Harper's in deep, deep trouble

[Jerry J. Fortin]

As far as I know, the position of Prime Minister is not mentioned in the Constitution. It exists by convention only.

Schedule "B" section 49, Canada Constitution 1982.

[jbg]

No, JBG.

The normal sequel to a non-confidence vote is a DECISION. Sometimes the right choice is completely obvious, and sometimes not so much, but if the job of GG is practiced only by binding formula, then it would be pointless to maintain the office.

Besides King/Byng and the Whitlam Affair (in AU) , can you tell me when the "decision" in any English-speaking country was made other than as recommended by the PM, generally an election but as in this case sometimes a pro-rogue. The Whitlam Affair is the only situation that I am aware of where the GG rendered a decision contrary to the PM's advice.

BTW, going directly to election would have been a completely silly choice, since parliament had, at that point, done nothing whatsoever since the last. A new one could not be expected to provide a different result .

Why silly, since the electorate may well have punished the Gang of Three by voting a CPC majority?

[Smallc]

Schedule "B" section 49, Canada Constitution 1982.

Wow, didn't know that, thanks. That being said however, his role isn't defined in anyway....except that it implies he is the head of government.

[Molly]

It doesn't matter how often GGs have disagreed with the advice/wishes of the minister, JBG. What matters is that GGs consent/agreement must be sought. They have the right to say no, and the responsibility to do so if it is in the best interests of the nation.

(How often does one dismiss the proposals of ones doctor or accountant or lawyer? For most, it's not often, but even if it NEVER occurs, that still does not give those advisors final authourity in the affairs of those they serve.)

An election would have been the least likely option largely because (at least two) other perfectly acceptable options existed. You might not like it, and certainly Mr. Harper didn't, but that parliamentary makeup was the the expressed will of the people of Canada. Before the will of the people is dismissed, it is incumbent on all concerned to make the attempt to earn their paychecks and reimbursements by actually making the attempt to govern.

Don't, btw, be so sure that a new election would have resulted in benefit to the Conservative party. There is plenty of evidence to suggest that they might have been SEVERELY punished for the hubris that precipitated that crisis.

[waldo]

a new Harper assessment from his mentor and academic advisor, Tom Flanagan

Et tu, Brute?

But the way Mr. Flanagan sees it now, Stephen Harper is adrift in a vacuum of policy and principle, conniving only to retain power while hemorrhaging respect as a flawed political strategist.

What's worse, Mr. Flanagan lists the reasons the once-principled leader has "tattered" his credibility by embracing corporate subsidies, violating his own fixed election date law, diving into deficit and breaking election promises on income trust taxation and equalization calculations.

"Taken together, along with other less publicized reversals, they have created

a widespread impression that Harper stands for nothing in particular except winning and keeping power.

This is a major loss for a political leader who was once seen as a man of conviction."

[normanchateau]

a new Harper assessment from his mentor and academic advisor, Tom Flanagan

Et tu, Brute?

But the way Mr. Flanagan sees it now, Stephen Harper is adrift in a vacuum of policy and principle, conniving only to retain power while hemorrhaging respect as a flawed political strategist.

What's worse, Mr. Flanagan lists the reasons the once-principled leader has "tattered" his credibility by embracing corporate subsidies, violating his own fixed election date law, diving into deficit and breaking election promises on income trust taxation and equalization calculations.

"Taken together, along with other less publicized reversals, they have created

a widespread impression that Harper stands for nothing in particular except winning and keeping power.

This is a major loss for a political leader who was once seen as a man of conviction."

Sounds like somewhere along the way, Harper and Flanagan had an irreversible falling out. This is bad news for Harper.

Flanagan is a brilliant strategist. If he was able to propel a socially conservative, big spender into government while convincing Canadians that Harper's a fiscal conservative and social moderate, the man's a genius. If Flanagan could convince Canadians that Harper has the same values as most Canadians, he could do this with anyone.

[Topaz]

Sounds like somewhere along the way, Harper and Flanagan had an irreversible falling out. This is bad news for Harper.

Flanagan is a brilliant strategist. If he was able to propel a socially conservative, big spender into government while convincing Canadians that Harper's a fiscal conservative and social moderate, the man's a genius. If Flanagan could convince Canadians that Harper has the same values as most Canadians, he could do this with anyone.

Didn't Harper have a former Mike Harris advisor added to his collection?

[ToadBrother]

I think it will depend on who is Governor General, if and when it happens again. I think the GG may have made the choice that she did because of the division that the situation was creating. I don't think that this decision will necessarily create president for the future as any future situation many have a completely different set of circumstances surrounding it. I think each situation like this is unique. You are right though, if it is used in the future as precedent, it could be very dangerous.

It's difficult to say what kind of precedent it will set. The King-Byng and Australian Constitutional Crisis didn't appear to have any long-lasting effects on the Westminster form of parliamentary government. They seem now to be viewed largely as aberrations.

No one can truly look into a GG's mind and see the nature of the process. For the GG in this situation, I think the issue was between invoking reserve powers (something that, in the Westminster system, is extremely rare) and doing as her Prime Minister asked (which is the norm of our form of government). We cannot say what else was brought up in that conversation, but it's quite likely that the GG may have, in fact, set conditions upon the proroguement. If I were in her shoes, and seeing the dangerous political situation that was developing after the election, I may very well have decided that a cooling off period was in order, as well. In fact, I think what's happened since then has bourne out the wisdom of the GG's decision. It's not a perfect parliament, and it will fail, most likely some time this year, but it will die something of a natural death.

The GG cannot be, I think, bound by precedent in a situation as unique as what we say last December. What's more, her reserve powers are more than enough that if she feels a Prime Minister is trying to repeat Harper's stunt, she could deny it. But precedents in our system are funny things, the only way you know you have one is if it happens more than once. If you want things differently, then you'd best start looking at, say, the American or French constitutions, where powers are clearly defined.

[normanchateau]

Didn't Harper have a former Mike Harris advisor added to his collection?

He's no Tom Flanagan. Harper will rue the day he lost the services of Tom Flanagan. He's had Flanagan to mentor him since his Alliance days and now Harper will have to rely on his own "strategic skills".

[Jerry J. Fortin]

He's no Tom Flanagan. Harper will rue the day he lost the services of Tom Flanagan. He's had Flanagan to mentor him since his Alliance days and now Harper will have to rely on his own "strategic skills".

Let him reap what he sews.