How the Conservatives will win their majority

waldo · January 29, 2009

Then why is your beloved Iggy supporting it?
Precisely the trap I was setting, hahaha, nice. I wouldn't expect a response, maybe he'll try to blame PM Harper in some fashion.

you don't need to accept or acknowledge the Ignatieff/Liberal support - but you should acknowledge your alternate preference for an election.

your preference for an election that would negate the severity of the economic time and highlight your displeasure with the Conservative budget spending levels. A preference that would ignore stimulus attempts to presume to come to the aid of the thousands of Canadians that have lost their jobs and those who will soon follow. A preference that would prevent leveraging the most desirable infrastructure construction period... for an election that most analysts suggest would only result in a returned minority (for either party). Yes, you should acknowledge your alternate preference for an election over any 'immediate' gains for Canadians.

Progressive Tory · January 29, 2009

The budget was crafted taking into consideration the views and concerns collected through a wide range of consultations with experts, the provinces and Canadians at large. The Conservatives chose to respond to the economic crisis which meant leaving aside their ideological preferences. This is principled action, not a power play. Unlike Iggy who would allow a budget that he thinks will further harm the economy.

Yes I know about those views and concerns.

"But one of the members of Flaherty's 11-member panel is Annette Verschuren, the president of Home Depot Canada and Asia".

Having input into a tax credit that could benefit Home Depot. That's a no-brainer.

And yet: "On Monday, Home Depot — which bills itself as the world's largest home renovation retailer — announced it is eliminating 7,000 jobs and closing specialty stores."

We're taking advice from a CEO who can't keep her own company afloat. Good job. Wonder how much Flaherty earned on this deal.

Progressive Tory · January 29, 2009

If Count Iggy knows the budget is flawed and it will not deliver what is necessary to lift us out of the looming recession then he has a moral obligation to the country to defeat it. If he stands by and risks the economic welfare of the country to prove a point, then he is no better than any other opportunistic and gutless politician.

Ignatieff says he will back the budget, with conditions, for the good of the country. "They have waited too long for action on the economy for us to fail them now because of Partisan interest."

If he had said no to tax cuts it would have hit the Tory spinner at record speed.

The Cons are on probation. They didn't get a free pass or a blank cheque. It's up to the Conservatives, if they want to govern, to prove that they can protect the "economic welfare of the country". If you're suggesting that they're not up to it....

capricorn · January 29, 2009

Ignatieff says he will back the budget, with conditions, for the good of the country. "They have waited too long for action on the economy for us to fail them now because of Partisan interest."

You said that Iggy's view is that the budget is flawed. How can he support a flawed budget and claim it is for the good of the country? The answer is because supporting the budget is good for Ignatieff and the Liberals.

But, just in case things gets bad enough for election winning conditions to develop later this year, Mr. Ignatieff has laid down three campaign trigger points. Quarterly updates on the progress of the fiscal stimulus must be produced, he insisted yesterday.
If the government's salvage effort founders, he will propose a non-confidence motion and Canada will get the national vote we need like a hole in the head.

It's a shrewd move to reject a budget-backing coalition with the Conservatives, albeit transparently scheming with self-interest.

This strategy does not reflect concern for the welfare of hard-hit Canadians, even though Mr. Ignatieff masked himself with an attack on the budget's deficit of green initiatives, equalization fairness and child-care support.

It's all for the good of his party, which recoils at regrouping under a coalition partnership yet lacks the organizational capacity to fight an election until much later this year.

(emphasis mine)

http://www.nationalpost.com/todays_paper/s...html?id=1230622

If he had said no to tax cuts it would have hit the Tory spinner at record speed.

His flip-flop on tax cuts to the middle class sure hit the media at record speed. You can be sure his equivocating on important matters will be milked in the next election campaign.

The Cons are on probation.

Professor Iggy will be assigning grades. Old habits die hard.

If you're suggesting that they're not up to it....

I never suggested anything of the sort. What is galling is that Iggy will support the budget in spite of what he perceives to be shortcomings in the budget. The Liberals' vote for the budget will bring to 44 the total number of times they voted with the Conservatives instead of standing up for their principles.

OddSox · January 29, 2009

Yes I know about those views and concerns.
"But one of the members of Flaherty's 11-member panel is Annette Verschuren, the president of Home Depot Canada and Asia".

Having input into a tax credit that could benefit Home Depot. That's a no-brainer.

And yet: "On Monday, Home Depot — which bills itself as the world's largest home renovation retailer — announced it is eliminating 7,000 jobs and closing specialty stores."

We're taking advice from a CEO who can't keep her own company afloat. Good job. Wonder how much Flaherty earned on this deal.

Umm, read the next paragraph in that story....

While acknowledging that Canadian retailers face serious challenges this year, Verschuren told reporters earlier this week that the cuts would not affect operations in Canada, where the retailer employs 35,000 people in 176 stores.

Argus · January 29, 2009

Hate to tell you Barts, but the old Reform wing of the Conservatives, really control the Conservative Party right now.

Are you writing in from a mental health care facility? IF there are any reform people left in the Conservative party they are keeping themselves mighty low, and have no influence whatever.

Argus · January 29, 2009

A red Tory budget? This is an anti-Red Tory Budget. This goes against everything a fiscally conservative Red Tory stands for.

There never has been and no such thing as a fiscally conservative "red tory".

A red tory is a liberal afraid to admit he's a liberal.

Argus · January 29, 2009

The Ignatieff Liberals have given Stephen Harper and the Conservatives a clear route to a majority government. Here’s how it will happen, unless Harper does something stupid again.
To achieve a majority, Harper needs to win seats in Quebec. He failed to get his majority in the last election, in part, because he alienated Quebec voters who then supported the Bloc.

Only one opposition party's support is needed for Harper to remain in power. Harper can survive as long as he judges necessary with Bloc support in Parliament. Duceppe is a pragmatic leader whose interest is only Quebec. He’ll support whichever party gives Quebec the best deal, as he's always done, and as he's reiterated today (28 January).

It's true that Quebec is a whore. But Quebec is a whore who doesn't stay bought, and who doesn't deliver for your money. Welfare - er, provincial transfer payments to Quebec rose by 74% in the few short years Harper has been in power. What has that gotten them? Praise from Quebec's government and politicians? Hardly! Instead they shriek and whine and gnash their teeth about being gypped, ripped off, by that evil, horrible Harper! Not only did he not get extra seats for his largesse (with my money) he got less popularity.

If Harper announced tomorrow that he was directing another $100 billion to Quebec - annually, he would win praise from Quebec for about two months. Then they'd start whining about how they're being ripped off, thumping tables, demanding more equalization, shrilly denouncing how Quebec is being abused and misused, etc. etc.

Harper is not going to get a bunch more seats in Quebec because Harper is not French. Quebec will NEVER vote for a party with a non-Francophone leader unless there is no Francophone leader to choose from. NEVER.

Vancouver King · January 30, 2009

It's true that Quebec is a whore.

All this blather over Harper's Quebec fallingout without a single mention of the two biggest factors turning the province against the Conservatives.

Of the myriad costs to Harper of saving his govt in the manner he chose, the greatest one was losing favor in Quebec by demonizing the Bloc, his voracious anti-coalition rhetoric interpreted there as anti-French. The result was swift and stunning: Ignatieff vaulted into the federalist choice overnight.

The above came on the heels of an October election where for the sake of saving insignificant dollars he alieniated the arts community, much of it centered in Quebec. What strategy, what genius, what a way to blow a majority.

Quebec might be a "whore" but it's hard to argue against historical success. Harper's failure in dealing with the province and it's subsequent embrace of Ignatieff is a now major CPC hurdle next election.

jbg · January 30, 2009

The Ignatieff Liberals have given Stephen Harper and the Conservatives a clear route to a majority government. Here’s how it will happen, unless Harper does something stupid again.
To achieve a majority, Harper needs to win seats in Quebec. He failed to get his majority in the last election, in part, because he alienated Quebec voters who then supported the Bloc.

*************

Unless they do something truly stupid, we can expect that the Conservatives will remain in power for at least the next 8-10 years. If they’re smart, Harper can remain in power for even longer than that.

You explain how he holds power but not how he gets to a majority. Can he double his hold on QC? He still needs to do that even if he recoups the lost AB riding. Where are there ridings to create a majority?

ToadBrother · January 30, 2009

There never has been and no such thing as a fiscally conservative "red tory".
A red tory is a liberal afraid to admit he's a liberal.

I sense the schism returning, and the Liberals guaranteed another decade of uninterrupted rule while the idiots from both sides of the right-wing bash out who the true conservative is.

Jean_Poutine · January 30, 2009

Clearly you have no idea what a Red Tory is....

Red Tories are confused Liberals.

Progressive Tory · January 30, 2009

Of the myriad costs to Harper of saving his govt in the manner he chose, the greatest one was losing favor in Quebec by demonizing the Bloc, his voracious anti-coalition rhetoric interpreted there as anti-French. The result was swift and stunning: Ignatieff vaulted into the federalist choice overnight.

His 'separatist' campaign did not just affect Quebec, though they were hardest hit. I'm originally from NB and still have a lot of family there. My hometown is about 85% French. They were pretty upset too.

Argus · January 30, 2009

All this blather over Harper's Quebec fallingout without a single mention of the two biggest factors turning the province against the Conservatives.
Of the myriad costs to Harper of saving his govt in the manner he chose, the greatest one was losing favor in Quebec by demonizing the Bloc, his voracious anti-coalition rhetoric interpreted there as anti-French. The result was swift and stunning: Ignatieff vaulted into the federalist choice overnight.

Your memory seems to be filled with holes. Harper's "falling out" with Quebec happened before and during the election, not afterwards due to any attacks on the BQ.

The above came on the heels of an October election where for the sake of saving insignificant dollars he alieniated the arts community, much of it centered in Quebec. What strategy, what genius, what a way to blow a majority.

Yes, we should never cut a single solitary program destined for Quebec, ever, no matter how much of a failure that program is. Anything going to Quebec must be sacrosanct forever. It doesn't matter that he increased transfer payments to Quebec by billions and billions of dollars. He cut some pocket change out of a few minor art grant programs. THAT'S what's important to Quebec.

Well, and that they're basically an inextremely bigoted and provincial folk who will never vote for an Anglo if they can avoid it.

Edited January 30, 2009 by Argus

Argus · January 30, 2009

I sense the schism returning, and the Liberals guaranteed another decade of uninterrupted rule while the idiots from both sides of the right-wing bash out who the true conservative is.

At this point it's hard for me to see what possible difference that would make. We have the liberal government of Stephen Harper spending money like it's going out of style, or we have the liberal government of Michael Ignatieff spending money like it's got an expiry date on each bill. <shrug> Neither of them appears to have any particular ideas or vision for the country or solving its problems either, so big whoop as to which gets in.

M.Dancer · January 30, 2009

At this point it's hard for me to see what possible difference that would make. We have the liberal government of Stephen Harper spending money like it's going out of style, or we have the liberal government of Michael Ignatieff spending money like it's got an expiry date on each bill. <shrug> Neither of them appears to have any particular ideas or vision for the country or solving its problems either, so big whoop as to which gets in.

The possible difference will be foriegn policy and domestic social engineering.

For those reasons Jeanne Kirppatrick parted company with the democrats

Argus · January 30, 2009

The possible difference will be foriegn policy and domestic social engineering.
For those reasons Jeanne Kirppatrick parted company with the democrats

It doesn't look like Igantieff has many left wing social engineering ideas, and his foreign policy appears to be pretty much in synch with Harper.

M.Dancer · January 30, 2009

It doesn't look like Igantieff has many left wing social engineering ideas, and his foreign policy appears to be pretty much in synch with Harper.

Possibly, but the only way Ignatieff will remain as leader is to win....and given that the other pillars of the Liberal party, Rae et al are decidedly left of left....whether their heart is in with helping a centrist party like the one the fought all those years against....

My vote at this point is undecided but I lean...

Born Free · January 31, 2009

Are you writing in from a mental health care facility? IF there are any reform people left in the Conservative party they are keeping themselves mighty low, and have no influence whatever.

Are you suggesting that the party leader isnt a Reform guy?

Bryan · January 31, 2009

Are you suggesting that the party leader isnt a Reform guy?

Not anymore. I can't identify anything left about him that remains from the Reform principles.

Oleg Bach · January 31, 2009

Once the public hear Iggy give a few more of those lame and delluded weak oratories, they will figure out that the guy with the scarey eyes --- and the spooky eye brows is not really an incarnation of the gentleman cosack...but just another....useless professatorial water in one glass and back into the other.....acedemic with no real life experience what so ever -----THEY WILL DISRESPECT HIM...and rightfully so.

Born Free · January 31, 2009

Not anymore. I can't identify anything left about him that remains from the Reform principles.

Reform didnt have any principles (so to speak) nor does Harper..... unless of course you mean stuff like the concept of the non-starter platform item called an elected Senate.

Harper runs the whole show from his office and sadly for him he has to do it while the party is in a minority position. Calling it a "separatist" coalition a month or so ago was a laugher for me when we all know that he was climbing into bed with the Bloc when he was the leader of the opposition. Harper's outright hypocricy kinda turns me off.

"We respectfully point out that the opposition parties, who together constitute a majority in the House, have been in close consultation. We believe that, should a request for dissolution arise this should give you cause, as constitutional practice has determined, to consult the opposition leaders and consider all of your options before exercising your constitutional authority...".

-- Harper Sept 2004

Oleg Bach · January 31, 2009

Reform didnt have any principles (so to speak) nor does Harper..... unless of course you mean stuff like the concept of the non-starter platform item called an elected Senate.
Harper runs the whole show from his office and sadly for him he has to do it while the party is in a minority position. Calling it a "separatist" coalition a month or so ago was a laugher for me when we all know that he was climbing into bed with the Bloc when he was the leader of the opposition. Harper's outright hypocricy kinda turns me off.

"We respectfully point out that the opposition parties, who together constitute a majority in the House, have been in close consultation. We believe that, should a request for dissolution arise this should give you cause, as constitutional practice has determined, to consult the opposition leaders and consider all of your options before exercising your constitutional authority...".

-- Harper Sept 2004

Being a primative and kind of old school simplton...all I remember as an immigrants son was that my dear old mother always sucked up to the "conservators" as she called them - She learned one thing quickly as a buisnesswoman ---conservatives are buisness and they will always be big buisness. It's their value system and the old Scots that knew how to accumulate wealth and hold on to it..That's why our banks are still strong ---good old fashioned frugality and kindly power mongering. Harper will always practice hypocricy...hypocricy is the very base for buisness....and all lawyers know one thing ----It may be immoral but it's legal...ha ha..

Alta4ever · February 1, 2009

Being a primative and kind of old school simplton...all I remember as an immigrants son was that my dear old mother always sucked up to the "conservators" as she called them - She learned one thing quickly as a buisnesswoman ---conservatives are buisness and they will always be big buisness. It's their value system and the old Scots that knew how to accumulate wealth and hold on to it..That's why our banks are still strong ---good old fashioned frugality and kindly power mongering. Harper will always practice hypocricy...hypocricy is the very base for buisness....and all lawyers know one thing ----It may be immoral but it's legal...ha ha..

JUst out of curiosity why are most of the big business owners and bank owners liberal? Demarais, Irvings ect.

Oleg Bach · February 1, 2009

JUst out of curiosity why are most of the big business owners and bank owners liberal? Demarais, Irvings ect.

Those are not the bosses...The best personal security is to not exist in the public eye. Sure they have those that you mentioned to pander to the upper middle management ---- take Conrad Black....I was engaged with the daughter of the older man that trained Conrad...and what I saw was front men like Conrad take the brunt of pubic life - and the old lawyers who are in total control of our monetary system...and government for that matter --- YOU will never know who they are....I have a bit of a hint...but I do know one thing...total power is their goal - and we are but a joke. A farm to be managed. These men I have mentioned use liberals to debase society - a debased public are easy to rule. As one old lawyer whose family wealth came from selling alcohol a couple of generations ago.....ALCOHOL IS THE GREAT DESTROYER>...yet they grow strong though the destruction of others----that's the mindset in a nut shell....liberals are henchmen....old conservators conserve the wealth - like mafia - the unspoken code of silence... all power is conducted in secrecy.