Change has come to the coalition’s polling numbers


The coalition may be dead. But it’s now more popular than the current government.


Change has come to the coalition’s polling numbers

  1. I know the media have all declared it dead.. but until we see the Budget, I think that meme is a bit premature.

    • Maybe they are just hoping it is dead. I certainly am. And I voted Liberal.

  2. If polls mean anything, I guess this means Canadians were hostile to the idea of a government led by Stéphane Dion, not to the coalition per se. Or their views have changed. But it seems more plausible to me that Canadians didn’t even notice the constitutional questions, pro and con, and just gave their assessment on the basis of the Dion/Layton leadership combo. In retrospect, the Canadian public has an amazing talent for folk wisdom . . . it’s just that nobody can predict what it will be beforehand.

    • It’s funny, but i started to believe that too [ folk wisdom thingie] around Meech lake. As i remember it all the pols, academics and just about evey suit in the land was for. Except for a brave guy [ no pun intended ] with a feather, a principled Newfie and a politician called pet. Who would have thunk the comman folks would make the right choice there?

  3. The coalition ideal is riding the excitement of the ‘Obama wave’, which will die out by the end of the month as people look back home to their own house. Everyone expected Harper’s numbers to drop as the ‘Obama wave’ rolled though, once the excitement wears off the numbers will likely float back to what they were before.

  4. You can’t have a coalition without the separatists. Ask the people in a poll if they want to be governed via a coalition with the separatists and the answer is a resounding no.

    The only people who can stomach that are the extreme left and Quebeckers themselves (who are used to being governed by separatist parties). The exreme left and Quebeckers hardly make up a majority.

    • Typical right wing ideologue….instill fear, cloud the facts, blame it on others.

    • You might want to brush up on the definition of coalition Jarrid… the coalition would not include the Bloc, just as the Peterson government of Ontario was not a coalition with the NDP.

    • Hey crazy Jarrid: What if they said sovereigntists? Would it bump up a point or two? Down? Afterall, that’s what Steve calls them in French. I am curious to see what your crystal ball or Tarot cards will say.

  5. I’m not even sure what this coalition consists of anymore. Duceppe is on record as saying the coalition is “stronger than ever”. What coalition is he talking about? His supposed partners don’t even acknowledge that he’s a part of the “Liberal/NDP coalition”.

    Furthermore, the media in their effort to sanitize the idea of a coalition wih Canadians, never mention the BQ as part of it…they always call it the “Liberal/NDP” coalition. Yet when presented with clear evidence from Duceppe himself that the BQ actually is a part of the coalition…crickets.

    Why did the G&M go to Ekos for this particular poll? I thought Strategic Council was their polling organization. They were releasing SC polls just last week…

    • Duceppe never said his coalition is “stronger than ever”. He was talking about the Liberal/NDP coalition.

      The media are factually correct in calling it a Liberal/NDP coalition, but the question is whether the general public understand the difference between a coalition and an alliance, accord or governance agreement.

      In Ontario, the NDP signed an accord to support the Liberals, the two parties defeated the PCs on a motion of confidence and the LG brought in the Liberals as government a few days later with no election. The NDP did *not* have any positions in cabinet or government. They sat as opposition, supporting only matters of confidence.

      In this case, the coalition between the Liberals and NDP would both sit as the government, with representatives of both parties in cabinet. Essentially, it’s like they all crossed the floor and joined a new “jumbo party” (Jumbo party at Kady’s House!). Jumbo party made an accord with the Bloc to have them prop them up on matters of confidence only.

      Same deal as in Ontario. Perfectly legit.

      But I get your point, most people don’t understand how our system works and don’t get that this *is* legit.

      • In order to have the confidence of Parliament, the Coalition has to have the explicit support of the Bloc. It’s not just he Bloc supporting the government one bill at a time. The Coalition needs the Bloc’s support to get off the ground and to have the confidence of Parliament. Having confidence of Parliament is another way of saying that a government has the support of the majority of the seats.

        That’s why is is nonsensical to say that the Liberals and the NDP will have the confidence of the House without the explicit support of the Bloc. The Bloc is a foundation bloc of this coalition.

        Is a government whose coming into existence, and whose continued existence, is directly dependent on the separatist Bloc Quebecois a politically legitimate government to govern Canada?

        To ask this question is to answer it.

        • So you’re saying that the NDP was a coalition partner with the Liberals in Ontario?

          It wasn’t. Sorry. You may see it as semantics, but the words we use in the English language have meaning. Just because I want to use “sub” to mean any type of sandwhich, doesn’t make it so.

          A coaltion is where two or more parties join forces to form a government. The Bloc will not be a member of this government, it will sit as opposition. Therefore it is not involved in the coalition.

          In the last Government’s mandate (prior to the election), the confidence of the house was, on a number of times, only shown through explicit support of the Bloc to the Conservatives.

          In this new government, the Conservatives could choose to support the coalition on matters of confidence, should they deem it necessary. What’s your point, exactly? That they’re saying it in advance? Well, we know that the Liberals said in advance of votes a number of times last year that they would not defeat the government on a particular issue. So?

        • Over the past couple of years, the Conservatives have sometimes required the support of the Bloc to stay in power. And they have floated the idea of forming a coalition with the Bloc at least once. All this talk of “coalition with the separatists” is political posturing, and misleading as well.

          Stephen Harper gives the impression that he would say or do anything to remain in power, and to heck with the collateral damage that might cause to, say, national unity.

      • Scott, why assume that “most people don’t understand” the coalition/support arrangement?

        Couldn’t it be that “most people”, especially o/s Quebec, *do* understand that the BQ isn’t formally part of the would-be coalition, but (a) don’t like the idea that the coalition can only survive with the BQ’s support on confidence, and/or (b) are wondering what if anything was promised to the BQ in order to gain that support, beyond what’s on paper, and/or (c) don’t like giving the BQ any further influence/legitimacy?

        You’ve referenced the Peterson-era situation and say that this is the “same deal”. But isn’t it quite possible that “most people” in Ontario at the time (1985) simply didn’t look at the ONDP in the same negative light as the ROC does the BQ?

        This notion that the only reason “most people” could disagree with you is because they “don’t understand” is a bit tiresome, no matter who it comes from.

        • I’m not in favour of this coalition government. But it still doesn’t mean that this is a coalition with the BQ.

          We can’t change the definition of words because it fits our needs. They have distinct definitions.

          Call it an “unholy alliance”. Call it a farce, call it the worst thing that could happen to this country. But don’t say the BQ are in the coalition when they are NOT.

        • If it ain’t on paper it isn’t worth the paper it’s not written on. Why would you assume that?

    • Nothing has changed and cannot as a result of a signed accord. Here are some facts and addresses you can refer to.

      Internal Links

      Q&A: Coalition government, how might it work?
      DOCUMENT: The accord between the Liberals and NDP (PDF)
      DOCUMENT: Coalition’s policy to address the present economic crisis (PDF)
      Harper says Dion playing ‘biggest political game in history’
      Stelmach calls on Ottawa to ‘stop the nonsense’
      Charest wants political crisis in Ottawa resolved fast
      Williams government mum on federal coalition
      NDP recordings proof of power grab, Tory MP alleges
      Conservatives to deliver early budget

    • The Conservative “separatist coalition” propaganda is just looking tired at this point. All of the agreements have been made public, and Canadians can see for themselves exactly what the relationship would be between the three parties.

      The Bloc has agreed to support the Liberal/NDP coalition in confidence votes for a fixed period. Period.

  6. The other thing the poll said was that Canadians want an election if the government is defeated.

    Consequently, in the ensuing election campaign we can expect to see Iggy introducing Duceppe at the voter’s doors as “My esteemed coalition partner” or something along those lines.

    If the Liberals had any intergrity they would demand that the Bloc renounce their separatist plans and pledge allegiance to the Queen and Canada, anything less is overt co-operation with the enemy. They are aiding and abetting a party who’s goal is the destruction of Canada.

    Dion’s gone but the havoc he visited on the Liberal Party of Canada with his extreme left-wing views and his deliberate plans to move the Liberals to the left via coaltions first with the Greens and then with the NDP and the left-wing separatists will haunt the Libs for years to come.

    Iggy had a chance to excise the Dion legacy, but by his inaction, he’s effectively ratifying it.

    Once upon a time we could blame the Liberal’s woes on their inept leader, Dion. But who elected Dion in the first place? The LIberal Party. And who’s continuing on Dion’s misguided path? The Liberal Party.

    • You may want to read my reply to john g. above. The Bloc are not a member of the coalition.

      The members of the Bloc have pledged allegiance to the Queen and Canada, they are required to do so in order to assume a position within parliament. As far as this coalition is concerned, the Bloc are coming under a lot of heat by separatists for supporting a federalist coalition — that’s got to be a good thing, right?

      Annoyingly, I can’t find the actual survey the article refers to. They say 49% of Canadians want an election. What do the remaining 51% want? Does the remaining 51% contain the “don’t know”s and “don’t care”s as well as the “don’t want”s? Or have the “don’t know”s and “don’t care”s already been excised?

      • Scott – Bernard Landry and Jacques Parizeau, two individuals not scared to speak their minds when it comes to criticizing their own separatist brethren when they thing they’re wrong, were happier than clams at the idea of the coalition involving the Bloc.

      • Scott, if they are not a member of the coalition then why is Gilles Duceppe speaking on its behalf?

        • *rolls eyes*

          Give it up. Duceppe hasn’t spoken on it’s behalf, nor has anyone else yet. Why? Because the coalition *doesn’t exist yet*. Only various agreements on behalf of the parties have been signed, and they’re available on-line.

          When the coalition happens, it’ll have a spokesperson, likely the Prime Minister. Until then, any party leader can say anything they want on behalf of their own party.

          Really folks, it’s not that hard to understand. I don’t like the idea of this coalition and don’t want to see it in place, but it doesn’t mean that I’m going to make up complete falsehoods about it’s makeup or legitimacy. There’s an accepted definition of coalition, and the Bloc don’t fit in that as they won’t sit as part of Government.

          C’mon folks… attack the issues instead. Are you afraid the Liberals will be too left with the NDP influence? You betcha I am. Would a coalition cause long-term hassles for the Liberals? Yep.

          Personally, the best of all worlds for me would be a coalition of the Liberals and Conservatives (Liberal led).

          • It amazes me how proud Conservative supporters are of providing evidence they don’t know how the Canadian Parliament works. Me? I just paid attention one day in high school.

            Maybe they have remedial civics course at john g’s local learning annex?

      • Scott,

        The very first headline in the CP story (emphasis mine)

        MONTREAL — Bloc Quebecois Leader Gilles Duceppe says his party’s coalition with the Liberals and New Democrats is just as robust as it was before the Governor General prorogued Parliament in December.

        • Wow! Incorrect reporting or word usage! Amazing!

          What a headline! Amazing!

        • John if you believe everything you read then Ive got some sweet oceanfront property to sell to you in Saskatoon

    • Keep talking. Maybe someday someone will believe you.

  7. I am truly starting to despair at the current state of the Liberal Party of Canada.

    I thought that when John Manley publicly called for Dion’s head in the aftermath of the coalition debacle and Dion’s resignation a few days later, that the Liberals’ days of woe were behind them. Clearly, I was wrong, the rot is more widespread.

    If the Liberal Party of Canada does not realiize that a governing coalition with the Bloc Quebecois is an unacceptable premise they are not fit to lead this great country. Period – end of story.

    • Despair away Jarrid, despair away.

    • my Very Reliable Sources inform me that the Liberal Party is currently despairing the current state of Jarrid.

      • All of Canada weeps over Jarrid.

        • Yeah, you really have to despair when cons start despairing over libs.

  8. I wonder if Rick Mercer’s statement two weeks ago on the RMR had anything to do with it.

  9. Nothing surprising in those numbers really. New leaders always poll well because no one has a reason to loathe them yet.

    Iggy’s numbers will start to change once people start to clue in to the fact that he never takes a solid position on anything. Iggy seems to think being for something before he’s against it is a good governing strategy. Also, I think there will be left wing liberals who are disenchanted with having a neo-con as leader. And maybe once people learn that Iggy has lived out of the country most of his life, they will find his talk about loving Canada or his vision for Canada to be a bit hollow, like I do.

    As far as Coalition numbers go, they will rise/fall depending on what the BQ is doing. If it is a real coalition between Lib/NDP that doesn’t include BQ, I can see Coalition have lots of appeal. If coalition involved BQ at all, it has no chance in ROC. It’s sophistry to try and spin Coalition of last month as not including BQ when it was the separatists propping up Lib/NDP.

    • What about the unexpectedly solid position that Ignatieff seems to have taken on the prospect of extending the Canadian mission in Afghanistan beyond 2011, if asked to do so by the new administration? Whether you agree with him or not, it’s hard to characterize “no” as ambiguous.

      • It won’t be when you ask him again in 2 weeks and you get a different answer.

        • If recent polls are any indication, it’s hard to see why he’d want to do that, since his current position appears to be shared by the majority of Canadians.

        • You may be right, and time will tell (I’d bet against you on the Afghanistan position).

          But in the meantime, the conservatives – and Harper in particular – can hardly claim to be exemplars of consistency.

          As things stand, Iggy has stayed the course pretty well since assuming the mantle of leadership. It’s a short tenure, to be fair, but I expect Canadians’ warming to the idea of a coalition (slightly) has a lot to do with the new Liberal leader projecting a reasonable sense of purpose and contol (i.e., people might be less afraid that the Bloc and NDP will run the show).

      • Yes, that was an unambiguous answer but that could change, like john g suggests.

        Instead of writing ‘never takes a solid position’, I should have wrote ‘rarely takes a solid position’. I think Iggy is going to have troubles because he isn’t a particularly a good fit with Libs. He would be more comfortable in Cons I think but since the only reason he’s gracing us with his presence in Canada is because he decided that he wanted to be PM and the best way to do that is join Libs.

        • Other than the whole Iraq-war-supporting-torture-not-sufficiently-condemning thing, which he has ostensibly repudiated, can you point to specific policies on which his positions are more in line with those of the Conservatives than the Liberals?

          • As difficult as that is, given that Ignatieff’s positions on everything seem rather squishy, here are a few:

            Putting aside the whole Qana fiasco, he seems to be a firm supporter of Israel. This seems much more in line with Conservative foreign policy; even more so if you’ve looked at liblogs lately.

            He was the only serious leadership candidate in 2006 to support the extension of the mission in Afghanistan; that extension motion passed only because of him and the supporters he brought with him

          • But in both cases to which you refer, the positions became official party policy, although I’d agree that there is likely considerably more debate within the Liberal caucus over the most recent development on Israel than over the decision to support the last extension. But taking that syllogism a step further, couldn’t one make exactly the same argument about Stephen Harper? I mean, isn’t his relatively recent position that the government should pump billions of dollars into the economy during a times of fiscal uncertainty, even if it means running a deficit, one that most C/conservatives would likely say is more in line with traditional Liberal policy? Does that mean Stephen Harper would be more at home in the Liberal Party, or is it possible that party positions aren’t necessarily as rigid and unchanging as your theory would suggest?

            I’m not trying to give you a hard time, and I’m not sure whether I disagree with your premise, but I’m curious as to whether there is any evidence to back it up, other than similar assertions from largely (but not exclusively) small and large C- conservative commentators. Just because it’s a talking point doesn’t mean it’s not accurate, but it also doesn’t mean that it *is*, necessarily.

          • talking points, from now on, will be accurate if necessary, but not necessarily accurate.

          • I think it’s useful to look at what Iggy, or Harper, was saying before entering politics because that would give us a better view of what they actually believe. And Iggy sounded like a neo-con on foreign affairs before he entered politics but I don’t believe he had much to say about Canadian domestic policies. So I guess we don’t really know what he is.

            I think Harper is good fit with Cons but he has decided to sell his soul to continue governing. I guess he’s a typical pol in that he’s put ambition before ideas/policies. I don’t think Harper is a Lib just because of this budget but it certainly isn’t a conservative budget either because he’s being guided by expediency, not ideology. I have seen Harper talk about this budget and he doesn’t look at all enthused, that he knows what he’s doing is wrong economically but it will keep Cons in power for now.

            Lib party positions aren’t rigid because they aren’t ideologues. But Con/NDP positions are somewhat rigid in that supporters hold steadfast with their beliefs. Cons are taking a lot of hits at the moment from their own supporters: many were angry that Harper doesn’t have a problem with Sec. 13 and many others are not happy with rumoured $30/40 billion deficit budget next week.

          • But taking that syllogism a step further, couldn’t one make exactly the same argument about Stephen Harper? I mean, isn’t his relatively recent position that the government should pump billions of dollars into the economy during a times of fiscal uncertainty, even if it means running a deficit, one that most C/conservatives would likely say is more in line with traditional Liberal policy?

            You’ll get no argument from me on that one; that’s why my vote is up for grabs in the next election. And frankly I’m encouraged by Ignatieff so far in that it seems there are signs that the adults may finally be coming back to run things. Ignatieff’s behaviour and tone in recent days seems cooperative and respectful, and he seems to be drawing a similar tone out of Harper.

          • But in both cases to which you refer, the positions became official party policy, although I’d agree that there is likely considerably more debate within the Liberal caucus over the most recent development on Israel than over the decision to support the last extension.

            Huh? Not sure what you mean by this…IIRC the Liberals voted overwhelmingly against the extension in 2006. Only Ignatieff and his small crew of supporters voted in favour, and it was just enough to get the motion to pass.

          • “When asked what he would do during his first 100 days in office if he became prime minister, Ignatieff said “quick tax cuts” will help stimulate the economy. “Tax cuts targeted at medium- to low-income Canadians will boost their purchasing power,” CBC, Jan 08
            “The Alberta oilsands will allow Canada to stand up to the U.S. on everything from Arctic sovereignty to rewriting NAFTA, Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff said Wednesday.

            Ignatieff told a town hall meeting in a Gastown pub that Canadians are just starting to understand “how powerful the oilsands make us.”

            He told an overflow audience crammed into the pub’s tiny back room that he toured the project in August.

            “It is awe-inspiring,” he said, adding that the controversial project boasts enough oil to last the rest of this century.” The Tyee, Jan 15

            How many Libs are calling the oilsands ‘awe-inspiring’ these days? My guess is, not many. Nor are many Libs touting middle class tax cuts but Iggy got with the program soon enough and came out against middle class tax cuts after he was for them.

            I guess my problem with Lib party is that I don’t understand it, nor the people who support it. I am an ideologue so Libs leave me entirely befuddled. Last leader was all about ‘green’ issues and how we have to save the planet and now next leader is calling oilsands ‘awe-inspiring’. Because of Iggy’s foreign affairs views, I just have the sense he would have been more comfortable within Cons but his ambitions made him join Libs.

          • Honestly, to me, Ignatieff seems to be pretty much in line with the traditional right wing of the Liberal Party, which, due to the quixotic quirks of the Canadian political spectrum, does not, in fact, mean he would fit in with the left wing of the Conservative Party. Neither is a monolith, despite the best efforts of those on the opposing sides to characterize the other as such. There are still Red Tories and Blue Liberals, although admittedly, less of both than used to be the case. Which is why the next Conservative leadership race is going to be so utterly fascinating, although that’s a discussion for another thread.

          • These days it seems the most tangible difference is in party tactics, rather than policies.

            The CPoC is doing some new things (off-season attack ads, suing gov’t agencies) and some old things to new degrees (interference with Parliamentary committees, smear campaigns, compulsive message control) that really stand out in the Canadian political environment.

            I don’t expect to see Ignatieff or any Lib sinking to that level any time soon. Just because complex policies *may* overlap, that does not make him or the Liberal party Cons-in-all-but-the-name.

          • You know, it’s funny you should say that- I have heard many a person (mostly Liberal, but Rae or LeBlanc supporters) say that they felt that Ignatieff was closer to being a Red Tory than a Liberal. I admit to having been guilty of that myself more than a few times. However, if you look back on old school Liberal leaders, such as St. Laurent, his ideology seems sort of the 21st century version of theirs. Perhaps the Liberal party has simply moved left enough over the past through years that we forget the right wing of hte LIberal party does, in fact, exist.

          • Aptly put Ms. A’Gog!
            I’ve been sitting on the fence doing research on slivers until now – suspecting that Michael Ignatieff was more of the Martin / Manley persuasion…and looking for signs…
            His talks / media meetings/ musings of the last couple of days are starting to flesh out the man…and I pity Poor Jarrid – we knew him well – because he won’t have too many contradictions to pick at fairly soon…
            while on the other hand Iggy will have a treasure chest swelling in Obama like volumes!

      • But, Kady, Ignatieff hasn’t had to actually say “no” while gazing into Obama’s puppy dog eyes. Your analysis ignores the “puppy dog eye” factor entirely. Add in the “strong, soothing voice” factor and its pretty much a done deal.

    • Except the “separatists” propped up the Conservative government on occasion too. And there’s nothing preventing the Conservatives from voting in favour of confidence measures.

      I agree though, I don’t think Ignatieff’s numbers have anywhere to go but down. I don’t think he has the mettle to inspire Canadians once he gets centre-stage.

    • The real pt you should be hammering on here is that despite the coalition having lgitimacy it still begs the question, is it valid in the eyes of Canadians. All this talk of the coalition having a veto is absurd. Did they have a veto when they propped up SH’s govt, of corse not. Neither did they have any say in his govt. This is hypocracy of the highest order. Still if the positions were reversed i’m sure the libs would be saying much the same. It;s called politics folks. I’m not surprised they do it, i’m just surprised how willingly the party faithful throw themselves on the bonfire of partisan rhetoric. Again, the real issue is whether you can effectively disenfranchise all those folks who thought that the election was over and tthat the boys and girls were going to play nice now that they had all promised to do so. This dis-enfranchisement is very clear to me as a westerner. The coalition’s biggest error was allowing Dion to head this outfit. Perhaps it;s fortunate for Ignatieff they did. Clearly the initial polls were not an endorsement of SH, but rather a comfirmation that Dion was NOT wanted as pm by just about everyone. From this aspect alone, what were the libs thinking. Even so SH should be worried, the Canadian public are taking another look and thinking:”
      hmmm maybe this isn’t such a bad idea after all, if you remove Dion.”
      Personally as a westerner i don’t want the coalition to go ahead because even if it should win in an election, the risk of splitting the country is too great, And for What? It’s all just politics folks. I’m pulling for the hoser with the toque on – Canadian eh!

  10. I think Ignatieff represents a real threat to SH. Why? Not because, as some libs hope he can morph into Obama [ the image alone is terrifying ] but because he might do an effective job of being SH, only a nicer, funnier and more compassionate one. Harper has been playing who’s the real liberal here for almost his whole term in office. What’s to stop Iggy playing who’s the real conservative here, albeit with a smilely face. Don’t like it? Neither do i much, i’d much prefer they stay in their own skins. However if this is Iggies master plan it might have the effect of pushing Harper further right which will please his supporters, but leave us with a more palatable guy in the middle.
    Back to the real world. My concern with Iggy is that he doesn’t know from one week to the next what h really wants, but so far he’s proving me wrong.

  11. The key in the ekos poll was that more people would rather see an election to determine the issue rather than the GG giving some mickey mouse amalgamation control of the gov’t – the weird thing would be that more than likely the result would be another minority gov’t. Round and round you go – even if we were in a coalition gov’t it would be short lived, have unintended consequencies and not sufficient support from the voters and all the members of the coalition and if the past is in any indication … well none of them work out well. I think that at this time it is quite simply to soon to say anything about Iggy or what he will do and I personally am looking forward to a good fight now that Dion has gone and this alone just might start to move some numbers around. There were a lot of strategic voters last election and the ABH movement fell flat on it’s face proving it’s ineffectiveness, so I think there are party strategists at present planning on how to navigate the next while. Of course you will continue to have the usual suspects of Harper haters in each party but the loud roar is fast becoming a distant thunder to steal a phrase from Mr. Golden tongue himself.

  12. It is very simple, a coalition is a group made up of two or more parties working together as a government with members from all sides in Cabinet and PS positions. That in this case means the Liberals and the NDP, ONLY. The BQ is not nor ever has been invited to be a member of the coalition government proposed by the Liberals and NDP; all it has been asked to do is support the coalition in not defeating the coalition government on confidence votes only for a set period of time. The BQ is entirely free to oppose any legislation not a confidence matter to its heart’s content during this period. In other words they are SUPPORTING the coalition, not members of it, and the difference between this and every confidence the BQ supported the minority CPC government over the past three years is that the commitment is given in advance, and that is ALL the difference between the situations. The BQ will be supporting a coalition government to keep it from falling in confidence measures since the coalition does not have a majority of seats on its own and only the Liberals and NDP will be members of that coalition. It really is that simple and entirely legal under our system of government.

    So all this CPC blather about the separatists being members of the coalition, having a say in forming government policy in the event of a coalition government is complete and utter nonsense, just spin by a desperate government and its supporters to prevent an entirely legal and within the rules of a Parliamentary system transfer of power from the minority CPC to an alternate option. The fact that we do not have a history of such coalitions does not make them suddenly illegal or wrong, and anyone trying to argue otherwise is showing either their ignorance of how our Parliamentary system of government is structured and operates or their dishonesty.

    • What the freak is going on with the threading here? Your post, at 12:29, shows before Kady’s post of 10:41. And it’s not the only one to be screwed up.

  13. Quite frankly legitmacy of the mickey mouse coalition is simply not the issue as the EKOS poll quite rightly states (though this seems to be ignored by coailtion suporters) more people qwould rather see the GG force an election rather than hand over decision making to the gang of 3.