Does anyone see even the remote possibility of something being different with Iggy? I mean, they look different but....
The way to beat Harper
- Thread starter Rachel Uchitel
- Start date
Things would have every possibility of being worse. Iggy is at least as arrogant as Harper, they have purged the mp's of any talent and you will bring back the Quebec Liberal mafia into importance.
Ignatieff is clearly leagues brighter than Harper. Also - however poorly one thinks of the potential Liberal cabinet, there can be no cabinet in Canadian history as devoid of talent as Harper's current line up. Mulroney had a cast of stars in comparison. Diefenbaker had giants in comparison. Harper has such slim pickings that he has to recycle failed ministers like Rona Barrett.
Just look at Harper's Finance Minister - no one in their right mind will ever claim he's been one of the great finance ministers.
The reason for the lack of talent is that Harper can't tolerate potential competition. Whereas Chretien embraced his enemies within the party (for political purposes), Harper has shunned potential stalwarts and prevented them from running. No one with talent runs under the Conservative banner. Aside from Peter Mackay who's been a standout?
Just look at Harper's Finance Minister - no one in their right mind will ever claim he's been one of the great finance ministers.
The reason for the lack of talent is that Harper can't tolerate potential competition. Whereas Chretien embraced his enemies within the party (for political purposes), Harper has shunned potential stalwarts and prevented them from running. No one with talent runs under the Conservative banner. Aside from Peter Mackay who's been a standout?
Agreed. Until one party or another can put up a leader with real, obvious merits we'll continue to get minorities. Harper's only appeal beyond his rump group is on days when the other guys have smoking bulletholes in their shoes. Without a Stephen Lewis the federal NDP hasn't hope of ever doing what they did in Ontario, and the Liberals—like their Conservative twins—keep picking guys they like instead of guys voters will like.
Sadly the Americanization by TV of our political outlook means that'll likely go on for awhile. What we clearly need is a party determined to speak to, for and from a majority of voters, not just to flimflam their way to majority to push their narrow partisan program.
The election of minorities is more due to the number of parties running than anything else. The BQ aren't likely to get wiped out in an election any time soon. The Liberals will continue to draw seats in Ontario and Eastern Canada and pick up a smattering of seats west of Ontario. The Conservatives will continue to find their strength west of Ontario, but in good years will do okay in Ontario and Quebec. And the NDP will continue to have a strangle hold on select ridings across the country. It would take a party paradigm shift or scandal to change this.
Until then, each party can grow from where they are somewhat, but majorities will be hard to acheive.
Until then, each party can grow from where they are somewhat, but majorities will be hard to acheive.
I'm not sure I follow you. If you mean "arrogant" as conceited or having an inflated sense of one's abilities, Harper and Iggy are probably neck and neck. Conceit is normal for people seeking high office. But if you're using arrogant to describe a leader who purges his organization of everyone talented enough to challenge his leadership, I think I'd like to see some examples. I'm sure Iggy's victims have names. BTW, Iggy has only been back in the country for a couple of years so how many Liberal MPs have left the party since then (without being sent packing by the voters)? If there has been an exodus of talented Liberals since Iggy, I haven't noticed.
When you say this purge of talent "will bring back the Quebec Liberal mafia into importance" you are suggesting that the Quebec Liberal mafia are currently of little consequence. It wouldn't be necessary to "bring them back into importance" if they were already there. I agree that the Quebec Liberal mafia are not a factor but I think it is a stretch to say that a lack of leadership talent would cause them to materialize.
You're quite right as far as the present goes, but the task of any party is to change that, and break out of their home turf. Otherwise, as you say, they're doomed to minority status. Liberals did elect members in the West, and the PCs did in Ontario. Both by being blandly middlin' enough that the NDP used to campaign on "You can't tell them apart". Might have disappointed the diehard ideologues, but it elected majorities.
Harper's real problem is the twisty route he took to the top of the amalgamated Reform rump and shattered, Mulroney-abandoned PCs. It's left him with too many obligations to a right-wing western wish-list the RoC has never bought. Could be he's clever enough to see he might do better by adjusting to the voters, but his buds don't seem to be.
Since the Liberals have never made the mistake of having an ideology, that's not a problem for them, but recent history has been, and they may have some time in the wilderness yet if they wait for SponsorGate and other sins (never mind the NEP) to fade on their own. They need to show real proof that's the distant past.
The question is which of the two 'nationals' will first show some smarts and find a way of appealing to the 'customers' it doesn't have yet, instead of sticking to the losing business of offering its same old customers the same old stuff.
Et à propos la situation Québecoise: Both Liberals and Conservatives have threatened the BQ (which has the only leader I'd vote for) in the past. When separatiste passions aren't aroused they're more a 'plague on all your houses' parking spot for Quebeckers than a fixed position, I think. But again, the answer is to appeal to their ideas and concerns, not just to tout your own. Which accounts for Harper losing his early Québec gains, because he slagged the arts as unimportant, when Quebeckers (unlike their fellow citizens east and west) know the arts are the heart's blood of a people.
I'm old enough to remember a Commons with Liberals, Progressive Conservatives, NDP, Social Credit and Creditistes. It ain't the number of parties, it's the number of people who won't make it work that's the problem.
And it only takes one if he's the PM.
oj, you're right that it isn't just the number of parties. But that is mostly it, as long as the BQ retain most of the seats in Quebec.
You engage in rhetoric on the Liberals - suggesting there is a lack of ideology. Trudeau was the single most ideological Prime Minister in the history of the nation (rightly or wrongly). That ideology includes strong nationalism, particularly against Quebec separatism, a commitment to multiculturalism, and oddly enough, the first commitments to free trade (The Auto Pact). I'd argue that his strong ideological nationalism led him astray in two areas - wage and price controls, and the NEP, but I'd point out that wage and price controls were actually first proposed by the Progressive Conservatives - and he co-opted the idea as a means of combating inflation, but couched in terms of keeping Canada (somehow) independent of the American economy.
Second to Trudeau, the Prime Minister who was most idealogical was Jean Chretien. It was, I admit, a welcome surprise to me to find him so very committed to eliminating the deficit at the expense of spending everywhere. You could give the credit to Martin, here, I suppose, but Chretien could have done otherwise if he so chose.
Mulroney scores last here - Harper beats him handily. Mulroney surprised the nation with GST (never mentioned it in the election). He attempted to impose Meech Lake and Charlottetown - two documents devoid of ideology - and motivated by his desire to outdo Trudeau and get Quebec's signature on a constitutional document. He was willing to offer any province whatever they wanted to get this done. If there is an example of not having any ideology greater than this, I don't know of it.
Harper of course is certainly ideologically driven. But his ideology changes every few years. First, he's a Progressive Conservative. Then he helps found the Reform Party out of sheer hatred for Mulroney and the Progressive Conservatives (remember the Reform Party saw the governing Progressive Conservatives as the real opposition back then). Then suddenly instead of differentiating himself from the Progressive Conservatives, he suddenly wants the parties to merge - only because he sees it as a way to gain power (some ideology, eh?)
So what is Harper's current ideological outlook? Hide things from the public. Don't tell 'em how the economy is really doing. Make fake predictions as to the debt and deficit (14 months ago - "there will be no deficit"). Hide military funerals. Don't allow reporters to join him in Afghanistan - just photographers.) Muzzle all watchdogs. That is ideological.
You engage in rhetoric on the Liberals - suggesting there is a lack of ideology. Trudeau was the single most ideological Prime Minister in the history of the nation (rightly or wrongly). That ideology includes strong nationalism, particularly against Quebec separatism, a commitment to multiculturalism, and oddly enough, the first commitments to free trade (The Auto Pact). I'd argue that his strong ideological nationalism led him astray in two areas - wage and price controls, and the NEP, but I'd point out that wage and price controls were actually first proposed by the Progressive Conservatives - and he co-opted the idea as a means of combating inflation, but couched in terms of keeping Canada (somehow) independent of the American economy.
Second to Trudeau, the Prime Minister who was most idealogical was Jean Chretien. It was, I admit, a welcome surprise to me to find him so very committed to eliminating the deficit at the expense of spending everywhere. You could give the credit to Martin, here, I suppose, but Chretien could have done otherwise if he so chose.
Mulroney scores last here - Harper beats him handily. Mulroney surprised the nation with GST (never mentioned it in the election). He attempted to impose Meech Lake and Charlottetown - two documents devoid of ideology - and motivated by his desire to outdo Trudeau and get Quebec's signature on a constitutional document. He was willing to offer any province whatever they wanted to get this done. If there is an example of not having any ideology greater than this, I don't know of it.
Harper of course is certainly ideologically driven. But his ideology changes every few years. First, he's a Progressive Conservative. Then he helps found the Reform Party out of sheer hatred for Mulroney and the Progressive Conservatives (remember the Reform Party saw the governing Progressive Conservatives as the real opposition back then). Then suddenly instead of differentiating himself from the Progressive Conservatives, he suddenly wants the parties to merge - only because he sees it as a way to gain power (some ideology, eh?)
So what is Harper's current ideological outlook? Hide things from the public. Don't tell 'em how the economy is really doing. Make fake predictions as to the debt and deficit (14 months ago - "there will be no deficit"). Hide military funerals. Don't allow reporters to join him in Afghanistan - just photographers.) Muzzle all watchdogs. That is ideological.
this what I meant so we agree
I didn't explain myself clearly I guess. what would bring the Quebec Liberal mafia back into importance would be the Liberals forming a government.
Iggy has been out of Canada until a couple of years ago so it seems unlikely (to me at least) that he'd tolerate any clandestine activities by Quebec Liberals or their associates. After sponsorship, I think any Liberal leader would be extremely eager to make sure everyone is squeaky clean.
Maybe but it pales in comparison to the pompousness of Icky and Sideshow Bob.
when wackos like you are entitled to vote then yes i have a problem with democracy.Sounds like you have serious problems with Democracy......
First off its Rona Ambrose, not Barrett. but I agree with you she was a failure at cabinet level. The other hottie Helena Guergis also is incompetent. But there are alot of talented ministers in this govt. Jim Prentice, John Baird, Rob Nicholson, Diane Finley, Jay Hill, Chuck Strahl, Peter Van Loan, Tony Clement, Vic Toews, Diane Ablonczy and James Moore to name a few. One of the most talented members of the party, Bob Dechert from Mississauga, isn't even a cabinet minister.......yet.
Compare that to some of the incompetents of the Liberals under Chretien and Martin. Jane "oops my ministry lost $1 billion" Stewart, Judy Sgro, Alfonso "The Crook" Gagliano, Denis Coderre, Hedy Fry.....
Harper is doing an outstanding job of bringing common sense and honesty back to Canadian politics. It kills the Liberals and NDP'ers because they equate Canadian conservatives with Nazi's, and are deeply offended that the Canadian people - one of the most educated and best-informed electorates on Earth, feel Harper is doing an outstanding job of representing their needs. So yes, jump on every little thing Harper does "wrong". That tactic continues to expose the Liberals, in particular, as self-obsessed opportunists whose primary focus is on re-obtaining power. Four more years!!! Lol. Good luck Rachel - but you are in for 4 more years of frustration.
How to beat Harper is with a stick. As big as you can find. Do it quick before he throws Peter McKay in front to take the blows. No the Liberals and NDP do not see him as a Nazi. I think few people actually would. He is a right winger that believes in keeping government from helping people, yet imposing religious moralistic laws on us all. Telling people who they can marry, stopping people from using pot even for medical. Letting private enterprise run everything except for what goes on in the bedroom. What they fear is his undoing years of working towards individual freedoms, hurting the working class while giving to the rich. He has already shown great contempt towards the enviroment. He has been an utter embarrassment internationally, that is when he can drag his fat ass off the toilet. He keeps killing his own crime bills. Let's face it they really are just balls in his political game of trying to keep power at any expense. Talk about politacal opportunist. He beat Stockwell Day due to scandal. Remember Day took tax money to pay for his personal legal problems. Now this same crook is one of Harper's top men. Then he beat the liberals through scandalmongering, not what he was actually going to do. He got in again by denying the upcoming problems with the economy. He told us we would not see the problems the world did. Harper flat out lied to Canadians while the other 2 parties told the truth. Canada was going to get hit by it and needed to prepare. He and Flarhety got rid of the 13 billion dollar deficit before we actually got into the economic down turn and had us already in debt before the stimulus package was delivered. Ooops they also miscalculated the deficit a few times by many billions of dollars. They have us in a trade deficit for the first time since 1976. Wow what amazing accomplishments. The previous Liberal government and before that the Mulroney Conservatives did a much superior job.
The way to beat Harper? Get a real leader for the Liberal Party. Otherwise the Grits are going to be in limbo.
The Liberal Party is where most Canadians want to go. But they have screwed up so much and can't get their act together that people go to the CPOC (sounds a lot like the democratic party in the US)
The Liberal Party is where most Canadians want to go. But they have screwed up so much and can't get their act together that people go to the CPOC (sounds a lot like the democratic party in the US)
No more than the anti-CPOC people who are still in denial that Harper is PM!Sounds like you have serious problems with Democracy......
