New fears of sedition -

New fears of sedition


Stephen Harper, Dec. 1. I would certainly not want to find myself governing this economy today in a situation that required me to follow socialist economics and to be at the behest of a veto of the separatists.”

James Moore, heckling Gilles Duceppe, Dec. 1. “Traitor!”

Stephen Harper, Dec. 2. “The Canadian people made a choice to elect the Conservative Party to govern, without the support of the separatists.”

Dean Del Mastro, heckling Jack Layton, Dec. 3. “Jack, you’re a traitor.”

Stephen Harper, Dec. 3. “The Liberal Party leader proposes to help the economy by signing a pact with the Quebec sovereignists to govern the country. This is not a plan to improve the economy; it is a plan to destroy this country, which is why he should withdraw his proposal.”

Canadian Press, tonight. “The Harper government has sketched out a road map that would see it avoid an election in this recession year and survive to bask in the glory of the 2010 Olympic Games … The Tories need to stave off defeat in confidence votes until then and are considering ways to secure support from the NDP and Bloc Quebecois on a case-by-case basis … The Bloc will table its own list of economic demands Thursday, and they have been pushing for EI changes as well as a tax-harmonization deal for Quebec … One senior Conservative said there will be plenty of ways for the parties to work together. ‘We’re hopeful they’d want to work with us. … Maybe cooler heads will prevail,’ he said.”


New fears of sedition

  1. remember the good old days when ‘c’onservatives used to demonize ‘l’iberals by attacking them as relativists? it is indisputable among the srs (bring on the bots) that Harper has, issue-by-issue, taken up politically pragmatic positions notwithstanding all his campaigning and moral bombast on being the champion of principled politics.

    is the ‘right’ wing of this country not done with this guy yet? why the hell not? what would is the line in the sand that he has to cross?

  2. The shameless about-face by the Tories should not be a surprise, they’ve long proven they’ll say anything, do anything, and sacrifice any principles or morals, to hold onto power. That being said, big surprise is that Bloc and NDP would want to be involved with Tories at all. Even if the Liberals are on the rise, still have hard time seeing how Bloc/NDP supporters would be willing to accept keeping Harper in power. The day Harper and Layton negotiate an agreement on a bill acceptable to Tories and NDP, but not Liberals, will be a fun one, can’t wait to see the reaction, and not just in the Commons. I think Ignatieff will choose his moment carefully, and make sure that when he seizes that opportunity, it’ll be at a time and/or on an issue that he knows will be impossible for the other parties to provide support to the Tories, regardless of the polls.

    My thinking is that in the end, regardless of political manoeuvrings and realpolitik and all that going on now, the NDP won’t be able to support the Tories. Recent polls might show a Liberal rise and an NDP slide, but the chance the Liberals will win the next election (likely a minority, too) is what most pragmatic and realistic NDP supporters would want, especially when compared to Harper as PM. Much better for their vision of Canada having Layton prop up PM Ignatieff. I don’t know about Duceppe and the Bloc, but I think the NDP will be in revolt if they were the reason Harper remained in power.

    • “I think the NDP will be in revolt if they were the reason Harper remained in power.”

      for the third time

  3. Or are they just trying to fly a kite?
    Would Duceppe really get into bed with Harper – even though it might be expedient for the Bloc?
    Their relationship was pretty toxic after Harper threw around the Separatiste pejorative.
    The only way would be for Duceppe to dictate policy terms to Harper that would be toxic for Harper’s core supporters. Could Harper survive that?
    Something smells in the State of Canada!

    • It is called politics and all political parties will be pragmatic and sleep with the enemy to maintain or improve their position. That is the way of the world–blame the universe!

    • “Something smells in the State of Canada!”

      Give me a break WW, the LIberals actually entered into a formal coalition with the separatists last December 1st. It provided for a mechanism allowing for secretive backroom consultations with the separatists in exchange for supporting the Liberals until June 2010 or 2011 I forget which.

      Here there will be open discussions on policy issues amongts the three non-Liberal parties.

      Apparently what “smells in the State of Canada” is anything that prevents the Liberals from assuming power. What arrogance, the Liberals think they’re entitled to govern just like Ignatieff thinks he was entitled to the Liberal leadership without a democratic contest. An arrogant leader leading an arrogant party.

      • I guess it has nothing to do with the PM’s blatant contradictions….

  4. The good news is that the Libs won’t have to go over 30 years of tape to dredge up these quotes from Harper – they just have to go back to December to show all of Canada (even those who plug their ears and yell whenever a Lib ad comes on) how duplicitous Harper really is.

    • Nothing – I repeat nothing – will erase the memory of The Liberal Party of Canada formally entering into a governing coalition with the separatist Bloc. That was the lowest point in the history of the Liberal Party of Canada and the reason why Stéphane Dion was forced to resign.

      The Liberals can hardly complain now if the Conservatives find some common ground with the Bloc or the NDP on policy issues. After all these same separatists were their governing coalition partners.

      • Ah, the invented memory syndrome, that psychiatric staple. What Harper is proposing here is precisely what Dion & Layton were proposing in December. In neither case was a formal coalition with the Bloc in the cards, Jarrid. A formal coalition involves cabinet seats.

        • “A formal coalition involves cabinet seats.”

          Jack, it’s a little too early to do a revisionist take on The Coalition. It hasn’t been 5 months yet.

          In order to impress the Governor General that it had the confidence of the House, the Liberals had to demonstrate that The Coalition had the requisite numerical majority in the House. This it did by having the agreement with the Bloc that the Bloc would support it for a least 18 months, no doubt for some, to use hockey talk, “future considerations.” With the agreement in place The Coalition had over 160 seats and therefore had the majority it needed.

          Without the Bloc in on The Coalition there simply would have been no Coalition. As I pointed out above, it has to have constituted the lowest point in the history of the Liberal Party of Canada.

          And Michael Ignatieff signed on, and then justified his signature with his “Coalition if necessary but not necessarily the Coalition” tripe.

          • 5 months? Your ilk was revisionist after 24 hours.

            The Coalition(tm) was a coalition between the NDP and Liberals. The resulting Coalition would have been propped up by the Bloc, just as the Bloc is about to start propping up the Harper Conservatives. The situations are exactly parallel.

            The one difference was that the NDP and Liberals were not maintaining their dominance of the House, they were looking to assert it so as to replace the Government. Thus they needed to show that they could maintain that dominance. Harper already has that dominance, so he is not obliged to display the Bloc’s support to the GG or anybody else; he just has to receive it.

            Honestly, Jarrid, I thought you knew more about Parliament.

      • False memory syndrome is troubling, but with years of treatment progress can be made.

      • Dion resigned due to his poor showing in the election. Regardless of the December crisis, Mr. Dion would not have been leader for long.

      • As noted elsewhere, Jarrid, you’re facts are wrong. The hated coalition agreement was between the Dion Liberals and Jack’s NDP only. Duceppe’s Bloc agreed to support the coalition on two votes of confidence — both budget bills. That was all the say the separatists would have had — and is exactly the type of vote-by-vote support the Harper Conservatives currently seek from the “socialists and separatists”.

  5. Surely sf has a pithy comment to put this absurd hypocrisy in the proper perpective? Hello?

    • I think Jarrid has it covered. He’s the Jack Van Impe of rightwing lies.

    • And I think your hat’s on too tight.

  6. And Iggy said that the Bloc were duly elected representaives of Canada, and deserved to have their voice heard in the coalition, even though they could make decisions that favored Quebec over the RoC.

    Of course a few weeks later he said he decided against the coalition because it was wrong to include those (the Bloc), who were only interested in destroying the country.

    Matter of fact, I think I read all that on a Maclean’s blog, Coyne perhaps.

  7. Iggy January 5th: “Bloc MPs are duly elected by Québec voters. They are not traitors, they are not the enemies of Canada.”

    Iggy March 12th: “I could be sitting here as your prime minister, but I turned it down because I didn’t think it was right for someone who believes in the national unity of my country to make a deal with people who want to split the country up”.