I have a standing bet with David Estok, The Spec's editor-in-chief.

He's betting Prime Minister Stephen Harper will call a fall election; I'm wagering he won't.

For us, the only thing at stake is a solitary beer.

The risks are much higher for Harper.

If he forces the issue and unnecessarily frogmarches the country to the polls, he'll go into the campaign with a broken promise and a well-earned stigma of hypocrisy hanging over his head.

And he'll have nobody to blame for it but himself.

Two years ago, Harper's minority government established Oct. 19, 2009, as the set date for the next federal election.

Prior to forming the government, the Conservatives routinely criticized the former Liberal governments of Paul Martin and Jean Chretien for calling snap elections if they sniffed a chance at snatching a victory.

Harper not only campaigned on predetermined election dates as a way of stopping that kind of political manipulation, it was also part of his commitment to democratic reform.

If Harper now decides to pull the pin on Parliament, clearly he'll be guilty of the same kind of cynical game-playing he accused his predecessors of indulging in, not to mention engaging in double-talk and double-dealing.

There may be all sorts of tantalizing strategic reasons for Harper to force an election right now -- getting ahead of a wobbly economy, putting the screws to Liberal Leader Stephane Dion's wonky Green Shift plan, stealing a march on the quickening war in Afghanistan.

Harper may even be tempted to simply roll the dice, figuring there's a good chance that the rickety Dion will fall apart on the campaign trail, presenting the enticing possibility of securing an elusive majority despite what the polls say.

But weren't fixed election dates supposed to put an end to this kind of short-term jockeying for advantages?

If that was true two years ago when he was campaigning to be prime minister, why is not true now when he's in office?

It's not good enough for Harper to say the law doesn't apply to minority governments. Funny that he failed to note that specious little asterisk two years ago.

Nor is it good enough for Harper to say Parliament is becoming dysfunctional.

That's an excuse for an election, not a reason.

The Conservatives are the party in power. Let them act like it. If that leads to a lost confidence vote, so be it, but at least their pledge not to sneeringly cash in on passing opportunities will be intact.

If that sounds too much like the boy scout motto, let's not forget it was Harper who held out the promise of a higher standard.

If he's now ready to abandon that high plateau for spongy political convenience, what does that say about his principles?

It's true, the fixed election date is not legally binding in the sense it was not locked in through a constitutional amendment.

But there's no mistaking what Harper intended by it.

"Fixed election dates stop leaders from trying to manipulate the calendar," he said in 2006. "They level the playing field for all parties."

It was well over a week ago that I first bet the boss that Harper wouldn't go back on that commitment.

Back then, I suspected he was just needling Dion and teasing the antsy-pantsy Ottawa press corps.

But since then, each passing day has brought a new and stronger hint from Harper or Conservative sources that we actually are on the brink of an October election.

If Harper takes the plunge, it'll cost me a beer.

What price Harper pays will be up to the voters.

But at the very least he'll attest to the truth of that old adage, the one that says we often turn into the things we hate most.

Andrew Dreschel's commentary appears Monday, Wednesday and Friday.

adreschel@thespec.com

905-526-3495