Quote:
Originally Posted by starseed
Knew better than the Canadian people? You do realize that Harper was rejected by two thirds of this nation? And yet somehow he is the only one with the right to govern?
|
This is such a false argument in a party system and makes no sense. while 2/3 rds didn't vote for Harper, the 2/3 rds didn't vote for one party, they voted for different parties and had different ideas on how they wanted to see their voting power used. The bottom line is that the Liberal's NDP and Block were not given a mandate to govern . . . period. If you want to successfully argue this point then the first thing that has to happen is an amalgamation of the three party into one leftist party. However I'm not sure that a party like that would be successful, since your pulling in the crazy left (in the NDP) a somewhat centrist party in the (Liberal's) and a self interested in Quebec in the Bloc. I think if they ran in a single election with a fractured platform, you'd probably looking at a conservative Majority because there would be a great deal of fear in what that party actually stands for.
Quote:
Originally Posted by starseed
If he does not have the confidence of the house, he has no right to govern. Its plain and simple. The only reason some think this is a bad idea is because Canada has not had to experience coalition governments outside extraordinary circumstances. Other parliamentary democracies have gotten used to the idea of coalition governments, and maybe Canada will get used to it in the future.
|
Your right, if the Conservatives lose a confidence vote they lose the mandate to govern. However the proper democratic way to do things would be for an election to happen where the Bloc, Libs and Dippers announce that they intend to vote as the Coalition party, but the numbers show that they would probably lose that election based on the factors about, and the Canadian unhappiness with the concept of a coalition government where the Bloc and the NDP get a seat at the governing table.