Ever since Stephen Harper assumed power in February, 2006, speculation has been rampant about when, and why, the next federal election would be called.
Indeed, there have been few parliaments in Canada's history where the decision to go to the polls has been more intricate and complex.
Being a minority government, this choice is, of course, not Mr. Harper's alone.
His early decision to bring in fixed election legislation (setting the next election for October, 2009) has boxed the Conservatives in politically. They cannot directly dissolve parliament without looking like they are contradicting their own bill - and so they are left with the sole strategy of trying to goad the opposition into defeating them.
But, the peculiar math of this Parliament - where all three opposition parties must vote together in order to defeat the Tories - makes it strangely difficult to arrange scenarios of defeat.
The NDP, Liberals and the Bloc not only have to take the same position, on the same confidence matter, at the same time.
They also all have to have the same desire, readiness and issue that they think will produce more seats in the House of Commons.
Is Afghanistan that issue?
It is truly difficult to tell.
But I, for one, don't think so.
First, and most importantly, the Liberals are too fractured and confused on this issue. They simply do not know what their position is, or should be.
And they are trying to appeal to all sides instead of taking a principled stand one way or the other.
Consider the recent pronouncements of prominent Liberals.
John Manley supports further combat with conditions - like Stephen Harper.
Stephane Dion insists that combat must end in 2009 with our role then changed to "military training". Apparently, this means that our troops will stop shooting at insurgents, but train others to do so.
Michael Ignatieff - an early supporter of the US invasion of Iraq - leaves further combat roles open to negotiation, the details of which are unspecified.
With this degree of confusion, it is unlikely the Liberals would favour an election on this issue.
This is to be contrasted with the clear positions held by the other three major parties. The NDP and Bloc have consistently called for military withdrawal as soon as possible, and the Conservatives' hawkish policy is well known.
While Mr. Harper evidently would like to go to the polls on an issue where his party alone occupies the clear pro-military side, and take advantage of the Liberal Party's muddled thinking, it is difficult to see how the Liberals can allow him to proceed.
Second, the Liberals are not ready for an election - on this or any other issue.
Whatever they may say publicly, they are a party with serious problems.
They are financially weak, having great difficulty weaning themselves from their historic reliance on corporate donations, which are now banned by federal law.
After 13 years in power, they have a poor record of accomplishment, having failed to bring in any real legislation of importance in that time.
Despite having 11 years of majority government from 1993 to 2004 - when they could have passed any legislation they wished - they failed to do much beyond leave a record of scandal and corruption.
Voters know that the Liberals failed to pull out of NAFTA, as they promised. They failed to eliminate the GST, as they promised.
They failed to bring in a national daycare program, as they repeatedly promised.
They failed to fix a broken immigration system that is too slow, unfair and fails to recognize foreign credentials.
They eliminated the CMHC housing program, an important source of affordable housing.
And the Liberals presided over 13 years of government that saw Canada's economy produce great wealth - yet which saw 80% of Canadians get poorer in real terms.
Their leader, Stephane Dion, has stumbled repeatedly and his ability to govern is in serious question.
A good example of this is his recent diplomatic gaffe in suggesting that NATO might consider getting militarily engaged in Pakistan. This was an irresponsible and inflammatory statement that was immediately decried.
Despite emerging from the 2006 leadership race with high hopes, he has failed to earn Canadians' confidence and may well represent the weakest Liberal leader since John Turner.
Mr. Dion's failure to convince Canadians that he has the ability to lead stands in marked contrast with NDP leader Jack Layton.
Polls have routinely shown that Mr. Layton is regarded as the most effective opposition leader to Stephen Harper. His positions have been consistent, principled and reflective of the broad majority of Canadians - especially on the question of Canada's role on the international stage.
The NDP's policies - to protect strong Medicare, create affordable housing, close the prosperity gap so Canadians can more equitably share in Canada's wealth, build a national pharmacare program and take care of our children and seniors - are also very popular with the majority of Canadians.
So, while Mr. Harper, Layton and Duceppe may well want an election this spring - it is hard to see the Liberals agree.
I think we are in for several more months of Liberal hand-sitting, convenient abstentions on key votes and the continuation of the Liberals propping up Stephen Harper for their own interests.
