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....