There's been no shortage of talk about political coalitions this week. In fact, the UK's David Cameron gave our prime minister a bit of a primer when they met in London:
 
"Stephen and I have lots of things in common. And actually we've both said some pretty terrible things about coalitions; I've said them myself. So I'm in the interesting position of trying to prove myself wrong."

"But in politics we have to do two things: we have to play the hand we're dealt by the electorate. And we have to face up to our country's problems. And it seemed to me on both of those bases the coalition was right. There wasn't actually a minority government option to choose. In terms of the way the election came out and in terms of the scale of our deficit, borrowing 11 per cent of our GDP this year, it seemed to me the right thing to do was to aim for a strong and stable government that could deal with the problems that we have. In terms of working together as a coalition, it's early days, but it seems to be going well."
 
Lots of people here in Canada are weighing in on the coalition idea -- specifically whether the Liberals and NDP should have a shotgun wedding or even a lengthy courtship in order to win back some semblance of stability on the centre-left.
 
Even former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien gave his opinion on CBC's Power and Politics this past week:
 
"It's never out of the question. If it is doable, let's do it!"
 
But a lot of angry Liberals are asking what Chrétien was thinking or doing by making that comment.
 
First off, Chrétien is an insurgent, he has always gone against the grain of his party's establishment.
 
He is also a pragmatist and he likes to win.
 
And, he also supported Bob Rae, a former NDP premier, in the last leadership race.
 
Add it all up, Chrétien is likely frustrated with his party's fortunes, and so he's stirring the pot.
 
But just to be clear, there is nothing official happening between the parties, nothing like a formal process about a coalition or a merger. Some Liberals are arguing publicly that this is nothing more than a gust of hot air from high levels in the party...and that those players should be ashamed of themselves.
 
That wind is also blowing from Bob Rae's direction. He wrote a glowing memoir on his blog
last week about his accord as Ontario's NDP Leader with David Peterson's Liberal government back in 1985. You have to wonder if this is a bid by Rae to seize power while Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff is weak? Some certainly believe Rae is trying to suss out his own prospects, while the party he joined (quite recently) is down in the polls.
 
But it's not just Ignatieff's people who are angry. Many long-time defenders of the Liberal brand are as well.
 
Steve MacKinnon, the former national director of the Liberal party and now a Liberal candidate in Gatineau says he's concerned about the potential danger of all this chatter.
 
"Canadians elect progressive, centrist governments. When we cease being a progressive centrist alternative I think Canadians will punish us at the ballot box for that," he says, adding:

"I think Stephen Harper would like to form a Borden majority. A Borden majority means largely an English canada majority and retain the Bloc in Quebec as a bit of a foil. I think that talk of an arrangement between the Liberal and New Democratic parties is a self-fulfilling prophecy. It will hand Mr. Harper a majority. I think we saw it in the public backlash to the coalition last time and I think we would see it again."
 
In response to all the hubbub, the president of the Liberal Party, Alf Apps, said earlier in the week that coalition talk, before an election, was premature.
 
But he went further on Friday to rule out the C-word completely.
 
"The use of the term coalition prior to an election by any party is inappropriate. Every party in a minority parliament has to face the question of whether a coalition following an election makes sense. The Liberal Party has to earn its way back to as many seats as it can win with a progressive agenda that responds to as widely as possible the almost 80 per cent of Canadians who didn't vote for this government. If other parties want to cooperate in an electoral strategy to make sure there are fewer Tories in the House and more progressives, that's a discussion worth having."

What about the NDP; what is that party saying about all this? Well, they enjoy the chatter to the extent that it makes the Liberals look weak.
 
But when it comes down to brass tacks: they are cautious.
 
They say it's up to the Liberals to show they're all on board.
 
However, they had their own high-profile booster this week too...none other than former Saskatchewan NDP Premier Roy Romanow.
 
Romanow told Power and Politics he favours the idea of a coalition and said he had a positive experience with a coalition he formed in 1999 with the province's Liberal Party.
 
"And we actually had a coalition agreement signed up with the Liberal party in Saskatchewan. There's a contract. It's much like the UK model: a contract, an agenda of things we should do. I brought in the Liberal leader, and a couple of other people into the ministries. They worked very well. We had our differences. But overall the public goal was achieved. If I may say, I'm biased, but it was a pretty good government from 1999 to 2004. I just take a look at this nature, there's a dissipation of the unity of the country. Maybe a coalition would be something that can be put on the plate and considered. Whether they're doing it at the political level or not, I don't know. Chretien and I can talk all we want, we're not in the game."
 
It's a lopsided view for sure. It worked for him, but not for the Liberals. The Liberals quickly fell apart in that arrangement and they haven't won a seat since. So I spoke to a former Liberal MLA in that government, Jack Hillson. He says it failed largely because the discussions were held behind closed doors.
 
"Well, first of all, the discussions were held behind closed doors. I now feel that was that was a serious mistake. I kept my silence upon that at the time and I regret that. In Britain what we've been seeing is the discussions were held in open and, consequently, people generally...knew what was going on and by and large they appear to have agreed with it as opposed to just springing it on them. For the broader public, they have to feel this is about providing stable governance for the province or the country; this is about the good of the country not the individual good of the people involved. What unfortunately happened in Saskatchewan: by and large Liberals did not agree with it and the NDP as simply embarrassed they were so reduced that the only way they could stay in office was by breaking bread with the three Liberal MLAs. So it didn't really have party support; it had support of the members of the legislature involved."
 
In fact, it's hard to imagine the federal Liberals agreeing on just about anything, let alone a coalition arrangement, at this point. Still, if there's a ray of light for this to become more than chatter, it's driven by two things: recognition that power has remained elusive and public fatigue with a minority situation that doesn't provide stable, functional government.
 
Some Liberals are also saying they should keep their options open. Here's Bob Richardson, a former Convention Chair for Ignatieff.
 
"I think it's a lot of Ottawa talk. I don't take it too seriously. We will be running a full slate of candidates in the next election. I think the NDP will be running a full slate of candidates in the next election. When the results are announced we'll take a look and see where we're all at. If we've done well but fall a little bit short, why wouldn't you talk to another political party? The only party I wouldn't talk to is the Bloc Quebecois. But, you know there may be reasons to talk to the Conservative party on some issues and there may be reasons to talk to the NDP. I think it's just smart to leave these options open."
 
Putting aside what the talk is within the parties, what does the public think? A poll out this week by Angus Reid posed the question: "Would you vote for a merged NDP-Liberal party led by Michael Ignatieff, Bob Rae, or Jack Layton. Under Ignatieff, the merged party would lose. The Rae-led party would tie the Conservatives. And the Jack Layton party would win, largely due to support in Quebec.

That's just gotta hurt if you're Ignatieff. But I should inject some caution here. In a hypothetical question, voters may answer a little differently that if faced with a reality at the ballot box.  
However, I spoke to Mario Conseco, the vice president of public affairs at Angus Reid. He argues the Canadian public is becoming more open to the idea of a coalition government.
 
"I think we are, and I think it has to do with the way the last few elections have gone. We've had a lot of majorities starting in 1984, 1988, 1993. It's almost as if you are decimating whoever was there before you. Now we're into the third consecutive minority government. There's not a lot of room for Conservatives to manoeuvre but also not a lot of things the opposition can do. So the idea of having a coalition...(if it's a) stable government that can last more than four years, is something they should be considering."
 
Conseco says he even thinks Rae may try to take a stab at swinging the Liberals towards a coalition with the NDP before the next election. But Conseco is no insider.
 
What's most intriguing here is that Liberal insiders simply can't ignore these winds of opinion that just keep coming. And it's likely to be a topic this weekend when Ignatieff sits down to meet with his strategists at Stornoway to plan his summer campaign.

Tags: There's been no shortage of talk about political coalitions this week. In fact