50

Conservatives no longer expect to win majority: party source

NDP’s rise in Quebec, B.C. hampers campaign


 

Senior members of the federal Conservatives have privately admitted to the Toronto Star that the party is unlikely to win a majority in Monday’s election. The NDP’s late-campaign surge is expected to cost the Tories seats in both Quebec and B.C., according to party sources. As a result, they estimate the Conservatives would need an extra 23 seats in Ontario to get the 155 seats they need for a majority, which they now say is out of reach. “It all comes down to Ontario and we’re just not there,” an unidentified source told the Star.

The Toronto Star


 
Filed under:

Conservatives no longer expect to win majority: party source

  1. I thought this was an interesting tactic from the CPC war room when I saw this article this morning. State that you have no hope of winning a majority in order to try and cause complacence within left-wing voters and fire up your base.

    I doubt it'll work, but I can see how it's really their only option here. If they go after Layton directly they'll just drive more voters toward him. This is not quite as desperate as the LPC's struggle right now, but it's still a move of desperation.

  2. I'm surprised that they expected one in the first place. Except for the trolls, most Canadians have shown they are sick to death of this petty satrap and his larcenous toadies.

    • Yea, they would far rather have parasites holding the checkbook and hopefully throwing off a crumb or two. This lust for someone elses money is going to have to run its coarse so I guess we are soon all going to have to get used to the same economic machinations the Americans are going through. Who was it that said most societies crumble under the weight of their own in-breeding after 200 years.

      • As a single, divorced woman over 40 and currently earning about half what I did 10 years ago, I for one am tired of wealthy individuals and corporations dipping into my cheque book (or check book since you prefer the American spelling) and think it's time the taxes were paid by those who can afford it.

        • In that case you should vote Conservative – and I say this with no irony.

          Jack Layton plans to double the CPP. That means higher payroll taxes, which are paid by everybody in the workforce, not just the rich. He is going to raise corporate taxes. That may seem like taxing the rich, but it isn't. Corporations can pass on the cost of taxation to consumers by raising prices. Since lower income people spend a greater share of their budget, they will be the hardest hit. You should also be VERY worried about Jack Layton's plan to cap interest rates at 5 points above prime. Lower income people are higher credit risks, and generally have more difficulty getting access to credit. Credit card companies are only going to provide access to credit, if they can get a return that guarantees the risk. If Layton's plan is enacted, your credit limit will decrease, or possibly disappear.

          The belief that wealthier people should share a greater percentage of the tax burden is understandable. However, the policy that gets us there is to raise income taxes. None of the parties are proposing to do that.

      • “lust for someone elses money” — ha, typical selfish reaction to taxation. You sound like one of those people who beleives that you’ve earned everything on your own, no thanks to anyone else, and you owe nothing to society.

        It’s a self-serving illusion that you owe nothing to the social world that educated you (or your parents), immunized you, gave you roads, parks, a justice system, a welfare system (and you may find you’ll need it one day, big guy)…

        Socialists and traditional conservatives actually share in common the understanding that society, community, is important. It’s just that conservatives only want to impose a moral (sometimes religious) commuity on rich and poor alike, whereas social democrats want to use taxation and other measures of wealth distribution to close the wealth gap, end the stigma of poverty (and the snobbery of wealth).

        • It's always tough to differentiate between luck and ability. The ones with ability can sometimes create their own luck, but many who are simply lucky attribute it to ability.

          • Born on second base and think they hit a double, as Connie Kaldor puts it.

        • Statistics indicate that conservatives give more to charities that any other group. I pay lots of taxes even though I am a senior, and give about $7K a year to charities. We believe in giving back , but a confiscatory redistribution of wealth just doesn't work. Look at Quebec. Peoples's self esteme is provided by making their own money, not taking handouts. Good jobs and training is what is needed. Years ago, I had, as a single Mum, a choice of going on wealfare or taking a lower paid job. I took the job, training, taught my children that work is the choice, all of us are now healthy taxpayers. Rant over

          • Well, when rightwing propaganda factories like the Fraser institute get to call themselves charities, of course it puts up the conservative donation numbers. Get rid of false charities like them and then see how the donations to real charities add up.

          • And you have statistics to back up your assertion that conservatives only donate to the Fraser Institute and similar entities? Of course you do.

          • Good point. We wouldn't like the facts to get in the way of a good spin. None of my $7K charitable donations go to the Fraser Institue, and I am a Sr, who was prudent enough to save her $$ so that she has a comfortable income. Not all seniors are destitute.

          • In my home town tories live generation to generation on government handouts. they get the 'grants' to start a business, they get the government jobs, I know that all of our tory members that are on the executive of the party here have NEVER worked a real job! NEVER! So as for your 'conservatives' giving more to charity, not where I live. They are takers, every one of them. And now I'm watching their children and grandchildren doing the same.

          • Sponges exist across the spectrum, of that there is no doubt. Crony capitalism and socialism are two sides of the very same coin. There are no true free market societies anywhere on earth anymore.

          • Interesting, the business that get grants, they don't work? Hire workers? I do agree that government jobs are pretty cushy, but small business owners work their buts off.

      • HAHAHA !!!…….
        "I guess we are soon all going to have to get used to the same economic machinations the Americans are going through."

        How do you think the Americans got to the place they are? By stealing from the poor to give to the Rich…Called, Reagonomics, Voodoo economics, Trickle-down economics.
        All that money goes to their off-shore bank accounts, NOT providing jobs. At least not on these shores. Jobs are made by making stuff people want and can afford, if they have no money, they can't buy stuff, so giving the rich more money to make stuff isn't any good if the people can't afford to buy it. The Money will flow up-wards. It has been proven that it doesn't flow downward very good.

        I suggest you should move to avoid that inbreeding from the rest of us….You're a Pathetic piece of Crap.

        • American got to where they are through slavery. They built their fortunes with free labour for hundreds of years. Just what the Republicans are trying to reinstall by breaking the unions in Wisconsin. They dream of the 'good ole days'!

  3. You know what? I think I kinda like this. CPC minority with the LPC holding the balance of power seems like not a bad way to go. From the CPC's standpoint, if you're going to have a minority government, I think they're much better having the NDP as official opposition. The NDP is never going to back any bill the CPC introduces, just out of principle.

    However, the LPC, free of the official opposition label, is free to vote based on their actual interests rather than just having vote against the CPC because they feel that they should*. Quite honestly, I hope this results in the LPC moving a bit more to the right.

    *yes, I know the LPC voted lots of time in unison with the CPC, but this will allow them even greater latitude.

    I'm going to forecast that by the end of the next Harper minority people probably will have tired with him and will be looking for a change in government. If the LPC is standing right there, positioned as an actual centrist party, they may be able to pick up a bunch of votes and regain government. This is all assumes they can find a competent leader by then, which I'm not so sure they can, but still.

    For full disclosure, I voted CPC, but thought hard about voting LPC.

    • CPC minority with the LPC holding the balance of power
      Sounds like the same thing we have had for 5 years now – I think this NDP surge indicates that a lot of Canadians are pretty fed up with it.

    • CPC minority with the LPC holding the balance of power seems like not a bad way to go.

      If the Liberals were to prop up the Conservatives now, they would be committing political suicide. Assuming that this election doesn't effectively kill them off.

      • It depends on the numbers. If it's not a particularly strong CPC minority, or even reduced, the libs stand to gain by introducing a REAL democratic reform package – one that will benefit all of us, hold Harper in check and perhaps revive the libs; after all it's why we had this election,right?

        • I think the fact they didn't have something like that as their first policy announcement of the campaign was a major miss for the Liberals. Politically it would have been savvy and It's certainly what we need.

          As things are likely to go forward, I expect the Conservative-packed Senate will quash as much as possible anything that doesn't get the party seal of approval.

  4. No, it doesn't miss them. Many pollsters also target cellphones.

  5. Jack might come across as sincere and honest, but the caveat is "comes across" he is not honest, and he can't really be sincere. If you look into his background he actually did the taxpayers out of a lot of money living in subsidised houseing when he was no longer ellible. And what about those office expenses! For a couple that live withing driving distance of their ridings they are inexplicable. And they have refused to explain. Other parties members do.
    And, banks have for years offered, and recommended a low interest credit card. He must know that. But I suspect he will take credit for it.
    Don't get me started!

    Linda39

    • Way to drag out an old lie that was discredited long ago. Layton lived in co-op housing for whch he paid full rent, but where some poorer people were subsidized.

      • It is not a lie, and has not been discredited; it was looked into again recently. He did not qualify for the housing at all given their income, but claimed that his immigrant mother in law was the primary tennant. When it was discovered, he was forced to move. He has not paid back the money he underpaid.

  6. Even if it were true that pollsters miss cell-phones, you do realize that most pollsters weight poll results based on the census. So the only instance in which missing cellphone users would make a difference would be if cell-phone users differed systematically from non cell-phone users, CONTROLLING FOR AGE, INCOME, EDUCATION, etc.

    Maybe non-cell phone users are more likely to be introverts? I'm not sure what party that would incline them towards, however.

  7. It’s those damn jets.Don’t need them and we don’t need someone telling us we’re going to buy them no matter what we say.

    • The Martin Liberals started the process and the Iggy Liberals say they will purchase jets too.

      • No one really disputes that we need new jets. The dispute is that we don't need first attack capable stealth fighters without engines, whose cost keeps going up, which can't fly anywhere on one engine anyway without re-fueling.

        • The engine price is included, they are being manufactured elsewhere. Two engines take more fuel, these engines, with no afterburners are much more efficient, so refuling is not an issue. The engine relability is so good that having two simply ads to the cost. A heat seeking missile will take out one engine, two will be no help.

    • you may think differently if your husband or wife were one of the ones in the old worn out equipment our military has………..

      • Agree! Remember when the Liberals, just for spite, cancelled the helicopter contract? That was a disaster. And it cost us 1/2 million dollars to do so.

        • 1/2 a BILLION.

    • I'm looking forward to the time we can actually discuss things like this without knee-jerk talking points being trotted out:

      1) Paul Martin did not agree to buy the jets and we all know this by now.
      2) There are other options than this aircraft that will allow us to better equip the entire military better – wouldn't that make sense?

      Canadians have the right to know what things will cost and how the government plans to pay for them. We are borrowing all the money we spend at the moment. I don't know how you run your household but when we are in a financial crunch, we watch our pennies and expect the government to do the same.

      • The current technology is stealth. Eg, in Libyia today, new radars that have been ordered from Russia, would have made the current fighter aircraft much more vulneralbe thus the way to go is stealth. Having said that the only 2 stealth airplanes available to the west (notwithstanding those available in China and Russia, from whom we cannot buy) are the F22 Raptor and the F35. The US decided recently to pare down the # of aircraft variety: an air superiority (F22) and ground support ( F35). If we want stealth and to do ground support, the only option is the F35, therefore, a competion is irrelevant. Interestingly, the surveillance drones (Global Hawk and Predator) are stealth technology. That is what we would be up against. NB the combat radius is 600 nautical miles, on internal fuel. Check Wikipedia for more details.

      • To Point #2:The current technology is stealth. Eg, in Libyia today, new radars that have been ordered from Russia, would have made the current fighter aircraft much more vulneralbe thus the way to go is stealth. Having said that the only 2 stealth airplanes available to the west (notwithstanding those available in China and Russia, from whom we cannot buy) are the F22 Raptor and the F35. The US decided recently to pare down the # of aircraft variety: an air superiority (F22) and ground support ( F35). If we want stealth and to do ground support, the only option is the F35, therefore, a competion is irrelevant. Interestingly, the surveillance drones (Global Hawk and Predator) are stealth technology. That is what we would be up against. NB the combat radius is 600 nautical miles, on internal fuel. Check Wikipedia for more details.

    • this is why most Canadians are retards.

  8. Challenging the role of the fiercely independent Bank of Canada — and stepping into territory where politicians rarely venture — Layton said the Bank of Canada should hold off on raising interest rates because doing so may slow job creation and too many Canadians are already unemployed.

    That's just what we need. Political interference at the BoC to keep interest rates low. Yes of course, I'm just repeating Conservative talking points and delivering Harper's fear message and blah blah blah blah. Except even the geniuses running the Conservative campaign have let this utterance slip with nary a response.

    How the media – other than a single article in the G & M – has not picked up on this – and grilled Jack Layton on it – is beyond me. I haven't heard a politician stupid enough to demand lower interest rates since George Bush Sr. blamed Greenspan for his election loss in 1992. At least Bush Senior waited until he was out of office.

    EDIT: John Howard made similar noises in his last election. The difference being that Kevin Rudd rightly rubbed his nose in it.

    • Jack Layton does not know how to run a government. Already a huge boo boo that he has had to flip on. Also cap and trade will ultimately cost the consumer, he had to admit that too. He is out of his league. His Conservative father must be spinning in his grave.

  9. A conservative rejection by Ontario,Ends Canada.. I love it. Time to turn this bilingual parking lot into something appealing. With out the Ontario,Quebec coalition. Soon! From Matlock to Terra del fuego, all one nation, except! lol, the sleaze busters.

    • You sure make a lot of sense – speaking as a fellow nut case.

  10. What Canada needs is a Socialist-Incompetent gov't led by Jack Layton! Why should the Europeans have all the fun of national bankruptcy??

  11. Polanyi, Margaret. "Layton cleared of wrongdoing Police say councillor committed no impropriety by living in co-op." The Globe and Mail. Aug 17, 1990. pg. A.8 https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Ja

    If the Reforma-cons lifted their noses out of the manure and did their research, they might ironically enough find out that the NDP offers some relief to the sleaze and scandals the Liberals, and especially Harper's Cons, have been serving Canadians since Confederation.

  12. Following along with 'Mark' above, given a CPC minority, an NDP official opposition could be a very workable second prize.

    Should it come to pass that the NDP actually places second, it is highly unlikely the LPC will join them in any sort of arrangement, formal or informal. The only rationale and motivation to an arrangement from the LPC point of view was as a means to gain quick power, a power not diminished by having to do more than acknowledge in token fashion a junior partner, or two. Should the NDP place second they will do so through bleeding a not insignificant number of red Grits to their camp. Those left in the LPC will be weighted to the blue, fiscally conservative side of the party and highly allergic to the NDP.

    If the LPC find themselves third and have any hope of rebuilding an identifiable party of the centre, they will not be able to do it as a subservient partner to the NDP, an arrangement in which their 'brand' identity as a party of the centre will be subsumed and further tainted. Their logical course will be to remain unattached, supporting the CPC sufficiently for the latter to remain in power, take a deep breath and with heads empty of visions of quick power, begin a real process of reinventing themselves over a two to three year period.

    To enter any form of agreement in which they play second fiddle to the NDP will end in a merger with the NDP and while this may be acceptable to many in the LPC, it will only be so for the majority if done from the position of the LPC being the senior and defining partner.

    • Agree. It is refreshing to read something without vitriol Thank you

Sign in to comment.