You can have your political views. Be Liberal, be Conservative, be NDP, be Green, be BQ.
But don't lie. Harper lied about our Constitution. Not interpreted according to his politics (which are clearly divisive and oppressive, but that's my interpretation). He lied, flat out and bald-, bold-, and bare-faced (depending on which usage you prefer).
I get that pols spin. It's politics. I lie. It's life. But this is too much. Don't f*ck with my Constitution!!
Get thee out, spot!
And by "spot", I mean Harper.
2 comments:
Main argument in favour of the Coalition
The main argument in favour of the Coalition is that more Canadians voted against the Conservatives than voted for them, the party has no real mandate to govern. To allow the Conservatives to continue to rule is somehow undemocratic.
The motivating force behind the forming of the coalition was Jack Layton. Jack had only 44.8% support of the voters in his riding. In other words more people voted against Layton than for Layton.
According to Elections Canada, in the election that was held on October 14, 45,578 votes were cast in the riding of Toronto-Danforth. One hundred and ninety-one of these ballots were rejected for a total of 45,387 valid votes. Of that number, Jack Layton received 20,323 or 44.8% of the total. In other words more people voted against Layton (25,064) than voted for him (20,323). So where exactly did Jack Layton get the mandate to represent the good people of Toronto-Danforth in the House of Commons?
None of the other party leaders failed to get the support of at least half of their constituents. Stephen Harper (73.0%), Stéphane Dion (61.7%) and Gilles Duceppe (50.2%) all won their seats democratically. Not so Jack Layton.
It would seem that a Coalition of those that ran against Mr. Layton should be in order. As Jack has said himself he has no real mandate to govern. To allow Jack to continue to rule is somehow undemocratic.
Mr. Layton based on your own party policy, it would seem that it is time for you to step aside and let someone else lead your party.
Hey, maybe you and Dion can help each other fill out those E.I. papers. They can be tricky sometimes.
I would dispute that the main argument in favour of the coalition is that more Canadians voted against the Conservatives. That is merely evidence that the majority of Canadians didn't support the policies of any Canadian party in particular.
The main argument in favour of the Coalition is/was that Harper's government didn't have the confidence of Parliament, and couldn't survive a confidence vote. To allow a party that didn't have the confidence of the majority of elected members is what is undemocratic.
That analogy between the number of votes Layton received at the riding level and the number of votes the Conservatives received overall compares fundamentally different (though clearly related) processes, and is thus irrelevant to the real issues.
Electing an individual in a riding is different than forming a government, though, as I said, clearly related. One seat in Parliament can't be ruled by a coalition. The government, on the other hand, CAN be ruled by a coalition if they have the confidence of Parliament.
Furthermore, this type of argument is a red herring, a distraction from the issues that got us to this point. Harper has actually brought us to the brink of a constitutional crisis, which is something that I wouldn't have even begun to understand without three years of law under my belt.
People who understand the constitution (whether they are lawyers or not) understand the depth of what he's done. Lay people dont' really get it without some guidance because it's really kind of complex. How many votes Layton got is irrelevant to the disregard Harper has displayed for Parliament and the constitution.
Post a Comment