What would Stephen Harper do...

[Mr.Canada]

What utter BS.

I am saying he is acting like a sociopath and rabid dog with his partisanship. Even his own people says it is what guides him.

Attack me if you want to. I have come to expect it from Tory supporters who think their own party is completely infallible and justifiable in doing the same thing that caused a loss of confidence a few weeks ago.

As far as polices go, I have been asking what poison bills that Harper wants to introduce to get that non-confidence vote. I have said abortion or death penalty would do the trick.

And you are blindly supporting your own party and making inaccurate statements about other people in these forums as way of personalizing.

Partisanship is to be expected here, this is a political forum. Posters views in real life are most likely not this black and white.

The entire house has been partisan and no it isn't Harpers fault it take two to tango and four to party.

dobbin, Harper is a conservative, he isn't no should he table a budget that looks like an NDP budget. However it will contain more spending on infastructure and other job making measures. Also the bailout will be in there. I'd expect some cuts to funding for some silly things Canada doesn't need. As well as a boost to EI.

(f they vote against it they do so at their own peril. It will be supported by the Liberals, they have no choice and Ignatieff knows it. I think dobbin knows it too just won't say it.

[jdobbin]

(f they vote against it they do so at their own peril. It will be supported by the Liberals, they have no choice and Ignatieff knows it. I think dobbin knows it too just won't say it.

If Harper puts a bonehead provision in after promising not to, it will be voted down. He will either have to accept the budget amendment or face a confidence vote.

Everyone here keeps saying that Harper is going to put something over the top provocative in the budget such as the financing changes even after saying he wouldn't. If he does, there will be a no vote. If there is an election, there is no guarantee that Harper will win the massive majority that Tory supporters expect him to win.

In fact, Harper may have poisoned the Quebec vote so he might be starting a few seats down from the start.

[Mr.Canada]

If Harper puts a bonehead provision in after promising not to, it will be voted down. He will either have to accept the budget amendment or face a confidence vote.

Everyone here keeps saying that Harper is going to put something over the top provocative in the budget such as the financing changes even after saying he wouldn't. If he does, there will be a no vote. If there is an election, there is no guarantee that Harper will win the massive majority that Tory supporters expect him to win.

In fact, Harper may have poisoned the Quebec vote so he might be starting a few seats down from the start.

Harper is getting ready to lose a confidence vote now. That's why he's filling the Senate seats. He's planning his own fall. The coalition will take power with the separatist Bloc and after it falls apart the Liberals will only get 18% support, the NDP will get 10% and the Bloc 12% Harper will get 58% of the vote and a massive majority.

[Topaz]

I can see problems for Harper if he doesn't deliver a good solid budget that does help Canadians and the way the tone that Harper sets in the Commons. As we all know, voters always what change and Harper has been PM for a while and if he doesn't deliver I can see the a good % of voters getting sick of his ways and vote him out. We are in a recession and I remember that day in the Commons when the Conservative didn't want to answer the question about out foreign affairs asked by Rae and the Con just personal attack Rae about his governing of Ontario and a bad job he did. Well, now the Conservative have their own recession that may go to a depression so lets see how good they do with theirs.

[jdobbin]

Harper is getting ready to lose a confidence vote now. That's why he's filling the Senate seats. He's planning his own fall. The coalition will take power with the separatist Bloc and after it falls apart the Liberals will only get 18% support, the NDP will get 10% and the Bloc 12% Harper will get 58% of the vote and a massive majority.

I doubt Harper would survive the knives from his own party if he loses power on purpose.

[ToadBrother]

Harper is getting ready to lose a confidence vote now. That's why he's filling the Senate seats. He's planning his own fall. The coalition will take power with the separatist Bloc and after it falls apart the Liberals will only get 18% support, the NDP will get 10% and the Bloc 12% Harper will get 58% of the vote and a massive majority.

Yeah, that's why he pretty much immediately invited Ignatieff over, and why key Liberals are making nicey-nice.

There's going to be no election. The coalition is toast. Ignatieff was never warm to it, and certainly wouldn't want to try to rebuild the Liberals while trying to manage this unpopular and unholy beast.

On Harper's end, an election is a gamble which I suspect, even if he's willing to take, his caucus and the party at large is not. Rumors have it that the Tory caucus was seriously ticked at him and Flaherty, and that's why everyone is being so pleasant.

Do you honestly think that the Tory caucus would let Harper lead them to defeat? He's their leader, not their god.

[Mr.Canada]

I doubt Harper would survive the knives from his own party if he loses power on purpose.

It won't matter, the Liberals would be dead for decades to come. He will be remembered for killing the Liberal party. Mission accomplished. The next leader will be moderate and will have massive majority after massive Tory majority. Harper will be the Godfather of the CPC.

[Canadian Blue]

What utter BS.

I am saying he is acting like a sociopath and rabid dog with his partisanship. Even his own people says it is what guides him.

Attack me if you want to. I have come to expect it from Tory supporters who think their own party is completely infallible and justifiable in doing the same thing that caused a loss of confidence a few weeks ago.

As far as polices go, I have been asking what poison bills that Harper wants to introduce to get that non-confidence vote. I have said abortion or death penalty would do the trick.

And you are blindly supporting your own party and making inaccurate statements about other people in these forums as way of personalizing.

I don't think the CPC is infallible, which is why I've stated that I don't expect much from the coming budget which will likely be Harper throwing money around the country in a futile attempt to appease the opposition. That money likely won't do much, especially when it comes to the auto industry.

As for Tory supporters thinking their own party is infallible, I think that's a case of the pot calling the kettle black.

With regards to abortion and the death penalty I think you can keep dreaming. Harper wouldn't dare risk an election on either issue. However from what I hear Stephen Harper may force an election on the issue of whether or not Canadian's want soldiers with guns in cities.

As for making inaccurate statements, I believe you were the one who argued that NAFTA was the brainchild of the Liberals and not the Tories.

Edited December 16, 2008 by Canadian Blue

[M.Dancer]

With regards to abortion and the death penalty I think you can keep dreaming. Harper wouldn't dare risk an election on either issue. However from what I hear Stephen Harper may force an election on the issue of whether or not Canadian's want soldiers with guns in cities.

Touche and game...

[ToadBrother]

It won't matter, the Liberals would be dead for decades to come. He will be remembered for killing the Liberal party. Mission accomplished. The next leader will be moderate and will have massive majority after massive Tory majority. Harper will be the Godfather of the CPC.

This is pure fantasy. Ignatieff is not going to play that game. He'll instruct the Liberals to swallow their pride. But Harper isn't going to be doing anything out of line now. His leash has clearly been shortened substantially, in large part, I suspect from the rumors coming out of party itself, by Caucus and the party executive, and probably in some part by the Governor General, who likely told him her job was not to be his safety net.

I repeat, there will be no election in January. The budget will toss money at key industries just like the opposition wanted, Ignatieff will cement his control over the Liberals, who have no one else to turn to now, and will force them to vote for this budget, thus defeating any attempt by Duceppe and Layton to upset the apple cart. The coalition is dead, Harper's wings have been clipped and Ignatieff will do what Harper did in his turn, sit in Opposition, bide his time and rebuild the party so that in the next election, they can come out swinging.

[Mr.Canada]

This is pure fantasy. Ignatieff is not going to play that game. He'll instruct the Liberals to swallow their pride. But Harper isn't going to be doing anything out of line now. His leash has clearly been shortened substantially, in large part, I suspect from the rumors coming out of party itself, by Caucus and the party executive, and probably in some part by the Governor General, who likely told him her job was not to be his safety net.

I repeat, there will be no election in January. The budget will toss money at key industries just like the opposition wanted, Ignatieff will cement his control over the Liberals, who have no one else to turn to now, and will force them to vote for this budget, thus defeating any attempt by Duceppe and Layton to upset the apple cart. The coalition is dead, Harper's wings have been clipped and Ignatieff will do what Harper did in his turn, sit in Opposition, bide his time and rebuild the party so that in the next election, they can come out swinging.

Of coarse it is. I am making a picture of what'll happen if the Liberals dare vote against Harper.

[August1991]

I am saying he is acting like a sociopath and rabid dog with his partisanship. Even his own people says it is what guides him.

Attack me if you want to. I have come to expect it from Tory supporters who think their own party is completely infallible and justifiable in doing the same thing that caused a loss of confidence a few weeks ago.

"Harper is a bully, a sociopath, a rabid dog, hyper-partisan." Huh?

Where did this rhetoric come from? Is this how the Liberal Party wants to frame Stephen Harper? Do they really think it will work?

-----

As others have noted above, it is rich to see the Liberals attacking Harper for being hyper-partisan or being a bully. Liberals are the ones prepared to do anything to win.

I am astonished that the Liberals no longer talk about reforming their party and establishing a platform. Most Liberals still think that all the party needs is a new leader and they'll be back in power.

Edited December 17, 2008 by August1991

[Goat Boy©]

Harper is getting ready to lose a confidence vote now. That's why he's filling the Senate seats. He's planning his own fall. The coalition will take power with the separatist Bloc and after it falls apart the Liberals will only get 18% support, the NDP will get 10% and the Bloc 12% Harper will get 58% of the vote and a massive majority.

You honestly believe this?

[ToadBrother]

I don't think the CPC is infallible, which is why I've stated that I don't expect much from the coming budget which will likely be Harper throwing money around the country in a futile attempt to appease the opposition. That money likely won't do much, especially when it comes to the auto industry.

That's the part that gets me, how everyone seems to think that Stephen Harper is some political uber-genius who makes these long-term strategies that take into account even the secret maneuverings of the Opposition.

The more rational explanation for what happened is this:

1. Stephen Harper has been used to basically bullying the Opposition, too broke to dare him in confidence motions, for the last two years.

2. With the sure knowledge that the economy was going to nose-dive, he opted to go to the polls in October before the worst hit, so the potential for an election next year when everyone is feelinh the pain, was minimalized.

3. He wasn't aware that senior Liberals, NDPers and Bloc leaders were probably planning some sort of coalition during, and probably even before the election, and thus assumed that the return of a stronger minority meant it was the status quo, only moreso.

4. When this Coalition jumps out of the closet ready to topple the government, with letters being sent off to the Governor General saying "Hey, Your Loftiness, we can topple the government and we're ready to govern in a Coalition, and it's perfectly legal, so be ready!", Harper is actually taken by surprise. His options are now limited to either triggering a snap election just six or seven weeks after the last one, or asking the GG to prorogue Parliament. Remember, at this point no one has had time to gauge the public sentiment, and what if the majority of voters (who did not vote for the Tories) think it's a great thing. He needs time; time to blast the Coalition in any way he can, and time to make sure his own Caucus doesn't line him, Flaherty and whoever else was in on this latest nose-tweaking up against the wall.

5. Caucus basically tells Harper "Fix this situation, or your toast."

6. Harper goes to church, and prays like the Dickens that Ignatieff, who has made little secret of his lack of enthusiasm for the Coalition, is somehow made party leader post haste.

7. The polls are bitter-sweet; Canadians don't like this Coalition, but it's possible that major damage to the Conservatives have been done in Quebec. Harper immediately gets on the horn and invites Ignatieff over for a stiff drink and a handshake. Words of brotherly love are sent out to everyone, but in particular to the Liberals, and word of bailouts in the works are sent to key people, particularly the Ontario government, which is just happy that something, anything is going to happen before the end of January.

Other than item 6, I'm fairly certain that's the order of events.

As for making inaccurate statements, I believe you were the one who argued that NAFTA was the brainchild of the Liberals and not the Tories.

He also seems to think that secular government was the invention of the Communists, and that the Founding Fathers were part of some decades-long Communist conspiracy to overthrow Christianity.

[Canadian Blue]

That's the part that gets me, how everyone seems to think that Stephen Harper is some political uber-genius who makes these long-term strategies that take into account even the secret maneuverings of the Opposition.

I don't think he is, and that wasn't to Harper's credit it was a criticism if you bothered to notice.

He also seems to think that secular government was the invention of the Communists, and that the Founding Fathers were part of some decades-long Communist conspiracy to overthrow Christianity.

No, me and Jdobbin argued about it in the election thread. Keep in mind that he's a hyper-partisan Liberal meaning the LPC can never do any wrong.

[Goat Boy©]

That's the part that gets me, how everyone seems to think that Stephen Harper is some political uber-genius who makes these long-term strategies that take into account even the secret maneuverings of the Opposition.

The more rational explanation for what happened is this:

1. Stephen Harper has been used to basically bullying the Opposition, too broke to dare him in confidence motions, for the last two years.

2. With the sure knowledge that the economy was going to nose-dive, he opted to go to the polls in October before the worst hit, so the potential for an election next year when everyone is feelinh the pain, was minimalized.

3. He wasn't aware that senior Liberals, NDPers and Bloc leaders were probably planning some sort of coalition during, and probably even before the election, and thus assumed that the return of a stronger minority meant it was the status quo, only moreso.

4. When this Coalition jumps out of the closet ready to topple the government, with letters being sent off to the Governor General saying "Hey, Your Loftiness, we can topple the government and we're ready to govern in a Coalition, and it's perfectly legal, so be ready!", Harper is actually taken by surprise. His options are now limited to either triggering a snap election just six or seven weeks after the last one, or asking the GG to prorogue Parliament. Remember, at this point no one has had time to gauge the public sentiment, and what if the majority of voters (who did not vote for the Tories) think it's a great thing. He needs time; time to blast the Coalition in any way he can, and time to make sure his own Caucus doesn't line him, Flaherty and whoever else was in on this latest nose-tweaking up against the wall.

5. Caucus basically tells Harper "Fix this situation, or your toast."

6. Harper goes to church, and prays like the Dickens that Ignatieff, who has made little secret of his lack of enthusiasm for the Coalition, is somehow made party leader post haste.

7. The polls are bitter-sweet; Canadians don't like this Coalition, but it's possible that major damage to the Conservatives have been done in Quebec. Harper immediately gets on the horn and invites Ignatieff over for a stiff drink and a handshake. Words of brotherly love are sent out to everyone, but in particular to the Liberals, and word of bailouts in the works are sent to key people, particularly the Ontario government, which is just happy that something, anything is going to happen before the end of January.

Other than item 6, I'm fairly certain that's the order of events.

He also seems to think that secular government was the invention of the Communists, and that the Founding Fathers were part of some decades-long Communist conspiracy to overthrow Christianity.

Good post. I would replace item 6 with, "Harper goes to church, and prays like the Dickens the liberals have some sense smacked back into them, and possilby come up with a leader that can brush his own teeth without an instruction manual."

[Canadian Blue]

"Harper is a bully, a sociopath, a rabid dog, hyper-partisan." Huh?

Where did this rhetoric come from? Is this how the Liberal Party wants to frame Stephen Harper? Do they really think it will work?

-----

As others have noted above, it is rich to see the Liberals attacking Harper for being hyper-partisan or being a bully. Liberals are the ones prepared to do anything to win.

I am astonished that the Liberals no longer talk about reforming their party and establishing a platform. Most Liberals still think that all the party needs is a new leader and they'll be back in power.

Come on August, here is what politics in Canada basically entails:

1. Conservatives - Liberals will destroy the economy, we'll throw money into a giant hole in the hopes we can remain in government.

2. Liberals - Conservatives will destroy the economy, if only we'd be in power this entire global depression wouldn't have affected us; once we're in power we'll throw money in a giant hole.

3. New Democrats - I blame big oil and George W Bush.

4. Bloc Quebecois - We want to separate from you english pigs, however... if you can give us an extra billion in equalization we'll hold off the separation for a year.

5. Green Party - Hi, I'm Elizabeth May and I'm a member of the Elizabeth May [Green] Party.

Edited December 17, 2008 by Canadian Blue

[jdobbin]

No, me and Jdobbin argued about it in the election thread. Keep in mind that he's a hyper-partisan Liberal meaning the LPC can never do any wrong.

Criticizing other people about not noticing how you don't think Harper is a genius yet criticizing me for never saying anything critical about the Liberals? Surely you haven't been reading many of my posts.

Talk about hyperpartisan and inaccurate claims.

Edited December 17, 2008 by jdobbin

[blueblood]

That's the part that gets me, how everyone seems to think that Stephen Harper is some political uber-genius who makes these long-term strategies that take into account even the secret maneuverings of the Opposition.

The more rational explanation for what happened is this:

1. Stephen Harper has been used to basically bullying the Opposition, too broke to dare him in confidence motions, for the last two years.

2. With the sure knowledge that the economy was going to nose-dive, he opted to go to the polls in October before the worst hit, so the potential for an election next year when everyone is feelinh the pain, was minimalized.

3. He wasn't aware that senior Liberals, NDPers and Bloc leaders were probably planning some sort of coalition during, and probably even before the election, and thus assumed that the return of a stronger minority meant it was the status quo, only moreso.

4. When this Coalition jumps out of the closet ready to topple the government, with letters being sent off to the Governor General saying "Hey, Your Loftiness, we can topple the government and we're ready to govern in a Coalition, and it's perfectly legal, so be ready!", Harper is actually taken by surprise. His options are now limited to either triggering a snap election just six or seven weeks after the last one, or asking the GG to prorogue Parliament. Remember, at this point no one has had time to gauge the public sentiment, and what if the majority of voters (who did not vote for the Tories) think it's a great thing. He needs time; time to blast the Coalition in any way he can, and time to make sure his own Caucus doesn't line him, Flaherty and whoever else was in on this latest nose-tweaking up against the wall.

5. Caucus basically tells Harper "Fix this situation, or your toast."

6. Harper goes to church, and prays like the Dickens that Ignatieff, who has made little secret of his lack of enthusiasm for the Coalition, is somehow made party leader post haste.

7. The polls are bitter-sweet; Canadians don't like this Coalition, but it's possible that major damage to the Conservatives have been done in Quebec. Harper immediately gets on the horn and invites Ignatieff over for a stiff drink and a handshake. Words of brotherly love are sent out to everyone, but in particular to the Liberals, and word of bailouts in the works are sent to key people, particularly the Ontario government, which is just happy that something, anything is going to happen before the end of January.

Other than item 6, I'm fairly certain that's the order of events.

He also seems to think that secular government was the invention of the Communists, and that the Founding Fathers were part of some decades-long Communist conspiracy to overthrow Christianity.

Here's what happened

1. Harper passes legislation, opposition cries their being bullied but don't want to do anything about it.

2. Harper, pissed off things are dragging out in committee, calls election and wins minority, all while the opposition cooks their coalition scheme.

3. Harper, smelling a rat, decides to put in a poison pill to see what the opposition is doing, finds out they are cooking up a coalition.

4. Coalition comes public and tries to bully Harper.

5. Harper does the happy dance as he just found a big election issue

6. Harper, laughing his ass off launches the easiest PR war in tory history and awakens the silent majority. Harper can now see a majority gov't and crippled opposition. He goes to the GG to prorogue parliament and is conducting another PR war to show that he is willing to work with opposition. With proroguing parliament until the budget and "cooperating" he has covered his ass for a probable election call.

7. Harper does the happy dance again because either way he wins!

For your viewing delight, the tory war room complete with Harper's happy dance

youtube

Edited December 17, 2008 by blueblood

[jdobbin]

"Harper is a bully, a sociopath, a rabid dog, hyper-partisan." Huh?

Where did this rhetoric come from? Is this how the Liberal Party wants to frame Stephen Harper? Do they really think it will work?

Yes, as a matter of fact, I do.

The rabid dog quote came from Rick Mercer who said that Harper is a rabid dog could not not be reformed, only taken behind the shed...

As others have noted above, it is rich to see the Liberals attacking Harper for being hyper-partisan or being a bully. Liberals are the ones prepared to do anything to win.

It is rich to hear Tory supporters are not prepared to do the same.

I am astonished that the Liberals no longer talk about reforming their party and establishing a platform. Most Liberals still think that all the party needs is a new leader and they'll be back in power.

I am astonished that some Tories think that Harper wants to let the Liberals to have even a chance of survival and are doing everything they can to destroy and not merely defeat the party.

There was no way that Harper wanted to let the Liberals elect a leader, work on organization, reform financing and develop policies. They wanted to run against Dion and were readying an election come hell or high water.

[blueblood]

Yes, as a matter of fact, I do.

The rabid dog quote came from Rick Mercer who said that Harper is a rabid dog could not not be reformed, only taken behind the shed...

It is rich to hear Tory supporters are not prepared to do the same.

I am astonished that some Tories think that Harper wants to let the Liberals to have even a chance of survival and are doing everything they can to destroy and not merely defeat the party.

There was no way that Harper wanted to let the Liberals elect a leader, work on organization, reform financing and develop policies. They wanted to run against Dion and were readying an election come hell or high water.

If a tory majority means the Liberals are destroyed as a party, give your head a shake. A majority would be beneficial as it would give the Libs time to get their affairs in order.

[jdobbin]

If a tory majority means the Liberals are destroyed as a party, give your head a shake. A majority would be beneficial as it would give the Libs time to get their affairs in order.

And if you don't get your Tory majority, will you become a separatist?

[Canadian Blue]

Criticizing other people about not noticing how you don't think Harper is a genius yet criticizing me for never saying anything critical about the Liberals? Surely you haven't been reading many of my posts.

Talk about hyperpartisan and inaccurate claims.

I already have a response to that:

With regards to abortion and the death penalty I think you can keep dreaming. Harper wouldn't dare risk an election on either issue. However from what I hear Stephen Harper may force an election on the issue of whether or not Canadian's want soldiers with guns in cities.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uMsqEph7a8I...feature=related

This is of course in response to your claim that Harper has a scary hidden agenda to turn us into something akin to 1950's Alabama.

It is rich to hear Tory supporters are not prepared to do the same.

Come on Jdobbin, you know politics for the most part is about winning. You can't honestly tell us that the LPC is always truthful and never puts any spin on the issues in order to get votes.

I am astonished that some Tories think that Harper wants to let the Liberals to have even a chance of survival and are doing everything they can to destroy and not merely defeat the party.

Seriously, you can't honestly tell me that most Liberals weren't happy in the 90's when they realized their was no chance of any opposition party forming government.

There was no way that Harper wanted to let the Liberals elect a leader, work on organization, reform financing and develop policies. They wanted to run against Dion and were readying an election come hell or high water.

The Liberals should have reformed their party from 2006-2008, they didn't. Your party dug itself into this mess, and it likely won't learn from it's mistakes simply because many people in the party think they're entitled to power.

Perhaps the Liberals should have listened more often to Gerard Kennedy who wanted to bring in reforms to the party.

[Goat Boy©]

With regards to abortion and the death penalty I think you can keep dreaming. Harper wouldn't dare risk an election on either issue.

He can't touch this. It's suicide. To say that their's a risk is fear mongering.

Come on Jdobbin, you know politics for the most part is about winning. You can't honestly tell us that the LPC is always truthful and never puts any spin on the issues in order to get votes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Harper_attack_ads

Seriously, you can't honestly tell me that most Liberals weren't happy in the 90's when they realized their was no chance of any opposition party forming government.

Pot meet kettle.

[capricorn]

I repeat, there will be no election in January. The budget will toss money at key industries just like the opposition wanted, Ignatieff will cement his control over the Liberals, who have no one else to turn to now, and will force them to vote for this budget, thus defeating any attempt by Duceppe and Layton to upset the apple cart. The coalition is dead, Harper's wings have been clipped and Ignatieff will do what Harper did in his turn, sit in Opposition, bide his time and rebuild the party so that in the next election, they can come out swinging.

Toad, I pretty well agree with your well articulated views of the situation.

I would add that there is another advantage for the Liberals to keep the Conservatives in government. It is that the economy will get worse and typically, the government in power at the time tends to pay the price at the polls. This is one consolation presently entertained by some Liberals.

"It's better to have the Tories there while these layoffs are happening," a Liberal source said. "It doesn't matter how much money you're going to spend, there are still going to be layoffs. No one can solve the problem we have right away. All you can do is lay the foundations of solving it in the next two to three years. The reality is whatever we do in the next few months, we will see the benefits of it in 2010. If we spend $10-billion tomorrow, you're not going to see any results in the next few months, you're going to see the results in 2010."

http://www.thehilltimes.ca/html/cover_inde...harper/&c=1

Canadians need time to get to know Ignatieff. For many, he is a big question mark and this would not help the Liberals in an election. He must be proactive about it and not let the Conservatives define him. I'm sure Dion can and did fill him in on that pitfall.