Monday, January 10, 2011

Federal election in the spring?

I have a column in today's National Post in which I make the case as to why the federal Conservatives will try and engineer an election this spring.

Now that's not to say an election will happen, but just that all things being equal, Prime Minister Stephen  Harper would probably prefer to go sooner rather than later.

12 comments:

Anonymous said...

What about all those Senate seats up for grabs. The Liberals can't afford to wait til the fall for fear of losing those plum posts, not to mention long-term control of the senate.

Alberta Girl said...

Sheesh Gerry...it's bad enough that the left wing media speculate on something the PM has EMPHATICALLY stated HE WILL NOT DO; but when you jump on that bandwagon, it just makes me shake my head.

And you guys wonder why he avoids the press....maybe if you actually reported on what he says instead of making up stuff to grab headlines.

Of course, you know that the left wing media will grab your column as "proof positive" that the PM is planning to call an election - calling you a "close confidant" or a "reliable source from the PMO".

But then, you seem to like that!

Gerry Nicholls said...

Alberta Girl, I like having an independent thought process, ie I don't always take what politicians say at face value.

Anonymous said...

The only thing really wrong with your article Gerry is the assumption that the economy will improve (doubt it) and that the CPC will win a majority. Harper will NEVER win a majority. He is a political incompetent. I would expect you of all people to see past the 'master tactician' facade.

Joanne (BLY) said...

Interesting column Gerry, but I think PM Harper has nothing to lose by waiting it out.

The Liberal party continues to self-destruct. What's not to like?

Anonymous said...

Hi Gary,

No offense, but you seem to almost always be wrong about almost everything. There will be no spring election.

Edmund Onward James said...

That would be an interesting strategy for Prime Minister Harper, to also time it with the Provincial election, or shortly after.

People who are concerned and vote are not tired of politics and well-timed elections that benefit the country.

We need a majority government for two terms to stabilize Canada, and perhaps revert the Liberal/Socialist changes, especially the Charter and "Notwithstanding Clause", which I think has not been utilized by our PM or Mulroney's administration. I am not happy that judges make parliamentary laws or change them.

Edmund Onward James said...

I correct myself. A Spring Election, if forced, such as the issue of funds for the parties. Or the BLOC has to run in every riding. It will cost them, and perhaps even humiliate them, at their own costs through donations.

Regardless, I will be ready to do what I can for my MP and the Conservative party to win a majority.

Anonymous said...

"I am not happy that judges make parliamentary laws or change them."

When has a judge ever made a law in Canada? And why are you unhappy that the judiciary is doing it's job when it tosses unconstitutional law?

Anonymous said...

I had quiet a laugh when I read the claim that judges do not legislate in Canada, since it indicates that the writer is wilfully ignorant. Just one blatant example was our judicial activists writing into the Charter sexual orientation, when it has been purposely excluded by the writers of the Charter.

As for an election the CPC would be wise to start acting like conservatives and leaders instead of "house-sitting" for the Liberals. They have increased both the size of government and spending.

Anonymous said...

Did the judges actually write up the Charter or just interpret it in a way you disapprove of.

Alain said...

There is thick and there is thick. I assume you are being wilfully thick concerning the well documented record of judicial activist judges reading sexual orientation into the Charter. Do the research instead of basing it on your personal opinion. The writers of the Charter are on record stating that they purposely did not include sexual orientation, so the addition of it by judges is not about interpretation. There are many more examples of judges legislating instead of Parliament that you can look up unless as I suspect you are simply agenda driven.