Crisis in Canada

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Well, perhaps it isn't quite that bad. But nonetheless:

The Globe and Mail
National Post (semi-editorial)

This sort of thing is almost unprecedented in Canadian history. Stephane Dion is certainly not Prime Ministerial material, and a coalition of liberals, socialists, and seperatists may not last as long as he seems to be hoping. Fortunately, allying with the Bloc will probably produce a fairly substantial voter backlash across Canada. Are we seeing the Liberal Party's death throes?

The second article is not neutral, but it is certainly not terribly far from the truth.

[CountArach]

This sort of thing is almost unprecedented in Canadian history. Stephane Dion is certainly not Prime Ministerial material, and a coalition of liberals, socialists, and seperatists may not last as long as he seems to be hoping.

And a coalition of Conservatives and Social Democrats would last how long exactly?

[lars573]

Well if things had gone differently in 2006 we might have found out. Still if this gets Harper out of the PM's office I'll be happy.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Well if things had gone differently in 2006 we might have found out. Still if this gets Harper out of the PM's office I'll be happy.

In favour of Dion with Duceppe and Layton hanging on his heels? Maybe Harper needs to be thrown out, maybe not - but now isn't the time.

And a coalition of Conservatives and Social Democrats would last how long exactly?

Well, we don't know, do we? The Conservatives have governed without a coalition in a minority government since 2006. Canada needs another election, not a coalition.

[Vladimir]

Thanks. I've been looking for an excuse to post this.

[lars573]

Thanks. I've been looking for an excuse to post this.

What. A. Croc.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/glo...?video=3240893

[Hosakawa Tito]

Not being familiar with how Canadian politics works; I was under the impression that losing a confidence vote automatically triggers another election. This seems to put quite a lot of power in the Governor General's hands essentially making that person king-maker.

[lars573]

I had to read up on it too. It's one of those things that doesn't come up often. I believe that the coalition will try and pass a motion ordering the government to resign. This doesn't nessiarily trigger and election. That would be up to the Governor General. She could dissolve parliment, or she could ask the coalition to form a new government.

[Meneldil]

I don't see how such a coalition would be so crazy. All four parties involved basically have the same stance on almost all social and economical issues, bar a few exceptions (Quebec's independence being the main one).

I mean, France had been governed by large leftist coalitions (from center left to socialists, communists and greens) quite a few times, and it wasn't worse than your average right winged government. Now, Canada isn't France, but well, I wish them good luck for kicking Harper's ass. He deserves it.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Not being familiar with how Canadian politics works; I was under the impression that losing a confidence vote automatically triggers another election. This seems to put quite a lot of power in the Governor General's hands essentially making that person king-maker.

Losing a confidence vote in the House generally forces the Governor General to call an election. If a no-confidence motion passes or if a supply bill proposed by the government is defeated, then the government must resign or petition the Governor General for an election. The Governor General can decline the Prime Minister if the PM asks for an election, such as in the King-Byng affair. Considering there was a Canadian federal election relatively recently, the Governor General will probably decline a request for an election by Mr. Harper, even though an election could potentially propel him to a majority in the House of Commons and therefore a stable government.

On the other hand, I give the coalition eighteen months. Maybe thirty. An issue that many Canadians have with the coalition is that Canada will probably have not just one, but two unelected Prime Ministers in the same government, because Mr. Dion has already announced his resignation as leader of the Liberal Party, and his successor would be chosen in convention by the Liberals. His successor will probably be Bob Rae or Michael Ignatieff, though it is wise to remember that Mr. Dion was essentially a dark horse candidate when he won the leadership after he won Gerrard Kennedy's surprise backing.

I don't see how such a coalition would be so crazy. All four parties involved basically have the same stance on almost all social and economical issues, bar a few exceptions (Quebec's independence being the main one).

Canadians don't generally vote with the expectation of a coalition. Many anti-coalition advocates - and make no mistake, many of them voted Liberal or NDP in the last election - may not like the idea of two unelected Prime Ministers in a row, the idea of a coalition with the seperatist Bloc (a huge issue in English Canada, especially the West and Ontario), or the hypocrisy of Dion (who said he would never form a coalition with the NDP because of their "terrible economic policies," and is now forming a coalition with them because of the "difficult economic times...").

This is essentially a power grab by the Liberals and Stephane Dion, and many don't like it, especially not at this time.

He deserves it.

Why? Because you are a leftist, or would you care to point out some actual policy?

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Dion may be going sooner than expected.

[CountArach]

Dion may be going sooner than expected.

This is why claims of it being an unelected Prime Minister are false - things like this ensure that all Prime Ministers are unelected. It is similar to a Prime Minister stepping down during his term and handing over to the Deputy Prime Minister.

[Kralizec]

Prime ministers are technicly not elected, but in parliamentary systems its convention (sometimes expicitly required) that the leader of the largest faction in parliament gets the position.

In the Netherlands, where coalitions are the norm and minority governments rare, there's been only one instance of the largest party ending in opposition.

Oh yeah, party subsidies = bad.

[lars573]

This is why claims of it being an unelected Prime Minister are false - things like this ensure that all Prime Ministers are unelected. It is similar to a Prime Minister stepping down during his term and handing over to the Deputy Prime Minister.

But political party leaders are elected. By the party membership rather than the electorate. And in theory the PM is elected by the parliment. The parties just so happen to vote for their leader.


And Canada follows the British tradtion on deputy PM's (a near pointless honourific). We haven't had one since Harper took office.

[CountArach]

But political party leaders are elected. By the party membership rather than the electorate. And in theory the PM is elected by the parliment. The parties just so happen to vote for their leader.

Really? That doesn't happen with any of our important parties down here.

And Canada follows the British tradtion on deputy PM's (a near pointless honourific). We haven't had one since Harper took office.

Ah, I was under the impression that you did have one - Australia still does.

[lars573]

Really? That doesn't happen with any of our important parties down here.

Yeah. The last federal Liberal leadership convention was televised live. They are big political shows here. All card holding members of the party vote for their new leader in 2 or 3 rounds of voting. Although as leader Dion could step down today and appoint an interim leader from the hopefulls for leadership until the convention in May.

Ah, I was under the impression that you did have one - Australia still does.

Here it's just a title given to a cabinet minister. Who can then lead cabinet meetings if the PM is out of the country. I read up on yours and it's an actual cabinet post.