39 Replies to ““In these seven years, I’ve learned a few things …””
I can’t remember how many Federal and Provincial elections my wife and I have worked in. We have been married almost 53 years and still going strong.
I suggest to everyone that it’s all a case of how you frame your relationship and your activity as a team.
Being of service to your candidate and party in my mind is a noble exercise and it’s even better when working as a wife/husband team.
In terms of lower expectations…I don’t agree. Playing hard, winning and losing is part off the essence of democracy.
I wrote a column a couple of times about our parliamentary widow in our riding, so the dynamic does change when one is married to a member.In that case I learned that the spouse has to work and adjust in order to hold onto a personal identity.
Good luck to Steven Harper and thanks for years of good Government.
My favourite quote at the link was, ‘…a story by the incredibly inept Peter O’Neil appeared in the Vancouver Sun, stating that the candidate my husband was working with had ties to both of these organizations – based solely on the fact that his campaign manager’s fiancé had linked to them on her blog.’
Those darned journalists sure are funny. You would think with all the eager beavers waiting in the wings ready to type for peanuts they would be fired out of their jobs more often. Retail sales postiions await. But no, they hang in there. It must have something to do with connections, ‘interviews’, and bodily orifices.
Noticed that too abcd. It never ceases to amaze me.
yep, my family is already complaining, LOL
Honest (non-rhetorical) Question: I assume that this thread will attract several commenters who are more well-versed in elections and Parliamentary procedure than I am. So here is my question. If Ignatieff genuinely rules out a coalition attempt, can/should the GG tell him to stuff it when he attempts one after the election?
As some previous commentator somewhere else pointed out internetally, conventional democratic coalition governments usually, and should, include the minority party that won the most seats. For a dog’s breakfast of loser parties to approach the GG and try to relegate the party that won the most seats into the opposition, and out of cabinet, requires a certain amount of cheekiness. If I were GG I would consider it desperate hail-mary political shenanigans and would not accept such a coalition’s representations that they could competently govern.
I believe abcd has it generally quite right. I’d also add that coalition governments have not been common at all in modern Canadian politics. There really is no precedent for the GG to draw upon. This is especially so given abcd’s observation.
Sorry, I believe that should have read “parties’ “.
The Liberals can try and form government whether or not they win the most seats in a minority parliament. Make no mistake about that. They would probably succeed.
It doesn’t have to be a coalition, a plain vanilla minority will do – note the change in Harper’s language: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/coalition-would-sow-instability-harper-warns-new-canadians/article1958491/
Harper is not quoted using term coalition, though the headline writer seems to have missed that one.
Who do you want as your prime minister, Stephen Harper or Michael Ignatieff?
BTW, I’m just getting “looks” from my wife right now; I can tell she’s not looking forward to this.
“should the GG tell him to stuff it when he attempts one after the election?”
Actually, the GG should tell him to stuff it regardless of any promises that he made.
Cobbling together a band of losers in order to replace the winner is analagous to the Flames and Oilers demanding to participate in the playoffs because their combined point totals exceed that of the 8th place team.
Shamrock, I’m genuinely curious. On what basis do you conclude the Liberals would succeed in an attempt to form a ‘plain vanilla’ minority?
Also, I’m quite certain the Tories will be using the term ‘coalition’ quite liberally in the coming weeks. I can’t explain why Harper didn’t use it during that one particular scrum, but I don’t see any downside to using it. But, I see plenty of downside if they don’t hammer home the coalition ‘meme’.
I’m not quite sure the semantic nuance you point out makes much of a difference in the mind of average Joe and Jane Canuck.
Assuming that things turn out not much different than before then there are two options open to the Liberals that allow them to avoid the “literal words” coalition.
1) Tories fail after throne speech. Liberals say they want a chance to govern and without a formal agreement are magically able to do so. This is issue by issue and quite honestly there is nothing you can do to change it. Of course that there is a “secret agreement” not likely written down is another matter, but hey thats politics. It is also inherently unstable. Oh and if the people seem to like it they move to a formal agreement after some time frame. Stealth coalition. Problem is if you dont want annother election then this becomes the case….its all about becoming Prime Minister, once in hard to dislodge.
2) There becomes a formal confidence and supply agrement. Like Ontario…but this is unrealistic since the math wont work unless the Bloc is invoved. So you go back to version 1 of it being issue by idd
3) Iggy resigns and Bob Rae agrees to a coalition. Different leader not bound by the promise….stealth coalition again.
One way or another if there isnt a Con majority there will be a Liberal PM, no matter how few seats they win, that isnt partisan its just how the options play out.
Colin, think of last election. Though the three parties tried a coalition, ask yourself, what could have stopped them from defeating the next Throne Speech and presenting themselves as a minority government, as SH himself opined.
However ludicrous that sounds don’t count on the GG to sort out the nuances of a competent political party being involved. A minority coalition is unheard of but, minorities involving losing parties are not (picture Bob Rae as Premier of Ontario).
Mr Harper is correct to not use the term coalition, though he may anyway given the ambiguity and outright ignorance of what that political governance term actually means.
The PM, if I read him correctly this morning, is asking people to make a choice between Mr Ignatieff or him as PM.
Jack Layton OTOH is saying the voters will send the BC Tories a message over the HST. Memo to Jack – they blamed the provincial Grits; the Tories sit at around 50%.
Repeat after me Jack: I’m applying for the job of Leader of the Opposition. Now again, Jack, and again …
Excellent article. Canada is at a real crossroads politically.
We can elect a majority Conservative government and continue to be the envy of the G-20, elect a minority and see more of the same Opposition by National Enquirer featuring the faux scandal of the day,or step back in time to the good old days of Adscam and the Montreal Mafia having the ear of the PMO.
We’ve dithered long enough,Canada, it’s time to defecate or get off the commode!
The choice is clear, we can elect a government that will continue to try to improve the economy,or we can elect another watered-down progressive to raise taxes,kill jobs and destroy the economy.
If the Iggster continues his NO-coalition charade right up to election day, then turns around and springs it.
The GG would have no choice but to call ANOTHER election and allow Canadians to vote FOR or AGAINST said coalition.
The GG would be hard pressed not to, ABCD’s or something like it “desperate hail-mary political shenanigans” would be front and centre all over the media.
Any other decision will mean riots in the streets.!
I know her husband well. He has openly commented on the stress campaigns put on a family and what he’s learned from these years.
He is a workaholic, not just because he excels at what he does, but at times out of necessity because other refuse to step up and help. He fills gaps that he shouldn’t because he recognizes the problems others don’t, and tries to fix them.
In the same breath as talking about the stress, he’ll credit his wife. Knowing the many MPs I do (and nearly all of whom are still married to their first wives or husbands) they will say the same thing – and they mean it – they give all credit to their long-suffering spouses. Without whom I’m sure it wouldn’t just be impossible, it wouldn’t be worthwhile.
this LLLieberal beast is proving difficult to kill…i pray this election administers the coup de grace……
William in Ajax,
When is a coalition not a coalition….more importantly when is “not a coalition” a coalition in everything but name. There will be no formal agreement, no picture of them shaking hands, but magically they will think the same way. Eventually it will be formalized after
1) enough time that they feel safe crawling out of their cave
2) after some crisis, real or imagined that demands some stability.
But no conservative majority means the Libs and Dippers will try again and not let the Throne speech through. Whether the new GG shares the view that only a formal agreement, like Ontario, lets a coalition of losers try or whether he believes new infomration requires the people to pronounce new judgement is another matter.
You will not get stability without the Bloc and honestly, is that really something anyone of any odeological stripe wants. Right now the Cons can choose between 3 partners, the Libs and NDP will only have 2, and the Tories arent likely going to be in a comprimising mood….reality is one partner only, the Bloc.
Once again our glorious MSM is missing the point that is more than 1 inch from its face.
Under the heading “Keep Your Mouth Shut,” I’ll add, be very very very CAREFUL what you say via any form of communication to someone in the press, even if said ‘friend’ has ostensibly retired or been put out to pasture. Politics is a blood sport.
Kate, thanks for directing us to this blog and its host. She’s an astute young woman.
The rules and standards of modern politics would disqualify almost all of the fathers of Confederation, the fouding fathers of the American Revolution, Jesus Christ and the twelve disciples.
About the only exception would be Judas — he had thirty pieces of silver to show the committees.
Great and wise article!
Being married to someone in “a helping profession,” I know the foibles, the pressures, the unsung nature of the “supporting spouse.”
Being forewarned is definitely being forearmed. You have to anticipate the pressures and find ways to realistically deal with them. I like the idea of the decompression time in a warm clime! Good idea! Look forward to that — and don’t take any garbage from others. Know who you are, what’s important to you, who your enemies — and your friends — are, and keep your powder dry.
Another tip: Pray. It helps a lot, especially in the area of discerning who your friends are and who your enemies are — no matter how “nice” people seem to be. Remember: The Devil often appears as an angel of light.
This young woman has her head screwed on right. Good luck to you and God bless you and your family!
Canada, at the federal level, only had coalition government from 1864 to 1872 to bring about Confederation and provide stability in an otherwise unstable political system. It involved 3 parties, the Clear Grits under George Brown, the Parti bleu under George-Étienne Cartier, and the Liberal-Conservatives under John A. Macdonald. Not even Sir Rober Borden’s attempt at a coalition government with Sir Wilfred Laurier during WWI was successful. Less than 20% of the Liberal MPs left their party and joined the new Union or Government (as it appeared on the 1917 election ballot) party.
The 2008 coalition, still in effect until June 2011, is an aberration of Canadian politics. It’s main supporters are ignorant of Canadian history and Westminister precedent. They want European styled coalitions when we have never had one.
To the question above, the GG is the referee. He has to weigh 3 considerations at the same time; Westminister precedent, confidence of the house and electoral mandate. Many pseudo-constitutional scholars out there believe only the first two apply, but they’re wrong. No GG is going to re-create the King-Byng Affair. Every day that passes since the election increases the odds the GG could dissolve Parliament and call for new elections and mandate. Lying during the campaign about coalition government would hurt the mandate to govern with one. Also, if Iggy waits too long to try to seize power, the GG would probably reject the coalition and call for new elections (unlike Byng). If however, the Conservatives fall on their throne speech in May/June, then the GG would have to ask the Leader of the Opposition to try to form a minority government, with or without a coalition. It is for this reason I believe if the Conservatives don’t get a majority government, they won’t reconvene Parliament until the fall or until they get assurance from at least one party to not vote non-confidence.
I think it was Mike Duffy that said on the Roy Green show this afternoon that the coalition is all ready in play in that in Montreal in Justin Trudeau’s riding the NDP is not running a candidate and in Mulcair’s riding the Bloc is not running.
I think I got this right, but I sit to be corrected by someone who also heard this.
Ken, so the wannabe coalitionists think their fix is in.
Ken – I heard it that way also. Duffy also made the comment that the Conservatives are about a dozen seats shy of a majority while the Liberals are some 78 seats short of a majority. They have no “rural” seats east of New Brunswick and only a handful (fewer that 10 I believe) west of Ontario.
So why have an election? They have virtually no chance of winning even a minority. That is why Duffy absolutely believes the coalition fix is in. I also throw in the fact that all 3 opposition parties trashed the budget before they even read it.
Just watched Taber and Oliver. Oh, no Mr Harper actually proposed some kind of arrangement in 2004 should the Martin government fall and suddenly that means he wanted a coalition!!
Or, Duceppe putting words in Mr Harper’s mouth and then calling him a liar.
Are the MSM, Libs, Dips and separatists that stupid? Who is arguing the illegality of a coalition or minority arrangement, whatever form it takes? The question becomes is a Liberal minority government (like last one when they were 70 seats behind the government) acceptable to Canadians? Yes or No.
Oh right, they get to call Harper a hypocrite. Maybe they could reconvene a parliamentary committee and make it official.
Will the three oppostition parties acknowledge today they will not try to seize power after the next election if the Tories win the most seats but fall short of a majority.
We all know the answer to that question, but of course, they will use weasel words to avoid answering it. Instead the media asked what Harper would or would not have done in 2004, instead of what the coalition did do in 2008.
Just who are the hypocrites and liars again? The oppostion needs to grow up and be honest with Canadians as to their intentions.
Which do you prefer a Harper majority or an Ignatieff minority? Those are the only two realistic alternatives.
Ken if that is true and stay true then you have a proof point.
However, I would hold my powder on that one, it could be as simple as late nomination meetings….additioninally they can always run a candidate who doesnt try. Too easy to cover up.
End of the day it only makes sense tjhat there is a verbal agreement. The only issue is going to be whether the GG demands a formal agreement, which was the precedent in Ontario. He wanted to see an agreement so he knew there was a stable government.
Other than that it is always safer for the crown to ask the people for their opinion again if there is new information. Like an agreement or something that wasnt available at the time the people were last consulted.
What issue was most important to Layton (and Mulcair), Dion, Rae and Ignatieff, Duceppe and bit player Elizabeth May in December 2008?
Right, gov’t money per votes for their parties.
They tried to wrest the reins of gov’t from Harper to ensure their party coffers receive money from taxpayers.
Ignatieff, Layton, Duceppe and May are a tainted tag team.
…”additioninally they can always run a candidate who doesnt try. Too easy to cover up.”
That’s what happened in my riding, last time. The Liberals ran a completely inexperienced young man who’d basically only worked on campaigns for them.
Who knows the histiry of the 72 to 74 Liberal minority? Was this just lucky guessing or was there a formal agreement on agenda items between the Libs and Dippers?
I say the agenda is already agreed to for 18 months to 2 years of Liberal NDP Bloc governemnt….it just isnt written down. Or of it is only two or three people have a copy.
If Ignatieff genuinely rules out a coalition attempt…
~Wicked Wasabi
He won’t.
He already signed a paper that is still in effect until June 2011 that says he is party to the Lib/NDP/Bloc Coalition.
What he will do is dance around to avoid admitting that fact during the election campaign.
I watched about two minutes of the Giggles Tabor and Lloyd Oliver Liberal love-in on Question Period and realized quickly that I was going to spoil my Sunday traditional soup lunch. Switched back to Fox.
Further to my 7:50 PM comment:
The weak link in the de facto Coalition is Gilles Duceppe.
He can probably be induced to brag about the Coalition document to garner Quebcois votes because it puts him in a position of power that he would otherwise not have since his party in not a national party.
OMG
coalition = hidden agenda!
LOL
When you deny a coalition and have no discernible path to power, while calling an election when you are 10-15 points behind….only a coalition, whether verbally agreed to or not is the only thing that fits.
All previous norms mean another conservative minority at best (for the Libs and Dippers and Bloc) So, why push an election now?
Sadly we will all have to debate why the lie wasnt really a lie some time in a few months.
Sadly we will all have to debate why the lie wasnt really a lie some time in a few months.,/i>
~Stephen
I don’t see anything to be gained from debating bad faith commie liars.
I say we just punch them in the face and knock their teeth out.
I can’t remember how many Federal and Provincial elections my wife and I have worked in. We have been married almost 53 years and still going strong.
I suggest to everyone that it’s all a case of how you frame your relationship and your activity as a team.
Being of service to your candidate and party in my mind is a noble exercise and it’s even better when working as a wife/husband team.
In terms of lower expectations…I don’t agree. Playing hard, winning and losing is part off the essence of democracy.
I wrote a column a couple of times about our parliamentary widow in our riding, so the dynamic does change when one is married to a member.In that case I learned that the spouse has to work and adjust in order to hold onto a personal identity.
Good luck to Steven Harper and thanks for years of good Government.
My favourite quote at the link was, ‘…a story by the incredibly inept Peter O’Neil appeared in the Vancouver Sun, stating that the candidate my husband was working with had ties to both of these organizations – based solely on the fact that his campaign manager’s fiancé had linked to them on her blog.’
Those darned journalists sure are funny. You would think with all the eager beavers waiting in the wings ready to type for peanuts they would be fired out of their jobs more often. Retail sales postiions await. But no, they hang in there. It must have something to do with connections, ‘interviews’, and bodily orifices.
Noticed that too abcd. It never ceases to amaze me.
yep, my family is already complaining, LOL
Honest (non-rhetorical) Question: I assume that this thread will attract several commenters who are more well-versed in elections and Parliamentary procedure than I am. So here is my question. If Ignatieff genuinely rules out a coalition attempt, can/should the GG tell him to stuff it when he attempts one after the election?
As some previous commentator somewhere else pointed out internetally, conventional democratic coalition governments usually, and should, include the minority party that won the most seats. For a dog’s breakfast of loser parties to approach the GG and try to relegate the party that won the most seats into the opposition, and out of cabinet, requires a certain amount of cheekiness. If I were GG I would consider it desperate hail-mary political shenanigans and would not accept such a coalition’s representations that they could competently govern.
I believe abcd has it generally quite right. I’d also add that coalition governments have not been common at all in modern Canadian politics. There really is no precedent for the GG to draw upon. This is especially so given abcd’s observation.
Incidentally, this is a site I’ve used in past elections to follow the various party’s fortunes. I’ve found it quite useful in the past:
http://www.sfu.ca/~aheard/elections/polls.html
Sorry, I believe that should have read “parties’ “.
The Liberals can try and form government whether or not they win the most seats in a minority parliament. Make no mistake about that. They would probably succeed.
It doesn’t have to be a coalition, a plain vanilla minority will do – note the change in Harper’s language:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/coalition-would-sow-instability-harper-warns-new-canadians/article1958491/
Harper is not quoted using term coalition, though the headline writer seems to have missed that one.
Who do you want as your prime minister, Stephen Harper or Michael Ignatieff?
BTW, I’m just getting “looks” from my wife right now; I can tell she’s not looking forward to this.
“should the GG tell him to stuff it when he attempts one after the election?”
Actually, the GG should tell him to stuff it regardless of any promises that he made.
Cobbling together a band of losers in order to replace the winner is analagous to the Flames and Oilers demanding to participate in the playoffs because their combined point totals exceed that of the 8th place team.
Shamrock, I’m genuinely curious. On what basis do you conclude the Liberals would succeed in an attempt to form a ‘plain vanilla’ minority?
Also, I’m quite certain the Tories will be using the term ‘coalition’ quite liberally in the coming weeks. I can’t explain why Harper didn’t use it during that one particular scrum, but I don’t see any downside to using it. But, I see plenty of downside if they don’t hammer home the coalition ‘meme’.
I’m not quite sure the semantic nuance you point out makes much of a difference in the mind of average Joe and Jane Canuck.
Assuming that things turn out not much different than before then there are two options open to the Liberals that allow them to avoid the “literal words” coalition.
1) Tories fail after throne speech. Liberals say they want a chance to govern and without a formal agreement are magically able to do so. This is issue by issue and quite honestly there is nothing you can do to change it. Of course that there is a “secret agreement” not likely written down is another matter, but hey thats politics. It is also inherently unstable. Oh and if the people seem to like it they move to a formal agreement after some time frame. Stealth coalition. Problem is if you dont want annother election then this becomes the case….its all about becoming Prime Minister, once in hard to dislodge.
2) There becomes a formal confidence and supply agrement. Like Ontario…but this is unrealistic since the math wont work unless the Bloc is invoved. So you go back to version 1 of it being issue by idd
3) Iggy resigns and Bob Rae agrees to a coalition. Different leader not bound by the promise….stealth coalition again.
One way or another if there isnt a Con majority there will be a Liberal PM, no matter how few seats they win, that isnt partisan its just how the options play out.
Colin, think of last election. Though the three parties tried a coalition, ask yourself, what could have stopped them from defeating the next Throne Speech and presenting themselves as a minority government, as SH himself opined.
However ludicrous that sounds don’t count on the GG to sort out the nuances of a competent political party being involved. A minority coalition is unheard of but, minorities involving losing parties are not (picture Bob Rae as Premier of Ontario).
Mr Harper is correct to not use the term coalition, though he may anyway given the ambiguity and outright ignorance of what that political governance term actually means.
The PM, if I read him correctly this morning, is asking people to make a choice between Mr Ignatieff or him as PM.
Jack Layton OTOH is saying the voters will send the BC Tories a message over the HST. Memo to Jack – they blamed the provincial Grits; the Tories sit at around 50%.
Repeat after me Jack: I’m applying for the job of Leader of the Opposition. Now again, Jack, and again …
Excellent article. Canada is at a real crossroads politically.
We can elect a majority Conservative government and continue to be the envy of the G-20, elect a minority and see more of the same Opposition by National Enquirer featuring the faux scandal of the day,or step back in time to the good old days of Adscam and the Montreal Mafia having the ear of the PMO.
We’ve dithered long enough,Canada, it’s time to defecate or get off the commode!
The choice is clear, we can elect a government that will continue to try to improve the economy,or we can elect another watered-down progressive to raise taxes,kill jobs and destroy the economy.
If the Iggster continues his NO-coalition charade right up to election day, then turns around and springs it.
The GG would have no choice but to call ANOTHER election and allow Canadians to vote FOR or AGAINST said coalition.
The GG would be hard pressed not to, ABCD’s or something like it “desperate hail-mary political shenanigans” would be front and centre all over the media.
Any other decision will mean riots in the streets.!
I know her husband well. He has openly commented on the stress campaigns put on a family and what he’s learned from these years.
He is a workaholic, not just because he excels at what he does, but at times out of necessity because other refuse to step up and help. He fills gaps that he shouldn’t because he recognizes the problems others don’t, and tries to fix them.
In the same breath as talking about the stress, he’ll credit his wife. Knowing the many MPs I do (and nearly all of whom are still married to their first wives or husbands) they will say the same thing – and they mean it – they give all credit to their long-suffering spouses. Without whom I’m sure it wouldn’t just be impossible, it wouldn’t be worthwhile.
this LLLieberal beast is proving difficult to kill…i pray this election administers the coup de grace……
William in Ajax,
When is a coalition not a coalition….more importantly when is “not a coalition” a coalition in everything but name. There will be no formal agreement, no picture of them shaking hands, but magically they will think the same way. Eventually it will be formalized after
1) enough time that they feel safe crawling out of their cave
2) after some crisis, real or imagined that demands some stability.
But no conservative majority means the Libs and Dippers will try again and not let the Throne speech through. Whether the new GG shares the view that only a formal agreement, like Ontario, lets a coalition of losers try or whether he believes new infomration requires the people to pronounce new judgement is another matter.
You will not get stability without the Bloc and honestly, is that really something anyone of any odeological stripe wants. Right now the Cons can choose between 3 partners, the Libs and NDP will only have 2, and the Tories arent likely going to be in a comprimising mood….reality is one partner only, the Bloc.
Once again our glorious MSM is missing the point that is more than 1 inch from its face.
Under the heading “Keep Your Mouth Shut,” I’ll add, be very very very CAREFUL what you say via any form of communication to someone in the press, even if said ‘friend’ has ostensibly retired or been put out to pasture. Politics is a blood sport.
Kate, thanks for directing us to this blog and its host. She’s an astute young woman.
The rules and standards of modern politics would disqualify almost all of the fathers of Confederation, the fouding fathers of the American Revolution, Jesus Christ and the twelve disciples.
About the only exception would be Judas — he had thirty pieces of silver to show the committees.
Great and wise article!
Being married to someone in “a helping profession,” I know the foibles, the pressures, the unsung nature of the “supporting spouse.”
Being forewarned is definitely being forearmed. You have to anticipate the pressures and find ways to realistically deal with them. I like the idea of the decompression time in a warm clime! Good idea! Look forward to that — and don’t take any garbage from others. Know who you are, what’s important to you, who your enemies — and your friends — are, and keep your powder dry.
Another tip: Pray. It helps a lot, especially in the area of discerning who your friends are and who your enemies are — no matter how “nice” people seem to be. Remember: The Devil often appears as an angel of light.
This young woman has her head screwed on right. Good luck to you and God bless you and your family!
Canada, at the federal level, only had coalition government from 1864 to 1872 to bring about Confederation and provide stability in an otherwise unstable political system. It involved 3 parties, the Clear Grits under George Brown, the Parti bleu under George-Étienne Cartier, and the Liberal-Conservatives under John A. Macdonald. Not even Sir Rober Borden’s attempt at a coalition government with Sir Wilfred Laurier during WWI was successful. Less than 20% of the Liberal MPs left their party and joined the new Union or Government (as it appeared on the 1917 election ballot) party.
The 2008 coalition, still in effect until June 2011, is an aberration of Canadian politics. It’s main supporters are ignorant of Canadian history and Westminister precedent. They want European styled coalitions when we have never had one.
To the question above, the GG is the referee. He has to weigh 3 considerations at the same time; Westminister precedent, confidence of the house and electoral mandate. Many pseudo-constitutional scholars out there believe only the first two apply, but they’re wrong. No GG is going to re-create the King-Byng Affair. Every day that passes since the election increases the odds the GG could dissolve Parliament and call for new elections and mandate. Lying during the campaign about coalition government would hurt the mandate to govern with one. Also, if Iggy waits too long to try to seize power, the GG would probably reject the coalition and call for new elections (unlike Byng). If however, the Conservatives fall on their throne speech in May/June, then the GG would have to ask the Leader of the Opposition to try to form a minority government, with or without a coalition. It is for this reason I believe if the Conservatives don’t get a majority government, they won’t reconvene Parliament until the fall or until they get assurance from at least one party to not vote non-confidence.
I think it was Mike Duffy that said on the Roy Green show this afternoon that the coalition is all ready in play in that in Montreal in Justin Trudeau’s riding the NDP is not running a candidate and in Mulcair’s riding the Bloc is not running.
I think I got this right, but I sit to be corrected by someone who also heard this.
Ken, so the wannabe coalitionists think their fix is in.
Ken – I heard it that way also. Duffy also made the comment that the Conservatives are about a dozen seats shy of a majority while the Liberals are some 78 seats short of a majority. They have no “rural” seats east of New Brunswick and only a handful (fewer that 10 I believe) west of Ontario.
So why have an election? They have virtually no chance of winning even a minority. That is why Duffy absolutely believes the coalition fix is in. I also throw in the fact that all 3 opposition parties trashed the budget before they even read it.
Just watched Taber and Oliver. Oh, no Mr Harper actually proposed some kind of arrangement in 2004 should the Martin government fall and suddenly that means he wanted a coalition!!
Or, Duceppe putting words in Mr Harper’s mouth and then calling him a liar.
Are the MSM, Libs, Dips and separatists that stupid? Who is arguing the illegality of a coalition or minority arrangement, whatever form it takes? The question becomes is a Liberal minority government (like last one when they were 70 seats behind the government) acceptable to Canadians? Yes or No.
Oh right, they get to call Harper a hypocrite. Maybe they could reconvene a parliamentary committee and make it official.
Will the three oppostition parties acknowledge today they will not try to seize power after the next election if the Tories win the most seats but fall short of a majority.
We all know the answer to that question, but of course, they will use weasel words to avoid answering it. Instead the media asked what Harper would or would not have done in 2004, instead of what the coalition did do in 2008.
Just who are the hypocrites and liars again? The oppostion needs to grow up and be honest with Canadians as to their intentions.
Which do you prefer a Harper majority or an Ignatieff minority? Those are the only two realistic alternatives.
Ken if that is true and stay true then you have a proof point.
However, I would hold my powder on that one, it could be as simple as late nomination meetings….additioninally they can always run a candidate who doesnt try. Too easy to cover up.
End of the day it only makes sense tjhat there is a verbal agreement. The only issue is going to be whether the GG demands a formal agreement, which was the precedent in Ontario. He wanted to see an agreement so he knew there was a stable government.
Other than that it is always safer for the crown to ask the people for their opinion again if there is new information. Like an agreement or something that wasnt available at the time the people were last consulted.
What issue was most important to Layton (and Mulcair), Dion, Rae and Ignatieff, Duceppe and bit player Elizabeth May in December 2008?
Right, gov’t money per votes for their parties.
They tried to wrest the reins of gov’t from Harper to ensure their party coffers receive money from taxpayers.
Ignatieff, Layton, Duceppe and May are a tainted tag team.
…”additioninally they can always run a candidate who doesnt try. Too easy to cover up.”
That’s what happened in my riding, last time. The Liberals ran a completely inexperienced young man who’d basically only worked on campaigns for them.
Who knows the histiry of the 72 to 74 Liberal minority? Was this just lucky guessing or was there a formal agreement on agenda items between the Libs and Dippers?
I say the agenda is already agreed to for 18 months to 2 years of Liberal NDP Bloc governemnt….it just isnt written down. Or of it is only two or three people have a copy.
If Ignatieff genuinely rules out a coalition attempt…
~Wicked Wasabi
He won’t.
He already signed a paper that is still in effect until June 2011 that says he is party to the Lib/NDP/Bloc Coalition.
What he will do is dance around to avoid admitting that fact during the election campaign.
I watched about two minutes of the Giggles Tabor and Lloyd Oliver Liberal love-in on Question Period and realized quickly that I was going to spoil my Sunday traditional soup lunch. Switched back to Fox.
Further to my 7:50 PM comment:
The weak link in the de facto Coalition is Gilles Duceppe.
He can probably be induced to brag about the Coalition document to garner Quebcois votes because it puts him in a position of power that he would otherwise not have since his party in not a national party.
OMG
coalition = hidden agenda!
LOL
When you deny a coalition and have no discernible path to power, while calling an election when you are 10-15 points behind….only a coalition, whether verbally agreed to or not is the only thing that fits.
All previous norms mean another conservative minority at best (for the Libs and Dippers and Bloc) So, why push an election now?
Sadly we will all have to debate why the lie wasnt really a lie some time in a few months.
Sadly we will all have to debate why the lie wasnt really a lie some time in a few months.,/i>
~Stephen
I don’t see anything to be gained from debating bad faith commie liars.
I say we just punch them in the face and knock their teeth out.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OYZliEez2Vk
Example
Example