tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8120982399236985142.post5190994740138186585..comments2024-02-07T06:48:23.474-05:00Comments on Sudbury Steve May: A Conservative Majority Government Election Scenario Worth PonderingSudbury Stevehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03959184192546029807noreply@blogger.comBlogger4125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8120982399236985142.post-31509239987436488862011-04-06T11:16:57.354-04:002011-04-06T11:16:57.354-04:00Hello, Steve, you're still loyally at it with ...Hello, Steve, you're still loyally at it with GPC, I notice. I also noticed the party's general slide, first internally then consequentially externally, from just after my departure late '09. Just thought I'd throw that in...After this election it could be time to re-form the GPC, I could get involved, and it would be good to see you there.<br /><br />"the results of the election will show that more Canadians didn’t vote for Conservatives than those that did"<br /><br />That I think will matter less than that Cons. might increase seat count this time, if still minority. In that case, it could be even more than the past few years as if they had a majority. <br /><br />So I agree that it is a distinct possibility where, if Harper delayed enough in Parl. business after re-election, then faced his govt. being toppled, GG would acquiesce in a new election, likelier to return a majority, or steadier-still minority.<br /><br />I blogged quite a bit at the GPC site about the prorogation (qv), I disagree with the commenter who thought Jean had no option really. I gave reasons, personally affecting her and her place in that office (& of course implying the office itself with her stamp on it), as to why she decided as she did.<br /><br />Likewise the current GG would understand his person & the office favourably to Harper, for diff. reasons, of course.<br /><br />But -- another scenario, see it here first -- is Ign. stepping down (not as MP) or aside if the results are not a significant seat/vote-count gain, with another provisional leader stepping in -- Rae? -- to do what Ign. formally says he would not, ie "coalesce" with the NDP to govern (remember Rae at Queen's Park?). That would look not the same as Ign. going back on his word, but Cons. cannot have done too much better than now for that to come about, I feel, for there not to be an outcry or mischief getting in the way.<br /><br />The main thing all along has been (in)sufficiency of $ for Libs. to set to an election. But also pushing from behind are the types who installed Obama, impatient that their man, Ign., has not gotten in already. When NYT times run pieces on the leader of the 2nd party up here (as they did just prior to this campaign, and when he was starting up here), you know who is backing whom.<br /><br />(In Israel, another of the closest countries to US, & thus to its prior admin., there is a political lag in satisfying the Obama backers, and just as here, for diff. domestic reasons for sure!, the old regime should continue its plurality/leadership.)<br /><br />So, just thought I'd stop by to say 'hi', you I recall as a more thoughtful one among GPC-ers, I still look back now & then to check up on goings on, and there you were. Maybe we'll have dealings again.<br /><br />One more thought about this election's timing, it is possible that Libs. have a Zaccardelli-style interventionist bombshell or two to drop in the coming weeks anti-Cons. But this being Canada, it might not take...Daryl Vernonnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8120982399236985142.post-12270475277910049722011-04-05T22:22:05.546-04:002011-04-05T22:22:05.546-04:00@ck...I know that Brian Topp (NDP pundit)has writt...@ck...I know that Brian Topp (NDP pundit)has written about the Cons wanting to involve the Queen if the GG wasn't going to prorogue, but I also recall that Baird quite explicitly said that they would go "over the head" of the GG and to the Canadian people, presumably in some sort of populist ploy. I've always wondered what might have happened had the GG said No, and I have this image in my head of Bob Rae showing up to work at the Parliament Buildings on Monday, only to find them padlocked, and Jim Flaherty addressing the media, saying "Well, if they can't get in, they can't get quorum".<br /><br />@Chris - I definetly think that the post-election shake-up is going to be much more interesting than the election itself. No party leader is safe from having to step down or being forced out. But I'm not so sure that the Opposition would let a Conservative minority survive, given that it would largely be the same lot for whom so much contempt was recently expressed. Yes, it's a possibility, but I just don't see it happening, unless Ignatieff keeps the Lib seat count in Stephane Dion territory.<br /><br />NDP and Liberals together? Really? I...just don't see it.Sudbury Stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03959184192546029807noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8120982399236985142.post-70103645854049942412011-04-05T11:15:57.418-04:002011-04-05T11:15:57.418-04:00If the Liberals don't make ground in this elec...If the Liberals don't make ground in this election, it's likely that both they and the NDP will be heading into leadership races after this election. So, even if there is a Conservative minority government, it's likely that the opposition will let it survive for the immediate future while they sort out their own matters.<br /><br />If both Jack and Iggy plan to step down, it's also possible that those rumblings of combining the two parties might start to get louder and that might play out in respective leadership races.<br /><br />It's also possible that Harper himself might be pressured to step down if he's unable to get a majority again. That's less likely, though, since most in the Conservative Party seem to be afraid of him. But there are guys like Jim Prentice waiting in the wings, who would seem more likely to get a majority if Harper can't on May 2nd.<br /><br />Basically what I'm saying is that the post-election politics have a much greater possibility of being more interesting than this election, which is fairly banal, to say the least.<br /><br />Good post, Steve.Chris KNhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14954696074083093304noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-8120982399236985142.post-50845013506197458362011-04-05T07:01:57.804-04:002011-04-05T07:01:57.804-04:00Actually, I don't think Jean had a choice but ...Actually, I don't think Jean had a choice but to grant Harper that prorogation in 2008. <br /><br />Read Lawrence Martin's Harperland, specifically, Chapter 14-"Surviving the coalition" Pages 187-188. John Baird and others had said that there was a plan B in the works if Jean refused the prorogation. Apparently, they were going to take the polls showing how vehemently Canadians were opposed to this coalition and go over Jean's head and make a case to the Queen that Jean would've needed to be replaced by someone more 'compliant'. <br /><br />Now, honestly, I'm not sure how the Queen would've ruled or how she would've advised the Harpercons, but the very idea that they were willing to go to such lengths if Jean didn't give them what they wanted speaks volumes.<br /><br />That meeting between Harper and Jean took 2 hours. Two hours to request prorogation? Me thinks there was some resistance in the beginning.<br /><br />The next prorogation in January of 2010 was granted easily over the telephone. That pretty much confirms Martin's account in Harperland to me. <br /><br />The other thing that should stand out in one's mind--the PM appoints someone to 'be his boss'?? Something weird about that in the first place. GG these days, particularly under Harper is nothing more than a figurehead; a tax-payer paid figurehead.ckhttp://sistersagesmusings.canoreply@blogger.com