If the Liberals want to put this issue to bed they need to take a page out of Stephen Harper's book.
At the beginning of the 2005/2006 campaign Stephen Harper neutralized the SSM issue by stating what he would do about it during his very first campaign stop. Everybody thought he was nuts but it allowed him to put the issue behind him early and focus on getting the Conservative message out there.
Michael Ignatieff should do the same thing. On his very first campaign stop, when the inevitable questions about a coalition comes up he should anwser them in three parts.
Part one, make the following statement:
"The Liberal Party is running to win this election. When we win the election and if Canadians entrust us with only enough seats to form a minority government the Liberal team and I will work with any Member of Parliament who wants to work with us towards building a better Canada for all Canadians."
Part two, when the inevitable follow-up questions about what happens if the Liberals lose but the Conservatives only win a minority government are asked make the following statement.
"We expect to win but if the Conservative Party wins the most seats in a minority Parliament they will have the first opportunity to form a government. That is just how our system works. It will then be the responsibility of Stephen Harper to to work with the other Parties in the House to gain the confidence of the new Parliament and to continue governing.
Part three, if follow-up questions about what the Liberals would do if the Conservatives failed to gain the confidence of the House are asked Mr. Ignatieff should ask, with a wry smile:
"You really do not believe that Stephen Harper would not do whatever it takes to hang on to power do you?"
Stick to this message and repeat it everytime these questions are asked. It would not be too long before they stop asking these questions.
7 comments:
That's not a message, that is an obfuscation. He will have to say either "I will not form a coalition" or "I will form a coalition". Until he takes a stand no amount of weasel words will stop the bleeding. Frankly, I'm not sure where the problem is. If you Liberals think a coalition is legitimate then say so openly and let voters decide. Hiding behind those weasel words just reinforces what people think about the legitimacy of a coalition.
Unless Ignatieff puts it to rest, a vote for Ignatieff will be a vote for Libby Davies in cabinet.
You may even hear, a vote for Ignatieff is a vote for the bloc.
Coalition or Harper.
If that is the narrative, Ignatieff will be back home in Boston before summer.
thanks for the talking points Rotterdam
Iggy says, Red door or Blue Door, or Door number 3, then they all bitch at Harper for playing games and not taking parliament seriously.
Enough games.
I know they told you, someone as smart as you should be running the country but it wasn't their's to give.
Go home.
This is a good set of answers. Why does he have to say yes or no to a coalition? Has Harper said yes or no to a coalition yet?
The narrative is Harper OR Democracy.
The spin is Harper "OR Democracy."
Dictated by an documented coalition of parties that no one voted for? If the coalition is to remain a suprise, it's hardly fair to voters .
Since it's a given that almost half of those MPs elected will be Conservative, will they be fairly represented by this hostile coalition?
Sorry, That should read Un-documented.
Post a Comment