Quote:
Originally Posted by MarchHare
What's the difference? He promised voters (in this case delegates at a leadership convention) that he wouldn't do one thing (merge with the CA) and then did exactly that shortly afterwards. You claimed that the proposed 2008 coalition would be "illegitimate" and stated that voters may have chosen differently if they knew a coalition with another party was in the cards...well, that's also true about voters at the PC leadership convention in 2003, but it doesn't make the merged CPC illegitimate because MacKay broke a promise.
The fact is, forming coalition governments is perfectly allowable under our Westminster parliament system even if the member parties have less support than the party with more seats. I'm absolutely not a fan of a Liberal-NDP coalition, (particular one in which Stephane Dion would be PM), but there was nothing illegitimate about what they attempted to do in 2008.
|
Your apples still taste like bananas.
Which Seperatist party did Peter MacKay bring in to support the new Prime Minister? Was the Western Seperatist Party a secret part of the merger that most people missed out on?
Which ratifications did Dion, Layton, and Duceppe give to the members of their parties, or their voters, to legitimize their Coalition? Im sure you are well aware that both the Alliance and PC's had over 90% of their members ratify their merger. What percentage of their members did the Coalition of losers have the support of?
What a strange route of argumentation.