Coalition: September 2004, December 2008 & Now

[Harry]

"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.

Absolutely - another tempest in a teapot here.

[August1991]

Absolutely - another tempest in a teapot here.

No, it's not. And with all due respect, I don't think an American can appreciate how damaging this is to the Liberals. In the US, there truly is a Blue Door and a Red Door. In English Canada, there's an Orange Door and everyone knows about that door Quebecers have.

[Molly]

No, it's not. And with all due respect, I don't think an American can appreciate how damaging this is to the Liberals. In the US, there truly is a Blue Door and a Red Door. In English Canada, there's an Orange Door and everyone knows about that door Quebecers have.

As I listen to Harper speaking just now... he's looking just a little rediculous, trying to split a hair on the microscopic level. He's starting to sweat.

SAo he's starting to look bad on the co-a-lition fromt, was foolish enough to start talking 'hidden agenda', and so far is getting a pass on contempt of parliament. This is the press being nice!

[Guest American Woman]

Absolutely - another tempest in a teapot here.

I can see if the issue were "How many times can Ignatieff evade a question," but to make it about "a Liberal," as if that's the reason the question is being evaded, as if Harper has never evaded a question, as if politicians through the history of the world haven't evaded questions, is presenting it and making it into something it's not.

[xul]

as if Harper has never evaded a question

If a politician has never evaded a question, he must be a sophisticated liar....

Edited March 26, 2011 by xul

[August1991]

I can see if the issue were "How many times can Ignatieff evade a question," but to make it about "a Liberal," as if that's the reason the question is being evaded, as if Harper has never evaded a question, as if politicians through the history of the world haven't evaded questions, is presenting it and making it into something it's not.

But it is a Liberal avoiding the question and it isn't just any question. Dion (and Ignatieff) signed an explicit coalition agreement with the NDP in December 2008.

I think that you have to understand Canadian politics well to understand how serious this is. If Ignatieff gets this wrong (and so far, he hasn't done a very good job), his poll numbers will sink to the teens.

[Harry]

Anyways the issue is over. Ignatieff is the new kid on the block of Canadian politics so to speak, so we need to cut him a little slack. He'll pick up the pace now I imagine, and start dealing with the ethics file which is presently causing Harper some grief.

[SF/PF]

But it is a Liberal avoiding the question and it isn't just any question.

Yes. And the Conservative leader had simply refused to accept questions, let alone answer them, until this morning.

Dion (and Ignatieff) signed an explicit coalition agreement with the NDP in December 2008.

And Harper had a letter drawn up for the same purpose in 2004. He even held a press conference for it. Whats the difference?

I think that you have to understand Canadian politics well to understand how serious this is. If Ignatieff gets this wrong (and so far, he hasn't done a very good job), his poll numbers will sink to the teens.

On the contrary, one requires a complete misunderstanding of the Canadian system to believe that this is serious.

[Molly]

Pick up the pace?

A few minutes ago, some journalist asked Mr. Ignatieff whether his statement wrt rejection of coalition was too little/too late, and he- and a whole lot of the press gallery- laughed out loud, saying that it was a genuinely funny question. He pointed out that since this was his first press conference, on day 0 of the campaign....

I have to say, I'm finding the maneouvering genuinely amusing, too.

[Harry]

On the contrary, one requires a complete misunderstanding of the Canadian system to believe that this is serious.

True dat.

And obviously Ignatieff just put the issue to bed.

Ok, next issue?

Edited March 26, 2011 by Harry

[Bryan]

And Harper had a letter drawn up for the same purpose in 2004. He even held a press conference for it. Whats the difference?

The difference is there was no coalition agreement in 2004. All three leaders made it abundantly clear at that press conference that they had no agreement of any kind. That isn't semantics, it's a fundamental difference in fact.

[August1991]

Well, via press release, Ignatieff has finally said the only thing he ever should have said (although I would have skipped the "coalitions are a legitimate constitutional option"):

We will not enter a coalition with other federalist parties. In our system, coalitions are a legitimate constitutional option. However, I believe that issue-by-issue collaboration with other parties is the best way for minority Parliaments to function.

We categorically rule out a coalition or formal arrangement with the Bloc Quebecois.

liberal.ca

Now, he's going to have repeat that mantra in person.

[Bryan]

Notice he's carefully saying "We will not enter a coalition with other federalist parties". Conveniently omits the fact that there already is a formal coalition agreement in place until June 2011. That's still a lot of wiggle room for him to say he meant he won't enter into another coalition after this one.

[SF/PF]

As I listen to Harper speaking just now... he's looking just a little rediculous, trying to split a hair on the microscopic level. He's starting to sweat.

SAo he's starting to look bad on the co-a-lition fromt, was foolish enough to start talking 'hidden agenda', and so far is getting a pass on contempt of parliament. This is the press being nice!

Duceppe just savaged Harper. Harper caught in a flat out lie on day 1 of the campaign.

[WWWTT]

You guys ever play connect the dots?

Still haven't figured it out yet ey?

I don't think many people in the liberal party are to happy with Ignatieff and that is why his collueges are letting him hang himself.

Doesn't matter what he says,as long as Harper doesn't get a majority,thats all that matters.

And if this goal is reached all the better he said stupid things.

The same goes for the conservatives aswell too.

Lots is gonna change by June!

WWWTT

[August1991]

And obviously Ignatieff just put the issue to bed.

Ok, next issue?

Harry, you obviously don't understand politics.

This issue is not over. Ignatieff is going to have repeat this and repeat this. And why would anyone believe him?

-----

Let's get this straight. It's not only Harper that is watching Ignatieff squirm. Layton also loves this situation because he's going to pick up votes from it. People who hate Harper can now safely vote NDP knowing that (wink, wink, nudge, nudge) a Liberal/NDP coalition will keep Harper out of power.

[ToadBrother]

Harry, you obviously don't understand politics.

This issue is not over. Ignatieff is going to have repeat this and repeat this. And why would anyone believe him?

-----

Let's get this straight. It's not only Harper that is watching Ignatieff squirm. Layton also loves this situation because he's going to pick up votes from it. People who hate Harper can now safely vote NDP knowing that (wink, wink, nudge, nudge) a Liberal/NDP coalition will keep Harper out of power.

Well, Iggy has come out and denied he's going to form one. My guess is that he'll probably clarify that he won't be forming one after the election. What happens if a Tory minority falls on the Throne Speech is an open book.

[Harry]

Harry, you obviously don't understand politics.

This issue is not over. Ignatieff is going to have repeat this and repeat this. And why would anyone believe him?

-----

Let's get this straight. It's not only Harper that is watching Ignatieff squirm. Layton also loves this situation because he's going to pick up votes from it. People who hate Harper can now safely vote NDP knowing that (wink, wink, nudge, nudge) a Liberal/NDP coalition will keep Harper out of power.

August you seem to obsess around the word "hate".

I hate to burst your bubble, and I'm sure it was fun while it lasted but it's over, and it's time to move on to something of substance like the threat to our democracy with the Harper Government being found in contempt of Parliament.

Edited March 26, 2011 by Harry

[August1991]

I hate to burst your bubble, and I'm sure it was fun while it lasted but it's over, and it's time to move on to something of substance like the threat to our democracy with the Harper Government being found in contempt of Parliament.

But the thing is the people who hate Harper don't get to set the agenda. The campaign is not going to run in a way that favours the Liberals or plays to their strengths.

I have no idea what direction the campaign will take but I'm willing to bet that we have not seen the end of talk of a coalition. In 1984, John Turner slapped a woman's bottom as a baseball player might do after a good pitch. This minor event dominated the news cycle for a week or so and was used to illustrate how Turner was out of touch. In this sense, I think that Ignatieff's flakiness or inability to answer directly will also figure.

Kinsella referred to Ignatieff's inability to connect and that's what I see in the clip in the OP. This is not going away despite how much Liberals would like to change the channels.

Edited March 26, 2011 by August1991

[Molly]

Well, Iggy has come out and denied he's going to form one. My guess is that he'll probably clarify that he won't be forming one after the election. What happens if a Tory minority falls on the Throne Speech is an open book.

In other words, you, like Harper, are calling him a liar.

Even if you do presume that level of mendacity (quite a leap on its own) I seriously, seriously doubt he would. In the first place, he was singularly unenthusiastic about the Dion coalition so he's not so inclined from the getgo, but he also has much more to lose than to gain by going there- would lose more than any other politician in Canadian history, including Steven Harper! Of all politicians in Canada, he alone can't touch it.

[ToadBrother]

In other words, you, like Harper, are calling him a liar.

Even if you do presume that level of mendacity (quite a leap on its own) I seriously, seriously doubt he would. In the first place, he was singularly unenthusiastic about the Dion coalition so he's not so inclined from the getgo, but he also has much more to lose than to gain by going there- would lose more than any other politician in Canadian history, including Steven Harper! Of all politicians in Canada, he alone can't touch it.

What I'm saying is that the Liberals will not form a minority on May 2. If we presume that the Tories don't get a majority (and that seems an iffy prediction at this point), it still means the Liberals will be a distant second. If the Tories fall on the Throne Speech you're going to have a party with what, 80 seats or thereabouts, trying to manage a vote-by-vote minority government? I'm telling you what I've told the Tory supporters, that any political leader who ties his hands with these sorts of promises is an idiot, because Iggy, if he is going to manage to form a government, is going to need to come to some sort of agreement with the Bloc and NDP. Harper has a much easier time because he only needs to get one opposition party to side with him on any piece of legislation. Without some sort of guarantee from the NDP and Bloc (and you can call it what you like, but it amounts to, at the least, an informal coalition built upon a do-not-kill clause), Iggy might be lucky to last as long as Joe Clark.

So yes, I guess I'm calling him a liar. A liar by necessity, I suppose, but a liar none the less.

[August1991]

Well, Iggy has come out and denied he's going to form one. My guess is that he'll probably clarify that he won't be forming one after the election.

So I guess if Ignatieff has said it, that's the end of that. Right? No. Politics doesn't work that way.

In other words, you, like Harper, are calling him a liar.

Even if you do presume that level of mendacity (quite a leap on its own) I seriously, seriously doubt he would. In the first place, he was singularly unenthusiastic about the Dion coalition so he's not so inclined from the getgo, but he also has much more to lose than to gain by going there- would lose more than any other politician in Canadian history, including Steven Harper! Of all politicians in Canada, he alone can't touch it.

Molly, Ignatieff has to convince two relatively small groups of key Liberal voters. People who might shift Tory if they suspected that Layton/NDP could sit at the cabinet table and normally NDP voters who would vote Liberal to keep Harper out of office. Ignatieff hasn't achieved that goal.

If I wanted Harper gone and was hesitating between the NDP and the Liberals, I think that I'd feel comfortable voting NDP because my vote would not be wasted. Ignatieff hasn't stated clearly enough - as all Liberals in the past have done - that a vote for the NDP is a wasted vote if the purpose is to defeat the Conservatives.

On the other side, if I were hesitating between voting for the Liberals or Conservatibves, but dead set against the socialist hordes and separatists, I'd shift to the Tories.

There are about 5-10% of voters who fall into these two groups and Ignatieff has not convinced them to stay in the Liberal camp.

[ToadBrother]

So I guess if Ignatieff has said it, that's the end of that. Right? No. Politics doesn't work that way.

You'll find I'm saying just the opposite. Iggy's BSing right now because he has to, but if my little post-Throne Speech Liberal government theory comes to pass, then he won't have much choice. The odds of the Liberals getting to a number of seats that doesn't require he needs the support of both the Bloc and NDP to keep afloat are low, and that is going to make a simple vote-by-vote minority unsustainable for any length of time. As I said in my previous post, the Tories can do it because they have enough seats that they only need to strike a deal with one Opposition party for any vote. Trying to maintain consistent support of two parties is going to require some sort of an agreement, and if we take it that we won't form a formal coalition, it means some sort of agreement by the Opposition not to topple the Liberals, which is an informal coalition where the coalition partners don't sit in cabinet, but do get a helluva lot of say on any legislation.

Maybe this is an argument for a Harper majority. I dunno. I have no particular partisan horse in this race, I'll vote based on my own requirements, desires or compromises, and let you partisans smack each other around.

[August1991]

Iggy's BSing right now because he has to, but if my little post-Throne Speech Liberal government theory comes to pass, then he won't have much choice. The odds of the Liberals getting to a number of seats that doesn't require he needs the support of both the Bloc and NDP to keep afloat are low, and that is going to make a simple vote-by-vote minority unsustainable for any length of time.

If some voters reason as you or more likely, if voters don't believe Ignatieff's denials (and he has botched this so far in terms of credible denial), then the Liberals will bleed voters to the NDP and to the Conservatives.

Maybe this is an argument for a Harper majority. I dunno.

Harper will get a majority if the anti-Harper vote in English Canada splits between the NDP and the Liberals.

[Scotty]

Well, Iggy has come out and denied he's going to form one. My guess is that he'll probably clarify that he won't be forming one after the election. What happens if a Tory minority falls on the Throne Speech is an open book.

No one will believe him if the Tories fall on the throne speech or first budget. It will be assumed he was lying all the time and there'll be a huge surge of anger towards him.