Will the Liberals oppose the Budget Bill today?

[August1991]

The final vote on the minority Conservative Government’s 2010 budget is now set for Tuesday evening.

...

The path was cleared for the final vote after an NDP attempt to weed out dozens of non-budgetary measures failed Monday evening.

Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff criticized the budget legislation as a “dumpster bill” but says he’s not prepared to force an election over it.

CFRA

If Ignatieff had any political sense, he would defeat this bill and force an election.

He could run an election on Conservative/Stephen Harper's spending priorities. Here would be the talking points:

Harper wants to nickel-and-dime, cut spending for health care, day care and small government subsidies to local cultural groups but then Harper spends billions on limos for politicians and bureaucrats in summits.

Harper took a $14 billion surplus and turned it into a $54 billion deficit. Harper is an incompetent politician; he is unable to control bureaucrats because he doesn't understand them. Stephen Harper was elected to control government spending and he has utterly failed.

One billion dollars for a three day summit of bureaucrats and politicians. WTF?

In short, taxpayers cannot trust the judgment of Stephen Harper. Michael Ignatieff promises that he will choose to do as most Canadians want.

[eyeball]

In short, taxpayers cannot trust the judgment of Stephen Harper. Michael Ignatieff promises that he will choose to do as most Canadians want.

Yet he always ends up doing what Harper wants.

No taxpayer can trust any tax collector or spender, ever. Nor should they.

[August1991]

No taxpayer can trust any tax collector or spender, ever. Nor should they.

Trust me, ordinary Conservative voters are outraged with this billion dollar summit in Toronto.

Harper has never been a solid politician but now his base is vulnerable. IMV, Harper has made a key error and if Ignatieff has a sense for the jugular, he would strike now.

Harper's basic argument was that he was a WASP who administer only government finances carefully. Well, he hasn't. This billion dollar boondoggle is final evidence.

And other than careful money management, what does Harper have to offer Canadian voters? Stephen Harper is the son of an accountant. His father (a small-c conservative) would be appalled by the spending for this Toronto summit.

I suspect that Harper knows that he has made a gaffe and he will chuckle cynically when Ignatieff passes this budget bill and gives Harper a political life well into the fall.

If Ignatieff had any sense, he would defeat Harper today.

[bloodyminded]

CFRA

If Ignatieff had any political sense, he would defeat this bill and force an election.

He could run an election on Conservative/Stephen Harper's spending priorities. Here would be the talking points:

Harper wants to nickel-and-dime, cut spending for health care, day care and small government subsidies to local cultural groups but then Harper spends billions on limos for politicians and bureaucrats in summits.

Harper took a $14 billion surplus and turned it into a $54 billion deficit. Harper is an incompetent politician; he is unable to control bureaucrats because he doesn't understand them. Stephen Harper was elected to control government spending and he has utterly failed.

One billion dollars for a three day summit of bureaucrats and politicians. WTF?

In short, taxpayers cannot trust the judgment of Stephen Harper. Michael Ignatieff promises that he will choose to do as most Canadians want.

In principle I agree with you. (Not that I like or admire Ignatieff, mind you: I can't stand the fellow.)

The problem is that Ignatieff undoubtedly recognizes that, after an election, Harper's chances of retaining almost precisely the government he has now appear to be quite good. I'm no electoral expert, but the status quo retention seems to be the general consensus among folks who know a lot about such matters.

[Molly]

I do like Ignatieff (and liked Dion, too), but the two of them have disappointingly similar political instincts.

Potentially privatizing AECL is, alone, enough issue to instigate an election. A $2 million fake lake is a political gift. Questions about 'openness and accountability' would go nicely with the central question of spending priorities....

Pishposh on polls of the moment. The CPC is extremely vulnerable. People don't really like them, but the opposition is invisible. A decent campaign exhibiting that alternatives exist would 'hold them accountable'.

[Oleg Bach]

You can't force an election when Iggy represents intellectuals and Harper respresents the banks. No matter how smart you are the person in control of the money can coerce the public - all the fancey talk does not matter much when it comes to power - food and shelter is what it is all about - and Harper has an in with the money boys - Iggy has an in with the acedemics - and professors profess untill they are hungry - then they will say what they are paid to say.

[Wild Bill]

Trust me, ordinary Conservative voters are outraged with this billion dollar summit in Toronto.

Harper has never been a solid politician but now his base is vulnerable. IMV, Harper has made a key error and if Ignatieff has a sense for the jugular, he would strike now.

Harper's basic argument was that he was a WASP who administer only government finances carefully. Well, he hasn't. This billion dollar boondoggle is final evidence.

And other than careful money management, what does Harper have to offer Canadian voters? Stephen Harper is the son of an accountant. His father (a small-c conservative) would be appalled by the spending for this Toronto summit.

I suspect that Harper knows that he has made a gaffe and he will chuckle cynically when Ignatieff passes this budget bill and gives Harper a political life well into the fall.

If Ignatieff had any sense, he would defeat Harper today.

You are making the same old mistake that anti-Harperites constantly make! It is not enough to point out Harper's flaws. Lord knows he has a LOT of them!

Any brand-new salesman knows from his first week's training that it is not enough to knock your competitor's product down. You have to also find a way to boost your own product UP! People need a REASON to change their preferences! They may become dissatisfied with their present product but they will continue to use it as long as they haven't seen something BETTER!

Hence the old folksaying "Better the devil you know...". It's simple human nature.

Ignatieff does NOT look like a better alternative! Neither does the Liberal brand. If you truly believe that a majority of Canadians would cheerfully give him a chance I would submit that you are only looking at the situation in your own backyard in Quebec, August. And I'm not so sure that Quebec has totally forgiven the Liberals for the sponsorship scandal.

Harper may be slowly pissing off more and more Canadians but right now they would change their preference to the Liberals only at the point of desperation! If you are not drowning, why would you let go of a rope that hasn't worked too well for a rope that is all ragged and torn?

If the Liberals can't come up with a charismatic leader and some inspirational campaign planks then it will be a LONG time before they are back in power!

[Moonlight Graham]

Trust me, ordinary Conservative voters are outraged with this billion dollar summit in Toronto.

I think most people are outraged.

If Ignatieff had any sense, he would defeat Harper today.

I don't know, i still don't think it's enough to defeat them or really to gain a great number of seats. The Liberals and everyone else haven't had too many big reasons to call an election against the CPC, but maybe they have as good of a chance as any now. Proroguing + summit spending + Afghan detainees + booting Guergis for no reason. A lot of the momentum is gone from the proroguing issue and the detainee issue isn't quite understood yet.

I think the Harper gov is still in a strong spot. The economy is on their side (even though they may have had relatively little to do with it) and they could easily run on that platform alone.

Canadian voters don't seem to want change in gov if things overall are going fairly well and there isn't a major scandal. I'm not sure any of the recent scandals are quite enough to get the Liberals in power. A coalition is still probably their best bet.

[myata]

Forget it, it's nowhere near in the cards. Iggy won't do an act 100 times smaller if it doesn't come with a written guarantee of 98.5% success.

[Remiel]

As much as I would like an election, I think forcing one *during* the G20 would be a mistake; contributing to the waste. Better to let the debacle play itself out first. A motion of non-confidence could be introduced later. Particularly, if the meeting goes badly, it may make itself into the acceptable reason to call the election afterwards.

[dre]

You are making the same old mistake that anti-Harperites constantly make! It is not enough to point out Harper's flaws. Lord knows he has a LOT of them!

Any brand-new salesman knows from his first week's training that it is not enough to knock your competitor's product down. You have to also find a way to boost your own product UP! People need a REASON to change their preferences! They may become dissatisfied with their present product but they will continue to use it as long as they haven't seen something BETTER!

Hence the old folksaying "Better the devil you know...". It's simple human nature.

Ignatieff does NOT look like a better alternative! Neither does the Liberal brand. If you truly believe that a majority of Canadians would cheerfully give him a chance I would submit that you are only looking at the situation in your own backyard in Quebec, August. And I'm not so sure that Quebec has totally forgiven the Liberals for the sponsorship scandal.

Harper may be slowly pissing off more and more Canadians but right now they would change their preference to the Liberals only at the point of desperation! If you are not drowning, why would you let go of a rope that hasn't worked too well for a rope that is all ragged and torn?

If the Liberals can't come up with a charismatic leader and some inspirational campaign planks then it will be a LONG time before they are back in power!

I wish you were right and people voted that way. But the dont. Power changes hands only once the encumbant has pissed off the voters. The Consevatives for example didnt come to power because they had a bunch of great ideas... they came to power because of scandals, and voter fatigue with the liberals.

I think the odd time it might actually work like you suggest... and a party wins because they have a good leader who can articulate good ideas. More often than not though the encumbant stays in until they shit the bed or something happens to make the voters angry and want a change.

[bloodyminded]

I wish you were right and people voted that way. But the dont. Power changes hands only once the encumbant has pissed off the voters. The Consevatives for example didnt come to power because they had a bunch of great ideas... they came to power because of scandals, and voter fatigue with the liberals.

I think the odd time it might actually work like you suggest... and a party wins because they have a good leader who can articulate good ideas. More often than not though the encumbant stays in until they shit the bed or something happens to make the voters angry and want a change.

I have a feeling you're right.

[fellowtraveller]

Ahhhhh, the revisionism is entertaining...Harper turned a surplus into a huge deficit when confronted with Opposition demands to either spend spend spend or be dumped.... remember that?I do wish that Ignatieff grew a pair and did bring down the government, simply for the delicious irony of the host country of the G20, Canada, the country that has the most stable banking system in the world, the country that is emerging as likely the most economically healthy of that G20- getting dumped over a $2 million fish pond......

The Libs would get creamed again in an election.

[ToadBrother]

CFRA

If Ignatieff had any political sense, he would defeat this bill and force an election.

You mean, if he was suicidal...

[Topaz]

I'm beginning to think that there's a coalition between Iggy and Harper! The Bill passed by 10 votes in favour of the Tories and within that Bill had that EI premiums paid, would allow the government to have 2 Bil. in this EI fund and ALL the rest would go were the government wanted to go....probably towards THEIR deficit! It also would start to privatized Canada Post, first with International mail, pass off on environmental assessments, there were 6 big policy issues and they put them all into one budget bill. I agree with the NDP on this one, each needed debate on their own.

[ToadBrother]

I'm beginning to think that there's a coalition between Iggy and Harper! The Bill passed by 10 votes in favour of the Tories and within that Bill had that EI premiums paid, would allow the government to have 2 Bil. in this EI fund and ALL the rest would go were the government wanted to go....probably towards THEIR deficit! It also would start to privatized Canada Post, first with International mail, pass off on environmental assessments, there were 6 big policy issues and they put them all into one budget bill. I agree with the NDP on this one, each needed debate on their own.

Well of course there's a coalition between the Conservatives and the Liberals. It doesn't have the big smiley-face pasted on it like the Liberal-NDP-kinda-Bloc coalition back in 2008 or the Conservative-LibDem coalition in the UK. Let's put it this way, if you were to strip off all the handshaking, backslapping, bestest-mates-forever rhetoric coming out of Britain's coalition, you'd pretty much see two caucuses staring at each other with a mix of contempt, envy, fear and ambition like we have in Ottawa right now. In some ways I almost prefer our own vote-by-vote coalition because it puts a lot more of the cards on the table.