Beyond The Commons

Aaron Wherry covers all the goings-on in and around Parliament Hill. Follow Aaron on Twitter: @aaronwherry

Categories: Beyond The Commons, Capital Read

That's a no

by Aaron Wherry on Friday, September 11, 2009 10:32am - 90 Comments

Michael Ignatieff gets unequivocal.

Liberal party Leader Michael Ignatieff vowed on Friday that his party would never enter into a governing coalition. ”In January, we did not support a coalition and we do not support a coalition today or tomorrow,” Ignatieff told reporters.

Tags: coalition, election, Michael Ignatieff

More by Aaron Wherry

Derek

Why doesn't anyone demand that Harper unequivocally state that he will NEVER, EVER cooperate with any other party under any circumstances? We know he was on the verge of creating an alliance with BQ in 2004, so if there is a minority government, there should be just as much of a chance of Harper cooking up a deal with another party as there is with Ignatieff.

BTW: Its quite amusing to hear Harper go on about the perils of a coalition with "socialists" just two short weeks after he appointed one of those "socialists" to be his ambassador to Washington!
http://intensedebate.com/people/PolJunkie PolJunkie

"I think we can safely discard all the theoretical notions about how great minority governments are. They are terrible. They lead to less co-operation, not more, and more partisanship, not less, because everyone's always got one eye on the next, possibly imminent, campaign."

I don't think the problem lies with minority govts. I think the problem is with Harper's leadership style. A minority govt with a PM who holds a pathological hatred for his Opposition makes for an impossible situation.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Ricard_S_Argent Richard_S_Argent

Ya know, I've been wracking my brain trying to come up with a different conclusion than the one you just drew and it's just not there. The Republican-style "total war" form of governance that Harper has adopted doesn't seem to wear well in Parliamentary Democracy.

http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok SeanStok

I'm sometimes mistaken as a Liberal partisan for my anti-Conservative stance. I'm not, particularly. Cynicism and contempt remain the underlying theme to Harper's political life, and for many of the Harris-Conservatives who surround him. Cynicism and contempt for the instiutions of our nation, for their opponents, and even their own base, seem to be the only consistent theme. And it's not a great place from which to work collaboratively.

herringchoker

BTW if, apropos of the Dion-Layton deal, a combined Grit/Dipper "non-coalition coaltion" had fewer seats than the Conservatives, I really doubt that Her Excellency would have Iggy over for tea. (Unless Gilles was a part of the coalition himself.) In that case it's quite possible that Mdme Jean would ask another member of the government to see if s/he could get a budget passed. Her duty, after all, is to see that Canada has a government that can pass bills of supply, not to be concerned about who's turn it is.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Ricard_S_Argent Richard_S_Argent

I agree with all your points. The major point that I left unsaid was that the Liberals and NDP would have to have the combined number of seats to form a majority. Otherwise the GG would have no other option but to call another election (and then I think the people of Canada would probably punish the Liberals and give Harper his majority)

Stan L

Frankly I wish we would all stop the madness….

You either trust what Harper says or you trust what Ignatieff says……or the third option is that you see this entire argument as angels dancing on the proverbial pin……in other words it is a straw man and not worth the distraction. (maybe in Harper's case it is worth the distraction….after all if I had to defend those financial numbers…..I would be looking to change the message too)
dan in van

If Harper wins the most seats in the next election but not a majority, he will need to have the confidence of the house. I'd dare say he'd have a tough time acchieving that with his current rhetoric/propoganda war. Then the GG would be called upon by the leader of the 2nd largest party in the house and he could either be asked to govern (most likely) or at the most show that he would have the aggreement of other opposition parties to govern for at least some period. There is no definite requirement for a 'coalition', whether you define it the way Harper pursued it in 2004 or Dion did it in 2008.
It's called Canadian political history and procedure people, besides Wells' cheering from the sidelines, read up on it!