Angelo Persichilli has a humdinger of a column in the Sunday Star that will change the way you view a potential 2011 election. Really – it's Zapruder film-esque in dismissing some popular myths. Let me go frame-by-frame:
“The minority Conservative government may be defeated on the budget vote in a few weeks. But if Canadians go to the polls this spring, it will have little to do with the budget, the economy, unemployment, the turmoil in Libya or Bev Oda smoking behind the Parliament building. There are other factors no one talks about but that everybody on Parliament Hill knows will play a significant role in deciding when Canadians head to the polls.”
Got it. There are good reasons why there may be an election, everybody on the Hill – from the Prime Minister to the guy doing his best Charlie Sheen imitation at D'Arcys – knows what those reasons are and yet not a single person dares to mention them aloud. Until today's Persichilli column that is. Explosive stuff is about to be dropped.
“One of these factors is the role Bob Rae will play in the Liberal party. I’m not saying Rae wants his party to defeat the government and force an election to accelerate the departure of his friend Michael Ignatieff. I don’t know what he wants, and that’s not even the point.”
Bob Rae is at the core of the decision on election timing. If there is an election, it's because of Rae. No election? Rae. But of course this is in no way the point of this column so I won't mention Rae's name again – silly me for bringing it up in the first place. But we all know Rae is at the core of everything that's about to unfold.
“I wrote some time ago that the Liberal party would be the only one to gain from an early election. I still believe that to be true. If it loses, it can get rid of Ignatieff. If the Conservatives don’t win a majority, the Liberals have a shot at forming the next minority government with the help of the NDP, which has no choice but to support the Liberals.”
There is no conceivable way the Liberals could lose from an election right now. Who says so? One A. Persichilli, that's who. God, why doesn't Bob Rae get this, if he does in fact oppose an election, which we don't know. If only the man had the power of speech, we could ask him.
“It would be odd to see Jack Layton supporting a Conservative minority government after forcing a $400 million election. It would also be political suicide not to support the Liberals either, thus forcing another election after two months.”
See, Persichilli is thinking two steps ahead of the rest of us. After an election, the only two scenarios he can think of are Layton supporting a Conservative minority or propping up the Liberals. Given the $400-million dollars an election costs – duh – it would be Kevorkian to support the Conservatives. See, this is what everyone on the Hill knows but won't discuss. Not sure why that is?
“However, even the Conservatives and the NDP might have some interest in going to the polls sooner rather than later and that’s when the Rae factor kicks in. If we don’t go to the polls now, the Liberals might find a way to get rid of Ignatieff and anoint Rae. I know many NDP MPs would not be happy to face Rae in a general election and I’m sure even Stephen Harper would feel more comfortable debating Ignatieff than Rae.”
