Have Conservatives Run Out of Gas?

[Michael Bluth]

You are correct and I therefore stand corrected, my apologies. I must have confused two posts.

No worries. The concept of an ideological circle jerk has never really appealed to me. This site is usually pretty good for give and take on both sides.

[jbg]

The Conservatives were free to bring down the government during the Martin years over Kyoto and are free now to reject Kyoto legislation.

Given the Libs, NDP and BQ support for Kyoto, however nominal, there was no peaceful or legal way the Conservatives could have brought down the government. Remember, Kyoto was submitted for approval during the Chretien era, always a majority government.

The Conservatives are free to criticize the Liberals over the issue as well. It still doesn't mean that the Opposition should sit like ditto heads about whatever direction that the Tories are going in.

Unless they are trying to impose constraints on the country via the opposition that they were unwilling to when in government, and having to deal with the mess after the sh** hit the fan (with Kyoto compliance).

[jdobbin]

Given the Libs, NDP and BQ support for Kyoto, however nominal, there was no peaceful or legal way the Conservatives could have brought down the government. Remember, Kyoto was submitted for approval during the Chretien era, always a majority government.

Unless they are trying to impose constraints on the country via the opposition that they were unwilling to when in government, and having to deal with the mess after the sh** hit the fan (with Kyoto compliance).

The Tories had other issues they could have voted the government down on and didn't. They didn't campaign against Kyoto in any of the elections either including when Chretien was in power.

The Liberals are doing what the Official Opposition is supposed to do. The Tories are free to blame the Liberals for the situation they're in but the simple truth is that overall public opinion is what is holding their feet to the fire rather than facing off against Dion in the House.

[jbg]

The Tories had other issues they could have voted the government down on and didn't. They didn't campaign against Kyoto in any of the elections either including when Chretien was in power.

I guess you have a short memory. PMPM refused to recognize the motion to report certain legislation in May 2005 back to committee as a confidence vote, in order to give him time to bribe Stronach over to the Liberal side of the aisle. It took a formal non-confidence motion, from my understanding the first successful one in Canadian history, for PMPM to get the message and take a walk over to One Rideau.

[jdobbin]

I guess you have a short memory. PMPM refused to recognize the motion to report certain legislation in May 2005 back to committee as a confidence vote, in order to give him time to bribe Stronach over to the Liberal side of the aisle. It took a formal non-confidence motion, from my understanding the first successful one in Canadian history, for PMPM to get the message and take a walk over to One Rideau.

The Opposition has days assigned to it in the House where they are able to set the agenda. While unusual, it falls within the parameters of Parliamentary procedure to have a non-confidence motion introduced during this time.

As far as the previous time goes, it was was ruled to be an improper procedural motion. Constitutional experts says the government was correct in ignoring it.

And all this is unrelated to Harper's stance on the environment or other Opposition days earlier on when Harper had the opportunity to introduce a non-confidence motion.

[Argus]

Oh really? So there were solid plans and goals along with the costs involved? Could you please point me to where I can find this?

Here it is. It includes the original bill, the amendments proposed by the Tories, the amendments proposed by the Opposition, minutes from those meetings and everything else related to the bill. Hope that helps.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/common/bills_ls.asp?...b&Parl=39&Ses=1

Gee, much as I'd like to spend Sunday morning studying the legal wording of a bill and the amendments and counter-amendments (none of which are costed out) and figuring out which party wants what, we'll just come out and say that the party you support still has NO plans or policies or programs or ideas for combating "global warming".

Okay?

But hey, it's only been what, fourteen, fifteen years since they signed the Kyoto treaty. I'm sure they'll come up with something eventually. After all, your leader cares so much he named his dog Kyoto.

[BubberMiley]

Gee, much as I'd like to spend Sunday morning studying the politics of a bill and the amendments and counter-amendments and figuring out which party wants what, we'll just come out and say that the party you support still has NO plans or policies or programs or ideas for combating "global warming".

Okay?

So we should just come out and say you're correct, even though you admit you don't care to do any research to actually become informed.

[Argus]

Gee, much as I'd like to spend Sunday morning studying the politics of a bill and the amendments and counter-amendments and figuring out which party wants what, we'll just come out and say that the party you support still has NO plans or policies or programs or ideas for combating "global warming".

Okay?

So rather than do any research into what you're talking about, we should just come out and say you're correct, even though you admit you don't care to become informed.

I'm looking for a policy that your party supports, a costed-out program for reducing emissions. The bill contains no costing, no estimate of what any particular measure will do to the economy or what it will cost in terms of GNP or taxes. It is a series of amendments without context, none of which are really attributable.

I have yet, despite all the whining and sniveling and hand wringing from the Opposition, seen any legitimate suggestion on how to reduce emissions to meet the Kyoto treaty obligations. I have not even seen such a thing from the environmental groups who generally don't care what anything costs anyway because they're in a world of their own.

[jdobbin]

Gee, much as I'd like to spend Sunday morning studying the legal wording of a bill and the amendments and counter-amendments (none of which are costed out) and figuring out which party wants what, we'll just come out and say that the party you support still has NO plans or policies or programs or ideas for combating "global warming".

Okay?

But hey, it's only been what, fourteen, fifteen years since they signed the Kyoto treaty. I'm sure they'll come up with something eventually. After all, your leader cares so much he named his dog Kyoto.

I'd say the legislation as amended does have its program costed out. It is based on the original Clean Air Act, the amended act that Baird proposed and the amendments that the Liberals, BQ and NDP proposed. It's all there.

Baird has rejected those amendments but it certainly doesn't mean the end of the bill. In a minority government, the bill can be passed during Opposition days. Harper is free to make it a non-confidence motion.

[jbg]

The Opposition has days assigned to it in the House where they are able to set the agenda. While unusual, it falls within the parameters of Parliamentary procedure to have a non-confidence motion introduced during this time.

IIRC those days were cancelled or deferred at the last minute.

[jdobbin]

IIRC those days were cancelled or deferred at the last minute.

True. They were. But they were not cancelled prior to that not could they could they be cancelled indefinitely. It is how the Canadian parliamentary system is set up. It gives the government the chance to govern. In other words, it gives it a long leash or length of rope if you will, before it pulls you back.

All of this discussion still does not discount the fact that the Tories don't seem to have considered that they might be still in Parliament now and should have some sort of agenda. At the moment, it is Opposition days every day.

[jdobbin]

The handbook of how to delay would appear to confirm that the Tories have run out of gas. They are gasping to the finish line and will probably try to end Parliament early because they have lost control of the agenda.

[noahbody]

The handbook of how to delay would appear to confirm that the Tories have run out of gas. They are gasping to the finish line and will probably try to end Parliament early because they have lost control of the agenda.

"The handbook of how to delay" is like Stephen Dion is about bringing Taliban prisoners to Canada.

[jdobbin]

"The handbook of how to delay" is like Stephen Dion is about bringing Taliban prisoners to Canada.

You'll have to enlighten me how a statement that was immediately taken back after it was said compares to a 200 page handbook that became policy this week.

[madmax]

Meanwhile, absolutely the Conservatives have hit the wall....and their preoccupation with politics over good government.

I think that this is the problem with an ideological leader.

[jdobbin]

I think that this is the problem with an ideological leader.

I think many people chose Harper (aside from the fact the Liberals themselves ran out of gas and credibility) was that Harper seemed to have a plan. Where that plan went is anyone's guess. It obvious was a short term plan and now the Opposition has thwarted his goals by not bringing down the government and he has trapped himself with the fixed election date. The Opposition can pretty much have their way with him now and he is helpless to do anything except stall and look ineffective.

[jdobbin]

The Tory Parliamentary tactics are starting to get noticed by quite a few people now.

http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news...94-ab393061ffbd

Instead, Harper's front bench follows the same script, answering every question with an often unrelated counter-attack.

The only exception to the barrage of provocation is the Bloc Quebecois: Gilles Duceppe's recent leadership flip-flop, for instance, inspired only gentle jibes from Tories. Harper needs Quebecers to like him.

For Liberals, though, it is bare-knuckle abuse. For example, every time Liberal MP Garth Turner asks a question about income trusts -- a matter of intense interest to his constituents -- he is chided for leaping from the Conservatives to the Liberals without facing the electorate.

Fair enough the first few times, but it gets tiresome after several months.

When Liberal MP Scott Brison asks a question about taxes, say, he is teased about his indiscreet e-mail on income trusts that came to light during the last election.

When Liberal MP Irwin Cotler yesterday raised a question about Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's hateful views, he was reminded that his wife left the Liberal party because of its allegedly lukewarm support of Israel.

But the worst example is the prime minister's continued inference -- most recently in a speech to military families in Petawawa -- that opposition parties are "tarnishing" the reputation of Canadian troops by asking questions about Afghanistan. This may be cementing his popularity with the military, but to many, it looks like a crude attempt to stifle debate.

[noahbody]

"The handbook of how to delay" is like Stephen Dion is about bringing Taliban prisoners to Canada.

You'll have to enlighten me how a statement that was immediately taken back after it was said compares to a 200 page handbook that became policy this week.

Well, you seem to realize isolating a single point and characterizing Dion because of it is unfair. You don't seem to realize that characterizing the manual as "The handbook of how to delay" is also a mischaracterization and unfair.

If more people weren't blinded by political loyalty, maybe we'd get something done in this country.

[jdobbin]

Well, you seem to realize isolating a single point and characterizing Dion because of it is unfair. You don't seem to realize that characterizing the manual as "The handbook of how to delay" is also a mischaracterization and unfair.

If more people weren't blinded by political loyalty, maybe we'd get something done in this country.

Let's see if this makes sense to you: Musing out loud and being foolish about it is not the same as committing something to paper and acting on it.

I think I personally said that Dion was incredibly stupid to say what he did. It would have been worse if he had made that a policy. You seem to be saying that the handbook which we have seen put into practice this week is simply a mischaracterization. It isn't. It was a policy demonstrated quite plainly for everyone to see.

Only a Conservative partisan loyalty would be blind to this. Perhaps this response is something that the right wing here is reading out of their own handbooks.

[Michael Bluth]

I think I personally said that Dion was incredibly stupid to say what he did.

No, don't believe that you did. Good on you for saying it now though.

[jdobbin]

Meanwhile, absolutely the Conservatives have hit the wall....and their preoccupation with politics over good government.

I think that this is the problem with an ideological leader.

I wonder if Harper will be using this week to decide whether to prorogue Parliament until October. Unfortunately, it will leave many pieces of legislation dead until re-introduced in the House. It would certainly make the government look ineffective if they ended the session before getting their bills through.

[Canuck E Stan]

I wonder if Harper will be using this week to decide whether to prorogue Parliament until October. Unfortunately, it will leave many pieces of legislation dead until re-introduced in the House. It would certainly make the government look ineffective if they ended the session before getting their bills through.

More like making parliament looking ineffective.

All parties will be blaming the others for the ineffectiveness.

In the end the public will decide who the worse offenders are.

[jdobbin]

More like making parliament looking ineffective.

All parties will be blaming the others for the ineffectiveness.

In the end the public will decide who the worse offenders are.

Perhaps. I don't know that that people blame Parliament as a separate entity. They look to the government to lead. They look to the prime minister to demonstrate direction. What is that direction? Harper basically said he has fulfilled all his promises. Problem is that the session is expected to go a few more weeks.

[Michael Bluth]

Perhaps. I don't know that that people blame Parliament as a separate entity. They look to the government to lead. They look to the prime minister to demonstrate direction. What is that direction? Harper basically said he has fulfilled all his promises. Problem is that the session is expected to go a few more weeks.

May long weekend. People are worried about getting their cottages ready for the summer.

People aren't too concerned about the Government for the next few weeks.

[jdobbin]

A piece by Susan Riley for Canwest as to why Harper can't make gains and appears to be adrift.

http://www.canada.com/victoriatimescolonis...df-58b47f70a148

And in Prince Edward Island, voters ousted Conservative Premier Pat Binns yesterday after 10 years in office. The Liberal victory seemed unlikely to most observers when the campaign began.

None of this should be reassuring news for Prime Minister Stephen Harper, although these developments may have nothing to do with any larger shift. Sometimes voters just get tired of a party and want a change. Some are motivated by narrow self-interest (tax cuts); others by altruism (saving the planet). Many drift from one category to the other.

Every party has a core of bedrock support, but to win a majority, each needs to appeal to a broader group.

That, not a surge in centre-left support, is Harper's dilemma. Lately, he is acting like a man living on borrowed time, more concerned with defending his base than moving beyond it.

It looks like Harper will make Senate reform an issue although it is going to be hard to make it an election issue. Moreover, if the Tories stall the Kyoto bill, it is going to look like they are stalling Parliament themselves.