Just supposing what you say turns out to be true. For the record, I have no reason to believe that Michael Ignatieff is a liar, I’m just going along with you for the sake of following through on your above post.
If Michael Ignatieff did indeed pull the plug on a Conservative minority government and form a (legal) coalition government, in a massive breach of his election promise not to, why is that any worse than -
contempt of parliament
misinforming the Canadian people about Auditor-General’s report on the G8/G20
pork-barrelling on an unimaginable scale in Tony Clement’s riding
disproportionate spending on conservative ridings generally
stacking the senate more than any other prime minister in Canadian history
proroguing parliament to avoid a non-confidence motion
lying to parliament about the alteration of documents
proroguing parliament to avoid having to give information about the torture of Afghan detainees
using the senate as a rubber stamp to kill a bill passed by the House of Commons
My problem with the conservatives is two fold - I don’t believe in the ends, and I don’t believe in the means. With the liberals, I believe in the ends, and the above discussion of the means is purely hypothetical.
Bottom line - can you look me in the eye, hold your head up and tell me you approve of everything the conservatives have done and the way they have done it? Because as far as I’m concerned, this is Nixon without a diplomatic coup in China…
With Stephen Harper, you know you’re getting a liar who claims he’s telling the truth.
I would just point out that you were certain, dead certain, that Paul Martin wouldn’t call an election following the release of the Gomery Commission report in 2006.
Has Ignatieff ever said that he would refuse to lead a minority government as the leader of the second-largest party, or has he chosen his words more carefully and only said that he wouldn’t form a coalition?
I’m not sure it’s terribly relevant. Consider the following:
The Tories are very close to having sufficient support to win a majority.
If the Tories win ~150 seats as projected, lose a confidence vote, and the Liberals try to form a minority government with only informal support from the NDP and Bloc, the situation will be extremely fragile. I would give such a government less than 6 months at the outside, and more likely less than 3 months before it loses a confidence vote.
Many Canadian voters are tired of endless elections that don’t produce a result. Another election before the end of the year would result in the party or parties viewed as responsible being punished to some extent. Almost inevitably that would be the Liberals and NDP, and even a small swing away from those parties pushes the Tories into majority territory.
Therefore, voting non-confidence in a large Tory minority government in the early days would have as its most likely outcome a small Tory majority government before the end of the year.
That sequence of events would be the end of Ignatieff’s political career. The only way I can see him trying to become PM from the second place position is if 1) he has the hubris to believe he can convince by eloquence and charisma the Bloc and NDP to bend to his will for most of a full term, or 2) he just really, really wants to live at 24 Sussex, even if it’s only a couple weeks. (1) may be possible, though I don’t think he’s dumb enough to believe it myself. (2) seems very unlikely to me.
I agree with this. The only thing I’m not sure about is that the Governor General will automatically go along with the coalition government. Can the Governor General choose which government will govern?
I agree with this, too, but I believe that Ignatieff is desperate to put “Prime Minister of Canada” on his resume. I could be wrong because of course I don’t know what’s going on in his head, but that’s my read on him - if he doesn’t make Prime Minister in this go, he’s gone.
The Liberals would be stupid to try and run a minority government that requires the support of the Bloc. The Bloc will yank the rug out at a time when it’s best for them politically – just ask Paul Martin.
I really don’t think that the Liberals will try it. Upthread somebody posted a link to a great article in Maclean’s that explained the Liberals’ position: Ignatieff polls terribly among people who don’t follow politics but the numbers are much better for him among people who do follow politics. The Liberals were hoping that by putting him and his policies front-and-centre that he’d be able to gain some support. Plus, the longer they put off an election, the more time they were giving the better-funded Conservatives to set the tone of the conversation.
Total wishful thinking, of course. People aren’t going to pay attention to politics unless there’s a compelling reason for them to do so.
Are you so anxious to see your team that you’d throw away our democracy? Parliament decides which government will govern.
The election in 2006 was forced by a vote of non confidence that took place before the full Gomery report could be released (Martin had promised to call an election within one month of the full report’s release, but by then Stephen Harper was Prime Minister) so you can’t say I was wrong. We’ll never know now.
[QUOTE=Cat Whisperer]
I agree with this. The only thing I’m not sure about is that the Governor General will automatically go along with the coalition government. Can the Governor General choose which government will govern?
[/QUOTE]
It would be highly inappropriate for the Governor-General to not give the Liberals a chance to form a government if the Liberals/NDP/Bloc immediately refuse to give the CPC confidence. Calling another election would be ridiculous and, IIRC, completely without precedent.
Ignatieff would be a slimeball to say one thing and do another (and I’m convinced he’s a slimeball) but the Governor-General must act according to the Constitution, both written and unwritten, and it says that if the party with the most seats can’t get the confidence of Parliament, and the party with the second most seats think they can, you give them their shot.
Yeah, if you’re saying that they’re all in it for the glory, I suppose you’re right.
I think you’re seeing things that aren’t there - I didn’t say anything about what I wanted - I was talking about possibilities.
I guess that answers my question.
I dunno; that’s why I asked the question. If we have to go through all of this again in six months, I suppose the Governor General knows as well as all of us that it won’t please anyone, but I guess we’re all bound by constitutional law.
I hope this doesn’t come off as just trying to score a debate point - rather your pronouncement that it’s 100% certain that the Liberals are going to try to form a coalition minority government strongly reminds me of this.
Ideology aside the obvious solution is for a Conservative/Liberal coalition. Hell we’ve basically had a pseudo version of it already. The interesting piece would be if it happens before or after a vote of confidence.
It may be true that living in a diverse place forces one to gain some tolerance. But on the face of it, of course ethnic conflicts happen in places where more than one ethnicity is found. How could it be otherwise?
You may believe I don’t have any evidence for my claims, but what is your evidence for this? You’re jumping straight to crosses burning on lawns, while it’s equally if not more likely that your hypothetical person who doesn’t know about cultural differences would just find his new neighbours strange and either avoid them or seek to understand them.
And what about this Ukrainian festival? I’m sure I can go there, buy bowls of borscht and look at dancers performing in traditional costume. They probably even have bands playing traditional songs in Ukrainian. How does this invalidate anything I’ve said? The “Ukrainians” living in your neighbourhood are as Canadian as you, and what is the important part, in the same way you are. They have a certain folk baggage that may not be from Canada, but what part of their identity does that really represent? In most regards they’re Canadians just like you.
This reminds me of Americans who claim to be “Irish” or “Italian” or “Polish” despite having perhaps one grandparent or great-grandparent of that ethnicity, never actually have been in their claimed country of origin and not even speaking the language. I’m actually in Italy at the moment, and believe me it looks nothing like Jersey Shore. Dual allegiances do happen, but mostly with first generation immigrants who actually have memories of their old country, who have family living there and who do go back there from time to time. So yes, I know that it exists. Your example’s not the best though; as I understand it Ukrainian immigration to Canada was more of a late 19th-early 20th century phenomenon, so at this point I’ll need a fairly high level of proof if you want to convince me that your Ukrainians are anything else than Canadians with some spice.
Now we’re at the point where you started insulting me and my people based on your faulty understanding of us, just right after I’d said this is what I disliked the most about English Canadians. You may need to listen to me more than you’d have thought.
And who wants that, pray tell? (And please don’t answer “separatists”, you’ll look like a bad caricature.) Do you think Quebec isn’t ethnically diverse? I’ve got plenty of colleagues who are born in other countries, and who are Quebecers in a way, but something else in another way. Sure, the province of Quebec or even Montreal may not be as ethnically diverse as Toronto, but in a sense we may even have more in terms of dual allegiances than you. With both a long-standing francophone and anglophone community, both of which are competing for the integration of immigrants, we cannot be sure what in three generations will be the culture, language and outlook on life of an immigrant’s descendents. In Toronto it’s much less in question.
I didn’t say “anglos”. You’re the one who’s putting words in my mouth. I said Canadians. Of course English is the common language of Canada, but that doesn’t make all of you White Anglo-Saxon Protestants. You may believe Canadian culture is just the sum (or average, or median, or perhaps even standard deviation ) of the cultures of all countries whence Canadians come from, but trust me there is a substrate Canadian culture, that’s been influenced by other cultures to be sure, but that’s remained there.
And if in your ignorance you believe that in Quebec, we’re trying hard to keep our culture “pure” as it was in 1960, or 1900, or hey, perhaps even back before the evil English came in 1759, I’ll have you know that the Quiet Revolution, which occurred after 1960, is considered one of the founding events of modern Quebec. We’ve changed a lot in the last few decades and we’re proud of it. So yes Malthus, despite what you may believe, there is such a thing as a Canadian culture, and there is such a thing as a Quebec culture; they are not fixed but change over time, and yes both of them eventually get influenced by foreign cultures.
I’m sorry but that’s just cheerleading for Canada (or Toronto?); patting yourself on the back about how you’re so open-minded and have managed to build an identity based on nothing but a civil vision, while allowing people to retain their previous ethnic/national identities, unlike (insert sneer) in Europe or Quebec. Americans do the same thing, they claim that their country has no substrate culture but is only made of the best things about all other countries in the world, brought over there by those countries’ best minds who were fleeing oppression and looking for liberty. I’m not buying it when Americans are claiming it, and neither am I when you’re claiming it. I’m not denying that the US and (English) Canada are countries that are based on immigration. But they’re not the only ones, and at this point in time even European countries, which Americans still see as monocultures, now receive massive numbers of immigrants. And of course ethnic conflicts are definitely not absent from Canadian and American history.
So you think Quebecers think society should be a collection of ethnic enclaves. Please educate yourself.
And I’m really not sure what you’re trying to say here. It sounds vaguely threatening, as if we should realise that our language is doomed, DOOMED I say, because in North America it’s a minority language and not very much used for inter-community exchanges. I just don’t see the link from one to the other, sorry. Bilingualism is about ensuring that citizens can be served in a certain number (well, two in the case of bilingualism) of languages, not about imposing a particular language for international commerce.
… If in fact the government survived long enough to react to the Gomery report, which it did not. And what of this implication of yours that I incorrectly predicted something that in fact never came to pass either way?
If we’re now digging into stuff from five or six years ago and parsing the sentences to construct hypotheticals that allow us to suggest each other is incorrect, would you mind giving me a few days to go through your posts from 2004-2006?
Or else we could talk about the 2011 election. Your call.
It would be the end of the Liberal Party — they would serve no role, being the second largest party in Parliament yet not an opposition party, so the NDP would take over that role and, in the next election, those votes.
Also, I don’t think the Tories and the Grits could get along well enough to form a coalition government. As an anecdote, I’ve met Stéphane Dion since he ceased to be leader of the party in a minimally formal setting, and it was striking to me just how much he hated the Conservative Party. Granted, he’s not the leader anymore, but it seemed as if his feelings were if anything mild by the party’s standards.
All I’m saying is that this isn’t the first time you’ve been absolutely, 100% certain that a very public, very prominent commitment by the leader of the Liberal Party is a total lie, and that the plan all along has been for it to be a lie. It wasn’t (and couldn’t be) true then, and it isn’t true now. I only brought this up because I find your insistence in both these cases to be baffling, as I otherwise find your political commentary to be quite astute. So I’m going to ask: on what grounds do you think Ignatieff is lying about a coalition? Why would he torch his own credibility in such a way? If the plan all along is to form a coalition, why on earth wouldn’t they proceed in a way that won’t hand the Tories a majority mandate within the year? Do you honestly think Iggy is so mind-numbingly stupid as to give the Tories that kind of ammunition?
I can see RickJay’s scenario occurring if, and only if, the election is a lot closer that polls indicate. If the Conservatives wind up with about 145 seats or more, and the Liberals wind up with about half that, it won’t happen.
You don’t know if it was true or not because we never got a chance to find out.
Twenty bucks says it is. I’m happy to lose $20, but I’m pretty sure about this one.
If the Conservatives win a minority (a plurality of seats, but not more than 153) and Michael Ignatieff, in very short order, orchestrates a vote of non confidence and goes to the G-G asking to form a government, you pay me $20.
If the Conservatives win a minority as defined above but Ignatieff does not do this, I pay you $20.
If the Conservatives do not win a minority the bet is null.
Deal? Come on, let’s have something riding on this.
To become Prime Minister, of course.
Ignatieff has used weasel words the entire time to that he can technically not lie. Note his use of words during the debate; the leader who wins a minority gets to TRY first.
So he’ll follow that to the letter; he will allow Stephen Harper to “try,” will prevent it, and then he can honestly say he let Harper “try.” He can also say with a straight face that there was no coalition planned prior to the election (I suspect there is but they’re smart enough not to publicize it) and that the coalition deal theyll come up with then is simply a necessity of the time. He will say Stephen Harper forced him into it, so he simply had no choice.
One theory is that Ignatieff will immediately call for a vote of non confidence, saying that he simply cannot offer confidence to a government that was caught in “contempt of Parliament.” I don’t think it will happen that way, though. I think he’ll do it on the budget vote.
As to why he’d do this, I think Ignatieff- quite correctly, in my opinion - believes this election is his one chance to rule. Banking that the coalition will last long enough for public anger to subside is risky, I will grant; if it falls in six months you’re probably right that the Tories would win a majority, but if he can makeit last longer the risk subsides with every passing day.
If this ISN’T his plan, why did the Liberals pick this time to call an election? The Liberal line is oh, gosh, we just couldn’t allow these horrible offenses to go unpunsihed, but I do not for one instant believe a major political party would call an election they knew they were going to lose solely on principle. Every sane person in the country knew their chances of winning this election were horribly slim. Ignatieff has advisors and pollsters on staff who can show him the numbers.
So here are the possibilities:
The Liberals chose to call the election out of a saintly regard for openness and democracy they certainly didn’t much care about when they were in power even though it was a hill they knew they would die on at the polls, or
They had a plan to take power.
Ignatieff isn’t a young man and his party isn’t going to let him sit around at 28% support forever. He’s not going to get another chance after this one.
The whole thing is pretty dumb to begin with. As if ‘Coalition’ were a bad word. The UK is currently under a coalition government, even. We’ve had them before in Canadian history. I can’t believe the Canadian people will let Stephen Harper and his apparatus actually demonize cooperation.
Really, I think they’re afraid the NDP and Liberals might learn they have a lot of common ground. I wonder if it’s possible to unite what have become Canada’s two left-wing parties. ‘Unite the left’ doesn’t really have a nice ring to it though.
Dual allegiances do happen, but mostly with first generation immigrants who actually have memories of their old country, who have family living there and who do go back there from time to time. So yes, I know that it exists. Your example’s not the best though; as I understand it Ukrainian immigration to Canada was more of a late 19th-early 20th century phenomenon, so at this point I’ll need a fairly high level of proof if you want to convince me that your Ukrainians are anything else than Canadians with some spice.
) of the cultures of all countries whence Canadians come from, but trust me there is a substrate Canadian culture, that’s been influenced by other cultures to be sure, but that’s remained there.