PDA

View Full Version : Never mind the polls, Tories will win



Foxer
12-28-2014, 01:16 AM
Never mind the polls, Tories will win

lorne gunter
By Lorne Gunter , QMI Agency

First posted: Saturday, December 27, 2014 06:30 PM


Here’s my fearless prediction for the 2015 federal election, which is probably 10 months away: Stephen Harper and the Conservatives will win another slender majority. At worst, they will capture a solid minority.

Things can change. The falling oil prices might produce a bigger budget deficit than anyone projects and that might sour some voters on Harper. Or he could mishandle the public relations side of some new Idle No More or Occupy movement. Or the two-month trial of Sen. Mike Duffy, slated for the spring, might produce evidence that Harper knew all along about the PEI broadcaster-turned-politician’s loose expense reporting and deliberately tried to hush things up.

But the fact that the Liberals remain slightly above the Tories, or in a dead heat in the polls means almost nothing at this point.

If you want to know what national polling numbers mean, recall the last federal election in 2011.

In the three weeks before the May 2 vote, the NDP under then-leader Jack Layton surged into a virtual tie with the Conservatives under Stephen Harper. So great was the NDP momentum that it was even given a nickname by fawning reporters covering the campaign. It was dubbed the “Orange Crush.”

Reporters from various papers and news outlets skipped in front of King Jack’s baggage train, unrolling verbal red carpets and strewing rhetorical rose petals before their anointed saviour – the man they were sure was going to save Canada from the devil Harper.

Except it didn’t quite work out that way.

On election day, despite what the polls had been saying, the Tories captured not quite 40% of the votes cast. Jack and the New Democrats took just under 31% and the Liberals 19%. More importantly, that translated into a majority of 166 seats for Harper, 103 for Layton and a paltry 34 for Michael Ignatieff and the Liberals.

But even if the overall popular vote totals had been closer between the Conservatives and New Dems, it was never in the cards for Layton’s crew to win, not even to win a minority. It had to do with the way the NDP's support was concentrated and particularly the way it was concentrated in provinces and regions in which the Tories seldom do well.

And the same dynamic is shaping up in the coming election.

Overall national polling numbers are meaningless because we don’t fight elections nationally. General elections are, in fact, 338 mini elections – one in each riding. As a result, regional polling numbers are sometimes helpful, but national ones can be skewed towards the voting preferences of people living in larger population centres.

The NDP gained 67 additional seats in 2011 over their 2008 results, but 59 of those new seats were in Quebec. Outside Quebec, they barely equalled their best-ever showing in 1988.

Outside Quebec, it was the Tories who surged. Even though this was never reflected in the national polls, Harper’s party captured 48% of the non-Quebec vote.

In the coming election, the NDP will have competition from the Liberals for seats in Quebec unlike what they had in 2011. The two left-of-centre parties will also battle for seats in Toronto, Ottawa and Vancouver.

Outside of those centres, though – in rural Ontario, on the Prairies and in the B.C. Interior and Vancouver suburbs, they will split the vote to the benefit of Tory candidates.

And remember, thanks to population growth, 30 extra seats are being added to the Commons for the coming campaign, most of which are in regions of the country that favour the Tories.

So when you hear about how the national numbers favour Justin Trudeau and the Liberals, remember that’s a largely meaningless projection.

Foxer
12-28-2014, 01:31 AM
Hmm. Lorne's been reading my posts I think :)

Obviously I agree. The CPC vote is efficient, the liberal vote less so and the ndp vote not at all (except in quebec). That means in a three way 'national' tie, chances are the tories still have a majority.

But there's even more to it than what Lorne discusses. Polls In between elections tend to reflect how people feel about the ruling party and/or it's leader. People don't really like harper. They never have. And you get those who have various beefs, such as those folks who've been on this very site suggesting we should abandon the tories and let the libs have a go at it. But - as you get closer to elections people tend to get a little more real. And they tend to look at the alternatives. People start to think 'what would our economy REALLY be like under trudeau?" or - what would our gun laws really be like, or etc etc. Same with mulcair.

And suddenly harper doesn't look so bad at all. So what we've seen in the last several elections is the libs polling higher or equal to the CPC, only to watch the cpc jump several points right around election time as people really think about option's b and c.

The CPC will likely approach the election with 35-36 percent support, and that will likely jump to 37 - 38 within a week of the election starting, possibly within a day or so. If all goes well, that'll go up another point or three over the course of the campaign (which is about the line between majority and strong minority), and we'll see how that plays out. Probably a slightly weakened majority, without a lot of extra room but with a few seats spare.

The shine is already coming off the pony - i don't think he's going to look BETTER in the cold hard light of a campaign.

Strewth
12-28-2014, 01:33 AM
My crystal ball thinks Lorne gets to look back on this and smugly nod to himself in a year. Not that there won't be...massaging...of the numbers from the media, but Justin's apparent love of shoe wax is costing him every time he opens his mouth. Mansplaining, budget balancing theories, abortion, military involvement, harassment policy blunders...Maybe he's got bacon flavoured wing-tips?

Foxer
12-28-2014, 01:42 AM
My crystal ball thinks Lorne gets to look back on this and smugly nod to himself in a year. Not that there won't be...massaging...of the numbers from the media, but Justin's apparent love of shoe wax is costing him every time he opens his mouth. Mansplaining, budget balancing theories, abortion, military involvement, harassment policy blunders...Maybe he's got bacon flavoured wing-tips?

Bacon? That's what the lower people eat. He doesn't stoop to that. His shoes are polished with truffle-butter.

I sense more and more than he's disassociating himself with the 'old men' of the party and surrounding himself with new advisors that he likes. Problem is, those 'old guys' are the ones with all the experience and connections. I seriously think he believes he can charm his way into the job, and he can't.

But then again, we also know he's not trying seriously to beat harper. He's got his sights set on the angry beaver-faced guy in the opposition chair. Who also doesn't like bacon btw :)

harbl_the_cat
12-28-2014, 07:22 AM
Again, I wonder how much support for the Tories will materialize in July when families with small children get a cheque for $420 per child.

Our system of government is so screwed up that there's no way to take on abortion legislatively. The Tories realize this and entering into a debate about it is completely pointless - it will just flare people's emotions on the issue,senseless irrationality will ensue, nothing meaningful would get done, and there's a good chance the Tories reputation with the electorate would suffer.

Instead, they tackled the issue economically - never even mentioning the "a-word" but clearly their handling of the UCCB, child tax credits, and income splitting are ingeniously engineered to forward a pro-life, pro-traditional family social agenda - again, without even saying so.

On Foreign policy, initially I was opposed to the Iraq war and the war on terror in general - but in reality, our nations involvement in then UN, NATO, amd especially our trade relationship with the US, automatically involve us I'm those wars, and as a result of decades of social decay, the attacks by native born Islamic converts illustrate that there was really no avoiding an escalating war effort, especially against the Islamic State. None of which Harper could have avoided - but inherited coming into office.

Being an evangelical Christian, I hope Harper relies on Biblical wisedom on the subject of war. When God sent Israel to war with Canaan they were to "Destroy all the inhabitants of the land." Joshua 9:24. Or put another way - when invading a foreign country, don't pussyfoot around, pretending to be their friend - if you do, your own people will convert to their religion and start killing your own countrymen (which is EXACTLY what happened to us.). Either go to war, win fast, and win completely or don't go to war at all.

I talked a lot about Strauss Howe 4th turning generational theory this past year. The most poignant point about their theory was in this Fourth Turning, Baby Boomer prophets would emerge with sagely wisedom to lead society through the crisis.

To your point, Foxers, about Trudeau dismissing the old guys with experience, I think that especially represents a catastrophic strategic blunder on his part.

Stephen Harper, however IS a Baby Boomer and I think especially in deeds, he is a generational archetype of the Prophet Strauss and Howe wrote as being the kind of leader that could get society through a crisis better than it came into it.

Justin Trudeau, however, is a Gen X Nomad archetype - and in their theory, Strauss Howe warned that arrogant, idealist Nomads may ascend to power as maniacal dictators and tyrants amidst a crisis, leading to a societies downfall or at least substantial degeneration. Hitler was a Nomad, so is Obama.

Long story short - I'm firmly in the Tory camp - in 2015, it actually WILL matter.

RangeBob
12-28-2014, 08:47 AM
Hmm. Lorne's been reading my posts I think :)
That was also my first thought upon reading the original post article.

RangeBob
12-28-2014, 08:57 AM
Liberals at Christmas Gathering

My extended family usually avoids politics chats at gatherings because we have lots of other things to talk about,
but this year a Liberal supporter (Ontario Liberal, Federal Liberal) piped up with a few things he knew for sure:
- "All conservative MPs know that Harper is a liability"
- "there is some concern that Ontario Liberals may have wasted some money"
- "The federal Conservatives passed an omnibus bill that will do away with the CDIC ($100,000 deposit insurance) and will allow the seizing of funds in any bank account by any bank that wants them allowing millions of dollars in fraud/theft by unknown individuals. Same as Cyprus did a couple years ago, and similar to legislation in Europe. I checked and found a website that verifies it." (A few of the other relatives who make their living in finance piped up that they would have heard of such and hadn't. The only thing I found was the 2014 Budget mentioned looking into expanding the role of the CDIC, and CDIC's subsequent comments that that meant being able to handle 'to big to fail' banks by getting various new powers to force a sale if a buyer exists, and to use other banks to take over accounts somehow, but that deposit insurance was staying (here (http://www.cdic.ca/CDIC/Media/Documents/Speech_MBourque_CDHowe_jun2014.pdf)))


Reviewing Canada’s Deposit Insurance Framework

Economic Action Plan 2014 announces the launch of a comprehensive review of Canada’s deposit insurance framework.

Deposit insurance protects Canadians’ savings of up to $100,000 in the event that a federally regulated deposit-taking institution fails. At the federal level, the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation (CDIC) administers deposit insurance for CDIC members, including banks and other financial institutions.

The Government is launching a comprehensive review of Canada’s deposit insurance framework. This review will ensure that deposit insurance provides adequate protection for the savings of Canadians, taking into account lessons from the recent financial crisis and significant shifts in the global banking landscape.

-- http://www.budget.gc.ca/2014/docs/plan/ch3-4-eng.html


Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation (CDIC)

The Government of Canada proposes to make legislative amendments to permit the Bank of Canada to provide banking and custodial services to CDIC.

-- hxxp://www.blg.com/en/newsandpublications/publication_3645

harbl_the_cat
12-28-2014, 09:06 AM
Liberals at Christmas Gathering

- "The federal Conservatives passed an omnibus bill that will do away with the CDIC ($100,000 deposit insurance) and will allow the seizing of funds in any bank account by any bank that wants them. Same as Cyprus did a couple years ago, and similar to legislation in Europe. I checked and found a website that verifies it." (A few of the other relatives who make their living in finance piped up that they would have heard of such and hadn't. The only thing I found was the 2014 Budget mentioned looking into expanding the role of the CDIC, and CDIC's subsequent comments that that meant being able to handle 'to big to fail' banks by getting various new powers to force a sale if a buyer exists, and to use other banks to take over accounts somehow, but that deposit insurance was staying (here (http://www.cdic.ca/CDIC/Media/Documents/Speech_MBourque_CDHowe_jun2014.pdf)))

Thing to that - if you keep your wealth tied up in paper assets with insolvent banks as counter parties you deserve what's coming to you.

Government deposit insurance really is an abomination and if reckless banks go down and steal their customers accounts in the process - it shouldn't be the government to bail either of them out. They both should just lose everything.

I've been pounding the table about precious metals for years because of it. The price of the metals may have dropped 40 - 60% in the past 3 years but at any point in time in a matter of days, paper can literally go to 0.

RangeBob
12-28-2014, 09:41 AM
Government deposit insurance really is an abomination and if reckless banks go down and steal their customers accounts in the process - it shouldn't be the government to bail either of them out. They both should just lose everything.

CDIC has about 2.7 billion dollars in cash reserves which covers 40% of the total insured amount, and that money came from insurance premiums paid by the banks. (i.e. you may be content that it's not the government bailing them out). It works out to about $200 per Canadian -- lots of money in uninsured investments.

Foxer
12-28-2014, 10:05 AM
Instead, they tackled the issue economically - never even mentioning the "a-word" but clearly their handling of the UCCB, child tax credits, and income splitting are ingeniously engineered to forward a pro-life, pro-traditional family social agenda - again, without even saying so.

Well, the CPC has always said from their first days in power they were taking a pro-family stance and looking to make life easier for traditional family units, and a number of their previous tax reforms reflect that (such as the 500 dollar tax credit for sports equipment for kids etc). However - they've never tied it directly to the abortion issue and frankly now that I read your take on it I have to admit you've got a point there - it probably IS a bit of a sop to the social conservatives who'd like to see something "done" about abortion. They won't take away people's right to terminate a pregnancy, but they will make it easier to keep the kid. That pleases a lot more people than putting limits on abortion would. That's pretty insightful of you - well done.


Being an evangelical Christian, I hope Harper relies on Biblical wisedom on the subject of war. When God sent Israel to war with Canaan they were to "Destroy all the inhabitants of the land." Joshua 9:24. Or put another way - when invading a foreign country, don't pussyfoot around, pretending to be their friend - if you do, your own people will convert to their religion and start killing your own countrymen (which is EXACTLY what happened to us.).

Well, in fairness we took out germany twice and aren't wearing any more Lederhosen than we used to, we knocked the Boers around pretty good and aren't enslaving any blacks, and we put the boot to north korea in the day and I just downloaded the 'interview'. :) I think genocidal conflict probably wouldn't go over very well with most Canadians anyway, but the truth is we don't have even a 10th of the ability to project military power that we'd need to wipe anyone out. There's supposedly about 200 thousand isil fighters. We've got something like 70 thousand military personnel. Even if we stripped every soldier from other commitments, we couldn't realistically hope to defeat isil, and nobody else is going to be interested in participating in a ground war (well, nobody we'd want to be allied with that strongly). Best we can do is keep 'em bottled up in their own land.


To your point, Foxers, about Trudeau dismissing the old guys with experience, I think that especially represents a catastrophic strategic blunder on his part.

Yes. And not the first time we've seen it, although this is probably the worst case of it. Iggy also surrounded himself with his own 'special supporters' until that became so disasterous that the party demanded he 'accept guidance' from long term party 'experts', but of course by then the damage was largely done. And I think we'll see the same thing here - as the Liberal fortunes wain we'll see more pressure from the party apparatus for Justin to give up his own hand picked team and start taking direction from the old guard. I think Warren kinsella's being told "Don't bother" by trudeau after he was encouraged to run by Chretien was an example of the schism we're starting to see - the old fractures in the party starting to come forward again. remember - justin was on Chretien's side of the divide back in the day so that was a pretty powerful snub. You can get away with that if you're winning, but the moment things start to turn we'll see changes. Again it will likely be too late, and you really can't run a party by committee. I think in his youthful arrogance Justin is not going to pull the party together, he's going to push it apart again, and god help him if he starts to do so badly that people start to think he might get booted after the next election and start positioning themselves as the 'next' leader. That happened to martin, dion and iggy - all with disastrous results for their campaigns.

I do believe with conviction that if the Libs fail to take the opposition chair this election that trudeau will be gone and the party will be done for good. The 'progressives' will throw their support behind the ndp as the only viable threat to harper and nobody will be interested in giving money to the Libs, and there won't be another 'messiah' leader that the libs can really sell after this. And if that happens, chances are most of the first half of this century will be dominated by the CPC, which suits me fine for now. We can work with them, we can influence their policy and make them over into something we can really feel good about. Not that they're THAT bad right now. :)


Long story short - I'm firmly in the Tory camp - in 2015, it actually WILL matter.

Yes, it will. I don't think people realize how much this election will be a defining one. There's a lot at stake. The out come of this election will decide many things, like:

1 - If we play our cards right, we could have enough time to make pretty significant changes to firearms laws to the point where it'll be hard for future gov'ts to undo all we've done. That means we'll spend the next couple of decades taking 2 or 3 steps forward, one step back, 2 or 3 forward, etc and that works for us.

2 - The very existance of the liberal party is on the line here. If they lose their push to regain the opposition, they will likely never recover. Some species of new party may be born, but i think the libs will fade away and never again be a serious threat, and will continue to split the left vote enough for a decade or so to ensure the ndp never really get a shot at running the country.

3 - Our financial future is on the line. This is a bit of a turning point for us as well - will we become a country of lower taxes with a tax structure designed to support families and to promote business and jobs? Or will we go back to higher taxes and 'social experiments' that produce little and cost a fortune. Harper has set the stage for an amazing Canadian resurgence on the world stage AND a move away from our dependency on resource-export economy, but it will take years for that to play out. If the libs or dips get in and throw all that way, we're going to miss a huge opportunity.


4 - national unity. This has gone under the radar, but it has been well over half a century or more since Canada was as united as it is today. If ever. The bloc has been all but destroyed, the parti quebecois has been soundly trounced, and both were replaced by parties that promote Quebec working as part of Canada. In 2002 the west was polling very strongly for some kind of separation and it was the talk of the media - now, you never hear it and that sentiment has all but died. Now that westerners have a say in the gov't, and with policies designed to promote rather than rape western economies, we're seeing a generation grow up without the bitter resentment of the east that I and most westerners were raised with.

but it is fragile. Trudeau WILL throw that away - he will focus on Ontario and Quebec which is the traditional liberal power base and he will once again rape the west to treat quebec like a spoiled child and ontario like they're all that matters in english canada. People aren't thinking about this - but one only has to listen to his speech about how westerners are unfit to lead and look at his efforts to pander to ontario and quebec to see the truth. Nobody's talking about it - but it IS there and it's very real.

So yeah - this one matters. There's more on the line here than most elections, and this election could be seen as the culmination of a major shift in Canada's entire future that began 11 years ago and has slowly progressed to bring us to this point in history.

Exciting times :) You may well live to tell your grandkids that you were there with front row seats when Canada turned the corner and became the country she always should have been: united, prosperous and free.

Foxer
12-28-2014, 10:13 AM
CDIC has about 2.7 billion dollars in cash reserves which covers 40% of the total insured amount, and that money came from insurance premiums paid by the banks. (i.e. you may be content that it's not the government bailing them out). It works out to about $200 per Canadian -- lots of money in uninsured investments.

But you have to remember that piggybacks on other insurance. For example, The CMHC insurance which covers mortgages specifically, and of course the insurance industry maintains it's insurance as well. And you have to remember that it's unlikely a bank would fail SO badly that the lost ALL of the investors money - more likely they would not be able to repay ALL of it, and the insurance would only have to make good on the remainder.

The idea is not to cover all people at once, but to have an overlap so that if one or two banks were to fail due to severe mismanagement or the like that there would be sufficient funds to address that. And in fact that did happen once in the insurance industry many years ago, where a major player collapsed, and the insurance kicked in but so did all the other insurance companies to make sure nobody lost a nickle.

Nothing can prevent disaster if there's a complete and total collapse that takes out all the banks. That would represent a world economic collapse of biblical proportions.

harbl_the_cat
12-28-2014, 10:21 AM
Well, the CPC has always said from their first days in power they were taking a pro-family stance and looking to make life easier for traditional family units, and a number of their previous tax reforms reflect that (such as the 500 dollar tax credit for sports equipment for kids etc). However - they've never tied it directly to the abortion issue and frankly now that I read your take on it I have to admit you've got a point there - it probably IS a bit of a sop to the social conservatives who'd like to see something "done" about abortion. They won't take away people's right to terminate a pregnancy, but they will make it easier to keep the kid. That pleases a lot more people than putting limits on abortion would. That's pretty insightful of you - well done.


That issue alone won me over, not just because I personally benefit from it, but because it illustrates how strategic the Tories are about an issue that is a total shark pool.


Well, in fairness we took out germany twice and aren't wearing any more Lederhosen than we used to, we knocked the Boers around pretty good and aren't enslaving any blacks, and we put the boot to north korea in the day and I just downloaded the 'interview'. :) I think genocidal conflict probably wouldn't go over very well with most Canadians anyway, but the truth is we don't have even a 10th of the ability to project military power that we'd need to wipe anyone out. There's supposedly about 200 thousand isil fighters. We've got something like 70 thousand military personnel. Even if we stripped every soldier from other commitments, we couldn't realistically hope to defeat isil, and nobody else is going to be interested in participating in a ground war (well, nobody we'd want to be allied with that strongly). Best we can do is keep 'em bottled up in their own land.

True, but contrary to what I said in the AR thread, numbers aren't all that matter. Canada had virtually no standing military in the lead up to either WWI or WWII, but we were a major contributor to both wars.

I think its not inconceivable that a major emergency could/will emerge that will polarize the publics opinion on the matter and see to it a major molitary mobilization effort. You can see beginnings of that trend with private citizens volunteering to fight ISIS with the Kurds.

Honestly, I've had inner dialogues about rejoining the military because of it - better to preempt the emergency than react to it when it comes. Hopefully it never does - but if it does, I think Harper and the Tories would be more serious and committed to swift victory than wishy washy Paul Martin, Jean Chrétien were and ESPECIALLY Justin Trudeau or any of the living memory left wing leaders.

Harper would absolutely be the best War time PM of the bunch.


Yes. And not the first time we've seen it, although this is probably the worst case of it. Iggy also surrounded himself with his own 'special supporters' until that became so disasterous that the party demanded he 'accept guidance' from long term party 'experts', but of course by then the damage was largely done. And I think we'll see the same thing here - as the Liberal fortunes wain we'll see more pressure from the party apparatus for Justin to give up his own hand picked team and start taking direction from the old guard. I think Warren kinsella's being told "Don't bother" by trudeau after he was encouraged to run by Chretien was an example of the schism we're starting to see - the old fractures in the party starting to come forward again. remember - justin was on Chretien's side of the divide back in the day so that was a pretty powerful snub. You can get away with that if you're winning, but the moment things start to turn we'll see changes. Again it will likely be too late, and you really can't run a party by committee. I think in his youthful arrogance Justin is not going to pull the party together, he's going to push it apart again, and god help him if he starts to do so badly that people start to think he might get booted after the next election and start positioning themselves as the 'next' leader. That happened to martin, dion and iggy - all with disastrous results for their campaigns.

I do believe with conviction that if the Libs fail to take the opposition chair this election that trudeau will be gone and the party will be done for good. The 'progressives' will throw their support behind the ndp as the only viable threat to harper and nobody will be interested in giving money to the Libs, and there won't be another 'messiah' leader that the libs can really sell after this. And if that happens, chances are most of the first half of this century will be dominated by the CPC, which suits me fine for now. We can work with them, we can influence their policy and make them over into something we can really feel good about. Not that they're THAT bad right now. :)

Yes, it will. I don't think people realize how much this election will be a defining one. There's a lot at stake. The out come of this election will decide many things, like:

1 - If we play our cards right, we could have enough time to make pretty significant changes to firearms laws to the point where it'll be hard for future gov'ts to undo all we've done. That means we'll spend the next couple of decades taking 2 or 3 steps forward, one step back, 2 or 3 forward, etc and that works for us.

2 - The very existance of the liberal party is on the line here. If they lose their push to regain the opposition, they will likely never recover. Some species of new party may be born, but i think the libs will fade away and never again be a serious threat, and will continue to split the left vote enough for a decade or so to ensure the ndp never really get a shot at running the country.

3 - Our financial future is on the line. This is a bit of a turning point for us as well - will we become a country of lower taxes with a tax structure designed to support families and to promote business and jobs? Or will we go back to higher taxes and 'social experiments' that produce little and cost a fortune. Harper has set the stage for an amazing Canadian resurgence on the world stage AND a move away from our dependency on resource-export economy, but it will take years for that to play out. If the libs or dips get in and throw all that way, we're going to miss a huge opportunity.


4 - national unity. This has gone under the radar, but it has been well over half a century or more since Canada was as united as it is today. If ever. The bloc has been all but destroyed, the parti quebecois has been soundly trounced, and both were replaced by parties that promote Quebec working as part of Canada. In 2002 the west was polling very strongly for some kind of separation and it was the talk of the media - now, you never hear it and that sentiment has all but died. Now that westerners have a say in the gov't, and with policies designed to promote rather than rape western economies, we're seeing a generation grow up without the bitter resentment of the east that I and most westerners were raised with.

but it is fragile. Trudeau WILL throw that away - he will focus on Ontario and Quebec which is the traditional liberal power base and he will once again rape the west to treat quebec like a spoiled child and ontario like they're all that matters in english canada. People aren't thinking about this - but one only has to listen to his speech about how westerners are unfit to lead and look at his efforts to pander to ontario and quebec to see the truth. Nobody's talking about it - but it IS there and it's very real.

So yeah - this one matters. There's more on the line here than most elections, and this election could be seen as the culmination of a major shift in Canada's entire future that began 11 years ago and has slowly progressed to bring us to this point in history.

Exciting times :) You may well live to tell your grandkids that you were there with front row seats when Canada turned the corner and became the country she always should have been: united, prosperous and free.

Nothing I can add to that, except that I agree.

Foxer
12-28-2014, 10:43 AM
That issue alone won me over, not just because I personally benefit from it, but because it illustrates how strategic the Tories are about an issue that is a total shark pool.

I DON'T benefit from it and never will (personally) but i still found it a strong reason to vote cpc. Personally, I liked the idea that parents will have more time with their kids if they want without as severe a financial penalty, and can more easily afford to keep their kids active and participating in positive activities like sports. I think it helps us return to raising kids who are more mentally healthy and well adjusted and fit, all of which benefits us in the long run. But yes, it definitely is an example of how effective harper can be at addressing 'difficult' issues and coming up with a positive result over issues that are usually wasteful of resources and divisive.

And not the only one. I still marvel over how he handled the banking cash flow crisis in the recession. The US bailed out their banks and spent billions (trillions?) doing it at a direct cost to the taxpayer. Harper had the CMHC buy up perfectly good mortgages from the banks and paid them fair market for them, thus giving the banks access to billions of dollars to lend out in personal lines of credit and such (which are more profitable for the banks) which allowed the banks to keep the economy going by making sure cars could be bought, contractors had lines of credit to do their work etc, BUT he then collected the mortgage payments and eventually sold back the mortgages. The taxpayers actually MADE money on the deal, the banks stayed solvent, Businesses still had access to the money they needed, and virtually EVERYONE benefited. HUGE difference :)


Harper would absolutely be the best War time PM of the bunch.


True, dat.

killer kane
12-28-2014, 12:08 PM
So what you're saying is, an economist with real world experience does a better job of say, running a country than, perhaps a spoiled self indulged fop would?

Foxer
12-28-2014, 01:25 PM
So what you're saying is, an economist with real world experience does a better job of say, running a country than, perhaps a spoiled self indulged fop would?

Strangely enough, yes. Of course - that assumes that 'by 'better job' you mean actually keeping the economy going, keeping taxes in line, tackling difficult problems etc. If you mean 'pushes a socialist concept agenda while enriching friends and family', then no.

killer kane
12-28-2014, 11:16 PM
Sounds about right.

Billythreefeathers
12-29-2014, 04:23 PM
Lorne has made his prediction,,,, but I'm waiting for Foxer's