# Iggy Pulling The Plug?



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

The Canadian Press: Ignatieff to Harper: 'Your time is up'

Not sure I think this is a wise move from his viewpoint, if indeed this is anything more than a trial balloon.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Balloon - the Electors will punish Ignatieff for pulling the cord on an election that isn't needed, and has no point. Of course, there will be tons of people in the Liberal Party that will egg Ignatieff on, because losing an election is the fastest way to shove him off of the cliff that they shoved Dion and Martin off of.

The CBC will be all for it, because it would mean a return to gratuitous amounts of cash shoveled their way without actually having to have a plan, or to even show up at a meeting to ask or justify the money.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

EvanPitts said:


> Balloon - the Electors will punish Ignatieff for pulling the cord on an election that isn't needed, and has no point. Of course, there will be tons of people in the Liberal Party that will egg Ignatieff on, because losing an election is the fastest way to shove him off of the cliff that they shoved Dion and Martin off of.
> 
> The CBC will be all for it, because it would mean a return to gratuitous amounts of cash shoveled their way without actually having to have a plan, or to even show up at a meeting to ask or justify the money.


All the news media will be all for it -- election time is party time for them. If I was advising the Libs I would say just give Harper more rope to hang himself with and wait until next year.

Interesting conspiracy theory though about Libs wanting their party to lose to get rid of their leader. I'm highly doubtful that it's anything more than something you've dreamed up in your head though.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> All the news media will be all for it -- election time is party time for them. If I was advising the Libs I would say just give Harper more rope to hang himself with and wait until next year.


Or at least wait so that they don't look like power-grubbing political scumbags. It will be hard to hang Harper on anything, especially when he can just show the record of all of the things the Liberals railroaded in Parliament.

Ignatieff was trying to pull some stunt about the Senate, but really, that won't wash since Harper wants to stuff the Senate with Conservatives so he can nuke the useless beast, or at least make it subject to elections or something. The Liberals will have a hard time making an issue over something that they have honed for years on end, and one picture of Sharon Carstairs blubbering about something will be as damaging to a Liberal campaign as dropping a football was to Stanfield...



> Interesting conspiracy theory though about Libs wanting their party to lose to get rid of their leader. I'm highly doubtful that it's anything more than something you've dreamed up in your head though.


It is not imagination - the Liberals are severely fractured, and have been for some time. It is only getting worse. Martin caused much of the damage not only by mounting the Putsch against Chretien, but waging open warfare against the Chretienites in the various riding nominations. The worst and most blood was spilled in Hamilton - it was infamous. Many Liberals who had long supported Shiela Copps wandered off to the NDP because of the disgust they had over the shenanigans the Martinites committed. A similar thing happened in Hamilton West when it spilled over and swung the riding to the NDP as well. The battle within the Liberals was so bad in Hamilton that they didn't even select a candidate until the second week of the last campaign, and basically selected someone just to have a candidate, while really conceding the riding to the NDP.

By all accounts, the record is clear. Dion became leader because the fractured party could not reconcile the various groups, and his attempt at a Putsch was nothing more than a power play to counteract the alliance of Ignatieff's people to Kennedy's people. Dion failed, and the party ousted him.

Ignatieff is sitting on a powder keg. Quebec is a huge problem for the Liberals, with almost 40 ridings without an approved candidate, which is showing a real battle that has emerged. I think the attraction of the PQ and Bloc steal away voters, the NDP are making some inroads in Montreal, while Charest is doing diddly-doo for the federal Liberals.

From those people I know that are involved in the Liberal Party, they report that there are very big problems, based on limited finances, limited appeal, and in some nasty blood battles that have rifted the party apart. I think Ignatieff is in a stronger position than Dion, but there are very real challenges, and this is really a risk, since the Liberals are not prepared for another election, do not have candidates in place, and have some questionable people like Ruby Dhallia that can be exploited by the other parties for gains. If Ignatieff does pull off the caper and wins - then power solves all these things; but if he loses, that will be the end of his leadership, and the boat will sink even further.

This is nothing new, since the Liberals are prone to the same rifting that the Conservatives long suffered from. It is just the media is as reluctant to report on such problems within the Liberals as they are eager to report on such problems within the Conservatives.


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

Zzzzz -- huh, what? Is something happening in Canadian politics? Dang, and it's been sooooo quiet lately ...


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

EvanPitts said:


> It will be hard to hang Harper on anything, especially when he can just show the record of all of the things the Liberals railroaded in Parliament.


I think with years as the Prime Minister now, Harper will have a hard time trying to act like he's in Opposition. He has to run on his record, not Chretien's or Martin's.



EvanPitts said:


> It is not imagination - the Liberals are severely fractured, and have been for some time. (etc, etc)


Well yeah it is EP, unless you can point to some proof of your unlikely conspiracy theory. 50 pounds of verbiage don't make up for that.


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

I'm not so sure EP isn't right one this. The Fiberals haven't really groomed anyone to take over and Dion was clearly the evil of having two lessers. I think Iggy will fall into the trap and force an election and as a result, we clear thinking Canadian will dump on the party which calls it. Then, according to party review, once you lose an election as leader you are called for a review. No one eats their children like the Liberals......


----------



## Adrian. (Nov 28, 2007)

New article (8:09PM)

Liberals set stage for possible fall federal election


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

chas_m said:


> Zzzzz -- huh, what? Is something happening in Canadian politics? Dang, and it's been sooooo quiet lately ...



*Yaawwwnnn** Yeah, it has been - hasn't it? Well one can always hope the Harper government will be tossed out on their pointed beaks. The problem is that even if the Liberals got in, it would be a minority "again" since Canadians don't understand the concept of a coalition government which might give the whole thing some strength. 
No... we'll never be free of this mess that is the New Conservative Party until someone forces Harper to walk the plank.

Whatever... not sure I have enough left in me to get up a head of steam over it this time... :yawn:


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Rps said:


> I'm not so sure EP isn't right one this. The Fiberals haven't really groomed anyone to take over and Dion was clearly the evil of having two lessers. I think Iggy will fall into the trap and force an election and as a result, we clear thinking Canadian will dump on the party which calls it. Then, according to party review, once you lose an election as leader you are called for a review. No one eats their children like the Liberals......


Well this idea, while entertaining, assumes there's a grand conspiracy afoot amongst the Liberal leaders and/or the larger caucus, that Iggy has absolutely no idea about, that is propelling him towards an election with the intention of losing. I just don't buy it that any party would intentionally attempt to lose an election for the sole purpose of removing a leader. As they say "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence" and this one is based on nothing more than someone's casual assumption about a plot.

In all likelihood the decision to go or not to go is coming mostly from Iggy and his circle, that's how it works in the big Canadian parties. The idea of the caucus meeting is so the leader can instruct the troops on the battle plan, not the other way around. I suspect he has some reason to believe he can win, if he actually intends on a non-confidence vote. No doubt he is well aware of who is friends and enemies are within the party and takes advice coming from enemies with a large grain of salt.

All that said, I can't see what his possible reasons could be. I would think at best he'd get the status quo in Parliament after another election.


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

Maybe we should contact Flora McDonald?


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Adrian. said:


> New article (8:09PM)
> 
> Liberals set stage for possible fall federal election


Of course Iggy could just be playing chicken with Harper, in case Harper had any idea of trying to act like he had a majority government again during the upcoming Parliament. But now he has to get something from Harper that looks like a swerve before he can climb down from "Your time is up."


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

Personally, anyone who pulls the plug will be in trouble with the voters. Layton even understands that, maybe Iggy is setting up Layton so the Libs don't look like the heavy .... I know I would.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Rps said:


> Maybe we should contact Flora McDonald?


If there's a reference there, I'm not familiar with it. Fill us in?


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

Evan, you believe in party conspiracy ... would you say Flora was a classic case by the PCs?


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Rps said:


> Personally, anyone who pulls the plug will be in trouble with the voters. Layton even understands that, maybe Iggy is setting up Layton so the Libs don't look like the heavy .... I know I would.


Both Layton and Duceppe have been saying for a long time that they won't vote with the government if it goes against their idea of good policy, with the intention of making it the Libs call. So I'm surprised to see Mulclair saying they will attempt to "work with Parliament". Not sure what that means either.


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

It means that its summer and the polls are useless this time of year. Minority government is about getting what you want from the other guy, without making it look like the other guy did it himself. We country has problems but we haven't focused on a singular plug pulling event yet. Everyone blinked on the EI, so they are looking for something else. We , the dumb citizens, haven't told them what it is yet. Once the summer is over, and October is usually a more reliable poll time, you will see more posturing. Don't be surprised of either a November or January election call.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Rps said:


> Personally, anyone who pulls the plug will be in trouble with the voters. Layton even understands that, maybe Iggy is setting up Layton so the Libs don't look like the heavy .... I know I would.


That is the conventional wisdom, but it isn't _always_ the result. Last time it was Harper that pulled the plug on his own government breaking the spirit of his own law and he won a slighter bigger government. But then again, he was running against Dion.

I'm thinking that if this is more than posturing or a game of chicken on Iggy's part, he's got something that indicates to him that he can do better, despite the CW. I can't imagine what that might be -- internal polling? As Mulclair points out they don't even have a pressing issue on the front burner.


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

Try arrogance ... it has killed many a leader. It will kill Iggy.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Arrogance.....that's rich coming from a Harpo lapdog...
Mr. What recession and we'll just call an stupid election cuz I feel like despite my term legislation....
Arrogant ass is Harper legacy

It's iffy that there will be much of a change but Harper will be gone after this round...good riddance.

Depends on Ontario which flavour of minority - wonder what the Bloc will do and if Harper will go down again to them..

wearisome....

Until they learn to govern in a coalition this is status quo for forseeable future...they won't do the correct thing and change the voting to some form of PR

Toss the lot - more power to the provinces....


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

I can't say that I disagree with you ... Harper is arrogant too. The issue is the two parties both think they can win this [ and should have won it ] that is why there is a lack of governance. Which historically has been a Liberal ploy.

The Liberals in recent years have only lost when they tried to govern.


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

MacDoc said:


> Toss the lot - more power to the provinces....


You know MacDoc you bring up an interesting point. Our population distribution has always been an issue. I am more firmly convinced that an equal and elected Senate would aid a lot in balancing out the power structure and force the House into productive sessions .... regardless of minority or majority


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

In any case, I think I learned something in the last election that I kind of liked... for once "I" was counted. Yeah I spoiled my ballot... not going to argue if that's a good thing or bad thing... my Dad may have been disappointed in me, but maybe not. Times are so much worse now than when he was alive. 

My riding is and will probably always be a dumpster for the Conservatives and I have no voice... but to my surprise I found that by scribbling that I wanted a Coalition on my ballot my voice was heard because someone counted the spoils and someone else asked how many. More "voice" than I've had in a long time. 

~voxsola~


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> It's iffy that there will be much of a change but Harper will be gone after this round...good riddance.
> 
> Depends on Ontario which flavour of minority - wonder what the Bloc will do and if Harper will go down again to them..
> 
> ...


I'm not convinced there will be a "round" just yet. I guess I'll believe it when I see it. If there is another election and Harper wins another minority, even if it's reduced, I don't think he'll be gone. I think he's got an iron grip on power within his party and it would take an outright loss for him to resign. That can't happen too soon in my opinion, but I wouldn't place any bets of that being the result of an election this fall.

PR is dead in Canada, we'll have to get along with unworkable FPTP minorities until either the extreme right-wingers lose influence among the Cons or Libs can somehow regain their past status. FPTP does not allow for coalitions or even workable stable minority government cooperation to easily form or continue.

I think a Con government could win a majority with a leader that looked a little more like an old Progressive Con. The likes of Harper/Baird just are unappetizing to 2/3 of Canadians. The way Libs will likely rebuild is if they can win a minority with enough NDP/Bloc co-operation for long enough to look viable again to 40%. Then they will ditch it and go for a majority once the polls say they can. I don't like either of those options.


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

Dreambird said:


> In any case, I think I learned something in the last election that I kind of liked... for once "I" was counted. Yeah I spoiled my ballot...
> 
> ~voxsola~


 Dreambird, I'm proud of you! I've often felt we needed a "none of the above", your elegant solution does indeed mean for once you were counted.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

I'm not saying I think this election is a good idea. But really, if the public were to punish someone for calling an early election, Harper would have been an easy target. He broke is own law/promise about calling an early election, and he strengthened his minority.

Though I suppose it could be argued he was somewhat punished by not getting the majority he so desperately wants, but really I have my doubts the conservatives under his numbskull politic will ever get that chance.

Hard to imagine Ignatieff would get that chance either. If Harper could just stop being such a screwball powertripping goof for longer than a month maybe it wouldn't be so bad to have them in power for a while. Really.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Put Charest as leader and then maybe ...Harper is joke and long past best by date.

harper has the gall to make pronouncements like this after the last fiasco aka election



> Harper later cooled his tone, but was no less adamant an election would invite "political instability" which would threaten the country's economic interests.
> 
> "We had an election in this country less than a year ago. And I'll say again, I haven't met a single Canadian who's saying they want to see an election right now. I just don't find that. I think Canadians have been pretty clear. They want parliament to focus on the economy. That is what the government will be doing in the fall session," Harper said..


not a bad article overall 

TheStar.com | Canada | Liberals set stage for election

But Harper's crap is just outrageous after a year ago game playing....


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

I hate to point out the obvious but Iggy is a nickname attached to the Calgary Flames Captain.

Please do not associate such an honorable name with such a dishonorable profession. It ain't gonna make Ignoramous any where close to as honest as Iggy.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> Put Charest as leader and then maybe ...Harper is joke and long past best by date.


Charest? Oh spare me. Yet another Lib, oh wait, Con, oh wait federal, oh wait provincial, oh wait, what else?

Blows with the political wind of opportunity on any particular day.

Yeah, that's a real leader all right.

If Iggy pulls the trigger, watch him follow Dion. 

And you read it here first, another Conservative minority at worst.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

SINC said:


> If Iggy pulls the trigger, watch him follow Dion.
> 
> And you read it here first, another Conservative minority at worst.


A confident prediction SINC, to be sure. Just WHERE does that come from anyway? I don't feel at all confident about reading the political tea leaves and making any bold predictions at this moment in time. 

Well ... last time out you were confidently predicting a Con majority, so I guess this is a teensy bit of a step back for you. 



SINC said:


> I see that desperation has now set in for some Canadians. They forget that a Conservative majority is what most Canadians appear to want and they should respect that because after all, it is democracy at work.





SINC said:


> There's gonna be a lot of ehMacers cryin' over this one!


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

Rps said:


> Dreambird, I'm proud of you! I've often felt we needed a "none of the above", your elegant solution does indeed mean for once you were counted.


Why thank you! I appreciate the compliment... 



eMacMan said:


> I hate to point out the obvious but Iggy is a nickname attached to the Calgary Flames Captain.
> 
> Please do not associate such an honorable name with such a dishonorable profession. It ain't gonna make Ignoramous any where close to as honest as Iggy.


It's only because no one can spell OR pronounce his name... just call him Ignat... good 'nuff... :lmao:


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Most Canadians want a Con majority!!!???? - where is the LOL icon.

Tell us then oh wizened one....why hasn't Harpo got it...he's had enough kicks at the cat.?? 

There is a slight tilt toward a Liberal majority

Canadians want majority government: poll

But it's too faint to call - it's certainly not even the realms of champagne fueled dreams about a Con majority.

Harper would be very fortunate to keep his minority - we the people not so fortunate - he is a national embarrassment.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

MacDoc said:


> Most Canadians want a Con majority!!!???? - where is the LOL icon.
> 
> Tell us then oh wizened one....why hasn't Harpo got it...he's had enough kicks at the cat.??


So GA dredges up a year old prediction prior to the last election and you as usual, don't read and assume I made the prediction regarding the current situation.

If you had taken the time to comprehend GA's post, you would know that I am predicting a Harper minority again, but only if Iggy pulls the trigger, along with Iggy following Dion as a washed up nobody when it is over.

One needs to read and understand before making incorrect statements like the one above.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

SINC said:


> So GA dredges up a year old prediction prior to the last election and you as usual, don't read and assume I made the prediction regarding the current situation.
> 
> If you had taken the time to comprehend GA's post, you would know that I am predicting a Harper minority again, but only if Iggy pulls the trigger, along with _Iggy_ following Dion as a washed up nobody when it is over.
> 
> One needs to read and understand before making incorrect statements like the one above.


Please Don. Even a die hard Oilers fan should have enough respect for Iggy to call this nut Ignat.


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

As others have pointed out, I don't really see the sense in having another election right now as another minority is all but guaranteed - and I can't see this changing as long as the Bloc continues to take a big chunk of the Quebec seats out of play, and the rest of the electorate is divided along regional lines.

Now that we are back into deficit, there will have to be some combination of tax hikes and spending cuts to balance the books again as soon as the economy starts to recover. This is sure to be unpopular, but the sooner we deal with it the better. It would be nice to see Parliament find the political will to tackle big issues like this, but I expect we'll continue to see more Machiavellian grandstanding from both Ignatief and Harper.

Unfortunately I can't see the a minority government making hard, unpopular decisions under our current system. Although Ignatief is a much stronger leader than Dion, I can't see him winning a majority for the Liberals, as it would take many years for the Liberal party to build support in the West. I also agree with EP that the Liberals are still divided - they seem to have started on the rebuilding process, but they still have a bit of work to do before they will be ready to govern.

The Conservatives ~might~ be able to pick up enough support in Ontario and Quebec to have a shot at a majority under a less rigid and ideological leader than Harper. I don't think Jean Charest is the right man for the job though - he is well past his "best before" date. Jim Prentice could have been a good choice, but I would have a hard time forgiving him bill C-61 - if he got in I would consider spoiling my ballot along with Dreambird. I wonder if Peter MacKay is up to the task?


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> I think with years as the Prime Minister now, Harper will have a hard time trying to act like he's in Opposition. He has to run on his record, not Chretien's or Martin's.


Who said anything about Chretien or Martin - I am entirely talking about all of the bills that the Herper Government put forth, that the Liberals stomped on in some quest to provoke a Non-Confidence vote. Such actions can entirely be used by the Conservatives to "demonstrate" that the Liberals are nothing more than a pack of power hungry gangsters that will stop at nothing to promote political turmoil, and to do whatever possible when it comes to impeding the business of Government.

It makes for a strong argument for why not to vote Liberal, that no only will they engage in endless games in the Commons, but they are more than willing to use their non-elected goons in the Senate to further impede the will of the people. It makes the Liberals look like a pack of sore losers, something the Conservatives, and the other Parties, can entirely exploit.



> Well yeah it is EP, unless you can point to some proof of your unlikely conspiracy theory. 50 pounds of verbiage don't make up for that.


I think these things are entirely clear, and are covered in the Media on a daily basis. Ignatieff clearly stated the other day that they have candidates selected for half the ridings in Quebec. That is a half-full, half empty problem, clearly showing that the other half of the ridings do not have candidates, and that a myriad of battles are on going.

The rifts within the party are clear to all observers, as are the various battles. The infamous battle between Copps and Valeri was notable - easily solved if Valeri had just run in his own riding - but instead, the bad blood between the Martinites and the anti-Martinites fragged candidates in this whole area. The battle is not over, and on the radio last week (on the Bill Kelly Show), an interview with one of the leading Liberal big wigs of the area was trying to put positive spin on the situation, while noting that they are having grave difficulties in finding people willing to step forward as candidates for the area, but that he was "confident" they could find some people.

Most of the Liberals that were long term supporters of Copps have defected to the NDP, Liberal support has been cabbaged by masssive layoffs of workers, that the NDP have managed to place high grade candidates that have long histories of political activism on the slate, many of Valeri's supporters evaporated, some hounded by criminal charges, and a strong show of force by the Greens that have further cabbaged Liberal suport. All of these things are readily apparent in all media channels.

The Liberals have a major problem keeping their members in line, as they are posturing for positions in whatever transpires after they shove Ignatieff off the cliff. Furthermore, they have some grave political problems.

In the Maritimes, they are facing an electorate that is no longer afraid of voting NDP, with many people that feel alienated because the Liberals have long concentrated in scoring votes in Quebec, while ignoring their power base in the east.

In Quebec, they are running head on into the Bloc, as well as being undercut by the Tory leaning Charest Liberals, and the emerging NDP that are dipping into Liberal support in working class areas of Montreal.

In Ontario, they have a series of local political problems, compounded by a major loss of support in Hamilton and Windsor. They also have the problem of sharing the Liberal name with McGuilty's crew, and the ongoing reassembly of the Big Blue Machine under Hudak. A main problem is that Liberals have a prediliction of finding candidates that are tainted by various scandals, or my MPs that have a proven track record of doing little, if anything.

In the west, that is a Liberal wasteland, and while the Liberals strive to build their power base in Quebec, the voter in the west remains with a feeling of marginalization and trivialization.

Ignatieff has a major problem to deal with, because only through an Election that yields him the Government, he can not purge the party of his enemies, and thus, his leadership remains in question. Of course, now that the NDP has indicated that they will support the Conservatives, at least on an issue by issue basis, it loks like Ignatieff really has little chance in his dangerous political venture. A fall election would clobber the Liberals, in that they do not have a slate of candidates, and that will lead to the probloem of fronting unknowns in the second or third week of the election - something that profoundly clobbered them before.

For "proof", read any newspaper or watch nay news show - it's all there for all to see.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Rps said:


> I'm not so sure EP isn't right one this. The Fiberals haven't really groomed anyone to take over and Dion was clearly the evil of having two lessers. I think Iggy will fall into the trap and force an election and as a result, we clear thinking Canadian will dump on the party which calls it. Then, according to party review, once you lose an election as leader you are called for a review. No one eats their children like the Liberals......


Canadians will tolerate an Election if two years has lapsed, and if it didn't go down in the flames of a pointless Non-Confidence motion. If the Conservatives put forth some really horrible bill, then that is one thing, but to attempt to make an argument over some government pocket change that is or isn't spent on some bogus project won't wash. The Party that pulls the plug will be punished.

The interminable wars within the Liberal Pary have left them with little left. People like John Manley and Brian Tobin are long gone, no one wants to revisit a Trudeauist of some kind, Dion and other proxies of the Mulroney Tories have long been torched, fronting a Quebecer will frag the party outside of Quebec, and many of their more notable members in Parliament are distasteful as leaders because they are viewed as Rat-Packers who are in it to stoke their own egos. Of course, it doesn't help that the Liberals want to run on a platform that would see an increase in the GST - especially when it was their party mantra to entirely eliminate the GST what, twenty years ago. Any image of fiscally responsible policies created by the magic of Mr. Martin were entirely trashed by the revelation of his ersatz government that engaged in endless attempts at class and race warfare, with unbridled spending and waste based on an economy that was on a bubble - and that Mr. Martin's plans were nothing more than reheats of Michael Wilson's plans.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

PenguinBoy said:


> Now that we are back into deficit, there will have to be some combination of tax hikes and spending cuts to balance the books again as soon as the economy starts to recover.


I think they could entirely eliminate the deficit by chopping out things like waste and the giant salaries of the executives of various government departments and crown corporations. When an organization has hundreds of executives scoring a million per year in salary, benefits and bonuses, coupled with all of their hangers on, lobbyists, PR people, and such - that is like a few billion that is simply waste that accomplishes nothing of value. Like the executives at the CBC - really, eliminate them, and the only thing that would change is that the employees of the CBC would be treated better and more equitably, and the CBC would actually be able to afford programming, rather than having all of that cash wasted on executive luncheons and steak dinners.



> Unfortunately I can't see the a minority government making hard, unpopular decisions under our current system.


Why would you expect this from a Minority when we haven't seen it from a Majority?



> ...as it would take many years for the Liberal party to build support in the West.


I think that Koreans will be cloning flying pigs long before the West forgets such travesties as the NEP.



> The Conservatives ~might~ be able to pick up enough support in Ontario and Quebec to have a shot at a majority under a less rigid and ideological leader than Harper.


I think the success of the Conservatives is that they have a rigid and ideological leader - and they would have even more success if people stopped worrying about alterior motives - or at least saying that the hidden agenda that Harper might or might not have is really nothing different than any of the Liberal's hidden agendas over the years, like the stunts Trudeau pulled to maintain a policy of balkanization, the crass and divisive policies of Chretien, or the acts of class and race warfare that Martin attempted in bad taste.


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

> I think that Koreans will be cloning flying pigs long before the West forgets such travesties as the NEP.


*lol** You got that right!

I had to take a "taxi ride" Monday as I was almost late for an appointment, the driver has obviously been here a much shorter period of time than 1980-1984ish. I don't know where he's from, but my guess is he's an immigrant of hispanic descent... no big deal, I just guess didn't ask. 

We got to chatting a little, we are pretty much on the same page it turns out politically speaking... and THEN he asks/says/wonders WHY Alberta is so stubborn Conservative. "You're kidding, right?" says I... "No" says he, "why?" 

"You've never heard of NEP... you know early 80's, Trudeau... bla, bla, bla?" 

Turns out he hasn't been here that long and no this was some kind of news to him so I quickly filled him in why Albertan children have been known to answer the door to Liberal candidates and declare "We don't vote Liberal here because of NEP!" like perfect little parrots...


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

PenguinBoy said:


> As others have pointed out, I don't really see the sense in having another election right now as another minority is all but guaranteed - and I can't see this changing as long as the Bloc continues to take a big chunk of the Quebec seats out of play, and the rest of the electorate is divided along regional lines.
> 
> Now that we are back into deficit, there will have to be some combination of tax hikes and spending cuts to balance the books again as soon as the economy starts to recover. This is sure to be unpopular, but the sooner we deal with it the better. It would be nice to see Parliament find the political will to tackle big issues like this, but I expect we'll continue to see more Machiavellian grandstanding from both Ignatief and Harper.
> 
> ...


I honestly don't know much about MacKay other than the most basic history -- which doesn't recommend him. My gut feeling about him is that he's slimy, but then I feel that way about many, many politicians.  I don't get a sense of where he stands on a political scale, head of the PCs, then waterboy for Harper, that's a pretty broad spectrum.

I know that our system when it produces majority governments allows PMs and Premiers to make "hard, unpopular decisions". I can't think of too many examples of those kinds of decisions historically being the right thing to do. If a majority government results from only 40%, common under FPTP, and the leader finds that their support base is pretty locked in, those "hard, unpopular decisions" are often not done for the benefit of the whole but to please a smaller subgroup. Then if an opposition gets in with a majority, beholden to some other 40%, then they undo the hard decisions of their predecessors. I'm thinking about the flip-flopping I've witnessed here in BC. But unfortunately, minority government under FPTP is basically unworkable. Since PR is off even the back burner now and sitting in the fridge, I really don't know what the solution is.

But I agree with your analysis of the political prospects for the 2 major parties.

Reading some more commentary around the web this morning and last night, I feel convinced that this is not a trial balloon by Iggy. He's committed to it, in that he can't easily back down now from his stance, unless of course there is massive wooing on the part of the Cons, which I also don't expect, because that would be politically unpalatable to them. The only chance of avoiding an election now is if Harper can fill his legislation with enough goodies for either the Bloc or the NDP that they would be willing to support it -- hard to see that happening but not totally out of the question -- or if the polls come out so massively against the Libs that Iggy is forced to back down. If that happens, Iggy is done for, because most of all he can't afford to seen like Dion was. I think this move is Iggy going "all in" with his chips. It could be that this was his only move, the costs of knuckling under to the Cons again or having the Parliamentary flu when votes came up were just as high as going for broke. 

I think Iggy doesn't really want an election right now, nor does Harper, nor do the NDP or Bloc, so somehow out of this there may be some accommodations made that keeps things limping along until next spring.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

EvanPitts said:


> Who said anything about Chretien or Martin - I am entirely talking about all of the bills that the Herper Government put forth, that the Liberals stomped on in some quest to provoke a Non-Confidence vote. Such actions can entirely be used by the Conservatives to "demonstrate" that the Liberals are nothing more than a pack of power hungry gangsters that will stop at nothing to promote political turmoil, and to do whatever possible when it comes to impeding the business of Government.


Sorry if I didn't get exactly what you were referring to. That's partially due to me not having the energy to do anything but skim your long posts at best.

I don't disagree that many Liberals are a pack of power hungry gangsters, although I find the blanket hyperbole is just completely unrealistic. Each party is full of these types of people, it goes with the territory.



EvanPitts said:


> I think these things are entirely clear, and are covered in the Media on a daily basis.
> 
> [... snipped out about 600 words ...]
> 
> For "proof", read any newspaper or watch nay news show - it's all there for all to see.


No EP, you have no proof of your flat-out assertion that the Libs are seeking to lose the election on purpose to evict Iggy as leader. It's a ridiculous idea that still isn't convincing even with another 50 lbs of verbiage. No one is saying that there aren't divisions within the Libs, I agree, but to extrapolate that through exaggeration into such a ridiculous conspiracy theory is just silly. "It's all there for all to see" sounds like something a true fanatic with a tinfoil hat might say.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

SINC said:


> So GA dredges up a year old prediction prior to the last election and you as usual, don't read and assume I made the prediction regarding the current situation.
> 
> If you had taken the time to comprehend GA's post, you would know that I am predicting a Harper minority again, but only if Iggy pulls the trigger, along with Iggy following Dion as a washed up nobody when it is over.
> 
> One needs to read and understand before making incorrect statements like the one above.


My post was an attempt at a friendly jab in the ribs to SINC based on the boldness of his current prediction of "another Conservative minority at worst".

When I posted last year's quote with his prediction of Conservative majority, it fleetingly occurred to me that someone might not realize that the quote from from an old thread. My apologies ... I guess I could have formatted it differently so as not to mislead anyone. Obviously MacDoc thought it was a current quote.


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> I honestly don't know much about MacKay other than the most basic history -- which doesn't recommend him. My gut feeling about him is that he's slimy, but then I feel that way about many, many politicians.  I don't get a sense of where he stands on a political scale, head of the PCs, then waterboy for Harper, that's a pretty broad spectrum.


How about this guy then beejacon
http://www.greaterfool.ca/2009/09/01/starbucks-epiphany/

Then again, the Liberals would likely win my riding (Calgary Southeast - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) before he would win a Conservative nomination again...


GratuitousApplesauce said:


> I know that our system when it produces majority governments allows PMs and Premiers to make "hard, unpopular decisions". I can't think of too many examples of those kinds of decisions historically being the right thing to do.


I can think of two examples of "hard, unpopular decisions" that were "the right thing to do" back in the '90s:

Paul Martin balancing the books for the federal government.
Ralph Klein balancing the books for the Alberta government.

Depending on where you sit on the political spectrum, you may or may not like *how* they went about balancing the books - but I think most people would agree that you can't spend more than you make indefinitely.

Now that we are again in deficit, it will be necessary to balance the budget again, which will involve unpopular moves like raising taxes and cutting services. Hopefully we can have a sensible discussion on which taxes should be raised, which services should be cut, and how much of each we do.

Going into deficit to ward off a full blown economic collapse was probably the right thing to do - but the sooner we balance the books the better, it will only get worse if we put it off...


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

PenguinBoy said:


> How about this guy then beejacon
> http://www.greaterfool.ca/2009/09/01/starbucks-epiphany/
> 
> Then again, the Liberals would likely win my riding (Calgary Southeast - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia) before he would win a Conservative nomination again...


*Thud** ... you're kidding right? Don't toy with me... that would be one of the "Harper Gang" that needs to be gone IMHO. Anything that might wake up the people living in Calgary West would be highly overdue and an absolute miracle... if those 2 were gone... it would be a step in the right direction. 



> I can think of two examples of "hard, unpopular decisions" that were "the right thing to do" back in the '90s:
> 
> Paul Martin balancing the books for the federal government.
> Ralph Klein balancing the books for the Alberta government.


Agreed, unfortunately in Klein's case he almost ruined the good he did with all the stupid and ill thought out things he did... not to mention things that were neglected for too long. Anyway... he's gone. Thanks for the balanced budget, go back to the bar... 'nuff said.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

PenguinBoy said:


> How about this guy then beejacon
> http://www.greaterfool.ca/2009/09/01/starbucks-epiphany/





Dreambird said:


> *Thud** ... you're kidding right? Don't toy with me... that would be one of the "Harper Gang" that needs to be gone IMHO.


You do both know that Garth Turner is a Liberal now don't you?


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

Tories, Liberals in dead heat: poll

Canada Federal Election 2009/2010 Seat Projections


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

screature said:


> You do both know that Garth Turner is a Liberal now don't you?


And as a Liberal, he was entirely clobbered by Miss Sexy Cancer. Nothing like a campaign between political lightweights - especially in a riding that usually returned highly skilled and hard working parliamentarians...


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

Say Evan, who do you think will pull the plug? Jack hasn't bitten yet, but it is early.


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

screature said:


> You do both know that Garth Turner is a Liberal now don't you?


I do indeed Screature, a Liberal who if nothing else has the courage to speak his mind, I have no axe to grind with him. Myself, I'm not exactly sure where to place myself on the political chart these days but "traditionally" I would consider myself a little left of centre Liberal. 

PB's post got a reaction from me because Calgary SE and Calgary West are such "drop dead" strong holds for the Conservatives... not that ALL Calgary ridings haven't been the last number of years. However it would send me on a bar hopping trip to unseat those 2!


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

screature said:


> You do both know that Garth Turner is a Liberal now don't you?


Yup - hence the beejacon and the comment that h3ll will have a hockey team (or Calgary SE will vote Liberal...) before the Conservatives let him back in. My tongue was planted firmly in cheek in that post.


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

Ottawaman said:


> Canada Federal Election 2009/2010 Seat Projections


Interesting. If this projection holds, it looks like the Bloc holds more or less steady and the Liberals make their gains at the expense of the Conservatives and the NDP. Kind of puts Jack Layton in a bit of a pickle, if he capitulates to the Conservatives he looks toothless, if he doesn't the house falls and his party is reduced to irrelevance - rock, meet hard place...

Here's another, more recent, seat projection that seems to suggest another Conservative minority - although a whopping 89 seats are too close to call:
Canada Federal Election 2009/10 - Election Prediction Project

Dreambird will be disappointed, but probably not surprised, to see that the Conservatives are projected to hold Calgary South East


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

> My tongue was planted firmly in cheek in that post.


... and I know a "Pipe Dream" when I see one. I am, however allowed to fantasize in order to keep my sanity!


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

Ottawaman said:


> Tories, Liberals in dead heat: poll


I like the Stampede pictures at the top of the article.

It looks like *all* the leaders are shopping at the same stores these days, not a leather cowboy vest (or wetsuit, for that matter) to be found anywhere...


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

PenguinBoy said:


> Dreambird will be disappointed, but probably not surprised, to see that the Conservatives are projected to hold Calgary South East


Yeah well... :-(

Maybe I'll go bar hopping anyway - to drown my sorrows.

Actually I should amend that, although I'd like to see a riding or 2 go Liberal I'd be quite satisfied if those 2 ridings would at least find other Conservatives candidates than the ones there now. It's the particular "scumbag" persons that bother me...


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

Dreambird said:


> ...I'd be quite satisfied if those 2 ridings would at least find other Conservatives candidates than the ones there now. It's the particular "scumbag" persons that bother me...


Surely you can't be talking about the Parliamentarian of the Year:
Best Overall: Jason Kenney - Canada - Macleans.ca


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

> It’s not surprising that the phrase “attack dog” crops up in an interview about Immigration Minister Jason Kenney. The Calgary MP is, after all, a hard-hitting House debater known for dropping the rhetorical gloves. What is unexpected is that Kenney applies the term to himself. Asked about his parliamentary style, he volunteers, “I think when I was in opposition I developed a reputation as an attack dog.”


I remember... he already had that tendency last we "engaged" in 1914/95 so to speak. That time our side won. 

I will say thought that at least he's not as as rude, crude and riding the thin line of right/wrong as his buddy in Calgary West... Rob Anders. XX)

He also already had that tendency in said last engagement. What an onerous person! Impossible to speak with, deal with... really if you met him as "Joe Q. Public" I would bet you'd think the same. Unless you agree with him 100%. XX)


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Dreambird said:


> I do indeed Screature, a Liberal who if nothing else has the courage to speak his mind, *I have no axe to grind with him.*


Well I do... he is a hyped up egotist filled with his own self importance. I met the guy personally in between his Parliament stints when he was being a financial "analyst" and writing his financial advice books. They probably made him a lot of of money but I can tell you that anyone that actually followed his advice got trounced in the tech bubble burst. He was a *big* Nortel advocate even when they were on the skids and that is only one small example of his bad advice.

Quite frankly he is a buffoon and the Conservatives were well advised to dump him.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

Dreambird said:


> I remember... he already had that tendency last we "engaged" in 1914/95 so to speak. That time our side won.
> 
> I will say thought that at least he's not as as rude, crude and riding the thin line of right/wrong as his buddy in Calgary West... Rob Anders. XX)
> 
> He also already had that tendency in said last engagement. What an onerous person! Impossible to speak with, deal with... really if you met him as "Joe Q. Public" I would bet you'd think the same. Unless you agree with him 100%. XX)


Jason Kenney and Rob Anders are two Conservative MPs who I personally have little to no respect for (especially Anders). I am sorry to say this (but it is true) they could *only* be elected in Alberta.


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

screature said:


> Well I do... he is a hyped up egotist filled with his own self importance. I met the guy personally in between his Parliament stints when he was being a financial "analyst" and writing his financial advice books. They probably made him a lot of of money but I can tell you that anyone that actually followed his advice got trounced in the tech bubble burst. He was a *big* Nortel advocate even when they were on the skids and that is only one small example of his bad advice.
> 
> Quite frankly he is a buffoon and the Conservatives were well advised to dump him.


OK... to be quite honest I wasn't aware of his attempts at playing financial analyst with such a dismal record (when you mention Nortel), I haven't followed his exploits all that closely. But your points are taken, thank you.



screature said:


> Jason Kenney and Rob Anders are two Conservative MPs who I personally have little to no respect for (especially Anders). I am sorry to say this (but it is true) they could *only* be elected in Alberta.


Uh-huh, sorry and sad to say you may well be right. There was quite an effort put forth to remove Anders from his seat a few years ago which went no where in spite of enough evidence etc. that probably might have been the "kiss of death" for another MP in another riding. C'est la vie. 

I hear that he is quite the "teacher's pet"... ie. Harper likes him. A lot. I don't have that in writing though, just people I know in the riding who wish he would go away also.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Andrew Coyne (via a Macleans.ca video blog) seems to think the upcoming election talk is all just a massive game of chicken and he believes someone will cave in. He's predicting "no election until 2012". The guy he's debating with thinks we'll be getting one this fall. They each make some good points.


----------



## mc3251 (Sep 28, 2007)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Andrew Coyne (via a Macleans.ca video blog) seems to think the upcoming election talk is all just a massive game of chicken and he believes someone will cave in. He's predicting "no election until 2012". The guy he's debating with thinks we'll be getting one this fall. They each make some good points.


I really hope not. It is such a waste of money.


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Truth is that Ignuts is trying to prove his political manhood (that really is an Oxymoron). 

Clearly the Blockheads will call whether or no we have a fall election.


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Andrew Coyne (via a Macleans.ca video blog) seems to think the upcoming election talk is all just a massive game of chicken and he believes someone will cave in. He's predicting "no election until 2012".


Here's a good reason not to have an election right now:
New poll gives Tories the edge - The Globe and Mail

If this poll is to be believed we would wind up with another Tory minority - hardly worth calling an election over.

Of course it's still to close to call, and the Liberals would have a shot at a weak minority as well.

The only sure thing is the Bloc will continue to dominate Quebec - since the Bloc has the most to gain, I expect them to oppose the government.

If these polling numbers hold a bit longer I would expect either the Liberals or the NDP to announce that they are willing to "compromise to make Parliament work"...


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Andrew Coyne (via a Macleans.ca video blog) seems to think the upcoming election talk is all just a massive game of chicken and he believes someone will cave in. He's predicting "no election until 2012". The guy he's debating with thinks we'll be getting one this fall. They each make some good points.


I think he makes many good points. I think the reality of the situation is that we will have an Election next fall, since it would be very hard for a Minority to fill out 4 years. It will be the same as last time, with lots of sabre rattling, back room deals, and a lack of substantive legislation, because the Electors will tend to punish whoever pulls the plug. Last time, no one actually pulled the plug, hence, no one was punished - it just kind of came to a natural end. It will be the same this time - especially since the Liberals made the huge mistake of fronting Rae right after the new ads appeared, reminding Ontarians of the potential of horror if the Liberals get in.


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

PenguinBoy said:


> Here's a good reason not to have an election right now:
> New poll gives Tories the edge - The Globe and Mail
> 
> If this poll is to be believed we would wind up with another Tory minority - hardly worth calling an election over.
> ...


Out of the last four polls released in a little over a week (Ipsos-Reid, EKOS, Strategic Counsel, and Crop), One (EKOS) showed the CPC and LPC holding at essentially tied, while the others all showed Liberal support dropping (especially in Quebec), and a lead for the Conservatives nationally. 

I think Coyne is right, I don't think we're going to see an election.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

I think Iggy is locked into his path now. It remains to be seen whether the Cons will attempt to work with the NDP or Bloc. They could probably throw one of them a few bones and that would be enough to allow them to vote with the government in the House. It's up to Harper whether we get an election or not, no one else. 

Everyone seems to think that to prevent an election it's only the Opposition's job to cave in and vote to avoid it, while if Harper sticks to his policies without modifications, *even though he has a minority of seats*, he is not at all responsible for the resulting election.

But some commentators are saying that Harper won't budge because he's also up for an election fight. Of course he'll attempt to blame the election on the Libs.

According to Jason Kenney:


> "[Ignatief is] hoping Canadians won't notice that he's putting Canada's economic recovery at risk by forcing an unnecessary election."


Does Kenney not have someone to check his blusters for unintentional irony before he blurts them? In the middle of the unfolding of the worst financial crisis since the depression one year ago, Harper busted his own fixed election law to plunge us into another election, "risking our economy", because he perceived a temporary advantage. 

Kenney and Harper are hoping Canadians won't notice or remember what they did one year ago and won't realize that if we get an election this fall, it will be solely and completely because Harper has refused to compromise with the Opposition. 

The NDP and Bloc are leaving the door open for Harper to avoid an election. We'll see what he decides.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> I think Iggy is locked into his path now. It remains to be seen whether the Cons will attempt to work with the NDP or Bloc. They could probably throw one of them a few bones and that would be enough to allow them to vote with the government in the House. It's up to Harper whether we get an election or not, no one else.
> 
> Everyone seems to think that to prevent an election it's only the Opposition's job to cave in and vote to avoid it, while if Harper sticks to his policies without modifications, *even though he has a minority of seats*, he is not at all responsible for the resulting election.
> 
> ...


Clearly he believes there are a lot of gullible people out there. I hear this piece of work though, is 'goin' places'...


----------



## Dr.G. (Aug 4, 2001)

"I think Iggy is locked into his path now. It remains to be seen whether the Cons will attempt to work with the NDP or Bloc. They could probably throw one of them a few bones and that would be enough to allow them to vote with the government in the House. It's up to Harper whether we get an election or not, no one else. " True. I think that he would throw Quebec the "bones" so that the Bloc would not vote against the Conservatives. This would leave the NDP and the Liberals to fight it out for the center-left votes.


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> I think Iggy is locked into his path now.


True - to back down now, after very publicly declaring that "the Conservatives time is up" would be a serious loss of face.


GratuitousApplesauce said:


> It remains to be seen whether the Cons will attempt to work with the NDP or Bloc. They could probably throw one of them a few bones and that would be enough to allow them to vote with the government in the House.





Dr.G. said:


> I think that he would throw Quebec the "bones" so that the Bloc would not vote against the Conservatives.


I can't see the Bloc voting with the Conservatives. The only thing that seems clear to me from the latest polls is the collapse of the federalist vote in Quebec. Under these circumstances the Bloc has nothing to gain by working with the government - even if the government were to toss them some pretty meaty bones.

If *anyone* props up the government, I would expect it to be the NDP as they have the most to lose from an early election. Between former NDP supporters voting for the Liberals to keep Harper from winning a minority and splitting the hard left vote with the Greens, it wouldn't surprise me to see the NDP reduced to 18 or 19 seats in the next election - about half their current seat count, and pretty close to irrelevance.

Of course given Jason Kenney's previous bluster on this (Tories gear up for battle - The Globe and Mail), any deal with the government would involve some pretty serious capitulation on the part of the NDP - which would make them look even more toothless, and alienate their base.

I wouldn't want to be in Jack Layton's shoes right now - rock, meet hard place...


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> It's up to Harper whether we get an election or not, no one else.


Not entirely true - *any* party can prevent an election at this point...


GratuitousApplesauce said:


> But some commentators are saying that Harper won't budge because he's also up for an election fight.


I'm sure that *all* the parties are watching the polls *very* closely these days.

If Harper thinks he has a shot at a majority - or even an increased seat count - I'll bet he'll be doing anything he can to force an election, without *looking* like he is forcing an election.


GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Of course he'll attempt to blame the election on the Libs.


Which should be easy enough to do after Ignatief's recent grandstanding and showboating. As always, and ounce of perception is worth a pound of performance...


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> I think Iggy is locked into his path now. It remains to be seen whether the Cons will attempt to work with the NDP or Bloc. They could probably throw one of them a few bones and that would be enough to allow them to vote with the government in the House. It's up to Harper whether we get an election or not, no one else.


If they have to the Liberals just won't show up to vote again, while the NDP and Bloc vote against the government.

It's too early for an election. The public has no appetite for it and the polls has been very steady for the last few years. Another election will result in another Conservative minority. 

Clearly the Liberals are playing chicken. The Conservatives are the only party who can pay for an election. The rest are still paying off their debts.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Vandave said:


> Clearly the Liberals are playing chicken. The Conservatives are the only party who can pay for an election. The rest are still paying off their debts.


Maybe that is Herr Harper's idea - to push the Fiberals into bankruptcy.

Of course, pushing the Liberal leader-of-the-month out the door with an election fizzle is also a prudent strategy, because really, the heir apparent is Bob Rae - which would be massive political suicide for the Liberals in Ontario.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

PenguinBoy said:


> Not entirely true - *any* party can prevent an election at this point...


Given the seat count, yes, but not given the present circumstances. Iggy and the Libs (sounds like a band) have taken a fixed position, which I believe, and many commentators seem to believe, is one that he won't be able to easily climb down from. So the Libs will not vote with the government on any upcoming confidence votes. The NDP has indicated that they will work with Harper if he gives them something they can vote for. I'm betting he doesn't have to give them much, just something they can present as a constructive compromise. The Bloc is playing their cards close to their chest but many seem to think they would also respond to a small bone thrown their way. No doubt even though Harper has said "no backroom deals", that's only for public consumption. If he REALLY wants to avoid an election, knowing there is nothing he can do with the Libs now, he will deal. 

I think the question here is "Does Harper really want to avoid an election or does he think he can pull a majority out of it if we go to the polls?"



PenguinBoy said:


> I'm sure that *all* the parties are watching the polls *very* closely these days.


Absolutely! And no doubt running all manner of in-house polls and focus groups like crazy.



PenguinBoy said:


> If Harper thinks he has a shot at a majority - or even an increased seat count - I'll bet he'll be doing anything he can to force an election, without *looking* like he is forcing an election.


Agreed.



PenguinBoy said:


> Which should be easy enough to do after Ignatief's recent grandstanding and showboating. As always, and ounce of perception is worth a pound of performance...


Yep, I think the way Iggy has gone about it seems puzzling. He's almost made it easy for Harper to pin the potential election on him.

But I think he's decided to take the position of standing against the government, because he didn't really have any other options that looked any better at this point. The NDP had previously taken this stand, since last winter when the coalition collapsed. Layton said that they would not support the government and put the onus on the Libs. Now he's changed his tune, because Iggy has taken his position.

Iggy's other options were to stand and vote with the government or to organize MPs to be absent, both which Dion tried, to avoid an election, and which left all power in Harper's hands and contributed to his looking weak. I don't think Iggy could afford to take that option, especially now since it looks like Harper was planning on going back to governing as if he had a majority. So I think Iggy is also between a rock and a hard place. Given the two options he took the one that appears to be at least assertive. But I think he fervently hopes now that the NDP or Bloc caves in, because I would guess that he really doesn't to go to the polls now either.

I don't think Layton's dilemma is quite as dire. His core supporters will vote NDP no matter what happens. I think he can afford to give in quite a bit to Harper without a major problem, unlike Iggy.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Vandave said:


> If they have to the Liberals just won't show up to vote again, while the NDP and Bloc vote against the government.


As I said in my previous post, I don't think this is a realistic option for the Libs. Whatever happens they can't afford to be put in the same box that Harper put Dion in. They may not like the idea of an election, but I think they see it as the lesser of two evils.



Vandave said:


> It's too early for an election. The public has no appetite for it and the polls has been very steady for the last few years. Another election will result in another Conservative minority.


I agree. But as I said in an earlier post, whether we go to the polls now depends entirely on the Cons since Iggy has taken the Libs option out of the picture. Harper can patch something up with the other 2 opposition parties, which should be expected in a minority government anyway. But Harper may just think he can win his majority now by playing the part of the aggrieved party reluctantly dragged to the polls.



Vandave said:


> Clearly the Liberals are playing chicken. The Conservatives are the only party who can pay for an election. The rest are still paying off their debts.


Yeah the Libs ARE playing chicken, but they've tied a cinder block to the accelerator of their car. Swerving at the last second is not an option for Iggy at this point. So it's up to Harper now. He can swerve or he can choose to send us to the polls.

I think that even though the others are in debt, they can still get the money necessary to go — if it happens.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Yeah the Libs ARE playing chicken, but they've tied a cinder block to the accelerator of their car. Swerving at the last second is not an option for Iggy at this point. So it's up to Harper now. He can swerve or he can choose to send us to the polls.


And what is the issue Iggy is trying to run on? I haven't been following the news closely this year, but it seems he thinks the issue is Harper's response to the economy. I don't think the Liberal approach is really anything different. In any case, Harper polls quite strongly on economic issues (he is an economist after all). Are there really any other issues?

Harper has lasted this long as PM (3.5 years already!) because he has been pretty steady without too much swerving. For a minority PM, he has been pretty aggressive in setting the agenda. What do the Conservatives gain from backing down? They are ahead in the polls... Harper polls strongly on the economy... They are flush with cash... The public is more likely to punish Iggy for this election than they would Harper... The public will probably fear a Liberal/NDP/Bloc coalition and swing voters could go strongly Conservative to avoid this...

I say BRING IT ON...


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Can anybody find the trend?

0, 1, 52, 60, 66, 99, 124, 143...

beejacon


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Vandave said:


> And what is the issue Iggy is trying to run on?


That is the million dollar question. Perhaps it was the same "issue" that Herr Dion ran on - the issue being that the Liberals weren't in power, but should be because they are Liberals.


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

Vandave said:


> Can anybody find the trend?
> 
> 0, 1, 52, 60, 66, 99, 124, 143...
> 
> beejacon


Reform -> Alliance -> Conservative seat count.

Didn't Preston Manning say something about two minorities before a majority once?


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Given the seat count, yes, but not given the present circumstances. Iggy and the Libs (sounds like a band) have taken a fixed position, which I believe, and many commentators seem to believe, is one that he won't be able to easily climb down from. So the Libs will not vote with the government on any upcoming confidence votes.





GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Yeah the Libs ARE playing chicken, but they've tied a cinder block to the accelerator of their car. Swerving at the last second is not an option for Iggy at this point. So it's up to Harper now. He can swerve or he can choose to send us to the polls.


So how is it Harper's fault if we have an early election? I'm trying not to be partisan here - but it looks to me like Ignatief set this whole thing off by taking his position that "the Conservatives time is up".

Given that any party has enough seats to stop an election, why is it up to Harper alone to prevent the house from falling?


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> I don't think Layton's dilemma is quite as dire. His core supporters will vote NDP no matter what happens. I think he can afford to give in quite a bit to Harper without a major problem, unlike Iggy.


Layton's situation is pretty dire IMHO. The NDP pretty much doubled their seat count last time round with the collapse of the Liberal vote. If NDP support falls back to just their core supporters, I expect their seat count will fall back down to 18 or 19 seats.

The NDP also has had problems expanding support beyond their core. I suspect this is in part because they are to the left of mainstream Canadian voters, but also because it is hard to tell just what they stand for. Are they socially progressive, trade unionists, or environmentalists? What happens when these different interests are at odds with each other, for example, saving the environment vs. saving union jobs?

If anyone has an incentive to prop up the government, it is the NDP...


----------



## mc3251 (Sep 28, 2007)

> So how is it Harper's fault if we have an early election? I'm trying not to be partisan here - but it looks to me like Ignatief set this whole thing off by taking his position that "the Conservatives time is up".
> 
> Given that any party has enough seats to stop an election, why is it up to Harper alone to prevent the house from falling?/QUOTE]
> 
> Well, he is the PM and is supposed to be showing leadership. He isn't in total control, acknowledged, but given the costs and the state of the economy, the right thing to do is NOT have an election at this point.


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

Vandave said:


> And what is the issue Iggy is trying to run on? I haven't been following the news closely this year, but it seems he thinks the issue is Harper's response to the economy. I don't think the Liberal approach is really anything different.


Agreed. I follow the news quite closely too, and I'm not sure what the current Liberal platform is. They need to differentiate themselves from the Conservatives, and also position themselves as the default party for the "anyone but Harper" crowd.

At this point, they are a *long* way from "Natural Ruling Party" status.

I can see why Ignatief doesn't want to be painted with the same brush as Dion, but he should have waited for the Conservatives to take an unpalatable position on something, rather than just arbitrarily declaring that "their time is up" in the middle of Summer...


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

mc3251 said:


> Well, he is the PM and is supposed to be showing leadership.


And in what way has Harper demonstrated a lack of leadership? i think Harper's biggest problem is that a bunch of Canadians have a big hate-on for anything Conservative.

Just like in Ontario when they heaved the PCs out of power, just so we can witness what it looks like when a modern, progressive minded province is turned into a Balkanized, Fourth World ruin with business fleeing to anywhere else like rats fleeing a sinking ship, and where job creation is basically setting up some scam department that is nothing more than a font of waste and scandal used to aggrandize some filthy and corrupt cronies of the premier.

I recall when Ontarians decided that it was "time for change", after having lived through forty years of Conservative Government in which the province was economically strong, a hive of industrial and business activities, of profits and good wages for workers, and of progressive minded policies, a sustainable health care system, and a great deal of optimism. Yeah, "time for change" meant shipping out business and industry, of dishing out hard times, of squandering all that was gained through scams like the Centers Of Mediocrity program, of diverting money from the public good into endless schemes to aggrandize cronies of the government, of monumental blunders like ramming Ontario Hydro into the reef of bankruptcy, and allowing unfettered and illogical conurbation to accelerate contrary to social engineering that would have allowed for greater efficiency and less waste.

The same thing is going on in Ottawa, with the Liberals saying all kinds of things about the Conservatives - while completely forgetting that it was a series of their governments that degraded the people of this Nation with profane acts of class and race warfare, of economic warfare waged against the West, of a Constitution that was rammed down our throats and used to perpetuate Jim Crow and to victimize victims of crime, and of various forms of graft and corruption, like the billions of dollars squandered on the patently illegal AdScam programs. If Canadians have two brain cells to rub together, they will reject the pleas of Ignatieff, and reject carperbaggers like Rae, who are power hungry gangsters prepared to bankrupt this Nation for their own profit, and to engage in acts of payola with their special interests.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

PenguinBoy said:


> Agreed. I follow the news quite closely too, and I'm not sure what the current Liberal platform is.


Judging by previous Liberal platforms - it doesn't matter because they don't follow anything that is in their platforms anyways. The Platform and the Little Red Book are just things they can talk about during a campaign, so they don't look like the power-grubbing sycophants they are. The last time they had a Platform, MacDonald knocked them out of power, simply because Canadians realized it was better to have Hugh Allen engaged in electoral payola than it was to waste Government revenue on pet projects that failed.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

EvanPitts said:


> Judging by previous Liberal platforms - it doesn't matter because they don't follow anything that is in their platforms anyways. The Platform and the Little Red Book are just things they can talk about during a campaign, so they don't look like the power-grubbing sycophants they are. The last time they had a Platform, MacDonald knocked them out of power, simply because Canadians realized it was better to have Hugh Allen engaged in electoral payola than it was to waste Government revenue on pet projects that failed.


you mean like a political party? Fantastic stuff.

cmon this kind of discussion gets silly. We're watching harper do the same thing right now. People in in either camp just deny that their party of choice is doing it.

I'm on the fence on this election thing. I don't really want one right now either, but, I can see why Iggy did what he did. He did what the other parties do, say something in the summer, stand back, wait til people forget who said what, and blame someone else.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

groovetube said:


> cmon this kind of discussion gets silly. We're watching harper do the same thing right now. People in in either camp just deny that their party of choice is doing it.


I do not see Harper doing "the same thing". What I see is that the Government has tabled many, many bills, and those bills have ended up in a big pile waiting for the Liberal dominated Senate to actually do something, instead of stonewalling everything.

Nothing of what Ignatieff has said has anything to do with "issues". He has not once pointed to even one issue and said that it was unjust. He engages in generalizations about "the economy" - really, the Government can do anything about the economy, that is for worldwide investment, banking and businessmen to do something about. It doesn't help that even those limited things that Harper wants to do just continue to sit in a big heap in the Senate, while losers like Carstairs blubber away and pour more booze down their sorry throats.

The other parties have different issues. Layton is just flexing his pecs and looking good for the cameras, because really, an Election will just hammer the NDP since their votes are being siphoned away from the Greens. Duceppe, well, he is opposed to Canada, so he might at well be opposed to Harper. The Bloc is nothing more than a circus sideshow with some of the most freaky people in Canada. For them, talk of an election is pretty much the only way they can get on TV, next to getting onto Survivor or Big Brother, or in the case of Duceppe, that crazy reality dating show that is in the dark room...


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

EvanPitts said:


> I do not see Harper doing "the same thing". What I see is that the Government has tabled many, many bills, and those bills have ended up in a big pile waiting for the Liberal dominated Senate to actually do something, instead of stonewalling everything.
> 
> Nothing of what Ignatieff has said has anything to do with "issues". He has not once pointed to even one issue and said that it was unjust. He engages in generalizations about "the economy" - really, the Government can do anything about the economy, that is for worldwide investment, banking and businessmen to do something about. It doesn't help that even those limited things that Harper wants to do just continue to sit in a big heap in the Senate, while losers like Carstairs blubber away and pour more booze down their sorry throats.
> 
> The other parties have different issues. Layton is just flexing his pecs and looking good for the cameras, because really, an Election will just hammer the NDP since their votes are being siphoned away from the Greens. Duceppe, well, he is opposed to Canada, so he might at well be opposed to Harper. The Bloc is nothing more than a circus sideshow with some of the most freaky people in Canada. For them, talk of an election is pretty much the only way they can get on TV, next to getting onto Survivor or Big Brother, or in the case of Duceppe, that crazy reality dating show that is in the dark room...


of course you don't.

It's always someone else's fault.

And this is why we end up with bad majority governments. The big corrupt liberal, and conservative majorities. 

This is not the time for either.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

PenguinBoy said:


> So how is it Harper's fault if we have an early election? I'm trying not to be partisan here - but it looks to me like Ignatief set this whole thing off by taking his position that "the Conservatives time is up".
> 
> Given that any party has enough seats to stop an election, why is it up to Harper alone to prevent the house from falling?


I'm not trying to be partisan either, especially since I don't support the Libs. I do have a hate on for Harper, because I think he's a dangerous man for our country, but I'm just trying to analyse the power plays and moves here without taking sides.

Yes, Iggy has taken a fixed position that has brought up the issue of a possible election. I've tried to lay out some possible reasons for why he may have taken that position, — not justifications mind you. Looking at what's coming up, I think he had two choices, knuckle under and take the position that Dion did and look as weak as Dion did or take his current position. Neither is a great choice, but I think that from where he's coming from, doing what Dion did just isn't an option.

Iggy's current position isn't about issues, it's all about strategic politics. As is the response from the other parties. If we have an election it won't be because of any issue that matters to Canadians, it will be because someone thinks they can take advantage at this time.

Harper on the other hand can't claim that the Liberal's lack of bending over to whatever legislation he might propose is a reason we have to absolutely have an election. He can still get a majority vote on anything if he can win some support from the remaining two opposition parties. He has a minority government after all, so it's always up to him to try and get Opposition support if he wants his government to survive.

This is why I say that whether we go to the polls or not is strictly in Harper's hands. The NDP has explicitly stated that they are open to compromise and the it's the opinion of many that the Bloc is as well. So just because the Libs won't play ball doesn't mean we need to be headed to an election.

Now Harper may think the cost that the NDP wants or the Bloc does is too high, but that's also his decision. Again, why is it always the Opposition parties that are expected to do all the bending, when the Cons only have a minority of seats in the House?


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Again, why is it always the Opposition parties that are expected to do all the bending, when the Cons only have a minority of seats in the House?


Because the Cons have more seats than they do. They are only 12 seats short of a majority after all. 

The Cons are the only party that can do a deal with any of the other 3 parties. In contrast, it takes all 3 of the opposition parties to do a deal to defeat the Cons. The last time they tried that... well... 

In short, the Cons have clout. The others don't.

Harper knows this. That's why he has stayed in power this long, even through a deep recession.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Vandave said:


> Because the Cons have more seats than they do. They are only 12 seats short of a majority after all.
> 
> The Cons are the only party that can do a deal with any of the other 3 parties. In contrast, it takes all 3 of the opposition parties to do a deal to defeat the Cons. The last time they tried that... well...
> 
> ...


They may have "clout", they don't have a majority ... even if they were only 1 seat short. One seat can trump any "clout", Chuck Cadman knew that and Harper, even with all his hubris knows that.

Hmmmmm ... so I guess you're saying that Harper is somehow justified in "my way or the highway"? So if Steve decides it's time to show the Opposition his undefeatable, very impressive and manly massive clout ... to the polls we go, eh?


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

Even Nanos has the Conservatives rising ahead is his polling, and he's had the Liberals ahead basically since the election.

http://www.nanosresearch.com/library/polls/POLNAT-S09-T385E.pdf

CPC: 37.5
LIB: 33.4
NDP: 14.8
BQ: 9.7
GRN: 4.6

Harris-Decima too:

Ignatieff's support slips on sabre-rattling - The Globe and Mail

Unless I missed any (and I don't think I have), that makes every major polling firm other than the one hired by the CBC showing not only an increase for the Conservatives overall (and decent lead), but also their strength in Quebec has rebounded to the point that they're at least in the same position they were after the last election.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

The same position as they were in in the last election, was not a good position.

The torys tend to poll higher in the summer when parliament isn't in session. That was the joke last summer.

I have to agree with GA, the truth is, Canadians have more than once, told the torys that they aren't getting a majority, and that is a clear message to work with the other parties. That isn't 'my way or the highway', but Harper, seems to think it is, and that's when the problems start. Con supporters get bent out of shape and start blaming the opposition parties when things go astray, but they tend to forget that working with other parties doesn't mean agreeing to very bill as written as put forth by the ruling party.

I think if Harper did away with his my way or the highway, and did what Canadians wanted him to as clearly indicated by both the last 2 elections, (including the last one where Harper was sure he would get a majority...), he might have shown Canadians he was a true leader and he could very well sail to a clear majority at some point in the near future. But it seems to me, there have been many times Harper, let's his true hatred of anything left wing and, his ego, get in the way of acheiving this. He has shot himself in the foot on more than one occasion.

I saw a video clip of him speaking yesterday on the cbc, an amateur video (dam them!) where he seemed to be really speaking his mind.

A real eye opener for anyone in Canada. Perhaps he should stop hiding his real thoughts and be more open, transparent, and accountable to Canadians and tell us what really is on his mind and stop pussyfootin' around.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> I do have a hate on for Harper, because I think he's a dangerous man for our country, but I'm just trying to analyse the power plays and moves here without taking sides.


How is Harper "dangerous"? Is he any more dangerous than scum like St. Laurent or Trudeau, that subverted democracy for their own myopic goals? I think the "danger" thing is a bunch of tripe. We have had a number of Roman Catholic Prime Ministers, not one of them established a theocratic Papal State; nor did Pearson turn Canada into a Southern Baptist paradise, etc.

Or is the danger more that Harper is intent on cutting back on the overtaxation we have as a country, because it would certainly be a danger if business found it worthwhile to actually be in business, and what of the throngs of people that would have jobs if we actually had business?

Or is the danger that Harper might actually chop the CBC, because it is nothing but a den of incest, nepotism, and free executive luncheons, that has rapidly become irrelevant because they are entirely partisan and entirely a waste of cash? Or is it dangerous that we actually have an elected Senate, because that would eliminate the free, work two days a year job for scum like Sharon Carstairs - one of the cabal of losers that subverted democracy and freedom for their own personal gains at the public trough?

When it comes down to it, Harper is not "dangerous", he is just fairy fluff, and if given a Majority, it will be the same tired old policies, where judges dish out easy punishments for crimes, revenues will be frittered on useless projects, where building stapled together ticky-tack housing is more important than social engineering and thinking green, and unbridled patronage will ensure that the leadership of government departments will be the most inept possible.



> Yes, Iggy has taken a fixed position that has brought up the issue of a possible election.


Ignatieff has not taken any position at all - nor has he promulgated a platform, nay, a single plank, that is with the exception of minute details, any different from what the parties have already beaten to death. His only policy is that he wants to topple the Government so he can make a grab at power, and perhaps salvage the Liberal majority in the Senate so he can stuff more losers into that useless institution.

Oh, he has talked about "getting involved in the economy in a big way", yeah, more white elephants to ensure the Mafia has ample profits skimmed off of various construction projects. I thought people tuned into the whole scam after Mirabel went down in flames?



> Iggy's current position isn't about issues, it's all about strategic politics.


That's for sure - he didn't even bother with a cheap coat of policy paint to hide his cheap grab at power.



> The NDP has explicitly stated that they are open to compromise and the it's the opinion of many that the Bloc is as well.


Code for "our members want to hang out here enough to gain our gold plated, diamond encrusted pension plan, while pretending to be self-important."


----------



## eMacMan (Nov 27, 2006)

Pretty much any politician that aspires to anything beyond a city council or mayors seat should be considered dangerous. All are more than willing to subvert our personal freedoms to maintain their positions of power. Harpo, Ignuts even Layto should never be trusted•.

Witness the remarkable similarities between Homeland Security in the US and Nazi Germanies Gestapo.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

groovetube said:


> It's always someone else's fault.


So what you are saying is that it is somehow Harper's fault that the unelected Senate is stonewalling business because it is Harper's fault that previous Prime Ministers saw fit to stuff it with some of the most worthless scum of Canada?

I just do not see your point. You babble about all of the things that Harper is doing to "harm" Canada - while never once even coming up with an example. What policy has Harper brought forth that the Liberals can't support because it is so contemptuous? And I am not talking about the Liberals wanting to spend $1000 more on one obscure program over the Conservatives, but what, of substance, is so anathema to the Liberals that they have to "pull the plug" on the Government?



> And this is why we end up with bad majority governments. The big corrupt liberal, and conservative majorities.


Bad majority governments are caused by the granting of too much executive powers to the Prime Minister, who also sits as the paramount legislator, and who also doles out appointments to the Judiciary. There is no balance of power, or separation of power - so into that system, we elect endless dictatorships by other means.

Corruption occurs simply because we are lax on crimes, and somehow think that some dopehead ripping $42 off of a 7/11 store is a greater crime than some white collar civil servant looting the treasury for millions of dollars, or that it is ok to go ahead with some bone headed white elephant scheme that costs billions in payola. And to do that without a system of impeachment and conviction within a balance of power, with proper elections for not only the Commons, but an elected Senate and an elected Governor General.

The system we have now is like leaving a bear in charge of a pot of honey, or an anteater in charge of protecting ant hills...


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

eMacMan said:


> Pretty much any politician that aspires to anything beyond a city council or mayors seat should be considered dangerous. All are more than willing to subvert our personal freedoms to maintain their positions of power. Harpo, Ignuts even Layto should never be trusted.


You haven't been to Hamilton, have you? Some of the biggest scam artists are on our City Council. Perhaps they don't rip off the quantity of money like the Feds do, but then, the City isn't raking in hundreds of billions in revenue.

Our Councilors wouldn't waste their energy in subverting freedoms for their position of power - they would rather subvert freedoms in order to score a free sandwich at a luncheon.

And to say "beyond" is a misnomer, because even our Public School Trustees are notably corrupt and waste money faster than one of Trudeau's cabinet ministers could. beejacon



> Witness the remarkable similarities between Homeland Security in the US and Nazi Germanies Gestapo.


I don't see any similarities. The Gestapo was ruthless, brutal, absolute, efficient, entirely evil and no one fooled around with them. 

Homeland Security, on the other hand, is a scam, nothing more than a political trinket of little practical value, and wastes cash and resources beyond belief, while being annoyingly inefficient while serving only to catch the most blatant and stupid of criminals. The only way they could be evil is if they hired a contractor with the skills to be evil - then it would end up nothing more than some odd drunken ****-erotic party that makes the whole organization look like a sham, or a really bad frat house party with bad acid...


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

EvanPitts said:


> How is Harper "dangerous"? Is he any more dangerous than scum like St. Laurent or Trudeau, that subverted democracy for their own myopic goals?


I could go on and on, my friend. That's not the purpose of this thread though. BTW, can you not ever just hold up a wee bit on the crazy bombast?



EvanPitts said:


> Ignatieff has not taken any position at all - nor has he promulgated a platform, nay, a single plank, that is with the exception of minute details, any different from what the parties have already beaten to death. His only policy is that he wants to topple the Government so he can make a grab at power, and perhaps salvage the Liberal majority in the Senate so he can stuff more losers into that useless institution.


Ummm ... his position that he's clearly taken is that he won't support the government, read before ranting.



EvanPitts said:


> den of incest ... nepotism ... scum ... cabal ... unbridled patronage ... white elephants ... Mafia .... profits skimmed off ... scam ... cheap grab ... diamond encrusted pension plan ...


Are you just a bot with a colourful dictionary? beejacon



EvanPitts said:


> That's for sure - he didn't even bother with a cheap coat of policy paint to hide his cheap grab at power.


 Yep ... what I said ... with a tad less exaggertion. Of course the other parties have no designs on power. None whatsoever, ... no, none at all .... noooooo


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

groovetube said:


> The same position as they were in in the last election, was not a good position.


Right. Same position: CPC wins, Liberal loses, NDP irrelevant as usual. And that's without even mounting a serious campaign against Iggy yet. The numbers we have now were after vilifying Dion for months. Same number now, and all that happened was the LIBERAL leader opened his mouth.

Besides, "Good" is a relevant term. They have increased their seat count in every election. If that's "not good", how do you classify the results for the last few elections for the LPC and NDP?




> The torys tend to poll higher in the summer when parliament isn't in session. That was the joke last summer.


People who say that have not been paying attention. Conservatives have been TRAILING all summer. Now summer is over and Iggy is threatening an election, instantly CPC is back on top.

It's unanimous now too:

Even the CBC/EKOS polling (which still had the CPC/LPC tied a few days ago) is showing the Conservatives back on top today:

Liberal support softening, poll suggests

CPC:34.2
LPC:30.8
NDP:14.8
GRN:10.1
BQ :10

Keep threatening Iggy!


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

EvanPitts said:


> So what you are saying is that it is somehow Harper's fault that the unelected Senate is stonewalling business because it is Harper's fault that previous Prime Ministers saw fit to stuff it with some of the most worthless scum of Canada?
> 
> I just do not see your point. You babble about all of the things that Harper is doing to "harm" Canada - while never once even coming up with an example. What policy has Harper brought forth that the Liberals can't support because it is so contemptuous? And I am not talking about the Liberals wanting to spend $1000 more on one obscure program over the Conservatives, but what, of substance, is so anathema to the Liberals that they have to "pull the plug" on the Government?
> 
> ...


I not sure where I was babbling about Harper "doing harm". How it got from my opinion that Harper needs to learn to govern as a minority leader working with the other parties to this rubbish is a mystery.

If this is where the conversation ends up, I give up. There was an interesting conversation here at one point.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

bsenka said:


> Right. Same position: CPC wins, Liberal loses, NDP irrelevant as usual. And that's without even mounting a serious campaign against Iggy yet. The numbers we have now were after vilifying Dion for months. Same number now, and all that happened was the LIBERAL leader opened his mouth.
> 
> Besides, "Good" is a relevant term. They have increased their seat count in every election. If that's "not good", how do you classify the results for the last few elections for the LPC and NDP?
> 
> ...


easy now, put aside the sabre rattlin, it's unbecoming... 

I'm merely pointing out, that the conservatives, have had twice now, 2 very golden opportunities, to win a landslide! First, a tired, corrupt scandal plagued party with a lame leader (Martin), and they still couldn't do it.

Then, we had Dion, and party in shambles, practically broke, just like shootin fish in a barrel! And still, no majority! Unbelievable! And the liberals had one of the worst election results in HISTORY!!

That's the truth! I don't have a crystal ball. But I do know the last 2 elections, the cons polled higher going in as well. I don't know what the result would be any more than you do, even though clearly you are rootin for a con majority... but honestly, if Harper can't get a majority this round, it's time to give it up...


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Are you just a bot with a colourful dictionary?


OMFGBBQ! EP is Sarah Palin!!!


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

groovetube said:


> but honestly, if Harper can't get a majority this round, it's time to give it up...


I agree. If Harper goes for an election, it should be all-or-nothing. Either he gets a majority, or he resigns. Three strikes, he's out.

For THAT, I would be excited about an election.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

No one wins majorities without Quebec or Ontario and Harpo has neither.

Where are the 12 new Ontario seats?


----------



## chasMac (Jul 29, 2008)

MacDoc said:


> No one wins majorities without Quebec or Ontario and Harpo has neither.


Perhaps then, the west will realize the folly of trying to impress its views upon the ROC. With any luck devolution will be in the cards for us here in AB. The ROC cares little for the west, and the feeling is hugely and sincerely reciprocated.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> No one wins majorities without Quebec or Ontario and Harpo has neither.
> 
> Where are the 12 new Ontario seats?


If we had proportional seats, the West would have 12 more seats. Alberta and BC have more people than Quebec, yet have fewer seats.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

chas_m said:


> I agree. If Harper goes for an election, it should be all-or-nothing. Either he gets a majority, or he resigns. Three strikes, he's out.
> 
> For THAT, I would be excited about an election.


Wishful thinking. 

Harper is well supported in the Conservative movement. 3.5 years as PM with a minority government is a pretty good track record.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

still seems like a glass half full, half empty kind of argument.

Both are valid, depends on which side you hang.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

groovetube said:


> I'm merely pointing out, that the conservatives, have had twice now, 2 very golden opportunities, to win a landslide! First, a tired, corrupt scandal plagued party with a lame leader (Martin), and they still couldn't do it.
> 
> Then, we had Dion, and party in shambles, practically broke, just like shootin fish in a barrel! And still, no majority! Unbelievable! And the liberals had one of the worst election results in HISTORY!!


This isn't a reflection on the Conservatives or Harper so much as it is a reflection that the electorate in Canada is currently very entrenched. 

The votes that each party have gotten in the last three elections has been very tight. You can go back even further and see similar trends. Chretien only got between 39 and 41% of the vote for each of his majorities. If the right wing wasn't split, those would have been minorities.

So arguably the electorate hasn't changed much in 16 years.

I think it will take something major to cause a shift. The recession has had surprisingly little effect.


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

chasMac said:


> Perhaps then, the west will realize the folly of trying to impress its views upon the ROC. With any luck devolution will be in the cards for us here in AB. *The ROC cares little for the west, and the feeling is hugely and sincerely reciprocated.*


You had certainly better be speaking for yourself dude, because I do NOT fall into that category and the vast majority of Albertans that I personally know do NOT! 

Talk about having one's mind made up for them!!!


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Dreambird said:


> You had certainly better be speaking for yourself dude, because I do NOT fall into that category and the vast majority of Albertans that I personally know do NOT!
> 
> Talk about having one's mind made up for them!!!


I haven't given up hope yet and I still believe that the 'West Wants In'. The number of people who really want to separate are in the single digits percent wise.


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> No one wins majorities without Quebec or Ontario and Harpo has neither.
> 
> Where are the 12 new Ontario seats?


No one wins majorities without Quebec or the West and Iggy has neither.

Where are the 12 new Western seats?


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Vandave said:


> If we had proportional seats, the West would have 12 more seats. Alberta and BC have more people than Quebec, yet have fewer seats.


That shouldn't be, in my opinion.

And if we had proportional representation (depending on which method you use) there would be more Cons elected from Ontario and Quebec, while other parties would actually be able to win some seats in the West. The Bloc would not be able to have total control over Quebec. 

First past the post accentuates and exaggerates regional entrenchment. The seat totals would more closely mirror the popular vote totals, and parties would have no choice but to work together in Parliament. Too bad pro-rep is a dead issue for at least a generation.

I agree with your earlier analysis of vote patterns not changing much for a long time. The right was fractured post-Mulroney, by the fall of the PCs and the emergence of Reform. They saw the need to consolidate and it's worked for them. The could broaden their appeal and likely gain a long-standing majority, since the centre and centre-left are fractured, if they had people less wedded to the right wing of their party than the Harper/Flaherty/Baird/Tom Flanagan camp.

I think eventually we will see either the rehabilitation of the Libs or some attempt for the centre/centre-left to consolidate. If the Cons don't broaden their appeal before that happens, they'll stay in minority territory.

On the other hand, if Harper does manage to grab a flukey majority with a sub-40% popular vote in the next election, whenever that is, I think his excesses, once uncontested power is his, will be his and his party's eventual undoing. He won't be someone like Gordon Campbell who can appear to be centrist - even though he's not. Harper is an ideologue who can barely contain his contempt for anything centre and left of centre.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Vandave said:


> This isn't a reflection on the Conservatives or Harper so much as it is a reflection that the electorate in Canada is currently very entrenched.
> 
> The votes that each party have gotten in the last three elections has been very tight. You can go back even further and see similar trends. Chretien only got between 39 and 41% of the vote for each of his majorities. If the right wing wasn't split, those would have been minorities.
> 
> ...


I don't know Vandave. It sounds to me like you're blaming the electorate for not seeing the 'light'. The truth is, the 'electorate' has always favored center, to left historically, as much as conservatives will go to great pains to show otherwise.

You mention a scenario, what if the right wing vote wasn't split, well, what if the left wasn't split... I don't think you can build an arguement here for a growing right wing movement, especially when Harper has to keep himself 'bottled' so as not to scare the electorate!


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> I could go on and on, my friend. That's not the purpose of this thread though. BTW, can you not ever just hold up a wee bit on the crazy bombast?


However, you have not even shown even one item, one single item, that would justify the rejection of Harper in favour of Ignatieff, next to your own personal hatred. Ignatieff brings nothing to the table except the intent of bringing about a cheap grab at power. I do not see why Harper would need to "bend" on any issues, since the Opposition has never brought any view contrary to current Government policy, except for some vague notion that they would do it "better".

The subversion of demoncracy is a very large issue, and a target on the back of the Liberals. St. Laurent stiffled debate in Parliament, and treated Parliament as a plaything, nothing more than his personal toilet paper. He cared not one iota for this country, for the regions of this country, and cared not for the people.

Trudeau, there's a dude that saddled us with a Constitution, a document that was entirely rejected by a full quarter of the nation, and rammed it down our throats. The defects of that sad document are a testimony to the injustices heaped upon the nation, from the lack of any property rights, the lack of Native rights, the lack of rights for victims of crime, and is a document used endlessly to justify crime and to overthrow law and justice.

With the history of grave Liberal abuses of power, I remain very afraid of the hollow words that come out of Ignatieff's mouth, because none of those words carry even the promise of any substantial systematic reforms that would bring about greater democracy. His platform solely consists of a cheap and shameless power grab, with the vague promise of Economic Salvation by means of Big Government, the same policies that trashed our country in 80-81 that we have never recovered from.



> Ummm ... his position that he's clearly taken is that he won't support the government, read before ranting.


What issue will he not support the government on? You see, that is the problem, there is no issue, except for the tiniest of minutea. He wants to call an expensive election that no one wants, just over some minutea, while at the same time, offering nothing substantially different and with no irreconcilable issue to point at. It's the same stunt Herr Dion attempted, with the false pledges of Economic Salvation and going easy on crime - except without the false pledges.

Ignatieff's policies are an empty closet.


----------



## chasMac (Jul 29, 2008)

Dreambird said:


> You had certainly better be speaking for yourself dude, because I do NOT fall into that category and the vast majority of Albertans that I personally know do NOT!
> 
> Talk about having one's mind made up for them!!!


1. Devolution, that is _my_ hope. I did not say that is the wish of most Albertans.

2. I said Albertans do not much care for ROC, of course by which I mean eastern Canada. For the 'vast majority' of Albertans I know, this is the case. (Though I will admit, most of my friends and associates are oilmen working in the downtown core, and ranchers in southern AB; then again these are Alberta's policy makers/political masters, are they not?)

3. A little rhetoric now and then doesn't hurt anyone.


----------



## (( p g )) (Aug 17, 2002)

chasMac said:


> 1. Devolution, that is _my_ hope. I did not say that is the wish of most Albertans.


I'm curious, chasMac, what specifically are you wishing for in terms of devolution of powers to the province(s)?


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

MacDoc said:


> No one wins majorities without Quebec or Ontario and Harpo has neither.


The Conservatives won more seats in Quebec and Ontario that any other party.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

groovetube said:


> I don't know Vandave. It sounds to me like you're blaming the electorate for not seeing the 'light'. The truth is, the 'electorate' has always favored center, to left historically, as much as conservatives will go to great pains to show otherwise.
> 
> You mention a scenario, what if the right wing vote wasn't split, well, what if the left wasn't split... I don't think you can build an arguement here for a growing right wing movement, especially when Harper has to keep himself 'bottled' so as not to scare the electorate!


I am not blaming the electorate in any way. I am just telling you the way it is. It's been 25 years since a party has broken above 50%. 

We have been through the centre-left / centre-right thing before. Believe what you want because it is semantics.

The left wing vote isn't split. The Liberal Party and the NDP are further apart than the Conservatives and Liberals are. Are you referring to the Green Party? If so, they don't call themselves a left of centre party. 

Building an argument for a growing right wing movement? Huh? It seems my argument was that voters were entrenched. I don't see much movement. The Conservatives are close to a majority right now, but it isn't easy to pull in those marginal votes needed to get over the threshold. The most likely scenario if an election were held this Fall is a Conservative Minority.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Vandave said:


> I am not blaming the electorate in any way. I am just telling you the way it is. It's been 25 years since a party has broken above 50%.
> 
> We have been through the centre-left / centre-right thing before. Believe what you want because it is semantics.
> 
> ...


What??? The left vote isn't split? Come on now Dave, you're being dishonest here. You know very well what would happen if all the left wing votes ended up in one pot.

The voters are "entrenched". I don't buy that. It sounds to me, once again, you're looking for a reason why voters won't accept a majority right wing government. "They're entrenched". It's as if that is to suggest some kind of problem on the part of voters. If only, those damn wascally wiberals, I mean left wing ideologues, would stop pulling the wool over people's eyes. I have to ask why the Harper government has to go to such great pains to keep a lid on their real views, and tone down the rhetoric. Hey maybe that's their problem! They shouldn't tone it down! Let us have it, the full monty...

We all know how transparent and upfront Harper is. I am expecting him to go up in front of Canada on national tv, and espouse the very same views he did caught on that amateur video. I would expect all of Canada, to fully embrace Harper and hand him a total majority should he do so!


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Vandave said:


> The Conservatives won more seats in Quebec and Ontario that any other party.


If they had been able to score seats in the Atlantic, the Conservatives would have been in majority territory...


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

groovetube said:


> What??? The left vote isn't split? Come on now Dave, you're being dishonest here. You know very well what would happen if all the left wing votes ended up in one pot.


Please explain where this left wing vote is split.



groovetube said:


> The voters are "entrenched". I don't buy that. It sounds to me, once again, you're looking for a reason why voters won't accept a majority right wing government. "They're entrenched". It's as if that is to suggest some kind of problem on the part of voters.


Aren't we all looking for reasons why people vote a certain way? It seems many on the left want to believe that the Conservatives can't get a majority because of Harper. Well, first off, none of his Liberal predecessors would have had majorities without the right wing split. The last true majority was the first term of Mulroney and that was prior to the Bloc. With the Bloc, Green and NDP in the mix, I think a majority in this country is a very hard thing to obtain. 

If you look at polling for the last three years, you won't see much movement:

Canada Federal Election 2009/2010    Public Opinion Polls    National    Election Almanac

If you look even further back, you will see very similar vote splits. 

We either need a major political issue or a significant change in the current mix of five parties (merge, split or dissolve).

It's just an observation... no spin...

Get used to frequent elections.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Vandave said:


> It's been 25 years since a party has broken above 50%.


Breaking 50% gave the Conservatives most of the House...



> The left wing vote isn't split. The Liberal Party and the NDP are further apart than the Conservatives and Liberals are. Are you referring to the Green Party? If so, they don't call themselves a left of centre party.


The Green Party is not composed of Socialists - they drain support away from pretty much all parties. I know a fair number of people that are involved or support the Green Party, and I can not say that it is representative of the traditional NDP supporters - but rather, from a wide range of people who see all of the other parties as being deficient and inert.

The Green Party has a fair amount of support in Hamilton, and that has not impeded the NDP at all, but rather, diminished the support of the Liberals and Conservatives. I do not think it is really that the Green Party drained the other parties.

Rather, the incessant warfare within the Liberal Party, hidden for many years, simply exploded when Sheila Copps was nixed by Paul Martin, which not only removed Copps from her long held seat, but broadsided all of the surrounding candidates. Many Copps and Keyes supporters looked elsewhere after that fiasco, and a number of them ended up campaigning not only for the Greens, but for the NDP. The NDP have enjoyed large margins in the past few elections, in a place that for years was solid Liberal even though there are very active Environmental and Trade Union movements. The only leakage from the NDP to the Green Party has been in the youth vote, where many students just think the NDP is not serious about real issues, and the environmental vote, where the NDP appear to support big industry over clean water.

The Conservatives, on the other hand, have a really big problem trying to muster candidates that people have heard of. Years ago, this was fairly solid Conservative turf, with people like Fairclough, Alexander, and O'Sullivan carrying the flag for years. But in the years since Alexander retired from the Commons (and on to other things), the local party just has not found quality candidates that people have heard of. Now the Conservatives have done well in surrounding areas, like Alphabet Soup or Halton, but can't seem to find someone in the City that is known - though people have really tried to get Cooke on the ticket, who would probably pull off a win, but he is onto other things and is not interested into butting heads with Christopherson.

[/QUOTE]The most likely scenario if an election were held this Fall is a Conservative Minority.[/QUOTE]

I have the same belief, I do not see much advantage in holding an election if things are not going to change much. I think an election can actually present a fairly large danger to Ignatieff and the Liberals.

1. Voters will punish the Liberals if they pull the plug without a reason other than a cheap grab at power

2. The Liberals are saddled with Bob Rae, which is a really big turn off for voters in Ontario who may vote strategically to punish the Liberals before Rae punishes the country

3. The Liberals are struggling to find candidates in Quebec and Ontario, with at least 30 contested nominations still in question in Quebec, and a similar number in Ontario. One example is in Hamilton, where the head of the local Liberals has asked over 200 people if they are interested, and found no interest. The only one that is not contested is in Alphabet Soup, where the former local TV news anchor has thrown his name into the hat, but had done so some time ago. My own riding didn't even have a Liberal candidate until the third week of the last election, and I think she was nothing more than a placeholder because she had no chance - not starting three weeks late in a six week campaign.

4. Some ridings may go down in flames, like that held by Rose Dhallia. People are really going to ask questions, especially in a riding that is predominantly immigrant. People like her are prime targets, and could be picked off. Of course, the Conservatives have a few figures that could be picked off as well, like Miss Sexy Cancer.

5. Voters in Nova Scotia swung to the NDP fairly hard in the provincial election, so that may give some impetus to some real NDP campaigning there which could tilt the balance in close races.

6. The Liberal regime in Ontario continues in it's inept ways, sullied with scandals, especially the eHealth scam, which could stoke voter anger - even though the federal Liberals had nothing to do with it.

7. The Conservatives have the advantage of Charest's Liberal Party machine in Quebec; while the federal Liberals are cabbaged by the Bloc one mile outside of Dodge.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

The BC Liberal party isn't very popular with the HST coming up and that will hurt the federal Liberals to some extent even though there are few connections between the two.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

The looming HST in Ontario will broadside the federal Liberals, because it is McGuilty's baby. Of course, Ontarians haven't become outraged yet, they have so many things to be outraged about already. This province is going to have one massive political heart attack and stroke if things keep being flushed down the drain.

Just like when they brought GST in, there is an uptick in business as people go on a spending spree prior to save some money - and then once the tax is in, people stop spending and businesses start going tango-uniform, at least until they are forced to buy something that is 15% more expensive than before simply because people need things like clothes, food and car repairs.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Vandave said:


> Please explain where this left wing vote is split.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


come on now Dave. You're pulling my leg here. Everyone knows the left wing vote is split, always has been. You said it yourself that a majority is hard to obtain with the ndp, bloc and greens. Yet Cretien managed with them!

Take your pick where a left wing voters heads to... liberal, ndp, green, bloc? Next you'll try to tell me no one who votes for the bloc is left wing... I'm sure voters heading ndp and green affect the liberals not the torys.

I don't necessarily think it's as much Harper as it is the far right direction of the party that turns off voters. Why is it Harper keeps his far right stuff bottled, well, as much as seems able to anyway?

Harper can't do it, or can barely manage to because he's simply too far right. The liberals are still trying to rebuild after a disastrous final term in office scandal plagued, and recovering from a disastrous leader. It isn't as if Harper didn't have his chances here! Now unless Iggy really screws up or gives Harper a real issue to hammer him with, Harper's real chances seem over to me. He had his golden opportunity with a lame duck leader of a trashed party.

So simple to see.

No spin...


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

EvanPitts said:


> The looming HST in Ontario will broadside the federal Liberals, because it is McGuilty's baby. Of course, Ontarians haven't become outraged yet, they have so many things to be outraged about already. This province is going to have one massive political heart attack and stroke if things keep being flushed down the drain.
> 
> Just like when they brought GST in, there is an uptick in business as people go on a spending spree prior to save some money - and then once the tax is in, people stop spending and businesses start going tango-uniform, at least until they are forced to buy something that is 15% more expensive than before simply because people need things like clothes, food and car repairs.


oh PUHlease will you get it straight!

Man listening to you is like listening to some drunk in the corner who doesn't stop ranting.

It isn't McGuinty's 'baby'. It's Flaherty's. Flaherty, is the one who pushed the idea, and gave BILLIONS in incentives to adopt it. And he is busy convincing the other provinces to adopt it.

I now, it's easy to hate McGuinty. But there are plenty of valid reasons not to like him.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

groovetube said:


> come on now Dave. You're pulling my leg here. Everyone knows the left wing vote is split, always has been. You said it yourself that a majority is hard to obtain with the ndp, bloc and greens. Yet Cretien managed with them!
> 
> Take your pick where a left wing voters heads to... liberal, ndp, green, bloc? Next you'll try to tell me no one who votes for the bloc is left wing... I'm sure voters heading ndp and green affect the liberals not the torys.


Ahhhh... everybody knows... good explanation.

I'll give you half the Green vote, which is 5%, plus 18% NDP support. So far, you are up to 23% left wing support in this country. You got another 37% to go to prove your point.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

23 plus the liberal numbers, oh say 30 and you're over 50%. Oh. you seemed to have forgotten the left vote in the bloc.

What was that it's been over 25 years or something you said?


Really, just what is the percentage of Canadians hard right like Harper? Maybe about the same as hard left like Layton?

Yer on bourbon...


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

groovetube said:


> 23 plus the liberal numbers, oh say 30 and you're over 50%. Oh. you seemed to have forgotten the left vote in the bloc.


If the Liberals and NDP are one and the same, how is it that Iggy couldn't distance himself quickly enough from them after the 'menages a trois'?

Liberal =/ NDP... That's why they are different parties.

It's pretty clear that the Liberals are the centre of the political spectrum in Canada considering they are the ones who have held power for 2/3rds of our history.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

EvanPitts said:


> However, you have not even shown even one item, one single item, that would justify the rejection of Harper in favour of Ignatieff, next to your own personal hatred. Ignatieff brings nothing to the table except the intent of bringing about a cheap grab at power. I do not see why Harper would need to "bend" on any issues, since the Opposition has never brought any view contrary to current Government policy, except for some vague notion that they would do it "better".


Why should I show anything to justify the rejection of Harper in favour of Iggy? That hasn't been the point of my posts, which were about trying interpret the strategizing that the parties are currently taking, nor am I interested in making any argument in favour of electing the Liberals. I did admit that I don't like Harper, but that was an aside to the post.

You understand what a discussion is, right? Person A makes a point, Person B addresses that point. Not, Person A makes a point, Person B uses random words in their point to launch into some long vacuous, tedious and unrelated diatribe. 

Again Evan, read before ranting.




EvanPitts said:


> What issue will he not support the government on? You see, that is the problem, there is no issue, except for the tiniest of minutea. He wants to call an expensive election that no one wants, just over some minutea, while at the same time, offering nothing substantially different and with no irreconcilable issue to point at. It's the same stunt Herr Dion attempted, with the false pledges of Economic Salvation and going easy on crime - except without the false pledges.
> 
> Ignatieff's policies are an empty closet.


As I said in my earlier posts, Iggy's position is about political strategy and not about issues. The fixed position that Iggy took is that he will vote against the government at the next opportunity of a confidence vote. That's all I said. 

And once again EP ... Read. Before. Ranting.

Oh and BTW EP, Iggy can't call an election, nor can he bring down the government on his own. Harper has to be rejected by all the Libs plus all the NDP and the Bloc. He can still work with the other opposition parties if he chooses. At least one of them has left the door open to compromise. It's Harper's call if we go to the polls, not Iggy's.



groovetube said:


> Man listening to you is like listening to some drunk in the corner who doesn't stop ranting.


 :lmao::lmao::lmao:


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

chas_m said:


> I agree. If Harper goes for an election, it should be all-or-nothing. Either he gets a majority, or he resigns. Three strikes, he's out.


He hasn't even had one strike yet. He's increased his seat count in every single election. Very few leaders of any party have ever done that.




MacDoc said:


> No one wins majorities without Quebec or Ontario and
> Harpo has neither.
> 
> Where are the 12 new Ontario seats?


Harper already has more seats in Ontario than anyone else, and Ontario is actually getting 21 new seats after the 2011 census (more are going to Alberta and BC too).

Besides, the Conservatives are only really 11 seats short of a majority right now. Andre Arthur is independent, but he's essentially a Conservative, and can certainly be counted on to support the CPC government on most issues, especially ones of confidence.

So look at how close the margin of victory was for these 11 seats:

Vancouver South 22
Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca 68
Brampton West 231
Welland 300
Edmonton-Strathcona 463
Western Arctic 523
Vancouver Kingsway 745
Brampton-Springdale 773
Burnaby-Douglas 798
Sault Ste. Marie 1111
New Westminster-Coquitlam 1488

That means that the Conservatives were only 6522 votes short of a majority last election. That's not an undoable situation by any stretch.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Oh will ya lookit that — Stevie may have decided to throw that bone to the NDP after all:



> The federal Conservatives are set to introduce employment insurance enhancements that could change the treatment of severance packages and help laid-off long-term workers find jobs more quickly, The Canadian Press has learned.
> 
> Human Resources Minister Diane Finley is expected to table new measures as early as next week,
> ...
> ...


Hmmm ... seems like threatening Harper with a potential election actually causes him to take his primary responsibility of looking out for ALL Canadians seriously, rather than play at what he thinks is his primary responsibility, getting hisself a big fat majority.


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

The Conservatives already said they were working on these changes before the break. Neither Iggy nor Jack had anything to do with it.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

yes the conservatives thought of fixing up ei all better all by themselves...


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Vandave said:


> If the Liberals and NDP are one and the same, how is it that Iggy couldn't distance himself quickly enough from them after the 'menages a trois'?
> 
> Liberal =/ NDP... That's why they are different parties.
> 
> It's pretty clear that the Liberals are the centre of the political spectrum in Canada considering they are the ones who have held power for 2/3rds of our history.


They're different parties competing for more support. Simple.

Yes I agree the liberals are mainly centrists, which captures most Canadians as you said, for 2/3rds of our history.

I don't really see this changing real quick either.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

bsenka said:


> The Conservatives already said they were working on these changes before the break. Neither Iggy nor Jack had anything to do with it.


You must be a Con party insider and be privy to inside info then because they've said nothing publicly that is concrete about their plans. But suddenly -- ta da! -- they've come up with something pretty close to what the NDP has been talking about since this election news hit the fan.

Can you point us to any statements the Cons have made stating that they planned to implement changes like this prior to now?

But hey, this ain't no steenking "backroom deal" -- Stevie hates those. This is just a highly coincidental occasion where his party and the hated socialists see eye-to-eye on policy. Uh-huh.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

oooooohhhhhh ho those socialists!!!


shudder.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

groovetube said:


> They're different parties competing for more support. Simple.
> 
> Yes I agree the liberals are mainly centrists, which captures most Canadians as you said, for 2/3rds of our history.
> 
> I don't really see this changing real quick either.


Well I guess you agree with me then. It's a false dichotomy to call a country centre-left or centre-right. The average, by definition, is centre.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

so why does Harper and supporters all consider the liberals left wing idealogues?

Isn't politics even, better moderate than extreme (on both sides)?


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> You must be a Con party insider and be privy to inside info then because they've said nothing publicly that is concrete about their plans.


"Concrete"? They announced back in May that they were working on changes to the long-term employee and severance package portions of EI. Perhaps if the Liberals actually came ot the meetings of the working group instead of storming out when they didn't get their way, they'd have been in the loop too.

Tories outline EI changes amid Liberals' election threat


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

groovetube said:


> so why does Harper and supporters all consider the liberals left wing idealogues?


Don't all political parties use rhetoric? Let's be honest... Harper gets the worst of it from his opponents. 

The day to day party members seem like a pretty reasonable bunch to me.



groovetube said:


> Isn't politics even, better moderate than extreme (on both sides)?


I don't follow.


----------



## mc3251 (Sep 28, 2007)

groovetube said:


> They're different parties competing for more support. Simple.
> 
> Yes I agree the liberals are mainly centrists, which captures most Canadians as you said, for 2/3rds of our history.
> 
> I don't really see this changing real quick either.


This, setting aside the rant and rhetoric, is precisely the point. I think that Canadians are generally uncomfortable with extremes, and see ourselves as tolerant and accepting. I think that we see society having a bit more responsibility for caring for the individual than is the case in the US. The NDP are just a bit too extreme for most Canadians, at least federally, mainly because however caring they are they have zero credibility in fiscal/economic management. Extreme right politicians scare and offend us because they are seen as putting our tolerant and caring society at risk.

If these opinions are true, then one can see why the Liberals occupied the best possible position to capture majority governments. They tended to get out of control from time to time, so we'd spank them and send them to their room for a term or two. We'd bring them back though, because fundamentally we LIKE THE CENTER. We are comfortable there.

Mulroney was seen as a red tory, I believe, which is, once again, the center. I think that one of the problems Harper has is that he is not seen as being near the center. Justified or not, I think many Canadians are scared of him. We don't trust him to be kind and generous and tolerant, which is why we are afraid to give him a majority. 

What I find so intriguing is that Harper can't nail a majority even with absolutely NO credible alternative in play against him from any party.


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

mc3251 said:


> Mulroney was seen as a red tory, I believe, which is, once again, the center.


For sure. Mulroney was not a conservative at all. He was a Liberal wearing a blue suit.




> I think that one of the problems Harper has is that he is not seen as being near the center. Justified or not, I think many Canadians are scared of him. We don't trust him to be kind and generous and tolerant, which is why we are afraid to give him a majority.


The scary thing is a strawman. A cartoon invented by the Liberals.

Harper has proven conclusively that he's a lot more of a centrist than anyone ever thought. He's been PM for three and a half years, and he has yet to do anything that's overtly right wing in any way. 




> What I find so intriguing is that Harper can't nail a majority even with absolutely NO credible alternative in play against him from any party.


You could just as easily turn that around though. If he's so terrible, and so scary, he shouldn't be able to win at all.


----------



## mc3251 (Sep 28, 2007)

My previous post was a personal observation on how I think Harper is seen. I agree that he is more of a centrist than anyone thought. I also agree that if he was truly scary he wouldn't have won at all. I just find the whole topic Harper fascinating from the perspective of what it says about our country, our culture, and our fears and values. ....and of course it is all opinion.


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> The NDP has indicated that they will work with Harper if he gives them something they can vote for.





GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Oh will ya lookit that — Stevie may have decided to throw that bone to the NDP after all:


Look's to me like the NDP are going to pick up the bone and rune with it:


> Mr. Layton said it would require some "outreach" by Mr. Harper to persuade New Democrats that he is prepared to bring a more conciliatory approach to governing with a minority. "Do these rumours [of EI changes] amount to that? I think it is too early to say."
> 
> Still, NDP House Leader Thomas Mulcair echoed Conservative arguments yesterday, saying the country does not want an election when it is still struggling to emerge from a painful recession, and faces a possible health crisis with the feared outbreak of H1N1 flu.
> 
> "I don't think that, right now, very many people would be forgiving if we were to foist a fourth general election on Canadians in five years," Mr. Mulcair told Question Period.


source: NDP hints at possible reprieve for Tories - The Globe and Mail

This makes sense to me, since:


PenguinBoy said:


> The NDP pretty much doubled their seat count last time round with the collapse of the Liberal vote. If NDP support falls back to just their core supporters, I expect their seat count will fall back down to 18 or 19 seats.
> ...
> 
> If anyone has an incentive to prop up the government, it is the NDP...


The Liberals have, for whatever reason, indicated that they will no longer support the government.

The Bloc has no reason to support the government, as they will almost certainly increase their seat count in an election held today.

The Conservatives can afford to fight an election, but have nothing to gain from it as they will almost certainly end up in more or less the same position they are today, with a few seats changing hands.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

PenguinBoy said:


> The Liberals have, for whatever reason, indicated that they will no longer support the government.


They may reneg on it, considering the huge pile of damage Hedy Fry has heaped upon the Liberal cause. She only made it worse by getting onto the CTV yesterday an denigrating the military and Canadians even more - and put herself in the same situation that destroyed Flora MacDonald's career when she fragged herself in front of Barbara Frum.

This will be one costly mistake, one that could be dragged right through an election, as it gives the Conservatives yet another reason to demonstrate that the Liberals are not committed to Canada. First the Liberals are lead by a dude that spent much of his life not being Canadian, and only coming back because he could seize power; second, the Liberal MPs have no taste, and will use any tactic in order to put down the military, the flag, and the Canadian people.

I think it further reminds Canadians of the shrill "rat-pack" syndrome that has been a plague to the Liberals for decades, and that there are some MPs that deserved to be turfed because they have big mouths, no brains, and can't simply apologize for mistakes.

This the Liberals will need to consider, because with the potential loss of seats in Ontario and Quebec - Ignatieff will end up in a worse position, especially with tools like Hedy Fry mouting off and insulting people.



> The Bloc has no reason to support the government, as they will almost certainly increase their seat count in an election held today.


Actually, one reason and one reason only - that they have a number of members who only need 30 more months in Parliament in order to gorge out on the platinum plated MPs Pension Plan. Sure, they are all about separating from Canada and doing things their own way, but I don't think they will want to give up any cash in doing so. Better that Quebecers themselves become trivialized, so long as the members of the Bloc have giant, secure pensions and a fast track into plum patronage jobs in Quebec City; where they can cash in on promulgating hatred and race warfare.



> The Conservatives can afford to fight an election, but have nothing to gain from it as they will almost certainly end up in more or less the same position they are today, with a few seats changing hands.


I think the position of the NDP is the most precarious, they have the most to loose in an Election fight, especially since the Green Party continues to pilfer support. I can see the Conservatives perhaps picking up support in the Atlantic; but I also have long thought that the Electors of this Nation will dish out punishment to whichever party pulls the plug.

Pulling the plug is probably the biggest issue that will plague the Liberals. It is the Liberals who chose not to cooperate with the Government, and it is the party that made the choice without being able to articulate what they would do differently. I think bringing Bob Rae to the limelight is detrimental - kind of like if they took Martin Bormann and ran him for a seat in the Knesset.

I do not think people have a negative outlook on Ignatieff. He is not the kind of greedy power-monger Herr Martin and Herr Dion were when they split the Liberal Party for their own short sighted political antics. But I think the other players are simply weak and can be picked off. Weak links like Hedy Fry may have already fragged themselves with some rather stupic comments that will make people think. People like Ruby Dhalla, running in a heavily "immigrant" riding may end up going down as people rethink their position in light of her wage-slavery that has never been cleared up. I think Bob Rae will score large in his own riding, but much of Ontario will be suspect, and will engage in strategic voting simply so he can not get into power of any sort. For all the positives that Ignatieff brings, Rae drains off with the negativity that Rae's fiasco and scandal prone Ontario goverment respresents.

Some things, like the persistent problems in nominations at the riding level in Quebec (where half the ridings do not have Liberal candidates) and in Ontario (where about a quarter do not have Liberal candidates), are going to be problematic if an election is quickly called. The Liberals have some real problems in the Golden Horseshoe - too many former Liberal MPs were weak voices in Parliament, and electors do not see any value in reeelcting them. Hamilton itself yielded no benefit of substance by electing Liberals into a Liberal Government, and even those that served on Cabinet did nothing to keep the City from being picked and rummaged over. People like Copps really did harm when she chose to participate in an "anti-industry caucus" - while the NDP were firmly in place in the "industry caucus". Even in Hamilton, there is only one Liberal candidate nominated and ready to go - the rest, entirely unsettled, and they can't even find people to throw their name in the hat, probably because everyone knows that there will be 3 NDP MPs returning to Parliament for Hamilton.

So with the way things are going, Ignatieff may have other thoughts, because the insensitive comments by Hedy Fry could really kneecap the Liberals even before anything happens.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Bring it on! 

Latest poll gives Tories 9-point lead over Grits


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Oh yeah! Let's give ANOTHER brainless incompetent bunch of lying scumbags a majority to screw things up as they wish.

You really want it don't ya!


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

groovetube said:


> Oh yeah! Let's give ANOTHER brainless incompetent bunch of lying scumbags a majority to screw things up as they wish.
> 
> You really want it don't ya!


Not really, but I enjoy the comedy that is the Liberal Party. Either way, they lose. :lmao:


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Vandave said:


> Bring it on!
> 
> Latest poll gives Tories 9-point lead over Grits


"Bring it on", himmmm what famous neo-conservative made a similar sentiment famous in the last few years .... ? Can't quite remember his name ... Dub - something. He was sorta a goofy-looking character and was in the news a lot ... hmmm.

I think that the swing in polls is solely because of the general perception that Iggy was attempting to provoke an election that most Canadians say they didn't want.

I wonder how those numbers might change if a newly emboldened Harper chooses to engineer his own defeat by putting forth legislation that the NDP or Bloc simply won't be able to support. The Libs are out of the picture now with their fixed position of non-support. If we go to the polls and there's a whiff that Harper's hubris put us there, then his numbers might not look so rosy.

But 39% is likely all he needs for that majority he lusts after under our crazy electoral system, although it depends on the vote distribution. His "separistist" talk may mean he'll go even lower in PQ. 

When Harper's head gets swelled no good ever comes from it. I encourage all Conservatives and their supporters to get insanely over-confident based on today's polling. 

But ya know, at this point I'm almost tempted to say, give him his friggin' majority already. We'll have 4 years of hell, sure (unless you're loaded already), but by the end of it when they've ruined Canada's economy, punched gaping holes in our social safety net and health care system, given massive tax breaks to the wealthiest Canadians and turned Canada in an international environmental villian, we'll see a Bush-like revulsion at him and his 1990s neo-conservatism and probably a Mulroney-esque decimation of his party.

BTW, I can't say that I mind seeing the Libs take their lumps either, it's just that Helmet Hair Harper gets to be the beneficiary of their bumbling.


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> I wonder how those numbers might change if a newly emboldened Harper chooses to engineer his own defeat by putting forth legislation that the NDP or Bloc simply won't be able to support.


Won't happen.

As you pointed out earlier, the Tories has already tossed the NDP a bone in the form of the proposed EI reforms, and as pointed out in the article I quoted above it looks as though the NDP are inclined to support the government - with good reason, as they have the most to lose in an election.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

PenguinBoy said:


> Won't happen.
> 
> As you pointed out earlier, the Tories has already tossed the NDP a bone in the form of the proposed EI reforms, and as pointed out in the article I quoted above it looks as though the NDP are inclined to support the government - with good reason, as they have the most to lose in an election.


Yeah, It looks that way tonight PB, although I'd say things may still be fluid. Some in the NDP (based on lurking at the NDP partisan babble forum) think that Harper, in view of his increasing polls might now include a poison pill in the ways and means motion that neither the NDP or Bloc could support politically. The specific pill mentioned is including adding support for the proposed Canada/Columbia free trade deal. The Bloc and NDP and their supporters are dead against this deal.

So while it looks like an election may be averted by the NDP propping up the Cons, if the polls continue to look good for them, they may think that this is their chance to grab that majority. But if they do decide to engineer their own defeat they're going to have to be pretty crafty about it. If it looks like they are the ones bringing about the election I suspect their numbers won't hold up too well.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Vandave said:


> Not really, but I enjoy the comedy that is the Liberal Party. Either way, they lose. :lmao:


Enjoy it while it's hot Vandave. We all know eventually, because of both Harper's and Igy's et al stupidity they couldn't make a minority work, so we'll end up with back to back liberal majorities.

It's always funny until...



GratuitousApplesauce said:


> "Bring it on", himmmm what famous neo-conservative made a similar sentiment famous in the last few years .... ? Can't quite remember his name ... Dub - something. He was sorta a goofy-looking character and was in the news a lot ... hmmm.
> 
> I think that the swing in polls is solely because of the general perception that Iggy was attempting to provoke an election that most Canadians say they didn't want.
> 
> ...


 I agree. He should have gotten his majority from day one, because no debate about it. He wouldn't have been able to keep it in his pants, it would have been the end of him hands down.

It's rather curious (or not) that Harper has to keep himself bottled up for fear the real him might scare Canadians...

telling. If Canadians want him so much, let him let us have it!


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

groovetube said:


> ...we'll end up with back to back liberal majorities.


How do you see this happening?

As long as the Bloc take most of the Quebec seats out of play, and the West keeps supporting the Conservatives, it will be pretty much impossible for the Liberals to win a majority.

I just can't see either Quebec or the West changing their voting patterns in the foreseeable future.


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> Some in the NDP (based on lurking at the NDP partisan babble forum) think that Harper, in view of his increasing polls might now include a poison pill in the ways and means motion that neither the NDP or Bloc could support politically.


Can't see it, because:


GratuitousApplesauce said:


> If it looks like they are the ones bringing about the election I suspect their numbers won't hold up too well.


I expect we will see some bitter pills for the NDP to swallow, but nothing that is impossible for them to support - unless there is some issue that would be wildly popular with mainsteam voters, but unacceptable to the NDP. I can't think of any such issue off the top of my head.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

The liberals have taken majorities with the bloc "in play" many times before.

The liberals can take a majority after both Ontario and quebec sees the 'scary Harper' that conservatives keep denying yet they keep valiantly bottled up... for some... reason... lol.

It'll be up to the next liberal prime minister to not repeat the mistakes of past and not alienate the west.r

Regardless, I think either one, should remain in minority, and the partisan cap Harper continues to pull needs to stop, and the sabre rattling Iggy is pulling needs to end. Shut up and do what you're elected to do.

Govern as a minority working with the other parties not only when threatened.


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

groovetube said:


> The liberals have taken majorities with the bloc "in play" many times before.


The political landscape has changed since then. If anyone gets a majority these days, it's likely to be the Conservatives.
Is majority possible? - The Globe and Mail


groovetube said:


> The liberals can take a majority after both Ontario and quebec sees the 'scary Harper' that conservatives keep denying yet they keep valiantly bottled up... for some... reason... lol.


If the Conservatives get a majority, they'll want to ensure they have a chance at another one - so they won't do anything to scare the voters too badly. The 'scary Harper', if he even exists, will be kept 'valiantly bottled up'.


groovetube said:


> It'll be up to the next liberal prime minister to not repeat the mistakes of past and not alienate the west.


It will take a -*long*- time for any Liberal government to mend fences with the West. I'm not saying it would be impossible, but it wouldn't likely happen in any timeframe that would matter to those currently working in the Liberal party. They would need to stick with a policy of "reaching out to the West" through many elections - even though it will produce no noticeable results for the first several campaigns.

FWIW, the provincial Liberals last formed a government in Alberta in 1917 and the federal Liberals last elected an MP from Calgary in 1968. Other parts of the West are not quite as rigid in their opposition to the Liberals, but the Liberal brand is damaged out here - I would suggest a Conservative breakthrough in the 416 would be easier..


groovetube said:


> Regardless, I think either one, should remain in minority, and the partisan cap Harper continues to pull needs to stop, and the sabre rattling Iggy is pulling needs to end. Shut up and do what you're elected to do.


Agreed! :clap:


groovetube said:


> Govern as a minority working with the other parties not only when threatened.


Agreed - but the other parties have to realize that they aren't in power (even with a minority) and choose their battles carefully. They can't oppose bills just of the sake of opposing them, or arbitrarily declare that the governments time is up.

I don't think *any* of the parties really know how to make a minority work...


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

It looks like the Liberals are going down in flames, along with the NDP if there is an election. The latest polls have the NDP just slightly ahead of the Green Party; and the Liberals pretty much erased in that part of Quebec that is not in Montreal - where ironically, the NDP has picked up steam and is ahead in a number of ridings.

I think the Conservative mudslinging is more effective than the effete ads with Ignatieff lost in the bush...


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> "Bring it on", himmmm what famous neo-conservative made a similar sentiment famous in the last few years .... ? Can't quite remember his name ... Dub - something. He was sorta a goofy-looking character and was in the news a lot ... hmmm.


Just playing off your fears GA. :lmao:


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Vandave said:


> Just playing off your fears GA. :lmao:


My fears are not so great, and my hopes that any of these clowns from any party can do anything halfway intelligent are almost non-existent. But it is fun to watch the horserace and speculate. It's mostly entertainment value for me.



PB said:


> I expect we will see some bitter pills for the NDP to swallow, but nothing that is impossible for them to support - unless there is some issue that would be wildly popular with mainsteam voters, but unacceptable to the NDP. I can't think of any such issue off the top of my head.


It looks like the showdown might be over for the next little while. You may be right, which is why I said if the Cons want to roll the dice based on current polling and engineer their own defeat, — and they do have an undeniable urge to go for the majority that is soooo tantalizingly close — they'll have to be very crafty about it.



PB said:


> It will take a -*long*- time for any Liberal government to mend fences with the West. I'm not saying it would be impossible, but it wouldn't likely happen in any timeframe that would matter to those currently working in the Liberal party. They would need to stick with a policy of "reaching out to the West" through many elections - even though it will produce no noticeable results for the first several campaigns.


I'd say almost never. It seems like hatred of the Liberal brand is something that is handed down generation to generation in Alberta for about 60% of the population. I doubt if there's much if anything the federal Libs could do that would soften that and also not p*ss off their supporters in other provinces. The West is not just Alberta -- and Liberal-hate, while it exists here in BC in pockets is not nearly as virulent as in Alberta.

That said, I wonder if the federal Cons have to start watching their RIGHT flank. With the provincial by-election win yesterday in Calgary of the Wildrose Alliance member, it looks like they might start to split the vote. They certainly split it badly in that Calgary riding.

Looking at it from the outside, this Wildrose Alliance sounds a lot like the early beginnings of Reform and they seem to have struck a chord in AB. They're calling the AB PCs "Phoney Conservatives". In the riding they made it a 3-way split, winning with 37% and pushing the PC candidate to below 20 I believe. But the surprising thing was that the AB Liberal candidate came close to benefitting from the split with 34% of the vote. If this party decides to go national, for instance because the right in AB is convinced that Harper has become too much of a "Phoney Conservative", they could become the Bloc of Alberta. (I don't know if they're Western separatists, I don't think they are but correct me if I'm wrong).

I think this is a real concern for Harper, if he were to get a majority. The right in Alberta, especially the social con right, has been keeping quiet for years and keeping their grumbling to themselves, but if the Cons get a majority, they being the bedrock base will expect to get paid back. So far Harper can assume they have no where else to put their votes, but that could change fast if they see that Harper is into a 4 year government and is still trying to appear as a centrist to the ROC.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> It seems like hatred of the Liberal brand is something that is handed down generation to generation in Alberta for about 60% of the population.


As a parent, it is my duty to inform my children of the NEP and the consequent 8 figure fallout in Alberta. As adults, they can then make their own informed decisions.

The doom of man is to forget. 

I will not...

_____

I do not believe that Wildrose is separatist.


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> That said, I wonder if the federal Cons have to start watching their RIGHT flank. With the provincial by-election win yesterday in Calgary of the Wildrose Alliance member, it looks like they might start to split the vote. They certainly split it badly in that Calgary riding.
> 
> Looking at it from the outside, this Wildrose Alliance sounds a lot like the early beginnings of Reform and they seem to have struck a chord in AB. They're calling the AB PCs "Phoney Conservatives". In the riding they made it a 3-way split, winning with 37% and pushing the PC candidate to below 20 I believe. But the surprising thing was that the AB Liberal candidate came close to benefitting from the split with 34% of the vote. If this party decides to go national, for instance because the right in AB is convinced that Harper has become too much of a "Phoney Conservative", they could become the Bloc of Alberta. (I don't know if they're Western separatists, I don't think they are but correct me if I'm wrong).
> 
> I think this is a real concern for Harper, if he were to get a majority. The right in Alberta, especially the social con right, has been keeping quiet for years and keeping their grumbling to themselves, but if the Cons get a majority, they being the bedrock base will expect to get paid back. So far Harper can assume they have no where else to put their votes, but that could change fast if they see that Harper is into a 4 year government and is still trying to appear as a centrist to the ROC.


I don't thing so, because:
1) I figure the Wildrose win in the Provincial byelection was a protest as much as anything.

2) While Reform did have a social conservative fringe, there was more to it than that. Preston Manning had some interesting ideas about reforming government in Canada, I don't see much of that from the Wildrose Alliance.

3) I can't see the Right and Centre Right splitting so soon after uniting.

4) I'm not sure how much support an extreme right wing party would get in Canada - or even Alberta for that matter. I think the average voter in Alberta is Centre to just right of Centre - which fits nicely with the Federal Conservatives, but not a more radical party.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

PenguinBoy said:


> 1) I figure the Wildrose win in the Provincial byelection was a protest as much as anything.


I agree. Alberta ended up getting stiffed by Ed Stelmach, who has pretty much made his mark by diddling Alberta. I don't think Alberta is sending an anti-PC message, but rather, an anti-Stelmach message.



> 2) While Reform did have a social conservative fringe, there was more to it than that. Preston Manning had some interesting ideas about reforming government in Canada, I don't see much of that from the Wildrose Alliance.


Preston Manning was a sellout because he gave up on the things that meant Reform in order to score votes, when ended up losing the leadership of the party. Harper has never even pretended to be in it for anything even remotely Reformist, choosing instead to be a liberal by other means. The Wildrose Alliance are probably those that feel marginalized by the sharp turn to effete liberality that Stelmach had brought upon the Alberta PC party, just like loads of Tories have gone elsewhere since Harper abandoned them in the quest for some nasty votes in Quebec.



> 4) I'm not sure how much support an extreme right wing party would get in Canada - or even Alberta for that matter.


There would be little support because Canadians are used to feasting on pap and being abused by large quantities of legislation that is meaningless because of a lack of enforcement. Canadians prefer "the center" because it feels good to have fake social welfare, fake government projects, fake job creation, fake laws with a fake judicial system, and a fake government system where most power is held by the unelected pigs feasting at the patronage trough, with a fake head of state that isn't even genuine Canadian. People talk about the need to "address issues", but bow out because it requires effort and thought.

It is so much easier not to have any effort or thought, and just listen to the same old lies, fabrications and pap that dribbles out of the mouths of pathetic, wishy-washy politicians. Politicians who, during an election, say big things, but once in, it's all about scoring free lunches and wiling away the days until they get their platinum plated pension plan, perhaps followed by cushy, high paying jobs doing nothing except selling out to corporate raiders and special interests.

Alberta is no exception, especially when Stelmach is the biggest sellout of the public interest, and nothing will restrain him from continuing the sellout until the Electors decide to defrock the false prince.

Canadians couldn't handle anything even remotely right wing since the people have no idea how to cross the road without the familiar, hand holding paternalism that issues from our corrupted and corpulent government offices. Just imagine what it would be like is business and industry, by their own free will, came here, set up shop, hired hundreds or thousands of people, scored profits, paid taxes - all without some faux scheme of the government to subvert free enterprise, or to have ministers look for payouts and kickbacks for their own profits?


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

Well, no election call for now - although this is not what I would have expected:
Bloc to prop up Tories, averting election for now - The Globe and Mail


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

you just have to sit back and smile that Harper is being propped up by the 'socialists' and the 'separatists'.

Yeah I know a cheap laugh, but...


----------



## mc3251 (Sep 28, 2007)

groovetube said:


> you just have to sit back and smile that Harper is being propped up by the 'socialists' and the 'separatists'.
> 
> Yeah I know a cheap laugh, but...


Not too cheap a laugh for Shakespeare: "strange bedfellows".


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

groovetube said:


> you just have to sit back and smile that Harper is being propped up by the 'socialists' and the 'separatists'.


"propped up by" != "formal coalition"


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

PenguinBoy said:


> "propped up by" != "formal coalition"


"propped up by" == "MP's waiting for pension eligibility"


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

PenguinBoy said:


> "propped up by" != "formal coalition"


I find it interesting that Harper's Cons always seem to get around to doing *exactly* what they have accused others of doing in the past.

I absolutely agree that "propped up by" ≠ "formal coalition". There is nothing at all wrong with the Cons receiving support in Parliament from the NDP or the Bloc. It's expected and normal in a minority government situation and it's normal practice around the world in parliamentary democracies. I applaud them for working with the opposition.

The problem is that Harper tried to make political hay last winter from hammering the Libs about being in a coalition with the separatists (or sovereigntists if he was speaking in French, — funny that). He didn't much mention the "socialists" at the time. It was a very successful bit of propaganda for him.

But Harper and any of his supporters who understood the facts knew that there was never any proposed coalition government including the Bloc, nor did the Bloc agree to be part of government, the only coalition proposal was with the NDP. There was simply an agreement with Duceppe to not vote against the coalition - at confidence votes only - for a period of 18 months. Even though there never was a coalition government proposed with the Bloc as a partner, Harper and his pit bulls with full knowledge slurred over that fact for political reasons and spread lies about the situation with much gusto. 

And then he went on to repeat the same lies in the videotaped speech recently, with the addition of the dreaded socialist term. This is because using the current term socialist as a McCarthyesque stand-in for commie is in vogue amongst the US right wing knuckle-draggers to describe anything that isn't standard GOP approved fodder and was a nice chunk of red meat to throw to his more extreme right supporters.

Now that similar distortions are being turned against his party should surprise no one. What's good for the goose ....


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Now that it seems like an election won't be triggered this week (maybe that's changed, I haven't read the news this morning) the next drama will be the first week of October when Iggy had promised a formal motion of non-confidence. I think it's expected that the Bloc won't vote with the Cons at that, if it does indeed come about, so it's up to Layton again.

If Harper wants an election, he'll make it difficult for NDP to support them without looking weak, if he doesn't want to go to the polls, then he will offer some sort of policy fig leaf that Jack can use to cover his shame.

Things are changing hourly, so I have no idea what might happen in a couple of weeks, but my sense is that Harper will want to go if he thinks he can do it while pinning the triggering of it on Iggy. Since it will be Iggy's motion (if he does indeed go through with it) that shouldn't be too difficult.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> But Harper and any of his supporters who understood the facts knew that there was never any proposed coalition government including the Bloc, nor did the Bloc agree to be part of government, the only coalition proposal was with the NDP. There was simply an agreement with Duceppe to not vote against the coalition - at confidence votes only - for a period of 18 months. Even though there never was a coalition government proposed with the Bloc as a partner, Harper and his pit bulls with full knowledge slurred over that fact for political reasons and spread lies about the situation with much gusto.


If it walks like a dog... talks like a dog... well... it's a dog...

The same goes for this coalition. There were three parties in the coalition, not two.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

oh the stupidity of this all just continues doesn't it.

He did it no he didn't yes he did jesus H christ what is wrong with people.

Are we all this stunned to not see that any party will do whatever it takes including getting into bed with the separatists.(Harper had a signed agreement with them some time ago too didn't he).

Man what a joke...


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

Vandave said:


> If it walks like a dog... talks like a dog... well... it's a dog...
> 
> The same goes for this coalition. There were three parties in the coalition, not two.


If it walks like a dog and talks like a dog it could be anything at all. It would be a dog IF ... it is, ... in reality ... in fact ... a dog. For all you know it could be that whacko John Baird in a fluffy dog suit barking like a manic pit bull. 

You don't get to call it a dog if it isn't one simply for political convenience, at least not if you any interest in honesty. If you're going to argue points you should have the integrity to not delve into propagandistic partisan word-bending. Don't we get enough of that coming from Ottawa? If you use that slip-shod standard then you also have to accept that the Bloc supporting Harper on Friday would be a coalition government too even though that is not a dog either, even though some Libs find it convenient to say so. I thought that you understood how Parliament works, Dave.

Here's a refresher. A coalition government is where 2 or more parties co-operate to form government. If the Bloc supports Harper on a confidence vote that is not a coalition. The Bloc is not a part of government simply by not voting against them on a confidence issue. Similarly, when the Bloc agreed to not vote against the proposed Lib-NDP coalition on confidence votes only for a limited time, that would not have made the Bloc a part of that coalition government. It would have been the Bloc, as a separate party from the governing coalition voting with the government, just as they are going to do with the Conservative government on Friday.


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

GratuitousApplesauce said:


> I find it interesting that Harper's Cons always seem to get around to doing *exactly* what they have accused others of doing in the past.
> 
> I absolutely agree that "propped up by" ≠ "formal coalition". There is nothing at all wrong with the Cons receiving support in Parliament from the NDP or the Bloc. It's expected and normal in a minority government situation and it's normal practice around the world in parliamentary democracies. I applaud them for working with the opposition.
> 
> ...Harper and any of his supporters who understood the facts knew that there was never any proposed coalition government including the Bloc, nor did the Bloc agree to be part of government, the only coalition proposal was with the NDP. There was simply an agreement with Duceppe to not vote against the coalition - at confidence votes only - for a period of 18 months. Even though there never was a coalition government proposed with the Bloc as a partner, Harper and his pit bulls with full knowledge slurred over that fact for political reasons and spread lies about the situation with much gusto.


While I agree that what Dion tried to put in place last year wasn't ~quite~ a "coalition with Socialists and Separatists", it was a fair bit more than normal working with opposition parties in a minority Parliament.

It was a "formal coalition with Socialists, with a formal written agreement of support on Confidence matters from Separatists" - which is pretty close to a "coalition with Socialists and Separatists."

While the separatists wouldn't be a formal part of the coalition (i.e., they wouldn't have seats on the cabinet, etc.), you can bet they would have been "kept in the loop" and would have had a fair amount of influence in exchange for their written agreement to support all confidence motions, all of the time.

I don't think what Harper is doing is the same as what Dion tried to do. To me there is a big difference between brokering a deal with the opposition parties on each individual confidence measure as it comes up, and promising who knows what in exchange for a written agreement to get support for *all* confidence motions for an agreed period of time.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

PenguinBoy said:


> While I agree that what Dion tried to put in place last year wasn't ~quite~ a "coalition with Socialists and Separatists", it was a fair bit more than normal working with opposition parties in a minority Parliament.
> 
> It was a "formal coalition with Socialists, with a formal written agreement of support on Confidence matters from Separatists" - which is pretty close to a "coalition with Socialists and Separatists."
> 
> ...


The word "coalition" can refer to any kind of alliance between people or groups. So the Cons are using this kind of general term when they refer to a "coalition with the Separatists and the Socialists". In that sense it is correct, there was some agreement to do something between the groups.

The phrase "coalition government" within the context of parliamentary democracy means something a lot more specific. The Cons are using the loose general term when what they are really insinuating is coalition government. In that sense it always was dirty politics on their part, but had a lot of traction for them so they kept doing it. There never was any proposal for a coalition government that included the Bloc, it was strictly to be a coalition government made up of the Libs and NDP.

You may speculate that the Bloc would have been "kept in the loop" and that may have been true. But that is also normal in Parliament. There is lots of back-channel talking going on between parties and MPs, even though some might takes pains to deny it in many cases. But just because the parties talk with each other for strategic reasons does not equal making them a part of government. In no sense is it correct to state that the Bloc were intended to be a part of that proposed coalition government.

There were back channel talks going on between the Libs and the Cons all year about the terms under which Iggy would continue to support the government. Did that make it a coalition government? Of course not. Did that mean there was some formal agreement between them? Maybe nothing written down, but likely some negotiating in offices, or on the phone, maybe even a handshake or two between MPs. Dealmaking goes on in Parliament every single day. Promising of "who knows what" goes on all the time. As we know from the revelations of the Cadman affair, the Emerson affair and the Grewal affair, some of the "who knows what" can be borderline unethical or illegal. But still none of this equals coalition government, or means that those out of government who make deals with government are a part of that government.

You rightly point out that what went on with Dion and Duceppe is not the same as Duceppe now propping up the Con government, and I agree, but in neither case is Duceppe part of a _coalition government_ with the other parties. It's just plain dishonest for Harper and his people to refer to "coalition" and insinuate "coalition government" when they knew there never was any such thing. And now they are up in arms that the same blurring of the terminology is being applied to them and they attempt to make fine distinctions? What a joke.

As I said earlier, what's good for the goose ...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Bring on an election Iggy, we can hardly wait!

Conservative Lead Widens In Poll



> *CBC News
> 
> The Conservatives have widened their lead over the Liberal Party, a new poll suggests, as federal election speculation continues.
> 
> The EKOS poll, commissioned for the CBC and released Thursday, shows the Tories with 35.1 per cent support, followed by the Liberals with 29.9 per cent. The New Democratic Party followed with 16.5 per cent, the Bloc Quebecois with 9.6 per cent and the Green Party with 9 per cent.*


Conservative lead widens in poll


----------



## chas_m (Dec 2, 2007)

I have to say I find the Conservative ad running in BC presently (and I assume nationwide) pretty offensive.

I do have some vague recollections of last year, he said sarcastically, and can dimly recall who signed what, who overtured to whom, and other such details. The commercial's recollection differs significantly from mine, not least by portraying Iggy as the leader of the Liberals *at the time.*

As for SINC's post: you _do_ realise that you've basically admitted that the Libs/NDP/Greens would be smart to forge a governing coalition, since that (by your own numbers) would be the _only_ way Canada will get a majority government, right?

(not saying this will happen, obviously, just having fun with statistics as a general reminder than numbers today mean nothing really)


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

SINC said:


> Bring on an election Iggy, we can hardly wait!
> 
> Conservative Lead Widens In Poll
> 
> ...


the whole bring it on thing, hilarious.

right on spec.


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

chas_m said:


> I have to say I find the Conservative ad running in BC presently (and I assume nationwide) pretty offensive.
> 
> I do have some vague recollections of last year, he said sarcastically, and can dimly recall who signed what, who overtured to whom, and other such details. The commercial's recollection differs significantly from mine, not least by portraying Iggy as the leader of the Liberals *at the time.*)


The ad is right on the money. It's exactly what happened.

Ignatieff signed and endorsed the coalition contract. Then, when Dion announced he would step down, Iggy went on a media tour announcing that he would lead the coalition. He continued to state this emphatically when he was named interim leader, and continued to do so up until he was officially 'acclaimed' as permanant leader, at which point he changed to the "a coalition if necessary, but not necessarily a coalition" meme.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

what was it I said about stupidity, or something, everybody does it, yet people think only the other guy does it.

Something about Harper having a signed document with the bloc and the ndp leader's signatures, and the GG, hmm, can't... quite... remember... gah.

It's that short memory my guy doesn't do it thing kicking in again.


----------



## MazterCBlazter (Sep 13, 2008)

.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

yes. That pretty much sums up the level of understanding.

I think the liberals have just as brainless jokes as well too.


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

chas_m said:


> As for SINC's post: you _do_ realise that you've basically admitted that the Libs/NDP/Greens would be smart to forge a governing coalition, since that (by your own numbers) would be the _only_ way Canada will get a majority government, right?


I wouldn't object to this, if they clearly stated their intentions up front - i.e., said "if we win a majority we'll take it, otherwise we plan to form a coalition with party x".

I don't much care for bait and switch tactics.

That said, I doubt a coalition with the NDP and Greens would produce a majority. The Conservatives and Liberals are actually quite close to each other, while the NDP are a fair bit to the left of the Liberals. The Greens under Elizabeth May seem to have taken a sharp left turn as well, instead of promoting themselves as "Neither left nor right, but ahead".

While a coalition would appeal to those on the left who see it as a way to have some influence, I suspect the typical mainstream Liberal supporter is a centrist who would rather support the Conservatives than the NDP.

I also expect that such a coalition would be *very* unstable, as there is a pretty big gulf between the Liberals, NDP, and Greens that will become apparent as soon as they are no longer united in opposition against the common "enemy".


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

Well, looks like Iggy gave the plug a tug, but couldn't quite pull it:
Liberals fail to topple Tories - The Globe and Mail

I wonder if the Conservative will take another run at a majority?
The Tories' secret: They want an election - The Globe and Mail

If so, how could they get an election without looking like they want one? Now that the Liberals look as though they'll vote non confidence for a while, one way would be to try to introduce some sort of legislation that would have broad popular appeal but which the NDP can't support - but I can't think of any appropriate wedge issues off the top of my head.


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

Time for the Libs to each their children .... Iggy could be the first Lib Leader to go down without ever being in an election.....


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

PenguinBoy said:


> If so, how could they get an election without looking like they want one? Now that the Liberals look as though they'll vote non confidence for a while, one way would be to try to introduce some sort of legislation that would have broad popular appeal but which the NDP can't support - but I can't think of any appropriate wedge issues off the top of my head.


Me neither.

Looks like something of a stalemate. Conservatives want an election but can't afford to actually look like they want one. Liberals don't want one because they're too weak right now to do anything about preventing a possible majority (perhaps a slim one but a majority nonetheless). NDP are siding with the Conservatives out of political expediency, nothing more.

Iggy fails to mean much to small 'l' Canuck liberal voters. They know he's an intellect but he's also strange... hard to read the man and his motives and he just doesn't know how to connect with people. He has a lofty, ivory tower vibe that just doesn't resonate with voters. Nor does he seem to be a natural leader among his own party... he seems to be oblivious to all the problems besetting the Liberals.

Harper continues to head up the Conservatives, for now. But in the long run they'll still need someone who can reach out to more Canadians of all stripes. Meantime, his challenge is to stay cool - maintain a low profile and say and do little to **** people off. Just ride it out. A big challenge to him, however... he wants to be the man for all Canada and it's just not going to happen.

Yeah, bit of a stalemate. Most Canadians are exhausted by all of the pointless, expensive voting that's taken the country more or less nowhere. A whole lot of technical, procedural wrangling while the world moves on. I have a hunch most of us are happy to let the current minority government run its natural course. Perhaps by then Canadian voters will have a renewed appetite for the gamesmanship of another race.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

a pox on them all....tptptptp

( good assessment BTW )


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

PenguinBoy said:


> If so, how could they get an election without looking like they want one? Now that the Liberals look as though they'll vote non confidence for a while, one way would be to try to introduce some sort of legislation that would have broad popular appeal but which the NDP can't support - but I can't think of any appropriate wedge issues off the top of my head.


I can think of one that would probably do it...

Call it the $1.95 solution. The opposition freaked out when the Conservatives planned to drop the per vote subsidies to federal parties, but public support for the CPC rocketed up into the mid 50s. 

All they have to do is introduce a "this is how we are going to make sure the recessionary deficits do not become structural" plan that includes several ways to restrain spending, with the vote subsidy just casually tossed into the list.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Rps said:


> Time for the Libs to each their children .... Iggy could be the first Lib Leader to go down without ever being in an election.....


How about Paul Martin? He grabbed power by shoving the elected Jean Chretien out of office, then spent some months dishing out retribution and crass acts of class and race warfare. He really was never in the subsequent election, just pranced around as if he was King of Zanzibar, then pouted when people rejected his profane platform and his gang of criminals that were pretending to run for election... beejacon


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

Say Evan, I know we've had a number of elections in the past 6 years or so, but wasn't Martin in the 2006 loss?


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Rps said:


> Say Evan, I know we've had a number of elections in the past 6 years or so, but wasn't Martin in the 2006 loss?


Perhaps he was on the ballot, but he didn't actually run or do anything interesting. Harper basically got in because Martin got into power, stabbed his perceived enemies within the Liberal Party in the back, then though everyone should crown him the next King of Scotland. That campaign was so devoid of anything of worth - it's just like he didn't run.

Added to that, it was not an election that we lost, but rather, an election he chose not to win. Much like his administration, born of a yuletide coup d'etat, steeped in political blood and backstabbing unparalleled in Canada, with vapid "policies" that were directed attacks upon various groups that he had an axe to grind with, and a blank political agenda - all in retribution for his father's poor showing in '67. Of course, his most cherished goal, to pin the criminal conviction of high treason, sedition, abuse of public trust upon Jean Chretien ended up to be a bust, where practically everyone involved got off scott free, and it just make Herr Martin look bad because for a decade, Herr Martin was supposed to be in control of the Budget.

The problems that the Liberals have do not lay with the competition of the Bloc, or the Tories, or the Socialists - but because they are engaged in an endless bloodletting feud that goes back to at least the Asbestos Strike of '49, as evidenced by this week's purge of the Quebec branch of the party, where moderates and newcomers were shoved out of the way by the Trudeauites. They aren't doomed in Ontario because of policies, issues, or the other parties, but because they have scandalous characters like Bob Rae that will simply see any chance of support evaporate. Too much talent has been wasted by the Liberals, all because of some need for revanche among their five main factions.


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

So basically you are saying he was in an election and lost.......


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Just read an opinion piece in the Globe. Michael Bliss is more optimistic about Harper's chances than I am and sees in Harper a master strategist capable of coldly noting his mistakes and learning from them. Bliss feels that this is a whole new template and that the mantle of "natural government" which has so eluded the Conservatives is now about to be handed over to them, courtesy the floundering, demoralized and dazed Liberals.

I hope he is wrong but there's some compelling evidence that Harper can stay in power. 

Granted, he is not loved by many on his own team due to the iron discipline he imposes on them, but by the same token he is respected and feared for those very traits. Anyone going up against him in a challenge to his leadership had better be both smart and courageous. He will not give up his role without a terrific fight.

In truth, I don't see Harper being in danger from anyone on his own side unless there erupts a scandal of the sort of dimensions that can shake the Conservative foundation, endangering their nascent rise to the top. And while I think anything is possible in Canadian politics, especially scandals and corruption, you can bet Harper and co. will be maintaining a tight lid on whatever cauldrons are secretly bubbling away on Parliament Hill. They can smell victory now - they need only avoid the type of scattered, rudderless behaviour the Liberals have been displaying. 

It would take a lot to unseat Harper. But if it happened, I'd be interested in who among the Conservative ranks would come out in the open in a leadership bid.

As for the Liberals, they have some time to get their act together. Alas, they're so fractured and off-message, I don't expect them to be able to mount a cogent, coherent counter-message to the Conservatives. Too, I expect many Canadians will want to see what a Conservative majority would do - to witness first-hand whether they are actually any better at running things than all the governments preceding them. Voters are sick of minority government and its endless floundering... sick of wasted, expensive elections which result in only insignificant, incremental changes... sick of cynical coalition bickering and maneuvering.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

A great assessment Max. Take a bow. :clap:


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Rps said:


> So basically you are saying he was in an election and lost.......


No, I am saying he was in an election but forgot to run.

Nor did he lose, since he could have easily formed a government if he wasn't so upset that he wasn't crowned the next King of Scotland by an adoring throng...


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Thanks, Sinc.

Wanted to mention that I thought Bliss' observation about successive intellectual Liberal leaderships was spot on.


----------



## Rps (May 2, 2009)

Max said:


> Thanks, Sinc.
> 
> Wanted to mention that I thought Bliss' observation about successive intellectual Liberal leaderships was spot on.


Max, this is a very astute assessment ... one that could easily be published. Not sure what your calling is .... but if it isn't being a pundit, you've missed it.

Possibly the best series of comments that I've read since joining ehMac!


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Max said:


> As for the Liberals, they have some time to get their act together. Alas, they're so fractured and off-message, I don't expect them to be able to mount a cogent, coherent counter-message to the Conservatives.


I agree with the analysis. The biggest problem the Liberals have is with other Liberals. The Party was run like a Mafia for far too many years, with this faction versus that faction. There are lots of blood feuds, and we see them right out in the open. But even if they are not in the open, these feuds ruin the morale and ability to organize at the constituency level.

One can only imagine how many ridings were entirely screwed over for the Liberals by pulling the same stunts they did in Hamilton East, where they basically handed over the riding to the NDP because Martin wanted to get rid of Copps. It's not that people loved Copps, but rather, most of the party in the riding simply left, most of which went to the NDP - which organized a hefty campaign in the area. They did the same thing in Hamilton West, forking over that riding to the NDP. They also backed a number of lame ducks or candidates that had a back track record, only to see them loose large in places like Halton and Burlington.

Now they are rogering themselves on their home turf - right in their stronghold of Outremont. Really, the Bloc doesn't even need to campaign, just put the name on the ballot and people will vote Bloc just to avoid the Liberal shenanigans. Ignatieff himself does not hold enough power within the Party to impose order, and characters like Bob Rae are in the background ready to shove him off the cliff for their own purposes.

If the Liberals want to actually win - they really have to stop with the backstabbing, and they have to avoid talking about the economy - because no one can believe that the Liberals have any understanding of business or economics, judging by the bad track record of over half a century.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

> no one can believe that the Liberals have any understanding of business or economics, judging by the bad track record of over half a century.


I think Michael Bliss would disagree with your assessment, Evan. I expect he would say the Conservatives have gradually - one step at a time - moved over to the centre, all the while freely borrowing ideas that sprang from traditional Liberal turf - and that includes certain economic theories and measures. Want to rule in Canada? Hold the centre - occupy it like you own it, like it's naturally yours. Canadians are not historically loving of political extremes, right or left - those frontiers make them squeamish.

When holding the centre you are obliged to abandon, or at the very least downplay, certain ideological tenets, whether they are of a social/cultural or more purely economic basis. You are obliged to keep some of your own members' more strident voices in check, for the sake of consolidating, extending and steadily maintaining your power base. And that includes implementing some economic measures which, on the face of it, run counter to traditional ideological underpinnings.

It's not that the Liberals didn't understand economics; I rather think their grasp of it is no more obtuse or backward than the Conservatives. As far as I'm concerned, economics is a science mired in smoke and mirrors. It's a bunch of theories and models, some of which are currently in favour, some of which have been sidelined. No one really knows where the economy is going - yet political parties make it thier business to at least pretend to know.

I think complacency, corruption and entitlement played a larger role in the unraveling of the Liberals. They ruled for a long period of time but they now look like a spent, irrelevant force. They did it to themselves; it's how most power bases fall - internal rot.

Rps: thanks for the kind words, man. Very flattering.


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

EvanPitts said:


> The biggest problem the Liberals have is with other Liberals. The Party was run like a Mafia for far too many years...


In more ways than one...


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

Max, let me add my voice to those who agree with your analysis. I've enjoyed reading these well reasoned, well presented posts. Thanks.



Max said:


> I think Michael Bliss would disagree with your assessment, Evan. I expect he would say the Conservatives have gradually - one step at a time - moved over to the centre, all the while freely borrowing ideas that sprang from traditional Liberal turf - and that includes certain economic theories and measures. Want to rule in Canada? Hold the centre - occupy it like you own it, like it's naturally yours. Canadians are not historically loving of political extremes, right or left - those frontiers make them squeamish.
> 
> When holding the centre you are obliged to abandon, or at the very least downplay, certain ideological tenets, whether they are of a social/cultural or more purely economic basis.


This is absolutely the correct thing to do if they want to hold on to power - ideology makes for bad policy. If Harper continues to rule in the moderate, centrist way he has been doing for the past several months, it will be difficult for the opposition to paint him as "Scary and Extreme" and he might be able to slowly build up support in areas that have traditionally supported other parties.

I believe that the Liberals move to the left under Dion and attempted coalition with the "Socialists and Separatists" hurt them. Last year I thought that they should move to the Centre before the Conservatives got there:


PenguinBoy said:


> ...the Liberals weren't a party of the left back in the day when they were the "Natural Ruling Party of Canada".
> 
> If the Liberals were smart, they would move back to the Centre - uniting with the "Left Wing" parties would move them to the left of mainstream Canadians and open up the centre for the Conservatives, who would **slowly** introduce right wing policies once they had cemented their position as the new "Natural Ruling Party".


Now I think they might have missed the window on the move to the centre, as it looks like the Conservatives beat them to it...



Max said:


> I think complacency, corruption and entitlement played a larger role in the unraveling of the Liberals. They ruled for a long period of time but they now look like a spent, irrelevant force. They did it to themselves; it's how most power bases fall - internal rot.


Agreed.

The Liberals should have started their rebuilding right after the 2006 election with a policy convention, grass roots fundraising, etc. Instead they seemed to treat 2006 election result as almost a fluke, or a onetime backlash against the sponsorship scandal. Perhaps they were in "Denial of risk and peril"*, but nearly four years later they are still thrashing around with divisions in the party, no clear platform, etc.
___________________________
*From chapters.indigo.ca: How the Mighty Fall: And Why Some Companies Never Give In: Jim Collins: Books

Hubris born of success
Undisciplined pursuit of more
Denial of risk and peril
Grasping for salvation
Capitulation to irrelevance or death


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Does anyone really think Harper will remain 'centrist' for too long should he get his majority?


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

groovetube said:


> Does anyone really think Harper will remain 'centrist' for too long should he get his majority?


Yes - if he wants to remain in power.

He might try to slowly nudge things a bit to the right over time, but he can't move too far or too fast on this. Mainstream Canadian voters don't have any appetite for the far left or the far right.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Penguin: absolutely - the Conservatives move to the centre from the right was before the Liberal move to the centre from the left... the Liberals have ceded that territory to the Conservatives and are therefore without much of their historical platform - i.e. the mushy middle. The Liberals were outmaneuvered, plain and simple. It's only a wonder to me that it took this long for the Harper regime to make this move to the centre. It's always been the most obvious and pragmatic move. In so doing, they have eviscerated the Liberals, if only temporarily. But it's been gutted nonetheless, and no amount of clever talk from Michael Ignatieff will improve their fortunes. They must profoundly rebuild themselves.

Harper probably detests that mushy middle - I can't imagine otherwise - but he's also canny enough to realize he must at least play to it in order to secure a majority. Then, once he's got his majority, he will move more to the right; he will be feeling comfortable and secure enough to show his spots. That, Groove, is what I think he will do. The centre is not where Harper really wants to be; his personal beliefs dictate an agenda more solidly in the realm of both fiscal and social conservatism. He is obliged to play that down for the time being, but a majority will let him unveil more clearly his ideological underpinnings. Certain of his theories about good government and the basis of a civil society will come to the fore. And yes, Penguin, I totally agree - generally speaking, while in the middle in Canada, you must minimize your public adoration of ideology... doing otherwise hardly reassures the electorate that you are anything but a technocrat or ideological foot soldier hell bent on a mission.

In a way, I think it would be a good thing to let Harper have his way with Canada. If he behaves as I expect he will, his reign of power will not last beyond a single term. I believe that, as powerful as he is, he has also inadvertently created within his own ranks more than a few individuals who are privately waiting, sharpening the long knives. Politics is a terribly primal game.

But that's getting way ahead of things. Way, way ahead. He's facing a majority now. The Liberals have made blunders of epic proportions and the Conservatives are really showing a remarkable level of integrated purpose and solidarity... they are steamrolling the opposition with fascinating confidence. Interesting times.


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

Max said:


> In a way, I think it would be a good thing to let Harper have his way with Canada. If he behaves as I expect he will, his reign of power will not last beyond a single term.


I'm not sure he would stray too far from the centre, as stated previously he might slowly move a bit to the right, but I think he is smart enough to see that an extreme right wing agenda would only last a single term - and I think he would rather head the new "natural governing party".



Max said:


> I believe that, as powerful as he is, he has also inadvertently created within his own ranks more than a few individuals who are privately waiting, sharpening the long knives. Politics is a terribly primal game.


Agreed.

It would be interesting to see who gets in next, and what part of the political spectrum they occupy. If a moderate leader emerges the Liberals will be shut out for a while...


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

groovetube said:


> Does anyone really think Harper will remain 'centrist' for too long should he get his majority?


For sure. He's nowhere near the hard-right neocon the left accuses him of. His consistent message to party members has been stay in the centre if you want to stay in government.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on how right Harper is. Seems to me he's been an avid student of his Calgary mentor, Tom Flanagan - I consider his intellectual views fairly closely aligned with American neo-conservatism, of which the good professor is a keen admirer. I don't consider neo-conservatism a spent force - far from it.

For his part, Harper might want to give the appearance of being a leader of the "naturally governing" party of the day, but surely the Liberals will now be able to tell you what an illusion such a notion is. There are very few things in politics that are natural, other than a ceaseless struggle to come up on top and be able to tailor your message with as little interference and cross-chatter as possible.

Harper's strict instruction to his party fringe types to cleave to the centre is to enforce discipline among the ranks and to project an image of a cohesive whole, nothing more. I do not consider Harper an ranting extremist - that's too much of a cartoon - but I do think his private inclinations take him quite far from the centre. I still think he is itching to be freed of the yoke of a minority government so as to more fully demonstrate what his vision of Canada is.

Well, we'll probably see, won't we?


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

PenguinBoy said:


> It would be interesting to see who gets in next, and what part of the political spectrum they occupy. If a moderate leader emerges the Liberals will be shut out for a while...


Agreed, a thousand percent. The key word here is "moderate." Canadians on the whole rather like that. A prime minister can have a bluish tinge or a pinkish one just as easily - as long as the predominant colour is grey.

However, if the Conservatives were to field someone with a bigger lovability factor than Harper, they could establish a new dynasty and take it forward from there. Stephen Harper may be feared and respected, but that's far from 'beloved.' In politics, that's what you want - the combination of winning voters' hearts _and_ minds is the magic ticket. But if you have to settle for one, settle for the heart - the mind thing is rather tenuous and there will always be a sizable portion of the electorate which distrusts an intellectual. Michael Ignatieff is wrestling with that very thing right now.


----------



## mc3251 (Sep 28, 2007)

PenguinBoy said:


> Max, let me add my voice to those who agree with your analysis. I've enjoyed reading these well reasoned, well presented posts. Thanks.
> 
> 
> This is absolutely the correct thing to do if they want to hold on to power - ideology makes for bad policy. If Harper continues to rule in the moderate, centrist way he has been doing for the past several months, it will be difficult for the opposition to paint him as "Scary and Extreme" and he might be able to slowly build up support in areas that have traditionally supported other parties.
> ...


Exactly, and meanwhile Harper is staking claim to the "reasonable center" which is what Canadians really love. The Liberals need to go to their room and think about what they've done.


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

Max said:


> I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on how right Harper is. Seems to me he's been an avid student of his Calgary mentor, Tom Flanagan - I consider his intellectual views fairly closely aligned with American neo-conservatism, of which the good professor is a keen admirer. I don't consider neo-conservatism a spent force - far from it.


While Harper seems to be a student of the "Calgary School", and I have no doubt that his personal views are fairly right wing, I think he is also more of a pragmatist than an idealist. If he were to veer too far right once in power he would likely end up back in opposition after a single term, and I don't think he wants that.


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

Max said:


> However, if the Conservatives were to field someone with a bigger lovability factor than Harper, they could establish a new dynasty and take it forward from there. Stephen Harper may be feared and respected, but that's far from 'beloved.' In politics, that's what you want - the combination of winning voters' hearts _and_ minds is the magic ticket. But if you have to settle for one, settle for the heart - the mind thing is rather tenuous and there will always be a sizable portion of the electorate which distrusts an intellectual. Michael Ignatieff is wrestling with that very thing right now.


Unfortunately *none* of the federal parties seem to have a truly charismatic leader right now. Harper and Ignatief seem very similar, they are both obviously very smart, but also come across as cold and Machiavellian.

Our leaders come across as stilted and wooden - compare their speeches to Obama, for example. If the Conservatives came up with a charismatic leader right now they would be in power for a long time...


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

PenguinBoy said:


> Unfortunately *none* of the federal parties seem to have a truly charismatic leader right now. Harper and Ignatief seem very similar, they are both obviously very smart, but also come across as cold and Machiavellian.
> 
> Our leaders come across as stilted and wooden - compare their speeches to Obama, for example. If the Conservatives came up with a charismatic leader right now they would be in power for a long time...


And would Obama still be in power if he had a minority government?


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

Vandave said:


> And would Obama still be in power if he had a minority government?


Hard to say.

Regardless of what you may think of his politics, he's charismatic and probably one of the best English language orators on the planet - we really don't have anyone like that here these days...


----------



## bsenka (Jan 27, 2009)

PenguinBoy said:


> Unfortunately *none* of the federal parties seem to have a truly charismatic leader right now. Harper and Ignatief seem very similar, they are both obviously very smart, but also come across as cold and Machiavellian.
> 
> Our leaders come across as stilted and wooden - compare their speeches to Obama, for example. If the Conservatives came up with a charismatic leader right now they would be in power for a long time...


I strongly disagree. Harper comes across as a statesman. Obama without his teleprompter is a dip****. That emperor has no clothes.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Max said:


> I expect he would say the Conservatives have gradually - one step at a time - moved over to the centre, all the while freely borrowing ideas that sprang from traditional Liberal turf - and that includes certain economic theories and measures.


All our parties are wet diapers and inhabit the center - we do not have any parties that are actually to the left or the right, rather, it comes down to who their intended target is for the dole - with the "left" preferring to give it to criminals, confidence artists, special interests and drug pushers, the "center" preferring to give to to those whose votes can be purchased, and the "right" preferring to give it to corrupt corporates and elitists on the take.

On no issue does any party actually differ significantly, nor does any party actually represent an ideology that wanders past the "say what will score votes then do something different and self-aggrandizing when we get in" school of shallow thought.

Also, if you think that "economic theory and measures" come from some font of a Liberal Party brain trust - you have forgotten about the bad theories and economics peddled by Donald MacDonald and Marc LaLonde - not to mention the slight reheats of Michael Wilson as peddled by Paul Martin. These measures have continually worked to sideline the Canadian economy, and has turned us into a Third World wannabe.



> Want to rule in Canada? Hold the centre - occupy it like you own it, like it's naturally yours. Canadians are not historically loving of political extremes, right or left - those frontiers make them squeamish.


Actually incorrect, since all parties occupy the center. Canadians gravitate towards whatever party puts forth the best sounding set of lies, with an occasinal interregnum when some other party gets in because a prior party lied too much. The only Canadians squeamish about anything is the folks at the CBC, which is nothing more than a corrupted branch of the Liberal Party.



> ...economics is a science mired in smoke and mirrors. It's a bunch of theories and models, some of which are currently in favour, some of which have been sidelined. No one really knows where the economy is going - yet political parties make it thier business to at least pretend to know.


The Government shouldn't be as involved in the economy, and should instead, concentrate on creating an environment where people can engage in free enterprise. Canada's problem is that we are woefully overtaxed, which makes pretty much every other country look like a better place to do business. Same with incessent approval processes that mire business down for years on end, and other oppressive policies and ways and means that impede business and initiatives.

All of the current parties seem to think that using taxpayers money to bail out failed capitalist enterprises is somehow a "policy" or an "investment i nthe future" - while upstarts who want to be on the New Frontier face significant hurdles and may never get off of the ground because of graft, corruption and special interests of corporates. For instance, we used to have world leadership in water purification - something that was entirely lost when the Government saw fit to allow corporate takeovers that ruined that little industry. Same with the steel industry, when entirely successful companies like Stelco and Dofasco were impeded by continual government interference, overtaxed and under nourished, and then allowed to be "sold" to a pack of foreigners who picked over the carcass and tossed everyone out of work.



> I think complacency, corruption and entitlement played a larger role in the unraveling of the Liberals. They ruled for a long period of time but they now look like a spent, irrelevant force. They did it to themselves; it's how most power bases fall - internal rot.


The Liberals have been irrelevant for half a century or more; first when they ousted King, and then years later, with the scandalous Pipeline Debate. It's just that people are now cluing in to the heap of corruption and evil that is the Liberal Party...


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

PenguinBoy said:


> Our leaders come across as stilted and wooden - compare their speeches to Obama, for example. If the Conservatives came up with a charismatic leader right now they would be in power for a long time...


I think this is true as well. Also agreed that Obama, regardless of his vision and other political skills, is a highly skilled orator - the kind of individual the people can be inspired by - and of course, the very kind his ideological enemies fear. His gifts in this area are enormous. People seem to making hay of his inability to have swayed the IOC in his Chicago pitch (the Drudge Report supposedly claiming "the ego has landed") but I don't believe it will stick to him for long; it's been blown out of proportion because that's what the media likes to do.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

bsenka said:


> I strongly disagree. Harper comes across as a statesman. Obama without his teleprompter is a dip****. That emperor has no clothes.


I can't see Harper as a statesman myself - far from it. He's too wooden. When he's on message, he's still incredibly stiff. Throw away his script and he's usually far worse - mechanical, issuing stock, pat answers. It's one of the reasons why he doesn't go off the cuff very often, why his media scrums are so carefully managed. The guy has to have his mouth managed, lest he go off-message.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

EvanPitts said:


> The Liberals have been irrelevant for half a century or more; first when they ousted King, and then years later, with the scandalous Pipeline Debate. It's just that people are now cluing in to the heap of corruption and evil that is the Liberal Party...


Can't say as I subscribe to a "the Liberals are evil, dot dot dot" line of thinking. Too Harry Potter for me. Besides, in light of your observation that all the parties tend to be somewhat centrist and are only minute shades apart from one another, branding one of them as being distinctly evil makes zero sense; rather, it smacks of naked partisanship, nothing more.

I realize that some of your favourite extinct equine creatures to endlessly pillory are greed, graft, corruption. That's fine as far as it goes, but I simply don't believe any one party has a lock on this sort of thing. I think it's far more likely that parties which get into power are themselves slowly corrupted by the system which is already in place - those hordes of civil servants and bureaucrats who actually run the country. This is a heavily striated, fossilized crust which acts as an underlying bedrock for any party which sweeps into power, regardless of ideology and how extreme its practice might be. All these obfuscating layers of bureaucratic power, red tape and rites of privilege are what the ostensible rulers of the day have to learn to live with. Get into power and the power changes you; it's that simple. Stay in power long enough and power becomes its own reward. It's what you chase. You end up using your power to stay in power - to subvert your enemies, stock up your war chest, strategize on how to marginalize your enemies.

You can come into power bursting with vim and vinegar and hoarse promises to shrink government, to make the people's tax dollars go further than they have. You can do your best to shrink that hydra-headed bureacracy. Alas, it has an uncanny way of growing back, this time under your branding perhaps, but it'll still grow and become less efficient and cost more money. It's like another party, a nameless, indifferent one without official status - a tremendous drain on resources in one sense and a tremendous obstacle in another. Ignore it at your own peril. In Washington, they call it being 'inside the beltway.' I don't know what it's called up here but it's the same principle. Get into power in Ottawa and stuff happens. Too, the opposite occurs - some stuff inexplicably fails to happen.

The nation's capital could move to Vancouver or Calgary or Charlottetown and the same thing would inevitably happen.


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

Max said:


> People seem to making hay of his inability to have swayed the IOC in his Chicago pitch (the Drudge Report supposedly claiming "the ego has landed") but I don't believe it will stick to him for long; it's been blown out of proportion because that's what the media likes to do.


I think the Chicago bid was a long shot. Since there haven't been a South American Olympics I wouldn't be surprised if the IOC wanted to give South America a chance. Plus Brazil is a high profile emerging nation, I'm sure that played into the selection process as well. It looks like they are alternating between developed and emerging countries, i.e., Beijing -> London -> Rio.

I like "the ego has landed" though, that's a good line...


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Yeah, it was a great line. I think a little humble pie would be good for the Obama diet anyway.

And though I'm not an Olympics follower, I found myself happy for Rio and for South America in general. Good on them and I hope it'll turn out to be a great series of games. I feel bad for Chicago on general principles - I'm fascinated by that town and I think there are a great many things about it which are tremendous - but there will doubtless be other opportunities.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Max said:


> Can't say as I subscribe to a "the Liberals are evil, dot dot dot" line of thinking. Too Harry Potter for me. Besides, in light of your observation that all the parties tend to be somewhat centrist and are only minute shades apart from one another, branding one of them as being distinctly evil makes zero sense; rather, it smacks of naked partisanship, nothing more.
> 
> I realize that some of your favourite extinct equine creatures to endlessly pillory are greed, graft, corruption. That's fine as far as it goes, but I simply don't believe any one party has a lock on this sort of thing. I think it's far more likely that parties which get into power are themselves slowly corrupted by the system which is already in place - those hordes of civil servants and bureaucrats who actually run the country. This is a heavily striated, fossilized crust which acts as an underlying bedrock for any party which sweeps into power, regardless of ideology and how extreme its practice might be. All these obfuscating layers of bureaucratic power, red tape and rites of privilege are what the ostensible rulers of the day have to learn to live with. Get into power and the power changes you; it's that simple. Stay in power long enough and power becomes its own reward. It's what you chase. You end up using your power to stay in power - to subvert your enemies, stock up your war chest, strategize on how to marginalize your enemies.
> 
> ...


some sanity here. You're battin pretty high here.


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

Max said:


> However, if the Conservatives were to field someone with a bigger lovability factor than Harper, they could establish a new dynasty and take it forward from there. Stephen Harper may be feared and respected, but that's far from 'beloved.' In politics, that's what you want - the combination of winning voters' hearts _and_ minds is the magic ticket. But if you have to settle for one, settle for the heart - the mind thing is rather tenuous and there will always be a sizable portion of the electorate which distrusts an intellectual. Michael Ignatieff is wrestling with that very thing right now.


Harper doesn't look as stilted and wooden as he used to here:
Harper tickles the keys - The Globe and Mail

Better than sweater vests and kittens by far! If this goes viral, Ignatieff should be worried...


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Meant to click on that link when I was at the Globe earlier yesterday, PB. Now I'd best do it. I usually avoid footage of politicians playing music because the shudder factor can be epic.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

well good for Harper for making the effort. But, indeed the shudder factor is quite epic.


----------



## Max (Sep 26, 2002)

Well, the shudder factor was still there but you're right; he was smiling, looking hugely relaxed. If that's the direction is going in, it can only serve him well. As long as he doesn't wriggle into a wetsuit and jump on a seadoo, he'll be fine. Still no statesman - I think that requires a bit more dignity - but if he can pull off donning the garb of a populist, then he's not doing bad at all. I guess he's drawing confidence from his numbers and from the general disarray of his political enemies.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

well if he pulls it off, he deserves credit for doing so. What I find a bit of a chuckle though, are the same conservative supporters, who had their fists in the air when the tories were all about cuts to the arts, and the average Canadian not giving a crap about the stuffy artiste gala events, are all suddenly en masse gushing over the Harper's gala event at the NAC. 

It seems, as long as they hide the true 'conservative', Canadians are more open to that. Isn't that something eh.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

groovetube said:


> well if he pulls it off, he deserves credit for doing so. What I find a bit of a chuckle though, are the same conservative supporters, who had their fists in the air when the tories were all about cuts to the arts, and the average Canadian not giving a crap about the stuffy artiste gala events, are all suddenly en masse gushing over the Harper's gala event at the NAC.
> 
> It seems, as long as they hide the true 'conservative', Canadians are more open to that. Isn't that something eh.


Nobody has said or inferred those things. Where do you come up with this material?

You can support the arts and still oppose public funding for the arts. Lots of arts events do just fine without public money. 

41% support...Iggy down into Dion support levels... he could use 'a little help from his friends' and the Liberal Party should 'come together' right now.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

my. You have a short memory.

"You can support the arts and still oppose public funding for the arts. Lots of arts events do just fine without public money. "

Well, no need to debate that, you did it all by yourself. I'll just let that stand, I don't think I need to add anything more to that...

And my comment about the irony, right over your head.

Besides, wasn't Harper at 41% before? I wonder how long it'll be, before he blows it, yet again...


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

Vandave said:


> 41% support...Iggy down into Dion support levels... he could use 'a little help from his friends' and the Liberal Party should 'come together' right now.


It's even worse than it looks - Liberal support seems to be melting down in Ontario and among women:
Liberal support in perilous slide - The Globe and Mail
Women and Ignatieff: Where did it go wrong? - The Globe and Mail


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Iggy is showing his true colors. Too bad for the liberal party really.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

^^^
I think all of the talk about calling early elections has severely hurt the Liberals - especially since they are attempting their putsch based on nothingness, like a ways and means bill (which would curtail something that the Liberals had already voted on and agreed to). Without an issue to gravitate around, without any kind of cause to rally for, they really have nothing to put on the plate. The Conservatives continue to jump from strength to strength, and any follies they ended up with anything scandalous were trivialised and shoved into the corner.

I think the recent spate of events in Quebec have severely hurt Liberal chances, and retreads like Cauchin remind people of the old days, of all of those things the Liberals represented, like continual Referendums, bad relations between the Federal and Provincial Governments, bad economic policies, corruption and AdScam, etc. Ignatieff ends up just looking like the same old tired thing, power hungry and prepared to speak whatever lies he needs in a cheap grab at power, all backed up by the same sad sacks of corruption and stupidity, nothing more than a front for filth like Sharon Carstairs, Hedy Fry, Ruby Dhallia, as well as the old corrupted crowd that hung around filth like Paul Martin and Jean Chretien, all of which were glad handling scum that spent years raping this country while lying to the electors...


----------



## chasMac (Jul 29, 2008)

Much of the libs problem I think derives from not knowing what the problem is. So much of the media is turning it into leadership-charisma issue, but it has to be much deeper than that. If the Canadian public put so much store into party figure heads, the tories would find themselves in dire straits indeed.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

PenguinBoy said:


> It's even worse than it looks - Liberal support seems to be melting down in Ontario and among women:


No wonder - with the Liberals in Ontario doing such a swank job. Really, McGuilty is in jeopardy of becoming even more hated that Bob Rae, especially when one morning, people wake up and find everything is 13% more expensive, and that they are no longer allowed to see their children because they are going to be interned from birth in filthy schools run by a bunch of molesters.

This is less of a problem on Ignatieff's part, but rather, the scurrilous Rat Pack mentality that has possessed the Liberals for the past quarter of a century, with an unbridled attack on the wallets of the tax payers, and an unbridled attachment to the pork barrel...


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

groovetube said:


> Well, no need to debate that...


I'm glad you agree. 



groovetube said:


> Besides, wasn't Harper at 41% before? I wonder how long it'll be, before he blows it, yet again...


So you think he should be an opportunist and call an election?

I don't see the rush. The more people get to know Iggy, the more Liberal support drops. There is no way the Liberals will change leaders once again so they will ride this one out with Iggy. The Liberals are no threat and that isn't likely to change in the foreseeable future. The Conservatives should just focus on consolidating their support and building upon it.


----------



## FeXL (Jan 2, 2004)

*They can keep her...*

Liberal trio looking to defect, Tories say



> There has been speculation in the past few days that Ruby Dhalla, Liberal MP for Brampton-Springdale, has considered defecting to the Conservatives because her own party has refused to back her private member's bill to increase old-age benefits to immigrant seniors.


----------



## screature (May 14, 2007)

FeXL said:


> Liberal trio looking to defect, Tories say


Ya, that is too funny especially based on the fact that she isn't receiving support in her own Caucus for her PMB. She must be nuts to think that the Conservative Caucus will be any more receptive of it.

If she wants to defect to a party whose Caucus may be more supportive of her bill her only hope is the NDP. :lmao: :lmao: :lmao:


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

FeXL said:


> Liberal trio looking to defect, Tories say


Too funny!

From TFA:


> Sgro said she didn't believe Dhalla would leave the party and "throw away her future."


I would say she threw away her future earlier in the Summer when this broke:
http://www.ehmac.ca/ehmac-ca-politics-sub-forum/76465-dhalla.html


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

chasMac said:


> Much of the libs problem I think derives from not knowing what the problem is. So much of the media is turning it into leadership-charisma issue, but it has to be much deeper than that. If the Canadian public put so much store into party figure heads, the tories would find themselves in dire straits indeed.


Our media is lame, generally pushed forward through the pap that issues from the CBC.

The Conservatives have managed to put forth all of their strengths while minimizing their weaknesses. The Liberals, on the other hand, have managed to put their weaknesses front and center, represented by lame ducks like Hedy Fry and Maurice Cauchin, rather than on any attempt at renewal.

Even the Conservatives clobber them at commercials, with ads featuring quotes by Ignatieff from when he was a resident-alien in the US. The Liberals, on the other hand, have Ignatieff lost in the middle of a bush lot; which represents the truths about the Liberals, that they are lost and are entirely bush league.

The NDP can't seem to monopolize, their commercials look much like any of those late night ad shows, but without the excitement or coolness of Billy Mays. If the NDP want to gain ground, it's time for them to start pounding on the various Liberals and picking them off.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Vandave said:


> I'm glad you agree.
> 
> 
> 
> So you think he should be an opportunist and call an election?


far be it from me to suggest that Harper break his election rule promise and try to be opportunistic by calling an election...


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Hmmmm

Canadian Election Opinion Polls


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

groovetube said:


> far be it from me to suggest that Harper break his election rule promise and try to be opportunistic by calling an election...


No one cares about the "Election Law" since everyone knows it is a scrap of worthless paper, and was never a part of the Constitution as approved by the Provinces via the Ameding Formula.

It may have been something for a thousand Liberal sympathisers to discuss and be outraged with - an effort that would have been better spent asking the Liberal Party why they supported an illegal and deceitful program of brainwashing in Quebec...


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

SINC said:


> Hmmmm
> 
> Canadian Election Opinion Polls


Looks like the status quo to me. Liberal support is a little down, mostly because they keep stuffing their feet and legs into their mouths at an alarming rate...


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

EvanPitts said:


> No one cares about the "Election Law" since everyone knows it is a scrap of worthless paper, and was never a part of the Constitution as approved by the Provinces via the Ameding Formula.
> 
> It may have been something for a thousand Liberal sympathisers to discuss and be outraged with - an effort that would have been better spent asking the Liberal Party why they supported an illegal and deceitful program of brainwashing in Quebec...


oh really.

So then in other words, what you're trying to say is, Harper's word means nothing.

I'll try to keep that in mind when he makes another promise.

Right then... Everything with a grain of salt then!


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

groovetube said:


> oh really.
> 
> So then in other words, what you're trying to say is, Harper's word means nothing.
> 
> ...


Now you're getting it. It's not just Harper, it's all levels of Government, where such phoney schemes are hatched.

I can not remember a Government that had kept even some of their promises - though I think McGuilty did a top drawer job of not only breaking the over 250 promises that the Liberals had in their Little Red Book, he didn't even bother to keep one, and ended up in most of the cases, doing the exact opposite.

To put into place term limits and a "fixed" election date require more than a scrap of paper that pretend to be a law, it required systematic and fundamental changes to be brought about and entrenched in the Constitution. We should also make sure that we also put into place a balance of power, which would, in exchange for fixed terms of government, would give the people such rights as the right of recall, the right of impeachment of corrupt officials, a fully elected Senate and Head of State, and public hearings for all high level appointments, like Cabinet Ministers and Supreme Court Judges.

Of course, the other problem is that it is a Minority Government situation, so it is entirely the right of the Opposition to vote Non-Confidence and to force an Election, fixed term law or no law.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

if you were at least somewhat consistent with that logic, perhaps I'd be less sarcastic.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

groovetube said:


> if you were at least somewhat consistent with that logic, perhaps I'd be less sarcastic.


I think it is pretty consistent - that major structural changes require the appropriate changes to the Constitution, and to change the Constitution requires that the Federal and Provincial governments come to an agreement, and upon signing the agreement, each legislature has a period of three years to ratify the amendment, and that the amendment passes so long as the Federal Government and at least 7 Provinces that represent at least 50% of the population of the nation ratify the amendment. Only then is it legitimate.

Harper's "law" does not meet this test, therefore imposing it is unconstitutional and abrogates the rights of Canadian Citizens as well as the rights of the Provinces. It's a scrap of paper and nothing else, because it carried no legal force, and invokes no punishment for transgression, and have never met the test of ratification.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

you can spend endless paragraphs (and you do) all you like.

But you seem to miss that Harper made a big point about this and promptly went back on his word.

End of story.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

groovetube said:


> But you seem to miss that Harper made a big point about this and promptly went back on his word.


Harper lied about many things - he's a politician and you have to expect that. The only difference is that he hasn't engaged in the endless acts of class and race warfare that Herr Martin entertained, and he isn't dishing out billions of dollars in illegal funding to purchase votes in Quebec like Herr Chretien.

The only way a Fixed election law would ever work is if the voting system is reformed, so that we either have run off elections until every MP is elected by a clear majority, or that parties are forced to form coalitions and we end the nonsense about non-confidence.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

it was 300 million, not billions. Facts I know...

no, instead Harper dished out over 12 BILLION in a useless gst cut every economist in the country agreed did nothing and was idiotic, but that didn't stop him from spending it anyway to buy votes.

So, there was a difference eh.


----------



## mc3251 (Sep 28, 2007)

groovetube said:


> if you were at least somewhat consistent with that logic, perhaps I'd be less sarcastic.


He's completely consistent. It's all diatribe, all the time.


----------



## mc3251 (Sep 28, 2007)

I don't like Harper much. I'd much prefer a credible alternative, but the level of Liberal disarray is starting to make Stephen look pretty entrenched to me.


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

groovetube said:


> it was 300 million, not billions. Facts I know...
> 
> no, instead Harper dished out over 12 BILLION in a useless gst cut every economist in the country agreed did nothing and was idiotic, but that didn't stop him from spending it anyway to buy votes.
> 
> So, there was a difference eh.


Cutting taxes isn't 'dishing out' or 'spending money' to buy votes. It's my money. The government just decided to take less of it.

Big difference between that and stealing it. In fact, they are opposites.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Vandave said:


> Cutting taxes isn't 'dishing out' or 'spending money' to buy votes. It's my money. The government just decided to take less of it.
> 
> Big difference between that and stealing it. In fact, they are opposites.


cutting the gst was a clear case of buying votes. And I resent any government, using tax policy, to buy votes for their agenda.

Any half wit, can understand this. 

It did nothing. Most Canadians, received very little. But it is helping making for a much larger deficit, which, we will end up paying for somehow.

Oh. HST. right. Increased ei premiums. Wonder what else. Perhaps skyrocketing interest payments on the debt when the interest rates skyrocket. Put on your seatbelts people...

But you're likely part of the sheeple crowd who actually thinks that's someone else's fault right?


----------



## Vandave (Feb 26, 2005)

Liberal red book - We will get rid of the GST.
Result -> Decade in power and we still have the GST.

Conservative election promise - We will cut the GST two percentage points
Result -> GST cut by two points.

That's called follow through. 

Again, you can't 'buy' my vote with my own money. It's my money. 

How about government start getting out of the business of things it shouldn't be in? The Gun Registry would be a start. Arts funding would be progress and the CBC would be pure enjoyment.

More taxes and higher taxes (what you want) are not the solution. We need to weed out all the leaches in our bureaucracy that drain the taxpayer and create a drag on our economy. Federal government workers are overpaid, underworked and underproduce. 

So before you tell me that you want to spend more of my money, at least show me that you are spending what you currently take better. Until then, I support cutting government and taxes.


----------



## SINC (Feb 16, 2001)

Vandave said:


> Liberal red book - We will get rid of the GST.
> Result -> Decade in power and we still have the GST.
> 
> Conservative election promise - We will cut the GST two percentage points
> ...


:clap::clap:

Yep, the Liars Party of Canada never did follow through. :lmao:


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

SINC said:


> Yep, the Liars Party of Canada never did follow through. :lmao:


They are consistent when it comes to lies, as well as consistent when it comes to hijacking the taxpayers wallet for garbage programs we don't need and don't want.


----------



## Ottawaman (Jan 16, 2005)

groovetube said:


> cutting the gst was a clear case of buying votes. And I resent any government, using tax policy, to buy votes for their agenda.
> 
> Any half wit, can understand this.
> 
> ...


More of the same....



> "The government may not call it a tax, but if it quacks like a duck, it's a duck," said Orr in an interview.
> 
> The economist added that employment taxes are among the worst a government can levy because it discourages employers from hiring by making employees more expensive.
> 
> ...


Workers, employers to face large EI premium hikes to balance budget: report

Either it's insurance or it's a tax. if it's a tax it's regressive. If it is an insurance fund it should be operated as a fund that can replenish in times of economic prosperity.

I'd rather see GST raised than the government adding another payroll tax.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

as a business owner with employees, I couldn't agree more.

Get these incompetent fools out of office before the damage becomes severe.

And the sheeple can only spout some crap about tax break? Time to wakey wakey here.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

SINC said:


> :clap::clap:
> 
> Yep, the Liars Party of Canada never did follow through. :lmao:


only because they weren't stupid enough, to follow through on it.

Unfortunately, your hero was. And you and I, will be paying for that stupidity, handsomely.

Congratulations.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

Ottawaman said:


> I'd rather see GST raised than the government adding another payroll tax.


I'd prefer if they cut all taxes, and work to stop all of the waste and rubbish they spend it on - like the Senate.

I wouldn't want to imagine what this recession would have been like if the GST hadn't been cut. We'd have even more closed stores and even more factories shipped to Mexico and beyond. Taxes are so regressive that free enterprise has been crushed, as well as anything retail. HST will simply create a disaster, shuttering even more businesses and forcing more people into the underground economy. They already raised the price of coffee at the local HotSpot in preparation for HST...


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

groovetube said:


> as a business owner with employees, I couldn't agree more.
> Get these incompetent fools out of office before the damage becomes severe.


So as a business owner - you are advocating even heaver and more onerous taxation?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

EvanPitts said:


> I'd prefer if they cut all taxes, and work to stop all of the waste and rubbish they spend it on - like the Senate.
> 
> I wouldn't want to imagine what this recession would have been like if the GST hadn't been cut. We'd have even more closed stores and even more factories shipped to Mexico and beyond. Taxes are so regressive that free enterprise has been crushed, as well as anything retail. HST will simply create a disaster, shuttering even more businesses and forcing more people into the underground economy. They already raised the price of coffee at the local HotSpot in preparation for HST...


one would be a fool to think the gst cut, had anything to do with saving anything.

But this kinda common knowledge and has been in the news a hundred times. Read much?


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

EvanPitts said:


> So as a business owner - you are advocating even heaver and more onerous taxation?


I think about the only response to this lunacy, is to laugh.

So, I have to choose between sheer stupidity, and onerous taxation? There's nothing at all in between here then?

I see what's wrong with this country already...


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

groovetube said:


> one would be a fool to think the gst cut, had anything to do with saving anything.
> 
> But this kinda common knowledge and has been in the news a hundred times. Read much?


GST clobbered Canada and clobbered Canadian businesses - while costing regular people a huge wad of money. Canada has never recovered from GST, and now, Canadians in BC and Ontario are going to be pickpocketed once again when they bring in HST.

Like all other taxes, HST will be "revenue neutral" and will "save money" - just like the reforms that saw to "market value assessment" to property owners, or the various amalgamations that were going to be "beneficial" and "save wads of money".

The cut in the GST stimulated the retail sector, so they weren't sideswiped as hard as they could have been. Of course, many stores have gone out of business, but the blood letting could have been much worse, and since our country depends on retail to supply the low paying, service sector jobs that support the economy, we can't afford to have stores go under.

GST just sucks away so much life from this nation, and drives large segments of the economy underground - it would be better to abolish it all together; and get the Government out of the business of bailing out corrputed capitalists that failed, as well as the business of wasting money on terrible projects that are not needed, and other white elephants that the Government is addicted to. We could save a half a billion alone just wiping the Senate off the map - because it's not that they do little, it is that they are detrimental, and have continually ruined legislative efforts put forth by the unanimous vote and consent of our elected officials.

We could also save huge cash by eliminating outrageous waste, like "projects" like the giant tunnel under Niagara Falls we don't need, or the eHealth and Gun Registry we don't need. Why have eHealth is the hospitals remain toxic and filthy dumps run by overpaid bureaucrats who are addicted to free meals on the tax payers dime? Why have a Gun Registry when we already had the mandatory registry of guns for the past century?

GST ruined New Zealand, and it ruined Canada, as evidenced by the gross number of businesses that have packed up and fled the country, as well as the collosal number of people that live at or below the poverty line.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

Stop lying. The gst cut did absolutely nothing. It stimulated... ZERO.

Now back to reality...

HST is a conservative thing, just like the GST was, and, you brought up amalgamation. Conservative, once again....


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

groovetube said:


> I think about the only response to this lunacy, is to laugh.


I don't think it is lunacy, a 20% HST will simply clobber business, especially when it is coupled to huge property tax rates that climb 8-10% every year, as well as the cash the Government scoops out of every pay.

Perhaps the Romans had a better system - everyone paid 5% per year, and that paid for everything. They didn't bother nickel and diming everyone with silly, cookamunga taxation schemes.



> So, I have to choose between sheer stupidity, and onerous taxation? There's nothing at all in between here then?


There is, eliminate GST altogether, because this country was fine without it. And if we want to have VAT, like in other civilized countries, then it is time to slash all of the other ridiculous taxes, like the "Employer's Health Tax" in Ontario, where the money goes into "General Revenue" rather than anything resembling health, and hence, is mostly wasted in the most crass manner possible.



> I see what's wrong with this country already.


Yeah, too many people wanting the Government to fund every penny-ante thing imaginable, and to solve every imaginable problem, while not enough people are ready to accept a doze of free enterprise.


----------



## EvanPitts (Mar 9, 2007)

groovetube said:


> Stop lying. The gst cut did absolutely nothing. It stimulated... ZERO.


It put back 2% into everyone's pockets - money that shouldn't have been taken in the first place. It is not the Government's job to stimulate things, but they are forced into it because free enterprise has failed in this country because of onerous taxation and over regulation. The GST cut makes a big difference because GST affects pretty much anything we spend money on - and eliminating it would be fully beneficial and might actually encourage the retail sector to get back into business. Many businesses simply packed up shop when GST came out, and we have never recovered, with hundreds of thousands of lost jobs; coupled with all of the factories that packed up and left millions without jobs.



> HST is a conservative thing, just like the GST was, and, you brought up amalgamation. Conservative, once again....


HST is a Liberal thing - since both Governments that want to sign up are both Liberal.

Amalgamation was a disaster foisted upon us by the effete liberal Mike Harris, who shied away from any real progress so he could cling to some nasty pocket votes. The cities that were subjugated were generally run by the Liberal crowd, who buckled and whimpered when they should have stood up and fought it to the end. Amalgamation is the worst governmental disaster ever, and we may never recover from it.


----------



## groovetube (Jan 2, 2003)

EvanPitts said:


> It put back 2% into everyone's pockets - money that shouldn't have been taken in the first place. It is not the Government's job to stimulate things, but they are forced into it because free enterprise has failed in this country because of onerous taxation and over regulation. The GST cut makes a big difference because GST affects pretty much anything we spend money on - and eliminating it would be fully beneficial and might actually encourage the retail sector to get back into business. Many businesses simply packed up shop when GST came out, and we have never recovered, with hundreds of thousands of lost jobs; coupled with all of the factories that packed up and left millions without jobs.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


It did nothing. You are full of it.

HST a liberal thing? Go ask Flaherty, who urged the provinces and is giving them BILLIONS in incentives.

you've been had my boy. HAD. lol...

Now go vote for a conservative. Quick like a bunny...


----------

