Liberals Preparing For A Summer Election

[SirJosephPorter]

And if you were to poll Canadians about actually going to an election the answer is; no thanks.
And if you polled them about penalizing a party that forces them to go to the polls, again, Iggy would suffer.

Trex, history has showed that the party who forces an election normally does not pay any penalty. When Harper pulled the plug on Martin minority government, opinion polls showed that people didn’t want an election. Yet they did not penalize conservatives, they won the election. It is usually a two day wonder, which is forgotten once the campaigning starts.

However if you poll which politician is the peoples choice for the PM slot Canadians are favoring Harper over Iggy. Bummer for Iggy there.

In a Parliamentary system it is the party standing that is important, popularity of the leader is of secondary importance (unlike the USA). In the last election, people thought that Layton was a more capable leader than Dion, yet Liberals won more seats than NDP.

Harper is a cold, controlling and somewhat unlikable Prime Minister.

No!!!!!!!

In 2010 Harper can stack the Senate, and that means he can pass any non fiscal bill he wants.

He can pass any non fiscal bill he wants now; normally Senate does not reject the bills passed by the House.

Keep in mind that now the Conservative party is the true national party of Canada

That is only your opinion. Cons are toast in Quebec and Newfoundland. In the next election they wall be lucky to keep the handful of seats they have in Quebec. In fact, that is why they keep getting a minority. No party can win a majority without doing well in Quebec.

Con support in Ontario is soft, and I can well imagine several scenarios where Con support may collapse in Ontario.

In 2014 the Federal electoral seats and ridings are going to be re-jigged to compensate for population growth and it is widely assumed that it will benefit the Conservatives over the Liberals.

So, do you agree with those conservatives who say that there has been a realignment in Canadian politics and now Conservatives will govern for a longtime to come, for several decades (like they do in Alberta)? Are we in for a one party state, like Iran or North Korea?

The Cons have 140 odd seats, the Libs have 70 give or take.
In an election Its quite possible the Cons would loose a few seats, the Libs would gain a few and then we would have another Conservative minority government as a result.

The strength in present Parliament is not indicative of the strength in the next Parliament. Mulroney had more than 170 seats in the Parliament, his party ended up with two after the election. Liberals had a handful of seats, but got the majority. In Ontario, Mike Harris’s party was third in the provincial Assembly before the election, behind NDP and Libs. He ended up getting a majority. The fact that Cons have 140 seats in no way means that they will and up with a similar number of seats after the election. It all depends upon how mad the people are with Harper.

Lets just imagine what would happen if the Conservatives loose a huge chunk of seats, the liberals win in a ton of ridings and then what happens?
Its basically a draw.

Not basically a draw, but a Liberal minority.

And that would be a total disaster.

Perhaps to you.

There would be yet another election within six months and the chances are the Liberals would be severely penalized for causing the whole mess.

Then shouldn’t you be wishing for a Liberal minority this time? Presumably that will lead to Conservative majority in six months time. So you should wish for an early election.

In a fall election a Liberal majority would be virtually impossible.

Probably.

The best the Liberals can hope for is a slim minority government.
But look at the potential downsides for the Liberals.
If they blow it and loose then they are utterly crippled.
And then Harper takes the Senate and gets the ridings in 2014.

That should make you happy. Then why are you opposed to an early election (or are you?).

 

[Trex]

It's not a question of who has got the stones. Ignatieff has said that he wouldn't cause yet another election unless absolutely necessary. Ignatieff knows that the people are not ready for another election. There is another Nanos poll coming out I think, on Thursday. If that poll shows the Liberals to be in a majority situation, Harper should be very carful because I think his days as Conservative leader are numbered without him losing another election.
The polls showing Harper to be the most popular leader have not gotten him enough votes to even win a minority. That poll is changing as well.

The Liberals are moving up and by the Fall, they will likely have enough support to win a majority

There was no attempted coup. Parliament reacted to Harper's BS and Harper had to run to the GG to save his pathetic minority

Ignatieff has never said he would "go back to his real home". He is a university professor who is in demand. Harvard would give him his job back. I see nothing wrong with that.

I doubt the Conservatives would win a single seat in Quebec next election and their support in Ontario is dwindling. Let's face it, Harper is on the way out.

Lets face it Juan your style of debating is to go:
"No, no, no. Is not. Is not. Is not."
When dealing with other peoples views and opinions.

How about a little critical analysis of your own on the topic?

Harper is the PM.
He is the political leader of Canada.
He is incumbent.
A few unhappy people can whine about it endlessly, that changes nothing.
If you feel that strongly about I would suggest going door knocking for your MP of choice next election, I know I have done so several times in the past.
At the end of the day the Canadian people will have their say come next election.
So be it.

And it is all about stones, one man's stones.
Iggy's.
Polling really means very little once your in the trenches.
Iggy himself freely admits the main political issue in the next campaign will be his non residency and Canadian commitment issues.
Just because you say "No it isn't" , means nothing.
It will be a huge concern of the undecided electorate come election time.

Iggy has to have the fortitude and the fire in his belly to put it all on the line.
If Harper looses significant seats or even the leadership come next election it is my view he is finished within the party.
If Iggy botches the next election there is a very good chance he is finished as well.
The Liberal party is still very divided and if Iggy cannot be PM he has publicly stated he will once again leave Canada.
I do not think that the majority of Liberal insiders think that Iggy is going to hang about and keep the back benches warm for an extended period of time.
One would assume he would return to his stated "home" the USA.
Thus his commitment to country is most assuredly an issue.
In any case he freely admits it.

Polling at present really shows very little that anyone with a clue did not already know.
Liberals are up in the homeland within the GTA.
Quebec and the Maritimes see the potential for the old pork trough to overflow once again and will undoubtedly sell off some votes in return for promised Liberal crumb sprinkling.
Its all so old and predictable.

So, ultimately, its gonna be close.
Real close barring any total screwups.
With virtually no chance of either side getting a majority.
It could conceivably go right down to the televised debates and end up in endless electoral recounts.
And that could lead to a temporary coalition government as I already stated.
If that happens I think the Liberals would be penalized and be made to go sit in the corner for a few more years.
And I suppose then we would all get to see Iggy move on, again.

I don't think Iggy has the fortitude without a "sure thing" issue to run on.

But the clock is ticking and the Liberals are becoming defined by their constant voting in support of the Harper government's bills.

The Count will stall a little longer and hope a ringer issue falls from heaven.
And if he could he would sacrifice a few small children to the great god of political change.

Trex

 

[Trex]

And if you were to poll Canadians about actually going to an election the answer is; no thanks.
And if you polled them about penalizing a party that forces them to go to the polls, again, Iggy would suffer.

Trex, history has showed that the party who forces an election normally does not pay any penalty. When Harper pulled the plug on Martin minority government, opinion polls showed that people didn’t want an election. Yet they did not penalize conservatives, they won the election. It is usually a two day wonder, which is forgotten once the campaigning starts.

However if you poll which politician is the peoples choice for the PM slot Canadians are favoring Harper over Iggy. Bummer for Iggy there.

In a Parliamentary system it is the party standing that is important, popularity of the leader is of secondary importance (unlike the USA). In the last election, people thought that Layton was a more capable leader than Dion, yet Liberals won more seats than NDP.

Harper is a cold, controlling and somewhat unlikable Prime Minister.

No!!!!!!!

In 2010 Harper can stack the Senate, and that means he can pass any non fiscal bill he wants.

He can pass any non fiscal bill he wants now; normally Senate does not reject the bills passed by the House.

Keep in mind that now the Conservative party is the true national party of Canada

That is only your opinion. Cons are toast in Quebec and Newfoundland. In the next election they wall be lucky to keep the handful of seats they have in Quebec. In fact, that is why they keep getting a minority. No party can win a majority without doing well in Quebec.

Con support in Ontario is soft, and I can well imagine several scenarios where Con support may collapse in Ontario.

In 2014 the Federal electoral seats and ridings are going to be re-jigged to compensate for population growth and it is widely assumed that it will benefit the Conservatives over the Liberals.

So, do you agree with those conservatives who say that there has been a realignment in Canadian politics and now Conservatives will govern for a longtime to come, for several decades (like they do in Alberta)? Are we in for a one party state, like Iran or North Korea?

The Cons have 140 odd seats, the Libs have 70 give or take.
In an election Its quite possible the Cons would loose a few seats, the Libs would gain a few and then we would have another Conservative minority government as a result.

The strength in present Parliament is not indicative of the strength in the next Parliament. Mulroney had more than 170 seats in the Parliament, his party ended up with two after the election. Liberals had a handful of seats, but got the majority. In Ontario, Mike Harris’s party was third in the provincial Assembly before the election, behind NDP and Libs. He ended up getting a majority. The fact that Cons have 140 seats in no way means that they will and up with a similar number of seats after the election. It all depends upon how mad the people are with Harper.

Lets just imagine what would happen if the Conservatives loose a huge chunk of seats, the liberals win in a ton of ridings and then what happens?
Its basically a draw.

Not basically a draw, but a Liberal minority.

And that would be a total disaster.

Perhaps to you.

There would be yet another election within six months and the chances are the Liberals would be severely penalized for causing the whole mess.

Then shouldn’t you be wishing for a Liberal minority this time? Presumably that will lead to Conservative majority in six months time. So you should wish for an early election.

In a fall election a Liberal majority would be virtually impossible.

Probably.

The best the Liberals can hope for is a slim minority government.
But look at the potential downsides for the Liberals.
If they blow it and loose then they are utterly crippled.
And then Harper takes the Senate and gets the ridings in 2014.

That should make you happy. Then why are you opposed to an early election (or are you?).

Well you appear to agree with some of my opinions and not others.
Fair enough.

I should point out that I, at the moment, don't have a dog in the fight.
I am simply giving my opinions as to why Iggy will not pull the plug this fall.
My personal vote is somewhat undecided at the moment but that of course has nothing to do with this thread.

Harper has made some very poor decisions and I think unless he can maintain the big chair a leadership review is a must.
Iggy in my opinion is a one shot wonder who will leave the Liberal camp high and dry if his leadership aspirations are thwarted.

As to the Liberal stacked Senate not obstructing and delaying Conservative bills, are you on the same planet as I am?

As to the re-jigging of seats and ridings I am saying nothing except repeating what others have said.
It is expected to benefit the Conservatives, the NDP and the Greens more than the Liberals or the Bloc.
I simply brought it up as one of the reasons that pressure is building on Iggy.

My main concern would be a coalition government. It would be ineffectual and short lived.
I would prefer to see a majority government personally.
Be it Liberal or Conservative.
But it wont happen and you and I both know it.

Trex

 

[SirJosephPorter]

I would prefer to see a majority government personally. Be it Liberal or Conservative.
But it wont happen and you and I both know it.

Now here I agree with you, Trex. When times are tough we do need a majority government, so that it can try out its remedy for the crises. That is why I was glad that Democrats got such big majorities in the House and the Senate. Let them try out their recipe, and people will judge them according to if it works or not.

But in Canada, we have entered the minority government phase at just the wrong time. The government should be able to make swift decisions in the time of crises and that cannot be done in a minority government.

 

[L Gilbert]

Pol's salaries aren't that great. It's all the frills they get that's attractive. Nowhere else can people vote themselves raises. Nowhere else can they work 6 years and retire. And so

Right on Gil- and they should probably work for free until they can get things right.:lol::lol:

lol I'll go for that idea.

 

[L Gilbert]

:roll:

When I asked what Mulroney did for the military I was answering someone who was down on the Liberals for neglecting the military.
You know Gil, it doesn't do your argument any good when you start calling the opposition names like "Glibs".

I don't see you snivelling about anyone else calling the Conservatives "Cons", the NDP "Dippers", etc. Back off.

And don't try to pawn off Mulroney on the Liberals. I'm sure they don't want him either but he ran under the Conservative banner and he was supported by the conservatives for ten years at least so you can't just say aw he was a Liberal when he clearly wasn't.

Got news for you, Juan, Glibs and Cons aren't that much different, people can call themselves whatever they want and even convice others to do the same, but that doesn't mean they are what they say, and if you were born into a family that believes in certain things, it's not that easy to get it out of your system.

Martin did nothing of the sort.

?? If Martin wasn't the one who started reducing Canada's debt load, who was? Santa? Perhaps you should take your Glib blinders off and actually READ what people say instead of glancing at it and a$$uming you know what they mean.

Martin inherited a debt and a deficit from your friend Mulroney and he did the responsible thing. He cleared the deficit and tried to pay down the debt.

Make up your mind. Either he did not roll back the debt clock or he did.

The Liberals handed Harper a ten billion dollar surplus. If we are in an economic mess, it was Harper that made the mess.

Grow up, Juan. Harper no more made the economic mess on the planet than you or I did. And you told me once that what I wrote was gibberish. You were simply projecting yourself onto me.

And then you say something like this:

Don't change my words and quote me as saying something I didn't say. You know better than that.

You really make me wonder about you sometimes.

 

[L Gilbert]

This whole discussion is circular.

The facts are:

Trudeau started the deficit/debt problem.
Mulroney continued it.
Chretien/Martin turned it around.
Harper has led us back into a deficit.

There are things each could have done differently do lessen the impact, or heighten the impact of the economic conditions around them.

While I don't blame Harper for the recession - I do blame him for needlessly spending money on ill-thought out bailouts, raising the cost of government by 2x the rate of inflation over the last few years, for reckless tax cuts when there was still a mountain of debt to pay, and for not taking any responsibility for any of it.

Me, too. But I'd change that last comment to "not admitting any responsibility". He knows and we know he is responsible for doing inane things.

 

[johnnyhangover]

?? If Martin wasn't the one who started reducing Canada's debt load, who was?

I actually learned recently that it was Michael Wilson under Mulroney that got the ball rolling on paying down the debt. I also was under the impression it was Martin who was responsible for this, but then a Canadian History prof set me straight. Apparently it went mostly unnoticed because interest payments were so high, and it took awhile to make a dent.

Having said that, obviously no one can deny that the deep cuts made by the liberals set us on course for regularly balanced budgets.

 

[L Gilbert]

As someone who views politics as a spectator sport somewhat akin to the feeding of the Christians to the lions it certainly should make for an interesting spectacle if Iggy does decide to pull the plug.

I originally thought that a late summer , early fall election was in the cards.
Lately,however, I am beginning to wonder if the Count has the stones for it.

The pressure from the rank and file Liberal party membership to run is certainly there.
After all continuing to vote like trained seals for every Conservative bill has got to be getting depressing if not downright demoralizing for the Liberals.

Polling shows the Liberal party is up and the Conservative party is down.
So thats a huge plus for the LIb's.
However if you poll which politician is the peoples choice for the PM slot Canadians are favoring Harper over Iggy.
Bummer for Iggy there.
And if you were to poll Canadians about actually going to an election the answer is; no thanks.
And if you polled them about penalizing a party that forces them to go to the polls, again, Iggy would suffer.
What to do?

Harper is a cold, controlling and somewhat unlikable Prime Minister.
He is not terribly popular within party ranks and tends to run a one man show which I feel does not really benefit the Conservative Party of Canada in the long haul.
And while he is doing extremely well on the International circuit at home Harper has made some horrible mistakes.

Take for example the old attempted coup of Canada by the triumvirate( Lib's,NDP and Bloc).
If the roles had been reversed and the LIbs were in a minority leadership situation, Chretien would have let that little joke of a charade play right out, he would have branded all participating parties involved as traitors to the country, Canadians would have agreed and he would have then forced an election.
And he would have won an easy majority out of it.
Conversely Harper botched it completely, proving once and for all that he is nowhere near as skilled a political knife fighter as Chretien once was.

But still Harper polls as the most capable leader presently available.
He is the status quo.
In 2010 Harper can stack the Senate, and that means he can pass any non fiscal bill he wants.
In 2014 the Federal electoral seats and ridings are going to be re-jigged to compensate for population growth and it is widely assumed that it will benefit the Conservatives over the Liberals.
Keep in mind that now the Conservative party is the true national party of Canada and the Liberals are a powerful regional party with their support mainly located in the GTA and purchased on a temporary basis from the mercenary Quebecois as needed.
As a result of the above the pressure is mounting on Iggy to run and soon.

The Cons have 140 odd seats, the Libs have 70 give or take.
In an election Its quite possible the Cons would loose a few seats, the Libs would gain a few and then we would have another Conservative minority government as a result.
And that would finish Iggy.
The Count has said publicly that he will only give Canada six years to coronate him leader and so if he blows a fall election he is probably gone back to his real home (the United States).
The Liberals are still broke although to be honest Iggy has dredged in a few more sheckles on the rubber chicken circuit.
But the cold reality is they are still far too broke to help out troopers like Dion who will probably now remain in debt for the rest of his natural life.
And thats how the Liberals are repaying party loyalty and honesty these days when money is involved.
The Hill Times and other inside sources report widespread unhappiness and factional loyalties are still rife within the Liberal party.
The Martinite, Chritienite lines are still drawn in the sand.
And left wing media is slowly starting to turn on Iggy as a rudderless and issueless member of the expecting elite.
Iggy needs to bust a move.

Lets just imagine what would happen if the Conservatives loose a huge chunk of seats, the liberals win in a ton of ridings and then what happens?
Its basically a draw.
And that would be a total disaster.
The GG could and probably would insist on a coalition government if the Liberals and the Conservative were within 8 or 9 seats of each other.
Can you imagine?
During a recession?
There would be yet another election within six months and the chances are the Liberals would be severely penalized for causing the whole mess.

In a fall election a Liberal majority would be virtually impossible.
The loyal party drones hope otherwise, but just look at the seats and ridings and where a potential change is possible.
The best the Liberals can hope for is a slim minority government.
But look at the potential downsides for the Liberals.
If they blow it and loose then they are utterly crippled.
And then Harper takes the Senate and gets the ridings in 2014.

So does Iggy have the stones?

I say no.

He will stall and vote right alongside the Conservatives and pray for a real showstopper to sideswipe the Con's .
And only then will he nut up and run.

Trex

I'm not exactly happy about what you say, but I pretty much agree.

 

[L Gilbert]

Well you appear to agree with some of my opinions and not others.
Fair enough.

I should point out that I, at the moment, don't have a dog in the fight.
I am simply giving my opinions as to why Iggy will not pull the plug this fall.
My personal vote is somewhat undecided at the moment but that of course has nothing to do with this thread.

Harper has made some very poor decisions and I think unless he can maintain the big chair a leadership review is a must.
Iggy in my opinion is a one shot wonder who will leave the Liberal camp high and dry if his leadership aspirations are thwarted.

As to the Liberal stacked Senate not obstructing and delaying Conservative bills, are you on the same planet as I am?

As to the re-jigging of seats and ridings I am saying nothing except repeating what others have said.
It is expected to benefit the Conservatives, the NDP and the Greens more than the Liberals or the Bloc.
I simply brought it up as one of the reasons that pressure is building on Iggy.

My main concern would be a coalition government. It would be ineffectual and short lived.
I would prefer to see a majority government personally.
Be it Liberal or Conservative.
But it wont happen and you and I both know it.

Trex

Not sure what planet Joey is from. Leftfieldius I think.
Now a majority Con or Glib gov't to me is absolutely frightening.

 

[L Gilbert]

I actually learned recently that it was Michael Wilson under Mulroney that got the ball rolling on paying down the debt. I also was under the impression it was Martin who was responsible for this, but then a Canadian History prof set me straight. Apparently it went mostly unnoticed because interest payments were so high, and it took awhile to make a dent.

Having said that, obviously no one can deny that the deep cuts made by the liberals set us on course for regularly balanced budgets.

Gawd. I forgot all about Wilson. Thanks, John.

I admit my error. My apologies, Juan.

 

[L Gilbert]

I actually learned recently that it was Michael Wilson under Mulroney that got the ball rolling on paying down the debt. I also was under the impression it was Martin who was responsible for this, but then a Canadian History prof set me straight. Apparently it went mostly unnoticed because interest payments were so high, and it took awhile to make a dent.

Having said that, obviously no one can deny that the deep cuts made by the liberals set us on course for regularly balanced budgets.

Gawd. I forgot all about Wilson. (Prolly too irritated at Bullroney to remember Wilson lol) Thanks, John.

I admit my error. My apologies, Juan.

 

[#juan]

It's a tough call, especially in economic downturns to balance the budget (without victimising the elderly and students all the while doling out goodies to rich buddies like Martin did while Chretien was in the PMO, as I pointed out many times to people who can't seem to get that through their heads and still idolize the scumbags). As I also pointed out, Harpy did continue rolling the debt clock backwards until this economic mess happened. Given the choice between reducing the overall debt and adding some to the yearly deficit, I'd continue to pay off the debt thereby reducing the amount of interest wasted on the debt.
I don't give a hoot WHO is in the PMO; if the world's economy heads for the crapper, Canada will be heading there, too.

Not necessarily. I notice our banks didn't go belly up like a lot of banks in the world did.

 

[L Gilbert]

I suppose that's because the Glibs made them durable?

 

[Goober]

Lets face it Juan your style of debating is to go:
"No, no, no. Is not. Is not. Is not."
When dealing with other peoples views and opinions.

How about a little critical analysis of your own on the topic?

Harper is the PM.
He is the political leader of Canada.
He is incumbent.
A few unhappy people can whine about it endlessly, that changes nothing.
If you feel that strongly about I would suggest going door knocking for your MP of choice next election, I know I have done so several times in the past.
At the end of the day the Canadian people will have their say come next election.
So be it.

And it is all about stones, one man's stones.
Iggy's.
Polling really means very little once your in the trenches.
Iggy himself freely admits the main political issue in the next campaign will be his non residency and Canadian commitment issues.
Just because you say "No it isn't" , means nothing.
It will be a huge concern of the undecided electorate come election time.

Iggy has to have the fortitude and the fire in his belly to put it all on the line.
If Harper looses significant seats or even the leadership come next election it is my view he is finished within the party.
If Iggy botches the next election there is a very good chance he is finished as well.
The Liberal party is still very divided and if Iggy cannot be PM he has publicly stated he will once again leave Canada.
I do not think that the majority of Liberal insiders think that Iggy is going to hang about and keep the back benches warm for an extended period of time.
One would assume he would return to his stated "home" the USA.
Thus his commitment to country is most assuredly an issue.
In any case he freely admits it.

Polling at present really shows very little that anyone with a clue did not already know.
Liberals are up in the homeland within the GTA.
Quebec and the Maritimes see the potential for the old pork trough to overflow once again and will undoubtedly sell off some votes in return for promised Liberal crumb sprinkling.
Its all so old and predictable.

So, ultimately, its gonna be close.
Real close barring any total screwups.
With virtually no chance of either side getting a majority.
It could conceivably go right down to the televised debates and end up in endless electoral recounts.
And that could lead to a temporary coalition government as I already stated.
If that happens I think the Liberals would be penalized and be made to go sit in the corner for a few more years.
And I suppose then we would all get to see Iggy move on, again.

I don't think Iggy has the fortitude without a "sure thing" issue to run on.

But the clock is ticking and the Liberals are becoming defined by their constant voting in support of the Harper government's bills.

The Count will stall a little longer and hope a ringer issue falls from heaven.
And if he could he would sacrifice a few small children to the great god of political change.

Trex

Trex
You are on the mark on a number of points – Dyed in the wool Liberals fail to see at times -
We have a major recession and what does Iggy offer – a High Speed Rail Link – 30 Billion – now we all now that will be higher – so what does Iggy offer – 360 hrs of work and take the rest of the year off –
Iggy implies a threat then changes his mind – I put the Govt on probation he states – well so what has happened – what would Iggy do different –

The Liberals should be soaring in the polls and they are not – That is the key question and it has a number of answers.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

The Liberals should be soaring in the polls and they are not

Why should Liberals be soaring in the polls, Goober. Conservatives have been in power what, for three odd years? And Liberals should already be soaring in the polls? Doesn’t say much about the political savvy of Harper and the Conservatives, does it?

 

[JLM]

The Liberals should be soaring in the polls and they are not

Why should Liberals be soaring in the polls, Goober. Conservatives have been in power what, for three odd years? And Liberals should already be soaring in the polls? Doesn’t say much about the political savvy of Harper and the Conservatives, does it?

I would say it would say more about the lack of political savvy of the LIberals.

 

[Machjo]

I say every election we present a show akin to Hockey Night in Canada.

We could even create a theme song. Everyone could gather around the TV set with popcorn and beer to watch the show. Every night we'd pit some party candidates against each other in 'debates', to see who can come up with the best cheap shot. Or maybe we can present it like a boxing match. The party leaders could walk in the ring wearing their boxer shorts, dancing around with arms waving to the cheering and cursing cowds.

Oh, democracy. It's really become a scary thing.

 

[Machjo]

We really noeed to sart a new movement. Maybe we could call it the vote-for-an-independent movement. Get all the party hacks out of the way.

 

[SirJosephPorter]

I would say it would say more about the lack of political savvy of the LIberals.

Really? Liberals governed for 13 years and yet conservatives did not soar in the polls. If Liberals not soaring in the polls after 3 years o Conservative rule says something about the political savvy of Liberals, what does not soaring in the polls after Liberals were in power for 13 years say about political savvy of Conservatives?