Ignatieff's Coalition Answer: Do-over

Ignatieff should stop using the phrase "Let's be clear" when starting to explain something because it has the opposite effect for those listening to his answer.

Ignatieff March 26, 2011

"We will not enter a coalition with other federalist parties," Ignatieff said in the statement. "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 Québécois."

Ignatieff March 25, 2011

The coalition do over is a response the absolute failure in being absolutely clear on his rhetoric regarding the coalition agreement signed in 2008 and his promise to lead if necessary.  The Liberal MPs found it appropriate to ridicule the parliamentary press in their asking for clarity on his commitment to not enter into a power sharing coalition with the NDP and coalition. A simple no under any circumstances would have worked in December 2008 but now Canadians are skeptical for good reason.

"The Liberal Party wants to talk about contempt," Conservative House Leader John Baird said in the Commons Friday. "It is the Liberal Party that is demonstrating contempt for the Canadian electorate.

"It has said that it will not accept the results of the next election and it wants to form a coalition government with the NDP and the Bloc. The worst part of that contempt is those members will not be open and honest and transparent with the Canadian people."

After leading a historic vote that pulled the plug on Harper's second minority government, Ignatieff was asked by journalists six times whether he would rule out forming a coalition government. Six times, he refused to answer. -March 25, 2011 Vancouver Sun

Ignatieff December 2008

Yet ambiguity remains. The release is very specific that the no-coalition commitment applies in the event the party that wins the most seats is called on to form the government. It is clear that, if the Liberals are first past the post and can’t gain the confidence of the House, then Mr. Harper would be called on to form the government.-National Post

Ignatieff in March 2009

Moreover, it would have been very difficult to assure the country of the certainty and stability it needed in a time of crisis “with three partners in a formal coalition,” he said, likening it, CP reports, to a rickety three-legged stool. “That was my first doubt. I couldn’t guarantee the long-term stability of the coalition.”

Especially when, as he told an interviewer back in March, one of the partners was a separatist party. “I could be sitting here as your prime minister, but . . . I didn’t think it was right for someone who believes in the national unity of my country to make a deal with people who want to split the country up.”

So let’s see: the coalition was divisive, illegitimate, unstable, and wrong—a formal pact with a separatist party that would have guaranteed them, in the words of the accord to which the three opposition leaders affixed their signatures, a “permanent consultation mechanism” in the government of Canada. Or pretty much what all of the coalition’s critics said at the time.- Ignatieff, from both sides of his mouth

Can we trust him? Which Iggy is behind what promise? Which Ignatieff statement do we trust?

Related articles

• Ignatieff Liberals: NDP Surrender? (canadiansense.blogspot.com)
• For Ignatieff, coalition question looms large (canada.com)
• Coalition Terms: Quebec Arena? (canadiansense.blogspot.com)
• Poll: Canadians like Tory minority (russ-campbell.blogspot.com)
• A 300 Million Dollar election just so Ignatieff can finish his book. (thealbertaardvark.blogspot.com)
• Ignatieff's descent into socialism? (russ-campbell.blogspot.com)
• The clash over coalitions on the campaign's first day (macleans.ca)