Stephen Harper talking like Stephen Harper - Macleans.ca
 

Stephen Harper talking like Stephen Harper

‘Let me be clear about this, we need to win a majority in the next election campaign’


 

CBC gets hold of video of the Prime Minister speaking with Conservatives in Sault Ste. Marie. Full tape is here. Somewhat reminiscent of David Akin’s scoop of earlier this year.

Turns out, the Prime Minister seems to desire a majority government. Who knew? Otherwise, it seems to me, Stephen Harper speaking here sounds not all that unlike Stephen Harper speaking everywhere else.


 

Stephen Harper talking like Stephen Harper

  1. I can already see how he will frame this : Majority or coalition!

  2. I agree. Not sure what's so shocking about this. However, what I'll be watching for is whether they backtrack from it, or fully embrace it. In the past, it would have been the former. Currently, they probably want and need to the latter – eventually.

    • Yah, how's Harper going to backtrack from his own coalition proposal? I was wondering that too Dennse. But a liar will do what a liar will do, and his blind followers will follow…

      • It's not what I wrote, nor is there any coalition proposal of his own. Seriously, how can some of you consider yourselves to be intelligent debaters when you not only try to pull this crap off, but you do it over and over again as though you have thick skulls?

        In other words, you have nothing on Harper other than false accusation. No wonder he keeps getting elected.

        • How about his promises: not to tax income trusts, not to appoint unelected senators, not to allow the country to go into deficit, to reign in spending, to have free votes on everything except budgets, to reduce polling contracts (he doubled Martin's high spending on polling), to be accountable and transparent, not to cut and run from Afghanistan, to introduce a gas tax, to allow income splitting on capital gains, to create an Public Appointments Commission, to hold elections on fixed dates, etc etc.

          How about on his commitment to democracy: bribes Cadman for his vote, in-and-out scandal, cancelling confidence motions that he promised once he realized he wouldn't win, cancelling Parliament altogether to save his own job, the Calgary university funding, the convention fee debacle, buying off Liddle so he wouldn't run and lying about it (in court no less), etc etc etc.

          • Nice to see it all in one place.
            Now will some MSM outlet actually do a serious responsible article on what the Harper/Giorno/ Nicholson/Cannon etc team will actually do if they get a majority? And put that all in one place. A documented, informed, non partisan, neutral in tone speculation on what we could pretty well count on if the Harper Party gets a majority.

    • Well, Don Martin is of the beliefthat it's impossible for Harper not to have known that he was being taped, and that he probably doesn't care, either.

  3. You and your little coalition too dearies.

  4. Not shocking …. but this being delivered "in private" along with the whining about the gun registry and lefty-judges, just validates our very real concerns about hidden agendas.

    kudos to the spy who captured this on video!

    • …no kidding…it's like the NRA, the bible thumping right & other neo-con phantoms from the late Bush admin. are still
      controlling Stevies brain

  5. Well, I haven't read anything about judges. But don't Canadians want the gun registry boondoggle scrapped, too?

    • Because now that the bulk of the money has been spent, we might as well throw away the results, hm?

      Conservative economics at play.

      • Right; after the billions that were blown (and that the public were misled about), the benefits will surely kick in. Why give up now?

        • Already have. Police chiefs in multiple cities have come out with approval of this thing, saying how it makes the jobs of the police officers safer.

          So tell me, exactly how much is too much to save a cop for you?

          • Hey, its not guns that kill cops, but coalitions!

          • The police support the gun registry because it makes people more dependent on them for their safety. Gun control, much like drug prohibition, is in their self-interest but not the public interest.

          • Also, these are the same police chiefs who support Tasers. Should we support Tasers too?

            I repeat these people have their own interests and their policy positions reflect them. They are not benevolent defenders of the public interest.

            We're all imperfect and the police are no exception.

          • Also, these are the same police chiefs who support Tasers. Should we support Tasers if the police claim they save lives too?

            I repeat these people have their own interests and their policy positions reflect them. They are not benevolent defenders of the public interest.

            We're all imperfect and the police are no exception.

        • The only problem with the gun registry is that it's a liberal idea, forcing cons to come up with the most ridiculous crap about the program and cons supporters to eat it all up.

    • Not this one.

      We've already paid for the thing, and it has been proven to be a useful and highly used tool for the police.

    • The police sure don't

  6. they do here in BC!

    • Speak for yourself.

      • The gun registry is overall not popular in BC.

  7. Oddly enough, I haveot agree with Wherry. it certainly isn't anything we haven't heard int he last few days through other media outlets. I wonder if Iggy says that he wants a majority in private?

  8. Real nice fella:

    On his claim to be satisfied with a Parliamentary majority: “Let me be clear about this, we need to win a majority in the next election campaign…we need to win a majority…to teach them a lesson.”

    · On women, gays and minorities which are helped by a government program: “[They're] left-wing fringe groups.”

    · On gun control: “We are still trying to get rid of that registry…we need a mandate to get that thing passed.”

    · On our international allies: “[We don't poll] the U.N. General Assembly to determine Canada's foreign policy.”

    · On judges: “[They're] left-wing ideologues.”

    Stephen Harper unleashed.

    • "On our international allies: “[We don't poll] the U.N. General Assembly to determine Canada's foreign policy.”"

      When did the U.N. General Assembly become our ally?

      • It's a "coalition" of our allies. And Harper is obviously against coalitions.

        • No, the UN General Assembly is not a "coalition" of our allies. Our allies are some of its members, but the entirety of it is not made up of our allies.

  9. Wow, look at all those dot dot dots and squared brackets in those so-called quotes. Why is it so hard for you or Kinsella to post actual quotes?

    • Scott (and a few of us) took the time to listen to this clip. I suggest you do too.
      Those are the quotes.
      Gotcha! ;-)

      • Then why not post actual quotes versus heavily edited ones from hyper-partisan Liberal operative Warren Kinsella?

        • Brevity?

          Or are you saying you've watched the video, and you feel that the quotes Scott has provided misrepresent or aren't indicative of what the Prime Minister was saying on those topics?

          • Oh, so you prefer brevity to accuracy, do you?

            I've watched some of the video. For example, the quote about getting a majority to teach them a lesson is completely chopped up and changed the meaning of the entire passage. Similarly, all the other quotes contain squared brackets and jump over big stretches of words in order to, guess what, change the meaning of the message.

            Now, for people who claim to have watched the actual video, and transcribe all the quotes, I wouldn't think it would be that difficult to post what Harper actually said in that meeting. Thanks.

          • Or… you could do it yourself. What are you, some kind of lazy liberal?

          • Did Harper preface the speech by asking "is this for print?" because he seems to like to go a little commando on his quotes when he thinks no one literate is listening…

          • Changed the meaning, BOLLOX!

            He said quite clearly that if the opposition drops him, they need to teach them a lesson. It doesn't get much plainer.

          • What? Do I read this correctly? A Conservative is upset that a bunch of quotations from their leader have been publicised, possibly out of context?

            Go tell it to Harper, Dennis. I'm sure they'll be all ears to your whining.

    • Did Stephen Taylor tell you to write that?

      • No, did Karl Marx tell you to write that? Next.

        • There's no 'Marx' in liberalism, just like there's no 'I' in Dennse…

          • Ooooooo! That hurt!

  10. Scary Harper returns. It's going to take more than a blue sweater to cover up this ugly side of his personality again.

    • You find that scarey?…..I am surprised you are so easily frightened.

  11. I see the Liberal partisan hacks are getting desparate.

    Looks like all those "outlier" polls are getting them a little rattled.

    • Most of Harper's musings have been documented but not captured on video.
      (His own coalition ploy, speech about Canada being a hopeless socialist basket case etc.)
      As we are quickly becoming an illiterate nation, video evidence seems to be required to wake people up to the threat this gang poses to our way of life.
      So now we got us some video evidence – albeit a minor piece. Even such a minor piece obviously has you and your ilk rattled. Just imagine what you guys have been talking about, that has leaked out as yet. (cue the ominous music)

    • Most of Harper's musings have been documented but not captured on video.
      (His own coalition ploy, speech about Canada being a hopeless socialist basket case etc.)
      As we are quickly becoming an illiterate nation, video evidence seems to be required to wake people up to the threat this gang poses to our way of life.
      So now we got us some video evidence – albeit a minor piece. Even such a minor piece obviously has you and your ilk rattled. We can just imagine what you guys have been talking about, that has not leaked out as yet. (cue the ominous music)

    • LOL – and your not a Con partisan hack? LOL

  12. Ever notice how Harper sounds exactly like every loony right wing crank blasting intemperately online?

    Our prime minister is troll.

  13. So a few days after Iggy tells his faithful that " His time is up " referring to PM Harper`s team elected only 10 months ago and you are surprised that Harper tells his faithful that a majority will be needed or the Libs will try Coalition 2.

    The message is clear for the Libs—-if you can`t suck it up and accept your role as a responsible opposition party and allow the gov`t to govern, then force an unnecessary election, but prepare to be judged by an angry electorate.

    • Dumb rhetoric. In a minority situation, a government that doesn't earn opposition support deserves to fall. That is the role of the opposition.

      • Just what i was thinking.

      • And if the electorate perceives the Opp. as not working constructively with the minority gov`t then they may decide that a majority gov`t would work better.

        • Don't know how much more constructive you expect the opposition to be after nearly 4 years… Harper threatened elections whenever he passed wind when in opposition, talked up and wrote to the GG about a coalition of the willing. But then again, he also talked about not taxing income trusts, not raising taxes, not appointing senators, promoting stronger voices for MPs in parliament and respecting the will of the people. Guess he's just a clown in CON clothing…

          • PM Harper realized in 2005 that for the good of the country a corrupt Liberal gov`t should be removed—-the present gov`t is competent, ethical and respected internationally. The Libs are simply making mischief for their own selfish reasons.

          • A lot of this is simply beating around the bush. The unpleasant reality is that Stephen Harper is a bigotted racist who leads a government of kindred spirits. Only the narrow minded need apply. If you are anything but a gun totting WASP from Alberta dont count on your passport being worth anything.

          • It's interesting that your username is "voice of reason" when your statement is exactly the opposite. It's morally wrong for you (or anyone else) to choose to make such a false personal attack like this.

            A discussion about politics is not a place for your personal vendetta.

  14. The CBC didn't say the Liberal Party gave them this video upfront in the news report, which to me is unethical news reporting.

    I don't think it is fair reporting to say that the Liberals were the source of this story, only at the end of the story as a footnote.

    • Whiner!
      they disclosed the source AND it was obviously not doctored. what is your problem????

      so sorry they don't follow your Con media instructions

    • Does it change what Harper said? Liberals were not the source of the story. Source means origin–that would be Harper, in his own words.

  15. No, but it would put the story in a more accurate context, wouldn't it?

    In fact, when Conservatives tend to get hold of audio or video of other parties behind closed doors, there's usually a whole lot of hollering and screaming as to how it was obtained, right?

    • And what context would that be? It must be a lie, since it came via the cbc and the Liberals.

    • edit fail

  16. Good grief. He is clearly wearing his partisan, leader of the Conservative Party hat here. This is the kind of stump style speech ANY leader gives to party faithful. Plus he's testing his lines, seeing the audience reaction, will tweak it all as the election nears.

    Now, IF he was wearing his PM of Canada hat, speaking to a general audience, and gave this kind of speech, then that would be inappropriate.

    Similarly, if he talked like this to his kids, his wife would proabably
    divorce him.

    Context and audience are critical considerations.

    • And what if Canadians who normally don't hear a Harper stump speech, like it?
      At least it gets Canadians thinking of what they want, Iffy and Jack writting cheques (with Gilles and Danny Williams ok) for new hair brained social programs, or getting tough on crime and chaning immigration laws etc……

      • Right! It could only be those two scenarios couldn't it? No other possibilities out there huh? If you don't let us govern the socialist and separatists will ruin the country. Oh my bad that is what Harper said. Must be true then!

    • Oh, so he was wearing his party leader hat, so we should discount it? Because context and audience are important.

      I'll remember that the next time a Conservative talking-head or tv ad butchers a quote from an Ignatieff academic paper totally out of context. But he was wearing his academic hat, not his opposition leader hat! He was speaking to academics! Context and audience are critical considerations!

      • "he was wearing his party leader hat, so we should discount it? Because context and audience are important. "

        Did I say "discount" ? I think "cut the guy some slack" is about what I'm trying to convey.

        When Iggy proclaimed "Mr Harper, you're time is up", I didn't say to myself "THAT'S not how a PM-in waiting is supposed to talk". He is obviously wearing his "leader of the LPC" hat. I factor that in, and plus his audience is his caucus–he's pumping them up, girding them for the battles ahead, that kind of stuff. Just like Harper is pumping up party faithful, party workers, urge them to work hard, and so on. Stump-style speeches are like that.

        It's no big deal to me that Iggy is talking to his caucus that way. But then I don't hate Iggy with the passion that some on here hate Harper.

        • The simple truth is that those of us who do not like the man are simply not convinced he is genuine. I personally feel that he is a manipulative purveyor of half truths, with a vision for a Canada that I do not share.
          Given that, there is great temptation to tear off his sweater vest and unmask him whenever given the chance.

        • I do not like the man and do not believe he is genuine. I personally feel that he is a manipulative purveyor of half truths, with a vision for a Canada that I do not share.
          Given that, there is great temptation to tear off his sweater vest and unmask him whenever given the chance.I suspect I am not alone in this regard.

  17. A context in which the motivation for taping and distributing the video is given.

    • What does the motivation for taping Harper have anything to do with what Harper said (which is the actual story)

      • Oh, so it didn't matter when Grewal did it?

        Quite frankly, it's not a big deal, because I don't think the tape is that big a deal. Just commenting on how the video could have been described better in the CBC piece. That's all. That they did eventually provide the source is a good thing, of course.

        • That's not at all what you inferred. As i said, in your world if it came from the cbc or Liberals it must be untrue. And Grewal was accused, if memory serves right, of doctoring the tape.

        • In that case, you had Grewal and the Conservatives doctoring the tape. So the source mattered.

          Here it is straight to video, unedited.

          What a whiner.

          Always trying to take the attention off of Harper.

  18. And, for that matter, I though Canadians took pride in setting an independent foreign policy, didn't they?

    • They do. Can you tell Harper to stop letting Karl Rove do ours for us?

  19. Gee, Aaron! I guess he's a real human being just like the rest of us.. BIG Scoop, man!

  20. I would personally like to pick stephen harpers brain and try to fully understand the reasoning behind his motivation and thoughts. Much like the states we tend to be a least 4 years behind, Harper is our bush, when will we get our obama? As a scary left wing liberal who wishes to see equality for all and a real solution to climate change i think that what we should be looking at is how we can make ecology just as important as economy because when it comes down to it without ecology we have absolutely nothing. Gun registry is also an important tool, i think that in order to own a gun you should be responsible for what can happen through it's uses. Responsibilty, accountability, and respect for others to me is not a conservative agenda.

    • Why do you need Harper to do all that stuff ? You've got your champion in Ignatieff. All you gotta do now is find a way to get him into power.

      • Well the idea is to use democracy, put forth the issues and policies to the public and let them decide. Unfortunately, your Uncle Fester believes only veiled threats and scary stories (you do realize that he proposed a coalition of his group, the socialists and the separatists when it was a Liberal minority, don't you? My guess is he'll return to that argument if he finishes second next time, too) to sell his slop.

  21. Well, it's why we have a democracy, and why Canadians seem more content with our prime minister than you do.

  22. Aaron Wherry, fear mongering, card carrying member of the Liberal Party. At the very least, you should post that you hold a party membership, this way the public can see your views are partial and you're not a true journalist.

    All the readership is asking for, aside from the Kinsellas, Reids, Taylors and Jankes out there, is for real, non-partial journalism….seems like it's a dead breed.

    • Where's he fear mongering? He just gave us the tape.

    • You want they should all pretend the tape doesn't exist? And it was CBC who broke the story, so are they in the bag for the Libs too?

      • I guess we're suppose to pretend until Harper slaps a court order to have it hidden behind a legal curtain, like his other faux pas… Fortunately for you in your current flop-sweat, the tape doesn't reveal anything that many of us (because you do realize 65% of the people didn't vote for him last time, right?) didn't know. So chill, it can't be all that bad. Besides, no doubt the CON war room has a sleeper agent in the press ready to pluck Ignatieff's eyebrows come the 11th hour…

    • That's all wingnuts have; lies and character assassination.

  23. Really, I don't know what the problem here is. When Stephen does un-conservative things out of necessity, he's branded as a bloodless traitor to his own ideology. When Stephen actually speaks his mind and/or acts on his conservative principles, he's branded as a bloodless demagogue. Just let the guy speak, crunch the numbers on his economic platform, give the guy a little grace (I mean… come on… the alternative is Iggy? Seriously?), and move on here.

    • Exactly. Now its just up to the hounded and scared CON supporter to figure out which Harper lie is the right one — is it the coalition-seeking, anti-senate appointing, less-is-more stuffed shirt, or the excessively spending, continuously campaigning, entitlement creating anti-parliament so-called leader who loves kittens?

    • "give the guy a little grace "

      Exactly. The anti-Harper crowd is taking their nitpicking way too far.

  24. Is it ironic, or more properly poetic justice, that Harper was crowing about the tapes he had on Iggy during question period?

  25. Really, I don't care if you vote for him. Maybe you're a social and economic liberal, and that's okay. In a civil society, you can respectfully say "I disagree" and invite intelligent discussion on the issues. Yes, I know that isn't what Stephen is doing in his attack ads (or Iggy, Layton, and Duceppe in theirs). But Politics is a different game, and realistically that's just how you win votes. For the rest of us, we can hold a fair discussion on the issues.

    Who's up for a good discussion on the pros and cons of fiscal conservatism? Anybody?

    • Is there a new party I hadn't heard about?

    • Okay, here's one: Have we ever actually tried fiscal conservatism in Canada? Or do we just have parties that claim they are?

      Mulroney goverment ran up spending, defificts and tax cuts, so that wouldn't count. Martin reduced the deficit by cutting transfer payments and infrastructure investment, so I suppose that could count, except he also continued corproate subsidies and tax loopholes, and allowed the Bronfmans to take their money away while the rest of us paid taxes.

      Seriously, who would we point to? Frank McKenna in New Brunswick?

      Alberta has been liquidating public resources to keep taxes low. That's fiscally unsustainable.
      Devine was a spend and sell Conservative. Ran up the bill and taxes. Maybe Tommy Douglas was more conservative?
      Mike Harris was a bull in the china shop Conservative, hardly responsible to just plug ug up the works to make people mad at the government (especially since the bill still comes due). Bill Davis/Blue Machine before that was more like the McGuinty govt.

    • Ah but there's the rub: there are many of us (who are mocked for seeing bogeymen) who care not a whit whether the Tories or Grits are in power, pracitising fiscal conservatism or not, because fiscal conservatism will always be secondary. It's social conservatism that gives us the heebie jeebies. Yes yes yes, "hidden agenda" appears to be a tired old cliche but it's still, after the PM's had almost 4 years in power, the first thing that comes to mind. His lack of majority has been a safeguard for us. Now, seeing as Harper himself is willing to compromise many principles *as long as he has a minority*, this concern may seem paranoid. But the Tories (and these new Tories are not like the old PCs), will be full of populist anti-minority wedge issue legislation should they get a majority.

      And yes yes, the Grits had Tom Wappel and Roseanne Skoke among others– but they were the fringe of the Liberal party and never influenced the agenda. How can those of us who absolutely want a rock solid, waterproof, bomb-proof guarantee that stuff like abortion or same sex marriage won't be revisited under a CPC majority, be assured that our paramount issues are safe? Sorry, we can argue about money and the economy until Canada's a 67th-rate broke economy– we DONT care about money issues as long as these other social issues aren't somehow guaranteed not to be touched by a Tory majority government. And that's why we'll have minorities for a long long long time to come.

  26. I guess the big brains at the LPC wanted the question about the Lib led coalition of losers and a Harper majority out now.!

    ooh boogeyboogey, say Harper and majority in the same sentence and watch the polls move up for the 'visitor'.
    And what if this doesn't do it?
    Another 'back down that hill'?

    Of course the Liberal response to this video will be nothing about coalition, and everything about, oh, the 'special interest groups' court challenge money cancelled…..

    Libs and LibLuvin media,
    get out of Toronto once in awhile,
    after having cut off special interest groups, and the 'worst recession since the Great Depression'.
    he is still PM and ahead in the polls.

  27. Lawrence Martin pretty much summed up why Harper has to go: "Mr. Harper's government is also the one that promised to breathe new democracy into the country but did the opposite, overcentralizing command in the Prime Minister's Office to a degree seldom seen. His Conservatives took attack advertising to new lows, even doing the cluster bombing between campaigns. They put out a 200-page dirty tricks handbook on how to disrupt parliamentary committees. They ran roughshod over the freedom of information process, even attempting to vet communications of independent officers of Parliament, the Auditor-General included. They've given us the Cadman affair, the so-called in-and-out affair, NAFTAgate, a fixed-election date that they unfixed, the use of a budget update to try to undercut opposition party financing, the attempted hamstringing of budget officer Kevin Page, gobs of patronage when they promised not to go that route."

    • All more or less true, but was the public paying attention – did they even care? My personal belief is that Harper's been lucky, first the libs put up a dud in Dion and quite honestly the Liberal party had run out of any new ideas.. some would say it became arrogant and corrupt. Now, i'm afraid they may well have put up another dud. I don't really see Ignatieff catching fire with the public…as i said Harper appears to have the luck when he's needed it.

      • One cannot underestimate the degree of narcissism in a particular demographic of the voting Canadian public — the ones that look at Harper and see themselves.

      • "as i said Harper appears to have the luck when he's needed it."

        And the media support as well, don't forget.

        • And the support of the plurality of Canadians. We shouldn't forget that either.

  28. I still don't get where Harper is coming from on the coalition. Ok he acted like a demagogue when his political life was threatened by it.[ highly distasteful but perhaps understandable in the heat of battle] But is he still claiming [which he seems to be doing on this tape] that the coalition was actually illegal? It may have arguably been illegimate politically speaking, but he seems perfectly willing to have the public believe that the coalition was unconstitutional. If that is his intent it is demagoguery of the lowest order.

      • God knows where this could be headed to in terms of national unity. Harper may think the road to a majority runs through the coalition, but we all know how that'll play out in Quebec. Is the man really that irresponsible or hungry for power? Ignatieff's response should be: " i'm the guy to repair the damage to national unity that Harper has brought about" Wish i had some confidence in that scenario…i guess they'll stay with the homeboy, and Harper'll gamble he's got nothing to lose anyway. It could get really ugly.

        • I agree. I'm not feeling very optimistic, the more so since Iggy totally lacks (as yet) a narrative about the Coalition. If he has no narrative, he can't strike back. So Harper will have an open field for pounding on Quebec. I wouldn't be surprised if the Bloc picks up seats this fall. And meanwhile we'll be no closer than ever to having a majority government. It's going to be the same grind next year. Canadians don't appear to have noticed it yet, but it has effectively become impossible to govern the country.

          • Yeah Iggy doesn't really inspire any confidence, at least not yet – what the hell was he doing all summer? Apparently he barely even bothered with Quebec, where he was supposed to be on the up-swing. As you say i hope he finds a narrative and doesn't allow this coalition sabre rattling from Harper to panic him into not talking about the coalition at all. There's a risk there for him, but also some risk for Harper. I'm still of the opinion that electorate were mostly mad at the idea of a man they had decisively repudiated – Dion – becomming PM. What genius in the coalition didn't see that as a likely possibility? I hope you're wrong about the country being effectively ungovernable, but i'm inclined to agree. And it's not just Quebec- who's gonna tell Alberta they can't do what the hell they like with the oil-sands – whether its in the national interest or not. The only bright spot i see may be that if Ignatieff were to gain seats – and he should barring a melt-down – and Harper fail to get a majority or seriously lose ground, well that should be it for Harper at least. Which would be a victory of some sort.

          • Better get used to having PM Harper around—he`s not going anywhere.

            You people seem to be an intelligent lot so I cannot understand why you don`t see the massive problem created by this coalition—–forget about debating the constitutional and legal angles of the document. The thought of being governed by this beast leaves a sour taste in the mouths of voters. Iggy and Kinsella know this——maybe they will try to put this election thing off.

          • He's certainly more than half-done his mandate. Even if he wins again, anything short of a majority will send us to the polls again within a year, and I'm not sure how long they'll let Harper kick the can while running massive deficits.

          • Ignatieff may well have to swear not to include the bloc in any future coalition thanks to Harper's demagoguery, but coalitions aren't unconstitutional or illegal William, for cripes sake educate y'self man!

        • The answer to your question: Yes.

        • I get the impression that Stephen Harper's dream is of a majority without any seats in Quebec or Toronto. This election, we'll find out if that is possible, I guess.

          • It will be but not till about 2014 when the next 22 seats go in, likely 905, 519, suburban Van and interior BC and Alberta.

            But until then it will be difficult without clean sweeps in those same areas.

            Toronto is an odd place, no jokes please, it would elect a couple of Cons, it has in the past, but they havent so they dont. Kind of like Alberta and Liberals. There is no reason they shouldnt elect Liberals in calgary or Edmonton…but until they do they wont believe they can.

            Oliver gave Joe Volpe a surprising run for his money in Eglinton. While Volpe eventually got a decent win there was a surprisingly strong Con vote. Incumbency counts for sure. Combiation of the right candidates, resources and campaign. Nobody thought the cons could win in Quebec two elections ago……elections matter, local candidates matter and resources matter.

          • Conservatives can't win in Toronto because they aren't willing to toerate a candidate who actually represents the constituencies. Axed Mark Warner in Toronto Centre because he was addresssing issues the party didn't want to talk about. It's not a big tent party, more like a small prayer tent where you have to listen to rural gun nuts instead of urban gun control concerns, or avoid being seen at an AIDS conference. http://tinyurl.com/ln5gmx

            A credible candidate in a high profile contest (against Bob Rae) would have signalled a willingness to build a base there, but the party was afraid that would lose it support elsewhere. In other words they wrote it off, not just for that election but for some time to come.

  29. I think the worst thing about this video is the bully-boy image that he so desperately tries to hide in public. I wonder if there're any more videos out there.

    • And will the Libs use them in the election ad campaign? If they don't use clips from this they don't deserve to win.The Libs can't sit back and let the Cons plaster the airwaves with old Iggy quotes and clips and not respond. At least now therer is some ammunition.

  30. Its odd that this is considered news. I mean it was made salacious by it being "taped" was it secretly? And then ent in a brown envelope to the Liberals.

    I think the Liberals just got the cons some significant airtime. This really wasnt news, as Aaron indicates. So the question s did the 20 somethings in the Liberal warroom fall for soemthing.

  31. Just like Tom Flanagan predicted “It doesn't have to be true. It just has to be plausible.”

    Harper is a divider. Canada deserves a leader who genuinely brings people together.

    Oh, and to be clear: that excludes Ignatieff too, who can't even keep his own MPs behind him: http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/st

  32. It would be funny if Ignatieff pursued the "Harper is a scary guy with a demonic hidden agenda" espoused by so many posters here. Given how well it worked for Paul Martin back in 2006, and the fact that Harper has been governing for several years now without soldiers taking over our streets, I think it would make for a very entertaining Liberal faceplant. Sort of like a Hollywood car accident in slow motion: painful to watch but you just can't stop yourself from looking.

  33. It would be funny if Ignatieff pursued the "Harper is a scary guy with a demonic hidden agenda" espoused by so many posters here. Given how well it worked for Paul Martin back in 2006, and the fact that Harper has been governing for several years now without soldiers taking over our streets, I think it would make for a very entertaining Liberal faceplant.

    Sort of like a Hollywood car accident in slow motion: painful to watch but you just can't stop yourself from looking.

  34. Harpo talks about the benefits accuring because of his Eco-Action Plan, a plan that would not exist if not for the Coalition! An action plan he says the devil (ie Coalition) made me do it. The PM should understand the voters of Canada elected this minority parliament and respect the voters wishes by making it function! Canadians have no desire to give Harpo the unbridled powers of a majority.

    • Wll not exactly true. A choice of minority or majority wasnt on my ballot, was it on yours?

  35. Now we need a tape from a private rouse the troops meeting from Iggy, Jack and Gilles (hey what would a BLOQ rally meeting be like?)to see how their private and public messages differ – persoanlly I like the pseech and thought it was a good one – way to go harper! free press always a good sign.

  36. Not hard to imagine how the Libs will make use of the video of that revelation when the campaign gets down to the nitty gritty.

  37. Some interesting advice from a "Liberal Startegist"____http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/silver-power

    The speech MI needs to give….

    ""There will be one of two results in the next federal election; either the Liberal Party or the Conservatives will win the most seats. I intend to win the next election by presenting a big, optimistic plan for our country's future. If the voters put their faith in our party and we win the most seats, we will form a government that represents all Canadians. If the Liberal Party does not have the most seats after the next election, under absolutely no circumstance will we form a coalition or enter into any accord with other political parties to make me prime minister. If I was interested in taking power through such a deal, I would have become Prime Minister in January. I didn't and I won't enter into any such deals at any time in the future."

    • This is utter crap!!! Our conventions clearly allow for coalitions – we've had them before, we'll have them again. Someone needs to call Harper's bluff. [ obviously i'm talking about a situation where an elected government loses a confidence vote. Seems like what your suggesting is a recipe for minority tyranny. The fact is the public has more than once now sent these guys back to parliament to work together, and for whatever reason they've failed to do so. Why the hell doesn't one of our constitutional scholars stand up on his hind legs and say:" actually boys! This is the way it is"?

  38. Let me be clear on this…it ain't never gonna happen!

  39. I don't understand why there are some here who choose to make personal attacks against our politicians. You are attacking those who have given up their family's privacy and their private sector careers in order to serve our country to the best of their abilities.

    Regardless of whether or not you agree with our leaders, let's show some respect and appreciation for them by staying on the topic of their policies. Attacking them personally says more about you than it does them.

    • Sorry! But have you been asleep for the last 3 years? How much civility and respect for the views of others have we seen from this Conservative gov't? Doesn't leadersip start at the top?

    • When they personally make promises and guarantees, such as when Mr. Harper was speaking about softwood lumber and said "You do not negotiate when you've won", and then, once elected, personally turned around and just gave a billion dollars of our lumber industry's money over to their US competitors.. I believe at that point the gentleman (that term used in the loosest of senses) has opened himself up to personal attacks upon his integrity at the very least.

  40. It would be funny if Ignatieff pursued the "Harper is a scary guy with a demonic hidden agenda" theme espoused by so many posters here. Given how well it worked for Paul Martin back in 2006, and the fact that Harper has been governing for several years now without soldiers taking over our streets, I think it would make for a very entertaining Liberal faceplant.

    Sort of like a Hollywood car accident in slow motion: painful to watch but you just can't stop yourself from looking.

    • We will see it…especially to fight a majority…..

      Oddly enough, I think the parties would all secretly welcome a majority….even the Bloc. They all want it to be themselves of course, but they all know they need renewal, all of them, and that can only happen without the focus being on the next confidence vote. You know how people complain that businesses dont make long term decisions and only focus on the next quarter….same argument. We have some long term decisions to make soon and they wont be made if you think you'll have to pay the price before the benefits come to fruition.

  41. Don Martin made an interesting observation today on CBC – the camera is so close to Harper that it's hard to imagine that he didn't know he was being taped, and he even seems to look directly at the camera several times. Don speculated that Harper wanted his closed-door message released because his base may be wavering and if he doesn't get his majority then it's game over for him. Ignatieff's Q&A about the tape suggests that they will use it in the campaign. Could be a somewhat interesting campaign – the battle of the tapes.

  42. You know, I'm not surprised or offended that Harper said what he did. He's the leader of a political party, I would expect nothing less than for him to be partisan in his remarks, particularly to a partisan audience.

    What unnerves me is that he is also as the Prime Minister. And, to me, a PM doesn't just have the privilege of governing only part of the country, he is responsible for leading the whole nation, minority government notwithstanding.

    By suggesting our Supreme Court Justices are left-wing idealogues, by suggesting that cooperating with other parties amounts to having a socialist, separatist coalition, and by suggesting that the gun registry is nothing but a waste of money (boondoggle though it is, it has still helped officers do their jobs) I am left with the impression that there is a conscious attempt on Harper's part to undermine my confidence in our democratic institutions, a confidence that he thinks only he and his party can restore.

    And *that's* what scares me about this government.

  43. Move along people….nothing to see here.

  44. Whats the big deal about this? All of the political parties behind the scenes do this stuff. I guess it just shows you how desperate the Liberals are! Remember Separatist movement goal is to destory Canada!

  45. What's wrong? Harper just a man who wants to win.Everyone wants to win ,the Liberals are such big silly Liberals.

  46. Harpo speaks! Now we know Hidden Agenda is Majority Gov't! This is why we still need the CBC.Bravo!