Monday, December 12, 2005
The Gauntlet Hath Been Thrown
Don Iveson has made a few premature ejaculations on the subject of election predictions and, while I agreed with most of them, I left a snarky comment offering to bet money against his third one, which predicted at least two 2006 elections. Resultingly, we now have a bet in place, and I'm making this post primarily so I remember to collect come New Year's day 2007.
There has not been a double-federal-election year since Confederation. If there ever is one, it will be the result of a Parliament failing to work - not only that, but it will have to fail to work even more spectacularily than this last one did (since more than a year and a half is ellapsing between elections this time). Moreover, there was little public appetite for this election, and there will be even less for a third within two years. The opposition parties, whichever ones they turn out to be, won't risk that level of public hostility. Bear in mind that the Conservatives initially agreed to support the Liberal budget, and that this was disrupted only by the juicier Gomery recommendations (which prompted the Conservatives to indicate that, while they still had no objection to the *budget*, they had to vote against the *government*). There's no reason at all that this couldn't work again or, in an alternative scenario, that the Liberals couldn't veer to the left and get the support of both the New Democrats and the Bloc. There won't be another election until *at least* the latter half of 2007, and I'd venture a guess that we'll be some distance into 2008 before we see one.
The last time Don and I squared off like this, incidentally, was during the August meeting of the Gateway Student Journalism Society Board of Directors, when we argued over whose recollection of some budgeted figures was more accurate. (A dick-measuring contest? Sure, but you've got to look at it proportionally.)
Also: who do I know who keeps checking this from Genuity Capital Markets?
Next time: Why Jim Harris should count himself lucky that he's not allowed to the leader's debate (and why he should be).
|
Don Iveson has made a few premature ejaculations on the subject of election predictions and, while I agreed with most of them, I left a snarky comment offering to bet money against his third one, which predicted at least two 2006 elections. Resultingly, we now have a bet in place, and I'm making this post primarily so I remember to collect come New Year's day 2007.
There has not been a double-federal-election year since Confederation. If there ever is one, it will be the result of a Parliament failing to work - not only that, but it will have to fail to work even more spectacularily than this last one did (since more than a year and a half is ellapsing between elections this time). Moreover, there was little public appetite for this election, and there will be even less for a third within two years. The opposition parties, whichever ones they turn out to be, won't risk that level of public hostility. Bear in mind that the Conservatives initially agreed to support the Liberal budget, and that this was disrupted only by the juicier Gomery recommendations (which prompted the Conservatives to indicate that, while they still had no objection to the *budget*, they had to vote against the *government*). There's no reason at all that this couldn't work again or, in an alternative scenario, that the Liberals couldn't veer to the left and get the support of both the New Democrats and the Bloc. There won't be another election until *at least* the latter half of 2007, and I'd venture a guess that we'll be some distance into 2008 before we see one.
The last time Don and I squared off like this, incidentally, was during the August meeting of the Gateway Student Journalism Society Board of Directors, when we argued over whose recollection of some budgeted figures was more accurate. (A dick-measuring contest? Sure, but you've got to look at it proportionally.)
Also: who do I know who keeps checking this from Genuity Capital Markets?
Next time: Why Jim Harris should count himself lucky that he's not allowed to the leader's debate (and why he should be).
