Will the Harper Government Survive This Week?

ToadBrother · March 23, 2011

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...

It's looking like Harper is trying to make the argument that the election is unnecessary, so I'm thinking he's not inclined to ask the GG to dissolve Parliament. Besides, he would be the one scuttling his own budget, not a likely scenario at all.

GWiz · March 23, 2011

It's looking like Harper is trying to make the argument that the election is unnecessary, so I'm thinking he's not inclined to ask the GG to dissolve Parliament. Besides, he would be the one scuttling his own budget, not a likely scenario at all.

Hmmm, the noose or the guillotine scenario, eh...

Hey, it's Harper, the guy that has no respect for Parliament anyway, don't count anything out...

Evening Star · March 23, 2011

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.

They don't even necessarily need to form a coalition. They could just govern with the assent of the third and fourth parties.

Evening Star · March 23, 2011

I dunno, though, do you think Liberal voters would prefer a Conservative government to a Liberal-NDP coalition? Maybe some...

ToadBrother · March 23, 2011

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.

As are the parties in any coalition government. I fail to see how Canada is any different than the UK, Germany, Israel or any other Westminster-style democracy.

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.

Look, I'm not saying the coalition is likely. What sunk it in the end were two significant errors; 1. the strategic error of announcing they had all got together and were going to topple the government while the government still held all the cards and 2. having Stephan Dion as the new Prime Minister, despite the fact that a rather large portion of the Liberal caucus (by some accounts most of the Liberal caucus) wanted him gone, and didn't want what they viewed as a failed leader suddenly propelled into the PM's office.

Frankly I don't think we can prejudge how ultimately party supporters or the Canadian electorate in general would ultimately accept a coalition. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that Iggy pulls a coalition together after the election and the GG asks him to form a government. Will it cause rage and concern the nation over, you bet it will. But to say that somehow a potential coalition is invalid because a lot of people didn't vote for it is no more legitimate a complaint than the one frequently made that a majority of Canadian voters didn't vote for the Tories. If they can pull it together, they deserve as much of a chance to govern as does a Liberal or Tory minority, and, if at the end of it, the electorate is still dissatisfied, well, there's the next election.

madmax · March 23, 2011

The BQ tried to blackmail them.

The CPC wants to give Quebec the $2billion in HST , but just didn't want to admit it to their base. Particularly in the context of the Budget.

So that only left the NDP. They added some stuff in there to make the NDP happy, but clearly not enough.

Still seems a pointless waste of $300 million dollars given all the polls point to pretty much the same thing, another minority conservative government - unless the opposition is willing to form another Gang of Three and try to govern between them.

I am undecided. The Cons May get the Majority and then lord help us all. Let the Kleptomania begin. Or they could lose a handful of seats in the shuffle that normally happens. It may bring them a slice of humble pie, but the CPC remind me of the mouthy kid that never shuts up.

In the meantime, the CPC will be so busy, they won't have time to get involved in another scandal.

ToadBrother · March 23, 2011

They don't even necessarily need to form a coalition. They could just govern with the assent of the third and fourth parties.

I think for the GG to be convinced of that, the Liberals would have to gain the larger portion of the seat count. Since the Tories are the current government, if they manage to keep the same number of seats, or somewhere in that neighborhood, after an election, I can't see how the GG wouldn't ask Stephen Harper to form another government. Other formulations are theoretically possible, but I can't see them being likely. Even the possibility of a coalition of the other parties would be, to my mind, heavily dependent on the Tories losing support, and while anything can happen in an election, I honestly don't see them losing twenty seats or more, which is the kind of precipitous drop in support that would, I think, compel the GG to start looking at other possible formulations to form a government.

madmax · March 23, 2011

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.

Yup, that kind of propaganda worked for Dubya.

Evening Star · March 23, 2011

I think for the GG to be convinced of that, the Liberals would have to gain the larger portion of the seat count. Since the Tories are the current government, if they manage to keep the same number of seats, or somewhere in that neighborhood, after an election, I can't see how the GG wouldn't ask Stephen Harper to form another government. Other formulations are theoretically possible, but I can't see them being likely. Even the possibility of a coalition of the other parties would be, to my mind, heavily dependent on the Tories losing support, and while anything can happen in an election, I honestly don't see them losing twenty seats or more, which is the kind of precipitous drop in support that would, I think, compel the GG to start looking at other possible formulations to form a government.

I was talking about the (highly theoretical at this point) possibility of the Cons winning a minority, trying to pass the same (or a more conservative) budget, and failing once more. At that point, I think it would be reasonable for the GG to ask the Opposition to form a government.

ToadBrother · March 23, 2011

I dunno, though, do you think Liberal voters would prefer a Conservative government to a Liberal-NDP coalition? Maybe some...

I think, judging by the reaction in 2008, that would find probably not a majority, but a significant minority would not be in favor of such a coalition. But that's not necessarily a party killer either. In the UK, there were, and still are, a significant minority of Tories who have never warmed up to the coalition with the LibDems, and, in fact, David Cameron has had to spend no small amount of time trying to mollify this group.

ToadBrother · March 23, 2011

I was talking about the (highly theoretical at this point) possibility of the Cons winning a minority, trying to pass the same (or a more conservative) budget, and failing once more. At that point, I think it would be reasonable for the GG to ask the Opposition to form a government.

Oh absolutely. If we come back from an election and the Tories, even if they retain their current level of support, fail to get a budget passed and fall, I cannot conceive of the Governor General calling another election within a few months of the last one.

Mind you, there is precedent for almost back-to-back elections, too, and in fact another example for the party that did not have the largest bloc of seats forming the government. In the February 1974 UK elections, Harold Wilson's Labour party lost their majority and the party with the largest seat count, Edward Heath's Conservatives, tried to form a coalition (the claim was that poor phone service meant Heath couldn't get calls through), so Harold Wilson was returned as PM despite having, by normal standards, lost the election.

Wilson was only able to hold things together for eight or nine months before his government collapsed and there were a new set of elections in October of 1974.

This is an interesting example because it demonstrates two important Westminster principles:

1. The current Prime Minister has first chance to form a new Government even if his party fails to get a majority, or possibly even his party fails to get the largest number of seats in the House of Commons.

2. There is no rule on the frequency of elections. This a Reserve Power of the Sovereign or the Governor General. The Queen or GG can take into account the proximity of the last election, but it is completely with in their power, and, mind you, no one else's, as to whether it is appropriate to ask someone else to form government or to put the question to the electorate. I think the 1974 elections in the UK put something of a lower limit on frequency, in that if nine months is sufficient time to call a new election, I think for a GG to consider doing the opposite and instead asking someone else to form a government, it would have to be less than the eight or nine months of Wilson's minority Government. But, as I said, that's not a rule, the use of that Reserve Power is entirely up to the Governor General.

Harry · March 23, 2011

If after the next election we have basically the same Parliament, and that is what most pollsters appear to be saying, what would be the very first opportunity for the opposition to vote non-confidence in the government? I don't think the opposition would want to give Harper another opportunity to prorogue again if they could help it.

Oh absolutely. If we come back from an election and the Tories, even if they retain their current level of support, fail to get a budget passed and fall, I cannot conceive of the Governor General calling another election within a few months of the last one.

Mind you, there is precedent for almost back-to-back elections, too, and in fact another example for the party that did not have the largest bloc of seats forming the government. In the February 1974 UK elections, Harold Wilson's Labour party lost their majority and the party with the largest seat count, Edward Heath's Conservatives, tried to form a coalition (the claim was that poor phone service meant Heath couldn't get calls through), so Harold Wilson was returned as PM despite having, by normal standards, lost the election.

Wilson was only able to hold things together for eight or nine months before his government collapsed and there were a new set of elections in October of 1974.

This is an interesting example because it demonstrates two important Westminster principles:

1. The current Prime Minister has first chance to form a new Government even if his party fails to get a majority, or possibly even his party fails to get the largest number of seats in the House of Commons.

2. There is no rule on the frequency of elections. This a Reserve Power of the Sovereign or the Governor General. The Queen or GG can take into account the proximity of the last election, but it is completely with in their power, and, mind you, no one else's, as to whether it is appropriate to ask someone else to form government or to put the question to the electorate. I think the 1974 elections in the UK put something of a lower limit on frequency, in that if nine months is sufficient time to call a new election, I think for a GG to consider doing the opposite and instead asking someone else to form a government, it would have to be less than the eight or nine months of Wilson's minority Government. But, as I said, that's not a rule, the use of that Reserve Power is entirely up to the Governor General.

Edited March 23, 2011 by Harry

Harry · March 23, 2011

I don't understand what the big deal about a coalition is all about, as after all we do have and have had a minority government since 2004. That seems like a given to me. And that's what they have now in the UK. And what about when Harper was in opposition, was it not in 2005 when Harper attempted to form some kind of arrangement/agreement/coalition, call it what you will, with the Bloc to try and oust Paul Martin? Duceppe alluded to it today and even said he has Harper's signature on a letter about it. It was around the time Belinda Stronach crossed the floor.

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.

ToadBrother · March 23, 2011

If after the next election we have basically the same Parliament, and that is what most pollsters appear to be saying, what would be the very first opportunity for the opposition to vote non-confidence in the government? I don't think the opposition would want to give Harper another opportunity to prorogue again if they could help it.

I don't see prorogation is that huge a risk. While the PM could indeed ask the GG to prorogue Parliament, the Government wouldn't have a budget and there is almost no means by which a government can raise revenues on its own. Statutory instruments like Orders-in-council can't be used as a replacement for money bills, so at some point the government is going to run out cash. Other than where legislation allows the Government to collect fees (ie. passports, tidal fishing licenses), the vast bulk of revenue comes from taxes via money bills. In short, the Government would go broke in very short order. Harper could get away with it the last two times because the prorogations lined up reasonably well with normal suspensions of Parliament (ie. Christmas break), but he has little choice after this election but to try to get some sort of budget through.

Edited March 23, 2011 by ToadBrother

Harry · March 23, 2011

Thanks TB.

Isn't basically the first order of business for a new Parliament the throne speech?

Is there a vote on that, and would that be considered a non-confidence vote if it was defeated?

bloodyminded · March 23, 2011

In short, the Government would go broke in very short order. Harper could get away with it the last two times because the prorogations lined up reasonably well with normal suspensions of Parliament (ie. Christmas break), but he has little choice after an election but to try to get some sort of budget through.

!!!

Damn, I completely missed the obvious. Good point!

ToadBrother · March 23, 2011

!!!

Damn, I completely missed the obvious. Good point!

Well, I guess Harper could try to pull a Charles I and raise passport fees and tidal fishing licenses to a million bucks a pop, but somehow I think the fee structures in most of the legislation wouldn't exactly be sufficient to fund Harper's Personal Rule.

bloodyminded · March 23, 2011

Well, I guess Harper could try to pull a Charles I and raise passport fees and tidal fishing licenses to a million bucks a pop, but somehow I think the fee structures in most of the legislation wouldn't exactly be sufficient to fund Harper's Personal Rule.

Stevie Y · March 23, 2011

This cartoon pretty well sums up the coming election.

http://theindependent.ca/2011/03/23/indytoons-harpers-how-to/

capricorn · March 23, 2011

Thank you ToadBrother for your thoughtful and complete response to my earlier post. The only thing I'm sure of right now is that the Liberals will not gain an additional 78 seats over their present 77 seats to win a majority.

ToadBrother · March 23, 2011

Thank you ToadBrother for your thoughtful and complete response to my earlier post. The only thing I'm sure of right now is that the Liberals will not gain an additional 78 seats over their present 77 seats to win a majority.

At the moment, I'm having a hard time believing they'll do more than hang on to what they have... But the lack of eagerness for an election on the part of the Tories and the eagerness that the Opposition has in forcing one suggests to me that maybe these guys knows something we don't...

Jack Weber · March 23, 2011

Thank you ToadBrother for your thoughtful and complete response to my earlier post. The only thing I'm sure of right now is that the Liberals will not gain an additional 78 seats over their present 77 seats to win a majority.

And if they look like they might win 15 to 20 more than they have now (admittedly unlikely at the moment) we will hear constant bleating from the Con's about the "Socialist/Seperatist Coaliton"!!!!

:rolleyes:

Jack Weber · March 23, 2011

At the moment, I'm having a hard time believing they'll do more than hang on to what they have... But the lack of eagerness for an election on the part of the Tories and the eagerness that the Opposition has in forcing one suggests to me that maybe these guys knows something we don't...

I'm thinkin' some of the Tory internal polling over the last week is'nt looking so good in key areas where the voting might be close???

ToadBrother · March 23, 2011

I'm thinkin' some of the Tory internal polling over the last week is'nt looking so good in key areas where the voting might be close???

That's my thought. Overall, the picture looks little different from the fall of 2008, but if they're softening up in some areas, then even if overall the vote projections are close, they could lose ground. I'm not thinking it will be much, mind you, but I think the Tory strategists must now realize that a majority government is likely unachievable, and any ground lost is going to come down square on Harper's head. What's more, it basically means that, if the House votes on Friday that the Government was in contempt (and I have every reason to believe that it will), it means the next Parliament, even if the Tories still hold on to government (and I think they will), they have been castrated by some serious rulings. Even if they come in with the same seat count, the Tories will be effectively weaker than they were before the election.

If I were a Tory MP right now and I was facing the possibility of an even more potent Opposition after May, I'd be pretty pissed off at the Prime Minister and Cabinet for trying to force the issue on these issues of privilege for no other reason than trying to win some pissing match with the Opposition. What Harper and some of his Ministers have done in the last two years, particular around the Afghan detainee issue, the F-35 price tag and the crime initiative costs has just been wildly irresponsible and ridiculously provocative. It falsifies this notion that the PMO has been operating under for the last two years that it can act like it has a majority. I just don't understand why they did it, and it suggests that as clever as Harper is, he has this habit of sticking his foot too far over line too much and without due caution and forethought and with little consideration for how it effects his ability to govern.

Edited March 23, 2011 by ToadBrother

Jack Weber · March 23, 2011

That's my thought. Overall, the picture looks little different from the fall of 2008, but if they're softening up in some areas, then even if overall the vote projections are close, they could lose ground. I'm not thinking it will be much, mind you, but I think the Tory strategists must now realize that a majority government is likely unachievable, and any ground lost is going to come down square on Harper's head. What's more, it basically means that, if the House votes on Friday that the Government was in contempt (and I have every reason to believe that it will), it means the next Parliament, even if the Tories still hold on to government (and I think they will), they have been castrated by some serious rulings. Even if they come in with the same seat count, the Tories will be effectively weaker than they were before the election.

If I were a Tory MP right now and I was facing the possibility of an even more potent Opposition after May, I'd be pretty pissed off at the Prime Minister and Cabinet for trying to force the issue on these issues of privilege for no other reason than trying to win some pissing match with the Opposition. What Harper and some of his Ministers have done in the last two years, particular around the Afghan detainee issue, the F-35 price tag and the crime initiative costs has just been wildly irresponsible and ridiculously provocative. It falsifies this notion that the PMO has been operating under for the last two years that it can act like it has a majority. I just don't understand why they did it, and it suggests that as clever as Harper is, he has this habit of sticking his foot too far over line too much and without due caution and forethought and with little consideration for how it effects his ability to govern.

In Lawrence Martin's book "Harperland" he intimates that the reason that Harper gets himself in trouble like this is because he is so completely driven by ideology.And this seems to override his "tactical genius"...

I would also say that if Harper comes back after an election,with a lesser minority and an invigorated procedural apparatus in the House,his leadership is going to be in huge question...