Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Coalition: September 2004, December 2008 & Now


Recommended Posts

It could be a problem for harper if duceppe provides some hard concrete evidence about terms of a coalition between the parties. However if duceppe keeps going "harper said this harper said that", its a non issue.
BB, it's not a problem for Harper whatever evidence Duceppe provides. What potential Conservative voters are going to switch to another party?

If anything, Harper (like the NDP) has a hard core of voters who really have nowhere else to go.

At any rate, Iggy has made it clear he has no intention of forming a coalition. I think he's going to be forced into some sort of an accord, at least with the NDP, but there we have it.
But who believes Ignatieff? Apparently not you TB.

IOW, the Liberals have a very serious problem on their hands. If Ignatieff even suggests that a coalition is possible, then he loses voters to the NDP and the Conservatives. (I recall Turner in the 1984 election, fearful of this possibility, making an explicit claim that a vote for the NDP was a wasted vote.)

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 529
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

But who believes Ignatieff? Apparently not you TB.

If he's telling the truth, and I'm probably more convinced now then I was this morning, he's going to have a helluva ride trying to govern. Still, Harper managed to do it in 2006-2008 when the seat counts were less in the Government's favor, so maybe he thinks he can make a go of it.

IOW, the Liberals have a very serious problem on their hands. If Ignatieff even suggests that a coalition is possible, then he loses voters to the NDP and the Conservatives. (I recall Turner in the 1984 election, fearful of this possibility, making an explicit claim that a vote for the NDP was a wasted vote.)

They have a known problem, and Iggy has made his statement. At that point the voter will decide whether or not to believe him. I'm leaning towards believing him, even as I think that being a Prime Minister in a minority government in a Parliament where he has the second highest seat count will not be much fun at all. Last time that happened anywhere in the Commonwealth, the government lasted nine months.

PS. That doesn't mean I'm voting Liberal. I haven't made up my mind. I haven't even seen who the NDP and Liberal candidates are in my riding.

Edited by ToadBrother
Link to post
Share on other sites

Well Duceppe did offer to provide Harper wil a copy of Harper's signed agreement with Layton and Duceppe, in case Harper lost his copy. I bet Harper wishes everybody had lost their copies after today.

And who knows, maybe Duceppe or Layton taped the meetings for their memoirs, of course. :D

Harper should save everyone the cost of hiring a detective and just fess up before this Harper coalition thingy ravels out of control on him.

Unless duceppe/layton have terms of the coalition ie cabinet positions, length of time etc. Ol' harper aint paying child support anytime soon

Link to post
Share on other sites

BB, it's not a problem for Harper whatever evidence Duceppe provides. What potential Conservative voters are going to switch to another party?

If anything, Harper (like the NDP) has a hard core of voters who really have nowhere else to go.

But who believes Ignatieff? Apparently not you TB.

IOW, the Liberals have a very serious problem on their hands. If Ignatieff even suggests that a coalition is possible, then he loses voters to the NDP and the Conservatives. (I recall Turner in the 1984 election, fearful of this possibility, making an explicit claim that a vote for the NDP was a wasted vote.)

But it is a problem if harper is wanting those swing votes from ontario that are wanting nothing to do with a coalition with sepratists and socialists. They would see harper as a hypocrite. But that is moot because there is no evidence of 04 coalition being as far down the rabit hole as 08.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Parliamentary privilege is not a matter for a court. The constitution has for centuries made that the affair of Parliament alone.

And yet no contempt of parliament when Allen Rock grossly underestimated the cost of the long gun registry.

Link to post
Share on other sites
But it is a problem if harper is wanting those swing votes from ontario that are wanting nothing to do with a coalition with sepratists and socialists. They would see harper as a hypocrite.
Except that Harper has managed a minority government for five years, hasn't signed any coalition agreement and has no socialists in his cabinet.

BB, this is not about logical, constitutional arguments. This is about people standing in a voting booth making a decision.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Except that Harper has managed a minority government for five years, hasn't signed any coalition agreement and has no socialists in his cabinet.

BB, this is not about logical, constitutional arguments. This is about people standing in a voting booth making a decision.

Exactly, if duceppe has concrete and irreffutable proof, then harper will be managing another minority govt for potentially five years.

Link to post
Share on other sites
They have a known problem, and Iggy has made his statement. At that point the voter will decide whether or not to believe him. I'm leaning towards believing him, even as I think that being a Prime Minister in a minority government in a Parliament where he has the second highest seat count will not be much fun at all.
IMV (and the view of Andrew Coyne), Ignatieff should have made this absolutely, bridge-burned clear from the start.

The Liberals cannot allow any suspicion of a coalition government. Otherwise, they get squeezed from the Left and the Right.

[And that's in a context without the Bloc. With the Bloc, talk of coalition is deathly to Liberals.]

PS. That doesn't mean I'm voting Liberal. I haven't made up my mind. I haven't even seen who the NDP and Liberal candidates are in my riding.
I know three of my candidates - the Liberal already has signs everywhere. My current MP is BQ. I am in contact with the local CPC candidate (zero chance of winning) and I don't know who to vote for yet.

BTW, Layton has signs up in strategic places in Montreal now. Impressive.

Edited by August1991
Link to post
Share on other sites

And yet no contempt of parliament when Allen Rock grossly underestimated the cost of the long gun registry.

Like I said, and will say for the third time now, Parliament can give the Government as long or as short a leash as it chooses. A majority government has a lot longer leash (though, as we've seen from Maggie Thatcher's downfall, even the leader of a majority isn't absolutely safe).

The rules of privilege are the same. Parliament can choose to demand as much or as little of a Government as it pleases. The one thing that is very clear, and I think you're smart enough to know this, is that Government doesn't get to choose. That battle was lost over three hundred years ago.

And a good thing too, don't you think? Would you have preferred to have lived with the stunted Parliament that the Stuart kings would have preferred us?

Edited by ToadBrother
Link to post
Share on other sites

I know three of my candidates - the Liberal already has signs everywhere. My current MP is BQ. I am in contact with the local CPC candidate (zero chance of winning) and I don't know who to vote for yet.

BTW, Layton has signs up in strategic places in Montreal now. Impressive.

I think the numbers coming out of Quebec are what emboldened Layton to say "thanks but no thanks" to Harper. I think Layton's thinking is that the Tories will likely get returned with another minority, and if the NDP has more seats, particularly some more in Quebec, Harper might be more willing to do business with him.

Thus far, Layton has been the most dynamic of the four. Any questions about his health seem to be put aside. He came out swinging today like a prize fighter. I have my problems with Layton and the NDP in general, but I have to say he's certainly been more impressive than Iggy, who looked like he'd just given too much blood this morning.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In the meantime while we are waiting here's the letter that Harper signed to get in bed with those rotten separatists and those dirty socialists. :rolleyes:

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/text-stephen-harpers-2004-letter-signed-layton-duceppe-20110326-075423-457.html

Harry, have you recovered from the shock of not having any signatures under the 2004 letter? Has been the letter ever sent?

Why did Harper ask GG about other options before that hypothetical election? Did you find any mention of a coalition in the letter?

You asked for Ignatieff's signature under the Liberal-NDP-BlocQue coalition agreement.

Brief internet search brings fruits. Only party leaders signed the agreement itself.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2008/12/01/coalition-talks.html - Duceppe's signature is under the agreement.

Michael Ignatieff did sign a petition to GG requesting to transfer power to the coalition:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/51479186/081204-petition-Liberal

And the Liberals try to hide the petition now:

http://www.stephentaylor.ca/2011/03/coalition-agreement-with-ignatieffs-signature-disappears-from-liberal-ca/

Too rich for the Ignatieff claiming the government is secretive and promissing honesty.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Harry, have you recovered from the shock of not having any signatures under the 2004 letter? Has been the letter ever sent?

Why did Harper ask GG about other options before that hypothetical election? Did you find any mention of a coalition in the letter?

You asked for Ignatieff's signature under the Liberal-NDP-BlocQue coalition agreement.

Brief internet search brings fruits. Only party leaders signed the agreement itself.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2008/12/01/coalition-talks.html - Duceppe's signature is under the agreement.

Michael Ignatieff did sign a petition to GG requesting to transfer power to the coalition:

http://www.scribd.com/doc/51479186/081204-petition-Liberal

And the Liberals try to hide the petition now:

http://www.stephentaylor.ca/2011/03/coalition-agreement-with-ignatieffs-signature-disappears-from-liberal-ca/

Too rich for the Ignatieff claiming the government is secretive and promissing honesty.

YEGman

Thanks for your comments but you are a bit late coming to party. All the girls have already left or are taken.

Try doing a little research before you really step in it.

We now have the most hypocritical prime minister we have every had in Canada. Harper is walking on real thin ice here, and my hunch he is going to get blown out of the water on it.

Who else is sick of all these Harper lies?

Edited by Harry
Link to post
Share on other sites

Who else is sick of all these Harper lies?

Well, there's you! There's also a few Liberal political junkies here on MLW.

Frankly, that seems to be about it!

What the Liberals need are MILLIONS of Canadian voters who also are "sick of all these Harper lies." So far we just aren't seeing any evidence of this.

I can't help but notice in your postings Harry that you never seem to talk about what the voters are actually going to do. You are strong on your own feelings and you are quite willing to say bad things about Harper. Yet you never talk much about what percentage of voters are likely to agree with you.

This is really all that matters, you know. Your preferences and MINE are not very relevant! The name of the game is not to shout out our wishes. It's to accurately predict how the Canadian electorate will choose when they go to the ballot box.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, there's you! There's also a few Liberal political junkies here on MLW.

Frankly, that seems to be about it!

What the Liberals need are MILLIONS of Canadian voters who also are "sick of all these Harper lies." So far we just aren't seeing any evidence of this.

I can't help but notice in your postings Harry that you never seem to talk about what the voters are actually going to do. You are strong on your own feelings and you are quite willing to say bad things about Harper. Yet you never talk much about what percentage of voters are likely to agree with you.

This is really all that matters, you know. Your preferences and MINE are not very relevant! The name of the game is not to shout out our wishes. It's to accurately predict how the Canadian electorate will choose when they go to the ballot box.

Hi WB,

And thanks for your post.

I guess I prefer to speak for myself. We have the polls to tells us what the collective is doing. How about yourself - do you speak for others here or just for yourself?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Like I said, and will say for the third time now, Parliament can give the Government as long or as short a leash as it chooses. A majority government has a lot longer leash (though, as we've seen from Maggie Thatcher's downfall, even the leader of a majority isn't absolutely safe).

The rules of privilege are the same. Parliament can choose to demand as much or as little of a Government as it pleases. The one thing that is very clear, and I think you're smart enough to know this, is that Government doesn't get to choose. That battle was lost over three hundred years ago.

And a good thing too, don't you think? Would you have preferred to have lived with the stunted Parliament that the Stuart kings would have preferred us?

Uhmm no it is the ruling of the Speaker of the house who strangely enough was Peter back then too. Why the double standard from the same speaker?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Harry, have you recovered from the shock of not having any signatures under the 2004 letter? Has been the letter ever sent?
Harper never signed a 2004 coalition agreement. But Harper did sign a 2004 letter to the GG, signed also by Duceppe and Layton, stating that they had consulted one another and expected her to consult with them before making any decision.
Like I said, and will say for the third time now, Parliament can give the Government as long or as short a leash as it chooses.
But the question now is not what Parliament will do, or what Harper did.

The question now is what potential Liberal voters will do on May 2nd.

If Ignatieff is not absolutely clear, Harper and Layton stand to be beneficiaries. And on balance, if Ignatieff gets this coalition reputation thing wrong, Harper will win a majority.

I don't understand how claiming that Harper also signed a coalition agreement in 2004 somehow removes the danger of Liberal bleeding votes in 2011. And if Liberals bleed votes in 2011, then Harper will get his majority.

Edited by August1991
Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't understand how claiming that Harper also signed a coalition agreement in 2004 somehow removes the danger of Liberal bleeding votes in 2011. And if Liberals bleed votes in 2011, then Harper will get his majority.

I was referring to the contempt motion, not the coalition.

Link to post
Share on other sites

sounds clear to me... keep screaming coalition though.

Yeah, because if Libs don't get the most seats that's what they're going to present to the Governor General.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi WB,

And thanks for your post.

I guess I prefer to speak for myself. We have the polls to tells us what the collective is doing. How about yourself - do you speak for others here or just for yourself?

Pretty well just for myself, Harry! Sometimes I'll comment that I think my opinion is widely shared, or NOT! Sometimes I'll openly state that I'm wishing about something, very hard!

This seems only logical to me. I can't speak for everyone because I don't know them all! Sometimes I can make a guess as to how big a group shares my feelings but that's all it is, a guess. Yet if we want to do something like predict an election we absolutely have to put our feelings aside and be objective. If we were campaign managers we would either have to deal with situations objectively or be perpetual losers. We have to deal with the real world and not our fantasies if we want to succeed.

It seems to me that the people who trumpet the loudest that they are representing the will of the people who usually are really pushing the views of the smallest minority. They try to get what they want by making unproven claims about popular support. My attitude has always been "Prove it!"

Like anybody else, I would like the "system" to represent my own views but failing that, I feel more confident we're in good shape when the system refuses to allow itself to be hijacked by a few who are the loudest at screeching out their BS!

Even more, I've met some people who sincerely believe that their minority views are actually "the silent majority", as we saw when Stockwell Day's evangelicals tried to hijack the old Reform Party after he won the leadership.

When people are that lacking in objectivity I seriously wonder if things are going a bit wonky under their hats! At best such an attitude is arrogant and at worst - frankly, it's crazy!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Duceppe is funny. Even when he's accusing other people of lying, he's often doing it with a wink. Within the same speech he'll provide the evidence that he's the one that lying.

This latest accusation of a coalition agreement is no exception:

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Gilles+Duceppe+calls+Stephen+Harper+liar/4509580/story.html

“He did not talk about a coalition, that’s true,” Duceppe allowed.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Duceppe's words worth nothing.

"On Twitter, Mr. Duceppe (@GillesDuceppe) accused Conservative Leader Stephen Harper of lying about their 2004 agreement to replace Paul Martin's minority Liberal government, just moments after the Bloc leader made the same accusations in person at his Saturday morning opening press conference.

When Mr. Coyne (@coyne), who works for Macleans, started asking pointed questions about what the 2004 agreement really meant, Mr. Duceppe replied that he remembered Mr. Harper talking specifically about a coalition in 2004.

“Talked about it, how? Did he propose forming one? Then why wasn't that what was proposed in the letter?” Mr. Coyne asked.

@GillesDuceppe didn't immediately address those specifics.

A Bloc staffer later confirmed Mr. Duceppe doesn't write his own tweets. Bloc staffers usually tap out Mr. Duceppe's spoken words, though Mr. Duceppe does apparently monitor the account.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/duceppe-campaign-coyne-in-twitter-dustup-over-coalition-accusations/article1958180/

In 2004 Duceppe denied there was a coalition plan.

Steven Harper trashed Duceppe's lies this morning in Brampton, ON.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Here are the election results for 2004

L - 135 seats

C - 99 seats

B - 54 seats

N - 19 seats

I - 1 seat

T - 308 seats

So Martin has 135 seats, and Harper, Duceppe and Layton combined had 172 seats

Duceppe talked quite a bit yesterday about Harper's 2004 clandestine meetings with Layton and Duceppe. At these secret meetings they even talked about how H of C committees were going to work, Harper even asked asked Duceppe what he wanted in the throne speech, they discussed how they were going to change the non-confidence vote process, and then they even went to Martin to tell him how things would work and Martin agreed because Harper, Duceppe, and Layton's combined seat total was a majority of the seats. It was quite informative.

Edited by Harry
Link to post
Share on other sites

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.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's right...

Let the media get a hold of this and keep showing those clips of Harper,Layton,and,Duceppe AND the signed letter..

Nobody cares except the politically fixated. No one is worried about Harper doing a deal with the BQ and Layton, not today, and not next year. People ARE worried about Ignatieff doing a deal with the BQ and Layton. That's why they don't really care what Harper signed or didn't sign years ago.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Duceppe expanded at length yesterday about Harper's secret meetings with Duceppe and Layton in 2004. Harper will now need to be questioned in detail about his own attempts at trying to become prime minister then, even though he had a lot less seats than Martin, and what was going on at those clandestine meetings Harper conducted with Duceppe and Layton in 2004.

Duceppe accuses Harper of hypocrisy

Bloc Quebecois Leader Gilles Duceppe is accusing Stephen Harper of hypocrisy in his attacks against coalition governments.

Duceppe says Harper did everything he is now accusing the opposition parties of when he was the leader of the Opposition in 2004.

In an angry denunciation of Harpers latest explanation of his attempt to usurp the Paul Martin government seven years ago, Duceppe says the prime minister also once sought a form of coalition of losers to oust the Liberal prime minister.

And he says he was attempting to become prime minister as head of the second most popular party, without the benefit of an election.

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/politics/article/962443--duceppe-accuses-harper-of-hypocrisy?bn=1

Edited by Harry
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Announcements




  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...