Liberals will move to topple Conservative Gov't

[ernie]

Originally Posted by octothorp

"Mayor Quimby is soft on crime. He even let Sideshow Bob out of prison - a man twice convicted for attempted murder. Can you trust Mayor Quimby? Vote Sideshow Bob for Mayor."

By which I mean, you can't criticize your opponent for supporting you unless you want to look like an even bigger idiot. I don't think that argument would fly with many Canadians except for those that are already conservative supporters. It's certainly not going to be the issue that decides the next election.

All depends on who can spin it the best. There is already a perception of Ignatieff not having what it takes to lead given he tried to play the won't support the Tories card before and then backed off. It didn't reflect well on him as a leader or man in charge. he's spent the summer trying to figure out a plan to reverse that perception and has been bringing out these ads the last couple of weeks.

Even the Liberal bloggers were saying this time he has to mean it and everything in the last couple of weeks has been in the vein of "This time I mean it!". From saying they'd vote the government down on a the reno tax break with a promise to re-instate it etc. From saying it wouldn't matter what they brought forward the Liberals were going to vote against it.

For example, IF the Liberals end up supporting the EI bill or helping it through the House it will go against what Ignatieff has been saying the past couple of weeks. And with the right spin doctor he could get hammered for it. Heck , he might get hammered for it within his own party.

[CaptainCrunch]

But you have to admit that Ignatieff has trapped himself. If he votes for the bill, he's a giant soft jelly like substance with no convinction.

If he votes against a bill that will save Canadian taxpayers money and has no contraversial additions, he's power hungry and putting his own interests in front of that of regular Canadians.

He should have kept his mouth shut and waited for something that the Liberal's really couldn't live with.

As it stands he was hoping for the NDP and Bloc to declare that they were voting against the bill so that he could deflect some of the rage that Ordinary Canadians would feel about not only going to the polls, but a very good bill getting squashed.

He allowed himself to get cornered and the Bloc and the NDP gleefully slid the knife between his ribs.

[yads]

Yeah, looks like the Conservatives played this one quite well. Ignatieff is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by John Doe

True, but it does mean that Harper didn't have the support of the majority of the House of Commons.

Really, this attitude only shows just how selfish and self-serving politicians are, especially on the left in this specific case.

The confidence of the House of Commons should mean nothing.

MPs should be acting with the confidence of the Canadian people. And if the Canadian people don't want an election - and they don't - then it is incumbent on all parties, and that means Ignatief and the Liberals too, to make it work. The majority of Canadians did not want a coalition. The moment Canadians made their will heard, Dion, Duceppe and Layton should have ended their attempts to seize power.

Commons does not exist to serve the politicians. It exists so that the politicians can serve the people.

[John Doe]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

But you have to admit that Ignatieff has trapped himself. If he votes for the bill, he's a giant soft jelly like substance with no convinction.

If he votes against a bill that will save Canadian taxpayers money and has no contraversial additions, he's power hungry and putting his own interests in front of that of regular Canadians.

He should have kept his mouth shut and waited for something that the Liberal's really couldn't live with.

As it stands he was hoping for the NDP and Bloc to declare that they were voting against the bill so that he could deflect some of the rage that Ordinary Canadians would feel about not only going to the polls, but a very good bill getting squashed.

He allowed himself to get cornered and the Bloc and the NDP gleefully slid the knife between his ribs.

I wouldn't say that. I think that he played this pretty well.

Ignatieff voting against this would not only be bad optics (since he was wanting EI changes), but it would also be pointless, as it would pass anyway. He acknowledged the latter point and said that since it is going to pass regardless of what he was going to do, he would make sure that it passes as soon as possible so that the NDP wouldn't have an excuse to prop up the Conservatives any longer.

The NDP, who really don't want an election, are scrambling and saying now that they have to look at the bill again. They are in a hard spot, since if this bill passes right away, they no longer have an excuse to prop up the Conservatives. They are going to want to delay this bill for as long as they can, but they can't afford to be percieved to be doing this. They are going to be in a tough spot to come out of this unscathed.

The Conservatives probably want an election as well, since they are sitting as well in the polls as they have for a long time. Now, however, they will have to worry about some of the NDP support from the last election going over to the Liberals. They have also will have lost a talking point of the Liberals voting against helping the unemployed. I believe that the next chance for the government to fall is when the Liberals will bring a non-confidence motion against the government sometime in October. If the government falls then, it will be a lost opportunity for the Conservatives to make the Liberals look bad by voting against something that they should support. However, I don't know if the Renevation Rebate is included in this bill. If it isn't, the Conservatives could try to make the Liberals bring them down by introducing it as a bill, but again the NDP and the Bloq would likely support it.

By saying that he would vote down the government at the earliest opportunity, Ignatieff has beaten Layton and Duceppe to the punch and forced the NDP and BQ to be the ones who keep the Conservatives in power. I think that the key for Ignatieff in the next election is not stealing from the Conservative vote, but the NDP and BQ vote.

[transplant99]

By saying that he would vote down the government at the earliest opportunity, Ignatieff has beaten Layton and Duceppe to the punch

Well sure...except that opportunity is tomorrow, and he isn't gonna do it.

Which opens him up, blatantly, to being called a liar. He screwed himself just as CC said.

[John Doe]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Really, this attitude only shows just how selfish and self-serving politicians are, especially on the left in this specific case.

The confidence of the House of Commons should mean nothing.

MPs should be acting with the confidence of the Canadian people. And if the Canadian people don't want an election - and they don't - then it is incumbent on all parties, and that means Ignatief and the Liberals too, to make it work. The majority of Canadians did not want a coalition. The moment Canadians made their will heard, Dion, Duceppe and Layton should have ended their attempts to seize power.

Commons does not exist to serve the politicians. It exists so that the politicians can serve the people.

Fair enough. But Canadians also didn't want an election last fall either. In fact the only ones who wanted an election were the Conservatives, who correctly foresaw that a recession was coming and since they were ahead in the polls, the time was right for them. Were they acting with the confidence of the Canadian people?

The majority of Canadians did not want Harper as PM. This we know from the election. I was unaware of any referendum where we were asked if we wanted a coalition.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Well sure...except that opportunity is tomorrow, and he isn't gonna do it.

Which opens him up, blatantly, to being called a liar. He screwed himself just as CC said.

Where are you getting the "first available opportunity" bit? I'm not saying he didn't say it, but it wasn't in his Sept 1 speech. Are you maybe getting it mixed up with Bob Rae saying that the Liberals would introduce a non-confidence vote at the first available opportunity (which wouldn't be until October)?

edit: just realizing, it wasn't you who originally said it; just wondering where in general that came from.

[John Doe]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Well sure...except that opportunity is tomorrow, and he isn't gonna do it.

Which opens him up, blatantly, to being called a liar. He screwed himself just as CC said.

Oh my gosh, a politician being called a liar? Good thing Harper (no deficit, will not tax Income Trusts, etc.) and Layton (would never vote for any Conservative bill) would never lie!

He explained why he is letting the bill pass. He said that he would bring down the government at the first opportunity. With the NDP and BQ promising to support the Conservatives, this was not an opportunity to bring down the government.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by octothorp

Where are you getting the "first available opportunity" bit? I'm not saying he didn't say it, but it wasn't in his Sept 1 speech. Are you maybe getting it mixed up with Bob Rae saying that the Liberals would introduce a non-confidence vote at the first available opportunity (which wouldn't be until October)?

Actually i was just going off what John Doe posted.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by John Doe

Fair enough. But Canadians also didn't want an election last fall either. In fact the only ones who wanted an election were the Conservatives, who correctly foresaw that a recession was coming and since they were ahead in the polls, the time was right for them. Were they acting with the confidence of the Canadian people?

Not disagreeing at all. There is far too much political opportunism on all sides. But don't think your side's crap don't stink in this case.

The majority of Canadians did not want Harper as PM. This we know from the election. I was unaware of any referendum where we were asked if we wanted a coalition.

Strawman argument. No leader can claim majority support based on this.

Harper is the PM by virtue of holding the most seats in Parliament. Until Canadians express the desire to change how we elect our representatives (and it is long overdue), then Harper is the selection of Canadians for PM under the system that we have chosen to operate under.

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by John Doe

Oh my gosh, a politician being called a liar? Good thing Harper (no deficit, will not tax Income Trusts, etc.) and Layton (would never vote for any Conservative bill) would never lie!

He explained why he is letting the bill pass. He said that he would bring down the government at the first opportunity. With the NDP and BQ promising to support the Conservatives, this was not an opportunity to bring down the government.

Retreat!!!!

He "explained" why he didnt do what he said?

OK..can i now apply that to everything Harper didnt do..when he said he would? Afterall he "explained" why the Cons didnt follow through.

or is it a double standard just for the Libs?

Ignatieff isnt taking this one down because he cant...and more than that the dippers cant afford an election. So that means that the 3-headed monster that was convinced they were best for the country just 8 months ago...cannot even agree that the current government needs to be toppled any more. Duceppe must seriously sit back at the end of the day with a snifter of Grand Marnier and a good cigar and just laugh. We were good enough to run the country together, but now we cant even agree to take out whats there so we can. It juts has the optics of a complete and utter boondoggle IMO.

Thats is some awesome leadership.

[EddyBeers]

Originally Posted by starseed

This would not be surprising, because the numbers the conservatives used to calculate the Liberal EI plan was 4 times the actual cost according to third party officials.

Not really surprising, numbers have never been a strong point for the Conservatives.

The Liberals have Layton in a bad spot right now, a couple days ago he wanted immediate help for unemployed Canadians, the Liberals offer immediate help to fast track the bill and then Jack says that he no longer wants to immediately help unemployed Canadians?

[John Doe]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Retreat!!!!

He "explained" why he didnt do what he said?

OK..can i now apply that to everything Harper didnt do..when he said he would? Afterall he "explained" why the Cons didnt follow through.

or is it a double standard just for the Libs?

He explained that he cannot take down the government in this vote, as the NDP have already promised to back the conservatives until this bill passes. By fast tracking the bill, he is getting rid of the excuse for the NDP to prop up the Conservatives and therefore getting to a situation where he can bring down the government earlier.

By not voting against the bill, he is not going against his word that he would bring down the government as soon as possible since he had no chance to bring down the government by voting against this bill. (a bit wordy, but hopefully you get my meaning)

[John Doe]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Strawman argument. No leader can claim majority support based on this.

Harper is the PM by virtue of holding the most seats in Parliament. Until Canadians express the desire to change how we elect our representatives (and it is long overdue), then Harper is the selection of Canadians for PM under the system that we have chosen to operate under.

The PM is chosen by the GG as the person who has the confidence of the house, or in other words, the person who the members of the House of Commons support. It is almost always the leader of the party who has the most seats, but not necessarily. As Harper should know as he was very seriously looking into just this case, the GG can (and has) offered the position of Prime Minister to another person.

When I go to the polling booth, I vote for the person who I think will best represents my interests in the House of Commons, not the person I want to be PM.

[evman150]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Harper is the PM by virtue of holding the most seats in Parliament. Until Canadians express the desire to change how we elect our representatives (and it is long overdue), then Harper is the selection of Canadians for PM under the system that we have chosen to operate under.

You don't even know how our own system of electing a government works?

This is just flat out wrong.

I have a question for people in this thread:

If it were to cost nothing to taxpayers (obviously not possible, this is just a thought experiment), would you support a system of government where every important issue was put to a referendum?

[calculoso]

Originally Posted by evman150

You don't even know how our own system of electing a government works?

This is just flat out wrong.

How does it work then Mr. Smarty?

The leader of the party with the most seats becomes PM. Are you disagreeing with this?

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by calculoso

How does it work then Mr. Smarty?

The leader of the party with the most seats becomes PM. Are you disagreeing with this?

The zinger "Mr. Smarty" was the most intelligent part of this post.

[old-fart]

Originally Posted by evman150

You don't even know how our own system of electing a government works?

This is just flat out wrong.

I have a question for people in this thread:

If it were to cost nothing to taxpayers (obviously not possible, this is just a thought experiment), would you support a system of government where every important issue was put to a referendum?

Not unless votes were weighted based on other criteria, and/or people were allocated a number of votes based on other criteria.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by old-fart

Not unless votes were weighted based on other criteria, and/or people were allocated a number of votes based on other criteria.

So you'd be in favour of a vote as long as some people's votes are worth more than others?

Then why vote?

I support the referendum idea in the abstract, but I would likely hate the implementation of it.