Layton won't rule out no-confidence motion

[gerryhatrick]

Layton won't rule out no-confidence motion against government

Last Updated: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 | 1:24 PM ET

CBC News

NDP Leader Jack Layton won't rule out introducing a no-confidence motion unless Prime Minister Stephen Harper makes drastic changes in his approach to the way Canada deals with climate change.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/10/31/layton-harper.html

Glad to see someone is calling it what it is, the "No. 1 threat to Canadians"

Harper thinks some subsidized bus passes and a 2050 target is going to allow him to appear as if he's taking it seriously. Nope.

[Shakeyhands]

I'd be interested to know why Harper has decided to meet with Layton on the subject. My guess is that he will throw the NDP a bone in trade for support and to prop up the Government. I have a feeling it won't work though, though I don't think the NDP want an election in all reality.

[fellowtraveller]

Kind of puts the pressure on the Grits too, I doubt they want an election before Xmas.

Regarding the environment, who was it that said " It has taken the Tories nearly as long to do something as it took the Liberals to do nothing"

[geoffrey]

Layton won't rule out no-confidence motion against government

Last Updated: Tuesday, October 31, 2006 | 1:24 PM ET

CBC News

NDP Leader Jack Layton won't rule out introducing a no-confidence motion unless Prime Minister Stephen Harper makes drastic changes in his approach to the way Canada deals with climate change.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/10/31/layton-harper.html

Glad to see someone is calling it what it is, the "No. 1 threat to Canadians"

Harper thinks some subsidized bus passes and a 2050 target is going to allow him to appear as if he's taking it seriously. Nope.

What's wrong with 2050, your apocolyptic post of yesterday suggested that's when we need to fix things by? As well, no other party has ever proven themselves on the environment... the Liberals were considerably worse than the Americans as leaders, and the NDP is too anti-business to be taken seriously.

So that leaves us with the CPC, they do have a track record with acid rain, so that's considerably more than the party that set us back 20 years (Liberals) or the party that would destroy the economy for shits and giggles (the NDP).

[Black Dog]

What's wrong with 2050, your apocolyptic post of yesterday suggested that's when we need to fix things by? As well, no other party has ever proven themselves on the environment... the Liberals were considerably worse than the Americans as leaders, and the NDP is too anti-business to be taken seriously.

Thus we see the completely artifical constraints placed on the debate which serve to limit the discussion to "how can we help businesses?"

So that leaves us with the CPC, they do have a track record with acid rain, so that's considerably more than the party that set us back 20 years (Liberals) or the party that would destroy the economy for shits and giggles (the NDP).

First off, the CPC has no track record. Prior to a couple of years ago, they didn't exist. You can't ascribe the successes of the now defunct PCs to the party that killed it and ate its corpse.

Second: again, your framing is interesting. The focus is not on Canadians, or quality of life, or the legacy we would leave our children.

[Black Dog]

What's wrong with 2050, your apocolyptic post of yesterday suggested that's when we need to fix things by? As well, no other party has ever proven themselves on the environment... the Liberals were considerably worse than the Americans as leaders, and the NDP is too anti-business to be taken seriously.

Thus we see the completely artifical constraints placed on the debate which serve to limit the discussion to "how can we help businesses?"

So that leaves us with the CPC, they do have a track record with acid rain, so that's considerably more than the party that set us back 20 years (Liberals) or the party that would destroy the economy for shits and giggles (the NDP).

First off, the CPC has no track record. Prior to a couple of years ago, they didn't exist. You can't ascribe the successes of the now defunct PCs to the party that killed it and ate its corpse.

Second: again, your framing is interesting. The focus is not on Canadians, or quality of life, or the legacy we would leave our children. It's all "won't somebody please think of the business!"

I'm so sick of everything being filtered through the coarse dogma of economism.

[scribblet]

This is strictly posturing and publicity seeking for Jack, he never met a microphone he didn't like. I can't see him gaining seats if he sent people to the polls now so soon, in fact I would think he'd lose. The liberals don't want one now before they have a leader, would they support a non confidence motion before Spring?

People say they care about the environment, but I would wager they don't want an election over it as they don't walk the talk anyway. We still drive big cars, are good consumers etc. etc. IMHO people really don't want it as an election issue. Jack can't hope to gain anything out of bringing down the gov't now.

[Argus]

What's wrong with 2050, your apocolyptic post of yesterday suggested that's when we need to fix things by? As well, no other party has ever proven themselves on the environment... the Liberals were considerably worse than the Americans as leaders, and the NDP is too anti-business to be taken seriously.

Thus we see the completely artifical constraints placed on the debate which serve to limit the discussion to "how can we help businesses?"

Why artificial? We know the Liberals accomplished absolutely nothing about emissions. They didn't take any time to plan or consult or consider how they could cut emissions before signing off on Kyoto, and didn't take the time or effort afterwards either. The result is that after throwing money at it they have a 30% rise instead of a 6% fall.

Now they and the NDP and The BQ want to do it again - throw billions at a percieved problem without taking the time to consider what would and wouldn't work, without consulting properly, without planning. Why do you think this would result in anything better than what we've already wound up with?

And please, do explain to me how imposing financial penalties on industries which merely chases them south of the border is going to help the environment.

[watching&waiting]

Jack Layton will not rule out a confidence vote? My oh my you actually would think that he has some sort of power now wouldn't you. Maybe he and Chow have gotten into the herb again. This guy makes my skin crawl and when he speaks I can only smile and look away, as he has got to be the worst informed person in the braodest amount of topics. He does not know a single thing about the environment and he definitely does not know the first thing about how one would address such problems. He can not even get the timing right, and is always trying to bring a voice of urgency forward, where there are no urgent matters necessary.

The people will sooner or later see that the plan put out by the CPC does actually do the things that all the others are crying for and it does them well within the time frame of the problem. There are no needs so compelling that money needs to be thrown around like a Liberal, or at least to their own liberal members :angry:

The house is going to meet and they will pass all the necessary things and yes the Liberal senate will stall as much as they can. Which will backfire come the next election day as it will show that there is a very good need for a CPC majority. So the Accountability and the get tough on crime as well as many others will be on them for holding it up. Why should any CPC not take advantage of all the things, until the bills are past. These are just games to the non governing parties. But the day of reckoning will come and it will not be a good day to be Liberal or NDP. Hell the Bloq may even take a hit or two, but that time will be CPC time to shine. As soon as Canadains are forced to the polls you will see the polls will all but bury the the Liberals and NDP, mostly because they are stupid and fight so much among themselves that they will not be ready for an election for years to come.

So Layton, you bring on a confidence vote and see what happens. Hell, you may have Harper bringing on an election this spring right after an election based budget, just like the Liberals used to do. But maybe he will not sink to those levels.

[scribblet]

Maybe Harper should call his bluff then he can rightfully blame it on Jack. Jack must be up to something, he knows the liberal are not a shoo in to back him up.

[jdobbin]

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...?hub=TopStories

It could be an election come Thursday. We'll see if the Liberals support a no-confidence motion.

[White Doors]

Maybe Harper should call his bluff then he can rightfully blame it on Jack. Jack must be up to something, he knows the liberal are not a shoo in to back him up.

Layton is blowing hot air again. The Conservatives would be overjoyed if they were defeated on this motion. Although, is this a confidence type vote?

[jdobbin]

Layton is blowing hot air again. The Conservatives would be overjoyed if they were defeated on this motion. Although, is this a confidence type vote?

The CBC and CTV seem to think so. There are Opposition days in Parliament and perhaps a non-confidence motion can pass on those days. There are a number of twisty rules to non-confidence.

[August1991]

This is strictly posturing and publicity seeking for Jack, he never met a microphone he didn't like. I can't see him gaining seats if he sent people to the polls now so soon, in fact I would think he'd lose. The liberals don't want one now before they have a leader, would they support a non confidence motion before Spring?

On the contrary, I think Layton is telling Harper that he's serious. They are bidding like in Bridge to see whether there's a contract possible and of what size.

I don't think Layton was being flippant in Question Period when he proposed a meeting and I don't think Harper was playing along when he took him up on the offer. It's another question whether they can come to an agreement. Harper has a background in economics so I'm sure he knows what a "negative externality" is.

First off, the CPC has no track record. Prior to a couple of years ago, they didn't exist. You can't ascribe the successes of the now defunct PCs to the party that killed it and ate its corpse.

I think the PC's past on the environment is entirely germane. Like Mulroney, Harper wants to do something - he's not there for the perks. The two clearly talk on the phone often. Harper is Mulroney with an honest Reform backbone.

Second: again, your framing is interesting. The focus is not on Canadians, or quality of life, or the legacy we would leave our children. It's all "won't somebody please think of the business!"

I'm so sick of everything being filtered through the coarse dogma of economism.

I'm so sick of Leftists using the word "frame" as if it means something. It's the same old crap that if you can control the symbols, you can control reality. Next time I'm in a casino, I'll try "framing" the dice to see if I can win more often.

[gerryhatrick]

In the end this has reflected very badly on Stephen Harper.

Regardless of Layton's motives, he was granted a meeting with the PM and came out telling the Country that Harper isn't serious about Global Warming.

[August1991]

Regardless of Layton's motives, he was granted a meeting with the PM and came out telling the Country that Harper isn't serious about Global Warming.

How do you come to that conclusion, gerry? The CTV article quotes Layton as saying:

Despite that lack of urgency, "I think the door is open to moving something forward," he said, adding there is ongoing communications between Harper's office and his.

----

And gerry, we already had a thread on this topic. Why did you start a new one? I'm very tired of this kind of nonsense on this forum.

[gerryhatrick]

Regardless of Layton's motives, he was granted a meeting with the PM and came out telling the Country that Harper isn't serious about Global Warming.

How do you come to that conclusion, gerry? The CTV article quotes Layton as saying:

Despite that lack of urgency, "I think the door is open to moving something forward," he said, adding there is ongoing communications between Harper's office and his.

I interpret an accusation by Layton against Harper of lacking a sense of "urgency" as Harper not taking the issue seriously. Treating something as "urgent" is synonymous with "serious".

And gerry, we already had a thread on this topic. Why did you start a new one? I'm very tired of this kind of nonsense on this forum.

Well August, I don't see any other topics on this topic. If you would be so kind as to point one out I would be open to considering if it's "nonsense" or not. thx.

[August1991]

I interpret an accusation by Layton against Harper of lacking a sense of "urgency" as Harper not taking the issue seriously. Treating something as "urgent" is synonymous with "serious".

Maybe we don't live on the same planet or even in the same universe, gerry.

But Layton said, "I think the door is open to moving something forward."

---

As to the other thread, you participated in it. (And please don't argue about "nuance". Because of you gerry, we now have two threads on the same topic - a possible understanding between the NDP and Tories concerning environmental legislation.)

[gerryhatrick]

I interpret an accusation by Layton against Harper of lacking a sense of "urgency" as Harper not taking the issue seriously. Treating something as "urgent" is synonymous with "serious".

Maybe we don't live on the same planet or even in the same universe, gerry.

But Layton said, "I think the door is open to moving something forward."

Let's not waste each others time. Layton is quoted as saying that Harper lacks "urgency". In light of that, my description of Layton saying Harper doesn't take Global Warming seriously enough is quite sound.

[gc1765]

But Layton said, "I think the door is open to moving something forward."

I think Layton meant the door is open, as in Harper has the opportunity to do something. Whether or not he does remains to be seen "The question is, is he really willing to move something forward?"

Jack probably thinks the answer to that question is no, hence the lack of "urgency" and the possible no-confidence motion.

[August1991]

Stephen Harper is the Prime Minister of Canada. Jack Layton is the leader of one of three opposition parties.

If I were Jack Layton, I would say what Layton has said. To use the terminology BD gives to Leftists, Layton is "framing" the negotiation.

[Cameron]

I interpret an accusation by Layton against Harper of lacking a sense of "urgency" as Harper not taking the issue seriously. Treating something as "urgent" is synonymous with "serious".

Maybe we don't live on the same planet or even in the same universe, gerry.

But Layton said, "I think the door is open to moving something forward."

Let's not waste each others time. Layton is quoted as saying that Harper lacks "urgency". In light of that, my description of Layton saying Harper doesn't take Global Warming seriously enough is quite sound.

Jack Layton is the leader of a fourth-rate political party. He is lucky to meet with Harper. He should be glad the Cons. are even tabling an environment plan....

[gerryhatrick]

I interpret an accusation by Layton against Harper of lacking a sense of "urgency" as Harper not taking the issue seriously. Treating something as "urgent" is synonymous with "serious".

Maybe we don't live on the same planet or even in the same universe, gerry.

But Layton said, "I think the door is open to moving something forward."

Let's not waste each others time. Layton is quoted as saying that Harper lacks "urgency". In light of that, my description of Layton saying Harper doesn't take Global Warming seriously enough is quite sound.

Jack Layton is the leader of a fourth-rate political party. He is lucky to meet with Harper. He should be glad the Cons. are even tabling an environment plan....

Harper agreed to meet him. Do you sugest Layton should get down on his knees and kiss Harpers toes?

Please, let's not get all Roman Empire here. I can tell you're enthralled with Harper, but Jack Layton is the leader of a party that holds sway in the Government House. If it didn't hold sway, would Harper be meeting with him?

The Cons environment plan is sh#t, plain and simple. It will go down in history as the #1 mistake of this government, mark my words.

[August1991]

Jack Layton is the leader of a fourth-rate political party. He is lucky to meet with Harper. He should be glad the Cons. are even tabling an environment plan....

Layton has the balance of power in a minority government. And there's more than that at stake.

[Ricki Bobbi]

Harper agreed to meet him. Do you sugest Layton should get down on his knees and kiss Harpers toes?

Please, let's not get all Roman Empire here. I can tell you're enthralled with Harper, but Jack Layton is the leader of a party that holds sway in the Government House. If it didn't hold sway, would Harper be meeting with him?

The Cons environment plan is sh#t, plain and simple. It will go down in history as the #1 mistake of this government, mark my words.

No, but Layton should treat Harper with the respect that the office of PM deserves.

Holds sway? wtf does that mean.

Will you please quit swearing here. There are rules. We understand you have no respect for the rules of the forum or the government. Quit flouting the rules troll.