[Newsbot]

<strong>Filibuster Cartoon</strong>
<strong>Title: </strong> <a href="http://www.filibustercartoons.com/archive.php?id=20071005" target="_blank">Will he or won\'t he</a> (click to view)
<strong>Date: </strong> October 05, 2007

There is tremendous pressure mounting for Stephane Dion to pass a no-confidence vote in the Harper government once parliament resumes next week. Yet there\'s also almost equal pressure NOT to. The Liberals remain static in the polls, and by any stretch the election would be a gamble. <br> <br>But the other day I read a good editorial by my pal Adam. He said it doesn\'t really matter if an election is in the LIBERALS\' best interest, what matters is whether an election is in Mr. Dion\'s best interest. As a weak and increasingly criticized leader, a \"trial by fire\" might be just the thing he needs to solidify his personal power in the party.

[Prestwick]

Everyone seems to be wanting to call snap elections! Over here Gordon Brown is about to do a Paul Martin and call a snap election which might end up messy for him.

[ejacksonian]

I don't understand these snap elections. I thought these calls for elections were supposed to be for other parties or the other party to hold the ruling parties or ruling party accountable. They are used by the ruling parties or party to hold power instead. That doesn't seem right.

I also don't understand why the Prime Minister could attach a Vote of No Confidence to any bill he wishes. He could attach it to "must-pass" legislation, such as appriopriation bills. This gives them way too much power.

[Prestwick]

It is one the interesting parts of the Parliamentary system. Because the Prime Minister holds the Royal perogatives once exercised by the crown, which also includes the ability to dissolve Parliament. Of course, the Prime Minister still has to go to the Queen (or the Governor General as in Canada) and ask for Parliament to be dissolved but the impetus is exercised by the Prime Minister.

Anyway, the snap election is a risky policy, and while in Prime Minister Harper's case the objective is to secure a majority in Parliament, other times it can be driven by purely presentational issues like the new Prime Minister wanting to look like his own man and not one needing to rely on the majority of his predecessor (i.e. Martin & Brown). But while it may seem that the governing party holds all the cards, they're not as much a sure fire scheme of gaining a larger majority than it seems.

As far as I know, in the last 35 years, I don't think any snap-election deliberately called by a Prime Minister either side of the Atlantic has succeeded and has even back fired terribly (i.e Paul Martin). So while I see where you are coming from in theory, you must understand that they've actually got to win an election first

Also remember that the Opposition, if they are powerful enough can also force an election. Usually, unwritten precedent states that if the government loses a bill in the lower chamber completely then that government has therefore lost the confidence of Parliament and must call an election.

At the end of the day, this will always be a major battleground for the supporters of either a codified or a uncodified system. Those in favour of a codified system will always say that theirs is more efficient and prevents the concentration of power while those in favour of the uncodified version talk of systems which have survived for over 700 years without crisis and thus, why fix what is patently not broken?

I don't really support either myself. I am more in favour of J.J's "grand ruler of Canada" plan where he takes over power in a coup de tat and rules with an iron fist.

[sasquatch2]

Good post but then history is a pandora's box that the LIBRANOs are bitterly aware of.

The newly minted LIBRANO leader Pearson made a grave tactical error in 1957. Diefenbaker went to the people and got a historic sweep which made the following True dough-Mania seem minor.

The pipeline debate has a parallel in the LIBRANO dominating Senate's obstruction of current legislation.

Dion is the flashpoint here. He may feel he has no choice but to bring down the government just to remain relevant and credible in the face of the palace revolt he must somehow put down without discrediting himself.

[Prestwick]

The only recent snap election in the UK in recent times was when Harold Wilson went to the people in the 1970s against Edward Heath in order to get a bigger majority. While he did win and form a majority government, Wilson failed to get the majority he was looking for (a majority of three).

This meant that gradual by-election defeats over the years between then and 1979 meant that by the time Wilson's successor James Callaghan was forced to call an election after losing a no confidence vote, Labour were depending on the support of the Liberal Party to get legislation through.

Sound depressingly familiar?

[Quantum_Wizard]

Prestwick wrote:

It is one the interesting parts of the Parliamentary system.

Or more specifically the Westminster system. There are also other kind of parliamentary systems.

[Prestwick]

Yeah but ours rocks the most.

[CanadianJeff]

I really do hope that Dion doesn't try and foce an election. He's a sham of a leader elected only by fear of having someone else win.

Frankly the liberals need to revaluate our leadership IMO. The current leader is not serving Canada's interests at all. He's serving his own and the party's. It's time the liberals dropped the corruption charges and took up a more central accountable point. I don't see Dion doing that.