Flabbibulin: They want an election because it is their position that the Harper government does not respect or abide by the parliamentary process or the institution of Parliamentary supremacy.
It is exactly like in 2005 when Harper chastised the NDP for identifying the Liberal government as corrupt and then planning to vote in favour of their budget because they made some gains in health care. He was right then, just as those who say the NDP could not say that the Conservative government is in contempt of parliament and then vote for their bill because they made some gains in support for seniors are right in this situation.
If an MP or a party (or three parties and the majority of parliament) agree that the government has been corrupted, then it is their responsibility to dismantle the government. It is fine to disagree with their assessment of the government, but the actions they have taken are appropriate given their position.
They also want an election because they think the balance of power can change. There is a reason that parties spend the most money (of their own) and energy on elections, and that reason is that campaigns matter.
Transplant99: that makes sense, but, in any minority government, a party that represents millions of people is going to have an impact.
Nik: I agree that the Bloc should be required to run candidates nationally, or at least be shut out of the leadership debates to marginalize them, but much like democratic reform, any party that pushes that agenda will pay a heavy political price.
I agree with Andrew Coyne from Maclean's that this is an election about democracy. I just wish that the parties who claim to be defending democracy would actually come forward with some proposals to improve our system (Mixed-member Proportional Electoral system FTW!).
|