Unsurprisingly, I couldn't disagree more with Rob's interpretation of Iggy's comments on his coalition position, or at least the current version the Liberal Leader offered today. Not much has changed from the Ignatieff offering from early in the New Year of "coalition if necessary but not necessarily a coalition."
Mr. Ignatieff never gives a clear "no" to the question of his coalition intentions. This morning, he said no coalition "today or tomorrow." And then when asked if he were to form a minority government how he might make it work, he dodged and eventually walked away from the microphone.
Also, given his current self-interested intransigence, I am curious to know whether he'd respect the results of a new election, if one unfortunately happened, that placed the Conservatives in a position similar to the one they hold now. Having the most seats but not a majority. What would you do, Iggy, in this case? Or will you be back in Boston should that happen so it won't be a concern of yours?
From January of 2006 to September of 2008, Prime Minister Stephen Harper ran a very effective minority government that passed three budgets and had numerous successful votes of confidence. Harper didn't need a coalition to achieve that success nor special deals with anyone.
Ironically, Iggy continues to mount an argument that the PM doesn't have the skills to make a minority work. The history of 2006 to 2008 does suggest something different. The operational dynamic of a functioning minority changed this past fall when Iggy got a fresh sniff of power. From signing a coalition accord to attempting to force an election during a time when our focus should be on the economy, Iggy demonstrates he is a naked opportunist. Iggy first, Canada second.Report Typo/Error