Beyond The Commons

 Beyond The Commons

Aaron Wherry covers all the goings-on in and around Parliament Hill. Follow Aaron on Twitter: @aaronwherry

Categories: Beyond The Commons, Capital Read

A lovely time for a vote

by Aaron Wherry on Tuesday, August 18, 2009 3:19pm - 28 Comments

Rob Nicholson, Nov. 6, 2006. Yet another reason for adopting fixed date elections is that this measure will likely improve voter turnout because elections will be held in October, except when a government loses the confidence of the House.  The weather is generally favourable in most parts of the country.  Fewer people are transient. So, for example, most students will not be in transition between home and school at that time and will be able to vote.  Moreover, seniors will not be deterred from voting as they might be in colder months … The government’s bill provides that the date for the next general election is Monday, October 19, 2009.

John Baird, today. ”I haven’t met anybody who wants a fall election.”

Tags: , , , ,

Bookmark and Share
  • anonymoose

    you know that he was referring to this particular fall. great example of "out of context"

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Ed_Sweeney Ed_Sweeney

      If Wherry understood what "out of context" meant, he would lose 80% of his blog material.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/robert_mccl6309 Robert McClelland

      If Steve hadn't called his illegal election we'd be going to the polls this fall.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Gaunilon Gaunilon

    "John Baird, today. 'I haven’t met anybody who wants a fall election.' "

    That's "wants", present tense, you see. Not "once wanted (at some time more favourable to our electoral chances)".

    As Aristotle would say: Never affirm, seldom deny, always distinguish.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/OntarioTown OntarioTown

    haven't met…..anyone but Cons supporters – duh Baird.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/Crit_Reasoning Crit_Reasoning

    Weak. If John Baird had said "Canadians don't like having elections in the fall", you'd have a point.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Stewart_Smith Stewart_Smith

      Gawd Aaron, I hate it when you put posts like this in and I have to agree with the muppet.

    • scf

      You are far kinder than me. I would not choose the word "weak". I would choose "brain-dead", "dishonest", "extremely partisan", or "malicious". Maybe the most accurate word is "typical".

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/Silly_Walks Silly_Walks

        Entirely unlike any of your posts.

    • Alex

      Agreed. This post is ridiculous. I've been able to take most of Aaron's posts similar to this one with a grain of salt, but this is jumping the shark, big time. (Do I get bonus mixed metaphor marks?)

      • Scott M.

        I prefer shark with salt, so you'll get no bones from me.

  • Anon

    I haven’t met anybody who wants a fall election.

    If you take the negatives out … I have met somebody who wants a fall election.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Ed_Sweeney Ed_Sweeney

      anybody is not a negative, quite the contrary. It means any person, without qualification.

  • Old School Liberal

    Irrelevant anyway.

    The funnier quotations would be from Harper justifying forcing a winter election on us in 2005 and breaking his own fixed election date law in 2008.

    No one ever wants an election no matter what the season… until one is actually underway.

  • tobyornottoby

    I haven't met anyone who wants a Baird.

  • http://intensedebate.com/people/JulesAime JulesAime

    Leaving Baird aside, I can't see how a fixed election date could work in a system that a) doesn't have clearly distinguished executive and legislative branches and b) allows non-confidence votes. I find myself fairly sympathetic to Harper (and McGuinty for that matter) about a lot of things but I think the whole fixed election date is just incoherent in a parliamentary system.

  • http://www.intensedebate.com/people/JulesAime JulesAime

    Leaving Baird aside, I can't see how a fixed election date could work in a system that a) doesn't have clearly distinguished executive and legislative branches and b) allows non-confidence votes. I find myself fairly sympathetic to Harper (and McGuinty for that matter) about a lot of things but I think the whole fixed election date scheme is just incoherent in a parliamentary system.

  • http://www.intensedebate.com/people/JulesAime JulesAime

    Leaving Baird aside, I can't see how a fixed election date could work in a system that a) doesn't have clearly separated executive and legislative branches and b) allows non-confidence votes. I find myself fairly sympathetic to Harper (and McGuinty for that matter) about a lot of things but I think the whole fixed election date scheme is just incoherent in a parliamentary system.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/Ed_Sweeney Ed_Sweeney

      They can work. Kind of like the notwithstanding clause, i.e. notwithstanding the fixed election date, an election can be triggered by a non-confidence vote – then press the reset button on the fixed date. BC has fixed election dates.

      • http://intensedebate.com/people/JulesAime JulesAime

        Oh I agree they can work if all we mean by that is something analogous to you can walk a cat on leash but, as anyone who has tried it, cats just don't want to be walked that way.

      • http://www.intensedebate.com/people/JulesAime JulesAime

        Oh I agree they can work if all we mean by that is something analogous to you can walk a cat on leash but, as anyone who has tried it will know, it doesn't work too well because cats just don't want to be walked that way.

        • http://intensedebate.com/people/Stewart_Smith Stewart_Smith

          Ed is correct, the solution is not really fixed election dates but rather that only nonconfidence votes and acts of parliament can be used to trigger elections. A sitting PM could still organize the demise of the government, but would have to go through a non-confidence vote to do it. (The act of parliament thingy is just there to allow the election date to be shifted if a non-confidence vote pushed it to an awkward date.)

          • http://intensedebate.com/people/JulesAime JulesAime

            I suspect we're not really arguing with one another here because we aren't really addressing the same point. I agree that it is technically possible. You could pass legislation that would "work". It's not like legislating against the tide.

            But I think the whole approach is inimical to the parliamentary system. It would have all sorts of unintended consequences. For starters, I suspect the political price for using non-confidence motions would rapidly become very high just as is the case with notwithstanding. Like the Charter (and as the Triple-E Senate woukld have done) it would amount to Americanization by stealth.

  • jarrid

    The Liberals are desparate for power but are struggling to find either the issue and the poll numbers to pull the plug.

    The Libs lust for power is all they seem to have left from their glory days.

    • John.K

      Well, at least they HAD glory days. Your crew don't seem to be able to rise to the challenge.

    • http://intensedebate.com/people/craigola craigola

      Duly noted.

  • CAPS

    IS the law still on the books stating that we are going to have an election this October? Just wondering.

  • George Pringle

    No, the fixed election date is Oct 2013. 4 years from the last election.
    Let's all just stop the election silly talk until the summer of 2013.

Previous

Next

From Macleans