Will the Harper Government Survive This Week?

[bloodyminded]

That's a good point. This election will see the turnover of at least 3 leaders. If Harper can't produce a majority: Out. If Ignatieff loses: out. Layton is sick and I still wonder why he wants an election when his party will lose seats: out. Not sure about Duceppe because he seems to be holding his own. Elizabeth May: Who cares?

We still have no clue who Harper's successor might be, which is really the most fascinating point in Canadian politics these days. 3 elections, 1 loss, 2 minorities, similar prospects in the pending election and no one seems to be the heir apparent?

I suspect there will be three outs: Layton, largely for health reasons; Ignatieff and May, for reasons already given here.

But Harper? I doubt it.

[Keepitsimple]

Let's wait for the vote and make sure that all the Liberals show up. It's possible that enough of them are afraid of losing their seats that they will stage an open protest of Ignatieff's leadership and simply not show up. That will force Ignatieff to resign, the Liberals will have a year to get their act together, and the Conservatives will continue on. Highly unlikely.....but many Liberals still don't like or respect their leader.

[Evening Star]

Uhm...based on what I said, use your imagination

I am not talking about what the parties would be doing, I am talking about the people. But in hindsight, I shouldn't have separated the public reaction from the the crisis I menioned....as it really was the crisis if you will.

Being in Ontario, unless you were here you could not begin to fathom the anger and talk of separation.

So instead the elected Parliament should be blackmailed into bending over and accepting whatever the minority government wants to pass? And this will not precipitate any anger elsewhere in the country? BS. Admittedly, I don't really remember what the reaction was out west. As far as I can tell, though, the Alberta separatist movement has virtually no political representation, right? Even the Quebec separatist movement has not been able to produce any major constitutional change in decades.

Edited March 23, 2011 by Evening Star

[Topaz]

Harpr is going to make a statement about the budget and some reporters think he will defend the budget. He may be able to defend the budget but he can't defend the contempt charges he has been given, unless of course he announces this morning HE is closing Parliament and calling for an election and the contempt charge won't be laid against the Tories. http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/Entertainment/20110323/elizabeth-taylor-obit-110323/

[Saipan]

Another one day thread.

.....and they grow like mushrooms.

Liberals run in panick

[Molly]

[/url]Being in Ontario, unless you were here you could not begin to fathom the anger and talk of separation.

Oh, trust me, some of us heard it. (Some of us were even there at the time.)

A scant few of us called BS right out loud, but others rolled their eyes as often, let the screamers shoot off their mouths, and walked away.

The outrage was based entirely in partisanship and apalling ignorance- and that's a fact. A shameful, disappointing fact.

[GWiz]

All in all it's way too early to make any predictions as to what will transpire during and/or post the upcoming election...

For the CPC, being the "law and order party", their misdeeds will become amplified and things like calling itself "Harper Government" and election fraud will turn off a lot of elderly voters... A record deficit $56 BILLION spent last budget and another $30 BILLION deficit budget this TIME around will make true fiscal conservatives look for alternatives... 25%, a very significant number, of the electorate going into this election are unsure as to which political party would be the best stewards of the Canadian Economy...

It's Ignatieff's first election as Leader of the Liberals... Who knows, he may surprise, he has that opportunity now... Ignatieff has, in my view, the best "bench strength" of all the parties, which may turn into a big plus... If Ignatieff doesn't put too much of the spotlight on himself during the election and re-establishes the "Liberal Brand" the Liberals chances could improve significantly...

The NDP will maintain their base, but beyond that there's a good chance that the electorate will see it as an important 2 party race to see who will form the Government... The NDP may be in a tough position and get squeezed out if it becomes a real horse race of an election...

The BLOC are somewhat in the same position as the NDP but they have far less to gain or lose...

Throughout the country there will be many ridings where the riding candidate will make the most difference, which is as it should be, so that is still the biggest unknown factor...

One thing is for sure, regardless of what transpires in an election, in a free and Democratic country like Canada, Canada will get exactly the Government it deserves, as it always has, regardless of the outcome...

[g_bambino]

I am talking about the "constitutional crisis" it would cause...

Um,,, What constitutional crisis?

[bloodyminded]

Oh, trust me, some of us heard it. (Some of us were even there at the time.)

A scant few of us called BS right out loud, but others rolled their eyes as often, let the screamers shoot off their mouths, and walked away.

Both sound like rational responses to me.

[ToadBrother]

If that were to happen the parties involved would be dealing with major fallout. Remember what happened the last time they were seriously contemplating that? To hell with the proroguement...I am talking about the "constitutional crisis" it would cause and let's not forget the public outcry. I never saw such a resentful sentiment for Western separation like I did when that was going on. It wasn't just conservatives either...and I won't deny the fact I was more than pissed myself.

There is no constitutional crisis involved in this. It may be politically damaging, but the notion of coalition governments is a well understood potential outcome in our system of government. Canada has had a coalition government; the Union Government in 1917. In the UK there have been coalition governments, in particular the National Governments of the two world wars and, of course, the Conservative-Liberal Democrat Coalition that is in government right now.

You may be right about the outcry, though I think this idea you have that you have a representative sampling of Western sentiment is, to say the least, laughable, but let's put something to rest right now. Our constitution requires that a Prime Minister or a potential Prime Minister be able to tell the Governor General that he or she can form a stable, responsible government. However that is constituted is the business of the Prime Minister with the Governor General as the ultimate arbiter as to whether the PM has made the case. Political parties have very little actual existence in our constitution. What counts is Parliament, and as the old rule goes, the people chose the Parliament and the Parliament chooses the Government. If the Opposition can form a stable coalition after toppling the current government in a no confidence vote, that is a fundamental and, more importantly lawful and constitutional exercise of Parliament's right.

The Coalition's mistake in 2008 was in running the flag up the pole while a Government still sat and still had the ear of the Governor General. Conceivably, if Iggy, Layton and Duceppe want, once they've brought down the government (which seems likely in the next few days), they are perfectly within their rights as the largest bloc of seats (heh heh) in Parliament to send one of them (likely Iggy as he commands the most number of seats in such a coalition) to the Governor General to say "No need to drop the writ, I've got a government right over here." There is some slight complexity, due to the partial lack of clarity as to the powers of a PM after his government has fallen; traditionally an election has been called, but general constitutional theory and precedent does give the GG the option to ask someone else to form a government. The King-Byng Affair is the prime example, in which the GG refused the advise of the PM to dissolve Parliament and instead asked someone else to form a government, demonstrating the GG is not completely bound on the matter of dissolution, even where there is no loss of confidence.

So if the Opposition has a coalition up their sleeve instead of an election, they could certainly constitutionally be allowed to, though all the signs I see point towards an election.

Edited March 23, 2011 by ToadBrother

[BornAlbertan]

The outrage was based entirely in partisanship and apalling ignorance- and that's a fact. A shameful, disappointing fact.

It might just be that playground tactics decided government despite the democratic process. That in itself is a shameful and disappointing fact. Should the conservatives win and a coalition emerge immediately after the election, it is a clear that the opposition parties have a direct contempt for the will of the people and rightly so the people should be pissed cause that sorta bullshit coulda been done without a f***ing election.

The last 6 years (and December 2008 in particular) is a prime example of why there should only be two parties allowed to run and "recall legislation" be introduced. One party on the right and one on the left. In the end they get branded as that anyway. Hell...they were ready to unite that way anyway so what's the big deal? At least then we could end the bullshit of a minority government and actually get something done...and if they don't, then the people have a vehicle in which to hold them accountable and get their asses out.

Like I said previously, I could give a damn who wins the election. But I want a clear cut winner and non of these playground antics of meeting after school on the playground to see who gets to run the school. I want a decisive victor selected BY THE PEOPLE.

[bloodyminded]

It might just be that playground tactics decided government despite the democratic process. That in itself is a shameful and disappointing fact. Should the conservatives win and a coalition emerge immediately after the election, it is a clear that the opposition parties have a direct contempt for the will of the people and rightly so the people should be pissed cause that sorta bullshit coulda been done without a f***ing election.

The last 6 years (and December 2008 in particular) is a prime example of why there should only be two parties allowed to run and "recall legislation" be introduced. One party on the right and one on the left. In the end they get branded as that anyway. Hell...they were ready to unite that way anyway so what's the big deal? At least then we could end the bullshit of a minority government and actually get something done...and if they don't, then the people have a vehicle in which to hold them accountable and get their asses out.

Like I said previously, I could give a damn who wins the election. But I want a clear cut winner and non of these playground antics of meeting after school on the playground to see who gets to run the school. I want a decisive victor selected BY THE PEOPLE.

You don't really want a Parliamentary system.

[ToadBrother]

It might just be that playground tactics decided government despite the democratic process. That in itself is a shameful and disappointing fact. Should the conservatives win and a coalition emerge immediately after the election, it is a clear that the opposition parties have a direct contempt for the will of the people and rightly so the people should be pissed cause that sorta bullshit coulda been done without a f***ing election.

Do you think the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats in the UK had "direct contempt for the will of the people" (whatever that means exactly)? First of all, the majority of the electorate would not have in fact voted Tory. Second of all, after an election seems the perfect time to attempt a coalition. That's how it worked in the UK, and while there have been no lack of bumps in the road, so far the Coalition has stuck together (though the real test comes now with the first budget).

The last 6 years (and December 2008 in particular) is a prime example of why there should only be two parties allowed to run and "recall legislation" be introduced. One party on the right and one on the left. In the end they get branded as that anyway. Hell...they were ready to unite that way anyway so what's the big deal? At least then we could end the bullshit of a minority government and actually get something done...and if they don't, then the people have a vehicle in which to hold them accountable and get their asses out.

Ug. A two party state? You want to actually give political parties a constitutional dimension? I can't think of a worse mistake. Democracy is best served by a plethora of voices, not by shoe-horning everyone into two vast and ideologically meaningless lumps.

Like I said previously, I could give a damn who wins the election. But I want a clear cut winner and non of these playground antics of meeting after school on the playground to see who gets to run the school. I want a decisive victor selected BY THE PEOPLE.

You won't get it. The PEOPLE, as you so boldly capitalize it, don't seem to want that.

[August1991]

Coalitions are real and reperesent more of the people than a minority with less seats. Grow up already. The less single party rule that exists, the more power to the people, and the less People who try to control via tyrany and totalitarianism have the means of power.

FREE THE PEOPLE! END HARPER!

It is precisely this kind of reasoning that will give Harper his majority.

Indeed, I bet now that Harper will use the word "coalition" in every third sentence of his stump campaign speech.

[ToadBrother]

It is precisely this kind of reasoning that will give Harper his majority.

Indeed, I bet now that Harper will use the word "coalition" in every third sentence of his stump campaign speech.

It already has started. The Government members of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs were dropping the word "coalition" like fireballs every chance they could get.

It's very clear there won't be a coalition formed after the Opposition defeats the Government (there seems to be some betting going on in the Ottawa Press Gallery as to whether it will be on the breach of privilege motion which will come to a vote on Friday or on the budget itself). We're bound for an election. As to what happens afterwards, well, maybe Harper will win a majority and all this talk of coalitions will fade into history, or maybe the Conservative seat count will fall and the Opposition will see an opportunity, though tradition states that the Prime Minister has the first opportunity to go to the GG to form a new government.

Edited March 23, 2011 by ToadBrother

[capricorn]

Conceivably, if Iggy, Layton and Duceppe want, once they've brought down the government (which seems likely in the next few days), they are perfectly within their rights as the largest bloc of seats (heh heh) in Parliament to send one of them (likely Iggy as he commands the most number of seats in such a coalition) to the Governor General to say "No need to drop the writ, I've got a government right over here." There is some slight complexity, due to the partial lack of clarity as to the powers of a PM after his government has fallen; traditionally an election has been called, but general constitutional theory and precedent does give the GG the option to ask someone else to form a government (the King-Byng Affair is the prime example, in which the GG refused the advise of the PM to dissolve Parliament and instead asked someone else to form a government, demonstrating the GG is not completely bound on the matter of dissolution, even where there is no loss of confidence.

The Conservatives have more seats than each of the other parties. What the opposition wants is a coalition that would exclude the party that has the most seats. As I recall, the coalition government in the UK is a coalition of the two parties that garnered the most votes.

The coalition is the first time the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats have had a power-sharing deal at Westminster and the first coalition in the UK since the Second World War.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8676607.stm

I believe there are other countries with a coalition government that includes the party that has garnered more seats than the other parties individually.

Outrage expressed at a potential Liberal/NDP/Bloc coalition may be fueled in part by this scenario resulting in the word "coup" bandied about. Add to that a coalition which would include a party intent on cessation and the result is a backlash at the opposition.

Layton said on CFRA this morning he would welcome working toward a coalition. I'm sure the opposition has already held talks to do just that. They will do so at their peril.

[capricorn]

It is precisely this kind of reasoning that will give Harper his majority.

Exactly.

Indeed, I bet now that Harper will use the word "coalition" in every third sentence of his stump campaign speech.

I think Harper will get the ball rolling this morning in his press conference.

Edited March 23, 2011 by capricorn

[M.Dancer]

I predict the government will last the week....

....but not the nrext

[Evening Star]

The Conservatives have more seats than each of the other parties. What the opposition wants is a coalition that would exclude the party that has the most seats. As I recall, the coalition government in the UK is a coalition of the two parties that garnered the most votes.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/8676607.stm

I believe there are other countries with a coalition government that includes the party that has garnered more seats than the other parties individually.

Again, why does everyone seem to ignore the Liberal-NDP Accord in ON in the 80s? The party with the most seats couldn't maintain the Provincial Parliament's confidence so the party with the second-highest number governed with the support of the third party. It was popular and successful. (Now, some mitigating factors are that the Liberals did better in the popular vote iirc and the difference in seats between them and the PCs was quite small.)

[ToadBrother]

The Conservatives have more seats than each of the other parties. What the opposition wants is a coalition that would exclude the party that has the most seats. As I recall, the coalition government in the UK is a coalition of the two parties that garnered the most votes.

It's more complex than that. Traditionally in the Westminster system the Prime Minister, even where his government has lost seats, is given first shot at trying to form a government. If Gordon Brown could have got the LibDems onside, he could have, by constitutional tradition, gone to the Queen and stated that he could form a Government (Arthur Meighen's Conservative government had a smaller number of seats than the Mackenzie King's Liberals and the GG still asked Meighen to form a Government).

If, say, the Opposition were to enter a formal coalition, as the Tories and LibDems in Britain did, they would command the largest number of seats, in effect a majority coalition. Remember here that political parties have a somewhat nebulous existence in our constitution, despite the fact that in the actual political life of Parliament, they are center of gravity. The Constitution merely requires that a Government be able to command a large enough number of seats to form a government

I believe there are other countries with a coalition government that includes the party that has garnered more seats than the other parties individually.

Outrage expressed at a potential Liberal/NDP/Bloc coalition may be fueled in part by this scenario resulting in the word "coup" bandied about. Add to that a coalition which would include a party intent on cessation and the result is a backlash at the opposition.

Layton said on CFRA this morning he would welcome working toward a coalition. I'm sure the opposition has already held talks to do just that. They will do so at their peril.

I think that to consider it prior to an election would be politically damaging. All bets are off after an election, though if Tories comes back with something like the seats they have now, it would be rather hard, I think, for the Opposition to make the case. But it is conceivable, regardless of potential political costs. The rules surrounding who the GG may choose to form a government are intentionally vague where no party achieves a plurality in the House of Commons, in large part because this is one of the Reserve Powers, and while, even in a minority (or in the British nomenclature, which I prefer, a "hung") Parliament, the tradition is for the party with the largest number of seats, this is more a bit of strong advise than an actual outright rule, and the GG has wide latitude in how to proceed.

In fact, if the Government loses confidence, it is at least conceivable (though hardly likely) that the GG might say to himself "The last election was in 2008, it does not appear likely that a new election will substantially alter the makeup of Parliament, so I'm going to ask the Leader of the Opposition to form a government." Remember, the formulation here isn't "The guy with the largest number of seats tells the GG he's going to form a government", the formulation is the "GG asks the guy, usually, but not as an absolute rule, who has the largest number of seats to form a government." Who gets to form a government is the GG's choice, that is probably the most potent of the powers reserved for the Queen and Her viceroys. I'm not saying that this would happen, because I doubt a modern Governor General would ever presume to guess the outcome of an election, and this Parliament has sat for over two years now, which is probably too much time for the GG to consider dissolving Parliament and calling new elections an onerous and unreasonable action.

[ToadBrother]

I predict the government will last the week....

....but not the nrext

So you're thinking there won't be a confidence motion attached to the contempt motion? Remember, Friday is Opposition Day, and by all accounts the motion of contempt is going to be voted on then. There seems to be some suggestion from the pundits that toppling the government on the question of privilege will allow the Opposition parties to try to frame this election as an issue of ethics and transparency, rather than trying to battle over the budget.

[M.Dancer]

Remember, Friday is Opposition Day, and by all accounts the motion of contempt is going to be voted on then.

forgot...

[g_bambino]

You don't really want a Parliamentary system.

What frothing Albertan Reformist does?

[GWiz]

So you're thinking there won't be a confidence motion attached to the contempt motion? Remember, Friday is Opposition Day, and by all accounts the motion of contempt is going to be voted on then. There seems to be some suggestion from the pundits that toppling the government on the question of privilege will allow the Opposition parties to try to frame this election as an issue of ethics and transparency, rather than trying to battle over the budget.

Right now, having just heard all the opposition leaders speak, the bigger question is will Harper let the opposition get to Friday or will he shut down Parliament tomorrow and go to see the GG on Saturday to get the election ball rolling himself...

[August1991]

As to what happens afterwards, well, maybe Harper will win a majority and all this talk of coalitions will fade into history, or maybe the Conservative seat count will fall and the Opposition will see an opportunity, though tradition states that the Prime Minister has the first opportunity to go to the GG to form a new government.

TB, your constitutional reasoning is all fine and good but you fail to understand why the NDP and the Liberals (and the Bloc for that matter) are separate parties.

Many people who vote Liberal do not want to see Jack Layton or the NDP in cabinet. If they thought that a Liberal government would form a coalition with the NDP (or the Bloc) after an election, they would not vote Liberal in the first place.

Dion's little press conference in December 2008 is going to haunt the Liberals for some time.

Edited March 23, 2011 by August1991