Rogers Media uses cookies for personalization, to customize its online advertisements, and for other purposes. Learn more or change your cookie preferences. Rogers Media supports the Digital Advertising Alliance principles. By continuing to use our service, you agree to our use of cookies.
We use cookies (why?) You can change cookie preferences. Continued site use signifies consent.
Stephen Harper isn’t done caving in yet - Macleans.ca
First, Mr. Harper announced confidence votes will be delayed for a week. On Saturday, the government backed off the politically incendiary idea of eliminating public subsidies for political parties. Then, it cancelled a proposed removal of the right to strike from public-sector unions… Then, Finance Minister Jim Flaherty… announced a Jan. 27 budget, the day after the House returns from its Christmas break. – from Jeffrey Simpson’s column in the Globe
Other things Stephen Harper is willing to do to avoid losing power:.
Announce emergency plan to personally shovel everybody’s driveway this winter.
Those clothes in your dryer – do those need folding?
Admit he was never really writing that goddamn hockey book.
Launch splashy ad campaign highlighted by slogan: “Stéphane Dion: Not Only a Leader, But Also Very Handsome.”
Install donkey wheel under 24 Sussex – when house disappears like island in Lost, then who’ll have the upper hand you sniveling weasels? HA HA HA!!!!
Ok, so let me get this straight, I don’t want to be confused:
when he is not listening to the opposition he is bullying, when he is listening he is caving, and what you are writing is called journalism.
Quite right, sf, it is surely the Opposition’s sweet reason which made Harper change his mind. Dammit, our PM is a paragon of prudence. When, oh when will the Media realise that plain and simple fact!
sf, it was always a certainty that when Harper fell, he was going to fall hard. When he was fortunate enough to wield a lot of power with little challenge, he used the time to alienate a lot of people rather than to attract new supporters. Harper has only himself to blame.
catherine: “he used the time to alienate a lot of people rather than to attract new supporters”
Harper in 2006: 124 seats, 36%
Harper in 2008: 143 seats, 38%
Oh, I get it Catherine, supporters don’t count if they are just ordinary voters like you and me. We need the elites to decide. The party that wins the most votes, that has nothing to do with it.
SF, No they don’t listen to themselves, nothing but insanity lies in that direction. They might suddenly realise that it’s hypocritical to claim that a 38% increased minority in 2008 is paltry and should be overthrown, while 38% under Chretien is a clear unasailable mandate to lie, cheat and steal for a few years.
sf, Harper lost votes from 2006 to 2008, despite outspending the other parties outside of election time by a huge factor. Harper used well-developed marketing tools and used them extensively and continuously, but still lost votes. Using divisive, expensive, stylized marketing to simply keep previous voters (which didn’t quite work anyway) is not the same as winning additional support.
The large sums of money supporters have been sending to the CPC has allowed Harper to hang on to most of his support, but that’s it. Well, perhaps it has allowed attacks disgusting enough to make others
stay home. Still, not the same as winning additional support.
Greg: “it’s hypocritical to claim that a 38% increased minority in 2008 is paltry and should be overthrown, while 38% under Chretien is a clear unasailable mandate”
I think Chretien’s “mandate” had something to do with his large majority in the House of Commons. Something Harper — this just in — is rather lacking.
“Harper in 2006: 30 seats shy of majority, 14% shy of 50%
Harper in 2008: 9 seats shy of majority, 12% shy of 50%”
“I think Chretien’s “mandate” had something to do with his large majority in the House of Commons. Something Harper — this just in — is rather lacking.”
You can’t have it both ways. By your measures, either 38% constitutes a strong mandate, or it doesn’t. It’s ludicrous to expect a party to get 50% of the popular vote with 5 parties running. Do you realize how rare the occurrence is?
Harper will get his majority next election (with a modest 38-40% of the pop vote) — count on it… especially if this coalition takes place.
I’m not making that case, Drake, just refuting the idea that it’s undemocratic to oust Harper, his seat totals and vote percentage being what they are. “Mandates” and “victory” don’t enter into it: it’s a question of who has the most MP’s and what they do with them.
As to a Tory majority next time around, I’m not so sure. I think we’re doomed to perpetual minorities. Since Harper has shown he can’t play nice, I expect the Tories will choose a new leader who’s actually willing to be PM.
I always find it HILARIOUS when people come here to Feschuk on the Famous and chastise the man. Asking, for instance, if what he writes “is called journalism”.
Uhhhh, have you ever BEEN here before? Most of the posts are about Charlie Sheen, Killer Robots, and/or wooing (NOT stalking) Scarlett Johansson.
Ok, so let me get this straight, I don’t want to be confused:
when he is not listening to the opposition he is bullying, when he is listening he is caving, and what you are writing is called journalism.
sf on
Quite right, sf, it is surely the Opposition’s sweet reason which made Harper change his mind. Dammit, our PM is a paragon of prudence. When, oh when will the Media realise that plain and simple fact!
Jack Mitchell on
sf, it was always a certainty that when Harper fell, he was going to fall hard. When he was fortunate enough to wield a lot of power with little challenge, he used the time to alienate a lot of people rather than to attract new supporters. Harper has only himself to blame.
catherine on
Do you people even listen to yourselves?
catherine: “he used the time to alienate a lot of people rather than to attract new supporters”
Harper in 2006: 124 seats, 36%
Harper in 2008: 143 seats, 38%
Oh, I get it Catherine, supporters don’t count if they are just ordinary voters like you and me. We need the elites to decide. The party that wins the most votes, that has nothing to do with it.
sf on
Wait, sf, you mean Harper didn’t win a majority either time?
Harper in 2006: 30 seats shy of majority, 14% shy of 50%
Harper in 2008: 9 seats shy of majority, 12% shy of 50%
Man, it’s almost like the other parties have more seats than the Tories and won more votes! Wait, that can’t be right . . .
Jack Mitchell on
It’s the New Math, Jack Mitchell – don’t try to fight it! ;-)
JennyC on
SF, No they don’t listen to themselves, nothing but insanity lies in that direction. They might suddenly realise that it’s hypocritical to claim that a 38% increased minority in 2008 is paltry and should be overthrown, while 38% under Chretien is a clear unasailable mandate to lie, cheat and steal for a few years.
Greg on
sf, Harper lost votes from 2006 to 2008, despite outspending the other parties outside of election time by a huge factor. Harper used well-developed marketing tools and used them extensively and continuously, but still lost votes. Using divisive, expensive, stylized marketing to simply keep previous voters (which didn’t quite work anyway) is not the same as winning additional support.
The large sums of money supporters have been sending to the CPC has allowed Harper to hang on to most of his support, but that’s it. Well, perhaps it has allowed attacks disgusting enough to make others
stay home. Still, not the same as winning additional support.
catherine on
Greg: “it’s hypocritical to claim that a 38% increased minority in 2008 is paltry and should be overthrown, while 38% under Chretien is a clear unasailable mandate”
I think Chretien’s “mandate” had something to do with his large majority in the House of Commons. Something Harper — this just in — is rather lacking.
Jack Mitchell on
“Harper in 2006: 30 seats shy of majority, 14% shy of 50%
Harper in 2008: 9 seats shy of majority, 12% shy of 50%”
“I think Chretien’s “mandate” had something to do with his large majority in the House of Commons. Something Harper — this just in — is rather lacking.”
You can’t have it both ways. By your measures, either 38% constitutes a strong mandate, or it doesn’t. It’s ludicrous to expect a party to get 50% of the popular vote with 5 parties running. Do you realize how rare the occurrence is?
Harper will get his majority next election (with a modest 38-40% of the pop vote) — count on it… especially if this coalition takes place.
Drake on
I’m not making that case, Drake, just refuting the idea that it’s undemocratic to oust Harper, his seat totals and vote percentage being what they are. “Mandates” and “victory” don’t enter into it: it’s a question of who has the most MP’s and what they do with them.
As to a Tory majority next time around, I’m not so sure. I think we’re doomed to perpetual minorities. Since Harper has shown he can’t play nice, I expect the Tories will choose a new leader who’s actually willing to be PM.
Jack Mitchell on
You people are boring. Is there not one thread that can avoid becoming the stage for a partisan pissing match?
Everyone needs to lighten up. Feschuk writes jokes. Laugh. Laugh, damn you, laugh!
Olaf on
When Harper comes at you with an offer of one of his “world-class backrubs”, do NO go along with it, trust me.
Awkward!
TJ Cook on
Thank you Olaf!
I always find it HILARIOUS when people come here to Feschuk on the Famous and chastise the man. Asking, for instance, if what he writes “is called journalism”.
Uhhhh, have you ever BEEN here before? Most of the posts are about Charlie Sheen, Killer Robots, and/or wooing (NOT stalking) Scarlett Johansson.
Lighten up people.
Lord Kitchener's Own on
Will release tapes/ transcripts of teacher’s meeting in staff room for affected students.
TobyornotToby on