What would Stephen Harper do...

[Barts]

... if he was in Michael Ignatieff's political position?

After the Conservatives table their stimulus budget (forced on them by the coalition threat) at the end of January, Michael Ignatieff will have to choose between bringing down Harper or supporting Harper. If Harper was in Ignatieff's position, what would he do? He would topple his opponent. Serve as Prime Minister for 2 1/2 years as promised, or if the timing suited call an election before that time. As PM, he'd do all he could to raise money and demonize his main opponent.

Harper has never let an opportunity pass that would increase his personal power or weaken his opponents pass, even if--as we saw in November--it is completely unnecessary and harmful to the notion of a stable minority government or pits Canadians against each other.

Does anyone really think that Harper would pass on being given an opportunity to be Prime Minister, even if it meant forming a coalition with Bloc support? Harper has shown he's happy to make common cause with anyone, abandon any principle, and betray any person if it means being Prime Minister. Why should Ignatieff do anything less than act like Harper?

If Ignatieff chooses the political strategy and tactics that Harper would, he'll be PM for at least 18 months, and likely 2 1/2 years. The Liberals will have filled their political war chests. Harper will have quit, as he always does in circumstances like this. And, 2 1/2 years from now, everyone except the extremist Reform wing of the Conservative Party will have forgotten how Ignatieff became Prime Minister. After governing from the center for 2 1/2 years the Liberals under Ignatieff will win a majority.

Moreover, the Conservatives will be out of power for a decade, at least, until the Liberals, once again, implode.

If Ignatieff will do at the end of January what Harper would do, the Liberals will return to power and the Conservative/Harper reign will end.

Edited December 14, 2008 by Barts

[blueblood]

... if he was in Michael Ignatieff's political position?

After the Conservatives table their stimulus budget (forced on them by the coalition threat) at the end of January, Michael Ignatieff will have to choose between bringing down Harper or supporting Harper. If Harper was in Ignatieff's position, what would he do? He would topple his opponent. Serve as Prime Minister for 2 1/2 years as promised, or if the timing suited call an election before that time. As PM, he'd do all he could to raise money and demonize his main opponent.

Harper has never let an opportunity pass that would increase his personal power or weaken his opponents pass, even if--as we saw in November--it is completely unnecessary and harmful to the notion of a stable minority government or pits Canadians against each other.

Does anyone really think that Harper would pass on being given an opportunity to be Prime Minister, even if it meant forming a coalition with Bloc support? Harper has shown he's happy to make common cause with anyone, abandon any principle, and betray any person if it means being Prime Minister. Why should Ignatieff do anything less than act like Harper?

If Ignatieff chooses the political strategy and tactics that Harper would, he'll be PM for at least 18 months, and likely 2 1/2 years. The Liberals will have filled their political war chests. Harper will have quit, as he always does in circumstances like this. And, 2 1/2 years from now, everyone except the extremist Reform wing of the Conservative Party will have forgotten how Ignatieff became Prime Minister. After governing from the center for 2 1/2 years the Liberals under Ignatieff will win a majority.

Moreover, the Conservatives will be out of power for a decade, at least, until the Liberals, once again, implode.

If Ignatieff will do at the end of January what Harper would do, the Liberals will return to power and the Conservative/Harper reign will end.

Are you high? Everyone hates the coalition. All harper has to do is tie Ignatieff to the coalition and send it through the spin cycle. harper will make Ignatieff look bad come budget time and the GG will be cornered into having an election.

[Mr.Canada]

This guy's rhetoric is just like mine but from the secu-socialist pov. LOL. It was pretty funny to read. Yeah blueblood, Barts post isn't or at least doesn't seem to be based in the same reality we're party to.

[noahbody]

Harper has shown he's happy to make common cause with anyone, abandon any principle, and betray any person if it means being Prime Minister.

You mean like Jack abandoned his fight against $50 billion in corporate tax cuts to gain power? Or how Mr. Canadian Unity decided it was okay to get into bed with separatists in order to gain power?

Ignatieff should do exactly what he said he'd do: listen to the budget because making a decision before that is irresponsible for any leader. Something Jack and Dion didn't do.

Come to think of it, "Jack and Dion" could be the coalition's new theme song. "Oh, oh life goes on, long after the threat of the coalition is gone." I digress.

Edited December 15, 2008 by noahbody

[Goat Boy©]

Ignatieff is smart enough to realize that the "coalition" is political suicide. As he has no desire to go the way of Stephanie Dianne he won't touch it. Read you none of the articles about Liberal supporters hesitant to donate cash because of NDP involvement? Just the NDP mind you, we won't even start on the BQ. We'll have a government or an election, not sure which is worse

[MolonLabe]

There are plenty of communist and socialist types that voted Liberal during the last few elections that generally would have voted NDP or MLP instead.

With Iggy in the leadership now, this is going to be the new trend...those who are much more to the left hate Iggy with a passion and the left will end up splitting their vote between Liberal, NDP, with maybe even a rise in MLP numbers.

If the coalition stays together for the election after January then they will lose greatly due to popular dissatisfaction with it.

Harper can table a bunch of things in the upcoming budget that won't be popular with Libs/NDP...and if Iggy is smart he will direct his people to vote for them to avoid an election.

As much as I don't like Harper, I can't help but seeing this as a one big plan on his part from the get go.

[Barts]

So, the argument of the gang above appears to be that if Ignatieff becomes PM at the head of a coalition (something Harper not only would do but hoped to do when Martin was PM), and governs for 2 1/2 years, the Canadian "public" will punish him in the next election because he was part of the coalition. In keeping with the tone of the gang above's posts, that's delusional, and shows an appalling ignorance of how seriously, in fact, Canadians take their politics--not very seriously at all.

In 2 1/2 years, or perhaps longer, the economy will likely be in recovery (as it always does), Ignatieff will take credit (as will the coalition partners) and the voters will return the people who led them through the worst economic crisis since the Depression. As for Harper, who will be long gone, the question will be "Harper who?".

If Ignatieff, does not act as PM for the next 2 1/2 years, Harper will take credit when the economy turns; and who do you think will get elected with a majority? Stephen. That's why if Harper was in Ignatieff's position today, he'd do everything to be PM.

Hey, "gang above" do you guys have a clue of what it means to have power? Everything. And to not have power? Nothing.

[Topaz]

There's some unknowns like, did the GG tell Harper I grant you this but you can't keep coming back to me, you'll have to face a confidence vote? Harper's dirty tricks can get even dirtier with the former Mike Harris advisor telling him his thoughts. Harper also has to remember that more Canadians are probably watching his every step and what they like or don't like about his actions will show again at the election polls as for Iggy too.

[noahbody]

So, the argument of the gang above appears to be that if Ignatieff becomes PM at the head of a coalition

I believe Ignatieff is like Harper in some ways. Someone said he sees Canada as an intellectual project. Call it what you will but the coalition would be the smart guy in the class getting put in a group with the whiney dumb kid who thinks his iown deas are great and the guy who keeps trying to steal your pen. Harper's had this problem with the minority government, plus his group also had the class clown. Ignatieff won't be able to accomplish any of his goals in the coalition.

Maybe the smart kids will want to work together and get an eh for Canada.

Edited December 15, 2008 by noahbody

[Goat Boy©]

So, the argument of the gang above appears to be that if Ignatieff becomes PM at the head of a coalition (something Harper not only would do but hoped to do when Martin was PM), and governs for 2 1/2 years, the Canadian "public" will punish him in the next election because he was part of the coalition. In keeping with the tone of the gang above's posts, that's delusional, and shows an appalling ignorance of how seriously, in fact, Canadians take their politics--not very seriously at all.

In 2 1/2 years, or perhaps longer, the economy will likely be in recovery (as it always does), Ignatieff will take credit (as will the coalition partners) and the voters will return the people who led them through the worst economic crisis since the Depression. As for Harper, who will be long gone, the question will be "Harper who?".

If Ignatieff, does not act as PM for the next 2 1/2 years, Harper will take credit when the economy turns; and who do you think will get elected with a majority? Stephen. That's why if Harper was in Ignatieff's position today, he'd do everything to be PM.

Hey, "gang above" do you guys have a clue of what it means to have power? Everything. And to not have power? Nothing.

Complete and utter irrelevance. The Liberal party is fractured alone on this "coalition" without even talking about popular support or confidence of the house. You actually expect this thing to govern? It's pretty clear Ignatieff does not. The only way parliament dissolves next year is for an election. The "coalition" for all rights and purposes is over. That's not right wing slander, it's reality.

[August1991]

So, the argument of the gang above appears to be that if Ignatieff becomes PM at the head of a coalition (something Harper not only would do but hoped to do when Martin was PM), and governs for 2 1/2 years, the Canadian "public" will punish him in the next election because he was part of the coalition. In keeping with the tone of the gang above's posts, that's delusional, and shows an appalling ignorance of how seriously, in fact, Canadians take their politics--not very seriously at all.

What makes you think that if Harper's government loses a vote of confidence at the end of January, the GG will invite Ignatieff to form a government? It's more likely that she will accede to Harper's request to have an election. And in that election, Ignatieff will have the coalition albatross around his neck as well as a Liberal party in debt and in policy confusion.

On balance, I can see why Harper wants an election sooner rather than later (and I can also see why Ignatieff wants an election later rather than sooner).

----

Barts, I gather that you don't like Stephen Harper. That is your right. But if I were you, I wouldn't let my dislike cloud my judgment. For starters, Canadian voters have their own way of taking their politics and smart politicians don't dismiss it so lightly.

[Goat Boy©]

What makes you think that if Harper's government loses a vote of confidence at the end of January, the GG will invite Ignatieff to form a government? It's more likely that she will accede to Harper's request to have an election. And in that election, Ignatieff will have the coalition albatross around his neck as well as a Liberal party in debt and in policy confusion.

On balance, I can see why Harper wants an election sooner rather than later (and I can also see why Ignatieff wants an election later rather than sooner).

----

Barts, I gather that you don't like Stephen Harper. That is your right. But if I were you, I wouldn't let my dislike cloud my judgment. For starters, Canadian voters have their own way of taking their politics and smart politicians don't dismiss it so lightly.

Why would she not allow the "coalition" to form a government? To do otherwise would most certainly be un-democratic. Ignatieff would be a fool to try though. She won't get asked.

[blueblood]

Why would she not allow the "coalition" to form a government? To do otherwise would most certainly be un-democratic. Ignatieff would be a fool to try though. She won't get asked.

She would not allow the coalition to form gov't because the alternative is an election. If she allowed a coalition gov't, there would be massive public outrage, as seen on the news. Do you think the GG wants that over her head when she has an easy out in an election? With an election the coalition supporters at least get their say in their distaste of government by going to the ballot box. Without an election the coalition haters don't get that say which will result in protests and smearing. The GG's legacy, name, and reputation are at risk.

[Goat Boy©]

She would not allow the coalition to form gov't because the alternative is an election. If she allowed a coalition gov't, there would be massive public outrage, as seen on the news. Do you think the GG wants that over her head when she has an easy out in an election? With an election the coalition supporters at least get their say in their distaste of government by going to the ballot box. Without an election the coalition haters don't get that say which will result in protests and smearing. The GG's legacy, name, and reputation are at risk.

Something of a quagmire, there will be outrage regardless of what she does.

[Oleg Bach]

Something of a quagmire, there will be outrage regardless of what she does.

This is the last sort of situation the GG expected..she really thought that the position did not entail any work...just nice clothes and pretend you are the Queen. Wonder what the Queen actually thinks about the GG actually having to make a decision ? One question for my learned friends here - Do you think that the GG consulted with her majesty? Seriously - I would like to know your thoughts on whether there was communication or not?

[fellowtraveller]

This is the last sort of situation the GG expected..she really thought that the position did not entail any work...just nice clothes and pretend you are the Queen. Wonder what the Queen actually thinks about the GG actually having to make a decision ? One question for my learned friends here - Do you think that the GG consulted with her majesty? Seriously - I would like to know your thoughts on whether there was communication or not?

No, of course not.

[Goat Boy©]

One question for my learned friends here - Do you think that the GG consulted with her majesty? Seriously - I would like to know your thoughts on whether there was communication or not?

She isn't expected to.

[blueblood]

Something of a quagmire, there will be outrage regardless of what she does.

Ah, but the coalition supporters can go to the polls and make a civilized statement of their problems with Harper and have a chance at getting their party/coalition into power. This side of the outrage is somewhat controlled and wouldn't be much of an issue.

The other side however would be. If the coalition is so good, why not take it to the people and let them decide for themselves?

[Barts]

The fact is that the Liberals, the NDP, and the BQ have lost faith in Harper, in particular, and the Conservatives in general. To support Harper's January 27th budget no matter what it contained would be for political expedience only.

The Opposition parties also know--or should know--that if Harper ever forms a majority, he will manipulate the Election Act and the political party funding regime so that the current Opposition parties can never raise the campaign funds necessary to challenge the Conservatives dollar for dollar prior to and during an election. Harper wants nothing less than the obliteration of the Liberal Party.

They also know--or should know--that if Harper forms a majority he will gerrymander the seat allocations in Parliament to unfairly favor the areas of the country where the Conservatives enjoy majority support, even if populations levels don't justify the allocation. Harper is interested in Harper ruling, not democracy or rep by pop.

Politically, the fact is that supporting Harper will, for the Opposition parties, be an act of suicide.

If Ignatieff supports the Harper budget on January 27, he personally and the Liberal Party deserves the dire political consequences they will suffer. Unfortunately, Canada doesn't deserve them. It deserves better.

Edited December 15, 2008 by Barts

[Barts]

Ah, but the coalition supporters can go to the polls and make a civilized statement of their problems with Harper and have a chance at getting their party/coalition into power. This side of the outrage is somewhat controlled and wouldn't be much of an issue.

The other side however would be. If the coalition is so good, why not take it to the people and let them decide for themselves?

Politically, the only poll that matters will be the one after the coalition has governed for, at least, 18 months (the Bloc commitment) or 2 1/2 years (the NDP commitment) or longer. Two years, six months from now in 2012 no one--except the most extreme Reform Party hangers on--will remember what happened in early 2009. No one will remember Harper who will, like Manning, be huffing and puffing at some right wing think tank for out to pasture neo-cons.

Having ranted all that, I'm not confident that the Liberals will not, once again, fail to seize the day and cower away with the chicken-shit notion of rebuilding their party from the Opposition benches. The question is what will they, in fact, be rebuilding? The party that couldn't stand up to Harper, the guy who always chokes in the end? The party that abandoned Canada to Harper during the time of its greatest need since WWII?

[August1991]

The fact is that the Liberals, the NDP, and the BQ have lost faith in Harper, in particular, and the Conservatives in general. To support Harper's January 27th budget no matter what it contained would be for political expedience only.

The Liberal Party has been successful largely because of expedience. In that sense, I expect Ignatieff to vote in favour of the Throne Speech and teh budget presented at the end of January regardless of what they contain.

The Opposition parties also know--or should know--that if Harper ever forms a majority, he will manipulate the Election Act and the political party funding regime so that the current Opposition parties can never raise the campaign funds necessary to challenge the Conservatives dollar for dollar prior to and during an election. Harper wants nothing less than the obliteration of the Liberal Party.

Here I part ways with you, Barts. But even if you assume that Stephen Harper is an incipient Mussolini, I think Canada's democracy can withstand him. In particular, I think the Liberals can do as the NDP and Brack Obama and raise money through teh party base and the Internet.

They also know--or should know--that if Harper forms a majority he will gerrymander the seat allocations in Parliament to unfairly favor the areas of the country where the Conservatives enjoy majority support, even if populations levels don't justify the allocation. Harper is interested in Harper ruling, not democracy or rep by pop.

If I were the BQ/Liberals, my biggest fear would not be gerrymandering. My fear would be that Alberta, BC and suburban Ontario are about to see their proportion of seats in the House of Commons grow. In the next BC and Alberta will have more seats than Quebec.

Under this legislation, it is projected that, in the next readjustment process following the release of the 2011 census, the faster-growing provinces of Ontario, Alberta and British Columbia would receive more seats than they would otherwise receive under the existing formula: Ontario would receive 6 additional seats, Alberta would receive 4 additional seats, and British Columbia would receive 5 additional seats. At the same time, no province would lose seats.

Link

Barts, would you call that anti-democratic?

Politically, the fact is that supporting Harper will, for the Opposition parties, be an act of suicide.

If Ignatieff supports the Harper budget on January 27, he personally and the Liberal Party deserves the dire political consequences they will suffer. Unfortunately, Canada doesn't deserve them. It deserves better.

On the contrary, if Ignatieff maintains his membership in this coalition, he will commit personal political suicide. As it is, Dion has done grave damage to the Liberal Party by concocting this coalition project.

[fellowtraveller]

Politically, the fact is that supporting Harper will, for the Opposition parties, be an act of suicide.

Yet they cheerfully did just that for 2 1/2 years, and still walk the Earth.

How can that be?

[Goat Boy©]

Yet they cheerfully did just that for 2 1/2 years, and still walk the Earth.

How can that be?

Not they. He.

[fellowtraveller]

The NDP, Bloc and Liberals could have brought down Harper anytime they chose. They failed to work together, to cooperate as Canadians expect from their politicians.........

They.

[cybercoma]

Chuck Norris.