[Scape]

Was it all a 'pious hope' dream?

Quote:

So, we don't have a fixed election date after all. How strange.

I could have sworn it was one of the early, and rare, high-minded initiatives of the Harper government. In what is obviously a false memory, I seem to recall it grew out of the Conservatives' own experience in opposition while under the butterfly-brief tenure of Stockwell Day.

Jean Chrétien the Heartless pulled the plug on his own government while Mr. Day's wetsuit was still wet. The poor Tories never had a chance. It wasn't fair. That was the lesson - I thought - that Stephen Harper drew from the occasion. And that such a power, solely in the prime minister's hand, warped and bent the democratic process. Something like what intense fire does to steel.

Did not Mr. Harper himself speak to this very point in May of 2006? I have notes to that effect, with Mr. Harper speaking to reporters in Victoria. He said, according to my delirium, that "fixed election dates stop leaders from trying to manipulate the calendar ... and they level the playing field for all parties." Furthermore, according to my obviously fevered jottings, he placed great stress on the justice of his proposed reform: "The only way we can have justice is to have a fixed election date, because an election without a fixed election date is a tremendous advantage for the party in power."

I remember, too, or rather seem to remember, some of the wisest heads in the Ottawa punditry wondering why a prime minister as smart, as tactical, as Stephen Harper would voluntarily lay aside one of the greatest partisan weapons in a government leader's hand?

Is it not wonderful how once an idea or a notion takes hold of us - however transparently spurious and unlikely - it builds its own evidence? We cannot shake the delusion, however forcefully we try. I begin to have some appreciation for all those folks who've spotted Elvis recently chatting up Roy Orbison at the local supermarket.

For here we are in the declining days of August, and almost every day I read or hear of Mr. Harper threatening or promising to call an election this fall. And evidently in no doubt of his constitutional or political right to do so. So I guess, and this is a chilling thought, I'm just now emerging from a long and continuous fantasy about a prime minister who promised fixed election dates, set the day, month and year of the next election (Monday, Oct. 19, 2009), and who secured the moral advantage of reforming one of the most unfair and lopsided practices in Canadian democracy.

Or, he did promise the reform. He did pass the law. He did secure the credit for so doing. And now, well, it's inconvenient. Now the Liberals won't call the election when he wants them to. Or, now that he's decided that Parliament is "dysfunctional," he sees himself as unburdened by the law he passed, the promise he made, and will waltz off to the Governor-General to dissolve Parliament whenever the opportunistic fit is upon him.

Now we hear that, actually, the law he passed changed nothing. I like parliamentary expert Ned Franks's description of that law as meaning "a fixed election date if necessary, but not necessarily a fixed election date," which the good Queen's professor supplemented with the observation that "it's what in the trade they call a 'pious hope.' "

Well, is it too much to remind people that, when the fixed election law was passed, Mr. Harper and his party harvested a goodly store of credibility (election promise kept) and electoral respect (at last, a government "levelling" the field) for the reform? And is it too much to remind people that, at the time, we heard nothing about it being just a "pious hope."

But, somehow, everyone is now supposed to forget Mr. Harper's seizure of the moral high ground, the wonderful contrast he then provided to the always opportunistic Liberals, to forget the great example of a Prime Minister deliberately tying his own hands on the important matter of when an election is to be called. All that is now "inoperative," to borrow a word from our American political friends, when statements or actions prove to be a burden to present opportunity. Down the memory hole. It was all a "misspeak."

I don't think Mr. Harper wants to go into an election this fall in which the highlight will be the nullification of the law he passed to hold one next fall. I don't think he wants to call an election in which the issue is his calling of the election. He chose the fixed date path. And it's a matter of honour that he now follow it. Or at least a genuinely pious hope.

[sandorski]

I feel that Fixed Election dates are a bad idea anyway. When everyone knows there's an Election coming up in X Days, they campaign and over time those campaigns get longer and longer approaching ridiculous lengths. Just look at the US where campaigns go on for more than a Year!

No, keep the date selection as is, keep campaigns at the current 30-60 days.

[hurley_108]

Either way, he's screwed. Either he backs off on his rhetoric, and starts to look as weak as he tries to say Dion is for blustering and doing nothing, or he calls it an goes back on one of his key pieces of policy change.

It was very unwise of him to even muse about the possibility.

[ridenrain]

It's all bluster and gamesmanship. The Liberals in the house may abstaing from every critical vote but the Liberal dominated senate is still blocking any of the important bills. Harper had to threaten before to get the justice bill passed and this is just the same thing.
Keeping the other side at the ready bleeds money and effort and I doubt anything is going to happen before the by-elections.

[kettal]

I'm going to put all political bias aside and say that these events reflect very very poorly on Mr Harper.

If he can just ignore the fixed election date law without worrying, then what other laws can the Prime Minister get away with?

Any politician, regardless of party or affiliation, who thinks they are above the law is bad news.

[robmik43]

Fixed election dates were intended
for majority governments only.
Minority governments can call an election at any
strategic time, within the law as written...and why not ?
Otherwise, a minority government could not be "brought down".
And that would be even worse for democracy.
Get over it...a lot of us don't want an election
but will deal with it.

[bootlegga]

Just another broken election promise...

[saturn_656]

bootlegga wrote:

Just another broken election promise...

And good on Harper for breaking it, the sooner the Liberals turf Dion the better.

[bootlegga]

saturn_656 wrote:

bootlegga wrote:

Just another broken election promise...

And good on Harper for breaking it, the sooner the Liberals turf Dion the better.

Personally, forcing Dion out is to Harper's disadvantage. I really don't understand why he is pushing him so hard.

Why push out someone you can bully and dominate? Then the Libs will elect a real leader and Harper is screwed, because all of Eastern Canada will again vote Liberal and he'll be back to pouting on the sidelines.

If Harper was smart, he'd keep playing Dion like a fiddle and run the country the way he wants. HEll, appoint a few senators and take away Dion's advantage there too. It might go against senate reform, but what's one more broken promise, especially if he can convince people that it's the only way to fixthings?

[kettal]

robmik43 wrote:

Fixed election dates were intended
for majority governments only.
Minority governments can call an election at any
strategic time, within the law as written...and why not ?
Otherwise, a minority government could not be "brought down".
And that would be even worse for democracy.
Get over it...a lot of us don't want an election
but will deal with it.

The Members of Parliament always had and always will have the option of declaring no confidence and calling an election, if the majority of the Members of Parliament vote in such a manner.

The law that was introduced specifically removed the Prime Minister's power of dissolving Parliament.

That is what part of the law will that will be broken if the PM calls an election at his own will.

It would be a violation of the letter of the law.

[hurley_108]

kettal wrote:

The Members of Parliament always had and always will have the option of declaring no confidence and calling an election, if the majority of the Members of Parliament vote in such a manner.

The law that was introduced specifically removed the Prime Minister's power of dissolving Parliament.

That is what part of the law will that will be broken if the PM calls an election at his own will.

It would be a violation of the letter of the law.

I wish it were so, but it's not. The fixed election dates law was little more than a suggestion from the start. It never restricted the PM's power in any way, nor could it, as the PM always has to go the the GG to dissolve parliament, whether as a matter of course after the for or so years of a majority or as a result of non-confidence.

The legislative system in Canada is, and always has been, fluid. Harper has always had the right to call an election basically for whatever reason he sees fit. He's simply been taking a very loose interpretation for about a year now as to what constitutes confidence. That is his right, for better or worse.

The final judge will be the vote, and whether he gains or loses by it.

[2Cdo]

hurley_108 wrote:

kettal wrote:

The Members of Parliament always had and always will have the option of declaring no confidence and calling an election, if the majority of the Members of Parliament vote in such a manner.

The law that was introduced specifically removed the Prime Minister's power of dissolving Parliament.

That is what part of the law will that will be broken if the PM calls an election at his own will.

It would be a violation of the letter of the law.

I wish it were so, but it's not. The fixed election dates law was little more than a suggestion from the start. It never restricted the PM's power in any way, nor could it, as the PM always has to go the the GG to dissolve parliament, whether as a matter of course after the for or so years of a majority or as a result of non-confidence.

The legislative system in Canada is, and always has been, fluid. Harper has always had the right to call an election basically for whatever reason he sees fit. He's simply been taking a very loose interpretation for about a year now as to what constitutes confidence. That is his right, for better or worse.

The final judge will be the vote, and whether he gains or loses by it.

Very well put hurley and without any partisan rhetoric!
And your last line sums it up perfectly. If Harper decides to push for an election one of three results will happen
1. Harper minority
2. Dion minority
3. Harper majority (which I honestly don't see happening)

[kettal]

hurley_108 wrote:

kettal wrote:

The Members of Parliament always had and always will have the option of declaring no confidence and calling an election, if the majority of the Members of Parliament vote in such a manner.

The law that was introduced specifically removed the Prime Minister's power of dissolving Parliament.

That is what part of the law will that will be broken if the PM calls an election at his own will.

It would be a violation of the letter of the law.

I wish it were so, but it's not. The fixed election dates law was little more than a suggestion from the start. It never restricted the PM's power in any way, nor could it, as the PM always has to go the the GG to dissolve parliament, whether as a matter of course after the for or so years of a majority or as a result of non-confidence.

The legislative system in Canada is, and always has been, fluid. Harper has always had the right to call an election basically for whatever reason he sees fit. He's simply been taking a very loose interpretation for about a year now as to what constitutes confidence. That is his right, for better or worse.

The final judge will be the vote, and whether he gains or loses by it.

Why are we now using the legislature to pass laws which are "suggestions"? What's the point?

How many other laws are merely suggestions?

This country has become a joke. Parliament is not intended as a stage for magic shows and illusionary laws.