The PM stays PM until he resigns or is ordered out by the Gov-Gen, thus guaranteeing continuous government. This means that a PM who trips a non-confidence vote can have a second attempt to form a coalition government (Ted Heath tried this in 1974) or talk the rebel MPs round (John Major did this in 1993). It is absolutely necessary to successfully call a confidence vote in this case.
While the 3 stooges have a written agreement to be a tripartite coalition, able to be the sitting government, they have yet to jump the legal hoop that is absolutely necessary, being that all-important non-confidence vote. Until they do, the government stands and PM Harper remains the PM.
If the coalition is a solidly stable unit ready to govern the country, then 2months until Jan 27 shouldn't make any difference. Their patience is a good test of their ability.
The Gov-Gen yesterday was entirely within her obligations to ensure good governance, by obliging the PM she herself swore in. To ignore his request would have been bad precedent, scandalous, perception of taking sides, reflect bad on the office representing the Queen.
A vote of non-confidence is likely inevitable at this point. At which point the Gov-Gen will have the choice to ask the PM to form a coalition gov't of his own (unlikely), ask the 3 stooges to form gov't or if there is any doubt, put the matter to the highest authority in the land; Federal Election.
While the 3 stooges have a written agreement to be a tripartite coalition, able to be the sitting government, they have yet to jump the legal hoop that is absolutely necessary, being that all-important non-confidence vote. Until they do, the government stands and PM Harper remains the PM.
Exactly. The whole point is that Harper has prorogued Parliament (I think everyone's using these words so much we're beginning to forget what a big deal that is) in order to prevent a coalition of the opposition parties flying through this hoop with ease. In other words, he is once again underhandedly manipulating the parliamentary system to his own ends.
At which point the Gov-Gen will have the choice to ask the PM to form a coalition gov't of his own (unlikely)
UNLIKELY? You know as well as I do that it's basically impossible, and the route which is theoretically open of asking the existing government to try to carry on with a coalition is, on the current facts, irrelevent and not worth discussing.
Federal Election.
And another $3 million down the pan when there is a government in waiting, READY AND WAITING to take over and Harper has just prevented them.
To ignore his request would have been bad precedent,
Um, no, giving in to the request is the bad precedent. It means from here on in every Prime Minister facing a vote of confidence in Parliament can instead request the Governor General to suspend its functioning while he tries to figure out a way to save his backside.
The key word here you used here is, with ease. Sorry, running a country is not going to be easy, so getting to run the country shouldn't be either. The Gov-Gen shouldn't hand over the PM-ship to every Tom, Dick and Harry saying they've lost confidence.
I said they would jump through the hoop of the non-confidence vote with ease. No one ever said running a country is easy.
They're not "Toms, Dicks and Harrys" for godsake they're seasoned politicians. And yes the Governor-General IS supposed to hand the government over to the opposition when a) the opposition can show that the current executive has lost the confidence of the legislature and b) the opposition can show that they are in a position to form a new government. That is the way the system is supposed to work.
For heaven't sake, we're not talking about Charles I or Cromwell here. The GG hasn't abolished Parliament: she's merely extended the regular Parliamentary break by a week.
With the result that Parliament can't pass bills for SIX WEEKS. We're in the middle of a recession here. This is a stupid, stupid idea and a stupid position to be in.
As opposed to the five weeks it would have been otherwise?
And no, we are NOT in the middle of a recession; our economy grew modestly over the last quarter. We may be facing a recession in the very near future, but it isn't here yet; that's just the pretext the coalition is using as their excuse for their attempted power grab.
The situation is, decidedly, stupid. But prorogation is considerably better than having an awkward tripartite coalition immediately forced on the country against the popular will, and the strains that would cause on national unity -- assuming that the GG *did* let the coalition go ahead rather than call another election, which would cause its own set of problems.
As opposed to the five weeks it would have been otherwise?
Actually, looking at the calendar, I think it's more like seven weeks. And yes, as opposed to five weeks. Two weeks is enough time to pass some important legislation. AND he's done it deliberately to dodge the vote of non-confidence next Monday and thus has effectively suspended the functioning of the government in order to cover his ass, the main point, which you keep avoiding.
And no, we are NOT in the middle of a recession; our economy grew modestly over the last quarter. We may be facing a recession in the very near future, but it isn't here yet; that's just the pretext the coalition is using as their excuse for their attempted power grab.
I was referring to the worldwide recession which yes, will mean that Canada IS facing a recession in the near future. And we're certainly not going to avoid it by totally failing to act.
The situation is, decidedly, stupid.
Well, we're agreed there, although I think we may each be referring to different bits of the situation when we brand it stupid.
But prorogation is considerably better than having an awkward tripartite coalition immediately forced on the country against the popular will, and the strains that would cause on national unity -- assuming that the GG *did* let the coalition go ahead rather than call another election, which would cause its own set of problems.
AND he's done it deliberately to dodge the vote of non-confidence next Monday and thus has effectively suspended the functioning of the government in order to cover his ass, the main point, which you keep avoiding.
His request was obviously self-serving. However, that doesn't mean it's automatically bad for the country; and the best interests of the country are what the GG is supposed to keep in mind, no? I think it's very clear that this cooling-off period was very much needed, and the right thing to do.
If a future PM tries to use this as a precedent for postponing (NOT avoiding completely) a confidence vote in the future, won't the GG at that time get to decide whether the precedent applies?
I think a government ready to govern is very much needed, and allowing the non-confidence vote so it could take the reins was the right thing to do.
If a future PM tries to use this as a precedent for postponing (NOT avoiding completely) a confidence vote in the future, won't the GG at that time get to decide whether the precedent applies?
You really want this sort of constitutional brouhaha over which way the GG is going to decide every single time there's any matter of confidence in Parliament and the opposition are making vote-against-it noises?
The government is still there. That's why Harper asked for prorogation.
They may not be able to pass legislation, but was there actually anything planned? Even the New Libs on the Bloc didn't have an actual budget ready; they just released a document describing their general intent.
You really want this sort of constitutional brouhaha over which way the GG is going to decide every single time there's any matter of confidence in Parliament and the opposition are making vote-against-it noises?
This was very clearly an exceptional situation. A PM could ask the GG to do it again, but if the GG decided that the same conditions didn't apply, then that would be a new precedent.
If the same conditions did apply, then yes; I would want the GG to consider prorogation.
It's clearly going to arise more often if PMs know (which they now will) that going to the G-G to ask for her to prorogue Parliament is an option when they face a vote of non-confidence.
Every single time that happens, sure, you may be sitting there thinking, "oh, this is completely different than that time Harper did this because XYZ", maybe. But every single time there will be a group of people who want it to happen, or see similarities to Harper's situation, or see other reasons it should happen. Every single time there will be this sort of argument and debate and constitutional crisis. Every single time the country will be shouting at itself for several weeks or more because of it.
That is SERIOUSLY what you want? You really think that's any way to run a government?
Apart of course that it will never be right for a PM to get the GG to prorogue Parliament so he can save his own ass. And that is what is happening. Harper has found a loophole in the system so he can subvert and undermine it. Are you blind that you don't see this?
Want? No. I don't think anybody wanted any of this to happen.
However, I believe that this choice was preferable and far better for the country than having an unpopular coalition foisted on us on such short notice, with all the furor that would follow, even if it does set an undesirable precedent.
And events since then confirm my opinion. I think it's very good that all sides are toning down the rhetoric - and I'm sure that if the GG hadn't prorogued, the level of political rhetoric this weekend would be much, much worse. Unfair? Maybe, but it's still better for the country to avoid it.
The fact that the coalition started to fall apart on Friday is a further indication that it's a bad idea. I know you believe that they would have held it together if the GG hadn't prorogued, but I don't share that belief. If they can't keep it together until January, how are they going to govern the country for the next 2.5 years?
While the 3 stooges have a written agreement to be a tripartite coalition, able to be the sitting government, they have yet to jump the legal hoop that is absolutely necessary, being that all-important non-confidence vote. Until they do, the government stands and PM Harper remains the PM.
If the coalition is a solidly stable unit ready to govern the country, then 2months until Jan 27 shouldn't make any difference. Their patience is a good test of their ability.
The Gov-Gen yesterday was entirely within her obligations to ensure good governance, by obliging the PM she herself swore in. To ignore his request would have been bad precedent, scandalous, perception of taking sides, reflect bad on the office representing the Queen.
A vote of non-confidence is likely inevitable at this point. At which point the Gov-Gen will have the choice to ask the PM to form a coalition gov't of his own (unlikely), ask the 3 stooges to form gov't or if there is any doubt, put the matter to the highest authority in the land; Federal Election.
Reply
Exactly. The whole point is that Harper has prorogued Parliament (I think everyone's using these words so much we're beginning to forget what a big deal that is) in order to prevent a coalition of the opposition parties flying through this hoop with ease. In other words, he is once again underhandedly manipulating the parliamentary system to his own ends.
At which point the Gov-Gen will have the choice to ask the PM to form a coalition gov't of his own (unlikely)
UNLIKELY? You know as well as I do that it's basically impossible, and the route which is theoretically open of asking the existing government to try to carry on with a coalition is, on the current facts, irrelevent and not worth discussing.
Federal Election.
And another $3 million down the pan when there is a government in waiting, READY AND WAITING to take over and Harper has just prevented them.
To ignore his request would have been bad precedent,
Um, no, giving in to the request is the bad precedent. It means from here on in every Prime Minister facing a vote of confidence in Parliament can instead request the Governor General to suspend its functioning while he tries to figure out a way to save his backside.
Reply
Reply
They're not "Toms, Dicks and Harrys" for godsake they're seasoned politicians. And yes the Governor-General IS supposed to hand the government over to the opposition when a) the opposition can show that the current executive has lost the confidence of the legislature and b) the opposition can show that they are in a position to form a new government. That is the way the system is supposed to work.
Reply
For heaven't sake, we're not talking about Charles I or Cromwell here. The GG hasn't abolished Parliament: she's merely extended the regular Parliamentary break by a week.
Reply
Reply
And no, we are NOT in the middle of a recession; our economy grew modestly over the last quarter. We may be facing a recession in the very near future, but it isn't here yet; that's just the pretext the coalition is using as their excuse for their attempted power grab.
The situation is, decidedly, stupid. But prorogation is considerably better than having an awkward tripartite coalition immediately forced on the country against the popular will, and the strains that would cause on national unity -- assuming that the GG *did* let the coalition go ahead rather than call another election, which would cause its own set of problems.
Reply
Actually, looking at the calendar, I think it's more like seven weeks. And yes, as opposed to five weeks. Two weeks is enough time to pass some important legislation. AND he's done it deliberately to dodge the vote of non-confidence next Monday and thus has effectively suspended the functioning of the government in order to cover his ass, the main point, which you keep avoiding.
And no, we are NOT in the middle of a recession; our economy grew modestly over the last quarter. We may be facing a recession in the very near future, but it isn't here yet; that's just the pretext the coalition is using as their excuse for their attempted power grab.
I was referring to the worldwide recession which yes, will mean that Canada IS facing a recession in the near future. And we're certainly not going to avoid it by totally failing to act.
The situation is, decidedly, stupid.
Well, we're agreed there, although I think we may each be referring to different bits of the situation when we brand it stupid.
But prorogation is considerably better than having an awkward tripartite coalition immediately forced on the country against the popular will, and the strains that would cause on national unity -- assuming that the GG *did* let the coalition go ahead rather than call another election, which would cause its own set of problems.
But we'll have to agree to disagree on this bit.
Reply
His request was obviously self-serving. However, that doesn't mean it's automatically bad for the country; and the best interests of the country are what the GG is supposed to keep in mind, no? I think it's very clear that this cooling-off period was very much needed, and the right thing to do.
If a future PM tries to use this as a precedent for postponing (NOT avoiding completely) a confidence vote in the future, won't the GG at that time get to decide whether the precedent applies?
Reply
If a future PM tries to use this as a precedent for postponing (NOT avoiding completely) a confidence vote in the future, won't the GG at that time get to decide whether the precedent applies?
You really want this sort of constitutional brouhaha over which way the GG is going to decide every single time there's any matter of confidence in Parliament and the opposition are making vote-against-it noises?
Reply
The government is still there. That's why Harper asked for prorogation.
They may not be able to pass legislation, but was there actually anything planned? Even the New Libs on the Bloc didn't have an actual budget ready; they just released a document describing their general intent.
You really want this sort of constitutional brouhaha over which way the GG is going to decide every single time there's any matter of confidence in Parliament and the opposition are making vote-against-it noises?
This was very clearly an exceptional situation. A PM could ask the GG to do it again, but if the GG decided that the same conditions didn't apply, then that would be a new precedent.
If the same conditions did apply, then yes; I would want the GG to consider prorogation.
Reply
Every single time that happens, sure, you may be sitting there thinking, "oh, this is completely different than that time Harper did this because XYZ", maybe. But every single time there will be a group of people who want it to happen, or see similarities to Harper's situation, or see other reasons it should happen. Every single time there will be this sort of argument and debate and constitutional crisis. Every single time the country will be shouting at itself for several weeks or more because of it.
That is SERIOUSLY what you want? You really think that's any way to run a government?
Apart of course that it will never be right for a PM to get the GG to prorogue Parliament so he can save his own ass. And that is what is happening. Harper has found a loophole in the system so he can subvert and undermine it. Are you blind that you don't see this?
Reply
That is SERIOUSLY what you want?
Want? No. I don't think anybody wanted any of this to happen.
However, I believe that this choice was preferable and far better for the country than having an unpopular coalition foisted on us on such short notice, with all the furor that would follow, even if it does set an undesirable precedent.
And events since then confirm my opinion. I think it's very good that all sides are toning down the rhetoric - and I'm sure that if the GG hadn't prorogued, the level of political rhetoric this weekend would be much, much worse. Unfair? Maybe, but it's still better for the country to avoid it.
The fact that the coalition started to fall apart on Friday is a further indication that it's a bad idea. I know you believe that they would have held it together if the GG hadn't prorogued, but I don't share that belief. If they can't keep it together until January, how are they going to govern the country for the next 2.5 years?
Reply
(The comment has been removed)
Reply
democracy 101.
Reply
Leave a comment