CanPol: May(?) 2011 Election. Vote today!

[notyoueither]

The report I got was not entirely accurate (quelle surprise).

There is a rumour in Montreal that the NDP and Bloc are going to run 'not strong' candidates in the respective ridings. Essentially what OB said.

[Wezil]

Harper attempting to commit political suicide then is not a good argument for the Liberals doing the same thing now.

It takes the sting out of the "coalition" accusation. I see the story on several news sites now so I hope the C-'s weren't planning on making that their talking point for the next month. Having to explain how it was different when you wanted to do it doesn't ring true.

[notyoueither]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/why-michael-ignatieff-had-to-rule-out-a-coalition/article1958440/

Why Michael Ignatieff had to rule out a coalition
John Ibbitson
Globe and Mail Update
Posted on Sunday, March 27, 2011 8:02AM EDT


Michael Ignatieff has ruled out the possibility of forming a coalition government with the NDP because he understands this truth: There is the Constitution, and there is the people’s will, and the people’s will prevails.

A friend who is well versed in the workings of Parliament expressed confused frustration, recently. Why, she asked, was there so much resistance to the idea of a coalition government? The Canadian political system provides for it, other Westminster-style governments have embraced it. There is a coalition government right now in Britain. Why should Canada be any different?

But though my friend was on one level deeply knowledgeable, on a more important level she was deeply ill-informed.

Westminster-style constitutions like Canada’s are largely unwritten. Everything is based on theory, precedent and practice. In theory, the candidates who receive the most votes in each riding are elected to the House of Commons. These members of Parliament then meet and decide who among them should form a government.

But while the Constitution may decree that people vote for their MP, studies show that only about 5 per cent of voters cast ballots based on the local candidate, according to Queen’s University constitutional expert Ned Franks. The rest vote for a leader or a party, usually without distinguishing between the two.

If the largest party in the House doesn’t have a majority of seats, then it must survive with the support of at least one other party. Liberal prime minister Lester Pearson governed for five years that way. So has Stephen Harper.

Sometimes, the party that placed second has governed with the consent of the party that placed third. Former Ontario Liberal premier David Peterson formed a government in 1985 after he and then-NDP leader Bob Rae signed a two-year accord and defeated Frank Miller’s Conservatives on the Throne Speech.

But when Stéphane Dion tried to form a coalition government with the NDP and the tacit support of the Bloc Québécois in 2008, not only did he fail, he lost his job as Liberal leader.

Why? Partly because Stephen Harper was able to persuade then-governor-general Michaëlle Jean to prorogue Parliament, but mostly because polls showed that Canadians strongly opposed the coalition.

The leader who places second can form a government only under two conditions: First, he has to come close. David Peterson came within four seats of defeating Mr. Miller and the Liberals actually won the popular vote.

Second, the people have to accept it. Mr. Peterson became premier because polls showed that people were fine with it, just as people were fine with David Cameron forming a coalition with the Liberal Democrats in Britain.

The people are not fine with a leader losing badly and then becoming prime minister by forming a so-called coalition of losers. Constitutional experts can wave their tomes to their heart’s content. It doesn’t mean a thing. What matters most, Prof. Franks observes, “is that people feel comfortable with the result.”

Critics of this view complain it undermines the principle of parliamentary democracy, and creates government by opinion poll. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn’t. But that’s the way it is.

Stephen Harper continues to insist that if he doesn’t obtain a majority government, a coalition will replace him. “Nobody is going to be fooled,” he declared Saturday. But in fact he is the one who is trying to fool us. He raises the spectre of a coalition of losers because he knows the idea is deeply unpopular. Mr. Ignatieff has ruled it out because he knows that too.

If the 41st Parliament ends up looking like the 40th – a strong Conservative minority – then the next government will look just like the last one. Mr. Harper will be prime minister, but he will have to govern with the consent of at least one other party.

Mr. Ignatieff accepts this. It’s time Mr. Harper did too.

Except, Mr. Ignatieff has not absolutely ruled out a 'coalition of losers.'

http://www.canada.com/business/Text+Liberal+leader+Michael+Ignatieff+comments+ruling+coalition/4509567/story.html

This election is not just an exercise in democracy, it's about democracy. So as we begin the campaign, let's be clear about the rules.

[>>>>>>>>>>]Whoever leads the party that wins the most seats on election day should be called on to form the government.

If that is the Liberal Party, then I will be required to rapidly seek the confidence of the newly elected Parliament.

If our government cannot win the support of the House, then Mr. Harper will be called on to form a government and face the same challenge.[<<<<<<<<<<]

That is our constitution. It is the law of the land.

If, as leader of the Liberal party, I am given the privilege of forming the government, these are the rules that will guide me:

- We will face Parliament with exactly the same team, platform and agenda that we bring to Canadians during this election. What Canadians see in this campaign is what Canadians will get if we are asked to form government.

- We will work with ALL parties to make Parliament work, and deliver sound policies — even the Conservative Party in opposition.

- We will not enter a coalition with other federalist parties. In our system, coalitions are a legitimate constitutional option. However, I believe that issue-by-issue collaboration with other parties is the best way for minority Parliaments to function.

- We categorically rule out a coalition or formal arrangement with the Bloc Quebecois.

- If I am facing a minority Parliament, I will work like (former) Liberal prime ministers Lester Pearson, Pierre Trudeau and Paul Martin did: To provide progressive government to our country, by building support issue-by-issue, and by tapping into the goodwill, generosity and common sense of Canadians across the political spectrum. These are the governments that gave Canada the Canadian flag, medicare, the Canada Pension Plan, the Kelowna Accord and a national daycare plan. With the right kind of leadership, another minority Parliament could strive for such heights.

That is my position. Now I have a few questions for Mr. Harper:

- Does he agree with how I have described the workings of our democratic system?

- Why does he insist on fabricating lies about an impending coalition, something he knows is false?

- Will he tell Canadians the truth about his secret hotel-room meetings in 2004 with the Bloc Quebecois, which resulted in a signed letter of agreement to the Governor General, proposing a Conservative-NDP-Bloc coalition?

- Will he finally acknowledge the unprecedented finding of contempt against his government yesterday in the House of Commons?

Freekin' bolding does not work in quotes.


He is ruling out NDP cabinet seats, but is admitting that the party with the second most seats will form a government if it is supported by parties number three and four. This is the math that would have the BQ effectively in control of federal budgets, assuming NDP and BQ hostility to the Conservatives (I take this as a given at this time).

[Asher]

It takes the sting out of the "coalition" accusation. I see the story on several news sites now so I hope the C-'s weren't planning on making that their talking point for the next month. Having to explain how it was different when you wanted to do it doesn't ring true.

This story was trotted out when the first coalition talks came long ago. Had no mileage then, assume it will be the same now.

[Wezil]

For the second day in a row Harper is fielding questions on his attempted deal with the separatists. From a political perspective the attack doesn't work if every time you make the "coalition" accusation you have to explain away your own dirty laundry.

On a personal level I think Harper is just mad they stole his policy.

Btw, Asher - Harper put his coalition desires in writing. Doesn't that mean (by Asher Rules) that he really really meant it?

[Asher]

Absolutely.

[Wezil]

Another btw, "coalition" wasn't an issue in the last election campaign.

The issue was how we couldn't trust the Libs to form government as they would run a deficit. Again, Harper upset at the other parties stealing his platform.

[Asher]

No, but it was an issue immediately after and polls were not swayed by the revelation that Harper wanted one too.

[Wezil]

Just correcting your "facts".

[Wezil]

Best line of the campaign (so far):

"He has to explain what he was doing in Toronto hotel rooms meeting with Jack and Gilles. I don't have that problem. I don't go to hotel rooms with Jack and Gilles"

Burned.

[notyoueither]

It was in Montreal. More acceptable there.

[Wezil]

Ivison's column in the Post today was interesting.

Liberals moving left to squeeze NDP votes? Bad, bad idea.

[notyoueither]

This is not really surprising. This is not the party of finance minister Martin.

Bob Rae, Ujjal Dosanjh, endorsement by the CAW (IIRC) etc.

[Wezil]

Except Iggy beat Rae. The left of the party lost that showdown.

[Wezil]

My MP was on CBC radio this morning. If I hear much more from her I may change my mind again.