On strategic responses

The latest on the Harper Cons' attempt to run against the idea of cooperative politics includes one good point about what they hope to accomplish. But it's worth clarifying exactly why the Cons want to see the Libs denying the possibility - and what can be done instead:

Bricker said the Tories will be happy merely if Ignatieff is forced to talk about the (coalition) issue.

"They want him denying. They want him to engage in that debate, because it's better than talking about the census, or the gun registry or whatever story of the day is. It's smart strategy. These guys, if anything, are smart and ruthless about how they campaign."

Now, Bricker's thesis is probably true enough on its face: the more time the Libs spend either rejecting the possibility of a coalition (as they did in '08) or obfuscating on the issue (as they're doing now), the easier it'll be for the Cons to boost their electoral fortunes based on a combination of a motivated base and a disheartened opposition. And of course it doesn't help matters that the Libs would once again be inviting voters to match their message that they'd rather keep Harper in power than consider cooperating with anybody else.

But there's an easy way to get back onto stronger ground. It shouldn't take too much effort to answer any questions about a coalition by saying that the Libs don't consider themselves to be above working with others to fix the damage done by the Cons - then turn the conversation back to exactly why Harper needs to be replaced. And the more the Cons' talk of a coalition gets turned into an invitation to talk about exactly why so many parties can agree that they have to go, the more likely they'll be to have to abandon the strategy.