Photo credit: Ryan Remiorz/Canadian Press
I have a feeling that Friday evening went down something like this. Michael Ignatieff got back to Liberal Party headquarters after standing in front of the media and equivocating about a coalition and was quite literally yelled at for being the smartest idiot in Canada.
Perhaps realizing the political damage of his faux pas, Ignatieff got up before the media on Saturday morning and made clear that he wouldn’t be forming a coalition should an election restore us to the same debilitating status quo of the past seven years. But it was too late.
The coalition is on the table now, and the Conservatives will use it to their utmost advantage. In the chess game of politics, Ignatieff left a pawn hanging and the Conservatives have happily gobbled it up to enjoy a material advantage.
That isn’t to say that Ignatieff doesn’t want the Liberals to win a minority government of their own, as unlikely as such a prospect might be at this moment. But I think it’s safe to say that Friday’s press conference told us everything we really needed to know about the possibility of a backup plan if the election goes anything like the polls are currently indicating.
Curiously, the talk in the media today has nothing to do with the Ignatieff coalition gaffe, but an obscure moment in the ancient history of Canadian politics, back when the Liberals were in power and Stephen Harper seemed open to overthrowing the Liberals with a power-sharing agreement.
The discussion surrounding Harper’s own “coalition of 2004″ is dominating the journalist gossip stream, as though something Harper considered seven years ago has any relevance to what he believes today. Actually, one would be hard-pressed to find some relevance between what Harper said in October 2008 and what he believes today.
Seven years is a lifetime in politics. What Stephen Harper, or anybody else for that matter, wanted to do in 2004 has nothing whatsoever to do with the present political situation. Why, seven years ago we had an entirely different political makeup in Ottawa. The Liberals were on the wane of a decade-long power-drunk majority that had sapped the enthusiasm of Canadians. The Conservatives were a new amalgamation of formerly fractured elements of rightwing movements and political parties. Michael Ignatieff was a professor at Harvard University.
The truth is that whatever Stephen Harper was considering in 2004 has little to do with the present-day reality of Ignatieff’s “Plan B” coalition with the NDP and Bloc Quebecois. And it might sound like so much Conservative war room propaganda, had it not been for Ignatieff’s press conference slip-up.
There are those who get angry at the maligning of the idea of cooperation, saying that there’s nothing inherently wrong with a coalition in a parliamentary democracy, and that is precisely what Harper was aiming at in 2004. But this is a distortion of the facts.
The only political parties that ever agreed in writing to a coalition involving a separatist party is the NDP and Liberals, and Michael Ignatieff’s signature exists on that document. And even ignoring the unpleasantness of aligning with a separatist party in a greedy bid for power, there’s the fact that such an alliance presented a de facto majority against the Conservatives, who had actually won the most votes of any other single party. In most coalition governments — but certainly not all — the party with the most votes aligns with another from the opposition.
The reason the Conservatives can’t do that is they are already a coalition government, though nobody seems to recognize that. The party is made up of broad elements of social and fiscal conservatives, former Reformers, Alliance Party and Progressive Conservatives. The big tent party was forced to come together in order to avoid the problem faced by the current crop of leftwing political parties all striving for a piece of the 65 per cent of Canada that doesn’t vote Conservative.
Since the country is always likely to be divided between the unified right and the majority of left-leaning voters, there are only two logical options. One is a similar amalgamation of the political left into one party that can bridge the numerous differences present in the NDP, Green, Liberal and even Bloc Quebecois voters. The other is simply the coalition, which seems the most likely given the fact the writ has been dropped yet again.
The intentions of the Conservatives in 2004 remains a bit historically ambiguous, and though I’m sure it’s a fun talking point today for some people, it remains irrelevant. There is only one coalition of any importance, and it’s the one that Ignatieff seems destined to form after the Liberals lose yet another election to a minority Conservative government.
Very well written article.
Unfortunately, the MSM is doing everything they can already to make this a horse race, and they may succeed.
I believe the libs hope the Conservatives lose enough seats to make the lib/ndp combined seat total greater, allowing for a “legitimate” coalition.
Did anyone happen to see Power and Politics tonight? – I watched it until my stomach got sick – but Scott Reid slipped a bit – he told Even Solomon that as long as “WE” have Terry Milleski following the PM and asking him questions – we can basically put the “heat” on the PM…. I wish someone could re-play it – he said “WE” – liberals and the CBC. Evan even later tried to say something to the fact,Scott was referring to our reporter following the PM…. but I noticed Terry was a bit more quiet in his reporting with Evan after that… I think they realized there was a connection – liberals and CBC and our reporter…..
Good catch … a CPC majority and CBC will be on the carpet answering many a question I’m sure!!
That’s nothing mike duffy was on roy green show and said that lisa laflame said there was talk about mps not running in certain ridings in quebec. this is from lisa laflamme
Do you think that friday night was the night that Iggy was finally and fully corrupted by the liberals by convincing him that it was all right to tell a little white lie about the implementation of a coalition after the election if it would mean the difference between being in opposition again or finally getting to crank the levers of power? They have a history of this that is very hard to overlook, they managed to convince Dion to make the leap.
I doubt very much if most Canadians give a rats patut about the subject of coalition no matter how hard Harper pushes it. Most voters have already made up their minds and if it is’nt the economy or health care it wont have traction. I would not vote NDP but Layton is using the HST as a club and that will make some headway in BC and Ontario. Watch for Iggy to jump on the HST bandwagon as he seems to be lacking credible agendas. Actually he seems to be lacking a lot of things. Starting with likeability. He always comes across as having a superiority complex.
PMSH gave a great speech today in Burnaby B.C. He mentioned all the things in the budget that the coalition voted against. Larger and more enthusiastic crowd than the Count had.
I feel safe and comfortable with Stephen Harper as our Prime Minister. The coalition with the support of the Bloq scares the wits out of me. Canada needs a Conservative majority.
“The discussion surrounding Harper’s own “coalition of 2004″ is dominating the journalist gossip stream, as though something Harper considered seven years ago has any relevance to what he believes today.”
So you are saying he changed his mind? Then why doesn’t he just say that? He could easily lay this to rest.
See, that is the problem with trying to make the election about condemning a coalition with the “separtists and socialists”. It kind of bites you in the a** when you are exposed as having done the same thing.
“The intentions of the Conservatives in 2004 remains a bit historically ambiguous”
I am not sure what is so ambiguous about it. Harper, Layton and Duceppe asked the GG to consider the options should Martin ask for an election. What options were there other than granting the election, or calling upon Stephen Harper to govern despite the fact he had fewer seats than the LPC? Since it is clear that is something Harper thought was OK in 2004, it is perfectly legitimate to ask him why it is no longer legitimate in 2011. Not to mention the fact the other two parties to Harper’s agreement are right out there saying that being the PM was exactly what Harper was referring to.
Sure, I know that a whole 7 years have passed, but it is not like he is a 20 year old being asked why he does not hold the same beliefs as he did when he was 13.
I know you guys really really want to believe Ignatieff is lying, but here is your problem. Harper says Ignatieff only wants the election because he wants the CPC to get a minority and then bring forward his hidden agenda coalition so he can be PM. But of course, if Ignatieff was so power hungry that he wanted power at any cost, he could be the Prime Minister right now instead of deciding, in January 2009, not to proceed with the coalition.
Let us imagine for a moment, that PM Harper fails to win a Majority; and the Libs/NDP/Bloc attempt to form a coalition … it would be a fine twist of events indeed, if then, our new Governor General decides to call a new election, with the ballot question being, do Canadians want a coalition gov’t, or a Conservative gov’t?
Not sure if the GG has that option, but he should.
I only mention this, because I’ve never heard this option explored anywhere else before; I try not to have my brilliance become the over-riding factor in everything I write, but sometimes I just can’t help it.
Also, keep up the good work, Adrian.
In the words of the late Jim Travers, talking about Journalism :
You can write. And you can think.
What else do you really need in this business?
OMG, Gayle!
How dare you sneak in a comment one minute before mine?
It’s been a while. Codeword: “Windswept Kenora”.
Don’t blow my cover, Babe….
*
There you are! Whatever happened to our old friend?
The GG has the option of calling an election, but not choosing the ballot question.
It is doubtful the GG would call one so soon after the last though. He is more likely to give the LPC an opportunity to maintain the confidence of the House.
I think the difference between 2004 and today, is that in 2004, Mr. Harper was exploring his options, should the GG at the time, dissolve the Martin gov’t. There was no written agreement, nor any mention of a formal, or informal, “coalition”, unlike in 2008, when, Mr. Ignatieff signed (admittedly, he was the last to sign, but he did sign), the formal coalition agreement with the NDP and Bloc (and it was pointed out today, that that agreement is still in effect, until June 2011).
Informal discussions, versus a signed document.
That, is the difference ; hearsay, versus hard evidence.
Also, when the Lib/NDP/Bloc coalition was announced in 2008, people protested, and the CPC hit 47-48% in the polls.
I really hope and wish the coalition tries it again.
It will be their death knell, their dying wish. Go for it, you dastardly Liberals, Socialists and Separatists.
I dare you. I double-dare you.
*
It is hardly informal discussions when they all co-authoured a letter and sent it to the GG. In any event, what were the GG’s options if Martin asked for an election? And why did the three opposition leaders believe they needed to remind her of those options? Did they think somehow she would forget to consider them unless they sent her a letter?
The only rational explanation is they wanted her to consider the option of asking Harper to govern, despite the fact he had fewer seats than the liberals – something he nows claims to be illegitimate.
There you are! Whatever happened to our old friend?
I have no idea. I suspect he got busy with work and family.
Or perhaps the Irish Whiskey got the better of him.
In any case, I’ve been really busy too, but I still read political blogs occasionally (when I’m not sober
).
I look forward to more of your innate charms and brilliance, Gayle….
Anyway, I gotta crash. Working early tomorrow.
Cheers !
It is hardly informal discussions when they all co-authoured a letter and sent it to the GG. In any event, what were the GG’s options if Martin asked for an election? And why did the three opposition leaders believe they needed to remind her of those options? Did they think somehow she would forget to consider them unless they sent her a letter?
The only rational explanation is they wanted her to consider the option of asking Harper to govern, despite the fact he had fewer seats than the liberals – something he now claims to be illegitimate.
What makes you think Harper would have been PM? I think Jack Layton would be the obvious choice, if for no other reason than to keep him out of the Minister of Finance portfolio. And should Harper have had a sense of humour (and he does), he would have made M. Gilles Duceppe, Minister of National Unity.
Okay, I really must crash now.
Cheers !
Here : http://trustytorytwo.blogspot.com/2011/03/co-opposition-2004-lying-bloc-and-ndp.html
For once, Gayle is right about something that happened in Ottawa.
It’s really time for a Conservative majority government. I think Canadians have tired of the constant election threats by the rudderless liberals and the power hungry NDP.
Lets hope for all our sake that some semblance of the old Stephen Harper, the true fiscal conservative, emerges from this election.
However, I won’t hold my breath on that.
http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/03/29/shelly-glovers-gaffe-that-never-was/
But professional journalists would never do something like this, right?
Another nail in the mainstream media coffin of impartiality.
I’m sure the bullshit meter will blow its top before this election is finished.