Harper needs to step down

[Mr.Canada]

My point exactly.

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

When the Liberal party won those four elections in a row, 3 with Chretien and 1 with Martin, 60% of Canadians voted for someone other than the LPC. So the argument that the CPC isn't well liked by the majority of Canadians is rubbish as he has almost the same numbers as CHretien did or Martin did.

Like it or not Brian Mulroney and the Conservatives ran the most successful election campaign in Canadian History.

Edited October 18, 2008 by Mr.Canada

[jdobbin]

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.

Where have rural people in the west voted Liberal? In what decade? There have only been a few times in Manitoba where they broke through. Trudeaumania was one such occasion. The split vote between the PCs and Reform another.

For example Brandon Souris is a yellow dog riding. The only way the Liberal won there was a split in the vote in 1993. Similarly, Provencher is now the most religious riding and while they used to elect French Liberal Roman Catholics, it is now dominated by Mennonites who vote Conservative without fail. The Liberal had their only recent breakthrough there with the Reform/PC split.

Portage-Lisgar only got a Liberal in on the split. Decades back it goes to the Tories every time.

Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette only elected a Liberal on the split. It goes back decades as well as Tory.

Selkirk Interlake elected a Liberal on the split. Never again and not in the decades before.

Did the votes start happening for the Tories in the 1970s? No, In the case of Manitoba, you have to go back 60 or and in some case 70 years. The only time there was a breakthrough was in the 1990s with the split conservative vote.

The truth of the matter is that some western rural ridings vote Conservative through thick and through thin. The only time they have voted for a Liberal was when it happened by default.

No matter what policies are offered, there is only one party, one political movement for some in rural western Canada and that is the Conservative party.

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 Tories could have crushed the Liberals down to 40 or so seats. The fact that they still do and say things that provoke urban areas keeps them short of a majority. The fact that they were so concentrated on Liberals rather than Duceppe and the Bloc meant that they gave Duceppe an opening that took the majority of the seats in Quebec.

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.

Those ridings were never going to stay Liberal. The history was against it. You could have Jesus Christ as the leader and the western rural riding would have said they didn't trust him because of the beard, mustache, long hair and a dubious economic policy of sharing a meal.

You are doing much to demonize Trudeau and some are to beatify him. He is one person representing a poor riding in an urban area of Quebec. He isn't his father nor does he seem to destined to lead the party from where I stand.

No matter who the Liberals choose whether it be Ignatieff, McKenna or whoever and no matter what favourable western rural based policies are introduced, you will not see a Liberal elected in those ridings where there is no history of it.

The Liberals will have to work on gaining back ridings that do tend to swing back and forth. They won't write off the western rural ridings but they won't be under any illusions that they can win them.

Edited October 18, 2008 by jdobbin

[Mr.Canada]

I agree with you. The RH Stephan Harper should completely ignore the LPC as a rudderless ship without direction or plan and instead concentrate on the Bloc and NDP as the only opposition.

Completely strip away any legitimacy the LPC has left.

If he can get the other two parties on side to do the same thing it would embarrass the broken Liberal ship further.

Now is not the time to for the RH Stephan Harper to back off of Dion and after he is gone, the LPC.

Keep attacking Dion and the LPC. Force them retaliate and lash out, then brand them as cold partisans who don't care about the Canadian people and the Canadian families.

Don;t let the Canadian people forget about the Adscam and the total defrauding of the Canadian people, which is why we cannot trust those arrogant Liberals ever again.

They are already bankrupt and Dion still hasn't paid off his debt from the Leadership race...hilarious. Use that. The Liberals cannot raise any funds at all so attack them on all angles is what is needed to fully devastate that party.

Edited October 18, 2008 by Mr.Canada

[marksman]

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)

The NEP ended over 2 decades ago. Welcome to 2008 where it's not a Liberal policy. Maybe next we should all blame the Conservative party for introducing conscription in world war 1.

Extremely soft on crime is a nice talking point but also happens to be a meaningless phrase. Some specifics would be great. Of course this isn't an anti western policy no matter how you try to spin it. Unless you're saying that everywhere but western Canada is full of criminals and the liberals are pandering to them.

High taxation is it? Like when Harper campaigned on higher income taxes than Martin? There are legitimate differences of opinion on taxation between cons and libs. Many libs agreed with the overwhelming majority of economists that said cutting income taxes would be better for Canada than cutting the gst. This also isn't an anti western policy. Unless you're trying to say that the libs are proposing higher taxes only for the west.

Increasing social programs is again not an anti western policy. Unless they're only giving social programs to people not from the west. A difference in political philosophy isn't an example of regional bigotry. This point also ignores the spending done by Harper over the last 2 years.

The carbon tax is the closest you've come and even that isn't anti western. Wanting an environmental plan that takes into account the actual costs of something isn't regionalism. Do you consider pollution laws that limit manufacturing waste anti Ontario because Ontario has a large manufacturing industry? Oil has benefits for the economy and costs to society. So far we're only enjoying the benefits without paying the costs. Saying that you should get the good with the bad isn't anti western.

I'll stop there since your last 2 examples are also vague. But you really need to realize that differences in political philosophy don't mean that someone is out to get you. It's really selfimportant and paranoid to think that different theories on taxation mean that someone is out to screw you.

[Topaz]

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)

The national energy program was for ALL of Canada but to Harper he said it hurt Alberta and when Mulroney came he he didn't get rid of it either so it couldn't been that bad. The above was the resons Harper went from Lib to PC to Reform/alliance to Conservative. ANYTHING that hurts the oil companies he's against and so Dion's carbon tax for polluters.

[Mr.Canada]

@ BC_Chick: Peoples views change. Have your views remained exactly the same for 11 years? If so you are one of very few I'm sure. He is human.

Also many of these things are true.

-Many people who are unemployed are so by choice and happy to get their monthly cheque, don't be so naive.

-The government nor the courts has a place to tell religious sects who and how they are to perform marriages to pacify a very small minority. Faith is dictated by God not the feminist, gay rights or any other special interest group. Perhaps religion is bunk to you and that's fine but I don't think that gives you any right to dictate how others are to live and worship.

-Many immigrants who come here do not assimilate into Canadian culture but instead stay with their own entirely and do not even try to integrate.

-Traditional definition of marriage is just fine. If gays want to get married go ahead just don't expect any special treatment, which is really the goal isn't it? They do not want equal rights they want special rights.

-Ok, and free votes are bad how exactly? I don't understand the problem with this one at all. I know in socialist countries free votes aren't allowed is that what the problem is?

-Mandela is a communist. The ANC is a Marxist party, that happens to be a fact. Marxism is one of the founding principals depending on the brand of socialism. Again I don't see the problem.

The rest are so outlandish that they don't deserve my comment at all.

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

I would like a response to the above quote. I know that the Left Wing voters like to agrue against the facts so here is another chance to do so.

[Mr.Canada]

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.

Don't be a sore loser marksman. Mr. Dion had no plan at all, no policy, no organization, couldn't raise funds and didn't have any funds.

He stated that he would spend the first 30 days as PM trying to come up with a plan.

Mr. Dion had 2 years to get a plan, organize his party, get a platform and raise funds which he plainly couldn't do.

He also had 2 years to comprehend basic English which i he also failed to do, miserably I might add.

Pathetic.

Edited October 18, 2008 by Mr.Canada

[marksman]

I would like a response to the above quote. I know that the Left Wing voters like to agrue against the facts so here is another chance to do so.

I already did. Odd that you ignored it if you wanted a response. Maybe the reason people argue your facts are because you've got them wrong.

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index....st&p=352221

[cybercoma]

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.

Which is exactly what Dion did by hanging on to the Green Tax for so long. Canadians don't want to pay another tax and they sure as hell don't want to feel the effects the carbon tax will have on everything from gas to groceries. When Dion refused to adjust his message to the voters, he was being arrogant by telling Liberal supporters what they should think.

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.

The entire reason for Liberal success over the last century was their pragmatic approach to politics. Jean Chretien was famous for taking on issues as they arose and polling the heck out of the public before coming to any decisions. The Liberals have been the natural governing party of Canada for that reason alone.

Dion stepped away from what has made the Liberals successful and paid for it on election day. Although he speaks English with some difficulty and people would like to blame this for his short-comings, Canadians have been forgiving of it in the past, so I don't think it was as much of an issue as the press made it out to be. When party advisors inform the leader that he is losing support because the electorate doesn't agree with his views, and that leader refuses to adjust his message, then yeah... he's not only arrogant, but a fool.

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.

Will Ferguson wrote a book called, "Bastards & Boneheads: Canadians Glorious Leaders Past & Present," and you can be damn sure Dion's election campaign falls under the bonehead category. Although Dion was an arrogant bonehead, there is no doubt that Stephan Harper is a bastard. He has pulled the Conservative party from death and nearly formed a majority government in the last election. The Liberals have been reduced to levels not seen in decades. You don't accomplish that feat in such a short period of time by having your message obfuscated by overzealous MPs or reporters posing loaded questions. Although it may be true that very few Prime Ministers have exerted this much control over their party, it has never been as necessary as it has been for Harper.

So, is Harper arrogant? You could say so, but he's an arrogant bastard that has shown himself to be a force to be reckoned with in Canadian politics. You could also say Dion is arrogant, but to reduce the Liberal Party to such a sorry state is definitely a sign of being an absolute bonehead. Completely going against what has kept your party in power for so long -- such that Canada had become a de facto one-party state as Jeffrey Simpson puts it in his book "The Friendly Dictatorship" -- exemplifies having a skull made of stone. Being so foolishly arrogant that you ignore your advisors when they tell you you've lost the public's support is not the quality of a good leader, let alone a great one. Dion's arrogance destroyed the Liberal Party in this election and now he has to face the consequences.

[marksman]

Don't be a sore loser marksman. Mr. Dion had no plan at all, no policy, no organization, couldn't raise funds and didn't have any funds.

How exactly am I a sore loser? By pointing out that someone's grasping at straws with their arguments?

He had a policy but Canadians didn't like it. Personally I think we can do better than the proposed Green Shift.

Try not to confuse a rejected plan with no plan.

He stated that he would spend the first 30 days as PM trying to come up with a plan.

You're right Harper's plan is so much better.

http://www.cbc.ca/money/story/2008/10/15/harper-economy.html

Hold a first ministers meeting to discuss the global financial crisis. Harper did not specify a date for the meeting.

Continue to work with other G7 nations to take "appropriate actions" to support Canada's financial system.

Summon Parliament to meet in the fall. Harper did not give a date for the resumption of Parliament.

Send Harper to meet with European Union leaders later this week to discuss the economic crisis and strengthen Canada's economic partnership with the EU.

Attend a summit of G-20 finance ministers in Brazil in early November.

Continue a review of departmental spending.

Hold a meeting. Take "appropriate action". Summon Parliament or in other words do his job. Go to a meeting. Attend a meeting. Continue a review.

The last 1 is the only thing that approaches an actual plan. Neither Harper or Dion inspired much confidence in me with their "plans".

He also had 2 years to comprehend basic English which i he also failed to do, miserably I might add.

Pathetic.

And how long have you been working to use basic English? I hope it's less than 2 years otherwise that's pathetic.

[cybercoma]

Wait a minute, marksman is not another kengs, right?

[jdobbin]

I agree with you. The RH Stephan Harper should completely ignore the LPC as a rudderless ship without direction or plan and instead concentrate on the Bloc and NDP as the only opposition.

I think you forget that the Liberals still have the second most seats and as Official Opposition get to ask the first questions in the House.

It is still a minority and while the Bloc and NDP might try to vote no every time again and the Harper Tories might try to say all votes are no confidence, the Liberals should make clear they will try to compromise but they will not be bullied. If an election after only a few months is what the other parties want, then an election it will be...money or no money.

We'll see if the other parties take some of the heat for digging in their heels on trying to work through Parliament. Harper can hardly say Parliament is dysfunctional if he doesn't even consult with other parties about what the bills entail and simply say it is way or the highway.

Completely strip away any legitimacy the LPC has left.

Keep attacking Dion and the LPC. Force them retaliate and lash out, then brand them as cold partisans who don't care about the Canadian people and the Canadian families.

Keep up the brinkmanship. It is starting to get thin and how many elections can Harper go to and not win a majority before his own party thinks a new strategy or leader is necessary.

Don;t let the Canadian people forget about the Adscam and the total defrauding of the Canadian people, which is why we cannot trust those arrogant Liberals ever again.

They are already bankrupt and Dion still hasn't paid off his debt from the Leadership race...hilarious. Use that. The Liberals cannot raise any funds at all so attack them on all angles is what is needed to fully devastate that party.

Dion is likely not there after Monday. The new leader is not likely to have any strong past ties to Chretien, Martin or Trudeau. Interesting, isn't that?

[cybercoma]

And how long have you been working to use basic English? I hope it's less than 2 years otherwise that's pathetic.

Oh, you're one of those. Disregard my earlier post; nothing good will come out of a discussion with you.

[na85]

When the Liberal party won those four elections in a row, 3 with Chretien and 1 with Martin, 60% of Canadians voted for someone other than the LPC.

Link please.

[noahbody]

The NEP ended over 2 decades ago.

It would be nice to see the Liberals stand up in the house and deliver a formal apology. Maybe Justin will do that?

Welcome to 2008 where it's not a Liberal policy.

The policy of the Liberal party is power at any cost. That hasn't changed. The west wanted elected senators as insurance against NEP-like policies. How many elected senators has the Liberal government appointed again? Why do you think that is?

The carbon tax is the closest you've come and even that isn't anti western. Wanting an environmental plan that takes into account the actual costs of something isn't regionalism.

Why do you think gasoline wasn't taxed? Because it would cost votes in the East. The greenshift was nothing more than an anti-poverty plan with the objective of getting votes from the left.

Oil has benefits for the economy and costs to society. So far we're only enjoying the benefits without paying the costs.

Oil has benefits to society too, you know. It pays for social programs, health care, etc. Not to mention many, many are employed by the industry. It's costs in relation to global warming are nil. You could shut down all oil production in Canada today and it really wouldn't make a difference. And that's assuming manmade CO2 is the evil it is made out to be.

Edited October 18, 2008 by noahbody

[blueblood]

The NEP ended over 2 decades ago. Welcome to 2008 where it's not a Liberal policy. Maybe next we should all blame the Conservative party for introducing conscription in world war 1.

Extremely soft on crime is a nice talking point but also happens to be a meaningless phrase. Some specifics would be great. Of course this isn't an anti western policy no matter how you try to spin it. Unless you're saying that everywhere but western Canada is full of criminals and the liberals are pandering to them.

High taxation is it? Like when Harper campaigned on higher income taxes than Martin? There are legitimate differences of opinion on taxation between cons and libs. Many libs agreed with the overwhelming majority of economists that said cutting income taxes would be better for Canada than cutting the gst. This also isn't an anti western policy. Unless you're trying to say that the libs are proposing higher taxes only for the west.

Increasing social programs is again not an anti western policy. Unless they're only giving social programs to people not from the west. A difference in political philosophy isn't an example of regional bigotry. This point also ignores the spending done by Harper over the last 2 years.

The carbon tax is the closest you've come and even that isn't anti western. Wanting an environmental plan that takes into account the actual costs of something isn't regionalism. Do you consider pollution laws that limit manufacturing waste anti Ontario because Ontario has a large manufacturing industry? Oil has benefits for the economy and costs to society. So far we're only enjoying the benefits without paying the costs. Saying that you should get the good with the bad isn't anti western.

I'll stop there since your last 2 examples are also vague. But you really need to realize that differences in political philosophy don't mean that someone is out to get you. It's really selfimportant and paranoid to think that different theories on taxation mean that someone is out to screw you.

You wanted Liberal policies over time that have screwed the west, NEP is one.

The carbon tax was NEP 2. Westerners are still bitter about NEP just like most Quebecers are peeved at the feds for introducing conscription in WW1, a partial reason why they hate canadian military involvement.

What I'm saying is how westerners perceive the Liberal party since the 60's. What's good for Ontario is not necessarily good for out here. As history dictates, policy that favors Ontario has hindered the west, the Liberals can't grasp that and that is why they can't break through. Punishing our industries with a tax is anti-western, we could care less about pollution, our air is clean out here. If Ontario wants a carbon tax have at it. Punishing our industries that generate wealth is not a way to get votes out west.

Harsh sentances for 14 year olds is popular out west, not out east. Coddling of YOA's doesn't fly out here.

Social programs don't really fly out here either, we know how to spend our own money.

That said, Liberals have been elected out here, vote split or not. Even a long long time ago. When the Liberals realize the West and Quebec aren't Ontario's colony, the better off the country will be. By dumping Trudeau and going through a major policy convention and having a complete facelift, they can hope to break through the west. The tories against all odds broke into Quebec, and had they not made the gaffe, they would have had their seats there.

[marksman]

Which is exactly what Dion did by hanging on to the Green Tax for so long. Canadians don't want to pay another tax and they sure as hell don't want to feel the effects the carbon tax will have on everything from gas to groceries. When Dion refused to adjust his message to the voters, he was being arrogant by telling Liberal supporters what they should think.

You're confusing having an election platform with telling people what they think. The arrogance I was refering to was betsy implying that all liberals think they're entitled to form the government. It's arrogant to dismiss a political party and its supporters that way. This isn't the same as trying to sell a new policy that's never been tried before. Whether you liked the Green Shift or not you can at least respect the fact that it was something Dion believed in and tried to get support for. It didn't work but that's why elections have winners and losers.

The entire reason for Liberal success over the last century was their pragmatic approach to politics. Jean Chretien was famous for taking on issues as they arose and polling the heck out of the public before coming to any decisions. The Liberals have been the natural governing party of Canada for that reason alone.

I don't disagree. But it's amazing how that was criticized as undemocratic by so many conservatives.

Dion stepped away from what has made the Liberals successful and paid for it on election day. Although he speaks English with some difficulty and people would like to blame this for his short-comings, Canadians have been forgiving of it in the past, so I don't think it was as much of an issue as the press made it out to be. When party advisors inform the leader that he is losing support because the electorate doesn't agree with his views, and that leader refuses to adjust his message, then yeah... he's not only arrogant, but a fool.

Will Ferguson wrote a book called, "Bastards & Boneheads: Canadians Glorious Leaders Past & Present," and you can be damn sure Dion's election campaign falls under the bonehead category. Although Dion was an arrogant bonehead, there is no doubt that Stephan Harper is a bastard. He has pulled the Conservative party from death and nearly formed a majority government in the last election. The Liberals have been reduced to levels not seen in decades. You don't accomplish that feat in such a short period of time by having your message obfuscated by overzealous MPs or reporters posing loaded questions. Although it may be true that very few Prime Ministers have exerted this much control over their party, it has never been as necessary as it has been for Harper.

So, is Harper arrogant? You could say so, but he's an arrogant bastard that has shown himself to be a force to be reckoned with in Canadian politics. You could also say Dion is arrogant, but to reduce the Liberal Party to such a sorry state is definitely a sign of being an absolute bonehead. Completely going against what has kept your party in power for so long -- such that Canada had become a de facto one-party state as Jeffrey Simpson puts it in his book "The Friendly Dictatorship" -- exemplifies having a skull made of stone. Being so foolishly arrogant that you ignore your advisors when they tell you you've lost the public's support is not the quality of a good leader, let alone a great one. Dion's arrogance destroyed the Liberal Party in this election and now he has to face the consequences.

All of that's just a longwinded way of saying what I already said. You'll find arrogance in all the parties.

I doubt the advisors were as 1 sided as is now being reported. I'm sure near the end of the election many were saying drop the Green Shift but to do so would've been even worse than sticking with it. It would've showed that Dion had no platform and that he was admitting defeat on his key issue. A bad platform is better than no platform when you've only got a little time left in a campaign.

I also can't support clamping down on "overzealous MPs" or ignoring reporters. In a democracy that's just something you've got to deal with. Especially if you're trying to claim that you're accountable like Harper did. And he was particularly bad at this when he first became PM. It may've helped his party but I don't subscribe to theory that the ends justify the means.

[Who's Doing What?]

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.

Most of what is said about Harper comes from his own rightwing speeches.

[marksman]

Oh, you're one of those. Disregard my earlier post; nothing good will come out of a discussion with you.

So you're dismissing me because I've pointed out the ridiculousness of attacking someone's english with a sentence that isn't proper english? I've got no time for people who make posts like that attacking someone's fluency and I've got no problem with turning their own idiocy against them.

But consider me "one of those" if you want. Whatever that means. I guess it's easier to do that then engage in discussion.

[blueblood]

Where have rural people in the west voted Liberal? In what decade? There have only been a few times in Manitoba where they broke through. Trudeaumania was one such occasion. The split vote between the PCs and Reform another.

For example Brandon Souris is a yellow dog riding. The only way the Liberal won there was a split in the vote in 1993. Similarly, Provencher is now the most religious riding and while they used to elect French Liberal Roman Catholics, it is now dominated by Mennonites who vote Conservative without fail. The Liberal had their only recent breakthrough there with the Reform/PC split.

Portage-Lisgar only got a Liberal in on the split. Decades back it goes to the Tories every time.

Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette only elected a Liberal on the split. It goes back decades as well as Tory.

Selkirk Interlake elected a Liberal on the split. Never again and not in the decades before.

Did the votes start happening for the Tories in the 1970s? No, In the case of Manitoba, you have to go back 60 or and in some case 70 years. The only time there was a breakthrough was in the 1990s with the split conservative vote.

The truth of the matter is that some western rural ridings vote Conservative through thick and through thin. The only time they have voted for a Liberal was when it happened by default.

No matter what policies are offered, there is only one party, one political movement for some in rural western Canada and that is the Conservative party.

The Tories could have crushed the Liberals down to 40 or so seats. The fact that they still do and say things that provoke urban areas keeps them short of a majority. The fact that they were so concentrated on Liberals rather than Duceppe and the Bloc meant that they gave Duceppe an opening that took the majority of the seats in Quebec.

Those ridings were never going to stay Liberal. The history was against it. You could have Jesus Christ as the leader and the western rural riding would have said they didn't trust him because of the beard, mustache, long hair and a dubious economic policy of sharing a meal.

You are doing much to demonize Trudeau and some are to beatify him. He is one person representing a poor riding in an urban area of Quebec. He isn't his father nor does he seem to destined to lead the party from where I stand.

No matter who the Liberals choose whether it be Ignatieff, McKenna or whoever and no matter what favourable western rural based policies are introduced, you will not see a Liberal elected in those ridings where there is no history of it.

The Liberals will have to work on gaining back ridings that do tend to swing back and forth. They won't write off the western rural ridings but they won't be under any illusions that they can win them.

I pretty much agree, but like I said when a catastrophe happens to the tories like in the 90's and the Liberals do gain western seats, they should try and implement more fiscally sound policies that some rural westerners would like. If harper can break through into quebec and into vancouver and toronto, surely the liberals can crack some seats out west.

Trudeau is a hated man in the west and especially in alberta, distancing the liberals from trudeau, chretien, and martin at the same time implementing fiscally sound policies and cracking down somewhat on crime will do wonders out west.

[Mr.Canada]

Link please.

Link to what?

That is a known fact. Were you of voting age during this time? If you were you would know this.

1993. Mr. Chretien and the Liberals had 41.3% of the vote.

1997 Mr. Chretien and the Liberals had 38.5% of the vote.

2000 Mr. Chretien and the Liberals had 40.8% of the vote.

2004 Mr. Martin and the Liberals had 36.7% of the vote.

[Smallc]

they should try and implement more fiscally sound policies

Did you mess that stretch for 1995 - 2006 when they did exactly that?

[blueblood]

Did you mess that stretch for 1995 - 2006 when they did exactly that?

then they brought in gun control and watched the rural economy slide into near chaos until oil saved it. Then all of a sudden they want to punish the western economy with a carbon tax!!!

[Shady]

The biggest problem the Liberals are facing, is a smaller and smaller map to work with. They're no longer competitive out west, or in Quebec, they're bleeding support in Ontario, which only leaves them with eastern Canada.

[marksman]

You wanted Liberal policies over time that have screwed the west, NEP is one.

No actually. You said the Liberal party is stuck in the 70s with anti western policies and I asked for examples. A party can't be stuck in the past with a policy if they no longer have that policy. Historical examples don't show where the Liberal party is they only show where the Liberal party was.

The carbon tax was NEP 2. Westerners are still bitter about NEP just like most Quebecers are peeved at the feds for introducing conscription in WW1, a partial reason why they hate canadian military involvement.

A carbon tax reflects the true cost of oil. You can be bitter about it but I don't see why anyone should reap the benefits of something without paying the costs no matter where you are in the country.

Harsh sentances for 14 year olds is popular out west, not out east. Coddling of YOA's doesn't fly out here.

That's not anti western. It's a difference in political opinion.

Social programs don't really fly out here either, we know how to spend our own money.

That's also not anti western.

That said, Liberals have been elected out here, vote split or not. Even a long long time ago. When the Liberals realize the West and Quebec aren't Ontario's colony, the better off the country will be. By dumping Trudeau and going through a major policy convention and having a complete facelift, they can hope to break through the west. The tories against all odds broke into Quebec, and had they not made the gaffe, they would have had their seats there.

If western Canada is so hung up on Justin Trudeau being in the Liberal party then it's pointless for Liberals to even try and appease the west because it won't matter what policies they've got. I do think the Liberals need to reexamine their policies. But if people are going to ignore those policies because of 1 member then why should the Liberals go to the effort? Maybe part of the reason that some Liberals don't worry about the west is because they keep hearing people say that they'll never vote Liberal no matter what. You hear people from the other end of the spectrum using the same reason to refuse to vote for the Conservatives because of Harper. I think it's a dumb way to vote. Look at the policies and decide on the issues. Not because of something in the past that doesn't matter or because you don't like someone's last name.