Government Falls! The 2006 election thread

[FredDaHead]

Anyone taking bets on the liberals "winning" and we find ourselves with a liberal minority government again?
Sans a few million dollars...

I'd rather waste a few million dollars on proving the average canadian citizen has no clue what's going on around him, (and possibly on getting a government that'll actually do something other than steal our money and cut into every program that exists) than have those millions of dollars lining the pockets of the Liberanos and their friends.

 

[ArmyRick]

I hate to say it, but I agree that the liberals will be back with a minorty again IMO  :  Why? Because MY PROVINCE (Ontario) is a glutten for punishment and in the GTA, the conservatives are considered as popular as Bush Jr. I am probably going to vote Conservatives again (in wich case many people in my home town will tell me I am a racist, bigot, pro-bush, military nazi, etc, etc). Sad. Ignorance runs amuck. 

 

[rifleman]

liberal majority is my guess,

 

[Zartan]

I think that the only party that's going to benefit from this is the Bloc. It'll probably be status quo elsewhere. A slimmed liberal minority, I predict.

 

[Glorified Ape]

liberal majority is my guess,

Lets hope so.

 

[Infanteer]

My personal opinion is that Canada needs to take the "Ariel Sharon" approach - there seems to be some general trends that Canada shares with Israel's chaotic political scenario that may make this approach feasible.

Like Israel, central moderates in Canada are overpowered by the barking from the left/right.   The Liberal Party has been weakened by an internal turf war between ideologues and loyalties - "Chretianistas" vs. "Martinis" exemplifies this; you can see it all over the Gomery Report.   They lost their bastion in Quebec to the Mulroney/Bouchard alliance (which was a Liberal stronghold since Confederation) and, as one of the commentators stated the other night, the camouflage of being a "National Party" has withered away as it became apparent that the Bloq picked up all of the fallout from the PC meltdown.   With the "united right" forming a strong party in the West, this camouflage is all gone now and we see no end in the near term to minority government.

The Conservative Party will never govern - it is being drug through the mud by its far-right faction.   As it is Canada's only real "right of center" party, it attracts alot of people who would probably be better members of the Christian Heritage Party.   Canada has a far different political landscape than the US, and focussing on social issues like gay marriage, abortion, and what not is political suicide - Stockwell Day the preacher found this out the hard way.   But the loud-mouths in the party (along with the Western separatists) succeed in destroying any credibility that the Conservative Party has in being a national party for Canada.   Even people out east who are conservative in outlook don't see the Conservative Party as a reasonable alternative due to the legacy as a Western protest party - whispers of forming a coalition with the Bloq (the other protest party) only serve to strengthen this fear.   Ralph Klein knows this - that's why he said as much with his prediction on the outcome of the next election.

The Left is represented by the NDP and the Bloq.   The NDP have their strength in the union/(trade) protectionist racket.   The Bloq, a seperatiste party and essentially a wasted protest vote in the the legislature of Parliament, represents the traditional left wing nature of Quebec politics.   Both of these parties seem keen to pounce on any move away from Canada's "Europeanization" (as one commentator called it) - this incites the left wing of the Liberal Party (which Edward Campbell as deemed its "subversive elements") to action and makes the position of the more fiscally conservative elements of the Liberal party that Paul Martin is trying to lead today very untenable - careful to avoid a coup d'etat from within his own caucus, Martin can ill afford to abandon the left-wing element that entrenched itself in the Liberal Party in the 60's and 70's under Trudeau; thus we are left with Mr Dithers.

So, you have the left and the right pulling from the fringes.   A smart politician from the Conservatives or Liberals would pull a "Sharon" and essentially aim for a "Unity" platform.   Harper could abandon the foaming right-wing elements and the narrow minded "Western alienation" section of the Conservative Party while Martin could leave behind his left-wing hangers-on who push us, politically and ideologically, down the road to serfdom through far left agitation.   Martin is a good man with the bank; one only has to compare our economy and finances today to when he first got ahold of things.   It would be foolhardy to not give him credit when it is due.   Harper is an economist from the West, and I make the assumption that he'd be more interested in focussing on the real issues rather than having elements of his own caucus push him to political sepukku.   I really don't see too much difference in these two leaders.

Together, the "Unity ticket" could be one that dedicated itself to three key platform initiatives:

1)   Sorting out the Health Care and Social Security systems by maintaining their universal nature and ignoring the ideological imperative from either side.  
2)   Dedicating itself to a stronger foreign and defence policy and the institutions (Defence, Foreign Affairs, CIDA) to back it up (again, avoiding ideological draws from either side) to be capable of securing our security and prosperity both at home and abroad.
3)   Bill itself as a true national party dedicated to overcoming regional squabbling - a ticket like this could avoid the tag of "Toronto" or "Western" party.   From this, it could gather a real moral imperative to fix Canadian democracy by addressing the "democratic deficit" (things like the antagonistic Federal/Provincial relationship, the much-maligned Senate, etc, etc).

Anyways, if I wanted to form a majority government right now that would be my strategy.   But, alas, I think the party trenchlines are dug too deep and unlike Israel, we don't have something as pressing as what has been going on in the Occupied Territories to ensure political urgency can overcome traditional party factionalism.   Although the image of Martin and Harper backing each other would be interesting to see....

 

[KevinB]

See I just see the Conservative Party as a soft lower case c party.  Personally I want them FURTHER right than they are.  For me it is not necessarily about governing, especially not if you have to sellout your values to do so, then you end up with a moral bankrupt party ruling the country (i.e. the Liberal Party of Canada).  The Reform bent to accomodate the PC's and still is viewed with hostility and suspicion. 


  I won't alter my beliefs in order to accomodate others, and I dont think the political partys should either. 

Israel has 17 parties, and it has some much more serious issued facing it (national survival) - it is a bad analogy (IMHO). 


IF Canada votes another Liberal Gov't minority that forms a coalition with the NDP, I think Canada is doomed --I think that then the West will seperate.

 

[Infanteer]

   I won't alter my beliefs in order to accomodate others, and I dont think the political partys should either.

Canada is a polyglot nation that has pronounced regional and urban/rural divides - concession and concensus are required (and, in my view, desirable).  I hate the idea of a coaltion of the left driving us to further marginalization through abrogation of basic civic responsibilities, but I also hate the fact that my local MP trumpets the sanctity of marriage while not being able to offer any real reason why it is sacred....

Israel has 17 parties, and it has some much more serious issued facing it (national survival) - it is a bad analogy (IMHO).

Yes, but the political analogy of centrists being torn by the left and right is apt.  The left and right may be aiming for different objectives (hawk/dove), but the general themes of Sharon's solution is what I was aiming for.

 

[The Gues-|-]

CONSERVATIVES!

 

[Zartan]

I too want the Conservatives to win, and I'm a centrist. I really don't like any of the parties, but I feel a balance has to be restored, certain parties cleansed, and certain people made happy.

However, if I had a choice, which I don't - I would vote Infanteer '06. SPOILED BALLOTS BE DAMNED!!!

 

[jmackenzie_15]

Im voting conservative.... and in the spirit of the election and the madness that always ensues, I will refer you all to the Benny Hill TV Show theme song.

Heeeereee we go again  :

 

[vangemeren]

Compromise is the basis of the country, without it Canada would probably not exist. It was the Great Coalition under Mac Donald, Cartier and Brown that led to Canadian Confederation.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Coalition

For a new centrist party to form there would have to be a party leader with some power/leadership that would draw people from both sides of the political spectrum (like Sharon in Israel). This election campaign is going to be nasty one (if the last one was any indication), even though it will probably retain the status quo. I think people are going to get tired pretty quickly of the partisan politics, and potentially with 2 successive (and non-effective; I can't recall any important bills coming into law other than the budget) minority governments, something is going to move.

 

[redleafjumper]

This is an interesting election site:

http://electionprediction.org/2005_fed/

It gives a reasonable glimpse at a riding by riding breakdown.  It might be useful to watch this site as the campaign progresses.

 

[Infanteer]

DAY 1:  Well, I agree with the CTV corresponent Craig Oliver - to Steven Harper, I'm sending out a big WTF OVER?  Right off the bat, he pulls out the gay marriage thing.  Didn't we already pass the legistlation on that?  Obviously he doesn't read Army.ca, because it's been established that social policy is not the way to win an election in Canada.... :

In other news, it looks like the Liberals are in for a bit of a rough ride in Quebec....

 

[jmackenzie_15]

Is it just me or is alot of the conservative campaign typically just liberal bashing? ... or maybe thats every party.

About that aircraft carrier thing;

I was confused about it before, while the campaign was going on because I didnt hear anything like that... but for whatever reason I assumed it was true because I wasnt paying an incredible amount of attention.

I voted Liberal last time... oops?

 

[redleafjumper]

Here's another useful site from the CBC about scandals:

http://archives.cbc.ca/IDC-1-73-1700-11692/politics_economy/political_scandals/clip10

It's going to be quite a campaign.

 

[kcdist]

DAY 1:   Well, I agree with the CTV corresponent Craig Oliver - to Steven Harper, I'm sending out a big WTF OVER?   Right off the bat, he pulls out the gay marriage thing.   Didn't we already pass the legistlation on that?   Obviously he doesn't read Army.ca, because it's been established that social policy is not the way to win an election in Canada.... :

This is precisely the torque that the media can put on an issue....and shame on you for falling for it.

The Conservative position on Gay Marriage, incidentally, shared by at least two dozen Liberals and at least one NDP'er, is well established. It has been articulated by the Conservative party from the outset, and again after the House of Commons not-so-free vote. It was also voted on during their last policy convention.

Now, to set the stage, Stephen Harper was conducting a press conference. One of the questions, asked by a reporter, was specifically about the Conservative stance on Gay Marriage. How would you have Harper respond? Lie? Avoid answering? I should hope not. This is what differentiates him from the other leaders. A controversial subject, sure. Do I personally wish it would go away? Yes. However, the underlying issue here is Harper did not bring the subject up, he was asked about it and responded truthfully. There's a word for this........Honesty.

Unfortunately, his prize for truthfully answering a question is the negative media torque that he is placing this policy at the forefront of the election campaign. It is a mere one of dozens of policty positions held by the Conservatives. Most I agree with, some I don't.   

Methinks this is all a mere question of semantics, however, as a non-religious person, I don't have a strong opinion on it- but I do respect those that do.

 

[clasper]

How would you have Harper respond? Lie? Avoid answering? I should hope not. This is what differentiates him from the other leaders. A controversial subject, sure. Do I personally wish it would go away? Yes. However, the underlying issue here is Harper did not bring the subject up, he was asked about it and responded truthfully. There's a word for this........Honesty.

Yep- kudos to Harper for answering honestly.  But I would have had much more respect for him if he said something along the lines of: "I personally disagree with gay marriage.  Polling has shown that this is a very divisive issue that is evenly split for and against.  The duly elected government of Canada passed a law, and the pro-gay marriage side won the day.  I lost that battle, but I don't plan on dragging Canada through another contentious debate to revisit this issue.  My vision for Canada's future includes blah blah blah..."

If the conservative party wants to form a government, they have to increase their appeal to voters in Ontario and Quebec.  Alienating the majority of those voters on day 1 is a pretty dopey move, IMHO.

 

[xFusilier]

Harper soiled the bed...elections are not about the truth, elections are about shaping public perceptions and the Conservative party has to change the perception of it in Central Ontario.  Opening that entire can of worms was a bad idea, one that he should have been advised against.  I agree with clasper, would have been a much better answer, and one that had the veneer, so to speak of the leader of the official opposition.  Instead we got the same subtle as a train wreck comments that we are used to seeing from the Tories.

 

[kcdist]

Harper soiled the bed...elections are not about the truth, elections are about shaping public perceptions

I can't disagree with this statement, however it runs to the heart of the problem.

The reason the Liberals have been so successful is that they fully subscribe to the statement. Are Canadians simple-minded dupes? Apparently so, because either they don't realize that the Liberals are being dishonest with them, or, like xFusilier, they do know but accept it as the unchangeable status quo.

I think this does explain the Liberal popularity, despite an impressive list of scandals.

I believe that in the next few weeks, enough Canadians will decide they want true honesty in their politicians, warts and all. I would rather vote for a party whose platform I only 75% agreed with, than to vote for the party that pulled the old bait-and-switch time and time and time again. (Who wasn't excited about the plan to scrap the GST?). 

Again, for Harper to suddenly change his views on the spot would have been a lie. That would have been bad. And as Clasper stated, polls indicate that Canadians are still almost evenly divided on the issue. That would mean 50% agree with Harper, despite his current polling numbers of 30-35%. Maybe not such a bad response after all.

On Gay Marriage I agree with most of the posters on this subject. Not that big of a deal. However, to a great many people in this country, it is the hill to die on and it trumps all other issues. Those that hold the anti-view, even those that supported other parties in past elections, will be the hard-core, vote in -40 C weather voter, compared the the 'soft' support that the Liberals have. So again, maybe not so bad of a response, and the truth to boot!