Wednesday, June 09, 2010

And the coalition talk continues...

It's great, isn't it? That this coalition talk has had the legs it does?

I've theorized that it's been Bob Rae in the background who's been keeping this flame alive.  Why?  Well, with Michael Ignatieff's low poll numbers, and the penchant for Liberals to continually drool at gaining power again, they'll do anything to get there.  Including supposed high-level full-out merger talks.

Was this coalition banter propped by Liberals and Dippers who point out that recently in Britain, Conservatives and Liberal Democrats formed a coalition government, so why can't it work here with Liberals and Dippers?

Ah, but there's the difference ... UK Conservatives WON, where the Lib-Dip coalition of losers, as our Prime Minister so pointed out, did not.  The UK Conservatives had the most seats and it should be their choice who they want to form a coalition with, if any.

In Canada, Harper's Conservatives WON the last election with the most seats.  They've just chosen not to form a coalition with any of the other caucuses.  And with the way these parties have fumbled in opposition, and how unprepared they are to fight an election, why would you?

Polls are out showing that a Liberal-Democrat coalition/merger, under certain leaders, yadda yadda, would beat the Conservatives.

Yet I'm also reading online how there's no way in Marx that Dippers would join with Liberals and how Blue Liberals are very uncomfortable with some of these hard-line socialists.  Maybe they'll move to the Conservatives.  But who the hell REALLY knows at this point.  It's all speculation.

So that said, I'd like to point out that the Libs and Dips have ALREADY formed coalitions in the past. And no, I'm not talking about the Lib-NDP working relationship in the 60's and early 70's that brought us health care, the new flag, and Petro Canada. I'm talking about the last federal election--specifically in Edmonton, and more specifically, the ridings of Centre and Strathcona.

We recall in Edmonton Strathcona where NDP Linda Duncan beat out then Conservative MP Rahim Jaffer, where he had enjoyed the split vote on the left for several elections.  In 2008, the Liberal candidate's campaign was very weak, yet there were a plethora of Liberals helping out the better of the "progressive" candidates in Duncan's campaign.

Same can be said in Edmonton Centre where Liberals have continually enjoyed support from Dippers who migrate over to the better campaign to beat the evil Reform/Alliance/Conservative.  Would "Landslide Annie" McLellan have ever won in 1993, 1997, and 2000 with a strong NDP campaign competing with her?  I doubt it.  So why do the NDP continually put forth a weak candidate in that riding, yet a strong one in Strathcona, where the Liberals do the opposite? 

After she finally lost to Laurie Hawn in 2004, a campaign team I was very proud to be a part of, in 2008, Liberal Andy Hladyshyvsky's campaign was also formidable, but didn't have the traction to win over as many lefties who saw the likely win of Hawn's superior campaign machine and the fact that he's a darn good MP.

So what I'm saying is that for many years Liberals and Dippers have already formed local coalitions.  Are local-level Liberals and Dippers getting together over veggie omelettes to plan this out?  I'm wondering if this has been intentional, because in Edmonton, it sure as hell seems that way. 

Which is why it doesn't surprise me that supposed "high-level" omelette talks between Liberals and Dippers are occurring at a federal level to merge both parties, let alone a working electoral coalition.

While I believe this is Bob Rae's sneaky attempt to quietly discredit Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff, its also the primary method for him to become leader of a united Lib-Dem party and the only possible way he'll ever get the keys to 24 Sussex.

And do you think perhaps ol' PowerCorp, where Bob Rae AND Jean Chretien used to be on the board, is behind this merger/coalition talk?

Which is why I also think it just might happen.

Then the question becomes, should Conservatives be worried? 

1 comment:

L said...

Good point!