Will the Harper Government Survive This Week?

Molly · March 23, 2011

Amen.

It also buffaloes me to see folks rave about the brilliance- the 'consummate tactician' yada yada. I don't see it. I see hubris-- as you say, pointless pissing contests.

Nor do I see any rational equation between Manning Reform and and Harper/MacKay (Baird/Flaherty/Kenney) CPC. (So shots about foaming Alberta reformers seem like points missed to me.) Reform all but worshipped process. It was a nerdy wonk party through and through. Reform would have been incapable of committing 'Contempt of Parliament', but for the CPC, it's standard proceedure.

(Thread drift paragraph, I know. Sorry.)

Jack Weber · March 23, 2011

Amen.

It also buffaloes me to see folks rave about the brilliance- the 'consummate tactician' yada yada. I don't see it. I see hubris-- as you say, pointless pissing contests.

Nor do I see any rational equation between Manning Reform and and Harper/MacKay (Baird/Flaherty/Kenney) CPC. (So shots about foaming Alberta reformers seem like points missed to me.) Reform all but worshipped process. It was a nerdy wonk party through and through. Reform would have been incapable of committing 'Contempt of Parliament', but for the CPC, it's standard proceedure.

(Thread drift paragraph, I know. Sorry.)

Well I have one theory on this...

Most of the key portfolio's in Harpers cbinet are no longer quintessential "Reformers"...

Mr.Baird,Mr.Clement,and,Mr.Flaherty are right out of the Harris Tory mold here in Ontario...They were all cabinet ministers in Harris' cabinet at Queens Park...

They were ideological bullies then and they have'nt changed.And they fit in perfectly with Martin's assertion of Mr.Harper...

g_bambino · 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.

If there was another minority parliament with the Conservatives continuing to form the government, the first chance the opposition would have to vote non-confidence in the Cabinet would be the Throne Speech. Harper couldn't avoid that with a prorogation because parliament, before it can be prorogued, has to be summoned and opened by the governor general, and that doesn't happen without a Thone Speech. If the opposition did refuse to approve of the Throne Speech, then Harper would have to go to the Governor General and tender his resignation. However, Johnston wouldn't necessarily have to call another election; if the House of Commons was able to put its confidence behind another individual as prime minister, then, given that an election had only been held a couple of weeks prior, the Governor General would likely ask that person to form a government. If not, then it would be back to the polls.

ToadBrother · March 23, 2011

If there was another minority parliament with the Conservatives continuing to form the government, the first chance the opposition would have to vote non-confidence in the Cabinet would be the Throne Speech. Harper couldn't avoid that with a prorogation because parliament, before it can be prorogued, has to be summoned and opened by the governor general, and that doesn't happen without a Thone Speech. If the opposition did refuse to approve of the Throne Speech, then Harper would have to go to the Governor General and tender his resignation. However, Johnston wouldn't necessarily have to call another election; if the House of Commons was able to put its confidence behind another individual as prime minister, then, given that an election had only been held a couple of weeks prior, the Governor General would likely ask that person to form a government. If not, then it would be back to the polls.

Good point. I missed that one. And I have a hard time believing that if the the Government was defeated within weeks of the last election that the GG would throw the country back into another election. His primary duty is to assure good governance, and it would be difficult to see how having two elections fought within weeks of each other would produce that.

Scotty · March 23, 2011

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.

A coalition between the Libs and NDP would not produce that degree of resentment. The problem for the opposition is that even together they probably won't have nearly as many seats as the Tories, and certainly not enough for a majority. In effect, they can only govern then with the help of the separatists, and we know that every single vote on every single issue, the separatists would be holding their hands out, smug smile on their faces, demanding more billions for Quebec, and more powers for Quebec to buy their vote.

GWiz · March 23, 2011

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.

Jack Layton alluded to it today as well...

Layton even stating he would make it a part of the campaign and show it around with Harper's signature on it should Harper choose to make the "coalition issue" part of his rhetoric this TIME around...

Owch! Good on you Jack... Show Canada what a Harper-Layton-Duceppe coalition looked like...

Scotty · March 23, 2011

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

An ndp-liberal coalition would not be able to rule without the separatists. Any coalition between them would be horribly unstable.

Harry · March 23, 2011

If there was another minority parliament with the Conservatives continuing to form the government, the first chance the opposition would have to vote non-confidence in the Cabinet would be the Throne Speech. Harper couldn't avoid that with a prorogation because parliament, before it can be prorogued, has to be summoned and opened by the governor general, and that doesn't happen without a Thone Speech. If the opposition did refuse to approve of the Throne Speech, then Harper would have to go to the Governor General and tender his resignation. However, Johnston wouldn't necessarily have to call another election; if the House of Commons was able to put its confidence behind another individual as prime minister, then, given that an election had only been held a couple of weeks prior, the Governor General would likely ask that person to form a government. If not, then it would be back to the polls.

Thanks g_b.

Scotty · March 23, 2011

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.

Imagine if, at the same time, he had to mollify a third party, this one made up of separatists who didn't give a damn about anything to do with the country at all, but just their small corner of it.

Jack Weber · March 23, 2011

Imagine if, at the same time, he had to mollify a third party, this one made up of separatists who didn't give a damn about anything to do with the country at all, but just their small corner of it.

What you seem to be conveniently forgetting,Scotty,is that Mr.Harper was quite prepared to get in bed with those same seperatists in 2004?...

Scotty · 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.

If the opposition votes no confidence right after the Tories have won an election the electorate will be very mightily PO'd at them. And they would then enter into a HIGHLY unstable coalition between socialists, the Liberals under a centre right leaders, and separatists who have no compunction about blackmailing people for votes. Such a coalitionist would be very unlikely to last very long, and when it collapsed the electorate would probably hammer all parties involved. So it would be EXTREMELY risky for them all.

Scotty · March 23, 2011

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"!!!!

It's quite smart strategy, actually. They will use that suggestion repeatedly, forcing Ignatief to promise flat out without any ifs, ands or buts, that there will be no coalition. That way, if the House comes out pretty much as it is now the electorate would be doubly furious if Ignatief forms a coalition, esp with the inclusion of separatists.

Harry · March 23, 2011

An ndp-liberal coalition would not be able to rule without the separatists. Any coalition between them would be horribly unstable.

Hearing all this negative talk from Harper about an agreement/arrangement/coalition amongst the opposition parties, does anyone have some good sources to research the deal Harper tried to strike with the Bloc in 2005? Duceppe alluded to it yesterday saying that Harper had cut a deal with the Bloc, which included a letter signed by Harper, in a failed attempt to bring the Paul Martin government down. It seems quite bizarre that Harper would be even mentioning that the opposition were considering forming an arrangement or coalition, when Harper himself basically tried to do the same thing himself with the Bloc in 2005. After all imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, isn't it?

Scotty · March 23, 2011

What you seem to be conveniently forgetting,Scotty,is that Mr.Harper was quite prepared to get in bed with those same seperatists in 2004?...

I think the times were somewhat different then. There was a sense that the Alliance was very strongly in favour of provincial rights, and so would be be able to find some natural accommodation with the BQ desire for more provincial power for Quebec without selling their souls. Also the Tories were a known quantity in government.

But the Liberals hate the BQ and always have. Likewise, the notion of "socialists' in power today is hard for a lot of people, even Liberals, to stomach. Add in separatists with the socialists, and a bad taste develops in most people's mouths. Quebec's desire for recognition etc. has already been satisfied and most people think the demands the BQ make now are simply out and out greed.

Edited March 23, 2011 by Scotty

Scotty · March 23, 2011

Hearing all this negative talk from Harper about an agreement/arrangement/coalition amongst the opposition parties, does anyone have some good sources to research the deal Harper tried to strike with the Bloc in 2005? Duceppe alluded to it yesterday saying that Harper had cut a deal with the Bloc, which included a letter signed by Harper, in a failed attempt to bring the Paul Martin government down.

It's hard to find anything given the amount of coalition stuff which concerns the three amigos, and today. But I did find this, by an individual, not an organization, appears to be a tory blogger.

The letter you reference was written on Sept. 9, 2004, two months after the June 28 election, in which the Liberals’ majority was reduced to 135 seats, a loss of 37 seats.

The letter simply pointed out to the GG an alternative to another election: an alliance or agreement among the opposition to govern, should Paul Martin ask for dissolution. The opposition agreed to work together on a case-by-case basis on different pieces of legislation. It was essentially a move to avoid another election.

However:

• There was NO mention of forming a coalition.

• The 3 opposition leaders did NOT dictate to the GG what her options were.

• The Bloc did NOT formally agree in a signed document to vote with the other two parties for a specified length of time.

• The Bloc did NOT effectively receive a veto power by virtue of that general unspecific 2004 agreement, whereas in 2008 it did.

• And most importantly, there were NO Cabinet seats assigned to the NDP as a result of that 2004 letter, nor the possibility of the Green Party leader being given a senate seat, as it was in 2008.

The true definition of a coalition: (usually) two parties which, when combined, hold the majority of seats AND share the cabinet table. That was definitely not the plan in 2004, whereas it was in 2008.

Without Bloc votes, the Liberals and NDP combined did not constitute a majority in 2008.

Nor did the Conservatives together with the NDP in 2004 have a majority to govern without Bloc support. The difference, though, is that in 2004, it was a case-by-case agreement, not a specific legislative agenda, as in 2008.

Harry · March 23, 2011

I think the times were somewhat different then.

Of course things were different then.

Canada's Tea Partiers are the government now, and back in 2005 Harper was in opposition, doing basically what the current opposition has been exploring. After all Canada's Tea Partiers received less than 38% of the vote, which means the 3 oppositions parties combined received both the majority of the votes and the seats.

Edited March 23, 2011 by Harry

ToadBrother · March 23, 2011

A coalition between the Libs and NDP would not produce that degree of resentment. The problem for the opposition is that even together they probably won't have nearly as many seats as the Tories, and certainly not enough for a majority. In effect, they can only govern then with the help of the separatists, and we know that every single vote on every single issue, the separatists would be holding their hands out, smug smile on their faces, demanding more billions for Quebec, and more powers for Quebec to buy their vote.

Which is different than now in what particular way?

ToadBrother · March 23, 2011

Imagine if, at the same time, he had to mollify a third party, this one made up of separatists who didn't give a damn about anything to do with the country at all, but just their small corner of it.

Gordon Brown certainly was considering it. One of the scenarios after the election last year was Labour forming a coalition with LibDems, SNP (a Scottish nationalist party with an express desire to pull Scotland out of the Union), Plaid Cymru (a Welsh nationalist party with an express desire to pull Wales out of the Union), and other assorted parties. The reason the idea was eventually deep-sixed wasn't because the SNP or Plaid Cymru were separatist parties, but because the number of parties Labour would need to cut deals, even without a formal coalition, was sufficiently large and diverse (I mean, they were talking about Labour cutting deals with UKIP, the British version of the Reform Party) that it became quickly evident Brown could hardly go to the Queen and say "I can form a stable government".

Edited March 23, 2011 by ToadBrother

Scotty · March 23, 2011

Of course things were different then.

Canada's Tea Partiers are the government now, and back in 2005 Harper was in opposition, doing basically what the current opposition has been exploring.

Except they weren't.

And either you don't know anything about the tea party or you don't know anything about the Conservatives. Or perhaps, you don't know anything about either group.

ToadBrother · March 23, 2011

It's hard to find anything given the amount of coalition stuff which concerns the three amigos, and today. But I did find this, by an individual, not an organization, appears to be a tory blogger.

The letter you reference was written on Sept. 9, 2004, two months after the June 28 election, in which the Liberals’ majority was reduced to 135 seats, a loss of 37 seats.

The letter simply pointed out to the GG an alternative to another election: an alliance or agreement among the opposition to govern, should Paul Martin ask for dissolution. The opposition agreed to work together on a case-by-case basis on different pieces of legislation. It was essentially a move to avoid another election.

However:

• There was NO mention of forming a coalition.

• The 3 opposition leaders did NOT dictate to the GG what her options were.

• The Bloc did NOT formally agree in a signed document to vote with the other two parties for a specified length of time.

• The Bloc did NOT effectively receive a veto power by virtue of that general unspecific 2004 agreement, whereas in 2008 it did.

• And most importantly, there were NO Cabinet seats assigned to the NDP as a result of that 2004 letter, nor the possibility of the Green Party leader being given a senate seat, as it was in 2008.

The true definition of a coalition: (usually) two parties which, when combined, hold the majority of seats AND share the cabinet table. That was definitely not the plan in 2004, whereas it was in 2008.

Without Bloc votes, the Liberals and NDP combined did not constitute a majority in 2008.

Nor did the Conservatives together with the NDP in 2004 have a majority to govern without Bloc support. The difference, though, is that in 2004, it was a case-by-case agreement, not a specific legislative agenda, as in 2008.

Your very biased synopsis of the letter is, in fact, shorter than the letter itself:

September 9, 2004

Her Excellency the Right Honourable Adrienne Clarkson,

C.C., C.M.M., C.O.M., C.D.

Governor General

Rideau Hall

1 Sussex Drive

Ottawa, Ontario K1A 0A1

Excellency,

As leaders of the opposition parties, we are well aware that, given the Liberal minority government, you could be asked by the Prime Minister to dissolve the 38th Parliament at any time should the House of Commons fail to support some part of the government's program.

We respectfully point out that the opposition parties, who together constitute a majority in the House, have been in close consultation. We believe that, should a request for dissolution arise this should give you cause, as constitutional practice has determined, to consult the opposition leaders and consider all of your options before exercising your constitutional authority.

Your attention to this matter is appreciated.

Sincerely,

Hon. Stephen Harper, P.C., M.P.

Leader of the Opposition

Leader of the Conservative Party of Canada

Gilles Duceppe, M.P.

Leader of the Bloc Quebecois

Jack Layton, M.P.

Leader of the New Democratic Party

It's a clear request by the leaders of the Opposition to consider a coalition of some kind. Yes, it doesn't go into as much detail as the 2008 plan, but the 2008 plan is clear the descendant of the 2004 letter, and indeed, it's quite conceivable that if the Tories, the NDP and the Bloc had managed their little plan, that we would have ended up with the kind of coalition to which the 2008 Coalition had been planning.

Scotty · March 23, 2011

Which is different than now in what particular way?

For one thing, there wouldn't have been socialists or separatists in the cabinet.

What would the separatists have been demanding back then? More money for Quebec, recognition of its unique status? They've already got that. So what will they want now?

In addition, let's not forget one of the problems people had with the Lib-NDP-BQ coalition was that the putative leader, the Liberal Party leader, was considered to be weak and ineffective. To many people that meant a coalition between the socialists and the separatists, with a wimpy, hand-wringing Liberal PM being smacked around by both of them. I put it to you that people would see the same situation now.

Whatever his faults, no one ever accused Harper of being weak.

Molly · March 23, 2011

Scotty: And either you don't know anything about the tea party or you don'tknow anything about the Conservatives. Or perhaps, you don't know anything about either group.

Nooooo... I think that's just an expressidon of holding no respect for either group.

Edited March 23, 2011 by Molly

BornAlbertan · March 23, 2011

You don't really want a Parliamentary system.

You're right...I don't.

Harry · March 23, 2011

Except they weren't.

And either you don't know anything about the tea party or you don't know anything about the Conservatives. Or perhaps, you don't know anything about either group.

The New Democratic Party are not socialists, they are a social democratic party, and the Bloc are also a legitimate political party democratically elected in Canada, and if you want to call them separatists, then Harper's Party can just as easily be called Canada's Tea Party.

Edited March 23, 2011 by Harry