Coalition: September 2004, December 2008 & Now

[capricorn]

Ignatieff is the new kid on the block of Canadian politics so to speak, so we need to cut him a little slack.

The man wants to be the next Prime Minister. You really expect Canadian voters to give him a break because he's a newbie? I don't think so.

[ToadBrother]

No one will believe him if the Tories fall on the throne speech or first budget. It will be assumed he was lying all the time and there'll be a huge surge of anger towards him.

If he forms a coalition after the Throne speech, he has four years to make it right... providing the coalition doesn't fall apart.

[capricorn]

And obviously Ignatieff just put the issue to bed.

Ok, next issue?

You and I may believe so. But on the hustings he'll encounter voters who have not seen his press conference and who did not keep up with the MSM coverage. He will have no choice but to be patient and repeat his message over and again.

[Scotty]

If he forms a coalition after the Throne speech, he has four years to make it right... providing the coalition doesn't fall apart.

And how long do you expect such a coalition to last?

[Harry]

No one will believe him if the Tories fall on the throne speech or first budget. It will be assumed he was lying all the time and there'll be a huge surge of anger towards him.

Nonsense. He just said he would not form a coalition. He did not say he would not try to defeat the government. Anyway all this talk is useless until we see what the actual election results are. In the meantime we'll see for example if Canada's seniors would like a bit of additional help from the Canadian government or if they would prefer Harper to buy unneeded fighter jets.

Edited March 26, 2011 by Harry

[Scotty]

Nonsense. He just said he would not form a coalition. He did not say he would not try to defeat the government.

That sort of parsing of phrases might please academics and politicians but it sure as hell pisses off the voters.

[Harry]

That sort of parsing of phrases might please academics and politicians but it sure as hell pisses off the voters.

Give it up, it's just partisan nonsense, and there are important policies to debate such as should we spend what is it now $30 billion for fighter jets and have all the maintenance done in the USA.

[ToadBrother]

And how long do you expect such a coalition to last?

I'd hate to speculate. As we're seeing in the UK, it all depends on the party leaders in the Coalition being able to deliver their caucuses, even when clearly unpopular policies are being promulgated by the coalition cabinet. I think Duceppe and Layton can do that, but I'm not so sure about Iggy. If Iggy can't guarantee the Liberal caucus's support over the medium term, I'd give it less than a year. If he can keep the Liberals in line, even if they're kicking, screaming and being intemperate (as has been seen in both the Conservative and LibDem caucuses in the UK), then it could last longer.

The one thing you have to remember about my theoretical situation (and it is theoretical, it seems quite possible Harper will gain a slim majority and all of this talk will be moot) is that as much as the members of this coalition may dislike each other (and again, we see this in the UK coalition), the alternative is the previous governing party regaining power. That "circle the wagons" mentality, evident in many countries like Germany and Israel, where coalitions are the norm, can keep even very contentious unions together.

[Scotty]

Give it up, it's just partisan nonsense, and there are important policies to debate such as should we spend what is it now $30 billion for fighter jets and have all the maintenance done in the USA.

Even the very opnioninated parliamentary budget officer had to confess that was something of an educated guess, as he didn't have the proper material to work with. The Defense department buracracy has been somewhat unusually scathing in their reaction to his numbers.

But in any event, you are going to get the fighters, whether it's the Tories or Liberals. The Liberals started the purchase ten years back, and their only reason for opposition now is tactical, as a political ploy.

[Harry]

Everyone knows the Speaker is impartial. There is a reason Harper's Government was charged with and found guilty of contempt of Parliament. Harper played games, tried to deceive Canadians and the opposition, did not supply the costs, and that's why we are having this election. It's about democracy.

Edited March 26, 2011 by Harry

[Molly]

What I'm saying is that the Liberals will not form a minority on May 2. If we presume that the Tories don't get a majority (and that seems an iffy prediction at this point), it still means the Liberals will be a distant second. If the Tories fall on the Throne Speech you're going to have a party with what, 80 seats or thereabouts, trying to manage a vote-by-vote minority government? I'm telling you what I've told the Tory supporters, that any political leader who ties his hands with these sorts of promises is an idiot, because Iggy, if he is going to manage to form a government, is going to need to come to some sort of agreement with the Bloc and NDP. Harper has a much easier time because he only needs to get one opposition party to side with him on any piece of legislation. Without some sort of guarantee from the NDP and Bloc (and you can call it what you like, but it amounts to, at the least, an informal coalition built upon a do-not-kill clause), Iggy might be lucky to last as long as Joe Clark.

So yes, I guess I'm calling him a liar. A liar by necessity, I suppose, but a liar none the less.

Fair enough.

I suspect the Canadian public - or dare I suggest, the Canadian press- might be doomed to learning more about the King -Byng affair than any of them have ever wanted to know.

[Harry]

Jack Layton seems to be the only one who wants to talk positively at least about a coalition!

In all seriousness though, it is the Canadian way to cooperate, instead of all this fighting all the time when you don't have the numbers like Harper's minority. It's giving everyone a headache and led to the Harper Government being held in contempt of Parliament.

Layton says he's open to coalition government

http://www.metronews.ca/vancouver/canada/article/814384--layton-says-he-s-open-to-coalition-government

Edited March 26, 2011 by Harry

[August1991]

Jack Layton seems to be the only one who wants to talk positively at least about a coalition!

Understandably so. He stands to gain votes from such talk.

Mr.Harper's 2004 letter signed by himself and the 2 other opposition party leaders...

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/text-stephen-harpers-2004-letter-signed-layton-duceppe-20110325-125425-052.html

In a previous post in a different thread, I wondered out loud whether this letter had ever been signed and sent (since the CBC had reported that it hadn't been).

Now I understand the confusion. Jack and Harry were right and I was wrong to question whether the 2004 letter was ever signed. The CBC meant that no formal coalition agreement was ever signed in September 2004.

Duceppe has helpfully weighed in and clarified things:

Mr. Duceppe’s signature appears just below Mr. Harper’s on the letter, which Mr. Duceppe waved for the cameras at his Saturday press conference.

“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.”

The Bloc Leader said there was a key meeting in a Montreal hotel where the subject of the opposition parties banding together against Mr. Martin was thrashed out.

“He (Mr. Harper) came to my office and said: ‘What do you want in the speech from the throne'?” Mr. Duceppe said.

G&M

Signed or not, sent or not, I see a big difference between September 2004 and December 2008. But that difference matters not at all right now.

The problem now is that any rumours of a coalition will mean that the Liberals will bleed votes to the NDP and the Conservatives. Ignatieff has to staunch the flow.

[Bryan]

Why does the title to this thread keep changing?

[August1991]

I suspect the Canadian public - or dare I suggest, the Canadian press- might be doomed to learning more about the King -Byng affair than any of them have ever wanted to know.

King-Byng was not about coalition. It was about whether the PM could call an election or whether the GG could instead ask the Opposition to form a government instead.

The precedent for a coalition in Canada would be the Union government during WWI but that amounted to the Conservatives bringing in a rump of Liberal MPs.

Why does the title to this thread keep changing?

I started the thread with a different purpose, it got hijacked and then the moderators merged in other threads.

For better or worse, I edited the thread title so that it more accurately reflects the discussion.

[ToadBrother]

King-Byng was not about coalition. It was about whether the PM could call an election or whether the GG could instead ask the Opposition to form a government instead.

The precedent for a coalition in Canada would be the Union government during WWI but that amounted to the Conservatives bringing in a rump of Liberal MPs.

The King-Byng Affair is at least partially applicable in that it demonstrates the GG's Reserve Power to refuse the advice of a Prime Minister. But you're right, it doesn't have a lot of application here, although it does demonstrate that minority governments have a far greater frequency of constitutional issues.

[Jack Weber]

Two choices in a 4 party system?

I choice is to vote Conservative..the other choice? To vote for one of the other 3 parties....?

*sniff*

Smells like coalition ...

Frankly...

That smell you're smellin' is the glue you've been sniffin'....

[Jack Weber]

To which the CPC (Giorno) is replying, "Coalition-coalition-coalition-coalition!"

Stunning. Kim Canpbell was apparently right.

I note the timing of that statement, though. I assume Harper will have been brought up to speed by the time he's done with tea with the GG.

Now we get to see whether the press will be as aggressive about contempt of parliament as they have been chasing a coalition ghost.

If CPC is getting talking points from the likes of Guy Giorno,we had all be ready to get down in the mud...

[Jack Weber]

And how long do you expect such a coalition to last?

That all depends..

If alchemy of seat numbers gave the Liberals and the NDP enough seats to form a coalition (accord...whatever you want to call it) that would be acceptable AND would probably have a chance of lasting a fairly long time,as minority governments go...

The real issue for English Canada is the Bloc's involvment...Which makes it wholly unsupportable...

But it was equally unsupportable in 2004 when Mr.Harper had no problem entering into a coalition with the same dreaded Seperatists and "Socialists"...But only on the issue of the Bloc's involvment...

[Shady]

That all depends..

If alchemy of seat numbers gave the Liberals and the NDP enough seats to form a coalition (accord...whatever you want to call it) that would be acceptable AND would probably have a chance of lasting a fairly long time,as minority governments go...

The real issue for English Canada is the Bloc's involvment...Which makes it wholly unsupportable...

But it was equally unsupportable in 2004 when Mr.Harper had no problem entering into a coalition with the same dreaded Seperatists and "Socialists"...But only on the issue of the Bloc's involvment...

Coalition used twice!!!

[Harry]

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. 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. Harper is already on shaky ground about ethics and he has just got to stop telling lies or Harper risks getting blown out of the water with this coalition BS. When it's Harper's word against three others, maybe it's time to think about that old saying "everybody's out of step but Johnny".

The rules of our democracy

If, as Leader of the Liberal Party, I am given the privilege of forming the government, these are the rules that will guide me:

•We will face Parliament with exactly the same team, platform and agenda that we bring to Canadians during this election. What Canadians see in this campaign is what Canadians will get if we are asked to form government.

•We will work with ALL parties to make Parliament work, and deliver sound policies – even the Conservative Party in opposition.

•We will not enter a coalition with other federalist parties. In our system, coalitions are a legitimate constitutional option. However, I believe that issue-by-issue collaboration with other parties is the best way for minority Parliaments to function.

•We categorically rule out a coalition or formal arrangement with the Bloc Quebecois.

•If I am facing a minority Parliament, I will work like Liberal Prime Ministers Lester Pearson, Pierre Trudeau and Paul Martin did: to provide progressive government to our country, by building support issue-by-issue, and by tapping into the goodwill, generosity and common sense of Canadians across the political spectrum. These are the governments that gave Canada the Canadian Flag, Medicare, the Canada Pension Plan, the Kelowna Accord and a National Daycare Plan. With the right kind of leadership another minority Parliament could strive for such heights.

That is my position.

Now I have a few questions for Mr. Harper:

•Does he agree with how I have described the workings of our democratic system?

•Why does he insist on fabricating lies about an impending coalition, something he knows is false?

•Will he tell Canadians the truth about his secret hotel room meetings in 2004 with the Bloc Quebecois which resulted in a signed letter of agreement to the Governor General, proposing a Conservative-NDP-Bloc coalition?

•Will he finally acknowledge the unprecedented finding of contempt against his government yesterday in the House of Commons?

http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/03/26/the-rules-of-our-democracy/

Edited March 26, 2011 by Harry

[Jack Weber]

Coalition used twice!!!

Yeah...

But I'm not some mindless Tory Talking Pointer...

How 'bout stickin' with the issues,Professor??

[Bryan]

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/

If, as Leader of the Liberal Party, I am given the privilege of forming the government, these are the rules that will guide me:

We will face Parliament with exactly the same team, platform and agenda that we bring to Canadians during this election. What Canadians see in this campaign is what Canadians will get if we are asked to form government.

We will work with ALL parties to make Parliament work, and deliver sound policies – even the Conservative Party in opposition.

We will not enter a coalition with other federalist parties. In our system, coalitions are a legitimate constitutional option. However, I believe that issue-by-issue collaboration with other parties is the best way for minority Parliaments to function.

We categorically rule out a coalition or formal arrangement with the Bloc Quebecois.

If I am facing a minority Parliament, I will work like Liberal Prime Ministers Lester Pearson, Pierre Trudeau and Paul Martin did: to provide progressive government to our country, by building support issue-by-issue, and by tapping into the goodwill, generosity and common sense of Canadians across the political spectrum. These are the governments that gave Canada the Canadian Flag, Medicare, the Canada Pension Plan, the Kelowna Accord and a National Daycare Plan. With the right kind of leadership another minority Parliament could strive for such heights.

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

[Harry]

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

[fellowtraveller]

The lifespan of the Coalition- which is absolutely inevitable should Harper come up even a seat short of a majority- will be determined by the Bloc.

Every vote to support Iggy and The Stooges in the Commons will have a price paid to Quebec. Sooner or later that price will be so utterly obscene that even the power junkies like Iggy and Jack will wobble, and we'll have another election.

In the meantime, we will all pay the price. Literally. And it will not be cheap.