The risks (of putting the coalition in place) are:The point looks particularly important in light of one of the Libs' current frames that the question will be whether the Cons' budget is a "credible economic plan" or otherwise does the bare minimum to stay in power. After all, that suggests that the Cons merely need to present a bare impression of competence within a single budget document, with little regard for their general ability to govern.
(a) Would the new government really do better?
(b) What would a period of cohabitation in government do to the relationships between the coalition partners and between them and the accord signer?
To point (a) my view is that folks who answer "no" should not be making decisions for their parties. If you don't believe in yourself, why should anyone else do so?
Instead, the question should be whether the coalition can do better - both in order to raise the bar on what the Cons need to present when Parliament resumes, and to provide a stronger rationale for voting the Cons down if they fall short of the mark. And if the Libs decide to send the message that they don't see any problem with continuing to entrust Canada's fate to Harper at a point where every party considers government action to be vital to our economic well-being, then there can be little reason to take their word for it when they argue that they constitute a meaningful improvement at the next trip to the polls.
No comments:
Post a Comment