normanchateau

Harper barely got 20% of the vote in Vancouver, the largest city in western Canada. He even lost in suburbs of Vancouver which were previously Conservative. Not enough Canadian born there. All full of immigrants who think they owe their lives to the Liberals. That is, after all, why they were brought here. What about the thousands and thousands of immigrants who keep moving to Calgary and Edmonton? Do they think Stephen Harper brought them to Canada? Those are the ones who vote Liberal in Alberta. There just aren't enough of them there to make a big difference. They must have all left Edmonton after the 2004 election and moved to Toronto, Montreal or Vancouver.

Harper barely got 20% of the vote in Vancouver, the largest city in western Canada. He even lost in suburbs of Vancouver which were previously Conservative. Not enough Canadian born there. All full of immigrants who think they owe their lives to the Liberals. That is, after all, why they were brought here. What about the thousands and thousands of immigrants who keep moving to Calgary and Edmonton? Do they think Stephen Harper brought them to Canada?

Yup, he never would have picked Mulroney's Principal Secetary as his new advisor. And he had little use for Stephen Harper, naming Herb Grubel rather than Harper as Reform Finance Critic.

Harper barely got 20% of the vote in Vancouver, the largest city in western Canada. He even lost in suburbs of Vancouver which were previously Conservative. All rednecks, whether they live in cities, villages or towns, vote Conservative in Alberta.

Do you suppose if I started a thread asking whether Harper should dismiss Martin-appointee Hugh Segal because he compromises Harper's integrity, CPC supporters would ignore it?

Why not actually address the issues rather than exchange insults? I was addressing spelling. If he is going to insult me the least he can do is spell it properly. Well said. You're right.

Agreed Sage. I never took her seriously as a CPC leadership candidate nor is she any more impressive as a Liberal.

Why not actually address the issues rather than exchange insults?

That is indeed my point but let me throw in a qualifier. Not all such candidates actually acknowledge that this is the main reason that they should be elected. So while the three in BC who went down to defeat, i.e., Darrel Reid, Cindy Silver and John Weston, all had well-publicized links or previous employment with anti-abortion and anti-homosexual groups, they didn't claim that this was why they were running for the CPC. But as long as some voters perceive their motives as such, their chances of election are diminished. All three of those ridings had an excellent chance of being captured by CPC if they had run more moderate candidates. they didn't actually state

No Sage, I don't surmise that the Liberals and NDP will never vote for a measure proposed by the Conservatives. For example, I'm confident the Accountability bill will pass. Why would anyone oppose it? What I'm saying is that when the Cons propose something which the Liberals and NDP oppose, the Cons will need to make deals with the Separatist BQ to get it passed. Essentially the Cons are powerless or dependent on the BQ except when making changes which the Liberals and NDP support anyway, or which the Liberals and NDP don't care about.

So Frank McKenna is bad merely because he was appointed by the "Liberal dynasty"? Well guess who appointed Conservative Hugh Segal to the Senate on August 2nd, 2005? And Hugh Segal is now an advisor to Stephen Harper as well as was co-chair of the current CPC election campaign.. Yes, that's right. One of Stephen Harper's key advisors and campaign co-chair was appointed to the Senate by none other than "Liberal dynasty" emperor Paul Martin. Martin was a fool to repeatedly appoint Conservatives to the Senate in his brief term as Prime Minister. They never appreciated it anyway but at least there's now a silver lining in the cloud. Hugh Segal will forever be viewed as a "Liberal dynasty" appointee and therefore tainted and not remotely worthy of respect. Now if you truly believe in guilt by association for Frank McKenna's crime of being appointed Ambassador to the US, you must surely believe that Stephen Harper is also guilty. What does it say about Harper's ethics that he chose as a key advisor and campaign co-chair a man appointed by the "Liberal dynasty" to sit as a Conservative in the Senate. Given CPC opposition to an appointed Senate, doesn't this make Hugh Segal a whore? Yet Harper chose him as a key advisor. So Hughie now receives a Senate salary paid for by all Canadians and uses that salary to work for Harper and CPC. My my, how ethical. Or does he receive CPC funds as well, effectively double-dipping? Is any of this surprising? Not really. Hugh Segal was not only an advisor but also the Principal Secretary to Brian Mulroney. Good start Harper. Way to go bringing integrity back to Ottawa. Fortunately the press will ignore your apparent lack of integrity this time. But not for long.

Now that he's picked up all those seats in Quebec, he honestly believes that the secret to getting more is to suck up to the BQ and pour money into Quebec. Adscam proved that Quebecers can be bought. Brian Mulroney proved that Quebecers can be bought. Quebecers are outraged at the Liberals for proving that they can be bought. Harper's treading on dangerous ground if he wants to reaffirm what's already been proven.

Not exactly perfect. When the campaign started, Harper stated in British Columbia that he would not reintroduce the marijuana decriminalization legislation supported by the Liberals, NDP and BQ. Harper could have said nothing but instead he blurted out that he favours jail time and criminal records for young people who possess a few grams of marijuana. This might not be a big issue or even on the radar screen west of the Rockies but in British Columbia last night, the Conservatives lost not one, not two, but FIVE seats to the NDP and Liberals. In addition to those five lost seats, Chuck Cadman's seat went to the NDP. And even before the campaign began, CPC erred in selecting religious extremists to run as rookie CPC candidates in BC. All three, i.e., Darrel Reid, Cindy Silver and John Weston, lost in seats that went Conservative in the last election or Alliance in the previous election. Those three small-c conservative ridings went Liberal not because they love Liberals but because they loathe intolerant, religious extremists as much as they loathe the NDP. BC, not exactly a socially intolerant province by Canadian standards, is hardly the province for CPC to be running anti-abortionists and anti-homosexual candidates. This is not a vote getter in BC. :angry:

Mainly agree with your points but since I disagreed with much of Harper's agenda (Accountability bill excluded), I view this as good news. Must say I hope he's unsuccessful in cancelling the income tax cuts that were scheduled for 2006 and introduced in the November, 2005 Liberal budget. I was looking forward to more takehome pay this year but if Harper is successful in cancelling the income tax cuts, it's not an accomplishment to be proud of. I suppose cancelling the income tax cuts was necessary to finance the loss of billions in tax revenue caused by Harper cancelling the capital gains tax but what percentage of Canadians earning less than $100,000 per year will benefit from this? Harper made far too many expensive promises in this campaign but if he can't deliver on them because of the combined opposition, it's a win/win situation. Canadians win because Harper can't shovel more money out of the back of the truck. Harper wins because he can blame his failure to keep his promises on the opposition. With the Liberals and NDP capable of outvoting CPC on any measure, CPC can only govern by making deals with the BQ. Is this what Harper meant by Stand up for Canada? A deal with the Separatists? A Harper/Duceppe pact worthy of Molotov and Ribbentrop? I'm sure the wily Duceppe will go for it if it means his snout in the trough snorting up funds for Quebec (a la Mulroney) from the rest of Canada. But will Harper go for it or will he show integrity? Bets anyone?

"We are where the crazies are." I won't touch that one. Too easy. And as far as your cabinet predictions are concerned, aren't you the person who on another thread predicted that the Conservatives would win a majority yesterday and that the BQ would be the official opposition?

I do remember exactly which Liberal MPs and BQ voted against SSM, including those who were not re-elected yesterday. I also remember which CPC MPs voted for SSM and noted that a number of CPC MPs elected in Ontario and Quebec for the first time yesterday are also pro-SSM. No matter how you slice or dice or analyze the numbers, Harper doesn't have the numbers to reverse SSM unless many of those who previously voted for it don't next time. And that seems highly unlikely since politicians are more reluctant to take away rights already granted than they are to grant new rights.

Well for me, the worst possible outcome was a Conservative majority. The second worst possible outcome was a Conservative minority which could not be outvoted by the NDP and Liberals combined. The third worst possible outcome was a Conservative minority who could be outvoted by the NDP and Liberals. And the third worst it is. Sweet! 124 CPC versus 132 NDP/Liberal. This means that unless there's a CPC/BQ coalition, CPC is powerless and can do Canada no harm. And for British Columbians, there's an added bonus. Five CPC ridings were lost to the NDP or Liberals including the riding held by sleazy CPC MP and campaign chair John Reynolds. And more good news for British Columbians. The three BC CPC candidates who were religious fanatics and openly anti-gay and anti-abortion, namely Darrel Reid in Richmond, John Weston in West Vancouver and Cindy Silver in North Vancouver, all went down to defeat. And in the City of Vancouver, only about 20% of the population voted CPC and all NDP and Liberal candidates were re-elected. Despite gaining seats in Central Canada in yesterday's election, Harper actually lost seats in Western Canada. In the months to come, it should be interesting to watch as Harper panders to Quebec while he does nothing for the West. Deja vu. Joe Clark, Brian Mulroney.

Harper may find himself in the same position as Brian Mulroney. The more he pleases Quebec, the less he pleases the rest of Canada, especially the West. Eventually it was Mulroney's undoing. Currently BC has five cabinet ministers. How many BC cabinet ministers will Harper appoint? In yesterday's election, BC elected 19 Liberal and NDP MPs, less than the number of CPC MPs. If Harper appoints less than five BC cabinet ministers while simultaneously appointing "instant" Quebec Conservative MPs, he'll lose even more seats in the West in the future.

Kudos to Martin for wasting no time in stepping down. Let's hope that the new leader is an outsider and not someone who is tainted by association with the Chretien era. I expect that the Liberal leadership race will have higher quality candidates than the last Conservative leadership race which brought out only the mediocre Tony Clement, Belinda Stronach and Stephen Harper, not exactly a stellar cast. The Conservative leadership race was hampered by the fact that it happened when the Liberals still held a majority and therefore few quality candidates were interested in what might have turned out to be a very long wait. By contrast, the Liberal leadership race will happen when CPC holds a mere 124 seats and can be outvoted at any time on any issue by the Liberals and NDP (even if the BQ abstains from the vote). The good news for those of us who can't stomach Harper and are eager to see him defeated in the next election, is he at least can't do any harm to Canada since his 124 seats will cripple him from making any changes which don't meet with the approval of the opposition. And since all opposition parties (and 64% of the voters in this election) are to the left of Harper, he is essentially a lame duck.

Looks like religious nut Harper, despite winning a plurality in this election, won't ever have the opportunity to overturn same sex marriage. With a mere 124 seats, Harper doesn't stand a chance of overturning the legislation. The Liberals and NDP with 132 seats between them can block Harper without resorting to BQ support. Of course the BQ is in favour of same sex marriage as well so Harper will remain as impotent and ineffective as ever. So we'll have a free vote on ssm and it won't pass, but at least Harper will finally shut up on this issue.

Based on the 2006 election results, it appears than the January 22nd SES poll was the most accurate predictor of the popular vote and Democratic Space was the most accurate predictor of seats won. And the January 22nd Ipsos-Reid poll and the January 22nd Strategic Counsel poll were both way off a mere day before the election. Good job SES.

Perhaps you can serve as an advisor to Stephen Harper in the next election. Tell him to make all his announcements from Calgary since most people will only see him on TV anyway.

Election results on January 23rd, 2006, will prove how true this statement is.

Like most Vancouverites, I'm not voting Conservative and am pleased to see that thus far, every single poll indicates not a single Conservative will be elected in the largest city in Western Canada. I'm still amused at Harper's bizarre choice of Vancouver, of all places, to announce that he won't reintroduce decriminalization legislation because he favours jail time and criminal records for mere possession of a few grams of marijuana. It might be a vote getter in rural Canada, or even Calgary and Edmonton, but it's not in Vancouver.

If this had come out earlier in the campaign, Harper would have won a majority!