Harry

It was at his 11:30 AM press briefing yesterday in the House of Commons Foyer. Harper has constantly been fighting with the press as he always trying to manage the press questions having one of his handlers decide who gets to ask the questions. Well that did NOT happen yesterday, and needless to say it was quite obvious that he was not pleased. It's election time, and he had better get used to it.

Mcleans have done a bit of research and are doing quite a number on Harper today. This is a bad beginning for the Conservative election campaign which is going to cost them. The last poll from Nanos Reasearch had Harper with 39% support. Let's see what the new polling shows. What was Stephen Harper thinking in 1997? "Well, it would really surprise me at the moment if the Liberals didnt get the most seats. I mean, judging from all the, not just the polling data, but the fact they have such a wide coalition. The way the Liberals, I think, are eventually going to lose office, whether its in this election or the next one, is theyre going to fail to win a majority. Theyve basically lost Quebec and without Quebec the Liberal party has never been a majority party in this country. And thats where I think youre going to face, someday, a minority parliament, with the Liberals maybe having the largest number of seats, and what will be the test is whether theres then any party in opposition thats able to form a coalition or working alliance with the others. And I think we have a political system thats going to continue to have three or four different parties, or five different parties, and so I think parties that want to form government are going to eventually have to learn to work together." http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/02/24/what-was-stephen-harper-thinking-in-1997/

I don't get it. I thought Ignatieff handled the question very easily. He's pumped unlike Harper who lost his cool at his scum and ran away after 2 questions when his handlers lost control of the questioners.

WWWTT, Thanks for starting this thread. It's quite clear this minority government topic is quickly becomming one of the hot button issues for the coming electoral campaign, and rightly so. It now appears that Harper, who is now beginning to be on thin ice on the ethics file, will get burned for his hypocrisy here, which will end up costing him seats. What was Stephen Harper up to in 2004? "If I held that attitude, then I wouldn’t have attended a meeting to which I was invited by Mr. Harper when he was the leader of the opposition and Mr. Martin had been recently elected. The House hadn’t even begun to sit and he said, “Come and have a meeting with me and Mr. Duceppe and let’s make sure the Governor General understands that Mr. Martin doesn’t necessarily get to be the Prime Minister just because he has the most seats. And I’d like you to join with me in making sure that the Governor General understands that there are other alternatives here.” I attended that meeting, I signed that letter as a matter of fact, in good faith, perhaps others weren’t signing it in good faith, I don’t know. But you can be sure that that letter will be available for all Canadians to see if we start running into hypocritical positions from certain corners or certain political leaders." http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/03/24/what-was-stephen-harper-up-to-in-2004/ In 2004 where Harper in opposition, he was actively engaged with the Bloc and the NDP to bring down the Liberals. And now Harper is complaining that the opposition is doing the very same thing. This is a hoot and our PM is already starting to be ridiculed for this. I can just see some of the oposition ads now - "This is your PM but please, please don't do as I do, just do as I say". A lot of silly word games are going on. Deals, accords, agreements, coalitions. These are all basically the same thing. Arrangements to help get legislation passed in a minority Parliament. And Harper does it all the time.

Treasury Board rules require a bidding process for contracts of $25,000 or more and a bunch of Flaherty's supporters receive payments for $24,877.50 each for doing things such as writing one speech. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Flaherty And first time ever in the history of Canada that a government has been found in contempt of Parliament. This is definitely NOT a good way for Harper to be heading off into an election campaign.

The arrogance of the Cons is mind-blowing, and I don't think Flaherty is the sharpest tack on the block either. He is not in a majority government and with his attitude he isn't ever going to be in a federal one. It's the economy AND democracy http://thestar.blogs.com/politics/2011/03/its-the-economy-and-democracy.html

This definitely was not a good day for Harper, and my feeling is they are going to get a lot worse - worth a read. The Commons: Uncontrollable democracy http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/03/23/the-commons-uncontrollable-democracy/

There is so much BS constantly coming out of Harper's mouth. At Duceppe's scrum today he said: If Harper is not just being a hypocrite and is really so concerned about the economy being so precarious that it would be jeopardized by a six week election campaign, and the suspension of the government, Harper should do the same thing as he did in 2004, and go to the GG and ask him to offer the opposition a chance to form a new government, instead of having an unnecessary and potentially harmful election. Don't you just love Duceppe?

Thanks for the welcome capricorn, nice to be here. It should be an interesting 5-6 weeks. My hunch is that it's going to be quite a different election this time.

Sure, here it is. http://thechronicleherald.ca/Front/9020276.html And don't forget to watch this http://www.aptn.ca/ about Bruce Carson on Friday, eh! It's going to be quite a day, the last day of quite a week. The week in which Harper got suckered by Jack Layton resulting in losing control of Canada's political agenda.

It appears that the Public Service Commission of Canada has now started an investigation into the Harper government for appointing Conservatives close to Defence Minister Peter MacKay to senior positions in the ACOA (Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency). Governments are not supposed to politicize the public service. It seems like almost every day now another Conservative scandal erupts. Let's hear it for the whistleblowers, whoever they are. Keep it up.

Coalition, agreement whatever. Harper in opposition was ready to get into bed with the terrible social democrats, the NDP, and the independentistes, the Bloc, and now Harper is going to complain about the current opposition doing what he was doing himself. Give us a break. Harper's already beginning to look like he is on shaky ground with the growing number of scandals such as the Bruce Carson issue, another one appears to breaking tonite, and for him to go on about how terrible a coalition is, will return to bite him in the ass.

Actually you are quite wrong on that just like you were wrong about your comments stating that based on a reliable source the NDP would cave on the budget which you edited out later on. During the campaign the letter will be released showing Harper's signature cutting a deal with the NDP and the Bloc in 2004, which is basically what will happen right after this election. The only thing that will result in discussing this issue is Harper's ethical reputation will be further eroded as his hypocrisy will be exposed quite clearly for all Canadians to see. What is that expression: "You can fool some of the people some of the time.....etc.". Unfortunatley for Harper he misjudged Layton and now he is facing an election not of his choosing. Bring it on.

The New Democratic Party are not socialists, they are a social democratic party, and the Bloc are also a legitimate political party democratically elected in Canada, and if you want to call them separatists, then Harper's Party can just as easily be called Canada's Tea Party.

Of course things were different then. Canada's Tea Partiers are the government now, and back in 2005 Harper was in opposition, doing basically what the current opposition has been exploring. After all Canada's Tea Partiers received less than 38% of the vote, which means the 3 oppositions parties combined received both the majority of the votes and the seats.

Hearing all this negative talk from Harper about an agreement/arrangement/coalition amongst the opposition parties, does anyone have some good sources to research the deal Harper tried to strike with the Bloc in 2005? Duceppe alluded to it yesterday saying that Harper had cut a deal with the Bloc, which included a letter signed by Harper, in a failed attempt to bring the Paul Martin government down. It seems quite bizarre that Harper would be even mentioning that the opposition were considering forming an arrangement or coalition, when Harper himself basically tried to do the same thing himself with the Bloc in 2005. After all imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, isn't it?

Thanks g_b.

Thanks TB. Isn't basically the first order of business for a new Parliament the throne speech? Is there a vote on that, and would that be considered a non-confidence vote if it was defeated?

I don't understand what the big deal about a coalition is all about, as after all we do have and have had a minority government since 2004. That seems like a given to me. And that's what they have now in the UK. And what about when Harper was in opposition, was it not in 2005 when Harper attempted to form some kind of arrangement/agreement/coalition, call it what you will, with the Bloc to try and oust Paul Martin? Duceppe alluded to it today and even said he has Harper's signature on a letter about it. It was around the time Belinda Stronach crossed the floor.

If after the next election we have basically the same Parliament, and that is what most pollsters appear to be saying, what would be the very first opportunity for the opposition to vote non-confidence in the government? I don't think the opposition would want to give Harper another opportunity to prorogue again if they could help it.