Prorogation Jeans Fault ? I think not.

fellowtraveller · March 7, 2009

I don't think that there was much question that parliament would be prorogued.

Agreed.

That is why the formation of the coalition was such a grand miscalculation. Or rather, the inclusion of the Bloc in the arrangement, and no, you cannot pretend that they were not.

Canadian Blue · March 7, 2009

In some ways I was hoping the coalition would go ahead, more or less because it would have been so disasterous that the country would have been turned off by the LPC for a decade.

fellowtraveller · March 7, 2009

In some ways I was hoping the coalition would go ahead, more or less because it would have been so disasterous that the country would have been turned off by the LPC for a decade.

It is not done yet.

The Tories will use the coalition as a prominent part of the next election campaign, which will be as soon as possible from their viewpoint.

We will see many reproductions of those iconic photos of Jack, Gilles and Stephan grinning and shakinghands....

Many repetitions of the mantra that a vote for Liberal is also a vote for NDP and Bloc, a vote for Jack is a vote for Gilles.....

Progressive Tory · March 7, 2009

Agreed.
That is why the formation of the coalition was such a grand miscalculation. Or rather, the inclusion of the Bloc in the arrangement, and no, you cannot pretend that they were not.

The Bloc were definitely an integral part of the 2008 Coalition, because they promised to support any confidence motions for 18 months. However, thery were allowed a free vote an anything else.

But, we can't pretend that the Bloc were not part of Harper's 2004 Coaltion, because in fact they were actually part of it's base. It was a three party deal between the Conservatives, NDP and Bloc.

What made them 'separatists' and 'socialists' in 2008, when apparently they weren't 'separatists' and 'socialists' in 2004; only comrades of Stephen Harper?

The opposition campaign ads will have been created by Harper himself, because they only need his written and recorded messages, outlining the hypocrisy of the two situations.

g_bambino · March 7, 2009

That's not too too far from the truth.

Maybe I didn't get enough sleep last night, so please forgive me in advance, but I don't understand what you're getting at. I don't think the Bloc consider themselves agents of France at all, and would probably bristle at any suggestion they are.

g_bambino · March 7, 2009

...we can't pretend that the Bloc were not part of Harper's 2004 Coaltion, because in fact they were actually part of it's base. It was a three party deal between the Conservatives, NDP and Bloc. What made them 'separatists' and 'socialists' in 2008, when apparently they weren't 'separatists' and 'socialists' in 2004; only comrades of Stephen Harper?

A good question; one I asked from the beginning of the mess, and always found strange the fact that it was never more widely asked in the media; especially one so supposedly hostile to conservatives.

Progressive Tory · March 7, 2009

It is not done yet.
The Tories will use the coalition as a prominent part of the next election campaign, which will be as soon as possible from their viewpoint.

We will see many reproductions of those iconic photos of Jack, Gilles and Stephan grinning and shakinghands....

That would be a huge mistake, as I mentioned above:

The Opposition have the written agreement, recorded interview and press release of Stephen Harper himself discussing a coalition agreement he made in 2004 with Gilles Duceppe ('separatists') and Jack Layton ('socialists'). His letter to the GG clearly states that he had 'been in close negotiation' with the Oppostion parties (backroom deal) who are prepared to govern (coup). He would assume the role of Prime Minister (without an election), backed by Mr. Duceppe and Mr. Layton. His speech if you link onto the date in my signature, clearly states that a PM can't expect an election everytime he fails to win the confidence of the house.

Jack Layton got the idea from Mr. Harper himself. It was not a new concept. The Nixon style taping and broadcasting of his telephone conversation where he was previously poised to take the Conservatives down, was no different that Harper's negotiations with the Bloc and NDP before the 2004 throne speech, to take down the Liberals.

If the Conservatives do try this, it will backfire, because instead of painting the opposition parties in a bad light, it will only reveal that Stephen Harper is a hypocrite. I actually hope they do try to use it.

"The opposition campaign ads will have been created by Harper himself, because they only need his written and recorded messages, outlining the hypocrisy of the two situations."

Canadian Blue · March 7, 2009

The Bloc were definitely an integral part of the 2008 Coalition, because they promised to support any confidence motions for 18 months. However, thery were allowed a free vote an anything else.
But, we can't pretend that the Bloc were not part of Harper's 2004 Coaltion, because in fact they were actually part of it's base. It was a three party deal between the Conservatives, NDP and Bloc.

What made them 'separatists' and 'socialists' in 2008, when apparently they weren't 'separatists' and 'socialists' in 2004; only comrades of Stephen Harper?

The opposition campaign ads will have been created by Harper himself, because they only need his written and recorded messages, outlining the hypocrisy of the two situations.

I read that letter that was done up in 2004, all it would have meant was that the GG would have gone to the opposition to see if a government could be formed from the opposition. But I never saw anything about Jack Layton becoming industry minister or the Bloc agreeing to give the coalition a confidence vote for 18 months.

However that's how Parliament works, if the minority government loses the confidence of the house the Governor General should immediately ask the opposition if they can form a government that will have the confidence of the house. If that's not done, then we face an election. The unfortunate thing is the Canadian's are extremely ignorant about how Parliament works and will of course be outraged.

The one thing that amazes me is that it's somehow a new relevation that Harper's a hypocrite. He's been a hypocrite since he was leader of the Conservative Party in 2004 and proceeded to abandon his classical liberal principles. The same goes with most politicians, whether it be Jack Layton stating he would only enter a coalition if PR was implemented, Stephane Dion telling Canadian's before the election that their would be no coalition, or Michael Ignatieff talking about "Canadian values" despite his lack of residence in Canada for about 30 years.

Politics is a mix of feces and hypocrisy, get over it.

Edited March 7, 2009 by Canadian Blue

ToadBrother · March 8, 2009

However that's how Parliament works, if the minority government loses the confidence of the house the Governor General should immediately ask the opposition if they can form a government that will have the confidence of the house. If that's not done, then we face an election. The unfortunate thing is the Canadian's are extremely ignorant about how Parliament works and will of course be outraged.

That's one theoretical way Parliament can work. In practice, for pretty much all the history of the Westminster system, if a government falls, Parliament is dissolved, the writ is dropped and an election is called to elect a new Parliament. Yes, it's possible from one constitutional perspective for the GG to ask another bloc with Parliament to form a government. That's sort of what happened in the King-Byng Affair, King asked for the dissolution of Parliament, Byng refused and asked Meighen to form a government.

Mind you, the makeup of Parliament was considerably different. The Liberals did not hold the largest single bloc of seats in the House, rather the Conservatives did, so it would have been much easier to justify allowing the Conservatives the chance to form a government. That's why, I suspect, the Liberal-NDP-Bloc Coalition was not seen as equivalent to Meighen''s Conservatives.

jbg · March 8, 2009

Maybe I didn't get enough sleep last night, so please forgive me in advance, but I don't understand what you're getting at. I don't think the Bloc consider themselves agents of France at all, and would probably bristle at any suggestion they are.

"Vive le Quebec libre????????"?

Oleg Bach · March 8, 2009

"Vive le Quebec libre????????"?

Of course the bloc considers themselves agents of France - the same as the robost Italian soccer fan is still an agent of Italy - don't underestimate cultural heritage. We may have distanced our selves from mother Britian but some boys just can't do without mamma.. :lol:

WestViking · March 8, 2009

The Bloc were definitely an integral part of the 2008 Coalition, because they promised to support any confidence motions for 18 months. However, thery were allowed a free vote an anything else.
But, we can't pretend that the Bloc were not part of Harper's 2004 Coaltion, because in fact they were actually part of it's base. It was a three party deal between the Conservatives, NDP and Bloc.

What made them 'separatists' and 'socialists' in 2008, when apparently they weren't 'separatists' and 'socialists' in 2004; only comrades of Stephen Harper?

The opposition campaign ads will have been created by Harper himself, because they only need his written and recorded messages, outlining the hypocrisy of the two situations.

What 2004 coalition? The LPC had 135 seats, the CPC 99 seats, the BQ 54 and the NDP 19. The CPC and BQ could have defeated the LPC at any time. What we had at the time was the NDP supporting the LPC and the CPC and BQ forming the opposition with independents as wild cards. If the government had been defeated, we would have gone to an election.

http://www.ekos.com/admin/articles/2May2005.pdf

g_bambino · March 8, 2009

"Vive le Quebec libre????????"?

Well, that was more than 40 years ago now. As far as I understand it, France has absolutely zero interest in Quebec independence any more; and even when it did, were the French orchestrating the whole affair? It seems a bit much to say they were...

Molly · March 8, 2009

Yeah... and the Conservatives believed they would lose, not gain ground in any election so near the last, and were no more eager to face an early one than the Liberals were..... so they floated the coalition balloon but didn't push the non-confidence button during the window during which a 'coup' might have occurred.

Would'a, could'a, should'a... Fact remains, Harper (and his party) is on record as thinking it was a great idea when the shoe was on the other foot. The only folks who don't see a perfect parallel are those who are blinded by the guiding light.

Progressive Tory · March 8, 2009

A good question; one I asked from the beginning of the mess, and always found strange the fact that it was never more widely asked in the media; especially one so supposedly hostile to conservatives.

I don't find the media terribly hostile to the conservatives. However. there were a few stories covering the deception, but most of them instead focused on calling Dion/Layton/Duceppe 'the three stooges', 'the three amigos' and it became more sensational to use terms like 'coup' and 'overthrowing the government'.

Harper made enough noise that it became a hot topic. Now that it's died down, the Conservatives themselves are not so quick to remind Canadians of their hypocritical campaign. So far it has mostly been covered on blogs and message boards; but if they try to use it in an election campaign, giving it national attention, it will backfire.

Just too much actual proof that he was only blowing smoke, and his own attacks ads could be turned against him. My guess is he's hoping it will go away before the next election, and we will have forgotten the lies and deception he used to keep his job.

Progressive Tory · March 8, 2009

Would'a, could'a, should'a... Fact remains, Harper (and his party) is on record as thinking it was a great idea when the shoe was on the other foot. The only folks who don't see a perfect parallel are those who are blinded by the guiding light.

Well put.

jbg · March 8, 2009

What 2004 coalition? The LPC had 135 seats, the CPC 99 seats, the BQ 54 and the NDP 19. The CPC and BQ could have defeated the LPC at any time. What we had at the time was the NDP supporting the LPC and the CPC and BQ forming the opposition with independents as wild cards. If the government had been defeated, we would have gone to an election.
http://www.ekos.com/admin/articles/2May2005.pdf

Except for the Stronach bribe of course.

jbg · March 8, 2009

Would'a, could'a, should'a... Fact remains, Harper (and his party) is on record as thinking it was a great idea when the shoe was on the other foot. The only folks who don't see a perfect parallel are those who are blinded by the guiding light.

There was no coalition agreement to govern between the CPC and the Bloc; there was perhaps an implicit agreement to trigger an election.

Canadian Blue · March 8, 2009

There was no coalition agreement to govern between the CPC and the Bloc; there was perhaps an implicit agreement to trigger an election.

Quiet, you'll anger the malcontents.

Progressive Tory · March 8, 2009

There was no coalition agreement to govern between the CPC and the Bloc; there was perhaps an implicit agreement to trigger an election.

Actually that's not true at all.

Harper's Coalition was at the throne speech.

On September 9th, 2004 Harper, Layton and Duceppe signed the following letter to the Governor General:

“As leaders of the opposition parties, we are well aware that, given the Liberal minority government, you could be asked by the Prime Minister to dissolve the 38th Parliament at any time should the House of Commons fail to support some part of the government’s program. 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.[/b] Your attention to this matter is appreciated.”

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 he says "the opposition parties, who together constitute a majority," it had to include the Bloc, or he would still just have 118 and not a majority.

In Adrienne's Clarkson's book, she says that it was Paul Martin who came to her asking for an election to avoid making Stephen Harper Prime Minister. She refused and told him to fix the throne speech. He did so by promising Harper that he would allow Canada to become part of the U.S. 'Star Wars' project.

The coalition threat remained on the table until the 2006 election.

Edited March 8, 2009 by Progressive Tory

Progressive Tory · March 8, 2009

Quiet, you'll anger the malcontents.

Quiet Mr. Harper. Wouldn't want to lose the few supporters you have by reminding them of your hypocrisy.

Canadian Blue · March 8, 2009

In Adrienne's Clarkson's book, she says that it was Paul Martin who came to her asking for an election to avoid making Stephen Harper Prime Minister. She refused and told him to fix the throne speech. He did so by promising Harper that he would allow Canada to become part of the U.S. 'Star Wars' project.

Mind giving a cite for this. Needless to say I find it hard to believe that both Gilles Duceppe and Jack Layton would go into a coalition if Stephen Harper were to join the Star Wars project. They don't seem to be big advocates of it, so if their was a coalition government Harper would have to move hard left in order to govern.

Quiet Mr. Harper. Wouldn't want to lose the few supporters you have by reminding them of your hypocrisy.

I'm not really supportive of Harper, I just don't think he's the evil child eating monster that you make him out to be. But I'm sure that once Michael Ignatieff becomes Prime Minister are streets will be paved with gold and the government can solve everyone's personal problems. Mind you I still find you a hilarious poster, more or less because you have this absurd inclination that hypocrisy is never to be found amongst the opposition benches.

Be skeptical and think for yourself once in a while. Especially if you can't figure out that politicians often play political games and use doublespeak all the time.

Edited March 8, 2009 by Canadian Blue

Progressive Tory · March 9, 2009

"Mind giving a cite for this. Needless to say I find it hard to believe that both Gilles Duceppe and Jack Layton would go into a coalition if Stephen Harper were to join the Star Wars project. They don't seem to be big advocates of it, so if their was a coalition government Harper would have to move hard left in order to govern."

All parties accept throne speech amendment

"After a week of negotiations, all parties in the House of Commons have agreed on a Conservative amendment to the throne speech that includes a vote on the U.S. missile defence program."

Perhaps the vote on missile defense was initiated by the Bloc who obviously opposed it or Harper who wanted it. Can't find a record of the vote but Paul Martin announced in February 2005, that we would not be involved. However, soon after 2006 election, Harper re-visited the idea. From Reuters:

"Will Missile Defence Decision Be Overturned?

Will the newly elected minority Conservative government undo the previous Liberal government's decision on missile defence? Former Prime Minister Paul Martin announced in February 2005 that Canada would not participate in the US program. However, during the recent election, Conservative party leader Stephen Harper pledged to reopen talks if they were requested by the Bush administration, and to bring any agreement before Parliament for a free vote. All three opposition parties oppose missile defence, which indicates that the Harper government could face a humiliating defeat in a vote."

As to baby-eating Stehen Harper, I have never engaged in that nonsense. I don't find him scarey at all. I've never liked him but never hated him until this past December when he threatened national Unity to save his job, in one of the most hypocritical campaigns I've ever seen.

Igantieff will not pave the streets with gold, and I'll still complain about the gov't when he becomes Prime minister. Harper no longer deserves the title.

Canadian Blue · March 9, 2009

Perhaps the vote on missile defense was initiated by the Bloc who obviously opposed it or Harper who wanted it. Can't find a record of the vote but Paul Martin announced in February 2005, that we would not be involved. However, soon after 2006 election, Harper re-visited the idea. From Reuters:

So what you're basically saying is that the coalition would have never happened had Harper put it to a vote and the claim was complete BS.

As to baby-eating Stehen Harper, I have never engaged in that nonsense. I don't find him scarey at all. I've never liked him but never hated him until this past December when he threatened national Unity to save his job, in one of the most hypocritical campaigns I've ever seen.

He threatened national unity by calling a separatist party separatist. By the way if you must know alot of people out west were pissed off by the coalition idea and at the time the polls had the CPC at around 50%. Perhaps Canadian's didn't want a coalition.

Igantieff will not pave the streets with gold, and I'll still complain about the gov't when he becomes Prime minister. Harper no longer deserves the title.

So you just hate Harper and that's about the extent of your political principles.

Edited March 9, 2009 by Canadian Blue

capricorn · March 9, 2009

He threatened national unity by calling a separatist party separatist.

I agree CB, it's ludicrous. Harper calls the Bloc what they are, separatists. It is the existence of the Bloc that is a threat to national unity, not Harper saying the obvious. I haven't heard Ignatieff call out his Liberal Senator, George Baker, for advocating a Bloc Newfoundland Labrador.

Appearing two days later on CTV, Mr. Baker hardly backed away. If Stephen Harper's Conservatives pursue a "vendetta" against Newfoundland Premier Danny Williams, "a new political party in Newfoundland which would be comparable to the Bloc" would be "inevitable" within three years' time. And would "the Bloc Newfoundland and Labrador" press for a sovereignty referendum? "Well, how long do you take it? ... We're not going to put up with this. The time is up. If they keep doing this for another three years, what other option would there be?"
----

Michael Ignatieff, the Liberal Leader, has taken a strong stand against regional fractionalization, most notably by trying to bridge the gap between Eastern Canada and Alberta. To permit a Liberal senator to fuel the fires of Newfoundland nationalism - somewhat as he did, to a lesser extent, when he let his Newfoundland MPs break from the rest of their party on a budget vote - undermines the credibility of his message. Mr. Baker should be repudiated, not indulged.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...TPStory/Comment

When will we hear Ignatieff say that separatist parties are divisive and harmful to national unity? We won't. Because if he did that would mean Ignatieff controls his caucus and senate members, and commands discipline within his ranks. He does neither. Add to that his push for popularity in Quebec.