Is it time for a election to be called?

[PIK]

With the constant failures of this government. Thoughts.

[Shady]

Absolutely.  This clown show has gone on long enough.

[-TSS-]

Turkeys voting for early Christmas? I dont think so. Besides, I thought in Canada you changed the law so that parliamentary terms are almost always fixed. Perhaps I have misunderstood something.

[turningrite]

I'd like to see Trudeau gone but he has a solid majority and we should at least be able to judge his government next year on the results of an entire term. Right now, the big issue might well be NAFTA but what would be accomplished by an election when all three mainstream parties effectively have the same position on this matter? In general, there's so little to choose from between the two parties that have any chance of winning, the Libs and CPC, that holding an election right now would seem redundant. Let's see if Bernier's party can get off the ground and what it might have to offer. I read one analysis which I believe indicated that it could appeal to about one-third of Canadian voters. If true, it would have a substantial impact on the next year's election. At the very least, it would make it difficult for any of the traditional parties to form a majority government. A CPC-Bernier coalition might well be a better alternative than another dreary run by the Libs.

[PIK]

1 hour ago, -TSS- said:

Turkeys voting for early Christmas? I dont think so. Besides, I thought in Canada you changed the law so that parliamentary terms are almost always fixed. Perhaps I have misunderstood something.

Something I never understood, being we could have minority governments.

[Wilber]

3 hours ago, PIK said:

Something I never understood, being we could have minority governments.

True, it only really works in the case of majority governments. With a minority, all it does is give the opposition control of the election date.

[JamesHackerMP]

I wasn't aware Canada had a fixed term parliament like the UK now does. When did you start doing that?

[cannuck]

44 minutes ago, JamesHackerMP said:

I wasn't aware Canada had a fixed term parliament like the UK now does. When did you start doing that?

I don't know - 2020 or 2030, somewhere back then.

[-1=e^ipi]

One election every 4 years is too infrequent. We should have 1 election every 3 years like Australia.

[Hates politicians]

On 8/31/2018 at 1:52 PM, turningrite said:

I'd like to see Trudeau gone but he has a solid majority and we should at least be able to judge his government next year on the results of an entire term. Right now, the big issue might well be NAFTA but what would be accomplished by an election when all three mainstream parties effectively have the same position on this matter? In general, there's so little to choose from between the two parties that have any chance of winning, the Libs and CPC, that holding an election right now would seem redundant. Let's see if Bernier's party can get off the ground and what it might have to offer. I read one analysis which I believe indicated that it could appeal to about one-third of Canadian voters. If true, it would have a substantial impact on the next year's election. At the very least, it would make it difficult for any of the traditional parties to form a majority government. A CPC-Bernier coalition might well be a better alternative than another dreary run by the Libs.

Brilliant plan to let turd continue destroying this country

[Queenmandy85]

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)

[Wilber]

3 hours ago, Queenmandy85 said:

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)If

There can't really be a fixed date if there is a minority. A vote of non confidence has to trigger an election because a government can't govern without it. If there is a majority, there is no reason not to have fixed dates other than pure politics.

[Queenmandy85]

10 hours ago, Wilber said:

There can't really be a fixed date if there is a minority. A vote of non confidence has to trigger an election because a government can't govern without it. If there is a majority, there is no reason not to have fixed dates other than pure politics.

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.

Edited September 3, 2018 by Queenmandy85

[Wilber]

8 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

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.

That’s a constitutional thing, fixed election dates are a legislated issue. They are the law only until the law is changed.

[Queenmandy85]

10 minutes ago, Wilber said:

That’s a constitutional thing, fixed election dates are a legislated issue. They are the law only until the law is changed.

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)

[Wilber]

Harper did it when he had a minority. If you insist on holding minority governments to a fixed election date, you are giving sole control to force an election to the opposition through non confidence. Elections are always called outside of a fixed date in order to press a political advantage. That’s not why we elect people.  Either both should have the ability to force an election outside of a fixed date, or neither should have that ability. The neither option is not workable in a minority situation.

[Queenmandy85]

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

[Wilber]

12 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

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

We disagree on that. By giving sole power to the government, you are giving it sole control of when campaigning begins before a date is even announced. 

[Wilber]

We have a law that stipulates a minimum campaign length, there is no reason why there couldn’t also be a maximum.

[Queenmandy85]

50 minutes ago, Wilber said:

We have a law that stipulates a minimum campaign length, there is no reason why there couldn’t also be a maximum.

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. 

Edited September 3, 2018 by Queenmandy85

[Queenmandy85]

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.

[Wilber]

32 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

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. 

No, we don't have primaries and all that other nonsense so we are not headed down the same route as the US. Also, all our representatives come up for election on the same date rather than being spread out as in the US system. Even though the last campaign was long, it wasn't the longest in our history and there have been several others that weren't that much shorter. Even before we had fixed dates, four years was the recognized norm between elections, even though the constitution allows five years before an election becomes mandatory. So we do have a fixed date for the time an election must be called which would apply even if NAFTA or other sensitive negotiations were going on. We've had elections in the middle of both world wars.

[Queenmandy85]

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.

[Queenmandy85]

18 minutes ago, Wilber said:

So we do have a fixed date for the time an election must be called which would apply even if NAFTA or other sensitive negotiations were going on.

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.

 

Edited September 3, 2018 by Queenmandy85

[Argus]

11 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

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.

The Liberals won based on timing when they voted the brief government of Joe Clark out after 9 months. They were in their infancy and the Liberals made a huge fuss over a proposed gas tax which they claimed would destroy the economy. They voted no confidence, and were returned to power in an election largely over that tax.

Then they promptly implemented that same tax themselves.