Stephen Harper

[canadian_conservative]

Well I honestly think he is trying his best to change his image he starting with going out west this summer while Pariment was in recess for the summer. He has been doing a lot of work on his image down their and I honestly think he has become a changed and honest man since his last run. don't you agree?

If everything goes well and he doesn't speak out like this years incident with his mind changing of the budget bill I think he can win at least a Minority.

[newbie]

I'm not anti-abortion, and I vote Conservative. Why shouldn't I? The party's position is not against abortion.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Are you sure? http://dawn.thot.net/election2004/issues52.htm

[Sir Chauncy]

Their position certainly is anti abortion. It has been stated often enough. And my search skills suck too much to go find an example. Perhaps someone else with good searching abilities would.

SC

[canadian_conservative]

I don;t feel like researching it but I can definatly back you up on that one. I don't know why this person has not heard that Harper is Anti Abortion

[Argus]

I'm not anti-abortion, and I vote Conservative. Why shouldn't I? The party's position is not against abortion.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Are you sure? http://dawn.thot.net/election2004/issues52.htm

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yes. Quite sure.

[Argus]

Their position certainly is anti abortion.

Nope

It has been stated often enough.

Just not by them, right?

[canadian_conservative]

Newbie:

next time you give a link like that make sure your website is a more reliable website. That one has no true value.

[Argus]

I don;t feel like researching it but I can definatly back you up on that one.  I don't know why this person has not heard that Harper is Anti Abortion

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There are people in all parties who are anti-abortion. That is beside the point. The Conservative Party has no position, official or otherwise, opposed to abortion.

And "this person" is someone who is at least marginally aware of the party's positions, "canadian conservative".

[canadian_conservative]

Yes but harper is the leader and he is against abortion and will make it illegal if elected get your facts straight

[donvonbra]

Yes but harper is the leader and he is against abortion and will make it illegal if elected get your facts straight

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If you check the CPC website you will see that at the party policy conference in Montreal in March this year they passed a resolution that if elected they will not introduce legislation to restrict abortion.

don

[Argus]

Yes but harper is the leader and he is against abortion and will make it illegal if elected get your facts straight

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That is one of the stupidest things I've read yet. Congrats. You had to go a long way but you managed. Now can you top that, or do we have to bring in takeanumber?

[Riverwind]

Yes but harper is the leader and he is against abortion and will make it illegal if elected get your facts straight

If you check the CPC website you will see that at the party policy conference in Montreal in March this year they passed a resolution that if elected they will not introduce legislation to restrict abortion.

From the CPC policy document (on the CPC website):

A Conservative Government will make all votes free, except for the budget and main estimates.  On issues of moral conscience, such as abortion, the definition of marriage and euthanasia, the Conservative Party acknowledges the diversity of deeply held personal convictions among individual Party members and the right of Members of Parliament to adopt positions in consultation with their constituents and to vote freely.

This statement in itself is not so much an issue, however, if you take into account that a large number of Conservative MPs are people with 'socially conservative' views that likely oppose abortion then you realize that it is highly likely that a conservative majority gov't would pass legislation based on a private member's bill that would ban and/or restrict abortion.

[willy]

Harper in a speech that I attended in Surrey BC, three months ago clearly stated for the 1000 time that if elected he would not bring forward legislation on abortion.

As the leader of the party and with a clear focus on priorities that don’t go near abortion or for that matter euthanasia, this is a stupid bit of debate.

The Conservatives would like to do lots of things people will disagree with, why focus on what they publicly stated as not doing.

Here are a few, they will increase defense spending, they will offer a variety of tax credits and they will allow the provinces more room to experiment with solutions to our health care problems.

They won’t continue on the child care approach of this government and they will likely not liberalize the drug laws.

There you go real issues that we can disagree on. Please enough with the fairy tales scare stuff. The Liberals and Conservatives have major differences without making them up.

[Leader Circle]

I am wondering is canadian conservative is actually THELIBERAL, trying to make Conservative supporters look silly. cc, you don't seem to know much about the CPC and you contradict yourself steadily. Maybe this poster is actually Belinda Stronach!

LOL

[Riverwind]

Harper in a speech that I attended in Surrey BC, three months ago clearly stated for the 1000 time that if elected he would not bring forward legislation on abortion.

This is classic political doublespeak: Harper can say truthfully his government would never bring forward legislation regarding abortion and, at a the same time, support a private member's bill that restricts abortion. If Harper really wants to convince people that a Conservative majority government would not restrict abortion then he needs to more than simply state that the government would not 'bring forward legislation' -> he needs to refute the statement in the conservative policy document and say he would not allow a free vote on abortion.

If he cannot/will not refute that statement then he should be honest and admit that conservative party policies could result in a law against abortion even if he promises otherwise.

[willy]

If he cannot/will not refute that statement then he should be honest and admit that conservative party policies could result in a law against abortion even if he promises otherwise.

And big foot may exist without irrefutable proof. What a pile!

Again, why not argue what is likely, as apposed to what is possible, maybe, if all these other things happen, maybe, because they will just need to find that hidden agenda to implement what they are really about. Scenarios can play out in far too many ways as the tinfoil hat gets tight and at times restricts blood flow.

He stated clearly the party voted on policy and his personal stance. If that is not clear for you then nothing will be.

Can you say, will not take yes for an answer?

Be honest, you don't like anything about Conservatives and this is a symbol to you why they represent everything you hate. And if you take away that symbol your reality may have to be questioned.

Be clear: Taxes, security and trade are the priorities of the Conservatives.

[donvonbra]

Harper in a speech that I attended in Surrey BC, three months ago clearly stated for the 1000 time that if elected he would not bring forward legislation on abortion.....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

He said that in the last election too - during the leaders' debate

The official position of the party is:

58. Abortion Legislation

A Conservative Government will not support any legislation to regulate abortion.

That being said I agree that if (and it's a big if) the tories win the next election abortion restrictions could come about through a priavte members bill, if there are enough CPC'ers elected.

don

[Riverwind]

That being said I agree that if (and it's a big if) the tories win the next election abortion restrictions could come about through a priavte members bill, if there are enough CPC'ers elected.

Which is my entire point - Conservatives cannot promise that they will not pass legislation restricting abortion unless they close the massive loop hole they created by allowing a free votes on the issue.

I think it is reasonable to compare the Conservative doublespeak on abortion to the Liberal doublespeak on the GST in the 1993 election. The Liberals (other than Sheilia Copps) never actually promised that they would get rid of the GST - their offical policy book said they would _replace_ the GST if the provinces we willing to co-operate. The meant the Liberals technically kept their promise by negotiating deals with some provinces on the HST.

Harper is carefully choosing his words on abortion for the same reason: he is choosing words that will allow him to say he kept his promise on not introducing legislation but giving himself enough wiggle room to allow selected 'back benchers' to introduce a private members bill.

Be clear: Taxes, security and trade are the priorities of the Conservatives.

True for some, but what about all those Conservative candidates being elected with strong support from groups that don't can much about economics but care a lot about abortion and gay marriage? Official party policy is irrevelant on these issues if MPs have a free vote.

[Riverwind]

Be honest, you don't like anything about Conservatives and this is a symbol to you why they represent everything you hate. And if you take away that symbol your reality may have to be questioned.

Not true. I like many of the conservatives economic policies and think they would be the party most willing to make the hard choices required to fix the medicare system. The trouble is I am concerned that too much of the party policy today is been driven by social conservatives that are willing to sacrifice economic policies in order to advance their retrograde social agenda.

[Argus]

A Conservative Government will make all votes free, except for the budget and main estimates.  On issues of moral conscience, such as abortion, the definition of marriage and euthanasia, the Conservative Party acknowledges the diversity of deeply held personal convictions among individual Party members and the right of Members of Parliament to adopt positions in consultation with their constituents and to vote freely.

This statement in itself is not so much an issue, however, if you take into account that a large number of Conservative MPs are people with 'socially conservative' views that likely oppose abortion then you realize that it is highly likely that a conservative majority gov't would pass legislation based on a private member's bill that would ban and/or restrict abortion.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Let's say there is a Tory majority of say, 160 seats (out of 308)

Since those wanting to ban abortion were never able to secure a majority vote within either the Alliance nor the Reform Party it is extremely unlikely, to say the least, that they could secure the majority of seats from a Conservative party caucus.

But lets's say, being very generous, that half of the tory party votes to ban abortion. That's 80 votes. Maybe they get 15-20 more from the Liberals, and pick up one or two from the other parties. That's still about 100 out of over 300 votes. That doesn't sound particularly menacing to me.

And that's ignoring Harper's promise NOT to hold any such vote in a first mandate.

[Argus]

That being said I agree that if (and it's a big if) the tories win the next election abortion restrictions could come about through a priavte members bill, if there are enough CPC'ers elected.

Which is my entire point - Conservatives cannot promise that they will not pass legislation restricting abortion unless they close the massive loop hole they created by allowing a free votes on the issue.

I think it is reasonable to compare the Conservative doublespeak on abortion to the Liberal doublespeak on the GST in the 1993 election. The Liberals (other than Sheilia Copps) never actually promised that they would get rid of the GST -

How short is the memory of you Liberal supporters. "We hate it and we will kill it!" is a direct quote from Jean Chretien in the House. You can argue all you want about the fine print in a book almost no one read, but the entire campaign was based upon the Liberal "promise" to get rid of the GST. To point to the policy manual and say "Oh, we never actually said we'd do anything, just that we'd study ways of improving it" is disingenuous, to say the least.

Harper is carefully choosing his words on abortion for the same reason: he is choosing words that will allow him to say he kept his promise on not introducing legislation but giving himself enough wiggle room to allow selected 'back benchers' to introduce a private members bill.

Drivel. There is no hope whatsoever that a back bench bill to outlaw abortion would pass without direct orders from the PMO for Tory members to vote in favour. Left to their own devices there is no chance enough Tory MPs would support such legislation to give it any hope of passing. In fact, even if only Tory MPs were allowed to vote it is unlikely such a law would pass.

[Riverwind]

To point to the policy manual and say "Oh, we never actually said we'd do anything, just that we'd study ways of improving it" is disingenuous, to say the least.

I used the word 'doublespeak' to describe what the Liberals did on the GST: I was not defending it. I was, however, pointing out that you can learn a lot about what a party would likely do by reading between the lines in the policy book. The conservative party platform does not specifically support a woman's right to choose - what it states is that the gov't would not introduce abortion legislation. Their choice of words is extremely telling.

That said, I agree with you that the abortion opponents would not have numbers on legislation to completely ban abortion. However, they would likely find the numbers for a partial ban similar to what Mulroney tried to do in the 80s. So I feel a law restricting abortion is a realistic outcome of any conservative majority gov't (unless it gets blocked by the senate).

There is no hope whatsoever that a back bench bill to outlaw abortion would pass without direct orders from the PMO for Tory members to vote in favour.

This contradicts the party platform on free votes which implies the PMO could not stop a private members bill from going forward. Harper himself has not stated that he would vote against any such private members bill - he has only said he would not table it.

[shoop]

Not true. I like many of the conservatives economic policies and think they would be the party most willing to make the hard choices required to fix the medicare system. The trouble is I am concerned that too much of the party policy today is been driven by social conservatives that are willing to sacrifice economic policies in order to advance their retrograde social agenda.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I partially agree with Sparhawk but I support the CPC and hope to work for them in the next election for those reasons. I disagree with his take on social conservatism. In my view the CPC has taken its first necessary steps on the path to moderation.

The party is at an interesting crossroads. They have to continue on the path to moderation or Canada is destined for perpetual Liberal governments. The present Liberals are corrupt and need a long time in the wilderness like they got in 1984-1993.

Those of us with moderate social views who like the CPCs economic policies need to become active in the party to ensure it becomes a viable option for Canadians by making sure the social views of the party are palatable to enough Canadians to win it a majority government.

I personally trust Stephen Harper and think he will do his best to govern for all Canadians. I never EVER would have voted for Stockwell Day.

[mirror]

Never on a sundae: Cool reaction to Harper's Dairy Queen day out

Conservative Party leader Stephen Harper returned to Quebec yesterday to serve up Blizzards at a Montreal Dairy Queen. But while reporters came to see Mr. Harper in great numbers, the smattering of Dairy Queen customers were cooler to the Tory chief. In fact, Rebecca Smith and Ingela Travers-Hayward said they were paid $5 by one of Mr. Harper's aides to buy a Blizzard. "He said, 'Go meet him, he's a nice guy,' " said Ms. Smith, 19. "We're not his biggest supporters," said Ms. Travers-Hayward, 20, scooping out a chunk of cookie dough, "but regardless, the Blizzard is fairly tasty." Mr. Harper's press attachee said yesterday she knew nothing about the "transaction."

Are things that bad for Harper that he has to resort to bribing people to make it appear there is some interest in what he has to say?

The latest Environics poll showed the Cons closing the gap on the Liberals but now I am beginning to wonder if it actually was a rogue poll.

[Mad_Michael]

I voted "absolutely nothing" as that's what I think Harper's electoral prospects amount to.

Seems like a relatively fine fellow and reasonably intelligent, but the baggage of the Alberta Reform block is like an albatross around the neck of any leader they might replace him with, so that's a moot point (Preston, Stockwell or Harper, doesn't make any difference at all - same game).