Just thought I'd open this to the floor

[William Ashley]

I have giddy internal laughter when I think of this,

but what would the Harperites do if they had a majority?

To me it seems like they would aim to do things like

-Make an elected senate

-Remove corporate taxes

-Ban the liberal party, NDP

-Put the bloc in jail

-and abolish the monarchy (ironically)

Anyone have comments on this.. I realize this isn't an event yet but it is a response posting to the recent 39% percent polling (with 40% seen as majority territory)

Anyone want to give their image of what a harperite majority would entail?

[Mr.Canada]

I have giddy internal laughter when I think of this,

but what would the Harperites do if they had a majority?

To me it seems like they would aim to do things like

-Make an elected senate

-Remove corporate taxes

-Ban the liberal party, NDP

-Put the bloc in jail

-and abolish the monarchy (ironically)

Anyone have comments on this.. I realize this isn't an event yet but it is a response posting to the recent 39% percent polling (with 40% seen as majority territory)

Anyone want to give their image of what a harperite majority would entail?

Absolute power corrupts absolutely. Just look at the current events in the Middle East-Africa for proof at what too much power has led to.

I don't see any of those things happening besides trying to make an elected senate which I don't see how that could be looked upon as a bad thing.

I don't see Canada being different from what it is now. The Conservative party today is much more like the PC party. It doesn't really have any elements in it that are even close to the old Reform party.

I think you're confused William.

Edited February 18, 2011 by Mr.Canada

[scribblet]

Confused - that's putting it mildly, in fact it is quite temperate considering what was suggested. The only thing the CPC would do is try to create an elected Senate, the rest is poppycock and delusional. Maybe 'giddy laughter' is an indication of the poster's state of mind.

[Scotty]

Confused - that's putting it mildly, in fact it is quite temperate considering what was suggested. The only thing the CPC would do is try to create an elected Senate, the rest is poppycock and delusional. Maybe 'giddy laughter' is an indication of the poster's state of mind.

Even an elected senate would require a constitutional amendment, and thus agreement from the provinces. Good luck getting Quebec to agree to anything which dilutes its power in any way.

I think they would probably be much more severe in cutbacks of federal agencies, probably cut money for culture and heritage, but I really don't know. Harper is not so much a small c conservative any more as a small p pragmatist, and isn't likely to do anything to upset his chances, even with a majority, of getting re-elected with another majority.

[August1991]

but what would the Harperites do if they had a majority?

To me it seems like they would aim to do things like

-Make an elected senate

-Remove corporate taxes

-Ban the liberal party, NDP

-Put the bloc in jail

-and abolish the monarchy (ironically)

Elected Senate - yet ban the Liberals, NDP - put the Bloc in jail? Huh?

William Ashley, I gather that you equate Stephen Harper and Adolf Hitler. So, you hate Stephen Harper. And?

In practical terms, WA, you are preaching to about 20% of English Canadian voters in urban English Canada (Toronto, Vancouver and parts of Montreal) who already agree with you. You have no credibility/audience elsewhere in English Canada or in French Canada.

IOW, you are wasting your time with such polemics.

Edited February 18, 2011 by August1991

[Smallc]

Elected Senate - yet ban the Liberals, NDP - put the Bloc in jail? Huh?

Yes, that does seem rather strange doesn't it.

[wyly]

I have giddy internal laughter when I think of this,

but what would the Harperites do if they had a majority?

To me it seems like they would aim to do things like

-Make an elected senate

-Remove corporate taxes

-Ban the liberal party, NDP

-Put the bloc in jail

-and abolish the monarchy (ironically)

Anyone have comments on this.. I realize this isn't an event yet but it is a response posting to the recent 39% percent polling (with 40% seen as majority territory)

Anyone want to give their image of what a harperite majority would entail?

other than the party groupies no one is accepting the polls as accurate... the accuracy of polling has become very inaccurate with the domination of cell phones vs landlines pollsters can no longer be certain they're reaching a representative number of voters...

and even when accurate polls between election campaigns are meaningless as results from the day the election is called and election day can turn on a dime...

just to humor your conservative majority request projection...massive deficit as the conservatives play soldier and throw billions upon billions at military buildup we don't need, billions more at building prisons...contrary to conservative myth historically they've proven themselves to be inept at finance...they don't spend less than liberals they just have different spending priorities spending tax dollars on projects with no financial return...

[ToadBrother]

Elected Senate - yet ban the Liberals, NDP - put the Bloc in jail? Huh?

William Ashley, I gather that you equate Stephen Harper and Adolf Hitler. So, you hate Stephen Harper. And?

Harper's government can't even deny funding to some unknown NGO without tripping over its feet, so I think we can put to bed the idea that's been trotted about for so long that Harper is some sort of evil political genius. He's a streetfighter in the tradition of Jean Chretien, but one who stumbles as much as he succeeds. He couldn't pull off an Enabling Act if his life depended on it.

[Michael Hardner]

Good idea for a thread, but terrible OP.

What would Harper really do ?

- Try to semi-privatize the CBC or seriously de-fund it.

- Restructure and downsize government.

- Limit the HRC powers in Canada

- Lower taxes dramatically

Anything else ?

[Saipan]

but what would the Harperites do if they had a majority?

To me it seems like they would aim to do things like

-Make an elected senate

Remove the redundant wasteful long gun registration that wasn't really enforced yet (amnesty since 1998)

-Remove corporate taxes

Did any conservative government removed those taxes yet? Ttat would be more in the Liberal interest. CPC's don't have corporations. Liberals do.

-Ban the liberal party, NDP

-Put the bloc in jail

-and abolish the monarchy (ironically)

ALL Socialist/Communist ideas.

I.e. as wrong as it can get.

[myata]

Agree, a good topic.

With Harper's majority, it'd basically be more of the same (that we've seen so far) only bigger and better, i.e.:

- complete shutdown of opposition in the Parliament

- ditto to any appearance of "transparency and accountability", if any's left that is

- likely, removal of checks and controls over election process (party subsidies) bringing our electoral system ever closer to the cherished and adored Big America

- dismantling of gun control and social agendas in favour of "tough" approach bring our crime levels ever closer to the same adored standard

- utterly principle less international policy completing transformation of Canada into a non-entity internationally

- more of attack ads, spin doctoring hitting new hights

- more of minor tax breaks for citizens and major tax breaks for big corporation

All in all it'll be a good development for the country. For once, an elected Senate would be a good thing, however unlikely. More importantly, if that won't bring home the need for meaningful change in our parliamentary system, nothing short of a major crisis will, and till that time everybody could safely go to sleep.

[Scotty]

Good idea for a thread, but terrible OP.

What would Harper really do ?

- Try to semi-privatize the CBC or seriously de-fund it.

- Restructure and downsize government.

- Limit the HRC powers in Canada

- Lower taxes dramatically

Anything else ?

I don't have a problem with any of that, provided its done intelligently. Ie, I don't want the CBC to dissapear, and I don't want wholesale firings and labour unrest from the public service similar to what Harris got when he simply fired public servants.

[Scotty]

Agree, a good topic.

- complete shutdown of opposition in the Parliament

What exactly does this mean? During the Chretien government, as is normal in a majority, all committees had a majority of government MPs, and as such they toed the party line. I imagine that would happen under Harper, too.

- ditto to any appearance of "transparency and accountability", if any's left that is

I actually think and hope that with a secure majority and four years until another election they would relax and free up information more.

- likely, removal of checks and controls over election process (party subsidies) bringing our electoral system ever closer to the cherished and adored Big America

I think they would do away with party subsidies, but it's clearly not in their interests to loosen the tight rules on election donations as big corporate interests and the wealthy were where the Liberals got most of their money prior to Chretien changing the rules. So we would be very far from the American template.

- dismantling of gun control and social agendas in favour of "tough" approach bring our crime levels ever closer to the same adored standard

We could stand to get tougher, and the hug-a-thug-approach does not seem to have worked here any better.

- utterly principle less international policy completing transformation of Canada into a non-entity internationally

That was what happened under Chretien. Or have you forgotten that nothing mattered but trade? We criticized no one, and we did business, eagerly, with anyone.

[Mr.Canada]

Harper would probably get rid of that $1.75 or $2(whatever it is) subsidy he threatened to do which led to the first coalition threat IIRC.

Edited February 18, 2011 by Mr.Canada

[myata]

I actually think and hope that with a secure majority and four years until another election they would relax and free up information more.

Yes, we could certainly think and hope. For the lack of any better. As Mubarak was hoped to bring democracy to Egypt, eventually, only was rushed unnecessarily (according to Harper's).

[ToadBrother]

Good idea for a thread, but terrible OP.

What would Harper really do ?

- Try to semi-privatize the CBC or seriously de-fund it.

- Restructure and downsize government.

- Limit the HRC powers in Canada

- Lower taxes dramatically

Anything else ?

The problem with that is that while it might be popular in Western Canada, these things don't play nearly as well in Central and Eastern Canada. It's been the problem for the Reform wing of the Conservatives since reunification, that a lot of the policies they so long advocated are either not considered to be matters of high importance by their brethren in the East, or in some cases are potential issues of division. Take severe downsizing of government, a significant number of jobs in Ontario, Quebec and the Maritimes would go out the door and there is the potential for severe political blowback. The same with Human Rights Commissions, while hated in Western Canada, not so much to the East.

What the Tories have rediscovered is that there are some big ideological divides in this country, and much like the language divides, they seem to oddly match the regional borders. A federal government has to walk a fine line, and that doesn't mean just Quebec, where the ramifications would indeed be huge if said government managed to screw things up royally, but at least electorally elsewhere.

A majority Conservative government is first and foremost going to want to remain a majority government in four or five years time, so it is going to have to approach all the above things with caution. I don't see a majority Conservative government being all that different in most respects from what we see now, except, of course, that all those pesky Constitutional issues that errant, arrogant Ministers keep hitting would effectively go away.

[scribblet]

Harper would probably get rid of that $1.75 or $2(whatever it is) subsidy he threatened to do which led to the first coalition threat IIRC.

That would be the first thing he would do and will probably campaign on it.

I doubt that he'll seriously reduce taxes at this point, and hopefully he will cut back on funding to SIG. HRC powers should be limited as we know that they abuse their powers. Certainly if someone is taken to the HRC, they should have the same benefits of the complainant, that is, no legal fees. He might cut back funding the CBC - and rightly so.

Looks like an election in May, the polls still show CPC in majority territory, the Liberals should be careful what they wish for.

[ToadBrother]

Looks like an election in May, the polls still show CPC in majority territory, the Liberals should be careful what they wish for.

A lot of folks, even in the Conservative camp, seem somewhat dubious of the latest EKOS poll.

[wyly]

A lot of folks, even in the Conservative camp, seem somewhat dubious of the latest EKOS poll.

because polling used to rely on random landlines surveys, there's a entire segment of society that no longer uses landlines...landlines are now most likely to be used by older generations/boomers...I've considered canceling my landline use 99% of my calls incoming and out are done with a cell...

this is reminiscent of an early election poll done in the US in the 1920s or 30s I believe...pollsters surveyed land line users at that time and predicted a win for one candidate but had it completely wrong, telephones at that time were the domain of the rich and upper middle class which had different issues than the masses that had no phone so were never reached by pollsters...then there are people who refuse to answer the phone when it's an unrecognized number...

I stopped paying attention to polls about 2 years ago when it was becoming obvious there were problems with accuracy...

[ToadBrother]

because polling used to rely on random landlines surveys, there's a entire segment of society that no longer uses landlines...landlines are now most likely to be used by older generations/boomers...I've considered canceling my landline use 99% of my calls incoming and out are done with a cell...

Maybe, but I think a more likely explanation is that in any statistical analysis, you will always have the odd data point that seems to buck the trend, or at least seems higher than where the trend is headed. I frankly do not believe the Tories are in safe majority territory if they go into an election. The test will come with the budget, of course, but I'm still not convinced that the Tories want to go to the polls. The Opposition, on the other hand, seems to be becoming more restless, but the proof will be in the pudding when the budget comes down.

[Moonlight Graham]

Harper would probably get rid of that $1.75 or $2(whatever it is) subsidy he threatened to do which led to the first coalition threat IIRC.

This, lowering taxes, and a try at senate reform. That's all i can think of off the top of my head as extremely likely/certain.

It's very difficult to predict what they'd do.

[Moonlight Graham]

"-Ban the liberal party, NDP

-Put the bloc in jail

-and abolish the monarchy (ironically)"

ALL Socialist/Communist ideas.

I.e. as wrong as it can get.

So fascist governments never did things like this? And authoritarian/totalitarian governments are all socialist/communist?

Those ideas from the OP are 100% ridiculous anyways. The chance of any party getting rid of the monarchy any time soon is zero.

[ToadBrother]

So fascist governments never did things like this? And authoritarian/totalitarian governments are all socialist/communist?

Those ideas from the OP are 100% ridiculous anyways. The chance of any party getting rid of the monarchy any time soon is zero.

The odds of any party being able to do anything to the core parts of the constitution is pretty much nil for the foreseeable future.

[segnosaur]

because polling used to rely on random landlines surveys, there's a entire segment of society that no longer uses landlines...landlines are now most likely to be used by older generations/boomers...I've considered canceling my landline use 99% of my calls incoming and out are done with a cell...

You are right in that increasing use of cell phones may mean that certain groups are under-represented in polls. However, keep a couple of things in mind.

First of all, if the polling companies want to, they can correct for that when they do their analysis. They've found that they can 'skew' the figures by taking a look at the results from the land-line survey, break it down by age group, and weight the results based on the demographics of cell-phone only people. Now, I don't know if the results that we see in the newspapers do that sort of 'skewing' (although I suspect any polling values used by the political parties themselves have such analysis done.)

Secondly, it might be possible that not calling people who use cell-phones only may ironically make polls more accurate. The reason for that is that those who do not possess a land line (i.e. cell phone only) are statistically less likely to vote (e.g. in the younger demographics). Simply saying "I support party X" doesn't really reflect how an election will go if you don't go out and cast your ballot.

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/cell_phones_and_political_surv.php?nr=1

http://pewresearch.org/pubs/1601/assessing-cell-phone-challenge-in-public-opinion-surveys

[Michael Hardner]

A majority Conservative government is first and foremost going to want to remain a majority government in four or five years time, so it is going to have to approach all the above things with caution. I don't see a majority Conservative government being all that different in most respects from what we see now, except, of course, that all those pesky Constitutional issues that errant, arrogant Ministers keep hitting would effectively go away.

Perhaps you're right, but we have seen governments with mandates take big steps in the early years of the administration.