CPC Campaign Strategy: Fear, Fear and More Fear

[nicky10013]

From the Globe and Mail

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politi...article1279929/

Edited September 9, 2009 by Charles Anthony
re-copied article deleted

[Slim MacSquinty]

Is there something scary about Tom Flanagan's take on the truth?

This appears to be his opinion not the Tories, he has not been an advisor to Harper for two or three years now, but is making a good living off their past relationship. Of couse not the way a Liberal would through fat governement advisor contracts but by selling his services to give quotes that people like you find scary.

[Molly]

It is downright hilarious that you would try to disavow his long role in CPC ethics, and very telling that you see the need to do so.

.......................................

I don't entirely agree with some of the analysis in that article.

Certainly pillorying Quebec horrified many people, but many were more appalled at the Animal Farm-like attempt to redefine the very nature of our system of government. (Any respect I might ever have held for John Baird, in particular, evaporated.)

When you pile that misrrepresentation and fundamental disrespect of our parliamentary system, on top of the very vivid attempt to knacker democracy itself by making such an overwhelming, and unfair, change to the way it is achieved... and the timing was the first activity following an election that integrity demanded should not have existed....

No, reviving memories of of that brief period raises hackles far beyond Quebec, and for far more expansive reasons than because a handful of ignorami insulted the Bloc. The sins of the Torys in that period were much greater than the mere sowing of seeds of division, and would be recalled with a shudder, far beyond the province of Quebec.

[Keepitsimple]

I doubt the Conservatives will make it a main theme and as someone said, this article is based on Flanagan's opinions - not those of anyone in the the Conservative Party. Ironically - as with this article, it looks like the media will raise the spectre of the coalition without the Conservatives having to say anything. The media speculation will prompt questions to Conservatives who will rightly say "they've done it before - why should we think they won't do it again?".....which would force Mr. Ignatieff to either say"we will never form a coalition" or he'll continue to say "we'll leave all our options on the table. Either way, I can see Mr. Ignatieff being on the defensive as long as the Conservatives handle it intelligently. After all, the Liberals did do it - and they could do it again - them's the facts.

Edited September 9, 2009 by Keepitsimple

[Molly]

That term 'spectre'... it is again interesting that you assume that bringing up the coalition would (only) be a problem for the Liberal party.

The premise of the article is that the reminder is likely to be as big, or a bigger problem for the Conservatives. I concur with that much of their assessment. I'd love to fight a campaign with that as the issue du jour. If the Conservatives don't bring it up, the other parties should.

[Keepitsimple]

That term 'spectre'... it is again interesting that you assume that bringing up the coalition would (only) be a problem for the Liberal party.

The premise of the article is that the reminder is likely to be as big, or a bigger problem for the Conservatives. I concur with that much of their assessment. I'd love to fight a campaign with that as the issue du jour. If the Conservatives don't bring it up, the other parties should.

Are you saying that the other parties should actually say a coalition would be a good thing?

[Molly]

Far better than hitting the reset button to hold another election then, and far, far better than letting those dirty dogs get away with the intentions of that 'fiscal update'.

A damned shame that the minority Conservatives were so smugly malicious as to make such an alternative necessary.

Those 'other parties' have nothing to be ashamed of in forming it. They should be sheepish about having been so meek as to make the jackals bold.

Edited September 9, 2009 by Molly

[eyeball]

It should be pointed out that we don't we need an election to have a coalition government develop. I'd say the real spectre is probably having another useless election that results in more of the same.

I think a coup would do wonders to help shake Canadians out of their political apathy.

[eyeball]

Are you saying that the other parties should actually say a coalition would be a good thing?

Yes, that's exactly what they should do.

[M.Dancer]

Any coalition that includes the NDP has me voting against it. I already know how to use outlook, I don't need Jack Layton selling me a bill of goods.

[eyeball]

Any coalition that includes the NDP has me voting against it. I already know how to use outlook, I don't need Jack Layton selling me a bill of goods.

Oh well, I guess we'll just have to use death squads for people like you.

[fellowtraveller]

I misread the OP, I thought it said "CBC Campaign of Fear, Fear and More Fear.

[Keepitsimple]

Yes, that's exactly what they should do.

Please Lord, make it so.

[Riverwind]

It should be pointed out that we don't we need an election to have a coalition government develop.

Sure. But any coalition that was not 'on the table' during an election campaign would lack legitimacy because many people who want the Liberals to be government would not support them if there was a formal coalition with the NDP + Bloc.

[nicky10013]

I doubt the Conservatives will make it a main theme and as someone said, this article is based on Flanagan's opinions - not those of anyone in the the Conservative Party. Ironically - as with this article, it looks like the media will raise the spectre of the coalition without the Conservatives having to say anything. The media speculation will prompt questions to Conservatives who will rightly say "they've done it before - why should we think they won't do it again?".....which would force Mr. Ignatieff to either say"we will never form a coalition" or he'll continue to say "we'll leave all our options on the table. Either way, I can see Mr. Ignatieff being on the defensive as long as the Conservatives handle it intelligently. After all, the Liberals did do it - and they could do it again - them's the facts.

I disagree. The way the article is worded is that they've chosen this theme and they're getting Flanagan's opinion on said theme.

[madmax]

Sure. But any coalition that was not 'on the table' during an election campaign would lack legitimacy because many people who want the Liberals to be government would not support them if there was a formal coalition with the NDP + Bloc.

Nonsense.

Fact is, in any situation with a minority prospect, there are many possibilities in forming a government. The are not created until after the MPs are elected.

If the CPC want to be stupid enough to say that they will govern and ignore all others in a minority parliment, let them do so, because it boxes them in a corner and leaves the door open to not being the governing party.

I prefer associations, coalitions, accords, call them what you want, compared to the constant posturing and threat of election when ever a poll fart is released.

Many people claim prior to an election, that they would not support a coalition, or anything because they want their party to win a majority. However, when faced with a minority situation, people on the winning side will always be happy.

Infact, if the CPC and LPC decided tommorrow to create a grand coalition and govern to 2010, the 70% of the public that don't want an election will be quite happy.

Fact is, when Martin lost his CPC dancing partner, the country had a sense of relief when the NDP and Chuck Cadman avoided the CPC thrust for an election.

The LPC cry the blues that the NDP failed to support them after the LPC pulled their own ripcord. If the LPC had a document in writing, they could well have missed an embarrassing election debacle in which they lost power.

Sure the CPC are going to Scream bloody murder over last year.

But it could backfire on them, and I think it will.

What worked in December, was never addressed by the other parties, as the CPC attack machine went into action.

It became a moot point with Ignatieff at the helm.

Infact, I think the LPC will be able to handle this with teflon. It won't stick.

It may inspire the base, but the LPC base may be inspired and they will ignore the CPC rant strategy.

There is also another bad part of bringing this up.

It puts the NDP back in the spotlight, and the NDP is good with controversy and dismal when ignored.

Something like this will pump up their numbers as they put forward the case they didn't have time to make last year.

However, what is truly interesting is that this election looks like a High Road Low road campaign.

And people have had it with the petty antics of the CPC.

They have done a piss poor job governing, and the only thing they will be able to hang their hats on is the pork being delivered to many ridings in the form of stimulust spending, that is in direct relation to the Coalition activity of November, when the CPC were found , out to lunch , petty and wanting for direction.

[Riverwind]

Fact is, in any situation with a minority prospect, there are many possibilities in forming a government. The are not created until after the MPs are elected.

There are many things that politicians can do legally but would be illigitimate in the eyes of the public. For example, it was perfectly legal for David Emerson to switch to the CPC right after the election but I doubt any of the supporters of the coalition accepted that choice simply because it was legal under the rules of parliament.

Many people claim prior to an election, that they would not support a coalition, or anything because they want their party to win a majority. However, when faced with a minority situation, people on the winning side will always be happy.

There is a simple way to resolve this. Call an election and run on a platform where a coalition is advertised as an option and let the votes fall where they may. Running a campaign where a coalition is not mentioned or outright rejected makes that option illegitimate once elected.

[noahbody]

I disagree. The way the article is worded is that they've chosen this theme and they're getting Flanagan's opinion on said theme.

The article does say:

The Conservatives also have another possible major theme: running as the party that won't raise taxes as the country digs out of deficit. It means turning one of the biggest challenges of the next decade, the deficit, into an argument for Tory rule.

This article is likely a way to test market possible themes outside a focus group. I personally think they're missing the boat again. Their war department is run by morons.

[Topaz]

Why is everyone so upset with a "coalition"? Isn't that what Harper had with the NDP and the Bloc to bring down Martins' government?

[M.Dancer]

Why is everyone so upset with a "coalition"? Isn't that what Harper had with the NDP and the Bloc to bring down Martins' government?

Did they so called coalition you mention take control of the government and run the government?

No? Then this so called coalition you mention didn't exist.

[madmax]

There is a simple way to resolve this. Call an election and run on a platform where a coalition is advertised as an option and let the votes fall where they may. Running a campaign where a coalition is not mentioned or outright rejected makes that option illegitimate once elected.

If a party wants to advertise a coalition or anything as an option, they can. But it is stupid to do so, because it automatically suggests your party is surrending its chances to win a Majority. The media, and other parties often try to get parties to commit to a weak position in an election campaign.

If a party wants to say it WON'T support a coalition, association, accord, or any other form of agreement if parliment results in a minority government, they are free to do so. But its foolish to close doors, or not use the tools of parliment for good responsible government.

The fact is, party agreements are ALWAYS an option when in a minority situation. They are there for the taking and no party is above that. Not even the CPC. The only difference this time, is that they nearly had their asses handed to them last November, and since they have virtually alienated themselves from all parties except the Liberals, they can play this little charade.

If Joe Clarke had learned to count, he would have secured the support of the Social Credit. His foolish belief to govern as if he had a majority is the mark of ridicule to this day.

People will choose stability over instability. Parties will govern with the members that the public sends.

Obviously, the David Emmerson affair, demonstrates quite clearly how little the word of the Harper Government, meant. That farce, along with putting their Quebec Bagman in the Senate demonstrated how little campaign policy means, once scum is elected.

Harper broke his word on Floor Crossing and Senate Appointments in record time in 2006. Most of his principles are based on BS, and posturing to get the public to buy into an... ITS THEM not US that do these things.

But the CPC would be the FIRST to break a Coalition Promise if in a position of weakness and seeking a position of strength.

The CPC is just that hypocritical, and their word is not to be trusted in an election campaign.

You think CPC are different then the LPC? The CPC want the LPC to be put in an uncomfortable position during the campaign and it's unlikely to work.

[madmax]

Did they so called coalition you mention take control of the government and run the government?

Topaz has confused Paul Martins Government pulling the plug on itself, only to be fasttracked by the NDP getting out of the bathtub. The NDP didn't even have enough seats to keep the Martin Government alive if it wanted to.

No? Then this so called coalition you mention didn't exist.

And that's where you are WRONG!!! Only it was Jack Layton who walked away this time.

In early 2004 Harper had talks with the BQ and the NDP to create..... A coalition.

As leaders of the opposition parties, we are well aware that, given the Liberal minority government, you could be asked by the Prime Minister to dissolve the 38th Parliament at any time should the House of Commons fail to support some part of the government’s program. 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. Your attention to this matter is appreciated.

-From a letter to then-Governor General Adrienne Clarkson signed by all three opposition leaders: Gilles Duceppe, Jack Layton and Stephen Harper

(September 9, 2004)

THE HORROR THE HORROR!!! HARPER AND DUCEPPE AND LAYTON !!!!

[M.Dancer]

Topaz has confused Paul Martins Government pulling the plug on itself, only to be fasttracked by the NDP getting out of the bathtub. The NDP didn't even have enough seats to keep the Martin Government alive if it wanted to.

And that's where you are WRONG!!! Only it was Jack Layton who walked away this time.

In early 2004 Harper had talks with the BQ and the NDP to create..... A coalition.

THE HORROR THE HORROR!!! HARPER AND DUCEPPE AND LAYTON !!!!

How many sessions did they govern?

[madmax]

How many sessions did they govern?

As many as the November Coalition attempt.

Both in 2004 and 2008, the 3 oppositions parties, wrote to the governor general to suggest alternative government then the present minority that was recently elected.

YES HARPER SIDED WITH THE DREADED BQ.

And if you really wish to read how Harper felt when he was in the passengers seat...

"

So why did you write that letter to the Governor-General with Gilles Duceppe and Jack Layton saying in the event of a confidence vote situation do not call a snap election - are we to assume that therefore you're working to form a coalition?

Harper: There seems to be an attitude in the Liberal government - that they can go in, be deliberately defeated and call an election - that's not how our constitutional system works. The government has a minority - it has an obligation to demonstrate to Canadians that it can govern. That it can form a majority in the House of Commons. If it can't form a majority, we look at other options, we don't just concede to the government's request to make it dysfunctional. I know for a fact that Mr. Duceppe and Mr. Layton and the people who work for them want this Parliament to work and I know if is in all of our interests to work. The government has got to face the fact it has a minority, it has to work with other people."

[M.Dancer]

As many as the November Coalition attempt.

In other words, there was no coalition.