• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Election 2011

Well, not really a mockery of democracy - it is democracy!  Anyone can run and electors can vote for anyone.  Not the smartest application of representative democracy, but a valid one anyways.  Ancient Athens filled positions through random lots, so nobody can say it is undemocratic to allow the vox populi to be heard.

Someone mentioned the idea of allow the improbable and the improbable will happen - takes me back to a "Starship Troopers" quote....
 
Technoviking said:
And those who voted so blindly, they also make a mockery of democracy.

My thoughts exactly, I don't care for all that youth empowerment bull. Nobody will ever make me believe that a McGill university student is qualified as an MP. Quebeckers dropped the ball (again) and they'll get the representation that they deserve.
 
Infanteer said:
Well, not really a mockery of democracy - it is democracy!  Anyone can run and electors can vote for anyone.  Not the smartest application of representative democracy, but a valid one anyways.  Ancient Athens filled positions through random lots, so nobody can say it is undemocratic to allow the vox populi to be heard.

Someone mentioned the idea of allow the improbable and the improbable will happen - takes me back to a "Starship Troopers" quote....
I disagree that it's valid.  This is not "vox populi", this is rather "vox idiots".  It reminds me of Star Wars "Who is more foolish?  The fool?  Or the one who (votes) for the fool?"

I believe that eliminating the 2$/per annum per vote would help eliminate this.  But I would expect that our major parties would have more morals than to run an anglophone in a francophone riding.
 
Oh, I don't think it will be very long before people start to see the NDP isn't wearing any clothes  ;)
 
Technoviking said:
That's my point, and I think I made it earlier.  In fact, Mr. Layton extolled the "vast experience" his crew had.  This was during his "victory" speech on Monday night (Yes, I think he had every reason to celebrate).  I also acknowledge that the NDP is not the only party to run pylons in elections.  But for them to stand up and say "look at us!  We ran in every riding!  We ran x% women!"  ::)That funding must end.  I hope that the incoming Government scraps that dollars for votes idea...


Contrast this crop of NDP members with the man the Torries ran against Mr Ignatieff. If there was ever a reason to run a pylon candidate, it's against a party leader. The Torries appear to have a highly qualified, experienced, educated, and respected member in Mr Trottier who earned his seat through hard work campaigning in the riding in which he lives.

I wager dollars to donuts that the budget ends the vote subsidy.
 
Technoviking said:
To be fair, I don't blame just the NDP for this.  ANY party that does this is, IMHO, guilty of making a mockery of the system.  How on earth can anyone even fathom putting an unqualified person into a riding, and THEN, after the thought, try to teach them the bloody language of their bloody constituents? 

And those who voted so blindly, they also make a mockery of democracy.

I would have to agree with you. Were French speaking pro-NDP Quebecers so scarce that they couldn't find one to represent the riding? As part of the candidate vetting process you would think that a candidate that does not speak the language or has very little connection with his/her constituents would have sent off some alarm bells.  The fact that these people were nominated, I think says a lot about the NDP party as a whole, and Jack Layton in particular.

You are also right about the constituents who voted for some of these candidates also leaves something to be desired. To vote for someone that does not speak the language and who has not canvassed the riding says a lot the locals.

MJP said:
Hardly a strong argument on the bringing down of democracy which seems to be the talking point of the year (against all parties) despite no one really breaching the core principles of democracy. An attempt to gain the most of the per vote subsidy if status quo emerged from the election is more my bet than any attempt to subvert our democratic principles.

Another reason to abolish the subsidy.
 
ModlrMike said:
Contrast this crop of NDP members with the man the Torries ran against Mr Ignatieff. If there was ever a reason to run a pylon candidate, it's against a party leader. The Torries appear to have a highly qualified, experienced, educated, and respected member in Mr Trottier who earned his seat through hard work campaigning in the riding in which he lives.

It's interesting you say that because that is my riding and Trottier did not do much to earn his seat in my opinion. I never saw him in my area campaigning, never read about any events of his in the local newspaper, and furthermore he didn't even attend the local election debate. (Neither did Ignatieff, but at least he had an excuse with campaigning around the country as the Liberal leader). Trottier is the benefactor of intense distaste in this area with Ignatieff, nothing more. If you were to ask the heavy majority of people in this area anything about Mr. Trottier they couldn't tell you a thing about him. What they would tell you about is the invisible man and their dislike for him.
 
Technoviking said:
I disagree that it's valid.  This is not "vox populi", this is rather "vox idiots".

You're assuming that those are two different things.... :)

A big part of the problem is systemic; voting for regional representation has been fused with voting for the executive.  (Most) electors weren't voting for the 19 year old university student or the bartender in Las Vegas, they were voting for Jack Layton.  Likewise, my MP has been around for a loooong time and I only hear about his absences from Parliament.  I was voting for Stephen Harper to lead my country when I cast my vote.

I don't think we are ever going to get around this.
 
Gimpy said:
It's interesting you say that because that is my riding and Trottier did not do much to earn his seat in my opinion. I never saw him in my area campaigning, never read about any events of his in the local newspaper, and furthermore he didn't even attend the local election debate. (Neither did Ignatieff, but at least he had an excuse with campaigning around the country as the Liberal leader). Trottier is the benefactor of intense distaste in this area with Ignatieff, nothing more. If you were to ask the heavy majority of people in this area anything about Mr. Trottier they couldn't tell you a thing about him. What they would tell you about is the invisible man and their dislike for him.

All I can say about either is that Mr. Ignatieff put on a good BBQ.
 
mariomike said:
All I can say about either is that Mr. Ignatieff put on a good BBQ.

He did have events in the riding, but more often than not he was absent from the area (probably due to him not living here). Even his constituency office was closed more than it was open, not to mention the fact that before the election they moved from a storefront office to the 6th floor of an unlisted office complex. I'm going to keep an open mind with Trottier though and probably make a visit to his constituency office and see what his plans are for the riding before I make any judgments on how he'll do as an MP.
 
I have both had rockets fired at me and run for (municipal) office, and they are equally hard in different ways.

No matter how much I courted the media, posted on my web site, made public appearances and pressed the flesh, there were ALWAYS people who never heard of me, had no idea I was running or did not see/hear/touch/smell my campaign. In that sense I fully sympathize with candidates when people say they "never saw them" on the campaign trail. Even if it was somehow physically possible to herd everyone in the city into some central location, there are partisans for the other side who will dismiss you or refuse to listen, disinterested people who don't care, cynical people who say "why should I care", corrupt people who say "what's in it for me?" and one or two who are interested in the issues and are willing to listen and debate.

I was an effective municipal candidate in some surprising ways. The message traffic on my web site and hits from various visitors showed people from as far away as Quebec and BC were seeing what I was about (thanks guys). I ran the most efficient campaign in history, spending $1000 and getting @1000 votes. Towards the end of the campaign, the two major candidates were starting to spend a lot more time talking about fiscal responsibility than they had at the start. Since this was what I would realistically be able to do (change the focus of what issues would be spoken about) I made this the focus and aim of the campaign, and to some extent succeeded.

For the record, the CPC candidate in my riding did a very effective campaign this time around, including phone calls, one personal visit and the GOTV call on election day. The incumbent did one GOTV call as well, the Green candidate left a brochure at the door and I never saw nor heard from the NDP candidate (Orange Wave indeed  ;))

That parties game and take advantage of the rules is hardly surprising; sports teams, Tim Hortons franchise owners and mothers seeking places at day care centers (among others) do exactly the same things. Voters also try to game the system (what do you think strategic voting is?). Candidates who are successful are entitled to the various perques of office, and if you don't agree with these perques, vote for the candidate who will eliminate them. Similarly while our Westminster style democracy is being bent out of shape by various trends that concentrate power in the hands of the executive, we do have the ability to agitate and vote for change. Sometimes this does not have to be loud or dramatic; I instructed my troops prior to election day on how the Westminster system actually worked (several were surprised to discover Steven Harper or Micheal Ignatieff would not be on their ballot), so at least one platoon worth of voters scattered across SW Ontario had the chance to make an informed vote.

In the end, an election campaign is much like a military campaign. You use the ground to your advantage (in this case it is Human Terrain, so an election is a COIN/guerrilla  campaign). You have little time to actually move or change the terrain, so choose wisely, stake out the key terrain that you want and attract people to your ground and prevent people already on your ground from leaving. The CPC and NDP obviously chose economic ground while the LPC chose the swampy social policy low ground.
 
The NDP candidate in my riding left a card in my mailbox "Sorry I missed you". Not as sorry as I was ;

The Libs didn't even come into the neighbourhood, so far as I know.

My CPC candidate, who I know quite well from the military, garnered about 50% more votes than the last time, against a high profile incumbent NDP, in about the hardest union riding in the country. The people here treat Ken Lewenza and his views like a god. Even though both him and the NDP, here, were against all the money the CPC threw at Chrysler and GM to bail them out.

Maybe next time, once people get a good look at, and finally understand, the socialist (aka communist) agenda of the NDP things here will finally turn around.
 
Thucydides said:
I have both had rockets fired at me and run for (municipal) office, and they are equally hard in different ways.

No matter how much I courted the media, posted on my web site, made public appearances and pressed the flesh, there were ALWAYS people who never heard of me, had no idea I was running or did not see/hear/touch/smell my campaign. In that sense I fully sympathize with candidates when people say they "never saw them" on the campaign trail. Even if it was somehow physically possible to herd everyone in the city into some central location, there are partisans for the other side who will dismiss you or refuse to listen, disinterested people who don't care, cynical people who say "why should I care", corrupt people who say "what's in it for me?" and one or two who are interested in the issues and are willing to listen and debate.

I was an effective municipal candidate in some surprising ways. The message traffic on my web site and hits from various visitors showed people from as far away as Quebec and BC were seeing what I was about (thanks guys). I ran the most efficient campaign in history, spending $1000 and getting @1000 votes. Towards the end of the campaign, the two major candidates were starting to spend a lot more time talking about fiscal responsibility than they had at the start. Since this was what I would realistically be able to do (change the focus of what issues would be spoken about) I made this the focus and aim of the campaign, and to some extent succeeded.

For the record, the CPC candidate in my riding did a very effective campaign this time around, including phone calls, one personal visit and the GOTV call on election day. The incumbent did one GOTV call as well, the Green candidate left a brochure at the door and I never saw nor heard from the NDP candidate (Orange Wave indeed  ;))

That parties game and take advantage of the rules is hardly surprising; sports teams, Tim Hortons franchise owners and mothers seeking places at day care centers (among others) do exactly the same things. Voters also try to game the system (what do you think strategic voting is?). Candidates who are successful are entitled to the various perques of office, and if you don't agree with these perques, vote for the candidate who will eliminate them. Similarly while our Westminster style democracy is being bent out of shape by various trends that concentrate power in the hands of the executive, we do have the ability to agitate and vote for change. Sometimes this does not have to be loud or dramatic; I instructed my troops prior to election day on how the Westminster system actually worked (several were surprised to discover Steven Harper or Micheal Ignatieff would not be on their ballot), so at least one platoon worth of voters scattered across SW Ontario had the chance to make an informed vote.

In the end, an election campaign is much like a military campaign. You use the ground to your advantage (in this case it is Human Terrain, so an election is a COIN/guerrilla  campaign). You have little time to actually move or change the terrain, so choose wisely, stake out the key terrain that you want and attract people to your ground and prevent people already on your ground from leaving. The CPC and NDP obviously chose economic ground while the LPC chose the swampy social policy low ground.

To your credit, some local but very left wing individuals (all lawyers) commented several times that in the debates you seemed  to take the time to properly consider a question and then provide an artculate answer validating your views and conclusions with facts.  And, you did this repeatedly and as the crowd appeared to agree the lawyers began to loathe.  This pattern of coherence, reason, logic, consistencey and lack of rhetoric was your ultimate downfall - in Toronto Danforth they would have stuck you in a stack of recycled, clean burning rubber tires.



 
Thucydides said:
I have both had rockets fired at me and run for (municipal) office, and they are equally hard in different ways.

I listened to someone once and ran for a Canadian Alliance nomination.  I was told that 300 votes should do but the campaign went ballistic and the winner eventually won with 2,000.  I thought, I know more than 300 people, how hard can it be.  I am sure the eventual winner spent at least $20,000 and he wasn't the biggest spender.  The winner was supported by all the conservative preachers in the constituency campaigning from the pulpit.  Canadian Alliance and hidden agenda - you betcha.
 
whiskey601 said:
To your credit, some local but very left wing individuals (all lawyers) commented several times that in the debates you seemed  to take the time to properly consider a question and then provide an artculate answer validating your views and conclusions with facts.  And, you did this repeatedly and as the crowd appeared to agree the lawyers began to loathe.  This pattern of coherence, reason, logic, consistencey and lack of rhetoric was your ultimate downfall - in Toronto Danforth they would have stuck you in a stack of recycled, clean burning rubber tires.

Yeah, the real key seems to be able to present yourself as a HOAG on TV.... ::)
 
This oped piece by Andrew Coyne from the Macleans website reiterates a point made a number of times in this thread. It is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provision of the Copyright Act.

The West is in and Ontario has joined it


How the election led to an unprecedented realignment of Canadian politics

by Andrew Coyne on Friday, May 6, 2011 7:00am


Democracy, great and terrible as the sea: unknowable, implacable, irresistible, destroyer of parties, deliverer of others, humbler of leaders, elector of bricklayers and assistant pub managers. Tremble before it, and stay out of its path when it moves.

Five parties were picked up, shaken out and tossed aside by the voters in this astonishing election, but of all the many implications one is fundamental: the Conservatives are now in a position to replace the Liberals as the natural governing party in Canada, as dominant, potentially, in the 21st century as the Liberals were in the 20th. This isn’t just a victory, the first Conservative majority in a generation. It is (at least under the terms of the current electoral system) a realignment. Simply put, the West is in—and Ontario has joined it.

The temptation, looking at the wreckage of the Liberal and Bloc Québécois parties and the meteoric rise of the NDP, is to compare this election to 1993, which shattered Brian Mulroney’s old Conservative coalition into its Bloc and Reform party fragments. But it’s much more consequential than that. In retrospect, 1993 changed very little. It handed power to the Liberals, but it did nothing to alter the long-term dynamic of Canadian politics: the remorseless shrinking of the Liberal base.


Once, under William Lyon Mackenzie King, Liberals governed with a majority in every region of the country. But they lost the West to the Conservatives in 1957, and never recovered. They lost Quebec in 1984, and have never really recovered there, either. The collapse of the Conservatives in 1993, and the splitting of the vote on the right that ensued, allowed Jean Chrétien to eke out three more majorities, largely on the strength of the Liberals’ near-total dominance of Ontario. But it did nothing to enlarge the Liberal base: neither the West nor Quebec rejoined the fold.

By contrast, this election looks a lot more like 1891, when Wilfrid Laurier established the Liberal dynasty in Quebec, the foundation stone of Liberal governments for nearly a century; or 1935, when King added Ontario to the Liberal column. Now Stephen Harper has at last recaptured Ontario for the Conservatives, and in so doing has created a new governing coalition, unlike any that has gone before: the West plus Ontario.

Quebec and Atlantic Canada (Laurier and King), or Quebec and Ontario (Lester Pearson and Pierre Trudeau) we’ve seen. Conservatives sometimes put together majorities out of Ontario and Atlantic Canada (W.B. Bennett) or Quebec and the West (Mulroney). But Ontario and the West? That’s new. They have voted together before, of course, but the combination has never previously been enough to produce a majority on its own. But as the population has shifted westward, so has the centre of gravity of Canadian politics.

It is likely to prove more durable than previous Conservative governments, if only because it has been so long in the making. This is not like the sudden sweeps of John Diefenbaker and Mulroney, born of the collapse of previous Liberal governments, only to collapse of their own internal contradictions. This is one that has been built slowly, election after election, through defeat and victory.

The Conservative dominance of the West is the single most established fact in Canadian politics, a dynasty now in its sixth decade. And it has only grown more pronounced over time. On Monday night, the Conservatives won 54 per cent of the vote in Manitoba, 56 per cent in Saskatchewan, 67 in Alberta, and 46 in B.C.: an astounding 55 per cent average across the West—nine points higher than they averaged in 2004.

But meanwhile the same growth has been occurring in Ontario. Conservative parties won two seats in Ontario in 2000, 24 in 2004, 40 in 2006, 51 in 2008, and now 73—the first time the Conservatives have carried Ontario since 1984. Not only did the Tories take most of the seats in rural Ontario, but they also took 30 seats in the Greater Toronto Area, propelled by rising support among immigrant groups. Overall the Tories took 44 per cent of the vote in Ontario—12 points higher than in 2004.

What does this mean? It means the West, having spent most of the last 54 years in opposition, is now firmly installed in power. And it now has Ontario as its partner. This is the new axis of Canadian politics. The West begins at the Ottawa River.

Ontario’s decision is more momentous when you think of what it has endured of late. For much of the campaign, Ontario was very much in play. It had been through a harsh recession, and had become for the first time a “have-not” province, dependent on federal equalization payments. There was a real question as to which way it would turn: to the parties promising an expanded role for government, or to the party promising to cut taxes and spending.

That it chose the latter suggests the greater durability of this coalition. The Diefenbaker sweep was based on cultish enthusiasm and the machinery of Maurice Duplessis in Quebec; Mulroney cobbled together two mutually antagonistic political movements, western populists and Quebec nationalists, united only in their loathing of Ottawa. By contrast, this is based on a real affinity of ideology and interests. For all the attention paid to the Tories’ inability to get over 40 per cent in the polls nationally, the greater truth is this: they have 50 per cent of the vote in two-thirds of the country. As it turns out, that’s enough.

And as the population continues to shift westward, it will be more than enough. At the next election, there will be 30-odd more seats in Ontario and the West, based on the redistribution bill the Tories introduced in the last Parliament; and in elections after that, more still. Add to that the coming abolition of party subsidies, as promised in their platform, and the Conservative grip on power looks secure.

And yet it all could have turned out much differently. The Tories ran a frankly miserable campaign, aimed entirely at holding on to their existing base, but with little obvious appeal to the uncommitted. Though their strategy was sound, and their platform contained some interesting proposals, their message was presented in an oddly sullen tone: paranoid of the media, spiteful of their opponents. Indeed, until the last weekend of the campaign they appeared to be losing support, not gaining it. They benefited enormously from the disarray on the left: first the collapse of the Liberals, then, at the end, by the shocking rise of the NDP.

To be fair, the Tories were in part responsible for both. It was Harper who successfully framed the election as a choice between the stability of a Conservative majority or another “reckless coalition” of the Liberals, the NDP and the Bloc—the enduring legacy of the December 2008 fiasco—putting the Liberals in a box from which they struggled the whole campaign to escape.

To voters frustrated with the political impasse of the last several years, Harper said: only the Tories could win a majority, while the Liberals, behind by a dozen points or more in the polls at the start of the campaign, could not. Voters who were comfortable with a Conservative minority, but wary of giving them a majority, were told that the former option was no longer available to them: a Conservative minority would surely be defeated in the House at the first opportunity. After all, was that not what had precipitated the election: the withdrawal of confidence by the other three parties?

As much as Michael Ignatieff tried to evade that logic, it proved ineluctible. If he wanted to govern, he had to leave open the possibility of doing so with the support of the NDP, at least. But in so doing, he allowed himself to be tied rather too closely to the other parties, at least for centrist voters’ taste: the more so in view of the Liberals’ disastrous decision to abandon the centre, in favour of a marked appeal to the left.

I’ll concede there was a certain logic to it: steal voters from the NDP, knock them out of contention early, and drive up Liberal numbers to within striking range of the Conservatives. Then appeal to voters to give Ignatieff a majority, rather than Harper. There was just one problem with it. It couldn’t possibly work.

The Liberal platform was just left enough to put off voters to their right, without persuading anyone to their left. It came off as what it was: a strategy, rather than a philosophy, feeding doubts about the sincerity and authenticity of the man promoting it, already planted by months of Tory attack ads. Add to that Jack Layton’s powerful personal appeal, and NDP voters had little reason to switch—the more so given all the talk of post-coalition alliances. After all, if the Conservatives could win the election and still be tossed from power, what reason had they to heed appeals to vote Liberal to “stop Harper”? Quite the contrary: better to give Jack a strong bargaining position in the negotiations.

All that the Liberals leftward deke accomplished, then, was to leave the Tories in absolute possession of the centre-right: the only party promising to cut taxes and spending, while four parties promised to raise them—the only party, indeed, that seemed particularly concerned with creating wealth, rather than redistributing it. Yet as much as the Liberals ceded the economy to the Tories, neither could they lay claim to any other issues in the public mind: the NDP owned health care and accountability, the Greens the environment. (As one pollster put it, about the only issue Ignatieff polled strongest on was foreign policy. Ouch.) And as the Liberal campaign began to stall, the opening was left for the NDP to make its move.

In a way, the NDP message was the flip side of the Conservatives’. Where Harper offered a majority as the solution to seven years of partisan bickering and brinksmanship, the NDP offered another: kick everybody in the shins: Conservatives, Liberals and, in Quebec, the Bloc.

And yet, as protest votes go, it was peculiarly sweet-tempered. The strategies of the other parties seemed aimed at forcing voters down one chute or another, with strident appeals to fear. You have to vote Conservative, Harper told them, to stop the coalition. You have to vote Liberal, Ignatieff told them, to stop Harper. You have to vote for us, BQ leader Gilles Duceppe told Quebecers, to defend Quebec from federal depredations. The faces of all three men scowled out at Canadians from campaign ads and the televised debates.

And along came Layton, with his courtly manners and perpetual smile, asking them, in effect, “Would you like to vote New Democrat?” That seems to have been all there was to it. There wasn’t much that was new in the NDP message—its policies remain the same frumpy mix of dirigisme and populist business-bashing they have always been—but neither was there the same negativity. To compound the oddity, here was a protest against “politics as usual” being led by a 25-year career politician. Yet in today’s sourpuss politics, Layton’s old-school vibe came off as positively radical. Imagine: a candidate who actually seemed to be enjoying himself, as if he liked people.

Voters in Quebec, weary of the Bloc and positively alarmed at the prospect of another referendum—for above all Quebecers prefer not to have to choose—were the first to respond, vaulting the party into first place in a province where it had only recently climbed above 10 per cent of the vote. That got the attention of left-of-centre voters in the rest of Canada, accustomed to being told they were “wasting their votes” if they opted for the NDP over the Liberals. Before you knew it, the NDP had doubled their vote nationwide.

There’s never been a surge to match it. Soon the Liberals found themselves whipsawed between the NDP and the Conservatives. As the NDP climbed in the polls, left-wing voters abandoned them in favour of the NDP, the better to “stop Harper.” Then, as the NDP started to draw within a few points of the Conservatives, right-wing Liberals decamped for the Conservatives, especially in Ontario, in order to stop the NDP. That late shift seemed to catch the pollsters unawares, but it was probably on the order of two to three percentage points, pushing the Tories over the top and cratering Liberal support.

The resulting carnage—the Liberals gravely wounded, the Bloc mortally so—leaves as much altered on the opposition side as on the government’s, but with much less sense of its durability. The kind of sudden ballooning in support the NDP enjoyed has been seen before, especially in Quebec: it rarely lasts, not least when so much of it is attached to the personality of the leader. Quebecers have been shifting their support about wildly in recent years, without evident regard for ideological consistency: it’s the left-wing NDP now but it was the centre-right Coalition pour L’Avenir du Québec earlier, and the further-right Action Démocratique du Québec before that. The best that can be said is that the Quebec vote is in play.

The NDP will now have to cope with the challenges of success. It has done the country the singular service of dispatching the Bloc. Now it must manage the expectations aroused by its own strident appeals to Quebec nationalism, without alienating either its new-found followers in Quebec or its traditional base elsewhere in the country. At the same time, as the second party in an emerging two-party system, it must adapt to the rules of a very different political game.

Does it sharpen the divisions between itself and the government, in hopes of forcing the remains of the anti-Conservative majority into its camp—but at risk of yielding the centre ground to the Tories? Or does it pitch its tent for the centre, and risk being dragged to the right as the Conservatives remake Canadian politics in their image?

But the Liberals’ dilemma is much more acute. Indeed, it is existential. The party needs time to debate its future direction—but in the meantime, the Conservatives and the NDP will be tearing into its support on the right and left. Should it, as some on the left of the party are urging, opt for a merger with the NDP—assuming the NDP has any interest in such an alliance—it will find itself deserted by many of its centre-right supporters. But if it tries to carry on, crippled, adrift, and deprived of a substantial part of its funding, it risks bleeding support, even some MPs, to the NDP.

If it is to survive, it will have to make the case for the continuing relevance of a centrist party in Canadian politics. If all that being a Liberal means is to be a little less conservative than the Conservatives, a little less progressive than the New Democrats, the party may find itself meeting the same fate as the British Liberal party. But if it is bold enough to redefine the middle—to outflank the Conservatives on some issues, and the New Democrats on others, while claiming ownership of issues like democratic reform, or the need for a strong national government, capable of defending the national interest against the provinces, it may yet hope to rise again. Look on it as an opportunity, Liberals: it’s not as if you’ve got anything to lose.
 
And Preston Manning finally receives his due:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/05/06/rex-murphy-preston-mannings-great-achievement/

Rex Murphy: Preston Manning’s great achievement
 
Rex Murphy  May 6, 2011 – 8:52 AM ET

Has there ever been a Canadian election which started so miserably – no one wanted it; continued so tediously -  and then turned into a caldron of amazing stories:  Bloc Quebecois fallen to dust and irrelevance; the NDP rise, the cane and the surge; the demolition of the Liberals – Ignatieff’s utter defeat – candidates who campaigned in Las Vegas and won in Quebec. (Almost as good as campaigning in Quebec and winning in Vegas.)

So many dramatic stories – that they overshadowed and crowded out the greater story of a fundamental realignment of Canadian politics.

It is more than worth recalling that Preston Manning – one of the great political and intellectual forces of modern Canadian times – started all this.  Far earlier than others Manning saw the weaknesses of the Liberal party; he – correctly – pushed for a place for the West at the national table; and he had the courage and foresight to start a political movement that in 20 years (with some changes) has displaced the natural governing party, and forged new realities for Canadian politics.

Manning should be recognized for this:  like another leader he never got to see what he most made possible.

Then there’s the story of Stephen Harper himself.  He has done political wizardry here.  From the rocky and unstable platform of successive minority governments he has not only held on: he has the majority.  It was in his moment that the Bloc Quebecois self-immolated, vanished in a puff of smoke of its own irrelevancy.  He has 70 plus seats in Ontario, which just over a decade ago – three times – elected at least 100 Liberals.  Harper has pursued the party of giants like Pearson and Trudeau into near oblivion.

He’s almost an anti-Obama.  He excites real animosity. He has an almost Mulroney-esque capacity for exciting oversized anger – even contempt from his opponents.  But for all the scorn he has had to take, from those who like to think him just dumb and mean – he’s out maneuvered all the “smarter” people in the room.

With little of the politician’s gifts – neither Trudeau’s charisma, Chrétien’s folksy impersonations – Layton’s “ordinary guy” approach – it is the reserved and stern Harper who has the majority and representation from coast to coast to coast.

But Harper’s larger achievement builds on Manning’s: his arrival at majority fulfills that pledge of the early days – remember: “the West wants in.”  The West is not only “in” and at the table. It owns the table.  That’s a real accomplishment – the dissatisfactions of the Western provinces were a real and dangerous fault line in this country.

None of the other stories of Monday night – however fascinating and dramatic – are as significant.
On two fronts – Quebec and the West – the dynamics of alienation and separatism have been very severely checked – and the least “natural” politician of a generation, Stephen Harper, is now its most successful.  Whether you support him or not – that’s really impressive.

National Post
 
                      Voters    Voters      Citizens Citizens    Citizens
                      For   Opposed For      Opposed Not Opposed
Citizens 23971740 100%
Voters           14720580 61%
Conservative   5832401 24% 40%     60% 24%   37%         63%
NDP             4508474 19% 31%     69% 19%   43%         57%
Liberal             2783175 12% 19%     81% 12%   50%         50%
Bloc               889788 4% 6%     94% 4%   58%         42%
Others               706742 3% 5%     95% 3%   58%         42%
Did Not Vote   9251160 39%

More fun with numbers:

On the basis that all Citizens are eligible voters, and following the dictum that silence implies consent we end up with the above.


While the Conservatives only garnered the active support of 24% of the citizenry, equally only 37% of the citizenry actively opposed them.  63% of the citizenry did NOT oppose them.

Fautes de mieux, for the majority of the citizenry the Conservatives are the least worst solution for government.  All other options are worse as they attract an increasing number of active opponents and a decreasing number of active supporters.

Not exactly a ringing endorsement of the government of the day but equally not a credible rationale for changing the voting system. 

Most Canadians have decided this is a government they can live with.

QED  ;D

Edit:  Can somebody offer advice on how to straighten out the above table?  :(
 
Technoviking said:
I rest my case.  Mr. Layton made a mockery of democracy by planting non-qualified pylons in these ridings.

Well, as Jacko said to Iggy . . .  you have to show up for work if you expect to get a promotion.

Jacko's  goose is now related to his candidate's absent gander
 
Here, reproduced under the fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail are two articles that I think, at least I hope, reflect what happened earlier this week:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/john-ibbitson/remaking-stephen-harper-in-canadas-image/article2013255/
Remaking Stephen Harper in Canada’s image

JOHN IBBITSON
Ottawa—From Saturday's Globe and Mail

Last updated Saturday, May. 07, 2011

So much for the honeymoon. The morning after the election, a reporter asked Stephen Harper whether he would push forward with a hard-right “radical agenda” now that he had a majority government. The Prime Minister shrugged.

“One thing I've learned in this business is that surprises are generally not well received by the public,” he replied. But there's another thing he has learned.

web-fo-harper07_1273026cl-4.jpg


Mr. Harper has become a successful Prime Minister not by dragging Canada to the right, as so many critics allege. He succeeded because he understood the Canada that is becoming, and shaped his party and policies to fit. He saw the Canada that his opponents couldn't see.

Former Alberta premier Ralph Klein loved to say the secret to political success lies in figuring out where the parade is going, then getting in front of it. The Canadian parade is heading from east to west, from European to Asian, from rural to urban, from expecting more from government to expecting less, from multiparty politics to two-party politics (maybe 2½).

The Conservative Party is now at the vanguard of that parade. Seventy-three of its MPs come from Ontario, even as it shifts from being an eastern party to a western one; Tories won most of the ridings with large numbers of Asian immigrant voters; its base of power is now greater in Toronto, Vancouver, Ottawa and Calgary.

And as Mr. Harper and his party moderated and honed their views, they distilled a simple but politically compelling message: The federal government is there to protect your job, to protect your earnings and to keep you safe. It won't do much else because you don't want it to.

This is the message that will guide this majority government. By the end of the decade, this attitude may well be even more entrenched, whether or not Mr. Harper is still Prime Minister. It could take that long to develop a credible alternative government, one that is also western-oriented, attractive to urban immigrants, but populist progressive rather than populist conservative.

If so, then the contest at the national level may be between two broad-based political parties, one of the centre-right and one of the centre-left, each fighting for the votes in between. That has always been the political dynamic that Stephen Harper believed was best for Canada, and for his party. It may end up being his ultimate legacy.

GO WEST

May 2 may go down in history for something more important than the day the Conservatives won a majority. It was the election in which Ontario voters decoupled from Quebec and Atlantic Canada, and joined the West. They voted for a party from the West, led by a Westerner and embracing a Western ethos. This is seismic. “The geopolitical centre of the country has shifted west,” said Preston Manning, who as leader of the Reform Party helped to lay the groundwork for that shift. “The Ontario-Quebec axis – the Laurentian region, some people called it – has now shifted to Ontario and the West working together.”

During most of Canada's history, opinion shapers in Toronto, Montreal and Ottawa debated national priorities among themselves within the Liberal Party, which was almost always in government. The consensus often resulted in some new national program, such as the proposals to help with university tuition, child care and home care that formed the core of Michael Ignatieff's platform. But that approach no longer resonates with Ontario voters, who abandoned the Liberals in droves. Less than a decade ago, almost every seat in Ontario was Liberal. Today, only 11 are.

Matthew Mendelsohn thinks he knows why. Mr. Mendelsohn heads up the Mowat Centre, a think tank at the University of Toronto dedicated to Ontario issues. “When parties come forward and say, ‘We've got a big new national program to offer you,' say, on daycare, Ontarians are now very skeptical, much like people out west,” he believes.

As the oil patch emerged as a new economic hub and Asian markets rose in importance, Ontario businesses increasingly looked west for markets and investments. And with unemployment a major worry and both the Ontario and federal governments running deficits, many workers in Canada's most populous province preferred the more minimalist Conservative alternative of lower corporate taxes and a quickly balanced budget, with modest help for low-income seniors and little else.

That platform appealed also to immigrant Canadians, most of whom now come from Asia. In fact, the Tories made their biggest gains in the immigrant-dominated ridings surrounding Toronto and Vancouver.

Brampton was especially fertile. The city on the northwestern edge of Toronto has a booming population of 434,000, 48 per cent of whom are immigrants. In the 2008 election, all four Brampton ridings went Liberal, as they always had. All four went Conservative last Monday.

“The new Canadians who come here are entrepreneurial, they're risk-takers,” Brampton Mayor Susan Fennell observed. “The notion that people who come here are immediately reliant on government services is 100 per cent the opposite of the truth.”

But it wasn't just urban immigrants who voted Tory. Suburban voters, especially, backed Stephen Harper so heavily that the Conservatives are now the dominant party in every Canadian city from the Ottawa River to the Pacific. “The age-old arithmetic of how federal governments work has shifted, probably for the first time since Confederation,” Naheed Nenshi, Calgary's new mayor, believes. The new arithmetic, Mr. Nenshi said, suggests that “the key to winning a majority government runs right through the big cities of this country.”

BIG-CITY STEVE

This realization was the key lesson in the education of Stephen Harper. The Reform Party, in which he began his political career, had its roots in rural Canada. But Mr. Harper has finally managed to build the Conservatives into an urban powerhouse. He used the economic stimulus program born out of the 2009 recession to repair urban infrastructure. He proposes to make the municipal share of the gasoline tax permanent through legislation. He has promised to sit down with the Federation of Canadian Municipalities to discuss permanent federal funding for municipal infrastructure.

And when the Tories promise to keep more offenders in jail, it is people walking along city streets at night who are most grateful, especially in Western Canadian cities where crime rates are significantly higher.

This won't be enough for people downtown in big cities, who want all levels of government to spend more on assisted housing, public transit, cultural industries and help for the poor. Here, the Liberals and NDP continue to take seats. But it may suffice to convince the suburban middle classes – which make up the urban majority – that the Conservatives will pay attention to cities without sticking them with the bill for downtown megaprojects.

Promising smaller government that nonetheless focuses on the needs of the middle class and immigrants got Mr. Harper his majority; these will be his governing priorities. Critics warn of a slash-and-burn agenda, but that won't happen. Mr. Harper realized that Canadian core social values are shared across region and class. He promised to increase transfer payments to provinces for public health care; he is likely to keep that promise. He promised to protect equalization funding for poorer provinces; he is likely to keep that promise too.

There will likely be nothing on abortion or gay rights or capital punishment because he would lose the support of his new urban political base, and his majority along with it.

What will you see? You'll see regional economic development programs slimmed down. You'll see other federal funding designed to prop up this or encourage that slimmed or axed.

The Conservative legacy by 2020 will be a more modest federal government.

THE FAULT LINES

There will be strains. While Quebec nationalists will welcome less intrusion from Ottawa, they will also note the province's growing isolation from a country focused on the West, in which Ontario no longer acts as honest broker. This could once again stoke the fires of separatism.

And many Canadians will want Ottawa to play a more progressive and active role in the life of the nation, the sort of role that Liberal governments once played. These are the people who continue to wait for a national child-care program, 20 years after the Liberals first promised it. They want to see medicare extended to pharmacare. They want the Canada Pension Plan to ensure that no senior ever lives in poverty.

These remain Liberal priorities. But the Liberals are now the third party in the House, and third in the popular vote. Getting back to first will take a long walk. Meanwhile, the NDP is the Official Opposition, and the dominant political voice in Eastern Canada. Already some are calling for the two parties to merge. But it took a decade for the factions of the right to unite after the Progressive Conservative Gotterdammerung of 1993. It could take at least that long to resolve the schisms on the left.

Eventually, though, a governing alternative to the Conservatives will emerge, “though whether it's the Liberals or the NDP is another question,” says Richard Haskayne, the veteran Calgary oilman who has watched and fought for the rise of the West within Canada for decades.

Either the left in Canada splits in half, or the right does, he points out. The stability of polarization is the one thing federal politics never seems to achieve.

But whatever the next governing party looks like and however many elections it takes to emerge, there is one thing we do know: By then, Stephen Harper's Canada will have been around for a while.

John Ibbitson is The Globe and Mail’s Ottawa bureau chief


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/jeffrey-simpson/the-man-who-remade-canadas-political-landscape/article2013137/
The man who remade Canada’s political landscape
JEFFREY SIMPSON

From Saturday's Globe and Mail
Published Saturday, May. 07, 2011

Stephen Harper is the first non-Quebecker to win a majority since John Diefenbaker in 1958. If he governs wisely, his party should be in office for at least two majority governments, or nearly a decade. In that time, he and his successor (should he choose to leave politics) could remake many aspects of Canada.

election-harper_1271710cl-3.jpg


Through a combination of skill and luck, Mr. Harper already enjoys considerable advantages that come with being in a majority situation, with more advantages to come.

Canada’s population will soon start aging fast as baby boomers hit 65. Older voters are more likely to be Conservative supporters – and to show up for elections – than younger ones. New seats will be added for British Columbia, Alberta and Ontario, where the Conservatives are strong.

More immigrants will stream into Canada from China and South Asia. Mr. Harper successfully targeted these ethnic communities in the election, with Conservative candidates doing well in many ridings once considered to be Liberal bastions. With so few Liberal MPs left, the Conservatives can run up much larger margins among these groups.

Already way ahead in fundraising, the Conservatives will soon be even further ahead. Mr. Harper will abolish public subsidies for parties, a move that will cripple the Liberals and hurt the NDP. As a majority government, Conservatives will be able to raise even more money, since money loves a winner. None of the other parties will be remotely able to compete with the Conservatives’ financial juggernaut. And we’ve seen what money can buy between elections (think TV attack ads).

The left is divided, and is likely to remain so. The New Democrats scored a historic triumph on election night, and they should revel in their success. But some of that triumph was a fluke. Most of their Quebec victories were the political equivalent of a one-night stand. Outside Quebec, the NDP did better than even, but not superbly well, given the Liberal collapse.

Perhaps the “unite the left” idea will catch on to create the Democratic-Liberal Party, just as Mr. Harper eventually executed a merger of the Canadian Alliance and the Progressive Conservative Party. Perhaps a united “left” would pose a greater challenge to Mr. Harper than he faces now. But the gaps between New Democrats and Liberals are wide, deep and not easily reconciled, at least not any time soon.

As witnessed on Monday night, Liberal-NDP splits handed seats to the Conservatives in many ridings. As long as the Liberals and NDP fight each other, the Conservatives will win lots of seats with 35 per cent of the vote.

Better still, Mr. Harper has achieved one of his long-term objectives: the decimation of the Liberal Party. It was the major obstacle to the Conservatives becoming the country’s dominant party, but now the Liberals are a shell of their former selves. The New Democrats, leaving aside their unlikely Quebec support, are nowhere in vast swaths of Canada outside Quebec and, as such, don’t pose a serious long-term threat to the Conservatives.

Mr. Harper’s core vote is utterly loyal. It can’t be shaken by errors or controversies, and won’t even wobble through a punishing economic recession. Mr. Harper has the Sun newspaper chain and its little television offshoot at his beck and call to whip up that core, and he has most of the country’s newspapers editorially onside.

In the years ahead, Mr. Harper will expand the Conservative majority in the Senate by nominating more bagmen, defeated candidates and other partisans, thereby making that body even more compliant to his wishes. Very little, institutionally speaking, will stand in the way of the full sway of prime ministerial power.

Mr. Harper has remade the Canadian political landscape, creating a new party, battling through minority governments, and now winning a majority that should stretch past the new four-year mandate. What he must worry about is the hubris of victory and the arrogance of power, the devils that are the most insidious enemies of the mighty.

It is tempting to go on and on about these two articles, but, despite Jeffrey Simpson's snide little put-down of the Sun media chain and his own evident disappointment with his own (and many other) newspaper's endorsement of Harper, I think Ibbition and Simpson are are on target. Harper is reshaping Canada and we, in the process, are reshaping the Conservative movement into something akin to the Liberal Party of Canada circa 1955. 
 
Back
Top