Majority Rule: The New Coup
I once had the unpleasant experience of being subjected to an unhinged attack from Cato’s Ilya Shapiro who’s apparently the kind of libertarian who sees dogmatic American nationalism and attacks on other people’s patriotism as the highest form of classical liberal values. Later, I had the more pleasant experience of learning from some colleagues of Shapiro’s that he’s actually a Canadian.
So naturally, he now has an item ranting and raving against the “palace coup” that’s going to take the Conservative Party out of power in favor of a center-left alliance between the Liberals and the NDP acting with the tacit support of the Bloc Québéquois. He raises some substantive objections to the new coalition’s agenda — reacting in particular with a righteous fury against the claims of French Canadians that seems odd for such a patriotic fake American. The main point, though, is to try to raise procedural or fairness type objections to what’s happening.
But to review, at the most recent election left of center parties won a majority of votes. Thanks to the operation of Canada’s electoral system, some left of center parties received a much lower proportion of seats than they got proportion of votes. But the generally left of center BQ got a higher proportion of seats than its proportion of votes would imply. But the left of center bloc was divided, and a clear plurality of seats was won by the Tories. Traditionally in Canada, a plurality party forms a “minority government” without the support of formal coalition partners and that’s what the Conservatives’ Stephen Harper did. But a government in that place needs to tread cautiously — it doesn’t have a majority of seats. And when the government in that position is also relatively unpopular — securing the votes of only thirtysomething percent of the population — it really has good reason to tread cautiously. Instead, Harper moved very boldly with measures that the opposition parties deemed intolerable. His high-risk bet was that the opposition would be unable to collaborate effectively and thus he would be able to push through a controversial agenda with a minority of seats and a minority of popular votes. But he was wrong and no a combination of parties representing a majority of Canadians will displace him.
99 Responses to “Majority Rule: The New Coup”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
December 4th, 2008 at 9:29 am
Wow, that unhinged attack is unhinged.
Ameicans chose to be Americans? When did I do this, exactly? In utero?
December 4th, 2008 at 9:29 am
I love that all this has blown up in Stephen Harper’s face. The way I’m seeing it right now is that this is a parliamentary response to a prime minister who has spent his time in office attempting (with some success) to turn the PMO into an executive branch.
I also love that Jim Flaherty, the finance minister, was hammering on yesterday about the “new socialist, new separatist coalition” when four years ago Harper attempted the same thing with the NDP and Bloc against the Liberals. That’s sort of the elephant in the room for the Conservatives right now.
December 4th, 2008 at 9:31 am
I am shocked, shocked that yet another Cato Institute ideologue is a douchebag.
December 4th, 2008 at 9:32 am
It’s certainly a great time to be a progressive Canadian, but this coalition is not yet a fait accomplit. The last word on all of this is Canada’s Governor General (nominally the Queen’s representative to our commonwealth state). GG Michaelle Jean has a number of options before her, including recognizing the centre-left coalition, calling elections, or “pro-roguing” the parliament (which is the option PM Harper is encouraging her to take–this would involve “dissolving” this parliamentary session until a new one can be started in the new year). As a progressive, I hope the coalition works, since this will be the closest thing we’ll get to an NDP government (the NDP are the most left-wing of Canada’s major parties), but if it works, I wonder what will happen next election? I’d hate to see the NDP married to the Liberals for too long a time….
December 4th, 2008 at 9:36 am
The must read post on this is over at Making LightA different kind of “political science”, describing “the critical paths involved in an unplanned change of government in a Westminster-type constitution.” Anyone describing the Canadian Governor General as a “their local distributed queenship node” is a must read. Highly nerdy, but surprisingly good way to describe complicated political maneuverings.
December 4th, 2008 at 9:39 am
I thought his high-risk bet was to attach a confidence motion to every piece of legislation he wanted to pass and to bargain on the center left parties’ unwillingness to call an election. I really hope they manage to form a coalition government cause it couldn’t happen to a nicer guy.
December 4th, 2008 at 9:40 am
Oops. Aaak. Of course pop vote NOT electoral vote plurality.
December 4th, 2008 at 9:40 am
BTW, at this very moment Harper’s meeting with the GG to ask her to ‘prorogue’ (defer) Parliament:
Clearly American Republicans support the idea of minority governments, since they never ever complained about Bill Clinton not winning an actual majority of electoral votes. Never. Ever.
December 4th, 2008 at 9:49 am
Chris in NF:
Bingo!! Conservatives in Canada are just like Republicans here. They don’t think the usual rules apply to them. They are both hypocrites.
December 4th, 2008 at 9:55 am
I don’t understand. Matt claims that he “later” learned that Shapiro is Canadian, but in the blog post that Matt calls an “unhinged attack” Shapiro makes a big deal out of the fact that he was raised in Canada (although he wasn’t born there). Didn’t Matt even read the post that supposedly upset him?
December 4th, 2008 at 10:06 am
The Rt Honorable Mr Harper turned out to be a guy who dodges guilt, and does [PC mode on] out of paying his comeuppance.
Some blogger has said that given the feebleness of Mr Flaherty’s “stimulus” package, PM Harper subconsciously sabotaged himself to avoid being perceived as the bad guy in the coming recession. Not a bad one.
If the stimulus does come, does gain traction and does make a dent in popular perception, the left has a chance in the next election cycle. Otherwise, they’re pretty much doomed.
A deeper development is the poor quality of Canadian leadership looking 10 years into the future. Harper was perceived as the best tactician of his generation (he no longer is, ROFL) and the guys behind him are a sorry bunch. Mr Tory managed to lose Ontario by failing to keep his mouth shut about funding of religious schools.
And if the best that the left wing can come up is Mr Dion followed by Mr Ignatieff, it’s going to be a long winter indeed.
December 4th, 2008 at 10:10 am
I would agree that including a separatist party in a governing coalition would be odd, at best. But is it really true that the BQ’s intent is to split up Canada? That used to be their intention but I would like someone who actually has some knowledge on the topic to enlighten us whether they still express that goal.
December 4th, 2008 at 10:10 am
The Westminster system really puts a lot fo faith in the reserve powers of the Governor-General. I mean seriously, the fabric of Canadian democracy rests in her hands.
As an aside, I can’t see it as a good precedent if Mme. Jean allows prorogation. If Canada truly is entering an era of minority governments, it’s not exactly a good thing to allow future Prime Ministers to prorogue to avoid confidence votes. I mean, he’s not require to convene parliament more often than once a year.
What’s more interesting here is how divisive the rhetoric is. I was in Manassas on Nov. 3 for the Obama rally. After he finished speaking, everyone around me broke out dancing. Seriously. I was right in front of that big “Vote for Change” sign. It was incredible. Who would’ve thought: America, land of inclusiveness.
Now, in Canada, we have a Prime Minister who’s spending literally every minute of public speaking time demonizing others. It’s dangerous and not at all what my country needs.
December 4th, 2008 at 10:10 am
All the Conservative bleating about how this is a “coup” and “undemocratic” is laughable. Everyone in Canada learns in junior high school that the Governor-General has the right not to dissolve parliament and to instead ask the opposition if they can form a government instead. This Liberal-NDP coalition is all perfectly democratic and constitutional. As for whether it’s smart….a short time will tell.
December 4th, 2008 at 10:14 am
WOW. Shapiro got in that chubby ass with some sweaty browed vigor right there
December 4th, 2008 at 10:22 am
“Cato’s Ilya Shapiro who’s apparently the kind of libertarian who sees dogmatic American nationalism and attacks on other people’s patriotism as the highest form of classical liberal values. Later, I had the more pleasant experience of learning from some colleagues of Shapiro’s that he’s actually a Canadian.”
Yet another foreigner passing himself off as a super-patriot and stinking up American conservatism. Shapiro Go Home!
Mike
December 4th, 2008 at 10:25 am
This is the babelfish of their platform, so given the last point, I’d say they’re interested in breaking up the country. Not sure how high it is on their list of priorities though.
December 4th, 2008 at 10:32 am
Looks like Babelfish could use some improvement.
December 4th, 2008 at 10:47 am
FWIW, the Bloc is not planning to be part of the coalition, in fact they are explicitly ruling that out (see the original letter to the GG) but supporting the formation of a government.
December 4th, 2008 at 10:54 am
“Matthew is missing the real controversies here – that the coalition will be lead by a party that just suffered its worst electoral showing in decades, and that the coalition will necesssarily include the support of a party whose intent is to split up the country. The Bloc has never been a part of a majority coalition before, and for good reason.”
Except the latter part of this simply isn’t true. The Bloc is NOT going to be part of the governing coalition. Unless I’m misreading the accord, they will not control any of the ministries. That is the bog-standard definition of a party that participates in a coalition government, and the Bloc will not meet that criteria.
What the Bloc has agreed to do is to support a no-confidence vote against Harper and assent to a Minority Government by the Liberal/NDP coalition. The Bloc will be in the exact same position of influence vis-a-vis the government that they were in from 2006-2008… they hold enough votes to conspire with the largest opposition party to force a vote of no confidence, if both parties choose to do so.
December 4th, 2008 at 10:57 am
No way. Just imagine that being read by either Borat or Yoda and it’s comedy gold.
December 4th, 2008 at 10:58 am
I couldn’t understand — and still don’t — why some people chose to be poor Africans or chose to be infants who’d die of dysentery or be born with HIV or be born with schizophrenia.
1. Socialism.
2. The ghey.
3. People who say Happy Holidays.
OK, now I’m just being silly.
December 4th, 2008 at 11:05 am
w/r/t #11.
Al,
See http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MTI5MTBhZjgxYzdjZTE2MzI0N2IzMzExNGIxZGViNzM= for an example of how some people think this is controversial. It’s nice that you think it isn’t, but that doesn’t mean that judgement holds for the American right in general.
December 4th, 2008 at 11:13 am
What role does the fact that Dion announced his resignation play? I would think that when he secures the Premiership, he’s going to try to dial back that one.
Also, does anyone else find it amusing that the person who gets to resolve this political issue, the Queen’s representative, is a Haitian-born woman? I mean, there’s a crisis in the colonies, so whom do you call? The Queen’s representative, of course. Except that instead of a British aristocrat choosing sides in a dispute between Indian maharajas (a Lord Curzon or Lord Lansdowne type), a Haitian woman gets to pick the Prime Minister of Canada. It’s Imperialism 2.0!
December 4th, 2008 at 11:17 am
@20: I don’t understand either, but surely we can all agree that the most important thing is that they take personal responsibility for the consequences of those decisions. Bailing them out would just create a moral hazard that would encourage more such decisionmaking.
December 4th, 2008 at 11:18 am
That’s sort of an odd distinction to make. The Bloc is not supporting the formation of a government, they are supporting the coalition. The coalition do not have a majority without the support of the Bloc.
All this nonsense about the proposed coalition being reliant on the support of the block is silly. Look, they’re going to join in with the other major parties in expressing non-confidence in the current government.
But, once the coalition is in place, the Bloc can’t single-handedly defeat them: they don’t have the numbers. The situation in which the Bloc would have the numbers is the situation where the Conservatives agree with the Bloc’s priorities and therefore vote with them, thus outnumbering the Liberal/NDP coalition.
If the Bloc holds out votes in some way that will bring harm to Canada in the way that Harper’s implying, it will only have an effect if HARPER JOINS WITH THEM IN ADVANCING PRIORITIES THAT HE BELIEVES ARE HARMFUL TO THE COUNTRY.
That is to say, Harper (and all his boosters, who largely seem to know nothing about Canadian government or politics) is bullshitting when he says that the Lib/NDP coalition puts more power in the Bloc’s hands than they already have.
December 4th, 2008 at 11:28 am
“What role does the fact that Dion announced his resignation play? I would think that when he secures the Premiership, he’s going to try to dial back that one.”
Nope. He’s already promised he’ll step down once the Liberal Party chooses its new leader. In other words, April.
December 4th, 2008 at 11:33 am
LittleMac @30:
…Harper (and all his boosters, who largely seem to know nothing about Canadian government or politics)…
Al @31:
Whether it is OK for a Governor General to disregard a sitting Prime Minister in favor of a majority coalition, I have no idea.
LittleMac: 1, Al: 0.
December 4th, 2008 at 11:35 am
#18 DaveNYC
For what it’s worth, the word “nation” is an extremely nuanced one in Quebec. It doesn’t necessarily mean “an independent nation”, it could also refer to the collective of Quebecois people, or the geographical boundaries of Quebec itself.
The Bloc are kind of an odd duck – they are formally a sovereigntist entity, but they actually can’t do too much in that regard – any movement towards a referendum comes from the Quebec National Assembly (there’s that word again!). More than anything they’re a party for explicit regional representation.
And yes, the Conservative scare-mongering about the evil Separatists is sickening…they are quite literally turning this into a unity crisis…they are stoking anti-French hatred (which generally is juuust under the surface of most Canadians) to serve their own political ends. It’s dishonourable and dangerous.
December 4th, 2008 at 11:36 am
it really is a relic of British imperialism that the Governor General gets to decide the issue.
It absolutely is *not* a relic of imperialism but a perfectly legitimate mechanism of oversight in a Parliamentary democracy. People who are all up in arms about this generally don’t understand how Parliamentary democracy works, and the nature of our unwritten constitutional conventions.
The GG is not meant to be a ceremonial automaton that simply carries out the wishes of the Prime Minister of the day. If that were the case, we wouldn’t even need her.
December 4th, 2008 at 11:38 am
“The coalition do not have a majority without the support of the Bloc.”
Neither do the Tories. No one does. That’s the whole freakin’ point!
December 4th, 2008 at 11:44 am
“This is the babelfish of their platform, so given the last point, I’d say they’re interested in breaking up the country. Not sure how high it is on their list of priorities though.”
You can’t read French and you aren’t too familiar with Canadian politics, but you think you’ve got this figured out?
December 4th, 2008 at 11:46 am
Huh? Having a person appointed by the monarch of a different country is a “legitimate mechanism” and not a relic of imperialism?
She isn’t appointed by the monarch of a *different* country, she’s appointed by the Queen of Canada. Elizabeth II is, in Canada, the Queen of Canada, just like she’s Queen of Australia there, etc. Look I’m sorry if you don’t understand what role the Monarchy plays in the Commonwealth realms, but you can’t expect to shoehorn our traditions into your worldview.
The GG is appointed by the Queen of CANADA on the advice of the Prime Minister of CANADA.
December 4th, 2008 at 11:46 am
Governor General has granted proroguation until late January.
I think the endgame now is the resignation of Harper combined with enough Liberals skipping the non-confidence vote in the new year to keep the Conservatives in power.
Conservatives shank their leader, the Liberals shank theirs, and everyone goes back to work.
December 4th, 2008 at 11:51 am
But the coalition needs the Bloc to win the no-confidence vote. The Conservatives do not.”
Huh? Of course they do. How can they win the confidence of the House without the Bloc? Or without one of the other parties, but let’s say it’s unlikely to come from the Liberals or NDP?
Let’s review: Con 144, Lib 76, Bloc 49, NDP 38. Show me how the Conservatives can survive a confidence vote without at least tacit support from one of the other parties?
December 4th, 2008 at 11:57 am
“So, you’re saying that the Prime Minister of CANADA – Stephen Harper – should be able to advise the Queen of CANADA to appoint a different GG? One who is more amenable to Harper’s wishes?”
There would have to be an extraordinary circumstance for the PM to resort to such a measure, but it’s constitutionally possible, and convention would dictate to the Queen to grant the request.
However, a PM would invoke this measure at his own peril. If Harper did this now, he would seriously damage his standing, the office of the GG, and probably suffer a serious loss of votes.
December 4th, 2008 at 11:58 am
Wow, the Governor General just set an absolutely terrifying precedent. Any Prime Minister in danger of losing the confidence of the House can literally suspend government for up to a year, and do so unilaterally.
I’m stunned.
December 4th, 2008 at 12:09 pm
Wow, the Governor General just set an absolutely terrifying precedent. Any Prime Minister in danger of losing the confidence of the House can literally suspend government for up to a year, and do so unilaterally.
I’m stunned too. I also think it’s interesting that this whole uproar arose because Canada supposedly needs to solve its budget crisis NOW NOW NOW and in a spirit of collective sacrifice, all parties should give up public funding. Oh, wait, my career is threatened? Better not solve the budget problem for two more months!
For the record, I agree with Al that the whole Governor General thing is a relic of imperialism. In fact, I think that’s indisputable as a matter of history. But I don’t think the Governor General’s acting as Head of State is somehow evil–I withhold normative judgment.
December 4th, 2008 at 12:11 pm
Phew! Democracy saved by canceling Parliament. Yeah!
December 4th, 2008 at 12:13 pm
So, at this critical moment in Canadian history, with the financial crisis looming over us, Harper would rather suspend parliament than reach across the aisle to get something done. Bravo.
December 4th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
I’m just an ignorant Yank, so any Canadians here feel free to correct me as necessary, but I believe the fact that the GG is appointed by HRH is these days a technicality. In reality, the Queen appoints whomever the Government selects when there’s a vacancy in the office. The present GG took office in 2005, and so was recommended to the Queen by the Liberal Government of Paul Martin.
December 4th, 2008 at 12:31 pm
A couple of interesting parallels to US politics.
Here you can see Mr. Harper following the GOP playbook by calling the opposition ‘Un-Canadian’ and making an issue about the lack of a Canada flag at the signing ceremony. (sound familiar?)
It’s refreshing to see Dion grow a pair and fight back.
Also rumor is that some former PC MPs may leave the tories and join the coalition as “Independent Conservatives”, thus completing the purge of the moderates from the tories by the western crazies.
December 4th, 2008 at 12:47 pm
You spelled “Québécois” wrong. But that’s not a big deal.
December 4th, 2008 at 12:50 pm
When a party is given a cabinet position in a coalition government, it is referred to as being part of that government.
This is different than them vowing their support to vote against the current government and for the new coalition government.
It may seem like a distinction without a difference, but when the Bloc Quebecois says it will not be part of the government, it means it will neither seek nor accept a cabinet position.
Like many Parliamentary government, being “part” of a government means having a cabinet position for your party.
Meaningful or not is your own decision. That is what I referred to.
December 4th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
If the Bloc doesn’t do anything, the Conservatives win 144-114.
Right! So the Tories need the Bloc to survive a confidence motion. I don’t get what’s so difficult about this.
December 4th, 2008 at 1:18 pm
The only person for whom the term ‘coup’ applies is Harper. He thinks he’s an American president. He has no fucking respect for parliamentary democracy.
And he might survive this, thanks to a prorogation, an unserious budget proposal, and a bullshit election. After which, he’d go ahead with crippling the opposition parties, crushing the public-sector unions and punishing women for seeking equal pay. He’s a fucking Albertan despot.
December 4th, 2008 at 1:29 pm
I might disagree with Harper & the Conservatives, but unlike liberals, he was willing to deploy every governmental prerogative open to him to pursue his party’s governance.
It took a giant ‘f*** you’ plan by Harper last before the opposition parties seemed to publicly act like a collective majority.
Good for him for having the ‘nads to do something unprecedented but within the law to preserve his party’s government.
I wish our own Democrats would learn such behavior, but then, it is in the nature of the Democratic Party to want to bend over backwards to make Republicans happy.
December 4th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
“Huh? No, if the Bloc does nothing, the Conservatives win. The Conservatives do NOT need the Bloc’s support, all they need is for the Bloc to stay neutral.”
Uh, abstaining is also doing something. That’s why I said they need at least *tacit* support from the Bloc. Or do you think that the Bloc staying “neutral” is the result of them not taking sides?
December 4th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
Uh, abstaining is also doing something.
Or as Neil Peart put it: “If you choose not to decide you still have made a choice.”
December 4th, 2008 at 1:49 pm
Prorogation is about what I expected. The GG is well aware that she is appointed, not elected by the people, and is largely intended as a figurehead. She would be inclined to avoid rocking the boat by doing whatever the PM asks; the last time a GG did otherwise (during the King-Byng affair in the 1920s), it led to a complete redefinition of their role in Canadian government.
Harper will be attacking the coalition full-on for the next two months, and he’s very good at that sort of thing. The coalition will fall apart, things will go on as usual, and the Liberals will probably lose face even more than they have already.
December 4th, 2008 at 2:09 pm
The GG’s response to this is even worse that King-Bying, her actions have in a very real sense completely redefined Responsible Government.
A PM facing non-confidence now has the ability to unilaterally suspend government for up to a year, with Royal Approval. That’s TERRIBLE.
I think that precedent should outweigh any possibility that she might appear partisan.
And if we take a step back from the legal procedures, Mr. Harper has almost single-handedly reignited the unity debate. Thanks a LOT bucko.
I think it’s safe to say that he’s salted the earth for any hope of a Conservative ever winning a seat in Quebec – so that means 10 less seats. Right now they’re 12 seats off right? Where do you think they’ll get those additional 22 seats? The West is pretty much tapped out. The question will be then, do you really think he can win 77 of 106 seats in Ontario? I dunno…but I have a feeling we’ll find out in February, or May.
That being said, I’m so disillusioned with my government right now it’s not funny…methinks there will need to be numerous drinks ingested tonight to dull the rage.
December 4th, 2008 at 2:10 pm
but I believe the fact that the GG is appointed by HRH is these days a technicality. In reality, the Queen appoints whomever the Government selects when there’s a vacancy in the office.
Yes. The AG is “appointed” by the QUeen only in a meaningless formal sense.
December 4th, 2008 at 2:12 pm
Fuck off andy.
Any Canadians have opinions as to whether or not this could be considered a Saturday Night Massacre type event by the public? After all, this was, more or less, her boss asking her to let him keep is job.
Al, just go with what the Rush song says.
December 4th, 2008 at 2:40 pm
I don’t know what he knows about Canadian Parliamentary rules / traditions, but:
December 4th, 2008 at 3:37 pm
Damned sarcasm never comes through on the Internet.
Not when the byline is associated with really dumb shit.
December 4th, 2008 at 4:02 pm
I agree that allowing prorogation in the face of an outstanding non-confidence motion is absurd, and sets a very, very bad precedent.
The other outstanding concern about allowing this extraordinary measure is that, faced with the likely defeat of his government, Harper will set out over the next 7 weeks to use his executive powers to do all kinds of nasty shit – new regulations, etc., but most importantly filling all kinds of vacancies. This is exactly the kind of role that must be solely reserved for an executive who can maintain the confidence of the House.
Shameful shit.
December 4th, 2008 at 4:32 pm
The funniest bit? Shapiro kicks off his essay with the line:
Shouldn’t that read “the political tableau playing out back home?
December 4th, 2008 at 8:31 pm
Al generally seems like a smart guy, so I think he is being deliberately obtuse about the Bloc. Let’s look at outcomes, not process. Al’s a lawyer, so I’ll break this down like a lawyer would. The Bloc could (i) contribute to bringing down the Conservative government, if they chose to vote no confidence. Or, the Bloc could (ii) preserve the Conservative government, by (a) abstaining from such a vote, or (b) voting against the resolution.
Under the general umbrella of (ii), a and b give you the same result. Wouldn’t both of these be helpful for Harper? Harper needs the Bloc to choose one of the (ii) options, and not the (i) option.
December 4th, 2008 at 10:40 pm
To Al:
If they abolished the Governor-General, they would most likely give the formal responsibilities of the office to the Speaker of the House, who is also appointed by the Prime Minister.
To look at it another way: the nearest U.S. equivalent to the Governor-General is Nancy Pelosi. Do you think she is likely to behave in a more or less partisan fashion than Michaelle Jean if Majority Leader Steny Hoyer made the same request to her that Stephen Harper just did to Jean and for the same reason?
The difference is that the GG is not elected to the House as a member of one of the political parties, and hence is expected to perform in a less biased manner. It may be a relic of the “Empire”, but it isn’t necessarily a bad one.
December 4th, 2008 at 10:42 pm
In light of this result, I’ve got say that the GG is looking like a dangerous anachronism. If people had sat down ahead of time and tried to decide, under what conditions should the PM be allowed to prorogue parliament, and continue governing as if he had it’s consent, I can’t believe that anyone would have come up with the rule that he could do it whenever he likes. That would be a crazy rule to put in place. But instead, we have a position that is effectively appointed by the PM, and she has discretion, and that’s the decision she came to.
One thing I’m wondering thought, is there some constitutional limit that will force Harper and the GG to eventually let parliament have a confidence vote. Couldn’t he just have the next session prorogued like this one? Can the PM just keep going as long as he doesn’t need any bills passed, or will this mean that taxes all expire and the government runs out of money. I understand he’s allowed to keep spending on the presumption that the house would approve the expenses if it could.
December 4th, 2008 at 10:44 pm
Not when the byline is associated with really dumb shit.
Nor when I post it.
Tomayto, tomahto.
December 4th, 2008 at 10:57 pm
I’m a little pissed that the GG did this, but it’s not really out of bounds. The idea of a coalition displacing the winner of the plurality is unproblematic, but only if that plurality is unable to form a government. But the Conservatives (do NOT call them Tories…they killed the tories) did in fact from a governement, and everyone accepted the throne speech (like the SOTU, sort of). And thus everyone in Parliament acknowledged Harper as PM.
Only after that did he plumb new depths of assholery, which forged the coalition. But now you’re displacing a sitting prime minister who has successfully formed a government, which usually (read very time) takes an election. But we just HAD an election, so calling one seems pretty stupid. So the GG is giving Harper the benefit of the doubt — which as PM he deserves — that something can be worked out. In January, you find out if it can. I sort of doubt it (all these guys HATE Harper with a deep and abiding hate), but there are serious wheels within wheels here.
So the GG is doing the acceptable thing, except for the whole economic crisis bit. But hey, the Conservatives weren’t going to do anything about that anyway, so why not?
December 4th, 2008 at 11:01 pm
And Al, in a vote to topple a government, equating an abstention with “doing nothing” is really fucking stupid. And since I know you’re not that fucking stupid, please stop being so fucking disingenuous.
December 4th, 2008 at 11:05 pm
Democracy may work that way, but Parliament doesn’t. Members are expected to show up and vote.
To be honest, I think part of the problem is that people keep thinking the vote for Prime Minister is “first past the post” like the election for each House member. It isn’t. To expect to win a confidence vote in a 307-member chamber (not counting the Speaker), you need 154 votes. The fact that Harper has 144 off the bat and only needs ten more doesn’t mean anything if he can’t get them. The “coup” is not an affront to democracy. It is simply a second ballot, so to speak.
December 4th, 2008 at 11:24 pm
Hm. I read that “unhinged attack” by Shapiro, and it seemed to me to be quite accurate in its takedown of Yglesias. Yglesisas’ yearning for his country to be ruled by a foreign monarch who is accountable to absolutely no one is pretty bizarre. And as for the question posed upthread about when Americans chose to be Americans, that would be July 2, 1776. (Not the 4th! The 2nd! Look it up!)
As for the main point of the post, that is much more accurate. Parliamentary democracy lends itself to coalition governments. Just because Canada has never made a practice of doing so does not make it dirty pool to attempt to do it now.
I hope this crisis brings more attention to the inherent irrationality of letting an unelected political appointee of a foreign monarch (she might be the Queen of CANADA, but she’s English) be head of state of your country. Or, really, the irrationality of monarchy in general. Thank goodness George Washington arranged things so that we in the United States don’t have to deal with that silly bullshit.
December 4th, 2008 at 11:24 pm
Budget votes are confidence votes. Harper can theoretically stall forever, but he can’t pass a budget until he agrees to one. There is also the matter of the next election. Harper’s tactics will work as long as he is seen to be working within the system. If it really starts to look like he is avoiding a vote, he’ll be destroyed the moment he does fall.
Up until now, it hasn’t really been a problem. Harper spent his first term having confidence votes every week and daring the other three parties to topple him. Now that they’re determined to do it, he’s crying like a baby. I’m not a fan of his, but he’d seem less of an idiot if he hadn’t been trying to look like such a tough guy before.
I’d say two things helped him out in getting his stay of execution. Parliament would probably have taken a month of for Christmas anyway, economic crisis or no economic crisis, and everybody is waiting until Barack Obama takes office in January anyway to see which way the wind is blowing. Politically it means life or death to him, but as far as the government is concerned, I don’t think it matters whether the vote on his economic plan takes place now or in January.
But I don’t think he’ll be lucky enough to get a second reprieve. Either he wins a confidence vote on his first day back in January or he’s out.
December 4th, 2008 at 11:32 pm
There’s a big contrast here between the American and Canadian systems. In the American system, the legislature (well, Congress) is elected separately from their PM-type (the President). The two can then carry on in their separate domains, and there’s a whole lot of constitutional rules and rulings explaining what those are.
That’s never been the case in Canada. We don’t really elect a PM, rather the PM is the leader of the majority party, or failing that, whichever party can lead and survive confidence votes. The PM therefore has always run with the consent, possibly grudging, of the house. And we’ve never had to deal with the issue of carefully proscribing the limits of each sides authority because the system decrees that they shouldn’t really be in conflict.
Some of the arguments I hear (not so much on this forum) suggest that Harper won the election by getting the most votes, and therefore has some kind of independent right to govern in opposition to the majority in the house. But that’s completely alien to the Canadian system. That doesn’t mean the Canadian way is necessarily better, certainly not just because of tradition. But a change this major would require a complete rethinking of the constitutional framework. How, for example, could cabinet spend money during a recess on the assumption that it will get later approval, if the PM and house might be bitter rivals.
December 5th, 2008 at 5:20 am
If they abolished the Governor-General, they would most likely give the formal responsibilities of the office to the Speaker of the House, who is also appointed by the Prime Minister.
The Speaker of the House is elected by secret ballot by MPs. The convention of the PM appointing the Speaker went out about 15 years ago.
But in any event, there’s no way the Speaker would assume the responsibilities of the GG. They are two separate offices, and it would simply be too much for one person.
In the event that the office of Governor General were eliminated, it would likely be replaced by some other form of ceremonial head of state (eg. “President”). But since that new position would operate much like the current one (acting as head of state, representing Canada abroad, deciding who to ask to form the government, etc), most people aren’t terribly animated to make the change.
(Plus, what would we do with all that coinage with Elizabeth on it?).
March 1st, 2009 at 5:51 am
viagra
Excellent site. It was pleasant to me.
March 1st, 2009 at 6:46 pm
cialis
Incredible site!
March 2nd, 2009 at 5:19 am
levitraIt is the coolest site,keep so!
March 11th, 2009 at 4:46 am
I want to say – thank you for this!
March 12th, 2009 at 11:39 pm
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
March 14th, 2009 at 5:30 am
Incredible site!
xanax
March 17th, 2009 at 2:30 am
I want to say – thank you for this!
tramadol
April 2nd, 2009 at 5:24 am
If you have to do it, you might as well do it right
buy cheap viagra