babble is rabble.ca's discussion board but it's much more than that: it's an online community for folks who just won't shut up. It's a place to tell each other — and the world — what's up with our work and campaigns.
Why does there have to be an election if the government falls?
May 14, 2005 - 12:22am
If seems to me if Mr. Harper and the Bloc can form a majority coalition to defeat the Liberals, they can also form a governing coalition. It would be narrown, but as one Nova Scotia Premier said upon his narrow reelection some years ago "a majority is a majority is a majority", or in this case, a majority coalition is a majority coalition...
Mr Harper should welcome this opportunity rather than risking the unknown in an election. He should have an agenda filled with government reform measures ready that would make his party more popular.
He would likely get the support of Chuck Cadman, David Kilgour and possibly even several wayward Liberals like Pat O'Brien. If he left Liberal Peter Miliken in as speaker, he would easily command a majority coalition of at least a half dozen seats.
So, if Mr. Harper has an agenda ready, he doesn't need an election to implement it and if he doesn't have an agenda, he has no business pushing an election on the country.
The government did not change right away after the May 2 election, because Bob Rae did not give David Peterson a blank cheque. Indeed the NDP negotiated with both parties. On May 17 the new Conservative cabinet was sworn in. By May 28 negotiations had progressed to the point of a detailed four-page accord with the Liberals titled An Agenda For Reform.
Still, the PC government continued as a minority government for 10 sitting days until on June 18, 1985 the legislature voted non-confidence. On June 4 the Conservative government opened the House with the usual Speech from the Throne. By the time David Peterson and Bob Rae spoke in the House June 7 the Accord was about to be implemented.
On June 18 Bob Nixon described the process:
On June 26 Peterson was sworn in.
The process had its critics. As Mike Breaugh said on July 4, 1985:
On May 5, 1987, Bob Rae gave an interesting review of the Accord, including reading part of it into the record.
He can't formally work with the separatists because the're sepratists.
I'm not sure how the math works out with an Conservative-NDP coalition, but the only thing they have in common is the general goal of democratic reform (but not the exact reforms themselves). However, I think I remember Jack Layton during the last election saying that he would support a government for a written agreement on Proportional Representation, which the Cons have said they would 'review', and yes I realize that is lip-service.
It would be good if parliamentary reform passed.
[ 14 May 2005: Message edited by: eldeno ]
I think Harpers concern is that the prospects of forming a stable coalition (or any at all) is slim. The Bloc have said that they wouldn't form any coalition government with anyone. The NDP don't have enough seats to make a difference by themselves, and there is alot of bad blood between the Libs and Cons (I don't think they can be trusted to work in good faith, they'd set up Harper to take him down if Martin resigned with no election). If he has an ambitious agenda, he's not going to want to govern on an issue by issue basis sort of forming adhoc coalitions depending on the circumstance.
I'm with eldeno on the reform aspect. One big diappointment was the lack of permanent reform measures brought in to ensure greater accountability of the gov't by the house of commons. I got hopeful last year when the three opposition leaders announced their intention to push reform, but, to my understanding, the current reforms deal only with house procedure and standing orders which can be changed at whim by a new government with a majority. It would have been good to have the three leaders make clear that they wanted lasting democratic reform and would be prepared too form a dedicated coalition for the issue if the Liberals refused to play ball. It wouldn't have been easy for sure as I got the impression the media would probably backed the Liberals, but most people would gave been appreciative.
Harper wants the Liberals to fall because they are corrupt not because they have a different agenda or budget. If the Conservatives work with the Liberals they will re-establish their credibility.
Do you really believe that? Harper wants to bring down the Liberals and wants an election because he knows right now is his best chance to win an election. Harper wants power. Fortunately, Canadians don't want Harper.
Assuming the Conservatives don't win any seats in Quebec (they might win 1 or 2), he would need 155 out of the remaining 233 seats.
So, if the Bloc aren't going to form a government with anybody, and Harper can't win a majority, what is the point of bringing down the government?
As Mike Breaugh said on July 4, 1985:
And that was after the right wing candidate had won the Ontario PC leadership.
What might Harper do, if pushed?
Typically after such an election the smart monarch picks someone who has the majority of MPs supporting him or her for PM. The easiest way to do that is to pick the leader of the party with the majority of seats as PM. No one having a majority of seats, you can often get away with picking the leader of the party with a plurality of seats.
Harper, being the current PM and the leader of the party with the plurality of seats, has good claim to continue as PM until demonstrated he does not have the confidence of the majority of MPs. Fpr example if there was a budget vote of vote of non confidence we would look to an eletcion or a replacement.
There also could be the 1985 Ontario Accord scenario Wilf describes well. Presumbaly if the Majority of MPs in the House, Liberals, Conservatives, NDP, Bloc, independent whatever publicly supported one candidate Jack, Stephane, Rona Anbrosee) he or she could be PM, The other alternative would be a third general election in 3 years. the last called after Harper claimed he needed a mandate to govern. Constitutionally there could be a good case to replace Harper by another person without going though an election.
.
[ 04 November 2008: Message edited by: peterjcassidy ]
Notionally, the GG could call on any person (doesn't even need to be an MP or Senator) to form a government.
However, if she would need to have some confidence that her PM designate would have a snowball's chance of actually winning a confidence motion.
There is no way at all that anyone besides the Conservatives could possibly win a confidence motion in the present circumstances, and anyone wh says otherwise is either drunk, stoned, delusional or simply not paying attention.
The circumstances would then change. The Cons can lose a confidence vote without triggering an election (which no party wants), but Dion (the presumed Prime Minister) could not. That cranks up the pressure on the Libs, NDP, and Bloc.
The current expectation is that the Liberals will blink, especially since leadership hopefuls will not want Dion to spend any time as Prime Minister.
It's not a bet the smart money would take straight up, but the odds are much shorter than Malcolm claims.
Yes, it is constitutionally possible. It is also constitutionally possible that the GG will call on me to form a government.
Frankly, I think the odds of those two things are about equal.
For the GG to call on ANYONE else to form a government, she would need to be convinced that there is a reasonable chance of success. Barring a signed agreement among three opposition leaders who merrily loathe each other, and whose supporters merrily loathe each other, the GG would acceded to the PM's advice to dissolve Parliament.
The chances of Dion, Layton and Duceppe being able to come to a signed agreement is slightly less that two-thirds of four-fifths of fuck all - about the same as Michaelle Jean phoning me out of the blue to designate me as Prime Minister.
With the seat count as it is, I think it's more likely that Harper will find 10 disgruntled Liberal and/or Bloc backbenchers willing to be to the Conservatives as Joe Lieberman is to the Democrats - they'd vote with the Conservatives on most major issues, oppose them on some things that aren't matters of confidence, not endorse Stephen Harper for prime minister in the next election, and might even be invited to caucus meetings despite their lack of loyalty to the governing party.
Remember. Heck I have even visited the commerative statue of Meighan in St Mary's
The parties may well loath each other, but I think they fear an election more, or more accurately, they fear being blamed for an election more.
For the next 6 months to a year (the King-Byng window) a loss of confidence for Harper will at least have the GG asking Dion if he thinks he can hold the confidence of the house.
There will be HUGE pressure on all 3 parties to make that hold up.
The open question is what happens in the game of chicken over the throne speech.
Dion says his MPs no longer have the stomach for abstaining from, or not showing up for, confidence votes.
For some of the reasons that jrootham mentioned, as well for the Liberals this would mean that the leader they choose, gets to be PM, before another election occurs. Thus they could benefit from the optics.
The NDP and Bloc could wring out several new policies and have them enshrined and actioned before an election, to go to the electorate with at an election time.
Moreover, from Dions bold words I feel that he may have perhaps already spoken with Layton and Duceppe.
I don't. It would be political suicide in the ROC for the Liberals or NDP to get in bed with the Bloc, and they have to know that.
Why would it be political suicide, and why would they have to get in bed with them, whatever that actually means?
Honestly, does Stephane Dion think he has any credibility left when the NDP has relentlessly brought up the way he and his gang of idiots basically milquetoasted their way through Opposition since 2006?
That's why he has to follow through. Once you have blown your credibility the only way to get it back is to change your behaviour.
Not the Speaker but the GG and the GG is not required by convention to ask someone else to form the government but has that option if the defeat occurs very early in the new parliamentary term. I think that would be more likely if, when defeating the government, the opposition leaders explicitly say that the opposition is prepared to support a government formed by party x.
Figuring out a way for Dion to become PM is a nice theoretical exercise but there's no way Ignatieff or Rae supporters in the Liberal caucus are going to permit it to actually happen.
[ 07 November 2008: Message edited by: aka Mycroft ]
I'm not saying you are wrong but I think there is a certain amount of consciousness amongst Liberals that the abstaining strategy was partly responsible for their dismal performance in the election, so for leadership contenders to rig a vote by having their supporters abstain could backfire when it comes to winning over delegates at the convention.