Sunday, April 24, 2011

Harper Refused to Say Why Canadians Should Trust Him

On a campaign stop, Stephen Harper was asked why Canadians should trust him.
Conservative leader Stephen Harper strayed away Sunday from explaining why voters should trust him personally with the power of a majority government, preferring instead to put the focus on the success of his Tory party.
Murray Dobbin is Preparing for HarpergeddonBut making preparations for a Harper majority are not enough:
But what about preparing for another Harper minority? Getting serious now, there are genuine signs that Harper is planning to create a constitutional crisis should the opposition parties do what every thinking Canadian opposed to Harper hopes they will do: defeat Harper at the first opportunity and form a government that actually represents a majority of the voters (and non-voters, too).

Harper’s arrogance on the issue of who gets to govern is breathtaking and he strongly hints that he will not step down without a very nasty fight, one that could create a constitutional crisis involving every federal institution including the Supreme Court of Canada.
And James Laxer is wondering why Harper is considering himself the champion of national unity. He never wanted national unity before. In fact, he championed the opposite:
Now we’ve seen everything---Stephen Harper, who only a few years ago counseled Albertans to build “firewalls” around their province to protect it from Canada, has proclaimed himself the indispensable champion of national unity. Without him at the helm of a majority government, this one-time quasi-Alberta separatist would have us believe there will be no one to protect the country from a new round of sovereignist upheaval in Quebec.

In fact, I’d be surprised if Parti Quebecois leader Pauline Marois didn't regard a Harper majority government as one of the essential “winning conditions” for a sovereignty referendum should she succeed in becoming premier of Quebec in the next provincial election. The PQ is well ahead of Jean Charest’s hapless Liberals in the polls, but an election does not need to be called for two and a half years.
Vote and vote wisely.


  1. I had written a nice comment and lost it.

    Well Mrs. Marois said just that

    I know it is a touchy subject, and I respect that. But if Mr. Ignatieff was PM and Mrs. Marois was Premier (she is quite realistic, she sent the fanatics packing more than once), I think we could solve this stupid dispute once and for all.

  2. I never thought of it that way, but you and James Laxer are right. Another Harper government will probably be enough to convince Quebec, and possibly BC, to separate from Canada. Just the thought of it is enough to make me want to separate from Canada.

  3. A Harper majority would be enough to make me consider voting yes on a referendum. As an anglo in Quebec with poor French skills, I would still find it preferable to live in a separate Quebec than a Harper dictatorship.

  4. Trust how can we Trust someone with a hidden agenda.

    Anyone or person that does need to admit them selves to the local loony bin.

    What blows my mind is how people can back a party so blindly and not see what is going on. Guess they drank the Koolaid