Debunking Flanagan

Tom Flanagan, Stephen Harper's former campaign manager and author of "Harper's Team", gave his thoughts on the 2004 letter.

Below is also a discussion I'm having on Facebook regarding this. 

• Hatrock
  The article and what Tom said is still speculation. There's no real proof here of actually proposing a formal coalition.
  

  
  
• 
  

  
  

  Steve
  Sure, but he's not just criticizing the Liberals for the formal coalition. He's criticizing them for being willing to lead a government upheld by the Bloc (which he was, by every account but his own, contemplating in 2004) and for trying to form a government without a plurality of seats (which he was, by every account but his own, contemplating in 2004).
  
  I've got no horse in this race, but there is no way to frame this that doesn't involve raging hypocrisy.
  

  
  
• Martin
  Ah, but while 04 was a coalition, this is a RECKLESS COALITION. Or so I hear.
  
  
• Hatrock
  Someone please show actual proof. Thank you.
  
  
• 
  

  RC
  Harper just wants to make us forget that he prorogued parliament to prevent the elected representatives of the people do what is done in a multiplicity of democracies. I say, ding him iwith the memory of how far he went to prevent parliament from working to his disadvantage.
  
  
• 
  

  Steve
  

  Mike: The notion of "proof" requires a threshold, and I sense you're asking for one that's not even theoretically reachable. What we have is the following:
  1. Three people who were in a position to know, one of whom was and is a supporter of Harper, say that Harper was seeking to become (or at least contemplating the possibility of becoming) Prime Minister without a plurality of seats.
  2. Harper signed his name to a letter urging the Governor General to consider options other than an immediate dissolution of Parliament in the event that the Martin government was defeated on a motion of non-confidence. Can you offer a plausible interpretation of this letter that doesn't involve Harper contemplating the possibility of becoming Prime Minister despite lacking a plurality of seats?
  
  
• 
  

  Duncan
  In regards to proof. Hasn't Gilles Duceppe been waving a letter around talking about a coalition with the Bloc with Harper's signature on it?

Still no proof, just speculated "contemplation"? Sorry folks, that's not good enough.

2004 was not a coalition and Harper was not proposing that the then three opposition parties form one and take over the government by a vote of non-confidence and upsurping Canadian tradition and the will of voters.  Ignatieff/Layton/Duceppe almost did in 2008 and will try it again if the Conservatives win a minority again, otherwise, why have a vote of non-confidence and go to the polls when you know you're not going to win.