Unanswered questions from November 2008 and some from today.

October 14th 2008: Canada holds a federal election resulting in a conservative minority government.

November 19th 2008: The Speech from the Throne.

November 27th 2008: The Government releases its economic update

November 29th 2008: The NDP hold a conference call telling their MPs about the secret coalition talks with the Liberals and Bloc.

In the taped conversation (highlights below in video, with complete version available here. pt1 and pt 2) Jack Layton speaks about the secret negotiations with the Liberals and the Bloc on a coalition and the NDP role. Calling it a "catalytic role actually" and bragging about how the NDP were the "glue" for all of this and how they had "prepared for the opportunity" and because they had made those preparations early they were ready when an opportunity came up.

Of note are the following quotes from Jack Layton:

"This whole thing would not have happened if the moves hadn't been made with the Bloc to lock them in early."   "The first part was done a long time ago, um I won't go into details."




  
To my knowledge Jack Layton has NEVER stated exactly when those negotiations with the Bloc first started and I am unsure if he was even specifically asked that question by our MSM at any time since Nov 2008. Thomas Mulcair at the time stated that his party started talking with the Bloc only after the government's Nov. 19 Throne Speech, but if you listen to Layton's words it seems clear that these negotiations had begun more than just one week (The first part was done a long time ago) before this conference call occurred and for all we know the talks could have started 1 month earlier during the election campaign itself.

So here we are 2 1/2 yrs later and in another election campaign where the MSM are following the leaders across the country and covering their every word.  Isn't it about time that they asked Jack Layton to come clean on the 2008 negotiation time-line details and more importantly ask ALL of the leaders if ANY such negotiations ( by anyone within their respective parties) have occurred recently or are occurring at this time?

The MSM blew it on their coverage in 2008. Will they do the same thing in 2011?

Do your job and ask the damn questions that Canadians want to know about!

The top ten reasons Ignatieff will win

After the crazy day that was yesterday with the aftermath of the CBC story, the denials, and the affidavit, I thought I would remind everyone of the reasons Ignatieff will win the next election; courtesy of Warren Kinsella. (WK link warning)

I like reason #2: 'The Liberal Party of Canada will win the election, because we’ve got the most impressive leader: he’s super-smart, he’s accomplished, he’s decent, he has an extraordinary ability to bring people together....' but personally my favorite* has to be #7: 'The Liberals, meanwhile, will continue to embrace communications discipline – because, as Michael Ignatieff clearly has shown them, communications discipline works. The Grits will utterly dispense of the Chrétien-Martin era internecine warfare, because nobody remembers anymore what they were fighting about in the first place. (I sure can’t.)'


*Yes it is my favorite and I am willing to swear an affidavit to this fact.


Updated: I am reminded that the author of the above once held a different opinion of Ignatieff.
Which position does he take today? I will leave that up to you to decide, but going on the CBC National and dropping the bomb shell that he did while most likely knowing the after shocks that it would cause might be a clue.

The coalition returns: It’s not hyperbole to state that on the outcome of the next election rests the future of Canada as we know it.

"It’s not hyperbole to state that on the outcome of the next election rests the future of Canada as we know it."

Um, yes it is, but don't let that stop you Glen Wheeler. Tell us more.

"In sum, we have social conservatives in government slowly remaking the country according to their own political vision."

"Despite the odds in favour of the most right-wing and reactionary government in living memory retaining its hold on power in a federal election likely in less than a year..."

"As a Liberal and executive member of a Toronto riding association, I have some fear myself of being labelled disloyal. My day job as in-house lawyer for a labour union may provide more fodder for accusations that I am an NDP interloper and not a true Grit." (Glad you said it and not me)

"Unlike career hacks, we peons have little to lose, other than the country as we know it."


Hyperbole much Glen?



My favorite line: "That way, coalition will appear to be an answer to public pressure rather than the last resort of losers."

Nice use of the words "will appear" as in it will look like, but in reality will still be, the last resort of losers.

Finally some truth.

More of the same from the Liberals, and proof the coalition lives!

More divisiveness from the Liberals, but this time it is directed towards Alberta and provincial politics.

From the Calgary Herald:Alberta Liberals need to ruthlessly exploit a "civil war" among conservatives if they want to make gains in the next election; or so says Warren Kinsella.

"When the right wing is splitting up, take advantage of it. Play them off against each other, get tough and creative," Kinsella said.

A "Civil War"? Not that this is a surprise coming from the party that wants to start a culture war to divide Canadians in a sad attempt to gain votes, but WK also said something even more interesting that is going to make Peter Donolo reach for the TUMS this morning.

The coalition lives!

Kinsella said the federal Liberals and NDP are inching toward some sort of co-operation, which may put pressure on provincial counterparts to do the same.

"If the other guys are splitting up, is it a good idea to consolidate to take advantage of that? I don't think it's such a bad idea at all," Kinsella said while speaking about a vote on a controversial resolution to co-operate with other "progressive" political parties in the next election.

Warren, thanks for the confirmation on what so many of us already knew was the truth.

Enjoy your Sunday, but if you are heading off to any type of religious services please be careful as the Liberals may use that against you as part of their culture war.

Monday update: The Alberta Liberals have voted for the resolution to cooperate more with the NDP. Brilliant, now there is even less reason to vote Liberal in Alberta.

The Coalition reunites?

Thwarted in late 2008 by PM Harper's legitimate use of prorogation, which saved this country from permanent divisions and possibly even from being torn apart, the coalition looks to have reunited again in 2010 in an attempt to remove the only obstacle that prevented them from seizing power in 2008 and installing failed Liberal leader Stephane Dion as our Prime Minister, Jack Layton into cabinet, Elizabeth May into the Senate, and given separatist Gilles Duceppe a de facto veto over government business.

Think about that for a minute. If either of the current NDP or Liberal proposals to limit the PM's right to prorogue Parliament had been in place in 2008; that very coalition would have been unstoppable and would have formed government against the wishes of a large majority of Canadians who had recently re-elected the Conservatives with an even stronger mandate.

Now you can call me cynical but from where I sit the only possible reason that I can see that the opposition would want to make these very short sighted changes, which could severely limit a PM from acting on behalf of the nation on some yet unseen crisis in the future, is that they are making plans for a coalition redux, and this time they are making sure in advance that nothing is going to get in their way.

Not convinced? Take a look at the some of the strange things that have taken place over the last couple of weeks.

Jack Layton said that he was not going to take part in the Liberal photo op in Ottawa on the 25th, but when the day did arrive Jack was there smiling as always for the ever present cameras.

Michael Ignatieff stated that he supported the power of prorogation, but come the 25th of January he totally flip flopped and proposed limits. (Ok, Ignatieff flip flopping is not that strange, in fact it is the norm, but the timing of it makes the decision very suspect.)

Jack Layton stands by and watches the Liberals basically steal the NDP idea and says nothing about it, other than that he is going to consult with the other parties on the issue. ( FYI: This is what happened the last time Layton consulted the other parties.)



BTW, we already have mechanism to deal with accountability and government abuse in Canada. It is called an election, and I suggest that if Layton and Ignatieff are really that concerned that they stop pandering to the cameras, stop the rhetoric, and do the only real democratic thing by voting the government down and then go to the people of Canada in an election.

We shall see just how concerned they really are come March, but I would not be holding my breath.

December 01, 2008. Happy Anniversary you Coalition fans.

It was exactly 1 year ago, December 1st 2008 when perhaps the most divisive move in the history of Canadian politics took place as Stephane Dion, Gilles Duceppe, and Jack Layton signed the coalition agreements.

A coalition that if it would have come to take the reigns of power in Canada would have caused a "permanent division"* in Canadian society.




*Michael Ignatieff June 30, 2009.

Has there been anything that Ignatieff has not changed his position on?

"I could be sitting here as your prime minister, but I turned it down.."

“I could be sitting here as your prime minister, but I turned it down because I didn’t think it was right for someone who believes in the national unity of my country to make a deal with people who want to split the country up,”

The above was said in March 2009, on September 10th he used a similar line at least 2 times in his press conference, and on the 11th he again went before the cameras and repeated it at least 2 separate times in both official languages.

I think that this would have to qualify as Michael Ignatieff's favorite quote and I expect him to use it again in the upcoming days or weeks.

I have a problem with it though.

Is he sure that he would have been PM and that Jack and Gilles would not have a say in the matter? I am not sure that he is/was aware because according to one of his MP's he never read the agreement before he signed it?

John McCallum speaks on Ignatieff signing on to the coalition agreement.

Related: Other posts on John McCallum Here and Here.

Iggy's response.

A couple of points on Ignatieff's response (in a quickly rushed presser) to the PM expressing what any leader of a national political party desires, a majority government.

This one is a doozy. In response to a question on the party subsidy being eliminated he responded that: That is exactly what produced the crisis in the first place! (exact quote will follow) From the first day of the coalition each and every one of the coup plotters went out of their way to deny that it was the subsidies that caused the crisis, it was the economy they said in unison and brushed off any comments to the contrary. Today Ignatieff finally told us the truth. The opposition parties were only interested in the money that they themselves would lose.


The other point I want to bring up is Ignatieff's comment that the Bloc is not the enemy and that he would not categorize them as separatists. Well Mr. Ignatieff it is too late for that isn't it.

"Micheal Ignatieff: "“I could be sitting here as your prime minister, but I turned it down because I didn’t think it was right for someone who believes in the national unity of my country to make a deal with people who want to split the country up,”


More thoughts: Does anybody believe that the PM did not think that his words would become public? The guy with the video camera might have been a hint. This was a private event but not a top secret meeting with people sworn to secrecy and aside from the M word is there anything else in there that is new or that the PM has not said in the past? The answer is no.

Unlike this guy who likes to pretend and say one thing in public and another in private.


Feel free to comment on Ignatieff's non response to direct questions on a coalition.




Lets get it done. A Conservative majority is possible and we can make it happen.

Bob Rae lies about the coalition

Bob Rae was on the Dave Rutherford show earlier today and this is some of what he had to say.

Updated with better audio* and added document.

I see Bob Rae like his boss Michael Ignatieff likes to lie on the subject of the coalition. Too bad for him that we are paying attention.

Steve Janke has a run down of it here.



And here are 3 signatures. You decide whether or not this signed agreement would constitute a deal. A deal that formed a coalition whose goal it was to take the power of government.






* My apologies for the earlier volume problem as the video ran fine on my machine. So dear readers if you notice any major screw-ups like that on the blog please drop me a line in the comments.

Thanks Al

Liar!

Michael Ignatieff lies again. Ledevoir: ''But, let’s be clear, I’ve always spoken of arrangements, not of a coalition.''

Is there something in the water at the OLO or do all Liberal leaders think Canadians are stupid and are unable to remember anything.


First the signature:



Dec 1, 2008: "I support the [coalition] accord because it's fiscally responsible, it provides responsible economic leadership in tough times and it also conserves the basic principles of national unity, equality, that our party has always believed in." and upholds Dion as party leader until May. "We are at one, the three of us, that the only person who can lead the party is the duly elected leader of the party Mr. Stephane Dion,". “I stand at one with other parliamentary colleagues in believing that we need to present the alternative of a coalition.”

Dec 5, 2008: "Canadians can have confidence in a coalition, provided they know certain things are on the table and certain things are off it at all times. And they have our iron-clad assurance they we will govern in their best interest.

"I think this is what Canadian people pay us to do. They pay us to get it right, and I think we have to find a way out of this for all Canadians. I am convinced we can do this. We are up to it. "We are aware we are we are living historic moments. We are aware of the responsibility."

Dec 11, 2008:(Now as leader of the LPC) "I told the caucus this morning very clearly I am prepared to vote non confidence in this government and I am prepared to enter into a coalition government with our partners if that is what the Governor General asks me to do,"

Jan 21, 2009:"The choice is up to Mr. Harper," Ignatieff said after the meeting. "It's up to him to make the right decision and up to me to decide if he made it. A coalition is still a possibility . . . a coalition if necessary, but not necessarily, a coalition."

The man is a liar but I will entertain opinions to the contrary if you got something to back it up. So come on Liberal spin meisters; please explain to us all how this is not another bald faced lie from the leader of your party Michael Ignatieff. Oh and before the fun starts "because I say he isn't" won't cut it.


From the comments: a link to a Liberals view of Ignatieff's coalition problems, H/T Wilson
and anon gives us an example of Ardvark's Law in use.

They stab it with their steely knives but they just can't kill the beast

No matter how much they try, no matter how much they wish it would just go away, the coalition will live on well into the next election campaign.

“Attacking the Liberals so early could be dangerous for the NDP. In all likelihood there might be some sort of coalition government after the next election,” said Nelson Wiseman, a political scientist at the University of Toronto."

It still lives, and like or not it will be THE issue of the next election campaign. In fact the first shots have already been fired across the bow by the Conservatives as Democratic Reform Minister of State Steven Fletcher was quoted as calling for an end to political party subsidies.
Yes, those very same political subsidies that even the threat of cutting back in December caused the coalition to first form; although all the coalition partners deny that the cuts were the real reason, anyone with a brain knows it was the cuts to funding that was the real trigger.


As a little refresher Jack Layton reminds us all just why/how the coalition formed. BTW, one BIG question that has never been answered properly or even at all, is when did Jack Layton first discuss a coalition scenario with the Bloc? I guess that one will can be asked again during the campaign.




You can listen to the entire conference call here and pt 2 here.



So get ready Iggy because like it or not, here it comes again.


Oh, and for the first first journalist who sticks a microphone in Bob Rae's direction and asks him if he still thinks the coalition was a good idea, a free cup of coffee on me.

Ignatieff, Flaky on the Coalition.

This should get Ruby out of the blogs for a couple of days as Ignatieff again talks of the coalition. May 8, 2009:

Some highlights: If the proposed coalition of opposition parties had come to power last year it would have deeply and enduringly divided Canadians, says Michael Ignatieff.

“There was also a question concerning the legitimacy of the coalition that troubled me.” While he said the coalition was democratic he added it would nonetheless have given Canadians the feeling that the parties had "in some sense or another stolen power.”

“I felt it was very difficult to guarantee the necessary political stability during a time of crisis with three partners in a formal coalition,” “That was my first doubt. I couldn't guarantee the long-term stability of the coalition under the circumstances.”

Coming from a guy who said this Dec 1, 2008: The announcement comes only hours after the three Liberal leadership contenders said they would support Dion as the leader of a new government coalition with the NDP and the Bloc Quebecois. Speaking outside of the Liberal caucus meeting, Dominic LeBlanc, standing shoulder to shoulder with Bob Rae and Michael Ignatieff, said they all back the deal forged with the NDP.

"The accord that was presented to us received unanimous support and the other issue which is very important is we decided the only person and the best person to lead and form a coalition government is the elected leader of our party, the leader of the opposition Stephane Dion," LeBlanc said.

Ignatieff echoed his words, saying "I support the [coalition] accord because it's fiscally responsible, it provides responsible economic leadership in tough times and it also conserves the basic principles of national unity, equality, that our party has always believed in." and upholds Dion as party leader until May.

"We are at one, the three of us, that the only person who can lead the party is the duly elected leader of the party Mr. Stephane Dion," Ignatieff said.

You can watch Ignatieff here (video 15) ht Wilson.

This December 5, 2008 . "Mr. Harper's only chance for survival is to split the Liberal Party of Canada." "He will try to drive a wedge between us, and he will not succeed. Our party is united in its determination to face Mr. Harper down."

"Canadians can have confidence in a coalition, provided they know certain things are on the table and certain things are off it at all times. And they have our iron-clad assurance they we will govern in their best interest.

"I think this is what Canadian people pay us to do. They pay us to get it right, and I think we have to find a way out of this for all Canadians. I am convinced we can do this. We are up to it. "We are aware we are we are living historic moments. We are aware of the responsibility."

And this January 21, 2009 : "The choice is up to Mr. Harper," Ignatieff said after the meeting. "It's up to him to make the right decision and up to me to decide if he made it. A coalition is still a possibility . . . a coalition if necessary, but not necessarily, a coalition."

And with all the doubts that he now says that he was having about the coalition Ignatieff still managed to sign this:

This guy is too flaky to even be considered for the job of PM as his word and signature obviously mean squat.

Update: Dr. Roy in the comments brings up a very interesting point. If Iggy had doubts about the stability of the coalition back in December when he signed the agreement, he wasn't just lying to Canadians, he was also lying to the Governor General to get her to allow this coalition to take power claiming among other things that it would be stable enough to form the government.

Steve Janke doesn't mince words: Ignatieff is a liar. He also has an interesting point at the end of his blog entry asking when Ignatieff is going to thank the PM for proroguing Parliament and saving the country from an unstable coalition government involving "people who want to split my country up".

Update May 21: Coyne has similar thoughts.

Ignatieff says the Darndest Things.

"I have a fundamental disagreement with the Prime Minister about how he handles the country, that is I think he divides, as opposed to unites".

What the ...? How can Michael Ignatieff make a statement like that, which itself is intended to be divisive, about how the PM is being divisive and still manage to do it with a straight face knowing the Liberal record on divisive politics?

This is not something you would expect from a so called academic who is supposed to know Canadian politics to say; it is like he was out of the country or something for the last 27 years.....

Wait a minute.





Here is some more of what Ignatieff the Illegitimate* has been saying on this subject.

"For three years you have played province against province, group against group, region against region, individual against individual," referring to the PM.

"When your power was threatened last November you unleashed a national unity crisis and you saved yourself only by sending Parliament home.

Is Iggy saying that he actually does support the coalition with that statement? I get so confused with Ignatieff's position on this at times; but really what else could he be implying here other than he wished that the PM would have been tossed out by a coalition headed by Stephane Dion????

Update: Charles Adler has some eerily similar thoughts

* copyright The Anthill Institute.

$1,773,903

$1,773,903

The amount of money that the Liberal Party of Canada received from Elections Canada for the first quarter of the year.


It is also the amount of taxpayer money that the Liberal Party of Canada was not willing to give up under any circumstances and were willing to make a deal with the separatists in order to keep.


After all, they are "entitled" to it.



FYI: The Bloc, who according to Ignatieff "... are duly elected by Québec voters. They are not traitors, they are not the enemies of Canada." received $673,781 taxpayer dollars to carry on with their plans to tear up Canada.

It can be done using currently available technology

that wasn't available back in December 2008.

-----

From the all powerful Liberal Renewal Committee on one member, one vote:

"Fortunately, a cost-effective and truly democratic method is readily available. The principle of democratic representation can be extended to its ultimate limit by providing a direct vote to every member of the party using currently available technology."

Courtesy of Calgary Grit who added this:

"True...although it is somewhat amusing that many of the members of the Renewal Committee were arguing that this technology wasn't available back when Rae suggested doing something similar to this to pick the next leader..."


Zing!!!

Don't take my word for it....

"Why does the Liberal Party repeatedly continue to dis its atrophying membership, paying lip service to its relevance and importance through examination of "change" and "renewal" while at the same time solidifying control by the (interim) (unelected) Leader, the caucus and unelected officials? It's a contemptuous attitude - contemptuous of the membership surely, but contemptuous of democratic principles more certainly."

Read the rest for a Liberals take on the Ignatieff takeover of the LPC.

Ignatieff: The Bloc wants to tear up Canada.

We all knew it and we were ripped apart in the media when we said it.


Micheal Ignatieff: "“I could be sitting here as your prime minister, but I turned it down because I didn’t think it was right for someone who believes in the national unity of my country to make a deal with people who want to split the country up,”


I wonder if the media is going to give Ignatieff a pass on this one too?


Update: Oh how Iggy's tune has changed : Links from Andrew Coyne at Macleans .

Source: "Like them, he's a federalist, and said Canadians shouldn't fear the Bloc Quebecois' role in the opposition coalition, which also includes the New Democrats."

Source: "Bloc MPs are duly elected by Québec voters. They are not traitors, they are not the enemies of Canada."


I thought that the Daily Gleaner article was so good it deserves to be reprinted in its entirety.

Read it yourself for a little understanding on just how Ignatieff really thinks and how he used this entire charade as an excuse to seize power of the Liberal Party for his OWN benefit.

SAINT JOHN - Stephen Harper will have to destroy the Liberal Party to keep his job as prime minister, and that's not going to happen, Michael Ignatieff said Friday.

In Saint John for meetings with local business and political leaders, the Liberals' prospective quarterback said that not even banishing Parliament to a seven-week recess will help Harper save his government.

"Mr. Harper's only chance for survival is to split the Liberal Party of Canada," Ignatieff said in his first significant interview since Ottawa's descent into a constitutional crisis.

"He will try to drive a wedge between us, and he will not succeed. Our party is united in its determination to face Mr. Harper down."

Ignatieff is the most popular Liberal leadership candidate in a race that includes fellow Ontarian Bob Rae and Beausejour MP Dominic LeBlanc. He arrived in Saint John on Thursday night and was shepherded around the city by former MP Paul Zed, chairman of his 2006 leadership campaign.

"As soon as I left Ottawa, I could feel the stress leaving me with every mile," said Ignatieff, whose great-grandfather, Sir George Parkin, was from Parkindale, near Moncton.

"I can't walk through the airport, go to the supermarket or stop to get a bottle of wine without people saying, 'What is going on?'

"This is a special event in Canadian history."

His ability to govern fading by the minute, Harper asked Gov. Gen. Michaelle Jean on Thursday to prorogue, or temporarily suspend, Parliament. The manoeuvre allowed the embattled prime minister to escape a no-confidence vote that would have scuttled his leadership.

But Ignatieff said nothing will save Harper from that fate. He said a coalition of opposing parties will ultimately topple the Conservatives, who retained a minority government in the Oct. 14 election. The House of Commons is scheduled to re-convene during the last week in January.

"This is an extraordinary situation," said Ignatieff, who lost the last leadership vote to Stephane Dion. "The prime minister has had to go begging the Governor General to get off the hook. But he is the one who got us to where we are today.

"He deliberately provoked the opposition and created a political crisis, and a national unity crisis, and that is unworthy of a prime minister.

"People are furious at him, and they should be."

The son of a Canadian diplomat and the grandson of a Russian count, Ignatieff was a campaign volunteer for Lester B. Pearson in 1965, and three years later was a national youth organizer and party delegate for Pierre Trudeau.

Like them, he's a federalist, and said Canadians shouldn't fear the Bloc Quebecois' role in the opposition coalition, which also includes the New Democrats.

"Democracy hinges on there being confidence in the government, and there isn't any at present," Ignatieff said. "In fact, Mr. Harper has managed almost the impossible, by getting parties that disagree on fundamentals to join together.

"But there are limits to what the Liberal Party will allow. The Liberal Party believes in fiscal responsibility and a competitive business environment, but it will never trade away national unity or trade away the authority of government.

"What's outrageous is for a party like ours to seek to end a constitutional impasse caused by Mr. Harper, and to be discredited as traitors. That's terrible. He crossed the line when he did that.

"His rhetoric has to stop, and stop for good."

Animosity has grown between the Conservatives and the Opposition since Harper called a fall election, a year ahead of schedule, in hope of winning a majority. The Tories ended up gaining seats, but in the last two weeks completely lost control of the House of Commons as deadlock devolved into disaster.

Ignatieff said the crisis was triggered by what the Opposition perceived as government attacks on collective bargaining and pay equity, and by a proposition by Harper to do away with financing political parties.

"You can't make a gesture like that and expect to have the co-operation of the House," Ignatieff said. "But that's typical Harper. He tried to jam us and we refused, and it was game over at that point.

"To understand the rage, you have to understand that this is the continuation of a buildup of accumulating resentments. It was a long time coming."

The last straw, Ignatieff said, was when the prime minister failed to announce an economic recovery plan that was to the Opposition's liking.

"We were anxiously awaiting the government's economic stimulus package, and we sat there in stunned disbelief over the absence of any economic stimulus," Ignatieff said. "Like in Sherlock Holmes, when the dog didn't bark, everyone sat around and looked at one another, dumbfounded."

Ignatieff said the coalition has already worked, by forcing Harper to back down on collective bargaining, pay equity for women and on party financing.

"That's pretty good for a week in Parliament," he said.

Educated at the University of Toronto, Oxford, Cambridge and Harvard, Ignatieff's ancestors were among the early settlers in Parkindale, which is in Albert County. His great-grandfather, the founder of the Rhodes Trust, served as a headmaster at schools in Bathurst and Fredericton.

"I've got some New Brunswick in me," he said.

Ignatieff said his constituency office in Toronto received 2,000 e-mails one day this week from Canadians concerned about the current conundrum. He said it can be resolved by a government-run coalition.

"In our system, to govern, a government has to have the confidence of the House," he said. "We have to talk to each other, not past each other, and that isn't happening now. We owe that to the Canadian people.

"Canadians can have confidence in a coalition, provided they know certain things are on the table and certain things are off it at all times. And they have our iron-clad assurance they we will govern in their best interest.

"I think this is what Canadian people pay us to do. They pay us to get it right, and I think we have to find a way out of this for all Canadians. I am convinced we can do this. We are up to it.

"We are aware we are we are living historic moments. We are aware of the responsibility."

Funny how all of this has now changed once he got what HE wanted out of it; not for the good of the people of Canada but rather for himself.

If this is not proof that he only cares about what is good for Iggy and that he will say or do anything to achieve his goals, than I do not know what would be.

In 9 months time....

If in 9 months time* the poll numbers look positive enough for the Liberals that they decide to pull the plug and try to force an election.

Will Jack and Gilles play along?

And if you think the answer is yes, could you offer up some reasons as to why you think they would do so after their 'coalition leader' Iggy just threw them both under the political bus?


As most adulterers know, sometimes those old bed partners can come back to haunt you.



The love fest has already started.

From the comments:

"Ignatieff will turn 65 and get his pension before we see an election,
... oh no, wait, he can't get a pension, he's never worked in Canada ..."Thomas Mulcair NDP MP.

The latest addition to the NDP web site. "This is the first important public decision Mr. Ignatieff has made in his life. And what he decided to do is stick with Mr. Dion's unfortunate habit of voting for Stephen Harper. What you and I learned today is that we can't rely on Mr. Ignatieff to oppose Mr. Harper."

Update: A day later: NDP radio ads appear. Ad #1 Ad #2

That was fast. You might think that these were ready before the budget came out. Nahhh, that would make no sense.

* an arbitrary but perhaps realistic date.

A little Jack Layton spin for your enjoyment.

Jack Layton "In today's budget, he prioritized $60 billion in corporate tax cuts and only $1.15 billion for the unemployed,"

That is very interesting Jack because as part of your deal with the devils of the coalition you had already agreed to totally reverse your position and now would support the Liberal view on the proposed Conservative cut to corporate taxes and that they would remain unaltered in a coalition budget.

Funny how with the coalition idea slipping away to the trash heap of Canadian political history that he now tries to spin it differently.

Or maybe he knows something that the rest of us don't.



Speaking of spin. Does this look like the future NDP line of attack on Iggy and the Libs?

Jack Layton: "He has a choice to make. It's either to prop up the Harper government and allow it to continue in a fashion that is clearly wrong-headed, or to pursue the agenda laid out by the coalition, which would create jobs for the future and would transform our economy and would really protect the people who are suffering the most from the economic crisis."


Update: As I said, it happened and Jack is already going hard after Iggy. I will just put this quote here because Layton seems to want to now use the term coalition as a negative when up until this morning it was the greatest thing in the world. ""We have a new coalition now on Parliament Hill. It's a coalition between Mr. Harper and Mr. Ignatieff," Mr. Layton told reporters.

This guy will say anything if he thinks it will benefit him.

Pulling the rug out from under the coalition.

Heard any of these before?

Stephen Harper does not understand that he did not get a majority.

The Conservatives fail to recognize the seriousness of Canada's economic situation.

He (Harper)was given a minority, and he refused to work with the other parties, he had 38% of the vote and he's trying to govern like he had 100% of the power, he's the one who's got democracy wrong, not us.

Given the critical situation facing our fellow citizens and the refusal and inability of the Harper government to deal with this critical situation, the opposition parties have decided that it was now time to take action.

The Conservatives chose partisan games based on ideological beliefs instead of considering the interests of Quebecers and Canadians.

The Conservatives must work with the other parties.

The Conservatives divisive measures that were making it hard for Parliament to work together .


Now tell me how a budget that does address the concerns of the coalition, is a real response to the current situation, is perhaps so non "conservative" or ideological that it is pissing off many so called conservatives, that the Government invited the other parties to participate in it's creation, is ready with cash immediately for the economy, is popular among the electorate, and is pretty much doing exactly the opposite of what the above quotes claim, could be voted against by the people who made the above statements?

It can't be, or at least it can't be honestly unless those above statements were just more of the same political rhetoric that we have seen so often in the past, and that Canadians are getting tired of reading about.

There has been plenty of talk about how the PM has abandoned the principles of conservatism, and that he should stick to his guns by not increasing spending etc. Fortunately those so called conservatives that are doing most of the criticizing are not the PM as this type of thing would be playing right into the hands of Layton and the coup crew who would be overjoyed if the PM were that stupid or that ideologically rigid. It would be spun as proving that the coalition is a good idea because the PM does not understand or care about Canadians and is not willing to make things work. They are not going to get that chance.

The opposition gets out foxed by Harper again and they have not yet figured it out.

The budget will pass, the coalition will be dead with the partners pointing fingers at one another in blame, good honest government will continue, and when an election eventually is called the proof of who compromised and was willing to make government work, and who was only playing political games will be even clearer than it was when the NDP/Bloc/Liberal hidden agenda was first revealed back in early December.