Coalition: September 2004, December 2008 & Now

[nicky10013]

I do not agree with August1991 often, but I do here. It's a problem right now, he cannot speak of a post election coalition without admitting he is planning on defeat. He cannot unequivocaly deny he'll not enter a coaltion because OF COURSE he will have to eneter into one if ther is a minority Tory govt. Calling it an informal agreement with the Bloc wil be recognized by Canadians as being an outright fraud. If he does it, he could be sounding the deathknell of the Liberals as a federal party. No matter how you cut the cheese or blow smoke up our colective asses, the Bloc is a party committed to the separation of Quebec/division of Canada and Ignatieff/ Liberal Party won't be forgiven. It is one thing to cosy up for the odd snuggle with the Bloc in the Commons, quite another to share power at the highest levels.

I agree with you, after what Ignatieff said entering into any coalition would be a deathknell. However, if it's THAT obvious to both you and I, what makes you think the Liberals would be stupid enough to do it? The fact that it's so bone jarringly stupid is reason enough. I'd put money on no coalition.

If Ignatieff was SO hell bent on having a coalition, why do it now? Why didn't he ask the GG after the government just fell to "consider" her options? There's no sense behind the coalition boogeyman - just a leader of a party who thinks all Canadians are stupid - and, well, his section of supporters that prove, in terms of some segment of the population, he's right.

[fellowtraveller]

most left wingers won't even try to distinguish between cooperation and a coalition, particular those with the automatic reflex action of negativity towards Harper.

Working together on an issue-by-issue basis is cooperation which is how minority governments in Canada work.

Utterly delusional bullshit.

Every partner in the coalition or cooperative will have a price for being there and the Bloc will be no different. The Liberal price will include having 77 seats or less and Igantieff as PM. The NDP price will be Cabinet seats, pet legislation and a chance to be relevant for the very first time. The Bloc price will be even more favourable treatment for Quebec, lots and lots and lots of money for Quebec, and a bully pulpit to close the deal on the division of Canada. The difference bewteen previous coaltions and this one is that this one includes a separatist party sharing power. It is Alice in Wonderland stuff, and the Canadian people outside Quebec won't tolerate it.

If you think people were angry with the 2008 coaltion(recall the uproar? recall Dion abandoning ship at his partys request?). It will be nothing compared to what might happen on May 3, if and when the Tories are relected with 140+ seats and won't be allowed to form a govt.......

[nicky10013]

Or prorogue parliament. That could be an option and harper pulled that little ace out of his sleeve afterwards

Why would Harper in 2004 suggest the GG prorogue parliament? What good would a suspension of parliament be to the opposition? It would've given Martin breathing room - in essence, it would've done exactly what the suspension did for Harper in 2008.

Are Conservatives really in this much denial regarding that letter? I bet you guys can't believe that this issue is hurting Harper much worse than it is Ignatieff.

Liberals desperate? The Liberals couldn't ask for a better way to start this campaign. Harper is on the defensive having had what is obviously his entire campaign narrative undermined in 2 days. Ignatieff has put the coalition behind him, but the more Harper brings it up, the more they throw the letter of 2004 at him. That, and the Bloc and the NDP are doing all the dirty work by calling him a liar while Ignatieff gets to stay above the fray.

The Liberals are going to have some bad days too, but it's been good so far and the denial here is hilarious.

In 2 days, the media have already nicknamed Harper's plane "Scaremong-air." Have fun with that.

Edited March 28, 2011 by nicky10013

[g_bambino]

If Ignatieff was SO hell bent on having a coalition, why do it now? Why didn't he ask the GG after the government just fell to "consider" her options?

I think you mean "his" options. Regardless, the Governor General didn't have many options on Saturday. Only if we'd just had an election (as was the case back in December 2008) would he have considered looking to Ignatieff to form a government. But, as it's been a couple of years since we last went to the polls, Johnston can only really follow Harper's advice and drop the writs.

[nicky10013]

I think you mean "his" options. Regardless, the Governor General didn't have many options on Saturday. Only if we'd just had an election (as was the case back in December 2008) would he have considered looking to Ignatieff to form a government. But, as it's been a couple of years since we last went to the polls, Johnston can only really follow Harper's advice and drop the writs.

That's your argument. However, Stephen Harper thinks it's perfectly legitimate to bring down a Sitting PM after 2 years to form a coalition. His letter says so.

So I ask again, if Ignatieff is SO hell bent on forming a coalition, why hasn't he tried it by now? What exactly is it he's waiting for?

[nicky10013]

Wow. Speaking of desperate, the National Post's headline is "You Rock, Steve."

I guess when it's this bad this early, you've got to thrown any journalistic convention to the wind.

[g_bambino]

That's your argument. However, Stephen Harper thinks it's perfectly legitimate to bring down a Sitting PM after 2 years to form a coalition. His letter says so.

No, it's constitutional convention. Whatever Harper thought in 2004, Clarkson wasn't likely to have ever asked him to form a government, and she didn't.

Why Ignatieff didn't get together with Layton and Duceppe this week and send a letter to David Johnston offering a coalition, I don't know: He was aware it was next to impossible that the Governor General would follow through on the suggestion? He didn't want to form a coalition with the Bloc's involvement? He thought an election would bring gains to the Liberal Party? Who knows?

[blueblood]

Why would Harper in 2004 suggest the GG prorogue parliament? What good would a suspension of parliament be to the opposition? It would've given Martin breathing room - in essence, it would've done exactly what the suspension did for Harper in 2008.

Are Conservatives really in this much denial regarding that letter? I bet you guys can't believe that this issue is hurting Harper much worse than it is Ignatieff.

Liberals desperate? The Liberals couldn't ask for a better way to start this campaign. Harper is on the defensive having had what is obviously his entire campaign narrative undermined in 2 days. Ignatieff has put the coalition behind him, but the more Harper brings it up, the more they throw the letter of 2004 at him. That, and the Bloc and the NDP are doing all the dirty work by calling him a liar while Ignatieff gets to stay above the fray.

The Liberals are going to have some bad days too, but it's been good so far and the denial here is hilarious.

In 2 days, the media have already nicknamed Harper's plane "Scaremong-air." Have fun with that.

Liberals think there is only one option in the letter. Prorgation is another. As for implementing it, that's a risk that would have to be taken. Harper is 1-1 with the proroging score. The myth of the coalition being the only option has been busted, thank you nicky!

As for the letter of 2004 it has been discussed ad nauseum here and toadbrother sums it up best with his sex analogy and how the tories used protection and the libs didn't. Also hashed and rehashed on tv.

If liberals think that ignatieff being skewered by the media about the coalition on day 1, and not talking about their ideas is a good start, I'm looking forward to another dionesque disaster.

[nicky10013]

No, it's constitutional convention. Whatever Harper thought in 2004, Clarkson wasn't likely to have ever asked him to form a government, and she didn't.

If it's constitutional convention, how could she deny the request?

Why Ignatieff didn't get together with Layton and Duceppe this week and send a letter to David Johnston offering a coalition, I don't know: He was aware it was next to impossible that the Governor General would follow through on the suggestion? He didn't want to form a coalition with the Bloc's involvement? He thought an election would bring gains to the Liberal Party? Who knows?

Who knows, right? Except for the fact that he is in fact going to seek out a coalition, right?

Every ounce of common sense says no, yet people still continue to believe. How, I'll never understand.

[g_bambino]

If it's constitutional convention, how could she deny the request?

What? It's constitutional convention that the governor general follows the prime minister's advice, not the leader of the opposition's, except for a few exceptional circumstances, one of which being the scenario wherein a government falls mere weeks after an election and there's a possibility the leader of the opposition could hold the confidence of the House of Commons. That situation existed in 2008. It did not in 2004.

Except for the fact that he is in fact going to seek out a coalition, right?

On what grounds are you basing this "fact"?

[nicky10013]

Liberals think there is only one option in the letter. Prorgation is another. As for implementing it, that's a risk that would have to be taken. Harper is 1-1 with the proroging score. The myth of the coalition being the only option has been busted, thank you nicky!

As for the letter of 2004 it has been discussed ad nauseum here and toadbrother sums it up best with his sex analogy and how the tories used protection and the libs didn't. Also hashed and rehashed on tv

.

Yeah, see, no it hasn't. If it was prorogation why would the GG need to consult with the other parties? Prorogation is a request made to the GG by the PM. Harper wasn't the PM. It also specifically mentions the government losing the confidence of the house. When that happens, there is either a coalition or an election.

Her Excellency the Right Honourable Adrienne Clarkson,

C.C., C.M.M., C.O.M., C.D.

Governor General

Rideau Hall

1 Sussex Drive

Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A1

Excellency,

As leaders of the opposition parties, we are well aware that, given the Liberal minority government, you could be asked by the Prime Minister to dissolve the 38th Parliament at any time should the House of Commons fail to support some part of the government's program.

We respectfully point out that the opposition parties, who together constitute a majority in the House, have been in close consultation. We believe that, should a request for dissolution arise this should give you cause, as constitutional practice has determined, to consult the opposition leaders and consider all of your options before exercising your constitutional authority.

Your attention to this matter is appreciated.

Sincerely,

Hon. Stephen Harper, P.C., M.P.

Leader of the Opposition

Leader of the Conservative Party of Canada

Gilles Duceppe, M.P.

Leader of the Bloc Quebecois

Jack Layton, M.P.

Leader of the New Democratic Party

It doesn't say coalition but it absolutely can't be a prorogation. Considering it pertains specifically to disolution, the only thing it can really be about is a coalition. To think anything otherwise is to be wilfully blind.

If liberals think that ignatieff being skewered by the media about the coalition on day 1, and not talking about their ideas is a good start, I'm looking forward to another dionesque disaster.

Ignatieff had a bad "first day" on Friday, but Harper's has had an absolutely dreadful weekend. To admit anything less is denial.

Edited March 28, 2011 by nicky10013

[jbg]

Why Ignatieff didn't get together with Layton and Duceppe this week and send a letter to David Johnston offering a coalition, I don't know: He was aware it was next to impossible that the Governor General would follow through on the suggestion? He didn't want to form a coalition with the Bloc's involvement? He thought an election would bring gains to the Liberal Party? Who knows?

Who knows, right? Except for the fact that he is in fact going to seek out a coalition, right?

Every ounce of common sense says no, yet people still continue to believe. How, I'll never understand.

I think the fact that as it stands the CPC is twelve away from a majority now militates against that solution. In the British case the Conservatives were but a few constituencies short of a majority in the 2010 elections, as was the NDP in Saskatchewan in 1997. So a coalition to bridge the few needed seats wasn't a bad idea. But a coalition of three losing parties is a different story. Perhaps if the Liberals near a tie it comes closer to conscionable or constitutional; with current numbers it is neither.

[Evening Star]

Why would it be unconstitutional?

[nicky10013]

I think the fact that as it stands the CPC is twelve away from a majority now militates against that solution. In the British case the Conservatives were but a few constituencies short of a majority in the 2010 elections, as was the NDP in Saskatchewan in 1997. So a coalition to bridge the few needed seats wasn't a bad idea. But a coalition of three losing parties is a different story. Perhaps if the Liberals near a tie it comes closer to conscionable or constitutional; with current numbers it is neither.

Stephen Harper wasn't the Prime Minister when he wrote the letter. He was in the exact same position Ignatieff is right now.

[blueblood]

.

Yeah, see, no it hasn't. If it was prorogation why would the GG need to consult with the other parties? Prorogation is a request made to the GG by the PM. Harper wasn't the PM. It also specifically mentions the government losing the confidence of the house. When that happens, there is either a coalition or an election.

It doesn't say coalition but it absolutely can't be a prorogation. Considering it pertains specifically to disolution, the only thing it can really be about is a coalition. To think anything otherwise is to be wilfully blind.

Ignatieff had a bad "first day" on Friday, but Harper's has had an absolutely dreadful weekend. To admit anything less is denial.

Prorogation is an option the gg can bring up with pmpm. As unlikely a scenario as it is, it is still a scenario.

Ill go with the talking heads on the ctv. Ignatieff grilled on day one, nobody having a bad weekend.

[g_bambino]

So a coalition to bridge the few needed seats wasn't a bad idea. But a coalition of three losing parties is a different story.

Quite right. It's not that coalitions themselves are impossible or undemocratic or unprincipled or whatever it is Harper is saying now. It's just that some coaltions are less desirable than others; it would be difficult for the leader of any federal party to justify to the majority of the country why he entered into a coalition arrangement with a separatist party. Still, it didn't seem out of the question to Harper in 2004.

[Leader Circle]

.

Yeah, see, no it hasn't. If it was prorogation why would the GG need to consult with the other parties? Prorogation is a request made to the GG by the PM. Harper wasn't the PM. It also specifically mentions the government losing the confidence of the house. When that happens, there is either a coalition or an election.

It doesn't say coalition but it absolutely can't be a prorogation. Considering it pertains specifically to disolution, the only thing it can really be about is a coalition. To think anything otherwise is to be wilfully blind.

Ignatieff had a bad "first day" on Friday, but Harper's has had an absolutely dreadful weekend. To admit anything less is denial.

It's tough to be the only party who does not have a media outlet who skews the facts to make them look better as the Liberals so obviously have in the MSM. I can't wait for SUN news to start telling some truth in Canada for a change.

[Bonam]

That's your argument. However, Stephen Harper thinks it's perfectly legitimate to bring down a Sitting PM after 2 years to form a coalition. His letter says so.

Where does it say so? Can you point to the specific sentence?

[Leader Circle]

Quite right. It's not that coalitions themselves are impossible or undemocratic or unprincipled or whatever it is Harper is saying now. It's just that some coaltions are less desirable than others; it would be difficult for the leader of any federal party to justify to the majority of the country why he entered into a coalition arrangement with a separatist party. Still, it didn't seem out of the question to Harper in 2004.

You're distracted people from the CURRENT facts that Ignatief would crawl into bed with anyone who would give him the PM seat. Harper's sins from 7 years ago are irrelevant. You must have been in on the meeting with the MSM when they figured out how to handle Ignatief's latest attempt at Canadian fame!!

[g_bambino]

You're distracted people from the CURRENT facts that Ignatief would crawl into bed with anyone who would give him the PM seat. Harper's sins from 7 years ago are irrelevant. You must have been in on the meeting with the MSM when they figured out how to handle Ignatief's latest attempt at Canadian fame!!

Sounds like you're reading directly from the Conservative campaign notes.

[Leader Circle]

Sounds like you're reading directly from the Conservative campaign notes.

So you WERE at that meeting.

[capricorn]

Liberals desperate? The Liberals couldn't ask for a better way to start this campaign.

It was acknowledged by the media that the first gaffe out of the gate was chalked up to Ignatieff who waffled badly on the coalition questions. But Ignatieff's seeming indecisiveness was enough to plant a doubt in the minds of some voters. It was a good tactic for the opposition to wave the 2004 letter to the GG in front of the press. But the immediate concern for voters is not the 2004 letter, which did not receive much press at the time and did not lead to changes in government. It's the more recent letter of 2008 to the GG, complete with extensive press coverage that conceivably is of more immediate concern to attentive voters.

Harper did indeed seem ill prepared to answer the media's queries about the 2004 missive to the GG. Then again, how could he foresee which way the wind would blow? All he could do was react on the fly and hope for the best. It's a scenario that's been repeated over and again in election campaign.

Harper is on the defensive having had what is obviously his entire campaign narrative undermined in 2 days.

Get real. The campaign can take many twists and turns over the next weeks. It's early in the campaign and as seen with previous campaigns the focus will shift to other matters.

Ignatieff has put the coalition behind him, but the more Harper brings it up, the more they throw the letter of 2004 at him. That, and the Bloc and the NDP are doing all the dirty work by calling him a liar while Ignatieff gets to stay above the fray.

The neophyte has not yet been put through his paces.

In 2 days, the media have already nicknamed Harper's plane "Scaremong-air." Have fun with that.

Good. The Liberals need a good dose of their own medicine.

[Jack Weber]

So you WERE at that meeting.

Mr.Duceppe and Mr. Layton were...

And they both said a coalition was discussed.And Mr.Layton backed out when he realized that Harper was really trying to become PM...

So what is it??

Coalition led by Mr.Harper = Good...And a coalition led by anyone else = Bad?

Or you're simply cool with Mr.Harper's questionable ethics??

Edited March 28, 2011 by Jack Weber

[jbg]

Why would it be unconstitutional?

In the unwritten common-law sense.

[Brandon]

But a coalition of three losing parties is a different story.

Exactly, I don't think it would be so bad if a party 10 seats short of a majority (but has the most seats) made a coalition with another party that would be fine but if the opposition parties all gang up and take power that isn't right in my mind.

Stephen Harper wasn't the Prime Minister when he wrote the letter. He was in the exact same position Ignatieff is right now.

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.