As a legal matter, or even a constitutional convention matter, there is no reason why parties who did not achieve a plurality of seats in the Commons ought not to form a coalition to forma a government. The Prime Minister's suggestion to the contrary is, at best, a reflection of his view such coalitions are imprudent. Indeed, although it is history now, Stephen Harper once considered a coalition of "losers" (to use his term) so as to displace a Liberal Government.
Put otherwise, MPs are elected on a riding basis and if they group together in any fashion to form a stable government then that is the government.
Now, just because something is legal does not mean it is sensible. On can argue that the Liberal Party and the NDP are both on the left and a coalition makes sense -- unite the Left as the Right was united. The trouble is that the Liberal Party straddles the Right and Left -- put otherwise, on some issues the Liberal Party is actually quite conservative. United the NDP and the Lberal Party would have to give up some specific policy positions and I just can't see that happening without a major leakage from both parties. I respect the NDP and support some of its policies -- but some I just could not live with and that's why I am a Liberal and not NDP.
That said, the concern I raise here is operational and not legal.
6 comments:
You are right James but really I don't think anyone has legal or constitutional concerns over any potential coalition.
The open and rather frank discussion about coalitions from the Lib party as of late is in general an admission that the Libs cannot win. It also,I believe in some cases anyways deliberately undermines Ignatieffs credibility.
Lets not forget why though the Libs are where they are.
Libs needed 98% of the seats in Ontario to get comfortable majorities. Obviously this was not sustainable and ended when the right got their shit together.
The Liberal Quebec losses were the result of corruption. I suspect the Francopone ridinges in that province are gone for a generation; Maybe longer.
Rather than adress these realities the Libs seem to be looking at the easiest way to power.
A coalition might be it.No one really believes that a coalition is illeagal but it failed last year because it was immoral.
The failure last year will make success in the near future far more difficult. It was a stunning error to have tried it last year.
Come to the Dark Side, we have cookies.
-V
Well, you may both be right. The trouble is, candidly, the Dark Side isn't all that dark, and apart from the edges, isn't very different from the Liberals. It's more a matter of tone and side issues.
I don't think he was calling them losers in an electorable sense. When he said "Losers don't get to form coalitions" he was referring to the fact that they actually are losers - in general.
The Liberal Party straddles right and left? It's been pretty hard to see anything on the left in the Liberal Party these days - Ignatieff's big problem is that he doesn't seem to find anything about Harper with which to disagree.
Of course, he's playing a numbers game, too. The polling says there's more votes to win from the right than from the left - so he'll lean right, looking for those votes.
Losers don't form coalitions, as stated by Harper in England, was an echo of the leader of the Labour Party in England. Mr. Brown said that the electorate wouldn't stand for a party that didn't obtain more seats than any other party being the main member of a coalition.
In other words, losers don't form coalitions.
Post a Comment