canada's new prime minister..........
134032
it was January 23rd (but i didn't vote for him). he was elected into a minority government. which means that he has to get votes from other party's to get bills past. Its a delicate balancing act. But i do not believe he will last long.
640245
:-)  Not sure what got into me but i'm hoping you will get it from the horses mouth since i forwarded your question to the Conservative Party.  (with a link to this question obviously)I reckon the new conservatives are more llikely to answer than the old ones ever were. \nAlso this is what you get when you put 'new conservatives' into their search egine: http://www.conservatives.com/search.results.page.do
232020
The reshuffle was instigated way before Prescott's and Clarke's miseries. It wouldn't have helped just to sack Prescott (which Blair didn't anyway) - Blair NEED to do something on education and the NHS, and he MUST do something on foreign affairs and Europe - hence the major reshuffle!
551065
If he becomes prime minister I don't care which party it is, But I would expect someone from some party to declare a vote of 'no-confidence' in the government, which if won, will result in an immediate General Election!!! This would give the people a chance to vote democracy back into politics and give us some power back from this bunch of left wing dictators that have ruined this country!
284267
British Prime Minister.
181249
New Zealnaders rather like you Canadians: you make polite guests, and you have charming accents. We share a lot in common, such as government and hatred for all Americans :), and we are both quiet acheivers in international politics. \n\n We don't like the fact that you still have French people, and have stopped playing international cricket and rugby, though. :)
385088
Stephen Harper is simply trying to push ideas that he thinks you should want, while maintaining a tenuous hold on power. \n\nHarper and a lot of his policy advisors have spend a lot of their time planning for this dramatic shift to Prairie values. They've spent almost a decade and a half building their ire, saying "if I was in power, I would...". All the while in their regionalistic Reform/Alliance/Conservative party shifts and they want to prove their ideas. I wouldn't vote for the guy - but I believe he honesty believes his ideas are better. \n\nThe taxing of Income trusts looks like a move to keep the 60% or so of the progressive/leftist part of the House of Commons slightly pleased with him. The reduction of the GST seems like he's trying to prove to voters that he'll really save them money. I guess paying up to 15% sales tax in some parts of the country is kind of lame - but so is making miniscule changes just to look like you're doing something. If he really wanted to change things a major reduction or elimination of the GST would be welcomed. Other than that, why bother splitting hairs?\n\nHarper's economic policy will (in hindsight) be the result of being pulled in two opposite directions. He must balance his truly small-c conservative fiscal ideas and having to appease the Liberals, Bloc Quebecois, & NDP - who are thankfully are (as a whole - not individually) pretty good watchdogs for the little guy.
376925
Harper was brave enough to state the "Québécois" form a nation within a united Canada...(pls note that he did not say "Québec" formed a nation). Although i'm no where close to being a conservative fan, i do respect that he put down such a motion on the floor for debate. \n\nSeriously, you have to pay attention to the wording...had Harper said that Quebec formed a nation, the the Bloc would have shut up and agreed...but that isn't the case people...
481946
The governor general of Canada is Michaelle Jean.
421934
the phrase is Quebecois, and Prime Minister. You can check it out on Government of Canada website. Under history.
125114
I'm willing to give Harper a chance.  I was actually relieved that he beat Paul Martin, because at that point, I was sick of the Liberals and their stench of corruption and broken promises in the House of Commons.\n\nI was disappointed that neither Jean Chretien nor Paul Martin were the least bit interested in repairing Candian relations with the United States (which, as I see it, are still in the toilet somewhat), which is why I also lost faith in Bush in the wake of all this Iraq war hoopla.  I'm still counting on Harper to fix this, but it's a shame he won a minority victory, so he's got "eagles" watching him, and he can't do whatever he wants in the H of C.  I'm still hopeful, though, and he's discussing this issue with his people to let him try his solutions.
312837
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mayors_in_Canada\n\nshould fix your problem. :)
187368
the single worst leader of the uk in my life time!\n\nno-one has done more to crush the working man and support the rich in the last 35 years.\n\nyes i am only 35 years old but political history is important.\n\nboring sometimes!\n\nbut important.\n\ntony blair is not great but compared to her he is ok.
364751
To both tarashan and Maxx:  Neither of you seem to understand the relationship between our countries, or between our governments, for that matter.\ntarashan, I'm not a conservative voter, but Harper is the one who wants to expand our military in the North to maintain our claim against the U.S.A.\nAlso, the Americans would be more likely to defend us than any other country in the world would.  They say they like us, but not enough to defend us.  (Could it be they like us because they don't know us?)\nMaxx:  -  your depiction of Canada as a worthless country doesn't reflect your government's attitude.  We are a valued ally (we werre in the gulf War, in the Korean war, we are in Afghanistan...)  and we are a valued trading partner.\nAs for an invasion being over in a few days, somebody said that back in 1812.  You have the wherewithal to beat us, yes - but it wouldn't be that easy.    Your leaders  thought Iraq would be easy...
501803
Unfortunately he IS our PM and therefore carries the mandate to speak for Canada - even if it isn't what we personally choose to say.  I cannot agree with the above statement "Canada supports Israel" - If they are wrong then they are wrong - we cannot simply let them be because of  historical events and fear of being labled anti-semetic - disagreeing with the wholesale murder of civilians in any country they attack IS NOT ANTI-SEMETIC.\n\nHowever back to my point - He can speak for us but if we feel he's got it wrong then WE must state our case loudly and proudly.\n\nAs much as I am NOT a conservative and found "Stevie" to be a dull dull boy - I saw him on the Mercer report the other night and (argghh, I have to admit it) the man was funny and managed to raise my personal opinion of him to a new level - from below zero to 2 - it is KEY that our leaders have a sense of humour and are able to mock their own reputations!
433348
I think so now with Bush and Harper signing a treaty to intergrate the criminal databases of both countries. Probadly will be banned from Canada, and be banned from driving in Michigan for 90 days I bet.
610542
He acted in the best interest of his people.  Americans think that he isn't trying, or that he has alernative motives.  Thousands of people in your country were just killed, what do you do?  Who do you blame?  When you hear rumors of nuclear arms, do you just sit back and relax?\n\nI find that, being Canadian, I can step back and look at his point of view. You guys are clouding you sight with anger.