Fall Election

[AD]

Under the fixed-date election law, the Prime Minister is not permitted to approach the governor general to request the dissolution of parliament. If he were to do so, he would be breaking a law passed by the very government he leads. Doing so also puts the governor general in an untenable position. Were she to grant the PM's request, she effectively negates the law and acknowledges the Prime Minister is exempt from the laws of Parliament. If she refuses, he can force a constitutional crisis by claiming she has refused his right to exercise his prerogative. This issue urgently needs to be referred to the Supreme Court.

Parliament is paramount and even prime ministers are subject to its laws. If Stephen Harper wants an election, he should submit a non-confidence motion and have his own party vote in favour. His backbench, good lap dogs that they are, will comply without question.

John Purvis, Toronto

That said, nobody can challenge the Cons right now and they'll have an easy time wiping the floor with Dion.

[ollie]

I haven't been following Canadian politics very closely lately. What are the predictions if there is a fall election? Does Harper have a chance at a majority?

If not, what a waste of energy. All it would accomplish is to accelerate the jettisoning of Dion, which is only good for the Liberals in the long run.

[phishtaper]

we are in the middle of a Sept 8th by-election in Guelph (which will be cancelled if a general election is called beforehand) so ive had this on my mind for a while now.

talk is that Harper called this by-election (and a couple of others) to test the waters for a general election. im afraid that he may have made a terrible mistake, tho'.

two issues dominate the campaign in guelph: the environment and the democratic principle within the conservative party itself. on the former, most guelphites see thru the dion greenwash plan and anyone who intends to vote on the issue of the environment will most likely vote Green. last year's provincial election saw one in five voters go Green and expectations are that even more may go Green federally this time. there are a great many Green lawnsigns around town. the Liberals have held this seat since 1993 when do-nothing MP Brenda Chamberlain was first elected. her acute ineffectiveness as an MP and her continued defiance of the will of a majority of progressive voters on social issues like same-sex marriage and freedom of choice eventually led to a massive, albeit non-binding, recall petition. she was embarassed into resigning. the NDP is fielding a strong candidate this time, but many in town are beginning to see the NDP as a party of the past and support is no longer guaranteed.

the real story is the tory candidate. during the last federal election, the local tory riding association nominated a small C conservative named Brent Barr. he was progressive and seemed to fit well in this community. apathy and comfort however led to the hold-your-nose-and-vote-for-the-incumbent re-election of Chamberlain and despite a strong showing, Barr lost.

last year, the local riding association re-nominated the increasingly popular candidate Barr, thinking that perhaps this time he would have an even better shot.

but then harper got involved.

the PMO removed Barr as the candidate, offered a ridiculous reason for doing so and held a sham nomination vote in which controversial, and very far right, local city councillor Gloria Kovach was acclaimed.

shit hit the fan.

legal action ensued, local tory executives resigned in disgust, nastiness bubbled and talk started around town (both inside and outside the conservative camp) that one simply does not oppose the almighty harper on any issue for fear of being replaced by a sycophant.

now that the by-election is well underway, Kovach has been unable to shake the label of being a harper lamb. it has become clear that a vote for the conservative here is a vote for harper, nothing more, nothing less. he handpicked the candidate and summarily dismissed the democratically elected candidate who didnt necessarily agree with him on every issue. there is no place for dissent in the conservative party. there is no accountability in the conservative party. there is no democracy in the conservative party.

people in guelph dont respect harper for doing this. we really dont. he's seen as heavy handed, secretive and dictatorial. he's blatantly underscoring all of the negative characteristics people have been leveling against him for years and he doesnt seem to give a damn. in fact, harper has visited several ridings adjacent to guelph during this byelection, but he has not actually set foot in guelph. perhaps he's afraid that he will be booed, by anti-conservatives - and by convervatives alike. the man has shot himself in the foot here.

if the man is so dictatorial in his own party, how can we even hope that he will be anything less than a tyrant if he were to win a majority. this minority government of his is already footnoted in history as one of the most secretive governments ever. god forbid that he actually forms a majority government that would allow him to reign over all of us.

we see thru his plan here in guelph. and if this is his approach for the rest of Canada, he seems to have made a big mistake. he's running for prime minister, not king. perhaps someone should tell him that.

[ollie]

Thanks phishtaper! :thumbup:

[AD]

Well done Elizabeth May - The Green Party now has an MP in Parliament. Whether he gets to actually enter the House of Commons and take a seat will remain to be seen.

But perhaps May will now get to be in the leaders' debates.

[Thorgnor]

Perhaps a big swing to the G this erection?

[AD]

Perhaps a big swing to the G this erection?

is there something you want to tell us about your feelings for elizabeth may?

[Thorgnor]

She's a masterdebater

[phishtaper]

But perhaps May will now get to be in the leaders' debates.

I asked senior CBC news producer Mark Bulgutch why Ontario Green leader Frank de Jong wasnt included in last year's Ontario leaders debate and he said:

Generally, we look at four major questions:

Not in any particular order they are:

1 - Does the party have seats in the legislature?

2 - Where is the party in recent polls?

3 - How many candidates is the party running, and how many of those candidates are considered at all likely to win a seat?

4 - How much of a presence does the party have between elections?

and further noted that the media consortium that runs the televised debates has no specific criteria upon which to assess each of these four factors. they view all factors together and determine if we all would be better served by including each of the various leaders in the debate. it's just one big judgement call.

i hope they include her. she's a good speaker. i saw her open for ani difranco once.

[bradm]

It's official:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/09/07/election-call.html

Canadians will head to the polls in a general election on Oct. 14, Prime Minister Stephen Harper said Sunday in Ottawa after meeting with the Governor General.

Harper made the announcement outside Rideau Hall where he met briefly with Michaëlle Jean, and asked that the minority government be dissolved.

Aloha,

Brad

[Thorgnor]

Sweet...

Steve IS above his own laws...

this should be excellent.

[SmoothedShredder]

Oct 14th! That's only like a month away! I have no idea what I'm going to wear!

Atleast that Stevie bugger can get things done in a hurry. This thing could be interesting. PM Dion. It's so crazy it just might work.

[bradm]

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Canada/CanadaVotes/News/2008/09/08/6700766-cp.html

Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty is declining to endorse federal Liberal Leader Stephane Dion's election campaign platform.

McGuinty says it's time Ontario used the clout provided by its majority of seats in the House of Commons to fight for fairness. He says Ontario is shortchanged billions of dollars each year by Ottawa on everything from employment insurance to health transfers.

Rather than endorsing his federal Liberal cousins, McGuinty says he'll ask each federal leader how they plan to address the issue.

Aloha,

Brad

[bradm]

Steve IS above his own laws...

Not exactly.

http://www.ottawasun.com/canadavotes/news/2008/09/08/6695356-sun.html

Aloha,

Brad

[d_rawk]

Harper's law was shaky from the get-go and arguably a cynical popularity play in the wake of Chretien's (and Martin's) clever playing of the polls.

It seems at first glance as though Harper would have been better off to manufacture his own defeat in a confidence motion so that he could come out of this clean. But I am sure they are acting on internal data that suggests otherwise, and time seems to be an issue.

[phishtaper]

It seems at first glance as though Harper would have been better off to manufacture his own defeat in a confidence motion so that he could come out of this clean.

dont you think people would have seen right thru that? and he would have come off worse that he already has?

[d_rawk]

That's a good point. Probably true. I guess it would depend on the issue. If they found the right one, where they could 'stand on principal' and it would be 'unconscionable' to budge on it for the shallow purpose of 'base political opportunism' it could work. I concede that such an issue is difficult to pull out of your hat, especially in a pinch when your polling data is telling you that the time is now.

[phishtaper]

i saw some of the Con candidates on the news on the weekend in certain GTA ridings. a number of them were women who seemed nice enough but who, the reporters indicated, were running in ridings where they basically didnt stand a chance because of Liberal or NDP dominance.

im wondering if perhaps Harper, and in particular backroom manager Doug Finley, have specifically sought out sacrificial lambs in these ridings - Guelph included. many of these candidates were handpicked by the PMO and already elected local candidates were unceremoniously dumped.

Guelph is a good example of what I mean. Brent Barr was selected by the riding association and then dumped by Harper without reason and replaced by Gloria Kovach. Barr actually had a chance of winning this riding. he's progressive and a small-C conservative. kovach is a far right pitbull without any chance of winning. (recent poll put her in 3rd at 13%)

the only thing i can think of is that perhaps Harper has forfieted these unwinable ridings but planted women candidates in them to show the rest of the country that he's fielding a bunch of women candidates. it would seem they think its better to lose a riding with a Big-C woman than to possibly win it with a small-C man. dunno. seems odd, but hey, they whole thing seems odd.

people in Guelph are still scratching their heads over why Barr was dumped.

[d_rawk]

I think you are right on the mark. The CPC is potentially vulnerable on this .. so up the number of women candidates in ridings that they've already written off to pump up the numbers.

[Birdy]

Under the fixed-date election law, the Prime Minister is not permitted to approach the governor general to request the dissolution of parliament. If he were to do so, he would be breaking a law passed by the very government he leads.

My understanding of the fixed-election law was to ensure an election takes place over a certain time span if parliament remained in the House... meaning that if Harper wants to dissolve his own government and call an election he can do so and it wouldn't have anything to do with the law. I could be totally wrong, it's just what I thought the law implied.

[phishtaper]

i thot it was supposed to prevent exactly these sorts of "we're high in the polls today, so let's call an election now" elections.

[mattm]

i thot it was supposed to prevent exactly these sorts of "we're high in the polls today, so let's call an election now" elections.

Same here. It costs way too much to have an election so it always irked me when one was called early. Every 3 times an election is called early equals roughly an extra election and we have better things to spend money on.

Now, that said, what do you guys think the outcome will be? I'll be voting NDP this year. My family is in the low income bracket since Steph stays home to take care of Trey and my income isn't exactly huge but now that Trey's around I think of things like education and health care which, in the eyes of the PC's, aren't exactly all that important so I can't vote for them (actually, I disagree with almost everything PC and would never vote for them). Liberals, not sure what they're up to these days or if they're any better than the PC's (though I think they are, I'm not entirely sure if I really like them anymore for some reason that I can't entirely explain). Green party would be great but since I don't think they stand a chance I'll vote NDP.

Yet, 18 years after Parliament passed Ed Broadbent's motion to end child poverty by 2000, nearly 800,000 kids live in third-world conditions that sap their potential. And while most families with preschoolers rely on outside child care, Canada's patchwork of public programs can't even accommodate one in five. With a shortage of 1.4-million quality spaces, many families can only afford options that may short-change their kids.

When Europeans countries invested to ensure child care for most of their citizens, they found that each dollar spent returned two more to the economy. But here in Canada, three straight Prime Ministers have broken their commitments to improve our kids' early years, squandering billions on corporate tax giveaways instead.

And...

Tabled legislation banning exploitative advertising targeting kids under 13—ads that generally promote unhealthy food products with massive profit margins.

Now that's the sort of thing I like to see and there's lots more on their website. Same with environmental concerns. Can they pull it all off? Who knows. My only worry is that the big businesses will leave us without jobs if it gets too costly here but that is outweighed by my feelings that we really need to stop fucking around with the environment.

[phishtaper]

Green party would be great but since I don't think they stand a chance I'll vote NDP.

ya never know. if enough people voted Green, one or two of them might actually win. personally, i believe the idea of it happening - even if only in the future - is worth my ballot on Oct 14th. im voting Green (although in Guelph, they actually do have a chance of winning)

[mattm]

I'd love to vote green. I really like what they stand for. I also really, really want the PC's out of office and voting green isn't going to accomplish that, it will just take one more vote away from a party that could oust them (since anyone contemplating voting green would never vote PC). Now, once they've been beaten and I don't have to worry as much for my family's welfare, then I can vote green and feel good about it. That's the way I see it.

It will really be a race between liberals and PC's, almost always is but just think. If enough people voted NDP then it could potentially even be a minority Liberal/NDP government. The next step from there is Green for me but the absolute most important thing for canada (at least for the 80% or more that aren't rich) is to get the PC's as far away from office as possible.

Edited September 9, 2008 by Guest

[d_rawk]

My understanding of the fixed-election law was to ensure an election takes place over a certain time span if parliament remained in the House... meaning that if Harper wants to dissolve his own government and call an election he can do so and it wouldn't have anything to do with the law. I could be totally wrong, it's just what I thought the law implied.

Oh crap! I just wrote a detailed reply to this and got an error from jambands.ca when trying to post it.

Short (or at least less organized) version:

That's understandable, and there was no shortage of lax reporting and maybe just flat out misunderstanding by the press at the time that the law was being passed. But that isn't what Harper was doing, and isn't what he said that he was doing.

It was already mandatory that an election be triggered when a certain amount of time elapsed since the last (5 years maximum under section 4 of the CCoRaF) and this was not in dispute or contested in any way. Harper's grievance was that elections were being called prematurely, at times when the political winds favoured the governing party, instead of being triggered by that time expiry or by dissolution through lack of confidence. This was a major complaint of the Conservative Party when the Liberal Party were in power. Harper's law was designed and promoted to prevent exactly what he is doing now - the governing party calling an early election at their leisure. That isn't a judgment call, mind, it just is what it is. I was never particularly comfortable with the law, and hem and haw on it. I'm rather happy that it is back in focus so that we can start thinking it through again.

The proposed bill would abandon an age-old British practice followed in Canada since Confederation. As things stand, a government can carry on for as many as five years without an election — the period set out in the 1982 Constitution — but the prime minister can call an election at any time within that span.

"Fixed election dates prevent governments from calling snap elections for short-term political advantage," Harper said. "They level the playing field for all parties and the rules are clear for everybody."

Because the government could be defeated in the Commons before the end of a four-year term, "the will of a majority in Parliament will always prevail," he said.

"But fixed election dates stop leaders from trying to manipulate the calendar simply for partisan political advantage."

He said he was willing to give up a prerogative traditionally enjoyed by sitting prime ministers.

"I read the polls saying if I called an election now we would win a majority. The same polls also say no one wants an election now, and no one does want an unnecessary election. So unless we're defeated or prevented from governing we want to keep moving forward to make this minority parliament work over the next 3½ years."