Jump to content

Harper's in deep, deep trouble


Recommended Posts

Correct me if I'm wrong jdobbin but your argument seems to be that Harper has done the same thing that he accused the Liberals of doing and that this may translate into a loss of his support.

The Liberals painted themselves in a corner with a hard stance?

Even if he did, why would it? Any marketing man knows that it's never enough to disparage the competition. You have to also give a reason why YOUR product or service would be better!

In Canada, governments often defeat themselves. Harper himself won because he and his party weren't Liberals. he has fallen short of majorities in part because all he does is disparage Liberals.

That's not the case here at all. Should Harper supporters abandon him because he's acting like a Liberal and then VOTE Liberal? That makes no sense at all!

Don't think I have made that argument at all. Are you saying that supporters have no choice but to vote Harper?

We've still been given no reason to think that the Liberals would be better. We still have a LOT of bad Liberal history to influence our decisions! There are still a lot of people who remember Jane Stewart and the HRDC, the gun registry cost over-runs, Shawinigate, all those canoe museums, Adscam and on and on and on. There may be some new people in the forefront of the Liberal party but that will not entirely put everything that has gone before down the memory hole. If Liberals can drag up Mulroney's perhaps chequered past then they themselves are fair game.

By all means bring up the past.

Harper now has a record himself and UFO museums and deficits. And that is just recent events.

I'd be the first to agree with you that Harper is a flawed leader. So what? He may smell but he still smells less to me than the Liberal party.

You might vote for him but less committed might just sit out a vote.

There is always a slump in the polls for incumbent governments between elections and a rise for Opposition parties. The only thing that matters is how people feel once the writ is dropped.

Yes, we have heard this before.

The Liberals need to stop the emphasis on cutting down their opponent and coming up with positive reasons why they're a better choice. Sure Ignatief is a new guy but that only makes him a "what if". He has only promises and no proven history.

So you disagree with Harper's negative strategy every time he uses it?

You should note that several decades of disappointment with ALL politicians has Americanized most Canadians. We're now Missourians! You have to SHOW us, not just tell us!

I think Harper has shown us. He has shown that he is just not there is just something not right about him and this keeps him from achieving his majority.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 134
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Of course. As Liz said, Canadians are stupid. They'll vote for the Canadian Jesus I'm certain of that. Hell, quite a few voted for Dion and his green shift. If I recall, Jesus thought that was a good idea.

Is it the Tory goals to anger Canadians and Christians all at the same time?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Should Harper supporters abandon him because he's acting like a Liberal and then VOTE Liberal? That makes no sense at all!

You're right, that does make no sense. What makes more sense is for Conservatives to dump Harper and replace him with someone who will act like a Conservative. And maybe Conservatives should look outside the box and not pick yet another professional politician who cannot jettison his baggage.

One of the wisest Liberal moves in the past five months was to dump Dion. CPC needs to find a new leader. Who seriously believes today that Harper will win another federal election?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jdobbin, you keep saying "coalition" as if getting support to prop up a minority government is equivalent to what Dion, Duceppe and Layton tried to do.

I don't see it! Minority governments have always used support from one or a number of opposition parties to stay in power. What Dion proposed was quite different. He would have OUSTED a ruling party by means of an opposition coalition! The party in power would have been gone, without an election.

If this is the same thing then I'm afraid I'm missing something. Perhaps you could explain it a bit better.

I think you're confused as to how Parliamentary politics work. It is tradition that the party with the most seats forms the government, if they happen to be a minority then so be it. All members of parliament are duly elected by the people and therefore each and every one of them is representing the people that elected them. Because a party won the most seats, but still does not have the majority of seats and by extension does not have the confidence of the majority of the country, does not mean they remain in government or cannot be replaced. Any number of duly elected officials may form the government. This includes a coalition or a single party. It is highly irregular but not unheard of.

Now the only difference between what Mr. Harper is doing and what Mr. Dionne did is that one was official and the other is not. Do the means truly matter if the end is the same? I'm in complete agreement with Jdobbin, Harper has become everything he so vociferously opposed just 5 short months ago. The only difference is in semantics, a coalition by any other name...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think you're confused as to how Parliamentary politics work. It is tradition that the party with the most seats forms the government, if they happen to be a minority then so be it. All members of parliament are duly elected by the people and therefore each and every one of them is representing the people that elected them. Because a party won the most seats, but still does not have the majority of seats and by extension does not have the confidence of the majority of the country, does not mean they remain in government or cannot be replaced. Any number of duly elected officials may form the government. This includes a coalition or a single party. It is highly irregular but not unheard of.

Now the only difference between what Mr. Harper is doing and what Mr. Dionne did is that one was official and the other is not. Do the means truly matter if the end is the same? I'm in complete agreement with Jdobbin, Harper has become everything he so vociferously opposed just 5 short months ago. The only difference is in semantics, a coalition by any other name...

Sorry, but I still can't agree. Technically you're right but tradition has never worked that way. Even so, there is a difference between garnering support for a minority party to stay in power and having all the other parties boot out the one with the most seats. Has that ever been done in Canada before?

I'm not arguing that both ways aren't legal. I don't believe most Canadians care. They are DIFFERENT and will be perceived differently by voters come the next election.

There are lots of reasons to be dissatisfied with Harper but I think this one is just a bit of a stretch. Next someone will be blaming Harper for swine flu and tsunamis.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, but I still can't agree. Technically you're right but tradition has never worked that way. Even so, there is a difference between garnering support for a minority party to stay in power and having all the other parties boot out the one with the most seats. Has that ever been done in Canada before?

I'm not arguing that both ways aren't legal. I don't believe most Canadians care. They are DIFFERENT and will be perceived differently by voters come the next election.

There are lots of reasons to be dissatisfied with Harper but I think this one is just a bit of a stretch. Next someone will be blaming Harper for swine flu and tsunamis.

I don't think that "It's never worked that way" is truly a valid argument. Irregularities occur all the time. Never before in the entire history of parliamentary democracy in the entire British common wealth had a PM ever requested a prorogation of parliament whilst a confidence motion was on the floor. Even more surprisingly the GG consented to this unprecedented and highly unusual request.

But that is at the very heart of what Mr. Harper is doing. I'm certainly not assigning blame here but his recent "playing nice" attitude does give me pause. When Mr. Harper was elected in fall '08 he failed to learn from history and the mistakes that Joe Clark made. You can't govern as a majority when you have a minority parliament. Fine lesson learned, Dion grew a pair and things got kind of dicey. How does Mr. Harper react? He goes on national TV in an American style address and decries the ills of making deals with separatists and socialists. If the GG had chosen not to grant the PM's request we'd have had a minority Liberal parliament propped up by the NDP and the Bloc.

For better or worse she did grant the request, Dion was replaced and the coalition died. Now we have a kinder gentler Harper at the helm and it appears he's learned from his mistakes in the fall. With the Liberals in such a strong position they have neither the need nor the inclination to prop him up. So what do we have? We have a conservative minority propped up by the NDP or the Bloc, in effect we are in the same position we would have been in if the coalition had be successful. Reality is he needs the support of one other opposition party if he is to survive. If he's going to get that he has to be prepared to bring his check book. If he doesn't concede to their exorbitant demands it's game over. Many criticized Dion for grabbing at power; I say Harper is no different except he's trying to hold onto it by any means necessary. He knows his days are numbered and I'm not sure how likely it is that his government will survive far into 2010.

You can dress it up any way you like, Harper needs an opposition party's support to survive, and they need the CPC to push their agenda through. Issue by issue consensus, coalition call it what you will it all equates to making a deal that is mutually beneficial. There's nothing wrong with that, but at least let's be up front about it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Madmax, your analysis is all fine and good but it leaves out a glaring detail: poll numbers. If we were to have an election today, both the NDP and the BQ would both lose a large number of seats. Neither party wants an election now and so both are willing to negotiate with Harper.

It is a GLARING detail. I cannot foresee an election in May, June, July, August, Sept. I cannot see the Liberals voting against something, or the CPC putting forth a bill that the LPC will not support, unless the CPC wants to force another election. As for the LPC, I think the LPC would be committing suicide by having an early election. Still get gains, but nothing substantial, and the LPC needs to win alot more seats nearly double to get into minority control let alone majority. Beyond all the spinning, the LPC really don't have their shit together, but they are working the media hard to create the image that they do. They also are doing alot of spinning with the media to get the monkey off their back and onto the BQ or NDP.

I can't honestly tell you how the BQ or NDP would react, I am only giving my opinion. You might be correct.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hilarious. This from a clown of a Prime Minister who triggered an unwanted election in October, violating his own fixed election date legislation. His hypocrisy knows no bounds.

Why do you lie in such ways, is it really all you have? It has been gone over time and time before. The fixed election date law was not violated. But if you like it (the fixed election date law) can be posted again and again to refute your lie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The fixed election date law was not violated.

Maybe so, but that means that the law was there for window dressing only....not to mention that it's another of example of Harper breaking his 'ethical code' (does he have one)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Maybe so, but that means that the law was there for window dressing only....not to mention that it's another of example of Harper breaking his 'ethical code' (does he have one)?

He does, it's basically, "Screw you Jack, I'm alright, I've got mine".....basically the same ethical code that all politico's seem to follow.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

basically the same ethical code that all politico's seem to follow.

Ahhh, that's not fair...there are politicians far more honest than Harper...hell, we had one until February 6, 2006, and Canadians voted him out...seems we don't like honest politicians.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But that is at the very heart of what Mr. Harper is doing. I'm certainly not assigning blame here but his recent "playing nice" attitude does give me pause. When Mr. Harper was elected in fall '08 he failed to learn from history and the mistakes that Joe Clark made. You can't govern as a majority when you have a minority parliament. Fine lesson learned, Dion grew a pair and things got kind of dicey.
And where is Mr. Dion now? And Mr. Harper?

Case closed.

Are you offended that Stephen Harper knows how to play the political game (as if that were the sovereign right of Liberals alone)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Never before in the entire history of parliamentary democracy in the entire British common wealth had a PM ever requested a prorogation of parliament whilst a confidence motion was on the floor.

I agree with most everything else you've said, but, I've read the above elsewhere before, and still find myself thinking it's untrue. The infamous King-Byng affair in 1926 was, by my understanding of it, a case where the Prime Minister advised the Governor General to prorogue parliament because a confdence motion was pending and his party was caught in scandal. The only difference seems to be that King recommended an election to follow, whereas Harper did not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ahhh, that's not fair...there are politicians far more honest than Harper...hell, we had one until February 6, 2006, and Canadians voted him out...seems we don't like honest politicians.

I never took interest in politics, mind you i am still to young to vote. our class is doing a report on democracy and a large percent of us are basing our failed democracy on Harper, I never understood how much our leader lies to us, and my dad who is a fiscal conservative is mad as hell about being lied to about running defecits, the war in Iraq, income trusts etc.

If what my dad is telling me the conservatives need to split, he sais to many dying heart liberals like Harper have corupted the party, and I believe him. I get most of my info from youtube and it makes me mad too listening to the man lie to our faces. I wish these corupt no gooders would be held accoutable , thrown in jail for misleading the people of Canada

Link to comment
Share on other sites

our failed democracy

I certainly wouldn't call it that. Our democracy only fails when we give up on it...now granted, a large number of people have, but I'm hoping we can find a way to change that. People need to better understand our system, to me that is one of the most important things.

If what my dad is telling me the conservatives need to split, he said too many dying heart liberals like Harper.

And I certainly wouldn't call Harper a liberal. I'm a Liberal (big L, as in the party)...though not always a liberal (small l, as in the philosophy). I think that Harper is an opportunist who will do anything possible to stay in power...he will even go as far as to lie about our democracy to a public that aready lacks knowledge about it. I voted for him in October....and I won't be voting for him again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I certainly wouldn't call it that. Our democracy only fails when we give up on it...now granted, a large number of people have, but I'm hoping we can find a way to change that. People need to better understand our system, to me that is one of the most important things.

And I certainly wouldn't call Harper a liberal. I'm a Liberal (big L, as in the party)...though not always a liberal (small l, as in the philosophy). I think that Harper is an opportunist who will do anything possible to stay in power...he will even go as far as to lie about our democracy to a public that aready lacks knowledge about it. I voted for him in October....and I won't be voting for him again.

thank you for responding I should be done my report sunday, what I ask from you is why did you as a liberal vote for Harper? you can help me allot by answering that. My dad said he did because he thought all other party's were going to run a defecit and buy into the stimulous fraud wich to my uderstanding devalues the dollar and will drive us into hyper inflation leaving a debt on his children he does not want.

Like you ,when I am old enouph to vote i think i will be a liberal too I see a charming loyal trust worthy Ignatiaff who will lead this country out of this mess, I son't like arogance much and how conservatives try to corupt our system like our health minister in Alberta that locked the oposition out, we need to work in a democracy not a fascist state where opinions are sensored. I also feel strongly against the war Harper waged on Iraq he killed so many of our people with his lies of weapons of mass destruction.

Thanks.

Craig

Link to comment
Share on other sites

thank you for responding I should be done my report Sunday, what I ask from you is why did you as a liberal vote for Harper?

I voted Conservative because I felt that they would do the best job at managing the economy. Now, I still think that Harper is a better leader than Dion was, but I lost all confidence in him after he and his ministers lied over and over about a 'coup' in December...which is never what was happening...even if I still thought that Harper was a better Prime Minister than Dion. Harper seems to have no respect for the system, and that's my biggest gripe.

Here is a good example of a Harper Minister lying about Parliament....too bad there will soon be no Don Newman to deliver the facts.

It's important to watch to the end if you can.

Edited by Smallc
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Sorry, but I still can't agree. Technically you're right but tradition has never worked that way. Even so, there is a difference between garnering support for a minority party to stay in power and having all the other parties boot out the one with the most seats. Has that ever been done in Canada before?

I'm not arguing that both ways aren't legal. I don't believe most Canadians care. They are DIFFERENT and will be perceived differently by voters come the next election.

Sure they're different. One is a coup. The other is a traditional minority government. How would Jdobbin have felt if the PCPC and the NDP did an end-around Pearson, booted him, and split the government among themselves. Isn't it like two wolves and a lamb voting on who's dinner?
There are lots of reasons to be dissatisfied with Harper but I think this one is just a bit of a stretch. Next someone will be blaming Harper for swine flu and tsunamis.
I thought Harper caused the Boxing Day Tsunami as Opposition Leader. I think the swine flu was caused by Leona Aglukkaq.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

....but I lost all confidence in him after he and his ministers lied over and over about a 'coup' in December...which is never what was happening...even if I still thought that Harper was a better Prime Minister than Dion. Harper seems to have no respect for the system, and that's my biggest gripe.

It was a coup inasmuch as the CPC had just increased their seat count by about 15 or 16, and the other three parties decided to do an end-around the election.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It was a coup inasmuch as the CPC had just increased their seat count by about 15 or 16, and the other three parties decided to do an end-around the election.

No, that's not what happened, and saying it again and again won't make it true.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Tell a friend

    Love Repolitics.com - Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
  • Member Statistics

    • Total Members
      10,712
    • Most Online
      1,403

    Newest Member
    nyralucas
    Joined
  • Recent Achievements

    • Jeary earned a badge
      One Month Later
    • Venandi went up a rank
      Apprentice
    • Gaétan earned a badge
      Very Popular
    • Dictatords earned a badge
      First Post
    • babetteteets earned a badge
      One Year In
  • Recently Browsing

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...