Election 2010?

[Edward Campbell]

This, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail’s web site, might be interesting and also might be bad news for Stephen Harper and his Conservatives:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/bureau-blog/liberals-could-skate-ahead-of-tories-on-prorogation-poll-finds/article1438655/

Liberals could skate ahead of Tories
on prorogation, poll finds

Jane Taber

Thursday, January 21, 2010

1. Prorogation still resonates. Stephen Harper’s decision to shut down Parliament continues to bedevil him, with a new EKOS poll showing Michael Ignatieff’s Liberals are for the first time since late summer in a dead heat with the Conservatives.

Incredibly, too, the latestl EKOS seat projections give the Liberals a three-seat advantage over the Conservatives if an election were held today - 117 to 114. The Tories now have 145 seats compared to 77 for the Liberals, out of a total of 308 seats in the House of Commons. (The new projection distributes the remaining seats as follows: 28 NDP, 47 Bloc, one Green and one Independent.)

This poll shows the Liberal rebound is not simply the result of Tory declines. Rather, EKOS pollster Frank Graves says “for the first time it is clear that the Liberals are actually showing some modest signs of positive lift.”

The Conservatives have 31.5 per cent support compared to 30.9 per cent for the Liberals; the NDP are at 14.9 per cent, the Bloc at 9.1 per cent and the Green Party at 11.5 per cent.

And the hits just keep coming for Michael Ignateiff and his team that had been seen to falter so badly over the summer and fall: For the first time since late summer they have broken through the 30-per-cent mark for voter intention. They had been in the mid-20 per cent range in the fall as a result of their threats to force an election. What is going on?

Mr. Graves says one would have thought the Harper government’s impressive response to the Haitian earthquake disaster would have wiped away any bitterness over the prorogation issue. But he suggests the public is clearly not in a mood to forgive.

“Clearly, the diversion of attention to a pretty well flawless performance on the Haiti crisis to date has not taken the Conservatives out of the penalty box with voters yet,” he told The Globe. “This underscores the depth of public disenchantment.”
And this disenchantment may not soon abate. “If daily images of adroit performance have seen the government’s position with voters continuing to erode (slightly) then how will substituting daily images of cobwebs collecting and crickets chirping in the empty halls of Parliament work out?”

And here, on the CBC’s web site is their rep[ort on the poll. The results, graphically, are:

As EKOS’ Frank Graves says, “public opinion sometimes lags the news by a few days” so the bounce I anticipated from the Haiti mission may yet materialize.

On the other hand, the mainstream media, especially the CBC and Globe and Mail, have done a first rate job of keeping the prorogation pot boiling – Jane Taber, herself has blogged on it on an almost daily basis. It may be that they have actually managed to make a silk purse out of a soiw’s ear for the Liberals or, more fairly, against the Conservatives. I do not believe the media is, mainly, pro-Liberal but I think it is, very broadly anti-Conservative and, especially, anti-Harper.

There is not enough here to cause Iggy Iffy Icarus to provoke an election but it should serve to rally the Liberal faithful.

Spending cuts will not be overly popular for the Conservatives; Haiti, coupled with a firm commitment to scurry out of Afghanistan, tail firmly clutched between legs, will be popular.

The unemployment rate may the key to the next election timing and result.

 

[GAP]

I've had lots of practise finding my mute button whenever Tabor on Powerplay gets ernestly spouting off with her garbage. The CBC has been flogging this on Radio & TV constantly.

Sometime you just want to  :brickwall:

 

[Brad Sallows]

It would be more interesting if we were two months down the road in spring election territory and the numbers were still the same.  Until then, it makes about as much sense as getting all excited when the Conservatives are temporarily up by 5 or 10 points.

 

[Kirkhill]

Tories fall from 35 to 30
Libs rise from 25 to 30

Headline - 5% of Canadians Change Their Mind, For Now.

 

[GAP]

One comment on Power Play was that the CF is getting all the Haiti credit, not the PM....might be a factor....

 

[RangerRay]

I don't remember the press flogging perogygate this much when Chretien prorogued before the release of the Auditor General's report into Adscam...

...but the press still contends it's "objective".  :

 

[Kirkhill]

Ray,

In fairness to the PRESS, Chretien's prorogation was hidden in the foul stew that was ADSCAM.  It was just another questionable act amidst a bucket of felonies and misdemeanours.

It is possible to argue that the reason this prorogation is getting so much press is that there is so little else on which to report.  Harper, therefore, may be seen as running a clean, as well as tight, ship in comparison.

The Afghanistan issue actually wasn't gaining that much traction against the Government before Christmas.  The 5% of the population that I alluded to above hadn't had their attention diverted.

 

[a_majoor]

This should be the issue in any upcoming election; crafting a program of spending cuts to eliminate the deficit and attack the debt. (Since excessive debt is the underlying cause of the global financial crisis, then paying down as fast as possible is the only prudent course of action available). This blogger thinks it can be done, and I would go further; recognizing cutting transfers to individuals would be electoral suicide, adding transfers to governments, subsidies and crown corporatiosn together, we have the total of $84 billion/year that could be cut from the federal budget [this does not take into account any virtuous circle effect savings in government operations, nor carrying cost reductions on the $30 billion/year nationsl debt].

Applying this level of saving to the debt (and not considering potential follow-on savings) we could pay off the national debt in six years and fund all unfunded liabilties like federal pensions and CPP in twelve years. Think of this as the "upper bound" and eliminating $19 billion/year spending as the lower bound.

The upper bound program has the advantage of allowing increasing tax relief as operations costs and debt charges come down, and allowing us to eliminate debt and liabilities befroe some of our children finish school rather than passing the debt to our grandchildren.

http://backoffgov.blogspot.com/2010/01/days-spending-problem.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+BackOffGovernment+%28Back+Off+Government%21%29

Day's Spending Problem

With the upcoming federal budget, Stockwell Day has been appointed as the new Treasurer minister to be Harper's pointman heading up spending cuts. There's been a lot of talk about whether the Tories can even cut enough to balance the books. I think Day does have his work cut out for him, but it's not as bad as some people think.

The Federal Government in the fiscal year of 2008-2009 spent about $238 Billion CDN.  A recent report by the Parliamentary Budget Officer Kevin Page indicates that the government needs to find $19 Billion CDN in savings over the next five years to balance the budget.  In a nutshell the Tories have to cut government spending by a total of 8% over the next five years from current levels (I'm assuming that inflation was not taken into account by Mr Page in his figure).

The department of finance provides the following pie chart to illustrate where that money actually goes.  I have decided for simplicity not to look at the projected spending levels as I believe looking at the 2009 numbers should give us a good enough idea of the general fiscal layout of the land.

Keep in mind here that the government has already committed to the following restrictions:

1)  Taxes will not be raised.

2)  Major transfers to governments will not be touched

3)  Major transfers to persons are ixnay for cuts too

That leaves 41.7% of the federal budget ($99 Billion CDN) that Flaherty will have to trim $19 billion from.  I think we can safely assume that national defense will not be touched since I think the move would be electoral suicide with the Conservative base.

The categories of Crown Corporations, Subsidies and other transfers, and Operating expenses will be where the government will have to trim.

Really this boils down to the following areas of cut backs:
1)  Operating expenses (I would assume this would mean the civil service and general costs of running the federal government) ($42 billion)
2)  Crown corps ($8 billion)
3)  Miscellaneous program expenses like labour market training programs etc ($30 billion)

To be frank if I were a member of the civil service up in Ottawa I would be polishing up my resume at this point.  I think it's clear that of these three areas where the government can cut a significant portion of savings can come from reducing the size of and costs of federal civil service and the operating costs of government in general.  This fits well with recent stories of possible planned cuts.  A 20% cut in the costs associated with the civil service would get the Tories half of the way they would need to balance the budget in five years.  The Tories could choose to spread out the cuts over the five year period to 4% a year to shelter the blow.

This is again assuming todays spending levels.  That $19 billion dollar figure was based on future predicted spending levels which will be higher than today and the potential for savings would also be higher.

Crown corps make such a low portion of the question.  They could very well privatize outfits like AECL and they would move maybe an inch towards the goal.  They may still try to do just that, but I think the effort is almost wasted, when you have thirty billion dollars of miscellaneous subsidies and transfers that could be tackled.

In short - the picture isn't bad.  It's very doable to make the cuts that are needed from what I can see here.  The only questions are do the Tories have the guts, is there enough pressure on the opposition, and will Canadians support these types of moves?  Are we prepared for it to take longer to get passports processed?  What about income tax forms?  To me it's worth it to ensure that we aren't perpetually living off of borrowed money, leading to higher interest rates, and a debt that will have to be one day repaid by a shrinking workforce.

 

[Edward Campbell]

As if it were really necessary to reinforce the impression that Québec is a deleterious force in Canadian politics, consider this blog spot, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail web site, suggests that Prince Michael and his team are ”discussing [with the NDP] the option of knowingly introducing an unconstitutional bill”:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/does-michael-ignatieff-really-want-this-constitutional-dance/article1452501/

Does Michael Ignatieff really want this constitutional dance?
By going back to his coalition partners, the Liberal leader opens a door for the Bloc

Norman Spector

Tuesday, Feb. 02, 2010 3:26AM EST

Last year, after Michael Ignatieff unwisely declared that Stephen Harper's time was up, the Prime Minister alleged that the opposition parties were planning to repeat their attempted “coup” (as the Economist magazine called it) after the election.

Not so, Mr. Ignatieff's team whispered – their man was the last MP to sign the caucus letter. And, far from having reneged on his signature, he never supported the coalition.

For his part, Mr. Ignatieff stated that, if that were his intention, he could have already been prime minister. Which did not exactly shut the door. Nor was it quite true.

In December, 2008, Mr. Ignatieff's goal was to replace Stéphane Dion. Once that was accomplished, he had to face a hard reality. In contrast to Jack Layton and Bob Rae, Mr. Ignatieff understood all along that the Governor-General was not bound to transfer power to the coalition without an election – an election the Liberals would likely have lost, thereby returning him to Cambridge, Mass.

After examining the proposal Mr. Ignatieff put forward last week to limit prime ministerial power in proroguing Parliament, there can now be no doubt about his true intentions. He is trying to prevent Her Excellency from blocking an election he might lose, while still winning enough seats to replace Mr. Harper in a coalition government.

For one thing, the Liberals propose to amend House rules to block a prime minister facing a confidence vote from requesting prorogation. Forget about the Governor-General exercising her discretionary powers, as in 2008. And how else can one explain shutting the door on prorogation in all other situations only in the first year of the mandate – the period beyond which no constitutionalist argues that a governor-general would hand over power without an election?

Although it was said by many last week that Mr. Ignatieff's secondary objective was to trump Jack Layton's legislative approach to achieving the same objective, it quickly became apparent that the two are working together again – notwithstanding the hard feelings after Mr. Ignatieff exploded the coalition. In fact, I'd not be surprised if there have been months of secret backroom discussions between their emissaries, as was the case in 2008.

This time, however, the Bloc appears distinctly lukewarm: They support the objective, but doubt that Mr. Ignatieff's approach would be effective or that Mr. Layton's bill would be constitutional. Yesterday, the Hill Times newspaper reported that Liberals and New Democrats agree with that assessment, but are discussing the option of knowingly introducing an unconstitutional bill – an inconceivable act in the case of a prime minister in waiting.

In part, Mr. Duceppe's standoffishness derives from political calculation: Unlike in 2008, when his commitment was for just 18 months, an election is looming. In Montreal, many Bloc candidates will face tight races against their erstwhile partners.

But, with the secessionist movement moribund in Quebec, there's another agenda at play. If you thought the attempted “coup” would have been a disaster for Canada had it succeeded, consider the implications of the Liberals and NDP moving forward without Bloc support.

If Mr. Duceppe insists on a constitutional amendment, he could force Mr. Layton to choose between Quebec – where his popularity has been soaring, Mr. Harper is at a low point and constitutional negotiations are almost a national sport – and the rest of the country. In British Columbia, I can already hear callers to phone-in shows recoiling at the prospect of another Charlottetown-like failure – at best.

Mr. Ignatieff would face the same decision. However, as leader of the party that gave us the 1982 Constitution without the consent of the National Assembly, and later under Jean Chrétien helped kill the best chance to repair its greatest flaw, his choice could prove fatal for the Liberals, and for his leadership.

For Mr. Duceppe, as it is, the coming months may offer an opportunity too good to pass up: Canada loses and secessionists win, whatever others decide. And, unlike Mr. Ignatieff's first blunder in this area, which ended in Parliament recognizing the Québécois nation, Canadians would not be able to count on the Prime Minister outmanoeuvring Mr. Duceppe to make the best of a bad situation.

Once again Canadian Constitutional politics or, perhaps, the politics derived from Canada’s continuing constitutional constipation threaten the country’s governance. 

 

[a_majoor]

The coalition livvvvvves! Igor, bring me Jack Layton's brain!:

http://canadiansense.blogspot.com/2010/02/has-coalition-learned-from-their.html

Has The Coalition Learned From Their Mistakes?

    A former NDP national campaign director, he writes uncommonly well for someone who's been in the business of clip and spin.- Norman Spector on Brian Topp's book.

The not so funny period following the economic update started a plan that was developed years ago by a leader of a party that have never won 20% of the popular vote.

    * Dion did not have permission to offer the NDP a seat at the table.
    * Bob Rae was kept in the shadows.
    * Gilles Duceppe thought the photo of himself included might not sell well out West.
    * The letter sent to the GG in 2004 was not the same as the one in 2008.
    * Jack Layton viewed the 2004 letter as a "pressure tactic".
    * Harper and Duceppe did not complain after the NDP reneging on the letter labelling it a coalition government agreement in 2004.
    * Chretien was being offered to lead the coalition by a Liberal elder.

    Judging from the proposals recently put forward by Messrs. Ignatieff and Layton to prevent the Governor-General from ever again agreeing to prorogue the House in a situation akin to December 2008 -- proposals that are anticipated in the final part of Topp's book -- that certainly would appear to be the game plan.-Norman Spector

Did Jack or Brian forget to compare notes before publishing this book about the agreement in 2004 and how it was identical to 2008. You can decide.
Many of us believe the Coalition has the real hidden agenda and will try to limit the power of the GG and the Prime Minister 2010/2011. The goal for Jack, Michael (Bob) will be to win enough seats to form a minority without the Bloc and remove their confidence within the first few weeks after the next General Election.

If they want to run as a coalition, then fine; I'll look at the coalition platform and decide if they deserve my vote. IF they do not run as a coalition and pull that stunt again, then I would suggest it is time for Canadians to take to the streets in a "Maple" revolution.

Quite frankly, pulling a coup wouldn't work anyway since the various parties would quickly be at odds (and the various voters who voted for the various parts of the coalition would be pulling members in every direction), leading to a messy government melt-down. IF we want to have fun, at every all candidates meeting next election ask the Liberal candidate if they will be reporting to the NDP candidate or the Bloc (or the other way around).

 

[Fishbone Jones]

 

[Kat Stevens]

Blah, blah, blah.... 8)

 

[Edward Campbell]

John Ibbitson, a pretty astute observer of te national political scene, forecasts a 2010 election in this column about the budget, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from today’s Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/budget/pm-gambles-that-voters-care-about-the-deficit-little-else/article1490643/

PM gambles that voters care about the deficit, little else
Stephen Harper's government has brought down the most austere, deficit-fighting document since Paul Martin set out to balance his budget in the nineties

John Ibbitson

Published on Friday, Mar. 05, 2010

We're going to ignore the environment, because you don't care. We're going to balance the budget, because you do care. We're willing to risk a fight with public servants, because you want us to. We're not going to spend money on anything new, because you don't want us to. Please vote for us.

Finance Minister Jim Flaherty's line-in-the-sand budget is really an election manifesto, a blueprint for a campaign in which Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the Conservatives will sell themselves as tough, disciplined and determined to rein in federal government  spending.

And if you're all that worried about a warming planet, go ahead and vote for someone else.

This government has brought down the most austere, hell-and-high-water, deficit-fighting document since Paul Martin set out to balance his budget in the nineties. They believe that is what you want.

By prohibiting any growth in departmental operating budgets, the Conservatives are forcing the bureaucracy to accept wage freezes or job losses or both. By slashing planned spending by $17.6-billion, the government is closing the tap on any major spending initiatives for half a decade, once the stimulus money runs out.

And by balancing the budget without tax hikes - though only if you believe rising Employment Insurance premiums are not a tax - the Tories are offering themselves as the party of no tax pain in exchange for no spending gain.

That means little or nothing will be done to fight global warming, to improve preschool education or daycare, to continue with infrastructure renewal, to re-equip the military. (Although here, spending growth is slowed rather than frozen. The Tories still love the army.)

But the Conservatives don't care, for two reasons. The first is that they think most Canadians - or at least the 35 to 40 per cent whose votes they need to stay in power - care more about keeping their own money and balancing the government's books than about climate change.

One of the few new investments in this document is in satellites that will help us watch the polar ice cap melt, and research that will help us measure how many fish are dying in the Great Lakes.

Let the three opposition parties fight over who is greener, let them rage at the Conservatives' callous disregard for needed investments. They'll split the vote, such as it is.

The second reason for taking this path is that the real pain is still a year away. The economic stimulus package from last year's budget will continue to wash over the Canadian economy for the rest of 2010. Real-world conditions dictate that cuts, not just freezes, will be needed if the deficit is to disappear by mid-decade.

In the next Conservative budget, if there is one, we'll learn how truly committed to eliminating the deficit this government is. But by then the election will likely have come and gone.

Of course, Mr. Harper has been wrong before. Voters could look at this budget and go: "There's nothing here to improve health care, to provide daycare. I do care about global warming. Fighting the deficit is important, but not that important." In which case, this budget will one day be seen as a death knell.

But the Conservatives are gambling that voters don't want to be bought, that they want to keep their money, and that saving the environment can wait until the jobs come back. The Conservatives are probably right.

There is sense in the government's aims. Canada weathered the last recession better than most other developed nations because the federal and - most of the time - provincial governments kept their books balanced and debt low, leaving room for decisive action when it was needed.

Given the inevitability of future recessions, and the pressures of an aging population, making deficit reduction a top priority is wise.

But it is also politically astute. As the Liberals, NDP and Bloc Québécois decry what they will call the mean-spiritedness and shortsightedness of this budget, people will ask how they plan to balance the books while investing in green jobs and pre-kindergarten teachers.

That's just what the Conservatives want, in the election that is sure to come.

The Tories hope they understand what a large minority of Canadians want – unexciting, uncharismatic, competent, boring (remember Brampton Billy Davis and “bland works?”) government. They also hope that another, smaller minority, is driven by pure greed: bash the civil service; no new taxes; etc. Finally they hope that there is another minority that will vote Conservative even if they offer the village idiot for election. If those minorities, and a few others, all add up to about 40% of the electorate then they have a majority government.

It sounds like a reasonable strategy to me – if, big IF, they really do understand what how those minorities think.

 

[GAP]

The Conservatives set the tone with this budget....imagine how well Iggy's 5-10 Billion daycare proposal will sound during an election, his cap & trade desires( oops that was Dion, but what the hey!!), raising taxes/GST/dog pound fees/whatever......

Now......how is Harper going to pull the trigger...?

 

[Rifleman62]

I am sure there is another minority, a fairly large one, possibly a small majority, that wish the Tories would forget about the majority of the 23% of the population that constantly whines, always have their hand out, then slaps the hand after the money has been taken, year after year.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I am sure there is another minority, a fairly large one, possibly a small majority, that wish the Tories would forget about the majority of the 23% of the population that constantly whines, always have their hand out, then slaps the hand after the money has been taken, year after year.

You are sure and Harper hopes that you are right.

We need to recognize that nearly 60% of Canadians wouldn't vote for a Conservative even if she was a mix of Churchill and Mandela. The Tories need to split that vote - and most of the anti-Conservative vote resides outside of Québec – between the Liberals and the NDP so that a few more Conservative candidates can come ‘up through the middle’ in a few more ridings.

The Conservatives have 145 seats; assume for a moment that they can hold on to 140 of them; they need to win 15 new seats, out of the 160+ that remain in play; that’s a 10% shift in ‘available’ seats from the BQ, Liberals and NDP to the Conservatives. That’s a big shift but it may just be achievable in 2010 if a whole lot of dominos, including a steady global recovery (save the PIIGS!), fall in order.

 

[GAP]

Travers: As the heat builds, expect PM to spark an election
Article Link

Facing three tough questions about his government, Stephen Harper has a single answer. The annoying queries are about the politics of stimulus spending, the credibility of last week's rosy federal budget, and complicity in Afghanistan prisoner abuse. The response is a sooner-than-later election.

Not much cleans the slate better than a campaign. Rarely has a ruling party so urgently required an eraser.

That hunger for a fresh start helps explain the Prime Minister's controversial winter suspension of Parliament, as well as what looms this spring, summer and fall. Padlocking the Commons and Senate bought Conservatives priceless time by resetting the political clock. It will be weeks before committees disbanded in December are again able to harass the ruling party. By then, the focus will be shifting to the season of barbecue-circuit electioneering, followed by a slow autumn return to a capital preoccupied by how Conservatives will engineer their own defeat.

Harper, who loathes leaving his fate to others, ignored his own fixed-date election law in 2008 to run against the hapless Stéphane Dion simply by declaring Parliament dysfunctional. Back then, the Prime Minister wanted an election that he had reason to expect would deliver the majority Conservatives covet. Now he desperately needs one, even if the prospects of a decisive victory are less certain.

Understanding Harper's hurry begins with a flashback. It was Sheila Fraser's scathing 2004 report on Jean Chrétien's Quebec sponsorship program that triggered Paul Martin's eventual downfall.

Six years later, the auditor general is taking a first look at the nearly $50 billion Conservative stimulus plan that already has the opposition screeching foul over how projects are chosen and the plan promoted to voters.

It would be as reckless for Harper to wait for Fraser's late fall audit as it would be to bring down a bad-news budget before the next election. It will take a loaves-and-fishes miracle for Finance Minister Jim Flaherty's dreams about economic growth and bureaucratic belt-tightening to come true.

Instead, Canadians are more likely to grasp that all those home renovations and construction projects weren't free and that the bill to be delivered in 2011 includes fewer government services, higher taxes or both.
More on link

 

[Rifleman62]

If the Liberals, NDP and Bloc want to get to the bottom of the detainee issue, bring down the government, take the chance the Liberals will form the government. Then the Liberals will  have the access to all the documents. Ah, I can see the ash rising from the burn barrels if the Liberal win.

 

[GAP]

If the Liberals, NDP and Bloc want to get to the bottom of the detainee issue, bring down the government, take the chance the Liberals will form the government. Then the Liberals will  have the access to all the documents. Ah, I can see the ash rising from the burn  barrels.

I love the smell of napalm(well diesel anyway) in the morning!!! What? You don't like the smell of sanctimonious outrage with Iffy and his twin Bobby Rae stirring the contents to ensure there is an even burn.....all without knowing that the smell is going to stick to them all day because they didn't have the sense to not stand downwind...... ;D

 

[Edward Campbell]

Travers: As the heat builds, expect PM to spark an election
Article Link

Facing three tough questions about his government, Stephen Harper has a single answer. The annoying queries are about the politics of stimulus spending, the credibility of last week's rosy federal budget, and complicity in Afghanistan prisoner abuse. The response is a sooner-than-later election.

Not much cleans the slate better than a campaign. Rarely has a ruling party so urgently required an eraser.

That hunger for a fresh start helps explain the Prime Minister's controversial winter suspension of Parliament, as well as what looms this spring, summer and fall. Padlocking the Commons and Senate bought Conservatives priceless time by resetting the political clock. It will be weeks before committees disbanded in December are again able to harass the ruling party. By then, the focus will be shifting to the season of barbecue-circuit electioneering, followed by a slow autumn return to a capital preoccupied by how Conservatives will engineer their own defeat.

Harper, who loathes leaving his fate to others, ignored his own fixed-date election law in 2008 to run against the hapless Stéphane Dion simply by declaring Parliament dysfunctional. Back then, the Prime Minister wanted an election that he had reason to expect would deliver the majority Conservatives covet. Now he desperately needs one, even if the prospects of a decisive victory are less certain.

Understanding Harper's hurry begins with a flashback. It was Sheila Fraser's scathing 2004 report on Jean Chrétien's Quebec sponsorship program that triggered Paul Martin's eventual downfall.

Six years later, the auditor general is taking a first look at the nearly $50 billion Conservative stimulus plan that already has the opposition screeching foul over how projects are chosen and the plan promoted to voters.

It would be as reckless for Harper to wait for Fraser's late fall audit as it would be to bring down a bad-news budget before the next election. It will take a loaves-and-fishes miracle for Finance Minister Jim Flaherty's dreams about economic growth and bureaucratic belt-tightening to come true.

Instead, Canadians are more likely to grasp that all those home renovations and construction projects weren't free and that the bill to be delivered in 2011 includes fewer government services, higher taxes or both.
More on link

I rather like Travers' analysis, less the bit where he tries to shift Liberal responsibility for the flawed 2005 Afghan detainee agreement to Rick Hillier. A fall 2010 election seems a reasonable, even probably scenario.