Stephen Harper grows up.

I’m shocked.[

](http://www.cbc.ca/thenational/indepthanalysis/story/2011/01/17/national-stephenharperinterview.html)There you go; power really does mellow political groups out. Is this the end of silly tricks like cutting government funding to political parties (which ended up forcing Harper to prorogue parliament to prevent an ad hoc governing coalition taking power). Too bad the long form census wasn’t saved this year.

His title is Prime Minister Stephen Harper. You don’t have to like him, but his title is his title (and yes, I do show the same respect to Prime Ministers of all parties).

I really want to believe that, but honestly I can’t trust a single word that comes from that mans mouth. I find that actions speak louder than words and his past actions cause me to doubt his sincerity. If he has turned a corner than fantastic but first he needs to walk the walk.

I’m not writing a formal letter; how about I refer to him as Prime Minister Stephen Harper in this post then use whatever silly moniker I can think of henceforth?

Jeez, I bet you wrote to the editors of The Economist to correct them too: “Not ‘Mister Dithers,’ ‘Prime Minister Dithers’” :stuck_out_tongue:

I’m going to go out on a limb and say no.

Am I way out there if I suggest that removing public financing for political process (which can be defined as we the People fund Peoples candidates) would mean creating a market where special interests and their monies meet political candidates. And would it be even more partisan if Id suggest that Conservatives are better aligned with special interests with money than any other party in Canada.

If agree with above then that would be something for Liberals to run on as the party that wants to keep the way it is.

Which is interesting because you would expect Conservatives to… khm, conserve.

I’m glad you agree our 51 year old Prime Minister, with a masters degree in economics, has finally attained adulthood.

<snort>

The support the Liberal Party has from some pretty elite and powerful people is quite significant; I think it could be very strongly argued that the Liberals have more pull with the rich and powerful than the Conservatives do. The Tories do a great job fundraising from the rank and file, actually. The NDP, of course, still has huge union support.

Really, this move is clearly aimed at the Bloc Quebecois, who have very little institutional support and would be severely crippled by the removal of party subsidies.

While one can see this as a strategic move for dominance in Quebec I’m not sure wider impact is being analyzed. In fact, opportunities abound including companies controlled by foreign holding companies or, in some cases, subject to other countries differences (health care in US vs. Canada can create unfair advantages).

I just think this has not been thought out well enough.

But political contributions from corporations is no longer allowed in Canada, at the federal level, thanks to the Political Financing Reform laid out in the Federal Accountability Act.

Or am I missing your point?

Whoa there, I didn’t say that he’s reached adulthood yet, Stevie clearly got a lot more growin to do before that day comes. Despite what he says with Peter Mansbridge, I think he’s obsessed with ‘the game’ too much to ever drop it. I think there are serious lack of trust issues here, Harper trusts no one and Canadians don’t trust him with a majority.

Well, yeah. He’s a politician.

I’ve never understood this meme that Canadians “don’t trust him with a majority.” I know I’m nitpicking but it’s a description of the election results that in its wording actually becomes false. The electorate doesn’t act in concert; it’s a set of individual voters. You either vote for the Conservative candidate, or you vote for the Liberal candidate, or you vote for the NDP etc etc. Nobody goes into the polling station thinking, “I want a Conservative minority and I’ll vote that way, but I won’t vote hard enough to make it a majority.” Since the Conservatives have to the most extent been able to govern as if they have a majority, it barely matters, anyway.

We have an electorate that has become curiously entrenched in its voting preference; were an election to be held tomorrow the results would be pretty much the same as 2008, which in turn were pretty much the same as 2006. Whether it’s the personalities involved I don’t know, but there is no rule that says it has to stay that way. In the flappery over the “Coalition,” Conservative support ballooned to over 50%; had Harper thought he could have prevailed upon the G-G to call an election, he would have won the greatest majority in the history of the country. There’s no telling what might happen in politics, and the next election could yield a Conservative majority, or a Liberal government, because of some event that is yet to take place.

You’re right, individually, the Canadian electorate don’t parse out their vote in such a manner. However, I kinda use that phrase to say “Canadians don’t trust the Conservative party enough to vote for them in large enough numbers to result in a majority government.”

I’m of the opinion that Canadians would vote for the Conservative party in larger numbers if only Harper would trim some of his (for lack of a better phrase) personality quirks. In fact I think he would’ve already won one already if he didn’t mess up his chances in Quebec in the last election for a very silly reason.

I think the problem with the Conservatives is kind of simple; their tv commercials are nausea-inducing. In spite of whatever else they have or haven’t done, the public perception of them come election time is that they are assholes because of the campaign decision-makers. Prime Minister Harper should have fired the lot of them after the last execrable campaign.

It’s been proven time and time again that attack ads work. The Conservative party is very, very in tune to this concept. Like you, I don’t like attack ads.

But watch the polls over the next few weeks and be amazed.

I hate attack adds, and I refuse to vote for any party that depends on them to the extent that the Conservatives do. To me they just seem like they are targeted for idiots. They insult the intelligence of anyone who sees them.

OTOH I would never vote Conservative anyway, so it’s no big loss for them.

I’m not sure that’s still true - this article supports the idea that people are tired of attack campaigns. I agree with Ludy that they seem targeted for idiots; it’s like watching a paint-by-numbers political campaign; insert slur A against party B here, etc. I happen to think PM Harper is a very capable man and leader, but he always goes back to the well of attack campaigns instead of playing to his strengths.

Unfortunately you fail to grasp that most voters are indeed, idiots! :smiley:

ETA: That link isn’t working for me.

ETAETA: Does now.

I’m having some germ of a thought of a campaign aimed at voters acting better than they actually are, instead of playing to the lowest common denominator. :slight_smile: