Words
GET THE NEW SFH LP!
“Warren Kinsella's book, ‘Fight the Right: A Manual for Surviving the Coming Conservative Apocalypse,’ is of vital importance for American conservatives and other right-leaning individuals to read, learn and understand.”
- The Washington Times
“One of the best books of the year.”
- The Hill Times
“Justin Trudeau’s speech followed Mr. Kinsella’s playbook on beating conservatives chapter and verse...[He followed] the central theme of the Kinsella narrative: “Take back values. That’s what progressives need to do.”
- National Post
“[Kinsella] is a master when it comes to spinning and political planning...”
- George Stroumboulopoulos, CBC TV
“Kinsella pulls no punches in Fight The Right...Fight the Right accomplishes what it sets out to do – provide readers with a glimpse into the kinds of strategies that have made Conservatives successful and lay out a credible roadmap for progressive forces to regain power.”
- Elizabeth Thompson, iPolitics
“[Kinsella] deserves credit for writing this book, period... he is absolutely on the money...[Fight The Right] is well worth picking up.”
- Huffington Post
“Run, don't walk, to get this amazing book.”
- Mike Duncan, Classical 96 radio
“Fight the Right is very interesting and - for conservatives - very provocative.”
- Former Ontario Conservative leader John Tory
“His new book is great! All of his books are great!”
- Tommy Schnurmacher, CJAD
“I absolutely recommend this book.”
- Paul Wells, Maclean’s
“Kinsella puts the Left on the right track with new book!”
- Calgary Herald
In today’s Sun: when Harper goes, they’re pooched
If Harper ever steps down while he is still in power, then it can only mean that the polls make it evident that the Conservatives are on the outs. I doubt that any star candidate will want to be the captain of a sinking ship ala Campbell or Turner.
How would history remember Chretien if he had won the ’84 leadership race? It’s doubtful that he would have fared much better than Turner who had to defend the 20+ previous years of Liberal governance. 1993 was much better time for Chretien to be at the helm: the albatross that was Mulroney and even a fractured right.
Electoral success is mostly about winning conditions and timing. If these are right, then there should be no problem attracting star candidates for leadership(*)
* – And as for our southern neighbors, the best that the Republicans could offer was Mitt Romney. Mike Huckabee is nor nearly as insensitive and lacking in charisma, but he chose to sit it out. True, the Republicans have a better chance of winning this year compared to the tsunami of hatred they faced in ’08, but they only have a puncher’s chance this time. I think that Obama has a 3:1 chance of getting the win.
Cant argue with you on this. But, isnt that the issue with all good leaders? Chretien, Clinton..etc? It took a decade for the Dems to recover after Clinton. The LPC is still trying to find a Leader after Chretien left. Stephen Harper is the face of Canada right now as was Jean Chretien, and, if they were easy to replace both men would never have gotten to the pinnacle of Canadian politics.
What about James Moore? I’ve never vote Conservatibe but I can’t imagine that I wouldn’t if he was leader.
After a few years in cabinet what about Chris Alexander? Though he supposedly considered by some as to moderate.
Someone I’m really surprised you didn’t mention is John Baird, another person who could get me to vote Conservative.
(I’m not expecting a positive response to this)
John Baird? You just lost any credibility you might of had.
John Baird is one of the most respected parliamentarians in the House according to MPs of all parties.
Name 2. Please.
Even if John Baird were the most respected parliamentarian (and no, he’s definitely not) this isn’t the era of Mackenzie King. Canada’s not going to have a confirmed bachelor as PM.
Particularly not one who’s gay.
The problem, as Warren pointed out, isn’t that there are no competent Conservative leaders who are basically indistinguishable from Paul Martin Liberals. You can find plenty of Conservatives who want to pretty much cut taxes, cut services, dole out projects and patronage to win votes, and otherwise meander through abortion and gay marriage without taking a strong stance either way. I’m sure those guys can peel off a ton of Liberal votes.
The problem is how long the Conservative party themselves will put up with it. The Alberta PC party wants to privatize health care, and opposes equal rights for women and gays. And they were still considered too left wing among the Conservative base. Just look around on this website. Here’s a few words that get them all riled up: GAYS. ISLAM. GANGS. IMMIGRANTS. FRENCH.
It’s amazing that Harper has been able to keep those firebreathing Reformists satisfied. It’s only because he has years of being a firebreathing Reformist to earn that credibility. But he’s been anything but a firebreathing Reformist since he’s come into power.
The Conservatives can pick a Reformist or they can pick a Progressive Conservative. They’ll have a hard time finding a leader who can be both.
Keep in mind that through most of Harper’s prime ministership he has had a minority. He was able to placate the fire and brimstone Reformers by saying “can’t risk it now, wait til we have a majority” How long they stay quiet will be interesting to see.
I’m curious as to why John Baird would prompt you to vote Conservative, as he simply seems to be more of the same, rather than something different. Why Baird over Harper ( unless you have been voting Conservative all along, in which case my question becomes rather pointless)? Genuinely curious as Baird strikes me as an excellent pitbull but not someone who could broaden the base. Or maybe that is the attraction, someone who can hold the base through thick or thin and count on suppressed turnouts to grab minority governments?
The base could never accept a confirmed bachelor as leader
True! And he is from Toronto, likely has sipped a latte or two and may even own a bicycle. That’s going to get awkward in rural Alberta.
He’s from Ottawa. Probably just as bad.
Yeah, because rural Albertans have never been to a Starbucks, and refuse to ride on anything that isn’t stamped with “John Deere” all over it.
Sometimes it gets wearisome, listening to the pot calling the kettle black. Carry on.
Les Miller:
I don’t think it’s a stretch to claim that a candidate from urban Ontario, with political baggage and who just might be gay is going to be a hard sell in rural Alberta. In fairness, Baird would be a hard sell anywhere in rural Canada, I realize that ideological purity goes a long way in any party’s leadership contests but delegates do ask themselves whether or not they can sell the choice to their riding memberships.
I take your point, that not every rural Albertan isn’t a redneck caricature. Rural Alberta (and Canada for that matter) is filled with a wide range opinion not necessarily reflected in national voting patterns. It might just be time to put those blanket assumptions aside.
“Confirmed bachelor”? That’s what we’re calling it?
So what else is it then? Care to dare being upfront instead of the snide innuendo?
I think the idea that he is gay could be a plus!
He’s not a social conservative for one. He’s got a much better resume as well.
Fair enough.
What about Jim Prentice? Not a social conservative, smart enough to go private sector before things really started to crater and by all accounts a decent person. Would he be a credible contender?
Moore is likely too much of a moderate to win the support of the base. While it’s anecdotal, a large chunk of the conservative blogosphere aren’t big fans. The power rests in Western Canada, and there will likely be a motivated base looking to support a candidate with stronger conservative credentials than Moore. Also, if one looks at history, replacing a sitting PM doesn’t provide a very clear path to victory going forward. Martin, Turner and Campbell all found that out, so Moore, who is young, would be smart to sit the next round out regardless. Today, Jason Kenney would probably be the favourite if he wanted the job. No question about his conservative credentials, has performed in Cabinet, and has deep ties to important communities within the party.
James Moore, quite frankly, lacks charisma….
Both Baird and Kenney would go over with “the base” like a lead balloon……the reason for which has been discussed on here ad nauseum…….
Former Cabinet Minister Jim Prentice is the one to watch…..intelligent, successful, self-made family man, who can appeal to both the Refoorm and PC camps within the Conservative Party…..
Love Jim Prentice but he would never be supported by the Reform faction. Moore started his career as a member of the Canadian Alliance.
Beg to differ, Jordan……while not a “born” Reformer, Jim Prentice was one of the few candidates for the 2003 leadership race of the PC Party that was pro-merger…..that stance(still somewhat unpopular with the majority of PCers at the time), and an unfortunate endorsement by leadership candidate and troglodyte Craig Chandler killed his chances…..but he is respected by all factions of the Conservative Party…..both socons and Red Tories…….Hes popular in corporate circles as well, and isnt hated by the environmental movement either……
Id say he’s the Conservative Party’s best chance post maelstrom after “Dear Leader’s” departure…..
Except, if he wasn’t pushed out, he had lost enough internal battles to know he wasn’t wanted by the party and they held the door open for him.
Kenney has a pretty good lock on this already, in my view. But that is now and I think Harper’s going to stay on board for another 8-9 years so this is a tad premature.
That’s Okay, when Harper finally leaves, it will be 10+ years, definitely time for a change! Just praying not the NDP…
Here’s a positive response. Nothing on earth could persuade me to vote for anyone connected with Harper. I think that’s the most positive comment yet on this thread. He is also responsible for all the bad stuff and there is a lot of it. He doesn’t fare too well in the books written about him to date but I can’t wait to read the ones written about him after he is gone.
End of the 1990′s and into this century I would watch the cynicism, the evasions, the sneers on the Lib front bench and figure, ‘You people are going to give this country a Reform government. The blatant Islamophobia 10 years ago, the double talk about iraq, Maher Arar in Syria, the stalinist Anti Terrorism Act, the Danish Embassy thing, all showed that the Libs were Reform leaning anyway.
Then, someone sleazy pulled the income trust bs (and did so with impunity)in the 2006 election campaign that shifted votes from a Lib minority to a Conservative minority.
Finally, when a newer generation of Libs started moving into leadership, the old boys of the Lib party shafted them, and appointed Ignatieff to the leadership, thereby alienating all kinds of younger Libs.
The Conservative inner circle did some things, but the Libs did it to themselves.
I really like this article. Like really REALLY like it. It’s common knowledge, it’s sensible, but not anything really new to people that follow politics closely.
But the article IS new to a lot of people. A lot of people who read the Sun, and people who buy into notions like that the liberal party is a husk looking for a messiah, and who wouldn’t necessarily realize that their party of choice is a band of warring factions kept together by Harper glue, in short, nothing without a leader.
I’ve always thought that the cracks would really really start showing if they start to slip below the 30% range (plurality more or less impossible), and stay there and not move up despite efforts. Like a qualitative difference. People are discontent now with the party, but it’s in those peoples’ best interest to work with what they have, and said people keep more or less quiet. People will start to voice this discontent when the iceberg starts looming, and things will fly apart.
I agree with you that the Conservatives are screwed once Kim Jong Harper leaves, but the warring factions within the Liberal Party had more to do with its fall from grace than anything the Supreme Leader did.
It’ll rebound once Justin is on the prowl.
PMSH is a relatively young man. His handling of the issues that matter such as the economy has been near perfect. His next task is to build a party that is strong enough to attract Canada’s leaders of Indusry Academia and Communities to run as candidates for public office. This process is wll under way and with the confidence of the electorate locked up PMSH will have no problem in 20 years of turning over the reins of power to an outstanding Canadian successor.
I suspect 10 out of 10 Conservative sycophants and windbags agree.
Wow, I think I’ll sign on to Blogging Tories.
This board is finished.
20 years? There’s optimism, and then there’s OPTIMISM!!, and then there’s whatever you just posted.
You are looking for laughs here, right?
….will…??
Note to all those Liberals and assorted pundits who whine that leadership is given far too much importance by Liberal Party of Canada members : you’re wrong. Stephen Harper has proved you wrong.
Now you just have to find a leader of equal or better calibre.
THEY HAVE HIM IN THE WINGS..FEAR NOT
Warren,
Don’t forget the 2 Bens. Ben M or Ben H will emerge from the ashes to the kingdom like the second coming of Justin T.
Two words: Vote. Splitting.
Every Majority in modern times (except Mulroney’s first) was a phony majority. Our ate age first past the post system is to blame. We never get the government we vote for. Harper struts around as though he has the support of most voters. Every Liberal government was the same…and lazy journalists perpetuate the myth.
Here’s what would fix things: 1. Proportional representation (mixed member or 1-2-3 Single transferable vote); 2. Abolish Senate; 3. Party leaders elected by caucus in parliament in order to weaken the power of the PMO; 4. Centralize election spending and mandate a low maximum of say, $10million; 5. Polling blackout during writ; 5. Mandate 50% women MP (this is possible with mixed member PR)
These reforms would bring us into the 21st century. Every one is already in place in many other more successful democracies, than ours. Would lead to more consensus building and all party representation across the whole country and de-emphasize the phony regionalism and provincialism that the current power players and media exploit.
Actually, we get the government that most people voted for, your solution 1) would ensure coalitions, which would be a govermnent no one voted for; if there is a Liberal NDP coalition then whatever compromises made in Parliatment to effect that would result in a government that neither Liberal nor NDP voters would have wanted had their party one. FPTP at least has the advantage that usually, more people than any one else wanted that government (although not a majority, granted). PR also has the perverse effect of elevating parties over MP’s, something which I think would be a detrminent to the system. MMP or STV does address some of that, though…
2) The Senate has a role, and could have a greater one; it should represent provincial interestes in Ottawa. If it was properly functioning (and along Bert Brown’s reforms ) the gun registry may still be in place – Brown proposed that to overturn legislation from the HOC, the Senate should have to defeat it on a basis similar to the amending formula, 7 provinces with 50% of the seats…Ontario and Quebec would have opposed for sure, that leaves 5 others- the four Atlantic provinces, and BC…ditto with the crime bill. There has been a lot of downloading on the provinces and this would give a proper legislative body to deal with that. Personally if its to be elected, then I think it should be based on the proportions in its respective provincial legislatures, so a Senate delegation would reflect the makeup of the provincial legislature. Added bonus, this means that a separate eleciton would not be necessary, it would be derived from a provincial vote. And yes its PR, but here we are representing provincies, not constituaents.
3) I toally agree; we have been lulled into a false sense of democracy by expanding the voter base for leader, without recognizing that each step makes the leader less accountable. The Liberals have taken it to its logical conclusion and may end up with a leader who will be unaccountable to either the Party or the Caucus. If we went back to leaders being supported by caucus it would give the MPs some real power, and if we at the same time ensured that the leader could not veto candidates (currently they have to sign off on nomination papers) it would provide some real teeth. Let the riding presidents or if necessary the party president sign off on who is or isn’t a party’s nominee. And when MP’s have real power an dreal say, it makes nominating them more important – and thats were members can get their input; at the local level. Being able to vote for a leader when you are one of tens of thousands, just put the parties, all of them, in the hands of the organizers.
4) Centralizing spending would just concentrate power; we have not had huge scandals. I’d reeinstate the party subsidy; but we already have decent spending limits. We have gone overboard in other areas though, and sometimes thrown the baby out with the bathwater. Case in point; in the past, in the Northwest Territories, airline companies allowed candidates free travel between the very far flung communities of the North. Suddenly that become a “corporate donation” and was banned; but there was no way for candidates to afford the high cost of travel. I don’t know if it was ever addressed but if something is offered to all parties, it should be allowed.
5) Blackout during the entire writ? I don’t see that being doable or constitutional. To be honest, I’m not sure how its a bad thing; if we all know what we’re up to; I think the party that would agree the most right now is the Wild Rose (I think they got screwed at the end whe Liberals in Alberta realized that the PC’s were the lesser evil. Alas, Cthulu wasn’t on the ballet, why vote for the lesser evil, huh)
6) (you called it 5., but I think we know you meant 6.) I like the result, I dislike most of the ways about it. And it starts a slippery slope; why not allocate for aboriginals, philipinos, etc. Very corporatist. And it implies that woman would also be capped at 50%; even in an MMP, say we do that, have 6 spots, 3 men, 3 woman – well in that case, I can see times when there were better woman candidates – especially if we had to deal with party divisions. Lets say of the six spots, the top 3 went to the NDP and Conservatives, and they all listed woman; then the Liberal in the 4th spot has to pick a man; but what if thats not the parites choice or…anyway. Thats why I don’t like it. But something has to be done to increase woman represenation; so perhaps we take the good with the bad.
Hey Warren,
Wake up, Alison Redford is already warming up to take a run at the federal leadership when Harper departs. Bilingual, red Tory although no premier has gone on to be be PM.
The price of oil is going to crash again temporarily with the currently gelling recession II. Alberta’s economy will collapse, they’ll run a big deficit again (because taxes are too low and they don’t save enough) and Redford will be toast. She also sounded selfish fighting with Clark even though constitutionally she was “correct”.
Federalism sucks. Unfortunately Canada was born of separate pre-existing entities coming together, then was expanded through the invention of yet more provinces later. In my opinion it’s all so artificial. I think we’d be better off with a strong central national government and more robust municipal governments. Provincial governments are too big for real local straws roots access and too small to do anything but create phony regionalism. Obviously many would disagree.
U, you are forgetting Tupper and Thompson.
The only thing I disagree with is that unlike Dion and Ignatieff, Rae is not a victim of Harper. He’s a victim of the Liberal party.
All CON’s can go screw themselves. Fiscal managers, my ass.
Robert Chisholm: Flaherty’s fiscal recklessness is hurting Canada’s economy
Robert Chisholm, National Post Jul 27, 2012
Federal Minister of Finance Jim Flaherty.
Wednesday in these pages, federal finance minister Jim Flaherty took the opportunity to offer some fatherly advice to provincial and territorial premiers gathering in Halifax for the Council of the Federation, dispensing his thoughts on the virtues of balance budgets and fiscal responsibility (“Our long term goal: Balance Canada’s budgets,” July 25.
While the Harper government seems happy to offer advice through the media, it failed to send a single representative to meet with the premiers in Halifax. It seems the Harper Conservatives believe unilateral edicts handed down from Ottawa are now the most constructive approach to Canadian federalism.
But before anyone considers taking Mr. Flaherty’s advice, let’s take a closer look at his government’s record.
After inheriting the largest budget surplus in federal government history when he first took office, the Conservative finance minister quickly squandered it on a series of short-sighted and unaffordable corporate tax cuts. Now, after having broken the bank, he’s asking the provinces, and Canadian families, to pick up the tab for his corporate giveaways.
Despite years of promising that Conservatives would never balance the budget by cutting health care transfers or public pensions, Mr. Flaherty and the Prime Minister decided to do exactly that — cutting services and downloading costs to provinces, territories, municipalities and First Nations at a rate that would make even Paul Martin blush.
Instead of coming to the table in good faith and negotiating a new health accord with the provinces, Conservatives unilaterally announced they were going to cut health care transfer payments and short-change the provinces and territories by $31-billion. These governments will be forced to cut services and ultimately the health and well-being of Canadians will suffer.
On pensions, the Conservatives are pushing ahead with plans to cut Old Age Security and the Guaranteed Income Supplement by raising the retirement age to 67. No longer able to rely on the strong public pensions that Canadians counted on for generations, many seniors will fall into poverty before they’re able to retire. And despite never consulting them on these changes, Conservatives are downloading the costs for these social assistance benefits onto the provinces and territories.
Recent changes to Employment Insurance (EI) will have the same effect. Even though fewer Canadians are able to collect EI today than ever before, the federal government is moving to restrict access even further, making it harder for unemployed Canadians to access this important element of our social safety net. Many Canadians stripped of their EI benefits will be pushed onto provincial and territorial social assistance programs. Once again, it is the provinces and territories who will be stuck with the bill.
But his recent budget cuts weren’t Mr. Flaherty’s first foray into fiscal recklessness.
In 2008, despite warning signs, Conservatives were caught unprepared by the greatest financial crisis since the Great Depression. Indeed, they only acted when their hold on power was threatened.
Mr. Flaherty is now being forced to acknowledge that economic instability around the world affects Canada. He seems to finally realize that in the 21st-century, world economies are interconnected – and he seems ready at last to accept the possibility that Canada could be facing a second recession.
But sadly, Mr. Flaherty still appears unwilling to consult with either the premiers or the public about his plans to address these risks. He prefers to lecture others rather than take responsibility for his own government’s mistakes.
National Post
Robert Chisholm is deputy critic for intergovernmental affairs.
Alison Redford, Jim Prentice, Jim Flaherty, Mark Carney, a slew of provincial premiers, their future looks far brighter than the liberals I tell you
If Flaherty can ever balance a budget, in which ever jurisdiction he’s in, maybe. We is more of a “yes man” than a leader.
*He is more …
“Jason Kenny is a joke”. Don’t kid yourself. Jason Kenny is a dangerous man.
….Especially around shopping malls…..
Don’t bet on it Warren. Your old boss ruined the Liberal Party and you lot what be back anytime soon. The NDP are still weak outside of Quebec, so little room to grown there. Your Libby hubris killed the party and drove people away. Just look upon the Liberal waste land YOU helped create.
The surprise will be on you. JT is much smarter than anyone yet gives him credit for. That will become eviddent when he makes mush of Harper. It is reasonably well known that Harper both hates and fears JT. That alone should tell you something.
And, please tell me where and how you drove to your conclusion. I’m sure you must have studied JT studiously and objectively
So.. turn Canada into the United States? Pass.
Two party “democracy” is sham democracy. No need for it. Multi-party PR with relatively high vote thresholds will keep the crazy parties from holding the balance of power. The Cons would split up, the greens would get seats and the Blic would never ever form the official opposition again.
HARPER’S SO CALLED ECONOMIC MANAGEMENT IS ALL SMOKE AND MIRRORS.
1. Biggest deficit ever
2. Continued structural deficits according to most economists w/o tax increases.
3. living off your favorite oil supply in the oil sands is not economic genius.
4. At between 30 and 35% he has not won over many Liberal or left leaning voters who combined have around 65 to 70% support….you lie big time.
5. He has won over the jewish vote and aliented an even larger voter block that is now out to get him
6. he has even less support in Quebec than he ever had. Ditto for BC
In other words you are full of shit
I see that old chestnut, the “liberal media” conspiracy is still alive and well amongst the greivence manufacturer and shut-in wing of the Conservative Party. I’m not sure if it’s still funny or just kind of sad, anymore.
WHAT A LOAD OF CRAP YOU SPEW.
But at least you understand how big a phony layton was.
What news? Do you think the media really knows what is going on with JT…more of your disneyeque garbage.
Show me the common knowledge. Show me proof of the confusion about who is a heavy or light weight. The Sun chain of pseudo news?
You are a fucking idiot
We do think outside our box. We are going to ship oil through BC to China who could become our biggest trading partner as they eventually also become more democratic.
We will sell water to the US not give them our sovereignty for it. What an airhead comment
I slso believe you misuse the word “think”.
What experience is there that trading with anyone makes the lesser democratic country more democratic. Why would it not work the other way around? Moral superiority?
What with CPC overspending, ballot box stuffing, robo-calls, early election calls against the law, prorogation to avoid a confidence vote, refusing to obey Parliament and be found in contempt, not answering questions on the order paper, staffers reversing FOI answers, and the general reduction of democratic infrastructure like reducing the budget for Elections Canada while increasing the House size by 30, more trade with China may not be the answer to its or our democracy.
In one post you state Mulcair doesn’t want to give the Libs any breathing room to revive then you say there is a sort of coalition between them. You are obviously a Harper supporter. your IQ shows it. And, for better clarity it is well known he attracts those of a lesser education and lower IQ
That settles it. Still actually kind of funny.
Certainly not a dictator like the Harpercrite but someone who will bring them back to power no matter how hard harper tries and how much more dishonest he gets.
I think your name should be ‘All Hat’
Mulcair won because the best candidate wanted to, and still does, promote a merger of the two parties and the crazy left wing of the party including the separatists elected under their banner in Quebec wAnt no part of that. Socialism forever is their mantra
I don’t. Rae was leaning against running for over a year so the Tories wasted their money. The very fact Rae never answered them should have been the tip off as to his future because he could have answered Harper in spades but chose silence and to keep the Liberal treasury growing for important things.
1. Biggest deficit ever
But the deficit would have been even larger if Harper had yielded to the NDP and Liberal demands for more spending during the global recession. Oh, and as a percentage of the GNP, it was quite manageable, and less than previous deficits when compare to the GNP.
– Economists use GDP, not GNP.
– The Cons spewed everywhere that the spending was their idea and spent a lot of money on foreigh signs to show it. The deficit is as large as it is because of reduced tax revenues, because of the GST cut of 2%, not from increased spending. The Cons were on a spending spree long before 2008.
2. Continued structural deficits according to most economists w/o tax increases.
Nope, wrong again. The federal deficit will be cleared away by 2014 according to the latest data and based on continued growth in the Canadian economy. The only tax increases will come from the provincial governments, not the federal.
– Wrong, at least in a temporal way. We can’t know the future, but if taking the PBO’s assessment and Flaherty’s predictions in the past, the PBO has beaten Flaherty every time.
– The PBO says there is a structural deficit because the feds have not accounted for the increased age demographic. Flaherty has not released any data althoug asked, regarding the fed’s “saving” on the age increase for the OAS and the demographic rationale for the increase.
3. living off your favorite oil supply in the oil sands is not economic genius.
The Chinese disagree with you on that point because their fortune cookies said “Buy Canadian”. AB oil is driving the Canadian economy now.
– Cookies, as good as they are in the foundation of evidence-based policy-making, probably say to buy it anywhere the economy is not totally depending on Chinese funding, yet. The US is so in debt to the PRC, the PRC is going after Canada for the oil and other natural resources. If there is somewhere else to buy it, the Chinese will. It is not for love of our oil, it is for its volume and our naive need to be loved from a trade perspective by someone other than the US (Third Option, who ever heard of that?)
4. At between 30 and 35% he has not won over many Liberal or left leaning voters who combined have around 65 to 70% support….you lie big time.
Come the next election good Canadians will come to realize that another Harper majority government is in their best economic, social and international interest. Mulcair and Justin or whoever will not have the trust of sensible Canadian voters considering the state of their unstable and wounded parties. And then there are the “attack ads”.
– A Harper majority has not been in Canada’s interest to date. The Liberals are the ones who cleaned up after the Mulroney mess, and Harper has not produced any kind of surplus. Nor will he. If you have a surplus, it gets spent on social programs, and that runs contraty to CPC policy – people being helped, I mean.
– Canada has lost the esteem it once had in the international community, evidenced only by it having lost its seat at the UN SC, (usually for the asking but not with Harper piping up that Isreal is 100% right 100% of the time and other missed chances and nuance).
– With EI cuts, OAS cuts, the consequential downloading onto the provinces, I’m not sure the poor can stand anymore CPC social interest support.
5. He has won over the jewish vote and aliented an even larger voter block that is now out to get him
You racist bastard!! Are you suggesting there is a fatwah on Harper’s head and homegrown jihadists are out to get him?? CSIS and the RCMP may visit you since they probably monitor all political websites.
– It is not racist to say that the CPC has catered to certain communities in certain ways. The CPC has been quite sucessful in fact, in doing that.
6. he has even less support in Quebec than he ever had. Ditto for BC
Harper doesn’t need Quebec to form a majority government, and there are some polling indications that some on Montreal Island are turning away from the Liberals and to the Cons. As for BC, they flit about like fruit flies, politically.
– sadly, it is true that Que appears not to be need for majority, especially not when you are overspending in Peterborough, stuffing ballots into boxes in Etobicoke and supressing votes in, well, what’s the count now – 200 ridings?
In other words you are full of shit
– someone is.