Beyond The Commons

Aaron Wherry covers all the goings-on in and around Parliament Hill. Follow Aaron on Twitter: @aaronwherry

Categories: Beyond The Commons, Capital Read

Losing is in the eye of the beholder

by Aaron Wherry on Tuesday, January 18, 2011 11:30am - 39 Comments

In his chat with Mr. Mansbridge, the Prime Minister again asserts a rule for coalition government.

Of course, and David Cameron’s an interesting example because they had that debate there, and what I think the public concluded was undemocratic and not really legitimate was the coalition of parties that lost an election. Mr. Cameron won the election. And then was able to form a coalition.

It’s unclear if Mr. Harper intends this judgment of legitimacy to be applied to the governments of Israel, the Czech Republic and Slovakia, not to mention the Liberal government that oversaw the province of Ontario between 1985 and 1987.

Tags: Bob Rae, britain, coalition, coalition government, Czech Republic, David Cameron, David Peterson, England, Israel, ontario, Slovakia, Stephen Harper, UK, United kingdom

More by Aaron Wherry

mhiggins

I think he's wrong, but only because of what he omits. The winning team should get the first shake, he's right, but if they're defeated on the throne speech or the budget shortly thereafter, then there shouldn't be anything stopping the losing teams from having a go at governing. In fact, a coalition is really just icing in this case, because there's nothing stopping the party with the next most seats from asking to form a government all on their own.

Anyway. It obviously makes more sense when you've just had an election to allow the other parties to try to run a stable government if the winning party fails to do so.

Dan F

The constitution gives the first kick at the can to the incumbent, not to the one with the most seats. Obviously the mood post-election is not ususally condusive to a losing incumbent clinging to power, and it would be embarassing to even try. However, after the next election, if the results remain pretty much the same, or perhaps the cons lose a few seats and the libs pick up a few, I wouldn't put it past Harper to desperately try to cling to power, and launch an all-out negative assault on the idea of a coalition, and then on the GG if he is defeated.

alfanerd

However, after the next election, if the results remain pretty much the same, or perhaps the cons lose a few seats and the libs pick up a few, I wouldn't put it past Harper to desperately try to cling to power, and launch an all-out negative assault on the idea of a coalition, and then on the GG if he is defeated.

You wouldnt put it passed harper to "cling on to power" after he won an election?

Geez, what world are we living in when the coalition-groupies have had their brains infected to the point where the winner of the election "clings on" to power.

Pathetic.

Hey Liberals, if you want power, here's a CRAZY IDEA: try to win the election.

http://myblahg.com Robert McClelland

Geez, what world are we living in when the coalition-groupies have had their brains infected to the point where the winner of the election "clings on" to power.

I see you still don't understand how our democracy works.

alfanerd

Ah Robert. Thanks for chiming in.

Should Harper win a minority in the next election, he will still be PM, and he will be asked to form a government by the GG. His throne speech will be read by the GG, after which, he may be defeated by the opposition, and if that happens the opposition will likely ask to form a government, which I suspect will be granted.

That will make Ignatieff the first "prime-minister" who was not elected to lead his party, and not elected to be prime-minister. That will be fun. I suspect some huge reaction from most voters should this come to pass, and hopefully, a countrywide movement to withhold their taxes… but im getting ahead of myself now.

After a few disastrous months, the demands of Gilles Duceppe on the coalition government will prove to be unsustainable (or as Duceppe would say "unsussneble"), and the coalition will fall apart. An election will be called and Harper will cruise to a majority.

Sounds about right?
Loraine Lamontagne

No, not if Harper indicates to voters during the campaign that he is willing put aside party differences and work hard for the common good and for the national interest. Harper could lead a coalition too.

Or is Harper in fact saying is that he is unwilling to put aside party differences in the national interest and that in these difficult economic times he would rather have Canada go through a political crisis than work with the legitimately elected members of parliament from other parties.
alfanerd

work hard for the common good and for the national interest
work with the legitimately elected members of parliament from other parties

That's what Harper has been doing for the last 5 years.
alfanerd

work hard for the common good and for the national interest
work with the legitimately elected members of parliament from other parties

That's what Harper has been doing for the last 5 years.
Twisted_Mentat

"That will make Ignatieff the first "prime-minister" who was not elected to lead his party, and not elected to be prime-minister."

… If he is sitting in the House of Parliament, he has been elected. If Ignatieff can demonstrate to the Governor-General he can lead the majority of House members, he can be made Prime Minister. I'm not sure why you're mangling the term "elected" as-such.
alfanerd

yeah good for him. he wasnt elected to lead the party, nor did he win a general election (under that very plausible scenario). That still makes him the most 'unelected' PM in our history. He will live in infamy in the annals of Canadian Political History – an answer to a good little trivia question, nothing more.
http://myblahg.com Robert McClelland

Should Harper win a minority in the next election…

I see you still don't understand how our democracy works.
alfanerd

Is this you attempting to look clever by pointing out little technicalities even though any person with half a brain knows what Im talking about?

It's not working.

But just in case you really are that dumb, let me help:

Should Harper win a plurality but not a majority of seats in the next election…
TJCook

"That will make Ignatieff the first "prime-minister" who was not elected to lead his party, and not elected to be prime-minister… that sound about right?"

Considering that there's never been a "Prime Minister" selection on a Canadian federal ballot, it's hardly nit-picking to point out that no, that doesn't sound right at all.

Here I am with well over half a brain and I know that what you're talking about is wrong.

http://intensedebate.com/people/Ottawa_Centrist Ottawa_Centrist

So if an incumbent Prime Minister cannot get the support of the majority of the House… the incumbent should continue on as Prime Minister anyways, regardless of the House?

I'm not sure if you misunderstood or mis-characterized what Dan said…

alfanerd

I dont think I misunderstood or mischaracterized what Dan said.. maybe Dan wants to clarify what he said but what he said was:
f the results remain pretty much the same, or perhaps the cons lose a few seats and the libs pick up a few, I wouldn't put it past Harper to desperately try to cling to power,

Yeah seems pretty clear to me, "results pretty much the same… cling to power".

Why do we have elections in this country if the results dont mean anything and the coalition will grab power regardless?

And this talk of taking power after losing is coming from the same group of largely hypocritical d-bags who whine about 'heated rhetoric' leading to violence. But they're perfectly OK taking power without winning elections, and dont think there will be consequences to those actions… Please, if a coalition must take power, they ought to do so very carefully, not just because Harper wins "only" a minority. Civil wars have started for less.
mhiggins

It wouldn't be "clinging", insofar as it would be procedurally natural for a winning Harper minority to once again ask to govern. It might be clinging in the sense that Harper would be immediately voted out again on the Throne Speech or Budget and the coalition would then ask to govern. Harper wouldn't be clinging so much as he would be seen to be clinging.
http://intensedebate.com/people/Ottawa_Centrist Ottawa_Centrist

To paraphrase what Dan said;

If the Conservatives (with the largest minority standing) were unable to form a government with the support of the House, Harper would rather challenge the legitimacy of a coalition (and the constitutional power of the House) and failing that, attack the role of the Governor General, rather than cede defeat.
Thwim

Oh be generous.. it could be both.

Be_rad

Not to be a nitpicker, but I have just read the Constitution Act. In neither the Executive Power nor the Legislative Power sections is there anything remotely resembling a can being dedicated for one side to kick first.

This must be a convention to which you refer, based on common law precedence and the underlying principle that the Crown is vested with the executive power, but can only exercise it "In Council". As such, it would be sensible to first turn to the incumbent in such a situation since they are still, technically, the council until they are replaced. But that's just a supposition on my part.

Passing by

Can anyone site a single constitutional authority anywhere who would agree with Harper?

Thwim

There you go, lookin' to them high-falutin' experts again..

Emily

Harper just makes it up as he goes along.
Randy

For someone who has done nothing but work in Canadian politics his entire life, there sure is a lot of stuff he doesn't know about how our government functions.
YYZ

I'm depressed – we're going to have an election about "will there or won't there" be a coalition. No substance. No real debate about how to tackle the deficit. Riveting.

mhiggins

Word. It's in Harper's hands to change it, but only if you agree with me that Ignatieff shouldn't have to commit to or deny a coalition before the ballots are cast.
sourstud

Don't forget about the per-vote subsidy :)

Loraine Lamontagne

Mr. Harper is clearly identifying himself as the only political leader in Canada who is unwilling to put aside party differences and work hard for the common good and for the national interest.

His choice would be for an unstable Canada, and 2, 3 or 10 national governments.

AT1

Unstable? He'll have the longest lasting minority government by the end of this week.

http://tigeronpolitics.wordpress.com Ben (The Tiger)

Assume this for the 41st parliament: CPC 130, Libs 95, NDP 40, BQ 47, Ind 1.

Would the Liberals and the NDP — 135 seats — try to take down the Tories — 130 seats — on the Throne Speech?

If they don't, they're idiots. Of course they can do it, and probably they should try. And Harper expects them to — hence the anti-coalition ads which say, "Only a Harper majority keeps this out." He thinks he's either moving up or being forced out.

The election will be fought over a coalition. Public knowledge will be baked into the pie. (People were so angry in 2008 because had they known that the coalition was a possibility, they'd've given Harper a majority. That's why the polls swung so quickly, and the Tories hit 50%.)

If Harper doesn't get a majority, the opposition — as long as they don't rule it out during the campaign — will have every reason and incentive to pitch him out.

[Advice: don't talk about it, just defeat the government. You can fashion your coalition government afterwards.]

mhiggins

I agree with pretty much everything you say here. Especially your advice. Don't discuss it until after. That's been my opinion as well. And from a tactical perspective Harper is doing the right thing by preemptively attacking the coalition, because it's the most likely thing to finally bring him down. But from a democratic perspective, Harper is being a desperate propagandist. Otherwise we'd be having a policy debate right now instead of a procedural one.

http://tigeronpolitics.wordpress.com Ben (The Tiger)

I'm going to have to disagree on the last. I think that we've got a pretty good idea of what the differences are.

The Tories want lower business and personal taxes, with a federal government that does less. The Liberals and the other parties want to hold the line on taxes, and restore the activist function of the federal government. (Well, the Bloc just wants federal money with no strings for Quebec.)

If you want the Tory approach, a Harper majority guarantees it. If you want the Liberal approach, you'll probably get it if the Liberals and the NDP can combine to a larger number than the Tories.

If we get a parliament like the one we've got now, it's a grey area, but the opposition can — if they don't do a Dion and (during the campaign) promise not to team up — defeat the government on the Throne Speech and hammer something out. Kinda shaky, but what the hell, you haven't got anything to lose by trying it. [If you promise not to, during the campaign, you'll see another backlash like there was in 2008. Suspect it's a moot point as I think Ignatieff gets this & will not so promise.]

If we go into a 2011 or 2012 campaign, this is all pretty clear.

Harper majority — steady as she goes. Harper plurality — chance of new, more active government. National homecare, national daycare, etc., etc.

Mandatory Jedi

I agree, even if the number of Liberal and NDP seats don't add up to more then the Conservative seat count I believe they will still attempt to topple the Tories.

I also think Conservatives secretly hope this happens.
Mike T.

I doubt there will be a coalition unless Harper gives them a reason – a big ugly poison pill, probably not campaigned on.

sourstud

Why let context get in the way of a perfectly good drive-by smearing?
TimesArrow

"Of course, and David Cameron’s an interesting example because they had that debate there, and what I think the public concluded was undemocratic and not really legitimate was the coalition of parties that lost an election. Mr. Cameron won the election. And then was able to form a coalition".

Of course this might be a little more plausible if Harper hadn't at least considered exactly this in 04/05…hypocritical much!

Mike T.

Harper's audience is no longer the kind of person who would know this.

TimesArrow

'I think, really, that's the issue, I think, if coalition is part of what the public was prepared to vote for. But I think when it's a coalition that is seeming to overturn the result of the election, I think that's when the public have a big problem with that"

'Are public perceptions of legitimacy even relevant? Not from a legal/constitutional perspective. For example, if a politician firmly rules out a coalition during the campaign, and then tries to form a coalition after the election, his promises to the contrary would have no bearing on the coalition's ability to form a government, nor would public opinion"

With you CR…but you might want to run that by the PM…i think he might have a quibble or two.
Elmer Mackay

When did the definition of "winning an election" shift from getting a majority of seats to simply being the largest sub-majority party? In a parliamentary democracy, the former allows the victor to govern as they see fit, while the latter requires compromise. Harper certainly has had to compromise, so is his insistence that he is a "winner" stemming from self-delusion, or is it just marketing spin?
jonatwitan

Wherry, I know you read this, and I simply cannot help but wonder how you can continue to genuinely feel that you deserve to have your job, when CR is obviously so much better at it than you are. Any thoughts?