[Kjorteo]

Ironically for someone who made that one of his anti-Iggy talking points, campaigning against a scary claim even after it has been thoroughly factually debunked is very "American-style" politics.

[DrCaleb]

CKASlacker wrote:

DrCaleb wrote:

The budget didn't get rejected, it died on the order paper along with copyright legislation and scads of other bills. The government fell on a motion in the house based on a committee finding of Contempt of Parliament. Didn't you get the memo?

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2 ... -main.html

I'll take the liberty of quoting the first line:

"Opposition leaders immediately rejected the Conservative government's budget Tuesday, setting the stage for a possible spring election."

addendum: while I agree the the ensuing non-confidence motion on Friday technically brought on the election, it seemed inevitable once they rejected the budget. It's hard to imagine a situation otherwise ("we accept your budget, but we have no confidence in this government").

http://www.globalmontreal.com/House+Com ... story.html

I'll quote the relevant bit:

Quote:

The federal Conservative government has been defeated on a historic vote in Parliament, setting the stage for a May election.

MPs voted 156-145 in favour of a Liberal motion today citing Stephen Harper's minority Tories for contempt of Parliament and expressing non-confidence in the government.

If there was no vote in Parliament, then the budget was not defeated. We will never know if the budget may have passed despite opposition objections. Opposition leaders will reject what is for lunch at the cafeteria - that is their job - to oppose.

But to say the government was defeated over it is to ignore facts. Something I find common in people who cling to a party despite the difference in what they say, and what they actually do.

And I am not the only one to think of the Contempt thing as serious.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/03/29 ... the-facts/

Quote:

CONTEMPT FOR THE FACTS

A rumour circulating on Twitter over the past few days holds that Conservative leader Stephen Harper cannot legally run for Parliament because he was found in contempt of Parliament. The origin of this thread appears to be the website presscore.ca, which contends that the contempt of finding that triggered the election is akin to the impeachment of a U.S. president. “According to parliamentary law, contempt of parliament is a federal crime. Being that Harper has been found guilty of a crime, Harper is barred from seeking re-election on May 2, 2011.

http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/E-2.01/page-256.html

[EyeBrock]

The contempt thing was designed to make it look like it wasn't a budget no-confidence vote. Sure they broke a few rules but it's parliamentary stuff that only Hansard and the Hill Times really get uppity about.

Most of us CKA political types see it for what it is, that includes all reasonable types from the Libs, NDP and Bloc.

The media, well…Harper is one off Hitler. Very silly and most voters are just kind of annoyed with the whole election thing and the media types ain’t getting that. They believe their own propaganda.

The whole contempt issue will never really resonate with anybody but the partisans and I think the Libs are grasping at straws on this. I'm with Chris Selley (who annoys me intensely). The Libs are picking the wrong battles. The CPC are vulnerable but Iggies Legions are attacking the wrong Huns.

[CKASlacker]

DrCaleb wrote:

If there was no vote in Parliament, then the budget was not defeated. We will never know if the budget may have passed despite opposition objections. Opposition leaders will reject what is for lunch at the cafeteria - that is their job - to oppose.

But to say the government was defeated over it is to ignore facts. Something I find common in people who cling to a party despite the difference in what they say, and what they actually do.

I should start that I'm in no ways a Harper-fan -- I wouldn't vote Tory in the upcoming election, even if I could.

Seems to me you're splitting hairs -- Ignatieff comes out and says: "We're forced to reject this budget", it's pretty clear which way the Libs would vote should the budget have been put before Parliament.

In any event, I think you're way overplaying the "contempt of Parliament" issue - EyeBrock above has put it better than I could. It's obvious (to me anyways) that Harper engineered the budget "crisis" simply to force the election so he can attain the majority he so desperately wants, and now is a good time (he's thinking) because Iggy and the Libs don't seem to inspire. Attack them when they're weak, basically.

Whether the whole tedium of the election and accompanying attack ads will override the near-zero momentum that Libs possess at the moment is an open question. It might just be Canadians holding their collective noses and voting for the party they consider "least bad". So another Harper minority -- we'll see.

edit: for grammar

[JJ]

EyeBrock wrote:

The contempt thing was designed to make it look like it wasn't a budget no-confidence vote. Sure they broke a few rules but it's parliamentary stuff that only Hansard and the Hill Times really get uppity about.

Most of us CKA political types see it for what it is, that includes all reasonable types from the Libs, NDP and Bloc.

The media, well…Harper is one off Hitler. Very silly and most voters are just kind of annoyed with the whole election thing and the media types ain’t getting that. They believe their own propaganda.

The whole contempt issue will never really resonate with anybody but the partisans and I think the Libs are grasping at straws on this. I'm with Chris Selley (who annoys me intensely). The Libs are picking the wrong battles. The CPC are vulnerable but Iggies Legions are attacking the wrong Huns.

I'm curious why Chris Selley annoys you. I mean, he annoys me a lot as well, I'm just curious to hear someone else's take.

[romanP]

DrCaleb wrote:

I'm just hoping in the next month they will switch from the rhetoric to some semblance of an actual platform with actual issues.

You're hoping for far too much.

[Bruce_the_vii]

Ignatieff won't support the existing federal budget. Harper isn't likely to suddenly embrace a whole new approach of cooperating with the opposition. There might be a second election in the fall.

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/201 ... ry-budget/

[EyeBrock]

JJ wrote:

EyeBrock wrote:

The contempt thing was designed to make it look like it wasn't a budget no-confidence vote. Sure they broke a few rules but it's parliamentary stuff that only Hansard and the Hill Times really get uppity about.

Most of us CKA political types see it for what it is, that includes all reasonable types from the Libs, NDP and Bloc.

The media, well…Harper is one off Hitler. Very silly and most voters are just kind of annoyed with the whole election thing and the media types ain’t getting that. They believe their own propaganda.

The whole contempt issue will never really resonate with anybody but the partisans and I think the Libs are grasping at straws on this. I'm with Chris Selley (who annoys me intensely). The Libs are picking the wrong battles. The CPC are vulnerable but Iggies Legions are attacking the wrong Huns.

I'm curious why Chris Selley annoys you. I mean, he annoys me a lot as well, I'm just curious to hear someone else's take.

I met him.

[DanSC]

Mother of God...Either Harper is Elvis, or he wants to be Elvis...

That means...either Harper is an American...or he wants to be an American...

But Ignatieff is already an American...

What can the voters do?

*Note* You'll have the look at the cartoon this thread is based on to understand this post.

[JJ]

EyeBrock wrote:

JJ wrote:

EyeBrock wrote:

I'm curious why Chris Selley annoys you. I mean, he annoys me a lot as well, I'm just curious to hear someone else's take.

I met him.

What's he like? I imagine him being young, like in his 20s. And British. Is he?

[Curtman]

CKASlacker wrote:

addendum: while I agree the the ensuing non-confidence motion on Friday technically brought on the election, it seemed inevitable once they rejected the budget. It's hard to imagine a situation otherwise ("we accept your budget, but we have no confidence in this government").

Harper could have chosen to listen the majority of MP's in the house and delay the corporate tax breaks from happening until such time that we don't have to borrow money to pay for them.

[Curtman]

EyeBrock wrote:

The contempt thing was designed to make it look like it wasn't a budget no-confidence vote. Sure they broke a few rules but it's parliamentary stuff that only Hansard and the Hill Times really get uppity about.

The contempt thing was about the government lying about the costs that it presents to the house when they vote on it's bills. It's directly related to the budget in that, it seems ridiculous to vote on a budget from a government that doesn't tell the truth about it's numbers.

[Bruce_the_vii]

Curtman wrote:

Harper could have chosen to listen the majority of MP's in the house and delay the corporate tax breaks from happening until such time that we don't have to borrow money to pay for them.

Why don't they just stick to getting the deficit cleared. Maybe some smart, modest priority spending - like doctors. The voters have seen too many deficits and they hate them.