Why Harper is so vulnerable

[MiddleClassCentrist]

Harper just ended the cwb monopoly at the risk of stirring up a hornets nest out west at his base of power. Do you know how many seats he will lose in the grain growing regions? Zero.

I don't think you understand the concept of risk.

[g_bambino]

He's been reappointed...twice.

Since you're on the subject of technicalities, I'm going to be really technical: He's only been appointed once. Neither dissolution of parliament nor elections have any direct effect on a prime minister's commission from the govenror general; he remains in the post until it's certain he cannot command or obtain the confidence of the House of Commons.

[g_bambino]

the British monarchy is irrelevant to most Canadians.

Of course it is. Oh... Did you miskatke the British monarchy for the Canadian one again? Well, elections are irrelevant to most Canadians; most couldn't correctly tell you how parliament works. What's your point?

Cybercoma, we Canadians live in a "democracy", and a "civilized society". Unlike other countries, we decide our existence through a civilized vote - rather than a civil war.

We Canadians?

Rather, it is the civilized nature of nous les Québécois, et les français de l'Amérique.

Odd... Australia's never had a civil war and has the same parliamentary system at the heart of its civilized democracy as we do, but, no Québécois. How did they do it!?

[ed.: +]

Edited November 29, 2011 by g_bambino

[g_bambino]

Mackenzie King and John Turner were both PMs "from the hallway" as they say.

So was Kim Campbell, in a way: she lost her Commons seat on 25 October 1993 but wasn't replaced as prime minister until Chretien was appointed as such on 4 November. It's just that parliament was never in session during Campbell's time as premier.

[ed.: sp.]

Edited November 29, 2011 by g_bambino

[cybercoma]

but he wouldnt be a member of paliament

Right. It's expected that (s)he will seek a seat at the next available seat by running in the first by-election, although I don't believe it's required.

[cybercoma]

Our MPs elect our PM.

Sort of, but you don't get to vie for the confidence of the House unless you're the leader of a party first. In this way, party membership plays a significant role in electing the appointment of a PM as well.

[cybercoma]

So was Kim Campbell, in a way: she lost her Commons seat on 25 October 1993 but wasn't replaced as prime minister until Chretien was appointed as such on 4 November. It's just that parliament was never in session during Campbell's time as premier.

[ed.: sp.]

Who? jk

[Argus]

Precisely my point, Argus.

Harper is vulnerable.[

Any politician is vulnerable. Trudeau almost got booted out on several occasions, having to live through his own minority period. Lots of people despised him. His train was pelted with rocks in northern Ontario, by fruit and vegetables in the West.

But the British monarchy is irrelevant to most Canadians.

And he is attempting to make it relevant. And not doing a bad job of it.

Argus, would Harper win an election on the British monarchy in Canada? Would he be so foolish to set up an election on such an issue?

The point you miss is that many people feel extremely possessive of the monarchy, while almost no one really minds it that much. So there's little to be gained trying to get rid of it, and much to be gained from monarchists/traditionalists defending it.

Well, Harper's law is the triumph of political stupidity over wisdom. Australia has a wise gun law that respects farmers, gun nuts and urban vegetarian peaceniks. Why don't we do the same here? Harper knows about this

.

There is nothing to be gained by imposing a new long gun registry, at yet more cost, on Canadians, when no case has ever been made of the utility or benefits derived from one.

Crime rates in Canada are falling - despite the heinous crimes you read about in the papers. Heck, in the 1920s, there were heinous crimes too.

Even if crime is falling (disputable given people are reporting crime less) that does not alter the fact many Canadians do not like to see people getting limp-wristed punishments for crimes which harm people. Quebecers might not care but the bill is generally popular in the rest of Canada. And that is what you don't seem to get. Harper is bring in laws which a sizeable portion of the electorate like, especially those who have or are ever likely to vote Conservative -- outside Quebec. But then again, Quebec has only warmed to one Anglo in the last fifty years, and so Harper isn't likely to get a lot of support there anyway.

[Wild Bill]

But the British monarchy is irrelevant to most Canadians.

Maybe in Quebec, August!

I'd like to see some evidence that your premise is true! Outside of YOUR back yard, I don't think so!

I think you're being "provincial" again, if you'll pardon the pun.

[August1991]

Odd... Australia's never had a civil war and has the same parliamentary system at the heart of its civilized democracy as we do, but, no Québécois. How did they do it!?

Excepting the aboriginals, Australians are mostly Protestant, and they speak English.

----

If Canada still exists as a civilized society, it is because the Catholic, French-speaking people of North America are civilized.

Around the world, look at any other situation of Conquest and revolt.

Boring, right-wing, unoriginal English-Canadians look down on Quebecers, the Frenchies, but in fact boring, right-wing French Quebec made Canada, and discovered America.

Edited December 2, 2011 by August1991

[Smallc]

Around the world, look at any other situation of Conquest and revolt.

Well, it could be argued that the fact that English speaking people in North America were also civilized was helpful.

[Guest Manny]

That seems strange, because I thought that the native tribes don't like the Frenchies. They want to deal with the Anglais.

[g_bambino]

Excepting the aboriginals, Australians are mostly Protestant, and they speak English.

If Canada still exists as a civilized society, it is because the Catholic, French-speaking people of North America are civilized.

This logic fail just leads us right back round to my original question: Since there were no French speaking people in Australia, how did it end up just as civilized as Canada? Excepting the Catholic French speakers, Canadians were mostly Protestant and they spoke English.

[ed.: sp.]

Edited December 2, 2011 by g_bambino

[Shakeyhands]

Even if crime is falling (disputable given people are reporting crime less)

This is my favourite line. Just wanted to add that.

Agree with you on the Monarchy though.

[Tilter]

Maybe in Quebec, August!

I'd like to see some evidence that your premise is true! Outside of YOUR back yard, I don't think so!

I think you're being "provincial" again, if you'll pardon the pun.

Maybe all over Canada interspersed with pockets of royalty nuts who rabidly cling to the idea that the king's shit doesn't stink

[g_bambino]

Maybe all over Canada interspersed with pockets of royalty nuts who rabidly cling to the idea that the king's shit doesn't stink

I wonder if anyone could help me find the cogent argument so deftly buried inside the above contribution to this thread.

[sharkman]

Wow, it takes all types I guess. Harper is headed for another majority without a doubt. With Jack Layton dead, any momentum the NDP had is dead. The Liberal party turned out to be an empty shell after Chretien left the scene, but it took a few years for it to sink in. All Harper needs is 40% or maybe a point or two more, and it's going to happen.

I don't understand why August starts these "I'm not going to vote Tory" threads. I really doubt Quebec is going to go for the NDP after they made fools of themselves last election and voted in these students and such who know squat about life let alone being an effective MP. It will either be Liberal or Tory, which means gains for the Tories.

I suppose the internet can be therapeutic for Harper haters, they can log on and vent, then feel better about themselves. As long as they keep from protesting and vandalism I'm fine with that.

[August1991]

Well, it could be argued that the fact that English speaking people in North America were also civilized was helpful.

A few, but I have to agree with you.

Canada would not exist without a generous spirit on both sides.

Wow, it takes all types I guess. Harper is headed for another majority without a doubt.

On the contrary, I think Harper is very vulnerable. Harper is not a natural politician.

I don't understand why August starts these "I'm not going to vote Tory" threads. I really doubt Quebec is going to go for the NDP after they made fools of themselves last election and voted in these students and such who know squat about life let alone being an effective MP. It will either be Liberal or Tory, which means gains for the Tories.

I suppose the internet can be therapeutic for Harper haters, they can log on and vent, then feel better about themselves. As long as they keep from protesting and vandalism I'm fine with that.

Sharkman, my single vote is irrelevant. And if Harper's Conservatives get 10 seats in Quebec in 2014, I'll be surprised.

Here's my point: I'll be surprised if Harper's Conservatives get 100 seats in 2014.

Harper is not a natural politician. He's vulnerable.

[Smallc]

Me too...given that the election is in 2015.

[olp1fan]

harpers getting too close to the americans

mulrooney tried that and it got him voted off the island

[August1991]

Me too...given that the election is in 2015.

Smallc, you're right: 2015.