Stephen Harper: A one mandate PM?

[Charles Anthony]

If Harper is defeated in the next election, and it's increasingly likely that he will be, I think that it will be the signal that Canada is ungovernable. The different regions of the country, urban and rural, linguistic and religious, simply cannot compromise any more.

You are being too idealistic! It might simply represent the manner in which most Canadians want to be governed.

I would suggest that it is also a signal that Canadians do not really care about their federal government -- which is actually quite reasonable. When was the last time anybody really needed anything from the federal government???

This and Afghanistan have Canadians wishing to be robbed blind by the Liberals again. They don't even have a damn leader yet and they lead some polls.

No. The appeal is not to "be robbed" but rather that they want a government with a track record of "robbing their neighbor" instead. I firmly believe the appeal to socialism in Canada is a result of being able to get something for nothing -- and the other federal parties have better track records of delivering free lunches.

I don't think August's dire prediction at the end of his post will hold, for the same reason that I don't see a return Liberal Majority as the end of the world.

It may not be the end of the world but it may certainly push some otherwise-federalist-Canadians over the edge towards wanting a dissolution of the federation. In my opinion, that is a good thing.

People will see it as a return to the old-school two party politics that held sway before the 1992 PC meltdown. I predict that most people will shrug and flip the channel over to whatever reality tv show has taken a grip on the public consciousness of 2010.

-- or buy the next video game!

The Tories are not able to promise what most Canadians want: a government that redistributes wealth.

What else would anybody realistically expect a federal govenment to accomplish?

[Argus]

As for the idea Harper is the last great white hope, that's silly. His biggest problem in English Canada is not that he's a social conservative from the west, it's that he possesses nothing even approaching charisma.

Fortunately, that glaring lack of charm and charisma is balanced out by an almost complete lack of ideas.

Do tell us about the great ideas which have emerged from the ranks of the Liberal party over the last twenty odd years.

[gerryhatrick]

As for Harper's chance for re-election... I think one of his problems was that he kind of painted himself into a corner. He made a big deal about being the party that was going to clean up government and be accountable. Then he goes and gets Emerson to cross the floor and starts to tax income trusts. Now, I'm not saying that those decisions were bad.

And don't forget two-stepping around the media.

And of course this latest bombshell....changing the accountability act so the illegal campaign contributions they took in are no longer illegal!

[Wilber]

If it was from a different country, that would be a completely different situation. Presumably, for a country to invade Canada, they must be doing so to impose very different beliefs on this country (for example facism). In that case, it would be worth the risk to preserve our freedom & way of life. The views of British Columbians are not that different from Canada as a whole. It's not likely that my life would change in such a drastic way as to justify risking my life.

So foreigners telling you what form your country will take and how you will live is not OK but other Canadians or British Columbians doing so is. You will just sit back and take what comes.

Have we become so fat dumb and happy that we think we can indulge in regional navel gazing to the point that our country disintegrates and expect nothing material in our lives will change when history and the world around us shows us that is quite unlikely. If the country can be Balkanized, why can't Provinces? BC's Peace region which holds most of our gas and oil is on the east side of the Rockies and a lot closer to Edmonton than Vancouver. Golden, Cranbrook and the rest of the Rocky Mountain Trench is far more accessible to Calgary than Vancouver and Victoria as well as sharing the same time zone. You don't think there could be floods of economic and political refugees across Provincial borders and sporadic if not all out war along some of those borders as each tries to carve out their turf as in the partition of so many countries? Why not, because we are somehow superior to those people?

How would you split the country up? How would you handle its debt? How would you provide all the services that we have come to rely on from the government of a united country. What currency would you use that still had any value? Are your investments and income in Canadian dollars? What will they be worth if the country splits? How would you defend what remained from a bunch of new countries that now are looking solely after their own interests? Although I think it unlikely, there is no guaranty that your new neighbours or even your new country will have the same commitment to freedom and human rights as the one we just trashed. Once a Province leaves Confederation, the Constitution and Charter go in the shredder unless the new country decides to adopt them. All bets are off and anything would be possible. I have been surprised often enough in my life when results that seemed completely logical before hand turned out completely wrong after the fact, to realize that anyone who pretends they know what will happen if this box is opened is kidding themselves big time.

My question is are we a country like the US which can come out of a bloody civil war stronger, richer and more united than ever or are we more like a Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia or Soviet Union? A bunch of regions stuck together to form a country in order to solve a problem of the day which is no longer relevant, splitting up either peacefully or bloodily but for almost all, poorer than they used to be.

I have been told on another thread that learning languages and about computers is more important than learning that this country was once capable of putting its regional squabbles aside to make great sacrifices for a good cause in the name of a united country. Is that still possible? When I listen to our people in Afghanistan talk about how they feel about this country and see what they are prepared to do to prove it, I have hope. When I hear at home,

I did not say I would do "nothing" to prevent separation, as you have said. I would be willing to make small sacrifices, if necessary.

, not so much.

[watching&waiting]

GH

Just when was the accountability act past? How can one break a law when the law is not past? So where do you get that the CPC have broken any laws? Once the petty Liberals stop blocking the bill, then maybe you can speak of these things, but until then they haave not broken anything.

[gc1765]

So foreigners telling you what form your country will take and how you will live is not OK but other Canadians or British Columbians doing so is. You will just sit back and take what comes.

Yes, and I already explained why.

Have we become so fat dumb and happy that we think we can indulge in regional navel gazing to the point that our country disintegrates and expect nothing material in our lives will change when history and the world around us shows us that is quite unlikely. If the country can be Balkanized, why can't Provinces? BC's Peace region which holds most of our gas and oil is on the east side of the Rockies and a lot closer to Edmonton than Vancouver. Golden, Cranbrook and the rest of the Rocky Mountain Trench is far more accessible to Calgary than Vancouver and Victoria as well as sharing the same time zone. You don't think there could be floods of economic and political refugees across Provincial borders and sporadic if not all out war along some of those borders as each tries to carve out their turf as in the partition of so many countries? Why not, because we are somehow superior to those people?

Ok, so now you're suggesting that Canada could separate along regional lines rather than provincial lines? Of course that's not an ideal situation. A better question to ask would be, would you rather each region of the country fighting eachother in war or would you rather each region become independent?

How would you split the country up? How would you handle its debt? How would you provide all the services that we have come to rely on from the government of a united country. What currency would you use that still had any value? Are your investments and income in Canadian dollars? What will they be worth if the country splits? How would you defend what remained from a bunch of new countries that now are looking solely after their own interests? Although I think it unlikely, there is no guaranty that your new neighbours or even your new country will have the same commitment to freedom and human rights as the one we just trashed. Once a Province leaves Confederation, the Constitution and Charter go in the shredder unless the new country decides to adopt them. All bets are off and anything would be possible. I have been surprised often enough in my life when results that seemed completely logical before hand turned out completely wrong after the fact, to realize that anyone who pretends they know what will happen if this box is opened is kidding themselves big time.

Presumably, these are questions that would have to be answered before secession.

My question is are we a country like the US which can come out of a bloody civil war stronger, richer and more united than ever or are we more like a Czechoslovakia, Yugoslavia or Soviet Union? A bunch of regions stuck together to form a country in order to solve a problem of the day which is no longer relevant, splitting up either peacefully or bloodily but for almost all, poorer than they used to be.

I'd rather be poor than dead.

When I listen to our people in Afghanistan talk about how they feel about this country and see what they are prepared to do to prove it, I have hope. When I hear at home,

I did not say I would do "nothing" to prevent separation, as you have said. I would be willing to make small sacrifices, if necessary.

, not so much.

I don't see how you can compare Afghanistan to civil war in Canada. I have great respect for our troops in Afghanistan who are doing great things for the Afgahn people. How would those same troops feel about killing innocent people of their own country (or former country)? Would you be prepared to kill someone just because they don't want to be part of this country? Or potentially be killed yourself?

[Figleaf]

...If Stephen Harper is defeated in the next election, what will that mean?

In particular, if Harper is defeated by Dion (My own personal guess for next Liberal leader), what will that mean? Even if Ignatieff or Rae defeats Harper? (My own guess is that Kennedy won't be leader.)

The only conclusion is that Canada cannot have a protestant, anglophone, conservative PM from Alberta. Harper is the only person who can bridge the difference between Western and Central Canada and rural and urban Canada. If he can't do it, no one can.

Wow! You lost me with that line there.

When the Conservatives are defeated in the next election, it will be because the Conservatives squandered the opportunity that resentment over the sponsorship scandal has given them. Squandered it how, you might ask? Regretably, by being what they are. If the CPC's prior incarnation as the Alliance should have told them, to succeed in federal politics they have to be better at reflecting the Canadian small "l" liberal mainstream. That means they must eschew picking sides in the Middle East, respect core values such as the independence of the judiciary, be responsible -- don't take cheap shots at the former government when it's now your policies that are the issue, don't lie about little gaffes in Parliament or about decisions that will destroy millions of dollars in equity value or about why an independent minded MP is ejected from caucus, don't pussyfoot with extreme social conservatism, don't play the dirty side of patriotism when someone questions your choices. These are all things that will not sit right with the Canadian mainstream and the Harper government has done them.

But you mentioned losing the base, too ... I think it was very telling that at Garth's press conference he called for "Reform". Harper's style (right from his first appointments Senator Fortier and Turncoat Emerson) has been a repudiation of the Manning populism that was a key pillar of the Reform/Alliance raison-d'etre. Harper offers nothing for the civic-minded centrists who have good reasons to be looking for choices other than the Liberals (the charms of Jack Lenin Layton notwithstanding).

So, I would say I disagree with you that the inability of the Harper government to appeal the the people of Canada represents a failing of the country. It is a failing of the Harper government.

[Figleaf]

Now we are talking! I'd go for that as long as Alberta adopts a currency other than the Canadian dollar.

Unfortunately, Canada is designed to fail. There is far too much power in the provinces and for provincial politicians it is essential that they set their electorate against the rest of Canada. Every provincial politician blames the Feds and the other provinces for all his province's problems. ...

All too true. I think the solution is to partition at least some of the province into smaller units -- bring provincial issues closer to the people and thus force national scale issues into the bailiwick of the federal government.

-BC should be split into The Islands, The Mainland, and the Greater Vancouver/southern axis.

-Alberta should be split into North and South.

-Ontario should be split into SouthWest, Centre-East, North, and Greater Toronto Area.

-Quebec should be split into Greater Montreal, Lower Canada, and Nord.

There may be an argument for amalgamating the maritimes, but I'm not sure.

[Wilber]

Yes, and I already explained why.

Your explanation made assumptions as to why the country could be invaded and how you might respond.

Presumably, for a country to invade Canada, they must be doing so to impose very different beliefs on this country (for example facism).

You presume.

Ok, so now you're suggesting that Canada could separate along regional lines rather than provincial lines? Of course that's not an ideal situation. A better question to ask would be, would you rather each region of the country fighting eachother in war or would you rather each region become independent?

I am suggesting that anything can happen, nothing more and that making assumptions about anything is a mugs game. What you or I would rather happen could easily have no relationship to what does happen.

Presumably, these are questions that would have to be answered before secession.

Again, you presume a lot. If a Province gets a mandate from its people to separate are you going to go to war to get the answers that satisfy you before they leave?

I'd rather be poor than dead.

What if the rest of your countrymen don't agree with you? You could wind up poor and dead.

I don't see how you can compare Afghanistan to civil war in Canada. I have great respect for our troops in Afghanistan who are doing great things for the Afgahn people. How would those same troops feel about killing innocent people of their own country (or former country)? Would you be prepared to kill someone just because they don't want to be part of this country? Or potentially be killed yourself?

I don't know the answer to that question but if they feel much more strongly about their country than you, it is possible that many could. It has happened many times before in other countries.

QUOTE(Wilber @ Nov 17 2006, 05:48 PM)

The country to the south of us is at least as diverse. There is probably a higher proportion of Hispanics there than there are Francophone's here, yet for all their faults you never hear talk of separation in the US or debate over whether the country is ungovernable...

Well, not since the 1860's anyways....

Maybe what happened last time (civil war) has put a few people off the idea of separation.

This is my original post and your reply. You brought up the issue of civil war, not me. I was just making a comparison between us and our neighbours to the south when it came to national unity.

[Figleaf]

Oh and the federal government lost Canada when it started getting its hands in provincial matters -- hence the crack about BQ. IMHO, the only way to solve the issues we're currently facing is for the government to stop dictating to provincial governments how to run their jurisdictions. Education, health care, roads, social services, etc. etc. were all given to the provinces for a reason. Canada is so vast you need a government that's close to home to look after these things. Until the federal government stops "nationalizing" funding and services, our country will continue to fall apart.

Only one problem there ... the federal government actually doesn't dictate on these thing to the provinces. Your have fallen for the rhetoric of provincialism and sovereigntism. The Feds provide money to the provinces in several of those areas, provided the money is spent to acheive the feds objectives. But it's entirely up to the province to accept the program or not.

[Riverwind]

All too true. I think the solution is to partition at least some of the province into smaller units -- bring provincial issues closer to the people and thus force national scale issues into the bailiwick of the federal government.

LOL, that is so true and demonstrates the ultimate hypocrisy of separatists who seem to think that one arbitrary geographic region but another is not...

[Argus]

If the CPC's prior incarnation as the Alliance should have told them, to succeed in federal politics they have to be better at reflecting the Canadian small "l" liberal mainstream. That means they must eschew picking sides in the Middle East,

Many of us feel that siding with a western democracy over vicious, brutal, misogonystic dictatorships is the moral thing to do.

respect core values such as the independence of the judiciary,

A corrupt. self-serving, highly politicised judiciary universally panned as dishonest and incompetent?

be responsible -- don't take cheap shots at the former government when it's now your policies that are the issue,

Oh you mean like, when the Liberals howl at them about not meeting environmental targets the Tories shouldn't point out that the LIberals spent 13 years lining their pockets instead of making any attempt to live up to the accords they had signed and the love of the environment they professed?

don't lie about little gaffes in Parliament or about decisions that will destroy millions of dollars in equity value or about why an independent minded MP is ejected from caucus

You mean like the liberals lied about their main, bedrock election policies year after year, campaign after campaign? Trusts were a miniscule part of the Tory campaign. And even then the major promise was to safeguard the elderly not the income tax evasion schemes of the upper middle class and wealthy. Garth was turfed because he was an undisciplined ass. That's not quite the same thing as turfing Nunziata when he protested the Liberals complete abandonment of their GST pledge.

don't pussyfoot with extreme social conservatism,

Yes, it's not like they're citizens or voters or have any rights to be represented or make their wishes known. Lock them. Hell, shoot them. So we can all live in a socialist paradise.

don't play the dirty side of patriotism when someone questions your choices.

Didn't the Liberals question the Alliance's patriotism for wanting them to clear up their position on Quebec seperatism? Didn't they question Harper's patriotism for not breathlessly echoing the cry of how he loved Canada?

These are all things that will not sit right with the Canadian mainstream and the Harper government has done them.

In an arguable, minimal, barely noticeable way. Nothing at all like the corruption, arrogance and hypocrisy we've seen from Liberals for decades?

Who can forget an entire campaign built around getting rid of the GST? Which they didn't.

An entire campaign built around opposing wage and price controls, which they later put in place.

An entire campaign built around opposing a 7cent gas tax, which they later implimented.

Several entire campaigns built around protecting and fixing health care which they allowed to deteriorate.

[Argus]

As for Harper's chance for re-election... I think one of his problems was that he kind of painted himself into a corner. He made a big deal about being the party that was going to clean up government and be accountable. Then he goes and gets Emerson to cross the floor and starts to tax income trusts. Now, I'm not saying that those decisions were bad.

And don't forget two-stepping around the media.

And of course this latest bombshell....changing the accountability act so the illegal campaign contributions they took in are no longer illegal!

Bombshell? More like a firecracker, a very small one.

The media shouldn't be sidestepped - they should be kicked in the crotch.

[gc1765]

Yes, and I already explained why.

Your explanation made assumptions as to why the country could be invaded and how you might respond.

Presumably, for a country to invade Canada, they must be doing so to impose very different beliefs on this country (for example facism).

You presume.

I was giving my opinion on one scenario. Each scenario would be different. I can't go through all of the almost infinite number of possible scenarios and tell you whether I would risk my life to defend against it.

Ok, so now you're suggesting that Canada could separate along regional lines rather than provincial lines? Of course that's not an ideal situation. A better question to ask would be, would you rather each region of the country fighting eachother in war or would you rather each region become independent?

I am suggesting that anything can happen, nothing more and that making assumptions about anything is a mugs game. What you or I would rather happen could easily have no relationship to what does happen.

Presumably, these are questions that would have to be answered before secession.

Again, you presume a lot. If a Province gets a mandate from its people to separate are you going to go to war to get the answers that satisfy you before they leave?

Again, there are an almost limitless number of scenarios we could go through. All I am saying is that I believe Canada should avoid a civil war as much as possible. It's hard to envision many scenarios that would be worse than a civil war.

I don't see how you can compare Afghanistan to civil war in Canada. I have great respect for our troops in Afghanistan who are doing great things for the Afgahn people. How would those same troops feel about killing innocent people of their own country (or former country)? Would you be prepared to kill someone just because they don't want to be part of this country? Or potentially be killed yourself?

I don't know the answer to that question but if they feel much more strongly about their country than you, it is possible that many could. It has happened many times before in other countries.

How do you feel about it personally? I've already asked this before, but I will repeat it: Would you be prepared to kill someone just because they don't want to be part of this country? Or potentially be killed yourself?

[Fortunata]

Argus, is there anything the Conservative party could do that you wouldn't defend? I hate to tell you this but there is good and bad about every party and every government. Extreme partisanship does not a good country make.

[Canadian Blue]

Argus, is there anything the Conservative party could do that you wouldn't defend? I hate to tell you this but there is good and bad about every party and every government. Extreme partisanship does not a good country make.

I'd agree, but sometimes their is so much Harper bashing going on just for the sake of bashing Harper that you feel inclined to defend everything he does.

[Wilber]

Again, there are an almost limitless number of scenarios we could go through. All I am saying is that I believe Canada should avoid a civil war as much as possible. It's hard to envision many scenarios that would be worse than a civil war.

Yes, there are almost a limitless number of scenarios. That is my point. Don't assume that your life won't change much if the country goes to pieces. Once the genie is out of the bottle there will be no way of putting it back or foreseeing the final consequences.

How do you feel about it personally? I've already asked this before, but I will repeat it: Would you be prepared to kill someone just because they don't want to be part of this country? Or potentially be killed yourself?

I don't know, it would depend on the circumstances but if you look at civil wars that have occurred, it is quite possible that one could find themselves in a position where they have no choice. Do you think that all the people who fought and died in the breakup of Yugoslavia chose to do so of their own free will?

[gc1765]

I don't know, it would depend on the circumstances...

I see we can both agree that it would depend on circumstances.

...but if you look at civil wars that have occurred, it is quite possible that one could find themselves in a position where they have no choice. Do you think that all the people who fought and died in the breakup of Yugoslavia chose to do so of their own free will?

If war is inevitable, then it's inevitable. All I'm trying to say is to avoid war as much as possible. Even if war did break out, there are other options than fighting.

[Mimas]

Who can forget an entire campaign built around getting rid of the GST? Which they didn't.

An entire campaign built around opposing wage and price controls, which they later put in place.

An entire campaign built around opposing a 7cent gas tax, which they later implimented.

Several entire campaigns built around protecting and fixing health care which they allowed to deteriorate.

How about a campaign around accountability when the Accountability Act is a joke.

A campaign around electing senators and not allowing MPs to cross the floor, followed by appointing an unelected friend to the Senate and to be a minister of a department that spends over 10 billion of our tax dollars and giving Emerson a cabinet seat to cross the floor only 2 weeks after an election.

A campaign around cleaning up government and then letting lobbyists and private interests to buy votes in the House by removing restrictions on third party election spending.

A campaign about giving more power to MPs because they are the democratically elected representatives of the people and then muzzling MPs and throwing them out of caucus because they have a blog (what a crime!)

A campaign around not taxing income trusts and then taxing them.

A campaign around banning gay marriage and then not doing it.

And all that achieved in less than 10 months.

Conclusion: Cons = Libs

[Wilber]

If war is inevitable, then it's inevitable.

Agreed

All I'm trying to say is to avoid war as much as possible.

Agreed

Even if war did break out, there are other options than fighting

.

Yes but sometimes the only other option is dieing.

[Argus]

Argus, is there anything the Conservative party could do that you wouldn't defend? I hate to tell you this but there is good and bad about every party and every government. Extreme partisanship does not a good country make.

I defend the Conservative govenrment when people make pointless accusations, when the accusations are about trivial things - from people who still defend the Liberals over sponsorgate - and when the accusations are just plain wrong.

BTW, no one has yet come up with an explanation as to just how the Conservatives' failure to report convention fees even helped them, much less harmed the other parties or Canadians.

[Argus]

Who can forget an entire campaign built around getting rid of the GST? Which they didn't.

An entire campaign built around opposing wage and price controls, which they later put in place.

An entire campaign built around opposing a 7cent gas tax, which they later implimented.

Several entire campaigns built around protecting and fixing health care which they allowed to deteriorate.

How about a campaign around accountability when the Accountability Act is a joke.

What about the Accountabilty Act is a joke?

A campaign around electing senators and not allowing MPs to cross the floor, followed by appointing an unelected friend to the Senate and to be a minister of a department that spends over 10 billion of our tax dollars and giving Emerson a cabinet seat to cross the floor only 2 weeks after an election.

There was no campaign I'm aware of regarding not allowing floor crossing. Nor is there any way the Tories could change the senate rules with a minority. The person appointed to the Senate was a multi-mllionaire who has promised to run in the next election so I would hardly put this into the same category as Liberals appointing their party hacks to a rich reward.

A campaign around cleaning up government and then letting lobbyists and private interests to buy votes in the House by removing restrictions on third party election spending.

What a joke. The third party election spending law was a blunt instrument designed to inhibit freedom of the press. If the Tories get rid of it I'm all for it. As for lobbyists, they ran the last Liberal governments and even wrote legislation. I see no evidence of similar influence with the present government.

A campaign about giving more power to MPs because they are the democratically elected representatives of the people and then muzzling MPs and throwing them out of caucus because they have a blog (what a crime!)

There was no campaign regarding this, however, it was the Tories' express policy to give more power to MPs. Clearly this is problematical in a shaky minority parliament.

A campaign around not taxing income trusts and then taxing them.

Once again, this was a minor campaign promise, not something the campaign was wrapped around. I wasn't even aware of it. And the Tories did live up to the spirit of their promise, if not the letter.

A campaign around banning gay marriage and then not doing it.

There was no such campaign.

You see, the difference betwen my recitation of Liberal campaign lies and yours about the Tories is that mine are legitimate and absolutely inarguable, and concern not merely broken promises, but THE central them of Liberal campaigns. Yours are largely distortions, or about minor campaign promises, and the product of your imagination.

[Fortunata]

Argus, is there anything the Conservative party could do that you wouldn't defend? I hate to tell you this but there is good and bad about every party and every government. Extreme partisanship does not a good country make.

I'd agree, but sometimes their is so much Harper bashing going on just for the sake of bashing Harper that you feel inclined to defend everything he does.

I guess both Cons and Libs could use that argument at any given time but it does not make for honest discussion. I like bashing government no matter who it is (although I have to admit Harper is my favourite) because they are the ones that have the power that is more misused than it should be. In real life, though, you don't get points because you stuck up for everything a party stands for just because. We are all losers when that happens.

[normanchateau]

sometimes their is so much Harper bashing going on just for the sake of bashing Harper that you feel inclined to defend everything he does.

Paul Martin was bashed, Jean Chretien was bashed, and when the next Liberal leader becomes Prime Minister,

he'll be bashed by the Harper supporters on this board. It's to be expected when one is Prime Minister.

Harper was unusual in having no honeymoon period with most voters but he needs to take responsibility for his actions. He engineered his own demise by claiming that his government would be more accountable, then days after being elected, he appointed to the Senate then made Cabinet Minister an unelected Quebecer who had been his campaign manager. Simultaneosly he engineered what is probably the hastiest floor crossing in Canadian history by making David Emerson a Cabinet Minister. The floor crossing and the Senate appointment would have been no big deal were it not for how the Conservatives a year ago had responded to Liberal Senate appointments and Stronach's floor crossing to the Liberals. Same with the broken promise on income trusts.

[Figleaf]

If the CPC's prior incarnation as the Alliance should have told them, to succeed in federal politics they have to be better at reflecting the Canadian small "l" liberal mainstream. That means they must eschew picking sides in the Middle East,

Many of us feel that siding with a western democracy over vicious, brutal, misogonystic dictatorships is the moral thing to do.

Your comment is strange because the choice under discussion here isn't between Israel and its neighboring dictatorships, but between Israel and the oppressed stateless Palestinians.

respect core values such as the independence of the judiciary,

A corrupt. self-serving, highly politicised judiciary universally panned as dishonest and incompetent?

Well, you're clearly in the base-constituency, but most people don't think the judiciary is dishonest, or even incompetent. (Your claim of 'universally' is obvious nonsense.)

be responsible -- don't take cheap shots at the former government when it's now your policies that are the issue,

Oh you mean like, when the Liberals howl at them about not meeting environmental targets the Tories shouldn't point out that the LIberals spent 13 years lining their pockets instead of making any attempt to live up to the accords they had signed and the love of the environment they professed?

Yes. I mean voters don't care to hear about the tories resentments ... we want the government to concern itself with policies today, not policies yesterday.

don't lie about little gaffes in Parliament or about decisions that will destroy millions of dollars in equity value or about why an independent minded MP is ejected from caucus

You mean like the liberals lied ...

I suppose you mean the Liberals? Anyway, you're doing it right there ... blithering about the Liberals when the point is the government tories.

don't pussyfoot with extreme social conservatism,

Yes, it's not like they're citizens or voters or have any rights to be represented or make their wishes known. Lock them. Hell, shoot them. So we can all live in a socialist paradise.

I'm not sure what your point is. My point was that the mainstream of Canada doesn't want the policies that the socon special interest group wants. When it comes to winning elections in democracies, it is the interests of the mainstream, not special interests, which will drive victories. Are you attempting to suggest differently?

don't play the dirty side of patriotism when someone questions your choices.

Didn't the Liberals question the Alliance's patriotism for wanting them to clear up their position on Quebec seperatism? Didn't they question Harper's patriotism for not breathlessly echoing the cry of how he loved Canada?

There you go about the Liberals AGAIN. If you want to discuss them, why not start a thread about it?

Anyway, I don't recall the things you refer to.