“Warren Kinsella's book, ‘Fight the Right: A Manual for Surviving the Coming Conservative Apocalypse,’ is of vital importance for American conservatives and other right-leaning individuals to read, learn and understand.”

- The Washington Times

“One of the best books of the year.”

- The Hill Times

“Justin Trudeau’s speech followed Mr. Kinsella’s playbook on beating conservatives chapter and verse...[He followed] the central theme of the Kinsella narrative: “Take back values. That’s what progressives need to do.”

- National Post

“[Kinsella] is a master when it comes to spinning and political planning...”

- George Stroumboulopoulos, CBC TV

“Kinsella pulls no punches in Fight The Right...Fight the Right accomplishes what it sets out to do – provide readers with a glimpse into the kinds of strategies that have made Conservatives successful and lay out a credible roadmap for progressive forces to regain power.”

- Elizabeth Thompson, iPolitics

“[Kinsella] deserves credit for writing this book, period... he is absolutely on the money...[Fight The Right] is well worth picking up.”

- Huffington Post

“Run, don't walk, to get this amazing book.”

- Mike Duncan, Classical 96 radio

“Fight the Right is very interesting and - for conservatives - very provocative.”

- Former Ontario Conservative leader John Tory

“His new book is great! All of his books are great!”

- Tommy Schnurmacher, CJAD

“I absolutely recommend this book.”

- Paul Wells, Maclean’s

“Kinsella puts the Left on the right track with new book!”

- Calgary Herald


KCCCC Day 23: A Harper majority


  • Will he get one? I don’t know, and neither does he.  But is he close to one?  Yes, yes he is.  Therefore, I figured I’d use my spot in the Sun to (a) speculate as to why that happened and (b) what policies we are likely to see if it does.  Typically, I do those two things in reverse.  Today, I predict what a Harper majority will do, by looking at past Conservative behaviour.  On Tuesday – the start of the new-look Sun, its new network, and its new web site – I suggest a few reasons why he has been winning Election 2011.  Conservatives won’t like today’s column; Liberals (some of them, anyway) won’t like Tuesday’s.  Here’s all of today’s.

What would a Stephen Harper majority government look like?

It’s not an idle question. We’re now in the second half of the 2011 national election campaign, and the Conservative Party remains comfortably ahead of the Liberal Party — and, according to some pollsters, is in (or very near) majority government territory.

Harper’s campaign team has done surprisingly poorly, while Michael Ignatieff’s Liberals have turned in a more solid performance. But poll after poll have shown that Team Harper’s many missteps haven’t really affected voter intention.

That’s why, perhaps, the Conservative leader is doing something in this campaign something he would never have dreamt of doing in 2004, 2006 or 2008 — he’s openly appealing for a majority.

Harper, while strategic, has never really been very secretive about what he would like to do with unfettered power. All of it is on the public record.

This, then, is what a Conservative majority government’s policies should look like.

There are many other issues where Stephen Harper has been clear about what he favours — such as more jails, more government advertising, more baubles for the generals — and what he does not.

He isn’t shy. It’s all there, on the record, for those who want to look.

What is also there is this truth: For good or bad, by the time Harper is done with it, you won’t recognize Canada.

 



264 Responses to “KCCCC Day 23: A Harper majority”

  1. Cat says:

    I’m a conservative WK and I don’t mind your column at all. That might worry you…or not. I see you supporting your guy – Ignatieff by doing what he’s been doing – knocking Harper. What you’re not doing is paying attention to your guy and for me, following you (in the literary sense) THAT speaks to me more than your fear thingy re: Harper.

    Your column also stands in contrast to yesterday’s KCCCC update so one cancels the other out for me…leaving you pretty much exactly where you were before this whole campaign started. You were right then when you said that whoever forced this election would pay. Yep, they will.

    That Canada will not be defined through the eyes of the once mighty Liberal machine might be scary to some but a Canada that looks a feels a bit different might be refreshing and I’m excited about the possibilities. “For good or bad……”

    • scot says:

      You 25 percenters will not be taking over the country. You will eventually be relegeted back to the boonies where you belong and Canada will continue to be defined through the eyes of the majority.

    • You were right then when you said that whoever forced this election would pay. Yep, they will.

      Aha.

      Then you should be taking your anger out on Stephen Harper.

      It is undisputed that the Harper Party of Canada (HPC) had its campaign machine in high gear weeks before the writ.

      Maybe you could explain why a Conservative MP’s constituency office, with the MP present, was spotted doing election preparations two weeks before the votes in the House which led to the writ? Boardroom set up as an interim campaign HQ/prep area, volunteers coming in to register their availability. (I know these details as *fact*). By the way all of this is a big no no in a constituency office, which are to be non-partisan, but you probably don’t care about respect for the rules and accountability when it comes to your side.

      Harper engineered this election because *he* wanted one in the worst way. The time was never going to get better for him. For *him*.

      Unless you’ve drunk the koolaid deeply, surely you must understand this. It’s Harper’s election, not the Opposition’s. That he’s managed to fool a bunch of folks doesn’t change the fact.

      • Gord Tulk says:

        Being prepared for war doesnt mean you intend to declare it. Your defense of the lpc and the other oppo parties starting this process smacks of John Turner’s infamous “I had no option” excuse. The oppo parties – led by MR. Ignatieff – brought on this election and they are solely to blame for its consequences.

        (curious that we never hear mr ignatieff declare that the CPC caused this election)

        • Gord: The opposition parties walked into Harper’s box canyon. Yes, they walked in. No, they did not set the trap.

          Did they have a choice? Only that point is debatable.

          MP’s must not use their constituency offices for overt partisan purposes. Preparing for an election not yet called is about as overt as it gets. One particular MP in question attempted to hide the election prep from visitors. Why? Because the member knew it was wrong.

          You too should be incensed that the parliamentary budget provided a member to run a constituency office is being used to conduct such partisan affairs. Perhaps you could tell us how you can condone such breaches of the public trust.

          I’ll offer an answer for you to use, free of charge: because your side is doing it.

          That in a nutshell is what is wrong with our current system. Everything is ok when “our” side does it, but not when “their” side has the gumption to make the same offences against the public trust.

      • Michael Reintjes says:

        I really don’t think most folks would see this as Harper’s election despite your clever spin..

    • Swervin' Merv says:

      That’s right, Cat. Tories will yet pay (we hope) for forcing this election by being contemptuous of Parliament (let’s get history right). Hope they don’t glide to a majority in their (as reported today) engineless F-35s. (CTV’s Craig Oliver suggested that the F-35 gliders might be one of Harper’s intended but unspecified service cuts.)

  2. bc says:

    Warren,

    This is fear mongering drivel, unworthy of your name.

    Abortion? Gay-marriage? Death-Penalty? What is this, 2000?

    Although you do your best to convince us that Harper will get rid of abortions, the simple reality is that he won’t. Why? Because it will set the Conservative party back 20 years. He has time and time again stated that he will NOT re-open the abortion debate and that he won’t support any motions put forward in the house on the topic.

    He couldn’t be more clear. Not Iggy clear, Harper clear.

    • catherine says:

      “Let me be crystal clear. A Conservative government will not be raising taxes. We will not impose a carbon tax. We will not cancel planned tax reductions for business. We will not be running a deficit. We will keep our spending within our means.”

      Thus said Prime Minister Stephen Harper three weeks ago on the campaign trail, and well said it was. Now, returned to power with a strengthened mandate, we trust he means to do exactly so in his second term.

      “Harper clear” is that clear as in no deficit? clear as in balanced budget? clear as in no tax on income trusts? clear as in openness and transparency? clear as in stopping patronage appointments? or do you mean Harper clear as mud?

      And, actually, Harper has not made any clear promise on private member bills on abortion this election. Not that Harper promises mean much, but at least supporters like you would have something to point to if he did. I suspect that is exactly how Harper would begin limiting access to abortion, through private member bills that would dismantle access step-by-step.

      • Paul Raposo says:

        ^This.

        • nic coivert says:

          Warren is correct, and it’s not fear mongering, this is reality, and it’s only the tip of it, the distasteful Conservative edge. Conservatives had best remember Neville Chamberlain.

          • Rick T. says:

            Fear mongering of course it is.. Does anyone remember There will be soliers in the streets. Did it happen? Of course not.

          • Dude Love says:

            Rise up, people! Rise up!

          • Namesake says:

            Well, that infamous over-the-top ad didn’t run, so its relevance is not at all clear. I’ll bet the CPC jihadi have produced a bunch that even some of their party recognized were beyond the pale, so never saw the light of day, after some focus grouping. (FOI request, anyone?)

            But there were soldiers ABOVE the streets (on rooftops) with guns in Toronto last summer at the G20, BTW, thanks to Harper’s personal ambitions of showcasing himself as a great international leader — which was likely part of his plan to have a feathers in his hat trick of the Olympics, Queen’s Jubilee, and the G20 as a run up to a fall 2010 election to make people forget all about the proroguing last year, to call another early election try again for a majority — and overall, the Kent State imagery of the riot-gear clad state police clamping down on peaceful demonstrators is pretty much EXACTLY as was foretold in that aborted ad.

          • The Doctor says:

            “Conservatives had best remember Neville Chamberlain.”

            Godwin!

            Of course it was only a matter of time.

      • bc says:

        You have a strong point when we juxtapose his position on income trusts, but the rest of it is either a matter of opinion or external factors forcing his hand. Hardly a change of position.

        Despite what many on the left believe, there just isn’t enough in it for the Conservatives to push with an anti=abortion plan. Their base will vote for them regardless of the issue, and in general it would cost more (in political fortunes) than it is worth. Even in a majority scenario I can’t begin to fathom the Conservatives pushing for it. It’s suicide.

        And one added thing – there are a considerable number of Liberal MP’s that also do not support abortion rights, why do these people never get tarred with the same brush? All that ever gets mentioned is outspoken Conservative backbenchers and decade old quotes from the PM.

        I’m really annoyed that this “hidden social agenda” issue never seems to die out. It’s gutter politics…and most certainly a sign (along with the health care ad) that the Liberals lovey-dovey approach isn’t working and they are changing gears.

        • bc says:

          Further…

          “In an interview to mark his five-years as Prime Minister of a minority government, Prime Minister Stephen Harper once again dismissed the subject of abortion, saying he would refuse to address the issue even if the Conservatives won a majority.

          CBC’s Peter Mansbridge asked Harper a number of questions about what would be different if the Conservatives attained a majority government.

          Mansbridge asked, “Would you reopen the abortion issue?” Harper replied, “No, no, I’ve spent my political career trying to stay out of that issue.”

          Throughout his term, the Prime Minister has consistently voiced his resolve to keep any and all abortion discussion off limits. In September 2008, Harper told the press his government will not open and will not permit anyone to open a debate on abortion. Just over a month ago, he voted against Bill C-510 banning coerced abortion.”

          There you have it. No support for a private members bill and these social issues are not a part of his platform. And he is also right about trying to stay out of this issue. He may personally not like abortions, but he isn’t going to change the laws on it.

          Warren – I’ll bet you $1000.00 that Harper (if he wins a majority) does not pass any abortion laws.

          • Paul Raposo says:

            No support for a private members bill and these social issues are not a part of his platform.

            Your cut and paste notwithstanding, bc, Harper hasn’t said anything about private member’s bills.

          • In September 2008, Harper told the press his government will not open and will not permit anyone to open a debate on abortion.

            September 08? You mean… just as he was calling an election, breaking his own fixed election date in the process?

            Do you really think he would say anything but?

            The social conservatives who have stuck with him during two minority wins are going to demand, and receive, their pound of flesh if Harper gets a majority. You can count on it.

            If Harper doesn’t deliver, then you will see the rise of the CHP or, if they are smarter, a new party based on religious and social conservative values that can appeal to various cultures. All it takes is a smart leader to decide to make that leap and a few MP’s to “cross the floor” and such a party would split the CPC open.

            Regarding the gun registry, Harper sure is going to miss that baby. That issue alone is responsible for a lot of votes, but much more by way of party financing. Once it’s gone, what’s he going to use to scare and motivate the mostly rural crowd the issue appeals to?

          • James Curran says:

            87 Conservatives voted FOR C-510. That would be a majority in the caucus.

            http://howdtheyvote.ca/vote.php?id=966

            And Bruinooge is on record that he will never stop until abortion is illegal.

          • Gord Tulk says:

            fixed election dates are only completely fixed in majority situations. In minorities – where the oppo parties can trigger an election through non-con votes the ruling party can unilaterally declare an election. In ’08 it was the latter circumstance, this time around it is the former.

            In a majority the only way to trgiger an early elction would be through a non-con vote.

          • wilson says:

            ” James Curran says:
            April 17, 2011 at 10:17 am
            87 Conservatives voted FOR C-510. That would be a majority in the caucus. ”

            Huh?
            That leaves 221 MPs in the House voting AGAINST.

          • Namesake says:

            good ole’ Wilson: the perfect Con supporter — as bad at math as she is dumb on democracy:

            first, 87 “For” does not nec’ly mean 221 “Against,” considering that the Speaker only votes in the event of a tie, and considering there could be many absences or abstentions (or have you already forgotten the other meme for the week: Ignatieff as AWOL)

            second, “caucus” refers to the individual Party’s members, not the whole of Parliament, and, um, 87 / 143 IS a majority (over 60%).

          • Gord, please do not rewrite history. It is unseemly when Harper does it, it is unseemly when you do it.

            On Sunday September 7 2008 Harper visited the Governor General and asked her to dissolve Parliament, thus launching Election 2008. I don’t have to visit the Parliamentary website to confirm the date; that day is my birthday, making the event easy to remember.

            There was no vote of non-confidence in September 2008 – parliament had not even been recalled after the summer break. Basically Harper called the election after his summer holidays. I’ve made it clear elsewhere why he called the election, beyond simply figuring it was a good time to strike at Dion.

            Did he break his own law? Any reasonable person looking at the facts would say that yes he did. The fixed election date law, bill C-16, was one of the early bills introduced by the then brand new Harper government. C-16 had been passed by both House and Senate and received Royal Assent in the spring of 2007. The entire purpose of the bill, stated clearly by Harper himself, was to remove from the Prime Minister – any prime minister – the easy ability to call an election when politically the timing best suited the sitting government.

            Election 2008 was called when it was called precisely because world events, the domestic political scene, and timing best suited Harper.

            Harper did violate his own fixed election date law as a point of fact and in doing so committed the very offense he said the law was introduced to prevent. Harper violated other legislation passed in his, the 39th Parliament. He didn’t follow through on the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act, for example. One can almost forgive him for that – it was an opposition bill after all – but why would you choose to forgive him for violating his own election law?

            It is pointless to argue the point, history is very clear on this issue if you detach yourself from the spin of either side. I fully expect and await your “no, he didn’t” retort.

            It would be nice if thoughtful people, regardless of which party they support or where on the spectrum they sit, would put more value on the principles of democracy than continually focus on trying to play the game hard for their team. The two — democracy, and scoring — are not equivalent. Unfortunately for us all, political parties and particularly notably Team Harper have as an effect of their gamesmanship turned our democratic process into something of a farce. We are way beyond tragic comedy now.

          • Gord Tulk says:

            Michael – reread my post. The only time a ruling party can call an election before the mandatory date is in a minority parliament.

        • Paul Raposo says:

          Their base will vote for them regardless of the issue, and in general it would cost more (in political fortunes) than it is worth. Even in a majority scenario I can’t begin to fathom the Conservatives pushing for it. It’s suicide.

          If Harper gets a majority, do you really think he’s going worry about pissing off voters, when he has 4-5 years to do as he pleases?

          • Gord Tulk says:

            Yes, I do. Because it won’t be just voters he pisses off. It will be most of his caucus and his party’s membership.

            I think (and I have pointed this out before) that PMSHs hold on the party is very much weakened in a majority situation. MPs and ministers will not have to tread so closely in unison due to the threat of an instant election.

            In addition to that, I am very confident that PMSH wants the next four years of a majority (if that happens) to be the first of many consecutive terms for the CPC. The key to that lies in delivering on and only on the platform planks that were run upon in this election (force majuer incidents aside). And to present in four years’ time a revised platform that would carry the country even further forward. That platform and the party will have the substantial strength of the “integrity” label if the party has done what it said it would do – and little more.

            And it may very well have Stephen Harper as its leader in that campaign as well.

          • Paul Raposo says:

            Yes, I do. Because it won’t be just voters he pisses off. It will be most of his caucus and his party’s membership.

            I don’t see any Con voters pissed off about the deficit; the raises and bonuses for CPoC staff; the $50 million for Huntsville; the one billion for the G20 Summit.

            that siad, as james Curran pointed out above, 87 CPoC’s voted on favour of Bill C-510. Only two members of the CPoC voted for equal marriage. I really don’t see a history of the CPoC going against Harper’s wishes. And when they do, they go the way of Garth Turner.

            I think (and I have pointed this out before) that PMSHs hold on the party is very much weakened in a majority situation. MPs and ministers will not have to tread so closely in unison due to the threat of an instant election.

            You have no evidence of this, to back up your opinion. And I’m not willing to see Harper get a majority, just to see what happens.

            The key to that lies in delivering on and only on the platform planks that were run upon in this election (force majuer incidents aside). And to present in four years’ time a revised platform that would carry the country even further forward. That platform and the party will have the substantial strength of the “integrity” label if the party has done what it said it would do – and little more.

            Harper has been governing with impunity, as if he already has a majority. Do you really believe he will rein in his actions, and that of his caucus with a majority?

        • catherine says:

          You fall back on a tired excuse Harper uses – always blame someone else for Harper’s failings. It is one of his many unattractive traits, that he always has to find someone else to blame. Harper caused a structural deficit *independent* of the financial crisis due to increasing spending and cutting taxes. So, even when our economy recovers, there is a structural deficit he created which someone will have to deal with. No one forced him to do that. I think it is Harper and Flaherty not having a good handle on their numbers. Read Paul Wells who interviewed both Flaherty and Baird asking questions on the last budget of savings they claim they already found, and neither could provide any answers. These guys seem to wing a lot – putting stuff in their budget that is pure wishful thinking or spin, depending on your outlook.

          As to being annoyed at “hidden”, you just don’t get it, do you. The point Warren is making, which I agree with, is that it is not hidden. Our aid to Africa has already changed to prevent money going to groups which might provide counselling or access to abortions. Our aid to women’s groups in Canada has similarly been shifted. This is not hidden. It is just a bit subtle because it is a method of creep – making incremental changes, all going in one direction. That is not hidden.

          • Patrick Hamilton says:

            Swampland, Mr. Tulk, swampland, real cheap………

          • Gord Tulk says:

            We will see (hopefully – a majority isn’t a sure thing yet by any means) Patrick, we will see.

            And if none of warrens forecast comes true I trust you will be member in full-standing of the CPC.

          • Patrick Hamilton says:

            @Mr. Tulk…..Mr. Tulk, if what Mr. Kinsella and many others on here including myself, have said will happen does not come to pass, I am fully prepared to apologize to you and the Conservative Party as a whole on this forum, or some other.

            I suspect I will not have to make that apology, but I am quite prepared to do so if our prognostications prove incorrect.

    • Patrick Hamilton says:

      You just dont get it, do you?…..the Conservative Party of Canada is controlled lock, stock, and barrel by the Fundamentalist Christian right of this country….they are simply flying below the radar screen in order to achieve that majority(and then institute the things Mr. Kinsella has spelled out)
      If you want to see this country controlled by the likes of Con MP wannabe Wally Daudrich, he of “Obama is the most stupid President because of his abortion policy“ fame…….by all means, give Mr. Harper his majority. I dont.

      Why should I believe Mr. Harper?…..Hes been ever so honest on Senate reform, and if his contempt for the rules of Parliament are any indication, he will ram anti-abortion legislation through……and with a compliant and servile Senate, and a friendly GG, he will get his way….

      Preston Manning said `Reformers had to be as silent as snakes“…..and in slithering past the Canadian electorate, under Mr. Harper, they have been very successful.

      • The Doctor says:

        So if a Conservative majority government shows its true ugly colours as you describe, won’t that mean that we’re all (except for a tiny minroioty of us) surely repelled by it, and next election after this, we’ll uncerimoniously toss them out ?

        • Patrick Hamilton says:

          Perhaps, but in the meantime, the Cons will be able to legislate an end to gay marriage, and we might have back alley abortions and/or coathooks for the next four years….nothing would suprise me…..
          My belief is that Mr. Harper and many of his followers would like nothing better than to dispense with our parliamentary system, throw out our constitutional Monarchy, and change us to a US style republic…..with himself as President……

          • The Doctor says:

            I don’t like Harper either, but I think your post is total histrionic, scaremongering BS.

  3. Liz says:

    I wanted to put today’s column on my FB page. But when the link goes up and the headline says “What would a Stephen Harper majority government look like?” the only thumbnail is a picture of an attractive young woman in short shorts with long legs. I’m afraid my many male FB friends might just have a compelling reason to vote FOR Stephen Harper.

    I liked today’s column and while everything you say is something I already know, to see it laid out in succinct bullet points just makes it that much more scary. I truly hope on May 2 Canadians make the right choice and vote against a Conservative majority by voting Liberal.

  4. Dr.J says:

    I guess the scare tactics are starting early in this election, normally it is in the last week the Libs start that stuff…..the internal Liberal polling numbers must be real bad!!! However something is more important troubling Warren..NO CAPTION CONTEST TODAY!!!!! You are slipping sir!! You better “Rise Up”!!

  5. Patrick says:

    By the time Trudeau was finished with Canada, we didn’t recognize it either.

    And for the record, it was only a little over a decade ago the Liberals overwhelmingly reaffirmed marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others. Do you think with that fact in the Liberal history book, Harper could count on their support?

    When you look at history, you’ll find that liberals always claim conservatives possess some “hidden agenda” that will lead to the repeal the society as we know it. It never happens. The electorate is inured to this sort of wolf-crying and that’s why the Liberals have no traction.

    • Paul Raposo says:

      And for the record, it was only a little over a decade ago the Liberals overwhelmingly reaffirmed marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others.

      And for the record, it was the Liberal party who fought tooth and nail to grant equal marriage to all Canadians. All you can give Harper in regards to ssm, is his steadfastness in denying equality to all Canadians.

    • James says:

      The Liberals NEVER took a positive and strong stand in support of same-sex marriage; they simply deferred to the direction and will of the courts. And it had a lot of anti-gay rights/same-sex marriage crusaders like Liberal MP Tom Wappel.

      • Paul Raposo says:

        The Liberals NEVER took a positive and strong stand in support of same-sex marriage;

        From Lifesite News:

        As you are aware, on July 20, 2005, the Liberal government passed Bill C-38, the Civil Marriage Act, wrote Eizenga. By extending the right of civil marriage to same-sex couples our government affirmed Canada’s commitment to protecting minority rights and guaranteeing equality for all.

        Eizenga said the party’s stance and actions were based on the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, which he said is ‘ fundamental aspect of our national character.’The Civil Marriage Act,’he wrote, ‘is anchored in two fundamental Charter rights:’ the right to equality without discrimination; and the right to freedom of religion.

        And from CTV News in 2005:

        Inside the Liberal Party’s biennial policy convention, the 2,500 delegates overwhelmingly voted to endorse the government’s same-sex legislation.

        When one delegate yelled after the vote, “What’s next: pedophilia?” he was roundly booed by the crowd.

        The party had previously voted to uphold the traditional definition, but numerous delegates said times have changed.

        they simply deferred to the direction and will of the courts.

        And therein lies the rub–they didn’t have to. the courts have told the CPoC many things, and many directives have been ignored.

        And it had a lot of anti-gay rights/same-sex marriage crusaders like Liberal MP Tom Wappel.

        From the same CTV News article above:

        “No, I think they’re wrong about betrayal,” Volpe told reporters.

        Volpe says he kept his word by making sure religious groups wouldn’t be forced to perform gay marriages.

        “Here’s a member of Parliament who became a cabinet minister who was able to shape legislation to reflect their concerns, protect their interests,” Volpe says.

        The CPoC has been adamant in it’s opposition to equal marriage, James, even threatening to use the Notwithstanding clause to remove that equality. No other party has stated they would do that.

        • James says:

          The Liberals allowed a free vote on same-sex marriage – so much for standing on principle!! Some defender of gays and lesbians in the country!! Ha! It took Belinda Stronach crossing over to save the day.

          • Paul Raposo says:

            The Liberals allowed a free vote on same-sex marriage

            So did the CPoC. Why do you oppose free votes in the HOC?

            so much for standing on principle

            Democracy be damned, ‘eh, James?

          • James says:

            This whole notion that the Liberals are the staunch defenders of gay rights is a total delusion. I fully remember Ontario Liberal leader Lyn McLeod’s flip-flops on gay rights in the 1990s. Again, the federal Liberals betrayed the gay community by allowing a free-vote on same-sex marriage as a sop to the homophobes within the Liberal party. If this were a matter of clear principle, the Liberals would have enforced party discipline.

        • Patrick Hamilton says:

          Thank-you Mr. Raposo for spelling it out so clearly to those who will not see…..Im sure well wait a month of Sundays for James rejoinder……..

        • Gord Tulk says:

          and just a couple of years before they voted the other way…

          The LPC was as windblown on this issue as ony of them.

          • Paul Raposo says:

            and just a couple of years before they voted the other way…

            They supported a motion defining marriage as between a man and a woman. they never supported a law stating as much

            The LPC was as windblown on this issue as ony of them.

            And which party threatened to use the Notwithstanding clause, Gord?

          • James says:

            Again, I repeat, the courts took the lead on same-sex marriage, beginning with Chief Justice Roy McMurtry’s landmark ruling in Ontario in 2003. And McMurtry was a Conservative. How “ironic”!!!

            Again , I repeat, the Liberals were followers on the issue, never on the vanguard. There were simply too many homophobes within Liberal ranks.

  6. BigCityLib has an interesting reply to your column. How would a Harper majority deal with Quebec separatism if the PQ wins the next Quebec provincial election?

    http://bigcitylib.blogspot.com/2011/04/harper-majority-fractured-country.html

  7. Gord Tulk says:

    Ridiculous.

    If we predict what a party will do based on what it said or did in the past we would expect the liberal party to:

    Cut corporate taxes

    Balance the budget by:
    - Reducing provincial transfers – including healthcare transfers
    - Stealing from the EI fund

    And stealing form the federal government and give it to cronies in Quebec.

    • nic coivert says:

      Gord, don’t forget that Harper just legislated a raise in pay for Conservative staffers, and a 50% increase in severance pay, while at the same time promising cuts of 11 billion, but he won’t say from where. And don’t try and defend this Tory troughing by saying the Civil Service is due for a pay raise and the two are linked because historically they have not been linked. Conservative party staffers or any other party staffers have never been linked to the civil service until Harper’s recent legislation.

      This is another dangerous precedent leading towards the destruction of our democracy. Seems that Conservative supporters will accept a stripped down Americanized model of restricted democracy just for the sake of winning.

  8. Shirley in Edmonton says:

    I am a new poster. Last night for Ignatieff’s visit to Edmonton the main hall (capacity 450) was jammed and an overload hall of the same size was also standing room only – something that is unbelieveable in this province. The parking lot was full and people were parking almost a block away in snowdrifts. I don’t know what is happening here, it isn’t showing up in polls but ex-conservatives like myself are looking around and like what we see with the Liberals. The audience stood and cheered loudly throughout both Martin and Ignatieff’s speeches. Makes you kind of wonder????

    • Mike_02 says:

      Could it depend on who paid for the polls? I don’t know, just wondering.

    • Paul Raposo says:

      Unfortunately Shirley, we’re not hearing from real people like you in the media. Only faceless polls bought and paid for by each party.

      You’re story isn’t unusual, just rarely reported on. Like my neighbour who told one of Gary Goodyear’s drones, “Give me $50 million dollars, and you can put a sign on my lawn.” He’s voting Liberal this year.

    • catherine says:

      I’ve seen the same phenomena at the local level. Maybe the numbers aren’t large – I don’t know – but in 2008 it seemed that the Conservative supporters were not budging, whereas now some of them are.

    • W.B. says:

      Let’s ask Warren. Could Nanos and the other pollsters be screwing it up??

  9. James says:

    Good morning, Warren. I read your column in today’s Toronto Sunday Sun chowing down on my Egg McMuffins: you’ve effectively admitted that the Liberals won’t carry this election. So now the Liberals are moving onto Plan B: spooking Canadians over the prospect of a Conservative majority, and trotting out Chretien and Martin from the broom closet (which is a slap in the face to Iggy, quite frankly. Wasn’t he supposed to be the leader who would connect and resonate with Canadians??). Why isn’t Mulroney out their stumping for the Conservatives? Because they don’t need him.

    I thoroughly disagree with your propositons. The Conservatives will absolutely not reopen social conservative files like abortion and same-sex marriage. Harper is way too smart to touch this can of worms/Pandora’s Box, especially since he is succeeding in making the Conservatives supplant the Liberals as the country’s “natural governing party”. Harper has already firmly stated he won’t reopen these files. The Conservatives have a long-term view of their party’s future; they are not about to cut their nose to spite their face.

    The country has already had a long national debate and discussion about abortion, same-sex marriage and the death penalty; we have long since moved on from these matters.

    When Toronto had its mayoral race last fall, the left tried absolutely everything to spook voters from electing Rob Ford, and it failed miserably. Ford got elected with 47% popular support, and his personal approval rating is now over 70%!

    I maintained a few weeks ago on this blog that the Liberals’ REAL problem is that it is facing a serious existential crisis: the Conservatives are now perceived to be more of a pan-Canadian (i.e. “natural governing”) political party than the Liberals, and the centre/centre-left vote is divided between the Liberals and NDP.

    • scot says:

      Dreaming in technicolour. You righties are the minority by a wide margin in this country.

    • Namesake says:

      Sure, James, sure, whatever you say: the abortion issue is well and truly dead under the CPC…

      Because it’s not like they’ve got an explicitly-anti-abortion MP chairing a secretive parliamentary anti-abortion caucus,

      http://christian-wire.info/christian-press-release/christian-press-release-rod-bruinooge/

      who’s introduced a private members’ bill of his own partially on the topic, already (Bill C-510, a redundant measure to add coercing abortion to the Criminal Code)

      http://www2.macleans.ca/tag/rod-bruinooge/

      …or that they don’t also have a new CPC candidate, also from Manitoba (where, hmm, a certain Ms. Hoeppner who introduced another divisive, base-riling private member’s bill, on the long gun registry, also hails from),

      who’s just condemned President Obama for signing a landmark heath-care reform bill — aimed at extending coverage to millions of uninsured Americans — which encompasses funding abortions.

      http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/anti-abortion-tory-candidate-called-obama-worst-us-president-biggest-liar/article1988307/

      Nope, nothing to see, here.

      • James says:

        Namesake, your theme is always: Conservatives bad, Liberals good. Again, you are delusional. You have nothing to say about what’s really plaguing the Liberals.

    • pomo says:

      Mulroney isn’t out stumping for the Harper conservatives because they threw him under a bus not long ago. Plus, his interview in the TorStar wasn’t exactly positive about them. He’s only barely voting for them…”for now”. Unimpressed at best, in mourning for his old party is more likely the case…You’re right they don’t need him.

      Yes, I do think most of the country has moved on from the matters of abortion and same sex marriage. Because the majority of Canadians are largely OK with policy on these issues. We have the right to choose whom we marry, women have the right to choose the path they need to choose with regard to pregnancies. Nothing has been taken away from those who would not want to marry a partner of the same sex (and feel in a religious or spiritual way that it doesn’t represent marriage for them). Women continue to have the ability to choose the deal with an unplanned/ unwanted pregnancy in the way the fits with their own personal values, which includes saying no to abortion on ethical/ religious grounds.

      But that has nothing whatever to do with what I think Harper might do. Because he doesn’t care what the majority of Canadians want – he cares about what his ideology tells him, what the social conservatives who have “shut up long enough” might want in exchange for their silent support over the past few years and his own desire for power. He has demonstrated that evidence and rational thinking is not as salient for him as knee jerk emotional reactions in his stubborn determination to enact anti-crime legislation that the vast majority of sociologists, criminologists, psychologists, social workers, etc – people who make it their life’s work to understand crime and pursue effective crime reduction strategies – roundly view as crime-promoting and a threat to the long term reductions in violent crime that we have been seeing for the past number of years.

      If I thought that what Canada wanted mattered to him, in the way that I used to think that it mattered to the old PC’s – I would not be as worried.

      And I am curious about something else – what happens if you and all the other conservatives I read here on this blog are wrong? What if all these things we others are worried about come to pass? Are you going to be worried too, or will it make you happier? I see the argument shaping up here as “Will he or won’t he?” …not “is this OK or not”. I know it’s not OK for most of us on this site. But what about you conservatives? If this is what you want, all your “He won’t do that because it would be political suicide” stuff means even less that it does now. And if you really want for these things to come to pass, then you are likely feeling pretty disgusted with your party right now as you argue that they will never do these things that you want. That’s not the vibe I am hearing in these posts though.

      • James says:

        Again, more irrational fear of the Conservatives.

        • Philip says:

          Try actually answering his question in the last paragraph. Are you against these socially conservative policies because you believe they are wrong or because they may be “political suicide”?

          • pomo says:

            It’s “Her” actually. ;)
            And yeah. Answering my question would be great. I have asked it a few times now and all I hear are crickets.

      • Gord Tulk says:

        Re: your last paragraph – if so then you and a vey large majority of canadians will throw the CPC on its ear and reverse them.

      • Mulroney isn’t out stumping for the Harper conservatives because they threw him under a bus not long ago. Plus, his interview in the TorStar wasn’t exactly positive about them. He’s only barely voting for them…”for now”. Unimpressed at best, in mourning for his old party is more likely the case…You’re right they don’t need him

        I’d like to point out that Mr. Mulroney is Vice Chair of Quebecor, which owns among a great many communications and media properties Sun Media, which owns Sun News Network, that has as its titular head a Mulroney loyalist. You may remember Warren will be working for them as well.

        Conservatives don’t need Mulroney?

        You may be right.

        But Conservatives might just end up fearing him.

  10. W.B. says:

    More!
    Foreign Policy: militaristic, warlike, not peacekeeping, not UN oriented
    Justice: punitive, long mandatory sentences in federal not provincial jails
    Punishment: no coddling (prison farms) crowding (3 to cell)
    Repression: peaceful demonstrations violently put down (G20)
    Social: low tax, low service, more poverty, pensions and benefits reduced (privatization of CPP)
    Civil Service: watchdogs crushed and destroyed, (Linda Keen, Remy Beuregard? of Rights and Democracy and many more
    Culture: CBC dismantled, grants eliminated
    Education and Health care: Provincial matters
    Knowledge and information: cut role of Stats Canada (census), get rid of gun registry,
    Democracy: pack Senate, attack and put political pressure through comments in media, and rallies Governor general, NGO funding cuts (women)

    • W.B. says:

      The Conservatives through John Baird mainly did try to bring political pressure on GG, but obviously would not be necessary in a majority! But it illustrates the lengths they might be willing to go to change the way our democracy works and the power and role of the opposition and civil service in Ottawa.

    • nic coivert says:

      Old testament stuff really. Punishment and venality.

  11. jack says:

    For those thinking it won’t happen, just remember,

    “I will not tax income trusts” and

    “We will not run a deficit”
    Or

    “There is no recession”.

    In fact, expect him to say that he has never hid these things, they are all part of the public record.

    • Gord Tulk says:

      Force majuer on each of those. And the top two were reversals that the LPC voted for – the CPC couldn’t have done it by themselves.

      • jack says:

        Foe majeur is pure BS. At the time he said them he had to know a recession was already happening. The 100 billion deficit over 2 years was his choosing, not force majeur.

        Scrapping the Canada Health Act also is on the record numerous times. Since he is allowing private medical business now without enforcing the law, what does that tell you.

        And now we find that the 75 million per plane has no engines included (or the cost for aerial fuel tankers) .

        At some point you have to open your eyes.

        Harper cares about harper. If you think he cares what happens when he is voted out, think again.

  12. Paul Raposo says:

    Thank you, Warren for talking about equal marriage. Too many Liberals, liberals, progressives–and LGBTQ’s–think all is fine, and equal marriage cannot be undone. Nothing is further from the truth.

    With Harper’s stacked senate, and a majority, the anti-gay CPoC could rubber stamp any anti-gay legislation they desire. And I seriously doubt a weak willed “Nay” from John Baird would do anything to stop it.

    Every election has something personal for a voter to want to fight for. I’m fighting as hard as I can in this election because of gay marriage. If that makes me a one issue voter, then so be it. The Liberal party, the NDP, and even the Bloq gave all Canadians equal marriage. Only one party fought to take it away.

    • James says:

      Paul: see my comments further up. If you’re worried about same-sex marriage being repealed, you’re wasting energy.

      • Paul Raposo says:

        James, I read your comment above and it is baseless in it’s opinion. You have no evidence that Hrper et al would not move to solidify it’s scial conservative base, by tossing them some red meat.

        Harper has lied repeatedly in the past about what he would, or would not so–Jack’s comment being a shining example of his “mistruths”.

        With a stacked senate, a majority, and 4-5 years to govern with impunity, Harper could alter the political landscape, ot to make the CPoC the “natural governing party” but ratify the Constitution–which is Harper’s ultimate goal.

      • Gord Tulk says:

        Zero chance of that happening. The anti-gay label is a slur on the vast, vast majority of CPC members – even those who support a return to the old definition of marriage are not do so out of hate towards gays.

        • Paul Raposo says:

          The anti-gay label is a slur on the vast, vast majority of CPC members

          Nice attempt at deflection, Gord, but I’m talking about the CPoC, not it’s members, or voters.

          even those who support a return to the old definition of marriage are not do so out of hate towards gays.

          Yes, only a belief that gays are less than straights, and therefore not deserving of equality.

          • James says:

            Paul, again, keep on worrying and having nightmares at night. The Liberals betrayed the gay community by allowing a free vote on the issue. The courts drove this issue.

          • Gord Tulk says:

            “Yes, only a belief that gays are less than straights, and therefore not deserving of equality.”

            That was not the basis of their argument. Most believed that same-sex unions deserved equal treament under the law. They objected to legally using the term “marriage” – a term that since the dawn of humankind was used to descibe a union of a male and female exclusively – to describe them.

          • Paul Raposo says:

            The Liberals betrayed the gay community by allowing a free vote on the issue. The courts drove this issue.

            I get the impression, James, that if the Libs had whipped the vote, you’d be stating that a whipped vote was undemocratic, and the Libs forced their caucus to toe the party line.

            As far as betrayal of the LGBTQ community, Harper is the only leader who stated he would use the Notwithstanding clause to disenfranchise gay Canadians. But I guess if they were never friends in the first place, it’s not really a betrayal.

          • James says:

            That is not true. Harper has already stated he will not revisit same-sex marriage. Paul, a majority of Canadians now support same-sex marriage; the Conservatives are not about to squander their momentum of growth over same-sex marriage.

            I resent the whole notion that Liberals are the only staunch defenders of gay rights. I’ve mentioned elsewhere that Ontario Liberal leader Lyn McLeod betrayed the gay community in the 1990s. And if same-sex marriage were such a clear matter of principle for the Liberal Party, it would have enforced party discipline.

            The Liberals are now desperate: they’ve gained no traction or momentum so far in this campaign and are now becoming shrill and hysterical.

          • Paul Raposo says:

            Harper has already stated he will not revisit same-sex marriage.

            Harper said he wouldn’t tax income trusts; run a deficit; Harper has said many things, james.

            a majority of Canadians now support same-sex marriage; the Conservatives are not about to squander their momentum of growth over same-sex marriage.

            Since when has Harper care what the majority of Canadians think? The majority of Canadians didn’t vote for a right-wing government, but Harper still acts as if that did in fact happen.

            I resent the whole notion that Liberals are the only staunch defenders of gay rights.

            The great majority are. If you have an issue with your own party and it’s treatment of LGBTQ equality, then take it up with them.

            I’ve mentioned elsewhere that Ontario Liberal leader Lyn McLeod betrayed the gay community in the 1990s.

            And Trudeau defended the gay community in the sixties.

            And if same-sex marriage were such a clear matter of principle for the Liberal Party, it would have enforced party discipline.

            And you’d be claiming that a whipped vote was not a legitimate vote, like so many Cons did during the vote.

          • James says:

            Paul: here’s a history refresher. It was Ontario Chief Justice Roy McMurtry’s landmark ruling in 2003 that paved the way for legalization of same-sex marriage, and the courts took the lead from there. The Liberals WERE NEVER on the vanguard of same-sex marriage, they were simply followers. (And McMurtry was a Conservative, how “ironic”!!!).

            Again, if the Liberals were such passionate, principled defenders of gay rights and same-sex marriage, they wouldn’t have allowed a free vote on the matter.

          • Paul Raposo says:

            a term that since the dawn of humankind was used to descibe a union of a male and female exclusively

            I’m sorry, Gord, but that comment is so absurd, as to not even warrant a reply.

        • pomo says:

          The “separate-doesn’t-mean-unequal” thing was tried during the civil rights movement. It didn’t re-cast segregation as non-racist and neither will the separate-but-equal crap about marriage and civil unions re-cast this position as anything but anti-gay rights/ homophobic/ heterosexist. And let’s be clear – hate is not the only promoter/ sustainer of oppression. Ignorance and the limp, benign tolerance of inequality keeps it going nicely too.

          There are homophobes in every party, just like there are in our society. And I am sure there are plenty of conservatives who personally support equal marriage. But the CPoC is indeed the only party that fought equal marriage as a party.

  13. I think your column is way over the top, Warren. Harper has moved his party to the mushy middle – the area the Liberals used to inhabit before they got into the nasty business of eating themselves alive. Abortion and the death penalty have long been off the table and frankly, Canadians wouldn’t stand for it were he to open that nasty can of worms. If Harper has made anything clear, it’s that his entire focus is to destroy the Liberal Party of Canada and replace them with the Conservatives as the natural governing party. If he does anything, he’ll immediately move to eliminate vote subsidies to financially hobble the Liberals. But abortion and the death penalty? Not on your life.

    • Namesake says:

      they’re not “off the table” — they’re *Under* it — like so many of his shady henchmen’s dealings.

      • As opposed to the shady henchmen dealings of the sponsorship scandal or any of Mulroney’s under the table dealings. Politicians are shady by their very nature and most Canadians accept that. It doesn’t make it right, but here’s what I know: any party that forms a national government in Canada will have shady back room dealings and will have scandals just like the conservatives – beats the hell out of me why it happens, but I can’t think of a government in my lifetime (and I am 43) that didn’t have the whiff of scandal about it. It’s one of the reasons, as Warren suggests, governments defeat themselves.

        • James Curran says:

          NOne of them were elected by campaining on Accountability.

          • Ron says:

            no but they were elected on a basis of trust
            as all of them are

            Look bottom line – politicians lie
            Trudeau no wage and price controls
            we got wage and price controls
            Mulroney attacking Turner about patronage appointments
            then does the same
            Chretien on GST and Free Trade and patronage appointments
            lies on all three
            Harper
            no senate appointments and appoints more senators
            no to income trust – tax them anyway
            McGuinty-signs the taxpayers federation about no new taxes
            introduces the health care tax plus breaks approximately 72 of his 238 promises

            and we as a people get pissed off, take sides like we do here and life goes on

            did anyone ever think we would have Adscam?
            That the Liberals would NOT own Quebec?
            That the progressive conservatives be reduced to 2 seats and then gone

            On May 3rd the sun will rise regardless of the conservative majority
            at least that way the Liberals can go away for four years and get themselves together again

      • nic coivert says:

        Oh so creating a political vacuum is a good thing? Do you look good in Brown Shirt Sean, or do you just not care?

      • Gord Tulk says:

        So you really believe that with a four year term the CPC would enact all of the things that warrens doomsday column suggests – none of which are in the party platform?

        • Namesake says:

          Cutting the party voting subsidies wasn’t in the 2008 platform, either, but ‘poof’ — there it was, in technicolour, mere weeks later. And ‘shove a hockey stick into the spokes of the wheel that enables StatCan to gather data for everybody to track social policy issues more accurately’ wasn’t in their platform, either, and yet we are, with a more expensive dud of a voluntary survey to replace the invaluable long form census. And furtively overhauling our independent international development aid program to mirror the governing party’s domestic vote currying & foreign policy agendas was ^NOT in their platform, either. And, and….

          • Gord Tulk says:

            I will take that as a “yes”. Maybe in four years time we will be able to return to this sight and see who was correct.

        • smelter rat says:

          Without a doubt.

        • Philippe says:

          No doubt.

    • Ron says:

      agreed
      the real scare for the Liberals, NDP, Greens etc is the vote subsidy
      That scares those parties to death

      Plus Harper does want to be known as the person who succeeded in destroying the Liberals forever

      As for opening up abortion, gay marriage
      I said it yesterday and I think James mentions it above
      That would send the Conservatives to a political wasteland for decades

    • Philip says:

      Sean are you against these socially conservative policies because they are inherently wrong or because they are “political suicide”? If enough CPC members really felt that social conservative policies were wrong I wouldn’t feel as if the only impediment to Harper re-introducing these measures is a perceived political price. So far there has been no indication from the CPC membership that these policies are off any table.

  14. Bruce from Etobicoke says:

    Harper has been fishing for votes in the social conservative and evangelical ponds since he realized he could never reach a majority without their votes and help during elections. I have no idea what he promises them behind closed doors, I only know what he says in public. He promises tax cuts for couples where the little woman knows her place and stays home with the kids even though those couples are already ahead financially. He wants to promote religion overseas with public money. He promises to help out third world women as long as they don’t require abortion or contraception – the two most important solutions for maternal health.

    Let me get this straight. In the event the socons and evangelicals help Harper win his majority there are Conservatives here on the WK blog that believe Harper will turn around and tell them thanks, but everything you wanted and supported me for is off the table. This will ensure our role as the new natural ruling party of Canada. Thanks heaps, but you get screw all that you expected. But really, thanks for all the help and support.

    You want me to believe that? Really?

  15. Harry says:

    Dear Mr. Kinsella

    After reading your comments in The Sun this morning about the outcome of a possible Conservative majority, I thought it only fair to comment on some of your assertions. You mention abortion. Harper has not brought up the subject nor is it in the Conservative platform. No equal marriage. Again, Harper has not brought it up nor is it in the Conservative platform. Death penalty. Once again, Harper hasn’t brought it up nor is it in the Conservative platform. But, this sounds like a fun game so let me join in.

    If we have a Liberal government in power, here’s what we should expect.

    Ignatieff is for assassinations. He said so on the Charlie Rose show. His exact words were “we might even have to engage in certain forms of targeted assassinations.” Here is the link to that interview.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ibds01tEO3A

    Ignatieff is pro torture. He said so. He said “I’m in favor of coercive interrogations”.

    Ignatieff will change the Canadian flag. His exact words were the Canadian flag “is a passing imitation of a beer label”.

    The Red River in Manitoba will be rerouted to go through Brandon. (a reference to Ignatieff’s disgusting exploitation of 2 drowning victims in Manitoba)

    Ignatieff will change the name of every Canadian Park to Algonquin Park. He said the only thing I miss about Canada is Algonquin Park.

    In closing let me copy a line from your article. For good or bad, by the time Ignatieff is done with it . . . you won’t recognize Canada.

    • scot says:

      Do you actually believe anything Harper says? You are either 12 years old or in your dotage.

    • Paul Raposo says:

      Where has Iggy stated he would use the Notwithstanding clause to eliminate equal marriage? Where has Iggy stated that Canada is a second tier social welfare state? Where has Iggy mused on a “firewall” around Alberta? Where has Iggy mused amalgamating Canada with America?

    • nic coivert says:

      You Sir have earned the pay raise Harper wants to hand out to his staffers while cutting 11 billion in government spending elsewhere. Don’t spend it all at once though, you too could get thrown under a bus someday. And in Harper’s Canada you’ll have to pay for your Hospital bills, well, unless you’re wealthy enough to afford insurance.

      Conservatives ought to be careful what they wish for, they just may get it.

    • Harry says:

      Scot – Blindly follow everything Liberals say. And if I was 12, I would be voting Liberal because my brain wouldn’t be developed enough.

      Paul – Thank you for confirming everything Iggy said.

      Nic – Lets hope Iggy doesn’t ask Paul Martin for help if he forms government. I don’t think the provinces can take a 25% reduction in transfer payments. And as far as private health care, ask yourself this question. You screw up your knee and you wait 2 – 3 months to have an MRI. A Toronto Maple Leaf screws up his knee and he has an MRI the next day. Is this not private health care???

      • Paul Raposo says:

        Thankfully, Harry, you live in Canada, where there are government programs to cover the meds you so clearly need. So please–get on them.

    • Namesake says:

      Harry: yeah, so whichever staffer wrote the sympathy note on Ignatieff’s behalf got these two stories & the geography mixed up:

      “Flood Watch 2011: Family mourns man who drowned,” Postmedia, April 11, http://urlm.in/hnty

      “State of emergency declared in Brandon, multiple communities,” April 13, CTV: http://urlm.in/hntw

      and, yes, it’s the Assiniboine River which floods in Brandon, not the Red; oops, which led a lazy-ass Wpg. Free Press reporter to issue the big “scoop” about that gaffe

      http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/breakingnews/Iggys-flood-condolences-hit-wrong-target-119799989.html

      Whatever. But it’s not “disgusting exploitation” to acknowledge that there are other problems people are contending with in the course of an election campaign. And has Harper done the same, or is he too busy feeling sorry for himself about this tiresome exercise in democracy?

  16. MontrealElite says:

    If the NDP’rs and the “progressives” left in the CPC vote LPC, we will be rid of Harper FOREVER.

  17. Rick T. says:

    Keep dreaming Shirley, it ain’t going to happen.

  18. MontrealElite says:

    Canada’s F-35s: Engines not included

    http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Canada+Engines+included/4629251/story.html

    Another day, another FAIL for Steve-O

  19. Lloyd says:

    Nonsense; nothing but desperation fear-mongering from the rrapidly falling Liberals. The Conservative government will not touch abortion, gay marriage, our basic social, education and health systems – except to IMPROVE them immensely. What a Harper government will NOT do, unlike the Liberals, is put us on a bogus, fraudulent cap and trade system, which has PROVEN in Europe to be rife with fraud, incrase electricity costs substantially, and NOT reduce GHG emissions one iota.

    • Bruce from Etobicoke says:

      You sound like you are completely unaware that cap and trade was the market driven solution that successfully allowed companies to eliminate 80% of their SO2 emissions at their chosen pace and path at a cost estimated to be 50% of what it would have cost via different government regulation.

      Remember SO2? That pollutant that caused Acid Rain? The problem we don’t really have anymore? How ’bout that cap and trade?

      The Europeans will get it right the way Americans eventually did with acid rain. Meanwhile here at home the Cons will send out open minded people like John Baird to deny there is a problem and that we lead the world in making it worse. And Canada will do nothing under the Cons to solve a serious problem – like the last 5 years.

      You can look it up on Wikipedia if you want…..

      • Paul B says:

        In regards to your claim about cap and trade and acid rain:

        “Overall, the Program’s cap and trade program has been successful in achieving its goals. Since the 1990s, SO2 emissions have dropped 40%, and according to the Pacific Research Institute, acid rain levels have dropped 65% since 1976.[17][18] However, this was significantly less successful than conventional regulation in the European Union, which saw a decrease of over 70% in SO2 emissions during the same time period.[19]

        Conventional regulation proved more effective in reducing emmissions.

      • Paul B says:

        You also never mentioned that acid rain was mainly the result of human activity, whereas ghg emissions result mostly from natural sources, with humans accounting for 6%.

        “The principal cause of acid rain is sulfur and nitrogen compounds from human sources, such as electricity generation, factories, and motor vehicles. Coal power plants are one of the most polluting. The gases can be carried hundreds of kilometers in the atmosphere before they are converted to acids and deposited. In the past, factories had short funnels to let out smoke but this caused many problems locally; thus, factories now have taller smoke funnels. However, dispersal from these taller stacks causes pollutants to be carried farther, causing widespread ecological damage. Also, livestock production plays a major role. It is responsible for almost two-thirds of all sources of ammonia produced through human activities, which contributes significantly to acid rain.[23]“

    • Namesake says:

      Well, Lloyd, you’re right, they probably will ^NOT actually do anything but continue to turn a blind eye to the environment,

      but you’re ^NOT right if you think we can believe what they say on that or most any other file, which is all too often just based on political expediency and which they’ll deny ever saying as soon as the winds change direction, banking on their ill-informed and/or blindly partisan base to just ignore any discrepancies:

      “John Baird rewrites history”
      By kate_heartfield Fri, Apr 15 2011
      Ottawa Citizen Editorial Board

      …I asked him: “Just to make sure — I think my memory might be faulty, but didn’t your party use to support cap and trade?”

      Baird: “No.”

      Me: “No?”

      Baird: “We didn’t support a hard cap. It was large final emitters, when I was, in the last election it was large final emitters but there was no hard cap. The strength of regulations would see absolute reductions but there was no hard cap.”

      Well, in the 2008 speech from the throne, the government said this: “We will work with the provincial governments and our partners to develop and implement a North America-wide cap and trade system for greenhouse gases and an effective international protocol for the post-2012 period.”

      And in a 2009 speech, environment minister Jim Prentice said, “Those who desire deeper and faster greenhouse gas emission reductions, at any and all cost, criticized our target and our decision to commence our regulatory regime with an intensity-based performance standard, rather than a so-called hard cap and trade regime. I emphasize commence because it has been our stated intent, from the outset, to eventually move to a hard cap and trade regime as we gained more experience, and in light of international developments. And so it has always been our intention to evolve from intensity-based targets to a cap and trade system and this is stated in the 2007 policy itself.”

      Prentice went on to say, “Now whichever way forward is selected, it is our view that a key objective should be a common cap and trade system that would allay competitiveness concerns in both countries.” And “This is where we think a bilateral agreement should begin, with shared targets and shared timetables, a common carbon market and a price and standards and mandates that are based on science and upon common sense.”

      http://communities.canada.com/ottawacitizen/blogs/edboard/archive/2011/04/15/john-baird-rewrites-history.aspx

  20. student501 says:

    A lot of swing ridings this time around. A lot can still happen from now to May 2nd

  21. Lloyd says:

    No government, not a Conservative, Liberal or (gawd help us all) NDP government would touch abortion, gay marriage, capital punishment, or our health care system. this is because there would be riots in the streets, if ANY of them tried – and NONE of them intend to. This fear-mongering is just the last gasps of desperation, from a Liberal party which actually fears they will be unseated as the official opposition, by the NDP. This week Iggy will be offerring to shine Jack Layton’s shoes, in hope of getting a cabinet post in Jack’s coalition with the BQ and the Libs.

    • Paul Raposo says:

      this is because there would be riots in the streets

      We’ve already had riots in the streets, Lloyd, and it cost tax payer’s One Billion Dollars. The Cons simply shrugged it off. Do you really believe they would care if it happened again?

      • Curt says:

        The riots in the streets were caused by the radical lefty protesters and anarchists. They were not caused by law biding citizens.

        • W.B. says:

          You’re wrong there. A lot of ordinary folk got beaten up, and jailed, and names recorded and put in data bases for future use. He did it once he’ll do it again; likely on Parliament hill. We could be in for a horrible four years of repression and violence.

        • Philip says:

          And that is exactly how any Canadian citizen will be labelled if they go out on the street to protest the re-introduction of the death penalty, repeal gay marriage or make abortion illegal under a Harper majority.

      • Ron says:

        Hey paul
        I remember Jean Chretien shrugging off the one billion dollars his government lost in the HRDC scandal
        and everyone’s favorite ball to kick around Adscam

  22. dave says:

    Through the first 1/3rd of the last century the Western grain trade was inthe hands of private corporations, particularly railroad companies. The Canadian Wheat Board was put together to rovide prairie farmers with a bit of relief from being under the thumb of the railroads.
    In the 1980′s, the corporate boardroom (mostly foreign corporate boardrooms) began to push getting USA agribiz companies into a better market share in Canadian grain production and trade. In the past decade, the leadership group of the Conservative Party has been keen on advancing this privatization. It is sold as giving the individual farmer the right to market his own grain for the best price he can find on the world market.
    Once the Wheat Board’s role in Canadian agriculture is diminished, the USA agri businesses will find easy pickings. Most of the Canadian grain trade will be done out of Chicago.

    A Conservative Government will diminish the Canadian Wheat Board.

    The ‘Individual freedom’ sales job works in other areas of our economy: reduce the role of government, and individuals are free to do more, – only, the individuals who take over are the individual corporate citizens.

    I once heard the comment of what ‘free enterprise’ is: – “Every man for himself!” sang the elephant dancing among the chickens.

    • James Curran says:

      “A Conservative Government will diminish the Canadian Wheat Board.”

      Wrong. A Majority Conservative will ELIMINATE the Wheat Board

    • Gord Tulk says:

      You completely overlook the key issue with the western canadian portion of Wheat board’s current mandate: it’s Monopsony – it is legally the sole buyer of board grains in the prairie provinces.

      And it was given that monosony not to improve prices for the growers but to restrict them.

      From wiki:

      ‘Membership was made compulsory for Western Canadian farmers in 1943 via the War Measures Act, now which the purpose of aiding the war effort.”

      A CPC government will return the CWB to its original not monopsonic sttus for all producers regardless of where they grow they grain.

  23. Nastyboy says:

    Yesterday I said the LPC, and their media friends would bring out the fear-mongering in the last couple of weeks. I’m sure the Alberta bashing for quick easy votes in Ontario and Quebec will follow. Predictable as the seasons.

  24. George says:

    OMG – another Howie Dean moment for the Iggster.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZOH1wmTlg2U

  25. C.W. says:

    You forgot Harper’s plan to scrap the Canada Health Act: “It’s past time the feds scrapped the Canada Health Act”.

    • Paul B says:

      Harper’s actual stance on health care, taken from the same Hansard record Liberals quote in the attack ad:

      ““… The key is that necessary health care must be available to every Canadian regardless of ability to pay. …

      … the federal government must work with the provinces …

      … the Liberals opposed provincial efforts to broaden health care delivery within publicly paid health systems by not just fighting plans for private facilities in various provinces but by demonizing the provinces pursuing these reforms. This was wrong. …

      A government monopoly is not the only way to deliver health care to Canadians. Monopolies in the public sector are just as objectionable as monopolies in the private sector. It should not matter who delivers health care, whether it is private, for profit, not for profit or public institutions, as long as Canadians have access to it regardless of their financial means.

      We must become innovative in how we deliver care while holding fast to the principle of universal care regardless of ability to pay. …”

      Paul Martin uses a private, for profit doctor in Quebec. The same Paul Martin now on the Liberal campaign trail. Ontario signed a $30 billion priate-public partnership deal in 2005 under the McGuinty government.

      So are you then against this?

  26. bruce the painter says:

    Look I am NOT giving up the ship yet. Iggy still has two weeks and I believe Layton will fade. Voter turn out will be way up this time. Look at the youth vote movement alone. Many Liberals took a shower during the last election – maybe the green shift wasn’t inspiring enough. If Iggy can continue with a solid campaign, and voter participation is up, then we will do well. Its like the Toronto election, everybody loves Rob. But wait until he has to start making service cuts and the Sun has to write atleast one negative syllable about him – the party will be over. In the same vein, Harper has been spending like a drunken sailor – the biggest fallacy is that Conservatives claim the “Best Custodian of the Economy” title. Wait until they HAVE to cut health care. Not everybody is as cheap a date as Alberta is and we won’t abide by this. Don’t worry.

    • Ron says:

      Iggy took a big hit from Jack on the attendance record in the debate and now in the ads
      It caught the Liberals totally off guard
      People like Jack better and I think you’re going to see a big push in the next two weeks from the NDP
      As much as the conservatives want a majority
      Jack wants to be the official leader of the opposition

    • Nastyboy says:

      “Youth Movement”? Please. It’s the same thing every election. Young people don’t vote. They just talk about voting. And when they do vote they vote NDP.

      • bruce the painter says:

        I’ll note that you just contradicted yourself within the same sentence. I don’t remember seeing youth rallies before in previous elections, unless you can enlighten me.

        • Nastyboy says:

          I’ll clarify. MOST youth don’t vote. Only 38% of the under 25 crowd voted in 08. I’m dubious about the effectiveness of these flash mobs to get out new voters. I hazard to guess that most of these kids are already part of the 38% that are already politically engaged. It makes good headlines but I don’t see it making any difference come May 2. I guess we’ll see.

  27. James Curran says:

    And explain why the Conservatives were commissioning polls on the death penalty.

    “OTTAWA–The Conservative government found that just one in five Canadians supported the death penalty as a criminal deterrent in a survey it commissioned this summer in support of its justice policies.”

    http://www.thestar.com/News/article/273531

  28. Gayle says:

    WHo cares if Harper tries to bring back the death penalty? The SCC has already said it is unconstitutional.

    He can try. But he will fail.

    • James Curran says:

      I care! Warren cares. 80% of Canadians care.

      Um. You can’t fail with a majority in the House and in the Senate Galye. That’s reality.

      • Ron says:

        but you can lose the election in four years down the road

      • Gayle says:

        Yes you can, unless he plans on amending the constitution. And I really don’t think he plans on doing that.

        This is a non-starter.

        • James Curran says:

          Fine. Go vote for Harper Gayle. Good luck with that.

          • Gayle says:

            James, I will never vote for Harper. I am voting for Linda Duncan in Edmonton Strathcona.

            I am just saying any talk of capital punishment from any political party should be based on facts, and the facts are that the SCC has already said capital punishment is unconstitutional.

            Do I think that will stop Harper from trying to bring it back? Considering his dangerous offender legislation is almost certainly unconstitutional – I doubt it.

          • Namesake says:

            But the ‘lock up the boat-arriving refugees for a year’ is ALSO most likely unconstitutional, but that hasn’t stopped Harper from trying to ram that through and excoriating the Libs for resisting it. And don’t forget, Harper’s long term plan is to replace the Supreme Court Justices with more con-pliant appointees who’ll rule his way.

      • The Doctor says:

        Look James, I oppose capital punishment. But 80% of Canadians? Give me a friggin’ break. As much as I oppose it, even I can see that it’s quite popular. The polls I’ve seen on the issue have the population much more evenly divided on the issue.

  29. One concern I have with a potential Harper majority is that there could be social unrest if Harper imposes his will against a large segment of the Canadian population. For example, Harper could have his MPs vote in favour of an anti-abortion bill. Knowing how Harper operate, he would likely bring in anti-abortion bills in stages as he needs to keep some small carrots in front of his evangelical supporters. He might impose a 2/3 trimester limit at first. That may not mean much as most doctors will not perform an abortion after 2/3′s of a pregnancy. Harper would also likely not impose a penalty on a woman. Instead, it would be imposed on a doctor, nurses, and other health providers. If this step were implemented, then he could promise a 1/3 trimester limit after the following election. By using an incremental strategy, Harper could hope that only feminists would get angry. If he uses an onslaught strategy against abortion, he would likely face the wrath of many Canadians, who may not just take to the streets for one day to protest against Harper’s law against abortion, but may take to the streets for weeks to demand a better democracy. How would the authorities react if Canadians decided to take to the streets for days or weeks? Remember, the police used arbitrary powers against Canadian citizens during the G20 weekend in Toronto. Would they accommodate protesters for democracy, or would they kettle and arrest Canadians for sitting at the intersection of Yonge and Dundas, or King and Bay in Toronto? What would happen if they chose to arrest peaceful protesters? Would the next wave of protesters become violent?

  30. Granny says:

    Would anyone be interested in a quote from the real source of Stephen Harper’s inspiration ?
    1st century churchman, Clement of Alexandria:
    “…For even if they should say something true, one who loves the ‘Truth’ should not, even so, agree with them. For not all true things are the ‘Truth’; nor should that truth which seems true according to human opinion be preferred to the true ‘Truth’–that according to the faith….For not all true things are to be said to all men.”

  31. allegra fortissima says:

    A Joy shared is a Joy doubled – Go Ms. Taylor, Go

    http://youtu.be/BxvrEES5P7Q

  32. HarryB says:

    You people remind me of those 2012/any other Apocalypse wackjobs. You spend years braying and warning that the world will end and when that date arrives…nothing happens. What will you say when theres a Harper majority and NOTHING that you say will happen happens?

    • Namesake says:

      “Scary coalition, just waiting to pounce to subvert the will of the people… sea of troubles lapping at our shore… only his steady hand preventing our oasis of security from being swept up in the fragile economic recovery…. Sufferin’ succotash separatists and socialists… who wanna unleash the rapists & child molesters and make victims of you all…

      Harper & Flaherty et. al’s whole non-stop campaign for the past two plus plus years has been fear mongering, from beginning to end.

    • Patrick Hamilton says:

      My time in the merged Conservative Party was proof enough for me HarryB, that what we say will happen, will happen…..I rue the day I had anything to do with you Reformers…….
      Whether it is denying financial support for womens organizations, the lessening of food inspection standards, the denying of funding to ecumenical church groups such as Kairos because they are deemed, unfairly, that they are anti-Israel, (nor having a fundamentalist church in the mix) or having to be dragged kicking and screaming for any action to be taken on the environment, you Reformers have proven to me that given a majority, you will stop at nothing to makeover Canada in your own fundamentalist Christian image….I will have no part of it, thank-you……

  33. Cam says:

    Good Day All:

    There is not going to be a Conservative Majority. Give this puppy a little more time and all the Conservative nonsense is going to catch up with them. People are not stupid; some may be blind, but not stupid. Tick, tock, tick, tock …

  34. Joey Rapaport says:

    I hear the Sky will also fall !!!

    • Nastyboy says:

      Human sacrifice, dogs and cats living together….MASS HYSTERIA!!!!

    • nic coivert says:

      If the sky did fall Harper would deny it until he was blue in the face. He is a betrayer at heart, just ask Preston Manning.

      • Patrick Hamilton says:

        No sympathy for Mr. Manning, he, along with Tom Flanagan, created this monster…….

        • pomo says:

          Hey Patrick – you seem like a sensible person with some inside knowledge I don’t have…who within the conservative party might take a run at the leadership that might appeal to someone like you? Who could bring you back?

    • I just noticed that Harper looks like Barney Rubble and John Baird looks like Fred Flintstone. Fred Flintstone is a loudmouth; so is Baird. Harper is no Barney Rubble.

  35. George says:

    Is Stephen Harper, former leader of the Reform Party of the National Citizens’ Coalition, going to run his majority government in a practical instead of idelogical fashion when he has leaned towards the ideological his whole career? I sure hope so but I wouldn’t bet on it. The changes may not be as extreme as some as predicting but it is likely he will try to ideologically remake the nation at a time when there are real challenges to be addressed in a practical manner. Abortion is safe but watch out healthcare and all other government services as well as responsible business regulations.

  36. I was surprised to read this in The Sun of all places.

    Good stuff.

  37. dave says:

    To the extent that any r&d and clean up is happening in the oil patch, the incentives and payments are coming from the public purse. This will continue. The corporations will make profits, the public purse will pay for clean up.
    I am not sure the Libs would do it much differently, tho.

    Draining more and more of our common wealth into private profit will continue, and accelerate with a Conserv majority.

    • Gord Tulk says:

      The oilsands operators have to post huge bonds to pay for post development clean-up.

      Something a lot of lay people aren’t aware of is that the vast majority is the oilsands will be extracted using in situ methods. This is what they look like:

      http://www.petrobank.com/heavy-oil/the-thai-process/

      Initial impact and reclamation will far less than open pit practices.

  38. George Webb says:

    Hey Warren
    Checked the unmonitored comments section on the Sun website today for the first time. The knuckle dragger’s venom was toxic, hard to believe that there is that level of malicious ignorance in Canada

  39. ski says:

    It wasn’t the Liberals who legalized same sex marriage or abortion. It was the Supreme Court of Canada. It was in fact Liberal Government lawyers that went to court to fight same sex marriage and uphold arcane abortion laws. it wasn’t even the Liberals who abolished the death penalty. It was a free vote. The Liberals did nothing but fight same sex marriages and Morgentaler for decades, so spare me Warren. Same sex couples fought for marriage rights in the court. Morgentaler and Chantale Daigle won abortion rights, not the Liberal Party or the Liberal Government.

    • Namesake says:

      except as I recall the LPC also created & funded the Court Challenges Program precisely for these sorts of issues: to ensure that people who’s rights were being denied could pursue those rights, even if they weren’t supported by the majority of the population OR the members of ruling gov’t of the day.

      Which is why that was one of the very first things Harper abolished when he got into power.

  40. Al in Cranbrook says:

    FWIW here, I’ll give you the flip side…

    A Conservative minority immediately gets defeated, and I’m convinced it most certainly will, all hell is going to break out across Canada…but especially in the west that will be shut out by virtue of a mere handful of Lib and Dipper MPs…and a very wee few Liberals it will be. The potential for a rift like never seen before between east and west in such a scenario is real, and lingers waiting just under the surface to see what’s going to happen next.

    For everyone to consider, and do so soberly…which would play directly into the hands of the separatist Bloc.

    Think about it. I’d bet dollars to doughnuts they certainly are.

    • nic coivert says:

      Sounds more like a threat than anything. Is Harper threatening to rip the country apart now if he doesn’t get his way?

      Harper is a true megalomaniac. He mistakes his own psyche for that of the country.

      Alarm bells.

      • Al in Cranbrook says:

        What the hell has that got to do with Harper??? He’s not threatening anything of the kind!

        I’m telling you how Canadians will react, but especially western Canadians, and you can bet the farm on it!

        Remember what happened in 2008 when this coalition tried to highjack the election results?

        That’ll look like a picnic by comparison, especially considering how Ignatieff seemed…meaning, “seemed”…to deny that possibility.

        • scot says:

          Piss off Al and take your threats with you.

        • scot says:

          Or tell Westerners what Harper tells Quebecers, vote Liberal so you have some representation.

          • nic coivert says:

            And Al in Cranbrook knows how Canadians will react does he? What exactly gives him these omniscient powers nobody knows, so just listen to him or else!

            Man, it gets pretty tiring having Conservatives telling me how Canadians will react and what Canadians want, especially when I am a Canadian and none of those things apply.

          • Right on nic.

            I *am* a westerner and I get pretty pissed off when other Westerners – and it’s only the western Conservatives who pull this shit – try to tell me how I feel too.

            Guess what fellow westerners… we are not all the same. Get over it.

  41. bell says:

    Looks like it is now Harper’s turn to call Iggy’s fear mongering on health care and abortion and raise him with the “separatists are comming, the separatists are comming”.

    I don’t think any Canadian likes the idea of a separatist quebec government pushing a referendum with minority federal government with the block holding a significant amount of seats. The Liberals are not positioned with Iggy running things to cary the strong nationalist banner. If Harper hires the same production company who put the health care ad together for the liberals he might have a pretty powerfull message.

    • nic coivert says:

      You’ve got it bass ackwards, sorry. It is Iggy can hold Canada together, he’s a uniter; Harper is a divider.

  42. Austin So says:

    The problem is that there are so many different fronts to attack Harper. And the one unfortunately that is seeing the least light of day is his dumbass economic management.

    The House voted non-confidence because Harper was not forthcoming on detailing government expenditures. And they are hiding their numbers because they believe they are not accountable and are free to spend our hard-earned tax money on absolute garbage. Not things designed to “hold the country together” (as could be argued with “adscam”).

    No…we are talking about absolutely dumb stuff like gazebos in the Muskokas. Like propaganda, media buys, and polls to wazoo.

    And finally, advanced fighter jets. WITHOUT FREAKIN’ ENGINES!

    http://www.montrealgazette.com/news/Canada+Engines+included/4629251/story.html

      • Namesake says:

        I know you’re just trying to be cute, Dave, but that latest denial / clarification by the Dept of Defense hardly sets matters straight.

        If MacKay & Laurie Hawn had just been straight with people — for once — there wouldn’t still be this confusion.

        The $75M per plane (and thus nearly $5B for all 65) they’ve been quoting all along from the manufacturer — to show how cheap they were, practically comparable to the CF-18s in inflation adjusted dollars blah blah — has always JUST been for the bare bones (to use a computer kit term) plane: WITHOUT the engine, the avionics, the munitions, the pilot training, the modifications to the hangars & fueling systems, etc.

        And when all that other stuff is included to make the damn things actually fly-able, it comes out to: $9B (they hope) for the total initial procurement. (But not the ongoing operating & maintenance costs, which is another $7B or $13B for the first 20 years, depending on who you believe.)

        Or $138.5-M per plane — a figure they have not dared utter, even once. And the Parliamentary Budget Officer’s report was actually quite close on that: $9.7 B. (= $149.2 each).

        Except that those were both based on some hopeful estimates of the eventual average costs over the entire 20 or so year lifetime production of these things (assuming they ever DO get all the bugs worked out & INTO production). And it turns out that if we buy them at the very beginning of their mass production like these lunkheads want to, they’ll probably cost more like $155M each… or over $10B.

        But all that quibbling over that one extra billion for the purchase price actually pales beside the fact that the Cons are pretending the remaining costs will only be $7-B — over, um, 20 years, even tho’ they’re selling us on the need to buy the most sophisticated ones we can NOW because we won’t be replacing them for 30 years — vs. the nearly $20-B the PBO has told us they will cost to keep up, over that 30 years. Which is about twice as much per year for only half as many planes as the ones we’re replacing.

        More con economics, just like with the census: pay 50% more to get 50% less value.

  43. Tiger says:

    The Tories wouldn’t touch abortion — policy convention caucuses, which are grassroots members, voted against having even the mildest pro-life (last trimester) plank.

    Ditto for gay marriage — that’s a closed issue.

    I’d like to see the death penalty return, but I think it won’t. Too volatile an issue.

    Loosening gun control laws — that might happen. Insofar as getting rid of the gun registry would happen, I suppose it would.

  44. Steve T says:

    “Soldiers. With Guns. In Our Streets. We Are Not Making This Up”

    Except they were making it up, with typical fearmongering. Get ready for a redux of this baloney.

  45. JH says:

    Regarding the West separating comments; I have long thought if push came to shove, Western Separatists could win a referendum a lot easier than those in Quebec.
    Unlike in Quebec where the sentiment is more in the sparsley populated boonies, in the West it’s also stong in the major urban centers. Ask anybody who has travelled out there recently, it’s quite something.

    • Roger says:

      If there is an accord, coalition, call it what you like, this will happen….

    • Mike_02 says:

      When will Alberta acknowledge their belonging to a Canada the rest of us share. When will Alberta give thanks to the rest of Canada for their good fortune? When will Alberta share their advantages unselfishly with their neighbors? When will Albertans stop thinking of themselves as a big deal when they are small change in this bigger world? When will Albertans realize their bluster is simply an insignificant boast to everyone else? When will Albertans realize that nobody else will give a shit what they think when the oil runs out.

      Notice to all the pro-Alberta Conservatives out there — what goes around comes around. If I am alive when you plead for help some day, my answer will be — where were you when your God handed out the humility genes? AWOL I guess.

      You are all so pathetic.

      • The Doctor says:

        “When will Alberta share their advantages unselfishly with their neighbors?”

        Ummm, have you heard of these things called federal equalization payments? Just wondering . . .

      • Gord Tulk says:

        Equalization and EI transfers amount to around 4000$ per cap every year out of AB. That’s 16000 per family of four every year now since circa 1998 – tax free. The Quebec govt gets about 8.5 billion a year more in equalization that it should because it practically gives away hydro power to quebecers. And it massively subsidizes it’s daycare and post secondary education with the money. Albertans are justifiably unhappy with the arrangement.

        The oil reserves are at least 250 years worth and if new extraction techniques prove out it will be closer to a thousand years worth. The oilsands are easily the most important strategic resource asset in north America. Without the trade surplus that the three westernmost provinces create the rest of the country would have a per scap trade deficit worse than the US has ever had. Like it or not the Canadian dollar is essentially a petrodollar.

        A fairer equalization program and a little more respect for the vital current and future role the three westernmost provinces play in this countries economy politics and culture would go a long way.

      • Nastyboy says:

        And the Libs wonder why they can’t win a seat in Alberta.

    • Nastyboy says:

      What are you talking about? There is no separatist movement out here apart from some malcontents with a web page who meet in a Legion once every few years. People may grumble from time to time but Albertans are proud Canadians. We just tend to get ticked off when eastern urban liberals keep telling us what horrible people we are.

  46. C.W. says:

    Really, shouldn’t someone be doing more with this story? It’s front page on the (conservative) Ottawa Citizen today.

    Would you buy a car with no engine? Don’t taxpayers have a right to know the jets they’re being asked to pay for have no engines? It really goes to the heart of both the fiscal mismanagement and the contempt of parliament issues:

    http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/Canada+Engines+included/4629251/story.html

  47. Jimmy says:

    What about …… SOLDIERS ….WITH GUNS …… IN OUR STREETS …..WE ARE NOT MAKING THIS UP ……?

  48. JM says:

    I wish this was the vast majority (PB would get rich on the tech royalties which would help the share price). But this is one company with a new method, definitely not the majority. Alberta is even slow in approvals. SAGD uses tons of water and energy to get the sludge flowing. But the damage open pit practices cause will go on for a long while yet.

    Maybe a Liberal government might help a shift towards better extraction methods through some of their R & D incentives.

    • Gord Tulk says:

      Sagd does use water but it is recycled over and over. I’m scheduled to take a tour of PBs lab next month. And the SK govt approved a pb/shell joint venture in 60 days – the AB govt won’t drag their feet the next time (they told pb/shell it would take five years).

      Other new techs exist to extract oil insitu that are much better and cheaper than sagd. I picked the graphic because it does the best job of showing what in situ looks like.

  49. Jimmy says:

    So if the LPC is so afraid of a Harper majority then why did they ask for an election that they knew they couldn’t win ? It makes absolutely no sense.

    I think Iggy got suckered into this by the cons accusing him of lying about his family.

  50. Hammer DOM says:

    Why are “Skinny Dippers” letters larger than mine?
    And why doesn’t he grow a pair like I did, (when I was twelve), and post under his own name? Why don’t ALL of you? Warren does!
    Pussies.
    My numbers in the freakin’ book.

    Dominic Solntseff

  51. daimones says:

    It’s a riot that the first comment talks about you not paying attention to “your guy” and indulging fears of Harper. No Canadian in their right mind needs Iggy to tell them how scary Harper is. He was scary before Iggy got here with, as those of us who pay attention and don’t have short memories would recall, his National Citizens Coalition-Reform-Alliance background, Yet he’s the biggest fear mongerer in Canada. I love this article’s take on Harper’s latest bogeyman and those we’re likely gonna hear about soon http://pepperpot.ca/society-and-politics/stephen-harper-majority-7-more-bogeymen-he-needs-protection-from/. Gimme a break Cat.

  52. ski says:

    There’s a large formal pro-life caucus in the Liberal Party, just like there’s a large pro choice contingent in the Conservative Party. These claims are ludicrous.

  53. Dave Redekop says:

    I think you have overstated the reality, Warren. I prefere the kinder, gentler Kinsella. What happened to him?

  54. Nice article! You can get more information about successful poet by reading about Franz V. Hurtado. He is a great poet. He know new technology about poetry.

  55. Thor says:

    Please define “boonies”.
    When I moved to Toronto 12 years ago I was assailed constantly by the morally superior Torontonians concerning the voting patterns from whence I came. My reply remains valid even now: Mel Lastman for two terms and now Rob Ford elected in the Canada’s “most progressive” city.

    As our favourite political guru and gracious host (although now with less hair–it’s distinguished, Warren and you wear it well) has noted: the people are always right. If you don’t win an election you clearly wanted, then blaming the voters is sour grapes.

    Regardless, you should go see my movie..

  56. Michael Reintjes says:

    Well…not really….I vote Conservative lately and I favour gay marriage, am not keen on the Federal Government having capital punishment, would never repeal Abortion laws and although against the registry ,I would leave most gun control laws in place. Remember, In the current Conservative tent, there are all kinds of Conservatives.

  57. Gord Tulk says:

    Actually I’m one conservative who welcomes the column. It means we have them on the run. A rout is now possible. Columns like this are very demoralizing down at the campaign and fundraising offices. Two weeks to go – its going to get very tough to get the volunteers to keep comIng in to work on a losing campaign. I can hear the pissing and moaning over stale coffee now. Discussions about when the postponed lpc convention should be held so as to allow leadership candidates time to have their campaigns – because the next lpc convention will be a leadership convention. Lpc MPs who are not shoo-ins will return to their own ridings ramparts and focus exclusively on saving their own political necks – keeping their volunteers and their funds to themselves.

    Warren’s column was a great way to start the day.

  58. scot says:

    Sorry Thor, morality aside, urban cenres are where people are exposed to a more cosmopolitan population and greater awareness of International mores. I grew up in a small town and never realized how small my world was till I hit the city. That said, I prefer life in a small town, close to a big city.

  59. Paul Raposo says:

    Two questions:

    Why do you vote for a party who opposes the things you support, and not vote for the party that actually endorses and supports the issues you support?

    What will you do if the CPoC decide to target the issues you support?

  60. kitt says:

    Michael, you may vote conservative but you do not have a say in your preferences and what you favour matters not. Your dear leader will do what he wants and your opinion or wishes be damned.

  61. Wayne says:

    @Kitt – tell me, how much say did the grassroots have on their choice of leader?

    Hypocrite.

  62. pomo says:

    Real question Michael – I am not being a jerk. People like you interest me a lot…you sound like someone who identifies as fiscally conservative, but socially…not so much.

    How will you feel and what will you do if some or all of these things Warren writes about come to pass – no abortion, no equal marriage, death penalty…etc etc. I know there are lots of you in the conservative tent. I like having you guys around. Difference, debate and dialogue is critical to democracy and keeping us intellectually rigorous, honest etc… and while I might disagree with you about lots of things, those things don’t scare me like social conservatism does. I keep hearing that these things won’t happen for reasons of political survival and long term “natural governing party” aspirations. It’s all just scaremongering. But don’t some conservatives also feel that it would be a bad thing if these things happened? Why am I not hearing more conservatives say, “Hey, that won’t happen because we don’t want it to happen. Because that’s not the kind of conservative country we want to live in”. The paucity of conservatives cheering for access to abortion, equal marriage and no death penalty is partially why it’s hard to believe in the “scaremongering” thing.

  63. pomo says:

    @michael fox: because taking important things for granted that we already have puts us at risk of losing them. human rights are not something we should take for granted. you can quibble about the use of the word cheer, but you are missing my point if that’s all you see in my question.

  64. pomo says:

    @michael fox
    Thanks. I do want to understand this stuff from your perspective and I appreciate your answer.

  65. Patrick Hamilton says:

    Crickets……Im hearing crickets, Mr. Tulk…….

  66. Gord Tulk says:

    both E and nic are missing my point: you cannot entirely and categorically determine what a party will do in the future based on what it did in the past. The LPC was against changing the definition of marriage before it was for it – is another example.

  67. Ron says:

    good one Gord
    nice come back

  68. Paul Raposo says:

    The LPC was against changing the definition of marriage before it was for it – is another example.

    The Libs were waiting for the court to tell them what was and was not constitutional. When the courts ruled that denying equal marriage to LGBTQ’s was unconstitutional, the Libs moved to remedy that. The Consdidn’t give a damn what the courts had to say, they wanted a law to ban equal marriage.

  69. nic coivert says:

    Claiming that Harper is not a social Conservative is ridiculous because if isn’t a social Conservative what kind of a Conservative is he?

    He sure ain’t a fiscal one, no self respecting fiscal Conservative would increase spending like he has been for the last 5 years while also reducing revenue.

  70. Namesake says:

    and his Finance Minister can’t even balance his own Department’s budget, much less the whole gov’ts:

    he overspent his allowable cap by nearly 18% in fiscal 2009/10

    Flaherty overspends own budget [by over $430,000]
    By ALTHIA RAJ, QMI Parliamentary Bureau, December 7, 2010
    http://www.ottawasun.com/news/canada/2010/12/06/16450811.html

  71. Gord Tulk says:

    Laughable. The CPC didn’t vote for this election – the oppo parties did.

  72. Namesake says:

    Except they didn’t vote for an election — they voted non-confidence in the governing party.

    And so if Harper really wanted to spare the country a “needless election” he could have asked the GG to ask the other parties if they wanted a shot at governing over the next 18 months, instead of dissolving Parliament.

  73. It’s an important point because Harper is going out of his way to cast as villains the opposition parties. Technically they brought the government down. Did they have a choice? Maybe. Did Harper engineer his own defeat? Yes.

    If Harper were to tell the truth to the Canadian public, and his “I’ll believe anything He says” followers, do you think he’d be up in the polls as much as he is? Seriously, just imagine for a moment that Harper told Canadians that he wanted an election right now because now is a time he thinks, fourth time lucky, that he can finally win a majority?

    Admitting to such a thing erases many of his talking points, doesn’t it?

    Try this on for size, Harper Without The Bullshit ™:

    Hey, Canada, I want to call an election this spring because I really want a majority and I think it best to call one now, even though I brought in fixed election dates, because I fear that if I wait any longer the possibility of an “echo” recessionary period gets higher, and/or Michael Ignatieff might find his feet and get more popular. I’ll let you in on a little secret – I’m going to push the opposition parties hard enough that they’ll likely call us out on the carpet with a vote of no confidence, but the reality is, I’m a puppet master pulling their strings. Sssh, don’t tell anyone, especially not Gord or his buddies.

    By the way, remember that election in 2008? You have forgotten it I know, and I know this because we do all sorts of interesting polling to see what people forget while hockey playoffs are running. Anyway, that election – well I called it. You all seem to have forgotten that I pushed through a bill which should have prevented me from calling it, but I made up an excuse and you bought it. Just like I thought you would. I’m pretty clever you see — and truth be told, many of you are too — but you aren’t paying attention and I know I can take that to the bank, with interest.

    The really funny thing is that many of my own supporters – party members even – don’t call me out on the shit I do. I’ve broken all sorts of promises I’ve made, on the Senate, on free votes in the house, on actually improving democracy (wow, that was a whopper of a lie I used to sell). Yup, many of those Reform ideals were popular and quaint, but they just don’t suit me when I’m on the road to power. But I rule the party with an iron fist and reward those who wield the hammer on my behalf. Just ask Don Plett or Doug Finley. Too bad Flanagan is loose with the truth or maybe I’d have put him in the Senate too. Oh if you raise some money for me I’ll break a promise to Montrealers and appoint you to the Senate and there right into Cabinet, too. No pesky election required. Isn’t that sweet? I said I’d be tough on crime – hey, I even have a three strikes your out law to my credit, but it doesn’t apply to Bruce Carson. Just remember that, he’s a made man. I kissed him myself.

    Hey, would you like me to sing Imagine, or Kumbaya for you? Look, over there, shiny thing!

    So here we are in another election. I’m having all sorts of fun blaming it on the opposition, but the truth of the matter is I blame it on Canadians. They are mostly far to the left of me, even those planted squarely in the centre. I’ll fix them, you can bank on it. No funds to ridings that don’t vote for me an my automaton candidates. Smith is my pitchman for that idea, great going Smith!

    I’m having so much fun on the road. The bubble is actually really comfortable. Plushy chairs and everything. We even have this nice fence to keep reporters from me, and my campaign supporters are quietly ordered to remove offending opposition party campaign signs from along my top-secret planned motorcade route. It’s true I don’t even know how they figure out what route to clear, given that the RCMP keep that a secret even from me. Well, those sorts of leaks are leaks I fully approve of. I hate red. And orange. And I really hate green, just ask my buddies in the oil patch. Nope, I like blue, and black, and I promise many of you will feel black and blue unless you vote for me. Wait for it. The whirlwind is coming. We don’t call the hidden agenda the “hidden agenda” any more, because the press got wind of it. So we call it the “whirlwind”. When I get my majority, you’ll know the whirlwind is here. I’ve got some debts to settle and I’m in a hurry.

  74. R says:

    http://twitter.com/timnaumetz

    We need good journalist in media to tell truth

  75. allegra fortissima says:

    Sir Watkins, you wrote a masterpiece!

  76. nic coivert says:

    The Harper government is the face of fascism my friend. Increased spending on government propaganda, vastly increased spending on military, and a police presence that is tied directly to the governing power. Harper has already made those right turns. With a majority he will ramp it up. Just think police state. The G8 and G20 showed the face of Harper Conservatism.

  77. Nastyboy says:

    And the Libs wonder why they’re losing

Leave a Reply

*