Canada's Opposition Parties Vow to Bring Down Government, 1 month into its term...

[CrONoS]

Originally posted by Ramo


Um. You're stating that there's actual law stating that the government must be include the party with a plurality of seats?

True, there no really law, except this thing, there is one british constitutional convention which have been imported. Which state that the chief of the party which have the more deputy at the house of common should be be the first minister of the Canada.

Edit: I'm not a constitutionalists, far from it, I hated each of my course about it, but as an electors. Any government which is not elected by Canadian doesn't have any legitimacy.

[Bosh]

Originally posted by CrONoS


Do you have a Queen?

Do you have our constitution?

Man, this is how our rules, law, constitution are fixed. That's it...

How so? This outrage in the face of what seems to me to be very normal Parliamentary politics just seems bizarre to me. Maybe there's something in the constitution or the laws that make this illegal in which case I would be very curious to know what it is exactly.

Canada, technically, is a Parliamentary government which is headed up by the Queen. We don't really look at it that way.

Canada, like the US, in a de facto sense, votes for the Prime Minister and the Party they want to lead. That's the mindset of Canadians, and how the VAST majority vote. In Canada, in the de facto sense, the leader of the largest party forms the government. We're used to this, we like this, we think it's fine.

So Constitutions should operate according to how the majority of people think they should operate at any given time as opposed to, I don't know, maybe what the Constitution actually says. If the majority of the Canadian people think that government should operate in a way that's fundamentally different from the way that the Constitution says it does, why don't they go and change the Constitution? What you're saying doesn't make any sense to me.

It's absolutely a kick to the nuts for democracy to have to crawl to the QUEEN or her representative and have the ball in THEIR court how our government is run, even if we just had our election a month ago.

So it is undemocratic to have a coalition supported by parties that got both the majority of the votes and the majority of the seats to run the government? It is more democratic for the government to be run by a minority? You have a very strange definition of democratic.

I don't care for the excuse "that's how it is". It's wrong, it needs to change

Then change it.

there is one constitutional convention which state that the chief of the party which have the more deputy at the house of common should be be the first minister of the Canada.

Cite?
Am curious.

[Ben Kenobi]

For God sake, the Queen would choose our government... THE QUEEN!

I'd be happier if the Queen was the one who got the choice, tbh.

Liberal appointed governor general? No thank you.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Wezil


Toss right back at ya.

You did say proroguing parliament would be a good idea to let cooler heads prevail.

The only reason to prorogue is to avoid a confidence vote.

I'll thank you the fvck the hell off and stop putting words in my mouth.

Originally posted by notyoueither


He may prorogue regardless. Give everyone a break to cool off and allow time for public reaction to the idea to become known.

Where did I say it would be a good idea, aszhole?

[CrONoS]

Originally posted by Bosh
Cite?
Am curious.

I don't know sorry, it came from one constitutionalists on french Canadian newspaper ;
And the source is from one of these two books; which are in french.

Droit constitutionnel, François Chevrette et Herbert Marx, Presses de l'Université de Montréal, 1982.

Précis de droit constitutionnel, André Tremblay, Éditions Thémis, 1982.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Oerdin
Alright folks. We wait for the civil war to start then we blitz for the oil fields.

BTW I didn't even know prorogue was a word.

Sitting Bull lives.

We'll make you think Iraq was a picnic, so back off Yank.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Bosh
Cite?
Am curious.

It is the basis of the King-Byng affair.

King won fewer seats than the Tories, but had the support of the Progressives initially to give him a majority and he was the sitting PM.

That left the plurality party in opposition.

King's government lost the confidence of the House. Due to the position of the Tories (plurality) Byng gave them a chance to govern instead of dissolving Parliament and calling new elections.

I can say that this, the only federal precedent for the proposed coalition, does not fit. Here we have the Liberals as very far away from a plurality that deserves a shot at governing.

The other precedent for the coalition is the Peterson/Rae government in Ontario. Only problem is that the loser advised the LG to invite Peterson to form a government. In this case, Harper is rumoured to be urging fresh elections.

There is very little, or no, precedent for the GG to grant the opposition their proposed desire, and the Tories seem pledged to throw pooh at the proceedings.

I would not want to be the GG. It could be a very difficult situation to navigate.

[KrazyHorse]

I would not want to be the GG. It could be a very difficult situation to navigate.

Indeed...

[Bosh]

King won fewer seats than the Tories, but had the support of the Progressives initially to give him a majority and he was the sitting PM.

If King won fewer seats than the Tories but still became PM then Cronos's assertion that "the chief of the party which have the more deputy at the house of common should be be the first minister of the Canada" must be wrong or at least not the kind of binding rule that he's holding it out to be.

[CrONoS]

Originally posted by Bosh

If King won fewer seats than the Tories but still became PM then Cronos's assertion that "the chief of the party which have the more deputy at the house of common should be be the first minister of the Canada" must be wrong or at least not the kind of binding rule that he's holding it out to be.

King had 99 seat; , Conservatives :116 seat; Progressist: 11seat;

Edited:
According to wiki

You could look here on wiki:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King-Byng_Affair

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Bosh

If King won fewer seats than the Tories but still became PM then Cronos's assertion that "the chief of the party which have the more deputy at the house of common should be be the first minister of the Canada" must be wrong or at least not the kind of binding rule that he's holding it out to be.

It was an unusual situation, and it did lead to a constitutional crisis in the end.

We do not need another crisis on top of the economy, thank you very much.

A fresh election may be the most economical path given the circumstances.

[KrazyHorse]

Cronos

Errr....no. You have those two mixed up. King had 99, the Conservatives 116

And the Conservatives had 46% of the popular vote compared to the Liberals' 40%

[KrazyHorse]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_federal_election,_1925

Leader Arthur Meighen William Lyon Mackenzie King Robert Forke
Party Conservative Liberal Progressive
Leader since 1920 1919 1922
Leader's seat Portage la Prairie Prince Albert Brandon
Last election 49 118 58
Seats won 115 100 22
Seat change +66 -18 -36
Popular vote 1,454,253 1,252,684 266,319
Percentage 46.13% 39.74% 8.45%
Swing +16.18% -1.41% -12.65%

Incumbent Prime Minister
William Lyon Mackenzie King
Liberal
Prime Minister-designate
William Lyon Mackenzie King
Liberal

[KrazyHorse]

The 116 to 91 figure is from the election AFTER the King-Byng affair. In the interim, the Conservatives (under Meighen) were invited by the G-G (Byng) to form a government against the wishes of the PM (King) who wanted Parliament dissolved before he faced a motion of no confidence.

[KrazyHorse]

The reason King was given the first chance to form a government after the 1925 election despite the Conservatives having a plurality in Commons is that King had a letter of support from the Progressives which he presented to the G-G...