Liberal Leadership 2009

White Doors · October 30, 2008

What no habla? Let me explain it to you in your native NB tongue
...

How clever

fellowtraveller · October 30, 2008

If Harper and the NDP and BQ want to play brinkmanship again, I expect we are back to an election in December. The throne speech will be supported but if Harper wants to make every vote a confidence vote, we are back to the polls again.

I see that as a fundamental misread of the situation.

Nobody but nobody wants to be seen as the party that forces another election, and the Liberals simply cannot afford it in any sense of the word.

Harper sees himself as having a renewed mandate, the authority to govern. The NDP and BQ can do whatever they like, it doesn't matter since the Liberals have absolutely zero reason to change anything now, they have far more pressing internal issues.

You will be heartbroken if you expect Harper to turn into Paul Martin.

jdobbin · October 30, 2008

I see that as a fundamental misread of the situation.

Given that Harper played the brinkmanship issue last time and said every vote is a confidence measure, I don't think I have misread anything. If he wants to do that again and then shout cowardice across the floor of the Commons, I expect the election is only a few months away.

I don't think the Liberals can afford to be seen propping up the government if they declare confidence on every motion. Most minority government don't do this or they become dysfunctional very quickly. However, I believe that is the intent of Harper. He will probably bring his 200 page books on how to disrupt Parliament into play on the first day back.

Nobody but nobody wants to be seen as the party that forces another election, and the Liberals simply cannot afford it in any sense of the word.

They cannot afford not to vote against measures they don't believe in or where they see the government shows no sign of compromise.

Harper sees himself as having a renewed mandate, the authority to govern. The NDP and BQ can do whatever they like, it doesn't matter since the Liberals have absolutely zero reason to change anything now, they have far more pressing internal issues.

Which is why I see Harper looking to kill the Liberals by calling an election himself if he has to do before the leadership issue has been settled.

You will be heartbroken if you expect Harper to turn into Paul Martin.

If he doesn't win a majority, he will resemble Paul Martin in many ways.

normanchateau · October 30, 2008

Now I'm rooting for Ignatieff.

Ignatieff, who like Harper thought it was a good idea to invade Iraq, certainly won't help the Liberals recapture votes they've lost to the Greens and NDP.

And why would CPC voters switch from Harper to Ignatieff?

The conservative vote, in five consecutive elections, has never been above 38%. With social conservative Harper as leader, it's not likely to get much higher. The task for the Liberals is to recapture votes from the left rather than vainly hoping to whittle away CPC support.

normanchateau · October 30, 2008

Which is why I see Harper looking to kill the Liberals by calling an election himself if he has to do before the leadership issue has been settled.

I tend to agree. Past behaviour is usually the best predictor of future behaviour and Harper's past opportunistic behaviour predicts that he will indeed pull the plug on himself if he senses that it's in his best interests.

Whoever replaces Dion will perform better than Dion so it's in Harper's best interests to once again ignore what Canadians want and call an election sooner rather than later. He was reinforced for pulling the plug on himself last time and this can only encourage him to repeat this behaviour.

Mr.Canada · October 30, 2008

jdobbin never gives up with his line of our PM Stephan Harper calling an election.

Mr. Harper can rule as if he has a majority. The Liberals are going to vote with them or abstain which gives Mr. Harper and the CPC a defacto majority. The Liberals are nearly bankrupt and still have a leadership review under way. Mr. Dion still has an outstanding debt from 2006. The Liberals cannot even afford the leadership race never mind an election.

There is no need for the PM to call an election. He can do as he likes right now and he knows it.

Edited October 30, 2008 by Mr.Canada

jdobbin · October 30, 2008

jdobbin never gives up with his line of our PM Stephan Harper calling an election.

And you at one time agreed the Liberals were probably never going to be more vulnerable to a throat crushing vote call. Or was I mistaken?

Mr. Harper can rule as if he has a majority. The Liberals are going to vote with them or abstain which gives Mr. Harper and the CPC a defacto majority. The Liberals are nearly bankrupt and still have a leadership review under way. Mr. Dion still has an outstanding debt from 2006. The Liberals cannot even afford the leadership race never mind an election.

No doubt. The Liberals cannot afford to have every vote treated like a confidence motion either and have Harper shout cowards across the floor. Harper should probably be prepared for compromise and not treat every vote as one that will bring down the government.

There is no need for the PM to call an election. He can do as he likes right now and he knows it.

Can he? You think he can say every vote is a confidence vote and introduce any bill he feels like and that the Liberals have no choice but to go with it? You are that confident in this type of brinkmanship?

normanchateau · October 30, 2008

jdobbin never gives up with his line of our PM Stephan Harper calling an election.

I wonder if it might be because jdobbin correctly predicted that Harper would pull the plug on himself prior to the last election?

Even Harper supporters can't deny that Harper is an unprincipled opportunist.

fellowtraveller · October 30, 2008

Can he? You think he can say every vote is a confidence vote and introduce any bill he feels like and that the Liberals have no choice but to go with it? You are that confident in this type of brinkmanship?

Confident that Harper can do it, or will do it.

Yes to both.

Dion/Liberals force fed themselves a steady diet of s**t sandwiches for two+ years and seemed to enjoy it. What has changed, other than a new and larger mandate for the CPC?

jdobbin · October 30, 2008

Confident that Harper can do it, or will do it.
Yes to both.

I think the brinkmanship won't work as a strategy this time. Make every vote a confidence vote and we go to an election.

Dion/Liberals force fed themselves a steady diet of s**t sandwiches for two+ years and seemed to enjoy it. What has changed, other than a new and larger mandate for the CPC?

Think a lot of that was the Liberals wanting to get their leadership candidates elected to the House in byelection and hoping for a unique opportunity to vote non-confidence.

Since Harper will call the election anyway, the Liberals will vote down a bill if they feel they can't support it. There are no leadership candidates waiting for a byelection and the timing of an election is out of Liberal hands if they hope a fixed election date will be abided by.

May as well vote no on a bill if there is a sense that no compromise is possible.

Mr.Canada · October 30, 2008

And you at one time agreed the Liberals were probably never going to be more vulnerable to a throat crushing vote call. Or was I mistaken?

Yes I did and I do, they are but Mr.Harper doesn't need to call it. He can do what he wants now. I just like it when you always try to sneak that in there and everyone will just nod their head, lol.

No doubt. The Liberals cannot afford to have every vote treated like a confidence motion either and have Harper shout cowards across the floor. Harper should probably be prepared for compromise and not treat every vote as one that will bring down the government.
Can he? You think he can say every vote is a confidence vote and introduce any bill he feels like and that the Liberals have no choice but to go with it? You are that confident in this type of brinkmanship?

I don't like it but the Liberals would be doing the same thing. That's politics. I'm sure the Liberals will be painting Mr. Harper as a school yard bully but what can you do. Brinkmanship is a bit strong as I don't think it will be quite that dramatic, we'll see I suppose.

jdobbin · October 31, 2008

Yes I did and I do, they are but Mr.Harper doesn't need to call it. He can do what he wants now. I just like it when you always try to sneak that in there and everyone will just nod their head, lol.

I guess we'll see if Harper decides to play hardball in the first weeks. If he decides to make every vote a confidence one, I see an election in a few weeks.

I don't like it but the Liberals would be doing the same thing. That's politics. I'm sure the Liberals will be painting Mr. Harper as a school yard bully but what can you do. Brinkmanship is a bit strong as I don't think it will be quite that dramatic, we'll see I suppose.

I can't recall when the Liberals made every vote a confidence one. It just really hasn't happened that a government has decided to make non-money bills something they call a confidence motion.

Mr.Canada · October 31, 2008

I guess we'll see if Harper decides to play hardball in the first weeks. If he decides to make every vote a confidence one, I see an election in a few weeks.
I can't recall when the Liberals made every vote a confidence one. It just really hasn't happened that a government has decided to make non-money bills something they call a confidence motion.

The Liberals have many problems they must deal with. They cannot afford an election and have a lame duck sitting as leader. Our PM will do what he wants for a while, that will be the time to pass those less popular bills. The Liberals will vote with the Tories than when the more popular bills come and they vote against they'll be nailed for it.

jdobbin · October 31, 2008

The Liberals have many problems they must deal with. They cannot afford an election and have a lame duck sitting as leader. Our PM will do what he wants for a while, that will be the time to pass those less popular bills. The Liberals will vote with the Tories than when the more popular bills come and they vote against they'll be nailed for it.

The Liberals cannot afford to not vote down non-money bills such as immigration and crime bills they disagree with. It will be up to Harper to call an election on one of those if he dares.

Mr.Canada · October 31, 2008

The Liberals cannot afford to not vote down non-money bills such as immigration and crime bills they disagree with. It will be up to Harper to call an election on one of those if he dares.

The Liberals can't afford to disagree with anything Mr. Harper presents. If he votes against a crime bill then next election The Liberals will be painted as being soft on crime etc.

Lol, jdobbin, you always throw that in there at the end...He would make a big bill he knows Mr. Dion hates but is popular with Canadians a confidence vote. That's what he should do anyway. Then you have your game of chicken you're waiting for hehe.

drewski · October 31, 2008

reports in the Globe this morning are saying Rae might not run this time around which would be a big boost for Iggy

Wild Bill · October 31, 2008

I guess we'll see if Harper decides to play hardball in the first weeks. If he decides to make every vote a confidence one, I see an election in a few weeks.
I can't recall when the Liberals made every vote a confidence one. It just really hasn't happened that a government has decided to make non-money bills something they call a confidence motion.

"Every one a confidence vote?" Wasn't that one of Reform's biggest planks? My observation is that every Bill being one of confidence has been the norm throughout our history. That's one of the things Manning wanted to change!

Perhaps that's the "secret agenda"! Harper can earn some brownie points by being a nice guy and adding that little preamble to the opening Throne Speech that says that only Bills of money or those declared of "national substance" would be considered to be confidence motions.

This would let the Liberals and others vote against most Bills without any fear of triggering an election. If Harper feels strongly enough about a particular Bill he could always re-introduce it as a "Bill of Substance", to either force it through or force an election.

The Opposition could hardly be against this new policy! They would look like idiots for being against it.

The important thing would be the establishment of a new precedent as to free votes in the Commons! Manning's dream of MP's being able to vote their constituents' wishes instead of the party line would be in place. If the opposition parties continued to vote according to party solidarity eventually the difference in style would become visible to the public and would get much comment in the media. I don't think they would have any choice but to start allowing free votes among their own caucuses too.

You might say I'm a dreamer, but I'm NOT the only one! :rolleyes:

Jerry J. Fortin · October 31, 2008

There are lots of dreamers, but they need focus and conviction. That is what this country needs, a visionary leader.

jdobbin · October 31, 2008

The Liberals can't afford to disagree with anything Mr. Harper presents. If he votes against a crime bill then next election The Liberals will be painted as being soft on crime etc.

If no one can add amendments to a bill and the Tories do the "no compromise" thing again, we'll see at least one bill voted down. If not crime, we might see it on immigration.

It will be about Harper bullying. It will be about Conservative intentions to introduce some legislation that they won't change a word of. Not everything in a bill is pearls in a minority government, we have seen far better examples of cooperation in other provinces. Calling confidence on a non-money bill is a dangerous affair.

My feeling is that my Canadians will think it is brinkmanship in an unstable economic environment.

Lol, jdobbin, you always throw that in there at the end...He would make a big bill he knows Mr. Dion hates but is popular with Canadians a confidence vote. That's what he should do anyway. Then you have your game of chicken you're waiting for hehe.

You assume something will be popular. Not everyone of these bills will be popular and once the Tories decide to make everything a confidence matter, they set themselves up for defeat.

In the last Parliament the Tories tried to trigger an election but the Liberals did not bring down the government for their own reasons. They cannot go through 20 to 30 confidence motions on everything between now and the leadership race on issues not related to money.

My guess is that those running for leadership would not be able to say they were in support of some aspect of immigration changes but then abstain in a vote that covers that area.

We'll have to see if Harper wants to play "my way or the highway." If it looks like he is deliberately trying to trigger an election, there could be a backlash.

jdobbin · October 31, 2008

"Every one a confidence vote?" Wasn't that one of Reform's biggest planks? My observation is that every Bill being one of confidence has been the norm throughout our history. That's one of the things Manning wanted to change!

That has not been the tradition in a minority government.

Do you have a cite that it was a Reform plank? I had never heard that before?

When Manning was Reform leader, he proposed amendments to bills that the Liberals introduced. There was never a stand by Manning of simply voting a non-money bill down and expecting an election. You would have to show me evidence of that.

It is simply not a Canadian Parliamentary tradition.

A minority Parliament generally require a certain level of cooperation to function. A hardline by the government on a vote like lowering the flag for a soldier dying in the service of Canada would simply be a death wish. That is a confidence measure the government wants to go to the polls on?

And yet, that is the type of bills and motions that cross the desk of Parliament. Many don't rise to the level of confidence and some the government can be defeated on and not have to run to the electorate to settle the matter.

Perhaps that's the "secret agenda"! Harper can earn some brownie points by being a nice guy and adding that little preamble to the opening Throne Speech that says that only Bills of money or those declared of "national substance" would be considered to be confidence motions.
This would let the Liberals and others vote against most Bills without any fear of triggering an election. If Harper feels strongly enough about a particular Bill he could always re-introduce it as a "Bill of Substance", to either force it through or force an election.

The Opposition could hardly be against this new policy! They would look like idiots for being against it.

If Harper decides to do that, it will be how Parliament has functioned in minority situations in the past.

The important thing would be the establishment of a new precedent as to free votes in the Commons! Manning's dream of MP's being able to vote their constituents' wishes instead of the party line would be in place. If the opposition parties continued to vote according to party solidarity eventually the difference in style would become visible to the public and would get much comment in the media. I don't think they would have any choice but to start allowing free votes among their own caucuses too.
You might say I'm a dreamer, but I'm NOT the only one!

You are not going to see free votes unless Harper decides to loosen his grip on the party. I have seen no evidence of that.

Edited October 31, 2008 by jdobbin

Mr.Canada · October 31, 2008

You are not going to see free votes unless Harper decides to loosen his grip on the party. I have seen no evidence of that.

There has been plenty of evidence for that already. He named his cabinet and then the ministers were permitted to speak to reporters afterward, that hadn't happened before.

Our PM is getting more comfortable in his role as PM which is obvious by the way he's slacking his central grip on power.

Mr.Canada · October 31, 2008

You are not going to see free votes unless Harper decides to loosen his grip on the party. I have seen no evidence of that.

There has been plenty of evidence for that already. He named his cabinet and then the ministers were permitted to speak to reporters afterward, that hadn't happened before.

Our PM is getting more comfortable in his role as PM which is obvious by the way he's slacking his central grip on power. So as we can see our PM is letting his ministers speak up a lot more even before the first sitting of the new Commons. It's really a bright day in our country with more transparency than ever experienced in Canada's history.

jdobbin · October 31, 2008

There has been plenty of evidence for that already. He named his cabinet and then the ministers were permitted to speak to reporters afterward, that hadn't happened before.

That doesn't equal free votes.

Our PM is getting more comfortable in his role as PM which is obvious by the way he's slacking his central grip on power. So as we can see our PM is letting his ministers speak up a lot more even before the first sitting of the new Commons. It's really a bright day in our country with more transparency than ever experienced in Canada's history.

And this translates into party members voting against their party on an issue important to their constituents?

Mr.Canada · October 31, 2008

That doesn't equal free votes.
And this translates into party members voting against their party on an issue important to their constituents?

Every vote cannot be a free vote. If it were Mr.Harper's bills would all pass through as every party agrees with the common sense that the Tories exude.

It doesn't make much sense to basically state that if everyone was free to vote how they wanted they would vote for the socialist leaning ideals. Nor to suggest that the constituents are all left leaning and are fooled into voting in a Tory. That simply isn't the case.

Smallc · October 31, 2008

Every vote cannot be a free vote. If it were Mr.Harper's bills would all pass through as every party agrees with the common sense that the Tories exude.

Do you really believe that the view you share with the Conservaties is always the right view and the only possible view? For your sake, I really hope not.