It has just been reported that in the next few days Stephane Dion will be replaced as leader of the Liberal Party of Canada. This follows calls for his immediate departure over the last two days from the two leading contenders to replace him, as well as prominent figures within the Liberal Party.
It appears that Michael Ignatieff will take his place after a caucus vote on Wednesday.
It is unclear what this means for the prospect of a NDP-Liberal coalition taking over the government in late January. Dion was a very unpopular and inept leader and replacing him as the head of any proposed coalition would be a good thing. Unfortunately Ignatieff seems somewhat ambivalent over the whole idea, and likely has plans of his own.
For those not aware of the recent stunning developments in Canadian politics I would recommend STOP George's excellent diary. You get the whole story along with a primer on the Parliamentary system in Canada.
Here's a quick recap: Last week the three opposition parties decided to vote down Steven Harper's minority Conservative government, and replace it with a Liberal-NDP coalition that would achieve its necessary majority in the House through the support of the Bloc Quebecois. They would topple the government by voting against the government's controversial "fiscal update", introduced late last month as a response to the financial crisis.
In order to avoid certain defeat in the House of Commons, Harper advised the Governor General to prorogue (suspend) Parliament until late January, when he would put forward a budget for the House to vote upon. After a two-hour private meeting with Harper on December 4, the Governor General agreed to his request.
Should the Governor General have refused his request, as some here at DailyKos have argued? Or would such a refusal have been seen as an undemocratic imposition of royal power over an elected representative? Unfortunately there is no clear-cut answer. Such matters are dealt with in the unwritten part of the Canadian constitution and we must therefore look to precedent.
Only twice has the Governor General of Canada not followed the advice of a Prime Minister. The first time was in 1896 when Charles Tupper refused to resign as Prime Minister after losing an election. The Governor General refused to carry out his recommended appointments, thereby forcing his resignation.
The second time was in 1926 and is known as the King-Byng Affair. Just a few months after an election Prime Minister King and his governing Liberals became embroiled in a corruption scandal. Facing a confidence vote over the scandal that he was sure to lose, King asked then Governor General Byng to dissolve Parliament, thereby triggering an election. Byng refused on the grounds that it would be harmful to Parliamentary democracy to allow the Prime Minister to avoid facing censure in the House and the withdrawal of its confidence, causing King to resign. Byng then invited the opposition Conservatives to form the government and attempt to win the confidence of the House. They were unable to do so (losing by one vote) and an election was then called.
In both instances the Governor General legitimately exercised his power to ensure that the government was accountable to the democratic institutions of the country (namely the House of Commons). Only when exercised for that purpose can the power of this non-elected official be legitimately wielded.
For these reasons I think that the Governor General would have been right to refuse Harper's request, thereby forcing him to face a confidence vote in the House. By granting his request she has allowed him to stay in government until January 26 knowing that he has lost the confidence of the House. (She had received letters from all opposition parties informing her that they had lost confidence in the government.) It sets a bad precedent that anytime a government is facing a losing confidence vote in the House they can simply suspend Parliament.
I also understand why she granted his request. Had she not, both she and her office would have been subjected to merciless and vicious attack by the Conservatives and their ill-informed supporters. (Was Harper making this crystal clear to her during their private two-hour meeting?) In any-case the prorogation is a short one and was welcomed by many as a "cooling-off" period from the heated rhetoric and fast-moving events of the past week.
My feelings are that if the coalition cannot hold together over these next two months, it probably wouldn't have worked anyways. It will also give them time to come up with a solid and detailed economic plan that they can all agree to, and have ready to go when/if they take over.
And, as many Liberals have apparently realized, it will allow them to replace the tragically inept Stephane Dion as leader of their Party and presumptive head of any possible coalition.
The big question is: What does Dion's departure mean for the prospects of the Liberal-NDP coalition taking power?
What's certain is that Dion is a comically poor politician who led the Liberals through an election in which they captured the lowest share of the popular vote since 1867. And his handling of the events of the past week proved no exception. The fact that Dion will not be the head of any coalition government is definitely a good thing for its prospects. Unfortunately his likely replacement was not an enthusiastic supporter of the coalition plan.
According to the Liberal Party constitution, the national executive of the party is to pick an interim leader in consultation with the Liberal caucus. Reports are that they have decided to do so by way of a caucus vote on Wednesday. The interim leader would then by ratified by the full membership during the scheduled convention in April.
If this is the case Michael Ignatieff will likely be the next leader of the Liberal Party. He is reportedly supported by a majority of sitting Liberal MPs and Senators, as well as much of the national executive. His rival Bob Rae had argued for some kind of phone-voting that would allow the entire membership to vote, but this was rejected by the national executive.
While Bob Rae had been an enthusiastic supporter of the idea of a coalition, Ignatieff could only be described as luke-warm. He has described his position as "coalition if necessary, but not necessarily coalition."
And the Liberal Party is by no means unanimously agreed on the desirability of a coalition with the NDP. (Especially one that relies on the support of the Bloc.) Those who fear that such a coalition is not in the long-term interest of the Liberal Party may just be right. If it works, Canadians might like it too much and never want to give the Liberals a majority ever again. A portion of the Liberal Party would probably rather have another election six months down the road, with a new and stronger leader, then enter into any coalition.
My guess is that Ignatieff will end up backing away from the coalition. I have very little to base this on other than my dislike of the man and his political views. I cannot see him being comfortable in a coalition with the NDP and making compromises. Rather than mucking about in a messy coalition, risking his reputation on a government over which he had limited control, he may prefer to simply consolidate his position in the Liberal Party, raise his public profile as Leader of the Opposition, and then lead the Liberals into another election six months down the road. (In which he would surely do better than Dion).
Of course if the Conservatives come out with a budget as heinous as their "fiscal update" the Liberals will be forced to vote against it and the coalition might just go forward. But my guess is that the Conservatives, somewhat chastened by the events of the past week, will put forward a budget that gives the Liberals enough cover to support it.
If they do, I doubt we will see a NDP-Liberal coalition take over.
Sigh.