Stephen Harper: A one mandate PM?

[Argus]

Well the Progressive Conservative Party's Constitution did not allow for Peter MacKay to destroy the party and hand over its brand to another party, but he did it anyway. You can always find a way around things and just say that what you are doing is legal.

Yeah, it's called taking a vote and seeing what the people want to do. And the PCers voted massively in favour.

[scribblet]

Well the Progressive Conservative Party's Constitution did not allow for Peter MacKay to destroy the party and hand over its brand to another party, but he did it anyway. You can always find a way around things and just say that what you are doing is legal.

Yeah, it's called taking a vote and seeing what the people want to do. And the PCers voted massively in favour.

Taking a vote - one person one vote too, minor detail best overlooked when trying to make a case.

[Wilber]

It's been established that Quebec cannot simply secede, even if a definite majority of "Quebecers" (however one defines that) voted in favour of independence; the Quebec government simply does not have the power to alter the Constitution, and any unilateral move to declare independence and pass some new Quebec constitution would be denied Royal Assent (and thus legal legitimacy) by the Crown. So, though the Supreme Court opined that the federal and other provincial governments would have no real reason to deny the Quebecois people their right to self-determination, Quebec must negotiate withdrawal, not simply declare it.

Why must they? How would you stop them short of using force if they just gave the rest of the country the finger, set up border check points and stopped sending tax revenue to Ottawa?

If they decide to secede they would say we are not part of Canada anymore and your Constitution, your Crown and Supreme Court mean nothing to us. Like any government their power is limited to whatever their people are prepared to give them. There are those who will believe that a majority in a referendum gives them the authority to use force and there will be those who are prepared to use it in return.

Of course, separatists could try and poo-poo all those inconvenient legalities and simply announce themselves as independent, a la great American Revolution (wouldn’t that be so noble?). But then, how could violence be avoided in such a situation, as those who don't wish to secede from Canada, including the vast majority of the Native population in Quebec, would fight as a resistance against the secessionists. It seems to me that then we'd end up with the civil war that you worry about.

Exactly my point. No one should assume that separation by any Province would be a gentlemanly and peaceful process.

[Mimas]

Well the Progressive Conservative Party's Constitution did not allow for Peter MacKay to destroy the party and hand over its brand to another party, but he did it anyway. You can always find a way around things and just say that what you are doing is legal.

Yeah, it's called taking a vote and seeing what the people want to do. And the PCers voted massively in favour.

Taking a vote - one person one vote too, minor detail best overlooked when trying to make a case.

After MacKay allowed every reformer to buy a membership just before the vote.

[jbg]

I don't think it is to the same degree. I don't think conservatives generally take the same tone towards Liberal PMs or leaders. That is, Harper is assumed to be evil - ie., moreally deficient and defective by some of these lefties. We even see them claiming he is deliberately trying to harm the poor, that he wants to see homosexuals beaten, that he hates Ontario and wants to destroy its economy.

Stephen Harper is definitely evil. He is eating your children:

1. In the kitchen;
   
2. At 24 Sussex Drive;
   
3. In Ottawa;
   
4. In Ontario;
   
5. In Canada
   

I'm not making this up. I can't make this up. I'm not allowed to make this up.

[jbg]

Sure. Why not? Works in the US, works rather well, in fact.

Presidents in general seek to employ experts in their field in the Cabinet rather than professional politicians. Many, such as Condi Rice (who I like) and Henry Kissinger (who I loathe) have never held elective office.

[gerryhatrick]

I don't think it is to the same degree. I don't think conservatives generally take the same tone towards Liberal PMs or leaders. That is, Harper is assumed to be evil - ie., moreally deficient and defective by some of these lefties. We even see them claiming he is deliberately trying to harm the poor, that he wants to see homosexuals beaten, that he hates Ontario and wants to destroy its economy.

Stephen Harper is definitely evil. He is eating your children:

1. In the kitchen;
   
2. At 24 Sussex Drive;
   
3. In Ottawa;
   
4. In Ontario;
   
5. In Canada
   

I'm not making this up. I can't make this up. I'm not allowed to make this up.

This is what is commonly called "flame bait". It's mindless and pointless, other than in it's design to invoke a negative response.

[Black Dog]

Social conservatives are not a "special interest group", they're Canadians who happen to disagree with you. In some cases those you label "extreme socons" outnumber everyone else. Those who would vote for gay civil unions, for example, as opposed to marriages. In other cases, as on abortion, their numbers are still in the many millions. Your position appears to be that they deserve no representation whatever, that their views should be utterly ignored, their wishes contemptuously brushed aside.

Nice democratic instincts there.

Meh. A bad idea shared by many is still a bad idea. But hey, if you want to cast your lot with the "goat herders" you despise, be my guest.

As for the invocation of democracy, people seem to forget that representative democracy evolved as a check against the changing whims of the mob.

[jbg]

I don't think it is to the same degree. I don't think conservatives generally take the same tone towards Liberal PMs or leaders. That is, Harper is assumed to be evil - ie., moreally deficient and defective by some of these lefties. We even see them claiming he is deliberately trying to harm the poor, that he wants to see homosexuals beaten, that he hates Ontario and wants to destroy its economy.

Stephen Harper is definitely evil. He is eating your children:

1. In the kitchen;
   
2. At 24 Sussex Drive;
   
3. In Ottawa;
   
4. In Ontario;
   
5. In Canada
   

I'm not making this up. I can't make this up. I'm not allowed to make this up.

This is what is commonly called "flame bait". It's mindless and pointless, other than in it's design to invoke a negative response.

No, it's an LPOC ad, from what I remember of the last campaign, slightly adapted.

[gerryhatrick]

I don't think it is to the same degree. I don't think conservatives generally take the same tone towards Liberal PMs or leaders. That is, Harper is assumed to be evil - ie., moreally deficient and defective by some of these lefties. We even see them claiming he is deliberately trying to harm the poor, that he wants to see homosexuals beaten, that he hates Ontario and wants to destroy its economy.

Stephen Harper is definitely evil. He is eating your children:

1. In the kitchen;
   
2. At 24 Sussex Drive;
   
3. In Ottawa;
   
4. In Ontario;
   
5. In Canada
   

I'm not making this up. I can't make this up. I'm not allowed to make this up.

This is what is commonly called "flame bait". It's mindless and pointless, other than in it's design to invoke a negative response.

No, it's an LPOC ad, from what I remember of the last campaign, slightly adapted.

And that makes you either ignorant or dishonest.

Nothing similar to our post has ever been promoted by any political party.

Please try to raise your level of debate beyond flame bait.

[hiti]

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.

All it will mean is that Stephen Harper is incompetent..... really. The different regions of the country are doing just fine. There are a few voices that won't shut up slamming Canada cause they are afraid if they do the ROC will realize that their numbers are almost nonexistent. Anyone hoping for Alberta to separate should watch how many votes Snortin' Morton gets against Jim Dinning. THAT is how much support there is for separatists in Alberta. And is is a very, very small number.

[Mimas]

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.

All it will mean is that Stephen Harper is incompetent..... really. The different regions of the country are doing just fine. There are a few voices that won't shut up slamming Canada cause they are afraid if they do the ROC will realize that their numbers are almost nonexistent. Anyone hoping for Alberta to separate should watch how many votes Snortin' Morton gets against Jim Dinning. THAT is how much support there is for separatists in Alberta. And is is a very, very small number.

That may change as Albertans become more and more convinced that it is their brilliance that put the oil in the ground and that the rest of us lazy Canadians are trying to live off their hard work and sharp brains. Ok, that's a gross overstatement but in a few years time it may end up being pretty close to the truth.

[bk59]

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

Anyone who knows about how they are appointed, who bothers to read some of their decisions knows just what a pack of venal, self-serving, political hacks and incompetents our judges are.

Corrupt? How? Where is there any evidence that our judiciary is corrupt? Or self-serving? Or even beholden to a political party? The Canadian judiciary has been looked to by many countries as a model of what a judiciary should be. Just because you may not agree with their decisions does not make them corrupt or incompetent. Don't take the highly politicized rhetoric that surrounds the US court system (and the associated nominations and elections) and attempt to apply it here in Canada.

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.

If the money collected for a convention is greater than the money spent on the convention then this is fundraising for the party. By not reporting the money the Conservative party could be raising funds for the party without accounting for those funds. Now they say that they broke even. But how do we know that if they don't report it? And let's not pretend that this is just an issue of interpretation that no one saw coming. In the past, every party reported their convention fees, including the Reform and Canadian Alliance parties. There was no reason for the Conservatives not to report this money. You can't talk about accountability and then not expect people to jump all over you when it appears that you are not being transparent. Is this a big deal? Probably not. But by refusing to show transparency, especially when their actions are a departure from the accepted norm, they have made it into a bigger deal than it had to be. And changing their Accountability Act so that they don't have to show this money just adds fuel to the conspiracy theorists' fire.

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

For someone who made comments about other members' attachment to democracy this seems like a strange comment. By strange I mean hypocritical. A free media, which is allowed to do its job, is essential for democracy.

Basically, he sold out to the unions, gave them oodles more money, and changed legislation to give the teachers union control of the Ontario College of Teachers - which disciplines teachers - to keep them happy and buy labour peace, then quit to run for Liberal leader.

As an aside... many professions have self-regulating bodies. For example lawyers and engineers. Having teachers regulate the Ontario College of Teachers is not necessarily a bad thing. In fact, removing politics from the equation will probably do a lot of good.

[bk59]

As for the whole Fortier thing... Harper did make it clear back in February that Fortier would not be running in a by-election:

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2006/02/06/...umps060206.html

So fine, I won't go overboard in blasting the Conservatives for not running Fortier. But here's the thing about this situation. The Conservatives stand up and tell everyone that they are going to be accountable to the public and that they stand for principles. Then, in one of their very first acts as government, they get a Liberal to cross the floor by giving him a Cabinet position and appoint a person to the Senate (albeit temporarily) so that an unelected person can hold a Cabinet position. All of this after the Conservatives slammed the Liberals for having someone cross the floor to get a Cabinet position and after they made it clear that they stood against unelected people having Cabinet positions and that they stood against Senators being politically appointed. Let's just say that I find it disingenuous when the party that claims to stand for principles bends those principles for the sake of convenience the very first chance they get.

To tie all of this back into the topic of this thread... Harper had a chance to distinguish himself from the Liberals. Unfortunately there have been enough small gaffes and "bending of principles" so far that he has created doubts in the minds of many Canadians - especially those that typically fall within the "undecided voter" category. If I was a higher up in the Conservative party, when election time comes around I would be very worried about the voters thinking "Maybe the Conservatives and Liberals aren't that different after all. And if they aren't that different, maybe I'll vote for the devil I know rather than the devil I don't."

[Canadian Blue]

That may change as Albertans become more and more convinced that it is their brilliance that put the oil in the ground and that the rest of us lazy Canadians are trying to live off their hard work and sharp brains. Ok, that's a gross overstatement but in a few years time it may end up being pretty close to the truth.

Comments which simply show your inexperience. If you actually travelled to that part of the country and lived there for sometime your views would change. I know that many of the stereotypes I had about the east were changed from my time living in Quebec, Ontario, and New Brunswick. Actually so far the most bigoted comments I have heard have come from people who live in Toronto with regards to the rest of the country.

As well I haven't heard a single Albertan comment on how lazy all other Canadian's are. It's simply stupidity, ignorance, and intolerance, to believe that the majority of Albertan's are somehow evil snobs.

As well if Alberta were to seperate, then I'd take a bet that BC would as well, and maybe even Saskatchewan.

[Figleaf]

Why must they? How would you stop them short of using force if they just gave the rest of the country the finger, set up border check points and stopped sending tax revenue to Ottawa?

Why stop short of force? If criminal elements in a province employ coercive violation of valid constitutional authority, opposing force with force is acceptable.

[Charles Anthony]

Why stop short of force?

Who exactly are you talking about using force???

Canadians are not going to go to war against Canadians.

[Figleaf]

I'm not making this up. I can't make this up. I'm not allowed to make this up.

Sounds like Sandra Buckler's weekly talking-points for Tory ministers!

[Figleaf]

Why stop short of force?

Who exactly are you talking about using force???

Canadians are not going to go to war against Canadians.

But that's the whole premise of the discussion: a rogue provincial government proposes to coercively overthrow the constitution -- how does Canada respond.

[g_bambino]

It's been established that Quebec cannot simply secede, even if a definite majority of "Quebecers" (however one defines that) voted in favour of independence; the Quebec government simply does not have the power to alter the Constitution, and any unilateral move to declare independence and pass some new Quebec constitution would be denied Royal Assent (and thus legal legitimacy) by the Crown. So, though the Supreme Court opined that the federal and other provincial governments would have no real reason to deny the Quebecois people their right to self-determination, Quebec must negotiate withdrawal, not simply declare it.

Why must they? How would you stop them short of using force if they just gave the rest of the country the finger, set up border check points and stopped sending tax revenue to Ottawa?

If they decide to secede they would say we are not part of Canada anymore and your Constitution, your Crown and Supreme Court mean nothing to us. Like any government their power is limited to whatever their people are prepared to give them. There are those who will believe that a majority in a referendum gives them the authority to use force and there will be those who are prepared to use it in return.

Yes, as I mentioned below, that could well be attempted. However, it would be illegal, and that would give justification for the mobilization of Armed Forces to subvert such an act of rebellion against the rule of law.

Of course, separatists could try and poo-poo all those inconvenient legalities and simply announce themselves as independent, a la great American Revolution (wouldn’t that be so noble?). But then, how could violence be avoided in such a situation, as those who don't wish to secede from Canada, including the vast majority of the Native population in Quebec, would fight as a resistance against the secessionists. It seems to me that then we'd end up with the civil war that you worry about.

Exactly my point. No one should assume that separation by any Province would be a gentlemanly and peaceful process.

No, of course not; rebellions can pop up anywhere. They've been thanfully few in Canada's past, but they have happened, and thus could happen again.

[Wilber]

Yes, as I mentioned below, that could well be attempted. However, it would be illegal, and that would give justification for the mobilization of Armed Forces to subvert such an act of rebellion against the rule of law.

My posts go back to a question I was asked as to whether I would be prepared to use force in the event a part of the country decided to secede. I was trying to point out to the person who asked the question that one might not have a choice. I don't dispute what you say about the legality of it, just that in such a situation people may act regardless of legality resulting in chaos.

[JerrySeinfeld]

Yes, as I mentioned below, that could well be attempted. However, it would be illegal, and that would give justification for the mobilization of Armed Forces to subvert such an act of rebellion against the rule of law.

My posts go back to a question I was asked as to whether I would be prepared to use force in the event a part of the country decided to secede. I was trying to point out to the person who asked the question that one might not have a choice. I don't dispute what you say about the legality of it, just that in such a situation people may act regardless of legality resulting in chaos.

Well, the tories aren't in trouble as long as the Libs best of breed is some self-contradicting bookworm named Iggy.

[g_bambino]

(Incomplete post deleted)

[g_bambino]

My posts go back to a question I was asked as to whether I would be prepared to use force in the event a part of the country decided to secede. I was trying to point out to the person who asked the question that one might not have a choice. I don't dispute what you say about the legality of it, just that in such a situation people may act regardless of legality resulting in chaos.

Ah, I see. Well, I certainly agree that in certain circumstances there may indeed be no choice, and one of those circumstances would be when the established laws are ignored.

Then again, when it comes to unilateral provincial separation, one could always adopt the Caledonia method of dealing with law-breakers.

[geoffrey]

As well I haven't heard a single Albertan comment on how lazy all other Canadian's are.

I do all the time. We have higher productivity, higher participation rate (the real measure of laziness... 25% higher than Newfoundland!) and lower unemployment.

The unemployment may have something to do with oil but the rest does not.

I don't think Albertans are genetically different, so it must be the economic realities of living here. Maybe the other governments of Canada need to take a page out of our book and be alot more pro-business... they might even gain jobs!!!