Federal Election Called for Oct 19, 2015

[EldrickOnIce]

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.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

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.

Meh, just invoke the spirit of the Pearson governments. I doubt we'd be at the polls in another year for exactly the reason that both parties can't afford it, which is also why it would make sense for them to back each other. That said, I think it only happens if the Liberals are the opposition. I don't think the older Liberals could stomach propping up an NDP government.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by EldrickOnIce

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.

Yeah, I admitted to writing that down wrong. I meant he doesn't have the mandate to make demands of the GG. You're right that he could advise the GG to dissolve parliament but it generally works that the GG invites the opposition party to form a government. This has really only happened once before, so that's all we really have to go on.

EDIT: This is also why I've been saying in other threads simply forming a coalition and attempting to take government would be very hard to do constitutionally without a substantial mandate.

[Maccalus]

Being part of the British Commonwealth, with common law as a basis, we can look at other parliamentary systems for precedent as well. The Australian parliament had a similar event where their governor general removed the prime minister and asked the opposition to attempt to form government before dissolution of parliament.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1975_A...utional_crisis

It has a little bit of a different origin and resolution, but it is another case study to determine the legalities.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by rubecube

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

But that's why we have Peter Hogg. If this becomes an issue he can just let everyone know what the right answer is and we'll be all good to go.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

But that's why we have Peter Hogg. If this becomes an issue he can just let everyone know what the right answer is and we'll be all good to go.

And Kent Roach when we have Charter questions!

[edslunch]

Whatever happens will likely happen quickly. I think there's a big difference between "doesn't have the confidence of the house to form a government" and "loses the confidence of the house later on"

[John Doe]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

...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....

This bold part is what I have difficulty with. Why is it undemocratic if two parties with support of 65% of the electorate cooperate in order to form government, yet is is perfectly fine if a party with 35% support from the electorate forms the government?

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by John Doe

This bold part is what I have difficulty with. Why is it undemocratic if two parties with support of 65% of the electorate cooperate in order to form government, yet is is perfectly fine if a party with 35% support from the electorate forms the government?

Two parties forming a coalition does not represent 65% of the electorate. It represents 0%. Unless you can tell me what their mandate is right now, they have exactly zero votes.

[John Doe]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

Two parties forming a coalition does not represent 65% of the electorate. It represents 0%. Unless you can tell me what their mandate is right now, they have exactly zero votes.

Are you trying to say that unless you have the most amount of seats won in an election you represent 0% of the population and that the party that wins the most seats represents 100% of the population? Seriously? That is taking "first past the post" a little too far, don't you think?

Does that mean that the NDP in Alberta represent your views? (assuming you live in Alberta)

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by John Doe

Are you trying to say that unless you have the most amount of seats won in an election you represent 0% of the population and that the party that wins the most seats represents 100% of the population? Seriously? That is taking "first past the post" a little too far, don't you think?

Does that mean that the NDP in Alberta represent your views? (assuming you live in Alberta)

I think is what he is saying is that people voted for a particular party/platform and not a coalition of 2 or more parties.

In a coalition, each side will have to concede certain things to the others to make it work and it makes the election platform they ran on pretty much meaningless, hence they represent no one who voted for them before the coalition.

That's the issue I have. There are a couple of key issues that I support a party on and if they formed a coalition that made them concede those issues, there is a chance that I would vote for someone else.

[John Doe]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

I think is what he is saying is that people voted for a particular party/platform and not a coalition of 2 or more parties.

In a coalition, each side will have to concede certain things to the others to make it work and it makes the election platform they ran on pretty much meaningless, hence they represent no one who voted for them before the coalition.

These platforms are all based on the respective parties winning majorities.

[John Doe]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

That's the issue I have. There are a couple of key issues that I support a party on and if they formed a coalition that made them concede those issues, there is a chance that I would vote for someone else.

I get that, but it would be the same result if the party you supported won a minority and they had to compromise on those issues rather than being defeated by a non-confidence vote. Unless you win a majority, you have to make allowances in order to get things done.

[OMG!WTF!]

Originally Posted by John Doe

I get that, but it would be the same result if the party you supported won a minority and they had to compromise on those issues rather than being defeated by a non-confidence vote. Unless you win a majority, you have to make allowances in order to get things done.

Yeah but what you're talking about is excluding the party that actually did get the most seats from a coalition and replacing it with the second and third place parties. While legal here, that's called a coup in some countries.

[Coach]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

Yeah but what you're talking about is excluding the party that actually did get the most seats from a coalition and replacing it with the second and third place parties. While legal here, that's called a coup in some countries.

Sometimes those are necessary.

[John Doe]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

Yeah but what you're talking about is excluding the party that actually did get the most seats from a coalition and replacing it with the second and third place parties. While legal here, that's called a coup in some countries.

Where is it called a coup? Seriously, in what country would it be called a coup when you have two parties that were voted for by over half the people in the country forming the government?

[killer_carlson]

Originally Posted by John Doe

Where is it called a coup? Seriously, in what country would it be called a coup when you have two parties that were voted for by over half the people in the country forming the government?

agreed.

Sometimes those are called "minority governments"

[Parallex]

Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction

In a coalition, each side will have to concede certain things to the others to make it work and it makes the election platform they ran on pretty much meaningless, hence they represent no one who voted for them before the coalition.

How is that any different from a functioning minority government where the governing party has to make concessions to the other parties to get them to support the legislation at hand?
Really the only difference between a coalition government and minority government is that more then one party has a member as part of the executive.

[White Out 403]

I thought I heard everything.

A coalition government is a coup? Jesus tap dancing christ. That's powerful stupid,

[northcrunk]

Originally Posted by Resurrection

I thought I heard everything.

A coalition government is a coup? Jesus tap dancing christ. That's powerful stupid,

Big time stupid. BTW a budget is considered a confidence motion.