Talk:Grand coalition

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 Owens^{talk | Esperanza} 20:17, 22 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I'm also against a merger. Saint|swithin 10:40, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the template, as consensus seems against this, and this page will soon appear on the Main Page. Ral 315 W_S 13:48, 10 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

German centric

Right now the article is a bit certered on Germany
Please expand on other countries too —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.234.174 (talk) 14:45, 9 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

UK Cleanup

I altered the two UK related entries. The wartime coalition of 1916-1918 was a separate government to the 1918-1922 government. The 1916-1918 government contained Liberals, Conservatives and Labour. The 1918-1922 government contained Coalition Liberals and Conservatives. Labour were outside the government, as was a large faction of the Liberal party.

I also removed the line about the National Government, 1931-1945. Firstly, the National Government lasted from 1931-1940, before being replaced by another all-party wartime coalition (which might fit the definition of a grand coalition). However, the '31-40 government was not a grand coalition of the two largest parties - the second largest party throughout the period was Labour, which remained outside the coalition (as opposed to National Labour, which was in it). TheAstonishingBadger (talk) 06:31, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Grand coalition. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080625041322/http://www.psa.ac.uk/2007/pps/Strohmeier.pdf to http://www.psa.ac.uk/2007/pps/Strohmeier.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:19, 22 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Austria Section

Where is the source for the all-party clauses mentioned for the state constitutions of Upper and Lower Austria? Onuzurike424 (talk) 03:40, 5 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]