Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums

Conservative party/next election


Recommended Posts

At least federally there are spending limits for third parties during the campaign, not that this will hinder the unions as they will use their fronts to shill for them.

Considering the optics it might be best for PM Harper to call snap election to get ahead of the union campaign, he or the party will have to weigh which would be the least damaging... calling a snap election and going back on his legislation or allowing Big Unions to run an anti conservative campaign. ( plus the Duffy trial)

Considering the entire situation, I reckon it would be better for Harper not to call a snap election for a couple of reasons. First, the unions are not that influential any more in Canada. The public sector unions never vote Tory anyway. The private sector unions are shrinking and represent fewer Canadians all the time. They are also morte likely to follow the money. I can promise you that trades unions in AB and SK won't be voting for Libs or NDP who will be perceived as taking away their jobs. The Cons have plenty of $ and plenty of experience duking it out in the media. They'll take on the unions head on. Second, sooner or later Trudeau will have to say something, anything. And when he does...... The Cons will crank up the fog machine to 11.

No rush.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 102
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Nothing in politics surprises me. My point is that the longer a party is in power the better the chance that it will not be re-elected. Generally, a party loses power because of the accumulation of human mistakes and frailties that naturally occur to people in power. There appear to me to be posters on this board who think that the Harper Conservatives will stay in power forever.

It just ain't gonna happen!

Of course. There's also plenty who think Trudeau will just naturally assume prime minister, like its his birth right.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Nothing in politics surprises me. My point is that the longer a party is in power the better the chance that it will not be re-elected. Generally, a party loses power because of the accumulation of human mistakes and frailties that naturally occur to people in power. There appear to me to be posters on this board who think that the Harper Conservatives will stay in power forever.

It just ain't gonna happen!

If only we could be that lucky.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Considering the entire situation, I reckon it would be better for Harper not to call a snap election for a couple of reasons. First, the unions are not that influential any more in Canada. The public sector unions never vote Tory anyway.

Tens of millions of dollars in anti-Harper, anti-Tory advertising, all on behalf of various 'community minded organizations' created and funded by the unions, will certainly have a detrimental effect on the Conservatives' election hopes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

6.8 unemployment, things just keep getting better under harper rule. And now with billions of surplus coming, harper has boxed trudeau in.

Unless they blow the surplus.

An interesting column on government spending and debt in today's Citizen.

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/bob-plamondon-canada-is-finally-back-to-where-it-was-in-1967

Link to post
Share on other sites

I would always bet against a party in Canada who has won 3 elections. Regression to the mean has to happen eventually. If the conservatives win again, I take it all back....

Your "take it all back" is weak, hitops.

Regression to the mean? What is the "mean"? And did Trudeau or King regress to the mean? Did the federal Liberals "regress to the mean" under St-Laurent or Pearson? Did Canada?

Politicians also need to be reminded that their employment is temporary.

Agreed.

Imho, modern federal Liberals are gnats; gadflies.

====

Quebec, French Canada, now has some serious federal politicians. Quebec politics are changing.

Edited by August1991
Link to post
Share on other sites

Unless they blow the surplus.

An interesting column on government spending and debt in today's Citizen.

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/bob-plamondon-canada-is-finally-back-to-where-it-was-in-1967

Heading down the slippery slope in Iraq will help blow the surplus. Plus Harper has to be pooping his pants looking forward to the Duffy trial. A snap election or a leadership convention wouldn't surprise me in the least.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Heading down the slippery slope in Iraq will help blow the surplus.

And politicians pointing out how bad it is for different people in other places, like gay people for example, may be giving gay rights in America a boost.

Edited by eyeball
Link to post
Share on other sites

name them... and why they're serious. Thanks in advance.

There's that narcissistic smugness again! ^_^ I'll let August supply other details but Phillippe Couillard won a massive majority as an unabashed Federal supporter - the first Quebec politician in ages to be so open in his belief in the merits of federalism. The public obviously responded. With the thrashing of the PQ, this new Quebec Premier has once again made it acceptable to talk of Quebec's place in Canada. That's a sea change and may inspire other politicians to think and speak likewise. I was born and raised in Montreal and still have family that I regularly visit. There hasn't been enough time yet for me to evaluate the full impact of the change but I already sense a "relief" that the petty anti-Ottawa battles seem to be fading.

Edited by Keepitsimple
Link to post
Share on other sites

There's that narcissistic smugness again! ^_^

do I have you so primed to react so... it was simply a simple question, Simple!

so, you're back to plying your "narcissistic-like" labeling. Hey now, should I add it to the summary accounting of your prior best in that regard... the summary accounting of your narcissistic-like labeling I put together in this post: (of course that certainly wasn't a complete summation of you showcasing your internet medical degree... it was only a smallish representative accounting of how often you've gone to that well)!

Link to post
Share on other sites

While I'd like to see Harper step down and a better leader take over I don't see it happening. Besides the Duffy trial, things are working out well for Harper.

How exactly do you interpret that things are working well for Harper when the Conservatives have fallen below 30% in the national polling averages? That's not working out well by any stretch of the imagination. He still has time to pull it out of the fire, but let's not be delusional here about where he stands today.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How exactly do you interpret that things are working well for Harper when the Conservatives have fallen below 30% in the national polling averages?

Based on how Trudeau has been performing any time he has to make a real decision, it will very much surprise me if a campaign goes that way.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Based on how Trudeau has been performing any time he has to make a real decision, it will very much surprise me if a campaign goes that way.

The problem is BS baffles. People will vote for someone who says nothing because it's better than them saying something the people disagree with. That's how the Liberals have always run their campaigns.

Link to post
Share on other sites

How exactly do you interpret that things are working well for Harper when the Conservatives have fallen below 30% in the national polling averages? That's not working out well by any stretch of the imagination. He still has time to pull it out of the fire, but let's not be delusional here about where he stands today.

Things are working out well because the economy is improving, they're in surplus and they are able to offer Canadians tax relief and some other goodies in an election year. Conservatives are likely quite happy with polling that shows Canadians support fighting ISIS.

Edited by Newfoundlander
Link to post
Share on other sites

They're currently running a $800M deficit. With the revision to last years numbers, it's almost certain that they're actually in surplus by about $5B.

Edited by Smallc
Link to post
Share on other sites

They're currently running a $800M deficit. With the revision to last years numbers, it's almost certain that they're actually in surplus by about $5B.

800 million? Better check your numbers. More like 5.2 billion. That's this year. They hope to have a surplus in the next budget. Iraq may just have an effect on that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

800 million? Better check your numbers. More like 5.2 billion. That's this year. They hope to have a surplus in the next budget. Iraq may just have an effect on that.

No, $5.2B is the revised number from 2013 - 2014. At current, the government projects, with a $3B safety cushion, that the deficit will be $2.9B in the current fiscal year (that is, with the safety cushion removed, a $100M surplus. Given that we now know that last year's budget deficit was $5.2B ($5.15B, actually) rather than $16.6B as projected in Budget 2014, we can pretty safely assume that despite Iraq and falling oil prices (which have a negligible effect on the Canadian economy overall - according to economists 0.4 - 0.8% a year of GDP, closer to the lower end at current prices) the budget will come in somewhere between balance and $7B in the black.

Year to date, the government is recording, with unrevised numbers, a deficit of $800M to the end of July, or about 5.5x less than at the same point last year:

http://ca.reuters.com/article/businessNews/idCAKCN0HL1RH20140926

Some further reading:

http://www.torontosun.com/2014/10/07/deficit-will-be-gone-sooner-than-pm-says-banks

Edited by Smallc
Link to post
Share on other sites

They're currently running a $800M deficit. With the revision to last years numbers, it's almost certain that they're actually in surplus by about $5B.

And nobody knows where the money is coming from. As I posted in another thread previously, the accounting has been changed twice in as many years. It appears as though most of the balancing has come from one-time hocking of federal assets, which is not sustainable.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Harper Conservatives missed that mark by $11.4 Billion... with the full accounting of that shift yet to be released... and yet you're quite willing to accept their latest projections?

It's pretty bad when the federal government misses a projection by billions of dollars. Even if it's good news, it suggests they have a roomful of monkeys wearing fezzes crunching their numbers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.




  • Tell a friend

    Love Political Discussion Forums? Tell a friend!
×
×
  • Create New...