Why Michael Ignatieff had to rule out a Coalition

[Keepitsimple]

Yes....another thread on the dreaded coalition - but here's an article that captures the essence of the issue. Many posts on this board argue about the "legality" and "constitutionality" of any and all coalitions....but reality always rests in the court of public opinion and whether the public will accept a particular coalition configuration.

To his credit, Michael Ignatieff has for the most part, ruled out a coalition with the NDP and Bloc. Yet I suspect we'll continue to hear the Conservatives continue to flog it for all it's worth. If the media pick up on stories like this one, clearly making it known what Canadians think - and Ignatieff continues to make it clear (not just saying "let me be perfectly clear") - then I think Canadians will be smart enough to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Westminster-style constitutions like Canadas are largely unwritten. Everything is based on theory, precedent and practice. In theory, the candidates who receive the most votes in each riding are elected to the House of Commons. These members of Parliament then meet and decide who among them should form a government.

But while the Constitution may decree that people vote for their MP, studies show that only about 5 per cent of voters cast ballots based on the local candidate, according to Queens University constitutional expert Ned Franks. The rest vote for a leader or a party, usually without distinguishing between the two.

The leader who places second can form a government only under two conditions: First, he has to come close. David Peterson came within four seats of defeating Mr. Miller and the Liberals actually won the popular vote.

Second, the people have to accept it. Mr. Peterson became premier because polls showed that people were fine with it, just as people were fine with David Cameron forming a coalition with the Liberal Democrats in Britain.

The people are not fine with a leader losing badly and then becoming prime minister by forming a so-called coalition of losers. Constitutional experts can wave their tomes to their hearts content. It doesnt mean a thing. What matters most, Prof. Franks observes, is that people feel comfortable with the result.

Critics of this view complain it undermines the principle of parliamentary democracy, and creates government by opinion poll. Maybe it does, maybe it doesnt. But thats the way it is.

Stephen Harper continues to insist that if he doesnt obtain a majority government, a coalition will replace him. Nobody is going to be fooled, he declared Saturday. But in fact he is the one who is trying to fool us. He raises the spectre of a coalition of losers because he knows the idea is deeply unpopular. Mr. Ignatieff has ruled it out because he knows that too.

If the 41st Parliament ends up looking like the 40th a strong Conservative minority then the next government will look just like the last one. Mr. Harper will be prime minister, but he will have to govern with the consent of at least one other party.

Mr. Ignatieff accepts this. Its time Mr. Harper did too.

Link: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/why-michael-ignatieff-had-to-rule-out-a-coalition/article1958440/

Edited March 27, 2011 by Keepitsimple

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Either Iggy becomes PM or he gets the boot. That would be two in a row.

Edited March 27, 2011 by Jerry J. Fortin

[g_bambino]

Yes....another thread on the dreaded coalition - but here's an article that captures the essence of the issue. Many posts on this board argue about the "legality" and "constitutionality" of any and all coalitions....but reality always rests in the court of public opinion and whether the public will accept a particular coalition configuration.

I suspect we'll continue to hear the Conservatives continue to flog it for all it's worth.

Railing against a particular coalition arrangement is one thing. Calling coalitions undemocratic and illegal is something alltogether different.

[Keepitsimple]

Railing against a particular coalition arrangement is one thing. Calling coalitions undemocratic and illegal is something alltogether different.

The current trendy term is "unprincipled".

[YEGmann]

Liberal party's statement on their website is not clear. They certainly reject forming a coalition only if the liberals form the government, with conservatives in opposition.

Ignatieff's statements are even blurrier. Again, he promissed not to form a coalition if the liberals win the election. He never addressed the principal question what happens if the conservatives win a minority. Will he go to the GG and offer a Lib-NDP coalition with Bloc support?

And let's be serious. Liberals and NDP-ers are not idiots. Any sane person would tell you what going to election with losing popularity and no sound policy is suicidal for liberals. Probably so is for NDP. Nevertheless they rabbidly jumped into the campain. Why?

I can suggest the only answer: The coalition agreement between all opposition parties has been in place for some time. Only in this case actions of opposition make sense.

That is why Ignatieff has not ruled out a coalition clearly.

[punked]

He didn't rule out a Coalition that is media spin. He said he wouldn't have a Coalition with the Bloc and that the party with the most seats SHOULD get first chance at forming government. That is different from "We will NOT enter in an agree with the NDP if given a chance by the GG".

I am tired of the spin Layton has said he is open to it but the Liberals have not taken a real position. More flip flop waffling from the Waffle himself.

[Keepitsimple]

The point of the article IMO captures the positions of most Canadians. As it says, 95% of voters vote for a Leader and they expect that will be their Prime Minister. If a minority Parliament is disfunctional, in order for a Coalition to be "accepted", the second place party must have finished fairly close to the first place finisher - otherwise it truly is a "Coalition of losers".

The leader who places second can form a government only under two conditions: First, he has to come close. David Peterson came within four seats of defeating Mr. Miller and the Liberals actually won the popular vote.

Second, the people have to accept it. Mr. Peterson became premier because polls showed that people were fine with it, just as people were fine with David Cameron forming a coalition with the Liberal Democrats in Britain.

The people are not fine with a leader losing badly and then becoming prime minister by forming a so-called coalition of losers. Constitutional experts can wave their tomes to their heart’s content. It doesn’t mean a thing. What matters most, Prof. Franks observes, “is that people feel comfortable with the result.”

[Bob]

Liberal party's statement on their website is not clear. They certainly reject forming a coalition only if the liberals form the government, with conservatives in opposition.

Ignatieff's statements are even blurrier. Again, he promissed not to form a coalition if the liberals win the election. He never addressed the principal question what happens if the conservatives win a minority. Will he go to the GG and offer a Lib-NDP coalition with Bloc support?

And let's be serious. Liberals and NDP-ers are not idiots. Any sane person would tell you what going to election with losing popularity and no sound policy is suicidal for liberals. Probably so is for NDP. Nevertheless they rabbidly jumped into the campain. Why?

I can suggest the only answer: The coalition agreement between all opposition parties has been in place for some time. Only in this case actions of opposition make sense.

That is why Ignatieff has not ruled out a coalition clearly.

That's an interesting insight. It's built on the supposition that the Liberals and NDPers aren't idiots, though. At the risk of sounding somewhat funny, although I'm being completely serious, I'm not sure I can agree with that supposition.

As a side-note, I think we're getting exactly what we deserve, as Canadians. The country is filled with leftists, apathetic non-voters, hate-filled Quebec separatists, and we just take this abuse from our officials. We're getting exactly what we deserve with the likes of Harper, Ignatieff, Layton, and Duceppe.

[g_bambino]

The point of the article IMO captures the positions of most Canadians. As it says, 95% of voters vote for a Leader and they expect that will be their Prime Minister.

Which just highlights another contradiction upheld by Canadian voters: They vote as though the prime minister were a president, yet complain about the presidentialisation of the prime minister's post.

[Keepitsimple]

Which just highlights another contradiction upheld by Canadian voters: They vote as though the prime minister were a president, yet complain about the presidentialisation of the prime minister's post.

I think it's just the partisans and media who complain about the presidentialisation of the PM. Most people are automatically and willingly drawn to a "leader". It works that way in sports and successful companies so it's really not that surprising. It's a very natural tendency.

Edited March 27, 2011 by Keepitsimple

[GWiz]

Yes....another thread on the dreaded coalition - but here's an article that captures the essence of the issue. Many posts on this board argue about the "legality" and "constitutionality" of any and all coalitions....but reality always rests in the court of public opinion and whether the public will accept a particular coalition configuration.

To his credit, Michael Ignatieff has for the most part, ruled out a coalition with the NDP and Bloc. Yet I suspect we'll continue to hear the Conservatives continue to flog it for all it's worth. If the media pick up on stories like this one, clearly making it known what Canadians think - and Ignatieff continues to make it clear (not just saying "let me be perfectly clear") - then I think Canadians will be smart enough to separate the wheat from the chaff.

Link: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/why-michael-ignatieff-had-to-rule-out-a-coalition/article1958440/

All well and good, but this is Canada, where a "coalition", in FACT, would represent how a 2/3 MAJORITY of Canadians voted...

Why anyone thinks that any Government that only represents 1/3 of Canadians is "better" than a Government that represents 2/3 of Canadians is a very strange concept in many thinking people's minds...

I'm very much in favour of minority Governments that realize the need to work with other parties rather than a dictatorial style rule by a certain party anyday...

[Bob]

I think it's just the partisans and media who complain about the presidentialisation of the PM. Most people are automatically and willingly drawn to a "leader". It works that way in sports and successful companies so it's really not that surprising. It's a very natural tendency.

I agree 100%. I think this natural desire faces somewhat of an obstacle in the form of our electoral system, though - unless people regularly vote for the MP from their riding who belongs to the party of the leader they prefer.

[capricorn]

Most people are automatically and willingly drawn to a "leader".

I suppose that puts me in the minority. It's true that since he had become CPC leader Harper didn't do anything to tick me off. But Harper was not the central reason I voted Conservative. I dropped my lifelong support for the Liberals for two reasons: Liberal corruption and an affinity to CPC policies, in that order.

As things stand, I am not drawn to Ignatieff as leader and I reject Liberal policy for veering too far to the left.

[eyeball]

Why anyone thinks that any Government that only represents 1/3 of Canadians is "better" than a Government that represents 2/3 of Canadians is a very strange concept in many thinking people's minds...

This is probably the reason so many western democracies have evolved away from FPTP elections. If Ignatieff really wanted to make this election about democracy he could start by proposing we do too.

Edited March 27, 2011 by eyeball

[Keepitsimple]

All well and good, but this is Canada, where a "coalition", in FACT, would represent how a 2/3 MAJORITY of Canadians voted...

Why anyone thinks that any Government that only represents 1/3 of Canadians is "better" than a Government that represents 2/3 of Canadians is a very strange concept in many thinking people's minds...

I'm very much in favour of minority Governments that realize the need to work with other parties rather than a dictatorial style rule by a certain party anyday...

Whoa - you'd better stand back from that just a bit. When you include the Bloc in your calculation, I think you're using the term "Canadian" a little loosely. Your handy little two-thirds number may represent "Canadians" but they are Canadians who disagree vehemently with each other. To wit: the Bloc hates all federal parties; likewise the Liberals and NDP want nothing to do with the Bloc ( ). The Liberals and NDP are frantically trying to steal votes from each other. As far as strange concepts go, this three-headed monster takes the cake.

It's obvious that with the arrival of The Bloc on the scene, our democracy has taken a hit with the regional abdication of federalist votes distorting the outcome. I put more credence in the fact that outside Quebec, the Conservatives won 133 seats and the combined opposition parties won only 100......and unless you live in Quebec, it's what the people in the ROC think that carries the day.

Edited March 27, 2011 by Keepitsimple

[GWiz]

This is probably the reason so many western democracies have evolved away from FPTP elections. If Ignatieff really wanted to make this election about democracy he could start by proposing we do too.

Complex systems, like Canada's Parliamentary System, require very complex changes in order to change the whole system... There are no easy ways to change our Canadian Parliamentary system without a very, very complex process which no single party can or should become involved in...

If you want what you suggest send your suggestions to your MP (any party) and make sure you clearly state what's on your mind and your methodology about how you would go about making those changes...

[Bob]

I suppose that puts me in the minority. It's true that since he had become CPC leader Harper didn't do anything to tick me off. But Harper was not the central reason I voted Conservative. I dropped my lifelong support for the Liberals for two reasons: Liberal corruption and an affinity to CPC policies, in that order.

As things stand, I am not drawn to Ignatieff as leader and I reject Liberal policy for veering too far to the left.

I also agree with this 100%. I'm not particularly drawn to Harper as a leader, either. I like him enough, but not a lot.

[Scotty]

This is probably the reason so many western democracies have evolved away from FPTP elections. If Ignatieff really wanted to make this election about democracy he could start by proposing we do too.

Change our Constitution? What a godawful mess that would be. Just to START, let me suggest that a proportional representation would require that the seats be allocated on a proportional basis.

Does it seem like I'm stating the obvious? How do you get Quebec to agree that if they are 22% of the population they will only get 22% of the seats? Because I, for one, would insist on that. We might let the little provinces have a little bit more than their numbers deserve, but not one of the big two.

[Evening Star]

Does it seem like I'm stating the obvious? How do you get Quebec to agree that if they are 22% of the population they will only get 22% of the seats? Because I, for one, would insist on that.

To be clear, Quebec currently only accounts for 75/308 or 24.35% of the seats.

[Scotty]

To be clear, Quebec currently only accounts for 75/308 or 24.35% of the seats.

If you'll recall, there was a strong move to add about thirty seats to parliament last year in order to account for the growth in the populations of Ontario, Alberta and BC. Quebec's whining shot that down. Quebec's birth rate is very low and they don't like immigrants, so everyone knows their percentage of the population is going to continue to slide. But it's apparently verbotten to suggest their share of the seats in the house or senate or supreme court ought to go down too.

[ironstone]

Lowell Green pointed out on his radio show today the before the previous election,Stephane Dion was apparently on record with some newspaper as firmly ruling out a coalition with the NDP and Bloc.We all know how good his word was.

[RNG]

What I find most interesting in this thread is that I have been too busy to follow up, but the banner headlines on both the CBC and CTV news websites were like "Ignatief Rejects the Idea of a Coalition". Now you guys are saying he and the Liberals weasel-worded it? I love it.

[wyly]

Change our Constitution? What a godawful mess that would be. Just to START, let me suggest that a proportional representation would require that the seats be allocated on a proportional basis.

Does it seem like I'm stating the obvious? How do you get Quebec to agree that if they are 22% of the population they will only get 22% of the seats? Because I, for one, would insist on that. We might let the little provinces have a little bit more than their numbers deserve, but not one of the big two.

the amount of seats given to each province doesn't need to change...there are no rules carved in stone as to how PR system is work...we make/adapt the rules work for us...

[Scotty]

the amount of seats given to each province doesn't need to change...there are no rules carved in stone as to how PR system is work...we make/adapt the rules work for us...

If you're going to say we should have proportional representation because that would be fairer then how can you not be proportional?

[fellowtraveller]

To his credit, Michael Ignatieff has for the most part, ruled out a coalition with the NDP and Bloc.

That won't be the biggest lie he tells us......just the most recent.

It won't be a Coalition because Mike has promised not to do that....it will be a Cooperative. The Canadian people will demand it immediately after rejecting the Liberals at the polls. Or some such bullshit.

A Tory minority will be Ignatieffs last and only chance to be PM. He won't pass it by, it is the only reason he has stuck around this long and it is the only reason I can see that he forced an election with the laughable contempt citation.

Of course he may not get the chance, as I predict a Tory majority. Buh-bye Iggy, hello next interim leader. Ralph Goodale?