I believe we owe many thanks to poster "DBSmith" who, in the comment thread of a Globe & Mail article by Jane Taber dated April 21, 2011, succinctly wrote:
"Premier Wall has stepped into the fray, He, like us, has had enough.But there is something that Premier Wall did not go on to say. He left that for us to work out for ourselves. You and I know that it takes two (or more) to tango, so I believe that Premier Wall's last paragraph could easily have said:
Ignatieff is plotting a coup, and this reality so incensed the Saskatchewan premier he was moved to publicly condemn Ignatieff for his treachery.
"The notion that Mr. Ignatieff may choose to not recognize the democratic result of the election and may try to seize power with the support of the other parties, including a party dedicated to the breakup of Canada, is offensive to me and, I believe, to most fair-minded Canadians," said Wall. "Voters should choose the government, not separatist MPs.
"This election" he added, "was caused by a confidence vote over 'contempt for Parliament,' (and) I can think of no greater contempt for Parliament or for Canadian voters than the spectre of a party leader refusing to recognize the democratic outcome of the election."
Despite stating categorically he would not seek a coalition to overthrow another minority under Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Ignatieff was talking overthrow which, if successful, would still need a coalition.
So let's call a spade a spade and not a shovel."
"This election" he added, "was caused by a confidence vote over 'contempt for Parliament,' (and) I can think of no greater contempt for Parliament or for Canadian voters than opposition parties, including a separatist party, plotting and executing a coup to overthrow a government".There. It is said. A real scandal of epic proportions ... the shameless, attempted hijacking of a Canadian election. Forget AdScam. This is immensely more serious.
How did we get here, to this point in time ... to this watershed in manipulation of Canadian voters? I believe that this all started before the first coalition was announced in December 2008, after that year's election. The seeds for today's coup were certainly planted then, if not before.
We were lucky that the December coup failed. Just lucky, that's all. They had hoped to stampede it through the electorate and Parliament, but they made a fatal optics and communication mistake. They included a grinning Gilles Duceppe in their cabal photograph. And that set off the (proper) hue and cry that has persisted to this day. And made "coalition" a dirty word.
For this election in 2011, though, the conspirators' tactics were sneakier. Even at the onset, polling showed that absent a disaster during the campaign, the Conservatives would be returned with a minimum of 135 seats. This was known to everyone with an IQ greater than a fence post. No matter, if either the Liberals or NDP couldn't obtain a minority themselves, there was always Plan B. A coalition to hijack the result of a Conservative minority on May 2nd.
So the phony issue of "contempt of parliament" was manufactured and broadcast to Canadians as the greatest travesty of parliament since, well, since something. But there was this pesky "coalition thingy" that Mr. Harper kept reminding Canadians of. No problem.
First poo-poo it, then deny it in less than convincing terms, then craft an official position that could have been written by a firm that manufactures Swiss cheese. Finally, the messaging changed to, "it's perfectly legal, very parliamentary". But this only raised the suspicion that while it might be in the best parliamentary tradition, it certainly wasn't the moral outcome that many Canadians had come to expect in THEIR vision of democracy.
Harper wouldn't let the coalition concern go, and neither did Peter Mansbridge in his interview with Michael Ignatieff. And finally the other shoe dropped this week. It wasn't a "coalition", said Ignatieff; it would be an informal agreement, a more formal agreement, a less formal agreement, an issue-by-issue agreement, a handshake, whatever, just don't call it a coalition ... that will scare Canadians. It sure does, Ignatieff, when one of the parties by necessity, in order to make the scheme work, is the Bloc. We've heard that song before, and it grates on our ears.
So here we are today. The coup conspiracy ... long time in the making ... exposed. Laid out in all its ugliness, its self-centeredness, its presumption of entitlement to the crown by hook or by crook. With at least three co-conspirators, probably more. For this scheme to work, at least three parties had to be onside and committed from the beginning. So replacing Ignatieff with Layton as the object of affection only rewards Plan C of the conspiracy. There is no Plan D (Duceppe) in their grand vision, I hope.
It's not the first time that the Liberal Party has engaged in outright manipulation of votes. In the 2008 election it was quite obvious that Stephane Dion and the Liberals had entered into an "informal agreement" with Elizabeth May of the Greens by not running a Liberal candidate against her in her attempt to gain a seat in Peter McKay's riding. In the late stages of the election, when it was apparent that another Conservative minority government might result, well, let's see what the thoroughly incensed National Post wrote on October 16, 2008 regarding "May's delusions of grandeur", or betrayal of Canadian voters:
"... In the campaign's final days, Ms. May shamelessly shilled for the Liberals, pleading with voters to cast ballots for Mr. Dion's party if that would stop the Conservatives from being re-elected. She turned her party into a false front for a competitor, in other words. It was a disgraceful move, one that made fools of all those (such as this editorial board) who argued she should be admitted to the televised debates ...".Do they really think that Canadians are so stupid, so easy to manipulate and gull, that they can do this a second time, on an immensely grander scale, and think they can get away with it?
And get us to pay for it, over and over again, at $300 million a pop per election? Well, sure, it's not as if it's their money, you know. It's "other people's money", the best kind. Augmented by those wonderful $2/vote subsidies lifted from Canadians wallets each year, in the name of democracy. And they nearly got away with it.
But doesn't a conspiracy require a broad range of members to pull all this off? In my mind it does and, looking at the overall picture, it's apparent to me that a significant portion of the highly-concentrated media in Canada may have been prime contributors to this conspiracy. It's even possible that the Ghosts of Buzz Hardgrove Past may be involved too, since the CAW are targeting 50 ridings of the Conservatives with some gusto and determination. Not to mention other vested-interest groups such as the old "Think Twice" brigade in current incarnations.
In past elections, the Toronto Star has been unabashedly pro-Liberal, and the CBC has just been its normal pro-left, "progressive view of the world, all Canadians should think like us" broadcaster.
This time, however, the Globe and Mail has been obscenely pro-Liberal from the onset in my estimation. Every Liberal talking point and "expose" breathlessly announced and dissected and approved. Every Conservative action and announcement cast negatively, with occasional dispatches from the field about the NDP injected so as to provide some semblance of "balance". Of course, when the Liberals began to crash and burn after the debates, the Globe's coverage and promotion of the Liberal brand intensified greatly, it seemed, and became more shrill and obviously more silly.
Now, it appears, the Globe may have decided to throw the losing Liberals under the bus, and to move to Plan C (Layton) to shill for the NDP, since Ignatieff and his strategists have made a mess of what should have been your average, run-of-the-mill coup. This may be only a fleeting impression, and Jane Taber's article which I reference at the commencement of this post may only be a one-off. Time will tell if it's an anomaly, or a shift in support to the back-up member of the coup/coalition.
CTV NewsNet also is culpable in my view, as is the obnoxious and biased Evan Solomon on CBC. Much less so than the Globe, though, which takes the cake as the unofficial newsletter of the Liberal Party of Canada. Also complicit may be The Canadian Press, a "news-gathering/shaping" organ jointly owned by the Globe & Mail, TorStar and, I believe, LaPresse.
Only the National Post, and Sun chain with it's newest baby SunTV, has been able to shed light on the edges of this conspiracy. SunTV's creation and start-up was viciously opposed by existing broadcasters, media giants, the "intelligencia" like Margaret Atwood and others ... as the greatest catastrophe that could possibly befall Canada (translation: a viewpoint that wasn't "progressive"). Scratch a "progressive" and you will always find an intolerant bigot. Sorry that the NP and SunTV spoiled your "coup party", folks.
And remember, TV (and therefore political reporting and biases) propagates across all regions of Canada. As do many of their print/media stories. It's the price we have paid, and are now paying in spades, to have allowed a very select number of companies to control the creation, distribution and presentation of news (including political) reporting across our nation. It doesn't take much thinking to realize the implication of this concentration on our lives and on our votes. The next government should clean up this cabal of incestuous "news" shapers or manipulators.
So be careful who you vote for on May 2nd. It may not be the party that you think you are supporting. You may be voting for Uncle Gilles.
[Update: Take a gander at who has registered as a Third-Party, so far. Yup, the CAW, Catch 22 Campaign, Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada, Public Service Alliance of Canada, The Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada, etc. Shades of the old anti-Conservative Think Twice Coalition, of which Elizabeth May was a member, I believe. Nothing like vested interests to spur on the Liberals ... or the NDP.]