Coalition: September 2004, December 2008 & Now

[fellowtraveller]

These are the governments that gave Canada the Canadian Flag, Medicare, the Canada Pension Plan, the Kelowna Accord and a National Daycare Plan

He seems to have overlooked Adscam.

[Harry]

Bryan,

Harper will use a coalition lickety-split with the NDP and the Bloc if he has to, just like he did in 2004. And everyone knows that.

Edited March 26, 2011 by Harry

[Molly]

August, Toadbrother....

IF (hypotheticals are flying around here like mad, so I get to through one out, too...)

IF the Harper Government^TM is returned in minority and proceeds with the levels of hubris they've exhibited in the past, and thusly gets tossed on the throne speech......

It is unlikely that the GG would permit/request another immediate election, and would ask the Liberal party to try to form a government, coalition or no....

and while the Liberal party might even wish to form a government, the presumption so far seems to be that they would be much too weak to do so in any reasonably stable form (huge, huge presumption. This isn't Dion and the Green plan here, nor is it Martin with a mess of Adscam in his lap)...

but they have made a commitment not to enter into any formal coalitions, and it would be political suicide to do so..... especially since a coalition of such weak bodies is not likely to be much more stable than case-by-case agreement...

The GG might find no one able to form a gtovernment that would achieve the confidence of the house, so, does the GG then just keep okaying election after election until we voters come up with something completely different, or does the GG insist that further attempts to form a government be made.....

(thus, refusing the advice etc.)

[Jack Weber]

In re-reading the Ignatieff renouncement of a coalition, I'm noticing that he did not actually rule one out, even though it sounds like he did at first blush.

http://www.liberal.ca/newsroom/news-release/statement-liberal-leader-michael-ignatieff/

Bold emphasis is mine. He's ruling out a coalition IF HE WINS, not if he loses.

You do realize that coaliton goverments are completely within the realm of legality and legitimacy within parliamentary democracy,right??

eg.The David Peterson Liberals and the Bob Rae NDP formed a coalition in Ontario in the mid-'80's to defeat the Frank Miller led PC's...

Now,I realize that was a provincial example,but it shows it can be done...And I don't remember all sorts of teeth gnashing outrage over it...

The issue with a coalition,at least for me,is the Bloc's involvment...Which he's categorically said he would'nt do in that quote...

[Jack Weber]

Even I am laughing about Shady's comments on that one Jack.

The Professor got me...

[Jack Weber]

He seems to have overlooked Adscam.

You seem to overlook the false costing and lack of financial information that brought the Tories down in Contempt of Parlaiment...

[capricorn]

do you know they Ignatieff and the press were laughing about the coalition at Ignatieff's press conference today.

That's not what I saw. I saw Ignatieff and his Red team laugh at a reporter's question. Reporters are notorious for sticking together and don't like to be made fun of. If there's one thing you want to avoid, especially in an election campaign, is to get on the the media's wrong side.

[fellowtraveller]

Question: if there is a Tory minority, and Igatieff goes to the Governor General with a sort-of-but-not-really a coalition, a "we'll just try to get along as buddies with nothing signed", will the GG agree that this is in the best interests of Canadians, or will he want a substantive and public show of solidarity between the NDP, Libs and Bloc? In 2008, he had that from the three amigos. Is that a reasonable precurdor to being allowed to form a govt?

Prediction: the first major battle between Duceppe and Ignatieff will be a fight over cameras being present when Iggy and Gilles become formal partners in a coalition. It will just the first of many tiffs lost by Ignatieff.

The Coalition is like Christmas every day for Ducppe , he cannot help but be a winner no matter what.

But the risks for Iggy.... he really is risking the survival of the Liberal Party with a Coalition with Duceppe.

[fellowtraveller]

You seem to overlook the false costing and lack of financial information that brought the Tories down in Contempt of Parlaiment...

That would go on a list of Tory crimes against humanity, which I am sure you'd like to post.

But no, Iggy was listing Liberal accomplishments and Adscam is certainly one of them.

[Bryan]

Bryan,

Harper will use a coalition lickety-split with the NDP and the Bloc if he has to, just like he did in 2004. And everyone knows that.

Except for the fact that he didn't. Neither Harper, nor the other opposition parties ever claimed they had a coalition.

Stephen Harper: “This is not a coalition.”

Gilles Duccepe: “In no way we are a coalition and we won’t be a coalition.”

Jack Layton: “It’s impossible to imagine that these three parties with their completely different platforms could form a coalition as we find in other countries.”

[Harry]

That would go on a list of Tory crimes against humanity, which I am sure you'd like to post.

But no, Iggy was listing Liberal accomplishments and Adscam is certainly one of them.

So is the Kelowna Accord and a National Child Care Program. Oh wait you say, those don't exist. Aw come on, he just a new guy, give him a break.

Edited March 26, 2011 by Harry

[Keepitsimple]

Ignatieff still hasn't answered the question - perhaps because it wasn't presented to him in the proper context. If the Conservatives are returned as a minority with the same number of seats, they will present exactly the same budget. This will be the same government that was "held in contempt" along with the same budget. If that was the case, question number one is "would the opposition then support the budget". If the answer is no, then the government would again fall unless Ignatieff went to the GG and suggested that he be allowed to attempt to form a stable government. He would have no choice but try to do so - and in order for it to be stable, it would have to be - at a minimum - a formal agreement with the NDP or Bloc and written support from the other. In other words, a coalition. Ignatieff would have three choices - support the budget, attempt to form a coalition, or have another election.

When you think it all out, if there is no Conservative majority, this is very, very likely to be the situation. As Toad has said repeatedly, it's all constitutionally legal......all Canadians want from Ignatieff is a straight answer. If the Conservatives are re-elected as a similarly strong minority, would he support exactly the same Conservative budget and if not - is he saying that he would refuse to attempt to form a coalition?

Edited March 26, 2011 by Keepitsimple

[Shakeyhands]

Coalition used twice!!!

Hahaha. Good one.

[Harry]

Ignatieff still hasn't answered the question - perhaps because it wasn't presented to him in the proper context. If the Conservatives are returned as a minority with the same number of seats, they will present exactly the same budget. This will be the same government that was "held in contempt" along with the same budget. If that was the case, question number one is "would the opposition then support the budget". If the answer is no, then the government would again fall unless Ignatieff went to the GG and suggested that he be allowed to attempt to form a stable government. He would have no choice but try to do so - and in order for it to be stable, it would have to be - at a minimum - a formal agreement with the NDP or Bloc and written support from the other. In other words, a coalition. Ignatieff would have three choices - support the budget, attempt to form a coalition, or have another election.

When you think it all out, if there is no Conservative majority, this is very, very likely to be the situation. As Toad has said repeatedly, it's all constitutionally legal......all Canadians want from Ignatieff is a straight answer. If the Conservatives are re-elected as a strong minority, would he support exactly the same Conservative budget and if not - is he saying that he would refuse to attempt to form a coalition?

How do you define coalition? A formal coalition is shared cabinet positions, but Ignatieff could go to the GG with a signed agreement letter just like Harper did in 2004, when holier-than-thou Harper meet with Duceppe and Layton in some back room of a sleazy hotel out of sight of the public, and perhaps become PM. Same dif.

Edited March 26, 2011 by Harry

[Shakeyhands]

Ignatieff still hasn't answered the question - perhaps because it wasn't presented to him in the proper context. If the Conservatives are returned as a minority with the same number of seats, they will present exactly the same budget. This will be the same government that was "held in contempt" along with the same budget. If that was the case, question number one is "would the opposition then support the budget". If the answer is no, then the government would again fall unless Ignatieff went to the GG and suggested that he be allowed to attempt to form a stable government. He would have no choice but try to do so - and in order for it to be stable, it would have to be - at a minimum - a formal agreement with the NDP or Bloc and written support from the other. In other words, a coalition. Ignatieff would have three choices - support the budget, attempt to form a coalition, or have another election.

He answered the question. He just hasn't answered the question to satisfy the CPC who only have this to play on the fears of the feeble minded.

When you think it all out, if there is no Conservative majority, this is very, very likely to be the situation. As Toad has said repeatedly, it's all constitutionally legal......all Canadians want from Ignatieff is a straight answer. If the Conservatives are re-elected as a similarly strong minority, would he support exactly the same Conservative budget and if not - is he saying that he would refuse to attempt to form a coalition?

You Conservatives really don't understand how our system works do you? I imagine it would depend on the budget wouldn't it. Such stupidity.

[ToadBrother]

Ignatieff still hasn't answered the question - perhaps because it wasn't presented to him in the proper context. If the Conservatives are returned as a minority with the same number of seats, they will present exactly the same budget. This will be the same government that was "held in contempt" along with the same budget. If that was the case, question number one is "would the opposition then support the budget". If the answer is no, then the government would again fall unless Ignatieff went to the GG and suggested that he be allowed to attempt to form a stable government. He would have no choice but try to do so - and in order for it to be stable, it would have to be - at a minimum - a formal agreement with the NDP or Bloc and written support from the other. In other words, a coalition. Ignatieff would have three choices - support the budget, attempt to form a coalition, or have another election.

When you think it all out, if there is no Conservative majority, this is very, very likely to be the situation. As Toad has said repeatedly, it's all constitutionally legal......all Canadians want from Ignatieff is a straight answer. Would he support exactly the same Conservative budget and if not - is he saying that he would refuse to attempt to form a coalition?

First of all, any politician facing the potential of a minority who outright says he won't do this or will do that is making a massive strategic blunder. To bind your hands based on an outcome you can't know, in the sense of real politik, is stupidity at its height.

That being said, I already said there are other possibilities. First and foremost, a majority government is not out of question for the Tories. Second of all, I find it unlikely that Harper would, in the case he's returned with another minority, actually submit the same budget. This was clearly more of an election budget than a real one, the jig was already up so there was little point putting out a useful and real budget.

Another possibility, one that Tories probably aren't pondering though I floated it a couple of days ago, is that Harper gets returned with another minority and decides to cut any coalition against him off at the pass and asks the NDP to join him, either as a formal coalition with NDP cabinet ministers, or at the very least with a budget too irresistible for Layton to ignore. Like I said a few days ago, I wouldn't be at all surprised if he had such a budget sitting in his desk just waiting for the potential return of a minority.

But I'll reiterate again that you don't talk coalitions during an election campaign. You campaign like you're going to win, because, particularly with potential voters who may be sitting on the ideological line between you and your nearest ideological neighbor, you may risk them saying "Oh well, I'll just vote for the other party, there's going to be a coalition anyways." It's cutting yourself off at the knees.

Beyond that, and let me be very clear to the Tories here, in a situation where a minority government may be elected, the possibility of cutting a deal is always in play, regardless of the minority is. It's the height of for any campaign to target the other side for this when they can't know whether their own leadership may be in a situation where one is at least possible. So picking on Iggy about this is, to be pretty blunt, the pot calling the kettle black, particularly seeing as we know that Harper was contemplating some sort of deal with the NDP and the Bloc in 2004.

[WWWTT]

First of all, any politician facing the potential of a minority who outright says he won't do this or will do that is making a massive strategic blunder. To bind your hands based on an outcome you can't know, in the sense of real politik, is stupidity at its height.

That being said, I already said there are other possibilities. First and foremost, a majority government is not out of question for the Tories. Second of all, I find it unlikely that Harper would, in the case he's returned with another minority, actually submit the same budget. This was clearly more of an election budget than a real one, the jig was already up so there was little point putting out a useful and real budget.

Another possibility, one that Tories probably aren't pondering though I floated it a couple of days ago, is that Harper gets returned with another minority and decides to cut any coalition against him off at the pass and asks the NDP to join him, either as a formal coalition with NDP cabinet ministers, or at the very least with a budget too irresistible for Layton to ignore. Like I said a few days ago, I wouldn't be at all surprised if he had such a budget sitting in his desk just waiting for the potential return of a minority.

But I'll reiterate again that you don't talk coalitions during an election campaign. You campaign like you're going to win, because, particularly with potential voters who may be sitting on the ideological line between you and your nearest ideological neighbor, you may risk them saying "Oh well, I'll just vote for the other party, there's going to be a coalition anyways." It's cutting yourself off at the knees.

Beyond that, and let me be very clear to the Tories here, in a situation where a minority government may be elected, the possibility of cutting a deal is always in play, regardless of the minority is. It's the height of for any campaign to target the other side for this when they can't know whether their own leadership may be in a situation where one is at least possible. So picking on Iggy about this is, to be pretty blunt, the pot calling the kettle black, particularly seeing as we know that Harper was contemplating some sort of deal with the NDP and the Bloc in 2004.

[/quote

Man thats wishfull thinking

I heard similar lines of thinking from known conservative supporters that somehow the NDP would support the conservatives in this just past budget to avoid an election.

You guys really want to keep your head in the sand.

Nice and comfortable isn't it when you become dis-associated from reality.

The NDP want to dismantle the conservatives and assimulate their seats.The writtings on the wall man.Open your eyes!Open your ears!

Many voters in Alberta vote for the cantidate who yells the loudest.Period.No substance,character,policies nothing man.Just yell freakin loud and your in.The conservatives don't have a freakin patent on this technique and others are going to start picking away at Alberta.

Why do you think that Harpers campaign so far has strictly consisted of keeping the seats he has now.

WWWTT

[ToadBrother]

I heard similar lines of thinking from known conservative supporters that somehow the NDP would support the conservatives in this just past budget to avoid an election.

You guys really want to keep your head in the sand.

I'm sorry. Where did you ever get the impression that I was a Tory supporter?

[August1991]

August you seem to be constantly grasping at straws. First it was that this coalition will destroy Ignatieff - do you know they Ignatieff and the press were laughing about the coalition at Ignatieff's press conference today.

Grasping at straws? Ignatieff did the only thing he could do today and issued a press release to state that he would not sign on to a coalition after an election. He should have said that yesterday instead of talking about red doors and blue doors.

Talk of a coalition will destroy the Liberals. As it is, Ignatieff's claim is hardly credible particularly given how he handled the question yesterday.

And then your silliness about whether or not the letter was signed by Harper. Of course it was signed, and only a Conservative partisan would have suggested otherwise.

I had never seen a signed copy of the letter and the CBC stated that it was not signed. The Internet had several contradictory sources. It's clear now that while the 2004 letter was signed, no formal coalition agreement was ever written, signed or delivered.

If we're talking history, that's a significant fact because the December 2008 coalition (signed by the entire Liberal caucus included Ignatieff) explicitly stated that the NDP would have 1/4 of cabinet seats and would involve the Bloc as a supporting party.

But as I have posted elsewhere, this is all history and of interest to constitutionalists. At the moment, Ignatieff faces a very practical problem: he must keep in the Liberal camp undecided voters who hesitate between the NDP and Liberals, and voters who hesitate between the Liberals and the Tories.

When Ignatieff prevaricates on teh question of a coalition, he bleeds voters in both directions.

[Keepitsimple]

First of all, any politician facing the potential of a minority who outright says he won't do this or will do that is making a massive strategic blunder. To bind your hands based on an outcome you can't know, in the sense of real politik, is stupidity at its height.

Beyond that, and let me be very clear to the Tories here, in a situation where a minority government may be elected, the possibility of cutting a deal is always in play, regardless of the minority is. It's the height of for any campaign to target the other side for this when they can't know whether their own leadership may be in a situation where one is at least possible. So picking on Iggy about this is, to be pretty blunt, the pot calling the kettle black, particularly seeing as we know that Harper was contemplating some sort of deal with the NDP and the Bloc in 2004.

Pots and kettles aside, all you've done is confirmed what I said. If the Conservatives are returned with the same minority, a colaition with the Liberals, NDP and Bloc cannot be ruled out.....and Mr. Ignatieff has NOT ruled it out. What Canadians want to know is that Mr. Ignatieff will never entertain governing Canada with any coalition that requires the support of the Bloc. I, and many other Canadians are completely OK with a coalition of Liberals and NDP as long as those two parties have more seats than the Conservatives. Including the Bloc in any coalition may be legal - but it is not principled. It would not have been principled if something like that had happened in 2004 - and it's not principled now. This would not be an issue if Mr. Ignatieff had not supported the Dion/Layton/Duceppe coalition where every Liberal signed on the dotted line.

Edited March 26, 2011 by Keepitsimple

[Harry]

More Harper lies. Does Prime Minister Harper ever tell the truth? Contemptible.

Duceppe says Harper lying

Bloc Québécois Leader Gillles Duceppe opened his May 2 election campaign Saturday by accusing Conservative Leader Stephen Harper of lying when he denies the Conservatives had a plan to build a coalition government in 2004 against the then-ruling Paul Martin Liberals.

-

“When he says only the party that received the most votes can form a government, he said the opposite in this letter. He lied this morning.”

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/duceppe-says-harper-lying-about-2004-coalition-talks/article1958049/

Edited March 26, 2011 by Harry

[August1991]

August, Toadbrother....

IF (hypotheticals are flying around here like mad, so I get to through one out, too...)

...

The GG might find no one able to form a gtovernment that would achieve the confidence of the house, so, does the GG then just keep okaying election after election until we voters come up with something completely different, or does the GG insist that further attempts to form a government be made.....

In Europe, your hypotheticals happen frequently and this explains why it takes several months after an election in Belgium to know who will be the PM or how the cabinet will look. So, I guess the same could happen here.

My point however is that these hypotheticals, while interesting, are irrelevant at the moment. At the moment, voters have to decide what candidate/party to choose. Talk of a coalition makes it easier for NDP sympathizers leaning Liberal to vote NDP. It also encourages centrist Liberal-leaners who dislike the NDP to shift to the Tories. If you add the Bloc into the mix, this makes a Liberal vote toxic.

This talk of coalition is a very real specific problem to the Liberals. It's not hypothetical at all.

[ToadBrother]

Pots and kettles aside, all you've done is confirmed what I said. If the Conservatives are returned with the same minority, a colaition with the Liberals, NDP and Bloc cannot be ruled out.....and Mr. Ignatieff has NOT ruled it out. What Canadians want to know is that Mr. Ignatieff will never entertain governing Canada with any coalition that requires the support of the Bloc. I, and many other Canadians are completely OK with a coalition of Liberals and NDP as long as those two parties have more seats than the Conservatives. Including the Bloc in any coalition may be legal - but it is not principled. It would not have been principled if something like that had happened in 2004 - and it's not principled now. This would not be an issue if Mr. Ignatieff had not supported the Dion/Layton/Duceppe coalition where every Liberal signed on the dotted line.

If it's not principled now, it wasn't principled in 2008, and it wasn't principled in 2004. The Tories are hypocrites, and as to whether Canadians will accept it, well it's not up to them once the ballots are cast.

[ToadBrother]

In Europe, your hypotheticals happen frequently and this explains why it takes several months after an election in Belgium to know who will be the PM or how the cabinet will look. So, I guess the same could happen here.

Belgium is a special case. In most European countries coalitions usually happen fairly quickly.

[August1991]

He answered the question. He just hasn't answered the question to satisfy the CPC who only have this to play on the fears of the feeble minded.

It's not the CPC that poses the problem for Ignatieff. It's the undecided voters on the fence between the NDP and the Liberals. If they suspect that a coalition is possible, they may stay with the NDP knowing that a combined NDP/Liberal coalition will defeat the Conservatives.

Traditionally, to keep these left-leaning voters, the Liberal leader has always made it plain that a vote for the NDP/CCF was a wasted vote. Typically, the Liberal leader would campaign to the left and the govern to the right. That argument is now lost.

In addition, the centrist Liberals who fear socialists at the cabinet table and see the Liberals as a humane alternative to the right wing Conservatives now have reason to desert the Liberal camp.

Ignatieff doesn't have to convince Stephen Harper or the media. He has to convince undecided Liberal-leaning voters to stay in the Liberal camp.

----

I can understand why Layton will talk about coalition too. But why Duceppe? I reckon that Duceppe figures that if the Liberal vote implodes, then the Bloc will be the Official Opposition facing a majority Conservative government for four years.

Those optics fit the long term interests of sovereignists.

Edited March 26, 2011 by August1991