Time for another election
I'm really not crazy about Harper putting the locks on Parliament but the other choice looked even worse.
I tend to agree that Harper doesn't have a majority and shouldn't govern like he does (although the Liberals essentially let him do that prior to this past election). However neither do the Liberals/NDP have a mandate to govern either. Clearly they were at the very least comtemplating this scenario if not conspiring together prior to if not immediately after the last election.
If they think a coalition is the answer then that's fine but be honest about it and let the voters decide.
What they should be doing is working with the Conservatives (the reverse is true as well) and negotiating. Don't like the economic update? Then suggest changes you can live with. It's give and take all around. However saying almost immediately after the update that it's time to overthrow the government weeks after the election?
If they're so confident that voters want a coalition government then be honest about it and take it to the voters. Let us decide, not an "on his way out" leader of a party that even they don't want anymore.
Comments (15)
All comments are subject to the site Terms of Use. For a full commenting tutorial click here.
Our editorial team relies on filtering technology and our visitor community to identify inappropriate comments. In the event that a site user has submitted offensive content that has evaded our filter, please select the option to Flag As Inappropriate presented within the comment. Thank you for helping to keep this site clean.
Regardless of who is involved, just look at it from a democratic standpoint. If it was democratic when Harper proposed it in 2004 (cont'd)
A coalition is legal and it is democratic. Canada has had a coalition government before. What has never happened in the history of our country is that the GG has allowed the PM to side-step a confidence motion from the majority of MPs for the sole purpose of saving his skin.
People once felt that racism was okay. They also felt that it was okay to drink and drive, smoke in bars, and beat their children. Just because people believe it to be so, doesn't make it right.
Look at it objectively and disregard the people involved. The minority party in charge tried to suspend a woman's right to sue for pay equality and the right to strike for federal employees. They then tried to bankrupt their opposition by taking away their funding. When a vote was called, they suspended parliament to avoid that vote by the (cont'd)
Tell me now, when you disregard the parties and the people and focus solely on the actions, which one seems more undemocratic to you; the one which has justification in our Constitution and our history, or the one that is based on deceit and the denial of a free vote by elected MPs?
As mentioned, frankly I think no one has the moral high ground on this one They've all flubbed it miserably. No wonder the voters are jaded.
The bottom line is that the blatant lies and misrepresentation to the voters has got to stop. As well, it's one thing to make a promise and then have to backtrack on it due to political or economic reasons, but to make a promise or sign an agreement that you have absolutely no intention on following through on or have already made plans to do the opposite can no longer be tolerated.
One last point, playing the unity card in Canada is much like playing the race card in the United States. Nobody wins but everybody loses.
Our politicians and especially our leaders need to be held to higher standards. This fiasco will go down in political history much like the King-Byng affair, the War Measures Act invoked by Trudeau, and Clark's 18 cent election loss. Only time will tell how history will judge Harper on how he created this mess and blatantly lied to save his skin.