Because they weren't willing to then and, more to the point, there was no acceptable constitutional reason to.
Coalitions are very rare in parliamentary democracies, you can't just do it because you don't like the PM, there has to be an acceptable reason to involve the Head of State (Governor General.) Losing the confidence (ie: trust) of Parliament is such a reason.
BTW: The name for the coalition: New Libs on the Bloc
Because they weren't willing to then and, more to the point, there was no acceptable constitutional reason to.
But if he's willing to climb down and offer a budget that can be passed, doesn't that mean that the the vote on the budget won't be a no confidence vote and therefore negate the constitutional reason for the opposition parties to form a coalition?
if he's willing to climb down and offer a budget that can be passed, doesn't that mean that the the vote on the budget won't be a no confidence vote and therefore negate the constitutional reason for the opposition parties to form a coalition?
The no-confidence vote isn't attached to the budget, it's separate and stands alone. Harper's already withdrawn the contentious issues in the mini-budget that generated the no-confidence vote, but:
a) the coalition don't trust him.
b) they smell power.
c) both of the above.
The correct answer is 'c' of course.
It looks like he's going to ask for prorogation. So it's down to the GG, which sucks.
I dunno. I am not sure why the GG would grant prorogration, to be honest. I don't think there's ever been a case in canadian history where the house was prorogued specifically to avoid a vote.
I don't know for sure, but perhaps it's just a holdover from the pre-Constitution repatriation days. (1980? '82?). Gramsci's probably written a book on the topic, so I'll defer to him.
"In 1947, “Letters Patent Constituting the Office of the Governor General of Canada” (under King George VI), transferred virtually all the roles and responsibilities of the Crown from the Sovereign to the Governor General to carry out, without having to refer matters to the Sovereign."
No. It would be suspended until late January, when Harper would return and present his full, formal budget. (Which would, of course, then face a vote of non-confidence.)
I think the GG will say 'no' today, because she knows she's just delaying the inevitable. You can't use prorogation as a stall tactic.
One of the constitutional questions the GG will be wrestling with is whether she can/should set a time limit to prorogation. If she doesn't and the government sits on its hands for too long she could eventually ask the opposition to form a government I think. Much of this is unchartered constitutional territory so who the fuck knows really.
So the "Queen's Representative" is just as much of a misnomer as the "Queen's Speech".
Why bother with the deception?
"The Queen," constitutionally speaking, is a metaphor for the monarchy as an institution rather than a deception. No one expects one of the royal family to prosecute court cases either though it's done in their name.
I know the GG does look at foreign precedents in cases like these, so she may not call Buck House, but I'd bet they're on the line to someone at the Commonwealth to make sure they're on good grounds. Right now this is shaping up a bit like Gough Whitlam in '75 - I'd bet the lines to Canberra have been active.
We have a GG and a Queen because otherwise we'd have to amend our own constitution to make for a local head of state. History shows we aren't very good at amending our constitution. Safer to leave it as it is.
He's been with the GG for two hours now. The front door has opened and closed a number of times, but no one's come out.
Apparently, if it goes well, Harper will speak to the media. If it doesn't, he won't. He's already cancelled his planned trip to Woodstock Ont. today to attend the opening of the new Toyota plant.
Two friggin' hours? What could they be talking about for so long?
Comment