Dave_ON

Wow quite thorough DRE

You've really just answered your own question. Why would a devout RC vote for a party who's leader is a protestant? If religious reasons are the motivation they're going to vote for an RC regardless of party lines over a protestant. How many protestant PM's can you think of since Truedeau have there been with any significant number of seats in Quebec? For that matter how many Anglo PM's have had any amount of backing in Quebec?

Sorry I wasn't even born back in the 60's I can't rightly speak to that time. Suffice it to say though the very fact that you lumped Gay (men I'm assuming) and Lesbians together speaks to your utter lack of knowledge on the very different relationships. Lesbians have a tendancy to be monogomous as do all women in general, by contrast men, and gay men more noticably have a tendancy to be promiscuous. Are you honestly going to try and convince me that straight men stand on some higher moral ground sexually? That men aren't more inclined to have multiple partners regardless of orientation? I have many straight friends that make me look like a choir boy. That's the nature of being a young, single man regardless of your orientation. My central point is men are men regardless of who the sleep with, to say otherwise is being dishonest with yourself and otherwise. Don't get me wrong some men are monogomous their whole lives, both gay and straight, but certainly not the majority. As for gratuitous sex, well watch almost any hollywood flick or tv show where gratutious straight sex is portrayed and try and tell me it's not a corner stone of "straight" culture. Come on are you seriously living under a rock? It's in music, the media, movies, it's all around you. Ever been to Mardis Gras in in New Orleans? How about Carabana in Toronto? Tell me those aren't very similar to a gay pride parade for straight people. So please don't try and convince me that ALL or even the vast majority of straight people are so very sainted and exclusively commited, it's simply not the case.

Well of course he'll deny it, but that doesn't make it any less true

Umm no that's not what I said in the least. Straight men aren't particularly honest with themselves about what they want. Fact is most straight men are just as much a "slut" as Argus put as gay men are. Do attempt to read the post before you respond. If the vast majority of men aren't "perverted" as you so prudishly put it. Why then is it that the porn and other sex related industries generate billions of dollars annually?

I think you've just describe men in general. The difference being gay men tend to be more honest and comfortable with their sexuality. My question is how do you know about the goings on in gay clubs/bars? That's really quite immaterial though; you're being quite disingenuous painting all gays with the same brush while leaving straights "blameless". Bondage, S&M and all forms of kink are not proprietary to gay culture. It exists in straight relationships as well, ever heard of a dominatrix? That one's all on your side I'm afraid. What about strip clubs, "escorts", skin flick theatres. Lots of straight guys go to those. Fact is gay men come in all shapes and sizes just like straight men do, though generally we wear nicer shoes . Truth is you probably know a lot more gay people than you realize, most of us just generally leave our rainbows at home.

Yet in spite of this fact that the Liberals have never been weaker, the NDP more irrelevant the CPC still can't get within spitting distance of a majority. Yes Quebec gaffe's have held him up but truly, he's not exactly stunning English Canada with his whimsical charisma either. It's a perfect storm for a CPC majority, and time is ticking for Mr. Harper to avail himself of it. Ignatieff likely won't last beyond the next election, there's not a majority in site for the CPC. If they can manage to make inroads in Urban Ontario, we may very well see a CPC majority in spite of Quebec. All it would take is some solid, policies that aren't dripping with western interests. Mr. Harper needs to ask himself WWJD? (What Would Jean Do). For whatever reason it hasn't really dawned on them that the best you can hope with just the west backing you is a minority. You can't ignore both Ontario and Quebec and pull off a majority. Quebec is a lost cause until Mr. Harper leaves, Ontario is their only hope.

We’re not talking the average Joe on the street in which case you’re correct. We’re talking the PM of Canada, and a savvy PM would avoid such sticky issues as deftly as possible. For some reason, Gays and Quebec are two areas he can’t seem to get right. You can't from a political stand point be neutral unless you never deal with issues directly relating to gays. Pride funding is a prime example. Either you fund it and appear to be pro-gay and disregard your religious supporters a relatively small but vocal group or you don't fund it and appear to be anti-gay and pandering to religious groups. Gays are also a relatively small and vocal group, the advantage they have over religious conservatives is better funding. There is a long list of reasons why Mr. Harper and the CPC appear to be anti-gay, voting against pretty much any legislation that had the word gay in it for starters. Reneging on Diversite funding was just icing on the cake.

It's not just women and gays, it's also Urban Ontario that isn't particularly taken by Mr. Harper. If he hopes to get a majority this is where he needs to focus. As a side note Gays aren't just vocal, they're generally one of the best funded activist groups, given that the majority are well paid professionals and have no kids. This give them surplus income they can throw at political groups. I think Mr. Harper, as are many others, is underestimating the political and monetary impact of gay culture in Canada.

Agreed on this point I'm not sure what you're referring to in terms of special protection however the gay pride funding is a sticking point. Gay pride did not get special consideration, it got the very same consideration as all "niche" cultural events. Pride just so happens to be a rather well known one. His reniging on funding Montreal pride AFTER he received backlash from funding Toronto pride was nothing more than damage control among his more christian supporters. This was a mistake IMV as he was already on the down turn in Quebec over "cultural funding" and now he snubs Diversite which is a Gay Arts Festival. It's actually quite a different creature than the more politically oriented Toronto Pride. Either way as I've mentioned numerous times, Toronto Pride did not receive special consideration, it received the same consideration of all other like events, such as the Calgary stampede, they Loyalist Day Parade and other even more obscure events. This simply added to the long list of reason why Gays dislike/distrust Mr. Harper. He's trying to appear as not being Anti-Gay but he sure as hell is making it known he's not pro-gay either. Unfortunately for him there isn't truly any neutral ground on this subject. In a word yes, I have a mental "ignore list", I skim certain posters content and if there's something relevant I'll post. If not, I stop reading and don't bother responding. Agreed though I think we can't discount the impact a leader has on the polling numbers. Yes we vote for MP's but we're all well aware tha by convention the party with the most MP's there leader becomes the PM. This is sufficient to prevent people from voting for a given party.

Excellent point, this added to the fact that Mr. Harper may have done irreparable damage to the CPC's fortunes in Quebec for next decade or so. In all honesty however, it's no secret that he and the CPC's hold a great deal of sway in the West, if they could focus a bit more on BC and Ontario, a majority is possible without needing to win a single seat in Quebec. Albeit quite difficult given their share of seats. If Mr. Harper and the CPC could bridge the Ontario/West divide, Quebec and the atlantic are quite immaterial as they have in the vicinity of 107 seats among them all. Honestly they need to look to increasing their fortunes in Urban Ontario, it's Ontario that's going to make the difference between continued minorities and a majority territory. Agreed which furthers my point, I think Mr. Harper has done as much as he can for the party and it's fairly apparent at this juncture he'll take them no further than he already has. They need someone fresh and new and not associated heavily with the old Reform guard. Reform was/is viewed heavily as a western version of the BLOC and that would not help them the least in Ontario.

Surely I'm not the only one left wondering what it is that prevent Mr. Harper from delivering a majority. The sad fact is, there isn't even one in the foreseeable future. Something has got to change but what exactly does in order for us to return to majorities is beyond me at this point. Say what you wish about the other leaders/parties, fact remains, Mr. Harper is in a rut with no way out, the CPC's have stagnated in the polls. All that has kept them going through all this is the utter weakness of the opposition and the lack of a truly conservative alternative.

Indeed they do and it is this big tent that has eluded Mr. Harper. He'll never be perceived as a big tent advocate, as the LPC were regarded in bygone years, as he's proven himself to be far too partisan and not just a little vindictive. Having said that I think the CPC is squandering a golden opportunity. Let's be honest with ourselves, the LPC has never been weaker, the NDP isn't going to maintain much more than 15%. The only REAL road block to Harper at this point is the BLOC and PQ is a lost cause to him at this point. So I'm forced to ask myself why has Mr. Harper been unable to deliver a majority given the weakness of the opposition? Is that LPC supporters are stubborn hold outs or is it that Mr. Harper is none too impressive? I'm looking for honest responses here, not partisan drivel. Why hasn't Mr. Harper inspired Canadians to vote for him, forget about like him. It's not that he's an autocrat; we've had plenty of those in recent years. It's not even so much his apparent disdain for workings of our governmental system, all three of the previous autocratic PM's had much the same attitude, though generally they kept it under wraps. I'm truly at a loss to explain his rather lackluster political performance. Sure he's managed to hold what I believe is the longest minority government in history; but I'm not so sure that's something to be proud of; it's kind of like being the tallest of the short kids. So given the fact that the time has never been more ripe for the CPC to sweep the nation with an overwhelming majority I have to wonder why. I think they could do themselves a lot of good with a new leader, I think Mr. Harper has done as well as he can, but I also feel it's a big part of why so many Canadians haven't switched their vote.

If you know so much about our system as you claim you do, you know this to be an out and out lie. This is precisely why the speaker called the government to account, albeit far more gently than I would have. He gave the government a gracious out, one he did not need to give them. The constitution states parliament is supreme, there are no addendums, no provisions, no interpretations contrary to that. It's all really quite black and white. The crown is subject to parliament who speaks on behalf of the people, whom they represent. If they compel the crown to do something, the crown must comply, no if's ands or buts. To state otherwise is to wax idiotic.

I don't disagree in the least. The coalition was ill fated and ill conceived from the get go. What I can't abide is a complete misrepresentation of our system. Coalitions are unpredictable and unstable, certainly, unconstitutional and undemocratic, absoultely not. There are many technicalities we may or may not like in our system, nevertheless they are there for a reason, because at one time or another they were deemed as necessary.

It may sound extreme but it is a fact of our system nevertheless, the people choose MP's, not parties and they certainly don't choose who forms the government. That is determined by those who make up parliament. By convention the party with the most seats forms the government, but only continues to do so at the behest of parliament. What is conventional is not always what occurs, hence Mr. Harper was able to prorogue parliament and essentially "silence" the people’s voice. If our representatives are not sitting in the house, then the government is operating without the oversight of the people (which is done through their duly elected representative.) Than please explain how proroguing parliament expressed the will of the people or served them in anyway. How did preventing their representative from speaking on their behalf serve? Further how else are people, in our system as you seem to be aware, able to express their will other than through their representative? We do not vote directly on legislation, we elect Members of Parliament to do this for us. It was a bit harsh I admit but it was not an insult to your patriotism in the least. What it was is a commentary on how you are applying the American concepts of democracy to our system where they clearly do not fit. The "people" did not choose Steven Harper to be their PM. Parliament did, in fact the only people that could say they chose Mr. Harper are his constituents in his riding. Please explain how the conservatives were chosen to be the government by the people? On this point you clearly don't understand our system. I, and the majority of constituents in my riding, elected a Member of Parliament, Greg Pearson. Mr. Greg Pearson is a member of the LPC. He has one vote in the house which effectively represents my entire ridings vote. If he and a number of other MP's determined that the current sitting government no longer represented his constituents it is their right to choose a new government. I don't have a direct say in the matter as I have given my say over to Mr. Greg Pearson. Now what I can do is contact him and notify him of my chagrin and failing that I can choose not to re-elect him, but short of this that is the extent of my voice in a representative democracy. You're arguing in idealistic notions, not in practical terms. It's all well and good to say parliament should serve the will of the people, but the truth is that's not really how our system of government works. We're not a direct democracy, we're a representative democracy. The we only have a voice during an election or referendum. It was not a new creature in the least. It was still made up of all duly elected representatives and was just as legitimate as the defacto CPC government. The difference is, the CPC was made government by convention, where as the coalition would have been made government by direct mandate from parliament, and by proxy as demonstrated above, the constituents those members represent. I'm afraid you are arguing the system, if as many Canadians as you claim are truly unhappy with how our governmental system works; they need to elect representatives that will change our system of government to better reflect what they want. Until such time as that occurs we have no choice but to operate within the system. The constitution is the will of the people in Canada and this is where I believe you are going astray. We need to make a change to the constitution if we want our will expressed differently. I for one do not want it changed, and I would be sincerely surprised if many Canadians did. I also find it somewhat disturbing that you think it is acceptable and expected that the PM has the right and authority to "bring parliament into line". It is the other way around, it is parliament that oversees the government and ensure that the government remains in line. Again the will of the people is contained within the constitution, and implemented by Parliament. This is all there is, anything more is rhetorical tripe regardless of popular opinion. It is acceptable because it is constitutional; there is no higher authority in our country than that of constitution or the will of parliament. You imply a disparity between parliament and the will of the people where none exists.

Agreed and this demonstrates the dilemma that faces us all, we vote the way we do, not because we are particularly motivated to vote for that rep/party, as much as we are trying to vote against a specific party. It’s truly a sad state of affairs when we have to choose the party that we dislike the least or because it’s the only palatable option. In my riding I'm fortunate in that I actually do like my MP Glen Pearson who happens to be a member of the LPC.

Let me stop you right there, Canadians do not vote in any government. If you in all earnestness believe this then you don't understand our system. Canadians elected MP's who form a parliament, and it is parliament, not Canadians directly who decides who forms the government. We get to vote for one representative in our riding, not who becomes PM, or who forms the cabinet or who the speaker of the house is, all these are decided by parliament alone. It is theirs to choose who forms the government, and if the majority of them decide that Mr. Harper is not the PM, guess what? He's not the PM, as parliament, not the PM or the government is supreme. Our support, or lack thereof, of the system is quite immaterial on this point. The fact remains our system functions in a certain way and has functioned thus fur hundreds of years. Again you are wrong and are a prime example of the lack of knowledge that seems to be rampant in Canada today. You appear to be under the belief that we are America Jr. and we simply "Canadianize" our government titles. It is parliament that has a mandate from the people, not the Government. The Government is by convention as the party with the most seats, there is nothing that says this has to be. It is convention, not the people that selects the government, whether that party can maintain the confidence, and therefore the mandate, of parliament is another matter entirely. Harper's arguments were nonsense regardless of how the LPC/NDP/BLOC campaigned as it is a flagrant lie. Did the coalition surprise and alarm everyone, why of course it did. That doesn't change the fact that Mr. Harper was counting on the fears and ignorance of the general populace, and in this case it paid off. You can dislike the coalition all you want, leave it at that, but please don't repeat the rhetorical tripe that Mr. Harper and the CPC were feeding everyone when the fiasco began.

I doubt your unique, I don't think voters are particularly taken by either leader. Personally Mr. Harper is a major reason I won't ever vote CPC. I'd likely consider it if they were to get a new leader. As it stands now voting is more a matter of choosing the least objectionable party, as opposed to one we can really truly support.

Agreed which is precisely why I think they will make it work do or die. They really haven't a choice at this juncture. There are tough choices that need to be made and that won't be particularly popular and they need a stable government to ensure it happens. It may not be smooth by any stretch but so long as it's effective in the end I don't think that will really matter.

Agreed the coalition with "separatists" didn't help, however neither did the hyperbolic misinformation about a coalition government being somehow "undemocratic" or a coup. Don't get me wrong I didn't want Dionne as PM but I also didn't want our current PM to bald face lie and spread misinformation about the nature of our system. For whatever else can be said about Mr. Harper I find his utter contempt for parliament, his flippant attitude for the fundamental structure of our democracy, and his general autocratic style all very hard to swallow. The fact that social conservatives hold more sway in the party than I'm comfortable with aside my main issue with the CPC, isn't so much their policies as much as it is Mr. Harper himself. I may not particularly care for Mr. Ignatieff but given the alternatives what choice do I truly have? The truly positive thing about the coalition in GB is that it puts to rest all the wrangling on how coalitions are not democratic or even conceivable in a Westminster parliamentary democracy. In all honesty Mr. Harper shouldn’t have burned the coalition bridge, especially considering he was so quick to cross it back when Mr. Martin was PM.

Obviously you're new here, you should read over the posting rules, porper name use only. Whatever you think of a person, do them the common courtesy of using their proper name. As for the rest, is it your position that it was a mere two years of good conservative governance that put us in a good position to weather the storm? I would suggest that it was a series of policies put in place by previous governments. It was not Mr. Harpers fault that the financial crisis occurred, nor is he the one solely responsible for how well we faired during it.

A misnomer like calling the coalition a "coup"? Either way we do in fact know that coalitions CAN work as has been shown in our own political history. The Conservatives and LPC during WW1 managed to do it, they came together during a time of crisis to show solidarity. Our recent economic crisis was a perfect opportunity for Mr. Harper to prove his quality, instead he chose to wax partisan and down right mean spirited. The state of politics in this country is truly disappointing. How quickly we forget that the government isn't elected, they're appointed by parliament and continue to govern at theit behest alone. Who sits in government is entirely up to parliament, it would behove the government to extend a hand to the opposition and bring them into the fold as it were, rather than engendering acrimony as it appears they are want to do at present. When I speak of a coalition, I don't mean between the 3 opposition parties. I'm specifically referring to the CPC and LPC, except on certain social issues, their policies are quite similar. I suppose though it's too late for that now, the CPC made too big a deal about coalitions and to this very day many CPC supporters actually believe the rhetorical tripe he was spouting over a year ago.

http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/05/07/uk-election-minority.html As you might already be aware the UK election is over and it looks like it's a hung parliament (minority as we call it). This is the first minority they've had in Britain since the 70's. Now it looks very much like some type of coalition government will be formed in the very near future. Surprisingly there'll be no "emergency" nationwide PM address, or propaganda about how undemocratic this is and that all that is good and holy is threatened by such a despicable and unholy alliance. No the British are far more pragmatic about such matters than we are apparently, and likely the general populace is more aware of the workings of their system. My question is, since it appears as though we will be in a minority government for some time to come why not settle on a coalition. Now I expect a full litany of rhetoric such as "run as a coalition if you want to form one." That's not the way the party system works. If you have to form an alliance to gain a majority, and some semblance of stability, then do so. The CPC could very easily form a majority coalition government much like their predecessors did during WW1. I suppose the CPC is still hoping against hope that they will eventually be delivered a majority, but polls indicate that won't happen any time in the very near future.

Absolutely, though I believe the full boot was the best possible option for Mr. Harper given his increasingly tenuous grip on power. Jaffer, and by association Guergis, is a toxic asset and can do nothing but harm to the party. They're trying to expunge every last bit of Guergis’ association from the party. Is it particularly ethical? Not really, but it is smart and that's generally the road Mr. Harp takes. Now we'll have to wait and see how Mr. Harper handles the whole Shory fiasco. Since he's not a minister I doubt we'll see any type reaction like we did over Guergis, but the whole affair certainly couldn't have happened at a worse time. Precedence has just been set, will he booted from caucus also, or will Mr. Harper wait until the allegations have substance and a verdict is delivered?