Canada's coup d'etat: Opposition parties join to overthrow gov't (Part 2)

[Ben Kenobi]

NYE makes an excellent point.

How can the Liberals push Dion as PM when he isn't even fit to be the leader of their party?

Harper should call their bluff on Monday, rather then proroguing parliament.

Given Dion's disgraceful performance, Harper's all set.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither
Mandate has always mattered. Mandate is widely discussed about governments in parliaments.

In this case, in the elcetion of a few weeks ago, Dion specifically ruled out entering into any coalition.

Now let me ask you, do you have any precedents for a coalition to be brought to power following a vote of non-confidence?

Why would I need them?

The issues have been decided separately.

Does the party forming the government have to have a plurality? No, there is precedent against it.

Does the PM get to crowd out other options for government by dissolving Parliament shortly after the election when there is a viable alternate government? No, there is precedent against it.

Things which you are attempting to invent precedents for:

That politicians will be forced by the Governor General to live up to election promises.

That incumbent prime ministers are favoured. Really? You want this?

That parties which form a coalition with a non-plurality party must negotiate in good faith with the plurality party.

[notyoueither]

I'll settle for you listing the instances of another government rather than an election following a vote of non-confidence.

We've already discussed King-Byng, and I've told you why, repeatedly, that Meighen was given a chance. He led the party with the most seats. Try for others.

[KrazyHorse]

I'll settle for you listing the instances of another government rather than an election following a vote of non-confidence.

Ontario, 1985



The Commons is supreme. It does not sign its own death warrant by evicting the PM.

I'll settle for you listing the instances of another government rather than an election following a vote of non-confidence.

We've already discussed King-Byng, and I've told you why, repeatedly, that Meighen was given a chance. He led the party with the most seats. Try for others.

NO! He was given a chance BECAUSE HE HAD, ACCORDING TO THE G-G's JUDGMENT, THE ABILITY TO GAIN THE CONFIDENCE OF THE HOUSE.

That is standard constitutional construction for Commonwealth countries.

[notyoueither]

One more time.

Miller asked the LG to invite Peterson to form a government.

It is regarded as a huge gaff on his part.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither
One more time.

Miller asked the LG to invite Peterson to form a government.

a) That's not what you asked of me.

b) I've let you get away with this lie enough times now

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081203.wconstitution03/BNStory/politics/home?cid=al_gam_mostemail

Mr. Miller asked lieutenant-governor John Black Aird to dissolve the legislature and allow an election. The opposition presented Mr. Aird with a publicly signed agreement to allow the Liberals to govern for two years with NDP support.

Mr. Aird refused to grant dissolution and invited Liberal leader David Peterson to form a government

[KrazyHorse]

http://books.google.com/books?id=yh-L9dWLQ08C&pg=PA238&lpg=PA238&dq=aird&source=bl&ots=uvFKht1kSl&sig=wCHYgLrFQd6bIOOGQeLVqQRywXc&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=3&ct=result

As a minority government the Conservatives [...] were defeated within a month. Premier Miller asked Lieutenant-Governor John Aird [...] to dissolve the legislature and call a fresh election. Aird refused this advice

[KrazyHorse]

Now, I should give you the benefit of the doubt. I called it a lie, but in fact you may have simply been mistaken. I didn't know what had happened myself until I researched it a bit. I accepted your version of events (I was aware of the basic situation but was not actually wholly confident that Miller had been forced to drop the writ).

[notyoueither]

Don't believe everything you read in a newspaper. They often abridge, often to a level that distorts.

Quick search, and some interesting reading for you.

http://www.members.shaw.ca/nspector4/globe291.htm

Quebec has not enjoyed a previous minority government since 1878, so there's been considerable confusion surrounding the powers of the province's lieutenant-governor in the event that Jean Charest's budget is defeated tomorrow. Precedents from across Canada will come in handy, because even if Mr. Charest survives this vote, it's clear his minority will be subject to the vagaries of one sole opposition party holding the balance of power (unlike the relatively stable situation in Ottawa).

The precedents are clear. If his government is defeated on its budget, Mr. Charest has no option but to tender his resignation. And, despite what some have written, if the Premier, then, requests that the National Assembly be dissolved and an election called, there is no Canadian precedent for the Queen's representative to deny it.

Some have pointed to the Ontario Liberals' ascension to office in 1985 as precedent for another political party being asked to form a government without benefit of a new election. True, David Peterson was asked to form a government that year after Conservative Frank Miller's throne speech was defeated. But Mr. Peterson took power because of a recommendation made to the lieutenant-governor by Mr. Miller himself. It was Mr. Miller, not the lieutenant-governor, who recoiled at the prospect of sending Ontarians to the polls again. And it was Mr. Miller who noted in his letter of resignation that the leader of the opposition could command the confidence of the House. Such is not the case in Quebec today.

[KrazyHorse]

Uh, NYE. Perhaps you should read the second link. It is from a textbook published 2001.

[KrazyHorse]

The only links I can find which support your claim are your posted link and another article by the same gentleman.

http://business.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081128.WBSpector20081128081255/WBStory/WBSpector

In which the first comment is:

Are you certain about Miller recommending Peterson. My recollection (from the day admittedly) was that Miller asked for a return to the polls and JB Aird turned him down, for sound constitutional reasons.

[notyoueither]

Perhaps you should read mine.

It is written by a columnist for the Globe and Le Devoir. He describes exactly the circumstances that I have read of elsewhere.

Note also, from your textbook

This is one of the few cases in Canada's majoritarian system where change in party government has occured without an election.

I challenge you to find another.

[notyoueither]

Furthermore, Peterson was within a few seats of Miller and was not on his way out as party leader when he sought the LG to appoint him to the highest office in Ontario.

Peterson won more votes, but fewer seats, than Miller as well. There's than damned mandate word again.

Dion is no Peterson. The situations are, and will never be, remotely similar.

[KrazyHorse]

I already read yours, dude. Along with the bio of the guy. And did a search for further references.

Right now I'm up to 3 uncorrelated sources (newspaper, textbook, first comment in Mr. Spector's globe&mail article)

I can't find any further sources which back your claim. Can you find any which were not written by Mr. Spector? I will accept offline sources as well.

[KrazyHorse]

(as long as they are part of the public record I should be able to get them at the library)