Federal Election Called for Oct 19, 2015

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

Yeah, I am not against coalition governments in general, but I think they need to be upfront about it before the people vote so they know what they are voting for. Just because someone supports one party, it doesn't mean they would want a coalition. I would be pissed if they formed a coalition after voting for them on the basis that there would be no coalition with the NDP.

I would probably support a CPC/Liberal coalition, but I know that is extremely unlikely.

I can't remember which polling company did it, but they noted that the majority of Canadians (over 50%) favoured an NDP/Liberal coalition over any of the parties forming government on their own, with a Conservative majority being the least desirable.

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

How does it work then?

Any examples of Canadian Coalitions where the parties broke an election promise to not form a coalition?

Why was the coalition government rejected in 2008?

The coalition was not rejected. It never got a chance to happen. The NDP and Liberals agreed to form a coaltion and pushed for a vote of no confidence. Stephen Harper then went to the GG and asked for Parliament to be prorogued which was not initially granted. It took haranguing from lawyers to finally get her to do it.

Coalitions do not have to be formed before the election and are usually preferred to another election if those are the choices.

It's not illegal. It's not against the rules. It is a naturally occurring event in a parliamentary system that we are just not used to in Canada.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Blaster86

Coalitions do not have to be formed before the election and are usually preferred to another election if those are the choices.

And I think this is also the "out" for the other parties if people criticize them for saying they wouldn't form a coalition prior to the election, which only Trudeau did (Mulcair has said he's open to the idea). Trudeau can simply say that a coalition was not his preference but he knows that Canadians do not want another election campaign and he doesn't feel like parliament can work with Harper at the helm.

[EldrickOnIce]

Originally Posted by rubecube

And I think this is also the "out" for the other parties if people criticize them for saying they wouldn't form a coalition prior to the election, which only Trudeau did (Mulcair has said he's open to the idea). Trudeau can simply say that a coalition was not his preference but he knows that Canadians do not want another election campaign and he doesn't feel like parliament can work with Harper at the helm.

He could back-pedal on his statement and say anything he wants, but without specifically changing his stance prior to the election, it would be directly opposite to his statements on record... unless 'formal' is a question of semantics.

Mulcair himself said Thursday that the NDP’s priority is to “defeat and replace” Harper’s government.
“We’ve always worked with others in the past but every time I’ve raised this prospect with Justin Trudeau, he’s slammed the door on it,” Mulcair said during a swing through southwestern Ontario.
And indeed, that is what Trudeau did again Thursday.
“There are a number of issues on which the Liberal Party of Canada and the NDP disagree on quite a fundamental level,” Trudeau said during a stop in Winnipeg.
“Although of course we are open to working with all parties in the House to pass good legislation and to ensure Canadians’ interests are served, there will be no formal coalition with the NDP,” the Liberal leader told reporters.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by rubecube

It wasn't rejected in 2008. Harper prorogued parliament to avoid a confidence vote and then capitulated on a number of demands from the opposition parties in order to stave off the coalition.

The GG allowed Harper to prorogue Parliament, rejecting the coalition demands to refuse such prorogation and in effect rejecting their entire backdoor claim to power.

Afterwards, of course, the Liberal Party leader was forced to resign. Many Liberal party members strongly agreed there was no way Canadians could accept a Prime Minister who so recently lost an election.

I don't believe the GG would ever allow a coalition to be made so shortly after an election where the option of a coalition was so strongly rejected by it's own members. It is the definition of undemocratic and would undermine the very foundations of responsible government.

If they want to form a coalition, then so be it. Go ahead and run under those principles. But there is no reason to mislead and deceive Canadians, no matter how much the extreme left "hates" Harper.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Blaster86

It took haranguing from lawyers to finally get her to do it.

Yes, most, if not all, of the constitutional expert lawyers that I read opinions from agreed that the Governor General could not allow the coalition to take power and that the GG must either grant the prorogation or dissolve parliament completely.

Which is exactly the point.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

The GG allowed Harper to prorogue Parliament, rejecting the coalition demands to refuse such prorogation and in effect rejecting their entire backdoor claim to power.

That's not what happened at all. The GG allowed prorogation because rejecting the PM's request to do so would've opened giant constitutional can of worms.

I don't believe the GG would ever allow a coalition to be made so shortly after an election where the option of a coalition was so strongly rejected by it's own members. It is the definition of undemocratic and would undermine the very foundations of responsible government.

It may be the definition of undemocratic but is completely in line with our form of government. Politicians aren't required to stick to their campaign promises.

If they want to form a coalition, then so be it. Go ahead and run under those principles. But there is no reason to mislead and deceive Canadians, no matter how much the extreme left "hates" Harper.

Haha, so 60-65% of Canadians now qualify as the extreme left?

[rubecube]

The other thing that people are forgetting is that there doesn't have to be an NDP/Liberal coalition for either to take power. As long as one party can form a government that has the support of the other, they can take power and there is absolutely precedence for this.

[Maccalus]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

Yes, most, if not all, of the constitutional expert lawyers that I read opinions from agreed that the Governor General could not allow the coalition to take power and that the GG must either grant the prorogation or dissolve parliament completely.

Which is exactly the point.

The Governor General could have allowed the coalition to take power assuming that the government (Harper) had lost confidence of the house. It would have been very controversial, but it has happened once before in a very similar situation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King%E2%80%93Byng_Affair

By Tradition, when a government loses confidence they ask the governor general to dissolve parliament, but there is nothing but convention to prevent them to ask another party to attempt to form a consensus.

As with most of our governing features, it is all tied to very vague rules, convention and precedent.

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

Yes, most, if not all, of the constitutional expert lawyers that I read opinions from agreed that the Governor General could not allow the coalition to take power and that the GG must either grant the prorogation or dissolve parliament completely.

Which is exactly the point.

As Rubecube pointed out, it wasn't an issue of the coalition being formed it was an issue with the GG, who is merely a figure head these days, denying the elected leader of Canada, minority or otherwise.

The actual issue here is that Harper ended an entire parliamentary session to save his own hide.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by rubecube

I can't remember which polling company did it, but they noted that the majority of Canadians (over 50%) favoured an NDP/Liberal coalition over any of the parties forming government on their own, with a Conservative majority being the least desirable.

I imagine that way more NDP supporters favourite it than Liberal supporters though. The Liberals have done a lot to rebuild their base after their post-Chretien demise. The last thing they need is contraversy.

[Shazam]

Meh, coalitions inevitably lead to a non-confidence anyhow. At best the coalition would've lasted a couple of months.

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by rubecube

That's not what happened at all. The GG allowed prorogation because rejecting the PM's request to do so would've opened giant constitutional can of worms.

Yes, exactly as it would if Justin tried the same tactic.

It may be the definition of undemocratic but is completely in line with our form of government. Politicians aren't required to stick to their campaign promises.

Part of the role of the GG is to determine the authority to govern by parliamentary tradition, rule of responsible government and historical practice.

That is why the GG is very much responsible for upholding democratic principles and would be entirely within reason to dissolve parliament instead of allowing a backdoor coalition so soon after an election.

Haha, so 60-65% of Canadians now qualify as the extreme left?

No need to make things up here.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I imagine that way more NDP supporters favourite it than Liberal supporters though. The Liberals have done a lot to rebuild their base after their post-Chretien demise. The last thing they need is contraversy.

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.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

Yes, exactly as it would if Justin tried the same tactic.

Part of the role of the GG is to determine the authority to govern by parliamentary tradition, rule of responsible government and historical practice.

That is why the GG is very much responsible for upholding democratic principles and would be entirely within reason to dissolve parliament instead of allowing a backdoor coalition so soon after an election.

No need to make things up here.

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.

[John Doe]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

The GG allowed Harper to prorogue Parliament, rejecting the coalition demands to refuse such prorogation and in effect rejecting their entire backdoor claim to power.

Afterwards, of course, the Liberal Party leader was forced to resign. Many Liberal party members strongly agreed there was no way Canadians could accept a Prime Minister who so recently lost an election.

I don't believe the GG would ever allow a coalition to be made so shortly after an election where the option of a coalition was so strongly rejected by it's own members. It is the definition of undemocratic and would undermine the very foundations of responsible government.

If they want to form a coalition, then so be it. Go ahead and run under those principles. But there is no reason to mislead and deceive Canadians, no matter how much the extreme left "hates" Harper.

That is a pretty liberal recall of the facts. There was no coalition (just an agreement to form one after the non-confidence vote) and definitely no "coalition demands to deny prorogation".

The Liberal leader (Dion) was not forced to resign because of the "coalition crisis". He had already stated that he would step down after the election and before the fiscal update that started the whole ball rolling.

I could be wrong, but it seems to me that most coalitions are formed (granted?) immediately after elections. I don't know why the proximity to the election date would be a deterrent to the GG deciding in favor of a coalition.

Once again, coalitions are not "undemocratic" and would not "undermine the very foundations of responsible government". This is a construct created by the Conservatives in 2008 to try to win over public opinion. While it did indeed to that, it is not based in facts. Coalitions are perfectly legitimate ways to form governments, regardless of what kind of spin is used. Yes, Trudeau said he would not formally enter into a coalition, but Mulcair and Harper (as he also did in 2008) promised that they would not run deficits. Can we expect the GG to dissolve parliament if they do run deficits (as many are predicting) since they will have lied?

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by Maccalus

The Governor General could have allowed the coalition to take power assuming that the government (Harper) had lost confidence of the house. It would have been very controversial, but it has happened once before in a very similar situation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King%E2%80%93Byng_Affair

By Tradition, when a government loses confidence they ask the governor general to dissolve parliament, but there is nothing but convention to prevent them to ask another party to attempt to form a consensus.

As with most of our governing features, it is all tied to very vague rules, convention and precedent.

That's not really a similar position at all. It might be if Harper lost the election and then tried to remain as Prime Minister.

I don't doubt Canadians would be very unimpressed with that turn of events if it happened.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

That's not really a similar position at all. It might be if Harper lost the election and then tried to remain as Prime Minister.

I don't doubt Canadians would be very unimpressed with that turn of events if it happened.

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.

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

That's not really a similar position at all.

What?

[crazy_eoj]

Originally Posted by John Doe

That is a pretty liberal recall of the facts. There was no coalition (just an agreement to form one after the non-confidence vote) and definitely no "coalition demands to deny prorogation".

The Liberal leader (Dion) was not forced to resign because of the "coalition crisis". He had already stated that he would step down after the election and before the fiscal update that started the whole ball rolling.

I could be wrong, but it seems to me that most coalitions are formed (granted?) immediately after elections. I don't know why the proximity to the election date would be a deterrent to the GG deciding in favor of a coalition.

Once again, coalitions are not "undemocratic" and would not "undermine the very foundations of responsible government". This is a construct created by the Conservatives in 2008 to try to win over public opinion. While it did indeed to that, it is not based in facts. Coalitions are perfectly legitimate ways to form governments, regardless of what kind of spin is used. Yes, Trudeau said he would not formally enter into a coalition, but Mulcair and Harper (as he also did in 2008) promised that they would not run deficits. Can we expect the GG to dissolve parliament if they do run deficits (as many are predicting) since they will have lied?

You can argue the semantics whether agreeing to form a coalition is actually forming one or not but it's really beside the point.

It is very well documented that Stephan Dion wrote to Michelle Jean as head of the coalition to convince her to refuse prorogation. It used to figure prominently on the Liberal Party website.

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