How to deal with the next minority government?

[Machjo]

To avoid the fiasco of the last election, I think one solution would be for the Governor General to hand the government over to the Cabinet that can get the support of the majority of Parliament, while leaving it up to the MPs to decide how to get that support. I'd guess that in our partisan system the most likely result would be for the cabinet selected from the coalition comprising the majority of the House to form the government.

This way we'd be sure to have a more stable government and a more collaborative one than the one we have now.

Quite honestly though, I actually hope to have another minority government, as that reduces the power of any one party. At the same time, I also recognize the need for stability, and that's where I think pushing for a majority coalition would be a solution. This would also mean that those parties most willing to promote unity in the House would form the government, while the more confrontational parties would be pushed to the margin. Besides, if we want to promote national unity, we need to push partisan interests aside.

Quite frankly, I hope next election we get more than a few independent candidates and an otherwise extremely fracture house.

And if no majority coalition can be formed, then I'd say the GG should call a new election right off the bat. And keep doing it until the Canadian people are so sick and tired of partisan politics that they finally vote in MPs who are willing to build a coalition if needs be. Or I suppose it could backfire whereby they decide to simply vote in a majority party ready to cram its will down our throats. Yet even that would not be a bad thing as four years of that would, I hope, serve as a lesson for the next election.

 

[FiveParadox]

To avoid the fiasco of the last election, I think one solution would be for the Governor General to hand the government over to the Cabinet that can get the support of the majority of Parliament, while leaving it up to the MPs to decide how to get that support. I'd guess that in our partisan system the most likely result would be for the cabinet selected from the coalition comprising the majority of the House to form the government.

What you're suggesting is exactly how our system of government works; ministers can only govern while they enjoy the support of our elected representatives of the House of Commons. This is nearly always secured through holding a majority of seats outright, but in our present minority governments is simply secured through working with one or more opposition parties, whether on a long-term or case-by-case basis. You cannot force parties, though, to form coalitions; whichever single person in the House is best able to command a majority of the House's voices is the person who should be invited to be prime minister.

The exception to this, of course, is when there is an incumbent prime minister. Whoever is the prime minister has the prerogative, even when he or she does not lead the largest single party at the conclusion of a general election, to meet the new House of Commons and to attempt to secure its confidence. This precedent was made quite clear when The Right Honourable William Lyon Mackenzie King P.C., O.M., C.M.G., the 10th Prime Minister, continued to govern even when Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition held two more seats than the Government party on the floor of the House (the Government was only the second-largest single party).

It would be inappropriate for the Governor General of Canada to dismiss a prime minister before he has even had the opportunity to test whether his Government enjoys the support of the House. The Governor General must continue to accept the advice of the prime minister, provided that (a) he has so far retained the support of the House, and (b) the advice would not seek to avoid an expression of non-confidence by the House. (The Governor General would nonetheless retain, of course, the right to exercise the reserved powers of the Crown under exceptional circumstances.)

This way we'd be sure to have a more stable government and a more collaborative one than the one we have now.

Our government is as stable as it can possibly be, under a minority situation.

Let's remember that this minority government (as untenable as it may seem to the more progressive among us) has actually been a very stable one; certainly, there have been threats of snap elections, but by and large it has been stable. Consider systems that regularly use coalitions--the Parliament of the Italian Republic comes to mind. Governments change hands with dangerous frequency; it has developed an extremely unstable parliamentary system. This would be no more stable than the system we employ now. Coalitions are possible when they make sense, of course, but I think it would be a mistake to force parties to enter into coalitions in order to form a government.

Quite honestly though, I actually hope to have another minority government, as that reduces the power of any one party. At the same time, I also recognize the need for stability, and that's where I think pushing for a majority coalition would be a solution. This would also mean that those parties most willing to promote unity in the House would form the government, while the more confrontational parties would be pushed to the margin. Besides, if we want to promote national unity, we need to push partisan interests aside.

Don't confuse national unity with government stability; they can be, and often are, mutually exclusive.

I also hope that no party wins a majority in our next election, but only because I don't trust either Her Majesty's Government for Canada, or Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, with the unchecked keys to the country. I fear that your suggestions would very much hinder the trademark flexibility that we have had in Canadian governments so far. Under the proposals above, only those parties willing to lock hands and sing Koombaya in a circle would ever form governments; and often, the benign decision is not the correct decision.

And if no majority coalition can be formed, then I'd say the GG should call a new election right off the bat. And keep doing it until the Canadian people are so sick and tired of partisan politics that they finally vote in MPs who are willing to build a coalition if needs be. Or I suppose it could backfire whereby they decide to simply vote in a majority party ready to cram its will down our throats. Yet even that would not be a bad thing as four years of that would, I hope, serve as a lesson for the next election.

It surprises me that you'd make this suggestion, Machjo.

The Right Honourable Adrienne Clarkson P.C., C.C., C.M.M., C.O.M., C.D., the 26th Governor General, remarked that she thought it would have been irresponsible of her to call an election within six months of the last; I agree with the former representative of Her Majesty the Queen of Canada. We cannot simply have elections, over and over, until one party or one coalition has a majority of seats; consider (a) the urgency of bringing back the Parliament of Canada to approve moneys for the continued public service; (b) the massive cost of a single general election, never mind several; and (c) the fact that Canadians might have to start voting for third or fourth choices to break a deadlock, making the "successful" House not at all representative of the real wishes of the electorate.

 

[Ralph B]

What you're suggesting is exactly how our system of government works; ministers can only govern while they enjoy the support of our elected representatives of the House of Commons. This is nearly always secured through holding a majority of seats outright, but in our present minority governments is simply secured through working with one or more opposition parties, whether on a long-term or case-by-case basis. You cannot force parties, though, to form coalitions; whichever single person in the House is best able to command a majority of the House's voices is the person who should be invited to be prime minister.

It would be a welcome thing to have PM placed by majority acceptance, not by party seats. PM should be a person with best interests to creat a smooth flow of proccess not a power hungry almost dictatorial party leader! This present PM has worked his own adjenda from get go, in doing so has often disrupted and caused havic in the house, not working for common ground to act in the peoples behalf!

 

[FiveParadox]

It would be a welcome thing to have PM placed by majority acceptance, not by party seats. PM should be a person with best interests to creat a smooth flow of proccess not a power hungry almost dictatorial party leader! This present PM has worked his own adjenda from get go, in doing so has often disrupted and caused havic in the house, not working for common ground to act in the peoples behalf!

The fact is that the current prime minister is governing with majority acceptance.

Let's recall that, on all occasions when the House of Commons has decided on a measure of confidence, The Right Honourable Stephen Harper P.C., M.P. (Calgary Southwest), the Prime Minister, has enjoyed the support of a majority of our elected representatives (as much as it pains me to say it). Mr. Harper continues to govern exclusively because the opposition parties have no backbone.

 

[petros]

How to deal with the next minority government?

 

[Ralph B]

Let's recall that, on all occasions when the House of Commons has decided on a measure of confidence, The Right Honourable Stephen Harper P.C., M.P. (Calgary Southwest), the Prime Minister, has enjoyed the support of a majority of our elected representatives (as much as it pains me to say it). Mr. Harper continues to govern exclusively because the opposition parties have no backbone.

I would not quite say that, as I honestly believe that both Block and NDP would like to take him down, sadly alone they cannot! Mr Iggy is the boneless one, as liberals have lost much of their suppot over the years. He is fearfull that if he makes the slightest mistake his party will crumble. so rather than act on a hope he just rides on inaction waiting to build his party and hopes to get more solid suppot before he acts. After the results that so dissapointed the liberals, he quivers on fear of total destruction! This is why he has tried to tell himself and the public that come next elections to defeat Mr Harper people must vote liberal as any other vote would be wasted! hoping such fearmongering may just help liberal party out of their grave they have so fallen into.

 

[weaselwords]

Now that the Senate is weighted on the Cons side, it is time for the Libs to put up or shut up. Harper has been quietly if your a supporter or not so quietly if you don't support the Cons, working to this point for 5 years. The Libs now have choice but to stand and deliver whether it ends up in No-confidence or not, unless they are the mealy mouth syncopants Cons & their supporters say the Libs are.
What makes the situation terribly unpalatable is that we won't see another minority government formed but a majority Conservative government unless more regional parties step out of the bushes. The Libs under Iggy are a spent force & will be extremely forunate to hold the seats they now have, as is the case with the Dippers. So look for at least four more years of Harper .