Coalition: September 2004, December 2008 & Now

[Jack Weber]

But, but, but he was a private citizen when he said that!

Yeah, the excuses the CPC make on this is laughable.

Hopefully this is a dead issue now that they look like fools thanks to Harper's 1997 statement.

In fact, Harper's statement from 1997 appears much more reasonable than anything that comes out of his mouth in 2011.

Maybe he should go back to being a private citizen.

Wow...

He said that as leader of the National Citizens Coalition...

A rare moment of lucidity for those folks...

[YEGmann]

How do you explain these comments (from 1997, I believe)?:

It does not require any explanation, if you don't buy a typical liberal dirty trick.

Understand what was the subject of the interview and watch the entire interview. After that there should not be any questions at all. Just disgust with liberal journalism.

http://archive.tvo.org/video/119442

[msj]

It does not require any explanation, if you don't buy a typical liberal dirty trick.

Understand what was the subject of the interview and watch the entire interview. After that there should not be any questions at all. Just disgust with liberal journalism.

http://archive.tvo.org/video/119442

Well, that's 11 minutes I will never get back again.

For those who are interested, skip to the 4:30 ish section and watch for a minute or two. Words like "alliance" and "co-operation" glide off of Harper's soft, soft lips.

Then around 10:30ish watch as he uses his favourite word: Coalition.

Funny how his tone wasn't so ominous in 1997.

Perhaps Yegmann should give us a little more detail on his spin because, after wasting 11 minutes of my life, I still find myself in agreement with the linked articles previously posted (alas, that certainly makes me a consumer of "liberal journalism").

[Evening Star]

My perception of the quote still hasn't changed either.

Well, that's 11 minutes I will never get back again.

For those who are interested, skip to the 4:30 ish section and watch for a minute or two. Words like "alliance" and "co-operation" glide off of Harper's soft, soft lips.

Then around 10:30ish watch as he uses his favourite word: Coalition.

Funny how his tone wasn't so ominous in 1997.

Perhaps Yegmann should give us a little more detail on his spin because, after wasting 11 minutes of my life, I still find myself in agreement with the linked articles previously posted (alas, that certainly makes me a consumer of "liberal journalism").

[YEGmann]

Well, that's 11 minutes I will never get back again.

For those who are interested, skip to the 4:30 ish section and watch for a minute or two. Words like "alliance" and "co-operation" glide off of Harper's soft, soft lips.

Then around 10:30ish watch as he uses his favourite word: Coalition.

Funny how his tone wasn't so ominous in 1997.

Perhaps Yegmann should give us a little more detail on his spin because, after wasting 11 minutes of my life, I still find myself in agreement with the linked articles previously posted (alas, that certainly makes me a consumer of "liberal journalism").

Oh, if for you a coalition of the two right, conservative parties and the coalition of liberals with separatists are the same, your reaction is understandable. I am little bit amused whether you involve the National Citizens Coalition into this mix in your head. However, in my view there is a big, big diference among them. Contrary to what liberal journalists imply or lie directly.

And I never heard in this interview of forming a coalition to steal power from the party with the most seats. Did you?

Edited March 30, 2011 by YEGmann

[nicky10013]

Oh, if for you a coalition of the two right, conservative parties and the coalition of liberals with separatists are the same, your reaction is understandable. I am little bit amused whether you involve the National Citizens Coalition into this mix in your head. However, in my view there is a big, big diference among them. Contrary to what liberal journalists imply or lie directly.

And I never heard in this interview of forming a coalition to steal power from the party with the most seats. Did you?

Yeah, that's exactly what everyone heard because everyone who heard it isn't in denial. Harper himself today said he was only talking about a coalition of "right wing parties." So, what would be so wrong in his mind with the NDP and Liberal parties forming a coalition because they're left wing parties?

Oh, that's right, because in 2004, he was trying to steal power by any means necessary, and now he's trying to hold onto power by any means necessary. Some leader.

[YEGmann]

Yeah, that's exactly what everyone heard because everyone who heard it isn't in denial. Harper himself today said he was only talking about a coalition of "right wing parties." So, what would be so wrong in his mind with the NDP and Liberal parties forming a coalition because they're left wing parties?

Oh, that's right, because in 2004, he was trying to steal power by any means necessary, and now he's trying to hold onto power by any means necessary. Some leader.

Please, give a citation where Harper says that a mere coalition between liberals and NDP is unacceptable for some reason.

Harper always emphesizes that the bad thing is not a coalition, but one with the separatist Bloc with veto power in a governing coalition. Another his point is not to steal power after an election.

Opposition lie about "the 2004 coalition" has been completely crushed by now. If you still repeat all this crap about "he was trying to steal power by any means necessary..." sorry, it is your religion, because by now there is no argument left to support this "hypothesis".

[nicky10013]

Please, give a citation where Harper says that a mere coalition between liberals and NDP is unacceptable for some reason.

Harper always emphesizes that the bad thing is not a coalition, but one with the separatist Bloc with veto power in a governing coalition. Another his point is not to steal power after an election.

Opposition lie about "the 2004 coalition" has been completely crushed by now. If you still repeat all this crap about "he was trying to steal power by any means necessary..." sorry, it is your religion, because by now there is no argument left to support this "hypothesis".

So, suspending parliament to avoid a confidence motion isn't by any means necessary?

[YEGmann]

So, suspending parliament to avoid a confidence motion isn't by any means necessary?

Does this mean that you do not have Harper's own words that a mere coalition of two federal parties is evil?

[Evening Star]

And I never heard in this interview of forming a coalition to steal power from the party with the most seats. Did you?

"It would really surprise me if the Liberals didn't get the most seats... The way I think the Liberals are eventually going to lose office... is they're going to fail to win a majority... And that's where I think someday you're going to face a minority Parliament with the Liberals maybe having the most seats. What will be the test then is whether there's any party in Opposition that's able to form a coalition or a working alliance with the others. And I think we have a political system that's gonna continue to have three or four different parties or five different parties and so I think parties that want to form government are eventually going to have to work together."

Seems pretty clear-cut.

[Evening Star]

Please, give a citation where Harper says that a mere coalition between liberals and NDP is unacceptable for some reason.

Harper always emphesizes that the bad thing is not a coalition, but one with the separatist Bloc with veto power in a governing coalition. Another his point is not to steal power after an election.

Not Harper but national CPC campaign chair Guy Giorno repeatedly states that it would be problematic and "undemocratic" for the party with the second-most seats to govern with support from other parties if Parliament lost confidence in the party with a plurality of seats: http://watch.ctv.ca/news/powerplay#clip439858

[capricorn]

Harper always emphesizes that the bad thing is not a coalition, but one with the separatist Bloc with veto power in a governing coalition.

At one point he called the troika "illegitimate" but then started using the more descriptive term "unprincipled". If it's good enough for Duceppe to campaign on Quebec sovereignty, Harper has every right to denounce the possibility of the Bloc's involvement in co-governance of the country.

Opposition lie about "the 2004 coalition" has been completely crushed by now. If you still repeat all this crap about "he was trying to steal power by any means necessary..." sorry, it is your religion, because by now there is no argument left to support this "hypothesis".

The public has moved on. Let anti-Harperites continue flapping their gums over it.

[Evening Star]

Tbh, in practice, imo the BQ is basically a social democratic party that looks out for Quebec's interests. What have they achieved for the cause of separatism in their existence? Harper was willing to reach out to them and even put forth that BS 'nation' resolution. And, as Jack likes to note, it was Mulroney who really cosied up to separatists in the first place. I'd have reservations about them being partners in any formal coalition but not with them providing support to any sort of governing party.

[Bryan]

What's crystal clear in the 1997 video is that Harper is lamenting the fragmented right-of-centre vote. As with 2004, the evidence of his intent is in what he actually DID. He united the right-of-centre parties, THEN presented that option to the people on the ballot in the next election. Compare that to last election where the Liberals specifically promised NOT to form a coalition, then tried to do precisely that.

There is a fundamental difference, not only in practice but in integrity.

[msj]

Oh, if for you a coalition of the two right, conservative parties and the coalition of liberals with separatists are the same, your reaction is understandable. I am little bit amused whether you involve the National Citizens Coalition into this mix in your head. However, in my view there is a big, big diference among them. Contrary to what liberal journalists imply or lie directly.

I suggest you listen and watch the video from 10:30 on several times.

He clearly is talking about many parties.

As for the NCC - that was a funny point made by a journalist who is right on the mark.

[August1991]

This is ridiculous.

I suggest you listen and watch the video from 10:30 on several times.

He clearly is talking about many parties.

Who the fu*k cares what Harper said in 1997 about coalitions - except people who hate Harper or political fanatics?

Are you trying to suggest that Harper is a hypocrite? The Harper-haters have been saying that for several years now - and the claim has no traction. You would be better to talk about income trusts rather than play old videos about Harper's opinions of coalitions.

I plan to vote Tory. Do you think that I care if Harper plans a coalition now or if he did in 1997? Who else am I going to vote for?

-----

This coalition-talk strategy of Harper is designed for two specific groups of voters and these two alone: Liberal voters who prefer the NDP, and Liberal voters who hate the NDP. The word "coalition", in whatever context and regardless of party, shifts them away from the Liberals.

Andrew Coyne pegged this strategy several days ago. Ignatieff's problem is that he can deny it, but the two key voter groups don't believe his denials.

And based on polls, Harper's strategy is working.

Edited March 30, 2011 by August1991

[msj]

This is ridiculous.

Who the fu*k cares what Harper said in 1997 about coalitions - except people who hate Harper or political fanatics?

Are you trying to suggest that Harper is a hypocrite? The Harper-haters have been saying that for several years now - and the claim has no traction. You would be better to talk about income trusts rather than play old videos about Harper's opinions of coalitions.

I plan to vote Tory. Do you think that I care if Harper plans a coalition now or if he did in 1997? Who else am I going to vote for?

-----

This coalition-talk strategy of Harper is designed for two specific groups of voters and these two alone: Liberal voters who prefer the NDP, and Liberal voters who hate the NDP. The word "coalition", in whatever context and regardless of party, shifts them away from the Liberals.

Andrew Coyne pegged this strategy several days ago. Ignatieff's problem is that he can deny it, but the two key voter groups don't believe his denials.

And based on polls, Harper's strategy is working.

Nice! Use! Of! Profanity!

Some of us just want to discuss the meaning of things within a particular context.

That is all.

[August1991]

Some of us just want to discuss the meaning of things within a particular context.

That is all.

Enjoy the moment!

Other people (eg. Ignatieff and Harper) are in the midst of a democratic election to decide who gets to be Top Dog. It's not an academic debate.

----

IOW, you and others may enjoy this arcane, constitutional debate about coalitions. For other people, it's a very practical question. For example, my sister may vote Tory if she thinks/suspects Ignatieff will do a deal with Layton after May 2. She hates the NDP.

OTOH, my husband likes the NDP but normally votes Liberal because he hates Harper and the CRAP. This talk of coalition has made him decide more to vote for Layton and the NDP, as he really would like to do.

Edited March 30, 2011 by August1991

[bloodyminded]

Oh, if for you a coalition of the two right, conservative parties and the coalition of liberals with separatists are the same, your reaction is understandable. I am little bit amused whether you involve the National Citizens Coalition into this mix in your head. However, in my view there is a big, big diference among them. Contrary to what liberal journalists imply or lie directly.

So the difference is your assessment of who are the coalition partners.

But you have no issue with the notion of coalition itself?

Why not say so, then? ie. coalitions are ok when we're talking about two or more conservative-leaning parties.

The Bloc is--philosophically--an issue. For most of us, I daresay.

but are we really going to go down the road of arguing that Harper's stance is, now and then, always about principle? Seriously?

Edited March 30, 2011 by bloodyminded

[Harry]

It's a good question.

Deception, thy name is Harper

Harper knows the most likely election result is another Conservative minority. Will he finally work co-operatively and respectfully with Parliament? Or will he force Canada into its fifth election in seven years?

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/opinion/westview/deception-thy-name-is-harper-118898409.html

[g_bambino]

It's a good question.

It's an odd question. The "fifth election in seven years" would mean an election before or during June of this year, implying Harper will lose the confidence of the House of Commons within weeks of it being summoned by the Governor General. If that happened, though, Johnston would very likely first look to Ignatieff to form a government before dropping the writs for yet another election. Only if, in that hypothetical, Ignatieff, or anyone else in the House, couldn't hold the confidence of that chamber would we be back at the polls in June.

[+]

Edited March 30, 2011 by g_bambino

[Scotty]

Tbh, in practice, imo the BQ is basically a social democratic party that looks out for Quebec's interests.

The problem I have with this is they ONLY look out for Quebec's interests. There has always been a strong underlying assumption that all MPs represent their own areas, but that they're Canadians first, and look out for Canada's interests. The BQ betray that assumption, and aren't at all shy about admitting it.

[bloodyminded]

The problem I have with this is they ONLY look out for Quebec's interests. There has always been a strong underlying assumption that all MPs represent their own areas, but that they're Canadians first, and look out for Canada's interests. The BQ betray that assumption, and aren't at all shy about admitting it.

No, it's definitely an issue, one of those happenstances of the Parliamentary system that are, in a way, quite unfair and unreasonable...but there's no way to do anything about it. I imagine every system has its inherent problems.

[Harry]

The Nanos poll results this morning which show Harper no further ahead than he eneded up in the last election probably means that the only people in Canada that give a hoot about all this silly and absurd coalition talk are the people here at mapleleafweb.

"Pollster Nik Nanos said theres reason for disappointment in the numbers for both the Conservatives and the Liberals."

Edited March 30, 2011 by Harry

[treehugger]

Any political party that works in Canada and sits outside the "house" until OUR National Anthem has been sung before they slither into the room should be kicked right out of CANADA! the bloc be damned!