Ignatieff Rules out Coalition in Smart Move

Today Ignatieff unequivocally ruled out the substance of the ubiquitous Conservative attack that if they do not obtain a majority, the Liberals will form a coalition government. This was the right move. It has negated as much as possible the Conservatives' most potent fear-mongering strategy for this election.

We saw in the surreptitiously recorded video of the Prime Minister practicing his stump speech that this would be the greatest Conservative attack. We saw to what extent Harper is willing to believe in a coalition. He says that the opposition parties will deny this until they are blue in the face, and subsequently form one anyway. We have seen instead that Stephen Harper will yell himself blue in the face about a coalition until he is blue in the face.

If the polls last December are any good indication, this was promising line of attack. Significant sections of the country were outraged at the possibility of a coalition, deeming it an unseemly power grab. However, now that Ignatieff has strongly denied it, this attack is much less potent.

Especially as Ignatieff can point, and did point, to his refusal of the coalition deal when he assumed the leadership of the LPC. No matter what the Conservatives throw at him, it is a strong piece of evidence.

So far what the Conservatives have mustered against this refusal is a quote from Ignatieff last December: "prepared to form a coalition government and to lead that government." At the time, Ignatieff could not have said anything different, lest he be seen, as deputy leader no less, as opposing his leader.

His actions after he became leader surely speak volumes more, as he at that point had actual control over the party's policy on this issue. What's more, as he reminded Canadians, successful minority governments have operated at the federal level without a coalition. In fact, a less successful government led by Stephen Harper has survived almost four years without entering into a coalition.

Ignatieff's stark denunciation of a coalition was necessary, albeit damaging to the public's perception of a perfectly valid notion. However, what Ignatieff did was necessary. Without it, he would have been highly vulnerable to Harper's baseless attacks. And we all know what happens when you are vulnerable to Harper's baseless attacks. You lose the election.

Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers If you liked this post, please vote for my blog at Canadian Blogosphere

The Coalition Bogeyman

One of the obstacles that Ignatieff will face in the next election, whenever it is, is Stephen Harper's commitment to a coalition that everyone else has abandoned. This strategy is obviously aimed at producing a fear of this bogeyman in the electorate, as Harper knows that in December last year the greatest proportion of the country was resolutely against any coalition.

Here are some better known pundits talking about this issue:



If such a coalition bogeyman is brought to life, one hopes that Ignatieff has decided whether or not he does support a coalition. It could make all the difference.

Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers If you liked this post, please vote for my blog at Canadian Blogosphere

Ignatieff Wants a Coalition, Conservatives Say. Norman Specter Says He Nixed One.

If you visit the Conservative Party website, you will realize that Ignatieff is willing to engage in coalition negotiations, or so the Conservatives hope. However, these claims are unsubstantiated, sanctimonious, and communicate a purposeful impression of such a coalition as undemocratic.

Apparently, "[t]his week, Michael Ignatieff admitted that the Liberal-NDP-Bloc Québécois coalition is alive and well. Ignatieff is ready to bring back the Coalition if it means he gets to be Prime Minister."

But, whereas the document substantiates a statement by Ignatieff on the coalition crisis last December, it does not point to any source for these allegations. One doubts that there is any real basis for this claim, as if there were, wouldn't the Conservatives be all too ready to provide it? What's more, I haven't come across any such stories, and I doubt most people have. Perhaps the news was communicated only to the Conservatives?

In fact, Norman Spector wrote a blog post the day before this document was published entitled Iggy nixes a coalition

Secondly, the document brings forward the inevitable attack on Ignatieff: "While the Liberals and NDP and Bloc Québécois play petty political games, Prime Minister Stephen Harper and the Conservative government remain focused on the economy."

This, obviously, is based on the premise that there have actually been talks of a coalition. Be that as it may, these words exonerate Stephen Harper and his government from any such "petty politics" that they maintain the others are engaging in. Doesn't making up false news and then calling the other parties petty constitute a highly ironic example of petty politics?

In all of this, the document purposefully portrays any idea of a coalition as an undemocratic agreement, nothing better than a power grab. Informed observers know however that a coalition is in fact a perfectly democratic and legitimate form of government under the constitution.

The reminder that last fall, "In order to seize the power that the voters had denied them, the Liberals entered a coalition with the NDP and the Bloc Québécois in order to overturn the results of the last election." shows this lack of understanding of the constitution of this country, or a deliberate misleading of the public.

In other words, all these three aspects make this attack a truly Harper/Conservative one.

Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers If you liked this post, please vote for my blog at Canadian Blogosphere

Will STV make some voters angry?

In the last referendum on the question of switching to STV in BC, 58% of voters indicated that they would prefer to vote in a STV system rather than a FPTP system. However, this statistic is very difficult to line up with poll numbers from the coalition drama at the beginning of this year.

Back then, 65% of Western Canadians were found in a Nanos poll to prefer an election were the Tories to be defeated, instead of a coalition. Now, you may ask, what is the link between STV and coalitions?

Under a proportional system such as STV, there are hardly ever clear cut majorities in the legislatures because hardly ever does one receive 50% of the vote. This consequently leads to 2 scenarios:

1. Minority government
2. Coalition government

Many Canadians view both these forms of government as unstable and thereby undesirable. The claims often take the form "with a majority, the government can pass what it wants, hence making government more stable".

These concerns were shown to be important to BC voters in the polls surrounding the possibility of a coalition at the national level, but it seems that at the provincial level, many citizens have not made the connection between STV and coalitions.

This is not to say that I do not think that coalitions are a viable form of government. They are in many cases very successful governments (take Borden's Union party).

But, what we don't want to see is voters that do not realize this aspect of STV, and are then outraged at all the coalitions being formed and the instability of government. Minority governments and coalitions are one reality that has to be grasped if proportional representation is to be achieved.

Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers If you liked this post, please vote for my blog at Canadian Blogosphere