Queenmandy85

I agree those are two reasons. I contend it often doesn't work for them. Voters don't always do what the government tells them to. Don't you just love democracy?

Sorry, I did not intend my remark to be snide. Much as I disagree with you, I would never want you to not stand up for your views. as for Citizen Initiated referendums and the Right to Recall, I don't support referendums. Alberta's experiment with recall ended abruptly when Premier Aberhart was threatened by a recall petition in his own riding. Please keep up your posts. I always find them stimulating.

Sorry, BC, it isn't the weather, although that is a nice bonus. The reason is the friendliness and generosity of the American people.

Taxme, you seem to believe your views are shared by the vast electorate residing in the centre.

I think you should get involved. I ran for the BC legislature and later sought the party nomination in a Federal election. I ran against the provincial leader of the Liberal Party who generously gave me advice on speaking at all- candidates meetings. I have worked on campaigns for Allan McKinnon (Minister of Veterans Affairs), Don Munro, Erik Nielsen (acting Leader of the Opposition), Don Ravis. George Hees bought me a beer , and so on. I also campaigned for Joe Clark in both leadership campaigns. Out of all the politicians I've known, from all political parties, I have yet to meet anyone who comes close to the person you describe. I used to work for a major bank and I can tell you most successful MP's leave office poorer than when they went in. They gave up their successful law practices at the cusp of their prime earning years to take a job that pays a quarter as much and where everyone automatically assumes, as you do, that you are a crook and a liar, but when they want something, you are temporarily their best friend. Yes, MacKenzie King left office a millionaire. But look at the years it took Judy LaMarsh and Joe Clark to pay off their debts. If you get involved, listen and learn why politicians do the things they do and keep an open mind.

Social Credit expropriated (stole) BC Electric from the shareholders and turned it into BC Hydro. They took a profitable power company that provided good service and turned it into a sinkhole for taxpayers money with no customer service. The approached my father-in-law who had recently retired from the military and asked if he would run for the legislature. He too, was unfamiliar with the Socred's funny money so the party flack tried to explain it. When it was still incomprehensible, the guy said, "It's to get rid of the Jews." My father-in-law threw him out of the house. The Socred Premier and "Flying" Phil Gaglardi (Highways Minister) decided to build a highway where their sons had just recently purchased a vast tract of land. It created such a scandal that Rolf Harris recorded a song about it. "There were two wild Kelowna boys and Bennett was their name..." Social Credit morphed into the "Reform" party.

After carefully listening and analyzing the various statement about who controls the fate of NAFTA (the President or Congress) I have decided nobody has a clue. I've heard so many conflicting scenarios from experts and the delightful Bush-Cheney, I am going to wait and see. If the US decides it is in their best interest to return to pre-FTA rules, fine. We will adapt. In the short term, I may need to buy a car and they may be going cheap if our friends don't want them. I do not foresee any long term damage to US- Canada relations. Without NAFTA, Ms. Barlow may finally not have much to say. Every cloud...

Have you never thought you know best? I know I have at times. Politics is an entertainment considered too rude for polite conversation. We are taught never to discuss politics or religion at the dinner table. It is bad manners. Never take politics too seriously.

Wilbur and Taxme, it is interesting to read your input but I am going to reserve judgement for the conclusions of the investigation. The Mueller investigation may clear the President of all allegations. Calling people names weakens the veracity of your arguments. I speak to my self in this regard as well.

So is the Social Credit Party in Canada. I don't hear you lambasting them.

You say that like it is a bad thing. Liberal values are shared by many Americans and Canadians. It is a legitimate political view just as Conservative values are. It is only politics.

So the answer is no, it did not affect the outcome. (I looked it up?)

Did it affect the outcome of the election in the government's favour, or was it other factors such as a dud leader of the opposition Party?

But that was not a choice of the government. It was collusion between the Grits and the Socialist Credit.

An election during the NAFTA talks would have a negative effect on the solidarity of Canada's position and would therefore weaken us in the eyes of the POTUS. Another consideration is what if the fixed date falls during the transition of the Head of State? The fixed date situation has already caused the screw up in Saskatchewan.

Serious question: Has a Government ever won an election based mainly on the timing? I acknowledge they try but it doesn't usually work out for them. Voters seem to have a mind of their own.

Thank you. I hope I am also welcome to Joe Clark and the Great Tory Crusade of Hugh Segal.

You ignore the Chief, and Mulroney. They were of the Party of MacDonald. Reform is the Party of that lewd, vulgar Lincoln.

The longer a government is in office, the more disaffection is created in the electorate. Governments have a natural 'best before' date. Therefore, the longer Prime Minister Trudeau is in office, the better chance he will be defeated.

But they don't wait for the writ to be dropped. We are moving to the US practice of a permanent campaign. We have always had some element of that, but with a fixed date, it seems to get more intense. Also, a fixed date can lead to forcing an election at an inopportune time. What happens if we end up with a campaign at a sensitive point in the NAFTA talks. What happens when a campaign conflicts with Provincial or municipal elections or other sensitive events. The record of Governments gaining any political advantage over calling snap elections or not calling elections until the last possible moment has not often worked out for them. Trudeau in 1979, Turner in 1984, Campbell in 1993, Paul Martin in 2006. Voters are a lot smarter than many political activists give them credit for. Having an election now, while we are mounting a bi-partisan effort to protect Canada's position in NAFTA would be irresponsible.

I am against fixed election dates. It leads to a much longer, more expensive and distracting campaign.

Prime Minister Harper ignored his own fixed date legislation when he called a snap election shortly after the legislation was passed. Like I said, it's viewed more as a guideline. (Reference Capt. Hector Barbossa)

The decision to dissolve Parliament is one of the discretionary powers of the Crown. If there is a government that is going off the rails, but has the confidence of the House, the Crown must retain the authority to dissolve Parliament or dismiss the Ministry if they are not acting in the best interests of the country. While there are those who view the Crown as a ceremonial post, the authority outlined in the Constitution is clear. The Prime Minister and the rest of the Ministry hold office at the pleasure of the Crown.

I would like to wait until NAFTA has a chance to play out. An election before that could be damaging to our negotiations. It may also give Sheer a better chance, but that is just a gut feeling. The fixed election date is more like guidelines, just like the Pirates Code laid down by Captains Bartholomew and Morgan. Harper broke that rule soon after he brought it in. (POTC: Curse of the Black Pearl)

I mean the real Progressive Conservative Party of MacDonald, Borden and Diefenbaker, not the reform-Socialist Credit abomination of Aberhart-Manning and W.A.Crook Bennett.