Cons: Budget Flip Flop V. 2.0

[takeanumber]

Well, just when you thought it couldnt' get any more pathetic: it did.

The Cons, who negotiated the first budget and then sat down (refusing to vote for it), now say that they're going to vote for the initial budget bill.

The reason?

The Atlantic Accord.

However, when it comes to the NDP ammendment, they're going to vote against it.

The reason?

To bring down the government.

Alright, they're trying to have it both ways, and that's alright.

However, they can't have it both ways, because if they vote to bring down the government right after the initial budget bill, the budget doesn't get passed at all. In effect, a vote against the NDP bill is effectively a vote against the entire budget.

So, two questions:

1. As if the flip-flop isn't bad enough, do you think that anybody will be fooled by this tactic?

2. How does this look in light of all the shenanigans last week? Can they possibly screw up any more?

[Newfie Canadian]

1. As if the flip-flop isn't bad enough, do you think that anybody will be fooled by this tactic?

Some, yes.

2. How does this look in light of all the shenanigans last week?

Typical, and that's the problem for the CPC.

Can they possibly screw up any more?

Sure they can. They can tank in the next election.

There is some speculation in the local media and phone in show that some Atlantic Canadian MPs pushed for this course of action to take some pressure off of them in regards to the Accord. Hard to say.

[fellowtraveller]

What are you talking about?

When Martin tabled the budget a few weeks ago, it was clearly designed to appease the Cons, and Harper indicated that although he had some reservations he would vote with the Liberals and approve it. The NDP and Bloc, in the first 'unholy alliance' agreed to vote against it. Net result: if all went according to what the leaders said, the budget would pass and the government would remain.

Next, the Libs and NDP negotiated a separate side deal which completely altered the origianl budget. Cons and Bloc opposed, and still do.

Nothing inconsuistent there, except of course the Liberals tabling one budget, then a couple of weeks later suddenly discovering they needed $5 Billion more in new spending. Welcome to MuppetLand.

[kimmy]

The Conservatives have always maintained that the Atlantic agreement should be separated from the budget, and tabled a motion to do so. The Liberals have steadfastly refused to cooperate, strictly for political reasons: trying to get the Conservatives to vote against the Atlantic agreement. The NDP amendment-- which the Conservatives never agreed to support-- offers them away to (try to) force an election without voting against the Atlantic agreement.

Joe Blow posted some terrific research in another thread, where he indicated that the Liberals could move to make this vote essentially a combined 2nd and 3rd reading, so that C-43 could go to the Senate for approval immediately after passing, guaranteeing the Atlantic agreement gets put in place even if the government falls on the later vote on C-48. If they feel this is really about getting the deal in place, and not partisan political maneuvering, then they could take that action and get the deal done.

-k

[Newfie Canadian]

The NDP amendment-- which the Conservatives never agreed to support-- offers them away to (try to) force an election without voting against the Atlantic agreement.

The only problem with this is both bills, C-43 (the Budget) and C-48 the NDP deal) have both been declared confidence votes. Even if C-43 passes, the government falls and the budget goes bye-bye if C-48 is defeated.

In other words, from an Atlantic Canadian perspective in regards to the Accord, if either bill fails, the Accord is toast, or delayed.

[August1991]

The only problem with this is both bills, C-43 (the Budget) and C-48 the NDP deal) have both been declared confidence votes. Even if C-43 passes, the government falls and the budget goes bye-bye if C-48 is defeated.

In other words, from an Atlantic Canadian perspective in regards to the Accord, if either bill fails, the Accord is toast, or delayed.

That's wrong, Newf. If you take a look at Joe Blow's posts, you'll see that if C-43 is passed to the Senate (which seems very likely), then it doesn't matter if C-48 (and the government) are defeated. Bills pending Senate approval don't die with the government.

... the Accord is toast, or delayed.

I have heard elsewhere too this bizarre idea that money voted is immediately spent. Far from it. The Senate is still debating provisions in last year's budget. Even with Royal Assent, money doesn't show up in people's wallets.

Mark Steyn had a wonderful piece recently stating that of all the millions allocated by the Canadian government for Tsunami relief, only $50,000 has actually shown up as a benefit to Sri Lankans.

There is a tremendous disconnect between what government actually does and what non-government people think it does.

[takeanumber]

However, they can't have it both ways, because if they vote to bring down the government right after the initial budget bill, the budget doesn't get passed at all. In effect, a vote against the NDP bill is effectively a vote against the entire budget.

I don't think that the Senate can go on and pass it should the government fall a half hour later. I know of a dozen or so bills that died in the Senate when an election was called. I know that when the house comes back, they vote a ton just to get things back into the Senate...so I really don't think that it's the case that you can get it through the Senate in time before the second vote happens.

So I think I'll stand, until I'm proven wrong for sure, that a vote against the NDP ammendment is really a vote against the entire budget.

[August1991]

I don't think that the Senate can go on and pass it should the government fall a half hour later. I know of a dozen or so bills that died in the Senate when an election was called.

When the lower house is prorogued or dissolved, bills on the Senate order paper don't die. The Senate is now considering budget bills passed by the House before the June 2004 elections.

I suugest you do a search on Joe Blow's posts.

[Newfie Canadian]

I may be nitpicking, but many sections of bill C-43 don't come into force unless a day is approved by the Governor in Council (the GG on the advice of the Cabinet).

If the second bill is defeated and we're in an election, how can the cabinet, which is dissolved with Parliament, advise the GG on implementing the bill, or bring it into force?

Just a thought.

[Newfie Canadian]

After hearing a couple of things tonight, I believe that the presumption that the budget would have still passed if the second bill was defeated was incorrect, because the budget bill hadn't yet been to committee, which is usually done after the second reading, and that's why people were saying the budget, along with the Accord, would die.

[August1991]

After hearing a couple of things tonight, I believe that the presumption that the budget would have still passed if the second bill was defeated was incorrect, because the budget bill hadn't yet been to committee, which is usually done after the second reading, and that's why people were saying the budget, along with the Accord, would die.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

C-43 (old budget with Atlantic Accord) would have had to pass third reading before the defeat on C-48. Joe Blow outlined on another thread a way for that to happen but it was farfetched under the circumstances. (Committee review or third reading is skipped; it has happened.)

The separation of the two votes was cosmetic. I think the Liberals went along with the split to rankle the Tories - then the Tories voted differently which was reported as a "flip-flop", even on this forum of supposed in-the-know political junkies. The Tories ent along with the split because Harper wanted to save the faces of the two Newfs.

BTW, it'll be months if not years before anyone sees the money voted by these bills.

I may be nitpicking, but many sections of bill C-43 don't come into force unless a day is approved by the Governor in Council (the GG on the advice of the Cabinet).

G-in-C just means the Cabinet and it is typical in acts and regulations. An act is passed with provision for future tinkering (like buying an empty house and later deciding where to put walls, furniture). Who makes future decisions? The Cabinet, the Minister or someone delegated by the Minister. The higher the authority, the less flexibility, the longer the wait for a decision.

[Newfie Canadian]

I've finally found Joe Blow's post August, and I see where I was confused.

Joe Blow outlined on another thread a way for that to happen but it was farfetched under the circumstances. (Committee review or third reading is skipped; it has happened.)

Another way was for the minister to refer it to committee before second reading, which is also permissible, so I've discovered.(I've also finally figured out the parliamentary website).

The Tories went along with the split because Harper wanted to save the faces of the two Newfs.

That's the consensus down here.