Dec 1st, 2008 at 10:49 pm
The Accord
For those who share my interest in Canadian politics, here’s the text of the unprecedented Liberal-NDP accord that will bring the New Democrats into government for the first time ever.
95 Responses to “The Accord”
Register
RSSLogin
Advertisement
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Books By Matthew Yglesias
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Abortion
Afghanistan
Basketball
Blanche Lincoln
Budget
China
climate
Congress
Crime
DC
Demographics
Economics
Economy
Energy
EU
Finance
Gender
Health Care
History
Immigration
Inequality
International Law
International Relations
Iran
Israel
Labor Markets
Media
Monetary Policy
National Security
NATO
NBA
Palestine
Political Reform
Public Health
Public Opinion
Race
Regulation
Russia
Sarah Palin
Sports
Stimulus
taxes
Technology
Trade
transportation
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Contact Matthew Yglesias
Use this form to contact blog author Matthew Yglesias.
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
December 1st, 2008 at 10:51 pm
I thought the NDP was in a governing coalition with the Liberals in the early 1970s…the source of the memorable quote from some NDP biggie that a coalition with the Liberals was like oral sex with a shark.
December 1st, 2008 at 10:59 pm
Uh, its yet to be established that the New Democrats – or the Liberals – will be in government. Since they’re trying to do something without precedent in the history of Westminster parliaments there’s every reason to think an election will be called first.
December 1st, 2008 at 11:12 pm
Analysts do not appear to think that the Conservatives will win next week’s planned no-confidence vote, nor that the Governor General will call new elections, instead authorizing the opposition (the coalition majority) to form a government.
A CBC report:
It’s not a done deal, but it’s a very, very likely deal.
My god, I can almost taste the desperation in the tears of those righties etc. calling this some sort of undemocratic thumb in the eye of the voters. I’m impressed by the sheer, beautiful whinyness of it all.
December 1st, 2008 at 11:13 pm
Not entirely without precedent. The Liberals and New Democrats toppled the Conservatives in Ontario in 1985 in a very similar manner, and there was in fact a coalition government in Ottawa in 1917.
I wouldn’t put money on an election call. Elections don’t normally happen unless at least one party knows what the likely outcome will be, and in this case, I don’t think anybody does. The Conservatives are best positioned to fight another campaign, but their leader is likely to take the entire blame for forcing another election.
Anything could happen if another election is called, and that means the coalition will probably get a kick at the can at least long enough to see whether the Conservatives’ position is strengthened or weakened. How long the three of them can hold it together is anybody’s guess.
December 1st, 2008 at 11:14 pm
Since they’re trying to do something without precedent in the history of Westminster parliaments there’s every reason to think an election will be called first.
Well, King-Byng is the closest, and as much as self-styled president Harper seems to think that he’s a post-parliamentary PM, his 2004 letter to Adrienne Clarkson about the right course of action in the event of Martin’s minority government falling is going to be quoted repeatedly this week.
And if the Cons try a prorogation to prevent a no-confidence vote, things are going to get very interesting indeed. That’s to say, ‘will bring’ is far too strong, but everything the Cons try in order to wriggle out of being brought down is likely to fuck them over further.
After all, if there is another election called, the presumption has to be that the NDP and Libs will pull the lower-placed candidates in ridings where the Cons won last time, in order to make it a straight-ish fight outside of Quebec.
December 1st, 2008 at 11:28 pm
keith davey, you sound like an idiot when you write like such a hack.
Not only is there not “every reason to think there will be an election called first”, there’s almost no reason to think that. Constitutional experts are in universal agreement that the Governor General will not (nor should not) dissolve Parliament. Why would she? We just had an election, and she has firm evidence that a government can be formed with the current makeup of the House.
And precedent is on side of not calling an election. As mentioned, in 1985 in Ontario, the Conservative government held the most seats but was defeated in a motion of non-confidence soon after the election. Rather than call another election, in the face of evidence that a government could be fashioned with the existing makeup of the provincial parliament (the 2nd place Liberals with the 3rd place NDP), the Liberals were asked to form a government.
In 1926, the Liberals sought dissolution of the House (when it became obvious they had lost confidence). The Governor General refused, and asked the Tories to form a government.
I would also point out that in 2004, shortly after the election, it was thought that the Liberals might not survive an initial confidence motion. The other three parties, including Stephen Harper (talk about being hoisted on his own petard) wrote the GG and advised her that if the government failed they would like the opportunity to form a government instead of having another election.
December 1st, 2008 at 11:28 pm
My god, I can almost taste the desperation in the tears of those righties etc. calling this some sort of undemocratic thumb in the eye of the voters. I’m impressed by the sheer, beautiful whinyness of it all.
And Harper has no-one to blame but himself. While governments around the world are rolling out the stimulus plans, he decided that now was the time to bankrupt rival political parties and blackmail public-sector workers over wages. Wanker.
Now Dion’s planned exit from the Liberal leadership complicates the GG’s decision, since her reserve power is to ask an individual to form a government. But the reserve power to refuse dissolution exists for good reason, and the avoidance of a dissolution within a couple of months of an election qualifies.
But here’s the other wrinkle: the reserve power exists for the GG to dismiss a PM who attempts to govern without the confidence of the Commons. That’s to say, we could conceivably be headed to a Gough Whitlam-type situation here.
December 1st, 2008 at 11:31 pm
Not really. The King-Byng Wingding is pretty strong precedent.
What’s more of an open question is whether a.) Harper will try to prorogue Parliament with nothing but a Throne Speech to the session’s name and b.) whether the Governor-General will accept Harper’s request to prorogue. Prorogation is Harper’s only chance to stave this off, but it’s a stunningly desperate manoeuver, and there is no precedent for dealing with an attempt to prorogue with zero attempts at legislative achievement.
Con law scholars might as well head to Rideau Hall and start a cricket match to while they wait. Their advice will be required.
December 1st, 2008 at 11:31 pm
presumption has to be that the NDP and Libs will pull the lower-placed candidates in ridings where the Cons won last time
I realize that may be the hope of some, but I don’t think it is the presumption of many. The chances of that happening are virtually nil. Not only are the parties too ideologically dissimilar, and the grassroots of both would be up in arms, I just don’t think it would work (strategic voting has a poor record of success).
December 1st, 2008 at 11:34 pm
pseudonymous in nc,
If there is another election it will be more complicated than “…the NDP and Libs will pull the lower-placed candidates in ridings where the Cons won last time…”
You are assuming that Liberals, who voted in a large part against a Harper majority (see ABC), will now support Stephen Dion. Not only that but for a Stephen Dion/Jack Layton coalition.
Anyways if it were as simple as you make it sound the NDP and Liberals would either have merged in October or would call an election now.
I also agree with Matt that in a two-party model Canada would produce much more liberal policies. The problem is it is not a winner-take-all game and there are, and will always be, huge incentives to create a separate party (assuming you can get some seats). The NDP may benefit from this “power grab” but come next election they will go back to being a radical anti-capitalist, populist mob. And they will be better for it.
December 1st, 2008 at 11:38 pm
From page 3 of the Policy Framework (different document than the Accord) agreed to by the three parties:
“The Government will not request a dissolution of Parliament during the term of this agreement, except following defeat on an explicitly-framed motion of non-confidence presented by the Opposition; or any vote pertaining to the speech from the throne; or on a budget vote at on [sic] any stage in the House; or on any bill to implement a budget at any stage in the House; or on any motion in the House to concur in, restore or reinstate any Estimates; or on any supply bill at any stage in the House.”
Boy, nothing could possibly go wrong under an iron-clad agreement like this.
December 1st, 2008 at 11:42 pm
This is standard for any Westminster parliament. Not unique to the agreement whatsoever.
December 1st, 2008 at 11:43 pm
as an official canadian with some interesting ties to people involved with these proceedings, let me just toss in a few thoughts:
1) the deal done, the government still has a few moves to make before we see a progressive government come to power. in effect, despite how obviously it is in the governor-general’s interest not to prorogue parliament (harper will not re-appoint her, a liberal PM would), she may well grant the government’s request. in which case, all of this would be adjourned to january or potentially february.
2) the media is confused by this, and has a vaguely government bias. this is bad. i doubt very much that anything could stop the conspirators at this point (aside from a prorogued parliament), but the media could well emphasize the controversial aspect. even in quebec, the media is none too pleased about the latest developments.
3) should everything go down as planned, dion would be an excellent premier, layton and the ndp (the brains of the plot) will have achieved something truly great, and duceppe will finally have a legacy. more importantly, we now have the possibility of a somewhat permanent left coalition standing against the cpc, the inverse of the australian lib/nat coalition. should this come to pass, and should the coalition hold, it will be very very tough for the cpc to come to power again under stephen harper.
4) finally, the media are doing a bad job of reporting what’s really going on here. on the one hand, harper’s conservatives are the dirtiest, most authoritarian and least trustworthy gang every to reach for the purple. in effect, they’ve outsmarted themselves – after two years of pure machiavellianism, trying to suffocate the opposition and dispensing with every parliamentary tradition of courtesy and hominy, they’ve finally reached far enough to ally the left, the centre (riven with division, it should be noted) and the regional quebec parties into an alliance, the sole purpose of which is to rid the nation of this particular cancer. it seems somehow fitting that, barring some outrageous act on the part of michaelle jean, we canuckistanis should have our left government before you (and ours will be lefter!).
December 1st, 2008 at 11:46 pm
The Policy Framework is a pretty reasonable document as far as high-level principles go, with one glaring exception: Commitment to supply management.
In case you were wondering, Americans: Quebec dairy farmers = Iowa corn farmers.
December 1st, 2008 at 11:48 pm
There are very few real constitutional experts in Canada, and very few of them have said in anything about this situation as of yet. The suggestion of Ontario in 1985 as a precedent is quite mistaken, since in that case the Premier did not request dissolution on parliament, and actually suggested that the Liberals form a government. 1917 is not a comparable case, as it did not involve a government that relied on the votes of a seperatist party, led by a party leader who had just resigned after getting the lowest vote total of any leader of his party in the history of the country. The only case where a leader requested dissolution of parliament, and the request was denied, was the King-Byng affair.
December 1st, 2008 at 11:49 pm
Grow the fuck up, gekko.
Not only are the parties too ideologically dissimilar, and the grassroots of both would be up in arms, I just don’t think it would work (strategic voting has a poor record of success).
I’m not so sure of that, and I think we’re in throw-out-the-record-books territory here.
dB: what’s the temperature in Ottawa? This week could see the invention of ice cricket.
December 1st, 2008 at 11:50 pm
Another Chris: I think you miss the point.
A Westminster style parliament is governed by the principle that a government is defeated when it loses the confidence of the parliament. Traditionally, this happens through a vote of non-confidence, and votes on money bills or a speech from the throne is presumed to be a confidence measure.
The recent Harper strategy has been to make *everything* a confidence motion. So in a minority government, a vote on, say, a crime bill becomes a showdown on whether you are prepared to have an election over any single policy dispute. It is a terribly destabilizing tactic, where the government lurches from one showdown to another, and where you have opposition parties voting for policies they don’t approve simply to avoid an election (and be faced with the criticism that they forced an election over some trivial policy dispute).
So the proposed policy framework you quote is actually a way to better ensure this government can work. It will give the various MPs freedom to vote their conscience on most matters without fear of triggering an election.
December 1st, 2008 at 11:50 pm
whoops, meant to add:
4) on the other hand, these enemies (lpc, ndp, bq) have a common interest in seeing the policy plate moved far far away from the direction in which the inane and incompetent harper government wishes to see it directed. all three of these parties represent constituencies that are directly at risk, whereas the cpc constituencies (the west and the rural) are the least affected. in canada, opposition means no power, no opportunity. the lpc and the bq are broke, and the ndp has the highest dollar/vote ratio of any party – these folks need money, and fast, and there’s no better way to get it that to be in government (and no surer way not to get it than by being in opposition). voila.
December 1st, 2008 at 11:51 pm
The idea of a “permanent left coalition” emerging is nonsense. Its based partly on the delusion that NDP voters = soft Liberal voters. In fact, the NDP split votes with the Tories as often as they do with the Liberals. Similarly, the idea that the BQ would want to be part of such a coalition for any period of time misunderstands what that party is about. That’s especially true of a coalition led by Stephane Dion, who remains hugely unpopular in Quebec.
December 1st, 2008 at 11:52 pm
The 2004 situation is interesting, because it involves many of the same players starring in this year’s political drama. Back then, Harper was the leader of the Opposition and he entered into an agreement with Layton and Duceppe to eventually defeat Paul Martin’s Liberal government. MacLeans has the story here.
The Governor General at the time, Adrienne Clarkson, wrote in her memoirs, that she would have not listened to the Prime Minister advice if he had come to her to ask for an election for a six month period after the June 28 poll.
Of course, this admission doesn’t represent a precedent for the new GG (and former colleague at the CBC) Michaëlle Jean, but I assume it reflects some (how unanimous, we don’t know) of the advice she will receive from constitutional scholars who were called in at Rideau Hall 4 years ago.
BTW, I read an interesting bit tonight. The crisis is serious enough that the Privy Council Office (the top career civil servants) are getting busy preparing departemental briefing books for their potential new political masters.
December 1st, 2008 at 11:54 pm
# pseudonymous in nc Says:
It’s called curling
And it’s too early (yet) to sweep on the Rideau Canal. Give it a month or so.
December 1st, 2008 at 11:56 pm
pseud: I’m pretty plugged in to the NDP network, and can tell you it would be a cold day in hell before NDP rank and file (or any, for that matter) agreed to do such a thing. For starters, while a Liberal government headed by Stephane Dion may be palatable to some, he won’t be in the picture long – and a Liberal government headed by Michael Ignatieff is an entirely different thing, to the point of being universally unacceptable to an NDPer.
The flip side of this is the revulsion a great number of Liberals have for the NDP, such that they too would openly revolt at any such proposition. Hell, there was virtually a mutiny when Dion agreed not to run a candidate in the riding where the Green Party leader was trying to take down the Minister of Defence (a tactic, btw, which failed miserably and confirms – for me – the folly of the tactic).
December 1st, 2008 at 11:57 pm
keith davey – a permanent left coalition is post-election, as in australia. i doubt the liberals and ndp would co-ordinate, except in the cases (vancouver island north, for example) where the ndp and cpc are tight with very little lpc support. anyway, if the deal moves, it’s a precedent, which means what it means.
December 1st, 2008 at 11:59 pm
The Governor General at the time, Adrienne Clarkson, wrote in her memoirs, that she would have not listened to the Prime Minister advice if he had come to her to ask for an election for a six month period after the June 28 poll.
Of course, this admission doesn’t represent a precedent for the new GG (and former colleague at the CBC) Michaëlle Jean, but I assume it reflects some (how unanimous, we don’t know) of the advice she will receive from constitutional scholars who were called in at Rideau Hall 4 years ago.
A dubious assumption. Although as I recall around that time Paul Martin would stand up in the House each day to accuse Harper of collaborating with seperatists. That’s some kind of precedent.
December 2nd, 2008 at 12:01 am
a permanent left coalition is post-election, as in australia.
a “permanent left coalition” has to last for more than one election, so it actually has to be sold to voters at some point. And an NDP-Liberal coalition will hurt both parties: the NDP in western seats where they compete with the Conservatives, and the Liberals in Ontario seats were they compete with the Conservatives.
anyway, if the deal moves, it’s a precedent, which means what it means.
That’s meaningless.
December 2nd, 2008 at 12:04 am
keith davey – wow, you actually don’t have a clue what you’re talking about.
December 2nd, 2008 at 12:08 am
Yes, more comments about “permanent left coalitions” that never face an electorate, and citations of Ontario precedents that neglect to mention Frank Miller’s role in the transfer of power are called for. Not to mention, meaningless tautologies such as, “if the deal moves, it’s a precedent, which means what it means”. Ignorance of precedence and tautological logic: essential to “permanent left coalitions” that never have to worry about winning actual elections.
December 2nd, 2008 at 12:17 am
Repeat this to yourself until you understand it:
The Prime Minister does not have the authority to decide whether Parliament gets dissolved. He has the ability to make the request, and he certainly has the right to ask his party to vote in a way that will make Parliament unworkable, but “leadership” in the House goes to whomever can marshall enough votes to pass legislation. If Harper cannot and someone else can, Harper is no longer the leader. The fact that Miller behaved in a dignified manner and Harper likely will not is irrelevent.
As far as the constitution is concerned, Dion’s popularity (or lack of it) and Duceppe’s views on sovereignty are non-issues. There will not be an election if Dion can make a convincing case that he can get a budget passed.
December 2nd, 2008 at 12:19 am
I get the sense that this will not be a very leader-driven coalition. It may fall apart on policy, or on internal Liberal bickering, or on differences with the Bloc. But with the Obama-apeing wise-men apparatus falling into place and the likelihood of relatively autonomous cabinet ministers, it seems unlikely that even Michael Ignatieff could crash the coalition in short order upon taking leadership, unless he decides to invade something.
These events also completely freeze the likely Ignatieff coronation process. Bob Rae is a talented politician, Michael Ignatieff has the potential to say something mind-boggling at any moment, and the weirdness of Canadian brokered conventions could result in another anyone-but-Ignatieff result. The optics of Rae’s enthusism for the coalition were certainly better than the optics of Ignatieff’s apparent hesitence. This, however, may be a mere side effect of the truly deplorable Canadian press corps.
December 2nd, 2008 at 12:24 am
The Prime Minister does not have the authority to decide whether Parliament gets dissolved.
Who ever claimed differently? Stop battling strawmen.
He has the ability to make the request, and he certainly has the right to ask his party to vote in a way that will make Parliament unworkable, but “leadership” in the House goes to whomever can marshall enough votes to pass legislation.
Not necessarily, and not usually, which is why virtually all requests for dissolution are accepted. Harper himself tried to make the argument that you’re making during the Martin government, and it was just as misguided at the time.
As far as the constitution is concerned, Dion’s popularity (or lack of it) and Duceppe’s views on sovereignty are non-issues.
Popularity is always an issue in a democracy. As for Duceppe’s “views” on sovereignty, they’re not just his views like his views on classical music, they’re the whole agenda of his party. Which is why when Paul Martin was PM he stood up in the House everyday to denounce the Tories for voting with the BQ. Besides that, there are medium-to-long-term considerations: governing with the BQ will hurt the Liberals brand in Ontario, while governing with Dion will hurt them in Quebec and make it more difficult for the BQ to support them. So an election will soon be called anyway, and the Tories will be in a stronger position to win as a result.
December 2nd, 2008 at 12:24 am
There won’t be any “permanent left coalition,” but I think this thing could hold together for a couple years. Jack is willing to be more moderate if it gets the NDP a chance to actually implement some policies and have actual power (I don’t expect we’ll get any high-level cabinet offices, but Labour is a good bet) – it gives us a chance to show Canadians that the federal NDP are not nuts or “fringe”, but can actually govern.
It does depend to some extent on the outcome of the Liberal leadership race, though. The NDP have nothing in common with Ignatieff on foreign affairs, he’s far more hawkish and pro-American than Canada is used to; and if they stick with a coalition that has him as PM, I can see some NDPers deserting the party for the Greens. But if that leads to Green seats in Parliament, it’s all to the good anyway.
The coalition wouldn’t run together in an election (unless Jean called one immediately) – they would run as separate parties and both try to get the larger share of the credit for the most well-liked and successful policies. Nobody wants the agreement to be permanent, and certainly not for the NDP to merge with the Liberals.
Coalition government have been formed in many European nations and been reasonably successful (Germany’s is functioning okay), so just because this is unprecedented for Canada doesn’t mean it’s unviable.
One good thing that’s been noted is that the leader of the Bloc has said the deal DOESN’T do anything in particular to recognize Quebec as a nation, but he’s still going to vote with it. That means two things. First, that he realizes the severity of this economic crisis and is willing to set aside the separatist agenda (which is no longer particularly popular in Quebec) for a time in order to get a good solution to the crisis. Smart of him, as Quebec’s economy is not that great. Secondly, by involving him in a governing coalition he is forced to take ownership of the policies made, and it’s a lot harder to say “being part of Canada isn’t working for the Quebecois” when you’ve signed on to supporting the Canadian government. He will be deeply invested in making the economy work, because if it doesn’t he’s dead meat – he can’t pass it off on Canada screwing Quebec.
December 2nd, 2008 at 12:25 am
McKingsford: I’ll trust you on this one — my familiarity with the inner workings of the NDP is such that it surprised me to find an acquaintance as an NDP candidate this time round — though I also think that there are sheer pragmatic decisions to be made in ridings where the NDP and Libs got 35/20 or vice versa, particularly if the coffers are empty. Ultimately, I don’t think it’ll get to an election.
The interesting question, perhaps, is what the Cons beneath Harper are thinking after this monumental bit of hubris by the crypto-president. Beyond ‘oh, shit’, that is.
December 2nd, 2008 at 12:26 am
I suggest that the Liberals ape Obama in terms of public financing of campaigns.
December 2nd, 2008 at 12:27 am
What a bizarre statement.
December 2nd, 2008 at 12:29 am
What Conservatives are thinking beneath Harper is that the prospect of this coalition actually taking power will ruin the Liberal brand for several years to come, and make it much easier for the Tories to win a majority in a few months time when it falls apart.
December 2nd, 2008 at 12:30 am
There are very few real constitutional experts in Canada
What a bizarre statement.
Name how many are qualified to advise the Governor General on this sort of question. You can count them on one hand.
December 2nd, 2008 at 12:32 am
He will be deeply invested in making the economy work, because if it doesn’t he’s dead meat – he can’t pass it off on Canada screwing Quebec.
Absolutely. There might be ways to elide it, but right now Quebec sinks or swims based on what happens in Ottawa.
Worth thinking too about the things that have changed since October: e.g. the plummet in the oil price (which affects Alberta) and the potential implosion of the US-owned auto industry (which affects Ontario). That’s why I think it’s going to be an interesting situation for certain CPC MPs, especially those who won tight contests or are relatively new to their seats.
December 2nd, 2008 at 12:38 am
Secondly, by involving him in a governing coalition he is forced to take ownership of the policies made, and it’s a lot harder to say “being part of Canada isn’t working for the Quebecois” when you’ve signed on to supporting the Canadian government. He will be deeply invested in making the economy work, because if it doesn’t he’s dead meat – he can’t pass it off on Canada screwing Quebec.
No one with knowledge of the mindset of the BQ and their constituency could expect them to ever “take ownership” of the “Canadian government”. If you think that the BQ can’t pass anything off as Canada screwing Quebec, you haven’t paid attention to the history of the movement. That’s their whole job. Back in the 1970s and 80s all kinds of bargains were made with the PQ to help them “take ownership” of various negotiated policies. What was the result? Myths like the “night of the long knives” that fueled seperatism for more than a decade. That’s why they exist. The BQ will never be “dead meat” if Canada fails. They count on Canada failing. Their marginal involvement hasn’t changed that in the past, and won’t now – which is why Paul Martin spent so much energy accusing Harper of making deals with seperatists just a few short years ago.
December 2nd, 2008 at 12:40 am
# keith davey Says:
A few things here. You assume the Conservatives (I don’t use Tories anymore, since this new Conservative party is no longer the older Progressive conservative one) will be in a stronger position in the next election. You have no way of knowing that, and I don’t.
But let me remind you of the recent history. For the last three general elections (June 2004, Jan. 2006 and Oct 14), Canadians send a mixed message by electing minority Parliaments. Harper had a mandate to govern like a minority is supposed to govern – some give and take on issues. Harper acts like a bully in Parliament and issues a series of ultimatums over a series of regular bills. He got away with it for over a year. That was one of the reason why Quebec denied him his majority six weeks ago. So, what is Harper’s gut feeling, after the election? He repeats his strategy, hoping to intimidate the lame duck Opposition leader.
So there is a pretty good case to be made that Conservatives won’t do as well as they have done if we go to the polls, again, in the first part of 2009.
December 2nd, 2008 at 12:41 am
Look at it this way: the Liberals tried running to the left with Dion as a candidate, and they got their lowest vote total in the history of the country. Try doing it again with Dion resurected from resignation in an alliance with the NDP and a party led by Maoist-seperatist, and see how that works out when the Liberals have to face an actual electorate again.
December 2nd, 2008 at 12:43 am
If the Tories go to the polls after the Liberals tried to form a government with the NDP and BQ led by Dion they will be in the best position to claim the center. Also, the Tories basically went scandal-a-day through the last parliament and still wound up with a strengthened minority. So I’m not sure how much voters mind all the theatrics.
December 2nd, 2008 at 12:44 am
kd,
I realize that it’s hard to back down when you say something asinine, so I understand you digging in your heels, but please.
There have been all kinds of constitutional experts quoted in the media the last several days. They may not be the ones Michaelle Jean consults, but they still universally concede that Jean is unlikely to dissolve parliament in the face of compelling evidence that a government can be formed that has the confidence of the house.
And you won’t be able to cite anyone other than a Conservative hack who says otherwise. But instead you insist that there is “*every* reason to believe an election will be called”. “Every reason”? That’s a pretty high bar to clear and you can’t muster anything by way of precedent or appeal to authority to support your assertion, and all evidence is to the contrary.
But you stick to your guns, ’cause that’s what hacks like you do…
December 2nd, 2008 at 12:48 am
That’s a pretty high bar to clear and you can’t muster anything by way of precedent or appeal to authority to support your assertion, and all evidence is to the contrary.
No one can muster any precedent because there is no precedent. That’s the whole point. 1985 in Ontario is not a precedent. Adrienne Clarkson’s memoirs are not a precedent. 1917 is not a precedent. etc. As for authorities, I’ll be interested to hear what actual authorities say.
December 2nd, 2008 at 12:54 am
The most interesting thing about all this is that the Liberals are so desperate that they’re willing to put themselves in such a bad situation in government. If the coalition does assume power, the Liberals will have hurt their chances over the medium-to-long term and probably also over the short term much more than they could have done in opposition. Just a couple weeks ago I thought Iggy was going to be the next PM, after he won the leadership in the Spring. I doubt it now.
December 2nd, 2008 at 12:56 am
Wow, a Maoist-separatist? Christ, I didn’t realize the Conbots have invaded this blog as well. Shouldn’t you be trolling at Macleans?
December 2nd, 2008 at 1:01 am
Keith, what is it about parliamentary democracy you don’t understand? The government serves at the pleasure of the House. If it loses confidence of the House, it must resign. There is good reason to believe a different government *has* the confidence of the House.
The only question remaining is whether Harper will, in his desperation, request a prorogation of Parliament. But that also happens at the GG’s behest, and she can and will decline that request.
December 2nd, 2008 at 1:01 am
Wow, a Maoist-separatist? Christ, I didn’t realize the Conbots have invaded this blog as well.
Its common knowledge that Gilles Ducceppe was a Maoist. He talks about himself. Or were you denying that he was a seperatist?
December 2nd, 2008 at 1:03 am
Keith, what is it about parliamentary democracy you don’t understand? The government serves at the pleasure of the House. If it loses confidence of the House, it must resign.
Who denied this? I certainly didn’t.
The only question remaining is whether Harper will, in his desperation, request a prorogation of Parliament.
That’s not really a remaining question. Reliable sources in the Tory party have confirmed that it won’t happen. And besides, it would probably wouldn’t be constituional at this point.
December 2nd, 2008 at 1:05 am
Calling Gilles Duceppe a Maoist-separatist is about as accurate as referring to Harper as a fascist.
December 2nd, 2008 at 1:08 am
Okay, keith, enlighten me then – what *is* the remaining question?
If procedural maneuvers are the only arrows that Harper has left in his quiver, he is truly hanging by a thread.
And if he knows his goose is cooked, why are we waiting for Dec. 8th?
December 2nd, 2008 at 1:10 am
Calling Gilles Duceppe a Maoist-separatist is about as accurate as referring to Harper as a fascist.
That’s never stopped the Toronto Star. But they’re not actually comparable, since Duceppe was a self-declared Maoist and is a self-declared seperatist. Actually, I take that back – he would call himself a sovereigntist. So, he’s a Maoist-sovereigntist then.
December 2nd, 2008 at 1:10 am
The only remaining question is whether or not there will be an election.
December 2nd, 2008 at 1:14 am
And anyone who thinks I’m the hack should keep in mind here: back in Paul Martin’s government, Harper was talking about a coalition government in just the same terms that the Liberals are now, only back then the Liberals were damning it as undemocratic, immoral, irresponsible, illegal, etc. So maybe they’re all hacks, and only I’m consistent.
December 2nd, 2008 at 1:18 am
keith, buddy, I hate to break this to you, but there will not be an election. The GG is bound by convention, and it’s more than clear that an alternative government in waiting enjoys the confidence of the house. If anything, it would be reckless of her to grant a request for dissolution.
Harper can take solace in the fact that he will be remembered as the man who united both the Canadian right and the Canadian left. But his prime ministerial days will soon be over.
December 2nd, 2008 at 1:21 am
Duceppe and maoism… Yeah, I guess he read “En lutte!” (and possibly distributed the paper) and at the Parti communiste ouvrier (PCO) while employed as a union rep at a Montreal hospital, then an organizer at the CSN. But, I’d call that an occupational hazard for people involved with the union movement in the 70s and 80s.
Heck, at one point, I was pro-Albania, when I was 19
BTW, for those not familiar with Quebec, Duceppe never hid the fact that he was a bona fide marxist and even abstained at the first referendum on sovereignty (that was the PCO line at the time). I found an profile published on Radio-Canada’s web site (French) where all this story has been there for years up here.
December 2nd, 2008 at 1:23 am
If the Tories go to the polls after the Liberals tried to form a government with the NDP and BQ led by Dion they will be in the best position to claim the center.
Gosh, yes. I can’t think of a better way to lay claim to the centre than, while the rest of the developed world rolls out stimulus packages, to decide that de-funding rival parties and fucking over public-sector workers are of higher priority. Because it’s not as if Canadians will see the BQ, NDP and Grits agreeing on a common path for government and think ‘well, that’s the sort of thing we’ve come to expect’.
Now, I will agree with keith on this point: we’re more likely to see Dion stay on than the savant idiot become PM. Still, if he’s prepared to put a nominal sum on there being another election called in the next three months, I’ll take that bet.
December 2nd, 2008 at 1:23 am
keith, buddy, I hate to break this to you, but there will not be an election. The GG is bound by convention, and it’s more than clear that an alternative government in waiting enjoys the confidence of the house.
There is no convention, since the situation is without precedent. And the fact an alternative government exists has not been sufficient cause in the past, why should it be now? Paul Martin was against this sort of thing when he was in power. What’s happened to Liberal principles?
Harper can take solace in the fact that he will be remembered as the man who united both the Canadian right and the Canadian left.
This is just the problem for the Liberals: they just lost an election where tilted somewhat to the left. Trying to win an actual election if they actually form a government under such circumstances will only guarantee a Harper majority when the Liberals actually have to ask someone to vote for them.
December 2nd, 2008 at 1:26 am
Gosh, yes. I can’t think of a better way to lay claim to the centre than, while the rest of the developed world rolls out stimulus packages, to decide that de-funding rival parties and fucking over public-sector workers are of higher priority.
Defunding rival parties? More like expecting to rely on the same sources of support that Stephen Harper and Barack Obama both enjoy.
Because it’s not as if Canadians will see the BQ, NDP and Grits agreeing on a common path for government and think ‘well, that’s the sort of thing we’ve come to expect’.
Indeed.
December 2nd, 2008 at 1:26 am
This is the left version of the Alliance-Conservative fusion of some years ago, it was bound to happen in a parliamentary simple majority system.
December 2nd, 2008 at 1:32 am
If procedural maneuvers are the only arrows that Harper has left in his quiver, he is truly hanging by a thread.
I suppose there are extra-parliamentary manoeuvres, but we’ll see how that ends up.
Now, catapult to the moon is right about the media take on this: the Globe and Mail’s leader (and its op-ed page) is little more than bullshit establishmentarianism: Harper might have fucked up, according to them, but if he resigns, it’ll all be better. Yeah, right. The CPC is the Harper party, and he made it that way.
December 2nd, 2008 at 1:40 am
Thanks for the attention, Mr. Yglesias. We Canadians will take it when we can get it!
I have not time to read all the comments, but from what I can tell, the debate is on as to what will happen and who is right-wing and who is not. On those issues, I will only predict that the government will not fall and the coalition will break apart and say that the Conservative Party of Canada’s official policies, as a whole, are very much in line with or to the left of the US Democratic Party’s.
On a point some may be curious about: The Conservatives have governed for over two years and the left-wing opposition parties have never sought to form a coalition and overthrow it until now. What is it that has pushed them to this course? Is it the prospect of governing during the worst economic conditions of the last 75 years? Is it unbelievable short-sightedness?
December 2nd, 2008 at 1:40 am
Umm… the NDP was part of Trudeau’s coalition minority government in the 70’s. Nothing shocking there. Perhaps you’re referring to the Bloc Quebecois…? Their involvement is much more earth-shattering.
December 2nd, 2008 at 1:44 am
And the fact an alternative government exists has not been sufficient cause in the past,
Oh, bullshit.
Name one instance where the queen or her representative was presented with a request by a party in parliament to form a government in the face of a non-confidence motion and refused. You can’t. Never happened.
It’s one thing to think the best course of action is for an election to follow the Harper government loss of confidence, but you just sound like a jackass talking out of your ass to insist there is “every reason to think an election will be called” when the preponderance of evidence is to the contrary, and you can’t cite anything by way of precedent to support your theory of inevitability.
December 2nd, 2008 at 1:48 am
NDP was part of Trudeau’s coalition minority government in the 70’s.
The NDP supported the Trudeau minority government from time to time (1972-74), but there was no coalition.
December 2nd, 2008 at 2:12 am
#
# Senator-Elect Says:
December 2nd, 2008 at 1:40 am
Thanks for the attention, Mr. Yglesias. We Canadians will take it when we can get it!
I have not time to read all the comments, but from what I can tell, the debate is on as to what will happen and who is right-wing and who is not. On those issues, I will only predict that the government will not fall and the coalition will break apart and say that the Conservative Party of Canada’s official policies, as a whole, are very much in line with or to the left of the US Democratic Party’s.
The Liberal Party is deep in debt and the polls are essentially stable since the election of Stephane Dion. The Libs were forced to abstain on a lot of confidence votes on minor issues, and that’s why Harper lasted 2½ years. By bullying the weak Liberal leader. Now the Conservatives have wasted their “free” election and their leverage over Dion. Harper thought Dion was weak, but his caucus was really weak-willed.
Now, with the leadership on the table, the candidates want to appear strong because they don’t want to be “rolled” the way Dion was. So now the Liberal caucus is all toughness.
As for the NDP, it’s basically a vindication of Jack Layton’s leadership. This kind of crisis is the best chance to show what they’ve got. So the NDP will be the one party holding this ragtag bunch together.
As for the Bloc, they said long ago that they’re not interested in governing Canada. So while they wait for the next referendum on sovereignty, their strategy is to play the system to get the best deal possible for Quebec. The Bloc has the votes to make a difference and as a former union negociator, Duceppe is a shrewd poker player. People forget that part, but the Bloc leader is a deal-maker by trade and he’s been there for almost 20 years, longer than any other party leader.
December 2nd, 2008 at 3:31 am
This discussion is completely over my head, but I’m pretty sure I understand one thing from the comments:
keith davey is Canadian’s gordon gekko. Well, ok, maybe not all that similar in positions, but at least in the frequency of using the phrase “This is the problem with liberals …..”.
Am I right?
December 2nd, 2008 at 5:06 am
The coalition would be unprecedented in that members of the smaller party (the NDP) would be heading federal departments. In past hung parliaments, the largest party would form the government by itself, and seek support from smaller parties either on an issue by issue basis or through a longer term agreement. But the smaller parties would stay out of the cabinet.
In continental parliamentary systems, cabinet portfolios have always been handed out to all the parties that make up the governing coalition, but this has been resisted in anglo-saxon parliamentary systems, which have a strong principle of cabinet responsibility. One party always forms the government, even if it hasn’t actually elected a majority of the MPs. It may be the same form of thinking that makes the anglo-saxon systems stick to single member district elections instead of adopting the proportional systems used in the continental model.
Ironically, in the UK itself, coalitions with parties dividing up the cabinet seats were formed in 1915, 1916, 1931, and 1940. However, these were coalitions of the two biggest parties, supposedly formed to combat national emergencies, and not repeatable in “normal” times. The Irish form continental style cabinets, but the Irish have gone off the reservation and adopted propotional representation as well. New Zealand went to multi-party cabinets at the same time it adopted proportional representation, but there were alot of problems in getting the unfamiliar concept to work.
The NDP has been part of the governing coalition in federal politics before, but always outside the cabinet. I wonder what is different this time that made it necessary for Dion to appoint six Dippers to his cabinet. The participation of a separatist party is also unprecedented, though something like this has been made to work in Spain. Also you have the PM being someone who just resigned from the leadership of his own party, though again its probably encouraging that the British had two Prime Ministers (Lloyd-George and Churchill) who were not leaders of their own party when they took office and a third (MacDonald) who was repudiated by his party after forming the coalition.
December 2nd, 2008 at 5:32 am
Yes Tim, you understand things perfectly. Although he also has a bit of lonewacko’s relentlessness.
The “no real con-law scholars” is genuinely stupid, as was his mocking of this deal as a precedent. The expectation that the centre-left could never get its shit together would be undercut by the sheer fact of them actually getting their shit together.
McKingford’s response in #63 is decisive.
Fail, Mr. Davey. Epic Fail.
December 2nd, 2008 at 8:10 am
One thing to remember is that the Conservative Party is supplying talking points for their supporters to go onto blogs and attack the other parties. There is even a suggestion that they are paying them. It is quite funny – if you go to any blog in Canada, you will see the exact same arguments repeated word for word in the comments section.
December 2nd, 2008 at 8:41 am
You know you’re in for some serious fake conservative whining about protecting democracy yadda yadda when the themes develop that even liberals are just playing too rough so for the sake of us all here poor reg’lar folk in the nice perfect sensible middle the conservative minority government just must continue.
From that excellent mind of provocative thinking, the Toronto Sun in an editorial:
Clearly, the nation’s well-being is best served by a minority conservative government who unleashed a reckless economic plan giving a big middle finger to the need for an economic stimulus package and screwing over public sector workers until such time as they realized they would lose their government over their own ass-headedness.
That they were dumb enough to bray for cutting public financing of elections sufficient to provoke the opposition parties into realizing, despite all their inbred liberal timidity and infighting, that they were, in fact, the majority, is of course the fault of the liberals for taking up the challenge.
And hence the copy & paste brigades spreading around the ‘net.
December 2nd, 2008 at 8:42 am
http://www.torontosun.com/comment/editorial/2008/12/02/7602256.html
December 2nd, 2008 at 10:18 am
keith, you appear to be confusing “convention” with “precedent”. In 2005, the opposition merely sent a letter to the GG reminding her to consider all options before granting dissolution. But they never formalized that accord, and when Martin lost the confidence vote in late 2005, they never told the GG “hey wait a minute, we can form a government from the current House without an election.”
“Trying to win an actual election if they actually form a government under such circumstances will only guarantee a Harper majority when the Liberals actually have to ask someone to vote for them.”
Dude, we can’t keep re-running elections until they produce a majority outcome.
December 2nd, 2008 at 10:31 am
“The NDP has been part of the governing coalition in federal politics before, but always outside the cabinet. I wonder what is different this time that made it necessary for Dion to appoint six Dippers to his cabinet. The participation of a separatist party is also unprecedented, though something like this has been made to work in Spain.”
1.The NDP has *not*, once again, *not* been part of a coalition, in or out of government. No agreement, no accord, no influence on policy beyond that of a normal parliamentary party. The only modern precedent is the 1985 Liberal-NDP Accord in Ontario
2.What made it different this time, is the numbers. The Tories have 144 MPs, Liberals 77, NDP 38. Without granting the NDP cabinet slots, it would be quite difficult to pass legislation.
3.Separatist is the preferred Tory nomenclature, but in polite discourse in Canada the Bloc are typically referred to as sovereigntist. More to the point, they are a legitimate representative of a large proportion of Quebecers. The Tories have relied on them to pass legislation before, so I don’t see how this is any different. As for global examples, we can look at Italy where Lega Nord is a powerful part of Berlusconi’s coalition, or Wales, where Labour shares power with Plaid Cymru.
December 2nd, 2008 at 12:17 pm
Good on all points, andy, except one. The Bloc are separatists, or secessionists; “sovereigntist” is just the term they prefer.
I don’t like co-operating with them, but they’re really soft-pedaling the separatist stuff now because they know that not many Quebecois support it – and they want to minimize economic damage from the recession as much as anyone else.
I’m amazed that Duceppe would ally with Dion, who is anathema to separatists, but for the same reason I’m confident this government won’t be giving too much away to the Bloc. If there’s one issue where we know Dion can be counted in, it’s federalism.
December 2nd, 2008 at 12:19 pm
I’m just savoring this moment: Canada’s blustering rightwing whackaloon PM vs. America’s internationally loved center-left president-elect and de facto president. Heh.
December 2nd, 2008 at 12:56 pm
Yeah, I wouldn’t be too smug about it Bosch’s Poodle. They are getting ready to dump their whackaloon right-wing PM only a few months after the election because he does something bad. We, on the other hand, reelected our right-wing President with a bigger margin even after he does a series of spectacularly bad things. I say the Canadians still have the advantage on this. Boy, have I never seen swifter consequences for politicians screwing up, at least not here in US.
December 2nd, 2008 at 1:13 pm
As much as I am pleased by this, I think it will definitely be a set back for PR in Canada. The one party that has the most to lose in PR is the Bloc and right now the grits are in debt to them.
December 2nd, 2008 at 1:26 pm
Raymond makes a good point. PR is a hobby horse of mine and as an NDP supporter I always thought that condition #1 for the NDP participation in a coalition (or minority) government, should ever the occasion arise, had to be the implementation of PR. Sadly, the math of this Parliament doesn’t allow it, as the NDP + Liberal vote does not outweigh the Cons + Bloc – both of whom would be sure to oppose it, since they benefit more from FPTP.
December 2nd, 2008 at 1:37 pm
Katherine, I see your point, but I nevertheless strive to call people by the names they prefer for themselves.
Substantively, the Bloc can hardly be considered secessionist. After all, their very presence in the federal parliament indicates their acceptance of Canada’s political institutions as legitimate. Contrast this with the abstentionist approach taken by Sinn Fein in Britain. So they are more like a regional interest party, no more or less so than the Reform Party used to be.
Canadian federalism is a thorny set of issues, but at least we are blessed with a political culture that values flexibility – after all, the Parti Quebecois under Marois has all but officially shelved separation as a policy plank, and Dion, master of Trudeauist federalism, voted for the Quebec nation resolution a couple of years back. So I don’t see a real paradox there, both sides of the issue have evolved.
I’m not surprised that the opposition parties were able to find enough common ground, especially since their cooperation is narrowly circumscribed to economic issues, on which there is substantive agreement between the 3 – Bloc and NDP are expressly social-democratic, and Liberals are a kind of progressive interest broker.
Without getting into what’s “more” democratic, it’s tenuous to say the least to claim that 3 parties which won 56% of the votes and a majority of parliamentary seats have no mandate to govern. Does it run counter to tradition? Sure. Is it ? Not in the least.
December 3rd, 2008 at 7:28 am
To see not just a minority coalition government, or a minority coalition government with a supply-confidence agreement with a sovereignist party (Berlusconi and Lega Nord was majority coalition), but to be a Canadian political scientist who’s been able to live through another potential King-Byng Wingding, I’m sorry, I’m tearing up. I can die a happy man.
December 3rd, 2008 at 10:04 am
One thing that’s really obvious is that the Conservatives (I’m with the idea that calling them Tories is wrong… they are not Tories by any stretch) has their astroturf campaign out in full force.
As far as the constitutional issues are concerned, it’s very clear that the GG would be wrong to call an election based on Harper’s say so if he loses the confidence of the House. The fact that such events are rare doesn’t change the way the law is structured. I’d like to refer Mr. Davey to today’s Globe and Mail editorial for a clear discussion on this very issue.
My personal take is that if Harper asks Ms. Jean to prorogue so as to avoid a already scheduled confidence motion, she should refuse and allow the government to fall. She should then ask the Liberal/NDP coalition to form a government. While it’s true that there would be a lot of partisan hacks who would scream and whine about it, they should not matter because their problem is not with the law being broken, but that they blew their chance by putting an inflexible partisan ideologue in charge of their side, and allowed him to surround himself with a like-minded group that got chased out of governance in Ontario after they came close to destroying that province’s finances and economy.
Proroguing will only put off the inevitable, and as such the GG should rightly refuse to allow the government to do it.
March 1st, 2009 at 5:51 am
viagra
It is the coolest site,keep so!
March 11th, 2009 at 4:46 am
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
March 12th, 2009 at 11:36 pm
I want to say – thank you for this!
March 17th, 2009 at 2:30 am
I bookmarked this site. Thank you for good job!
tramadol
March 22nd, 2009 at 6:19 am
tramadol
It is the coolest site,keep so!
April 9th, 2009 at 6:28 am
Great site, Good info viagra