Talk:Grand coalition
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] No merger
I am against a merger with national government.
There might well be situations in which a grand coalition is not a national (unity) government.
For instance, during the 1990s, a grand coalition of socialists and conservatives (representing around 2/3 of the vote) governed in Austria. However, there was a very vocal opposition comprised of the 2-3 other parties representing the remaining third of the vote (among them Joerg Haider's infamous right-wing Freedom Party)
- Well, the article on national govt is wrong if it implies that a national govt can have no substantial opposition. In 1931 and 1935, the proportion of British voters who voted against the national govt was 38% (on both occasions), and after 1935, this opposition was represented by three parliamentary parties. This sounds no different from what you're describing, although the UK opposition wasn't far-right. 86.133.247.3 06:27, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
I am also against merging the two articles.
There are clear differences between a national government and a grand coalition. National governments are formed to see a nation through a time of crisis (usually a war), whereas grand coalitions are formed out of political necessity or expediency. National governments usually include all parties in parliament, whereas grand coalitions only include the two largest parties and exclude others. Grand Coalitions are often 'caretaker' governments which make few policy changes, whereas national governments address major crises. The differences go on and on. The ideal solution would be to cross-link the two articles. --Roland1989 18:42, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
- My thought on this is to ask whether there's an umbrella description that works for both. (I'm American, so less familiar with parliamentary intricacies.) I think there's enough overlap that it would be useful to discuss them within the same article, while acknowledging the differences. Alternatively, could national government be considered a subset of grand coalition? --Dhartung | Talk 18:35, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Against. In practice, there is little overlap. National Goverments are typically formed in times of crisis to achieve maximal unity. Grand Coalitions are more often instruments of necessity (to get any majority) or convenience. --Stephan Schulz 19:28, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
Similarly against. The two situations do not necessarily coincide. I do, however, feel that both articles need a bit of work. Perhaps National Government could be bought up to FA standard with a few examples and a little expansion? JDH Owenstalk | Esperanza 20:17, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
I'm also against a merger. Saint|swithin 10:40, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
I've removed the template, as consensus seems against this, and this page will soon appear on the Main Page. Ral315 WS 13:48, 10 October 2005 (UTC)
Could the American Civil War era National Union Party between the War Democrats and the Republicans be considered a grand coalition at least in some ways?--Prunetucky 02:43, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
