Inner-circle exodus spells trouble for Tories

capricorn · February 12, 2009

There is also the matter of the rumblings of discontent aired by some contributors to Conservative blogs. IMO, critiquing Harper's leadership is healthy and I would think the party brass is lending an ear.

Huh?
From the poll posted by PT above:

Harper's base is solid.

Read my post again. I referred to Conservative blogs. As you know, political internet blogs are mostly populated by political junkies. The poll you refer to was taken among mainstream Canadians. They are two different things altogether. The polling result that shows that among Conservative voters, 90% were in favour of Harper does not have any bearing on what is being debated in the blogs.

August1991 · February 12, 2009

Read my post again. I referred to Conservative blogs. As you know, political internet blogs are mostly populated by political junkies. The poll you refer to was taken among mainstream Canadians. They are two different things altogether. The polling result that shows that among Conservative voters, 90% were in favour of Harper does not have any bearing on what is being debated in the blogs.

Quibble, quibble. Blogs quibble all the time but Harper's base is solid. As the guy said, "Where else where would they go?" To Ignatieff?

Harper's problem is not the base. It is his high negatives (that in fact are unjustified). Ignatieff has no negatives because people don't know him.

----

I have been thinking about this more. Canada has only had two PMs born in Montreal (Abbott and Trudeau) and one PM nominally from Montreal (Mulroney). The greatest risk-lover PMs were Macdonald, Trudeau and Mulroney. King, Borden, St-Laurent, Pearson and Chretien were notoriously cautious. Laurier was Canada's Obama - the guy of "Sunny Ways" (a perfect political definition of risk aversion).

No wonder. Outside of Montreal, Canadians (whether francophone or anglophone) are risk averse.

I wouldn't write off this boring Stephen Harper just yet, even in Quebec outside Montreal. Bland may work in Ontario, but cautious federal reliable works elsewhere. Look at King, a PM who also had a rocky minority start.

----

IMV, ordinary federal Liberals (ie. people like Ruby Dhalla who are in politics to be important) are looking for a magic bullet (a Trudeau, an Obama) to get them back in the spotlight. They think Ignatieff will make them famous again.

It may work. Ignatieff may become PM.

Edited February 12, 2009 by August1991

Smallc · February 12, 2009

It is his high negatives (that in fact are unjustified).

I disagree. It seems that a large number of Canadians do as well.

Oleg Bach · February 12, 2009

Harpers base is solid but it will not remain that way. The national conservative core are people over fifty..with a few wing nut kids who want to be rebelious against the system that raised them -- dem liberals! Soon under the present conditions that exist in most of Canada regarding social and family values - conservatives will be no more - liberalism and socialism are world wide phenomenas. Once the older wiser men and woman fade into time and age - Guys like Harper will have no one to instruct him...and he personally could go liberal at the drop of a hat - it takes more to be conservative then a tough and straight contenence...it takes courage to stand up to the debauched populace that operates like a diseased collective of monkey like conspiracy and dellusion.

Progressive Tory · February 12, 2009

Harpers base is solid but it will not remain that way. The national conservative core are people over fifty..with a few wing nut kids who want to be rebelious against the system that raised them -- dem liberals!

The Conservative (social conservative) movement had it's heyday under George Bush, but it's definitely losing momentum.

The Religous Right started slowly, with calm reason (Preston Manning); until radicals saw an opening and all hell broke loose.

Society and Western civilization has come too far to be dragged back into the middle ages or even the 1950's illusion of family life.

Moonbox · February 12, 2009

The Conservative (social conservative) movement had it's heyday under George Bush, but it's definitely losing momentum.
The Religous Right started slowly, with calm reason (Preston Manning); until radicals saw an opening and all hell broke loose.

Society and Western civilization has come too far to be dragged back into the middle ages or even the 1950's illusion of family life.

It's too bad we don't have a fiscally conservative option out there...we have right wing social wack jobs or more socially liberal alternatives who are crying for more spending....

Progressive Tory · February 13, 2009

It's too bad we don't have a fiscally conservative option out there...we have right wing social wack jobs or more socially liberal alternatives who are crying for more spending....

The Opposition were not for more spending, just effective spending. They were also against permanent tax cuts that could extend the deficit once the recession was over.

I wasn't voting Liberal then, but had to admit that they did a good job cleaning up after Mulroney. They had to make some very tough choices, but in the end it worked.

Sadly, their 13 billion dollar surplus was dwindled away so that we started this economic downturn with no money in the bank.

We don't really know what a Liberal or even a Coaliton budget would have looked like. Maybe it wouldn't be much better. I just trust them to handle the economy wiser than it has been the last three years. Lowering taxes while increasing spending. No sound economic theory supports this. (George Bush did. Enough said)

Edited February 13, 2009 by Progressive Tory

Alta4ever · February 13, 2009

The Opposition were not for more spending, just effective spending. They were also against permanent tax cuts that could extend the deficit once the recession was over.
I wasn't voting Liberal then, but had to admit that they did a good job cleaning up after Mulroney. They had to make some very tough choices, but in the end it worked.

Sadly, their 13 billion dollar surplus was dwindled away so that we started this economic downturn with no money in the bank.

We don't really know what a Liberal or even a Coaliton budget would have looked like. Maybe it wouldn't be much better. I just trust them to handle the economy wiser than it has been the last three years. Lowering taxes while increasing spending. No sound economic theory supports this. (George Bush did. Enough said)

Mulrooney Cleaned up after himself it was his NAFTA that got our economy growing, as much as I dislike Mulrooney, he did impleiment economic policy that would eventually reverse the mess trudeau started.

Luckly we had the reform party become the offical opposition in 96 and hold the liberals feet to the frier so that we started to pay down the debt.

Smallc · February 13, 2009

Luckily we had the reform party become the official opposition in 96 and hold the liberals feet to the fryer so that we started to pay down the debt.

Yes, I'm sure the Liberals were just trembling in fear with thoughts that people would vote en mass for the Reform party if they didn't start to pay down the debt. It couldn't be that they in fact paid down the debt because they thought it was the right thing to do.

Shakeyhands · February 13, 2009

Yes, I'm sure the Liberals were just trembling in fear with thoughts that people would vote en mass for the Reform party if they didn't start to pay down the debt. It couldn't be that they in fact paid down the debt because they thought it was the right thing to do.

SC... get a sense of humour... obvioulsy Alta4ever was joking... obviously... yeah.... obviously.

punked · February 13, 2009

Luckly we had the reform party become the offical opposition in 96 and hold the liberals feet to the frier so that we started to pay down the debt.

Well if it happened in 96 I think you can thank the Bloc then becuase they were the opposition in 1996. June 1997 was the election in which the Reform become the opposition I believe.

lukin · February 14, 2009

The Conservative (social conservative) movement had it's heyday under George Bush, but it's definitely losing momentum.
The Religous Right started slowly, with calm reason (Preston Manning); until radicals saw an opening and all hell broke loose.

Society and Western civilization has come too far to be dragged back into the middle ages or even the 1950's illusion of family life.

What's so bad about family life, PT?

Visionseeker · February 14, 2009

Oh cripes.
A Toronto-based columnist writes an article of pure whimsy about Stephen Harper's political future, concludes that Harper is on the way out and some posters consider this as genuine insight.

Sorry, I have heard this story many times before. Harper himself knows how to bypass the MSM to get his message out. Heck, even the Canadian public is learning how to bypass the MSM.

I'll bet a steak dinner that the National Post will leave the public stage before Stephen Harper does.

Canada is bigger than Toronto and Don Martin is just some guy with a keyboard.

Don is a Calgary native based in Ottawa

But don't let facts get in the way.

Progressive Tory · February 14, 2009

What's so bad about family life, PT?

There is absolutely nothing wrong with family life, just the perception of what family life is supposed to be. It's not always husband, wife and children. Sometimes it's a single mom, a single dad, a blended family, two moms, two dads, etc. We often have the notion that if we don't live in a 'typical' family, then we've failed.

TV shows of the 50's and 60's set lofty standards, and gave the illusion that all of live's problems could be solved in 22 minutes.

I saw a documentary years ago called 'The Brady Bunch Syndrome' ... perfect house, perfect children, perfect life; but out of reach for the average family.

Edited February 14, 2009 by Progressive Tory

Progressive Tory · February 14, 2009

Mulrooney Cleaned up after himself ... Luckly we had the reform party become the offical opposition in 96 and hold the liberals feet to the frier so that we started to pay down the debt.

The Reform won 60 seats in 1997 to become the official opposition; however, the Liberals had a Majority with 155 seats, so could not be held to the fire by anyone.

The Reform always hated the Liberals, but a lot of the bickering at the time was between the Reform and the PC; both laying claim to the Right.

Edited February 16, 2009 by Progressive Tory

lukin · February 14, 2009

There is absolutely nothing wrong with family life, just the perception of what family life is supposed to be. It's not always husband, wife and children. Sometimes it's a single mom, a single dad, a blended family, two moms, two dads, etc. We often have the notion that if we don't live in a 'typical' family, then we've failed.
TV shows of the 50's and 60's set lofty standards, and gave the illusion that all of live's problems could be solved in 22 minutes.

I saw a documentary years ago called 'The Brady Bunch Syndrome' ... perfect house, perfect children, perfect life; but out of reach for the average family.

But you have to admit, that all of what you think is impossible would make the world a better place. Canada's social values are at an all-time low, thanks to far left wing influence. The far left wants children raised by public schools, not by parents. You need to learn to read between the lines PT. I feel you are being bamboozled.

Progressive Tory · February 15, 2009

But you have to admit, that all of what you think is impossible would make the world a better place. Canada's social values are at an all-time low, thanks to far left wing influence. The far left wants children raised by public schools, not by parents. You need to learn to read between the lines PT. I feel you are being bamboozled.

This is not a left wing, right wing issue. Allowing acceptance of all family dynamics, is a good thing for society at large, and the children who don't grow up in what was once considered the 'typical' family.

I don't believe that Canada's social values are at an all-time low. Relationships between parents and children are closer. The old 'children should be seen and not heard' is a thing of the past and as a result children are much smarter and better prepared to handle 'real' life.

They are also more tolerant. In the 1950's children with disabilities were put in homes and hidden away, like they never existed; and so were social problems.

In the 1950's when TV shows suggested that there was not a drug problem, there was actually a rise in heroin use and marijuana was a mainstay of the 'beat generation'. The Andy Griffith show took place in the South, but there was not one single black face; at a time when racial tensions dominated the region.

It was just illegal to show any of this on television, which suggested that all 'families' were white and Christian and the worst problems could be settled with a family meeting. And yet, when we look at those shows now, we see that most adults smoked and the first thing they did when they came home from work was pour a drink from the bar that was always set up in the living room.

Denying there were no social problems didn't mean they didn't exist, but taking them out of hiding, now means we can deal with them, and look for real solutions.

Private schools create a false sense of what is acceptable, and do not prepare children for the real world.

lukin · February 15, 2009

This is not a left wing, right wing issue. Allowing acceptance of all family dynamics, is a good thing for society at large, and the children who don't grow up in what was once considered the 'typical' family.
I don't believe that Canada's social values are at an all-time low. Relationships between parents and children are closer. The old 'children should be seen and not heard' is a thing of the past and as a result children are much smarter and better prepared to handle 'real' life.

They are also more tolerant. In the 1950's children with disabilities were put in homes and hidden away, like they never existed; and so were social problems.

In the 1950's when TV shows suggested that there was not a drug problem, there was actually a rise in heroin use and marijuana was a mainstay of the 'beat generation'. The Andy Griffith show took place in the South, but there was not one single black face; at a time when racial tensions dominated the region.

It was just illegal to show any of this on television, which suggested that all 'families' were white and Christian and the worst problems could be settled with a family meeting. And yet, when we look at those shows now, we see that most adults smoked and the first thing they did when they came home from work was pour a drink from the bar that was always set up in the living room.

Denying there were no social problems didn't mean they didn't exist, but taking them out of hiding, now means we can deal with them, and look for real solutions.

Private schools create a false sense of what is acceptable, and do not prepare children for the real world.

When I see 9 year olds swear in front of their parents, and their parents react like nothing is wrong....this shows me that our country is going downhill. Private schools actually EDUCATE kids. Public schools try to manipulate kids.

Topaz · February 15, 2009

After Harper , who do you think is going to want to run the party, the reformers or the Tories. I say the reformers will want that job and let just see how it goes when it comes time to pick a leader. McKay vs who? As far as Mulroney ans Bush's NAFTA, it might have help back then BUT look at the jobs leaving NA, especially Canada. When Canadians can't buy one thing made in their own country and we have to import our own food, let see how happy Canadians will be. Right now all I see Harper doing is being PM of ALBERTA and trying to get Quebec back.

Smallc · February 15, 2009

Private schools actually EDUCATE kids. Public schools try to manipulate kids.

And what exactly led you to this conclusion?

punked · February 15, 2009

After Harper , who do you think is going to want to run the party, the reformers or the Tories. I say the reformers will want that job and let just see how it goes when it comes time to pick a leader. McKay vs who? As far as Mulroney ans Bush's NAFTA, it might have help back then BUT look at the jobs leaving NA, especially Canada. When Canadians can't buy one thing made in their own country and we have to import our own food, let see how happy Canadians will be. Right now all I see Harper doing is being PM of ALBERTA and trying to get Quebec back.

When jobs are leaving NA NAFTA isn't the problem. See as how only NA can trade within NAFTA.

lukin · February 15, 2009

And what exactly led you to this conclusion?

You should be asking Progressive Tory for his opinion on this subject. It was Progressive Tory who said "Private schools create a false sense of what is acceptable, and do not prepare children for the real world."

Smallc · February 15, 2009

You should be asking Progressive Tory for his opinion on this subject.

I don't agree with her opinion either. I certainly don't agree wit yours.

lukin · February 15, 2009

I don't agree with her opinion either. I certainly don't agree wit yours.

So you think the public education system is doing an excellent job of educating kids?

Smallc · February 15, 2009

So you think the public education system is doing an excellent job of educating kids?

I do in fact think that they do a very good job on the whole. There are of course bad teachers, but that is true no matter what we're talking about. We as a society always focus on the negative outcomes of everything. Children with poor parenting tend to do poorly in school. The reverse is true of children with good parenting. In private school, you don't usually have as many kids with poor parenting. As a result, you often see better outcomes, but it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the school (although it can). Education has to begin at home.