Monday, January 30, 2012

Does Stephen Harper Support Coalitions?

If coalitions are undemocratic and a threat to Canada, why hasn't this strong stable Conservative majority government done anything to make sure they don't ravage our nation? Simple, Stephen Harper supports coalitions.

Just over three years ago Stephen Harper and members of his party said coalitions were a threat to our nation, that they were undemocratic and that Conservatives would use all legal means necessary to ensure a coalition never took power. Yet it's 2012 and Stephen Harper is Prime Minister, he has a large majority, his opposition parties are in disarray, and still this Conservative Leader has done nothing to prevent future coalitions from forming government.

At a Christmas party in 2008 Stephen Harper, referencing the Liberal-NDP coalition, said he would "use all legal means to resist this undemocratic seizure of power." The Conservative Leader spoke with such passion, adding, "My friends, such an illegitimate government would be a catastrophe, for our democracy, our unity and our economy." Now years later with a majority government that same Stephen Harper has done nothing and is continuing to do nothing to end the coalition threat that was described to stalk our nation.

With his majority, why hasn't our Prime Minister drafted legislation to stop coalitions? Why, if they're such a threat to our country does he not amend our constitution? Why hasn't he done these things? Because he supports our constitution, and in doing so, he supports coalitions. He doesn't just support them today, he supported them in 2008 just as he had done in 2004.

Stephen Harper can say he's against coalitions, that they're undemocratic and will bring economic collapse, he's said these things before, but his words never match his actions. In 2004 as Leader of the Conservatives Harper sought to form a coalition with the Bloc Quebecois, and then just four years later he denounced coalitions as undemocratic. In 2008 he said he would use all legal means necessary to end the threat of coalitions but years later, with a majority he's done nothing.

Stephen Harper promised to do everything possible to prevent coalitions from taking power, yet he hasn't done anything to stop them. In fact a coalition could take power tomorrow, Conservative MPs would have to defect, but a coalition could form government by Friday, and Stephen Harper would allow it. He would say he's opposed to it and describe how it's ending our country, but he would allow it to happen, because in the end Stephen Harper supports our constitution and he supports coalitions, his words might not, but most importantly his actions do.

4 comments:

Fred from BC said...

In 2004 as Leader of the Conservatives Harper sought to form a coalition with the Bloc Quebecois,


No he didn't. He wrote a vaguely-worded letter to the GG suggesting the possibility, but proposed no formal coalition. It was designed to be a pressure tactic, and it worked like a charm.

(ask Paul Martin)

As for the coalition attempted by the Liberals, Bloc and NDP (and vehemently rejected by the public), that one was a blatant attempt to overturn the results of the previous election, which is why the public reacted the way they did. If you're going to form a coalition, announce that *before* the election as part of your platform, don't try to stage a coup afterward.

(and don't get caught plotting it on the telephone before the election is even held, either...)


The Liberals saw their support plummet to 20% and the NDP to 10% while support for the Conservatives went up to roughly 50%, remember?
I wouldn't be in any hurry to try that one again if I were you...

thescottross.blogspot.com said...

Fred, a vaguely-worded letter does not in anyway preclude a specific meaning. I can write that I want to put a ring on a womans hand in from of a holy man and say I do, all vague words, yet the meaning of marriage is clear and specific.

I'm only drawing attention to the contradiction and the irrationality behind the argument Conservatives used in 2008. If coalitions are undemocratic, a threat to our unity, whyhaven't they done anything, and I mean anything to stop future ones?

sassy said...

Of course Harper supports coalitions - when they consist of him, large corporations and big industry

Fred from BC said...

Fred, a vaguely-worded letter does not in anyway preclude a specific meaning. I can write that I want to put a ring on a womans hand in from of a holy man and say I do, all vague words, yet the meaning of marriage is clear and specific.


That's true, but if you really wanted to get married you wouldn't be using that kind of language to say so. You'd say, "I want to get married". Period.


Harper had no intention of forming a coalition with the Bloc. He didn't need to...all he needed to do was panic Paul Martin into calling an election, because Harper knew he would most likely win that election.


I'm only drawing attention to the contradiction and the irrationality behind the argument Conservatives used in 2008. If coalitions are undemocratic, a threat to our unity, whyhaven't they done anything, and I mean anything to stop future ones?


I get your point, but disagree with the premise that the Conservatives really believe coalitions are undemocratic or a threat to our unity. They may have said that at some point for political gain, but what party doesn't make wild accusations if they think it will gain them an advantage?