Canada vote 2011
Out of context: Reply #320
- Started
- Last post
- 341 Responses
- Continuity0
@Jaline:
It's all well and good to say, 'Oh, if Harper tries this or that on Canada, there'd be an uproar, he'd be out.' Okay, that _may_ be true (although 'uproar' in the Canadian sense of the word would mean meekly asking if he kindly mightn't reconsider his opinion, and giving up at the first 'no'), but he would be out in the next general election, which is four years, possibly five years - depending on if he tries to delay to the last possible moment - away.
Four years in politics is an eternity, and Harper could radically change the socio-political and socio-economic landscape with effective impunity, thanks to his majority. I rather expect he will, too.
The Canadian political system suffers from a fatal flaw, insofar as that there's really no way to get rid of a government by legal means prior to a general election, unless it's a minority situation and the government loses the confidence of the House of Commons. There is no impeachment, there is no mechanism for the collective of the electorate to tell a government to get bent before an election.
And since Canadians haven't got a revolutionary bone in their collective body, you can count direct action to overthrow the government out, too.
The only option that remains between now and the next election is attempting to oppose the government through the courts. Since there are going to be some seats in the Supreme Court up for grabs soon that Harper will likely pad with with his own ilk, I wouldn't count on that being an effective avenue, either.
Ugh.
- This is the same fear people had when Chrétien won a majority. It was worse as he had a Quebec focused agendaspot13
- Yeah. We're swapping a Quebec agenda for a western one. Stellar improvement, that.Continuity
- At least the western agenda makes money!zarkonite
- No it doesn't. It's a myth.********
- I don't disagree with this. I'm just trying to see a bright side. *weeps*Jaline