|
|---|
Showing posts with label Duceppe. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Duceppe. Show all posts
Sunday, 24 April 2011
Interesting exachange between Duffy and Flanagan, who are both nonplussed by the sudden love affair between the voters in Quebec and Dipper Jack.
The Cat has a theory about what is happening, grounded on The Cat's conclusions about the kind of leader that the Quebecois like and have favoured in the past. One thing is clear: any leader of any party who thinks that debating politics is “bickering” and therefore a waste of time, has zilch chance of getting anywhere with the Quebecois.
Monday, 28 March 2011
Quick: Somebody ask Senator Mike Duffy if there WAS a Plot in 2004!
0 comments Posted by 2011 at 19:19Another person who can throw some light on the issue of whether the Prime Minister of Canada is lying to Canadians or whether Giles Duceppe and Jack Layton are not levelling with us, is a journalist who went on air at the time with hints that "some Conservatives" saw a chance for Harper's Conservatives to slide into power despite the Liberals having won the most seats of the 4 parties in 2004 (my highlighting and underlining):
LIKE IT? CLICK HERE TO READ MORE
Mike Duffy - Shoehorn Harper into Power On the day in October 2004 when Martin's government delivered its throne speech, CTV journalist Mike Duffy — later appointed by Harper as a Conservative senator — reported that some Conservatives saw the Liberals' troubles as a chance to make Harper prime minister.
Hot on my earlier post, we now have Tom Flanagan corroborating the insistence by both Duceppe and Layton that Harper was plotting to replace the legitimately elected Liberal minority government in 2004 with a Harper Conservative minority government – without an election:
LIKE IT? CLICK HERE TO READ MORE
Tom Flanagan - There was a Plot A key adviser to Stephen Harper during his days as Opposition leader says the "co-opposition" arrangement 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.
The battle lines have been drawn. On the right we have Stephen Joseph Harper, who dashed out of the starting blocks of the election and promptly fell flat on his derriere. On the left we have Jack Layton and Giles Duceppe.
And in the middle we have the truth.
 |
| Delta Hotel in Montreal - Where the Plotters met |
Canadians are watching this battle with great interest. The issue is this:
Did Stephen Harper call a meeting with Duceppe and Layton in the Delta Hotel in Montreal in 2004 in order to plot the replacement of the Liberal minority government of Paul Martin, or did he not?
Harper says No Plot - he did not plot anything like that:
LIKE IT? CLICK HERE TO READ MOREPrime Minister Stephen Harper on Monday denied allegations by the NDP
Sunday, 27 March 2011
It seems that Harper did indeed discuss a coalition with the Bloc in 2004, according to a Tweet by Duceppe, but the three men who met in the hotel to talk about the Conservatives lead by now lame duck prime minister Harper on other occasions have said there was no talk of a coalition as such.
Coyne writes that:
LIKE IT? CLICK HERE TO READ MOREBut what of the Conservatives? Weren’t they proposing a coalition themselves, via that notorious 2004 letter to the Governor General? No.While it’s abundantly clear that Harper was ready to replace Paul Martin as prime minister under exactly the circumstances he now denounces — making him not just wrong but hypocritical — it is equally clear he was not proposing to form a coalition.
Saturday, 26 March 2011
... and Duceppe says Harper is lying about his desire to form a coalition in 2004.
Today on Parliament hill, a fiery Michael Ignatieff decided to call a spade a spade, and branded Stephen Harper a liar. Harper, the prime minister of the disgraced Conservative government which was found by the House to be guilty of contempt of Parliament (the first time ever that a government has been found in contempt in the history of Westminster-style democracies), has been distorting facts in order to confuse voters.
LIKE IT? CLICK HERE TO READ MORE
Saturday, 19 March 2011
We seldom see a drop in support as large as the one detailed below. Usually support from voters tails away over time, and you have to go back six to 12 months to notice a significant drop in support.
But to lose 20% support in one of THE most critical segments of voters IN ONE MONTH is more like a collapse, or implosion, than an erosion.
The reason for the change? Disgust with Harper and his Conservative Party. Seniors
LIKE IT? CLICK HERE TO READ MORE
Wednesday, 9 March 2011
Her main thrust in today's article is that all three opposition parties have no grounds to vote confidence in a Conservative government that is guilty of the deeds set out in the motion just passed by those parties:
But if the opposition parties really do subscribe to the stark sentiments expressed in this week’s Liberal motion, it will be hard for any of them to justify continuing to do business with the government at the time of the budget.In a minority Parliament, the opposition can blame the government for many things but not for its own self-inflicted impotence.Ignatieff, Layton and Duceppe could hardly take the Conservatives to task for alleged abuses of the democratic process in an election campaign 12 to 18 months from now without being asked why they turned out to be ready to overlook them this spring.
LIKE IT? CLICK HERE TO READ MORE
Thursday, 17 February 2011
Michael Ignatieff is out of step with Liberal voters on coalition
0 comments Posted by 2011 at 16:06
Now that Gilles Duceppe has initiated a belated public dialogue on the very real prospects of a coalition government after the next election – a Liberal-NDP government – let's look at the latest poll by EKOS on the subject (January 27 2011).
That poll clearly shows that Ignatieff's is turning his back on two-thirds of Liberal voters
when it comes to a coalition government:
How can a leader claim to be leading on such a vital issue when the huge majority of potential Liberal voters would prefer an outcome which is the direct opposite of the one he has said he prefers?
Perhaps it is time for Ignatieff and his advisors to speak to members of the Liberal Party?
 |
| Gilles Duceppe |
... for openly discussing the realities of Canadian politics:
As reported in Quebec’s French-language daily La Presse, the Bloc Quebecois has returned speculation about a future anti-Conservative coalition to the forefront of political discussion. The party has declared that it retains the right to support a coalition of parties in the event of another minority government. While no parties were named, based on current polling trends, that could only mean supporting the Liberals and the NDP to block the Conservatives from forming another government.
And the initial Liberal response is yet another pathetic bout of whistling past the graveyard:
On the other front, by musing openly about supporting a coalition with the Liberals, Duceppe has put the Liberals back on the defensive, with Montreal MP Marc Garneau quickly denying that the Liberals have any plan to form a coalition with another party.
What the Liberal party should have said in answer to the Bloc move to recognize reality, was to welcome Duceppe's statement, and state that the Liberal Party was prepared to form the next government of Canada should a Tory minority government lose a vote of confidence.
However, to the extent the Liberals would need support from other MPs in the House, such support would be welcomed provided that the Liberals were not prepared to take any steps to endanger the unity of Canada, nor to embark upon irresponsible economic steps which would hurt Canadians rather than help them.
And Michael Ignatieff could spell out a set of general principles which would govern a minority Liberal government (keep it short, keep it simple, keep it effective).
And we could then all sit back and watch the new Tories scramble around like headless chickens.
Monday, 24 January 2011
 | |
| Pavlov and his barking dog |
Those who think the Harper attack ads are (1) simply a repeat of the past and therefore boring and ineffective, (2) muddled and a bit confusing, and therefore ineffective, (3) vicious and unprincipled but their viciousness has made them ineffective, or (4) a little bit of all of these points, and therefore ineffective, are just plain wrong.
Harper's ads are brilliantly conceived, tightly focused, and are proving very effective in forcing Ignatieff to fight on ground Harper has chosen, and to enter that fight with one hand tied behind his back.
The Tory ads are highly effective in framing the issues, and Ignatieff's response is proof of this: he is ignoring all the lessons of political framing and falling – yet again – into the trap set by Stephen Harper.
LIKE IT? CLICK HERE TO READ MORE
Wednesday, 25 August 2010
Twelve years after Prime Minister Chretien referred three questions to the Supreme Court of Canada concerning the right of Quebec to unilaterally secede from Canada, the International Court of Justice on July 22 this year issued a judgment dealing with the question whether the unilateral declaration of independence by Kosovo was in accordance with international law.
Spector raises the spectre that the recent Kosovo decision by the International Court of Justice might provide fresh ammunition to the separatists in Quebec with respect to a means to achieve independence from Canada. Impolitical takes the opposite view, believing that the Kosovo decision holds out no new hope for Quebec separatists, given our Supreme Court decision.
Friday, 23 July 2010
This is the succinct summary of the census issue by Simpson in today's Globe & Mail:
LIKE IT? CLICK HERE TO READ MOREIndustry Minister Tony Clement, to whom Statistics Canada ultimately reports, has been dancing a disgraceful jig to Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s tune. Make no mistake: This entire affair was provoked by Mr. Harper, the man who makes all the important decisions and many of the lesser ones.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
