V
Knowledge on dynamics of who governs when there is no majority after an election
Tue, 2010-09-14 11:12
#1
Knowledge on dynamics of who governs when there is no majority after an election
Tue, 2010-09-14 11:51
#2
And they all go on parroting froth like this even though they know full way that in the present circumstances- which is what we are talking about- that it is at least very likely that no matter how many seats the Conservatives end up ahead of the Liberals, that Harper will not be able to form, or form and keep beyond the Throne Speech, another minority government.
Tue, 2010-09-14 14:23
#3
Oh and I should clarify that I agree with Ken that it is extremely unlikely that Harper can form another government. practically speaking he would need the support of the Liberals following an election and likely they would either refuse or at least demand that Harper be gone.
But don't put too much money on trusting the Liberals. I wouldn't wager a whole cent on that.
Tue, 2010-09-14 14:25
#4
Cueball
RCMP identify coup d'etat as threat
RCMP officials have identified a new threat to national security: a coup d'etat.The reference to a violent overthrow of the federal government is contained in the RCMP's plans and priorities report to government for 2010-11. It lists national security as one of five operational priorities for the year.
Tue, 2010-09-14 14:29
#5
Just to correct an inaccuracy: even a majority does not legally guarantee the first kick at the can.
Under the law the pre-election governing party can meet the house if they choose -- period. The reason that does not happen in a situation where another party has won a majority is it is practically a pointless exercise and so they resign but there is nothing that forces them to do so prior to a House vote. Say for example, a party wins a majority but there is a scandal and a revelation on election day causing a division in their ranks and they won a bare majority. It is possible the old government could try to hang if they thought they could entice members to cross the floor. Or if election results could be disputed the pre-election government not the presumed new one has the initiative. Obviously, that would be a historic circumstance that has never happened in Canada but there is nothing automatic about a change in government--the government must either resign or lose a vote in the house to be removed. Normally "hanging on to power" in a fruitless exercise would be too costly politically so nobody does it.
Secondly, as others have pointed out there is no requirement to have a certain number of seats to form a government -- not absolute or relative to other parties. The requirement is to convince the GG that you have a chance at surviving a confidence vote. In theory, a small party could, for a reason of leadership, for example, have a better chance than any of the bigger parties, although, again that is unlikely.
Practically speaking the most likely division will be between the two biggest parties in the post election House and which one can obtain the support of enough smaller parties to avoid non-confidence.
This raises another point-- you don't need a majority even (except as a question of practicality). It would be enough, for example for a number of MPs to decline to show up. If, after the election either the previous government or after a resignation an opposition party, having convinced the GG to get the opportunity meet the House and have only a minority of members vote confidence, it is not lost if fewer members vote no-confidence. In other words if Harper met the House after the next election and the Liberals mostly abstained, he could govern without having obtained the actual confidence of a majority of the House. Confidence is only the majority of the House who vote on a given day.
So, while convention and practicality create expectations the law is simple and can allow the unusual if the circumstances warrant.
The bottom line for most is that the party that can survive a confidence vote can govern and one that cannot survive such a vote will be defeated. And that is what everything else rests on.
In the current dynamic there are a pile of assumptions everyone is making-- all of them dangerous: that any of the current party leaders would be involved is the first false assumption and the most important to get out of the way. On election night if there is no majority, any or all of the party leaders could resign especially if they were widely seen as an impediment to the jockeying for the House. Some might resign just because they did not like the configuration of the House. As soon as that happens all the existing rules except the one I mentioned above -- someone has to meet the House and not lose a vote. So Harper's assumption that it is him against the others is false from the get go-- it might be a discussion between Jim Prentice and Gooddale with neither Ignatieff or Harper at the table. The NDP could find that it does not have the balance of power after all and the Liberals and Cons govern together. Unlikely, perhaps, but with new interim leaders, not impossible. The role of the BQ even could be as unpredictable as the others.
Certainly, Harper's style is a problem for him as it is unlikely that he can get confidence.
There is also a nightmare scenario. There is nothing saying that any party can obtain confidence. Let us consider a scenario where both the Liberals and the Conservatives fought an election exposing each other damaging each other in Quebec sufficiently where the BQ could not vote confidence in either party and actually stood to vote with the other one no-confidence-- defeating both bigger parties. It is possible at least in theory that no party could obtain confidence. The NDP could try to have a go but it would also likely fail as it would be working with one of the untouchable larger parties. Then there would be no choice but a so-called Constitutional crisis (I say so-called because most of what we call a Constitutional Crisis is when the Constitution is simply requiring a process that is complicated or unusual but not without direction). In reality by Constitutional crisis we are speaking of a new election to break the stalemate.
Anyhow, hopefully this at least opens the door to the consideration of more possibilities than most people are aware following an election.
Tue, 2010-09-14 14:36
#6
RCMP identify coup d'etat as threat
RCMP officials have identified a new threat to national security: a coup d'etat.The reference to a violent overthrow of the federal government is contained in the RCMP's plans and priorities report to government for 2010-11. It lists national security as one of five operational priorities for the year.
The actual reference is "activities aimed at the overthrow of the Canadian government."
The media wanted a story and so we have one but the point is much simpler. Activities aimed at the overthrow of the government may be entirely hopeless and of negligible threat but they still need to be responded to and that is in the realm of the RCMP mandate. Any crackpot who wants to overthrow the government may have no chance but it is the RCMP's job to deal with that person.
Anyway, I am not sure why that is relevant to this thread unless one could contemplate the actual possibility that the Canadian government could be overthrown through violence.
In the long term -- anything can happen big empires fail and we are not special. However for now, the prospect is laughable as soon as you set aside the fact that the RCMP still have to manage such threats even if they are doomed to failure.
Tue, 2010-09-14 14:40
#7
even a majority does not legally guarantee the first kick at the can. Under the law the pre-election governing party can meet the house if they choose -- period. The reason that does not happen in a situation where another party has won a majority is it is practically a pointless exercise and so they resign but there is nothing that forces them to do so prior to a House vote. Say for example, a party wins a majority but there is a scandal and a revelation on election day causing a division in their ranks and they won a bare majority. It is possible the old government could try to hang if they thought they could entice members to cross the floor. Or if election results could be disputed the pre-election government not the presumed new one has the initiative. Obviously, that would be a historic circumstance that has never happened in Canada but there is nothing automatic about a change in government--the government must either resign or lose a vote in the house to be removed. Politically "hanging on to power" in a fruitless exercise would be too costly politically so nobody does it.
And if they did, they would trigger the Governor-General's reserve power.
The notable federal precedent occurred in 1896 when Lord Aberdeen refused to make some appointments to the bench and to the Senate after Sir Charles Tupper was clearly defeated in a general election of that day. . . In the Aberdeen - Tupper incident, Lord Aberdeen had to make a report to the British government on his actions, and this was supported at the time by the Colonial Secretary.
THE CONSERVATIVES went down to defeat in the June 23, 1896 federal election.Governor General Aberdeen was in Quebec City on election day. He arrived in the nation's capital on July 2. Tupper met with him immediately, ostensibly to discuss the transition of power.
But in the PM's pocket was a list of some 92 appointments. Tupper also handed Aberdeen a long legal opinion arguing his right to make the appointments.
On July 6th, Tupper received his reply.
Aberdeen approved of 66 but he would not sign for 26 others, including judgeships or Senate seats.
Tupper was furious.
Two of the negated nominations were former Conservative senators Auguste-Real Angers and Alphonse Desjardins. Both had resigned their Senate seats to try and gain election to the Commons in Quebec. Both had been defeated by Liberal candidates.
An intense but secret battle raged between the two highest public officers of Canada.
Finally, on July 8, Tupper abdicated and the Governor General immediately sent for the member for Quebec East, Wilfrid Laurier.
Tue, 2010-09-14 14:46
#8
Cueball
RCMP identify coup d'etat as threat
RCMP officials have identified a new threat to national security: a coup d'etat.The reference to a violent overthrow of the federal government is contained in the RCMP's plans and priorities report to government for 2010-11. It lists national security as one of five operational priorities for the year.
The actual reference is "activities aimed at the overthrow of the Canadian government."
The media wanted a story and so we have one but the point is much simpler. Activities aimed at the overthrow of the government may be entirely hopeless and of negligible threat but they still need to be responded to and that is in the realm of the RCMP mandate. Any crackpot who wants to overthrow the government may have no chance but it is the RCMP's job to deal with that person.
Anyway, I am not sure why that is relevant to this thread unless one could contemplate the actual possibility that the Canadian government could be overthrown through violence.
In the long term -- anything can happen big empires fail and we are not special. However for now, the prospect is laughable as soon as you set aside the fact that the RCMP still have to manage such threats even if they are doomed to failure.
Right. But you are failing to connect the dots here Sean. You are still living in the world where rights and public order are protected by the constitution and the charter. You are naive to believe that the next election is going to go off as previous elections. Indeed, the threat of a "coalition" was deemed to be a coup attempt by the sitting prime minister, and he in turned couped the rule of parliament by proroguing Parliament, until such a time as someone more amendable could be installed as leader of the Liberal party.
It is almost a truism, that those who perpetrate "coups" normally attest that the measures they apply are intended to forestall a coup. This is doublethink 101.
The fact that the RCMP is talking about forestalling a "coup" is serious cause for concern, because you and I know that no such threat really exists, except in the rhetoric of Stephen Harper.
Tue, 2010-09-14 14:59
#9
The detail, started by Sean, is fine. But if you are going to preface any statement about who forms government with every last formal possibility, then you never have anything that at least a political reporter can be expected to be aware of and express.
So I stand by my points uncorrected about the basicss people can be expected to know. Not that I expect Sean would disagree.
That said, discussing the possibilities is good for all of us. And I figured it would turn to that, away from the more basic point I opened with.
Tue, 2010-09-14 15:01
#10
RCMP identify coup d'etat as threat
RCMP officials have identified a new threat to national security: a coup d'etat.The reference to a violent overthrow of the federal government is contained in the RCMP's plans and priorities report to government for 2010-11. It lists national security as one of five operational priorities for the year.
The actual reference is "activities aimed at the overthrow of the Canadian government."
The media wanted a story and so we have one but the point is much simpler. Activities aimed at the overthrow of the government may be entirely hopeless and of negligible threat but they still need to be responded to and that is in the realm of the RCMP mandate. Any crackpot who wants to overthrow the government may have no chance but it is the RCMP's job to deal with that person.
Anyway, I am not sure why that is relevant to this thread unless one could contemplate the actual possibility that the Canadian government could be overthrown through violence.
In the long term -- anything can happen big empires fail and we are not special. However for now, the prospect is laughable as soon as you set aside the fact that the RCMP still have to manage such threats even if they are doomed to failure.
Right. But you are failing to connect the dots here Sean. You are still living in the world where rights and public order are protected by the constitution and the charter. You are naive to believe that the next election is going to go off as previous elections. Indeed, the threat of a "coalition" was deemed to be a coup attempt by the sitting prime minister, and he in turned couped the rule of parliament by proroguing Parliament, until such a time as someone more amendable could be installed as leader of the Liberal party.
It is almost a truism, that those who perpetrate "coups" normally attest that the measures they apply are intended to forestall a coup. This is doublethink 101.
The fact that the RCMP is talking about forestalling a "coup" is serious cause for concern, because you and I know that no such threat really exists, except in the rhetoric of Stephen Harper.
Having watched media stories for enough years, I can't agree with this. I think it is over-thinking to connect Harper's rhetoric to the idea of violent overthrow of the government except perhaps by the limiting of the definition of coup to be violent (perhaps to preserve the PM's rhetoric without interference since the PM is not talking about a violent coup.
I think the media is making a mountain out of this and the article is inconsistent-- at one point even saying that this may be just a return to the previous general role of the RCMP.
I see no grand conspiracy where this is somehow related to Harper imagining using the RCMP to counter the opposition in a coalition threat which is the apparent connection you seem to be making.
Much more likely this is the RCMP recognizing that small groups or individuals can presume to overthrow the government and need to be responded to even if their prospects for success are hopeless. There is nothing connecting political maneuvering following a close election to the description of a response to a "violent overthrow of the Canadian government" not even in the wildest imaginings of the RCMP.
But a guy who might want to plan a bomb under the parliament assuming that he might then be able to attract people to his new brand of government would.
Tue, 2010-09-14 15:34
#11
And they all go on parroting froth like this even though they know full way that in the present circumstances- which is what we are talking about- that it is at least very likely that no matter how many seats the Conservatives end up ahead of the Liberals, that Harper will not be able to form, or form and keep beyond the Throne Speech, another minority government.
Ipsos-Reid is a pro-Conservative polling firm, so they naturally aren't going to point out the vulnerable situation the Cons will be in after the next election if they don't win a majority.
Tue, 2010-09-14 15:40
#12
Cueball
Ok. Well, "Don't worry be Happy!
Those new prisons are all for common criminals, and all that hardware they bought for the G20 is all for combating "terrorism".
Tue, 2010-09-14 15:55
#13
Ok. Well, "Don't worry be Happy!
Those new prisons are all for common criminals, and all that hardware they bought for the G20 is all for combating "terrorism".
There is a huge gulf between happiness with all the above and an assumption that the opposition following an election will be handled by the RCMP under the heading of violent overthrow of the government. No need to paint yourself or me in to a corner on this.
I think the point you raise is valid and important in terms of a lack of trust in security services, their motives and the government's, however, it is also completely unrelated to Harper's discussions about the opposition staging a coup unless you think the government is going to create a grand conspiracy where they plant weapons of mass destruction in the opposition offices... and jail sitting MPs.
I am trying to acknowledge your points where valid but at the same time it looks like it ought to have been a new thread-- or perhaps associated with the G20 etc. -- it certainly is not connected to who gets to take a crack at confidence in the parliament after an election -- it is either a drift or indulging in grand conspiracy that is beyond even Harper-- not because he would not do it if he needed to and thought he could get away with it but because he does not need to and he could not get away with it. You may as well suggest that the prisons were to put the elected opposition members in.
So yeah, you have a point -- why damage it up by trying to make it here? Why create the straw man suggesting that if I did not think that the coup comment from the RCMP was relevant to parliamentary jockeying after an election, that this meant I was in favour of the police actions around the G20 and the building of jails and even the police state like things the government is actually doing?
Tue, 2010-09-14 15:57
#14
It isnt just Ipsos-Reid, all sorts of media people make pronouncements as if most seats gets to govern, and thats all there is to it.
Tue, 2010-09-14 16:00
#15
In other words, we're talking Political Literacy 101. Where of course even 101 gets fairly complicated and most people only once knew a fraction of it, let alone what they remember still. But then there are aspects that are very basic.
From an article in prominent circulation today. But like ones we see every week.
"As a result, although the Tories are slightly ahead nationally, Ipsos-Reid says it is a 'close' call on whether the Conservatives would form the next government."
In the first place, and at the most basic level: unless there is a majority, the election itself does not determine who will govern.
Period.
Full stop.
And that really is an essential fact, on which ALL further analysis must be built.
I doubt that very much more than random chance 50% could correctly answer a True/False question on that. But "political reporters"? And most of them say things like this.
It doesnt matter a bit that they may, probably even, know better; but are speaking in shorthand and talking down to the presumed 'wishes' of the audience.
And then it goes on after that simple indisputable fact already noted.
Next: that unless there is a majority, the existing government is still the government until either they resign are defeated in the House [which already means they will have continued to govern, with the formation of a new Cabinet, tabling a new Throne Speech, etc.]
And strictly speaking it doesnt matter if the party with the highest seat count has 50 more seats than them and they ha no coalition partner or other form of governing agreement with another party(s). Holding onto government under such conditions is rare. But it is the prerogative of the sitting government when there is no majority, no matter the result of the election.
Conversely, and this is where the further illiteracy in the article comes in. The article treats it as automatic that if the Conservatives get the most seats they will have a new minority government.
It is NOT automatic. And again, that is always axiomatic. And not only in the absolute sense- but it is ALWAYS very much contingenet whether or not it will be the party with the most seats that governs.... even if they are already government and have dozens more seats than the next highest party.
Tue, 2010-09-14 16:02
#16
However, since Cueball is bringing this in to this thread there is a connection that can be made and it is not across the RCMP's response to coup attempts.
There is a communications policy of demonizing opposition -- while I don't see jailing of opposition members as on the radar in spite of ridiculous rhetoric suggesting that parties that command a majority in the House together could be acting in sedition if the choose to act together.
This is related to the G20 through the communications efforts to label all those who disagreed with the government as terrorists.
There is much to fear from this government. My contention that they are not ready to use the RCMP against opposition MPs after an election if they don't get to retain government, is not by any means, a minimizing of the real and present threats this government poses to civil liberties or what democracy we have. My desire to avoid the kind of hyperbole associate with making the connection it appeared Cueball was making was not out of denial of real threats but to keep the wariness about such threats credible.
Tue, 2010-09-14 16:12
#17
It isnt just Ipsos-Reid, all sorts of media people make pronouncements as if most seats gets to govern, and thats all there is to it.
Huge problem. It comes from the fact most people believe it.
That is why I used some unusual examples to try to explain where the actual law is. I also explained using some extreme examples why it is that way.
You get to govern if you can survive a confidence vote in the House. Everything else is extensions of interpretation that may be valid in some cases but not necessarily so.
That Harper believes he has no need for political allies and has burned all bridges has put him in the real position that without an absolute majority it is hard to imagine anyone working with him. Without that he can take his party in to opposition even with the most seats or resign. If he takes the biggest party in to opposition because he can't work with anyone else it is hard to imagine him lasting as leader even if he wanted to.
Tue, 2010-09-14 16:29
#18
Like I said upthread, I think a lot, probably most, of the Hill reporters. But they dont care. This is the easy way out, and/or they feel a need to talk down.
Tue, 2010-09-14 16:47
#19
That Harper believes he has no need for political allies and has burned all bridges has put him in the real position that without an absolute majority it is hard to imagine anyone working with him. Without that he can take his party in to opposition even with the most seats or resign. If he takes the biggest party in to opposition because he can't work with anyone else it is hard to imagine him lasting as leader even if he wanted to.
There seems to be an emerging narrative in the political opinion pieces this week that supports your reasoning - eg. that if Harper does not win a majority in the next election, he is out. In the column written by Chantal Hébert that I posted here yesterday, she says that if Harper's next chief of staff isn't able to help Harper get out of the polling predicament he has been in for the past 2 years (rising in support, then dropping, then rising, then dropping etc.), Harper's time may be up.
And in today's papers there is a piece by Andrew Cohen saying that time may be running out for Harper and that a coalition after the next election is looking more likely.
Tue, 2010-09-14 16:47
#20
Cueball
There is much to fear from this government. My contention that they are not ready to use the RCMP against opposition MPs after an election if they don't get to retain government, is not by any means, a minimizing of the real and present threats this government poses to civil liberties or what democracy we have. My desire to avoid the kind of hyperbole associate with making the connection it appeared Cueball was making was not out of denial of real threats but to keep the wariness about such threats credible.
Considering that there was very little effort by the opposition to align itself with the opposition at the G20, I have to agree that the likelyhood of anything happening to "opposition MP's" who don't really challenge the suspension of civil liberties, or the gerrymandering of parliament in any kind of effective way will have any problems. I agree with you there.
It's hard to see how Layton could really get into trouble, since his only statement on the G20 so far was basically a reiteration of the line being used by Harper. Mind you, Layton's statements condemning vandalism, while remaining silent on the abuse of authority by police were better worded than Harper's off the cuff statements on the day.