Fixed Election Dates

[Wilber]

But you see my point is that a shrewd opposition could thwart Parliamenent and *not* call a vote of non-confidence and grind Parliament to a halt. A government would then be stuck till the next election because they've trapped themselves into the fixed election date.

No, I don't see your point. If the opposition will not call for a vote of confidence and they don't show up for votes, they are effectively handling the government a majority and it will be able to pass whatever it chooses. It is not unheard of for minority governments to call snap votes in the hope of catching enough opposition members away from the house.

A minor question. If our next election is by chance on 10 Feb 2007 and a majority government is elected, does that mean the locked-in subsequent election date will be 10 Feb 2011? That is, are we stuck with winter elections forever?

Interesting point. There is probably a way around it but I doubt it would be forever. If we could have a situation that would give us successive winter elections we could just as easily have another situation come along that would give us successive elections at another time of year. This might be just one more thing an opposition would have to consider before forcing a confidence vote.

When you think about it, this is exactly the system we already have but because few governments serve their full term before another election, it seldom actually happens.

[jdobbin]

But you see my point is that a shrewd opposition could thwart Parliamenent and *not* call a vote of non-confidence and grind Parliament to a halt. A government would then be stuck till the next election because they've trapped themselves into the fixed election date.

No, I don't see your point. If the opposition will not call for a vote of confidence and they don't show up for votes, they are effectively handling the government a majority and it will be able to pass whatever it chooses. It is not unheard of for minority governments to call snap votes in the hope of catching enough opposition members away from the house.

That's not true. The government cannot put through any votes when the bells are allowed to ring. The Opposition shuts down Parliament. This was the tactic used when the government used cloture to push through their bills. The Opposition just stayed away from the vote. The bells rung day and night.

[Guest Warwick Green]

I like Harper's plan. Only a few items would be issues of confidence - the budget, as an example. If the opposition votes down the demolishment of the gun registry, fine, they just turn to other business. But it doesn't prevent the opposition for calling for a vote of no confidence and voting down the government. I'm sure the government could find some way to be manipulative and force the oppostion into a no-confidence vote. But nothing's perfect and I do think it will add a greater degree of stability to a minority government.

[August1991]

Imagine it done in Ottawa. The opposiition just stays away from Parliamentary votes and lets the bells ring day and night. The govenment can't lose because there is never any vote on confidence. No minority initiated election. Just a ground down Parliament.

And you might magine this reflects poorly on the opposition but history has shown that it is the government that suffers the most during these tactics.

Dobbin, I think what you are asking is, with fixed election dates, what do we do if we have a hung parliament?

At present, the PM can go to the GG (or the GG can call the PM or someone else) and either dissolve parliament or ask someone else to form a government. You are saying that with a fixed-election date, that option would be impossible.

Assuming that fixed-election date really meant that, then I guess the bells would ring and parliament wouldn't sit. That's what happens in countries with fixed election dates such as the US. Filibusters in the US Senate in this century have lasted for up to two months.

[jdobbin]

Imagine it done in Ottawa. The opposiition just stays away from Parliamentary votes and lets the bells ring day and night. The govenment can't lose because there is never any vote on confidence. No minority initiated election. Just a ground down Parliament.

And you might magine this reflects poorly on the opposition but history has shown that it is the government that suffers the most during these tactics.

Dobbin, I think what you are asking is, with fixed election dates, what do we do if we have a hung parliament?

At present, the PM can go to the GG (or the GG can call the PM or someone else) and either dissolve parliament or ask someone else to form a government. You are saying that with a fixed-election date, that option would be impossible.

Assuming that fixed-election date really meant that, then I guess the bells would ring and parliament wouldn't sit. That's what happens in countries with fixed election dates such as the US. Filibusters in the US Senate in this century have lasted for up to two months.

Exactly. But unlike a filibuster, a vote call not answered can go on for the entire mandate of the government. There is *nothing* in the legislation to compel a vote. And yes, with Harper's present legislation, he could not dissolve Parliament and go to the people.

This isn't theoretical either. The Conservatives of Manitoba were using this as a strategy four months ago.

[Wilber]

Exactly. But unlike a filibuster, a vote call not answered can go on for the entire mandate of the government. There is *nothing* in the legislation to compel a vote. And yes, with Harper's present legislation, he could not dissolve Parliament and go to the people.

This isn't theoretical either. The Conservatives of Manitoba were using this as a strategy four months ago.

In this case the opposition would have to take responsibility for paralyzing the country's government. It would be their responsibility entirely and they would eventually have to answer for it. A government might actually welcome it under certain circumstances. Also, if a Parliament demonstrates that it is unable to govern, the GG might be quite justified in dissolving it on his/her own. That is after all, one of the GG's primary functions. An interesting scenario to make life a little more so.

[jdobbin]

Exactly. But unlike a filibuster, a vote call not answered can go on for the entire mandate of the government. There is *nothing* in the legislation to compel a vote. And yes, with Harper's present legislation, he could not dissolve Parliament and go to the people.

This isn't theoretical either. The Conservatives of Manitoba were using this as a strategy four months ago.

In this case the opposition would have to take responsibility for paralyzing the country's government. It would be their responsibility entirely and they would eventually have to answer for it. A government might actually welcome it under certain circumstances. Also, if a Parliament demonstrates that it is unable to govern, the GG might be quite justified in dissolving it on his/her own. That is after all, one of the GG's primary functions. An interesting scenario to make life a little more so.

In principle, you might think the Opposition takes the heat but it is generally the government that gets the blame historically. Case in point, the latest bell ringing in Manitoba which brought the NDP down in the polls and not the Conservatives.

And the Governor-General can only disslove Parliament if there is a confidence vote or if the Prime Minister requests it. If the Prime Minister requests it, clearly it violates his own legislation of waiting for a fixed election date.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Fixed election dates work well, period. Get rid of the confidence vote concept. Once the bastards are elected force them to go to work for four years. Open the doors at 9 am and close them at 9:05 , anybody that doesn't show up doesn't get paid. Let them out at 5pm, as long as they get their work done, otherwise its overtime for these public servants without pay of course. Give them a couple weeks off at Christmas and a couple in the summer but other than that they better be at work or they don't get paid. Miss enough work and the people get to fire them for cause, no compensation necessary.

They don't need to open the constitution up to do this just enough balls to actually work for their pay and their boss, thats us. They are public servants who are in our employ, lets change the rules and do something for a change. Elect the first party to promise to actually work for a living, or better yet elect only the individuals willing to work forget about the political party. While we are at it only vote for a candidate willing to be accountable to you through pushing for recall legislation.

[Wilber]

And the Governor-General can only disslove Parliament if there is a confidence vote or if the Prime Minister requests it. If the Prime Minister requests it, clearly it violates his own legislation of waiting for a fixed election date.

I know that is the history but are you absolutely sure of that?

Obstructing Parliament may be a good short term tactic for an opposition in a system where a government can call an election but I think handcuffing a government for months or years in system where it cannot would end up backfiring badly. It would take some huge balls to risk the publics wrath by willingly denying them a government for an extended length of time.

[jdobbin]

And the Governor-General can only disslove Parliament if there is a confidence vote or if the Prime Minister requests it. If the Prime Minister requests it, clearly it violates his own legislation of waiting for a fixed election date.

I know that is the history but are you absolutely sure of that?

Obstructing Parliament may be a good short term tactic for an opposition in a system where a government can call an election but I think handcuffing a government for months or years in system where it cannot would end up backfiring badly. It would take some huge balls to risk the publics wrath by willingly denying them a government for an extended length of time.

The Governor General can act unilaterally in dissolving Parliament but it would probably cause a constitutional crisis. There is nothing written in the Constitution about that type of action but is in theory a possibility.

But no Governor or Lieutenant-Governor has *ever* dissolved Parliament for bell ringing.

Historically, bell ringing has lasted months but not a full term of office.

Parliament is filled with rules that most people don't know. Parliament can only function if it retains confidence. This is why the prime minister can now call the Opposition's bluff, dissolve Parliament and go to the people.

This issue isn't quite so black and white as set term...no problem. Yes, there can be problems.

[August1991]

In principle, you might think the Opposition takes the heat but it is generally the government that gets the blame historically.

After all is said, I think that's the whole point of the exercise. It changes the rules of the game and gives a little bit more power to the opposition and a little less to the government. It's like a game of chicken between a Hummer and a Yugo except both sides now know the Hummer's brakes are a little loose.

Fixed election dates work well, period. Get rid of the confidence vote concept. Once the bastards are elected force them to go to work for four years. Open the doors at 9 am and close them at 9:05 , anybody that doesn't show up doesn't get paid. Let them out at 5pm, as long as they get their work done, otherwise its overtime for these public servants without pay of course.

Unfortunately, their "work" is devising new ways to spend our money. I'm happy when MPs take long vacations and/or get involved in silly, arcane arguments that last forever. The result is usually much cheaper that when they are busy "working".

[Wilber]

After all is said, I think that's the whole point of the exercise. It changes the rules of the game and gives a little bit more power to the opposition and a little less to the government. It's like a game of chicken between a Hummer and a Yugo except both sides now know the Hummer's brakes are a little loose.

I don't know August, if a political party which did not represent enough people to form a government denied this country a functioning Parliament, I would not be inclined to reward them for it. But that's just me.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Its true that the government does find new and entertaining ways to spend tax dollars. My problem with that is simply that some of those dollars are mine. In fact too many of those dollars are mine, or should I say were mine. Witholding taxes are a government means of conducting monetary terrorism upon citizens. The entire system stinks from the ground up.

The means of creating revnues streams for government spending requires some rethinking in my opinion. Withholding taxes reduce disposable familiy income. That reduction has a direct corresponding impact on our markets and a direct impact on our standard of living. Increasing disposable family income will therefore have a positive impact on the marketplace. So why on earth do we not get the government out of our pockets with incomes taxes and shift to a market place levy of taxation. Tax people on what they spend. Spend a little and pay a little in tax to the government, spend a lot and pay a whole bunch of tax to the government. You are only paying taxes on what you can afford and it doesn't detract from your ability to get what you need.

Next step is convincing the government that those funds they do receive in their revenue stream are the property of the citizens not a slush fund for their pleasure. They need to actually put in an honest days work to get an honest days pay. You can't tell me there is no waste in government operations. These folks should be looking for and eliminating wasted expenditures, that is their real job. We don't need as many new laws as we need to get rid of some of the old ones. Instead of trying to fix what isn't broke, why not start taking the broken stuff out to the dumpster. We need a caretaker government to clean up the mess of 140 years worth of garbage legislation, before we can hope to make any real changes. Other wise we will just be building on shaky foundations at best.

Like I said before we need a new and different vision for government. The people of this country deserve better than what we have. We know we can do better so what on earth is wrong with us? We must get off our collective butts and start working the problem. If the fed doesn't get its act together the nation will come unglued. Quebec has said so for years, and now Albertans are making noise. Time is running out for Canada.