Blog Comments Blog Archives About Me Radio Gems The Trailer Links Contact

Comments We Like - John Ivison

March 26, 2011 @ 14:53

Ignatieff's coalition stance is still ambiguous.

Category: Politics

Permalink Discuss

14 Responses to "Comments We Like - John Ivison"


Ron
March 26, 2011 / 16:41

Fred, did you read the whole article? This is regarding Stephen Harper's comments. *** Emphasis mine. ***

"But on the contempt finding, he was less convincing. He dismissed it as a motion passed by the opposition parties and would not prove to be important during the election. “The public doesn’t care about manoeuvres in Parliament,” he said.

He is, in essence, correct. The opposition parties hi-jacked the Speaker’s ruling on breach of privilege and forced a contempt finding on Parliament.

But by referring to the workings of the House of Commons in such cavalier fashion,

*** Mr. Harper vindicates the Liberal’s charge that he has abused his power and attacked democracy.***

Perhaps he should try a little less hubris when it comes to judging what Canadians do or don’t care about."


Freddie P.
March 26, 2011 / 17:38

@Ron

Yes I did, but I'm not so narrow as to pretend Harper doesn't make mistakes or handles absolutely every situation in a pristeen way.

It comes down to this, consider the issues and then decide.

If you think the contempt issue is more important than the coaltion threat, so be it.


Ron
March 26, 2011 / 23:01

Well, there is no "apparently" about Stephen Harper and a coalition prospect in 2004. A quick google search can verify the facts.

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/canada/breakingnews/text-of-stephen-harpers-2004-letter-signed-by-layton-and-duceppe-118672384.html

As for me, I'm not so narrow as to pretend Harper isn't a hypocrite in consideration of the alleged coalition threat, given the evidence that he was ready to "consider all options" in 2004.

It's as clear as Pot. Kettle. Black. You can't change the rules of the game midway through just to suit your own gains while you're still playing.

Also; it would be nice if the Sabres could maybe lose those games in hand?!?


Ron
March 26, 2011 / 23:26

Further to this, here's a Globe & Mail article from 2008 about an interview Mr Harper did in 2004 regarding these same issues, including working with the Bloc.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/second-reading/andrew-steele/harper-appears-open-to-working-with-bloc-in-2004-cbc-interview/article726005/singlepage/#articlecontent

Some quotes. To reflect our current environment, swap in Conservative for Liberal when talking about the party in power.:

"Harper: Well there are lots of things that could bring the government down, but my opposition can not bring the government down. The government can only be brought down because it alienates several parties in the House. And the first obligation in this Parliament, if the government wants to govern, it has to come to Parliament and it has to show that it can get the support of the majority of members, through the Throne Speech, through legislation, and through budget and supply, and the government to this point has made no effort to do that, but that's its first obligation."

"Solomon: So why did you write that letter to the Governor-General with Gilles Duceppe and Jack Layton saying in the event of a confidence vote situation do not call a snap election - are we to assume that therefore you're working to form a coalition?

Harper: There seems to be an attitude in the Liberal government - that they can go in, be deliberately defeated and call an election - that's not how our constitutional system works. The government has a minority - it has an obligation to demonstrate to Canadians that it can govern. That it can form a majority in the House of Commons. If it can't form a majority, we look at other options, we don't just concede to the government's request to make it dysfunctional. I know for a fact that Mr. Duceppe and Mr. Layton and the people who work for them want this Parliament to work and I know if is in all of our interests to work. The government has got to face the fact it has a minority, it has to work with other people."

"Harper: Canadians want the Parliament to work - but look we're not going to roll over to agree with the government just so they can stay in office. But as I say we've been away from minority government's for so long we've forgotten how they work. The government is still the government. The official Opposition is still the Official Opposition. And these two parties are still going to battle for govenrment in the next election. And that's how the system works. There's going to be other parties, the third parties and that's usually where the government's going to have to seek its mandate to try to get a majority in the House of Commons and it's - that's really their primary responsibility. They've got to get these other parties supporting them regularly or they can't command the confidence of the House. And the same would be true for me if I had the most seats, I would have to find a way of governing."


aviatr63
March 27, 2011 / 01:25

Hey Ron....way too much time on your hands dude! What happened today was discusting watching Iggy and his cronies laughing, smiling and joking about this election just proves that 300 mill of your money is not a problem for them to piss away. He called it and he will regret it!


Anonymous
March 27, 2011 / 08:50

@aviatr63 My point is simply that Harper & co have no basis to use a "reckless coalition with the Bloc" as an election platform against their opponents, when there is documented proof that they had every intention of doing the exact. same. thing. Any informed voter with access to an internet search engine can find this unbiased factual information.

I'll bow out of the conversation now. I've made my point and backed it up with citable evidence. Cheers.


Nigel Trousershrapnel
March 27, 2011 / 08:57

@ aviatr63

When you go to the dictionary to look up the proper spelling of "disgusting", look up the meaning of hypocrisy as well. By watching "Iggy", one would assume that you were sitting on your fat ass watching the tube. If you have a bit of" time on your hands", dude, pick up a book. Those who don't learn from history are destined to repeat it.


Freddie P.
March 27, 2011 / 09:51

@Ron
Good job. You now have the information needed to make an intelligent decision.
If Harper kicking the coaltion tires in 2004 is now reason for you to overlook the Liberals doing it, that's great!


Ben Vidal
March 27, 2011 / 09:52

@aviatr63 You have no point. Think back to the last election that Harper called in the middle of a recession(this after saying that he was going to have fixed election dates, another lie from him and his government). Stop using the economic recovery platform and throwing out 300 million dollars. With your logic, we should ignore all the other issues of lying and deceit the Harper goverment has been tabled with for the fact that an election will cost 300 million. Lets not forget the number of elections in the past 5 years is the result of Harper, not the other way around.


Gene
March 27, 2011 / 10:01

@Everyone
Reading this stuff is amazing. You can play the blame game all you want but as Freddie contiuously says, look at the country. Look at the shape its in. Look at what Harper leadership has done for us. Why would anyone want to throw that away on partisan issues when the opposition has nothing to offer?


Paul
March 27, 2011 / 11:40

I think we would be better off without any of them. They blame Harper for not leading Canada, but they are a culpable element of Harper's leadership being it was a coalition government. They blame Harper for the election but it was they who caused it.

Buffons. All of them, but more so true of Layton and Iggy.


Irvine
March 28, 2011 / 12:10

@Gene

The real strength of Canada is because of commodities, namely oil. The oil sands is the largest industrial complex in the world. Benefits include thousands of jobless Maritimers getting a good paycheque; 10's of billions in investment through Toronto banks; Profit & technological advances which have opened up oil drilling in BC, Sask and Manitoba. Not to mention the MASSIVE infusion of cash for the Federal government & for people living in Alberta.

The Harper Connection? He is pro business & supports the industry. Jack Layton flew over it and wanted to "close it down". Ignatieff has never supported the industry because Liberals don't win in Alberta so he doesn't care (Chicken or Egg).

People in this country (Canada) seem to have this issue with profit. A person that works hard, gets wealthy, etc is seen as "evil".


Anonymous
March 30, 2011 / 18:41

comes down to Ontario.
West is generally Con. Que is Block. East is smallish. North is smaller.
What's left {or right} is Ontariario. Give us a place to stand and a place to grow and call this land...blah blah blah. Maybe we'll strike oil and be elitist.


Confucius
May 13, 2011 / 03:08

I was reading another post of yours the other day and I forgot to leave a comment (ADD!) but when I was reading it I was thinking about telling you to check out Thick Black Theory (no affiliate link). I've read it over and over, and I think you'll really dig it.


« Two Comics Too Late Ruby »