Harper’s fast drop in popularity astonishing

[Figleaf]

he does care about the issue. He wants a free vote in parliament. It's the principle of how the liberals did it, of which he has as much stated himself many times.

You mean the Liberals, right?

FYI, they held a free vote parliament.

[Ricki Bobbi]

You mean the Liberals, right?

FYI, they held a free vote parliament.

Kind of, but not really.

The Liberal cabinet had to vote with the Government....

Not so free really.

So figs are you of the belief that Quebec has had one too many referendums on separation?

A vote is a vote and there is no reason for putting something to a vote. That would follow from what you are saying...

[Figleaf]

The big problem here for the Liberals is whether or not to let the MP's have a free vote or expect them to toe the party line. There are a number of Liberals against SSM also.

There's no problem for the Liberals. They already allowed members to vote freely on this before, so there's no reason not to now. If a few Liberal anti-gay bigots actually help it pass, that's even a bigger headache for the tories.

You mean the Liberals, right?

FYI, they held a free vote parliament.

Kind of, but not really.

The Liberal cabinet had to vote with the Government....

Not so free really.

All members were free to vote as they saw fit. They just weren't

free to stay in cabinet if they felt they had to oppose their government. That's the proper Parliamentary tradition. If the tories try do any different the Speaker should over-rule them. Any minister who doesn't support her government is in a Conflict and should resign.

So figs are you of the belief that Quebec has had one too many referendums on separation?

Sudden inexplicable change of subject there. But anyway, I'd say two too many.

[Ricki Bobbi]

All members were free to vote as they saw fit. They just weren't free to stay in cabinet if they felt they had to oppose their government. That's the proper Parliamentary tradition. If the tories try do any different the Speaker should over-rule them. Any minister who doesn't support her government is in a Conflict and should resign.

Sudden inexplicable change of subject there. But anyway, I'd say two too many.

1. wtf are you talking about it being the proper Parliamentary tradition? Wasn't it PM Dithers talking about reducing the democratic deficit and disregarding "Parliamentary tradition" in favour of doing the right thing in the best interest of democracy?

2. so the speaker of the House should make members of cabinet vote the way he feels that Cabinet dictates?

3. Let me explic the change of direction. There are many of the anti-Harperistas who stand on 'principles' in cases like this, but there principles quickly dissolve. Power to you for passing that little test.

4. Usint the feminine third person pronoun to describe cabinet ministers in general is pretty weak given that no cabinet Liberal OR Conservative has EVER had a majority of femail ministers.

[Figleaf]

All members were free to vote as they saw fit. They just weren't free to stay in cabinet if they felt they had to oppose their government. That's the proper Parliamentary tradition. If the tories try do any different the Speaker should over-rule them. Any minister who doesn't support her government is in a Conflict and should resign.

Sudden inexplicable change of subject there. But anyway, I'd say two too many.

1. wtf are you talking about it being the proper Parliamentary tradition? Wasn't it PM Dithers ...

It's a principle far older than Martin's time.

2. so the speaker of the House should make members of cabinet vote the way he feels that Cabinet dictates?

Actually I miswrote. The Gov.-Grn. should ask for the resignation of any minister who votes against the government.

4. Usint the feminine third person pronoun to describe cabinet ministers in general is pretty weak given that no cabinet Liberal OR Conservative has EVER had a majority of femail ministers.

I just like to give a fair shake to the female world by occ. use of the feminine in examples and hypotheticals.

[Canadian Blue]

If Harper is not pandering to homophobes, social conservatives and religious nuts, then why is he "re-visiting" same-sex marriage? It was not an election promise he needed to make. And given his history of flipflopping on election promises, it is not an election promise he needs to keep.

Yeah, the other 50% of the population that were against SSM.

I think its not right to bring up the SSM issue again, but if it was a campaign promise.

I don't really mind the income trust thing, who did Harper piss off the most. Apparently Albertan's according to the National Post. I can understand why he did it, but he shouldn't have made income trusts an election issue or promised anything of the sort. Alot of the provinces even agree with the government on income trusts, as well as the NDP. As for Harper ruling like he had a majority, he's made concessions to the NDP on the environment. I don't have a problem with the current government, everything seems fine and the sky hasn't fallen yet. So far the biggest problem that people have with Harper is that he is "apparently" too close with the American's. But when hasn't Canada been close with the American's, where I work we have several American's working along with us. The only difference on US-Canadian relations is Harper won't attack the US in order to get votes, the Liberals on the other hand will attack American's to get votes, then start to become "great" friends with the American's and try repairing the friendship once back in office.

Honestly if the Libs or NDP were to get back into government do you think they would keep on attacking the Republican's as much as they do now. Especially if they have to work with another Republican president.

[gerryhatrick]

Do tell though...what do you believe the ball is in your analogy (if we can call it yours)?

That's kind of sad, Gerry.

What is the ball? And you ask me!

If you don't know what the ball is, or you don't where it is, forget my advice. Just go for Harper, the guy. Play the man, not the ball.

What's sad is your silly games.

I stated:

Harper has tried to rule like he has a majority, and he is losing points on environment, transparency, wheat board, income trusts, ....

That is "the ball".

[normanchateau]

And, Normanchateau. It is a myth that Emerson turned down any softwood lumber agreement while a member of the Lib. party. This myth was put to rest by the Libs. themselves and, the American negotiators. Guess you were out of town when that news broke?

If it is a myth, that's news to me. The story appeared in the April 27, 2006, issue of the Vancouver Sun under the heading Softwood Deal. It was easy to find online with Google. In that story, David Gray, BC spokesman for the Montreal-based Free Trade Lumber Council, described the deal "as similar to one the Americans delivered to former Canadian ambassador Frank McKenna during the federal election. That plan was rejected by the Liberal government largely on the advice of David Emerson, who was then a Liberal cabinet minister."

In describing the deal that Emerson was touting as the new US offer, Gray said: "They've taken McKenna, they've put lipstick on it, they've put a girdle on it, high heels and a wig, but it's still a pig."

That story appeared in April. You claim that the story is a myth and that the Liberals put the myth to rest.

What's your evidence and are you suggesting that the spokesperson for the Free Trade Lumber Council was spreading lies?