Most - if not all - of it has been focused on creating a situation where Harper can accuse the Liberals of being inconsistent, arguments along the lines of "Well, you voted for the throne speech, so why are you objecting to it now?". This is typical of a man whose thinking is so clearly absolutist. (Win/Lose, there is no such thing as "compromise" in Harper's mind)
Well, at least on the Throne Speech, it appears that Dion came up with an absolutely appropriate counter move:
Instead, Dion said, he would introduce amendments to the speech. If those are rejected, the party would abstain, allowing the throne speech to pass.
Dion's response is a bit passive-aggressive in its nature - abstaining from a vote neither endorses nor condemns the throne speech, which does free Dion to go after Harper hard and fast on issues without the Con$ being able to resort to their usual tactics.
However, when you are dealing with a man whose tactics are those of a verbal thug, it's quite appropriate to turn the tables by taking the obvious clubs away from the thug.
This appears to be a good tactical maneuver on the part of the Liberals, now the question is whether they can parlay the small advantage they have just gained into something more substantial - by holding Harper accountable for his own lies, deceit and inconsistencies in policy.