Should Stephen Harper Resign?

[DAC]

Wake up, takeanumber. How many seats have the red tories won in the last 3 elections? The Conservative downfall began 15 years ago when the red tories (in your words) spat in the face of the social conservatives, & said, "We want your votes, but we don't want you in our party". So Reform was erected ... and before long the red tories party was toast.

It's called vote splitting.

In case you didn't notice, but the Con vote, if you added the PC vote and the Alliance vote from the last election, they didn't equate. In fact: it was way down.

Where did the red tory vote go?

I noticed, but I also noticed that the full spectrum present Conservative party got a whole lot more votes that either part of it did before, and 3-4 times the seats that the Red Tory PC party did in the previous election.

Red Tories alone are not much of an alternative to the Liberals. A Conservative party that welcomes all conservatives fully (that means they have a chance to run for office and even to try for PM) is a real alternative. And it shows in the results.

[takeanumber]

The fact that NDP and Bloc vote shares really rallied and the Cons and Libs faultered (with the Cons taking the worst hit) suggests that the real alternative is in third parties.

Not the stogy old ones.

[maplesyrup]

Three strikes, you're out

In the last three federal elections, Canadian conservatives have put forward three ideologically driven leaders whose base was Alberta. Preston Manning, Alberta treasurer Stockwell Day and Stephen Harper all carried right-wing, regional baggage, and they all met the same fate: defeat.

If the moral of the story isn't obvious by now, it should be. This is a country of the soft and sober pragmatic centre where dogma is a dog and where leaders of an ideological stripe — from the left or the right — need not apply.

They've never won.

LM has a point worth considering.

[DAC]

In the last three federal elections, Canadian conservatives have put forward three ideologically driven leaders whose base was Alberta. Preston Manning, Alberta treasurer Stockwell Day and Stephen Harper all carried right-wing, regional baggage, and they all met the same fate: defeat.

If the moral of the story isn't obvious by now, it should be. This is a country of the soft and sober pragmatic centre where dogma is a dog and where leaders of an ideological stripe — from the left or the right — need not apply.

They've never won.

LM has a point worth considering.

True. But the problem is that Red Tories do even worse in this land. Most who support their moral views favour the Liberal or NDP economic views. Most who share their economic views find it impossible to hold their noses and vote for their moral views.

Further, I'd suggest the real test of Harper and the Conservative party will come in the next election, when they've had a chance to hold a convention, and hammer out an agreed on official policy.

[Reverend Blair]

I'm not at all sure that they can develop a strategy and platform and stick to it, DAC.

Harper has been trying to silence those in his party who would openly discuss their right-extremist views since he was a policy guy for Manning. He has been unable to do so.

One of the things Harper is forever pushing is free votes in the House of Commons. While I support free votes in principle, within our present system it does not work well. Too many voters vote for a party, not an individual, and there is too much emphasis on the leaders. That leaves Harper in a position where he can either say where he really personally stands, or he can impose party discipline.

[playfullfellow]

Harper has been trying to silence those in his party who would openly discuss their right-extremist views since he was a policy guy for Manning. He has been unable to do so.

It has been a difficult job because the party also wants to let their MP's vote for what their constituents want. Some areas will want different things than other areas.

If there were free votes, I think that you would see that there are people in each party that also hold these "extreme right" views just as there are people in the Cons that have some extreme left views.

Once they develope a platform, then we can see where they want to head as a party. It may be good, it may be bad. At least then this hidden agenda crap can be thrown out the window. As with any party, they will have their good points and their bad points, dependant on each persons ideology and beliefs.

Harper does not need to resign, he did a decent job. Now he and the Cons need to shake the mud off and get on with business. They need to make all issues national views and not east west views. They also need to keep a really close eye on the books and make sure that nothing weird is going on in the budgets. They need to put forth definative numbers each time the Liberals come forth with their budgets and show Canadians that they also do their homework. They also need to be sure that any in fighting is nipped in the bud right away. They need to come forth as a unified party that does not squack about getting a new leader everytime things dont go their way.

[Michael Hardner]

Incidentally, those TV ads must have cost the Liberals a bundle. Or did they?

Hmmm. Explain ?

[August1991]

Hmmm. Explain ?

The buy time we'd know about (although even there, it's not obvious). But the sponsorship scandal was all about the murky, undocumented relationships between Public Works, the Liberal Party and advertising/consulting/marketing agencies. Who knows how many other ads were prepared, tested, changed until the final ones were accepted? Who paid for all that?

[Cartman]

As already said my Maples, Cons need a policy convention so people have something to look at. Harper did a pretty good job considering he lacked such policy. Of course, then he will have to defend such policies.

Reverend, I disagree with free votes in principle. It seems to me like politicians would be running the country by polls and "dogs know what to do with polls". A party should release its platform and remain failthful to it. Otherwise, I doubt that we would have very much innovative legislation.

Trudeau - no fault divorce, gay rights

Mulroney - FTA, NAFTA

Chretien - Kyoto

[Reverend Blair]

That leaves people feeling unrepresented though. Look at what happened with agricultural issues this past election. Not one of the major parties talked about them. I think the NDP could have held Nystrom's and Proctor's seats if they had gone after the Conservatives on the Wheatboard, not fining Cargill for contempt of Parliament, and not introducing law limiting the rights of corporations in genetically modified crops.

Those are actually NDP stances on those issues, ones that the farmers in the area agree with. They are the opposite of the Conservative policies. If you go to Nystrom's riding and sit in the bar with a bunch of farmers and actually listen to what they are saying, they support the NDP policies (most of them don't know that because of the political silence on those issues, but they do).

Shouldn't a Conservative MP be able to stand up in the House and vote to keep family farms alive for his voters?

That's where my support in principle comes from. Like I said, I don't think it can be made to work within the current system. I could see it working under proportional representation, depending on the model chosen, because discussion and cooperation between parties and factions within parties would have to become a working reality.

[maplesyrup]

Harper's absence is a little show for his fans. He is having a bit of a temper tantrum but he will come around.

Bqarbara Yaffe wrote about Harper's leadership today in the V. Sun.

She said if he wants to having a chance of winning, he is going to have to moderate his views. Can he, will he, do it? Of course he will.

The policy convention will prove enlightening.

Never a dull moment in Canadian politics.

[takeanumber]

Noticed how McKay was like "oh, he should stay".

Harper is a lot like an Indian (india) politician. Just waiting to see who steps out to challege him, and then he'll come back and crush them.

It's predictable.

[takeanumber]

Harper had many, and is a policy and strategist himself.

Stock had Ron Love, and he didn't reach out to Ontario. He made many mistakes but has learned a number of lessons. Stock has earned back my respect but I still don't want him to lead the party.

Well, this was the only attempt to answer my question about who was Harper's chief strategist advisor.

Rod Love was indeed one of Day's advisors. Good job.

I was looking for the chief strategist though.

Since nobody here can answer the either question correctly, little though read any of their books, nor are familiar with their general ideological disposition (or the research that was done by Carty Cross and Young on elite-mainstream party dispositions), there's no point in me wasting my efforts on the likes of such ignorant conservatives.

All the more gauling when you consider that it's these same conservatives who think they know everything about their own positions and party.

If you can answer the question, then I'll write the essay.

If nobody here can, then screw it.

Regards,

Takeanumber.

[idealisttotheend]

Who is Ted Morton??

(Do I get 1000 pts)

[August1991]

Flanagan. He probably failed TalkNumb at U of Calgary. That would explain TalkNumb's visceral dislike for Harper et al.

[playfullfellow]

I agree with august, flanagan is the man.

[takeanumber]

Wow.

I am impressed.

Nah, Flannagan never gave me an F.

Nah, Morton never gave me an F, either.

Yes, Flannagan is Harper's, and Morton was Day's.

Alright, I'll write a brief little piece on the subject.

If anybody has ever read "Game Theory and Canadian Politics", University of Toronto Press, 1997 (or 1998), there's a chapter in there on the central voter theorem.

Now that alone isn't too impressive, because you can find similar works in other books.

But he applies it specifically to the Reform Party's 'invasion from the right', which is relevant.

One thing you gotta understand with Flannagan is that he really believes, in spite of his own work, that you can have a 'principled' right win party in Canada.

The keyword here is 'principled', and you can see this word echoed by other MP's in recent months.

Now the first time I heard the term 'principled' in this context, it was in context to the median voter theorem, and it was, as I recall, in response to a question from one of the many Conservative prime minister types (panties completely drenched in goo over the prospect) and it was with respect to social conservative values.

Fast forward to 2004. In a study done by Carty Cross and Young (it's probably been published...I actually got the book before it was published), they ploted out the differences between the party elite and the grassroots.

What was neat to see was that the Liberal elite and the Liberal Grassroots shared the exact same ideological space.

The Conservatives?

Nowhere close. Whereas the PC mainstream was far more centrist, with elites which were slightly more rightist, the Alliance grassroots were miles away from the PC's on one axis, and right together on another. The Alliance Elite were way, way off to the far right.

The Party Elite of the alliance believes that it does not have to comprimise. This is evident in the policy papers, and academe that's pushed out from the University of Calgary each year.

For the Elite, it's not so much arrogance or a matter of hiding their true feelings, rather, they're convinced that deep inside every mainstream Canadian, there's this mean little bastard that wants a socially conservative country.

Yet, the party Elite, in SPITE of empirical data that points otherwise, including the Carty Cross and Young study, continue to deny that this is the fact.

The split between the PC's and the Alliance wings are very deep, and worse, they can be measured.

So long as the socially conservative elites remain unpurged from the party, the party will never be able to moderate in the way that the Liberals have been able to.

There's a disconnect there in the transmission of power, and that's what's really important here.

On that basis, it's not only Harper that should resign, but the whole lot of them ought to be sidelined in the party.

Anyway, you can dismiss what I've just said, but you know, I used a lot of that material to predict the election correctly, so, that should be enough to bolster my cred.

Regards,

Takeanumber.

[playfullfellow]

Tom Flanagans and Tspehen have similar views. This does not necessarily mean that they will become policy after the next policy convention. Then again I could be wrong, this is a time will tell issue.

You raise a lot of interesting views takeanumber, can't say i agree with a lot of them but that's debate isn't it?

[takeanumber]

It most certainly is.

You and I have intelligent debates, I think, very civil.

The problem isn't just Flannagan...it's just that his views are repeated by many of his students, as gospel.

Moreover, they're echo'd in the halls of the Calgary Herald editorial board, and for a long time, at the National Post.

It's the party elite, and it's all sides...the academe side (which I'm most familiar with) which by and large, synthesizes thought, and is disseminated amongst the party elite and MP's.

For instance, Randy White's comments, virtually word for word, could be taken out of two books by Morton an Knopff. , and to a lesser extent, from Brodie. (A student, now PHD, of the 3 wisemen).

That's the reality.

Now I'm not going to say that they're evil -- I've been pwned repeatedly by several of them, and I'm a much better person and thinker for it.

However, I'm going to say that most Canadians don't agree with them, and even more wouldn't agree with them, if they were able to understand the real substance behind their arguements.

However, there exists social conservatives who'll use their material for, in my view, regressionary purposes as opposed to static or progressive purposes.

So, that said:

Will Harper, and really, the rest of that academic elite/business elite; say to themselves, look -- Manning sacrificed himself for the party and for the West, maybe we should do the same?

Or

Are they going to cling to the Flannaganist belief that the median voter thinks the same way that they do, and that they're really the victim of 'liberal' media and general negative ads? Perhaps the Court Party is just a nut too hard to crack? And they gotta keep at it, because the Median voter believes in them.

And for me, the belief that the median voter agrees with them is patently false. I see it with my own eyes in the CES 2000 and CES 1997, I see it in Cardy Cross and Young, and I even see it in other datasets and studies.

For any electoral success, the party needs to move to the median voter, and morevoer, the elite need to move even farther than it's members. And you know, I don't think the elite of the party can bring themselves to 'water down' any of their beliefs.

But you can't just glaze over social policy and then expect a blank check. And most Canadians won't do that.

[playfullfellow]

For any electoral success, the party needs to move to the median voter, and morevoer, the elite need to move even farther than it's members. And you know, I don't think the elite of the party can bring themselves to 'water down' any of their beliefs.

It will depend on whether they feel that if their beliefs will destroy the party or move it ahead. A lot of people (median voters) do believe in the basics of their beliefs, maybe not the whole package deal but the basics. It will also boil down to the conservative members, we have seen in the past that they will jump ship if they feel the party is going off course and they will do it again. I can agree with some of their views and I can also disagree with other views but we all have to be vigilant that the elite dont rule the party completely, ie Chretien and his cronies, it will lead to bad government.

[caesar]

but we all have to be vigilant that the elite dont rule the party completely, ie Chretien and his cronies, it will lead to bad government.

Are you talking about whether the Conservatives should change leaders???? How does Chretien have any part in that.

[maplesyrup]

Why he's not the champ

So Stephen Harper is ruminating about a career path change?

For his personal happiness, if not his sanity, he probably should.

Let's start with the immediate -- and in a way, less important reasons for that view. What happened on June 28 was in part the Conservative leader's own fault. Both Harper and his advisers hit the deep woods with a few of their tee-shots in an election where the fairways couldn't have been wider.

 

Knowing that 70% of Canadians abhorred the war in Iraq, Harper waited until the bitter end of the campaign to say that he wouldn't send troops to this ghastly misadventure of death, chaos, and Orwellian double-speak given to the world by the Bush administration. No one was impressed with Stephen's conversion on the road to electoral defeat, if only because his stated reason for the volte-face was that the war wasn't popular with Canadians. One got the feeling that it was still a good cause as far as Harper was concerned.

How in the world could Canadians ever elect a prime minister, with the immense power of the PMO, with views on Iraq like that?

[willy]

For any electoral success, the party needs to move to the median voter, and morevoer, the elite need to move even farther than it's members. And you know, I don't think the elite of the party can bring themselves to 'water down' any of their beliefs.

Be clear Conservatives do not have to move all voters but only the “undecided” that went Liberal this time around. That is 5 to 10% of voters. They do not need to build a new. But they do need a policy convention and learn some lessons from this past election.

If this 30% who voted for them this time out can become the base, the swing vote will make Conservatives government.

Progressive is an interesting word in politics, the Liberals would have you think now that they were the only good Tories, or that they now represent progressive thinking but Jack and the NDP say they are even more progressive. If progressive means to lack a clear moral compass they are progressive but I am not sure why the Conservatives would want to embrace that definition. If progressive meant ensuring self determination, security, and ability to gain and keep wealth and ensuring health and education to the greatest number of people possible, sure lets be progressive. In Canadian politics progressive tends to mean supporting large expensive programs that few benefit from e.g. universal child care.

The Conservatives need to define in policy how personal moral views will or will not be expressed in law. The view of Randy White are common in both the Conservative and Liberal party and they represent a large number of Canadians but they don’t represent what direct policy or law may become of these views. Example I am pro-life but I don't think it should be law, so you need not worry about this personal belief. I personally believe God sanctifies marriage not the state so I have no problem with state contracts called marriage for same sex couples but I don’t want churches to be forced into the practice. Again, a personal view that needs not interfere with what others believe.

[takeanumber]

The Conservatives need to define in policy how personal moral views will or will not be expressed in law. The view of Randy White are common in both the Conservative and Liberal party and they represent a large number of Canadians but they don’t represent what direct policy or law may become of these views

The Cons need to do it.

But the Elite don't have the hair on their balls to go through with it.

That was the thrust of my posts above.

[August1991]

What the Cons have to do:

After every campaign, I have written elsewhere, people, pundits and prognosticators inevitably complain that the election just held was "the most negative ever," and they decry so-called "negative" political advertising, saying that it demeans our democracy, suppresses turnout, and all of that sort of thing.  Following election 2004, they're all saying it all again.

But you know what, folks?  It isn't so.  Here's the thing: "going neg," to use the parlance of the trade, works. It works. The guys who eked out the narrow victory, here, were the ones who flooded the system with "negative" advertising, and were able to shift six per cent of the vote in the last four days.  Some folks may not approve of that, and they may not like it.  But it's a fact.

I don't know when the next federal campaign is going to take place.  But I do know this: next time, the Tories and the NDP aren't going to be as restrained as they were this time around.  If they want to win, they're going to have to get tougher with their messaging. A lot tougher.

Warren Kinsella blog 2 July 2004

Or, take a look at this:

With Liberal support in freefall, the party knew it had to do something extreme to turn around the campaign.

....

"I have never, in all my marketing experience, witnessed as powerful an impact for a single ad in a focus group as I saw that night," Mr. Bensimon said.

G&M article

I'm no marketing guy but I think an ad in Ontario with a cool woman's voice saying that "PM PM wants to fix health care but he cut x billion $ from health care in 1995 and the provincial liberal gov't just imposed health premiums... To Liberals, Canada seems to be just a Canadian flag they can buy."

IOW, the Tories should have played the nationalist card and tied it in with the sponsorship scandal. But to do that is ugly.