Ignatieff Rules out Coalition in Smart Move

Today Ignatieff unequivocally ruled out the substance of the ubiquitous Conservative attack that if they do not obtain a majority, the Liberals will form a coalition government. This was the right move. It has negated as much as possible the Conservatives' most potent fear-mongering strategy for this election.

We saw in the surreptitiously recorded video of the Prime Minister practicing his stump speech that this would be the greatest Conservative attack. We saw to what extent Harper is willing to believe in a coalition. He says that the opposition parties will deny this until they are blue in the face, and subsequently form one anyway. We have seen instead that Stephen Harper will yell himself blue in the face about a coalition until he is blue in the face.

If the polls last December are any good indication, this was promising line of attack. Significant sections of the country were outraged at the possibility of a coalition, deeming it an unseemly power grab. However, now that Ignatieff has strongly denied it, this attack is much less potent.

Especially as Ignatieff can point, and did point, to his refusal of the coalition deal when he assumed the leadership of the LPC. No matter what the Conservatives throw at him, it is a strong piece of evidence.

So far what the Conservatives have mustered against this refusal is a quote from Ignatieff last December: "prepared to form a coalition government and to lead that government." At the time, Ignatieff could not have said anything different, lest he be seen, as deputy leader no less, as opposing his leader.

His actions after he became leader surely speak volumes more, as he at that point had actual control over the party's policy on this issue. What's more, as he reminded Canadians, successful minority governments have operated at the federal level without a coalition. In fact, a less successful government led by Stephen Harper has survived almost four years without entering into a coalition.

Ignatieff's stark denunciation of a coalition was necessary, albeit damaging to the public's perception of a perfectly valid notion. However, what Ignatieff did was necessary. Without it, he would have been highly vulnerable to Harper's baseless attacks. And we all know what happens when you are vulnerable to Harper's baseless attacks. You lose the election.

Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers If you liked this post, please vote for my blog at Canadian Blogosphere

Think of It as an Electoral Stimulus Package

The $300 million tab on an election puts off many people, and is a concern oft mentioned by those opposed to an election in the recent future. They cite times of economic stability that prerequisite political stability. What if we thought of all this spending as a stimulus package instead? After all, elections are good for the economy. Candidates spend around $120 billion in their local constituencies. What's more, elections are also good for the job market, temporarily taking thousands of workers off the unemployment rolls, being hired by Elections Canada instead.

The Toronto Star had a good article on this yesterday:

A look through individual candidates' 2008 receipts – available by appointment at Elections Canada – reveals the flurry of local largesse: pizza shops, printing houses, bus companies, computer stores, community newspapers, flower shops and a host of other suppliers all cashed in.

Elections Canada also hires thousands of temporary workers, Dungan notes, which could prove timely in this autumn of rising unemployment.

"You might say there are more creative ways of doing that, but it does stimulate the economy," said the professor.

"The idea that it's a complete waste is not true."

Elections Canada says it spent $280 million on the October 2008 vote, a cost that comes directly out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

The figure is in line with two previous elections. The June 2004 vote cost $274 million, while January 2006 cost $272 million.

Elections Canada covers the cost of hiring workers, leasing office space for returning officers, renting polling stations, training field staff, printing ballots and voters lists, advertising, and information technology – plus reimbursing candidates and parties to the tune of about $60 million.

That reimbursement is based on a 50 per cent rebate of campaign expenses of candidates and parties. So it is safe to assume at least another $60 million – most of it taxpayer-subsidized in one way or another – is also pumped into the economy during the six-week election period.

Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers If you liked this post, please vote for my blog at Canadian Blogosphere

Harper Utters "M" Word

At a meeting for party faithful in Sault Ste Marie, Stephen Harper dared utter the "M" word in connection with his party. Yes, Stephen Harper is talking about the country giving him a majority. And not just for any reason, no it's because there's a coalition out there just waiting to usurp all our democratic rights and turn us into a banana republic. Apart from the rhetoric addressed to those who still believe and trust the PM, what does this mean?

Obviously, Harper is drawing confidence from his recent uptick in support in recent polls, and the concurrent decline in Ignatieff's numbers.

However, this indicates more than a simple buoying of confidence. Talking of a majority was taboo during the last two election campaigns, after such musings in 2004 might have cost the CPC their government benches. Therefore, it would seem that Harper is highly confident. It is also possible, but less likely, that the PM has chosen a change in tactic just because he thinks it may work better this time.

Let's go with the assumption that Stephen Harper is highly confident. Should he be this confident? I would say no. The two most recent polls I know of are a Strategic Counsel poll and a Harris Decima poll. Both show him ahead of the Liberals, but the Harris Decima poll significantly less so. And the SC have previously ranked the Greens highest in Quebec, and are giving the BQ their highest polling since 2004. Sound reliable?

Calling for a majority could have momentous influence on the election campaign, as such utterances by Harper have only been behind closed doors. With this leak, harper shows he's being overconfident in his strategy of attacking an imaginary coalition and thereby claiming government. I guess he hasn't seen another poll saying 55% of Canadians now support a coalition in a future minority Parliament.

Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers If you liked this post, please vote for my blog at Canadian Blogosphere

Bloc Advertising Makes Election Inevitable

With the release of BQ ads accusing the Conservatives and Liberals of having the same vision for Quebec, and party insiders opining that we will soon be off to the hustings, an election seems to be a sure thing. The only way out of an election would be for Layton to support the government on confidence votes, something he will not do because of Harper's rejection of such a scheme.

Technically, of course, Layton does not need Harper's approval to vote with him. However, due to the PM's rejection of a deal between the two parties, one gets the impression that the PM will not be very pliable at this stage. And it would only be with a pliable PM that Layton would benefit from supporting the government.

Layton cannot be seen to support Conservative policy that he has not amended in some form. But, in all likelihood, the Conservatives will not let him get close to amending confidence legislation.

So, the only two scenarios left to Layton are supporting the government without providing amendments to policy, or face the polls and hope for the best. Although NDP standing in the polls is not good, worse than their share of the vote last election, Layton cannot afford to be seen as selling out to the Conservatives. Major chunks of his support would switch their vote to the Liberals in protest, maybe for years to come.

Jack Layton has the choice that will determine whether an election occurs this fall, but in essence it has already been made for him.

Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers If you liked this post, please vote for my blog at Canadian Blogosphere

The Coalition Bogeyman

One of the obstacles that Ignatieff will face in the next election, whenever it is, is Stephen Harper's commitment to a coalition that everyone else has abandoned. This strategy is obviously aimed at producing a fear of this bogeyman in the electorate, as Harper knows that in December last year the greatest proportion of the country was resolutely against any coalition.

Here are some better known pundits talking about this issue:



If such a coalition bogeyman is brought to life, one hopes that Ignatieff has decided whether or not he does support a coalition. It could make all the difference.

Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers If you liked this post, please vote for my blog at Canadian Blogosphere

Transcript of French Language Liberal ads Released Sep 6 2009

Translation: Four years and three environment ministers were enough for Canada to become the worst country in the G8 in regards to fighting climate change and still today, the Harper government still lacks a plan to turn around this situation. Like you, I think it is high time for Canada to lead again on the international scene. Because we deserve better.



Translation: When the Harper government tells you in the same year that there will be no recession, and then that there will be no deficit, to finally tell you that there is a recession, and that we will have a record deficit of $50 billion, it shows that this government is completely disconnected from reality and irresponsible. It is high time to put Canada back onto the path of prosperity. Because we deserve better.

Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers If you liked this post, please vote for my blog at Canadian Blogosphere

French Ads Should be Model for Future English Ads

With the release of 3 Liberal ads today, some criticism of the English language ad "Worldview" has been made surrounding what some see as a hokey and bland ad. However, the French-language ads are anything but. They are damning criticisms of Harper's management of the economy and the environment, two issues that are at the forefront of the national consciousness.

In "Bilan Deficit" (translated "Deficit Assessment"), Ignatieff points out how Harper's continually changing stance on a deficit, from total denial to having to admit it is over $50 million, shows a real disconnect with reality. Hardly bland and hokey words:



In "Bilan Deficit"/ "Assessing the Environment", Ignatieff exposes the failure of Harper's government on the environment by highlighting the fact that 3 environment ministers have been responsible for Canada being in the worst shape among all the G8 on the issue of climate change. In contrast, Ignatieff promises to restore our environmental leadership.



Of course, none of these ads as of yet have revealed any policy. But the French language ads give confidence, indicating that the Liberal Party is indeed able to go blow for blow with the PM.

With much deeper pockets than under Dion, and an ability to produce hard-hitting ads, Harper's time really is up.

I don't wonder about the quality of the ads or the ability to produce them, my question is why the difference between the French and English ads.

Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers If you liked this post, please vote for my blog at Canadian Blogosphere