[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[Josephus]

OK, so there's a good piece on Global about this:

https://globalnews.ca/news/6045084/how-minorities-work-canada/

"But our system is such that election day doesn't actually lead to the formation of government directly. We elect the House of Commons — in many ways, it's 338 small elections and we send off our MP to Ottawa and it's the MPs together who choose who gets to be government. Governments have to maintain what's called the confidence or the support of the majority of MPs.

"So the Conservatives might get the most seats, but if the Liberals can maintain — or a coalition of Liberals and other parties or various arrangements — can maintain the confidence of the majority of MPs, they can form government or remain in government."


ALSO:

Not all of our rules are actually written down — a lot has to do with custom and tradition.

Who gets the first chance to form government is one of those questions without a written answer.

The tradition is that the incumbent government — which remains the government until any new one is formed — is allowed to seek the confidence of the House of Commons by attempting to form a coalition with other like-minded parties, or by getting their support case-by-case.

AND

The idea behind this, Thomas noted, is to ensure that the governor general interferes in politics as little as possible.

The prime minister doesn't need the governor general's consent to test whether they can maintain the confidence of the House of Commons — and remember, the government technically remains the government until a new one is sworn in.

Because of that, the scenario proposed by Scheer where the governor general refuses to let an incumbent government test the confidence of the House of Commons would actually require a direct intervention by the governor general.

...

"And so if there is a reasonable chance that an incumbent government that may have won fewer seats, but still has a good chance of winning confidence when the legislature resumes, if that's the situation, the governor general will just leave things alone. And rather than ask a government to resign, let it be defeated and then ask the party that had the most seats to form government."

[crazy canuck]

Thanks, that is a good explanation. 

What happened in BC was effectively an intervention by the LG by not calling on the Liberals to form government and inevitably be brought down on the first confidence vote (the Libs wanted to have another election which would have resulted).  The governing Liberals won the most seats but were in a minority gov't.  The LG met with both the Libs and NDP leaders.  The NDP advised the LG that they had entered into a power sharing agreement with the Greens (who held the balance of power) and through that agreement held the confidence of the Legislature.  That is why we have an NDP government now.

Scheer's position is weaker than that of the BC Libs.  He is not the incumbent and he has no one to partner with to demonstrate he would have the confidence of Parliament.

[Barrister]

Thanks, that is a good explanation. 

What happened in BC was effectively an intervention by the LG by not calling on the Liberals to form government and inevitably be brought down on the first confidence vote (the Libs wanted to have another election which would have resulted).  The governing Liberals won the most seats but were in a minority gov't.  The LG met with both the Libs and NDP leaders.  The NDP advised the LG that they had entered into a power sharing agreement with the Greens (who held the balance of power) and through that agreement held the confidence of the Legislature.  That is why we have an NDP government now.

Scheer's position is weaker than that of the BC Libs.  He is not the incumbent and he has no one to partner with to demonstrate he would have the confidence of Parliament.

While all of this is true, what also matters is the number of seats.  In BC the Libs and NDP were very close: 43 seats Liberals, 41 seats NDP.

If the scenario (lets call it the 2017 BC Scenario) is that the Libs and Conservatives are quite close, but the Conservatives hold a narrow lead, Trudeau has a strong argument to make he should try to continue to govern.

But there's also the 2008 Federal Scenario.  In that scenario the Conservatives won substantially more seats that the Liberals: 143 to 77.  When the Liberals announced they had formed a tripartite coalition to form government, the public largely saw that as illegitimate and it lacked public support, causing it to quickly collapse.

[crazy canuck]

Thanks, that is a good explanation. 

What happened in BC was effectively an intervention by the LG by not calling on the Liberals to form government and inevitably be brought down on the first confidence vote (the Libs wanted to have another election which would have resulted).  The governing Liberals won the most seats but were in a minority gov't.  The LG met with both the Libs and NDP leaders.  The NDP advised the LG that they had entered into a power sharing agreement with the Greens (who held the balance of power) and through that agreement held the confidence of the Legislature.  That is why we have an NDP government now.

Scheer's position is weaker than that of the BC Libs.  He is not the incumbent and he has no one to partner with to demonstrate he would have the confidence of Parliament.

While all of this is true, what also matters is the number of seats.  In BC the Libs and NDP were very close: 43 seats Liberals, 41 seats NDP.

If the scenario (lets call it the 2017 BC Scenario) is that the Libs and Conservatives are quite close, but the Conservatives hold a narrow lead, Trudeau has a strong argument to make he should try to continue to govern.

But there's also the 2008 Federal Scenario.  In that scenario the Conservatives won substantially more seats that the Liberals: 143 to 77.  When the Liberals announced they had formed a tripartite coalition to form government, the public largely saw that as illegitimate and it lacked public support, causing it to quickly collapse.

If you read just a couple of posts up what I said was:



"...it is more complicated and will depend a lot on what the final seat count turns out to be"

I assume you are reading in context 

[Syt]

the 2017 BC Scenario

Canada hasn't existed that long.

[garbon]

You got drunk on Sunday night? Hardcore man.

Between the ages of 19-24 there were very few days I wasn't drunk.

That was the life. I think I was high and/or drunk every night of my 18-21 life.

Sad that those posts are lost to history.

I'm actually glad that there was no Internet, social media and forums back in my day to keep a record of that time.

The only thing I regret is that unlike today, we weren't snapping pictures every five minutes. Very few pictures of my good years exist.

Sadly I still have my recorded instant messenger communications.

[Valmy]

the 2017 BC Scenario

Canada hasn't existed that long.

I presume BB was referring to the situation faced by the conservative party of Ur as it sought to preserve the traditions of the true religion of Akkad against liberal innovation.

[Josephus]

But there's also the 2008 Federal Scenario.  In that scenario the Conservatives won substantially more seats that the Liberals: 143 to 77.  When the Liberals announced they had formed a tripartite coalition to form government, the public largely saw that as illegitimate and it lacked public support, causing it to quickly collapse.

No doubt, that will come into play as well.
I'm not sure that's going to happen..i think either a lib or a cons minority will be pretty close. But one never knows.

[Josephus]

I thought Greens would do better, not that I care much for them, but still. 338 still has them at 3.9 seats with a +- of  2.9

many thought this would be their breakout year.

[crazy canuck]

I thought Greens would do better, not that I care much for them, but still. 338 still has them at 3.9 seats with a +- of  2.9

many thought this would be their breakout year.

If Singh had lived up to the low expectations it would have been.  But his performance sunk the Green's chances of a breakthrough imo

[saskganesh]

I thought Greens would do better, not that I care much for them, but still. 338 still has them at 3.9 seats with a +- of  2.9

many thought this would be their breakout year.

338 wrote a thought experiment article  for Maclean's (which still has no paywall, which is awesome) suggesting that under a regional PR system they would have much more: 32, more than the BQ.

But under FTP, they are still landing on the beach.

https://www.macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/a-338canada-projection-if-proportional-representation-was-real/

Meanwhile, this week in the real world, Green support seems to be shifting to the NDP, who are also picking up some of the voters they lost to the Liberals last time.

[saskganesh]

If Singh had lived up to the low expectations it would have been.  But his performance sunk the Green's chances of a breakthrough imo

Yes

[viper37]

I thought Greens would do better, not that I care much for them, but still. 338 still has them at 3.9 seats with a +- of  2.9

many thought this would be their breakout year.

The environment isn't as important to electors as people say it is.

[crazy canuck]

I thought Greens would do better, not that I care much for them, but still. 338 still has them at 3.9 seats with a +- of  2.9

many thought this would be their breakout year.

The environment isn't as important to electors as people say it is.

Yeah, that is the lesson to be learned 

[saskganesh]

People are electors.

Angus Reid says they want both: climate action and a strong oil/gas sector :



http://angusreid.org/election-2019-climate-change/

It's a contradiction, because we are in a paradigm shift.