Wednesday, November 09, 2005

Your Nightly Election Speculation

Developments for Tuesday, November 8th:

Top News

1. Stephen Harper is undecided as to how he will vote on the December 8th spending estimates, a confidence vote.

2. Jack, however, has said he will vote against the spending estimates on the 8th. Huh? So now the NDP is against the Liberal budget and the Tories are for it? Odd times...

3. Harper, as of now, does not intend to introduce a non-confidence motion on the November 15h opposition day, but says his motion will be "interesting". I personally can't see Stephen Harper ever doing anything "interesting" in his lifetime, but maybe he'll surprise me.

4. Gilles Duceppe has said he won't introduce a non-confidence motion, saying it's up to the federalist parties to do so, and he will join them on it when they do.


1. My Blahg has the funniest picture you'll see this week.

2. Stephen Taylor breaks down the latest polling numbers.

3. Monte Solberg rants about the current situation.

Key Dates

The first Tory opposition day is November 15th. The Bloc has one the 17th and the NDP has one the 24th. The spending estimates come to a vote on December 8th.


-I imagine Ralph Goodale is busy beefing up his economic update this week.

-A lot of people seem to think we might wait until the 8th for the non-confidence vote but, for the life of me, I can't see why the opposition parties would want to bring down the government on spending estimates when they could do it on a harshly worded non-confidence motion. I tend to think all signs are pointing to the NDP introducing a non-confidence motion on the 24th. That would likely leave us on track for a vote on January 7th or 16th, assuming a break from the campaign over the holidays.


  • I can't for the life of me see why Harper wouldn't move non-confidence (with a harshly worded corruption motion) on the 15th. If Jack doesn't support it, then he is in cahoots with the Liberals, etc etc -- there really is no downside. The upside is the government falls on Harper's terms and he frames the debate going forward.

    If the opposition waits until the 8th, the Liberals will find a way to introduce their spending bill at midnight, or in Madagascar or something, but even if they play it straight for a change, then the government will fall on their terms and the bad bad opposition don't want spending for cities, or aboriginal communities or whatever constituancy the Liberals choose to cater to. In that case, the Liberals frame the debate and they have proven themselves very good at arguing debates they choose.

    My pick? Harper plays it close to the vest and announces his non-confidence motion at the last possible moment, when it is too late for the Liberals to pull their usual obscure stall or delay tactic out of the vault. The government falls November 16 -- we vote January 16th ish. The leaders will agree to no campaigning December 22-30 (or so) and to debates in the first week of January and the whole 'no election over Christmas' crisis disappears in a second.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 1:47 a.m.  

  • "inverted" confidence motion? bizarro world confidence motion? i.e. a positive resolution that the Grits have to vote against which triggers an election? but, if they didn't respect an *actual* one last time (it was unfair to hold the vote pre-bribe, anyways), why would a trick like that work now?

    maybe a subclause? i.e. This House would implement the Harper Ethics Bill or die trying?"

    By Blogger matt, at 10:51 a.m.  

  • Layton's proposal for a "Liberals have almost entirely lost the confidence of the House and will completely lose confidence in a month" motion doesn't work. I don't even think it's constitutional. You can't be partly pregnant, boys.

    Why are they being so weezly about this. If Harper and Duceppe and Layton really think that Prime Minister Martin has lost the confidence of the House of Parliament, then they should bring a clear, straightforward non-confidence motion. Immediately. If Prime Minister Martin doesn't have the confidence of the House, as they claim, then they have a duty to bring such a motion.


    By Blogger Ted Betts, at 3:54 p.m.  

Post a Comment

<< Home