Recent polls (especially today's breakdown of the 905 wipeout of Harper's 'suburban' votes) have shown the Liberals edging ahead of the Tories, in both of the vote-rich provinces of Ontario and Quebec.
If an election was called right now, these polls mean we will get more votes than we did last time (a paltry 26% of total votes across Canada), and win more seats.
However, two things make a minority Liberal government (let alone a majority one) a long shot right now.
Firstly, past polls have shown that the Tories do better once the writ is dropped and can boost their numbers by around 4% (with a similar 4% reduction in Liberal votes) during the campaign. So any margin which is less than 4% means that the Tories might still be able to change the dynamics of the game through their better campaigning, and eke out a minority government.
Secondly, Jack Layton would need to have his head read if he in any way voted with the Liberals on any non-confidence motion so as to throw the Tories out of power. His polling numbers are being badly hit, and waiting is better for the NDP than doing a lemminglike lateral arabesque off the cliff edge. Likewise, Duceppe needs to walk wide of the cliff edge, given the resurgent Liberal numbers in Quebec.
What does this mean?
Simply that an election in the next 12 to 18 months is highly unlikely, unless Jack Layton develops a Joe Clark-electoral death wish, and steps off the cliff to personal (and party) oblivion.
So where does this leave us?
With time.
Time for Harper to get his act together. This is the man who understands discipline (usually), and who lusts for power. He united the right; pulling his shell shocked troops together is not an impossible task for him.
Time for the economy to start turning around, with many indices showing positive and rising improvements.
Time for the Tories to spend a few more millions defining (framing) Ignatieff.
Time for the Liberals to spend their precious time in Parliament pounding the Tories on relatively insignificant issues (the tapes, for example) while avoiding telling voters what the party stands for and why the voters should vote Liberal.
At the moment, without any comprehensive Liberal set of policies announced and laid before the voters, the party, under its new leader, seems to be banking on becoming the next government by default. If you don't like Harper and his Tories, try us.
This default-choice strategy relies on voters thinking that they have been presented a blank cheque, which voters can fill in. It relies on voters – having tired of Harper's political mean spiritedness – deciding that the devil they don't know is better than the one they do.
But this is really an insult to voters, and courts disaster because, as the pollster pointed out, the Tories have still maintained a 30% grip on the electorate nationwide, and have the luxury of time because the NDP is unlikely to decide to (voluntarily) transform themselves into lemmings.
For us to regain power, we need to place before the voters a comprehensive, liberal set of policies and programs, so that Canadians may know what we stand for, and what they will get if they decide to change from the Tories to another government.
Wednesday, June 10, 2009
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
The platform, policies & programs, will be laid out during an election. Just like Harper did in the 1st election he won. He laid out something new every day. I haven't actually noticed any not-in-power party's laying out platforms until an election. And in the last election Harper laid out a supposed platform 5 days before the election day that was mostly photos of himself.
Nobody knows what the Liberal Party stands for right now.
To wait for the election writ to be dropped is to expect to convince voters that the party has policies which need supporting - over a week or two?!
The voters left the Liberals in droves in the past few elections because they seemed rudderless and tried to be all things to all people, depending which way the wind blew on any particular day.
That sense of the party running on empty, and expecting to be put in government because we had just about always been in government, cost us dearly.
Let's put before the voters some real Liberal policies and start debating them. Let people see the bedrock values of the party, which they can support.
Or do you want to run an election trying to combat another slew of framing ads referring to yet another quote from Ignatieff's voluminous writings over the years?
Guess who dictates the agenda of the election if we let that happen yet once more!
Or are Liberals afraid of telling voters what they stand for? I'm beginning to get that impression, and I am a Liberal!
The Liberal success and renewal under Ignatieff must just be killing you.
We feel your self-inflicted pain... well, actually, we sense it... we don't feel it ourselves. In fact, most Liberals are feeling better and better, more willing to sign up and re-join, more willing to part with their hard earned dollars, more willing to trust the decision-making of Ignatieff over such things as timing of policy reveals and election votes.
I do sympathize with your pain. It must be very hard. It is causing you to trip all over yourself and prior comments.
For example, now you say how awful it is that Ignatieff doesn't respect voters enough to put out policies so they can decide whether or not to support the Liberals. It was not too long ago - in fact, as recently as last week!! - that you told us Ignatieff should have stuck with the coalition so he could be PM now without even having to bother with the voters at all.
You criticize Ignatieff for seeming to assume that it is enough for the Liberals not to be Harper and to rely on a default choice, but lament that the coalition could have gotten rid of Harper a long time ago.
You write as though he needs to be running and winning an election right now by putting out comprehensive policies and platforms, but note that there is no way Layton and Duceppe are going to allow that because Iggy rejected the coalition and so we won't have an election for 12 to 18 months.
You claim to be a Liberal. Fine. Liking Iggy and being a good Liberal are certainly two separate things. But man, your Iggy hatred is really clouding your judgement and thoughts.
And with each new success and accomplishment from the Ignatieff Liberals, it is getting seriously worse.
Giving voters a choice, a well-considered, thoughtful, well-debated choice between the policies of the Liberal Party and those (that we know of) of the Tories, will focus attention on what we offer voters should we become the next government. I believe that is the missing element in the party's armoury right now.
And, yes, I still believe we should have followed through on the coalition government; our term for at least the first 18 months would have been based on the agreed points outlined in the signed documents. These were broadly framed but seemed to me to be very progressive, worthy of governing from, given the recession.
You're daily rant against the Libs is getting rather obsessive and tiresome. We do know what the Liberals aren't for - destroying our valued institutions, way of life, privatization of all services and changing Canada so we won't recognize it - that's a bonus in itself.
Quit whining, it's unbecoming.
Giving voters a choice, a well-considered, thoughtful, well-debated choice between the policies of the Liberal Party and those (that we know of) of the Tories, will focus attention on what we offer voters should we become the next government. I believe that is the missing element in the party's armoury right now.
Who would disagree. Problem is, in case you had not noticed, we're not in an election right now, we're not asking Canadians to vote for us right now.
People who write such things are not wrong, per se, but they are either very naive about the reality of politics or very naive about how easy it is to "just come up with policies" or really quite disingenuous in their comments (using this as a simply foil to (yet again - yawn) attack Ignatieff for not accomplishing what no other leader has even tried, or as is the case here all of the above.
And, yes, I still believe we should have followed through on the coalition government; our term for at least the first 18 months would have been based on the agreed points outlined in the signed documents.
You know, I actually think you believe that. Amazing but you do. There would never have been a coalition government, that much is absolutely true, especially given the actions and comments of the Governor General at the time and since. It is just fantasy world to think that she would have just handed over government like that.
But what is even bigger fantasyland is to think that it was even workable and would have lasted. The agreement with the NDP and the Bloc was not stable at all. It may well have been based on some progressive base of ideas but look at the kinds of issues that Harper has had to deal with (and done so badly). There is no way this coalition would have survived for long. Add to that certainty would have been the pressure from very outraged Canadians over an usurpation of democracy. You think Canadians are mad with Harper for governing awfully in this recession? At least he could say he had a mandate from Canadians (he'd be lying because he said we'd never have a recession, but there is no question about the legal, ethical and moral authority about how he kept power).
Canadians were already hugely opposed to the idea of the coalition. Worse, Liberals were outraged about joining up with the NDP in government and reaching a formal agreement with the separatists.
Let me know when you come back to reality on this coalition thing.
10:22 PM
Why on earth should a party only define itself during elections?
Not only will that almost certainly strike the voters as opportunistic and disingenuous--since they already believe that there's little a politician wouldn't say during an election to gain power--it's just disrespectful to those who decide to become members of that party. What, exactly, are Liberals signing up to support?
And, for that matter, how on earth can the Liberals have any sort of consultative discussion about policy if the whole thing is, supposedly, going to be conjured up out of the ether by Ignatieff and the OLO? The base was clearly already angry about C-15, and likely isn't terribly comfortable with having a leader imposed on them to begin with. Why should Ignatieff expect people to go door-knocking when they have no idea what they're door-knocking for?
It might have worked for Obama, but Iggy is no Obama.
Demosthenes:
You have me confused here. Do you want a full set of policies now so supporters can decide whether to support? or do you want a elongated consultative discussion about policy? With so many holes in your logic, there's no need to pop your inventive bubble on this.
It's kinda sad. You guys used to be pretty good at masking your dislike of Ignatieff around substantive issues, but now it doesn't even seem like you care any more. As time goes on you are clearly just dialling your hatred in.
Post a Comment