03.07.2011 09:16 AM

This so totally makes no sense to me

Why would they do this? Am I missing something? Is crack as addictive as they say?



  1. Harvey Martin says:

    It makes complete sense, Warren. Take advantage of the brewing scandals to paint a narrative of a corrupt government that has no respect for democracy. Why give them the profile of a budget to run on? Why have an election on their timetable, where they dictate the issues? Besides, how will Layton campaign, after hip surgery last week? Maybe the NDP would be forced to vote confidence in the government, or abstain – a huge win for the Liberals if they do.

    A guy with your alleged war room skills should understand that.

    If we’re going to have an election anyway, why not have it on the best terms for the Grits?

    • Warren says:

      My alleged skills,eh?

      How many campaigns have you run, big guy?

      • Harvey Martin says:

        I’ve run my share. Just poking ya on a Monday morning, buddy. It’s the best move available to the LPC at the moment.

      • James Bow says:

        This does recall the prorogation debacle, which did hurt the Conservatives last year. Framing the election in those terms could be the Liberals greatest strength. I suppose, if they feel that the Conservatives are going to go for it anyway, they might as well force an election themselves on their own terms.

    • Riley Hennessey says:


      Warren is in the business of winning elections, not sanctimonius ‘outrage’. Launching a snap confidence motion before the budget drops would whip the Conservative base into a frenzy, Harper would pivot the ballot question immediately to who Canadians feel should be running the economy and orchestrating Canada’s response to the multiple crises in the Middle East. He’d talk about border security, tax cuts, direction of the economy and jobs. Liberals would talk about stopping the purchase of new fighter jets just as the rest of the world is talking about imposing a no-fly zone over Libya. Liberals would talk about increasing taxes just as everyone is about to pay their tax bills. Liberals would talk about abandoning border security negotiations just as Canadians are planning spring break trips to the US.

      On every single issue, you’d lose. The tories have more money, they have the narrative ready, and they are salivating for an election. You feel good about handing them a golden ticket to clean your clock? How long do you think “but she wrote NOT on a piece of paper!” would last as a news story in an election cycle?

      Listen to Warren. He does this as a business, not as a gut partisan reaction.

      • hugger says:

        Another Conservative doing his best to provide reasons why the Liberals / Opposition shouldn’t trigger an election?

        Have you forgotten Harpers loss of the UAE base or the Security seat so soon?

        Harpers tax cuts are for Corps, and that issues isn’t resonating with voters. Want to see the Leger poll results on that one? Only one in ten support the cuts.

        Harpers direction of the economy has been poison for Ontario, forced HST there and in BC and focused on the resource sector. We have it, the world wants it, how smart do you have to be to put the 2 together? Not to mention the multiple blunders.

        I sure do hope the Liberals talk about Harpers F35 plan. And talks and talks and talks.

        Yes the Reformatories have more money, and will continue to do so even if they have to scam taxpayers for it.

        A lot of people feel there won’t be an election based on a defeat of the budget because the Cons are desperate to avoid an election and will buy off the NDP or the Bloc, so that leaves being proactive I guess.

  2. Dave Roberts says:

    It smells of a good way for disgruntled Liberals to get rid of their leader most expeditiously.

  3. Emily says:

    Branding of Canada as The Harper Government = last straw perhaps

  4. JStanton says:

    …because this way, the LPC gets to frame the election in terms of the corrupt nature of the “Harper Government”, whereas, if the non-confidence motion is based upon the budget, the Stephen Harper Party gets to spin the fear factor – lost jobs, socialism, debt, etc.

    Strategically, it’s the first smart thing the LPC have done in years. Oh, they can’t win, but if they can keep on message when attacking the “Harper Government” as inept, corrupt and immoral, they just might snatch away Mr. Harper’s chance at a majority government.

    • Riley Hennessey says:

      Newsflash Stanton… Harper has a MINORITY now… so you’d be snatching away nothing and providing a chance for Harper to GET a majority. Genius.

      • JStanton says:

        Reality check Hennessey… Mr. Ignatieff believes he can win the next election, so it’s a matter of when, not if. Before the budget is better than immediately after. LPC operatives will urge him on; some because they too believe he can win, others because they know he can’t, and, when he doesn’t, they can immediately begin the process to replace him. Simpleton.


  5. Harith says:

    Nothing will happen. The grits are as feckless as ever.

  6. billg says:

    Frame the election? Have it on the Grits terms? Your scandals are based on YOU saying they are scandals, how exactly does that “frame” an election? Economy’s frame elections, unemployment frame elections…Free Trade and GST frame elections, but…”they wont let us see all the documents we want to see” is not a real blood boiling issue. “Alleged skills”…kinda laughed when I read that.

  7. V. Malaise says:

    I doubt very much the electorate wants an election right now. Things seem to be OK, so why waste the cash?
    We have a minority government, which means they are on a short leash and won’t be up to much mischief.
    Iggy is just going to have to wait his turn. That is if he gets one.

  8. Dan F says:

    Steve V spells it out for us: http://farnwide.blogspot.com/2011/03/shrewd.html
    I seldom disagree with you Warren, but Steve makes some excellent points.

    • Warren says:

      He usually does.

      Call me crazy, but I don’t want to see the LPC reduced to third party status. But w/e.

      • Riley Hennessey says:

        People listen up. Warren Kinsella dislikes Stephen Harper a lot. He is a card carrying Liberal who has campaigned for, run for, and worked for Liberals. He is a successful lawyer and active political operative provincially and federally. He knows how to fundraise, he knows how to advertise and he knows enough to respect his adversary and watch them like a hawk.

        And here, he is telling you that launching the party in to an election right now could lead to the Liberal Party finding itself in third party status. Read that again. THIRD party status. That should be enough to cause the hair on the back of your neck to stand up. If it isn’t, have a look at the Liberal party fundraising figures (including number of total donors) and recent polling results and realize that he’s not basing this just on a hunch.

        • Philip says:

          How about not telling us what to think and what to do? I realize that goes down a treat back in the Conservative Party bunker but it really doesn’t play here. I have the upmost respect for Warren but I disagree with him on this matter. We get to do that over here. So go advice troll somewhere else Riley. Roll on election. Roll on!

        • hugger says:

          Also, the Green’s are getting some licks in from the high road. It’s a good place to be as they don’t have to worry about finding any Cons in the way up there.

          March 7, 2011

          Green Party unveils attack ad?on attack ads

          • The Doctor says:

            I don’t really see the Greens taking away votes from the Conservatives, do you?

        • hugger says:

          “I don?t really see the Greens taking away votes from the Conservatives, do you?”

          Good question Doc.

          Not to answer a question with a question, as I will get to yours in a sec, but why do you think that way? Ok, two questions; do you think that the Greens are strictly a left of centre orientated party?

          To yours; I think there are many people who vote for the Greens for a variety of reasons. Among them would be those who are not comfortable with the status quo and many see that status quo as only being divided by a thin red and or blue line on most issues.

          I think many who vote for the Greens do so because they see a bigger and more far reaching picture. They are not absorbed with what’s in it for them, but rather are sincerely interested in what is best for the long term. Many of their older supporters are very much fiscally conservative too.

          Take me for example. Among the reason I am staunchly opposed to the Harper F35 program is that it ignores sensible costing and determination of value. Is based on little more than blind faith and back room deals. Provides extraordinary opportunities for the furthering of the Conservative legacy surrounding military contracts, AND their overall display of unwarranted arrogance is insulting.

          Also, people who lean toward the Greens do so because they want what is best for our country. Maybe that doesn’t take votes away from the CPC, or the Liberals, but at least they don’t have to feel they sold out to the representatives of the Oligarchs when they leave the polling booth.

          When one or the other (Con / Lib) stands up against the flow of outsourcing, and the idiocy of trucking and shipping basic needs half way around the world, then maybe they might be able to capture the interest of the earnest and realistic supporters of the Green Party. I’m not holding my breath.

          The world is a changin Doc. Somethings a person rejects and somethings they embrace. The 5% are facing some real challenges. I expect Harvard and Oxford to speed up efforts to adapt.

          That has been the norm.

      • Michael Bussiere says:

        Warren, please elaborate. I love reading your thoughts, and know you are not in the war room biz with the party at the moment, but it would do us alot of good to hear more detailed POV from you when something raises the alarm bell for you. With appreciation.

  9. Cow says:

    Well, toppling the government on the budget seems stupid, given how completely the Tories seem to own the issue of the economy. (Even if I disagree with their handling of it…)

    The only ways it make sense, to me, is if (1) the Liberals are looking down over the next year and not seeing any better opportunity; (2) they think they can actually get somewhere with ‘this government is corrupt’; and (3) they don’t think the Elections Canada scandal is actually going anywhere (i.e. it looks good in the media right now and can be used now, but isn’t actually going to get worse).

    (3) seems, to me, to be the dumbest part of this, which makes (1) shakier. Every time I see a news story about all of the current things, it looks worse. If it were me, I’d let it run through the summer and see where the investigation goes.

    But this current Liberal party wouldn’t have me, anyway. 🙂

    • Cow says:

      Oops, jumbled my sentences slightly. Second paragraph “it” means “doing this non-confidence vote in advance of the budget”. Voting down the budget itself, I think, would be even more suicidal.

    • Cow says:

      Adding to that — Kady O’Malley this morning, on Twitter:

      Alright, twitterverse, I have a possibly crazy but then again possibly not so crazy pre-election rumour to share with you … #hw
      Last week, we got word that the government may have one last publicity stunt planned for all those Economic Action! Plan signs .. #hw
      Specifically, they’re plotting a little pre-takedown sticker campaign that would festoon those signs with checkmarks and “DONE!” signs.. #hw
      … which would, presumably, remain up throughout the possible election campaign. #hw

      • fritz says:

        “Specifically, they?re plotting a little pre-takedown sticker campaign that would festoon those signs with checkmarks and ?DONE!? signs.. #hw”

        Gee I wish they would do that. You could come in afterwords with your own sticker saying:

        /\ ‘DONE’ 😉

    • V. Malaise says:

      Hmm… word on the street. I was yakking with some co-workers this AM. All of them oil and gas industry professionals. Very educated and small L Liberal. Being veterans of the National Energy Policy, hell will freeze over and damned souls skating on it before they and Alberta votes Liberal.
      I don’t have much use for the PC’s, but I do like minority governments. They tend to focus on day-to-day governing and don’t stick their noses into people’s private lives or turn us into Cuba North.

      I have to say PM Harper hasn’t screwed the pooch yet. I suspect that if anything torpedoes the current regime, it will be some idiot MP or Minister inserting his private parts where it shouldn’t be. and after the fact will try to cover it up and be exposed.

      Isn’t that how political mischief plays out?

  10. Mulletaur says:

    To watch the NDP squirm on the hook.

  11. Dan says:

    Why wait for an election-style budget to be tabled.
    It allows the Conservatives to frame the elecitons as Liberals voting against XYZ which help Jane and Joe.
    Also illsutrates that the Liberals do have a backbone.

    Why wait for the inevitable?

  12. fritz says:

    Lets get it over with. I’m as ready as I’ll ever be to throw the dice on a Harper majority. I just want the endless pre writ back and forth to end. The sooner we get it over the sooner we can dump Iggy and move on to a next generation leader.
    Two questions.
    Re the in/out affair; why is the opposition not stressing the $800,000.00+/- of taxpayers dollars that Tory candidates received (or stole?) for advertising that they didn’t do? This seems an easier sell to the public than the complicated process of moving money around between local and head offices.
    Re the Kenney letter; why are the opposition stressing the use of a piece of Dept. of immigration stationary and not the use of a government worker, the letter writer paid by the Canadian taxpayer, as a fundraiser for the CPC. That, it seems to me, is a much more grievous offense than the use of government letterhead.

    • Cow says:

      Quick question: who in the Liberal Party is your ‘next generation leader’? I’m no fan of Ignatieff, but I continue to wonder who the next messiah that will unite the left, win a majority, slay the dragon, rescue the princess, etc. is.

      • fritz says:

        Dominic LeBlanc, Gerard Kennedy Martha Hall Findlay, Scott Brison, Siobhan Coady, Justin Trudeau or Mark Holland would be on my short list of new generation leaders. There are lots of others in the provinces and not in government but this is a start.
        Personally I’m a big fan of Trudeau. He’s smart, has a vision for the country, speaks both languages perfectly, has great name recognition and movie star good looks, is a hard worker and is a natural born politician.

        • The Doctor says:

          Tell me you’re not serious about Mark Holland being leadership material. Please.

          • fritz says:

            Well personally I wouldn’t vote for him but I expect someday he may run. I do doubt he could ever be elected leader of Liberal Party; but then I look who they’ve chosen over the last 10 years; Martin, Dion & Ignatieff; and I’m not so sure.

    • James Curran says:

      We’re not harpering on the $800K because that would be the RIGHT talking point. And the CORRECT talking points seem to escape the Liberal Party heirarchy at this point in time.

  13. GritChik says:

    If the Liberals believe that this government is corrupt, they cannot continue to support it. To do so is hypocritical. The role of the Official Opposition is the hold government accountable for it’s policies and actions. Ideally, we’d be in a better position going in but that’s not always possible.

    If they don’t, and we’re sent into an election over the budget (which seems likely), then the ballot question becomes about the economy. And we can’t win on that.

  14. nic coivert says:

    I certainly do fall into the partisan gut reaction category, but if it is possible to do this I like it. This is not how the Cons have designed the script, it will be a wrench for them. And no I don’t think the LPC will win the election, but they will gain more ground, and the Cons will lose seats and Harper will be weakened greatly. Maybe I’m foolish but I want to fight those effing Cons right now. Ignatieff has to take a stand, he needs to lose one to win one.

    • JenS says:

      Exactly. It’s starting to ring hollow, this focus on corruption while allowing the government to continue. Ideal? No. But I don’t think there are many options.

      • JenS says:

        Sorry – my reply was intended to be to GritChik’s comment. But with the exception of Nic’s final clause, I largely agree with that, too.

  15. Darren says:

    Now this is coming from a Conservative…but…
    Stephen Harper has been running millions and million worth of tv ads to define the other leader as “just in it for himself” and that he “didn’t come back for you” while Iggy’s party has handed out some t shirts on Spark St.

    Harper’s party is going up in the polls and Iggy’s is going down.

    Now the Liberals think the cure all is to bring the government down before they even bring in a budget??? I don’t know about you, but to me that would look like someone was just in it for themselves and didn’t really come back for my interests. Usually parties attack ads reinforce negative stereotypes that already exist. It’s not often a leader proposes to launch into an election that re-enforces the stereotype that the other party has spent millions to foster in the public mind.

    • Namesake says:


      If he was only in it for himself, he wouldn’t be contemplating triggering an election now when the polling numbers are still against him and when the attack ads & when the narrative about being an opportunist for calling an election at a fragile time blah blah are all ramping up, as well…

      …he’d just wait patiently for another year for all the stuff that’s bound to accumulate, after a few more Speaker’s Rulings & AG reports & more crap about the way the CPC has been pork-barreling & mis-managing & concealing, all pile up, when ‘the fragile economy’ crap won’t fly any more, and there’ll be a much greater inclination to throw the bums out.

      In fact, he wouldn’t even still be here, at all, if he were only in it for himself: he would’ve just gone back to Harvard after losing the first leadership campaign in ’06, instead of putting up with so much abuse & slogging away for five years.

  16. michael hale says:

    It’s the ultimate in cynicism. Layton can’t run an election in the next couple weeks. He might be able to by the time a budget vote comes along. So make him vote with government now and it makes it easier for the NDP when it comes time to support the budget. If the NDP are onside with the approach, it is cynical manipulation. If they aren’t and the Libs are doing it on their own then it is both cynical and reprehensible.

    Sometimes what we hide behind the word “strategy” to justify our lowest moments.

    • scanner says:

      Every time Jack winces in pain on tv he picks up another vote from the liberals. 🙂

    • Namesake says:

      ah, spare me that “reprehensible” sanctimony.

      First of all, obviously, under the current seat distribution, an election couldn’t be triggered by a non-confidence vote without the participation of the NDP

      Second, I’m pretty sure Mr. Layton himself wouldn’t want the other parties and MPs to stop doing their jobs indefinitely while he recovers — he’d sooner resign, first, then put our Parliamentary Democracy on hold because of his busted hip.

      Third, is it “reprehensible” to call an election that someone can only participate in from a wheelchair? Then better condemn Mr. Harper, who called an expensive, needless snap election after just 2 years (in flagrant violation of the spirit if not the letter of his own law, BTW) in ’08, despite the hardships that might impose on his quadriplegic MP Stephen Fletcher, who regularly flies back & forth b/w Ottawa & his WPg. riding, BTW, and attends lots of functions in his wheelchair. And the former mayor of Vancouver, Sam Sullivan, also campaigned from a wheelchair, more than once.

      As for his overall health, some — most notably, Chantal Hebert — actually argue that it’s better for him and the NDP to hold the election sooner rather than later, if there’s a possibility of the now remitted cancer from recurring.


      • michael hale says:

        I think you’re missing my point. Of course the NDP will have to support it (or not), that’s how you reduce expectations/surprise around supporting the budget.

        As to Layton, he wouldn’t want to let his health hold up democracy, but nor would he want to put the NDP in the position of being obliterated (which would happen if he can’t campaign properly OR if they are running under some interim leader scenario).

        And just because the Cons are reprehensible doesn’t mean other should be as well.

        One last thing. If anyone (Chantal Hebert or anyone else) thinks Layton can run a campaign on a bum hip while getting cancer treatment, then either that person doesn’t know anything about campaigns or doesn’t know anything about hip surgery.

  17. Sean says:

    I’m not so sure this is a bad idea. A good oppo leader has to be a shit disturber. A motion of non confidence, based on our issues, is great theatrics for starting a campaign. It is high time for Iggy to start punching with bad intentions. The only question is whether or not issues of democracy will resonate with voters. At the end of the day I don’t think Joe and Jane Frontporch understand or care a wink about the privileges of parliamentarians.

    The other part of this gamble is that it would throw the Tories off by cancelling the budget. However, they will obviously present all the budget goodies anyways and blame the Liberals for cancelling all the fun. Is it a gamble? Maybe… But you actually need to have some chips to be gambling and right now the Libs have nothing.

  18. Bill King says:

    I think this makes perfect sense. This will be a great thing for the Liberals. It’s a stroke of genius. Really.

    Do it Iggy. Show us how smart you really are. It will work for you. Really.


  19. dave says:

    Makes some sense to me:

    Right now an election depends on the Conservatives. If their internal polling suggests that the can get a majority, they will present a budget hammering the opposition. All three opposition will vote to defeat the budget, adn we go to an eleciton to discuass job creators, economic action plan, and not upsetting the fragile recovery.
    If their poll numbers suggest less than a majority the Conservatives will do a deal with the NDP (ok, we’ll give the seniors a buck or two), or they will do a deal with the Bloc (ok, we will pay a few $ on Quebec’s HST programme). I figure the latter is more likely.
    If the Libs craft the non confidence around deceit and cheat the Bloc will support that . (the Bloc will go now , or later, I don’t think they are worried. The Conservatives have written off Quebec anyway – and this government is the best thing that has happened for the sovereigntists.)
    The NDP is in a position where they cannot refuse to back the motion.

    The Libs can see NDP vote softening, which would be to the Libs gain.
    The leadership of the Libs msut be getting to where they have to find out where they stand.

    So…call the non confidence and go on their agenda. The government propaganda air war is driving the polls and attitudes successfully and it ain’t going to get any better. In an election campaign there will be some semblance of equality in what is allowed in the way of adverising and propaganda.

  20. scanner says:

    After a non-confidence motion, who says there has to be an election? What have you people forgotten history?

  21. billg says:

    “I don’t sense Bill is sincere about his support for the Liberal leader.”
    There’s those “alleged skills” again….

  22. DL says:

    This could be a brilliant strategy on the part of the Liberals. Since they know that Layton is recovering from surgery right now and needs a couple of weeks before he can be back on his feet – why not EXPLOIT the situation by forcing an election campaign to start three weeks earlier than expected!!! I’m sure Canadians would just be thrilled with Ignatieff for being so shrewd and strategic in going out of his way to time an election precisely when he knows one of his rivals is recovering from surgery!!!

  23. WDM says:

    I refuse to believe this happens before 2012.

  24. WesternGrit says:

    We need a “Madison Wisconsin Moment” (or month)… Americans have actually woken up, gotten off their behinds, and decided that the voices of 300,000,000 working Americans are more important than those of the 400 Yanks who control the media, industry, and more wealth than 150,000,000 of them.

    Michael Moore’s speech in Madison a couple of nights ago really highlights what we’re up against: a public that’s been brainwashed and lulled to sleep by positive corporatist (not democratic) messages issued forth by a wholly owned media. People need to be calling “bullshit” on the REAL elite… The mega-millionaires – especially the media barons – who love to foment angst against gov’t within us rabble – and who manipulate elections to benefit themselves.

    We need to fight the media first… Does the media want less election ads – are you kidding? They live off that. But, if we really want democracy, we must start by limiting advertising to writ periods ONLY, and then only to clearly defined lower limits (maybe $5 million at the national level, or less). Force candidates out on the hustings to actually discuss, debate, and engage with the public again. That’s the only way to really get people back to voting and involvement in our democracy – and that’s the only way to start to break down the slow euthanization of our democracy.

    • nic coivert says:

      “…Euthanization of our democracy.”

      Well put.

    • Philip says:

      Don’t forget about holding political ads to the same truth and accuracy standards which the private sector has to work under. I’d back a Madison style revolution in a heart beat. This is the Canadian government not Harper’s government. In a way it would be Canadian democracy’s FUBU moment.

  25. Matt says:

    I also think it’s a fairly bold move by Iggy, who has been loath to make a bold move since his coronation. It shows that the Libs are serious, albeit misguided, in their claim that the CPC is corrupt, is damaging democracy and is all around terrible without having to use the budget as the excuse.

    If they vote down the budget the ballot issue becomes, “who is the best steward of the fragile economic recovery”. The answer to that question is undoubtedly Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party of Canada. This non-confidence idea might be the best chance the Libs have to change the channel away from the Harper Governments excellent management of the economy. I’m not saying it’s an EXCELLENT idea, but it might be the best chance they have.

    Leave it to Iggy to screw it up though.

  26. Riley Hennessey says:

    It sounds like a broad majority of people commenting think its a good idea to launch a non-confidence vote, because somehow by doing it before the budget, the economy would be taken off the table as a ballot question. Poof. Gone. Magic. For me, it sounds like nobody in the Grit base is actually studying their adversary or thinking things through.

    I’d like to hear what Warren thinks about avoiding the economy as a ballot question. Feasible?

    • Warren says:

      Guys, it’s the numbers. If you take out Quebec, the Cons have a 20 point lead, for Chrissakes.

      It’s just me (and Riley), but can we perhaps go when the fundamentals are a bit better?

      • Namesake says:

        But I wouldn’t put too much stock in those numbers, if I were you.

        on those Nanos no’s,

        First, it wasn’t Nanos himself who pulled out those ROC no’s as your commenter did, yesterday, and I doubt he’d endorse doing that the way that commenter did, which was done w/o due regard for weighting the relevant populations of the regions.

        I replicated what they did — multiply the no. of decided voters & the percentages for each party for each region that Nanos reported, to arrive back at the raw numbers, then subtract the QC no’s, in which case, yes: it’s a 20-pt spread, 46.8% Cons, 27.4% Lib, for the 606 decided voters in the ROC, with an MOE of 3.9.

        But a quarter of those respondents were in the 3 Prairies, where there’s unlikely to be any change, and not a lot of seats b/w them, anyway, so if we follow the same unscientific method and remove THEM, it’s: only a 9 point spread (w. a 4.7 MOE), 40.2% Con, 30.9% Lib.

        Second, don’t forget, that poll was in the field Feb. 11-14, BEFORE the Oda Nottiness; the new In & Out charges & Court of Appeal slap-down; the revelation about Kenney running an Ethnic War Room out of his Immigration Ministry office; and this new ruling this is all premised on, of their withholding crucial budgetary information from Parliamentarians under the pretense of it being Cabinet Confidences.

        Third, as I noted yesterday, I think the 43% Ipsos poll is going to go by the wayside, too, which was just reflecting the attack ad TV-watching, land-line telephone answering folk’s soured impressions:

        most likely, overall, it’s really still about the same old 6- point Groundhog Day gap, at the moment, but,

        fourth, that’ll close, both as the scandals mount, and in an actual election, once the Libs finally pry open the purse strings and fight back with some attack ads of their own.

        • Riley Hennessey says:

          Wow. Like Kinsella said, crack really must be addictive.

          Your central thesis is hey, all these polling companies are wrong because I say so, and my gut tells me we’re in striking distance. I’d say that a good many Liberal MP’s shouldn’t bet their salaries on your gut feeling.

          • Namesake says:

            no, troll, it’s that most of the polls with the double-digit lead were all done BEFORE the brouhahas of the last couple of weeks, and WK’s been too rattled by one of the residual attack-ad influenced ones.

            and why does someone so Blue Like You care so much that you’re buzz-bombing this topic, anyway? If you’re right about what you’re claiming, you should be keeping mum, to let the Libs walk off the cliff and deliver you lot the precious majority you’ve coveted so dearly.

          • Namesake says:

            I gave the results & urls for all 4 more recent major polls yesterday, which put the gap at just between 5 and 8, with the one with the largest sample (almost 3 times the others, & encompassing both cellphones & landlines) being just 5, which is why I put it at 6.


        • Mark in Ontario says:

          Whatever the horse race numbers are, what is clear is that the Liberals are way behind TWICE – between 8-20% behind the Conservatives in Rest of Canada, or probably more in the West; and about 20%+ behind the Bloc Quebecois in Quebec. Ignatieff would have to win every Ontario seat currently held by Conservatives and NDP in order to begin to overcome the deep deep deficits in support in Quebec and the West and to think about forming a government.

          What this tells me is that good sense has returned to the Liberals and they have decided not to fight an election on the economy by falling into the PM’s trap and having the “coalition” vote down the budget. We’ll have to wait and see what and when the Speaker rules, but a possible debate on a possible non-confidence vote on “scandal” is one way for the Liberals climb down from the economic cliff-edge. The risk in making non-scandals the issue however is nobody, not even Ralph Goodale, can come close to Thomas Mulcair for fake outrage. At this stage I don’t rate Martin Cauchon’s chances to win back Outremont very highly, and he would be the obvious next Liberal leader, given that it is a francophone’s “turn” next time. The Liberals can’t seem to catch a break.

      • Pete says:

        You continue to believe the pollters are right because you have no clue otherwise which is why you are thinking its foolish to go.

  27. matt says:

    1. There is a distinction between why the grits would muse publically about a confidence vote, and whether they would actually do it. The public musing puts the spotlight on the NDP in an unflattering way given their lack of firm stance and (deliberately or not) Layton’s present health issues.
    2. On the substantive question about whether the grits would actually demand a confidence vote, the only way this helps the grits is by reframing the ballot question.
    3. The only way this reframes the ballot question is if Miliken’s ruling is worded in a way that is perceived by the public as an ethical issue rather than a procedural issue. I don’t think that demanding a confidence vote as a consequence helps the grits shift public perception from “procedure” to “ethics” either.
    4. If Miliken’s ruling doesn’t come out before the writ, or isn’t nicely enough worded to suit grit purposes, they can back off the request. They will have enjoyed watching the NDP squirm. The risk, however, is that they again look chicken and will have created their own bad weather if Miliken’s ruling is bad enough for the press but not bad enough for the public (which is the most likely outcome, and the reason the approach has too much risk for my liking).

  28. Tiger says:

    “Why would they do this”?

    Possibility no. 1: They have no intention of doing this; it’s more to keep the election hawks appeased before they decide to back down again.

    Problem no. 1: Just makes MI look weak. Again.

    Possibility no. 2: Coincidence of interests between Ignatieff folk, who want their man to stand firm, and anti-Ignatieff folk, who want to get the losing of the election over with in order to get a new leader.

    Problem no. 2: What if Harper wins his majority? (For anti-Iggy people: what if Ignatieff comes close to winning, and then becomes PM?)


    If the Liberals have already decided that they really, really want a Spring 2011 election, it makes sense for them to want to frame the ballot question as much as they can. Be active, not passive.

    • Tiger says:

      Sure — but that just means that they’re doing their best to set the ballot question.

      Seems to me that if the call has been made to go for an election ASAP, this is the best way to do it.

      I think the NDP would have difficulty voting against a motion about Harper’s habits in office — this really puts the screws to them b/c their supporters believe all of that stuff about the current government.

  29. Didi Miesen says:

    The ‘No Confidence Vote’ should and must come from the People Of Canada.. against ALL Our elected representatives: given the volumes of ‘illegally’ enacted PUBLIC Laws.. all passed WITHOUT OUR Required Knowledge or Consent.. starting with the grotesquely Illegally enacted Ethnic Cleansing Language Laws.. we are FORCED to Endure – AGAINST OUR WILL!!
    Notwithstanding.. the 4 decades long for starters: English Minority – protection, promotion, community, institutional – services – hundreds of BILLIONS of dollars WE HAVE NEVER SEEN – (What did the Federal Liberals – Provincial Liberals, PQ… Do with OUR money). The same Federal Liberals.. that promised us for decades – they were going to ABOLISH the Illegal Language loi’s.. when IN FACT – they were endorsing and promoting them – INSTEAD. Where did all those billions go? Who doled it out to who.. and where did they get the RIGHT to TAKE it ?? NO ELECTION – NO CONFIDENCE – in Any of them… all who have deliberately and knowingly enacted too many ILLEGAL Laws too count and continue to arrogantly – DENY the people they have been HIRED to Serve & Protect – ANY ANSWERS, Period! This LUNACY.. can Not Be Tolerated or Allowed for one more Minute!! WTF?? The Statutes Of Law Making Regulations ALL Elected Officials are DUTY BOUND TO OBEY .. have ALL been ‘criminally’ VIOLATED & ABUSED … by the very people we Trusted to Enforce them. No Confidence the Liberals DARE TO SAY … WHAT?? Let’s have OUR LIBERAL PARTY – DEMONSTRATE.. THEIR APPALLING RECORD OF BROKEN PROMISES… outright DECEIT.. starting with their 40 year RECORD of endorsing, enacting and promoting ILLEGAL – human rights – abusive – barbaric ‘language laws’ designed specifically to ERASE The English language – Culture and community OUT OF OUR Canadian Province of Quebeck! THEY MUST be VETTED.. all of them .. from here on in… and the ones who have lied, cheated, mislead.. and BETRAYED their positions of trust.. must be – as our Statutes state.. be held Criminally responsible!!
    And Warren.. you know very well that every single word written – is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth and easily backed up and proven.. Therefore as a Man Of Honor… It is time to help put an immediate end to this lunacy.

  30. Cam says:

    Been lurking around this site for quite some time. Thought it time to start speaking up.

    I think the non-confidence vote is an excellent idea. Consider me simple, but telling the truth is important to most people. Not abusing tax dollars for political gain is also important. Counter or maybe for the non-confidence vote is day-to-day cost of goods is streaking skyward ? hurting my pocketbook ? doesn?t that usually go against the government of the day?

    • Warren says:

      Sure. But I want the Libs to win. If an election is held now, we will lose.

      • hugger says:

        What will they lose? Who will stand for principles?

        We live in a Country that rewards cheaters with 500 thousand dollar rewards. A country that accepts people who claim to be entitled to their entitlements, no matter the real cost of printing money. A difficult task indeed. A country where civil servants spend every last cent of their budget so as not to be cut back the next year, yet we ask a portion of our youth to go and kill uneducated tribes peoples because their thoughts are controlled by religious spin doctors, as opposed to political spin doctors and all the sheep that blindly follow

        Distasteful considerations, one and all. Best to ignore them.

        Taking into account all the scandals, near and far, I sometimes look at the medals on my wall, and I wonder why?

        The phenomenal abilities of artists ground me.

        From Hugger Radio, and shades of the Wolfman;

        Burton Cummings, Break it to them gently.


        One of my personal favorites, from the late great Stan Rogers, Barrett’s Privateers


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.