Will the government fall?

[ratech]

I think this is how Joe Clark got the boot if I remember correctly.

[CaptainCrunch]

Originally posted by ratech@May 19 2005, 06:15 PM
I think this is how Joe Clark got the boot if I remember correctly.

Joe Clark got the boot because he was a moron. he knew the vote of non-confidence was coming, and didn't ensure that every member of his party was in the house to defeat it.

[Agamemnon]

Originally posted by Bend it like Bourgeois@May 19 2005, 05:19 PM
That the government would resign after losing a confidence vote is a matter of convention, not law.

Just like its convention that the leader of the Party becomes Prime Minister.

If the Liberals ignored a non-confidence vote, they'd be finished as a Party. It's one thing if a few of them are corrupt, another if the entire party hi-jacks the political process and steers it clearly against the grain.

Anyone have a link where a govt. failed a confidence vote and remained in power?

[Resolute 14]

I think you give people too much credit if you think ignoring a non-confidence vote would be the end of the Liberal party...

[lucid]

Originally posted by Agamemnon@May 19 2005, 12:27 PM
Anyone have a link where a govt. failed a confidence vote and remained in power?

I'd be intersted in seeing if this has ever hapened as well.

You would think that a case of the gov't disrespecting the vote of no-confidence would prompt some later action to see that it would never happen again, ie: formal, written inclusion of procedures/consequences in the constitution, rather than leaving it as convention.
You start going against convention by ignoring a no-confidence vote, and it's not only the governing party that's finished. There would be serious repercussions for the entire political system. Not a good precedent to set, or a good path to take.

[Flames Draft Watcher]

Originally posted by Snakeeye@May 19 2005, 06:32 PM
I think you give people too much credit if you think ignoring a non-confidence vote would be the end of the Liberal party...

I dunno. Perhaps you are just jaded and cynical because you don't understand why people still support the Liberals currently? Not everyone believes that the entire Liberal party is full of crooks. You and a lot of Conservative supporters do, and certainly some people who previously supported the Liberals do. But it's not the only conclusion that you can come to from the scandal, especially since the vast majority of the people implicated thus far are no longer in the party. You are judging an entire party on the deeds of a few, not everyone will take the same approach.

But if a party completely ignores the conventions it does suggets that they are all untrustworthy. You couldn't write it off as a few bad apples. Therefore the two situations are not similar.

[Cheese]

Originally posted by Shawnski@May 19 2005, 02:09 PM
Cheese, perhaps you are thinking about the King-Byng Affair? Different situation, if you are.

The King-Byng Affair refers to a 1926 Canadian constitutional crisis that occurred when the Governor General of Canada, Lord Byng of Vimy refused a request by the Prime Minister of Canada, William Lyon Mackenzie King, to dissolve parliament and call a general election.

King-Byng Thing

Prof. Andrew Heard of Simon Fraser University is a constitutional expert. He writes:

It is a firm constitutional convention that prime ministers must either resign or call an election if they lose a vote of confidence in the House.

There are three generally-agreed categories of confidence votes:
• a motion that explicitly states the confidence (or lack of it) of the House in the government of the day
• votes on the main budget motion and on the address in reply to the speech from the throne
• any other matter that the government states to be a matter of confidence before a vote

Votes of Confidence

ya thats it...I eat my words.

Was thinking along different lines based on years of stored memory.

[Resolute 14]

David Kilgour has announced he will oppose the budget ammendment. The house stands at 151-150 for the CPC/Bloq on that vote, with Chuck Cadman alone deciding the immediate future of our nation.

[Shawnski]

For those that might want to watch this vote live, and don't have a TV handy...

Low quality 40 kps link

High quality 150 kps link

12 minutes to the vote on the main budget bill C-43, and then the fun starts with the vote on bill C-48.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally posted by Snakeeye@May 19 2005, 03:13 PM
David Kilgour has announced he will oppose the budget ammendment. The house stands at 151-150 for the CPC/Bloq on that vote, with Chuck Cadman alone deciding the immediate future of our nation.

Cadman has strongly implied he will be voting for the budget no? I think a tie is what's going to happen here.

[lucid]

There is also streaming video and an audio feed from www.cbc.ca for those interested.

[Natt]

Originally posted by JiriHrdina+May 19 2005, 09:22 PM--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (JiriHrdina @ May 19 2005, 09:22 PM)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Snakeeye@May 19 2005, 03:13 PM
David Kilgour has announced he will oppose the budget ammendment. The house stands at 151-150 for the CPC/Bloq on that vote, with Chuck Cadman alone deciding the immediate future of our nation.

Cadman has strongly implied he will be voting for the budget no? I think a tie is what's going to happen here. [/b][/quote]
Yeah, he has strongly hinted that he will vote according to his consituents and the polls show that they DO NOT want another election at this point in time. So my guess is that he may vote Liberal.

[Resolute 14]

He has, though I wonder if he polled the right question. I wonder how his constituents feel about the corruption of the Liberals, or the $20+ billion in bribes that the Liberals have handed out to try and gain support? I think there are far, far more relevent reasons to decide support or opposition for this ammendment than the desire for an election.

[JiriHrdina]

Originally posted by Snakeeye@May 19 2005, 03:38 PM
He has, though I wonder if he polled the right question. I wonder how his constituents feel about the corruption of the Liberals, or the $20+ billion in bribes that the Liberals have handed out to try and gain support? I think there are far, far more relevent reasons to decide support or opposition for this ammendment than the desire for an election.

Fair enough but the only question they could legitimately ask that would not be leading the respondants is "do you want an election". If you bring up the reasons for ousting the government the poll instantly becomes biased.

e.g.

"The Liberal government has proven to be corrupt...do you want them tossed out on their hiney?"

Exaggeration I realize but you see my point.

Bottom line is that I've talked with a lot of people that don't like what the Libs have done but dislike the prospects of an election even more. Many people don't know what they would do in an election. Choose between a corrupt govt or a party who's platform and basic philosophies you disagree with. For many people this is not an easy decision and one they would rather avoid at least for now.

Might not be right but its the way some are feeling.

[Shawnski]

Wonder if those folks that don't want an election now realize that one will happen within the year anyway (if you can believe Martin's pledge on it)

[Bertuzzied]

how boring is this. I don't care who all these peoples are.

[Bertuzzied]

You'd think they would be updated enough to use a computer system or something to count the votes

[lucid]

Well, I for one, don't find it boring.
And... the verdict is...

[Shawnski]

Cadman voted for it. It will pass.

[octothorp]

Cadman voted in favour of the amendment. Unofficially, it's passed and the government has survived.