YEGmann

Please, give a citation where Harper says that a mere coalition between liberals and NDP is unacceptable for some reason. Harper always emphesizes that the bad thing is not a coalition, but one with the separatist Bloc with veto power in a governing coalition. Another his point is not to steal power after an election. Opposition lie about "the 2004 coalition" has been completely crushed by now. If you still repeat all this crap about "he was trying to steal power by any means necessary..." sorry, it is your religion, because by now there is no argument left to support this "hypothesis".

Oh, if for you a coalition of the two right, conservative parties and the coalition of liberals with separatists are the same, your reaction is understandable. I am little bit amused whether you involve the National Citizens Coalition into this mix in your head. However, in my view there is a big, big diference among them. Contrary to what liberal journalists imply or lie directly. And I never heard in this interview of forming a coalition to steal power from the party with the most seats. Did you?

It does not require any explanation, if you don't buy a typical liberal dirty trick. Understand what was the subject of the interview and watch the entire interview. After that there should not be any questions at all. Just disgust with liberal journalism. http://archive.tvo.org/video/119442

Day three of the election campain. Striking contrast to the last year fightings in the HoC. NDP does not attack Liberals. Neither Liberals attack NDP. The harshest words Ignatieff said (so far) about BQ:"With all my respect to Gilles Duceppe, he is not a good replacement for Stephen Harper". That's it. Gilles Duceppes emits rivers of dirty lies towards Harper. Not a single attack against NDP or Liberals. May be so far. Interpretation of these observations: Three amigos fulfil their agreement.

I think this won't happen. If liberals and NDP are not idiots, they have already signed a deal. They should not attack each other. So far, they do not. They do not want competition between each other in a riding. It seems like Bloc is a part of this deal too. All three amigos fiercely attack Harper only.

Of course, a coalition is a legimate option. A problem is in those countries, voters know in advance there will likely be a coalition. Another problem is that the party with most of seats is a part of the coalition. This is a true democracy, not the surrogate the three amigos tried to push through in 2008. And the coalitions are formed immediately after the elections, there is no need for a circus with a non-confidence vote. But the biggest problem with the coalition governments in Europe is their instability. It is difficult to satisfy all members simultaneously. Compare European taxes, wages and prices to Canadian ones. Europe is overtaxed. You mention democracy wrongly. The 2008 coalition was legimate but it was absolutely undemocratic.

It seems you are right. My fault. This is a link to the CTV clip. http://watch.ctv.ca/news/ctvs-question-period/#clip439855 Lisa LaFlamme in Montreal

Your logics is easily beaten by the question:"Then, why did not Harper proceed with this plan?" It is not splitting hairs, this is a principal difference. Harper did not want to bring Martin government down. Martin would continue to be PM. Harper did not need a coalition. Events unfolded exactly in accordance with the scenario Harper explained today. A Coalition here is not just working together. All the buzz is about forming a government with shared minister portfolios among several parties. This is a coalition government. Harper did not do that. Liberals had such a deal with NDP with support of BQ. You cannot find in the letter a slightest suggestion of opposition to govern. You simply cannot admit this.

Lisa Laflamme has just reported in the Question Period, that Liberals and NDP have an agreement of non-competition, at least in Quebec. They already divided ridings there. That means candidates who are supposed to win in those ridings are mutually discussed and agreed, i.e. they are mutual Liberal-NDP candidates.

Regarding comparison of the 2004 letter and 2008 agreement. Harper says truth. It was not a coalition, not even depositing government, just pressure on Martin. Everything developed as Harper says. He's clean. Claiming otherwise is a pure speculation. In 2008 Ignatieff pushed Dion to sign a formal agreement with the two other amigos, giving NDP 25% of minister positions, and to demand depositing the minority government. This is a fact. Nobody can argue this. The question only is "Will Ignatieff repeat the trick now?"

Just appeared in the National Post http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/03/27/scott-stinson-harper-faces-his-own-coalition-monkey/ That makes Duceppe a proven liar.

This makes sense. And this does not contradicts to what Harper said today in Brampton - in 2004 his plan was not to bring down the government that received most of the seats, but just to avoid an unnecessary election. To keep the government working. And if this is true, it strikes down the Duceppe's claim about "Harper's coalition" of 2004. In this case Harper needed Bloc signature just to convince the GG not to dissolve the Parliament. He absolutely did not need to make any deals with Bloc or NDP, he would deal with minority Liberals directly. Some positions in committees would naturally go to the Bloc and NDP. But this is far from getting in bed with them. Ignatieff tried in 2008 and tries now to do something quite different. He and Layton want to demonstrate disfunction of a new minority government immediately and demand power transfer from the GG. Thus depositing the party with most of the seats. But simply by number count Ignatieff is forced to give some posts in the govermnent to NDP and pay to Bloc for every resolution to pass in the HoC.

You are funny, Harry. How can you agree the crap you've just posted and what Harper never tried to realize this plan? That means there was no such a plan. Both Layton and Duceppe said then in 2004 there was no a coalition talk (CTV showed the footage), Duceppe accepted yesterday there was no coalition discussion. “He did not talk about a coalition, that’s true,” Duceppe allowed.

Liberal party's statement on their website is not clear. They certainly reject forming a coalition only if the liberals form the government, with conservatives in opposition. Ignatieff's statements are even blurrier. Again, he promissed not to form a coalition if the liberals win the election. He never addressed the principal question what happens if the conservatives win a minority. Will he go to the GG and offer a Lib-NDP coalition with Bloc support? And let's be serious. Liberals and NDP-ers are not idiots. Any sane person would tell you what going to election with losing popularity and no sound policy is suicidal for liberals. Probably so is for NDP. Nevertheless they rabbidly jumped into the campain. Why? I can suggest the only answer: The coalition agreement between all opposition parties has been in place for some time. Only in this case actions of opposition make sense. That is why Ignatieff has not ruled out a coalition clearly.

Duceppe's words worth nothing. http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/duceppe-campaign-coyne-in-twitter-dustup-over-coalition-accusations/article1958180/ In 2004 Duceppe denied there was a coalition plan. Steven Harper trashed Duceppe's lies this morning in Brampton, ON.

Harry, have you recovered from the shock of not having any signatures under the 2004 letter? Has been the letter ever sent? Why did Harper ask GG about other options before that hypothetical election? Did you find any mention of a coalition in the letter? You asked for Ignatieff's signature under the Liberal-NDP-BlocQue coalition agreement. Brief internet search brings fruits. Only party leaders signed the agreement itself. http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2008/12/01/coalition-talks.html - Duceppe's signature is under the agreement. Michael Ignatieff did sign a petition to GG requesting to transfer power to the coalition: http://www.scribd.com/doc/51479186/081204-petition-Liberal And the Liberals try to hide the petition now: http://www.stephentaylor.ca/2011/03/coalition-agreement-with-ignatieffs-signature-disappears-from-liberal-ca/ Too rich for the Ignatieff claiming the government is secretive and promissing honesty.

What I do not like in liberals - they treat listneres or viewers as idiots. "My dad came off the boat ... without anything." An ordinary immigrant. Step by step. I am weeping. His dad George arrived to Canada being a child. Being a son of a very wealthy man. Mr. Ignatieff's grandfather Paul was a millioner in Russia. Surprisingly, because he was a minister of education fired off his job by czar, bolsheviks did him no harm and he moved to the Western Europe in 1919. Since 1920 he lived in England with no financial problems. The family moved to Canada in early 1930-s definitely not escaping from tyranny. An ordinary immigrant, my god!

Even two of them.

Stop speading bullshit. All receipts are genuine and accurate. Opposition has not found any faked receipts yet. Read your and EvStar link yourself. EC spotted just the same numbers. Fake receits was an insinuation proven wrong later.

What are you talking about? There are no any "falsified" receipts. All receipts are accurate, honest and complete. EC just says the expenses in those receipts do not qualify, conservatives overspent, and therefore the people who submitted the receipts committed a violation of the election rules.

If law allowed to do that (as conservatives say) - No. You use your tax credits to reduce your taxes and you do not question ethics of your technique (as do I). This is the same. I cannot see how ethics are applicable here. If conservatives are not correct in their interpretation of the law - it is a different story. In any case, the bottom line is that conservatives spent their own money.

You misrepresent the CPC claim. The conservatives say it is an accounting issue. Just an iterpretation of existing at that moment accounting rules. Nobody says it was a mistake (other than in strategic term).

I may be wrong but the idea of the in-and-out scheme is that the spending cap for the party is not exceeded. In the national-wide scale. EC interpretation of the rules is purely arbitrary. EC demands the party to spend less than its national cap. Democracy is OK here. All parties have equal conditions. It is the EC demand that is undemocratic.

Compare to what? Where did you get this crap? What do you mean "one air-to-air weapon"? It certainly is. In 2010 flew a tin can with obsolete engines, a successive clone of Su-27. Ah, they called it PAK FA, T-50, whatever... There is only superficial stealth features. The RCS is large. Flying performances are inferior to Su-27. There is no avionics in it. The weaponry for it has to be designed yet. It is clear now that the airframe will be redesigned. It is a prototype of a prototype at best.

This is a ridiculously wrong statement. Trained human capability to control an airpalne is limited to 8g vertical acceleration. This limit is embedded into design standards worldwide. The F-35 is not an exclusion. During a test, the airframe sustained the worst case load factor of 13.5 without failure, i.e., 150% of a trained human capability. http://www.network54.com/Forum/211833/thread/1276156944/last-1276196038/F-35+Airframe+verified+to+150+percent+of+design+limits+or+13.5+G's+(force+of+gravity) Wrong. Stealth features and BVR AA missiles make F-35 an excellent fighter aircraft.