Throne Speech October 2007

Higgly · October 17, 2007

I haven't seen those polls but a straw poll in the Globe and Mail......

This must be why Harper is so confident and Dion so reticent. He who calls an election will be lost.

Higgly · October 17, 2007

Im amazed they would think a longterm non resident would make a better leader than Dion.

And one who can't make up his mind on key issues of substance. Shows you how desperate they are. They should have gone with Rae. I disagree with those who say Ontario wouldn;t go for him. We've been throught he Harris years. Things have changed here. Quebec would have loved him. They're all socialists there.

M.Dancer · October 17, 2007

And one who can't make up his mind on key issues of substance. Shows you how desperate they are. They should have gone with Rae. I disagree with those who say Ontario wouldn;t go for him. We've been throught he Harris years. Things have changed here. Quebec would have loved him. They're all socialists there.

Yeah, I think Rae would have been a better choice too....which shows how little depth they had to work with.

Worse would have been Kennedy....or my MP, Bennet

Higgly · October 17, 2007

Yeah, I think Rae would have been a better choice too....which shows how little depth they had to work with.

I agree. I think Rae would have been a better choice than Ignatieff, though. I still don't understand what they see in that guy. No political experience. No managerial experience. Hasn't lived in the country for years. Can't make up his mind on key issues - the guy made his living on human rights issues and flip-flopped on torture for crying out loud.

What am I missing?

Edited October 17, 2007 by Higgly

maldon_road · October 17, 2007

There will be no election - right now, anyway.

Dion has told the HofC that that Canadians don't want another election right now. "They want Parliament to do its job..."

Source: CPAC. Live coverage of Dion's speech.

Edited October 17, 2007 by maldon_road

Higgly · October 17, 2007

Edited out of disgust

Edited October 17, 2007 by Higgly

Higgly · October 17, 2007

Dion just introduced a motion that would make the Conservatives accept responsibility for not meeting Kyoto targets and hen said if the amendment was adopted, the Liberals would abstain from the vote on the throne speech. Big deal.

maldon_road · October 17, 2007

Dion just introduced a motion that would make the Conservatives accept responsibility for not meeting Kyoto targets and hen said if the amendment was adopted, the Liberals would abstain from the vote on the throne speech. Big deal.

And if the amendment is not adopted...?

Higgly · October 17, 2007

The Liberals will abstain. Did I miss something? An abstention is bupkis. The throne speech will carry on Conservative votes alone. The Liberals are so mired in their own little world that they can't see this is the final nail in their coffin. If at least they would show some balls, there would be something to get behind.

Edited October 17, 2007 by Higgly

mikedavid00 · October 17, 2007

We? Does that mean you're going to vote this time?

Federally it could be close because Muslims will be on both poll choices this time. Also dumb dumb's will say that becasue the economy is good, it must be because of harper.

But i don't know what goes on behand closed doors: if immigrants think that Harper will threaten their ailing parents being sponsored in, then they will always vote Liberal. That is their #1 concern. Not jobs, not social programs. That is secondary to them.

jdobbin · October 17, 2007

I don't know where you get your scuttle, but Dion certainly isn't going to be made to resign. Anyone who asks that he do so would be killing their own political future.
His caucus is going to say that they fear an election, he's going to say that fear is a mark of either ignorance or unpreparedness. Thus, let us prepare.

It was a long caucus meeting this morning. You're right that some Liberal MPs were not going to risk their political careers to force him to resign. I think people like Ignatieff probably said that if the caucus wanted any Liberal MPs elected, they had better get their act together.

In the end, the best scenario for Dion was to let the throne speech pass and go after the Tories issue by issue.

jdobbin · October 17, 2007

No, I meant that if, to avoid an election, they vote to support the government when the Speech is clearly contrary to Liberal "principles", then the Liberals have no principles - except at all times winning power.

I guess they thought it was better to have no principles rather than no seats. I believe that if an election started this week, the Liberals might have been handed a drubbing where they might have no one left to lead the party.

maldon_road · October 17, 2007

The Liberals will abstain. Did I miss something? An abstention is bupkis. The throne speech will carry on Conservative votes alone. The Liberals are so mired in their own little world that they can't see this is the final nail in their coffin. If at least they would show some balls, there would be something to get behind.

When the going gets tough...the Libs fold.

Sitting there like bumps on a log during the vote with howls of derision from the Bloc and NDP with the reminder that the throne speech asks for troops to remain in Afghanistan until 2011 and also trashes Kyoto.

Are they going to abstain every time a vote by them could bring down the government?

Edited October 17, 2007 by maldon_road

Wilber · October 17, 2007

Or, if he keeps showing over and again that his interest is not in addressing real issues and having work done (in accordance with his mandate, which is, to remind, a very slim minority, which may not be obvious from Harpers lofty attitudes), but rather, in advancing his much aspired majority agenda, it may just happen that voters will lose interest in him (and his party). Let's wait and see what's coming - real will to have work done in compromise with provinces and opposition, or more politicking to undermine others for his agenda. Eventually, if that's is all he could show for several years in government, even Dion may appear a more positive alternative.

If you are saying it is Harper's to lose, then I agree.

August1991 · October 17, 2007

Partie remise.

They should stay put and force his hand (if that's what he wants anyways) by making the crime bill (which he refused to compromise on) a matter of confidence.

I think the omnibus crime bill - sections of which the opposition refused to pass in the last session - is up first. Harper would love to go into an election on this issue and it's certain that he'll make it a confidence vote.

Are they going to abstain every time a vote by them could bring down the government?

Exactly.

----

I will say that Dion's speechwriters came up with a good sound bite:

"It is not as bad as the one we would have had from this Conservative party if it had been a majority government," he said of the throne speech.
"But Canadians can count on the Liberal party. This Conservative party will never form a majority."

National Post

Harper has pushed Dion into an inelegant position but I'll give credit to Dion for sliding through the door as elegantly as he could, under the circumstances.

Edited October 17, 2007 by August1991

August1991 · October 17, 2007

Here we go, already

After Dion told the House of Commons he would not bring down the government over the speech, Harper said he would treat an upcoming justice bill as a confidence vote, and would accept no amendments.

CTV Edited October 17, 2007 by August1991

maldon_road · October 17, 2007

Here we go, already
After Dion told the House of Commons he would not bring down the government over the speech, Harper said he would treat an upcoming justice bill as a confidence vote, and would accept no amendments.

CTV

Dion knows he has a very short period of time to get a platform ready and get some semblance of a party put together that can fight an election. As for the crime bill he could vote for it at second reading (agreement in principle) arguing that he will want to make changes in committee. And it could get bogged down there for months.

Now, Harper could put a poison pill in the bill that might make it very hard for the Libs to vote for it. But law 'n order is a hard thing to oppose and the Cons know it.

sharkman · October 18, 2007

What's the longest minority government term ever? It seems to me the Tories are among the longest, and is directly related to the weakness of the Liberals. Whatever, give me my GST reduction and another year of Tory minority. If Canadians need to be further weaned from Liberal Dependency Sydrome and the idea of a *scary* Harper, so be it.

capricorn · October 18, 2007

In his response to the throne speech, Dion said a third election in four years is "something Canadians have clearly shown they do not want". I'm sure this statement resonated with many and will be interpreted in different ways. Personally, I felt he was offering this up as one of his main reasons for not voting down the throne speech.

Over time, I have noticed this is a phrase the Liberals often slip into their assessment of various policies or matters. When criticizing Conservative initiatives it is "Canadians don't want...." or when it is their initiatives it is "What Canadians want...". When I hear Liberals (and the NDP) utter those phrases I always wonder how do they really know? And today I wondered how does Dion know Canadians are dead set against an election

Harper did use a similar expression in his remarks today in the HOC. It's when he spoke about crime legislation for repeat offenders saying that Canadians want to feel safe...women want to feel safe walking at night in their communities...want their children to be safe in the daytime in their communities. I could personally associate with those remarks and it didn't sound opportunistic. You don't need a poll to confirm the veracity of his claims.

It's no secret I am a Conservative supporter. (I sometimes refer to myself as a recovering Liberal.) Harper may have used the "Canadians want or Canadians don't want" language when he was in opposition. That's the beauty of politics. When your guy says it, it takes on a whole different meaning doesn't it. In my case it may be selective hearing or a failing memory? :lol:

Visionseeker · October 18, 2007

Uh, you mean a strategic retreat?

A retreat involves surrendering ground or gains. I don't think Dion or the Liberals have made gains (nor have the Conservatives for that matter) and the polls have not shown a consistent surrendering of ground either. The current stalemate remains amenable to the Liberals for many reasons, just as it is undesirable to the Conservatives for the own varied reasons.

Typical Liberal-style answer. First, you refer to the Conservatives and "they do it too". Second, what do you mean by saying that "the vision debate emerges"? Is this part of a strategic retreat?

I see the equivalency argument hit a nerve. So, methinks thou doest protest too much.

The vision debate will arise when the Liberals begin to offer their alternative course for the direction of the country. This will occur sometime before they decide to pull the switch on the government and it will be interesting to see how the Conservatives will respond.

Frankly, the Liberals have no vision at all - except the vision one has sitting in the back of a limo. The Liberals want the perks of power and they have convinced some Canadians that when the Liberals are in the limo doing whatever goes through the mind of a Liberal, that's Canada.

The party that brought the country out of the Depression, masterfully administered our war efforts in WWII, gave us the St-Lawrence seaway, extended healthcare to all and gave us CPP, repatriated our Constitution and gave us the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, adopted a multiculturalism policy that is the envy of all pluralistic nations, successfully countered two referendums on Quebec separation, kept us out of Iraq and pulled us from the breeches of fiscal doom has no vision!?

Say what you want about their motivations, but the Liberals have an impressive habit of accomplishment and goal attainment. And that takes vision.

Michael Bluth · October 18, 2007

The party that brought the country out of the Depression, masterfully administered our war efforts in WWII, gave us the St-Lawrence seaway, extended healthcare to all and gave us CPP, repatriated our Constitution and gave us the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, adopted a multiculturalism policy that is the envy of all pluralistic nations, successfully countered two referendums on Quebec separation, kept us out of Iraq and pulled us from the breeches of fiscal doom has no vision!?

A multiculturalism policy that is the envy of all pluralistic nations??? Are you freakin' kidding yourself?

It's the envy of nobody. Hell, not even a majority of Canadians would agree with that. Never mind the majority of citicens in any other nation on the planet.

Visionseeker · October 18, 2007

I agree. I think Rae would have been a better choice than Ignatieff, though. I still don't understand what they see in that guy. No political experience. No managerial experience. Hasn't lived in the country for years. Can't make up his mind on key issues - the guy made his living on human rights issues and flip-flopped on torture for crying out loud.
What am I missing?

Dion was the better alternative in the end because Rae or Ignatieff represented a continuation of the Chrétien/Martin feud. With both establishment candidates missing out, the internal zero-sum game has largely disappeared. But Dion's camp lacked the organizational apparatus of either of these camps. That is changing with Dion bringing in Senator Smith (an Iggy booster) and John Rae (Bob Rae's his brother) to right the ship and bring order to the party. What we have recently witnessed with the public departure of Carroll and Proulx (and the quiet departure of others) is the removal of unseasoned amateurs that help get Dion the leadership in favour of the seasoned pros that might win him an election.

The Conservatives are pushing for an election ASAP because they know that if the Liberals are given more time to regain their footing, the outcome is unlikely to fall in their favour.

Dion has passed his testing phase without making dumb gaffs like mistaking the directional flow of Niagara Falls or appearing in hair nets or wetsuits. He has also shown willingness to stand-up for those who work for him and that, above all else, is drawing the Liberal brain-thrust to his side.

All Dion needs is a platform containing a suitably divisive wedge issue that will pull support from both left and right. And that issue was revealed today in Jeffery Simpson's column in the Globe and Mail.

August1991 · October 18, 2007

A retreat involves surrendering ground or gains. I don't think Dion or the Liberals have made gains (nor have the Conservatives for that matter) and the polls have not shown a consistent surrendering of ground either. The current stalemate remains amenable to the Liberals for many reasons, just as it is undesirable to the Conservatives for the own varied reasons.

Given the following quote of Stephane Dion, I'd say the Liberals have retreated on some grounds of so-called principle. As to your suggestion that the Liberals are developing a "vision", I thought Dion already had a "critical vision" about the environment:

"We believe that all political leaders have a moral obligation to do all that can be done on this critical challenge facing Canada and the world, and to put an end to the partisan politicking around this issue," Dion wrote in a letter to Harper. "To date, your approach falls far short of the best that Canada can do. I urge you to put consensus ahead of confrontation. Every day counts in this battle and we must take real action now."

Stephane Dion, 24 August 2007

If Dion truly believed what he wrote, the Liberal Party would not be abstaining on the vote of this Throne Speech. Trudeau would never have abstained on a matter he felt a "critical challenge".

The party that brought the country out of the Depression, masterfully administered our war efforts in WWII, gave us the St-Lawrence seaway, extended healthcare to all and gave us CPP, repatriated our Constitution and gave us the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, adopted a multiculturalism policy that is the envy of all pluralistic nations, successfully countered two referendums on Quebec separation, kept us out of Iraq and pulled us from the breeches of fiscal doom has no vision!?

The problem with that list is that the last major change was the Charter of Rights in 1982. It was a change, BTW, that critically left the Quebec government out of the equation. We wouldn't have Confederation if Macdonald had approached the problem the same way.

In any case, 1982 was 25 years ago and since then, the Liberals haven't done much of anything. Trudeau was the last time that the Liberals could claim to have any kind of "vision". To his credit, Trudeau made Ottawa bilingual (but he also destroyed alot of goodwill in English-Canada in the process). And all of that was almost 40 years ago.

Heck, John Turner fought (and lost) an election on free trade. Trudeau never compromised on Quebec's place in Canada (and almost lost an election on it). Pearson stood up to all kinds of abuse (and never won a majority) because he thought, for example, Canada should have a new flag.

For the past few decades, the Liberals have been coasting and now they are just empty of any reason for existing - except to have power and enjoy the perks of Challengers, limos and to feel important. Liberals like to win because they like to feel like winners.

You mention "masterfully administering our war efforts". Huh? King thought Hitler was a great and wise leader of the German people. Indeed, I think the modern day Liberals have sunk below even the crass opportunism of King.

I frankly don't know what the latest crew running the Liberal Party stands for. Apparently, they'll stand for anything.

Edited October 18, 2007 by August1991

Michael Bluth · October 18, 2007

Dion was the better alternative in the end because Rae or Ignatieff represented a continuation of the Chrétien/Martin feud.

Dion was supported by nothing but Martinites.

Mark Marissen - Chair of the LPC BC campaign in 2006. Chair of the Dion for leader campaign.

Bill Cunningham - Director of the regional Ministers' office in BC while Martin was PM. 'Senior' member of the Dion team.

Dion represents the victory of the tier two Martinites.

Visionseeker · October 18, 2007

Harper did use a similar expression in his remarks today in the HOC. It's when he spoke about crime legislation for repeat offenders saying that Canadians want to feel safe...women want to feel safe walking at night in their communities...want their children to be safe in the daytime in their communities. I could personally associate with those remarks and it didn't sound opportunistic. You don't need a poll to confirm the veracity of his claims.

But are they manufacturing fear?

Is there a rise in Crime and will efforts to confront it be effective?

"Doob suggested it was more about politics than crime.

"Those things that Parliament is talking about ... they're not going to have any impact on crime," he said. "They're going to have an impact, maybe, on the way in which the justice system works.

"They're not going to make us safer or less safe."