Coalition: September 2004, December 2008 & Now

[Jack Weber]

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

I don't know about that,however,it does beg the question(s) of Mr.Harper...

If a coalition between the CA,NDP,and,the Bloc was good in 2004 why is it bad if the Liberals try to do it in their place???

Why were'nt the Socialists and Seperatists evil in 2004 but they are evil now?

I'm thinkin' the only real issue is that Mr. Harper might be on the losing end of that coalition,unlike 2004???

Edited March 27, 2011 by Jack Weber

[jbg]

If a coalition between the CA,NDP,and,the Bloc was good in 2004 why is it bad if the Liberals try to do it in their place? Why were'nt the Socialists and Seperatists evil in 2004 but they are evil now?

To my mind, 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.

[Wild Bill]

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.

Canadians are being reminded but that still doesn't mean they care!

All through the Harper term the Opposition has thrown crap at him, hoping something will stick. It hasn't worked much, because you don't successfully sell something by knocking your competition. Even if you get someone to admit that Harper is a hypocrite over forming a coalition, you will still have the problem of that someone turning back to you and saying "Well, so what? Your guy STILL sucks! Why should I switch my vote?"

You need a "one-two" combination punch. You knock your opponent down but you also have to present your own product, service or Prime Ministerial candidate as better!

This is where Ignatieff and his Liberals have failed to succeed. So their mud-slinging has had only limited effect.

Frankly, at this point I don't see any pitch that could be successful enough for the Liberals. Maybe they will find something during the campaign. If they don't, Harper might get not only a majority but a bigger one than many would think.

[Brandon]

Can someone clear up for me if they were actually trying to make a coalition in 2004 or where they trying to do something else?

[jbg]

Can someone clear up for me if they were actually trying to make a coalition in 2004 or where they trying to do something else?

From my memory at the time, it was not a coalition. It was a request that the GG contact the next-down party if the Government fell. Remember there had been an election on June 28, 2004 (or was it June 29) and there was no appetite for the Governmnent to fall on the Throne Speech. The last time there had been a minority government, in 1979, it lasted only a few months before falling. No one was in the mood for an instant replay.

The thought was that Martin could be cajoled by the GG to make the Throne Speech acceptable to at least one other party so there wouldn't be two elections in five months.

[Brandon]

From my memory at the time, it was not a coalition. It was a request that the GG contact the next-down party if the Government fell. Remember there had been an election on June 28, 2004 (or was it June 29) and there was no appetite for the Governmnent to fall on the Throne Speech. The last time there had been a minority government, in 1979, it lasted only a few months before falling. No one was in the mood for an instant replay.

The thought was that Martin could be cajoled by the GG to make the Throne Speech acceptable to at least one other party so there wouldn't be two elections in five months.

Thanks for explaining that. I was pretty young in 2004 so I didn't really remember and now on CTV they are broadcasting The Bloc talking about how Stephen Harper is a hypocrite and that he was ready to form a Coalition with them. CTV really wasn't explaining it so thank you .

[Shady]

Here's Ignatieff on youtube.

Bump!

[Brandon]

Oh but there is no need to worry he has now made a press release saying the coalition is off the table (unlike a gst hike) . You never know what could happen after the election if they opposition forms a coalition.

[Keepitsimple]

I'm disappointed with Deceppe accusing Harper of lying. As facts emerge, clearly there was no coalition and even Layton and Duceppe admit to that. We now know that Harper was just advising the GG that there were things that could be done that woul allow the Martin minority to continue governing - like modifying the committees to have more opposition members. I'm disappointed because separatist or not - I'm always thought that Duceepe was an honest and honourable man. It seems that he is also running scared now and will do anything to stop the Conservatives from gaining strength in Quebec.

[ToadBrother]

I'm disappointed with Deceppe accusing Harper of lying. As facts emerge, clearly there was no coalition and even Layton and Duceppe admit to that. We now know that Harper was just advising the GG that there were things that could be done that woul allow the Martin minority to continue governing - like modifying the committees to have more opposition members. I'm disappointed because separatist or not - I'm always thought that Duceepe was an honest and honourable man. It seems that he is also running scared now and will do anything to stop the Conservatives from gaining strength in Quebec.

Except, of course, the intent of the letter and the conditions in which it were presented were meant to underline that the Opposition were willing to submit themselves as an alternative. We can split hairs over what that would have meant, but at the end of the day the three Opposition parties had the intent of working together so as to avoid another election.

[nicky10013]

I'm disappointed with Deceppe accusing Harper of lying. As facts emerge, clearly there was no coalition and even Layton and Duceppe admit to that. We now know that Harper was just advising the GG that there were things that could be done that woul allow the Martin minority to continue governing - like modifying the committees to have more opposition members. I'm disappointed because separatist or not - I'm always thought that Duceepe was an honest and honourable man. It seems that he is also running scared now and will do anything to stop the Conservatives from gaining strength in Quebec.

Hahahahaha wow, someone is in denial.

[Keepitsimple]

Except, of course, the intent of the letter and the conditions in which it were presented were meant to underline that the Opposition were willing to submit themselves as an alternative. We can split hairs over what that would have meant, but at the end of the day the three Opposition parties had the intent of working together so as to avoid another election.

There's no need to split hairs since the word coalition never came up in the letter or in any discussions - that has been verified by both Layton and Duceppe. The letter is exactly what it says it is - talk to us befor you dissolve Parliament. Nothing more, nothing less.

[ToadBrother]

There's no need to split hairs since the word coalition never came up in the letter or in any discussions - that has been verified by both Layton and Duceppe. The letter is exactly what it says it is - talk to us befor you dissolve Parliament. Nothing more, nothing less.

Except the alternative to an election is asking someone else to govern, and all three someone elses have their name on the letter.

[tweetah]

The coalition Harper spearheaded in '04 is fact and that commie Duceppe kept the paper work.

I know that bothers you neo-cons but it is fact and there is also video tape of the "Three Amigos" making an announcement of Harper's intention to steal power from Martin. It was shown on Wingnut Solomon's Power and Politics this aft.

[Shady]

Harper's intention to steal power from Martin.

Wait a second. I thought that a coalition government was a legitimate course of action within our system? That's what all of our pro-Liberal posters keep telling us. So how was Martin having his power stolen?

[YEGmann]

Except, of course, the intent of the letter and the conditions in which it were presented were meant to underline that the Opposition were willing to submit themselves as an alternative. We can split hairs over what that would have meant, but at the end of the day the three Opposition parties had the intent of working together so as to avoid another election.

Your logics is easily beaten by the question:"Then, why did not Harper proceed with this plan?"

It is not splitting hairs, this is a principal difference. Harper did not want to bring Martin government down. Martin would continue to be PM. Harper did not need a coalition. Events unfolded exactly in accordance with the scenario Harper explained today.

A Coalition here is not just working together. All the buzz is about forming a government with shared minister portfolios among several parties. This is a coalition government. Harper did not do that. Liberals had such a deal with NDP with support of BQ.

You cannot find in the letter a slightest suggestion of opposition to govern. You simply cannot admit this.

[blueblood]

Except the alternative to an election is asking someone else to govern, and all three someone elses have their name on the letter.

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

[ToadBrother]

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

As has been pointed out, Parliament cannot be prorogued until it sits. Harper cannot prorogue Parliament to evade a defeat of the Throne Speech.

Edited March 28, 2011 by ToadBrother

[tweetah]

Wait a second. I thought that a coalition government was a legitimate course of action within our system? That's what all of our pro-Liberal posters keep telling us. So how was Martin having his power stolen?

A coalition gov't is a legitimate course of action. But first you need a non-confidence vote.

Are you suggesting that the UK, Germany, Israel are not democracies?

[blueblood]

As has been pointed out, Parliament cannot be prorogued until it sits. Harper cannot prorogue Parliament to evade a defeat of the Throne Speech.

I'm not being an ass here, in 04 did parliament sit before harper,duceppe, and layton. I forget

[jbg]

Thanks for explaining that. I was pretty young in 2004 so I didn't really remember and now on CTV they are broadcasting The Bloc talking about how Stephen Harper is a hypocrite and that he was ready to form a Coalition with them. CTV really wasn't explaining it so thank you .

Here's the text of the letter (pdf of letter available by PMing me with e-mail address):

September 9, 2004

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

Is there a coalition agreement built in here? Has anyone produced a coalition agreement? There sure was one in December 2008.

[YEGmann]

A coalition gov't is a legitimate course of action. But first you need a non-confidence vote.

Are you suggesting that the UK, Germany, Israel are not democracies?

Of course, a coalition is a legimate option. A problem is in those countries, voters know in advance there will likely be a coalition. Another problem is that the party with most of seats is a part of the coalition. This is a true democracy, not the surrogate the three amigos tried to push through in 2008. And the coalitions are formed immediately after the elections, there is no need for a circus with a non-confidence vote.

But the biggest problem with the coalition governments in Europe is their instability. It is difficult to satisfy all members simultaneously.

Compare European taxes, wages and prices to Canadian ones. Europe is overtaxed.

You mention democracy wrongly. The 2008 coalition was legimate but it was absolutely undemocratic.

Edited March 28, 2011 by YEGmann

[scribblet]

There was no 'coalition' agreement, 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.

Duceppe stated very clearly at the press conference in 2004 that this was not a coalition, with Harper and Layton making similar statements. Now Duceppe is saying the opposite.

MPs from opposition parties all entering into a signed deal with a specific time frame is a coalition. Duceppe, Layton, and Ignatieff were all signatories to this would-be coalition in 2008. Duceppe is the liar here, and the proof is in the reading of the letter and the comments from each party leader that followed because a coalition, is different than cooperation. Harper never proposed a formal deal with a specific time period the the Liberals did with Iggy signing on as a Liberal MP at the time. Huge difference. Duceppe needs to be called on his lies, and hoisted on his own petard.

[fellowtraveller]

This talk of coalition is a very real specific problem to the Liberals. It's not hypothetical at all.

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. Edited March 28, 2011 by fellowtraveller

[Guest peterb]

Harper is within striking distance of a majority - even the most partisan media types can't honestly deny this. Harper's solution and Canada's solution to a good stable government is a Harper majority.You don't have to be a rocket scientist to see what Iggy's game plan has to be - he has no choice. Ignatieff can not form a majority, as polls indicate, and he will require the Bloc's support of 50 plus seats to become Prime Minister. This comes with an extortion attempt of 5 billion dollars from the Canadian taxpayer by Duceppe which failed with Harper, but is sure to succeed with Ignatieff, because that is the only way Iggy can stay in power from day one. Why do you think Duceppe has made Harper enemy number one for the Bloc?