for the PQ leader job. He would have to work, study files and come up with solutions; not his forte. As far as I know, there is no challenge to his job at the Bloc and all he has to do is to say that everything is crap.

Jack is sick and the NDP has not been good at preparing his exit. Number 2 is Tom Mulcair and if you polled Canadians about Mr Mulcair, you would probably find out that for 90% of them, he has the same effect as Mexican tap water.

I do not think that the PM needs and election, just got majority in the senate and the Libs are not really a danger; they spend most of their energy shooting within their own camp.

small c conservative

Iggy and Layton are hilarious. They rant and rave about how awful the Conservative government is; their leftist media friends jump on board with them to promote whatever faux outrage of the week is – doesn't matter how small, how trivial, or how completely false it is – the anti-Harper media gives them all the face time they want. All of this is why, whenever the next election is called, Canadian voters will give the Conservatives a majority, so they can really get important things achieved for Canada – like immigration reform, and ending the ridiculous political party welfare subsidy of $1.95 a vote. Can't wait.

http://myblahg.com Robert McClelland

I'd vote for a Harper majority if he'd promise to find jobs for all his unemployed supporters so they wouldn't have as much time to clog up every forum on the internet with their incoherent rants.

Mike T.

The ones clogging up the boards are the ones the CPC DOES pay.

Crit_Reasoning

The incumbency advantage: In 2012, Harper will be celebrating his sixth year as prime minister, making him the ninth longest serving prime minister in Canadian history (behind Mackenzie King, Macdonald, Laurier, Trudeau, Chretien, Mulroney, Borden, and St. Laurent, respectively.) If Harper wins a majority in 2012 and serves another five years, he will even surpass Chretien's time in office.

Wells makes a good point that the most likely window this year is the spring budget vote, and that given the opposition's reluctance we shouldn't be surprised if we have to wait for a 2012 election.

Loraine Lamontagne

"If Harper wins a majority in 2012 and serves another five years" – he will have proven that his fixed-election date legislation means nothing at all! It wasn't meant to stop a PM from calling an election when his opposition is weak, deemed a shameful act by Conservativers, unless they do it, or to limit the life of a government to four years, as the Conservatives claimed in 2008.

Someone should really work to have this fixed election date law taken off the book. It just encourages cynicism.

Ian H – Scarborough

The 2008 election call was valid because the Opposition was threatening to be obstructive and let the government fall in the forthcoming sitting anyway. In a minority situation, if the governing party cannot govern then an election must occur (under most circumstances.) It had been over 2 and a half years since the 2006 election, one of the longest lasting minority Parliaments in post-Confederation history, making the election the appropriate resolution to that situation. The Coalition crisis that followed was so soundly rejected because it was — though constitutionally valid — trying to overturn the election results, as the Conservatives had gained seats and vote share at the expense of the Liberals, making it a clear endorsement of continued Conservative governance.

The fixed term bill is effective only in majority situations, to prevent the government from taking advantage of the Opposition, as was the case when Chretien called the 2000 election weeks after Stockwell Day took his seat in the Commons.

Brammer

Wait…AECL is up for sale..?

This is a brilliant move by Harper – bundle a whole years worth of conservative agenda items into a single bill and dare the opposition to, well, oppose it.

Hell, why bother with long drawn out parliamentary sessions. All they have to do is meet one day a year and vote on the mega-bill.

madeyoulook

5. There shall be a sitting of Parliament and of each legislature at least once every twelve months.
(Constitution Act, 1982)

Fine by me.

MostlyCivil

As long as they reduce the cost of running Ottawa by a similar amount.

1 day of parliment, plus one day of constituency work at about $300 per day.

Thisk our PM would keep the job if he only got a grand a year?

madeyoulook

Cabinet Ministers will still have other duties. MPs' offices will still get angry calls that the EI cheque was a penny off, and by the way the Scout troop needs a hundred and fifty flag lapel pins for their next camp in a border state.

But, at least there will be little legislative damage they could inflict on us.

MostlyCivil

"Cabinet Ministers will still have other duties.'

Perhaps some years ago, maybe.
Since Chretien/Harper? Their "other duties" have consisted of my favourite minimum-wage cover-all "other duties as assigned by your manager".
McC_

your implication that few pieces of unexamined legislation is better legislation is a little tough to swallow.

Jenn_

Okay, so you like the tele-conferencing Parliament idea! Have committees meet from each members' home constituency office, and scrap the Ottawa office and Ottawa accommodations allowance and (most of) the Ottawa travel allowance altogether. Have a lovely get together week once a year to have a throne speech, pose for pictures, attend receptions and the like (some time to know the other Parliamentarians) and spend the rest of the year at home with your family.

Richard_S_Argent

Are these omnibus-type budgets a new thing in Canadian politics? They feel new to me, but of course I could be wrong.

I gotta admit, I don't much like them. Not that I don't see their value for the governing party, but if the United States is any indicator, they're fertile grounds for abuse.

Mike T.

They are actually a very old tradition. Opposition party says "this item is bad!" governing party says "but if the opposition party votes against the bill, they will also kill this good item!"

1994-2004 Stephen Harper went on record several times saying how they undermine democracy and were very very bad.
madeyoulook

Yes, it is very fertile ground for abuse. But it is a politically astute move for a minority government to "get stuff done" as if it was a majority government when facing an opposition too chicken to vote non-confidence.

MostlyCivil

Actually, the Harris crew specialized in Omnibus bills while holding a majority in Ontario. They just didn't like to debate stuff.

http://phantomobserver.com PhantomObserver

Just one thing:
The Canada Elections Act, section 56.1(2), says the next election would be on the 3rd Monday of October in the 4th calendar year following polling day for the last general election. As the last polling day was 14 Oct 2008, the next election would be 15 Oct 2012.
So predicting 2012 as the next election is merely citing the law as it currently stands. If the Opposition can't force an election in 2011, the government would merely point to 15 Oct 2012 and suggest the Opposition prepare for that date.

Inkless

So you're no longer asserting that 8 plus 5 equals 12. This is progress.

http://phantomobserver.com PhantomObserver

Yes, I know. Apologies. Enough progress for unblocking a twit?

jmw

Seriously, Paul blocked you, Phantom??? Who knew???

Mike T.

That being said, does anybody think Harper would ignore his own law if he thought there would be an advantage to having it at some other date within the permissible five year period?

Mike T.

I mean, ignore his own law AGAIN.

madeyoulook

PART 5: CONDUCT OF AN ELECTION
Date of General Election
Powers of Governor General preserved
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.

Mike T.

yawn.
madeyoulook

Just so we're clear… who's ignoring the law now?
Keith in Brampton

Harper ignored the spirit, if not the letter. And that little loophole you cited is proof the law is not worth the "paper" it's printed on; it is a fruadulent document, the sole purpose of which is to deceive the public.
http://canadiansense.blogspot.com/ CanadianSense

You should stop consuming the kool-aid. The PM did not rewrite the constitution including limiting the power of the GG.

The opposition and cheerleaders like you are unhappy because the actual PUBLIC that voted did NOT punish or agree with your assessment of the Bill.

It simply was to prevent an repeated abuse by majority governments to call an early election every two years as the Liberals did repeatedly.

We have had Iggy in Fall 2009 and again in Dec 2010 making empty threats.
hollinm

To the credit of the Liberals they argued this very point when the 4 year e,election law was being debated and passed. Changing the prerogatives of the GG would have required a constitutional amendment. Thus as the courts determined Harper was within his legal rights to request prorogation and the GG was within her rights to accede. I know that drives my Liberal friends on this board crazy but thats the way it works.
Keith in Brampton

See my post above. A fraud perpetrated on the Canadian public at considerable expense.
hollinm

There was no fraud perpetrated on the Canadian public. You sure are loose with your terminology. The fact is and it was well known the powers of the GG were not impacted. The four year rule works for a majority government. If the opposition has the ability to vote non confidence at any time during minority rule then the PM should at least have some options available to him.
The PM used the rules that were available to him and the GG agreed with him. Canadians are much better for it. I can just imagine the coalition of idiots trying to manage the country during the recession. If you think the deficit is bad now just imagine.
come again

how does the 4 year rule work if it's just a suggestion?
hollinm

I never said it was a suggestion. It was a law passed by parliament. However, in order to truly have an election every four years would require a change in the constitution which would have changed the prerogatives of the GG and therefore the ability of the PM to go to the GG and request dissolution.
Remember it was done because Chretien and previous PM's called elections when it was to their advantage and Chretien did it while into the 3rd year of the mandate so as to get the opposition when they were not ready. A very callous way of governing but typical Chretien.
There is a desire for a four year election rule but there is no desire to open the constitution by anybody particularly Canadians.
If you will recall Dion kept threatening an election. So Harper did what he thought needed to be done to get the situation clarified i..e. Green Shift. Was it cynical. You bet but in a minority parliament when the odds are against the government the PM needs to use the tools at his disposal. You may not like it but I can't understand your objection. What is more democratic than having a vote. Because your guys lost I guess it is bad.

truthintoronto

Harper's largest single objective is not rapid conservative change — but rather constant conservative change. To that end — everything he does — wheter viewed as tactical, ideological, pragmatic, combatitive, conciliatory, heretical, or incoherrent — is all to a single end.

Make Conservatives — and not Liberals — the default political choice for Canadian voters.

This state of affairs (which is well on its way, though given the enduring strength of the Liberal Brand, is far from irreversible) would continue to facilitate incremental conservative changes long after Harper has left the scene.

The dirty secret is that the smart people in the NDP welcome also welcome weakened Liberal Party vis-a-vis the Conservatives, after all, the left flank of the Liberals is where their growth is. The problem for the NDP is that doing anything to facilitate a Conservative advantage over the Liberals is anathema to their supporters. In this light — Layton' speekaboo politics suddenly makes a whole lot of sense.

http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

It's been my opinion all along that Harper's number one political goal was to make Canada's conservative party (small-C intended) credible again. It's easy to keep throwing eggs after the fact. However, it's also easy to forget just what an awful state the conservative movement was in before Harper came along. He seems to have succeeded in this regard and then some. They're now talking about the party replacing Liberals as the default choice for Canadians. Who would have ever thunk?

madeyoulook

Now, if only they could be a conservative party…

http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

Paul Wells has said all along that they've basically positioned themselves just to the right of the Liberals. In other words, they're more conservative than anything else. Even fiscally. Any Liberal/coalition stimulus would have been larger. More money probably would have gone into EI, etc.

truthintoronto

Even more importantly — go back to my initial point. Harper will NOT pursue any 'Conservative' policy that jeopardizes the long-term political goal of unseating the Liberals as the default governing party. Going all Herbert Hoover in the face of the recession in 2009 would have opened up a huge opportunity for the Liberals to differentiate themselves from the Conservatives on a file where public opinion was on their side.

True, ideologically pure, fiscal conservatism — particularly in times of recession — is no different than ideologically pure social conservativism: Extremely important to a vocal minority, but disquieting to a larger block .

Harper wants to make Canada more conservative — but he's not going to let any conservative litmus test become the hill he dies on (sorry about the mixed metaphors). Once you get the Liberals stranded with the NDP in the high teens — it is a lot easier to make the kind of spending cuts that balancing the budget require.
http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

Having said that, wouldn't a no-stimulus approach to recovery have been a perfect opportunity to show that true fiscal conservatism works? Personally, I don't think stimulus packages do anything to stimulate the economy, nor are they designed to. So, if they didn't pass a stimulus, saved a bunch of dough, and still have the economy recover, would that not have done wonders for conservatism in Canada? Now, the opposition would have almost certainly defeated the Conservatives on such a move, and maybe even won any subsequent election. So, maybe the point still stands. Maybe, politically speaking, incremental conservatism is the wisest course of action in preserving conservatism.
madeyoulook

So, if they didn't pass a stimulus, saved a bunch of dough, and still have the economy recover, would that not have done wonders for conservatism in Canada?

If Harper and Flaherty retain anything of their conservative bona fides, then they have been pathological liars AND they have been blowing away future prosperity for what they know to be truly wasteful and pointless.

It's one thing if the tribe's witch doctor honestly believes his little dance will cure the sick baby. It's another thing entirely when he is convinced it won't, but does it anyways, for show.
http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

a) It's unclear if they're completely sold on the notion that you can deal with a financial crisis without a stimulus. It's risky on many levels. I mean, when's the last time it's been done?

b) Regardless of the merits, there's the political viability factor that has been mentioned. You can be right on an issue, and be sitting on the opposition benches for an eternity while the other guys do the wrong thing. As it stands, if stimulus is the wrong thing, the Conservatives did it almost certainly on a smaller scale than the other guys would have. In a sense, they mitigate the damage, while keeping themselves viable as a political movement.

In politics and diplomacy, you always have to keep your options open.
Ian H – Scarborough

Yes, let us also not forget that it was the leftist opposition parties demanding the government go into deficit in the first place. And throughout the recession, they were still demanding that the largest deficit (in terms of actual dollars spent, and a mere fraction of what other countries are facing) in Canadian history still wasn't enough. Now that the recovery is setting in they are screaming the government is spending too much. The hypocrisy. I can only hope that the country puts an end to this malarkey of minority governments come the next election by rewarding the good governance of the last 5 years with a Conservative majority.

http://canadiansense.blogspot.com/ CanadianSense

According to the election results and polls on their base that is not the biggest problem as our PM is Stephen Harper.

Incrementalism and unwinding entitlements from the 70's PET Liberals will take time. According to all the rhetoric from the left this gov't has done nothing since 2006 and others suggests we have moved ten degrees to the right.

Either way the opposition remain in the cheap seats and lose funding in their NGO's and the public show no sign of wanting a change in government.

A reader

If the opposition wants a chance to win the election, they have to bring down the government. If it goes to 2012, the government will be in a better situation, having had all four of its budgets pass.

Mr. Wells is right about Spring being the only window in 2011. I would add that spring 2012 is not really a viable window either, because the fixed election legislation would put an election in the fall of 2012, and the opposition would then have to have a REALLY good reason to bring down the government six months early … one that was thermonuclear enough that not having brought them down over a similar issue in the past is easily explainable.

With Ignatieff already pretty much showing his hand, Layton gets the next two months of coverage free and clear. I also agree that the Bloc want an election out of the way now to pave the way for the provincial scene. Regardless of horse-race numbers in public domain polls (which the NDP has never put all that much stock in), I think Layton sounded ready to go if need be, but is in no hurry to play his hand.

http://myblahg.com Robert McClelland

the opposition would then have to have a REALLY good reason to bring down the government six months early

Why? Harper didn't have any reason for bringing his government down 2 years early.

Sue

Nor did Chretien.
jonatwitan

Ugh…that was his whole point! A closer proximity to the fixed election date (six months compared with 24 months) makes it MORE difficult to explain why it's necessary to have an election now and not then.

You may or may not disagree with the point, why must you insist on not understanding it?

Mike T.

A good reason like "the government is unworkable?" seriously? Seriously??????
A reader

Well, Robert makes a point. But the opposition didn't exactly make Harper pay for that decision, whereas he would certainly go out of his way to make them for theirs if the tables were turned.

I guess that's the point Wells is making as well. Harper gets away with it precisely because the other parties (and here I would mainly lay the blame at the Liberals' feet) let him do so.

A reader

Those are interesting timing elements, Calgary Junkie. I think if the Liberals had to hold on until the fall of 2012, they would face a few more resignations from current members of caucus who don't want to stick around any longer.

Claudia Lemire

Their morale has to be very low!

In my opinion if there is no election in the spring, it will be Ignatieff's last year, he will have to quit! And probably that's what's going to happen, I am with Wells, the next election will be 2012!

Crit_Reasoning

Absolutely. The longer prime ministers serve, the more time they have to change the country, as Wells keeps reminding us. Each of the prime ministers I listed above was in power long enough to effect real change.

http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

There's a flip side to this argument, of course. People almost always get sick of leaders who are in power for a long time. Could the next election be a referendum on Harper being our prime minister for a decade?

Anyhow, I speculated below about why Harper would categorically dismiss precipitating an election any time soon. Maybe he thinks the opposition will have to bring him down — soon. Politically, they may not be able to justify to their supporters the propping up of Harper for over five years now.

Crit_Reasoning

I agree. I don't think Harper will do anything to precipitate an election at this point. He's perfectly happy to continue governing.

Dot

Earth to CR. Earth to CR. Reality check: The whole world has changed since 2004. Especially in your neck of the world, despite the Fed gov't doing next to nothing. Do you read? Over.

Crit_Reasoning

Do you read? Over.

The transmission must have been garbled, because the only message I got was some platitude about the whole world changing since 2004.

Dot

That's what happens when the early retiring Jim Shaw grabs his $6 million/yr pension out of general revenue – the captive cable customers receive lower quality service.

Crit_Reasoning

From what I hear, he made quite an impression on Shaw Communications' institutional investors.
Dot

Not surprising with his mug. Lotsa hard living.
Crit_Reasoning

You've steered us way off topic, but are you aware that you're criticizing Jim Shaw on a website that is owned and operated by Shaw Communications' fiercest competitor, Rogers Communications? Way to suck up to the corporate masters. ;-)
Dot

It's corporate governance. Something that the author of this blog and his many followers would do well to learn something about. Nevertheless, a side topic. i doubt the flow of the discussion was affected.
Dot

Btw, what did you think of Ibbitson's piece today? I find him often toeing the Conservative talking points. He claims the Harper gov't is rudderless.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/john…

http://bigcitylib.blogspot.com bigcitylib

"It provided for the sale of AECL. It ended the Canada Post monopoly on overseas mail."

Oh My! How Earth shattering! Esp. that last one. The very foundations of Canada are shaking under my feet!

The environmental assessment changes are annoying, but surely this isn't all you've got, is it?

Anon 001

I think Inkless's point is that Harper hasn't been completely ineffectual. I think Harper's enduring legacy will be the largest deficits in Canadian history and the 38 (and counting) senators he has appointed. Everything else he has done can be reversed in one omnibus bill.

Mike T.

I hope we remember the first pro-rogue, as well.

Bulya

Canada Post sat back….yes sat back and let the gov't sell off the overseas monopoly. Don't let them tell you otherwise.
They never lifted a finger or voiced a concern to stop it. Harper wants to priviatize Canada Post and the big wigs in the Corporation are starting the implementation now. Take a look at the new Winnipeg plant……a total disaster. Millions of taxpayers $ wasted. Yes the general public owns Canada Post not the federal goverment.

matt

FWIW Don Martin Says 2011. http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Politics/20101228/don-m…
Out There

Maybe it meant Flaherty wants his budget to pass because it’ll be another 1,000 pages of changing the country, which is what Conservatives are in business to do, and as long as there’s no election they can keep right on doing it.

Which leads to the next question: how are the Conservatives changing the country? Has anyone read this giant 900-page bill?

Is Canada becoming more fiscally conservative? Not as far as I can tell – Canada, like everybody else, is spending money like mad. Is Canada becoming more socially conservative? I don't think so either (unless I've missed something) – there seems to be no moves towards the implementation of capital punishment, the restriction of abortion, or any types of morals laws.

From what I've seen, the Conservative agenda is just to replace Liberals with Conservatives everywhere – to entrench Harper's personal power. Which is why, in my opinion, the most significant development of recent times is the transformation of the Senate into a partisan political body. It will be interesting to see what would happen if a party other than the Conservatives gained control of the House – would a Conservative-controlled Senate overturn any piece of legislation it doesn't like, out of pure partisan spite?

rockperson

No. The Senate has never EVER been partisan before. (Lib senators blocking GST. Mulroney's extra senators blocking the Lib's blocking, there may even be other examples)

Dave

Snicker at PEI if you want, but it does have three of the Tories’ pickup targets. Alone it wouldn’t stop a federal election, but it is part of the picture for fall 2011.
http://nottawa.blogspot.com Mark

Looking to 2012, the provinces of Quebec and Alberta (at minimum) also have planned or likely elections. I would think of all the overlaps the Conservatives would wish to avoid, those provinces may loom larger than the 2011 dates. Afterall, their provincial cousins in Manitoba, Saskatchewan, PEI and Ontario can run reasonably compatible and simultaneous campaigns. Whereas the civil war in the Conservative movement in Alberta, and the uneasy alliance with Charest's Liberals make for awkward campaign moments for Harper's Team.

A bigger question might be how many different kinds of "in and out " scandals you can get away with using the cover of simultaneous provincial election campaigns.
psiclone

It truly is brilliant to have sat back for a few years now and watched Harper outplay the other Leaders and send one off to retirement land soon to be sending another – what is happening here is exactly what I said would happen 4 years ago and frustrated left wing nut Harper haters heads are still exploding at an alarming rate !!! – let's be honest with ourselves and thumb me down now because you hate Harper but like the ever ready poltiical bunny politcian he is you have to admire the guy for the sheer enjoyment of watching liberals squirm – the bottom line folks is that the the LPT is a ineffective and worse becoming irrelevant and it would not surpise me to see Harper still sitting in the PM's chair with no election in 2012 and by that time Mulcair becoming leader of the NDP and a real fight shape up as Iggy aint doin it and every poll has consistently shown this now for as long as he has been leader – Iggy is a placeholder at best and until the LPT have an actual leadership convention where the partys grassroots can come together and actually choose a leader to get behind they are basically doomed and more than likely are their own worst enemy more than Harper is at present !

Observant

YUP!! … failing Iggy … ailing Jacko … separating Gilles …… rub-a-dub-dub and what have you got?

I don't know, but I certainly wouldn't want it governing Canada …!!!!
20/20

The last time the Liberals elected a leader, they voted for Dion. Then, when they annointed a leader, they chose Ignatieff. My conclusion is that the voting membership, nor the backroom folks don't have a clue about what the necessaty criteria are for a successful leader.

come again

sadly, this is true. Not a party member, but I remember listening to the results with my wife at the Dion convention and us both thinking "seriously? but he can't win." *very honourable man though.

http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

Well, according to Harper, he's clearly on record saying he won't do anything to precipitate an election any time soon. I've thought about this. Maybe he's sincere. Unlike 2008, where Harper successfully won an election before hitting the middle of a recession, he might not see a need for one now. The economy will continue to recover for the foreseeable future. That means he thinks he can win an election now or later. It doesn't matter.

Kaplan

I for one have learned it's always a sure bet taking Harper at his word. He's never strayed, never faltered, and never lied. Solid as a rock, that Harper feller is.

http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

I don't hate the guy and, as far as politicians go, he seems to be a pretty straight arrow.

Besides, even the most blatant politicians don't usually make categorical statements without a reason. If someone's so adamant about something, there's usually a reason for it.

I'm just trying to analyze here. He either sees no reason for an election, or thinks the opposition has no choice but to force one. Any thoughts?
Keith in Brampton

Nice!!! I think Dennis missed the sarcasm, though…

NorthernPoV

here's a laugh re Harper credibility:
"he's clearly on record saying"
take that to a bank and get a loan on it
Dot

Ah, harmless and endless election speculation. What this blog should stick to in 2011.

Reminds me of Don Martin's swan song description of George Stevenson in What I learned from 32 years in the newspaper business:

A high-octane original, he could call a horse race straight out of his head with enough suspense to have a hundred chicken-and-chips diners scream finish-line encouragement at their make-believe nags. He made the now-demolished St. Louis tavern the only place to be every Friday lunchhour and he was grounded enough to give you the street-level take on any political issue.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2010/12/11/do…
Observant

OKAY …. now who wants that Russian guy as the next PM of Canada??

Blues Clair

huh, Dolph Lundgren?

rockperson

Swedish guy?

Observant

No …. this Russian guy:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v714/stevekog/M…

JohnnyBGoode

Any Russian would beat the American guy we currently have now.
Scott_G

your correct, No one wants Iggy/ http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LAwslfi8NMQ&fe…
mhiggins

I think he'd be just fine as long as he doesn't spend all his time Russian around.

Ah HAR HAR.

Mandatory Jedi

Why all this excitement over another attempt to topple the government by the opposition? What would make this time different then all the others?

"No! Try not. Do, or do not. There is no try."
―Yoda to Luke