Federal Election Polls

[Derek 2.0]

Are we talking about the same King-Byng Affair.

Yes.

The King-Byng Affair was ultimately about defining the powers that a GG could exercise during a hung Parliament, including the notion of putting conditions upon even a government that decides to continue governing even after it has lost a plurality.

As to whether a GG is required to drop the writ if a minority government is defeated on a confidence motion, the King-Byng Affair largely says the opposite to what you're saying and does suggest that even seven or eight months after an election, the GG is still within his right to ask another party to form a government.

Well no, it doesn't demonstrate that, quite the opposite, as since then, all Canadian GGs have obliged the request of their respective Prime Ministers......hence why I used it as an example.

[Canada_First]

Ah, I see. You've invented your own private definition of the word "coalition".

You yourself have said they will do just that. So shouldn't they include that as part of the platform.

[Smallc]

Well no, it doesn't demonstrate that, quite the opposite, as since then, all Canadian GGs have obliged the request of their respective Prime Ministers......hence why I used it as an example.

A situation like that has never come up again.

[Smallc]

You yourself have said they will do just that. So shouldn't they include that as part of the platform.

Does he speak for them?

[Canada_First]

Does he speak for them?

Maybe. Who knows.

[ToadBrother]

Yes.

Well no, it doesn't demonstrate that, quite the opposite, as since then, all Canadian GGs have obliged the request of their respective Prime Ministers......hence why I used it as an example.

The conditions surrounding the King-Byng Affair have not arisen again, so again the precedent there doesn't count. If Harper were to choose to continue governing after having lost a plurality, then the conditions would be the same.

Another difference is that King hadn't lost confidence yet, though he believed he was about to. So on that point I don't see the similarity either. If the Tories are defeated at the Throne Speech and the GG judges that another party in the current Parliament can govern, it is within his Reserve Powers to do so.

[Smallc]

If the Tories are defeated at the Throne Speech and the GG judges that another party in the current Parliament can govern, it is within his Reserve Powers to do so.

And given that it's happened in other, very similar systems, it's likely he would allow it.

[ToadBrother]

You yourself have said they will do just that. So shouldn't they include that as part of the platform.

I have said the other two parties could and likely would defeat the Tories on the Throne Speech. That isn't a coalition. You're trying to invoke a private definition for a very well understood and well defined political term to win a debate through semantics. Two or more parties voting the same way on a motion before the House is not a coalition.

[Canada_First]

So a single party with less seats then the Tory can govern all by itself. Must be the new math you kids are learning. Neat.

[Derek 2.0]

A situation like that has never come up again.

Sure, and is why, since the Liberals have renounced a formal coalition with the NDP, the GG would allow the current Prime Minister (or his replacement) the chance to gain confidence in the House, after the Winter break, and why, if defeated in a vote of confidence, would oblige the Prime Minister's request for another election.

[Derek 2.0]

The conditions surrounding the King-Byng Affair have not arisen again, so again the precedent there doesn't count. If Harper were to choose to continue governing after having lost a plurality, then the conditions would be the same.

Another difference is that King hadn't lost confidence yet, though he believed he was about to. So on that point I don't see the similarity either. If the Tories are defeated at the Throne Speech and the GG judges that another party in the current Parliament can govern, it is within his Reserve Powers to do so.

I know the conditions haven't been repeated, nor has a sitting GG refused any Canadian Prime Minister's request since.....

Prime Minister Harper hasn't lost confidence yet either, likewise (as mentioned above) the Liberals have ruled out a formal coalition with the NDP, unless either party had more seats than the Tories, I see no reason, likewise no precedent (since King) for the GG to not grant the Prime Minister's request for another election, which of course are also in his Reserve Powers, and have been followed as convention since King-Byng..........as such, if the Tories received a ~150+ seat minority, I see no reason why they won't govern.........

Inversely, if one of the Liberals or NDP win ~150 seats, I would expect them to form Government..........

[Derek 2.0]

And given that it's happened in other, very similar systems, it's likely he would allow it.

But not in Canada, and not after one party ruled out a formal coalition........refusing a sitting Prime Minister's request, with a plurality of seats, would create yet another Constitutional crisis.....

[Triple M]

Could the Cons survive if Harper steps down and the house doesn't sit until a new leader is elected?

[Derek 2.0]

Could the Cons survive if Harper steps down and the house doesn't sit until a new leader is elected?

Canadians don't elect leaders.......

[Canada_First]

Could the Cons survive if Harper steps down and the house doesn't sit until a new leader is elected?

One thing you'll notice about this forum is that many members get all caught up in the semantics of everything. In other words they're often anal about every little detail of everything. Don't let it bother you.

[ToadBrother]

Sure, and is why, since the Liberals have renounced a formal coalition with the NDP, the GG would allow the current Prime Minister (or his replacement) the chance to gain confidence in the House, after the Winter break, and why, if defeated in a vote of confidence, would oblige the Prime Minister's request for another election.

Which is at odds with what Harper has committed to do.

Winter break doesn't start at the end of October.

And further, a PM who no longer has the confidence of Parliament can no longer advise the GG on the use of prerogatives.

Edited September 15, 2015 by ToadBrother

[ToadBrother]

One thing you'll notice about this forum is that many members get all caught up in the semantics of everything. In other words they're often anal about every little detail of everything. Don't let it bother you.

One thing I'll note about you is that where you're losing an argument, you'll just invent new definitions to try to win. Take the meaning of the word "coalition". To you it means two or more parties voting the same way on a motion

[ToadBrother]

Could the Cons survive if Harper steps down and the house doesn't sit until a new leader is elected?

Theoretically yes. While the PM is the head of government, he is not THE government. That is the cabinet entire.

[ToadBrother]

I know the conditions haven't been repeated, nor has a sitting GG refused any Canadian Prime Minister's request since.....

Prime Minister Harper hasn't lost confidence yet either, likewise (as mentioned above) the Liberals have ruled out a formal coalition with the NDP, unless either party had more seats than the Tories, I see no reason, likewise no precedent (since King) for the GG to not grant the Prime Minister's request for another election, which of course are also in his Reserve Powers, and have been followed as convention since King-Byng..........as such, if the Tories received a ~150+ seat minority, I see no reason why they won't govern.........

Inversely, if one of the Liberals or NDP win ~150 seats, I would expect them to form Government..........

I'm not sure what you're referring to. The King-Byng Affair was about a PM insisting he could govern without a plurality, and the the GG placing the condition on that PM that he must retain confidence for two years, and that the GG would not entertain an attempt to dissolve Parliament before that time. If the Tories gain an actual plurality, then it is a different situation, to be sure.

All of that being said, once a government falls to a vote of non-confidence, the PM is obliged to resign, and his government technically becomes a caretaker government whose power to advise the GG on most things is heavily curtailed, and most certainly no longer exists when it comes to prerogative powers like prorogation and dissolution. The GG at that point is the person who decides whether to dissolve Parliament or to call new elections, and the situation, particularly if another party is very close to the fallen government in seat count, and where that party can state that it will have some surety of retaining confidence for some length of time, the GG might be inclined to allow that party its chance.

If the minority is a large one, say in the 150s, and the other parties are far behind, then I would say the likelihood of a new election is much greater, and that would likely convince the opposition to not bring the government down, particularly as at least one of the opposition parties would be broke, and if it is a Tory minority, then both parties would be broke.

But frankly we are in largely uncharted waters if we end up with a near three-way tie, where only a handful of seats divide the parties. We do know the theoretical powers the GG reserves, and they are considerable.

[Derek 2.0]

Which is at odds with what Harper has committed to do.

Harper clearly stated (in the CBC interview) he felt the party with the most seats should form Government......

Winter break doesn't start at the end of October.

What day does it start?

And further, a PM who no longer has the confidence of Parliament can no longer advise the GG on the use of prerogatives.

Explain the 40th Parliament and resulting prorogation......

[ToadBrother]

Harper clearly stated (in the CBC interview) he felt the party with the most seats should form Government......

What day does it start?

Explain the 40th Parliament and resulting prorogation......

Parliament sat through December 12th last year.

As to the 2008 prorogation, the Government had already retained the confidence of the House in the Speech from the Throne after the election. That's why I don't really consider the "2008 Prorogation Crisis" to actually have been a crisis. A PM who still enjoys the confidence of Parliament has every right to advise the GG to prorogue Parliament. Beyond that, it wasn't even the first time a PM had used prorogation to avoid a confidence motion; Sir John A MacDonald used prorogation to prevent his government's defeat over the Pacific Scandal in 1873.

[Derek 2.0]

As to the 2008 prorogation, the Government had already retained the confidence of the House in the Speech from the Throne after the election. That's why I don't really consider the "2008 Prorogation Crisis" to actually have been a crisis.

Ahhh no, the Speech from the throne was on 19/11/08, the Government's first opposition day wasn't to be until the first of December of 2008......The Liberals/NDP/Bloc made known their plan to bring down the Government.....the GG prorogation was granted on 04/12/08 until late Jan of 2009......

[Smallc]

Ahhh no, the Speech from the throne was on 19/11/08, the Government's first opposition day wasn't to be until the first of December of 2008......The Liberals/NDP/Bloc made known their plan to bring down the Government.....the GG prorogation was granted on 04/12/08 until late Jan of 2009......

The government hadn't lost a confidence vote.

[Derek 2.0]

The government hadn't lost a confidence vote.

I know, and that is my point........thanks though.

[ToadBrother]

Ahhh no, the Speech from the throne was on 19/11/08, the Government's first opposition day wasn't to be until the first of December of 2008......The Liberals/NDP/Bloc made known their plan to bring down the Government.....the GG prorogation was granted on 04/12/08 until late Jan of 2009......

My mistake, and SmallC is right, until a government is defeated they still enjoy the confidence they held from when the writ was dropped.

I know, and that is my point........thanks though.

You can't prorogue Parliament until it sits.