A Conservative Canada? OMG!

[amicus]

http://news.google.com/news?q=canad...GLR,GGLR:2005-43,GGLR:en&sa=N&tab=nn&oi=newsr



http://www.voanews.com/english/2006-01-24-voa4.cfm

Canadian Polls Point to Change
By Barry Brown
Toronto
24 January 2006

Voting has ended in Canada's general election and with nearly all votes counted, Canadians have elected opposition leader Stephen Harper to lead the first Conservative Party government in more than 12 years.

Canada's Conservative Party surged to victory in Monday's general election, smashing the 12-year rule of Prime Minister Paul Martin's Liberals.
Stephen Harper, the 46-year-old Conservative leader pulled ahead midway through the campaign.

Fifty-five days ago, when Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin called Canada's 39th election, he was leading in the polls and demonizing Mr. Harper and his party as too extreme for Canadian voters.

But the strategy that worked so well for the Liberals in the 2004 election, backfired this time around. Mr. Harper pushed his policies of tax cuts, an end to the corruption scandals that plagued the Liberal government, improvements to national health care, crackdown on crime and better relations with the U.S.

The Liberal scare tactics, Harper said, were phony. In a television interview, Harper compared his successful effort to re-unite the Conservative Party, which had split into two, with his views for governing Canada.

"My big goal as a leader has to bring all conservatives together, to make sure there's something in the party for everyone. But at the same time that no one group can demand everything and get everything it wants. And that's ultimately the way, if we get a chance to govern the country, the country has to be governed as well," he said. "You have to try and have something for everybody but no one group can hold the country hostage."

But the Liberal's message did have an impact.

Mr. Harper's Conservative Party is expected to elect about 124 of 308 representatives in Canada's parliament, just shy of a majority. This result was predicted by most polls and Mr. Harper knows his performance as prime minister will determine whether Canadians will give him and his Conservative Party their full confidence the next time they go to the polls..."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


There are several articles at the first link above. I was just curious as to see what the opinion might be as to the impact of a Conservative influence in good ole left wing Canada.

I note no one else has so far posted anything concerning the election and I wondered why?


amicus...

 

[XCal]

We see conservative governments every once in a while. And there's little point in kvetching now - what's done is done. Now we wait and see how the new guy performs.

See the link below...

http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/about/people/key/pm/index.asp?Language=E&param=pi&param2=gen

 

[Selena_Kitt]

yes, but as it was explained to me recently... it's not quite as scale-tipping as it is in the US because they have more than two poltical parties... (strong ones, that is...)
[/end of everything I know about Canadian politics]

 

[amicus]

We see conservative governments every once in a while. And there's little point in kvetching now - what's done is done. Now we wait and see how the new guy performs.

See the link below...

http://www.parl.gc.ca/information/about/people/key/pm/index.asp?Language=E&param=pi&param2=gen

Thanks for the link, once in a while is right...about the same here...anyone who quotes Heinlein and Asimov can't be all bad...but ole Bert, I dunno...

amicus...

 

[XCal]

Thanks for the link, once in a while is right...about the same here...anyone who quotes Heinlein and Asimov can't be all bad...but ole Bert, I dunno...

amicus...

Bert's too much a pacifist, but still a brilliant thinker whether or not I agree with his social views. I'm more interested in his disdain for hocus pocus.

Like you said, not all bad.

 

[Pure]

Conservatives Win

as told in a major conservative Toronto newspaper.(www.globeandmail.com)

Conservatives to form a minority; Martin tells Gov. Gen. he's resigning

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/serv...elxndayafter0124/BNStory/specialDecision2006/


By JEFF SALLOT AND TERRY WEBER

Tuesday, January 24, 2006
Posted at 5:15 PM EST
Globe and Mail Update


Prime minister-designate Stephen Harper returned to Ottawa Tuesday afternoon to begin forming his new Conservative government.
He told supporters at an impromptu airport pep rally that he's scheduled meetings tonight and tomorrow with the head of his transition team, Derek Burney.

Mr. Burney had been a key adviser to former Progressive Conservative prime minister Brian Mulroney.
Mr. Harper said he will hold a formal news conference Thursday.
With his wife and children by his side, a beaming Mr. Harper said the family had slept well after an exciting election night.

Earlier in the day, Prime Minister Paul Martin officially informed Governor General Michaelle Jean this morning of his intention to resign, setting in motion the formal transition that will make Stephen Harper Canada's 22nd prime minister.
Rideau Hall said the Liberal Leader spoke with the Governor General by telephone about 9.30 a.m. EST. The official announcement did not indicate when the new Conservative cabinet would be sworn in.
Pending recounts, the Conservatives won 124 seats to the Liberals' 103 in Monday's election. The Bloc Québécois won in 51 ridings and the NDP in 29.
Advertisements


As usual at election time, the senior federal bureaucracy has transition plans and briefing books ready in the event that a new government is elected. But Mr. Harper will need several days to decide on the size and makeup of his cabinet.
Mr. Harper is expected to begin consulting with party veterans and new members of his caucus today. The consultations and security vetting process could take ten days to two weeks.

Mr. Martin, who said Monday he won't lead the Liberals into another election, kept a low profile. He planned no public appearances.

Also this morning, Bloc Québécois Leader Gilles Duceppe tried to put the best possible face on his party's performance in the election. The Bloc lost seats and share of the popular vote in Quebec, after Mr. Duceppe's initial campaign boasts that the separatist party would win more than half the popular vote.
"We finished first [in Quebec] for the fifth consecutive time," Mr. Duceppe told a news conference, noting that Bloc candidates also knocked off several Liberal cabinet ministers. "We have the balance of power in Ottawa."

Canadians decided Monday to cautiously change the national government, giving Harper's Conservatives a slim minority and tethering the other parties to a short leash in the new House.
The results suggest that the new government may be able to function for at least 18 months, the average life for minorities in Canada.

The defeat of Mr. Martin's Liberals, and his announcement that he's stepping down as leader, sets off a leadership race that will pre-occupy that party for months, killing any appetite for forcing an early election.

Jack Layton's New Democrats increased their standings in the House, but fell short of the numbers needed to hold a clear balance of power.
Canadians don't want another election soon, Mr. Layton told supporters in Toronto on Monday night.

Today, at a news conference, Mr. Layton said the new Parliament could continue "for months and years" as long as the Conservatives co-operate to produce results for working families.
"I'm very optimistic for the future," Mr. Layton said.

The new NDP caucus isn't large enough to prop up the Tories on a confidence vote in the face of a united opposition from the Bloc and Liberals. But Mr. Layton said holding a mathematical balance of power is "overrated."
A tight confidence vote could be decided by the sole independent elected Monday, colorful former Quebec radio show host André Arthur, a federalist.
The Bloc lost seven seats and its share of the popular vote was reduced as the Conservatives picked up seats in Quebec, establishing the Tories as a second federalist option in the province.

The Conservative breakthrough in Quebec means that Canada now has two parties with MPs from all regions of the country for the first time since 1993.
In his victory speech in Calgary, Mr. Harper reached out to the other parties and leaders. He said Canadians owed Mr. Martin thanks for his service to the country and he congratulated Mr. Layton and Mr. Duceppe for running "solid and honourable campaigns … We are all democrats."
Recognizing that his minority is slim, Mr. Harper said: "To those who did not vote for us, I pledge to work for all of us."

But he made it clear he feels he has a sufficient mandate to pursue his core five planks of his platform: a federal accountability act to clean up government, cuts in the hated GST, tougher anti-crime measures, childcare credits, and reduced wait times for medical care.
Voters have asked all the parties to work together, Mr. Harper said. "We're going to govern with an open mind" and may make mistakes from time to time, he added.

New Democrats indicated throughout the campaign that they might find common ground with the Conservatives on several Tory priorities, including cleaning up government.

"We'll not just oppose, we'll propose in a way that's is balanced and fiscally responsible," Mr. Layton said Monday night.

One of Mr. Harper's first tasks will be to put together a cabinet that is balanced geographically and includes old stock Tories as well as representatives from the Reform/Alliance wing of the party.
Almost certain to join the cabinet are new Quebec MP Lawrence Cannon, a former provincial Liberal minister, Deputy Leader Peter MacKay of Nova Scotia and Rona Ambrose, an up and coming bilingual Albertan who performed well in opposition.

Some veteran Western MPs who have been with the Reform/Alliance/Conservative movement through its various permutations for years may be disappointed.

[…]
The Conservative gains came on the back of a swell in support in Central Canada, but the Liberals still managed to cling to seats in some key regions — helping limit the Tories' overall advance.
The Conservatives managed roughly 36 per cent of the popular vote nationally compared with 30 per cent for the Liberals, 17 per cent for the NDP and 10 per cent for the Bloc.

In Quebec, the Conservatives increased their share of the popular vote more than 17 percentage points, managing to win the party's first federal seat in that province in five years. The Liberal popular vote in the province was down 14 percentage points. The shift also saw the Bloc's share of the popular vote slip 7 percentage points.
Similarly, in Ontario the Liberals' chunk of the popular vote was down 5 percentage points. In that province, the Liberals were elected in 55 seats — down from 74 in the last sitting — compared with the Conservatives' 39.

In British Columbia — where polls had suggested a three-way battle — the Conservatives were elected in 17 of 36 seats, down from 22 in 2004. The NDP were next with 10 and the Liberals followed at nine.
The NDP, which had 18 seats in the last Commons, managed double digit gains in terms of its seat count — to 29 from 18.
"Our Canada puts ordinary Canadians first and tonight ordinary Canadians in the millions put their trust in the NDP and took a step forward," Mr. Layton told an audience in Toronto.
"We won't let you down."

Mr. Duceppe, meanwhile, promised Quebeckers a "responsible" opposition in the next Parliament.
"We will make sure Quebec moves forward because we know everything that makes Quebec move forward moves us forward toward sovereignty," he said.

 

[Pure]

Note for ami:

"Conservative" has many meanings, and in this case the party is a blend of 'wet' British-type conservatives, small gov/big business conservatives and 'social conservatives.' The latter having probs., for instance with gay marriage, an issue Harper pretty much avoided saying much about except he would have a free vote.

Harper kept his social conservative colleagues on a short leash during the campaign, which obviously aimed some toward the center in Canadian politics. This center position would NOT involve scrapping the national medical care scheme.

Note the the social democratic party made big gains, in number of MPs, hence the "conservatives", to rule, will have to find common ground with these 'socialists' (very mild, except in amicus' worldview).
---

PS. Harper is known to want closer ties with the Americans, and the Bush admin in particular, even to the point of furnishing troops for some of the American efforts to 'spread democracy', including in Iraq.

 

[JamesSD]

Doesn't Canadian Conservative = United States Mainstream Democrat?

 

[amicus]

Thank you for the article and the comments.

In trying to understand and perhaps 'take' something from the changes in Canada, I also think about Germany's recent elections, a govrnment more friendly to the US perhaps, if if memory serves, there is an UK election coming up rather soon. Perhaps 'Teflon Tony' is on the way out also? Not sure if that would be helpful to the US as Mr. Blair seems cooperative in most ways.

I do not apologize for my obvious America-centric views, nor do I apologize for being an advocate of a free market and individual human liberty.

I do sometimes chafe under the criticism directed towards my unstinting adherence to principle. Perhaps if you consider that I am not a politician, nor am I a social scientist, comparing models of possible social and political arrangements.

I prefer to be seen as a radical proponent of human freedom and a constant critic of those who advocate control and regulation of human affairs.

There is no 'greater good', that serves as an end to my philosophy, I think only in defense of one's life can one use force to gain one's ends.

Although your 'mild socialists' always suggest that sacrifices of individual rights is necessary for the survival of the whole, I can not ever condone the use of force outside ennumerated powers of government, our government, the one with the constitution and the bill of rights, to justify social policy.

It is far to early to declare a trend, because of German or Canadian political decisions, but if a Republican is elected here, in 2008, and other European countries move to the right, then perhaps major political changes can be expected.

Should be interesting.


amicus...

 

[Pure]

Doesn't Canadian Conservative = United States Mainstream Democrat?

We're talking about a newly formed Conservative party, with the elements I mentioned. Possibly the equation would hold for a few of the left-est Conservatives and a right-wing Democrat like Clinton.

My own equation would be of the Conservative Party person as typically a kind of liberal Republican, a la Rockefeller. But the Party now contains the 'social conservatives' (family values) folks, who've supposedly taken a less prominent position. The real neo nazis were thrown out. Overall, you can see this is like the Republican party of the last few years, though in the US, the 'social conservatives' (e.g. Dobson, Falwell) have inordinate influence and capture at least the lip service of the Prez.

Here is an example supporting my equation. Belinda Stronach is the daughter of a rich industrialist. She was a Conservative until six months ago, even running for party leader. She and her daddy, like many big business types have no problem with the government handling unemployment insurance and health care-- it pays. She switched to the Liberal party quite easily and fits into its right wing, roughly the place of Martin, the deposed PM and also a big business type.

see the story at

http://www.cbc.ca/story/canada/national/2005/05/17/stronach-liberals050517.html


It's hard to characterize the dynamics in Canada, but I'd say because of its lesser 'evangelical' contingent, and their more narrow distribution geographically, it's hard for a 'social conservative' to become a national figure. This is why the smart social conservatives of the old Reform Party, threw in with the Old Guard, the Progressive Conservatives. They agreed to back burner the 'fight gay marriage' thing, for instance, in return for a chance at national power, which the new Conservative party has. That's my opinion.

PS. Note that the new Conservative Party has elected no persons from Toronto, and I believe, Montreal. The cities are simply too liberal.

 

[Pure]

ami said,

I prefer to be seen as a radical proponent of human freedom and a constant critic of those who advocate control and regulation of human affairs.

this is the talk. the facts:

ami supports:

an imperial presidency and impotent Congress
warrantless searches, wiretaps
arrests without charges, detentions without trial
bypassing of civilian courts and judges,
torture of suspected terrorists, and its outsourcing
nullification of any 'right of privacy' determined by various USSC
decisions

 

[Liar]

It is far to early to declare a trend, because of German or Canadian political decisions, but if a Republican is elected here, in 2008, and other European countries move to the right, then perhaps major political changes can be expected.

Don't know what this is worth on the global scale, but I read just this morning that almost all of South America has taken a major step left in the last few years.

 

[Pure]

Good point Liar.

What Amicus also seems unaware of is the the 'rightward' tilt of European social democracies does not take them much away from what Ami would call a 'welfare state.'

The 'conservatives' in Germany are not proposing to end a national health system or national unemployment insurance, or worker's rights. As I understand it, the question might be, does the worker deserve merely a 4 wk paid holiday instead of a 6 wk paid holiday.

While it's true that Thatcher sold off some public works, like water systems-- which, in private hands became unsafe, at times--and successfully confronted certain unions, she did not really challenge basic assumptions, like minimum wage, gov involvement in work safety, etc. or most measures objected to by 19th century capitalists like ami.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I was under the impression that the conservatives, while holding the largest number of seats in Parliment will still have to form a coalition governement as they don't hold a majority overall? It would seem such an arrangement would force at least some moderation upon the conservatives would it not?

 

[Liar]

I was under the impression that the conservatives, while holding the largest number of seats in Parliment will still have to form a coalition governement as they don't hold a majority overall? It would seem such an arrangement would force at least some moderation upon the conservatives would it not?

As I understand it, they will form a minority government, and seek informal coalition with one or two other parties. it will mean a) moderation and b) bartering issues for support. Much like the way you sometimes attach unrelated bills to each other in the US.

Horse trading like "Well vote for your budget if you support our immigration policy." is the currse of a multi party parliament. Non-polarization and strive for consensus the benefit.

 

[Liar]

While it's true that Thatcher sold off some public works, like water systems-- which, in private hands became unsafe, at times--and successfully confronted certain unions, she did not really challenge basic assumptions, like minimum wage, gov involvement in work safety, etc. or most measures objected to by 19th century capitalists like ami.

It's been said now and then that Teflon Tony had steered Labour more to the right than the Iron Lady's posse once was. I don't know whether that's right, though. Has anyone made a decent comparison on where they stood on issues?

 

[ishtat]

Maggie T

As Minister for Education in the Heath Government Thatcher did more than any socialist to force through the socialist policy to develop comprehensive education in secondary schools.

She also did next to nothing to reform the greatest icon to socialism, the National Health Service.

In economic policy I believe that it was Blair not Thatcher that put monetary(interest rate) policy in the hands of the Bank of England.(And out of the range of political manipulation)

With the benefit of hindsight her record looks patchy but from the point of view of 1979 and the "Winter of Discontent" her changes were fundamental. perhaps the greatest compliment that can be paid her is to obsevr that Blairs work has been to folow her ideas rather than the traditional socialist line??

 

[CharleyH]

http://news.google.com/news?q=canad...GLR,GGLR:2005-43,GGLR:en&sa=N&tab=nn&oi=newsr



http://www.voanews.com/english/2006-01-24-voa4.cfm

Canadian Polls Point to Change
By Barry Brown
Toronto
24 January 2006

Voting has ended in Canada's general election and with nearly all votes counted, Canadians have elected opposition leader Stephen Harper to lead the first Conservative Party government in more than 12 years.

Canada's Conservative Party surged to victory in Monday's general election, smashing the 12-year rule of Prime Minister Paul Martin's Liberals.
Stephen Harper, the 46-year-old Conservative leader pulled ahead midway through the campaign.

Fifty-five days ago, when Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin called Canada's 39th election, he was leading in the polls and demonizing Mr. Harper and his party as too extreme for Canadian voters.

But the strategy that worked so well for the Liberals in the 2004 election, backfired this time around. Mr. Harper pushed his policies of tax cuts, an end to the corruption scandals that plagued the Liberal government, improvements to national health care, crackdown on crime and better relations with the U.S.

The Liberal scare tactics, Harper said, were phony. In a television interview, Harper compared his successful effort to re-unite the Conservative Party, which had split into two, with his views for governing Canada.

"My big goal as a leader has to bring all conservatives together, to make sure there's something in the party for everyone. But at the same time that no one group can demand everything and get everything it wants. And that's ultimately the way, if we get a chance to govern the country, the country has to be governed as well," he said. "You have to try and have something for everybody but no one group can hold the country hostage."

But the Liberal's message did have an impact.

Mr. Harper's Conservative Party is expected to elect about 124 of 308 representatives in Canada's parliament, just shy of a majority. This result was predicted by most polls and Mr. Harper knows his performance as prime minister will determine whether Canadians will give him and his Conservative Party their full confidence the next time they go to the polls..."
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~


There are several articles at the first link above. I was just curious as to see what the opinion might be as to the impact of a Conservative influence in good ole left wing Canada.

I note no one else has so far posted anything concerning the election and I wondered why?


amicus...

Actually there are a few wrong facts in this article.

1. Only a minority of Canadians voted for the Conservatives, which are not to be mistaken for the Progressive Conservatives. Canadians, the majority, voted for other parties - NOT for the Conservatives. How a government gets elected without 50% of the vote is beyond me (not really) but it's odd that PR agents say that CANADIANS want this government when apparently the majority does not.

2. Paul Martin was not the leader of the Liberals for 12 years. Also, he did not call an election. He was challenged in a non-confidence vote as far as I recall, and forced by the opposition.

3. Harpers party has an even lower number in the house than Martin did when elected. Perhaps Harper's (Alliance and Reform plus left over PC party) conservatives have the lowest minority in my history.

They will be outta there in less then 4 years.

4. I won't say LOL - too many F's in that response.

 

[Pure]

Yes, Colly,

It a minority, as Charley says, about 125 out of 308. They're short about 30 votes. So they much have votes from Liberals, QuebecSovereignists, or New (Social) Democrats. Many Quebec folks lean left or social democratic.

So Harper's old 'hot button', Karl Rovish issues have gotta take a back seat--banning gay marriage (but not 'unions'), sending troops to Iraq, buddying up to George W.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

"The moral difference between a soldier and a civilian is that the soldier accepts personal responsibility for the safety of the body politic of which he is a member. The civilian does not." - Robert Heinlein


I love this quote. VERY much my sentiment about such things, at the risk of getting off topic.

Back on topic, minority governments are the unstable future of Canada. As an American, it doesn't bother me TOO much, unless that instability creates problems that affect my country directly (i.e. illegal immigration). Face it, there IS NO majority in your country, and something tells me that there is no majority here in the States, either. Perhaps we're NEXT, and that's the best case scenario.

 

[Pure]

yes, *this* minority seems unstable, but I don't think that argument can be applied generally.

or perhaps i should say, 'a minority government' in Canada, has not necessarily been unstable in some bad sense of the word.

some good legislation has come during such governments, though perhaps they have not lasted as long.

it is interesting to compare 'minority government' in a parliamentary system with the non-unusual US situation--bearing some similarities-- where the Congress is controlled by one party, but the executive by the other.

 

[Harry Leg]

It a minority, as Charley says, about 125 out of 308. They're short about 30 votes. So they much have votes from Liberals, QuebecSovereignists, or New (Social) Democrats. Many Quebec folks lean left or social democratic.

So Harper's old 'hot button', Karl Rovish issues have gotta take a back seat--banning gay marriage (but not 'unions'), sending troops to Iraq, buddying up to George W.

As a Canadian I find it interesting that you describe the Bloc Quebecois as QuebecSovereignists and the New Democratic Party as New (Social) Democrats. But what really amuses me is the amount of Canadians that have posted on this thread.

Back on topic, minority governments are the unstable future of Canada. As an American, it doesn't bother me TOO much, unless that instability creates problems that affect my country directly (i.e. illegal immigration). Face it, there IS NO majority in your country, and something tells me that there is no majority here in the States, either. Perhaps we're NEXT, and that's the best case scenario.

If you are trying to perpetuate the stereotype of the typically egocentric american world view, well done.
Maybe you're just being sarcastic.
Either way I'd like to know why you think Canada's future is unstable. After all, we're in no danger of being displaced as the world economic superpower.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

As a Canadian I find it interesting that you describe the Bloc Quebecois as QuebecSovereignists and the New Democratic Party as New (Social) Democrats. But what really amuses me is the amount of Canadians that have posted on this thread.


If you are trying to perpetuate the stereotype of the typically egocentric american world view, well done.
Maybe you're just being sarcastic.
Either way I'd like to know why you think Canada's future is unstable. After all, we're in no danger of being displaced as the world economic superpower.

Minority parliamentary governments ARE unstable, are they not? And I doubt that you are a world economic superpower, although your natural resources give you the means to become one.

 

[Liar]

Minority parliamentary governments ARE unstable, are they not?

Not nessecarily. The only thing it really means is that the governing party does not have absolute power, but will need to reach agreement with other members of the parlament. When it works (and yes, it often does) it mean a less partisan political climate, less radical political experimenting, and wider consensus in the parliament. When it doesn't work (which also happens, if the reigning party can't handle the minority situation) the result is less stability, yes.

 

[CharleyH]

Minority parliamentary governments ARE unstable, are they not? And I doubt that you are a world economic superpower, although your natural resources give you the means to become one.

As a Canadian, I concur that Canada is not a superpower in any sense - albeit the USD I get paid currently SUCKS SHIT, which means the Canadian economy over the last year has been stronger - sad for me and good for Canadians . However thats a side point

I do agree with Pure on his last point that a minority government is not a totally bad thing in Canada - it is certainly good for the WE who did not vote for the conservative DUFUS minority (IE: Press conference: Defense: Arctic = protecting ourselves from the U.S., Russian and? .... the DANES? LOL - how completely embarrassing. Good to know my tax dollars are going to a worthy cause.