Harper's in deep, deep trouble

[normanchateau]

Harper needs to do something to make him look really smart and very much in control of this nation.

I suspect he's considered those options already.

[jdobbin]

What are you talking about.

Think I am being pretty straight forward: Harper is working with separatists and socialists to stay in power.

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.

Harper is doing more than that. He is supporting legislation that the NDP and BQ want which means he is working with them.

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

However, Harper said that he would not work with the socialists and separatists to sling to power. Looks like that is exactly what he is doing.

This is not the same as forming a coalition government.

Harper is just forming his coalition on a ad hoc basis.

[normanchateau]

However, Harper said that he would not work with the socialists and separatists to sling to power. Looks like that is exactly what he is doing.

Another addition to Harper's list of broken promises:

http://trustbreaker.freehostia.com/

[jdobbin]

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.

And that means any attempt at working with socialists or separatists will be regarded as evil.

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.

The NDP and BQ are free to vote against the government each and every time from here on in to continue to embarrass the Liberals as they have in the past. In fact, I think the Liberals are daring them to do it. Let's see what principles are left then.

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.

Very true. However, the Tories believed they had the Liberals over a barrel since 2006 and thought the Liberals would cave each and every time which is what they did. Now, they can pres their luck if they want but they won't be able to count on the Liberals caving anymore.

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.

The way our system is set up, the government and the Opposition can call the election whenever they want. It is up to the Governor-General and the electorate whether to punish anyone for the actual election.

If the NDP believes that elections should be truly fixed, they will propose a Constitutional amendment and not allow confidence votes so that four years means four years.

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.

And by extension the people who voted BQ.

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.

The Tories can cave to the BQ and risk the wrath of his own party. It will probably not see him make gains in Quebec. The BQ will benefit.

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.

I think either party will have difficulty working together since the pressure will come from within each part not to do it.

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.

Blame proroguing for the decision. It is not entirely clear that the Governor General would have asked the Opposition to form the government based on what her previous decision was. Experts are still scratching their heads at the one.

Good politics, bad for credibility in the house.

Bad for everyone and that is why the lasting impression is that Harper is a sociopath. You can't turn your back on hin or he bites like a rabid dog.

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

Bad for Layton who showed poor form afterward.

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.

Any policy the Liberals are likely to discuss will become the issue jumped on. You can't even mull hypotheticals without running into trouble.

Policy will likely wait till the election.

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.

The NDP and BQ will vote no always and the moment they don't, they will be thought to lack balls.

The Liberals will vote no when they can win and on an issue where the BQ and NDP will have a hard time voting yes or abstaining.

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.

That isn't much different from any other time.

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.

Which means the minute they vote for the government, it is over for the NDP.

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.

We'll see if the NDP can hold their seats in parts of Ontario.

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.

I just keep wondering if the losses will mostly be to the BQ. They are great in an election.

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.

The federal NDP are more happy as an Opposition party. Even Bill Blaikie got tired of that.

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

Back to square one.

My guess is that the Liberals might simply say early how they will vote and let the NDP or BQ make the decision on the election.

[August1991]

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.

Madmax, your analysis is all fine and good but it leaves out a glaring detail: poll numbers. If we were to have an election today, both the NDP and the BQ would both lose a large number of seats. Neither party wants an election now and so both are willing to negotiate with Harper.

To stay in power, Harper needs only the votes of one of the three parties.

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.

Why would the NDP or the BQ want an election now in which they would certainly lose seats and likely lose their power of influence over the government?

I can see many reasons why both the NDP and the Bloc would prefer to avoid an election now, particularly if it means that they may have some leverage over the government's agenda.

Think I am being pretty straight forward: Harper is working with separatists and socialists to stay in power.

...

Harper is just forming his coalition on a ad hoc basis.

Ad hoc coalition? WTF?

Look, Harper has to work with the MPs sent to Ottawa. Is that a startling revelation?

It's comical to see people criticize Harper for being dictatorial and cold-blooded and then see the same people criticize Harper because he can get along with socialists and separatists. Which is it? Is Harper unfriendly or too friendly? [i prefer Norman's form of criticsm: "Harper's a moron." It avoids any need for justification and is at least coherent.]

----

To defeat Harper and provoke an election, all three opposition parties have to "form a coalition" and vote together. Two of those three parties do not want an election now. You can do the rest of the proof on your own.

Edited May 3, 2009 by August1991

[Smallc]

It's comical to see people criticize Harper for being dictatorial and cold-blooded and then see the same people criticize Harper because he can get along with socialists and separatists.

It wouldn't be anything at all if he hadn't make such a big deal out of it in December.

[jbg]

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Harper...7784/story.html

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.

Gee whiz, you've gone from predicting a thumping majority (the variationon "Harper scary") to thumping for a vote to defeat him. You will never be reconciled to the January 2006 election. Edited May 3, 2009 by jbg

[August1991]

It wouldn't be anything at all if he hadn't make such a big deal out of it in December.

In December, Dion signed a formal coalition statement with the NDP and Bloc and offered cabinet seats to the NDP. Harper has done no such thing and, as Dobbin says, Harper is treating the "coalition" on an ad hoc basis. (IOW, each vote stands on its own.)

But smallc, let's forget these technical niceties. Who really cares what Harper said in December? The fact is that the Bloc and the NDP don't want an election now so they'll come to Harper to say what he can do to get their support. Harper can slice and dice this opposition to stay in power.

If Dobbin, the Liberals, Ignatieff or even the ghost of Mackenzie King wants to accuse Harper of hypocrisy, so what? It changes nothing. Welcome to the wonderful world of politics.

[jbg]

If Dobbin, the Liberals, Ignatieff or even the ghost of Mackenzie King wants to accuse Harper of hypocrisy, so what? It changes nothing. Welcome to the wonderful world of politics.

It's not hypocrisy anyway.

There is a world of difference between lining up other parties for support in confidence votes (as any minority government must, just ask Joe Clark) and inserting other parties into your Cabinet by agreement. That agreement would likely force an election if the PM determines that the designated Cabinet minister is not right for the job.

Comparing a functioning minority government to a coalition government is apples to oranges.

[jdobbin]

Ad hoc coalition? WTF?

Yup. Harper working with separatists and socialists. He should call an election before that happens.

Look, Harper has to work with the MPs sent to Ottawa. Is that a startling revelation?

Nope. He should call an election before stooping to do that. In his own words, no one elected him to work with separatists and socialists in a coalition.

It's comical to see people criticize Harper for being dictatorial and cold-blooded and then see the same people criticize Harper because he can get along with socialists and separatists. Which is it? Is Harper unfriendly or too friendly? [i prefer Norman's form of criticsm: "Harper's a moron." It avoids any need for justification and is at least coherent.]

It is comical to see people say that Harper should work with socialists and separatists and that when Liberals do it, it is the end of the democracy. Harper said it was bad so it must be bad. Call an election before doing that.

To defeat Harper and provoke an election, all three opposition parties have to "form a coalition" and vote together. Two of those three parties do not want an election now. You can do the rest of the proof on your own.

So if two of the parties form a coalition to stay in power, it is a coalition, right?

[jdobbin]

In December, Dion signed a formal coalition statement with the NDP and Bloc and offered cabinet seats to the NDP. Harper has done no such thing and, as Dobbin says, Harper is treating the "coalition" on an ad hoc basis. (IOW, each vote stands on its own.)

I believe Harper said he would not work with socialists or separatists. He should keep that promise.

But smallc, let's forget these technical niceties. Who really cares what Harper said in December? The fact is that the Bloc and the NDP don't want an election now so they'll come to Harper to say what he can do to get their support. Harper can slice and dice this opposition to stay in power.

And form a coalition to stay in power. Layton doesn't need a cabinet spot of Harper adopts his policies lock, stock and smoking barrel.

If Dobbin, the Liberals, Ignatieff or even the ghost of Mackenzie King wants to accuse Harper of hypocrisy, so what? It changes nothing. Welcome to the wonderful world of politics.

I think Harper will have a big problem if it looks like he is working with the separatists or socialists to stay in power. I think Layton will have the same problem with his own members if his party starts supporting the Tories.

It is possible the BQ could support some confidence motions for the Tories but it will come with a heavy cost for the Tories. Make no mistake.

[Smallc]

Who really cares what Harper said in December?

People who see he's a hypocrite. It may not be a coalition, but it seems he is about to adopt separatist policies.

[jbg]

Yup. Harper working with separatists and socialists. He should call an election before that happens.....Nope. He should call an election before stooping to do that. In his own words, no one elected him to work with separatists and socialists in a coalition.

Are "separatists and socialists" holders of government portfolios under Harper? Which ones?

[Smallc]

Are "separatists and socialists" holders of government portfolios under Harper? Which ones?

The separatists were never holders of portfolios under Dion's plan, yet the Conservatives claimed they were equal parties in the coalition. They can't have it both ways. If they start adopting Bloc policies (spending more money and making changes that the Bloc wants) then they are working with the separatists...of that there is no question.

Of course, I don't have a problem with Harper working with duly elected members of parliament...but he should...and he doesn't seem to..and that is hypocrisy.

Edited May 3, 2009 by Smallc

[August1991]

I believe Harper said he would not work with socialists or separatists. He should keep that promise.

Why? The Liberals never keep their promises and they get elected.

It is absurd for a Liberal to accuse Harper of being hypocritical. If you look in the dictionary for the word hypocritical, there's the symbol of the Liberal Party of Canada.

It is possible the BQ could support some confidence motions for the Tories but it will come with a heavy cost for the Tories. Make no mistake.

What cost?

At most, Harper will help the BQ and prevent the Liberals from gaining more seats in Quebec.

People who see he's a hypocrite. It may not be a coalition, but it seems he is about to adopt separatist policies.

No one in English or French Canada is going to think for two seconds that Stephen Harper is a separatist.

-----

Dobbin and Smallc, you don't seem to accept that someone else (Harper) can play politics the way your beloved leaders (Chretien) have.

[Smallc]

No one in English or French Canada is going to think for two seconds that Stephen Harper is a separatist.

Do you think they thought Dion was a separatist?

Dobbin and Smallc, you don't seem to accept that someone else (Harper) can play politics the way your beloved leaders (Chretien) have.

He can't. The Canadian voters gave Chretien a majority. They haven't given that to Harper.

Edited May 3, 2009 by Smallc

[jdobbin]

Why? The Liberals never keep their promises and they get elected.

So you think there will be no cost to Harper for working with socialists and separatists? I think his own party might make him pay for that, don't you?

It is absurd for a Liberal to accuse Harper of being hypocritical. If you look in the dictionary for the word hypocritical, there's the symbol of the Liberal Party of Canada.

I didn't day anything about being hypocritical. I said that Harper said he shouldn't work with socialists and separatists. He has painted himself in a corner. The NDP and BQ are in similar corners. I can't see how the NDP could vote for the Tories on confidence without seriously degrading their support. The BQ will have a hard time as well unless Harper gives away the farm. Do you think he is going to give away the farm?

What cost?

Huge amounts of money to Quebec that may not earn him any votes in Quebec but could drain them away elsewhere.

At most, Harper will help the BQ and prevent the Liberals from gaining more seats in Quebec.

As I've said, if Harper loses a number of seats in Quebec, he may in fact lose the next election. He certainly will not win a majority if that is the hand he wishes to play. He will probably resign with such a vote or be asked to resign. Either way, not a victory.

So there is the cost.

No one in English or French Canada is going to think for two seconds that Stephen Harper is a separatist.

No, just that he said he would not work with separatists.

It is up to him if he has to form a coalition with either the NDP or BQ to stay in power.

Dobbin and Smallc, you don't seem to accept that someone else (Harper) can play politics the way your beloved leaders (Chretien) have.

I have no problem with it at all. You seem to think that Harper has everyone just where he wants them. That this is a brilliant strategy and that he will sail into a majority government over it. I think not. I think he has painted himself in a corner with his hard stance and now he faces not only a tough economy but an uncompromising position that will only seem desperate if has to work with parties that he said he wouldn't.

[noahbody]

So you think there will be no cost to Harper for working with socialists and separatists? I think his own party might make him pay for that, don't you?

If he formed a coalition agreement and included Layton in his cabinet, I'd say definitely yes. Otherwise, he's governing like he has a minority. Since he's often been criticized for governing like he has a majority, I would think this would be welcomed news.

I really don't think Harper is that concerned about political cost. He already sacrificed any hope he had to form a majority and eat babies to keep Dion's coalition out. That would have been a disaster for Canada.

[jdobbin]

If he formed a coalition agreement and included Layton in his cabinet, I'd say definitely yes.

If he follows Layton's policy advice, he will pay a price. His own party would choke on it.

Otherwise, he's governing like he has a minority. Since he's often been criticized for governing like he has a majority, I would think this would be welcomed news.

The time for acting prime ministerial has passed Harper. He has written off Quebec and any attempt he makes to remedy that will be looked at as a victory for the BQ and will hurt him with western voters.

I don't know if he could do enough to get the NDP to side with him and if the NDP did side with him, they'd both pay a price.

No, I think all three of the parties in question have taken pretty opposite views and any attempt to form a coalition on policies and to keep the Tories in office will likely be regarded for what it is: desperateness.

I really don't think Harper is that concerned about political cost. He already sacrificed any hope he had to form a majority and eat babies to keep Dion's coalition out. That would have been a disaster for Canada.

Instead he will try and form his own coalition if he can. His only hope to continue to have the Liberals prop him up but he dare not act out like he wants to.

Harper's only hope is that the economy turns quickly or that disaster strikes his enemies. Either are possible but I think a confrontation is bound to come soon and the timing might not be to Harper's liking.

[noahbody]

Harper's only hope is that the economy turns quickly

Of course. As Liz said, Canadians are stupid. They'll vote for the Canadian Jesus I'm certain of that. Hell, quite a few voted for Dion and his green shift. If I recall, Jesus thought that was a good idea.

[normanchateau]

It wouldn't be anything at all if he hadn't make such a big deal out of it in December.

And when he did make a big deal out of it, Canadians appeared to agree with him.

Three polls done in the immediate aftermath of Harper denouncing the Liberals forming a coalition with separatists and socialists had Harper sitting in majority territory. The Strategic Counsel had the Tories at 45 percent nationally, Ipsos Reid had them at 46 percent, and an Ekos poll gave the Tories a crushing 20 point lead over the Liberals.

Sure, Harper can claim that it's not "really" a coalition with the separatists. Dion made the same claim before his party dumped him. Who would have thought that Harper would be using Dion for lessons in strategy and tactics?

[Wild Bill]

I have no problem with it at all. You seem to think that Harper has everyone just where he wants them. That this is a brilliant strategy and that he will sail into a majority government over it. I think not. I think he has painted himself in a corner with his hard stance and now he faces not only a tough economy but an uncompromising position that will only seem desperate if has to work with parties that he said he wouldn't.

Correct me if I'm wrong jdobbin but your argument seems to be that Harper has done the same thing that he accused the Liberals of doing and that this may translate into a loss of his support.

Even if he did, why would it? Any marketing man knows that it's never enough to disparage the competition. You have to also give a reason why YOUR product or service would be better!

That's not the case here at all. Should Harper supporters abandon him because he's acting like a Liberal and then VOTE Liberal? That makes no sense at all!

We've still been given no reason to think that the Liberals would be better. We still have a LOT of bad Liberal history to influence our decisions! There are still a lot of people who remember Jane Stewart and the HRDC, the gun registry cost over-runs, Shawinigate, all those canoe museums, Adscam and on and on and on. There may be some new people in the forefront of the Liberal party but that will not entirely put everything that has gone before down the memory hole. If Liberals can drag up Mulroney's perhaps chequered past then they themselves are fair game.

I'd be the first to agree with you that Harper is a flawed leader. So what? He may smell but he still smells less to me than the Liberal party.

There is always a slump in the polls for incumbent governments between elections and a rise for Opposition parties. The only thing that matters is how people feel once the writ is dropped.

The Liberals need to stop the emphasis on cutting down their opponent and coming up with positive reasons why they're a better choice. Sure Ignatief is a new guy but that only makes him a "what if". He has only promises and no proven history.

You should note that several decades of disappointment with ALL politicians has Americanized most Canadians. We're now Missourians! You have to SHOW us, not just tell us!

Edited May 3, 2009 by Wild Bill

[charter.rights]

Correct me if I'm wrong jdobbin but your argument seems to be that Harper has done the same thing that he accused the Liberals of doing and that this may translate into a loss of his support.

Even if he did, why would it? Any marketing man knows that it's never enough to disparage the competition. You have to also give a reason why YOUR product or service would be better!

That's not the case here at all. Should Harper supporters abandon him because he's acting like a Liberal and then VOTE Liberal? That makes no sense at all!

We've still been given no reason to think that the Liberals would be better. We still have a LOT of bad Liberal history to influence our decisions! There are still a lot of people who remember Jane Stewart and the HRDC, the gun registry cost over-runs, Shawinigate, all those canoe museums, Adscam and on and on and on. There may be some new people in the forefront of the Liberal party but that will not entirely put everything that has gone before down the memory hole. If Liberals can drag up Mulroney's perhaps chequered past then they themselves are fair game.

I'd be the first to agree with you that Harper is a flawed leader. So what? He may smell but he still smells less to me than the Liberal party.

There is always a slump in the polls for incumbent governments between elections and a rise for Opposition parties. The only thing that matters is how people feel once the writ is dropped.

The Liberals need to stop the emphasis on cutting down their opponent and coming up with positive reasons why they're a better choice. Sure Ignatief is a new guy but that only makes him a "what if". He has only promises and no proven history.

You should note that several decades of disappointment with ALL politicians has Americanized most Canadians. We're now Missourians! You have to SHOW us, not just tell us!

"What if" is far better right now than "what is". Harper's goose is cooked.

[jbg]

Do you think they thought Dion was a separatist?

When Chretien and Dion used language politics to divide and conquer, thus get the majority they referred to below, and then rushes in to "save Canada" from the divisions which policies of Trudeau, Chretien and Dion spawned, yes, he is a bit of a separatist. Sort of a Munchausen syndrome by proxy (link) for a nation; create a problem to "solve" and get credit for the solution.

He can't. The Canadian voters gave Chretien a majority. They haven't given that to Harper.

The Liberals have a far easier time pandering to Quebec and picking up the 20 or 30 needed from Quebec to put them over the top, and the Librals have a built-in advantage in Ontario and BC, particularly in bad NDP years.

[Molly]

If the NDP believes that elections should be truly fixed, they will propose a Constitutional amendment and not allow confidence votes so that four years means four years.

I particularly enjoyed this observation pointing out the internal conflict in the NDP position on fixed elections. Yes, yes, they do support and promote the very thing that would most effectively strip them of any negotiating legs at all, render them them utterly irrelevant, and remove them from the national stage.

Edited May 3, 2009 by Molly