Election Almost Certain

[Ontario Loyalist]

Dion had his chat, and according to him Steve is bent on having an election:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/08/31/harper-dion.html

But I'm wondering if the GG would actually refuse to allow it?

[jdobbin]

Dion had his chat, and according to him Steve is bent on having an election:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/08/31/harper-dion.html

But I'm wondering if the GG would actually refuse to allow it?

No, it has always remained the right of the PM to call an election. The legislation didn't change that.

All it mean is that Harper was lying when he said he was sticking to a fixed election.

[Ontario Loyalist]

No, it has always remained the right of the PM to call an election. The legislation didn't change that.

All it mean is that Harper was lying when he said he was sticking to a fixed election.

"The power to dissolve Parliament is a royal prerogative that the governor general exercises personally. The Governor General retains certain constitutional discretion whether to accept the advice of the Prime Minister to dissolve Parliament."

http://www.gg.ca/media/fs-fd/P5_e.asp

I think that if the Prime Minister is going to break the law, "certain constitutional discretion" applies in this case. I'm guessing that Michaëlle either doesn't know or care, though...

[jdobbin]

"The power to dissolve Parliament is a royal prerogative that the governor general exercises personally. The Governor General retains certain constitutional discretion whether to accept the advice of the Prime Minister to dissolve Parliament."

http://www.gg.ca/media/fs-fd/P5_e.asp

I think that if the Prime Minister is going to break the law, "certain constitutional discretion" applies in this case. I'm guessing that Michaëlle either doesn't know or care, though...

The power certainly lies with the Governor General but I disagree it is a violation of the law.

[capricorn]

I think that if the Prime Minister is going to break the law, "certain constitutional discretion" applies in this case. I'm guessing that Michaëlle either doesn't know or care, though...

This article pretty well answers your question.

The first point to recognize is that, under Westminster-style parliamentary systems such as our own, a prime minister has virtually absolute discretion to determine the date of a general election. While the formal legal power to trigger an election rests in the hands of the governor-general, there is a firm constitutional requirement that she will exercise her powers only on the advice of the prime minister.

Thus when the prime minister asks the governor-general to dissolve Parliament and fix the date of the election, the governor-general is expected to automatically grant the request without making an independent assessment of its merits.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...0829.wcoessay30

In times like these, i.e. around elections, the GG is in regular communication with Constitutional experts. Quite understandable given that she does have an important role to play in the election process.

[Fortunata]

Steve calling an election certainly goes against the intent of the law he himself passed. Oh well, when has rules or law ever stopped him? He has no political ethics.

[blueblood]

Steve calling an election certainly goes against the intent of the law he himself passed. Oh well, when has rules or law ever stopped him? He has no political ethics.

Neither did Chretien

[capricorn]

Steve calling an election certainly goes against the intent of the law he himself passed.

He could not pass that law without the approval of the opposition. How come they didn't raise a stink when the bill was debated in the House? How come they allowed it to pass. Oh, I forgot, they voted with the government on almost everything.

The intent of the law is to prevent a majority government from manipulating the calendar to its advantage, as Chretien did in a majority when Day was leader. It makes no difference how often supporters of the opposition are reminded of this. IMO thankfully, run of the mill Canadians do understand the difference, and to the chagrin of Liberals, most won't have an issue with this.

[Fortunata]

He could not pass that law without the approval of the opposition. How come they didn't raise a stink when the bill was debated in the House? How come they allowed it to pass. Oh, I forgot, they voted with the government on almost everything.

The intent of the law is to prevent a majority government from manipulating the calendar to its advantage, as Chretien did in a majority when Day was leader. It makes no difference how often supporters of the opposition are reminded of this. IMO thankfully, run of the mill Canadians do understand the difference, and to the chagrin of Liberals, most won't have an issue with this.

The opposition aren't the ones who are calling an election are they? Harper is making up rules as he goes along, which doesn't surprise me. What does surprise me is the herd still justifying and parroting anything he says and does.

[August1991]

No, it has always remained the right of the PM to call an election. The legislation didn't change that.

All it mean is that Harper was lying when he said he was sticking to a fixed election.

If that becomes the Liberal opinion of this election, it will get them absolutely nothing in electoral terms.

The inetent of the legislation was to restrict the length of a majority government - previously set at 5 years by tradition.

Anyway, once the writ is dropped, many other factors will come into play as they usually do. Canadians will probably appreciate a short election.

Two last predictions: 1. I still think that we may not have an election (Harper is playing poker to get the opposition in line.) 2. I happen to think that if we have an election, Dion may win a minority.

[blueblood]

If that becomes the Liberal opinion of this election, it will get them absolutely nothing in electoral terms.

The inetent of the legislation was to restrict the length of a majority government - previously set at 5 years by tradition.

Anyway, once the writ is dropped, many other factors will come into play as they usually do. Canadians will probably appreciate a short election.

Two last predictions: 1. I still think that we may not have an election (Harper is playing poker to get the opposition in line.) 2. I happen to think that if we have an election, Dion may win a minority.

How do you think Dion will win a minority???

[August1991]

Election it will be and here's the spin:

Senior government sources say the prime minister will declare that after having met with all three opposition leaders he believes his minority Conservatives no longer have the confidence of Parliament.

CP

"The government lacks the confidence of the House."

I think Dion walked into a trap, as Duceppe did on the nation clause.

[jdobbin]

If that becomes the Liberal opinion of this election, it will get them absolutely nothing in electoral terms.

The inetent of the legislation was to restrict the length of a majority government - previously set at 5 years by tradition.

That is not what the intent was. It was to have a "fixed election date" where the government didn't call an election when it suited them. That is what Harper said.

Anyway, once the writ is dropped, many other factors will come into play as they usually do. Canadians will probably appreciate a short election.

Two last predictions: 1. I still think that we may not have an election (Harper is playing poker to get the opposition in line.) 2. I happen to think that if we have an election, Dion may win a minority.

I doubt very much that this is playing a game. Harper does not want the byelection to happen.

As for your second point, I still think a minority is all we will see.

[jdobbin]

I think Dion walked into a trap, as Duceppe did on the nation clause.

What trap? Harper always had the right to call an election. He was always going to blame the Opposition for it.

[August1991]

That is not what the intent was. It was to have a "fixed election date" where the government didn't call an election when it suited them. That is what Harper said.

I doubt very much that this is playing a game. Harper does not want the byelection to happen.

As for your second point, I still think a minority is all we will see.

Harper can say that he lacks the confidence of the House. (After his three meetings, is that statement wrong?) At most, the GG could ask Harper to test the government's confidence in a formal vote. Would Dion vote in favour?

However you slice this, Harper wins and Dion has walked into a trap.

----

Minority government is the most likely (certainty) outcome but Harper sees another Tory minority as a defeat of the Liberals. (In his view, slaying the Liberal dragon is a matter of perception.) I offered the possibility/prediction that Dion might win a minority. IMV, he could.

Byelections have nothing to do with this.

[August1991]

What trap? Harper always had the right to call an election. He was always going to blame the Opposition for it.

The trap?

Harper can say that he lacks the confidence of the House. If the GG accepts this argument, then Harper can run with it. In the unlikely event the GG asks Harper to test his government, what does Dion do? Vote in favour? Abstain?

Whatever happens, Harper can legitimately claim that he lacks the confidence of the House and Dion looks like a fool.

-----

I'd bet money now on a federal election for Tuesday, October 14, the day after Thanksgiving.

We've had federal elections alongside US presidential elections and I don't see any clear correlation. My only conclusion? Theirs take forever and we do it quickly.

[jdobbin]

Harper can say that he lacks the confidence of the House. (After his three meetings, is that statement wrong?) At most, the GG could ask Harper to test the government's confidence in a formal vote. Would Dion vote in favour?

However you slice this, Harper wins and Dion has walked into a trap.

Baloney. Harper always had the right to call an election. He was always going to blame the other parties for it. His own credibility is tested by calling the election before the fixed date.

I was told in this forum that Harper would lose if he tried calling an election himself and that the only way we were going to an election is if the Opposition voted no confidence. I disagreed on both points but was ridiculed for suggesting that Harper would call the election himself.

Minority government is the most likely (certainty) outcome but Harper sees another Tory minority as a defeat of the Liberals. (In his view, slaying the Liberal dragon is a matter of perception.) I offered the possibility/prediction that Dion might win a minority. IMV, he could.

Byelections have nothing to do with this.

Baloney again. If the Liberals won three of the four seats, it would have suggested momentum and encouraged the Liberals to vote non-confidence later in the month or October.

As far as who wins this election, barring another big surprise for either party such as an RCMP investigation, I think we will see a Tory minority.

[Ontario Loyalist]

The power certainly lies with the Governor General but I disagree it is a violation of the law.

How is it not a violation of the law?

[jdobbin]

The trap?

Harper can say that he lacks the confidence of the House. If the GG accepts this argument, then Harper can run with it. In the unlikely event the GG asks Harper to test his government, what does Dion do? Vote in favour? Abstain?

Harper always had this right to call an election. It comes down to his credibility in making the claim on confidence.

Whatever happens, Harper can legitimately claim that he lacks the confidence of the House and Dion looks like a fool.

Or Harper looks like a liar.

I'd bet money now on a federal election for Tuesday, October 14, the day after Thanksgiving.

We've had federal elections alongside US presidential elections and I don't see any clear correlation. My only conclusion? Theirs take forever and we do it quickly.

There will be a few Jewish people who will be upset at that date but Harper wants the election done before the U.S. election after a pollster said he could be hurt by an Obama win. Heck, he could be hurt by a McCain win.

[August1991]

Baloney. Harper always had the right to call an election. He was always going to blame the other parties for it. His own credibility is tested by calling the election before the fixed date.

No, Harper's legislation removes that power from PM - unless the PM lacks the confidence of the House.

And that's the case now. Does Dion give his confidence to Harper?

I don't mean to play with words Dobbin, but Harper has a good case. Dion has made a tactical error.

[jdobbin]

How is it not a violation of the law?

Because the loophole says the PM can say it is a confidence measure and legal experts say the legislation is ambiguous.

[Ontario Loyalist]

He could not pass that law without the approval of the opposition. How come they didn't raise a stink when the bill was debated in the House? How come they allowed it to pass. Oh, I forgot, they voted with the government on almost everything.

The intent of the law is to prevent a majority government from manipulating the calendar to its advantage, as Chretien did in a majority when Day was leader. It makes no difference how often supporters of the opposition are reminded of this. IMO thankfully, run of the mill Canadians do understand the difference, and to the chagrin of Liberals, most won't have an issue with this.

You fall for what Steve says quite easily. There's nothing in the act stating it applies only to "majority governments".

I think most Canadians will be wondering why we have to have an election now instead of on the fixed date. And as you said, the opposition was going along with the government so Parlaiment was hardly "dysfunctional". Unless "dysfunction" means Steve not getting everything exactly the way he wants, which isn't the mandate Canadians gave him. Minority government=learn to compromise.

[jdobbin]

No, Harper's legislation removes that power from PM - unless the PM lacks the confidence of the House.

Which is what I have been saying since 2006. He was always going to use this measure if he felt it was to his advantage.

And that's the case now. Does Dion give his confidence to Harper?

I didn't see a vote against and that is how many Canadians determine confidence in our history.

I don't mean to play with words Dobbin, but Harper has a good case. Dion has made a tactical error.

It was always going to be the case he was going to present: Blame the Opposition and claim confidence. Harper has made a tactical error that will deny him a majority.

[Ontario Loyalist]

Because the loophole says the PM can say it is a confidence measure and legal experts say the legislation is ambiguous.

There's no confidence measure here. Harper met privately with three of the four party leaders and told them there is going to be an election. That's all.

[jdobbin]

There's no confidence measure here. Harper met privately with three of the four party leaders and told them there is going to be an election. That's all.

That's my opinion as well but the legislation allows for the PM to call anything under the sun a measure of confidence. Several Parliamentary and legal experts say the legislation left this loophole for the government to use in minority or majority governments. Some are saying it can only be used in a minority but that is a bogus claim. Harper could claim loss of confidence even with a majority government.