[jade_lee]

Let me review the conservative failures that irked me the most, it started with the GST cuts, prices didn't really go down, so we didn't really experience any real gain and now with the government facing big deficits in the future, well that was a complete failure. agreed?

The income trust was a great thing in terms of a tax shelter. It was a winning policy for the average investor. They took that away. It was a direct hit on the majority investor, the income trust had yet to be utilized by the majority because it was not marketed that way.

We knew they supported Bush policies.

They supported the waring part and not the building side of the Afghan invasion and acted accordingly.

They caved to the soft lumber ruling and gave the Bush administration one billion Canadian dollars back, for what? it went to a few softwood lumber barons in the states, and now in 2009 Abitibi Bowater is not living up to it's agreements here in Canada and not facing the reality of the age of print verses online lack of paper needs. The conservatives are not the greatest business men, they lack the salesmanship skills and vision to cope with change. (like GM)

Harper's "measured response" comment on the bombing of Lebanon shook me.

I haven't heard much about the residential school healing talks lately have any of you?

Quebec lost faith in Harper.

Newfoundland was exposed to the bullying of the party.

They closed shop, prorogation at the height of the recession news breaking, how sneaky is that? They never can face the music, Mulroney resigned, so did Harris when times got tough, same cloth.

Now Jim's wife is running. I wonder what their bank book looks like?
Where are the future jobs going to come from? Are the men who do lunch discussing such? Are we still thinking green? Jim was not the greatest lawyer I heard from a displeased customer of his, way before he made his sharp right turn into politics.

The recap must not conclude without the mention of the honorable Mulroney or the Cadman affair cover-up that begs to be told. I would say the conservative brand has lost it's shine. Hell their thick skin to continue in this charade they call leadership would make a fork probing difficult.

 

[kEiThZ]

^ Another off-topic trolling rant. What does any of this have to do with 'Cracks appear in Tory alliance'?

 

[jade_lee]

It's context.

 

[GraphicMatt]

The real test of the Conservative Party's Unity will be after their first big defeat. There's no obvious successor to leadership after Harper, and I'd put money on the leadership race coming down to Extremely Right-Wing Socially Conservative Guy versus More Moderate Centrist Guy.

That sort of battle, especially if regionalism gets brought into it, could kill the party.

 

[kEiThZ]

It's context.

Please point out what from your rant adds context to the topic at hand? Is that going to be your new excuse for taking up UT server space with your ridiculous rants, ' It's context.'?

 

[kEiThZ]

The real test of the Conservative Party's Unity will be after their first big defeat. There's no obvious successor to leadership after Harper, and I'd put money on the leadership race coming down to Extremely Right-Wing Socially Conservative Guy versus More Moderate Centrist Guy.

That sort of battle, especially if regionalism gets brought into it, could kill the party.

Agreed. However, it should be noted that the same is true for any political party. Whenever the leader fails, parties go through some serious soul searching. Look at the turmoil of the Liberals post-Martin.

 

[afransen]

The more I think about it, the more I think that Martin got a raw deal. He may not have been perfect but I expect that his management of the past few years likely would have left Canada in a better position today.

 

[kEiThZ]

^ Agreed. I liked Martin. It's the rest of Liberal Party that I had a problem with at the time. The scandals, the in-fighting, etc. It was sickening. They needed some time on the opposition benches to clean house.

 

[jade_lee]

The Liberals had my vote the minute Harper opened his mouth and now that his "choices" are starting to open their mouths, the obvious cracks are showing some light.
Martin was a traitor and he got spanked for that. I don't believe that Martin can take all the praise for the good fiscal policies of the past Liberal regime, our sound policies were a sign of those times, a response to them and the wisdom passed on by a previous finance minister. Books like "ticking time bomb" referring to the economies around the world in the early 90's were sobering and responsible governments tried to respond to those whims.

Those opposition benches that you speak of who are now at the helm have the Cadman affair, in and out schemes, RCMP scandals still not dealt with and Canadians not assisted abroad when their basic human rights are violated to answer for.....yeah I know they help that blond woman in Mexico, the convicted fraudster, but then again I don't see them finding fault with fraud. Why would they? They have cleaned up nothing. They themselves are stained, the next election talking points should be interesting.

 

[urbanfan89]

Agreed. However, it should be noted that the same is true for any political party. Whenever the leader fails, parties go through some serious soul searching. Look at the turmoil of the Liberals post-Martin.

This is certainly true, but for the Liberals the regionalism was not a huge issue in the 2006 race (perhaps because all three candidates were from Ontario/Quebec).

The Conservatives are a coalition of Alliance/Reform activists with roots in Alberta and more moderate PC-like people from the east and the larger cities. So far they are united because Harper is towering like an overlord over them.

Remove him from the picture and CPC could fall like the old PC Party, except instead of westerners leaving en masse to form the Reform Party you have easterners leaving en masse to form a New PC Party. This leaves the current CPC as a rump confined to a few pockets in western rural areas and potentially could spell decades of straight Liberal majorities.

 

[toraerach]

Remove him from the picture and CPC could fall like the old PC Party, except instead of westerners leaving en masse to form the Reform Party you have easterners leaving en masse to form a New PC Party. This leaves the current CPC as a rump confined to a few pockets in western rural areas and potentially could spell decades of straight Liberal majorities.

I can't see a division occurring in which the splinter party originates in Central/Eastern Canada. Historically speaking, every successful new party (at least in an English Canadian context) has come from out West for the past 80 or so years. The CCF/NDP, the Socreds, and the Reform/Alliance all originated in the West out of of, in part, a feeling of alienation more than anything. Any new party trying to establish itself in Eastern Canada does not have that feeling of alienation to capitalize upon like it would in the West. And without a regional base, I think it would be hard for any new Canadian party to gain seats in the House.

Look at, for instance, how quickly the BQ and Reform Party were able to establish themselves as major players on the Canadian stage in comparison to the Green Party that comes out of a very different tradition.

The only way I can possibly see a new right-of-centre party gaining electoral success in Eastern Canada is if Danny Williams endorses them, but even then I'm not so sure they'd catch on. The thing about Eastern more centrist Conservatives is that it appears easier for them to jump ship to the Liberal Party than out West.

I'm not so sure a breakup of the CPC is coming any time soon, but I kind of hope it does happen. I prefer when there are two parties on the left and two parties on the right in the House of Commons - not even that really, I prefer when there are two parties closer to the centre to choose from. It gives us an alternative without a good chunk of voters compromising their beliefs (i.e. a centrist voting Conservative to punish the Liberals). It also allows the two other parties (the NDP and whatever party is on the right) more freedom to stick to their beliefs instead of overly compromising to gain votes. It also keeps the more radical fringes out of government unless they themselves are voted in (in which case, I guess, they're no longer radical). For example, I don't think the majority of Canadians, or even a good chunk of people who voted Conservative, share beliefs remotely similar to Cheryl Gallant's yet she is in government.

Of course, with these four parties and the BQ and the Greens all getting a significant share of the votes, there will of course be vote splitting. The first-past-the-post system doesn't really work well with more than 2-3 main parties + regional parties. That's really a completely different debate, though I think the Progressive Canadian Party might have been a bit more successful had a somewhat proportional voting system been in place at the time of the PC-Alliance merger. Then again, that merger might not have happened if such a system was in place.

 

[afransen]

Even a preferential voting system would help, while ensuring local representation. If we had a centre-left and a centre-right party, I could see many voters having these two as their first two choices, which would tend to marginalize the more extreme parts of the spectrum (NDP/Reform).

 

[nfitz]

B.S.

What is an election platform but a nice neat consolidated (and hopefully costed) summation of campaign promises made on the election trail. The Tories were making announcements throughout the campaign, who cares that the platform wasn't published until the end, that was Finley's strategy. I've dug into my war-room binder from the 08 campaign...

That's kind of rude! Bullshit to what you said!

He is quite correct, the platform, and very thin at that, only came out a few days before the election, after many had already voted in advance polls. Compare it to the detailed platform the Conservatives published in the previous election. The Conservatives meanwhile had been shredding the Liberals campaign for months before the Conservatives called the election. I'm not surprised that Ignatieff is having to stoop the Conservatives level - it's clear they run some of the dirtiest campaigns we've ever seen in this country.

And what was the central theme in the last Conservative "campaign". Vote for us, and we won't run a deficit. Now there's some real bullshit!

And what was the first major change that the Conservatives tried to introduce in the new parliament? A complete reworking of how political parties are financed. Perhaps a noble cause in itself - but if it was so important, why wasn't it mentioned in the alleged "platform"?