If you consider that Harper and his caucus have never let go of the ridiculous 'scary coalition' language, it stands to reason that they will rely on that as being one of their boogeymen.
The article refers to using the 'majority needed' tactic to withstand the recession. Given that most economists are now predicting that we are on the upside of that, that seems an odd strategy, but what intrigues me more is this bogus idea that they still believe that they are more fiscally responsible than the Liberals. Every empirical fact shows that not to be true and is easily countered with fact, but therein lies the challenge.
If indeed this is the strategy and likely Harper's last kick at the
His supporters hate this term, but there is no denying that Harper is a bully, or at least employs those unsavoury characteristics, often. That has not gone unnoticed. An election campaign, when he's not relying on blue sweaters, brings that out in him in spades. The poor man just can't help himself.
Here's the thing though. Also according to the article, the Conservatives plan to fight for a majority based on calming things down and not being in a perpetual state of 'election ready'.
Revenue Minister Jean-Pierre Blackburn confirmed the new messaging in an interview this week.
"We have had three elections in the last four years, and that's a lot. A minority can have its charms, but over the long term, a country like Canada cannot continue to be eternally governed by minorities," he said.
Um...giving the concept about a nano-second of thought, why have we been in this state again? Oh, yes! Because the majority of Canadians (and in our system that means the majority of the House) do not agree with the Conservative agenda. In other words, they are the cause of what they seek to rectify.
Bruce Anderson has some interesting thoughts on the issue, but I wholly disagree. He seems to have bought, or believes that Canadians have bought, that this crew running government are really a middle of the road, do nothing party. Ha! Doesn't polling involve research and reality checks? At the very least, you would hope so before making proclamations.
Ironically, the tactic in itself could actually give the Liberals an advantage. 'Tired of the unrest for the past 4 years? Remember how that wasn't the case under the Liberals?' Okay... I'll never be hired to develop campaign marketing strategy, but you get my drift.
There are just too many groups out there that are unhappy. This for instance, I found interesting.
Finally, I found this article by Peter C. Newman insightful. He speaks of someone that the Liberals are apparently wooing, Daniel Veniez. He was a Harper supporter and in fact an appointee. Here's what struck me about what Veniez had to say.
He left politics to become a senior vice-president of Repap Enterprises, a lively pulp and paper company, and became a Stephen Harper supporter in 2006. “I wanted him to succeed,” says Veniez. “He was from the West, obviously smart, while the Liberals had become like the PC party that I left in 1992—tired and intellectually bankrupt.
While I admired Harper, like many Canadians I didn’t trust the Reform crowd, their social conservative bent, and their dogmatic theology on economics, social and foreign policy. But I also thought that the party was maturing and that they had renounced their populist and evangelical impulses.”
Veniez became a successful West Coast entrepreneur and in 2007 was appointed by the Harper government as chairman of Ridley Terminals Inc., a Crown corporation that operates a Prince Rupert, B.C., bulk commodity hub. Tories had been suggesting that he run in one of three Vancouver ridings but by then his hopes for the Conservative Prime Minister had evaporated. “The PM’s policy of incrementalism was inconsistent with my vision of responsible governance and leadership. It’s really the mindset of big “r” Reform—his small-tent western and rural populist base, and its Christian fundamentalist core. And that’s anathema to my essential DNA.
“The Conservative party and its leader are permanently angry,” he goes on. “That’s an ingrained part of who they are and what they represent. On a visceral level, they remain a protest party and have turned themselves into a protest government. They manage by negatives and are genetically incapable of inspiring hope or thinking big. They attack, assassinate character, tell lies, lower the bar on public discourse, and engage in tactical and divisive wedge politics and governance. The tone, strategy, and culture for this government are established by Harper, a cheap-shot artist and cynic of the highest order.”
Yep. I'd say that sum's it up pretty nicely.
♫ You Say You Want a Revolution ♫