Harper baffles national press gallery

[Fuzzy McGillicuddy]

It would appear our newest prime minister has a quality sorely lacking among his most recent predecessors ... leadership. Yes it's early, but where is the boogeyman the brainwashed left was fearmongering about all the time Harper was in opposition.

It is a bit of a shock to the system -- that is, to the public service, the media and the opposition parties -- to have a leader who answers, rather than avoids, direct questions, whose priorities have a shelf-life longer than one week and who knows where he is going. In other words, to have actual leadership.

http://www.nealenews.com/nealenews_H...20Feb%2006.htm

If you gauge public opinion, it would appear Canadians are starting to warm up to this guy.

[mbrown]

I couldn't agree more.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Fuzzy McGillicuddy

If you gauge public opinion, it would appear Canadians are starting to warm up to this guy.

Actually, the latest opinion polls already have the Liberals ahead of the Conservatives again. People wanted to slap down the Liberals fo adscam, but now that the message has been sent, people want them back in power.

Will Harper last longer as PM than Joe Clark did?

[Bobblehead]

I find it kind of funny that the article is equating Harper's style as similar to Trudeau's style.

I do like that Harper is trying to get the best person for the jobs and generally avoiding partisanship. That said, the Emerson thing is still wrong (IMHO), but Harper is generally impressing me.

[Cheese]

yet this article from a few days ago putting a different spin on things....

The honeymoon with Stephen Harper's Conservatives was over before it began, an SES poll provided to Sun Media suggests.
The survey of 1,000 people, conducted Feb. 4-9, puts the Liberals at 34% with the governing Conservatives at 33%, dropping three points from the 36% support they received on election day Jan. 23.

The Article


Maybe its that left/right media thang?

[ernie]

I believe the day after that poll the Globe had a poll putting the Conservatives at 40%.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by troutman

Will Harper last longer as PM than Joe Clark did?

Dumb question since the obvious answer is yes.

The Liberals dont have a leader, and don't have the money to battle an election for at least 18 months or so.

[Fuzzy McGillicuddy]

Originally Posted by troutman

Actually, the latest opinion polls already have the Liberals ahead of the Conservatives again. People wanted to slap down the Liberals fo adscam, but now that the message has been sent, people want them back in power.

Will Harper last longer as PM than Joe Clark did?

Really? This "latest" opinion poll suggests the Conservatives would win a majority now.

http://ca.today.reuters.com/news/new...archived=False

You can produce poll after poll. Take them with a grain of salt.

[Cheese]

Originally Posted by Snakeeye

Dumb question since the obvious answer is yes.

The Liberals dont have a leader, and don't have the money to battle an election for at least 18 months or so.

IF they could defeat a government they would and could go in the hole to do so. Other governments have done the same thing in the past.

So maybe its NOT as dumb as you think?

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

I find it kind of funny that the article is equating Harper's style as similar to Trudeau's style..

I think the population vacillates between liking the strong guys who lead with personality and little concensus and the guys who lead with concensus almost to the point where you wonder if they have a single opinion themselves.

They get tired of one extreme then look to back away from it.

PS: More than 60% of Canadians want Emerson to resign but that disaster doesn't seem to be sticking to Harper personally.

Cowperson

[Sidney Crosby's Hat]

As long as the Conservatives keep gaining in Quebec there will be no new election. The Bloc couldn't afford a loss of 10 seats or more.

[Fuzzy McGillicuddy]

Originally Posted by Cheese

IF they could defeat a government they would and could go in the hole to do so. Other governments have done the same thing in the past.

So maybe its NOT as dumb as you think?

The Liberals are already in the hole, deep in the hole. The party is $35 million in debt and has little appetite right now to rock the boat and go even deeper into the financial abyss. Combine that with a weak field of leadership candidates and this party is going nowhere right now. The consensus among some of the party's deep thinkers is that it will likely take time to rebuild. The Liberals appear resigned to the idea they may end up spending one or two terms in opposition before having an opportunity to strike back.

Contrarily, the Conservatives are not in debt and seem to have the support of Bay Street. You tell me where the sun is shining right now.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Cheese

IF they could defeat a government they would and could go in the hole to do so. Other governments have done the same thing in the past.

So maybe its NOT as dumb as you think?

Yes, it is.

1. They have no leader.

2. Bankrupting the party is not a good solution. The Liberals are already deep in the hole and were not generating nearly as much money as the Conservatives are in fundraising.

The Liberals would have to go right back to stealing our money from us to fund their own party, even if they were to win a new government. That's not exactly a plan for long term success.

3. Who is to say that the Bloq and/or NDP want an election now, so soon after the last one? What is the benifit to them?

It was a dumb question. Period.

[mbrown]

second that

[Hakan]

Originally Posted by Snakeeye

Dumb question since the obvious answer is yes.

The Liberals dont have a leader, and don't have the money to battle an election for at least 18 months or so.

Dumb answer really. You should bother to look at the seat breakdowns and historical evidence.

The facts are this, this minority government has the smallest seat share of any minority government in Canadian history.

Also, there are about 2.5 effective opposition parties in the house which is the largest amount of effective opposition parties in Canadian history.

I believe the average of minority government's sitting is about 16 months.

So how long will the government last? Based on these numbers, not long.

The biggest difference between this minority and other minorities is the seat share. Seat share has a proportional relation to the time a minority lasts in parliament. The higher the effective opposition parties, the more likely parliament will dissolve as well. This is of course based on historical data.

So right now, statistically, it doesn't look good for this government.

Will they get a majority next go? That's a good question. They need to do well in Ontario. They have maxed out their growth potential in the west so Ontario will have to be the tipping ground. Based on the 2006 numbers, the conservatives are still quite weak in Ontario based on historical election data from say 1957 when the Conservatives won a majority. But vote share across provinces looks quite similar to the last ill fated Conservative minority in 1979.

Chris Kam at the UBC dept of Political Science did the bulk of this analysis. If you have questions about his data, ask him. But to say it's a dumb question is well frankly, quite dumb.

[FireFly]

This particular government is in a special situation though. I appreciate that minorities don't last long, but the next election won't happen until the Liberals can get their **** together. Until then, they will bank on one of the other parties to side with the Conservatives if they can't. If neither of the other parties is willing, they may be forced to suck it up and side with the Conservatives until they're in a better position to contest the election.

[Hakan]

Sure we can all speculate with the numerous amounts of anecdotal evidence flying around that the government will last but statistically it doesn't look good.

The Liberals will have a new leader is 3-8 months time. After that it's anyone's guess as to when parliament will be dissolved. Will money limit the Liberal's ambitions of an early election call? Well if the polling numbers look good, they'll be willing to break the bank you can count on that.

[FireFly]

Oh absolutely. I think that's why Harper ticked people off at the beginning, knowing that if he waited, the Liberals would be able to jump more quickly.

[CaptainCrunch]

Stategy wise, anyone who tries to dissolve this government and call a new election in the next 2 years is going to have to answer to an angry group of voters who don't want to see an election.

Though if the polls tip even more in the conservatives favors, they'll work to push through some of thier tougher bills in the hopes that the Liberals call an election in thier current weakened state. If that happens it may be the opening to get the Conservatives a majority.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by Hakan

Dumb answer really. You should bother to look at the seat breakdowns and historical evidence.

The facts are this, this minority government has the smallest seat share of any minority government in Canadian history.

Also, there are about 2.5 effective opposition parties in the house which is the largest amount of effective opposition parties in Canadian history.

I believe the average of minority government's sitting is about 16 months.

So how long will the government last? Based on these numbers, not long.

The biggest difference between this minority and other minorities is the seat share. Seat share has a proportional relation to the time a minority lasts in parliament. The higher the effective opposition parties, the more likely parliament will dissolve as well. This is of course based on historical data.

So right now, statistically, it doesn't look good for this government.

Will they get a majority next go? That's a good question. They need to do well in Ontario. They have maxed out their growth potential in the west so Ontario will have to be the tipping ground. Based on the 2006 numbers, the conservatives are still quite weak in Ontario based on historical election data from say 1957 when the Conservatives won a majority. But vote share across provinces looks quite similar to the last ill fated Conservative minority in 1979.

Chris Kam at the UBC dept of Political Science did the bulk of this analysis. If you have questions about his data, ask him. But to say it's a dumb question is well frankly, quite dumb.

1. The Bloq is not going to force an election until it can stem the growing support for the Conservatives in Quebec. They have nothing to gain by forcing an election in the short term, and potentially a lot to lose - especially if the Liberals also rebound.

2. The NDP arent going to force an election for similar reasons. They stand to lose if the Liberals rebound as well.

3. Quite frankly, the seat share argument is pointless. The opposition cannot, and will not force an election until the Liberals are ready. As I have pointed out, the leadership vaccuum and a lack of finances will stall them.

4. Nobody is expecting this government to last a full term, so trotting out the statistics regarding how long minority governments last on average is a completely pointless exercise that has nothing to do with the argument at hand. The question was whether they would outlast the Clark government. And if this government lasts the average of 16 months, it's lifespan would indeed be double that of Clark.

The question was whether Harper would outlast Clark's eight month government. As I said, it was a dumb question, given the Liberals will only be coming out of their own leadership campaign in eight months. This isnt a case like 1980 where the Liberals can easily parachute a former leader in to take control.