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

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Asher


Stop being a douche and read the responses already written, thanks.

Also, for your edification, the Canadian federal government is not the same as a provincial legislature, nor is it the British parliament.

Except that they follow the same constitutional and procedural rules and traditions. Dumbtastic fail.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


Except that they follow the same constitutional and procedural rules and traditions. Dumbtastic fail.

You didn't read the replies yet, did you.

You also make an assumption: that I was talking about it from a "have these rules ever been applied before" perspective - I wasn't. I have made it very clear I understand this is legal. This is your failure, you do not comprehend simple arguments made explicitly clear. I don't know if you can't speak English well or if your brain is tainted from years of filosofical bull****, but either way I'm letting you know my tolerance for this kind of **** is very low right now.

This is unprecedented for the reasons I've outlined above. Try reading them now.

[KrazyHorse]

Originally posted by notyoueither


King was the sitting PM.

What does that mean when there is an intervening election?

[KrazyHorse]

FWIW, it seems like the academics disagree with you. It's never happened anyway, so it's all opinion.

No, it seems like ONE academic disagrees with me. The conventional view is NOT that the PM gets to fire the G-G at will.

[Asher]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

FWIW, it seems like the academics disagree with you. It's never happened anyway, so it's all opinion.

No, it seems like ONE academic disagrees with me. The conventional view is NOT that the PM gets to fire the G-G at will.

Which academics disagree with me?

[KrazyHorse]

And that's the crux of what Harper will argue to the GG.

I wonder what impact public opinion will have in her decision.

Traditionally, this has no bearing on the G-G's decision (AFAIK). If she decides that it is now her responsibility to judge the will of the people in making her decisions rather than acting as a mediator for the House it will be a rather radical increase in responsibility.

As for dismissing the GG, Harper would ask for something like proroguement and if she says no, then he would ask the Queen to dismiss her with some grounds for it.

I doubt that she would refuse to prorogue Parliament, but I am not certain.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse




What does that mean when there is an intervening election?

Oh, and the support of the Progressives carried over from the previous Parliament.

It means a lot. A sitting premier is often given latitude to continue if he asks for it.

As well, there is the issue of continuing support of the Progressives.

BTW, there are a couple of precedents of elections within 12 months of each other in minority situations.

I don't think there is a minimum time between elections law, at least not that I've heard of.

[KrazyHorse]

BTW, there are a couple of precedents of elections within 12 months of each other in minority situations.

I don't think there is a minimum time between elections law, at least not that I've heard of.

AFAIK none of these elections occurred when there was still a reasonable chance of forming a government under another PM.

There is no minimum time between elections. There IS an expectation that the first choice for PM does not crowd out all other possibilities, if he fails to govern.

[KrazyHorse]

If Harper DOES request Jean's dismissal from the Queen then we will be in truly uncharted territory. This might be Harper's best chance out of the situation (other than delaying tactics)

The chances of Jean not allowing Dion to attempt to govern are minuscule given the precedents.

[Asher]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse
If Harper DOES request Jean's dismissal from the Queen then we will be in truly uncharted territory. This might be Harper's best chance out of the situation (other than delaying tactics)

The chances of Jean not allowing Dion to attempt to govern are minuscule given the precedents.

The problem is that reasoning never enters into this mess.

People use the argument that 63% did not vote for Harper as PM, so it's reasonable that the coalition takes over. The problem is 75% did not vote for Dion as PM, and he's even a lame duck PM with no future in the party. Why should he be given control of the country after admitting defeat just a month ago?

Despite what they claim, the Liberals are NOT ready to govern. They don't have a real leader, just an "interim" leader. If the GG used reason and rationality, there's no way Dion would be PM.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

And that's the crux of what Harper will argue to the GG.

I wonder what impact public opinion will have in her decision.

Traditionally, this has no bearing on the G-G's decision (AFAIK). If she decides that it is now her responsibility to judge the will of the people in making her decisions rather than acting as a mediator for the House it will be a rather radical increase in responsibility.

I know.

I am wondering what all things she will consider though. She is being asked by the three opposition parties to accept a coalition with the stated aim of excluding the largest party from government when that party is kicking and screaming about it (we presume).

Shakey ground.

As for dismissing the GG, Harper would ask for something like proroguement and if she says no, then he would ask the Queen to dismiss her with some grounds for it.

I doubt that she would refuse to prorogue Parliament, but I am not certain.

The question arises assuming the GG is uncooperative with Harper do to... whatever.

I doubt he would ever try to have her dismissed just out of the blue. I should say I hope not, but I've been disappointed before.

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Asher
This is unprecedented for the reasons I've outlined above. Try reading them now.

I had read them already, and they were indeed an expression of your abysmal failure. Let's examine them, if you wish so.

I'm not talking about coalitions.

I'm talking about a coalition that was formed likely before sessions even started.

Plain wrong. Parties do talk to each other, especially in a situation where we've been in minority government for years.

The specifics, of course, have been worked out after the election. You can only discuss them when the forces in presence are known.

One that did not give the new government any reasonable time to govern.

Wrong again. If you had bothered to read about the topic, you'd know that we're talking about governments that were toppled right away.

One that is formed with ALL parties from the opposition that even then have a NARROW margin of support.

What? the only difference here is that there are three opposition parties involved, instead of the usual two. What's so incredible about that?

And a 163 seats government is absolutely par of the course in our parliament.

One that happened one month after elections. One that will put a leader as PM who was just categorically rejected by voters as PM as PM. One that put a first-time PM in the spot when he's a LAME DUCK and already resigned from his leadership role.

Jesus Christ, use your brain for a second.
Any opposition leader who becomes PM after a coalition is formed has been -necessarily and obviously- rejected as PM. Nothing new here. Is there even a point?

Do you think they'd get all the votes they did if people knew they were voting for a Liberal-NDP-Bloc coalition? I guarantee you they wouldn't, and they knew that too.

In the case of Bloc and NDP voters, yes, absolutely. Those parties have never had much influence in shaping governmental policies. It's actually a golden opportunity for them to show the electorate that voting for them can count.

In the case of Liberals, probably not as much. I'll remind you though that there was a strong "anyone but Harper" sentiment in this election. We'll have to wait and see if this sentiment is stronger than the dislike of compromising with other parties. The uproar right now is quite vehement, but the dust might eventually settle if they enact sound policies.

I understand that the Conservatives are banging on the "dealing with separatists" dead horse, but if the Libs react in time and properly, they'll be able to remind people that compromises with the Bloc have been necessary since Martin, and that there's nothing new here. Especially if you consider that the only Bloc requests that have been agreed upon relate to the economy and some welfare programs, without any compromise on national unity.

Granted, my hopes of Albertans like Asher being able to read and understand a situation properly might be overly optimistic.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by KrazyHorse

BTW, there are a couple of precedents of elections within 12 months of each other in minority situations.

I don't think there is a minimum time between elections law, at least not that I've heard of.

AFAIK none of these elections occurred when there was still a reasonable chance of forming a government under another PM.

There is no minimum time between elections. There IS an expectation that the first choice for PM does not crowd out all other possibilities, if he fails to govern.

Legitimacy becomes an issue though.

Yes, the three have the seats, but if they succeed there will be questions of legitimacy that will never go away.

1. Coalition to exclude plurality from power
2. Federal government surviving at the pleasure of seperatists
3. Discredited, outgoing leader as PM. Talk about lack of mandate
4. Consipracy prior to issue of confidence

You may not agree with any of them. I don't know about all of it, but there are some good reasons for the GG to think long and hard before approving the coalitions hair-brained scheme.

[notyoueither]

Also, I point out, again, that the two prior cases in Canada are not good precedent IMO.

In the King-Byng affair, the Tories were given the opportunity to govern because they were the plurality.

In the Peterson case, the plurality leader asked the LG to invite Peterson to try his hand with the NDP for support. Harper is not doing anything of the sort.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


I had read them already, and they were indeed an expression of your abysmal failure. Let's examine them, if you wish so.



Plain wrong. Parties do talk to each other, especially in a situation where we've been in minority government for years.

The specifics, of course, have been worked out after the election. You can only discuss them when the forces in presence are known.

I find it cute you just assert it is "plain wrong" that they talked to eachother before the election. You know to make that claim you must support it, right?

Wrong again. If you had bothered to read about the topic, you'd know that we're talking about governments that were toppled right away.

How the **** can my opinion that they didnt' give enough time for the government to govern "wrong"? Again, you are a completely ****ing clueless twit. I'm not saying LEGALLY THIS IS NOT ALLOWED. I have clarified this, WTF is your problem?

What? the only difference here is that there are three opposition parties involved, instead of the usual two. What's so incredible about that?

Gee, I don't know. One is a fervent anti-separatist and the other is a separatist? Additionally, the leader of the main party who will be PM has already announced he will be resigning due to his failure to win support from Canadians. Incredible seems like a fair description.

Jesus Christ, use your brain for a second.
Any opposition leader who becomes PM after a coalition is formed has been -necessarily and obviously- rejected as PM. Nothing new here. Is there even a point?

You can't read. Who has headed up a coalition after they already announced they will be resigning as leader to become PM before? What, no one? What's the word for that? Unprecedented? Something like that.

In the case of Bloc and NDP voters, yes, absolutely.

You're crazy if you think all of the voters who voted for the three parties individually would show up to vote for them all together. Simply crazy.