Harper retains large lead in Canadian polls while polls show British Labour Party poised to regain majority -- what is going on?

106 posts / 0 new
Last post
6079_Smith_W

gadar wrote:

NorthReport wrote:

Harper is a master plotter, tactician, politician, and is head and shoulders above 99% of any of the other federal politiicans.

Spoken like a true fan. I guess being mean spirited and a bully are the qualities you admire. 

Not sure where you get that spin from. While I don't agree with the 99% hyperbolae, Harper is a brilliant politician and often the smartest person in the room when he is on his game (and most certainly when he is in the conservative caucus room). He didn't get where he is by being a fool.

I don't see a problem with admitting that and knowing what we are up against. It makes more sense to me than underestimating our enemies because we don't want to commit the heresy of recognizing their abilities.

(edit)

Though I should add that his brilliance makes the fact that he regularly shoots himself in the foot that much more mystifying. I am thankful that he has that blind spot, but it makes no sense to me.

6079_Smith_W

Frmrsldr wrote:

I think Herr Harper has the cunning of a successful street brawler.

Yes, but not just that. He is highly intelligent, and takes the time to make sure he is informed on issues. There is no way he would be able to control the entire government out of his office otherwise.

Frmrsldr

NorthReport wrote:

... Harper is a brilliant politician and often the smartest person in the room when he is on his game (and most certainly when he is in the conservative caucus room). He didn't get where he is by being a fool.

6079_Smith_W wrote:

I don't see a problem with admitting that and knowing what we are up against. It makes more sense to me than underestimating our enemies because we don't want to commit the heresy of recognizing their abilities.

I think Herr Harper has the cunning of a successful street brawler.

If you want to beat him, you have to stoop down to his level and use his dirty political street brawlin' tactics.

As for his self-destructive tendencies, he shares that with kindred spirit Richard Nixon. That and his 'dirty tricks'.

That is where the similarities end.

Herr Harper is not strong when it comes to foreign policy, nor (in my opinion) is he a genius.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

No, Harper isn't head and shoulders above anyone.

Arthur Cramer, Winnipeg

Frmrsldr

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Frmrsldr wrote:

I think Herr Harper has the cunning of a successful street brawler.

Yes, but not just that. He is highly intelligent, and takes the time to make sure he is informed on issues. There is no way he would be able to control the entire government out of his office otherwise.

Naw, he's just a control freak like Herrs Adolf Hitler, Herbert Hoover [ETA: Oops. Sorry KenS. Just realized my mistake. I meant to say J. Edgar Hoover] and Richard Nixon.

He controls the entire government through bullying and intimidation. They're afraid of him.

Members of the opposition are too much gentlefolk. They are hesitant to fight him on his own terms: stooping down to engage in political street brawlin' tactics.

NorthReport

This is a kind of constant here.

Seeing as according to some folks here, Canada is such a progressive country, how could it be possible that Harper is being so successful politically, compared to the other federal political leaders. The reality is Canada is just not that progressive anymore, if it ever was. Trudeau was a major exception to the mundane political leaders we have had in Canada, and I doubt there will be someone of his stature in the foreseeable future. Yes Jack has done well leading the NDP but forming government, I don't think so, although with the current Liberal party fortunes, it is within the realm of possibility to see the NDP becoming official opposition.  

Hunter Mars

Won't get fooled  again .

Hunter Mars

Yea, Bozo is the smartest man in a room,full, of retards .

Doug
Frmrsldr

NorthReport wrote:

The reality is Canada is just not that progressive anymore, if it ever was. Trudeau was a major exception to the mundane political leaders we have had in Canada, and I doubt there will be someone of his stature in the foreseeable future. Yes Jack has done well leading the NDP but forming government, I don't think so, although with the current Liberal party fortunes, it is within the realm of possibility to see the NDP becoming official opposition.  

The Lester B. Pearson administration was perhaps "mundane" compared to those of Trudeau, but I think Pearson's was more progressive.

mybabble

I wouldn't trust the polls especially after looking at the questions knowing this just can't be right.

North Report is a big fan of the polls especially when talking about the issues it is look at the polls.

It is almost comical especially after an election its right back to the polls until another election keeping Canadians from looking at the real issues to help them better decide who should be governing the country and Harper is not the man.  A glorious year for Canada lets chalk it all up as homelessness and bankruptcies and crime all come out on top while Canada turns off the world as the UN gives Canada the thumb while the rest of the world points at Canada for its Oils Sands nightmare and G20 was a brutal mess.

6079_Smith_W

Frmrsldr wrote:

6079_Smith_W wrote:

Frmrsldr wrote:

I think Herr Harper has the cunning of a successful street brawler.

Yes, but not just that. He is highly intelligent, and takes the time to make sure he is informed on issues. There is no way he would be able to control the entire government out of his office otherwise.

Naw, he's just a control freak like Herrs Adolf Hitler, Herbert Hoover [ETA: Oops. Sorry KenS. Just realized my mistake. I meant to say J. Edgar Hoover] and Richard Nixon.

He controls the entire government through bullying and intimidation. They're afraid of him.

Members of the opposition are too much gentlefolk. They are hesitant to fight him on his own terms: stooping down to engage in political street brawlin' tactics.

Well aside from the fact that Nixon was in some ways a very good president, with a tragic flaw, smart does not always equal good and stupid does not always equal evil.

But fine, if the prevailing wisdom says so, we can label Harper a poopy-head and leave it at that.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

'Harper is head and shoulders above 99% of any politician'

Sounds like the media's programming is effective,just like how American media has programmed Americans to believe that Bush was a great president and all of America's woes have everything to do with the Democrats.

The cult is growing...

JOE CLARK was head and shoulders above Harper. Tongue out

KenS

J. Edgar Hoover wasnt just a control freak. He was diabolically clever- having been caught in one of his nets that no one figured out what it was about or how it worked until his papers became public.

6079_Smith_W

alan smithee wrote:

'Harper is head and shoulders above 99% of any politician'

Sounds like the media's programming is effective,just like how American media has programmed Americans to believe that Bush was a great president and all of America's woes have everything to do with the Democrats.

The cult is growing...

JOE CLARK was head and shoulders above Harper. Tongue out

In terms of his values, definitely; but as a politician he was oft times a fool, and not even in the same league as Harper.

If he had political sense he would not have lost that vote in the house, and he would not have thrown his leadership away after getting a respectable vote of confidence at the convention which followed. A better politician would have fought harder for his vision rather than paving the way for the Mulroney era.

Speaking generally, it is a shame that sometimes the politicians with the best values do not recognize when they have to act like mercenaries in order to accomplish their goals. The bad politicians never seem to have a problem with it.

Hunter Mars

Lester B. (Mike) Pearson had a vision for Canada .So did Trudeau .All others have been myopic .

6079_Smith_W

Hunter Mars wrote:

Lester B. (Mike) Pearson had a vision for Canada .So did Trudeau .All others have been myopic .

Depends on how you mean. When it came to nuclear arms, Pearson was more of a collaborationist with the U.S. than Diefenbaker was - his peace prize notwithstanding.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

I never have and never will vote conservative.

But there was a reason the old party were called PROGRESSIVE conservatives.

I think it was Mulroney who got the ball rolling in erasing the progressive from the conservative brand when he was tripping over himself trying to score brownie points with Reagan and Thatcher.

The only honest move the Harper conservatives have made was dropping the 'progressive' from their brand.

Lens Solution

mybabble wrote:

I wouldn't trust the polls especially after looking at the questions knowing this just can't be right.

North Report is a big fan of the polls especially when talking about the issues it is look at the polls.

It is almost comical especially after an election its right back to the polls until another election keeping Canadians from looking at the real issues to help them better decide who should be governing the country and Harper is not the man.  A glorious year for Canada lets chalk it all up as homelessness and bankruptcies and crime all come out on top while Canada turns off the world as the UN gives Canada the thumb while the rest of the world points at Canada for its Oils Sands nightmare and G20 was a brutal mess.

Canada also dropped in the UN rankings from the 4th best country in the world last year down to 8th this year.

autoworker autoworker's picture

Hunter Mars wrote:

Lester B. (Mike) Pearson had a vision for Canada .So did Trudeau .All others have been myopic .

Harper has a vision for Canada-- but it's most dystopic, and appeals to people's worst instincts which, alas, may yet prove a winning strategy.

Lard Tunderin Jeezus Lard Tunderin Jeezus's picture

alan smithee wrote:

The only honest move the Harper conservatives have made was dropping the 'progressive' from their brand.

They're not progressive, but they're not conservative either - except in the yanqui-fascist sense of the word.

And as Yanqui-worship is what they're all about, re-naming themselves the Banana Republicans would be the honest move.

Rob8305

KenS-

I'd really be interested in hearing your thoughts on how you think the opposition can successfully manage to vote down Harper's next throne speech post-election. Thanks.

Noah_Scape

Why are the CPC popular?

 - media control favouring conservatives

 - 40% of Canadians are functionally illiterate [sp?] and quite possibly they all vote conservative

 

KenS

If the Throne Speech does not get a majority vote, the government falls. [Though the actual form taken is that when a government knows that it cannot get support for the Throne Speech, it generally resigns.]

After that, someone else takes a crack at forming government and passing a Throne Speech.

The difference with a government losing a vote of confidence is in what follows that. Generally the government asks the GG for dissolution followed by an election, and usually gets that. The chances for, and probability of, anyone else getting the GGs blessing to form a government instead of having an election, is much more limited and complicated than what happens after a government fails or does not try to pass a Throne Speech.

Now, there are a zillion POSSIBILITIES about what the GG could possibly do. But every time that is gone into, people lose track of what is going to happen 99% of the time, all those remote possibilities notwithstanding.

Rob8305

KenS wrote:

If the Throne Speech does not get a majority vote, the government falls. [Though the actual form taken is that when a government knows that it cannot get support for the Throne Speech, it generally resigns.]

After that, someone else takes a crack at forming government and passing a Throne Speech.

The difference with a government losing a vote of confidence is in what follows that. Generally the government asks the GG for dissolution followed by an election, and usually gets that. The chances for, and probability of, anyone else getting the GGs blessing to form a government instead of having an election, is much more limited and complicated than what happens after a government fails or does not try to pass a Throne Speech.

Now, there are a zillion POSSIBILITIES about what the GG could possibly do. But every time that is gone into, people lose track of what is going to happen 99% of the time, all those remote possibilities notwithstanding.

Sorry, no not what I meant is assume that Harper faces the house with a popular throne speech in a last-ditch attempt at survival. How does the opposition successfully navigate voting against that. I don't see how they can.

In this scenario-it'd be be like Tories-115, Libs-105-NDP-40/BQ=remainder. So the BQ would need to be part of any successful coalition. Poison:( I'm just second-guessing your argument here that a Tory minority automatically means they fall after the next election.

Now, I do realize the procedure if the throne speech actually is voted down, etc.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Rob8305 wrote:

KenS-

I'd really be interested in hearing your thoughts on how you think the opposition can successfully manage to vote down Harper's next throne speech post-election. Thanks.

I'm interested in why you (or anyone) think the Opposition will be united in voting down the Throne Speech. Someone will opt out - just a question of who it will be.

Pogo Pogo's picture

I don't think that there would be much problem voting against the throne speach no matter what the content.  Anything good can be taken over and offered by the Liberals in their thrown speach.  Meanwhile the thrown speach is just the opportunity, the justification for the vote can be more than just the upcoming legislative agenda.

KenS

Rob8305 wrote:

Sorry, no not what I meant is assume that Harper faces the house with a popular throne speech in a last-ditch attempt at survival. How does the opposition successfully navigate voting against that. I don't see how they can.

In this scenario-it'd be be like Tories-115, Libs-105-NDP-40/BQ=remainder. So the BQ would need to be part of any successful coalition. Poison:( I'm just second-guessing your argument here that a Tory minority automatically means they fall after the next election.

When we are talking about a situation where who is going to govern is not known, a Throne Speech is not a pitch for popularity; or in itself, a pitch for remaining as government.

After the 2008 election, Harper knew that the Liberals were not going to unseat him. So the Throne Speech was a general agenda for governing, a road map.

Next election will be different. It is highly unlikely that Harper will be able to assume that at least one party will be afraid of turfing him. So he'll be shopping around for who might support the government. The Throne Speech itself and what might be in it has nothing to do with that. If they do get that support, presumably in return for something in the Budget, the Throne Speech will be another general road map for the government to come. 

After the election, no coalition or any kind of aggreement between parties is required. The government will fall if each of the parties has any reasons- partisan strategic and/or substantive policy prefereences, for preffering that to happen. They can in principle all 3 of them have different and conflicting reasons for that preference, and no agreement at all about what happens after the government falls.

This is unlike other situations where the government is at risk of falling on a confidence vote- such as December 2008. In those cases, there cannot be even the possibility of another government unless the opposition can guarantee a minimum of stability in majority votes. And even if there is such a guarantee, getting the chance is up to the GG.

[And the Conservatives being out if they only have a minority is not even close to being automatic.]

KenS

Boom Boom wrote:

I'm interested in why you (or anyone) think the Opposition will be united in voting down the Throne Speech. Someone will opt out - just a question of who it will be.

Like I said, they dont have to be at all united to vote down the Throne Speech. In principle, at least. In practice, if they want to vote the government out, they will at a minimum be looking for some common purpose around getting that done.

In the past, you could say "someone will opt out". Without getting into detail, someone would. But that has changed. It is still likely someone will opt out. But as likely not. And you have to look at the odds for each party individually.

Liberals. I think they are the least likely to be Harpers escape hatch. If one of the other parties keeps Harper in, and the Liberals make at least modest gains, Iggy can remain as Leader. But if the Liberals are the ones giving Harper his pass, Iggy is out as leader. So unless the Liberals do disastrously, and/or Iggy wants to quit, I dont think the Liberals will opt out.

NDP. If the NDP does poorly, its conceivable they could keep Harper in power. But even under those conditions, which arent likely in themselves, the NDP would probably let the Liberals govern, lick wounds, and work their way back.

BQ. Most likely to support the government. Can get enough goodies to justify doing so. But unpredictable whether they would want to. Might see the Conservatives governing as less of a threat. And willing to support them and have another election within a couple years.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Thanks, Ken. Interesting analysis.

 

ETA: I can't tell if the BQ hate the Liberals most, or the Cons. I'd say the BQ would love to see the Liberals completely disintegrate.

Frmrsldr

KenS wrote:

J. Edgar Hoover wasnt just a control freak. He was diabolically clever- having been caught in one of his nets that no one figured out what it was about or how it worked until his papers became public.

This is true of J. Edgar too?

The same thing happened to Herbert Hoover, only he wasn't a control freak(?)

Hunter Mars

Reichpublicans spread the gospel of hatetriotism .

JKR

Rob8305 wrote:

Sorry, no not what I meant is assume that Harper faces the house with a popular throne speech in a last-ditch attempt at survival. How does the opposition successfully navigate voting against that. I don't see how they can.

After 5 long years, the opposition are sick and tired of propping up a government that they hate out of fear of being blamed for causing an unwanted election. The Throne Speech is the only real chance the opposition has of defeating the Cons without risking an election that the public does not want and an election where the opposition parties would likely be punished for having caused an unwanted election.

The Cons have bullied the opposition into submission by claiming the opposition is so power-hungry that they want to have an unwanted election. Defeating the Cons Throne Speech will give the opposition their only opportunity to finally end the Cons 5 year old game of playing chicken against the rest of the H of C.

The opposition has looked at the experience in much of the rest of the modern democratic world, especially at recent events in the UK and Australia, and will likely never allow a minority government to assume control after an election without attaching many strings to such an unstable situation.

KenS

Frmrsldr wrote:

This is true of J. Edgar too?

The same thing happened to Herbert Hoover, only he wasn't a control freak(?)

Just goes to say how your mind can go on two contradictory tracks. You wrote Herbert Hoover, but because of the context I not surprisingly I think J. Edgar. And when I write a reply, despite thinking J. Edgar, I obediently write Herbert.

 [And for the record, I was around to be effected by J. Edgar. But I'm not that old- to have been effected by the other Hoover.] 

autoworker autoworker's picture

KenS wrote:

Frmrsldr wrote:

This is true of J. Edgar too?

The same thing happened to Herbert Hoover, only he wasn't a control freak(?)

Just goes to say how your mind can go on two contradictory tracks. You wrote Herbert Hoover, but because of the context I not surprisingly I think J. Edgar. And when I write a reply, despite thinking J. Edgar, I obediently write Herbert.

 [And for the record, I was around to be effected by J. Edgar. But I'm not that old- to have been effected by the other Hoover.] 

Shades of All In The Family (and Archie's 'blue-collar', populist view)..."mister we could use a man like Herbert Hoover again...didn't need no welfare states...everybody pulled his weight...gee our old LaSalle ran great...those were the days."  My apologies to Edith & Archie, bless 'em.  I wonder what they'd think of the Tea Party?

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

"The Throne Speech is the only real chance the opposition has of defeating the Cons without risking an election that the public does not want and an election where the opposition parties would likely be punished for having caused an unwanted election."

 

Who says the public does not want an election??? With current polls showing roughly 65% of the country not supporting the government, I'd argue the country is ripe for an election!

KenS

The idea that "Canadians don't want an election" as a real deterrent to the opposition was highly overated even two years ago. It was a factor that had to be considered, and might be a sufficinet deterrent on top of everything else. [Including the fact that most of the time the Liberals were afraid of an election.]

And it has not been a factor for a while- just something that has required a supporting narrative [spin] be constructed by whoever[s] want to pull the plug.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

I agree with Ken.

Stockholm

Boom Boom wrote:

 

ETA: I can't tell if the BQ hate the Liberals most, or the Cons. I'd say the BQ would love to see the Liberals completely disintegrate.

Then again, in Dec. 2008 the BQ was 100% steadfast in wanting to get rid of Harper even if it meant that Stephane Dion (the most hated man in federal politics in Quebec nationalist circles) was going to be PM. If Duceppe was willing to make a lifelong sworn enemy of his like Dion PM - I don't see why he would hesitate about helping Ignatieff become PM given that Iggy has no baggage from the old national unity discputes of the 90s.

Stockholm

Boom Boom wrote:

"The Throne Speech is the only real chance the opposition has of defeating the Cons without risking an election that the public does not want and an election where the opposition parties would likely be punished for having caused an unwanted election."

 

Who says the public does not want an election??? With current polls showing roughly 65% of the country not supporting the government, I'd argue the country is ripe for an election!

I think that what Ken meant here was that if we had an election this spring and then a throne speech was defeated - Canadians would most definitely not want a new election three weeks after the last one.

Boom Boom Boom Boom's picture

Stockholm wrote:
I think that what Ken meant here was that if we had an election this spring and then a throne speech was defeated - Canadians would most definitely not want a new election three weeks after the last one.

Well, that makes sense. I hadn't realized we were talking about a second election right after the next one. Embarassed

Frmrsldr

Stockholm wrote:

I think that what Ken meant here was that if we had an election this spring and then a throne speech was defeated - Canadians would most definitely not want a new election three weeks after the last one.

This follows based on the assumption the Cons won the spring election.

Frmrsldr

autoworker wrote:

Shades of All In The Family (and Archie's 'blue-collar', populist view)..."mister we could use a man like Herbert Hoover again...didn't need no welfare states...everybody pulled his weight...gee our old LaSalle ran great...those were the days."

They're reminiscing about a state of affairs that almost never existed.

Herbert (Hoover) was blamed for the Great Depression in America.

The shantytowns that seemed to arise overnight with legions of people seeking relief (welfare) were named "Hoovervilles."

Much like the Great Depression II in Canada is the result of the neoliberal economic policies of both the Li(e)berals and (Reforma)Tory Cons.

adma

Maybe the implication is that those were the days before welfare states, when everyone pulled his weight, i.e. w/friends like FDR, who needs enemies.  FDR made the hippies possible, you know.

6079_Smith_W

I'm pretty sure that bit of irony was written into the song intentionally - like pretty much everything else about that show's portrayal of Archie Bunker as a bone-headed racist who was out of step with what was really going on.

Malcolm Malcolm's picture

Hunter Mars wrote:
Don't be foolish . In ninety three all the polls and alleged pundits had Kim Campbell well on her way to a landslide, majority government. Two survivors only Elsie Wayne and Jean Charest .They could hold caucus meetings in a phone booth.

There is a significant difference here.

The polls in 1993 were a brief post-convention bump for a new party leader.  For most of the previous two - three years, the Progressive Conservatives were running well behind the Liberals and frequently behind the New Democrats in the polls.  A leadership race and a convention (and the novelty of the first female Prime Minister) got them a brief blip in their favour.  Then the polls returned to normal.

By contrast, the current polls have been mind-numbingly consistent for the past couple of years:  The Cons slightly ahead but not enough for a majority, the Liberals below what had historically been thought to be their base support, the NDP at or slightly higher than their usual post-2000 polling, the Bloc well out in front in Quebec.

(Remember how Paul Martin was supposed to kill the Bloc stone dead as well as the Conservatives?)

KenS

Frmrsldr wrote:

This follows based on the assumption the Cons won the spring election.

There is that fallacy again- oft repeated in the media, even by the good political reporters: the only thing that wins a party the election is getting a majority. Getting a plurality, the most seats, does not win the election. Even if the Conservatives get a plurality that is 50 seats more than the Liberals, that does not win them the election.

That has always been technically true. In practice, such a large plurality used to virtually guaranteed that a party had won and would be governing.

Used to.

This time around, and for the forseeable future, even with a plurality like that or bigger, the Conservatives will running an uphill battle to keep government.

adma

Malcolm wrote:

Hunter Mars wrote:
Don't be foolish . In ninety three all the polls and alleged pundits had Kim Campbell well on her way to a landslide, majority government. Two survivors only Elsie Wayne and Jean Charest .They could hold caucus meetings in a phone booth.

There is a significant difference here.

The polls in 1993 were a brief post-convention bump for a new party leader.  For most of the previous two - three years, the Progressive Conservatives were running well behind the Liberals and frequently behind the New Democrats in the polls.  A leadership race and a convention (and the novelty of the first female Prime Minister) got them a brief blip in their favour.  Then the polls returned to normal.

And even there, I'd scarcely claim that all polls/pundits were looking t/w a so-called "landslide majority"--at most, Kim Campbell brought the PCs back to a competitive position, marginally ahead or at a draw w/the Liberals.  The only "landslide" in the polling offing was a negative one, i.e. the looming decimation of the NDP...

KenS

bump

[fishing]

Buddy Kat

Well for one thing Canada isn't suffering as much as GB.....students are actually rioting in the streets..princes are attacked..etc.

Here everyone depicted on the media is sitting pretty having a great time with no cares or worry's in the world ...painting a rosey picture of Canada the great untouched by global financial hell.

The truth be told is Canada is going to pay for the phoney lie sometime and it's not going to be pretty..by that time the little tory crooks would have walked away with sacks of money via privitazation inititaves and military contracts ...then they will lose support....they have so much power they will decide when the time is right for Canadians to be punished.

You have to keep in mind that the greater than 65 yearold gullible Canadain that actually votes are the ones with power right now...as long as they support the cons , that's the way it will be. The rest of the country is split, lazy, just don't care and basically powerless freeloaders. So until they start actually suffering they will continue this pathetic status quo...but there has to come a time where it's deserved...I mean how many times must these people be warned before you say enough "you made your bed " etc.

 

 

 

 

Pages

Topic locked