New GG likely faces another parliamentary fiasco

[g_bambino]

...[W]hen David Johnston becomes governor general on Friday, Canadians will soon discover he might also need nerves of steel and a diplomat's touch as he guides this country through a political minefield and tries to avert a constitutional crisis.

Although much of his job will be ceremonial and symbolic, constitutional and parliamentary experts agree on one thing: Johnston could be the one man in Canada who ultimately decides who forms the government if the next election produces another minority Parliament.

A constitutional crisis likely looms for Canada's next governor general

"Constitutional crisis" seems like a bit of mass media hype; our system has specific routines in place to deal with the various situations arising from a prime minister losing the confidence of the House of Commons, and the governor general appointing the leader of the opposition as prime minister is one of them. (If we again see a repeat of the situation in December 2008, however, then things might get fun.)

The part of the article that's most interesting, however, is the predictions about the Conservatives' probable reactions:

"Mr. Harper's view is that you can only change governments through an election," says University of Toronto professor Peter Russell.

"I think he's wrong on that."

Russell says the "right thing for parliamentary democracy" would be for Johnston to consider the Opposition's case for forming a government.

"But there's a whole bunch of Canadians out there, led by a huge political machine with tremendous access to the media, that's going to say that's dead wrong and is undemocratic. So he may have to weather a very difficult storm..."

University of Ottawa professor Errol Mendes says "At a certain stage, he may have to debunk the standard rhetoric of the Harper government that all coalitions are evil."

This, I suspect, will be true. Harper is already inflating the fear of coalitions, as though they're both an affront to democracy and a danger to the country. It's impossible to predict the outcome of the next election, beyond the likelihood that it will produce another minority parliament. But, should the Conservatives remain in office but lose a vote of non-confidence soon after, Johnston will probably be pressured by all the same deceitful spin, whipped-up protests, and swirling, politicised debate that Jean had to face in 2008.

[c/e]

Edited September 30, 2010 by g_bambino

[ToadBrother]

This, I suspect, will be true. Harper is already inflating the fear of coalitions, as though they're both an affront to democracy and a danger to the country. It's impossible to predict the outcome of the next election, beyond the likelihood that it will produce another minority parliament. But, should the Conservatives remain in office but lose a vote of non-confidence soon after, Johnston will probably be pressured by all the same deceitful spin, whipped-up protests, and swirling, politicised debate that Jean had to face in 2008.

[c/e]

The next time there won't be a Coalition announcement prior to defeat in the House. Unless Harper wants to try to govern with as short a Parliamentary sittings as possible (technically Parliament is bound to meet once a year), if a Coalition is in the works, he won't be able to avoid it. If he did try to govern without Parliament for long periods times, with, say, only a shortened fall session, I think he would sustain a helluva lot of political damage in the process. He would also complete his transformation into Charles I. Could we then call those long stretches between sittings Harper's "Personal Rule"? Perhaps we can all meet in a tennis court to discuss it

Jean was doing her job. Harper's government had not lost the confidence of Parliament, he was Her Majesty's Prime Minister, and thus was within his constitutional right to request the prorogation. For her to have refused that would have created a constitutional crisis on a level with the Australian Constitutional Crisis and the King-Byng Affair. For a Governor General to refuse the request of a sitting Prime Minister is a rare and dangerous event indeed. Constitutional experts still debate the Australian and King-Byng crises to this very day.

Let's remember here, the Coalition's failure was in holding a bloody press conference, which was the equivalent of showing your winning hand in a poker game. Of course the other guy is going to fold before he loses big. This time, if it is really in the works, it will be done the proper way; which is to say that the Government will be defeated and then the Coalition will present itself to the Governor General as an alternative government. While there's little in the way of modern precedent, it is certainly a well-known constitutional means of forming a government, a textbook example of how it is Parliament that chooses the Government, in other words the way Parliament has worked for over two hundred years.

I think the Opposition could do it right now, if they wanted. We're less than two years into the current Parliament, with even the dubious regular election legislation in place, that means its life is only half over. But I think the polls will probably stay the Liberals' hands. As much as the Tories risk losing government, the Liberals risk a great deal politically as well by hopping into bed with the NDP and the Bloc, and Iggy right from the get go was obviously cognizant of that (the fact that a number of Liberal MPs were hardly secretive about their disdain for both the NDP and, in particular, the Bloc, helped him, I'm sure). Better to lose the battle and win the war, I think. A coalition is a dangerous thing, one that even in 2008 split Canadians down the middle, with somewhere around half willing to accept the Bloc's semi-unofficial role and the other half quite adamantly against it.

But if the Opposition does decide to remove the Tories and put themselves forward as the Government, it's hardly a constitutional crisis. As I said, it's been part of our system of government since the 18th as the party system gained prominence in Parliament in the UK. If the Government falls, the GG has two choices; a new election or ask someone else to govern. It's happened before, and while rare enough, it's hardly without precedent.

Edited September 30, 2010 by ToadBrother

[myata]

This, I suspect, will be true. Harper is already inflating the fear of coalitions, as though they're both an affront to democracy and a danger to the country. It's impossible to predict the outcome of the next election, beyond the likelihood that it will produce another minority parliament. But, should the Conservatives remain in office but lose a vote of non-confidence soon after, Johnston will probably be pressured by all the same deceitful spin, whipped-up protests, and swirling, politicised debate that Jean had to face in 2008.

That's it, "Harper is inflating". And is there anybody out there to counter his insinuations? Deflate his pumping of fear and plain lies? Stand up to defend people's constitutional right to form coalitions? effect meaningful change..

Look once; twice .. three times.. look under the microscope.. always with the same old, same old result.

Get it finally. Change will not happen. It is impossible, in theory or practice. And learn to live with it.

[PIK]

Why does'nt iggy just come out and say it, that with another harper minority we will pull the plug and the libs dippers and bloc heads will run the country, just come out and say it and lets have a election or just STFU about it. The ball is in iggy's court,we all know what harper thinks ,but iggy will not say.

[ToadBrother]

Why does'nt iggy just come out and say it, that with another harper minority we will pull the plug and the libs dippers and bloc heads will run the country, just come out and say it and lets have a election or just STFU about it. The ball is in iggy's court,we all know what harper thinks ,but iggy will not say.

I don't think Iggy wants a coalition. His support even during those heady days of late November-early December 2008, before he stepped over everyone else to become leader, was at best lukewarm, and once he had the top spot for sure, he basically pissed on the idea.

That's not to say he wouldn't reconsider it, but I don't think it represents his ambitions. I think he wants to be a PM, alright, but a PM of a majority government, and all this talk of coalitions is basically talking as if that is an unobtainable goal. It may very well be an unobtainable goal, I think we're in for minority governments for the foreseeable future.

But let's look at some recent history for a moment. When David Cameron and the Tories were campaigning in the lead-up to the UK poll earlier this year, they pretty much avoided all talk of a coalition, denying that there were talks. It was probably even true to some degree. I have no doubt that in the final days as the polling clearly indicated that Labour would lose its majority in the House of Commons that there were emissaries of some kind from both Labour and the Conservatives, but until the actual landscape of the new Parliament was known, such talks would have been very limited. How can one say whose support one will need until one knows how many seats the other guys have won?

The Coalition negotiations only began after the election results, or at least the vast majority of results, were known. At that point the mathematics of coalition could be sorted out, all quantities known. Of course, Gordon Brown somewhat shortcircuited the process by basically jumping the queue and offering his resignation to the Queen while the Tory and LibDem negotiators were still trying to sort out all the details (whether this was to spite his own party which had not exactly supported him with the necessary enthusiasm or to give Cameron and Clegg a parting kick in the balls we'll never know).

This, as I've said repeatedly, was the error of the Lib-NDP-Bloc coalition in 2008. In the Westminster system, until you are actually in a position to form a coalition, it's ill-advised to probably do much more than a little ground work, and it's certainly the height of stupidity to hold friggin' press conferences while the current government still has the confidence of the House. Can you imagine the kinds of tricks that Brown could have played if Clegg and Cameron had had their little love-in prior to the election? A sitting Prime Minister is still the most powerful politician in the land, with the biggest bully pulpit.

If Parliament decides that there will be some sort of Liberal-NDP-Bloc coalition, then Parliament has that right. It will, as with any government, be the right of the electorate to pass judgment.

[ToadBrother]

That's it, "Harper is inflating". And is there anybody out there to counter his insinuations? Deflate his pumping of fear and plain lies? Stand up to defend people's constitutional right to form coalitions? effect meaningful change..

Look once; twice .. three times.. look under the microscope.. always with the same old, same old result.

If the Opposition is smart, there's no reason to see why they couldn't do it. They're mistake was having a bloody parade down the Press Gallery, giving Harper plenty of time to consult his own constitutional experts on the appropriate course of action. Even worse, I think, was the fact that they did it while Dion was still in the driver's seat. I think you could probably have got the Liberal caucus to buy a governing coalition with the NDP, and probably even swallowed the idea that the Bloc's commitment not to dynamite the government at its pleasure, but having Dion, widely seen as the guy responsible for the Liberals' collapse in support as the Prime Minister. That, I think, was a bridge too far. The coalition was flying apart even before Harper went to the GG.

Get it finally. Change will not happen. It is impossible, in theory or practice. And learn to live with it.

Yawn...

[The_Squid]

What is more democratic:

A government formed by a political party with 35% of the popular vote and a minority of seats in parliament,

or a government formed by several parties that make up 60% (or so) of the popular vote, with a majority of seats in parliament?

Certainly the latter option is no LESS democratic than the former....

[ToadBrother]

What is more democratic:

A government formed by a political party with 35% of the popular vote and a minority of seats in parliament,

or a government formed by several parties that make up 60% (or so) of the popular vote, with a majority of seats in parliament?

Certainly the latter option is no LESS democratic than the former....

But it's not necessarily more democratic. I can well imagine there's some percentage of Liberal voters, for instance, who don't find the idea of getting into bed with the NDP (who are still viewed as a socialist splinter party in some Grit quarters, think Judean Peoples Front here) or separatists (I can well imagine no lack of Quebec Federalists who find the idea noxious) all that appealing. You can't just add up the support for the individual parties and declare the Coalition somehow more popular than the Tories.

If I recall correctly, support for the last coalition attempt was somewhere around 50%, which means, at the very least, 10% of the supporters of the individual parties disliked the idea.

[The_Squid]

But it's not necessarily more democratic. I can well imagine there's some percentage of Liberal voters, for instance, who don't find the idea of getting into bed with the NDP (who are still viewed as a socialist splinter party in some Grit quarters, think Judean Peoples Front here) or separatists (I can well imagine no lack of Quebec Federalists who find the idea noxious) all that appealing. You can't just add up the support for the individual parties and declare the Coalition somehow more popular than the Tories.

If I recall correctly, support for the last coalition attempt was somewhere around 50%, which means, at the very least, 10% of the supporters of the individual parties disliked the idea.

I agree.... however, the bogus claims about it being un-democratic and some sort of scary prospect is a load of BS.

[Topaz]

Iggy has said there is NO coalition. He was against it from the first, its just the Tories using this to put fear into Canadians, but I have no fear. Instead, I fear higher deficits from the Tories. The tone of the House is starting to change today, for the worse. What the Tories responses from questions would set anyone off! Why can't they just answer the damn question?

[g_bambino]

Let's remember here, the Coalition's failure was in holding a bloody press conference, which was the equivalent of showing your winning hand in a poker game. Of course the other guy is going to fold before he loses big.

Lawrence Martin (of whom I'm personally no fan) has revealed in his book Harperland some of what apparently went on at that time:

Mr. Martin paints a portrait of a Prime Minister who went to unprecedented lengths to centralize control in his own office, in an effort to prevent the sort of amateurish mistakes that brought down Conservative prime minister Joe Clark's minority government in 1979.

During the political crisis of December 2008, as Mr. Harper realized that he had made exactly that kind of mistake by announcing an end to government financing of political parties, which united the opposition against him, he sank into something approaching despair, according to Mr. Martin.

"He was resigned to defeat, prepared to give up the government," Mr. Martin writes. "Staffers had never seen him like this, pale and shaken. He told them, in so many words, that it was over, that the government would fall."

But Mr. Harper's mood and the government's fortunes were transformed when Mr. Dion and NDP Leader Jack Layton invited Bloc Leader Gilles Duceppe to attend the press conference and sign the document cementing the coalition. Galvanized, the Prime Minister vowed to do everything within his power to prevent what he called the Liberals coalition "with socialists and separatists" from forming the government.

Stephen Harper pondered appeal to Queen over prorogation

And then began the "coalitions are anti-democratic, I have the popular mandate to govern" spin.

This time, if it is really in the works, it will be done the proper way; which is to say that the Government will be defeated and then the Coalition will present itself to the Governor General as an alternative government.

That would certainly prevent Harper from advising yet another prorogation or a dissolution of parliament, but I don't think it would stop the Conservatives from starting up the same spin they did the last time; what I just mentioned above. It would be odd, though, to see Conservatives slamming as anti-democratic a governor general who was recommended for appointment by the very prime minister he'd just replaced.

[myata]

But it's not necessarily more democratic. I can well imagine there's some percentage of Liberal voters, for instance, who don't find the idea of getting into bed with the NDP (who are still viewed as a socialist splinter party in some Grit quarters, think Judean Peoples Front here) or separatists (I can well imagine no lack of Quebec Federalists who find the idea noxious) all that appealing. You can't just add up the support for the individual parties and declare the Coalition somehow more popular than the Tories.

Of course, what could be more democratic than total, utmost, utter and complete inability to vote for the policy, party or political platform of one's choice, the state of political practice that is a hallmark of this system. No matter facades and banners, the actual true choices one has in this system are exactly three: 1) Tweedledum Left; 2) Tweedledum Right and 3) Don't Bother.

Only a broad coalition of parties with strong popular support [in a highly theoretical reality.. maybe from another universe: Libs + NDP + Greens + Bloc, if it could be indeed brought on board in this project, would have, like 70% of popular support in this country] could seriously embark on such process and effect such change. And that is exactly what never's going to happen because neither side of the duet has any interest in seeing any meaningful change.

And so it's back to the good old, tired and eternal, Blue Tent vs Red Tent. Admit it, change is impossible in this reality. Sigh or Yawn are indeed all the options that remain.

[TimG]

Harper is already inflating the fear of coalitions, as though they're both an affront to democracy and a danger to the country.

Harper's politicking accomplishes two objectives:

1) Woo the right of center Liberal voter who dislikes the NDP more than the Reform elements within the CPC

2) Forcing Iggy to repudiate the coalition before the election which will make him a liar if he tries one after the election;

Iggy will obviously want to be non-committal but that will alienate right of center Liberal voters and play into Harper's hands.

Edited September 30, 2010 by TimG

[ToadBrother]

That would certainly prevent Harper from advising yet another prorogation or a dissolution of parliament, but I don't think it would stop the Conservatives from starting up the same spin they did the last time; what I just mentioned above. It would be odd, though, to see Conservatives slamming as anti-democratic a governor general who was recommended for appointment by the very prime minister he'd just replaced.

Oh, of course they'll start the spin. They rely on the ignorance of Canadians, but I posit that that ignorance is much less than it was in 2008, and even then, the best the Tories could muster in supporting their claim that having the Bloc involved was evil was about 50% of Canadians. I suggest that number would be lower. In fact, I think even an attempt at a prorogation or at limiting the amount of time Parliament sits would pretty much kill them.

But I'm still not convinced there is a coalition in the works.

[ToadBrother]

And so it's back to the good old, tired and eternal, Blue Tent vs Red Tent. Admit it, change is impossible in this reality. Sigh or Yawn are indeed all the options that remain.

I know you're still sore about Harper outwitting Dion and Co., but we've been through it. It would have succeeded if the three Opposition leaders would have kept their mouths shut until the government's loss of confidence. Such things have happened before.

But I despair of you ever learning anything about our system of government.

[ToadBrother]

Harper's politicking accomplishes two objectives:

1) Woo the right of center Liberal voter who dislikes the NDP more than the Reform elements within the CPC

2) Forcing Iggy to repudiate the coalition before the election which will make him a liar if he tries one after the election;

Iggy will obviously want to be non-committal but that will alienate right of center Liberal voters and play into Harper's hands.

As I said, Brown and Cameron did exactly the same thing prior to the vote in the UK. It's ludicrous to talk about coalitions before there's any way of determining the necessity or the makeup.

Harper's trick, and the lies told by his little minions sent far and wide about coupes and mandates, were clever enough, but I don't think they'll work twice. The 2009 prorogation clearly permanently damaged the Tory brand. Canadians are much more aware, thanks to the whole 2008 debacle, of just what the process is that forms a government in our system. Beyond that, I think with Iggy at the helm, as opposed to Dion, the coalition, if it ever were to happen (and I'm not convinced yet that Iggy wants to go that route), the Liberals would swallow it. As much as the caucus was angered at Separatists and Socialists, what galled them the most in 2008 was that Dion would not only be staying on as leader, but would become PM, after he had so obviously lost the support of the bulk of his party. It would have been like a wedding where the groom is a corpse.

Harper is feeling vulnerable, and maybe he knows more than we do, but still don't see much evidence of an election.

[Topaz]

I guess when you think about they wouldn't risk losing their pensions before they made 6 years dateline by calling an election. Some journalist now think its next spring, just watch for the signs. They have already given other money again and Harper is suppose go out meeting Canadians again sometime. Does anyone know the ACTUAL deficit is? nIts gotta be more than they are saying.

[ToadBrother]

I guess when you think about they wouldn't risk losing their pensions before they made 6 years dateline by calling an election. Some journalist now think its next spring, just watch for the signs. They have already given other money again and Harper is suppose go out meeting Canadians again sometime. Does anyone know the ACTUAL deficit is? nIts gotta be more than they are saying.

By my count, the political watchers have predicted about ten of the last three elections (sorry to steal an old economics jokes)

I still don't see it. Even the most favorable polls don't give anyone enough of an edge to gamble going to the electorate. Neither do they support, so far as I can see, toppling the Tories and forming any kind of government.

[myata]

I know you're still sore about Harper outwitting Dion and Co., but we've been through it. It would have succeeded if the three Opposition leaders would have kept their mouths shut until the government's loss of confidence. Such things have happened before.

I'm not sore about that particular coalition because it wasn't fit to achieve the change I'm concerned about i.e having a meaningful fairly represented political choice. As I already commented here, process itself cannot assure functionality of democratic state unless there's also a meaningful, i.e fairly represented choice. Which is something our current system is lacking to an increasingly obvious degree.

But I despair of you ever learning anything about our system of government.

No, I can't claim to be a constitutional expert as some here. However, it's obvious that a state of functional democracy on this 21 century stage of development in our societies requires meaningful electoral choice and that our system has very little of such choice. In fact, theoretically speaking, the minimal value of choice that still wouldn't make it a non-democracy (which btw may and very often do also have the visuals of democratic to varying extent election process).

And no, that in itself is not the main cause of my concern, as "democracy" is not something set in stone, no is there a perfect and accomplished state of it. Political system of democracy develops and evolves to reflect the state of society it exists in. And that is the real concern because our system has no functional mechanisms for such development, and on the contrary by its very nature, as pointed multiple times, is averse to any real meaningful change.

So those of us who require real choices from our political system, matured enough to understand the need for compromise, cooperation of political parties and the need for correct unbiased representation of society's political choices, this perpetual and epic struggle of tweedledums, tents, vigvams, ideologies or whatever else the word of the day has lost all entertainment value. Change cannot be achieved from within this system, as can be proven with mathematical certainty. The only direction it can come is from society itself, discarding the old system as inefficient and outdated, and forcing the incumbents to adapt to new realities and evolve or go the way of dinosaurs. That is of course if society itself is still alive, in political and democratic sense.

Edited October 1, 2010 by myata

[August1991]

Harper is already inflating the fear of coalitions, as though they're both an affront to democracy and a danger to the country. It's impossible to predict the outcome of the next election, beyond the likelihood that it will produce another minority parliament. But, should the Conservatives remain in office but lose a vote of non-confidence soon after, Johnston will probably be pressured by all the same deceitful spin, whipped-up protests, and swirling, politicised debate that Jean had to face in 2008.

And you, bambino, are inflating the "fear" of "Harper". (Talk about "scare" quotation marks.)

"Harper", what a scary guy!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=knEOourigcw

----

I always laugh when the Left accuses the Right of scare tactics when the Left does this all the time. In fact, the Left is more adept at scare tactics because the Left relies on "feelings" for its arguments - not reason.

Harper is not a scary guy. He was born in Leaside, was on Reach For The Top and graduated from the University of Calgary. If Stephen Harper is scary, then English Canadians in general are scary.

----

Last point: Smart politicians learn early never to answer "hypothetical" questions. Bambino, your OP is a good example of a hypothetical question. There are so many "ifs" that one could easily add a few more in the answer. (Why not?)

Ambitious polisci students take note: Never answer hypothetical questions. You can only do it with a tongue firmly in cheek and even more hypotheticals in your response. If you do this, understand that you will probably be going over the head of the questioning journalist so make sure you aim well - to your voting public at large.

Edited October 2, 2010 by August1991

[g_bambino]

And you, bambino, are inflating the "fear" of "Harper".

Yes, I suppose, if you think it's "scary" to postulate that Harper might just repeat himself.

Bambino, your OP is a good example of a hypothetical question.

There is no question. But, of course the situation is hypothetical; hypothetical, yet quite possible. That's why I thought it would be interesting to discuss.

I always laugh when the Left accuses the Right of scare tactics when the Left does this all the time.

I always laugh when people insinuate that I'm one of the Left.

[+]

Edited October 2, 2010 by g_bambino

[August1991]

I always laugh when people insinuate that I'm one of the Left.

Smart answer, Bambino. I tried to draw you out but you adroitly avoided my "hypothetical".

In truth, if I'm not mistaken, you're neither left nor right. You're simply a monarchist.

Edited October 2, 2010 by August1991

[Smallc]

In truth, if I'm not mistaken, you're neither left nor right. You're simply a monarchist.

I don't remember seeing that on the spectrum....

[Jack Weber]

I don't remember seeing that on the spectrum....

Well....Francisco Franco...Y'know...Mr.Falange's hero...

...called himself a "conservative monarchist"...

He was pretty much a Fascist...

Edited October 2, 2010 by Jack Weber

[Smallc]

Well, as a monarchist, I certainly don't consider myself a fascist.