There seems to be a lot of glee from the pro-Coalition side about recalling what Stephen Harper said in 2005 when Martin flat-out ignored Parliamentary resolutions demanding he step down ... until they went his way. Well, two points on this:
1) Harper et al were deliberately trying to bring the government down on legitimate confidence votes. To force an election.
2) Remember that Chuck Cadman was an old Reformer who only voted with the Martin government because his constituents didn't want another ELECTION. That in mind, does this mean you would've been perfectly okay with the Bloc, Harper, and independents forming a coalition to impose Stephen Harper as PM without an election, even though he came in legitimate second place to the Liberals? Because "most Canadians voted against the Liberals"? It's easy to conclude you would have now that the tables are switched, but I submit that most of you would've disliked it. A lot. (Hell, most of you reject Stephen Harper legitimately winning elections...)
Monday, December 01, 2008
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
Precisely.
I hate to have undermine the argument, but the site you linked to had the letter dated September 9. 2004.
Having said that, if Harper tried to oust Martin without an election, I would not have supported him in the effort.
The important point is that when push came to shove, he fought for an election, not a coalition.
"have to" that is.
Post a Comment