Canada's coalition of confusion

[CHIMO]

During his press conference with David Cameron last Thursday, Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper was asked to comment on the new UK coalition government. He said that the "verdict of public opinion," in the UK was clear: Cameron's Conservatives, finishing with the most votes, had been entitled to form a government. Harper then echoed a familiar line from British tabloids: "Losers," he said, "don't get to form coalitions. Winners are the ones who form governments."

Back in Canada, constitutional experts roundly disagreed (as would a Labour government, had it been formed in May). But Harper's answer was strategic, in spite of its inaccuracy. As was the case for his entire trip abroad (one he spent in London and Paris redundantly expressing his government's dislike for a proposed global bank tax) Harper had domestic political gains on his mind.

The reply Harper might have been waiting for came on Sunday from Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff, whose party, as official opposition, was one third of Harper's intended target. In an interview with the Canadian Press, Ignatieff said: "Co-operation between parties to produce political and electoral stability is not illegitimate. It's never been illegitimate; it's part of our system." He continued, saying that talk of a coalition now was disrespectful to Canadian voters and instead that: "I think what's right is we should stand up and raise that Liberal banner and say, 'Here's what we stand for. Vote for us.'"

Which is all very good, except that the inability to raise the Liberal banner as a united party with declared intentions is exactly the reason that renewed talk of a coalition exists at all.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/jun/07/canada-coalition-of-confusion

[KoKo]

1. K&R...an interesting read..