04.25.2011 11:34 AM

It’s boring when columnists write about each other

Besides, I’m right.

These guys aren’t subtle. They’ve always been clear about the Canada they want.


  1. Craig Chamberlain says:

    I wonder if there are any big picture Conservatives out there that see that a minority Con or Lib or NDP government is more of a threat to the Liberal party’s survival than a Conservative majority.

    Anyways, the way forward for Liberals is to eat some humble pie and stop playing footsie with the other parties between elections — it diffuses the party and makes one ask, well, if you guys are so sympatico, why don’t I just vote for them?

    • Craig Chamberlain says:

      Surely there are a few big picture Cons out there who are worried about what legacy a Harper Con majority would be for their party?!

      No takers?! NOT YET, RIGHT?!

  2. Dan F says:

    Also, the “soldiers in the streets with guns” thing turned out to be true. Anyone remember the G20?

  3. Greg says:

    Monte makes some good points.

  4. jack says:

    What is evident is even the Cons themselves don’t know harper. Kent sure found out this weekend about what happens if you speak youir own mind. Harper does want to have private insurance, he has said that for years. HIs cutting of revenues and increases in jets and jails spending will leave no money fopr health transfers…..its basic math. There is a structural deficit, again basic math. If all these jobs have been created and we still run a 30 billion deficit with a slow down in action plan spending, then its only a matter of how big the structural deficit really is. Harper know this. I’ll bet 95% of his MP’s don’t. While I don’t agree with some of your stands with respect to the liberal party (especially combining with the ndp) i fully agree that a harper majority will create a much different Canada than people bargained for. He will continue to do it quietly like his drastic cuts to the environment department and women’s groups and anyone that even mentions a bad thing about Israel. Long guns….gone. Health care….gone. Environment…..gone. CBC…..gone. More jets, jails, war participation, control of information and police powers. He’s done all this with a minority…….it will all happen faster with a majority. An old dog doesn’t change his spots and if you look at harpers musings when he was at the NCC, you will see what we are getting. The problem is, even cons refuse to believe it. Just wait.

    • Patrick Hamilton says:

      Having been a one time member{{shudder}} of the Conservative (read: Reform) Party, I believe Jack that all you say is true…..as a PC member who supported the merger, I thought our side would be a moderating influence, that we could somehow punch above our weight, and temper the more extreme views of the party……this was before I realized how much control Stephen Harper had over the party….He will do all the things you mentioned, and more. I just cant believe that the Canadian electorate is so self-absorbed that they dont realize they are being hoodwinked(as I myself was….I rue the day that I had anything to do with Stephen Harper and the CA, kaff, Reform, Party)….

      A week to go, and I hope the Canadian electorate wakes up to the fact that the Americanization of Canada begins May 2nd, if Mr. Harper and his ilk gets their majority……Lets hope he will be denied……

    • Dr.J says:

      CBC GONE…..stop it I am getting a chubby!!

    • dave says:

      My simple analysis:150+ years ago we had a decent class system, a hereditary aristocracy, or nobility, of individuals in the upper class, – and the rest of the people in the lower class.
      We have come a way in getting rid of the old hereditary aristocracy of individual nobles.
      But we have replaced it with an upper class of corporate individuals. NAFTA, for example, gives these corporate individuals, these corporate citizens, a different set of laws to work with than the rest of us, the lower class, work with.

      When politicians, -libertarian/conservative…and even the odd blue liberal, – talks reducing government, and getting government out of our faces, they are talking about freeing up the corporate citizen. They are talking about getting democratically elected government out of public (and a lot of private) space, and replacing that democratically elected government presence with the new aristocracic presence, – corporate citizens.

      For example, reducing the Canadian Wheat Board is sold by libertarians and conservatives, as giving freedom to individual farmers. What they are actually doing, is giving control of production and marketing to (mostly foreign) agri biz corporations.

      (And every one, even individual farmers, will find their freedom drastically reduced we try to deal with those foreign corporations.)

      • smelter rat says:

        Bullshit again Gord. Western farmers repeatedly and continuously vote to maintain the wheat board, but assholes like you don’t really care for that sort of democracy do you? And do you seriously think any farmer wouldn’t like to be rid of Monsanto? We will all regret the day that we allowed corporations to manage our food supply from start to finish.

  5. Dr.J says:

    After reading the original Warren article, all I was thinking about was this is the same as 10 years ago and you are repeating the same stale talking points all over again. I know that the Liberals do not think that the PM is all that bright but he would never take his party back 20 years……he likes power to much!!! For me your article was nothing more than to feed red meat to the Liberal troops and I respect your feeble attempt…..However, when you bring those cards/talking points out, we know we have you on the ropes.

    • Craig Chamberlain says:

      It’s YOUR PARTY that is on the ropes if Mr. Harper wins his coveted majority! Tories — get your head out of the sand.

    • Patrick Hamilton says:

      Having known and worked with members of the Conservative party for a number of years, with one year as the Con EDA secretary, I know you people only too well.(I supported the merger fully, because I thought, quite rightly, the Liberals needed some time in the woodshed), Mr. Harper WILL take this country back 20 years, though I think hed be most happy if he returned it to circa 1950’s, pre-medicare. All the PC members who supported the merger that I know in this EDA have either left the party, become inactive, or joined the Liberals.
      I made a terrible mistake supporting the Conservative Party, something that I will regret for the rest of my life. I just hope the Canadian electorate doesnt make the same mistake on May 2nd.

      • pomo says:

        Why aren’t people listening to you Patrick. You have more credibility on this issue than most here. Jesus…
        Actually, I am listening to you. And I appreciate your presence here.

        • Patrick Hamilton says:

          Thank-you pomo……very kind of you to say…..Yes, I feel sometimes I am a voice crying in the wilderness, as the thought of a Harper majority frightens me, and I truly worry for the kind of Canada we know and love if Mr. Harper is able to implement his neocon agenda fully. That is why I try to do what I can to make people aware of their very hidden agenda.

          I fell prey to the siren song of merger, against the warnings of probably the most intelligent woman I know, who had gone down the Reform route before me. She said I would regret my decision. I went ahead anyways and supported the merger(for reasons aforementioned on this forum) fully. I even attended the founding convention, and shook Mr. Harpers hand(and I wondered, what was all the fuss, he didnt seem very scary to me). It was only after the deal was done, and by working with former Reformers, that I realized what a terrible mistake I had made. I sacrificed my principles on the altar of political expediency. I have made clear my reasons many times on here why I could no longer support the party: rampant homophobia, blatant sexism, lack of respect for other cultures and religions, and Reformers always having to be dragged kicking and screaming to make any headways on environmental issues. I had hoped the party had turned a corner on the environment with the appointment of Mr. Prentice,(after a slew of weak and ineffectual environment ministers) but yet again Mr. Harpers actions spoke louder than words when he quashed the environment bill C-311(a bill that had been passed by a majority in the House of Commons) in the Senate with his handpicked toadies. Mr. Prentice,(who I have a lot of respect for) I believe finally got tired of banging his head against the wall, as it feels so good when you stop.
          I had left the party long before this, but for me this blatant contempt for democracy by Mr. Harper was the last straw, and as a result I happily joined the Liberal Party a short time later.

      • smelter rat says:

        Exactly. The CPC was built on lies and deceit. No amount if sugar coating will ever change that.

  6. fritz says:

    I actually thought WK’s column was understated. I don’t expect a CPC majority government would introduce legislation to ban gay marriage, reintroduce the death penalty or ban abortion. Those issues would be dealt with though private members legislation or through back door Senate legislation.

    The gun registry ban and eliminating tax payer funding for political parties is already promised for the first parliamentary sitting.

    Not mentioned but sure to be introduced are strengthening FOI legislation by making it much more expensive and making political oversight more prevalent than it is already.

    The parliamentary committees would be neutered and become just another means of attacking anyone opposing the Tory dictatorship.

    The Senate would become a rubber stamp for Tory legislation.

    Because the CPC’s most important agenda is electing a majority government; and keeping it once achieved; most of the legislation introduced over their reign will be geared to to retaining power. I expect the puny amount spent on government advertising, like that spent on the “Action Plan’, to pale in comparison to the amounts spent on Tory propaganda once they had virtually unfettered access to government advertising dollars.

    The Tory hidden agenda doesn’t begin to cover the dark age Canada would enter under CPC rule. Think GWB on steroids.

  7. Cam says:

    So Mr. Kinsella would have us believe that the Conservatives would pursue an untenable agenda that would not only ensure they wouldn’t get elected for the next 20 years, but would most certainly be reversed the second they inevitably got tossed out of government.

    Sounds reasonable to me.

  8. W.B. says:

    Well some things are fairly certain in addition to the social issues Warren mentioned:

    Mistrust of knowledge and learning (census, AECL, Budget Office, under pal Harris Walkerton)

    Reliance on punshment in law enforcement and corrections, (Min sentence, prison farms etc)

    Violent crushing of dissent (G20, under pal Harris Ipperwash and Dudley George)

    Low tax, low service, anti union- poverty

    Increased militarism on the world stage

    Contempt for democracy (committees, prorogue, Parliament versus PMO, packed Senate)

    Human Rights (women’s organization cut, court challenge, ‘Rights and Democracy’)

    And general repression of all dissent inside and outside the Party (capital P).

  9. JH says:

    Some of you folks are getting really strange in the face of a possible election loss. Do you really think ‘this guns in the streets’ type babbling is really adding to your own or your party’s credibility? Get out and do what you can to mitigate against a defeat by all means, but this stuff you are going on with here is craziness and not helping your party’s or your own reputations. I hope no one copies this and shows you some of your postings down the road. Now that would prove embarrassing!
    Think the non-existant WMDs of Bush/Cheney. LOL.

  10. patrick Deberg says:


    The country will change for the worst if a win gives Harper his majority. You can say what you want but many of the gains by the previous governments will be dystroyed by the new CPC. This is not Mulronys PCs! This is not the live and let live crowd thats pressing up against the window. Harper pretends to govern from the middle but that’s only been to give him his mandate. It’s all about power under any guise for the believers. He will change his tune trust me. This thing is not even Reform as you can see all the progressives and Reformers are just about gone. Troops in the streets? G20, Roger Dankowzski, Quebec cops dressing as protesters, Ten liberal supporters have tires slashed for the crime of putting up a lawn sign. Sounds like an inpromptu army to me.

    • Michael Reintjes says:

      You couldn’t be more wrong…he will continue on the keel he has laid in Minority.You folks need to get over this Right wing religious fantasy scenario you keep harping on.Harper will not bow the the right wing of his party any more than he will bow to the left.
      This is about wiping out the Liberal party and making his party the default party for decades to come.In that end he will stop at nothing. You really need to be thinking of this and stop the ridiculous muelling about some Republican bogeyman and prepare for a guy who is preparing to wipe you out politically.
      There is NO grand Right wing agenda here..only an agenda to destroy the Liberal Party as a choice and the proof is right in front of you.

  11. DaveinMapleRidge says:

    This is one former Liberal voter, and libertarian leaning Canadian that is looking very hopefully at a Harper majority as the best thing to hit Canadian politics in a very long time.

    I suppose you reform Liberals (socialists) never understood the impact the ‘soft totalitarianism’ of the LPC had on certain freedoms in Canada because they were freedoms you didn’t value.

    Funny, that …

    • Warren says:

      Dave, a few of us here think you’d benefit from a few months in a real totalitarian state.

    • Craig Chamberlain says:

      Hi, Dave — just curious what you think of the treatment of law-abiding citizens during the G20 Summit.

      • DaveinMapleRidge says:

        Not to be cheeky, Warren, but I wonder sometimes if you’d recognize freedom if it bit you in the ass.

        As to Craig, I was disgusted by police action at the G20. I hope we never see that kind of abuse again.

        That being said, I don’t necessarily believe I’d lay that at Harper’s feet as the force involved was not federal. The lack of action over the removal of identification by police and other actions that appeared to prevent/inhibit action by the SIU were appalling.

        • Michael says:

          Dave, even though they were local police forces that carried out the actions, where do you think the direction came from? Do you really think the police action was all the result of local police forces run amuck?
          And if this was all just a local police over-reaction, why didn’t Harper come out and strongly condemn the police action. Even he hasn’t tried to lay it at the feet of local police.

        • Namesake says:

          well, two of the three most identifiable higher ups in charge were federal: Toronto Police Chief Bill Blair — who pretty much admitted he didn’t know what the hell was going on and who gave the orders to stand down and let the police cars get trashed; RCMP Chief Superintendent and head of G20 Security Alphonse MacNeil; and former OPP Chief and soon to be CPC Vaughan MP, Julian Fantino.

  12. ktron says:

    Soldiers don’t have to be in the “army”

    Updated: Wed Apr. 07 2010 9:04:09 PM

    CTV.ca News Staff

    The RCMP will give its Parliament Hill detachment officers some extra firepower, after deciding to bring previously purchased submachine guns back into service.

    RCMP Sgt. Greg Cox confirmed to CTV.ca that the Mounties intend to bring their Heckler & Koch MP5 submachine guns back into service as “secondary weapons,” pending weapons training for officers. He said the RCMP must also decide on how to store the weapons securely, while also ensuring that they are accessible to officers.

  13. pomo says:

    And again…for the millionth time. What happens if these things come to pass. Don’t remind me of your last answer…that the rest of us will boot the CPC out. That’s obvious and insulting to my intelligence that you think this answers the question I have asked repeatedly here.

    I want to you how YOU will feel about banning abortion, unequal marriage and the reintroduction of the death penalty. Do you want these kinds of policies? If not, are you still willing to let human rights issues be thrown on the altar in the interests of other con policies that you do want? What about other cons here? Any of you interested in protecting a woman’s right to choose etc etc or are you all OK with turning a blind eye in the name of oil sands development and tax cuts and whatever else you like about the Cons.

    What about you who call yourselves Libertarians? How free is it to deny a woman’s right to choose or deny someone the right to marry their same-sex partner?

    You know what? It’s not like I think the day after an election there will be a vote in the house banning abortion, for example. But we’ve already experienced the de-funding of programs like Planned Parenthood International because of social conservatives and “Maternal health” strategies that leave abortion off the menu, in spite of the research and the opinion of other western countries involved in the initiative. Those may be international issues, but don’t try to tell me that they reflect nothing about how the Cons feel about abortion and whether they will choose to defend it. There is nothing integral about a prime minister who repeats over and over that abortion is off the table after his government makes decisions like these.

    And dude, I find the term “hysteria” pretty ironic and mostly inappropriate, particularly given the context.

    Wikipedia: Hysteria was widely discussed in the medical literature of the Victorian era. Women considered to be suffering from it exhibited a wide array of symptoms including … “a tendency to cause trouble”. The term is considered reflective of a time when Men diagnosed women with disorders, and frequently removed their uterus, when they did not toe the line. Pretty damn funny you use it now.

  14. Namesake says:

    Pretty lame, as arguments go.

    First, some bloggers have been talking about the (not-so) hidden agenda all along.

    But more importantly, most didn’t marshal the ‘If he gets a majority he’ll implement it’ arg. in the past few weeks because all the credible polls indicate that it’s not very likely at all that the CPC WILL get a majority;

    hence, there’s no need for an alarmist argument that could easily backfire. Simple.

    And it’s STILL the case, BTW:

    the brand new EKOS, with THREE TIMES the sample size of the Nanos and Environics & most other polls,

    “finds …The Conservatives hold less than a six-point lead, sitting with 33.7 per cent support with just one week to go before election day.

    ]’course, the rub is over who that narrow lead is over]:

    28 per cent of decided voters now support the NDP, compared to 23.7 per cent who plan to vote Liberal.”

    The EKOS poll surveyed 3,004 adult Canadians, including 2,783 decided voters, between April 22 and April 24, 2011. Results are considered accurate within plus or minus 1.8 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.


    • Namesake says:

      p.s., “Graves said current figures suggest the NDP could take a ‘breathtaking’ 100 seats… and about 69 for the Liberals…. Together, the NDP and Liberals would have a clear majority with 38 more seats than the Conservatives [131], as well as a collective 20 more points in popular vote.”

  15. Bruce from Etobicoke says:

    Worth repeating again. If abortion is off the table, and same sex marriage is not negotiable, why won’t the social conservatives just sit this one out? Like Charles McVety suggests? Because really, they sure as Hell aren’t here for the fiscal conservative stuff.


    Stephen Harper: the last guy to increase spending like that was named Pierre Elliot Trudeau!

    (I resisted saying that at Easter dinner yesterday because my father-in -law’s head exploding would have ruined the turkey AND the ham)

  16. Patrick Hamilton says:

    Interesting to note Mr. Tulk that Mr. Solbergs most recent blog has been removed from his website…..Im wondering if it had something to do with


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.