Beyond The Commons

Aaron Wherry covers all the goings-on in and around Parliament Hill. Follow Aaron on Twitter: @aaronwherry

Categories: Beyond The Commons, Capital Read

No pressure

by Aaron Wherry on Tuesday, June 1, 2010 1:27pm - 27 Comments

Anne Applebaum surveys the British landscape.

Unusually, this government’s fate depends not only on the normal political calculations, but also on some more basic questions about human nature. And there are lessons here for the rest of us. If it succeeds—if the coalition stays together, if it tackles Britain’s financial crisis, if it reforms education and welfare, if it produces a coherent foreign policy—we will know that, yes, it is possible to convert bitter partisanship into amicable bipartisanship without destroying your party or losing your soul. And if the coalition fails—well, maybe partisanship can’t be overcome after all.

Tags: britain, coalition, coalition government, England

More by Aaron Wherry

Anon 001

Already, Laws, the Chief Secretary to the Treasury (something like our Treasury Board President), has resigned. His replacement, Alexander, is under house-flipping allegations. And all this is before the budget has even been tabled. If they survive five months together, it'll be an accomplishment.

http://intensedebate.com/people/avr avr

Shhhh, you're harshing the Coalitions-are-Awesome buzz. People don't take kindly to that around here.

The Real Jan

This is not a coalition problem, it is an expense abuse problem. Note that the abuses occurred during a majority government.

Boogard

Liberals have governed with minorities before without formalizing a coalition:

"Finally, in early May (1974) the Liberal government engineered its own defeat and was released, at last, from the grip of the NDP, which as a condition for its continuing support in the Commons had forced the Trudeau into more progressive (sic) legislation in eighteen months than had been passed in the previous four years. The Liberals had indexed personal income taxes, announced a new energy policy, set up the Foreign Investment Review Agency, established the Food Prices Review Board, passed the Election Expenses Act, raised old age pensions and family allowances, and initiated a precedent setting inquiry into a proposed gas pipeline in the Mackenzie Valley, under the direction of Mr. Justice Thomas Berger, a former NDP MP from B.C." – Grits, McCall-Newman.

Please have a sense of history longer than two weeks, people. In any case, Lib + NDP <= 155 seats, it's mathematically impossible for them to form a coalition government by themselves.

Emily

Well this is about the Brit govt, not the Canadian one, but we could do the same here.

Only it needs a merger, not a coalition.

We'd have a majority govt then, and it wouldn't be Harpers.

Boogard

Maybe in your data-free fairytale world, but in the reality based community the polls show that option to be extraordinarily unpopular with Canadians. You can't just spew garbage all over the internet, Emily, you have to say things that are actually true and you need to accept certain realities.

Emily

A merger would be very popular with Canadians, it's coalitions that aren't. Coalitions are temporary, mergers are not.

I know Cons are scared to death at the idea of Libs and Dems doing the same thing Reformatories did, but you'll have to get over it.

http://intensedebate.com/people/LynnTO LynnTO

A merger would be very popular with Canadians

Is there a link somewhere that shows evidence to support this claim, because the poll results alone don't support that assertion.
Emily

Reform and PCs merged….'unite the right'….and got elected. They had no chance otherwise.

People have been calling for a similar 'unite the left' for years.

And in fact, poll results just this week reflect that.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/silv…
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/spec…

Harper only has about 30%…his base…at any given time. 70% of Canadians vote for other parties…the progressive ones. Yet we get stuck with Harper because of the vote split on the 'left'.
http://intensedebate.com/people/LynnTO LynnTO

I have to pick this apart, because you're referring to the same ARS poll over and over again.

The poll says that half of Liberal supporters (54%) and 40% of NDP supporters support a merger. That's a grand whopping total of 21% (give or take) of decided voters, overall, if we assume that 27% in total support the Liberals and 19% support the NDP.

Also remember that in this whole scheme of things, between 15 and 20% of voters are undecided. They're not even included in these calculations. And, while they may not show up to vote as often as decided voters, historically, when they do, they have more often voted Liberal. If the support numbers above are any indication, that may change.
Emily

Two comments on a poll is not 'over and over again'. I posted them because they are informed comment on the most recent poll.

So far there hasn't been a poll on an outright merger. Or on an outright merger with someone entirely new in charge.

Undecided voters decide eventually, and they'd decide even faster if they had an alternative to Harper.
Orson Bean

Well Emily, I have to weigh in here in support of LynnTO, she's always impressed me with her grasp of the numbers and polling data.

The most simplistic thing imaginable, for example, is for people to take the NDP polling number, add it to the Liberal polling number, and assume that in a general election, that's what a merged NDP-Liberal party would get in an election. There are several reasons why that sort of reasoning is hopelessly flawed. This ignores the "leakage" effect, where certain partisans who don't like the merger bolt the merged entity. It also ignores the fact that certain hard-core Harper-Haters ("HCHHs") assume that the only reason people vote Liberal or NDP is solely out of the same loathing for Harper that HCHHs have. That's simply not so. It ignores the fact that most people are not political partisans and are not even particularly politically engaged.
Emily

Doesn't matter…worked for Cons, it would work for Libs.

Try how you will to mangle that…..LOL
http://intensedebate.com/people/LynnTO LynnTO

So far there hasn't been a poll on an outright merger. Or on an outright merger with someone entirely new in charge.

You may be on to something there, but so far, we don't have data in the public domain to work with. Until we do, there's not enough evidence to statistically support an NDP/Liberal merger getting the support of a majority – or even a plurality – of voters. They'd have to double their "decided" vote support to do that, which, in order to work, well, pigs would grow wings.

Undecided voters decide eventually, and they'd decide even faster if they had an alternative to Harper.

In the last election, more than half of them decided not to vote. That doesn't ever bode well for progressive parties.
Boogard

"Reformatories "

Canadians hate this sort of stuff. 170 seats for the Conservatives, no matter what the left does, you guys are just too immature and childish to be anywhere near the governing of a G8 state.

Oh, and in the eight odd years since Reform disbanded, two million immigrants have moved to Canada. They have no idea what you are talking about. You guys don't even know Canada anymore.
Emily

Oh do stop talking out of your hat. LOL
http://intensedebate.com/people/LynnTO LynnTO

When the Conservatives are elected by less than 40% of registered voters, I don't believe they have the capital to speak for the entire Canadian population.

http://intensedebate.com/people/LynnTO LynnTO

polls show that option to be extraordinarily unpopular with Canadians

Which polls? The Angus Reid poll doesn't support that assertion.

Emily

This first group will have the most difficult time of it. Not only are they from such completely different parties, but they've had a lifetime of training in political 'war and attack.'
Wascally Wabbit

Emily – though I find it hard to agree with Boogard – and I certainly won't use his terminology – I don't think a merger is on the cards (party constitutions are much too rigid).
Other arrangements certainly are – including agreements going into an election – election strategy itself – and agreements on how governing would be done assuming an election.
Boogard – his cohorts – PM Harper and his spinners – have to face two fundamental facts – no single party – including the CPC – won an absolute majority in the last two Parliaments. Therefore ALL are losers – in the FPP world!
The other is that 65% of Canadians who voted voted for some party other than the CPC. so they don't have any more moral authority than any other party.
They can spin, they can throw weasel words – they can insult you – but THEM's the FACTS!

Emily

Constitutions can be tossed.

Reform and PCs merged, other parties can do the same.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Halo_Override Halo_Override

The question is, who will play David Orchard, and who will don the black hat of Peter Mackay? I'd start an office pool, but absolutely nobody I know in real life knows or cares who those people are. :(
Orson Bean

Reform and PCs merged. Yes they did, but you are comparing apples and oranges there. Or more like apples and potatoes. To a large extent, the Reform-PC merger was more like a reunification than a merger. Reform was basically a PC spinoff. And they were only apart for a little over a decade. The situation with the Libs and Dippers is completely different. Those parties have never been together as a single entity. The Liberals have well over a century of existence as a separate entity, and the NDP dates (via its predecessor, the CCF) to the earlier decades of the 20th century. The bottom line is, a Liberal-Dipper merger would be infinitely more difficult to pull off than the Reform/Alliance-PC one. Not impossible, but much more difficult. And I expect you would see far more members bolting the new, merged party than you did with the new CPC.

Emily

LOL nonsense.

Orson Bean

I'm reminded of that old saying about having a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Thwim Thwim

So.. if the coalition manages to pull off the nearly impossible, simultaneously dealing with Britain's economic, educational, and health care woes then it shows that a coalition might be a possibility.

If, on the other hand, it fails at pulling off the nearly impossible, it's obviously because of partisanship.

No slant there, Anne. None at all.