Jack Weber Posted March 29, 2011 Report Posted March 29, 2011 Both sides are weaseling. Any political leader, faced with the possibility of a minority, will ponder a coalition of some kind. Maybe they'll still decide to do it alone at the end of the process, but if they're saying, and this counts both Iggy and Harper, "I won't do a coalition", they're lying. If they could figure out a way to make it work and be palatable to voters and to their caucus, they'd do it. Having control of a majority of seats in the house is a pretty juicy carrot. Absoltely.... However,the duplicitous factor does get ratcheted up by a few factors when the current Prime Minister tries to villify the opposition party's for doing the exact same thing he intended on doing in 2004. In other words,the squeaky clean "Standing Up for Canada" sloganeering gets blown out of the water!!! As does the ability to tear apart the "seperatist/socialist" coalition argument... As you said yesterday,every bill in the last parliament had to pass with some sort of "coalition" between the Tories and one(or more) of the opposition party's Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
ToadBrother Posted March 29, 2011 Report Posted March 29, 2011 (edited) As you said yesterday,every bill in the last parliament had to pass with some sort of "coalition" between the Tories and one(or more) of the opposition party's And let's do another thought experiment. Let's say, horror of horrors, the Liberals did form a formal coalition with the Bloc (this was not contemplated in the 2008 letter). Let's say six months down the road Iggy is happily chewing glass at 24 Sussex Drive when Duceppe calls him up. Let's imagine the scene.... (swirly patterns to take us to this imaginary time and place) Iggy: Hello, Evil Coalition Prime Minister speaking. Duceppe: Yes, Mizzter Iggy, as Minister of Quebec and Stuff, I am putting forward policies to separate from Canada. Joke's on you, silly English person. Iggy: Uh no, Mr. Evil Separatist Minister of Quebec and Stuff, I'm going to go to the Governor General in sixty seconds and having all Bloc members of cabinet removed. I'll decide later whether new elections should be called. (hangs up phone) (swirly patterns return us back to today) So folks, in the midst of all this fevered coalition talk, let's remember that a PM has the monopoly on the Governor General's ear, not just to call election, but about who is in cabinet. While I'm definitely not in favor of Bloc cabinet ministers, I'm trying to show what the worst-case scenario would mean. Edited March 29, 2011 by ToadBrother Quote
capricorn Posted March 29, 2011 Report Posted March 29, 2011 In other words,the squeaky clean "Standing Up for Canada" sloganeering gets blown out of the water!!! That slogan is passe. Now it's "Here for Canada". Quote "We always want the best man to win an election. Unfortunately, he never runs." Will Rogers
Bitsy Posted March 29, 2011 Report Posted March 29, 2011 CPAC has the full video here, all you need to know http://www.cpac.ca/forms/index.asp?dsp=template&act=view3&pagetype=vod&hl=e&clipID=5288 shorter version here There was no coalition No one is taking the position that the word “coalition” was used in public or in the letter to the GG; that is an established fact so all the videos, articles, blog postings are totally unnecessary and redundant. Duceppe contends that Harper discussed a ‘coalition’ in a private meeting with he and Layton and if Harper denies that then he is a “liar”. That is the issue….not what they said to the press or in their letter. Who is lying is the issue. Flanagan said a “co-opposition” accord was a “perfectly legitimate exercise” aimed at exploring whether there was “common ground for the Conservatives to undertake a minority government.” Sounds much like a coalition to my ears. Quote
Shwa Posted March 29, 2011 Report Posted March 29, 2011 That's gotta be the dumbest question that I've seen on the election yet. Harper has formed two minority governments since 2006 and has not entered into any kind of coalition or agenda-driven deal with any opposition party. Too many people are treating this coalition issue as a "he said, she said" type argument. It's not. Who cares what Harper did or signed in 2004? Who even cares about Dion's deal in 2008? All things considered, thus far in the campaign, "Who cares what Harper did or signed in 2004?" is the dumbest question of them all since we now have a whole slew of CPC Coalition Deniers trying to distance themselves from the embarassment of having to deal with a leader who blithely accuses his opponent of doing something he himself has considered in 2004. I am not making an issue of the idea of a coalition, Harper did. I am merely having fun with it. You should too. Maybe relax a little. Quote
Shwa Posted March 29, 2011 Report Posted March 29, 2011 Yeah,right... (With apologies to Cheech and Chong) Cheech: Hey man, what does that look like to you man? Chong: It looks like a coalition man. Cheech: Hey man, what does it smell like? Chong: Aw, smells like a coalition man. Cheech: Oh, feel it man, what does it feel like? Chong: {brief pause} Aw man, it feels like a coalition too. Cheech: Oh man, what does it TASTE like man? Chong: {sounds of smacking lips like someone is eating} Aw, it TASTES like a coalition man. Cheech: 'Looks like a coalition, smells like a coalition, feels like a coalition, tastes like a coalition. Must be a coalition. Good thing we didn't step in it!" Quote
Bryan Posted March 29, 2011 Report Posted March 29, 2011 All things considered, thus far in the campaign, "Who cares what Harper did or signed in 2004?" is the dumbest question of them all since we now have a whole slew of CPC Coalition Deniers trying to distance themselves from the embarassment of having to deal with a leader who blithely accuses his opponent of doing something he himself has considered in 2004. No one on Harper's side is embarrassed at all, and they sure are not trying to make any distance. That's why they keep posting the full press conference so that you can go ahead and listen to what the 2004 issue was all about, It's information we WANT people to see, so that the lefties will stop lying about it. Quote
Shwa Posted March 29, 2011 Report Posted March 29, 2011 No one on Harper's side is embarrassed at all, and they sure are not trying to make any distance. That's why they keep posting the full press conference so that you can go ahead and listen to what the 2004 issue was all about, It's information we WANT people to see, so that the lefties will stop lying about it. Well, it's a godo thing the righties didn't step in it then isn't it? I'm sure everyone will understand. Quote
bloodyminded Posted March 29, 2011 Report Posted March 29, 2011 No one on Harper's side is embarrassed at all, and they sure are not trying to make any distance. That's why they keep posting the full press conference so that you can go ahead and listen to what the 2004 issue was all about, It's information we WANT people to see, so that the lefties will stop lying about it. These defenses of the conservative position are almost astonishing in their wilful misunderstanding. No, Harper never initiated any coalition. Yes, he did not immediately throw the idea off the table...because he was not opposed to the idea. He only became opposed to the idea when it could conceivably hurt the Conservatives. I think the staunch defenders of Harper's "did/didn't" coalition idea are the only ones actually lying here. To themselves, presumably. Quote As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand. --Josh Billings
ToadBrother Posted March 29, 2011 Report Posted March 29, 2011 No one on Harper's side is embarrassed at all, and they sure are not trying to make any distance. That's why they keep posting the full press conference so that you can go ahead and listen to what the 2004 issue was all about, It's information we WANT people to see, so that the lefties will stop lying about it. They should be. The difference between "We're going to have a coalition" and "Wink-wink-nudge-nudge" isn't far enough, to my liking. Quote
Jack Weber Posted March 29, 2011 Report Posted March 29, 2011 That slogan is passe. Now it's "Here for Canada". You're right... And equally ridiculous considering Mr.Harpers coalition plans in 2004... Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
Jack Weber Posted March 29, 2011 Report Posted March 29, 2011 (With apologies to Cheech and Chong) Cheech: Hey man, what does that look like to you man? Chong: It looks like a coalition man. Cheech: Hey man, what does it smell like? Chong: Aw, smells like a coalition man. Cheech: Oh, feel it man, what does it feel like? Chong: {brief pause} Aw man, it feels like a coalition too. Cheech: Oh man, what does it TASTE like man? Chong: {sounds of smacking lips like someone is eating} Aw, it TASTES like a coalition man. Cheech: 'Looks like a coalition, smells like a coalition, feels like a coalition, tastes like a coalition. Must be a coalition. Good thing we didn't step in it!" "Recession...Repression....Coalition...Coopilition....Whatever,man!".. Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
Jack Weber Posted March 29, 2011 Report Posted March 29, 2011 And let's do another thought experiment. Let's say, horror of horrors, the Liberals did form a formal coalition with the Bloc (this was not contemplated in the 2008 letter). Let's say six months down the road Iggy is happily chewing glass at 24 Sussex Drive when Duceppe calls him up. Let's imagine the scene.... (swirly patterns to take us to this imaginary time and place) Iggy: Hello, Evil Coalition Prime Minister speaking. Duceppe: Yes, Mizzter Iggy, as Minister of Quebec and Stuff, I am putting forward policies to separate from Canada. Joke's on you, silly English person. Iggy: Uh no, Mr. Evil Separatist Minister of Quebec and Stuff, I'm going to go to the Governor General in sixty seconds and having all Bloc members of cabinet removed. I'll decide later whether new elections should be called. (hangs up phone) (swirly patterns return us back to today) So folks, in the midst of all this fevered coalition talk, let's remember that a PM has the monopoly on the Governor General's ear, not just to call election, but about who is in cabinet. While I'm definitely not in favor of Bloc cabinet ministers, I'm trying to show what the worst-case scenario would mean. Are you trying to tell us that the only real problem would be another "wasteful and unnecessary" election?? NNNNNNNNNNOOOOOOOOoooooooooooo!!!!!!!! Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
wyly Posted March 29, 2011 Report Posted March 29, 2011 how's this for irony...in Israel in 2009 after the election a coalition beat the minority government in a non confidence vote....harper called israel the only true democracy in the middle east...so evidently it should be fine by him... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
Keepitsimple Posted March 29, 2011 Report Posted March 29, 2011 (edited) Obviously the Lefties aren't really interested in what actually happened in 2004. They just want to defuse the Coalition of 2008 and the Coalition that COULD happen in 2011. That famous line "It's about the Economy, Stupid" comes to mind because with regards to the Coalition: It's about the Bloc, Stupid! I've said it before but regarding Ignatiff's "promise" to not attempt a coalition, remember this: If the Liberals lose the election (99.9% sure) then their constitution automatically calls for a leadership review. Only the most wide-eyed optimist would believe that Ignatieff would be re-affirmed as leader. That means he's gone......and so is his promise.....and don't think for one moment that the Liberals won't consider taking advantage of that. Edited March 29, 2011 by Keepitsimple Quote Back to Basics
ToadBrother Posted March 29, 2011 Report Posted March 29, 2011 I've said it before but regarding Ignatiff's "promise" to not attempt a coalition, remember this: If the Liberals lose the election (99.9% sure) then their constitution automatically calls for a leadership review. Only the most wide-eyed optimist would believe that Ignatieff would be re-affirmed as leader. That means he's gone......and so is his promise.....and don't think for one moment that the Liberals won't consider taking advantage of that. The Liberals, by and large, are the ones that sunk the 2008 coalition. Is there some reason you think those voices in the caucus who were against it then are somehow going to be for it now? The coalition-anti-coalition is turning into a whole bunch of slurs from both sides. Is there any reason to believe the Tories any more than the Liberals? After all, for all intents and purposes we had an informal coalition between the Tories and Liberals in 2009 and well into 2010, and no one seemed to bat an eyelash about that. Quote
Harry Posted March 29, 2011 Report Posted March 29, 2011 (edited) Absolutely correct TB. "Stephen Harper is facing questions about a 1997 TV interview where he discusses how parties in the Commons could form a coalition to oust Liberals as government even if that party won the largest number of seats in the House. It appears to contradict the Conservative Leaders campaign message where he repeatedly disparages the idea of a minority government being replaced by a coalition of other parties that won less seats in an election." http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/coalition-talk-was-about-uniting-right-not-seizing-power-harper-says/article1961618/ Edited March 29, 2011 by Harry Quote
Scotty Posted March 29, 2011 Report Posted March 29, 2011 Iggy: Hello, Evil Coalition Prime Minister speaking. Duceppe: Yes, Mizzter Iggy, as Minister of Quebec and Stuff, I am putting forward policies to separate from Canada. Joke's on you, silly English person. I think your swirly imagination is somewhat incomplete. Everyone knows Ignatieff would say no to separation. But the question is would he say no to increased money, increased power, increased programs aimed at Quebec? Would he say no to more subsidies for industries located in Quebec? If the alternative was an election in which the Conservatives would trounce him? Harper hasn't exactly been a stalwart defender of the public purse against Quebec himself. Imagine how Ignatieff, whose day to day survival relies on the BQ would behave... Quote It is an inverted moral calculus that tries to persuade the world to demonize one state that tries its civilized best to abide in a difficult time and place, and rides merrily by the examples and practices of dozens of states and leaderships that drop into brutality every day without a twinge of regret or a whisper of condemnation. - Rex Murphy
ToadBrother Posted March 29, 2011 Report Posted March 29, 2011 (edited) I think your swirly imagination is somewhat incomplete. Everyone knows Ignatieff would say no to separation. But the question is would he say no to increased money, increased power, increased programs aimed at Quebec? Would he say no to more subsidies for industries located in Quebec? If the alternative was an election in which the Conservatives would trounce him? We've had that with countless majority governments. I'm a little confused as to why this is a reason not to have the Bloc in or supporting a coalition. For me, the objection has nothing to do with the influence the Bloc might have, since they've had plenty since the Martin minority government. For me, it's more the principal of people dedicated to destroying Canada as we know it in cabinet. It's a philosophical, not a political objection. Harper hasn't exactly been a stalwart defender of the public purse against Quebec himself. Imagine how Ignatieff, whose day to day survival relies on the BQ would behave... Yeah, they might be as bad as the Mulroney and Chretien majority governments! Edited March 29, 2011 by ToadBrother Quote
Jack Weber Posted March 29, 2011 Report Posted March 29, 2011 (edited) We've had that with countless majority governments. I'm a little confused as to why this is a reason not to have the Bloc in or supporting a coalition. For me, the objection has nothing to do with the influence the Bloc might have, since they've had plenty since the Martin minority government. For me, it's more the principal of people dedicated to destroying Canada as we know it in cabinet. It's a philosophical, not a political objection. Yeah, they might be as bad as the Mulroney and Chretien majority governments! You're objection would echo my objection to it... And it's Mr. Mulroney that set the standard for acquiesence to secessionists in Quebec...So far nothing, including a potential coalition (whether that's 2004 or 2008), has come close to topping that!! Edited March 29, 2011 by Jack Weber Quote The beatings will continue until morale improves!!!
Arcane_Joyride Posted March 29, 2011 Report Posted March 29, 2011 When I say it, it's good. When you say it, it's bad. HARPOCRISY! Quote
jbg Posted March 29, 2011 Report Posted March 29, 2011 how's this for irony...in Israel in 2009 after the election a coalition beat the minority government in a non confidence vote....harper called israel the only true democracy in the middle east...so evidently it should be fine by him... Israel's system is proportional representation. Entirely a different story. 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 29, 2011 Report Posted March 29, 2011 Israel's system is proportional representation. Entirely a different story. The voting system is different. How you deal with a governing party gaining a minority isn't. PR systems just make coalitions more likely because it's so much harder for any party to achieve an absolute majority of seats in the parliament. Same goes for Ireland, Germany and a whole host of Westminster-based parliaments that use PR electoral systems. Quote
msj Posted March 29, 2011 Report Posted March 29, 2011 (edited) "Stephen Harper is facing questions about a 1997 TV interview where he discusses how parties in the Commons could form a “coalition” to oust Liberals as government even if that party won the “largest number of seats” in the House. It appears to contradict the Conservative Leader’s campaign message where he repeatedly disparages the idea of a minority government being replaced by a coalition of other parties that won less seats in an election." http://www.theglobea...article1961618/ 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. Edited March 29, 2011 by msj Quote If a believer demands that I, as a non-believer, observe his taboos in the public domain, he is not asking for my respect but for my submission. And that is incompatible with a secular democracy. Flemming Rose (Dutch journalist) My biggest takeaway from economics is that the past wasn't as good as you remember, the present isn't as bad as you think, and the future will be better than you anticipate. Morgan Housel http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2016/01/14/things-im-pretty-sure-about.aspx
Evening Star Posted March 29, 2011 Report Posted March 29, 2011 (edited) Sorry, didn't notice it had been posted already. No one on Harper's side is embarrassed at all, and they sure are not trying to make any distance. That's why they keep posting the full press conference so that you can go ahead and listen to what the 2004 issue was all about, It's information we WANT people to see, so that the lefties will stop lying about it. How do you explain these comments (from 1997, I believe)?: Edited March 29, 2011 by Evening Star 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.