Monday, October 15, 2007

Expect Posturing


...from tomorrow's throne speech, and a few insults thrown Mr. Dion's way, but nothing so over the top that it would compel taking down the government. Tom Flanagan:

"Engineering a defeat is not easy because a Throne Speech that would simultaneously provoke the Liberals, Bloc and NDP to vote against it, would probably be a Throne Speech that's not popular with voters," he said.

Well exactly.

And is that a real glass or did they feel the need to "shop" away certain indications of Mr. Harper's aggressive nature?
PS. And I hope the Libs don't demagogue the spending powers issue. There is nothing in Dion's past that suggests he would be against some curtailing of federal spending powers, depending on how the deal was done. He has in fact argued repeatedly against the "infringement of jurisdictions". I would expect (and Dion has promised) a reasoned, measured response to whatever proposals are outlined in the throne speech.
PPS. The argument that some have made for forcing an election now, before Harper can hand out too many goodies in the upcoming budget, does not work for me. The Liberal Party is willing to deny the populace their goodies in order to serve its own narrow self interest? This mis-reads the likely thought-process of the average Canadian voter, which is more likely to be: "Look at all these goodies I'm receiving from a minority government! Why not keep things the way they are?" It would be more of a danger, IMHO, to allow Harper to argue during an election campaign that the only way he can live up to his tax-cut promises is to have a Majority.

30 comments:

Anonymous said...

harpys support is soft as hell, i hope he gets stupid and tries for an election, by now the voter has figured out he has a hard on for a majority, and wonders why.

Anonymous said...

The budget comes out in March. In Februrary - Auditor General report, Status of Environment Report, Afghan Report among other things - Harper trying to avoid February blues in my opinion. Plus, of course, the little scandals that are emerging.

Harper wants the election now to avoid February.

Anonymous said...

The Throne Speech is going to be read in prime time. Flanagan says it is "fairly bold", which means it is BOLD.
Harper can define "mandate" in any way. Even if 1 party votes for the Bloc or Liberal amendments, he is going to go to the GG and ask for a fresh start.
The rest of it is known as "filling the media void".

Steffi is in trouble . . . said...

Meanwhile in Liberal la la land, Jean Cretin slices Paul Martin's nuts off and says the family feud is over.

Martin's book comes out in February. It is bound to also help heal the Liberal party wounds and assist Steffi get power back for the Natural Governing Party.

Right.

steffi is in trouble said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Gayle said...

BCL - I agree with you. It seems odd to me that when a recent poll indicates Canadians like the way things are going, some parties think we should have an election. If the liberals prevent an election, then they are the only party that is listening to what Canadians want.

And anon - Harper cannot call for an election. There is no way he can ask for an election without breaking his own law.

Dissolving parliament in breach of his own legislation (and election promise) would not be a smart way to start a campaign for a majority...

burlivespipe said...

Yep, this recent whinging and hue over forcing an election over a throne speech no one has heard, or even a throne speech at all -- since it generally is just saying 'this is what we want to do...' was too much anxiety and nervous nellyistic.
It also played into the hand of Harper, making us looking both divided and desperate.
Once we get the Throne Speech and get this lazy gang of bad apples back pretending to govern, we can pick our spots and highlight the fact that Harper hates democracy as so defined by Canadian history.
That, and the tea leaves showing the economy ready for a major downturn (and Harper's poor economic meddling to date -- Income trust flip flop, spending and buying votes at a breakneck speed, the giant wave of foreign takeovers of Canadian companies etc, will only be fodder for the election trail...

Kingston said...

Ladies and Gentlemen, Your deluding yourself if you think that the Harper Govt is going to allow a confidence vote on any item that it doesn't want one on or it can fight an election on.
There will be on confidence vote on anything to do with the environment but there will be on the law and order bills. Please use a little common sense. I never used to believe that Harper is playing chess while the other three were playing checkers but I am starting to believe it. This entire minority is playing out just the way the CPC said it would, the longer were in govt the more support we will get once people figure out were not going to burn babies.

Anonymous said...

"I'm gonnna piss in Dion's water and MAKE him drink it!"

wilson said...

Flanagan said:
popular with the voters,
repeat
popular with the voters...

So, there you have your answer, and will see it in the Throne Speech.
Question : what would Harper do with a majority?
Answer: What is popular with the voters. Because that is how governments get re-elected

This Throne Speech will take the fear out of a Harper majority....beauty

bigcitylib said...

Wilson,

Of course, popular with voters usually means unpopular among the Tory Base. That is and has always been Mr. Harper's problem.

Gayle said...

kingston - surely you do not think the opposition is going to allow an election on a law and order bill? There is only one bill I think the opposition must defeat, and that is the "three strikes" bill which is likely unconstitutional. Since there is a case pending before the SCC on a related issue it would be foolish and fiscally irresponsible for Harper to try to force that bill to pass before that decision comes down.

Most of the other bills have already passed (and then died on the table when Harper prorogued Parliament - I guess we will see how dedicated he is to the safety of Canadians when we see if he revives those non-contentious bills before he revives the other bills).

As for the environment and Afghanistan - Harper does not have to make them matters of confidence - the opposition can always have their own non-confidence motion.

Kingston said...

Gayle, I stand to be corrected a course but the govt unless it is a throne speech or a money bill can deem any bill a confidence vote or like wise decide it is not to be one, i.e. they could bring back C-30 I believe it is and put it to a vote and lose and the govt doesn't fall. The Opps cannot decide it is, they do not have that authority.
They can bring forth a straight Non Confidence vote utilizing one of the Opps Day but that is all it can be. i.e. the Govt has lost the confidence of the house. a straight up and down vote.
Oh by the way Gail, the CPC version of the three strike law is differently from the US's where this one is only enacted for violent offense and or sexual assaults and their comes into effect with any criminal conviction no matter how minor, i.e B.E. Simple possession. etc.
I believe they would use that as an election issue ass it is a little hard to argue against that with the average law abiding Canadian Nuclear family with 2.5 children.

Gayle said...

kingston - I was referring to the opposition's power to bring forward a motion of non-confidence. They can do so on the basis that Harper is taking us the wrong way on the environment or on Afghanistan.

As for the three strike bill, I am very familiar with it as I have taken the time to read it. It says that anyone who has been convicted of certain offences, and who has received sentences of at least 2 years on the 2 previous offences, is automatically designated as a dangerous offender and may be subject ot life in prison unless he or she can prove to the court s/he is not a dangerous offender.

I will not debate the merits of that legislation here so I will limit my comments to the constitutional issue. Last week a YCJA case was argued before the SCC. In that case the constitutionality of a provision that designates certain offences automatically result in an adult sentence unless the youth can prove otherwise is at issue. Should the SCC uphold the Ontario Court of Appeal (and the QCA) it will hold that it is contrary to the Charter to force the accused to prove s/he should not receive a harsher penalty, and that it is always the Crown's onus to prove the accused should receive a harsher penalty.

I hope you can see that if this applies to adult sentences in the YCJA, it will also apply to DO designations under the Criminal Code.

Harper is well aware of this case since his justice minister commented on it last week (when he said their plans to toughen the YCJA will be put on hold pending the outcome of this case).

Kingston said...

Gayle, I have not heard about this case that your referring to, do you have a link so I can give it a quick read over before I respond. I dislike debating a topic I am not reasonably informed on.

Ti-Guy said...

Question : what would Harper do with a majority?
Answer: What is popular with the voters. Because that is how governments get re-elected


Thanks, Wilson. This brilliant insight is why I don't mind paying education taxes.

Whatever happened to the Harper-lovers who were proud of Harper's pledge not to govern according to opinion polls? Did they all die or something?

Anonymous said...

Or remind the population of all the bills that the senate is just sitting on because, well, because they're Liberals and the bills came from a Conservative-minority Parliament. And our ideology and hate simply won't allow us to pass those kinds of laws.

Gayle said...

Kingston

I have trouble with links. Hopefully this works:

http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/story.html?id=2bb5dec8-e185-4317-a234-b4eca71c78aa

Ti-Guy said...

Or remind the population of all the bills that the senate is just sitting on because, well, because they're Liberals and the bills came from a Conservative-minority Parliament.

There aren't any.

...asked and answered.

Gayle said...

silly little anon - such lies.

Why don't you ask Harper why they delayed passing the age of consent bill, and all the other bills the liberals agreed to pass until June?

Then, once he finally agreed to pass his own bills, he prorogues parliament, thereby killing those same bills.

And then people like you parrot the party line that it was somehow the senate's fault for not passing something they only had on the table over the summer months. Please. If Harper was so interested in our safety he would have allowed those bills to pass months ago. Instead he and his party voted against a liberal motion to fast-track them.

You see, it is kind of hard to argue a party is "soft" on crime when they are voting for your tough on crime legislation. By delaying until June, and then proroguing parliament, Harper can make up all kinds of tales people like you are only too happy to pass along.

Put them out of their misery already said...

Golly gee you Liberals are scared silly of an election.

The Liberals didn't want an election in 2005 ... and got the boot by the electorate.

Now 2 years later they still don't want an election ... because they know that they'll get an even bigger boot than they did in 2005.

Democracy is such a bummer.

Anonymous said...

"This mis-reads the likely thought-process of the average Canadian voter, which is more likely to be: "Look at all these goodies I'm receiving from a minority government! Why not keep things the way they are?""

The problem with your logic here is that these goodies do not target your average Canadian, they target specific constituencies which the government believes are likely to switch their vote in response to specific policies. People aren't so naive as to expect the goodies to keep rolling in if they never sell their vote.

Ti-Guy said...

Golly gee you Liberals are scared silly of an election.

The Liberals didn't want an election in 2005 ... and got the boot by the electorate.

Now 2 years later they still don't want an election ... because they know that they'll get an even bigger boot than they did in 2005.


Shaddup.

OnlinePharmacy said...

nqqJKA Your blog is great. Articles is interesting!

demora viagra said...

7oxVGN Thanks to author.

meridia medicine effects said...

actually, that's brilliant. Thank you. I'm going to pass that on to a couple of people.

bad credit rating said...

Good job!

name said...

Wonderful blog.

charter bus linescharter bus tours said...

Magnific!

andorra tours said...

Nice Article.