Why Stephen Harper will call for an election

[madmax]

That's where the liberals didn't count on. The new breed of voters, grew up with less moral values than the boomers did and they don't care about corruption in government. How else can one look at this?

There is a much better way of looking at this.

#1) Bryan Says "People at the doors thought this was a cheap stunt"

#2) Saipan says "What Contempt"

Obviously, the Contempt charges were real. However what was NOT obvious to the people was the implications of being guilty of Contempt.

The burden to make the issue relevant to the voting electorate fell on Ignatieff. It was the Liberals whom drafted up the non confidence motion because of the ruling of contempt.

There are many many things that are important to the public. Contempt is one of them, but it has to be explained and it has to be important enough to them that it is an election issue. It was important to them, but not important enough for an election. The fact that Ignatieff failed miserably to make his case is his own fault. The contempt would stay regardless of whether there was or was not an election. Just as the fraud charges will continue against Harpers Senate appointed bagman as parliment continues on. However, if you want people to be as hyped up about these issues as those in Ottawa, a case , a strong case has to be made.

Ignatieff NEVER made that case. By the end of the campaign many people still didn't know why there was an election and many thought the government fell on the budget... and it didn't.

But if the publics not aware, that is the fault of Ignatieff as its his role as leader to get a message out.

Compare that with both Harper and Layton. Harper message was to ignore those charges and play down the issue, while asking for a Stable Conservative Majority government. Laytons message was for Change and an orange soda beverage, that appeared quite tasty in Quebec but also had flavour across the Provinces and territorys.

Ignatieffs message was to pick a Blue Door or Red Door. Giving the choice, people chose the blue door for the majority government and people choose not to use the red door unless they wanted the same old, so many millions more then ever before choose the Fridge door, to a cold bottle of Orange Crush.

This was not about the "moral values" of the electorate.

The Electorate was given choices based on the presentations made to them.

At the end of the day people THROW OUT GOVERNMENTS, and the Liberal Prosecutor didn't present enough evidence in the court of public opinion.

If you look at what happened in Quebec, they rejected all of the status quo because politics had become so stale and entrenched and it was that "NEW BREED" of voters who ushered in change. And that is a difficult feat considering many of those new voters in Quebec grew up only knowing a separtist and conflict based environment.

There the public went for a house cleaning.

In each province, different sets of local issues determined the outcomes.

For this election and the outcomes of it, you have to blame the messenger and the stale, elite driven party he represented.

The emporer had no clothes.

[Saipan]

There is a much better way of looking at this.

#1) Bryan Says "People at the doors thought this was a cheap stunt"

#2) Saipan says "What Contempt"

Obviously, the Contempt charges were real. However what was NOT obvious to the people was the implications of being guilty of Contempt.

The burden to make the issue relevant to the voting electorate fell on Ignatieff. It was the Liberals whom drafted up the non confidence motion because of the ruling of contempt.

There are many many things that are important to the public. Contempt is one of them, but it has to be explained and it has to be important enough to them that it is an election issue. It was important to them, but not important enough for an election. The fact that Ignatieff failed miserably to make his case is his own fault. The contempt would stay regardless of whether there was or was not an election. Just as the fraud charges will continue against Harpers Senate appointed bagman as parliment continues on. However, if you want people to be as hyped up about these issues as those in Ottawa, a case , a strong case has to be made.

Ignatieff NEVER made that case. By the end of the campaign many people still didn't know why there was an election and many thought the government fell on the budget... and it didn't.

But if the publics not aware, that is the fault of Ignatieff as its his role as leader to get a message out.

Compare that with both Harper and Layton. Harper message was to ignore those charges and play down the issue, while asking for a Stable Conservative Majority government. Laytons message was for Change and an orange soda beverage, that appeared quite tasty in Quebec but also had flavour across the Provinces and territorys.

Ignatieffs message was to pick a Blue Door or Red Door. Giving the choice, people chose the blue door for the majority government and people choose not to use the red door unless they wanted the same old, so many millions more then ever before choose the Fridge door, to a cold bottle of Orange Crush.

This was not about the "moral values" of the electorate.

The Electorate was given choices based on the presentations made to them.

At the end of the day people THROW OUT GOVERNMENTS, and the Liberal Prosecutor didn't present enough evidence in the court of public opinion.

If you look at what happened in Quebec, they rejected all of the status quo because politics had become so stale and entrenched and it was that "NEW BREED" of voters who ushered in change. And that is a difficult feat considering many of those new voters in Quebec grew up only knowing a separtist and conflict based environment.

There the public went for a house cleaning.

In each province, different sets of local issues determined the outcomes.

For this election and the outcomes of it, you have to blame the messenger and the stale, elite driven party he represented.

The emporer had no clothes.

So when the dust settled, what was the "contempt"?????

There's seems to be lot of ducking.

[guyser]

So when the dust settled, what was the "contempt"?????

It was also a motion that declared the government to be in contempt of Parliament for its refusal to share information that opposition members said they needed to properly assess legislation put before them.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/harper-government-falls-in-historic-commons-showdown/article1956416/

[RNG]

It was also a motion that declared the government to be in contempt of Parliament for its refusal to share information that opposition members said they needed to properly assess legislation put before them.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/harper-government-falls-in-historic-commons-showdown/article1956416/

Didn't the SCOC just blow all that out of the water? Not to mention that several news sources reported the story along the lines that "an opposition biased committee ruled on the matter and the speaker was forced to follow through"?

[Saipan]

It was also a motion that declared the government to be in contempt of Parliament for its refusal to share information that opposition members said they needed to properly assess legislation put before them.

Very common with Liberals. They just called it Cabinet Secret.

[Keepitsimple]

Now that the election is over one can look at the "contempt" charges through a less partisan lens. The opposition were claiming that the government was withholding some of the details on costing for "jets and jails".

In fact, the "jets" component related to a contract where money would not start to be spent - and therefore not impact the Federal Budget until 2015 - and only then would be spread over a period of 20-30 years. The "jails" component also was a multi-year investment - half of which was to refurbish or replace older jails - the rest for new accommodations for a very difficult to define effect on incarceration.

The opposition continually tried to make it seem like the government was spending billions upon billions - right now - instead of "helping Canadians". It was indeed a partisan stunt. As Harper said - you win some and you lose some - the opposition had "the numbers" in committee. If such a "hearing" was held now, the Conservatives would "have the numbers" and there would be no contempt charges. It's a function of the committee/minority/majority setup. It's all water under the bridge now but history will view the Liberals bringing down the government as the dumbest act in Canadian political history.

Edited May 18, 2011 by Keepitsimple

[Saipan]

Allan Rock's $2 million long gun registration, just to quickly pass three readings, turned out to be near $2 BILLION.

If that isn't contempt of Parliament I don't know what is. But no election was called for that.

[Tilter]

Why is this still being argued?

The "contempt of Parliament" was actually miss-named it was actually contempt of Committee, a committee consisting mostly of opposition MPs acting in a contemptible manner. Gee, what a surprise.

Edited May 18, 2011 by Tilter

[jbg]

Why is this still being argued?

The "contempt of Parliament" was actually miss-named it was actually contempt of Committee, a committee consisting mostly of opposition MPs acting in a contemptible manner. Gee, what a surprise.

I guess the Libs, NDP and Bloc guessed wrong on making that a confidence issue.

[Tilter]

re "If his plans are to get rid of the Liberal party"

Come on, these conspirary theories about the Conservatives are wearing thin, find some new material to discredit them. Speculating about elections is great fun for slow news days or lazy journalist. in a minority government everyone is prepared to go to the polls at any time.

The liberal party seems to be the entity that is getting rid of the liberals. They have shot themselves in both feet and that's pretty hard considering that they virtually outlawed guns while in power. Maybe they used guns they had confiscated :lol: