Federal Election Called for Oct 19, 2015

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Again, you're focusing on the part of the affair that is completely irrelevant to the principle of the constitutional convention. King went to the GG because he believed he could form a government. Meighen won both the popular vote and the seat count. Didn't matter.

King, as outgoing PM, believed he could hold the confidence of the house of commons, even though he had not won the election.

So, if Harper lost the election to Trudeau and attempted to remain PM, we would be in a similar situation.

Trudeau losing the election, and forming a coalition in an attempt take away power from the governing party, who won the election, is not the same situation.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by rubecube

That's not how the convention works. If the elected party cannot form a government, then convention is that the GG asks the leader of the opposition to form a government. Whether they do this via formal or informal coalition is irrelevant.

No, that's not how it works.

If the government loses the confidence of the house of commons, the GG then has the decision to EITHER dissolve parliament OR approach another party to attempt to gain the confidence of the house.

They are under no obligation to offer a backdoor coalition the PM's chair.

[Slava]

What's the backdoor exactly? If the PM has the confidence of parliament they can attempt to govern. Its not a backdoor at all.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Yeah, but as I said above, they don't need to form a formal coalition. One party just needs to agree to prop up the other party and not prop up the Conservatives.

True, like how the Bloc agreed to support the would-be Liberal/NDP coalition in 2008 even though they wouldn't officially be in the coalition. Of course, that didn't stop the Conservatives and many Canadians from considering it a coalition with the Bloc by any other name.


I still believe that many people would find it distasteful and it would be a controversy the Liberals don't need at this time. While the parliamentary system does allow for it, the undemocratic optics of it would be hard support in 2015. Citizens have expectations that have outgrown the system we have and politicians would be best served to heed those expectations.

If the Liberals lose, but still win a reasonable number of seats, I think they would be best served to keep Trudeau, play nice, build on the improvement and bide their time until the next election. Canadians want a party that can build bridges, not destroy them.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

King, as outgoing PM, believed he could hold the confidence of the house of commons, even though he had not won the election.

Once parliament is dissolved, it's dissolved. Previous status has no bearing. The only part of the equation that mattered was that King believed he could hold the confidence of the House. The fact that he was PM in the previous House is completely irrelevant. Honestly, think about you're writing and ask how that would make any sense in a constitutional legal dispute.

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

Lastly, comparing budgeting decision to a deceitful backdoor deal to become prime minister after losing an election is really ridiculous.

There was nothing deceitful about it. They were very openly saying that they could form a coalition government. But lets play your game.

Is it okay to compare this "deceitful" deal with election tampering?

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Slava

What's the backdoor exactly? If the PM has the confidence of parliament they can attempt to govern. Its not a backdoor at all.

Backdoor I'm referring to would be lying to Canadians about your intentions to not form a coalition government, then forming such a coalition afterwards anyways.

It's extremely undemocratic and deceitful.

I find it concerning so many people here seemingly would support this unprecedented behavior in Canadian politics.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

No, that's not how it works.

If the government loses the confidence of the house of commons, the GG then has the decision to EITHER dissolve parliament OR approach another party to attempt to gain the confidence of the house.

They are under no obligation to offer a backdoor coalition the PM's chair.

The GG is not under obligation to go to the opposition parties before dissolving parliament but the convention is that they do.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

Backdoor I'm referring to would be lying to Canadians about your intentions to not form a coalition government, then forming such a coalition afterwards anyways.

It's extremely undemocratic and deceitful.

I find it concerning so many people here seemingly would support this unprecedented behavior in Canadian politics.

Because they wouldn't have to form a coalition and it wouldn't be unprecedented? Both Trudeau and Mulcair have said they would not support a Harper minority government, but neither have said they would not support an NDP or Liberal minority government. This does not mean they're going to form a coalition, just that they would possibly support one another's attempts to form a government.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

True, like how the Bloc agreed to support the would-be Liberal/NDP coalition in 2008 even though they wouldn't officially be in the coalition. Of course, that didn't stop the Conservatives and many Canadians from considering it a coalition with the Bloc by any other name.


I still believe that many people would find it distasteful and it would be a controversy the Liberals don't need at this time. While the parliamentary system does allow for it, the undemocratic optics of it would be hard support in 2015. Citizens have expectations that have outgrown the system we have and politicians would be best to heed those expectations.

If the Liberals lose, but still win a reasonable number of seats, I think they would be best served to keep Trudeau, play nice, build on the improvement and bide their time until the next election. Canadians want a party that can build bridges, not destroy them.

If Trudeau finishes third, as the Liberal's golden boy they will turn on him and bounce him in a hurry, and I don't believe that Trudeau would even be interested in running again.

To me Mulcair and Trudeau talking about a coalition is just really foolish, its more then likely going to spook the fringe voters in each party who don't want to see a Liberal party under the NDP or a NDP party under the Liberals.

All they're doing is giving ammo to the Conservative war room at this point.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Because they wouldn't have to form a coalition and it wouldn't be unprecedented? Both Trudeau and Mulcair have said they would not support a Harper minority government, but neither have said they would not support an NDP or Liberal minority government. This does not mean they're going to form a coalition, just that they would possibly support one another's attempts to form a government.

that's an even worse message, all its saying is that we'll be back at the polls within a year.

And the Liberals and NDP can't afford to fight another election within a calendar year.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Once parliament is dissolved, it's dissolved. Previous status has no bearing. The only part of the equation that mattered was that King believed he could hold the confidence of the House. The fact that he was PM in the previous House is completely irrelevant. Honestly, think about you're writing and ask how that would make any sense in a constitutional legal dispute.

You're entirely 100% wrong.

The Prime Minister remains in the post until he or she is dismissed by the GG (via losing confidence of the house) or resigns. That's the only reason why King had the opportunity to form government at all.

Time for some reading rube.

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

I find it concerning so many people here seemingly would support this unprecedented behavior in Canadian politics.

I would rather support something unprecedented than go through another election weeks or months after the last one. It's a waste of time and money. Work with the cards you're dealt, and if the party that had the most seats cannot do it then let someone else try.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

True, like how the Bloc agreed to support the would-be Liberal/NDP coalition in 2008 even though they wouldn't officially be in the coalition. Of course, that didn't stop the Conservatives and many Canadians from considering it a coalition with the Bloc by any other name.

I still believe that many people would find it distasteful and it would be a controversy the Liberals don't need at this time. While the parliamentary system does allow for it, the undemocratic optics of it would be hard support in 2015. Citizens have expectations that have outgrown the system we have and politicians would be best served to heed those expectations.

If the Liberals lose, but still win a reasonable number of seats, I think they would be best served to keep Trudeau, play nice, build on the improvement and bide their time until the next election. Canadians want a party that can build bridges, not destroy them.

Disagree. People want Harper gone bad enough that I think they could support a Liberal government that had the backing of the NDP or vice-versa.

I also don't think they can afford to wait. The Liberals did a pretty good job of fundraising this round, but they can't match the Conservatives. I would imagine an NDP or Liberal government would restore the subsidies that the Conservatives took away.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Because they wouldn't have to form a coalition and it wouldn't be unprecedented? Both Trudeau and Mulcair have said they would not support a Harper minority government, but neither have said they would not support an NDP or Liberal minority government. This does not mean they're going to form a coalition, just that they would possibly support one another's attempts to form a government.

If they (either party) could command the house without having to form a coalition government I don't think there would be any issues. That's the compromise intended in a minority position, IMHO.

The problem being, I don't believe they could. However that's certainly debatable.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

If Trudeau finishes third, as the Liberal's golden boy they will turn on him and bounce him in a hurry, and I don't believe that Trudeau would even be interested in running again.

To me Mulcair and Trudeau talking about a coalition is just really foolish, its more then likely going to spook the fringe voters in each party who don't want to see a Liberal party under the NDP or a NDP party under the Liberals.

All they're doing is giving ammo to the Conservative war room at this point.

I suspect you are right about Trudeau and the instant gratification desires that the party has to govern, and nothing less, is their downfall IMO. Canadians definitely have a "devil you know" tendency when it comes to elections and the incumbents tend to usually have that advantage unless the rug is completely pulled out from underneath them.

I think by constantly re-booting, the Liberals do more harm than good to their cause.

I agree with your second point as well. I am a cautious Liberal supporter at this moment, but if I thought a coalition with the NDP was likely, I would probably vote for the Green Party again.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Awful lot of debate on constitutional law in here by non-lawyers much less lawyers with actual constitutional law expertise... I personally have no idea what the right answer here would end up being, so I'm not sure how any of you guys can express so much confidence in your views.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

You're entirely 100% wrong.

The Prime Minister remains in the post until he or she is dismissed by the GG (via losing confidence of the house) or resigns. That's the only reason why King had the opportunity to form government at all.

Time for some reading rube.

Yeah, I wrote that wrong. My point was that the PM doesn't retain a mandate after the election and that his status as PM has no bearing on whether the GG will dissolve parliament or go to the opposition leader. Harper could technically ask the GG to dissolve parliament again and force another election, but the GG doesn't have to grant that. The more likely scenario is the GG going to ask the opposition leader if they can form a government.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

Awful lot of debate on constitutional law in here by non-lawyers much less lawyers with actual constitutional law expertise... I personally have no idea what the right answer here would end up being, so I'm not sure how any of you guys can express so much confidence in your views.

It doesn't help that the Canadian Constitution has more gray areas than old man lettuce.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

If they (either party) could command the house without having to form a coalition government I don't think there would be any issues. That's the compromise intended in a minority position, IMHO.

The problem being, I don't believe they could. However that's certainly debatable.

Okay so we're on the same page here then. I just happen to believe that they would rather support each other than go through another 4 years of Harper.