Wednesday, September 2, 2009

Jack, is that a coalition you've formed with Stephen?

When Ignatieff announced that Harper's time was up and that the Liberals would oppose the government on confidence votes, the NDP, sensing an opportunity of sorts, revealed that they would be willing to operate with the Conservatives on a case by case basis. However, in an NDP understanding of things, they have entered into a coalition.

I do not believe this, but the NDP, if it is to be consistent and coherent, should. Back when the budget was passed, the NDP, hurt that their plans for a coalition with the Liberals fell through, claimed that a most unholy alliance, a coalition, had been established between the Liberals and the Conservatives. That there was no signed agreement between the two leaders was inconsequential and thus not addressed.

Fast forward again and the circumstances are similar for the NDP. There is no formal agreement, no negotiations have been carried out to guarantee the government support over a certain period of time. Instead, the NDP finds itself doing exactly what the Liberals were doing months ago.

Why would the NDP change its mind on what qualifies on a coalition? Simple really, last time it was the Liberals trying to avoid an election. Now it's us. Moreover, crucially, the NDP would probably lose seats and experience its first decline in this category for a long time. It is the Liberals whose fortunes have looked up in the opinion polls, it is the Liberals who are resurgent in Quebec.

Hopefully Layton will not manipulate the electorate again, using Tory-worthy tactics of deception, since he is finally engaging in what he so criticized. Let's hope so for the sake of the quality of political debate in Canada.
Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers If you liked this post, please vote for my blog at Canadian Blogosphere Canadian Blogosphere


  1. There's a problem with your biased premise here: The NDP actually has to support something first. That hasn't happened yet (and more than likely won't happen, but don't let that reality get in the way here, right?) and all that they've said is that they have issues that they'd be willing to work on. And to that, the Conservatives have publicly said "No way". So where's the "coalition"? Simple. There isn't one.

    But that's quite the opposite from the Liberals, who supported this government they so say they disagree with for 79 straight confidence votes. As much as you might like, you can't run away from your 4 year record.

  2. Liberal talking points.

    The LPC has a problem. They have voted 79 times with Harper on confidence motions. They can't keep doing that without being seen as no different than Harper so why vote for them.

    As NWLad says, the NDP have not said anything about supporting the CONS. Layton met with Harper and two Liberal staffers followed him with signs saying Conservative - NDP coalition.

    Harper has said a big NO to what the NDP wanted and that is where we are. If Harper were to say YES, then Harper would in fact be implementing NDP policy, something Liberals have found themselves having to do on many occasions.

    Have fun with your musings. The facts are the liberals want to escape their record. They are hoping Layton will play along. Watch Layton today...

  3. I of course know that they haven't supported them yet. They're contemplating action that before was deemed as a coalition. And neither do I believe that it is a coalition, even if the NDP were to vote 79 times with the government. I'm pointing out the inconsistencies, not a dangerous coalition.


Progressive bloggers