Sunday, January 23, 2011

Coalition Leadership

After having the pleasure of reading a fantastic discussion on the subject of a possible plausible Liberal-NDP power sharing agreement at Blue Like You, I would like to ask the question; if the Liberals and NDP form a coalition government after another Tory minority in the next election, who would be Prime Minister? Ignatieff, Rae, or Layton? Those are the only plausible candidates. I am reasonably convinced that part of the agreement in which Bob Rae abdicated to Iggy after the Dion disaster was that Count Chocula gets one election and resigns if it is a loss. If the Conservatives win a minority, Iggy steps down, and Bob Rae forms a coalition with the NDP. That's how I see this playing out.

Do you agree?


  1. Just my opinion Iceman, but I don't think it matters much if Ignatieff, Rae, or Layton was PM in a power sharing arrangement.
    Worst case scenario.
    If they have to have Gilles Duceppe's Bloc to have the numbers to stage their Coup, he will be driving the coalition clown car.
    Just say hello to the nightmare of a socialist cabal with a side of separatist poutine.
    Canada will be dancing to Duceppes tune. Really won't matter who is PM.
    It will be "Bad, Worse,or disastrous"

  2. The party with the most seats is morally endorsed by the voters to form a government. If the Conservatives still hold the most seats after the next election, then a Liberal/NDP Coalition is Faustian (or worse as noted by Anon at 8:50).


  3. Not IggYnat. You would have to assume he would even keep his seat.

    I don't suspect he will. Thankfully. For both himself and the "Liberal" party.

    Besides, Rae is the natural bridge between the two parties.

    Though of the two, layton is less of an eye sore even if he does look like his closet hero Lenin. Perhaps Rae will make him the PM for face sake or "unity" but behind the scenes be deal maker.

    I'm only talking silseriously. And excluding the bloc since the optics of them "officially" joining in didn't go well in the previous attempt.
    They all pretty much vote the same anyway... bloc, ndp... lib... they're all socialist big gov lubbers in thee end. With one of the main differences being that two out of the three are more ideological than opportunistic.

    And equally anti-Israel just with varying degrees of blatancy/loony illogic.

  4. To Anon: @ 10:23

    quoted excerpt

    “David and I were discussing this — I think the debate in Britain was instructive. There was an interesting period of a few days when people discussed the various constitutional issues that were involved and the various constitutional options but I think in the end, the verdict of public opinion was pretty clear which was that losers don’t get to form coalitions. Winners are the ones who form governments. Obviously, David was able to form an innovative arrangement to give Britain I suspect the kind of arrangement it needs to deal with the kind of budgetary challenges that face the country. But I say in the end, the coalition in Britain — I think it’s important to point out — was formed by the party that won the election and, of course, this coalition in Britain doesn’t contain a party dedicated to the breakup of the country. And these were the two problems in Canada. The proposition by my opposition was to form a coalition for the purposes of excluding the party that won the election and for the purposes of including a party dedicated to breaking up the country. I do think [Cameron's coalition] has some instructions for Canada.” ~PM SH


  5. Ice, you left out one option for your poll.

    They would never be able to agree who would be leader, and even if they did the Bloc would always find a reason to disagree. Their only reason for being is to prove Canada does not work, and therefore they continually do whatever they can to bog things down or cause uncertainty. The end goal is to convince Quebecers that they would be better off on their own.
    So even if they did get a coaltion together and got the GG to let them form a government. It wouldn't even manage to form a cabinet and we would be back at the polls again in about a week.
    There are worse scenarios that could come out of that, but I'll stick with this one.

  6. I'll have to agree with Gimbol on this one, a coalition of losers would be as unstable as a drunk on a unicycle. The crash and burn would be immediate and horrific. Whomever claims to be leader would be irrelevant.

    That said, with a nod to the very, very extreme unlikeliness that these idjits could still pull it off, I would add a fifth option, "Just shoot me!".