Government Falls! The 2006 election thread

[Infanteer]

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

I didn't "fall for it" - I saw exactly how it panned out.  It's a campaign, and it's all about how you present yourself.  Clasper has it right.  The Conservative Party needs to do some hard thinking about their stance on issues like that if they only way they can answer questions is "We plan to go back and rewrite laws".  And this isn't just about voters in Ontario and Quebec, it's about voters in the major urban centers (look at the seats in Vancouver) which are fairly polyglot and tolerant of this stuff.

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?).

Semper Gumby - as I said, a real national party has to be about concession and concensus; if this means meeting others in the middle, so be it.   I'm not eager to send ideologues to Parliament, I want to see guys that can get the job done in the most acceptable way possible.  Why do you think the Liberal Party has been the most successful party in Western democracy, getting the mandate for 75% of the 20th century?

Who would have really believed that the Liberals would have withdrawn from NAFTA and scrapped the GST?   Look at the shape of our economy at the time and look how much money those things were pulling in; kudos to Mulroney for the assist.

 

[xFusilier]

The Liberals win time and time again because they are simply better a politicking than the other parties.  As for there being a large number of single issue voters as regards SSM, there are just as many voters who are as dedicated that will go to the polls with equal dedication, keeping Steven Harper and the Conservatives out of office.  Canadians are not simple minded dupes, and there are many people who are disgusted with the sponsorship scandal, however,who see no other party that reflects their vision for Canada except the Liberals.  Conservative proponents who allude to the rest of Canada being simple, because their party has undergone "electile dysfunction" for the past 3 general elections do nothing other than further marginalize the party.  The Conservatives for the most part have either campaigned on how the are not like the ruling party or in the past on a platform that the reflects a view of Canada that voters find disturbing.  The current platform of the Conservatives is great, but until they start to articulate that vision for Canada, rather than always being on the defensive regarding stupid, ill timed remarks by caucus members, they will be unable to make any real headway.  As Infanteer said the Liberals are great at telling Canadians exactly what they want to hear...1 part patriotism...1 part anti-Americanism...1 part healthcare...1 part social programs...bake at 425 F for 7 weeks and Bob's your uncle (and a Privy Councillor to boot!)

Let me put it this way, we have a ruling party that has been proven dead to rights to be corrupt.  Yet a change of government is uncertain, whose fault is that the Liberals,  or the Conservatives?

 

[kcdist]

Let me put it this way, we have a ruling party that has been proven dead to rights to be corrupt.   Yet a change of government is uncertain, whose fault is that the Liberals,   or the Conservatives?

Great Question. No easy answer.

Part of the problem is the communications strategy of the Conservatives. Part of the blame lies with the National Media. Disagree if you will, but how else to explain my dear Aunt, whose views are right of Attilla the Hun, but still not wanting to support the Conservatives because she thinks they're 'scary'. When pressed to substantiate her beliefs, she simply replies that that's what she had read.

Think about it. The CBC's virtual survival relies upon the Conservatives not gaining power. It is also not possilbe for the The Toronto Star to be more anti-Conservative, and it maintains the highest readership within the GTA. Also, remember the MacLeans cover story awhile back with the "How Scary?" title.

In fact, the media holds so much power, they often dictate what the issues of the election will be. If they run a national headline on some unknown candidate's stupid comment, that will be the story of the day. Yes, some Conservative need a muzzle, however, that applies to all parties. It is up to the media to pick and choose what stupid comment they wish to highlight, and more often that not, it will be from a Conservative member. As I was born in Prince George, I am still peeved about Heady Fry's cross burning comment, however, I remember going on line at the time and seeing no condemnation by either the Star or the Globe and Mail.

To be truly successful, you must first have your supporters control the Media......In this regard, the Liberals have done well. 

 

[Infanteer]

As Infanteer said the Liberals are great at telling Canadians exactly what they want to hear...1 part patriotism...1 part anti-Americanism...1 part healthcare...1 part social programs...bake at 425 F for 7 weeks and Bob's your uncle (and a Privy Councillor to boot!)

Unfortunately, that isn't what the Liberal Party of old (the Party of Laurier, King, St Laurent) achieved the most notable success upon - this is the vestiages of Trudeau.  I agree with Edward Campbell's summation of it and it makes me as squeemish as listening to Conservatives talk about abortion - there is no intelligent debate in those policies and they make the Liberal Party seem as neutered as the Conservatives in my eyes (hence my call for a "Unity" ticket above).

Let me put it this way, we have a ruling party that has been proven dead to rights to be corrupt.   Yet a change of government is uncertain, whose fault is that the Liberals,   or the Conservatives?

I think running on an "Ethics" strategy is a bad one - most Canadians seem to have a low opinion of politicians in general (lower then usual), and I doubt many see the Conservative Party as a bunch of "honest guys who will clean things up".  It just isn't going to get many votes - anyone who hated the Liberals and is enraged by Gomery's report wasn't going to vote Liberal anyways; all the Conservative's could hope for was that it would shame enough Liberal supporters away from the polls, but when you start talking about social policy (and make it a big part of your platform), you'll ensure they turn out to vote.

The economy, on the other hand, is something to ride on and Martin has the fortune to run on a hot Canadian economy that is, in part, due to his hard work.

My take on it, for what it's worth.

 

[kcdist]

Who would have really believed that the Liberals would have withdrawn from NAFTA and scrapped the GST?  

Well colour me naive, but I truly did. Although I voted for the Reformers in '93, I wasn't appalled that the Liberals took power. In fact, I would have voted for them if Manning's party didn't exist. For me, the GST was a defining moment, because, prior to that, I was young and stupid enough to believe that if a politician promised it, it would happen.

Now colour me naive again, but I truly believe that if it is Harper's policy to do something, he will follow through or die trying. 

 

[xFusilier]

The media may be an issue, but don't forget when even when Lord Tubby threw the entire Southam media empire behind the Reform/Conservative Party, they couldn't get arrested in the 403 area coder.  The media and politics are pretty much similar, the both depend on public opinion for their survival.  Does the content of the Star shape the opinions of its readers or the opinions of its readers shape the content?

Whilst the media can frame issues, it cannot make them.  Generally stupid politican tricks sell newspapers, something that almost every politician has experienced along with foot in mouth disease.  As for the fact that the CBC depends on the unelectability of the Conservatives for its survival, I might venture that if I was employed by the CBC and such was the case, I'd be tempted to put a negative spin on the Conservatives as well.  The issue then becomes, getting you message out while not doing anything stupid to sully the issues you are campaigning on.  At the end of the day the media has to report fact...it may be editorialized, or interpreted through the political bent of the media outlet but it still must report facts, and all parties are in direct control of the facts that the media receives.

As for the old Liberal party, I really think that is what we need to see to rejuvenate  politics.  A Leader who will articulate a vision of Canada that will restore national optimism, and leave us with a sense of accomplishment, that was IMHO the legacy of the old Liberal party.  Unfortunately Trudeau, Mulrooney, Chretien and Martin all have run on a basis of politics of self interest.  Articulating policies that do not illustrate how to make US better, but rather policies that appeal directly to the voters self interest.  I would have no problem voting for any party that could articulate such a view. Unfortunately what we are stuck with is a polyglot of policies designed by confidence interval,, that do nothing to illustrate how to improve on the society that we live in today.

 

[Michael Dorosh]

What the hell is Harper doing?  Why revive the gay marriage issue?  What good could come of it?  Did Harper just blow the election on the first day of the campaign?

It's a dead issue - its a law, let's just move on.  It only affects 1 percent of us anyway.  I agree with Harper's stance, but nothing will change. 

Can any good come of this strategy?

 

[Michael Dorosh]

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?

He should have said that it is now the law of the land and we have more important issues to look to.

 

[xFusilier]

The only good that may come of it is tha hopefully they will learn a lesson about making theses kind of gaffes, early on in the campaign and undertake to avoid them in future.  The up side of this whole issue is that it happened on day one of a seven week campaing...an the public has a short memory for these kind of mistakes.  Hopefully they've managed to secrete Jason Kenny, Myron Thompson and Garry Breitkreuz in a "secure undisclosed location" for the duration of the campaign.  If I was a Conservative I'd look at those people as agents of the Liberal Party, they've probably caused more electoral damage than Warren Kinsella wired on speed, on a good day ever did.

 

[Glorified Ape]

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.

Such are the dynamics of the parliamentary system. Loyalties will always be drawn along party lines, and thus along ideological lines, because of the importance of the party line and party affiliation/support in getting elected.

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.

The Liberal Party has become a brokerage party, hence the dithering. I think the extremities that the NDP/Bloc and Conservatives represent are important in preventing a slide into pan-party brokerage which would turn our political environment into something resembling the US two-party system where options are generally reduced to Pepsi and Coke, complete with the low voter turnout and perceived voter efficacy that such a system brings.  

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).

Sounds like a brokerage platform. It seems the Liberals have come closest to this type of platform, though their attempts at pleasing the West have fallen quite short. Whether this is from lack of trying or a Western determination to be displeased with anything short of a Conservative government, who knows.

Who would have really believed that the Liberals would have withdrawn from NAFTA and scrapped the GST?   Look at the shape of our economy at the time and look how much money those things were pulling in; kudos to Mulroney for the assist.

Indeed, though hindsight is 20/20. NAFTA scared quite a few people but the 81/82 recession kind of gave NAFTA the kick in the ass that it needed. Regional integration is the norm of the day - just look at MERCOSUR in South America, the EU, and ASEAN. There's been some talk of expanding NAFTA into a customs union but support for it seems low in the US (and likely would be here, too). I wouldn't be surprised if it's on the agenda in the next few years.

 

[Infanteer]

The Liberal Party has become a brokerage party, hence the dithering. I think the extremities that the NDP/Bloc and Conservatives represent are important in preventing a slide into pan-party brokerage which would turn our political environment into something resembling the US two-party system where options are generally reduced to Pepsi and Coke, complete with the low voter turnout and perceived voter efficacy that such a system brings.

I wouldn't put us that far ahead of the United States.  We just have Dr Pepper and shit-water thrown in for extra measure.  Our numbers for turnout aren't any better than that of the United States (the trick is to look at registered voter turn out and eligible voter turnout)

 

[Glorified Ape]

I wouldn't put us that far ahead of the United States.   We just have Dr Pepper and crap-water thrown in for extra measure.  

I had a good laugh at "crap-water". I'd say the differences between our system and that of the US are quite definite, though many are subtle (most especially differences in political attitudes, conceptions of the role of government, etc). I wouldn't say it puts us "ahead" of the US in any universal normative sense, but it does put is in a different category. I personally prefer our system but I wouldn't say it's superior to the US.

Our numbers for turnout aren't any better than that of the United States (the trick is to look at registered voter turn out and eligible voter turnout)

I believe they're slightly higher, though by a very small margin. In any case, that just proves my point - a slide towards a US-style 2-party brokerage system would kill turnout even more - and THEN where would we be??!?!?!?!?!?!?!! 

 

[KevinB]

I believe they're slightly higher, though by a very small margin. In any case, that just proves my point - a slide towards a US-style 2-party brokerage system would kill turnout even more - and THEN where would we be??!?!?!?!?!?!?!!  

Effective Government?


Harper IMHO did the best he could -- he stated the truth when asked.  If they dodge it, this issue would come up over and over and over again (and it probably will due to media portrayal of the CPC as the bbogeyman.  It is best to be transparent on issues that are controversial -- at least from an ethical standpoint  -- you probably could run a Grey Man party and stand for nothing and win in this country -- oh wait we have a Liberal party already...

 

[xFusilier]

Israeli politics is a pretty poor analogy to use in the case of Canada.  The dynamic in the Knesset is due to the issues that are faced (which do not translate to Canada) as well as the fact that members are chosen according to a "list" system whereby seats are allocated in terms of a precentage of the popular vote, in a priority determined by the party.  The race to the centre in Canada as already been won, by the Liberal Party which runs on a strong centerist platform and simply shifts to the left or right as the whims of the electorate dictate.  This is why the Liberal party is formed of members from a broad political spectrum.  The problem for Martin is that he failed to produce on the one thing the Liberals really stand for and that is staying in power.  Had Martin returned a majority government last year, the remaining Chretien loyalists would have been given the good news.

Unfortunately the post 1993 trend in Canadian Politics is regional politics being given place of primacy in Parliament.  The Conservatives despite attempts to be seen as a national party have not yet been able to divest themselves of the image of the REEEEFORM party.  Those individuals who prior to Meech Lake/Charlettown would have either been NDP or Tories from Quebec have gone on to form a single issue party.  As it remains the only true national party (that remains capable of electing members in every province) is the Liberals.

The rejection of the western vision of the nation is not so much a rejection of the west, but due the manner in which confederation works.  The original intent of confederation was to politicize an economic system whereby resources were harvested on the periphery, and processed in the centre.  As years have gone by the industrial base in the centre has withered yet the harvesting or resources in the periphery has increased, thus those on the periphery are demanding a greater say in the goings on of the nation.  Any national party will have to address this schism.  Western Canada wants more say, yet their vision of Canada is unappealing to the Centre.  Compounded by the fact that the centre wishes to remain at its place of primacy.  The only resolution to this issue is a party that is able to capture the imagination of Canadians as to what we can be as a whole, and with the origination of "politics of the self" in the late 1960's there is little hope of this happening.  As such we grow more and more apart.

 

[Infanteer]

Shifting gears a bit, I watched an interesting piece this morning.  If the Bloq indeed takes a bite out of the Liberals in Quebec (3 Liberal cabinet ministers there won by a very small margin), say winning 60 seats, that puts the Liberals down to 120.  This means that, theoretically, the Conservatives only need to win 20 races against the Liberals to get the highest total.  Given the way things have been, I think there are a fair number of races that may go that way.  I think this one may be close than the last one.

However, even if the Conservatives did win more seats, the idea of a Conservative minority government being a feasible one seems to be a pipedream when you consider the other 3 parties sitting in Parliament.

 

[jmackenzie_15]

What the hell is Harper doing?   Why revive the gay marriage issue?   What good could come of it?   Did Harper just blow the election on the first day of the campaign?

It's a dead issue - its a law, let's just move on.   It only affects 1 percent of us anyway.   I agree with Harper's stance, but nothing will change.  

Can any good come of this strategy?

I think so. He's clearing up all the things the Liberals will likely slander right off the bat... last time around they were saying harper was opposed to gay marriage etc which wasnt exactly true.... hes getting everything cleared up right away so nothing like that happens again... trying to get all the angles covered that the Liberals might attack him on before they have a chance to.

Somebody was going to talk about it again at some point, you just know it

 

[3rd Horseman]

When Harper opened that Pandora's box again he mayhave blown the whole campaign. I agree he is trying to get the crap on the table early so he does not get taken out by liberal lies but he is also doing it to appease the fundamentalist right wing of the party. That minority is leading a covert operation to take over what was once and could be again, a strong voice of reason and fiscal responsibility party. That christian right group is the reason the conservatives will never get and hold government in a centrest country like ours, they must move back closer to the centre and remove that pile of stink called religion from the political mix. I hate to say it but I think Ralfy (king Ralf of Alberta) had it right!

 

[KevinB]

If you remove the Church from the State -- it will be one HELL of a State...

 

[Infanteer]

We've already done so.

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
a) freedom of conscience and religion;

Although this establishes religious freedom for citizens and not seperation of Church and State per se, R. v. Big M Drug Mart Ltd seems to establish suffiicent precedent to ensure that this seperation is real.

Incidently, our American neighbours were even more thourough in ensuring the Church and State were seperated - in Article VI of the Constitution it states that:

but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.

...and in the First Amendment further underscores the principal:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,...

 

[UberCree]

At one point in time I considered myself a conservative.  They lost me when they lost the likes of Joe Clark, Scott Brison and Belinda Stronach.  For a party to lose their common sense and cater to a hard core religious few (who would vote for them regardless) deems them unworthy of my vote.  My family has lived through the results of mixing religion and politics first hand.  Now their absurd shadow defence minister is another nail in their coffin, as is Tom Flannigan, Steven Harpers campaign manager and all time nemesis of Aboriginal Canadians.
Economically I am all for them, but lose the social conservatism. 
When will they learn....
I still havent decided if I will think short term and vote Liberal (man I never thought I would say that) or long term and vote green.