|
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
Um... they called the last one because support was slipping and they wanted to secure their position before they lost more... I wouldn't be surprised if Harper would call another because support is high. Of course this is politically risky as the electorate may not take kindly to it. |
of course. there are a couple of other reasons.
Support was higher enough that there was the feeling that a majority was within reach. It wasn't just about extending a mandate when support was high, but extending it and gaining a majority.
Canada's relative insulation from the globgal economic crisis was thinning or at least uncertain...so best to secure another mandate before touch decisions need to be made and/or the people become unhappy. Rightly or wrongly, the gov't will take a lot of heat during tough times, regardless of the 'cause' being external or not.
Rightly or wrongly, there is a perception by many that "Decmocrat = Liberal" and "Republican = Conservative". The likelihood (now the reality) of a change in the White House could have resulted in a boost for the opposition here (in theory. the reality is that 'liberal' means someting more left-wing here than in the U.S.)
| quote: | Originally posted by Moral Hazard
In all probability the coalition was all about political opportunism; however, so was Harper's move to cut party funding. The whole situation was started by the Cons political opportunism... don't be one sided on this Jayx, you have to know that both sides of the house acted like petulant children, which is why we ended up in that game of political chicken... I'm just happy that Harper backed down some and the Liberal caucus hit the eject button on Dion when it appeared he wouldn't back down in-turn. |
agreed 100%. everything that has happened has NOT been in the interests of Canadians or that it has is a happy side benefit. It's been all about opportunism, sometimes at the expense of what's good for Canada.
Ignatieff is making the right moves (publicly), maintaining a willingness to topple the gov't, but also to maintain the possibility of supporting the budget.
Harper is doign the same (again, publicly at least) of being interested in sitting down with the opposition.
we'll see if either/both side is full of shit. I remain pessimistic.
|
