Justin Trudeau kicks all "Liberal" Senators out of Caucus.

[bush_cheney2004]

JBG, Canadians do get tired of explaining to Americans that we choose to remain Canadian. We've been explaining it since 1776! It's a derail tactic.

Not very convincing, with continued references to American politics, expressed desires to vote for American candidates, and total engagement with American political media...since 1776.

[jbg]

Not very convincing, with continued references to American politics, expressed desires to vote for American candidates, and total engagement with American political media...since 1776.

Who did Canadians support in the 1788 elections? Hint, there was no entity called "Canada" at that point.

[bush_cheney2004]

Who did Canadians support in the 1788 elections? Hint, there was no entity called "Canada" at that point.

There were still plenty of Canadians, despite remaining British subjects until 1947. So I would say John Jay...but this is off topic.

Edited February 23, 2014 by bush_cheney2004

[Topaz]

I don't like some of things the Conservatives have done, watching QP the Tories make themselves appear to be very disrespectful and nasty MPs and I think Canadians do want change. I don't agree with the NDP of getting rid of the senate, but, no party can get rid of it without the provinces agreeing and I don't think that's going to happen soon. So I'm going to sit on the fence until the election comes and watch the debates and then I think Canadians will be able to make their decision which party they want.

[BC_chick]

No, he's correct. All our succesful governments have alternated around that centre left/right area. Canadians are not comfortable with extremes, which is why only the two centrist parties have ever had any chance of winning. I think Trudeau is moving further to the left, though, to outflank the NDP. If it's too far to the left his pretty hair won't be able to carry the day.

I disagree, I think the pendulum swings in either direction after a while. We've seen this in Europe where very liberal socieities have voted in conservative leaders just because complacency brings about corruption.

Effectively, I think Harper won for the same reason the first time around. I don't think anyone was too keen on his conservative views (fresh after SSM/Iraq), but it was time for a change after a decade of LPC.

Now, almost 10 years of Harper, it's time for a change again. This isn't about Trudeau and what he believes, it's about Harper's time being up. I would be very surprised if the CPC can manage another election.

Even the internal implosion within the party is reminiscent of the LPC trying to make Chretien the scapegoat by throwing him under the bus to save their own paycheques.

[g_bambino]

Now, almost 10 years of Harper, it's time for a change again. This isn't about Trudeau and what he believes, it's about Harper's time being up.

Harper's time could be over if the majority of MPs put their confidence behind another person. An election and change of governing party isn't necessary, as happened when Martin became PM.

The changes you're talking about seem more related to party than to person. Of course, Chretien--who'd been PM for 10 years--was gone before the Liberals lost their ability to govern in 2006.

[ed.: +]

Edited February 23, 2014 by g_bambino

[jacee]

Harper's time could be over if the majority of MPs put their confidence behind another person. An election and change of governing party isn't necessary.

Isn't it a bit late for a leadership race before 2015?

[BC_chick]

Harper's time could be over if the majority of MPs put their confidence behind another person. An election and change of governing party isn't necessary.

You mean a Paul Martin?

[g_bambino]

Isn't it a bit late for a leadership race before 2015?

No. But, one isn't necessary.

[BC_chick]

Isn't it a bit late for a leadership race before 2015?

Good point.

I still stand by what I said though, I think the CPC is gonna be out regardless of who they run. Well, unless something drastically bad happens to JT between now and then, but he seems to be a bit more Teflon than Iggy or Dion.

[g_bambino]

You mean a Paul Martin?

See my edited post! (Done, I guess, while you were writing the above.)

[BC_chick]

See my edited post! (Done, I guess, while you were writing the above.)

Yes, exactly. Initially I responded to Argus who believes JT may jeopordise his votes if he moves too far to the left. I countered that it's not really about the person at this point, it's time for a change. Same thing happened in 2008 in the US, it was a Democrat year and pretty much everyone knew it.

The Liberals would have to work hard at bungling this one but JT is likeable and he's saying all the right things.

The CPC will play the economic card, but honestly, with $176,000,000,000 added debt to the economy and a housing bubble poised to pop (or 'land softly), JT has plenty of leverage there too.

My concern is that he'll be left to clean up the economic mess and he'll be blamed for it (similar to Obama/Bush).

[TimG]

---

Edited February 24, 2014 by TimG

[Keepitsimple]

Yes, exactly. Initially I responded to Argus who believes JT may jeopordise his votes if he moves too far to the left. I countered that it's not really about the person at this point, it's time for a change. Same thing happened in 2008 in the US, it was a Democrat year and pretty much everyone knew it.

The Liberals would have to work hard at bungling this one but JT is likeable and he's saying all the right things.

The CPC will play the economic card, but honestly, with $176,000,000,000 added debt to the economy and a housing bubble poised to pop (or 'land softly), JT has plenty of leverage there too.

My concern is that he'll be left to clean up the economic mess and he'll be blamed for it (similar to Obama/Bush).

Lets put things in perspective. Are you aware that in the single province of Ontario the McGuinty/Wynne Liberals added $120,000,000,000 to the debt over the same period? What makes things worse is that these provincial Liberals have created a structural deficit which they will be leaving to the next government to clean up. Harper will be leaving no structural deficit. Be careful what you wish for.

Link :http://www.ofina.on.ca/borrowing_debt/borrowhistory.htm

[BC_chick]

Lets put things in perspective. Are you aware that in the single province of Ontario the McGuinty/Wynne Liberals added $120,000,000,000 to the debt over the same period? What makes things worse is that these provincial Liberals have created a structural deficit which they will be leaving to the next government to clean up. Harper will be leaving no structural deficit. Be careful what you wish for.

Link :http://www.ofina.on.ca/borrowing_debt/borrowhistory.htm

I will do no such thing as compare Federal deficits with Provincial ones, that's absurd. They are completely different jurisdictions with different expenditures and if the Liberals in Ontario are spending too much, that's Ontario's problem, not mine.

You compare Federal deficits with prior Federal deficits and the way to do that is here:

http://www.cbc.ca/news2/interactives/canada-deficit/

Trudeau Senior gets so much flak for spending like a drunken sailor but his spending was nothing compared to so-called 'fiscally responsible' governments of Mulroney and Harper.

[TimG]

Trudeau Senior gets so much flak for spending like a drunken sailor but his spending was nothing compared to so-called 'fiscally responsible' governments of Mulroney and Harper.

This talking point really pissing me off because it is so dishonest. Yes Harper did run up a deficit when the financial crisis hit but at the time the Liberals were castigating him for not spending enough. It is pretty clear that if the Liberals were in charge at the time the deficit would have been a lot higher - maybe even Obama style crazy levels instead of the moderate deficits which are now under control.

IOW - any look at context behind the record shows that Harper *was* extremely fiscally responsible given the circumstances he had to deal with and people who say otherwise are basically liars.

Edited February 24, 2014 by TimG

[BC_chick]

This talking point really pissing me off because it is so dishonest. Yes Harper did run up a deficit when the financial crisis hit but at the time the Liberals were castigating him for not spending enough. It is pretty clear that if the Liberals were in charge at the time the deficit would have been a lot higher - maybe even Obama style crazy levels instead of the moderate deficits which are now under control.

IOW - any look at context behind the record shows that Harper *was* extremely fiscally responsible given the circumstances he had to deal with and people who say otherwise are basically liars.

Um, no, He's a Bush conservative: as in cut taxes because his base likes it but keep spending like liberals because he wants to win the next election too. End result, Bush-style economic disaster ready for meltdown.

It's actually pretty sad to see you try and blame the LPC for Harper's spending. They were pretty powerless in case you didn't notice?!

Or is this some sick type of victim-blaming?

[TimG]

Um, no, He's a Bush conservative: as in cut taxes because his base likes it but keep spending like liberals because he wants to win the next election too.

The promise to cut the GST predated the financial crisis and really not that different from the income tax cut policy which the Liberals had followed since 2000. By the time 2006 had rolled around Martin was spending like a drunken sailor trying to stay in power so if the Liberals had stayed in power the money lost from the GST cuts would have been lost increasing government spending and would have made the subsequent deficits even worse.

It's actually pretty sad to see you try and blame the LPC for Harper's spending. They were pretty powerless in case you didn't notice?!

I am not blaming the LPC for anything - I am just saying that only a shameless hypocrite would suggest that the Liberals would have not run an equally large, if not larger deficit at the time. If the Liberals were in charge I seriously doubt we would be looking at a balanced budget now because they would be endlessly making excuses about why it is "too soon" for fiscal constraint.

If you go by JT positioning at the convention it is clear that he wants to spend spend spend while saying taxes won't be increased (because that would lose votes). At this point in time the CPC is the only party that even understands the words "fiscally responsible" which is unfortunate because from 1992-2004 the Liberals had an excellent record.

Edited February 24, 2014 by TimG

[PIK]

Good point.

I still stand by what I said though, I think the CPC is gonna be out regardless of who they run. Well, unless something drastically bad happens to JT between now and then, but he seems to be a bit more Teflon than Iggy or Dion.

LOL Dream on. Please explain where he is going to get 170 seats. The polls mean nothing ,because who knows where the votes will show up. And if you are into polls it shows that harper leads in who will show up to vote. And it is no longer the liberal party it is now the justin party, in other words this is turning into a cult.

[jacee]

LOL Dream on. Please explain where he is going to get 170 seats. The polls mean nothing ,because who knows where the votes will show up.

It's true that Harper's team is practiced at targeting just enough votes to gain ridings.

[Boges]

It's true that Harper's team is practiced at targeting just enough votes to gain ridings.

They've been put where the populations are growing. Do you have evidence of gerrymandering in the new ridings?

Quebec gets a seat or two and their population is stagnant. The 905 and Alberta are certainly growing areas of the country.

[PIK]

With all the medai help he has justin should be up by 30pts not 4 and IMO that is failure. And now we see him breaking promises .

[g_bambino]

Yes, exactly... I countered that it's not really about the person at this point, it's time for a change. Same thing happened in 2008 in the US, it was a Democrat year and pretty much everyone knew it.

I can see that. Though, as you alluded to, economics may be a big factor in the outcome of the next election, which means most people may want to stick with the Conservatives. Then again, I seriously wonder whether most voters are motivated by rational matters like economic policy or more by emotion. Justin does say a lot of nice things and his hair's nice, too.

[g_bambino]

Yes Harper did run up a deficit when the financial crisis hit but at the time the Liberals were castigating him for not spending enough.

The Liberals held more sway over budgets at that time than people give them credit for. It was a minority parliament; a budget could not pass (or the government survive) if the Liberals didn't approve of it.

[Argus]

The changes you're talking about seem more related to party than to person. Of course, Chretien--who'd been PM for 10 years--was gone before the Liberals lost their ability to govern in 2006.

[ed.: +]

I think that after a while the person becomes the party in the minds of the electorate, especially if he's a micromanager like Harper. And people just get tired and want a change, much like their old Ford or Toyota still runs well, but you'd kind of like one that's newer and shinier. People like change from time to time. I think the Tories would do well to consider a replacement for Harper who would put a new face on the party. Do they have anyone with any charisma in that party?

Edited February 24, 2014 by Argus