Coalition? What Coalition. . . .

A number of Conservative MPs, including my own infantile lap-dog of tyranny, Poillevre, are desperately grasping at straws as their popularity slips due to their own tyrannical behavior. Imagining that more obnoxious behavior will somehow reverse the trend that obnoxious behavior gave rise to in the first place, the Conservatives will attack anybody in an attempt to turn people's attentions elsewhere. One of the attacks takes the form of rehashing their old attacks on the idea of a coalition between the opposition parities. They don't actually say anything substantive, rather these attacks take the rather crude avenue of simply trying to slip reminders into any media moment that there was once such an agreement for a coalition. The assumption here is that by reminding people of an agreement in the past it will somehow indict all the opposition parties in the present as being somehow deviously attempting, presumably behind the scenes, to suddenly and nefariously take power illegally. Obviously media consultant has told the caucus that this is one good strategy to attempt to divert viewers attentions away from their own abuses of power. 

Beside the obviously crudeness and desperation of this strategy, it is absurd in so many ways. For one, it is like trying to make someone look bad for doing something which not only you have done yourself, but which is in now way illegal or even unfair or wrong. The fact is, or course, that the majority of established democracies in the world have some form of coalition government and it is a standard part of most parliamentary systems. Another reason such accusations are absurd is that such a coalition would actually represent the majority of voters in the country. But the biggest reason that such a strategy is absurd; there is no such coalition! It does not exist now, nor is it in the offing. 

DUH!