Layton To Harper: Do Not Pull A Belinda

[Dennis]

Layton doubled his partys poll numbers while Harper tanked the CAs.

What's with these one-line hit jobs from Hiti. I thought this was a board of political discussion, not Warren Kinsella attack tactics.

In case you didn't notice, the membership of the Conservative Party is above 200,000. How can that be seen as a tank?

For all the criticisms directed at Harper, they all conveniently forget that Harper managed to co-found the Conservative Party of Canada, a part of his track-record which trumps all of this other targeted nonsense.

[cgarrett]

dennis,

have you read my post 'left vs right'? most of my posts are not two liners...

so if all of my posts are just puff? then lets hear it?! come up with some actual facts? some actual arguments?!

in fact, i have found this whole forum to be lacking in any intellectual thought?! most of my posts that have real arguments are rarely countered?

so dennis, please explain how:

- regressive taxation does not concentrate wealth or that the concentration of wealth is good for canadians

- how the privatization of profitable public entities is good for canadians

- how the privatization of health care is good for canadians

etc...

enough with the name calling... put up or shut up!

[Dennis]

so dennis, please explain how:

- regressive taxation does not concentrate wealth or that the concentration of wealth is good for canadians

- how the privatization of profitable public entities is good for canadians

- how the privatization of health care is good for canadians

etc...

enough with the name calling... put up or shut up!

Its NOT my intention to get into a debate with the NDP on the eve of the Conservative Party leadership vote.

My purpose was to point out that your socialist dogma is hardly of an intellectual nature.

But, BRIEFLY:

I don't know what you refer to when mentioning

'regressive taxation'. You said I was into name calling?

However, a fair tax system is one that doesn't punish the wealthy in order to subsidize Socialist Political Schemes.

If public entities you mentioned were profitable there wouldn't be a problem now, would there?

And no one is talking about privatization of health care. Just your typical scare-mongering.

What some people are talking about is reforming a current health care system that is broken only fifty years after it was first implemented.

Now, the Conservatives have a leadership race to worry about, not this NDP huffing and puffing about the end of the world we keep hearing about.

[cgarrett]

not of an intellectual nature, dennis?! and this from someone who admits not knowing the difference between 'regressive' and 'progressive' taxation?!

well let me be of some service... these are not political terms! these are terms used in economics!

progressive taxation is the system that we current employ. it is an indicator of a socialist society i hate to tell you dennis. in fact, most functioning democracies in the world employ the same system. it is a socialist indicator because it makes a statement regarding who is to control the wealth of a nation. it says that a certain lifestyle can be maintained before greater portions of that made wealth must be returned to all of a nations citizens.

regressive taxation is where the less money one makes, the greater as a percentage of that income one pays in taxes.

british columbia hydro has made money for the public since its creation! and the right wing gordon campbell liberals have sold it to americans! this is what i am talking about when i discuss public privatization of profitable public entities.

dennis, you seem oblivious to the policies of the party you support... look at the conservative web site! last time i looked they supported the flat tax (regressive taxation). harper recently endorsed the idea of a US medical system! when will you decide that its in your best interest to actually KNOW what a parties policies are and how they affect you before you decide to support them!

[Black Dog]

What he said is that a coalition with the NDP is as bad for the country as one with the Bloc.

But what he meant was: "Bad for the Conservative Party."

Since when do socialist ever use reason and intellect to advance their agenda.

Nice drive by smear.

If public entities you mentioned were profitable there wouldn't be a problem now, would there

But th epoint of public entities isn't to be profitable, but to provide a service to citizens. The above is a fine example of neocon dogma in action.

[maplesyrup]

Cgarrett.....I completely agree. For confirmation Harper has been asked 10 times by independent media to engage in debates and has refused.

harper will attempt to avoid a debate with layton for two reasons:

1) a debate with layton would legitimize him with those canadians who have a brain

2) it is never strategically beneficial for the right wing to operate in an arena of lengthy discourse and reasoning. its not at all likely that harper could convince canadians that the priorities of his party, namely:

- the support of regressive taxation designed to concentrate wealth to a few

- the movement of profitable public holdings into private hands such as energy production

- the movement of social safeguards such as health care into private hands to be operated for profit (thus distancing that service from those who cannot afford it)

- the further selling of canadian resources to foreign interests

etc...

are in the best interests of the majority of voters!

it is in his best interest to continue to wage his war using 'sound bites', 'name calling' and other proven tools of ignorance!

don't vote with your gut! vote with your brain!

[MapleLeafMerc]

2000 election...

NDP 11%

PC plus Alliance 37%

2004 (latest Ipsos-Reid)

NDP 17% - gain of 6 points

Conservatives 26% - loss of 11 points...

BigGunner, you can't compare (by implying a trend up or down), the results of an election with a poll. Responding to a pollster is not the same as putting the x on a ballot.

[Dennis]

Cgarrett.....I completely agree. For confirmation Harper has been asked 10 times by independent media to engage in debates and has refused.

This is such a joke.

If Jack Layton was so concerned about debating fellow national leaders why didn't he get himself a seat in Parliamnent?

Or is he so enamoured with himself in front of a microphone that he prefers that setting to the one where people actually send their elected representatives - the House of Commons.

Some national leaders want to make the case for running this country.

Jack Layton wants to listen to himself on the radio.

[Dennis]

But what he meant was: "Bad for the Conservative Party."

No, bad for the country, just as the Liberals are implying that a coalition for the Bloc is bad for the country. Please actually read the comments. This is a tit-for-tat. Liberals making insinuations about coalitions. Harper firing right back.

Nice drive by smear

Hardly. It was a reference to the fact that the Left always has to scare people into voting for them. Somehow, if socialists aren't in power, the world is falling to pieces. Then, when they do get into power, they never solve any of those problems and merely bankrupt society. Nothing drive-by or smearing about it.

But th epoint of public entities isn't to be profitable, but to provide a service to citizens. The above is a fine example of neocon dogma in action.

If you actually read these posts you would know that I wasn't the one making a reference to profitable public entities, your socialist friend was. So I guess he/she is the one propigating neocon dogma.

And of course there are public entities that make a profite. The LCBO in Ontario is one. Hardly dogma.

[August1991]

If Jack Layton was so concerned about debating fellow national leaders why didn't he get himself a seat in Parliamnent?

Dead on! Touché!

But I don't get this thread. There will be a TV debate during the upcoming election (Spring or Fall) and it will involve four people: Duceppe, Harper, Layton, Martin. Given Canada, we'll have at least two debates, English and French.

In fact though, these guys debate every day in Question Period. And unlike the US where Gore becomes a nobody, our loser becomes a nemesis. (The US Constitution writers - working in the 18th Century -never imagined what would happen to parliamentary democracy.)

As a result, our debates are much better. Watch when Layton hauls off and points Martin in the chest! Canadian politics - heck politics - at its best!

Find a country in the world that does it our way (our way is not a shared press conference, but a real one-on-one), and in two languages to boot.

The Liberals try to avoid TV debates but Martin's ego would never let him say no.

I'd say Clark-Trudeau 1979, or Mulroney-Turner 1989. No, good chance it'll be much better.

[MapleLeafMerc]

Nice drive by smear

Hardly. It was a reference to the fact that the Left always has to scare people into voting for them. Somehow, if socialists aren't in power, the world is falling to pieces. Then, when they do get into power, they never solve any of those problems and merely bankrupt society. Nothing drive-by or smearing about it.

[maplesyrup]

Nice drive by smear

Hardly. It was a reference to the fact that the Left always has to scare people into voting for them. Somehow, if socialists aren't in power, the world is falling to pieces. Then, when they do get into power, they never solve any of those problems and merely bankrupt society. Nothing drive-by or smearing about it.

MapleLeafMerc......you just confirmed what he said, not an ounce of substance.

[maplesyrup]

It all comes down to this:

Harper is running to be the Prime Minister.

Layton is running to be the Prime Minister's wench.

When Stronach was ducking debates, Harper said, “I believe that anyone who wants to take on Paul Martin is going to have to be available whenever the media calls to stand front and take on the competition.”

When will Harper put his money where his mouth is, be courageous, stand tall, and defend what he represents?

Or are Harper's ideas not defensible?

[sir_springer]

Harper doesn't need to defend his ideas against the likes of a mental midget like Jack Layton.

It is Jack Layton who desperately needs to prove that he's at least relevant.

Which is precisely why he wants to debate Harper, no more, no less.

By getting Harper to acknowledge his mere existance on a stage, he proves he's a significant player.

Which he is not.

Harper is far too savvy and intelligent to allow himself to be manipulated by the likes of an ass like Layton.

But then again, who isn't?

[cgarrett]

yes, the NDP and the left in general have an uphill battle. i saw someone on the news recently stating that the conservative movement of the last two decades have spent two billion dollars (money easily acquired from the wealth of their supporters) in infrastructure to influence an increasingly uneducated electorate. this money was spent of think tanks (fraser institute, canadian tax payers alliance etc..) , media infrastructure support (canwest global etc...) and research. all of this money aimed towards one goal, getting the parties that they support elected! because people who work for a living don't have much money to donate for such things and they certainly don't have money to buy newspapers and television stations, their interests are now a low priority in todays political climate.

[BigGunner]

2000 election...

NDP 11%

PC plus Alliance 37%

2004 (latest Ipsos-Reid)

NDP 17% - gain of 6 points

Conservatives 26% - loss of 11 points...

BigGunner, you can't compare (by implying a trend up or down), the results of an election with a poll. Responding to a pollster is not the same as putting the x on a ballot.

While I appreciate your message, I do not fully agree.

When pollsters pegged the BC NDP at the high teens to low 20's in popular support in the 2001 BC election, that is almost exactly what they got.

Scientific polling can be somewhat accurate.

The trend that I was implying is that the united conservative party is faring poorly compared to what one might expect considering the combined 37% vote share of 2000.

Since that magic number was the rallying cry of conservative merger proponents, its a valid argument to make today.

Todays recent polling assumed that Harper would be the leader of the party, and it shows a 26% score for the conservatives. The Alliance itself scored 25% in the 2000 election.

The merger has failed to do two things.

1. Bring all conservatives true conservatives under one roof.

2. Draw centre-right support from the Liberals.

The merger has done the following though.

1. Scare the anti-establishment voters away from the conservatives (into the NDP in the west)

2. Stunt any potential growth opportunities in Quebec (the 2nd largest province with 75 seats...a necessity for winning government).

[sir_springer]

Had Harper not won yesterday, there indeed was a significant danger of great numbers of western "anti-establishment" voters abandoning the CPC.

I fail to see why elections hang on Quebec.

A quick bit of math suggests that:

36 + 28 + 14 + 14 + 106 = 198.

It takes 155 to form a majority government.

Tuck into that equation the potential of 20 MPs from Atlantic Canada...

We can quite easily see a CPC majority government without a single MP from Quebec.

Sure never bothered anyone to see Liberal majority governments with a mere handful of western MPs, did it?

The fact is that, as Harper says, a great many Quebeccers are disgusted with the Liberals...but do not align themselves with separatists.

They need an alternative...and I think we will see that many there now may think they indeed have one. Voting "conservative" is not a foreign concept in Quebec.

The dynamics of widespread voter fatigue with an incumbant government, coupled with a very palatable alternative inevitably engenders polarization among voters desperately seeking real change. This is not rocket science nor mysterious stuff. Happens all the time...and I can cite numerous examples.

It is now almost a certainty that this next election is going to be one of the pivotal watershed events in which the electorate will polarize between the status quo and change.

In such elections, there very rarely are exceptions to the maxim that third parties get slaughtered in such moments.

Why?

Because a vote for a third party equates to a vote for the status quo. This reality is inescapable.

No one...and I mean no one, not even NDP diehards...envisions that party as a government in waiting. (Thank God!)

The divisions on the conservative side of the spectrum are now history; this much is clearly obvious. More importantly, western Canadians have in Stephen Harper a touchstone with whom they can identify.

Momentum has swung from the Libs to the CPC.

And will continue to do so as each new day more crap is revealed about the true depth of the rot that has become synonymous with this Liberal government.

Without intentionally being trite, it is so bad for the Libs now that all Harper has to do is smile for the camera and subliminally ask, "Do I look and/or sound extremist to you?"

No, he sure as hell does not...regardless of all the garbage the Libs and NDP will crank out to the contrary. In fact, in their tripping over themselves to do so they will look more than a tad extremist themselves.

Let us not forget that we are political junkies here on these forums. Do NOT make the mistake of assuming that the other 99.9% of voters engage the finer points of politics on the level we do.

This morning Paul Martin got out of bed to a whole new political dynamic in this country.

And to the stark realization that the guy sitting across from him is no slouch in the game of politics...as his track record of the last two years clearly proves to all but the truly naive and/or ignorant.

As one journalist started off his article this morning, Stephen Harper is Paul Martin's worst nightmare.

As for Jack Layton?

If he has any brains at all, he knows that he's in deep ca ca today.

For he knows the consequences of polarization upon his party will be devistating...as it has in the past.

He knows that those soft Liberal Left votes he was counting on sucking off the left flank of Martin's backside suddenly have good reason to reattach themselves.

We are in for the classic political battle that comes down to "either/or". There will be no third alternatives, there never are.

Harper clearly understands a fundamental of politics in Canada:

The center ground is not won nearly so much by moving to it...

As it is won by pulling it out from under the other guy towards oneself.

And incumbants tend to have a habit of falling off the center ground headfirst into a heaping pile of arrogant, corrupt, and self-absorbed bullshit.

Bottom line:

Get used to the idea of "Prime Minister Harper".

This next election is his to lose.

And, as we've all seen...and in spades...losing isn't what Stephen Harper is all about.

[BigGunner]

It is mathematically possible to win government without a single seat in Quebec, but that policy is about as wise as John Kerry attempting to bank on electoral victory without any support from the southern states...its possible, but its not helpful.

The last time the PC's won office, they had a large caucus from Quebec, in fact they won a majority of its seats in 1984.

The reality is that if the CPC wants to win government, they will need to elect Quebec MP's. With the CPC polling in 4th place behind the NDP, that doesn't seem likely.

By this point, most Canadians had assumed that Stephen Harper was going to win the leadership of the CPC and were aligning their support accordingly. The final results were not a suprise to anyone.

The CPC will have to address some of the major issue gaps between the party, its voting record, vs. the majority of Canadian opinion.

[Galahad]

Without intentionally being trite, it is so bad for the Libs now that all Harper has to do is smile for the camera and subliminally ask, "Do I look and/or sound extremist to you?"

As I read this, Ted Bundy flashed in my mind and how if he could ask "Do I look and/or sound extremist to you?" those who don't remember his atrocities would say ..."NO!"

We will NEVER forget Harper's "firewall" atrocity!

[August1991]

i saw someone on the news recently stating that the conservative movement of the last two decades have spent two billion dollars (money easily acquired from the wealth of their supporters) in infrastructure to influence an increasingly uneducated electorate.

cgarret, I have always suspected that the left has a vague disdain for the ordinary joe; the left seems quick to assume the ordinary joe is uneducated and easy to manipulate. What gives the left this right to "superiority"?

The fact is that, as Harper says, a great many Quebeccers are disgusted with the Liberals...but do not align themselves with separatists.

They need an alternative...and I think we will see that many there now may think they indeed have one. Voting "conservative" is not a foreign concept in Quebec.

I completely disagree. Voters in Quebec are NOT going to vote for Harper. They just won't. He's just too - excuse the word - foreign. (It's the same as asking voters in Alberta to vote for Lapierre.)

Which brings me to another point of Springer:

I fail to see why elections hang on Quebec.

A quick bit of math suggests that:

36 + 28 + 14 + 14 + 106 = 198.

I agree. In 1968, there were 42 seats in Alta and BC. Now, there are 64. In Quebec, it went from 74 to 75 in that time.

More critically though, about half of Ontario seats vote for a "National" leader: someone who can win in Quebec. The most extreme case (when Ontarians voted "against" Quebec) was 1979 when Clark won 57 of 95 Ontario seats. The Liberals still kept one-third.

There is a chance that Harper will repeat 1979 in the next election.

There are two last points: 1) Harper seems to be a Bush Jnr type politician: lower expectations, then surprise everyone when you win. All of the pundits write Harper off but he seems to win. 2) I don't think Canada is truly a "right-wing" country. We're rather a nation of working class, Chicago Democrats.

[theWatcher]

Perhaps the Conservatives can offer Quebec a third choice, or middle path.

The Liberals believe in preserving the existing system, the Bloc believes in separation.

The Conservatives can offer an increased autonomy while preserving the country. Let each province look after their own affairs instead of having the feds meddling in on everything like some bully would.

It may not be immediately popular but idealogically its a sound idea.

[Black Dog]

Hardly. It was a reference to the fact that the Left always has to scare people into voting for them. Somehow, if socialists aren't in power, the world is falling to pieces. Then, when they do get into power, they never solve any of those problems and merely bankrupt society. Nothing drive-by or smearing about it.

Funny, most of the bitching and kvetching on this board with regard to the state of the world is coming from the Reformatory supporters. "The military is in pieces! America doesn't like us! There are to many homosexuals!" etc etc.

As for your comment about socialists never solving anything and bankruptuing society, the record in Canadian provincial politics shows that the most fiscally irresponsible governments are those from the right wing (with the exception of oil-bloated Alberta).

So, given that your remark was fired in passing, yes it was a drive by. Given that it was incorrect, it was a smear.

[cgarrett]

black dog

you must be coming across the same frustration as i... i have only started to post to this forum recently but learned much! there appears to be alot of 'lifer' conservatives, reformers or whatever who think that politics is simply a hockey game in which they have picked their team.

i've been quite disappointed at the lack of discussion on any of my posts that critically examine policies and the results of those policies (see 'left vs right' as a prime example). i had one person who constantly supports the conservative party at least admit that they did not know the difference between progressive and regressive taxation (an extremely important aspect of our economy). these people are the most dangerous of the electorate. they don't think, they simply act on their base emotions... and they like it that way!

i don't consider myself a socialist, conservative, left/right wing... any of these labels of control. i simply vote for the canada i want based on the policies a politician wants to implement!