Monday, June 06, 2016

Why Are the Cons Demanding an Illegal Referendum?

As you know I have been attacking Rona Ambrose and her Cons for trying to sabotage plans to introduce electoral reform.

By demanding a referendum which they know would almost certainly ensure that those plans would be dead on arrival.

With the help of their friends in the Con media...

Which couldn't be more desperate. 

Or for that matter more disgusting

For this is how Michelle Rempel feels about the deal the Liberals made with the NDP to make the process fairer, by surrendering their majority on the committee studying electoral reform

Which couldn't be more appalling in both tone and content.

Considering the fact that a coalition is a legitimate part of a Parliamentary democracy.  Gilles Duceppe and his Bloc were not part of that agreement to form a coalition government in 2008, no matter what that photo might suggest.

They only agreed to support the proposed Liberal-NDP government on confidence motions.

And the real attempt to stifle democracy came a few days later when Stephen Harper prorogued Parliament...

To avoid a motion of non confidence, for having introduced a monstrous budget aimed at destroying the other parties.

And the Con's desperate campaign for a referendum is yet another attempt to bend the rules. 

The opposition Conservatives have been calling loudly for a referendum on electoral reform, but Canada’s former chief electoral officer says they had better take a closer look at the rules.

“You can only hold a federal referendum in Canada on a constitutional matter. And changing the electoral system is not a constitutional matter,” Jean-Pierre Kingsley told the West Block’s Tom Clark.

For crass political purposes.

For let's not forget that Stephen Harper never bothered to call a referendum when he changed the elections act...

To try to suppress the vote, and stifle our democracy.

And I never heard Rempel complain about that.

And that's without even mentioning that referendums are incredibly divisive, very expensive, and with big money involved can be used to cloud rather than clarify the issue. Which would almost certainly result in the preservation of the status quo.

When it can all be better handled with an extensive consultation process, and an appeal to Canadians to get involved in discussions that can help shape the final choice.

But then the real problem is that the Cons also don't seem to understand that we already had a referendum. The last election, where electoral reform was a campaign promise.

And they can't seem to accept that they LOST.

For how else can we interpret this absurd claim by Joe Oliver that the Cons left Canada in an immaculate condition?

When in fact they left the country in a disgusting state...

And its democracy on life support.

And as the respected Jean-Pierre Kingsley says, and so do I, the real challenge is to educate Canadians about the need to change the way we vote.

“I think that Canadians have to be educated, have to take the time to be educated, what are the different systems and what will they get us?” he told Clark.

For as I have also said, that won't be easy...

Not with the Con media ranged against us.

But if or when we do manage to convince Canadians about the need for electoral reform, they too will understand why we don't need a referendum

And we can do what must be done.

And finally send those ghastly Cons to the garbage dump where they belong...

Please click here to recommend this post at Progressive Bloggers


  1. You know, it's kind of interesting that apparently none of the media people Rick Salutin mentioned thought to check to see just how one could (or if one could) carry out such a referendum with a constitutional scholar or an expert on elections, etc., like J-P Kingsley.

    I think I'd sticking to my combination of "Master's voice" & "monkey see; monkey do" causes for the sudden media support for a referendum. Oh, combined with ignorance?

    I'm sure something like this will not stop the Cons clamouring for a referendum.

    1. hi jrkrideau...I wonder if the Cons ever bothered to check the rules before they started their hysterical campaign. But at least now I know what they think should be done about it. For after watching just a few minutes of Question Period their solution to the problem is just change the rules. But then they would say that, because they understand only too well what will happen to them if we change the way we vote...

  2. Anonymous9:47 PM

    We did have a Referendum; it was called an election. The liberals, NDP and the Green Parties had Election Reform as a major platform. 70% of voters voted for election reform including chucking FPTP.

    If the CRAP want a referendum then it must also include the immediate and retroactive disenfranchisement of any Party who’s caught committing election fraud. I’m pretty sure 70% of voters would vote YES.

    1. hi anon...yes, it's very tempting to throw that at them. We won, you lost, now just STFU.
      To see the Cons posing as the great defenders of democracy after what they did to this country has to be the most hypocritical and pathetic spectacle I have ever witnessed. And to see most of the MSM kowtow before them is enough to make me vomit. They're lucky I'm not the Prime Minister, because they could scream all they like but I would show them no mercy...

  3. e.a.f.3:57 AM

    the federal Liberals could hold a "non binding" referendum, to give people the opportunity to "have their say". However, as you point out, its not a constitution issue. Trudeau was clear during the election what he plans were and people voted him into a majority government.

    We had a referendum in B.C. some years ago, to change the method of voting, but it was defeated. Would this happen again? its hard to say because people are very keen on Trudeau at this time so there may not be any blow back from just passing the legislation.

    Personally I like voting for the M.P. who will represent me. A proportional voting system may not give me that. Of course Ambrose is going to object. That is her job. she is the leader of the Opposition at this time. Do not expect her to agree on much with Trudeau, that isn't her job. This is politics. Its not about what maybe best for the country.

    Loved the cartoon of Ambrose at the top though.

    1. hi e.a.f...yes I suppose one could hold a non-bnding referendum, but it would be a hugely expensive proposition, very divisive, and it could be manipulated by the Cons to their advantage. I've lived through three referendums, two in Quebec, and one in Scotland, and I can truly say that they are are something that if at all possible should be avoided. And then there's one more thing, they take a long time and a lot of effort to organize and if the consultation process goes on long enough, there won't be enough time left before he next election to hold one, and change the system so we will have to go through another election using the same system we used last time...

  4. And that's without even mentioning that referendums are incredibly divisive, very expensive, and with big money involved can be used to cloud rather than clarify the issue. Which would almost certainly result in the preservation of the status quo.

  5. What we're seeing is the spasmodic convulsions of a decapitated corpse, its stubby, cooling fingers twitching and dragging the corpse forward in the last direction dictated by its long-severed brain.

    The Conservative Mantra during the Harper Papacy, vis-a-vis the Constitution, the Charter, the Supreme Court, and Parliament, was simple: "Law? We don' need no steeenkin' LAW!" Legality doesn't matter, as long as Ambrose et al. can strike an indignant pose and demand something that resonates the Zombie Horde.