Chretien, Broadbent brokering possible coalition (SOCIALIST COUP BREWING IN CANADA)

NDP Leader Jack Layton has enlisted one of his predecessors to sound out former prime minister Jean Chretien on the possibility of a Liberal-New Democrat coalition government.

A senior NDP official told The Canadian Press that Ed Broadbent spoke to Chretien at least four times after Finance Minister Jim Flaherty delivered an economic update that threatened to bankrupt the opposition parties.

...The opposition parties all say Flaherty's mini-budget, which strictly limits federal spending, bans public-sector strikes through 2011, and denies federal parties $30 million in annual funding, is ideologically driven and offers no stimulus package to deal with the economic crisis.

The annual funding issue is a potentially lethal poison pill that would financially cripple every party except the Tories.

” This is not illegal, nor by force, but by the co-operation of the opposition parties.
I hope it doesn’t happen, but it’s not a coup in the way you mean it.”

You`re attempting to back away from your statement that it has happened before after a Gvt has been seated and after a Throne Speech has been given. As was stated by an official Conservative press release, it is “unprecedented”.

I used the term coup in a political sense to garner attention to the unprecedented move by the socialist/neo-marxist left.

Link

Mackenzie King's Liberals had come to office in December of 1921 (party standings: Liberals 117, Progressives 65, Conservatives 50, Labor 2, and Independent 1) but had been unable to achieve a majority because the Western provinces had supported a third party which promised reforms demanded in the West. Despite its minority position, the King government stayed in power until 1925 particularly because the Progressives continuously supported them. An election was called by King for October 29, 1925, under the pretext that the government lacked “a clear majority” and could not dispatch certain important business. The voters responded poorly to the appeal of the government. The results were: Conservatives 116, Liberals 101, Progressives 24, Labor 2, Independents 2.

Three courses of action were open to King (who had suffered personal defeat): 1) resignation; 2) immediate dissolution of the newly elected Parliament; 3) meeting the House of Commons to see if it would give him its confidence. King chose the third course of action and the government that he led was repeatedly sustained in the House of Commons in the early months of 1926. In the spring of that year, the Conservatives unearthed a serious scandal in the Customs department. A House Committee investigated the matter and, after the report was presented to the House, a Conservative member, H.H. Stevens, presented a motion that amounted to a vote of non-confidence in the government. Under the circumstances, King was losing the support of the Progressives and asked the Governor-General, Lord Byng, to dissolve Parliament. The Governor-General refused. Shortly after, King presented an Order in Council dissolving Parliament for the Governor's signature. He refused to sign it. The government then resigned and Byng asked Arthur Meighen to form a government.

When the House met the Progressives initially supported the new government but five days later it was defeated on a motion that questioned the legality of the government. Meighen asked for a dissolution of Parliament which he received. The election which followed was fought over: 1) the legality of the Meighen government; 2) the position that the Governor-General had taken in refusing the advice of his Council.

Whatever the constitutional issues involved, the Canadian people blamed the Governor-General and Meighen, and King was returned to office (Liberals 128, Conservatives 91, Progressives 30, Others 6). The Canadian people had vindicated King who had claimed that Meighen and Byng had acted improperly and had undermined responsible government in Canada. The electoral decision might have been politically wise but it was constitutionally unsound. The Governor-General might not have acted wisely but there is no doubt that he had the right, given the circumstances, to refuse to follow King's advice. It is one of the royal prerogatives that, given certain circumstances such as those under discussion here, it can refuse to follow the advice of the Cabinet to dissolve Parliament and can choose an individual who has a reasonable chance to be supported by the House to lead the government.

There is also this from Ontario.

Link

----------------------------------

So we’re discussing the election, and I told tales from ancient days, 1985, the time before history began. That’s when I was Queen’s Park bureau chief for The London Free Press, and spent Ontario election night in Muskoka, where Conservative Premier Frank Miller had kept alive the Big Blue Machine’s 42-year streak by winning the provincial election.

Alas for the Tories, Miller had won 52 seats, but Ontario had 125 seats then. Liberal David Peterson had 48, and NDP leader Bob Rae had 25.

Miller formed a government, there was a throne speech, and the required eight days of debate on the throne speech. Then Peterson and Rae moved non-confidence, and brought down the government.

But Peterson and Rae also told the lieutenant-governor that Peterson was prepared to form a government, and that Rae was prepared to support that government. And thus Peterson became premier, without Ontario voters having to trot straight back to the polls.

Yes, we could also have discussed 1926, and Byng, King and Meighen, but that’s for another chat.

I’m not saying that the 1985 scenario will play out after Tuesday night’s votes are counted, but it’s one possibility to watch for, maybe even discuss in social studies class Tuesday — a teachable moment about the role, responsibilities and duties of the governor general.

---------------------------

Fact is the present government has been seated, cabinets positions given and taken and a Throne Speech also given. All not done under King.

The article I posted (post #45) clearly states that King governed from early winter of 1926 until the spring when a scandal came up. In order to govern, he must have seated a government, with cabinets positions established, and a Throne Speech also had to have been delivered.

As an aside, I love this place.
I have learned more of the history of my country at FR, than anywhere else.

:-)

I’ll see if I can find some Canadians to help.

Three left wing parties brokered a deal before the last election to pull this stunt if Harper won. One of the three parties is a separatist party that want to break the country up. They are bringing the gov't down for really no legitimate reasone - the Conservatives delivered a minor budget update. This is hardly a reason to dissolve parliament. The Governer General is a hardcore leftist and a separatist who was installed into power by the Liberals before they lost the election to power. All their ducks were lined up, she will not side with Stephen Harper and will dissolve Parliament.

The three parties usually hate each other. This is in fact a left wing Coup D'etat. Democracy in Canada will take a massive blow. Prime Minister Harper was democratically elected, in fact, he increased his number of seats. This is little more than a power grab by the left, with the media totally complicit.

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.