Post by islington on Mar 28, 2022 9:07:33 GMT
Another recent case arose from the 2017 GE in British Columbia, when the Liberal administration of Christy Clark lost its majority but remained the largest party. She announced her intention to continue but when the legislature met, the Opposition carried an amendment to the 'speech from the throne' (as they apparently call it in BC).
Instead of resigning, Clark asked the Lt Governor for a dissolution. The Lt Governor refused. Only then did Clark resign and the LotO, John Horgan, became PM.
I suggest that the Lt Governor's refusal was compliant with Lascelles because when Clark requested the dissolution she had never had the confidence of the current Legislative Assembly. She argued that a dissolution was necessary because the numbers meant that an alternative government not could be formed in the current LA. The weakness in this argument is that, in an adversarial Westminster-style system, a defeat of the government in a matter of confidence amounts to an implied vote of confidence on the LotO, who is thus entitled to form a government even if its political support is precarious.
In fact Horgan governed until 2020 through the LA elected in 2017, so Clark's argument, although plausible at the time, was proved wrong by events.
The situation in BC after the 2017 election closely parallels that in the Canadian Parliament in 1925-26 and suggests that the same basic rules still hold good. The main difference is that the Conservatives of 1926, having taken office, failed to survive, whereas Horgan was able to keep going, despite the lack of a majority, until he eventually called a fresh GE in 2020. He won it and remains PM to this day (although he has unfortunately developed serious health issues).