Election 2015

[a_majoor]

Looks like the Orange Crush was a one time only event. Based on this article, I am starting to miss Jack Layton already; he at least could keep the loons in line and deliver the death blow to the Liberals. OTOH, having the left fractionalized between the LPC, NDP and Greens (who will be a vote splitting spoiler for a long time to come) will allow the CPC to continue to dominate the center and move Canadian politics to the right over the next decade or two...

http://www.nationalpost.com/todays-paper/returns+roots/5626472/story.html

The NDP returns to its roots

National Post · Oct. 29, 2011 | Last Updated: Oct. 29, 2011 4:08 AM ET

In the post-Jack Layton era, it's disappointing to see the NDP so rapidly returning to form, drifting away from Mr. Layton's centrist stratagems and back to its old faculty-club radicalism. Already the contenders for the party leadership include one candidate who has pledged to run on a high-tax platform, one who is essentially a surrogate for the Bloc Québécois and now, another who is opposed to the biggest economic project in the country's near future.

Peggy Nash, a Toronto MP, is the latest New Democrat to declare her candidacy for Mr. Layton's old job, announcing Friday morning that she would be a contender in the March 2012 vote. A well-known activist in the Toronto area, Ms. Nash has already had an impressive career. Once an Air Canada ticket agent, she rose to a senior position in the Canadian Auto Workers union, even serving as chief negotiator on the union side in contract talks with automanufacturer Ford in 2005.

She claims to know her way "around a contract and - around a budget." She may indeed. But she seems to believe in a lot of magical economic thinking, too, such as the notion that growth will occur no matter what environmental or income-redistribution policies a government adopts.

Ms. Nash has endorsed protesters who are attempting to block construction of the Keystone XL pipeline from Alberta's oilsands to the Texas Gulf Coast. If nothing else, this latter stance shows just how far the NDP has moved from its old role as a voice of private-sector unions to its new iteration as a trumpet for ivory-tower, environmental and public-sector activists. Unions for the Pipefitters, Operating Engineers, Laborers and Teamsters all want Keystone to go ahead. They understand that building a continent-long pipeline would create tens of thousands of well-paying jobs for tradepersons, skilled workers, labourers and truckers.

But among the new caste of democratic socialists, environmentalism trumps union-job creation. Theory over substance. You might think a former CAW contract negotiator might see through that, but apparently not.

Of course, already in the New Democrat leadership race is party president Brian Topp, who launched his bid last month in Vancouver by announcing that if he were leader an NDP government would increase income taxes, increase corporate taxes and "at some point" raise the GST. This, of course, plays on the class-warfare rhetoric that is so fashionable on the left at the moment, and on the left's mistrust of private companies. But when a New Democrat says rich, they usually mean middle-class. Rich in terms of Canadian tax policy typically kicks in at around $60,000, which, ironically, is a common salary for the mid-level civil servants, nurses, teachers and other publicsector workers the NDP attracts.

Also in the race is Thomas Mulcair, the former Quebec Liberal provincial cabinet minister who never met a Quebec nationalist policy he didn't embrace as his own. He is in favour of making French the "predominant" language of all highway and business signs in Quebec and, more surprisingly, of all federally regulated workplaces, including government offices, airports, banks and phone and cable companies. He even sides with the separatists on their demand that a 50%plus-one vote should be sufficient to trigger Quebec independence and that Ottawa should spend almost no money in Quebec, but rather hand over billions more in federal dollars every year to be spent by the provincial government any way it wants.

Mr. Layton's real talent was suppressing all these natural radical urges among his caucus and painting a moderate face on his party. It is increasing clear that no one else in the party has similar electoral skills. This must be great news over at the moribund Liberal party. If the NDP had managed to stay Mr. Layton's course, the Grits would have become redundant, the way the British Liberal party did in the 1920s when squeezed out from the right by the Conservatives and from the left by Labour. His successors seem determined to make life easier for both the Prime Minister and whomever leads the Liberal party into the next election.

 

[RangerRay]

Damn.  Looks like the Liberal Party will live.

The NDP never miss a chance to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Everything I need to know about the NDP I learned from reading Asterix comix.  "These Romans are crazy.  (Toc, toc, toc.)"

 

[a_majoor]

Driving more nails in the Liberal coffin. How many Liberal party leadersip candidates from the 2006 race still owe monies from "loans" (which are now illegal campaign contributions by existing electoral laws, except that Elections Canada never seems to get around to enforcing these laws):

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/11/03/harper-finds-another-way-to-drive-the-liberals-nuts/

Harper finds another way to drive the Liberals nuts

Kelly McParland  Nov 3, 2011 – 11:58 AM ET

The Conservatives have pledged themselves to another campaign finance reform which just happens, by sheer coincidence, to mainly hurt the Liberal party.

The Tories are planning to close a loophole that allowed candidates in  leadership races to take out loans to finance their bids.

“The current rules on political loans do not meet the high standards of accountability, integrity and transparency that Canadians expect in their political process,” Tim Uppal, the minister of state for democratic reform, declared ponderously. “The Political Loans Accountability Act builds on our flagship Federal Accountability Act by closing a loophole allowing corporations and unions to make political loans.”

Under the new rules candidates who want loans will have to get them from banks, which will ensure they actually pay them back. No more borrowing on easy terms from friends, mentors, wealthy pals or from yourself, and then taking your time in repaying the debt.

The rules apply to everyone, except that the Tories have no known leadership replacement plans that we know of, and neither the NDP or Bloc Quebecois races will be affected, because they’ll be over by the time it takes effect. Only the Liberals, who aren’t planning to select a new leader until 2013, will feel the impact. The Liberals are also the last party to hold a serious leadership contest (not including the 2009 coronation of Michael Ignatieff.) Several candidates from the 2006 race still haven’t paid their debts, and winner Stephane Dion only recently managed to retire the $905,000 he owed.

The Liberals are also the party that has been least successful in adjusting to the “new” campaign finance regulations that are now several elections old.

Is it possible that this is yet another blow in Stephen Harper’s ongoing effort to drive the Liberal Party from the land (or, failing that, drive it nuts in the interim?) Could be. But neither the NDP or Bloc are complaining, because it only hurts the Liberals. Too bad guys.

National Post

 

[Edward Campbell]

The only thing that bothers me slightly about the "loan ban" proposal is that individual should be able to use their own money for their own purposes. That means that if, say, my younger son runs for political office he (and I) ought to be able to spend his (and my) money - provided it is not cast as a loan. But if he ran and had, say, $200,000 in debts he should be able to cash in his savings, even his RRSPs or whatever, and I should be able to give him a gift (not a loan) to help him retire that debt. It is our money and so long as the purposes for which we decide to use it are legal - and campaigning for public office is a legal, proper and even honourable thing - then the government ought not to be able to tell us what to do with our own money. But I could still claim, for tax rebate, only the allowed $1,100 (rising to $1,200 in 2012).

 

[a_majoor]

Spending you own money should not be penalized and indeed it is possible to do so; when I ran for mayor in 2006 I was limited by election laws as to how much money I could raise from other people and even where I could raise money (I had to turn down lots of offers from friends and well meaning people because they did not live in nor own property in London), but could spend as much of my own money as I wished up to the campaign spending limit (@ $170,000 at the time, as I recall).

The issue here is "loans" from non institutional lenders put the candidate on the hook with obligations to the lender (which might be discharged in ways the voters and taxpayers might consider undue influence). Giving yourself a "loan" as opposed to straight spending or gifting cold also have negative consequences; you as an elected official might be looking for ways to quickly "pay off" the "loan" ( since you have depleted your own resources and might be feeling the pinch) and thus be susceptible to outside influence. There is another potential danger, I read a case of a US Congressman (from California, I believe) who "loaned" the money for the campaign from their own resources at a nominally high interest rate, then used campaign contributions to "pay back" the loan, including interest, thus enriching themselves directly at the expense of their constituent supporters. (I am looking for the specifics, and will report back when I find it).

 

[Edward Campbell]

We need to applaud this gain in Liberal support, as reported under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/federal-liberals-gain-on-ndp-conservatives-poll-finds/article2251570/

Federal Liberals gain on NDP, Conservatives, poll finds

KIM MACKRAEL
OTTAWA— From Monday's Globe and Mail

Published Sunday, Nov. 27, 2011

The federal Liberals have picked up support from both parties and are now in a dead heat with the NDP, a new poll shows, as concern over the economy returns to the fore for Canadians.

The Nanos Research Poll, conducted for The Globe and Mail and CTV, shows the Liberals with 28.1 per cent, up from 23.4 per cent last month.

The Liberals were bolstered by added support in vote-rich Ontario, where the party is now in a statistical tie with the Conservatives, the poll shows.

The Tories, meanwhile, edged down to 35.6 per cent from 37.7 per cent in last month’s poll, and the NDP dropped to 27.3 per cent from 30 per cent.

Pollster Nik Nanos attributed much of the gain in Liberal fortunes to relative weaknesses for the NDP and the Conservatives.

“In many respects, the Liberals can pick up support by default when people are disaffected with either of the other parties,” he said.

Many of the NDP’s more high-profile MPs have turned their attention to the party’s leadership race, leaving its front bench increasingly thin, he said.

At the same time, the Conservatives are focusing on what Mr. Nanos called housekeeping chores: moving a raft of legislation through Parliament, including the omnibus crime bill, legislation to eliminate the long-gun registry, and another to end the monopoly of the Canadian Wheat Board.

There is fierce and vocal opposition to the bills, both in Parliament and among interest groups. But passing the legislation will allow the Conservatives to make good on the party’s pledges, Mr. Nanos said.

“[They’re] ensuring that they can at least repeat to their core supporters: ‘promises made, promises kept,’ ” he said.

Jobs and the economy were identified as the most important issues by 29.3 per cent of those surveyed in the poll, up nearly 3 per cent from last month and well ahead of health care, which now holds second place at 22.8 per cent.

“A lot of this has to do with what we’ve seen in the news and the turmoil in Europe,” Mr. Nanos said. “There’s that, and also what I’ll say are messages directly from the government to Canadians in terms of adjusting the expected deficit.”

Earlier this month, the Conservative government backed out of a plan to balance the federal budget by 2014-2015, saying a sluggish economic recovery means it will take at least another year to eliminate the deficit. The government also said it would scale back plans to hike Employment Insurance premiums and extend a temporary work-share program.

The poll was conducted by telephone between November 16 and 21, about one week after Finance Minister Jim Flaherty announced in his fall economic update that it would take his government longer to eliminate the deficit than previously expected.

“Under normal circumstances, the Conservatives would probably benefit by a greater focus on the economy,” Mr. Nanos said.

“But because they are delivering on a number of promises that they’ve made in the past, many of them controversial and ideological, it’s dampened any potential benefit … at least in the short term.”

The poll of 1,202 adult Canadians has a margin of error of plus or minus 2.8 percentage points, 19 times out of 20.

There is a real danger that Canadians can get used to the idea that the NDP is a viable alternative government in waiting. It is not. The NDP is, institutionally, economically, socially and strategically irresponsible ~ the party is in the hands of activists who are at least akin to the American Tea Party in the rigor with which they hold their beliefs and the extremity of those beliefs. Jack Layton was sui generis, better suited to being a provincial NDP leader (à la Gary Doer) than leader of the national party. Libby Davies is much more representative of the NDP's centre.

The Conservative are, it appears, to me governing from a position close to or just right of the centre ~ where many Canadians are happy. The NDP painted themselves are a centre left party earlier this year, but they are not; they are not even left of centre, they are a hard left political party with well established policies that would destroy our economy and our social fabric. The Conservatives cannot, in my opinion satisfy Canadians beyond 1919: we are going to have, probably in the 1919 general election, maybe not until 2020 if the Tories win a minority in 1919, another party in power; it needs to be the Liberals, not the NDP.

 

[a_majoor]

Robet Borden might be surprised to discover the NDP will contest his Prime Ministership. (The Winnipeg Strike obviously hurt his chances  )

Agree the NDP in its current form is in no way a viable "governing party"; they may have the organizational ability of the TEA Party movement but their platform is straight #occupy.

The problem is the Liberals are in no way a governing party either; they have yet to even attempt to shed the baggage of the past, find a viable platform or even work thier way from being squeezed out of the "center".

Perhaps the only way the CPC can remain viable in the 2010 election is for Stephen Harper to have gracefully retired from politics and a new leader (and perhaps a new front bench) taking charge and renewing the party.

 

[RangerRay]

But Peter C. Newman has written the obituary for the Liberal Party of Canada.  They have some serious organisational and ideological problems.  If this continues, I cannot see the Liberals being a government-in-waiting any more than the NDP.

 

[dapaterson]

But Peter C. Newman has written the obituary for the Liberal Party of Canada.  They have some serious organisational and ideological problems.  If this continues, I cannot see the Liberals being a government-in-waiting any more than the NDP.

Twenty years ago the PC party was into its second majority mandate.  Today, they no longer exist.

Whether we see a Liberal, NDP or other centre-left party as a counterweight to the modern Conservative party by 2020 is irrelevant; such a creature will exist.  And all the pundits will, after the fact, talk about how obvious it was, and that anyone in 2011 who couldn't see it coming was blind.

 

[a_majoor]

This one raises several interesting questions:

1. Why are NDP members innumerate?
2. What did happen to all that money?
3. Why isn't anyone being held accountable for the expenditure?

http://surecures-remedy.blogspot.com/2011/11/ndp-math-for-beginners.html

NDP math for beginners!

Much has been made over the NDP blasting the PM's handling of the first nations community of Attawapiskat. Some $90,000,000.00 has been spent on this community and that's just the amount since the Conservatives have been in office.

As PM Stephen Harper pointed out, when you divide that $90,000,000.00 by the 1,800 people within the community, you end up with each man, woman and child getting about $50,000.00 each.

Splitting hairs as they always do, the NDP say that there is a $4,500,000.00 deficit and when you break it down the total is either $5,000.00 or $6,000.00 or $6,500.00 per person. Well... they couldn't seem to decide on one number. So three figures are better than one.

However, if we take them at their word (like the sheep do) that there is a $4,500,000.00 deficit, over 5 years that would be $22,500,000.00 in total.

When you subtract that from the $90,000,000.00 spent you end up with $67,500,000.00 left.

Divide that by 5 years and you have $13,500,000.00 per year.

Divide that by the 1,800 people in the community and you have $7,500.00 per person / per year.

Which basically means that the margin of error on the NDP's figures is somewhere between 15% (at the $6,500.00 amount) and 50% (at the $5,000.00 amount).

Utterly spectacular math skills they've got going there. And they wonder why the clear majority of the country won't let their grubby hands anywhere near the country's finances.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I recommend you take a look at this, John Ibbitson's analysis of the collapse of the Laurentian consensus and what it means for 2015 and 2019 and beyond.

He's right that the old pentagon of Toronto, Montreal, New York, London and Paris no longer matters as much as the new pentagon of Hong Kong, Beijing, Tokyo, Vancouver and Toronto - yes, Toronto, which is fast becoming a Pacific city thanks to immigration.

His analysis of Mead's fear about too much reason is spot on - we are, all, indeed, a writhing mass of ideas ad values and experiences and prejudices and they all shape our politics.


Edit to add: and here is a Globe and Mail article related to the presentation.

 

[Kirkhill]

Perhaps some related grist for the mill:

GDP-BUSD

China              10,000
EU                  15,000
Commonwealth 10,000
US                  15,000
Asian Tigers      10,000

Population-Billions

China                1.3   
EU                    0.5
Commonwealth 2.1
US                    0.3
Asian Tigers        1.0 (estimated)

Trade BUSD

Canada-US 500
Britain-EU  450

Canada-Britain  21
Australia-Britain 14
India-Britain      12

India's GDP    - 4000 BUSD
Canada's GDP - 1500 BUSD

As a salesman I would be looking for UNSATURATED Markets.

Going forward the 2.1 Billion, young, under-served, and under-equipped members of the Commonwealth (India principally) look to be a better bet than the saturated (and sated) markets of Europe and the US which (like John Knox) have "one foot in the grave".

China is an equivalent market but not as politically aligned with our values as the Commonwealth.  Nor is it as aligned with us as the Tigers (largely writ).  They may not be liberal but they are considerably more liberal and open than China and arguably at least as liberal and open as the EU.  Perhaps moreso.

We should appeal to the "decentralized" end of the market and live by the motto "your politics are your own".

We'll a' gang tae h*ll oor ain gait onyways.

 

[a_majoor]

How well the NDP follows this advice...

http://phantomobserver.com/blog/?p=11968

Some New Year’s Advice For The New Democrats

Well, seeing as how this coming Friday is the last sitting day for the House this year, I’d say 2011 is pretty much a write-off now, at least for the NDP. After all, they’re distracted by a leadership race, the substitutes on the front bench ain’t performing so hot, and the rest of the nation (well, at least those who really care about politics) are still keeping an eye on the caucus that’s a lot closer than what they’re comfortable with. So with this in mind, let me make a few suggestions as to how the New Democrats can improve their performance. Here we go:

Cut down on the Harper bashing. Seriously, listening to the first leadership debate, I got the impression that the candidates were competing not so much to lead the NDP but to see which one hated Stephen Harper more. All that bashing rhetoric has three effects, only one of which could be considered good for the party: yes, it pleases the hardcore partisans, but it also ironically increases loyalty among Tories who self-identify with Harper’s relative success, and it also switches off the attention span of neutral voters who (quite frankly) don’t care enough about Harper and the Tories to devote any sort of effort towards working up a mad-on. Saying what you don’t like can repel; it’s saying what you do like that’s going to attract. And speaking of which:

Narrow-focus on your “greens”. Right now, as Rex Murphy so astutely pointed out, “green” as an environmental adjective is nothing more than a buzzword, a marketing phrase in the same vein as “caffeine-free” or “organic” or “all-natural.” Right now a gasoline-powered car can be marketed as “green” simply because it gets better fuel economy and emits very little CO2. If you think that’s hypocritical, that’s not the marketer’s fault: it’s yours for not being able to define your terms better. If you’re serious about being more environmental than the Tories, you’re going to have to do a better selling job, and that means educating yourself on both advantages and drawbacks on alternative energy technology. And you’re going to have to do it to a far longer extent than Dalton McGuinty has managed so far. (Look, it’s McGuinty who bungled it for Ontario, and he’s considered one of the better communicators. If you can’t sell alternative energy better than McGuinty, what does that say about your fitness for government?)

Start thinking now — and I mean right the heck now — about federal programs you want to deliver. You want to think about them now because you want to work out the details on how a program should work. And if you want to get Stephen Harper’s respect — and you do, if you want to be taken seriously in politics — you’ll have to demonstrate, with your details, that you’re doing much, much more than paying lip service to a problem in the headlines. As the PM’s approach to aboriginal issues illustrates, he’s far more willing to fund something if you can prove that it’s workable.

Don’t dwell overmuch on battles you’ve already lost. The Wheat Board, the gun registry — they’ve been on the stove ever since 2006, and their stay there is the reason why you got the bum’s rush this session. So they’re gone; if you try to fight to put them back you’ll start to look like Liberals wistful for an era that’s never coming back. As for issues that you can hammer the Tories on now, the F-35 is still in play, and so are Canada-EU and Canada-US relations and spending for science research. Not to mention the eternal health care debate.

Work on your constituencies. This is directed to first-time MPs. The second half of December may look like a long break time, but it isn’t; that week before Christmas is a week you’ve got to really make your name known in your constituency, even if it’s something as mundane as preparing Christmas cards for the mail. Remember that the best MPs have generally been the ones with strong community connections; that’s not something that comes naturally.

Remember: as the Official Opposition you have a platform to prove to Canadians that you’re the natural alternative to the Tories. You don’t need to merge with the Liberal constituency, if you can figure out how to seduce them instead.

 

[Edward Campbell]

The Liberals are on the march towards 2015 using a good, well established tactic, fear mongering about the Conservative's hidden agenda© according to this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/abortion-gay-marriage-could-be-next-on-chopping-block-chrtien-warns/article2269178/

Abortion, gay marriage could be next on chopping block, Chrétien warns

JANE TABER

OTTAWA— Globe and Mail Update
Posted on Tuesday, December 13, 2011

Jean Chrétien is warning Liberals that gun control and the Kyoto accord are dead because of Stephen Harper’s Tories, darkly noting that same-sex marriage and abortion rights could be next on the Conservative government’s chopping block. He even raises the return of the death penalty as a possibility.

“Unless we are bold. Unless we seize the moment. Everything we built will start being chipped away,” the former prime minister writes in a toughly-worded fundraising letter. “The Conservatives have already ended gun control and Kyoto. Next may be a woman’s right to choose, or gay marriage. Then might come capital punishment. And one by one, the values we cherish as Canadians will be gone.”

This new Liberal fundraising effort hits some hot button issues – it doesn’t end there.

Mr. Chrétien notes that he was first elected in 1963 when there was no medicare or Canada Pension Plan, Canadian flag or Charter of Rights. Nor was there a Clarity Act – which his government brought in to define the rules around holding a referendum should Quebec contemplate separation.

And he states that had the Conservatives been in power they would have “taken us to war” when the Liberals kept Canada out of Iraq – a defining moment and very popular one for the Chrétien government.

Don’t forget the country’s finances: Mr. Chrétien points out it was the Liberals who eliminated the deficit. This, as Mr. Harper’s Tories are struggling to get the budget balanced in a tough economic climate.

This message is part of the Grit’s latest fundraising effort – the Million Conversations Campaign – in which supporters donate $5 toward discussions about issues that are to take place in 2012.

The campaign ended Monday night – and in Mr. Chrétien’s letter it noted the party had already raised enough money to start 808,215 conversations.

Former prime ministers Paul Martin and John Turner have also sent out letters, but theirs are not as pointed as Mr. Chrétien’s. “Liberals stand for fairness, responsibility, and equality,” Mr. Martin writes in his appeal. “Liberals believe that individual freedom is only possible in a just society, and that good government can bring us together to build a more prosperous, more sustainable, more united Canada, one that leads by example on the world stage.”

Mr. Chrétien’s appeal harkens back to a strategy the Liberals have used in the past, trying to scare Canadians into believing that the Tories have a hidden agenda. The question is could it backfire?

Interim Liberal Leader Bob Rae doesn’t think so. “Watching the Republicans in Iowa on Saturday night (the bunch that provide Mr. Harper with his ‘inspiration’), I don’t think we’ve hit rock bottom yet,” Mr. Rae told The Globe in an email Tuesday morning. “We’re hitting hard and raising a lot of money. Will be announcing totals soon.”

Indeed, the Liberals are pulling a page from the Mr. Harper’s fundraising playbook. The Tories are no strangers to pushing every button that appeals to their base to raise funds, including bashing the CBC and those opposition MPs in rural ridings who had supported the long-gun registry.

This is all "good stuff" and, as Jane Taber notes, the Liberals are just copycatting the Conservatives who are past masters at energizing their base. The problem, it seems to me, is that the Liberals do not have a "base," any more. They frittered it away during the Trudeau and Chrétien decades when they assumed they could stay in power forever by being all things to all people; campaigning on the left and governing on the right - as Laurier, King and St Laurent did - was one thing, but campaigning on the left and then governing all over the place (Ubique as my gunner friends might say  ) was quite another. My guess is that Rae and Chrétien understand that their "base" didn't just stay home, it blew away - in all directions, and now they must re-form it by emphasizing tried and true Liberal shibboleths, including the fear that the Conservative barbarians are going to sweep away Medicare and reinstate public hangings or, at least, floggings for adultery and sodomy.

Actually, I wish the Liberals well; we need the Liberal Party of Canada to displace the NDP as the "government in waiting" for good, sound economic reasons. The Dippers are the real barbarians who would slash and burn their way into the national poorhouse.

 

[ModlrMike]

Pure tripe! There will be no repeal of abortion, or gay marriage. There will be no whole scale privatization of health care. Halloween has passed, put your goblins back in the attic!

 

[Edward Campbell]

Pure tripe! There will be no repeal of abortion, or gay marriage. There will be no whole scale privatization of health care. Halloween has passed, put your goblins back in the attic!

Of course it's tripe but it's tripe that an amazingly large minority, maybe even a slim majority of Canadians believe. Prime Minister Harper's Conservatives got a solid majority earlier this year with just 39.6% of the popular vote and I'm willing to bet that some of those Tory voters want capital punishment back and want abortion gone, and some others want Medicare at least partially further privatized, and some others voted Tory despite believing in the hidden agendaTM because they were more worried about the economy.

 

[Brad Sallows]

I too believe that at least a considerable fraction of Canadians will believe this bullsh!t. Many supposedly intelligent pundits and bloggers, and their loyal followers in comments and letters to editors, blackguard Conservatives (and conservatives) in terms that lead me to conclude that either the most vile descriptions have lost their meaning, or those people genuinely believe the political right is occupied by something barely human.

 

[a_majoor]

In 2015, the CPC may have to dust off the message of a famous conservative leader:

"Are you better off than you were four years ago?"

If the answer is clearly "yes", then all else follows.

 

[Rifleman62]

I too believe that at least a considerable fraction of Canadians will believe this bullsh!t.

  because it will be rammed down their throat at every opportunity by the lame and lazy, oops I mean the media.