Dion to step down, reports say

[Shady]

One wonder what why they didn't think national unity wasn't an issue when they had their signed deal with the Bloc in 2000 and 2004

No lying please, Harper signed no such deals. And your precious coalition is over. There will be no coup this year.

[Smallc]

There will be no coup this year.

There was never going to be a coup. No lying please.

[wulf42]

The Liberals want to run the country when they can't even run themselves....lol?? The Canadian public has no confidence in the Liberals at all

you should see the Anti Coalition rallies just around here!!! The Conservatives have won a major pr Victory, Bravo Mr Harper Bravo!

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto.../specialComment

[fellowtraveller]

I fully expect a Liberal leader would have called an election when it suited them. It is why I have said that term limits are meaningless. I have been arguing that since 2006 and people have told me that it was impossible that Harper would call an election before the term was over.

He can get away with and will get away with it by blaming the Liberals for whatever reason he can think of. People here still believe there was no Canadian flags at the Dion signing so I expect they will believe Harper when he says he had no choice.

The flags are not relevant. What will be remembered are the three 'leaders' shaking hands, and the smirk on Duceppes face. He cannot believe his good fortune, he looks like a three year old on Christmas morning.

The reason that little scene will be remembered is that the Tories will reproduce it over and over and over, it will be indelibly burned into the brains of Canadians.

It alone is worth perhaps 15 seats for Harper.

[msj]

The flags are not relevant. What will be remembered are the three 'leaders' shaking hands, and the smirk on Duceppes face. He cannot believe his good fortune, he looks like a three year old on Christmas morning.

The reason that little scene will be remembered is that the Tories will reproduce it over and over and over, it will be indelibly burned into the brains of Canadians.

It alone is worth perhaps 15 seats for Harper.

Excellent point fellowtraveller.

Harper was very wise (and/or lucky) that his chance at a coalition in 2004 rests upon a letter that he signed with Layton and Duceppe rather than a video image or picture.

For some reason I think people find pictures to be more real than a signed letter.

[mjp]

No lying please, Harper signed no such deals. And your precious coalition is over. There will be no coup this year.

a coup requires military force.

[mjp]

It alone is worth perhaps 15 seats for Harper.

except in quebec it wont be.

[kimmy]

John Manley urges the Liberal Party to dump Dion before Christmas.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto.../specialComment

He has some pretty strong advice for the Conservatives as well.

Bravo, Mr. Manley and thank you for being so candid.

Agreed. Solid piece by Mr Manley... my only complaint is the timing. If somebody had stood up like this a lot sooner, a lot of this insanity could have been avoided.

I thought the comment that keeping Dion on as leader may have emboldened the Tories was an interesting thought.

I'm also intrigued by the claim that Dion entered into this without the approval of Rae or Ignatieff. Manley contends that Dion took this course of action without consulting the leadership candidates, leaving them with a regrettable choice: either support this unpopular coalition, or betray the party. If Manley is correct in claiming that this was done without the approval of the leadership candidates, then Dion is truly a spectacular idiot.

This is clearly misdirection on the part of Tories who wanted to make this a national unity issue. One wonder what why they didn't think national unity wasn't an issue when they had their signed deal with the Bloc in 2000 and 2004

Y'know, Dobbins, I think that if Day or Harper had ever actually attempted to form a government with the BQ, it would have been a political mistake that they'd have never recovered from. Either they were very fortunate to have not had the opportunity, or they did not intend to form a government. Either way, if they'd actually made the attempt to form a government with the BQ, it would have gone over like a brick balloon (as your guys are now finding out.)

When you and Miata provided me the letter that Harper and Duceppe signed, I noticed that the date was just before Martin's throne speech in 2004. I read some news articles to try to figure out what was going on on in Parliament at that time, and sure enough it turns out that the opposition parties had forced the Liberals to accept a bunch of amendments to the throne speech.

I think what they did was sign the agreement to keep Martin from calling an election. Martin could either accept the amendments, or take the chance that they defeat him and go to the GG with their little letter and form a coalition. Martin decided to go for the amendments. It would have been awfully interesting if he'd called their bluff. If he had, he'd have campaigned against a coalition that includes the BQ in the same way that Harper has. Why? Because Canadians dislike the BQ. Which is something the Liberals used to know. Remember how often attacked Harper for working with the BQ to try to force an election in 2005?

-k

[jdobbin]

No lying please, Harper signed no such deals. And your precious coalition is over. There will be no coup this year.

He did sign a deal and the lie is yours.

[jdobbin]

There was never going to be a coup. No lying please.

Exactly. Although what can you expect from someone who is still convinced that Obama won because of sort of conspiracy to overlook things like his citizenship?

[Keepitsimple]

He did sign a deal and the lie is yours.

Dobbin.....all the reports that I have read indicate that a deal was never reached because the Bloc wanted their usual pound of flesh for Quebec. I've attached the only two articles I can find on the subject.....if you can find any reference to an actual signed deal, I'd appreciate seeing it.

Conservatives, Bloc stay away from partnership talk

Article Comments DARREN YOURK AND ALLISON DUNFIELD

Globe and Mail Update

June 1, 2004 at 4:11 PM EST

Conservative Leader Stephen Harper and his Bloc Québécois counterpart Gilles Duceppe don't sound like two men ready to team up to rule Parliament just yet.

Against the backdrop of polls showing the Conservatives almost neck-and-neck with the Liberals, members of the Bloc Québécois and some Tory MPs have spoken publicly about the parties working together to trump the Liberals in Otttawa. The two party leaders downplayed the suggestion Tuesday.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...alDecision2004/

Bloc wants big gains from any Tory deal

Article Comments RHÉAL SÉGUIN AND DANIEL LEBLANC

From Wednesday's Globe and Mail

June 2, 2004 at 1:41 AM EST

Longueuil, Que. and Ottawa — The Bloc Québécois said yesterday it would milk a Conservative minority for all it is worth in the hopes of improving the overall situation in Quebec and then bringing the province out of Canada.

After a speech south of Montreal, Bloc Leader Gilles Duceppe said there is no contradiction in helping a federalist party govern Canada, and being fully committed to Quebec independence. The goal is to better economic and social conditions in Quebec to pave the way for a victory in a third referendum.

Bloc MPs added that a minority situation could be a win-win for Quebec: The province could either obtain major concessions, or prove that federalism is broken and that its only option is sovereignty.

A poll published in The Globe and Mail yesterday suggested that the Conservatives and the Bloc will win a majority of seats in Parliament in the June 28 election. Both sides reject a formal coalition, but agree they could co-operate on a case-by-case basis.

"There is nothing contradictory with our objective in improving a situation in order to make sure Quebec is better prepared to achieve full sovereignty," Mr. Duceppe said.

In the event of a minority government, the Bloc would lay out clear conditions for its support on specific votes, including increased funding and greater autonomy for the provinces.

"The ball will be in the hands of the Conservatives," said Bloc MP Louis Plamondon.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...alDecision2004/

[jdobbin]

Y'know, Dobbins, I think that if Day or Harper had ever actually attempted to form a government with the BQ, it would have been a political mistake that they'd have never recovered from. Either they were very fortunate to have not had the opportunity, or they did not intend to form a government. Either way, if they'd actually made the attempt to form a government with the BQ, it would have gone over like a brick balloon (as your guys are now finding out.)

I'm not entirely convinced that's true. Harper's argument (as the Liberal argument has been) would have been that the Bloc is not part of the government.

Even as a minority government now, Harper has depended in the past on Bloc votes to pass legislation. I think it was already posted here that the Bloc has voted 140 times for the Harper government. So is that unacceptable?

I think what they did was sign the agreement to keep Martin from calling an election. Martin could either accept the amendments, or take the chance that they defeat him and go to the GG with their little letter and form a coalition. Martin decided to go for the amendments. It would have been awfully interesting if he'd called their bluff. If he had, he'd have campaigned against a coalition that includes the BQ in the same way that Harper has. Why? Because Canadians dislike the BQ. Which is something the Liberals used to know. Remember how often attacked Harper for working with the BQ to try to force an election in 2005?

You're making a lot assumptions here. The problem is that Harper wrote an article with Tom Flanagan about how the Tories could work with the Bloc in a coalition in government. This wasn't just a ploy to get amendments. This was a plan to have government turned over to the Tories.

The problem for Harper was that his personal popularity was quite poor at the time and timing was never just right. Martin made it more difficult as well because he actually adopted what Harper was demanding be in the budget.

[Smallc]

Dobbin.....all the reports that I have read indicate that a deal was never reached because the Bloc wanted their usual pound of flesh for Quebec.

Mr. Harper has been giving it to them anyway. Why would he not sign a deal because of something that he's done already.

[jdobbin]

Dobbin.....all the reports that I have read indicate that a deal was never reached because the Bloc wanted their usual pound of flesh for Quebec. I've attached the only two articles I can find on the subject.....if you can find any reference to an actual signed deal, I'd appreciate seeing it.

It has been posted here a few times. It was the letter they sent to the Governor General and wrote their names on. It told the Governor General that the Tories were prepared to become government with the support of the Bloc and NDP.

That is a signed deal.

While Tory support was even with the Liberals at the time this letter was sent, Harper was still below Martin's personal support. The budget could have been an issue but the Liberals accepted amendments wanted by the other parties and there was almost nothing left to vote no on.

Edited December 7, 2008 by jdobbin

[Oleg Bach]

The plot thickens...where is the privledge and privacy when they need it. You would think that our government and the opposiong factions could keep their mouths shut about future plans..what a mess....I hope they keep better security in the future. It's impossible to rule when everyone knows your buisness - at least the mafia have a code of silence.

[Keepitsimple]

It has been posted here a few times. It was the letter they sent to the Governor General and wrote their names on. It told the Governor General that the Tories were prepared to become government with the support of the Bloc and NDP.

That is a signed deal.

While Tory support was even with the Liberals at the time this letter was sent, Harper was still below Martin's personal support. The budget could have been an issue but the Liberals accepted amendments wanted by the other parties and there was almost nothing left to vote no on.

The only letter I have seen is an unsigned one from 2000 to the GG from Stockwell Day, Gilles Duceppe and the NDP - and I have no problem agreeing that something was in the works. I have not seen anything from Harper in 2004 other the the G & M articles that I posted.....he wouldn't have needed the NDP in 2004. Again - you can prove me wrong...but you called a poster a lier for suggesting that Harper did not sign an agreement.

Edited December 7, 2008 by Keepitsimple

[Shady]

The only letter I have seen is an unsigned one from 2000 to the GG from Stockwell Day, Gilles Duceppe and the NDP - and I have to admit that something was obviously in the works. I have not seen anything from Harper in 2004.....he wouldn't have needed the NDP in 2004. Again - you can prove me wrong...but you called a poster a lier for suggesting that Harper did not sign an agreement.

Exactly! What he's talking about is pure urban legend, and nothing more.

[jdobbin]

The only letter I have seen is an unsigned one from 2000 to the GG from Stockwell Day, Gilles Duceppe and the NDP - and I have no problem agreeing that something was in the works. I have not seen anything from Harper in 2004 other the the G & M articles that I posted.....he wouldn't have needed the NDP in 2004. Again - you can prove me wrong...but you called a poster a lier for suggesting that Harper did not sign an agreement.

That was only articles you could find on the letter that is the centerpiece of a deal?

http://thetyee.ca/Blogs/TheHook/Federal-Po...rper-bloc-2004/

The Globe and Mail has an excerpt from a 2004 letter from Harper to the Governor General in which he states:

"We respectfully point out that the opposition parties, who together constitute a majority in the House, have been in close consultation. We believe that, should a request for dissolution arise this should give you cause, as constitutional practice has determined, to consult the opposition leaders and consider all of your options before exercising your constitutional authority."

Now at the time, the Liberals had 135 seats, the Conservative Party had 99 seats, the Bloc Quebecois had 54 seats and the NDP had 19 seats.

So when Harper said that "the opposition parties, who together constitute a majority," that included the Bloc Quebecois. He could not have formed a minority coalition government without the 54 Bloc Quebecois seats.

That was a request to not immediately go to an election and to turn to the Tories who would form a coalition to rule.

http://blog.macleans.ca/2008/11/28/a-trip-...nt-memory-lane/

So was the letter to the Governor General which has been shown here many times already not a deal to have a Tory government supported by the Bloc instead of an election?

http://www.nupge.ca/news_2008/n02de08d.htm

Edited December 7, 2008 by jdobbin

[jdobbin]

Exactly! What he's talking about is pure urban legend, and nothing more.

So there was no letter to the Governor General? There was no attempt to form a coalition instead of an election? It is all a complete fabrication because Harper would never write to the Governor General to ask her to consider him for forming the next government in the absence of an election?

[kimmy]

I'm not entirely convinced that's true. Harper's argument (as the Liberal argument has been) would have been that the Bloc is not part of the government.

And would people have accepted that? I doubt it. You know what? They'd have been crucified as soon as the public got a chance to vote. It would have been a blunder of history proportions, that the Conservative party would have never recovered from.

Your guys have been desperately trying to make all of these arguments, and the public has just not been receptive. Maybe it would have been different if Team Dion were not so inept at the communications side of things, but who knows. I've said before, if they didn't recognize from the very start that the BQ aspect of this was going to be a challenge to sell to the public, then they're simply *too dumb* to be in charge of the country. They had to have understood that the BQ aspect was going to be a hard sell, and yet, they don't seem to have had any coherent plan to articulate their side to the people.

I thought Chretien was helping out behind the scenes. Surely Da Little Guy, of all people, should have had some insight into how to take this to the people to avoid the kind of disaster it has turned into for the Liberals.

Even as a minority government now, Harper has depended in the past on Bloc votes to pass legislation. I think it was already posted here that the Bloc has voted 140 times for the Harper government. So is that unacceptable?

There has never been a perception that the Conservatives were being propped up by the BQ. The perception has been that the Conservatives have been free to do as they wished because the opposition, collectively, had no interest in attempting to defeat them. Generally speaking, the public believes the Liberals have been the party that most made it possible for them to do so. Layton was quite vocal on this point during the election, as you'll recall. Harper has not been beholden to any single party to get stuff passed.

The new coalition is a little different. With just 114 seats between the two parties, they're beholden to the BQ on every single vote.

Your side has been free to make all of these arguments to the public, but the public has simply not bought in.

You're making a lot assumptions here. The problem is that Harper wrote an article with Tom Flanagan about how the Tories could work with the Bloc in a coalition in government. This wasn't just a ploy to get amendments. This was a plan to have government turned over to the Tories.

They had the numbers to do it if they wished, yet the history books have nary a word to say about the great coalition government of aught-four.

If they had been considering it, they must have had a sober second thought.

The problem for Harper was that his personal popularity was quite poor at the time and timing was never just right. Martin made it more difficult as well because he actually adopted what Harper was demanding be in the budget.

Yes, accepting the amendments to the thrown speech would have made the defeat of the government seem like an unnecessary grab for power.

Y'know, your guys did get all of the changes they wanted...

-k

[cybercoma]

Y'know, your guys did get all of the changes they wanted...

-k

There are a few changes they didn't get. The election recounts.

[jdobbin]

And would people have accepted that? I doubt it. You know what? They'd have been crucified as soon as the public got a chance to vote. It would have been a blunder of history proportions, that the Conservative party would have never recovered from.

I don't know. At the time, the Tory party certainly had enough political support. They probably could have managed for a while although I don't know how long an agreement they might have had an agreement in place with the other parties.

Would they have paid a price in Alberta? I really doubt it. Certainly no one in Alberta was thinking it was a bad idea to get rid of the Liberals using all the other parties in the House. No one at the time in the west was concerned about a Tory government that needed the support of the BQ to stay alive.

My guess is if Harper had succeeded, the Liberals would had to wait on the sidelines for a while and wait for either Harper to go to the polls or for BQ to have voted non-confidence. And given how sponsorship was going, I suspect that the Liberals would have been hurting for a bit.

So, no. No, I don't think it would have been blunder unless Harper mismanaged his opportunity at the helm.

Your guys have been desperately trying to make all of these arguments, and the public has just not been receptive. Maybe it would have been different if Team Dion were not so inept at the communications side of things, but who knows. I've said before, if they didn't recognize from the very start that the BQ aspect of this was going to be a challenge to sell to the public, then they're simply *too dumb* to be in charge of the country. They had to have understood that the BQ aspect was going to be a hard sell, and yet, they don't seem to have had any coherent plan to articulate their side to the people.

I think Dion certainly has been a drag on the party. I've said now since the election that the long wait to the next Liberal leadership convention left the party vulnerable to brinkmanship on the part of Harper.

I warned that we were likely to see some poison in confidence motions and that the party couldn't hide for six months because the damage could be great. I also said it was better to pick an interim leader aside from Dion in the event that such a stand-off took place.

It is the Liberal constitution that prevents it from doing what Dion should have done for the good of the party.

And it isn't like Dion might not have had a prominent position after stepping down. If Stockwell Day and Joe Clark are any indication, there is room for a former leader to take prominent jobs in a party and continue to serve well.

I thought Chretien was helping out behind the scenes. Surely Da Little Guy, of all people, should have had some insight into how to take this to the people to avoid the kind of disaster it has turned into for the Liberals.

Chretien is as powerless as the rest of the Liberal party in getting Dion to step down if he doesn't want to before May.

There has never been a perception that the Conservatives were being propped up by the BQ. The perception has been that the Conservatives have been free to do as they wished because the opposition, collectively, had no interest in attempting to defeat them. Generally speaking, the public believes the Liberals have been the party that most made it possible for them to do so. Layton was quite vocal on this point during the election, as you'll recall. Harper has not been beholden to any single party to get stuff passed.

I agree that it is the Liberals who have most often propped up the Tories. I also said that it was going to be much harder to do over the next six months if Harper attempted to bully or add poison to matters of confidence.

The fact of the matter is that in a minority government, the government needs to be supported with confidence by all the parties including the BQ. Some Conservative supporter act as if they never needed BQ support to govern. That would only be true if they were in a majority.

The Tories have showered money down on Quebec just to ensure they get support on a wide variety of economic bills.

The new coalition is a little different. With just 114 seats between the two parties, they're beholden to the BQ on every single vote.

Actually, the only votes that matter are confidence votes. Other bills can be defeated without going to the polls.

And this is all assumes that the Tories will vote no every time no matter what the bill is.

Your side has been free to make all of these arguments to the public, but the public has simply not bought in.

They had the numbers to do it if they wished, yet the history books have nary a word to say about the great coalition government of aught-four.

Mostly because Harper wasn't left with much on the table to actually pull the trigger. Martin didn't add poison to the confidence bills, he listened to advice from the Opposition and he put forward popular budgets.

If they had been considering it, they must have had a sober second thought.

Yes, accepting the amendments to the thrown speech would have made the defeat of the government seem like an unnecessary grab for power.

Y'know, your guys did get all of the changes they wanted...

I've indicated that the issue is about trust. It is the fundamental thing needed to maintain confidence.

My expectation is that Harper is still intent on calling an election in the next months and will continue to be confrontational to his last dying breath.

[Keepitsimple]

So there was no letter to the Governor General? There was no attempt to form a coalition instead of an election? It is all a complete fabrication because Harper would never write to the Governor General to ask her to consider him for forming the next government in the absence of an election?

Dobbin....you're right but you are wrong. The Conservatives wrote to the GG to make sure that she understood the procedure - the process....and that they were on record as doing so.....that she had an obligation to see if the opposition parties could form an alternative government. In fact, no agreeement was ever reached between the parties and specifically, an agreement was never reached with the Bloc......so it's all moot. This is a far, far cry from the current Coalition undertaking which was signed, sealed and delivered.

[Pat Coghlan]

The only way that isn't going to happen is if The Govenor General disallows a coalition to form government in January - which would be even more astounding and contrary of democratic process and simply uncanadian.

Nothing *astounding* about it. You don't put a guy that didn't even run a close 2nd into the prime minister's chair.

She did the right thing.

[jdobbin]

Dobbin....you're right but you are wrong. The Conservatives wrote to the GG to make sure that she understood the procedure - the process....and that they were on record as doing so.....that she had an obligation to see if the opposition parties could form an alternative government. In fact, no agreeement was ever reached between the parties and specifically, an agreement was never reached with the Bloc......so it's all moot. This is a far, far cry from the current Coalition undertaking which was signed, sealed and delivered.

The agreement was that they wanted the Liberal removed instead of an election. This is something that Harper now says is undemocratic but had no problem with then. Next, he indicated in interviews that he would not form a coalition with the Bloc but that the Bloc would support the Tories. That is in the CBC interview he did with Evan Solomon.