Inkless Wells

Paul Wells on all the latest out of Ottawa—along with the occasional post about jazz. Follow Paul on Twitter: @InklessPW
He also offers his thoughtful perspective of Stephen Harper’s last 10 years in his recent eBook, The Harper Decade.

Categories: Capital Read, Inkless Wells

Koalitionen

by Paul Wells on Sunday, September 27, 2009 10:31pm - 63 Comments

Would it surprise you to learn that Der Spiegel‘s superb English-language website has the best coverage of the German elections? Start here, with a chart showing party losses (the two big centrist parties) and gains (everyone else, with the *ahem* disappointingly non-Fascist, non-Muslim libertarian FDP as the big winners). The FDP leader will be foreign minister. Think of him as Max Bernier in baggier suits. Then go to the what-it-all-means catch-all page, a liveblog that doesn’t quite have ITQ’s zing, and this Youtube of Simon Rattle rehearsing the Berliner Philharmoniker in Haydn’s The Seasons, just for kicks.

Observations:

The cheap talking point of the next few days in Ottawa will be that Germany just switched from a coalition of the centre-right and centre-left to a coalition of the centre-right and the slightly-righter, and nobody freaked out. It’s such a cheap talking point that I’ve already used it, tonight on CPAC. The slightly higher-value talking point is that this coalition didn’t advertise itself before the election. Angela Merkel’s choice of coalition partner remained her prerogative, and contingent on the returns, until after everyone had voted. So the Tom Flanagan argument, that coalitions should only be valid if they advertise their makeup before everyone gets to vote, wasn’t followed in Germany. And nobody’s freaking out.
The social democrats took a pasting, by early accounts racking up the worst decline in popular-vote score in any postwar German election. This matches the result in many countries the European elections earlier this year (as does the *ahem* extremely mediocre score of extremist right-wing parties). One starts to suspect that in the current climate, voters are uncomfortable with parties that seek to expand the state (beyond what centre-right parties are already doing). If my first point above should tend to comfort Canada’s Liberals, this one should tend to scare them.
If her new coalition geometry does allow her to become a bit more economically conservative (while allowing her to resist social-conservative pressures that are really not to her taste anyway), Merkel will have strong support from a few of the neighbours, including the libertarian (but so far disappointingly timid and mercenary) Civic Platform government in Poland, and both Britain’s Brown government and its Tory opposition.

Tags: German election

More by Paul Wells

hosertohoosier

Doesn't this coalition make Merkel more susceptible to pressure social conservatives? The previous government was a grand coalition with the socially moderate/left SDP. Because both parties were close in size they roughly shared evenly the number of cabinet seats.

The real win for Merkel is that now the CDU/CSU will probably get the lion's share of the cabinet seats, being by far the larger party in the CDU-FDP coalition. That puts the CSU – the Bavarian (and socially conservative sister party of the CDU) in line to win more seats. This election result gives social conservatives more, not less, influence.

Secondly, true, nobody freaked out about unannounced coalition partners. The reason Flanagan suggested it as a standard is most likely because it is not feasible. Merkel couldn't announce an FDP-CDU coalition till after the election. While her preference for one was very obvious, even now it isn't certain that the two parties will be able to agree on terms.

That said, don't you think it is problematic that the platform by which Germany is going to be governed will be selected almost entirely after the voters have had their input, and not before? It makes campaign promises irrelevant, and reduces the voter to the job of picking among advocates, rather than plans for the country. This is on top of the detriment to accountability inherent in a system that institutionalizes a great excuse for buck-passing.

I think Canada needs electoral reform, but Germany is hardly the best model out there (Australia is).

kcm

Harper didn't have a platform in the last election, so what's your point?
It's still representative democracy. If the platform proves unpopular throw them out next election. The paries in the coalition are still ultimately answerable to their members and eventually the electorate. In all honesty i'm a little uncomfortable with this concept myself. It would be interesting to hear some unbiased background on how the system actually works. I guy i know in the NZ green party assures me it is ultimately accountable.
Dave

But we live (as to Germans) in a REPRESENTATIVE democracy. You choose the person you want to represent your views then you stand back and let them go to work. I can thus say any coalition in our system is completely legitimate; it's Parliament's job to make it work. Is it fair to say you're not a fan or am I taking your point to far?

hosertohoosier

This is an incredibly narrow and naive view. Lets forget for a moment that almost everybody votes for a party or a leader, rather than their local MP (most Canadians can't name their MP). Coalition governments simply don't work in a Westminster system. Small changes in the polls greatly alter the incentives of coalition members regarding an election (eg. the difference between a tie in Ontario and a 5 point lead is probably 15 seats, though this is only a shift in support by 1.6% of the country – ie. 5 seats in PR-land). Would Jack Layton have stuck to his accord if polls showed the NDP on track for a majority government?

kcm

"Coalition governments simply don't work in a Westminster system.'
Ahem…Trudeau – NDP Pearson – cons.

wilson

'Angela Merkel’s choice of coalition partner remained her prerogative, and contingent on the returns, until after everyone had voted.'

So in Germany, the party that 'wins' the most seats , picks a coalition partner to form a majority government.

The coalition being tossed around in Canada is for a 'losing' party to pick partners and dethrone the winner.
Big big difference.

Andrew (not P or C)

If Merkel couldn't find a coalition partner, another party would have to take a crack at forming a working coalition.

wilson

And Merkel's choice as a coalition partner would say 'no way, I don't want to be in cabinet with you'?
Not likely, particularly when they all go in, knowing there will be a coalition government in the end.

If a coalition majority was forced here in Canada, as in Germany, Dippers would gladly join ANY party if asked,
and likely hold more seats because of it.
And maybe the BLOC would lose seats….?

Andrew (not P or C)

Harper chose not to form a coalition, and lost the confidence of the house. The systems work essentially the same, with a slightly different way of electing members.

Mulletaur

Everybody in Germany knows that Merkel's preferred coalition partner is the FDP. It's not as if the FDP hasn't been in government with German conservatives before. I'm trying to think of who could have served as Foreign Minister longer than Hans Dietrich's 18 years – Gromyko of course, he served 28 years, Kissinger is not even in the running, Molotov served a mere 13 years. Anybody else I'm forgetting ?
http://intensedebate.com/people/SisyphusThis SisyphusThis

Correct me if I'm wrong – as if you wouldn't – but a quick glance tells me that The Left
gained almost as much as the FDP. Not that it matters in terms of governing.

But it does put a little water in the right-turn wine.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Inkless Inkless

OK, but that's the other left. Die Linke. I'm not sure how that gets me off the hook, but I'll insist it does.
kcm

Yes, and a very vocal left too. How much if any influence will they have do you think?

Mulletaur

Quite a bit seeing as they are successfully hunting on the traditional left's patch, and the government's policies are bound to turn right with the inclusion of the FDP. Oskar's star is rising.

http://intensedebate.com/people/SisyphusThis SisyphusThis

Their main strength is in the old Ossie land.
They're mainly viewed ( I read ) as commie remnants who want
to go back to a time when government meant something in their daily
lives. Not a growth point of view these days. They seem to get as much
press respect as our own Mr. Layton.

But they have enough heft to give Angela and her new friends some trouble
if they get too frisky.

Strangely enough, Angela is an Ossie herself. But not a local heroine.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

Good. Big statism is not something I ever want to see repeated in Germany.

Mulletaur

Corporatism has never actually gone away in Germany.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Ed_Sweeney Ed_Sweeney

Corporatism is not the same thing as Big statism. In some ways it is the opposite.

Style

"The slightly higher-value talking point is that this coalition didn’t advertise itself before the election…So the Tom Flanagan argument, that coalitions should only be valid if they advertise their makeup before everyone gets to vote, wasn’t followed in Germany. And nobody’s freaking out."

From the Spiegel article, "In the new constellation, Merkel will hardly be able to keep the promise that she made shortly before the election, namely that in a CDU/CSU-FDP coalition she would soften any demands by the pro-free market FDP that were too radical." Which suggests Merkel was advertising this coalition before the election…

Of course, the "voting for Parliamentarians not a government" argument in favour of the December coalition wasn't strictly followed in Germany either, since they have mixed-member proportionality. And Merkel didn't vow during the election never to have a coalition government with the FDP…Almost tempting one to the conclusion that the German situation has little direct bearing on Canada…even if it would be nice to see a coalition government here someday.
kcm

The *ahem* wouldn't be aimed at a certain ex-colleague at he post now would it? Or am i stating the obvious here…cus i hate it when i do that.
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/sea_n_mountains sea_n_mountains

"So the Tom Flanagan argument, that coalitions should only be valid if they advertise their makeup before everyone gets to vote, wasn’t followed in Germany. And nobody’s freaking out."

Sadly, this was not held only by Flanagan, who could mostly be forgiven for the claim, given that he is squarely a partisan regardless what his day job is. Others, such as Spector (who claims he is not a partisan notwithstanding previous day jobs) and Richard van Loon – an academic turned administrator turned kinda-academic – also held up this position. Not to mention A.Potter who made it a central tenet is his argument that the Canadian coalition experiment lacked the requisite 'output legitimacy'.

The rest of your analysis is very interesting. though i suspect that point two applies equally to the CPC (see Coyne's writings on how the CPC has given up the ghost, well before the recession, on fiscal conservatism and especially their mastery of doling out the pork) and any CPC/NDP non-coallition, collaboration that would see Jack get to claim success on delivering social-oriented spending measures (and to be clear the CPC have been clear in their intent on avoiding being seen in cahoots on any such endeavors).

http://intensedebate.com/people/tigerinexil1428 tigerinexile

The fact of the matter is, having a Conservative government at all since 2006 has required a bit of a Jedi mind trick.

Had Martin wanted, he could have met Parliament in 2006, and he might have survived — depending on what he could offer the Bloc.

It was only by raising the issue during the campaign that Harper got Martin to concede the point.

On the other hand, it was in Martin's interest to do so, because otherwise people might have given Harper a majority.

Ditto for Dion in 2008 — promised during the campaign, no coalition gov't.

Broke his word afterwards when Harper tried to shove that defunding formula through.

***

We're arguing hypotheticals here, but had the coalition been a live issue during the '08 campaign, Harper would have had a decent shot at a majority — there are enough strategic voters out there, and we saw how quickly the polls moved when the coalition became a real possibility in December.

At this point, now that the electorate is sophisticated enough on the issue and given that it certainly will be raised on the campaign trail, coalitions or accords or whatever will be very possible in the 41st Parliament, if Harper can't get over the 155 hump next time out. (Unless Iggy is comprehensive enough in his "no coalition" declaration – hasn't been just yet.)

kcm

Tiger i think you're torquing this Dion non-promise thing a little. Yes he broke his word but in all fairness no-one knew the sub-cuts were coming in the up-date. why doesn't Harper get piloried for proposing a radical change which he had not campaigned on? If Harper had campaigned on this then by your logic we might have seen a different reaction fom the opposition parties – especially Dion. Dion's mistake was ruling something out during an election. But he deserves some sympathy when you fully consider Harper's part in this. Dion was naive and dishonest, but to pretend Harper didn't knee-cap him is less than the whole truth.
Personally i think the no coaltion after the fact is absurd. What options do the opposition have after an election and a future confidence loss for the govt other than a new election. The right to form a coalition [ if the GG says yes ] after the loss of a confidence vote is both legal and constitutional. If the public don't like the result there's always the next election.

http://intensedebate.com/people/tigerinexil1428 tigerinexile

What, is there a new rule in politics — "Thou shalt not kneecap thy opponent"?

kcm

Missing the point here Tiger. Harper's pulling of the Party/sub prank without any hint of doing so during the election was in a way as egregious and limitting to voter choices/options as Dion's broken promise. One was a sin of ommision if you like, the other a sin of commision – i'm talking about political sins here of course, not the real stuff. The knee-capping thing was just a figure of speech, not a moral judgement. It is politics as you say.
http://intensedebate.com/people/tigerinexil1428 tigerinexile

I think you're missing mine, kcm — there's this idea floating around out there (especially in these fora) that somehow Harper and his people are acting illegitimately.

They aren't. They play hardball, but it's firmly within the lines.

When the coalition option came up, the PM had nothing left in the tank. No way to scramble 25 opposition abstentions or 12 floor-crossings. Nothing except to use a procedural trick to delay the vote for a few weeks (prorogation) and to rally public opinion against it.

So that's what he did. It wasn't nice, it wasn't particularly honourable, but it was what he could do — and in the end, the opposition folded. (Which it didn't have to.)

If something similar comes up after the next election, I suspect the results may be quite different — but that's another day, and another parliament.
kcm

I suppose it's arguable since we're governed as much by convention as by law, that there were no hard and fast rules to play by.
Sorry Tiger but your "…but it was what he could do…" doesn't cut it for me. He had as Brian would say a choice. He chose to put his personal political survival first and foremost. It may be who the man is, and it might be reasonably argued thet Chretien and almost certainly Martin, would have done no different, but it was wrong. It may be trite to say the ends doesn't justify the means in this day and age, but it's also true that the means affect the ends. There endeth my sermon.
http://intensedebate.com/people/tigerinexil1428 tigerinexile

He had a choice, yes.

I think it's pretty clear that that's who the man is — and if he goes down, it'll certainly have been helped along by it.

But I still don't see what terrible wrong has been wrought — the system survived Mike Pearson fiddling away an actual lost supply vote in mid-1967 (from which we learnt Stanfield did _not_ have the killer instinct), it survived Paul Martin ignoring a week's worth of Parliament shutdowns in May '05, and it survived Harper pushing off a confidence vote for six weeks in December '08-January '09 while he appealed to public opinion.

He's a politician, and a pretty darned skillful one at that. He may have met his match, and we'll see at the next election. (Which I hope will be soon, because I'm a campaign fan. Best sporting event out there.)
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/tigerinexil1428 tigerinexile

Put it another way — had the Liberals stuck by their guns over Christmas, they could've taken power using the coalition anyway, or at least forced an election.

No matter how much heavy weather Stephen Harper made over it, if they defeated him on the second Throne Speech, he'd stay defeated.

I figured it was a way to finesse an election call — make it to the end of January, and the election is set for March, six months after the last, and justifiable enough to the GG to give him a dissolution (given public opinion in favour of having a new vote instead of a coalition government).

Given a united opposition, no matter what Stephen Harper could have said, he'd have gone down.

He survived. May have burned his bridges forever (or just for a couple of years) in Quebec, but he survived.

http://intensedebate.com/people/jandrewpotter andrew potter

"Richard van Loon – an academic turned administrator turned kinda-academic"

You're an idiot.

http://intensedebate.com/people/sea_n_mountains sea_n_mountains

nice. it was not meant to be an offensive statement. he spent a long time as an administrator and upon stepping down took the title as emeritus. his publication – as is the case with most senior administrators – is very sparse since that transition and more than concentrating on revitalizing his publication record he has spent time doing PPF events and the like. while the PPF and its counterparts like the IRPP and the IOG are all very valauble orgs that do valuable work, they are not academic institutions per se. that was my only point. as for van Loon himself, he is very smart individual and an excellent administrator, but, and I suspect he himself would openly recognize he has not kept with his former peers.
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/sea_n_mountains sea_n_mountains

nice. it was not meant to be an offensive statement. he spent a long time as an administrator and upon stepping down took the title as emeritus. his publication record – as is the case with most senior administrators – is very sparse since that transition and more than concentrating on revitalizing his publication record he has spent time doing PPF events and the like. while the PPF and its counterparts like the IRPP and the IOG are all very valauble orgs that do valuable work, they are not academic institutions per se. that was my only point. as for van Loon himself, he is very smart individual and an excellent administrator, but, and I suspect he himself would openly recognize he has not kept with his former peers.
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/sea_n_mountains sea_n_mountains

nice. it was not meant to be an offensive statement. he spent a long time as an administrator and upon stepping down took the title as emeritus. his publication record – as is the case with most senior administrators – is very sparse since that first transition. and, since stepping down he has spent more of his time participating in PPF events and the like rather than concentrating on revitalizing his publication record. while the PPF and its counterparts like the IRPP and the IOG are all very valuable orgs that do valuable work, they are not academic institutions per se. that was my only point. as for van Loon himself, he is very smart individual and an excellent administrator, but he, and I suspect he himself would openly recognize this, has not kept with his former peers.

http://intensedebate.com/people/sea_n_mountains sea_n_mountains

i think this speaks to a broader point about whose 'opinion' is counted as expertise.

jarrid

"And nobody's freaking out."

Any of the coalition partners' main plank involve political independence of part of Germany?

http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok SeanStok

Why don't you just lobby for legislation that would outlaw the BQ? Either they are recognized as a legal party, or they aren't. For now, they represent a sizeable proportion of our federal parliament, whether or not we like them. As every government who has relied on their vote seems to realize at one time or another.

Dot

So the Tom Flanagan argument, that coalitions should only be valid if they advertise their makeup before everyone gets to vote, wasn’t followed in Germany. And nobody’s freaking out.

Might have something to do with the fact that they've had proportional representation since at least the Weimer Republic (1919) from what I can find.
http://www.skubi.net/owen_en.html

je suis incompetent

indeed, or better yet, let's look at the israeli knesset: a model of political deadlock.

http://intensedebate.com/people/jolyon jolyon

"The cheap talking point of the next few days in Ottawa will be that Germany just switched from a coalition of the centre-right and centre-left to a coalition of the centre-right and the slightly-righter, and nobody freaked out.":

It is not only a cheap talking point, it is also irrelevant. Who cares what the Germans do. With this kind of logic, Libs can appoint Iggy dictator for life and point to any number of countries for legitimacy. The Syrians have a dictator, and they aren't freakin' out either, so lets try that system of government!

We have a political culture in Canada that is unique to us and what foreigners get up to during their elections is neither here nor there. If Canadians think a Coalition government of three losers is illegitimate, Libs pointing to Germany is not going to help their argument.

http://www.intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok SeanStok

"We have a political culture in Canada that is unique to us and what foreigners get up to during their elections is neither here nor there."

What is it with conservatives' suspicions of evidence and comparative examples? Nobody's saying we should ape the Germans – or any other nation – but can it hurt to look at what works in other places? But then again, if you're fond of the term "foreigners," perhaps there's no discussion to be had.

As for the unique Canadian context: we've entered uncharted territory to some extent, with the BQ becoming a permanent fixture of the House, and our newfound disaffection with perpetual minority rule. Why not have a peek at other democracies where they've found ways to get comfortable with the potential permutations of fragmented (non-majority) assemblies?

http://intensedebate.com/people/jolyon jolyon

"But then again, if you're fond of the term "foreigners," perhaps there's no discussion to be had."

What do you call people who live in different countries and don't have Canadian citizenship? Is everyone in the world an honourary Canadian?

"What is it with conservatives' suspicions of evidence and comparative examples?"

I could easily ask what is with liberals and their desire to toss aside a political system that has brought stability and wealth to Canada that few other countries have enjoyed all because they have lost two elections and need to game the system to have a chance at winning another. Conservatives need persuading that a new system of government will be significantly better than the one we currently have, that's all.

http://intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok SeanStok

In my experience, "foreigners" is a term that hasn't been used much for forty years, in that it has a strong undertone of blind xenophobia. But perhaps it's found new life as a neutral term, and I missed it.

It's false to suggest that acceptance of coalitions represents a changing of the system, when the potential for these are built into the system itself. And for the record, I don't happen to think a Liberal/NDP coalition is a great government for this country. But then, I don't approach politics with the expectation that things will always (ever!) unfold as I wish. So drop the 'disaffected liberal' approach, cuz that ain't me.
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok SeanStok

In my experience, "foreigners" is a term that hasn't been used much for fhirty years, in that it has a strong undertone of blind xenophobia. But perhaps it's found new life as a neutral term, and I missed it.

It's false to suggest that acceptance of coalitions represents a changing of the system, when the potential for these are built into the system itself. And for the record, I don't happen to think a Liberal/NDP coalition is a great government for this country. But then, I don't approach politics with the expectation that things will always (ever!) unfold as I wish. So drop the 'disaffected liberal' approach, cuz that ain't me.
http://www.intensedebate.com/people/SeanStok SeanStok

In my experience, "foreigners" is a term that hasn't been used much for thirty years, in that it has a strong undertone of blind xenophobia. But perhaps it's found new life as a neutral term, and I missed it.

It's false to suggest that acceptance of coalitions represents a changing of the system, when the potential for these are built into the system itself. And for the record, I don't happen to think a Liberal/NDP coalition is a great government for this country. But then, I don't approach politics with the expectation that things will always (ever!) unfold as I wish. So drop the 'disaffected liberal' approach, cuz that ain't me.

scf

"foreigners" is not xenophobic at all, I've never heard of such a thing. The word is harmless and is used everywhere. Not only that, it's the name of a famous pop band that was very popular in the 80s amongst all generations, so it is hardly a bad word.
je suis incompetent

foreigner shows up in a lot of benign places. like my dinner table, or right before DJs announce that they will be playing "hot blooded", or poorly translated editions of a certain Camus novel.

http://intensedebate.com/people/sea_n_mountains sea_n_mountains

"I could easily ask what is with liberals and their desire to toss aside a political system that has brought stability and wealth to Canada…"

… a political system brought from elsewhere and implemented even further asunder….

Derek

"So in Germany, the party that 'wins' the most seats , picks a coalition partner to form a majority government."

GONG – You are WRONG. In Germany it has nothing to with which individual party has the most seats, it is about who is able to put together a coalition. In 1980, Christian Democrats took 44% of the vote, the Social Democrats took 42% and the Free Democrats took 10% (or thereabouts). back then the FDP were coalition partners with the SPD and so Helmut Schmidt of the SPD formed a government because his coalition had a majority of the seats – and no on batted an eyelid. In fact during the entire period of SPD rule from 1969 to 1982 – the Social Democrats were the second largest party. in 1982, the FDP and the SPD had a falling out over economic policy and the FDP pulled out of the coalition and allied itself with the CDU and made Helmut Kohl the new chancellor (shades of what almost happened in Canada in December). There was no need for a new election, just a shift by the FDP changed the government.
http://intensedebate.com/people/ChrisInKW ChrisInKW

They had an election and their economy didn't fall apart? SHOCKING.
shouldIsellyourwheat

Canada would not survive proportional representation in the House of Commons. (A 5-region, PR Senate would be fine). Canada has regional identities (in addition to a national identity) and the national parties would not survive. And coalitions of regionally-based parties would not be able to agree to the interregional wealth transfers that occur in Canada, and the resulting centrifugal forces would tear the country apart.

I, for one, am not willing to take that risk. It is naive to assumption that the existing national political parties, and Canada's current polititcal party framework would survive PR in the House of Commons.

German-style PR requires a relatively homogenous national identiy. Canada's national identity is far more heterogenous. The national bargain (as we know Canada today) has to be brokered within political parties. It would be a far different Canada, an unrecognizable one, if Canada has proportional representation in the House of Commons.
Jim Rootham

That argument against PR is exactly backwards. FPTP favours regional parties, PR militates against them. A Canadian PR system would elect Liberals in Alberta and Conservatives in Toronto. The BQ would be vastly reduced. It would be much easier for national parties to bridge regional differences in a PR system.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Wilf_Day Wilf_Day

Exactly right: In 2008 it took 86,203 federalist voters to elect one Quebec MP, but only 28,163 Bloc voters.

Back in 1993 the Bloc Québecois formed the Official Opposition despite getting fewer votes than either Reform or the Progressive Conservatives.

In 1993 Bloc voters cast 49.3% of the votes in Québec, so they deserved to elect 36 MPs of Québec’s 74 seats won by parties. But they elected 54, a bonus of 50%.

And they did it again, and again, and again, and again, and again.

http://wilfday.blogspot.com/2009/09/bloc-bonus-an…

http://intensedebate.com/people/jasonhickman jasonhickman

Angela Merkel’s choice of coalition partner remained her prerogative, and contingent on the returns, until after everyone had voted. So the Tom Flanagan argument, that coalitions should only be valid if they advertise their makeup before everyone gets to vote, wasn’t followed in Germany. And nobody’s freaking out.

To a point, that's true. But unlike here, in our last election, Merkel was very clear that (a) she expected to form a coalition, and (b) she wanted it to be with the Free Democrats: Source

The money quote (and you'll note that it pre-dates the German election day):

[Merkel] herself has said her preferred coalition partner would be the small, free-market Free Democrats, led by the ebullient Guido Westerwelle, 47, a man many Germans find insufferable
http://intensedebate.com/people/jasonhickman jasonhickman

(con'td – darned space limitations!)

That's quite a different kettle of fish than what we had here, Paul. (Except for maybe the bit about the German's "ebullient" and "insufferable" junior partner in their coalition, which arguably applies to Jack! – but I digress.)

If the Libs & NDP (for instance) want to go into the next campaign loudly proclaiming their desire to form a coalition so that Canadians can vote accordingly, that would be much closer to the German example than what we've seen, and what I expect we'll see in the next campaign here.

http://intensedebate.com/people/sea_n_mountains sea_n_mountains

but you would allow Jason, both that: 1) the primary objection made by Harper and most others was on membership in the coalition (accurately depicted or not); and, 2) that in both the German system and the Canadian system the possibility of forming a coalition is inherent and also established by precedent.

As such, for me, it follows that the primary concern in interpreting the German case vis a vis the Canadian is formally making known who one would and would not form a coalition with and the two cases cannot be distinguished on this point.

http://intensedebate.com/people/jasonhickman jasonhickman

1. That was certainly one of the objections, and for good reason. I'm not questioning the right of Quebeckers (or anyone else) to vote for whomever they please, and in a legal/constitutional sense, the Bloc's agreement to prop up the Dion coalition was "legitimate". But it's perfectly fair ball to say that such a coalition isn't "legitimate" in the political sense, for the various reasons given by Conservatives late last year.

All that said, that was hardly the only reason to oppose the coalition. The fact that it wasn't even on the table – and in fact, was explicitly taken off the table – before the election by the guy who'd be leading it if it came to pass, makes it different from the German situation.

Style

The more I read about German elections, the more it seems they actually *follow* Flanagan's "rule" of advertising coalitions before the election, so Paul might want to stay away from his proposed talking point. And a big issue out of the recent election was the rise of support for Die Linke – a real socialist party that the SPD would pay a political price for inviting into a coalition. This is from a Matt Yglesias post:
For an illustration of the challenges involved it’s instructing to look at what happened recently in the state government of Hesse. In 2008, the Hesse SPD ran promising to try to forge a coalition with the Greens and the CDU promised to try to forge a coalition with the FDP. But the way the election worked out, neither Red-Green nor Black-Yellow had a majority. But CDU and SPD couldn’t work out a grand coalition. So after a great deal of wrangling, the SPD leadership put together a Red-Green coalition government that had tacit support from Die Linke. Even this was too much for some of the SPD delegates who rebelled against the party leadership. That eventually led to a new election in which the local SPD chief admitted that, yes, she was going to seek to build a Red-Red-Green broad left coalition. As a result, the party’s share of the vote dropped from 36.7 percent in 2008 to 23.7 in 2009.

http://briandell.blogspot.com Brian Dell

Wells has misfired badly enough with this one I decided to dedicate a blogpost to it:
http://briandell.blogspot.com/2009/09/paul-wells-…
http://intensedebate.com/people/jasonhickman jasonhickman

(space limits strike again!)

2. Yes, the possibility of forming a coalition exists in both places. But I think the (West) Germans have had nothing but coalitions since WW II. In Canada, I think we've had one (1) actual coalition, with members from different parties serving in Cabinet, in the 20th century, and that was formed during WW I. So it's disingenuous to say that the Canadian & German systems are close enough to make coalitions part of the norm here.

http://intensedebate.com/people/sea_n_mountains sea_n_mountains

not surprisingly, we are at loggerheads on both points.

1) i don't disagree that is politically fair game to call the coalition illegitimate based on support for the Bloc support or that Dion said he would do know such thing or likely some other reasons. Although i do think that in making the claim one should be clear to differentiate 'political' and 'constitutional' legitimacy. But, I don't follow you reasoning to its end. Harper's primary talking point was 'socialists and separatists' because he knew that while Dion said he would not enter a coalition, he also knew that people expect pols to lie and than justify.

For example, if merely saying you won't do something and then proceed to take up the denounced action rendered a government illegitimate that a raft of his own actions fit the bill (as is the case with likely every other political leader, well, ever.

2) i am not inferring that the German and Canadian systems "are close enough to make coalitions part of the norm here", I don't need to frankly. While there has been only one at the federal level in Canada, the Westminster system has accommodated coalitions during non-war time elsewhere, including at the provincial level. Indeed that Dion was even asked prior makes clear that whether politically they are tenable or not, constitutionally they have always been, and continue to be, 'in the mix' so to speak.

http://intensedebate.com/people/sea_n_mountains sea_n_mountains

also it it is really weird that you face stringent space limits. are the macleans IT folk around in the ether to perhaps correct this?????

http://intensedebate.com/people/jasonhickman jasonhickman

Re: the all-politicians-lie thing: People are willing to accept, to a point, that what Candidate X says before the election may end up being very different than what Prime Minister X does afterwards. We may not like it, but you usually won't get people out in the streets over it.

But we haven't reached the point where we'll take that gruding acceptance that politico's "lie" about this or that policy, to the point where it results in a whole-scale, 180-degree change in government, without an election in between.

http://intensedebate.com/people/sea_n_mountains sea_n_mountains

perhaps, but your position is speculative as we don't actually know what would have happened. or example, while the polls were hot at the time and could have gotten hotter, I also think that is reasonable to expect that the communications efforts of those that supported the coalition – politically and/or constitutionally – would have narrowed the gap (esp when one considers post-december polling on the matter). I also think the minority of those that actually voted – those that supported the CPC would have felt like it amounted to an (undesirable) 180-degree change.