New poll: Harper - Conservatives headed for third place next election?

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Jacks

Nice deflection. What would you prefer that he said about the stock market at the time?

There's no deflection there? He could show some sympathy with people who lost tonnes of money, jobs, businesses, etc. You know, a little compassion for a significant piece of the population that he represents. Or maybe take the chance to reassure people that the government would do what they could to limit the damages?

The thing is that for all of the times we hear about the economic prowess of Harper, I can't get past that point; it was clear that there were deeper economic issues and rather than take prudent action he instead takes away one of his options. That might seem like no big deal, but as soon as he said it there were economists coming out and criticizing that stance. Harper is supposed to be an economist, so he either knew full well and chose otherwise or didn't know.

[Slava]

Originally Posted by crazy_eoj

Is that what you said to the 70 year olds in your office!?

I can't imagine they appreciated it.

I showed some compassion and reassured them. Its really not that hard to be empathetic/sympathetic for me though because I'm not a robot who would shake my sons hand before his first day of school.

[Jacks]

Originally Posted by Slava

There's no deflection there? He could show some sympathy with people who lost tonnes of money, jobs, businesses, etc. You know, a little compassion for a significant piece of the population that he represents.

So you agree that what he said was true but he should have sugar coated it?
People who sold their stocks took a beating, people who held their stocks (mostly) got their value back in the long run, people who bought did very well. Harper was encouraging people to hold and buy, that was good advice.

Originally Posted by Slava

Or maybe take the chance to reassure people that the government would do what they could to limit the damages?

Short of reimbursing people for losses I'm not sure what more the government could have done.

[Slava]

^ I think that you're missing my point. The "just buy more stocks" opinion, even if it was right for the long run provided little solace and reassurance to people who needed it. Furthermore, he wasn't right because he had to be forced to intervene in the economy before he committed to doing the right thing.

Anyway, I really don't care enough to belabour this point. I think Harper wins government again and Trudeau will be lucky to have enough seats to be official opposition. I do think that the Liberals finally win a seat in Calgary though.

[kn]

(I'm not sure if this is our main "Canadian Politics" thread but it seems to be...).

Good article by Andrew Coyne, indicative of the many reasons I will not be voting Conservative in the next federal election:
http://news.nationalpost.com/full-co...-harpers-world

However, unlike Notley, about whom I have no fear will work for Albertans, I can't say the same thing for Trudeau or Mulcair. I have no idea where I will cast my ballot. I suspect the progressive vote will be split in Alberta and the Conservatives will again be the beneficiaries.

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by kn

(I'm not sure if this is our main "Canadian Politics" thread but it seems to be...).

Good article by Andrew Coyne, indicative of the many reasons I will not be voting Conservative in the next federal election:
http://news.nationalpost.com/full-co...-harpers-world

However, unlike Notley, about whom I have no fear will work for Albertans, I can't say the same thing for Trudeau or Mulcair. I have no idea where I will cast my ballot. I suspect the progressive vote will be split in Alberta and the Conservatives will again be the beneficiaries.

Worst Prime Minister in my lifetime.

[T@T]

I'm starting a whole new gig, anyone want to vote for...ME?

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by kn

(I'm not sure if this is our main "Canadian Politics" thread but it seems to be...).

Good article by Andrew Coyne, indicative of the many reasons I will not be voting Conservative in the next federal election:
http://news.nationalpost.com/full-co...-harpers-world

However, unlike Notley, about whom I have no fear will work for Albertans, I can't say the same thing for Trudeau or Mulcair. I have no idea where I will cast my ballot. I suspect the progressive vote will be split in Alberta and the Conservatives will again be the beneficiaries.

Yeah that's the way I see it too.

Personally I kinda like Mulcair as a leader, but I'm still a bit fearful of the NDP as a party. And vice versa, Iike some of the Liberals platform, but I don't like Trudeau as a leader.

I like what Harper has done in foreign affairs, but he's become a disaster domestically, pushing through increasingly conservative social policy.

Fiscally conservative, socially liberal. Why is that so hard to find? Id argue most Canadians would get behind that.

[Daradon]

Oh yeah, and omnibus and senate scadals.

Dude has gotta go

[Iowa_Flames_Fan]

This thread title is somewhat out of date... Most of the recent polling shows Harper with a narrow lead.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Daradon

Yeah that's the way I see it too.

Personally I kinda like Mulcair as a leader, but I'm still a bit fearful of the NDP as a party. And vice versa, Iike some of the Liberals platform, but I don't like Trudeau as a leader.

I like what Harper has done in foreign affairs, but he's become a disaster domestically, pushing through increasingly conservative social policy.

Fiscally conservative, socially liberal. Why is that so hard to find? Id argue most Canadians would get behind that.

Really? he's decimated our reputation internationally as a sensible voice in international affairs. Apart from Israel, I'd think every other country's view of Canada has changed for the worse in his tenure.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

Really? he's decimated our reputation internationally as a sensible voice in international affairs. Apart from Israel, I'd think every other country's view of Canada has changed for the worse in his tenure.

I like how strong he's been on Ukraine v Russia. One could say the strongest of the allies, though our influence is small.

You could be right. I'm not particularly pro Israel. Both sides have a lot of fault. Not even going to touch that one.

I think he was pretty good in the Americas, trade with China, India, Brazil. I'd welcome arguments against. I won't be voting for him anyway. But I'm not so biased I can't give props where it's due.

He's decimated our scientific voice abroad. The very largest reason I won't vote for him. But I wasn't really judging that as foreign affairs.

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by Daradon

I like how strong he's been on Ukraine v Russia. One could say the strongest of the allies, though our influence is small.

You could be right. I'm not particularly pro Israel. Both sides have a lot of fault. Not even going to touch that one.

I think he was pretty good in the Americas, trade with China, India, Brazil. I'd welcome arguments against. I won't be voting for him anyway. But I'm not so biased I can't give props where it's due.

He's decimated our scientific voice abroad. The very largest reason I won't vote for him. But I wasn't really judging that as foreign affairs.

He talks tough on Ukraine for domestic political purposes but in reality we have less than zero influence internationally. Given that Russia is and will continue to be a major player in the north, this tough talk is likely to have long term consequences for Canada. Not saying we should just roll over but diplomacy is way more nuanced that Harper can understand

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by edslunch

He talks tough on Ukraine for domestic political purposes but in reality we have less than zero influence internationally. Given that Russia is and will continue to be a major player in the north, this tough talk is likely to have long term consequences for Canada. Not saying we should just roll over but diplomacy is way more nuanced that Harper can understand

I don't disagree that we can't do much, but that's not his fault. We're a small country. We have taken a tougher stand than the US and especially the EU though.

As far as international diplomacy being out of his reach, I dont know. As I said already I don't like the guy and won't be voting for him. But I think he's a decent statesman. I think a comment like that is just out of anger. Can you educate or remind me about major flubs? Besides sucking up to the US and the NSA too much. I'll concede that right now.

Not being combative, actually asking.

[Fuzz]

I'd rather he handled Ukrain through consensus with our allies, rather than pretending we could strong arm Russia on our own. I'm willing to say that he has been good on some international trade that you mention though at a cost. For instance, he basically has given in to China's human rights abuses and has been more than willing to let our oil induistry be bought out by them, which I think is dangerous. I'm also strongly against the TPP, its secrecy and what it gives up regarding Canadian sovereignty. Opening Canada's markets is a good policy that he is pursuing, I just don't think it should be done at any costs, which seams to be how it unfolds.

In my mind he is also a major reason why Keystone has failed so badly due to his boneheaded moves regarding environmental issues. I think he has done more harm to the oil industry than help by being so one sided. Had he provided some movement on environmental protections(not just Keystone, but the entire industry), Obama may have been more willing.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I'd rather he handled Ukrain through consensus with our allies, rather than pretending we could strong arm Russia on our own. I'm willing to say that he has been good on some international trade that you mention though at a cost. For instance, he basically has given in to China's human rights abuses and has been more than willing to let our oil induistry be bought out by them, which I think is dangerous. I'm also strongly against the TPP, its secrecy and what it gives up regarding Canadian sovereignty. Opening Canada's markets is a good policy that he is pursuing, I just don't think it should be done at any costs, which seams to be how it unfolds.

In my mind he is also a major reason why Keystone has failed so badly due to his boneheaded moves regarding environmental issues. I think he has done more harm to the oil industry than help by being so one sided. Had he provided some movement on environmental protections(not just Keystone, but the entire industry), Obama may have been more willing.

As I mentioned, scientific reasons are why I will not vote for him and that strongly includes environmental reasons.

As for China, I'm at a loss for what to do with them. I wished for a long time for strong governments to stand up to there abuses. But it just isn't going to happen. I guess I resigned myself to the fact that a better middle class there, will fight and earn those freedoms themselves. That was the whole point. Make a middle class, it will influence government and fight for freedoms.

And let's face it, they are the biggest population and I believe of last year the biggest econony. To impose our values on them is probably foolhearty. I'm a big defender of internatiol freedoms, but you gotta pick your battles.

To wrap up, I do think Harper has been a good statesman. Not inspring by any means. But steady, responsible. Some good moves. Except for the science thing.

I'm loving our discourse. Hit me back if you have more.

[Daradon]

Oh, re Ukraine, there was consensus. No one wanted to play ball. Russia sells to much oil.

Another reason to get off fossil fuels. But another discussion.

[rubecube]

Originally Posted by Daradon

Fiscally conservative, socially liberal. Why is that so hard to find? Id argue most Canadians would get behind that.

Because it's largely a contradiction. Socially liberal, or progressivism, is generally in favour of equal rights as in equality in result, as opposed to formal equality. This is basically impossible to achieve without some sort of wealth redistribution.

[Fuzz]

Originally Posted by Daradon

As I mentioned, scientific reasons are why I will not vote for him and that strongly includes environmental reasons.

As for China, I'm at a loss for what to do with them. I wished for a long time for strong governments to stand up to there abuses. But it just isn't going to happen. I guess I resigned myself to the fact that a better middle class there, will fight and earn those freedoms themselves. That was the whole point. Make a middle class, it will influence government and fight for freedoms.

And let's face it, they are the biggest population and I believe of last year the biggest econony. To impose our values on them is probably foolhearty. I'm a big defender of internatiol freedoms, but you gotta pick your battles.

To wrap up, I do think Harper has been a good statesman. Not inspring by any means. But steady, responsible. Some good moves. Except for the science thing.

I'm loving our discourse. Hit me back if you have more.

I do understand that the China human rights thing is unwinnable, I just feel like Harper has given them a major pass on it. In the past governments would at least make our position known, whereas he has taken the position it is better not to bring it up.

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Because it's largely a contradiction. Socially liberal, or progressivism, is generally in favour of equal rights as in equality in result, as opposed to formal equality. This is basically impossible to achieve without some sort of wealth redistribution.

Traditional thought it's a contradiction. But logically Id like to argue that.

We know education and rehabilitation is cheaper that policing and jailing. To that affect mqny social preventative policies are cheaper than their tough love counterparts. Housing a single mom is cheaper than the fallout of dealing with two damaged kids. Etc.

I like a lot of social programs not because I'm a bleeding heart, but because in the long run they make sense to a balanced budget.