Canadian Conservative Party Supporters

lukin2006 wrote:

Yes I meant fairly low...my bad typing. Well you never know, maybe we'll get a good turnout. If the NDP vote is up in Ontario that might translate into more seats for Harper, I can't see many tories switching, but the NDP are likely drawing from liberals. I was talking to my neighbour yesterday and she said " she's voted liberal her entire life and might vote NDP this time because she dislikes Ignatieff". It seems that might be the sentiment across the country...to me he comes across as rather arrogant anyways. You know what I find interesting, of the people I've spoken to and come across most say that Harper doesn't really bother them one way or another, as for the corruption they all are in the agreement that whoever we put in will be corrupt...I find that interesting...but hard to argue with...JC 13 years were strewn with scandals and corruption and Mulroney before him...thats the only reason I can figure why Harper will likely retain his seat count or increase it, where used to corruption in politics.

Was she specific about her dislike for Ignatieff? Anyway his arrogance was my point when I suggested that he's a fairly typical senior academic; many profs don't really argue, because to argue requires listening, and Ignatieff doesn't strike me as a good listener. It's sad that we've just come to accept crappy/corrupt politicians, but it seems to be well entrenched. On the other hand, the corruption levels we're bitching about pale in comparison to heaps of other place (e.g. Italy, much of Africa, Chicago, etc). Perhaps we tolerate it in the knowledge that it could be far worse.

bytterman wrote:

lukin2006 wrote:

Yes I meant fairly low...my bad typing. Well you never know, maybe we'll get a good turnout. If the NDP vote is up in Ontario that might translate into more seats for Harper, I can't see many tories switching, but the NDP are likely drawing from liberals. I was talking to my neighbour yesterday and she said " she's voted liberal her entire life and might vote NDP this time because she dislikes Ignatieff". It seems that might be the sentiment across the country...to me he comes across as rather arrogant anyways. You know what I find interesting, of the people I've spoken to and come across most say that Harper doesn't really bother them one way or another, as for the corruption they all are in the agreement that whoever we put in will be corrupt...I find that interesting...but hard to argue with...JC 13 years were strewn with scandals and corruption and Mulroney before him...thats the only reason I can figure why Harper will likely retain his seat count or increase it, where used to corruption in politics.

Was she specific about her dislike for Ignatieff? Anyway his arrogance was my point when I suggested that he's a fairly typical senior academic; many profs don't really argue, because to argue requires listening, and Ignatieff doesn't strike me as a good listener. It's sad that we've just come to accept crappy/corrupt politicians, but it seems to be well entrenched. On the other hand, the corruption levels we're bitching about pale in comparison to heaps of other place (e.g. Italy, much of Africa, Chicago, etc). Perhaps we tolerate it in the knowledge that it could be far worse.

His arrogance and dropping the ball on an election nobody wanted or needed. I know and she knows Harper wanted this election as much as the other 2...then they should have let them him make the call. In a week if Harper gets his majority then I doubt Layton, Duceppe or Ignatieff will be around in 4 years for another election. I myself don't like Iggy for his arrogance...I think you can trust Layton more than the other 2, but you never know until someone takes power...I don't know, I tend to think their all corrupt bullshitters.

I agree I never found teachers at any level very good listeners...their used to talking all the time.

bytterman wrote:

lukin2006 wrote:

His arrogance and dropping the ball on an election nobody wanted or needed. I know and she knows Harper wanted this election as much as the other 2...then they should have let them him make the call. In a week if Harper gets his majority then I doubt Layton, Duceppe or Ignatieff will be around in 4 years for another election. I myself don't like Iggy for his arrogance...I think you can trust Layton more than the other 2, but you never know until someone takes power...I don't know, I tend to think their all corrupt bullshitters.

I agree I never found teachers at any level very good listeners...their used to talking all the time.

All four parties need to start thinking about leadership succession. Harper obviously stays put if he gets a majority but if it's his minority I could see him calling it a day. Layton and Duceppe I agree will pack it in, Layton perhaps in any scenario, but Ignatieff's only been in place for a little more than 2 years (including the stint as interim leader), and is only fighting (sic) his first election as leader. He might very well get pushed, but I'm not convinced that he jumps.

I agree all 4 parties needs new leadership...do you think Ignatieff is willing to wait four more years to get a shot at PM? I was kind of under the thinking thats why he wanted an election as well...to see where he stands with the the voting public. What if he loses seats? Or the unthinkable and NDP become official opposition? I guess that's a lot of if's! A small part of me thinks he would rather move on in his life than sit four years in opposition, but then again I think a lot of liberal MP's might call it quits within the next few years. That's why I think if Harper gets a seat gain of say 6 or 7, that will get him close to his majority there just might be enough right leaning liberals that will cross and put him over the top and I'm sure his team has some liberals in mind.

Strength in Ontario puts ‘squeaker of a majority’ within Harper’s reach

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/pol ... le1997430/

How Tory rush to kill per-vote subsidy could backfire


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/pol ... le1997289/

lukin2006 wrote:

Jack Layton's almost 61, if the conservatives get a majority that would make him almost 65 when the next election rolls around...he might stick around if the numbers translate into a big seat gain...if it does not, would the NDP not want to start the transition to new leadership over the next 4 years?

Since their seems to only be a handful of us who view and post on this thread I doubt we have enough votes to turn tide .

i think chretien was about that age when he took power and he was around for a while ... the thing is - it's not easy finding leaders ... the only other good one is duceppe ... the ndp surge is due to layton's performance on the debates and his public perception ... he consistently ranks as the most trustworthy leader by a landslide over all the other leaders ...

lukin2006 wrote:

true...so do you figure if there is a seat gain has he grown the NDP about as far as it can go? I was just figuring that maybe Layton would step down hoping the next person could take them to official opposition status...who knows maybe they'll achieve that this time around.

tough to say ... honestly, if i had to put money down ... i would say 50 seats was the max for the ndp in this country but the reality is that apparently, the ndp were like 1st or 2nd in 100 ridings in the last election ... if people on the left/centre continue to abandon the liberal party ... the sky is the limit for the ndp ... also, the ndp are the only ones with a seat in Alberta and they are making headway in a province that was foreign to them ...

their major hurdle is ontario ... where people still have disproportionate resentment towards them ...

polaris_x wrote:

lukin2006 wrote:

true...so do you figure if there is a seat gain has he grown the NDP about as far as it can go? I was just figuring that maybe Layton would step down hoping the next person could take them to official opposition status...who knows maybe they'll achieve that this time around.

tough to say ... honestly, if i had to put money down ... i would say 50 seats was the max for the ndp in this country but the reality is that apparently, the ndp were like 1st or 2nd in 100 ridings in the last election ... if people on the left/centre continue to abandon the liberal party ... the sky is the limit for the ndp ... also, the ndp are the only ones with a seat in Alberta and they are making headway in a province that was foreign to them ...

their major hurdle is ontario ... where people still have disproportionate resentment towards them ...

Then it's possible with a slight shift they could replace the liberals as the centre left party...mmmm...interesting.

You have think the liberals are bleeding support to right and to the left.

Well at least Jack Layton shows up for votes and actually will oppose the government...like what the opposition is suppose to do...maybe where witness a slow death of the liberal and birth of a more centrist/left ndp...what do you think?

Drowned Out wrote:

You guys ever play around on the political compass site?
http://www.politicalcompass.org/canada2011

I think it's fairly accurate...the questions used to place a person or party on the graph are pretty insightful...
When I think of this chart, and keep hearing people talk of the libs being left-centrist...I have to chuckle a bit. I agree with the site's assertion that there is little difference, esp economically, between the Cons and the Libs...The NDP have toned down their leftist tendencies a bit over the years, but they are still closest to centrist of any of the parties. The Libs and Cons are both right wing parties IMO. 'Liberal', as it applies to Iggy's party, is a misnomer. To me, having the two major parties has influenced Canadians into a bit of a right facade....we have knee-jerk negative reactions to anything to do with socialism or taxation.......but if you pose the questions on that site to most Canadians, I think they would place significantly further left on the compass than the Cons OR the Libs...

Yes, I've been to the website. I think as a whole we're better off as centrist nation...but for sure we're left or socialist in certain areas...the big one, health care...we beed to improve in certain areas of course but sometimes it seems we are heading the wrong way, like the American Way, I'd rather have a kinder gentler country one who cares for all her citizens no matter who you are.

That's the disappointing thing about the last 5 years...Harper accomplished FUCK ALL...he has lead 2 of the most impotent minority governments ever...in a minority government good things should happen...not the SHIT thats been happening the last 5 years.

I also lay blame to the problems at Ignatieff's feet...show up and vote...if it brings down the government so be it...Ignatieff was waiting for his poll numbers to imorove, imo...keeping waiting you might be sinking the liberal boat.

I can see how Harper might not be able to work with Ignatieff...but Layton no...Layton seems like a true parliamentarian, someone who can argue with until your blue in the face in the house of commons then go out and have a beer afterwards...Ignatieff and Harper are too arrogant and stuborn.

With that being said if Harper gets a majority it will be bad for us. My preference is a minority...form a coalition with Layton leading the coalition with centrist members from the liberals and conservatives (I'm sure they have some, Layton knows who they are).

If Harper gets a majority we'll head even further in the direction of the US, imo.

polaris_x wrote:

lukin2006 wrote:

Then it's possible with a slight shift they could replace the liberals as the centre left party...mmmm...interesting.

You have think the liberals are bleeding support to right and to the left.

Well at least Jack Layton shows up for votes and actually will oppose the government...like what the opposition is suppose to do...maybe where witness a slow death of the liberal and birth of a more centrist/left ndp...what do you think?

i think they were never really so far left ... but i think the perception of them being more centrist started when they absolved long standing relationships with many unions in the previous election ...

also, the reality is that they are the only real alternative for many voters ... if you live outside of quebec and you see the damage harper has done and you see the same old narcissistic behaviour from the liberals - it only leaves the ndp ...

like i've been saying ... for the most part - as long as parties are somewhat close to the centre ... most canadians are fine with whatever policy but they do expect integrity and transparency ... something both the cons and libs lack ... so, really ... assuming layton doesn't raise the GST to 30% ... he's the only alternative for many ...

I agree...I never thought I would think an NDP leader was best choice to lead the country, I do now. Great call on the union. I belong to a union...can't stand them...unions for me leach off the productivity of others. I had forgotten that the NDP aren't associated with union as much anymore.

I hope what the polls are saying is correct for the NDP...but not for the Conservatives.