You have to hand it to the British. Two months after electing their first "hung" Parliament in living memory, they have found a way and, more importantly, the political will to fix the date of the next general election.

To ensure there will be no monkey business, no unnecessary brinksmanship, they have also created a system that should virtually guarantee the date when the next vote will be held.

Here in Canada, with our third minority parliament in a row, we have been unable to accomplish the same thing, even though we have a law on the book fixing the next federal election date. (And even though all the polls and the politicians themselves say nobody wants an early election.)

G8-ers Barack Obama, David Cameron and Stephen Harper at the Deerhurst Resort in Huntsville in June 2010. All three now have fixed election dates, but Canada's Harper seems to have the most wiggle room, as he showed in 2008. (Chris Wattie/Reuters)

Last year, I wrote an article here proposing new rules to deal with fixed-date elections and minority governments.

Since then, I have been speaking about my ideas wherever I can, to try to bring some stability to Parliament in what seems to be a long era of minority governments.

I have found that wherever I have tried out my suggestions, they have been well received by everyone, except one group.

Sadly, that's the group that would be most affected: cabinet ministers, members of Parliament, and the political staff that serve them.

To recap

Ironically, one of the arguments against the plan has been that it doesn't fit with the parliamentary traditions that flow from Britain's Westminster.

That is ironic because, lo and behold, a proposal very much like the one I have been promoting has since gone into effect. Where? Oh at Westminster, in the British House of Commons.

To recap, here's my idea.

It is based on the premise that a fixed-date election law should mean something. And that, if such a law is enacted, it should be the responsibility of the Governor General to ensure that there is a government in place between the fixed dates.

To do this in a minority parliament, I proposed that any government that was defeated on a confidence vote, which would ordinarily trigger an election, should have the opportunity to face the House again on a straight vote of confidence, 36 hours after its initial defeat.

That would allow a prime minister the opportunity to look around for an arrangement with one of the opposition parties, as Joe Clark might have done in 1979 when he was defeated by a handful of Créditistes.

True, it could mean wheeling and dealing and trade-offs, but that is what a minority parliament is meant to be about.

If the sitting government doesn't win that second confidence vote (and to ensure it tries), the Governor General would be obliged to ask another party leader to try to form a government.

Again, more wheeling and dealing, but again that is what minority parliaments are supposed to do.

If this new attempt by a different party or coalition cannot win a confidence vote, only then would the GG order an election, to be held in the briefest period allowed by law.

The new Westminster

The effect of this proposal is that a party forming the government after an election would go out of its way to make sure it didn't lose a confidence vote, and certainly that it didn't lose two in a row.

But if somehow it did, then an alternative government would be possible until the next official election date.

Not in keeping with the traditions of Westminster? Well, look what is happening in Britain.

There the Conservative-Liberal Democrat coalition headed by David Cameron is introducing legislation that will fix the date of the next British election in May of 2015, five years after the election this year that created the current minority situation.

A key element is that the legislation will require a two-week cooling-off period should the government be defeated in a confidence vote in the Commons, before a general election can be called.

The reason for the cooling-off period is to allow for a new governing arrangement to be formed, which would prevent the necessity of an election. The new government could have many or at least some of the participants from the group that was just defeated.

If, after two weeks, no new government had been formed, then off to the polls the British would go.

Get MPs working

Yes, I realize the idea isn't exactly the same as the one I am proposing. But it is close enough for favourable comparison and is meant to have the same effect: To keep parliamentarians on the job working co-operatively wherever possible on the country's problems.

I would argue that is what we need here as well, instead of all the constant manoeuvring that goes on by all the parties in the House of Commons as they try to find the best time to trigger an election that could be to their particular advantage.

That has been a rather pathetic sight in Ottawa these last years.

It has also contributed to the lessening of Parliament and politics in public esteem, and it has prevented debate on many important subjects, like the future of health care or international competitiveness.

Canada's fixed-date election law was passed in the spring of 2006, one of the Stephen Harper government's first priorities.

It was meant to deprive a prime minister of the ability to call an election whenever it might be politically advantageous.

It was also meant to force an election every four years, instead of allowing an unpopular government to run out the full five-year term that the Constitution allows.

But the law makes exceptions for an election between fixed dates at the discretion of the Governor General, which really means if the prime minister asks for one.

We ought to have the courage in this country, with our third minority government in a row, to do what the British did in their first minority parliament in ages: Get a system in place that keeps MPs on the job. And follows the law.