Of course the Lieutenant Governor can still prorogue the Legislative Assembly (as per a confidence vote in a minority government) but calling an election at the whim of a premier would be going against the spirit of the legislation.
[/quote]
No, if the premier at any time asks the Lieutenant-Governor to dissolve (or prorogue) the legislature that is what is carried out, and not just if a minority government loses a confidence vote. In any event, an election is still held every four years.
The Queen’s representatives effectively lost any discretion they may have had on those issues after the 1926 King-Byng Crisis, when Governor-General Lord Byng refused to dissolve Parliament at the request of Prime Minister Mackenzie King. That’s also why Michaelle Jean had to prorogue Parliament when Harper asked her to (regardless of what she may have privately thought about it).
Horgan used the word IF. Nobody is suggesting that it was a confidence vote and that the government had to resign. Horgan is just disappointed that Clark didn’t view it as a confidence vote (because it could be viewed as such) and didn’t call an election.
I was also interested in his comment “voter fatigue could undermine another election in 2011” as well as his statement that “my preference would be good governance, not necessarily my government.”
I was hoping for Horgan rather than Dix during the leadership race.
Horgan used the word IF. Nobody is suggesting that it was a confidence vote and that the government had to resign. Horgan is just disappointed that Clark didn’t view it as a confidence vote (because it could be viewed as such) and didn’t call an election.
I was also interested in his comment “voter fatigue could undermine another election in 2011” as well as his statement that “my preference would be good governance, not necessarily my government.”
I was hoping for Horgan rather than Dix during the leadership race.[/quote]
This isn’t exactly a revelation, that you share the same talking point as Juan de Fuca MLA John Horgan (NDP).
About the only policy at the moment that the NDP side of the debate tends to offer up is that somehow Christy Clark is afraid of them or something.
Rather, it would seem prudent politics for the Liberals to try and put a bit of distance between their new leader and the rather tainted offerings of the previous one.
With the defeat of the HST, it makes more sense to allow for a bit of time to pass before facing an angry ole electorate, instead, Clark and the Liberals will be able to offer up their own take on where the province should go, then let the voting public (those that bother anymore) to decide.
So I don’t think there’s a lot of fear over in the Liberal corner. Despite what the NDP side seem to want to tell themselves.
Rather, it would seem prudent politics for the Liberals to try and put a bit of distance between their new leader and the rather tainted offerings of the previous one.
With the defeat of the HST, it makes more sense to allow for a bit of time to pass before facing an angry ole electorate, instead, Clark and the Liberals will be able to offer up their own take on where the province should go, then let the voting public (those that bother anymore) to decide.
So I don’t think there’s a lot of fear over in the Liberal corner. Despite what the NDP side seem to want to tell themselves.[/quote]
You no doubt may be correct. But we have been talking about a woman who was voicing early election talk for the first six months of her premiership. And now she has backed off. And that’s OK. I have no problem with that. My point has always been that if she needed a mandate which is what she claims she wanted, a mandate is required after the defeat of the HST (where do we go now?) rather than after an HST victory.
I realize that politically that doesn’t make sense. For the Liberals now is not the time to go to the polls. But if the HST had been victorious, I bet we would be going to the polls when it would have been unnecessary and a clear violation of the spirit of the fixed election date.
And I expect the NDP to come up with something although I am not sure what the Liberals had to offer besides NOT selling BCRail and NOT ripping up contracts in 2001. The Liberals got in because the public was fed up with the NDP. The same angry electorate could have no other reason than being fed up with the Liberals in 2013.
In an online discussion with Gary Mason on the Globe and Mail, Doug MacArthur a public policy professor at SFU said this in response to a question.
“My understanding is that if the government had taken the HST to the Legislature instead of a referendum, which they could have done under the Act., enough Liberals would have voted against the tax to defeat the government.”
Now I am not sure how accurate he might be with that statement, but if true, then the government would have been defeated on a confidence issue and been forced to resign. That is probably why it went to referendum.
In an online discussion with Gary Mason on the Globe and Mail, Doug MacArthur a public policy professor at SFU said this in response to a question.
“My understanding is that if the government had taken the HST to the Legislature instead of a referendum, which they could have done under the Act., enough Liberals would have voted against the tax to defeat the government.”
Now I am not sure how accurate he might be with that statement, but if true, then the government would have been defeated on a confidence issue and been forced to resign. That is probably why it went to referendum.[/quote]
Since we’re all swapping links today, here’s Michael Smyth’s take on the election/non election, non story
Doug MacArthur was an NDP cabinet minister in Saskatchewan in the 80s and was subsequently appointed to senior positions in NDP governments in BC, Sask and the Yukon. In view of limited job appointments working for NDP governments, in between times he works as an academic. He is not exactly a neutral source or the sort of person that the Liberal caucus in Victoria or individual Liberal MLAs are likely to share their innermost thoughts with.
That’s a false dichotomy. The referendum was not the least worst option compared to losing a confidence vote in the legislature. HST was passed into law and they did not need to take it to the legislature for a confidence vote. They choose to take it to a referendum.
There is no spirit of the fixed election date other than that a government will not cling to power into a fifth year like the NDP did in 2001. Nothing would have been violated if an election was held. A legislature can be dissolved at any time to hold an election within the four years. Again …
[quote]23 (1) The Lieutenant Governor may, by proclamation in Her Majesty’s name, prorogue or dissolve the Legislative Assembly when the Lieutenant Governor sees fit.
(2) Subject to subsection (1), a general voting day must occur on May 17, 2005 and thereafter on the second Tuesday in May in the fourth calendar year following the general voting day for the most recently held general election.
[/quote]
That’s a false dichotomy. The referendum was not the least worst option compared to losing a confidence vote in the legislature. HST was passed into law and they did not need to take it to the legislature for a confidence vote. They choose to take it to a referendum.[/quote]
Of course we will never know what might have happened. What we do know is that at least one member of caucus quit over the HST. It is highly likely that Lekstrom was not alone. If it had gone to the legislature to be debated, my guess is that there were enough Liberals who, if honest to their own conscience or the will of their constituents would have voted to defeat the HST. The defeat of a money bill is a vote of non-confidence.
And as I have tried to point out, this referendum is unique. Other referendums asked the voters what they would like the government to do. Sometimes they indicated a preference (the Charlottetown Accord, sovereignty-association) and sometimes they were neutral (electoral reform). This was different because the government was forced into a referendum on something they had already done. That is why I and others see it as similar - not exactly but similar - to a confidence vote.
But all that is hypothetical and probably not worth any more time.
I disagree completely. From a Vaughn Palmer article.
The fixed election was not brought in just to stop governments from stretching their term to five years. If I am reading Geoff Plant correctly, the certainty and predictability would prevent governments of any party from calling an early election only because they think they can win. Clark was mulling that. Now she has backed away. That’s what I meant by the spirit of the legislation. She was doing exactly what Geoff Plant and the government she belonged to in 2001 was trying to get rid of.
If I am reading Geoff Plant correctly, the certainty and predictability would prevent governments of any party from calling an early election only because they think they can win. Clark was mulling that. Now she has backed away. That’s what I meant by the spirit of the legislation. She was doing exactly what Geoff Plant and the government she belonged to in 2001 was trying to get rid of.[/quote]
Okay, let’s assume that you have interpreted Plant correctly - the fixed date election prevents the government from calling an early election only because they think that they can win (in fact, it can call an election anytime), or at least would not be in the spirit of the legislation.
What this really comes down to is that if Clark sees an opportunity to win an early election the NDP thinks that she shouldn’t call it - that would be contrary to the fixed date election a liberal government brought in. But if the NDP sees an opportunity to win an early election she should call one - the fixed date argument no longer suits the NDP’s purposes, so it is conveniently forgotten.
[quote=“BTravenn”]
Okay, let’s assume that you have interpreted Plant correctly - the fixed date election prevents the government from calling an early election only because they think that they can win (in fact, it can call an election anytime), or at least would not be in the spirit of the legislation.
What this really comes down to is that if Clark sees an opportunity to win an early election the NDP thinks that she shouldn’t call it - that would be contrary to the fixed date election a liberal government brought in. But if the NDP sees an opportunity to win an early election she should call one - the fixed date argument no longer suits the NDP’s purposes, so it is conveniently forgotten.[/quote]
“Let’s ASSUME that I have interpreted Plant correctly.” ASSUME! OK I assume that that is as close as you will come to saying that I am correct so I thank you.
I also assume that the rest of your post is trying to point to a double standard by the NDP. But the NDP is not demanding an early election. All they have said is bring it on or we are disappointed etc. And all of that may be posturing. Who knows. But they aren’t demanding and in fact can’t demand an early election. Only the government can do that.
So one last time here is my take.
I believe that the fixed election date legislation is a good idea. I think it does prevent the electorate from being “held hostage” to the whims of the ruling party.
I am also not necessarily opposed to early elections but they should be under exceptional circumstances. I believe Harper called the 2008 election claiming that parliament was paralyzed. Of course that was a minority government and minority governments can be defeated at any time. What Harper did went against his own legislation but many others saw it as an extraordinary situation.
Christy Clark insisted during the leadership run and after her bi-election victory that she wanted to call an early election. She said she needed a mandate. Personally I didn’t think it was necessary. Constitutionally the premier does not get the mandate. We don’t vote for the premier. The party with the most seats receives the mandate and the leader of that party becomes premier. I can’t find the link but I recall reading that someone was premier for 33 months before calling an election. Christy Clark would not have beaten that record.
However, if she had called the election claiming that she wanted that mandate I am sure most people would have accepted the fact that extraordinary circumstances dictated her decision.
My problem with her flip flop is that she is acting like the hostage taker that Plant was worried about. She is not allowing for the certainty and predictability of elections that Plant and Campbell and Clark all voted for in 2001.
My point again: If there was a ever a time to get a mandate from the people of this province, the mandate that she claims she wanted and needed, then now, after the defeat of the HST, is the time to ask for it. She isn’t. As far as wanting and needing a mandate, nothing has changed.
And that is why I believe she was acting contrary to the spirit of the fixed date legislation.
(And again to ensure that you understand, I don’t care one way or another about her calling an election. I didn’t think she needed to call one and she would have been better off if she had never mentioned one. I am just questioning her sincerity amd her overall effectiveness at this time. Now you can go ahead and criticize Dix but that would probably be more appropriate in another thread.
Yes, “double standard” sums it up nicely. If Clark were to call an election because she thought the Liberals could win she would be acting contrary to the fixed election law (or maybe just its spirit, since the law permits early elections any time for any reason). However, since the NDP perceives that they would win an early election they would like her to “bring it on” (or maybe they are just “disappointed etc” that she changed her mind). But to make sure that the NDP does not come across as having double standards, we should note that they are not “demanding” an election. Okay, got it now.
[quote=“DWhite”]
Now you can go ahead and criticize Dix but that would probably be more appropriate in another thread.[/quote]
Criticize Dix? I have trouble enough remembering his name let alone what he said.
I now longer know if you are criticizing my logic, criticizing the NDP or defending Clark. Lately you have resorted to sarcasm. You remain fixated on your literal interpretation of the election legislation (which I understand) but you refuse to allow for my interpretation which is based on the comments of the guy who introduced it. You would rather comment on the NDP who have actually nothing to do with the calling of a fall election while ignoring Christy Clark who does. I have tried to explain my point of view. Clearly you don’t accept it. Discussion ends.[/quote]
I now longer know if you are criticizing my logic, criticizing the NDP or defending Clark. Lately you have resorted to sarcasm. You remain fixated on your literal interpretation of the election legislation (which I understand) but you refuse to allow for my interpretation which is based on the comments of the guy who introduced it. You would rather comment on the NDP who have actually nothing to do with the calling of a fall election while ignoring Christy Clark who does. [/quote]
There is no doubt that the fixed election law allows a government to call an early election any time. My read of Plant’s speech years ago is that a premier would henceforth need a good reason for calling an early election. It cannot be just because they think they can win. That’s not particularly profound or relevant. Premiers (and Prime Ministers) always state a reason that is something other than the obvious, which is that they believe that the polls or ‘momentum’ are in their favour.
Clark was being coy when she floated the idea of an election because she felt that she needed a personal mandate, which as you rightly point out she doesn’t. She thought that she might turn things around enough that she could win an early election and put some bad history behind her. She was motivated by politics, not principle. I agree with you on that.
The ‘spirit’ of the fixed election law is held out in this discussion (and in Palmer’s article) as a reason why it would be wrong for her to call an election that she thinks she can win.
Your have argued that a referendum is similar to a non-confidence vote and should result in an election. Here’s what you said a while back:
That is a principled reason for an election that I don’t think is very convincing. There is no law or constitutional convention that links the outcome of a referendum to the calling of an election.
The NDP are also being coy. I vaguely recall Dix saying “bring it on” and being “disappointed” when Clark backed away from an early election. They want an election because they think they can win. Any suggestion to the contrary or that they are really indifferent isn’t credible.
When talking about an early election that the NDP would probably win, objections about the letter or ‘spirit’ of the fixed election law disappear, exit stage left. Plant’s high minded pronouncement of years ago, which should be of little more than historical interest, is introduced and disappears to suit the side that is making the argument.
Lost in all this, on both sides, is the bigger question of whether an election would be good for the rest of us. Hardcore supporters of both sides of course think that a victory for their party would be good for the province, no doubt about it. That is taken on faith.
From the perspective of the uncommitted centre, though, rhetoric from the Liberals about jobs, the low income, seniors, and families is no more convincing than rhetoric from the NDP about jobs, the poor, seniors, and families.
Perusing the NDP’s recent media releases, by the way, the only concrete proposal that caught my eye is that they would ban log exports, which would put a few hundred people in the Northwest out of work, including quite a few longshoremen in Prince Rupert. Neither side offers a convincing and positive program. I’m not sure that I would vote for either of them.
Rather than Clark pondering an early election and the NDP raising the battle cry of ‘bring it on’, both sides really should get on with developing some political offerings that appeal not just to their hard core supporters, but to the moderate centre whose votes are up for grabs and may well determine who wins and who loses the next election.
[quote=“DWhite”]
I have tried to explain my point of view. Clearly you don’t accept it. Discussion ends.[/quote]
I thought this was a good discussion. HTMF has been a bit slow lately. There seems to be a lot of buy and sell ads, perhaps reflecting that some are voting with their feet and heading down the highway.
I agree that the discussion was a good one. With your last few posts I just felt that you were looking to poke holes in whatever I happened to be saying rather than hearing what I was trying to say.
I thank you for clarifying your side of the argument. And it is pretty obvious that we actually agree more than we disagree.
And even where you think we disagree I believe you are still misinterpreting what I say. (And I will take some responsibility for not being absolutely clear. If we were in oral conversation we could ask for clarity immediately.
My point on the referendum loss and its similarity to an confidence vote was not a demand for an election. I was merely pointing out that if Clark were honest about seeking a mandate, then the loss of the referendum and the resulting complications were a good time to ask for one. As I have said and where we agree she had no constitutional reason to ask for one. I would have preferred that she didn’t call one (I support the “spirit” of the fixed election) but had she called one I wouldn’t have complained because her arrival from outside the legislature would be something that I would accept as out of the ordinary. I don’t think Falcon or Abbot or DeJong could have made the same claim because they were already part of a team that had received a mandate.
My complaint is about what you call her coyness. The spirit of the legislation (and I disagree that Plant’s comments are only of historical interest) was to get away with the coyness - the uncertainty of an election call. If she said she was going to call an election and did, no problem. If she said was wasn’t going to call an election, fine. It’s the flip flopping that bothers me. The coyness bothers me. That is the only reason I say she is breaking the spirit of the legislation.
One last question on that. She has said that she will now wait for May 2013. Do you think she will breaking the “spirit” of the legislation if she decides in the spring that the time is now right to seek that mandate?
One last question on that. She has said that she will now wait for May 2013. Do you think she will breaking the “spirit” of the legislation if she decides in the spring that the time is now right to seek that mandate?[/quote]
I don’t put much on the ‘spirit’ of the fixed term law. What Plant said was an aspiration from a moderate, reform-minded Attorney-General. Political reality is something else. The law permits early elections and politicans will come up with reasons for having them if doing so suits their purposes.
Sometimes there are good, even unavoidable reasons for having an early election, such as a minority government losing a confidence vote.
If a new leader was brought in from outside because of serious infighting within the governing party - not unknown in BC politics - I don’t think that there would be strong objections if, for instance, Premier Gregor Robertson cleared the air by calling an early election. During the NDP’s almost 10 years in power one or two quick elections would have been helpful for that purpose (but instead they clung to power as long as possible).
Clark talking about an election because she wasn’t the leader during the last election struck me as flimsy. She wasn’t in government when the HST was brought in, but it is not like she is new to government. That being said, I don’t recall strenuous objections based on the ‘spirit’ of the fixed term law. The greater objection, I think, is that a lot of us would like the government (and the opposition) to get on with governing.
In the end, the law allows the government to ask the Lieutenant-Governor to dissolve the legislature at any time for any reason, and an election will be held regardless of demurs about the ‘spirit’ of the fixed term. The opposing party may raise that objection if they are afraid of an election, or they will skirt the topic if they are confident they can win. I don’t recall Dix raising a ‘spirit’ of the law argument, or if he did he was not very vocal about it.
So on balance I see the ‘spirit’ of the law as being at best an aspiration - that’s how I think Plant approached it - but more realistically it’s simply a rhetorical argument that may or may not be employed for reasons that are largely tactical and have little or nothing to do with deeply held principles. Put another way, I don’t think that there is much for Clark to break if she calls an early election that by law she can call at any time.
[quote=“BTravenn”]
So on balance I see the ‘spirit’ of the law as being at best an aspiration - that’s how I think Plant approached it - but more realistically it’s simply a rhetorical argument that may or may not be employed for reasons that are largely tactical and have little or nothing to do with deeply held principles. Put another way, I don’t think that there is much for Clark to break if she calls an early election that by law she can call at any time.[/quote]
Fixed date elections is not an issue I lose any sleep over. I am just annoyed at politicians of all parties who play games with the electorate. Clark either needs a mandate or she doesn’t. Saying there might be an election and then saying there won’t and then maybe changing her mind again is part of the reason that Plant and the Liberals including Clark brought in the legislation. Doubtless if she calls an election before the term is up there will be some people who will point out that she is breaking the spirit of the legislation but I am sure the vast majority of BCers won’t care.
However, if a government can call an election at any time and for any reason, then the FIXED date legislation is a joke. If all they wanted was to ensure that governments like Glen Clark’s or Bill Vander Zalm’s didn’t hang around for five years, then just make a law that says it has to be called within four. Don’t put a second Tuesday in May etc etc in the legislation.
What is good about the second Tuesday in May, though, is that it is counted in four year increments from 2009, so that if Clark calls an election in 2012 she will still have to face an election in May 2013. The clock does not start from zero again.
In practical terms this summer was her one and only chance to call an early election. If she raises the possibility again next year she would risk a backlash in that a new mandate would expire in 2013 anyway. In that respect Plant’s election reforms have been more effective than they may at first appear. Partisan politics aside, Plant had some good ideas.
Yes, we should not forget that Zalm also overstayed his welcome by governing into a fifth year. Back then we were quite sick of him and his government became a bad joke. It is quite amazing that he has managed to resurrect himself, his ultimate goal I suspect being to revive the provincial conservatives as a viable alternative to the liberals and the NDP.
What is good about the second Tuesday in May, though, is that it is counted in four year increments from 2009, so that if Clark calls an election in 2012 she will still have to face an election in May 2013. The clock does not start from zero again.
In practical terms this summer was her one and only chance to call an early election. If she raises the possibility again next year she would risk a backlash in that a new mandate would expire in 2013 anyway. In that respect Plant’s election reforms have been more effective than they may at first appear. Partisan politics aside, Plant had some good ideas.
Yes, we should not forget that Zalm also overstayed his welcome by governing into a fifth year. Back then we were quite sick of him and his government became a bad joke. It is quite amazing that he has managed to resurrect himself, his ultimate goal I suspect being to revive the provincial conservatives as a viable alternative to the liberals and the NDP.[/quote]
I think you are mistaken about when elections take place.
Doesn’t this mean that if she called an election anytime in 2011 an election would take place in May of 2015. In she waits until 2012, the next election would occur in May of 2016.
However you are right about the revival of the Conservative Party. There are a lot of disenchanted Liberals who want to put their vote somewhere else besides the NDP. I can see the NDP winning in 2013 maybe even a minority and then we can watch as the “liberals” flock to the Conservatives similar to the NDP winning in 1991 because of the revived Liberal Party and the Socreds then jumping ship and taking over the Liberals.
Given BC’s political history, far stranger things are possible.
And totally off topic and in reference to minority governments. Global is rehashing news stories as they celebrate 10 years of Global National. One of the top stories was the fact that we spent most of this past decade with minority governments in Ottawa. They referred to it as a government always in crisis. I am not necessarily disputing that, but given how Canada does seem to be doing fairly well compared to other western nations I am not so sure that a minority government is all that bad.
Well on reading through it again I think that you are right. Sonuvagun. An early election does start the 4 year clock running again. No wonder Clark was pondering and Dix didn’t call her on it. Politicians, they just constantly conspire to cling onto power for as long as possible. It would be better if the Constitution Act was changed so that early elections are not rewarded by a new four year term, only what’s left of the previous four year term.
The only good guy in this story is Geoff Plant, who made a good attempt to bring about some electoral reform.
Zalm isn’t a good guy, though. HST simply provided an opportunity for him to exploit a major blunder by Campbell, the long term goal being to revive Social Credit under the Conservative banner and relegate the Liberal party to the margins where it lingered for decades, a centrist party of fairly nice guys who could elect some members but never enough to form a truly middle of the road government. Hopefully we’re not heading back to the highly polarized politics of the Socred-NDP era, with the Liberals on the sidelines.
Zalm isn’t a good guy, though. HST simply provided an opportunity for him to exploit a major blunder by Campbell, the long term goal being to revive Social Credit under the Conservative banner and relegate the Liberal party to the margins where it lingered for decades, a centrist party of fairly nice guys who could elect some members but never enough to form a truly middle of the road government. Hopefully we’re not heading back to the highly polarized politics of the Socred-NDP era, with the Liberals on the sidelines.[/quote]
Agreed. WillyZalm did not fight the HST for altruistic reasons (although I do agree with his point of view on the HST). Your observation about his attempt to revive the right-wing coalition (SOCRED) under the Conservative banner is a good one. However, his time in the spotlight is long gone in my opinion (for public office).