Prime MInister Stephen Harper is in London, England today, having lunch, as I write this, with Prime Minister David Cameron. Both Cameron and Harper are Conservatives but Cameron does not lead a Conservative government: he leads a coalition government with the Liberal Democrats. Harper said he and Cameron talked about that during a morning meeting they had. After that meeting, they held a joint press conference and Canadian reporters asked about coalition governments, given Canada's experience with the failed Liberal-NDP coalition proposal of early 2009. Here's what he had to say:
“David and I were discussing this — I think the debate in Britain was instructive. There was an interesting period of a few days when people discussed the various constitutional issues that were involved and the various constitutional options but I think in the end, the verdict of public opinion was pretty clear which was that losers don't get to form coalitions. Winners are the ones who form governments. Obviously, David was able to form an innovative arrangement to give Britain I suspect the kind of arrangement it needs to deal with the kind of budgetary challenges that face the country. But I say in the end, the coalition in Britain — I think it's important to point out — was formed by the party that won the election and, of course, this coalition in Britain doesn't contain a party dedicated to the breakup of the country. And these were the two problems in Canada. The proposition by my opposition was to form a coalition for the purposes of excluding the aprty that won the election and for the purposes of including a party dedicated to breaking up the country. I do think [Cameron's coalition] has some instructions for Canada.”
Click through here to listen to Harper and to hear David Cameron's reaction to the question:
“We respectfully point out that the opposition parties, who together constitute a majority in the House, have been in close consultation. We believe that, should a request for dissolution arise this should give you cause, as constitutional practice has determined, to consult the opposition leaders and consider all of your options before exercising your constitutional authority.”
– Letter to the GG co-signed by Stephen Harper, a socialist, and a separatist, in 2004
Oh, not that old recycled chestnut again!
The letter you reference was written on Sept. 9, 2004, two months after the June 28 election, in which the Liberals’ majority was reduced to 135 seats, a loss of 37 seats.
The letter simply pointed out to the GG an alternative to another election: an alliance or agreement among the opposition to govern, should Paul Martin ask for dissolution. The opposition agreed to work together on a case-by-case basis on different pieces of legislation. It was essentially a move to avoid another election.
However:
• There was NO mention of forming a coalition.
• The 3 opposition leaders did NOT dictate to the GG what her options were.
• The Bloc did NOT formally agree in a signed document to vote with the other two parties for a specified length of time.
• The Bloc did NOT effectively receive a veto power by virtue of that general unspecific 2004 agreement, whereas in 2008 it did.
• And most importantly, there were NO Cabinet seats assigned to the NDP as a result of that 2004 letter, nor the possibility of the Green Party leader being given a senate seat, as it was in 2008.
The true definition of a coalition: (usually) two parties which, when combined, hold the majority of seats AND share the cabinet table. That was definitely not the plan in 2004, whereas it was in 2008.
Without Bloc votes, the Liberals and NDP combined did not constitute a majority in 2008.
Nor did the Conservatives together with the NDP in 2004 have a majority to govern without Bloc support. The difference, though, is that in 2004, it was a case-by-case agreement, not a specific legislative agenda, as in 2008.
The 2008 coalition was designed to wrest power from the Conservative party, which had just recently garnered a bigger plurality of the seats in the House than they had before, going from 124 to 143, a gain of 19 seats.
The NDP was willing to set aside three of its main policies: Afghanistan, cap and trade, and no corporate tax cuts. The Liberals were merely trying to save face, having elected a mere 77 MPs, a loss of 26 seats.
So, as the cliché says … apples and oranges … or potatoes and tomatoes, if you prefer.