Gimbol's diatribe and screed

Talking point on a possible election

First off lets just toss the idea of whether voters want an election or not, its not our choice its always Parliament that gets that choice. So lets just not bother flogging that deceased equine.

Point is that an election is always defined by one or two burning issues.
So if there is going to be one in the fall, what would that "burning issue" (tm) be?
But I'll be specific, what is the issue as defined by the parties themselves.

Lets start with the government party, the Conservatives. Their pundits are describing this election as one that the liberals dearly want because they just have not been able to adjust to being in opposition, the election will cause uncertainty and that just as the country is starting to regain its way having the threat of an election hanging over our heads is not good for our economy. They want to continue to govern, and that everyone should be concentrating on whats best for the country.

The liberals, claim that Harper has been bad for Canada, and they want to stop supporting the government. They say they want to make the country the very best in the world. They say they will need a mandate for eight years to undo what Harper has succeeded in doing with only a minority.

The NDP has stated that they don't want to be supporting the government, but wants to make parliament work, nobody wants an election and that if there is one they will be ready.

The Bloc is not saying anything yet.

The Green's......well it matters not what they say because Lizzy May is still their leader, so until they ditch her, they have no chance of winning evein one seat.

Now its my turn to disect the entrails.

Before Ignatieff went before the liberal host, he had a meeting with Bob Rae, Denis Coderre, Dominic LeBlanc, and David McGuinty. No one mentions at whose behest the meeting was called, but it happened before the caucus meeting where all the MP's get to air their feelings about the coming session.
Here's where I inject my subjective opinion, which means it can't be verified but its a plausible scenario.
Bob, Denis, Dom, and David, read the riot act to Iggy and "advised" him that they have heard rumours that if he didn't come out with guns blazing his leadership was going to be undermined.
Lets expand on that.
The four most likely leadership rivals get a private meeting with Iggy to advise him that some unnamed sources have informed them that some unnamed leadership rival is plotting against him if he doesn't stop propping up the government. The catch in all this is that the prime suspects of a possible coup are all in the room so nobody can finger the real culprit when the dust settles. Its that old code of silence that the libs used for Adscam. Nobody can say what was going on because nobody has up and said it, its all understood, Iggy grow a pair or get out of the big chair.

But enough of that, back to what the "big issue"(tm) will be if there is an election.
Its going to be about leadership, more specifically, good government.
The liberals will need to be a little more specific when they say the country is going down the tubes. As an aside, I'm surprised that WK didn't balk at this platform, methinks Iggy may have decided on his own to sideline Warren.
Frankly that strategy worked in Trudeau's day, it won't work now what with the internet blogs, and Youtube.
Here's how it's going to be shot down.
The loose cannons in the LPC will say anything to the prospective voter that they think the prospective voter wants to hear.
Iggy's strategy is to convince Harper's base that Harper isn't conservative enough.
They want the conservatives to stay home.
But Iggy has one problem.
If Harper isn't conservative enough, is the liberal party too far left to entice small-c conservatives to vote for them?
Lets pare it down a bit more.
Iggy says Harper hasn't accomplished anything, but says he wants to reverse what the conservative government has achieved.
So when that liberal candidate comes knocking at my door with the scripted introduction, my question will be this.
Your party insists that Canada is broken, you say you want to correct whats wrong, fine, please tell me what the liberal party wants to change and how.

Is it all the new military equipment the conservative government is buying to re-equip the military after years of liberal neglect?
Would it be all that stimulus spending the opposition threatened to take down the government over if they didn't spend it fast enough?
Would it be section 13 of the Human rights act brought in to existence by a previous liberal government?
Would it be to withdraw our troops in Afghanistan on a mission Ignatieff himself voted with the government to extend, a mission which was mandated by a previous liberal government without a vote in Parliament?
Would it be that reduction in the GST, a tax that a previous liberal government promised to "kill' but didn't?
Would it be greater incursions into provincial jurisdictions, which would bring me to the granddaddy.
If the constitution "repatirated" by a previous liberal government is one of the wrong things about this country, what parts or additions does Mr Ignatieff want a mandate to for?
Special status for Quebec perhaps....he's hinted at it, but knows damn well that after that coalition thing his chances of retaining even Toronto ridings becomes a long shot.

It comes down to this, you wanted an election, now you have to tell me why, other than you think you're entitled to power why you wanted an election.

I'll close this post in response to something Marlene Jennings stated yesterday.
The s0-called parliamentary crisis last year that precipitated the porougation of Parliament was caused by the prospect of a sitting government being brought down and replaced without a vote with one that was dependant on the Bloc vetting any new legislation. A coalition may be legitamate, but one that included a party bent on making sure Parliament did not work is a treasonous act. Harper would have been neglegent in his sworn duties to let that happen, and yes Ms Jennings, I hold you to blame as well as every MP that signed that agreement.

The CPC will use this info to their advantage and hammer home to Canadians that if the liberals can't get enough seate they will try again to form an alliance with the Bloc. The only way to prevent this from happpening again is to have a Conservative majority. It matters not whether you actually would or not, its now plausible that you would, or in terms everybody understands, there is enough objective evidence that you would make a deal with separatists to gain power. Which by the way is what brought the old federal PC down to 2 seats in the 93 election, the belief that they would "roll the dice" with the stability of the nation. Mattered not that they may or may not, the narrative was entrenched in the voters minds and they where in a punishing mood.

So slap as much lipstick on the pig as you want liberals, but you will wear the coalition.

Labels: 2009 predictions

posted by gimbol @ 3:37 AM