Friday, September 11, 2009

Caolaition bottom line

Regrdless of what is said before an election in the event of a Liberal minority government Ignatieff is not just entitled to seek Opposition support for his government's programs he is obliged to. Loser Steve could rail agianst a "coalition" all he wants but it will be entirely legal.

Everything going on today is just to blunt the only weapon the Conservatives seem to have.
Recommend this Post

5 comments:

devinjohnston said...

If that is so, then why bother disavowing a coalition? Why not just say nothing instead? I mean, fundamentally I agree with you, but I've gotta say that Iggy's denunciation of working with others makes me (as a New Democrat) not feel very good about working with him afterward.

Backseat Blogger said...

the 'problem' with the "caolaition" is simple.

Despite the public huffing and puffing of the Tories, a coalition or whatever you want to call it is perfectly acceptable parliament tactic. After all the only thing that the queen(or GG) needs concern herself with is does the individual have consistent support to be appointed as her prime minister.

HOWEVER, what is acceptable on Parliament Hill is not necessarily acceptable off the Hill... you know ... the people.

That's what happened last december.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out if there really is an election this fall.

sassy said...

As we know there are two Harpers.

I was wondering - if those two Harpers went for treatment and that treatment was successful in bringing those two Harpers together into one Harper - would that be a Harper COALITION?

Constant Vigilance said...

I learn something new everyday. Such as the fact that spell checker doesn't work in the title block.

Oemissions said...

The Canadian public needs to be sufficiently re-educated about a coalition. Last year, Harper and Baird yelled "separatists" and "socialists" right off the bat and rallied a big in unison response.
Ignatieff would have been wiser to educate rather than placate.