Mr. Harper's 2005 "Coalition" quotes
I see the Liberal bloggers are with glee posting some of Mr. Harper's quotes regarding working with the NDP and the Bloc back in 2005, somehow thinking that this is a justification of their plans to form a de-facto coalition (by signed document or by "compromise and consultation" as Iggy put it) should Mr. Harper be returned to power by the people.
Hey guys, knock yourselves out... let's review history, shall we? WHY WAS IT that Mr. Harper was suggesting working with the NDP and the Bloc back in the spring of 2005, hummm?
The governing Liberals had just been implicated in the perhaps the greatest scandal in Canadian history, where millions of dollars in contracts were awarded to Liberal friendly ad agencies in Quebec. It was confirmed that some of these funds, at least $1.14 million in traceable funds, ended up back in the Liberal Party's coffers. It was also believed, though it could never be proven due to the nature of the cash based transactions, that a significant amount more ended up in brown paper bags to be used as slush funds for various riding campaigns.
So you see, my dear Liberal friends, in that context, it was the RESPONSIBILITY of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition to work together to remove a potentially corrupt Government from office, a hypothesis which was ultimately proven by the Gomery Commission, and further confirmed by the Liberal Party of Canada when they wrote a cheque for $1.14 million dollars to the Canadian people. (some surmise that this was a significantly low balled number, but perhaps we'll never know for sure... though the current case in the courts may prove interesting if more names are released in the middle of a fall election campaign...)
In that context, Mr. Harper's comments are not only defensible, THEY'RE COMMENDABLE, for having gone beyond Party rhetoric to defend the Canadian people.
So, you might want to think twice about using those comments... do you REALLY want to remind Canadians of that whole sordid episode? Cause we'll be right there with you, reminding people of all the intimate details of what exactly prompted those remarks back in the spring of 2005.
There's a MAJOR difference between 2005 and 2009. The current idea of the Liberals working with the NDP to form a government should the Tories again win power? Utterly CONTEMPTIBLE and the height of arrogance, that should the people decide that Mr. Harper should continue to govern by giving him the most seats, (even without a majority of votes) that anyone would even consider forming an alternate government in the backrooms, be it a signed coalition or just a series of "compromises" as suggested by Mr. Ignatieff yesterday.
Don't be fooled... if Harper gets the most seats, but is shy of a majority, the Opposition won't let him govern for long, as we've clearly seen by their committee antics, their closed door "in-camera" sessions where they've blocked Conservative legislation, and by using the Liberal Senate majority to block legislation the Canadian people voted for. Even if he is returned to power by the people for the THIRD STRAIGHT TIME, the Opposition has no intention of letting Mr. Harper govern.
Why else has Iggy been consistently dodging the question on what happens in another Conservative minority? Maybe Mr. Harper was right in the video last week?
Hey guys, knock yourselves out... let's review history, shall we? WHY WAS IT that Mr. Harper was suggesting working with the NDP and the Bloc back in the spring of 2005, hummm?
The governing Liberals had just been implicated in the perhaps the greatest scandal in Canadian history, where millions of dollars in contracts were awarded to Liberal friendly ad agencies in Quebec. It was confirmed that some of these funds, at least $1.14 million in traceable funds, ended up back in the Liberal Party's coffers. It was also believed, though it could never be proven due to the nature of the cash based transactions, that a significant amount more ended up in brown paper bags to be used as slush funds for various riding campaigns.
So you see, my dear Liberal friends, in that context, it was the RESPONSIBILITY of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition to work together to remove a potentially corrupt Government from office, a hypothesis which was ultimately proven by the Gomery Commission, and further confirmed by the Liberal Party of Canada when they wrote a cheque for $1.14 million dollars to the Canadian people. (some surmise that this was a significantly low balled number, but perhaps we'll never know for sure... though the current case in the courts may prove interesting if more names are released in the middle of a fall election campaign...)
In that context, Mr. Harper's comments are not only defensible, THEY'RE COMMENDABLE, for having gone beyond Party rhetoric to defend the Canadian people.
So, you might want to think twice about using those comments... do you REALLY want to remind Canadians of that whole sordid episode? Cause we'll be right there with you, reminding people of all the intimate details of what exactly prompted those remarks back in the spring of 2005.
There's a MAJOR difference between 2005 and 2009. The current idea of the Liberals working with the NDP to form a government should the Tories again win power? Utterly CONTEMPTIBLE and the height of arrogance, that should the people decide that Mr. Harper should continue to govern by giving him the most seats, (even without a majority of votes) that anyone would even consider forming an alternate government in the backrooms, be it a signed coalition or just a series of "compromises" as suggested by Mr. Ignatieff yesterday.
Don't be fooled... if Harper gets the most seats, but is shy of a majority, the Opposition won't let him govern for long, as we've clearly seen by their committee antics, their closed door "in-camera" sessions where they've blocked Conservative legislation, and by using the Liberal Senate majority to block legislation the Canadian people voted for. Even if he is returned to power by the people for the THIRD STRAIGHT TIME, the Opposition has no intention of letting Mr. Harper govern.
Why else has Iggy been consistently dodging the question on what happens in another Conservative minority? Maybe Mr. Harper was right in the video last week?
posted by Christian Conservative @ 11:10 a.m.
3 Comments:
At Sat Sep 12, 02:16:00 p.m. EDT,
Anonymous said…
Dear CC,
A reasonable response as to why you would not publish the quotes. I should read more liberal blogs, I suppose, to have a better idea of what's out there. I prefer to avoid reading too much that I agree with, and then go back to more "primary sources" to figure things out.
But I digress.
What interests me most about Harper's position back in 2004 is his rationale. He did not say (to my knowledge) that he had to work with the "socialists and separatists" as a strategic move to bring down a corrupt government.
He argued that the number of seats and number of parties in the house of commons as a whole mattered. He argued that the onus was on the government to maintain the confidence of the house. He did not say that the party with a plurality, but not a majority, should still govern as if it had a majority. Quite the opposite.
In fact, all of this is consistent with his 1997 article (co-written with Tom Flanagan) "Our Benign Dictatorship" where he argued that we needed to reform our electoral system. "Many of Canada's problems stem from a winer-take-all style of politics", they wrote.
I couldn't agree more. And I would hope that I would still agree even if I found myself a winner. (Highly unlikely in any case). What must be frustrating for Harper is that, though a winner, he has not won enough to "take all".
What is frustrating for me is that there does not seem to be any major party willing to reform the electoral system (making representation more proportionate) since they would only have power to do so if the system worked to their advantage.
I'm unhappy with all of the leaders of the major parties. I am more unhappy with Harper than most. But I would be far more comfortable, no matter who was in charge, if there was at least as much concern for how decisions are made, as for what decisions are made.
At Sun Apr 10, 03:31:00 p.m. EDT,
Anonymous said…
Harper was for coalitions before he was against them.
Expect Harper to be for coalitions again the next time the cons are in the opposition benches.
Right-wing bloggers who deny reality are just as pathetic as left-wing bloggers who take things out of context.
At Tue Mar 10, 04:59:00 p.m. EDT,
Craig Hubley said…
http://www.sherwinarnott.org/2011/04/harper-conservative-coalitions/
is an animation that correctly summarizes the Conservative position.
You are correct that the position taken in 2005 is perfectly reasonable. And it was reasonable in 2008-9 too. And it would have been in 2011 and will be in 2015.
Coalitions are a normal part of Westminster democracy. Declaring them illegitimate as a "coup" is not.
Post a Comment
<< Home