The 64,000 Dollar Question

When is the election going to be held?

If you ask Stephen Harper, he'll tell you 2009.
If you ask the CBC, they'll tell you October.
My sources in Ottawa tell me May.

This week has seen the CBC wildly speculating an October vote, something that, though definitely not outside the realm of possibility, seems relatively groundless.

As reported earlier, the 'fixed' election date does no such thing, and Harper may still call for the dissolution of parliament at any time, will he do it in October?

Will we see a second winter vote? Will his government only last 10 months before going to the polls again? Will he gamble with everything?

Considering the polls, the scattered and fragmented Liberal party and the popularity of his various measures since taking office, it doesnt look like much of a gamble.

I do not think it will be October personally, but anything can happen. If Harper's aim is to further smash the Liberal party, October is likely his best bet, or at the very least, before a front-runner can establish himself amongst the Liberal party. If an election is called before the leadership conference, the Liberal executive will elect someone to lead them into the election. Should they be forced to choose between a number of competing factions, then the party will go into the election with unsteady leadership, likely with a veritable unknown in the running.

Who wants an election? The Liberals are desparate to not have an election, and the Bloc want an election even less. A federal election in Quebec, which will surely result in a substantial loss of seats for the Bloc will be seen as a major victory for federalist forces, and with a provincial election around the corner, no separatist wants to see that happen.

So who will push for it? Harper likely wants one, but doesnt want 'the people' to percieve that he himself called it, as few actually want an election. Layton may want to pick up seats, but he's no fool, he knows that if Harper pulls off a majority, a lot of his current power will be diminished. At the same time though, if Layton can help break the Liberals in a quick election now, it could pave the way for replacing the Liberals as the dominant center-left party. It worked for Labour in Britain, could it work here?

So, will Harper continue in the path of the last Western Conservative Prime Minister, consolidating his minority with a massive majority? Will it be in October, May, 2009, anytime in between? I guess its anyones guess, but its largely up to Harper and Layton, and reading either of them is pretty tough.

Nova Scotian Election Results!

Conservatives: 23
NDP: 20
Liberals: 9

Interestingly, the NDP picked five seats, though the tories only lost two.

The most interesting thing to me about this whole election is that the NDP and Conservative platforms were nearly identical. More hospital beds, better senior care and lower tuition were the three main planks of both parties.

Looks like another few years of Conservative/NDP coalition.

Nova Scotia Votes 2006!

Yes, its that time, Nova Scotians are going to the polls.

Now, as a British Columbian, I should note, my knowledge of Nova Scotian election is most definitely not first hand, heck, I wouldnt even really call it second hand, more no hand.

This is going to be a close one, the tories and NDP are in a pretty dead heat by all acounts, and I look forward to watching the results roll in tomorow. The Nova Scotia Liberals are in a distant third. It looks like the NDP could unseat the tories and form government, which would make these last few years look pretty rosy for the NDP so far. Historic gains federally, a massive rebound in BC, holding steady in Saskatchewan and picking up the government of an atlantic province.

4:00pm Pacific should be the time for results to start coming in in case anyone was wondering.

First, apologies for the rather lengthy delay without posting, I dont intend to allow it to happen again without forewarning, been very busy.

First, Some Vindication:

It would seem that The Economist agrees with me when it comes to the Conservatives newly announced senate reform and fixed elections. In an article in the conservative magazine, they deconstruct the hype around the two changes, and the article ends with the line: "Rather than coherent constitutional reform, these bills look like a mere swipe at the Liberals."

So Apparently We Caught Some Terrorists...

or so Ive heard, from every single news outlet and political pundits blog in nauseating levels of detail and coverage. Andrew Coyne spent endless post after post examining every last minute detail. Warren Kinsella was so gushing with resiliance and an attempt at a stiff upper lip that he created an entire website devoted specifically to stating that we are not afraid of 17 extremely amateur and largely harmless wannabe terrorists who never truly posed much of a threat. It hit the front page of every newspaper imaginable, and in the opinion of this writer, was vastly overblown. There is even a massive sars-concert type event planned for Toronto to try to 'rebound' from this supposed threat.

Lets think about this. These people had little training, knowledge or even ingenuity. Five of them were under 18. These amateurs managed to FAIL at smuggling weapons into our country, which is no small feat of incompetance given our disgustingly porous borders. They NEVER posessed the supposed 3 tonnes of Ammonium Nitrate, they merely ordered it, and were quickly denied the order on the grounds of it being a ridiculously suspicious order.

There have been a number of such amateur terror cells captured in the United States, as evidenced by the Monitor. Why is it such a big deal here? I think for a lot of us, it was summed up well by Jon Stewart, its as though we've joined the club of the 'also hated', as though we can say 'hey look! We're hated too!'

This Also Brings Up a Pet Peeve of Mine...

Why is it that when it comes to terror suspects, assuming guilt is perfectly alright? Now, Im pretty sure these guys are guilty, all accounts would appear they are, but theres a disturbing trend with terror suspects of assuming guilt. You see it in the United States a great deal surrounding the Guantanamo debate, the assumption often made that those in Gitmo are terrorists because they are there.

Ive heard it a great deal of late, the idea that we should simply shoot these terrorists, that somehow, because they are alleged to be terrorists (or more accurately, terrorists in training), that we shoul somehow skip the judicial process. We have a judicial process for a reason, and we should never walk down that path that says that some crimes dont need that process. Down that road lies the ability to justify Gitmo.

Innocent until proven guilty is a maxim that should not be railroaded.
Habeas Corpus should not be ignored.

Personally, I congratulate CSIS and the RCMP for a job well done (assuming guilt), but caution that we shouldnt make too big a fuss over such a small incident.