The Bloc threatening to BRING DOWN Harper!

[Ricki Bobbi]

We agree on that point. If I were a Conservative, I'd be praying that the Liberals choose Iggy as leader. His willingness to see Canadians die for the Islamic Republic of Afghanistan, a regime whose legislation allows the execution of Christians who convert to Islam, would neutralize any harm arising from Harper's stance

Yup. I have said it repeatedly Iggy is the best Liberal leader for Conservatives.

btw. there are lots of Afghanistan threads here. I am not really interested in participating in any of them, which is why I am replying to the implications for the next election only.

[Argus]

So, how would the Liberals campaign for an election without an actual leader? They aren't that stupid, are they?

Given how incredibly unpopular the Liberals were in January, 2006, the Conservatives should have campaigned without a leader then. They might have won a majority.

Now they're stuck with Stephen Harper, a man so weak and ineffectual that

Canadians, in a recent poll to choose who they believe is the best leader for Canada, chose him over Jack Layton, and all Liberal leadership canadidates. In fact, chose him FAR above any of the others.

Although Mr. Harper is seen as the best prime minister when put up against any of the four leading contenders for the Liberal mantle, it is Mr. Rae who would make the greatest mark against him, according to the survey by The Strategic Counsel for the Globe and Mail-CTV News.

When Mr. Rae is figured into a race against Mr. Harper, the NDP's Jack Layton and the Bloc Québécois' Gilles Duceppe, 26 per cent say Mr. Rae would be the best prime minister of the four, while 36 per cent picked Mr. Harper. Mr. Layton was picked by 15 per cent and Mr. Duceppe by six per cent.

By comparison, the front-running Michael Ignatieff, was chosen by 23 per cent in a battle against Mr. Harper, who was picked by 37 per cent in such a contest. Mr. Layton is favoured by 17 per cent and Mr. Duceppe by seven per cent.

Globe and Mail

Do you have anything else you'd like to say?

[belinda emerson]

So, how would the Liberals campaign for an election without an actual leader? They aren't that stupid, are they?

Given how incredibly unpopular the Liberals were in January, 2006, the Conservatives should have campaigned without a leader then. They might have won a majority.

Now they're stuck with Stephen Harper, a man so weak and ineffectual that

Canadians, in a recent poll to choose who they believe is the best leader for Canada, chose him over Jack Layton, and all Liberal leadership canadidates. In fact, chose him FAR above any of the others.

Although Mr. Harper is seen as the best prime minister when put up against any of the four leading contenders for the Liberal mantle, it is Mr. Rae who would make the greatest mark against him, according to the survey by The Strategic Counsel for the Globe and Mail-CTV News.

When Mr. Rae is figured into a race against Mr. Harper, the NDP's Jack Layton and the Bloc Québécois' Gilles Duceppe, 26 per cent say Mr. Rae would be the best prime minister of the four, while 36 per cent picked Mr. Harper. Mr. Layton was picked by 15 per cent and Mr. Duceppe by six per cent.

By comparison, the front-running Michael Ignatieff, was chosen by 23 per cent in a battle against Mr. Harper, who was picked by 37 per cent in such a contest. Mr. Layton is favoured by 17 per cent and Mr. Duceppe by seven per cent.

Globe and Mail

Do you have anything else you'd like to say?

[belinda emerson]

So, how would the Liberals campaign for an election without an actual leader? They aren't that stupid, are they?

Given how incredibly unpopular the Liberals were in January, 2006, the Conservatives should have campaigned without a leader then. They might have won a majority.

Now they're stuck with Stephen Harper, a man so weak and ineffectual that

Canadians, in a recent poll to choose who they believe is the best leader for Canada, chose him over Jack Layton, and all Liberal leadership canadidates. In fact, chose him FAR above any of the others.

Although Mr. Harper is seen as the best prime minister when put up against any of the four leading contenders for the Liberal mantle, it is Mr. Rae who would make the greatest mark against him, according to the survey by The Strategic Counsel for the Globe and Mail-CTV News.

When Mr. Rae is figured into a race against Mr. Harper, the NDP's Jack Layton and the Bloc Québécois' Gilles Duceppe, 26 per cent say Mr. Rae would be the best prime minister of the four, while 36 per cent picked Mr. Harper. Mr. Layton was picked by 15 per cent and Mr. Duceppe by six per cent.

By comparison, the front-running Michael Ignatieff, was chosen by 23 per cent in a battle against Mr. Harper, who was picked by 37 per cent in such a contest. Mr. Layton is favoured by 17 per cent and Mr. Duceppe by seven per cent.

Globe and Mail

Do you have anything else you'd like to say?

Yes, in 2005 Paul Martin was chosen as the best leader for Canada.

[Alexandra]

Now they're stuck with Stephen Harper, a man so weak and ineffectual that he tolerated that sleazy Conservative MP Gurmant Grewal while condoning the ouster of Garth Turner.

In certain local circles Ujal Dosanhj is considered to be the sleaziest of the two. Certain Liberal circles, that is.

Equating Garth Turner with Carolyn Parrish vis a vis Harper and Martin could be considered credible wouldn't you say? In terms of whose offence against the party caucus or against the leader of the party was considered the most `~ inappropriate ~ ?

I would tend to believe Carolyn's "I hate those bastards" histrionics during such sensitive softwood lumber negotiations with the Americans was not helpful to her party's leader and therefore the more reason her leader should have suspended her from caucus much sooner than he did. It follows that Parrish's leader must have been, how shall we say, 'weak and ineffectual'?

[Ricki Bobbi]

I would tend to believe Carolyn's "I hate those bastards" histrionics during such sensitive softwood lumber negotiations with the Americans was not helpful to her party's leader and therefore the more reason her leader should have suspended her from caucus much sooner than he did. It follows that Parrish's leader must have been, how shall we say, 'weak and ineffectual'?

Yes, yes he was.

Harper made the decision to get rid of Turner before any major public embarrassment. Go on him.

[Argus]

Do you have anything else you'd like to say?

Yes, in 2005 Paul Martin was chosen as the best leader for Canada.

But Martin was not the reason they lost. It was Chretien and his corruption, and, well, an inept campaign.

Point is, you guys are all sneering at Harper and suggesting everyone hates him. Clearly they do not.

[jbg]

Well I personally would love to see an election call. I have no doubt that when the electorate is pushed to make the tough decisions they will give a CPC majority.

I have some swampland in Florida and an attractive bridge available in NYC for anyone who believes that.

I think the Liberals will sink a bit further, as will the Bloc. I would expect a CPC majority, perhaps 160-170 ridings.

I don't think the Bloc, therefore, will make good on this bluff.

[Ricki Bobbi]

But Martin was not the reason they lost. It was Chretien and his corruption, and, well, an inept campaign.

Point is, you guys are all sneering at Harper and suggesting everyone hates him. Clearly they do not.

The leader isn't responsible for an inept campaign?

Leaders are always responsible for the campaign they run. Martin's mistake was thinking his campaign team in 2004 did a good job they barely queaked out a minority when they should have won a majority. Martin used the same campaign team in 2006. Had he recognized the mistakes made in 2004 and shaken up his team he might have won in 2006. Guess it's a good thing he didn't!

[jbg]

But Martin was not the reason they lost. It was Chretien and his corruption, and, well, an inept campaign.

Point is, you guys are all sneering at Harper and suggesting everyone hates him. Clearly they do not.

The leader isn't responsible for an inept campaign?

Leaders are always responsible for the campaign they run. Martin's mistake was thinking his campaign team in 2004 did a good job they barely queaked out a minority when they should have won a majority. Martin used the same campaign team in 2006. Had he recognized the mistakes made in 2004 and shaken up his team he might have won in 2006. Guess it's a good thing he didn't!

My analysis is different. I believe that the "Harper is scary" theme worked once, but once people saw more of him, they saw that he was no lunatic.

[gc1765]

I think the Liberals will sink a bit further, as will the Bloc. I would expect a CPC majority, perhaps 160-170 ridings.

I don't think the Bloc, therefore, will make good on this bluff.

The Bloc won't necessarily loose seats, as they could potentially benefit from a split federalist vote. I don't really see why a few seats matters to the bloc anyways, seeing as how they will never form a government. The best they could hope for is to hold the balance of power. But that balance will only matter if they can get something out of this government. If the conservatives make good on their promise to address the fiscal imbalance, the bloc will continue to support the conservatives. This is probably the best case scenario for the bloc. If they don't get anything, they may take their chances bringing down the government in the hopes that a future government will address the fiscal imbalance or else loose the support of the bloc. But who knows how long this could go on for. Eventually, quebecers may get sick of elections and stop voting for the bloc, but who knows. So the bloc may have to settle for a government that does nothing for the fiscal imblance if no parties are willing to do so. Of course the bloc's policies are probably more in line with the liberals (depending on the leader), for example foreign policy, so they may be more likely to prop up a minority liberal government than a conservative minority, but who knows.

As for the liberals, a lot of it will depend on who they choose as their leader. With Rae or Iggy, a majority is possible but probably not likely in my opinion. With dion or kennedy, I doubt the conservatives would get a majority, and the liberals would probably even win the election.