How do you decide who to vote for?

[daria]

Well, I care what Iggy says, because it seems clear to me that unless we get a Conservative majority, Iggy will do all possible to force yet another election in cooperation with the NDP and the Bloc. We have a new GG who has a lot of moxie, and I don't think he will be easily manipulated by the likes of Ignatieff the usurper.

Nab

Ignatieff the usurper? Harper doesn't wear a crown (as much as I'm sure he'd like to).

[UnknownResident]

How do you decide for whom to vote? Michael Ignatieff has helped provide a clear choice today. He didn't want to answer Peter Mansbridge's question about what would happen if we had another Conservative minority but when he did he said that Stephen Harper could form the government but if he lost the confidence of the House the GG would be consulted. Ignatieff would then be willing, of course, to form a government. Well, the opposition leaders have already made it abundantly clear that they do not have confidence in Stephen Harper's government and so the choice is clear. We elect a Conservative majority or we elect a Liberal minority supported by the NDP and the Bloc.

Urbane this post is just untrue. Besides who cares what Ignatieff says, he's a politician, haven't you heard? They never tell the truth! Besides which the Layton has clearly stated he is willing to work with the Harper, if Harper works with him. The Cons only need one party to support them.(probably)

Well, I care what Iggy says, because it seems clear to me that unless we get a Conservative majority, Iggy will do all possible to force yet another election in cooperation with the NDP and the Bloc. We have a new GG who has a lot of moxie, and I don't think he will be easily manipulated by the likes of Ignatieff the usurper.

Nab

You're funny. Like I said though, Layton has clear as day stated he's willing to work with Harper. That's all Harper will need, if Harper is willing to work with Layton. So if that happens, Iggy won't have a foot to stand on to 'force yet another election'-even though that wouldn't even happen.

Oh yeah, and Harper was willing to work with the NDP & the Bloc when he wanted to "usurp" Martin. Do you remember the coalition talks then? Or is it selective memory? Take off the blinders - none of these parties have done anything to deserve our votes.

[NAB]

Whether any of these parties deserve our vote or not, they are all we have to work with. There are no alternatives.

As for "Ignatieff the usurper", in my view that is exactly what he is. He was parachuted in here from a life outside the country to lead the Liberals, and he clearly wants to take over as PM. In spite of all his prattle about "Harper can not be trusted with power under a majority conservative government", I have to ask why Canadians would feel they can trust Ignatieff either? At least Harper, Layton, and even Duceppe, have a history of service to Canada, whether one supports their various views or not.

What's more, in spite of Iggy trying "to be clear" as to what his actions would be in the event the Conservatives win another minority government, in my view he has been anything but clear as to what he would do. Of course a lot of that depends on how many seats the Liberals end up with, and I am still in the camp that prefers to see the the NDP take over as official opposition to a Harper government rather than the Liberals. At least they are not lead by a parachuted in usurper who previously expressed loyalty to the USA, and who in my view doesn't have the best interests of Canada and true Canadians at heart. Just his own ego and American interests.

Funny, I was just watching the Mansbridge interview of Iggy for the second time, and for some reason I couldn't take my eyes off of Iggy's nose, wondering if it was that shape because it was, sometime in the past, broken by someone he upset badly. He for sure provokes those type of aggressive feelings in me.

Nab

[UnknownResident]

Whether any of these parties deserve out vote or not, they are all we have to work with. There are no alternatives.

As for "ignatieff the usurper", in my view that is exactly waht he is. He was parachuted in here from a life outside the country to lead the Liberals, and he clearly wants to take over as PM. In spite of all his prattle about "Harper can not be trusted with power under a majority conservative government", I have to ask why Canadians would feel they can trust Ignatieff either?

What's more, in spite of him trying "to be clear" as to what his actions would be in the event the Conservatives win another minority government, in my view he has been anything but clear as to what he would do. Of course a lot of that depends on how many seats the Liberals end up with, and I am still in the camp that prefers to see the the NDP take over as offical opposition to a Harper government rather than the Liberals. At least they are not lead by a parachuted in usurper who in my view doesn't have the best interests of Canada and true Canadians at heart. Just his own ego.

Funny, I was just watching the Mansbridge interview of Iggy for the second time, and for some reason I couldn't take my eyes off of Iggy's nose, wondering if it was that shape because it was, sometime in the past, broken by someone he upset badly. He for sure provokes those type of aggressive feelings in me.

Nab

Basically you didn't address any of my post. You went off on a tangent into an Iggy rant. "He clearly wants to be PM" Well, yeah. Harper does too, same with Layton, and May, hell even Duceppe! Would you want the leader of a party to not want to be PM?? And how has Layton not been clear? When Mansbridge asked him about it, his answer was as clear as it could be. Layton is willing to work with Harper if Harper will work with Layton. You're really trying hard to stir up the coalition talk, it's no surprise really with all the Conservative propaganda, but the fact of the matter is they made this into an issue during the campaign because it didn't sit well with a lot of Canadians when the topic was touched on before. But what's funny about it is Harper pushed for a coalition when Martin was in power, Duceppe, Layton and Harper all signed the bloody thing. Now you support Harper but not coalitions? Or they're only good when they favour your choice party?

[Urbane]

UR, it isn't Conservative propaganda that Ignatieff and Layton are thinking about voting no confidence in the government. In fact, they just did vote no confidence and that's why we're having this election. I agree with Nab that we have a terrific GG but if the government falls almost immediately it might be hard for him to say no to the opposition. The second point is that if Harper were to give in to all the demands being made by the opposition (or the demands of even one of them) it would get expensive and essentially take us off the economic track that we're on. You know, Ignatieff's interview today might just get people thinking and if Harper does get a majority we might be thanking CBC and Peter Mansbridge. Never thought I'd say that (LOL).

[NAB]

Whether any of these parties deserve out vote or not, they are all we have to work with. There are no alternatives.

As for "ignatieff the usurper", in my view that is exactly waht he is. He was parachuted in here from a life outside the country to lead the Liberals, and he clearly wants to take over as PM. In spite of all his prattle about "Harper can not be trusted with power under a majority conservative government", I have to ask why Canadians would feel they can trust Ignatieff either?

What's more, in spite of him trying "to be clear" as to what his actions would be in the event the Conservatives win another minority government, in my view he has been anything but clear as to what he would do. Of course a lot of that depends on how many seats the Liberals end up with, and I am still in the camp that prefers to see the the NDP take over as offical opposition to a Harper government rather than the Liberals. At least they are not lead by a parachuted in usurper who in my view doesn't have the best interests of Canada and true Canadians at heart. Just his own ego.

Funny, I was just watching the Mansbridge interview of Iggy for the second time, and for some reason I couldn't take my eyes off of Iggy's nose, wondering if it was that shape because it was, sometime in the past, broken by someone he upset badly. He for sure provokes those type of aggressive feelings in me.

Nab

Basically you didn't address any of my post. You went off on a tangent into an Iggy rant. "He clearly wants to be PM" Well, yeah. Harper does too, same with Layton, and May, hell even Duceppe! Would you want the leader of a party to not want to be PM?? And how has Layton not been clear? When Mansbridge asked him about it, his answer was as clear as it could be. Layton is willing to work with Harper if Harper will work with Layton. You're really trying hard to stir up the coalition talk, it's no surprise really with all the Conservative propaganda, but the fact of the matter is they made this into an issue during the campaign because it didn't sit well with a lot of Canadians when the topic was touched on before. But what's funny about it is Harper pushed for a coalition when Martin was in power, Duceppe, Layton and Harper all signed the bloody thing. Now you support Harper but not coalitions? Or they're only good when they favour your choice party?

Whoa there Unknown, are you not reading carefully? I was talking about Ignatieff not being clear, not Layton. In fact I want Layton and the NDP to win enough seats to become the official opposition rather than the Liberals. Or have I misread your comments in some way?

And by the way, how many times does it have to be repeated that Harper DID NOT "push for a coalition when Martin was in power". Really, the anti Harper crowd look more ridiculous with that kind of crap with every passing day, because they should know better by now. But they have their script, and like trained brainless parrots they just keep reading and repeating it.

Nab

[UnknownResident]

Really Nab? Did or did he not sign the coalition agreement with the NDP and the Bloc that would have seen Harper become PM via coalition? And if you're implying that I have a script and am somehow associated to one political party over the other you are very wrong. I just want to point out the truth to you, because you seem to have an illusion of what really happened- Harper very much did want to become PM that route. But that's okay by me, it's just if you're going to spew this falsehood that the other parties are in a scheme to takeover via coalition I want you to come to terms with the fact that you man you are supporting was going to do the exact same thing. Look it's going to be hard to debate history, as much as you'd like to rewrite it.

[NAB]

Really Nab? Did or did he not sign the coalition agreement with the NDP and the Bloc that would have seen Harper become PM via coalition?

He did not sign any coalition agreement Unknown in spite of how Ignatieff tries to spin it. And by now you should know that. It has been addressed and clarified many times in these threads.

Nab

[UnknownResident]

UR, it isn't Conservative propaganda that Ignatieff and Layton are thinking about voting no confidence in the government. In fact, they just did vote no confidence and that's why we're having this election.

We're in this election because Harper did not want to work with parliament. That's the facts. You can try to put a Conservative spin onto as much as you want but it's not going to work with me.

The second point is that if Harper were to give in to all the demands being made by the opposition (or the demands of even one of them) it would get expensive and essentially take us off the economic track that we're on.

Now here's where it gets tricky, I don't agree with a lot of the spending from the other parties. However there's nothing to suggest any Conservative policies have helped us through this recession. In fact we can thank banking regulations and a lot of luck due to our resources. But I'm actually in the camp that government spending via stimuluses in economic downturns only prolongs the suffering. But none of the parties took that stance, maybe the Cons wanted to spend the least, but it's a pretty big maybe.

[UnknownResident]

Really Nab? Did or did he not sign the coalition agreement with the NDP and the Bloc that would have seen Harper become PM via coalition?

He did not sign any coalition agreement Unknown in spite of how Ignatieff tries to spin it. And by now you should know that. It has been addressed and clarified many times in these threads.

Nab

Really, so we have Duceppe who signed it, and admits it, telling us Harper also signed. We have Layton doing the same. And Harper saying no he didn't. Interesting. I'm curious as to why you only believe almighty Harper. Just because He (or you) says it so does not make it gospel.

[daria]

Really Nab? Did or did he not sign the coalition agreement with the NDP and the Bloc that would have seen Harper become PM via coalition?

He did not sign any coalition agreement Unknown in spite of how Ignatieff tries to spin it. And by now you should know that. It has been addressed and clarified many times in these threads.

Nab

Ex-Harper advisor says Tory minority was 2004 option

By Randy Boswell

OTTAWA — A key advisor to Stephen Harper during his days as Opposition leader says the “co-opposition” arrangement Mr. Harper negotiated with NDP leader Jack Layton and Bloc Quebecois leader Gilles Duceppe in September 2004 was seen by Conservatives at the time as a potential avenue to a Harper-led minority government — without seeking Canadians’ approval in an election.

Tom Flanagan, the federal Conservatives’ former campaign manager and a one-time Harper chief of staff, told Postmedia News on Monday that the deal Mr. Harper described in 2004 as a “co-opposition” accord — but insisted then and insists now was not a formal coalition — was a “perfectly legitimate exercise” aimed at exploring whether there was “common ground for the Conservatives to undertake a minority government.”

Mr. Flanagan’s comments are significant because they raise further questions about Mr. Harper’s interpretation of the episode and, perhaps, his current election strategy of branding Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff a would-be coalition leader — even if he finishes second behind the Conservatives in the May 2 election — willing to strike a deal with Mr. Layton and Mr. Duceppe to trump a Mr. Harper minority and become prime minister.

Although Mr. Ignatieff explicitly ruled out forming a so-called “coalition of losers” on the first day of the campaign on Saturday, Mr. Harper has continued to make it the central thrust of his message to voters, casting the election as a choice between a “stable,” majority Conservative government or a “reckless,” Ignatieff-led alliance of also-rans — the Liberals, the NDP and the Bloc.

But Mr. Harper’s strong denunciations of coalition-making in the current political context have led to pointed questions about his own actions in 2004, when the then-Opposition leader co-signed a letter with Mr. Layton and Mr. Duceppe urging Adrienne Clarkson — Canada’s governor general at the time — to “consider all of your options” before allowing Mr. Martin to call another general election.

“We respectfully point out,” read the letter, “that the opposition parties, who together constitute a majority in the House, have been in close consultation. We believe that, should a request for dissolution arise, this should give you cause, as constitutional practice has determined, to consult the opposition leaders and consider all of your options before exercising your constitutional authority.”

At a news conference in September of that year, Mr. Harper sat next to Mr. Layton and Mr. Duceppe as he elaborated on the message sent to Ms. Clarkson.

“There has been some informal chitter-chatter around the Hill that if a prime minister were weakened by his own party or defeated in the House, that he could just automatically call an election,” Mr. Harper said at the time. “That’s not our understanding of how the constitutional system works, particularly in a minority Parliament.”

On the day in October 2004 when Mr. Martin’s government delivered its throne speech, CTV journalist Mike Duffy — later appointed by Mr. Harper as a Conservative senator — reported that some Conservatives saw the Liberals’ troubles as a chance to make Mr. Harper prime minister.

“It is possible that you could change prime minister without having an election,” Mr. Duffy said on CTV on Oct. 5, 2004. “If you could put Stephen Harper — and this is some of the thinking of Conservatives — in 24 Sussex Drive, even for five or six months without an election, it would make the Conservative option much more palatable to Canadians because they’d see that they don’t have horns and a tail.”

Mr. Harper is striking a very different tone during this campaign on the question of whether a party other than the first-place finisher in an election should be given the opportunity to form a government without a fresh mandate from voters.

“You don’t try and form a government if you lost the election. That is not legitimate,” Mr. Harper said on Saturday, moments after meeting with Gov. Gen. David Johnston, while responding to reporters’ questions at the entrance to Rideau Hall. “If Canadians elect the other party, even by a minority, you respect that judgment. It is illegitimate to attempt to overturn that. And if you want to overturn it, you go back to the people and get a mandate to do so.”

Mr. Harper also argues that Ignatieff’s denials about having coalition ambitions are meaningless and that a postelection alliance with the NDP and Bloc is now the Liberals’ “hidden agenda.”

Meanwhile, however, Liberal strategists argue that Mr. Harper is exhibiting hypocrisy on the coalition issue while Mr. Duceppe has bluntly called the prime minister a “liar” over his recent denials about the aims of the 2004 “co-opposition” pact.

In the interview, Mr. Flanagan recalled that Mr. Harper — amid widespread doubt about whether Paul Martin’s minority Liberal government could win the support of Parliament after its October 2004 throne speech — was ready to consider forming a Conservative-led minority government without going to an election.

“As leader of the Opposition, (Mr. Harper) was going to be faced with the responsibility of voting on Martin’s budget and other legislation. And he was consulting with other opposition parties, and it doesn’t mean that he was trying to build a coalition,” said Mr. Flanagan.

“I was working for him at the time, but I wasn’t involved in this. I don’t know exactly. But the non-coalition explanation would be that he was seeing if there was common ground if the Liberals were defeated before Paul Martin could justifiably get a new election. Would there have been common ground for the Conservatives to undertake a minority government?”

Mr. Flanagan, author of the 2007 book Harper’s Team: Behind the Scenes in the Conservative Rise to Power, added that: “At that point, we had, I think, 98 seats — slender, but it wouldn’t have been totally out of consideration. Would there have been some common basis on which the Mr. Harper government could propose a budget and maybe some other legislation that would be supported by these two parties, at least for a while?”

Asked if Mr. Harper might have had a different motivation for sending the letter to Ms. Clarkson — one other than ensuring that she explored the option of Conservative-led minority if Martin’s government fell — Mr. Flanagan replied: “I can’t see what other point there would have been in writing the letter except to remind everybody that it was possible to change the government in that set of circumstances without an election.”

He added that “it could have been interpreted as a warning shot across the bow of Mr. Martin, but again, it’s not effective unless it’s alluding to a real possibility that this could happen.”

In the end, the solidarity between opposition parties broke down, with the NDP’s Layton giving support to ensure the survival — at least for a time — of Martin’s Liberal government.

“It didn’t go anywhere, but I think it’s a perfectly legitimate exercise. It’s different from forming a coalition,” said Mr. Flanagan. “You can square the circle because (Mr. Harper) did give Martin the chance to form a government, but if that government couldn’t be sustained, then he could say, ‘Well, we would save the taxpayers the expense of another immediate election, but I didn’t rush to form a government . . .’”

Mr. Flanagan, a University of Calgary political scientist who no longer works as a Mr. Harper advisor, said he disagrees with his former boss about whether a minority government can — in certain circumstances — be formed by a second-place party.

“I actually don’t agree with him on that point. I think that’s true 99% of the time, but there are occasions when it isn’t. You had the Peterson-Rae coalition in Ontario, for example, which was a coalition of second- and third-place finishers.”

This is from the National Post, by the way, and not the Toronto Star.

[Urbane]

Here's that comment again that the Conservatives have just been lucky. Quite the way to run an election campaign against a party - "We know the country's been doing well under the Conservatives but they've just been lucky." (LOL).

[UnknownResident]

Here's that comment again that the Conservatives have just been lucky. Quite the way to run an election campaign against a party - "We know the country's been doing well under the Conservatives but they've just been lucky." (LOL).

Well, yeah, pretty much it. We were poised to come out of this recession fairly well before the Cons gained power.

[UnknownResident]

This is from the National Post, by the way, and not the Toronto Star.

Are you kidding me? The National Post? They're lunatic lefties! Everyone knows that right? What we need is Fox News in Canada, now there's non-partisan programming.

[NAB]

UR, it isn't Conservative propaganda that Ignatieff and Layton are thinking about voting no confidence in the government. In fact, they just did vote no confidence and that's why we're having this election.

We're in this election because Harper did not want to work with parliament. That's the facts.

That's not facts Unknown, that's total crap. We are in this election because the Liberals, the NDP, and the Bloc want to take our country in an entirely different direction economically and socially than the conservatives do. It's just the old left wing versus right wing thinking. and we are in this election because the opposition decided the time was right to force it, because they know very well had they waited any longer the opportunity to become government, slim though it may be in any case, would be lost for a considerable number of years.

Nab