Politics in America's Hat

[Al]

So, I was reading on CNN.com that the Canadian PM arbitrarily dissolved parliment and is running new elections to try and strengthen his party's position in the government.

I know nothing at all about Canadian politics for all pratical purposes, so I was hoping one of our Canucks can answer a question: Huh? Can he really do that? Just ball up an entire legislative body and toss it in the trash? The article mentions a loophole of some kind but doesn't go into much detail. Isn't that the kind of thing that they would fix pretty quickly?

[TheOogieBoogieMan]

Sept 8, 2008 15:43:39 GMT -5 Al said:

Can he really do that?

Pretty much, yeah. Technically it's the Governor General that dissolves parliament, but they (currently, she) only do so at the request of the Prime Minister. A pretty useless position, the Governor General...but that's a whole other ball of worms.

It's kinda sad that I can't go into heavy details, considering I took a course on constitutional law this past summer, but basically, federal elections must be held every five years maximum, but they can be held sooner, either at the request of the PM, or if a motion of non-confidence is put forward by parliament (which nearly happened a short while ago) and is passed. In this case, PM Harper is calling an election because his Conservative Party has a minority government; the party holds more seats in the House of Commons than any one party, but the oppositional parties combined have a majority of the seats, making it hard for him to run the show.

Also, our PMs don't have the same two-term limit that American presidents do; they can stay in office for any number of terms, provided they remain the leader of their political party, and their party holds the most seats in the HoC. We're crazy like that.

I don't know about that loophole, though. I'm sure someone else can explain it better (and correct any of the points I made, if they aren't quite right)...

[Al]

So, if the Governor General is in agreement with the PM, wouldn't pretty much every PM want to do this when their party is in minority?

[TheOogieBoogieMan]

Well, there are a few things to consider:

1) Minority governments don't happen often. I can't recall the last time we had a minority government.
2) One of the conditions required for the PM to be able to call the dissolution of parliament is if they find it difficult to effectively govern.
3) Parliament is typically made up of members of five parties: the Conservative Party, the Liberal Party (which is actually more centrist, politically), the New Democratic Party, the Green Party (those two being the leftist parties), and the Bloc Quebecois (which is in favour of Quebec's secession, so we'll ignore this one for the sake of argument). In Canada's roughly 140 years, the Liberal and Conservative parties have been the only ones to hold enough seats in parliament to lead the country.

Since the Conservative Party is the only right-wing party in parliament, and since the NDP and the Green Party have more in common, policy-wise, with the Liberal Party than they do with the Conservative Party, the parliamentary dynamics tend to be 3 against 1. This happens when either the Liberals or Conservatives are in power. So, theoretically, the Liberal Party would have an easier time running a minority government, since they have a history of forming coalitions with the two leftist parties, and wouldn't need to dissolve parliament.

All of this will be on the exam next week.

[PoolMan]

That "loophole" may refer to the fact that the Governor General may actually refuse to dissolve parliament. She has the ability to tell the PM to stuff it.

How, you say? Easy! The GG is the Queen's representative. The Queen is the Head of State of Canada, and so (on paper) she has the authority to declare the parliament will stay operating as is. Of course, the Queen doesn't have any more "real" political clout here in Canada than in England... she's more of a figurehead (and by extension, so is the GG).

The upshot of the system (as I see it) is you get a variety of choice, instead of "Kang vs Kodos". The sucky part is that the potential exists to create governments that are powerful enough to take the main seat of PM, but not powerful enough to get a lot done.

So. Yeah. Canadians to hold referendum... didn't see that coming!

[Head Mutant]

I voted for Kang!

[pfrsue]

Dang. I voted for Kodos.

[TheOogieBoogieMan]

It doesn't matter who you vote for. Either way, your planet is doomed. DOOMED!!!

[rabidmonkeys]

Sept 8, 2008 15:43:39 GMT -5 Al said:

So, I was reading on CNN.com that the Canadian PM arbitrarily dissolved parliment and is running new elections to try and strengthen his party's position in the government.

I know nothing at all about Canadian politics for all pratical purposes, so I was hoping one of our Canucks can answer a question: Huh? Can he really do that? Just ball up an entire legislative body and toss it in the trash? The article mentions a loophole of some kind but doesn't go into much detail. Isn't that the kind of thing that they would fix pretty quickly?

The PM can pretty much call an election whenever he wants.. I don't think that the GG would go against the PM's recommendation.. its just unprecedented, her position is ceremonial. The opposition can also defeat the gov't on a 'confidence bill'... ie. a budget bill, or anything the governing party declares to be confidence (they do this to force something through if the opposition is too scared to call an election at that time).

You might be interested to know that 2 of the opposition parties are forming a coalition to grab the power from the governing conservatives (because the 2 of them together have more seats than the Conservatives). They are going to defeat the government in a confidence vote, and then request that the GG have the leader of the coalition become the Prime Minister.

[DTH]

You know, it is times like this when you stop, think about something new and go "Huh, why didn't I think about that before?".

I never even considered Canada's political system (I mean, you Americans make sure we consider yours, we don't get a choice ) and to find that it is pretty much identical to the UK's made me do a "Huh".

I mean, thinking about it, its pretty obvious that Canada's political system would be the same, as I also suppose Australia's is. I just never considered it before.

Wow, that's pretty ignorant of me (and also our education system!).

To our Canadian and Australian relatives, I apologise!

[dex]

A vote of (non-)confidence is pretty common in democracies (the possibility of having one, that is.) The above explanations don't sound terribly different from the German system, either. (Just replace "Queen" with "president".)

I'm also rather ignorant of foreign political systems; but at least my geographical knowledge of the U.S. has improved somewhat during the election.

[PoolMan]

Dec 3, 2008 1:02:44 GMT -5 rabidmonkeys said:

You might be interested to know that 2 of the opposition parties are forming a coalition to grab the power from the governing conservatives (because the 2 of them together have more seats than the Conservatives). They are going to defeat the government in a confidence vote, and then request that the GG have the leader of the coalition become the Prime Minister.

Adding to the drama, although the coalition is between only two parties on paper (the Liberals and the New Democrat Party), off paper they've also solicited the help of the Bloc Quebecois, which is the separatist party of Quebec.

So.

You've got a minority government that was recently reelected in slightly stronger but largely unchanged position being challenged by a coalition of opposing parties who've decided it's better to work together to bring down the ruling party, even if it means gathering the votes of the party whose sole reason for existence is to divide Canada into two nations.

MY HEAD IS A'SPLODE.

[pfrsue]

And how do you avoid a vote of no-confidence?

You shut down Parliament.

Neat trick!

[Hucklebubba]

Ho ho! Who's giving up the funk now?