Coalition: September 2004, December 2008 & Now

[Molly]

83%

That's right. He "did not... have sekshull relations ... with that woman..."

And everyone's out of step except Johnny.

Edited March 28, 2011 by Molly

[Shakeyhands]

22 pages (so far...) on this issue from some people that I would consider critical thinkers. Harper and his people are so freaking clever. Very few words on the campaign about anything other than this stuff which is aplain old fabrication.

What about the economy? What about spending on prisons that aren't needed and untendered fighter aircraft? What about dumping a portion of that money in to healthcare, help for families and seniors?

Unless Ignatieff can change the channel, he is toast.

[Shwa]

22 pages (so far...) on this issue from some people that I would consider critical thinkers. Harper and his people are so freaking clever. Very few words on the campaign about anything other than this stuff which is aplain old fabrication.

What about the economy? What about spending on prisons that aren't needed and untendered fighter aircraft? What about dumping a portion of that money in to healthcare, help for families and seniors?

Unless Ignatieff can change the channel, he is toast.

It's still early son. The way these cons are working, it might be a liberal strategy to simply let them expose themselves on national TV. Or plant a few "liberal media" reporters in every Harper news conference and ask about the C-words.

[August1991]

Molly, this the killer quote:

And even among those who identified themselves as Liberal voters, 35% do not believe their leader's claim while just 32% do believe him. Nearly half of all NDP supporters, two-thirds of BQ supporters and 86% of Tory supporters aren't buying what Iggy's selling when it comes to the coalition.

...

Canadians narrowly picked NDP Leader Jack Layton at 27% over Ignatieff at 24%. Bourque said a significant number of those who identified themselves as Liberals were among those who preferred Layton to lead a coalition.

Canoe

It doesn't matter what Conservative voters think of a coalition, it's what Liberal voters think. That last sentence above in the quote is the killer.

I now understand too why Duceppe is all over the word "coalition". I think the Liberals may now lose 4-5 seats in Quebec. Take Papaineau, Justin Trudeau's riding. It's always been a very close race between the Bloc and PLC. If some of the Liberal voters shift to the NDP, and talk of coalition does exactly that, then the Bloc will win. There are several ridings in Quebec where this will happen.

In Ontario, there are ridings where Liberal voters simply do not want Layton anywhere near power. Talk of coalition will drive them to the Conservatives.

-----

No other party faces this problem and talk of Harper's letter in September 2004 has no similar effect. At most, it simply reminds voters that politicians (ie Harper) can be hypocritical at times. (Imagine that.... Politicians, hypocritical, in our streets... )

Edited March 28, 2011 by August1991

[blueblood]

22 pages (so far...) on this issue from some people that I would consider critical thinkers. Harper and his people are so freaking clever. Very few words on the campaign about anything other than this stuff which is aplain old fabrication.

What about the economy? What about spending on prisons that aren't needed and untendered fighter aircraft? What about dumping a portion of that money in to healthcare, help for families and seniors?

Unless Ignatieff can change the channel, he is toast.

The issues you are talking about aren't gaining traction because people either support them or they aren't a big enough deal to get blasted on.

Harper owns the economy, there's rising gdp, falling unemployment, and a rise in commodities which canada exports to the world - which helped lower thr deficit projections for this year. Also there are numerous studies which show lower corporate taxes are a benefit to the economy; the USA, england are lowering theirs and ireland which made the steepest cuts of all didn't touch their rock boTtom rate. A political scientist from carleton university on ctv said he was putting out a paper on the benefits of corporate tax cuts.

The prisons aren't needed? The prisons are overcrowded and the population of canada has been growing. The crime rate has fallen (mostly due to the age demographics and the "pig in the python" demographic phenomenon), but with a larger population that is still a fair amt of people committing crime. Rehab programs are successful, but only when the addict/criminal truely wants to be rehabilitated, forcing people to go through rehab programs doesn't work either(ie charlie sheen). There is a prison overcrowding problem and this is one way of helping to fix that. Also it creates jobs.

The fighter jets are needed the group of countries in the f35 program went over a bunch of designs and picked that one. The liberals want to spend money on committees and red tape. Its like driving around the city all day to look for the cheapest gas. It ends up costing more in the end.

As for healthcare and spending money on seniors I urge you to google fareed zakaria :ow to restore america back to number 1. Fareed is a dead centrist and he believes that govt is spending too much on consumption ie healthcare and seniors and not enough for the future. Its time for north americans to be more responsible with their money, because I don't know if our economy could handle the baby boomers during their geriatric years, the bond vigilantes would blow a gasket like they did in the mid nineties, simply put the boomers took too much. Its harsh, but its the lesser of two evils.

As for ignatieff changing the channel, your absolutely right. Every day the cpc talks about the coalition and the journalists talk about it in the media, that's an extra day the liberals have to react and not talk about the issues. Ignatieff's campaign is based primarliy on ethics and trust and transparency according to the talking heads, this coalition business as legal as it is didn't come across as ethical, trustworthy, and transparent the last time around. The cpc and media have made the liberal party apear to be hypocrites.

The liberals would have been far better off to let harper govern in the minority use that time to formulate policy and build support and go at harper when there has to be an election as outlined in the constitution. We have a saying in the business world, pigs get slaughtered. It appears that this is happening to the liberals with their bad greedy strategy.

[BubberMiley]

In Ontario, there are ridings where Liberal voters simply do not want Layton anywhere near power. Talk of coalition will drive them to the Conservatives.

It's true that "talk of coalition" is all the CPC has. It's sad that they are incapable of running on their own record, but I guess they know any such scrutiny would make them look bad.

But even worse, they're going to look ridiculous when they keep saying "coalition, coalition" weeks after Ignatieff has dismissed that possiblity, and only a few short years after they entertained that possibility themselves.

Soon Harper will be having to promise he won't join a coalition when the Liberals get a minority.

[jbg]

I think the situation is that no one can agree on what the agreement actually meant. To some, it is just a suggestion to the GG but to others it is the same thing as what the liberals did. In my mind, it isn't really clear and doesn't look like the power grab that the liberals were spear-heading.

It's pretty clear to me that since the King/Byng affair, with elections held October 29, 1925 and September 14, 1926 (if not for the GG's approach to Meighen to attempt to govern the latter election would have been sooner), Canada has a sensible tradition of avoiding two elections in less than one year. The Trudeau/Clark round-trip is to my knowledge the only similar serial elections. The prorogation of December 2008 was similar in aim.

The letter, which I have posted, did not contain the terms of a coalition agreement.

[August1991]

It's true that "talk of coalition" is all the CPC has. It's sad that they are incapable of running on their own record, but I guess they know any such scrutiny would make them look bad.

But even worse, they're going to look ridiculous when they keep saying "coalition, coalition" weeks after Ignatieff has dismissed that possiblity, and only a few short years after they entertained that possibility themselves.

Soon Harper will be having to promise he won't join a coalition when the Liberals get a minority.

It's not just Harper that's talking about "coalition". Layton and Duceppe will also join. All three parties stand to gain if Liberal voters peel off to the NDP or Conservatives.

Only the Liberals are in this vulnerable position and it's why Ignatieff, from the outset, should have been unequivocal - as he finally was.

----

I suspect that when Ignatieff writes his memoirs about his brief foray into Canadian politics, he'll state his regret for not having followed his first instinct in December 2008 of not signing that coalition agreement. That would be Ignatieff's style. Doing/saying one thing and then later changing his mind. He's no deep thinker. He's just Mr. Ad Hoc.

Edited March 28, 2011 by August1991

[Harry]

Duceppe sure has a way with words. I doubt Conservatives will be winning many seats against the Bloc.

Harper letter is fodder for Duceppe

The federal election campaign is just two days old,andGillesDuceppe's thesaurus is already well worn. On Sunday, the Bloc Québécois leader called Mr. Harper an untrustworthy, thieving, Quebecbashing liar. He added that the Conservative Cabinet is filled with reactionaries and creationists who "think that The Flintstones is a documentary."

What Mr. Duceppe would rather not admit is that every night he bows his progressive, Darwinist head and gives thanks for Mr. Harper, without whom his job would be infinitely more challenging.

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/canada/politics/Harper+letter+fodder+Duceppe/4512969/story.html

Edited March 28, 2011 by Harry

[Keepitsimple]

So....Mr. Ignatieff has promised "No Coalition". But here's an interesting thought. If the Conservatives win another minority, it's likely that Ignatieff will head home and the Liberals will have another leader. A leadership review is automatic after an election loss. Will the new leader and the party backroom boys honour Ignatieff's pledge - or will they go after power again? Plausible, even probable....and I wouldn't bet against it.

Edited March 28, 2011 by Keepitsimple

[Bryan]

The entire September 2004 press conference is playing on CPAC right now. Right there at the table, Gilles Duceppe is emphatically insisting that there is no coalition whatsoever, and that none was discussed.

Edited March 28, 2011 by Bryan

[Brandon]

The entire September 2004 press conference is playing on CPAC right now. Right there at the table, Gilles Duceppe is emphatically insisting that there is no coalition whatsoever, and that none was discussed.

Now who's the liar... that's right Gilles.

[capricorn]

The entire September 2004 press conference is playing on CPAC right now. Right there at the table, Gilles Duceppe is emphatically insisting that there is no coalition whatsoever, and that none was discussed.

Toward the end of that press conference, Harper said the government remains the government complete with proposing legislation.

The press conference is evidence that the opposition parties were not proposing a coalition to replace Martin back in 2004. An opposition coalition whose aim is to replace the government, in title and in deed, would take the lead in proposing legislation in the House.

[g_bambino]

The press conference is evidence that the opposition parties were not proposing a coalition to replace Martin back in 2004.

What, then, was the purpose of sending a letter to Clarkson? "Your Excellency - You have at your disposal many diligent and trustworthy constitutional advisors, but do please allow us, Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, to suggest that, should we vote non-confidence in your present cabinet, you should not necessarily issue a Royal Proclamation dissolving parliament and subsequently drop the writs of election, as your Right Honourable Prime Minister will likely advise, but instead consider..." Well, what? Proroguing parliament and then...? Dissolving parliament and then...? What "options" was it Harper, Layton, and Duceppe were urging Clarkson to give thought to?

[c/e]

Edited March 28, 2011 by g_bambino

[Bryan]

What, then, was the purpose of sending a letter to Clarkson? "Your Excellency - You are surrounded by constitutional advisors, but do please allow us, Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, to suggest that, should we vote non-confidence in your present cabinet, you should not necessarily issue a proclamation dissolving parliament and subsequently drop the writs of election, as your Right Honourable Prime Minister will likely advise, but instead consider..." Well, what? Proroguing parliament and then...? Dissolving parliament and then...? What "options" was it Harper, Layton, and Duceppe were urging Clarkson to give thought to?

[c/e]

If you watch both the press conference, and Harper's answers today, it's very clear.

Martin wanted the GG to dissolve parliament just a couple of months after an election under the premise that he did not have confidence of the house. The letter, and the press conference, was to advise the GG that the opposition parties were perfectly fine with Martin to remain as PM, and that they were willing to work with him.

[Shakeyhands]

The letter, and the press conference, was to advise the GG that the opposition parties were perfectly fine with Martin to remain as PM, and that they were willing to work with him.

Hahahaha.... ok.

[g_bambino]

Martin wanted the GG to dissolve parliament just a couple of months after an election under the premise that he did not have confidence of the house. The letter, and the press conference, was to advise the GG that the opposition parties were perfectly fine with Martin to remain as PM, and that they were willing to work with him.

That makes little sense on a number of levels: The prime minister would look a fool telling the governor general he doesn't have the confidence of the House when the House never voted non-confidence in the Cabinet. Further, even if he did use such a dumb excuse as a reason to advise an election, the governor general takes direction from the prime minister, anyway, not the opposition leaders, and that advice cannot be refused without good reason. So, if you are indeed repeating what Harper, Layton, and Duceppe said in 2004 about their letter to Clarkson, then the only conclusion is that they sent it because none of the three of them has a clue about the constitutional conventions of Canada's Westminster parliamentary democracy.

[Bryan]

The prime minister would look a fool telling the governor general he doesn't have the confidence of the House when the House never voted non-confidence in the Cabinet.

Indeed. This is Paul Martin we are talking about.

It's exactly the absurdidty of Martin's plan that prompted the opposition to advise the GG that the PM was prevaricating about not having the confidence of the house.

[g_bambino]

It's exactly the absurdidty of Martin's plan that prompted the opposition to advise the GG that the PM was prevaricating about not having the confidence of the house.

And the opposition was eqally absurd in urging the Governor General to refuse her prime minister's advice and tell him to get back to work. Unlike calling on the Leader of the Official Opposition to form a new government after the incumbent ministry fell, that has zero precedent in Commonwealth history. Hence, I never even conceived of it as an option until you said that's what they said.

They're either idiots or they did consider a coalition as a possibility but left the wording intentionally vague so that they could later write history as it suited them, and they're doing that very thing now, despite appearing like buffoons in the process. To my mind, it has to be the latter; they simply can't all really be that clueless.

[+]

Edited March 28, 2011 by g_bambino

[Bryan]

And the opposition was eqally absurd in urging the Governor General to refuse her prime minister's advice and tell him to get back to work. Unlike calling on the Leader of the Official Opposition to form a new government after the incumbent ministry fell only weeks after an election, that has zero precedent in Commonwealth history. Hence, I never even conceived of it as an option until you said that's what they said.

You'll note that the Governor General did not dissolve parliament, and did not grant Martin his election.

You never conceived it, yet you believed the coalition blather without actually checking the original source?

[g_bambino]

You'll note that the Governor General did not dissolve parliament, and did not grant Martin his election.

Did Martin make the request?

You never conceived it, yet you believed the coalition blather without actually checking the original source?

I've made it abundantly clear that I read the letter.

[sp]

Edited March 28, 2011 by g_bambino

[Harry]

So the Three Amigos, Harper, Duceppe, and Layton wrote that letter to the GG on September 9, 2004. When did Layton abondon the other remaining Two Amigos, Harper and Duceppe, and basically kill the deal?

Edited March 28, 2011 by Harry

[capricorn]

What, then, was the purpose of sending a letter to Clarkson? "Your Excellency - You have at your disposal many diligent and trustworthy constitutional advisors, but do please allow us, Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, to suggest that, should we vote non-confidence in your present cabinet, you should not necessarily issue a Royal Proclamation dissolving parliament and subsequently drop the writs of election, as your Right Honourable Prime Minister will likely advise, but instead consider..." Well, what? Proroguing parliament and then...? Dissolving parliament and then...? What "options" was it Harper, Layton, and Duceppe were urging Clarkson to give thought to?

[c/e]

At the press conference of 2004, the opposition said one thing they were seeking was a commitment from Martin to consult them on a serious basis for input into the Throne Speech. Layton or Duceppe (can't recall which) said, the Throne Speech set the direction of the government; in order to have it adopted in the House thereby avoiding the government's defeat, the opposition ought to be consulted and have a say in said direction. Apparently, there was also a question of structuring the House Committees to give more representation to the opposition parties. In this context, light is shed on Harper saying that the steps they were looking for were procedural in nature and not with the intention of toppling Martin.

At that time, Martin's minority government was just a few months old. This morning Harper explained he had tabled a motion of non-confidence yet to be voted on in the House. Quickly thereafter, Martin called Harper and the two agreed to work together whereby Martin would meet the opposition half way. Harper then withdrew the non-confidence motion therefore Martin's government survived. Today, Harper repeated that the approach taken by the opposition of the day worked out.

As a result, Martin's minority government survived and an election within months of the other was avoided, as was the need for an intervention by the GG.

[Scotty]

22 pages (so far...) on this issue from some people that I would consider critical thinkers. Harper and his people are so freaking clever. Very few words on the campaign about anything other than this stuff which is aplain old fabrication.

What about the economy? What about spending on prisons that aren't needed and untendered fighter aircraft? What about dumping a portion of that money in to healthcare, help for families and seniors?

Unless Ignatieff can change the channel, he is toast.

I think the prisons are very much needed. We need to be put more bad people away for longer periods of time As for the fighters, if the Liberals didn't want them they shouldn't have put $200 million into building them in the first place.

[capricorn]

Did Martin make the request?

No he did not. Yet there was a non-confidence motion on the table that quite conceivably would have been adopted by a majority in the House. The non-confidence motion was subsequently withdrawn, thereby allowing Martin to continue to govern.