Ignatieff has ruled out a coalition. Good for him. This election can not be about whether we should be governed by a coalition. This election must be about the Harper Government and its lack of ethics, contempt for democracy and screwed up spending priorities.
People concerned about Harper winning again are... well, right. He will.
But even with Harper returning with yet another minority government, there is another way for Ignatieff to become PM.
Parliament must squash Harper at the first opportunity.
When Harper returns with a minority, the first order of parliamentary business for the 'new' government will be a Speech from the Throne. Convention says defeat him then (see CuriosityCat's excellent piece on this), so close after an election, and the Governor General will give serious consideration to giving the second place party a chance to govern.
Indeed, if a Harper government fails to gain confidence, so close after an election, it's all but an absolute given that the GG will grant the Liberals an opportunity to gain the confidence of the House.
(Technically -- and it's an important technicality -- the GG will consider any and all proposals from any MPs, regardless of party affiliation. We are represented constitutionally by MPs, not political parties.)
Will Ignatieff seek the PMO with an official coalition in hand? I doubt it. It's not in the Liberal's interest as it plays against the Liberal's 'natural governing party' instinct, spreads out the glory, and (sadly) gives credibility to the Harper Conservative's arrogant and hypocritical rhetoric about "risky, unstable" coalitions. (As if Parliament hasn't been unstable for the past five years...)
The Liberals should be able to negotiate sufficient ongoing support in the House regardless for, say, 18 months.
Having just found the 'Harper Government' in contempt, the other parties will be in an awkward position supporting a Conservative government.They also must hate dealing with Harper's hyper-partisanship. Allowing Parliament to accomplish very little while extending the powers of the 'executive' under the motto "majority or bust" has been Harper's legacy of the past five years. (Five years already?) For all the opposition parties, enough must be enough.
Working with the Liberals vote by vote, under the theme of democracy renewed, the Bloc and the NDP (and maybe, just maybe, one Green seat -- we'll see) will have more influence than they do currently. And yet, without a formal coalition, they will be unconstrained in their potential criticisms of the government.
In other words, if everyone knows their hand, they can get more without losing independence.
And the public gets to see Parliament finally work as it should.
It's my theory that this is the Liberal's intent.
Let's pray they are as smart as I hope they are.
11 comments:
I also think Iggy did the right thing by denouncing coalitions sooner rather than later. If he hadn't, it could well have been, as that weasel, Timmy Powers put it, Stephane Dion's carbon tax all over again. I have heard plenty of folks here who once voted Liberal but will vote Harpercon this time because they're afraid of the coalition.
More importantly, not immediately denouncing coalitions or leaving the door open for them seems to be a pretty defeatist attitude to have at the onset of an election campaign. Yeah, Harper will probably win yet again, but Iggy can't go in hinting that he believes that by talking about coalitions.
Just wanting some information.... Why are people "afraid of the coalition" - exactly? Has it been portrayed as "unstable"?
My view: Harper does have a bit of a hypnotic power, I find. Whenever I see him speak, I think "Yeah... he's right. Wait... what? " So I too am very concerned that people will be "conned" into voting for this guy - who seems to be a dangerous dictatorial autocrat.
This election must be about the Harper Government and its lack of ethics, contempt for democracy and screwed up spending priorities.
This election must be about the Harper Government and its lack of ethics, contempt for democracy and screwed up spending priorities.
Yes!
"Why are people "afraid of the coalition" "
Well, that's what Harper wants them to be. Propaganda.
his big theme is that any coalition likely has to include the BlLoc to keep power.
Of course, Harper sought a coalition with the Bloc and the NDP in 2004, and has since relied upon them exclusively in numerous confidence votes. But don't tell anyone that. Harper knows that most don;'t notice what happens in Parliament.
The Conservatives will claim that a Liberal government that has to get support of the NDP AND the Bloc on an issue by issue basis is essentially the coalition and they'd be right. It would probably be worse because the NDP and Bloc would demand more without a long term agreement. If this is Ignatieff's plan, I don't think he is going to fool anyone.
Ignatieff said today that the party with the most seats should have the first chance at governing. This means he is rejecting you idea of removing the government during the Speech from the Throne. In fact he seems to be saying that he has regained confidence in the Conservative government one day after removing it.
doconnor,
Harper will label anything a coalition, even if the Liberals in power behave exactly as Harper did.
Harper, however, does not define reality.
"First shot at governing" means whatever you want it to mean. I take it mean governing begins with the Speech to the Throne as it lays out a government-in-waiting plans.
Anyway, even if it passes, a government defeated not long after an election, even if it survives a few confidence votes first, can still lead to an election not being held. Harper himself stated in 2004 that this was constitutional.
The reality is that it doesn't matter that much if a coalition is formal or informal, long term or issue by issue. What matter is what parties are involved and what they receive in return for support.
The real question should be, "Will the Liberals do what it takes to ensure that Harper isn't Prime Minister?" The answer seems to be no. The result is a vote for the Liberals is a vote for the Conservatives.
Good point, although I'm not sure that I would advertise this scenario as it feeds into the Conservative theme that they need a clear majority to avoid such parliamentary shenanigans (as they would likely characterize it).
LOL. If only I were so noticed...
I really think this one is in the cards.
Post a Comment