The Liberals and NDP are saying tonight that they will vote against the Ways and Means motion based on today's economic statement from Slim Jim ™ Flaherty.
I'll believe it when I see it quite frankly, but if the Bloc gangs up with the other opposition parties to defeat the government it would be a major humiliation for PM Stephen Harper. The question would be what would he do then? Would he call it a "false start" and demand immediately a self-contained no-confidence vote; or would he recognize it for what it was (an actual act of non-confidence) and resign? Moreover, would the GG, Michaëlle Jean, want to call a snap election or would she actually ask Stéphane Dion (who has already resigned as Liberal leader) to form a caretaker government?
I point this out because back in 1993, John Major in the UK was facing one problem after another barely a year after his upset victory over Neil Kinnock in the generals. There was Black Wednesday, a series of corruption scandals and to top it off, he had Parliament vote on the Maastricht Treaty which merged the "European Communities" into the present EU.
To appease the Euroskeptics in the ruling Conservatives, he negotiated an opt-out from the sections of the treaty dealing with social and labour rights. Some Conservatives who were opposed to the EU all together ganged up with Labour and the Lib Dems (who supported the social chapter) to (ironically) attach the social chapter (which lost on a tie vote), then voted to defeat a "take note" motion by just eight votes. Major then reintroduced the bill and vowed he would call a snap election on the issue. He won by forty votes. (Here's a link to discussion of the Maastricht Rebels who continued to plague Major for the rest of his term -- some of those rebels went on to form the UK Independence Party which advocates for Britain's complete withdrawal from the EU.)
Now I realize an international treaty to bind several countries even further together, is not at all like a ways and means motion to end public financing of political parties. But given our reliance on the "Westminster" system, would Harper cite the Major precedent and introduce his own non-confidence motion in a game of chicken and dare the opposition to cluck? After all, the old Reform Blue Book said that that a no confidence vote would only come if there was first a defeat of a budget or appropriations bill.
If he does pull the "triple dog dare," he may be in for a shock. The Liberals just might find losing $7 million per year all the motivation they need to pull the trigger.
UPDATE (7:53 pm EST, 0053 Friday GMT): Quite a few of my fellow ProgBlogs seem quite giddy about the possibilities, too. Scott Tribe raises a good point about 1985 and the Liberal / NDP alliance in Ontario -- although it should be remembered that David Peterson had actually won the popular vote but not the seat count (which Frank Miller had). Cam and Steve also have some good thoughts on this as well.
Vote for this post at Progressive Bloggers.
2 comments:
A lot will depend on the GG. Frankly, I suspect that if the Lib's and the Dippers can come to terms on the division of the spoils this weekend, then they will let the GG know they are prepared to form a coalition if asked. The BLOC will likely go along, and publicly undertake to help sustain the other two. Self preservation isn't only a Liberal trait you know. If that is the case, there will be a quick vote of no-confidence, and we'll be spared another year of, frankly, bad government.
Quite honestly, I can't wait either -- but I can't help but think the Cons will duck and cave in; after all what's $30 million amongst "friends"?
One thing, though: turns out that the GG is out of the country until December 7th (conveniently!). Technically the Chief Justice is also the Deputy GG. Could she act in the GG's absence or would Jean have to end her trip early to deal with such a crisis?
This is going to be one heck of a weekend!
Post a Comment