Harper to be replaced as PM?

[davis67]

Another point to mention is that beyond the fiscal stimulation, what will the platform of a coalition be? It would seem that it can't be anything but some kind of melding between the Liberal and NDP stances, which is something that nobody voted for....I still can't see any other way out of this that makes sense aside from an election between the Cons and the Coalition.

 

[rob_just_rob]

Another point to mention is that beyond the fiscal stimulation, what will the platform of a coalition be? It would seem that it can't be anything but some kind of melding between the Liberal and NDP stances, which is something that nobody voted for....I still can't see any other way out of this that makes sense aside from an election between the Cons and the Coalition.

"Something that nobody voted for..." Huh? Plenty of people voted for the Liberals and NDP - 44% of the population, compared to 37% for Reform.

It could just as easily be said that the voters didn't vote Harper a majority, but he's been acting like he has one - and therefore he's equally undemocratic. And to keep his government from falling, he's likely going to have to gain the support of at least one other party - probably by adapting some of Reform's stances to keep the support of that other party. Which is pretty much what the coalition is doing. And, incidentally, is also how minority governments stay in power.

So where's the problem, again?

 

[rawbone8]

Haha! There surely is political biases in the way justices rule. They are, however, not above government. Government is not created in their name, is not enacted in their name. They can be impeached and removed from office by the Congress as well. Not so a governor or monarch.

What a lot of people don't appear to understand is that we don't elect a president. We elect electors who, in turn, vote for president. This divides voting blocks by state representation because the United States is a republic and apportionment and representation is solely demarcated by state. The states vote for a president, not the people as a whole. Electors don't even have to vote for the candidate whom they have pledged to vote for. They could elect Barbara Walters and she would become President.

Whether she delays or not, she is still effecting a substantial influence on government.

Prime Minister Humpty has his constitutional advisors and legal eagles exploring all opportunities. He, personally, is scrambled eggs, no matter what.

The most likely option for Humpty is getting the GG to prorogue parliament. This is not a sure thing for the Conservatives, because the coalition has already formally signed an intention to govern pending a vote of non confidence, so the GG may have solid reasons to choose to deny that prorogue request.

I think he really wants to force an election rather than prorogue, but I suspect that if he stays as Conservative leader they are doomed to repeat the result of the recent election.

He may try to weaken the Liberals by bribing some to take patronage plums like Senate seats and ambassadorships to thin the ranks of the opposition. There might even be a prominent Liberal crossing the floor rather than be tainted by association with the Bloc Québecois.

Regarding bias, as mentioned above:
One legal option that is a risky (and far fetched?) long shot would be to preemptively remove the GG before a confidence vote on the grounds she is a patronage appointment made by the Liberals and she has had sympathetic ties in the past to sovereigntists in Quebec. Some suspect she is married to one. Could the Queen refuse Humpty? He could then appoint a GG more favorable to the Conservatives. This option would of course be seen as cheating by many, and he would have a really difficult time winning popular opinion for this truly desperate option.

What a mess. As someone opined in a reader's response on the website of one of the national papers,

He has effectively blown a 6" putt.

 

[2322]

I think a good indicator of the future are the number of PMs and aides who have publicly expressed their anger/unhappiness/doubt about Harper's leadership. I was struck by the number of very candid remarks while reading Canadian news outlets. My wager is that Harper will be told by his party to press for prorogue on the grounds the election was so recent and that any re-election would likely lead to similar results and a no-confidence vote so close to the election would be disrespectful of the democratic process. While those may be the public reasons, it looks to me like the Conservatives are scrambling to find a more popular replacement leader who can hawk a new economic plan during Parliament's break (perhaps one with more economic incentives for Quebec). Someone new will also give the Conservatives the argument that a new PM should be given a chance to prove leadership before a no-confidence vote takes place.

 

[davis67]

"Something that nobody voted for..." Huh? Plenty of people voted for the Liberals and NDP - 44% of the population, compared to 37% for Reform.

It could just as easily be said that the voters didn't vote Harper a majority, but he's been acting like he has one - and therefore he's equally undemocratic. And to keep his government from falling, he's likely going to have to gain the support of at least one other party - probably by adapting some of Reform's stances to keep the support of that other party. Which is pretty much what the coalition is doing. And, incidentally, is also how minority governments stay in power.

So where's the problem, again?

I voted for the NDP platform, not for some amalgamation of the Liberal and NDP's platform...and same goes for those who voted for the Liberals...and the third, although "officially" unsigned to the deal, is a party whose main goal is to break up Canada. There's a difference between compromising and bending over...that being said, I still prefer the coalition over Harper, but by signing an official deal, the Liberals and NDP's have effectively turned a minority gov't into a majority...and a majority that has no platform. It's hard to see how it will work well. Ultimately, I still believe that parliament will prorogue and in that time the coalition will fall apart because of the inherent differences between the three parties, and we will be into an election after either the cons bring forth a budget, or after the Liberals select a new leader.

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

I think a good indicator of the future are the number of PMs and aides who have publicly expressed their anger/unhappiness/doubt about Harper's leadership. I was struck by the number of very candid remarks while reading Canadian news outlets.

I imagine you mean MPs rather than PMs, of whom there can only be one at any one time, Jason.
Are a lot of MPs expressing dissatisfaction? Perhaps today. I wasn't aware of it yesterday.

My wager is that Harper will be told by his party to press for prorogue on the grounds the election was so recent and that any re-election would likely lead to similar results and a no-confidence vote so close to the election would be disrespectful of the democratic process.

A prorogation would only take him to late January, when he plans to present an earlier-than-usual budget.
The budget is still a confidence matter. If he loses the budget vote, then he has lost the confidence of the House.
But it does give him time to look for some way out of his self-created rat hole.

While those may be the public reasons, it looks to me like the Conservatives are scrambling to find a more popular replacement leader who can hawk a new economic plan during Parliament's break (perhaps one with more economic incentives for Quebec). Someone new will also give the Conservatives the argument that a new PM should be given a chance to prove leadership before a no-confidence vote takes place.

I don't think anyone imagines the Conservatives replacing Harper in a week or two.
Usually, there must be some sort of leadership race that takes at least a couple of months.
Perhaps he could step down and the Tory caucus could choose an interim leader.
But there's no way Harper will go so quickly.
He's a stubborn mule, for one thing.
For another, he remains popular among the Reform wing of the Conservative Party ... though I imagine more than one of that crew would like to deliver a quick kick to his shins these days. This whole mess is his creation.
But they owe Harper big time. He did manage to unite the Right after more than two decades of factionalism. He did form two straight governments, albeit minority ones.
And there's no Conservative on the horizon who looks to me like a natural replacement.
Harper, oddly, was about as good as they have.

 

[rawbone8]

I imagine you mean MPs rather than PMs, of whom there can only be one at any one time, Jason.
Are a lot of MPs expressing dissatisfaction? Perhaps today. I wasn't aware of it yesterday.



A prorogation would only take him to late January, when he plans to present an earlier-than-usual budget.
The budget is still a confidence matter. If he loses the budget vote, then he has lost the confidence of the House.
But it does give him time to look for some way out of his self-created rat hole.



I don't think anyone imagines the Conservatives replacing Harper in a week or two.
Usually, there must be some sort of leadership race that takes at least a couple of months.
Perhaps he could step down and the Tory caucus could choose an interim leader.
But there's no way Harper will go so quickly.
He's a stubborn mule, for one thing.
For another, he remains popular among the Reform wing of the Conservative Party ... though I imagine more than one of that crew would like to deliver a quick kick to his shins these days. This whole mess is his creation.
But they owe Harper big time. He did manage to unite the Right after more than two decades of factionalism. He did form two straight governments, albeit minority ones.
And there's no Conservative on the horizon who looks to me like a natural replacement.
Harper, oddly, was about as good as they have.

And now he has managed to unite the Left.
The man is a fucking miracle worker! :tongue:

 

[rob_just_rob]

And now he has managed to unite the Left.
The man is a fucking miracle worker! :tongue:

:rofl:

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

And now he has managed to unite the Left.
The man is a fucking miracle worker! :tongue:

:rofl:

Yup.
A good one, rawb.:tongue:

 

[D_Tintagel_Demondong]

I don't think anyone imagines the Conservatives replacing Harper in a week or two.

~Ahems~

 

[midlifebear]

I have as much affection for Stephen Harper as I did for Joe Clark: they both suck dead bears. Would Dion be so bad? I know he has little support among the Canuckers in BC, but what could one expect if Dion were to become the next head poohbah of Canada?

 

[D_LouisGussetJr]

I honestly can't wait until the vote of confidence. Tired of Harper and his lies and lack of progress. Bring on Layton, Dion, and their coalition.

 

[Scrufuss]

You know the first line in your avatar?.. It's true. :wink:

:tongue:
Your subtle yet helpful ways of stating the obvious are mind boggling.

I think that if it's pulled off smoothly then there will be an some positive economic excitement in foreign investors and Canadian business. If it flounders, then I think the improvements won't be seen for years. Since the Grits and NDP both strongly support the carbon tax, I think that there could be a massive overhaul of he system, akin to the GST changes of the 90's (which have paid off exponentially).



Am I the only one who sees a great deal of the Reformers in the Tories? Compare the Harper tories to the Mulroney tories, for example. Remember that the original Tories had just a few seats when they merged with the reformers. They are basically the Reform party with a new label.



There is talk of a coalition government involving the Liberals and the NDP to replace the Stephen Harper PC party, ostensibly because the minority PC party are not effectively dealing with the vital economic issues in Canada.

As the first step, the government would have to be formally defeated in the House of Commons. Then Harper would have to tell the Governor General that he has lost the "confidence of the House." Normally the Governor General would simply choose the leader of the second-largest part in the Commons to form a new government. Unfortunately, the leader of that party, Liberal leader Stephane Dion, has already announced his resignation. Also, if there is to be a Liberal-NDP coalition, then the Bloc Québécois would have to give their consent, since the Liberals and NDP control only 1/3 of the house together. The main issue at the moment seems to be who will lead the coalition.

Oh. That sounds less complicated to actually make happen even though it sounds like a little bit based on ceremonial rituals in a way. Leftovers from the "Royal" this or that and whatever? But at least Dion is making it easy for them.
During judicial procedings do the court officials still wear those spiffy white wigs? Oh those are to DIE for! :biggrin1:

 

[D_Hyacinth Harrytwat]

And now he has managed to unite the Left.
The man is a fucking miracle worker! :tongue:

Good one! Bahahaha!

Oh that reminds me of when the Canadian Conservative Reform Alliance [Party] came out... See crap.

I've really enjoyed reading some of the thoughts here. A lot better than talking to most people and hearing BS like "coalition isn't democracy" and "coalition is good because I hate conservatives."

 

[swordfishME]

This is an amusing mess up north but a mess regardless...

I think Jean is dammed regardless of what she does. If she allows Harper to porouge parliament, she will just delay the inevitible. If she dissolves Parliament, and another election produces identical results (and there are no indications that it won't) she will be blamed for wasting taxpayer money in these economic times. And if she allows the coalition to take power she will be blamed because she is a liberal apointee and has bloc sympathizers close to her (although in a functioning parliamentary system this is the option she should choose).

I can see Harper threatning to replace her to get his way but I really don't see the Queen going along with that.

That brings me to what I think is the solution out of this mess- let the Queen decide. Afterall it is HER government. This puts Jean out of the line of fire. Sure, people will accuse the Queen of meddling in the affairs of state- but having a functioning government IS ultimately HER responsibility- not Jean's or anyone else's.

 

[D_Hyacinth Harrytwat]

Swordfish - I disagree. Monarchy is antiquated & outdated. Pomp, circumstance and ceremony should have no part in what is essentially choosing the lesser evil. No one person should have that much authority. I mean, it would clear things up very quickly if one person got to make all the decisions but that's not how our government is - they're slow to reach conclusions .

The Americans had Bush for years, and they waited for the end of his term. Why can't we wait for the next election and introduce the new liberal/bloc/NDP union before the next election and see if it will win the peoples' votes? If Harper does decide he's lost the confidence of the house then we're back to this "who will lead the coalition" problem, in which case, another election isn't necessary and Jean won't take any of the blame.

 

[D_Hyacinth Harrytwat]

Swordfish - I disagree. Monarchy is antiquated & outdated. Pomp, circumstance and ceremony should have no part in what is essentially choosing the lesser evil. No one person should have that much authority. I mean, it would clear things up very quickly if one person got to make all the decisions but that's not how our government is - they're slow to reach conclusions .

The Americans had Bush for years, and they waited for the end of his term. Why can't we wait for the next election and introduce the new liberal/bloc/NDP union before the next election and see if it will win the peoples' votes? If Harper does decide he's lost the confidence of the house then we're back to this "who will lead the coalition" problem, in which case, another election isn't necessary and Jean won't take any of the blame.

 

[D_Gunther Snotpole]

This is an amusing mess up north but a mess regardless...

I think Jean is dammed regardless of what she does. If she allows Harper to prorogue parliament, she will just delay the inevitable.

Not necessarily. A week is famously an eternity in politics. A month, so much more so. (But you could turn out to be right, sf.)

If she dissolves Parliament, and another election produces identical results (and there are no indications that it won't) she will be blamed for wasting taxpayer money in these economic times.

There's no reason for her to call an election so soon after the last one. And again, it would be folly to say the results would be the same as the last one produced; maybe, maybe not.

And if she allows the coalition to take power she will be blamed because she is a liberal apointee and has bloc sympathizers close to her (although in a functioning parliamentary system this is the option she should choose).

She would only be following standard parliamentary procedure. If a prime minister loses the confidence of the House, as Harper has clearly done, then, in certain circumstances, she is free to see if anyone else can secure the House's confidence.
She already has a letter in hand from the coalition stating that they have the required support.
The fact that she is a Liberal appointee should be irrelevant; her husband's politics, whatever they are, so much more so.
But you're right, sf ... some will likely be making those complaints.

I can see Harper threatening to replace her to get his way but I really don't see the Queen going along with that.

Harper's doing that would be the ultimate scandal in this situation.

That brings me to what I think is the solution out of this mess- let the Queen decide. Afterall it is HER government. This puts Jean out of the line of fire. Sure, people will accuse the Queen of meddling in the affairs of state- but having a functioning government IS ultimately HER responsibility- not Jean's or anyone else's.

The governor general is the Queen's representative in Canada.
If responsibility were thrown back up the line to the Queen, that would represent a backward step that would cause immense anger.
There are parliamentary protocols to follow here.
They're not simple, but they're there.
Under the advice of her advisors, Jean simply has to make what seems to her the wisest choice.

 

[2322]

The governor general is the Queen's representative in Canada.
If responsibility were thrown back up the line to the Queen, that would represent a backward step that would cause immense anger.
There are parliamentary protocols to follow here.
They're not simple, but they're there.
Under the advice of her advisors, Jean simply has to make what seems to her the wisest choice.

However, given Jean's complete inexperience in such matters, I think that given the two choices, the Queen's experience would make her the wiser decider. It is her government and she is the Queen of Canada. Why bother even having her as queen if it would be improper to refer to her a matter over which she has constitutional responsibility?

I spoke to my father about this for a bit and he believes that precedent will rule the day given the parliamentary history of Canada and the UK. He thinks the handling of the King Byng Thing will guide Jean/Queen (private phone call to or from)/advisers.

 

[swordfishME]

Swordfish - I disagree. Monarchy is antiquated & outdated. Pomp, circumstance and ceremony should have no part in what is essentially choosing the lesser evil. No one person should have that much authority. I mean, it would clear things up very quickly if one person got to make all the decisions but that's not how our government is - they're slow to reach conclusions .

The Americans had Bush for years, and they waited for the end of his term. Why can't we wait for the next election and introduce the new liberal/bloc/NDP union before the next election and see if it will win the peoples' votes? If Harper does decide he's lost the confidence of the house then we're back to this "who will lead the coalition" problem, in which case, another election isn't necessary and Jean won't take any of the blame.

I Disagree. Someone WILL have to decide here and I rather it be a heriditary monarch with no political affiliations rather than her politically apointed representative. Of Course, my first choice would be for Harper, Dion and all the others to GROW UP and do their jobs.

It is clear that Harper wants another election to try and get the majority that he wants. Otherwise he will have a threat of no-confidence hanging over his head for the rest of this Parliament.

Dion and the other parties do not have the war chests to fight another election, so their best hope is that the GG allows their coalition and they have a few years to prove that they can govern better.

I honestly think that if another election is called, the result will not be much different. Although Harper does think that he can get a majority and wipe the Liberals off the political map with his removal of the tax payer assistance for political parties.