Editorial cartoon by Brian Gable/The Globe and MailBrian Gable/The Globe and Mail
Perusing the papers and websites in the past few weeks, I've noted some confusion over where exactly Michael Ignatieff stands on the possibility of leading a coalition government after the next election. Confusion that's entirely understandable, given the shifting sands at Stornoway on the subject. Confusion that's worth clearing up, however, in light of growing indications that the issue will likely figure in the next federal election.
Today, this confusion comes to a head in the work of two leading Ottawa pundits.
Over at the National Post, columnist John Ivison advises the Leader of the Opposition that it would be in his political interest to rule out forming a coalition government after the next election. In the Globe and Mail, by contrast, Jeffrey Simpson writes that Jim Flaherty's recent suggestion that he might do just that is "completely false at every level," since "Mr. Ignatieff made it clear then [i.e., two years ago]and certainly subsequently, that he did not favour a coalition."
To referee this confusion in Mr. Ignatieff's position on coalition government, who better to call on than Canadian Press reporter Joan Bryden?
For at least two decades, Ms Bryden has been one of the press gallery's leading observers of goings-on in Liberal land. And, she did not disappoint one sleepy Sunday afternoon in June, when she filed this report - carried the next day neither by The Globe and Mail nor by the National Post - under the headline: " Ignatieff open to coalition if necessary, nixes Liberal-NDP merger":
Michael Ignatieff says coalition governments are 'perfectly legitimate' and he'd be prepared to lead one if that's the hand Canadian voters deal him in the next election.
But the Liberal leader says it would be disrespectful to voters and damaging to his party to try to strike any deals with the NDP before voters have spoken. ……
Ignatieff insisted he still believes the Liberals can win the next election. But should no party win a majority and the numbers make it feasible for a Liberal-led coalition to provide 'progressive, stable, compassionate, good government,' Ignatieff said he'd 'make it work for Canadians.'
'I can make all kinds of electoral arrangements work and people should have confidence that I can. I'm a unifier, I'm not a divider'.
Ms. Bryden's report continues:
Until now, Ignatieff has sent mixed signals about coalitions.
He was a reluctant signatory to the unpopular 2008 coalition deal struck by then-leader Stéphane Dion with the NDP and Bloc Quebecois to topple Stephen Harper's newly re-elected minority Conservative government.
Upon taking over from Dion, Ignatieff briefly maintained the coalition threat - coining the phrase 'a coalition if necessary but not necessarily a coalition' - to wring some budget concessions from Harper. But he eventually abandoned Dion's deal and has seemed opposed to the idea ever since.
Last September, as the Tories were trying to revive the spectre of Liberals joining forces with 'separatists and socialists,' Ignatieff declared: 'Let me be very clear. The Liberal party would not agree to a coalition. In January we did not support a coalition and we do not support a coalition today or tomorrow.'
Just two weeks ago, talking points issued by Ignatieff's office asserted: 'Liberals will campaign to form a Liberal government. We aren't interested in coalitions.' The script further argued that 'parties in Parliament can work together - without forming a coalition.'
In the interview, Ignatieff said he can't recall ever having categorically ruled out a coalition. He said he continues to adhere to the 'coalition if necessary, but not necessarily coalition' line'.
Mr. Ignatieff did, however, rule out one option unequivocally. With CBC reporting at the time that senior Liberals and New Democrats were discussing a merger of the two parties, Ms. Bryden reported Mr. Ignatieff as follows:
"The talk of merger is absurd," he said bluntly.