August1991 Posted March 26, 2011 Report Share Posted March 26, 2011 (edited) Harper's tried it before.Jack and Nicky, according to information that I have found, that 2004 letter addressed to Clarkson was never signed, and never sent to Clarkson. It was only a draft prepared by a lawyer. Edited March 26, 2011 by August1991 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Weber Posted March 26, 2011 Report Share Posted March 26, 2011 Mr.Harper's 2004 letter signed by himself and the 2 other opposition party leaders... http://ca.news.yahoo.com/text-stephen-harpers-2004-letter-signed-layton-duceppe-20110325-125425-052.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eyeball Posted March 26, 2011 Report Share Posted March 26, 2011 Mr.Harper's 2004 letter signed by himself and the 2 other opposition party leaders... http://ca.news.yahoo.com/text-stephen-harpers-2004-letter-signed-layton-duceppe-20110325-125425-052.html The spinning this seems to inspire is reminiscent of the spin reserved for pictures of Saddam Hussein shaking hands with Donald Rumsfeld. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted March 26, 2011 Report Share Posted March 26, 2011 Mr.Harper's 2004 letter signed by himself and the 2 other opposition party leaders... http://ca.news.yahoo.com/text-stephen-harpers-2004-letter-signed-layton-duceppe-20110325-125425-052.html Both the Tory and Liberal supporters around here seem to be attempting to rewrite the histories of both their parties' coalition attempts. The Tories tell us the 2004 letter was just a friendly reminder from the neighborhood Opposition. The Liberals would tell us the collapsed 2008 coalition was intended just to scare the Tories. In both cases, there is the rather pathetic unwillingness to own up to the fact that both pretty much everyone in Parliament since we entered this minority phase has been trying to figure out a way to produce a stable majority. I have no idea why they are in this kind of denial. Any parliament in such a situation is going to look for some way to guarantee their longevity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Wilber Posted March 26, 2011 Report Share Posted March 26, 2011 If politicians of all stripes haven't learned by now that a coalition is a non starter with the people, they are idiots. Historically, coalitions have only been acceptable during wartime. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alta4ever Posted March 26, 2011 Report Share Posted March 26, 2011 I looked at that link and I see no signatures on it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Posted March 26, 2011 Report Share Posted March 26, 2011 If politicians of all stripes haven't learned by now that a coalition is a non starter with the people, they are idiots. Historically, coalitions have only been acceptable during wartime. You're right, I forgot, the UK is at war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saipan Posted March 26, 2011 Report Share Posted March 26, 2011 How do you think any legislation, spending estimates, the last spending estimates, got passed with a minority government? By having Allan Rock lie to the Parliament about the actual cost of his pet project. By 1000% Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ToadBrother Posted March 26, 2011 Report Share Posted March 26, 2011 If politicians of all stripes haven't learned by now that a coalition is a non starter with the people, they are idiots. Historically, coalitions have only been acceptable during wartime. Historically, prior to the complete dominance of the Tories and Whigs/Liberals in the mid-19th century in Britain, the British Parliament was essentially nothing but ever-shifting Coalitions. It wasn't until Disraeli basically invented the modern political party leader that we saw the permanent shift. At any rate, the UK just created a non-wartime coalition last year, not because the voters would or would not like it, but because he believed it the best path to produce a stable government that would do the hard things that need to be done. The voters will ultimately accept it or not, but the voters have their say on election day, and then Parliament has its say afterwards. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Posted March 26, 2011 Report Share Posted March 26, 2011 (edited) By having Allan Rock lie to the Parliament about the actual cost of his pet project. By 1000% Sorry, and I thought you were going to talk about something current like those fighter jets. After all what's 15-20 billion dollar cost overruns, when you can just stick it to the taxpayer if you can get away with it. Competent fiscal managers my ass. Edited March 26, 2011 by Harry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted March 26, 2011 Report Share Posted March 26, 2011 What did the other leaders say about this supposed coalition in 2004? “In no way we are a coalition and we won’t be a coalition.”-Gilles Duccepe “It’s impossible to imagine that these three parties with their completely different platforms could form a coalition as we find in other countries.”-Jack Layton Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nicky10013 Posted March 26, 2011 Report Share Posted March 26, 2011 Both the Tory and Liberal supporters around here seem to be attempting to rewrite the histories of both their parties' coalition attempts. The Tories tell us the 2004 letter was just a friendly reminder from the neighborhood Opposition. The Liberals would tell us the collapsed 2008 coalition was intended just to scare the Tories. In both cases, there is the rather pathetic unwillingness to own up to the fact that both pretty much everyone in Parliament since we entered this minority phase has been trying to figure out a way to produce a stable majority. I have no idea why they are in this kind of denial. Any parliament in such a situation is going to look for some way to guarantee their longevity. I'm not speaking for others, but the 2008 coalition wasn't meant to scare. It was definitely meant to take power. My only point was that Ignatieff was never a supporter of the coalition and I've personally heard him say he wouldn't support a coalition. He just doesn't want to get caught in an ugly soundbyte. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bryan Posted March 26, 2011 Report Share Posted March 26, 2011 (edited) Angus Reid's latest poll, March 25/2011: CPC - 39 LPC - 25 NDP - 19 BQ - 10 GRN - 7 http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/962129--tories-on-brink-of-majority-as-election-called?bn=1 Looks like the EKOS poll is the only one not showing the Conservatives in majority territory. What was it I said about that yesterday? EKOS' poll is late this week. It's usually out on thursday. They usually show something contradictory to the overall trend, it would be consistent on their part if they showed lower CPC numbers this week, followed by a poll that follows the overall trend next week. Edited March 26, 2011 by Bryan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Posted March 26, 2011 Report Share Posted March 26, 2011 Leger Marketing - March 26, 2011 C - 39% L - 23% N - 19% B - 9% G - 7% 0 - 1% http://www.ledevoir.com/documents/pdf/SondagepancanLM-Le%20Devoir.pdf Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Harry Posted March 26, 2011 Report Share Posted March 26, 2011 (edited) Looks like the EKOS poll is the only one not showing the Conservatives in majority territory. What was it I said about that yesterday? Actually in the Angus Reid poll the CPC support has not changed from their previous poll. Edited March 26, 2011 by Harry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted March 26, 2011 Report Share Posted March 26, 2011 Both the Tory and Liberal supporters around here seem to be attempting to rewrite the histories of both their parties' coalition attempts. The Tories tell us the 2004 letter was just a friendly reminder from the neighborhood Opposition. The Liberals would tell us the collapsed 2008 coalition was intended just to scare the Tories. In both cases, there is the rather pathetic unwillingness to own up to the fact that both pretty much everyone in Parliament since we entered this minority phase has been trying to figure out a way to produce a stable majority. I have no idea why they are in this kind of denial. Any parliament in such a situation is going to look for some way to guarantee their longevity. I absolutely agree with what you are saying here toad!And part of that process is to inform the minority government that they are just that and if they do not co-operate the opposition will seek all their opptions out to implement what they feel is in the best interest of their electorate! In other words to drive a sence of fear into the minority if they do not co-operate. This is a fact and it is in the history books! If your interpretation is different then mine and you don't like it then eat cake buddy! If you want to put up walls thats your problem not mine! WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Saipan Posted March 26, 2011 Report Share Posted March 26, 2011 (edited) We hope the tradition of increasing number of conservative seats in each election will continue. Ignatieff is just too arrogant. Edited March 26, 2011 by Saipan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly Posted March 26, 2011 Report Share Posted March 26, 2011 (edited) The Liberals would tell us the collapsed 2008 coalition was intended just to scare the Tories. I resent that comment, too. So far as I could see, one doofus said that, and recieved no support, because it was factually wrong on the face of it. Of course it was a serious and sincere attempt to produce a stable majority. Too bad we aren't allowed to explore any nuance, though, because the incident was soooo much more interesting than the mere black and white. Your insistence that everyone had their heart in it, or honestly expected it to succeed is easily as revisionist as it's proposterous opposite. It was a desperate measure in desperate times. No one had a better suggestion. Edit to add: For the record, I applauded it then, and I applaud it now. It was the right thing to do. Edited March 26, 2011 by Molly Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
WWWTT Posted March 26, 2011 Report Share Posted March 26, 2011 I resent that comment, too. So far as I could see, one doofus said that, and recieved no support, because it was factually wrong on the face of it. Of course it was a serious and sincere attempt to produce a stable majority. Too bad we aren't allowed to explore any nuance, though, because the incident was soooo much more interesting than the mere black and white. Your insistence that everyone had their heart in it, or honestly expected it to succeed is easily as revisionist as it's proposterous opposite. It was a desperate measure in desperate times. No one had a better suggestion. As far as I am concerned anyone who resorts to name calling gives one self a paticular brand.And you have done this to yourself and you have only yourself to blame! Aswell I have already seen some factually incorrect dates and times as to when this collapse of a coalition allegedly has occured. I do not need the support of those who are taintedly biased and incorrect on a regular basis to continue to express my opinion freely! If you cannot recognize that history is open to interpretation based on a certain viewpoint and that this does not necessarily change any facts then that would make you very bad at debates and I would recommend you do not persue a life in politics that would publicly expose you to critisism from any potentially worthy opponents.Save yourself the emmbarasement please! WWWTT Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted March 26, 2011 Report Share Posted March 26, 2011 (edited) Mr.Harper's 2004 letter signed by himself and the 2 other opposition party leaders...http://ca.news.yahoo.com/text-stephen-harpers-2004-letter-signed-layton-duceppe-20110325-125425-052.html Jack, this where the Internet may be causing problems. The letter has been floating around for ages and has become something of a modern meme.While your source is CP, the CBC reported yesterday that the letter was never signed. My own (brief) research on the Internet gave me the impression that it was never signed and never sent. I have no particular problem with the letter whether it was signed, sent or not. The mere fact that Harper presumably approved its drafting shows that he considered a GG consultation. But I see a world of difference between the 2004 letter and the December 2008 full blown coalition agreement signed by the entire Liberal caucus. And even more, this is all water on the bridge. At the moment, Ignatieff is facing a dire problem about coalition rumours and he will have to address it somehow. ----- Maybe we should start another thread specifically about the veracity of the 2004 letter. I'd be curious to know. Edited March 26, 2011 by August1991 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted March 26, 2011 Report Share Posted March 26, 2011 At the moment, Ignatieff is facing a dire problem about coalition rumours and he will have to address it somehow. No he's not. Nobody cares. Harper is just facing a dire problem about his contempt of parliament and willingness to include convicted criminals in his inner circle, and is desperately, desperately trying to distract. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
August1991 Posted March 26, 2011 Report Share Posted March 26, 2011 No he's not. Nobody cares. Harper is just facing a dire problem about his contempt of parliament and willingness to include convicted criminals in his inner circle, and is desperately, desperately trying to distract.Most people don't care, Bubbler. But two small groups do care and Ignatieff has to worry about them: 1. There are Liberal voters who don't want Layton or the socialists anywhere near the cabinet table. 2. There are people who waver between the NDP/Liberal. There need be only 2 voters in 40 like this and if they leave the Liberals, Ignatieff's totals will fall and Harper will get his majority. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Molly Posted March 26, 2011 Report Share Posted March 26, 2011 There need be only 2 voters in 40 like this and if they leave the Liberals, Ignatieff's totals will fall and Harper will get his majority. Two in 40 is a big number. If only 2 in 40 consider the co-a-lition ghost to be unfounded tripe, and so switch from the Conservatives to... anyone else... the CPC won't even be the official opposition when the dust settles. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BubberMiley Posted March 26, 2011 Report Share Posted March 26, 2011 There are people who waver between the NDP/Liberal. There need be only 2 voters in 40 like this and if they leave the Liberals, Ignatieff's totals will fall and Harper will get his majority. How many voters in 40 like the fact that Harper has convicted criminals in his inner circle, or ministers who falsify forms, or shady in-and-out electoral financing practices? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scotty Posted March 26, 2011 Report Share Posted March 26, 2011 Two in 40 is a big number. If only 2 in 40 consider the co-a-lition ghost to be unfounded tripe, and so switch from the Conservatives to... anyone else... the CPC won't even be the official opposition when the dust settles. Considering they have double the Liberals' seat count and are up fifteen points or more in the polls I think that's whistling past the graveyard. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
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.