Tories keep massive lead

[Smallc]

I know that, and I dislike the use of such meaningless phrases, so I provided a definition.

[White Doors]

I know that, and I dislike the use of such meaningless phrases, so I provided a definition.

Yeah, but the definition sucks. That wiki definition is broader than the definition that Kimmy gave you which is probably the most accurate definition of neo-con these days.

[reasonoverpassion]

Neo conservatives

In the Canadian context these are the the "new conservatives" (Preston Manning, Mike Harris, Stephen Harper, Stockwell Day, Jim Flaherty) as opposed to the "old conservatives" (Brian Mulroney, Joe Clark, Bob Stanfield, Peter McKay?)

The "old conservatives" really dominated the old PC Party. Sometimes now called "red Tories" although there was a mix of red and blue tories in the old PC party.

The "new conservatives" really represent the dominance of blue Tories with the social conservativism of the Alliance/Reformers. When the PC party was supplanted by a coalition of PC/Reform the CPC was born. Red Tories practically do not exist in CPC or are very quiet about their views.

[Canadian Blue]

I think what Canadian Blue was getting at is that the term "neo-conservative" has been overused to the point that any specific definition it might have had has been lost.

Bingo, neo-conservative can mean just about anything these days. I've heard people refer to libertarians as neo-conservatives even though technically speaking libertarianism preaches non-interventionism.

In the Canadian context these are the the "new conservatives" (Preston Manning, Mike Harris, Stephen Harper, Stockwell Day, Jim Flaherty) as opposed to the "old conservatives" (Brian Mulroney, Joe Clark, Bob Stanfield, Peter McKay?)

Both Robert Stanfield and Joe Clark were Red Tories, Brian Mulroney and Peter MacKay are considered Blue Tories. If we are to simply say that a neo-conservative is anyone that was born this generation we might as well term David Orchard a neo-conservative as well.

The "new conservatives" really represent the dominance of blue Tories with the social conservativism of the Alliance/Reformers. When the PC party was supplanted by a coalition of PC/Reform the CPC was born. Red Tories practically do not exist in CPC or are very quiet about their views.

No, they're coming back. Andre Bachand recently ran for the Tories federally, and hopefully in the next election he'll opt for a seat that's winnable.

As well Red Tories traditionally are considered to be socially conservative and economically nationalist. Which is somewhat different from the current definition which seems to be anyone that is pro-choice and pro-gay rights who happens to be a member of the CPC.

Edited December 17, 2008 by Canadian Blue

[reasonoverpassion]

Bingo, neo-conservative can mean just about anything these days. I've heard people refer to libertarians as neo-conservatives even though technically speaking libertarianism preaches non-interventionism.

Yeah that also goes for the left as well. On this board, I've hear Liberals called socialists which they aren't and socialists (democratic socialists in Canada, the NDP) called Communists, which they aren't.

I've also heard Canada called a socialist county which it isn't. Last time I checked, the means of production haven't been nationalized, through the NDP is probably still proposing this to some limited degree. Nationalization of selected industries isn't something that most social democrats are anxious to talk about these days.

Guess we should all be more careful about the terms we use and their percieved meanings. Myself included.

[Canadian Blue]

Agreed.

[punked]

http://www.robbinssceresearch.com/polls/poll_556.html

Liberals are back in it and majority supports coalition.

[ToadBrother]

http://www.robbinssceresearch.com/polls/poll_556.html

Liberals are back in it and majority supports coalition.

What this tells me is that no one is going to want to force an election next month. The budget will have no exploding bits in it, because Harper will not want to go to the polls with those kinds of numbers. Beyond that, Ignatieff is clearly not enthusiastic about this coalition and will likely want to use the time ahead to solidify his leadership of the Liberal Party and to work to make the Conservatives more thoroughly wear the current economic woes.

[Jack Weber]

Precisely...

[Jerry J. Fortin]

I must say I did not expect to see a shift this quickly. I would say Harper is in trouble considering that Iggy hasn't exactly been prominent.

[Jack Weber]

I would wager most of the support gained for the Lib's is most likely in Ontario.If he can placate the base for not going to a convention,it's good bye Con's.I actually want the Tories to stay in power for awhile.I want to see Harper,curled up and blubbering in the fetal position,in a pool of his own urine,after getting roasted in a debate with Ignatieff.

Edited December 31, 2008 by Jack Weber

[ToadBrother]

I would wager most of the support gained for the Lib's is most likely in Ontario.If he can placate the base for not going to a convention,it's good bye Con's.I actually want the Tories to stay in power for awhile.I want to see Harper,curled up and blubbering in the fetal position,in a pool of his own urine,after getting roasted in a debate with Ignatieff.

I think that's largely what's going to happen (except maybe the fetal position bit). From what I can tell, Harper and Flaherty in particular have had their chains yanked very hard by the Conservative caucus and the big wigs in the party. Some staunch pro-Harper types like to imagine that this was all clever machinations, but any notion of that was dispensed with when Harper literally had to run like hell to the GG just to prevent his government from falling.

I have no idea whether Ignatieff will be a wonderboy or not. I'm not even sure it matters. Providing he isn't a total screwup like Dion, and keeps the coalition stuck in the barrel simply to keep a loaded gun at Harper's head, Harper has lost the initiative. The signs are all there. Tory emissaries sent to the other parties, suddenly all this glasnost coming from the Tory caucus. Yes, I know that the unofficial Conservative position is that anyone with academic credentials is a moron with no capacity to run a country, but that's just the sort of dumb-ass talk of untreated ideologues.

The way Ignatieff was chosen is going to take some time to settle in with a lot of Liberals, who were pretty damned restive even under Dion. Ignatieff can't afford to go into full battle against the Conservatives unsure of whether his own forces are fully committed. He'll want time, and he'll want time as well to extricate him from the coalition which neither he or a number of Liberals want.

Besides, the longer the Conservatives are in power, the more he can ultimately pin the problems on them.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

I think that's largely what's going to happen (except maybe the fetal position bit). From what I can tell, Harper and Flaherty in particular have had their chains yanked very hard by the Conservative caucus and the big wigs in the party. Some staunch pro-Harper types like to imagine that this was all clever machinations, but any notion of that was dispensed with when Harper literally had to run like hell to the GG just to prevent his government from falling.

I have no idea whether Ignatieff will be a wonderboy or not. I'm not even sure it matters. Providing he isn't a total screwup like Dion, and keeps the coalition stuck in the barrel simply to keep a loaded gun at Harper's head, Harper has lost the initiative. The signs are all there. Tory emissaries sent to the other parties, suddenly all this glasnost coming from the Tory caucus. Yes, I know that the unofficial Conservative position is that anyone with academic credentials is a moron with no capacity to run a country, but that's just the sort of dumb-ass talk of untreated ideologues.

The way Ignatieff was chosen is going to take some time to settle in with a lot of Liberals, who were pretty damned restive even under Dion. Ignatieff can't afford to go into full battle against the Conservatives unsure of whether his own forces are fully committed. He'll want time, and he'll want time as well to extricate him from the coalition which neither he or a number of Liberals want.

Besides, the longer the Conservatives are in power, the more he can ultimately pin the problems on them.

Astute observations, I agree.

[Keepitsimple]

I'm a little sceptical of this poll based on the "response" to the first question. The percentages are identical to the last election results for the Conservatives and Liberals and the Bloc and very, very close for the NDP and Greens. The sampling was supposedly from 1007 people in all provinces - called at random. What's the chances of calling people at random - who end up comprising an almost identical make-up to the results of the last election? Having said that, it's not totally surprising that some of the Bloc and a lot of the Greens seem to have at least temporarily moved to the Liberals....but it seems that none of the movement is at the expense of the Conservatives. One should expect that the Liberals with a new leader would get a bump in the polls from their semi-leadership race. Usually in tough times, the government gets bad press - and the Conservatives and Harper have certainly had their share of it - and yet they are holding their ground and inching up in the polls. Overall though, it's a small sampling and I don't think you can draw too much from it.

Edited December 31, 2008 by Keepitsimple

[punked]

I'm a little sceptical of this poll based on the "response" to the first question. The percentages are identical to the last election results for the Conservatives and Liberals and the Bloc and very, very close for the NDP and Greens. The sampling was supposedly from 1007 people in all provinces - called at random. What's the chances of calling people at random - who end up comprising an almost identical make-up to the results of the last election? Having said that, it's not totally surprising that some of the Bloc and a lot of the Greens seem to have at least temporarily moved to the Liberals....but it sweems that none of the movement is at the expense of the Conservatives. One should expect that the Liberals with a new leader would get a bump in the polls from their semi-leadership race. Usually in tough times, the government gets bad press - and the Conservatives and Harper have certainly had their share of it - and yet they are holding their ground and inching up in the polls. Overall though, it's a small sampling and I don't think you can draw too much from it.

The larger the sample size the closer it should be to the last election. In fact chances are highest that the poll reflects last election as opposed to any other make up. Plus it is the only poll we have seen in the last two weeks.

[Progressive Tory]

I didn't read the whole thread, but another poll conducted the same day: "Ignatieff tops the list of party leaders Canadians would prefer as prime minister, with 28 per cent of respondents naming him the best head of government, according to the Toronto Star/Angus Reid survey."

http://www.thestar.com/News/Canada/article/553317

[capricorn]

I recall discussions on this forum about the fact that Canadians don't elect a Prime Minister, they elect MPs. Polls that ask Canadians who would make the best Prime Minister don't necessarily reflect voter intentions but merely reflect preference for either Harper or Ignatieff. For example, I may prefer to see Ignatieff as PM over Harper but as things stand I would not vote for the Liberals. Also, some might prefer to see Ignatieff as leader of the Conservatives instead of Harper. I have even read that opinion on Conservative blogs. So I would conclude that any poll showing numbers about the desirability of either Ignatieff or Harper as PM should not be interpreted as an indicator of how the Liberals or the Conservatives would fare in an election.