Beyond The Commons

Aaron Wherry covers all the goings-on in and around Parliament Hill. Follow Aaron on Twitter: @aaronwherry

Categories: Beyond The Commons, Capital Read

On the stump

by Aaron Wherry on Wednesday, August 18, 2010 9:34am - 0 Comments

Stephen Harper speaks to a Conservative BBQ in Ajax.

“If we have one duty to this country, it is to make sure a Liberal, NDP, Bloc Québécois coalition can never govern this country,” Harper told a crowd of a few hundred at the Deer Creek Golf and Banquet Facility…

“The next election will be a choice between a coalition government of the Liberal, NDP and Bloc Québécois, or a stable Conservative majority government for this country,” he said.

Tags: Ajax, Ajax-Pickering, coalition, coalition government, Stephen Harper

More by Aaron Wherry

http://stumblingabordeaux.blogspot.com Patrick

Who else is really glad that our prime-minister has one duty, and only one – to prevent the other guys from getting power? He makes such a good case! Such grand vision, such great understanding of our democracy and the threats it faces. He's got my vote!

Stephan

I'll bet if you ask Iggy or Layton, the only duty they have is to get Harper out of office. That's pretty much the whole point of being a politician, isn't it?

John.K

Sadly, you're right about today's politicians. Once, many years ago, politicians' prime concern was providing peace, order and good government.

http://myblahg.com Robert McClelland

“The next election will be a choice between a coalition government of the Liberal, NDP and Bloc Québécois, or a stable Conservative majority government for this country,” he said.

So basically if Harper doesn't win a majority in the next election he's saying the people will have made their choice that they want a Liberal, NDP, Bloc coalition. Thank you very much Mr. Harper for legitimizing a coalition government.

http://www.jesserosenberg.com Jesse_Rosenberg

An interesting point, which the (then former) PM will slip out of his skin to avoid as quickly as he always does.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Ottawa_Centrist Ottawa_Centrist

No, the next election will be a choice between a party with some vision but a cold leader, a party with no vision past partisan politics, a party with an identity crisis, a party with a popular leader with little policy support and Elizabeth May's pet project.

But thank you for sharing your vision of Canada, Mr. Harper. When will you be taking questions from more than hand-selected journalists or from actual, spontaneous Canadians?

Stephan

The sad thing is that I can't tell which party is which from your description.

Gayle

That was hilarious. What a foolish, foolish thing to say.

These are the same guys who say the liberals only want power for power's sake, right? And now they are saying their only goal is to ensure they maintain power, just because?

ha ha ha ha ha

http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

Why? Why is it so foolish top point out that a coalition could gain power, just like it tried to do it last time? Besides, many of you swear by the coalition, don't you? So I don't understand this position of yours now.

Jan

We're having secret meetings all over the country, in the dead of night , worshipping the coalition idea.

brooster

And we're not showin' Dennis the secret handshake…

http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

Was the coalition the right thing to do or not? Man, you leftists can't make up your minds on this, then get furious at Harper for making it up for you. lol
brooster

And we're hiding under YOUR BED…
Jon Pertwee

We're all around him… WE CONTROL HIS HOUSE NOW!!!!!!
Patchouli

Let's all join hands and…coalesce!

Bonzai at dawn…at Dennis's house.
Jan

I would like to show him the salute…

E_B_

What is foolish, Dennis, is for Mr. Harper to declare that the most important thing he can do for the country is prevent a coalition.

Provide good government? Nope, not the primary responsibility.
Propery manage the economy? Unh-unh.
Bring forward new laws or implement policies to build a better Canada? You're kidding, right?

Nope. The number one most important duty this government has is to prevent the opposition from taking over.

I think Mr. Harper believes this, too. Conservatives seem to believe it as well. It is all one gigantic chess match, and has nothing to do with actually governing the country. He is too clever, by half.

http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

Preventing a coalition that involves support of the Bloc I suspect would be considered a top priority by many Canadians. Not the left, obviously. But of Canadians, yes.

brooster

First, the BQ weren't signatories to the coalition. They merely agreed not to bring it down for a specified period (two years, I believe). They had no chance of actually sitting in government with cabinet representation.

Second, Harper himself actually proposed a coalition, including BQ, when he was in opposition. Why does the concept suddenly frighten all you Harper syncophants now?

Third, we are now in a period of (probably permanent) multi-party politics at the federal level, such that coalitions of various varieties may be the only way of creating stable governments from now on. Happens all the time in European politics and there`s nothing scary about it. It`s a new era and when other factions in parliament start looking for a viable way forward in a complex parliament, the Cons will be on the outside looking in because they`ve burned all the other parties with their rabid, partisan politics.
http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

First, here is what I wrote, and it still stands:

a coalition that involves support of the Bloc

Second, Harper never proposed a coalition with the Bloc. It's the lie that the left keeps on giving.

Third, heck, run on the coalition. Why are you then blasting Harper for wanting to run against it?
brooster

“Second, Harper never proposed a coalition with the Bloc. It's the lie that the left keeps on giving.”

So, "the left" made up the events and the letter cited in the following, as well as myriad other sites?
http://thetyee.ca/Blogs/TheHook/Federal-Politics/…
http://telegraphjournal.canadaeast.com/front/arti…
http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

No, the left has made up what the letter actually says. Over and over and over again. Like a pack of zombies. Like they say, if you repeat it enough times, it still doesn't make it true. Sorry.
brooster

According to whom? And who is included in this great monolithic "left" you keep yapping about?
http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

According to every single leftist who speaks on the issue whenever it's raised, like you and other have on here. Even leftist writers repeat the meme.

And the funny thing is, you use the letter as though it's damning evidence. I then turn around and use that same letter to completely destroy the myth. Over and over again.

It's just another reason why I conclude that the coalition has served as the most baffling issue for the left in my recent memory.

For some reason, they can't get over the fact that they weren't able to force it on Canadians.
brooster

It's a lie because you've declared it to be such. Thanks…
http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

Sigh. Cite any part of that letter that represents a proposal of a coalition between Harper and anyone else. Believe me, I've been through this over and over again, and not one leftist has been able to do it, no matter how smug and arrogant they were about it.
brooster

From the letter of Sept. 9, 2004 signed by Harper, Bloc Québécois Leader Gilles Duceppe and NDP Leader Jack Layton (which, it would seem, you have memorized anyway):

"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."

Most independent analysts would reasonably infer that the leaders of the opposition parties were inviting the GG to consider a coalition as an alternative to dissolving parliament. Why else would they be asking for consultation?

Or is that a "leftist" inference, in your view ?
http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

Let's see. The letter asks the GG consult the opposition before calling an election. No mention of a coalition, an agreement to form a coalition, or even the intention to sneeze about a coalition.

Any suggestion of such is something completely fabricated, yes, by the left.

The letter was a threat to Paul Martin. A united show of force. He backed down, nothing came of it except for a lessening of Martin's stature, which the current coalition could have achieved with Harper if they hadn't gotten greedy and decided to grab for power instead.

It never ceases to amaze me how some in politics consider themselves to be the smartest in the room, when it's obviously not the case. I think it's why the left is so hard to deal with in Parliament. They get outraged when someone else gets to have final say and show them up.
brooster

So a letter to the GG was an message to Martin? That's a stretch. You go ahead and put whatever spin you want on it. It's all just a leftist lie in your world, you said so yourself…that's good enough for me.

And watch out for those leftists, wherever they may be.
http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

Yes, a letter written to a GG can certainly serve as a warning to a sitting prime minister. Are you saying it can't?

I don't know what it is with the left that it doesn't like being called the left. For some reason, they love pretending to be objective, then force their agenda through unelected coalitions, judges, bureaucrats, and "experts". Funny that.
brooster

You still haven't defined this ubiquitous, nefarious entity you label as "the left". Are they your handy catch-all for anyone who disagrees with you?

Am I one of "them"? How can you tell?

And your explanation for the 2004 letter to the GG is, frankly, lame and clearly not as plausible as the conclusion that the opposition parties were shilling for a chance to form the government. The absence of corroborating evidence for your interpretation or mine makes this a matter of opinion, not a leftist lie.

Stewart_Smith

Well on a more positive note than above, Kudos to the PM's image team. From the photo in the Star, it looks like he has dropped some weight, perhaps while Iggy was visiting farms Stephen was on a farm of a different sort. The suit is quite sharp and speaks to someone looking forward to fall rather than lingering over the end of summer. Even the pose is casual yet almost dramatic.

danby

Also from the Star article:

"The GTA is the pulse and heart of the national economy" – Stephen Harper

That is a very interesting statement

Stewart_Smith

Now, now I am sure he uses the same line in his Calgary speeches. I will check and get right back to you.

BGLong

No fair. He's in Nova Scotia today. Everybody knows New Ross is just too great
for hyperbole to describe.

Patchouli

All the vital duties we have to this country, but it boils down to one: making sure steve has a job, and preferably a better job than he has now.

It's enough to make one laugh, but then I picture all the Tories chomping on their weiners and nodding.

It's becoming a cartoon. Please make it stop.
tedbetts

Wow. The internal polling must be getting really bleak for him to start bleating on about this again. Once again. Always. And that is his "only duty to the country"? To keep power for himself???

What is curious is the clear loss of his great political antena. The more he talks about the coalition now – when there are examples of coalitions working well for the benefit of its country, when he is dropping in the polls and many more neutral Canadians and even some CPC supporters are frustrated with him – it not only makes him look desperate in raising this "spectre" yet again, but the more we hear about it the less scary that ghost becomes.

http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

Well, we'll see just how the coalition issue plays out in the next election. You may think it's a winner. I very much doubt it will be. I think Iggy probably agrees with me, but we'll see.

tedbetts

Oh I agree. To campaign on the promise of forming a coalition would not be a winner. But no one is going to do that. And I suspect a third election in a row running against the other side – and in this case a phantom other side – instead of running on your record is not going to be too well received by Canadians.

And to start out by arrogantly proclaiming that that is your "only duty" as government???

http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

The opposition already has made coalition a campaign issue by trying it the last time. That's what many of you don't get. Indeed, this is one of the few times where an opposition has a record, and it ain't good.

If you don't run against the other side in an election, just what in the world are you doing?

Harper has run a national election campaign three times now. The first two, it was as a challenger, so no record. The last time, he clearly did run on his record, didn't he? It's why he won. In fact, rarely do governments run on anything but their record. They sink or swim on them, for the most part.

tedbetts

Right. Run against a strawman. Go ahead. You'll be the only one talking about it.

Harper did not run on his record last time. He didn't even come out with a platform until the weekend before the election! He ran against Dion and against the green shift.

He's sinking because of his record in office. That's why he is talking about the phantom coalition. And every time he does so, you see a few more people wonder what on earth he's talking about and a few others wonder what would be so bad about it.

But it doesn't change the fact that he arrogantly thinks that his only duty to Canadians is to keep himself in power. It took the Liberals 13 years to feel half this entitled to their entitlements.
http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

If you think I'll be the only one talking coalition during the campaign, then I've got a bridge in Hamilton to sell you, too.

A platform is about what you will do if you win the next election. It's not your record. It's not Harper's fault that his opposition gives him huge targets in these things, is it? He'd be stupid not to run against issues the opposition hands him on a silver platter. Nevertheless, governments can't escape their record, and I don't think Harper has or will even try.

Never ceases to amaze me how people on all sides take temporary polls as some kind of indicator of a party's fortunes. Harper has often bottomed out in the low thirties, the Liberals topped up at that same number, then they go back to election day numbers. Has basically been this way for the past four years, and no Liberal leader has been able to break this cycle, nor has Harper put himself in jeopardy of doing so either. That could change, but I don't think it's happened yet.

Harper said it's his duty to prevent a coalition from taking power. Given the reaction the last time, I suspect Canadians might agree, and is why the left is reacting the way it is in this thread.

I have to say this. I have never seen an issue throw people off as much as the coalition has done to Canada's left. They say it was great, yet they hate to hear talk about it during a campaign. They make up stuff about Harper's stances on coalitions. It never ends. It's one of the truly weirdest political phenomena I have ever witnessed. And I know I'll get heck for saying it, but it's true.
Jon Pertwee

"I have to say this. I have never seen an issue throw people off as much as the coalition has done to Canada's left. They say it was great, yet they hate to hear talk about it during a campaign. They make up stuff about Harper's stances on coalitions. It never ends. It's one of the truly weirdest political phenomena I have ever witnessed. And I know I'll get heck for saying it, but it's true. "

Yeah then Britain formed a coalition making all of that moot.
http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

Really? How?
Mike T.

By following legitimate constitutional parliamentary principles of hte Westminster system, same as here. :)
http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

Really. So, the left in Britain has fallen all over itself trying to justify a coalition that nobody wanted? I must have missed that part.

Some people believe in odd logic. That coalitions can be acceptable doesn't mean that the monstrosity that was offered here in 2008/9 was.

That its defenders keep contradicting themselves on the topic is just proof. On the one hand, they say it was great. On the other hand, they get furious at Harper for ever bringing it up.

That's happening in Britain, too? Whatever.

danby

Whats the matter Stephen, can't run on your record?

We have nothing to smear but fear itself

http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

When Liberal governments routinely raised the prospect of a hidden agenda from their main opponents, what was the matter back then, couldn't they run on their record? Weren't those elections about fear?

For the life of me, I don't understand why Harper wouldn't run against the coalition, or why the coalition isn't proud of what it tried last time, or what it might try again. After all, it was supposed to be a great act of progressive governance, wasn't it? Why run away from it now?

NorthernPoV

"For the life of me, I don't understand why Harper wouldn't run against the coalition"

ya, cause he has absolutely nothing else (record or vision-wise) to run on.

http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

if that's the case, then the coalition will win the next election, won't they?

NorthernPoV

well Dennis, I did not offer an opinion on the outcome, just the sh*tty tactics your guy uses – and his utter lack of substance beyond
"All taxes are bad" (quote) …
"so lets destroy all the good stuff that was built by tax money" (not a quote but the veracity is proven by his numerous actions)

as to the outcome and your predictive question: Let's hope, shall we?
http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

What is so outrageous about this tactic? Why would supporters of the coalition be against it? I don't get it. And let's not even get into the far worse done by Liberals to cling to power.

Regarding taxes, yes, the left seems to adore them. But I suggest you take a look at citizen reactions to the HST in Ontario and BC, and to eco-taxes in Ontario. I don't think people nearly as enamored with high taxes as the left is.

There seems to be this phenomenon on the left where opponents aren't allowed to do anything, especially act like politicians.

LynnTO

A Conservative speaking to Conservatives about their duties as Conservatives? Yeah, whatever. The idea that party members are supposed to follow their leader like pigs to the trough is nothing new. Liberals do it, Dippers do it, Tories do it…et cetera. It's annoying, but it's not new.

When he says things like this at something billed as a non- or multi-partisan event, then it's troubling.

john g

Exactly. This was a Conservative BBQ to promote a local candidate. Imagine that. The leader of the CPC makes a speech filled with partisan rhetoric at a Conservative event that happened to have a couple of Toronto Star reporters in attendance. I'm shocked. Shocked I tell you.
madeyoulook

Except…

He said it was their duty to the country, not to their party.

I would be far happier with the duty being "proposing, defending and enacting smart policies for the country, which will continue to earn the trust of Canadians." And not, "doing whatever it takes, even if it sucker-punches our country, in order to prevent that vile coalition from rearing its ugly head again."

He said "duty to the country." He failed with the ending of that sentence, even to a partisan crowd.

LynnTO

I'd say if it gets Liberals' knickers in a collective twist, he's succeeded quite well. I guess it matters what we view the goals as being…

Also, consider that at a Conservative BBQ in sunny Ajax, ON, he's now earned national media attention. That's a pretty successful statement, if media attention was the goal.

Succeeding at good governance? Well no, and this is the part where I agree with you, MYL – saying that partisanship is a duty to the country makes me vomit a little in my mouth. Nonetheless, he was already speaking to a partisan audience. Semantically, the better buzzword is "country" not "party", and I'm sure his speechwriters know that.

Standing By

I thought one of the duties of citizenship was to participate in the census count so we can know our social and economic situation.
Turns out we have only one duty, which is to give Harper a majority. You know, if this was a test run for election messaging, then I see need for a bit of tweaking.

On the other hand, maybe that partisan message has been tested, and at least inspires the third of Canadians who have supported Harper in the past to do so one more time, thereby saving his minority government, and allowing him to step down and move to Washington without being seen by his U.S. Tea Party base as an out-and-out loser.
John D

If that's his one duty shouldn't he get around to eliminating those election thingies? I mean he keeps telling us we don't want them anyway. Once the one duty is taken care of we could move on to the secondary duties like health and safety.
TJCook

"“If we have one duty to this country, it is to make sure a Liberal, NDP, Bloc Québécois coalition can never govern this country,”"

Not 'never govern', but 'can never govern.'

In other words, don't just beat them at the ballot box, but use any means available to prevent them from winning. Nixon would be so proud.

tedbetts

[youtube k9_k0S-q4ew&feature=player_embedded http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k9_k0S-q4ew&feature=player_embedded youtube]

Blue

I feel the frustration boiling over in the above commenters.

If only there was some way these dedicated Harper Critics could vent their anger at him when he prononuces these statements that imply a government jointly led by The Three Stooges would not be a good thing.

If only there was some way the media in the country could be more critical of these Conservatives and at least try to find some fault in even the simplest things like a wafer or a puffin or even a census.

If only there was some mechanism in our system of government that would prevent this minority gov`t from continuing to govern, just because they feel the public want them in power.

I`ll bet those Cons are trying to destroy the country.

Loraine Lamontagne

Which of the Three Stooges declared that "Whether Canada ends up as one national government or two national governments or several national governments, or some other kind of arrangement is, quite frankly, secondary in my opinion… " ?

Jon Pertwee

that wasnt a stooge. It was a fool

Style

Hopefully, progressive voters will understand this means they should vote New Democrat in the next election to ensure a strong progressive voice in the coalition. It would also make it more difficult for Ignatieff to continue the current passive accord the Liberals have with the Conservatives.

LynnTO

If we're talking about disliking our current position and trajectory, there's enough blame to go around. The Conservatives, for implementing – or trying to implement – a particular plan, and making every.little.thing a confidence matter, the Liberals, for having no spine to properly object, the NDP, for sitting around and pointing the finger, pretending the existence of Harper's minority government is everyone's problem but theirs….

Good governance is not a game of Chicken.

Style

The New Democrats would be pleased to negotiate a new coalition with Mr. Ignatieff any time he's interested. However, if Mr. Ignatieff expects the New Democrats to unconditionally back him every time he needs more leverage in his current coalition with the Conservatives, he shoudl forget it.

http://www.jesserosenberg.com Jesse_Rosenberg

The very moment Ignatieff threatened to press for an election, the NDP jumped in to support him. I could not be more sick of this fact-free holier-than-thou attitude.

We'd have gotten our test of Ignatieff vs. the PM a long time ago if the NDP had a fraction of the principles it pretends to.

Style

Yes, it's shocking how the New Democrats refuse to unconditionally support Mr. Ignatieff's partisan opportunism. If Ignatieff had been serious about EI reform, he could have invited the New Democrats into that working group over the summer and the two parties could have acted together if the Conservatives defected on the process. That's not what happened. Ignatieff saw an opening in the polls and tried to grab it for his own advantage. The New Democrats saw an opportunity for some sensible improvements to EI and chose that instead.

http://www.jesserosenberg.com Jesse_Rosenberg

I know what the excuse was. But after months of castigating Liberals, y'all sure turned on a dime.

Style

Mr. Ignatieff should understand that MPs from other parties don't necessarily follow his orders. It's a bit of a shock for Liberals to hear that they are not entitled to govern, but, hopefully, this lesson is slowly sinking in.
http://www.jesserosenberg.com Jesse_Rosenberg

Mr. Ignatieff didn't ORDER the NDP to do anything. I, on the other hand, EXPECTED, based on how the NDP had been whining for months about Liberals sufferance of this government, that a party that can't shut up about how principled it is would not immediatiately turn around and support the Conservastives.

I don't think either party should be supporting this government. But the hypocrisy in the NDP claiming there's a coalition is just too much.
Style

I don't see the hypocrisy. The New Democrats will work with others on specific issues. A couple of times this has meant voting with the Conservatives. On the other hand, the Liberals go off on their own and expect others to back their plays. If Mr. Ignatieff thought the New Democrats were bluffing, he'd direct his caucus to vote against the government more often.
http://www.jesserosenberg.com Jesse_Rosenberg

There was ONE TIME since the last election when it mattered if the NDP voted against the government, and they folded like a wet paper bag.
Style

Alternatively, there were fifty-something times when it mattered if the Liberals voted against the government and they folded every time. The fact that the New Democrats didn't join Mr. Ignatieff in his exuberance over his polling numbers is upsetting only to Liberals and a good indication of the difficulty the Liberals have in working with the other parties.
http://www.jesserosenberg.com Jesse_Rosenberg

But, the Liberals weren't, not just saying, but hammering their opponents for months about supporting the government. They argued they had to allow the Cons to win votes to avoid precipitating an election.

So even if you disagree with the Liberal argument, the only unprincipled actors amongst the two were the NDP, who screamed one thing for over a year, then did another the ONLY time it actually mattered.
Style

Jesse, it mattered every time, not just the one time the Liberals felt like it. That's the point. Parliament is not controlled by the Liberals and the New Democrats aren't set on auto-pilot. If Ignatieff wanted to trigger an election, he could join the New Democrats on any of the votes they took against the government or he could persuade the New Democrats to vote with him on his pet issue of the day. He didn't do either of those things.
http://www.jesserosenberg.com Jesse_Rosenberg

I'm sure, symbolically, those votes meant a lot. The NDP certainly hasn't shut up about them. But they had one chance to decide whether to make a lie of all their previous statements, or bring down the government, and they made their choice. That's what I meant by "mattered".
Style

It's hard for a Liberal partisan to grasp, of course, but the combined votes of the Liberals, Bloc and the New Democrats would have brought down the Government on any of those occasions. The New Democrats' opposition was announced before the Liberals indicated their intentions. So, sure, that autumn vote could have brought down the Conservatives, but it was also a chance to get some real EI reforms and to bloody Mr. Ignatieff's nose and remind him that his power was limited unless he worked with others. And, if Mr. Ignatieff had been sincere, that lesson could have been taught and the Government toppled at the next confidence vote the New Democrats intended to oppose…
http://www.jesserosenberg.com Jesse_Rosenberg

There really wasn't any need for you to get insulting; it's really not my fault you're wrong.

So, I'll say it slower. The NDP said over, and over, and over again that it couldn't support the Cons, and they mocked the Liberals for abstaining. Then, suddenly, they jumped into bed and voted with the Cons at the first opportunity, which became the only opportunity because the Liberals changed their minds (which, by the way, I disagreed with).

If the NDP hadn't been completely full of it all along, we could've had an election. You're just desperate to cover up the hypocrisy with a smoke screen of "lessons" and alleged "demands".
Style

No, the Liberals really are propping up the Conservative government. They took one vote against them without bothering to get the other parties on-side. How does that prove that the New Democrats were full of it? The New Democrats basically locked in their votes on most of the other occasions well ahead of the Liberals, making each one of those moments an opportunity for it to matter. I think you're being taken in by one Liberal stunt.
http://www.jesserosenberg.com Jesse_Rosenberg

The New Democrats lock their votes in to try to ensure that the Liberals will abstain.

There were Canadians who really wanted the opportunity to take this government on in an election, and the NDP had been saying for months they were onboard, right up until the moment they had the opportunity. That's what I think is disappointing. I expect the NDP to be honest and principled, and nothing about that decision was, as it flew in the face of their repeatedly asserting that the Liberals were Conservative stooges.

We saw the true face of the NDP; they had their chance to act in a manner consistent with their repeated claims, and they didn't.
Style

I understand your point. But, if the New Democrats are just bluffing every time, why do the Liberals keep falling for it? Isn't it in Mr. Ignatieff's interests to vote against the Conservatives more often and force the New Democrats to abstain or vote to support the Government? Why only do it once?

Standing By

An observation: I get the feeling that Harper seems to have missed the point that, once the dust settled, and the his bogus claim debunked about a coalition being unconstitutional, public opinion polls showed that voters were not actually hostile to the idea of coalition government.

This suggests to me that the anti-coalition rhetoric is actually, once again, a way to keep his existing base intact so he can maybe win another minority government. But it is not a message that would come even close to having majority appeal.

Blue

Yeah, that`s it—-voters really deep down do want a three-way ( now that`s a gross thought ) with The Three Stooges.

Yeah let`s go with that—-that should work—ok let`s run with that.

And those Cons are trying to destroy the country.

LynnTO

I find it mildly amusing that Conservatives have set up a coalition strawman and are now waging war against it. It is almost as if they believe it is the only enemy they must prepare for.

Never underestimate your foes, boys.
Jon Pertwee

So do you have some sort of threeway fetish with opposition politicians?

Speaks words about you.

tedbetts

Do you get the sense – with this claim, with the dumb census decision, with the firing of anyone who disagrees with him – that Harper has actually given up on a majority and is only trying to harden his base before it starts to leave too?

LynnTO

No. I get the feeling that Harper is more concerned with being in power than being right.

tedbetts

I think the more he talks about it, the more "normalized" the idea of a coalition becomes, especially with Cameron in the UK, and the even less scary it becomes.

If Ignatieff provides a halfway decent platform and campaigns on a few clear small policy ideas instead of taking this strawman debate, he'll do to Harper what Harper did to Martin and his second "hidden agenda" campaign in a row in 2006.

Stephan

There's a big difference in terms of credibility between a coalition of 1st and 3rd place parties than 2nd and 3rd place parties.

If the Liberals and NDP want to form a coalition government after coming 2nd and 3rd in the election, they really should make their intentions clear before the election. If this were the other way around, with the Conservatives planning a coalition with some party (let's pretend this could ever happen), and didn't announce it before an election, it would labelled a "hidden agenda" and "power grab".

In the end, I think people just want politicians to at least try to appear honest, even if they don't necessarily agree with what they say.

tobyornotoby

It's the classic mark of bad sports and mad scientists everywhere; they focus so much on making the other guy lose, that they don't do the things they need to win.
http://dougsamu.wordpress.com doug_rogers

“If we have one duty to this country, it is to make sure a [voice of the majority of Canadians] can never govern this country,” Harper told a crowd of a few hundred at the Deer Creek Golf and Banquet Facility…

Style

Hey, that worked for Chretien, racking up majority governments with a minority of popular support. I think your bracket is suppsoed to read (a coalition of Liberals, New Democrats and BQ parliamentarians).

Standing By

This argument assumes that all governments elected with a plurality of less than 50 per cent govern in a manner that reflects a minority viewpoint.

This is false, as any comparison between the Chretien and Harper governments makes clear.

The Chretien Liberals governed in a manner that largely reflected the will of the majority of Canadians. Harper governs in manner that is counter to the will of the majority.

You're welcome!
http://dougsamu.wordpress.com doug_rogers

Listen, I have some sympathy for your negatives, having waded in to the Steyn Swamp, but that is just the standard talking point that 'the Liberals did it first.'

What remains, is that his statement says that he will oppose, and (imply) supress the popular opposition, the representatives of that popular opposition: the majority of voters who did not vote Conservative as much as possible.

I don't believe the Liberals ever trod so close as this.

Style

No, it's the standard talking point of "this is how first past the post works". Our government always suppresses the majority of voters by not including their preferred parties in cabinet (or even in parliament). Under Chretien, you saw some amazing disparities between popular vote and seat count. It also seems very rare for an FPP parliament to be governed by a party with fewer seats than another. I'd perfer a different government, but our electoral system makes it difficult to get one that represents the majority.

http://dougsamu.wordpress.com doug_rogers

Parliament is our government, not the party with the plurality.
Style

We agree on that, which is why I revised your original comment. The point is that the seat count in Parliament doesn't match the popular vote, so Parliament is usually controlled by a majority government that received, at best, a plurality of votes. So, your original comment that Harper would deny the voice of the majority of Canadians a chance to govern was still unfair. Of course he would do that. That's how our Parliament is built. Mr. Ignatieff would do the same if he controlled a majority or strong enough plurality of seats but was not supported by the majority of Canadians.

Mark R

Harper is right. That will be a key choice come election time. How Lib, NDP, Bloc handle that charge during an election will be key to how it plays out.

Emily

No, it will be no different than any other election. The parties will run on their own as they always have. Coalition never enters into it.
Jon Pertwee

Um Mark R. Harper isnt right. We actually have several choices on our ballots. I dont base my vote on what Big Daddy tells me to base it on. I suspect Im not alone.

oppo guy

"Liberal, NDP, Bloc Québécois coalition"? Bloc Québécois?!

Correction: "If we have one duty to this country, it is to make sure I as Prime Minister never have to be held directly accountable for the 100% loony-tunes things that come out of my mouth."
Out There

The next election will be a choice between a coalition government of the Liberal, NDP and Bloc Québécois, or a stable Conservative majority government for this country

No, it won't. There's a whole lot of other possibilities: a Liberal government, a Liberal/NDP coalition (without the Bloc), and a Conservative/"whoever they can talk into it" coalition are three that spring to mind.

But, of course, the Conservatives are likely to launch a huge blitz of advertising stating loudly and inaccurately that the choice is between a Conservative majority and a coalition that includes the separatist Bloc Quebecois. The plan is obvious: make this so-called choice the primary topic of political conversation, and define the political debate on their terms.

It's clever political tactics, but it deceives voters – and, as such, is reprehensible in a supposedly democratic country.
Halo_Override

John Gray, Black Mass (2007):

It is a truism of politics that policies often have consequences different from those that are expected. In [Conservative British Prime Minister Margaret] Thatcher’s case the discrepancy was exceptional. She was bent on destroying socialism in Britain, so that – in the words of a crass slogan that circulated among the rightwing think tanks in the eighties – ‘Labour will never rule again’. Instead she brought the Conservative party to the brink of collapse and destroyed conservatism as a political project in Britain. As she thrust market forces into every corner of British life with the aim of ‘rolling back the frontiers of the state’, the state grew ever stronger. Just as constructing the free market in early Victorian England required a large-scale exercise of state power, so did restoring a partial version of it towards the end of the twentieth century. Victorian laissez-faire was engineered by a series of parliamentary acts that enclosed what had up to that time been common land, creating private property where none had existed before – a process that involved mass coercion. It was a change that could only be brought about by highly centralized government, and the same was true of Thatcher’s programme. The unavoidable result of attempting to reinvent the free market was a highly invasive state.

The price of Thatcher’s success was in many ways the opposite of the one she wanted. Her goal of unshackling the free market was achievable, and to a measurable degree it was realized; but her belief that she could free up the market while shrinking the state was utopian, and so was her aim of reinstating bourgeois values. Utopia is a projection into the future of a model of society that cannot be realized, but it need not be a society that has never existed. It may be a society that once did exist – if not in exactly the form in which it is fondly remembered – but which history has since passed by. […] The conservative Britain of the fifties was a by-product of Labour collectivism. Thatcher tore up the foundations of the country to which she dreamt of returning. Already semi-defunct when she came to power in 1979, it had vanished from memory when she left in 1990. In attempting to restore the past she erased its last traces.

Food for thought.
Anon 001

The next election will be a choice .. <.i>

For someone who professes not to want an election, he sure seems to be campaigning for one.

Any bets on whether Harper pulls the trigger before the parliament comes back?
LaxAtlDfwYow

Despite the apparent convention wisdom in Ottawa and in the media, I still think there is a better than even chance he pulls the plug this fall. The very real possibility of a double dip recession is the elephant on the horizon. Waiting for spring allows time for the current 'recovery' to reverse and/or see further declines in home prices. Also, does one beleive Iggy's numbers can go any lower?

The real question is not whether PMSH can call an election he can win, but can he win a majority? You have got to believe that PMSH and the CPC can out campaign Iggy. The CPC also has a massive lead in funds and organization. Is the electorate more fed up with the Harper antics (e.g., census, detainees) or with the past two years of do-nothing parliaments? The latter is the path to a majority.
Emily

More absurdity, in a summer of his absurdities.

I really think Harper is trying to out-whacko Mackenzie King, so his legacy is one of mental illness in office.
Anon 001

I believe Iggy's numbers could go lower, but the key for the Liberals will be turnout. The Conservatives can get their vote out, as can the NDP. But, can the Liberals? They couldn't under Dion, but can the charm of Iggy sweep them off their feet and into the voting booth?
http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

Why do people like you use the term PMSH? Don't you find that crude and childish? I guess not.
tobyornotoby

And then there's the devil in all those stimulus paln details. When is the Auditor General report due, again?
Jon Pertwee

actually LaxAtIDfwYow, the usual question about an election is whether he can win it or not. Seeing as we havent had an election yet, your point is pure subjecture.

But hey thanks for the interesting twist on the talking points.
http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

The prospect of a coalition is absurd, isn't it.
Patchouli

Amazing how much less-absurd it is now that UK has one. Isn't it?
TJCook

Thanks you, Dennis_F for standing up against the crude and the childish in this forum.
NorthernPoV

we use PMSH when we're being polite, like here in public.
You would have to cover your ears if you heard what he is generally called.
(Hint, it involves unhygienic actions and body parts from small-dead-animals)
BCer in Mtl

What do people like you mean when they write "people like you"?

Bipeds?

People with internet connections?

Sentient beings?

People not trying to get the discussion off on a tangent?
Emily

Harper acted as though he'd never heard of the idea, yet he'd tried it himself when Martin was in office.
http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

Sigh. Nobody ever argued that coalition governments are bad. They were in existence in other places before the last election. They will be in existence after the next election. Albeit they are rare in our form of government, and even in Britain. Having said that, the argument always was that the coalition that the left tried to force on us after the last election was absurd, and is something they will live to regret for some time. Judging by the reaction of its supporters on here, it looks as though that prediction was bang-on, and will continue to be. So much illogic it does illicit.
http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

How long you leftists gonna keep up that lie?
Amateur Hour

In four years we've had 2 elections and, what is it now, three proroguings of Parliament — all driven by the PM.

Harper thinks this is emblematic of stability?
Standing By

Prediction: The AG report will be a disappointment for the opposition. She will point out in placid language that the money was handed out using the same politically-driven structures that caused the HRDC and sponsorship scandals, the government will claim otherwise, Parliamentary committees will hold incomprehensible hearings, and the whole thing will pass.

The best that will come of this for the libs is that when the Conservatives yammer on about decade-old Chretien scandals, people will think in the back of their minds: like you guys are any better?
http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

Oh, I have no doubt whatsoever that you and your friends use all kinds of angry and disgusting language to voice your opinion of Harper. I'm just glad it's not the Canadian way in general.
Jon Pertwee

Yes because putting something in print is a lie. Stop huffing the conbot fumes so deeply
http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

People who feel a need to use the term PMSH. Geez. Aren't you paying attention?
Jon Pertwee

Hmm I doubt any viewpoint that backs itself based on commenters. Hmm some blog commenters think this so it must be true
Dee

Steve just can't seem to stop lying. It's very unbecoming of a Canadian PM.
http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

No, clearly misrepresenting what was written, and doing it over and over again like a choir of zombies, is a lie. I know some of you can't stand to be challenged, but tough. This ain't Cuba.
http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

The comments on here are only an example. The left hasn't been able to get its head straight on this coalition issue ever since they failed to force it on Canadians the last time. It's truly a sight to behold.

On the one hand, you folks swear by the coalition. On the other hand, you folks get absolutely furious when Harper suggests you'll try it again. Why wouldn't you?
NorthernPoV

Us lefties are quite clear:
A coalition if necessary, but not ……

Just cause Harper will attempt to make this an "us vs Armageddon" choice, and that the media may well assist, doesn't mean that we have to take the bait.

I will vote for the candidate most likely to defeat whatever Harper stooge runs in my riding.
My preferred outcome would be a Liberal minority with Lizzie May holding the balance of power.

Virtually any possible electoral outcome would be better than giving these Con vandals another kick at the can.
http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

I still get baffled by the endless contradictions of the coalition supporters.

First, and many of you don't seem to comprehend this, the coalition made the coalition an issue for the next election the second they tried to grab power and lost. That they now don't want to live by that decision is, again, baffling.

Second, if the coalition was such a great thing, why run away from it now?

Third, I'm pretty sure Canadians don't hate Harper as much as you do, and want nothing to do with an Elizabeth May holding a government hostage.
NorthernPoV

"Canadians don't hate Harper as much as you do"
no, just the approx. 60% of us that can't get our act together during the campaign … and are attacked with lies for trying to get our act together, after a campaign
http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

Let me get this straight. Harper haters trying to force a coalition after an election is representative of the majority of Canadians, is it? And what lies were you attacked with? Most of the lies I've experienced on this issue have to do with the accusation that Harper tried to present a coalition in 2004.
Patchouli

PMSH stands for Prick-Master Stephen harper.