The Shotgun Blog
« Sarah Palin nonsense and moral illiteracy in the Toronto Star | Main | Emerson will chair Conservative campaign »
Friday, September 05, 2008
Majority rules
It's official. PM Harper will be visiting the GG on Sunday to seek a general election on October 14. Here's the news release from the PMO:
PRIME MINISTER STEPHEN HARPER
PUBLIC EVENTS
OTTAWA
– Public event for Prime Minister Stephen Harper for Sunday, September 7th is:
Ottawa
8:05 a.m. – Prime Minister Stephen Harper will leave 24 Sussex en route to Rideau Hall to meet with Governor General Michaëlle Jean to ask her to dissolve the 39th Parliament for an election call October 14th, 2008.
Posted by Terry O'Neill on September 5, 2008 in Canadian Politics | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200e5550349a18834
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Majority rules:
Comments
Finally!
a thread on canadian election.
Tx Terry.
Posted by: Marc | 2008-09-05 1:46:23 PM
Vive la Quebec libre!
How can I help Quebec separate?
Posted by: set you free | 2008-09-05 2:17:12 PM
Yeah, we need to start paying attention to Canadian politics.
By the pathetic excuses and whining coming from the Libranos, we know they're running scared. That in spite of what proved to be empty threats since Dion won the Booby prize, leader of the fractured Liberals.
Lets apply the "Law of the Jungle" to the upcoming election:"The strength of the pack is the Wolf and the strength of the Wolf is the pack".
Where does that leave Dion and the Liberals?
Posted by: Liz J | 2008-09-05 2:24:54 PM
Over at MacLean's, Andrew Coyne has been rumbling about the idea that Jean does not need to accept the dissolution of Parliament, given that they passed a law setting fixed election dates. (See http://www.macleans.ca/canada/opinions/article.jsp?content=20080820_65455_65455 and http://blog.macleans.ca/2008/08/22/she-can-say-no/ ) I think there is no chance of this happening, but I have to say I'd really like to see her do it. Hoist him by his own petard, I say!
Posted by: Fact Check | 2008-09-05 2:26:23 PM
Personally, I'm trilled about two things:
First, I will especially enjoy watching the conservative pom pom girls trying to convince themselves Stephen Art-peur is still their best hope as to reducing the size of the government and on other economic conservative standards.
I am also looking forward to watch Stephen Art-Peur debating the oppositions; trying to sell he's not pushing religious ideologies while the only issues he cuts and spends on are all religiously charged.
I sincerly wish good luck to the CPC.
Posted by: Marc | 2008-09-05 2:27:43 PM
Personally, I'm trilled about two things:
Posted by: Marc | 5-Sep-08 2:27:43 PM
Me I ope to be trilled also. Ostie, câlice, tabarnak.
Posted by: The Stig | 2008-09-05 2:35:56 PM
"How can I help Quebec separate?"
Keep voting CPC.
I'll voting Bloc on my side.
How can I help Religion seperate from the State ?
Posted by: Marc | 2008-09-05 2:38:28 PM
I wish you an ostie d'cooolice de tabarnack the good election, Stig.
Posted by: Marc | 2008-09-05 2:39:47 PM
What is Canada's official religion, Marc? Secular humanism à la Révolution Tranquille?
Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-09-05 3:13:53 PM
marc:
In religious understanding, we have God-given free will.
I assume, then, that you're against free will.
Posted by: set you free | 2008-09-05 3:21:42 PM
Harper will win even if only a small portion of the population turns out to vote. Probably less than half of Canada's voters will bother. After all everyone knows who will win right?
I've been reading the same sort of thing in today's newspapers.
They likened it to going to the football game when you already know the final score...
Posted by: JC | 2008-09-05 3:56:44 PM
I wouldn't go as far as saying that Harper will win. It seems like he will but election campaigns can turn things around when the issues start being debated. If I'm not mistaken, Paul Martin had a decent lead at the beginning of the last election campaign.
What I think will help Harper is that the economy is clinging on just barely. The Liberal Party has not shown any kind of organization up to now. What could hurt Harper is his controlling attitude, not letting his cabinet ministers speak and possibly how he is very paranoid about his self-image. He just seems to be a perfectionist which annoys some as being arrogant.
His more recent support appears to be very soft and could change overnight so it should be an interesting campaign.
Posted by: Tim Trudeau | 2008-09-05 5:19:28 PM
"I assume, then, that you're against free will."
The will of this administration as nothing to do with freedom,
…neither economically nor ideologically.
Posted by: Marc | 2008-09-05 8:12:43 PM
Marc - I used to worry about Fundamentalist Christians influencing politics. It sort of scared me to think they could influence social standards. Then I watched as a bunch of Fundamentalist Muslims flew airplanes into the twin towers. Now I don't see a real problem with The "Christian Right" influencing policies. I realized I'd eventually have to pick sides, and it was an easy choice.
Posted by: dp | 2008-09-05 8:23:20 PM
I wonder if free speech will be an election issue.
The Harper "conservatives" have sided with the Canadian Human Rights Commission (CHRC).
“The Attorney General of Canada, the Canadian Human Rights Commission, the Canadian Jewish Congress, the Simon Wiesenthal Centre and B'nai Brith Canada will be intervening in the Lemire case in support of Section 13, arguing that it is a reasonable restriction on freedom of speech” (Canadian Constitution Foundation Letter of April 28, 2008)
Yet, Harper is on record as saying this a few years ago:
“Human rights commissions, as they are evolving, are an attack on our fundamental freedoms and the basic existence of a democratic society … It is, in fact, totalitarianism. I find this is very scary stuff.”
Yeah, it is "very scary stuff" Mr. Harper. When are you going restore free speech and free expression to Canadians?
Posted by: Stephen J. Gray | 2008-09-05 8:36:18 PM
So that's freedom to you dp, picking the less of two evils?
"I used to worry about Fundamentalist Christians influencing politics."
Well, they did exaclty that down south in the last decade. Look at the result and what is it already that the TWO major parties are trying to sell they're diferent from ? What is it that will play against McCain during all those debates ?
I have nothing against religious people in fact, that's the kind of people that can humble you in an instant. However, we deserve better than an Americano-neocon style administration that isn't economicaly conservative and brings us 40 years back ideologically.
Posted by: Marc | 2008-09-05 8:41:40 PM
Marc - Lesser of two evils? Maybe.
I can handle going back 40 years idealogically, if the alternative is going back 1400 years.
We WILL go to war with Islam. It can't be avoided. It's been festering since the first crusades. Those best suited to lead such a war are those with strong faith and convictions. Even though I'm not a practising Christian, I know who my real friends are.
Posted by: dp | 2008-09-05 8:56:09 PM
I can handle the interplay between religions but freedom of speech must be in play. What I do have a problem with is the modern religion known as secular humanism. It has a distinctly fascist tinge to it. It has developed that there is nothing so illiberal as a liberal.
Posted by: DML | 2008-09-05 10:56:55 PM
"We WILL go to war with Islam. It can't be avoided."
Please develop without using neocons' buzzwords.
Posted by: Marc | 2008-09-06 1:26:25 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.