How Ignatieff Can Beat Harper

[August1991]

The old adage says: "Oppositions don't win. Governments defeat themselves." So, I also think that Ignatieff should do little and wait for Harper to make several gaffes. (Harper has possibly made the gaffes this summer, starting with a $1 billion G8/G20 boondoggle in Toronto. If I were Ignatieff, I would milk this for all its billion dollar worth.)

Rather than wait for the right polling numbers, Ignatieff should simply take on Harper in an election and reduce his seat standing. If Harper's seat numbers go down, this eliminates Harper's chance of a majority and makes Harper a non-viable Tory leader.

IOW, it is unlikely that there will be a knock-out punch. This is a war of attrition, and such a war favours Ignatieff since Harper cannot go up now. Reducing Harper to 140 seats or so will be a victory for Ignatieff since he'll be the last man standing.

----

There is something truly democratic in all of this. Who can better speak to Canadians, French and English?

Harper has communication problems in English, and he is quickly turning into another slippery Liberal who says one thing, but does another. In French, Harper has huge communication problems. At the moment in Quebec, Harper appears to be trying to be a unilingual Brian Mulroney. Ugh.

Ignatieff is an unknown quantity in English Canada, and in Quebec in particular. Ignatieff, in French, strikes me as another Victor Goldbloom.

Between Harper and Ignatieff, who can better speak to all Canadians? That's why we have elections in a democracy. Ignatieff will have to face this test now, or later, and the timing of the test is irrelevant.

To beat Harper, Ignatieff simply has to connect better to Canadians, French and English.

Edited August 10, 2010 by August1991

[Remiel]

How in God's name do you think reducing Harper's seats by a grand total of four would count as a victory for Ignatieff?

[August1991]

How in God's name do you think reducing Harper's seats by a grand total of four would count as a victory for Ignatieff?

If Harper doesn't get a majority in the next election or worse, he loses seats - even four, then he will be toast in the Conservative Party. He won't be able to keep his caucus in line - and that's death to any leader.

[TimG]

If Harper doesn't get a majority in the next election or worse, he loses seats - even four, then he will be toast in the Conservative Party. He won't be able to keep his caucus in line - and that's death to any leader.

We are in a new era of Canadian politics. The old rules do not apply. Whether a 4 seat win is perceived as a win or a loss will depend on the context.

[Bryan]

If Harper doesn't get a majority in the next election or worse, he loses seats - even four, then he will be toast in the Conservative Party. He won't be able to keep his caucus in line - and that's death to any leader.

Liberals sure like to dream about that. They keep neglecting to factor in that in winning, that still means that Harper is better than everyone else. When you have almost twice as many seats as the next closest guy, that is still not anything even resembling a loss.

Under the current circumstances in parliament, it would be a very remarkable achievement to get a majority. Something very big would have to happen, like the complete disappearance of one of the top three parties.

[Keepitsimple]

IOW, it is unlikely that there will be a knock-out punch. This is a war of attrition, and such a war favours Ignatieff since Harper cannot go up now. Reducing Harper to 140 seats or so will be a victory for Ignatieff since he'll be the last man standing.

uh....sorry.....but if the Liberals do not win the next election, Ignatieff will have the kitchen cutlery imbedded in his back. A bus tour and one reasonable poll doesn't make the internal rot, infighting and longing for power disappear.

[PIK]

Harper either wins a majority, stays the same and rules like he has one anyways, or he loses seats and we get a new leader who will take us to the promise land. Win Win situation. Canadians are not stupid and are not going to put iggy in charge will what is all going on, people that don't like harper will hold their nose and vote for him.

Edited August 10, 2010 by PIK

[Topaz]

I think if the Libs wait until after the March 31st dead line for the stimulus to be cut off by the Tories and all those projects that aren`t done will be handed over to the provinces and municipalities, Harper will be in deepest trouble with the voters. When asked the question, Are you better off today than`in 2005? I say more will say no and hopefully vote accordly.

[ToadBrother]

Harper either wins a majority, stays the same and rules like he has one anyways, or he loses seats and we get a new leader who will take us to the promise land. Win Win situation. Canadians are not stupid and are not going to put iggy in charge will what is all going on, people that don't like harper will hold their nose and vote for him.

Apparently most folks don't vote for him, noses held or not. But I don't buy that a four seat loss would kill Harper. There are a few folks in the wings to take over from Harper, but for the Tories they're leadership abilities are largely unknowns. Even the old PCs who would just as soon go with Mackay will stick with Harper simply because he's the devil they know. Mackay is damaged goods now, so the most obvious successor/competitor has had his wings clipped.

If the Tories lose the next election (which does not appear to be happening any time soon), then Harper is done. If they win, even with a few less seats, then Harper is safe.

The only other possibility is some sort of coalition, but that's dangerous territory for the Liberals, and Iggy has, since taking over, been justifiably lukewarm about it. And let's remember that even if the Opposition band together during or after the next election, it's Harper who still gets the first kick and the cat. The incumbent Prime Minister in our system always gets the chance to form a government (for instance, until Gordon Brown went to the Queen and resigned his ministry, he was still the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom). Harper has shown some skill at battling back against such a coalition, so I wouldn't even count him out if that situation arose.

Right now, Harper is safer than Iggy. Frankly, I'm not even sure losing the government would necessarily see the Tories boot him out.

[nicky10013]

With a solid campaign, Harper can be beaten right now. Since the last prorogation he's been quite weak. He called the election in 2008 arrogantly with absolutely no platform to run on. Really, the only policy he's really implemented was tax cuts that were universally panned by economists. Since then, his government has been a blank slate, coming up with issues as they've gone along. He's clearly got nothing now, since the only policy initiative that he's been pushing is a tough on crime agenda which not only doesn't work but will expand prison costs by at least two.

[Bonam]

If Harper doesn't get a majority in the next election or worse, he loses seats - even four, then he will be toast in the Conservative Party. He won't be able to keep his caucus in line - and that's death to any leader.

Nonsense. It amazes me how people let their partisanship blind them so.

And seriously August... you're STILL on about the G8/20 security costs?

Edited August 10, 2010 by Bonam

[Bonam]

Since then, his government has been a blank slate, coming up with issues as they've gone along.

Sounds like what a government should be doing. Acting on issues as necessary rather than ramming some agenda down our throats.

[nicky10013]

Sounds like what a government should be doing. Acting on issues as necessary rather than ramming some agenda down our throats.

If you hadn't noticed, they're ramming the census changes down our throats. So nice try.

[Bonam]

If you hadn't noticed, they're ramming the census changes down our throats. So nice try.

Nope, didn't notice any ramming. The census changes are bypassing my throat entirely because I don't give a damn, as I imagine the vast vast majority of other Canadians also don't give a damn.

[nicky10013]

Nope, didn't notice any ramming. The census changes are bypassing my throat entirely because I don't give a damn, as I imagine the vast vast majority of other Canadians also don't give a damn.

See, the thing is, Canadians do care whether or not the government is being led by ideology or reason. It just so happens that the census is proof of that. You may not give a damn, but considering every single organization within Canadian civil society that has commented on the issue has come out on the wrong side of the government. The polls are suddenly very tight. So, it appears that Canadians do give a damn which is the other upsetting thing. This isn't the first time that this government has assumed that they can do what they want because Canadians don't care. It's backfired every time. I say to the government and their supporters, keep on being cynical. The more cynicism, the easier it's going to be to replace you.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/the-long-form-will-return-voters-wont/article1667205/

[ToadBrother]

With a solid campaign, Harper can be beaten right now.

And who exactly is going to run this campaign? If Iggy's performance since he took the helm of the Liberal Party is any indication, he's not up to the task.

Since the last prorogation he's been quite weak. He called the election in 2008 arrogantly with absolutely no platform to run on. Really, the only policy he's really implemented was tax cuts that were universally panned by economists. Since then, his government has been a blank slate, coming up with issues as they've gone along. He's clearly got nothing now, since the only policy initiative that he's been pushing is a tough on crime agenda which not only doesn't work but will expand prison costs by at least two.

Harper may be weak, but the Liberals are just as weak, and very likely weaker. I simply don't buy this illusory notion of yours that the Liberals are operating from any position of strength.

[ToadBrother]

Nope, didn't notice any ramming. The census changes are bypassing my throat entirely because I don't give a damn, as I imagine the vast vast majority of other Canadians also don't give a damn.

Which is what we were told about two prorogations that ended up permanently wiping some reasonable good Tory leads in the polls.

For me, I think the rejection of experts' in statistical sciences for what appears to be purely a partisan stunt is an indication that the Tories still have this sort of anti-intellectual chip on their shoulder.

[nicky10013]

And who exactly is going to run this campaign? If Iggy's performance since he took the helm of the Liberal Party is any indication, he's not up to the task.

He's recieved nothing but good press for his bus tour, even from the National Post. He's proven he can take the campaign schedule. The Party has money. All they need is a message. Furthermore, he really has been out there meeting with people and connecting, far better than anyone expected. Like I said, those who haven't heard him speak will be surprised. He's surprising. One of the best lines I've heard in a while came from him. At a fair on the weekend someone warned him to watch where he stepped because horses had just been through there. He said oh don't worry, I deal with horse shit in ottawa all the time. So really, I don't know where your illusory notion of the Liberals are doomed under Ignatieff comes from. Nobody knows whether a politician will run a good campaign until they've done that.

Harper may be weak, but the Liberals are just as weak, and very likely weaker. I simply don't buy this illusory notion of yours that the Liberals are operating from any position of strength.

I guess this statement is the reason why you're not in politics. What opposition party has ever won coming from a position of strength? Ignatieff is dealing with a Prime Minister that is currently weaker than either Paul Martin or Kim Campbell were before the writ was dropped. Lest we forget, neither Chretien or Harper were ever expected to win. Comparatively speaking, that does the party in a position of strenght.

Edited August 10, 2010 by nicky10013

[Michael Hardner]

He's recieved nothing but good press for his bus tour, even from the National Post. He's proven he can take the campaign schedule. The Party has money. All they need is a message.

Exactly.

Ignatieff is dealing with a Prime Minister that is currently weaker than either Paul Martin or Kim Campbell were before the writ was dropped. Lest we forget, neither Chretien or Harper were ever expected to win. Comparatively speaking, that does the party in a position of strenght.

Sure... but he has no message. Depending on when the election is called, the economy could be stable... or it could be heating up again. In either case, people will undoubtedly look upon Harper has having a steady hand, and pragmatic approach to governing through it. Looking at the situation in the US right now, it's hard to see Canadians not being thankful for that.

And that is from someone who has never voted Conservative and won't vote Conservative next time either. I was hopeful that Ignatieff had something to offer but after all this time I haven't heard any inspiring ideas from the Liberals so I have to assume that there are none.

[nicky10013]

Exactly.

Sure... but he has no message. Depending on when the election is called, the economy could be stable... or it could be heating up again. In either case, people will undoubtedly look upon Harper has having a steady hand, and pragmatic approach to governing through it. Looking at the situation in the US right now, it's hard to see Canadians not being thankful for that.

And that is from someone who has never voted Conservative and won't vote Conservative next time either. I was hopeful that Ignatieff had something to offer but after all this time I haven't heard any inspiring ideas from the Liberals so I have to assume that there are none.

The rule of thumb here is the reason why the party is holding back on releasing a platform is because they don't want it attacked for 2 straight months before the writ is dropped. At this point, I disagree because seeing the CPC go super negative at this juncture would only reinforce that they're driven by ideology rather than reason and are hyper partisan which are the overall attributes dragging them down.

Furthermore, what would you define as inspiring? I thought the foreign policy they released a couple of months ago was inspiring. It called for further integration into the global community so Canadians can compete harder and win more jobs and investment. Also called for more development aid for AIDS and Africa. Naturally, the National Post said it was hardly ambitious for a guy with so much international experience. Which is funny, because really, with the National Post it was either never going to be good enough or it was going to be overly ambitious. My point being that inspiring is an ambiguous term whose definition could be moved to fit an agenda.

[Michael Hardner]

Furthermore, what would you define as inspiring? I thought the foreign policy they released a couple of months ago was inspiring. It called for further integration into the global community so Canadians can compete harder and win more jobs and investment. Also called for more development aid for AIDS and Africa. Naturally, the National Post said it was hardly ambitious for a guy with so much international experience. Which is funny, because really, with the National Post it was either never going to be good enough or it was going to be overly ambitious. My point being that inspiring is an ambiguous term whose definition could be moved to fit an agenda.

I confess to not giving due attention to this item. But then again, I imagine that my attention span on this was typical of most Canadians, so they likely didn't notice either.

[nicky10013]

I confess to not giving due attention to this item. But then again, I imagine that my attention span on this was typical of most Canadians, so they likely didn't notice either.

http://can150.ca/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/canada_world_jun2010.pdf

[Michael Hardner]

http://can150.ca/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/canada_world_jun2010.pdf

Yes, it does sound like they have put some thought into this. But this proposal sounds more like an evolution of our policy, nothing ground shaking. It could be ground shaking, though, if it were developed unlike PR-type initiatives of the past: metrics and stated goals that were clearly articulated with progress measured against those goals regularly measured.

For that matter, they may be doing this now but it's just not commonly known.

[nicky10013]

Yes, it does sound like they have put some thought into this. But this proposal sounds more like an evolution of our policy, nothing ground shaking. It could be ground shaking, though, if it were developed unlike PR-type initiatives of the past: metrics and stated goals that were clearly articulated with progress measured against those goals regularly measured.

For that matter, they may be doing this now but it's just not commonly known.

Unfortunately, it's hard to sell metrics. It's a good idea but to go into that much depth and detail and no one will care.

[Keepitsimple]

Furthermore, what would you define as inspiring? I thought the foreign policy they released a couple of months ago was inspiring. It called for further integration into the global community so Canadians can compete harder and win more jobs and investment.

"further integration into the global community". Now THERE'S a typical feel-good line. Do you have any idea what he was talking about? Inspiring?