Sunday, April 3, 2011

A Coalition By Any Other Name...

A Coalition by any other name smells just as rotten.  That much is certain.  The Liberal brand cannot withstand another blatant and outright campaign lie.  Whatever grotesque form the coalition takes, it will certainly not be called a "Coalition." Some of the more perceptive journalists have already picked up on the weasel words used by the Liberals regarding Coalitions.

Here is Andrew Coyne:
...if the Conservatives were to win the most seats in the election, but not a majority, and if Michael Ignatieff were to enlist the support of Jack Layton and Gilles Duceppe to defeat the Conservatives in the Commons soon after, and if the Governor General, rather than call new elections, asked him to form a government, that would not necessarily imply a coalition government. He might govern as a minority, issue by issue, as Stephen Harper has for the last five years. Or he might strike a more formal agreement, such as the Liberal-NDP accord that brought David Peterson to power in Ontario in 1985. Neither would be a coalition. So when the Liberal leader disavows, as he did on the campaign’s first day, any intention of forming a coalition government with the NDP, or any “formal arrangement” with the Bloc, that does not mean he has ruled out taking power by the process described above.
 Coyne lays out a convoluted path to a coalition that ends up being even more convoluted in the attempt to remain neutral about it.  He even contradicts himself and the reality that Iggy could not bring himself to rule out a coalition on the first day.  It took an embarrassing scrum and an over night press release for the Liberals to rule out anything explicitly called a "coaltion."

Now listen to Jeffery Simpson who is surprisingly clear for an arch progressive:
All this [discussion] about “coalitions,” especially “coalitions of losers,” obscures what could arise after May 2. If a prime minister, say Mr. Harper, couldn’t command a parliamentary majority, lost a confidence vote but demanded an immediate election, the Governor-General would be constitutionally correct to ask the leader of the opposition if he could govern. The leader would presumably seek support from other parties in a coalition, an arrangement, an understanding or whatever. If he commanded the confidence of the House, he would govern. 
We might be getting bogged down in a lot of ifs here.  If Conservatives don't get a majority, and if another Conservative minority is elected, and if the throne speech is voted down, and if the Governor General doesn't call another election, then and only then will a Liberal Government seize power with a Minor Minority.  A Minor Minority being a party that takes the government writ without winning an election.  An insult to democracy.

All but the first if, the outcome where the Conservative Party is elected to a majority, is entirely under the control of the coalition parties.  I believe this has been the plan all along. 

A losing Liberal party usurping power with their appointed and unpopular leader through an obscure parliamentary technicality is an ugly and dangerous precedent.  This may even be legal but it is still wrong, immoral and duplicitous.  If Canadians thought their parliament was dysfunctional before they haven't seen anything yet.  Gilles Ducepp must be laughing his butt off.

Micheal Ignatieff's own rhetoric about democracy would seem to contradict the affront of the Minor Minority government.  It does, but only if you ignore the rhetoric about the "supremacy of parliament."  A parliament that outnumbers the largest party is entitled to supremacy above and beyond the wishes of Canadians.  This is what aristocrats like Count Ignatieff mean by democracy.  He means the democracy of the house granted by winning a seat in a general election, not any democracy that common people will ever come in contact with. 

Igantieffs democracy is Soviet style democracy.  It takes input from the people but the power lies solely with the elite. 

We can see this was the plan all along.  Ignatieff's first day wasn't an accident.  All observers agree that Iggy should have been prepared for the Coalition question.  I submit he was prepared, but wasn't prepared to lie about it. 

I'm sure that Liberal agents spent the entire night working out how to allow the Count to explicitly deny a narrowly defined coalition while still planning to seize power outside of an election.

Meanwhile, senior Liberals are available on Youtube describing this situation exactly.

It is clear what the Liberals and their coalition cronies have been planning all along.  The only way to stop it, the only option to Canadians who care about this country is to vote in a Conservative Majority.  It's the only way to avoid the coming upheavals.  Both the Bloc and the NDP will have the power to veto any move that a minor minority will make.  The Bloc's goal to tear this country asunder is being realized.  It is the duty of any patriotic Canadian to vote Conservative.  The Conservative mission is to literally conserve Confederation.

 To paraphrase Elrond in Tolkien's Lord of the Rings:

Strangers from distant lands, friends of old, you have been summoned here to answer the threat of Coalition. Canada stands upon the brink of destruction; none can escape it. You will vote or you will fall. Each province is bound to this fate, this one doom. Bring forth the election....


Fay said...

What other explanation is there for long time liberals leaving the party to support the conservatives. The word is out and even Liberals are afraid of the result of a coalition.

Anonymous said...

And to think there are still people out there who will vote for this Russian count.Bought and paid for with taxpayers money.

Anonymous said...

Here is a wrinkle and I believe Jack has this in the back of his mind. Layton is more popular than Iggy and he is thinking the only way he will support a coalition is if he, Layton, is the PM. Anything else and there is no deal. This is Jack's finest hour, he has done an end run round the Liberals, achieved the unthinkable and will go down in history as Canada's first and only NDP prime minister.

Anonymous said...

Mr. Ignatieff revealed the truth during his disastrous Coalition Monkey press conference. The Liberal war room was ready for the coalition question. They created the 'More of The Same' answer. The Liberals correctly assumed that the press would accept this perfect textbook answer and move on. Then something strange happened. The usually in the tank press became journalists for two minutes and began pressing Mr. Ignatieff for a yes or no answer. Mr. Ignatieff began to panic. If he lied and answered no, the next question would certainly be if a coalition is not on the table then why force an election? You are way back in the polls and Mr. Harper is flirting with a majority, why did you force an election? Mr. Ignatieff knew there was no way out of that one so he kept giving his non-answer. The Liberal war room went to work that night and ruled out a coalition in a press release. The MSM snapped out of it and hurried back into the tank and began selling the 2004-Harper-Did-It-Too nonsense. They also began to give the Liberals cover by saying the Liberals have now denied the coalition so nothing to see here. They were hoping voters are so obtuse as not to notice the huge pachyderm in the room. If there is no coalition, why now? The coalition agreement is still in effect until June. There is no pressing issue forcing a trip to the polls. The only reason to call an election the Liberals have no chance of winning is to form a coalition. If Harper had done the same thing with the same set of circumstances, the CBC-G&M-Red Star would be still have been on this story 24-7. With the release of the Liberal platform today, there is nothing in the Liberal plan that is a game changer. This is even more evidence that the Liberals only path to power is a coalition. The polls are stuck with Harper in majority territory because voters are smart enough to see through this scam. It is absolutely shameful the press lets the Liberals get away with it. SUN-TV can't come online fast enough.

ward said...

I cannot think of any other reason that the Liberals being down 10 - 15 points in the polls would force an election that is going to cost them 20M, other than to try to hold the Conservatives to a minority and install themselves (with the coalition) into power post election.

The question no one seems to be asking is what mechanism exists to remove a majority coalition from power once they have siezed it.

The answer is there isn't one. No matter what they do.

Alex said...

@ Fay: I can't understand their move to the grits in first place really.

@ Anon 8:43: zombies.

@ Anon 9:07: If only they were that smart. I've all but laid it out for them in this space before. Liberal or NDP I don't really care in the end but only one of them will last in the end. Their idealism blinds them. Nobody reading this should ever abandon their ideals, but never ever lie to yourself and hope for the best. See things as they are and chart your course. That is the only way to reach your destination. Pure idealists of all types end up smashed on the rocks and the NDP will not be an exception.

Clown Party said...

So a coalition in Canada would have a non-elected party leader (Biffy), leading an un-elected democradic government , with a party that has main goal to break up Canada (Black-mail Party), with a combination of policies that majority of Canadians rejected. Sounds LIEberal power grab to me.

Wonder if Talaban Jack could be Prim Minister if he won more seats than Biffy? That fighgt might be interesting to watch, as Canada is flushed down the toilet - Canadians will treat them as Obams is treated in the States now.

The Coalition of Damned motto should be:

"Promise a Dream - Deliver a Nightmare."

Post a Comment