Harper Set To Fix Election To A Date Of His Choosing
(UPDATED) Stephen Harper announced today that the Conservative Government will introduce legislation to hold Canadian elections on a fixed date.Harper said, the measure is a part of his pledge to restore accountability to government.
All I can say is, file this one under pre-emptive inoculation. Harper wants to go to the polls early but he doesn't want to be the one blamed for calling the election. Why? Because the Canadian electorate doesn't want one. Harper wants it look as if an election call was forced upon him.
This crass maneuver is a way for Harper to show his "commitment" to making this parliament work until the Fall of 2009. All the while Mr. Harper will be plotting ways to manufacture grounds to drop the writ.
The only way Canadians would go to the polls earlier, Harper said, is if he was "prevented from governing" or if his government lost a confidence vote.
If Harper got all indignant, and started threatening the opposition with talk of an election, over the failure of his nominee for appointments commissioner to make it out of committee, it's not going to take much for the "prevented from governing" caveat to kick in.
The polls are looking good for the Conservatives, in fact there's no where for them to go but down.
Fueling that down turn will probably be the tough issues coming up just after the summer recess -- the fiscal imbalance, health care wait times, creating actual daycare spaces.
We've already seen this week that the Harper luster is starting to wear thin amongst provincial leaders. In Quebec, Charest is miffed about Kyoto. And an Alberta/Ontario alliance is beginning to emerge over how to resolve the fiscal imbalance -- Quebec is on the outs there as well, and that's where Harper needs to make gains to form a majority government.
The double meaning of this post's title is apt: The next election will be fixed, not by legislation but by a hypocritical oportunistic PM who doesn't want to appear to be so. (Sound familiar?)
Post-script: Here's the wiggle room quote from Harper: "So unless we're defeated or prevented from governing, we want to keep moving forward to make this minority parliament work over the next three and a half years."
Update: Even if Harper does not intend to be as bold as I've suggested, this legislation works completely in favour of the Conservatives. Using the operative phrase above as a guide, there are three possible scenerios, each favouring the government.
Scenerio 1: The government lasts for three and half more years.
Scenerio 2: The government loses a confidence vote, at a time of its choosing, and the Conservatives can blame the opposition parties for having to call an election that the Canadian people don't want and that this new legislation was designed to prevent.
Scenerio 3: Harper can manufacture an impasse, at a time of his choosing, say he can't govern, call an election and blame it the opposition.
The merits of fixed election dates aside, this legislation, at this time is a smart political move for the Tories. It gives them broader latitude to govern on their terms. This law will provide additional cover for Stephen Harper, if and when he decides to go to the polls.
--
posted by Peter Wrightwater at
8:57 PM
8 Comments:
Only a true partisan hack would oppose the idea of fixed election dates.
You oppose it simply because it came from Harper. If he could somehow bring eternal happiness to the world, you'd oppose that, too.
We oppose it because it erodes the democratic right of elected officials to bring down a government that has betrayed its mandate or works in a manner that is detrimental to the Canadian people. If Harper had his way, the previous Martin government would not have been held to account as you would have had it.
Unfixed election dates are not just a way of preserving the integrity of public service, they are also a measure that prevent American style campaigns, driven by monetary weight and not a proper debate over what kind of polity the population wishes to have as its government, from overtaking our democracy.
TO Tory
Can you read -- "The merits of fixed election dates aside, this legislation ...."
This post has nothing to do with the merits of having fixed election dates per se.
I'm talking about the political and strategic implications of the legislation.
Like, who didn't see that coming?
The people who don't care cuz it's just "inside Ottawa" stuff?
Harper best keep his chips in and face an election, confidence or of his own choosing, but not legislated.
"Easy there pirate, don't you know when it's time to hold-'em?"
Hey there tighty short shorts...you should maybe learn more about things before posting. A minority gov't such as we have now and previously had with the Martin gov't can still fall in a vote of non-confidence. What this legislation would do is that a majority gov't couldn't call an election after 3 years like a previous liberal gov't did to take advantage of timing.
As for you Peter, this also goes to the political and strategic part that liberals also used to their benefit.
The talking notes distributed by the Cons to their army of blog followers must stress using the words partisan hack whenever possible.
"...you should maybe learn more about things before posting. A minority gov't such as we have now and previously had with the Martin gov't can still fall in a vote of non-confidence."
Maybe you should learn to read before posting...It was clearly mentioned in PDO's post..
Fixed election dates change the whole aspect of the final year of a mandate. In BC the gov't used a huge blitz up until the allowed date to broadcast 'BC is Superdillyicious!' ads, then used the same actor to dub in their election ads. No blending necessary. It also meant all parties turned their preoccupation on election to the front burner for the final six months and nothing got done. Because parliament and the provincial legislatures sit at the behest of the sitting gov't, the institutions are either mothballed for an extended time and legislation is shelved or put in the 'promised land' of election brochures.
And its basically an American concept. If we are to improve the act of elections, shouldn't we be turning our attention to something better than first-past-the-post (which I don't mind, either, but there is much merit to those who despise it). Is this a case of Monkey See, Yankee Do? What happened to the roots of our own democracy? And Peter is perfectly right and I'd like to hear a tory try to fib thru it, that Harpor is basically trying to distract the public's attention away from his pure politicking and cynical posturing just to inflate a less than Republican image, all the while acting in bad faith. I don't deny his right to do it, but he should stand up and take it like a man. Instead, he's a Cut and Runner, just like when he pouted off from Preston's party. Yes, it is your party, Stephen and you can cry if you want to...
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home