Tories making inroads in Toronto: poll

Wild Bill · September 26, 2009

Senate Reform; Gay Rights; Immigration.
Most of the people in the top jobs in Ottawa right now are all ex-reformers with the exception of Baird, Flaherty, Clement all because they were apart of the Harris PCs (which was far more Conservative than the federal PC party) and obviously Peter McKay. Firstly, you can't just deny the fact that about 80% of the seats folded into the party were from the Canadian Alliance (I think the PCs had about 12). What happened was essentially a hostile takeover, and you just don't hand the keys of policy over to the guys you absorbed into your own party. Secondly, you don't just dump your entire platform for a Liberal platform for no reason. They wanted power so they ran on what they knew would win. A Liberal platform. The shift happened in what...about a year? How can a guy like Stephen Harper can give up on his ideals in such a short period of time? It's clear, and books by old policy hogs close to Harper confirm this (I WANT to say Flanagan but I'm not sure.). The plan was move to the centre to win a majority and then move back to the far right.

Once you look at the mechanics of what brought Harper to power, it's not hard to understand what exactly has happened. If Harper really did see the light and became a more humane, moderate politician (which, if we've heard anything in the last year, IS NOT TRUE) then can we trust a guy with such lack of ideology that he can shift himself to any side of the spectrum willy nilly to win and actually mean what he's saying? I say no, but then again people actually believe this guy is a moderate.

You're quite eloquent about your personal opinion. That's nice! We've all got opinions.

Again I ask,

"If you truly believe that the Reform/Alliance is in control of the present Tory party, rather than the old PC crew, then perhaps you could list me at least 3 planks from the Reform platform which are still with the present party? Or 2? Or even 1?!!!"

Are you going to answer my question or not? Giving your opinion is not an answer to my question.

nicky10013 · September 26, 2009

You're quite eloquent about your personal opinion. That's nice! We've all got opinions.
Again I ask,

"If you truly believe that the Reform/Alliance is in control of the present Tory party, rather than the old PC crew, then perhaps you could list me at least 3 planks from the Reform platform which are still with the present party? Or 2? Or even 1?!!!"

Are you going to answer my question or not? Giving your opinion is not an answer to my question.

Uhhh, I listed them at the top. Gay Rights, Immigration and Senate reform. Don't get your panties in a twist because you don't like to read. Or do you just have a habit of ignoring things that don't jive with what you think?

Also, when Mr. Harper gave his "secret speech" and derided his hate for all leftists (god forbid this country have women's rights!) and his need for change of the political system by appointing far right leaning judges and bureaucrats seals it.

nicky10013 · September 26, 2009

Oh, add to that no action on the environment (god forbid we support the Kyoto Accord, nothing more than a socialist tax grab). No real action on the economy, he had to be dragged kicking and screaming to help the economy as he's as laissez-faire as they come.

In addition, he brought in absolutely ridiculous tax cuts because hey, tax cuts are great! Unfortunately, he just created a structural deficit.

Are these not all reform positions? They certainly aren't PC positions, if they were Joe Clark wouldn't be a Liberal.

madmax · September 26, 2009

Following the conversation..... it is clear that with all the divergent tangents going on, there is little discussion on the poll in the thread title. If there was some plausibility of the CPC making inroads in TO, there would be alot more hysteria from the LPC and alot more Boasting from the CPC.

This story already faded away

Keepitsimple · September 26, 2009

Uhhh, I listed them at the top. Gay Rights, Immigration and Senate reform. Don't get your panties in a twist because you don't like to read. Or do you just have a habit of ignoring things that don't jive with what you think?
Also, when Mr. Harper gave his "secret speech" and derided his hate for all leftists (god forbid this country have women's rights!) and his need for change of the political system by appointing far right leaning judges and bureaucrats seals it.

Maybe you should view his entire "secret speech" instead of just the short video that cherry-picked some comments. It's only 10 minutes.....and although it's still a partisan speech, it puts things in context.

"Secret" Speech:

punked · September 26, 2009

Oh, add to that no action on the environment (god forbid we support the Kyoto Accord, nothing more than a socialist tax grab). No real action on the economy, he had to be dragged kicking and screaming to help the economy as he's as laissez-faire as they come.
In addition, he brought in absolutely ridiculous tax cuts because hey, tax cuts are great! Unfortunately, he just created a structural deficit.

Are these not all reform positions? They certainly aren't PC positions, if they were Joe Clark wouldn't be a Liberal.

Actually Canadians think Iggy is as bad for the environment, or as good for the environment as Harper is check out the new AR poll. However Jack scores really good there.

http://www.angusreidstrategies.com/uploads...6_fedpolENG.pdf

nicky10013 · September 26, 2009

Maybe you should view his entire "secret speech" instead of just the short video that cherry-picked some comments. It's only 10 minutes.....and although it's still a partisan speech, it puts things in context.
"Secret" Speech:

I have watched all of it. These are still reform policies. Sorry.

Also agree with Madmax. Story has become a non-issue.

nicky10013 · September 26, 2009

Actually Canadians think Iggy is as bad for the environment, or as good for the environment as Harper is check out the new AR poll. However Jack scores really good there.
http://www.angusreidstrategies.com/uploads...6_fedpolENG.pdf

Does it matter what Canadians "think" or what he's said? In the end, the people decide whether he's believeable or not but it's not like the mob has never made a bad decision. What a load of garbage.

Edited September 26, 2009 by nicky10013

punked · September 26, 2009

Does it matter what Canadians "think" or what he's said? In the end, the people decide whether he's believeable or not but it's not like the mob has never made a bad decision. What a load of garbage.

Said like a Liberal. "It doesn't matter what Canadians think the Liberal party is the true ruling party in Canada." No wonder you guys are out of power and your poll numbers dropping. Canada owes you nothing.

nicky10013 · September 26, 2009

Said like a Liberal. "It doesn't matter what Canadians think the Liberal party is the true ruling party in Canada." No wonder you guys are out of power and your poll numbers dropping. Canada owes you nothing.

Nobody owes anyone anything. All my post was meant to convey is that polls mean nothing when no environmental policy has really come out yet. We know he wants cap and trade but thats about it. It's laughable to think that just because Canadians "think" he's bad on the environment doesn't mean he actually "is" bad on the environment. Surely you can understand that, no?

Wild Bill · September 26, 2009

Uhhh, I listed them at the top. Gay Rights, Immigration and Senate reform. Don't get your panties in a twist because you don't like to read. Or do you just have a habit of ignoring things that don't jive with what you think?
Also, when Mr. Harper gave his "secret speech" and derided his hate for all leftists (god forbid this country have women's rights!) and his need for change of the political system by appointing far right leaning judges and bureaucrats seals it.

Insulting me is not a proper rebuttal. It won't make either of us more right or more wrong. If that's the way you like to play the game I suggest you go over to "rubble.com" where having no manners at all will make someone feel perfectly at home.

Where did you get those 3? Off the top of your head? As I had said, I was there! Reform had definite planks, published in their Blue Book for all to see! The Blue Book was binding on the party.

Your 3 examples look more like 3 of your opinions as to what the parties stand for.

Since the present CPC doesn't publish a Blue Book and to my knowledge has NO similar binding party platform written by its membership I don't see how you can say that there are ANY common planks!

However, for the sake of argument let's look at what Reform officially believed and what the Tories of today SEEM to believe!

Gay rights? Reform took no stand on gay rights! It believed in people rights! The only time it became an issue in the commons was over the vote on gay marriage. Reformers voted the wishes of their constituents, which for the most part was against gay marriage. They couldn't care less about gays living together. They just took exception to such being defined as 'marriage'. If it had have been called a 'civil union' it likely would have been treated different.

Incidently, the Liberals and NDP at the time had perhaps a majority of their members against the idea as well! Their party whips forced them to toe the line and vote for it, even when many MPs had been respecting their constituents wishes or had railed against the idea themselves for years. They were given no choice and if you could find the videotape you would see for yourself Liberal MPs in tears at having to vote yes! I and any other Canadian who watched the televised vote saw it for themselves.

The present party seems to have no official stand on gay rights either. Harper did allow a free vote and seemed quite content with the result. It was obvious that times had changed and that the bill would pass. He just didn't like the idea of a forced vote, like the last one.

So if neither party had an official stand on gay rights how can you use it for an example of common policy? It is just your opinion of how the typical party member felt about the issue, which is hardly the same thing.

Immigration? Reform wanted to drastically cut immigration and also speed up the paperwork process. Has Harper cut immigration? Has the process speeded up at all?

Finally, the Senate! Reform wanted a Triple E Senate! We Haven't heard that term since Manning was Reform Leader. Can you cite even one example of CPC policy or action over a Triple E Senate?

You seem to have some confused notion that Reform was made up entirely of bible thumpers. I was there and I can truthfully say I never actually met one! What's more, the party was more than aware of the need to keep politics and religion separate. When Stockwell Day campaigned for the leadership he kept his evangelical leanings totally low key. After he won the leadership he allowed them to come out and paid a hefty price. Membership and donations dropped like rocks! He nearly ruined the party! A dozen or so of the founding MPs left the party to sit with the old Tories, unable to accept what Day had done.

You know, it might help you to actually google up the old Blue Book and read it, instead of just quoting gossip and propaganda.

The present Tory party has no Blue Book. They have policy developing sessions for members but they are specifically NON-BINDING on the party leadership! This is exactly the way the old PC party ran and exactly the reason why so many deserted that party in droves when the option of Reform came along. Membership in today's party means simply the opportunity to give them money and do grunt work like banging in lawn signs. A member has zero input on party policy.

Once again I ask, why did Manning ever bother?

Keepitsimple · September 26, 2009

Nobody owes anyone anything. All my post was meant to convey is that polls mean nothing when no environmental policy has really come out yet. We know he wants cap and trade but thats about it. It's laughable to think that just because Canadians "think" he's bad on the environment doesn't mean he actually "is" bad on the environment. Surely you can understand that, no?

The biggest problem is the use of the term "Environment". There should be two terms - traditional environment - protecting species, reducing smog, setting aside parkland, clean water, etc. On that, this goverment has been as good, or better than most governments. The second term is "Climate Change" on which this government has taken a wait-and-see attitude.....for sound reasons. Even though "The Environment" is low on the radar right now among major issues for Canadians - behind the economy and healthcare....I'd like to see those same polls break the Environment down to include Climate Change as a specific concern. Canadians get confused about the term Environment - everyone wants to save animals, protect forests, maintain clean air and water.....but how much to they really want to believe about human induced Climate Change - and how strongly do they feel about it as a major issue? We need to ask them - in relation to the economy, healthcare, crime, etc.

nicky10013 · September 26, 2009

Insulting me is not a proper rebuttal. It won't make either of us more right or more wrong. If that's the way you like to play the game I suggest you go over to "rubble.com" where having no manners at all will make someone feel perfectly at home.

Considering you ignored the fact that I did indeed post 3 platform planks and just didn't comment on them, what I had posted earlier was apt. It got you to respond, no?

Where did you get those 3? Off the top of your head? As I had said, I was there! Reform had definite planks, published in their Blue Book for all to see! The Blue Book was binding on the party.
Your 3 examples look more like 3 of your opinions as to what the parties stand for.

Since the present CPC doesn't publish a Blue Book and to my knowledge has NO similar binding party platform written by its membership I don't see how you can say that there are ANY common planks!

So, just because the CPC doesn't put their policies in a book and make it binding means that NONE of them are similar at all? With that reasoning anyone can prove anything. Perhaps the reason why there is no binding policy because Harper knows that if he lets the members democratically decide the platform, there will be a reform pt 2 and they'll never win an election. As I said before, Harper has deliberately moved himself to the centre in hopes of duping 40% of the population to give him a majority.

However, for the sake of argument let's look at what Reform officially believed and what the Tories of today SEEM to believe!
Gay rights? Reform took no stand on gay rights! It believed in people rights! The only time it became an issue in the commons was over the vote on gay marriage. Reformers voted the wishes of their constituents, which for the most part was against gay marriage. They couldn't care less about gays living together. They just took exception to such being defined as 'marriage'. If it had have been called a 'civil union' it likely would have been treated different.

Incidently, the Liberals and NDP at the time had perhaps a majority of their members against the idea as well! Their party whips forced them to toe the line and vote for it, even when many MPs had been respecting their constituents wishes or had railed against the idea themselves for years. They were given no choice and if you could find the videotape you would see for yourself Liberal MPs in tears at having to vote yes! I and any other Canadian who watched the televised vote saw it for themselves.

The first paragraph is spin and the second is lies. No political party in Canada is going to run on definitively banning gay marraige because they're never going to win an election. Maybe that's why it wasn't in "the blue book." However, everyone knows that most members of the party were morally opposed to it. In Harper's free vote I wonder how many ex-reform/alliance members voted for the legalisation of gay marriage? The only person in the party who supported it was maybe Belinda Stronach and Peter McKay. The rest of the bench never stood up. Seriously. As for the Liberals being opposed to gay marraige and the NDP, I'd really honestly like to know what reality you've been living in. I'm sure a few members of the Liberals were opposed to it, but to claim that the NDP was EVER against gay rights is ludicrous. To also claim that Liberals were crying for having to vote for it, if that was REALLY the case, then it would've been defeated in the free vote. Maybe they were crying because it was a new day for freedom in Canada. Ever think of it that way?

The present party seems to have no official stand on gay rights either. Harper did allow a free vote and seemed quite content with the result. It was obvious that times had changed and that the bill would pass. He just didn't like the idea of a forced vote, like the last one.
So if neither party had an official stand on gay rights how can you use it for an example of common policy? It is just your opinion of how the typical party member felt about the issue, which is hardly the same thing.

He ran against it in his first election to the PMO. Held a free vote, saw how popular it was and decided not to shove it down our throats yet. Has to wait for the majority.

Immigration? Reform wanted to drastically cut immigration and also speed up the paperwork process. Has Harper cut immigration? Has the process speeded up at all?

Just look at Jason Kenney's almost racist immigration office and see if anything has changed from the reform days. The only person the Canadian government has tried to bring home from abroad was a white, christian woman from Alberta who was convicted of a crime in Mexico

Finally, the Senate! Reform wanted a Triple E Senate! We Haven't heard that term since Manning was Reform Leader. Can you cite even one example of CPC policy or action over a Triple E Senate?

Stephen Harper pledged not to appoint a senator. Whoops!

You seem to have some confused notion that Reform was made up entirely of bible thumpers. I was there and I can truthfully say I never actually met one! What's more, the party was more than aware of the need to keep politics and religion separate. When Stockwell Day campaigned for the leadership he kept his evangelical leanings totally low key. After he won the leadership he allowed them to come out and paid a hefty price. Membership and donations dropped like rocks! He nearly ruined the party! A dozen or so of the founding MPs left the party to sit with the old Tories, unable to accept what Day had done.
You know, it might help you to actually google up the old Blue Book and read it, instead of just quoting gossip and propaganda.

The present Tory party has no Blue Book. They have policy developing sessions for members but they are specifically NON-BINDING on the party leadership! This is exactly the way the old PC party ran and exactly the reason why so many deserted that party in droves when the option of Reform came along. Membership in today's party means simply the opportunity to give them money and do grunt work like banging in lawn signs. A member has zero input on party policy.

Once again I ask, why did Manning ever bother?

As I mentioned before, just because they don't have a book doesn't mean it isn't there. Harper is running on a phony Liberal platform and you can see it makes him green. There's really no other reason why he's so horribly uncomfortable when speaking in public. He sure seemed at home in that video released a few weeks back. One of the best speeches I've seen him give, if it wasn't for the fact that it was filled with right wing republican garbage.

As for bible thumpers, to assume that him coming out as an evangelical led to a drop in donations because the base hated it is a whopping fallacy. To run a national campaign you need a large donor base. Ontario. Ontario is not Alberta or Saskatchewan. People liked Stockwell Day. He was young and energetic and was very popular in Ontario. When it came out that the "absolutely ridiculous Liberal hidden message propaganda" was more or less true in that Day was a evangelical social conservative, support in Ontario plummeted.

Another Reform thing Harper has kept alive is the tactic of divide and conquer. Reform was mainly a western party, and essentially that's what the CPC is today. They play east off west and the rest of Canada off Quebec. Something the Reformers and moreso the Alliance were great at.

Edited September 26, 2009 by nicky10013

Keepitsimple · September 26, 2009

To also claim that Liberals were crying for having to vote for it, if that was REALLY the case, then it would've been defeated in the free vote. Maybe they were crying because it was a new day for freedom in Canada. Ever think of it that way?

I think you may have gone a bit overboard with that. Bill C38 may not have even passed if Liberal Cabinet members had a chance for a free vote. They were obligated, as a confidence measure, to vote in favour - which they did - 36-0. Backbenchers voted in favour 59-32. The total vote was 158-133 in favour with 15 absentees. If the Cabinet Ministers had been allowed a free vote - and voted in the same ratio as the backbenchers, their vote would have been about 24-12 and would have created a virtual tie. Interestingly, most of the 15 absentees were likely to be MP's who would have voted against the bill.

In general, Canadians were very receptive to all forms of registered domestic partnerships - the accpetance of gay and lesbian partners fulfilling their responsibilities to each other and gaining most of the tax benefits of heterosexual married couples. The friction was in the definition of marriage and still exists to this day although the battle is exhausted and the time has long come to move on. But for the record - that's what Conservatives and many, many other Canadians have mostly been opposed to - changing the definition of Marriage.

I still get upset thinking about how I, and many others, were ready to embrace Domestic Partnerships and most if not all of the legal trappings of marriage for Homosexual and Lesbian couples.....yet the Definition of Marriage change was rammed down my throat as a purely partisan attempt by Liberals to cast Conservatives as intolerant.

Edited September 26, 2009 by Keepitsimple

punked · September 26, 2009

I think you may have gone a bit overboard with that. Bill C38 may not have even passed if Liberal Cabinet members had a chance for a free vote. They were obligated, as a confidence measure, to vote in favour - which they did - 36-0. Backbenchers voted in favour 59-32. The total vote was 158-133 in favour with 15 absentees. If the Cabinet Ministers had been allowed a free vote - and voted in the same ratio as the backbenchers, their vote would have been about 24-12 and would have created a virtual tie. Interestingly, most of the 15 absentees were likely to be MP's who would have voted against the bill.
In general, Canadians were very receptive to all forms of registered domestic partnerships - the accpetance of gay and lesbian partners fulfilling their responsibilities to each other and gaining most of the tax benefits of heterosexual married couples. The friction was in the definition of marriage and still exists to this day although the battle is exhausted and the time has long come to move on. But for the record - that's what Conservatives and many, many other Canadians have mostly been opposed to - changing the definition of Marriage.

Doesn't matter once it happens it is offend hard to go back as people realize it doesn't actually matter and does not effect them. It will never an issue again. We are on a slow march toward the future and that is in the past get over it.

Wild Bill · September 26, 2009

Considering you ignored the fact that I did indeed post 3 platform planks and just didn't comment on them, what I had posted earlier was apt. It got you to respond, no?
So, just because the CPC doesn't put their policies in a book and make it binding means that NONE of them are similar at all? With that reasoning anyone can prove anything. Perhaps the reason why there is no binding policy because Harper knows that if he lets the members democratically decide the platform, there will be a reform pt 2 and they'll never win an election. As I said before, Harper has deliberately moved himself to the centre in hopes of duping 40% of the population to give him a majority.

The first paragraph is spin and the second is lies. No political party in Canada is going to run on definitively banning gay marraige because they're never going to win an election. Maybe that's why it wasn't in "the blue book." However, everyone knows that most members of the party were morally opposed to it. In Harper's free vote I wonder how many ex-reform/alliance members voted for the legalisation of gay marriage? The only person in the party who supported it was maybe Belinda Stronach and Peter McKay. The rest of the bench never stood up. Seriously. As for the Liberals being opposed to gay marraige and the NDP, I'd really honestly like to know what reality you've been living in. I'm sure a few members of the Liberals were opposed to it, but to claim that the NDP was EVER against gay rights is ludicrous. To also claim that Liberals were crying for having to vote for it, if that was REALLY the case, then it would've been defeated in the free vote. Maybe they were crying because it was a new day for freedom in Canada. Ever think of it that way?

He ran against it in his first election to the PMO. Held a free vote, saw how popular it was and decided not to shove it down our throats yet. Has to wait for the majority.

Just look at Jason Kenney's almost racist immigration office and see if anything has changed from the reform days. The only person the Canadian government has tried to bring home from abroad was a white, christian woman from Alberta who was convicted of a crime in Mexico

Stephen Harper pledged not to appoint a senator. Whoops!

As I mentioned before, just because they don't have a book doesn't mean it isn't there. Harper is running on a phony Liberal platform and you can see it makes him green. There's really no other reason why he's so horribly uncomfortable when speaking in public. He sure seemed at home in that video released a few weeks back. One of the best speeches I've seen him give, if it wasn't for the fact that it was filled with right wing republican garbage.

As for bible thumpers, to assume that him coming out as an evangelical led to a drop in donations because the base hated it is a whopping fallacy. To run a national campaign you need a large donor base. Ontario. Ontario is not Alberta or Saskatchewan. People liked Stockwell Day. He was young and energetic and was very popular in Ontario. When it came out that the "absolutely ridiculous Liberal hidden message propaganda" was more or less true in that Day was a evangelical social conservative, support in Ontario plummeted.

Another Reform thing Harper has kept alive is the tactic of divide and conquer. Reform was mainly a western party, and essentially that's what the CPC is today. They play east off west and the rest of Canada off Quebec. Something the Reformers and moreso the Alliance were great at.

Sorry, I just can't follow your reasoning. I never accepted your 3 planks as planks! As I said, they seem to me to be just opinion. You blow off the old Reform idea about binding membership policies as a reason why Harper does it differently, as a rebuttal to my point that the two parties are not the same???!!!

You make statements like "EVERYONE KNOWS that most members of the party..." That's YOUR opinion, by definition! Hardly gospel!

You define Reform as mainly a western party when we drew several million votes in Ontario alone. If you want to play numbers, Reform did far better in eastern Canada than the Liberals did in the West! Or are you going to argue things differently, both ways?

As for the donations from Ontario, forgive me if I don't take your opinion as fact as to what happened after Day. The fact that I was personally involved in fundraising here in Ontario for some years and saw the numbers both before and after means I would have to deny my own direct experience in order to believe YOU!

This is pointless. I will not waste my time again.

OddSox · September 27, 2009

As for bible thumpers, to assume that him coming out as an evangelical led to a drop in donations because the base hated it is a whopping fallacy. To run a national campaign you need a large donor base. Ontario. Ontario is not Alberta or Saskatchewan. People liked Stockwell Day. He was young and energetic and was very popular in Ontario. When it came out that the "absolutely ridiculous Liberal hidden message propaganda" was more or less true in that Day was a evangelical social conservative, support in Ontario plummeted.

Interesting emphasis on Stockwell Day's religious beliefs when a recent study shows that most evangelical Christians have historically voted for the Liberals...

The Liberals used to be a natural home for evangelical Christians, who care about issues such as social justice. In 1996, the Liberals were by far the most popular party with evangelical Christians in every region except the West, where the Reform Party was slightly more popular.
However, those voters began to move away from the Liberals after the party denigrated and marginalized them, the study says.

"Each time Canadians went to the federal polls in 2004, 2006 and 2008, the Liberals only managed to hold on to roughly half of the evangelical voters they had at the previous election," says the report."

http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2009...085566-sun.html

Keepitsimple · September 27, 2009

Interesting emphasis on Stockwell Day's religious beliefs when a recent study shows that most evangelical Christians have historically voted for the Liberals...
http://www.torontosun.com/news/canada/2009...085566-sun.html

The Liberals have gone much further to alienate what used to be their base....that's why in my opinion, we are only witnessing the start of a death spiral. As you pointed out, evangelical Christians started abandoning the Liberals in 1996 - because they felt marginilized. Then came the immigrants - a bastion of Liberal supporters but now being wooed over to the Conservatives - a generation has passed and they no longer believe that Liberals are the only party that cares about them. They took their vote for granted - and that comes from the communities themselves. And now we're seeing - for the first time in ages - the Conservatives leading in the polls in Toronto. Why? Because again, the Liberals have taken Toronto for granted - after three majority governments - Toronto got nothing from the Liberals. The most recent poll showed that the last urban centre where the Liberals were leading was Montreal. There appears to be a stampede for the Liberal exits.

jdobbin · September 27, 2009

There appears to be a stampede for the Liberal exits.

So ultimately you think the choice will between New Democrats and Conservatives?

punked · September 27, 2009

So ultimately you think the choice will between New Democrats and Conservatives?

I notice every province has a social democrat party that isn't true of the other two.

Jerry J. Fortin · September 27, 2009

I notice every province has a social democrat party that isn't true of the other two.

What is that party in Alberta?

punked · September 28, 2009

What is that party in Alberta?

That would be the NDP they have 2 seats and got 10% of the vote.

jdobbin · September 28, 2009

What is that party in Alberta?

Perhaps you mean what New Democrat party in Quebec.

Keepitsimple · September 28, 2009

So ultimately you think the choice will between New Democrats and Conservatives?

Canada is a two party country and we need a strong Liberal party. They just have not taken the healthy steps to rearchitect the party. Ignatieff is proving to be just as bad as the cynics thought he would be.....they've wasted 3 years. So to answer your question, I'm afraid that right now there is no choice other than Conservative. I have until now thought that a Conservative majority just wasn't in the cards but it seems that Ignatieff and the Liberals are handing one to him.....and I don't see anything on the horizon that will change that. I'm not happy about the disfunction of the Liberals but at this point in time, I think a Conservative majority will benefit Canada and in the end, it will force the Liberals to get their act together.