Roundup: The problem with coalition speculation

Posted on by

We’re only a few days into the Ontario election campaign, and we’re already hearing far too much of the c-word for my liking. And by c-word, I mean “coalition” (though I have no doubt that the other c-word is being uttered by trolls over social media). And it’s so utterly frustrating because most of the time, the talk isn’t accompanied by any particular understanding of how Westminster governments work so you get a ham-fisted attempt to force coalition talks into the early days of a campaign, during which the polls could easily swing (and have in the past). And yet here we are.

Paul Wells did a great service by calling out this kind of talk in Maclean’syesterday, reminding everyone – and especially We The Media – that this kind of talk, especially on the back of torqued headlines, doesn’t really help anyone. Why? Because, aside from the fact that it’s just pure speculation, and that it distracts from actual issues at play, it also forces leaders to start ruling out hypotheticals that aren’t in play but one day might be. He also makes the salient point that post-election, things are not on a level playing field – the incumbent government is still the government, regardless of how many seats they won, and it sets up interesting scenarios if the seat counts are close, as what happened in BC last year. And time and again, media commentators seem to utterly forget that fact, which becomes extremely frustrating as they give authoritative commentary about things that are in contradiction to the realities of how the Westminster system operates.

https://twitter.com/AaronWherry/status/996229744285794304

Now, I sort of appreciate what Wherry is saying there, but the problem is that unless and until our media commentators bother to learn how the system operates, we will continue to trade in misinformation, that gets torqued for the sake of headlines, and it will exacerbate the situation and make it worse. Remember the prorogation crisis of 2008 that was precipitated by a potential coalition government willing to step in if they defeated the Harper government on a vote of non-confidence? And how the government’s talking heads were giving all kinds of nonsense answers about it being “anti-democratic,” or that they were going to “go over the head of the Governor General” and incite civil unrest if she let Stéphane Dion and Jack Layton form government? Don Newman was the only journalist who challenged these statements to their faces at the time, and, well, Don’s retired from the news business, and the rest of the pundit class hasn’t learned much since then, unfortunately, so I really am not confident that there would be pushback to wrong notions that will get promulgated if a coalition does become a reality in Ontario post-election. But as Wells pointed out, this kind of pointless speculation is the kind of empty calories and time-wasting that is irresistible to the media landscape. Meanwhile, I’ll be right here, head exploding.

Good reads:

  • Justin Trudeau had a call with Donald Trump to try and see if they can’t get that NAFTA deal (at least in principle) by the end of the week.
  • Chrystia Freeland denounced the civilian deaths in Gaza yesterday, but didn’t lay blame. The NDP wants an investigation of Israel’s actions.
  • Liberal MPs are planning upward of 100 amendments to the government’s new environmental assessment bill, in a marathon voting session next week.
  • Here’s a look at the RCMP’s plan and task force that deal with returnees who have fought with extremist organizations abroad.
  • Here’s a deep dive into the government’s relationship with Silicon Valley in the bid to bring more high-tech jobs to Canada.
  • Quebec has so far received about 96 percent of irregular border crossers this year, and it’s still not clear why there’s a massive influx of Nigerians.
  • MPs are being encouraged to reach out to American counterparts about how recent US tax changes are creating double-taxation burdens for dual citizens.
  • Following public outcry, Public Services and Procurement dropped their study into “greening” the Centennial Flame.
  • As VADM Mark Norman returns to court, there is speculation that his full trial could run into the next federal election.
  • The Supreme Court of Canada has decided that the papers of judges related to decisions won’t be publicly accessible for 50 years after that decision is rendered.
  • So far, 90 percent of Liberal MPs have taken the in-person harassment training offered by the House of Commons.
  • NDP MP Christine Moore says she plans to sue Glen Kirkland and the columnists who wrote about their “relationship.”
  • Kennedy Stewart and Elizabeth May have been charged with criminal contempt for their pipeline protests. Stewart pleaded guilty and paid a $500 fine.
  • Two prominent refugee lawyers debunk the four main narratives that the Conservatives are pushing about irregular border crossers.
  • Chantal Hébert evaluates Andrew Scheer’s moves in his bid to win votes in Quebec.
  • Kady O’Malley’s Process Nerd column evaluates what is left on the Order Paper that is likely to pass before the summer recess.
  • Andrew Coyne unpacks the various complaints about our country’s competitiveness, and breaks down the basic underlying assumptions.

Odds and ends:

Over at the Law Times, I look at how the Law Society of Ontario is taking on a project to review its “good character” requirements and how they may be a barrier.

Also from me at Law Times, my piece on how new Iran sanctions could impact Canadian businesses is now online.

Help Routine Proceedings expand. Support my Patreon.