Tuesday, September 01, 2009

This Time We Mean It?

Well, they certainly sound serious this time - from Michael's speech in Sudbury:

In June, we set out four tests for Stephen Harper.

Mr. Harper, you have failed all four.

You’ve failed to protect the most vulnerable. You’ve failed to create jobs. Failed to defend our health care. Failed to restore our public finances.

After four years of drift, four years of denial, four years of division and discord—

Mr. Harper, your time is up. Vous avez raté votre chance.

The Liberal Party cannot support this government any further.

We will hold it to account. We will oppose it in Parliament.


  • It's Dionesque really.

    By Anonymous herringchoker, at 1:56 p.m.  

  • No, it isn't - if he does go thru with the threat.

    By Blogger Oxford County Liberals, at 2:09 p.m.  

  • Wasn't Senator Smith just out in the news last week saying they wouldn't vote against the gov?

    Do these jokers know what they're doing?

    By Anonymous SV, at 2:14 p.m.  

  • I certainly hope he means it this time. I know you'll have Jack's support in bringing down the government, and probably Gilles' too.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 2:14 p.m.  

  • Let's just do this and get it over with, okay? Maybe if the Grits are lucky they can win a 120-seat minority themselves and we can do this all over again in October 2010

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 2:17 p.m.  

  • Im a wait see guy when it comes to Liberals voting against Harper. Perhaps 80 was the secret number. if so cool.

    By Anonymous Ricky Barnes, at 2:39 p.m.  

  • There is no way they could back out of this one now. They have to follow through, there is no way they can make a statement like that and then fold.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 3:06 p.m.  

  • No way they could back out of this one now? Why not? First, it was "on probation", now its "on life support". After backing down, the next time Iggy will say that they are "on borrowed time". Heh, heh.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 5:04 p.m.  

  • I can't even begin to guess if he's/they're serious or not... it's fun to wonder though!

    By Blogger Ashley_Wilkes-Booth, at 5:15 p.m.  

  • I think what Anon 3:06 means is that they couldn't pull out of this w/o REALLY, REALLY, REALLY looking weak this time. This is how the unstoppable election train gets its unbreakable momentum ... silly remarks made more out of bravado than any sense of purpose.

    I just wish he woulda made this statement a bit closer to the tabling of the NC motion, instead of a month away! We're all gonna be tuckered out from the media frenzy by Sep. 14th when Parliament resumes.

    Let me just say that quick elections (i.e. < 1 yr after the previous one) precipitated by the opposition, need to have a certain defining issue to bring about a change in government. In 1963 it was that the Diefenbaker gov't was infighting, and was on its way out (going from majority to minority in 1962, and out a year later) ... in 1979 Clark was a bumbling PM facing a secession referendum in Quebec ... that situation was totally in Trudeau's wheelhouse (and besides, the Libs had actually won more votes, 40%-36%, than the PC's in the 1979 election), so forcing an election then made absolute sense.

    I don't see any similarities in the current situation, and seeing as the gov't hasn't done enough to defeat itself (yet), it holds that the CPC will again win any election this fall. But of course, anything is possible.

    By Anonymous KRB, at 5:40 p.m.  

  • The Liberals will surely be true to their word here

    - as surely as they opposed conscription in the 40s

    - as surely as they opposed wage and price controls in the 70s

    - as surely as they introduced a national childcare policy in the 90s

    I wonder what excuse the cowards will offer up this time when they back down - for the 80th time

    By Blogger Malcolm+, at 8:18 p.m.  

  • They're transparently trying to force the NDP or BQ to back down, by drawing a line in the sand, so that they don't have to.

    If not, they'll have to (once again) retreat in embarrassment. Tiresome, really.

    I'm ready to vote again, but this time for all parties on the ballot.

    By Blogger Möbius, at 8:47 p.m.  

  • The appointed one and the old ones need to go! We need a new LPC with young blood not this tired old guard who only want power for power's sake! There needs to be a civil war in the LPC and it needs to start now for the sake of Canada. Let's be realistic! An election now will result in maybe a Liberal minority. Then what? The old coalition! Heaven forbid. A minority CPC outcome will decimate the LPC. Young Liberals revolt. Stop WK and the old ones from ruining everything. The LPC coffers are full let's prevent them from being wasted on a gambling game!

    By Anonymous jonevan, at 9:15 p.m.  

  • Word on the street is that this is more of strategic move.

    Lets assume CG's prediction of 111 Seats for the Tories and 109 Seats is correct on a 32% to 32%. If this actually was the result of an election it would mean that the only winner would be the Liberals as most likely the Conservatives, the Bloc and the NDP would allo lose seats. If this was the case:

    1. Harper would have to resign after failing a 3rd time to secure a majority and has in fact lost seats

    2. Layton would be pressured to resign as once again for him, he'd have failed to knock of the Liberals as the Official Opposition and would probably lose seats

    3. Duceppe may be in danger of having to take a retirement depending on his result.

    And ... for the Liberals. Iggy could make the case that he has increased the seat count, removed threat of election and plunged the other 3 parties into Leadership Conventions making him the only stable leader. This would give him time as Opposition Leader to flex some muscle with the increased caucus, do some more fundraising and develop a better game plan without the constant threat of election. Best of all, the Liberals wouldn't have to worry about governing.

    Its a risk, considering the potential backlash could give Harper his coveted majority, BUT as long as Harper doesn't get the Majority, Harper's hold on the leadership could be in trouble.

    P.S. Is it just me? Or did the Liberal Caucus go to Sudbury, knock back one too many beers, and some staffer yelled out "Hey! What if we just stopped supporting the Conservatives?" ... and then someone thought it would be funny to send out a press release. Really, thats what this looks like.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 12:08 a.m.  

  • We need an election because Harper is simply not able to lead a minority government. He seems to have developed a true hatred for all three opposition parties and seems unable to set aside his urge to undermine them do that he is able to actually work with them to make Parliament work. If there is an election and Ignatieff wins, I don't think we will be having this same discussion next year because Ignatieff does not seem to be the type that would so readily sacrifice good will in order to hurt his opponents at every opportunity.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 2:00 a.m.  

  • If there is a tie in the number of seats, or if the number is within 5-10, the party with the largest number does not necessarily form the government. After another bitter, hard fought campaign, I can't imagine Jack & Gilles supporting Harper, but they might be willing to give Iggy a chance. If all three declare on election night that they don't have confidence in the PM, he will have to resign, and we get a new Government (yay~!!)

    (For real world example, see Ontario: 1985)

    By Anonymous The Other Dan, at 6:16 a.m.  

  • Dan - true, but it's a lot easier for the lower seat party to govern if they only need 1 other party's support. If Iggy has less seats, he'd need both NDP and Bloc (or just Bloc) support to govern, which makes it a less stable situation.

    Either way, I'm sure it would get us another round of coalition speculation, if nothing else.

    By Blogger calgarygrit, at 8:02 a.m.  

  • We need an election because Harper is simply not able to lead a minority government. He seems to have developed a true hatred for all three opposition parties and seems unable to set aside his urge to undermine them do that he is able to actually work with them to make Parliament work.

    I would have said it the other way around. The other parties have developed a deep and seething hatred of the Conservatives.

    That hatred pre-dated their election to government, even.

    I was tempted to vote Conservative simply because I didn't think it was "fair" how everyone hated them. Kind of like how you want to be friends with that kid on school that everyone picks on because you feel sorry for him.

    (In the end, however, I resisted that temptation).

    As long as I'm making a comment, I think it's kind of cute how Ignatieff blames Harper for the historic deficit when Dion was basically trying to throw Harper out not long ago because he refused to spend all the money to create that deficit in the first place ...

    By Blogger Robert Vollman, at 10:34 a.m.  

  • you're evil and you need to go because you're not spending enough on stimulus (dion, dec08)

    you're evil and you need to go because you're not spending enough on EI (iggy, jun09)

    you're evil and you have to go because you're spending too much on stimulus (iggy, sep09)

    oh and you're a loser who has unstable governments (iggy, 09) because we've been threatening an election every 5 days since you first won in 06, but please no one mention this

    and just go see whereisiggy.com for a great laugh. if this election happens it's going to be hilariously enjoyable!

    By Blogger Hey, at 11:18 a.m.  

  • Why doesn't the Leader of the Opposition give the Prime Minister the respect he deserves and at least call him Prime Minister Harper?

    Little thing but it annoys the hell out of me.

    By Anonymous TJK, at 3:19 p.m.  

Post a Comment

<< Home