Sunday, March 27, 2011

Andrew Coyne's Leap of Faith?

Martin government to fall: Coalition Version 2004?
Andrew Coyne is trying to convince us, Stephen Harper leader of official opposition was in a similar arrangement  after a tweet summit with staff in Gilles Duceppe office. Andrew also asks us to take the word from David McGuinty that the Liberals won't re-enter in the coalition agreement that does not expire until 2011. Mr.  Coyne, for the sake of clarity, I suggest you arrange a video interview with the 2004 conspirators Gilles, Layton to answer a few basic questions. They can provide proof the letter sent to the GG in 2004 was similar.
In 2008 every MP in the proposed Lib-NDP coalition government was REQUIRED to sign onto the terms contained in the coalition accord and Ignatieff as deputy leader signed it last.  There was no effort by any leader in their party to have their MPs endorse the letter sent to the GG on the "alleged" coalition of the opposition parties in 2004.

Does this mean in 2004 Layton, Duceppe felt their MPs signatures were not necessary?
It might only be me but the Jean Chretien explanation of proof leaves me with several unanswered questions. I was able to find a picture of Harper, Duceppe, Layton next to each others cooperating for a photo op. Bonus:BBQ Martin to get grilled?

Can I expect our media provide actual proof before drawing conclusions or is creating controversy for your publication sufficient?
  • Telephone conversations from senior staff
  • Briefing notes draft letter about make up of coalition government
  • MPs signing off from each party
  • Mechanism for dispute resolution by this arrangement in 2004
  • Power sharing agreement to avoid a no confidence vote, a termination date, renewal clause
Is it possible Conservatives did enter or negotiate with the Bloc or NDP into setting up a coalition accord similar? Yes, but before I can be convinced Stephen Harper did agree to a coalition with the Bloc and NDP I need proof. Waving that signed letter sent to the GG by Gilles or Jack for the next 36 days does not meet my standard of proof.

No comments: