Image via Wikipedia

Some people have been saying that if the Tories do fall to a motion of non-confidence between now and December 8, that to not hold another election would result in a constitutional crisis.

They are wrong.

Eighty-two years ago, there was a constitutional crisis on a similar issue. However, its resolution gave precedent for what the Liberals and NDP are looking toward at this time. That is, a new government without new elections. In 1926, the minority government of William Lyon MacKenzie King was in dire straits, and he turned to the governor-general, Lord Byng, to dissolve parliament and call new elections. (In this situation, the non-confidence motion had not been happened, and King was trying to force an election before it could.) Lord Byng refused to dissolve parliament, believing that the Conservatives under Arthur Meighen might be able to form an effective government.

King, now leader of the opposition, worked with the third party of the time, the Progressive Party, to refuse to give confidence to the Meighen government, the confidence motion failing by a single vote. This time, when Meighen asked for a dissolution, it was granted.

The differences between then and now include that it's more likely that the government will actually collapse from a non-confidence vote than the sitting prime minister proactively asking for a dissolution, as well as the only other party outside the proposed coalition will be actively supporting it (unlike the Progressives in 1926). The precedent, however, of forming a new government without calling an election, is there, and this precludes a constitutional crisis.

The only crisis is the lack of confidence in the administration of Stephen Harper.