I'm not sure I agree with some of the assumptions being floated, as we deal with the document release issue. Conventional wisdom assumes that the Liberals will do everything in their power to avoid a "showdown", because an election is the last thing they would want. Obviously, the polling isn't kind at the moment, and the Liberal body language suggests a long term strategy. However, game plans are fine and dandy, but parties must be nimble and ready for all possibilities. Given what amounts to a seismic rebuke of the government, the Liberals now have an important ruling on their side, which gives them the moral high ground in these "negotiations". This reality changes the dynamic, any threat of an election now clearly rests with Conservatives, it can and would only be triggered by their continued refusals to comply with our democratically elected body.
Much macho bravado coming from the likes of Kory Teneycke. Truth be told, it's a bit amusing to hear the testosterone banter, because in reality I'd put 3 to 1 odds on the paper bag. Let's keep it real, the tough guys are facing the most likely scenario of a reduced mandate, worst case an outright loss. Not ignoring the Liberal challenges in the polls, we're hardly facing a Conservative juggernaut, that should strike fear in the opposition. I'd add, part of success is exuding CONFIDENCE, and it's about time the Liberals get some moxy. The polls aren't likely to change much in the next year, so the motivation should be more based on principle, rather than strategic timing. If I could scour all the issues and narratives at our disposal, my first choice by a mile would be the idea of a secretive, non-transparent, non-democratic, anti-accountability, "culture of deceit". That's our winning issue, it's not going to be the economy, or reaching out to rural voters, it will be a sense amongst the populous that the Conservatives represent an unattractive option, and we contrast that with a more open presentation. If you agree on the best case narrative, then you have to be pragmatic, and see the Speaker's ruling as an opportunity- should we fall off the ledge- to guarantee that our desired talking points would be center stage in a campaign.
I don't care what the Conservatives say, nor do I buy this idea that this is the excuse Harper is looking for to go to the polls. Harper has one more crack, anything but a majority and the united Conservative veneer will evaporate. The Conservatives want to choose the timing, and they desperately want a managed campaign, wherein they set the election parameters. If would submit, the idea of kicking of a campaign, faced with thwarting the will of Parliament, supported by our constitutional "referee" is the least desirable scenario imaginable. There is some thought that Harper would relish a debate about protecting national security, our soldiers safety, but last time I checked the sentiment out there doesn't support this narrow justification, it doesn't smell like a rallying point. On the other hand, the idea of democratic will does stir many, it has shown itself to motivate, there is a passion attached. Do the Conservatives really want to go on an issue that motivates the apathetic?
This is a fundamental issue, and Liberals should be prepared to take this as far as Harper chooses. We should offer compromise, as a matter of fact we already have for months. However, if we face more stonewalling, then I'd suggest we realize that in a certain sense, this "event" plays to our advantage. I don't think an election will come, but I'd proceed as though anything is possible and/or preferrable. Attitude is everything.