Canadian government toppled by non-confidence vote

[Occhidiangela]

I'm not sure that there is a US parallel... if the issue was decided by the voters, rather than by the political parties, the government likely would have stood.  The impossibility of a minority government in a 2-party system really makes finding an analogy for this situation difficult.

Agreed, no real analogue . . . just a bunch of anal pogues. (the politicians) :lol:

I think that Stephen Harper's horror at the sponsorship issue is disingenuous, and he's been looking at his best chance to grasp at power ever since the last election, and he thinks that this is it.  Harper has already stated that he wants to re-open the same sex marriage issue.

Aha, the ulterior motive! Perhaps he saw the Texas vote earlier this month and decided that he can ride Texan momentun?
*dials Mr Harper's phone number.*
*click*
MP Harper speaking.
Dude, wrong country! :whistling:

What extra BQ seats will mean for the running of parliament, and the sovereignty debate, I shudder to think.  Most people that I talk to don't really see the need for this election, and in reading the media coverage, it seems like a straight-out rewind of the last election. I'm not sure what we can gain by this, if anything.
[right][snapback]96023[/snapback][/right]

As for gain . . . just a thought here . . . it being winter, the hot air of an election campaign reduces the need for heating oil. :whistling:

The way it looks to me, this non-confidence motion is just more of the same political gamesmanship the Conservatives and NDP have been engaging in from the moment the government was elected.  They aren't able to see national interest, only their own narrow goals.  They wanted to show they could push around the government whenever they wanted, and they chose to do it now.

Gee, sounds like the braying of donkeys since November of 2000 down here in the Lower 48. ;) We may be more similar than I realize, politically. Canada still has better beer.

Occhi