NationStates Jolt Archive

Yesterday Canadians gave Harper a chance to prove that his party IS close enough to mainstream opinion to warrant a more complete mandate in the future. This is an opportunity he may find himself hard-pressed to take advantage of because, when it comes right down to it - his party ISN'T that close to the mainstream. In that respect, it is both an opportunity and a challenge as he now has to live up to that claim with the Stockwell Day's of his caucus chomping at the bit. All those MPs that he muzzled from speaking to the press during the campaign have the muzzles off now and due to the strength of the old Reformers in the party there WILL be an expectation that a good number of them will be rewarded with cabinet spots, and expectation of getting the chance to put forward their ideals.

Yes, 36% of Canada decided to give Harper a chance. This is not indicative of a radical swing in mainstream thought as the right would try to make people believe. How can it be given that a clear majority of Canadians voted for parties to the left of his position? Indeed, the voters who fled the Liberals split almost exactly between heading to the NDP and Conservatives, which I think clearly demonstrates their position as holding down the Canadian political center.

And it means that, after careful thought, Canadians were largely supportive of the current policy direction that Canada is in, but that they were tired of the Liberals. In other words, a desire to hold the road, just time to switch drivers.

No, this is NOT a mandate for Conservative ideology that Stephen was given.

This is a rope that Stephen got.

And now we'll see if he uses it to tie the country together, or hangs himself with it. And I think you know which I tend to think he will do.


I firmly believe that Harper is going to be spending most of his time keeping the more radical members of his caucus in check in order to have any chance to solidify his position in the next election. His only hope is to have success in that endeavour.


And the autopsy will show that Martin paid for the sins of Chretien with no credit given for trying to oust King Jean when it became clear that Jean was the voice of complacency. No, he got both ends of the shit stick on that one. Blamed for causing some fracturing of the party for trying to get the party out from under King Jean's cabal, and simultaneously blamed for everything King Jean did anyway. Frankly, I think Canada lost an opportunity to have a pretty good leader in Paul.

Maybe even a great one. He certainly seemed to feel a passion for the country over and above any abiding love simply for power or strict political theory that so many others seem to possess.

His resignation therefore comes as a combination of sharp disappointment at an opportunity denied to a man who deserved it for all he did for the country, but also with hope at the chance to rebuild the party. Wiping away the final leadership ties to Chretien. Healing the internal rifts caused by the Martin/Chretien struggle. Putting the worst of the past behind them while retaining the legacy of that past as future campaigns can point to their history regarding spending restraint and progressive social ideals.



The biggest losers last night? Besides Paul?

1) Layton. He thinks he won by picking up seats, but many of the votes (and ridings) are only borrowed from the Liberals. And although having a bigger caucus looks good, the numbers don't add up for him anymore as he cannot on his own give a victory to Harper to swing a vote. Last time around there were four independents to make up the difference with him so he could prevail as the balance of power. This time there is only one independent so his power is far more curtailed. Broadbent had a spike like this once too at the tail end of Trudeau's reign. It didn't last and Layton is surely no Broadbent.

2) Duceppe. Support for his party slid to under 50% for the first time in a while, proving that when push came to shove in Quebec many of them looked to the federalist parties that reflected their views. This was NOT good news for him as it demonstrates that some of his past support was effectively protest votes against the other parties. It demonstrated a softness in his separatist platform that he seemed completely unaware existed before this week. And it showed in his speech. He only lost a hand full of seats, but the loss of popular support quashed any thoughts of an upcoming referendum. He looked angry. He looked hurt. And he responded by showing a complete lack of class as he sermonized angrily by tossing around campaign attack buzz phrases to continue to denigrate his opponents.

The other three leaders all spoke with the proper tact and respect due after a hard-fought battle. Not Gilles. He didn't quite have a Parizeau (or Dean) meltdown moment. But damn it was close. And everyone saw the crack in his veneer.

I can live with a Harper minority (yeah, like a I have a choice! lol). He can't push his social programs, although he certainly WILL be able to institute some of his policy to pass more power out of Ottawa to the provinces with the support of Duceppe. But I can live with that. Even to do that he has to appease Duceppe which will anger his base if done too obviously given that Alberta's largest whine for a decade has been about federal favours to Quebec. It will be fun seeing them have to squirm on the hook and do exactly the same thing to get what they want.

So, we have a party of social conservatives who will be unable to get what they want socially, and who are going to be forced to maintain fiscal discipline as Canadians have zero interest to returning to deficit spending. One single deficit and they have handed the mantle of fiscal conservatism right back to the Liberals. But a party who has a shit load of electoral promises to try and live up to without causing that very deficit to happen, and I don't think they can do both.


Frankly, I think it's gonna drive them nuts.

Harper should just do a Tony Blair, and talk a big game while basically continuing the policies of the previous government. That, or just masterfully stare out of the window for the next few years. It seems to work pretty well in politics. Indeed, I thought the last labour government would be flash in the pan also.

Stephistan

Have you considered political news comentator?

Ah, the silly Canadians with their student government elections! Does anyone really care who was elected to be the Yellowknife High School Class President for 2006???

:)

Just messing with you Steph, this is New Auburnland!

Repeating the post I've made elsewhere...

It's strange to see how in Quebec where the Tories got their ridings from. They won many traditionaly Bloq ridings rather than from the anglophone Liberal ridings while the Liberals lost out big to the Bloq.

It looks good. I'm quite happy with the results despite that I am myself I staunch Liberal. The Conservatives get a thankfully small minority government. 124 seats. This allows parliament to keep some of their more radical ideas in check if Harper does in fact pull them out of the old neocon nap sack. The Liberals + NDP have more seats than the Conservatives and I'm also very happy with that.

Canadians definitely know how to vote.
Change was necessary and change is being delivered. Canadians are also giving Harper a chance to prove himself while refraining from excessive enthusiasm or placing blind faith in his policy and leadership just because we are extremely pissed at the Liberals.

Considering the situation I'm very happy with the results.

Democracy Rules!


p.s. I'm giving Harper's government two years tops... and my favourite for the Liberal leadership is either John Manley, Frank McKenna, Scott Brison or Brian Tobin. I'd hate to see some right-wingnut like Roger Gallaway take over the party.

I'm all about the McKenna. If he runs the show, things will be interesting next time Maritimers need to vote.

Harper should just do a Tony Blair, and talk a big game while basically continuing the policies of the previous government. That, or just masterfully stare out of the window for the next few years. It seems to work pretty well in politics. Indeed, I thought the last labour government would be flash in the pan also.

What I love about Steph is that she believes she's "mainstream".

The Democrats in the US believe that they are also "mainstream" and they couldn't be more wrong.

Stephistan, you're giving harper far to much space in which you expect him to screw up. Remeber that the Conservatives have their hands tied when it comes to any motions of confidence: ie, anything fiscal, program cuts, tax cuts, budgets, equalization, whatever. None of harper's promises can be carried out (excepting the ethics reform bill, which I don't forsee much opposition to) without harsh ammendment or outright rejection from the other parties. Harper cannot plunge us into debt and the like, even if he planned to - he simply does not have the power.

In some ways, this is another flaw in the canadian parlaimentary system: Parties can't form truly meaningful coalitions, in which more that one party shares the responsibility of ministership and governmet, and instead, temporary alliances are simply formed on an issue-by-issue basis. this makes minority situations even weaker than they might otherwise be.

Stephistan, you're giving harper far to much space in which you expect him to screw up. Remeber that the Conservatives have their hands ties when it comes to any motions of confidence: ie, anything fiscal, program cuts, tax cuts, budgets, equalization, whatever. None of harper's promises can be carried out (excepting the ethics reform bill, which I don't forsee much opposition to) without harsh ammendment or outright rejection from the other parties. Harper cannot plunge us into debt and the like, even if he planned to - he simply does not have the power.

In some ways, this is another flaw in the canadia parlaimentary system: Parties can't form true an meaningful coalitions, in which more that one party shares the responsibility if ministership and governmet, and temporary alliances are simply formed on an issue-by-issue basis. this makes minority situations even weaker than they might otherwise be.

Are you saying then that if a party did manage to get a majority, that they would run roughshod over everyone else, and make major changes after decades of pent-up frustration?

Are you saying then that if a party did manage to get a majority, that they would run roughshod over everyone else, and make major changes after decades of pent-up frustration?Well, there's no denying that majority governments are powerful - that's the definition of a majority, isn't it? They have more than half the seats in the entire house, and can thus pass laws without the support of anyone else. As long as the party whip keeps everyone in shape, and the MPs are united, that is.

What you raise is interesting - Harper will be forced to comparitive inaction in this parlaiment, or at least very mainstream, moderate action. this may convince canadians that he is in fact trusworthy to lead a majority. If that happens, power will be restored to the conservatives to forward their (or at least a good componant of their members' - including Harper's) less-than-mainstream social agenda. canadians should not be fooled - or at least they should clear headedly judge the direction the conservatives are taking at the end of a couple years in a minority.

I think the Palestinians are more than willing to vote in a terrorist organization just because Fatah is seen as corrupt.Likewise... I think the Canadians are more than willing to vote in a Conservative Party just because the Liberal leadership is seen as corrupt.:D

What I love about Steph is that she believes she's "mainstream".

The Democrats in the US believe that they are also "mainstream" and they couldn't be more wrong.
In Canada, Steph is pretty mainstream. We have plenty of differences of opinion, but she's pretty mainstream. The bulk of Canada's population lives in Ontario and Quebec and in large cities. They're also pretty liberal, especially by American standards. Steph's opinions, in general, reflect the views of the people from these places, it's just on the details that they differ.

In Canada, Steph is pretty mainstream. We have plenty of differences of opinion, but she's pretty mainstream. The bulk of Canada's population lives in Ontario and Quebec and in large cities. They're also pretty liberal, especially by American standards. Steph's opinions, in general, reflect the views of the people from these places, it's just on the details that they differ.

Not mainstream in Alberta, I bet.

Not mainstream in Alberta, I bet.
Are you trying to tell us that conservative values are "mainstream" in the US even in such places as California and New York?

Methinks you need to look up the definition of mainstream.

Are you trying to tell us that conservative values are "mainstream" in the US even in such places as California and New York?

Methinks you need to look up the definition of mainstream.

I'm saying that conservative values are mainstream in most areas of the US. Not in the core of most major cities, but pretty much everywhere else.

I'm saying that conservative values are mainstream in most areas of the US. Not in the core of most major cities, but pretty much everywhere else.
So why must mainstream be different here. Steph can be mainstream while Alberta has different values.

In essence, you're taking valuable bytes space with hollow comments that are useless.

So why must mainstream be different here. Steph can be mainstream while Alberta has different values.

In essence, you're taking valuable bytes space with hollow comments that are useless.

No, I think that people misuse the word "mainstream" to characterize everyone else as "extreme".

Something that Democrats in the US are quite fond of. It's exactly the way they officially use those words.

Why not say, "mainstream Ottawa"?

*snip*
I swear that came from a newspaper.

I'm saying that conservative values are mainstream in most areas of the US. Not in the core of most major cities, but pretty much everywhere else.
Seeing as how the core of most major cities comprises about 40-50% of the united state's population while the conservative stranglehold of tumbleweed texas doesn't have nearly as much pretty much destroys that little notion. We're a centerist nation and you know it.

What I love about Steph is that she believes she's "mainstream".

The Democrats in the US believe that they are also "mainstream" and they couldn't be more wrong.
What is mainstream? Surely parties which get more than 20% of the vote are decidedly mainstream? Steph seems to support the Liberals who fit that criterion. Both the Democrats and the Republicans in America are obviously mainstream. Where do you get the idea that they aren't?

Not mainstream in Alberta, I bet.
Poor refutation. Does this nullify anything else Equus said?

Not mainstream in Alberta, I bet.
I've been around Alberta and know a good few people there. It's not all that conservative as its image would suggest. Politically most people there would probably be Democrats in the US.

No, I think that people misuse the word "mainstream" to characterize everyone else as "extreme".

Something that Democrats in the US are quite fond of.
Didn't you just do the same thing? Which would make you a hypocrite?

And aren't we talking about Canada here and not Democrats?

Why such an axe to grind?

Are you saying then that if a party did manage to get a majority, that they would run roughshod over everyone else, and make major changes after decades of pent-up frustration?
Well, there's no denying DK now understands how Tory majorities traditionally work.

Aren't we all glad our fellow citizens didn't hand one over to Harper & Co. Monday night?

I know I am.

I'm saying that conservative values are mainstream in most areas of the US. Not in the core of most major cities, but pretty much everywhere else.
You do realize a majority of Canadians live in major urban centers, right?

Yes sir its going to be an interesting year and a half - two years before this government topples. What with the possible party-alliances eh?

How is the Bloc supposed to play it now?

Yes sir its going to be an interesting year and a half - two years before this government topples. What with the possible party-alliances eh?

How is the Bloc supposed to play it now?
Brazenly. Watch for Tory graft in Quebec.

I swear that came from a newspaper.

If that is what you believe, but it didn't. An easy way to find out of course is to google a sentence or two and if your accusation were true, I would be busted. However, no such thing will happen because no, it didn't come from a newspaper. Before you not so casually make accusations, you really should try to back it up. In this case you can't because there are only three places I posted this.. in my Blog on a site I go to and is obviously my site, and in a LJ that if you look at the user info is a shared journal between my husband and I.

But nice try..;)

No, I think that people misuse the word "mainstream" to characterize everyone else as "extreme".

Something that Democrats in the US are quite fond of. It's exactly the way they officially use those words.

Why not say, "mainstream Ottawa"?

Why not?

How about because besides Ottawa the Conservatives did not win a single seat inside any of the largest cities in Canada. Not in Montreal, Vancouver, or within urban Toronto.

And how about looking at the exit poll data (http://www.cbc.ca/story/canadavotes2006/national/2006/01/24/vote-poll060124) which clearly indicate that OVER HALF of support for the Conservative government in this election was done for reasons relating to wanting a change from the current Liberal leadership rather than out of abiding support for the Conservative platform.

This election was between an encumbant that had a record to pick apart (including a major scandal), and other parties who were exempt from such scrutiny.

Now, a quick bit of math, and you discover that voter support given primarily in promotion of Conservative ideology is really well under 20% in Canada. The rest either voted to the left of it, or lent them a vote as being thier prefered option to a party they were abandoning out of a loss of faith in their leadership as opposed to a loss of faith in their ideology.

And, I'm sorry, but under 20% popular support for you given primarily on ideological grounds clearly makes you an outlier from what most would deem
the mainstream feeling in the population.

Silliopolous - I wouldn't even try if I were you. It has been my experience that Deep Kimchi (Whispering Legs) likes to argue for the sake of arguing even when he has no knowledge on the subject. I can neither confirm nor deny this, but the way he inserts himself into every thread I post I think it may have more to do with some type of obsession with me than his actual knowledge base of Canadian politics.. He doesn't understand Canadian politics, he doesn't even know what mainstream is in Canada. So to argue the point with him would be like shadow-boxing. ;)

I'm saying that conservative values are mainstream in most areas of the US. Not in the core of most major cities, but pretty much everywhere else.Yes, and I was pointing out that liberal values are mainstream in most areas of Canada. Alberta is not mainstream - it holds a very small percentage of the Canadian population (and hell, almost 40% of them aren't Conservative either).

To be more exact, Alberta holds roughly 10% of Canada's population at just over 3 million.

And the Conservatives swept the province.

To be more exact, Alberta holds roughly 10% of Canada's population at just over 3 million.

And the Conservatives swept the province.

And just to point out this is nothing new. With the exception of Ann's seat in Edmonton that is. So the Liberals lost one seat in Alberta. Hardly news if you ask me.

To be more exact, Alberta holds roughly 10% of Canada's population at just over 3 million.

And the Conservatives swept the province.

To be even more exact, 65% of alberta voters (http://www.cbc.ca/canadavotes/candidatesridings/alberta/index.html) chose to vote Conservatives. This represented under 1 million votes and also surely included some who selected it as the better anti-liberal option than the NDP.

Now, those 930,000 Conservative votes represents the viewpoint of about 2.8% of Canadians - assuming the CIA World factbook entry is up to date regarding a total population of 32+ million. And this number also includes some anti-liberal protest votes that were more about party leadership than party ideology.


I don't think anyone would argue a statemnt that the CPC best represents mainstream Alberta views.

However, with only 16% of the voters saying that they voted CPC because it was their prefered ideology as opposed to the higher number which includes a vast number of anti-liberal protest votes, it is hard to make any assertion that this demonstrates the CPC as being the most mainstream viewpoint across Canada as a whole.


That would be kinda like trying to state that the prevalent Texas viewpoint are the reflection of that of the entire USA.

The way you guys talk you'd think that the Conservatives got less of the popular votes than the other parties.

The way you guys talk you'd think that the Conservatives got less of the popular votes than the other parties.

Well, if you add up the Liberals, the NDP and the Bloc, which are all left of the Conservatives it would be fair to say that they did not get the popular vote. It was spread out between the center and leftist parties. Not exactly rocket science when you look at the numbers.

The way you guys talk you'd think that the Conservatives got less of the popular votes than the other parties.
They did, if you combine the center and left votes given to the other parties.

Let's put it this way: the today's Conservatives hold a smaller percentage of seats in the House of Commons than any governing party in Canada's history.

They did, if you combine the center and left votes given to the other parties.

Let's put it this way: the today's Conservatives hold a smaller percentage of seats in the House of Commons than any governing party in Canada's history.

Hehe, stop reading my mind.. or maybe I'm reading yours..lol :P

Hehe, stop reading my mind.. or maybe I'm reading yours..lol :P
<grin> Now that the election's over, we're allowed to start agreeing again. :P

Well, if you add up the Liberals, the NDP and the Bloc, which are all left of the Conservatives it would be fair to say that they did not get the popular vote. It was spread out between the center and leftist parties. Not exactly rocket science when you look at the numbers.
True, but many of us Red Tories who ended up voting Liberal in this election aren't necessarily opposed to a Conservative government.

Remember, the Globe and Mail released the results of a survey just a week before the election that showed that a majority of Canadians were okay with a Conservative majority government, let alone minority.

<grin> Now that the election's over, we're allowed to start agreeing again. :P

AGREED! :D

True, but many of us Red Tories who ended up voting Liberal in this election aren't necessarily opposed to a Conservative government.

Remember, the Globe and Mail released the results of a survey just a week before the election that showed that a majority of Canadians were okay with a Conservative majority government, let alone minority.

And lets also not forget that Harper was on his way to a majority government, up 13 points in the polls, all horses running at speed. Then he did what he should never do, he opened his big mouth, he started talking about how hard it would be to pass through his agenda because of all the Liberal civil service and not to mention those liberal Supreme Court judges.. within 72 hours of those statements he dropped 9 points putting it back into a horse race. The only person Harper has to blame for his very small minority government is Harper. Had he shut up, he might of fooled enough people.

I give him 2 years tops!

And lets also not forget that Harper was on his way to a majority government, up 13 points in the polls, all horses running at speed. Then he did what he should never do, he opened his big mouth, he started talking about how hard it would be to pass through his agenda because of all the Liberal civil service and not to mention those liberal Supreme Court judges.. within 72 hours of those statements he dropped 9 points putting it back into a horse race. The only person Harper has to blame for his very small minority government is Harper. Had he shut up, he might of fooled enough people.

I give him 2 years tops!
The high water mark for the Conservatives was 42 percent, and the lowest they dipped after that was to 35 percent. Even taking those two extreme examples, that's still not a nine point drop.