Liberals will move to topple Conservative Gov't

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by Savvy27

Ugh. I'm no fan of the Conservatives but I don't see a Liberal minority being any better than a Conservative minority. Actually, I think we'll be worse off regardless of the winner because parties are going to be making stupid promises that they can't keep just to get in power instead of focusing on being steady and waiting for the economy to recover.

I suppose Ignatieff must think that he can come out on top against Harper in a tight election. I wouldn't be so sure...

Don't be silly...politicians NEVER do things like that

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Lchoy

Personal thoughts:
Create jobs and restore public finances are hard to judge Harper on imo. I think no matter who was in charge, the Libs or the Cons, Ontario's manufacturing and car industry was going to get hit no matter what. Same goes with the current state of finances

Failed to defend Health Care - Probably my most informed issue of the four. I understood the PMO's statement that they don't want to get involved with the Politics of another country, but the Americans trashing of our Health Care system had a lot of Canadians upset about it. I wish there was a little more direction from the Prime Minister to counter what was being said over the border. Health care in general is hard for the public to judge since services are provided provincially. On our OCED rankings, we remain pretty much the same. The Feds did order 52 million flu vaccines and have been pretty consistent with warning Canadians about Swine Flu. As for the other stuff like wait times, shortages, and other contentious issues, it's more of a Provincial matter

Failed to protect the vulnerable. The last one I think will more refer to the woman that was trapped in Sudan (since as mentioned above, Khadre is a political landmine)

Other topics that Canadians will be evaluating:
- Buy American policy in the States
- Recent emphasis on Artic Soveriegnty
- Committment to Afghanistan
- Harmonized sales Tax (for everyone but Alberta I think)

Is that what they were talking about?! Is this a joke?

[alltherage]

I wish like hell there was someone worth voting for in this sh*t show of a country. Our democratic process is seriously embarassing.

It should be illegal for parties that did not win the election to take over the govt. We didn't ing vote for you.

[VladtheImpaler]

I think this country is ready for the dictatorship of the proletariat (with a vanguard of dedicated revoltionaries at the top). Time to do away with these pesky and useless political parties.

[Hack&Lube]

What a deceptive thread title. This is CP, not the Calgary Sun.

Ignatieff is going to stop propping up the Conservative gov't (which can still stand if they have enough NDP and Bloc support) but he is not explicitly going to topple them at the next possible opportunity (Oct.) and he made that clear. He is just iterating his threat again.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by peter12

Anything less than a majority for Harper means he's out of there.

I'm absolutely amazed that there hasn't already been calls from the Conservative ranks for Harper's resignation. If he couldn't win a majority against the Dion-led Liberals (who suffered their worst-ever election defeat), how will he ever win a majority?

[Bob]

Originally Posted by alltherage

I wish like hell there was someone worth voting for in this sh*t show of a country. Our democratic process is seriously embarassing.

I'm with you. I almost prefer minority governments because it seems less likely they will royally screw things up.

[CaptainCrunch]

Weren't there just a bunch of new jobs in Ontario due to the new Chrsler van being produced up here?

Just wondering?

And if Iggy talks about protecting the vulnerable being based around reduced EI eligibility and increased welfare dollars, he's probably going to be laughed off of the podium.

If protecting the vulnerable means protecting the likes of Omar Khadr and making it an election issue then he's getting bad advice, and the passport thing isn't enough of an issue to cost this country hundreds of millions in election costs.

A health care fight would be interesting, but I doubt that the Liberals could do much to improve what is essentially a provincial issue beyond a call to nationalize health care.

The buy America thing is interesting, but is it something that Canadian's will say f yeah, the government should burn for it? No especially with the U.S still struggling and Canada begining its recovery.

Arctic Soverignty - Canadian's have taken a lot more pride in their armed forces and the job that they've done in Afghanistan, and the higher profile has been created by some very saavy purchases by the government, and a higher military profile in the press. Arctic soverignty is important with the resource rich North at stake, and I would assume that most Canadian's would be happy with Harpers attention to the matter. He's also announced a ton of construction spending up there which can never be a negative thing.

The Sales tax, certainly not attention grabbing enough to drop the government.

I'm not seeing that one big issue that the Cons have handled so badly that the government needs to fall.

This is a stupid move by Iggy, and a worse move by the Liberals.

[FFR]

Originally Posted by Hack&Lube

What a deceptive thread title. This is CP, not the Calgary Sun.

Ignatieff is going to stop propping up the Conservative gov't (which can still stand if they have enough NDP and Bloc support) but he is not explicitly going to topple them at the next possible opportunity (Oct.) and he made that clear. He is just iterating his threat again.

I was just copying what CTV had has their article title when I posted the thread. It's changed since I posted the article.

But in any case - the article now clearly states that he cannot support the government any longer and will be putting forth a non-confidence motion to force an election. Is that not toppling the government? Especially considering that the NDP and Bloc have long been saying that they would support the Liberal's in a non confidence motion? I don't think that it's really a threat anymore.

[LChoy]

Originally Posted by peter12

Is that what they were talking about?! Is this a joke?

The Conservatives, he charged, have sat back and done nothing all summer as Canada's health-care system is dragged through the mud in the United States.
"The Liberals are fiercely proud of our health-care system and, unlike the Conservatives, we are not afraid to defend it," he said.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/...als090109.html

According to the article, I think that's what it meant. It depends on your view I guess. As Canadians, we mainly stay out of the American's business. However, if we flipped the situation and a Canadian government officials commented on something dear to the Americans, say Gun control, you can bet that the US would come back with a response

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

I'm absolutely amazed that there hasn't already been calls from the Conservative ranks for Harper's resignation. If he couldn't win a majority against the Dion-led Liberals (who suffered their worst-ever election defeat), how will he ever win a majority?

There's a simple answer: he won't. The likeliest outcome of another election is another Harper minority--the math here dictates a classic stalemate--with neither party enjoying broad enough regional support to form a majority.

That's why this puzzles me. And Hack&Lube's point is well taken--that this doesn't mean an election necessarily, and could just be saber-rattling. For one thing, the Grits can't bring down the government by themselves. But really, I don't see much of a reason for an election unless the Liberals' own numbers indicate that they will be much stronger in the east and will shave some votes away from the NDP elsewhere. Otherwise, it's stalemate city again.

As for those who are opposed to coalitions--with the electoral landscape the way it is, we'd better start hoping for some coalition governments. It may be the only way to avoid an election every 18 months.

[4X4]

Out of curiousity, can any of you guys that watch politics closely remind me how many times the Libs have threatened an election since the last one? This has got to be the 8th time at least.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Lchoy

According to the article, I think that's what it meant. It depends on your view I guess. As Canadians, we mainly stay out of the American's business. However, if we flipped the situation and a Canadian government officials commented on something dear to the Americans, say Gun control, you can bet that the US would come back with a response

My goodness, that is so pathetic.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Are you seriously saying that the Liberals wouldnt of spent more than the Conservatives?

Wasnt that what the whole friggin charade of the coup was based on...that the Cons werent going to do enough to "stimulate" the economy, but the Lib/NDP were going to make sure it was done.

I mean really IFF...you, I consider, one of the brightest observers of politics on this site, but to suggest the alliance would of been more fiscsally prudent is just ridiculous. Especially knowing Layton was involved in those decisions.

No, that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying I don't know what the Liberals would have done if they had been in power. Neither do you. Neither does anyone--except maybe Bizarro-world Superman, but he's not talking.

That you continue to call what happened last fall a "coup" is kind of insulting, in my view. Coups usually involve men with guns assassinating the political leadership and burying them in a shallow grave, not political parties maneuvering within the rules of the body they were elected to. I'll readily agree that it was a terrible idea and that the optics of it were awful--yet another abortion of a strategy from the worst Liberal leader in history. But a coup?

I invite you to read this informative and detailed definition:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coup_d%27%C3%A9tat

[MelBridgeman]

Originally Posted by Lchoy

According to the article, I think that's what it meant. It depends on your view I guess. As Canadians, we mainly stay out of the American's business. However, if we flipped the situation and a Canadian government officials commented on something dear to the Americans, say Gun control, you can bet that the US would come back with a response

It's being dragged through the mud?
http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/loc...TorontoNewHome

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

I'm absolutely amazed that there hasn't already been calls from the Conservative ranks for Harper's resignation. If he couldn't win a majority against the Dion-led Liberals (who suffered their worst-ever election defeat), how will he ever win a majority?

If I remember right, he WAS on the way to a majority when he found himself campaigning in a very sudden, dramatic and decidedly unexpected global economic free fall . . . . .

In that sense, we might say he was particularly crafty in staying in power at all because something like that has been good enough, rightly or wrongly, to kill many a government before his.

Cowperson

[Bunk]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Are you seriously saying that the Liberals wouldnt of spent more than the Conservatives?

I think if the Liberals were in power the deficit would be lower even if they spent around the same amount in 'stimulus'. Reducing the GST by 2% reduced the Federal Government's revenue by a good $12-$14 billion a year. That's roughly 25-30% of the current deficit. Politically expedient at the time, but in the long term I don't think it was all that prudent. Liberals in the past 15 years have proven to be pretty good stewards of the budget and the overall economy.

I'm curious to see what Ignatieff's platform will be. I read a few weeks back that High Speed Rail for the Windsor to Quebec Corridor and the Edmonton-Calgary link may be his cental plank. It has economic development, national unity, jobs, innovation, environment and whole bunch of things that would be wrapped up nicely in a project like that.

[Pastiche]

The path to majority rests in breaking Quebec. No political leader since Mulroney has solved that riddle and there are no indications that anyone will soon. As long as Quebeckers continue to elect the bloc, the math just doesn't work out. The reason Chretien got his three majorities was because of vote splitting on the right. Now that the vote isn't split we're getting minorities. No leader has polled significantly enough in Quebec to break the logjam.

It's less Harper's problem and more a political-institutional issue.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

If I remember right, he WAS on the way to a majority when he found himself campaigning in a very sudden, dramatic and decidedly unexpected global economic free fall . . . . .

In that sense, we might say he was particularly crafty in staying in power at all because something like that has been good enough, rightly or wrongly, to kill many a government before his.

Cowperson

Yeah, but the economy was an issue where Harper polled much stronger than Dion. If anything, the economic crisis should have helped Harper win a majority.

[4X4]

Originally Posted by fotze

...
- $100 Million dollars later, the seat counts will be about the same cause Harper has the charisma of a dog turd that has turned white, and Ignatief will come off academic and douchy. Bunch of poo.

The number I always hear is $300 million. Maybe I listen to QR77 too much?