Could this all be part of Harper's plan?

ThatGuy · December 1, 2008

PM (for the time being) Harper isn't exactly MacBeth, but it seems he has fallen to the blade of that nasty enemy named hamartia much like the Scot.

At the end of the day, Harper had the ability to make minority government work for Canadians. Instead, he decided that a stronger minority was much the same as a majority. His belief in his own untouchable existance seems to be his undoing. He is/was 12 seats short.

Edited December 1, 2008 by ThatGuy

eyeball · December 2, 2008

That which we call a brain-fart by any other word would smell as sweet.

IMASINNER · December 2, 2008

Does anyone think it's possible that this is all Harper's plan? I mean there was talk of the Liberals and NDP joining forces during the campaign, so this isn't that big of a surprise that they are talking about it now. Does anyone think that it's possible that Harper intentionally pissed off the Opp. so that they would try to form a coalition government (which I believe makes the Opp. look bad to Canadians).

I personally believe that an overwhelming majority of canadians are opposed to this coalition government. That's why I ask the question. I think this will make Harper more likley to get a majority gov't down the road and if so could this have been his plan to get it all along?

I don't think that anyone can call Harper stupid or unintelligent (he's been called worse I know), in fact he's the opposite, a very shrew politician who is good at the game of politics. maybe not at governing, but politically he's a pretty brilliant tactician. I

I have been reading in almost every article regarding this issue that Harper hung himself or blew it, but did he really? I think that the fall out from a coalition government legally taking power is going to have rammifications that none of us can comprehend. Can you imagine the headlines in every paper in the world, "Canadian Government Toppled By Coalition Government, Backed By Separatists".

We all know that the Bloc, NDP, and Liberals will be at each others throats after they take over, in months, leading to an election. Then voters who felt misled and ignored, will put Harper (or the next leader of the Cons) in the PM seat with a majority.

I mean now hes is taking off the table the very things that are said to have caused the situation, intending to draw out the debate. But the damage is already done and it looks like the Coalition Government is going ahead anyways.

I'm really interested in the convo's this will elicit.

PS.

I have a feeling I am going to get flamed for this one.

Smallc · December 2, 2008

Harper made a mistake. A big mistake.

Jack Weber · December 2, 2008

I can't say I'm ahuge fan of this coalition,however,the most of this mess must be laid at the feet of Mr.Harper,Mr.Flaharty,and,backroom bully,Guy Goirno!

Watching the Con's taken down by their own arrogance is too sweet for words.

IMASINNER · December 2, 2008

Harper made a mistake. A big mistake.

really? everyone on this site can debate what will happen, but it is possible that this could go to an election. And at that point any number of things could happen. Including the Cons getting more seats.

mikedavid00 · December 2, 2008

Does anyone think it's possible that this is all Harper's plan?

No.

Harper is finished with and will be a name of the past.

The educated voter (in a rare minority) does not like what is going on due to the question of democracy. Those minority voters who work in the private sector and AM radio hosts might not like this, but the vast majority of CBC callers and typical unemployed welfare Canadians looking for handouts are all for this.

Keep in mind that around 65% of Canadians did NOT vote for Harper - they were part of the wacko left. All three parties are also part of the wacko left.

Thus, you really are seeing the MAJORITY running things now so many Canadians are all for this.

Read my signature. It's been this for a while. I predicted this would happen to Canada. I said over and over our Parlementary system is not compatible in modern times. Harper should not have done what he did although I do agree with him. He acted just as corrupt as everone else and that sits wrong with me as a person supposedly living in the 'first world'.

I ALSO PREDICTED BOB RAE BEING THE NEXT PM. Many here remember this.

You know.. the old saying is really true.. there's a certain freedom and democracy that you get in the US that is present no where else in the world. Now hopefully some of you will see what they mean when they say that.

seabee · December 2, 2008

Harper has lost Québec. Too much like Duplessis. Can he win a majority without Québec?

mikedavid00 · December 2, 2008

Harper has lost Québec. Too much like Duplessis. Can he win a majority without Québec?

Harpers done with. His days are over.

Smallc · December 2, 2008

The educated voter (in a rare minority) does not like what is going on due to the question of democracy.

The educated voter knows this is completely democratic.

Bryan · December 2, 2008

I think this will make Harper more likley to get a majority gov't down the road and if so could this have been his plan to get it all along?

Of course it is. Not just the majority, but further down the road to the complete destruction of the LPC as well. Watch the faces of the CPC MPs. They cannot stop smiling, this is working out even better than they expected.

mikedavid00 · December 2, 2008

The educated voter knows this is completely democratic.

Yes.. the PM of our country being selected behind closed doors at a Liberal convention.

Yeah that's real democratic.

Our system has been exploited and is corrupted. It just took the 'balls' to be able to do it.

There is the law, then there are the spirit of the law. You can't nit pick little rules to get your favor if you are going against the SPIRIT of the law.

Same thing here with this issue. This gov't goes against the spirit of why this rule was created.

There is no economic crisis in Canada.

The parties are doing this to protect their welfare funding.

Harper is yet again trying to squash his compition through unbecoming means.

That's what's really happening.

capricorn · December 2, 2008

Watch the faces of the CPC MPs. They cannot stop smiling, this is working out even better than they expected.

Well, in front of cameras they're trying hard to show a slight amount of disgust. You know, for the benefit of uninformed voters.

Smallc · December 2, 2008

Of course it is. Not just the majority, but further down the road to the complete destruction of the LPC as well. Watch the faces of the CPC MPs. They cannot stop smiling, this is working out even better than they expected.

Is that like today when Rob Nicholson and Stockwell Day didn't stand up to support the PM?

ToadBrother · December 2, 2008

really? everyone on this site can debate what will happen, but it is possible that this could go to an election. And at that point any number of things could happen. Including the Cons getting more seats.

Considering the history in Canada and in general with countries governed by the Westminster System, a new election seems very unlikely. The GG's job in this case is to give Canada a working government, and if there is a party or coalition that can provide that, precedence suggests she'll go that route. I think calling a new election is by far the most unlikely possibility.

capricorn · December 2, 2008

There is no precedent in Canada which compares to today's situation. Why? Because the proposed coalition is dependent on a separatist party, the Bloc, that would sit on the government side and have the power to sign off on national legislation or veto it. This situation has never presented itself in Canada. What if the GG concludes that a coalition which includes a separatist party is not in the best interest of Canada? Have you considered and rejected this possibility? I have. I think if the GG allows this coalition, her ability to read Country's political landscape would be called into question. And I don't care whether her constitutional advisors tell he to go for it and the reasons they advance, they too would be wrong. The more I think about it, the more I think there will be an election later this winter. The opposition is determined to defeat Harper and in the end, the opposition will end up with egg on their faces.

ToadBrother · December 2, 2008

There is no precedent in Canada which compares to today's situation. Why? Because the proposed coalition is dependent on a separatist party, the Bloc, that would sit on the government side and have the power to sign off on national legislation or veto it. This situation has never presented itself in Canada. What if the GG concludes that a coalition which includes a separatist party is not in the best interest of Canada? Have you considered and rejected this possibility? I have. I think if the GG allows this coalition, her ability to read Country's political landscape would be called into question. And I don't care whether her constitutional advisors tell he to go for it and the reasons they advance, they too would be wrong. The more I think about it, the more I think there will be an election later this winter. The opposition is determined to defeat Harper and in the end, the opposition will end up with egg on their faces.

You'll note that the Bloc are not in fact part of the Coalition. They've agreed to co-operate for 18 months. I have no idea why people are trying to make this into an enormous thing, when it's pretty clear Harper was intent on the same stunt in 2004. Do you think he wasn't prepared to do business with the Bloc?

The GG will, in all likelihood, allow the Harper government to fall, will ask Dion to lead a Coalition (which only formally includes the NDP, don't see a Bloc member of Cabinet in sight), and hopefully the Tories, rather than blaming everyone else because they're leader went temporarily insane, will replace him and come back swinging in a couple of years.

blueblood · December 2, 2008

There is no precedent in Canada which compares to today's situation. Why? Because the proposed coalition is dependent on a separatist party, the Bloc, that would sit on the government side and have the power to sign off on national legislation or veto it. This situation has never presented itself in Canada. What if the GG concludes that a coalition which includes a separatist party is not in the best interest of Canada? Have you considered and rejected this possibility? I have. I think if the GG allows this coalition, her ability to read Country's political landscape would be called into question. And I don't care whether her constitutional advisors tell he to go for it and the reasons they advance, they too would be wrong. The more I think about it, the more I think there will be an election later this winter. The opposition is determined to defeat Harper and in the end, the opposition will end up with egg on their faces.

Tory brass has suggested that they will use all the tools in the box in order to try and prevent this from happening. That means prorogue is on the table. A good idea would be to prorogue, if Harper is to be defeated it will be on the budget. This will give the time for the tories to yell coward, release attack ads, and speeches. Letting the Canadian public hear the budget would be extremely beneficial for them. It's going to be a long drawn out war of attrition.

Smallc · December 2, 2008

This will give the time for the tories to yell coward,

They seem to be the ones running.

capricorn · December 2, 2008

You'll note that the Bloc are not in fact part of the Coalition. They've agreed to co-operate for 18 months. I have no idea why people are trying to make this into an enormous thing, when it's pretty clear Harper was intent on the same stunt in 2004. Do you think he wasn't prepared to do business with the Bloc?
The GG will, in all likelihood, allow the Harper government to fall, will ask Dion to lead a Coalition (which only formally includes the NDP, don't see a Bloc member of Cabinet in sight), and hopefully the Tories, rather than blaming everyone else because they're leader went temporarily insane, will replace him and come back swinging in a couple of years.

Spin it the way you want. Truth is the coalition could not exist if the Bloc was not part of it. The Bloc is a signatory to the agreement. The Bloc is part of the coalition. The only caveat is that the Bloc won't have any Ministers assigned and good thing as that would have been an insult. Did you not watch the signing ceremony on TV and the following press conference? There was the Bloc, large as life. Can't you understand that the Bloc's vote would be essential in keeping the coalition afloat? Can't you understand that the Bloc would have the power of decision over matters affecting the country outside Quebec and abroad?

The "stunt" in 2004 never materialized into any action. I would have been opposed in that case also had it gone too far. I don't endorse deals with separatists. You see, I have principles.

Don't expect Harper to be replaced in the short term. The Party has done very well under his leadership. Conservatives understand that at this crucial time, continuity is of the utmost importance. And about those recently created websites to replace Harper. You and I don't know who put up those sites, hence whether they're legitimate or just monkey business. In any case, they don't concern me in the least.

blueblood · December 2, 2008

They seem to be the ones running.

Do you know what the "feint" is? The tories have enough dirt to launch a smear campaign of epic proportions. From what I see, Canadians are right pissed off at the looney left, and the centre right posters here are more than content to watch this car wreck of a government coming up. Let's see there is the banana republic attack, large deficits attack, the coward attack, the uncooperative attack, just to name a few.

The tories will run for a bit, possibly prorogue government. Then when the time is right they will strike back with overwhelming force. Even now they are getting funding to fire up the war room.

capricorn · December 2, 2008

It's going to be a long drawn out war of attrition.

All the way to a late winter election, IMO.

jdobbin · December 2, 2008

All the way to a late winter election, IMO.

If they prorogue Parliament, it is they that will look rather bad given the concerns going on in the country. By ending the session, they will have to do a Throne Speech where they will be defeated.

Edited December 2, 2008 by jdobbin

capricorn · December 2, 2008

They seem to be the ones running.

So they removed items from the economic statement that the opposition couldn't stomach? This is called running? Had the roles been reversed, you'd be saying the Liberals are conciliatory and governing in good faith.

Alta4ever · December 2, 2008

So they removed items from the economic statement that the opposition couldn't stomach? This is called running? Had the roles been reversed, you'd be saying the Liberals are conciliatory and governing in good faith.

Don't bother these power hungry fascists they don't care, they are here for the pork, nothing more nothing less. They care not for democracy, only their blind ambitions. Look at Jack Layton he would sell out his mother for a seat in Cabinate.

Edited December 2, 2008 by Alta4ever