Harper needs to step down

[Argus]

Harper's socially conservative attitudes towards crime certainly contributed to killing his chances in Quebec. People there clearly want a humane justice system as opposed to the US style vengence system Harper proposes. Quebec handed the Conservatives their ass this election and they've never seemed more Canadian to me.

And yet Harper was favoured throughout English Canada except in the immigrant strongholds of Toronto and downtown Vancouver. How do you explain that?

Maybe you just don't like Canadians.

[Bryan]

Then why no majority?

Baby steps. Brand new party is building a foundation, one riding at a time. Balloon majorities can just as easily swing the other way, they make give you short term gains, but they don't advance the long term plan. The new Conservative movement has increased their seat support in every single election they've run in. During that time, the Liberals have been all over the map. Three consecutive Liberal leaders have seen their support drop. Harper has essentially ended the careers of two of them.

[drewski]

Three consecutive Liberal leaders have seen their support drop. Harper has essentially ended the careers of two of them.

I think the end of the careers of the last 2 have had less to do with Harper then it does themselves (ie no clear message and no connection with voters) and recent history (ie adscam)

Nobody expected the leader after Martin to be able to win the following election, which is why many of the favourites decided not to run. As such, Dion, "the best of the rest" was essentially setup to fail

Edited October 16, 2008 by drewski

[Triple_R]

What CPC supporters fail to understand is that whether legitimate or not, Harper is 'scary' to us social-liberals.

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.

Edited October 16, 2008 by Triple_R

[M.Dancer]

Harper's socially conservative attitudes towards crime certainly contributed to killing his chances in Quebec. People there clearly want a humane justice system as opposed to the US style vengence system Harper proposes. Quebec handed the Conservatives their ass this election and they've never seemed more Canadian to me.

Now explain why Quebec handed the Liberals their ass....

[Triple_R]

Because Quebequers have no interested in voting for a federalist party. Harper bent over backward trying to appeal to Quebequers yet a couple insignicant gaffs chased them back to the BQ. Majorities will not happen in this country as long as the BQ plays the spoiler.

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.

[M.Dancer]

Because Quebequers have no interested in voting for a federalist party

61.2% of Quebecers voted for ferdralist parties...

[PoliticalCitizen]

And he hammered him - except in Quebec, where he was running against Gilles Duceppe

And in Newfoundland & Labrador where he lost 3 ridings.

Bob Rae is scary to us fiscal conservatives. Will you agree he shouldn't be allowed to run for the Liberal party because of those fears?

I agree

[nbguyca]

The Conservatives won roughly 56% of the seats outside of Quebec. THat is not an overwhelming majority.

As long as the Conservatives form a minority government, people will not truly believe that Harper is a moderate with no hidden agenda. He doesn't control the entire agenda in a minority government.

[PoliticalCitizen]

CPC supporters understand this perfectly. It is precisely why Harper should not step down.

He will when his one-man-show party will be back on the opposition benches.

[Riverwind]

61.2% of Quebecers voted for ferdralist parties...

I should have said Francophone Quebequers....

[nbguyca]

I should have said Francophone Quebequers....

and why would you say that?

[Triple_R]

He will when his one-man-show party will be back on the opposition benches.

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.

[M.Dancer]

I should have said Francophone Quebequers....

You would still be wrong....all of the Conservative seats are in Francophone ridings, 6 out of 13 liberal ridings were Francophone...

[nbguyca]

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.

Show me a party that doesn't talk about being successful in an election campaign? Who would vote for a party that says we have no chance of winning?

The Liberals didn't elect Dion because they thought anyone could win. Dion was the compromise candidate. Ignatieff and Rae were the front runners and Dion snuck up the middle.

[eyeball]

Now explain why Quebec handed the Liberals their ass....

Adscam, Dion's federalist leanings, Dion himself...who cares? The point is Harper blew what he appeared to have gained prior to the election in Quebec, by showing his conservative colours during it.

Some people think Duceppe has actually weakened sovereignty by hitching its wagon to things that are outside the usual nationalist issues.

The new focus, which seems to have breathed such life into the Bloc, centres on artists of the private realm and violators of public law. These are not, finally, matters to shatter a federation.

Link

I think these things can and do factor into how a nation views itself. Look at how often Canadians compare our attitudes to those of the US towards crime and cite these as being indicators of the fundamental differences between us. As Quebecers better articulate exactly what it is they don't like about the Conservative's approach to these matters, so too will the ROC. Like I said Quebecers never seemed more Canadian to me than in this election.

Lets not forget, Conservatives only garnered the support of 21% of the eligible voters. Of the nearly 42% of us who didn't vote, I wonder how many Conservatives stayed home? Not very many I bet. Face it, Harper's brand of conservatism is just about the farthest thing from being Canada's natural governing ideology and this is demonstrably true amongst all the nations within Canada.

People who wish to be governed according to Harper's social conservative attitudes should step down or emigrate to the States. Canada really doesn't need or want their kind, especially if we're to hold our confederation together.

[BC_chick]

And he hammered him - except in Quebec, where he was running against Gilles Duceppe

Bob Rae is scary to us fiscal conservatives. Will you agree he shouldn't be allowed to run for the Liberal party because of those fears?

I said he Harper shouldn't be allowed to do what? Here's a post of mine from page 1 of this thread.

Personally, I'm happy to see to him stay. As as a liberal, I don't want to see anything strengthens the CPC. But if I were a CPC strategist.... I would start really looking at Harper as a liability for the party.

He ran in optimal circumstances..... split left, weak libs... and he couldn't break a majority. His popular vote only went up by 1 or 2% meaning Liberals lost votes, not CPC gained votes.

Sorry that's not nailing anything.

[M.Dancer]

Lets not forget, Conservatives only garnered the support of 21% of the eligible voters. Of the nearly 42% of us who didn't vote, I wonder how many Conservatives stayed home? Not very many I bet.

Lets not forget even further, the 42% who didn't vote didn't care....so they are irrelevent. Of thepeople who did care..they are the ones who matter.....

[eyeball]

Of thepeople who did care..they are the ones who matter.....

Not enough, no matter how you slice it. Mandatory voting would definitely be the end of the conservatism as we know it in Canada.

[PoliticalCitizen]

First of all – thank you for another long, skillfully worded and well-thought post.

You put my one-liner to shame

Having said that…

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?

As you probably know very well, Dion was not #1 or even #2. He was the unlikely #3.

And yes, there are more than 1 strong personality within the Liberal party.

Harper’s style of ruling his own party is more of a dictature than anything else.

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.

I voted Green as I have for a while. I embrace the current reality where the combined will of Canadians stopped Harper from getting a majority.

Fact is that the Liberal Party of Canada is currently as weak now as its perhaps ever been.

Yet the “Strong Leader” Harper was unable to win against a politically dead opponent. That surely shows his (lack of) potential.

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.

Hopefully he does that within the next year a la Jean Chretien, of course

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.

Your denial of the obvious fact that your party’s leader spent our time and money to try to grab a majority yet FAILED is hypocritical.

Is that characteristic for all Conservatives (and Republicans)?

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.

Part of the problem for Conservative supporters is that you overestimate your party.

You were just shown that even with the Liberals pretty much out of the game Canadian people do not trust your party or your leader and WILL NOT give you a majority.

And how could they? Can you say Canadian soldiers would not have been in Iraq today had Harper had a majority in 2003?

Merci beaucoup, monsieur Duceppe, for not letting him through!

It'll be interesting to see if the Liberals make the same type of mistake again.

Not a chance.

[Mr.Canada]

@BC_Chick

Chretien called three elections on his own terms, one 6 months after the CPC had formed and chosen a new leader.

Did you rant about that?

@PoliticalCitizen

Just fyi the CPC is much closer to the Democrats in the states than the Republicans. The Liberals and NDP in this country are way too left wing for any politics in the USA.

Edited October 16, 2008 by Mr.Canada

[noahbody]

A lot changes when a guy thinks he has a realistic chance of becoming PM.

For example:

“I am personally against abortion on demand, but I believe it is very clear that there must be legislation brought in that will deal with what is becoming simply a mish-mash of approaches” - Paul Martin (Halifax Daily News, July 20, 1989)

Further, according to the same edition of the Halifax Daily News:

“Martin said the prime minister must immediately recall parliament to introduce new abortion legislation”

and finally, Paul Martin on abortion laws and judicial activism:

“It’s very clear that we are going to have 10 different [abortion] laws and that we are going to have these laws made by judges” (Halifax Chronicle-Herald, July 20, 1989)

http://www.stephentaylor.ca/2006/01/libera...es-on-abortion/

Now that's scary. Boo!

Still waiting for evidence on Harper attending pro-life rallies.

[PoliticalCitizen]

@PoliticalCitizen

Just fyi the CPC is much closer to the Democrats in the states than the Republicans. The Liberals and NDP in this country are way too left wing for any politics in the USA.

This is true, but only because the whole spectrum is shifted to the left in Canada compared to the US.

[Mr.Canada]

This is true, but only because the whole spectrum is shifted to the left in Canada compared to the US.

Probably.

[Triple_R]

I said he Harper shouldn't be allowed to do what? Here's a post of mine from page 1 of this thread.

He ran in optimal circumstances..... split left, weak libs... and he couldn't break a majority. His popular vote only went up by 1 or 2%

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...

meaning Liberals lost votes, not CPC gained votes.

...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.

Sorry that's not nailing anything.

By this logic, Jean Chretien "didn't nail anything" in 1993 either...