On lesser options

With Michael Ignatieff affirming the possibility of leading the democratic coalition to government while making the case against yet another federal election, the possibilities. But not surprisingly, at least a few commentators have been trying to suggest other avenues which the Libs might take on the budget. So let's take a look at those less-likely options, and how they'd likely turn out for all parties concerned.

One theory suggests that the Libs could repudiate the coalition but still seek the nod from Michaelle Jean to form a single-party government after a vote of non-confidence in the Cons. In effect, the goal would be to take the momentum that the NDP and Bloc have built to remove the Cons from office, and turn it on those parties to force them to back the Libs absent an agreement to do so.

But there are a couple of serious problems with that theory. First, there's the instability of the potential government: having backed out an agreed governing structure, the Libs couldn't expect support from other parties to last long if anybody saw a potential for gain in bringing them down. Which means that unlike the agreed coalition structure, a Lib-only government would face a serious risk of being voted down if another party decided that the political winds had shifted. And it would be the Libs alone left wearing that failure.

In addition, the Libs' limited caucus size would make a single-party government problematic. After all, they'd be looking at having up to half of their MPs in cabinet just to keep the government running - and with the Libs also needing to keep up with their duties in Parliament, carry on constituency relations and work through a party rebuilding process, I can't see how the Libs would want to risk sidetracking that many of their MPs rather than sharing some of the burden.

Another theory suggests that the Libs should seek to pass a budget amendment as a way of detaching themselves from the coalition and putting momentary pressure on the NDP and Bloc. But I'm not sure that the theory has been entirely thought through.

After all, the Cons would indeed have the opportunity to take the amendment as friendly and pass it without leaving any risk in the hands of the other parties. Which would result in Harper being able to say that he's literally doing exactly what the Libs want him to, even as a Con government gets to mangle and politicize the actual implementation at every turn.

Which looks to me to be the worst of all possible worlds: full responsibility for the outcome of a budget at a time of economic uncertainty, and exactly zero say in how Harper continues to govern the country.

So how would the Libs change the latter point? That would be through the final possibility of a grand coalition - which has rightly been dismissed to the extent it's been discussed by anybody but Con partisans, but almost looks palatable compared to the above options.

If the Libs were to make a public push for a true Con/Lib coalition to deal with the economic crisis, Harper might have little choice but to go along - particularly given the noises he's made about substantially agreeing with the Libs on the budget.

By putting some Libs at the cabinet table from a junior partner position, Ignatieff would have the opportunity to at least influence how some of an agreed budget was implemented - both through the Libs' ministerial responsibilities, and by eliminating Harper's full control over cabinet discussions. And one would have to figure Harper would have a far more difficult time pushing his usual overtly political agenda with some of his opponents in cabinet.

In addition, the terms of a grand coalition agreement could both rein in some of the Cons' more damaging policies, and provide the Libs with a firm timeline in which they'd likely be able to avoid an election. Which would offer at least some assurances which wouldn't exist under any other structure where the Cons stay in power.

Which means that of the additional options being put forward, the "grand coalition" idea might actually be the least damaging for Ignatieff and his party. But the fact that the Libs' next-best option is to be a junior coalition partner while leaving Harper in power may only serve to highlight just how undesirable their choices are other than pursuing a progressive coalition with the NDP. And that might explain why Ignatieff and his party seem to be stepping up their preparations to move on the coalition as it stands.

Update: Erin has more on the problems with the amendment option.

(Edit: fixed wording.)