Nya, nya. Doesn't count (Count?) I had my fingers crossed behind my back!

So...........Can the two parties legally campaign as separate entities when they already have an agreement in place stating that they are one?

Additionally, I thought there was some mention as to the legality of when the original coalition deal was brokered. Seems to me that someone said it was illegal to have a coalition organized before the actual election.

Hopefully someone can shed some light on this.

Trevor

Given the vote occurs May 2 and the expiry of the COALITION AGREEMENT is June 30, 2011 this is a voluntary contract by signatories.

A contract is a contract unless one of the parties VOIDS the contract as set out in its provisions.

The only provision for VOIDing the contract is its sunset clause of June 30th, 2011.

Despite all the puffery and obfuscation by said parties to the COALITION agreement one should vote according to their OWN HANDWRITING.

After all how many politicians would deliberately tell a campaign LIE?

As to all the other organ grinders, this monkey appears firmly perched on COALITION shoulders.

Cheers

Hans-Christian Georg Rupprecht, Commander in Chief

1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group "True North"

Petard: hoist

"I am prepared to enter into a coalition government."
Michael Ignatief
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5FMcVOAg3mw&NR=1

/Stuck in the filter./

Enter "Michael Ignatieff's coalition government" into Youtbe and hear him say. "I am prepared to enter into a coalition government"

And arent there strict election laws in this country. You know limits based on how much a "single party" can spend. If in and out is a question of interpretation isnt this one a question of interpretation as well on an equal level?

Will the NDP and Liberals and Bloc engage in token campaigning and token shots at each other. May was effectively a Liberal candidate last time.

Not holding my breath waiting for elections Canada to "give a 5*1t about this one".

Here's the video from the 2004 news conference where it shows that Layton and Duceppe are the liars.

http://www.cpac.ca/forms/index.asp?dsp=template&act=view3&pagetype=vod&hl=e&clipID=5288

Coalition?? How about a collusion?

Collusion:

a secret agreement, especially for fraudulent or treacherous purposes; conspiracy

If I mail two fiends and they mail two friends...

Great post, Kate!!! Essential info. Thanks.

CBC is going to be on this like a dog on a football...

*Oops*...make that fRiends (somehow "fiends" sort of appeals though)

CBC will ignore this story, like they do any issue the proves Liberal media to be lying snakes in the grass.

I predict the day after the election Liberal MSM will be slipped a brown envelope via the snivel servants and that envelope will contain a document that the left will use to justify taking over this Nation whilst hysterically screaming Harper isn't fit to govern. Just watch Liberal Media play their usual role in helping liberals rule sans the electorate's support.

I can hardly wait to see Mike,Jack and Gilles declare their document void. I think they sould do it on parliament hill...............

Enforced?

How?

No, seriously - what's the enforcement mechanism?

Here's a poll question I'd love to see the results of:

"To what degree do you believe Michael Ignatieff when he said that the Liberals will not try to form a Coalition government if the Conservatives win the most seats but not an outright majority?"

a) Strongly believe him
b) Moderately believe him
c) Not yet sure either way
d) Somewhat don't believe him
e) Strongly don't believe him
f) No idea

this from cpac Headline Politics website sept 9,2004

http://www.cpac.ca/forms/index.asp?dsp=template&act=view3&pagetype=vod&hl=e&clipID=5288

Conservative Leader Stephen Harper, Bloc Québécois Leader Gilles Duceppe, and NDP Leader Jack Layton discussed their letter to Governor General Adrienne Clarkson, discussing the upcoming Speech from the Throne and possible opposition amendments.

Just 10 weeks removed from an election, the three leaders asked Clarkson to consult them if Paul Martin’s Liberal government lost a confidence vote.

(note this part) However, Harper, Duceppe, and Layton refused to use the word coalition to describe their cooperation.

Maybe we oughta get a lawyer to provide legal analysis or, better yet, a good one.

No consideration flowed between the parties to this agreement. It is not a contract.

Even if it were, how would a disputant party enforce it in case of breach?

This is in no sense a legal document. It's an accord. It means nothing.

@ uhhhhh

The consideration that flows between the party is political:

"You scratch my back, I scratch yours..."

contract or accord - is semantic casuistry at the political level...

Meech Lake was an Accord

Charlottetown was and Accord

Apparently it changes HOW WE ARE GOVERNED!!

Cheers

Hans-Christian Georg Rupprecht, Commander in Chief

1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group "True North"

No consideration? NO CONSIDERATION?!! Guaranteed Cabinet positions aren't a benefit?
Guaranteed access to the Treasury isn't a benefit?
In what alternate universe?

@uhhhhh - This represents a useful political football for the NDP and BQ throw at Iggy in the unlikely event he ever becomes PM (shudder) and it may have some moral weight.

But you're right that as a legal document I don't see how the NDP could ever enforce this. First, Iggy as PM isn't even party to the agreement. Nor is the GG. Even if you get past that, no court would ever hold such a document enforceable as it would be undue interference with Parliament and how it governs itself. It's also likely voidable on public policy grounds. I guess the NDP could try and sue for damages but that seems ludicrous on its face.

Still, yet another misstep by the Liberals. You almost wonder if they want to lose the election...

Kate, are you really that stupid and dishonest?

da proof is da proof

Video of Jack and Dippydupe opining no our agreement with Harper is not a coaliton, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkdXycwDUxA

Paging MSM paging Slime Stream Media, I"m sure the media will apologise to Harper tomorrow right?

No LLoyd Fister, but you certainly are. Now go re-write some other event please.

"the NDP can force compliance"

Then it's time to asking Layton about his coalition intentions. MI has said he won't seek one but said nothing about what he'd do if the NDP did the seeking.
***

Robert W., I heard that only 17% believe MI about not forming a coalition. tee hee

Thanks for that clip Rose, it appears the comedians are out in force today!!

I appears Gilles is going have some difficulty with the statement:

"In now way are we a coalition, and we won't be a coalition." (2004)

Tough to square that with Gilles quotes in the press reports today. (2008)

ie Harper is now a LIAR...according to one headline...

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Gilles+Duceppe+calls+Stephen+Harper+liar/4509580/story.html
Gilles Duceppe calls Stephen Harper a liar

Tory leader proposed coalition when he was in opposition in 2004

Bloc could support - but not join - Liberal coalition, Duceppe says

http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Bloc+could+support+join+Liberal+coalition+Duceppe+says/4517220/story.html

Which of course caused such an uproar back in 2008...

The mudslinging continues apace

I watched the whole CPAC thing again and the gist of it was the opposition parties trying to narrow down the items that were considered "Confidence of the House" measures.

Cheers

Hans-Christian Georg Rupprecht, Commander in Chief

1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group "True North"

Wonder if anyone in the CPC will pick up on this.
Love to see Mr. Harper ask Mr. Ignatieff to denounce this signed agreement.

The Liberals, Separatists and the NDP are campaigning together as a coalition, aided and abetted by the vultures and screaming hyenas of the media. The media championing the Separatist cause while attacking the Conservative Government is at the very least dishonest, and at the very worst treasonous. The media in this country are running cover for the coalition and openly and deliberately lying to the public while they muddy the waters regurgitating Liberal/Separatist talking points. The media jackals continue to protect and shield the rotting carcass of the Liberal/Separatist/NDP coalition while they stalk their Conservative prey and poison the well. The media in Canada are a grotesquely, vile pack of disease ridden rodents.

Wow - great scoop Kate. There will be lotsa hacks crying in their beer tonight. Stephen Mayer cry your eyes out.

On the bright side, I am a volunteer at seniors' homes and the talk of the residents was all about an unnecessary election and their serious intention of voting Conservative. Not a single one had a nice thing to say about Ignatieff or Layton. And these people vote and have no respect for abstainers. What they would say to a coalition does not bear thinking about. Grey Power!

First, Iggy as PM isn't even party to the agreement. Nor is the GG. Even if you get past that, no court would ever hold such a document enforceable as it would be undue interference with Parliament and how it governs itself.
~slaw

a) Ignatieff signed the document and the agreement states that whomever is the Leader of the LPC shall be the Prime Minister
(read the document)

b) The GG sits as the Crown who has the power to put the agreement into effect

c) How can it be "undue interference with Parliament and how it governs itself" when this same document made the Bloc Coalition a serious contender as a replacement government to the CPC minority in December 2008 such that they approached the GG and asked her to allow them to form the government?

Liberal Count Ignatieff's Dumpster is busy.

The reason? >> "Prior to entering politics, Genco had been the head of Downsview Park, a federal agency set up to develop federal land in the middle of Toronto. The federal information commissioner is investigating several refusals to release Genco’s expenses and other files related to his time as head of the agency."

Two Iggys gone in two days.

Next?

BTW, where is Bob Rae? Why is Mao Stlong's nephew so quiet?

...-

"Grits dump candidate who nearly beat Fantino"

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/CanadaVotes/2011/03/28/17782136.html

@oz. Quickly: The document is between the Liberal Party of Canada and the NDP (I am not even sure either of them are proper juridicial entities), Iggy is not personally bound by the agreement. Further query as to whether Dion and Layton even have the power to bind their parties. Further query as to whether the caucuses are bound by any such agreement as individual members are not parties (I would argue no in all respects).

By convention, GG appoints as PM person who command the house of commons and also appoint ministers. The GG has the discretion to appoint whomever he chooses and is not bound by this agreement with respect to the PM or ministers.

#3 - Don't conflate the moral and political with the legal. I agree that the document could potentially have severe ramnifications and could be politically to walk away from. I am just saying that Iggy could walk away from it and there would be no legal consequences (other than perhaps some damages claim by the NDP, which again seems absurd).

The point is not the legality of a coalition/minority government of losing parties. While both are quite unusual, and a minority coalition is indeed unprecedented, they're not "illegal" and Mr Harper as Leader of the Opposition, was quite correct in his approach, given the Liberals, at that time, refused to call an election or resign after losing a non-confidence motion(not sure I've got the chronology right on the last part, but they did ignore a lost confidence vote, citing procedure).

The issue is what the opposition intends to do and how Canadians view it. Were Canadians against a Harper minority government request to the GG. Maybe yes, maybe no - it never actually happened.

What actually did happen was the coalition agreement of 2008 which most agree Canadians rejected overwhelmingly. How do Canadians feel today about a Liberal led minority after defeating the government after the next election?

Again, not illegal, but would it change some/many Canadians vote from the opposition parties? Again, we can't be sure because they are dodging the question.

Here's another question - why did the Liberals force an election when they know they were at least 10% behind the Tories? Did they really think they could win the election, or did they have a backup plan.

That's the question Stephen Harper is asking. The Grits look like idiots spinning around the legality of coalitions and minorities.

Canadians have two choices after the next election - a Harper majority or an Ignatieff minority, regardless of if he wins a plurality of seats.

Why can't the Grits be honest about this instead of attacking others' credibility.

Iggy is not personally bound by the agreement.
~slaw

Iggy is a signatory to the agreement and is therefore bound by it.
Party leaders cannot bind their parties by signing documents?Wow.

So these elected party leaders do not, according to your thinking, have the power to bind those who elected them as their leader by signing an agreement.
So none of the legislation or agreements signed by my elected representative bind me.
Good to know./

@ Oz: slaw is way out of his depth...

I think the constitutional tsunami has washed away his thinking abilities.

It's too bad my learned friend Mel Smith, QC is still not among us; he would make short work of slaw's ridiculous assertions that leaders of their parties are not bound by the agreements they sign.

Signing agreements or accords and not honouring them is known as "CONTEMPT OF PARLIAMENT" an issue Iggy is trying to tar PMSH with.

@ slaw: HORSEFEATHERS!

BTW: I was invited to the Beaudoin-Edwards Committee on Amending the Constitution of Canada way back in the early '90s

Cheers

Hans-Christian Georg Rupprecht, Commander in Chief

1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group "True North"

Nothing more hilarious than seeing a bunch of non-lawyers try to cut apart a legal issue.

The question, Hans, is how the claims in these documents could ever be enforced. Do you foresee Layton or Ignatieff or anyone else bringing an action in superior court to compel Parliament to recognize their coalition agreement? By what means? What is the quantum in damages for such a breach, conceding for the moment that the document is a contract rather than a memorandum of understanding? What remedy in equity could the court force -- a judge telling the Governor General how the royal prerogative to recognize a government should be used? Seriously? Signing agreements or accords and reneging on them is contempt of parliament when parliament itself has an interest in the accord in question. The interest of a minority party probably shouldn't be conflated with that, at least if you prize clear thinking.

It really is too bad your QC buddy is dead . . . he might be able to marshal an argument rather than simply appeal to unknown authority. Go read a first-year contracts textbook and some Peter Hogg and get back to us, chum.

The election was forced before the electoral map could be redrawn which would somewhat favor the west. How apropos.

Well, I just do not get it. IF the conservatives get ANOTHER minority government. THEY ARE the government. A coalition as signed by the libs and nippers would then negate an election in which we voted for the party we want to run the government, albeit a minority government.
However, they would then be the party with the MOST seats won, over the libs and nips. Unless the libs and nips COALESE BEFORE the election, so we know who we are voting FOR and against and know the political landscape out in the open, then WHY would we bother spending 300 mil so the libs and nips can knife us and the cons in the back?
It makes me mad enough to spit nails.
The signed agreement that is in force right now and available for the use of the opposition until June 30,2011 is the document they intend to use no matter what the vote says on May 2. That's how I see it and it explains WHY , down 20 points in the polls they wanted to gin up a reason to bring down the government.

@ uhhhhh

Yes you can read Beaudoin, Hogg or Franks as the case may be, you still aren't getting a straight answer from MI on the coalition and the electorate is up speed.

BTW Ned Franks has even said he wasn't himself convinced about the so called 'contempt of Parliament' issues alleged to have occur.

Hey don't blame me that these guys write up agreements, accords, coalitions, contracts, etc. on the back of a napkin. Lack of specificity is precisely what most people find disconcerting in the entire exercise...

At least with the Charlottetown Accord people got to VOTE on the matter of how we are governed.

With the COALITION Accord we didn't get to VOTE on it because that was never on offer WHILE WE WERE VOTING in 2008. That is what people object to when referencing the direction of the entire NATION.

When most people vote,they are fair minded enough to accept that the leading party with the most seats in Parliament get first crack to form a coalition should one be necessary.

For all we know there is a successor agreement called COALITION PART DEUX tucked into MI's briefcase, and we'll find out AFTER May 2.

Caveat emptor...

Cheers

Hans-Christian Georg Rupprecht, Commander in Chief

1st Saint Nicolaas Army
Army Group "True North"

Harper nails iggy in this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vDTmpXj9vyM&feature=player_embedded

uhhhh,

Your comments of the agreement are correct. I guess you are saying that those who wrote it and signed it are complete idiots......absolutely bang on.

Just the words the ROC wants to hear about a minority parliament

Duceppe said, “I will wait for the results and I will see who is credible.”

http://tinyurl.com/4eydcrl

Yup thats what you will get. I think that deserves mentioning about 6 times a day in the last week of the campaign in every riding in Newfoundland, and every riding west of the Ottawa River.

Yup thats exactly what Canadians want to vote for.

Nice to see your "lawyer" did not sign his/her name.
Just how would this "legally binding document" be enforced? Layton and Duceppe would sue? They'd go into a court of law and get a judge to force Ignatieff to put together a coaltion government? And a Canadian judge would order that to happen? And if Ignatieff still didn't want to do it, what would happen? He'd go to jail? Have to pay Jack and Gilles?
Are people here really that stupid?

Q1: Just how would this "legally binding document" be enforced?...

Q2: Are people here really that stupid?...

Posted by: Lloyd Fister at March 29, 2011 6:45 AM

A1: Issue isn't about enforcement, lloyd, it's about existence.

A2: Apparently lloyd. Just some...

Not "some". Quite a lot.
A "legal" document means nothing if it is not enforceable. There's no judge or jury in Canada that would attempt to force the parties to comply. It seems the Tories are getting a tad desperate, cooking up very bogus "legal opnions". The comments by "uhhhh" have the ring of someone who has actually studied law.
I guess the Small Dead Animals winged monkeys can't campaign for their Tory masters with real election issues.

I got to hand it to Stephan Dion, Jack Layton, and Gilles Duceppe trying to take over the government of Canada in 2008 based on a meaningless document.
To think that Stephen Harper had Governor General Michelle Jean prorogue parliament over a meaningless piece of paper must have had those three laughing up their sleeves.

The undiluted chutzpah of those 3 characters attempting to pull a scam like that is amazing in retrospect now that we have these trolls here shedding light on the whole affair.
I'll tell you one thing, if I walked into a high stakes poker game and saw any of those 3 guys sitting at the table I'd run, not walk, in the other direction such is their power to pull off a bluff.

Somehow this whole discussion has been hijacked to Legaland...
The 'legal' status of the document is absolutely irrelevant.
The issue is solely about the intent of the three leaders to form a coalition IF the Conservatives don't win a majority. Their inability to honestly face the electorate and declare their intentions one way or the other is all that should concern voters (on this particular issue).
There's nothing inherently wrong for the WINNING party to seek partners in an effort to form a majority Government, post election.
It is loathsome for other parties to form a secret coalition PRIOR to an election, and not honestly declare their intentions.
How is this any different than declaring 'No HST' prior than bring it in post?
Fraud is fraud.

Notice how the pro-coalition leftarded media shills coalitions are normal and acceptable whilst they practically spit in the face of the electorate with contempt

Whilst MSM tries to tell we the unwashed masses that a coalition of leftards is part of the natural order of Canada politically I can only find one incident of a coalition government formed by the commies and the socialists for a mere three months, not sure on that fact. If that's normal to Liberal MSM gawd help the electorate because for some reason our urnalistic betters/arrogant snots think they speak for us they don't. Don't be afraid to write to the media and let them know what you think of the coalition of the swilling, let them know they are not our voice.

DaninVan at March 29, 2011 11:03 AM

Thanks. Most people get that...'some' people don't.

Ahhh, how about a poetic interlude, folks? (modified from another forum).

Jack and Gilles
Met on The Hill
Thirstin' for some power.
When Iggs fell down
They grabbed his crown
Ans shagged him dead in hours...

When Igs fell down

Rose, the leftist media has an agenda to fulfill. I'd hate to be them, should their dreams come true and Ignatieff, Layton, Duceppe and May make another play for a coalition government. If it comes to pass, that combination will inevitably fail. Most Canadians are anti-elitist. Can you imagine Ignatieff's, Rae's and Mulcair's egos doing battle? :)

A Globe Editorial claims that the Liberal leader's CHARACTER should not be an issue!

"There are many good reasons not to vote Liberal; the leader’s character is not one of them. For once, let’s debate ideas and not deride success."

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/editorials/lets-not-make-ignatieff-a-personal-issue/article1957423/

Isn't CHARACTER a primary issue in voting for a leader?

"Isn't CHARACTER a primary issue in voting for a leader?"

I care about the public policy the leader intends to put into place. I don't really care whether they're nice, funny, easy on the eyes, or who they sleep with. The only part of character that I care about is integrity and intent to do what they say they're going to. Other than that, I could care less about the leader's character.

Being "easy on the eyes" has nothing to do with character, ted.

Ted; your assumption that a leader's character is somehow disconnected from having principles, and therefore principled behaviour, leaves me stunned I tell ya. A Leader with 'character' may indeed fail us, but I have NO doubt that one without 'character' WILL fail us.

I felt it necessary to confirm for myself how "character" is defined...
2c is what we're speaking of:
" the complex of mental and ethical traits marking and often individualizing a person, group, or nation http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/character

Ezra Levants take on "Coalition" or "accord"

Even if Ignatieff loses the election (as early polls suggest), he doesn’t need a coalition to seize power. He can do what the Liberals and NDP did immediately after the 1985 provincial election in Ontario: Just grab power with an immediate non-confidence vote. No coalition needed, to hell with the voters.

The 1985 Ontario election was won by the Conservatives. They won more seats than any other party — but they still had a minority. Instead of accepting that result, Bob Rae, then leader of the NDP, phoned up David Peterson, the Liberal leader, and made a deal to grab power.

They didn’t make a formal coalition. A coalition is a specific deal where cabinet seats are divided up and more than one party becomes an integral part of the government.

The Liberals and NDP just agreed that, as soon as Ontario’s legislature met, they’d join forces to vote non-confidence in the Conservatives and propose the Liberals should rule with the NDP’s support.

Being lawyers, they called it an accord, not a coalition. But it was a deal. The Liberals promised to implement a series of NDP policies. And in return, the NDP agreed to sink the Conservatives, and keep the Liberals in power for two years.

The ‘coalition’ card played by PMSH is a good play in my view.

The Progressives have worked very hard to validate the word ‘coalition’ in the minds of Canadians. I think they’ve been successful; but, they were not weary enough of what I perceive to be the unintended consequences of such a validation(or “intended” from the Conservative perspective).

Now that Canadians understand the validity of a ‘coalition’, they can now examine the specifics of THIS coalition. Fiscally conservative Liberal voters now understand completely that a vote for the Liberals in 2011 IS a vote for Jack Layton. That is the unintended consequence that I speak of.

Rose

Notice how the pro-coalition leftarded media shills coalitions are normal and acceptable whilst they practically spit in the face of the electorate with contempt.

That statement reminds me of the Obama a$$ kissing,
toilet flushing media.
-

Canadians and Americans really are just a common people separated only by an electronic fence.

Maybe you should appeal to this body-

Canadians are privileged to live in a peaceful country. Much of our collective sense of freedom and safety comes from our community’s commitment to a few key values: democratic governance, respect for fundamental rights and the rule of law, and accommodation of difference. Our commitment to these values must be renewed on every occasion, and the institutions that sustain them must be cherished.

Among those institutions, I believe that Canadian courts, including the Supreme Court of Canada, play an important role. A strong and independent judiciary guarantees that governments act in accordance with our Constitution.

Sorry for the long quote,
but I thought that was purity.

The legality of the document is irrelevant.

Also, although I wish it weren't so, the ability of any group of parties to cobble together 51% of the votes has nothing to do with whether any one of them actually got the most seats.

The real concern here for me is that if Iggy and Jack and Gilles want to form a coalition, they should be honest during the election and say so.
If Canada votes for them, then go ahead and coalesce away.

If Iggy and company do NOT acknowledge that they would do that, then for them to do so after the election would to me be tantamount to high treason. It just goes so far over the top one cannot simply categorize it as just another campaign promise broken.

Carl, the David McGuinty video spells out what their game plan is.

@LLoyd Fister, uhhhhh, etc.: Kate's posted this simply to keep the focus of conversation on the "coalition" bogeyman, which stirs up the base and distracts from other election issues. I doubt she really thinks the document is legally binding. She's scheming and frequently hypocritical, but not nearly that stupid.

The folks here who're seriously arguing that the document is legally binding, on the other hand...

This feeds into 'ted's' "character" thesis...
http://maxkeiser.com/2011/03/29/even-if-you-arent-a-sports-fan-this-is-very-interesting-make-sure-you-read-all-the-way-to-the-bottom/#more-24535
Rather depressing.

Legal shmegal, who cares.

Ignatief signed it, Layton signed it. The expiry date is clear. Now let's hear them explain it away. The supreme court of voter opinion will pass along their final judgment on May 2.

They've had a compact since before the Coup attempt.
Why do you think no real legislation gets past?

Davenport, I know the Winged Monkeys are a pack of retarded trained seals, but the jury is still out over whether Kate is merely stupid or completely dishonest.

The coalition issue is a good talking point for the CPC, but seriously, it isn't worth the paper it's written on.I wouldn't fret one more minute
about it.

If its a matter of the opposition having the most seats in the house, then why do we need to have an election in the first place? Why doesn't the opposition simply install itself right now?

If their non confidence motion triggered this election, why will the non confidence motion required to replace the government after the election not trigger another election?

Why do they get to circumvent the electorate in one case but not the other?

Weasel words from Michael Ignatieff and from a few of the posters here.

Kate works hard, plays hard, is neither stupid nor dishonest.

Start your own blog, Lloyd Fister/Droid Mister. You look like a winged monkey.

One of the enduring images for me from 2008, was from a pro-coalition rally, when Jack Layton had to lead Stephan Dion by the sleeve to get him out of harms way. Things were not going just as well as had been anticipated.

Let's not forget that sooper-genius Davenport is the guy who was wringing his hands over the epidemic of Saskatchewan schoolchildren hurrying to class, and old ladies rushing to church - through 6-foot drifts in blizzard conditions, mind you - and tripping over extension cords.

Yeah, a real 1000-watter, that guy. No wonder he's dumb enough to want to give Iggy and the Dips a chance to re-create Johnny Cretin's Sea King replacement fiasco, this time with F-18s.

"which stirs up the base and distracts from other election issues."

dAVENPORT

I'm not sure there ARE any issues in this election except that the Liberals are against the purchase of F-35s, investments in jails and a corporate tax break; whereas the Liberals are offering to spend the same money on other goodies. Quite frankly, I’m not sure what the Liberals believe on a number of issues (Libya for example) except that they are against whatever the current government has been doing.

I think that there are ample opportunities for the Liberals to attack the Conservative foreign policy(or domestic); except, the policies are virtually identical minus a few billion spent here or there. There are literally millions of "c"onservatives who'd vote for some "sense" in a heartbeat, but StIffy isn't offering anything that isn't being tabled by someone else already. If he'd have outflanked the Conservatives on the Right on fiscal issues he might have turned the trend; but, he and the Liberals have chosen to offer nothing except 'different' spending. Interestingly enough, if the Conservatives are successful this election there's no doubt in my mind that internally(in Lib-tard land) the losses will be attributed to the Liberals being too far Right, pushing the party further Left perpetuating the problem for the Liberals. This is exactly what happened in the 2010 elections down south. As the country moved to the Right, the Dems that kept their jobs were those further to the Left pushing the Dems further that way, for example.

IMO over the years the Liberals have allowed the Conservatives to move so far Left that the Liberals have been squeezed-out of relevancy.

Do you concur?

BTW D, who will you likely be voting for this year? Are you a partisan Liberal or an ideological Progressive? If you are the latter, what would you council voters who won't be voting CPC? FYI, I suppose I'm a partisan Conservative all things considered.

The CBC's really going to bat this time. I'd say they're rigging the voters compass quiz too...

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/CanadaVotes/2011/03/29/17798811.html

forgive me if this already old news but I just read something in the Mop & Pail that was a happy story.

"Elizabeth May excluded from election debates "

The only election issue is coalition. Every Grit, Dipper, and Blockhead is hoping for one. If they get the coalition, they'll get free viagra and satisfaction.

Another poll for SDA posters:

http://presscore.ca/2011/

So much for the so called Harper Coalition of 2004.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MkdXycwDUxA

Good point made ward@5:45

I was sure the troika was going to visit the GG after last Saturday`s disolving of Parliament.
They didn`t and an election resulted.

I have no doubt that if the numbers don,t add up to either a CPC majority or a clear LPC minority at the least; then presto...a takeover of the PMO and House by the socialist cabal (in some form or other).

Points to note IMO, are

:the agreement whether legal or not is a moot point...notice can be said to be credibally served.
:as I mentioned earlier; why go to all this trouble when the cat was in the bag last week
:the answer must lie somewhere in the time frame.
by this I mean the need for more time than the remaining two years approx. of the fortieth parliamentary session.( a new election means that an LPC minority or a coalition of whatever sort constitutionally runs for 4 to 5 years).

Perhaps the real question is what changes need that extra time allotment besides the so called complacent electorate accepting the arrangement as status quo.
Things such as forthcoming senate vacancies,supreme court appointments etc might be a place to start looking.

As I previously mentioned above that they had it in the bag, why turn a sure thing into a maybe... I get the nagging feeling that a piece of the puzzle is missing.

Iffy want's to raid my pocket book so the weak lame and lazy youngens can get a free or cheap uni education and in Quebec's case make a 500 dollar profit. Those kinds of election issues?

Chutzpah at 6:47

Thanks for the tip on the poll. However that is a poorly worded poll "Who do you want to be the next prime minister of Canada?" Harper, being the current prime minister, would be eliminated by many of those who are logically inclined.

Q: Press Corp, biased, or simply stupid?

News Flash - Icky/Unca Mo's nep phew (Booby ray) reads SDA!!
"Why doesn't he just lie, and say "absolutely no coalition". Then when he loses to a minority Conservative win, resign like he would anyway, and the new guy forms a coalition.

I shouldn't give them ideas.
Posted by: Norman at March 26, 2011 9:55 AM "

SDA gets results.

....Bob Rae reads SDA.

Really? Are you kidding?

Ok,.. ok,.. ok... Hey Boob! You're a d!ckhead!

You're welcome.

Ward: "If its a matter of the opposition having the most seats in the house, then why do we need to have an election in the first place? Why doesn't the opposition simply install itself right now?"

They also need to get rid of Iggy and move on to Bob Rae. I am even wondering if Iggy know's what's planned. He may not. This is insider baseball. Apparently Rae and David Peterson did the same thing after an Ontario election -- right after the election; calling non-confidence . . . and they took over.

Rick....A press site that is very biased. All the more reason to startle its regulars with our votes.

Rick, I take that back.....On second read, the Press (Core) site seems very OUT THERE. Extremism dressed up as legit. As Emily Latella would say, "Oh, I'm sorry. Nevermind."