Plus ca change....

[dirtydan]

In a way, it's kind of too bad. I've met Stephen Harper a few times, and he's a genuinely nice guy. He's got a nice family, and is actually a good person to be around at a gathering. He's very intelligent, articulate, well-read, and a really critical thinker. And believe it or not, he's got a really good sense of humour.

I'm willing to agree with that. However what really does count is the public's perception of him and how that perception was created. Face it, for a guy that is the Leader of the Official Opposition he has not been acting anything like some one set to become the next Prime Minister. It's one thing for Harper to be very critical of the Liberals, but the hardest of criticism should have been left to his designated political attack dogs. John Reynolds and Jason Kenny come to mind.

But he's got some ideas, values, and morals, that just don't wash with the majority (including me). Unfortunately, his brand of politics is divisive at a time when it needs to bring people together. He lacks the flexibility needed to really succeed in politics, especially Canadian politics.

When Harper became leader of the Conservatives his reputation was that of being a policy wonk. That's image they went into the last election with and now that image has pretty much disappeared. What has replaced it is one of some one very unPrime Ministerial and unstatesman. Pretty much all of the support the Conservatives got from the Gomery Inquiry has disappeared.

I don't think Harper lacks the flexibility to succeed. What he lacks is the ability to project himself as a leader. He may be bright and highly intelligent, but that doesn't always translate to being a good leader. Greg Weston of the Sun said it best, that Harper is micro-managing the message the Conservatives are putting out and he's always taking the advice of his special interest group friends over the advice of his staff, the caucus and the party apparatchiks.

He is a man of intense faith - which isn't necessarily a bad thing, except that he is faithful to the extreme side of Christianity - one that prefers a scorched earth to allowing diversity and recognition of non-Christian values.

Harper has never struck me as the religious type. That image, be it real or not, set him away from Stockwell Day and Preston Manning.

You guys nailed it - how loud a message is it that the majority of Canadians are willing to tolerate a government mired in corruption, rather than even give the time of day to the Conservative Party? They are fucking up big time - and I'm okay with that.

I would say the average voter if given the choice between a party that is corrupt and a party that is incompetent will more often than not chose the corrupt party. The Grewal tapes taking two weeks to be released to the public, the fact they were editted to some point, Belinda Stronach crossing over the Liberals, the highly negative message being put out by Harper, being focussed too much on the Gomery Inquiry, and the complete lack of policy talk all add up to the Conservatives failing. More so when the Conservatives had their policy convention back in March and the general public still doesn't know what the party stands for. The Conservatives' number one eneny isn't the Liberals, it's themselves. And to quote, "I'm okay with that."

 

[dirtydan]

This is very interesting reading the posts on modern Canadian politics.

I hope I have all of the points correct:

1. One party promotes a political agenda that is supported by a plurality of the Canadian voters.

Good wording! Yes a plurality, not a majority, of Canadians support the Liberals over the Conservatives. That's really the history of Canadian federal politics since the 1890's!

2. That same party has some elected members who are corrupt and dishonest.

One would be able to find such members in ANY party.

3. There is another party that has not committed that moral lapse lately, probably because they have not been in office for a while.

Are you talking about the Conservatives or the NDP?

4. The more honorable party (today) is not aligned with the political agenda of the voting public and this party wants to take the country in a different direction.

If, , you are talking about the Conservatives then yes you would be right. The Conservatives problem, well one of them, is they have not been talking about policy. The party had its policy convention back in March but the party's MP's rarely if at all talk policy to the public or the media. In other words they have been great at giving reasons NOT to vote for the Liberals but hopelessly pathetic in giving reasons why voters should choose the Conservatives.

5. The Canadian voter must now choose between a party close to their political beliefs but corrupt and throwing them out of office for a party not politically acceptable.

And bingo was his name-o! Bang on LD. Add to that the politically unacceptable party also look incompetent while the other party while corrupt still looks competent.

Does that sound familiar?

Bush and Kerry? You got me by the short and curlies on this one!

 

[dirtydan]

Definitely 1974. The photo was taken during a campaign stopover at North Bay Airport, on May 30, 1974.

Thanks!

That pic then no doubt had an effect on the outcome with the Liberals getting back their majority after winning a minority in 1972, only two seats more than the Conservatives. If I recall correctly Maggie Trudeau was also out front campaigning for the Liberals. A 20-something chick who is pretty good looking and intelligent does win votes.

 

[LonelyGhost]

This is very interesting reading the posts on modern Canadian politics.

I hope I have all of the points correct:

1. One party promotes a political agenda that is supported by a plurality of the Canadian voters.
...

5. The Canadian voter must now choose between a party close to their political beliefs but corrupt and throwing them out of office for a party not politically acceptable.

Does that sound familiar?

... and like the US, it is the minority of states/provinces that decides the federal government based on what fits its current regional agenda ...

sure, ontario has almost a third of the population of canada and so what they decide is good for them is good for them ... which is why there is a need for a better structuring of power between the feds and the provinces that would allow the provinces to implement programs within a policy framework that represents canadian values but functions effectively and efficiently for that province.

and why can't the Conservatives gain ground? Simple:

when the 'issue' of gay marriage started, the liberals made it a priority so that the attention would be taken off their criminal actions ... the Conservatives could have simply stood up and said: "This is a non-issue for most Canadians and all Conservatives ... marriage is marriage under law and the Liberals either have to change the law to exclude gay marriage or get back to the business of running the country! Which is it going to be?"

but noooooooooooooooo ... all of a sudden the Conservative MAKE IT the BIGGEST thing since ABORTION which they also argued to death at their last convention ...

that's why they won't get elected ... because the liberals only have to pick a social issue curveball and toss it at the conservatives who will swing at it every time ...

 

[HankQuinlan]

5. The Canadian voter must now choose between a party close to their political beliefs but corrupt and throwing them out of office for a party not politically acceptable.

Does that sound familiar?

You've got it pretty much exactly right --- including the "now" part when referring to the Conservatives. The last time they were in power, they were thrown out completely, electing only two members of parliament. This was in reaction to huge financial scandals in the Mulroney era. They have since merged with the Western-based Reform party, which has the added problem of incorporating a regressive social agenda which was not as strong a part of the previous mix.

The difference when you compare our country to yours is that we didn't and won't elect the right-wing as you did, because our values are so different. ...And the Conservative Party is not nearly as right wing as your Republicans. They are more like your Democrats. Canadians would never elect politicians who keep saying that God is on their side --- we find religion mixed with politics distasteful and always suspect rascals to be involved.

Our scandals do not compare with yours, either. The American media seem very accepting of Tom DeLay's financial dealings, not to mention Haliburton/Cheney --- the Gomery scandal is minor in comparison. The only thing that gets your media going is blowjobs in office --- massive financial corruption seems to be fine.

 

[tom2morrow]

Sad but true for those of us down south

Our scandals do not compare with yours, either. The American media seem very accepting of Tom DeLay's financial dealings, not to mention Haliburton/Cheney --- the Gomery scandal is minor in comparison. The only thing that gets your media going is blowjobs in office --- massive financial corruption seems to be fine.

The American media seem to have no interest in issues that actually affect people's lives.

 

[luckydog71]

Hank, this is a thread on Canadian politics. I know I came close to changing the topic, but that is not what I wanted to do. I am finding this discussion very interesting. It will also give me some good ammunition the next time I am in a debate with my liberal (Liberal) friends.

So Hank I give you a free ant-American shot with no return volley.

 

[HankQuinlan]

Canadian politics

Another element of Canadian politics you might find interesting is that we (and our media) take every shot at the policies of the current governing party --- not matter who they are --- and no-one is ever accused of being anti-Canadian by attacking the government.

 

[LonelyGhost]

Bingo! I couldn't care less about gay marriage or gay anything, so why do the PC/Reform waste time yakking about it? There's a country to run, do your friggin' job!

Probably a decision by the same brain dead morons who decided it would be a good idea to force an election despite the polls saying 80% of Canadians don't want one. These guys just don't have a clue.

Tried discussing this with my MP Stephen Fletcher and it's an absolute waste of time, all you get is prefab dogma.

yup, the conservatives dug a pit, lined it with stakes and then jumped right into it ...

that's why they will be in opposition until the next ice age.

 

[BushPilot]

yup, the conservatives dug a pit, lined it with stakes and then jumped right into it ...

that's why they will be in opposition until the next ice age.

Actually, I wish the Conservative Party of Canada four years as the third (or fourth, depending on the BQ seat breakdown) in Parliament. I think the federal NDP would do a good job as Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition for one term. Sadly, that designation will almost certainly go to the Bloc next time around, with the NDP and Conservatives to scrap it out to be the third party.

 

[BushPilot]

Is that stupid people have been breeding faster than smart people in this fair land of ours for 2 generations....lazy, ignorant, weak people are the majority, and their majority is growing, and these are the type of people who don't identify strongly with conservative values....our only hope is for educated people to start having more kids or to up the number of well-educated immigrants...mind you they probably now prefer Australia and the US to Canada mostly.

First of all, I don't buy hornydude as mere devil's advocate and shit disturber. Sadly, I really do think he believes most of the shit he spews forth on this board. Secondly, my family is one of the most highly educated families I've ever encountered. Most everyone in my generation, myself, my siblings, and my cousins, are university educated. Although I have no children, many of them do. However, you won't find a Conservative voter amongst the lot of us. And we are the progeny of 'uneducated immigrants.' Your correlation between intelligence, or a lack of it, and voting Liberal is, like most of the things that you say, absolutely moronic.

 

[chiefwiggum]

The more things change...

1974​

To be fair to old Bob Stanfield, that pic was always a bum rap. Prior to that pic being taken he had been catching the football and passing it quite well. One fumble and his political career was pretty much toast.

Also what many Canadians probably didn't realize was that Stanfield and Trudeau were really 3 or 4 years apart in age with Trudeau being the one a little younger. Now compare that to their respective images. Trudeau was the dashing playboy with a great deal of sex appeal while Stanfield seemed like a politician who would have been more at home in the 1920's.

Definite fair comment - it's an old standby in the media that Stanfield possibly got unfairly painted with that photograph.

As far as Trudeau, it just wasn't his charisma and "youthful" image - he was clearly a more global thinker than Stanfield, which appealed to the majority of Canadians at the time.

 

[chiefwiggum]

I don't think Harper lacks the flexibility to succeed. What he lacks is the ability to project himself as a leader. He may be bright and highly intelligent, but that doesn't always translate to being a good leader. Greg Weston of the Sun said it best, that Harper is micro-managing the message the Conservatives are putting out and he's always taking the advice of his special interest group friends over the advice of his staff, the caucus and the party apparatchiks.

In political circles, Harper does actually have a reputation as a hard-line kind of guy. The example from the Sun you give is a perfect example of that. Chretien and Martin were/are just as fierce when it came to caucus members who were "not on board". But they also knew how to manage those situations, pick their battles, and delegate the hard work accordingly.

Harper has never struck me as the religious type. That image, be it real or not, set him away from Stockwell Day and Preston Manning.

He is not as outwardly religious as Day or Manning, but he is well-known as an Evangelical Christian, with fundamentalist Christian beliefs. This is one area where he has proven more capable than his predecessors - tempering his message when possible. But he doesn't do it enough to hide the fact that his social policy is still very clearly controlled by his religion.

Contrast that to Martin and Chretien, both well-known Catholics - but who always made it clear they had a job to do - and that in certain situations, government and religion do not belong in the same room.

I would say the average voter if given the choice between a party that is corrupt and a party that is incompetent will more often than not chose the corrupt party. The Grewal tapes taking two weeks to be released to the public, the fact they were editted to some point, Belinda Stronach crossing over the Liberals, the highly negative message being put out by Harper, being focussed too much on the Gomery Inquiry, and the complete lack of policy talk all add up to the Conservatives failing. More so when the Conservatives had their policy convention back in March and the general public still doesn't know what the party stands for. The Conservatives' number one eneny isn't the Liberals, it's themselves. And to quote, "I'm okay with that."

Absolutely right.

The bottom line is the Conservatives expended so much energy screaming about why the Liberals are bad - they had none left to scream about why THEY are GOOD.

 

[Makhno]

And this is what we end up with as a result.

 

[dirtydan]

And this is what we end up with as a result.


What is western alienation?

To me it's just a bullshit issue. At one time or another every region of the country has been alienated. But because some whiney Tories can't get their way they invent something called western alienation.

 

[Makhno]

Western alienation has been around for as long as there has been a "West". It is hardly the invention of some "whiney Tories".

It is rooted in this.

 

[wolverine]

Western alienation has been around for as long as there has been a "West". It is hardly the invention of some "whiney Tories".

It is rooted in this.

All that's missing is the bit where the Maritimes are shat on.

 

[luckydog71]

…….Secondly, my family is one of the most highly educated families I've ever encountered. Most everyone in my generation, myself, my siblings, and my cousins, are university educated. ……… However, you won't find a Conservative voter amongst the lot of us. …..

Your correlation between intelligence, or a lack of it, and voting Liberal is, like most of the things that you say, absolutely moronic.

BP – intelligence and university degrees are not the same thing. I know a few very highly educated people who are not very smart. They have a great ability to memorize and they likely developed the ability to think like the professor wanted them to, so they received good grades. But they are not independent thinkers. They do not fit into my definition of smart.

The fact that your whole family is highly educated and they vote exactly the same is proof that they are not independent thinkers.

HD does say some things that are off the wall and I do not agree with him. But I do like people who can think for themselves. They look at the same information you and I do, but draw a very different conclusion. HD thinks outside of the box. I would hate to see his type get real power, but they make a huge contribution to society and are usually the ones that drive progress.

 

[Makhno]

Interestingly, the latest poll suggests that if we had an election today, nothing would change from the results of the last election. The Conservatives have huffed and puffed, but the only thing the've blown are their opportunities.

Federal election today would change little
Poll produces results similar to last vote
Eric Beauchesne
CanWest News Service
June 20, 2005

OTTAWA -- An election now would not likely change the federal political landscape, a new poll suggests.

If an election were held now, the Liberals would get 34 per cent of the decided votes, the Conservatives 29 per cent, the NDP 16 per cent, the Bloc Quebecois 12 per cent, and the Green Party six per cent, according to the poll conducted last week, and provided exclusively to CanWest News Service and Global TV.

Those results are virtually unchanged from a month ago and from the results of last year's federal election.

Despite recent speculation, political support for the Conservatives has not collapsed in the wake of the Gurman Grewal taping scandal, the defection to the Liberals of high-profile MP Belinda Stronach and the party's failure to force an election, said Darrell Bricker, president of Ipsos-Reid, which conducted the poll.

"There have been some polls showing them crashing but it's just not the case," he said.

But neither they, nor any of the other parties, have any upward momentum, at least at the national level, Bricker said, noting the changes are all within the margin of error for the survey.

And there is nothing in the survey results to prompt any of the parties, other than the Bloc which has a dominant lead in Quebec, to push for an election at this time, Bricker said.

"We have seen very little fluctuation in the political numbers in Canada in the last six months."

Liberal support is unchanged from last month, and down three points from the election, the Conservatives up one point since the last poll and down one point from the election.

Regionally, the Conservatives climbed sharply in Alberta, where they already dominate, but that has been offset by the loss of support elsewhere, especially in the other two Prairie provinces, but also in British Columbia and Atlantic Canada.

Meanwhile, support for the NDP is down a point from a month ago, but unchanged from the election, for the Bloc down two points over the month but unchanged from the election, and for the Green Party unchanged from last month but up two points from the election.

"The likelihood if we had an election today that we would end up with a result fairly similar to what we got in the last election is very high," Bricker said.

The results of the survey of 1,000 Canadians conducted June 14-16, is considered accurate at the national level within 3.1 percentage points 19 times out of 20.

 

[BushPilot]

The fact that your whole family is highly educated and they vote exactly the same is proof that they are not independent thinkers.

Actually, every one of us looks at the candidates that are available (we live in different ridings) and make our decisions independently. Some of us vote Liberal, some NDP, and some even vote Green. The fact that we all come to the same decision NOT to vote for the Conservative/Reform/CA Party does not mean that we are not independent thinkers. It just shows that we are like-minded people, which is understandable considering that we are from the same ethnic, economic, and social background. We disagree on many issues and we constantly debate these issues. We definitely are not bothered by your 'definition of smart.' You're just about smart enough to miss the point of my post, which was the point out the absurdity of the other poster's attempt to connect education and intelligence with Conservative voters. Smart, educated people vote Liberal. Smart, educated people vote Conservative. And smart, educated people vote NDP. That was the point. I'm glad to have had to point it out for you.