Jack Weber Posted March 28, 2011 Report Posted March 28, 2011 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 The non-confidence motion was subsequently withdrawn, thereby allowing Martin to continue to govern. That would'nt have happened because Mr.Layton backed out,right? It was all because of Stephen Harper's well known qualities of pragmatism and collegiality... At least,that's what Harper says.. Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
capricorn Posted March 28, 2011 Report Posted March 28, 2011 That would'nt have happened because Mr.Layton backed out,right? Nothing wrong with adding this angle onto the growing pile of speculations. It was all because of Stephen Harper's well known qualities of pragmatism and collegiality... And how would you describe Duceppe and Layton? Tag alongs? Second fiddle and third fiddle? Quote "We always want the best man to win an election. Unfortunately, he never runs." Will Rogers
Jack Weber Posted March 28, 2011 Report Posted March 28, 2011 Nothing wrong with adding this angle onto the growing pile of speculations. And how would you describe Duceppe and Layton? Tag alongs? Second fiddle and third fiddle? 1.Not speculation...Mr.Layton said so in his presser yesterday in Surrey... 2.Ask Mr.Harper for the correct description... Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
capricorn Posted March 28, 2011 Report Posted March 28, 2011 CPAC will run the 2004 news conference right now. Quote "We always want the best man to win an election. Unfortunately, he never runs." Will Rogers
capricorn Posted March 28, 2011 Report Posted March 28, 2011 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. I'm listening to it again, for the third time (I should get a life ) and Duceppe's exact words were "no way we are a coalition". Quote "We always want the best man to win an election. Unfortunately, he never runs." Will Rogers
Harry Posted March 28, 2011 Report Posted March 28, 2011 (edited) No coalitions eh! Edited March 28, 2011 by Harry Quote
Bryan Posted March 28, 2011 Report Posted March 28, 2011 (edited) In case some lefties are still not getting it: Edited March 28, 2011 by Bryan Quote
Keepitsimple Posted March 28, 2011 Report Posted March 28, 2011 I'm listening to it again, for the third time (I should get a life ) and Duceppe's exact words were "no way we are a coalition". Thanks for the tip - I just caught the whole thing. Quite interesting to listen to how civil they were......but there was absolutely no intention of a coalition. It was quite clear that they agreed that Paul Martin was the PM. It was all designed to put pressure on Martin to work with the 3 opposition parties. Quote Back to Basics
Jack Weber Posted March 28, 2011 Report Posted March 28, 2011 Thanks for the tip - I just caught the whole thing. Quite interesting to listen to how civil they were......but there was absolutely no intention of a coalition. It was quite clear that they agreed that Paul Martin was the PM. It was all designed to put pressure on Martin to work with the 3 opposition parties. Then why the letter to the Governor General if NOT to say "we are prepared to take power as a group (not a coalition! )if the Martin gov't falls on a non-confidence motion??? Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
ROYME55 Posted March 28, 2011 Report Posted March 28, 2011 In case some lefties are still not getting it: The thing that scares me a little is if we don't give the Conservative a majority this situation could arise again. To the comment that coalitions work in other countries. I have one comment, in those countries the Representatives would more than likely be elected from across the country. In Canada we would have a party in the driver's seat that has only the interests of one Province as a focus. They would no doubt take full advantage of that position. Quote
jbg Posted March 28, 2011 Report Posted March 28, 2011 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. A brief review of the King/Byng history shows why Martin was touchingly eager to be defeated by Harper at that point. King got his majority when the two elections were said and done. Harper I believe was not interested in such an outcome. It is certainly possible to imagine Canadians punishing the CPC if they were at the polls twice in 2004. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
Bryan Posted March 28, 2011 Report Posted March 28, 2011 Then why the letter to the Governor General if NOT to say "we are prepared to take power as a group (not a coalition! )if the Martin gov't falls on a non-confidence motion??? To counter Martin's claim that he did not have the confidence of the house. Quote
Wild Bill Posted March 28, 2011 Report Posted March 28, 2011 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. Was it that much, Scotty? Geez Louise, they are good at walking way from hundreds of million dollar investments in military purchasing, aren't they? Like the EH-101 helicopters, they would cheerfully blow off that $200 million invested in the F-35 for purely partisan political purposes. Don't they give a damn for how well our soldiers are equipped? May the bastards all be forced to commute in Sea King helicopters! Quote "A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul." -- George Bernard Shaw "There is no point in being difficult when, with a little extra effort, you can be completely impossible."
jbg Posted March 28, 2011 Report Posted March 28, 2011 I'm listening to it again, for the third time (I should get a life ) and Duceppe's exact words were "no way we are a coalition". Either Duceppes was lying then or he's lying now. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
Keepitsimple Posted March 28, 2011 Report Posted March 28, 2011 Then why the letter to the Governor General if NOT to say "we are prepared to take power as a group (not a coalition! )if the Martin gov't falls on a non-confidence motion??? It would be best if you just watch the Press Conference and it would be much clearer - and nothing to do with a coalition. The parties were obviously in a great deal of agreement over how to keep the Martin government functioning but allowing the opposition to have a great deal of input. That's what the letter was all about (5 days later) - to let the GG know that there wasn't necessarily a need for an election - that the GG could instead instruct Martin to work with the opposition in many of the ways that were agreed upon in the news conference. You really need to watch the press conference to put things in perspective. Quote Back to Basics
Jack Weber Posted March 28, 2011 Report Posted March 28, 2011 To counter Martin's claim that he did not have the confidence of the house. Sure it was.... If one sends a letter to the governor general that intimates that the opposition is prpeared to take power if the curent minority gov't falls,and telling the Governor General that thye have the constitutional perogative to do so,I don't think they were trying to prop up Mr.Martins government... The 2004 letter was about giving the heads up to the GG that the CA,NDP,and,Bloc socialist/seperatist NOT coalition was prepared to take power if necessary... Nothing more...Nothing less... So the only difference between that coalition and any other one,not containing Stephen Harper,is that he (and the conservative partisans) don't like it... Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
Jack Weber Posted March 28, 2011 Report Posted March 28, 2011 It would be best if you just watch the Press Conference and it would be much clearer - and nothing to do with a coalition. The parties were obviously in a great deal of agreement over how to keep the Martin government functioning but allowing the opposition to have a great deal of input. That's what the letter was all about (5 days later) - to let the GG know that there wasn't necessarily a need for an election - that the GG could instead instruct Martin to work with the opposition in many of the ways that were agreed upon in the news conference. You really need to watch the press conference to put things in perspective. You're right.. The letter says there was'nt a need for an election because the CA,NDP,and,Bloc seperatist/socialist coalition was prepared to take power to avoid that potential election... So,the question still stands... Why is that type of coalition good for Mr.Harper and not for anyone else?? Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
jbg Posted March 28, 2011 Report Posted March 28, 2011 The 2004 letter was about giving the heads up to the GG that the CA,NDP,and,Bloc socialist/seperatist NOT coalition was prepared to take power if necessary... The letter says there was'nt a need for an election because the CA,NDP,and,Bloc seperatist/socialist coalition was prepared to take power to avoid that potential election... Where does the letter say anything about the coalition taking power? Maybe in its French translation? Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
Smallc Posted March 28, 2011 Report Posted March 28, 2011 they would cheerfully blow off that $200 million invested in the F-35 for purely partisan political purposes. I'm not sure you understand what that money was for. It had nothing to do with buying the aircraft, it had to do with allowing Canadian companies to get contracts. Quote
Jack Weber Posted March 28, 2011 Report Posted March 28, 2011 Where does the letter say anything about the coalition taking power? Maybe in its French translation? Well that begs the question... Does a groups actually need the word "coalition" to prove that it's a coalition? If it looks like a duck, walks like a duck,and,talks like a duck...It's a duck!!! In this case,it's a coalition... Oh sorry...Harper called it a coopilition...er...coaliperation...er... Anything but what it really is... Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
jbg Posted March 28, 2011 Report Posted March 28, 2011 Oh sorry...Harper called it a coopilition...er...coaliperation...er...Anything but what it really is... He called it co-opposition.A coalition involves the sharing of Cabinet posts, and a more or less binding promise not to harpoon the Governmnent for a defined period. None of that was in the letter. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
Jack Weber Posted March 28, 2011 Report Posted March 28, 2011 He called it co-opposition. A coalition involves the sharing of Cabinet posts, and a more or less binding promise not to harpoon the Governmnent for a defined period. None of that was in the letter. Then why the letter the the Governor General initmating that it was within her perview to allow the opposition to take power without an election??? Mr.Harper can call it whatever he wants... It was a coalition of the CA,NDP,and,the Bloc... Nothing more,nothing less...Everything else is semantics to soft pedal the issue... That issue,by the way,is starting to dog him... Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
ToadBrother Posted March 28, 2011 Report Posted March 28, 2011 (edited) He called it co-opposition. A coalition involves the sharing of Cabinet posts, and a more or less binding promise not to harpoon the Governmnent for a defined period. None of that was in the letter. That's a formal coalition. There are informal coalitions which involve agreements between the governing party and opposition parties to support it on confidence measures. Obviously, even an informal coalition is going to mean the supporting opposition parties are going to want reciprocity, so even an informal deal between the Tories, the NDP and the Bloc in 2004 was going to mean the Bloc had a finger on the trigger. Something else to keep in mind is that the Tories would have had to have had the support of both the Bloc and NDP on confidence matters in 2004 if they had formed a government, because they didn't have sufficient seats with just the NDP. You have to factor that into the calculations. Edited March 28, 2011 by ToadBrother Quote
jbg Posted March 28, 2011 Report Posted March 28, 2011 Something else to keep in mind is that the Tories would have had to have had the support of both the Bloc and NDP on confidence matters in 2004 if they had formed a government, because they didn't have sufficient seats with just the NDP. You have to factor that into the calculations. Another reason I hadn't thought of as to why Harper would not have wanted to govern at that point. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
ToadBrother Posted March 28, 2011 Report Posted March 28, 2011 Another reason I hadn't thought of as to why Harper would not have wanted to govern at that point. So did they decide that before or after they put they're signature on that letter? Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.