Categories: Coyne v. Wells, Podcasts, Video

Coyne v. Wells on why we still have to talk about a coalition

Our columnists talk between stops on the campaign trail

by Claire Ward on Thursday, March 31, 2011 1:27pm - 11 Comments

Shot and edited by Tom Henheffer
Produced by Claire Ward

Download | Feed | iTunes

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
Bookmark and Share
  • KRB

    Call it a coalition, alliance, confidence-and-supply agreements, accord, it does boil down to needing the same constellation of parties (Lib-NDP-Bloc) to always vote together to overcome the numbers of the biggest party bloc (the CPC, this is assuming that we're in a minority much like the last one).

    Whereas the CPC can horse-trade with any one of three opposition parties to gain majority support, that parliamentary alliance would always need the same three parties voting together on any confidence measure. That does give the Bloc considerable leverage. If that potential gov't gets unpopular, as I think would be highly probable, then the Bloc's price for continued support keeps going up. I remember Bob Rae's term in Ontario, and how he held out to the bitter end thinking that it would eventually turn around for him (it didn't, and Ontario suffered for it).

    A Lib-NDP-Bloc parliamentary alliance could go the full 5 years, but at a huge price for Canada. Does anyone think a CPC-NDP-Bloc parliamentary alliance could've lasted longer than a year?!?!

    There's more to come on this coalition/parliamentary alliance stuff …

  • zoop

    Harper's not 'criminalizing' the coalition option? Huge straw man there.

    And you can niggle about the work 'illegitimate' but you need to define your terms.

    Constitutionally legitimate – yes. Democratically legitimate – not so much. That's the point.

    • KRB

      Exactly … the biggest thing being what is the mandate given? What parts of the Liberal platform are sacrosanct, and which can be jettisoned in the face of a coalition/accord/agreement? Same with the NDP and Bloc platforms. What would the eventual Government of Canada governing program look like? Voters would like to have some idea.

      • KRB

        Do you really believe that?!?! The Libs would whore themselves like no party's whored themselves before!!!

    • Observant

      If it's another minority Conservative gov't, Harper will immediately prorogue Parliament and only come back in September with another Budget. If the Budget is defeated, he will ask the GG to drop the writ for another election. Then the Coalition will attempt to seize control of the gov't, notwithstanding the refusal of the GG to recognize them.

      Then Ignatieff will attempt to make "I love the Republic I live in.", a reality … ya think?!

  • Observant

    Polled Canadians do not want a PM "Ignatieff" … and even half those polled who support the Liberal party brand do not want Ignatieff as it's leader.

    Expect many polled Liberal supporters staying home on voting day because they don't want to bother getting out to vote for a loser .. both the loser Liberal party and loser Ignatieff … believe it.

  • KRB

    It's true that the GG would likely require concrete assurances that a coalition gov't was stable, so a Lib-NDP coalition agreement on that score would likely be necessary, assuming the same sort of numbers in the House as last time. That is, after all, why they formed a coalition last time, to present a better case to the GG.

    But I don't know how the GG overlooks the Bloc's party charter, and how they want to have Quebec separate from Canada. The GG's first responsibility is to have a stable gov't in place … one that requires the constant support of a party dedicated to the breakup of the federal polity would seem to undermind the "stable" requirement.

    A great book on this subject is "The Governor Generals and the Making and Unmaking of Governments".

  • Pele

    There's another angle to the coalition debate; it has to do with the internal strife within the Liberal party itself. The Gerard Kennedys and Bob Raes obviously could (and would) readily merge with the NDP somehow in a "unite-the-left" movement.

    However, the old order, centrist Liberals still have strong influence. They were the ones who attempted to right the sinking ship by installing Ignatieff as leader without an election.

    Currently, party members seem to be willing to gloss over their deep divides for the sake of clutching power. If the Liberals were somehow to gain minority government status, these divisions would re-emerge and the whole situation in parliament would become highly unstable. Because Ignatieff is inherently weak and not a strong leader, he'll go to the Bloc for support time and again.

    The Conservatives have, up until now, shown calm, competent government in the midst of extenuating circumstances. Canada's best hope for stable government and a strong economy lies in the hands of a Conservative majority.

  • TimesArrow

    Hopefully they'll be honest enough to get back to you even if they think you have a point. But i wouldn't be surprised if you got filed under post election.

  • KRB

    The most sensible coalition in a minority Parliament would be a Con-Lib coalition government, but it's unlikely to happen, b/c both sides have burned bridges.

    Although as Harper said yesterday, a Lib-NDP-Bloc coalition/alliance/whatever would not be able to support any new trade agreements, and Canada would suffer b/c of it.

  • http://halooverride.blogspot.com/ Halo_Override

    Agreed, I love, love, love these things.

    And I know Paul has poked fun at his own television appearances in the past, but this kind of conversational format is such an excellent fit for him.

Previous

Next

From Macleans