What would Stephen Harper do...

[August1991]

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.

Dion suffered in the past federal election because he was perceived as the weak link who supported too often Harper.

In fact though to maintain power, Harper (from about 2007 on) needed only one of three parties. Harper got BQ or Liberal votes as needed.

Unlike Joe Clark (and this is a point many in Canada's MSM should consider), Stephen Harper can count.

Edited December 16, 2008 by August1991

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Harper would be a fool not to link Iggy to the coalition. Iggy would be a fool not to play the coalition card. The Governor General is OBLIGATED to provide the opportunity to form a government for any group that can show a majority of support in the House of Commons.

These are the facts folks, do with them as you will.

[blueblood]

Harper would be a fool not to link Iggy to the coalition. Iggy would be a fool not to play the coalition card. The Governor General is OBLIGATED to provide the opportunity to form a government for any group that can show a majority of support in the House of Commons.

These are the facts folks, do with them as you will.

an election is an opportunity and the most fair one at that

[August1991]

Harper would be a fool not to link Iggy to the coalition. Iggy would be a fool not to play the coalition card. The Governor General is OBLIGATED to provide the opportunity to form a government for any group that can show a majority of support in the House of Commons.

These are the facts folks, do with them as you will.

Ignatief is looking for a way to escape this coalition boondoggle.

I think Harper may place a well-stated, popular to Canadians, Liberal death-pill in the Throne Speech/Budget. Then, what will Ignatieff do?

----

The cards are in Harper's hands.

[jdobbin]

I think Harper may place a well-stated, popular to Canadians, Liberal death-pill in the Throne Speech/Budget. Then, what will Ignatieff do?

He said he will vote no.

In the long Governor General/PM talks, Jean warned Harper that she wouldn't take kindly to his partisan gamesmanship. The Globe reported that asking the Liberals to govern remains an option.

The cards are in Harper's hands.

So you think he is going to our election financing back in? Death penalty legislation? Abortion? What?

[Mr.Canada]

He said he will vote no.

In the long Governor General/PM talks, Jean warned Harper that she wouldn't take kindly to his partisan gamesmanship. The Globe reported that asking the Liberals to govern remains an option.

So you think he is going to our election financing back in? Death penalty legislation? Abortion? What?

Nothing so provocative dobbin. A barb or two is to be expected though.

[Goat Boy©]

Harper would be a fool not to link Iggy to the coalition. Iggy would be a fool not to play the coalition card. The Governor General is OBLIGATED to provide the opportunity to form a government for any group that can show a majority of support in the House of Commons.

These are the facts folks, do with them as you will.

He would be a fool not to play the coalition card? Why, tell me, why would he be a fool to try and make a power play that 60-70% of the country doesn't want? What an NDP thing to do. The idea behind representative democracy is that the MP represents the elector's views. Why would he support this thing that the electors don't want, and is scaring the piss out of his sponsors. He would be a fool to invoke this.

[August1991]

He said he will vote no.

In the long Governor General/PM talks, Jean warned Harper that she wouldn't take kindly to his partisan gamesmanship. The Globe reported that asking the Liberals to govern remains an option.

As they say, 50% of constituional law is public opinion.

If Jean asks Ignatieff to form a coalition government in January, she knows now that she (a Franophone) will be going against a broad majority of Canadians, particularly English-speaking.

I doubt that Jean will go against the wishes of "her" PM who requests an election.

So you think he is going to our election financing back in? Death penalty legislation? Abortion? What?

Dunno, Dobbin. Political party financing seems a likely choice. A majority of Canadians (French and English) don't want to give taxpayer money to politicians. The Liberal Party (in Quebec and English Canada) has reduced politicians to a profession less trustworthy than used car salesmen.

Dobbin, let's see how this unfolds.

Edited December 16, 2008 by August1991

[blueblood]

As they say, 50% of constituional law is public opinion.

If Jean asks Ignatieff to form a coalition government in January, she knows now that she (a Franophone) will be going against a broad majority of Canadians, particularly English-speaking.

I doubt that Jean will go against the wishes of "her" PM who requests an election.

Dunno, Dobbin. Political party financing seems a likely choice. A majority of Canadians (French and English) don't want to give taxpayer money to politicians. The Liberal Party (in Quebec and English Canada) has reduced politicians to a profession less trustworthy than used car salesmen.

Dobbin, let's see how this unfolds.

Exactly, an election is the easiest out for everyone if the Liberals vote no. The GG saves her reputation, the left has a chance to defeat the gov't, and the right won't have a power change sans election.

[Barts]

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

How can that be?

The Liberals walk the earth in Opposition which, for them, is purgatory. Politics is about power and governing, anything less is a form of non-existence. Don't confuse the walking dead with life. This is politics.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Iggy will wait and see what the throne speech says, he must appear reasonable. Do not mistake this for a weakness, for it is far from that. His next step is to pass judgment on the budget, both events feature an opportunity to bring down the government. Harper knows this, he is not a fool.

Harper will either write a speech and a budget in isolation from the majority of members of the House of Commons, or he will pen something acceptable to the majority. Those are the only options he has. If he thumbs his nose to the majority, his government WILL fall, the coalition card will be played. If he pens something acceptable to the majority he will retain power.

An election is only a possibility, the other possibility is a coalition government and the decision as to which way it goes down is not up to Harper.

[Barts]

Iggy will wait and see what the throne speech says, he must appear reasonable. Do not mistake this for a weakness, for it is far from that. His next step is to pass judgment on the budget, both events feature an opportunity to bring down the government. Harper knows this, he is not a fool.

Harper will either write a speech and a budget in isolation from the majority of members of the House of Commons, or he will pen something acceptable to the majority. Those are the only options he has. If he thumbs his nose to the majority, his government WILL fall, the coalition card will be played. If he pens something acceptable to the majority he will retain power.

An election is only a possibility, the other possibility is a coalition government and the decision as to which way it goes down is not up to Harper.

Harper's problem, which is also Ignatieff's problem, is that none of the Opposition parties trust him personally. It doesn't matter what Harper proposes, he cannot be trusted to either implement his proposals or not do everything in his power to "kill off" the Liberals, NDP and Bloc.

[jdobbin]

Exactly, an election is the easiest out for everyone if the Liberals vote no. The GG saves her reputation, the left has a chance to defeat the gov't, and the right won't have a power change sans election.

And if it ends in a minority again for either party, will you go for another election and another election after that?

When does the Governor General's rep get tarnished by not asking the next party in lone if they can form a government? According to you that's the only choice she can make any time. It isn't. Never has been.

She can also tell Harper to grow up and re-work a partisan bill since she won't approve an election nor turn to the Opposition until he stops acting like a rabid dog.

[jdobbin]

Nothing so provocative dobbin. A barb or two is to be expected though.

If it isn't provocative enough, it won't trigger an election. And you keep saying that he is going to do something so bad, so over the top and so partisan that will cause the Opposition to vote no. So what will that be?

[blueblood]

And if it ends in a minority again for either party, will you go for another election and another election after that?

When does the Governor General's rep get tarnished by not asking the next party in lone if they can form a government? According to you that's the only choice she can make any time. It isn't. Never has been.

She can also tell Harper to grow up and re-work a partisan bill since she won't approve an election nor turn to the Opposition until he stops acting like a rabid dog.

If it goes into another minority for either party, with the coalition being sold to the electorate in the election, then I guess the GG would have to grant the coalition.

Look it's the only logical choice she has. The other ones are all legal, this one is the most logical. Her rep will get tarnished if she doesn't give an election if the Liberals vote the budget down. Giving an election gives all sides an out and lets the coalition be floated to the populace. If a minority gov't arises if an election occured in January, that suggests Canadians are fine with a coalition. However, by not granting an election with these circumstances surrounding the bloc propping up a coalition, especially when Canadian voters were unaware that a coalition was going to take place will result in a black eye on Jean's reputation. Being as she was willing to step down over this mess, I suspect an election will take place.

By telling Harper to grow up, she oversteps her bounds and her reputation takes another bludgeoning. Judging by how Harper is insistent on party funding matters, look for that to be in the budget.

[jdobbin]

I doubt that Jean will go against the wishes of "her" PM who requests an election.

She can tell her PM to grow up as well. You think she will be bullied. I think she can state the case the case that Harper needs to work with the Opposition. She can send him back and deny everyone an election or a new government and demand that the PM actually put a budget forward that is workable.

You are saying that she has no choice. I think if it looks like she can bullied, the position loses credibility when it is most needed.

Dunno, Dobbin. Political party financing seems a likely choice. A majority of Canadians (French and English) don't want to give taxpayer money to politicians. The Liberal Party (in Quebec and English Canada) has reduced politicians to a profession less trustworthy than used car salesmen.

Dobbin, let's see how this unfolds.

Only a total sociopath like Harper would introduce the same bill. Talk about untrustworthy when he withdrew the bill once already.

The Liberals will reform their finances but Harper's obsession in killing the Liberals as a party means he does things with that in mind over any and other consideration including what it is best for the country.

Harper is a rabid dog who can't be reformed. He can't be trusted and as Rick Mercer said, when you have a rabid dog, you are left with only one choice.

[jdobbin]

If it goes into another minority for either party, with the coalition being sold to the electorate in the election, then I guess the GG would have to grant the coalition.

Baloney. Tories would complain it was still not right.

Look it's the only logical choice she has. The other ones are all legal, this one is the most logical. Her rep will get tarnished if she doesn't give an election if the Liberals vote the budget down. Giving an election gives all sides an out and lets the coalition be floated to the populace. If a minority gov't arises if an election occured in January, that suggests Canadians are fine with a coalition. However, by not granting an election with these circumstances surrounding the bloc propping up a coalition, especially when Canadian voters were unaware that a coalition was going to take place will result in a black eye on Jean's reputation. Being as she was willing to step down over this mess, I suspect an election will take place.

If Harper provokes an election with poison, she can also tell Harper to go back to the drawing board. It is within her right to deny an election and a new government.

And while you are absolutely, positively, completely and utterly and without any sort of doubt whatsoever confident that Harper will win a massive majority, it might not come if there is anger at Harper for acting like a rabid dog again.

By telling Harper to grow up, she oversteps her bounds and her reputation takes another bludgeoning. Judging by how Harper is insistent on party funding matters, look for that to be in the budget.

Well, expect to hear a lot of accusations about Harper being untrustworthy since he promised not to do that. Harper is a rabid, sociopath more concerned with killing the Liberals than running the country.

I think the hyperpartisans in the Tory party should start looking at how the polls are quickly changing back to minority support for Harper.

[Canadian Blue]

Jdobbin, you're abit shrill today, no?

By the way it's somewhat rich to call everyone else a hyper-partisan when you blindly follow anything that comes from Liberal Party HQ.

Edited December 16, 2008 by Canadian Blue

[Keepitsimple]

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?

He could do that any time he wishes. Gilles Duceppe would be more than pleased to ask for billions for Quebec....just like he would get from the Coalition.....but as Harper told Peter Mansbridge...there's no way that he would sign any deal with the Bloc whereby he would be beholding to a separatist party.

[Goat Boy©]

Harper's problem, which is also Ignatieff's problem, is that none of the Opposition parties trust him personally. It doesn't matter what Harper proposes, he cannot be trusted to either implement his proposals or not do everything in his power to "kill off" the Liberals, NDP and Bloc.

Can you say extremist slander? What are you, the Star Wars Emperor? Or wait, is that what your accusing Stephan Harper of? Anything is possible in January.

[Goat Boy©]

He could do that any time he wishes. Gilles Duceppe would be more than pleased to ask for billions for Quebec....just like he would get from the Coalition.....but as Harper told Peter Mansbridge...there's no way that he would sign any deal with the Bloc whereby he would be beholding to a separatist party.

He was more than willing to use them to bring down the Martin government.

[ToadBrother]

And if it ends in a minority again for either party, will you go for another election and another election after that?

When does the Governor General's rep get tarnished by not asking the next party in lone if they can form a government? According to you that's the only choice she can make any time. It isn't. Never has been.

She can also tell Harper to grow up and re-work a partisan bill since she won't approve an election nor turn to the Opposition until he stops acting like a rabid dog.

Too many minority governments, and no one will have to worry about Harper. If he does push the Opposition's buttons and trigger an election next month, and that election produces another Conservative minority, then Harper will most likely be toast.

The signals from the Tories and Liberals coming out of Ottawa are considerably different now. Harper did not escape the last few weeks unscathed, his caucus has likely delivered him a very stern warning to cut the crap, and now suddenly he and Flaherty are paragons of co-operation. As for the Liberals, Ignatieff has very clearly got the message, and judging by his responses when this coalition was first cooked up, I don't think it took a high-powered antenna to broadcast it to him. He wants to rebuild the Liberal party, not prostitute it out of some bizarre political expediency. I think it's pretty clear that Ignatieff wants to be Prime Minister on his own terms, not one that owes his position to Layton and Duceppe.

The odds are very much against an election next January. Even with high polling numbers, I doubt the Tories are willing to roll those dice. Ignatieff isn't going to be interested either, because there's no chance of the Liberals winning, particularly after the coalition nonsense. The status quo, with hopefully some more sober second thought before anyone pushes buttons, will remain.

Edited December 16, 2008 by ToadBrother

[jdobbin]

Jdobbin, you're abit shrill today, no?

By the way it's somewhat rich to call everyone else a hyper-partisan when you blindly follow anything that comes from Liberal Party HQ.

Ah. There are those personal attacks that we have come to expect from the Tory supporters.

I have had plenty of criticism of Liberal party policies and people. The evidence is all here in these threads.

[Canadian Blue]

Ah. There are those personal attacks that we have come to expect from the Tory supporters.

You mean like yelling sociopath and saying Harper needs to be taken out like a rabid dog. But you do find the Liberals without error and do believe they are infallible. Much like when you argued that in 1988 the Liberals were for free trade and the Tories were against it, which was news to me. Or for that matter when you argue that the Tories are going to end abortion as we know it and re-instate the death penalty, which is once again something that hasn't happened yet.

Like I stated before, you simply come off as shrill and hyper-partisan. Yes, you are a hyper-partisan jdobbin theirs no getting around it, that's why you blindly accept anything the Liberal Party does and believe they are always altruistic in their motives, while the people on the other side of the aisle are evil sociopaths who want to destroy the country.

Edited December 16, 2008 by Canadian Blue

[jdobbin]

You mean like yelling sociopath and saying Harper needs to be taken out like a rabid dog. But you do find the Liberals without error and do believe they are infallible. Much like when you argued that in 1988 the Liberals were for free trade and the Tories were against it, which was news to me. Or for that matter when you argue that the Tories are going to end abortion as we know it and re-instate the death penalty, which is once again something that hasn't happened yet.

What utter BS.

I am saying he is acting like a sociopath and rabid dog with his partisanship. Even his own people says it is what guides him.

Attack me if you want to. I have come to expect it from Tory supporters who think their own party is completely infallible and justifiable in doing the same thing that caused a loss of confidence a few weeks ago.

As far as polices go, I have been asking what poison bills that Harper wants to introduce to get that non-confidence vote. I have said abortion or death penalty would do the trick.

Like I stated before, you simply come off as shrill and hyper-partisan. Yes, you are a hyper-partisan jdobbin theirs no getting around it, that's why you blindly accept anything the Liberal Party does and believe they are always altruistic in their motives, while the people on the other side of the aisle are evil sociopaths who want to destroy the country.

And you are blindly supporting your own party and making inaccurate statements about other people in these forums as way of personalizing.