Coalition: September 2004, December 2008 & Now

[ToadBrother]

Harper never signed a coalition agreement that determined who would sit at the cabinet table or explicitly required the consent of the Bloc. Harper merely signed a letter addressed to the GG stating that she should consult with opposition leaders, who had consulted with one another, before making any decision.

Ignatieff signed a coalition agreement that gave the NDP 1/4 of seats at the cabinet table and stated that the government would put in place a permanent consultation mechanism with the Bloc.

There is damned little difference. Duceppe has stated they had a deal. Whatever the formulation, Harper was doing business with the separatists.

-----

Anyway Harry, this is Ignatieff's problem now. I'm sure that the NDP and Layton are happy about Ignatieff's academic public musings of the constitutionality of coalition governments.

After all, if Ignatieff accepts the principle of a coalition, then a vote for the NDP amounts to a vote for a coalition government that will keep Harper out of power.

Yes, yes, at all costs this can't possibly be a problem for Harper, because, well, I guess that would mean both Harper and Iggy have similar views on doing business with the Bloc.

[August1991]

That's an interesting angle. Was the coalition deal made with Dion or the Liberal Party? It's a pertinent question because the pact has a sunset date of June 30, 2011, so if the deal is a Liberal Party deal, the terms are still in effect.

At most, it just means that Ignatieff would have to repudiate his signature. But he has in effect already done that by stating that he would not enter to a coalition after May 2nd. (Whether anyone believes Ignatieff is another question. In 2008, Dion issued similar strong denials.)

[bTW, Capricorn, please refrain from copy/pasting entire articles/posts. The forum has rules agianst this and I have reported your post to the moderators.]

[blueblood]

Parliamentary privilege is not a matter for a court. The constitution has for centuries made that the affair of Parliament alone.

I know that, I was stating a hypothetical. My point is that even though the opposition dotted their I's and crossed their t's, at the end of the day they have the optics of a stacked committee; just like the coalition of 2008. It is so bad it repulses voters and at the end of the day that's rule 1 (don't cheese off voters).

[ToadBrother]

I know that, I was stating a hypothetical. My point is that even though the opposition dotted their I's and crossed their t's, at the end of the day they have the optics of a stacked committee; just like the coalition of 2008. It is so bad it repulses voters and at the end of the day that's rule 1 (don't cheese off voters).

I'm a voter, and I'm not repulsed. To me, the supremacy of Parliament over the Government is a larger and infinitely more important issue than partisan wranglings. I'm glad the Conservative Government was found in contempt, it's now on the history books in bold and underlined letters that a government has absolutely no right at all to deprive Parliament of document that Parliament demands. Parliament's control and command of Government is absolute and without limit.

[August1991]

Yes, yes, at all costs this can't possibly be a problem for Harper, because, well, I guess that would mean both Harper and Iggy have similar views on doing business with the Bloc.

TB, you and the others don't seem to get this.

It's not a problem for Harper, nor for Layton nor Duceppe. It's a problem solely for Ignatieff!

At issue right now is the decision of individual voters on May 2nd. Suspecting that Ignatieff may enter a coalition, some of these voters may vote NDP or Conservative rather than Liberal. For those who hate Harper, they can vote NDP reassured to know that Ignatieff (wink, wink, nudge, nudge) will form a coalition and keep Harper out of power. For those who dislike Layton, the mere discussion of a coalition means that they will shift their vote to the Conservatives to ensure the socialists don't get a cabinet seat.

Ignatieff will bleed support to the NDP and the Conservatives unless he makes his "No Coalition Ever" statement a solid commitment.

Adding the Bloc into this mix makes Ignatieff's suspected coalition deal a kryptonite scenario. He could even lose Montreal's West Island.

----

This is a Liberal problem. The fact that Layton signed the 2008 power-sharing coalition agreement, Duceppe shook hands for the photo-op, or accusations that Harper entered a coalition in 2004 do not meant that Conservatives, Bloc or the NDP will bleed support to other parties. Heck, Harper has managed a minority government for the past five years, depending at various times for the support of other parties.

The Liberals alone are in a tough place. And Ignatieff has fumbled this hot potato.

Edited March 27, 2011 by August1991

[ToadBrother]

TB, you and the others don't seem to get this.

It's a little earlier to declare Harper's culpability in trying to engineer deals with the Bloc irrelevant. Let's wait and see if Duceppe's clarifications of the discussions the Tories and Bloc had in 2004 have any effect.

Or, let's put it this way. If the Bloc is local trollop, it seems that the Liberals weren't her only suitor.

[Jack Weber]

I'm a voter, and I'm not repulsed. To me, the supremacy of Parliament over the Government is a larger and infinitely more important issue than partisan wranglings. I'm glad the Conservative Government was found in contempt, it's now on the history books in bold and underlined letters that a government has absolutely no right at all to deprive Parliament of document that Parliament demands. Parliament's control and command of Government is absolute and without limit.

Spot on!!!

And the people who are truly repulsed by this are the Tory partisans who now realize that Mr.Harper has lost any credibility on the "We're not corrupt and bad like those other guys!" talking point...

Mr.Harpers government was not just found to be in contempt of Parliament...

They were found to be in contempt of the people who elected that Parliament,namely the people of Canada,INCLUDING CONSERVATIVE VOTERS!!!

And that means they have contempt for our democratic traditions in this country and the constitution they all swore to uphold when they took the oath of office...

That's what's gone on here and anyone who thinks that's OK should hang their heads in shame...

[Jack Weber]

It's a little earlier to declare Harper's culpability in trying to engineer deals with the Bloc irrelevant. Let's wait and see if Duceppe's clarifications of the discussions the Tories and Bloc had in 2004 have any effect.

Or, let's put it this way. If the Bloc is local trollop, it seems that the Liberals weren't her only suitor.

The Bloc is the Parliamentary whore whose legs are open for business???

[ToadBrother]

The Bloc is the Parliamentary whore whose legs are open for business???

I wasn't going to put it quite like that, but yes, that's the way of it, I'm afraid. Of course, that raises the question as to what the NDP is. Perhaps the nice fellow that holds the prospective client's hat while he makes sweet sweet love to the Bloc.

[TimG]

I'm glad the Conservative Government was found in contempt, it's now on the history books in bold and underlined letters that a government has absolutely no right at all to deprive Parliament of document that Parliament demands.

Sure it does. As long as it has a majority it can deny parliment (a.k.a. the opposition parties) any information it wants (which is what happened in the past). If you want the system to change it is going to take a lot more than this ruling. Edited March 27, 2011 by TimG

[Jack Weber]

I wasn't going to put it quite like that, but yes, that's the way of it, I'm afraid. Of course, that raises the question as to what the NDP is. Perhaps the nice fellow that holds the prospective client's hat while he makes sweet sweet love to the Bloc.

The NDP is the nerd in the corner that can't get laid...

The "Cliff Clavin" of Parliament...

[ToadBrother]

Sure it does. As long as it has a majority it can deny parliment (a.k.a. the opposition parties) any information it wants (which is what happened in the past). If you want the system to change it is going to take a lot more than this ruling.

As I have pointed out before, Parliament is within its rights to give as long a leash as it cares to to a government. A majority gets a lot longer a leash than a minority). I agree reforms should be made, but at the end of the day, each of these rulings down through the ages serves to confirm that Parliament is master, even if its demands seem to the Government of the day pointless or possibly even detrimental. Harper's argument wasn't a new one, it's the one Charles I had, and Charles lost a lot more spectacularly that Harper did, so Harper should be content with the contempt motion.

[blueblood]

I'm a voter, and I'm not repulsed. To me, the supremacy of Parliament over the Government is a larger and infinitely more important issue than partisan wranglings. I'm glad the Conservative Government was found in contempt, it's now on the history books in bold and underlined letters that a government has absolutely no right at all to deprive Parliament of document that Parliament demands. Parliament's control and command of Government is absolute and without limit.

I get that you are all about following the rules right to the letter and ideally that's the way to go. However, it wouldn't put it past me that all parties break the rules from time to time. The question is how many canadians care about the supremacy of parliament versus how many canadians want to see their team in charge?

The "crooked coalition" is legally right in their manoeuvers in 08. However there was a strong voter backlash, strong enough to deep six that idea. Imo parliament has control of the govt, but people have control of the parliament. The same could potentially occur in regards to the coalition stacking the committee to find the govt in contempt. Legally its all there, but it has the optics of the kangaroo court. to me it looks like a minority kid breaking into a liquor store, getting caught and having a trial with a racist judge/jury. The kid still commiTted the crime and was found guilty according to the law of the land and in its parameters, but there is the potential for backlash regarding judge/jury.

[Harry]

Speaking of the NDP:

Layton's call: 'Kick every Conservative MP out of Edmonton'

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/laytons-call-kick-every-conservative-mp-out-of-edmonton/article1958032/

So now while we have Duceppe kicking Harper out of Quebec, the NDP is kicking the Conservatives out of Edmonton. What are the Liberals up to these days?

What did Harper say our choices were today? Oh yea, we can choose between the stable Conservatives or the reckless coalition. When Harper mentioned coalition I thought is he was talking about himself, and when he mentioned "stable" I knew he was just shoveling more horseshit.

Edited March 27, 2011 by Harry

[ToadBrother]

I get that you are all about following the rules right to the letter and ideally that's the way to go. However, it wouldn't put it past me that all parties break the rules from time to time. The question is how many canadians care about the supremacy of parliament versus how many canadians want to see their team in charge?

I'm about a core constitutional principle that predates Canada and for which no small amount of blood being shed being upheld. It's that simple.

[August1991]

It's a little earlier to declare Harper's culpability in trying to engineer deals with the Bloc irrelevant.

Who cares about Harper's culpability?

Put yourself in the shoes of a voter who "hates" Harper, wants him out of power and is hesitating between the Liberals and the NDP but is leaning NDP. If you believe/suspect that Ignatieff will enter a coalition with the NDP, you may vote NDP because you know that your vote will be honest, and achieve the same end.

Now, put yourself in the shoes of a different voter who "hates" socialists and is hesitating between the Liberals and the Conservatives but is leaning Liberal. If you believe/suspect that Ignatieff will enter a coalition with the NDP, you will switch to the Conservatives.

In simple terms, any talk of coalition means that Liberals will bleed support to the NDP and the Conservatives. (The Bloc angle puts this calculation on steroids.)

Note that voters for no other party (NDP, Tory, Bloc) have similar hesitant thoughts about coalitions. Any discussion of coalition, the mere word itself, is deathly to the Liberals - but no one else.

----

I am astonished that everyone is talking about how Harper also signed on to a coalition in 2004. So what? In 2011, talk of a coalition is not a problem for Harper.

The word "coalition" is only a problem for Ignatieff.

Edited March 27, 2011 by August1991

[ToadBrother]

The word "coalition" is only a problem for Ignatieff.

We'll see...

[Jack Weber]

We'll see...

That's right...

Let the media get a hold of this and keep showing those clips of Harper,Layton,and,Duceppe AND the signed letter..

Then there might be a little missive from Conservative Mission Control...

"Uh...Ixnay on the Oalitioncay stuff!!!"

[August1991]

We'll see...

Democratic politics in this century is about getting people into a voting booth, and getting them to mark a ballot.

The best way to win elections is to put yourself in the shoes of those people.

[blueblood]

Who cares about Harper's culpability?

Put yourself in the shoes of a voter who "hates" Harper, wants him out of power and is hesitating between the Liberals and the NDP but is leaning NDP. If you believe/suspect that Ignatieff will enter a coalition with the NDP, you may vote NDP because you know that your vote will be honest, and achieve the same end.

Now, put yourself in the shoes of a different voter who "hates" socialists and is hesitating between the Liberals and the Conservatives but is leaning Liberal. If you believe/suspect that Ignatieff will enter a coalition with the NDP, you will switch to the Conservatives.

In simple terms, any talk of coalition means that Liberals will bleed support to the NDP and the Conservatives. (The Bloc angle puts this calculation on steroids.)

Note that voters for no other party (NDP, Tory, Bloc) have similar hesitant thoughts about coalitions. Any discussion of coalition, the mere word itself, is deathly to the Liberals - but no one else.

----

I am astonished that everyone is talking about how Harper also signed on to a coalition in 2004. So what? In 2011, talk of a coalition is not a problem for Harper.

The word "coalition" is only a problem for Ignatieff.

It could be a problem for harper if duceppe provides some hard concrete evidence about terms of a coalition between the parties. However if duceppe keeps going "harper said this harper said that", its a non issue.

[ToadBrother]

That's right...

Let the media get a hold of this and keep showing those clips of Harper,Layton,and,Duceppe AND the signed letter..

Then there might be a little missive from Conservative Mission Control...

"Uh...Ixnay on the Oalitioncay stuff!!!"

At any rate, Iggy has made it clear he has no intention of forming a coalition. I think he's going to be forced into some sort of an accord, at least with the NDP, but there we have it.

[Jack Weber]

At any rate, Iggy has made it clear he has no intention of forming a coalition. I think he's going to be forced into some sort of an accord, at least with the NDP, but there we have it.

A coaliton/accord with a federalist party would be alot more palatable...It's the seperatist angle that's the issue...

And it all depends on the math...

But in a minority situation,there's always dealmaking going on...

[ToadBrother]

A coaliton/accord with a federalist party would be alot more palatable...It's the seperatist angle that's the issue...

And it all depends on the math...

But in a minority situation,there's always dealmaking going on...

If we presume that Iggy becomes PM after a Tory government in a throne speech, he's going to have a tough time of it. For one thing, the Tories will be out for blood. He's going to need, even a vote-by-vote basis, to do business with the Bloc. There's no avoiding it, unless he gets a helluva lot more seats, and at this point, it sure doesn't look that way.

So he may please the voter by saying "I'm not going to get into bed with the Bloc", but he's set himself up for a considerable amount of difficulty.

[Harry]

It could be a problem for harper if duceppe provides some hard concrete evidence about terms of a coalition between the parties. However if duceppe keeps going "harper said this harper said that", its a non issue.

Well Duceppe did offer to provide Harper wil a copy of Harper's signed agreement with Layton and Duceppe, in case Harper lost his copy. I bet Harper wishes everybody had lost their copies after today.

And who knows, maybe Duceppe or Layton taped the meetings for their memoirs, of course.

Harper should save everyone the cost of hiring a detective and just fess up before this Harper coalition thingy ravels out of control on him.

[Jack Weber]

If we presume that Iggy becomes PM after a Tory government in a throne speech, he's going to have a tough time of it. For one thing, the Tories will be out for blood. He's going to need, even a vote-by-vote basis, to do business with the Bloc. There's no avoiding it, unless he gets a helluva lot more seats, and at this point, it sure doesn't look that way.

So he may please the voter by saying "I'm not going to get into bed with the Bloc", but he's set himself up for a considerable amount of difficulty.

I agree..

The entire idea of a coalition with a seperatist party is unsupportable..

It was unsupportable in 2004,2008,and,it would be in 2012...

But is it unsupportable if the total number of seats between the Liberals and the NDP add up to enough to form a government??

I realize Tory supporters would be foaming at the mouth,however,there is provincial precedent for this.