Monday, April 25, 2011

At this point, stopping Harper is no longer the main concern

That's right Liblogs and Progblogs and whoever else - I frankly no longer care if we stop Stephen Harper and the Conservatives from getting a majority.

No self-respecting Liberal should. I see others saying that if the NDP is the way to stop Harper, then so be it, we should welcome that. I disagree, heartily. I think at this point, Liberals should realize that our Party is in a major crisis and we need to pull out of it, before we allow ourselves to become more irrelevant than we ever would be under a Conservative majority - being regulated to third party status is not anything close to a good idea.

I don't like Harper anymore than other people, but I realize that the man is not the worst thing in the world. He is an idiot, something of a bigot, and I do worry about the direction our country would take under his reign. But I realize all these things as a Liberal, and I want to stop them as a Liberal, because I realize that it is our Party that has the right ideas, temperment, and yes, leadership, to provide what it is that this country needs. That's why I've spent my time volunteering for the Liberals, that's why I donate to them. I didn't sign up just to let the bloody NDP, who I will say once again, I will never vote for, take our spot.

Screw the "Orange Wave," screw stopping Harper - I want this Party to survive and not drift into even more irrelevancy, and end up like the UK's Lib Dems. I sure as hell don't want the NDP candidate in my riding, who brought up freakin' Rockefeller conspiracies during the local debates, to be seen as the main option to take out the Conservatives, because he sure ain't - the Liberals are. This is what we must push. The Liberals are the best and brightest option if you want opposition to Harper. Not the NDP. Plainly put.

Let Harper have his majority - I never understood why everyone was so afraid of a man who would likely be there for one term and wouldn't likely change a heck of a lot. I disagree with the guy on policy and direction, but he will not destroy the country. Just because he has a majority doesn't mean he'll have free reign - remember that we do have checks and balances on our government, nevermind the fact that the provinces would pretty much oppose the guy at almost every turn if he decided to go too far.

No, we must focus on retaining the Liberal Party's spot in this country's political order. If we ever want a shot at government again, its imperative that we do. Otherwise we might as well just pack up the thing right now. And as I said, I will not vote or support the NDP, and I will not support a merged political entity that gives more power to the NDP. I have major doubts I'd support an NDP-led coalition. After all, what the Hell makes people think Jack Layton is better than Harper? Just because he's a social democrat, doesn't mean he'll not wreck this country any less - in fact, I'd put more faith in Jack screwing things up than Harper. This doesn't leave someone like me, and there are many of us out there, with many options, does it?

Get behind the Liberals now, or get off the bus. Simply put. Even it means I'm going down with the ship, well, fuck the lot of ya - I'll be glad to. I refuse to let Jack Layton push us into irrelevancy, even if you will.


  1. Aw yeesh! That sounds as bad as hardcore NDP partisans do.

    Strategic voting is where it's at. All three parties are needed to stave off a harpercon majority.

  2. CK,

    I respect you, really, but I disagree. I feel more inclined to let Harper have his majority, do whatever it is he planned on doing, and then coming back swinging. Liberals themselves can't do this if we're regulated to third party status. Besides, it's likely Steve will get his majority; if he does, and the NDP are the Official Opposition, then we can kiss our red asses goodbye.

  3. WOW - you guys really are running scared.

  4. Have you seen the polls, rww? Wouldn't you?

    They all could be outliers, and the NDP vote could collapse. It's all possible. But people that support the Liberals need to realize that we can't just let the NDP roll over us, even in the face of Harper and his Conservatives.

  5. The British Liberals were damaged by the fact that the party split at least twice with part of it backing Conservative governments. In time these parts were absorbed by the Conservative Party. The National Liberals, for example. The first Labour Prime Minister, Ramsey MacDonald, also joined the with the Conservatives in order to implement Great Depression austerity but the rump that joined him was so small that the damage to Labour was less great. Besides, the Conservatives ended up being discredited by those policies.

    In short, the Liberals destroyed themselves. They got new life when senior members of Labour left the party in 1980 and set up the Social Democratic Party. The Alliance was set up with the Liberals that led at one point in the polls because Thatcher was so awful. "Return to your constituencies and prepare for government." The Alliance won almost as many votes as Labour did in 1983. Later they became the Liberal-Democrats.

    Layton will be better than Harper because Layton does not believe in voodoo economics. That's good enough for me. Jean Chretien says that the Liberals should cooperate with the NDP. He knows.

  6. Interesting history lesson... but I don't trust Jack. Maybe it's just my ideology, but he's close enough to the other side of voodoo economics and fiscal management that I'd be worried.

    I have nothing against working with the NDP - but I do have something against them being in a position of power. Call me a petty partisan if you'd like, but this is just my opinion. Neither Harper nor Layton are my choices for Prime Minister.

  7. I don't know. Layton can't do much damage in a minority. And he's going to finally learn it's harder to be accountable when your in a position where you have to implement your promises.

    I don't see a downside.

  8. Gayle,

    We can't rely on the Bob Rae effect to secure the Liberal Party's future. That's playing with it, in fact. We need to take a stand now, and keep ourselves aloft lest we get swept away and become more irrelevant. At that point, it may not even matter if the NDP bite off more than they can chew.

  9. Stay the course. The party cannot be irrelevant as long as the largest share of Canadians are liberal by nature. Nothing could be worse for the country than four years of socio-political re-engineering by a Harper majority.

  10. This is satire, right? Good one!

  11. My thought as well - a cluless, thwarted, entitled tantrum of this magnitude almost begs to be considered satire.

  12. Did you hear of the 500 page book out on Harper sayings as far back as 1980..I hear the Cons let it out for themselves and the Liberals have it,

  13. You haven't given any real reason to distrust Layton in your rant. Meanwhile, there are plenty of reasons to distrust Harper. Even if you don't disagree with a lot of his policies, you should at least be worried about his effect on democracy in Canada. You know those checks and balances you're relying on? Yeah, he's been systematically dismantling those. Can't do any permanent damage to Canada? In many ways he already has, with his ignorance of climate change and his trashing of Canada's image on the world stage.
    As far as leadership from the Liberals goes, well, I find them somewhat lacking. Don't get me wrong, I think Iggy would be a far superior choice to Harper. But he doesn't have the experience (which you have to admit Layton does, after something like 30 years in politics) and he doesn't have the charisma. And if the only reason to vote Liberal is so they don't disappear, then it is time for them to disappear. I don't believe they will disappear, but if the only reason to vote for them is to keep them from leaving, then maybe it's time to say goodbye.

  14. The future of Canada is more important than the future of the Liberal Party of Canada. Your suggestion that anything else could be the case is one of the main reasons that I will not be voting Liberal in this election.

  15. You retard, someone needs to wake you the cuss up with a serious kick to your nuts or a good punch in the tits or a hot coffee to the face.

    "I fear a Harper majority" is always nonsense, you pussies make me sick. What a bunch of wusses. My Liberal friend told everyone on facebook she was leaving for Costa Rica if Harper won a majority -- I called her bluff and told her she wasn't going anywhere, ever. Not if Harper's PM for a decade. She's a whiny liar and so are you, BO.

    Now you wanna sell us "I worry for the future in a Harper majority" situation.... but you won't accept the most bilingual progressive candidate with the most progressive values and the most accomplished progressive political record.

    Is Jack Layton more honest than Harper or Ignatieff or CHretien or Mulroney? No. Not remotely.

    But he's the winner in the polls, especially in a vote-rich province which steadfastly balks at the Liberals and won't budge, but you're too married to the color of your tie to care.

    What a barf you are, BO-BO.

    If Jack was running under the Liberal banner, you'd be doing handstands. You're pathetically see-through.

    But instead you wanna have it two ways: "I fear Harper" and "Hmmmm but I'm a little wishy-washy on the only viable franco/anglophone collaboration to remove him.... gee not sure...."

    I'm not with the NDP and I don't support them. They're crazy! No crazier than the Liberals, though. Jack's the most popular leader and if you're anti-Harper (which I'm not), he's your chance.

    Beggars can't be choosers, cuss-face. "The scary dictator" you keep bleating about is winning, and you wanna stand on the sidelines biting your fingernails that people shouldn't support the most popular candidate, but maybe consider yours instead of theirs.

    So, you're lying through your teeth about the "scary Harper" thing, or you're just too partisan to really sincerely care about the actual cause. Because you can't have it both ways. So which is it BO, are you a liar hogwasher or are just a partisan who only cares about what color the PM's tie is? Either way, go jump in a lake.

  16. BRAVO!!!! BRAVO!!!! God, for a second there I thought all my fellow Libloggers were caught up in Stash's Orange Wave. Thank God we still have some fuckin sanity left in this country.

    If we end up with an NDP opposition or Government and Proportional Representation because of Quebec I'm moving there and joining the PQ.

  17. I'd rather have Harper than you, you whining chétif partisan hack.

  18. "The future of Canada is more important than the future of the Liberal Party of Canada."

    PLEASE! Canada HAS no future without the Liberal Party, it'll go from far right theocracies to far left bankruptcy and back and forth and back and forth until it collapses and is swallowed up by the U.S. for its water reserves.

  19. Yeah, right. You suffered through Harper, but Layton's the straw that would break your back and make you want to tear up your passport.

    Again, clearly Harper's not really *so* bad as everyone wants us to believe.... it's all just partisan drivel.

  20. "I hate Layton so much I'd join a Quebec republic that's even more left of what Layton could possibly achieve as a majority PM".... well said.

  21. "Let Harper have his majority - I never understood why everyone was so afraid of a man who would likely be there for one term and wouldn't likely change a heck of a lot. I disagree with the guy on policy and direction, but he will not destroy the country. Just because he has a majority doesn't mean he'll have free reign"

    Where the Jesus H. goddamn cosmic fuck have you been the past five years?!?!? Harper's a corporatist (read fascist) of the first order. He's just drooling for a majority so he can get any number of his troglodytic backbenchers to proffer up anti-gay, anti-women's rights, anti-abortion, pro-death penalty, pro-Israeli apartheid, pro-Jebus Nation legislation. He's chomping at the bit to privatize every last thread of an already badly shredded social safety net and sell off ALL our resources and industries to foreign buyers. He's a warmongering goon who'd rather spend $30 BILLION FUCKING DOLLARS on toy jets than give you grandma so much as a not-for-profit band-aid. He despises democracy as much as he despises progressives and has proven in spades that he is more than happy to send out his stormtroopers to literally bust our collective heads and stomp on our rights. He's a liar, a bigot, and a petulant, ignorant fool with a Napoleon complex as big as all out doors and he's a VERY REAL THREAT to every thing that once made Canada the envy of the World.

    And you're pissing your Michael Ignatieff underoos and stamping your widdle feet because people have quickly caught on to the fact that Iggy hasn't gotten his act together from the get-go? Look, pal, I've voted Lib more times than not, but your party does NOT deserve to be in the lead simply by virtue of its existence or its history. The LPC hasn't had a progressive vision since Pierre: Chretien felt he deserved the PM job because he was a loyal party warhorse and what he did with it reflects that; Paul Martin was a neo-liberal millionaire first and a Canadian second; Dion, while a decent enough chap, was completely out of his element and was, sadly, too easily sabotaged; Ignatieff seems to be treating the whole thing like an intellectual exercise and acting a lot like you -- pouting that things are going his way and lashing out.

    The Libs don't have any natural, sacrosanct claim to running this country; that makes you sound as bad as the frickin' Cons. The enemy isn't the NDP or progressives or socialists or the Bloc: it's Harper. It's Harper and his mob of gun-happy, war loving, Law and order, anti-union, anti-education, science-hating, anti-free speech, anti-democratic, police state, corporatist, homophobic, misogynistic, xenophobic, backwards, ignorant, bible-thumping yahoos, and they WILL try to reshape Canada in THAT image.

    So if that happens to mean that this time in this election cycle it means that another progressive, democratic party takes the lead instead of the Liberals, or worse, the draconian nightmare of a Harper majority, then for your own sake, the sake of your fellow citizens and your beloved Canada STOP PISSING IN THE WIND, HELP GET REAL PROGRESSIVES ELECTED AND GET YOUR EFFING PRIORITIES STRAIGHT!


  22. Too the lot of you,

    Get over it, really. You do realize that if Harper was as amazingly bad as you guys say, he wouldn't be sitting with nearly 40% of the vote right now, right? You can call this part of his deception or whatever, but the fact remains that millions of Canadians have voted for him, and will be likely to vote for him again; if you honestly wanted someone to blame, blame them, because I sure as hell didn't.

    No, my point is that for the Liberals, survival might be more important at this point. Look, there is a big likelihood that Harper will get his majority government, and this is despite all the things we've done, it's getting pretty inevitable. The question is what will the Opposition look like when he does? Who is going to have a strengthened hand against the Harper Conservatives, or the whatever Conservatives once he's out of power?

    Sorry, but I support the Liberals, and I want to see that Liberal Party be an effective opposition. Not all NDPers are bad, don't get me wrong - but I don't want to see them in power. I don't want to see this withered vine of a Liberal Party just be blown away as dust. If it means that, hey, I'm a partisan hack, then whatever, I'll take label - but I believe in a liberal vision of Canada, and I'm going to do what I can to preserve the main vessel for it.

  23. Jacques Beau Vert,

    I'm not really sure exactly who you're talking to because you've said so many more things than I ever even implied... but I assume it's me.

    Anyways, you should go back and get your facts straight. I'm the guy arguing against fearing a Harper majority, however, you should inform your friend that Costa Rica's president is essentially the same person with a less centre-right economic bend.

  24. Maybe I can summarise this post.

    "This election was never about ridding Canada of Harper - it was always about maintaining that false dichotomy of 'Blue door / Red door'. Now that that red door is stuck, we must do everything in our power to ensure that the Liberal party is NOT surpassed by the NDP in popular vote or seat count. Everything else is secondary, including a massive Harper majority."

    Is that the basic gist, or am I missing something here?

  25. B_nichol,

    No. This election was about getting rid of Harper. At this point, that doesn't seem likely, no matter what either side crows about - indeed, it seems more likely we'll end up with a majority either way, regardless of what the ever-Conservative-dampening Ekos likes to put out there.

    If that's the case, I'd rather see a Liberal opposition than an NDP one. If we're going to have a Harper majority, we best have the right group opposing him, or at least the right group in my opinion.

    Once again, this is all, my opinion. If you don't like it, shove off. It governs my actions in the end, not yours. I appreciate the honesty and the comments, debate is always good, but get it through your heads - my opinion. That's all.

  26. Fair enough. But you didn't really refute my point - given a Harper minority, and if the NDP are the ones to facilitate that outcome, is it still reasonable to insist that everyone still vote Liberal in order to save that party's fortunes?

  27. You have much to learn, Grasshopper.

  28. We conservatives would actually like your party to get your sh** together. In a few years, you might have a real party and can throw we "bums out". For now, your party sucks! Lick your wounds and find some centralist policies that are affordable. And, by the way, select a leader who is not paid by Power Corps or the mafia.

  29. b_nichol,

    It really depends on where you are and what your ideals are. If its the minority situation - and its increasingly looking like that, though I doubt NDP + LIB>Con - then maybe strategic voting in favour of the NDP or Liberals, depending on the riding, is called for. I don't deny that fact, and I can see why people wish to pursue it.

    But for Liberal partisans like me, I would say that if you wanted to see a NDP-led coalition or minority held to account, you should vote your heart and give your Liberal candidate the best chance possible to win a seat - that way, we can continue the preserve the party's standing, and maybe get something out of it. Maybe not something we'd like, but something.

    Luckily for me, I happen to live in a riding where voting Liberal is the only way to get rid of the Conservative. Maybe I don't see the choice you guys in other ridings face, but to me, for myself, I could never mark the X next to another candidate's name.

  30. Just a clarification here for you Volkov - the phrase "Voodoo" economics was first used by George Bush to refer to the neo-conservative policy plans of Ronald Reagan. (So-called supply-side economics and all that grew out of the work of Milton Freidman.)

    NDP style economics, which is actually largely just rehashed Liberal strategies from two generations ago, can hardly be called "Voodoo" economic by any reasonable or rational standard. I understand that you are angry at your party and somewhat still stuck in the cold-war rhetoric of imagining socialists under every rock, but let us not allow discourse to decline too rapidly or too low.

  31. Fortunately, I find myself entirely unmoved as soon as any partisan starts spouting party before country bullshit.

    I'll grant that I typically support NDP, but for example, this election I voted Green because I live in Saanich-Gulf Islands. Why? Because I voted for the candidate I thought most likely to beat the Con incumbent and because I believe that Green supporters deserve a Green voice in the HoC.

    Am I thrilled by the orange wave? Of course. Would I have been equally as happy for the Libs to be knocking Harper off the throne. Absolutely.

    tl;dr: Fuck partisan assholes who think a party is more important than a country. A pox on ALL their houses.

  32. @ JJ: I know, but eventually, truth will out.

    @ Volkov: To summarise the original post: Damn the Harper Majority, vote for the Liberals for the greater good of the party.
    I asked whether it was wise to vote Liberal, if voting NDP in selected ridings would help negate the conditions for a Harper majority.

    You finally admitted yes, strategic voting is OK. That's progress. As a partisan, you're glad that you can vote for your party without risk of splitting the vote in your riding. No argument here.
    But then you backtrack once again by presuming that partisan Liberal voters will know the outcome of the results before casting their ballot:
    "But for Liberal partisans like me, I would say that if you wanted to see a NDP-led coalition or minority held to account,
    you should vote your heart and give your Liberal candidate the best chance possible to win a seat - that way, we can continue the preserve the party's standing, and maybe get something out of it."

    Are you again saying Vote Liberal, even if it means trying to elect the third- or fourth-place finisher, regardless of the outcome?

    So we're right back at the same place we were four days ago, but with a couple of minor qualifiers:
    a) Harper majority - Vote Liberal to prevent collapse of party and because LPC much more qualified as opposition.
    b) Harper minority - Vote Liberal to save party and because LPC much more qualified as opposition.
    c) NDP minority or NDP-led Coalition - Vote Liberal to hold NDP to account and preserve our own standing.

    I know you said that this election is all about defeating Harper, but I find you commitment to the cause sadly lacking. "Maybe I don't see the choice you guys in other ridings face, but to me, for myself, I could never mark the X next to another candidate's name." Is that your final word on the matter?