# Has Harper gone liberal?



## toyotatundra (1 Jul 2011)

Former Harper colleague Gerry Nicholls asserts that the current Prime Minister is planting his political flag firmly in old liberal ground.

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/editorialopinion/article/1017059--stephen-harper-not-the-conservative-he-once-was



> His chief objective isn’t to make government smaller, it’s to establish the Conservative party as the new “Natural Governing Party of Canada.”
> 
> In other words, Harper wants the Conservatives to permanently occupy the “centre” or “moderate” political ground, a piece of real estate the Liberal party once owned.
> 
> ...


----------



## Nauticus (1 Jul 2011)

Well, I'd wait for him to do something Liberal before labeling him as one.


----------



## Michael OLeary (1 Jul 2011)

Strategically, extending his "left flank" to encompass more of the moderate vote can only help to keep any possible competition out of the running.


----------



## toyotatundra (1 Jul 2011)

Michael O'Leary said:
			
		

> Strategically, extending his "left flank" to encompass more of the moderate vote can only help to keep any possible competition out of the running.



I understand that it is early in the game. However, Layton is not hesitating to position himself well to the Left of the Canadian middle. His filibuster of the Canada Post vote was not popular according to the polls.


----------



## Robert0288 (1 Jul 2011)

I don't think it was as much not hesitating, but stepping up to what has traditionally been the NDP bread and butter, steadfast support for unions.  The more I think about it, the more I think it was done to stabilize the NDP's traditional base who were growing worried with concessions that had to be made with the introduction of such a huge quebec contingent.


----------



## toyotatundra (1 Jul 2011)

Robert0288 said:
			
		

> the more I think it was done to stabilize the NDP's traditional base who were growing worried with concessions that had to be made with the introduction of such a huge quebec contingent.



One of the reasons that Harper has been so successful is that he's a strategic, long-term thinker. Your response suggests that you see Layton as similarly strategic in his approach. That impression of Layton would be consistent with the patience and persistence that Layton demonstrated in his attempts to nurture his party in the long-time NDP electoral wasteland of Quebec.


----------



## Robert0288 (1 Jul 2011)

> That impression of Layton would be consistent with the patience and persistence that Layton demonstrated in his attempts to nurture his party in the long-time NDP electoral wasteland of Quebec.


I see what you did there.


Who knows, he may have stumbled onto a golden goose of political strategy somewhere.  But what ever his reasons, there were both intended and unintended positives and negatives from his decision.  For him to remain incharge of a national party for 8 years now, I'd have to give him atleast some credit for intelligence and strategic planning, even if I don't agree with the man's politics.


----------



## Nauticus (1 Jul 2011)

We shouldn't sell Layton short at all. Not only has he been the leader of the NDP since, what, 2003? He's made gains every year since, and was polled as the most trustworthy politician during this recent election. We know Layton's politics and ideology, and he's been very up front about it.

There is no better man for Official Opposition than Jack Layton.


----------



## toyotatundra (1 Jul 2011)

Nauticus said:
			
		

> We shouldn't sell Layton short at all. Not only has he been the leader of the NDP since, what, 2003? He's made gains every year since, and was polled as the most trustworthy politician during this recent election.



103 seats is a huge feat for an NDP leader. And after 8 years at the helm, he still manages 98% delegate approval at the recent national convention. This is in contrast to many political leaders, who seem to acquire more personal and political baggage with the passage of time.



> There is no better man for Official Opposition than Jack Layton.



I agree with you a 100%. Jack Layton is the best man for Official Opposition. While Stephen Harper is the best man for Prime Minister!


----------



## Nauticus (1 Jul 2011)

toyotatundra said:
			
		

> 103 seats is a huge feat for an NDP leader. And after 8 years at the helm, he still manages 98% delegate approval at the recent national convention. This is in contrast to many political leaders, who seem to acquire more personal and political baggage with the passage of time.
> 
> I agree with you a 100%. Jack Layton is the best man for Official Opposition. While Stephen Harper is the best man for Prime Minister!


100% agree with you there.

Although I'd prefer the Conservatives with a minority government, I can't complain with what we've got!


----------



## toyotatundra (1 Jul 2011)

Nauticus said:
			
		

> Although I'd prefer the Conservatives with a minority government, I can't complain with what we've got!



Why do you have a preference for a Conservative minority?


----------



## a_majoor (1 Jul 2011)

I would expect to see a squeeze play between the CPC and NDP over the course of the next four years. The CPC will continue to stay firmly planted in the political center (while slowly shifting the center rightward), while the NDP will cautiously move right (the motion to drop Socialism from the party constitution in the last convention may have been a bit of too much too soon, but I expect to start hearing about the "middle path" and other "New Labourisms" in the future).

This isn't for the benefit of voters like you or me, but a determined effort on the part of both parties to squeeze the LPC out of the political spectrum, eliminate their ability to participate in political dialogue ("Third way? Isn't that what Jack Layton has been talking about already? They're just trying to steal other people's ideas") and drive a stake through that party's heart ("Donate to the Liberals? Steven Harper is already implementing the policies the Liberals are talking about")

Want a look at the long term future of the LPC? look up the Progressive Canadian party.....


----------



## toyotatundra (1 Jul 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Want a look at the long term future of the LPC? look up the Progressive Canadian party.....



Or Social Credit.


----------



## Brad Sallows (1 Jul 2011)

Long term, the Liberals will disband, with former Liberals moving into either the NDP or CPC camps.  The NDP will continue to occupy the centre left and left.  The CPC will occupy the centre and centre right and eventually dissatisfied blocks of social conservatives and fiscal conservatives will break off on the right.

Alternately, the Liberals will not disband and will recapture their old ground, and the NDP will revert to being the choice of 15-20% of Canadians.


----------



## toyotatundra (1 Jul 2011)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Long term, the Liberals will disband, with former Liberals moving into either the NDP or CPC camps.  The NDP will continue to occupy the centre left and left.  The CPC will occupy the centre and centre right and eventually dissatisfied blocks of social conservatives and fiscal conservatives will break off on the right.
> 
> Alternately, the Liberals will not disband and will recapture their old ground, and the NDP will revert to being the choice of 15-20% of Canadians.



Canadian federal politics is highly unpredictable. Who in 1988 guessed that five years later, the PCs would have 2 seats, with a separatist official opposition? How many of us in 2006 foresaw 103 seats for the NDP, and the Bloc pretty much wiped off the map? Heck, how many of us predicted that in February or March of this year?


----------



## a_majoor (1 Jul 2011)

Lots of political parties have vanished. 

The Federalist party, the Whigs, the Unionist Party, Progressive Party and others in Canadian, American and British history prove that. Eventually the guiding philosophy of the political party is no longer relevant to the greater polity, and people abandon the party or go to new ones (Abraham Lincoln migrated from the Whigs to the newly formed Republican Party).

The Liberals have had no real political philosophy for a long time, so when it became important to stand for something, they were at a loss.


----------



## toyotatundra (1 Jul 2011)

> author=Thucydides link=topic=101559/post-1057939#msg1057939 date=1309565488
> 
> The Liberals have had no real political philosophy for a long time, so when it became important to stand for something, they were at a loss.



It is premature to write an obituary for the Liberal Party. Given the volatile nature of our electorate, the next election could see the Liberals winning anywhere from 0 to 200 seats.

My forecasts at the start of the latest campaign were off by more than a Calgary weather report. Election Night 2011 humbled me greatly.


----------



## Gimpy (1 Jul 2011)

toyotatundra said:
			
		

> the next election could see the Liberals winning anywhere from 0 to 200 seats.



Wow, what an incredibly risky prediction. What are the chances of the sun coming up tomorrow?


----------



## toyotatundra (1 Jul 2011)

Gimpy said:
			
		

> Wow, what an incredibly risky prediction. What are the chances of the sun coming up tomorrow?



Somewhere between 0 and 100%.


----------



## a_majoor (1 Jul 2011)

Perhaps a btter way to move the discussion forward is to explain how and why the LPC could change their seat count. 

I have suggested the competition will close ranks so the LPC will have no political "space" to work in. This will make it difficult to get funding, volunteers and press. That and a lack of an underlying political philosophy to attract people makes a prediction of "up to 200 seats" highy unlikely, to say the least...


----------



## Nauticus (2 Jul 2011)

toyotatundra said:
			
		

> Why do you have a preference for a Conservative minority?


Because although there are a lot of things the Conservatives do well, there's also a lot of policies that I avidly and passionately disagree with, and I don't trust Harper or his party at all with a majority government.

The NDP has proven historically willing to work with any government if the law in question benefits Canadians in a positive way.

I think forcing the two parties to work together on worthwhile laws would have been better for us as a nation.


----------



## toyotatundra (2 Jul 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Perhaps a btter way to move the discussion forward is to explain how and why the LPC could change their seat count.
> 
> I have suggested the competition will close ranks so the LPC will have no political "space" to work in. This will make it difficult to get funding, volunteers and press. That and a lack of an underlying political philosophy to attract people makes a prediction of "up to 200 seats" highy unlikely, to say the least...



I can see a number of scenarios, alone or combined, which might bring the Liberals over 155 in 2015.

- a continuing or worsening global economic situation leads centre-right voters to punish the Conservatives, and reward the Liberals.
- Harper or his government is irreparably tarnished by current or yet-to-emerge scandals. The Liberals prosper as the central non-NDP alternative
- After 9 years of Harper, and 4 of Hudak, Ontario tires of the Tories, and swings back to the Grits
- the NDP loses Canada's centre by pursuing ideological rather than pragmatic solutions, by committing a series of gaffes, or by coming under the relentless rhetorical fire of Canada's corporate-owned press
- the charismatic Jack Layton tragically passes on or resigns for health reasons, leaving a less dynamic leader. The soft Left vote returns to the Liberal fold.
- frustrated with Harper or with each other, the P.C. or evangelical Christian wings of the CPC break off, re-dividing the right of centre vote
- a PQ government in Quebec, or a burgeoning sovereignty campaign, causes federalists to unite around their traditional Quebec standard bearer for Canada, the LPC.

And perhaps most likely of all, the Liberal Party selects your humble narrator as Liberal Party leader. Canadian women flock in droves to vote for this brilliant, dynamic stud.


----------



## Nauticus (2 Jul 2011)

toyotatundra said:
			
		

> I can see a number of scenarios, alone or combined, which might bring the Liberals over 155 in 2015.
> 
> - a continuing or worsening global economic situation leads centre-right voters to punish the Conservatives, and reward the Liberals.
> - Harper or his government is irreparably tarnished by current or yet-to-emerge scandals. The Liberals prosper as the central non-NDP alternative
> ...


Bahahahaha. Great.

Seriously though, I do think that, should Layton not lead the NDP, the Liberals may once again take 2nd place. I think the people are huge fans of Layton and may not be as much a fan of the NDP.


----------



## toyotatundra (2 Jul 2011)

Nauticus said:
			
		

> Seriously though, I do think that, should Layton not lead the NDP, the Liberals may once again take 2nd place. I think the people are huge fans of Layton and may not be as much a fan of the NDP.



Even with Layton there, NDP support is precarious. Quebec voters have no long-standing tradition of voting NDP. The Orange Wave of 2011 was a mile wide, and an inch deep.


----------



## Nauticus (2 Jul 2011)

toyotatundra said:
			
		

> Even with Layton there, NDP support is precarious. Quebec voters have no long-standing tradition of voting NDP. The Orange Wave of 2011 was a mile wide, and an inch deep.


I'm not sure that's true. 

Quebec has a tradition of voting Bloc, and they pretty much vanquished the Bloc in the recent election. I think it may be Quebec adjusting her stance on Canadian politics, but it could also be Quebec just looking for a change.

But I don't think having the majority of Quebec voters electing the NDP in _droves_ for the first time would be a fluke. It just doesn't happen like that.


----------



## Robert0288 (2 Jul 2011)

A lot of the NDP support in Quebec came from being disenfranchised with the liberals (still) and realizing that the bloc didn't really have all that much to gripe about in terms of real or percieved slights to the province.  That left the CPC or the NDP, and Quebec is generally more accepting of socialist policies.

Also I wouldn't count the liberals out just yet.  They have 4 years.. (well 3) to start back up from the grass roots.  Going back and hitting universities, and promising the newest generation of party loyals and ideologues everything under the sun because their not even the official opposition.  If their lucky the liberals will also find or come up with a realatively intelligent and charismatic leader that will help attract voters.  Also if anyone sugjests Justin Trudeau for this role I might actually put my palm through my head.  The man has the intellectual thought process of an 8 year old who just had their favorite ball taken away.  He does have some fairely good political coaches, but if you debate or even talk to Justin you can see they have their work cut out for them.


----------



## Brad Sallows (2 Jul 2011)

Nauticus said:
			
		

> The NDP has proven historically willing to work with any government if the law in question benefits *certain* Canadians in a positive way.



You left out an important qualifier.  The NDP don't have an exclusive lock on co-operation when it benefits their favoured constituencies, and are perfectly willing to disregard disfavoured constituencies.


----------

