Ontario Liberal supporters explained

[apollo19]

The main point about the immigrants is that they vote for the party which was in power when they came to this country. They view it as a sort of "thank you" to the Liberals. That is why things like Gomery have much less of an impact in the centres like Vancouver and Toronto. I personally know many newcomers to Canada and they fit well in the mold of being fiscally conservative and socially moderate, yet they largely vote for the Liberals. I think there is less of an effect of the immigrant vote in BC, as people tend to follow their ideology more there, but in Toronto the Liberals have painted themselves with the Canadian flag permanently on them, so when immigrants go to do that "duty of a citizen", that pops up in their mind. I'm not bitching about immigration here, I'm just saying that the Liberals have painted themselves as Canada to the newcomers.

[August1991]

The main point about the immigrants is that they vote for the party which was in power when they came to this country.

Many immigrants came to Canada between 1984 and 1993 when the Tories were in power. The connection between immigrants and Liberals goes beyond party in power and year of arrival.

[The Honest Politician]

Why are many Ontarians Liberal supporters? MIKE HARRIS

[normanchateau]

Why are many Ontarians Liberal supporters?  MIKE HARRIS

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Perhaps but my money's on Stephen Harper.

[Chimera]

In Ontario, we tend to define ourselves as Canadian more by being NOT American than by anything else. The Liberals (and the media) play on this by pointing out how American the conservative policies appear to be. They still mention that Harper would have us in Iraq, and participating in BMD. They make claims of Harper wanting American style healthcare, and that he would simply ignore the softwood lumber dispute. This has been going on since Harper became party leader. Of course Harper actually saying he would have sent troops to Iraq didn't help him either.

Despite all of the CPC's good policies, many Ontario voters will associate Harper with Bush and the US. This of course, is seen as a bad thing in Not-America, err I mean Canada.

[Shakeyhands]

I think its because a lot of Harpers policies are outside of what Ontarians want (what with being one and all) I also think as I read througfh the responses that again there are assumptions made about how Ontario feels in regards to the west, and how inaccurate that is for the west to think.

Once the CPC comes to terms with what it is that all Canadians want in terms of policy and direction will they be succesful. I can tell you they come off as a regional party here that is still basically the Alliance, not a version of the Progressive Conservatives that stood a good chance each and every election.

You might also want to look to Mulroney as well.

[normanchateau]

In Ontario, we tend to define ourselves as Canadian more by being NOT American than by anything else.  The Liberals (and the media) play on this by pointing out how American the conservative policies appear to be.  They still mention that Harper would have us in Iraq, and participating in BMD.  Of course Harper actually saying he would have sent troops to Iraq didn't help him either. 

Of course Harper saying publicly this weekend that he'll not reintroduce the marijuana decriminalization legislation, i.e., supporting throwing people in jail for possession, is not exactly a vote getter among nonCPC supporters, especially the younger ones.

His plan to re-visit same sex marriage is not only not a vote getter but alienates large numbers of Canadians, even those who aren't gay or lesbian. Although Ontario is nott as socially liberal as Quebec or British Columbia, neither is it as socially conservative as Alberta. Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal all have huge gay and lesbian communities and it's inconceivable to me that Harper will win a single seat in Canada's three largest cities. CPC needs a more effective leader, perhaps a populist like John Diefenbaker who was able to win 50 seats in Quebec.

And his vote to exclude sexual orientation from hate crimes legislation won't yield a lot of votes from gays, lesbians, transsexuals, bisexuals or anyone else sexually atypical.

[PocketRocket]

As an Ontarian, I can only speak for my own feelings and perceptions.

I do NOT want to vote Liberal, however, Harper does concern me.

It seems that every time I hear him speak, he is lashing out in a petulant manner.

Several times he has been given the opportunity to come off like the good-guy who is taking the high road.

Remember, you can say almost anything to anyone, as long as you use the right wording.

Before and during Gomery, when Harper could have been saying things like "It's unfortunate that Mr Martin and his party have found themselves in the midst of such a scandal, and it is my sincere wish that after this is all investigated, only those parties who are truly guilty are yadda yadda yadda.....".

This still says that the Liberals (or at least many of them) screwed up, and by attaching Martin's name, it still implicates him, but it gives the perception of generosity of spirit, and of gentlemanly conduct.

Instead, Harper keeps casting everything from aspersions to outright accusations bordering on slander.

He is, however, careful to keep the more outrageous accusations within the House of Commons, thereby avoiding any sort of lawsuit.

But this too plays against him.

When Martin turns around and "dares" Harper to repeat something he said outside the house, and then Harper refuses, it just removes a bit more credibility from Harper's public facade.

So, my personal perception has been of Harper as a man who is given to near-tantrums.

Not the conduct of someone I would see as our nation's leader.

One other small issue; yesterday, for the first time in this campaign, I saw a CPC election placard.

The local candidate is a name I have never heard before.

I am not comfortable voting for someone I have never heard of.

So, it is entirely likely that in this election my vote will be cast not so much for a party, but for whatever local representative who I think is best suited to representing my area.

[Vancouver King]

Quote; Normanchateau:

His plan to re-visit same sex marriage is not only not a vote getter but alienates large numbers of Canadians, even those who aren't gay or lesbian. Although Ontario is not as socially liberal as Quebec or British Columbia, neither is it as socially conservative as Alberta. Toronto, Vancouver and Montreal all have huge gay and lesbian communities and it's inconceivable to me that Harper will win a single seat in Canada's three largest cities. CPC needs a more effective leader, perhaps a populist like John Diefenbaker who was able to win 50 seats in Quebec.

And his vote to exclude sexual orientation from hate crimes legislation won't yield a lot of votes from gays, lesbians, transsexuals, bisexuals or anyone else sexually atypical.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

According to another current thread they are only 1% of the electorate, give or take a sex change.

You touch on a major issue that Harper apologists have no response to - rejection of CPC platform & policies in the nations three largest cities. Harper seems to continue catering to his largely rural, very small "c" conservative core support. He could adopt a freshened cities agenda in full confidence that his basic supporters simply have nowhere else to go.

It is becoming obvious to Stephen Harper the political realm is a cruel place, that Liberal corruption and his generally fine start to the campaign have yielded nothing in additional support. Urban voters won't turn the clock back to the 1950's.

[sharkman]

Huh, you call civil unions instead of marriage for gays turning back the clock to the 1950s? Surely you jest, in the 50s gays were actually treated quite badly and it was considered a mental disorder. Give me a break.

[normanchateau]

It is becoming obvious that to Stephen Harper the political realm is a cruel place, that Liberal corruption and his generally fine start to the campaign have yielded nothing in additional support. Urban voters won't turn the clock back to the 1950's.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Marijuana decriminalization in Vancouver is a perfect example. Marijuana was criminalized in the 1920's, at the same time that alcohol was decriminalized. Both the current (Sam Sullivan), former (Larry Campbell) and prior (Phil Owen) mayor of Vancouver favour outright legalization of marijuana yet Harper announced this weekend that he opposes even decriminalization. He's so out of touch with Vancouverites that it's pathetic. Putting young people in jail for marijuana possession is a 1920's idea. This is the 21st century.

[Vancouver King]

Huh, you call civil unions instead of marriage for gays turning back the clock to the 1950s?  Surely you jest, in the 50s gays were actually treated quite badly and it was considered a mental disorder.  Give me a break.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Civil unions as a substitute for full marriage simply reinforces gays "difference" in the eyes of the law and the public. SSM is a human rights issue.

[southerncomfort]

As an Ontarian, I can only speak for my own feelings and perceptions.

I do NOT want to vote Liberal, however, Harper does concern me.

It seems that every time I hear him speak, he is lashing out in a petulant manner.

Several times he has been given the opportunity to come off like the good-guy who is taking the high road.

Remember, you can say almost anything to anyone, as long as you use the right wording.

Before and during Gomery, when Harper could have been saying things like "It's unfortunate that Mr Martin and his party have found themselves in the midst of such a scandal, and it is my sincere wish that after this is all investigated, only those parties who are truly guilty are yadda yadda yadda.....".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Dont' forget that as the opposition Harper can only respond the opposition doesn't drive the agenda. Now campaigning so far he is driving the agenda and its the liberals who are coming off petulant. part of the Ontario problem is the Toroonto Star,There's a good article in the Calgary Sun worth reading about a Toronto Star article,

www.canoe.ca

The Calgary Sun

DATE: 2004.03.05

BYLINE: LINK BYFIELD

STAR-CROSSED TORONTONIANS WARNED OF CONSERVATIVE THREAT

A stern editorial appeared last Sunday in the Toronto Star, the nation's

biggest, fattest, most Liberal newspaper.

It warned Hogtown locals not to switch their vote to the federal

Conservatives just because a few prominent Liberals happened to steal $100

million from Canadian taxpayers.

Beware! admonished the Star. The Conservatives want to "lower taxes," enact

a balanced budget law like most provinces, and pay down the national debt.

Even worse, "a Conservative government will take a hands-off approach to

areas of provincial jurisdiction, such as health and education."

It would even probably allow provincial governments to increase the role of

private enterprise in the health sector.

Pretty scary stuff. Sounds like Scandinavia or Holland. But steel yourself,

there's more.

"Conservatives say they want to preserve the environment, but they'll

balance that with the need to create jobs. They would kill the Kyoto

accord." (Actually, Russia is killing the Kyoto accord, but this news

hasn't reached Toronto.)

"A Conservative government," warned the Star, "will rebuild the Armed

Forces, boosting their funding, training and equipment.

"And that's just scratching the surface. They would abandon the federal gun

registry... (and) protect the traditional definition of marriage ..."

All of this sounds so refreshingly sensible it makes you wonder why it

alarms people in Ontario.

However, the most striking thing about this Toronto Star editorial is how

little it sounds like the Toronto Star.

Why no more paranoid panic about a "secret right-wing agenda?" Why no

caricatures of mouth-breathing, gun-toting, homophobic, holocaust-denying,

racist, hate-mongering, Bible-pounding western bigots and crackpots?

Where's the standard fulmination against reactionary lackeys of

war-mongering Yankee imperialists, and sinister transnational globalism?

.

[Duke]

You have to be careful defining Ontario voters .They elected a PC government for 42 consecutive years.Most of this period one could define the ruling party as middle-of- the- road. They grew tired and lost to a minority Liberal government that was supported by the NDP.The Liberals after 2 years won a majority . They were later defeated due to arrogance and scandal.The NDP became the next majority government basically by default not a deap seated love of the socialists. 5 years later the voting public tossed out the NDP after disastrous management of the province.Thi s was followed by 2 back to back majorites by the Harris tories who were more like the Reform Party than the Bill Davis PC's.

CONCLUSIONS:

Ontario is generally a middle of the road vote.Not too far right and not too far left.

They will toss a government that appears arrogant and is plagued by scandal.

One experiance with the NDP was enough , probably never again.

Ontario will vote for a platform further right than Harper's current under certain circumstances and did with Mike Harris .

To win Ontario you don't need most of Toronto but you do need most of the 905er's along the 401.

For what it is worth: I do know that Mike Harris years before he won.. consulted heavily on policies to turn around the economy with the governors of New Jersey,Michigan and Wisconsin . Years later all 3 Governors ended up in the Cabinet of GWB.

[normanchateau]

Civil unions as a substitute for full marriage simply reinforces gays "difference" in the eyes of the law and the public. SSM is a human rights issue.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Gays already have full marriage rights. A campaign strategy which intends to take away those rights is even more foolhardy than one which would deny those rights in the first place.

[shoop]

Very interesting post duke. I hope you are right, because the Tories strategy seems to be very much inline with what you are saying. The Conservatives strategy is to win the 905 and other parts of Ontario (i.e. not the GTA). I feel that a massive swing to the Conservatives in Ontario, while not likely, is *possible* in this election. The key reason being the arrogance and corruption of the Liberals.

CONCLUSIONS:

Ontario is generally a middle of the road vote.Not too far right and not too far left.

They will toss a government that appears arrogant and is plagued by scandal.

One experiance with the NDP was enough , probably never again.

Ontario will vote for a platform further right than  Harper's current under certain circumstances and did with Mike Harris . 

To win Ontario you don't need most of Toronto but you do need most of the 905er's along the 401.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[sharkman]

One, it's not a campaign plank or strategy, two it doesn't remove one single right, three it would be a simple word change and norman you really are sounding like a broken record. Every thread you post on you bring up ssm.

[shoop]

I really do hope Greg talks to normie. If normies goal is to crash the board, he is well on his way to doing it. I think if we all put normie on ignore we can just keep on going and he can whistle in the wind to himself.

One, it's not a campaign plank or strategy, two it doesn't remove one single right, three it would be a simple word change and norman you really are sounding like a broken record.  Every thread you post on you bring up ssm. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[normanchateau]

One, it's not a campaign plank or strategy, two it doesn't remove one single right, three it would be a simple word change and norman you really are sounding like a broken record.  Every thread you post on you bring up ssm. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Frankly I'd much rather talk about Harper's plan to continue to criminalize and jail young people for possession of small amounts of marijuana. He has said he will not re-introduce the decriminalization bill which effectively means retention of the status quo as first introduced in the 1920's.

While Ontario (the topic of this thread) might not be as progressive as Quebec or British Columbia, the CPC/Harper position on the proposed Liberal government legislation can't simply be swept under the rug or ignored. I believe that young Ontario voters might actually care about this issue as much as any other issue.

[shoop]

Status quo would mean that the police ignore simple possession, wouldn't it Normie?

Wouldn't voters who care about marijuana possession laws "as much as any other issue" vote for the marijuana party? Kinda makes sense to me. Oh sorry Normie, don't want logic to interfere with your rants from the soapbox. Or maybe I do!

Frankly I'd much rather talk about Harper's plan to continue to criminalize and jail young people for possession of small amounts of marijuana.  He has said he will not re-introduce the decriminalization bill which effectively means retention of the status quo as first introduced in the 1920's.

While Ontario (the topic of this thread) might not be as progressive as Quebec or British Columbia, the CPC/Harper  position on the proposed Liberal government legislation can't simply be swept under the rug or  ignored.  I believe that young Ontario voters might actually care about this issue as much as any other issue.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Argus]

Huh, you call civil unions instead of marriage for gays turning back the clock to the 1950s?  Surely you jest, in the 50s gays were actually treated quite badly and it was considered a mental disorder.  Give me a break.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Civil unions as a substitute for full marriage simply reinforces gays "difference" in the eyes of the law and the public. SSM is a human rights issue.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So I guess that means everyone else in the world is a human rights abuser, eh?

I find it incredible how many people will hear some liberal sound bite and without even engaging their forebrain assume it comes from the holy gospel. SSM is a human rights issue only since the Liberals changed their mind about five years ago, after saying it had nothing to do with human rights and that there would be no SSM in Canada.

Are you gonna run off and demonstrate in front of the Swiss embassy because they're such cruel human rights abusers?

[Vancouver King]

Quote, Shoop:

"Ontario is generally a middle of the road vote.Not too far right and not too far left.

They will toss a government that appears arrogant and is plagued by scandal.

One experiance with the NDP was enough , probably never again.

Ontario will vote for a platform further right than  Harper's current under certain circumstances and did with Mike Harris . 

To win Ontario you don't need most of Toronto but you do need most of the 905er's along the 401."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Any respectable national poll (Ipsos, Decima, Ekos etc.) that shows CPC with clear lead (3+points) has the real potential of stampeding undecided and wavering Liberals into a winning consensus for change, a "let's throw the rascals out" sense.

Such new-found respectability could take on a life of it's own and demonstrate the awesome power of polling to influence voters choices.

BTW, quit being so tough on Normie.

[Vancouver King]

Huh, you call civil unions instead of marriage for gays turning back the clock to the 1950s?  Surely you jest, in the 50s gays were actually treated quite badly and it was considered a mental disorder.  Give me a break.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Civil unions as a substitute for full marriage simply reinforces gays "difference" in the eyes of the law and the public. SSM is a human rights issue.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So I guess that means everyone else in the world is a human rights abuser, eh?

I find it incredible how many people will hear some liberal sound bite and without even engaging their forebrain assume it comes from the holy gospel. SSM is a human rights issue only since the Liberals changed their mind about five years ago, after saying it had nothing to do with human rights and that there would be no SSM in Canada.

Are you gonna run off and demonstrate in front of the Swiss embassy because they're such cruel human rights abusers?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Correct me if I'm wrong. Successive provincial supreme court decisions determined that SSM's - not civil unions - were allowed under equality provisions of the charter of rights. Should we run off and demonstrate outside Supreme Court?

This thread was about Ont. Liberal supporters, not SSM, - where are the thread police when they are needed? - and the point I have tried to make is this: CPC loses when Harper suggests revisiting SSM. It reminds potential supporters that the intolerant label might actually have some substance.

[shoop]

There is a lot of power in polling. I sure hope you are right. The way this thing is going (i.e. back and forth between the polls) I would be shocked if we don't see one national poll with a +3 CPC lead by the middle of January.

ps, didn't you mean your BTW with a instead of a

Any respectable national poll (Ipsos, Decima, Ekos etc.) that shows CPC with clear lead (3+points) has the real potential of stampeding undecided and wavering Liberals into a winning consensus for change, a "let's throw the rascals out" sense.

Such new-found respectability could take on a life of it's own and demonstrate the awesome power of polling to influence voters choices.

BTW, quit being so tough on Normie.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[Shakeyhands]

As an Ontarian, I can only speak for my own feelings and perceptions.

I do NOT want to vote Liberal, however, Harper does concern me.

It seems that every time I hear him speak, he is lashing out in a petulant manner.

Several times he has been given the opportunity to come off like the good-guy who is taking the high road.

Remember, you can say almost anything to anyone, as long as you use the right wording.

Before and during Gomery, when Harper could have been saying things like "It's unfortunate that Mr Martin and his party have found themselves in the midst of such a scandal, and it is my sincere wish that after this is all investigated, only those parties who are truly guilty are yadda yadda yadda.....".

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Dont' forget that as the opposition Harper can only respond the opposition doesn't drive the agenda. Now campaigning so far he is driving the agenda and its the liberals who are coming off petulant. part of the Ontario problem is the Toroonto Star,There's a good article in the Calgary Sun worth reading about a Toronto Star article,

www.canoe.ca

The Calgary Sun

DATE: 2004.03.05

BYLINE: LINK BYFIELD

STAR-CROSSED TORONTONIANS WARNED OF CONSERVATIVE THREAT

A stern editorial appeared last Sunday in the Toronto Star, the nation's

biggest, fattest, most Liberal newspaper.

It warned Hogtown locals not to switch their vote to the federal

Conservatives just because a few prominent Liberals happened to steal $100

million from Canadian taxpayers.

Beware! admonished the Star. The Conservatives want to "lower taxes," enact

a balanced budget law like most provinces, and pay down the national debt.

Even worse, "a Conservative government will take a hands-off approach to

areas of provincial jurisdiction, such as health and education."

It would even probably allow provincial governments to increase the role of

private enterprise in the health sector.

Pretty scary stuff. Sounds like Scandinavia or Holland. But steel yourself,

there's more.

"Conservatives say they want to preserve the environment, but they'll

balance that with the need to create jobs. They would kill the Kyoto

accord." (Actually, Russia is killing the Kyoto accord, but this news

hasn't reached Toronto.)

"A Conservative government," warned the Star, "will rebuild the Armed

Forces, boosting their funding, training and equipment.

"And that's just scratching the surface. They would abandon the federal gun

registry... (and) protect the traditional definition of marriage ..."

All of this sounds so refreshingly sensible it makes you wonder why it

alarms people in Ontario.

However, the most striking thing about this Toronto Star editorial is how

little it sounds like the Toronto Star.

Why no more paranoid panic about a "secret right-wing agenda?" Why no

caricatures of mouth-breathing, gun-toting, homophobic, holocaust-denying,

racist, hate-mongering, Bible-pounding western bigots and crackpots?

Where's the standard fulmination against reactionary lackeys of

war-mongering Yankee imperialists, and sinister transnational globalism?

.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Have you seen any of the articles in the National Post or the Sun lately?