I spent a good deal of time in '04 and '05 advocating an anti-Liberal Grand Coalition. So of course it can be done, legally and legitimately.

I'm a fan of the Grand Anti-Harper Coalition -- it's just too much fun not to see happen.

It would be awesome. Awe-inspiring, I mean.

It's like 1750s British politics.

More recent than that -- post-Boer War British politics.

There were two general elections in 1910, you know...

It's a difficult sell for me if it only involves the the Liberals & the NDP. Better for the GG to call an election. But bring it on, what the hell.

Funny you should mention that, Alan, I just finished reading Hague's quite good biography of Pitt the Younger and the concept of a rotating coalition (fueled by pints of port) has a certain appeal. Unfortunately a direct mapping would have Harper as Pitt (LOL) and Dion/Iggy/Rae as Fox (ROFLOL).

Ben, I think you are closer to the historical mark. This could well be "The Strange Death of Liberal Canada" moment where the Liberals lie down with the NDP and only one party gets back up. (Of course that mapping would have Jack Layton as David Lloyd George...)

I suspect we are seeing a fundamental re-alignment of Canadian politics and my preferred metaphor is musical chairs: at the moment the CPC has a chair, the Bloc has a chair and the NDP/Liberals propose to share a chair. Good luck with that.

JB considers life without PM Steve.

Why did Baird speak for the Government and not the PM? Is this leadership?

Isn't Baird the finance minister?

Bow's complaints seem, well, if not trite then stale. Didn't we just have an election? This is a very interesting scenario indeed, the opposition parties essentially saying that because they don't agree with the government's platform, they should be made the government even though they lost. Now, this works for me if the BQ is included; not so much if they're not.

They didn't lose. They - including the Bloc - hold the majority of seats and the votes and the popular opinion of Canadians.

If the three parties can make a deal with each other that sticks, they are well within Parliamentary and democratic rights, especially in light of the recent election where the Tories - again - failed to get a majority in the face - again - of one of the weakest Grit parties in history.

BTW, I expect the deal to also include cooperation in the next election so that NDP and Grit votes do not defeat each other. I would think not running against each other in seats held by Tories would be a sensible thing for a coalition to do.

Prime Minister Good Ale!

PM Ed!!!

"So where were the spiders, while the fly tried to break our balls
With just the beer light to guide us,
So we bitched about his fans and should we crush his sweet hands?"

Will Iggy play along? Are the Liberals Iggy's band?

Were you agreeing or disagreeing with me Al?

Do I need to say? I think I was agreeing - except I can't agree with the first sentence and the "even though they lost" as no one really wins or loses in a minority situation.

My love for Iggy, which might even go beyond his nickname, will be dashed if he scuttles this fun.

Andrew Coyne has a nice blog post on the craziness of all this (especially if the Bloc are not involved).

I've been having such a battle with a died in the wool, republican/conservative dual citizenship US/Canadian best friend of mine all weekend. This Harper quote from '04 with be nice jet fuel for the fire later on today.

Its funny when speaking with neo-cons and their supporters, how they ignore so much to support their opinions. I keep saying that in a minority govt situation, its THE JOB of the party in power to cut deals, not impose their will, an dthey if they cannot, well, then they are not up to the job. To them, they feel that its some sort of affront to "democracy" to not just do as they wish.. silly conservatives, tricks are for kids.

Well, during the election Harper said he was going to run government as if he had a majority and now the first time he tries it he learns what the number of seats he earned gets him.

Ah, a message from a bird on the hill.

Word is, that the Harpies are in confirmed to be in shock. They expected one of three outcomes:

1. Everyone afraid of an election bites the bullet and abstains and bill passed
2. They end up cutting a deal removing the funding bit in return for favours
3. The bill is voted down and an election called whereupon they play the "damn Liberals, we didn't want to do this" card.

A coalition was apparently scoped out as completely impossible given the tension between Layton and Libs. Harper was very smug about it all apparently though some others and senior ones especially were advisiing against it.. but does Steve LIsten? No. Its his football and if he cannot be the QB one who is not allowed to be sacked BTW, he's going home with it.

For Canadians, the Conservatives have been wrong on almost every issue that has defined what Canadians believe in. On the questions of universal healthcare, and small "l" liberal community standards, the Tories have been swimming upstream. As a result they've spent 90% of so of the last century on the outside looking in. Those of us "of a certain age" remember the vicious lying fight they put up against universal health care.

Harper has "won" two minority governments. Despite an historic Liberal collapse in Quebec he was unable to win a majority. Why? Because Canadians are not ready to hand over our "social network" to the "tender care" of the Religious Right and the Reaganite "Trickle Down, Deregulate, Government is the enemy" crowd.

As in the USA, the "right" doesn't want government "leaner" it wants Government "gone." The US shows us the end game of that philosophy. Canadians know better.

Polls always show a majority of Canadians as being "center/left." Harper's hatred and disrespect of the opposition may have now created the "New Liberal Democratic Party" of Canada.

Thank you Mr. Harper, your disrespect is going to give Canadians the opportunity to elect, "Change we can believe in!"

I am going to ignore the misty-eyed liberal disrespect for democratic process rampant in these comments and go straight to it: Harper's having suggested it before doesn't make it good. It's hard to imagine how even the most absurdly partisan liberal could miss the obvious paradoxes involved in this coalition government.

The BLOC do not have the best interests of Canada at heart and their key support will come at a high cost. What that is remains to be seen but it should be at least slightly worrying. Let's not ignore that the premise for this move, the need for a solid response to economic downturn, is completely undermined by a coalition of astoundingly contradictory voices. If anything the coalition promises a tardy and ill-conceived response to the problems now facing our country.

It is hard to see what joy there is to be found in this aside from the shameful and fleeting joy Dion will experience having the dubious honour of being an unelected Prime Minster for a few months. Since Canadian voters have been neatly eliminated from the process of determining the government we must be content to watch the liberals reach into a barrel of snakes and hope they pull out an eel this May. Of course meanwhile we eagerly anticipate the resignation of Mr. Harper following a series of outrageous blunders that disgraced Canadian politics. I think the question most sensible Canadians are asking is when can we get back to business? The one laudable thing this whole situation may be credited with is reminding us all just how dirty a game politics can be.

huh?

The 2004 letter would make a better smoking gun if the "coalition" had actually pulled the trigger in a timely fashion. When there is actual proof that more was intended than a request for consultation, let me know.

Ouch - Mr. Smug is here. Let's all base politics on "actual proof" from now one, everyone. You've been told.