Quote:
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.
|
Of course it does.
Harper could test the confidence of the house. The GG will not dismiss the will of the electorate who gave the CPC the most seats.
If they are defeated in a vote of confidence, Harper can resign and advise the GG to invite a different party to form the government, or he can advise the GG to dissolve parliament and call another election. But Harper, as PM, advises the GG. By principle, a prime minister's advice (even if the prime minister has lost a confidence vote in the House) should be rejected only if doing so is necessary to protect the integrity of our parliamentary system. An immediate election when there may be a plausible alternate could be just that - but that is the process it would take if Harper wins the most seats and insists on testing confidence (and then dissolving parliament) regardless what the opposition says.
This is why King's play worked. He was PM and advised the GG that he had the confidence of the house.