Tories to present confidence motion

[jdobbin]

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories

Prime Minister Stephen Harper has warned Liberal Leader Stephane Dion that the Conservative government is prepared to go to the electorate as early as next week to seek a mandate to extend the military mission in Afghanistan, CTV News has learned.

Harper met Dion for 25 minutes in his Centre Block office on Tuesday to discuss the Manley panel recommendations on Afghanistan.

The report calls for Canada to extend the military deployment past 2009 if NATO nations provide another 1,000 combat troops and more equipment.

Sources say Harper told the Liberal leader the government will give notice on Thursday to present a confidence motion on extending the military mission in Afghanistan. That motion could be debated and possibly voted on as early as next week.

The government could fall if the Liberals do not support it since the NDP and Bloc Quebecois are against Canada's extension of the NATO mission.

I wonder if Harper has gotten the 1000 troops and helicopters. I haven't heard any announcement on that yet. I think Poland has committed two but I haven't heard NATO offering 1000 troops.

I wonder if Harper wants to trigger and election on this.

[Borg]

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories

I wonder if Harper has gotten the 1000 troops and helicopters. I haven't heard any announcement on that yet. I think Poland has committed two but I haven't heard NATO offering 1000 troops.

I wonder if Harper wants to trigger and election on this.

Hard to say, but I figure Harper is prepared to stand on his word - interesting times ahead.

I wonder if canuckleheads are truly prepared for a dion disaster if the libs are elected?

Have your cheque books ready as it will be expensive to live under them.

Borg

[jdobbin]

Hard to say, but I figure Harper is prepared to stand on his word - interesting times ahead.

I wonder if canuckleheads are truly prepared for a dion disaster if the libs are elected?

Have your cheque books ready as it will be expensive to live under them.

At the moment, it sounds like Harper wants to extend without receiving guarantees from NATO. It could be that he has received those guarantees but as I said, I haven't seen evidence of that yet.

As for your contention that it will be expensive under Dion, I haven't seen where his promises exceed present Tory spending which is running at levels higher than they promised and higher than previous Liberal governments.

[August1991]

I think you'll find the logic of Harper's move here:

The Liberal party is deeply divided over the issue, with many members siding with former Liberal deputy prime minister John Manley and others supporting Dion, who wants all combat operations to end after 2009.

[jdobbin]

I think you'll find the logic of Harper's move here:

If Harper is hoping to find a split of the issue, I think what he will find is that people in the Liberal party who do back staying will be put off by the bullying. The conditions of the Manley committee have not yet been met and Harper is trying to get his extension anyway.

[Keepitsimple]

This is one of those times that a Prime Minister has to try and do what's right for Canada, what's right for our NATO partners, and what's right for the world at this juncture. At the crux of it is whether we should do everything reasonable within our power - within the confines of our UN/NATO mandate - to help Afghanistan stand on their own two feet. Saying "we've done our share" is a recipe for failure and simply drags Canada down to the lowest common denominator. We need to continue to do "our share" and encourage other NATO partners to step up and do the same. Collectively doing more will send a powerful message to the insurgents - that we will not be going away - that we will stand with Afghanistan. Doing otherwise will send the opposite message.

So if we have to "threaten" the Liberals with an election - so be it. In this poster's opinion, we must follow the Manley recommendations.

[Wild Bill]

If Harper is hoping to find a split of the issue, I think what he will find is that people in the Liberal party who do back staying will be put off by the bullying. The conditions of the Manley committee have not yet been met and Harper is trying to get his extension anyway.

Well, your vote and mine will cancel out. I guess we'll just have to see who's view represents the majority.

[myata]

Even though I haven't voted Liberals in the past election, and less than fond of Dion's performance I'll take him any time against Harper and his bunch of hackmen. Gosh, I'll even go door to door, for the first time in my memory.

[capricorn]

Dion's position on the war is to attract voters from the NDP. He needs those voters desperately if has any hope of winning the next election.

[jdobbin]

This is one of those times that a Prime Minister has to try and do what's right for Canada, what's right for our NATO partners, and what's right for the world at this juncture. At the crux of it is whether we should do everything reasonable within our power - within the confines of our UN/NATO mandate - to help Afghanistan stand on their own two feet. Saying "we've done our share" is a recipe for failure and simply drags Canada down to the lowest common denominator. We need to continue to do "our share" and encourage other NATO partners to step up and do the same. Collectively doing more will send a powerful message to the insurgents - that we will not be going away - that we will stand with Afghanistan. Doing otherwise will send the opposite message.

So if we have to "threaten" the Liberals with an election - so be it. In this poster's opinion, we must follow the Manley recommendations.

If Harper gets a NATO committment then the Liberals might support the bill. If he tries to force it without the committment, we will go to an election.

[jdobbin]

Well, your vote and mine will cancel out. I guess we'll just have to see who's view represents the majority.

Since the last poll said that Liberals and Tories are tied 33%, I think it isn't likely the winning issue the Tories will want to win a majority.

[jdobbin]

Dion's position on the war is to attract voters from the NDP. He needs those voters desperately if has any hope of winning the next election.

And Harper needs to attract moderates if he hopes to win a majority. If he goes to an election without securing NATO's committment, he will be on the side of an issue that has little support in Canada.

[Borg]

At the moment, it sounds like Harper wants to extend without receiving guarantees from NATO. It could be that he has received those guarantees but as I said, I haven't seen evidence of that yet.

As for your contention that it will be expensive under Dion, I haven't seen where his promises exceed present Tory spending which is running at levels higher than they promised and higher than previous Liberal governments.

Anyone thinking environment here?

I wonder how big the financial bite will be.

Borg

[Keepitsimple]

And Harper needs to attract moderates if he hopes to win a majority. If he goes to an election without securing NATO's committment, he will be on the side of an issue that has little support in Canada.

He has already committed to the Manley report and has advised NATO that unless those committments are made, Canada will be withdrawing from combat.

[margrace]

So why is he making this move, why not wait and see if the commitments come. Someone said it today, Harper is more slippery than a snake,

[Topaz]

Doesn't the budget come before the Afghanistan issue? If the oppositions bring down the government on the budget then there won't be a confidence vote on the war. I think Harper will be lucky to keep the 32% or 37 % he had before. He has ticked alot of babyboomers and older adults off.

[Ergonomic]

My first reaction is to express great disappointment at Ignatieff who apparently is still worried that Al Quaida is going to blow up Boston. The Liberals will never be able to provide an alternative to Harper's Tories as long as Ignatieff is in the mix. How did this guy get in there anyways?

Secondly. I too am wondering why this is happening on the eve of an American election. We have seen in the past how Harper has fawned over the Bush agenda in the Middle East, even going so fay as to pay for Op-Ed column space in the New York Times.

There are more down home issues to be dealt with when parliament convenes, Mr. Harper. You've got some 'splainin' to do...

Edited February 6, 2008 by Ergonomic

[jdobbin]

Anyone thinking environment here?

I wonder how big the financial bite will be.

The Stern Report said the financial bite of not doing anything is greater.

[jdobbin]

He has already committed to the Manley report and has advised NATO that unless those committments are made, Canada will be withdrawing from combat.

If Harper can get those commitments from NATO, the Liberals are likely to support the mission with some amendments. It will be up to the Tories if they reject them and take the country into an election.

[Keepitsimple]

If Harper can get those commitments from NATO, the Liberals are likely to support the mission with some amendments. It will be up to the Tories if they reject them and take the country into an election.

Liberal support - even with some minor ammendments would be in the best interest of Canada - unless those ammendments went against the sound judgement of the Manley panel. Manley says you can't put a fixed end date to our work - instead, you have to measure progress and continually evaluate the futility/utility continuum. I think a comprimise might be to formally evaluate the effectiveness of this continuum in 2011 - w3hich coincides with the end of the first NATO agreement - the Afghanistan Compact. The second sticking point is the absolute non-combat as of Feb/2009 that the Liberals demand. Manley and the Military say it's not a viable option - and of course, they are right. But the Manley report also involves moving the "mission" more towards continuous training and more Afghan self-sufficiency and quite frankly, that's always been the plan......so I'm not sure how to "comprimise" on that one because it's all tied to how quickly the Afghans can be trained. There is already a lessening of our Danger if we get the extra 1000 troops.

[jdobbin]

Liberal support - even with some minor ammendments would be in the best interest of Canada - unless those ammendments went against the sound judgement of the Manley panel. Manley says you can't put a fixed end date to our work - instead, you have to measure progress and continually evaluate the futility/utility continuum. I think a comprimise might be to formally evaluate the effectiveness of this continuum in 2011 - w3hich coincides with the end of the first NATO agreement - the Afghanistan Compact. The second sticking point is the absolute non-combat as of Feb/2009 that the Liberals demand. Manley and the Military say it's not a viable option - and of course, they are right. But the Manley report also involves moving the "mission" more towards continuous training and more Afghan self-sufficiency and quite frankly, that's always been the plan......so I'm not sure how to "comprimise" on that one because it's all tied to how quickly the Afghans can be trained. There is already a lessening of our Danger if we get the extra 1000 troops.

I think the Liberals are taking a harder line on the deadline and combat issue because the Tories have been inclined to give a blank check to participation without benchmarks or promise of definite support from our allies. This is where the compromise will be. If they can meet somewhere in the middle then it is possible for a compromise.

[DrGreenthumb]

I think the Liberals are taking a harder line on the deadline and combat issue because the Tories have been inclined to give a blank check to participation without benchmarks or promise of definite support from our allies. This is where the compromise will be. If they can meet somewhere in the middle then it is possible for a compromise.

I want a spring election but anytime will do, the sooner the better, really. Harper is bad for Canada and for our freedom. Tell Dion to show his teeth and throw Harper out on his fat ass, and he might even get my vote. Tell Dion that during the election if he promises that a Liberal government will REFUSE extradition of Marc Emery, (and his co-acused) and announces his intentions to follow the recomendations of the 2002 senate report on the non-medicinal use of drugs he will probably win a large majority. That is what Dion will need to do if he wants all the progressives who joined the NDP after Jack Layton's pot TV interview to come back to the Liberal party. The majority of Canadians do not support the continued criminalization of people who use cannabis. Cretien was smart enough to know this, let's see if DION is.

[Vancouver King]

Harper's sudden brinkmanship over confidence motions - Afghanistan or law & order - can best be understood as a Tory desire to go the polls sooner than later. The gravity of the unfolding economic debacle stateside and it's eventual political implications for a Canadian govt fighting an election in the middle of a nasty recession has not been lost on Harper.

[Keepitsimple]

Harper's sudden brinkmanship over confidence motions - Afghanistan or law & order - can best be understood as a Tory desire to go the polls sooner than later. The gravity of the unfolding economic debacle stateside and it's eventual political implications for a Canadian govt fighting an election in the middle of a nasty recession has not been lost on Harper.

I think you're reading far too much thinking into his confidence motions. In this Parliament, it's the only way that he can accomplish anything. The Bloc and the NDP are to the far Left on issues like Afghanistan, Crime, and the Economy. The Liberals are just taking any opportunity to kick up a stink as they bide their time to try to get back into power. The only way Harper can gain traction is by staying in power and accomplishing things and let the people judge him. The longer he strays in power, the more comfortable the people will be in re-electing him - or so the story goes. to cap it all off, Harper knows that an election at this time is a crapshoot that will probably just result in another minority. The most interesting feedback from the public - from several polls over the past year - is that a strong majority feel the country is headed in the right direction.

[Topaz]

I think you're reading far too much thinking into his confidence motions. In this Parliament, it's the only way that he can accomplish anything. The Bloc and the NDP are to the far Left on issues like Afghanistan, Crime, and the Economy. The Liberals are just taking any opportunity to kick up a stink as they bide their time to try to get back into power. The only way Harper can gain traction is by staying in power and accomplishing things and let the people judge him. The longer he strays in power, the more comfortable the people will be in re-electing him - or so the story goes. to cap it all off, Harper knows that an election at this time is a crapshoot that will probably just result in another minority. The most interesting feedback from the public - from several polls over the past year - is that a strong majority feel the country is headed in the right direction.

I'm not so sure about Harper's minority gov't again. It seems a lot of people who voted for him did so because he said he wouldn't touch the interest trust accounts. How many will vote this time for him? You think the manufacturing and lumber groups will vote for him after he tried to blackmail the oppositions into voting for the budget? Maybe Harper has found out that it not "fun" being the PM just too much pressure especially if you think about how 78 that have died in Afghanistan. The negatives out weigh the positives for Harper as PM.