Frederik G said:
They were legitimate until a few weeks ago. They aren't anymore: they had lost a first no-confidence vote, (I don't remember the details)
Actually, no. The way parliamentary politics works is the government decides what is and isn't a confidence motion. This might seem wrong to some people, but that's how it works. The caveat for this though, is any money bills or the throne speech, is a confidence motion.
On May 10, the Conservatives pushed through a vote on a motion saying the government should resign. The motion passed, and the speaker sent the motion to committee {where it's going to die} the government didn't resign and, no election was called.
Why?
It comes back to parliamentary politics. The only thing the House of Commons is obliged to do is convene once a year, pass their budgets, with an election every five years at the very least. Most of the rest is based on tradition, convention, and all the other unwritten rules. Some might say these traditions, conventions and unwritten rules are simply that. A better way of looking at it all, is as parts of an unwritten constitution; something you don't mess around with except with a lot of public scrutiny, debate, and possibly referenda. Again, some might say it doesn't matter if it isn't written down, but unwritten rules are just as important as the written ones.
Hence, the Liberals called the Conservative motion correctly, as a "procedural matter" because it wasn't a confidence motion. The motion had nothing to do with the Constitution and everything to do with the Constitution. Stephen Harper is trying to mess around with the rules that govern our parliamentary democracy all in the name of politics. Harper's later comments about there being a "constitutional crisis" and how the Governor General should step in, were untrue, and irresponsible.
So while the rules and the Constitution can change, Stephen Harper shouldn't be doing so in the name of bringing the Conservatives to power.
Frederik G said:
As for Belinda Stronach... [Edited for Brevity]
What if a soldier decided, just before a major offensive, that his country just isn't right for him anymore, and the next thing you'd know, he'd show up on the other side commanding a regiment?
The difference between Belinda Stronach's allegiance to the Conservative Party, and a soldier's to his or her Country, are orders of magnitude in difference. There is simply no comparing the two. One is a matter of politics the other is High Treason. If anyone believes that Belinda Stronach's loyalty to the Conservative Party is such that she should be executed or imprisoned at the earliest opportunity, well I guess the comparison works then. Otherwise, find a better analogy.