Ignatieff clarifies his final? position on future coalitions

[Bownesian]

Article

Michael Ignatieff says coalition governments are "perfectly legitimate" and he'd be prepared to lead one if that's the hand Canadian voters deal him in the next election.

But the Liberal leader says it would be disrespectful to voters and damaging to his party to try to strike any deals with the NDP before voters have spoken.

In an exclusive interview with The Canadian Press, Ignatieff dismissed talk of a merger or any sort of election non-compete agreement with the NDP as "absurd."

Some of his previous positions:

Last September, as the Tories were trying to revive the spectre of Liberals joining forces with "separatists and socialists," Ignatieff declared: "Let me be very clear. The Liberal party would not agree to a coalition. In January we did not support a coalition and we do not support a coalition today or tomorrow."

Just two weeks ago, talking points issued by Ignatieff's office asserted: "Liberals will campaign to form a Liberal government. We aren't interested in coalitions." The script further argued that "parties in Parliament can work together -- without forming a coalition."

In the interview, Ignatieff said he can't recall ever having categorically ruled out a coalition. He said he continues to adhere to the "coalition if necessary, but not necessarily coalition" line.

In the short term, it will be good to have this issue behind him but I think this spells trouble for the Liberals in the next campaign. If it comes to just a few weeks left in a campaign and the polls indicate another minority, Ignatieff will be bombarded with questions about what NDP policies he would be prepared to accept. He'd be held hostage to whatever Jack Layton might say about conditions for NDP participation in a coalition government and he'll find it tough to talk about anything else.

Interesting times.

[FlamesAddiction]

I'd rather have our parliament use coalitions or have run-off elections than have another minority government no matter who is running it. Minority governments are good once in a while, but not constantly.

I never understood why Canadians are so opposed to coalitions.

[alltherage]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I'd rather have our parliament use coalitions or have run-off elections than have another minority government no matter who is running it. Minority governments are good once in a while, but not constantly.

I never understood why Canadians are so opposed to coalitions.

I can't speak for everyone but I don't like the coalition idea because it's not what you voted for. For example if I vote Liberal for whatever reason and then policies from NDP and Bloc get passed which I do not agree with, that's not how I voted. Also Liberal is supposed to be closer to the middle of the political spectrum and would be pushed further left, which again is not what you vote for.

I personally think the people should choose who is in power, and although more may choose 3 parties in total than choose 1, that does not mean more people chose a coalition... if that makes sense.

[Bownesian]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I'd rather have our parliament use coalitions or have run-off elections than have another minority government no matter who is running it. Minority governments are good once in a while, but not constantly.

I never understood why Canadians are so opposed to coalitions.

I think the opposition was as much an ethical thing as it had to do with how much of a surprise it was. Dion dismissed the idea of forming a coalition during the campaign, lost seats to the Conservatives in an historic fashion and seemingly out of the blue there was a coalition with Dion to be the new PM.

I don't think that the aversion to coalitions will last in the long run because it won't be such a surprise next time. I still think that coalitions that explicitly include the BQ will still be poisonous, as implied by Ignatieff's comments on the issues in the article I quoted.

If the Liberal + NDP seat count is more than the Conservatives, I can see them voting against the Throne Speech and going to the GG with a coalition agreement.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Well, you can make it about Dion if you like: he's an easy target, having been perhaps the most inept politician our political scene has witnessed since Kim Campbell.

But in the end, the opposition to the coalition was just shrill hand-wringing from Harper. The Westminster parliamentary system clearly authorizes coalitions, and a coalition government is always going to be just as legitimate as a weak minority government would be. The fact that we don't have a coalition right now is just a testament to Harper's inability to play nicely with others. Instead of all that hand-waving and silliness he engaged in during "coalitiongate," he should have tried to form a coalition of his own with the Liberals. If he had, we would now have a stable center-right government instead of this idiotic gridlock and constant hot-button posturing from all sides. Not to mention that such a coalition would instantly have had more legitimacy because a) the Liberals were leaderless at that moment anyway and b) they wouldn't have needed the Bloc.

Harper's flaw is that in spite of being a relatively shrewd operator politically, he's kind of a moron when it comes to governance--that is, he's unable to perceive the moment when it is time to stop grandstanding and start governing. In my view, that's what will keep him from ever being remembered as a great, or even a good prime minister. It's too bad--he is a fairly bright guy otherwise, though a bit of a charisma vacuum.

[CaptainCrunch]

No thanks to a coalition government. When I vote I vote based on a parties platforms and policy statement. For a government to maintain a coalition they're going to have to trade off on their election promises to keep the coalition together. In essence remaining in power and maintaining a coalition will become more important then your party platform.

If the Liberal's want to talk coalition then make it part of their party platform. During any election campaign make it a policy statement that if they lose they will look to form a coalition which will give Jack Layton a seat of power as deputy PM, that they will carry out several of the NDP election platforms and see what happens.

To me, its unlikely that we're going to see an election for a long time anyways. Ignatieff has done a terrible job of running the Liberal's and has managed to do as bad of a job of driving the Liberal's into the ground as successive Conservative Party leaders did in the days of darkness. You can already see Bob Rae pulling out the knives, and I have my doubts that Ignatieff will still be party leader by the time the next election comes around.

The Liberal's need to have Bob Rae take over leadership of the Liberals as it will ring the final death knell for a party that badly needs to reinvent itself and find a strong leader that capable of reaching the average Canadian.

Ignatieff is definitely not that guy, nor is Bob Rae.

I also think that the threat of the Liberal's and NDP threatening to form a coalition if there is a minority government will drive more voters away from the Left and away from the polls.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

No offense to any tories around here, but I think Stephen Harper is living proof that you don't need a "strong leader" to win an election. He's more of a "non-threatening dweeb."

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

No offense to any tories around here, but I think Stephen Harper is living proof that you don't need a "strong leader" to win an election. He's more of a "non-threatening dweeb."

Rather have him than the supposed strong leader down south.

Harper isn't charismatic or anything, but I think he does a fairly good job. Outside of the copyright bill of course and a few other things.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Azure

Rather have him than the supposed strong leader down south.

Harper isn't charismatic or anything, but I think he does a fairly good job. Outside of the copyright bill of course and a few other things.

So he's "pretty good" apart from his only major legislative achievement being a total disaster?

I guess if your goal is mediocrity, you will be judged by history as "pretty good." It has a nice ring to it: Stephen Harper the Unambitious.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I never understood why Canadians are so opposed to coalitions.

It's because of first past the post voting. In our electoral districts, we are told that you don't need a majority to win, only a larger piece of the pie than any other single opponent. Then we apply that logic to our parliament.

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

I guess if your goal is mediocrity, you will be judged by history as "pretty good." It has a nice ring to it: Stephen Harper the Unambitious.

His ambition is to be PM. Doesn't matter that he has to sell out his values to do it, and he still only gets a minority.

[transplant99]

Awesome...a thread about Ignatieff and one of his policies becomes another "trash Harper" party.

As for the original post...I dont believe anything Ignatieff says as he will do whatever it takes to try and assume power...afterall that is his job. And if getting into bed with another party is what gets that done, away he goes. Same with any of the other leaders IMO.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by transplant99

Awesome...a thread about Ignatieff and one of his policies becomes another "trash Harper" party.

As for the original post...I dont believe anything Ignatieff says as he will do whatever it takes to try and assume power...afterall that is his job. And if getting into bed with another party is what gets that done, away he goes. Same with any of the other leaders IMO.

In fact, Harper's totally blinkered stance on coalitions is extremely relevant to a discussion about Ignatieff's stance on coalitions. Neither comes off particularly well. Harper is a bullheaded obstructionist, Ignatieff is a flip-flopper. But I hardly think it's irrelevant to talk about both.

The tough news is that the political landscape isn't changing any time soon. Canadians had better get used to the idea of coalitions, or we're going to be seeing a lot of parliamentary gridlock. Nothing will get done until the parties figure out how to work together.

[Flamesguy_SJ]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

Well, you can make it about Dion if you like: he's an easy target, having been perhaps the most inept politician our political scene has witnessed since Kim Campbell.

But in the end, the opposition to the coalition was just shrill hand-wringing from Harper. The Westminster parliamentary system clearly authorizes coalitions, and a coalition government is always going to be just as legitimate as a weak minority government would be. The fact that we don't have a coalition right now is just a testament to Harper's inability to play nicely with others. Instead of all that hand-waving and silliness he engaged in during "coalitiongate," he should have tried to form a coalition of his own with the Liberals. If he had, we would now have a stable center-right government instead of this idiotic gridlock and constant hot-button posturing from all sides. Not to mention that such a coalition would instantly have had more legitimacy because a) the Liberals were leaderless at that moment anyway and b) they wouldn't have needed the Bloc.

Harper's flaw is that in spite of being a relatively shrewd operator politically, he's kind of a moron when it comes to governance--that is, he's unable to perceive the moment when it is time to stop grandstanding and start governing. In my view, that's what will keep him from ever being remembered as a great, or even a good prime minister. It's too bad--he is a fairly bright guy otherwise, though a bit of a charisma vacuum.

I think that a big part of why the proposed Liberal-NDP coalition was met with such backlash is that Canadians just don't have any experience with them. It's all well and good to say that they're a perfectly legitimate way of forming a government given the system we have in Canada, but I think the way people reacted shows that they're either just not that well acquainted with the idea of coalitions, or reject it outright. There has been a great deal of discussion among Canada's political academics (the book Parliamentary Democracy in Crisis is actually a great read for anyone interested in the possible ramifications of the Prorogation/Coalition episode and pretty well anything related to it) about how it's such a shame and near incomprehensible that the Canadian electorate reacted so negatively to the coalition idea, but what are they supposed to think? It's something that the average Canadian has no knowledge of or experience with.

As for your point about Harper trying to form a coalition with the Liberals, I agree that it should have been explored. But the thing I've noticed is that Canadians seem much more open to the idea of a minority government who tries to find support in the House on an issue-by-issue basis by looking to the opposition parties, instead of having everything predetermined at the get-go. I suppose the theory is that it keeps everyone honest, because it forces everyone to work together (ideally) at least once.

Now, it's obvious that that hasn't exactly been happening in recent memory. Like I said, I agree with you that a coalition might be much more beneficial to Canada than yet another minority government. I take issue with the fact that Canadians rejected the Lib-NDP coalition just because of Harper; I think Canada's inexperience with even the idea of a coalition government is much more the reason.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by alltherage

I can't speak for everyone but I don't like the coalition idea because it's not what you voted for. For example if I vote Liberal for whatever reason and then policies from NDP and Bloc get passed which I do not agree with, that's not how I voted. Also Liberal is supposed to be closer to the middle of the political spectrum and would be pushed further left, which again is not what you vote for.

I personally think the people should choose who is in power, and although more may choose 3 parties in total than choose 1, that does not mean more people chose a coalition... if that makes sense.

But if the parties come out before the voting takes place and say they would consider a coaltion and people still vote for them, then I think it is completely fine.

In most countries that use a mult-party parliamentary system, it is implicit that a coalition can form. I guess in Canada, it isn't though.

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

Originally Posted by Flamesguy_SJ

I take issue with the fact that Canadians rejected the Lib-NDP coalition just because of Harper; I think Canada's inexperience with even the idea of a coalition government is much more the reason.

That's a fair point--it was untraveled ground, and people were understandably a bit nervous about it.

I do blame Harper in part though--he really worked hard to appeal to the lesser angels of our nature during that time period. As you point out, that's unlikely to have been the only cause of the backlash, but I'd argue that it sure didn't help.

In the end, I suspect it might have ended differently had the Liberals and NDP had enough seats without the Bloc. The involvement of the Bloc made for some seriously poor optics.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

No thanks to a coalition government. When I vote I vote based on a parties platforms and policy statement. For a government to maintain a coalition they're going to have to trade off on their election promises to keep the coalition together. In essence remaining in power and maintaining a coalition will become more important then your party platform.

.

Cherry picking your post ( most of it, I practically agree with though).

I personally don't only consider platform, but I consider whether I think the party or leader can work with others, negotiate, and adapt policy if need be.

I think too many people have unrealistic expectations when it comes to "keeping promises" or not waivering or bending on anything (ie. using terms like "flip-flopping" or "dithering"). Good politicians are the ones that can admit that their original ideas or platforms need adjustment. I feel that coalition governments actually help this process.

[Flamesguy_SJ]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

That's a fair point--it was untraveled ground, and people were understandably a bit nervous about it.

I do blame Harper in part though--he really worked hard to appeal to the lesser angels of our nature during that time period. As you point out, that's unlikely to have been the only cause of the backlash, but I'd argue that it sure didn't help.

In the end, I suspect it might have ended differently had the Liberals and NDP had enough seats without the Bloc. The involvement of the Bloc made for some seriously poor optics.

The really kind of ironic part about Canada's anxiety surrounding coalitions is that Canada's existence is due in large part to The Great Coalition of 1864. The "fathers of Confederation" obviously thought that responsible government would be an integral part of Canada's future. It's a shame that people see "responsible government" these days as a set of stuffy, inflexible rules instead of a dynamic and self-correcting structure within which a government and its opposition must work.

Man, if only my Poli Sci prof could see me now. Who knew I was actually paying attention in his class last term?

[transplant99]

Originally Posted by Iowa_Flames_Fan

That's a fair point--it was untraveled ground, and people were understandably a bit nervous about it.

I do blame Harper in part though--he really worked hard to appeal to the lesser angels of our nature during that time period. As you point out, that's unlikely to have been the only cause of the backlash, but I'd argue that it sure didn't help.

In the end, I suspect it might have ended differently had the Liberals and NDP had enough seats without the Bloc. The involvement of the Bloc made for some seriously poor optics.

Of course you do, but he was only doing what he was charged to do as the leader of the PC's and a guy that garnered more votees than any other leader.

I really dont have a huge problem with any coalition to be honest, as long as none of that coalition is a group of people elected to try and seperate the country. In this case it was and I think it was abhorrent for both Dion and Layton to get in bed with Duceppe, and completely anti-Canadian in doing so. It was not a legitimate coalition in that sense. Legally? yes. Morally reprehensible though. And something I hope voters remember when they next head to the polls.

Either way though, bleating on about Harper and his stance against that coalition is NOT what this thread was based on..but knock yourself out as there is no way to stop you. But i am mot sure what it adds to Ignatieffs statements...that again are still unbelievable considering the party he leads and what they were prepared to do with the BQ and the Dippers last time.

None of the "national" parties should have anything to do with the BQ IMO...ever. Though I have no doubt that the thirst for power would change that among any of them.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by transplant99

I really dont have a huge problem with any coalition to be honest, as long as none of that coalition is a group of people elected to try and seperate the country. In this case it was and I think it was abhorrent for both Dion and Layton to get in bed with Duceppe, and completely anti-Canadian in doing so. It was not a legitimate coalition in that sense. Legally? yes. Morally reprehensible though. And something I hope voters remember when they next head to the polls.

.

The Bloc was never going to be in the coalition. They only said that they wouldn't oppose it.

What theat meant in terms of behind the scenes handshake deals is up for discussion, but I don't think much was ever leaked on that topic. It could have been nothing as far as anyone knows.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

The Bloc was never going to be in the coalition. They only said that they wouldn't oppose it.

What theat meant in terms of behind the scenes handshake deals is up for discussion, but I don't think much was ever leaked on that topic. It could have been nothing as far as anyone knows.

Except that the coalition wouldn't have worked without hardened Bloc support on nearly every issue.

The conservatives 144 seats trumps the NDP/Liberal 115 seats.

I think a lot more people had trouble with seeing Jack Layton getting any kind of real power over the budget. People like Layton exactly where he is playing the conscious of Parliament.

As an add on I like the idea of the minority government and gaining individual consensus. But I prefer a one party majority at least once in a while, but I think that day is gone.