Will Stephen Harper serve longer than Paul Martin?

[1967100]

Do you think Harper will beat out Paul Martin?

[JMH]

Do you think Harper will beat out Paul Martin?

Givin the latest choice for Liberal leader, I see no threat for Mr. Harper on the horizon. As long as the Cons continue with a centerest tack and avoid polarizing issues to satisfy their "lunnies" on the far right....................the deciding factor in the next election will be whether not the already apathetic population is content enough to stay away from the polls. This looks likely, at least to my eye.

Mr. Dion is a very interesting man and I have nothing against him personally, but it seems unlikely to me that Northern Ontario and all provinces West will embrace yet another Quebecer at the helm of this country; unfortunately, his poor command of the english language could be a deal breaker aswell.

Time will tell.

[Topaz]

Well, my view is if the same people who voted for Harper don't mind what is has done as PM, I guess he has a very good chance of being re-elected. Who among those voters likes the following, Harper wouldn't lower the flag for the dead soldiers returning, firing the President of the Wheat Board and try to vanishing the Wheat Board, favouring Quebec over the rest of Canada, the Environment and its mess, plus lying, he had ideas that would come forth after the first election, the Income trust lies, extending the troopers for 2 years in a war we shouldn't be in etc. Those voters who don't mind any of these, and still vote for him, is, as responsible for what happens to the country and the troops!

[betsy]

Well, my view is if the same people who voted for Harper don't mind what is has done as PM, I guess he has a very good chance of being re-elected. Who among those voters likes the following, Harper wouldn't lower the flag for the dead soldiers returning, firing the President of the Wheat Board and try to vanishing the Wheat Board, favouring Quebec over the rest of Canada, the Environment and its mess, plus lying, he had ideas that would come forth after the first election, the Income trust lies, extending the troopers for 2 years in a war we shouldn't be in etc. Those voters who don't mind any of these, and still vote for him, is, as responsible for what happens to the country and the troops!

From what I understand, the Liberals had also resisted from turning the flag into a yoyo under their rule. Anyway, the Liberal sentiment that goes with that yoyo is just plain exploitation and politicizing....everyone knows that!

Because on the next breath after that....weren't the troops likened to terrorists? That sentiment ran along the same idea of the Liberal election campaign ad....about our troops with guns on every streets of Canada?

That's how the Liberals really think of our troops.

As for the rest....well, how many lies did the Liberals make?

How many boondagles? Including the environment!

And the most important issue: corruptions. the culture of entitlement. We're still discovering how deeply-seated it is among the Liberals.

[madmax]

If you are asking if Stephen Harper will last longer as Prime Minister, then Paul Martin, then I would say you are setting the bar pretty low. If you are asking will Stephen Harper stay in Politics longer then Paul Martin, I would say absolutely not. Stephen Harper is a quitter when things don't go his way. Now he is Prime Minister and has the levers of power that he has always wanted. I can't see him sticking around for long in opposition or serving his constituents, because that is something he has never enjoyed or liked to do. However, should he see success, such as another minority government or a majority government, he will stick around.

So really you might want to ask.

Will Harper Last Longer than Trudeau, Mulroney or Chretian?

[1967100]

I'm surprised that you people say that Dion is no threat. Look at the latest poll. Harper's a goner. And I'm talking about length as PM, not as an MP.

[Ricki Bobbi]

Will Harper Last Longer than Trudeau, Mulroney or Chretian?

Setting the bar pretty high indeed.

Mulroney is a possibility.

413 more days and counting until he passes Martin....

Has it really been almost a year since the end of dithering and corruption in the PMO?

[madmax]

Setting the bar pretty high indeed.

Mulroney is a possibility.

413 more days and counting until he passes Martin....

Has it really been almost a year since the end of dithering and corruption in the PMO?

Well, we could set the bar lower than the Martin

I think Turner, Campbell, and Clark are the more recent short term wonders. Not certain of their terms, but I think Harper has passed all of them now. Perhaps there are some more vintage Prime Ministers he could surpass.

Yeah, Mulroney is a possibility?

Anyone else?

[Ricki Bobbi]

Well, we could set the bar lower than the Martin

I think Turner, Campbell, and Clark are the more recent short term wonders. Not certain of their terms, but I think Harper has passed all of them now. Perhaps there are some more vintage Prime Ministers he could surpass.

Yeah, Mulroney is a possibility?

Anyone else?

You could barely set the bar lower than Martin.

Yes, he has surpassed all the more recent short-term wonders.

The next three on the list are all Conservatives. Mackenzie Bowell, John Abbott and Arthur Meighen. No clue about any of those guys. But at least they actually won elections. *cough* *cough* Kim Campbell and John Turner.

[madmax]

I'm surprised that you people say that Dion is no threat. Look at the latest poll. Harper's a goner. And I'm talking about length as PM, not as an MP.

A poll at this point in time is meaningless. These aren't votes, and this isn't election time. If you are speculating on these polls alone, that still doesn't mean Harper will not surpass Martin.

Martin was an Idiot, whom, when he lost his CPC dancing partner over political opportunism, decided to walk all over his new minor NDP Partner. This arrogance combined with the corruption, sealed Martins own fate. He could have been a player, continued to court the Liberal Left, the NDP and the Bloq. But he was too stupid, and his advisers where absolute arrogant buffoons. Hey, there still on TV too.

Harper is at the controls, he makes mistakes, but he isn't arrogant like the Liberals. He won't put himself into an election without trying to gain an advantage that will allow him to maintain leadership of the country.

If Harper can work with the NDP better than the Martin Liberals then he is showing alot of discipline. Because that has got to be a more difficult proposition for him and his party then it would have been for the all talk liberals. And when it comes down to it, Dion is currently all talk, once again talking from the NDP platform.

So, I think Harper has learned alot since he locked himself in the trailer in the first election campaign. I think he knows he can pull out all the Liberal tricks, and not get nailed on them, or fear a Liberal attack. He can also implement Economic Policies supported by the Liberals, and the Liberals will have to go along with them.

Dion can't play both sides of a war in Afghanistan, so he will be stuck with the official Liberal position, which is what Harper choose to follow.

Dion can't talk about income trusts, and gain any votes. Harper is only go to lose support from those he can't pacify between now and the next election.

So, the realities come out in an election campaign, and these won't be beneficial for Dion, because Dion is still a Liberal and must answer to Liberal Lack of Action on the Left, and the similar Conservative Economic Policy on the right.

Harper, is sound biting election campaign issues, Senate Reform, Crime, and issues that enhance the base.

Dion is only offering other party platforms as a platform for the liberals.

Polls are meaningless right now.

Dion may be a threat, but on Harpers timetable not Dions.

Really, short of Liberal style tricks, supporting Liberal Missions, Supporting some foolish GST economic policy, and doing a turn about on his base with regards to income trusts. Why should Dion actually beat Harper.

If credibility is an Issue, I see Jack Layton having greater credibility then any Liberal Leader. And Harper also has Credibility. Dions credibility is countered by the party itself.

I am enjoying this minority parliment. Each side has to talk sense into the other to get something done, and this has been benefiting everyone. So what if the politicians are complaining that they have to discuss things with others. And right now, I prefer the goals of the Harper government with the restraining and cooperative initiatives the NDP are putting forth.

All I hear from the Liberals, are all the things they really didn't implement in 13 years, that Harper cut.

Even Harper has said, at least the NDP mean what they say.

The Same can be said about the CPC to a degree, and obviously power has its own limitating factors. While the NDP were against income trusts, the CPC decision must have been difficult to do an about face on.

But the Liberals play both sides of the issue.

This is good for polls, but in a campaign, their record is still fresh in the eyes of the voters. And truthfully, they should have run on their economic record, which was heavily influence by the Reform Party, vs their phoney socialist promises they reneged upon.

So again, how could Dion threaten Harper in a campaign?

Steal NDP voters? Not if these voters want something done?

Steal CPC voters? Not if the right leaning Liberal voters are appeased by strong economic policy.

Harpers not a goner, and any Liberal Strategist whom thinks that he is will be looking from the sidelines with less seats, not more.

So, I still think he will surpass Martin, and Will Surpass Mulroney.

[Ricki Bobbi]

So again, how could Dion threaten Harper in a campaign?

Steal NDP voters? Not if these voters want something done?

Steal CPC voters? Not if the right leaning Liberal voters are appeased by strong economic policy.

Harpers not a goner, and any Liberal Strategist whom thinks that he is will be looking from the sidelines with less seats, not more.

So, I still think he will surpass Martin, and Will Surpass Mulroney.

Good point.

The election looks to be shaping up as a really fight on the left. Which is all good for the Conservatives. Every step Dion takes to the left to pick up seats means that there is that much more room on his right flank to help build the Conservative majority.

[geoffrey]

Mulroney? Not a chance. One more minority and he's pooched.

[Ricki Bobbi]

Mulroney? Not a chance. One more minority and he's pooched.

This is definitely Harper's last election.

He might squeak out a minority but you are most likely right. Oh well, at least one more loss for the Liberals.

[Jean_Poutine]

Well, my view is if the same people who voted for Harper don't mind what is has done as PM, I guess he has a very good chance of being re-elected.

I do have a problem with the Conservatives on some things. For instance, I've heard that they may make cuts to post-secondary eduction, which I think is the opposite of what needs to be done.

However, I do support them 100% when it comes to other issues like increased military spending. As General James Jones, former commander of NATO, said, 2% of GDP for a military budget used to be the minimum and now it seems to be the ceiling for some countries. During WWII, Canada spent 15% of GDP on defence. That was then scaled down to 5% during the Korean war, and from there, it was reduced to approximately 2.2% up until 1993. In 93, the Liberals cut it to 1.1% to eliminate a deficit that has been gone for a decade now and has since been replaced with billions in surplus. The roughly $17 billion in military spending that the Conservatives announced is to replace aging equipment and doesn't address the regular budget.

For Canada to restore the regular military budget, it'd have to increase military spending by about $13 billion every year. In other words, the entire $13 billion that the Conservatives put down on the debt recently would have to be put towards the military budget, and that would have to be sustained every year without creating a deficit, but they've already stated that they'll use surplus money to pay down the debt. So, where will the money come from? The answer is that it will have to come from other areas, which will probably make some people kick and scream, but unlike some of those other areas, defence spending IS a federal responsibility. Some people will, no doubt, call the Conservatives war mongers for spending more on the military, but the reality is that it's just bringing military spending back to what is the normal level for Canada. I mean, 2.2% GDP is still small by US standards.

If the Liberals get back in power, this problem is not likely to be addressed.

So, no one party is going to take care of everything, but before there's a change of government, I would like to see the Conservatives address what the Liberals won't.

....extending the troopers for 2 years in a war we shouldn't be in.

Technically, it's a Chapter VII Peace Enforcement mission. Unlike peacekeeping, peace enforcement doesn't have neutrality and allows the use of force. Furthermore, Resolution 1707 (which you can find on the UN web site) states:

Determining that the situation in Afghanistan still constitutes a threat to international peace and security.

Determined to ensure the full implementation of the mandate of ISAF...

Acting for these reasons under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations,

1. Decides to extend the authorization of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF), as defined in resolution 1386 (2001) and 1510 (2003), for a period of twelve months beyond 13 October 2006;

2. Authorizes the Member States participating in ISAF to take all necessary measures to fulfil its mandate....

The words "authorizes and "all necessary measures" is UN speak for authorizing military force. The UN doesn't openly talk about authorizing military force. UN resolution 678 (available on the UN web site), which authorized Desert Storm, used the words "authorizes" and "all necessary means." Being all inclusive, it includes military force.

In contrast, with regards to the Iraq war, Resolution 1441 (again, you can find it on the UN web site) used the words "serious consequences". That's deliberately vague. The US and Brits wanted it to have weight, and thus the words "serious consequences," but what does that mean? Other members of the Security Council said that they were concerned about "hidden triggers" for war, and did not want that to be a resolution authorizing war. Thus it was intended that the Security Council would determine what the "serious consequences" would be if Iraq was found to be in violation. It's not, however, all inclusive like "all means necessary" with the word "authorizes". When the US could not get a second resolution, they tried to argue that resolution 1441 is tied to resolution 678, and thus they still had authorization without a second resolution. However, resolution 678 authorized the use of force to liberate Kuwait more than a decade ago. So, that's stretching it a little.

So, according to the United Nations -- NOT BUSH -- Afghanistan is a threat to international peace and security; therefore, the UN authorizes the military operation there. In addition to that, it's under NATO control not US control, and there are 37 countries involved in the military operation and 60 countries involved in development. So, how is that something that Canada should not be involved in?

If you're concerned about the troops, you'll support the increased military spending. It includes such things as Chinooks, which would minimize the need for convoys, and most of the casualties come from attacks on convoys.

As for what the troops think of the mission, I'm all ears. I read about it regularly, and comments that I've seen from troops show that they are determined. There may be some that disagree with it. Whenever you talk about a large group of people you shouldn't generalize and imply that they all have the same view. However, why don't we see them speaking out against it the way we've seen people from the US military criticizing the Iraq war? So, you'll have to excuse me if I don't take the word of some anonymous people on a political forum as the gospel truth.

[Charles Anthony]

During WWII, Canada spent 15% of GDP on defence. That was then scaled down to 5% during the Korean war, and from there, it was reduced to approximately 2.2% up until 1993. In 93, the Liberals cut it to 1.1% to eliminate a deficit that has been gone for a decade now and has since been replaced with billions in surplus. The roughly $17 billion in military spending that the Conservatives announced is to replace aging equipment and doesn't address the regular budget.

Why should military spending stay the same? Looking at numbers is too simplistic and unconvincing. We may not have the same need be go to war as we did in the past.

Not to sound flippant but Canadians do not spend the same amount of money on fur-coats as they did in the past either. We have found synthetic alternatives. Canadians depend on trading with Asia more now than they did before the Second World War too.

Must I believe that the supply and demand for international war or Canada's military technological abilities stay constant?

So, according to the United Nations -- NOT BUSH -- Afghanistan is a threat to international peace and security; therefore, the UN authorizes the military operation there. In addition to that, it's under NATO control not US control, and there are 37 countries involved in the military operation and 60 countries involved in development. So, how is that something that Canada should not be involved in?

You are asking for blind trust in world military and commercial powers.

Canada was involved in The Great War To End All Wars (is that not what the all-knowing history-writing winning-side super-powers called it?) too. For what noble cause did we send so many young Canadians to their death during the First World War?

[Jean_Poutine]

A poll at this point in time is meaningless.

True. The Liberals don't even have an election platform ready yet. I've read that Bob Rae will be working on it, and that should be interesting.

However, there was a recent CTV poll that I found a bit surprising:

How did Stephen Harper do as Prime Minister in 2006?

Better than expected 5168 votes (57 %)

About average 1704 votes (19 %)

Worse than expected 2233 votes (25 %)

Total Votes: 9105

I am enjoying this minority parliment.

I liked having minority governments too, but it's a trade off between stability and accountability.

I'm not so sure that accountability would be lost if the Conservatives got a majority. They just spent 13 years in opposition, and I doubt they have any desire to return there. They may have had five priorities in the last election, but establishing themselves as a viable alternative to the Liberals again is also one of their priorities, and they won't achieve that by taking a hard right. In order to get the votes necessary for power, they will have to compromise on some things, but at least they'd be able to do more than they would be able to do in opposition. In contrast, I'm not so sure the Liberals have had enough of a time out to look at it that way.

At any rate, considering that another election would likely result in another minority government, there's not much point in pressing for another election. However, if a party should get a majority, at least it won't be a coronation like the 90s.

[geoffrey]

At any rate, considering that another election would likely result in another minority government, there's not much point in pressing for another election. However, if a party should get a majority, at least it won't be a coronation like the 90s.

There is no real plausible scenario that allows a party to win a majority in the next election.

[Jean_Poutine]

Why should military spending stay the same? Looking at numbers is too simplistic and unconvincing. We may not have the same need be go to war as we did in the past.

I would agree with you if the expectation was that it should remain at 15% or even 5%, but it was cut from 2% to 1.1% to eliminate a deficit that's long gone not because the military doesn't need the money.

During the decade 1990-2000, one of uncertainty and global instability, there have actually been more regional conflicts in different parts of the world than occurred during the Cold War. As a result, governments have looked to the UN to deal with a number of violent ethnic and nationalist conflicts, many of which have been created by the confusion and power struggles resulting from the fall of communism and the end of the Cold War. During the first 40 years of its existence, the UN fielded 13 peacekeeping missions. Many Cold War-related struggles, like the war in Vietnam, were strictly off-limits to the UN because the rival superpowers either did not welcome its presence or could not agree on the ground rules for UN involvement. But since the end of the Cold War, the UN has initiated 37 new peacekeeping missions, on practically every continent of the world.

http://www.cbc.ca/newsinreview/nov2000/un/mission.htm

Canadians often take pride in calling themselves peacekeepers, but during the time in which peacekeeping was most needed, Canada was scaling back and expecting the military to do more with less. Here is what a soldier said about it:

Over the past decade, the common sentence I have constantly heard in the military has been Do more with less due to budget cuts and fiscal restraint. Despite these cuts, the military has managed to Do more with Less as we have answered the call of our government in Somalia, Rwanda, Bosnia, East Timor, Kosovo, Afghanistan, Haiti and a score of other peacekeeping and peacemaking deployments, not to mention deployments and training here in Canada.

For me at least, this has had a huge impact, but not the only deciding factor on what I have been looking for in the government of Canada. Despite the military being part of my everyday life, I still sat down and read the rest of the party issues to see what would be the best choice for not only myself in my job, but my family as well.

Quite an interesting read when you manage to sift through all the main issues. I obviously have my own major concerns, and these were first on my list to look at for each of the parties. At the top of my list was defence, followed closely by justice, then health and education. There were actually points that each party had that impressed me, and some vague ideas or thoughts from others that turned me off immediately.

I really cannot stand beat around the bush answers or comments. I like to get to the point and take a stand. Whether this is due to my military training or not, I expect a leader to take a stand, and not sit on a fence on any issue especially when it comes to being the leader of this country I am sworn to defend. Being in the military, you have to take a stand and make decisions, and live with them. Nobody makes the right decisions all the time, but actually making one is half the battle. Learning from the mistakes of a wrong decision is what I consider the other half of the battle. I have found from personal experience that my subordinates would rather live with a wrong decision I make than have me be indecisive or not make up my mind. Of course, from experience as well, making the right decision goes that much further.

http://www.cbc.ca/canadavotes2004/analysis...llstorring.html

We have had more than $70 billion in federal surplus since that cut was made, and international threats have not gone away. Why continue to expect them to do more with less?

You are asking for blind trust in world military and commercial powers.

I pointed out the international support and legality of the mission vs. the Iraq war which it is often compared to.

[Charles Anthony]

I would agree with you if the expectation was that it should remain at 15% or even 5%, but it was cut from 2% to 1.1% to eliminate a deficit that's long gone not because the military doesn't need the money.

Forgive me but you are not providing a convincing argument for why 1.1% can not satify current needs for the military.

Let me illustrate.

Years ago, men threw hand grenades. Now, men use rocket launched grenades. This technological advancement represents a cost savings of some sort. I would not expect our costs for THE SAME LEVEL of warfare to stay the same.

I ask you specifically to provide an argument for why we should be paying the same for rocket launched grenade tactics as we did for hand grenade tactics.

Years ago, men went to war at the drop of a hat. It was more difficult to negotiate and conscription was easy to command. Now, men tend to settle their differences commercially. The continued globalization of trade makes warfare less and less attractive compared to commerce.

I am not convinced that we should need the same level of warfare as we did in the past.

I pointed out the international support and legality of the mission vs. the Iraq war which it is often compared to.

You expect us to have blind trust in the super-powers as Canadians did during The Great War To End All Wars.

[Ricki Bobbi]

There is no real plausible scenario that allows a party to win a majority in the next election.

The only plausible scenario is for the Conservatives to squeak out a majority. Not likely, but here is how it could break down and where they would have to pick up seats.

BC - 8 (the five they lost in 2006, plus pick up three. A slight swing of public opinion in their favour and this happens very easily. Of course they will lose Emeerson't seat, but it never really was their's.)

SK - 1 (Jeremy Harrison takes back Desnethe Missinippi River.)

ON - 7 (Yes they lose Garth's seat, but they pick up three in the Southwest, two in the 905, one in the North and Peter Kent breaks through in T.O.)

Quebec - 8 If they can continue to present themselves as a credible Federalist alternative. (ex. Chicoutimi - Le Fjord, Andre Arthur's seat.)

NS 1.

NB -3. Would probably need Lord running to take a tough seat in Moncton. Plausible? Yes. Probably the only plausible scenario for any party to win a majority.

NL - 2

PEI - 1.

Is this a likely scenario? No. Is it plausible? Yes.

[punked]

Pick up in PEI and NL I don;t think that is a reality!

[geoffrey]

Pick up in PEI and NL I don;t think that is a reality!

I think those two are more realistic than 8 in Quebec or 7 in Ontario. It'd take a major foul up by Dion or Duceppe to turn the tides that way.

8 in B.C.? No way. I figure they can pickup the military riding in Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca but other than that... nadda.

If Lord ran as a CPC candidate... well, we're talking a different outcome in the Maritimes then what we see right now. I could see the Atlantic ridings going as you've said. Lord may run, despite his claims that he won't. He's highly popular... actually gaining support in the last election despite falling victim to to our electoral system.

He'd run because he knows Harper must step down after the next election... he wants to be in parliament to scoop up the leadership. This is his chance. He can't leave himself out of Ottawa like Kennedy did, that'd be too costly.

Bernie Lord... hmm... that'd be such a fantastic outcome for the CPC it can hardly be expressed.

But do remember, he was pretty adament that he was going to the private sector after leaving NB politics.

[Ricki Bobbi]

I think those two are more realistic than 8 in Quebec or 7 in Ontario. It'd take a major foul up by Dion or Duceppe to turn the tides that way.

8 in B.C.? No way. I figure they can pickup the military riding in Esquimalt-Juan de Fuca but other than that... nadda.

If Lord ran as a CPC candidate... well, we're talking a different outcome in the Maritimes then what we see right now. I could see the Atlantic ridings going as you've said. Lord may run, despite his claims that he won't. He's highly popular... actually gaining support in the last election despite falling victim to to our electoral system.

He'd run because he knows Harper must step down after the next election... he wants to be in parliament to scoop up the leadership. This is his chance. He can't leave himself out of Ottawa like Kennedy did, that'd be too costly.

Bernie Lord... hmm... that'd be such a fantastic outcome for the CPC it can hardly be expressed.

But do remember, he was pretty adament that he was going to the private sector after leaving NB politics.

The 8 in Quebec and 7 in Ontario are doable. Remember you asked for plausible.

BC is much easier to prove.

1. BC Southern Interior - A 13-year old seat that was considered safe for the CPC to hold. Until the candidate's undisclosed charge of smuggling had his court date set two weeks before the election. We'll take that one back.

2. Newton - North Delta - Even after the nightmare of Gurmant Grewal the CPC fared well. Trailed by only 1,600 votes in a tough three way race.

3. Richmond. With an extremely socon candidate, i.e. Darrell Reid, the party came within 1,800 votes of beating Raymond Chan. A more moderate candidate and this is a winnable seat.

4. West Vancouver - Sunshine Coast - Sea to sky highway. Despite the retirement of the very popular John Reynolds the CPC still came within 1,000 votes. A 2% swing in this riding gives it to the Conservatives.

5. Esquimalt - Juan De Fuca. As you mentioned.

6. Vancouver Island North. - Incumbent John Duncan lost by 630 votes. A resurgent Liberal Party helps Duncan win the seat back.

7. New West Minster Coquitlam - Incumbent Paul Forsyth held his winning percentage of the vote from 2004 in 2006. Lost because of the collapse of the Liberals. Again a resurgent Liberal Party helps the CPC take back another seat.

8. Burnaby Douglas - This riding has always been a pretty even split between the right and left. Svend represented the riding, and provided effective yet histrionical representation, helped by a divided right. In 2004 and 2006 the Liberals did very well with Billy Cunningham as the candidate. As a member of Paul Martin's "Board" Cunningham was able to bring in the PM and tons of cabinet ministers in both elections. He increased the vote by about 10 points from 2000. He took about 80% of those votes from the right. With Cunningham finally seeing the writing on the wall look for the next Liberal victim to fall back to historical levels and a strong resurgence for the CPC candidate.

[geoffrey]

The 8 in Quebec and 7 in Ontario are doable. Remember you asked for plausible.

I'd like to see your 8 Quebec ridings. I could pull together 7 in Ontario that are longshots...

I possibly agree with some of your findings, but disagree with:

3. Richmond. With an extremely socon candidate, i.e. Darrell Reid, the party came within 1,800 votes of beating Raymond Chan. A more moderate candidate and this is a winnable seat.

Raymond Chan is well liked. I don't think it was Darrell Reid that lost this riding.

4. West Vancouver - Sunshine Coast - Sea to sky highway. Despite the retirement of the very popular John Reynolds the CPC still came within 1,000 votes. A 2% swing in this riding gives it to the Conservatives.

Fantastic ski season this year. An influx of hippie type ski bums will swing the vote more left.

6. Vancouver Island North. - Incumbent John Duncan lost by 630 votes. A resurgent Liberal Party helps Duncan win the seat back.

7. New West Minster Coquitlam - Incumbent Paul Forsyth held his winning percentage of the vote from 2004 in 2006. Lost because of the collapse of the Liberals. Again a resurgent Liberal Party helps the CPC take back another seat.

I like your thinking, but I figure they are more longshot then your giving credit for. Strategic voting is becoming more and more popular to the CPC's disdain.

8. Burnaby Douglas - This riding has always been a pretty even split between the right and left. Svend represented the riding, and provided effective yet histrionical representation, helped by a divided right. In 2004 and 2006 the Liberals did very well with Billy Cunningham as the candidate. As a member of Paul Martin's "Board" Cunningham was able to bring in the PM and tons of cabinet ministers in both elections. He increased the vote by about 10 points from 2000. He took about 80% of those votes from the right. With Cunningham finally seeing the writing on the wall look for the next Liberal victim to fall back to historical levels and a strong resurgence for the CPC candidate.

You'd need a serious collapse in Liberal support for that to work. Cunningham might be liked... but that well liked? Your saying in some ridings the Liberals support will go up, taking from the NDP incumbants. But here, it will go down 10%? Nah. Cunningham isn't that popular among the right-wingers.

The united right-wing votes since the riding's creation would never have won an election either.

[Ricki Bobbi]

I'd like to see your 8 Quebec ridings. I could pull together 7 in Ontario that are longshots...

Three realistics.

1. Chicoutimi - Le Fjord. See how well Jean-Pierre Blackburn is treating the people just down the road in Jonquiere.

2. Portneuf - Jacques Cartier. Andre Arthur has cancer. Won't run again. This is a riding with an open mind.

3. Quebec. The only seat in Quebec city the CPC didn't win in January.

Five long shots.

1. Gaspesie - Iles de le Madeleine

2. Haute - Gaspesie - La Mitis - Matane - Matapedia

3. Montmercy - Charlevoix - Haute - Cote Nord

4. Roberval - Lac St. Jean

5. Trois Rivieres.

All are rural ridings that aren't hardcore separatist and will be more inclined to support the military.

You'd need a serious collapse in Liberal support for that to work. Cunningham might be liked... but that well liked? Your saying in some ridings the Liberals support will go up, taking from the NDP incumbants. But here, it will go down 10%? Nah. Cunningham isn't that popular among the right-wingers.

The united right-wing votes since the riding's creation would never have won an election either.

You'd only need the Liberal vote to return to 2000 levels. i.e. the last election Cunningham didn't run.

The united right-wing vote, i.e. the PC and Canadian Alliance vote topped Svends vote in 2000.

NDP 17,018

CA 15,057

PC 2,477