The CPC will proceed for one more year in Afghanistan and then, if the CPC determines that they need to there for another year the will have an election to get a further mandate. I am still trying to figure how that will play out.
« I've been known to complain about this | Main | Soul mates »
If the vote fails
Comments are closed for this post.
Sponsors:
Powered by
Movable Type Personal 4.1
Movable Type Personal 4.1
Site Navigation
Search
(Powered by Google)
About
This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on May 17, 2006 4:04 PM.
The previous post in this blog was I've been known to complain about this.
The next post in this blog is Soul mates.
Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.
Comments (14)
But they’d have to have an election before well before Feb. 2007.
If the motion fails the Liberals will say they still want a revote closer to the date…either at the end of this sitting or the start of the next.
It’s an awfully lousy message to send over whether the extension decison is a few months months early.
I’m guessing 29 Liberals vote for it today and/or abstain.
Posted by yyc | May 17, 2006 4:14 PM
Posted on May 17, 2006 16:14
I suspect yyc is right. I expect a lot of Liberals to be too busy to show up tonight.
Posted by Greg | May 17, 2006 4:41 PM
Posted on May 17, 2006 16:41
Actually, this only requires a cabinet decision; much like the one the Liberal Cabinet made to commit our troops to the mission in the first place. PMSH is only doing this debate to fulfill a campaign promise.
Posted by Brett | May 17, 2006 5:06 PM
Posted on May 17, 2006 17:06
The Conservatives need 30 out of 102 Liberal MPs to do the right thing for once:
http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/story.html?id=60caad36-3f70-4f59-aacc-6b8c009d37ac&k=30727
I expect the motion to pass by the tightest of margins.
Posted by Damian P. | May 17, 2006 5:06 PM
Posted on May 17, 2006 17:06
How would Mr. Milliken vote in the event of a tie? Traditionally he votes with the government on issues. As Speaker, would he be allowed to personally declare his support or lack thereof?
Posted by Matt | May 17, 2006 5:12 PM
Posted on May 17, 2006 17:12
Traditionally speaker votes with the government on issues.
Traditionally speaker is a governing party MP.
The tradition on how Opposition Speakers should vote is pretty thin.
(Didn’t realize before that the year extension Greg was talking about was from Harper’s comments. That does give the Liberals some wiggle room. I still expect 29 or more to vote for the 2 years or abstain.)
Posted by yyc | May 17, 2006 5:29 PM
Posted on May 17, 2006 17:29
Actually, this only requires a cabinet decision; much like the one the Liberal Cabinet made to commit our troops to the mission in the first place. PMSH is only doing this debate to fulfill a campaign promise.
Perhaps, but having allowed the vote he would be hard pressed to ignore its results if it didn’t go his way.
Traditionally speaker votes with the government on issues.
Actually, not quite. In the event of a tie, the speaker votes to maintain the status quo.
Posted by BCer in Toronto | May 17, 2006 5:38 PM
Posted on May 17, 2006 17:38
The Liberal position seems to roughly be that they support the troops and mission (I’ll even hazard guess they’ll tacitly support a 1 year extension)… but to actually be asked to vote for it is just way too way partisan.
Posted by yyc | May 17, 2006 6:09 PM
Posted on May 17, 2006 18:09
Anybody noticed if Paul Martin was in the house last night voting? Well that’s cause he wasn’t. What’s that all about? Pretty sad that the PM who sent our troops over there didn’t have the gusto to say whether he approved or not of the extension.
Posted by Riley Hennessey | May 18, 2006 9:14 AM
Posted on May 18, 2006 09:14
He was not in the House, Riley.
Posted by Greg | May 18, 2006 9:29 AM
Posted on May 18, 2006 09:29
Sorry I hit post instead of preview. He wasn’t in the House and that was really shocking. What is he getting paid for?
Posted by Greg | May 18, 2006 9:31 AM
Posted on May 18, 2006 09:31
He’s getting paid so that we don’t incurr the expense of holding a by-election in Lasalle-Emard. :-)
Posted by Ben (The Tiger in Exile) | May 18, 2006 10:06 AM
Posted on May 18, 2006 10:06
“I’m guessing 29 Liberals vote for it today and/or abstain”.
OK, so I was off by 1. Add Bill Graham in as #30. As predicted the Liberals maximized their posturing:
McDonough wins for the idiocy that she only supported the Liberal’s plans for the mission. Clearly she does not support our forces being in Khandahar where the Liberals sent them.
One flower amidst all of the Liberal manure, was that after all of the posturing ex defence minister Bill Graham in the end personally voted for the extension.
But what the hell was MacCallum excuse? Harper won’t take his letters?
Posted by yyc | May 18, 2006 12:26 PM
Posted on May 18, 2006 12:26
McCallum has been an ongoing embarrassment - you obviously don’t have to be too bright to be the chief economist at the Royal Bank!
Posted by Deaner | May 18, 2006 11:01 PM
Posted on May 18, 2006 23:01