Debates and outcome scenarios

I think all the debates comes down to is not really how Harper performs--he'll be his usual self.  It comes down to Iggy and if undecideds get comfortable with him and trust him.  Tough to do. Harper needs to be careful not to attack his personal history, but his numerous flip flops on policy.

You'll also notice that the Conservatives have been laying pretty low during this election and not trying to draw attention to themselves. Reminds me of Ralph Klein's election in 2004.  That said, the media attention has been quite negative on Harper and quite biasedly positive on Iggy.  Voter turnout will be low low low and the fewer that show up, that means there's less desire for change.  Conservative base is loyal as hell and the GOTV (Get Out The Vote) machine for the Conservatives is well oiled --- I've been a part of it and it's actually a lot of fun.

Polls are averaging out with about 153 CPC seats to 71 LPC.  If Harper survives the debate and even ties with Iggy, 

That said, closer to election day, watch Liberal numbers go up a couple points to 32 and maybe 33.  But that support won't be stolen from Harper, it's NDP and Greens.  NDP might get wiped out down to low 20's.  The Liberals have basically stolen NDP policy.  Makes me wonder if there isn't some secret plan to show that both parties are more similar than some think--all designed to setup the Coalition Gov't.

Why else would the Liberals cancel their June convention?  The NDP and CPC didn't.  Liberals are going to lose and at their conventions, after an election loss, the Liberals MUST vote on whether to keep Iggy around as leader.  But, if he becomes PM in a coalition, there is no need for a convention, right?

So anyone can get caught up in the mire of mini-scandals from both parties (Liberals are throwing stones at glass houses), but this election's main issue is simply:  do you want a majority or a coalition gov't?

With Iggy's approval and trust ratings at such a low level comparatively with Harper and Layton, Canadians will not accept Iggy as their PM.

A Conservative minority will result in a constitutional crisis again.  The Liberals and Dippers know that if it a minority, they're not voting for the same budget, which Flaherty said he'd table again.  Then the power turns to the Bloc.  If the budget gets voted down AGAIN, then the GG has to decide:

1. if we're going to have yet ANOTHER election, which Harper would win in a landslide because (see Dief in the 60's) as my bet is Canadians are sick of this
2. if the coalition should govern instead, while legal, most Canadians don't want to accept Iggy as PM
3. if he refuses the coalition and tells them to get along with Harper for a while then may accept another election.

Like I said, the debates are important, and it's Iggy's big chance to shine. Will Canadians be even watching?

Then why doesn't a coalition of losers apply at the riding level?

Yes, I understand at the parliamentary level, if a group of MPs from different losing parties can agree to form a coalition majority caucus, that it is perfectly legal that they can approach the Governor General and inform him that they can lead a government.

However, tradition in parliament is also important to understand.  Canadian parliamentary precedent whereby the losing parties form government is not tradition.  Our tradition is a first-past-the-post, and why minority governments can exist.

But what about the riding level?  Why not apply the same logic then?  What if a Conservative candidate won with say 42% support, but the combined Liberal-NDP support was above 50%?  Why not have a run-off election or allow losing candidates to throw their support to another losing candidate to put them over the Conservative?

More especially, why haven't I heard a single Liberal or Dipper in support of a parliamentary coalition suggest the same scenario be applicable at the riding level after an election?

And I'm also sick to death of coalition supporters touting the current UK coalition government between the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats as a model.  The big difference in the UK is that the Conservatives won the election and formed a coalition with one other party, not by losing and signing an agreement to form government with another party AND the support of a separatist party.

Ok, but you may ask, at the riding level, we should use a form of proportional representation (PR), say a ranking system, a run-off election between the top two, or having a portion of the House dedicated to selected members to balance the number of votes to number of seats.  But notice that it's NDP, Green and other small parties that continually blather on about this?

I've thought about PR, and you know what would happen in Canada that also happens in many countries that use a form of PR?

You get .... perpetual coalition governments and national instability.

And these coalition governments would be comprised of all sorts of parties.  And these parties would be focused on only certain issues.  Coalition governments wouldn't need to consider ALL regions in the nation or the entire nation as a whole anymore.  They would do whatever it took to hold onto power and keep the coalition intact.

But wait, don't we already have that potential here in Canada?  Consider this scenario ... if the Conservatives get another minority, Green Party leader Elizabeth May wins her seat in in BC, and the combined Liberal-NDP-BQ-Green seat total is above 155 and they agree and want to form government, don't we have at least two parties that primarily tout one issue each--Quebec separation and the environment?

Soon, you'd see all sorts of new one-two issue and regional parties popping up trying to win a seat here and there (hello Marijuana Party!) and the potential for coalition governments to be comprised of many little one-issue parties.  That's not how you form a stable national government.


In fact, this only proves to me even further why we need a Triple-E Senate instead of PR.  That way, you would balance regional issues and representation within parliament.  Further to that, first we need to fix the provincial representation in the House of Commons to make it fair on average for each riding.  Some ridings have 80,000 people and some 130,000.  BC, Alberta, and Ontario are losing out here big time.

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.

Coalitions: comparing 2004 and 2008 again

A continual counterpoint being made by Liberals, NDP, and BQ supporters is that Harper is a hypocrite for denouncing the formal Liberal-NDP-BQ coalition when he tried to do it himself back in 2004.

Well he didn't.  He's not a hypocrite.

It bugs me that I feel compelled to have to regurgitate a post I made in May of 2010.

In 2004, there was no coalition.  Period.  All Harper, Layton, and Duceppe did was make the Governor General aware that she should consult the opposition parties before making a decision.

Here's a video to show you what Harper, Layton, and Duceppe said back in 2004.  It's VERY CLEAR.  No coalition.  Whereas early in this 2011 campaign, Mr. Ignatieff has not been clear on his intentions AND Layton and Duceppe have been calling Mr. Harper a liar regarding his intentions, when it is THEY who have been misleading.



And once again, here's the Stephen Harper 2004 letter (Bold emphasis mine):

September 9, 2004




Her Excellency the Right Honourable Adrienne Clarkson,
C.C., C.M.M., C.O.M., C.D.
Governor General
Rideau Hall
1 Sussex Drive
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A1

Excellency,

As leaders of the opposition parties, we are well aware that, given the Liberal minority government, you could be asked by the Prime Minister to dissolve the 38th Parliament at any time should the House of Commons fail to support some part of the government's program.

We respectfully point out that the opposition parties, who together constitute a majority in the House, have been in close consultation. We believe that, should a request for dissolution arise this should give you cause, as constitutional practice has determined, to consult the opposition leaders and consider all of your options before exercising your constitutional authority.

Your attention to this matter is appreciated.

Sincerely,

Hon. Stephen Harper, P.C., M.P.
Leader of the Opposition
Leader of the Conservative Party of Canada

(Also signed by Duceppe and Layton)

Note that while the letter reminds the GG that the three opposition parties constitute a majority in the House, nowhere does Stephen Harper suggest that the three opposition parties wish to form a government.  NOWHERE.  Yet Libs and Dips continue to use this as a gotcha tactic.  Well sorry. 
 
Now let's contrast that with Stephane Dion's infamous 2008 coalition letter...
 

December 1, 2008
 
 
 
 
Her Excellency the Right Honourable Michaelle Jean,
C.C., C.M.M., C.O.M., C.D.
Governor General
Rideau Hall
1 Sussex Drive
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A OA1


Excellency,

As Leader of the Official Opposition, I wish to inform you that, as of this writing, the opposition parties, who together constitute a majority in the House of Commons, have been in close consultation concerning the failure of the Conservative government to address the impact of the global economic crisis on Canadians.

As a result, I wish to inform you that my party and the other two opposition parties have lost confidence in this Conservative government.  The Liberal Party of Canada and the New Democratic Party of Canada are resolved to form a new government and to this end we have the support of the Bloc Quebecois for a period of 18 months. This new government will effectively, prudently, promptly and competently address the best interests of the people of Canada in these critical economic times.

In light of the significant economic challenges facing our citizens, and that the last federal election was held less than two months ago, we respectfully request that, should a call for dissolution arise, you consider exercising your constitutional authority to call on the Leader of the Official Opposition to form a new collaborative government with the New Democratic Party of Canada and supported by the Bloc Quebecois.

This new government should be allowed to demonstrate it has the confidence of the House of Commons.

Your attention to this matter is greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,
Hon. Stephane Dion, P.C., M.P.
Leader of the Official Opposition
Leader, the Liberal Party of Canada

Note the difference?

2004:  "to consult the opposition leaders and consider all of your options before exercising your constitutional authority."

2008:  "you consider exercising your constitutional authority to call on the Leader of the Official Opposition to form a new collaborative government with the New Democratic Party of Canada and supported by the Bloc Quebecois.... This new government should be allowed to demonstrate it has the confidence of the House of Commons."


Not only that but Dion, Layton, and Duceppe were shown in public meeting together, published a letter to the public the same day as well as put out cooperative and policy accords.  See below...

Monday, December 1, 2008




To our fellow citizens,

Canada is facing a global economic crisis. Since the recent federal election, it has become clear that the government headed by Stephen Harper has no plan, no competence and, no will to effectively address this crisis. Therefore, the majority of Parliament has lost confidence in Mr. Harper's government, and believes that the formation of a new Government that will effectively, prudently, promptly and competently address these critical economic times is necessary.

The contrast between the inaction of Mr. Harper's government and the common action taken by all other Western democracies is striking. We cannot accept this.

A majority of Canadians and Quebecers voted for our parties on October 14, 2008. Our Members of Parliament make up 55 percent of the House of Commons.

In light of the critical situation facing our citizens, and the Harper government's unwillingness and inability to address the crisis, we are resolved to support a new government that will address the interests of the people.

Today we respectfully inform the Governor General that, as soon as the appropriate opportunity arises, she should call on the Leader of the Official Opposition to form a new government, supported as set out in the accompanying accords by all three of our parties.

Respectfully,


Hon. Stéphane Dion
Leader, the Liberal Party of Canada

Hon. Jack Layton
Leader, the New Democratic Party of Canada

Gilles Duceppe
Leader, the Bloc Québécois

For anyone to say that Stephen Harper tried to form a coalition government with the NDP and Bloc in 2004 is dead wrong.

Oh, and did I mention that this agreement between the Liberals and NDP is still in effect until June 2011?

And only 17% believe Ignatieff when he says he won't form a coalition.

Conservative ads

You can find all the latest Conservative video ads here on their YouTube channel.

Since they were released the other day, there has been tonne of analysis done on them.  My opinion is that the ads aren't meant to gain support, but to reinvigorate and solidify existing hard and soft support, and because of that, they are effective.  I know it got me riled up again.

Some have said that attacking the Liberal/NDP/Bloc coalition doesn't rile up feelings.  I say B.S. Explain why in December 2008, when the Liberal/NDP/Bloc coalition agreement was at it's peak that Canadians flocked to supporting the Conservative government (support well above 40%)?  It's smart strategy.

These ads are in response to the heightened election speculation over the upcoming budget, where the political lines seem to be drawn over corporate tax cuts.  Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff has embarked on another tour and hit the ice (he can skate you know, and a young girl in the video kept addressing Iggy as 'Mr. Prime Minister' -- sneaky how the Liberals kept that subtlety in multiple times).

Now back to the Conservatives ads... Liberal-leaning pundits have swathed that the Conservative ads are senseless attacks, yet their hypocrisy is abound with past ads touting "soldiers with guns in the streets", and guns pointed and fired at you dear TV viewer.  Sure it draws up feelings, and supposedly, according to those pundits, that it's effective.  Yet I don't know about you, but Liberal ads like that, as opposed to the recent Conservative ones, make me feel angry back at Liberals.

I'd be interested to see what, if any, Liberal ads come out in response soon, or whether they feel Iggy on Ice will suffice.

Somehow I doubt that though.

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? 

Liberal talking points...

Ah that Warren.. the king of spin...  apparently, the Liberals aren't talking coalition.
Here are Warren's talking points... note what I said about Harper's 2004 letter where there was NO mention of forming a coalition gov't, unlike the Liberals did with Dion four years later.

Talking Points:

Conservative coalition fear-mongering

ISSUE

• The Harper Conservatives are trying to change the channel from their skyrocketing G8/G20 summit costs by resurrecting a bogus coalition boogie-man.

KEY MESSAGES

• Liberals will campaign to form a Liberal government. We aren’t interested in coalitions.

• This accusation is rich coming from Stephen Harper, who signed a letter with Jack Layton and Gilles Duceppe in 2004 offering to form a Conservative-Bloc-NDP coalition government.

• As former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien confirmed yesterday, there are no coalition talks, no mandate for negotiation, and no negotiating taking place.

• Something the Harper Conservatives just don’t understand is that parties in Parliament can work together – without forming a coalition.

• The Conservatives have even attacked David McGuinty for suggesting that parties in Parliament “should be working together to put the interests of the Canadian people first.”

• The Conservatives think that parties in Parliament should not work together, and would rather put Conservative Party interests before the interests of Canadians.

On the first point -- if you're not interested in coalitions then why did your leader say, "A coalition if necessary, but not necessarily a coalition"?

On the second point (highlighted) -- again, Harper's letter NEVER offered to form a government, only that the Governor General consider her options and consult with the opposition parties.

On the fourth point -- if the Conservatives haven't been working with other parties, then in this minority situation, why do the Liberals continue to vote with the government or let legislation pass?

On the fifth and sixth points -- a Liberal putting the interests of Canadians before his/her party?  That's a good one.  Liberals are only interested in gaining power and will say anything to get there.  It's their M.O. and reason for existence.

Coalition talk: Contrast the context in opposition requests to the GG

Ah, Liberals and Dippers are now using a letter written in 2004 by then opposition leader Stephen Harper 2004 letter to then Governor General, Adrienne Clarkson regarding the current minority government situation. 

From Jane Taber at the Globe and Mail:

But the Liberals fired back this morning, noting that when he was opposition leader Mr. Harper signed a letter to the Governor-General “stating that he was willing to work with the NDP and the Bloc to form the government.”

“Yes, that was a coalition between three parties, including the Bloc,” a senior Ignatieff official says. “And the Conservatives were in the thick of it. So please, stop pointing to that scarecrow!”

Scarecrow?  Um, really?  Maybe click your heels three times and come back to reality.  Contrast the context in the request in Stephen Harper's 2004 letter to the one in December 2008 written by then opposition leader Stephane Dion (pdf).

Stephen Harper 2004 letter (Bold emphasis mine):

September 9, 2004




Her Excellency the Right Honourable Adrienne Clarkson,
C.C., C.M.M., C.O.M., C.D.
Governor General
Rideau Hall
1 Sussex Drive
Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A1

Excellency,

As leaders of the opposition parties, we are well aware that, given the Liberal minority government, you could be asked by the Prime Minister to dissolve the 38th Parliament at any time should the House of Commons fail to support some part of the government's program.

We respectfully point out that the opposition parties, who together constitute a majority in the House, have been in close consultation. We believe that, should a request for dissolution arise this should give you cause, as constitutional practice has determined, to consult the opposition leaders and consider all of your options before exercising your constitutional authority.

Your attention to this matter is appreciated.

Sincerely,

Hon. Stephen Harper, P.C., M.P.
Leader of the Opposition
Leader of the Conservative Party of Canada
Also signed by Duceppe and Layton

 
Note that while the letter reminds the GG that the three opposition parties constitute a majority in the House, nowhere does Stephen Harper suggest that the three opposition parties wish to form a government.  NOWHERE.  Yet Libs and Dips continue to use this as a gotcha tactic.  Well sorry. 
 
Now let's contrast that with Stephane Dion's infamous 2008 coalition letter...
 

December 1, 2008
 
 
 
 
Her Excellency the Right Honourable Michaelle Jean,
C.C., C.M.M., C.O.M., C.D.
Governor General
Rideau Hall
1 Sussex Drive
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A OA1


Excellency,

As Leader of the Official Opposition, I wish to inform you that, as of this writing, the opposition parties, who together constitute a majority in the House of Commons, have been in close consultation concerning the failure of the Conservative government to address the impact of the global economic crisis on Canadians.

As a result, I wish to inform you that my party and the other two opposition parties have lost confidence in this Conservative government.  The Liberal Party of Canada and the New Democratic Party of Canada are resolved to form a new government and to this end we have the support of the Bloc Quebecois for a period of 18 months. This new government will effectively, prudently, promptly and competently address the best interests of the people of Canada in these critical economic times.

In light of the significant economic challenges facing our citizens, and that the last federal election was held less than two months ago, we respectfully request that, should a call for dissolution arise, you consider exercising your constitutional authority to call on the Leader of the Official Opposition to form a new collaborative government with the New Democratic Party of Canada and supported by the Bloc Quebecois.

This new government should be allowed to demonstrate it has the confidence of the House of Commons.

Your attention to this matter is greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,
Hon. Stephane Dion, P.C., M.P.
Leader of the Official Opposition
Leader, the Liberal Party of Canada

Note the difference?

Not only that but Dion, Layton, and Duceppe were shown in public meeting together, published a letter to the public the same day as well as put out cooperative and policy accords.

Monday, December 1, 2008




To our fellow citizens,

Canada is facing a global economic crisis. Since the recent federal election, it has become clear that the government headed by Stephen Harper has no plan, no competence and, no will to effectively address this crisis. Therefore, the majority of Parliament has lost confidence in Mr. Harper's government, and believes that the formation of a new Government that will effectively, prudently, promptly and competently address these critical economic times is necessary.

The contrast between the inaction of Mr. Harper's government and the common action taken by all other Western democracies is striking. We cannot accept this.

A majority of Canadians and Quebecers voted for our parties on October 14, 2008. Our Members of Parliament make up 55 percent of the House of Commons.

In light of the critical situation facing our citizens, and the Harper government's unwillingness and inability to address the crisis, we are resolved to support a new government that will address the interests of the people.

Today we respectfully inform the Governor General that, as soon as the appropriate opportunity arises, she should call on the Leader of the Official Opposition to form a new government, supported as set out in the accompanying accords by all three of our parties.

Respectfully,


Hon. Stéphane Dion
Leader, the Liberal Party of Canada

Hon. Jack Layton
Leader, the New Democratic Party of Canada

Gilles Duceppe
Leader, the Bloc Québécois

For anyone to say that Stephen Harper tried to form a coalition government with the NDP and Bloc in 2004 is dead wrong.

So now, the Lib-NDP coalition talk continues, with supposed high-level talks between former Liberal PM, Jean Chretien and former NDP leader, Ed Broadbent.  The Conservatives have already released a statement warning of the risk of a coalition, again.

“A Liberal-NDP-Bloc Quebecois Coalition would be led by a man who left Canada for 34 years and professed his love for America,” the talking points say. “It would put our economic recovery in the hands of former NDP Premier Bob Rae and current NDP leader Jack Layton. And it would contain a policy veto for the Bloc Quebecois – a party that doesn’t even believe in a united Canada.”

All this aside, I wonder if the resurrection of the coalition wouldn't be happening if current Liberal leader, Michael Ignatieff's polling numbers weren't so low.

As I always do, look at this from another point of view...  a certain someone and Jean Chretien were on PowerCorp.  Chretien likes Dion and brought him into cabinet.  In first leadership race after Martin steps down, a certain someone drops out and supports Dion on last ballot, not Iggy. 

Do you think the NDP grassroots would ever want to be in a coalition with Ignatieff?  I don't think so.  But perhaps a certain someone. Someone who was a former provincial NDPer himself.

The Coalition is dead. Long live the Coalition!

In the aftermath of the recent UK election resulting in a new Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition government, Liberals and NDP in Canada have been saying, "See!  Coalitions DO work.  They don't even do minority governments there."

Well hold on a sec...  I read former Liberal strategist Warren Kinsella's blog posts regularly.  Let us go through the logic here.

Today Kinsella posted:

This is now. 

That was then. 

Key message: if Stephen Harper’s Reformatories do it, it’s okay. If anyone else does it, it’s Satanic.

Clear?

No, it's not clear.  Kinsella is referring to his own speech given at the Alberta Liberal Convention in Calgary where he talks about getting together with the NDP.

The "This is now" link above refers to Conservative strategists lambasting the Liberals for considering the coalition idea again, as they should. 

Now keep in mind that the FORMAL coalition between the Liberals and NDP had support from the Bloc Quebecois until June 2010.  A letter to the Governor General was signed by them in a request to to basically hand over the reigns of government to them, with Stephane Dion as Prime Minister and NDP would have cabinet posts.  While a coaliton government such as this is totally legal and constitutional, the point is that the Canadian voter was NEVER presented with this option going into the election, so many Canadians felt cheated, which is why polls for the Conservatives went up considerably after that.  Oh, and you know who else signed that letter? One Michael Ignatieff.

In the "That was then" link, Warren stretches out back in history to when Stockwell Day was leader of the Canadian Alliance. You know, before the Conservative Party existed and before Stephen Harper was even on the scene as a potential leader, let alone prime minister.  Yeah, yeah, we know Stock is cabinet now, but it's obvious here Warren's "Reformatories" moniker is slapping shit together from different piles to try and make it stick. Nice try.

(Should I mention that Warren's old boss, former Prime Minister Jean Chretien, had discussions with former NDP leader Ed Broadbent to kickstart the coalition negotiations?  Ok, there, I did.)

And one such pile is when Liberals and NDP say "How can you be against a coalition when you did it yourself!", referring to the time that when in opposition, the Conservatives, NDP, and Bloc voted non-confidence in the government, which sparked an election.

Key message:  When Liberals, NDP, and Separatists do it, they want to be an instant government without voters deciding. When Conservatives do it, they want to trigger an election and let the voters decide.

Clear?

Long live the Coalition!

Prorogation, the Coalition and the Constitution

Being that prorogation has occurred 101 times before in our nation's history, that Liberal Prime Minister Jean Chretien used it to shut down parliamenty for 83 days to subvert the Somalia inquiry, and now that another Liberal leader, one Michael Ignatieff, is attending an anti-prorogation rally today, a fellow Alberta blogger has asked this important question:

Last year during the coalition crisis did you claim legitimacy for the coalition because of the constitution? If so, why are you now against that same constitution and the legitimacy of prorogation? Is there anything else you want to change in our constitution while we are opening it up?

Keeping in mind that Iggy recently said that if he were PM, he would use progation if necessary. He just doesn't agree with the way Stephen Harper did it this time.

But what about last time?  If Harper hadn't prorogued parliament last year, would he have ascended to the Liberal leadership so quickly after Stephane Dion was dumped?

Ah that Iggy, such a man of convenience and conviction, isn't he?

h/t Alberta Ardvark

Lump of Coalition

Don't you find it interesting how quickly the Liberal/NDP/Bloc coalition was put together and then how quickly it was torn apart?

Yet when it was alive, Bloc leader Gilles Duceppe said, just last week, that it was "stronger than ever".

When the federal budget was released, NDP leader Jack Layton said a coalition gov't would better address the needs of Canadians.

Really, Jack? Or should we call you Jack Shit from now on?

Hmmm... how quickly you released radio ads attacking your former ally, Liberal interim leader Michael Ignatieff, you know, the one who would have given you a cabinet post. Must have had those ads ready for proofing around the same time you said a coalition gov't would work better together.

And Jack says at every turn that Prime Minister Stephen Harper can't be trusted?

Riiight.

Put a lump of coal into the coalition kettle and let's call it black, shall we?

Rob Silver asks the tough question

I've been glued to one of the best new political blogs, "Silver-Powers", a dual (duel?) blog on GlobeAndMail.com by two very bright party strategists, Liberal Rob Silver and Conservative Tim Powers.

One of Rob's latest postings asks THE tough question for Liberal MPs...

So either:

(a) The Liberal caucus was UNANIMOUS in supporting both the coalition and Dion as leader until May; or

(b) There are a bunch of MPs in the Liberal caucus who are both cowardly and whose word means little (or whose opinions change with the wind).

Really, this is a binary situation - make your choice.

Rob, a very good question, and I have an answer for you regarding why Liberal MPs do these types of things...

Very few have principle, they go whichever way the wind blows at the moment (or seems to blow), and thus, they have miscalculated the overwhelming view among Canadians that the coalition government isn't what we want, and why the polls show the Liberals at their lowest point in HISTORY.

Friends, that is NOT leadership. And this party wants to form government? That's how they've always been and always will be. If they can't even decide or stand up for anything, you really want them managing the economy at this time?

What drove them ALL to sign the letter for the Governor General? As your blogmate said, "The sniff of power."

Canadians saw that too.

Now that the sniff of power appears to be with Michael Ignatieff, leadership contender, Dominic LeBlanc has ended his bid and joined with Iggy. Too bad. Too bad the Liberal party doesn't respect democracy.

While the other contender, Bob Rae, has embraced the coalition because he's going to need new members joining from the NDP to be delegates at the Liberal convention, perhaps Ignatieff set him a trap and he fell into it.

Ignatieff never publicly said he's for or against the coalition and Bob Rae even had Ignatieff and LeBlanc show their public support for Stephane Dion as leader of the coalition government. I guess that is a wash, now that it appears Dion will step down (read: pushed out) in a few days at the Liberal caucus meeting instead of the originally planned May leadership convention in Vancouver.

Ignatieff's gut instinct was correct though, that the coalition is not a way to build the Liberal party, where it's Bob Rae's way to go.

Now that Dion is gone, and the party needs to accelerate that processes in getting a new leader, and that the coalition is now the so-called the backup plan, the Liberal caucus' new "instinct" is either:

A) the Liberals will support or abstain on the Conservative budget when the House starts up again in January, and resume with its May leadership convention, with Ignatieff having recently shored up caucus support, and Bob Rae will likely retreat from the coalition, but he'll be damaged goods,

or

B) the Liberals will vote against the budget and with new interim/permanent leader, Michael Ignatieff, already in place they will be 'ready' for a new election, and excited that they'll do better.

Ignatieff left the door open for Harper to have a strong budget.

I didn't mention the machinations of how the Liberals are picking their new leader, because frankly, it doesn't really matter. If the Liberal caucus does it this week and names Ignatieff as interim to replace Dion and decides it's not going to have a convention and says Ignatieff is permanent leader, it's going to divide the party for a while, but eventually, Liberals will balk, because "Ignatieff was going to be leader anyway, so get behind him or go hang out with Bob Rae."

So in my opinion, this coalition idea is as good as dead. And you know who's to thank? You. It's the thousands of Canadians who went out to show support for democracy and against the coalition takeover.

So now, it's up to Michael Ignatieff to decide if he wants to fight an election in February/March or if he wants to wait until May and spend cash on a leadership bid that he'll win anyway, raise money for the Liberals and then fight an election next fall.

Because I think he knows the Conservatives would win a majority in February/March, and so he'd will be opposition leader for 4 years.

That would be the smart thing to do, to wait, as it gives voters an opportunity to see who he is as opposition leader while they grow weary of Harper, otherwise, if he fights an election this February/March, people won't know him as well, and will be hesitant, while the Conservatives go neg on his ambition for power with the coalition, exposing his actual view against it and dividing the Liberals, while economic numbers improve, showing the Conservatives as good managers.