Just heard this on newsworld, Pat O'Brien intends to bring the government down. Without Chuck Cadman voting today and potentially one liberal (Tom Wappel) not voting they may need to recruit a new independent.
PAT O'BRIEN TO BRING GOVERNMENT DOWN!
- Thread starter The Philosopher
- Start date
The Philosopher said:
Guess we will all have to watch CPAC this afternoon/evening, 1/2 hour later in Newfoundland :wink:
bluealberta said:
This is going to be bad for the Conservatives, they won't allow it to happen. Harper's on his way out and they are starting to go into dissarray.
DasFX said:
The conservatives are already missing three people, sick, and really don't know how Kilgour will vote, so O'Brien may be inconsequential. What may be really interesting is to see how the liberals who are against SSM vote, they will be the ones to make the decision, one would think. But the conservatives cannot vote for the budget.
RE: PAT O'BRIEN TO BRING
I can not possibly see the Conservatives wanting to go to the polls at this time.
I can not possibly see the Conservatives wanting to go to the polls at this time.
Oh Yea lets all geat excited that the loser politicians are going to bring down goverment and waste more of our tax dollars :x On an election nobody wants .I can hardly wait for my next tax increase from these con men :roll:
Re: RE: PAT O'BRIEN TO BRING GOVERNMENT DOWN!
Don't know about the pairing. You know, this "Nobody wants an election" crap is getting old. I was listening to a pollster from one of the polling places back at budget vote time, and he said that the response now is no different when there is an election called. No one wants an election at any time, apparently , in Canada. I personally think it is because we may have to think a little, and gee, going that three or four blocks to a school or church, or wherever, for, what 15 minutes tops, sure takes a lot out of summer. Given that our voting record is horrible anyway, I suspect that the ones not wanting elections don' vote, anyway.
SirKevin said:
Don't know about the pairing. You know, this "Nobody wants an election" crap is getting old. I was listening to a pollster from one of the polling places back at budget vote time, and he said that the response now is no different when there is an election called. No one wants an election at any time, apparently , in Canada. I personally think it is because we may have to think a little, and gee, going that three or four blocks to a school or church, or wherever, for, what 15 minutes tops, sure takes a lot out of summer. Given that our voting record is horrible anyway, I suspect that the ones not wanting elections don' vote, anyway.
Whatever Blue I live right behind a high school so don't give me that crap .How much does it cost for an election ?Who pays for it ?Who is there to vote for ?A bunch of lying thieves thats it :x I guess your just looking to pay more taxes hey 
mrmom2 said:Whatever Blue I live right behind a high school so don't give me that crap .How much does it cost for an election ?Who pays for it ?Who is there to vote for ?A bunch of lying thieves thats it :x I guess your just looking to pay more taxes hey
Hey, you don't like it, not my problem. I was repeating what he said, but some of the comments were mine. The point is this country is lazy, which is why the lying thieves are in office with high polls. Easier to have crooks steal our money than go to an election. Lazy, lazy, lazy.
mrmom2 said:Whatever Blue I live right behind a high school so don't give me that crap .How much does it cost for an election ?Who pays for it ?Who is there to vote for ?A bunch of lying thieves thats it :x I guess your just looking to pay more taxes hey
And another thing. Maybe the libs stole enough from us the last 12 years they can fund the entire election themselves. Or take it out of the useless gun registry costs. Or take it out of the EI surplus they already stole from us. Or take it out of the foundation billions they have squirreled away. Or take it from the HRDC boondoggle that everyone seems to have forgotten. OR OR OR....so many scandals, so little ethics.
There 18 confidence motions coming up tonight. There will be six standing votes, with the remaining 12 being inferred (meaning the party whips will vote for their parties...all parties have agreed to that.
None of the votes are on SSM, so the Liberals who voted against the SSM marriage bill (with the exception of O'Brien and possibly one sitting Liberal) will vote with the government.
Since the six standing votes are fully whipped, voting against your party means quitting the party. If the backbenchers who voted against the SSM bill choose to do that, their political careers will be over.
All of the Liberals and NDP are in Ottawa for the vote. The Conservatives are missing 3 and the Bloc is missing 1. Chuck Cadman is (and his vote isn't a sure thing on any of these bills) is also absent. There is no pairing in play.
The Conservatives don't want the government to fall. If they did they would have asked for pairing, which they did not, or gotten their MPs to Ottawa like they did for the budget vote. With the present Conservative numbers, if there was an election they would lose seats. Most guesses have them dropping into the mid 80's, but some have them dipping as low as 50 seats. There is no way they want an election with those numbers.
The numbers will be close, but it is highly unlikely that the speaker will have to vote.
None of the votes are on SSM, so the Liberals who voted against the SSM marriage bill (with the exception of O'Brien and possibly one sitting Liberal) will vote with the government.
Since the six standing votes are fully whipped, voting against your party means quitting the party. If the backbenchers who voted against the SSM bill choose to do that, their political careers will be over.
All of the Liberals and NDP are in Ottawa for the vote. The Conservatives are missing 3 and the Bloc is missing 1. Chuck Cadman is (and his vote isn't a sure thing on any of these bills) is also absent. There is no pairing in play.
The Conservatives don't want the government to fall. If they did they would have asked for pairing, which they did not, or gotten their MPs to Ottawa like they did for the budget vote. With the present Conservative numbers, if there was an election they would lose seats. Most guesses have them dropping into the mid 80's, but some have them dipping as low as 50 seats. There is no way they want an election with those numbers.
The numbers will be close, but it is highly unlikely that the speaker will have to vote.
There is no pairing in this confidence vote. But O'Brien has said something new and interesting:
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/06/14/liberal-confidence050614.html
With one less Liberal voter and one extra Conservative voter it would make it one up for the Conservatives. Either way the house speaker will not be voting tonight.
http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/06/14/liberal-confidence050614.html
With one less Liberal voter and one extra Conservative voter it would make it one up for the Conservatives. Either way the house speaker will not be voting tonight.
The Rev Said:
None of the votes are on SSM, so the Liberals who voted against the SSM marriage bill (with the exception of O'Brien and possibly one sitting Liberal) will vote with the government.
I agree, UNLESS either the ones who are against SSM see this as a way to stop it OR the libs want to go to an election now, and these MPs against SSM will be allowed to vote against the budget, thus bringing down the government, and allowing Martin to show that he allows free votes in his caucus.
May be a "grassy knoll" proposition, but I would not trust Martin at all, especially regarding all this. It could be interesting.
On the other hand, everybody will vote as they should, and we will carry on until, or if, Gomery is allowed to give his report, assuming Chretien does not hold that up until 2007. :roll:
None of the votes are on SSM, so the Liberals who voted against the SSM marriage bill (with the exception of O'Brien and possibly one sitting Liberal) will vote with the government.
I agree, UNLESS either the ones who are against SSM see this as a way to stop it OR the libs want to go to an election now, and these MPs against SSM will be allowed to vote against the budget, thus bringing down the government, and allowing Martin to show that he allows free votes in his caucus.
May be a "grassy knoll" proposition, but I would not trust Martin at all, especially regarding all this. It could be interesting.
On the other hand, everybody will vote as they should, and we will carry on until, or if, Gomery is allowed to give his report, assuming Chretien does not hold that up until 2007. :roll:
I suggest you go back and do the math again, Phil. There are three missing Conservatives and one missing Bloc member. That's four down. Even without Cadman, the Liberals have the same numbers they did during the confidence vote because the empty seat from Labrador has been filled. All of the Liberals and all of the NDP are there. The Liberals will win. If there was any doubt of that on any side, those other dozen bills (all confidence bills) would all be standing votes.
None of the bills they are voting on is about SSM marriage though. In fact these are all smaller bills having to do with things that these MPs have supported in the past. It would be political suicide for them to bring down their own government under such circumstances.
While it's a possibility, Martin's numbers are beginning to approach majority territory. The Liberals would risk losing a lot of support if something like that happened and was perceived to be a political ploy, which is highly likely. I doubt they would make such an error.