Harper needs to step down

[BC_chick]

EDIT- Harper is a conservative. I would expect him to have conservative values.

Thank you, at least one conservative Harper supporter around here admits it instead of trying to convince me he's a moderate and I should ignore everything I've heard and seen.

If he didn't he wouldn't be a very good conservative now would he. If you don't like him BC_Chick that's fine, don't vote for him but at the same time please don't try to demonize every conservative the planet. We prefer a traditional way life and believe that not everything needs to be different and that some things are fine just the way they are. It isn't evil, just different, I thought left wingers were supposed to celebrate our differences, so there is no need to be so venomous and outlandish.

Who's demonising him? I said the guy ran in the best political atmosphere with a strong NDP and a weak LPC and he couldn't break a majority.

I love him for the fact that he's so alienating to many Canadians. For me it just means his defeat will be that much easier if the LPC gets their party together under a good leader.

Why would you interpret that as demonising conservatives?

[BC_chick]

Well, the obvious difference: Chretien delivered 3 majorities, Harper has won 2 minority governments. How? Why such a difference in results, despite fairly similar percentages in popular support? I think if you study the results, you'll find it's not so much a difference in the amount of support for each man, but rather *where* their support was located. Chretien benefited more from regionalization than Harper has. I think you will find that a lot of Harper votes were in regions where he didn't *quite* have enough support to win seats. Whereas with Chretien, he was very strong in Ontario and in Montreal and in the Maritimes... but he was soundly rejected in areas where he didn't get seats. Harper, on the other hand, obviously has very high support in most of the west where it translated into seats, but a lot of Harper support in Ontario didn't translate into seats. The big difference between Chretien and Harper is not the amount of support, but how concentrated their support was.

(It's the same reason that 10% of the popular vote gets the BQ 50 seats while 7% of the popular vote got the Greens no seats.)

Related thought: Harper's 2 minority governments with 36.3% and 37.6% of the vote are a far more "democratic" result than Chretien's 3 majority governments with support based on 38.5% to 41.2% of the vote.

I don't see the wisdom of choosing a leader with the goal of making the party more popular with people who aren't likely to vote for that party regardless.

[...]

Perhaps I am giving people too much credit, but I don't think most people who didn't vote CPC made that decision based on personal dislike or distrust of Harper. I think a lot of people who chose to support other parties probably made that choice based on policies. "I'm voting NDP because I don't like big corporate tax cuts." "I'm voting Liberal because I think a carbon tax makes sense." "I am voting BQ because I don't like what the Conservatives have been saying about culture or youth crime."

Well, I do agree that Canadian parliamentary system is broken. That's a whole other issue which I would love to discuss in another thread. I started this thread to discuss Harper's achievements in Canadian Parliamentary system as it exists today since I don't see any radical changes happening any time soon.

Harper cannot do what Chretien (and Mulroney) did in order to get their majorities, and that's making inroads with Quebec. Many people are even blaming the Bloc for Harper not having his majority, but the key issue here is that Harper can't deliver that province.

You state in your last paragraph above that you think it's a combination of his economic stances as well as social, I think it's mostly his social views. But we both agree that his views are quite conservative and a lot of people can't seem to warm up to that.

I repeat - I'm not asking him to step down, he suits me just fine since I don't support your party. I'm just saying what I think is in the CPC's best interest if you want to break the minority government cycle (which you feel is not functional since most of parliament is otherwise left-wing).

I'm noticing at least one CPC supporter on this forum is admitting that Harper's a liability. Not surprisingly, the poster is from Quebec.

Edited October 17, 2008 by BC_chick

[PoliticalCitizen]

Is that what this is about? Because I said Harper spoke at rallies? (btw, I didn't just say pro-life, I said SSM and pro-life).

In any case, fine, since I don't feel like googling soundbytes from the 6:00 news from 4 years ago, I'll do something just for you!

I will continue to claim that Stephen Harper is a 'scary' conservative, but instead of providing you videos as my 'evidence', I'll present a handful of quotes directly from him, k?

Side note on that...

Now, as you did with your Paul Martin example, I'm sure you (and probably Argus) are going to find the odd Liberal MP or American politician who, at some point or another, has agreed with one of the above statements.

But sorry, that doesn't make Harper a moderate.

Have you ever taken one of those political-compass tests? How do you think they come up with the final figures? They're based on people's natural inclination toward issues. For example, if I side on the liberal spectrum of things in 8 out of 10 issues, I'm a liberal. Those two instances where I side with conservatives does not make me a conservative, or even a moderate for that matter. Moderates would be scoring 50/50 down the line and so on.

You can find single issues where Paul Martin, Chretien, Elizabeth May, Jack Layton, and so many others have held conservative views. Sure.

But Stephen Harper has repeatedly (key word here) taken the conservative stance on issues. You can't expect us to just scratch all these memories of him just because you claim he's a moderate.

And your evidence is what exactly? That he didn't attempt anything funny with his 120 seats in an otherwise liberal-dominated parliament!?

Surely you're not serious.

Hahaha

Nice quotes!

Do you think the members of this Conservative-dominated message board would try to spin Hitler into a moderate?

[BC_chick]

TO BC CHICK:

After reading through this whole thread here is what I hve concluded:

You are bitter Liberal supporter mad that Dion is having to step down and tht the mass majority of Canadians think he is a serious wingnut.

You sound tons like a person on welfare in BC.

You also sound like a same-sex partner or someone that hs same-sex partner as a family member.

I'm heartbroken.

You are a minority and I am sick of this country playing favoritism to all the minorities and screwing around the greater percentage of the population. Just because minority screms the loudest does not mean the government should alwys give them thier wishes!

I could be wrong on your sexual preferance or the welfare bit and I apologize if I am but the first part I AM SURE OF!! Just because Dion sucks as leder does not men Harper does or that he needs to quit too.

LPC will rise again as they (and the conservatives) always have.

Harper can't deliver. Even as an incumbent for whom it should have been a walk in the park given his weak opposition.

Don't shoot the messenger, k?

[BC_chick]

Hahaha

Nice quotes!

Do you think the members of this Conservative-dominated message board would try to spin Hitler into a moderate?

Thanks PC...

Ya, but no... most of them admit he's a conservative and actually argue from intelligible angles. The ones that are tenacious enough to stick to the "harper is a moderate" line are actually only a handful few.

As for the political-leanings of the posters, it never amazes me. Harper can't get 40% of the population, but I'd say a good 60-70% of the posters here are conservatives. For a true reflection of Canadians, CBC and GLobe and Mail have good forums. But they're attached to individual news articles, so you can't go back the next day and finish off a debate.

Still, you don't feel like such a social pariah there.

[blueblood]

I'm heartbroken.

LPC will rise again as they (and the conservatives) always have.

Harper can't deliver. Even as an incumbent for whom it should have been a walk in the park given his weak opposition.

Don't shoot the messenger, k?

The LPC will not rise again. They under their current arrogance will not ever get elected in the prairies. With a united well run centre right party that is the CPC, the Liberals would need to make inroads in rural Canada to get a majority. They cannot and will be lucky to get a minority. The Liberals need a policy convention and an overhaul of party brass. Why they put Trudeau in is beyond me.

[PoliticalCitizen]

Thanks PC...

Ya, but no... most of them admit he's a conservative and actually argue from intelligible angles. The ones that are tenacious enough to stick to the "harper is a moderate" line are actually only a handful few.

As for the political-leanings of the posters, it never amazes me. Harper can't get 40% of the population, but I'd say a good 60-70% of the posters here are conservatives. For a true reflection of Canadians, CBC and GLobe and Mail have good forums. But they're attached to individual news articles, so you can't go back the next day and finish off a debate.

Still, you don't feel like such a social pariah there.

True, but CBC is also openly anti-Russian... too bad.

I like it here, more chanllenge

[PoliticalCitizen]

The LPC will not rise again. They under their current arrogance will not ever get elected in the prairies. With a united well run centre right party that is the CPC, the Liberals would need to make inroads in rural Canada to get a majority. They cannot and will be lucky to get a minority. The Liberals need a policy convention and an overhaul of party brass. Why they put Trudeau in is beyond me.

The Conservatives being "centre" is a temporary minority-driven condition. If they're lucky enough to ever get a majority and start pushing their true Reform ajenda you'll see how all of the sudden there's a lot more voters casting their ballots and the map gets re-painted red.

Edited October 19, 2008 by PoliticalCitizen

[capricorn]

Why has Harper failed against a dismally weak Liberal party twice in a row?

At the heart of this is the traditional hold that the Liberal brand has had over a large number of Canadians. This is why the natural governing party is associated with the Liberal Party. Ask yourself why so many Canadians continued to vote Liberal after the shock of Shawinigate and Adscam, and other transgressions? Do you honestly think that if the Conservatives had pulled what the Liberals did they would so easily be forgiven?

Conservatives understand that and are ecstatic for their successes against that Liberal brand. That is why Harper will be around longer than a lot of people think.

[capricorn]

But trying to pretend he's a moderate is an insult to everyone's intelligence. Including your own.

I alone will decide when my intelligence is insulted. But thanks for your concern for my sensibilities.

[capricorn]

I'd say a good 60-70% of the posters here are conservatives.

I think the majority of posters are left leaning. As an aggregate, Conservatives probably have the larger number of posts because they're challenged and put on the defensive more often, at times rightly so. This is not surprising. Conservatives are the government and the opposition opposes. That's fine by me.

[na85]

Conservatives understand that and are ecstatic for their successes against that Liberal brand.

My point exactly.

That is why Harper will be around longer than a lot of people think.

My other point was that I think once the initial elation wears off, questions will be raised as to Harper's (relatively) poor showing.

[blueblood]

The Conservatives being "centre" is a temporary minority-driven condition. If they're lucky enough to ever get a majority and start pusing their true Reform ajenda you'll see how all of the sudden there's a lot more voters casting their ballots and the map gets re-painted red.

i am stupider for having read that. Harper and the tories want to win elections not piss around with ideological fantasies. The conservatives and Liberals are as old as Canada, Harper is not. Tory brass must ensure the party succeeds, part of that is having its finger on the pulse of most of the electorate. Hence why the tories won.

[marksman]

The conservatives and Liberals are as old as Canada

And that's why your suggestion that the liberals won't rise again is wrong. Parties go to opposition then back to government then back to opposition. It's the way of things.

I'm always amused by people who call liberals arrogant. Some are but many aren't. You'll find arrogance in all the parties. Some would say that Harper is a good example.

[marksman]

I think that after 13 years the elation of finally being able to for a government has outweighed the disappointment at being stuck with only a minority twice in a row. It may be that as the initial novelty of being in power wears off, there will begin to be some whispers in the Tory back rooms. Why has Harper failed against a dismally weak Liberal party twice in a row? Is the third time really the charm or will we get more of the same if we keep him at the helm?

That's the question I was trying to get at. Despite a massive scandal the 1st time and a perceived weak leader the 2nd there's no majority for the cons. If Harper can't deliver a majority in his 3rd try then I don't see the party keeping him. They'd be crazy to try to push him out now though.

[blueblood]

And that's why your suggestion that the liberals won't rise again is wrong. Parties go to opposition then back to government then back to opposition. It's the way of things.

I'm always amused by people who call liberals arrogant. Some are but many aren't. You'll find arrogance in all the parties. Some would say that Harper is a good example.

The only way the Liberals will rise to prominence is if they throw their screw the west 1970 Trudeau nonsense under the bus. Until then they'll be lucky to form a government.

[Who's Doing What?]

The LPC will not rise again. They under their current arrogance will not ever get elected in the prairies. With a united well run centre right party that is the CPC, the Liberals would need to make inroads in rural Canada to get a majority. They cannot and will be lucky to get a minority. The Liberals need a policy convention and an overhaul of party brass. Why they put Trudeau in is beyond me.

The CPC was dead in Quebec and managed 12 (iirc) in 2006. If the Liberals EVER get 5 seats in Alberta they will HAVE to be popular enough to get a majority.

As you pointed out, the Libs need a policy convention because the the only way to regwo the party is through solid policy.

[betsy]

And that's why your suggestion that the liberals won't rise again is wrong. Parties go to opposition then back to government then back to opposition. It's the way of things.

I'm always amused by people who call liberals arrogant. Some are but many aren't. You'll find arrogance in all the parties. Some would say that Harper is a good example.

I think the arrogance comes from the feeling of "entitlement." It's been touted that the Liberals feel and consider itself the "natural" governing Party of Canada.

It's coming out now - about Dion - how since April, 2008 he's been sent a memo by party advisers recommending he scuttle his Green Shift Plan. This was discussed last night on MDuffy Live, with a copy of the said memo. Dion's office responded to the memo stating that this is Dion's brainchild and that it should get all the support it can get to bring it out and promote it. Until the end, other Liberal MPs and advisers were trying to convince him that the Green Shift is hurting instead of helping in the campaign.

Former President of the Liberal Party, Stephen Ledrew, described Dion as "intellectual arrogant."

Edited October 18, 2008 by betsy

[jdobbin]

I think the arrogance comes from the feeling of "entitlement." It's been touted that the Liberals feel and consider itself the "natural" governing Party of Canada.

And the Tories want the title. How arrogant? I guess they think they are entitled to it.

Edited October 18, 2008 by jdobbin

[marksman]

The only way the Liberals will rise to prominence is if they throw their screw the west 1970 Trudeau nonsense under the bus. Until then they'll be lucky to form a government.

Liberals think screw the west as much as Harper wants to make homosexuality illegal or any of the other nonsense that gets spread about him. Which is to say not at all. The only people who keep repeating that nonsense about the liberals are people blinded from reality by their partisan views.

Of course if your argument's to be believed then the liberals got rid of that nonsense back in 1993.

[marksman]

I think the arrogance comes from the feeling of "entitlement." It's been touted that the Liberals feel and consider itself the "natural" governing Party of Canada.

It's coming out now - about Dion - how since April, 2008 he's been sent a memo by party advisers recommending he scuttle his Green Shift Plan. This was discussed last night on MDuffy Live, with a copy of the said memo. Dion's office responded to the memo stating that this is Dion's brainchild and that it should get all the support it can get to bring it out and promote it. Until the end, other Liberal MPs and advisers were trying to convince him that the Green Shift is hurting instead of helping in the campaign.

Former President of the Liberal Party, Stephen Ledrew, described Dion as "intellectual arrogant."

Well if it's been touted then it must be true. It's also been touted that Harper wants to put soldiers on every street corner. Should we believe that too? Arrogant is thinking you can tell supporters of a party what they think.

Every political party wants to form the government. That's not being arrogant. If they didn't think they could govern best then they've got no business running.

Just because some advisors told Dion to dump the green shift that doesn't mean he's arrogant. He wanted the environment to be at the centre of his platform and it didn't work for him. Do you think party leaders should try to follow every bit of advice they get even if it's contradictory? Nothing would get done with that approach. You can bet there were also memos in support of the green shift.

Of all the leaders Harper comes across as more arrogant. He's tried to shut his MPs up and when he 1st got to office tried to shut out the media because he knew best.

[jdobbin]

The LPC will not rise again. They under their current arrogance will not ever get elected in the prairies. With a united well run centre right party that is the CPC, the Liberals would need to make inroads in rural Canada to get a majority.

Even with the biggest pro-rural policy platform of all time, I don't know if it would ever shake many rural people from voting Conservative.

More and more seats are in cities now and many think that Conservative policies are trying to throw urban areas under the bus. We can see that has resulted in the Tories not winning a majority.

The Liberals can do their best to offer farmers and rural people good policies but they will never earn their vote in numbers enough to win seats. The areas the Liberals can win again is in suburbia where sound economic policies and a balanced social policy are favoured.

My suggestion to the Liberals would be to offer the best policies possible to rural areas in economic terms but the risk is not favourable when bending too far that way on many social issues.

We have heard the term yellow dog ridings used many a time. There are areas in Manitoba that are yellow dog. The expression came from the assertion that there are ridings where a yellow dog would win office simply by being a Conservative or a NDP. The reflex to vote that way has not changed in decades. Everything after that is swing ridings that are needed to win government.

[blueblood]

Even with the biggest pro-rural policy platform of all time, I don't know if it would ever shake many rural people from voting Conservative.

More and more seats are in cities now and many think that Conservative policies are trying to throw urban areas under the bus. We can see that has resulted in the Tories not winning a majority.

The Liberals can do their best to offer farmers and rural people good policies but they will never earn their vote in numbers enough to win seats. The areas the Liberals can win again is in suburbia where sound economic policies and a balanced social policy are favoured.

My suggestion to the Liberals would be to offer the best policies possible to rural areas in economic terms but the risk is not favourable when bending too far that way on many social issues.

We have heard the term yellow dog ridings used many a time. There are areas in Manitoba that are yellow dog. The expression came from the assertion that there are ridings where a yellow dog would win office simply by being a Conservative or a NDP. The reflex to vote that way has not changed in decades. Everything after that is swing ridings that are needed to win government.

Rural people have actually in the past voted Liberal. In my opinion the Liberal party is stuck in the 1970's with it's Trudeau esque philosophy and really really bad anti western policies. In 93 The Liberals could have won a huge landslide, had the Liberals not wrote off western Canada, instead another party formed. The CPC realizes how important the west is in Government as is Quebec and Ontario. The CPC didn't do that well with Rural Quebecers either, but did very well in suburban ridings.

As you said Suburbia is where the battles are now. The Conservatives in this election mainly won those battles, tougher on crime and sound fiscal policy is what did it. As you said and I agree with this, SSM, abortion, and the death penalty just won't fly in Canada and the Liberals and CPC know that. Dosanjh in Vancouver is in a recount for pity sakes.

The only way yellow dog ridings change is if there is a major catastrophe with the gov't, as what happened to the PC's of 93. The Liberals had a big opportunity to quash the Conservatives, but blew it. The Liberals need a major face lift to become a voting option in Western Canada. By having Trudeau now, they will have to wait a long long time for that. The times are what change social policy, not gov't. The gov't has far more influence over the economy than social policy of a country.

[marksman]

Rural people have actually in the past voted Liberal. In my opinion the Liberal party is stuck in the 1970's with it's Trudeau esque philosophy and really really bad anti western policies. In 93 The Liberals could have won a huge landslide, had the Liberals not wrote off western Canada, instead another party formed. The CPC realizes how important the west is in Government as is Quebec and Ontario. The CPC didn't do that well with Rural Quebecers either, but did very well in suburban ridings.

What're these "really really bad anti western policies"?

[blueblood]

What're these "really really bad anti western policies"?

The National Energy Policy, extremely soft on crime, high taxation, increase in the amount of social programs, the carbon tax, an ag policy that involves flooding the market with cheap food without compensation, going out of their way to help industries out east while letting industries out west rot (if your going to help industries, help them all out or let them all fall)

Edited October 18, 2008 by blueblood