A question of confidence

[Higgly]

I'm not sure I'd agree that Steve has engineered this. How could he count on Liberal incompetence? Dion was the worst possible choice for leader - a member of the Chretien cabinet. How bad can it get? They would have been much better off going with "Beaker" if only he'd have wanted the job.

Oh, wait. Ignatieff. Here's a guy who hasn't even lived inside the country for the latter half of his life. Approves of torture under "necessary circumstances" (notice how we haven't heard from him with the latest flap over the Bush administration's use of... wait for it... stressful interrogation. O man. You gotta love it. Bush probably got someone from Blackwater to come up with that one.

They should have gone with Rae. Say what you like, but the guy knows where the buttons and levers are and I believe he understands Canadians better than Steve does.

[Visionseeker]

They must be quite giddy at the Liberal Headquarters. For Harper has handed the Liberals all the power to call the election.

If Dion and the Liberals feel they can immediately win an election, they’ll bring the government down on the Speech from the Throne. If they are not so sure, they can let the speech pass and then play with the arcane rules of parliamentary democracy to buy themselves about two to three months time before any item can come up for third reading.

To those who claim that Dion will look weak if he refuses to take Harper’s bait, I say you are right, he will look weak because he will be depicted as such. But jumping into an election to avoid the appearance of weakness is not only foolish, it’s stupid. And I severely doubt that such image concerns will determine when the Liberals pull the trigger.

One has to ask why Harper is so determined to force an election. It may be that he believes that he can trounce the Liberals in their reported disarray, it may be that he hopes to reset a minority dynamic with a new set of priorities, or it may be that he wants to incrementally improve the national brand by winning some more Quebec seats while still presiding over a minority. But I suspect the move is prompted by fear.

The Conservatives have done everything they can to impugn Dion and try to bring him to his knees. But nothing seems to work. No matter what they try or what happens within Dion’s own party, the numbers just won’t budge. Add to this that the polls tracking second choices have NDP, Green and Bloc voter’s favouring the Liberals over the Conservative by a margin of 4 to 1 (with the Conservatives largely drawing only from the Bloc), there is every reason to be concerned in the Conservative ranks.

Strategic voting has the potential to cripple the Conservatives growth outside Quebec. It could easily cost them a few seats under the current environment.

The Conservatives understand that the efforts to bring Dion to his knees have failed. Now they are desperate to move before Dion can rehabilitate and, more importantly, before the Director of Public Prosecutions receives the file from the Commissioner of Elections.

Edited October 6, 2007 by Visionseeker

[Fortunata]

Hmm, let's talk about working together.

This board has rules about respectful language. "Steve" might be borderline, but "Harpercon" is a clear violation of the rules.

Working together and compromise is a matter of respect. You managed to maintain a base level of respect for the first few posts of the day, but have abandoned all pretext with this one.

So you want the Conservatives to work together, yet won't use basic respectful language?

Quite like the approach of the Liberals in the House of Commons. Symbolic of why the Conservatives are approaching the upcoming Speech from the Throne in the way that they are. Liberals braying about working collaboratively but unable to do so in a respectful manner. This minority government has been around long enough.

If Liberal supporters want the Conservatives to work with the Liberals respectful perhaps they should quit using terms like Steve, dictatorship and Harpercon.

You win Fortunata.

I'm not willing to take part in a Rabble-Lethbridge forum. Good luck!

Don't be absurd. Harpercon is nothing but a shortning of Harper Conservatives, like Libs is short for Liberal, like wtf is short for holy cow, I guess you were losing the argument. Sheesh. And you are a fine one to be talking respect as you have been very disrespectful in some instances to a woman MP, I can bring that forth if you wish.

And back to the topic at hand - I hope the Liberals abstain and the "HarperConservatives" won't get their election wish. It is not just the opposition parties that haven't worked together as the HarperConservatives have been very obstructive. Only they have sneakily blamed it on the others. The others haven't a manual though how to be disruptive as far as I know.

As far as dictatorship is concerned - you're right. In this country you don't (or shouldn't) get to be dictator until you get a majority.

[Michael Bluth]

Don't be absurd. Harpercon is nothing but a shortning of Harper Conservatives, like Libs is short for Liberal, like wtf is short for holy cow, I guess you were losing the argument. Sheesh. And you are a fine one to be talking respect as you have been very disrespectful in some instances to a woman MP, I can bring that forth if you wish.

It's absurd to ask you to behave in a respectful manner?

The administrator asked all involved in the thread where I made the Ruby Dhalla comment to cease. I haven't repeated the comment. I showed respect for the wishes of the administrator. Interesting how you had to dig back months for my one 'disrespectful' comment, yet you repeatedly make disrespectful comments and try to defend them.

You call the Prime Minister 'Steve' when he has publicly asked to be called Stephen. You ade the argument that he hasn't 'earned' your respect. Ruby dhalla never 'earned' my respect, but I am respecting the rules of this board.

If you really feel HarperCon isn't an offensive term why not ask the mods?

It is not just the opposition parties that haven't worked together as the HarperConservatives have been very obstructive. Only they have sneakily blamed it on the others.

I saw Scott Reid, Liberal strategist of beer and popcorn fame, blaming the currently uncooperative Parliament on the Liberals on Mike Duffy live today. Not sure if it reaches your standard of behaving 'sneakily' but he was definitely behaving the same way you blame Harper of behaving.

[Fortunata]

If you really feel HarperCon isn't an offensive term why not ask the mods?

Is it ok if I use Libs, NDP or any other abbreviation? In case you hadn't noticed I typed the whole thing out in my recent posts: the HarperConservatives.

I saw Scott Reid, Liberal strategist of beer and popcorn fame, blaming the currently uncooperative Parliament on the Liberals on Mike Duffy live today. Not sure if it reaches your standard of behaving 'sneakily' but he was definitely behaving the same way you blame Harper of behaving.

I didn't watch Mike Duffy and I don't believe that it is all the Liberals fault. And I never said it was all the Con-servative's (oh my what a lot of extra typing) fault. In fact I stated that no party should not work with all the rest and no party should be threatening the country with ultimatums. It is not in the best interest of this country.

[Michael Bluth]

Is it ok if I use Libs, NDP or any other abbreviation? In case you hadn't noticed I typed the whole thing out in my recent posts: the HarperConservatives.

I didn't watch Mike Duffy and I don't believe that it is all the Liberals fault. And I never said it was all the Con-servative's (oh my what a lot of extra typing) fault. In fact I stated that no party should not work with all the rest and no party should be threatening the country with ultimatums. It is not in the best interest of this country.

Harper Conservatives would be correct.

Too much typing? Here's a lesson in cutting down your typing strokes.

Six little letters. T o r i e s

If that's too much try three little letters. CPC

Never accused you of saying it was just the Conservatives. But you did accuse them and just them of blaming it on others.

the HarperConservatives ... Only they have sneakily blamed it on the others.

I do thank you for working with me on this.

[Fortunata]

Harper Conservatives would be correct.

Too much typing? Here's a lesson in cutting down your typing strokes.

Six little letters. T o r i e s

If that's too much try three little letters. CPC

Never accused you of saying it was just the Conservatives. But you did accuse them and just them of blaming it on others.

CPC doesn't convey my feelings about this bunch. AND THEY ARE NOT TORIES. The Tories were the party that MacKay sold out.

Yes, this bunch of HarperCons-ervatives have a manual how to disrupt Parliament when they aren't getting their way. A manual! Yet you make it out like it was not their fault. It is squarely on all parties to make this work but when the governing "new" government put out a manual? That just says so much.

I do thank you for working with me on this.

Oh it's ever so much my pleasure. :lol:

[geoffrey]

Bottom line, if you support the Throne speech, you support the government's agenda.

Dion buying time and then clogging up the house in the taking too much immodium fashion is not reasonable or in the best interests of individuals living in this country.

I think Harper is right on. Any bill gets defeated, we go to election. The opposition pulls another Pablo stunt, and it's an election. Enough of the crap. I don't enjoy most things Harper does. But he's the PM, if you don't like it, face him in an election.

[maldon_road]

They must be quite giddy at the Liberal Headquarters. For Harper has handed the Liberals all the power to call the election.

If Dion and the Liberals feel they can immediately win an election, they’ll bring the government down on the Speech from the Throne.

What's the probability of that happening?

Mr Dion was recently musing about the lack of government support for Omar Khadr. Perhaps he might want to fight an election on that.

[jdobbin]

Bottom line, if you support the Throne speech, you support the government's agenda.

Dion buying time and then clogging up the house in the taking too much immodium fashion is not reasonable or in the best interests of individuals living in this country.

I think Harper is right on. Any bill gets defeated, we go to election. The opposition pulls another Pablo stunt, and it's an election. Enough of the crap. I don't enjoy most things Harper does. But he's the PM, if you don't like it, face him in an election.

In our history, supporting the throne speech doesn't mean swallowing the whole government agenda. If it did, we'd never have a minority government last past a month.

The NDP and BQ have set things up so that they blame they Liberals for supporting the government if the throne speech doesn't not bring an election. The Tories have set it up so that the Liberals are blamed if the throne speech is defeated.

The Liberals can abstain and say that they will address the issues as they come up. If Harper doesn't like that, he can call the election himself and say that he doesn't have the confidence of the House.

[maldon_road]

In our history, supporting the throne speech doesn't mean swallowing the whole government agenda. If it did, we'd never have a minority government last past a month.

And Harper knows that. He is just sabre rattling. The Libs will let the Speech from the Throne pass and hope they get some breathing space to whip Dion into a leader.

[old_bold&cold]

It would only be reasonable to think that if a party supports the throne speech they for the most part agree with most of those issues. Now I do not think everything would be a confidence motion, and neither would Harper. I would even go as far as saying that he would expect some changes to take place and fluffying and puffing here and there, but the general concepts should be followed, or yes when he sees that he is not getting co-operation in good faith, then call an election.

Too many around here keep trying to take everything word for word, and make political hay from it. The voters are much more reasonable in their views in this and I would say that it is just another slow news day, for this to be made into a story. We can all expect there to be many goodies given in the throne speech and yes there will also be a party line of what it wants to accomplish. If the opposition is not willing to work within those confinments, then they should vote down the speech and have an election. But if they find a point or two in that speech that they want to argue, but want to also work with the rest then they should vote in favour of the speech and then argue the points later when they come up. If the present government finds that later the parties are not working with anything and just tring to be obstructive, then they will call an election. Each side has to be careful on which issues they would disolve Parliament on, as the voters will exact a heavy price on certain issues.

Harper is right in his view that support of a throne speech should also show that the parties support the agenda for the most part. He is wrong that every issue is a confidence vote, but he being the ruling party can make that so if he wants to. That is his choice to do or not to do. The opposition parties all have to be careful not to vote against issues that voters want to have, such as tax cuts and social spending and the list can go on and on. They too can push the government into calling an election simply by not working with the government and making it necessary for an elction to be called, so certain thinsg can then be resolved.

I am kind of glad that the provincal election in Ont looks like the voters are siding Liberal. This in the past means that Federally they will move CPC. But that is not written in stone, it is just that has been the method that has been played out for all of recent memory. Harper is not seen as a scarey guy with scarey ideas, and that pig won't fly this time around. Most voters will see him middle to the right in his views, where Dion and the Liberal will be seen as too far left of center, to be given the levers of government.

[maldon_road]

It would only be reasonable to think that if a party supports the throne speech they for the most part agree with most of those issues.

What about a single, although important, issue - Afghanistan? The Libs and the BQ have said Harper must state now that troops will be pulled out of there in 2009. (The NDP, of course, want them out now). Harper this week stated that this will not be in the throne speech, in fact he suggested even that they might stay on after the 2009 withdrawal date - with the HofC's approval.

Is that enough to get the three Oppos to vote against the speech? Certainly the Bloc and NDP will. What about the Libs? And this is something that Dion need not have commented on. He has already said that he thinks that the troops should be pulled in 2009. He need not have said anything more.

There is no way Dion can come out of all this looking good.

[Topaz]

Its not surprising how many ideas of what Harper is going to do and when, or how the opposition parties are going to react the throne speech. Since it was the NDP that brought down Martin I can only hope that Layton will give as much thought on Harper as he did on Martin. Alot of people lost out on Martin's budget but this government is not like other governments, it seems Harper wants to play "Mr. Tough Guy" with Canadians and I don't think the majority want to have a PM like him. I, for one and maybe only one, would like to see an election and sure maybe WE don't want one but did we want one the last time, NO! I would some of the Liberals would want one and after, go for a leader change, Harper needs one, if he wants a majority gov't to keep troops in Afghanistan and the NDP would benefit by NOT having one. I don't think the Bloc is going to keep helping out Harper especailly after the last session, where they really verbally bad mouth the Bloc. I think Harper has burned his bridges and NEEDS a majority!

[Michael Bluth]

What about a single, although important, issue - Afghanistan? The Libs and the BQ have said Harper must state now that troops will be pulled out of there in 2009. (The NDP, of course, want them out now). Harper this week stated that this will not be in the throne speech, in fact he suggested even that they might stay on after the 2009 withdrawal date - with the HofC's approval.

That's the odd thing with the Tory and Liberal perspective on Afghanistan.

The outcome flows from what they are both saying. As you said the Conservative's will extend *if* they can get the House's approval, in a less combat heavy role. If not they leave in 2009. The Liberals want a guarantee their current combat heavy role ends in 2009 but are open to the troops staying in some other capacity.

If a compromise is reached, it will be reached between the Liberals and the Conservatives on Afghanistan as the primary issue.

Harper has again shown his strategic brilliance in his moves on the Speech from the Throne. He is treating it like a campaign kickoff. A means of highlighting his vision for Afghanistan, the environment, tax cuts and parliamentary reform. If Dion can find a way to support him, then Harper has defused Afghanistan and the environment as potential campaign issues in '09.

[maldon_road]

Harper has again shown his strategic brilliance in his moves on the Speech from the Throne. He is treating it like a campaign kickoff. A means of highlighting his vision for Afghanistan, the environment, tax cuts and parliamentary reform. If Dion can find a way to support him, then Harper has defused Afghanistan and the environment as potential campaign issues in '09.

If compromise can be reached by Harper it will be with Dion, not the other two. He has to act the more responsible; he is the only one who has a chance for becoming PM. However, he can't be seen as someone who gets a reputation of propping up the government. That would be deadly for him in an election.

[old_bold&cold]

What about a single, although important, issue - Afghanistan? The Libs and the BQ have said Harper must state now that troops will be pulled out of there in 2009. (The NDP, of course, want them out now). Harper this week stated that this will not be in the throne speech, in fact he suggested even that they might stay on after the 2009 withdrawal date - with the HofC's approval.

Is that enough to get the three Oppos to vote against the speech? Certainly the Bloc and NDP will. What about the Libs? And this is something that Dion need not have commented on. He has already said that he thinks that the troops should be pulled in 2009. He need not have said anything more.

There is no way Dion can come out of all this looking good.

I laugh at this quite a bit. Why is it so important to have Harper say he will withdraw by such a date. Harper has a minority government and he has said that it will be the will of parliament that says when and where the mission goes. It is nothing more then whining by Dion and the rest to even think that this shoudl be an issue and the voters, will see it as just being stupid. The extention of the mission can only be done with an act of parliament, right? So when that time comes they can vote to end it and withdraw, it is solved real easy and there is no need to panic now or even for the next year or so. Why are they making it an issue, when it really is not?

[capricorn]

Why are they making it an issue, when it really is not?

IMO the Liberals think they can score points in Quebec given Quebecers overall distaste for anything and everything military especially war. In view of their declining support in Quebec, they are grasping at straws and Afghanistan presents an opportunity. There is also pretty strong objection to the mission in the ROC.

I wonder why they haven't intensified their criticism of the NDP position of cutting and running? If they are concerned about losing votes to the NDP (which happened in Outremont) why are they not targeting them for their position on the mission? Perhaps one reason is that they do not want to appear to be supportive of th mission.

The other matter is the Liberals have not yet developed any solid policies to sell to Canadians. So I think the strategy is to jab at the Conservatives at what they consider to be a weak spot.

[Michael Bluth]

IMO the Liberals think they can score points in Quebec given Quebecers overall distaste for anything and everything military especially war. In view of their declining support in Quebec, they are grasping at straws and Afghanistan presents an opportunity. There is also pretty strong objection to the mission in the ROC.

The other matter is the Liberals have not yet developed any solid policies to sell to Canadians. So I think the strategy is to jab at the Conservatives at what they consider to be a weak spot.

The distaste for all things military is mostly centered in the Island of Montreal.

The other regions of the province are more pro-military. In large part because of the positive effect the military has on local economies.

[old_bold&cold]

Well as for it needing to be said in a throne speech,I really wish that all the opposition parties would grow up and admit they are the ones who will be able to say what happenes after 2009, if they leave this government stand that long. Having an election this fall and with the only possible winner in all of it being the CPC, how can they excuse this foolishness about saying words on a subject that the CPC could not do without others to support them. Palin bad taste, but persoally I never thought liberals had any good taste to begin with.

[August1991]

In our history, supporting the throne speech doesn't mean swallowing the whole government agenda. If it did, we'd never have a minority government last past a month.

The NDP and BQ have set things up so that they blame they Liberals for supporting the government if the throne speech doesn't not bring an election. The Tories have set it up so that the Liberals are blamed if the throne speech is defeated.

The Liberals can abstain and say that they will address the issues as they come up. If Harper doesn't like that, he can call the election himself and say that he doesn't have the confidence of the House.

If I'm not mistaken, there will be votes on sub-amendments to the Throne Speech before a vote on the entire programme.

I don't think the tactics you propose (abstaining or calling in sick) are feasible.

If a compromise is reached, it will be reached between the Liberals and the Conservatives on Afghanistan as the primary issue.

The other issues are the environment and the federal power to spend.

On the environment alone, Dion has said that he wants C-20 to be reintroduced. Harper has said he won't do it. On this point alone, I don't see how Dion can compromise without losing all credibility.

As to Afghanistan, I don't think Harper will go further than saying what he has already said. The mission will go beyond February 2009 only if there is a consensus in parliament.

IMV, the wild card is the limit on the federal power to spend. I think Harper can do this and it would set up a strong Tory showing in Quebec (and make the BQ's position very difficult). Dion would not agree to such a limit.

[jdobbin]

If I'm not mistaken, there will be votes on sub-amendments to the Throne Speech before a vote on the entire programme.

I don't think the tactics you propose (abstaining or calling in sick) are feasible.

I guess we'll find out in a few weeks. That is what the discussion is centering on right now by the Liberal brass.

Edited October 7, 2007 by jdobbin

[maldon_road]

I don't think the tactics you propose (abstaining or calling in sick) are feasible.

Why? Abstentions are proper. Often happens. Remember the budget vote in Quebec. PQ abstained to prevent throwing over the government. All Dion has to say, "We think the throne speech stinks but this is just the skeleton. Lets see what meat they can put on the bone and then we will decided whether or not to support specific proposals."

[August1991]

Why? Abstentions are proper. Often happens. Remember the budget vote in Quebec. PQ abstained to prevent throwing over the government. All Dion has to say, "We think the throne speech stinks but this is just the skeleton. Lets see what meat they can put on the bone and then we will decided whether or not to support specific proposals."

The PQ did that immediate after an election in which they came third.

More exactly, the Throne Speech will have votes on sub-amendments concerning specific issues. It is hard to see how Dion can turn a blind eye to these if, as expected, they are presented in a way that makes them very unpalatable for Dion.

Les organisateurs du Parti conservateur ont encerclé une date de scrutin sur leur calendrier: le lundi 26 novembre. Les stratèges de Stephen Harper estiment qu'une courte campagne électorale de 39 jours (le minimum est de 36) pourrait nuire au Parti libéral du Canada, aux prises avec des problèmes internes qui risquent de le désorganiser pendant une partie de la campagne, selon les informations obtenues par Le Devoir. Une campagne condensée aiderait également les conservateurs à ne pas multiplier les gaffes, eux qui en ont commis plusieurs lors des deux dernières élections.

Ce scénario est actuellement décrit comme «le plus probable» par des stratèges conservateurs joints au cours des derniers jours. Il suppose un renversement du gouvernement le 18 octobre, soit deux jours après la lecture du discours du Trône, lors des premiers votes de confiance sur les sous-amendements. Stephen Harper rencontrerait donc la gouverneure générale le vendredi 19 octobre afin de dissoudre le Parlement. Par contre, si le gouvernement est renversé la semaine suivante, lors du vote final sur le discours du Trône, le jour du scrutin devra être reporté au lundi 3 décembre.

Le Devoir

I don't know. Maybe Dion will pull a (Stronach) rabbit out of his hat like Martin did. If Dion does this, it will be a pyhrric victory however. It will just remind Canadians once again that the Liberals are pure expediency.

[maldon_road]

More exactly, the Throne Speech will have votes on sub-amendments concerning specific issues. It is hard to see how Dion can turn a blind eye to these if, as expected, they are presented in a way that makes them very unpalatable for Dion.

I don't know. Maybe Dion will pull a (Stronach) rabbit out of his hat like Martin did. If Dion does this, it will be a pyhrric victory however. It will just remind Canadians once again that the Liberals are pure expediency.

We don't need reminding of that. Right now for the Libs it's save-the-furniture time. They can vote on amendments anyway they please. It doesn't matter. It is the vote on the Speech that matters. And they will never allow that to pass because they cannot allow an election to happen. Ever watch Question Period? Notice how much more effective Ignatieff was than Dion? Joanne Sénécal, just appointed at latest Liberal Party savior, must be waking up in cold sweats just thinking about Dion out on the hustings.