Quote:
Originally Posted by Rerun
I didn't forget about the 2008 election. I thought we were referring to the last election. But now that you have clarified this, I do agree with you. Technically he did break his own law but he was left with no other choice by the opposition parties who had become impossible to work with. Harper's reason (and a valid one in my opinion) was that parliament had become untenable and was at a stalemate where the government could not proceed in the proper governing of the country.
|
The Conservatives had a minority, but they were trying to govern like they had a majority. It's not incorrect to state that the opposition parties were not working with the government, but they'll say that Harper was being inflexible and not acting in good faith when trying to find some common middle ground. Compromise works both ways.
And really, what reason did Harper have to compromise anyway? All the parties had access to polling information. Everyone knew the Conservatives were polling well and stood to gain seats if an election were called. So Harper could afford to be intransigent and refuse to work with the other parties, knowing that he had less to lose in an election than they did. Which, of course, is exactly what happened.
None of that changes the fact that Harper passed a fixed election law and then promptly ignored it a year later.