Harper's in deep, deep trouble

[August1991]

Even Mulroney had Lougheed and Davis to tell him when things were bad.

Happy birthday Mr. Harper and hope someone is giving you some good advice on dealing with the various fault lines developing in your party and the government.

Brian Mulroney had a big ego and needed someone forceful to tell him when he was wrong.

Stephen Harper is a different person. For one, he's a Westerner.

----

This piece is only of interest because L. Ian Macdonald wrote it. He writes of loyalty. Is he loyal to Brian Mulroney or the Conservative Party? He offers this answer:

Loyalty is a big part of Mulroney's makeup, and it cut him to the quick to let his friends go. But at a higher level, he understood that a prime minster has no friends, only interests to defend, beginning with a party in government.

Dobbin, Harper is not in any more trouble than he was a year ago. He still doesn't have a majority government. His sole advantage now is that he needs only the support of one of three opposition parties to stay in power.

[jdobbin]

Brian Mulroney had a big ego and needed someone forceful to tell him when he was wrong.

Stephen Harper is a different person. For one, he's a Westerner.

And that makes the difference? He has no ego and doesn't need someone to tell him when he is wrong?

Harper's problem is that he thinks he is the smartest man in the room and doesn't need counsel from anyone. The problem is that his own partisan nature keeps him from the success that he wants which is a majority government.

This piece is only of interest because L. Ian Macdonald wrote it. He writes of loyalty. Is he loyal to Brian Mulroney or the Conservative Party? He offers this answer:

Since Macdonald has written about Mulroney, warts and all, I don't think he has the same loyalty has say...Fred Doucet who used the phrase "I don't recall" so many times that even the judge was incredulous that someone would not remember a $90,000 commission or what was done to get it.

Dobbin, Harper is not in any more trouble than he was a year ago. He still doesn't have a majority government. His sole advantage now is that he needs only the support of one of three opposition parties to stay in power.

Harper's problem is that the Liberals don't necessarily feel the need to dodge confidence votes which means that Harper has to form a coalition with either the separatists or the socialists. Think that is got to hurt. Already there is grumbling in his party about betrayal of principle.

[August1991]

Harper's problem is that the Liberals don't necessarily feel the need to dodge confidence votes which means that Harper has to form a coalition with either the separatists or the socialists.

Coalition? Dion had to form a coalition. Harper does not need a coalition.

Harper needs only the support of one party to stay in power. He can pick and choose among the three opposition parties, according to the issue and whether it's a confidence vote, to win one party's support.

For someone like Harper, it's almost better than having a majority. I wouldn't be surprised if he'll be PM until 2012.

Edited May 2, 2009 by August1991

[jdobbin]

Coalition? Dion had to form a coalition. Harper does not need a coalition.

Really? So he needs to do nothing, absolutely nothing to form common cause with the separatists or socialists?

Harper needs only the support of one party to stay in power. He can pick and choose among the three opposition parties, according to the issue and whether it's a confidence vote, to win one party's support.

Sounds to me like a coalition.

For someone like Harper, it's almost better than having a majority. I wouldn't be surprised if he'll be PM until 2012.

I'll be surprised if he hasn't tried to get a job outside of Canada by then.

[August1991]

Really? So he needs to do nothing, absolutely nothing to form common cause with the separatists or socialists?

Harper has nothing to do. Layton and Duceppe will come to him.

Dobbin, look at the polling numbers in Quebec and in Canada and draw conclusions. Neither Duceppe nor Layton want an election soon.

For Harper, the fun will be boxing in Ignatieff (like trapping a snake in your hands) so that Harper doesn't need Duceppe or Layton on a confidence vote. Sometimes, Harper can get Ignatieff's support!

Let me be plain. This is not a coalition. The Conservatives need only the support of one of three opposition parties when a confidence vote is requested.

----

With this said, I think Harper should still aim to win a majority government. All things considered, IMHO, Canada would be a better country if Stephen Harper had a majority in our federal parliament.

Edited May 2, 2009 by August1991

[jdobbin]

Harper has nothing to do. Layton and Duceppe will come to him.

Really? Is that why Tories are asking the separatists and the socialists what they want to have them vote with the government?

Dobbin, look at the polling numbers in Quebec and in Canada and draw conclusions. Neither Duceppe nor Layton want an election soon.

So you think that Harper is not forming common bond, a coalition with them to prevent the Liberals from becoming government?

For Harper, the fun will be boxing in Ignatieff (like trapping a snake in your hands) so that Harper doesn't need Duceppe or Layton on a confidence vote. Sometimes, Harper can get Ignatieff's support!

The fun will be seeing the NDP and BQ trying to vote for the government after years of voting without consequence against the government for years. The fun will be seeing Harper try to form a coalition with separatists and socialists to stay in power.

Let me be plain. This is not a coalition. The Conservatives need only the support of one of three opposition parties when a confidence vote is requested.

Let me plain: this is a coalition of separatists, socialists and conservatives.

That is how it will be framed. That is how it will look and the longer Harper or Duceppe or Layton try to maintain this alliance that the Tories themselves derided, the worse it will be for them.

With this said, I think Harper should still aim to win a majority government. All things considered, IMHO, Canada would be a better country if Stephen Harper had a majority in our federal parliament.

Harper has had two kicks at the can. Once against a weakened party, the second against a weak leader of a weakened party. What do you think he can say or so to make Quebec think that he really didn't mean to call the BQ and by extension all those who voted BQ: separatists?

What do you think he is going to do to do convince Canadians he is better at running the country if it is in deficit? He'll run on cuts? On new taxes?

[Molly]

"...Canada would be a better country if Stephen Harper had a majority in our federal parliament."

*shudder*

Edited May 2, 2009 by Molly

[Leafless]

Harper has nothing to do. Layton and Duceppe will come to him.

Let me be plain. This is not a coalition. The Conservatives need only the support of one of three opposition parties when a confidence vote is requested.

A coalition party is two or more parties combined.

So if the Conservatives = 1 party and for instance the NDP is the other single party you are talking about is a total of two parties.

This is the definition of a coalition government, two or more parties combined.

Edited May 2, 2009 by Leafless

[Wild Bill]

So you think that Harper is not forming common bond, a coalition with them to prevent the Liberals from becoming government?

The fun will be seeing the NDP and BQ trying to vote for the government after years of voting without consequence against the government for years. The fun will be seeing Harper try to form a coalition with separatists and socialists to stay in power.

Let me plain: this is a coalition of separatists, socialists and conservatives.

Jdobbin, you keep saying "coalition" as if getting support to prop up a minority government is equivalent to what Dion, Duceppe and Layton tried to do.

I don't see it! Minority governments have always used support from one or a number of opposition parties to stay in power. What Dion proposed was quite different. He would have OUSTED a ruling party by means of an opposition coalition! The party in power would have been gone, without an election.

If this is the same thing then I'm afraid I'm missing something. Perhaps you could explain it a bit better.

[jdobbin]

Jdobbin, you keep saying "coalition" as if getting support to prop up a minority government is equivalent to what Dion, Duceppe and Layton tried to do.

Id Harper works with the BQ or NDP, he is working with socialists and separatists.

I don't see it! Minority governments have always used support from one or a number of opposition parties to stay in power. What Dion proposed was quite different. He would have OUSTED a ruling party by means of an opposition coalition! The party in power would have been gone, without an election.

Sorry, it is a coalition if they are working together, the very thing that Harper said was an anathema to him.

If this is the same thing then I'm afraid I'm missing something. Perhaps you could explain it a bit better.

Conservatives + NDP + BQ = Coalition. If they work together, they are in a coalition. The Tories should call an election before they do that.

[Oleg Bach]

Harper may be in trouble because he tries to serve two masters - big buisness and the common person - as they say he will grow to love one master and hate the other - his true master are the common citizens - and they are very informed these days...The days of surrogate presidents and Prime Ministers may be coming to a close...never underestimate the mind of every day human beings - they may surprise you...This is the information age and not the 60s.

[ironstone]

The deck is certainly stacked against Harper and the Conservatives.It is very difficult to get your message out when the media is decidedly left-wing.Quebec will always be a problem for the Conservatives as well.Apparently he hasn't been giving enough money and power to satisfy their insatiable demands.

Harper and Iggy are both brainiacs to be sure,but Iggy usually gets portrayed in a much better light than Harper.

[normanchateau]

Harper to Liberals: don't trigger election now:

http://www.680news.com/news/national/more....tent=n012664922

Hilarious. This from a clown of a Prime Minister who triggered an unwanted election in October, violating his own fixed election date legislation. His hypocrisy knows no bounds.

[Leafless]

So you think that Harper is not forming common bond, a coalition with them to prevent the Liberals from becoming government?

Mr. Harper denies this and is sticking to his guns what he said previously about not finding any common ground with the NDP or the Bloc.

But he said he had doubts about finding common ground with the NDP or the Bloc Québécois.

"Somebody (is) saying that I would consider some kind of pact with the Bloc Québécois to avoid an election," Harper said at a Conservative party gathering at a farm in Edgeley, Sask.

"That is absolutely untrue. We listen to all members of Parliament. The Bloc Québécois stands for the breakup of this country. We will not govern this country in a pact or arrangement with the Bloc Québécois. We've been clear on that for years. I don't know where that's coming from, but there is no contemplation of that, let alone possibility of that

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/business/fp/H...6050/story.html

[jdobbin]

Mr. Harper denies this and is sticking to his guns what he said previously about not finding any common ground with the NDP or the Bloc.

Then if we do see Harper working with the NDP and BQ in the next weeks and months, you will agree it is a coalition?

[Wild Bill]

Conservatives + NDP + BQ = Coalition. If they work together, they are in a coalition. The Tories should call an election before they do that.

You're stretching here with your partisanship.

If we follow your premise to its logical conclusion then we should never have had any minority governments at all!

[noahbody]

Id Harper works with the BQ or NDP, he is working with socialists and separatists.

If he works with the Liberals, he is working with organized crime.

[madmax]

Then if we do see Harper working with the NDP and BQ in the next weeks and months, you will agree it is a coalition?

No, No more then the "coalition" was a "coup". Of course the CPC got themselves into this mess by using misleading labels and forcing the public to believe CPC spin doctoring. This nonsense has painted the CPC into a corner.

The only "formal" coalition as of recent was the Document signed by the MPs of the LPC and the MPs of the NDP. Clearly a formal document means nothing to the LPC and their word and signatures are to be taken with a grain of salt. If opportunity is involved the LPC will be there. If principles are involved, its a whole different kettle of fish.

Today the "Informal" coalition is one between the CPC and the LPC and they are on a short term, case by case, voting structure with each party more focused on the latest polling data then the job at hand. In any minority government more then ONE party is required in order to get legislation passed. The fact is that the LPC have voted with the CPC some 60 times, maybe more, and have not voted against the CPC on any government bill.

If the LPC choose to vote against the CPC, and it will happen, it will be at a time that the LPC can see an "opportunity" in it for themselves, not for the country. Therefore the LPC will be focused on a defeat of the government, in hopes of having an Election.

Now, that leaves the other two parties. The BQ have been the mistress of the CPC for quite sometime, however, since the October election, the CPC went to great lengths to call their former mistress a whore.

If the BQ return to propping up the CPC, then perhaps they might earn that latter title. Except that it would be difficult to see the BQ propping up a party that is TANKING in Quebec. The CPC having shown so much promise in Quebec prior to portraying the Province of Quebec as a leech. The CPC having gave gifts to the PRovince, then shit on the Province for taking those gifts. Harper built his bridge into Quebec, and should be given credit for doing so. He also burnt that bridge, and I don't believe it is reparable for the foreseeable term in office.

That leaves the NDP.

The NDP may have wanted to work with the CPC on various occassions, but found the Prime Minister to be "untrustworthy". Unfortuneately after the last election, there was hope for a new direction from the Prime Minister to work with the other parties as he didn't receive his desired majority. The whole reason for the election exercise was about "Harper" and not about governing. Pretty shameful. However, the Prime Minister choose NOT to work with any of the parties, and forced them into a corner.

Oh, but the LPC are not to be trusted either, and the NDP , in need of a partner, offered to help the LPC out of their dilemna. (Possible extermination). Thats were the "written" documents of the coalition come into effect. Except that the LPC being the LPC, choose to use the coalition leverage and then abandonment for their own necessary survival. 1) they needed the coalition to survive 2) they needed to drop the coalition to grow.

Good politics, bad for credibility in the house.

Bad for the NDP, in hopes of being heard or seeing change.

Today, We have two parties in fear of governing. The CPC are not governing, but reacting. I am not certain why they want to be in government, as they are doing a pretty shitty job of it. The LPC don't want to be in government and are proving that by not saying anything on anything, and have yet to develop a policy on anything. The purpose of the LPC is to wait, and wait and say nothing, but exist as the government in waiting.

I believe the CPC will be prepared when the LPC find the missing component between their legs to call an election. The LPC don't have it now, and are behaving no differently then the DION Liberals did when in parliment. The tactics are the same. However, the LPC are trying to build a party, and pulling down the government doesn't build a party, so don't expect the LPC to do anything stupid like last year, when Dion finally started talking about election, Mr Harper gave him one.

Today the yapping is coming from the media with fabricated stories, no facts to back up their bullshit. Infact, its like creating gossip yourself and then reporting it as fact.

As for the NDP, I expect them to live with an election rather then prop up the CPC. There have been numerous occassions for the two parties to work together, and it just doesn't happen. For every vote that the LPC supports the CPC , the NDP does not. The LPC has supported the CPC 100% of the time, and the NDP has voted against the CPC 100% of the time.

I cannot see this changing, even for one confidence vote in which the government would be voted down.

The NDP is a party (Federally) of principles and they will sink or swim on them. Expect the NDP to circle the wagons and fight to save all the seats they currently have. I expect no growth from the NDP in the next election, under the current conditions.

The party with problems is definitely the CPC. Money is not going to be enough to change the direction of the Canadian Voters. The CPC are going to lose a number of seats, but retain some of the recent pickups in 2008. But CPC losses in Quebec are going to be bloody.

Next election will be another minority government. It could be LPC, my bet, or CPC with an economic miracle not on the horizon, I don't think they are going anywhere but down in seats.

Therefore with the next minority government, and the LPC and CPC in near equal seat counts, I would not be surprised to see the NDP working with either untrustworthy party in the next government.

But before that happens, one of those two parties will cut a deal with the BQ and secure that Majority.

Back to square one.

[jdobbin]

You're stretching here with your partisanship.

Just pointing out that the logic that Harper had on this to begin with.

If we follow your premise to its logical conclusion then we should never have had any minority governments at all!

If Harper doesn't want to be seen as getting assistance from the Bloc or the NDP, he will call an election before trying to win their support for any confidence votes. Otherwise, he is working with separatists and socialists.

[jdobbin]

If he works with the Liberals, he is working with organized crime.

If you say so. Then Harper had no problems letting the Liberals support them in confidence votes. You voted Tory so ergo, you voted for a party that is connected to crime and therefore you must be sympathetic to crime.

[normanchateau]

Then Harper had no problems letting the Liberals support them in confidence votes. You voted Tory so ergo, you voted for a party that is connected to crime and therefore you must be sympathetic to crime.

Didn't the Liberals and Harper recently agree not to pursue the question of Harper's involvement in the Cadman affair? And didn't Harper drop his lawsuit against the Liberals for claiming that he did what he did?

This despite the fact that there was an audio tape which Harper's own audio expert confirmed was unaltered and confirmed that Harper knew of the bribe. I wonder why Harper makes deals with parties linked to organized crime. Perhaps to draw attention away from his own alleged illegal activities.

[Leafless]

Then if we do see Harper working with the NDP and BQ in the next weeks and months, you will agree it is a coalition?

What are you talking about.

A minority government can obtain support for a piece of legislating from other parties compared to making a binding agreement with one or more parties that forms a coalition government.

There is nothing wrong with gaining support from other parties to pass a piece of legislation.

This is not the same as forming a coalition government.

Edited May 2, 2009 by Leafless

[Smallc]

This is not the same as forming a coalition government.

To be fair, this may not be a coalition, but they aren't just going to be getting support for their policies. By the look of things, they're going to be adopting BQ policy. It looks like they are about to spend an extra $32B over the next two years. It looks like they are now about to sell out to the people that they not so long ago were labeling as separatists (and it's interesting, the Bloc seems less and less interested in separation with every day that goes by....I don't even think it's a top 5 goal anymore...hell, I'm not even sure if Duceppe even wants to separate anymore the way he's been talking). I can see a split in the future of the Conservative party if this keeps on.

[normanchateau]

There is nothing wrong with gaining support from other parties to pass a piece of legislation.

Given the ideological differences between Harper, the socialists and the separatists, I wonder what that legislation will be. Anti-election legislation perhaps?

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Harper needs to do something to make him look really smart and very much in control of this nation. He has an opportunity before him, whether or not he does anything with it is another story.

Chrysler is not belly up in Canada, but the parent company is in the states. If creditors hold things up seeking big bucks instead of pennies on the dollar, the Canadian portion of the company will have to bite the dust. As it stands everything is or will be shutdown for an undefined period of time. So it would not be just be the CAW guys on the street, but a lot of parts guys too.