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

'I will play the cards the Canadian voters deal'

by Aaron Wherry on Monday, June 7, 2010 10:54am - 27 Comments

More explanation from Mr. Ignatieff after an event in Quebec yesterday.

“A coalition is legitimate, but my intention, my plan is to form a Liberal government,” Mr. Ignatieff said during a news conference after a meeting with Quebec party members. “I will play the cards the Canadian voters deal. I’m not going to deal with those cards until they are dealt, until they are on the table.”

… “What I want to do is go to voters in the next election, whenever that is, and say, vote Liberal. … That’s the message. It’s clear. It’s my plan A, my plan B, my plan C,” he said. “Then when the voters decide. … I’ll play the cards that are dealt and we will see what we can do to give Canada a compassionate, progressive, fiscally responsible government.”

Tags: coalition, coalition government, Michael Ignatieff

More by Aaron Wherry

http://intensedebate.com/people/Style Style

"We'll see what we can do!" If that's not a rallying cry for the troops, I don't know what is. Once again, Ignatieff earns his reputation as an orator and inspirational leader.
psiclone

Every time Iffy opens his mouth he just amkes it worse. There is only one position that should be taken – we are running for a majority – case closed and period. Any other position only re-inforces the a priori that the Liberal party no longer has the ability to be the gov't. Quite frankly Iffy is not just shooting himself in the foot, but re-loading to send another bullett into the other foot. It really is quite amazing to watch the party carve itself up for it's own thanksgiving (to the tories anyways) dinner.
tobyornotoby

Free advice to the Liberal Party:

The Conservatives don't actually care what your answer is, as long as you are doing the answering and explaining (so they don't have to). The NDP and Bloc will watch or join in this game when it suits them.

Your answer should have been (and should often be) "The important question is what will the Conservatives do while they are forming the government? Will they respect parliament and the need to work with other parties or will they continue to obstruct, delay, hide and deflect?"

http://intensedebate.com/people/hollinm hollinm

tobyorntoby…..nice try….Igntieff has put a bulls eye on his forehead and the Conservatives and the media are going to use it for target practice.

Ignatieff has in essence acknowledged through his musings that the Libs cannot win the next election and so have to resort to political trickery to install himself in the PM's chair.

You need to explain where are the Libs/NDP going to get 42 seats to surpass the Conservatives without using the Bloc.

This is going to a big theme in the next election and I am sure all of Ignatieff flip flops on the coalition since 2008 are going to come back to bite him big time.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Style Style

http://threehundredeight.blogspot.com/ shows them tied at 129 on current polling.
Jenn_

I disagree with you, hollinm, not on tobyornotoby's comment which I also don't agree with (but differently than you), but with your (inferred) assertion that Ignatieff needs to have the Bloc join a coalition in order to have a coalition.

First of all, good for Ignatieff for a) not shutting the door on anything that may or may not come to pass. Way to learn from past mistakes. b) acknowledging, as hollimn says, that the Liberals very likely won't win the next election. How does it hurt to show you are living in the real world? It's not like this is some great revelation the rest of us didn't know.

But, as with the coalition agreement of Dion, the Bloc need not be members of the government in order to not vote against the government. When the Liberals and NDP, at various times, make a commitment not to vote Harper down on something or another, it doesn't mean they've become part of the government. This is the way parliament works–and this is the way parliament is supposed to work in a minority situation, so its all good.

The only ones trying to confuse the facts are Conservatives. But then again, that isn't a surprise either.

http://intensedebate.com/people/hollinm hollinm

Jenn…..the problem is the Bloc needed to be part of the coalition in order for it to work i.e. all three were needed to exceed the Conservatives seats.

While the Bloc they argued was not part of the formal coalition that picture of all three idiots signing the agreement sent a powerful message to Canadians. As well because the Bloc was not included in cabinet has nothing to do with the influence they would have had on the coalition government. Nothing and mean nothing would come before parliament, confidence or otherwise, that the Bloc did not agree with. They would have had control of the federal government if the coalition was to remain in power for any lenght of time.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Jenn_ Jenn_

Well, you say it yourself. The Bloc wasn't part of the formal coalition (no argument from me about the three idiots signing the agreement). And "if the coalition was to remain in power for any length of time." If the Lib/NDP coalition wanted to bring in something that the Bloc did not agree with (and the Bloc wouldn't/doesn't care about things not affecting Quebec, so I can't think of a realistic thing off the top of my head that the NDP would be for and the Bloc against) they would vote it down. Because they only agreed on confidence motions, not on everything. Even if it was a confidence motion, something the Liberals and NDP wanted, and Quebec didn't, sounds like maybe the Conservatives would want it, too. But I still can't think of an example. Even if the Conservatives and the Bloc voted it down, that would just mean that bill wouldn't pass. It would still be a minority government, I'm trying (badly) to say. Just a minority coalition government.
http://intensedebate.com/people/hollinm hollinm

Jenn…your being obtuse.

The Bloc would have controlled the political agenda for the country. Things that should be done for the benefit of the country would not be done because the Bloc would have objected. It is not about the government falling it is about what is going on behind the scenes that would be the issue.

There the Bloc stands as an opposition party in QP and after that they are negotiating with the Libs/NDP to ensure that the parliament only deals with issues that the Bloc agrees with.

You can argue till the cows come home but Canadians will never accept a Separatist party being part of the government formal or otherwise.

http://intensedebate.com/people/PhilCP Phil

Can you clarify the "trickery" part?

BCer in Mtl

When you're as easily fooled as hollinm has been by his leader, anything is trickery

Mark R

Every stop Iggy is going to have to respond to these questions now.
I thought everyone said Donolo was the stud that was going to save the Liberal party. Maybe this is the strategy to get everyone talking and used to the idea.
Good discussion if your a CPC supporter. Better this than G20 costs.
CHI

Make my words, the liberals will be reduced to 10 seats next time. With a leader like Iggy I'll be amazed if Bob Rae holds onto his seat.
Calgary Junkie

During an election campaign, the media and the voters aren't going to be satisfied with the kind of answers Iggy is giving so far. He is going to have to be a lot more specific, when questions like: "Will the NDP be in the cabinet of a coalition government ?", are asked of him.

And if Iggy refuses to adequately answer this kind of question, then Harper and the Tory war room will be more than happy to fill the void with their take as to what Iggy has planned for them..

Out There

Is it too impertinent to ask the Conservatives, also, what they plan to do if elected? Or does having the advantage of incumbency mean never having to say you're sorry – or say anything?

Ideally, I'd like to have both parties be as open and transparent as possible about their aims and planned policies. (I'd also like to be able to flap my arms and fly to the moon, which is equally as likely.)

What's depressing about all of this, for me at least, is that the Tory war room will attempt to bombard Canadians with their version of reality regardless of what the Liberals do.

http://intensedebate.com/people/hollinm hollinm

Its actually funny watching Ignatieff and the Liberal party implode. First we have the Quebec caucus mad at Ignatieff over his treatment of Denis Coderre and now we have the Toronto caucus upset about the treatment of Bevilacqua over refugee reform. Who else will Ignatieff p.ss off before the caucus revolts.
wilson

'' I’ll play the cards that are dealt and we will see what we can do to give Canada a compassionate, progressive, fiscally responsible government.”
….if Canadians are to stupid to elect me, Dippers can be bought with a few seats in cabinet, and presto, I'm Prime Minister!
madeyoulook

I am aiming for a majority government and will work, with other parties as governing partners if necessary, to make Parliament effective for all Canadians once the voters have spoken, regardless of the result.

People, if you can stop your Ignatieff-bashing long enough (I know, habits are hard to break) to notice that THIS IS EXACTLY HOW IT'S SUPPOSED TO WORK in a Parliamentary democracy.

I say, bravo, and FINALLY we've got a coherent message to work with. I hope he sticks to it.

Nearly instant update: People, it's the answer we've been waiting for. No merger. No pre-election coalition. After an election, if necessary, we'll do what we need to do. Ignatieff has actually delivered the goods here. He does NOT deserve the bashing he's getting on this page for this delivery. All we need now is some policy.

http://intensedebate.com/people/sourstud sourstud

"All we need now is some policy." – I'm sure Jack Layton will be able to provide some as coalition partner.

http://intensedebate.com/people/madeyoulook madeyoulook

Geez, man. I try to say something nice about Michael Ignatieff and you have to go and ruin the moment…

;)

jet

I'm a little tired of political junkies, going on about how parliamentary democracy is supposed to work when they know that no one but them gives a da** about it.
This is not transparency when Iggy says that he may or may not form a coalition after the election. Guess what Canadians there might be a coalition, there may not be, how much more clear can I be.

madeyoulook

Which is the "it" you don't give a da** about: how it's supposed to work? or Parliamentary democracy? or maybe both? Supplementals: Do you pay taxes? Do you try to obey the laws of the land? Do you vote? An affirmative to any one of those three would lead me to offer a suggestion that you might want to start giving a da**.

Ignatieff has effectively ruled out a merger or a pre-election coalition. By all the current commentary those options, as absurd as they were, appeared to have been on the table. Now, they are not. For that clarity and leadership, Ignatieff deserves praise and respect.
http://intensedebate.com/people/JustinWordswrth JustinWordswrth

Democracy is a demand problem. Combined with soaring disinterest rates. Unfortunately, "we" get the government they deserve.

AT1

"I say, bravo, and FINALLY we've got a coherent message to work with. I hope he sticks to it.

I think you summarized it rather well, but I'm not sure you meant it that way given your prayer at the end. How many contradictory positions has Ignatieff managed to put forth on any given subject?

For Iraq invasion… against Iraq invasion… won't lose sleep over Israel attacks…oops, Israel war crimes….sorry, no war crimes…mess with me, I'll mess with you…uh, they did a number on me!…sorta for coalition…against coalition, illegitimate…nevermind, coalitions are ok…

It's getting awfully difficult to find the intellectual in these varied positions.
http://intensedebate.com/people/LynnTO LynnTO

Thanks, Iggy, now I can't get that Telus commercial of the rabbits playing poker out of my head.
hosertohoosier

I think the question everybody wants answered is the one that reflects the most likely scenario:
Will Ignatieff form a coalition (or supply/confidence motion) with the Bloc, if doing so is necessary to his forming a government? I think the answer is no, but it can't hurt Ignatieff to clarify on this matter.

(FYI: I would oppose both a Liberal-NDP or a Liberal-NDP-Bloc coalition, but I could see the former as a legitimate government, while I cannot say the same about the latter).
Mike T.

Seeing as they went to great lengths to ensure that didn't happen last time, I can't see why they would…