The recent decisions to replace some high profile dissenters within the government bureaucracy and the word out today that the Harper government may not yet be finished doing so is very curious behaviour for a man who wants to retain power.
After a summer of controversy that has totally derailed your plans to hold a Fall election and caused serious harm to Conservative support, the last thing you would want to do is to create more controversy or to give what was once a friendly media more reason to take you to task. (When you have a columnist from the Conservative Party's in-house newspaper calling you a liar over your statements about the replacement of the Gun Registry head you know you have lost the media.)
Stephen Harper and his government are vulnerable and they know it. It all began with the first prorogation and it has just increased from there. That decision put a majority government permanently out of reach for the Harper government but it was not fatal. However, that event did begin a pattern where this government has been mired in controversy for most of its second term. That culminated in the Census decison and the reaction to it, which I am certain took the Conservatives completely by surprise and which Stephen Harper might believe was the tipping point for his government. I am certain they are further surprised by the quiet competence the Liberals have shown with the Liberal Express. If the Liberals can do the same during a real election campaign against a tired and old government the result is pretty much a foregone conclusion.
I have always believed that the first proroguation of Parliament was the beginning of the end of the Harper government and that they would never win another election. It would appear that Stephen Harper now agrees with me.
He has seen the writing on the wall. He knows he will be a former head of government very soon and that there is very little that he can do about it so he is now doing whatever he can to implement the imfamous "hidden agenda" and/or hamstring the Liberals when they take power.
22 comments:
Perhaps he "doesn't care" because he doesn't have to. He knows Michael Ignatieff will not be Prime Minister, and after saying, "your time is up" and doing absolutley nothing about it, while also supporting the Tories agenda time and again jsut to survive he knows the Liberals will do nothing about it - again.
Perhaps also the PM is reading the tea leaves and knows that around the water cooler and kitchen tables there are more important issues to Canadians that are being discussed - job security, crime, etc. and that a census, wether politicans are our of House for a few weeks, or a boat load of "refugees" showing up suddenly on their doorstep again are just not registering on the radar.
So you may be right, Stephen Harper may not care, but it is not as if the Liberals are in a position to do anything about it.
Michael, to deny that Canadians do not care about the Census decision is to deny reality.
It has hurt the Conservatives. There is no doubt about that.
Stephen Harper is looking more and more like Paul Martin in the Fall of 2005. He knows his days are numbered.
According to what the media a few polls?
You can list twenty polls and point to an issue and make the same statement.
Check the election results in 2009 and the Financial statements in 2010.
The Liberals have lost millions and don't have the political will to show up and defeat the Conservative agenda.
The simple fact is this Federal Government is a minority, two mandate four years. Every political party takes turns in the last four years in avoiding a combined non-confidence vote against this Conservative led government. Why is that?
Apparently you think the next session will be different.
Number one to Canadians is the economy and keeping their jobs.
Why should our PM worry about faux scandals, when you have numbers like this:
CEOs survey by COMPAS Inc
best choice to manage the economy
Harper 67%
Ignatieff 11%
http://www.canadianbusiness.com/managing/ceo-poll/article.jsp?content=20100819_140930_8628
Yes wilson, a poll of CEOs can be extrapolated to the broader Canadian electorate. After all, we all have chauffeur driven limos and private planes to get around on our daily errands.
As well, I have no problem with Conservatives being in denial about the negative effect the Census controversy has had on their support.
It is silly, to say the least, to deny two months (and counting) of bad media coverage will not have a lasting effect on Conservative fortunes but if you want to deny it then I say, "whatever gets you through the night".
It is very silly to suggest without examining the POLLS since 2006 and looking at the level of support for both parties.
If you did you would quickly realize how much of a failure the current leader has become.
The CPC fundraising is more than the total of all opposition in 2010. The massive drop in Liberal donations from 2009?
Feb 2007-2010- Angus most accurate in 2008 Election.
http://canadanewsdesk.com/polls/?p=Angus+Reid&t=All&l=&e=&n=All
Ekos last 12 months
http://canadanewsdesk.com/polls/?p=Ekos&t=month12&l=&e=&n=All
Clearly your need to push a theory without any evidence is silly.
Since 2006 every party has gained at Liberal expense. Only one region put Liberals as first choice in 2008 General Election. Atlantic Region.(That's it)
Are you counting on Danny Williams again?
Calling polls evidence of anything is too funny.
Might I remind you that polls are not predictive. If they were Paul Martin would have won a landslide in 2004.
As well, I would also point out that polls can change in a heartbeat. In September of 2005 Stephen Harper was where Michael Ignatieff is now. The Conservatives were also eight points back of the Liberals in the national horse race numbers, leading in only one province, Alberta.
Very few believed that the Conservatives could overcome the drag Stephen Harper was inflicting the Conservative Party despite Adscam. Most were predicting another Liberal minority government.
We all knew how that turned out.
As I stated in an earlier comment Stephen Harper is looking more and more like Paul Martin did in September 2005.
Otto are you serious?
I linked to POLLS that show three years, it is not an election cycle. The lines show a pattern with Dion and Ignatieff.
I also pointed you to the financial health of each organization. Liberals keep laying off staff at HQ. Are they doing research?
How many elections did Paul Martin as PM did he win? Did the opposition put a vote of non-confidence and require an election with two years?
So PM Stephen Harper in 4 years had the opposition repeat the non-confidence motion?
The CPC have won 2 mandates (2006-2008) and 50% of the seats in the four by-elections in 2009. They took out a long held Bloc seat.
If you examine the ONLY elections because you have now changed the goalposts. Since 2000 the Liberals have lost key groups visible minorities, social conservatives, rural voters as a result the natural governing party has been reduced to 10 seats out WEST, Toronto, Anglo Montreal Island and the Atlantic region.
If you want to examine only FACTS look at the financial statements and election results.
A national campaign cost around $20 million. The Liberals can't match the Conservatives for over a decade in getting support.
Last point because you have been kind to allow debate here is a study that details a few of my points.
Read the presentation financial support of Elections Canada
and the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada
http://ces-eec.org/pdf/Anatomy%20of%20a%20Liberal%20Defeat.pdf
My, oh my ottlib, you really do need to do something about your trolls. Michael is OK ...very lost but none the less is at least coherent and can debate. wilson and CS however are two of the biggest douchbags on the progressive blog circuit. I have no idea why you even attempt to carry on a rational conversation with either of them.
BTW, when Reformatories go on about how a fall election would be bad for the Libs and ensure a Harper majority, that just makes me wish the writ was dropped yesterday. I smell fear.
It is interesting how posters like Tokw speak for a return to the fascist element in political left.
Censorship and personal insults, off topic comments are stock and trade for some.
Again ottolib thank you for allowing free speech and engaging in different opinions on your blog.
Some guests may not be mature enough to accept a different opinion and hit the delete button unnecessarily.
I agree completely. Harper is a very impatient man, and it seems he's had enough with being, in his terms, "reasonable." I think, for him, it's "Damn the torpedos, full speed ahead!" Then if (when) he doesn't get a majority in the next election, he'll take his toys and go home. He's done it before; he'll do it again....
CS you are the queen of off-topic. That is why you should be banned.
And when your Flogging Bory buddies begin to allow posts of decent on their blogs, then you can come back here and talk about censorship.
PS - blogs are not a democracy. Crazy people like you should not be given a platform.
PPS - Calling me left-wing proves how out-to-lunch you are. Ask some of the NDP guys like DL or McClelland what they think of me. My natural home should be the Conservatives, except the new party has almost completely abandoned all principles that proper Tories should hold.
As for fascism ...which party is controlling their members to 'manage' communications, political interference with the federal police, silencing opponents and 'disappearing' their careers? The Harper government has become all they once hated ...they are now the dirtiest of the dirty Liberals.
Your hypocrisy and overall stupidity disgusts me CS.
It is spelled dissent, and many Tory bloggers allow different opinions.
Sadly your language would be caught in my filter.
This blog is not yours, we are both guests and again you have made it personal demanding the host follow your fascist ideology.
The host's theory of "Time's Up" was challenged by me and a few others and we did not engage in vitriol, that is your pattern.
Feel free to ignore those opinions you can't tolerate and censor your own blog.
and many Tory bloggers allow different opinions.
Yes different opinions on how best to crush the Liberals. What about questioning Harper's leadership?
By contrast I see assorted Grits questioning Iggy's leadership all the time on the various Liblogs.
CS: I do not care if you quote polls from yesterday or from the last century. They do not constitute evidence of anything no matter when they were conducted and published.
I will say it again. Polls are not predictive. So, to use them to state any particular party will win an election sometime in the future is downright silly.
My assertions are based on my study of the life cycle of governments and marking the way points in that life cycle.
You would be amazed that the life of a government follows a set pattern and the only variable to that pattern is the timing of when a given government reaches a particular stage of its life cycle.
The Harper government has reached that point in the pattern where the likelyhood of their re-election is decreasing. Further they are getting very near the point, or they might have already gone past it, where the likelyhood of that decrease becoming irreversible is very high.
When governments go past that point there is nothing they can do to stave off their inevitable defeat and they are left with nothing really left to lose.
It is then interesting to see how the the government acts in that situation. Some become bolder while other retreat into themselves.
The sudden boldness of Stephen Harper after four years of being much more circumspect in pursuing his more controversial goals is telling.
Ottlib,
I provided facts linked to a study that gave SPECIFICS why the Liberals lost power.
Your Post and Reply:
"My assertions are based on my study of the life cycle of governments and marking the way points in that life cycle."
Might as well be Klingon. Where are the specific examples that can be measured. Where is your data or is it a gut feel aka tea leaves?
Did you address finances, organization (Quantifiable)?
Nope.
I have had this debate with a Liberal in Quebec for 2 years and I am still looking for the data.
(I was curious if the funding was fixed but the departure of Rocco Rossi in 2009 and a convention, leadership fees, leadership loans explain the 2009 bump)
From my perspective CPC need to improve 1.3% - 2.0% from OCT 2008 to secure a majority.
The Liberals need to secure almost 10% from 2008 to secure a minority.
It took 8 years for Ontario to turn Blue and give popular vote and seats to the CPC.
In 2000 the Liberals were at over 50% in Ontario. In 2008 they were down nearly 33.8%.
Your theory requires the collapse of CPC seats to only go Liberal or do they get divided equally?
Tokw,
Leadership and Policy differences exist.
You have cited PM is not fiscal conservative, some agree. Go investigate and find those Tory bloggers who refuse to accept the stimulus was worthwhile or necessary.
They wanted their principles intact and a non-confidence vote.
I have spoken on the size of EAP and the speed and think we will have taxpayers waste.
(One third FED, 2/3 Pro-City) only one taxpayer and I don't care what level wastes money.
Did not care for CFL game out East, Bill Clinton in CNE or ANY parade funding including Calgary-Toronto.
CS:
Paul Martin's Liberals were better financed and better organized than the Harper Conservatives in 2006. They still lost.
The same for Kim Campbell against Jean Chretien.
The same for Ernie Eves against Dalton McGuinty.
The same for John Turner against Brian Mulroney.
As well, in all cases the winners of those elections increased their popular vote from previous elections by significant amounts.
There comes a time when a government cannot overcome the desire for change. No amount of money or organization will help. All they can do is watch as the support they received a few short years earlier evaporates.
The Conservatives are approaching that point. I do not think they are there yet but they are closer to it now than they have ever been and I believe Stephen Harper knows it.
That would partially explain why he is less circumspect about making potentially controvercial decisions than he has been in the past.
Ottlib,
You have only picked up two of my very specific points on organization and finance regarding your theory of significant voting shift in Canada to elect the Liberals.(aka tea leaves)
They are NOT directly related and you still have not provided any means to quantify your tea leaves statement.
Can you back up a single point you just made stating the party finances and organization were better? Links and tables please.
Back to Tea leaves theory:
PM S.H. has been leader of CPC since 2004 and became a MP in 2002 that means he has be in our face for less than a decade.
You included substitute leaders, short term replacements who NEVER won their PM mandate correct?
Mulroney served two full mandates before leaving Kim to take the fall?
The WEST did not go Liberal, it went Reform. What did Quebec do?
Trudeau inherited his job and won several mandates included a minor interruption courtesy Joe Clark. Trudeau did the same with Turner.
Harris won, served two full mandates and won his job did the same with Eaves.
You forgot Joe Clark who actually beat Trudeau.
I never voted PC always a Liberal until Nunziata got boot. York South is a blue collar riding that was NDP until they signed a pact with propping up Trudeau in the 70's against Stanfield. It cost the leader of the NDP his seat and leadership. Lewis, than Broadbent took over.
In all your posts you talk about your feelings, your wishes and how the controversy in your opinion means something.
As a partisan, there is no problem with cheering for your team but you need to have actual facts to make the story believable.
Finally, yes the CPC can be beaten but to date the media and the opposition have been unable to sustain the fake scandals or connect the outrage beyond a few months amongst the special interest groups.
2007-2009 General election and by two rounds of by-elections has proven it.
If there is a groundswell you have not provided any quantifiable proof at the ballot box or balance sheet.
The Liberals poached the NDP,Green voters and you have not addressed where those millions of missing Liberals went. The study does.
The Liberal Express photos are cropped? What is the turnout and is he visiting riding they lost in 2008 and are currently holding?
(Saving the furniture tour II, Dion did it in 2008)
Thanks again for debating your theory without resorting to personal insults.
My Quebec Liberal friend whom we talk tea leaves. You two should compare notes.
http://politicalcivildiscourse.blogspot.com/
Ottlib,
You have only picked up two of my very specific points on organization and finance regarding your theory of significant voting shift in Canada to elect the Liberals.(aka tea leaves)
They are NOT directly related and you still have not provided any means to quantify your tea leaves statement.
Can you back up a single point you just made stating the party finances and organization were better? Links and tables please.
Back to Tea leaves theory:
PM S.H. has been leader of CPC since 2004 and became a MP in 2002 that means he has be in our face for less than a decade.
You included substitute leaders, short term replacements who NEVER won their PM mandate correct?
Mulroney served two full mandates before leaving Kim to take the fall?
The WEST did not go Liberal, it went Reform. What did Quebec do?
Trudeau inherited his mandate served several mandates included a minor interruption courtesy Joe Clark. Trudeau did the same with Turner.
Harris served two full mandates and won his job did the same with Eaves.
You forgot Joe Clark who actually beat Trudeau.
I never voted PC always a Liberal until Nunziata got boot. York South is a blue collar riding that was NDP until they signed a pact with propping up Trudeau in the 70's. It cost the leader of the NDP his seat and leadership. Lewis took over.
In all your posts you talk about your feelings, your wishes and how the controversy in your opinion means something.
As a partisan, there is no problem with cheering for your team but you need to have actual facts to make the story believable.
Finally, yes the CPC can be beaten but to date the media and the opposition have been unable to sustain the fake scandals or connect the outrage beyond a few months amongst the special interest groups.
2007-2009 General election and by two rounds of by-elections has proven it.
If there is a groundswell you have not provided any quantifiable proof at the ballot box or balance sheet.
Ottlib,
You have only picked up two of my very specific points on organization and finance regarding your theory of significant voting shift in Canada to elect the Liberals.(aka tea leaves)
They are NOT directly related and you still have not provided any means to quantify your tea leaves statement.
Can you back up a single point you just made stating the party finances and organization were better? Links and tables please.
Back to Tea leaves theory:
PM S.H. has been leader of CPC since 2004 and became a MP in 2002 that means he has be in our face for less than a decade.
You included substitute leaders, short term replacements who NEVER won their PM mandate correct?
Mulroney served two full mandates before leaving Kim to take the fall?
The WEST did not go Liberal, it went Reform. What did Quebec do?
Trudeau inherited his mandate served several mandates included a minor interruption courtesy Joe Clark. Trudeau did the same with Turner.
Harris served two full mandates and won his job did the same with Eaves.
You forgot Joe Clark who actually beat Trudeau.
I never voted PC always a Liberal until Nunziata got boot. York South is a blue collar riding that was NDP until they signed a pact with propping up Trudeau in the 70's. It cost the leader of the NDP his seat and leadership. Lewis took over.
In all your posts you talk about your feelings, your wishes and how the controversy in your opinion means something.
As a partisan, there is no problem with cheering for your team but you need to have actual facts to make the story believable.
Finally, yes the CPC can be beaten but to date the media and the opposition have been unable to sustain the fake scandals or connect the outrage beyond a few months amongst the special interest groups.
2007-2009 General election and by two rounds of by-elections has proven it.
If there is a groundswell you have not provided any quantifiable proof at the ballot box or balance sheet.
My Quebec Liberal Tea Leaves Theorist, you should compare notes.
http://politicalcivildiscourse.blogspot.com/
Post a Comment