An alternate route

While it hasn't yet been confirmed, all indications are that the NDP won't vote for the Libs' throne speech amendment. While that's understandable given the wording of the amendment itself, it presumably means that the NDP won't be heading down the most immediate path to an election. But that doesn't mean the NDP can't still take a lead role in bringing down the Harper government.

Remember that prior to the throne speech, the Libs themselves made a series of demands. Obviously Stephane Dion didn't stick to his earlier position that he'd bring down the Cons if those demands weren't met - but that doesn't mean the Libs can afford to abandon them entirely, particularly given that the principles involved (a return of bill C-30, an end to combat in Afghanistan, dealing with poverty) are all areas where the opposition parties are largely in agreement.

In that light, consider what would happen if the NDP's throne speech amendment were to consist generally of those same Lib demands, but with just enough soft wording to avoid thorny questions such as whether Afghanistan withdrawal should take place immediately or in 2009.

With the Libs' confrontational wording out of play, the Bloc would be likely to vote for the amendment. Which would leave the Libs with a choice of either joining in to topple the Cons, or being directly responsible for voting down their own demands.

Of course, it's more likely that the NDP will instead play it relatively straight, using its amendment to correct the public record as the Libs once again try to spin voting against their distorted message as a vote for the Cons. But with the Libs already cowering at the prospect of facing off against Harper, now may well be the time to use the NDP's amendment to force the Libs to fish or cut bait when it comes to their own stated principles.