No Coalition? Don't worry about it. Here's how the Liberals can get power

Short of Harper getting a majority, if the Liberals truly know what they are doing, Ignatieff will be our PM within six months.

Ignatieff has ruled out a coalition. Good for him. This election can not be about whether we should be governed by a coalition. This election must be about the Harper Government and its lack of ethics, contempt for democracy and screwed up spending priorities.

People concerned about Harper winning again are... well, right. He will.

But even with Harper returning with yet another minority government, there is another way for Ignatieff to become PM.

Parliament must squash Harper at the first opportunity.

When Harper returns with a minority, the first order of parliamentary business for the 'new' government will be a Speech from the Throne. Convention says defeat him then (see CuriosityCat's excellent piece on this), so close after an election, and the Governor General will give serious consideration to giving the second place party a chance to govern.

Indeed, if a Harper government fails to gain confidence, so close after an election, it's all but an absolute given that the GG will grant the Liberals an opportunity to gain the confidence of the House.

(Technically -- and it's an important technicality -- the GG will consider any and all proposals from any MPs, regardless of party affiliation. We are represented constitutionally by MPs, not political parties.)

Will Ignatieff seek the PMO with an official coalition in hand? I doubt it. It's not in the Liberal's interest as it plays against the Liberal's 'natural governing party' instinct, spreads out the glory, and (sadly) gives credibility to the Harper Conservative's arrogant and hypocritical rhetoric about "risky, unstable" coalitions. (As if Parliament hasn't been unstable for the past five years...)

The Liberals should be able to negotiate sufficient ongoing support in the House regardless for, say, 18 months.

Having just found the 'Harper Government' in contempt, the other parties will be in an awkward position supporting a Conservative government.They also must hate dealing with Harper's hyper-partisanship. Allowing Parliament to accomplish very little while extending the powers of the 'executive' under the motto "majority or bust" has been Harper's legacy of the past five years. (Five years already?) For all the opposition parties, enough must be enough.


Working with the Liberals vote by vote, under the theme of democracy renewed, the Bloc and the NDP (and maybe, just maybe, one Green seat -- we'll see) will have more influence than they do currently. And yet, without a formal coalition, they will be unconstrained in their potential criticisms of the government.

In other words, if everyone knows their hand, they can get more without losing independence.

And the public gets to see Parliament finally work as it should.

It's my theory that this is the Liberal's intent.

Let's pray they are as smart as I hope they are.

Tom Flanagan says he looks up to Iggy

A must read. Lots of nuggets in this interview: Ignatieff 'quality guy,' Flanagan says

Conservatives promoting Trudeau

The Conservatives are running ads (see sidebar in the link) in Quebec featuring historical outtakes of Justin Trudeau criticizing Ignatieff during the Liberal leadership debate several years ago (has it been that long?).

What I find interesting is that the Conservatives are implicitly boosting Trudeau's image, promoting him as a person whose opinions are worth listening to. It's not what they intend, but it is a by-product of the ad.

“Ignatieff, he’s a little all over the place sometimes,” Trudeau says in the spot, in a clip drawn from a 2006 TV interview.

“He says this, he says that — he contradicts himself.”

Trudeau then delivers this little parting shot: “For me, he’s not someone with... maybe he has the intelligence, but maybe not the wisdom required.”

At the time, the young Trudeau and candidate Ignatieff had crossed swords over whether Quebec should be recognized as a nation — something Ignatieff supported.

The ad’s narrator ends the spot by asking viewers: “Liberals themselves doubt (Ignatieff’s) judgment. How can we trust him?”

Ignatieff :“As compared to Mr. Harper, I can work very well with people who have opinions that differ from mine... Justin Trudeau is a man with a remarkable future in the party and I’m proud that he’s part of my team and that’s all I have to say.”

Trudeau's response: "If I accused him of lacking wisdom, when I look at those words today and all the trouble they could cause even three years later, taken out of context . . . I am prepared to admit that maybe I'm the one who lacked wisdom."

Not that these quotes will counter the ad, as they get far less exposure. But I suggest this ad will have little effect in of itself. People expect politicans to bicker amongst themselves. As there is nothing inherently scandalous about the content, there will be little to no effect.

Will this build into some sort of sucessful theme? We'll see.

Is Harper's current object to scare Ignatieff?

Just a thought: Harper's anti-coalition ads against Ignatieff are an attempt to depress Liberal poll numbers sufficiently so as to cause Ignatieff to retreat.

Otherwise, this is a case of Harper using what should actually be a campaign closer (cite: Tom Flanagan). It would have occupied the airwaves as a final week closer. Does Harper have another election closer in mind? Maybe. But I've never bought the 'Harper as master strategist' crap. He's good, but he's really just regurgitating tactics we've seen in use in the US for well over a generation now. (Likewise, the opposition has been running scared for most of the past few years, much like the Democrats did for the past generation.) I think he's trying to blow as much of his ballast now, because he knows he's going to have trouble keeping his current seat count, with Quebec so rocky, and the Liberals flush with cash, and there's little left to gain in seats in Reform country.

If Harper fails to get a majority, he's gone as leader. His best bet right now is to avoid an election altogether and hang on until Spring for a good news budget. (Is Flaherty even capable of doing that any more?)

Crap, Harper had better not try to prorogue Parliament again.

Harper's squeeze play

Following Harper's red meat speech? It's going to work like this:

1. Harper raises last year's coalition as a bogeyman
2. Harper pressures Ignatieff to publicly state that he won't be part of a coalition
3. Ignatieff will either
  a) succumb and speak out against one,
  b) waffle, or
  c) endorse a coalition

3 c) will not happen. Too bad.

3 b) is the worst. It lets the Conservatives claim whatever they want unchallenged. This won't happen. Even this current batch of  Liberals knows better.

3 a) is most likely. This matches Liberal hubris and Ignatieff ambition.

So, no coalition. Now, if the Conservatives lose the election, but we don't have a Liberal majority, and if Ignatieff has done anything except endorse a coalition, the Conservatives will rinse and repeat the performance of last year, declaring a coalition undemocratic as it was not declared during the election. Out with the red meat.

It will get nasty.

If no coalition is formed, but the Liberals form a minority government, the Conservatives will repeatedly make the coalition claim anyway.


Keep in mind this is a PM who had no qualms about abruptly proroguing Parliament. Do you not think he will fight tooth and nail with the Governor General and in our courts and in the streets over this issue? Harper has had no qualms about creating a unity crisis before. He'll do it now.

The only safe option is to form a coalition, one willing to let some ridings slide to former opponents in the name of increasing the non-Conservative seat count.

This won't happen, of course. And we'll be one step closer to a crisis because of it.

Ironically, Harper's speech making the rounds today -- courtesy of the Liberals -- is serving Harper's squeeze play by promoting the 'coalition as a bogeyman' theme.

I am looking for signs of strategic intelligence from the Liberals here. Do they have a good response? Even better, do they have a line of attack? We're already into a campaign. If the Liberals can't get an upper hand now, that'll tell us a lot of how this is all going to go down.