He might try to say he never actually made a concerted effort to form a government, and just reminded the Governor General that she could call on him to form a government. Unless he wants us to believe that he had taken to the habit of writing letters to the Governor General reminding them of their powers, this defense is worthless. He clearly had the intention of having a good shot of forming a government, despite having "lost" an election.
The worst lie he uttered today came when he reminded us that the "other guys" tried forming government despite having lost an election, and that "more importantly, in this election, they say they will." Someone needs to buy him hearing aids and new glasses. How could he have missed Michael Ignatieff's clear refusal of this option? Although the other parties have not ruled it out, they most certainly have not said that they WILL try to form government in a coalition.
It stands to common sense that he could not have possibly missed this. It stands to common sense that he could not legitimately believe that the other guys have said that after this election, if the Conservatives win the most seats, they will try to form government anyway. Instead, he has taken to repeating lies for the benefit of his base, and to instil some vague sentiment of fear in the Canadian electorate. Never mind that this fear is completely unfounded. As Harper himself has recognised, coalitions are legitimate forms of government under our system.
Today, Harper lied. There is no other way to put it. There is no room for such euphemisms as "he misled the people", "he didn't tell the truth", "he ommitted certain facts". If he has fallen to lying to the Canadian people to secure our support, what more reason do we need to kick him out? Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers If you liked this post, please vote for my blog at Canadian Blogosphere
That letter from 2004 had nothing in it regarding a time frame of coalition co-operation, cabinet seats to be delgated, or any other terms of coalition cooperation.
ReplyDeleteIn addition, during that press conference in 2004 after the letter in question, Layton said it wasn't a coalition, Duceppe said it wasn't a coalition, and Harper said it wasn't a coalition. Shall I bother posting a video link from CPAC to that effect that we both know exists?
On the other hand the one in 2008 expressly used the term "coalition", and had all the terms of such expressed therein. The Liberal leader at the time expressly said no to a coalition before hand, and then promptly tried to form one anyway after the election. Ignatieff has flip-flopped back and forth several times support/non-support since signing his name to indicate support for a coalition. So how can we possibly be expected to believe anything the Liberals say in this regard? We simply can't.
Michael, I never said that the 2004 letter suggested a coalition. I said that it did suggest that Harper would form a government, with the support of the opposition parties. That is not a coalition. And, according to Harper's criteria for losing an election (ie not having the most seats), he had lost the election. He has tried to form government when he had "lost" an election. No way around it.
ReplyDeletehi!....
ReplyDeleteThis is the precise weblog for anybody who needs to seek out out about this topic. You notice so much its almost arduous to argue with you. You positively put a brand new spin on a subject that's been written about for years. Nice stuff, simply nice!
ReplyDeleteWhat you're saying is completely true. I know that everybody must say the same thing, but I just think that you put it in a way that everyone can understand. I'm sure you'll reach so many people with what you've got to say.
ReplyDeleteI hope you will keep on submitting new articles or blog posts & thank you for sharing your great experience with us.
ReplyDelete