Why the hate for harper?

[wyly]

The only reason Harper stays in power is that there's no one else out there who's as good a leader as him. Much to the detriment of the other parties, and all Canadians.

POV, is the glass of water half full or half empty...

the only reason Harper can't get a majority is he's no good...what happened to all those conservative votes that gave Mulroney a majority? why aren't they pushing Harper into majority? because he scares the crap out of moderate conservatives...the liberals owe their problems more to a strong Bloc than to Liberal leadership problems and Harpers ability...

the only reason Harper is in power is because he's ruthless in silencing the religious nutters in his party and the old progressive conservatives see tying their fate to him as better than being banished into the political wilderness...

we'll see if he can hold on to power and keep that party from coming apart should another election fail yet again to produce a majority...

[bjre]

The only reason Harper stays in power is that there's no one else out there who's as good a leader as him.

That is what I believed.

The point is why so?

How come this become true?

I believe the answer is in the education system, and the the legal system, and CAS.

I did not see kids who has some spirit here.

What I heard is "daddy, why I need do this?"

This is what the education system gives to them.

Can you hope that there can be some chance for someone who has been born and raised in Canada to be an outstanding leader in future?

[Moonlight Graham]

Hysterical drivel.

You don't think there's a chance that, if he had a majority, Harper would try to reverse laws on same-sex marriage and abortion? I certainly wouldn't put it past him and the CPC.

Edited May 20, 2010 by Moonlight Graham

[Oleg Bach]

And as long as it stays in his church, I don't care. It's when, for instance, a Creationist gains control of science funding, I get concerned.

Christian fundamentalists are not Christians. They adhere to the state and submit to it as instructed by Paulist doctrines that have been misinterpreted..the original reason for "obey the state for it was put into place by God................this is not true- but you have to read between Pauls lines..He meant- when in a slave state- fake compliance..in order to avoid persecution and harrassment...fundies take Paulist indoctrination literally..I am sure that even Harper does not grasp real Christian doctrine- if he did he would be a rebel and not a fancey stoolie.

[scribblet]

Hysterical drivel.

And then some. Sheez - sometimes I look in here and see a lot posters drinking the kool aid.

[Moonlight Graham]

POV, is the glass of water half full or half empty...

the only reason Harper can't get a majority is he's no good...what happened to all those conservative votes that gave Mulroney a majority? why aren't they pushing Harper into majority? because he scares the crap out of moderate conservatives...the liberals owe their problems more to a strong Bloc than to Liberal leadership problems and Harpers ability...

the only reason Harper is in power is because he's ruthless in silencing the religious nutters in his party and the old progressive conservatives see tying their fate to him as better than being banished into the political wilderness...

we'll see if he can hold on to power and keep that party from coming apart should another election fail yet again to produce a majority...

Not a bad analysis. However, it's my opinion that if the Liberals had a solid leader they would likely vote the Liberals back in, or at least make it a darn close race. If Martin was the Liberal leader now and didn't have all that sponsorship scandal fallout on the party's back i think he would have a very good chance to win a minority gov in an election.

Canadians don't love harper, but they are somewhat satisfied with the job he's doing, as he's better than the other horrible leadership options that have been out there for the past couple elections. But IMO most Canadians certainly would not like to see the CPC and Harper have a a majority gov, but are comfortable with him running a minority gov because of the check on his power.

[Oleg Bach]

There is no President in America. There is no Prime Minister in Canada- just simple and very tacit rule by committee..these are front men- two very bland human beings who payed attention in acting class. It reminds me of the books you see on Hitler..where he doing Hamlet like poses while being coached by an instructor.I sure wish the committee would step forward and stand up and be counted---but...non-existance is the best security..pretty soon even the G8 guys will be sending surrogates.

[Moonlight Graham]

There is no President in America. There is no Prime Minister in Canada- just simple and very tacit rule by committee..these are front men- two very bland human beings who payed attention in acting class. It reminds me of the books you see on Hitler..where he doing Hamlet like poses while being coached by an instructor.I sure wish the committee would step forward and stand up and be counted---but...non-existance is the best security..pretty soon even the G8 guys will be sending surrogates.

A very typical Oleg post. Lots of vague Bourgeoisie-exploitation comments, but not much behind it. Can you please expand on this? Why do you think the PM is a puppet? Controlled by whom exactly? And why/how? Got any links?

[jbg]

the only reason Harper can't get a majority is he's no good...what happened to all those conservative votes that gave Mulroney a majority? why aren't they pushing Harper into majority? because he scares the crap out of moderate conservatives...the liberals owe their problems more to a strong Bloc than to Liberal leadership problems and Harpers ability...

I guess you didn't read my earlier post:

That was the Progressive Conservatives, which had as a large component much of the current Bloc. That's not an "apples to apples" comparison.

the only reason Harper is in power is because he's ruthless in silencing the religious nutters in his party and the old progressive conservatives see tying their fate to him as better than being banished into the political wilderness...

Are you saying you're in favor of religious nutters in government?

we'll see if he can hold on to power and keep that party from coming apart should another election fail yet again to produce a majority...

And why haven't Ignatieff and Layton followed through on their multiple threats to pull the plug?

[Dave_ON]

They call it a big tent, which is what you need to win elections.

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.

[Oleg Bach]

A very typical Oleg post. Lots of vague Bourgeoisie-exploitation comments, but not much behind it. Can you please expand on this? Why do you think the PM is a puppet? Controlled by whom exactly? And why/how? Got any links?

It must be a hard done scar from my youth..there was the unpleasant and life altering experience of having envolved myself with a young woman who was part of a very strong buisness and legal family- I saw members from the left and the right dine with them- It seemed that those in control of law and money played both sides of the fence. AND to this day my belief is that people do not become Prime Minister or President..they are in a sense choosen groomed and appointed..Who ever control the wealth controls the nation- and who ever appoints the judicary control buisness ande the taxing along with the social system..

I don't bother with "links" - Politics is for public endulgence and consumption- the real guys are as they have always been- unknown and quiet..a type of arch crimminal bathed in the sweet soap of establishment..they all start off as crooks-- and the power is passed down and on--The world has always been like this- to this day no one is really sure who Hitlers handlers were..but he had handlers..where as someone like Stalin killed his--which was a huge mistake as far as brain power.

[Argus]

Now there's a useful attribute... no not really.

As a musician I don't think he's that good anyway. His singing is quite bad. He'd be better off sticking to anecdotes about hockey players.

The only reason Harper stays in power is that there's no one else out there who's as good a leader as him. Much to the detriment of the other parties, and all Canadians.

It may have escaped your notice but Canada does not throw up a richness of thrilling and brilliant political figures. Looking back over all three parties since Trudeau's time, the only people I would have liked to have seen given a try were Stanfield and Crosbie. On the Liberals, the only one i liked was Manley, but he was an ardent anti-monarchist and likely would have caused more harm than good.

[Argus]

the only reason Harper can't get a majority is he's no good...what happened to all those conservative votes that gave Mulroney a majority?

He's not French enough for them so they found a seperate party which allows them to always vote for a Frenchman.

[Argus]

You don't think there's a chance that, if he had a majority, Harper would try to reverse laws on same-sex marriage and abortion? I certainly wouldn't put it past him and the CPC.

I think the most he would do on abortion, given the fact large numbers of Tories would not support banning it, would be to introduce some type of legislation similar to what they have in Europe. I don't think that would be a huge crisis. As for gays, I doubt he really wants to open that can of worms. But again, the worst he could do would be to change gay marriage to civil unions, which is not exactly of earth shattering importance, and is actually perfectly in keeping with Obama's belief on the subject.

[DrGreenthumb]

If I was a liberal I would be embarressed by dr greenthumb.But at least harper walks the walk, he at least play music with musicans, not just hang on to them like the last 2 liberal leaders.

Why would I embarass a Liberal? I am not a Liberal, I am a proud NDP supporter.

If I were any of you Harper supporters I would be embarassed for myself. In fact I'd be ashamed.

Edited May 20, 2010 by DrGreenthumb

[Moonlight Graham]

I think the most he would do on abortion, given the fact large numbers of Tories would not support banning it, would be to introduce some type of legislation similar to what they have in Europe. I don't think that would be a huge crisis. As for gays, I doubt he really wants to open that can of worms. But again, the worst he could do would be to change gay marriage to civil unions, which is not exactly of earth shattering importance, and is actually perfectly in keeping with Obama's belief on the subject.

Well, i mostly agree, but what he "could" do is much different than what he would like to do if he had his way, so i think that's what scared the public.

I disagree that going from gay marriage to civil unions wouldn't be a huge deal. A move like that would sure hit the front page and cause a stink, most of the people who would be most angry likely don't vote for the CPC anyways.

But again, the worst he could do would be to change gay marriage to civil unions, which is not exactly of earth shattering importance, and is actually perfectly in keeping with Obama's belief on the subject.

We know Obama's political stance on gay marriage, but we don't know what his true "beliefs" are on it. Knowing he's a liberal but also a practicing Christian it's hard to say.

[Argus]

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 shouldn't be a big surprise. Harper is not French. Quebec doesn't much like Anglos and won't vote for one given any choice at all. It never has, given a choice, and it never will. Now that the BQ is there Quebec will continue to park most of its seats with them until a Frenchman takes the reins of one of the other parties. Only then will those votes come into play with the possibility of someone getting a majority.

Added on top of that, it has always been generally assumed a Harper majority would be hard nosed about the budget, and would cut unnecessary spending. The Atlantic provinces have little enthusiasm for that sort of mentality. They usually vote for who will offer them the most goodies.

And of course, Harper is not exactly Mr. Charisma, nor has his party come up with any great, exciting policies in the last four years to inspire people to rush out to vote for him.

Edited May 20, 2010 by Argus

[Alta4ever]

The only reason Harper continues to get elected is because Christian fundamentalist groups.

Please define this term.

I doubt you have the mental capacity to distinguish one let alone define one in a rational way.

[Moonlight Graham]

Then why make the comparison at all, since it does not apply? Is this just another American "bogeyman" argument so often used in these discussions? Flaming on Harper does not require an American accelerant.

It's much more than that....it apparently provides the only framwework with which to define Canadian proceedings. I would think somebody here could formulate a domestic historical perspective on "executive privilege" and "Parliamentary privilege" without always going for the easy American rimshot.

Why is there no such depth presented here? Is it not interesting?

There has been discussion on the "historical perspective" in this thread, ie: Shady vs whomever on the British Bill of Rights of 1689 etc., and comparisons to Chretien etc.

As another poster said, it's routine in poli-sci to compare political institutions of different countries. Pick up a book on Senate reform and you'll certainly see many comparisons to the U.S., U.K., and Australian Senates. It's natural for Canadians to compare many things in Canada to how it is in the U.S. Its the only country that borders Canada and the only country anywhere close with any signs of significant civilization. We are obviously exposed to tons of your media so we are quite knowledgeable of your country, political or otherwise, so comparisons ensue. I don't know why this is so fascinating to you.

And yeah, we will criticize your country, especially if it affects us or others. I'll criticize U.S. foreign policy, just as i do my own ie: Afghan detainees and Haiti etc., and if you or anyone else in the world criticizes Canada for legit reasons (ie: not just for spite) that's fine by me.

[Dave_ON]

It shouldn't be a big surprise. Harper is not French. Quebec doesn't much like Anglos and won't vote for one given any choice at all. It never has, given a choice, and it never will. Now that the BQ is there Quebec will continue to park most of its seats with them until a Frenchman takes the reins of one of the other parties. Only then will those votes come into play with the possibility of someone getting a majority.

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.

And of course, Harper is not exactly Mr. Charisma, nor has his party come up with any great, exciting policies in the last four years to inspire people to rush out to vote for him.

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.

[bush_cheney2004]

There has been discussion on the "historical perspective" in this thread, ie: Shady vs whomever on the British Bill of Rights of 1689 etc., and comparisons to Chretien etc.

Perhaps, but it is only superficial at best. The history of "executive privilege" (and Parliamentary privilege which has gone unnoticed) surely can be reviewed without the primary and specific reference of Richard M. Nixon shaping the perception and expectation for the largely different Canadian context. Some members here have a respectable, Google free understanding of Canadian history, while others are happy to know and project more of the American experience in the absence of such knowledge. It flows readily from them not for my consumption, but as the normal intellectual currency of the day....as if American dollars were used throughout Canada with hardly a notice.

As another poster said, it's routine in poli-sci to compare political institutions of different countries. Pick up a book on Senate reform and you'll certainly see many comparisons to the U.S., U.K., and Australian Senates. It's natural for Canadians to compare many things in Canada to how it is in the U.S. Its the only country that borders Canada and the only country anywhere close with any signs of significant civilization. We are obviously exposed to tons of your media so we are quite knowledgeable of your country, political or otherwise, so comparisons ensue. I don't know why this is so fascinating to you.

It is fascinating to me....if only because I cannot imagine or relate to being so totally smothered by another nation's "culture" in this way. It must be stifling at times, and eventually becomes the norm because there is no alternative (except in Quebec?). I think comparisons (and contrasts) ensue for definition of what it means to be Canadian and rejection of American hegemony, even if largely unsuccessful.

And yeah, we will criticize your country, especially if it affects us or others. I'll criticize U.S. foreign policy, just as i do my own ie: Afghan detainees and Haiti etc., and if you or anyone else in the world criticizes Canada for legit reasons (ie: not just for spite) that's fine by me.

Criticism is fair for all, legitimate or not. I agree with you 100%, and look forward to more exchanges of the critical variety. That some members are irked by my criticism(s) of Canada bothers me not in the least, as turnabout is fair play.

[August1991]

I have flipped through this thread very quickly and I stiull don't know why some English Canadians hate Harper. Is it his blue eyes? Is it because he's so WASP?

The debate about secrecy and Parliament is meaningless. Previous governments were no different.

It may have escaped your notice but Canada does not throw up a richness of thrilling and brilliant political figures. Looking back over all three parties since Trudeau's time, the only people I would have liked to have seen given a try were Stanfield and Crosbie. On the Liberals, the only one i liked was Manley, but he was an ardent anti-monarchist and likely would have caused more harm than good.

On the contrary, I think Canada has chosen some very skilled politicians. In other countries (eg Sri Lanka and Lebanon), politicians invariably bungled and society collpased into chaos. Our politicians, to their credit, manage to compromise.

Or how about Argentina or Nigeria where compromise was not the issue but the share of a natural resource?

And then there's the best example: Yugoslavia. While Tito was alive and the Cold War existed, Yugoslavia "functioned". After 1992, it (and all of so-called civilized Europe by proxy) descended into barbary.

Whatever one can say about Canadian politicians, they are skilled and they have been for several centuries.

-----

So, what explains Harper's poll results? I reckon that Harper (a Wasp) has the support of most of English Canada (or as much as he's going to get). Quebec is still reticent to support a Wasp and as a result, some parts of Protestant English Canada are reticent to accept Harper too because they want a united country. It's hard to be a Protestant federal politician in Catholic Canada.

In this sense, I was impressed how quickly Harper quashed the abortion debate.

IMV, Harper is weak in French Canada and among women.

----

Last point. It's true that some English Canadians really, really hate Harper. I reckon they are gay, or mothers of gay sons. For some reason, gays really hate Harper.

Edited May 21, 2010 by August1991

[Sir Bandelot]

It shouldn't be a big surprise. Harper is not French. Quebec doesn't much like Anglos and won't vote for one given any choice at all. It never has, given a choice, and it never will. Now that the BQ is there Quebec will continue to park most of its seats with them until a Frenchman takes the reins of one of the other parties. Only then will those votes come into play with the possibility of someone getting a majority.

It makes sense

[DrGreenthumb]

For some reason, gays really hate Harper.

Gee I wonder why? Maybe because he and the rest of his party are prejudiced towards homosexuals? Most of the time when you single out a group of people and promote policies that damage/devalue them they tend to not want to be your friend. People are funny that way.

Christian fundamentalists like Harper, Stockwell Day, Vic Toews, etc , etc, are willing to suspend their common sense(if they ever had any) to "believe" that the bible is a literal historic record. Then to make things worse they are willing to ignore facts and science to try and force their retarded views on the rest of us who want no part of them.

That is what a fundamentalist is Alta, I'm not accusing you or all people who vote CPC of being one, but if you vote for Harper knowing full well (or being willfully ignorant of the fact) that Harper wants to force his dementia on the country then you are complicit in the rights violations that will occur under his reign.

[Alta4ever]

Gee I wonder why? Maybe because he and the rest of his party are prejudiced towards homosexuals? Most of the time when you single out a group of people and promote policies that damage/devalue them they tend to not want to be your friend. People are funny that way.

Christian fundamentalists like Harper, Stockwell Day, Vic Toews, etc , etc, are willing to suspend their common sense(if they ever had any) to "believe" that the bible is a literal historic record. Then to make things worse they are willing to ignore facts and science to try and force their retarded views on the rest of us who want no part of them.

That is what a fundamentalist is Alta, I'm not accusing you or all people who vote CPC of being one, but if you vote for Harper knowing full well (or being willfully ignorant of the fact) that Harper wants to force his dementia on the country then you are complicit in the rights violations that will occur under his reign.

That doesn't make one a fundamentalist.

Come on lets see have it what makes them fundamentalists hmmm.

Define the term as you using it, what is it that makes them cross the line from regular Christian to fundamentalist Christian.

Edited May 21, 2010 by Alta4ever