Friday, January 31, 2014

Stephen Harper's house of cards

It's been an interesting week for Stephen Harper.

Abacus is reporting that more Canadians think that Justin Trudeau would do a better job of the economy than Stephen Harper. Imagine that?

(UPDATE: I just looked at the report in greater detail and it seems to me that the questions asked in this poll on the economy were only asked about Thomas Mulcair, and not all the leaders. Yet when I google the topic, all the news agencies including Abucus, seem to be framing this as how the leaders would do on the economy.)

And Justin Trudeau released his Liberal Senator bombshell this week, making all Liberal Senators independents. Read today's Chris Selley: Look who suddenly has a plausible Senate reform plan for a good analysis on this move.

And veterans aren't happy with Conservative Minister Julian Fantino.

And last but not least, Social Conservatives haven't been too happy for some time now, with Stephen Harper's world famous refusal to let us debate abortion in Parliament.

Everyone else seems to be just catching up I guess.

My oh my. Where will it all end?


  1. It is worrisome indeed. I agree that Harper has been intractable on conservative social issues, but I dread the alternative. Trudeau doesn't have much upstairs plus he is terribly young. No wisdom acquired from experience. And Mulcair is an angry man heading up a party that will advance liberal social reforms. I will still vote for Harper as I really fear what we might get instead of him.

  2. Julie have you considered voting Christian Heritage? I would also not vote Liberal or NDP, but I won't be able to vote Conservative unless something drastic changes with that party. Or if they get a new leader. I could not vote for Stephen Harper again.

  3. We don't have anyone running here for that party. If they were, I would vote for them.

  4. As I recently commented elsewhere on this blog (, I understand the desire to vote for the "lesser of three evils" as it were. But I am starting to wonder if we are just perpetuating the "evil" by doing so. If Stephen Harper knows pro-lifers will continue to vote for him regardless, then he has no incentive to allow an abortion debate in Parliament. No incentive to do even the least little bit to try to protect the most vulnerable human beings in Canada. So when pro-lifers continue to vote for the Conservatives, and Harper is re-elected as Prime Minister, he is rewarded for his pro-abortion stance. At some point, (unless the Conservative candidate one is voting for is pro-life) are pro-lifers not complicit in maintaining the status quo of zero protection for preborn children in Canada by voting Conservative under Stephen Harper? But if Harper lost his majority as a result of losing pro-life voters--or even lost the election!--this would certainly send a strong message to him that the Conservatives can no longer dismiss the concerns of pro-life Canadians. That they can no longer win politically unless they do something in defense of our weakest children. I'm not sure how things will ever turn around if we continue to fear that the Liberals could be worse. Given past experience, yes they could very well be worse, but we don't know that for sure now. We DO know, however, how Harper has governed with respect to preborn children over the past 8 years. His stance has only become more hard-line as time went by, and worse under a majority than when he only had a minority. And even if the Liberals were worse, it would only be for the time they are in power. By then, how could the Conservatives not have learned an important lesson for the next time an election rolls around? This is a long-term struggle. How do our actions now affect the direction our country will go in the future? I really don't know the answers, but I'm becoming increasingly uncomfortable with what feels to me like enabling a man who has demonstrated he will do everything in his power to quash any attempt to stand up in defence of our littlest children (and the pregnant moms who don't want abortions but have it forced upon them).