“Which isn’t to say that those votes can’t go back to Liberal if, as in Quebec, deeply held values come under attack.”

And that’s the problem, isn’t it? Whatever “gains” Harper may have made, he got them under the auspices of his smoke and mirrors newly minted “moderate” image. The problem is that Harper is anything but moderate and the minute people get a glimpse of his more rightwing core, they pull back.

That’s what happened in Quebec.

The big lie being perpetrated everywhere was that Harper lost Quebec because of his cuts to culture. Not so. Those cuts were made well before the elections and they had been very much publicized in that province. He was still able to maintain a substantial lead over the Bloc.

What made the difference was his overt attack on the artists and his rightwing proposal on youth offenders. This ran contrary to the “moderate” image he had created for himself.

Once Quebecers understood that Harper is not a moderate, they couldn’t run fast enough the other way.

If the LPC keeps performing like it has been Harper will not need Quebec especially lately. Come to think of it with only 12 seats to go he could if he wanted to try doing it with by-elections hmmm . has that ever been done? Has any PM ever used by-elections to get a majority?

Twelve by-election wins would be asking for an awful lot, Wayne. MPs don’t tend to die or quit in numbers quite that massive. Most of them quite like their jobs, as evidenced by the fact that almost 90% of them ran for re-election in 2008. The other reality is that the government doesn’t control which seats come up in a by-election. You would have to be pretty lucky in order for a vacated riding to be just the kind that your party didn’t win last time, but in which they were competitive.

Could the Conservatives pick up, say, two or three seats in by-elections over the course of this mandate? That might be a more reasonable number. Combine that with the de facto support of Andre Arthur and Bill Casey on most votes, and now the government would be able to count on about 147-148 votes. At that point, I would argue that they would have a de facto majority, given that all three opposition parties would have to issue a three line whip and face a certain election call if they wanted to defeat a government confidence matter. (They really have a de facto majority now, at least until such time as the Liberals reasonably feel as if they could afford and are prepared for another election.)

Floor crossings are also a possibility. Depending on how the Liberal leadership goes, it is entirely possible that some Liberal MPs might be looking at the government side of the House and wondering if the view might be better. Again, it could be none, or maybe two, but I don’t think any kind of a mass defection is in the cards.

Bottom line – it is easy to imagine a scenario whereby the Conservatives increase their seat count to perhaps the high 140s, but an outright majority in this Parliament seems like wishful thinking.

“Am I interested in a Party that panders to my identity, that flatters whatever sense of self I think I have or am I interested in something else?”

The Green shift’s “tax cuts” were pandering to certain groups. National daycare is pandering to certain groups.

Using the word “pander” as if it has a negative connotation is mistaken.

I don’t see it as focusing on immigrant vote and non-immigrant vote. That is what the Liberals had been doing for decades. The Conservatives split the vote by economic class. If you work and pay your taxes, the Conservatives want your vote. If you are in jail, don’t work, or don’t contribute to society, then they don’t want your vote.

Hey Dennis : I know … it was the facetious part of me and I neglected to add the possibilities of a few floor crossers as well. Then again who knows about people s health and their desire to continue but what I was curious about though if it has ever happend where a by-election during a PM’s term did indeed make the majority?