You know, at this point, I can't help but wonder if you might be falling into one of the very same bear traps you have so industriously dug for Stephane Dion, who has, at least so far, resisted your Disneyesque attempts to herd his party off the cliffs like so many terrorized lemmings.

Here's the thing, Conservatives: I know it must seem like the simplest equation in the world: If the Liberals don't want an election, you should do everything in your power - short of, you know, having the PM stroll down to Rideau Hall for a chat with the Geeje - to force the issue - despite the fact that you still haven't managed to settle comfortably into the magic 40% support bracket - not for more than one poll every six months or so, anyway.

Even more unsettling: despite your best efforts to convince Canadians that Stephane Dion Is Not A Leader, the Liberals haven't fallen much below the mid-to-high 20s, even during the height -- or was it the nadir? -- of Outremont-induced party psychosis.

The last few polls, in fact, have shown your two parties locked in a statistical tie. Dion may not want an election - although depending on which Liberal insider is whispering in your ear on any given day, maybe he does, and it's the rest of the party leadership that has gone wobbly. But just because he - or, at least, his party - hasn't yet leapt at the chance to head out on the hustings doesn't mean that your party - and especially your leader - should invariably take the opposing position, and put the fate of your government on the line at every opportunity.

Transforming an otherwise ordinary vote into a matter of confidence -  directly or, as would be the case with the RESP bill,  indirectly - may be the sole privilege of the governing party, but that doesn't mean it should be hauled out every time you run into a roadblock in the House. Even though, as the saying goes, when the only tool you have is a hammer, everything can start to look like a nail.

Conservatives, I'm going to be brutally frank: You seem to be on the verge of commiting a classic tactical error by assuming that whatever course of action would be - or, at least, seems as though it would be, based on their reaction to the possibility - bad for the Liberals is automatically good for your party. It would be much easier if that were the case, but it doesn't necessarily follow. QE not so D.

Politics is not a binary solution set, nor does it possess the elegant simplicity of chess.  It is entirely possible - mathematically, politically, and historically - for everyone to lose. In fact, in that sense, it's more like a high stakes game of blackjack, and so far, you've been able to bluff the Liberals into folding, even when the cards you were holding weren't all that much better than Dion's hand. But any gambler will tell you that eventually, either the odds will turn against you, or even the most timid opponent will refuse to back down, because he or she realizes that you have just as much to lose.

When the House returns after the Easter break, Ottawa will be a very different place. The snow will be gone - at least, it better be gone, or the inhabitants may by that point have evacuated the city to establish a toe-hold Canadian utopia in Belize - and the Hill will be covered in crocuses and spring-dazed stray cats.

More importantly for your short-term planning purposes, however, is that there will likely be either three or four new Liberal MPs, and the spectre of the last round of byelections will no longer be hanging over the opposition benches, a grim reminder of the electoral fiasco of last fall. And on the Order Paper - at least, if you carry out your threat  - an RESP-shredding razor blade will be embedded in an otherwise benign budget implementation bill, which, in a serendipitous twist, could conceivably go to a vote on the very first Tuesday. Happy April Fools.

Keeping all that in mind, the question that you ought to be pondering now isn't 'Do you feel lucky?' It is 'How lucky will you feel after the next hand is dealt?'