How to prevent a majority "Harper Regime"?

104 posts / 0 new
Last post
ilha formosa
How to prevent a majority "Harper Regime"?

How can the "Harper Regime" be prevented from grabbing a majority government?

This should be the first priority of progressives this election.

Would it be worth it having the NDP as Official Opposition with the Regressive Conservatives in a majority of MP seats for 4-5 years? I really don't think so.

I hope ABC ("Anyone But Conservative") voters can discuss preventing a majority Harper Regime on this thread.

 

ilha formosa

A wish: That the Liberals and NDP would determine which ridings not to run in, in order to give the other party a very good shot at winning. Riding for riding deals.

It would save both parties some money too. Money that could otherwise likely be spent splitting the vote and letting a Conservative in - which is not a good use of limited funds, is it?

Otherwise we will have to wait for proportional representation, whenever that comes along.

Lens Solution

Voting BQ if you live in the Quebec City region would appear to be one way.

NorthReport

Unfortunately the Liberals are not trustworthy, and this is an ole Liberal ploy that is never going to happen.

ilha formosa wrote:

A wish: That the Liberals and NDP would determine which ridings not to run in, in order to give the other party a very good shot at winning. Riding for riding deals.

It would save both parties some money too. Money that could otherwise likely be spent splitting the vote and letting a Conservative in - which is not a good use of limited funds, is it?

Otherwise we will have to wait for proportional representation, whenever that comes along.

ilha formosa

NorthReport wrote:

Unfortunately the Liberals are not trustworthy, and this is an ole Liberal ploy that is never going to happen.

Out of curiosity, could I ask for a brief opinion or some links on why it will never happen? Maybe things have changed, as the Liberals aren't as dominant or as wealthy as they've been in the past.

Jacob Two-Two

No, but they are just as arrogant. The Liberals have no interest in working with the NDP. I could give a long list of reasons why ABC is a bad idea, but that's the only one you need. It's just not going to happen.

You can go to the candidate that has the best chance of beating the Cons in your riding or any riding nearby that is likely to go Conservative and contribute your time and energy. That's the best you can do.

In any case, this is the 4th election where I've heard this song and dance, and the Cons keep coming up short. I don't believe that a majority is a possibility. The Cons are too out of step with the Canadian spirit. The only reason they keep doing so well is because the Liberals have been so laughably incompetent for so long, and they still can't win. 

Lens Solution

Jacob Two-Two wrote:

In any case, this is the 4th election where I've heard this song and dance, and the Cons keep coming up short. I don't believe that a majority is a possibility. The Cons are too out of step with the Canadian spirit.

I don't think we can be so sure that the Cons won't get a majority.  It is definitely a possibility with the numbers the way they are, so we shouldn't take anything for granted.

ottawaobserver

Ilha, at this rate the Conservatives won't be getting a majority.

No-one trusts the Liberals on a non-compete basis, since they sent for example Bob Rae into Saskatoon-Rosetown-Biggar to try and prevent Nettie Wiebe from winning the seat for the NDP last time (when it was an open Conservative seat) ... so the Liberals can really go and jump off a bridge, as far as I'm concerned.

They don't care if Conservatives win, so long as NDPers lose (viz: recent by-elections). Seriously this is like the fourth time you guys are trying this lame bullshit. Can't you dream up your own reasons for being elected for a change.

What you're really terrified of is the Conservatives winning a minority of the seats, and the NDP winning more seats than the Liberals. Well, deal. Your party hasn't done any of the legwork required to rebuild itself, and it's hardly our fault.

This entire exercise got ramped up because the Liberals thought they could be really tactically cute and squeeze the NDP. Well, be careful what you wish for. Didn't count on us being fearless and really ready to go, did you?

Jack Layton has more guts in his pinky than Ignatieff has in his entire caucus. Why should we settle for anything less?

Lens Solution

What did Bob Rae do in Saskatoon?  I haven't heard that story before.

NorthReport

Get used to it OO. Every time we get close to an election they show up in droves but they are quite easy to spot eh Debater. Laughing

ilha formosa

ottawaobserver wrote:

What you're really terrified of is the Conservatives winning a minority of the seats, and the NDP winning more seats than the Liberals. Well, deal. Your party hasn't done any of the legwork required to rebuild itself, and it's hardly our fault.

By "you" and "your" in the above post, I will presume you don't mean me personally. Given the current state of Canadian politics, I'd be ecstatic with a minority Conservative gov't and a New Democrat in Stornoway.

The Liberals are a shadow of their former selves. What if riding for riding deals could lead to just two fewer seats for the Cons, or even 4? That would be a lot already.

KenS

The Zombie Returns [Again and Again]:

The non-starter riding for riding deals.

We've been over that a gazillion times here. Doing it again wont change anything. Maybe we should just paint a pretty face on the zombie. I don't know.

You can be excused for having not seen those discussions.

But there is at least one going on right now about the issues [or not] of Harper getting the fearsome majority.

Given the thread proliferation, I'll import a couple posts from just yesterday.

KenS

yesterday, Ken Summers wrote:
 

Message to Babble:

The furthering of the Conservative agenda has nothing to do with majority versus minority.

It is all about years in the government. Five years now and counting.

So while you get yourself all agitated over the prospect of a majority, you are missing the boat: that would be nice for them, but they don't need it.

More to the point, stopping them from getting that majority won't even slow them down.

KenS

and yesterday, Ken Summers also wrote:

As briefly as possible....

The worst that can happen is a Harper majority. But that is not nearly as bad as what it cracked up to be. In fact, the prospect would be just a shade of gray different from what we have now. The reason there is too little difference to get bothered over is not relativist arguments like the Liberals are too little better.

That said, the point is the worst that can happen, versus what we are going to get even if it isnt that bad. Not versus some abstraction.

1.] Harper Minority. The next worse option is another Harper minority. At the risk of making people feel about the election like 'why try'.... I have argued that a continued minority is the most likely outcome of the election. That will give this government a lease on at least a couple more years, with the opening that an election in 2012 instead of now does not offer: the chance for Harper Crew to turn things more in their favour. Meanwhile, they advance their agenda all aong the way, with a minority, as long as the end of that is not imminent. And they do keep the end from being imminent... even when current trends are not in their favour.

2.] Harper Majority. The idea that "this is what we get from a Harper minority, wait for the majority'... makes intuitive sense. But it's basis in fact and reasonable expectations is weak at best. In the first place we get the Conservative agenda with a minority. And that keeps going on, la plus ca change.... and likely/probably keep going on after this election no matter how much people jump up and down about stopping a Harper majority, and succeed in getting it. "Hey, who left that other door open?" Secondly, majorities do not unchain governments of either the right or left. Ever. Because throwing caution to the wind will give the short term illusion of getting more of your agenda, followed by crushing election defeat and a reversal of said agenda. They still have to be re-elected. The all important optics of what they are doing does not change one bit, let alone go away. What is the defining or categorical difference between Harper facing an election in 4 years instead of another two and a half?

The idea of priorizing "at least not having a Harper majority" is stupid because:

** that isnt the only way we get the Conservative agenda. They do fine with a minority, and as time goes by they learn new ways to keep that going

** that hysterical mantra does play into the hands of the Liberals. And it does not matter how different they are or are not from Harper as a collection of individuals- they are the enablers of Harper. Sometimes they are the willing enablers. If not, they do it from gross incompetence because their heads are firmly stuck up their asses with the notion that they just need to return to their entitlement. They just do not get it. And its no surprise why, even if it is sad to watch.

Sean in Ottawa

Riding for riding deals can also get it wrong and end up electing Conservatives by supporting the wrong horse. They can also create movements that infect other ridings also electing Conservatives by increasing the splitting of the vote.

Further they are an affront to democratic principles-- at least when the FPTP system lies when it comes to voting out popular vote can tell the truth if people vote their first choice.

This has been tried each time the Liberals feel desperate and it has never worked -- never made a difference to who governs in spite of the cynicism and damage it does to the democratic process.

Then there is the reality that the Liberals vote more often with the Cons than they vote with the New Dems.

I have pointed out elsewhere that the Liberals and Cons are the Best Buy and Future Shop of politics. One dresses in red the other in blue. They are owned by the same company and sell the same shit and pretend to be in competition with each other to increase overall market share.

Again we have been through this tired debate so many times...

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Sean in Ottawa wrote:
Again we have been through this tired debate so many times...

How is it any worse than the anti-Liberal threads we see here all the time? Or all the pro-Layton threads?

I say let it go... if you don't want to participate in the thread, then don't.

 

KenS

The proliferation of anti-Liberal threads is a product of one person's idea of political entertainment.

Is it any surpsire both lefties in general and Dippers in paricular like beating on the Liberals?

Yes, there is a rational core too, and some intent. But very little concrete is being proposed [beyond what the people engaged would be doing anyway]; and to the degree that something is being proposed [if you can identify that then tell me], do you see buyers in the discussion?

But the riding by riding deals do propose specific courses of action. And the appeal is like crack.

 

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Nothing wrong with having this discussion as an exercise, though. All those NDP threads are like crack, too. And beating up on Iggy - who is not even the PM, by the way - seems to be the most addictive crack cocaine of all. I say let this thread be.

Sean in Ottawa

I'm not attacking the thread itself.

I am attacking the topic which is that we should be combining parties or party efforts to try to stop the Cons from getting a majority.

One of my criticisms is that this is an issue that has been tried, flogged and beaten to death here but as long as it comes up it should still be responded to. It has also backfired publicly before -- Harris government second term election.

I am not doing this from a partisan perspective either-- I have been consistent over many years that people should vote for their first choice. I feel the same be it Green voters, Marxists and every party-- if your first choice is on the ballot-- vote for it. Otherwise you cheat yourself and the population gets an election result that does not even by popular vote reflect what the people want. When the difference between the popular vote and the elected result differ too much at least we can see it and try to change the system but once we play the game and not even vote for our first choice then there is no way democracy can ever be restored (or created depending on your point of view) and no way the distortion can even be seen. Put another way, the popular vote is the control group in the experiment and once you pollute it your entire experiment in democracy can never be measured or evaluated.

This is not a pro-NDP or anti Liberal point I am making -- it is a pro-democratic point. Indeed there are parts of the country where this could be a pro Liberal anti-NDP point if someone wanted to read it narrowly within the interests of political parties rather than the integrity of our collective voice.

I won't stop talking about this-- and I won't butt out of a thread here just because I disagree with the topic at hand-- the point is to have a discussion isn't it? And the topic is raised and I responded. What on earth is wrong with that?

What is letting a thread "be" anyway-- does that mean we have to agree with the OP?

Did I call for the thread to be closed?

Wasn't I on topic?

And isn't the idea that this is a tired debate where we try to convince people to vote strategically rather than their first choice at least a legitimate opinion? It is in fact my HONEST opinion.

I think those who are arguing for and against strategic voting from a single party perspective are mistaken-- depending on where you are this can help or hurt your favorite party. This is a question that should be addressed from a non-partisan principled point of view. Again my opinion.

KenS

There is a discussion BB.

The opening posts asked questions.

Those threads you dont like are not asking questions or making proposals.

JKR

ilha formosa wrote:

Otherwise we will have to wait for proportional representation, whenever that comes along.

PR or fair voting is the only acceptable answer to solve the problem of vote splitting in FPTP.

The best thing one can do to bring about fair voting is to support Fair Vote Canada.

JKR

Instead of wasting energy toward a strategic voting campaign, people should support:

1 - Get out the vote drives.

2 - Fair voting.

The Conservatives have put a lot of energy in supressing the vote. The counter to that is not strategic voting campaigns but get out the vote drives. During the election campaign, we should try to get as many people to make a pledge to vote, especially the young.

I notice Don Davis has a private members bill to lower the voting age to 16. That's a great idea that the NDP should require in any coalition deal.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

I think ABC is a good idea...Who cares who you vote for as long as it's not for Canada's wingnut 'conservative' party.

@ilha formosa...A word of advice...Don't try to argue that the Libs would be an improvement next to the Cons here.

I tried it and it seems alot of people think the Libs would be worse and a Conservative majority would be A-OK and business as usual.

Let the Libs win a minority,put them in a position where they have to work with the NDP and have the NDP slowly take over the PLC just like the Reform Party did to the PC's.

That's my opinion but it's VERY unpopular here.

JKR

KenS wrote:

The proliferation of anti-Liberal threads is a product of one person's idea of political entertainment.

The proliferation of anti-Liberal threads here is counterproductive. The proliferation of these kind of anti-Liberal threads has probably spurred left-leaning Liberals who come to Babble to dislike the NDP and ignore Babble altogether. That's not a very good way for the NDP to gain the support it needs to have real influence in Canada's political system.

It seems to me that the largest group that could change their votes to the NDP are left-leaning Liberal voters. If the NDP is ever to grow beyond its current standing, these left-leaning Liberals will have to come aboard. Many of these juvenile anti-Liberal threads produce the opposite result.

It seems to me that the proliferation of these juvenile anti-Liberal threads weaken the NDP and marginalizes Babble.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

The NDP are the only left leaning party in Parliament, but occasionally (not often) the BQ show signs they are leaning left, and I suppose there are one or two left-leaning Liberals, although I have no idea who they are. But the NDP have zero chance here, and voting NDP in Manicouagan - Mulroney's old riding, where I've lived since 1995 - takes votes away from the BQ, who are the only realistic alternative to the Conservatves here. So, yeah I vote strategically - for the BQ. My heart is with the NDP, but they have never been a realistic option here as far as I know. Voting BQ here is the only way to completely humiliate the Conservative candidate.

JKR

alan smithee wrote:

@ilha formosa...A word of advice...Don't try to argue that the Libs would be an improvement next to the Cons here.

ilha formosa, I'd say the exact opposite. Argue exactly what you think is right. That's what will help all of us, no matter what political stripe.

Babble should be a place where people free to express themselves in an unabusive way.

Sean in Ottawa

Depends on what you are including in your list of juvenile threads

What I might think is juvenile is different than someone else. No doubt I have opened threads I thought were serious and others thought were juvenile. A serious substantial critique of the Liberals from time to time is fine -- along with critiques of other parties including the NDP. The gotcha style and rabid partisanship at moments is a turn-off. But some get turned on by the same stuff that turns off others. For example I barely read the snake of threads claiming the NDP *will* become official opposition since as much as I'd like that to happen as it is so ridiculous at the moment to proclaim it as fact. (You could imagine a perfect storm where that could happen but nobody that isn't wearing darkly tinted glasses could begin to make an argument that this is a likelihood never mind a certainty-- in the short term.) The threads that come up with every bad poll for the Greens leave me feeling the same way.

I don't see the advantage of the silliness that goes on here so if we could all agree on what was silly and what wasn't we could fix it for sure...

JKR

Boom Boom wrote:

The NDP are the only left leaning party in Parliament, but occasionally (not often) the BQ show signs they are leaning left, and I suppose there are one or two left-leaning Liberals, although I have no idea who they are.

There's a difference between the politicians in Parliament and the people who support the parties.  Liberal supporters are often to the left of the Liberal politicians in Ottawa an the Liberal Party. The NDP needs these leftist Liberal supporters to begin choosing the NDP. Juvenile threads that gloat "More bad news for the Liberals" are not productive.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Yes, I get your point, JKR. I can't imagine there are many Liberals happy with seeing Iggy at the helm. But the same could be said of Chretien (but he won three majority governments), Martin, and if Rae became leader. I think any left-leaning Liberals have long since defected to the NDP.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Sean, and others: I didn't express myself very well. I was just suggesting that if you didn't like the thread, you don't have to participate in it, if that's your choice. By all means, feel free to criticize.

NorthReport

Of course the NDP does not support the Cons as that's a given, and will probably vote against the budget depending on what Harper does, but as mentioned in the election talk thread, one of the best strategies for the NDP to do now is to go after the 'Layton Liberal' and it is already starting to happen. It is one of the best decisions the NDP has make.

JKR

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

Depends on what you are including in your list of juvenile threads.

...

I don't see the advantage of the silliness that goes on here so if we could all agree on what was silly and what wasn't we could fix it for sure...

I think almost everyone here has a clear idea which threads are part of a personal campaign of thread proliferation aimed at propaganda.  I don't see anything wrong with closing propagandistic threads on the grounds that they aren't about honest debate. Other then that, maybe people should be allowed to start a thread of their own to replace a propogandistic thread. Maybe the only way to fight thread proliferation here is with more thread proliferation?

As it is, those who engage in thread proliferation control Babble by default. They frame the appearance of Babble. Too often people on Babble engage in debates within threads that have titles and opening posts that often border on the ridiculous. A lot of good debate happens here within threads that have silly one-sided titles.

This may be one of the reasons Babble doesn't have a very large base of contributors.

NorthReport

Guess what JKR - the NDP want a divorce from the Liberals. Not a trial separation, but a divorce, and the NDP is going after the Libs vote as well as the Cons vote.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Thread proliferation can be controlled by the Mods. Maybe we just need to flag unnecesary threads when they are started? And, by the way, my remark to KenS yesterday ("you can never have enough politics threads") was meant as a joke - hence the tongue-in-cheek smiley that followed my comment.

KenS

alan smithee wrote:

@ilha formosa...A word of advice...Don't try to argue that the Libs would be an improvement next to the Cons here.

I tried it and it seems alot of people think the Libs would be worse and a Conservative majority would be A-OK and business as usual.

And it 'seems' that you and others do not pay attention to or respond to more rigorous critiques of why you do not buy into even qualified support of the Liberals.

As in my two comments I re-posted above

 

There is a world of difference between a willingness, even encouragement, of working with the Liberals after a government... and flaky ill thought out supposed "common sense" of maybe smehow sort of supporting the Liberals hare and there maybe before an election. Without stopping to think that in practice this leads to people uncritically saying "I guess I should vote for the Liberals". Period. End of THEIR 'analysis'... the analysis you expressed being irrelevant, because it is what they take away that is the rubber on the road.

 

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

NorthReport wrote:

Guess what JKR - the NDP want a divorce from the Liberals. Not a trial separation, but a divorce, and the NDP is going after the Libs vote as well as the Cons vote.

Yeah, that helps, if you want a Coalition government - NOT.

JKR

NorthReport wrote:

Guess what JKR - the NDP want a divorce from the Liberals. Not a trial separation, but a divorce, and the NDP is going after the Libs vote as well as the Cons vote.

What does that mean?

I never knew the NDP and Liberals were married.

I sure hope you don't entitle your next thread - NDP seeks divorce from Liberals, will take the house and kids too! Ignatieff to live in seedy hotel!

KenS

You express yourself fine BB. It is the answers you arent grasping.

We are particpating. Challenging questions were asked in the opening posts.

That we have been over and over this and that the statements/proposals are repeated without ever addressing the fundamental criticisms- that is a legitimate part of the answer.

ottawaobserver

Sorry, ilha if I concluded you were a Liberal from the thread title, which used the language the Liberals just started using in the House of Commons the other day, and admonished us not to reach too high for fear of toppling the Liberals.

Just for once I'd like to see how well we could do without all that second-guessing is what I meant.

NorthReport

BB, perhaps you forget how the Ignatieff Liberals treated the NDP in the previous coalition attempt, and perhaps you missing all the constant Liberal attempts to go after the NDP vote - you know the usual LiberaL BS - campaign on the left, then govern from the right. 

Right now the NDP is facing an election campaign and their objective will be to maximize the NDP vote. Of course the NDP will be involved in the coalition, but politics is the art of negotiation and compromise, and neither the Cons nor the Libs do that very well. 

Boom Boom wrote:

NorthReport wrote:

Guess what JKR - the NDP want a divorce from the Liberals. Not a trial separation, but a divorce, and the NDP is going after the Libs vote as well as the Cons vote.

Yeah, that helps, if you want a Coalition government - NOT.

Noah_Scape

40% gets the prize, and 40% of Canadians support the Conservative Party of Canada.

 Canada is 60% "anti-conservative". We grind our teeth at the philosophy of the CPC, Harper, etc. This 60% group is split into at least four parts - Quebecers will elect Bloc MPs, the Liberals, the NDP and the Greens make up the rest of the 60%.

 

 What would have to happen for Harper to NOT be the next PM ??

 - to unify the 60% who are opposed to conservative ways into a single group, OR

 - that the conservatives split into two groups [Reform and Traditional conservatives].

 

NOT!! Neither of those will happen anytime soon. One more Harper minority government coming up... As was pointed out, the longer they have their leader as PM, the more they can get done.

 

  My Prediction: Harper as PM "one more time",  will mean doubling the present contract for Stealth Fighter Jets, a push for Tar Sands expansion, Increased CO2 emissions, Increased wealth disparity, more military involvement overseas for oil security for the USA, Harsher laws for pot smokers and petty criminals, Bigger Jails with more and more Canadians filling them until we get up to the 12% incarcerated rate of the USA.

  The Gateway pipeline from the Tar Sands to the BC coast, plus tanker traffic on the BC coast, will also go ahead, against the wishes of the majority of British Columbians, if Harper is PM one more time.

  The Arctic will become a militarised zone, with resource extraction proceeding at blinding speed as the rapidly increasing ice-free period will now allow [but they will still deny that global warming is a reality].

 

Oh Canada.... your "true north" , as in pole shift, is wandering around, 50 miles into Russia now....

Oh Canada.... "strong and ICE-FREE" Northwest Passage for an extended summer period anymore.

Oh Canada.... flying around in Stealth Jet Fighters "on gaurd for thee".

 

 

 

ottawaobserver

By the way, I don't buy that the entire 40% shares those perspectives. Many were mainstream folks who were mad at the Liberals.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

NorthReport wrote:

BB, perhaps you forget how the Ignatieff Liberals treated the NDP in the previous coalition attempt, and perhaps you missing all the constant Liberal attempts to go after the NDP vote - you know the usual LiberaL BS - campaign on the left, then govern from the right. 

In fact I had just remembered this, and was going to post it, but you beat me to it!

Yeah, all's fair in love and war. Laughing

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

KenS wrote:

alan smithee wrote:

@ilha formosa...A word of advice...Don't try to argue that the Libs would be an improvement next to the Cons here.

I tried it and it seems alot of people think the Libs would be worse and a Conservative majority would be A-OK and business as usual.

And it 'seems' that you and others do not pay attention to or respond to more rigorous critiques of why you do not buy into even qualified support of the Liberals.

As in my two comments I re-posted above

 

There is a world of difference between a willingness, even encouragement, of working with the Liberals after a government... and flaky ill thought out supposed "common sense" of maybe smehow sort of supporting the Liberals hare and there maybe before an election. Without stopping to think that in practice this leads to people uncritically saying "I guess I should vote for the Liberals". Period. End of THEIR 'analysis'... the analysis you expressed being irrelevant, because it is what they take away that is the rubber on the road.

 

 

Ken,I'm not here to be a PLC cheerleader...I'm just trying to find a better alternative to what we have.

Why do I think a Liberal minority would be leaps and bounds better than a Conservative one?

Of the 2 parties,it's the Libs that the NDP can bend and influence somewhat...The Cons will NEVER take up NDP initiatives..They've made it clear...'Taliban Jack'..'Socialists'...Ring a bell?

The NDP will never gain any influence from a Conservative minority.

With a Liberal minority,a shrewd move by the NDP- the party that would keep a Liberal minority government standing could slowly infiltrate the PLC much like the Reform Party did to the PC's and we could have a left leaning party that actually has a hope of making up a government.

All I am saying is that a Liberal minority would depend on the support of the NDP..That means the NDP can influence the Libs and if that happens,we may have a chance of seeing some progressive policies come about...Policies that will never happen with the regressive ideologues who've been running the government for the last 5 years.

And THAT is my point.

Fidel

alan smithee wrote:
.The Cons will NEVER take up NDP initiatives..They've made it clear...'Taliban Jack'..'Socialists'...Ring a bell?

I don't think the Cons are droning on about Taliban Jack anymore. Not since British and US Military reports have said that there will likely be no victors in the phony war on terror in Afghanistan. The Brits and Americans have allegedly been trying to talk to the Taliban for some time. And they want to talk with just their former right wing proxies in Kabul and not tribal leaders leading the other 80% of the resistance, nor Karzai's political opposition. Our stooges in Ottawa have merely been following orders from Warshington since 2001. There are no Canadian decisions made much less any leadership in Canadian government, and even less among the phony official opposition party propping them up.

bekayne

Noah_Scape wrote:

 

  My Prediction: Harper as PM "one more time",  will mean doubling the present contract for Stealth Fighter Jets, a push for Tar Sands expansion, Increased CO2 emissions, Increased wealth disparity, more military involvement overseas for oil security for the USA, Harsher laws for pot smokers and petty criminals, Bigger Jails with more and more Canadians filling them until we get up to the 12% incarcerated rate of the USA.

  The Gateway pipeline from the Tar Sands to the BC coast, plus tanker traffic on the BC coast, will also go ahead, against the wishes of the majority of British Columbians, if Harper is PM one more time.

  The Arctic will become a militarised zone, with resource extraction proceeding at blinding speed as the rapidly increasing ice-free period will now allow [but they will still deny that global warming is a reality].

 

Add:

Stephen Harper's vision of an elected Senate. A lickspittle as Speaker of the House. Reform of election laws to allow unlimited spending during elections. Harper appointments to the Supreme Court.

olivertwisto

I don't think that people love the conservatives as much as they are sending a message to the liberal party. I mean, at least Harper is doing some good while robbing the taxpayer. The only people that could say that about the previous govt. were pals of Martin's.

Aristotleded24

alan smithee wrote:
All I am saying is that a Liberal minority would depend on the support of the NDP.

Not necessarily. Remember in 2005 when the Conservatives initially supported the Liberal budget? They may find other ways to get their agenda through. Especially if they manage to win government, the Conservatives will be so battered and bruised that they won't want an election while they regroup, and they would just let the Liberal agenda pass, thus removing the need for the Liberals to depend on the NDP.

Lens Solution

It's unlikely there will be a Liberal government unless the Conservatives have a major collapse.

Aristotleded24

Even so, the Liberals are clearly on their way down and there doesn't appear much can be done about that. So, we can either panic, or we can build up other alternatives to take on Harper.

NorthReport

Back in the real world, the Cons are doing by far the best in the polling and debater wants to suggest they will collapse. LOL Laughing

Pages

Topic locked