He should drop the writ now, the situation is not going to go away and he may as well take his case to the people.
He can’t do that with fixed election dates.
Ah, I thought he had to call an election by X, but could call earlier if he wanted.
I believe the only way an election can come earlier is if the sitting government loses a confidence vote.
That must be why “the best Prime Minister in [your] lifetime” lost the 2015 election in a landslide, had no choice but to step down as party leader, and later ignominiously slunk out of politics altogether.
As for his current successor, I note that Andrew Scheer recently demanded that Trudeau resign over the SNC Lavalin affair. I cite this as further evidence of my earlier statement that Scheer is a dumbass. This demand is not just absurd and nonsensical, it’s the worst kind of political grandstanding, the kind that prompts laughter rather than being taken seriously. It’s also politically very stupid. If this controversy continues to grow and more serious evidence emerges against Trudeau, what’s Scheer going to say then? From a purely strategic perspective, he’s already irresponsibly invoked the nuclear option, made himself look like an ass, and left himself no room for escalation.
I’m sorry. None of this makes any sense to me. Scheer is political grandstanding because Trudeau interfered in judicial matters? No conservatives are laughing, sorry. And your continued name-calling is frankly immature and uncalled for.
What makes no sense? Describing Harper’s ignominious exit from politics, or Scheer’s ill-advised nonsensical demands? Notice that at the same time that Scheer was comically demanding Trudeau’s resignation, NDP Leader Jagmeet Singh stated that (quote from CITY TV) “Wilson-Raybould’s testimony underscored his party’s calls for an independent inquiry to find out the truth of what happened between the former attorney general and members of Trudeau’s inner circle.” See the difference? “Trudeau must resign” versus “we need a judicial inquiry to find out what happened”. Two opposition leaders of vastly different intellectual calibre.
The difference is that Scheer can win this election; Singh cannot. Of course Scheer is going to say things to help further his cause, but it’s certainly not political grandstanding.
Sure he can. Just like Harper did in 2008 without having lost a confidence vote.
2008 Canadian federal election - Wikipedia : see the section on “Background”
Whether that would be politically wise is another question, but he can do it.
Sure he can. Just like Harper did in 2008 without having lost a confidence vote.
2008 Canadian federal election - Wikipedia : see the section on “Background”
Whether that would be politically wise is another question, but he can do it.
News to me. So what’s the point in having fixed election dates then?
Sure he can. Just like Harper did in 2008 without having lost a confidence vote.
2008 Canadian federal election - Wikipedia : see the section on “Background”
Whether that would be politically wise is another question, but he can do it.
Sorry for the triple post.
Boards is wonky tonight.
Double post also due to wonky board.
Charitably, it’s to increase the political cost of calling an early election so that governing parties are less likely to game the system in that respect.
Less charitably, it’s sour grapes from the Conservatives after having been torched a couple times by Chretien using an early election call to the Conservative/Alliance’s disadvantage.
Whether Harper’s use of the very same strategy at his first opportunity makes one or the other interpretation more likely is left as an exercise to the reader.
What does that have to do with the discussion we were having? The discussion was about the stark contrast in how constructive and realistic the two leaders’ comments were.
The NDP is not likely to win the election because the NDP has never won a plurality in a federal election. The closest they came was under Jack Layton, and frankly Singh is no Jack Layton. But he’s still miles above Scheer intellectually.
Of course any politician is going to say things to further their cause. The standard of judgment here is whether what they say is laughably stupid. Do you believe Trudeau will resign within the next month or two or six? No? Neither does anybody else.
Your Facebook feed is clearly different from mine. I see plenty of schadenfreude.
It was a political stunt. Everyone knew that the law would have no actual power. It was just piece in their “rein in the government” shtick.
It is literally unconstitutional to make fixed election dates an absolutely required thing. It is simply not something you can do the way Canada is constitutionally set up to be governed. The “law” is, at best, a guideline.
Next up: Gerald Butts testifies tomorrow morning.
He is Trudeau’s close friend from university and was his principal secretary.
Resigned a week or two ago, although asserting he’d done nothing wrong, which raised some eyebrows.
Will likely be asked about the comment he is alleged to have made: “Anything we do on this file is going to involve interference,” which some media commentators have suggested could be the basis for an obstruction charge.
The media has been general respectfully of his last name, except for one headline I saw: “Butts’s departure from PMO leaves hole.”
At heart, headliner writers all have the souls of ten year old boys.