Thursday, July 8, 2010

Conservatives threaten fall election

They threaten it because the unelected Senate won't pass their budget bill.

According to Doug Finley, former Conservative Party president and now a Senator, the Conservatives are "... ready to go to an election if we have to. The buses, the planes, the trains, the money, the boardroom — everything's ready to rock and roll."

Am I the only person who finds that it doesn't make a single lick of sense that the Conservatives are threatening an election because their Senate is holding something up, and the fact that even if they win the largest majority in the history of the country, the Senate won't change its make-up for months and maybe years?

Ah, well. What have I been saying? Everyone seems to be marching to the beat of a fall election. Hopefully we'll be set and ready to go then too.

And in case anyone asks, I think we'll end up with another 2006-like result.

7 comments:

  1. Bring it on. Nothing focuses the mind like an election.

    Explain why something as important as AECL was buried in this omnibus bill.

    Along with Fake Lake, Jaffer, detainees.....yeah Harper, bring it on.

    Can't wait for the question reaching back to Nov, 2008 when you proposed ZERO stimulus then stole the coalition's budget.

    Yes please, bring it.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Remember, a vote of any kind in the Senate is not a matter of confidence so he'd have to go and ask for the GG to call an election, again breaking his fixed election date promise.

    I'd love for them to try to justify breaking their own law again over a process matter like whether a bloated gargantuan dog's breakfast of a budget law should go forward with a ton of non-budgetary items whole and not be split into different bills. Especially when the 4 items carved out relate to selling off AECL, privatizing a part of the mail system (Canada Post's international mail monopoly), weakening environmental assessments and [I forget the fourth].

    Could luck trying to convince Canadians that it was absolutely critical to avoid a separate vote on those non-budget items.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Ted Betts said...


    he'd have to go and ask for the GG to call an election, again breaking his fixed election date promise.

    I'd love for them to try to justify breaking their own law again



    Poor Ted...still posing as an expert on topics that you really don't understand, are you?

    NO LAW WAS BROKEN by Prime Minister Harper (the Federal Court has already ruled on that; try to keep up, okay?) and the Governor General still had the power to refuse him if she thought
    he had no cause to dissolve Parliament. Everyone knew (well, everyone except YOU, apparently) that this legislation only applied to majority governments (how could it possibly work otherwise?)... a minority government can fall at any time, of course, and for different reasons.

    This isn't rocket science, Ted. Try reading the legislation next time before shooting your mouth off and repeating the same tired old lies that have discredited your party and made your leader a laughing stock...

    ReplyDelete
  4. Actually, Fred, this "law" isn't much of a law at all - it's non-binding to the government. It also did not just apply to majority governments, but to minority governments as well; the exceptions were in cases of a loss of a confidence vote during a minority government. The entire point of the "law" was to stop Prime Ministers from calling arbitrarily-set elections which would give them partisan advantage, like with Chretien in 2000 or Martin in 2005/06.

    Harper broke his own "law" by failing to lose a confidence vote, and calling an election without any provocation. Now, the reason why no court cares is because it's a non-binding resolution, not an actual law. But its slightly amusing that the Harper government betrayed its own resolution. Makes people wonder what the point was.

    Anyways, Bill and Ted, I agree with your sentiments. The Conservatives calling an election for the fall would give us a good narrative.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Volkov said...

    Actually, Fred, this "law" isn't much of a law at all - it's non-binding to the government. It also did not just apply to majority governments, but to minority governments as well;


    If it's not actually a law, then how does it apply to either one? And how did the Prime Minister supposedly break it?


    The entire point of the "law" was to stop Prime Ministers from calling arbitrarily-set elections which would give them partisan advantage, like with Chretien in 2000 or Martin in 2005/06.


    Yes...with *majority* governments, that's a concern. But prime Minister Stephen Harper was faced with a dysfunctional parliament and a Liberal-dominated Senate blocking everything he was attempting to do, leaving him little choice but to ask (yes, ASK) for an election. With a majority government, though, he wouldn't be able to get away that because there could be no valid excuse. I would be right there with you calling for his resignation if that happened, but it won't...

    ReplyDelete
  6. Fred,

    If it's not actually a law, then how does it apply to either one? And how did the Prime Minister supposedly break it?

    It is not a law, but it is a non-binding resolution set forth by Parliament, one that Harper himself set up and set out the rules for, all in supposedly good faith. Then he decided to turn his back on this good initiative.

    Yes...with *majority* governments, that's a concern. But prime Minister Stephen Harper was faced with a dysfunctional parliament and a Liberal-dominated Senate blocking everything he was attempting to do, leaving him little choice but to ask (yes, ASK) for an election.

    This old line, eh? I like how Parliament was called "dysfunctional," yet during the election there was not a single Conservative that didn't note how Dion capitulated on everything.

    Also, how does an election solve the Senate issue? This is what I don't get - having an election will not change the make-up of the Senate automatically. That is such a silly excuse.

    And out of curiosity, I didn't know 2005/2006 ended a majority government. Could've sworn it ended a Liberal minority, but hey, what do I know...

    With a majority government, though, he wouldn't be able to get away that because there could be no valid excuse. I would be right there with you calling for his resignation if that happened, but it won't...

    What won't happen, Harper ignoring his own electoral law, or his majority government?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Fred,

    It is not a law, but it is a non-binding resolution set forth by Parliament, one that Harper himself set up and set out the rules for, all in supposedly good faith. Then he decided to turn his back on this good initiative.


    For reasons already outlined.


    Yes...with *majority* governments, that's a concern. But prime Minister Stephen Harper was faced with a dysfunctional parliament and a Liberal-dominated Senate blocking everything he was attempting to do, leaving him little choice but to ask (yes, ASK) for an election.

    This old line, eh? I like how Parliament was called "dysfunctional," yet during the election there was not a single Conservative that didn't note how Dion capitulated on everything.



    It wasn't just Dion, and there is more than one way to obstruct legislation.


    Also, how does an election solve the Senate issue? This is what I don't get - having an election will not change the make-up of the Senate automatically. That is such a silly excuse.


    An election that you win means you get to appoint more Senators (ones that agree to term limits and to step down in the event of a future Senate election.


    And out of curiosity, I didn't know 2005/2006 ended a majority government. Could've sworn it ended a Liberal minority, but hey, what do I know...


    Reread what I wrote. Just because Martin tried for a majority and failed doesn't negate his attempt.


    With a majority government, though, he wouldn't be able to get away that because there could be no valid excuse. I would be right there with you calling for his resignation if that happened, but it won't...

    What won't happen, Harper ignoring his own electoral law, or his majority government?



    Ignoring the law. The majority will happen next election.

    ReplyDelete