Harper calls for fixed election date every four years

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2006/05/26/fixed-dates-060526.html

Captain America strikes again.

He is just positively running from one thing to another. I'm just afraid he is going to get his majority and make Mulroney's past word's come true. Remember? He said, "when I get through with this country you won't recognize it.".....I shudder!

The idea isn't without its merits, but can he propose something that DOESN'T sound like he's been reading a kiddie primer on the USA?!

governments just, coincidently, when he is in one. Canadians, in essence, choose a minority government when they don't have a great deal of confidence in any of the parties and this allows us to give one government a chance to prove themselves while knowing they could be tossed at any time.

In changing this, it wouldn't matter if every one of their bills were defeated, they would still be in for four years.

The reason Harper is giving is the same one Campbell used is that a governing party can manipulate the results and outcomes like say the Liberals, waiting until the last minute to hastily sign the Kelowna Accord for instance. Which goes to show that the manipulation can take place even within a minority gov't.

But it also goes to show a poignant criticism of Harper and Campbell is that it doesn't necessarily work and might place the 'governing' party in a worst position. Harper is trying to 'equal the playing field' one supposes, but it still comes down to the voter to decide regardless...

"In changing this, it wouldn't matter if every one of their bills were defeated, they would still be in for four years."

Yup...unless major consitutional changes are made to the Parliamentary system, but then again if a party gets a majority, we have to put up with ONLY 4 years of their unrestricted bill passing as opposed to the rather odious 5 years and then some depending on the date...

That I wouldn't mind to see changed--not necessary what Harpo the Republican wants, but a Canadian solution.

Unfortunately that never happened and the last time I looked, even though the public would like the changes, none of the good old 'left' parties bother with any substantive proposals, with the NDP parking their position on every other 'reform' from gender parity to proportional representation, instead of something realistic and popular.

As a progressive, I don't really see this as a problem, but something that actually might pay dividends down the road vis a vis the relationship between the BQ, Liberals and NDP. The Tories can go fuck themselves.

it's because that government knows they are going down in flames. Whether it remains the way it is or is a set 4 years, you will see the last minute buy-offs, that will NOT change. I don't have a problem with our current system, especially as we do have minority governments for good reasons.

Edited to add: What I do want to see is election reform as in proportional representation, that, to me, is much more important than trying to become more like the US in the 4 year thing.

Kim? Clarence? Gordon? My friend Don? The guy who makes soup? I went back in the thread for a reference to some "Campbell", but came up empty.

a nonconfidence motion.

I'm sure that's what I heard on CTV Newsworld today.

This is what he said:

"The next election would be in the fall of 2009, he said in a speech in Victoria on Friday."

Doesn't sound like he is allowing for the fall of his government before a full 4 year mandate has been fulfilled.

They could set fixed election dates but include provisions for how it would apply in the event of the defeat of the government on a non-confidence vote.

Our system of government requires that a minority gov't can be defeated by a non-confidence vote, and this gov't is not going to be able to legislate themselves out of that.

But there are ways of making both premises work together. E.g. as I understand the earlier reports on how it might work, there could be a formula to establish the fixed term but with provisions added for what happens in the event of the defeat of the gov't on a non-confidence vote.

I don't remember the details but when I first read it a while ago, it made sense.

Harper promises to fix election dates

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=2883e0d5-00dc-457e-8dca-d74166437cd0&k=43363

about this act in historic terms, he would propose it to begin AFTER the next election.

I don't know if this is the media taking the facts out of context, but if he is actually proposing trying to push legislation through that would support this then he has totally fucking lost it, literally.

But if not, Steven, I know in your little fantasy world you have been loving since February that you assumed a 'mandate' much like your American Idol down south, but here are a couple news flashes:

1) you have a MINORITY GOVERNMENT. The chances that the other parties would even remotely consider this, while you hold the reins with zero power to get the true CP agenda through, is ludicrous speed.

2) even mentioning that YOUR plan would let YOU remain in control until 2009 will make it DOA in public opinion, no matter how it is worded in the National Post.

I'm surprised no one else brought up the fact that Ontario's Liberal Premier Dalton McGuinty has already passed legislation to mandate fixed election dates in the province. This has been in place since before the Conservatives won the federal election, and also has been instituted in a few other provinces.

No matter what your take on fixed dates are, it's disingenuous to characterize it as a conservative plot and lay it at Harper's feet, when in fact he is following in the footsteps of Liberal Premiers.

in B.C. is from the old Social Credit/Conservative parties which took over the "Liberal" party of Gordon Wilson, whose "Liberal" party was actually comprised of those who had split from the conservative Social Credit party.

I don't know about McGuinty and whether the "Liberal" party of Ontario is in fact liberal or, like B.C., a conservative wolf under a false "Liberal" cover.

Some of the provincial parties are totally unaffiliated with the national Liberals, such as the BC and Quebec parties, which have long been entities unto themselves, and often estranged from their federal cousins. The Ontario Liberal party is however affiliated with the federal Liberals, and in fact the Premier's brother, David McGuinty, is a federal Liberal MP representing Ottawa South. The current provincial government could accurately be described as moderate traditional-liberal/red-tory in its approach.

In any case, I was mainly drawing attention to the fact that fixed election dates have already been adopted by different provincial governments, and how should we account for that if we wish to critique Harper for the same thing.

Your point re accounting for the provinces who have changed or are moving toward set 4 year elections is very valid. There are pros and cons, imo, to both the 4 year set election dates and our current system. I have less of a problem with provinces going that way then I do with the federal government adopting it because it affects the whole country as opposed to only the Province that chooses it.

The perfect example of this is our beloved Jean Charest.

are a great idea....ushered in by Ontario liberals already. It will prevent leaders from calling snap elections to take advantage of political winds like Chretien/Martin did a few times. At the same time, a vote of no confidence can bring down a government still. I.e. Harper is still vulnerable in his minority position. I don't see any problem with this whatsoever. Call it an American solution if you want. But it makes sense. And that "American solution" has existed a long time, and is followed in other countries. Hell, even in Canada we have a five year max. This just makes it 4 years with a set date. Predictibility for everyone.