Sunday, March 27, 2011

Ignatieff: "I will not seek a coalition with the NDP"

Thanks for clearing that up Mike, but notice that he used the word "I" and not "the Liberal Party". I never believed that Iggy would be the one to seek and form a coalition government; my theory has always been that his backroom deal with Bob Rae to become leader was that a coalition would be Bobby's business. Rae used to be NDP, so who better to unite the left? Iggy had to come and say no to a coalition otherwise this issue would have dogged his campaign, and if he said yes he risked losing votes and both his right and left flanks. The use of the word "I" instead of "we" was his clever way of deceiving without lying, in my humble opinion. Because if Iggy loses, resigns, and Bob Rae assumes control and forms a coalition, no lie would have been told.

Then again, if the Tories win a majority, this whole conversation is moot.


  1. Iggy and "I Ruby" used to be best buds didn't they?

  2. It's too little too late anyway, and the coalition agreement signed in 2008 doesn't expire until June 2011.

  3. Ignatieff and the Liberal party are using weasel words, as everybody has noted, in answering the coalition question. They have taken days to draft this answer, as we all know, to give themselves enough wiggle room in future for Ignatieff, the Liberal Party and other Liberal leaders. In their statement, they also had to satisfy and accommodate Liberals, who are lined up with Bob Rae, Ujjil Dosanjh, Ralph Goodale etc. who are strong proponents and advocates of the coalition - they aren't prepared to torpedo the coalition because they know and the polls tell them, that is the only way for Liberals to regain the seats of power in Canada - they know it, the media knows it , and Canadians know it . What about the work that Chretien, Broadbent, and others, have done in working on a coalition - they aren't prepared to see their work and efforts tossed out the window, by the party releasing a definitive and unambiguous statement without weasel wording.

  4. It seems to me that you are being a slight bit too nit-picky. Ignatieff used "I" instead of "we"? This indicates that he is leaving the door open for a future Liberal leader to have a differing opinion on coalitions?

    Of course it does. But that would also be the case with him using "we". Whenever a party leader uses we, they are referring to the party, LED by them. I don't think we would assume that when Stephen Harper says "our main focus will be the economy", that is a categorical statement for all future leaders of the Conservative party.

  5. "... too nit-picky. "

    Impossible - can't be too nit-picky with Liberals - ever.

    Michael St. Paul's

  6. As Stephen Taylor points out Iggy doesn't have to "seek" a coalition agreement, he already has one, that he signed, that is still in force, that no one has cancelled, that no one can cancel, until June.