The Liberals are now trying to delay a spring election by bringing up the costs. The first cost is the election itself. Does anyone believe that the Liberals would care about this if there was some reason they could win a majority right? In this case it would be the Opposition Parties raging about the costs. Chalk this one up to politics. Also it adds credence to Bob Tarantino's point, who is running this government anyway? As Jim Travers said on CBC Politics this morning, when you have to explain that you still have the moral authority to govern you have already grabbed your coat and hat and you are on your way out the door.
The other cost is their "mandate". First of all I love that PM Martin has a mandate but somehow President Bush doesn't...anyways. Here is a snippet of the Canadian Press story.
..."A lot of things die on the order paper," Fontana said
as he entered a Liberal caucus meeting.
"Kyoto, the agreement with Newfoundland and Nova Scotia (on resource revenues), the child-care (initiative)."
The resource revenues is a hit and Newfoundland & Labrador and Nova Scotia were promised these revenues before the last election. However since there is no actual Kyoto Plan and I am not in favour of the child-care initiative it is more reason for me to want to go to the polls.
Update: Looks like the Party Leaders are in a fighting mood as evidenced by their statements to the Press (video on CTV).
..."The true test of character is doing the right thing when it is difficult. And let me tell you that matters a great deal more than the ambitions of any political leader," [PM Martin] said in an apparent shot at the opposition parties who have been threatening to end his minority government.
This is a fair point, but I bets he regrets his decision now.
...Conservative Leader Stephen Harper, speaking shortly after the prime minister, questioned the "moral authority" of the Liberals to govern, picking up on comments made by Martin earlier this week.
Harper also criticized Martin and the Liberals for not doing enough during their time in power, picking up on the reputation that the PM has gotten as a "Mr. Dithers."
"This government has been in office a year and a half.
They have achieved very little," Harper said.
"And I would be confident in saying that I think Canadians could select another government that would actually have an agenda and get on with doing it," Harper said.
I liked his point about Moral Authority. A reporter asked him how he could prop the government up if they have no moral authority. He response was that it is delicate balance since he has thought that they lost their moral authority even before the last election but the electorate disagreed.
