Good point Angry. I think for Harper to remain credible and to remain true to his stated objective of working to build consensus he will need to walk carefully.

I imagine he will start with legislation most likely to pass and work down the list to ever increasingly contentious issues.

No doubt, once reorganized the left will be looking for their opportunity, the trick for Harper will be to fall on the right issue. Child care credit maybe??

It should prove to be an interesting time to watch politics in Canada.

syncro

Posted by: Syncrodox at January 30, 2006 11:28 AM

---

I don't think they should engineer their own defeat - that could backfire. The Liberals would run around presenting themselves as heroes for stopping extremist take over. It really wouldn't matter what they defeat the government on - that's what they'll claim. The lapdog media would eat it up.

If they get thru their 5 items, and maybe get a few other minor things done. They should claim we had a limited mandate from the Canadian people - we've fulfilled that mandate - its time for a new election to obtain a new mandate. 2007 - early 2008 wouldn't be unreasonable.

Posted by: Curtis at January 30, 2006 11:30 AM

---

No one has explained to me to any level of satisfaction the mechanics of how fixed election dates can be integrated into our system of government. When confidence of the house is lost, an election is forced, making the next fixed date irrelevant. And, if you make the date fixed unless the house falls (whichever comes first), then you give the opposition more power than the government, which would not be fair. It was easy for Dalton McGuinty to set a fixed date with his Ontario majority government; but I don't see how the policy works long-term.

Posted by: NCF TO at January 30, 2006 11:37 AM

---

I don't think you will see a late 2007/early 2008 fed election due to Oct 4, 2007 Ontario election. I'm guessing both the CPC and LPC would want to see what that one looks like before jumping in. There has also been a lot of noise over the fast few months about a 2007 Quebec election. Spring 2007 or Spring 2008 would be more likely timeframes. I would bet Spring 2008 for Round 3. That would be a 24-26 month minority gov't.

Posted by: DC In YOW at January 30, 2006 11:54 AM

---

It works because the PM doesn't have the option of watching polls and waiting for the 'winning conditions' to run in.

Should a government fall there would be an election, and the next election will be set on the 4th anniversary of the election. (or by some formula that would be in the act.) Just because the dates are fixed - doesn't mean the dates couldn't be dynamic - just beyond the control of the sitting government.

Posted by: Curtis at January 30, 2006 11:55 AM

---

Unavoidable hypocrisy is nothing new from Ezra Levant. The guy's a clown. I'm curious to know how his self-righteous blowhard indignation will work now that his crew are in charge. Something tells me that smug self-satisfaction won't move as many copies of his rag as his traditional whining did.

Posted by: Dave at January 30, 2006 11:56 AM

---

Here is how fixed election dates and minority govt's work in Ontario...

Votes of Non-Confidence and Minority Governments

The proposed Election Statute Law Amendment Act respects the convention regarding confidence votes and subsequent elections. As is currently the case, if the government cannot maintain the confidence of the House and a new government cannot be formed, the Lieutenant Governor could call an election immediately.

Under the proposed legislation, the next scheduled election would then return to the first Thursday of October in the fourth calendar year following the unscheduled election.

From The Premier Of Ontario's Office at

http://www.premier.gov.on.ca/english/news/FutureElections060104_bd1.asp

Posted by: DC In YOW at January 30, 2006 12:03 PM

---

Aside from setting the date in October, and after four years instead of five, how is this any different than what we already have? Our government must be dissolved after five years anyway.

Posted by: NCF TO at January 30, 2006 12:57 PM

---

Setting fixed election dates (except for a confidence vote loss) would prevent things like a Mr Cretien having 3 elections in 7 years even though he had a majority government.

Posted by: Clayton Collier at January 30, 2006 01:15 PM

---

In a majority situation, the PM usually creates a reason to trigger an election when "the time is best for them to win a another majority". This could be because they are high in the polls and want to stay in power longer than they otherwise might (although David Peterson might have something to say about this reason), the other parties are in a state of disarray (Martin in 2004 but it backfired), etc. Yes the gov't must be dissolved after five years but name the last time this has ever happened. Fixed election dates simply remove the convenience factor and the ability to hide from or preempt whatever is happening at the time.

Of course this means governing to a date and the usual bribes with our own money will still take place.....

Posted by: at January 30, 2006 01:18 PM

---

Oops, the previous post was mine.

Posted by: DC In YOW at January 30, 2006 01:20 PM

---

One way to rectify the situation would be to allow for fixed election date during a majority government only. That way a government with a majority mandate can not manipulate the election date to their advantage.

But during a minority government allow the election to be called either when the ruling party has accomplished their set mandate or when they are defeated by the opposition in a vote of confidence.

I think the tricky thing in Canadian politics is to find a system of rules that can keep four or five parties from killing each other while not allowing one party to be given preferential treatment or achieve unabated power.

Posted by: spooky at January 30, 2006 01:25 PM

---

Lot of presumptions being made hear. The Libs might be low on funds but they are not broke by any means. They are not as fractious as some people think.

Time will heal the corruption wounds quickly and the electorate will not want to hear CPC whining next time around. This past election was more anti-Liberal than pro-CPC.

PMS Harper should be very afraid, once the Libs clean house and shine their image up they will crush the CPC whenever they choose.

Conservatism is dull, boring and overall on the decline.

Posted by: Ron at January 30, 2006 02:04 PM

---

Dull and boring is the new hotness. The British Parliamentary system has stumbled along quite well for a few centuries, and it should not be tinkered with just to suit the fashion of the times. All this talk about "proportionate representation" to reduce the "democratic deficit" means having a parliament with 50 parties, like in Italy, and no one can ever have a majority, and nothing can be decided. And setting a fixed date for elections: instead of pulling the trigger when the polls are high, the government manipulates legislation, and foreign policy, and the economy, to match a fixed date that has no relation to the events taking place in the country and in the world. Poppycock, I say. If it was good enough for Queen Victoria, it's damn well good enough for Stephen Harper. (Paraphrasing my pastor, who used to say, about Quebec's language law, that if the English language, in the Bible, was good enough for Moses and Abraham and Jesus and God, then it was damn well good enough for the French.)

Posted by: Bob & Ulli at January 30, 2006 02:28 PM

---

"And setting a fixed date for elections: instead of pulling the trigger when the polls are high, the government manipulates legislation, and foreign policy, and the economy, to match a fixed date that has no relation to the events taking place in the country and in the world."

Fair enough but this happens to some extent today. With a fixed date all parties will know when it is coming and can act accordingly. We still have the final say at the polls (with the possible exception of northern Sask).

As far as PR goes, it would be interesting to have one election that is "total" PR just to see many "true" Dippers there are in this country. I'll submit Jack should be careful what he wishes for.

Posted by: DC In YOW at January 30, 2006 03:00 PM

---

Exra has his own opinion and we shall see what a Harper led minority actually does. When Campbell got elected in B.C. he bruoght in a fixed election date, no reason why it can't be done federally. It would be good to see the CPC have the conviction to follow through.

Posted by: Bruce Randall at January 30, 2006 05:01 PM

---

Sorry, that should be Ezra, no offence intended.

Posted by: Bruce Randall at January 30, 2006 05:02 PM

---

If you have a fixed election date unless the government loses a vote of no confidence, what is to stop a majority government engineering its defeat, as happens under that system in Germany. If the Chancellor wants an election he just has his supporters abstain in the confidence vote. For that matter unless the fixed election date is entrenched by the constitution the government can just legislate for an early election.

The only answer is to have a fixed term and no provision for an early dissolution. It works like that in Norway. The politicians have to put some sort of government together, because they are stuck with each other for four years.

Posted by: Gary J at January 30, 2006 07:10 PM

---

But precisely because they are stuck with each other for four years, they cobble together absurd compromises with a dozen fringe parties. The Islamic Rapist Party together with the Nordic Feminist Liberation Party vote with the Quisling Party to outlaw sex. But when it comes time to go to war, or cut the deficit, or decide what kind of photocopy machines to order for the welfare office, there is no leadership, no strength, no decision-making, because the negotiations are all about multi-cultural compromise on secondary issues of no importance. Parliament becomes one big CBC town-hall meeting, where every bigot has equal time, because he or she or it suffered as much as people on Oprah. Meanwhile, while everyone is emoting about feeling each other's multicultural pain, and voting money to have more community activities, the barbarians have breached the outer defences, and are raping women in the streets. So Parliament votes them a budget to overcome their alienation.
It does not work. It is not real. The conservative tribe, or the liberal tribe, have to be able to take power, and exercise power. A two party system, winner is first past the post, elections when it's time for a tribal smack-down, British Parliamentary regulations and traditions (such as, Cabinet minister resigns automatically if under investigation; government resigns automatically if no confidence). Show me a system that has worked better. American system? That's the only one. But we don't have the guts for it. Stick with Brit Lib. It is a proven formula.

Posted by: Bob & Ulli at January 30, 2006 08:50 PM

---

According to Elections Canada, in their last annual filing, the Liberal Party of Canada was $34,818,257.32 in debt, by way of 13 bank loans.

Ron, according to Sheila Copps (angry ex-Liberal) in her column in the Toronto Sun dated Dec 24th, 2005, the Liberal Party isn't just broke, it is significantly in debt.

Copps got that figure from the Elections Canada website since I doubt she's got access to the Liberal Party's books but I expect it's right. I tried searching the EC website and it's not "user friendly" to say the least.

"Corruption wounds" don't heal easily, even if drastic measures are taken. Just ask Lucien Bouchart.

Posted by: Mac at January 30, 2006 10:40 PM

---

I don't think the liberals are in that much financial trouble. Granted the picture isn't pretty, but its not bleak.

The liberals still managed to get 31% of the vote. Now at $1.79 per vote per year, they will have enough income to service their debt, plus start a little war chest.

Posted by: Curtis at January 31, 2006 10:41 AM

---

Is Ezra 'in the know' or is he just postulating?
I'm not going to speculate, it's too premature.
Would it look bad ? YES, and I intend to let Harper know it in writing, as we all should.

Posted by: Cheri at January 31, 2006 01:14 PM

---