Re: OK. Harper's dead meat...
 

Exactly - Major was the candidate who emerged when it was clear that Mrs T couldn't win and an "anyone but Hessletine" candidate had to be found. No doubt he was extremely astute in positioning himself for that scenario but he didn't pull the trigger.

Re: OK. Harper's dead meat...
 

I don't think that matters - he took over from her as PM. Few people would have pegged him as a candidate beforehand. I was simply pointing out that if there's a challenge to Harper's leadership a successful candidate may not be one of the identified front runners. In Thatcher's case everyone assumed that would be Heseltine, especially after Geoffrey Howe had effectively ruled himself out with his resignation speech (that indirectly precipitated the whole thing). Indeed Major didn't even run as a candidate in the first round ballot, and many thought that Douglas Hurd was a stronger candidate in the second round. Although Major had served as both foreign secretary and chancellor of the exchequer, he'd had relatively little time in either role.

Re: OK. Harper's dead meat...
 

I don't think he was even that astute in positioning himself, simply the least worst option at the time. Lucky, basically.

Re: OK. Harper's dead meat...
 

This is the way one Ottawa journalist framed the issue this morning.

The PMO is not denying the meeting between harper, Duffy and Wright took place in February. All are agreed that Harper told Duffy to pay back the $90,000 expenses.

Harper then claimed - in Parliament and outside - that he knew nothing more about the matter until he heard on the news in May that Wright had repaid the expenses on Duffy's behalf.

Initially he claimed that it was purely a private arrangement between Duffy and Wright. That has proven to be untrue as the documents handed over by Wright to the RCMP show that several members of the PMO, the Tory leadership in the Senate, and a full bevy of lawyers, were involved in getting the deal done. That bit of Duffy's story is demonstrably true.

That ...er ... misinterpretation of the truth didn't stick to Harper. Now we are being asked to accept that the notoriously controlling and micro-managing Harper did nothing at all to follow up on the issue. Absolutely nothing, despite it being considered a crucial political issue for the Tory base.

As far as parliamentary reporters are concerned it is simply not credible

Re: OK. Harper's dead meat...
 

...and let's not forget that it wasn't Airbus, Sponsorship or the Watergate break-in that did for, respectively, Mulroney, Chretien and Nixon.

In each case it was a botched cover up.

Re: OK. Harper's dead meat...
 

I think that's the only real issue relevant to Harper. Bill Clinton balanced on the tightrope pretty well.

This is a good example of "excessive prudence" regarding expenses........

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worl...l-funders.html

Re: OK. Harper's dead meat...
 

Re: OK. Harper's dead meat...
 

And let's not forget that Nixon got the US out of Vietnam, Chretien kept Canada out of Iraq, and Mulroney...... oh that bastard, Mulroney gave us the GST.:)
PS: Novo, it wasn't Chretien that was axed, but Paul Martin, and with hindsight that was a mistake. He said he didn't know anything about all those payments, and if we could prove he did, he'd resign. The inquiry proved him innocent but we didn't believe it and voted him out. And got Harper. Hindsight being 20-20 and all....

Re: OK. Harper's dead meat...
 

Consumption taxes are good, are they not?

Re: OK. Harper's dead meat...
 

Thanks for correction. :) And, since my recall is clearly less than perfect I went back and re-listened to the Wallin - Mansbridge interview.

http://www.cbc.ca/newsblogs/peterman...interview.html

It'll be interesting to hear her again this afternoon. I don't think she'll be so kind to Harper and the PMO this time.

Re: OK. Harper's dead meat...
 

Previous inconsistent statements affect the credibility of a witness, don't they?

Re: OK. Harper's dead meat...
 

First of all Harper denies the allegations, so it will depend on whether a suitable alternative appears in the Conservative Party and pushes for a change and at the moment I have no idea who that would be. Kenney is too close to Harper for example.

At the moment I think the likely outcome of the 2015 election would be a tory minority govt and if that happens there will be another election shortly thereafter. An NDP/Liberal coalition is not out of the question, unlike last time that would be seen as the will of the people.

The problem is that the NDP is hopeless and hasn't capitalized on their gains in the last election and the Liberals are too far gone at the moment to come back to a win, not to a majority win anyway.

Re: OK. Harper's dead meat...
 

I don't think the debate is about the 2015 election; it's about whether Harper will be leading the Conservative party into that election.

If (and I acknowledge it's quite a big if at present, although by no means beyond the bounds of possibility) something coming out of this sorry mess ends up in court, presumably Harper will have to testify under oath. In which case, to borrow a Churchillian phrase, he may be found to have been "at some risk of terminological inexactitude" in his dealings with Parliament. I wouldn't have thought a prime ministership could withstand that - again, not because of the initial problem, but because of the botched attempt to cover up and deny knowledge.

In which case it becomes open season for the rest of the Tory caucus. Flaherty has been the most consistent performer, but he's probably not healthy enough to stand. Of the other candidates, McKay, Kenney and Baird seem the most likely. Baird made a "categorical" statement a couple of years ago that he was uninterested in ever becoming party leader. That strikes me as politician-speak for "I intend to be the next leader of my party."

Re: OK. Harper's dead meat...
 

What is it you are accusing Harper of doing here? Agreeing to Duffy fiddling the expenses; providing Duffy the money to enable him to repay the expenses; or having personal knowledge of how the saga was dealt with?

I believe that Harper was present at the meetings he has accepted he attended. I believe that it would be foolhardy of Harper for him to have had any further involvement (he seems far too astute for such antics) but I accept that his lieutenants likely knew exactly what is was he wanted and saw to it that this occurred. It appears to me that he can remove the whip from whomever he wishes to. Is that really newsworthy or worthy of investigation?

I have to admit that I haven't been following this issue closely but it seems to me that: Duffy claimed some expenses; These expenses went through the appropriate channels before being paid; Someone believed something fishy had taken place; Someone provided money to Duffy to enable him to repay expenses reimbursed that he believed had been appropriately reimbursed; Some people believe the PM should hang for this. Have I missed anything?

Re: OK. Harper's dead meat...
 

What I am accusing Harper of doing is neither here nor there. What Duffy and Wallin have come as close as they dare to accusing Harper of doing is lying about his lack of knowledge of, or involvement in, the threats to have them thrown out of the Senate unless they bow to his will, and in Duffy's case of lying about his lack of involvement in or knowledge of the "scenario" of the $90k cheque written by Wright. If there is convincing evidence that Harper was a party to those negotiations - which he has categorically and frequently denied on the floor of the House - then that is a very serious matter indeed.

Threats to remove the whip are one thing: threats to have a Senator hounded out of office altogether, threatening their livelihood, is quite another. And if he has abused Parliament by repeatedly telling untruths on the floor of the Chamber, he cannot continue to sit as an MP, let alone as PM.