Canada’s opposition tries a coup, of sorts
posted at 8:52 am on December 2, 2008 by Ed Morrissey
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
In America, elections have consequences. In Canada … not so much. Despite losing the last national elections to Stephen Harper’s Conservatives, the other three parties have agreed on a ruling coalition that will wrest control of Canadian government from the party with a plurality of seats for the first time in its history. Canadian voters who thought they’d endorsed Harper may discover that they’ve gotten a bait-and-switch:
The Liberals and New Democrats signed an agreement on Monday to form an unprecedented coalition government, with a written pledge of support from the Bloc Québécois, if they are successful in ousting the minority Conservative government in a coming confidence vote.
The accord between parties led by Stéphane Dion, Jack Layton and Gilles Duceppe came just hours after Liberal caucus members agreed unanimously that Dion would stay on to lead the Liberal-NDP coalition, with support in the House of Commons from Bloc MPs.
The six-point accord includes a description of the role of the Liberal and NDP caucuses, which would meet separately and sit next to each other on the government benches in the House of Commons, Dion told a news conference alongside Layton and Duceppe.
Dion said he has advised Gov. Gen. Michaëlle Jean in a letter that he has the confidence of the Commons to form the government should Stephen Harper’s Conservatives be defeated in a confidence vote.
Well, the one thing you can say about parliamentary systems is that they’re never dull. Normally a no-confidence vote would result in another election. However, the Conservatives didn’t get a majority, and that leaves them vulnerable for this kind of attack. In a parliamentary system, this is perfectly legal.
However, it’s a little mystifying. Not only will the three parties combine to give Canadian voters what they clearly didn’t want, they’re going to yank control from Harper just when the economy is tanking. A wiser opposition would allow Harper to stumble for a while, then call a national election and take the issue to the voters. Instead, the opposition wants to take charge now — and potentially all of the blame for what follows. In fact, they’ll also take the blame for taking control of the government and throwing its economic plans into turmoil.
Small wonder these guys lose elections. I wouldn’t be too surprised to see Harper smiling at being taken off the hook in such a manner, and at the prospects of voter backlash when it falls apart.
Update: A Canadian ex-pat, Alex B, tells me that this is the second time in Canadian history that this has happened, assuming they can pull this off. In 1925, the Liberals and Progressives took control over the plurality of Conservatives in Parliament. Mackenzie King governed as Prime Minister for that coalition.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »
Liberals are only Stalinsts with fewer options.
Akzed on December 2, 2008 at 8:58 AM
As a Canadian, it’s a disgusting turn of events. The Libs, NDP and Bloc are a bunch of sore losers who apparently have nothing better to do than to freeze the frigging government just because they lost.
I hope they get away with it. I hope the economy tanks worse because of them. I hope they get blamed for the whole kit ‘n kaboodle. I hope the voters of Canada demand that they hold yet another election because these politicians are arseholes.
The fact is Steven Harper is a perfectly fine Prime Minister. And the opposition are idiots.
mjk on December 2, 2008 at 8:58 AM
that is why the 2 party system is the best
joey24007 on December 2, 2008 at 8:59 AM
Huh? If less than 50% of the people voted for the Conservatives, then obviously none of them are what a majority of the Canadian voters want. And if the three parties do exceed 50% – then they ARE what the Canadian voters want.
Sheesh.
A Axe on December 2, 2008 at 9:00 AM
A wiser opposition? Since when are liberal and wise synonymous?
coldwarrior on December 2, 2008 at 9:01 AM
I’m no expert on parliamentary government, but isn’t this a consequence of elections? The Conservatives never got a majority.
jgapinoy on December 2, 2008 at 9:01 AM
…I mean, the three other parties are liberal, so it makes sense for them to unite against conservatives.
jgapinoy on December 2, 2008 at 9:02 AM
Why do they even have elections in Canada? It all seems so pointless. They should just let the courts take care of every thing. That’s the way it’s heading here.
Tommy_G on December 2, 2008 at 9:03 AM
Canada’s opposition tries a coup, of sorts
Of sorts?
A coup is a coup is a coup….
Saltysam on December 2, 2008 at 9:06 AM
It’s what lies at the heart of it all anyway, isn’t it?
Saltysam on December 2, 2008 at 9:07 AM
What little exposure I’ve had to Canadian politics, suggests to me that the more progressive elements are still living in the dream world where Socialist student groups prevailed on college campuses into the 1970s. I can still remember them from when I was in college back then. Canadians are like people who never outgrew this. It is difficult for an American to imagine how they could possibly hold a country together. I could see it split into three or four parts (Maritimes, Ontario with or without Quebec, the Western Provinces) very easily.
Maybe there’s an advantage to a two-party system after all. The winner is a majority vote, and is unlikely to be outmanuvered by a “plurality.”
manwithblackhat on December 2, 2008 at 9:07 AM
Ridiculous reasoning. If the vote is split more or less equally among the four, then everyone voted against three parties. The party that got the most votes is the one the most people favored. Everyone in the losers’ coalition is hostile to 2/3 of the coalition. To say that this represents what most people want is opposite-speak.
Akzed on December 2, 2008 at 9:08 AM
That’s only if you assume people are voting against rather than for. If people are voting for a party, then a majority prefers this coalition to be in power.
passingtramp on December 2, 2008 at 9:11 AM
Any vote for something is a vote against all known options. There are no two ways about it.
If guests at a party eat the whole gallon of vanilla ice cream and only a half-gallon each of the strawberry, chocolate, and orange sherbet, it is not logical to claim that the remaining three were more favored than the vanilla because 1 1/2 gallon of them were consumed.
Akzed on December 2, 2008 at 9:16 AM
I’m not surprised that Canadian Liberals think they know what’s best for their Countrymen. Look at our own Liberals.
Besides that, Drywall lives there.
kingsjester on December 2, 2008 at 9:18 AM
The Governor General can stop it. Overall, she’s a rubber stamp. Legally, she can reject the offer of coalition.
The best part about this is that the end game is the end of the Liberal party. They openly climbed in bed with the Bloc Quebecios, and the only reason for the existence of the Bloc is the dissolution of Canada.
Power at any price will have a long term cost for the Libs.
Krydor on December 2, 2008 at 9:19 AM
I’ve noticed that Canadian politicians are way more adolescent and petty than the most idiotic Democrat here in the US.
They are just pathetic people.
benrand on December 2, 2008 at 9:21 AM
er, no. If each of the three parties got 17%, can they claim to be ‘what the voters want”?
Mr. Bingley on December 2, 2008 at 9:23 AM
Another story on Canada’s political games includes this nugget…hmmm…
CP on December 2, 2008 at 9:24 AM
…the Left is resurgent internationally…so, we should get used to seeing power-hungry factions, each as ambitious as Lucifer, with the political acumen of cold toast, using any and all methods, fair and foul, to unseat their opposition…even in the face of the popular will….
…here is another legacy of Clintonism…there’s a quote from the HBO series “Deadwood”…something like “Either elections confirm my will or I neuter them”….
Being a fascist totalitarian in a democracy must be so very trying….
Puritan1648 on December 2, 2008 at 9:24 AM
Typical of the liberal mindset: Elections don’t matter, unless we win them.
wildcat84 on December 2, 2008 at 9:24 AM
If the host has a choice of providing either
just vanilla,
OR
all 3 of the others
at the next party, she should surely choose the latter?
passingtramp on December 2, 2008 at 9:25 AM
No, it’s typical of parliamentary elections. They’re not win/lose, and never have been. They’re majority/largest minority/other minority.
passingtramp on December 2, 2008 at 9:29 AM
The Conservative Party should take their outrage to the next election. They can blame bad outcomes on the three little pigs: New Democrat, Liberal, and Bloc Quebecois.
indythinker on December 2, 2008 at 9:30 AM
passingtramp on December 2, 2008 at 9:25 AM
That’s an argument for Polygamy, not government.
The people chose a Conservative government, to usurp their wishes because you think you know better, or to serve your own selfish aims, is just plain wrong.
Our congress is going to do the same thing after the Coronation, oops, I mean the Inauguration, when they reinsitute the ban on Offshore Drilling.
kingsjester on December 2, 2008 at 9:31 AM
This is just one reason that, as bad as Washington can be sometimes, I am so glad that we don’t have a parliamentary system.
Techie on December 2, 2008 at 9:33 AM
A coup is a (military) takeover of a country. This is the normal operation of a parliamentary system of government, and totally legitimate.
That said, this is a major setback for Canada. That coalition government is going to be more commie than Obama. They will just make things in Canada worse — a shame, since everything I heard about Harper suggests he’s a pretty good guy.
Outlander on December 2, 2008 at 9:37 AM
No they didn’t. A minority did.
passingtramp on December 2, 2008 at 9:39 AM
A major point also to keep in mind with this is that one party of the hoped-for lib-left coalition is the Quebec separatist Bloc Québécois that only runs candidates in Quebec and is dedicated to the separation of Quebec from Canada. The Liberals and leftist New Democrats along with their MSM buddies are trying to make it sound like the BQ isn’t part of the government (apparently, they’re not to have any cabinet posts), but all three parties signed the agreement yesterday.
And force a new election.
As well, such an unprecedented coalition being allowed to form a government, especially including the French separatists, will not go down well with Western Canada who voted overwhelmingly (outside of Vancouver) for the Conservatives. The backlash could include all or parts of the West (with their oil and natural gas resources) voting themselves out of Canada.
And I can think of another commonly-used phrase, word actually, from Deadwood to describe this.
andycanuck on December 2, 2008 at 9:40 AM
Though I’m not Canadian, I’ve followed their politics long enough to know that others’ suggestions on this comment thread–suggesting that the three minority parties combined represent a true majority of the–is simply BS.
There is no way that the BQ, a separatist party, can be considered to have support of a slim majority of the country. If Canadians knew this would have happened, that could have pushed Harper’s conservatives over the edge to get a majority. The two liberal parties would have had a hard time outside of Quebec convincing their voters an alliance with the bloc would have been a good idea.
BryanS on December 2, 2008 at 9:42 AM
I don’t think that’s fair. Our Democrats are World Class adolescent and petty.
johnsteele on December 2, 2008 at 9:44 AM
Oh, and if the BQ aren’t “officially” part of the government, then the Lib-NDP part of the coalition forming the government has fewer seats than the Conservatives that is illegitimate ever in the history of Canada or Britain. I don’t give a sh*t if it’s ever happened in e.g. Italy. (BTW, the Conservatives increased their vote count and their number of seats in the October election.)
andycanuck on December 2, 2008 at 9:45 AM
A Axe:
Flunked basic math, did you?
rightwingprof on December 2, 2008 at 9:45 AM
And, as BryanS points out, these parties didn’t run as a coalition in the recent election.
andycanuck on December 2, 2008 at 9:46 AM
I’m not Canadian but I’ve watched what goes on there and my guess is had the Liberals/New Democrats campaigned based on an alliance with BQ they would have been trounced. The rest of Canada doesn’t have much affection for BQ and their antics.
johnsteele on December 2, 2008 at 9:49 AM
Product of public schooling I do believe, you know that new math.
thomasaur on December 2, 2008 at 9:50 AM
passingtramp on December 2, 2008 at 9:39 AM
So, are you saying that it is okay to take over a country, even though you lost an election? Those 3 parties did not run as a coalition. They lost.
kingsjester on December 2, 2008 at 9:50 AM
In your world of thinking, then, if the US were like Canada the Republicans could add their votes in the last election with all the non-Dem votes and probably eke out enough, in a coalition, to unseat Obama, or at least many of the state elections for Congress. That would be the people’s choice, according to you.
Axe, you need your tool sharpened.
Yoop on December 2, 2008 at 9:50 AM
Canada isn’t a state yet?
Abby Adams on December 2, 2008 at 9:50 AM
I’ll take adolescence over criminal activity any day of the week. Believe me, there are no Canadian counterparts for the likes of Chris Dodd, Barney Frank and William Jefferson.
Syd B. on December 2, 2008 at 9:52 AM
The liberals are gonna ruin Canada’s oil industry.
lodge on December 2, 2008 at 9:53 AM
Queen said it best – “They want it all, they want it all, they want it all, and they want it now.”
steveegg on December 2, 2008 at 9:55 AM
A Axe says “If less than 50% of the people voted for the Conservatives, then obviously none of them are what a majority of the Canadian voters want. And if the three parties do exceed 50% – then they ARE what the Canadian voters want.”
If we followed your flawed logic then Bush 41 and Ross Perot would have taken control of the government in 1993. Sheesh Axe, how can one person be such an idiot?
devolvingtowardsidiocracy on December 2, 2008 at 9:55 AM
Hate to say it… but I kinda wish we had FOUR or more parties here in America….
One… Fical Conservative Federalist…
One… Compassionate Conservative (ie religious right)…
One… Blue Dog Democrats… Fiscal Cons Social Libs…
One… True Left…
I think we’d end up with different coalitions as allies on certain issues… that would more accuratly measure the will of the electorate… rather than the current binary decision set we are forced into now.
Romeo13 on December 2, 2008 at 9:57 AM
If this scheme goes through, we just might pick up a few. Imagine what kind of special rights the NDP and Liberals have to give up to the BQ and Quebec in order to get and keep their support. This will only embolden the BQ within Quebec and increase the chances they could stage a successful succession vote (which by the way wasn’t all that far from succeeding the last time). Let Quebec form their own country–take them out of the mix and the balance of politics in Canada isn’t all that different than the US.
BryanS on December 2, 2008 at 9:58 AM
Uh, dude, we’re talking about seats in a Parliment… not electing an individual…
IF a ruling coalition of groups is Liberal, its because they won those elections. That coalition could have a strong liberal platform based on their common goals… which is what the people voted for…
Romeo13 on December 2, 2008 at 9:59 AM
That’s more than a
, but the tripwire that started this crisis in the first place. When the opposition can defeat your government at about any time, it doesn’t make much sense to introduce a bill that would eliminate most of their funding.
It might be good policy, but if Harper is defeated, if may be seen as the dumbest political move in Canadian history.
YYZ on December 2, 2008 at 10:05 AM
Stand tall, Mr. Harper! You’ve run the best government in decades – one that actually makes decisions. Stand up to these bullies who work for the rich people of Toronto. They’re only doing this because the Harper government won’t hand over billions to the corporations as part of a stimulus package. They’re the greedy ones, the arrogant ones. Stand up to them – they’re reveal their true colors soon enough.
Alberta is in a difficult position here. There’s only one opposition MP from Alberta, an NDP who squeaked by a CPC in the last election. If she was not given one of the senior posts in the proposed coalition cabinet, then Alberta would be lack executive representation for the first time in 30 years. The last time that happened, we wound up with the National Energy Program which ruined the Alberta economy as if it was the Great Depression. Curse Pierre Trudeau (spit) for that crime. If Alberta doesn’t get one of those cabinet positions, then they should consider secession.
KillerKane on December 2, 2008 at 10:07 AM
…outside of Quebec.
8^)
andycanuck on December 2, 2008 at 10:09 AM
That’s not a great point. People didn’t vote for a conservative government using the block to strengthen is minority either. (can’t see the conservative working with the liberals or the NDP)
If you voted liberals, one can assume you want the liberals as close to power as possible. I seriously doubt many liberals or NDP prefer to see their party in the minority rahter than in a coalition government.
mycowardice on December 2, 2008 at 10:10 AM
Not necessarily. It helps to understand the split on that side of the political spectrum.
The NDP are the pot-and-pan-bangers; they’ll never hold power so they just agitate and people vote for them irrespective of their effectiveness or relevance. They hate the liberals for being too conservative.
Including the Bloc in the coalition is interesting since they’re the party that wants to break up Canada(that could be awkward to rationalize come election time). They hate the Liberals for screwing Quebec for so many years.
The Liberals love being in power more than they love principals, so they’d be a volatile and unpredictable bargaining partner.
These guys may pull it off but they’ll get along like cats in a sack. Ed’s right; for them to take power now is an idiotic and doomed move. I don’t know what’s scarier; that they’re too dumb to understand how the economy works, or that they’re going to spend $30 billion despite knowing it won’t do a damn thing. Ignorance or malfeasance; welcome to Cana-duh.
landshark on December 2, 2008 at 10:11 AM
The new coalition is the SSI party. The Socialist Separatist Idiot party. It’s legal to do what they plan but I doubt it will be popular or long lived. If there was a drop of competence in the group I might be angry or worried. I’m laughing. Dion, the inarticulate idiot who leads the Liberals will step down next May because his Party thinks he sucks as leader for the Liberals, yet they back him to lead the country in this rocky time. It is suicide for the Liberal party.
BL@KBIRD on December 2, 2008 at 10:12 AM
That’s only a good argument if you think politics is like playing a game.
If you think that politics is about governing, then you seize that opportunity if it comes, whether or not the time is right or the time is wrong. You do it because you think you can do a better job than everyone else. If not, step aside.
mycowardice on December 2, 2008 at 10:14 AM
Our scum no better than your scum
As a Canadian I’m a bit embarrased – but not surprised. Our scum as bad as yours..
What’s “interesting” is that office of the governer general is theoretically supposed to call an election if the prime minister requests it – but exactly nobody believes she’ll do the right thing.
She’s a liberal appointee – from their media farm club.
It’s sad -but less important to Canadians than the disaster you guys have going.
Paul Murphy on December 2, 2008 at 10:14 AM
As a Canadian I find this power-grab tactic completely despicable and I hope the GG sees it for what it is and tells the 3 Stooges to pound sand. They in no way can claim to be in any way legitimate. If this went to another election the Conservatives would almost certainly gain even more seats and get that majority government. There’s a reason why Whacky Jack Layton’s NDP socialist gang only ever get about 15% of the vote – nobody wants his hands anywhere near the purse strings.
Paradox Drive on December 2, 2008 at 10:20 AM
Who did you vote for?
mycowardice on December 2, 2008 at 10:21 AM
As much as I dislike the Left here in Canada, what they’re doing makes sense. Some of the post-election comments about why the Conservatives won was that the Conservative party of Canada is essentially several right wing parties united into one. The left doesn’t have that. They are fragmented. But had they united, they would be much stronger than the CPP. Guess what – if you take all the votes that the left got, which includes NDP, Liberal and Green (and now BQ), they have a majority. And the people did vote for them, didn’t they? This potential coalition government would have a mandate, even though I would prefer Harper to stay. Ain’t nothing like a “rightwing nazi” to unite all the leftists into cooperation…
AlexB on December 2, 2008 at 10:31 AM
Is it fun to watch most of the Canadians on this site basically call the “coalition” a bunch of moronic jerks?
My question is: What in the Good Lord’s name could ANY political party have with the BQ considering they are frigging seperatists??? Of course, I think Quebec should just shut the heck up and get out. I’m sick of them all. They want their own country? Just go. NO one will miss them, least of all Western Canada.
mjk on December 2, 2008 at 10:34 AM
MJK,
The bloc has said they would serve the interest of Quebec. All the Liberals and NDP have to do is ensure those interests are addressed when they propose rules.
It’s that easy.
mycowardice on December 2, 2008 at 10:39 AM
Finally, HotAir.com picks up on this Banana Confederacy scheme. Ed, respectfully, this has been unfolding since last Friday morning.
To all: Please go to Small Dead Animals (a repeat weblog awards winner) and stephentaylor.ca/ for the latest. Ezra Levant is also covering this here and there.
HotAirJosef on December 2, 2008 at 10:41 AM
I don’t think that “honour” means the same thing as “honor”. One word comes from the French, and as we all know, French is the language of diplomacy — doublespeak, as it were. The other word comes from the Latin, and the Romans tended to be direct people who meant what they said.
I also note that the coalition document appears to have been written on some form of official stationary — a conversion of public property to private (political party) use — something which would serve to get a person turned out of office here, where such conversions (as occurred most publicly in Ohio) are frowned upon.
unclesmrgol on December 2, 2008 at 10:42 AM
Let’s understand. While the other three parties all got less votes than the conservatives, those three parties are all lefties, liberals, socialists. That is why Canada is such a lefty, liberal, socialist country. So for Harper to have won, was surprising, except for the fact that the Left was fragmented into special interest factions. However, seeing that this fragmentation produced a conservative government, the liberals in this land decided to put aside their petty differences and focus on the big ideological war by consolidating power. In the end, it appears the split between conservative and everything else is much bigger and much more profound than the split between liberal vs socialist vs bloc Quebecois. When you add up all the liberals and all the socialists and all the French separatists, who by the way, tend to also be socialists and liberal in their world view, that majority of Canadians are on the left side of the political spectrum.
keep the change on December 2, 2008 at 10:45 AM
Half of me wants this to happen. I know Canadian voters will be rather angry at this turn of events for one reason – the Libs and the NDP are in bed with the Bloc to make this happen. Way to sell out your country for power.
The other half is outraged. What an egregious power grab. I never had any respect for Dion, but any respect I had for Layton is out the window. What a joke. Fight it, “Steve!”
Red Cloud on December 2, 2008 at 10:47 AM
I prefer the CLAP–the Canadian Leftist Alliance Party although it isn’t one of the choices here.
andycanuck on December 2, 2008 at 10:47 AM
I’m a Canadian, but I don’t get how the Liberals and the NDP would be able to form the government with just the two of them. They don’t have enough seats.
SpencerFan on December 2, 2008 at 10:53 AM
Gees, I thought there were two English words for which there were no French conversion. Honor and considerate. Actually, I can think of the third one. Victory!
Syd B. on December 2, 2008 at 10:53 AM
Sweetheart, I’m painfully painfully aware of that. I am from Saskatchewan, after all.
But what a way to ingratiate yourself to Western Canada!!! Piss them off by kowtowing to a bunch of frigging French separatists!!! Morons.
mjk on December 2, 2008 at 10:55 AM
That’s why they’re hopping in bed with the Bloc. Stupid Quebecois always vote for the Bloc.
mjk on December 2, 2008 at 10:56 AM
They’re so arrogant, they think everything will automatically come up roses as soon as they take over.
whitetop on December 2, 2008 at 10:57 AM
Why is it stupid to vote for the block?
Do you miss the Reform party?
mycowardice on December 2, 2008 at 11:04 AM
I cannot help but see this “Coalition” as unnatural. It’s like the Roman Triumvirate between Caesar (Liberals), Marc Antony (NDP) and Lepidus (Bloc). Lepidus was given the post of Pontifex Maximus and subsequently ignored, while the other two started a civil war. This time, however, the Bloc represents a corrosive element because of its separatist leanings. This coalition cannot last. Harper’s the only real choice.
I at least can understand where the Bloc is coming from – the other two are just greedy agents of Ontario’s corporations and unions.
KillerKane on December 2, 2008 at 11:04 AM
Except we’ll see how the English members of the Liberals especially, who hate the separatists massively, react to this.
Yes, not including the 40% who don’t vote, but even in liberal-multiculti Toronto (as seen by reactions on Toronto’s liberal CityTV) getting into bed with the separatists isn’t popular.
And that “left” ranges from outright Commies to “we have to live within our means” equivalents of U.S. Blue Dogs. So it’s not the case, as I think you’re implying, that why shouldn’t a coalition government be allowed to be formed as most are on the left because the majority moderates wouldn’t want to see the leftists having anything to do with running the country. (And the number of seats won does matter in a parliamentary democracy more than the percentages of the popular vote.)
andycanuck on December 2, 2008 at 11:06 AM
What the Canadian left parties are doing is perfectly legitimate. They have the majority of seats in Parliament and it has always been recognized that a majority in Parliament gets to pick the leadership. Furthermore, if we look at the election results the Liberal and two parties clearly to the left of the Liberals (NDP and the Greens) got 51.22% of the vote. So the majority would actually prefer the Liberals to the Conservatives. Admittedly, the entire outcome came down to the whims of the Quebec Bloc. French people, commonly known as cheese-eating surrender monkeys, should never be given any power.
Still, we do conservatism a disservice when call the legitimate workings of Canadian democracy a “coup”.
thuja on December 2, 2008 at 11:06 AM
Hmmm… actualy… History tells us the time for radical change is during an economic crises. They have a window of opportunity here to go WAY left… following the lead of the American Government… while all the time blaming America for their problems… but in order to do that they have to be holding the reigns of power.
Romeo13 on December 2, 2008 at 11:07 AM
An important point seems to be missing in these comments. A coworker asked me to pass this on:
Canada hasn’t had a coalition since 1917 and that was through PM Robert Borden, lasting only a short while. Now, when it comes to Canadian parliamentary procedures, let’s get it right: Canadians don’t “vote in a new Prime Minister”. They elect a member for their riding.
The party with the most members forms the government as long as they have the confidence of a majority of the sitting members of the House Of Commons.
If the govt loses a vote of confidence, the govt resigns and a new election is called by the (Governor General) GG.
The GG can ask another party or coalition of parties to attempt to form a government if there are appropriate circumstances.
A government only six weeks old, losing a confidence vote, with a strong coalition that has a good chance of having the confidence of the House would be criteria that would be “appropriate circumstances”.
Jeff_55 on December 2, 2008 at 11:08 AM
That important comment is only missed by the people like thuja that hate les Québecois and people that voted for te conservatives that are mad that they are losing power.
And Americans who think that losing Stepen Harper is like losing Bush.
mycowardice on December 2, 2008 at 11:13 AM
As a Canadian and a long-time Conservative voter, I have to say I’m utterly disgusted at the prospect of having a Prime Minister Stephane Dion. Never in my lifetime has the Liberal party offered up such a ludicrously ill-prepared candidate and platform. Hell, even Pierre was seen as a smart guy, except for his foray into madness with his NEP.
This folly by our political lesser-thans will surely come back to haunt them, whether they form a government or not. Voters will not forget this unholy alliance with a party of secessionists. Why the BQ is allowed to even run federally is seen as a grave insult by many as it is.
As another commenter noted Ezra Levant has a terrific piece of the mechanics and realities of this alliance of political retards here. Good reading there, as always with Ezra.
Come next Monday, we’ll see if these fools have the stones to carry out what they are planning. And if Michele Jean approves it … well, lets just say that we Conservatives should expect nothing less from a CBC mouthpiece.
notta_dhimmi on December 2, 2008 at 11:20 AM
From 1917 to 1920 isn’t a short while.
We actually elect a member of a party. The leader of the party with the most votes becomes PM.
Krydor on December 2, 2008 at 11:21 AM
I’m not sure what all this coup talk is. This is how things work in Euro-style parliamentary systems. This is why they are inherently unstable systems.
I would also note that we, in the US don’t have a 2 party system, or anything of the sort. The difference between our Constitutional system and Euro-parliamentary systems is that we have the individual as the fundamental political entity (there are no parties in our Constitution) while the euro systems have the party as the fundamental political entity. We have a permanent government populated by individuals while the euro systems have virtual governments built by parties. We have permanent, clear separations in our executive and legislative branches while the euro systems have executive branches that are only formed when a ruling majority is formed in the legislature – rendering little if any separation between the two branches. This makes sense, since the euro parliamentary systems were built around already existing, permanent executives (the royals) and had to adjust, while we in the US had no such historical impediment to constructing a clean governmental structure.
Canada might not have a history of coalition governments, but that’s how things go in most euro systems. That’s how little parties, with a few seats, often gain inordinate power by putting some coalition just over the top. And that’s one of the reasons why these euro systems are dogsh!t, for the most part.
progressoverpeace on December 2, 2008 at 11:23 AM
LOL, now you know how us Americans feel with our Holder of the non existant Office of the President Elect!
Romeo13 on December 2, 2008 at 11:25 AM
Politics is like playing a game as the last year in Parliament has so clearly demonstrated. (let’s face it, the “governing” part of government doesn’t happen in the House of Commons – it happens in the PMO)
Regardless, I’ll agree with you to a point. Remember that these same parties could have done this prior to the last election. If the objective is merely to govern, why didn’t they pull the trigger? Well (at least partly) because the economy was humming along and it would have been political suicide.
Keep in mind also, they can simply force another election. If Canadians truly do not support the Conservatives, then they could sell it. They’re smart enough to know that they would get their heads handed to them if that happened, so they’re going around the electorate. Perfectly legal but it sets them up for a drubbing at the polls if they fail to make anything come of their power grab.
It’s one thing to obtain power, it’s another to hold on to power. It’s yet another thing to govern.
landshark on December 2, 2008 at 11:26 AM
I’d hardly call it even a “kind of” coup. I haven’t looked at the vote totals, but, if the Left can cobble together a coalition, then they can make a reasonable argument that they represent the majority of Canadians and, thus, the will of the people.
It’s hardball, but hardly unethical. Like you, Ed, I think Harper might chuckle all the way into Opposition, knowing the other side will inevitably screw up.
irishspy on December 2, 2008 at 11:29 AM
Except it isn’t a strong coalition–the Bloc is and isn’t officially part of the would-be government. And the Liberals are currently having a party leadership race so that their currernt leader is only supposed to be P.M. for the next 6 months until he’s replaced. And all of that with only a 20- or 22-seat majority for the three-party coaltion, that isn’t really a three-party coalition, so if individual party members or most of any coaltion party not show up or refuse to vote on any vote that can be construed as a confidence motion or the coalition is losing vote-after-vote on items that are generally regarded in ordinary circumstances as not being confidence items, then the coalition government will fall. (There are 2 Independents.) So the real precedent from all of Canadian political history re. this situation is for the G.G. to call an election if the current Conservative government loses the confidence of the House (on a money vote).
andycanuck on December 2, 2008 at 11:33 AM
Everybody is missing the point on this one, and Canadians are missing the point on purpose rather than face up to facts.
The point is in the Canadian system, the Prime Minister (PM) is appointed by the Queen of England. No Canadian leaders are actually elected, merely the MP (Congressman) is directly elected. Senators, Premiers (Governors), Lieutenant Governors, judges, election supervisors, are all appointed by the Queen (after perfunctory, but not mandatory consultation with the power brokers).
If Canadians were to once and for all take charge of their own affairs, by electing a strong President to replace the Queen and Governor General, then the system would change for the better. Sadly they believe, and will actually argue that they live in a democracy which sadly is just not the case.
epluribusunum on December 2, 2008 at 11:34 AM
Interesting point. This could be the best thing for the conservatives that could happen.
Economy is melting down… and it will be the Liberals now who own it.
In Fact, if I was the Conservatives, I would NOT call or fight for new elections, saying that in this time of economic crises, we should not be playing political power games…. step aside gracefully and then watch the Libs implode.
Conservatives would rule for YEARS if they did that….
Romeo13 on December 2, 2008 at 11:34 AM
I’m unclear why you singled me out as missing a comment that agrees perfectly with what I said. I suppose it must because Francophobia is so 2004, and you couldn’t get past how stale my sentiments are. Well, I’m proposing neo-Francophobia: a Francophobia and a Quebecerphobia for 2009!
thuja on December 2, 2008 at 11:39 AM
I think in the prior election they, in part, thought that they could steer the minority government in a direction acceptable…
It could also be that they thought that in the following elections things would get better (for the liberals particularly — no need to do a coalition gov. if you can govern next time around by yourself).
It could also be that the conservative overplayed their hand this time around.
Also, Canada’s political scene is fractured by now. My guess is that the liberals will have enough time to find a good leader and then will do elections in a year or two and reclaim the power they’ve had for most of Canada’s history.
I see many reasons, but the bottom line is that Ed & some other people are saying that it’s stupid to take ownership of the government in these hard times. People made the same claim against Kerry in 04 (Let’s leave Bush deal with his own mess).
If you go into politics, I think that should include the will to govern.
mycowardice on December 2, 2008 at 11:41 AM
Nowhere, absolutely nowhere is this tradition actually codified in law, not in the Constitution, the BNA, anywhere.
Make no mistake. The Queen exercises Royal Prerogative and may listen to the advice of Parliament,and then promptly ignore it, but is never under any obligation to follow their advice, ever!
epluribusunum on December 2, 2008 at 11:43 AM
Now would be a great time to say how in the US people don’t live in a true democracy because they don’t really elect the president.
Anyways, I agree, it is time for Canada to move into the 21st century and get rid of this historical relic that is monarchy.
mycowardice on December 2, 2008 at 11:44 AM
We don’t live in a “democracy”. We live in a Constitutional Republic.
The US is, however, based on individualism while the euro-style parliamentary systems are tribalistic in nature (party-based).
Also our system is very particular about a permanent and well-separated government, while euor systems have virtual governments with little separation between the branches.
progressoverpeace on December 2, 2008 at 11:48 AM
Complete BS. The US citizen sovereign votes for the President of the US as a citizen of their respective State, which is a sovereign nation in its own right, hence, The United States of America.
Our leaders appear on a ballot, to be voted on by the people. Unlike Canada, no leaders appear on any ballot anywhere.
Do not confuse a representative republic with a Parliamentary monarchy (oligarchy).
epluribusunum on December 2, 2008 at 11:51 AM
The perils of a parliamentary system when there are (many) more than 2 parties… one of which does not run candidates outside its provincial borders and has as its mandate separation from the rest of the country!
I too am disgusted, but must confess that I have no lost confidence in Stephen Harper as a leader. I think he made a really bone-headed move when he included eliminating federal funding for the parties in his economic statement, a move that played right into their hands. The Liberals are in serious debt, and the Bloq couldn’t survive without a handout from the rest of Canada it so despises. And Jack Layton has been panting for an opportunity to grab power since he first got elected.
An incredibly stupid move on Harper’s party.
Sure, the Liberal coalition will now “own” the economic mess, but how much bigger a mess will they make of it? I fully expect them to raise taxes and run up our debt like we haven’t seen since Trudeau’s time.
ProfessorMiao on December 2, 2008 at 11:52 AM
We stopped being a Republic in 1913, when the Senate went from representing the States, to a popularly elected office…
Now, we are more of a representative democracy… and IMO its been downhill ever since…
Romeo13 on December 2, 2008 at 11:52 AM
While the ballot says that I voted for Obama, is that really what happened with my vote?
For once I agree with progressoverpeace. We don’t live in a true democracy in the sense that are vote go directly to the president without middlemans that could alter the pictures.
mycowardice on December 2, 2008 at 11:54 AM
Everybody is missing the point on this one, and Canadians are missing the point on purpose rather than face up to facts.
The point is in the Canadian system, the Prime Minister (PM) is appointed by the Queen of England. No Canadian leaders are actually elected, merely the MP (Congressman) is directly elected. Senators, Premiers (Governors), Lieutenant Governors, judges, election supervisors, are all appointed by the Queen (after perfunctory, but not mandatory consultation with the power brokers).
Um, no. We had this one out with the King/Byng affair.
Sadly they believe, and will actually argue that they live in a democracy which sadly is just not the case.
epluribusunum on December 2, 2008 at 11:34 AM
Wait, what? Are you saying that we should become a democracy like the USA? Last I checked, you were a Republic and we were a Constitutional Monarchy.
Krydor on December 2, 2008 at 11:55 AM
That’s not strictly true. US citizens vote for slates of electors, not Presidents. Those electors need not vote for the person they are ’supposed’ to vote for.
This election shows why they are important, since most US citizens voted for electors slated by someone who is probably not eligible to be President and it is to the electors to make sure that they do not elect an ineligible President.
progressoverpeace on December 2, 2008 at 11:56 AM
I agree. But we still have a couple of the old mechanisms left in place – even if they have been rendered mostly impotent.
progressoverpeace on December 2, 2008 at 11:58 AM
Nice segue into yet another Obama eligibility thread!
mycowardice on December 2, 2008 at 12:01 PM
Comment pages: 1 2 Next »