Why Harper is so vulnerable

[Shwa]

Being people without that 'critical thinking' you were complaining the conservatives lack...

...Yoda? ...

[Tilter]

:lol: :lol: conservatives supporters don't represent the sharpest tools in the shed do they...the simplest of math skills should tell you if the cpc had the middle they'd have have 60-70% of the popular vote...as it's the NDP, libs, bloc and greens have 60% of the popular vote it should be evident to those with even rudimentary math skills the cpc has no part of the center...

So you're saying that (as is factual) the CPC has more support than any other party, giving them a majority in the HOC. SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOooo what's yer point?

Edited November 28, 2011 by Tilter

[Tilter]

They campaigned on being the centre party, but govern from the right. (the Canadian right)

Harper charts Canada's shift to the right - from 2008

They know appearances are everything in Canada so they are tightly controlled by their party cadre. The interesting thing is to see how long they can make that control last and keep up appearances.

3 of the last governments in Canada says that whatever they are doing, they are doing it right. Didn't you notice that small drop in the number of liberal seats in the last election? pretty noticeable I'd say.

[Michael Hardner]

3 of the last governments in Canada says that whatever they are doing, they are doing it right. Didn't you notice that small drop in the number of liberal seats in the last election? pretty noticeable I'd say.

Why would anyone need to vote Liberal when Harper is trying his best to look like one ?

He even speaks French in a way that can be understood, but I'll refrain from linking to a jpeg of a frog here.

[olp1fan]

I would not have much of a problem with Harper if he punished people in his party that did something wrong

as he promised to not be corrupt like the liberals

policy is policy but the way a political leader acts says it all

[Shwa]

3 of the last governments in Canada says that whatever they are doing, they are doing it right. Didn't you notice that small drop in the number of liberal seats in the last election? pretty noticeable I'd say.

Two of the first three governments were minorities, which only compounded the problem of appearances. He had to appear centrist just to stay in government. That is what they were doing "right."

As far as the almost-destruction of the LPC, well that has resulted in more of a partisan type political atmosphere than I can ever remember, even during the massive Mulroney governments. Which is to say that despite PM Harpers wildest wet dreams, the centre is vacant right now.

[August1991]

And you will instead vote for whom?

Precisely my point, Argus.

Harper is vulnerable.

The monarchy plays a huge role in the history of Canada, and English Canadians, as you have on previous occasions pointed out, lack points of reference to unite them.

But the British monarchy is irrelevant to most Canadians.

Argus, would Harper win an election on the British monarchy in Canada? Would he be so foolish to set up an election on such an issue?

The long gun registry was the triumph of style over substance.

Well, Harper's law is the triumph of political stupidity over wisdom. Australia has a wise gun law that respects farmers, gun nuts and urban vegetarian peaceniks. Why don't we do the same here? Harper knows about this.

Good. We need one. Crime, especially violent crime, needs to be adequately dealt with.

Crime rates in Canada are falling - despite the heinous crimes you read about in the papers. Heck, in the 1920s, there were heinous crimes too.

I understand the viewpoint of Pierre-Hugues Boisvenu, I disagree, but I wonder why Harper wants to build more prisons so that prisoners are housed decently. Why not do as France or Russia?

IOW, Harper is building prisons so that prisoners are treated decently, and yet he is attacked as being "tough on crime".

----

Harper vulnerable? The CPC (and it is the Harper party) has never broken 40% in any poll.

As to this "Harper party" meme, I'm kind of fearful of what it portends. We are now in a world where democracies mimic dictatorships: the person is more important than the institution.

From Harper to Obama, Trudeau to Lévesque, we are far from Mackenzie King and Robert Borden. Even such egos as Sir John A. Macdonald, Benjamin Disraeli and Sir Wilfrid Laurier were somehow smaller than the party/institution they lead.

Edited November 29, 2011 by August1991

[August1991]

Oh, and I love how the OP as per usual starts with a massive strawman- that Harper is 'so vulnerable'- then creates a flight of fancy off that fiction.

If Harper was so vulnerable how id he a) just win a majority govt without support from Quebec? and survive 5 years as a minority?

Really, this is just the usual separatiste gobblydegook and sour grapes over the slow and painful death of soveirngty.

The only way Harper will be vulnerable over the next several years is if the NDP does the unthinkable and elects a moderate leader with the will AND means to move the NDP to the center. Even then, his position is very solid.

Quebec will have a tough tough choice next time because they are going to be sorely disappointed by the ineffectiveness of their NDP caucus real soon. o they want a place at the big table or not, and doubly so in the abscence of a separation option.

Hard, hard times ahead for the OP and his friends.

My OP has nothing to do with Quebec sovereignty.

It has everything to do with Harper's political vulnerability. Stephen Harper is the Mitt Romney of Canadian federal politics.

Harper is PM simply because many Canadian voters have no alternative. As soon as another party offers a good alternative, Harper will be gone.

----

Let me be plain. Stephen Harper does not speak well in public. He is shy and is not a people person, even though his wife makes him human. He is tall and has a full head of hair but his nose is too prominent to make him attractive. By nature, and with his voice, he could have been a leader in the era of radio - but not video. He is terribly ambitious, but many people are.

You can say that I am playing the man, not the ball, but I simply think that Harper is vulnerable.

Edited November 29, 2011 by August1991

[Smallc]

He is a leader. He's leading right now. You, on the other hand, are far out in left field.

[August1991]

He is a leader. He's leading right now. You, on the other hand, are far out in left field.

How is he leading? Our federal government is in good fiscal shape now because of decisions taken a decade ago.

I have not seen Stephen Harper, ever, take a hard/difficult decision. He has always decided so that he would win re-election, or appease his base.

Cut the GST (and borrow more money)? Easy! Get rid of the gun registry in a majority parliament? Easy!

-----

Could Harper bring in Official Languages legislation, a Bill 101 or the GST? Could Harper negotiate free trade? Is he willing to pass a Clarity Act? Could Harper patriate our Constitution and put in a Charter of Rights to protect us against the State?

When Harper takes on the hard problems, succeeds, and gets re-elected, get back to me about his political talents. I frankly think that Harper's political skills are over-rated. IMHO, he's vulnerable.

He may be male, tall and he may have a head of hair, but he's not a leader.

Edited November 29, 2011 by August1991

[cybercoma]

But the British monarchy is irrelevant to most Canadians.

Argus, would Harper win an election on the British monarchy in Canada? Would he be so foolish to set up an election on such an issue?

I see what bambino was saying in the other thread. We have a Canadian monarchy. We're not beholden to the "British" monarchy. When it comes to our country Queen Elizabeth II is the Queen of Canada or Riene du Canada if you prefer. The British Monarchy has nothing to do with our country, since we are independent and have been so for many generations.

[blueblood]

How is he leading? Our federal government is in good fiscal shape now because of decisions taken a decade ago.

I have not seen Stephen Harper, ever, take a hard/difficult decision. He has always decided so that he would win re-election, or appease his base.

Cut the GST (and borrow more money)? Easy! Get rid of the gun registry in a majority parliament? Easy!

-----

Could Harper bring in Official Languages legislation, a Bill 101 or the GST? Could Harper negotiate free trade? Is he willing to pass a Clarity Act? Could Harper patriate our Constitution and put in a Charter of Rights to protect us against the State?

When Harper takes on the hard problems, succeeds, and gets re-elected, get back to me about his political talents. I frankly think that Harper's political skills are over-rated. IMHO, he's vulnerable.

Harper just ended the cwb monopoly at the risk of stirring up a hornets nest out west at his base of power. Do you know how many seats he will lose in the grain growing regions? Zero.

Heck, he is negotiating an Asian pacific partnership deal. And turned off the stimulus tap and is lecturing world leaders about finance. Sounds like leading to me.

[Smallc]

How is he leading? Our federal government is in good fiscal shape now because of decisions taken a decade ago.

And?

I have not seen Stephen Harper, ever, take a hard/difficult decision. He has always decided so that he would win re-election, or appease his base.

Quebec as a nation? Residential school apology?

Could Harper bring in Official Languages legislation, a Bill 101 or the GST? Could Harper negotiate free trade? Is he willing to pass a Clarity Act? Could Harper patriate our Constitution and put in a Charter of Rights to protect us against the State?

Harper is in the middle of several trade agreement negotiations, and has already completed several free trade agreements.

When Harper takes on the hard problems, succeeds, and gets re-elected, get back to me about his political talents. I frankly think that Harper's political skills are over-rated. IMHO, he's vulnerable.

Harper isn't the best PM ever or anything, but he has taken on some tough issues, and he has been reelected.....twice.

[cybercoma]

We don't elect Prime Ministers.

[August1991]

Harper just ended the cwb monopoly at the risk of stirring up a hornets nest out west at his base of power. Do you know how many seats he will lose in the grain growing regions? Zero.

If you are right, that was a tough decision - taken once Harper had a majority.

Heck, he is negotiating an Asian pacific partnership deal. And turned off the stimulus tap and is lecturing world leaders about finance. Sounds like leading to me.

If Harper is lecturing anyone, it is not because of anything he did.

To make a reputation, Stephen Harper (and Tony Clement) have been spending our money/using our credit cards like Paris Hilton: someone else pays.

----

These guys just don't get it. Fergodsakes, Clement is Greek. He knows what is happening. The game is over.

Edited November 29, 2011 by August1991

[Smallc]

We don't elect Prime Ministers.

Sure we do...at least, we do the ones that sit in parliament. You're correct though when it comes to what I meant.

He's been reappointed...twice.

[blueblood]

If you are right, that was a tough decision - taken once Harper had a majority.

If Harper is lecturing anyone, it is not because of anything he did.

To make a reputation, Stephen Harper (and Tony Clement) have been spending our money/using our credit cards like Paris Hilton: someone else pays.

Nope, Harper ran on punting the monopoly all through his tenure, in all of his election campaigns and rural western canada elected Tory mps with over 50% wins in many cases. Try again.

He continued the cut taxes and not blow money on massive programs schtick. Harper didn't screw anything up, that's a lecture in itself.

They might be spending money on stimulus, but they aren't spending it on some gong show ideas like Trudeau did.

[cybercoma]

Sure we do...at least, we do the ones that sit in parliament. You're correct though when it comes to what I meant.

He's been reappointed...twice.

I'm just saying, the people of Calgary West elected Stephen Harper as their MP. The Prime Minister is not elected.

[olp1fan]

I'm just saying, the people of Calgary West elected Stephen Harper as their MP. The Prime Minister is not elected.

what would have happened if harper lost his race?

[Smallc]

what would have happened if harper lost his race?

Nothing. He wouldn't sit in the house, until he had won a race, but one need not sit in the house to be PM.

[cybercoma]

Mackenzie King and John Turner were both PMs "from the hallway" as they say.

[olp1fan]

but he wouldnt be a member of paliament

[August1991]

Nope, Harper ran on punting the monopoly all through his tenure, in all of his election campaigns and rural western canada elected Tory mps with over 50% wins in many cases. Try again.

He continued the cut taxes and not blow money on massive programs schtick. Harper didn't screw anything up, that's a lecture in itself.

They might be spending money on stimulus, but they aren't spending it on some gong show ideas like Trudeau did.

Blueblood, what's your point?

Bear in mind that I'm sympathetic to the Conservative message - I just think that Harper is a bad/incompetent messenger.

I'm just saying, the people of Calgary West elected Stephen Harper as their MP. The Prime Minister is not elected.

Our MPs elect our PM.

Cybercoma, we Canadians live in a "democracy", and a "civilized society". Unlike other countries, we decide our existence through a civilized vote - rather than a civil war.

We Canadians?

Rather, it is the civilized nature of nous les Québécois, et les français de l'Amérique.

Edited November 29, 2011 by August1991

[Bryan]

We don't elect Prime Ministers.

People do vote for them though. You can put whatever you want on the ballot, it can't change the reasons people mark the X on the ballot. The more popular a leader is, the more of his/her MPs will be elected.

[MiddleClassCentrist]

People do vote for them though. You can put whatever you want on the ballot, it can't change the reasons people mark the X on the ballot. The more popular a leader is, the more of his/her MPs will be elected.

Yep. By proxy, we technically do.

We can vote locally based on a combination of MP Candidate, Party and Leadership. If we didn't like the potential PM, we could protest by not voting or voting for another party with a leader we feel is more capable.

Edited November 29, 2011 by MiddleClassCentrist