Thursday, March 24, 2011

Has A Coaltion Deal Already Been Struck?

Today's poll question; do you think that a coalition deal has already been agreed to by the opposition parties prior to this Canadian election? Don Martin had a panel of radio hosts on Power Play Wednesday, and two of three (including Dave Rutherford) were convinced that a deal has already been struck, whether on paper or with a handshake. If an agreement has been finalized, the proof will be on the ground and just how hard they fight each other in a few key ridings around the country.

Do we have a statistic to measure the effort made by the Edmonton Liberal who will run against Linda Duncan? While the NDP are happy to admit that they would like to be part of a coalition government, the Liberals still have to maintain the facade that they actually have a chance at winning. Obviously the Liberals first choice would be to win, it just appears increasingly unlikely that is going to happen. I'm willing to bet that the Liberals will spend less money and effort in NDP ridings they are unlikely to win.

Even if they have the framework for a deal in place, I'm not sure if they are going to attempt a coup right away in the event of another Tory minority. I'm not convinced that the Liberals won't want to have a leadership convention first. Iggy never won a leadership vote by the party membership, as grassroots democracy was not convenient when he took control. They might wait until after a leadership convention, or Iggy abdicates to Bob Rae before a vote. Would they go with back to back unelected leaders? Maybe Iggy competes in the leadership convention, or maybe he goes back to Harvard.

We'll see what happens...


  1. The Writ has to go somewhere after the election. If they don't grab it they can't grab it after the CPC takes it. I could see them handing temporary leadership to somebody and having their leadership race while in a writ holding coalition. Imagine how awesome that would be for them. To have a race for Prime Minister among only Liberals. Its so disgustingly Liberal.

  2. Coalition of Losers 2011 looks just like coalition of losers 2008, Iffy=Dion

    So is it Rae's turn to launch a bloodless coup on Iffy?
    Makes sense, as #1 pick of the B Team (Dion) and #2 pick of the B Team (Iffy) had their chance,
    time to give #3 pick of the B Team , exNDP Bob Rae a crack at it , eh.

  3. In that happens, it would make 6 leaders of the Liberal Party in just 8 years. Would such a party or PM expect to have any legitimacy with ordinary Canadians?

  4. Iffy publicly assured Jack of his coalition partnership when he flip flopped on corp taxes.

    Duceppe renewed his committment to the coalition, in writing, in caucus last month.

    They are ready to rumble,
    3 parties spending the maximum campaigning as ONE.

    Let's see if they take their coalition of losers try to stop an election, and take agreement to the GG once PMSH asks to dissolve Parliament.

  5. "Let's see if they take their coalition of losers try to stop an election, and take agreement to the GG once PMSH asks to dissolve Parliament."

    If they tried to do that on Friday after voting out a properly elected party, then Canadians WILL demand an election. Even if the temp was -20, people would show their anger towards them in the streets.

    I dare them. I would be on the streets with them protesting.

    Clown Party

  6. The original Coalition document (signed by Ignatieff, Layton, Duceppe (and Dion)) is still in force; it expires in June of this year. As far I know, it has never been formally repealed.

    This election is a high-stakes gamble for the Liberals: if they can hold the Conservatives to a minority, they win. Think of the last two months of very carefully orchestrated mini-scandals that the opposition and the MSM have been promoting over the last two months: this isn't a co-incidence that all these alleged "scandals" broke out this year. It's called a (marketing) campaign.

    On the other hand, if the Liberals have overplayed their hand, if the "scandals" don't have any traction with the public: they're toast.

    This election is all about protecting the entitlements of the Liberals, NDP and Bloc.

  7. By dancing around the question of an opposition coalition in the event of another conservative minority, Ignatieff will get get painted as the one with a hidden agenda. This question is going to be asked over and over until he says yes or no. The longer he waits, the worse it will get for him and the Liberals. The question I think revolves around a key issue. Are the Liberals seeking to win a majority or are they positioning themselves for a run at power via a coalition? If he's running on the theme of accountability and ethics, then not giving a definitive answer completely undermines his campaign.

  8. On Thursday's edition of Power Play Canadians were informed and witness to Ignatieff's first campaign blunder in exposing Ignatieff's contradictory position in precipitating an unwanted election on Canadians, a 400 million dollar farewell party for himself, at taxpayer's expense, with accusations of Prime Minister Harper's contempt of parliament for not answering questions. Yet as an aspiring Prime Minister, on the very important subject of Coalitions, in respect to democracy, parliament and open government Ignatieff refuses, not only to provide answers to fellow MP's, but also the media and all Canadians - what are we turnips? Welcome Canadians to the Ignateff world of open government and his contempt for Canadian's right to know where he stands on the issues.
    Ignatieff has created his own problem in regards to the idea of a coalition, because he publicly tried to deny that he embraced the concept of a coalition of the Liberals and NDP. He has waffled on the subject and positioned himself to the Canadian electorate on both sides of the issue - how to throw leadership credentials down the toilet in one easy lesson. Than to go from the sublime to the ridiculous, he tried to illustrate that he straddled the fence on the issue, by finally admitting he signed the letter to the Governor General, but his signature was the last one of the caucus. Did he want Canadians to think that the caucus finally was able to catch him and force him to sign or did they spend days convincing him that he should sign - what was the message he was trying to convey or was it all of the above.
    Canadians are also wondering, what the dynamic is that Ignatieff tried to introduce, by incorporating some relevance of importance and measure of acceptance to where in the list his signature appeared - did the media ever get an answer or resolution to this because if they didn't they should for the benefit of Canadians, so in future in like circumstances they would know his true position and commitment on any paper his signature appeared on, possibly God forbid, even with other world leaders .

  9. A successful coalition *could* be formed between the "Blue" Liberals and the CPC as a "Coalition of the Winners", somewhat in the manner of the recent UK election. This would be far more palatable than a "Coalition of the Losers", which is what Ignatieff would represent. The real trick would be how to woo dissociated Liberal MP's to cross the floor; perhaps as part of a "National Unity Government" dedicated to keeping Canada on an even keel as the global economy continues its turmoil?