[Kenadian_2006]

While for any Canadian this isn't surprising news. In fact, it's quite old. But I thought I'd share it anyways.

http://www.cbc.ca/cp...8/n092823A.html

Quote

Liberals to table motion today to topple government; vote could be Thursday
Published: Monday, September 28, 2009 | 10:42 AM ET
Canadian Press THE CANADIAN PRESS
OTTAWA - The Liberals will table a non-confidence motion in the Commons today and they expect a vote on Thursday that is increasingly looking like it will fail to bring down the minority government.

"The leader is now working on the details for a non-confidence motion, which we expect will be tabled in the House of Commons . . . today to give the House of Commons sufficient notice and will be dealt with on Thursday," Liberal David McGuinty said at the end of a party caucus meeting.

It will require support of all three opposition parties to defeat the government and force a fall election.

The Bloc has said it will support such a motion.

NDP Leader Jack Layton hasn't yet committed himself after his party voted with the government earlier this month to avert an election call, but his deputy leader gave strong indication the New Democrats will continue to vote with the government.

Thomas Mulcair said today "the important thing is to try to keep Parliament working so that we can do things that are in the public interest."

"On issues such as Employment Insurance, such as better protection for pensions - just to name a couple of them - there are things where we can work together before foisting on Canadians a fourth general election in five years," Mulcair said.

"The party that will provoke the fourth general election in five years is going to have a lot of explaining to do with the public," he said.

"So right now in the NDP we'd much rather see a billion dollars flowing to the pockets of 190,000 Canadian families that need the extra five months of Employment Insurance rather than taking $350 million out of those very pockets and spending it on an election that probably won't change anything and that I know no one wants."

McGuinty said the Liberals have no faith in the Tory government's ability to shepherd the economy out of recession.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper is to release his government's latest economic report card in Saint John, N.B., later today, but the Liberals say they expect it will give them more ammunition to aim at the Conservatives.

"We are anxious to see the report, because we are convinced it will give us even more evidence that the government is incompetent in terms of its way of dealing with the economy," McGuinty said.

The government got its economic stimulus plan approved in the spring by promising a series of updates. Each of those report cards, however, can be a trigger for a non-confidence vote to defeat the Tory minority.

So, anyone else conident this is just the NDP covering its own $@! because its not doing so well in the polls right now? In fact, an election wouldn't be a smart idea for the Liberals right now, seeing as how they trail a lot in the polls. So, minds of the room of boiling, why the hell would they want an election? Why waste another 300 million dollars?

[Tyler DurdenCC]

They are sore losers and would rather cause trouble than try to work together to be part of the solution?

I have no idea. Seems pretty dumb on their part.

[Kenadian_2006]

Yea that's what I don't get. Even the partisan aspect of it aside, why would they want an election that they seem poised to lose?

[KainIIIC]

Interesting, an election so fast! Harper has really %(*)#ed this one up. Anyone think we should be seeing new faces other than Layton and Gilles Duceppe? Although, Gilles is always the most entertaining in the debates (and lulz @ Harper's french).

Will the Green party play its traditional role as a unsuccessful spoiler party?

Think the Libs can pull it off? Possibly pick up ground in Quebec?

[steodonn]

Another one ?

[Sal Paradise]

Kenadian_2006, on Sep 28 2009, 12:08 PM, said:

So, anyone else conident this is just the NDP covering its own $@! because its not doing so well in the polls right now? In fact, an election wouldn't be a smart idea for the Liberals right now, seeing as how they trail a lot in the polls. So, minds of the room of boiling, why the hell would they want an election? Why waste another 300 million dollars?

I don't think the Liberals want this to pass, but they have to do it because they made such a big deal about it in the summer. They can't look like they're backing down now that their poll numbers dropped. It's funny because they pushed for an election because their numbers went up, which then caused them to drop.

KainIIIC, on Sep 28 2009, 01:55 PM, said:

Will the Green party play its traditional role as a unsuccessful spoiler party?

Greens spoil what now?

[Kenadian_2006]

Sal Paradise, on Sep 28 2009, 06:53 PM, said:

I don't think the Liberals want this to pass, but they have to do it because they made such a big deal about it in the summer. They can't look like they're backing down now that their poll numbers dropped. It's funny because they pushed for an election because their numbers went up, which then caused them to drop.





Greens spoil what now?

I'd say it's more ironic than funny, unless that's what you meant.

@Kain, Harper didn't really $%&@ up. He's outright aiming for a majority this time around and frankly if it DOES somehow go to elections, he would stand a decent chance of achieving that. Though, as I have read, it's a do or die kind of thing. He could very well lose the leadership after 3 failures to achieve a majority.

[Sal Paradise]

Kenadian_2006, on Sep 28 2009, 03:55 PM, said:

I'd say it's more ironic than funny, unless that's what you meant.

Maybe it's not funny if you like the Liberals.

[Kenadian_2006]

Sal Paradise, on Sep 28 2009, 07:16 PM, said:

Maybe it's not funny if you like the Liberals.

While they're likely the party I'd vote for, if not NDP, I don't hold any loyalty to them in anyway.

[Cairna]

For a while it would have been advantageous for the liberals to call an election. I don't think they realize they've lost that edge.

[Mussolandia]

Harper's one tough guy. Surrounded, under constant siege from the opposition, running a minority government in a country that tilts to the left... is there anyone that could challenge him for leadership within his party? It looks like Canada is stuck with the Conservatives having a plurality.

[KainIIIC]

Sal Paradise, on Sep 28 2009, 05:53 PM, said:

Greens spoil what now?

EVERYthing

Kenadian_2006, on Sep 28 2009, 05:55 PM, said:

@Kain, Harper didn't really $%&@ up. He's outright aiming for a majority this time around and frankly if it DOES somehow go to elections, he would stand a decent chance of achieving that. Though, as I have read, it's a do or die kind of thing. He could very well lose the leadership after 3 failures to achieve a majority.

Well, it seems to me that he held a stable nearly 3-year minority gov't the first time around, this 1-year period has seemed one of the more chaotic ones especially considering what happened in January, and not really chaotic in an interesting way (like the drama with Belinda Stronach crossing the floor and independents saving the government in 2005). Speaking of which, to get a full majority, the Grits (or Tories) must get Stronach to be their leader .... after she overcomes cancer.

[Sal Paradise]

KainIIIC, on Sep 29 2009, 07:45 AM, said:

EVERYthing

Are they like some kind of bacteria?

[Conan the Barbeque]

Probably nematodes.

[Kenadian_2006]

Mussolandia, on Sep 29 2009, 05:38 AM, said:

Harper's one tough guy. Surrounded, under constant siege from the opposition, running a minority government in a country that tilts to the left... is there anyone that could challenge him for leadership within his party? It looks like Canada is stuck with the Conservatives having a plurality.

I would like to say Peter McKay, cause he's probably one of the few likeable public figures the Tories have. That, and he's a Red Tory, which I'll explain if you so desire. But other than that, I can't see anyone challenging him to be honest. It might be someone as yet unknown.

KainIIIC, on Sep 29 2009, 10:45 AM, said:

EVERYthing


Well, it seems to me that he held a stable nearly 3-year minority gov't the first time around, this 1-year period has seemed one of the more chaotic ones especially considering what happened in January, and not really chaotic in an interesting way (like the drama with Belinda Stronach crossing the floor and independents saving the government in 2005). Speaking of which, to get a full majority, the Grits (or Tories) must get Stronach to be their leader .... after she overcomes cancer.

I'm surprised you follow Canadian politics so much, and a few years back too. You sure you're American? Anyways, I'm not totally sure if I would call the past few years exactly stable. Sure, stable compared to recent political escapades, but not what I would call stable. Minority governments tend to be unstable anyways, given that each bill is pretty much a do or die for the ruling party.

As for the Grits, I would prefer Ruby Dhalla.

This post has been edited by Kenadian_2006: 29 September 2009 - 10:38 AM

[Eagare the Alenthin]

Sal Paradise, on Sep 29 2009, 12:16 AM, said:

Maybe it's not funny if you like the Liberals.

Kenadian_2006, on Sep 29 2009, 12:23 AM, said:

While they're likely the party I'd vote for, if not NDP, I don't hold any loyalty to them in anyway.

Pretty much this. I'll vote Liberal unless they're insane or something. I just can't stand Harper.

This post has been edited by Eagare the Alenthin: 29 September 2009 - 11:27 AM

[KainIIIC]

Kenadian_2006, on Sep 29 2009, 11:35 AM, said:

I would like to say Peter McKay, cause he's probably one of the few likeable public figures the Tories have. That, and he's a Red Tory, which I'll explain if you so desire. But other than that, I can't see anyone challenging him to be honest. It might be someone as yet unknown.

Do Atlantic politicians ever make it as PM? Shouldn't they stick with the true-and-tried formula of making their leader a Quebecer? Recall Jean Charest to resign state politics and become the federal leader? Heheh

Quote

I'm surprised you follow Canadian politics so much, and a few years back too. You sure you're American? Anyways, I'm not totally sure if I would call the past few years exactly stable. Sure, stable compared to recent political escapades, but not what I would call stable. Minority governments tend to be unstable anyways, given that each bill is pretty much a do or die for the ruling party.

As for the Grits, I would prefer Ruby Dhalla.

er, yeah i spent that monday (or tuesday?) watching those election results trickle in, for some reason i found international politics highly interesting until i went to college (where i moved onto other stuff ).

And sure, Harper's first minority government wasn't a cakewalk, but it held up surprisingly well; Martin's probably would have too if not for the Gomery Commission fiasco. The elephant in the room is really the BQ and how they are pretty ungovernable (will only hold minority governments, but will never join a coalition, that is... unless its NDP + BQ!), and at the end of the day, it may hinge on Conservative gains in Quebec.

As for predictions: Harper keeps minority government, with a loss of seats, Libs gain the most, NDP loses vote share but breaks about even in seats, BQ loses a few seats, and Greens as usual accomplish nothing.

Sal said:

Are they like some kind of bacteria?

Worse

This post has been edited by KainIIIC: 29 September 2009 - 03:34 PM

[Kenadian_2006]

KainIIIC, on Sep 29 2009, 05:32 PM, said:

Do Atlantic politicians ever make it as PM? Shouldn't they stick with the true-and-tried formula of making their leader a Quebecer? Recall Jean Charest to resign state politics and become the federal leader? Heheh



er, yeah i spent that monday (or tuesday?) watching those election results trickle in, for some reason i found international politics highly interesting until i went to college (where i moved onto other stuff ).

And sure, Harper's first minority government wasn't a cakewalk, but it held up surprisingly well; Martin's probably would have too if not for the Gomery Commission fiasco. The elephant in the room is really the BQ and how they are pretty ungovernable (will only hold minority governments, but will never join a coalition, that is... unless its NDP + BQ!), and at the end of the day, it may hinge on Conservative gains in Quebec.

As for predictions: Harper keeps minority government, with a loss of seats, Libs gain the most, NDP loses vote share but breaks about even in seats, BQ loses a few seats, and Greens as usual accomplish nothing.



Worse

Actually, that's the interesting thing. The Tories don't stand a ghost of a chance of building a majority with Quebec seats as has been historically done by majority governments. Instead, they're supposed to be poising to TRY and sweep Ontario like Chretien did, according to analysts I've seen on the CBC.

[KainIIIC]

Kenadian_2006, on Sep 29 2009, 05:21 PM, said:

Actually, that's the interesting thing. The Tories don't stand a ghost of a chance of building a majority with Quebec seats as has been historically done by majority governments. Instead, they're supposed to be poising to TRY and sweep Ontario like Chretien did, according to analysts I've seen on the CBC.

Hah! We'll see... personally I think it's up to Pierre Trudeau's son Justin to lead the next majority, since that'll net a good deal of seats from Quebec and Ontario...

[Sal Paradise]

I was supposed to go to a Green Party meeting today. I didn't because I was hungry and decided to eat instead.


I'm sure everything I ate was inorganic and had to travel thousands of kilometers to get to me.