This is one of those “damned lies,” methinks
You know…lies, damned lies, and statistics?
There’s one of the second category that has been percolating through the news coverage of the Liberal-NDP-Bloc Quebecois coalition that has been bugging me, and which I find to be particularly odious. Namely, I keep hearing the coalition described as being solely between the Liberal Party of Canada and the NDP, supported by the Bloc. I think it is intended that we, the average Canadian citizens, are expected to think of the coalition as merely an agreement between two of the three opposition parties, with the third being a mere ally of convenience, rather than a signatory to the same agreement.
David Warren handily spotlights the problem with that view in a recent article of his:
So let us review. Mr. Harper is the first non-Quebec Prime Minister since Lester Pearson to make it past a first short term. He already has a convincing majority over the combined Liberal and NDP opposition (143 to 114), and against all parties outside Quebec (133 to 100) — where his support is rising. He was right to call attention to the BQ elephant in the room.
Mr. Warren’s article is about the prorogation of Parliament, and is worth a read in its own right. Its purpose is not to comment on the balance of power in the chamber in Ottawa. However, the numbers do get a mention, and it is in the numbers that the damned lie is made plain.
Between them, the Liberals and the NDP command 114 seats — stacked against the 143 seats held by the Conservative Party of Canada, this would mean that a coalition between the two parties could not hope to form a government — they would be a stronger official opposition, but they would still only be the opposition. To actually have sufficient numbers as to form a new government, they need the Bloc not just as convenient, supportive allies…but as formal signatories to (and participants in) the coalition proper.
Now this is interesting. We know that the media in Canada — be it the CBC, CTV, or whoever else — tends to lend its support to the Liberals, and often serves as a bit of a mouthpiece for that party. One wonders at the reasoning, then, behind the attempt to downplay the Bloc’s role in the coalition. Could the Liberals perhaps be embarrassed at their close association with a party whose stated mission is to break Canada in two?
Or am I missing some finer point of law here?
