Page 1 of 1
#1 Canadian PM dissolves the parliament
Posted: Mon Sep 08, 2008 6:30 am
by Charon
What the fuck?
TORONTO, Canada (AP) -- Canada's prime minister dissolved Parliament on Sunday and called an early election for next month in hopes of strengthening his Conservative minority government's hold on power.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper has changed the date for parliamentary elections via a legislative loophole.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper's party needs an additional 28 seats to have a majority in Parliament. Although he has downplayed that possibility, polls in recent days indicate his right wing party has a chance to do so.
The October 14 election will be Canada's third ballot in four years.
The Conservatives unseated the Liberal Party in 2006 after nearly 13 years in power, but as a minority government the Conservatives have been forced to rely on opposition lawmakers to pass legislation and adopt budgets.
With Harper signaling in recent weeks that he was leaning toward calling early elections, analysts said the Conservatives had a better shot of winning now than if they waited until being forced by the opposition into a vote later, when the Canadian economy might be worse off.
On Sunday, Harper visited Governor General Michaelle Jean and asked her to dissolve Parliament. The governor general is the representative of Britain's Queen Elizabeth II, who is Canada's head of state, but the position is purely ceremonial and the governor general obeys the wishes of the prime minister.
"Between now and October 14, Canadians will choose a government to look out for their interests at a time of global economic trouble," Harper said after the meeting.
"They will choose between direction or uncertainty; between common sense or risky experiments; between steadiness or recklessness."
Liberal leader Stephane Dion said the election offers a stark choice between his party and the "most conservative government in our history."
Harper has said he is running on economic issues and stresses his opposition to an energy tax proposed by the Liberals.
But Robert Bothwell, director of the international relations program at the University of Toronto argued the move was political.
"Harper is going for a majority government. That's really the only issue," he said.
Observers also say Harper wanted a ballot ahead of the U.S. election. Bothwell said if Democrat Barack Obama surges in the next month in the United States, it will help Canada's opposition Liberal party.
"It will be bad for Harper. Canadian politics don't exactly mirror those of the United States, but if something happens in the United States it will find an echo in Canada," Bothwell said.
Electoral legislation that Harper helped enact after he came to power in 2006 fixed the date for the next election in October 2009, but a loophole allows the prime minister to ask the governor general to dissolve Parliament.
The Conservatives now fill 127 of the 308 seats in Parliament. The Liberals have 95, Bloc Quebecois 48, the New Democrats 30 and the Greens have one seat. Three seats are held by independents, and four are vacant.
Since becoming prime minister, Harper has extended Canada's military mission in Afghanistan. Canada has lost 96 soldiers, and as the death toll approaches 100 the mission could become an issue in the campaign.
Harper also pulled Canada out of the Kyoto Protocol, which commits industrialized nations to reducing greenhouse gas emissions.
Dion, a former environment minister who named his dog Kyoto, wants to increase taxes on greenhouse gas emitters. Dion has moved his party to the crowded left in Canada by staking his leadership on a "Green Shift" tax plan.
The Conservatives have been targeting Dion's plan in television and radio ads, saying it would kill jobs and drive up energy costs even higher than the current high levels. Dion has said he would offset the higher energy prices by cutting income taxes.
Dion hasn't had much success selling the plan to Canadians, many of whom have viewed him as a weak leader ever since he surprisingly won leadership of the party in late 2006.
"I love to be the underdog. I love being underestimated," Dion said.
Many expect Dion to be removed as leader if he loses the election.
He can do that? Seriously? There would be rioting in the streets if someone tried this shit. Actually, I don't know. But I don't want to find out. Hey Canada! Quit fucking giving our politicians ideas!
#2
Posted: Mon Sep 08, 2008 8:45 am
by LadyTevar
In England, the Queen alone has that power
#3
Posted: Mon Sep 08, 2008 10:27 am
by Cynical Cat
LadyTevar wrote:In England, the Queen alone has that power
The Queen rubber stamps what the PM wants. However, Harper passed a law (part of his election platform) regularizing elections every four years0. He's weaseling here, claiming that the law only applies to majority governments.
Odds are Harper is going to win, possibly a majority. He's a very effective politician, despite running a crappy government and occupying the unpleasant part of the Conservative spectrum.
#4
Posted: Mon Sep 08, 2008 12:12 pm
by SirNitram
...Folks, chill. The Prime Mininster can do that. All it does is set the time for elections. In England, the Queen's Approval is sought, because of the minor fact she holds a veto power.
#5
Posted: Mon Sep 08, 2008 12:15 pm
by Charon
SirNitram wrote:...Folks, chill. The Prime Mininster can do that. All it does is set the time for elections. In England, the Queen's Approval is sought, because of the minor fact she holds a veto power.
And it doesn't disturb you at all that the Prime Minister can essentially go "I don't like this parliament. Let's try to make a new one."?
#6
Posted: Mon Sep 08, 2008 12:22 pm
by SirNitram
Charon wrote:SirNitram wrote:...Folks, chill. The Prime Mininster can do that. All it does is set the time for elections. In England, the Queen's Approval is sought, because of the minor fact she holds a veto power.
And it doesn't disturb you at all that the Prime Minister can essentially go "I don't like this parliament. Let's try to make a new one."?
It does not only not disturb me, it will continue not to disturb me for a while. I'd say until we elect someone who starts a war on falsified data, occupies two countries, and begins the march towards an economic black hole.
#7
Posted: Mon Sep 08, 2008 12:24 pm
by Dark Silver
SirNitram wrote:Charon wrote:SirNitram wrote:...Folks, chill. The Prime Mininster can do that. All it does is set the time for elections. In England, the Queen's Approval is sought, because of the minor fact she holds a veto power.
And it doesn't disturb you at all that the Prime Minister can essentially go "I don't like this parliament. Let's try to make a new one."?
It does not only not disturb me, it will continue not to disturb me for a while. I'd say until we elect someone who starts a war on falsified data, occupies two countries, and begins the march towards an economic black hole.
I see what you did there...
#8
Posted: Mon Sep 08, 2008 1:32 pm
by frigidmagi
Basically Charon the Prime Minister must have at least one election every 4 or 6 years (my memory is shady can a Canadian help me out?) or at least had to before Harper did the regularization. They've been doing this for over a hundred years now and you'll note the North isn't a land of iron gripped oppression. On the flip side the opposition can force an election by calling for a Vote of No Confidence, where if more PMs vote against the government then for, you get a dissolved Parliament and new elections
Does it allow for some gamey election calling? Yes. There are drawbacks to any system. Has it worked fairly well for them? Yes.
#9
Posted: Mon Sep 08, 2008 1:51 pm
by Cynical Cat
It used to be that an election must be called within 5 years. Harper's law standardized it to be every 4 years in October. Several provinces, including my own, have similar laws. It is one of the things Americans do better than the Parlimentary system, but it's easily fixed with a law (that Harper is now weaseling around and he was the one that made it) and at least we aren't saddled with the Electoral College.
#10
Posted: Mon Sep 08, 2008 3:22 pm
by frigidmagi
The Electoral College makes perfect sense in the context it was conceived in. That Context may not be in application anymore but that is hardly the fault of the creators of the Electoral College.
#11
Posted: Mon Sep 08, 2008 3:31 pm
by Cynical Cat
frigidmagi wrote:The Electoral College makes perfect sense in the context it was conceived in. That Context may not be in application anymore but that is hardly the fault of the creators of the Electoral College.
Did I say it didn't make sense at the time it was conceived or it was a burden now? I said the latter. [Nelson] Ha ha.[/Nelson]
On a more serious note of the serious problems Canada and the US share is that its too damn hard to change the Constitution. Circumstances change dammit.
#12
Posted: Mon Sep 08, 2008 3:33 pm
by frigidmagi
They do, but honestly I prefer a hard to change Constitution.
#13
Posted: Mon Sep 08, 2008 3:39 pm
by General Havoc
I strongly agree with Frigid on that one.
#14
Posted: Mon Sep 08, 2008 4:10 pm
by Cynical Cat
It shouldn't be easy, but the cultural resistance to doing it in the US (hello, it was the second try, an unpopular compromise document, and the first thing they did was make 10 Amendments) and the Canadian practical impossibility are both going too far.
#15
Posted: Mon Sep 08, 2008 6:53 pm
by frigidmagi
That has more to do with popular culture then actual political system though and is much harder to engineer.
#16
Posted: Mon Sep 08, 2008 6:58 pm
by Mayabird
This is one of the things I actually like about Parliamentary systems: no ridiculously long campaigns with all the baggage that goes with it. It's just, every few years, "Hey everybody, elections are in a month. You know our positions. Have at it."
#17
Posted: Mon Sep 08, 2008 6:59 pm
by Cynical Cat
frigidmagi wrote:That has more to do with popular culture then actual political system though and is much harder to engineer.
Yep. Canada is much less inclined culturally to regard the Constitution as holy writ, but legally speaking it's even harder to change ours which means we're pretty much just as fucked. Of course since it was written in the 80s it has fewer anachronisms.
#18
Posted: Tue Sep 09, 2008 5:32 pm
by Cpl Kendall
Charon wrote:
And it doesn't disturb you at all that the Prime Minister can essentially go "I don't like this parliament. Let's try to make a new one."?
I'm a little late to this party but perhaps you should do a little research into Canada's political system before you go spouting your mouth off. The system works well and the GG retains the ability to refuse or even dissolve Parliament on her authority if she feels the request is BS or the current Parliament does not function.
If you would care to check into how things work here you'll note that the worst thing that can happen with a snap election is that we retain the staus quo and that the parties all waste a tonne of their own money on an election.