Top Liberal denies Coalition exists!

[Mr.Canada]

I use that C-word with great hesitation, mindful of the sensitivities expressed by Liberal MP Marlene Jennings in a recent interview with the Canadian Jewish News. According to reporter David Lazarus, Jennings, who served as the top Liberal negotiator for the deal, reacted with impatience whenever the word came up. "There is no coalition," she told him. "The governance agreement only would have become operative had the Governor-General asked the leader of the official opposition to see if it could form an alternative government." She prefers to hear the hypothetical anybody-but-Harper regime referred to as a "co-operative government."

Full Story/Source

I for one find this hilarious that once Ignatieff has taken the reigns he wants nothing to do with the coalition and is even demanding his fellow MPs deny its existence. This really speaks volumes about the legitimacy of the so-called coalition or co-operative government. These people are making fools of themselves and losing any credibility they had.

[Progressive Tory]

Full Story/Source

I for one find this hilarious that once Ignatieff has taken the reigns he wants nothing to do with the coalition and is even demanding his fellow MPs deny its existence. This really speaks volumes about the legitimacy of the so-called coalition or co-operative government. These people are making fools of themselves and losing any credibility they had.

Your link seems to go to something else; the Conservative taping of Layton's phone conversation, which even if legal (I don't believe the courts have determined yet) does reek of Watergate. That's why the Conservatives no longer refer to it.

http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/546721

I googled it and all I could find was a comment made by Madmax at rabble.ca and a note on a blog without source. Do you have the original story? Your opening quote is from the blogger and has no validity since it's not backed up.

Edited January 12, 2009 by Progressive Tory

[Topaz]

Full Story/Source

I for one find this hilarious that once Ignatieff has taken the reigns he wants nothing to do with the coalition and is even demanding his fellow MPs deny its existence. This really speaks volumes about the legitimacy of the so-called coalition or co-operative government. These people are making fools of themselves and losing any credibility they had.

In a way, she is right. Harper has the power of the agreement of a coalition to become active and as along as he does thing that the opposition parties agree with, there's no coalition right now.

[Progressive Tory]

In a way, she is right. Harper has the power of the agreement of a coalition to become active and as along as he does thing that the opposition parties agree with, there's no coalition right now.

Still can't find the original article. Please provide it Mr. Canada, so I can read it. A blogger without backup is a blogger without backup. However, I agree with Topaz and a cooperative Left trumps an uncooperative Right.

[Shakeyhands]

There was a coalition back in December who were ready to govern with a majority of support, now that the current session has been prorogued and with the promise of a new less partisan budget & statement coming, there is no coalition so what was stated was the truth...

[Topaz]

Tory, goggle "marlene Jennings/canadian jewish news" I found A story but don't know if its the same one mentioned above.

[Mr.Canada]

It's quite obvious that the Bloc led Coalition is now in full retreat backwards after Ignatieff told them he wouldn't really support it. His majesty Ignatieff has spoken now heed his words. I find it humorous that the top Liberal who helped to broker the deal is now denying the Coalition ever existed. All the socialists on MLW are all nodding their collective heads in agreement that the Coalition never existed, priceless. Just like lemmings.

[Jean_Poutine]

Your link seems to go to something else; the Conservative taping of Layton's phone conversation, which even if legal (I don't believe the courts have determined yet) does reek of Watergate. That's why the Conservatives no longer refer to it.

Second sentence in the article that the link leads to:

I use that C-word with great hesitation, mindful of the sensitivities expressed by Liberal MP Marlene Jennings in a recent interview with the Canadian Jewish News.

Look familiar?

I googled it and all I could find was a comment made by Madmax at rabble.ca and a note on a blog without source. Do you have the original story? Your opening quote is from the blogger and has no validity since it's not backed up.

First thing I found with a google search:

Several times Jennings adamantly denied there was a “coalition” at all.

“There is no coalition,” she said. “None, regardless of what Mr. Harper and ministers of his government are saying…

Source: Canadian Jewish News

[Progressive Tory]

It's quite obvious that the Bloc led Coalition is now in full retreat backwards after Ignatieff told them he wouldn't really support it. His majesty Ignatieff has spoken now heed his words. I find it humorous that the top Liberal who helped to broker the deal is now denying the Coalition ever existed. All the socialists on MLW are all nodding their collective heads in agreement that the Coalition never existed, priceless. Just like lemmings.

OK. Once again, let's play a game of 'what the hell are you talking about'? I found the original interview, and the blogger you quoted in your original post went cherry picking.

When Ms. Jennings stated that there never was a 'Coalition', with the NDP and Bloc; she meant that literally. The Bloc were NEVER PART OF THE COALITION. So I was wrong and I apologize Mr. Canada. Harper's 2004 Coalition was not the same, because HIS INCLUDED THE BLOC! My bad.

The Coalition she brokered was a Liberal/NDP Coalition, with the support of the Bloc. "The Bloc Québécois were prepared to keep a Liberal-led coalition government alive for two years, if the coalition allowed Bill 101 to apply to federally regulated companies in Quebec. But Marlene Jennings, the veteran Liberal MP in charge of negotiating the coalition deal for the Liberals, said “no way” to the Bloc."

And the result, said the 11-year Notre-Dame-de-Grâce–Lachine MP, was that the Liberals settled for the Bloc pledging to prop up the Liberal-NDP coalition during confidence votes for 18 months, not two years.

As for Harper's 'separatists' attack: "...the Bloc agreed, in writing, to take sovereignty off its agenda for the 18-month period, which was deemed long enough to see if the economic stimulus program the Liberals, the NDP and the Bloc proposed was working. “I’m quite proud of it,” Jennings said, “because it’s the first time in the 18 years [since] the Bloc was first founded, that the Bloc, in writing, took sovereignty off its agenda, if the agreement was put into action.

Remember, that was only for confidence votes. But "The whole coalition issue, however, became moot – at least temporarily..."

Prudently, she disagrees with the Bloc and NDP's current stand: "stated that they would vote against the Jan. 27 budget regardless of what it says is... “How do you condemn something you have not even seen?”

So the original NDP/Liberal Coalition, backed for confidence motions only by the Bloc, is off the table. It has to be, because it stated that Mr. Dion would be PM. However, the spirit of nonconfidence remains against the Conservatives, while the spirit of copoperation remains for the Opposition.

"However, Jennings said if Harper tables a budget on Jan. 27 that is acceptable to the Liberals in providing appropriate economic stimulus, they would vote in favour of it and keep the Conservative government alive." This is a BRILLIANT move.

http://www.cjnews.com/index.php?option=com...4&Itemid=86

And for the record, Mr. Ignatieff NEVER liked the idea, but knew it was necessary to get Harper back on track.

Edited January 12, 2009 by Progressive Tory

[Alta4ever]

OK. Once again, let's play a game of 'what the hell are you talking about'? I found the original interview, and the blogger you quoted in your original post went cherry picking.

When Ms. Jennings stated that there never was a 'Coalition', with the NDP and Bloc; she meant that literally. The Bloc were NEVER PART OF THE COALITION. So I was wrong and I apologize Mr. Canada. Harper's 2004 Coalition was not the same, because HIS INCLUDED THE BLOC! My bad.

So why did the Bloc need to sign the accord? They weren't apart of the coalition why was Gile standing and signing with Layton and Dion?

[OddSox]

The Bloc were NEVER PART OF THE COALITION.

Yeah right, and Mr. Clinton "never had sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky"!

[Mr.Canada]

The Bloc were NEVER PART OF THE COALITION.

The Liberals +_ NDP together do not have more seats than PM Harpers Tories. So the Coalition includes the Bloc and is in fact led by them. It is led by Gille of the separatist Bloc because he must be given whatever he asks for or the Liberal and NDP will not get their votes.

it is a Bloc led Coalition. No matter how much backtracking the Liberals try to do, it's too late. The Liberals and NDP were ready to get into bed with the Separatist Bloc and still are.

[Smallc]

The Liberals +_ NDP together do not have more seats than PM Harpers Tories.

That is not a necessary condition for government formation in Canada.

[madmax]

Full Story/Source

I for one find this hilarious

I for one find this hilarious

1) The article is old.

2) It has been discussed on MLW

3) YOUR LINK IS TO THE WRONG STORY

lol:

[Progressive Tory]

The Liberals +_ NDP together do not have more seats than PM Harpers Tories. So the Coalition includes the Bloc and is in fact led by them. It is led by Gille of the separatist Bloc because he must be given whatever he asks for or the Liberal and NDP will not get their votes.

it is a Bloc led Coalition. No matter how much backtracking the Liberals try to do, it's too late. The Liberals and NDP were ready to get into bed with the Separatist Bloc and still are.

It was a proposed Liberal/NDP Coalition that was presented to the GG. They validated it with a written promise by the Bloc that they would support all confidence motions, ensuring that the new Coalition gov't would not fall for at least a year and half. Though the Bloc would have input, they would not be given any cabinet posts, because they were not part of the official coalition. This was a sacrifice for them, since part of the agreement was that they would not put forward any separatist motion for that year and a half.

Ignatieff let Harper and his Conservatives run around like chickens with their heads chopped off, making ridiculous accusations; until Harper's Coalition letter and taped speech surfaced, making him look like a hypocrite. I myself have an email from Cons MP Diane Finlay, calling Duceppe 'a citizen of France', which included three spelling errors. I'm keeping it filed until next election, when I'll forward it to HER local paper and all parties she's running against. This should not be allowed from a government official.

Ignatieff is now in the driver's seat. The Bloc and NDP plan to oppose the budget regardless, which won't sit well with most Canadians; while the Liberals have said they will back it provided it contains the needed stimulus. This means they'll have to write it for Ignatieff and the Liberals.

Harper will no doubt stay in power for awhile, wearing the economic crisis, and scrambling to spread fairy dust from an empty bin. He can't be combative, because there is nothing to prevent the Opposition from going back to the GG, while the Conservatives are slipping in the polls. They won't want an election and can no longer pull the 'Separatist', 'Socialist' crap.

STEPHEN HARPER IS NOT A LEADER.

But My man Iggy. NOW THAT'S A LEADER. All the power but none of the blame. Well played.

[Alta4ever]

That is not a necessary condition for government formation in Canada.

Yes it is, you have to be able to retain the confidence of the house, how do you do that if you don't have enough seats in your coalition to out vote the current governing party. They are required to have bloc support.

[Smallc]

Yes it is, you have to be able to retain the confidence of the house,

That doesn't require that governing body has enough seats to do. The Bloc agreed to support on confidence. It doesn't make them part of the coalition.

[Progressive Tory]

Yes it is, you have to be able to retain the confidence of the house, how do you do that if you don't have enough seats in your coalition to out vote the current governing party. They are required to have bloc support.

Like I just answered to Mr. Canada: "It was a proposed Liberal/NDP Coalition that was presented to the GG. They validated it with a written promise by the Bloc that they would support all confidence motions, ensuring that the new Coalition gov't would not fall for at least a year and half. Though the Bloc would have input, they would not be given any cabinet posts, because they were not part of the official coalition. This was a sacrifice for them, since part of the agreement was that they would not put forward any separatist motion for that year and a half."

The non-confidence motion fits the criteria of a confidence motion, so it would have passed.

[Alta4ever]

Like I just answered to Mr. Canada: "It was a proposed Liberal/NDP Coalition that was presented to the GG. They validated it with a written promise by the Bloc that they would support all confidence motions, ensuring that the new Coalition gov't would not fall for at least a year and half. Though the Bloc would have input, they would not be given any cabinet posts, because they were not part of the official coalition. This was a sacrifice for them, since part of the agreement was that they would not put forward any separatist motion for that year and a half."

The non-confidence motion fits the criteria of a confidence motion, so it would have passed.

And what has to be given to get that support? They are part of the coalition. BUt you don't seem to understand that.

[Smallc]

They are part of the coalition. But you don't seem to understand that.

No, they aren't. You don't seem to understand that. They agreed to support the coalition because Stephen Harper threatened their political lives. That would be enough for almost anyone.

[madmax]

Yes it is, you have to be able to retain the confidence of the house, how do you do that if you don't have enough seats in your coalition to out vote the current governing party. They are required to have bloc support.

The coalition could pass legislation with CPC support. No different then, in order to avoid being tossed out on a non confidence vote, the CPC could work a deal with the BQ or LPC or NDP to maintain power. Infact, they have to.

If the CPC get a written deal, it is far better then the seat of the pants governing.

If the CPC lose the confidence of the house, and they certainly did, they now have an opportunity to regain it or hand it over to another party that can obtain enough votes to pass legislation.

That party ... the LPC has secured a committment from the other parties should that occur.

This saves us a costly and untimely election and maintains the MP in my riding.

But the CPC are the ones who have succeeded with BQ support in the past, I doubt they will get it back anytime soon and now will have to kiss another political whore.

That is why parliment is suspended.

All the CPC MPs are getting out the chapstick.

[Progressive Tory]

The coalition could pass legislation with CPC support. No different then, in order to avoid being tossed out on a non confidence vote, the CPC could work a deal with the BQ or LPC or NDP to maintain power. Infact, they have to.

If the CPC get a written deal, it is far better then the seat of the pants governing.

If the CPC lose the confidence of the house, and they certainly did, they now have an opportunity to regain it or hand it over to another party that can obtain enough votes to pass legislation.

That party ... the LPC has secured a committment from the other parties should that occur.

This saves us a costly and untimely election and maintains the MP in my riding.

But the CPC are the ones who have succeeded with BQ support in the past, I doubt they will get it back anytime soon and now will have to kiss another political whore.

That is why parliment is suspended.

All the CPC MPs are getting out the chapstick.

Very well said. I bow to you.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

It was a proposed Liberal/NDP Coalition that was presented to the GG. They validated it with a written promise by the Bloc that they would support all confidence motions, ensuring that the new Coalition gov't would not fall for at least a year and half. Though the Bloc would have input, they would not be given any cabinet posts, because they were not part of the official coalition. This was a sacrifice for them, since part of the agreement was that they would not put forward any separatist motion for that year and a half.

Ignatieff let Harper and his Conservatives run around like chickens with their heads chopped off, making ridiculous accusations; until Harper's Coalition letter and taped speech surfaced, making him look like a hypocrite. I myself have an email from Cons MP Diane Finlay, calling Duceppe 'a citizen of France', which included three spelling errors. I'm keeping it filed until next election, when I'll forward it to HER local paper and all parties she's running against. This should not be allowed from a government official.

Ignatieff is now in the driver's seat. The Bloc and NDP plan to oppose the budget regardless, which won't sit well with most Canadians; while the Liberals have said they will back it provided it contains the needed stimulus. This means they'll have to write it for Ignatieff and the Liberals.

Harper will no doubt stay in power for awhile, wearing the economic crisis, and scrambling to spread fairy dust from an empty bin. He can't be combative, because there is nothing to prevent the Opposition from going back to the GG, while the Conservatives are slipping in the polls. They won't want an election and can no longer pull the 'Separatist', 'Socialist' crap.

STEPHEN HARPER IS NOT A LEADER.

But My man Iggy. NOW THAT'S A LEADER. All the power but none of the blame. Well played.

Iggy isn't my guy ........ yet. Even so I agree with what you have said.

[Mr.Canada]

Remember, one of the authors of the Coalition is trying to back out of it because 60% of Canadians do not support it. Don't be fooled by these liars.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Names?