Coalition: September 2004, December 2008 & Now

[Wild Bill]

How about that guy Count Igula ( Okay Count Ignatieff) here he is howling about the PM being disrespectful of Parliament and meanwhile he has his face in front of a mike outside the House while the budget is being read!!!!! Some respect for Parliament.

As for Contempt of Parliament, he will not answer the Press' question re Coalition, at least comes nearer honesty by saying he will work with any Party, but they are both avoiding the truth.

Yeah, I watched that scrum, Scrib! Ignatieff really blew that one, big time! He tried to give a politician's answer and was clumsy at it. The reporters were right when they said that unless he gave a straight and definitive answer the question would follow him for the entire campaign. He and his handlers should have expected that and been prepared for it.

The fact that they didn't speaks poorly about their campaign skills. Still, the voters haven't had time to wake up yet so it probably didn't do him any lasting harm.

[Jack Weber]

But the truth that wasn't avoided was contempt of Parliament was it? I mean *how dare they* not answer direct questions about some alleged phantom "coalition" but how fast the CPC slink away when the contempt of Parliament questions start flying.

But then again that is social conservatism right there isn't it. Contempt of Parliament is just the bsymptom of contempt for Canadians in general. Contempt for our democratic institutions? Why look, over there, they might be forming a coalition. Quick, look over there.

Here's the thing..

By not voting for the motion put forward by Mr.Ignatieff this morning,the Conservative members essentially thumbed their noses AGAIN at the speakers ruling on the charge of Contempt of Parliament.

In otherwords,they have indirectly said they have no interest in folowing the democratic and parliamentary traditions of this country,AND WORSE,...Have broken the oath they all took when they were sworn in to uphold our Constitution...

Think about that for a moment...

As it relates to Mr.Harpers non Q&A "perp walk" earlier this afternoon,I hope it's the last time the press gives him a pass...He made sure he got his faux talking point message out that the government was defeated over the budget...It was'nt.He never mentioned the Contempt charge in his spiel at all...

I hope the press goes after him every chance they get and makes sure he does'nt get to orchestrate pressers,or anything like that...It's clear that Mr.Harper is very uncomfortable in a non-controlled setting,and I hope the pres goes after him on the ethical issues with as much zeal as they rightfully went after Mr.Ignatieff on the coalition issue...

[capricorn]

Speaking of quote of the day, here are quotes from afar too amusing not to share.

In Egypt and Tunisia the people overthrew their political elite for a taste of democracy. In Canada, the political elite is doing the reverse: forcing an unwilling populace to troop to the polls for the fourth time in seven years. "Oh God, not another election," wrote one blogger.

Today Stephen Harper's minority Conservative government was brought down by a vote in parliament. There were no massive demonstrations filling Major's Hill Park in Ottawa and so far no Al Jazeera journalists have been "detained". Instead the damage was the result of a very Canadian coup: Harper's government was trapped by parliamentary procedure and defeated in a confidence motion.

So Canada has yet another federal election, a sequel to those held in 2006 and 2008, in which Harper's remodeled Conservative party won a plurality but not a majority in the federal parliament, chipping away at the Liberals in the east while maintaining its solid support in the west.

That's what the polls predict this time too – another victory of sorts for Harper, another weak showing by the Liberals, with the Bloc Quebecois sitting in glacial isolation, all part of the convoluted nature of Canadian politics and its electoral structure. But this time Harper may finally shunt his party over the line into a parliamentary majority, assuming Canadians are tired of the country's Sisyphean election cycle.

---

Much can change in an election campaign, and Harper's government has suffered a mini-scandal that could harm it. But Harper will campaign on economic competence and the absurdity of an opposition coalition including the separatist BQ, while his decision to buy 65 hugely expensive fighter jets from the US may even be mitigated by the Nato-led military action against Libya. The fractured opposition, with Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff going around the country stirring up apathy, is unlikely to construct a coherent case to the electorate for a change at the top.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/richard-adams-blog/2011/mar/25/canada-election-stephen-harper-conservatives

[August1991]

Terry Milewski, CBC reporter:

“Mr. Ignatieff, surely this coalition monkey is going to stay on your back every day of the campaign because people will assume if you don’t rule it out, that’s because you’ve got something to hide and secretly you will entertain it, you just don’t want to admit it. Isn’t that the inevitable conclusion that you’re inviting voters to draw?”

[nicky10013]

Terry Milewski, CBC reporter:

Now, people are saying he wasn't clear. He was clear. He was abundantly clear. Ignatieff is smarter than to fall into the trap.

He literally said if you vote NDP, you get the CPC. Now, if they voted NDP and get CPC, doesn't that say it right there he won't work with the NDP to topple the CPC?

He's not answering the question the way reporter wants because it's a lose lose question and it's a soundbyte for the rest of the campaign. If he answers that coalitions are legal, even if he prefaces it with the fact that he won't enter into one with the NDP, the CPC will isolate that clip and run ad after ad with that clip in it. If he answers that is illegal, the CPC runs ad after ad of him contradicting himself with past statements.

At least he took the time to answer questions. Answer me this: how many questions did Harper answer this morning?

I wonder how hard the media will be with him.

Edited March 26, 2011 by nicky10013

[Harry]

Excellent question nicky.

Edited March 26, 2011 by Harry

[nicky10013]

Speaking of quote of the day, here are quotes from afar too amusing not to share.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/richard-adams-blog/2011/mar/25/canada-election-stephen-harper-conservatives

I personally think it's rather sad that CPC supporters have to go to UK papers to get good press.

[scribblet]

This is hilarious, why is he afraid to answer the question :lol:

[capricorn]

If he answers that coalitions are legal, even if he prefaces it with the fact that he won't enter into one with the NDP, the CPC will isolate that clip and run ad after ad with that clip in it. If he answers that is illegal, the CPC runs ad after ad of him contradicting himself with past statements.

Too late. Ignatieff doesn't know when to keep his trap shut and he just can't help being verbose. This will be his downfall in the campaign.

He was asked whether he would pursue a coalition government, even if the Conservatives win the most seats on election day. Mr. Ignatieff hemmed and hawed; he blathered and skited; he baldered and dashed. At the end of expressing how he’d been a Liberal since age 17 and how he was leading a team of proud Canadians to form an alternative government, he concluded: “I can’t be clearer than that.”

But reporters wouldn’t let it lie. “You are not clear at all sir, actually. Do you believe that a coalition is a legitimate parliamentary option that you will pursue … ?”

“I’ve answered that question in the past.”

It went on in this vein for some time, with Mr. Ignatieff advising journalists they should talk to the Governor-General about “abstract constitutional principles.” He tried to make a break for it but was caught by one final question.

“Mr. Ignatieff, surely this coalition monkey is going to stay on your back every day of the campaign because people will assume if you don’t rule it out, that’s because you’ve got something to hide and secretly you will entertain it, you just don’t want to admit it. Isn’t that the inevitable conclusion that you’re inviting voters to draw?”

“You’re buying the Conservative line here. There’s nothing to hide,” said the Liberal leader. “I am saying as clearly as I can to the Canadian people, looking them straight in the eye, if you want to replace the Harper government, you’ve got to vote Liberal. It can’t be clearer than that.”

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/03/25/john-ivison-the-first-gaffe-goes-to-ignatieff/

At least he took the time to answer questions. Answer me this: how many questions did Harper answer this morning?

None. He said he'll take questions tomorrow after meeting with the GG. This was all eclipsed by Ignatieff's non answers to the central question on the coalition. He's not off the hook yet.

I wonder how hard the media will be with him.

It will depend on how much ammunition Ignatieff gives the MSM. Let's just say that today at least, Ignatieff commanded the attention of the media.

[Shakeyhands]

What a joke, I see you are buying in to the spin as well. Well Done. Dear leader would be proud.

He answered it quite clearly for those of us that are capable of not being blinded by spin.

Keep digging them up Scribblet, it is what you and your kind are best at.

[scribblet]

I'll ignore the 'your kind'

You obviously didn't listen to it, he never answered the question, "I'm a politician", isn't a real answer, yes or no would have done it.

This only a shortly after he accuses the CPC war room of grossly misrepresenting the opposition as a coalition of democratic usurpers, and here Ignatieff has just handed the CPC war room a very generous gift. All they have to do is put this on reply and we have Dion 2 LOL

Edited March 26, 2011 by scribblet

[Bryan]

The most interesting part about that is that even the CBC and Toronto Star reporters were getting angry at Ignatieff.

He's going have a very rough campaign if that's how he intends to address direct questions.

[William Ashley]

Ignatieff didn't support the coalition - he was the last person to sign and did so to represent his reservations on supporting it.

He also broke off the first one, which pissed off relations with the NDP and bloc officially.

He hasn't been warm to the idea.

However if presented the oppourtunity for instance the Governor general inviting the opposition to come up with an alternative I think that he would be more than willing to be PM if an arangement could be worked out.

However he cites constitutional issues as it is the Governor General who selects the PM, likewise the GG need not accept the coalition even if it is the majority if it is a less functionable government.

I think he would but it wouldn't be his first choice as a means to be PM.

This would likely be the same for Harper. If he has the chance to form a coalition government with the liberals rather than be in opposition he probably would also.

Ask Harper that Question if he had a choice between being in opposition for 5 years or forming a coalition with the bloc or NDP what he would do.

Funny that Harper proposed this same thing to oust the liberals before 2006.

Harper didn't even take questions from the press WHAT DOES THAT SAY?

Edited March 26, 2011 by William Ashley

[Shady]

I've counted half a dozen times so far. And it's only the first day! I can't wait until the debates, when he's asked the question on national television without anywhere to run and hide.

[Shady]

Also, I nearly spit out my coffee when he referred to his "incredible Liberal team" standing behind him. They look like something out of the bar scene in Star Wars. A bunch of nobodys and back benchers. That's incredible?

[Bryan]

Also, I nearly spit out my coffee when he referred to his "incredible Liberal team" standing behind him. They look like something out of the bar scene in Star Wars. A bunch of nobodys and back benchers. That's incredible?

I think what he means by incredible is not credible.

[Moonbox]

That was really awkward to watch. The reports were out to fry Ignatieff on that.

[Moonlight Graham]

He answered it quite clearly for those of us that are capable of not being blinded by spin.

No he didn't. I watched it all live. He said everything but "i will not form a coalition government". Why can't he say those words? Obviously because he doesn't want to rule out the possibility.

[SF/PF]

Because refusing outright to answer any questions at all isn't "evading" a question.

Hell, Harper didn't even have the spine to show up in the house to face the charge of contempt against his government.

Anyone that isn't blinded by partisan loyalty has to admit that even though Ignatieff's answers on the coalition question have been unsatisfying to some, he has at least been willing to take questions. Harper has been shielded from the press for a few days now.

Evading a question indeed.

[nicky10013]

According to CBC just now, Ignatieff made an official statement this morning saying no coalition.

[Shakeyhands]

No he didn't. I watched it all live. He said everything but "i will not form a coalition government". Why can't he say those words? Obviously because he doesn't want to rule out the possibility.

I watched it live as well. How can he rule something like that out when it's part of our system?

Hell, the Booster club brings stuff he said 20 years ago up (but in Tom L's case, people change) to hold against him. Why would he say definitively that he would do something that is perfectly legal and acceptable within the system?

Ignatieff and the Liberal strategists need to do something to disallow the CPC to keep framing the issues.

[betsy]

The most interesting part about that is that even the CBC and Toronto Star reporters were getting angry at Ignatieff.

He's going have a very rough campaign if that's how he intends to address direct questions.

CTV Jane Taber took a dig at him suggesting, isn't avoiding to give a straight answer contemptuous of democracy.

He kept clearly saying though..."Look I'm in politics...." In other words he's nothing more than your typical politicians who don't mean what they say and who say what they don't mean! So why should people take his promises seriously?

Makes a whole lot of sense to stick with Harper! Voters may not like his personality or may not agree with his method....but at least he's tried and tested! At a very difficult time to boot!

[Molly]

According to CBC just now, Ignatieff made an official statement this morning saying no coalition.

To which the CPC (Giorno) is replying, "Coalition-coalition-coalition-coalition!"

Stunning. Kim Canpbell was apparently right.

I note the timing of that statement, though. I assume Harper will have been brought up to speed by the time he's done with tea with the GG.

Now we get to see whether the press will be as aggressive about contempt of parliament as they have been chasing a coalition ghost.

[Guest American Woman]

"How Many Times Can a Liberal Politican Evade a Question"....

As many times as a Conservative politician can evade a question. It's politics, pure and simple, no matter what the party.

[August1991]

According to CBC just now, Ignatieff made an official statement this morning saying no coalition.

I haven't seen that report but it is the only thing Ignatieff can do. He has to strongly and without prevarication refuse to form a coalition after the next election. Now, whether anyone believes him or what he actually does on May 3 are different questions.

If Ignatieff doesn't do this soon, he is going to bleed votes in two directions:

A coalition with the NDP sends two messages to two groups of voters Ignatieff needs. To centre-right voters, wavering between the Conservatives and the Liberals, it says: the alternative to a Tory majority is not a safe, centre-right Liberal government, but a cabinet with Jack Layton and Libby Davies in it. And to voters on the Liberals’ left, wavering between the Liberals and the NDP, it says: you can safely ignore the traditional Liberal fear campaign, namely that a vote for the Grits is the only way to keep the Tories out.

Andrew Coyne

-----

Incidentally, what I found uncomfortable in that clip is how Ignatieff simply cannot connect with ordinary people. The guy is like a tutorial assistant in an undergrad seminar discussing whether Thucydides or Herodotus is the better historian. If Ignatieff doesn't change his style (and I fear that that's all he's got), this is going to be embarassing to watch.