Quote:
Originally Posted by FlamesAddiction
They don't need to in order to agree not to pursue certain policies while part of the coalition.
Just like the Bloc can temporarily agree not to pursue its soverignty or the Conservatives can temporarily agree not to pursue parts of their platform if they feel the timing is wrong... you don't need a convention for that and parties do it all the time. In fact, one of the things I like about Harper is that he typically doesn't have a problem putting certain things on the back burner if they are unpopular.
|
Thanks I understand that. My point was simply that this is not what the memberships for either party had in mind when the platform was established and an election run on those things a few short weeks ago. If the NDP are in a coalition they sure as heck did not just say "okay do whatever you want Mr. Dion." They will have significant say on matters of the economy which IMO is scary.
This isn't massaging a piece of legislation to get house approval. that's what should have happened as the Tories presented something that wasn't liked and then pieces are removed or modified until it will pass. It's a melding of parties that have very little philisophical similarities. There was give and take sure, but I seriosuly doubt the NDP didn't get significant portions of what they wanted including their economic platform. And that scares people and pisses people off in the liberal membership. On the other hand the NDP I'm sure did give up some significant things and that will piss off a good chunk of their membership. These are two completely different parties that large chunks of both memberships that do not want to get into bed with the other. It's a pretty significant shift in both these parties philosophies that has been done without consultation of most of the party.