Won't back crime bills, MPs say

[Alta4ever]

I am saying that any minority government that makes every bill a confidence motion is not isn't interested in anything but repeated elections over and over again.

Are you sure that they aren't just interestrd in passing legislation in a House of commons where they have no natural allies.

[jdobbin]

Are you sure that they aren't just interestrd in passing legislation in a House of commons where they have no natural allies.

If they were they would work more with the Opposition to get bills through like past minorities have done.

[Alta4ever]

If they were they would work more with the Opposition to get bills through like past minorities have done.

I doubt it, liberals, NDP and bloc MPs are all to some degree on the left side of the spectrum, they are able to work with each other to pass legislation based on some kind of common ground.

The conservatives have no like minded allies if they want a truely conservative bill passed they do have to be willing to go to the polls over it, because there is no allie in the commons to help them pass it, so they have to put it to the other parties. If this is an issue that you feel so strong against the conservatives about, are you will to let the electorate decide this for you in an election. IF the bloc NDP and liberals are right in their stance then they should welcome the election as a way to defeat the conservatives.

[jdobbin]

I doubt it, liberals, NDP and bloc MPs are all to some degree on the left side of the spectrum, they are able to work with each other to pass legislation based on some kind of common ground.

The idea that the Liberals are the only ones who have to compromise otherwise an election will happen is insulting.

The PCs in Ontario had to find a way to compromise with the Opposition during the Davis years. Harper would do well to research that. It meant not calling a confidence motion on every bill.

The conservatives have no like minded allies if they want a truely conservative bill passed they do have to be willing to go to the polls over it, because there is no allie in the commons to help them pass it, so they have to put it to the other parties. If this is an issue that you feel so strong against the conservatives about, are you will to let the electorate decide this for you in an election. IF the bloc NDP and liberals are right in their stance then they should welcome the election as a way to defeat the conservatives.

Then let's have it. If Harper calls confidence on everything, it means no compromise and he wants an election.

[Bryan]

Then let's have it. If Harper calls confidence on everything, it means no compromise and he wants an election.

Forcing the opposition to put up or shut up doesn't mean he wants an election, it means he knows the Liberals could not survive one. They'll say they're going to be tough, but he knows they have no choice but to fold. That means it's time to make some serious legislative hay to get real Conservative policies in place before the Liberals get their act together.

[Keepitsimple]

I'd hazard a guess that the Conservatives will bring the Crime Bill forward as a non-confidence measure with everything they would like to see - knowing it will likely be defeated and knowing that they will have to make some comprimises - but knowing ahead of time what those comprimises will be. When it fails, they will make the changes and bring it forward as a confidence vote.....so they will either get it passed as legislation they can accept....or they can show the electorate that they tried to get a major piece of legislation through and were stymied by the opposition....so we'd be off to an election on Justice issues.

[jdobbin]

Forcing the opposition to put up or shut up doesn't mean he wants an election, it means he knows the Liberals could not survive one. They'll say they're going to be tough, but he knows they have no choice but to fold. That means it's time to make some serious legislative hay to get real Conservative policies in place before the Liberals get their act together.

Actually put up or shut up does mean an election. And if Harper thinks it will only be the Liberals punished in the election, he might be in for a surprise.

Harper is going to call an election in the next months anyway all on his own. Why should the Liberal undermine their position by abstaining on all measures while the Tories shout cowards across the floor. If Harper makes everything no confidence, he is saying: "let's go to an election."

In a minority, a government has to work with the Opposition or collapse almost immediately. The Liberals last time for their own purpose let Dion twist in the wind. In serves no purpose for them to let him twist now and have Harper call an election anyway.

Edited November 7, 2008 by jdobbin

[Moonbox]

Everyone here is ignoring one very simple fact.

There isn't a party out there other than the Bloc maybe that has the potential to even compete in an election over the next year or two.

Unless unbelievably stupid legislation were proposed (like anti-abortion/gay rights/religious schools) or something equally as right-wingnutted, the Liberals would have absolutely no chance to win an election after a non-confidence vote.

This minority is basically a carte-blanche majority AT LEAST for another year. Bob Rae is an EXTREMELY intelligent man (though his policy is generally terrible) and he's not stupid enough to crush his party's fortunes on an election the Liberals can't afford and can't win so soon after a renewed mandate has been given to the CPC.

They will continue to abstain or vote with the ruling government and all of this bluster on these forums will be a total waste of time.

[jdobbin]

This minority is basically a carte-blanche majority AT LEAST for another year. Bob Rae is an EXTREMELY intelligent man (though his policy is generally terrible) and he's not stupid enough to crush his party's fortunes on an election the Liberals can't afford and can't win so soon after a renewed mandate has been given to the CPC.

Harper will call an election himself before the Liberals get a new leader. He will try to provoke it by making everything a confidence motion if he can unless he has turned over a new leaf. He will try to make it as unpalatable for the Opposition if he can. He will avoid the completely hot button issues but will bully and play the brinkmanship game while shouting coward across the floor. And even if he gets his way, he will pull the plug anyways.

The Liberals should stick to the line, "we will vote down a bill we think isn't right for the country." It is up to Harper to decide if he wants an election. Nothing compels him to go to one on a non-money bill.

Harper decides except on a money bill. Blame the Liberals if he dares but don't try and say that he *has* to go an election if a non-money bill is defeated.

[scribblet]

Everyone here is ignoring one very simple fact.

,

They will continue to abstain or vote with the ruling government and all of this bluster on these forums will be a total waste of time.

Exactly, if the oppositions brings down the gov't it will be on their heads, not Harpers, the voters will see it that way of course. Only a dogmatic partisan would continue insisting that it is strictly on Harper, all he is doing is calling their bluff, he's playing poker knowing that the Liberals have to blink, they have no choice for now anyway. No way will the public blame an election now, on the Tories.

[Moonbox]

Harper will call an election himself before the Liberals get a new leader.

No he won't. I think you're totally out of touch with what the average Canadian thinks and knows about politics. The multitudes do NOT know much about politics. They do NOT want another election. The voters will abandon the party that forces the next election if it comes too soon(ie whatever party votes non-confidence OR Harper if he just outright calls one). He knows this. You apparently don't.

He will try to provoke it by making everything a confidence motion if he can unless he has turned over a new leaf. He will try to make it as unpalatable for the Opposition if he can.

Unless I'm mistaken you seem to think he's deliberately going to come up with bad legislation for Canada to provoke an election. I think you're out to lunch on that. What's really going to happen is Harper is not going to compromise with the Liberals because he simply doesn't have to. He won't poison-pill it, but he'll ignore the opposition's protests should there be any simply because he can.

He will avoid the completely hot button issues but will bully and play the brinkmanship game while shouting coward across the floor. And even if he gets his way, he will pull the plug anyways.

Not anytime soon. Again, remember this conversation. We'll see in the summer who was right.

The Liberals should stick to the line, "we will vote down a bill we think isn't right for the country." It is up to Harper to decide if he wants an election. Nothing compels him to go to one on a non-money bill.

He's going to decide not to have an election. You're going to look foolish. Maybe 1.5 - 2 years from now there will be another one, but I'm quite honestly having trouble taking you seriously when you come up with nonsense like this.

[jdobbin]

No he won't. I think you're totally out of touch with what the average Canadian thinks and knows about politics. The multitudes do NOT know much about politics. They do NOT want another election. The voters will abandon the party that forces the next election if it comes too soon(ie whatever party votes non-confidence OR Harper if he just outright calls one). He knows this. You apparently don't.

Harper plans to blame the Liberals. That is how he will do it.

Unless I'm mistaken you seem to think he's deliberately going to come up with bad legislation for Canada to provoke an election. I think you're out to lunch on that. What's really going to happen is Harper is not going to compromise with the Liberals because he simply doesn't have to. He won't poison-pill it, but he'll ignore the opposition's protests should there be any simply because he can.

No compromise and confidence means he is trying to provoke an election. It really is simple. He will blame the Liberals and even if he gets his way will blame them for something else.

It is all about winning and he wants it done while Dion is still leader.

Not anytime soon. Again, remember this conversation. We'll see in the summer who was right.

If Harper decides to do what other minorities have done to work then we might see a difference. No confidence on every motion and no compromise mean ans election. He decides that. Not the Opposition.

He's going to decide not to have an election. You're going to look foolish. Maybe 1.5 - 2 years from now there will be another one, but I'm quite honestly having trouble taking you seriously when you come up with nonsense like this.

I'm having a hard time believing that you think Harper is going to wait to have a new leader, new policies and new organization and financing two years from now to challenge him. That is absolute non-sense, don't you think? He will find a way to blame the Liberal, runs new ads to say they have no backbone, goad them, call them cowards and basically play the brinkmanship game because of the idea that they will let him do anything he wants.

In a minority Parliament, it is up to Harper to decide if he wants to go an election on non-money bill. It always was.

The Opposition voting down a bill or making amendments shouldn't provoke the government to run to the Governor General right away. He might be surprised by her answer which may be no election.

[noahbody]

Harper plans to blame the Liberals. That is how he will do it.

This thread should be titled "No he wont. Oh yes he will."

Judge Harper on what he does, not on wild speculation. Sure there are times to trust your feelings. For example, if you're tasked with blowing up a Death Star. But other times, try to be a little more rational.

[Moonbox]

It all depends on what the Liberals choose to vote against. If they vote against something small and silly that the majority of Canadians couldn't care less about, they will likely have a problem. On the other hand, if the CPC comes out with something harsh and unpopular and an election is called because of this, the CPC will likely feel the brunt of the blame.

The assumptions you make Jdobbin are lacking in one very important area. They all assume that the CPC and the LPC don't understand how regular people think. As I've said already, numerous times, Canadians do not want another election soon. They will be disgusted in whatever party brings it about.

Harper is going to continue pushing through legislation that is difficult to make a big issue out of. If the Liberals start being obstinate about silly little things most Canadians don't care about and try to block everything then yes, there will be an election and yes Harper will call it. The Liberals aren't that stupid though. By the same token the CPC isn't stupid enough to purposely put forward legislation that could turn into an unpopular election issue.

We'll see the same crap continue from last year. CPC puts forward legislation that the Liberals might not like but can't really campaign against and nothing will change for probably at least 2 years.

Harper knows another snap election would see his fortunes turn. The Liberals know if they play politics it would go equally bad for them.

This isn't hard to understand.

[Wild Bill]

Harper plans to blame the Liberals. That is how he will do it.

No compromise and confidence means he is trying to provoke an election. It really is simple. He will blame the Liberals and even if he gets his way will blame them for something else.

It is all about winning and he wants it done while Dion is still leader.

If Harper decides to do what other minorities have done to work then we might see a difference. No confidence on every motion and no compromise mean ans election. He decides that. Not the Opposition.

I'm having a hard time believing that you think Harper is going to wait to have a new leader, new policies and new organization and financing two years from now to challenge him. That is absolute non-sense, don't you think? He will find a way to blame the Liberal, runs new ads to say they have no backbone, goad them, call them cowards and basically play the brinkmanship game because of the idea that they will let him do anything he wants.

In a minority Parliament, it is up to Harper to decide if he wants to go an election on non-money bill. It always was.

The Opposition voting down a bill or making amendments shouldn't provoke the government to run to the Governor General right away. He might be surprised by her answer which may be no election.

Jdobbin, you yourself have pointed out many times how broke the LPC was before the last election. Now they must be even more in the hole, unless you would claim they suddenly came across a windfall.

Are you seriously claiming that over the next year the LPC has the financial means to weather another election? Is there anyway they could defy Harper and yet avoid bankruptcy?

You're going to need a better argument if you expect us to accept your statements as more than sheer bravado.

My prediction is that the Liberals will do anything possible to avoid an election during the next 12 months, even if the Bloc or the NDP look like they're going to pull the trigger!

Actually, if I were running the LPC that would be my bigger fear! It would be in the Bloc or NDP's interests to trigger an election that might bankrupt the LPC. Certainly the NDP would welcome the demise of the Liberal party! Why wouldn't Jack engineer another election, particularly if he could do it simply by going along with a Tory Bill and repeatedly leaving the LPC as the "centre-shots" who don't dare vote against it?

Harper doesn't need another election. Why? After all, we've constantly been told that the Tories have a secret agenda and intend to slowly implement it. Questions about why they might do such things when it would result in political suicide have gone ignored and unanswered, at least on this board. So if they truly don't care about election results, why have another one when they know that the Liberals will perpetually "cave" and pass all the Tory Bills?

It would seem only consistent, would it not?

Edited November 7, 2008 by Wild Bill

[Oleg Bach]

Listening to an arch liberal female who was advocating that when a young gang banger kills another kid - he should do no more than a year... What it is with these leftist warm and fuzzy lunitics is the fact that they believe that they and the state are the parents of these young culprits - that it takes a damned village to raise a child - that husbands and fathers are all obsolete and angry and should be disposed of - that all woman are their property as they continue to practice animal husbandry on duped Canadian females....the liberal nut bars actually think that young offenders are their children...and like crimminal mothers will protect their gangster sons. Terms like "biological father" or "birth mother" - are bantered about to condition the pubic that parents do not exist and that they are parents.

There is only one kind of father - the real one - the one that generates the birth though firtilization from HIS BODY - The only real mother is the one that the kid hatches from - the reality is that liberals are attempting to redfine life itself - poverty - and redefine sex and crime and punishment -This collective monsterism that is attempting to de-humanize and subjugate the population..and it shows in the fact that they pretend to love young offenders - If you put THEIR jobs and pay cheques on the line and they have to decide on the they so much love being dumped over a cliff or themselves - Young offender will be tossed into the pit...I saw it my self with child protection types - when sued - they sacraficed the children to safe themselves - the lied a blue streak - Laws are to be inforced - or we may as well have lawlessness - what am I saying? - we do already...we are teaching our children that moral corruption and lawlessness is the norm - there is a price for such foolish dis-order.

[jdobbin]

Jdobbin, you yourself have pointed out many times how broke the LPC was before the last election. Now they must be even more in the hole, unless you would claim they suddenly came across a windfall.

Are you seriously claiming that over the next year the LPC has the financial means to weather another election? Is there anyway they could defy Harper and yet avoid bankruptcy?

I am saying that the Tories are going to call an election anyway. It won't matter if the Liberals back down on every vote.

Actually, if I were running the LPC that would be my bigger fear! It would be in the Bloc or NDP's interests to trigger an election that might bankrupt the LPC. Certainly the NDP would welcome the demise of the Liberal party! Why wouldn't Jack engineer another election, particularly if he could do it simply by going along with a Tory Bill and repeatedly leaving the LPC as the "centre-shots" who don't dare vote against it?

There isn't anything the Liberals can do to stop an election. It is coming one way or the other. They might as well vote on the principles of the party on bills such as immigration, etc.

Harper doesn't need another election. Why? After all, we've constantly been told that the Tories have a secret agenda and intend to slowly implement it. Questions about why they might do such things when it would result in political suicide have gone ignored and unanswered, at least on this board. So if they truly don't care about election results, why have another one when they know that the Liberals will perpetually "cave" and pass all the Tory Bills?

It would seem only consistent, would it not?

I think I have told you why. It will be to destroy the Liberals once and for all. To make sure there are no seats, no potential leader, have the party dissolved, bankrupt and scattered to the wind. Ad what better time to do it than now?

Harper will call the election. It doesn't matter what the Liberals do one bit. They might as well vote on matters that are important to them. Harper will call an election anyway.

Edited November 7, 2008 by jdobbin

[jdobbin]

This thread should be titled "No he wont. Oh yes he will."

Judge Harper on what he does, not on wild speculation. Sure there are times to trust your feelings. For example, if you're tasked with blowing up a Death Star. But other times, try to be a little more rational.

I've said if Harper doesn't want an election, he will not make every matter a confidence one. I'll judge him on that. Everyone here says the Liberals will cave and the Tories will rule as a majority. It isn't just Dion saying that it can't happen this time. The Liberals know that Harper will call an election when he wants. So why be bullied in the hope that he really means to stay the full term limit?

Edited November 7, 2008 by jdobbin

[jdobbin]

Exactly, if the oppositions brings down the gov't it will be on their heads, not Harpers, the voters will see it that way of course. Only a dogmatic partisan would continue insisting that it is strictly on Harper, all he is doing is calling their bluff, he's playing poker knowing that the Liberals have to blink, they have no choice for now anyway. No way will the public blame an election now, on the Tories.

If Harper calls confidence on all measures, it is Harper's decision to go to the polls. I think you are mistaken to think only the Liberals will be to blame for it. Nothing compels Harper to go to the polls on a non money bill. You say it does?

[jdobbin]

It all depends on what the Liberals choose to vote against. If they vote against something small and silly that the majority of Canadians couldn't care less about, they will likely have a problem. On the other hand, if the CPC comes out with something harsh and unpopular and an election is called because of this, the CPC will likely feel the brunt of the blame.

Do the majority of Canadians want the bill? The Liberals certainly support a large aspect of it but Harper said no revisions and it is a confidence motion. Seems to me that Quebecers already indicated a disliking for the bill.

The assumptions you make Jdobbin are lacking in one very important area. They all assume that the CPC and the LPC don't understand how regular people think. As I've said already, numerous times, Canadians do not want another election soon. They will be disgusted in whatever party brings it about.

Canadians didn't want the last election according to the polls. Did Harper understand that? You say he had no choice. I thought he did. It was called a fixed term.

Harper is going to continue pushing through legislation that is difficult to make a big issue out of. If the Liberals start being obstinate about silly little things most Canadians don't care about and try to block everything then yes, there will be an election and yes Harper will call it. The Liberals aren't that stupid though. By the same token the CPC isn't stupid enough to purposely put forward legislation that could turn into an unpopular election issue.

You've made an assumption that the bill has majority support. Let's see if that is the case.

We'll see the same crap continue from last year. CPC puts forward legislation that the Liberals might not like but can't really campaign against and nothing will change for probably at least 2 years.

The Liberals should feel free to vote down legislation or bills not pertaining to confidence. It really is Harper's choice to go an election on a non money bill.

Harper knows another snap election would see his fortunes turn. The Liberals know if they play politics it would go equally bad for them.

He is the one that calls a snap election if he puts confidence on a non money bill. It is him. Harper. No other. No party in Canada thinks that an election has to come based on our traditions when a non-money bill is defeated,

This isn't hard to understand.

What isn't hard to understand is that if you call confidence on non money bills, it is daring for an election to happen. It is Harper's choice.

The Liberals simply have to say they don't believe an election is necessary and it will be up to Harper to justify why he has to go on a non-money bill.

[Oleg Bach]

Do the majority of Canadians want the bill? The Liberals certainly support a large aspect of it but Harper said no revisions and it is a confidence motion. Seems to me that Quebecers already indicated a disliking for the bill.

Canadians didn't want the last election according to the polls. Did Harper understand that? You say he had no choice. I thought he did. It was called a fixed term.

You've made an assumption that the bill has majority support. Let's see if that is the case.

The Liberals should feel free to vote down legislation or bills not pertaining to confidence. It really is Harper's choice to go an election on a non money bill.

He is the one that calls a snap election if he puts confidence on a non money bill. It is him. Harper. No other. No party in Canada thinks that an election has to come based on our traditions when a non-money bill is defeated,

What isn't hard to understand is that if you call confidence on non money bills, it is daring for an election to happen. It is Harper's choice.

The Liberals simply have to say they don't believe an election is necessary and it will be up to Harper to justify why he has to go on a non-money bill.

So liberally inslaving - ready to waste millions on an election but hesitant in the sending of real finacial help to the poor. They like to fund social buracracy - the bureacracy than employs them and their friends. Collectivism in all it's glory will not curb crime - only loving parents can curb crime - and liberals love no one but themselves.

[jdobbin]

So liberally inslaving - ready to waste millions on an election but hesitant in the sending of real finacial help to the poor. They like to fund social buracracy - the bureacracy than employs them and their friends. Collectivism in all it's glory will not curb crime - only loving parents can curb crime - and liberals love no one but themselves.

You don't make any sense at all.

I have stated the Tories are the one that would call an election on such an issue, not the Opposition.

[Oleg Bach]

You don't make any sense at all.

I have stated the Tories are the one that would call an election on such an issue, not the Opposition.

Excuse me. Word on the street is that here in Ontario - the liberals are threatening to call an election on the Youth Justice system concerning the young offenders act - maybe my wires are crossed and you are talking about something else...again excuse me - I will be more intent with my reading in the future.

[jdobbin]

Excuse me. Word on the street is that here in Ontario - the liberals are threatening to call an election on the Youth Justice system concerning the young offenders act - maybe my wires are crossed and you are talking about something else...again excuse me - I will be more intent with my reading in the future.

The Liberals can't call an election. They are the Opposition and can only defeat the government on a money bill. Only Harper can call an election on a non-money bill if he attaches confidence. There is nothing in Canadian tradition to say he has to call an election on it though. It is his choice and his choice alone.

[Oleg Bach]

The Liberals can't call an election. They are the Opposition and can only defeat the government on a money bill. Only Harper can call an election on a non-money bill if he attaches confidence. There is nothing in Canadian tradition to say he has to call an election on it though. It is his choice and his choice alone.

Not up on the technical end of it. Is there such a thing as the oppostion having lost total confidence in the ruling party...and force an election from the weaker side of the house? - also I am not sure what a non-money bill is - explain the term and I will get my un-educated butt out of your hair..