Liberals popularity rising

[MarchHare]

This coming from the Conservative party who got reemed out for putting out a poster "Would you vote for someone who looks like this?" and a picture of Chretien and his crooked mouth getting out of bed.

I'm no fan of the Conservative Party, but that ad came from the Progressive Conservative Party, which no longer exists. Say what you will about the Reformers, but the worst they've done is compare the Liberals to Italian mafia dons, not attacked their physical appearance.

Personally I would love to see the Conservatives being more aggressive about calling people like Martin and the Liberals out as oppossed to fighting an election based on the issues, or on a platform.

Which election campaign were you watching? Last year, all I could remember from the Conservatives was "OMG SPONSORSHIP SCANDAL!!!!!11". Both the Liberals and Conservatives did very little but attack the other party in the 2004 campaign, a rarity in Canadian politics, as we traditionally don't react well to negative political advertising (with the aforementioned "Is this a face you can trust?" ad being the watershed moment).

[Resolute 14]

Originally posted by troutman@Oct 19 2005, 08:37 AM
Rather than running away, the better approach is to improve things at the Federal level. Central Canada will vote for a PC type of party; the reformers have to go.

In otherwords, a large segment of Conservative thinkers need to be thrown under the bus for anything other than a Liberal government to happen.

Of course, your statement here is actually two seperate statements, which are virtually mutually exclusive. In order for the Conservatives to win, they need to toss their western support base, get an eastern leader - the need for a new leader is obvious, but anyone based west of Ontario would just be painted as another Day/Harper - and pander to Ontario and Quebec.

Once again, the west gets left behind.

Improving government, especially representation, at the federal level will require a significant change in philosophy from the two provinces that have all the power, and that is not going to happen, as these two provinces will not voluntaraly give up their power.

The only way the west (or, if you prefer, Alberta) is going to be treated as anything more than the demon Canada would rather forget is if it puts pressure on Ontario to change. An Alberta seperatism push might do that. Though, it would obviously take another NEP to really push it in the near term. Might almost be worth it though.

[MarchHare]

In otherwords, a large segment of Conservative thinkers need to be thrown under the bus for anything other than a Liberal government to happen.

Of course, your statement here is actually two seperate statements, which are virtually mutually exclusive. In order for the Conservatives to win, they need to toss their western support base, get an eastern leader - the need for a new leader is obvious, but anyone based west of Ontario would just be painted as another Day/Harper - and pander to Ontario and Quebec.

Once again, the west gets left behind.

Let's assume the Reform branch of the Conservative Party didn't exist; in 2004, a CPC led by Joe Clark would have easily won the election.

It's not that the rest of Canada automatically opposes anyone from Alberta; it's that most Albertan politicians aren't palatable to the RoC.

A moderately conservative party could sway voters in Ontario and Atlantic Canada. A CPC that is more or less the Reform Party with a new name cannot.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by CaptainCrunch@Oct 19 2005, 03:43 PM
I think that Harper has become unappealing to people because the Liberal's are so good at slandering him as is the Eastern Media, and Harper has really refused to drop down to thier level.

Personally I would love to see the Conservatives being more aggressive about calling people like Martin and the Liberals out as oppossed to fighting an election based on the issues, or on a platform.

The only way the conservatives win is if they drop down to the same level as the Liberals.

Calling Martin a jackass, or calling the Liberals a bunch of criminal scumbags on national T.V. might not win many more votes, but it might change the countries opinion of him

The guy plain and simple doesn't have any charisma or charm and like it or lump it, politicians don't get very far if they lack those two things.

You can blame the dread LIBERAL MEDIA OVERLORDS for a lot of things, but you can't blame them Harper's looks, or his inability to give an inspiring speech, or because he can't keep people on his side of the floor, or his ability to keep Stockwell Day in the party.

And come on, don't give us the "he's too nice" routine.

[Resolute 14]

Originally posted by MarchHare@Oct 19 2005, 03:14 PM

Let's assume the Reform branch of the Conservative Party didn't exist; in 2004, a CPC led by Joe Clark would have easily won the election.

It's not that the rest of Canada automatically opposes anyone from Alberta; it's that most Albertan politicians aren't palatable to the RoC.

A moderately conservative party could sway voters in Ontario and Atlantic Canada. A CPC that is more or less the Reform Party with a new name cannot.

You mean a CPC that has been branded as "more or less the Reform Party with a new name" by the Liberals cannot.

Not certian how or where Joe Clark fits in here, as he retired before the CPC was created. Perhaps you meant to say a CPC led by Peter McKay?

Hell, the minority government Clark did win should have spurred some major electoral reforms itself, as he finished behind the Liberals in popular support in the 1979 election. Clark never held the admiration or respect of the RoC either.

[MarchHare]

Not certian how or where Joe Clark fits in here, as he retired before the CPC was created. Perhaps you meant to say a CPC led by Peter McKay?

I meant in an alternate reality where there was only one right-of-centre party, and Joe Clark (an Albertan) was its leader. Such a party would have easily won a majority government in the 2004 election. Canadians don't reject politicians from Alberta outright; they just reject the ones who are too far to the right. Likewise, they reject politicians too far to the left as well. As Preston Manning famously said, we're a nation of radical moderates. The Reform Party (and by extension the CPC) whether its the fault of the "liberal media" or not, is not viewed as a moderate party and thus will never appeal to enough Canadian voters. Harper hasn't exactly done much to shake that image either.

But while we're on the topic of McKay, I do think a party led by him would prove to be a viable national alternative to the Liberals. Of course, he's not from the West and comes from the "red tory" branch of the CPC, so it's unlikely he'd have much support from the CPC's Western base unless they get desperate and choose a leader based solely on who has the best chance to oust the Liberals.

[Resolute 14]

Actually, your alternate reality would only play into my original point as well. By the time he finally disapeared, Clark was even farther to the left than Chretien was. He would not have had the support of right wingers within the CPC - though of course, in your alternate reality, they, and half of Alberta, dont exist anyway.

So his win *might* have come on the heels of Liberal corruption and incompetence, he would have had to pander to Ontario and Quebec to remain in power. The west gets left behind.

Playing games like "they would have won with *this* leader" does not change the underlying fact that Canadian "democracy" needs to be reformed in a bad way.

[Cube Inmate]

Sounds like a few Canadians have come to their senses----Instead of dreaming about all of those wonderful, but impossible things like accountability, responsibility, and world leadership, people have realized that we're Canadian, so the best we can do is vote for continued mediocrity.

That's a relief...wouldn't want us gettin' "too big for our britches" or anything.

[Incinerator]

the CPC would be in power by now if MacKay won the leadership race during the merger. *sigh*

[Canada 02]

Perhaps I'm just stating the obvious, but Canada-wide political polls are virtually useless. The regional polls are far more meaningful. The Bloc gets 14% in this poll, but they will win the majority of the 75 seats in Quebec in the next election as Quebecers are royally p*ssed by Ad-scam. If the Liberals lose most of their 21 seats in Quebec, how can they possibly get close to a majority? Even if the CPC have a monumental collapse in Ontario, their 20+ seats would only replace what the Liberals lose in Quebec. This is highly unlikely since the Liberals are way up in Ontario, but not at the expense of the CPC, but the NDP (comparing the vote share from the last election to the current Ontario numbers). So that means the Liberals have to make up ground in BC (assuming the prairies will continue to be a conservative stronghold). I think its pretty clear we are headed for another Liberal minority - perhaps a weaker minority with the Liberals getting 120-125 seats down from 135

[moon]

Originally posted by MarchHare@Oct 19 2005, 03:14 PM

Let's assume the Reform branch of the Conservative Party didn't exist; in 2004, a CPC led by Joe Clark would have easily won the election.

It's not that the rest of Canada automatically opposes anyone from Alberta; it's that most Albertan politicians aren't palatable to the RoC.

A moderately conservative party could sway voters in Ontario and Atlantic Canada. A CPC that is more or less the Reform Party with a new name cannot.

Yes but could that party sway voters in Alberta?

No and without the Alberta seats I don't think that they would win a majority. We saw this happen in previous elections. Albertans, and other right wing Canadians, don't want the type of party that Joe Clark and his PC's represented.

I know you said that if the Reform didn't exist but to me that isn't a reality because some form of that party will always exist in Alberta and other parts of the west because the PC option of Mckay or Clark is not good enough for many.

[Bend it like Bourgeois]

Originally posted by Canada 02@Oct 19 2005, 09:15 PM
Perhaps I'm just stating the obvious, but Canada-wide political polls are virtually useless. ... I think its pretty clear we are headed for another Liberal minority - perhaps a weaker minority with the Liberals getting 120-125 seats down from 135

Well said. I think they might still get a majority but excellent point.

the CPC would be in power by now if MacKay won the leadership race during the merger. *sigh*

I doubt it would have mattered.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally posted by moon@Oct 20 2005, 12:01 AM
We saw this happen in previous elections. Albertans, and other right wing Canadians, don't want the type of party that Joe Clark and his PC's represented.

Well then I suggest you find a good seat on the sidelines because it's pretty clear that most Canadians will not elect the type of party that Stephen Harper and Stockwell Day represent.

By the way, all Albertans are not right-wingers.

[evman150]

People are turned off by Stephen Harper because they see George W. Bush in him. He comes off as ignorant, says ridiculously stupid things in the media and leans farther to the right than most people are comfortable with. Plus he's one scary looking mofo. He seriously looks evil. Kind of like a pedophile. Not someone I'd want running our country that's for sure.

Stephen Harper and his party are pro-war, anti-gay, anti-abortion, pro-bible thumping and pro-hate. All five things in common with the Republicans. Very scary IMO and in a lot of others' opinions as well, considering the fact the party still isn't in power even after the Liberals' basically shooting their own toes off one after another.

Even a Liberal Party riddled with controversy and supposed corruption is better than the Republicans err.....the CPC.

[transplant99]

Stephen Harper and his party are pro-war, anti-gay, anti-abortion, pro-bible thumping and pro-hate

LOL!!

Holy smokes. Someone has bought the whole liberal spin, hook line and sinker!!

I have some really good ocean front property in Iowa if your interested.

[Flame On]

Originally posted by transplant99@Oct 20 2005, 06:58 AM

LOL!!

Holy smokes. Someone has bought the whole liberal spin, hook line and sinker!!

I have some really good ocean front property in Iowa if your interested.

Maybe that's wrong maybe that's spin. I tend to think it's the fault of the Cons that they can't shake those issues not the spin of Libs. Worst case it means the Cons anti spinners or promotion/marketing/message department is incompetant.
I know I'd rather have a government that wastes money than even a whiff of bible thumping or "values" forced down my throat.
Agree though too, McKay far more palatable than Harper.
Forget the spin accusation and the passive aggresive media bias rant.
Do Con supporters think Harper is what's holding them back or is he good for the country/party?

[nfotiu]

Originally posted by transplant99@Oct 20 2005, 09:58 AM

LOL!!

Holy smokes. Someone has bought the whole liberal spin, hook line and sinker!!

I have some really good ocean front property in Iowa if your interested.

Explain

The CPC have an official pro-war and anti-gay stance. That is indisputable.

Abortion is a grey area. They don't have an official abortion stance, and neither does the Liberal party. But the Liberals have been in power for quite a while and have not touched abortion rights. If you were a pro choice voter you'd be right in being skeptical of whether the CPC would protect those rights or not. 1., because they won't clarify their stance, and 2., their membership is more pro-life, than pro choice.

Anglican religions do play a strong role in both the formation of the party and its members. It is perfectly justifiable to be leary of the CPC if you don't believe in what some of those religions stand for.

Pro hate could be too strong, but having anti-gay marriage and anti-immigration platforms certainly doesn't give you the image of promoting tolerance.

[transplant99]

The CPC have an official pro-war and anti-gay stance. That is indisputable

Easily disputable.

Pro-war?

With what military exactly? Hard to go to war without a resemblance of a military don't you think? Unless suggesting that you support your largest trading partners decision to eradicate a brutal dictator and try to instill a democratic process in one of the worlds most unsettles areas.....pro-war?

gimme a break.

Anti-gay??

Holy hannah. They have said REPEATEDLY that ALL people have the exact same rights across the board, whether they be married, common-law, or same sex unions. They are opposed to using the term "marriage" for same-sex unions, and that stance is supported in nations all around the world...not just the US. They are also pointing out, rightfully so, that the Supreme court of Canada has suddenly become a lawmaker. Thats NOT how the country was set-up. Im all about everyone gtting treated equally and to do so, there needs to be compromise, no matter what the issue. Civil unions vs the definition of marriage...thats what this is all about...how does that make the Conservatives anti-gay?????

From a speech to the House of Commons earlier this year...

We believe that our proposals speak to the majority of Canadians who stand in this middle ground and frankly, who seek such a middle ground. Our proposal is that the law should continue to recognize the traditional definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others, but at the same time we would propose that other forms of union, however structured, by appropriate provincial legislation, whether called registered partnerships, domestic partnerships, civil unions or whatever, should be entitled to the same legal rights, privileges and obligations as marriage.

Abortion? The Conservatives were in power for 8 years with Mulroney...did they try and tackle the abortion issue then? What changed?

You yourself state that the Liberals dont have a stance...niether do the CPC...so how are they any different?

What does it matter who is a faith based member of the party and who isnt? That guides their own beliefs, not those of their own constiuents...you know, the ones that they SHOULD be representing? Unlike the Fibs who tend to vote right down party lines, what the people actually want be damned!!

Paul Martin is a practicing Catholic.....and the Catholic church is dead against abortion...so isnt THAT the party we should be more afraid of? Your own line of thinking suggest such.

Yup...Conservatives want all people to have equal rights....but that makes them Anti-gay. They want a stronger military, so that makes them pro-war. They dont have an official stance on abortion, so that makes them anti-pro choice. They tend to be faith based folks, not unlike many Libs, so that makes them pro-bible thumping (whatever the hell that means). They hate the Liberals corruption, ineptitude to govern, midnight votes on particularly sensitive issues...so that makes them pro-hate...i guess.

Now, if you want to say that they have been out-politicized? Agreed. But hardly what the whole anti-Con crowd really means now is it. They want to fear-monger, (and that post summarizes it as well as any) spin, duck and hide from the issues discussed in that post.

It just boggles my mind.

[Cheese]

Political discussions in which people try to decide which party is best is much like deciding whether someone wants to be bitten by a Funnel Web Spider or a Coastal Taipan Snake.
Both are very different but their poison will surely kill you. Lets face it guys...both parties suck, they are only in it for themselves and we have seen first hand that when in power they quickly change direction and election promise goes out the window. The FACT that most people in this country vote Liberals are becuase they are a "centralist" party...meaning their dogma has more ability to move and change. Right wing (PCs) or left wing (NDP) agendas are usually set in stone...meaning less appeal. The old PC party got elected based on their soft right platforms...red or blue PCs. Todays PCs are still completely aligned with the old Reform party right down to the fact that the Reforms POLICY maker is now the leader of their party. It was a HUGE mistake to elect him as their leader, they should have elected someone completely outside of that realm and right now we "might" be talking about a resurgence. I would think we might be talking about another collapse in about 2 years time or less.

[Resolute 14]

Originally posted by Flame On@Oct 20 2005, 07:25 AM
Maybe that's wrong maybe that's spin. I tend to think it's the fault of the Cons that they can't shake those issues not the spin of Libs. Worst case it means the Cons anti spinners or promotion/marketing/message department is incompetant.
I know I'd rather have a government that wastes money than even a whiff of bible thumping or "values" forced down my throat.
Agree though too, McKay far more palatable than Harper.
Forget the spin accusation and the passive aggresive media bias rant.
Do Con supporters think Harper is what's holding them back or is he good for the country/party?

And yet, ironically, you support a party that is not only corrupt, but also pushes "values" down people's throats - ie: calling gay unions "marriages". Something that the country is divided on, at best, 50-50. So, on this one issue, at least, half the country would have someone else's values stuffed down their throats.

I guess it is only okay though if it is your value being shoved down someone else's throat, eh?


As far as the spin goes, you can tell people to forget the "passive aggresive media rant", but you cannot deny that what people see, hear and believe is usually determined by the media. Out east, the liberal bias is sickening, much like the conservative bias out west. Unfortunately, the liberal media controls the highest population bases, while the conservative media controls the most politically irrelevent region of Canada.

As far as your last question goes, Harper *can* be good for the country (he could not possibly be worse for Canada than our last two prime ministers), however the slander, spin and his own mistakes have destroyed any hope he has. Once Ontario admits that they support corruption next spring, he will be gone, and hopefully the CPC can then move forward to rid Canada of the Liberals.