Login / RegisterFormer aide Tom Flanagan's comments about 2004 coalition undermine Stephen Harper's version
Stephen Harper's former chief of staff has suggested that the Conservative leader reached a "co-opposition accord" with other parties in 2004 with a view to possibly becoming prime minister without an election.
In an interview with the National Post, Tom Flanagan said this was a “perfectly legitimate exercise” to determine if there was “common ground for the Conservatives to undertake a minority government.”
The Liberals were clinging to power in a minority government then headed by Paul Martin.
At the time, Harper, NDP Leader Jack Layton, and Bloc Quebecois Leader Gille Duceppe signed a letter to then-governor general Adrienne Clarkson urging her to consider all options.
“I can’t see what other point there would have been in writing the letter except to remind everybody that it was possible to change the government in that set of circumstances without an election,” Flanagan told the National Post.
Then, the paper quoted him saying: “It could have been interpreted as a warning shot across the bow of Mr. Martin, but again, it’s not effective unless it’s alluding to a real possibility that this could happen.”
Harper has claimed during the current election campaign that he had no intention in 2004 of becoming prime minister without an election. Layton and Duceppe have ridiculed this assertion, with Duceppe going so far as to call Harper a liar.
The falling-out between Flanagan and Harper
Flanagan, a University of Calgary academic, and Harper used to be close friends and political allies.
However, author Lawrence Martin revealed in his 2010 book, Harperland: The Politics of Control, that this friendship ended after Harper's staff tried to stop Flanagan from writing a book called Harper's Team: Behind the Scenes in the Conservative Rise to Power.
Ironically, according to Harperland, Harper had fed Flanagan information about former Reform Party of Canada leader Preston Manning for an earlier book.
Eventually, Flanagan showed a draft of Harper's Team to the prime minister's office, which requested and received extensive revisions, including the removal of numerous anecdotes.
"But Harper was still angry—and his close and important relationship with Flanagan ended on account of it," Martin wrote. "Flanagan had little sympathy for Harper's thin-skinned attitude."
Flanagan is quoted in Harperland as saying: "The problem wasn't that I revealed anything that was harmful...just that I had written the book at all."
Follow Charlie Smith on Twitter at twitter.com/csmithstraight.
Just something to point out... In Canada, you NEVER become prime minister VIA election. You become an MP by election. Prime minister by being selected as teh head of the party that has the support to govern by the majority of the house. Being Prime Minister has little to do with elections (internal party processes notwithstanding)
On this issue, as on many others, the public has been poorly served by political journalists who ought to be familiar with the many cases in Canada and abroad in which coalition governments have been formed following an election, including BC's Liberal-Conservative coalition government of 1941-1952. And most journalists continue to overlook the important precedent established in Ontario in 1985 when the second-largest party in the legislature (the Liberals) joined with the NDP to oust the Conservative government of Frank Miller and then proceeded to form a new government, without the need for fresh elections.
The MSM has been negligent too in failing to expose Harper's hypocrisy on this issue. Harper has long been on record as accepting the legitimacy of an Ontario style change of government on the floor of the legislature, as evidenced by this interview he gave before becoming leader of the Canadian Alliance:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDTmpXj9vyM
I note today, with all credit to the National Post, the head line has been changed to more accurately reflect Flanagan's comments, and also the facts of what actually transpired in 2004 Gilles Duceppe's lie not withstanding. (I think Duceppe's lie has been dealt with sufficiently with the release of the video of events of the time on CPAC yesterday) - we await for the CBC and CTV to also expose Duceppe's lie and inform Canadians of the truth and facts which I thought was part of their mission. Should we hold our breath - you answer that - if it is something we can and should expect from the CBC and CTV.
To: randy_boswell@nic.edu
Subject: How deceptive this headline is
Date: Mon, 28 Mar 2011 20:08:29 -0500
The headlline on your article is
Ex-adviser says Harper had coalition plan in 2004
which doesn’t jive with the essence of your article which is summarized
The new headline in the National Post today is
Posted
Ex-Harper advisor says Tory minority was 2004 option
http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/03/28/ex-adviser-says-harper-had-coali...
“It is possible that you could change prime minister without having an election,.....If you could put Stephen Harper — and this is some of the thinking of Conservatives — in 24 Sussex Drive, even for five or six months without an election, it would make the Conservative option much more palatable to Canadians because they’d see that they don’t have horns and a tail.”
So here they are, talking about putting Harper into the Prime Minister's position, EVEN THOUGH HE CAME IN SECOND. How HYPOCRITICAL is that???