PM sets the stage for an election?

Prime Minister Stephen Harper gave an interview to PostMedia yesterday and I'm reading it as stage-setting for an imminent election. 

 It's just my interpretation of the quotes, but here's why I think we should be  braced for a budget with the famed "poison pill," leaving opposition parties no option but to bring down the government and plunge Canada into a general election. 

First, some background. Last fall, I participated in  a little panel discussion for  some NGO groups, and one of the panelists was a long-time Conservative. He mused aloud that if Harper wanted to bring down his own government, a quick way to do it would be to ask the House of Commons to approve the planned corporate tax cuts.  Cancelling those cuts is crucial to the Liberals' campaign promises -- required to pay for their promised programs on family care, etc. So -- and he really was just musing aloud, he stressed, he hadn't discussed this with anyone in government -- Harper could engineer his defeat by making the corporate tax cuts a matter of confidence. 

Now look at this quote, in the Harper interview, through that prism: 

“I won’t kid you, and I think it’s one of the reasons why I don’t think a minority will go on forever — this government will not make compromises that it believes are damaging to the Canadian economy,” Mr. Harper said.

“We have made it a fundamental principle of our government since we got into office that we would have a competitive tax structure for job creators, for employers in this country.”

 

And now take a look at this quote. Harper says he's interested in governing, but note how he forecasts the next session of Parliament. Either he sees no signs of potential compromise in the House, or he just hates his job in the Commons. 

“Another game, another election, another round of parliamentary antics I don’t think are in anybody’s interest.”

 

Overall, I think this interview does a pretty good job of laying out how Harper will be campaigning in the next election -- promises to end public subsidies to parties, the threat of the scary coalition, etc.  And it's just my hunch, but this sounds like a Prime Minister who wants that election sooner rather than later. 

 

Comments

[Robertede]

Mr Harper 'forgot' his fixed yr election regulations just prior to calling the 2008 election (I guess someone in Finance knew Lehman Bros was gonna flop)

Mr Harper may call an election before the pooh-hits-the-(ph)iscal-propeller this time too.

Expect this upcoming budget to be a cream-puff and the yr after's to need to be a serious one.

So election in 2011? - great likelihood.

Majority for Harper? only if he has the luck of the Ont NDP in 1990 when disgruntled voters provided razor-thin split-vote victories in places Bob Rae never dreamed to win.

But Mr Harper, isn't in Third party standing and isn't normally THAT lucky.

[oppo guy]

Putting aside the perverse irony that the federal Liberals have today drawn a line in the sand - and one they are willing to go into an election on - around corporate tax cuts that they started, defended, and previously voted for, but now oppose for no other reason than that the NDP opposes them, I'm not sure this analysis holds.

The next round of deficit deepening corporate tax cuts come into effect on a schedule that was passed with a previous budget (2007, I think). So I don't see another opportunity for those particular corporate tax cuts to be a matter of confidence.

[hollinm]

I guess Delacourt has her tinfoil hat on today. Trying to interpret what someone means is a useless exercise or can be used for partisan wishful thinking which is the case here.
The corporate tax cuts have already been approved by parliament and the Libs supported that budget which approved them in 2007. There is no need to raise the issue in the budget and if it will only be in the context of how important it is to the economic recovery of Canada. There is no need for a vote.
Ms. Delacourt says "laying out how Harper will be campaigning in the next election -- promises to end public subsidies to parties, the threat of the scary coalition, etc. And it's just my hunch, but this sounds like a Prime Minister who wants that election sooner rather than later." All of these are not time sensitive issues and can be used effectively in the Spring or a year from now.

[CdnPolitico]

I'm going to go out on a limb here and say that, as somebody who voted Conservative last election, the CPC will lose the next election... people are tired of Harper, the economy is crap despite what they say and overall the government has done sweet tweet to help the average joe. It'll be a thin LPC minority and when Harper is forced to leave, his attitude will be a study in gracelessness the likes of which this country has never seen.

[Anne Peterson]

If I donate 400 dollars to the party I support I get a 300 dollar tax rebate. Is this the subsidy he wants to get rid of? Fat chance. Just another phoney issue, isn't it?

[Man-O-Man]

Harper has a minority and you sometimes have to compromise in a minority situation or, if you don't, you cause an election. It is simply incongruous to expect the other players in a minority parliament to accept everything the government proposes exactly as proposed without the possibility of compromising - or even talking about it. Harper seems incapable of compromise. He most definitley will be the one causing the next election.

[jon drake]

This isn't up to Harper. The opposition can defeat the government anytime the House is in Session. Why they haven't is beyond me. They should stop with the posturing. Losing a confidence vote in the House of Commons means an election it is that simple. Get with the program and forget what Harper says or does. It shouldnt matter as the majority in the House does not belong to him.

[Bob Smith]

"He mused aloud that if Harper wanted to bring down his own government, a quick way to do it would be to ask the House of Commons to approve the planned corporate tax cuts."

There's only one problem with this theory - the planned corporate tax cuts have ALREADY been enacted as part of Bill C-28 in the 2007. In other words, enacting the next round of corporate tax cuts isn't a poison pill that the Tories can put in the next budget, because they're already part of the law (see the definition of "general rate reduction percentage" in section 123.4(1) of the Income Tax Act). There won't be a confidence vote on corporate tax cuts, because there already was one (in which the Liberals could have defeated the proposal, but made themselves conspicuously absent) and they passed.

The Tories may well want to engineer an election using the next budget, but it won't be over tax cuts.

[Darwin O'Connor]

"Is this the subsidy he wants to get rid of?"

He wants to get rid of the money major parties get for every voter who votes for them.

The problem with insisting that parties rely on supporters for their funds is that it gives an advantage to parties whose supporters are have a higher income. Even with the donation limit of $1100, income has a big impact on how much people can donate.

The media shouldn't let Harper or anyone get away with saying a coalition is a coup or somehow illegitimate. Being balanced doesn't mean you should tolerate treasonous lies.

[Sean Finnigan]

Anne, the subsidy Harper is talking about is the over $2 per vote allowance political parties in Canada are given. While it only accounts for about $27 million year in costs (Last year, the Conservatives received $10.4-million, the Liberals $7.3-million, the NDP $5-million, the Bloc Quebecois $2.8-million and the Green party $1.9-million.), the bigger issue is that it props up parties who don't fundraise. For instance, the Bloc, who only fundraised $713,085 in 2009, but got $2.8 Million extra in payments for votes. It's something like 90% of the Bloc income every year (and 60% of Libs and 50% of NDP's if memory serves)

[Anne Peterson]

I know very well which subsidy he's talking about. I'm talking about the other one, the 75% one which has the Canadian tax payer paying three quarters of every donation to the conservatives whether they want to or not. Cost many, many times the amount the two dollar subsidy does and is way, way less democratic.

[MCBellecourt]

Well, folks, the Harper Cons are releasing six campaign-style attack ads to be aired on national TV, one attacking Jack Layton, the other five attacking Michael Ignatieff. Nothing specific in the article about who is paying for the ads, either.

Funny that.

[jon drake]

When the House resumes sitting later this month, the first thing the Opposition should do is vote no confidence in the government. If they don't, or if the motion fails to pass, they have no business asking the country to make them the government. They can't even govern themselves.

[David B]

Susan, not sure just how many Canadian taxpayers are aware of just how large the new Super Reform Party (Reform/Alliance/PC/Conservative) spending has been. If their first American style attack add is any indication and knowing the amounts of monies that have because of that we are in for one hell of a ride. Will Canadians approve? if so Iggy is gonzo for ever as are unions ....or have you forgot about the last budget? My prediction is .... major Harper majority, Iggy gone c/w LPC and out with the old Canada and in with the new Canada in the image of the new RNC, King Steve in charge of the new North Wing, ( or have you forgotten about the infamous We Stand With You speech.

It will not happen overnight just one move after another rubber stamped by the sheep in the Senate upon request.