Bob Rae is leading a faction of the Liberal Party that is arguing that it is too early to bring down the government.  Let the budget pass, and then go for a spring election:

Former leadership rival Bob Rae urged Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion yesterday to wait until spring to pull the plug on the minority Harper government rather than forcing an early election over the Tory budget.

"He made a good case," one MP from Southern Ontario said. "He said we shouldn't let Harper choose the date."

Mr. Rae's views were echoed by many MPs and senators at the closed-door national caucus, who warned the leader to wait and buy time by not defeating the Harper minority government any time soon.

Another MP said the message from caucus was loud and clear: "Don't let Harper dictate the timing of the election."

That's all well and good, but what would that election be about?

In order to go for a spring election, the Liberals will have to support the government on three confidence measures:

• the budget
• the war in Afghanistan
• the omnibus crime bill

Let's go through these in reverse order.

On the crime bill, this is easy.  The bill has already moved through the House of Commons and is with the Senate.  Though there was a confidence motion on demanding that the Senate get on with it, by walking out on the motion and so allowing it to pass, the Liberals have already signaled that either issue is not going to be an election issue.  Those two issues being crime and Senate reform.

This makes sense, since the Conservatives fare better in a debate on law-and-order, and in a debate on Senate reform.

On Afghanistan, the Liberals are fractured.  They have essentially conceded their position, agreeing to allowing the troops to continue operations in Afghanistan past 2009.  Their only demand that remains is that the word "combat" not be used, but they insist that they won't be looking at what the commanders on the ground will be doing.  If "security" requires executing a combat mission against a known gathering of Taliban insurgents outside of the boundaries of the base, so be it.

That has the doves in the Liberal Party crying foul.  Pablo Rodriquez announced to the press that he would be talking to his fellow MPs about how there is still a gap between the Liberal position and the Tory position.  It was a bizarre statement to make.  Why talk to his fellow MPs through a news report?  And why publicize it?  Perhaps it is because critics like him have been sidelined at the caucus meeting.

Nevertheless, the decision seems to have been taken, with Bob Rae and Michael Ignatieff winning this fight, and Stephane Dion ceding his leadership on this issue.

So the crime bill is off and Afghanistan is off.

That leaves the budget, which will be presented at the end of February.  Key votes would follow soon after.

If Bob Rae succeeds at pulling the caucus over to his side (and the article suggests he is doing that), that means the Liberals will have to support the Tory budget.

Yet another set of abstentions from confidence votes...that'll be fun.

In fact, delaying to the spring will result in even more embarrassment for Stephane Dion and the Liberals.

And for what?  What is the obvious issue in the spring to trigger an election?  The environment?  But what is the pressing need?  The Liberals already abstained on the vote on the Throne Speech that clearly stated the government's position on Kyoto (which was that it was a dead letter). 

And remember this -- the Liberals can't bring down the government.  Only the Liberals working together with the NDP and the Bloc Quebecois can bring down the government.  The three can united behind voting against the budget.  But will the NDP and the Bloc Quebecois vote in favour of a Liberal non-confidence motion that is brought forward on the sole issue that the Liberals are doing well in the polls? 

And finally, there are the voters.  What will Canadians think if the Liberals support the crime bill, support the Afghanistan motion, and support the budget (or abstain from all three), and then out of the blue trigger an election weeks or months later?

The Liberals could lose an election just because they pissed off Canadians.

That would result in Stephane Dion being dumped as leader...oh, wait a minute.

Suddenly Bob Rae's thinking makes sense.  Suddenly it makes sense why he and Michael Ignatieff are pushing for a compromise on Afghanistan.

Rae and Ignatieff don't want an election about anything.  They want an election about nothing.  In that sort of election, it's just Stephen Harper versus Stephane Dion, and in leadership polls, Harper mops the floor with Dion.   Stephane Dion can't even beat the NDP's Jack Layton as someone who is perceived to be a leader.

An election about nothing?  A Seinfeld election. Out goes Dion, and in comes Rae or Ignatieff.

Addendum: Bob Rae is particularly eager for a delay.  If we wait until May, Bob Rae wins his March by-election, and then he can start performing for the caucus and for the cameras during Question Period.  He wants time to enjoy some exposure while at the same time allowing issues that could trigger a Liberal win (and so save Stephane Dion's job) to fade away.  When the Seinfeld state is achieved, then go into an election!  Then Rae has a fighting chance to win the leadership against Ignatieff.

Search for more opinions from Canadian bloggers on these related keywords
 Stephane Dion  Liberal Party  Jack Layton  NDP  Bloc Quebecois  Stephen Harper  Conservative Party  Afghanistan  budget  crime bill  election  Seinfeld 

Sphere presents related news articles and blog posts
Sphere It!