Canada Election 2011

[Snick]

I recently moved and have no clue what riding I'm in even.

I also have no idea how to change it with Elections Canada, so I might end up not voting because I don't wanna vote in a riding I don't live in (That's also been NDP won by a landslide for the last 15 years). I did change my address with CRA though so maybe they'll pass the word on.

I'd consider myself liberal, but I really do not like the leaders they've been picking. And it doesn't seem like the tories have done that bad of a job. Either way, I don't see anything changing. Will probably still be a Harper minority

[aduidarnenye]

Watching parliament on CPAC and they're absolutely screaming at each other in the house right now about the election. Although screaming and fighting in parliament is nothing new I suppose.

[Anton]

Yea general bet is another Harper minority. Stephen's too polarizing to be given full reins over the country, but he's kept his fuck-ups relatively small. Is there a reason for Ignatieff to call this? Or does he just want a seat in the PM's office? The more the conservatives can muddle the message the better for them, I think. It's like Stephane Dion 2.0

Still won't change anything, which works against the Libs, not for them

[Zubuis]

Dont really follow politics, but I dunno seems to me that Harper's done a pretty good job overall. I rarely hear people complain much about him, which I take it as good thing. A prime minister/president who fucks up stuff rarely is better than someone who potentially could really fuck things up especially with how the world is these days.

[Elesirdur]

I recently moved and have no clue what riding I'm in even.

I also have no idea how to change it with Elections Canada, so I might end up not voting because I don't wanna vote in a riding I don't live in (That's also been NDP won by a landslide for the last 15 years). I did change my address with CRA though so maybe they'll pass the word on.

I'd consider myself liberal, but I really do not like the leaders they've been picking. And it doesn't seem like the tories have done that bad of a job. Either way, I don't see anything changing. Will probably still be a Harper minority

If you go to the Elections Canada I know you can enter your address/postal code to find you current riding. So long as you have resided there for at least either six weeks or six months (don't really remember right now) and can prove it with a pay stub, utility bill, apartment lease agreement etc., then you can change your residence for the purpose of voting in your current riding. It should be pretty easy to do.

If all else fails, I think you can just show up at a local polling centre on election day and present any of the above documentation and they'll let you vote.

[Cadsuane]

That's either retarded or brilliant.

I can imagine if we were like that in the U.S., we'd have a new president every week.

The upshot is that a Canadian government only stays in power as long as it enjoys the confidence of the house and tangentially the confidence of the public, and a government without that confidence can be quickly removed from power in a flash election. The downshot is that unstable governments go to elections all the time which is expensive and frustrating for Canadians.

All in all though it's pretty sweet. Even this minority government stalemate has produced some very competent policy as Anton has pointed out, that all parties have had a hand in to varying degrees. That might make some people wonder whyever we should go back to a majority rule.

[Cantih]

I've never understood that two party thing in the US. I've been trying to wrap my head around whether or not the Tea Party is a separate party or if they're Republicans or whatever for ages now.

Well, it depends on if the movement survives over time, but you can probably think of them as former republicans who are splitting off because they are dissatisfied with the current republican party's... hmm, I can't find the right word. They're basically still republicans from an ideological standpoint, but they've rejected the party as it is right now.
That's about as deep as I can explain it without sparking a flame war.

[Anton]

Elections are also damaging in terms of fiscal policy because they represent a period of uncertainty for investors at home and abroad. Generally markets prior to and afterwards get volatile, so businesses aren't happy.

Look, nobody in the public wants these things, and I think that's the big difference between Canada and US systems. Furthermore, the Elections Act strictly restricts the amount of money you can spend in an election from interest groups, the rest of the money parties have to go raise by themselves from the public. As a result, everyone tries to shoot for the 36 day minimum when possible - nobody likes paying for elections (some historical elections were double or even longer in length. That would really suck).

Because so much of the onus is on the public, 'threat of election' is generally a strong Opposition tool with regards to policy. Even that is really distasteful, in practice it's like mutual public suicide, and is reserved for serious issues.

It's been nearly two years since the last "call for election" from the grits, and and then not an actual election since 2008. The historical average is three and a half years, so this has been pretty long for a minority gov't, when you think about it. But if anybody can come up with a reason for an election NOW, and not, you know, on any of the other Harper gaffes over the last year, let me know eh?

Edit:
Well according to the Globe, Libs think we're gonna really like Ignatieff. Harper's handling the Libyan crisis well so far (wasn't he the first to call for sanctions against Gadhafi?) so uh... I guess we'll see and find out..

[Anton]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle1953308/

Ignatieff addresses remarks following Wednesday's session.

I don't know about the jails, but I do like planes, and here's the situation:
BACKGROUND (about the jet):

Spoiler: show

The Lockheed Martin F-35 Lightning II is a multirole fighter, similar to the mulltirole capability of the CF-18. Only

The F-35 is required to be four times more effective than legacy fighters in air-to-air combat, eight times more effective than legacy fighters in air-to-ground combat, and three times more effective than legacy fighters in reconnaissance and suppression of air defenses – while having better range and requiring less logistics support.

-Durable, low-maintenance stealth technology, using structural fiber mat instead of the high-maintenance coatings of legacy stealth platforms;[65]
-Integrated avionics and sensor fusion that combine information from off- and on board sensors to increase the pilot's situational awareness and improve target identification and weapon delivery, and to relay information quickly to other command and control (C2) nodes;
-High speed data networking including IEEE 1394b[66] and Fibre Channel.[67]
-The Autonomic Logistics Global Sustainment (ALGS), Autonomic Logistics Information System (ALIS) and Computerized Maintenance Management System (CMMS) help ensure aircraft uptime with minimal maintenance manpower.[68]
-Electrohydrostatic actuators run by a power-by-wire flight-control system.

Basically, it's designed to be a new generation fighter significantly better than yesteryear, while also requiring less maintenance dollars than the F-22 Raptor, however maintenance costs will increase 30-40% over yesteryear. It is, of course, an unknown as development has hit several speedbumps relating to US federal budgeting, hardware issues, and skyrocketing development costs. Cost estimates have risen from the projected 86 - 200 Million US flyaway cost, to a more clear estimate of $156 million each, or $382 billion for a 2,443 aircraft production run.

We pay none of this.

STORY (The Political stuffs):

Spoiler: show

From the beginning, Canada has been involved in the development process in the JSF program, investing $10M to be an "informed customer" during testing. Once Lockheed Martin won the contract, we elected to become Level 3 participants in the JSF program, investing 100 million over 10 years and another 50 million from Industry Canada. This was 2002. The Prime Minister was Jean Chretien.

Alan S. Williams of Queen's University has indicated that he believes that Canada's rationale for joining the JSF project was not due to an urgent need to replace Canada's fleet of CF-18 Hornets; instead, it was driven primarily by economics.[71] Through Canadian government investment in the JSF project, Williams says that Canadian companies were allowed to compete for contracts within the JSF project, as there were fears that being shut out from industrial participation in such a large program would severely damage the Canadian aviation industry.[71] Joining also furthered Canadian access to information regarding the F-35 as a possible contender when it eventually plans to replace the CF-18 Hornet fleet. Improved interoperability with major allies allowed the DND to gain insight on leading edge practices in composites, manufacturing and logistics, and offered the ability to recoup some investment if the government did decide to purchase the F-35

As a result, the total estimated value of making the planes is worth an estimated $4.8 - 6.8 billion US to Canadian aviation.
Wikipedia continues:

On 16 July 2010, the Canadian government announced that it would buy 65 F-35s to replace the existing 80 CF-18s for $16B (with all ancillary costs included) starting in 2016. Opposition Liberal Party Leader Michael Ignatieff immediately called for the Canadian House of Commons Standing Committee on National Defence to reconvene as soon as possible and examine the purchase, calling it a "secretive, unaccountable decision to proceed with this contract." Ignatieff indicated at that point in time that they would put the sole-sourced contract on hold should they form the next government. The purchase announcement created immediate Canadian media speculation that, with the national opposition parties uniting against the sole-source contract, this contract might bring down the minority Conservative government and force an election over the issue. The media criticized the aircraft as being too expensive, too short-ranged and too complex for Canada's needs and also questioned the use of a single engined fighter to patrol the airspace of a country as big as Canada. Moreover, Leonard Johnson, a retired Canadian air force Major General and former commandant of the National Defence College said, "It’s hard to see any useful military role for the F-35. The age of major inter-state war between developed nations has vanished, so why prepare for one?"

RESULT:

Spoiler: show

By late 2010 Canada's political parties had outlined their positions on the proposed F-35 purchase. The Conservatives had declared it their top defence priority, the Liberals indicated that they would hold a competition to determine a new fighter, the New Democratic Party was opposed to the purchase and the Bloc Québécois were in favour of it only as long as Quebec aerospace firms get a share of the work

Bloc are you shitting me? So Greasy.

So Conservatives say it's time to upgrade, the Liberals want a government contract, the NDP was unaware we spend money on an Air Force, and the Bloc don't give a shit unless Quebec gets money.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Look, the CF-18 Hornet, or rather the F-18 Hornet cause it IS America's design, was introduced in 1983. Ah, when did Pong come out? In terms of aircraft, anyone here would admit, we've been flying with Commodore 64's for years. Technology has come a very long way.

The thing is, you can bitch about sole sourcing all you want, but who's offering? Boeing and Dassault have already launched complaints, saying the Super Hornet and Rafale respectively would be a good fit too. The Super Hornet came out in '95, the US still uses them, they would be decent, but cheap. Though when you think about it, Windows 95 was a good system and is now very cheap! Harper did not ask for their information at all.

In Dec 2010, Eurofighter and Saab gave Harper info regarding their fourth-generation aircraft (our CF-18's would be.. third?) both of which would be cheaper than the F-35. Neither of which have stealth. Until there's a new way to detect aircraft, the US has proven that stealth is the hotness - it is the next-level shit that previous-level despots can't handle.

What I took away from this was simply: This decision to buy the F-35 was made a loooooong time ago. We've been involved in the process from the start. The craft has been developed alongside our Air Force's listed requirements. Chretien already guaranteed money for the development of this craft, and we have the insider info regarding the process. We even fought to get construction rights for our own manufacturing firms to offset some of the $16-18 Billion total price!

The decision to purchase in 2016 was no accident either - one would predict we'd see some sort of normalcy in the economy in... well, six years from the time Harper made the statement.

The program has already been delayed by two years, so it's likely any purchase won't be until, I assume, 2018 anyway, when this Jan 2011 dated announcement reaches the previous year's purchase decision.

Extra Reading

Spoiler: show

On 10 March 2011 the Parliamentary Budget Officer, Kevin Page presented an analysis of the costs of the proposed Canadian purchase and concluded that the program will cost C$29.3B over 30 years, and not the C$16B to C$18B the government has been claiming and would push per aircraft costs to C$450M each. Defence Minister Peter MacKay stated that cancelling the deal would "endanger the lives of Canadian pilots" and "endanger the sovereignty of this country", although he did not give specifics indicating why that would be the case.[110][111] The Canadian government has questioned some of the assumptions that Page made, such as the aircraft lasting 30 years instead of the planned 20 so that 10 more years of useful life could be added to the fixed sum. After reviewing the Parliamentary Budget Officer's report the opposition Bloc Quebecois leader Gilles Duceppe was reportedly shocked by the cost and changed his mind on supporting the sole-sourced F-35 purchase and now opposes it as unaffordable, favoring an open competition to choose a new fighter instead.[112] The defence department responded with their own details of $16 billion in costs over a lifespan of only 20 years.[113][114] On 23 March Kevin Page responded to the Defence Department's assistant deputy minister who claimed that Page had made mathematical errors in his calculations on both the individual cost of the F-35s and on their long-term maintenance. Page indicated that the latest US Department of Defence estimates are for US$151M per aircraft and that the US would not pay more for the aircraft than its allies.[115][116]
Laurie Hawn, parliamentary secretary to the minister of national defence, has said that they expect to purchase the aircraft for between $70 and 75 million each, but that number was not firm, but based on conversations with other international customers.[117] He defended the 20 year budget figure and said "It really is the best airplane for the best price with the best benefit to Canadian industry to serve our military's needs for the next 40 years".

I wish I could just get a single number, but it seems both could be right

The bottom line is if you want quality you pay for it, but if you get to build exactly what you want and we're already deeply involved (they're even modding our planes to conform to our airborne tankers)... I would not back out of this program if we want a 21st century airforce. 1983 wow... it's upgrade time folks.


EDIT: spoiler tags for less cluttered page.

[Cadsuane]

The F-18 airframe being old doesn't indicate obsolescence necessarily, that's generally not how things work in aerospace. Your analogies were a bit misleading that way. I don't really have a definitive opinion either way on the subject of the JSF, but I'm leery of any party that employs "support the troops" chest beating and national security scaremonger rhetoric, and I'm also at a loss as to what theoretical arms race Canada could find itself in that would justify buying the most advanced multi role fighter jet in the world. Arctic sovereignty I suppose?

[Anton]

Have you ever heard the saying "there's nothing more expensive than the second-best air force?"

Air Forces are extremely expensive investments, often prohibitively so, very few countries have any. With the purchase, we'd actually reduce the size of our Air Force in terms of numbers, but greatly increase the performance thereof.

I can tell you that stealth is as revolutionary to aircraft as the jet engine to the propeller. Which is a reason why planes are referred to as generational - every now and again a technology comes along that completely changes the game.

A senior USAF pilot complained thusly about the Super Hornet being incorrectly labled "fifth generation" by Boeing:

"The whole point to fifth generation is the synergy of stealth, fusion and complete situational awareness. The point about fifth-generation aircraft is that they can do their mission anywhere - even in sophisticated integrated air defense [IADS] environments. If you fly into heavy IADS with a great radar and sensor fusion, but no stealth, you will have complete situational awareness of the guy that kills you"

Basically, it's a safety issue. It's like... running trough Arrapago Reef without sneak/invis. It's just way more dangerous.

Tortured metaphors are torrrrrtured.....

Edit: If they're too expensive, we can buy less or opt out later (many development countries are rethinking amount and aircraft type - we aren't alone in that regard). In aircraft, quality is better than quantity, I'd have less F-35's than something else if it came down to me.

[Cadsuane]

That doesn't really persuade me. I'd hazard an estimate that more than half of the airframes designed and built since world war II in North America never saw combat and functioned instead as deterrants in one arms race or another. It's the 21st century now. NORAD is irrelevant, NATO involves a substantial portion of the eastern bloc, the cold war is resoundingly over. The best case scenario is that the JSF makes the RCAF marginally more integrable with whatever American led coalition du jour we're joining, but more likely, the most harrowing mission they're ever going to be sent on is the bombing of defenseless ground targets with absolutely no risk of reprisal just like the previous three generations of Canadian fighters. To me, it kinda seems the F-18 is already perfectly capable of doing this. Whatever tactical appraisal for a hypothetical air war some military jockey wants to offer up strikes me as fanciful and narrow viewed because the game you mentioned exists only in the imaginations of military theoreticians. Our hypothetical enemies either reside in the 3rd world and use equipment obsolete to our own 30 year old gear, or they posess forces vastly superior to any defense budget we could pass.

[Skjie]

Dont really follow politics, but I dunno seems to me that Harper's done a pretty good job overall. I rarely hear people complain much about him, which I take it as good thing. A prime minister/president who fucks up stuff rarely is better than someone who potentially could really fuck things up especially with how the world is these days.

Not, Jets, Corporate Taxes, Kenney using Govt resources to do fundraising for "ethnic groups" should be the best talking points. It amazes me that Harper has gotten away with how seriously corrupt he is running the Government without any sort of popular backlash.

[Skjie]

Oh, and cutting the GST was the stupidest populist move of all time. We could've been the only 1st world country to escape the financial collapse if not for that piece of boneheadedness.

[aurik]

No, we wouldn't. Because we sell a huge portion of our exports to the US which still would have been in a huge depression. As it is, our financial systems proved to be about the most resilient in the world, thanks to fairly good oversight.

[Mazmaz]

All the people in this thread that come in and say how the Torries haven't fucked up badly must've just been ignorant of all the shit that's happened over the last little while.

Here's 10 of them, and that's not even mentioning the failure to produce any meaningful energy plan for the Cancun summit, the G20 disaster in terms of security and spending, the refusal to include abortion and contraceptive support as part of their maternal health strategy (the only G8 country to do this), etc etc the list goes on.

I always voted NDP, but at this point I'm seriously considering voting Liberal to try and get rid of this shitty government. I'm seriously not even proud to be Canadian anymore at this point.

[aduidarnenye]

Is that air force thing another of those stupid deals where:
(1) Government A gets into some kind of contract for new equipment
(2) Government A is forced out of office
(3) Government B's election campaign promise was to cancel the deal
(4) Government B cancels the deal and ends up having to pay almost as much as the deal in penalties but gets no new equipment
(5) 3-4 years later Government B gets into some kind of new contract for other new equipment
(6) Government C gets elected on the promise of canceling that...
...and so on?

Cause that's utter stupidity and why the air force is still flying Sea King helicopters.

It particularly annoys me because I've been trying to get into the Navy for two years now and the recruiters keep telling me that they are desperate for people but the budget restraints won't allow them to hire any new people.


Other than that, I've always voted Liberal in the past but that Igniatiff (whatever) guy does come across like a big old sleaze ball. I can't bring myself to vote NDP or PC though. Maybe I'll waste my vote and go Green.

[Anton]

I count maybe seven genuine scandals there, and I'm surprised the census reform, or "The Most Manufactured Issue of All Time", didn't make the cut.

For example, calling a story "sexy" is a PR gaffe, not a government scandal. It was stupid, but the only person to blame is the one who said it. Long forgotten, that one.

The G20 disaster was, in fact, a logistical failure. You do remember the original plan was to go to Muskoka, right? And then the heads of other states decided rural canada is far too dangerous a place for their security teams - Hey let's all crowd Toronto! Me first in the Royal Fairmont! Me First In the Fairmoooont!

Fuck, I had to deliver building supplies. I lived through that one in all its misery.

Harper and the Conservatives are ideologues and I'd never give them a majority. But, but... fiscally... we suffered the least, and emerged as a financial safe haven during the longer, protracted US recession. This is indisputable - Canada has had the most stable banking system since the crash (Remember Harper meeting Sarkozy to discuss what to do about poor ol' America? Owned).

That's why this election is confusing - it really doesn't time with anything exciting. What were the libs doing during those scandals? Surely there were better times to call an election than now

On business taxes:
Cutting business taxes helps during a recession. It encourages more foreign investment for one, and, as a temporary measure, helps businesses get back on their feet financially. The goal is getting money flowing again in the economy, because economic strength refers to the availability of credit and the flow of money (think income, not paycheque. One is temporary, a one and done, the other implies future money - something you can quantify and count on).

Now with that as a goal, you can cut taxes OR start a program, depending on your economic ideology, but the end result is businesses will get financial support one way or the other. I'm easy either way, and under the Action Plan, there are some tax cuts and some programs. It's a good mix.

So as far as the economy is concerned, Harper's done ok trying to right the ship. I'm telling ya, it can be a LOT worse than what happened.

Is that air force thing another of those stupid deals where:
(1) Government A gets into some kind of contract for new equipment
(2) Government A is forced out of office
(3) Government B's election campaign promise was to cancel the deal
(4) Government B cancels the deal and ends up having to pay almost as much as the deal in penalties but gets no new equipment
(5) 3-4 years later Government B gets into some kind of new contract for other new equipment
(6) Government C gets elected on the promise of canceling that...
...and so on?

Sorta kinda?

1. In 2002, the standing liberal party took interest in a new program to replace the F/A-18's some time down the road.
2. According to one official, it's at this time the Libs weighed the contract against competitors and decided to buy into the JSF program
3. We arranged for a construction sharing deal to offset the future costs. The RCAF worked with Lockheed to get the mods needed to work in our military.
4. 2 years after the crash, Harper announced plans to purchase the plane. Ignatieff says we did not seek competitors. Did the Libs do the seeking like the official said? Did Harper leap at the first available contract? He does not talk much, we likely won't know

If we back out we forfeit the $160 Million footed in 2002 to develop the plane and get the inside track on results. There will be no aviation construction share, no spot in line. Then again, other countries are still adjusting their final purchase details in light of the recession, so nothing is set in stone at this point (besides the remaining promised development funding).

Having looked at the specs, and using what albeit limited knowledge I have as an aviation enthusiast, I can safely say the JSF represents a quantum leap in technology for war, and by extension safety for our pilots. The question is do you want the best available, or the best discount?

Cause that's utter stupidity and why the air force is still flying Sea King helicopters

Fuck yea, Sea Kings?
http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:A...2Rv3_2hhvvoD6A

The JSF isn't even ready for testing yet, and the US is bitching at Lockheed to lower the unit prices. So not even the final cost is set in stone folks.

[Mazmaz]

I don't know how spending $2M on an indoor lake in a city that's next to a lake can be called fiscally responsible. Same with cutting the GST (stupid move like Sky said). Honestly, I wouldn't be surprised one bit if the shape Canada was in after the crash stemed from the foundation Paul Martin had laid down for the great economy that we had until the Torries took over. We could've been in a much better shape if the Torries weren't in such a hurry to get rid of the surplus Paul Martin had created for them.

As for the reason for calling the election now, I think the 2 recent scandals coupled with the Jets (see Cad's post) as well as this government's repeated refusal after refusal of providing documents on fucking ANYTHING they do is a pretty damn good reason to call it.

I don't know much outside of reports I see on TV and shit but some of this stuff seems common sense to me. I don't see how a liberal government would do any worse than Torries have done so far, and their policies would not include obvious anti-progressive ideologies like lack of any care for environment, abortion/contraceptives (which the WHO told them would save lives in the third world), and military spending.

[Anton]

http://icanhascheezburger.files.word...jet-planes.jpg

What choices do we have? We are going to have to scrap the Hornets within ten years, by military estimate.

The main thing you need to keep an aircraft flying for a long time is a parts chain that lasts as long as the plane. Hell I could've kept my 66 Rambler running if they kept making parts for it. However, we are running out of planes to cannibalize for our fleet. It comes down to a few choices:

-Buy the JSF, which we've helped develop.
-Buy the Super Hornet, because it's American, not too old, proven, and pretty much just a 'Super' Hornet
-Procrastinate. We'll never get our hands on the Russian planes, the Grippen was built to defend Sweden-size, not Canada-size, and there's no point going backwards to, say, the soon-to-be-retired F-15's (not only older but quickly becoming maintenance heavy)

NATO has already threatened to withhold sub tracks if we don't upgrade our crappy subs. It's no fun being the slacker.

Edit: Read This. It's the PBO's independent evaluation of the JSF jet program. It's... well...

Okay I see why we're having an election now. Some key quotes:

In a typical competitive bid process, the requirements, acquisition, and long-term sustainment costs, and the IRBs are weighed together to select the winner. In the case of the F-35 proposal, no competition was held. (Emphasis added in bold typeface) The SOR has not been made publicly available, the capabilities of the aircraft remain uncertain given its current state of development, the IRBs remain unclear, and the acquisition and long-term sustainment costs have not been determined.

Canada has not signed any binding contract for acquisition, nor is it under any legal obligation—international or domestic—to go ahead with the purchase. The significant investment made in the development phase is a sunk cost, so a decision not to proceed with the acquisition would not result in any incremental financial costs to the Canadian government.

Relying on these historical trends and applicable cost drivers, the PBO was able to forecast a total ownership cost of approximately US$ 29.3 billion for the 65 aircraft over a 30-year period. This includes both acquisition and long-term sustainment costs and reflects a 75% confidence interval. (end of excerpt)

“This report makes it clearer than ever that the Liberal Party of Canada is making the right choice to cancel this untendered purchase,” said Mr. LeBlanc. “A future Liberal government will save billions of dollars by cancelling the Conservative F-35 stealth fighter deal and holding an open competition to replace Canada’s CF-18s.”

Among the findings of the PBO report:

-- An open competition would reduce costs and support transparency by making the true costs public;
-- Even though Canada participated in the development of the F-35, we were never under any obligation to buy these planes without an open competition; and
-- There is no penalty for cancelling the current deal and holding an open competition for our next fighter jet.

“Canadians would be shocked to discover that the Harper Conservatives did not negotiate any industrial regional benefits for Canada when they agreed to buy the F-35, while this report found that other countries are pushing for such benefits,” said Mr. Garneau. “An open competition will allow all potential contenders to prove the quality of their product while putting their best price and industrial benefits proposals on the table.”

Also a good read:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle1955970/
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

See now I can live with Harper's Economic Action Plan, 'cause it was working. And I can live with the GST cut, even though it's purely political and accomplishes very little. But even I get sick of his deception. My biggest issue with Harper has always been the ideological bullshit you have to stomach to keep him in. "I'm Reforming The Senate!" (stuff senate with conservatives). "I'm Concerned for our Privacy!" (do something stupid with the census). "I support Global Health Initiatives!" (except ones involving abortion and rubbers).

Ain't no way Harper gets a Majority. No way.