XPost: can.politics, ont.politics, bc.politics   
   XPost: ont.politics   
   From: "@nyet.ca   
      
   Martin Regg Cohn Provincial Politics, Published on Mon Jun 02 2014   
      
      
   Liberal-NDP coalition isn’t cheating, it’s democracy   
      
   By echoing Stephen Harper’s cynically anti-democratic ideas, PC Tim   
   Hudak is whipping up public distrust of our parliamentary system.   
      
      
   Welcome to Ontario, where we choose minority governments. And choose not   
   to understand what follows.   
      
   Judging by the latest polls, we may be heading for yet another minority   
   legislature when the votes are counted June 12.   
      
   In every campaign homestretch, the perennial question is posed to the   
   major party leaders: Would you join forces with your declared enemies to   
   govern the province? Could you countenance a coalition?   
      
   Oddly, the question implies there is an alternative: Spurn your rivals —   
   and leave the province ungoverned?   
      
   Politicians reflexively dodge the question. In Tuesday’s televised   
   debate we may see variations on this theme, but Tim Hudak has already   
   led the untruth brigade.   
      
   The Tory leader not only ruled out any coalition between himself and the   
   Liberals’ Kathleen Wynne or the NDP’s Andrea Horwath, but railed against   
   the notion of those two relatively progressive parties teaming up   
   themselves. It would, he claimed, be cheating — breaking the rules.   
      
   “I think that’s cheating voters, and I think that it’s all about   
   Kathleen Wynne trying to keep her job instead of doing the right thing,”   
   Hudak said.   
      
   Why can’t left-leaning parties do the left thing?   
      
   Taking a page from Stephen Harper, our noted prime ministerial   
   constitutional contortionist and distortionist who famously denounced   
   coalitions in 2008, Hudak is now demonizing them in advance. He is   
   echoing Harper’s cynically anti-democratic notions, which whip up public   
   distrust of our parliamentary traditions.   
      
   Hudak should have a word with the U.K.’s Tory premier, David Cameron,   
   who formed a post-election coalition with deputy premier Nick Clegg’s   
   Liberal Democrats. Or with Australia’s right-wing Prime Minister Tony   
   Abbott, who governs thanks to a formal coalition with the National Party.   
      
   Ontario’s Liberals and New Democrats inked a formal accord in the wake   
   of the 1985 election to oust the Tories (who held a plurality of seats).   
   These are parliamentary precedents, not deceptions, yet Hudak is crying   
   foul in advance.   
      
   “My position is clear — no coalitions. We will follow whatever the   
   voters tell us they want.”   
      
   In truth, there is no way of knowing what voters really want — short of   
   a majority landslide. There is no check box on the ballot for people to   
   indicate they want a majority or minority, a formal coalition or   
   informal cohabitation — or none of the above.   
      
   In our constitutional system, the voters choose their party   
   representatives, who are paid to take it from there. If voters deliver a   
   hung parliament, there is only one clear message: Work it out and make   
   it work.   
      
   Short of calling another election within days of voting day, it’s up to   
   the politicians to undo the deadlock. Once they’ve sorted it out, they   
   must propose a modus vivendi to Lieutenant-Governor David Onley, who is   
   governed by one overriding factor: Who can muster a majority of votes in   
   the 107-seat legislature?   
      
   It doesn’t matter whether Hudak’s Tories win the most seats in a   
   three-way split between the Liberals and New Democrats. Short of a   
   majority (54 seats), Hudak must demonstrate he has enough votes to   
   survive confidence motions (the budget and speech from the throne, which   
   lay out the government’s finances and political agenda).   
      
   Before the election, the Liberals governed largely with the support of   
   the NDP — until Horwath rejected the spring budget. Would they be able   
   to patch it up again?   
      
   Watch their body language in Tuesday’s televised leaders’ debate. The   
   strained chemistry between the three leaders will be a clue to any   
   future coalition dynamics.   
      
   In their first match-up last week in Thunder Bay (boycotted by Hudak),   
   the tension between the Liberal and NDP leaders was palpable. Horwath   
   refused to even look at Wynne for most of the debate.   
      
   Their relationship has been dysfunctional for the past year. Unlike   
   Hudak (and the Green Party’s Mike Scheiner), Horwath pointedly refused   
   the premier’s invitations for pre-budget consultations.   
      
   Her insinuations of “corruption” have been surprisingly personal, given   
   that Wynne remains personally unscathed. It might prove hard for Horwath   
   to swallow her harsh rhetoric and return to the status quo ante.   
      
   Stay tuned — after Tuesday’s debate, voters will get the last word.  If   
   their choice is another minority, the politicians will have no choice   
   but to make it work.   
      
   That’s not cheating. It’s playing by the rules.   
   __________________________________________________________   
      
   . . .  'Playing by the rules' is not a concept that Conservatives,   
   provincial or federal, are clear on.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)