Ben o'Boston has raised an interesting argument in my mind for the Tory NDP coalition that some hope for. If the NDP raises fears of fiscal wackiness, let the conservatives run the fiscal side and if the CPC raises fears of neanderthal-like social conservatism, let the NDP run the social programs. Each would balance the other and at least provide a working alternative to Grits forever. It would not take a great swing of seats to achieve the Tory/NDP alliance as Harvard man notes.
But it would take imagination. Jay, however, fears that the CPC will not use the thing between its ears and lose this election losing in the same way it lost the last.
Comments
Alan - November 29, 2005 4:58 pm
7 hours out into the campaign and Jay is looking like a genius. Lead with what kept you out of government, Harper. Brilliant.
The Tiger in Exile - November 29, 2005 6:41 pm
Ugh. Maybe there's something in getting it out of the way early, if he must be so mutton-headed. Leaves much time for recovery...
On the other hand, he was introducing people as "the next member from X riding" at a rally today. Shades of "when I get a majority"...
How can he do so well one day, and so poorly the next?
Alan - November 29, 2005 8:34 pm
It has me baffled. It's like the NDP has been guiding him through the last few weeks and now that the brief alliance is over he's turned back. But maybe your idea that he will deal with it now is the plan - but even to have to placate your base (however base) is odd as it is not like the core social conservatives are going to go anywhere other than the CPC.
Declan - November 30, 2005 1:53 pm
Mulroney, Harris, Reagan, Bush Jr....
If there's any party from which I fear fiscal wackiness, it's the Conservatives.
SayNay? - November 30, 2005 10:38 pm
What did you want Harper to say? He didn't choose to "bring it up" - he was asked the question and he didn't want to be seen to "duck" it- he's being honest and consistent in the answer - now, I know you're not used to that - you prefer nuance and obfuscation, but Harper's kinda refreshing, I'd say. It's part of his party's platform (the free vote), for chrissakes. The Liberal mantra - that the Supreme Court found that the traditional definition of marriage, excluding gays, is "unconstitutional" - is a lie.
Alan - November 30, 2005 10:43 pm
You have been too long in the wilderness, SN. I think Harper so far has carried himself much better as I mentioned here. But didn't his answer reveal more policy than had been revealed. Keeping the 3000 married to date legal but no more. I don't know how that could possibly be constitutional but at least is interesting. And it is is not a lie. Try not to use bad words. A lot of knots were tied around what was decided but lie it is not. Not decided perhaps.
SayNay? - December 1, 2005 5:48 pm
Did you see the editorial in the Ottawa Citizen today entitled "Treat Voters With Respect"("... we welcomed Stephen Harper's candour when he said he wouldn't obstruct efforts to repeal legislation allowing gay weddings. This should mark the beginning of a frank debate on the future of the country..." and "...Mr. Harper has made a firm, clear and honest statement where vagueness might have been more politically convenient. If the other party leaders follow his lead, as they should, we're in for the most meaningful election campaign in modern history...")?
No, I didn't write it (no crayon was used), but I could have.
Alan - December 1, 2005 7:18 pm
It still will be unconstitutional even if nicely presented.