I'm not aiming this at anyone in particular, but a lot of people this week have shown that they don't know how our parliament functions.

The Conservatives do not have a majority. The Coalition would have a majority. That is not quite the same as the government being overthrown in a coup d'etat.

I'm not aiming this at anyone in particular, but a lot of people this week have shown that they don't know how our parliament functions.

The Conservatives do not have a majority. The Coalition would have a majority. That is not quite the same as the government being overthrown in a coup d'etat.

I don't like the Conservatives, but they won the election. Just because they have a minority doesn't mean the other parties can team up and change our government. What kind of democracy is that?

Coalitions composed of few parties

In Germany, for instance, coalition government is the norm, as it is rare for either the CDU/CSU or SPD to win an unqualified majority in a national election. Thus, at the federal level, governments are formed with at least one of the smaller parties. For example, Helmut Kohl's CDU governed for years in coalition with the FDP and from 1998 to 2005 Gerhard Schröder's SPD was in power with the Greens.
A similar situation exists in Israel with its dozens of different parties (only once in its electoral history has one party managed to gain a majority of seats in the Knesset). The centre-right, Likud, thus forms coalitions with far-right and orthodox groups, while the Israeli Labor Party allies itself with the more leftist and pacifist parties, while various centrist parties can and do join either party.
In both countries, grand coalitions of the two large parties also occur, but these are relatively rare and large parties usually prefer to associate with small ones (though ironically, currently both Israel's and Germany's governments include the two largest parties). However, if none of the larger parties can receive enough votes to form their preferred coalition, a grand coalition might be their only choice for forming a government. This is the current situation in Germany: in early elections, the CDU/CSU did not garner enough votes to form a majority coalition with the FDP; similarly the SPD and Greens did not have enough votes to continue on with their formerly ruling coalition. A grand coalition government was subsequently forged between the CDU/CSU and the SPD. Partnerships like these typically involve carefully structured cabinets. The CDU/CSU ended up holding the Chancellory while, the SPD took the majority of cabinet posts.
In Ireland, coalition governments are quite common with a single party not having ruled since 1989. Coalitions are typically formed of two or more parties always consisting of one of the two biggest parties, Fianna Fail and Fine Gael and one or more smaller parties or independent members of parliament. The current government consists of Fianna Fáil, the Green Party, the Progressive Democrats and supported by independents.

Coalitions composed of many parties

A coalition government may consist of any number of parties. In Germany, the coalitions rarely consist of more than two parties (where CDU and CSU, two non-competing parties which always form a single caucus, are in this regard considered a single party), while in Belgium, where there are separate Dutch and French parties for each political grouping, coalition cabinets of up to six parties are quite common.
India's present governing coalition, the United Progressive Alliance, consists of 13 separate parties. In Finland, no party has had an absolute majority in the parliament since independence, and multi-party coalitions have been the norm. Finland experienced its most stable government (Lipponen I and II) since independence with a five-party governing coalition, so called "rainbow government". The Lipponen cabinets set the stability record, and were unusual in the respect that both moderate (SDP) and extreme left wing (Left Alliance) sat in the government with the major right-wing party (National Coalition). The current government (Vanhanen II) is a four-party coalition. Japan is experiencing coalition governments since 1990s, which came into existence in 1993 after the defeat of Liberal Democratic Party, and it is present till today. Israel's governing coalitions meanwhile can include up to nine parties and are notoriously unstable as a result.
In Australia, the conservative Liberal and National parties are united in an effectively permanent coalition. This coalition has become so stable, at least at the federal level, that the lower house of parliament has become a two-party house.
In the United Kingdom, coalition governments (sometimes known as National Governments) have only been appointed in times of national crisis. The most prominent was the National Government of 1931-1940. There were multi-party coalitions during both World Wars. Apart from this, when no party has had a majority, minority governments have been formed with one or more opposition parties agreeing to vote for the legislation governments need to function.

Switzerland has been ruled by a loose coalition of the four strongest parties in parliament since 1959, called the "Magic Formula".

Yes, but the people did not vote for the Coalition. They voted for the individual parties. If I voted for the NDP, I wouldn't necessarily want to see them get into bed with the Bloc in order to take power.

I don't like the Conservatives, but they won the election. Just because they have a minority doesn't mean the other parties can team up and change our government. What kind of democracy is that?

Could someone explain to me this move to defund the opposition parties? Am I understanding this correctly (probably not). How does Harper explain his motivation behind this politically?

To update here is what can happen to the likley to the absurd.

-Harper strikes back and seems to winning the Public Relations war hands down and that could make the Coalition back off. However people do not matter here but the parliament and the Governor General.

-Harper can ask the GG to suspend Parliament, but if she refuses which would cause westerns to go ape!!, Harper must resign and step down as PM immediately!!!! Then there would be a no confidence vote and then the Tory Leadership will ask the GG for new elections. She can refuse and allow for the other parties to take charge
or
-He waits for the No confidence vote, asks the GG for elections, she refuses and asks the Coalition to form govt.

-Harper can just wait for the vote, be defeated and allow the Coalition to take over and just wait for them to screw up which they will.

-Harper can wait for the vote, ask the GG for election and we have elections only 2 months after the last elections. He will likely easily win the election though now imo and could get a majority.
or
- The GG refuses elections and Harper then causes a greater crisis by saying the GG has no say. Why should an unelected person have such power and that The PM is the head of state. The PM is in charge and screw her I am in charge. Unlikely as that would be like Julius Caesar would do and would really send Canada back 200 years.

-The GG can refuse new elections and refuse a new Govt and force the 4 parties to work together. That is what I would pick....

-Harper stands down and says I am sorry and the coalition backs down and says "we did what we wanted"...


For political junkies like me, its amazing what is going on, but to Canadians its a disgrace and really we need some real statesman in that place.

I cannot believe the place that had great leader like MacDonald, King, Laurier, Pearson, Trudeau is in such a state.

I wonder what Trudeau would think about seeing his party in bed with the separatist.

Yes about King, he use to get advice on being PM by talking to ghosts in his closet and would not allow Jews in Canada during WW2.

However MacDonald came to Parliament drunk one time and people say Pearson brought socialism to Canada and Trudeau and Mulroney really were bad bad fiscal managers.


The only one who undoubtedly our greatest Statesmen was Laurier, even though nothing much happened during his term apart from Reciprocity. However he is our longest continousily serving PM, won 4 majorities in a row, and is Canada's longest serving Politican ever and our first French PM and is how Prime Minister's should all be like.

Really Neostorm, I would take Chretien over this mess.

Pearson brought socialism to Canada.

PM expected to seek pause of Parliament or quick election
CHRIS WATTIE/REUTERS
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/547515

OTTAWA—Prime Minister Stephen Harper is expected to visit Gov.-Gen. Michaelle Jean tomorrow morning to ask her to halt Parliament temporarily or allow a snap election to be held.

A spokesperson for Harper suggested this afternoon that the prime minister would take action early tomorrow to break the current deadlock in the House of Commons.

His most likely request is to ask Jean to suspend Parliament until January, at which time the Conservatives would bring down a budget containing an economic stimulus package.

Harper, meantime, will deliver a televised address to the nation tonight. Officials have confirmed that the prime minister has asked the television networks to let him appear at 7 p.m.

The coalition will ask for equal time in order for Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion to respond, a Liberal official said.

....

The prime minister falsely claimed that Dion, NDP Leader Jack Layton and Bloc Québécois Leader Gilles Duceppe, who signed an agreement on Monday in front of TV cameras, were too afraid to do so with the Canadian flag behind them "because a member of their coalition does not even believe in the country."

Pictures of the event clearly show two Canadian flags, as well as the flags of every province and territory.

However Martha Hill Findly, brings out a great point. If Harper suspends Parliament even if he faces certain defeat, this will set a precedent, for future PM's. That Prime Ministers could suspend Parliament whenever they face a vote of no confidence and really stay in power.