Beyond The Commons

Beyond The Commons

Aaron Wherry covers all the goings-on in and around Parliament Hill. Follow Aaron on Twitter: @aaronwherry

Where were we?

by Aaron Wherry on Thursday, September 2, 2010 3:34pm - 0 Comments

A coalition government was last a tangible possibility some 21 months ago.

In early December 2008, with the drama at its peak, polls showed Conservative party support surging and mixed (at best) numbers for the coalition. On December 4, the day Mr. Harper’s request for prorogation was accepted, Leger claimed 43% of Canadians preferred another election, while 40% preferred letting the coalition govern. According to Ekos, 37% were in favour of prorogation, 28% favoured a coalition and 19% preferred an election.

A week later, Michael Ignatieff was leader of the Liberal party. A little less than a month after that Nanos polled Canadians and found 42% of Canadians preferred a coalition government if the Conservative budget was defeated, 49% preferred an election. A week after that, Ekos asked Canadians to choose between a Liberal-NDP coalition government or a Conservative government. The result: 50% for the coalition, 43% for the government. At the same, asked if the governor general should call an election or ask the Liberal leader to form government in the event the Conservative government fell, the numbers flipped: 49% said an election should be called, 45% said the Liberal leader should be asked to form government.

A week after that poll was released, Mr. Ignatieff accepted the Conservative budget and the drama was essentially done.

Bookmark and Share
  • Emily

    So why Harper is talking about a non-existent coalition…is a mystery.

    • http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

      Did you not support it the last time, and why run away from it now? If Harper doesn't get a majority, it's pretty clear that a leftist coalition is a very real possibility, isn't it? In fact, last time it was on the table, many of you were absolutely ecstatic about its merits.

      • Emily

        It doesn't exist.

        • http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

          Its prospect does, doesn't it? Why not admit basic facts. Is your agenda that thin?

          • Emily

            The 'prospect' of a coalition has existed in our Parliament for 143 years. Even Harper tried for one.

            However, a coalition doesn't exist.

          • http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

            No, Harper never tried one. And they're formed AFTER elections. Geez, your agenda IS this thin.

          • Emily

            For the 4th time, a coalition doesn't exist.

          • mungman

            Emily is just bitter that it didn't go through last time (right bittermuch?), so now she's taking the ostrich bury your head in the sand approach to life. Ahhhh ignorance is bliss right bittermuch?

          • Emily

            Next up, Harper warns us about pink unicorns.

          • hollinm

            Emily……I saw one the other day. He asked for you. LOL.

          • Emily

            Mmmmkay.

            Whatever yer smokin' it musta cost ya.

          • DPT

            that's right, just like it didn't exist in 2008, at least until it became expeditious to form one aftger lying to voters about it.

          • Emily

            No one lied to anyone about it.

          • hollinm

            Emily….once again you are either lying or misrepresenting the facts. Dion was asked on a number of occasions would he consider a coalition with the NDP. He denied it each time. Then we find out that Jack and Gilles were hatching the coalition idea even before the election. All of this will play out in the next campaign. Trust me on that.

          • Emily

            Did they run on it…no.

            It wasn't 'hatched' before the election. It was in response to Harp's dumb move.

            Harp can claim he's running against anything he likes….people will just get the butterfly net out.

          • hollinm

            Emily….once again I need to set the record straight. The Conservatives have a tape of a conference call between Jack Layton and his party members talking about how the coalition was being discussed with Duceppe. Don't remember it. I am sure there are newspaper stories about it. Try finding them if you don't believe me.

          • Emily

            LOL you've never seen a record you could set straight.

            All that smoke…..

        • hollinm

          Emily….wishful thinking Emily. It is there for all to see. Deny, deflect and defend. Liberals are great at that. Yes I know you are not a Liberal. You keep telling us that but your words betray you.

          • Emily

            hollinm, hollinm, hollinm….I'm not a Liberal sweetie. I know you'd like to think so, but I'm not.

            I'm simply anti-Harper.

          • hollinm

            Emily……one less vote for the Liberals in the next election I guess. That helps Harper. Good on you Emily, my dear.

          • Emily

            Sorry….secret ballot in this country.

    • Dan

      There are probably lots of reasons.

      For instance it is every governing party's right to speculate about what the other unkown option would mean for the country should voters decide not to return the incumbent party to power. The Liberals did it very effectively with the Reform-Alliance-Conservatives.

      I imagine that talking about the coalition fund raises a lot of money out of the Conservative base.

      But I'd bet the main reason is that the Conservatives won't really run on a platform. Much like the last election they will make a few announcements and then maybe put pen to paper during the last week of the campaign if people start to wonder why there isn't a platform.

      The problem with this strategy is that their candidates need something to talk about for the first 30 days of the campaign. Last election it was the Green Shift. The coalition appears to be what they've decided to talk about come the next election.

    • hollinm

      Emily….the coalition thingy is alive and well whether the lefties like it or not. Unless the Libs win more seats than the Conservatives and can make a deal with the NDP Canadians will not accept a coalition government.
      Ignatieff's words "a coalition if necessary but not necessarily a coalition" will haunt him throughout the next campaign and he will be forced to discuss a coalition in every press conference because they will be asking him to comment on what Harper is saying about the subject.
      The whole coalition thing was resurrected several months ago when Chretien decided to say he and Broadbent discussed a merger and that discussion turned into a whole discussion of a coalition.
      Harper has a powerful argument. Canadians are no longer happy with a minority government and they know unless Harper gets a majority the opposition parties will continue to push for some sort of pact and we will continue with the 24/7 campaigning with little being accomplished.

      • hollinm

        hollinm continued…..to Emily.

        The only mystery is in the eyes of the lefties of this country. Wait till you see Ignatieff's signature on the coalition agreement and that disastrous press conference with Ignatieff, Rae and LeBlanc endorsing Stephane Dion for PM on every media outlet in the country.

        • Holly Stick

          Canadians are not stupid enough to buy the Conservative's argments over the changes to the census, and we are not stupid enough to buy Harper's BS about a coalition. He's coasting on 'empty' and slowly rolling to a stop.

        • Emily

          LOL not leftie either…not in this or any other lifetime.

          You guys are really into the weeds today.

  • John

    I have followed this man throughout his career and I am left with the impression that he has given up.

    You can see it in his eyes. there is no fire left.

    • AT1

      Who are you talking about? Ignatieff or Harper?

    • http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

      If you're talking about Harper, isn't that what his bashers have said before every other election? I don't quite get the angle.

      • http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

        Oh, wait a minute. Now I remember. Somebody created the rumour, I think it was back in 2004, that Harper ran out of steam near the end of the campaign and lamented politics as a result. Again, his bashers have been using the same line ever since. I guess it gives them hope.

        • Standing By

          That's not it, it's that Harper is just mailing it in now. I say this is because he is now primarily in Prime Ministerial end-game mode. Barring getting a majority, which is virtually impossible given the numbers, shortly after the next election, he will announce that he is stepping down as minority PM/Opposition leader.

          Once the leadership is held, he will move to Washington to become a Fox Talking head/right wing institute luminary/ tar sands lobbyist/ Sarah Palin Tea celebrity foreign tea bagger.

          All this should unfold in the next 12-18 months. About the only thing that might hasten this scenario, and its an unlikely one, would be if Harper does stuff to please his tea party fans that is so wildly unpopular here that his MPs see themselves as seriously threatened. This could spark a palace revolt of some sort sooner than 12 months on.

          You're welcome.

          • brooster

            You forgot…he has a hockey book to finish.

          • http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

            Give me a break. Look, if this is all you have, then so be it. It worked out great the last two times, didn't it.

          • Claudia Lemire

            He doesn't have fire in his eyes

            I don't think that's the case, he is getting ready, one of the things that I love about Harper, is that he won't compromise for the polls, he will go for it, weather he is right or wrong, I can't wait for QP to start!

          • http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

            I don't buy that for a second. And his critics have been using that line every time he drops in the polls.

          • Claudia Lemire

            Agreed!

          • Gayle

            "he won't compromise for the polls…"

            That explains why he waited for 4 years and a private member's bill before he took on the gun registry then…

          • Blue

            I am not sure where you see the signs that Harper will voluntarily quit his present job but I will put out an equally plausible scenario to the one you pose.
            The year is 2022 and Stephen Harper is part way through his fifth mandate and in his early 60`s and he`s getting pressure from his adult children and Laureen to quit politics so he does quit and he moves up to northern Quebec to pan for gold and the Macleans bloggers are still p!ssed at him because he`s still trying to destroy the country.

          • Emily

            Wow….talk about fantasy land!

          • hollinm

            Emily….Its just as good as yours if not better.

          • Emily

            Why are you so concerned about Emily?

            There are millions of voters in this country….worry about them, not me.

          • hollinm

            Standing By…..you are dreaming in Liberal red technicolour. A lot of wishful thinking. Remember if he wins the next election even if it is another minority he is still PM. He will leave if and when he wants to and on his own terms. I know the lefties in this country know they cannot beat him because he is a formidable foe so they keep hoping that he will bail out. He is always two steps ahead of the opposition parties. Despite him being write off by the likes of you he always comes back stronger. Remember he is the leader of the country and he will come out with sound policies to appeal to the broadest base of Canadians. The rest of your comments are simply garbage.

  • http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

    Doesn't seem all that confusing to me. The prospect of a coalition put Harper in majority territory while splitting coalition support among three parties. It was the biggest grab for power by an opposition party in this country's history, which they have to live with, and is why Harper is rightfully citing it every chance he gets.

    • John D

      Wouldn't every time an opposition party forms government be a "power grab?" Isn't the point of a political party to "grab power?"

      • AT1

        Unless it's a conservative party: in that case they're grasping for power with their evil right-wing hands!

      • http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

        Through democratic elections, no? Not what we witnessed in the winter of 2008.

        • AT1

          Who said anything about logic? Remember, coalition members felt that Dion wasn't good enough to lead the Liberals, and but he was to the proposed leader of the coalition government and to be our new PM. Wherry seems to forget that niggling detail in his summary above (possibly the source of his confusion).

          Whether an Ignatieff-led coalition would be less offensive to Canadians is yet to be seen.

          • hollinm

            AT1…….They all forget it. The Liberal party who didn't want Dion to continue to be the leader of their party were prepared to foist the man who took his party to a historical loss not more than 6 weeks earlier as PM of the country. This is the Liberal lust for power. Power at all cost. Canadians will not accept a coalition if the Libs do not win more seats than the Conservatives. They also will have a great concern in having the NDP part of the government. Talk about two tax and spend parties running the country. Yikes.
            While Emily and her ilk on this board do not like the talk of a coalition it will be a powerful argument in the Conservative quiver in the next election.

    • http://www.jesserosenberg.com Jesse_Rosenberg

      Just out of interest, do you know that we didn't "elect" Harper Prime Minister? And that his only (and it's still debatable) consitutional status comes because he happened to be PM before the election?

      • Blue

        Just out of interest, do you know when was the last time the leader of the Party that won the most seats in the HoC in the previous election did not become the Prime Minister ?

        • http://www.jesserosenberg.com Jesse_Rosenberg

          1925.

          And, the last time it was proposed was, of course, by Opposition Leader Stephen Harper.

          And he became Prime Minister, and remained Prime Minister. There just isn't a magic reason why he has to STAY Prime Minister.

          • Blue

            Previous election results in 1925 and present electoral circumstances make 1925 irrelevant.

            I am not aware of Opposition leader Harper forming a coalition and proposing to become PM.

            He should remain PM if the Party he leads win the most seats.

      • hollinm

        Jesse…….I have no idea what you are talking about. The Conservative party won the last election falling short of a majority by 12 seats. As leader of that party Harper became Prime Minister. Do you understand that? What does his constitutional status have to do with anything?

        • http://www.jesserosenberg.com Jesse_Rosenberg

          Because there's imaginary thinking here that it means he has to stay Prime Minister no matter what. Maybe I wasn't as clear as I could have been, but our constitutional system doesn't include special rules about that.

          • Emily

            Righto…the leader who commands the confidence of the House becomes the PM.

  • AT1

    Liberal-NDP coalition? Who was that other distinguished fellow at the signing ceremony.

    • http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

      I was going to say something, too. Good catch. For a political arrangement they all adored, they sure twist themselves in knots talking about it, don't they?

    • John D

      The evil park-hating BQ that want to destroy Canada and eat its babies.

    • Lord Kitchener's Own

      That was the guy promising to bite his tongue an do basically whatever a federalist coalition wanted for two years.

    • hollinm

      AT1…..they want to forget that inconvenient truth. As well that signing ceremony is going to be re-visited ad nauseum during the next election if not before.

  • Mike T.

    Guess I'll have to keep saying it.

    Let it be up to Harper. If he brings in completely new, damaging legislation a few weeks after an election that he didn't breath a word of in the campaign, the other parties can and will do anything to defeat it. Especially if it attacks women or working Canadians like the bill that started the mess did.

    • Blue

      No, don`t you think the real reason the opposition parties were so opposed to the Bill that you speak off was because it was taking away the vote subsidy which was forcing all Canadians to support political parties ?

      • Mike T.

        There could easily have been elements of that.

        But my way is less of a lie than the way Harper tells it.

    • hollinm

      Mike T…..don't worry the defunding of political parties will be in the campaign platform of the Conservative party in the next election. Attacking women or working Canadians? What bill was that?

      • tobyornotoby

        Bill 666 an Act to Attack Women and Working Canadians?

        Oh wait, they won't just come out and say it, they'll hide it like the Budget to attack federal environmental assessment, and the post office.

  • Blue

    Why are we even talking about a poll conducted by Frank Graves ?
    He has no credibility.
    He asks misleading questions about a Liberal-NDP coalition. A pollster should be better at math than to assume that a coalition of Liberal-NDP that would have 30 less seats than the Conservative government would have any chance to form gov`t.
    And that look of desperation on his large red face when Kory questioned him on whether it was proper for a pollster to call for a culture war against the Conservatives was the look of a desparate Liberal wanting his entitlements back.

    • http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

      I know. The guy basically reveals himself to be an ideological zealot, but the liberal media still adores his work, while denying they're a liberal media.

    • John D

      Frank Graves could care less what Kory thinks. Graves eats windbags like Kory for breakfast.

      • hollinm

        John D…..you must be Frank Graves' brother. Kory made him look like a Liberal shill and nobody, other than Liberals, believes a word coming out of his mouth. To talk about seat projections is absolutely astounding. There is no election. We don't know the party platforms. We don't know how the leaders will perform and we certainly don't know about voter turnout and vote splitting. Graves has no credibility and while it is good for the CBC and the gossip queen at the Globe to spout his nonsense it is not worth a pinch of salt.

    • Gayle

      Hi.

      Do you have any evidence that Graves' polling methods are not statistically sound?

      If not, then might I suggest you focus on the message instead of the messanger?

      • Blue

        I don`t think it was accurate of him to ask about a Liberal-NDP coalition.
        I don`t think it was proper of him to encourage a culture war against our properly elected government.

        • Gayle

          So no evidence then?

          Your opinion on what you think he should not have asked or said is noted, but you did avoid the question.

  • Emily

    And if Graves published a poll saying Cons were ten points ahead, you'd immediately make a saint of him.. LOL

    • http://secondthots.blogspot.com Dennis_F

      But he revealed himself to be a liberal ideological zealot, not a conservative one.

      • Emily

        No, that's just your version of events.

        • hollinm

          Emily….if you do not believe Dennis_F then you did not see the interview on CBC. Graves looked very uncomfortable and foolish.

          • Emily

            I don't care if he looked sky-blue-pink.

            That's the Con view of the world anyway.

          • Gayle

            Graves looked shocked and dismayed that anyone of any intelligence could think the wise thing to do was launch a personal attack instead of addressing the issue.

            Which is sad, because he should have known by then that conservatives always attack the messenger when they are unable to address the message.

            Grave's mistake was that he thought he was dealing with adults. He should have known better.

          • hollinm

            Gayle…..ah another Liberal adds to the chorus of misrepresentations, lies and mistruths. Graves admitted he was a Liberal. Once he uttered those words he lost all credibility as an independent pollster. His weekly polls are a joke. In fact they are now two week polls and the poll reported this morning was the first week but the Conservatives had regained their advantage in the second week. So much for the seat count and the rest of garbage Graves espoused.
            Graves was exposed for what he is and as I said he looked foolish and he damaged his company's reputation irreparably.

          • Emily

            He has never belonged to any political party….nor has he worked for one.

            Sorry.

  • Earth to Wherry

    I look forward to the new liberal platform…………….
    Peoples of Canada unite under our big tent of socialism, but honest, this time we will not be forming a coalition, really, honest not this time, we mean it this time, read our liberal lips , no funny business from us, but if we unite for the peoples of Canada, all others parties other than those nasty conservative can become honorary liberals of the minor kind who will help us bind the peoples of Canada to our nanny state.
    But lets us be clear as their time is up, honest no coalition this time really, we mean it, honest.

    • John D

      Socialism, clever. I think there's a rally with funny hats in DC you should attend.

    • Emily

      Yes, because Libs have formed coalitions sooooo many times in our history, that you just never know when they might do so again.

      • hollinm

        Emily…..the difference this time is they have no choice. Liberals will say and do anything including selling their own grandmothers to get back at the trough. The coalition is the only way the Libs will regain power and you know it. Where will they get 40+ seats to even get a minority. Not in the West, not B.C. not in Ontario and certainly not in Quebec. So all knowing one. Where will they get the seats to form government?

        • Emily

          Harp's already sold his.

          Ekos numbers put Iggy 10 seats ahead of Harper.

          • Blacktop

            Emily smokes Ekos – not even filter tipped.

            Unless the numbers change, there is no such thing a a Liberal-NDP Coalition. Unless there is a big change the Bloc is still in the bedroom and Trudeau said the government should get out of the nation's bedroom.

            Harper at least has a couple of years of successful governance under his belt – must be successful, it made Emily mad.

          • Emily

            There is no coalition, and far from being 'mad' I'm amused at all the upset 'sweet demure Emily' has caused by simply being anti-Harper on a chatsite.

            Harper is at 29%….after 5 years of 'successful governance'. LOL

  • http://www.bluenoser.net Jeff M

    I really don't understand the reason a "coalition" government is such a heated topic. I think that people get confused that our system is similar to the US, where they directly (well almost) elect a president, where the PM is selected by the Parliament.

    • hosertohoosier

      No, I think it is you who confuses legality with desirability. Simply because a coalition would be legitimate, does not mean that we should cheer for its victory. Indeed, it was not long ago that the spectre of a CPC-Bloc coalition struck fear in the heart of all right-thinking Liberals (Martin even put it in one of his "Harper = scary" ads).

  • RDB

    Well, good work Wherry. Unfortunately some other rascal will use different stats to make some other obscure point. This doesn't clarify much I'm afraid . . .

From Macleans