Coalition: September 2004, December 2008 & Now

[Scotty]

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.

There is a federal precedent, too. Ed Broadbent supported Pierre Trudeau in a minority parliament.

[Keepitsimple]

You are funny, Harry.

How can you agree the crap you've just posted and what Harper never tried to realize this plan? That means there was no such a plan.

Both Layton and Duceppe said then in 2004 there was no a coalition talk (CTV showed the footage), Duceppe accepted yesterday there was no coalition discussion.

“He did not talk about a coalition, that’s true,” Duceppe allowed.

Not only that, but Duceppe also said (on TV but not repeated in the print media that I know of) that Harper discussed with him changes in the makeup of committees that might be more acceptable to the opposition. We've all seen how influential the committees can be in a minority government. So......back to the letter - which did not mention Coalition and the other leaders have said "no coalition" was discussed. One of the alternatives that the letter is probably facilitating is that instead of dissolving Parliament, the opposition could have put forward a different make-up for the committees that would allow the Martin minority to continue.....that would give the opposition more say in the decisions of the government. It's precisely the kind of tactic that Harper would come up with.

Edited March 27, 2011 by Keepitsimple

[YEGmann]

Not only that, but Duceppe also said (on TV but not repeated in the print media that I know of) that Harper discussed with him changes in the makeup of committees that might be more acceptable to the opposition. We've all seen how influential the committees can be in a minority government. So......back to the letter - which did not mention Coalition and the other leaders have said "no coalition" was discussed. One of the alternatives that the letter is probably facilitating is that instead of dissolving Parliament, the opposition could have put forward a different make-up for the committees that would allow the Martin minority to continue.....that would give the opposition more say in the decisions of the government. It's precisely the kind of tactic that Harper would come up with.

This makes sense. And this does not contradicts to what Harper said today in Brampton - in 2004 his plan was not to bring down the government that received most of the seats, but just to avoid an unnecessary election. To keep the government working.

And if this is true, it strikes down the Duceppe's claim about "Harper's coalition" of 2004. In this case Harper needed Bloc signature just to convince the GG not to dissolve the Parliament. He absolutely did not need to make any deals with Bloc or NDP, he would deal with minority Liberals directly. Some positions in committees would naturally go to the Bloc and NDP. But this is far from getting in bed with them.

Ignatieff tried in 2008 and tries now to do something quite different. He and Layton want to demonstrate disfunction of a new minority government immediately and demand power transfer from the GG. Thus depositing the party with most of the seats. But simply by number count Ignatieff is forced to give some posts in the govermnent to NDP and pay to Bloc for every resolution to pass in the HoC.

Edited March 27, 2011 by YEGmann

[Harry]

Duceppe is continuing to have fun with this at Harper's expense.

Letter proves Harper is a hypocrite, Duceppe says

For Duceppe, the letter is proof that Harpers continued attacks on the prospect of a coalition between the Liberals, the NDP and the Bloc are hypocritical.

Duceppe told the crowd that only Harper would have become prime minister had the then-governor general took their advice, since Harper finished second in the 2004 campaign.

He added, for comic relief, Is it going to be me Gilles Duceppe prime minister of Canada?

Yet Harper says its illegitimate for parties without a governing mandate to form a coalition and take power.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/962443--letter-proves-harper-is-a-hypocrite-duceppe-says?bn=1

Edited March 27, 2011 by Harry

[YEGmann]

Just appeared in the National Post

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/03/27/scott-stinson-harper-faces-his-own-coalition-monkey/

UPDATE: Conservative communications staffers have helpfully sent a list of talking points about 2004. They’ve noted that the arrangement, such as it was, was not a coalition, and all three leaders denied that it was. The Tories also point out that the letter was a tactic designed to pressure Paul Martin into working with the opposition. It’s a statement supported by what actually happened: weeks of negotiations about the Throne Speech, which ended with opposition parties proposing their own amendments and eventually giving the thing a pass. These are points worth making, which of course raises the question of why Stephen Harper isn’t making them.

Email: [email protected] Twitter: @scott_stinson

That makes Duceppe a proven liar.

[Smallc]

It very much seems to. In 2008, it was very different. The opposition was determined to bring the government down.

[ToadBrother]

Ignatieff tried in 2008 and tries now to do something quite different. He and Layton want to demonstrate disfunction of a new minority government immediately and demand power transfer from the GG. Thus depositing the party with most of the seats. But simply by number count Ignatieff is forced to give some posts in the govermnent to NDP and pay to Bloc for every resolution to pass in the HoC.

I greatly dislike this wording. No one can demand anything of the GG, particularly if there is a vote no confidence. At that point, and it is just about the only time left in our system of government, that the GG acts essentially alone. The GG asks someone else to form a government. In either 2004 or 2008, or conceivably in several weeks, if the government is toppled, the most that anyone like Iggy can do is submit themselves as a government. The GG ultimately decides, and, as we saw from the King-Byng Affair, the GG can in fact put restraints on the new Government.

There is tricky ground here, and all sides should understand this. No one makes demands of the Queen or Her Viceroys in this regard. The Reserve Powers are clearly defined on this point. The Governor General does what he or she feels will produce a responsible government. He may seek the advice of constitutional experts, though someone like David Johnston doubtless is his own wellspring of knowledge. Opposition members may advise the GG that they stand ready to form a government, but the decision is the GG's and the GG's alone in a situation of no confidence.

There are precedents for this, and I have stated them. The February 1974 election in the UK created a situation in which a government was formed who had the second biggest seat count. The Wilson government managed to keep things going for nine months without a coalition. Iggy is not necessarily bound to make formal agreements, or even informal agreements (a so-called informal coalition), though I've stated a vote-by-vote situation is much more difficult, and I would not expect a long-lived government.

I can well imagine, though it would be years before we would know the truth of it, that in a case where the Tory government is defeated on the post-election Throne Speech, that the GG might ask the Liberals to form a government, but would, in the national interest, have assurances from Iggy that he keep his word of no coalition with the Bloc. The King-Byng Affair grew out of commitments that Mackenzie King made to the GG that King tried later to weasel out of. We also know the GG made Harper commit to her that the new budget must be palatable to the Opposition. These are the powers that a GG has in such a situation, and they are, and Canadians all should understand this, vast powers, used rarely, but used nonetheless.

[ToadBrother]

Just appeared in the National Post

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/03/27/scott-stinson-harper-faces-his-own-coalition-monkey/

That makes Duceppe a proven liar.

It makes the 2004 coalition talks as ugly and underhanded as the 2008 coalition talks.

[Harry]

Just appeared in the National Post

That makes Duceppe a proven liar.

It does nothing of the sort.

That same article entitled "Harper faces his own coalition monkey" sounds like this issue is now starting to bite Harper in the ass with images of reporters trying to get answers from Harper. These scenes appeared to be be quite similiar to what we witnessed about Ignatieff on the first day of the campaign.

Edited March 27, 2011 by Harry

[jbg]

We also know the GG made Harper commit to her that the new budget must be palatable to the Opposition. These are the powers that a GG has in such a situation, and they are, and Canadians all should understand this, vast powers, used rarely, but used nonetheless.

And how do we know this?

[Smallc]

And how do we know this?

One of the experts she consulted shared it with certain people.

[capricorn]

No one can demand anything of the GG, particularly if there is a vote no confidence.

Yes, that is a fact.

As I understand the intent of the 2004 letter to the GG, no request was made for the opposition to replace Martin's minority government, i.e. no coalition was proposed, as the then opps leaders confirm. And at that time, there was not a no-confidence motion in play. The opposition was asking the GG that should Martin call an election, before the GG accepted Martin's request, the GG consider some type of restructuring of the internal workings in the House of Commons which would facilitate the opposition's contribution in Parliament, all the while allowing Martin to continue as PM and for his minority government to remain in power.

[ToadBrother]

And how do we know this?

From Peter Russell, one of the constitutional experts Madame Jean consulted.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/869915--gg-and-pm-behind-the-scenes-of-the-prorogation-decision

[capricorn]

That same article entitled "Harper faces his own coalition monkey" sounds like this issue is now starting to bite Harper in the ass with images of reporters trying to get answers from Harper. These scenes appeared to be be quite similiar to what we witnessed about Ignatieff on the first day of the campaign.

Yes indeed. The media is doing its job in an unbiased way of insisting that their questions be answered fulsomely.

[YEGmann]

Regarding comparison of the 2004 letter and 2008 agreement.

Harper says truth. It was not a coalition, not even depositing government, just pressure on Martin. Everything developed as Harper says. He's clean. Claiming otherwise is a pure speculation.

In 2008 Ignatieff pushed Dion to sign a formal agreement with the two other amigos, giving NDP 25% of minister positions, and to demand depositing the minority government. This is a fact. Nobody can argue this. The question only is "Will Ignatieff repeat the trick now?"

[Harry]

Just heard Layton on CPAC at his pressor in Surrey, BC, who basically has collaborated what Duceppe has said about 2004.

Layton said quite clearly Harper was not trustworthy.

Duceppe accuses Harper of lying about 2004 coalition

Mr. Duceppe said the letter’s intent was clear. The other option open to Ms. Clarkson would have been to ask the opposition parties to form a government. And clearly Mr. Harper did not see Mr. Layton, “a dangerous socialist with 19 MPs,” nor Mr. Duceppe, “the nasty separatist,” heading the replacement government, Mr. Duceppe said. “All that leaves is Stephen Harper, who finished second.”

The arrangement was never described as a coalition, Mr. Duceppe said, but in order to survive, Mr. Harper would have needed the Bloc’s support. “He would have had to make compromises.”

Mr. Duceppe accused Mr. Harper of basing his campaign on the “lie” that the Liberals are plotting an alliance with the Bloc and that the Conservatives would never consider such a thing.

“Stephen Harper wants to form a majority based on a lie,” he said. “We are going to block his way with the truth. That is our weapon: truth and democracy.” The crowd of more than 300 people erupted in lengthy applause. There was no curtain call, but his late father, Jean Duceppe, would have been proud.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/03/27/duceppe-accuses-harper-of-lying-about-2004-coalition/

Coalition question put to Harper

Harper pressed on coalition position

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2011/03/26/cv-campaign-sunday.html

Edited March 27, 2011 by Harry

[jbg]

Just heard Layton on CPAC at his pressor in Surrey, BC, who basically has collaborated what Duceppe has said about 2004.

Freudian slip? Or poor command of Canadian?

"Collaborated" means helped. I think you meant "corroborated" unless that's a Canadianism like "har-bower" (pronunciation for harbour) or "lay-bower" (pronunciation for labour). Proper spellings are harbor and labor, of course.

Rest of post moved.

Edited March 27, 2011 by jbg

[noahbody]

At the time of the 2004 letter, Paul Martin hadn't been exonerated by the Gomery Inquiry. Had the Inquiry shown him to be involved, I think the majority of Canadians would've supported a coalition as a means to remove a corrupt government,immediately.

[Scotty]

Just heard Layton on CPAC at his pressor in Surrey, BC, who basically has collaborated what Duceppe has said about 2004.

Layton said quite clearly Harper was not trustworthy.

Oh well, that's settled then.

[Harry]

It's called the Law of Unintended Consequences.

Ignatieff turns coalition accusation back on Harper

Michael Ignatieff says Stephen Harper has some explaining to do about what he was doing in a hotel room with Jack and Gilles.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/ignatieff-turns-coalition-accusation-back-on-harper/article1958633/

Edited March 27, 2011 by Harry

[capricorn]

Just heard Layton on CPAC at his pressor in Surrey, BC, who basically has collaborated what Duceppe has said about 2004.

Layton said quite clearly Harper was not trustworthy.

Are you surprised Harry? The man's in election mode and his objective is to take seats away from the other parties. I would not expect anything less from a politician than to use the soapbox to his best advantage. They all do it.

[jbg]

Freudian slip? Or poor command of Canadian?

"Collaborated" means helped. I think you meant "corroborated" unless that's a Canadianism like "har-bower" (pronunciation for harbour) or "lay-bower" (pronunciation for labour). Proper spellings are harbor and labor, of course.

But returning to the substance of what you're trying to post, there is a huge difference between doing what Harper apparently did in 2004, which is to communicate with the GG a prospective ability to form a stable government that works with other parties on a bill-by-bill basis and what Dion and Layton did in 2008, which is to procure a written committment that for a designated period the Bloc would not vote against the "government" (including only LPC and NDP ministers) on confidence measures.

Any MP has a responsibility to vote against ill-advised legislation. The Bloc was furthering its dereliction of duty to Canada, verging on treason, by promising on behalf of its MP's no such deliberation or voting.

It's called the Law of Unintended Consequences.

Crickets?

[Jack Weber]

Oh well, that's settled then.

As far as it goes towards Mr. Harpers duplicity about the "evil" coalition???

It certainly does...

[Harry]

In minority governments you make accords/coalitions, and there is nothing wrong with that.

But this has now created a problem for Harper, and he is in trouble over this, because with all his accusations against Ignatieff forming a coalition, Canadians are being reminded that he tried to do a backroom deal with the Bloc and the NDP in 2004. It's the lead story in the news castcasts, they are playing 2004 news clips with Harper sitting between Duceppe and Layton, and the issue of trust is starting to come to the forefront. Can you trust Harper? The hypocrisy, Duceppe calls it lying, Layton says Harper is untrustworthy, is mind-boggling.

Edited March 27, 2011 by Harry

[jbg]

It's the lead story in the news castcasts, they are playing 2004 news clips with Harper sitting between Duceppe and Layton, and the issue of trust is starting to come to the forefront. Can you trust Harper?

Is this an instant replay of "Harper, scary" or "troops in the streets"?