gordiecanuk

In the grand scheme of things...it doesn't mean much, but it does show Harper's total hypocrisy. The Conservative party has a long history of courting soft separtists, Mulroney's wooing of them for electoral gain in Quebec led to the creation of the BQ, Bloc founder Lucien Bouchard was a minister under Mulroney. The Liberals have long had the Federalist vote in Quebec, so the Tories court the separatists.

Done max...

Why should funding be given to political parties? 1) With funding being provided it dimishes the influence of special interests and lobbyists. 2) It opens up the democratic process to those less afluent. Now...you don't have to agree with those points, but those are 2 key reasons. Obviously the Conservatives under Harper don't agree with them...or with providing funding for things like court challenges on Charter Rights issues, or women's groups. Only those with $$$ should be able to participate fully.

I think you'd get a better response if you asked who people WON'T vote for....and I'd guess that the biggest numbers would be in the Liberal and Conservative boxes. Liberals for arrogance/corruption and Conservatives for broken promises and/or a socially conservative agenda. I get the distinct impression a lot of Canuks don't vote so much for any particular party, rather they're voting against the ones they don't like.

Noahbody...I can't stand Layton either, a friend of mine is a life long dipper and he invited me to Layton's launch party for the leadership of the NDP, BNL were preforming so it was a no brainer for a pol junkie Although they may be diametrically opposed politically...I find them both to be very 'packaged', they're both as genuine as Amway salesmen.

Harper wasn't trying to crush the Bloc...he was trying to crush all his political opposition, so he can finally win a majority and not have to worry about a troublesome opposition so he can follow an ideological agenda....which I'm sure would make the Regressive Religious Right in the country very happy....all 10 or 15% of them.

Vancouver...ultimately democracy at its root means 'consent of the governed'. And on that score an awful lot of Canadians were upset with the prospect of a Coalition government, even though it may be perfectly legal and legitimate. It'll be interesting to see how this plays out...but I strongly believe the Liberals will ultimately vote with the Conservatives, giving Harper back the confidence of parliament (however tepid) while at the same time pointing out where he believes the Tories are lacking.

Point out my error then oh wise and august one...How is it that 38% of the population voting for a particular party allows the man leading that party to lay claim to being 'popularly elected'??? So now that Harper only has about 27% support among Canadians, then we shold be able to get 'rid of the bugger' ???

I just finished publishing a blog post about the Senate appointments, and included this Harper quote: "If Senate vacancies are to be filled, however, they should be filled by the government that Canadians elected rather than by a coalition that no one voted for." In Canada we don't get to vote for a particular government, we only get to vote for the individuals we want to represent our riding in the House of Commons. No wonder so many Canadians don't understand our system of government....even the guy leading the ruling party doesn't understand it.

Mr Canada....like I said, he'll still have the support of fundamentalist Christians, thanks for proving my point.

Could it be that Harper realizes that the writing is on the wall? Of course he'll continue to have the support of the born-again evangelical crowd, but they don't have the same demographic strength here in Canada as compared to the US. He couldn't form a majority with 4 parties on the left, and with his chief rivals saddled with an incredibly ineffective leader. Now the Liberals have Ignatieff (like him or not he'll sell A LOT better than Dion) and he's burned all his bridges in Quebec. So why not pay off all his political debts while he's still in the PMO, before he gets turfed?

From the article: The Public Works and Government Services Department was in charge of the program and between 1994 and 2003 it spent $332 million. Okay...so we're talking about from 5 to 14 years ago. So??? Like the Conservatives weren't corrupt under Mulroney??? That was 2 leaders ago, what's your point?

For Christians killing was justified for ages because non-believers or heretics weren't going to go to heaven anyway. Never try to discuss anything with a religious fanatic, they believe they're doing God's will and have His sanction at all times.

That's the way its always been...and although Harper tried to tell Canadians he was different, obviously he's just like any other politician (liberal or Conservative) saying what he needs to say to get elected. He has some 'political capital'...but his account balance is seriously eroding I think, except with the fundamentalist/evangelical/born-again crowd.

Harper is no stranger to breaking promises, just ask seniors who invested heavily in income trusts, naively believing the Conservative pledge to leave their tax free status alone. And let's not forget fixed election dates, don't recall seeing a caveat saying: 'unless the conditions are good for us to win a majority. Then there was that bit about eliminating GST on gasoline over 80 (or was it 85) cents per litre. That's a pretty good track record in just 2 years, the Liberals are probably jealous.

You're absolutely right scriblett...there are Liberals who identify themselves as "Liberals for Life" and they're referring to the abortion debate, not about their allegiance to the LPC. This is all part of the 'scary' tag which opponents have tried to pin on Harper, and which he has dilligently tried to distance himself from. Like it or not, Canada is still a largely secular country and the last thing Conservatives concerned with electoral success want him to do is blather on about his religious beliefs. Preston Manning was very up front about his religious convictions, with the caveat that he wouldn't pursue an ideological agenda. Still there were too many reactionaries in his party, and that hurt his ability to spread the Reform brand eastward.

You nailed it, he's reportedly the top fundraiser for the Conservatives....nuff said, patronage politics as usual.

Where do I apply to be a senator??? If I don't get one of those jobs maybe I can get elected the next time we vote...should only be another month or two, then another month or two after that. What does Canada lead the world in the production of??? POLITICIANS!!! I can thump a desk with the best of them.

I'm new here, so forgive the intrusion...I am though a political junkie, and enjoy respectful debate that includes religion...though it can be hard to find with those fanatically believing in one faith or another. Anyway on the questin of abortion, there were a couple of bills put forward by the Conservatives in the last parliament that died because of the premature election call. One was a private members bill that Pro-Choice advocates feared would enshrine fetal rights in law. I actually publish a political blog and posted about it a couple weeks back. FWIW, I've voted Con/Lib/NDP in various elections both provincial and federal...Personally I don't think any one party has a monopoly on 'the right answers' all the time.