Liberals will move to topple Conservative Gov't

[octothorp]

I think it's foolish for them to force an election now. I'd love to know what the Liberals' internal polling is indicating, because the public polls make it look pretty grim. I still think that the NDP will vote with the Conservatives as they're even more poorly positioned for an election right now.

I guess they're looking at their own numbers, which are still way up from last election and pretty solid in key areas (except for the most recent Ekos). But I don't think Canadians have the patience to suffer through another election that results only in small change.

[Shawnski]

Not good news for Ignatieff. Denis Coderre has stepped down as the Liberal Quebec lieutenant and defense critic over the Cauchon affair.

The rift between Ignatieff and Coderre broke open last week over who should be nominated as the Liberal candidate in the Montreal riding of Outremont.

Former justice minister Martin Cauchon, who left politics in 2004, has signalled his intention to return to Parliament Hill and reclaim the riding he held for 11 years.

However, Ignatieff announced last Monday that he would appoint businesswoman Nathalie Le Prohon, who was selected by Coderre, as the Liberal candidate in Outremont,

The decision seemed to end Cauchon's hopes of a political comeback, but Coderre announced later in the week that another riding would be offered to Cauchon.

Meanwhile, a number of Liberal MPs, including Bob Rae, rallied around Cauchon in his bid for Outremont.

By the end of the week, Ignatieff had reversed his own decision about Outremont to allow for an open nomination contest in the riding.

http://toronto.ctv.ca/servlet/an/loc...TorontoNewHome

[Rerun]

I really do hope the Liberals defeat the Conservatives in this next vote of confidence, as I'm looking forward to the Conservatives getting one more kick at the cat regarding forming a majority government. The polls are looking good.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by Rerun

I really do hope the Liberals defeat the Conservatives in this next vote of confidence, as I'm looking forward to the Conservatives getting one more kick at the cat regarding forming a majority government. The polls are looking good.

I'm still willing to bet that if the Liberal's actually cause this government to topple that their numbers will plummet far and fast.

I still can't see what the reason is to topple this government in sitting, and there just isn't a good election issue or scandal thats haunting the Conservatives right now.

Whoever is driving Liberal strategy is doing a worse job then they did under Dion.

[Resolute 14]

Whoever's in government when the country pulls out of the recession (of which, the government, whomever they may be, will have had virtually no impact on) will gain a boost in the polls. The Liberals know that now is their time, because in a few months, they won't be able to use the recession boogeyman to scare Canadians.

[Art Vandelay]

Looks like the NDP will be saving us from an election. At least for the time being.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2009/...idence028.html

But it appears the motion won't pass in a vote Thursday, because NDP Leader Jack Layton said his party will back the government, guaranteeing the Tories' survival

[Stranger]

Jack's saving his own skin. He knows he will lose a large number of seats and will never be more influencial than he is now.

[4X4]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

Anyone get a feeling that Iggy is bored of being the leader of the opposition?

If he loses the next election what are the chances that he heads back to Harvard? I'd say they're pretty good.

He's done a terrible job of inspiring any kind of confidence in himself as a leader.

He's already been hit hard in the polls, look for his fund raising efforts to start drying up if he continues on this path.

I was listening to Chuck Adler (god, he's an annoying c-word, but there's nothing else on in the afternoon) the other day and he was saying something similar to this. He basically suggested that Ignatieff doesn't want to be the leader anymore (and probably kinda wants out altogether), so by forcing an election, he's in a win-win situation for himself, and to hell with the Liberal party.
The two ways he wins are that if he somehow wins the election, he's PM. If he loses, an understandable reaction is to step down as leader.

Originally Posted by Stranger

Jack's saving his own skin. He knows he will lose a large number of seats and will never be more influencial than he is now.

I'm no political tactician, but I think that Layton is doing himself more harm than good. From what I've seen in my life, NDP supporters are most likely to be vehemently anti-conservative. So by propping up the Cons, he's probably losing more and more votes to the Libs.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by 4X4

I'm no political tactician, but I think that Layton is doing himself more harm than good. From what I've seen in my life, NDP supporters are most likely to be vehemently anti-conservative. So by propping up the Cons, he's probably losing more and more votes to the Libs.

Absolutely. I jump back and forth between the NDP and Greens, but have voted NDP in the last few elections. Six months ago Jack was bashing the Liberals for propping up an evil Conservative government. Their web site was all "we've lost confidence in this government to accomplish anything'; 'Harper is implementing his agenda with the aide of the Liberals'; 'We will not support the Conservative agenda. Why are the Liberals?'

So I'm doubly pissed off with the NDP - first for supporting a government that I have deep ideological difference with; second for being so two faced.

I wrote to them saying that if they prop up the government, they have lost a staunch supporter. I'll go back to the Greens. Not that it matters much. No matter how much I go knocking on doors and handing out pamphlets, there is no way either party is winning this riding.

[Devils'Advocate]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

I'm still willing to bet that if the Liberal's actually cause this government to topple that their numbers will plummet far and fast.

How much? What are the terms?

[metallicat]

I actually like Charles Adler. He tells it like it is.

[4X4]

Originally Posted by oilers_fan

I actually like Charles Adler. He tells it like it is.

I generally agree with him, I just can't stand how he constantly interrupts people, and the annoying-as-frack way that he does it. He just keeps repeating the first few words of his interruption until the other person stops talking.

Or when he thinks something's funny, but he wants to make a point, he half laughs, then starts to talk, then half laughs, then starts to talk again, then half laugh, start to talk, half laugh, start to talk.... Argh. Sometimes I want to just punch him right through the radio.

And his questions. Frick, his questions are about 3 minutes long. When he does an interview, he spends more time asking questions than hearing answers. And to boot, he always adds disclaimers to his questions so that there's no way that the guest could possibly be offended by the question. So annoying. But the funny thing is that when the afternoon guy used to be Dave Tayolr, who I mostly disagree with, I used to just hope and pray that Taylor would eff off. Which he finally did when he joined the provincial Libs (good place for him, IMO). But now that I've got Chuck Adler in Taylor's place, I kinda wish Taylor was back. At least Taylor would shut the hell up and listen to his guests' answers.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by 4X4

I generally agree with him, I just can't stand how he constantly interrupts people, and the annoying-as-frack way that he does it. He just keeps repeating the first few words of his interruption until the other person stops talking.

Or when he thinks something's funny, but he wants to make a point, he half laughs, then starts to talk, then half laughs, then starts to talk again, then half laugh, start to talk, half laugh, start to talk.... Argh. Sometimes I want to just punch him right through the radio.

And his questions. Frick, his questions are about 3 minutes long. When he does an interview, he spends more time asking questions than hearing answers. And to boot, he always adds disclaimers to his questions so that there's no way that the guest could possibly be offended by the question. So annoying. But the funny thing is that when the afternoon guy used to be Dave Tayolr, who I mostly disagree with, I used to just hope and pray that Taylor would eff off. Which he finally did when he joined the provincial Libs (good place for him, IMO). But now that I've got Chuck Adler in Taylor's place, I kinda wish Taylor was back. At least Taylor would shut the hell up and listen to his guests' answers.

The guy who I miss is the one who used to afternoons on the weekends. I can't remember his name but he was always giving out his "secret fax line for my eyes only". The reason I liked him isn't because I agreed with his position on anything, but that he was so rude to the callers it was awesome. Whenever someone would ask "how are you today?" he would just yell "GET ON WITH IT!" at them...I thought it was hilarious!

[4X4]

Originally Posted by Slava

The guy who I miss is the one who used to afternoons on the weekends. I can't remember his name but he was always giving out his "secret fax line for my eyes only". The reason I liked him isn't because I agreed with his position on anything, but that he was so rude to the callers it was awesome. Whenever someone would ask "how are you today?" he would just yell "GET ON WITH IT!" at them...I thought it was hilarious!

Warren on the Weekends - Peter Warren.

He was awesome. I agreed with probably 80% of what he said, so I really liked his show. I absolutely loved his style of interviewing. It really didn't matter who he was interviewing, he would pull no punches.
I remember he interviewed Shiela Copps a few years ago and just tore a strip off of her, but did it tactfully.

I believe that he got out of the radio business altogether and went back to his previous profession in investigation (of what, I don't know).

Yes, Chorus Radio lost a gem when Peter Warren quit.

edit to add: "one eight hundred thrrrrrrrrrrrreeeeeeeee nine nine, ninety eight ninety eight!!"

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Slava

The guy who I miss is the one who used to afternoons on the weekends. I can't remember his name but he was always giving out his "secret fax line for my eyes only". The reason I liked him isn't because I agreed with his position on anything, but that he was so rude to the callers it was awesome. Whenever someone would ask "how are you today?" he would just yell "GET ON WITH IT!" at them...I thought it was hilarious!

LOL. Peter Warren.


Hello Caller.

How are You Peter?

Never mind, get on with it!

[Slava]

Originally Posted by 4X4

Warren on the Weekends - Peter Warren.

He was awesome. I agreed with probably 80% of what he said, so I really liked his show. I absolutely loved his style of interviewing. It really didn't matter who he was interviewing, he would pull no punches.
I remember he interviewed Shiela Copps a few years ago and just tore a strip off of her, but did it tactfully.

I believe that he got out of the radio business altogether and went back to his previous profession in investigation (of what, I don't know).

Yes, Chorus Radio lost a gem when Peter Warren quit.

Right, I couldn't think of his name. Not surprisingly I didn't agree with about 80% of his positions, but he was definitely entertaining!

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Slava

Right, I couldn't think of his name. Not surprisingly I didn't agree with about 80% of his positions, but he was definitely entertaining!

Peter: The Canadian justice system is neither justice nor system.

[Azure]

Adler is 150x better than anyone in the US. Well, generally at least. Anyone mainstream.

Warren was fun to listen to as well.

[Slava]

I'm bumping this old thread because I don't know that this justifies a new one and figured it could go here:

I saw a news piece last night and it makes me wonder about the likelihood of a fall election again. If the Tories are forced to look at a non-confidence motion in order to enact the HST (which I understand he would have to do to make this a reality) then you have to think it bodes well for the Liberals. No party wants to campaign on a tax hike which is exactly what the HST amounts to. At this point it comes across as a provincial matter, but once that non-confidence vote takes place it will come back to the federal Tories. Right now people don't want an election...but if the Liberals vote against this and bring down the government you have to think that voters in BC and Ontario are going to be more interested in going to the polls.

Of course the whole thing is complex....some Liberals say that they are supporting the government and others say that they are against the motion. I suppose it just muddies the waters even more at this point!

[Rerun]

Originally Posted by Slava

I'm bumping this old thread because I don't know that this justifies a new one and figured it could go here:

I saw a news piece last night and it makes me wonder about the likelihood of a fall election again. If the Tories are forced to look at a non-confidence motion in order to enact the HST (which I understand he would have to do to make this a reality) then you have to think it bodes well for the Liberals. No party wants to campaign on a tax hike which is exactly what the HST amounts to. At this point it comes across as a provincial matter, but once that non-confidence vote takes place it will come back to the federal Tories. Right now people don't want an election...but if the Liberals vote against this and bring down the government you have to think that voters in BC and Ontario are going to be more interested in going to the polls.

Of course the whole thing is complex....some Liberals say that they are supporting the government and others say that they are against the motion. I suppose it just muddies the waters even more at this point!

When it comes down to what the Liberals will or will not do, the waters are always muddy. Half the time I never know which way they stand on issues or votes.... although I suppose now that Ignatieff has gone on record saying he has lost all confidence in the government and that he can no longer support them, he HAS to vote against the government on every issue. He has really painted himself in a corner with not too much room to manouever.