[afransen]

There's no especially about it. No matter how much the Liberals or NDP could possibly want to form a coalition government and oust the Conservatives, they could not legally do so without an election. There is no legal precedent for the GG to allow another party to try to form government this far into a Parliament.

 

[unimaginative2]

That's not true. During the King-Byng affair, Lord Byng asked Meighen to form a government after Mackenzie King had been in office for 9 months. There are also Commonwealth precedents, most notably in Australia where Gough Whitlam was dismissed by the Governor General after over a year in office. Generally speaking, the GG is expected to always ask if any other leader believed he or she could reasonably attempt to gain the confidence of parliament before granting a dissolution.

Why don't we move these more hypothetical discussions into a different thread and leave this one to the immediate events?

 

[Brandon716]

It would probably be a good idea given how the discussion turned out.

 

[kEiThZ]

U2. The King-Byng affair validated the fact that the public does not like unelected nobility picking their goverments. Recall that King fought and won the subsequent election citing Lord Byng's 'interference'. In today's more democratic world, i think 6 months are enough for the GG to justify an election. Lastly, you still can't have a coalition without the Bloc. I doubt Iggy wants to play with them.

 

[jade_lee]

The Liberal party wants to govern as the Liberal party. It's the right wing of this country who in recent history formed a coalition government so to speak by combining reform/alliance/progressive conservatives and they sold that alliance to Canadians as something right of center but now prefers to voice their opinions on the Fox news network as if they think their Canadian base is tuned into Fox.
Politically Ignatieff is doing the right thing by not caving to the media or the Harper camp. Canadians do want to be informed and they certainly do want to know if the government is going to bail them out just like they bailed big business out. EI is the perfect target as unemployment rises and it is. A week will give this current minority government just enough time to hang itself.

 

[lordmandeep]

Why shoot a man who is already shooting himself.

No need to get charged with murder.


Meaning, Harper is slowly hanging himself. Iggy should just wait on the side and get stronger and attack in the fall.


Sure the economy could be better, but my friends unemployment will be high and people will still believe things are bad.

 

[afransen]

That's not true. During the King-Byng affair, Lord Byng asked Meighen to form a government after Mackenzie King had been in office for 9 months. There are also Commonwealth precedents, most notably in Australia where Gough Whitlam was dismissed by the Governor General after over a year in office. Generally speaking, the GG is expected to always ask if any other leader believed he or she could reasonably attempt to gain the confidence of parliament before granting a dissolution.

Why don't we move these more hypothetical discussions into a different thread and leave this one to the immediate events?

Those both worked out rather poorly. Given this, I doubt the GG would be willing to grant such a request. Besides, I thought it was commonly concluded that Byng was in the wrong at the time, but wasn't properly trained/advised.

 

[adma]

And especially given the present relative lack of seat strength for the Liberals, there'd *really* have to be some extenuating circumstances involving the Tories--say, a major ethics or corruption scandal--that could motivate the GG t/w a King-Byng type of decision. It's not enough to simply advocate a coalition on grounds of the Conservatives being so-called too conservative for Canada...

 

[kEiThZ]

Again, the Liberal and NDP seat count is not enough to form a coalition. They need support from the Bloc. That's what it comes down to. Is Iggy willing to get support from the Bloc? I doubt it. That would help legitimize the Bloc in Quebec when Iggy could just as easily go to the polls and take some of their seats.

adma is right though. You can't overthrow an elected government with a mandate (however weak) just because you don't like what the public picked. The house has completed two sessions (fall and winter). At this point, the GG would be committed to have any new government seek a mandate. The whole King-Byng affair applied during a time period when sessiosns were longer and elections were much more onerous and disruptive, thereby making continuation of governance an important concern. While elections are expensive today, they are no where as disruptive as the past, and the shorter sessions mean that the government has been given time to exercise its mandate. A vote of no confidence, therefore, would mean no confidence in the mandate itself, which would mean that the house would have to seek a government with a new mandate.

 

[Roy G Biv]

First of all, there's nothing wrong with wanting to gain power. If Ignatieff didn't think the Liberals would provide a better government than the Tories, he wouldn't be a Liberal and certainly shouldn't be leader.

There's nothing wrong with it at all. I was just suggesting that it was somewhat naive to assume that the actual content of Harper's report would act as a tipping point. Also, Ignatieff may very well believe he would make a better Prime Minister, but he has yet to tell Canadians why and how (Other than E.I.... At least Dion had vision (if not much else).

Secondly, the polls were already out. The Liberals are in the lead, especially in key areas of Quebec and Ontario. If he was purely looking out for partisan advantage, he would have forced an election right away.

While a Liberal minority may be possible, if Ignatieff were to bring down the government, and force an election over no real reason (other than him thinking he'd do a better job), you can bet that Liberals would take a hit. Again, this is the kind of issue being discussed in the Lib backrooms, not the content of Harper's report.

 

[Brandon716]

So do you suggest for now its best to just let Harper rule indefinitely, as other have suggested?

What if Harper doesn't hang himself and he is seen as a moderate who pushed through all these incentives and stimulus programs, and becomes admired for staying on a steady road through one of the world's most unstable recessions?

Things happen so quickly in politics it may not be possible to project that Harper can hang himself even if right now it looks possible.

 

[unimaginative2]

While a Liberal minority may be possible, if Ignatieff were to bring down the government, and force an election over no real reason (other than him thinking he'd do a better job), you can bet that Liberals would take a hit. Again, this is the kind of issue being discussed in the Lib backrooms, not the content of Harper's report.

Did the Tories take a hit for calling an election for no real reason in direct violation of their own fixed election date law? Nobody remembers it by election day.

 

[Roy G Biv]

What if Harper doesn't hang himself and he is seen as a moderate who pushed through all these incentives and stimulus programs, and becomes admired for staying on a steady road through one of the world's most unstable recessions?

Are you speaking as yourself, or playing out at a strategy for the Liberals? Strategically, I think he should get Harper to play ball on E.I., and then start selling some sort of vision (deficit exit strategy). If he's only going to attack Harper on gaffs, he'll always look like the leader of the opposition. A fall election is more acceptable, but a summer election needs a little more justification. "I'm not Harper" isn't good enough.

So, Iggy, outside of it possibly being the best strategic time to grasp power, why must we have an election? Is that an unreasonable question to ask?

Did the Tories take a hit for calling an election for no real reason in direct violation of their own fixed election date law? Nobody remembers it by election day.

Dion factor. When the candidates are playing at the same level, I think these kind of things start to matter.

NOTE: I'm not sure it matters, but personally, I loathe Stephen Harper, and would experience great Schadenfreude to see him kicked out. However, this is not a good enough reason for me to blindly support his opposition.

 

[lordmandeep]

That is why by Fall there will be an election.

 

[kEiThZ]

So do you suggest for now its best to just let Harper rule indefinitely, as other have suggested?

Not indefinitely. We are a democracy. There has to be an election sometime.

What if Harper doesn't hang himself and he is seen as a moderate who pushed through all these incentives and stimulus programs, and becomes admired for staying on a steady road through one of the world's most unstable recessions?

If he stays on the course, it'll be good for Canada, but as you point out not so good for the Liberals. However, if the Liberals are perceived to be making a raw power grab at a vulnerable time for the economy, they could end up suffering at the polls....particularly if in the process of the election, stimulus funding and other economic measures slow down.

Things happen so quickly in politics it may not be possible to project that Harper can hang himself even if right now it looks possible.

The longer the recession goes, the less popular the incumbent will be. Pretty much a truism anywhere in the world. And here Harper is not even starting from that high a point. I sometimes think, people should be glad that the Liberals were not in power during this time period. By being out of power during the recession, the Liberals will continually be associated with the good times.