Comments on: Harper's super-brilliant Quebec strategy explained

By: greenjenny

greenjenny — Sun, 22 Mar 2009 18:35:38 +0000

When assumptions are made about who the most electable person is, people tend to think it’s the person closest to them in political outlook because they think they are in the centre.

Good Lord, jwl – that actually made sense!

By: Jay

Jay — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 16:07:23 +0000

Once again another Macleans attack of our prime minister!

By: WestViking

WestViking — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 10:43:03 +0000

Charest was named PCPC party leader in 1993 after Kim Campbell lost her seat and only Charest and Elsie Wayne were re-elected. In the 1997 election the PCPC improved from 2 to 20 seats while Reform went from 54 to 60 seats, The writing was on the wall. Charest did not need a lot of convincing to move to the Quebec liberals in 1998. What you miss is that Charest has no coin as a CPC leadership hopeful west of Quebec.

By: keith c.

keith c. — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 09:34:55 +0000

dude, are you nuts? Charest didn’t want to leave the Tories and was heavily armtwisted by Quebec federalist establishment/forces of Desmarais to take the Quebec Liberal job. He was seen as the only hope to defeat mighty Bouchard since the best the party had at the time was Daniel Johnson. (and as we know, he never did defeat bouchard in the end.. i doubt whether he ever would have had Bouchard stayed)

By: LeenieJ (imho)

LeenieJ (imho) — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 07:36:06 +0000

wow, that was supposed to be a response to Lord Kitchener’s Own @Mar 16, 2009 at 6:11 pm

ghost in the machine again?

By: LeenieJ (imho)

LeenieJ (imho) — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 07:33:29 +0000

by PM Stephen’s new standard one need not even be “elected” vis Fortin (sp?)

By: LeenieJ (imho)

LeenieJ (imho) — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 07:26:38 +0000

sigh; and time’s a-wasting for our country’s opportunities and future.

By: LeenieJ (imho)

LeenieJ (imho) — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 07:21:20 +0000

umm excuse me WV, but aren’t the Liberals in Quebec and BC more like conservs in ideology? did you know this or does it matter little to you since you need to get your Lib dig in?

By: LeenieJ (imho)

LeenieJ (imho) — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 07:19:13 +0000

a relief to see; but they were glad to benefit from the rule weren’t they? by their silence the conservs appeared to condone PM Stephen and the min-conserv govt.

By: LeenieJ (imho)

LeenieJ (imho) — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 07:12:22 +0000

so ppl with a lib outlook can’t be objective? hmm doesn’t that make your outlook seem skewed as well?

i for one am glad i can appreciate any party on the merits of what they offer (platform and content of their character/s and how that will impact my life, my family, my community, my province, my country, the world) and not solely on my own small personal beliefs.

By: LeenieJ (imho)

LeenieJ (imho) — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 07:06:19 +0000

@avr… it’s explained in this little note they left entitled “so long and thanks for all the fish”

By: LeenieJ (imho)

LeenieJ (imho) — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 07:04:32 +0000

Frienemies!

By: Critical Reasoning

Critical Reasoning — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 04:27:40 +0000

Great dolphin video. You have to see it to believe it.

By: Jack Mitchell

Jack Mitchell — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 03:34:37 +0000

Can Kyoto blow bubble rings?

By: Scott M.

Scott M. — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 01:39:49 +0000

HA!

By: Wotcher?

Wotcher? — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 01:09:59 +0000

Because he always do not have one, obviously.

By: kc

kc — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 00:58:14 +0000

Everyone has a weakness, that is one big weakness.

By: Mulletaur

Mulletaur — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 00:40:26 +0000

Does Chantal really think that ‘Charade’ was the intended successor to Harper ? Really ? Over the dead bodies of how many former Reform MP’s would ‘Chubby’ get the job ? Hmmmm ? Does that make Gordon Campbell the ‘dauphin’ now that he is in favour, according to this ‘analysis’ ? Wells is right, interesting column, the only problem is that the story just doesn’t seem to have a single shred of credibility.

By: hosertohoosier

hosertohoosier — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 00:35:05 +0000

There is a critical reason Charest will never lead the Conservative party and, if he did, that he would be a disaster. Harper has only been able to govern as a centrist because he built up a lot of street cred with the base. Charest as leader, like John McCain or John Tory more recently, would have to address constant knives in his back. Even if he did succeed, the coalition he would have built would essentially be the Mulroney coalition (angry Albertans with nationalist Quebec). We all know that the Mulroney coalition is unstable – it only won re-election in 1988 by focusing the election on a single issue which, once decided, no longer provided any glue for the party.

John Manley would be a far better choice for Conservative leader. He is a religious conservative (personally), without injecting it into his politics. He is an English Canada, but as a guy from Ottawa who served in the Chretien cabinet in the unity crisis 90′s, he has a good ear for the concerns of Quebec. He is a competent man, with solid fiscal conservative credentials, and a pragmatic view of Canada’s role abroad.

The media’s problem isn’t so much that it falls in love with centrists. Its problem is that it falls in love with any centrist, without making critical distinctions, because reporters are in a politics 100 world where median voter theory reigns. Canada is more complex than the Downsian model. Our politics are – perhaps – conservative-liberal, but also decentralist-federal (and if graphed, would be bimodal, with an English Canadian and French-Canadian distribution).

By: Mulletaur

Mulletaur — Tue, 17 Mar 2009 00:32:38 +0000

Oh, come off it – Manley is a boob. The guy who wanted public money to prop up the Ottawa Senators – puhleeze.

By: Dot

Dot — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 23:35:07 +0000

It’s either the fault of the programmers in Bangalore, or it’s on porpoise.

By: Critical Reasoning

Critical Reasoning — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 23:21:21 +0000

They are both Überpragmatists. When it’s convenient to fight, they fight. When it’s convenient to cooperate, they cooperate.

By: Lord Kitchener's Own

Lord Kitchener's Own — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 22:11:00 +0000

On the “system” angle, I don’t believe there’s a requirement, technically, that a Cabinet Minister be in Parliament. Couldn’t the PM, in theory, appoint pretty much anyone he wanted to Cabinet (Manley for example, but, heck, me for a more ludicrous example).

Am I wrong about that?

By: Lord Kitchener's Own

Lord Kitchener's Own — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 22:03:20 +0000

LOL, YAY!!!

Three edits and it finally got through!!!!!

By: Lord Kitchener's Own

Lord Kitchener's Own — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 22:02:32 +0000

Off topic.

Comment Moderation.

Still being tweaked?

Fairly excessive lately.

Frustrating.

End benign comment (fingers crossed).

By: Lord Kitchener's Own

Lord Kitchener's Own — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 22:01:11 +0000

Mr. Wells,

Off topic, but I think of you as one of the central bloggers here, so… any idea if the new comment moderation is still being tweaked? It’s been exceedingly frustrating to get comments through lately, and I think I’m safe in saying I’m not one to write crazy “moderation worthy” comments, generally.

At the very least a “Your comment has been blocked” message would be nice. All we get now is the simple failure of the comment to appear, and it’s happening all the time these days. It’s very frustrating.

By: Kaplan

Kaplan — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 21:51:03 +0000

Or is Charest more right to convey a more proper ideological hue to the conservatives he means to win over, while conveniently conveying a progressive attitude to the Quebeckers he’s currently governing? Or is he pretending to be right to shore up the progressive elements of his province, all the while doing so knowing that conservative supporters are watching him pretend to pretend to pretend to be a progressive?

Huh? Didja think of that?

By: Chris

Chris — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 21:09:27 +0000

Um, the explanation is pretty easy. Successful politicians in Canada are jerks (Harper, Chretien, Charest, Trudeau, Danny Williams) while guys with a Mr Rogers image are not successful (Joe Clark, John Turner, Paul Martin). Jerks don’t like other jerks.

By: The Tiger

The Tiger — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 21:01:06 +0000

Dolphins tend not to do too well, electorally.

(Why, oh why, can’t Babelfish say “heir”?)

By: Brammer

Brammer — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 20:52:39 +0000

..and then the post is gone!

Magic.

By: Brammer

Brammer — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 20:51:42 +0000

Sheesh.
Mention Israel once somewhere in the comments and they all come out of the woodwork…

By: WestViking

WestViking — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 19:38:18 +0000

This is a departure from Hebert’s usually well-informed commentary. Charest stands no chance of winning the CPC leadership. Leaders are chosen by the conservative party members, and it is unlikely that Quebec CPC members will overwhelm those from western Canada in a leadership race. Too many of us remember that Charest jumped ship to become a large frog in a small Chretien liberal puddle. He abandoned the PCPC to Joe Clark which is in itself unforgivable.

By: avr

avr — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 17:37:50 +0000

Nnnnnno, Manley would be a better choice, if they were the only two options. He at least doesn’t suffer from the delusion that he’s broadly conservative.

By: steve

steve — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 16:23:35 +0000

As a parallel story, can Chantel please explain Harper’s bi-polar relationship Dalton McGuinty?

By: John D

John D — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 16:20:22 +0000

I’ve met the fellow, and Kyoto could take a dolphin any day.

By: Douglass

Douglass — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 16:15:24 +0000

But, fool’s gold is so pretty!

By: Scott M.

Scott M. — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 16:15:11 +0000

As of what year?

By: Critical Reasoning

Critical Reasoning — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 16:13:28 +0000

I would love to see Joe Clark as Foreign Minister, provided he is supplied with a map of Israel.

By: chuckercanuck

chuckercanuck — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 15:58:30 +0000

But he’s our kind of Liberal!

By: Scott M.

Scott M. — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 15:56:41 +0000

OK then, Joe Clark for Foreign Minister!

By: Paul Wells

Paul Wells — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 15:54:55 +0000

By: Critical Reasoning

Critical Reasoning — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 15:50:45 +0000

I suppose Harper could have appointed Manley as a Liberal Senator in December, and then appointed him a cabinet minister in a “sincere gesture of bipartisanship”. The trouble is that Manley would have been tarred and feathered by the Liberals.

By: kc

kc — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 15:45:05 +0000

Yeah, occasionally i wish we had a different system. Wouldn’t it make sense if a PM could look at his options and say: “hmmm, Cannon’s a bust. I think i’ll give John a call, he’s not too busy”! Of course that would presuppose that H wants someone competent there at all!

By: Lilian Nattel

Lilian Nattel — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 15:42:19 +0000

Is it possible that there could ever be a return of red tories?

By: Robin

Robin — Mon, 16 Mar 2009 15:41:06 +0000

Harper would have his mother clean Charest’s house, if it meant more political support from Quebec.