The backdoor election?

October 17th, 2007 | email this | digg it

Leave your comment Posted by Scott Tribe

You know, if Jack Layton and the NDP really really want an election over this Throne Speech, the way to do so is spelled out here. If he were to do this (which I agree with the poster probably wouldn’t happen), it would make whoever proposed those amendments in the Liberal braintrust look a tad foolish, and too clever by half. Deciding that the Throne Speech won’t be the cause of the Conservatives fall is one thing; coming up with amendments to try and make the NDP look bad by getting them to vote with the government (and then in all likelihood follow that up by claiming it was the NDP who propped up the government) is silly political posturing.

I for one would think it pretty bold if the NDP were to turn the tables and abstain from the Liberals amendments to force an election.

11 Responded To This Post

9561. Idealistic Pragmatist said on October 17, 2007 at 10:26 pm

It would be–and I say this not as a partisan, but as a political observer who generally likes things exciting–freaking hilarious.

Although the Liberals would still be able to find an out by scrambling to vote in favour of the throne speech after the amendment passed rather than abstaining, right? (I may be wrong about that–I’m awfully tired.)

Reply - Quote

9562. Ben (The Tiger) said on October 17, 2007 at 10:33 pm

No, no, the amendment would just kill the government right then. Like with Bob Rae’s budget amendment in December ‘79.

But I think Layton’s already told Reuters that he’ll vote against the Liberal amendment.

So no fun for us, alas.

Reply - Quote

9563. The Jurist said on October 17, 2007 at 10:33 pm

I’m not entirely sure, but I’m assuming it’s the amendment motion itself that would be considered the matter of confidence. After all, once it passed the amended throne speech wouldn’t be the one the Cons put forward - which means that neither a yea or a nay on the amended speech would actually reflect confidence on Harper’s terms.

Reply - Quote

9564. Mark Ch said on October 17, 2007 at 11:03 pm

But I think Layton’s already told Reuters that he’ll vote against the Liberal amendment.

But then he would say that, wouldn’t he, if he actually did want an election. Warning the Liberals that he was going to abstain would merely make them look silly by forcing them not to vote in favour of their own motion.

Reply - Quote

9565. mushroom said on October 17, 2007 at 11:38 pm

I mentioned this in Cat’s blog.

Layton offers to defeat Harper’s government by forming a coalition government with Dion. He insists that the Dippers run both the Finance AND Foreign Minister Departments.

Shades of Peterson and Rae knocking off Frank Miller’s government. Except that the stakes are much higher for the NDP.

Reply - Quote

9566. Idealistic Pragmatist said on October 17, 2007 at 11:57 pm

He insists that the Dippers run both the Finance AND Foreign Minister Departments.

And democratic reform! And democratic reform!!!

Hey, if we’re gonna fantasize, I want in on the action, too.

Reply - Quote

9567. mushroom said on October 18, 2007 at 12:29 am

IP,

A referendum on mixed member proportional representation within one hundred days of the coalition government. Just like in Scotland and Wales.

I was there in the UK when Blair got in power. Stayed up all night crossing my fingers for the Welsh referendum result ;)

Reply - Quote

9568. BCer in Toronto said on October 18, 2007 at 12:50 am

Just one problem…Jack doesn’t really want an election. He knows he’s not going to gain any ground, his party is stalled in the polls as well. What he wants to do is hide behind the Liberals, strutting around talking about principles knowing as long as we don’t want an election either, our seats are enough to block it and he doesn’t have to make that tough choice. It is an interesting scenario presented. If the NDP really does want an election, and they’re talk of principles is true, maybe Jack will follow the advice and trigger the election he says he wants. And if he doesn’t? Well, that would speak for itself I suppose…

Reply - Quote

9570. Idealistic Pragmatist said on October 18, 2007 at 12:57 am

BCer,

Oh, sure, rain on our nice little punchy fantasies with all that sober stuff. Here’s a big fat raspberry for you. :P

Reply - Quote

9571. mushroom said on October 18, 2007 at 1:01 am

Jeff,

Tell that to Julius Grey, Linda Duncan, Nettie Wiebe, and Marilyn Churley. Go email the people who are running the Dipper association in Saanich-Esquimalt.

A few extra seats help. Watching the Grits meltdown is priceless.

Reply - Quote

9587. Sean S. said on October 18, 2007 at 10:54 am

The NDP is more then ready for an election, and if there is one they will take seats from both the Conservatives and Liberals given the current climate in Ottawa.

Reply - Quote

Go Back To Home No election for now. | Tories banned local media from citizenship ceremony to prevent distractions?