124

Harper won’t bend for the opposition

PM says Conservative minority is bound for defeat in Parliament


 

Stephen Harper says he has no plans to play nice with the opposition even if he’s sent back to Parliament with a minority government. Harper shot down the possibility of cooperation during an appearance in Rivière-du-Loup, Que., on Wednesday, saying the opposition has already decided it would topple a Conservative minority and govern as a coalition. “We don’t know what that [coalition] government will stand for,” Harper said. “But we do know the general outlines. There’s no focus on the economy. There are tax hikes, and of course these parties have very dangerous and conflicting views on national unity and constitutional matters.” In an interview with the CBC on Tuesday, Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff said his party would be open to working with the Conservatives in a minority government.

Postmedia



 
Filed under:

Harper won’t bend for the opposition

  1. So it's majority or bust huh. That sounds an awful lot like an ultimatum.

  2. So it's majority or bust huh. That sounds an awful lot like an ultimatum.

    • it is an ultimatum. it was made by Iggy yesterday on the CBC. majority or Iggy usurps power. in case you dont understand, let me clarify, an ultimatum is usually deemed to have been made by the person issuing the threat, not the person pointing to the threat.

      but dont worry, most libtards are even dumber than you.

      • Ridicule and sarcasm. …….expected

        I took what Mr. Harper said as an ultimatum to the Canadian voter. I wasn't impressed. If he gets sent back with another minority than he is responsible for co-operating and making it work. It is the first thing I look for in a leader. Harper is showing he is not a leader.

  3. Way to go Harper – Iggy throws his cars on the table and then raises the bet – now Stevie boy calls his bluff and Iggy is already trying to call a timeout – hahahah! next stop Layton in Stornaway

  4. Way to go Harper – Iggy throws his cars on the table and then raises the bet – now Stevie boy calls his bluff and Iggy is already trying to call a timeout – hahahah! next stop Layton in Stornaway

    • I always enjoyed playing poker against the so-called educated elite types.In the end, their arrogance and egoes always gets the best of them…

  5. This headline is very misleading. Harper has shown he can 'bend' for the opposition – his latest budget being a prime example. It's the NDP that didnt bend. They wanted all their demands met or nothing. They got nothing.

    All that Harper is saying here is that he wont reverse his core policies because a bunch of unelected losers want to usurp his job.

  6. This headline is very misleading. Harper has shown he can 'bend' for the opposition – his latest budget being a prime example. It's the NDP that didnt bend. They wanted all their demands met or nothing. They got nothing.

    All that Harper is saying here is that he wont reverse his core policies because a bunch of unelected losers want to usurp his job.

    • If I make an agreement with you and then only supply half of what I agreed to, does that make me a leader?

      • what are you talking about? there was no agreement, there were only NDP demands, which Harper was perfectly free to ignore entirely. He extended an olive branch by meeting the NDP halfway and that was soundly rejected by the NDP. That's Harper bending, and the NDP not bending. Seems pretty clear to me.

        • He extended an olive branch by meeting the NDP halfway and that was soundly rejected by the NDP.

          My recollection is that he met the NDP halfway on one issue, and none of the way on two issues. It was not enough of a win for Layton with his constituents to offset the backlash he'd receive from supporting Harper.

          But I'm happy to be proven wrong on that.

          • No; you're right – though it is a bit of a moot point in that it wasn't the trigger for the election.

            Harper, should he find himself back in power with a minority government, has a choice: revise the budget (which he'll likely have to do anyway, thanks to his election promises), or be defeated on it. We'll then get to see if he's learned anything since 2008.

            "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results". – Albert Einstein

    • "unelected losers"

      They don't get to sit as MPs without getting elected, moron!

    • "…unelected losers…."
      How can such a terrible poster have such a high reputation score?

  7. It is this willful disregard for the mandate that he is given that displeases me most about Harper. If he is returned with a minority, he must accept that a majority of voters DO NOT support his views, and he must bend a little. Minority Parliaments are about COMPROMISE. His inane blather about coalitions is deliberately misleading Canadians. He has had to work for the last 5 years with the opposition parties to make Parliament work. If he is returned with a minority and refuses to do so again, it is his own fault if his government falls. The opposition cannot be held hostage by his threats if his policies do not reflect the will of the people.

    I don't understand why he finds this so difficult to understand?

  8. It is this willful disregard for the mandate that he is given that displeases me most about Harper. If he is returned with a minority, he must accept that a majority of voters DO NOT support his views, and he must bend a little. Minority Parliaments are about COMPROMISE. His inane blather about coalitions is deliberately misleading Canadians. He has had to work for the last 5 years with the opposition parties to make Parliament work. If he is returned with a minority and refuses to do so again, it is his own fault if his government falls. The opposition cannot be held hostage by his threats if his policies do not reflect the will of the people.

    I don't understand why he finds this so difficult to understand?

    • and what i find so disgusting about your ilk, is the wilful disregard of the lack of mandate that the opposition parties have to govern.

      iggy has no mandate from his own party members. his mandate comes from a few toronto high-ranking libs.

      a second place Liberal party has no mandate from the people to govern. That's because a supermajority of canadian voters will have rejected Iggy, yet he wants to install himself as PM – what a disgusting man.

      ndp votes are not a mandate for a Liberal government.

      bloc votes are not a mandate for a Liberal government.

      green votes… well who cares about those.

      why is this so difficult to understand?

      • alfanerd, just a few things:

        1. Please refer to Out There's post.

        2. Prior to commenting on something, please educate yourself about how our Parliamentary system works. Each MP who is elected is given a mandate to represent their constituents. A party must have the confidence of a majority of MPs, who theoretically represent a majority of Canadians, to govern. If the party with the most seats in the House does not have the support of the majority of members in the House, that party's leader has lost the confidence of the House and no longer has a mandate to govern. The Governor General then has two options: a) call an election, or b) call on the party with the next highest number of seats to see if it can command the confidence of the House. (This addresses your BS about NDP and Bloc votes. If the Liberals, or Conservatives, were to gain the confidence of the MPs from these parties, the Liberals or Conservatives, respectively, would have the confidence of the House and be able to govern.)

        Please try to make some well argued points instead of personally insulting me because I don't happen to agree with you.

      • what I find so disgusting about you is your complete inability to comprehend or process any outcome that does not result in a five year Conservative dictatorship

      • Parliament is the final authority, not parties or leaders. If a majority of sitting members do not have confidence in a government than there is no longer a mandate to govern.

      • My vote is a mandate for a Member of Parliament to choose the government, preferably one that is not led by Stephen Harper.

      • ndp votes are not a mandate for a Conservative government.

        bloc votes are not a mandate for a Conservative government

        Liberal votes are not a mandate for a Conservative government.

        In short, if Harper doesn't have a majority, he doesn have a clear and unfettered mandate either; the nation has clearly said they don't trust him enough to wield that much power and have given him fetters to ensure he doesn't race off in undesirable directions. If he can't live with that, then he does not have respect for the views of Canadians collectively – and his government deserves to fall.

        In other words, in the event of a minority, whether the government survives or falls is his. He likes to boast he had the longest-lasting minority government in Canadian history; what he forgets is that his sucess was thanks to opposition parties working with him. If he pushes them to the point where they are no longer willing to do so – whose fault will it be? I know where I'd place the blame…

        • Did you notice that you said that Harper has had the longest-lasting minority gov't, and it was because Harper was able to have the opposition parties work with him?

          I would say that is a testament to cooperation. If the minority gov't falls, it is the fault of all the parties. The are also in it for political gain.

      • You realise that a supermajority have 'rejected' Harper for the last few elections and he's had no qualms about forming government.

    • If you will read the article again, you will see that the quotes of Harper do not back up the claim that he will not bend. They only say that he predicts that NO MATTER WHAT HE DOES, the opposition will take his minority gov't down.

      The title is not backed up by the article. .

  9. There's nothing Canadian's like more than being given an ultimatum. I predict this will end well for Harper.

  10. and what i find so disgusting about your ilk, is the wilful disregard of the lack of mandate that the opposition parties have to govern.

    iggy has no mandate from his own party members. his mandate comes from a few toronto high-ranking libs.

    a second place Liberal party has no mandate from the people to govern. That's because a supermajority of canadian voters will have rejected Iggy, yet he wants to install himself as PM – what a disgusting man.

    ndp votes are not a mandate for a Liberal government.

    bloc votes are not a mandate for a Liberal government.

    green votes… well who cares about those.

    why is this so difficult to understand?

  11. If I make an agreement with you and then only supply half of what I agreed to, does that make me a leader?

  12. what are you talking about? there was no agreement, there were only NDP demands, which Harper was perfectly free to ignore entirely. He extended an olive branch by meeting the NDP halfway and that was soundly rejected by the NDP. That's Harper bending, and the NDP not bending. Seems pretty clear to me.

  13. it is an ultimatum. it was made by Iggy yesterday on the CBC. majority or Iggy usurps power. in case you dont understand, let me clarify, an ultimatum is usually deemed to have been made by the person issuing the threat, not the person pointing to the threat.

    but dont worry, most libtards are even dumber than you.

  14. Really?

  15. Really?

    • No, I was using childish sarcasm. I've been stuck in meetings all day and my brain has reverted to its natural adolescent state.

      • May I suggest Cotton Candy…It always snaps me awake :) and much more fun than coffee

  16. iggy has no mandate from his own party members. his mandate comes from a few toronto high-ranking libs.

    The Liberals can choose their leader in any way they like. And had they gone through the whole process of a leadership convention, the Conservatives would likely have called a snap election.

    a second place Liberal party has no mandate from the people to govern

    In the Westminster system of government, the party that gets to govern is the one that has the confidence of the House. If a Liberal government can consistently gain the support of enough opposition parties to retain this confidence, it gets to govern – in much the same way as Harper's Conservatives have managed to govern for five years despite not having a majority of the seats in the Commons.

    Granted, it will be easier for a party to command the confidence of the House if it has a larger number of seats, but it's not impossible.

    Many pro-Conservatives believe that the only alternatives are "the first-place party gets to govern" or "yet another election". Presumably, they are hoping that the public will get sick of all of these elections and give Harper his majority. Which would be equivalent to signing your lunch money over to the school bully so that he'll stop beating you up at lunch – it's Harper's refusal to work with other parties that caused this impasse in the first place.

  17. iggy has no mandate from his own party members. his mandate comes from a few toronto high-ranking libs.

    The Liberals can choose their leader in any way they like. And had they gone through the whole process of a leadership convention, the Conservatives would likely have called a snap election.

    a second place Liberal party has no mandate from the people to govern

    In the Westminster system of government, the party that gets to govern is the one that has the confidence of the House. If a Liberal government can consistently gain the support of enough opposition parties to retain this confidence, it gets to govern – in much the same way as Harper's Conservatives have managed to govern for five years despite not having a majority of the seats in the Commons.

    Granted, it will be easier for a party to command the confidence of the House if it has a larger number of seats, but it's not impossible.

    Many pro-Conservatives believe that the only alternatives are "the first-place party gets to govern" or "yet another election". Presumably, they are hoping that the public will get sick of all of these elections and give Harper his majority. Which would be equivalent to signing your lunch money over to the school bully so that he'll stop beating you up at lunch – it's Harper's refusal to work with other parties that caused this impasse in the first place.

    • But that's not how Stephen Harper WANTS it to work. Ergo, it doesn't work that way (until his political needs require it, in which case, this would totally be how the system works.

      I don't hate the man personally, but I really hate how disengenuous he is about how our parliamentary system works.

  18. Ridicule and sarcasm. …….expected

    I took what Mr. Harper said as an ultimatum to the Canadian voter. I wasn't impressed. If he gets sent back with another minority than he is responsible for co-operating and making it work. It is the first thing I look for in a leader. Harper is showing he is not a leader.

  19. Are you sure you understand how our parliament works? The right to govern comes from the confidence of the house. If the CPC doesn't have the confidence of the House they don't get to govern. If the LPC has the confidence of the house, even if they have fewer seats, then they govern.

    That's how the current Israeli government is. The party with the SECOND most seats is the current government.

    Also, by voting for any particular party you're electing a representative. Not choosing who governs. Your ballot does not have "Which party do you want to form the government: CPC: [ ] LPC:[ ] NDP:[ ] BQ:[ ] Green:[ ]" question on it.

  20. alfanerd, just a few things:

    1. Please refer to Out There's post.

    2. Prior to commenting on something, please educate yourself about how our Parliamentary system works. Each MP who is elected is given a mandate to represent their constituents. A party must have the confidence of a majority of MPs, who theoretically represent a majority of Canadians, to govern. If the party with the most seats in the House does not have the support of the majority of members in the House, that party's leader has lost the confidence of the House and no longer has a mandate to govern. The Governor General then has two options: a) call an election, or b) call on the party with the next highest number of seats to see if it can command the confidence of the House. (This addresses your BS about NDP and Bloc votes. If the Liberals, or Conservatives, were to gain the confidence of the MPs from these parties, the Liberals or Conservatives, respectively, would have the confidence of the House and be able to govern.)

    Please try to make some well argued points instead of personally insulting me because I don't happen to agree with you.

  21. what I find so disgusting about you is your complete inability to comprehend or process any outcome that does not result in a five year Conservative dictatorship

  22. Parliament is the final authority, not parties or leaders. If a majority of sitting members do not have confidence in a government than there is no longer a mandate to govern.

  23. But that's not how Stephen Harper WANTS it to work. Ergo, it doesn't work that way (until his political needs require it, in which case, this would totally be how the system works.

    I don't hate the man personally, but I really hate how disengenuous he is about how our parliamentary system works.

  24. My vote is a mandate for a Member of Parliament to choose the government, preferably one that is not led by Stephen Harper.

  25. fair enough, but given that the opposition leaders have already indicated that they would automatically vote down harper when he comes back to power, harper cant be faulted for not cooperating with people who have already made up their mind and have already signaled their intention of not cooperating.

  26. please shove your stale talking point up your @@#*&$*(.

    constitution aside, canadians have an understanding that the winning party gets to govern. they only have 125 years of tradition to back that up.

    i dont give a rat's @ss about the israeli government. this is not israel. in Canada, canadians expect the winning party to form the government.

  27. This comment was deleted.

    • Kindly don't speak for all Canadians…

      ..some of us understand what a Parliament is.

    • Wow. You're having a rough day it seems.

      If you don't like the way our system currently works you can:
      a. move somewhere with a system you like.
      b. push for a change in said system.

      Not all Canadians expect the party with the most seats to govern. They expect a party that can pass legislation effectively to govern.

      And having the most seats but not achieving a majority is not winning.

    • "constitution aside"

      Nice! To heII with the constitution if it interferes with the CPC holding power.

      If Canadiand have a false understanding, then our educators and politicians are doing a poor job of informing the country's citizens. Harper, in his deliberate lying, is doing all he can to foster false beliefs.

      We know Harper knows better; that's what makes his behaviour so shameful and despicable. The man has absolutely no honour or integrity.

      Is that really the kind of leader you want for this country?

  28. He extended an olive branch by meeting the NDP halfway and that was soundly rejected by the NDP.

    My recollection is that he met the NDP halfway on one issue, and none of the way on two issues. It was not enough of a win for Layton with his constituents to offset the backlash he'd receive from supporting Harper.

    But I'm happy to be proven wrong on that.

  29. Where or when exactly did any of the other leaders say "they would automatically vote down harper when he comes back to power".?..I believe that the only one saying that is actually Harper.

  30. i understand perfectly well our system you arrogant fool.

    you're the one who's forgetting something in your "analysis". the expectations of the Canadian people.

    for the same reasons that when Paul Martin became PM, he sought a mandate from the electorate, despite having a majority in the house, it has been traditional in Canada that the confidence of the house is not the only thing that brings legitimacy to a government. that's a tradition, it's not part of the constitution, but it's important nonetheless and Canadians expect these traditions to be respected.

    power-hungry liberals like you who will destroy our country for the sake of a few moments of power. that's disgusting.

  31. Where or when exactly did any of the other leaders say "they would automatically vote down harper when he comes back to power".?..I believe that the only one saying that is actually Harper.

  32. "the opposition leaders have already indicated that they would automatically vote down harper when he comes back to power"

    Have they? That's news to me. I know the Conservatives have said that, but I haven't heard the opposition leaders say that.

  33. "the opposition leaders have already indicated that they would automatically vote down harper when he comes back to power"

    Have they? That's news to me. I know the Conservatives have said that, but I haven't heard the opposition leaders say that.

    • Another Conservative lie.

  34. No, I was using childish sarcasm. I've been stuck in meetings all day and my brain has reverted to its natural adolescent state.

  35. Kindly don't speak for all Canadians…

    ..some of us understand what a Parliament is.

  36. My expectations are that parliament rules supreme, and that my MP represents me.

    My expectations are that of a Canadian backed by the constitution.

    Your expectations are of a whiny, self-entitled brat.

  37. My expectations are that parliament rules supreme, and that my MP represents me.

    My expectations are that of a Canadian backed by the constitution.

    Your expectations are of a whiny, self-entitled brat.

  38. May I suggest Cotton Candy…It always snaps me awake :) and much more fun than coffee

  39. "Harper says he has no plans to play nice with the opposition even if he's sent back to Parliament with a minority government. Harper shot down the possibility of cooperation .." Here we see immaturity in action. This is not a strong leader with Canadians' welfare in mind. This is an egotistic man-child where it's 'his way or the highway'. Canadians deserve more from elected officials. The reason we're into another election is exactly because of Harper's attitude (& because he was legally found in contempt…lest we forget). There's no working with dictatorships. No working with sullen, sulky boys who don't get their way. The 'bickering' he spoke of in the debate is all brought on because of him. He doesn't know how to bend, to cooperate, to seek the good for anyone other than his cronies, his corporate welfare buddies & himself. Canada can't afford this kind of maturity (the UN delegates saw through him which is why he didn't get the seat….shameful)! Canadians cannot afford any form of "Harper" government.

  40. "Harper says he has no plans to play nice with the opposition even if he's sent back to Parliament with a minority government. Harper shot down the possibility of cooperation .." Here we see immaturity in action. This is not a strong leader with Canadians' welfare in mind. This is an egotistic man-child where it's 'his way or the highway'. Canadians deserve more from elected officials. The reason we're into another election is exactly because of Harper's attitude (& because he was legally found in contempt…lest we forget). There's no working with dictatorships. No working with sullen, sulky boys who don't get their way. The 'bickering' he spoke of in the debate is all brought on because of him. He doesn't know how to bend, to cooperate, to seek the good for anyone other than his cronies, his corporate welfare buddies & himself. Canada can't afford this kind of maturity (the UN delegates saw through him which is why he didn't get the seat….shameful)! Canadians cannot afford any form of "Harper" government.

    • If you will read the article again, you will see that the quotes of Harper that they use don't back up the idea that Harper won't cooperate with the opposition. . .

  41. I think Harper is going off his nut. When he doesn't get what he wants, will he kick over a chair on national TV? Or a journalist?

    • Now THAT would be a game changer.

      • No he will put soldiers in the streets and blah blah…Face it folks…the gig is up.Spend the next 4 years rebuilding your party and try to find a real CANADIAN LEADER .Bob and Justin will not cut the mustard either…

        • Sorry. I concede. The LPC were wrong about the soldiers. The thugs at the G8/G20 were cops. They definitely got the right idea though.

          • Cops are soldiers when they're used in this manner — paramilitary.

  42. Harper says; Harper says and Harper says. Harper is so full of crap he is not really worth listening to!

    He has done no more for the Economy than any other country or stripe on the earth and we are not finished with it yet.

    I suspect he has kept a foot on Carney's neck to prevent rate increases so he can look and talk cool though and election. Not many points for either effort.

    I cannot warm to a guy and an origination that is going to do away with everything that makes Canada, Canada. And, I do not want a Government run by the Fraser Institute and pushed by the US Republicans.

    • I don't think Carney has been influenced by the government.

    • Do you have any facts to back this rant up?

      What is it that 'makes Canada, Canada', that Harper wants to do away with?

      I am all ears. . .

  43. Harper to Canadians: vote for me or I will punish you. I will smite you! I will rain down fire upon you! I will turn you into pillars of salt with my death stare! Bow down and worship me!

  44. This is what the man SHOULD have done right after the eff-you Fiscal Update. Prime MInister Dion's term would have lasted somewhere in the order of weeks, and the Coalition-with-Commies-and-Traitors(TM) would no longer be rearing its head in 2011.

    If he is so willing to remember he's supposed to be the conservative in the room now, where the bloody H has he been the last few years?

    • I sort of agree with you, I think. If he was capable of playing the long game, he would have let Prime Minister Dion do his thing and have the whole thing collapse on itself like most people seemed to think it would. Then he could run the very next election on the "proven" need for a Conservative majority, and would probably be enjoying said majority at this very moment.

      • He couldn't afford that. Allowing the coalition to take power would have
        1) Stopped the CPC from being the ones to parade around with the novelty cheques.
        2) Stopped the CPC from using government money to campaign while Liberals got their feet under them for 2 yrs.
        3) Wiped out the Bloc for irrelevance
        4) Showed that a coalition could work just fine.. possibly leading to a Liberal minority the next time.

        • It would have been a gamble.

  45. If the will of the Canadian people is to return a minority parliament, then what happened to respecting the will of the people? I tire of hearing Conservative supporters tell me that Harper MUST get a majority this election so I should vote for him irrespective of what I actually think of his policies.

  46. Messrs. Ignatieff and Layton have already indicated they want control and will take it. If Mr. Harper has to implement all Liberal and NDP requests–they may as well govern.

    • But if he was willing to cooperate, he could at least get *some* of the CPC agenda through where the Liberals didn't want to work with the Bloc.

      • That is great in theory, but if the ideas are diametrically opposed, then there can be no 'cooperation'. That isn't anyone being evil – it is obvious that you cannot steer a ship north and south at the same time.

        I feel that the opposition's strategy in this election isn't to win, but to pant any failure of the CPC to get the 'confidence' of the house, as strictly SH's fault. If this is don't correctly, the opposition can bring down the gov't on any item whatsoever, and it will be SH's fault for not 'cooperating' with the opposition. I can only hope that the voters are smarter than that, and that they remember. . .

        • If the majority of elected MPs oppose what Harper wants to do, then he has no right to do it. That's democracy: suck it up.

          • I truly love how you formulate your arguments. . . .

            I understand how our system works, that is why I am stating the obvious. Harper has had the longest running minority gov't in Canada history, so I am quite sure that he has been cooperating. There isn't one party out there who commands the majority of votes from Canadians, and there probably will never be one. Each party wants to take the country in a different direction. With minority gov't as the probable outcome for the next foreseeable future, we, as Canadians need to come to terms with it.
            If we have a minority gov't, of any stripe, we will have a gov't that cannot move as effectively as a majority gov't. If we have to have two, three, or four different viewpoints represented in every bill that gets passed, we will almost certainly regret it. I am not stating right or wrong, just how things work.

            I have always believed that one of the benefits of Canada's system is that a majority gov't can work quickly, and effectively. We will see how we do with a coalition of parties. (or partnership, or whatever)

          • He's been in minority power 5 years, with an election and a 2 month proroguement to avoid a confidence vote over the course of that. His minority governments haven't been that long, no matter how you'd like to characterize them.

            They have, however, been marked by decided brinkmanship and real-politik, playing against a depleted Liberal Party which just went through a very expensive leadership campaign, then capitalizing on the forced abstensions in an election seeing the lowest turn-out of Liberal supporters ever. And note that's not saying any significant gains for any other party.. just a lack of turn-out for the Liberals.

            If we have two, three, or four different viewpoints represented in every bill that gets passed, that sounds to me like something that's reflective of the great country Canada is, where multiple viewpoints can co-exist at the same time. I realize that's hard for CPC supporters to understand, never mind cope with, but some of us really don't mind there being alternative viewpoints that exist.

          • Yes, there are many viewpoints in Canada. A lot more than 4.
            The point is, you cannot have 4 different views expressed in most bills. Things have to move in a direction. You can't cut military funding, and at the same time, increase military funding. You can't raise income taxes, and lower income taxes.

            My point is, a majority – regardless of the party – can move the gov't can be much more effective and efficient. Right or wrong, it is the truth.

          • You can raise income taxes on the rich, and lower them for the poor. You can cut military funding for contracts that haven't gone through competition, and increase them to troops on the ground.

            My point is, I like a government that thinks beyond simple black&white and that can understand that there may be more than one correct way to do something.

          • Again, you can't effectively move in two diametrically opposed directions at the same time.
            I like a gov't that thinks beyond simple black & white, and that can understand that there may be more than one correct way to do something as well. But my argument is that at some point, a decision has to be made, and that we move in that direction. To argue that we can all have our way, and that we can move forward with that kind of process is flawed.

            I agree that you can do all of the things you mention in your first sentence, but you will note that each decision would be based on policy, and each policy is different. We cannot raise taxes on the 'the rich' (who are they, by the way), and lower taxes on 'the rich' at the same time. We cannot lower taxes on the poor, and raise taxes on the poor. Etc. etc.

            We do have a first past the post system in Canada. I know that the people who vote NDP and Green hate it, and want a greater representation for their ideas in Parliament, but regardless of who you or I support, my argument is that the gov't moves more effectively and efficiently when it has a clear direction.

          • So move to North Korea. A dictatorship is very effective and efficient.

            Personally, I want a gov't that moves *correctly*, and the chances of that are vastly increased when more than one viewpoint is being brought to the table so that they can all be considered.

            And while I realize such a thing might seem a bit "out there" for a CPC supporter, but it is possible that compromise can be reached in legislation.

  47. Seriously? regardless of stripes, have you ever seen someone so blatantly lie day in & day out straight to your face the way Stephen Harper does?.

    I helped vote this thing into power & am completely blown away ever time I see a clip of his fear mongering campaign each & every day of this campaign, its unbelievable, literally!.

    I've voted Conservative, PC, NDP & Liberal over my years so please don't assume I'm just an ABC person, I'm not. but this guy is by far the lowest of the low I've ever seen, straight out of the American playbook of say anything to scare people into following you, regardless of TRUTH & HONOR.

    I find it just sickening as a proud Canadian.

    • If you look like a Liberal, sound like a Liberal, and smell like a Liberal…..

      • Someone on here a couple of days ago called Coyne a "Libtard"…..seriously. It seems anyone who has ANY issue at all with Harper is now a "Liberal"…..

      • If it looks like a turd and smells like a turd.

    • You sound badly screwed up. Whats a proud canadian? A bilingual dud.

    • When, exactly, has there been truth and honor in politics? Seriously, when was there a time when a politician told us what they were going to do, and did it? When was there a time when a politician didn't piss off one group, or part of the country? Name one politician who didn't lie, or change their mind, etc.

      I find it funny that people are so reminiscent of a time that never existed . . .

  48. The opposition voted him down on a contempt motion, not his budget. Presumably they still have contempt for Harper.

    • He's earned it.

    • The opposition didn't want to vote him down on the budget, as that would give the CPC the ability to argue that the opposition didn't support XYZ in the budget. They trumped up a silly contempt charge, and the funny thing is, the opposition is not campaigning too much on this. They have realized that the average Canadian didn't fall for it, and the more that they talk about it, the more people realize that it is a sham.

      I am sure that they have no love for Harper, but I am almost quite as sure that they will end up regretting triggering this election.

  49. This is the false stuff liberals have lived on for years. No wonder Harper is leading everywhere in English Canada. Believe me, we are not for bilingualism nor ever will be. Nor is any other English Country in the World.
    Liberal Murphy's attempt to get elected. Using this false crap. Thank god for Harper!
    "It is doubtful such a federal candidate could win the riding these days. The once overwhelmingly anglophone area has become increasingly francophone. About 38 per cent of the riding is French-speaking. As well, acceptance of bilingualism has grown among anglophones.

    These days there are more concerns about erosion than growth of bilingualism. Murphy certainly says bilingualism is threatened by the Harper Conservatives."

  50. As our Prime Ministers support is climbing daily. Thats a great relief for the Country. Its time the English voted together to defeat evile.

  51. I think Iggy's comment about working with the Conservatives in a minority situation was all fluff intended for those who fear a coalition. It was plain that his comments about the elected party not receiving the confidence of the House was the main message here. I think we all should have realized at that point, if not before, that there is no way in he** Harper will get the confidence of the House because the fix is already in. We can prepare to pay big time for the Boc's support of a coalition or what ever you might want to call it.

    • Harper is a manipulative liar and cheater. He cannot regain the confidence of Parliament because nobody trusts him. This is not because of some opposition plot, but because everybody knows that Harper is untrustworthy. He is tainted beyond repair. He can accomplish nothing but small vindictive acts. Harper is done. This parrot is deceased.

      • Holly, Holly, Holly, same old rant. Harper isn't done by a long shot and how is it you think you can speak for "everybody". If you read the surveys you will see that more people would chose Harper to be Prime Minister over the others. God help us if we end up with the wishy-washy, flip-flopping metro-sexual Iffy as the person representing this Country on the International stage. Iffy thinks he is so clever when the fact is he is the dumbest guy in the room. Educated doesn't mean smart Holly.

  52. PJ:

    If you start your post with "please educate yourself with …" and then trot out the very obvious fact that we elect MPs as some type of conclusive argument, you open yourself up to insults. Im sorry.

    I know Liberals are now very keen on observing our constitution to the letter and want to forget 125 years of democratic tradition. I can have a reasonable and rational debate about that if you want.

    And if you want your time to not be wasted, get off these boards.

    • Behaving like a facsist is a democratic tradition?

      • who's behaving like a fascist? the Liberals by not accepting the results of an election? yes I agree but really the term fascist should not be thrown around loosely, it diminishes its impact.

  53. 1/3 of the popular vote sure the hell isn't a democratic "mandate".

    • tell that to Jean Chretien who got 3 majorities with roughly a third of the vote.

      • Glad you agree, but I think the current PM and election has more relevance.
        And BTW, Chretien averaged 2/5 of the vote.

  54. That is blatantly untrue. The Conservatives have stated that the opposition leaders will automatically vote down Harper. What the opposition leaders have said includes:
    – they are willing to work with all parties (Layton, Ignatieff, and Elizabeth May have all said this. Duceppe has said he votes for anything that is good for Quebec, regardless of which party introduces it.)
    – they dislike the budget that was presented just prior to the Government falling.

    What the Conservatives have said is that come h$ll or high water, they will re-introduce the exact same budget they provided before the Government fell. They will do this even if the Canadian people return them with a minority, clearly saying they don't fully support the Conservative budget as well. If the Conservatives are returned with a minority government, it is they who are being undemocratic. The Conservatives are essentially saying to h$ll with the MAJORITY of people who didn't vote for us, which would be true if they can't win a majority of seats, we want to do what we want to do.

    The Conservatives at this point in time will not even answer the question of if they will even ATTEMPT to cooperate with any of the other parties. Stephen Harper simply doesn't accept that question. What exactly is that supposed to mean? How can he not "accept" a very reasonable question given the polling data currently available?

  55. I am at a loss to understand this small 'news article'.

    The title claims that Harper has said that he will not work with the opposition if he gets a minority gov't.
    The quotes that it uses to 'back up' the title only have Harper saying that he believes that the opposition will not work with him, and that they are set to take down his gov't and govern with some sort of 'agreement'.
    I am really missing how this is a case of "Harper not bending for the opposition". I like sticking to the facts, and there may be more quotes that would be helpful to paint a picture like the one alluded to in the title. If there were, however, why were they not used?
    To be quite blunt, any objective person would have titled it, "Harper predicts his minority gov't will be brought down", or "Harper sees secret pact among opposition". To see any of the above quotes as Harper saying that he won't bend for the opposition takes a certain kind of glasses.

    It's going to be hard for the average joe/jane to figure out all the issues in this election, if this is the kind of thing our news outlets are putting out. . .

  56. It's the law, people. Don't like it, have it changed.

    Might make a note to do it right after the election, though, because I've heard a version of this "law is ridiculous" story every year since the mid 90's. You know, web sites? And then, right adter the election, everybody forgets.

    So save the "this is so unfair' stuff and just ficx the problem, okay/

  57. so if I tweet "35/28/19" on May 2, will I be charged?
    (these are the measurements for my new coffee table)
    Just saying…

    • If they can demonstrate intent. Anyone who retweets would similar fall afoul of the law.

  58. Something is very odd about the polls. Aside from never getting a call on my landline, so many people have cells! And these panels that Nanos uses, you can "apply" to be on them online – surely that means a certain type of person is attracted by being on a political panel, not exactly a normal thing for most people.

    And I know Facebook is not legit polling, but it has mattered in other elections around the world and what is happening there is completely different from published leadership/party polls. Stephen Harper was the most popular page BEFORE the election. But somewhere after that, Michael Ignatieff pulled into the lead, leaving Jack Layton in third about 13,000 behind Ignatieff. NOW, in just the last week, Stephen Harper's Facebook support has just stagnated. Layton was 7 or 8000 behind him weeks ago; today, he is just 3000 behind Harper and still moving. Harper's numbers on the page just dont' move anymore. As for Ignatieff, he has shot way past Harper, now over 10,000 people more popular than Harper, and 13,000 more than Layton. And both Layton and Ignatieff steadily add fans.

    Ok, I know there is nothing scientific about facebook. But all the margins of errors on Nanos polls and everyone else, particularly regional, can be up to +/- 10% . Especially the daily fluctuations that get the headlines, everyone is vastly within the margin of error from day to day.

    Facebook has to be an indicator of some kind, and its numbers for each leader is COMPLETELY different than anything I've seen reported.

    So does anyone care to comment or provide me with insight into this?

  59. This is just another problem that percentage proportional representation would solve.

  60. Layton Mania !

    Jack won the debates for me, no other leader can touch Jack as an average Joe Canadian you can TRUST.

    I was considering voting Liberal(ABHarperRegime), but when Jack mentioned the Liberal leaders lack of attendance it really hit a nerve for me, as I've always thought to myself that I just cant picture Iggy sitting their in opposition if he looses the leadership?, I think he'll be long gone back to his American home.

    The hardest working MP in Parliament, bar none.

  61. .
    Don't worry, Elections Canada. The Eastern tweets won't affect me in B.C.

    In fact, I will influence the East: I will NOT vote for the Harvard Shape-shifter, nor for the clock-work, free-market apologist.

    Now you know. Arrest me.
    .

  62. 73 year old law. Must have been around the time when the first social media was wide spread; radio.

  63. Its a french thing. They have a law for everthing, just in case, the peasants find a loophole affecting the Elite, they are charged! Otherwise they have laws negating the laws, where necessary.

  64. But Canadians living abroad can continue to spoil the election for BC with impunity, right?

    Incidentally, the law does make sense. In staggered elections early front-runners win, even though some other candidates might have done well in later votes. US primaries are a great example of this in practice – the winner of the Iowa and New Hampshire primaries does disproportionately well in subsequent primaries. Here the staggering period is hours, not days, but I see the point of the law. The real problem is enforcement…

  65. Why not just withold all results until all polls are closed? Is it really so bad if people in the East don't know who won before they go to bed?

  66. Layton Mania !

    Jack won the debates for me, no other leader can touch Jack as an average Joe Canadian you can TRUST.

    I was considering voting Liberal(ABHarperRegime), but when Jack mentioned the Liberal leaders lack of attendance it really hit a nerve for me, as I've always thought to myself that I just cant picture Iggy sitting their in opposition if he looses the leadership?, I think he'll be long gone back to his American home.

    The hardest working MP in Parliament, bar none.

Sign in to comment.