The Harper majority - Macleans.ca
 

The Harper majority


 

The Prime Minister’s speech to supporters last night.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2ChPR00B24Y


 

The Harper majority

  1. This is killing you, isn't it Aaron. You can't type; can only post video?

    • Did you not read the piece he wrote last night?

      Can you guys resist being dicks ever? It's really tired.

      • No, we're reading this crap. Next.

      • Actually, I have been quite cordial to almost everyone on this board.
        I pretty much know that Paul supports the LPC, but his writing was superb. (unbiased, for the most part).
        I have no respect for Aaron, as he used his position as much as he could, to slam Harper. He didn't try to be impartial once this whole election. For him, and him alone, I have no problem rubbing salt in the wound.

  2. And here I thought it was a speech to Canadians. Wherry the Weasel never stops, does he.

    • Dennis, grow up.

      • Wherry resorts to these childish and, yes, weasely antics, but I'm the one who needs to grow up. It's this kind of blind arrogance from you knee-jerk types that has given Stephen Harper his much-coveted and convincing majority. Enjoy.

        • You're childish and boring most of the time. You might raise your esteem if you held your tongue and contributed more substantial posts.

          • I think Wherry is a weasel. Using the term "supporters" instead of something like "Canadians" is a perfect example. Why in the world am I not allowed to say these things on here? Is it communism you want? What?

          • I'm not censoring you. I'm asking you to be decent.

            Supporters is a perfectly accurate word. He was in a room full of party faithful.

          • While you and Wherry can act like asses? Of course it's censorship you want. Probably communism, too. God.

          • I think you're reaching. I didn't read anything at all into the headline of the post. The speech was nationally televised as were all of the leaders speeches, but it is undoubtedly a speech that, in part, is addressed specifically to the people in the room, his supporters.

          • Actually, it was given to members of the human species located specifically in Calgary. Why not use that term? Who are you people trying to kid? Of course the prime minister gave that speech to Canadians last night. You're all just too small to admit it, and get furious when called on it. Tough.

          • I'm not sure which "you people" you think I'm part of but I'm pretty sure you have no idea (unless it's "you people who disagree with Dennis_F about the word supporters in a blog post").

            And I'm certainly not furious about this, I was just trying to gently suggest that you look like you are desperately searching Wherry's posts for things to get upset over.

          • Why are you so desperately defending his tactics? lol. Next.

          • I'm sure you're familiar with the concept of confirmation bias.

          • You don't have to 'search' Aaron's post much for bias.

          • Why are you so easily offended? I thought Conservatives were made of sturdier stock than that.

          • How was I offended? lol. Next.

          • It's not obvious? Wherry hurts your feelings with barely a touch of the keyboard. My heart goes out to you practically every time he posts.

          • Here is what you consider to be offense and hurt feelings:

            And here I thought it was a speech to Canadians. Wherry the Weasel never stops, does he.

          • Yes, I know. Complaining that he didn't describe it the way you think he should have, calling him names for it. Chin up, little buckaroo. It's going to be okay.

          • I think he uses these weasel tactics against political opponents all the time. Again, why am I not allowed to say this?

          • I think you are allowed to say it. But if you really believe that the act of commenting on what you say is the same as preventing you from saying it, then why won't you allow Wherry to blog the way he wants to, and why is no one allowed to tell you that you're being a drag?

          • And who's on first?

          • That's a little better. Was it really so hard?

          • Whyever would he care about being esteemed by you, Emily, NorthernPOV, and the like?

          • harumph harumph harumph

          • Absolutely. He'd have to be crazy to care about that, with all the nasty vitriol that they dish out.

          • The sad part is that he's capable of them. He just doesn't seem to enjoy them very much.

    • I missed that. Even if Aaron has 2 words to use, he is devious with them.

      But of course, you commenting on it is wrong.

      • Aren't you the guy who complained when Wherry used 'it' instead of 'he' in a Harper-related headline, until it was demonstrated that he used exactly the same wording for the other parties?

        • If you're talking to me, the answer is no. And I stated so at the time, and a few times after that, too.

          • I was replying to modster, but I appreciate your civil tone.

          • Absolutely. And if you recall, I also posted that I was incorrect, and lived with it.

            That doesn't change Aaron's slant.

          • Who cares if Aaron is slanted? It's like complaining that grass is green or water gets you wet. Yes, we heard you the first 8,000 times and you don't need to keep flailing away about it to the point that you're doing. Poor Dennis is seeing evidence of Aaron's bias in the waterstains on his ceiling, apparently, and you people are just enabling the poor bastard when you carry on debating his delusions.

            Granted: Aaron Wherry is biased against the Harper Conservatives. Now can we, please, please, please, talk about something else?

            PS Yes, I'm aware that I am just as guilty as everyone else. Maybe moreso.

      • Yes, it is interesting how Aaron is devious with words. Nothing wrong with pointing it out though.

        • Four more years of Con whining.

          • Who's whining, other than you?

          • It feels like six months already… Can't these poor victims even celebrate a win for a couple of days?

  3. Welcome to your strongstablenationalmajorityconservativegovernment.

    • This saying comes to mind. "Be careful what you wish for".

    • It's great to be here. Thanks for the welcome.

  4. The difference being, this speech proves that Stephen Harper's got at least one conciliatory moment in him.

  5. 2 Great things happened…

    1) BQ was pretty much wiped-out.

    2) The Green Party/Liz May got a seat in the Commons.

    I liked Steve’s Speech last night, hopefully he means it, and follows through with what he said.

  6. LOL Harper will come to regret the loss of Ignatieff more than anybody in the country.

    • Because he'll never face a more inept opponent?

      • Because he'll now have to deal with the extreme left, instead of a rational center.

        • I'd agree with that if Harper had a minority. With a majority, the opposition is of little consequence to Harper.

          • The opposition is of great consequence and Harper knows that.

          • The Tories have 167 seats. Harper can do as he likes, which includes ignoring the opposition.

          • His problem, not mine.

        • It will be easier to contrast his direction against a hard left gov't. I disagree with your assessment.

          Harper couldn't be happier, as now the center voters who stuck with the liberals will have 4 years to see the difference between the CPC and the NDP.

  7. One thing we can all agree with: There is no place in Canadian politics for someone like Michael Ignatieff.

    • Sad but true. Snake oil salesmen need only apply.

  8. Your impotent rage is delicious.

    • I like that line best when I imagine it in Hannibal Lector's voice.

  9. Well; I gave it my best shot. That much at least I can be satisfied with.

    I find it sad however where Canadians seem to be so afraid of a recognizable change they jump headlong and without reservation into the Conservatives who guarantee them change; extreme change without telling them what the changes are. I'm sure there are a number of addiges to cover the situation but, it leaves me heart broken never the less.

    • What 'unknown' changes are the CPC going to bring, that almost everyone on this website couldn't see coming? Sorry, the 'secret agenda' thing is long dead.

      The people who jumped 'headlong' into change without a brain were the NDP voters who jumped on the bandwagon in the last week. Those are the folks who should leave you scratching your head.

  10. I've waited for the demise of the Libs a long time. It looks good on them, their Lame Stream Media pals and you especially Weary.

    • And you have to quote Palin to lob an insult?

  11. Small solace to Aaron…

    The TSX is down 150+ points this morning as of this writing.

    • One almost might think the market doesn't really care about who wins! Politicians and their observers seem to have a heightened expectation of their own significance.

    • Uh oh, seems the market's not too sure about these guys. ; )

      • Wasn't that supposed to happen if the reckles coalition took over? What on earth could they be concerned about with Steady Steve at the helm?

        • Maybe that he'll keep Flaherty on in his current role?

  12. Sure he did. lol

  13. Here is what we will see over the next little bit:
    Canadian Wheat Board – gone
    Long Gun Reg. – gone
    Useless fighter jets, ridiculously overprice, single engine (@#$%) fighter jets – approved
    Supply management boards (dairy, eggs) – gone
    which will lead to…
    Free trade agreement with EU – passed/approved
    Very large cabinet & lots of junior ministers – I hope they have some depth to draw on.
    Carbon tax – dead, dead, dead, as if it already wasn't dead.
    Last vestiges of Liberal founded NGO's – gone

    I will add: Harper seen in parliament – rarely

    • Sounds like a great start.

    • So are you upset about the CWB being gone? Those affected by it voted overwhelmingly Conservative.

      I don't think the supply management boards (dairy,eggs) or the quota system will disappear, though that is a shame. Those actually do make money for farmers who keep everyone else out of their racket. Very difficult to do startup organic dairy, poultry and egg production at a small scale and break into the market when the quotas are hoarded and guarded by a few agribusiness interests (and getting larger as more and more quotas are bought up).

      • Upset? I thought I was writing in a very neutral tone. Simple statement of facts or a forecast of likely legislative items. Upset? No, I am not.

        Removal of supply boards is a key sticking point in EU and Asian free trade agreement negotiations, so they will be gone.

        • The faux-swear on the fighter jets coloured the tone of the entire list.

          • OK, that I am extremely mad about. I do not think that it is the right choice to be making. Seriously, are you happy about such an open-ended financial commitment? That isn't good fiscal management.

          • Above my pay grade I'm afraid.

            I do know about agricultural policy though.

          • To which, like it or loathe it, the CWB is in the cross hairs & that will be a very major policy change that will have a profound influence on how wheat and barley is sold. Much ink will be split and there will be a lot of acrimony.

            What is your assessment of the effects on Australia from their moving away from a single desk?

          • Well, there are some differences. They were caught in the Oil for Food scandal which hastened their decline for example, finally leading to scrapping the single desk in 2008.

            However, I predict much the same fate for the CWB as the AWB. Without the stranglehold on its clientele by forcing them to sell only to the board, they suddenly had to compete as a legitimate commodity broker and buyer. So they do more than simply buy and export wheat these days. However, they are floundering because they don't have the talent, resources, and connections to compete with other exporters. They were never actually interested in marketing for those that were forced to sell to them, just reselling in bulk to their existing customers. They were, after all, bureaucrats and they are going to do what is easiest to get through the day, not seek maximum profit. Thus, they have been very quickly reorganized into a publicly traded company with shares, and those shares have been bought by Agrium. It still buys and sells grain, but it is just one grain buyer among others now.

            The CWB is weird mixed public/private company that has state enforcement of its single desk. If the single desk is abolished by the conservatives, the CWB will have to compete with other exporters and brokers and will have many rough years as it turns itself into a functioning business that can compete with clients. Most likely it will probably follow much the same path as the AWB.

          • OK, thanks for the assessment. Much already known by me. The crucial question is: End of the single desk CWB will be on the Harper majority's agenda? Yes/No?

          • Hey, wait a minute, you don't have a pay grade around here. Nor is one required.

            I think it is too much of a dodge on your part to write it off discussion about the grossly expensive fighter jets like that.

          • Okay, if you want my uninformed opinion, I think it is pork for the Canadian aerospace industry.

          • or do we get something unknown from the Americans. These types of deals don't always involve cash, and we may never know how we benefit. .

      • Agreed, ColdStanding's list was basically a wish-list recitation of what the Conservatives would *like* to do, in a perfect world (for them), with no one else voting for other parties.

        Particularly on supply management. Perhaps the Conservatives would like to piss away their rural Ontario vote, and be forever shut out (relatively speaking) in Quebec?

        No, I think realpolitik will continue to be the primary MO.

        • I would expect considerable friction from one unexpected source: banks. The supply management system has been very important for keeping rural land prices trending higher. There is a lot of loans and future business depending on continued inflation of land prices.

    • I wouldn't want to be working for the CBC right now, either.

      • Or expecting a vote subsidy.

        • I wonder about that. Maybe if Harper wants to keep the Liberals weak he should keep the per-vote subsidy. Cancelling it will force the starving Liberal Party to hunt for its money, and in so doing build up popular support as they engage and woo voters.

          They've been relying on that subsidy to keep them afloat since Chretien left, and maybe that is a big reason that they are in the place they are now.

          • No, they are in third place because they parachuted in a hotel Canadian.

        • I think the vote subsidy will mysteriously disappear from the docket.

          Why bother now? The Bloc is in a deep coma and the Liberals are on life-support.

          • Why? Harper has tabled it once, & got stung… I'm not saying it is a point of pride or revenge. Let's call it in accord with conservative principles.

          • I'd give it 50/50 odds.

            Even majority governments have to abandon things.

          • I see it as a no brainer. I see nothing but upside for the CPC for doing it, now and in the future.

  14. I support you being able to write whatever you want, Dennis. Couldn't disagree more with what you wrote, however.

    Is that fair comment, or am I a closet communist?

    • That is about as fair as it gets.

      Funny, though, most of us could use those exact words (changing names) to reply to a lot of the posts that we reply to. :)

    • What is it about what I wrote that you disagree with so much?

      Again, this is what I wrote:

      And here I thought it was a speech to Canadians. Wherry the Weasel never stops, does he

      • Well, I disagree with the use of the word 'weasel'. Name-calling debases any argument, and you've taken lots of folks to task for name calling on these boards (and rightly so).

        Second, I fail to see why the use of 'supporters' instead of 'Canadians' is the sign of something sinister or sneaky. I disagree that there was anything behind it.

        Now, for saying this, have I assaulted your right to free speech?

        • a) No, it wasn't an assault. But you may want to have a talk with Andrew P and C dude. Craigola, too.

          b) I think Wherry is a weasel. I base this on his tactics. Using the word "supporters" instead of something like "Canadians" was intentional. If it wasn't, he should quit his job as a writer.

          • I can't believe I read all that! I must be nuts.

            Dennis, Harper was speaking to his Supporters. I'd invite you to listen to the speech again… In the first 1:10 of the speech you will hear … "Friends"… "Friends"… ""our team"… "the home team"… "You're w/ us & w/ us all the way." That, you incomparable doofus, is a speech to Supporters.

            I didn't expect that winning would make you any more intelligent, but I was kind of hopeful that it would make you somewhat less agressively stupid. I guess it's not to be…

            To say you are picking nits would be giving you too much credit, you are biting the toenails of nits.

          • All prime ministers address the nation after victory. They start with thanking those closest to them, and move outwards to supporters, opponents, the country, etc, which is precisely what Harper did. No way Wherry the Weasel uses "supporters" if his beloved leftist parties win. For one thing, he'd be too busy swooning. lol. But thanks, Larry. Your angry rants never cease to surprise.

          • LOL

            You're the guy dedicating his post-victory party to dissecting a single word, in a single blogpost, looking for a scrap of circumstantial evidence of a bias that's been abundently proven, a dozen different times, over the past weeks, months and years, and is taken as self-evident among all sentient readers… But I'm the guy who's angry? LOL

            I'm not angry, Dennis. I'm a little disappointed with the Conservative majority but absolutely thrilled with the defeat of the Bloc, philosophical about the troubles of the Liberals, and cautiously hopeful for the NDP's newborn MPs. There is an old saying in politics "the people are never wrong" and even if I disagree with the people at large, I respect them. So, I'll accept their judgment. I was often agitated during the campaign (which is why I mostly stayed away from here) but I am kind of glad to have it settled today. Now I can get back to talking politics with some semblance of humour again… because I really did lose my sense of humour in the last few weeks, and I'm glad to have it back again.

          • I made a brief comment about Wherry's brief comment, and it's like I shot someone. How isn't that anger? lol

  15. RIGHT ON !!!!!

    READ 'EM AND WEEP, PINKOS !!!!!

    LOTSA 'EXPERTS' SAID THAT HARPER COULD NOT WIN A MAJORITY!?! HA!

    WATCH OUT FOR 4 YEARS OF ORDER PUT BACK IN THIS COUNTRY OF BLEEDING HEARTS !!!!!

    -CRIMINALIZATION OF ABORTION!
    -CRIMINALIZATION OF POT USING!
    -NO MORE GUN REGISTRY!
    -NO MORE UNEMPLOYMENT and WELFARE! GET A JOB, FOR GOD'S SAKE!
    -STREET BEGGING, or PANHANDLING, or HOMELESSNESS=JAIL TIME, JUST LIKE WHAT Mr. FLAHERTY PROPOSED IN ONTARIO IN 2001!

    LET'S TAKE OUR COUNTRY BACK !!!!!

    • Jeebus….sober up already!

    • Holy crap. You might want to turn it down a couple notches on the crazy.

    • Take your country back to what? 1947?

      • Back to the United States, silly.

        But James is absolutely right. Four years is a long time, especially when it turns into five. There's no reason to pussyfoot around and do the 'incremental' thing anymore, and if you get all this stuff out of the way right away, the Canadians will have time to forget they ever had it any different.

    • Paul Martin …. Is that you?

    • CRIMINALIZATION OF TALKING TOO QUIET!
      NO MORE DISCUSSION!
      JAIL TIME FOR UNREPORTED CRIMES!

        • HaHA, WE ALL SHOULD TALK LIKE THAT ON THIS SITE, IT IS FUN!!!

    • Dude, I am a Harper supporter, but I gotta be honest, you are way off.

      He won't (sadly) give Canada a law with regards to abortion. (criminalization will never happen, but some sort of law would be good).
      Pot using is illegal, isn't it? (and to be quite honest, I now support the decriminalization of all drugs. Go to the doctor, get a prescription, and get it cheap. Crime would dry up almost overnight. (drugs and the money it creates feeds most crime)).
      The gun registry may or may not go away. Either way, we need a law that allows for the automatic deportation of non Canadians caught with an illegal weapon.
      I really don't think unemployment will disappear. Welfare will remain what it should be, a social safety net – not a hammock.
      I don't think that street begging or panhandling is on the top of the crime list of anyone.
      Homelessness = jail-time – hah = they might like that. Beats being on the street.

      It is folks like you who give some people the impression that conservatives are crazy. To that point, I am wondering if you are not actually a Harper hater, who posted this to make his side look silly.

      • I think your last sentence is the key. James is just having a little fun.

  16. I will admit that is a funny video.

    The truth, though, is that we weren't all drunk yesterday, and made our choice with eyes wide open.

    Let's be honest, what was there to know about the CPC that we didn't already know? The NDP and LPC were the unknowns (except for the higher spending). This video seems to suggest that conservatives were chosen by mistake. Sorry buddy, but the people have spoken loudly.

  17. It will help more than pissing into the wind, as per your strategy.

  18. Mr. Chuckles increased his party's popular vote by a couple of points and won 54%
    of the seats with 40% of the votes. It's our irrational system and we're stuck with it.
    The rest of us ( 60% with 46% of the seats ) are going to have decide whether we go back to bed
    and pull the pillow over our heads or get out in the trenches and find a way to do something
    about it.
    In the meantime, a little frothy gloating is to be expected …. and tolerated.

    • Scoreboard .

    • You prefer a system where no one ever has a majority?

  19. And I think you're a crybaby. I base this on your tactics.

    No, you base that on projection. All you do is follow me and cry. I'm not even allowed to call Wherry a weasel without you blabbering all over me. Waaa.

  20. Nobody is talking about it in terms other than cash. I don't care if Mr. Harper's word proves correct that they will cost no more than $77 million/unit. This has white elephant all over it.

  21. Poor victimized Dennis_F. Can't even run around calling people names without it getting pointed out that he behaves like a child when he runs around calling people names.

    • I make posts of all kinds. I make arguments. I call them as I see them. You, on the other hand, follow me around and cry about things like thinking Wherry is a weasel. Why? And, sorry, I'm hardly your victim.

      • Attaboy. Every morning, you repeat all that stuff to yourself in the mirror and one day, maybe it'll all come true.

        • Go to my profile. Check out my comments. It is true.

          • Good job! You're really coming along!

  22. Five more years! Five more years!

  23. According to Gary Ritz, it already is.

  24. Ted, I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on what went wrong for the Liberals.

  25. I really hope you are right, but to be truthful, I know someone who is like that. He is quite old, and I don't think those ideas are prevalent in the young. :)