Friday, March 07, 2008

Liberal Strategists where are you?

Can someone from the Liberal side of the spectrum please explain to me just what the Liberal motion of non confidence in the Bloc and NDP is, or was, intended to do? I have looked at this motion in the current circumstances and have no idea how this motion helps the LPC cause in anyway what so ever.

The reaction from the sometimes loyal to a fault Libloggers is not even mixed; it is, at the point of writing this, 100% opposed and or confused by this little example of LPC strategy under the so called leadership of Stephane Dion. That in itself says something when even the most loyal members of your base think this is a stupid idea.

You can read for yourself some of the Libloggers views on this motion which can be found at these links. A few more links added.

Correction: As pointed out in the comments: Idealistic Pragmatist is not a Liblogs member. I have corrected my error and do apologize to IP for labeling her* as a Liberal. Sorry IP, I know being called a Liberal was a low blow and not deserved.

* It looks like I screwed up again. Correction made.

Now that the crow has been served lets get back to my original question. Any Liberals out there have an idea what this motion is intended to do?

17 comments:

Anonymous said...

Ha, ha, ha. Obviously you don't read the blogs your reference...otherwise, you'd have noticed Idealist Pragmatist's huge NDP banner at the top of her blog.

RP. said...

IP a Liblogger? Low, low, low.

Anonymous said...

Um, Idealistic Pragmatist is no more a Liberal than you are.

Lore_Weaver said...

I bet Cherniak could put a positive spin on it. Does that dude still blog even?

Ardvark said...

A correction has been made to the post. I know it was way over the line to call someone a Liberal who doesn't deserve it.

Idealistic Pragmatist said...

I'm not a "he," either, but I do appreciate the correction! *g*

Ardvark said...

Bad day in the anthill. Sorry about that IP.

A BCer in Toronto said...

In a nutshell, the Liberals want to sound like they're holding the government to account, so they introduce a motion of non-confidence in the CPC. However, we're too chickenshit to actually want an election, so we put in a poison pill, the stuff about the NDP and BQ. That section ensures the NDP and BQ won't support it, and of course the Cons won't either, so we can be assured our confidence motion will fail. Appearing tough, without actually being tough.

Remember, I did say NUTshell.

Saskboy said...

The Liberals would get a lot more done if they'd make sure Stephen Harper pays for his knowledge of a plan to bribe Cadman with "financial considerations".

Ardvark said...

Thanks for the comment Jeff, I can see the logic of trying to look tough, but this motion's wording ensures in advance that it will fail. Doesn't this type of thing really have opposite effect from what was intended?

So much for Dion 'making Parliament work' How many Liberals are going to show up to vote on this one I wonder?

Ardvark said...

Saskboy, wishing something to be true does not make it so.

By your reasoning ANY party offering ANY type of financial considerations to their candidates ( signs, printing, loans, call center work, business cards, etc) would be a bribe. After all if you are in the party, you are expected to tow the party line.

wilson said...

NEVER UNDERESTIMATE A LIBERAL.

I have a sneaking suspicion that Libs and Greens are negotiating a merger.
They are playing for time, and then...bang!

Time to quit laughing, and get thinking.

300baud said...

Does that mean if the PQ and NDP rise above the asinine name calling and vote for the thing, we could actually get an election out of this?

A BCer in Toronto said...

this motion's wording ensures in advance that it will fail.

Exactly.

Doesn't this type of thing really have opposite effect from what was intended?

No, because its intended to fail. The Liberals only want to make it seem like they want an election. They really don't want one though. They're hoping to fool the people that aren't paying very close attention.

It's readily obvious though, so that's why I've said it's a really stupid motion.

Does that mean if the PQ and NDP rise above the asinine name calling and vote for the thing, we could actually get an election out of this?

In theory. And since the Liberals vote first as the mover and the yea voters, if the NDP and BQ kept their intentions to vote yea secret the bill would pass and the government would fall. Of course, they'd have to keep it secret because if word got out they planned to vote yea, the Liberal whip would keep enough members out or have them abstain to ensure their motion still fails.

Anonymous said...

Kind of sad being a Liberal today.

Saskboy said...

"By your reasoning ANY party offering ANY type of financial considerations to their candidates"

Except Cadman WASN'T their candidate, he was independent.

Ardvark said...

The meeting was to get Cadman back into the party, and in doing so he would get all the perks that go along with it. It is common practice and you are really stretching it with this line of thinking.

If you believe that nobody is allowed to cross the floor, then you had better break the news to Garth and Belinda, because they both got mucho benefits from doing just that.

I guess I will wait to see the "Garth accepts bribe to join the LPC" headline on your blog soon.

Or not.