69

Layton’s version


 

Two questions remain for Stephen Harper to answer. But to this and this and this, you can add what Jack Layton wrote five years ago. In Chapter 9 of Speaking Out Louder—published in 2006—Jack Layton detailed the aftermath of the 2004 election from his perspective.

After meeting first with Paul Martin—and finding little room for cooperation—Mr. Layton met with Mr. Harper and Mr. Duceppe. Below, a few excerpts concerning those discussions.

One of the realities of minority government is that if one side isn’t interested in working with you, other arrangements are possible. I began to think about a new and different approach. Specifically, what could happen if the three Opposition parties co-operated and came up with some reforms and initiatives and then brought them to the floor of the House for action? Through a series of exploratory individual conversations, then brief joint meetings, which included tabling of proposals, Stephen Harper, Gilles Duceppe, and I were moving toward an agreement to bring forward changes to the House of Commons rules to increase the impact of all Opposition parties in the decision-making process…

The “Three Amigos” as the media dubbed us, worked on other reforms as well. Gilles Duceppe wanted all the changes we had agreed upon to be put forward in an amendment to the Speech from the Throne. As the most experienced Opposition leader, he clearly wanted to move into the driver’s seat, and successfully did so for the first couple of meetings. Forcing the Liberals to accept our recommendations as an amendment to the speech from the throne amounted to a game of parliamentary “chicken.” If the government refused, Mr. Duceppe pointed out, the three parties had enough votes to ensure its defeat. Waiting outside Mr. Harper’s office for our meeting to begin, I asked Mr. Duceppe what he thought would happen if the prime minister refused to accept such an ultimatum. He replied that a government defeat so soon after a general election meant the Governor General would then have to turn “to one of us” to form a government. We both knew that meant Stephen Harper and his Conservatives. I asked Mr. Duceppe if he could accept such an eventuality. He was not only clear that he could, but he would.

Stephen Harper, while less inclined to brinksmanship, nevertheless warmed to the seduction of Mr. Duceppe’s strategy. Under this scenario, Mr. Harper would become prime minister in an informal alliance with the Bloc. Unthinkable? Not to either Mr. Harper or Mr. Duceppe. The Bloc leader was willing to strategize for Mr. Harper to become prime minister, despite the Conservatives’ many negative policies—policies completely contrary to the desires and values of most Quebecers. While shocked, I could not say I was surprised. Mr. Duceppe and the Bloc would have been key players in any Harper coalition, demanding significant dismantling of our collective capacities as Canadians as the price for his support. That dismantling was something that would coincide nicely with Mr. Harper’s ideological and visceral distate for any federal government oversight or ability to intervene in any social or economic programs administered by the provinces but utilizing federal tax dollars.

Realizing immediately the full magnitude of what was at stake, I knew I had to walk away. I was not about to participate in any scheme cooked up by the Bloc and the Conservatives that would put the country in the hands of Stephen Harper. It was clear from the election results just three months earlier that Canadians were not ready to elect Mr. Harper as prime minister. In fact, judging from the results, Canadians were not particularly keen on any one of us being in control. None of the four parties in the House had succeeded in receiving the support of even two of every five voters. My decision made, I informed the other Opposition party leaders that I was withdrawing from the talks. The Three Amigos were down to two.

The other two Opposition parties made it clear that, with my withdrawal, the NDP had lost any bargaining leverage. But, as it turned out, the NDP proposals were included in the package of amendments. It’s just that we didn’t secure any credit for the effort. So be it.

In my judgment, shared by the NDP caucus, it was far more important to respect the wishes of Canadians. Namely, that the minority House constructed by the voters in that peculiar collective wisdom that unfolded on election day be respected and given a chance to show what it could do. And it was even more important that my party not participate in any plot to turn over the country to a difficult and potentially devastating marriage of the Conservatives and the Bloc.


 

Layton’s version

  1. It's pretty obvious that Harper is being far less than honest about this coalition thing. Layton's comments were written years ago, long before this became an issue. The press…all of them…need to state that clearly whenever Harper mentions it. That should take up a sentence or two. After that they can move on to real issues.

  2. It is not really surprising that Harper could find greater common ground with a separatist than a socialist. Duceppe & Harper have both been leaders of highly successful regional parties that sought (& continue to seek) to profoundly change that regions relationship with ROC.

  3. Do liberals here really think that what concerns Canadians most about his election is what Harper said in meetings with Martin years ago?

    Another poll just came out, and it shows Harper garnering 41%.
    http://www.canada.com/news/Tory+support+stays+hig

    Some have described insanity as doing the same thing over and over but expecting different results.

    These continuous "gotcha" episodes have utterly failed to move voters.

    Yet here we are, again with another. Some would argue that the Liberal campaign has devolved from merely inneffectual to the insane.

  4. Isn't this post about meetings with Layton and Duceppe, not Martin?

  5. I still don't understand what Harper bashers are trying to accomplish with this. Even if he did contemplate some kind of governing arrangement with the other parties, which I don't think he did, so what? You guys are chasing your own tails on this one while Harper has you all talking about coalition. Keep it up. lol

  6. "Under this scenario, Mr. Harper would become prime minister in an informal alliance with the Bloc. Unthinkable? Not to either Mr. Harper or Mr. Duceppe."

    That's Jack Layton in 2004 (or at least 2006 writing about what happened in 2004).

    Say Anything Steve is a flat out liar to his core.

    I hate saying that about politicians because it is so easy, especially for an acknowledged partisan, but he is not just lying, not just flat out lying, but trying to build an entire election campaign around a lie.

    Lying is at the core of the Conservative Party. It was created on a lie to conservatives by Peter McKay. His 2006 campaign platform has turned out to be a scorecard of broken promises and lies. He and his caucus lie to Parliament regularly. He built his 2008 win on lies ("tax on everything") but I discounted that then as mere hyperbolic partisanship and exaggeration.

    Now he is trying to up the lies and this time to all Canadians.

  7. I am not sure I have ever seeen a campaign where party supporters publicly revel in their voters being clueless. HAHAHA LOOK WHAT WE CAN GET AWAY WITH LIBERALS!!!

  8. Can you please desist in these wild accusatory posts and try something calm and comprehensible for a change? That way we might know what the heck you're talking about and actually discuss an issue or two. But, of course, I'm not holding my breath.

  9. It was clear from the election results just three months earlier that Canadians were not ready to elect Mr. Harper as prime minister. In fact, judging from the results, Canadians were not particularly keen on any one of us being in control. None of the four parties in the House had succeeded in receiving the support of even two of every five voters.

    The coalition attempt of 2008 took place under exactly the same circumstances, and Jack spearheaded that attempt. I wonder what changed, in Jack's mind?

  10. The coalition attempt of 2008 took place under exactly the same circumstances. I wonder what changed, in Say Anything Steve's mind?

  11. Oh My God! The Sky is falling!!

    Did all you pussies hide in your basements during Y2K? Are you planning on hiding there for the 2012 prediction?

    You certainly have no respect for Democracy.

    If a ‘coalition’ represents 60% of the Population, then I don’t have a problem with it. It makes more sense then the Country run by a group only supported by 38% of the Population.

    I don’t see how you can look at yourselves in the mirror and not be disgusted by the Hypocrisy if you condoned Harpers coalition in 2004 but not accept the feasibility of one now, and what if circumstances turn out that Harper forms a ‘coalition’ at the end of this Election?

    This pathetic display is turning me off of even keeping up to this farce. I don’t like or trust any of these idiots.

  12. I absolutely agree with you that Harper's (current) position on coalitions is inconsistent with his view in 2004 (and in my opinion downright stupid), but I do think that sourstud has a point here which is worth addressing.

  13. …what do you mean 'if' he contemplated? There is no 'if'…Harper DID have an agreement with the NDP and the Bloc…supported by documents, press coverage and the footage of Harper sandwiched between Duceppe and Layton…as for your second point…agreed…so what….which begs the questions why Harper calls the concept anti-democratic and illigitimate?

  14. I'm beginning to appreciate the term "ConBOT" more and more. It's become pretty apparant that the chet program doesn't actually read the articles. It just skims quickly and drops in a pre-formatted message based on certain key-words. IP tracking on it might be interesting.

    If they were smart, they would have even included a few key-words (like "program") to let it know when it's been spotted and drop something in about that.. or maybe then it contacts a human.

  15. The C&S agreement with the Bloc that would prevent them from bringing down the gov't. This is what I keep saying.. the Coalition in 2008 would have been the death-knell for the Bloc had it gone through. Mr. Duceppe was so concerned about what Mr. Harper had become, he was willing to risk his party's relevance to see Mr. Harper out of power.

    I personally think we wasted a hell of an opportunity then. And I lay the blame for that directly on Mr. Harper's demonizing of any type of coalition agreements.

  16. For crying out loud, I've been over this a thousand times. Where in the world is this proof? It's an outright lie. It's obviously all the Harper bashers have, which is why he's well on his way to a majority. Congratulation. lol

  17. Sourstud is attempting to deflect any focus on the Prime Minister.

    It is Say Anything Steve who is once again saying anything to hold onto power.

    Feel free to address side issues about side candidates if you want to let them get you distracted and keep the focus off of Harper. That's up to you. I'm just not going to let it happen again.

  18. Talk about willful blindness….give your head a shake…your continued denials only prove how far the Tories will go to bury their hypocrisies and lie to hold on to power at all costs.

  19. Without getting into the "Separatist" and "Socialist" monickers, a Conservative-Bloc coalition built on the idea of reducing federal "interference" in the lives of Canadians/in the responsibilities of the provinces makes a lot of sense in theory. It breaks down in practice because of the visceral disdain many have for the Bloc, but it is one of about three possible coalitions that actually make sense (FWIW, the others I think could be stable are Liberal-NDP and Conservative-Liberal (though that last one won't happen because the Libs are afraid it will push too many voters towards the NDP).

  20. I doubt your understanding of 'outright lie'. However, continue listening to Stephen Harper and you'll either hear the concept or be proven too dense to see the forest for the trees.

  21. Where is this proof? You have a 2004 letter that says nothing about a coalition. In fact, both Layton and Duceppe at the time said it wasn't a coalition. At best, Harper may have been contemplating some kind of government arrangement. Most likely, he wasn't. Yet you persist in lying about it all. If you have proof, give it. If not, shouldn't you stop lying?

  22. I think if you are looking for comparisons, in 2004 it would appear that Duceppe got things rolling. This is likely because he could see synergies between his goals and Harper's. (In some respects Duceppe+Harper would have reestablished the groups that brought Mulroney to power. Layton & the NDP really have very little common ground with two groups looking to diminish the Canadian government through transfer of power & autonomy to the provinces or regions. It is also possible that Duceppe saw Harper's relative inexperience as an advantage for the Bloc in any agreement that resulted.

    In 2008, Layton as you note spearheaded things. Why not? Dion was inexperienced, disorganized and promoting policies that were on the far left of the standard Liberal spectrum. It was the perfect opportunity for Layton & the NDP.

    In 2011, we have Ignatieff who is on the far right of the Liberal spectrum. He is fiscally more conservative than Harper (wrt deficits) although he favours large, central government initiatives. Ignatieff also tends towards being a hawk on international issues, Harper is a minimalist and an opportunist, Layton tends strongly to passivism. It is really hard to see there being any traction for a formal coalition involving Layton and Ignatieff.

  23. This is all you people have. Just knee-jerk accusations. No proof. No facts. No truth. Just contempt for people who dare to be your political opponents. Mabye that's why Harper's doing so well. Have you ever thought of that? Of course not. You're too busy resenting him.

  24. Far more proof of Harper's agreement with the socialists and separatists to take power away from the Liberals even though he won fewer seats, than there is of Ignatieff planning to do the same.

    There is his written letter, and there are the words of Layton before "coalition" became a dirty word, and of Duceppe.

    Even Say Anything has been extremely cagey about this and won't take questions or answer them directly. He has been asked if he would have taken power without a vote and only ever responds with saying that the Conservatives have only ever come to power through an election. Talk about sneaky slithering.

  25. Isn't the 2004 letter with Harper's signature but absent the word coalition still one more piece of physical evidence than anyone has against Ignatieff?

    With Ignatieff there's not even a signed letter at all!

  26. I think you're missing part of Layton's point. Layton is indeed saying that "Canadians were not particularly keen on any one of us being in control" and pointing out that "None of the four parties in the House had succeeded in receiving the support of even two of every five voters", but he's not saying that those are the reasons he backed away, he's just giving the context in which the discussions between the three men were taking place.

    The reason he walked away, as I think he's made clear above, was that the Bloc's price for their support was "demanding significant dismantling of our collective capacities as Canadians", and that this fit nicely with Stephen Harper's Tories' "ideological and visceral distaste for any federal government oversight or ability to intervene in any social or economic programs administered by the provinces but utilizing federal tax dollars".

    What you pointed to is the context in which the discussions were taking place, but I'm pretty sure the reason Layton walked away in 2004 was that the person who was contemplating becoming Prime Minister with the support of the Bloc back then was a person who considers whether Canada ends up with one national government, or two, or ten, to be a "secondary consideration".

    Stephane Dion, on the other hand, most certainly does NOT feel that whether Canada is governed by one, or two, or several national governments is merely a secondary consideration.

  27. Let me get this straight. Iggy most definitely signed a formal coalition agreement to take power away from a duly elected government, and he has been open to the concept even since – until he said otherwise on the first day of the campaign. Harper never came even close. Yet you have the gall to suggest that it's Harper who has to explain his position on coalitions? When did you people lose complete touch with reality? The day you lost power. Wow.

    But, again, feel free to focus on this. Only you know where it will get you. I don't.

  28. But what about the zombies???

    I note that your post conveniently fails to mention the zombies.

  29. Again, how can something that doesn't involve a coalition be more about a coalition than an actual coalition agreement? Where did some of you learn how to think? lol

    We're having a $300 million election because the opposition wants to misrepresent a letter in 2004. Terrific.

  30. Maybe the same way that a letter that doesn't include Ignatieff's signature can apparenlty implicate Ignatieff more than a letter that does include Harper's signature implicates Harper.

    My point was not that the 2004 letter is a good or convincing piece of evidence that Harper intended to form a coalition in 2004, just that there's no physical evidence whatsoever to attach to Ignatieff. I do agree that the 2004 letter is not evidence of an intent to form a coalition. The evidence of that is coming from people describing what happened between the three leaders in 2004 behind closed doors.

    My point about the letters was simply that everyone's waving letters around, and the only person who's signature isn't on any of the letters being waved around is Michael Ignatieff.

  31. Iggy most definitely signed a formal coalition agreement

    That was Stephane Dion.

  32. Then what did Iggy sign in 2008? His Canadian citizenship papers? lol

    And, yes, you're right. All we have of evidence regarding Harper's intent to form an apparent coalition are two people who just forced Harper into an election last week. That's what you think passes for credible witness testimony, do you. Mind you, at the time, they insisted it wasn't a coalition.

    Even so, what does any of that have to do with this election other than constituting a desperate attempt by the coalition to justify their ongoing grab for power?

  33. Ted
    How can questioning Jack Laytons remarks in a posting titled "Laytons Version" be deflecting.

  34. this may be the first time I've agreed with Dennis_F, but Ignatieff's signature is on it, too. The entire 2008 Liberal caucus signed. It may have been Dion's document, but Ignatieff did sign it.

  35. I do believe we are getting involved in the semantics of the situation. You want to argue that because the word coalition was not used, it was therefore not a coalition. Rational people, however, know that when something looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, lays an egg like a duck, then in all likelihood it is a duck.

    So, OK, if we can't use the word 'coalition' in arguing with you, how about we use another word bandied about by conservatives at the time: 'coup'. Can we say, instead, that Mr. Harper was plotting a coup to take over the government of Canada?

  36. No, he didn't.

    The caucus did, it's true, sign a separate document backing up the agreement made by the leader of their party after the leader of their party (Stephane Dion) signed the coalition agreement. Ignatieff did NOT sign the formal coalition agreement because he was not leader when it was signed (I'm trying to remember, was he even in the room when it was signed?). The only signatures on the formal coalition agreement were those of Stephane Dion and Jack Layton. It may seem a subtle difference, but signing a letter saying that you support a decision made by the leader of your party after that decision has been made is different from signing a letter in which you make a decision as a leader of your party, and the Conservatives are trying to confuse the two things in peoples' minds.

    You've fallen into the Tory trap. Everybody knows that Ignatieff and the caucus signed something, so they just say that Ignatieff signed the formal coalition agreement. They do it with Duceppe too. Everybody saw Duceppe sign something, so the Tories just pretend that Duceppe signed the coalition agreement and hope that no one points out that only Layton and Dion signed the coalition agreement and that Duceppe signed an entirely separate pledge not to vote non-confidence in the Dion-Layton coalition for a period of two years,

    As for Dennis' contention that Ignatieff has subsequently been open to a coalition ever since, here is a story from January of 2009 about the NDP flipping out that Ignatieff had just killed the coalition that was about to make him Prime Minister. Here's another story from September of 2009 (entitled "Ignatieff rules out coalition government") in which Ignatieff reiterates his "no coalition" stance ("I could be standing here as the Prime Minister of Canada, I turned it down, we turned it down in January. I don't think I need to give further proof of my feeling that that's not what Canadians want. I agree with Canadians."). I could recount the many other times since 2009 that Ignatieff has said that he knows that Canadians don't want a coalition and so he's not going to pursue one, but that would take an awfully long time. Maybe he hasn't always been as absolutely precise and unequivocal as he was this past Saturday, but he's been saying no to a coalition since about a month after he became leader (and I think he might have started sooner if it hadn't been for Christmas!).

  37. Lies. All lies. (smirk)

  38. Craig replied before I could edit my comment above to add this, but I wanted to point out this great line from an NDP ad after Ignatieff killed the coalition in January of 2009:

    "Michael Ignatieff failed his first big test as Liberal leader. He's thrown his lot in with Stephen Harper, a person average families can't trust to look out for them…

    Jack Layton — the only leader strong enough to stand up to Harper and create the change that will get us through this economic crisis."

    Fat lot of good it did Ignatieff killing the coalition and throwing in his lot with Harper, eh?

  39. Look, you Harper bashers are clearly intent on misrepresenting that 2004 letter. It looks more like a goat than it does a duck, but you're intent on telling us otherwise. Again, you can't justify this $300 million election on facts about Harper, so you have to make them up. You have to focus on a 7-year-old letter that doesn't say what you're desperately hoping for, presumably because you have absolutely no other defence of your own coalition efforts. Like I keeps saying, you think it's worth the time. lol

  40. Thanks, LKO. You're right, I did get suckered into the "Ignatieff signed the coalition deal" trap.

    Do you know how to take back a thumbs up? Because I felt exactly the same way as Criacow.

  41. It is evident that you don't care about the hypocracy of the situation.

    And I, for one, am not 'focusing' on that as the singular event that has influenced my decision to abandon the Conservative Party. My decision and actions start with Emerson and Fortier in 2006 and go downhill from there. There is a whole litany of issues where I feel my former party (Progressive Conservative) has let me down since 2006.

    However, the whole thrust of the Conservative argument against a coalition and referring to it as a coup is a huge disservice to the Canadian electorate. It treats us as fools, who don't know any better. If this is the main argument for electing Conservatives in 2011, then we are wasting our time.

  42. CPAC played the 2004 press conference today. 2004 Harper doesn't think 2008 Harper had the mandate to govern.
    i don't know if it's on the website but it is very interesting. He coins the phrase 'cooperlition'. Harper, at the very least demonstration a situation specific view on parliamentary procedure.

  43. So you can throw any accusation you want at Harper, but they can't shoot back. That's a mighty peculiar ethical standard you've got going for yourself.

  44. Harper made up a rule last year that "losers don't get to form governments".

    And yet, that is precisely what he tried to do in 2004. There is no bigger hypocrite and opportunist than Harper anywhere in politics right now.

  45. It's Layton's version of the events of 2004, following Duceppe's revelations the other day… all about how hypocritical and disengenuous Harper is now being when he pretends that he thinks "losers don't get to form governments" when that is precisely what he tried to do in 2004 with the support of the "socialists and separatists".

  46. I think you're stuck with that thumbs up forever, lol.

    That said, I do think that Criacow was completely honestly trying to correct what seemed to be incorrect information in my post (and I could have expounded more on the point initially to explain why the notion was false, not just writing "That was Stephane Dion", as I honestly did anticipate somebody coming back and saying "but Ignatieff did sign a letter", because I know people have been screaming about Duceppe "signing the coalition agreement" when he did no such thing, so I could have cut that off at the pass). So, really, I think the comment still deserved a thumbs up!

  47. You're kidding, right?

    Mr. Harper and his party feigns outrage at a coalition, tells the electorate that a coalition that does not include him is tantamount to a coup, and I am not supposed to respond in kind?

    Everything that the Conservatives have done relative to this whole coalition issue is bogus. All that is important is that whichever party forms the government can maintain the confidence of the House.

    When you use the rhetoric that the Conservatives have used on this subject to frighten voters, that is going too far. Equating the legitimate defeat of a minority government to a coup is a step too far.

    I will not support a party that plays on voter ignorance and fear, and that applies to any party as far as I am concerned.

  48. There is absolutely no evidence to support your amazing claim that that is what he tried to do in 2004. None. Some of you make the worst accusations of Harper, yet it is you who are willing to spread this outright misrepresentation for the purpose of grabbing power again.

  49. In other words, the kind of country you want is one where people can't discuss perfectly plausible and possible electoral configurations for after the election. A coalition is possible. It happened the last time. It can happen again. But, in your world, we're not allowed to discuss this. You get angered at the very thought that someone would dare raise these possibilities. How dare they! Off with their heads!

  50. Iggy signed a letter saying that he would support the decision that the leader of his party had just made to pursue a possible coalition, as did a number, if not all, of the Liberal caucus. Signing a letter supporting the decision that the leader of your party has made is different from signing a letter as leader committing your party to a course of action, and I'm absolutely certain that the Tories are trying to muddy the waters on this point, just like when they claim that Duceppe signed the coalition agreement even though that's not true either. The Tories know that people saw Duceppe sign something, and they know that people at least heard that Ignatieff signed something, and they're trying to make it sound like the two of them signed the coalition agreement, when the truth is that neither of them did.

    Once Ignatieff was actually leader of the Liberal Party it took him all of a month to kill the coalition (a large chunk of which was Christmas break). He then reiterated on numerous occasions that he knew that Canadians didn't want a coalition, and so he wasn't going to pursue one.

  51. Let's see. As far as proof that Harper wanted to become PM without an election even though he had fewer seats than Martin:

    1. Layton's own words, written 5 years ago when "coalition" wasn't a dirty word.
    2. Harper has never denied Layton's version.
    3. Duceppe's own words now.
    4. Harper never contradicted Duceppe (as far as I am aware) or denied what he said.
    5. Harper's own letter asking the GG to consider her options if Martin asked for an election. The only other option possible is for the GG to ask if Harper could gain the confidence of the House. This is consistent with both Layton's and Duceppe's statements.
    6. The 2004 press conference with Harper and "the socialist and the separatist" where Harper says there was an "agreement" among them which he "hopes is the first phase".
    7. When put the direct question now of whether, back then in 2004, he was willing to form a gov't without an election, Harper doesn't answer. He only says that the Conservatives have never formed a government without an election.
    Only an idiot or someone completely drunk on the kool-aid would not see that for what it is. And "proof" it certainly is.

  52. "all about how hypocritical and disengenuous Harper is"
    You have made it pretty clear how you feel about PM Harper. I don't think asking how you feel about Jack Laytons position is trying to deflect any focus. I see it as discuss or ignore, not attack.

  53. You are becoming tiresome. I have no argument with a rational discussion regarding a coalition. If the Conservatives would like to start one, then they should do so. To date, they have not.

    Let's start the discussion with the acknowledgement that a coalition is not equivalent to a coup. Furhtermore, lets acknowledge that a coalition is not even a necessary outcome; the Conservatives have governed in a minority for the past 5 years. There is no reason that another party could not govern in a similar manner.

  54. Let's acknowledge that the situation is actually pretty much the same, at face value, as it was when Mr. Harper tried to cobble together an 'alliance' of opposition MPs who were prepared to offer an alternative government without the need of an immediate election, if the Liberals lost the confidence of the House.

    Under our system of government, the above is viable. If it was when Mr. Harper proposed it, it was when the opposition tried it in 2008, as it will be in any future government from now until the end of time.

    Let's not try to convince the Canadian electorate that the country is doomed if anyone other than the Conservatives ends up in control.

  55. Just because PM Harper thought about it, doesn't make it a good idea.
    Just Saying.

  56. Yes, Layton is now the Bible of coalition testimony. lol. In fact, at the time, both Layton and Duceppe specifically said it wasn't a coalition.

    The letter proves nothing.

    You have nothing except desperate and dishonest allegations. That's because you can't justify the coalition in the first place, so you have to go with this nonsense. Seven years into the past and just wild speculation and the words of two men now intent on bringing Harper down.

    This isn't serious material, dude.

  57. Yes, having to deal with the truth on this issue is so tiresome, isn't it. How dare anyone challenge your misrepresentations of that stupid letter in 2004 that you all treat like the Bible of coalitions. lol

  58. Let's acknowledge that the situation is actually pretty much the same, at face value, as it was when Mr. Harper tried to cobble together an 'alliance' of opposition MPs who were prepared to offer an alternative government without the need of an immediate election, if the Liberals lost the confidence of the House.

    But there's no compelling evidence of such, for crying out loud. Once some of you decide to lie about a set of events, you'll never stop. You'll never stop until you get your way. Too bad it hasn't worked so far, and probably never will.

  59. So drunk on the kool-aid you have lost your ability to read.

    Where in that post did I even mention or use the word coalition.

    Two issues Dennis:

    1. Harper's desire to take power without an election even though he was a loser and now he claims that that is a bad thing.

    2. Harper's desire to form a coalition with the separatists and socialists.

    I was not even addressing the second. I'm willing to call it a "cooperlition" and not a formal coalition despite that fact that they had an agreement and were trying to form a government without an election.

  60. There's absolutely no evidence that Michael Ignatieff, in the future, buried within his own private thoughts, has a plan to start a coalition with socialists, separatists, etc., but that doesn't stop you.

  61. If you didn't know, Ted is a high ranking LPC officer. Don't expect him to make any sense for the next five weeks.

  62. He has essentially poisoned coalition agreements for the foreseeable future, because they are inconvenient for him now.

    But I'm sure it's all in the best interests of Canadians, or something.

  63. But the only evidence you have of that are Jack and Gilles. It's what they said versus what Harper says. This is you basis for making these outrageous accusations? Give your head a shake, dude.

    Never before have I seen people deliberately trying to misrepresent a letter like I've seen with this. But you have nothing else, you're so desperate.

  64. I'd also like to note that we've collectively gotten through an entire commenting page without mention of Harvard.

  65. So now I'm supposed to provide evidence of events that are yet to happen, am I? Where did some of you learn how to think critically? The university toilet stall walls? lol

  66. & only one "ConBOT" that I noticed.

  67. I didn't say the issue was tiresome. I said you were tiresome.

    Your blind devotion to the Conservatives just shows you to be unreasonable. Because Mr. Harper did not use the word coalition in 2004, it was therefore not a coalition. That is the whole gist and extent of your argument.

    OK. Have it your way. I will use the rhetoric of the 2008 brand of Mr. Harper conservatism to describe the letter of 2004.

    Mr. Harper was prepared to overthrow the winning party in the 2004 election and install himself as Prime Minister. In the words of the Conservative Party, he was prepared to stage a coup.

    The recent explanation that he was just trying to use it as leverage against the Liberal government smacks of after the fact rationalization. Do you believe for one minute that he would not have gladly accepted power if the scenario had played out. I don't believe for a minute that he would have said "no thanks", and called an election.

  68. No, you can't stand to be put in the wrong on this issue. Some of you have convinced yourselves of mistruths on the letter, and will never stop – even if you're spreading lies.

    All we have is a letter from seven years ago asking the GG to consider all her options, and it was a threat directed at Paul Martin. We also have so-called testimony from Jack and Gilles, which you all apparently consider to have the credibility of prophets.

    There isn't much there, but you all have to keep shoving it down our throats because you have nothings else. You get outraged at people for opposing you and pointing out your flaws. You'd prefer to have a coalition of like-minded people. Freedom to oppose is something you're allergic to. How dare someone else point out the facts! How dare I don't get my way.

    Well, this is Canada. Other people have a say. Other people can point out the truth about that letter. Other people don't have to make it up and keep shoving it until we swallow. Sorry.

Sign in to comment.