Ignatieff said he finds all the current talk of coalitions "disrespectful of the voter," implying that Liberals are looking for a short cut back to power. (Translation we are not prepared to discuss the details publicly, stop calling here!)An Alliance between Democrats, Separatists is a marriage of convenience for the Liberals. If and when the Liberals recover from a weak balance sheet, voter support they will discard their allies.
...non-aggression deals are a betrayal of grassroots activists, many of whom have slaved for decades to promote their respective parties. (Unless it allows you to form government, than it is acceptable betray your grassroots again. The Liberals are entitled to power, ballot totals should not be an obstacle.)The leader of each of these political parties is represent a small group with a different agenda. Under the existing rules the Liberals are no longer able to win in a democratic contest against the Conservatives.
The impatience of regaining national support at the ballot for has made for some frequent changes of leadership with the Liberal Party since John Turner. The Liberals were returned to power in the 1990's compliments of the West rejecting the Progressive Conservative Party of Brian Mulroney. Voters in Ontario kept the Liberals in power until an alternative was made available in 2006. It appears the strategists running the Liberal Party are not interested in remaining out from power. They refused to accept Canadians rejected them in 2006 and 2008. The Liberals strategy is to keep their promises hidden until the writ is dropped. As soon as the campaign begins they will start blowing smoke over the next thrity six days why they should be trusted and returned to power.
The Liberals only won popular support in one region, Atlantic Canada in 2008 and signed a deal to share power for nearly two years with the Separatists, Democrats. Western Canada would have been decimated at the hands of the Liberal-Democrat coalition. From Quebec-British Columbia the Liberals failed to win popular support.
For the Liberals it has never been about principles or a belief in a united country, but it has been about the survival of their party and a return to power. It took place over conscription, when many Liberals resigned outside Quebec.
The courage and conviction did not materialize in 2008, every Liberal MP stood shoulder to shoulder with the Democrats and Separatists in the attempted coup.
Canadians are accustomed to marking a single ballot and holding the governing party to their promises made during the campaign and their platform.
The coalition will not campaign and disclose the details of their platform. The Liberals, Democrats, Separatists will again deny the existence of their agreement until after their loss.
After the ballots are counted each party will collect their political welfare of $ 2.00 per vote to fill their party coffers and proceed to remove the most popular party from power again.
The advantage for the coalition is they get to spend more money and dominate the time during televised debates.
In Western Canada over 50% of popular vote chose the Conservatives in 2008. The Conservates also won the popular support in Ontario and beat the Liberals by five per cent.
The three coalition leaders have worked well together in 2008 to protect their political party welfare and blocking new seats to Ontario, Alberta, British Columbia in rebalancing Parliament in 2010.
The coalition architects have ceded power for the support of the separatists after the election. They have not ruled out again cooperation in pooling their MPs to vote non-confidence weeks after an election to steal power again.
The media has spent a great deal of money distorting the history of coalition governments and the use of prorogue as used in Canada.I don't remember a time when Canadian political parties were so desperate to undermine the mandate at the ballot by the people.
