National Post: Conservatives are Salty
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
Just might have to if the Harperites maintain control of the party. Maybe we can convince Preston to return to politics.
For social conservatives, I wouldn't doubt it. He's still pretty active. I could see him starting up a new party if it tickled his fancy, then stepping away once the structure was in place. Style it important and he doesn't have it
Don't be so stupid. If I did not, I would not have mentioned it. I know I would not want to subject myself to Canadian politics AGAIN and at 73 when I could be playing golf and strolling around Bali or whatever Preston does in his retirement.
He hasn't retired. He's still active in politics, just not party politics. You're so silly
Is he? What is he doing? I have not heard anything about him since about 2008. Well, at least not until you mentioned him.
He is not in politics. He is retired. But he is working though The Manning Centre. Read all about him here:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preston_Manning
As Prime Minister, Harper spoke more than 4,200 separate times in the House of Commons.
Throughout the 42nd Parliament’s 44 sitting days thus far, however, Harper has not said a single word in the House of Commons.
In fact, the last time Harper’s voice hit the parliamentary record came on June 17, 2015 when, as Prime Minister, he told NDP leader Tom Mulcair that “Canadian veterans services under this government are the best in the world.”
Odder still, the former Prime Minister’s Parliamentary meekness has not been due to any lack of attendance.
Three MPs haven’t yet said a word in the House of Commons. One of them is Stephen Harper | National Post
Throughout the 42nd Parliament’s 44 sitting days thus far, however, Harper has not said a single word in the House of Commons.
In fact, the last time Harper’s voice hit the parliamentary record came on June 17, 2015 when, as Prime Minister, he told NDP leader Tom Mulcair that “Canadian veterans services under this government are the best in the world.”
Odder still, the former Prime Minister’s Parliamentary meekness has not been due to any lack of attendance.
Three MPs haven’t yet said a word in the House of Commons. One of them is Stephen Harper | National Post
As Prime Minister, Harper spoke more than 4,200 separate times in the House of Commons.
Throughout the 42nd Parliament’s 44 sitting days thus far, however, Harper has not said a single word in the House of Commons.
In fact, the last time Harper’s voice hit the parliamentary record came on June 17, 2015 when, as Prime Minister, he told NDP leader Tom Mulcair that “Canadian veterans services under this government are the best in the world.”
Odder still, the former Prime Minister’s Parliamentary meekness has not been due to any lack of attendance.
Three MPs haven’t yet said a word in the House of Commons. One of them is Stephen Harper | National Post
Can we compare that to the average backbench MP either for the government or opposition? Unless there was an overriding issue in Calgary SouthWest that required commons involvement, I would not expect him to speak.
Each and every one of you has missed the boat.
It has nothing to do with politics. The Conservatives got beat by a better ad machine. Their ad people missed the target. It happens when an agency rides a stale idea. Attention spans are much shorter than at any time in history. The Internet is having a huge influence on this. Stale is bad. Change is everything.
Winning has nothing to do with a leader's popularity - either rising or falling. It has nothing to do with platforms, rank and file MPs (or MP wannabes) or debates. Changes of government have to do with the fickleness of voters and the message they get just before going into the voting booth. The fact is, almost everyone, even die hard party members, shift their vote. If votes didn't shift, there would never be changes to government.
Changes happen as a result of short term propaganda campaigns that bombard television, radio and social media.
Successful propagandists prepare a series of ads that have the power to shift votes. It is opportunistic in nature. News stories about politicians or events that can be turned into "Throw the bum out!" commercials. These agencies have the ability to quickly and effectively market ideas to audiences that need shifting. The majority of the population will change their voting minds, based on what they see and hear just before voting day.
The Conservative ad agency put most of their eggs in the 'Justin Trudeau: Just Not Ready.'basket . The Liberal ad agency ignored that and went with smiles, youth and selfies. Smiles, youth and selfies have worked for years in many other ad campaigns for food, beverages and automobiles. All age groups like smiles and happiness. Talk to the Cons ad men and they will agree, but they couldn't turn it around.
Inn the end, Harper did not lose. Trudeau did not win. Their respective agencies fought and the result was Trudeau 1. Harper 0.
I laugh when I read comments saying that they have always voted for one party. Or even better, that they would never vote for a specific party. These people exist, but they are a tiny minority. If this fringe group was bigger, we would not see the huge shifts in government that have happened in the past 30 odd years.
The propagandists I spoke of earlier are good at affecting the public, and getting them to vote the old party out. Social media and the Internet have had a huge effect on this. In the ad game, how social media and the Interwebs influence groups is still being debated and new methods discovered.
You can argue politics until the cows come home. While the platforms may read differently, the group that heads to Ottawa after every election is the same. The war was between the ad agencies. What the candidates or the parties thought was of little or no consequence.
It was epic, like watching Vikings fight.
It has nothing to do with politics. The Conservatives got beat by a better ad machine. Their ad people missed the target. It happens when an agency rides a stale idea. Attention spans are much shorter than at any time in history. The Internet is having a huge influence on this. Stale is bad. Change is everything.
Winning has nothing to do with a leader's popularity - either rising or falling. It has nothing to do with platforms, rank and file MPs (or MP wannabes) or debates. Changes of government have to do with the fickleness of voters and the message they get just before going into the voting booth. The fact is, almost everyone, even die hard party members, shift their vote. If votes didn't shift, there would never be changes to government.
Changes happen as a result of short term propaganda campaigns that bombard television, radio and social media.
Successful propagandists prepare a series of ads that have the power to shift votes. It is opportunistic in nature. News stories about politicians or events that can be turned into "Throw the bum out!" commercials. These agencies have the ability to quickly and effectively market ideas to audiences that need shifting. The majority of the population will change their voting minds, based on what they see and hear just before voting day.
The Conservative ad agency put most of their eggs in the 'Justin Trudeau: Just Not Ready.'basket . The Liberal ad agency ignored that and went with smiles, youth and selfies. Smiles, youth and selfies have worked for years in many other ad campaigns for food, beverages and automobiles. All age groups like smiles and happiness. Talk to the Cons ad men and they will agree, but they couldn't turn it around.
Inn the end, Harper did not lose. Trudeau did not win. Their respective agencies fought and the result was Trudeau 1. Harper 0.
I laugh when I read comments saying that they have always voted for one party. Or even better, that they would never vote for a specific party. These people exist, but they are a tiny minority. If this fringe group was bigger, we would not see the huge shifts in government that have happened in the past 30 odd years.
The propagandists I spoke of earlier are good at affecting the public, and getting them to vote the old party out. Social media and the Internet have had a huge effect on this. In the ad game, how social media and the Interwebs influence groups is still being debated and new methods discovered.
You can argue politics until the cows come home. While the platforms may read differently, the group that heads to Ottawa after every election is the same. The war was between the ad agencies. What the candidates or the parties thought was of little or no consequence.
It was epic, like watching Vikings fight.
Last edited: