How would Canada be different today if Paul Martin had been allowed to retain power in 2006? I find it odd that a party in the British system of government can be just a few seats away from forming a majority, and yet not be allowed to form government. We have a British system in Canada, except that the party who wins the most seats forms government. If we were exactly British, then Paul Martin would have been allowed to form government in 2006 despite being handily defeated by the Tories. Could you imagine the horror? More Britons voted for a Conservative than any other party, and yet the first loser may get to retain power? This doesn't make a whole lot of sense.
It does appear as though David Cameron is going to form government, unless talks with the Liberal-Democrats break down. In that case, Gordon Brown will have the opportunity to retain power, which I'm sure will upset many Britons who voted Tory. I am interested to know why this rule over hung Parliaments is different in Canada than the mother ship. Was it always this way, or did we have some frightening circumstance where a Stephane Dion was able to rise to power despite not getting a mandate from the people?
Can I say, that I am ashamed of my ancestral homeland of Scotland. Despite an absolutely abysmal campaign by Gordon Brown who has been inept as Prime Minister, Scotland actually voted in greater proportion for Labour in 2010 than 2005. There is one Conservative MP among 58 in Scotland. I am not as proud of my Scottish lineage today as I was yesterday. Boo Scotland!
Our Parliamentary system like Briton's is designed for a two party Parliament, the NDP and Block should never have been allowed, it creates a mechanism for pizza Parliaments with no common direction and no stability.
ReplyDeleteAs the old saying goes.. a point in every direction is the same as no point at all.
Had PM Martin continue to govern, we might not have a Conservative government in Canada today.
ReplyDeleteP.S. Scotland continues to loathe the UK Conservatives due to Margaret Thatcher's legacy.
The process is fairly straightforward both in Canada & the UK.
ReplyDeleteThe Prime Minister (Brown or Martin) remains (remained) the PM until they indicate to the Sovereign they no longer have the confidence of the House at which stage the Sovereign may follow one of two options; a) summon the Leader of the Opposition to enquire whether he/she is prepared to form a government or b) dissolve the House and confirm the writ for a fresh election. (As a detail - regardless of the option selected by the Sovereign, they remain the PM until a new PM and Government are sworn in.)
PM Martin, to his credit, decided to step down in 2006 without losing a Confidence vote in the House.
PM Brown, may well try to tough it out or cobble together a coalition to continue as PM.
Nearly PM Dion could have been PM had he played his cards right in 2008. He should have kept his head down, combined forces with the Bloc/NDP to defeat the Government in a Confidence vote and then announced that he was prepared to form a new government with the support of the NDP/Bloc. Had he done that, I don't believe the GG would have had any option but to grant him that opportunity as per Parlimentary tradition and precedent.
By telegraphing his punches, Mr. Dion allowed PM Harper to seize the initiative which thankfully (IMHO) PMSH did for the benefit of all Canadians.
stephen p
If Paul Martin was still PM, CSL wold be the largest shipping company in the world
ReplyDeleteIceman,
ReplyDeleteI believe that the same process is involved here. Had Paul Martin been so inclined, he could have tried to rule with less seats the Harper had because tradition states that the sitting PM in a minority government has the first opportunity to see if he can get confidence of the house. But when Paul Martin ceded power to the Tories it was taken away at that point.
ROcky
stephen p is spot on in when it comes to history and analyses. In 2006, Paul Martin conceded defeat, as Diefenbaker did in 1963 and Pierre Trudeau did in 1979. In each case, these same men could have sought support from MPs across the floor.
ReplyDeleteOn that subject, a correction: contrary to Big Red Magnum's statement, our parliament and the British Parliament were not designed for only two parties. Indeed, the Westminster system existed for hundreds of years without political parties at all. We've had third parties in the House of Commons since 1867.