Will Stephen Harper Recreate a Constitutional Crisis?

In 2008, when the opposition attempted to bring down the Harper government on a vote of no-confidence, because he refused to present a budget providing stimulus, it created a constitutional crisis.

Not because what they were doing was wrong, but because Stephen Harper realized that the only way to save his job was to convince the Canadian people, that what they were doing was wrong.

And not just wrong, but dangerous and illegal. A coup d'état. An overthrow.

But his fear was not based on a perceived clashing of swords, but on the fact that he knew that what the opposition was doing was legal and a well defined process in our Parliamentary system. And he knew this because he himself had engineered just such a coalition to "overthrow" the Martin government.

The only difference was that his 2004 attempt included the "full support of the Bloc" (Tom Flanagan, Harpers Team), where the 2008 coalition was only an agreement whereby the Bloc would support confidence motions for up to 18 months.

But Harper counted on our ignorance of Parliamentary law and we didn't disappoint. And as he piled one lie on top of another lie, he was able to create a "constitutional crisis" where none should have existed.

According to the 2009 book Parliamentary Democracy in Crisis:

The near collapse of a minority government is not a significant event. The circumstances that surround this near collapse, however, signal that there may be further serious repercussions arising from the events of December 2008 to January 2009 ... these events reflect a pattern of disregard by Harper of a number of deeply embedded constitutional principles and practices. Each individual element poses cause for concern. The accumulation suggests that Harper is capable of precipitating a serious constitutional crisis to avert responsibility for his own mistakes and miscalculations and to stay in power. (1)

News around the world was that Canada was under some kind of attack from within. Few knew the details but played is as a separatist uprising.

The rhetoric and overcharged campaign launched by the Conservatives, caused Dennis Pilon, a political scientist at the University of Victoria, to state that : "the actions of this prime minister are coming dangerously close to inciting mob rule." (2)

What did come out of it, was an attempted history and civics lesson, though given the fact that Harper is still playing the coalition card, he's hoping that most of us missed the class. He could be right.

So what happens if he fails to get a majority this time? Will he leave gracefully if he is unable to earn the confidence of the House, his only legitimacy as prime minister?

There are many who believe that he may once again attempt a fabricated crisis. You get a real sense of this when you read comments by his base, or heaven forbid try to challenge them on it. They still refuse to believe that Harper had tried to become prime minister in 2004, in a coalition, despite the mounting evidence.

Instead they continue to raise the "alarm".

The perceived knock out of Ignatieff this week, through clever poll and headline manipulation, has now become a battle between Harper "Here for Canada" and a "socialist" who will grab power with the help of a "separatist". Another classic battle.

At the beginning of the campaign it was an "Ignatieff led" coalition, but he was losing that battle. Time to change gears, split the vote and create confusion.

But what if that doesn't work?

Andrew Coyne says of Harper's strategy:

...his repeated attempts to impugn this perfectly normal constitutional procedure as “illegitimate,” we assumed, he was simply trying to demonize the opposition as power-hungry conspirators, hoping to scare the electorate into giving him the majority he seeks. It was so clearly contrary to all established constitutional doctrine, not to mention his own public statements and private actions over the years, that he couldn’t possibly be serious. It was just cheap, dishonest demagoguery, playing upon the public’s ignorance of constitutional conventions.

Coyne, however, sees another possibility that might explain Harper's bizarre behaviour.

What he may have in mind is this: that after losing a vote of non-confidence, he would advise the Governor General to dissolve the House and call new elections, rather than call upon someone else to form a government. He would then dare the Governor General to overrule his first minister’s advice, something that Governors General are quite properly extremely reluctant to do. He would, in short, be doing another King-Byng, provoking a constitutional crisis rather than yield power, hoping to intimidate the Governor General and/or rally public opinion to his side. If so this would be extremely disturbing.

And remember he already set the precedent for this in 2008.

It may take more than an election to wrest power from this man's hands. Reducing him to a minority will probably not be enough.

Let's hope the experts are right, that polls should be viewed as mere entertainment, not to be taken seriously. After all, the so-call surge of the NDP, especially in Quebec, had a margin of error at 6.4%, though the headlines never reflected that (seat projection for the NDP remains at 36).

Harper and his media accomplices are getting desperate. Our only hope may be Canada's youth. Because with them, in this election, the possibilities are endless.

Sources:

1. Parliamentary Democracy in Crisis, Edited by Peter H. Russell and Lorne Sossin, University of Toronto Press, 2009, ISBN: 978-1-4426-1014-9. 2, Pg. 65-68

2. Losing Confidence: Power, Politics and Crisis in Canadians Democracy, By Elizabeth May, McClelland & Stewart, 2009, ISBN: 978-0-7710-5760-1, Pg. 226

There is an Alternative to Stephen Harper's Coalition

Tom Flanagan, who was behind Stephen Harper's rise to power, after being asked about Stephen Harper's coalition with the NDP and Bloc in 2004, said that he knew about it but wasn't in favour of the deal.

The author of Harper's Team: Behind the Scenes in the Conservative Rise to Power, managed the Conservative 2004 and 2006 election campaigns. But he insisted he "wasn't a part" of a coalition proposal made by then Official Opposition leader Harper, NDP leader Jack Layton and Bloc Quebecois leader Gilles Duceppe in September 2004 that would have included the Bloc as a full partner.

Harper and the other two party leaders drafted a letter to the Governor General pointing out they had a majority and stating "this should give you cause, as constitutional practice has determined, to consult the opposition leaders and consider all of your options" before dissolving Parliament.

Flanagan felt that if the bloc was going to be part of a coalition, it should be taken to the voters. Stephen Harper did an about face in 2008, forgetting his own deal, or perhaps remembering it only too well.

But now we are once again raising the subject, as many progressives would like to see a coalition government. Preliminary polls show that Canadians are receptive to the idea, and that's without any campaigning on the issue.

However, I don't think we need a formal coalition, like the 2008 attempt. And certainly not one like Stephen Harper's in 2004, that "included the Bloc as full partner".

There is another option, and again we can thank Stephen Harper for this idea.

By fall Of 2005, Jack Layton had decided he was not content with forcing changes to the minority government's budget. In a meeting with other opposition leaders, he struck a deal to bring down the Paul Martin government on November 28, 2005 ...What the news media missed, as they focused on whether Canadians would stand for an election over Christmas, was the most galling element of the Harper- Layton and Duceppe gambit; November 28 was the opening day of the most important global climate negotiations in history. The Conference of the Parties (COP) to the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change ... Worse yet, Canada was the host for those negotiations, set to take place in Montreal. With Canada's government falling on the opening day, the whole process could be derailed. (1)

Stephen Harper was able to convince the other two opposition leaders that if the Liberals were able to get Kyoto passed, it would win them favour with the public. Of course, by listening to Harper instead of the Canadian people, 5 years later, we still have no climate change plan.

But this is about today's opposition striking a pre-election deal, similar to the one agreed to by the opposition in 2005. Not based on a desire to prevent the government from looking good, but an attempt to get our democracy back and remove the neocons' hands from our money.

We are in the fight of our lives, as the wealthy corporate sector is poised to get even more of our money, we are about to buy fighter jets that are unable to get off the ground, and build more prisons for imaginary criminals.

So the opposition parties could still campaign on their own but also speak in unison on key issues. This would mean that they don't attack each other. And as the public is treated to this civility and cooperation, they may be even more accepting of some form of coalition should the need arise.

A perfectly normal and legal option in a Parliamentary system. Just ask Stephen Harper.

Sources:

1. Losing Confidence: Power, Politics, and the Crisis in Canadian Democracy, By Elizabeth May, McClelland & Stewart, 2009, ISBN: 978-0-7710-5760-1, Pg. 2-7

A Deceptive Democracy: "First Do No Harm"

A CULTURE OF DEFIANCE: History of the Reform-Conservative Party of Canada

I'm continuing to share bits and pieces from the 2009 book: Parliamentary Democracy in Crisis, a compilation of views from experts in Canada on the 2008 coalition and Harper's first damaging prorogation.

And since he continues to threaten national unity with his "separatist" nonsense, it's important to educate the public on the way that our Parliamentary system is supposed to work.

One of the experts to present their views, is Andrew Heard, Associate Professor in the Political Science Dept. at Simon Fraser University. He discusses the constitutionality of the prorogation and suggests that the Governor General should adhere to the principle of "first do no harm".

I certainly don't envy her position at the time, but should she have been put in that position in the first place? Was Stephen Harper right to ask her prorogue, when he had clearly lost the confidence of the House? Heard doesn't think so.

The governor general exists as an integral fail-safe mechanism for our parliamentary system of government. Every major parliamentary system around the world continues to include a separate position of head of state, because an independent official is needed on rare occasions to protect the proper functioning of Parliament and cabinet. The powers of the governor general have been likened to a fire extinguisher to put out constitutional fires. (1)

But there was no question on the constitutionality of the coalition. Nor was there any question of protecting a prime minister's job when he lost the confidence of the House. This "crisis" was made in Harperland.

Responsible Government, Huh?

The next important question, therefore, is whether Stephen Harper's advice to suspend Parliament was constitutional. Even among those constitutional authorities who supported the governor general's prorogation of Parliament, many question the propriety of the prime minister's decision to prorogue Parliament rather than face the vote of confidence on 8 December. The problem is that his actions undermine the most fundamental principle of our parliamentary system of government: that the government of the day must win and maintain the confidence of a majority of the elected members of Parliament. This principle is known as responsible government, and it ensures that the executive branch of government is accountable to those directly elected by the citizens. (2)

We don't elect prime ministers in Canada, nor do we elect governments. We only elect legislators. In our first past the post system, the leader of the party with the most seats is then named prime minister, and he is invited to form a government. Conventional wisdom being that he has the support of the electorate.

But Stephen Harper lost that support, meaning that more than 60% of Canadians, through their elected officials, wanted his government removed.

On the same day that Harper met with the governor general, a petition was delivered to her that had been signed by 161 opposition MPs in which they stated their intention to vote non-confidence in the Conservative government and to support an alternative government. (2)

In a Parliamentary democracy those are the voices she should have listened to. The majority in the House who presented their own solution to the "crisis". When the GG allowed Stephen Harper to prorogue, she silenced the majority of the electorate.

But again, should she have ever been put in the position of taking away our democratic rights?

The prime minister's decision to suspend Parliament was unconstitutional on several levels. First of all, he intended to prevent Parliament from expressing its non-confidence in his government and its support for an alternative government. This is an unprecedented manoeuvre among modern established democracies. It is a tactic that is normally condemned by Western governments when employed by a struggling Third World regime threatened with a legislative revolt. (2)

And though he continued to refer to the proposed coalition as a "coup", it was no such thing. The opposition were simply following the letter of our Constitution, whereas Stephen Harper was attempting to rewrite it.

If he loses the confidence of the House again, we should be prepared for anything. This man will not give up power easily. But this time we must demand that we have a say in the matter.

Continued:

Coalitions and a Knowledge Deficit

Drama on the High "C"'s. Coalition, Coups, Crisis and Conspiracy

Harper From Pugnacious to Dangerous

A Confidence Game

On His Knees and Out of His Head

Democracy in Crisis: Governing Under a Cloud

Lies Become Truths When Enough People Believe Them

Sources:

1. Parliamentary Democracy in Crisis, By Peter H. Russell and Lorne Sossin, University of Toronto Press, 2009, ISBN: 978-1-4426-1014-9. 2, Pg. 48

2. Parliamentary Democracy in Crisis, 2009, Pg. 53-54

A Deceptive Democracy: On His Knees and Out of His Head

A CULTURE OF DEFIANCE: History of the Reform-Conservative Party of Canada

Another chapter of the book Parliamentary Democracy in Crisis, was written by Ned Franks, who taught at Queen's University for over thirty-five years in the Department of Political Studies, and is an expert in Parliamentary procedure.

He sought to answer the question: "did the Governor General make the right decision" when she allowed Stephen Harper to close down Parliament in 2008, to avoid facing a confidence vote that would have assuredly exiled him to opposition.

Under the circumstances, she probably made the only decision she could have at the time, and the real threat to democracy was the fact that Stephen Harper asked for it in the first place. It set a dangerous precedence.

When Harper presented his own coalition, that included the full support of both the NDP and Bloc, to then Governor General Adrienne Clarkson in 2004, she says in her book Heart Matters, that Paul Martin came to her requesting that she step in, dissolve Parliament and call another election. But she refused. (1)

Instead she told him to fix it and he did. Besides, by then Harper's coalition was crumbling, as Jack Layton had a change of heart, and backed out.

Adrienne Clarkson actually wrote the forward for Parliamentary Democracy in Crisis, and she says that: "In November/ December 2008 there was an enormous interest in the functioning of our political system accompanied by an abysmal lack of knowledge about the system. The idea that we were in crisis is something that I personally take with a grain of salt. Just because a resolution has to be found does not mean that the situation is a crisis." (2)

The only threat (crisis) was Stephen Harper losing his job, and what he did to keep it was not only undemocratic but reprehensible.

It's important to revisit this now, because the Harper government is trying to replicate that "crisis" by once again presenting a coalition as a "threat".

But Back to 2008 and the Winter of Our Discontent

It is well established that the governor general should not allow a prime minister to use dissolution of a Parliament to escape facing a vote of confidence in the House, especially when the session is new (and Parliament had sat for only thirteen days in the first session of the 40th Parliament when Prime Minister Stephen Harper requested prorogation of the governor general to avoid a vote of confidence the following Monday). The dissolution precedent dictates that the governor general should reject a prime minister's advice to prorogue a session when a viable alternative government exists. The Liberal Party, New Democratic Party (NDP), and the Bloc Quebecois had made a public commitment to support a Liberal-NDP coalition government for at least a year and a half. Following this precedent, the governor general should have refused Harper's advice to prorogue. (3)

Those are the words of Ned Franks, but while he suggests that precedence should have prompted the GG to refuse Stephen Harper, reality dictated that that may have been a mistake.

As he delves into the political climate at the time of the potential removal of the Harper government from power in 2008, he concludes that the Governor General at the time made the right decision. He does not base it on any notion that Harper was right for the country, but on the inevitable outcome if the coalition had been allowed to form a government.

Harper was not a strong leader, but he had the most money behind him and was able to launch the most effective public relations campaign. And that campaign was filled with, as Franks reminds us, "misrepresentations and half-truths", including the suggestion that the electorate had given him a stronger mandate. The Conservative vote count was down by almost 200,000. Only vote-splitting and apathy (the lowest voter turn out in our history) gave him more seats. So he was not the "choice of the electorate", only the choice of roughly 1/3 of those who bothered to cast a ballot.

This means that more than 60% of active voters, voted against his party.

But because the destruction of Stephane Dion had been so complete, a Dion led government was not palpable to most Canadians, including many Liberals. And we know what would have happened. The Conservatives in opposition, with their corporate sponsors, would have made it impossible for anyone else to govern.

And a country already fragile from the economic crisis, would have surely been in serious trouble. Sadly, this would not concern Harper at all. He is motivated by hatred and contempt and hates to lose.

However, I think they might be making a mistake dredging up the "coalition" nonsense now, although it may be all they have left. As David Climenhaga says: "this scare story is certain to be the No. 1 talking point of the scorched earth federal Conservative election campaign that's coming soon, and Harper and Flaherty, not to mention all the other little Tories, will be stickin' to it."

The biggest problem with the 2008 coalition was the "Dion factor". But despite similar never ending attack ads, Michael Ignatieff is still standing. And with the Harperites continually calling this the "Ignatieff coalition", that, while imaginary, would mean he would head up a government representing 2/3 of Canadians, they might actually be campaigning for him.

Any marketing person will tell you that it's all about name recognition.

And as the Harper government's corruption, and unheard of abuse of tax dollars for self promotion, continue to dominate the news, they might just be presenting voters with the choice between Harper and a majority headed by Michael Ignatieff, who they have helped to make a household name.

Previous:

1. Coalitions and a Knowledge Deficit

2. Drama on the High "C"'s. Coalition, Coups, Crisis and Conspiracy

3. Harper From Pugnacious to Dangerous

4. A Confidence Game

Sources:

1. Heart Matters: A Memoir, By Adrienne Clarkson, Viking Press, 2006, ISBN: 10-978-0-670-06546-3

2. Parliamentary Democracy in Crisis, By Peter H. Russell and Lorne Sossin, University of Toronto Press, 2009, ISBN: 978-1-4426-1014-9. 2, Forward

3. Parliamentary Democracy in Crisis, 2009, Pg. 33

A Deceptive Democracy: Drama on the High "C"'s. Coalition, Coups, Crisis and Conspiracy

A CULTURE OF DEFIANCE: History of the Reform-Conservative Party of Canada

There is a 2009 book Parliamentary Democracy in Crisis, edited by Peter H. Russell and Lorne Sossin, that focuses on a country in crisis.

And of course that country in crisis is Canada, now in the grips of a man who will do whatever it takes to hold onto power.

The book focuses on the 2008 coalition and the actions of the Harper government, but it also speaks of a broader issue. An ill informed public so easily led to believe that there was a national emergency, when in fact the only thing happening was democracy in action.

Because what took place at the end of 2008 was not a "coup" or a "conspiracy".

And it was not a government seeking compromise, but a rehearsed drama performed to instill fear into an audience of onlookers. A nation that no longer participated, but were happy to simply watch. And even more alarming was that the whole performance was underwritten by a media who felt that drama sold more papers, than fact.

James Travers suggests that the new Governor General must assume the role of teacher.

Canada has a new Governor General and an old problem. In replacing Michaelle Jean, David Johnston, a lawyer and teacher, inherits a Prime Minister and country in desperate need of a civics lesson. (1)

I agree that the public needs a lesson, but Stephen Harper knew exactly what he was doing. He knew it because he had done the same thing four years earlier. He knew how coalitions worked and why at times they became necessary.

But he allowed his arrogance and visceral hatred for political opponents to take over, and the only thing that mattered was power and the refusal to accept that he could lose.

Harper told Conservatives at their annual Christmas party: 'We will use all legal means to resist this undemocratic seizure of power. My friends, such an illegitimate government would be a catastrophe, for our democracy, our unity and our economy, especially at a time of global instability."' The media pointed out that Harper himself, in 2004, with a minority Liberal government at risk of being defeated in the Commons, had sent a joint letter with Layton and Duceppe to then-Governor General Adrienne Clarkson, urging her to 'consider all your options' if the government fell on a confidence vote. Their letter had said: 'We respectfully point out that the opposition parties, who together constitute a majority in the House, have been in close consultation.' (2)

We also learn from Lawrence Martin's new book: Harperland, that he was prepared to even go the Queen to plead his case. He was that desperate.

As the crisis roiled, John Baird, then as now Stephen Harper’s go-to guy, revealed plans revolutionary enough to rock Canada’s foundations. Defending Parliament’s suspension, Baird said, “I think what we want to do is basically take a time out and go over the heads of the members of Parliament, go over the heads, frankly, of the Governor General, go right to the Canadian people.”

Parsed to its essence, a ruling party then accusing “Liberals, socialists and separatists” of overthrowing the government was contemplating what sounds dangerously close to a coup. If Jean refused to find in the Prime Minister’s favour, Conservatives were prepared to ride roughshod over Parliament’s will and the Governor General’s decision. (1)

That's what I find frightening. Would he have resorted to military rule if the Queen, as she would most certainly have done, refused to step in? He turned Toronto into a militarized zone during the G-20. This man is clearly capable of anything.

In November of 2008, the opposition had outsmarted him, and were able to use legal means to do so. And backed into a corner, frothing at the mouth and eyes flashing red, he did the only thing left . He lied. And he lied big. And every lie necessitated another lie, until it completely overwhelmed him, and us.

By Tuesday, 2 December, the government was indicating that prorogation would be the route it would follow. The exchange that day between Harper and Dion in Parliament's Question Period was explosive, with the prime minister focusing on the inclusion of the sovereigntist Bloc in the coalition pact and at one point accusing Dion of removing the Canadian flags from the room before signing the accord with Layton and Duceppe. Thus, to a political and constitutional uproar, the prime minister now added a third element: national unity. (News organizations took several photographs that clearly showed there were two Canadian flags, as well as the flags from all the provinces, directly behind the leaders as they read their statements — along with a third, separate Canadian flag behind the table where they signed.) (2)

And even when Gilles Duceppe produced both the letter that Harper had given him in 2004, that clearly showed he intended to make Duceppe a full partner in the Coalition, and another from 2000, when Stockwell Day presented the Bloc leader with the same proposal, the Harper team denied it. Cries of "Separatists" and "Socialists" drowned out intelligent debate.

It's important to review what took place now because as Travers points out:

First Conservatives denied considering an appeal to the Queen if Jean had refused to padlock Parliament two years ago. Then, barely pausing to regain their hyperbole, Harperites inflated the specter of a coalition seizing control after the coming election. The denials are credible; the fear-mongering irresponsible.

After his first success with suspending democracy, Stephen Harper has made it his modus operandi, with another self-serving prorogation and the refusal to respect the supremacy of Parliament in dealing with the Afghan detainee issue.

And regardless of how you feel about the dynamics of the coalition, remember there would not have been pork barrelling, photo-ops, enormous amounts of cash given to exclusive religious schools, 50 million dollars going to signs or almost 100 million to self serving ads. There was no need.

The drama would have closed opening night, saving us all two years of bad acting.

Previous: A Deceptive Democracy: Coalitions and a Knowledge Deficit

Sources:

1. New GG must teach Harper how Canada works, By James Travers, Toronto Star, October 2, 2010

2. Parliamentary Democracy in Crisis, By Peter H. Russell and Lorne Sossin, University of Toronto Press, 2009, ISBN: 978-1-4426-1014-9, Pg. 13-14

A Deceptive Democracy: Coalitions and a Knowledge Deficit

A CULTURE OF DEFIANCE: History of the Reform-Conservative Party of Canada

Reading the comments sections a the end of online articles, there are many loyal Harper supporters who are suggesting that all that their hero has to do is scare people with the notion of a coalition government, and he will get his long sought after majority.

It's sad really, given that the 2008 coalition in itself was not frightening, so much as confusing, as squeals of "high treason" and "coup" hit a population with a knowledge deficit of Parliamentary procedure, right between the eyes.

And yet coalition building, as Lawrence LeDuc reminds us, "lies at the very heart of democratic politics." (1) In fact Stephen Harper and his former aide, Tom Flanagan, were well aware of this.

In 1997, Harper and his confidant Tom Flanagan, writing in their Next City magazine, suggested that coalition-building was the only practical way for the right to seize national power. They said an alliance with the Bloc Québécois "would not be out of place. The Bloc are nationalist for much the same reason Albertans are populists – they care about their local identity ... and they see the federal government as a threat to their way of life." (2)

"An alliance with the Bloc Québécois would not be out of place." So why was an NDP/Liberal coalition with the support of the Bloc on confidence motions only, "undemocratic"?

It's important to revisit this now because the Harper government, as unbelievable as it sounds, is once again raising the issue, in an attempt to paint themselves as perpetual victims. Nonsense.

Stephen Harper created the crisis that initiated the coalition, and many Canadians liked the idea. Graham White called it "The possibility of real Parliamentary change without abandoning the principles of responsible government that have long served Canada well." (1)

Michaëlle Jean has only recently come forward with the reasons for her decision to grant Stephen Harper his prorogation. Under the circumstances she probably made the only decision she could at the time. But she brings up an important point:

Jean said she saw a positive result from that December 2008 episode: the whole prorogation crisis prompted a national discussion and, as a result, led Canadians to learn more about their democracy. (3)

It did get Canadians talking and learning. And we are now, hopefully, a bit more aware of just how democratic a coalition would have been.



We've also been able to inform Canadians that Stephen Harper himself attempted a similar coalition in 2004 and Stockwell Day in 2000.

But then Ms Jean doesn't explain why she granted his second prorogation, that was the most egregious attack on our democracy in modern history. And to think that it was done with just a phone call.

Continued: A Dective Democracy: Drama on the High "C"'s. Coalition, Coups, Crisis and Conspiracy

Sources:

1. Parliamentary Democracy in Crisis, By Peter H. Russell and Lorne Sossin, University of Toronto Press, 2009, ISBN: 978-1-4426-1014-9

2. One Canada or 10 Canadas? Harper's goal to create autonomous regions out of the provinces is a step back to colonial times, By Sinclair Stevens, Toronto Star, April 25, 2008

3. Gov. Gen. Jean explains 2008 prorogation: Jean breaks her silence on decision to grant Harper's prorogation request, Canadian Press, September 29, 2010

Can You Smell That? The Odour of Desperation? The Heady Scent of Fear?

The Reformers are in a panic and are sending out fundraising letters asking for $100 to $ 200 dollars to save the world from ... you guessed it ... separatists and socialists.

They must be running out of ideas because they're falling back on the old coalition threat and Michael Ignatieff's 34 years.

Change the channel already.

I've posted his resume so you get some idea of what he was doing for those 34 years.

And as for the coalition which is already off the table, it's no different than the coalition that Stephen Harper tried to form with "separatists" and "socialists" in 2004 and throughout 2005. Jack Layton backed out before it had a chance to get off the ground.




And then of course there was Stockwell Day's coalition attempt with 'separatists' in 2000. That one got his backer Conrad Black in such a twist that he avoided using big words, opting for four-letter ones.

I love their line: "While Mr. Ignatieff continues his awkward pursuit of photo ops, Prime Minister Stephen Harper continues his solid leadership." Says the king of the photo-ops whose idea of leadership is hiding at the first sign of trouble. What a hoot.

Saving the Country From Stephen Harper as he is Down in the Polls

Murray Dobbin, one of my favourite progressive journalists, posted on the recent merger/coalition talks.

After falling in the polls for weeks the leader of the Liberal Party seems finally to have received a reality check about his and his party’s future. He is actually talking about the possibility of a coalition. Mind you, it took a
rumour of a merger of the parties to get things really out there. Broadcaster Wendy Mesley – who announced with dead certainty that serious negotiations were underway – will now have a legacy of putting forward the most absurd political story ever featured on CBC National news. whoever suckered her into this one should get some kind of medal. I don’t usually give much credit to conspiracy theories but this smells like one.

But it doesn’t matter who did what. Something had to push Ignatieff off his delusional perch and whatever combination of factors did the trick we have now entered the next phase of saving the country from Stephen Harper.

"Saving the country from Stephen Harper" needs to be every one's goal. Whether it's allowing the Religious Right to prepare Canada for the end times, or his dangerous blind loyalty to Israel, at a time when people in their own country are speaking out against their aggression, this man and his goon squad have got to go.

How much we'll be able to selvage from his wreckage is unknown, since he's been operating in almost total secrecy, while selling us off a piece a time. But the sooner he's gone the better our chances.

There was some encouragement though as the latest EKOS poll shows that Harper's Reformers would lose 23 seats if an election were called today. But that's not yet enough.

Stephen Harper’s Conservatives would lose 23 seats - mostly from Ontario and British Columbia - and only be holding on to government by their fingernails, under new seat projections by EKOS Research. EKOS pollster Frank Graves describes the Harper government under his scenario as a “borderline legitimate government.”

At little more than 31%, and that's without any campaigning from the other parties, he's going to have trouble holding onto a minority.

Stephen Harper’s Conservatives are floundering as the Tory party moves from being “in the driver’s seat” just three weeks ago to “riding shotgun”, according to a new EKOS poll. There is “scant” difference now, says EKOS pollster Frank Graves, between the Tories and “their pursuers.” But what makes these new numbers all the more delicious is that they come amid the fierce debate in political Ottawa over mergers and coalitions on the left.

I think the media has been hard on Michael Ignatieff though. Maybe it's because they have so little to quote from Stephen Harper, that they hold onto any juicy tidbit they can from a man who will actually speak to them.

Great News I Think. A Whole NEW PARTY!

The CBC just reported that the Liberals and NDP may be looking at forming a new party. Please, please, please.

Senior insiders with the federal Liberals and New Democrats have been holding secret talks about the possibility of merging their parties to form a new entity to take on the Harper Conservatives, CBC News has learned. Many Liberal insiders confirmed that discussions between the two parties are not just focused on forming a coalition after an election or co-operation before one, but the creation of a new party.

The new party would possibly be named the Liberal Democrats. "Serious people are involved in discussions at a serious level," Warren Kinsella, a former adviser to former prime minister Jean Chrétien, told CBC News.

I get so depressed sometimes, and then I read something like this and I am very happy. The new Conservative Party of Canada was the result of several coalitions: Reform-Alliance-Conservatives. It was the only thing that allowed them to gain power.

Now we have to stop fooling around and look at an effective way of reclaiming a progressive government in this country. Let's hope it's more than just talk.

Canada Needs a Coalition of the Left to Avoid Fascism

I've been avoiding to a certain extent the topic of the coalition that is being discussed between the NDP and Liberal parties, mainly because I'm afraid of getting my hopes up. With only one right wing option in Canada, they have no competition for support, while the other four parties are scrambling for funds. We NEED this.

With revelations this week about how Stephen Harper has controlled the public service, after hearing for four years that he's controlled the media and the message, we have to take this seriously. I'm frightened that another election will just give him more power, not that he can really achieve any less, given what he has been able to accomplish with just a minority.

I read a piece today from Chris Hedges, a Pulitzer prize winning American journalist and war correspondent, entitled: The Christian Fascists Are Growing Stronger. We thought with George Bush out of office, the movement might slow down a bit, but it would appear to actually be picking up steam. And Harper has given them a four year head start in this country, so we're not far behind.

Tens of millions of Americans, lumped into a diffuse and fractious movement known as the Christian right, have begun to dismantle the intellectual and scientific rigor of the Enlightenment. They are creating a theocratic state based on “biblical law,” and shutting out all those they define as the enemy. This movement, veering closer and closer to traditional fascism, seeks to force a recalcitrant world to submit before an imperial America. It champions the eradication of social deviants, beginning with homosexuals, and moving on to immigrants, secular humanists, feminists, Jews, Muslims and those they dismiss as “nominal Christians”—meaning Christians who do not embrace their perverted and heretical interpretation of the Bible. Those who defy the mass movement are condemned as posing a threat to the health and hygiene of the country and the family. All will be purged.* (1)

The alarms have been screaming from this country, but with less than 1% of our media independent, those alarms are being silenced.

Elizabeth Dilling, who wrote “The Red Network” and was a Nazi sympathizer, is touted as required reading by trash-talk television hosts like Glenn Beck. Thomas Jefferson, who favored separation of church and state, is ignored in Christian schools and soon will be ignored in Texas public school textbooks. The Christian right hails the “significant contributions” of the Confederacy. Sen. Joseph McCarthy, who led the anti-communist witch hunts of the 1950s, has been rehabilitated, and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict is defined as part of the worldwide battle against Islamic terror. Legislation like the new Jim Crow laws of Arizona is being considered by 17 other states. The rise of this Christian fascism, a rise we ignore at our peril.

Those who remain in a reality-based world often dismiss these malcontents as buffoons and simpletons. They do not take seriously those, like Beck, who pander to the primitive yearnings for vengeance, new glory and moral renewal. Critics of the movement continue to employ the tools of reason, research and fact to challenge the absurdities propagated by creationists who think they will float naked into the heavens when Jesus returns to Earth. The magical thinking, the flagrant distortion in interpreting the Bible, the contradictions that abound within the movement’s belief system and the laughable pseudoscience, however, are impervious to reason. We cannot convince those in the movement to wake up. It is we who are asleep. (1)

If Jack Layton and Michael Ignatieff care at all they will do something. This isn't the time for vanity or one-up-manship. When the Harper government was first elected in 2006, it was determined that about half of his MPs were Christian fundamentalists. It's probably closer to 80% now, including many key cabinet ministers like Stockwell Day, Jason Kenney and Jim Flaherty. As Hedges says, "it is us who are asleep".

Steve Paikin from TVOntario's The Agenda, had Marci McDonald, author of the Armageddon Factor, on his program not long ago, and I thought he was a pretty smart guy. Indeed he is. But his final question floored me. In deciding that it took 30 years for the American Religious Right to destroy the Republicans and possibly America, he suggested that the worst that could happen in Canada is 30 years from now abortions in the final three months might be illegal.

When you have one of the brightest, or I always believed so, downplaying this and dismissing it so handily, what are you going to do?

I watched a documentary this afternoon, on Youtube called Blood in the face. It was produced by Kevin Rafferty in 1991, and was filmed inside the KKK. I think the title was actually taken from a book written by a Canadian, but I'm not sure. The idea for the title is that only white people blush, so anyone who can't blush has no conscience. Very clever (geeesh!).

But listening to the rhetoric from these guys, it's not unlike what we hear from many of these so-called Christians. Horrific things about homosexuals and feminists. And they keep quoting scriptures and suggest that they are doing God's work. Fortunately, the Religious Right don't really represent the majority of Christians, but unfortunately, they are dragging them all down with them. What a shame.

There is some encouragement from a poll suggesting that half of Canadians now support a coalition. Even Warren Kinsella, a longtime Liberal insider, knows that this is a must. An absolute must. Vote-splitting is no longer an option.

Footnotes:

*I don't think he means concentration camps or anything like, just purged from academia, schools, government jobs, etc.

Sources:

1. The Christian Fascists Are Growing Stronger, by Chris Hedges, June 7, 2010

Why We Need a Progressive Coalition NOW!

The Conservatives have tabled legislation to add 30 more seats to the House of Commons, under the guise of democratic reform.

Steven Fletcher has actually been working on this for awhile, and how much do you want to bet that they already have their candidates in place?


According to CTV last September:

Changing the electoral map in such a way may also play in the Conservatives' favour. That's because the party stands a good chance of picking up additional seats in suburban Alberta and B.C., and potentially Ontario as well.

"Some are saying this is the route not only to getting rid of minority governments, but it could be a route to a Tory majority," Clark said. "This might create a new dynasty.

Just what Canada needs. A fascist dynasty. Harper will no longer have to pretend that he gives a damn.

John Ryan has been pushing for a Progressive Coalition, and I think the time has never been more crucial for all progressive leaders to put down their partisanship and work toward getting rid of this destructive government, while we still have any rights as citizens.

As Ryan states:

"Canada's last two elections are proof positive that we have a flawed electoral system. Does it make any sense that it's impossible to get a government that reflects the views of the majority of our population? How is it that a little more than a third of the electorate can determine who forms Canada's government?"

And though Stephen Harper included the Bloc in his coalition; the NDP, Liberals and Green wouldn't have to, especially given the hypocrisy of the Harperites. They wouldn't even have to give up their party platforms or identity.

I think we need to really start pushing for this.

Rodney Weston Says That Stephen Harper and Stockwell Day Were Wrong

Rodney Opposes Stockwell Day's Plan:

On August 3, 2000; James Brooke wrote in the New York Times under the heading: Rightist Shocks Canadians By Flirting With Separatists:

With newspapers reporting ''informal negotiations'' between his party, the Canadian Alliance, and the Bloc Quebecois, whose stated goal is to make Quebec an independent nation, Mr. Day refused to rule out teaming up with the Bloc in a coalition after general elections, expected next spring, in order to dislodge the governing Liberals.

''An unholy alliance with people who don't believe in the country,'' fumed Allan Rock, Canada's health minister, and an aspirant for leadership one day of the Liberals ... Stephane Dion, the leader of the Liberal government's unity drive, said, ''It's playing with Canada, and you don't play with your country.''

At the time, Conrad Black, the man behind Stockwell Day's success, was livid:

In an interview on Tuesday [with the NYT], Conrad Black, chairman of The National Post, said the strategy would not work. ''It makes it too easy for the Liberals to represent him as a separatist fellow traveler, ambiguous about the future of the country.''

In Trevor W. Harrison's book; Requiem for a lightweight: Stockwell Day and the Image of Politics, he discusses the controversy.

"Day repeatedly journeyed to Quebec ... During August and September, Day stepped up these efforts, going even further to suggest the Alliance party welcome Quebec separatists and might even consider forming a national coalition government with the Bloc Quebecois .... But Bloc leader Gilles Duceppe said he wanted nothing to do with Day whose values (re: gay rights, abortion, youth justice) Duceppe described as "inspired by the United States..."

(Mr. Harrison lists as sources two newspaper articles: "The Report, August 28, 2000" and "Bloc leader denounces Day's ideas" Edmonton Journal August 14, 2000.)

During all the uproar on the Hill over the legitimate 2008 coalition, Daniel LeBlanc unearthed documents that gave proof of the Day/Separatist coalition attempt:

The separatist Bloc Québécois was part of secret plotting in 2000 to join a formal coalition with the two parties that now make up Stephen Harper's government, according to documents obtained by The Globe and Mail. The scheme, designed to propel current Conservative minister Stockwell Day to power, undermines the Harper government's line this week that it would never sign a deal like the current one between the Liberal Party, the NDP and the Bloc.

When confronted with this in the House of Commons (Mr. Duceppe even had the lawyer's letter), Stocky denied it of course, suggesting that it would be against his DNA to make a deal with separatists. The DNA part is right, because Day's father was very anti-Francophone. In several letters to close personal friend Doug Christie, he confirms his contempt.

And talk about separatists. Doug Christie has been trying to use his separatist party, the Western Block, to push for the Western provinces to leave Confederation. It used to be called the Western Concept Party and Stocky's father, Stock Sr., once ran as a candidate for the WCP. DNA indeed.

And remember, Jason Kenney was Stockwell Day's right hand flunkie at the time, so he would have been part of this.

Rodney Opposes Stephen Harper's Plan:

On December 11, 2009, in an interview with the Winnipeg Free Press, former Harper insider Tom Flanagan discussed coalitions with Frances Russell:

The author of Harper's Team: Behind the Scenes in the Conservative Rise to Power, managed the Conservative 2004 and 2006 election campaigns. But he insisted he "wasn't a part" of a coalition proposal made by then Official Opposition leader Harper, NDP leader Jack Layton and Bloc Quebecois leader Gilles Duceppe in September 2004 that would have included the Bloc as a full partner.

Harper and the other two party leaders drafted a letter to the Governor General pointing out they had a majority and stating "this should give you cause, as constitutional practice has determined, to consult the opposition leaders and consider all of your options" before dissolving parliament.

'That would have included the Bloc as a full partner'. Not just to support confidence motions, as the 2008 coalition would have done.

Of course, Stephen Harper has never really been a federalist and in a speech he made to the National Citizens Coalition, when he was the Reform Party MP for Calgary West, reveals that he would much rather see a loose federal government, than a united Canada.

“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.”

And let's not forget his Belgian model speech during the 2004 election campaign, that made reporters think he was nuts. He wanted to divide Canada up by ethnicity.

Stephen Harper would continue to push the coalition idea, while opposition leader against Paul Martin, prompting Martin to accuse him of being in bed with separatists.

Rodney Weston: Short Memory or no History Buff?

Everything I've read about this St. John MP clearly shows that he is not really a politician, so much as a trained seal for Harper and his minions. The Reform leadership says "bark Rodney", and he stands up, claps his little hands together and immediately bellows; : "arph, arph, arph"

Kady O'Malley was live blogging the comedy of errors announcement in St. John's last fall, and had this to say:

Okay, this is weird: the PM just wrapped up his speech, and handed the floor over to Rodney Weston, the rookie Conservative MP who beat out Paul Zed by a mere sliver of vote share last time around, and who is now delivering a vaguely embarrassing paeon to the prime minister’s brilliant leadership. That was — sort of painful to watch, although he really seemed to mean it.

And in the House of Commons when the opposition was trying to get answers about the Afghan Detainee issue and the walking caricature John Baird was up, our Rodney decided it was time for a little grade school skit:

“Why will the government not just simply support a public inquiry,” Mr. Layton asked. “There is a vote today on this. Is the government going to vote against making the truth... [at this point he was cut off].”

Mr. Baird did not answer his question. And while he was under fire from the opposition, the government attack dog had an easy time answering a lob ball from his colleague, Rodney Weston. The Saint John MP noted that today is the first anniversary of the “reckless coalition” that tried to “overturn” the election results from just two months before.

“Could the Minister of Transport … please remind the House of all the measures that we have introduced to help Canadians?” Mr. Baird had no trouble with that one: “When Canadians saw the leader of the Liberal Party sign a pledge, a letter to the Governor-General supporting a coalition, they went to the streets and protested.

“Thank goodness that did not happen. We have Canada’s economic action plan,” he said. As Mr. Baird answered the question, former Liberal leader Stéphane Dion, the would-be head of that coalition, listened with his head in hand before giving a dismissive wave and a mock “blah, blah, blah.”

Of course the marches were organized by the Conservative Party and the so-called Action Plan is proving to be nothing more than a publicity stunt. But thanks for playing Rod.

Obviously, since the 2008 coalition attempt had the least involvement with the Bloc, Weston must find Stockwell Day's 2000 agreement, and Stephen Harper's 2004 agreement, extremely reckless.

But if that's the case, why is he protesting in St. John?

IS THIS REALLY YOUR CANADA? IS RODNEY WESTON REALLY THE BEST CHOICE FOR ST. JOHN?

Dimitri Soudas Condemns Stephen Harper's Attempt at a Coalition

This interview with Harper's spokesperson Dimitri Soudas, is rather interesting for several reasons.

First off, notice how many times he uses Michael Ignatieff's name when discussing a coalition, while referring to the others as simply the leader of the NDP or Bloc. This is an old trick of name recognition associated with something deemed to be undesirable. (Thank you Karl Rove)

Even though the two leaders of the 2008 coalition were Jack Layton and Stephane Dion, Soudas is clearly trying to lay the blame on the current Liberal leader. In fact, Michael Ignatieff was the last to sign the agreement, because he really didn't like the idea of a coalition at all.

And it was he who supported the budget in early 2009, effectively killing the coalition, yet the Reformers are trying to suggest it was his idea. In fact they recently sent out a fund raising letter to their flock, trying to once again bring up a 'backroom' deal in the works to oust them. I wish.

It is also telling of the way this party operates, that even though Michael Ignatieff saved Harper's bacon by accepting the budget in early 2009, how was he repaid? They immediately started running attack ads against him. This party has absolutely no moral compass.

However, since Soudas clearly appears to hate the idea of someone trying to gain power through 'backroom' deals, he needs look no further than our current dictator.

Most people know by now that Stephen Harper worked like hell in 2004 and even into 2005, to become an unelected prime minister.

The only difference between his attempts and the 2008 agreement was that his deal actually included the Bloc, while the most recent was only the support of the Bloc for confidence motions.

In fact, from a November article in the Winnipeg Free Press about former Harper insider Tom Flanagan:

Flanagan now appears to have shifted his position and backed away from Harper's. "I wouldn't rule out parties coming together to form a coalition and whatever Mr. Harper may have said in the heat of the moment I don't think should be interpreted as constitutional theory because he was in a fight for his life."

However, he insists any coalition relying on the Bloc Quebecois must have prior electoral approval ... But he insisted he "wasn't a part" of a coalition proposal made by then Official Opposition leader Harper, NDP leader Jack Layton and Bloc Quebecois leader Gilles Duceppe in September 2004 that would have included the Bloc as a full partner.

But if you don't want to believe Flanagan, you can hear it straight from the horse's ass ... er, I mean mouth.

Harper Insider Admits That he Perpetrated a Fraud

A story in the Winnipeg Free Press today featured an interview with Harper's former campaign manager, Tom Flanagan. The story was Flanagan offering praise to Michael Ignatieff, as a world-famous scholar, and stating that the Liberals were lucky to have him as their leader.

Maybe as a university professor himself, though with not the same level of success, Flanagan may have felt a bit guilty over the personal attacks. Who knows?

However, the more I thought about that piece, the angrier I got. Not anger over the belated praise for Mr. Ignatieff, but something else that the former Harper insider revealed.

He admitted that Stephen Harper had lied during the parliamentary crisis, and that he had indeed tried to form a coalition with Gilles Duceppe and Jack Layton in 2004, and that the Harper coalition "...would have included the Bloc as a full partner." That's quite a statement to make.

Do you remember the mess that was created with the accusations of 'coup' and 'treason'? He divided the country in one of the ugliest displays ever witnessed, and now an insider admits that the whole thing was a fraud?

But you know what the worst thing about this is? That tomorrow no one will mention it. The mainstream media will either not report it or simply gloss it over. A Prime Minister lying and threatening national unity is not news now.

We're on a need to know basis, although I suppose a headline 'Harper lied' would not really be news after all. Sigh.

Former Harper Campaign Manager Calls Michael Ignatieff a Role Model

Kind of an interesting story from the Winnipeg Free Press regarding an interview with Tom Flanagan, Stephen Harper's former campaign manager. He was candid about Harper's coalition attempt in 2004 and stated that Michael Ignatieff was a scholar and 'role model'.

I'm glad he did that, because these horrendous attack ads are painting Mr. Ignatieff as being some kind of demon. He has already earned an international reputation as the go to guy when the world is in a mess and needs a little perspective. After 9/11 he was often sought out, but his statements, which were relevant in the wake of that , are now being turned against him.

Some people may wonder why I post so much about Stephen Harper and the Northern Foundation, or some of the other groups he's been involved with; but I always give them the smell test. For instance if Harper learned that Michael Ignatieff once belonged to a group that has been referred to as 'white brotherhood', would he use it against him? We know he would.

After visiting the Ignatieff.me site, I saw just how dirty the Reformers can be, and realized that there are no longer any rules. You can't meet Stephen Harper on the high ground, because he doesn't go there. Instead you have to get down in the gutter. Flanagan in a round about way is telling the Liberal leader to visit that gutter, if he wants to survive.

Sadly, it's true.

Ignatieff 'quality guy,' Flanagan says
By: Frances Russell
Winnipeg Free Press
November 12, 2009

Tom Flanagan, the University of Calgary political studies professor, doesn't necessarily think the same way about Michael Ignatieff and the legitimacy of coalition governments as Tom Flanagan, Stephen Harper's closest confidant and former campaign manager.

"I actually have a lot of admiration for Ignatieff," Flanagan said in an interview Friday. He was in Winnipeg to lecture on political ethics and campaign strategy at the University of Manitoba.

"Michael Ignatieff to me is a world-famous scholar. I'd like to be a world-famous scholar. I'm not, so Ignatieff to me is a role model... I think he is a quality guy and I think Canada's lucky to have him as Liberal leader. I have the same views about Stephen Harper and I think we're lucky to have all of our leaders."

Yet Flanagan defends his party's perpetual ad campaign characterizing the Liberal leader as "just in it for himself" and "just visiting" Canada. Asked if he personally agrees with his party's characterization of Ignatieff, he replied: "I don't necessarily think that." But he insisted it was up to Ignatieff to repudiate the "just visiting" claim. And he doesn't know why the Liberals "don't make their own plausible case" against the prime minister. "It wouldn't be hard to write the ads."

Recently, Flanagan received a lot of media criticism for saying that political attack ads don't have to be true, they just have to be plausible.

During last winter's constitutional crisis, Flanagan wrote in The Globe and Mail that "Gross violations of democratic principles would be involved in handing government to the coalition without getting approval from voters." A week earlier, Harper, too, claimed the opposition could not take power without an election.

Flanagan now appears to have shifted his position and backed away from Harper's. "I wouldn't rule out parties coming together to form a coalition and whatever Mr. Harper may have said in the heat of the moment I don't think should be interpreted as constitutional theory because he was in a fight for his life." However, he insists any coalition relying on the Bloc Quebecois must have prior electoral approval.

The author of Harper's Team: Behind the Scenes in the Conservative Rise to Power, managed the Conservative 2004 and 2006 election campaigns. But he insisted he "wasn't a part" of a coalition proposal made by then Official Opposition leader Harper, NDP leader Jack Layton and Bloc Quebecois leader Gilles Duceppe in September 2004 that would have included the Bloc as a full partner.

Harper and the other two party leaders drafted a letter to the Governor General pointing out they had a majority and stating "this should give you cause, as constitutional practice has determined, to consult the opposition leaders and consider all of your options" before dissolving parliament.

"I don't know exactly what happened," Flanagan said.

Flanagan admits he doesn't know whether Canadians want to watch negative political attack ads 365 days of the year. "I don't know whether it's a good idea or a bad idea. It's just the way things are flowing." He predicted Canada is now into what he calls the "permanent campaign." And if Canadians don't like it, they should put pressure on their parliamentarians to cancel all government support to political parties.

"As long as parties have access to all this extra money and as long as you have spending caps that prevent them from spending during the campaign, I think they will start spending it between writs."

He points out that the Conservatives can spend $20 million in an election campaign while only having to raise $10 million.

He also hinted that should the Conservatives win a majority government, they would repeal the ban on third party political advertising.

"There is no chance of it happening in a minority parliament... Parties in Canada so far have not made extensive use of outside parties... It will happen if well-meaning reformers manage to cap expenses outside the writ period."

Flanagan refused to agree with research showing that negative political ads are helping to push down voter turnout. Voter turnout has plunged from 72 per cent in the 1993 election to just 58 per cent in the 2008 contest. Research done by Angus Reid Strategies showed Conservative attack ads during the 2008 campaign persuaded 11 per cent of Canadians not to vote at all and had the hoped-for effect of depressing non-Conservatives from voting while inspiring the party faithful to go to the polls.

"I'm not aware of any demonstrated link between pre-writ advertising and declining voter turnout... I think you'd have to say that the Conservatives' pre-writ advertising campaigns have been highly successful," Flanagan said. "So I think as long as they continue to work, they will do it and the other parties will imitate the tactics to the extent they have the money to do it."

Posted by: Lloyd MacIlquham (Blogger)
November 12, 2009 at 10:09 AM

This is a great article and a real eye opener. For whatever reason Tom Flanigan has been "telling all" for a while now. I always suspected it was some sinister plan to somehow 're-habilitate' Harper and the Con's in the public eye - this is how they used to be but now they have changed, and bring him back to he conservative fold. But now I think there is a real desire to be accepted as a legitimate academic as opposed to a Harper henchman, which has the effect of requiring him to talk about things in a truthful light as opposed to standard Con approach - everything is political, truth is irrelevant.

Flanagan saying that he doesn't necessarily think the attacks against Ignatieff are true but it is up to Ignatieff to repudiate them is something that should raise the eyebrows of every Canadian. As you pointed out is in line with his previous statement that these attacks don't need to be true just plausible.

All Canadians should become aware of this. For Harper and the Con's it is power, grabbing it, clutching onto it, mongering it and Canada be damned."Conservative attack ads during the 2008 campaign persuaded 11 per cent of Canadians not to vote at all and had the hoped-for effect of depressing non-Conservatives from voting while inspiring the party faithful to go to the polls."I agree with this 200%. The only thing we can get out of the 4 by-elections this week is verification of this.

A Great Idea to Fight Neo-Conservatism and Restore Democracy in Canada

We now know that the Reform Conservatives' attacks on the Canadian people during the parliamentary crisis, were a complete load of crap; so maybe it's now time to rethink some kind of coalition to fight this horrendous neo-conservative movement.

It is absolutely wrong for Canada, but since the Ref-Cons continue to make politics in Canada ugly, in order to bore us into giving them a majority; columnist Michael Byers has come up with a suggestion for the next election.

However, I would like to take this one step further. I think that the opposition parties, whose policies are not that different, should form a loose coalition now.

With no new confidence motions on the table, they could simply band together to make sure that none of the Ref-Con horrendous bills get passed. Now I know our government has resorted to blackmail, not that we should be surprised, but we can't let that stop us.

The opposition parties must also quit fighting each other. This is getting us nowhere. We have to take our country back, and let Harper know that Leo Strauss ideology is not welcome here.

Ironically in 2005, 62% of Canadians claimed that they would never vote for Stephen Harper, and that's exactly what happened last election. However, vote-splitting is hurting Canadians and threatening our existence as a sovereign nation.

Liberals and New Democrats together could unseat Harper: Electoral ceasefire would put nation's centre-left majority in political control

Negative ads have prejudiced voters against Michael Ignatieff, and brought Stephen Harper within reach of a majority government. The Conservatives
now lead the Liberals by about 10 percentage points. The situation seems unlikely to improve. The Prime Minister's divisive partisan tactics have diminished the public's respect for politicians in general. In just four years, he has changed the tone of media coverage and public discourse, shifting the mood of the nation toward cynicism and selfishness.

Liberal infighting has not helped, while the NDP has missed two opportunities – on climate change and macroeconomic policy – to capture the national imagination with bold ideas. There is only one surefire way to prevent a Harper majority. The Liberals and NDP should agree to not run candidates against each other in the next campaign ...

Reform-Conservative Pierre Poilievre Has Exposed a Secret Plan

A CBC producer received a strange phone call from Pierre Poilievre's office, putting out feelers for an election (which they want so bad), and hinting at a coalition. What was strange though, and sadly typical of this party's obsession with Michael Ignatieff, is that they only ever use his name. All the others are simply parties.

I can't believe that politics has stooped to this level, but to suggest that there is an 'Ignatieff/NDP/Bloc' coalition in the works, while the Harper government is being propped up by 'socialists', is nuts. If they continue with this insanity, they could reverse their recent gains in the polls. Take a deep breath little PP. You haven't won anything yet.

Ring! Ring! Good Evening ... Um, You Want An Election?
October 8, 2009
By Andrew Davidson
CBC News

So, there's this phone, see? And this phone just so happened to belong to a CBC producer in Ottawa. And last night, just as it was born to do, it RANG!

On the other end was an actual non-recorded human voice -- male -- conducting a poll on behalf of her local Conservative MP, Pierre Poilievre. Curious, she participated in the poll, which was clearly trying to gauge her interest in an election now and who she'd support -- while ever-so-subtly reminding her about the home renovation tax credit and federal infrastructure money to build the Strandherd Bridge in her riding, brought to her by the Harper government. (Brought to you by a 56 billion dollar deficit and counting)

The pollster was very quick and unscientific didn't ask her name, age or occupation, she said.

Said CBC producer also found the language used by the pollster interesting. He didn't use the word "Liberal," but used Michael Ignatieff's name. But when the pollster referred to the other parties, he did so by party name.

He also asked if she'd support the "Ignatieff-NDP-Bloc coalition" and was unresponsive when she asked him about the current Conservative-NDP interlude/bromance/whatchamacallit in the House of Commons."Really no sense of humour with these guys," our producer said.

New Poll Confirms That Stephen Harper is Unfreakinbelievable!!!

In the latest twist to Harper's coalition with 'Separatists' and 'Socialists', the Conservatives are now running attack ads against Michael Ignatieff during a baseball game ... get this .... suggesting that the Liberal leader will form a coalition with 'Separatists' and 'Socialists' if Harper doesn't get a majority.

What is wrong with this man? Is there a rubber room in his future or is he really that stupid????!!! I know that Harper is a lying sack of dog doo doo, but this is insane. He's definitely a danger to himself and others.

EXCLUSIVE INTERVIEW: MICHAEL IGNATIEFF
Leader's gut reaction to ads: Don't treat Liberals like fools
Toronto Star
September 19, 2009, after the party voted against the Tories.
Susan Delacourt Ottawa Bureau

OTTAWA–Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff was watching a baseball game on TV Thursday night when he received a vivid confirmation of his party's decision to vote no confidence in Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government.

Three ads flashed on his TV screen – the first was a taxpayer-financed spot, boasting of the government's economic plan. The next two were the nasty Conservative ads, accusing Ignatieff of wanting to form a coalition with "separatists" and "socialists," and accusing the Liberal leader of just being in politics for himself.

Ignatieff said he was immediately struck by the political irony – there were the Harper Conservatives, lashing out at the New Democrats and the Bloc Québécois, on the eve of needing their support in yesterday's confidence vote in the Commons.

And the Liberal leader realized, once again, that this is what happens to parties who support the Conservatives in this fragile minority Parliament.

"While you're propping the government up, they're running ads saying, `He's just in it for himself.' How stupid do they think I am?" Ignatieff said in an interview with the Star yesterday, immediately after the Liberals, for the first time in nearly four years, voted against the government in a confidence vote.

"If you want to make Parliament work, you can make Parliament work if you're the prime minister of Canada. It's that simple. So now, he can do it. But don't treat the Liberal Party of Canada like fools. Because we're not."

The Liberal party is in the midst of preparing its own round of ads to follow the flurry of TV spots they've been releasing over the past couple of weeks. While the first wave was mostly positive – some say too positive, featuring Ignatieff talking in a forest glade – the next series of ads are expected to have more bite.

But Ignatieff said yesterday he's setting strict limits on how low they can go in attack mode.
"I've got a bar," he said. "I make no apologies for attacking his policies; I've been attacking his policies vigorously and will continue to do so. But I've not attacked his patriotism, I've not attacked his family, I've not attacked his commitment to Canada."

Ignatieff will, however, attack the way Harper does politics – and the ads are a big part of it.
"What he says in private is not what he says in public," says Ignatieff, a reference to a video that emerged over the past couple of weeks, showing Harper delivering a speech to staunch Conservative supporters – a speech in which he mocked social-justice advocates as "left-wing fringe groups" and talked about a need for a majority to deliver "a lesson" to the opposition parties and their supporters.

Though Liberals are not saying what's in the next round of TV ads, there's some speculation that this video will play a part in them.

"What he says in private is contemptuous of Canadians and treats all Canadians who disagree with him as enemies," Ignatieff said. "The other disagreement I have is that when he attacks his opponents, he engages in falsehoods and the politics of personal destruction.

And when that guy's time in politics is finished and people ask what was his legacy, what was his contribution to the public life of Canada, it'll be those attack ads. And let it be on his head. I'm tired of it. And Canadians are tired of it."

Ignatieff said he laments that in the current hyper-partisan climate of Canadian politics, a party can suffer for voting in support of the government, as the NDP and Bloc did yesterday.

Is Ignatieff sorry now that the Liberals did help keep the Conservatives in power?

"No," is his answer. He's even not sorry he made a compromise deal last June to try to work out an employment insurance reform package with the Conservatives and avert an election.

Since then, Ignatieff has been criticized for caving in to Harper, the party has sunk in the polls, and some Liberals believe they lost a prime opportunity to take power away from the Tories.

"All I can say is that we tried in good faith to work with Stephen Harper," Ignatieff said. "The EI thing in the summer wasn't a game to me. ... But it was absolutely impossible to work with (Conservative MP) Pierre Poilievre and (Human Resources) Minister (Diane) Finley."

So when does he expect to see an election now?

"I'm one party leader among four. Decisions about elections involve everybody. "I've taken my responsibility, which is I've said I can't support this government any longer. It's up to the other parties to decide what they're going to do. End of story."