Longest Conservative Minority: 6 months
- Thread starter Jersay
- Start date
Five Paradox wrote:
This has been done. John turner was Prime Minister in 1984 even though he did not have a seat in Parliament.
I do not think it likely the NDP would be asked to form government, though in theory nothing stops the GG from doing so, A potential Pm is asked if he could secure the confidence of the House unless Layton simply had an agreement with the Grits the Bloc or both it would be unlikely that he could guarantee supply or confidence in the House.
Although there is not a specific rule as to which party or leader forms government convention states that 1. a sitting PM has the right to test the confidence of the House even if his party has less seats than another party, which is why Mackenzie King was able to stay in office in '25; 2. The leader of the opposition has the second opportunity to try and form government if the sitting PM is defeated in the House; 3. Followed by other party leaders.
The other convention which governs this topic is that the party with the most seats in hte House of Commons is asked to form government if the PM resigns, which is what happened in Harper's case. Martin could have held on and waited to test the confidence of the House he need not have resigned the premiership.
As for how long the 39th Parliament will last it is hard to say. I personally think that they are probably good for about a year but, it does seem unlikely that majopr pieces of legislation will be able to make it through the House, Chuild Care being a perfect example. The Grits and the NDP may be willing to risk an election sooner especially because of the whole David Emerson affair, however, I think the Bloc would be hesitant as they have no where to go buy down and Harper has so far played the Quebec card well and Harper's new "unelected ministers" are not a big deal in la Belle Provence. I do see a scenario where the Tories would want to get defeated in order to trigger an election especially if they start creeping up in the polls the Tories were really not all that far away from gaining a majority last time and so they may want to risk their minority in the comingh months in the hope of a bigger payoff.
This has been done. John turner was Prime Minister in 1984 even though he did not have a seat in Parliament.
I do not think it likely the NDP would be asked to form government, though in theory nothing stops the GG from doing so, A potential Pm is asked if he could secure the confidence of the House unless Layton simply had an agreement with the Grits the Bloc or both it would be unlikely that he could guarantee supply or confidence in the House.
Although there is not a specific rule as to which party or leader forms government convention states that 1. a sitting PM has the right to test the confidence of the House even if his party has less seats than another party, which is why Mackenzie King was able to stay in office in '25; 2. The leader of the opposition has the second opportunity to try and form government if the sitting PM is defeated in the House; 3. Followed by other party leaders.
The other convention which governs this topic is that the party with the most seats in hte House of Commons is asked to form government if the PM resigns, which is what happened in Harper's case. Martin could have held on and waited to test the confidence of the House he need not have resigned the premiership.
As for how long the 39th Parliament will last it is hard to say. I personally think that they are probably good for about a year but, it does seem unlikely that majopr pieces of legislation will be able to make it through the House, Chuild Care being a perfect example. The Grits and the NDP may be willing to risk an election sooner especially because of the whole David Emerson affair, however, I think the Bloc would be hesitant as they have no where to go buy down and Harper has so far played the Quebec card well and Harper's new "unelected ministers" are not a big deal in la Belle Provence. I do see a scenario where the Tories would want to get defeated in order to trigger an election especially if they start creeping up in the polls the Tories were really not all that far away from gaining a majority last time and so they may want to risk their minority in the comingh months in the hope of a bigger payoff.
It has just occured to me that The Right honourable Sir Charles Tupper, Bt., M.D.[/b]also was not a Member of Parliament or Senator when he became PM after the resignation of The Right Honourable Sir Mackenzie Bowell, K.C.M.G.. I believe that Tupper's previous job was High Comissioner toThe United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland before he was asked (begged)to return home to lead the Tories.
I think you're missing the point. Elections don't happen by accident, they are planned. Strategic calculations by the parties will always trump policy disagreements. We've just had an election - the parties' coffers are drained. The Liberals are leaderless, and the Bloc face only losses in Quebec in the next election. Only the NDP may gain by going to the polls again soon. So I suspect that an election is still a couple years out. I would not rule out the Conservatives engineering their own defeat in the house earlier than that, though. If their popularity is on an upswing and the Liberals are without a leader they might introduce legislation they know will fail. That way they can blame the opposition parties for forcing an election nobody wants, and they can rachet up into majority territory.
Lotuslander said:
8O
FiveParadox, see what you have done?
You've got everybody else displaying colorful posts also.
That would be an interesting situation — for the Conservative Party of Canada, after complaining about the political opportunism of the Liberal Party of Canada, and their alleged abuse of the conventions by which the institution is governed, to engineer their own defeat in the House of Commons.
I dont think another election will be happening in at least a year. The liberals are milliions of dollars in debt so they cannot even afford to think about another election. Also, Paul Martin said that he will not lead the Liberals into another election. They havent even set a particular date for the Liberal Leadership Convention, however it is estimated at 9 months from now, sometime in November. Thus, this gives the Conservatives more than 6 months for their minority. As for the other parties, it would be in their best intrest NOT to call an election in 6 months or anytime soon because we have had 2 federal elections in 19 months..and most canadians would be mad if theres another one this year. However, that whole idea of Governer General switching powers, that wouldnt be such a bad idea, chances are slim, but it can happen. With the facts, im thinking the vote of non-confidence will happen at the end of next year or so. But i support harper leaving, the faster we get Harper out, the better it is for us, Canadians! :!:
:!:
I dunno about that one-year theory; the Liberal Party of Canada has issued statements, by way of the Honourable Bill Graham, the Leader of the Opposition, that they are not going to hesitate to vote against the Government when they see appropriate, even if that would risk a defeat on a confidence matter. If the Tories try to throw their child care proposal, or GST cuts, into their budget, then the Government could quite well fall.
I suspect that the Liberals are merely grandstanding at this point, Five.
How can they realistically force another election when they don't even have a new leader and not risk their own demise?
How can they realistically force another election when they don't even have a new leader and not risk their own demise?
Sorry to disappoint you all , but The Bloc is going to back up the PC's on every matter just to keep out the Liberals!
I did find it interesting reading the Globe yesterday to hear the Bloc was not going to engineer the Gov't's defeat so long as there was compromises on both sides. However, I don't think the Tories are out of danger yet, some Tories proposals, child care for instance, would be hard for the Bloc to vote in favour of, they may not vote against it they may simply abstain but, if the Dippers and Grits vote agaisnt the Gov't could fall.
As for the Liberals not wanting an election for a year I am not so sure. If anything the last 2 years have proven that the Liberals are opportunists so if they start going up in the polls who knows what could happen. Also the reality is that this parliament is going to be unstable as we essentially have a centrist party (Liberals) who are not willing to prop up a rightwing Gov't and 2 leftwing parties who are the only means by which the Government can muster a majority. Dicey. I think the Grits would not be totally opposed to either bringing Martin out of self-imposed exile or having Bill Graham (who I think is going to be a popular leader) run in an election campaign. The truth of the matter is the Liberals may not have much to lose in a quick election, waiting a year or more could play into Harper's hands; which is get the public used to his style method and reforms, cozy up to Quebec then try for a majority, No more scary Liberal insinuations. An election sooner when things are more unstable could produce a Grit minority which is something they may want to risk even though their leadership is as of yet undetermined. As things look now the longer the space between now and the next election the better Harper's chances for a majority government.
As for the Liberals not wanting an election for a year I am not so sure. If anything the last 2 years have proven that the Liberals are opportunists so if they start going up in the polls who knows what could happen. Also the reality is that this parliament is going to be unstable as we essentially have a centrist party (Liberals) who are not willing to prop up a rightwing Gov't and 2 leftwing parties who are the only means by which the Government can muster a majority. Dicey. I think the Grits would not be totally opposed to either bringing Martin out of self-imposed exile or having Bill Graham (who I think is going to be a popular leader) run in an election campaign. The truth of the matter is the Liberals may not have much to lose in a quick election, waiting a year or more could play into Harper's hands; which is get the public used to his style method and reforms, cozy up to Quebec then try for a majority, No more scary Liberal insinuations. An election sooner when things are more unstable could produce a Grit minority which is something they may want to risk even though their leadership is as of yet undetermined. As things look now the longer the space between now and the next election the better Harper's chances for a majority government.
The Liberals have everthing to lose if they bring down
the Government, how about a PC Majority. Bill Graham is not what I would call a Leader, he's is tainted with the Liberal Mafia.
the Government, how about a PC Majority. Bill Graham is not what I would call a Leader, he's is tainted with the Liberal Mafia.
Re: RE: Longest Conservative Minority: 6 months
I woulden't bet on it bud...like caracal kid said they are just grandstanding....you know "small man syndrome"....using the pump to seem bigger than they are.....fun to watch after all these years in power.
FiveParadox said:
I woulden't bet on it bud...like caracal kid said they are just grandstanding....you know "small man syndrome"....using the pump to seem bigger than they are.....fun to watch after all these years in power.
or conversely hank,
if the liberals, in a leaderless state, still thought they were in a better position to form a government than any other party I would have to admit all those cons out there that were crying "liberal sense of entitlement" were correct.
if the liberals, in a leaderless state, still thought they were in a better position to form a government than any other party I would have to admit all those cons out there that were crying "liberal sense of entitlement" were correct.
The Liberal Party of Canada is not "leaderless" — the Right Honourable Paul Martin has retained the position of Leader of the Party for the time being, and the Honourable Bill Graham is the Leader of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition; those are two talented leaders who would certainly be quite capable of raising themselves to the occasion is a dissolution of the House were to be precipitated.
Mr martin has bowed out of leading the party into another election, so he won't run for PM.
Mr Graham is an interim leader and as such will at some point be replaced with the next chosen leader. However, this puts him in a position equivilant to an "elected by the party" leader running in an election on a platform of "i won't be sticking around for long after the election". Not exactly stable. To be honest, I would never vote for a party without a properly selected leader who has put forth his/her own platform and vision. To do so would be like going for a "surprise in a crakerjack box".
Mr Graham is an interim leader and as such will at some point be replaced with the next chosen leader. However, this puts him in a position equivilant to an "elected by the party" leader running in an election on a platform of "i won't be sticking around for long after the election". Not exactly stable. To be honest, I would never vote for a party without a properly selected leader who has put forth his/her own platform and vision. To do so would be like going for a "surprise in a crakerjack box".