Triple_R

Which in and of itself points to the need for changes to how Liberal Party leaders are elected. The current system favors "compromise" candidates like Dion - people that are compromise candidates precisely because they are not one of the strongest candidates. It's not necessarily what I like, but it does seem to work. Danny Williams employs more or less the same style of ruling in Newfoundland, and he basically is an one-man show in Newfoundland politics right now. Question: In what ways do you think a Harper majority would be different than what we've already seen in the previous Harper minority? Keep in mind that he had a virtual majority for long stretches during this last Parliamentary session due to Dion's propping up of the Conservative government, which Jack Layton frequently alludes to. The issue wasn't Dion (the politically dead opponent). Harper won overwhelmingly in English Canada (a solid majority of all English Canada seats) where his primary opposition was Dion and the Liberals. The issue was Duceppe , who isn't a politically dead opponent. What's truly hypocritical is your argument here. Jean Chretien, with a majority government, called an election roughly 3 years into one of his mandates, well short of the proper end of it. He had one of the shortest majority governments ever. Stephen Harper, with a minority government, called an election 2 and 2/3 years into his first mandate, about a year short of a hypothetical 2009 date for it. He had the longest minority government ever, IIRC. Which is worse? No we don't. That's why we're happy with the result that we got. We knew that a majority government result would be very difficult, and unlikely, to achieve. We were shown that the BQ is still very strong in Quebec, and we have work to do in that province. I'm very happy with how we did in English Canada. Substantial gains in Ontario and B.C., and the Liberals decimated from Manitoba west. Given how Harper has already set a date for us to pull out of Afghanistan, which Canada's involvement in is significantly more palatable to the Canadian public than us being in Iraq would be... I very much doubt that we'd be in Iraq today had Harper had a majority in 2003. We'd probably have went in, yes, but we'd also probably already been out (the eventual backlash against it would have made Harper do that). Furthermore, we're almost certainly looking at a President Obama in the United States. As such, neoconservative foreign policy (which I personally dislike myself - its wasteful and costly and certainly doesn't seem to be of much help to the nations that America has gone into during the latest Bush administration) is not likely to be on the agenda for western nations over the coming years... regardless of who the Canadian Prime Minister is.

His popular vote was roughly on par with what Jean Chretien got in 1993. IIRC, people weren't looking to replace Jean Chretien in 1993... ...Why does it mean that? What does the margin in popular vote change have to do with the cause of that margin of vote change? These are two entirely unrelated factors. By this logic, Jean Chretien "didn't nail anything" in 1993 either...

Canadians did reject a carbon tax... during a global economic crisis. Experimenting with a new tax, or a tax shift geared towards the environment moreso than the economy, at a time of economic crisis, simply isn't prudent. Now, perhaps at a future date of greater economic stability, we can bring in a carbon tax, if we are unable to find a more effective/palatable way to combat potentially disastrous climate change. However, it should be noted... the only effective method to combat climate change, on a global level, will involve the full participation of big polluters like China, India, and America. These countries have to be brought onside before there's any chance whatsoever of effectively combating climate change.

Interesting... you implicitly criticize an "one-man-show" approach to party leadership. And yet, how did the "vote for the team" approach work for Stephane Dion and his Liberal party? Also... cautious confidence in your prefered party's chances to win an election is admirable, but then there is delusion and refusing to accept the current reality. Fact is that the Liberal Party of Canada is currently as weak now as its perhaps ever been. It is well within the realm of possibility for Stephen Harper to retire from politics as Prime Minister (a la Jean Chretien) before the Liberal party reclaims a governing position. Your failure to see that, it seems to me, reflects a key difference between Conservatives and Liberals. It is why most of us are content with a stronger minority while you insist that we should be disappointed with it - your expectations for your own party are lofty, and hence you think that our expectations for our party will be the same way. Liberals do not manage expectations as well as Conservatives do. Your tone should be one of "We know that we need to do a lot of work to win back government, but we're cautiously optimistic that it can be achieved". Instead, your tone is one of predicting success even when there are no signs whatsoever of it coming any time soon. It reminds me of how, during this most recent campaign, Paul Martin predicted a Stephane Dion victory even when the polls clearly did not indicate that such a thing was likely in the least. Part of the problem for Liberal supporters is that you overestimate your party. That is why you chose Stephane Dion instead of Michael Ignatieff, even though Ignatieff was clearly the more articulate, charismatic, and electable of the two candidates. You felt that your party could win with just about anybody, and so you picked Dion over Ignatieff because you liked him a bit more than Ignatieff. It'll be interesting to see if the Liberals make the same type of mistake again.

Excellent point. I haven't checked any specific stats for it yet, but Harper may have had the best performance of any PC/CPC federal party leader in English Canada... ever. Brian Mulroney's majorities were achieved with the lack of a Bloc presence. Stephen Harper likely would have won a majority in this latest election if the Bloc had not existed (as they did not exist in Mulroney's time). It's very clear why Liberal supporters want Stephen Harper gone. It's because he's a winner, and very good at taking seats away from them in elections.

I agree. I think that it's reasonable to expect all federal parties to run actual federal election campaigns. You don't need to necessarily run a candidate in every last riding, but you certainly should be expected to run candidates in more than one lone province. As I wrote elsewhere, the Bloc have the federalist parties at a disadvantage in that they can tailor-make their policies for Quebec and Quebec alone, while also spending the entire election campaign campaigning in Quebec.

I believe that there is much truth to this. It will take a great deal of effort for either federalist party to break the Bloc's stranglehold on Quebec. It is worth noting that the Conservatives won an overwhelming majority of the seats in English Canada. In other words, Harper did thoroughly trounce Stephane Dion in English Canada, as well as even the most optimistic of Conservative supporters could have hoped. He did take full advantage of Dion's weakness. It was Duceppe and the Bloc that was the problem. By being a purely Quebec-based party, the Bloc has the benefit of shaping policies perfectly suited for Quebec, even if many of them are ill-suited for the rest of Canada. This makes it difficult for federalist parties to expand into Quebec as they, unlike the Bloc, have to have more broad-based policies that can appeal at least somewhat to all regions of Canada. Furthermore, the Bloc can spend the entire campaign in Quebec, putting federalist parties that need to campaign through out all of Canada at another disadvantage vis a vis the Bloc. It is going to take a great deal of time and effort for any federal party, or federal party leader, to displace the Bloc.

CPC supporters understand this perfectly. It is precisely why Harper should not step down. Every week that Stephen Harper governs from a moderate center-right position, with out doing anything whatsoever with the hot button social issues, is another week where the irrational fears of folks like yourself are demonstrated to be what they are - irrational. I don't say that to insult you, as voters like yourself are precisely the people who the CPC need to reach out to in order to form a majority. I say that, rather, to persuade you to realize the flaw in your fears. I think that even most Harper detractors would admit that Harper is not a man to take unnecessary political risks - in other words, he will not pursue policy ideas that he himself likes if he feels that they would mean political disaster for him and/or his party, either in the present or in the next election. What Harper believes in his heart of hearts when it comes to abortion is meaningless if he's not going to ever act upon those beliefs. And clearly, Harper believes that any movement whatsoever on the abortion issue would sound the death knell for him and his party. Harper and his Conservatives, at the national campaign level, are fearful to even take a position on abortion, much less actually make legislative changes on the issue. This should make it crystal clear that the Conservatives will not do anything legislatively on the abortion front. They are essentially a status quo party on the abortion issue, which indirectly favors the continuance of legal abortion access in Canada. You yourself make two excellent points which run contrary to the irrational "hidden agenda" fears: 1. Harper has changed. He has made himself electable, in your own very well-put words. You are entirely right. This change should tell you, and those with your "hidden agenda" concerns, something else - he is not going to govern by statements that he made ages ago, before he made substantial changes to his approach to politics. Harper previously valued ideology over electability - he only wanted to win if he could do so by running on a clear-cut conservative platform. Now, he values electability (and getting to continue to govern) over ideology. The fact that he has not touched any of the "hidden agenda" issues during his term in office thus far clearly demonstrates that this change is a permanent one. 2. You say that Harper is a "moderate when convenient". Well, that should obviously put to rest any irrational "hidden agenda" fears right there. Will there be a time when it is "convenient" for a national party leader in Canada to be openly pro-life, and/or making pro-life legislative changes? Certainly not within even the longest imaginable stretch for Harper's time on the national stage (i.e. within the next ten years or so). If Canada was anywhere near shifting to a more pro-life stance amongst the electorate, would Harper be as mute on the abortion issue as he is? Of course not. And, these arguments as it pertains to abortion, also apply to all the other hot button issue "hidden agenda" fears. What Conservatives need to do is to keep Stephen Harper on, and continue to prove the "hidden agenda" naysayers wrong. Slowly, but surely, more and more Canadians are waking up to the fact that the "hidden agenda" meme is complete, illogical, irrational nonsense. And, over the year to come, I predict, more and more Canadians will see, through how Harper actually governs, that the "hidden agenda" meme is nonsense. Eventually, intelligent, logical, rational people like yourself will put the "hidden agenda" nonsense behind you... if Stephen Harper continues to govern, and demonstrates that such "hidden agenda" fears are unfounded. If, on the other hand, the CPC were to seek to remove Stephen Harper, the CPC's opponents would latch on to it by stating the following... "Ha ha! You see - we were right!" they will speak confidently, "Stephen Harper could not hide his hidden agenda from the Canadian people like he thought that he could! That's why he couldn't win a majority, and that's why the CPC is removing him! You see, my fellow Canadians/Liberals/Dippers/Greens/Seperatists (whichever is applicable), this proves that the CPC as a whole is still like the old Canadian Alliance and even the old Reform!" If Stephen Harper was to step down, especially if he was to step down for the reasons that you outlined, it would validate "hidden agenda" nonsense which him and his party needs to invalidate. No, the proper course of action is for him to continue to govern, and to govern from a moderate center-right position, and to prove the "hidden agenda" nonsense invalid by doing so. Obviously, I am a Conservative supporter, but beyond that, I want to see the "hidden agenda" nonsense be disproved because we as Canadians, and our Canadian democracy, deserve for us to be able to make informed voting decisions based on how the candidates are actually likely to govern. As long as many Canadians vote on a complete misjudgment of how a party leader is likely to govern, then their votes are tainted by such misjudgments - they do not reflect a fairly accurate assessment of the party leader that would in turn lead to an informed logical vote. The Conservatives, and Stephen Harper, are moderately center-right, and will do nothing on the hot button "hidden agenda" issues. Period. Votes for, or against, them, should be based on an accurate assessment like that. Stephen Harper should stay on to ensure that this accurate assessment continues to gradually make it through to the minds of Canadians. Already, it has done so enough to elect Peter Kent in a very liberal riding in Thornhill, and it caused Joe Volpe to come close to defeat in his urban seat. Eventually, cool, calm, and collected thoughts, in intelligent voters like yourself, will make it through. Eventually, innuendo will be trumped by what people are actually seeing (or rather, not seeing) by their own very eyes.