Proroguing Parliament and Conservative Crime Legislation: A Cagey Stephen Harper Takes Two Steps Back
Thursday, January 14th, 2010
Photo Credit: Maxpower
The unabashed cowardice of Stephen Harper’s latest move may rekindle the suspicions of many voters come election day. It is safe to surmise, yet early to assume, that Harper is attempting to force the opposition to trigger an election by timing his important confidence motions for the spring of 2010. With two solid election victories under his belt, it is no wonder why Harper might want to take a shot at the long coveted Conservative majority. However, this overly cautious move to suspend government business as a lead up to his big power play harkens back to the Harper from 4 years ago. It is starting to look like the long awaited socially conservative Harper may be stepping into the light.
In his recent interview with Peter Mansbridge the Prime Minister makes no bones about his effort to change his image. He admitted becoming a less partisan leader, yet he openly expressed his contempt for the opposition in his tone and his belittlement of their inquiries into government business. Harper admits that he is anxious and frustrated that Senate Reform has not moved forward, all the while drooling over the new power balance he’ll create with his new Conservative appointees. And worst of all, he admits that he will be looking to these new Conservative Senators to advance crime legislation that has been roundly rejected by our delegates in the Senate. This last hypocrisy is the most telling of what is on the mind of our Prime Minister.
(more…)

In a previous post, I suggested that Mr. Harper and Mr. Ignatieff were, from the point-of-view of the average voter, 
I came across an interesting study in regards to abortion. It was commissioned by the UN, so I would say it is a reliable study from a credible international organization.
With the Conservatives already planning their attack ads against Michael Ignatieff in preparation for the next election, one has to wonder just how swayed they can expect the public to be against their second straight Liberal opponent in under a year. Ignatieff has laughed off the threat, sarcastically quipping that he’s “shaking” at the thought. Defiant words, considering the negative impact the relentless bombardment of attack ads directed at Stéphane Dion had. Now it’s the same party with a different personality at the helm, but perhaps that projection of confidence, the cocky/defiant confidence which the more appeasing Dion lacked, is exactly what might bolster the new leader with voters and put the Grits back into office. It’s possible, for what makes a party worthy of governance, and what makes their leader resonate with voters doesn’t seem to be the same thing necessarily, and the Grits numbers have improved since Ignatieff became leader of the party. But is it enough? Will his personality triumph over the inevitable onslaught of smears? Or does anyone really care? Ignatieff, while seemingly more popular than Dion, still doesn’t inspire the same kind of political zeal in Canada that Barack Obama has in the US (or in Canada for that matter). In fact, just about the only safe bet in Canadian poltics these days would be if Barack Obama ran for, well… anything. You see, Canadians are Obama crazy. In fact, some polls during Obama’s presidential campaign run suggested a staggering 80% of Canadians would have voted for Obama given the chance. 80% in any democracy is beyond a landslide. It’s actually getting into ‘was that rigged?’ territory. When Obama visited Ottawa for a few hours a couple weeks ago, Canadians scrambled from all over to get to Ottawa, just to get a chance not to see him. So it’s fair to say that Canadians have Obama mania. It’s all somewhat understandable; by all accounts he is a bright, principled man, but what’s more than that, he’s clearly an exceptional orator, inspiring the basic fibers of inspiration wherever and whenever he speaks, so much so that he unfortunately seems to trigger a reflexive Canadian self-loathing anxiety. For as much as Canadians love Obama, they can’t seem to talk about him without lamenting about the state of their own politics; carrying on about how they ‘wish we could have an Obama’, ‘our politics are boring,’ etc. It’s envy as much as it is mania, and it’s an attitude that’s replete in Canada. Where and how Canadians get this attitude is somewhat of a mystery, because Canadian politics, like the politics of any country, can be very interesting, and there are plenty of good politicians in the fold. So why the self hate?