• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Lead, Please, Prime Minister

Cdn Blackshirt said:
Agreed.  This part pretty much sums up the problem....I can also tell you which way the people who are this ignorant vote....

Who wants to guess?


Matthew.    :blotto:

"A public-opinion report says only 40 per cent of respondents across Canada, and almost none in Quebec, support the deployment.”

So about 60% across Canada oppose the mission and most of Quebec.
And you "can also tell you which way the people who are this ignorant vote...."  Interesting  ::)

 
I’m going to assume, just for the sake of argument, that there was some consistency in the polling.  I’m guessing that “support was virtually non-existent” means, say, 5+% support and 10+% undecided and, therefore 80+% opposed.  That means that in the Rest of Canada we might find something like 55±% support and 40±% opposed and 5% undecided.

In that case, assuming the PMO and the Conservative Party election brain-trust take account of this sort of thing and also assuming the PM’s change of tone is related to this sort of ‘knowledge’ of where Canadians are ‘at,’ then Québec is, once again:

• Out of step with the national view; and

• Driving the national policy agenda with its unique point-of-view.

If we look at a bit of electoral data we mightsee something like this:
(Read in four columns: Region,  Tory 2006 results, Campbell’s guesstimate of the potential results of an election to be held soon, Results realistically required for a Tory majority)

National:  124/308  134/308  154/308 
BC:  17/36  19/36  21/36
Alberta:  28/28  28/28  28/28
Prairies:  20/28  20//28  20/28
Ontario:  40/106  45/106  51/106
Québec:  10/75  15/75  27/75
Atlantic Canada:  9/33  7/33  8/33

The Conservatives might gain a handful of seats by ‘coming up the middle’ in some strong, three way, Green/Liberal/NDP battles – especially in BC and Ontario.  They should make a few gains in Ontario’s 905 belt.  They must make substantial gains in either Ontario or Québec if they want a majority – there is no realistic alternative.  I’m guessing they see Ontario as a tougher nut than Québec; thus they will pander to Québecers – even when that makes for very bad national policy.  But there’s a problem: if you pander to Québec  once you must continue, and up the ante, or Québec will abandon you.

It’s an interesting political dilemma.


 
Well done Edward, very interesting Sunday morning reading.
I very much like your earlier thread comment that "And, in support oft my oft expressed fear that Prime Minister Harper's Afghanistan ‘policy’ is aimed, squarely, at discomfiting the opposition rather than protecting and promoting Canada’s vital interests in the world: " This is the only way I can make seen of a strategic tough political game player with no military experience or exposure.

But ref your last comment as I look at your numbers they reflect the same old political balance parties always face in Canada to gain a majority. You have to get Ontario or Quebec. Harper's not going to get a majority in Quebec, yes he might up his seat count a bit, so key is getting more seats in Ontario. But  short of a poll confirming it my feeling is Ontario has majority urban opposition to the war and hence the move to gain middle of the road Liberal support. Looks like a smart political move.
 
Baden  Guy said:
"A public-opinion report says only 40 per cent of respondents across Canada, and almost none in Quebec, support the deployment.”

So about 60% across Canada oppose the mission and most of Quebec.
And you "can also tell you which way the people who are this ignorant vote...."   Interesting  ::)

I'm going to withhold the initial words that lept to mind and instead just tell you to roll your eyes at somebody else!

Does it not strike you as coincidental that there is approximately 40% support for the Conservatives right now with 60% split between the Liberal Party, the Dippers, the Greens and the Block?

I'm not saying that all Conservatives who currently back the mission are 100% knowledgable about all the facets, but I believe based on my conversations with known conservatives, those that aren't 100% up to speed have cast their dye based on "principle-based intervention".  That is, we're involving ourselves to make a positive difference.

On the other hand, in my conversations with those whom I know are dedicated to other parties (that 60%):
95% couldn't find Aghanistan on a map without labels on it.
90% believe it's George Bush's war (85% will also believe GWB orchestrated 09/11)
95% have no concept of the impact on women and girls & education specifically between NATO intervention & not
95% have no concept of the terrorism training implications if NATO abandons Afghanistan and it reverts to a Waziristan-like terrorist breeding ground.

I should add, in my many conversations with non-conservative voters, when you suddenly introduce the women's education & rights facet of the debate, a majority suddenly have their eye-brows pop-up and the general response is "Gee, I didn't know that."

Bottom Line:  Afghanistan is currently unpopular because it is being branded as a Conservative effort.  Based on it being a Conservative effort, it is blacklisted as being acceptable by ALL on the Left.  All they need to hear is that Harper is for it, and they are automatically against it, and feel no need to actually educate themselves to understand it.  If you applied some sort of knowledge test to voters (or poll participants) about where Afghanistan is, what the issues are, etc. and only allowed those to vote based on passing that test, I think you'd find you that 95% of your 60% that currently oppose the mission would fail.  Furthermore, my father taught me at a young age that not all opinions are equal.  Only when your opinion is based on a solid foundation and you yourself have subjected that opinion to repeated objective criticism and fault-testing is ANY opinion worth the air it is spoken upon.  I should add in addition to the filter that the Left is currently applying to all things "Conservative", the Left in our country has become incredibly lazy.  We live in a country with free access to information, and instead of having any interest in educating themselves on issues like Afghanistan, Taxation, Kyoto, etc., the people who congregate in the Liberal Party, Green Party, and NDP seem more interested in tuning into the latest reality show.  Quite frankly, it's an afront to democracy when eligible voters CHOOSE ignorance because of this laziness.

Now I'm going to show more respect than you showed me by not rolling my eyes at you, but I would like your response....


Matthew.  :salute:
 
Hmmmmm....well upon reviewing my comment to your comment I have found .........that .......I .....was .....wrong.
After reading Capt.Sensible's comment I made the mistake of tagging your reply with the 40% in support of the mission.
Whereas all you actually were referring to was "The report also found many Canadians believe Canada is part of a U.S.-led mission, or that Canada invaded Afghanistan."  A fact that you obviously find irritating as do I.

My personal take is that the Afghanistan mission is complex, involving many aspects Taliban, Pakistan, President Musharraf, the Afghanistan people and their cultural history, drug lords, Islam etc etc. This is one reason why I found the recent deaths a source of personal anger as Canadians in general have not taken the time, as you say, to become informed on the many componets affecting this mission.

Sorry about the confusion on my part but that's the risk you take when you try responding to numbers.  Ref your reply, we are probably not both in the same spot on the political spectrum but we most certainly are in our desire for Canadians to step beyond the screaming evening news and take the time to learn the facts behind ISAF's goals in Afghanistan and the enviornment affecting reaching those goals.

:salute:


 
As for confusion, a post at The Torch:

Afstan: First get your facts right
http://toyoufromfailinghands.blogspot.com/2007/07/afstan-first-get-your-facts-right.html

Mark
Ottawa

 
When he stays in his lane (strictly domestic politics) and when he is able to restrain his all to evident distaste for all things Conservative, Lawrence Martin is worth a read. Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act, is his latest from today’s Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20070715.wcomartin16/BNStory/Front/home
I have edited out a few typos the Good Grey Globe let slip by in the on-line edition.
Can Harper make Canadians feel good?

LAWRENCE MARTIN

Globe and Mail Update
July 15, 2007 at 11:21 PM EDT

The governing Conservatives, looking to get untracked after an uninspired spring, think they're onto something. The plan? Turn their leader, Sergeant Grim, into Kaptain Canada.

Party strategists have been peering into history, going back exactly half a century to the rise of John Diefenbaker.

This was a time (in contrast to the later Dief years, when he descended into his own inferno) when a heady patriotism stirred Canadians. It wasn't the type of nationalism, a more defensive nationalism, that Liberals and New Democrats would later feed off. It was a Canadianism of proud heritage, national symbols, new horizons.

The Conservatives now see an opportunity to tap into such a patriotic vein, to play on classic elements of the Canadian identity – The True North Strong and Free – and bolster their support.

Last week, they were pitching northern sovereignty. Plans for a new deepwater port. Outlays of $3-billionthis is notes for new patrol ships. Not the big icebreakers that were originally planned. But a bigger presence nonetheless.

Not shy about an image as a war guy, the Prime Minister has been building up the military to make the country feel stronger, give it more clout on the world stage.

He has been boasting of Canada's great storehouse of resources. We're “an energy superpower.” He plays frequently on national symbols such as hockey. Recently, in a gesture that Mr. Diefenbaker would surely have appreciated, Stephen Harper even brought the old flag, the Red Ensign, out of the dustbin.

“Canadians are feeling good about their country,” our super patriot leader said in British Columbia last week. No need to worry about that “squabbling” between Ottawa and the provinces. There is “a strong air of optimism.” This summer, he will be spending a good deal of time doing Canadian promo gigs on the international stage. He's presently in Latin America and the Caribbean, where, with stops in Colombia, Chile, Barbados and Haiti, he wants to strengthen economic and political ties. To foster relations on the continent, he will host a three amigos summit with the U.S. and Mexican leaders next month in Montebello, Que. Then it's on to Australia for talks with pan-Pacific leaders, among them his close Conservative buddy, Aussie Prime Minister John Howard.

A foray to the Arctic is also planned. The northern vision was a hallmark of the Diefenbaker campaign that helped him to his crushing majority in 1958. He never did put meat on the bones of his rhetoric, but many Conservatives see these times of warming climate as being right for northern dreams.

Their leader has been criticized as a micromanager, a grouchy control freak who is too dour for the times. Getting out of Ottawa, getting on the world stage with big patriotic themes, while leaving the controversies to ministers at home, could work well for him.

Mr. Harper is no Diefenbaker. The Tory tornado saw himself as personifying the national will. No one could sell Canada like him.

The brandishing of a Canada-first policy is also quite a stretch from the Stephen Harper we've known. This is the one-time regionalist who touted building a firewall around Alberta and who, when asked whether he loved Canada, sidestepped the question. He was seen as more inclined toward a course of continental integration, much more in keeping with the legacy of a Brian Mulroney than a Diefenbaker.

But he is a politician who can readily change his spots, who doesn't seem worried how far he veers from past credos.

He can contrast his new-Canada vision to the vague Liberal look. Last week, the Grits scored points on culture – something missing from Mr. Harper's Canadiana themes – with Stéphane Dion's new policy of support. But the party's biggest boasting point over the past few years, one on which they can embarrass the Conservatives, has been its position on Iraq. For reasons unknown, they barely mention it.

Mr. Harper had run out of an agenda this spring and was looking for something. The country is rolling in bucks and stacked with resource riches. There is cause, even with the difficulties of the small war in Afghanistan, for Canadian optimism.

With a change to his grim-guy approach, the Prime Minister might indeed, as his strategists hope, be on to something. A leader who can make the country feel good is a leader who succeeds.

Many (most?) pundits agree that Prime Minister Harper had a rotten spring thanks to his own failure to have a follow up agenda.

He has done well, very well by and for the military – but that’s not a big vote getter in Canada.  His ‘Arctic sovereignty’ mantra should work because it is, at its base, anti-Americans and a large majority of Canadians respond well to anything anti-American, anything that is which will not cause delays at the border.

As I have said elsewhere we appear to have entered an extended pre-election period. (I say extended because I cannot see why or how the Liberals would be tempted to dump the government any time soon – they’re broke and they need to strengthen Dion’s leadership reputation (those Tory attack ads appear to have worked!) and they’re doing well from Conservative dithering, better than they are doing from their own policy proposals.  I cannot see why the Liberals would want to go to the polls in 2007, at all, and probably not in 2008, either.)  So 19 Oct 09 looks like the date of the next election – it’s more than two years away!  Harper has decided he needs that long to turn voters’ minds away from why they dislike/distrust him and to give them some ‘feel good’ government.

The demise of the Afghanistan mission may be the price he decides he can/must pay to get the (many more) seats he needs in Ontario and, especially, Québec, to secure a parliamentary majority.
 
As I have said elsewhere we appear to have entered an extended pre-election period. (I say extended because I cannot see why or how the Liberals would be tempted to dump the government any time soon – they’re broke and they need to strengthen Dion’s leadership reputation (those Tory attack ads appear to have worked!) and they’re doing well from Conservative dithering, better than they are doing from their own policy proposals.

With the setting of predetermined election dates, we should get used to US style electioneering and long, drawn out pre election campaigns. As for Dion, I can't see him coming back with anything at all....especially with Rae, Martha Hall-Findlay and Ignatiff chomping at the bit to replace him. Their optimum choice was that Dion would lose to a new minority Conservative government and the Liberals would have another leadership race, but now it looks like they will have to tough it out until late 2008 (I think that's when another review is due) and dump him them, but dump him they will....he's gone and is going nowhere.
 
Back
Top