Harper called the election in a sort of "You can't fire me because I quit!" He didn't want to deal with the crap and wibbling of the Liberal Abstinence party and the threat of every policy proposition getting debated and threatening the government. You can argue that he went against the SPIRIT of his law, but he didn't go against the LETTER of his law.
Besides, the government was going to fall anyways. The biggest problem I see is that all the parties are saying: "They won't compromise and do it my way." They ALL want their way. NONE of them are willing to work with the others. So, crash boom burn splat.
Fixed election dates are FINE in the case of a majority government. They don't work in minorities; the only way they WOULD work is if the concept of non-confidence was disposed of, and if each vote in the house was what decided wether a policy gets adopted, not wether the party that proposed it is fit to govern.
That said, Harper would actually stand to WIN by letting May debate. Aside from his reaction to her supporting the Liberals (and thus, in his words, have two Liberal party speakers at the debate), I don't understand why he won't debate her publicly. I doubt it's chickenshitedness. I think it's more a question that he doesn't take her, or her party, seriously. Perhaps he feels that the 1 MP they have was weaseled in just to get into the debates...
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-09-09 03:59 pm (UTC)Besides, the government was going to fall anyways. The biggest problem I see is that all the parties are saying: "They won't compromise and do it my way." They ALL want their way. NONE of them are willing to work with the others. So, crash boom burn splat.
Fixed election dates are FINE in the case of a majority government. They don't work in minorities; the only way they WOULD work is if the concept of non-confidence was disposed of, and if each vote in the house was what decided wether a policy gets adopted, not wether the party that proposed it is fit to govern.
That said, Harper would actually stand to WIN by letting May debate. Aside from his reaction to her supporting the Liberals (and thus, in his words, have two Liberal party speakers at the debate), I don't understand why he won't debate her publicly. I doubt it's chickenshitedness. I think it's more a question that he doesn't take her, or her party, seriously. Perhaps he feels that the 1 MP they have was weaseled in just to get into the debates...