It looks like my first attempt at political punditry has gone horribly wrong.
The four-way split in the vote (Liberal, Conservative, Bloc Quebecois, and New Democratic Party) that existed when the election was called in December still exists today.
But at that time polls suggested the election would result in no change at all. Canada seemed certain to elect another minority government with the Liberals at the helm.
What has changed since then is that there has been a massive increase in support for the Conservative Party.
For many years the Conservatives were regarded with suspicion. They were often accused of harboring a hidden agenda of social conservatism they chose not to reveal in their official platform.
Now voters appear to have overcome these doubts. Analysts suggest the Conservatives are within striking distance of forming an absolute majority in the House of Commons.
Conservative leader Stephen Harper, once regarded as a liability, has emerged as strong and confident in televised debates between the leaders of the four main parties.
Election day is Monday, January 23, 2006.
.
Great series – campaign growing nasty and gloves have come off because of poll result?? Please keep us informed on the issues debated.
TORONTO, Jan. 11 — With a militant drumbeat and an ominous tone, a campaign ad here warns that election of Conservative Party leader Stephen Harper “would bring a smile to George W. Bush’s face.”
Well behind in the polls two weeks before a parliamentary election, the governing Liberal Party led by Prime Minister Paul Martin this week brought what in Canadian politics is a most damning indictment: Martin’s opponent is too close to the Americans, the party’s ads say.
Conservative Stephen Harper has 10-pointlead in recent poll. Tom Hanson - AP
“Mr. Harper, the United States is our neighbor, not our nation,” warns one.
Harper is “pro-Iraqi war, anti-Kyoto, socially conservative . . . Bush’s new best friend,” says another ad, quoting a commentary from the conservative Cato Institute, a Washington research group.
“Treason doth never prosper: what’s the reason?
For if it prosper, none dare call it treason.”
▼▼▼ READ MY DIARY ▼
As a note, the reputable polls show results that seem to indicate a simple reversal of the last election: a Conservative minority government.
An alarmed American progressive wants to know:
Do we have any reason to expect a Conservative minority government to be any more stable, long-lasting, or successful than the government just ended?
Who will join in a coalition with the Conservatives? What can/will the Conservatives offer that party(ies) to join up?
From the poll numbers above, it looks as if the NDP + Greens + PQ could try to join and form a government, with maybe a few defectors from the other parties. Why haven’t we heard about anything like this? Is it because those poll numbers don’t reflect that the actual number of seats such members would end up with? (e.g., where the Greens or NDP are popular they’re very popular, but that doesn’t translate into many seats.)
Why don’t the Liberals just make a better offer to the NDP to keep a left-leaning government in power? Do they despise each other that much, that they’d rather see the Conservatives in office?
Or do I just not get how this parliamentary system thing works at all, LOL?
BTW, I’m also trying to wrap my mind around the notwithstanding clause, if you or any of the other Canadians here feel up to explaining that.
No. The other three parties are fairly left-wing, although the Liberals are closer to pro-corporate moderates. None would support any of Harper’s social agenda bullshit, and his fiscal policies would have to be very carefully considered. I expect it’ll either last as long as the previous government, or be gone after its first budget.
While I think we theoretically could have a coalition government, I really doubt it’ll happen. I think most of the parties prefer to have a minority government, which lets them hack away at the party in power without any real risk. Puts them in a good position come next election.
As for the nonwithstanding clause, it basically gives the provincial and federal governments a legal “escape clause” from our constitution. They can use it to pass unconstitutional legislation, but that legislation has to be regularly reviewed and renewed. It cannot be made permanent. Martin’s proposal to remove the power of the Federal government to execute the nonwithstanding clause is actually pretty smart, as it limits the potential for abuse while still allowing provincial governments to use it when necessary.
I guess from an American perspective, the notwithstanding clause is frightening because our immediate tendency is to envision someone like Bush using it to suspend various parts of the Bill of Rights due to the “War on Terror.” Kind of like a supercharged version of the Patriot Act. Even though the prime minister is more closely accountable to the people than the president and such a bill might be overturned more easily, it still gives me the willies. What’s to keep a Conservative prime minister from using it to overturn the court decision on gay marriage, other than fear of political ramifications?
Again, this is probably my American education / indoctrination speaking, but what justification can there be for not having the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as an absolute bedrock of your government, instead of being potentially subject to being put on hold in five-year increments?
Yeah, I know that Lincoln suspended certain constitutional rights during the Civil War, but my understanding is that this was a blot on his record and controversial. Why allow a mechanism for such mischief right in the system of government itself?
I’m not trying to be badgering, I just want to understand. Especially since there may be a migration of BooFrogs north some day if the worst comes to pass down here. 😉
You can understand why an American liberal might be sensitive to such issues these days, LOL.
I believe that the justification is that the Charter isn’t perfect. There may be things that need to be done (for security or public welfare) that are technically violations of it. Putting these things on hold puts the government in a dangerous position. If they put the wrong things on hold, or put something on hold doesn’t improve the situation, they’re going to be in serious trouble come election time, and probably won’t be a government for much longer.
On the other hand, if they had no way to bypass the Charter, there would be more pressure for taking control of the courts and using them to perform an end-run around it, as has happened in the US.
Clause.
If the officeholders and the Court refuse to check or balance, the President can rule Notwithstanding.
As he often does.
polls and a parliamentary system is that the polls are based on popular vote vs. representational.
For example:
Harper has 100% of the popular vote in AB and therefore wins every riding (seat) there. He only has 25-35% support in each riding in ON and loses the majority of the ridings here (and ON has more seats in Parliament than does AB). Same with BC. And PQ. So yeah, he could have 35-40% of the vote by population, but it only makes a difference on a riding by riding basis in terms of who gets to go to Ottawa.
Btw, here in Toronto he ain’t getting squat. The NDP should do quite well tho’, I’m hearing mucho talk about giving them a shot and voting your conscience vs. just voting for the Liberals again. The part of the country that will decide the election is the 905 area code in ON. The suburbs. Do they go Liberal or do they go PC? And since the Mike Harris gov’t is still pretty fresh in peoples minds, I’m betting the PC’s pick up a bit of ground, but not enough to swing the balance. Remember, they need to pick up 57 NEW seats to form a majority gov’t. Even a best case scenario for them would be holding all their current seats, picking up the 2 vacancies, beating 4 incumbent Independent MP’s and win every single riding where they were within 15% of the Liberals in 2004, they would still only be 150 seats, 5 short of a majority.
My prediction… it just ain’t gonna happen.
Yeah, this often bites the NDP in the ass. It’s why they’re pusing so hard for a partially proportional system. (IIRC, their platform last election split the seats half and half between traditional riding seats and per-province proportional seats)
However, most of the seat analysis I’ve seen shows the Conservatives gaining big in the prairies. They were always anti-Liberal, but some places trended a little NDP… The assorted scandals and Harper’s BS promises to deal with them (by giving the parties more power and individual MPs less? I don’t think that’s going to work, Jim!) have probably gone down well there.
I’m glad to hear that Ontario isn’t a lost cause, and especially that the NDP could pick up some seats there. Apparently, they stand to gain a few in BC too, and might come out with a hefty chunk. (Their support hasn’t changed, but has moved around conveniently) There’s a lot of noise about Atlantic Canada, but with some of the shit Harper’s said about us lately, I think he’s going to have an unpleasant surprise.
I’ve suspected for a while that a lot of the Conservatives’ popular opinion gain is in Quebec, where I seriously doubt they have much of a chance to dethrone the Bloc.
I agree with you on the prairies and PQ… do you have any idea why the NDP has fallen out of favour in Tommy Douglas territory?
Out west? I think it’s not so much the NDP falling out of favour as people really getting ticked off with the Liberals and wanting to do something about them. The whole “western alienation” thing.
ergo, since the NDP has no chance of forming a gov’t and they don’t want the Liberals in power, they’ll vote PC.
Interesting although completely nutso imo… as is Harper. 😉
Yeah. What’s really sad is that the Liberals could’ve prevented this by actually paying attention to the west at any time during the last 10 years. Farm aid is an especially sticky concern. From what I remember from talking to friends out west, a lot of farmers feel that farmers in Ontario get the lion’s share of funds, despite being better-off to start with.
Even more sad is that there’s enough support that the NDP probably could form a government if everyone who liked their policies and politicians voted for them.
I really hate strategic voting. It’s a stupid, counterproductive attempt to game the system.
Absolutely.
And what really gets my goat is that Sask is experiencing terrific growth in the technology industry under an NDP Premier.
Yet they aren’t an option to send to Ottawa and protect agriculture. Totally insane.
I think an NDP federal government would be wonderful. Their platform is just… Sane. Sure, it involves fairly large spending surpluses… But I think they’re investing the money in the right things. If memory serves, we waste a lot of money on very marginal crown corporations. Money that, if invested in public infrastructure, would probably have much more beneficial effects on the economy.
…but I wanted to pass along what I heard this morning on the conservative radio station I tune into to see what the ‘other side’ is saying.
Harper has said that if elected he will pull Canada out of Kyoto. (Found a link to this one here: CBC link)
Harper said that if elected he will renegotiate a contract with the US for the Ballistic Missile Defence.
Harper said that if elected he will allow members to bring motion to reverse SSM to the house for a ‘free’ vote.
And that’s only the start. Harper is due to release the Conservative platform today. We’re doomed. I’m feeling very sick right now.
Egarwaen, Derek, Curiosity, spider? Anyone hear anything else?
Hm. If they really do do this… I think Harper’s fucked. Last polls I saw said Canadians were overwhelmingly in favour of Kyoto and SSM, and against BMD. If this is true, and it gets any media coverage at all, I think it’s going to do a number on his momentum. Canadians may not like corruption, but that doesn’t mean they’ve become wingnuts.
Methinks Harper’s believing his own propaganda.
Harper’s also planning to create a foreign intelligence service that will engage in “information sharing” with the US. Apparently, certain American neo-cons have been pushing for this for a long time as a way to cut their own budgets and give them someone else to blame when they screw up.
…if that is why they’ve been waiting to release their platform. I heard them say (on the same station mentionned above) that they haven’t released it yet b/c if they release it early then the Libs will copy it. Maybe they haven’t released it b/c it will freak us all the hell out!
And I just found a link to the Missile Defence bit
here. Gah.
Well, they’ve released it, and even our home-grown Libertarians aren’t happy. Not only does it cost too much, but it doubles back on months of promises. Oops.
I wonder if Harper realises that he’s given Martin the perfect opening to call him a liar and a double-dealer?
Although, the way his campaign has been managed to this point I wouldn’t make any bets.
He’s been bungling almost as much as Kerry has, hasn’t he?
Though to be fair, the media has been very blatantly biased. You remember that Conservative candidate in BC who got caught smuggling booze over the border? Turns out that he’s got very close ties to someone in Harper’s campaign (can’t remember who) who’s helping him restore his image… Yet the media has been very careful not to mention this tie, even going so far as to avoid referring to the smuggler by name in articles about Harper that involve him!
He also said he wouldn’t commit to the $5 billion deal to help aboriginals.
Yeah, this is good news for us… Canadians ain’t gonna like these policies one bit… meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
Btw, I’ve stayed out of curiosity’s threads since she/ he called Canada the US’s “backyard” and recommended that the US adopt a new Marshall Plan to get our tar sand oil. By coincidence the company he/ she works for is the DE Shaw group who are technology investors in “emerging fields”…
I notice the tune has changed, but like Harper, I ain’t buying it.
I missed all that! I just went back and read those two “backyard” threads. Huh. Thanks for pointing that out spider. I’m a little shocked that someone would write those diaries here, but your comments in said diaries certainly sheds a little light.
American hubris, defined:
Yeah, I got a lil’ hot under the collar in those posts… it amazes me sometimes when my patriotism comes out… being a Canuck I usually forget I am so patriotic until somebody says the US should have the right to dictate our policy…
I typically save my patriotism for the Maple Leafs or Team Canada… 😉
I had no idea. I’m glad you mentioned it.
Not quite sure how I missed those… That casts his statements about a “Canadian Bush clone” in a whole new light.
…too Egarwaen.
Beware the polls. Allan Gregg was and is a Tory supporter. He adds his own interpretation to the results. Check his comments going back several weeks – and compare to other polls as well. There is a definite bias in the traditional media to go along with the pollsters’ spin and create the impression that there is an irreversible move towards the Tories. But is this so? Simply looking at the national results seems to show this, but that is simplistic, for two reasons: the battleground in Canada in this and several past federal elections is shaped mostly in two provinces only, with the others committed to one side or another; and the last two weeks of this campaign are the key ones, as they were with the 2004 one.
It is tough for some Americans to understand the ebb and flow of Canadian politics, but let me paint a picture with references to the US situation, to make it easier to understand. Canada has about the population of California but stretches across a massive landmass, with inhabitants mostly living within 100 miles of the US border.
The critical mass in terms of people is the Ontario/Quebec axis, which lies in the centre of Canada (in more ways than one). There are 308 seats in the Parliament, and Ontario has about a third (106) with Quebec having 75. British Columbia – with 36 seats – and Ontario are the only real battlegrounds this election.
If we compare Canada’s political contour to the US’s, there are similarities and distinct differences. The major difference is that Quebec, with its 75 seats, is inhabited by the Francophones. Imagine the state of California, settled by the French 300 or more years ago, and now embedded into the American federal system. And now imagine that San Francisco is the only major city in California which has a sizeable portion of its inhabitants speaking a different language (English). This equates to Montreal in Quebec. Quebec votes en bloc usually. By far the majority of voters will cast votes in this election for the Bloc party, which is dedicated to tearing Canada asunder through separation. They will vote for Quebec’s interests first, and Canada’s second; voting is essentially tribal. The federal Liberal party headed by Paul Martin stands to win seats in the Anglophone area (Montreal or in our example, San Francisco). The Tories under rightwinger Harper might pick up one or two seats in that area as well. The key to understanding the polls as they relate to Quebec is that any increase in the Tory vote there – as seen over the past 3 weeks – will not likely result in major gains in Tory seats, although the Liberals might lose a few. The Bloc – with Canada’s first past the post system – simply overshadows all opposing parties, and will take the bulk of the 75 seats (perhaps 60). Color Quebec yellow, for the Bloc. The Bloc will do business with whowever becomes the government of Canada, and will seek mostly to weaken Canada through diluting the power of the central government and transferring powers to the provincial governments. In this sense, they share Republicans’ beliefs in weakening the central government of the country through a transfer of powers – and funds – to the other governments until such time as the federal government is so weak it can be drowned in a bathtub. Disregard poll results in Quebec for the next 12 days.
In the US, there are Republican states and Democratic states, solidly held by each party. The rest of Canada – apart from Ontario and BC – fall into a similar red-blue division: the Atlantic provinces with 32 seats are by and large red ones (Liberal); the western ones with 56 seats are blue ones (Tory). Polls show Tory support increasing in the western provinces – the prairies and Alberta – but this simply means more people are voting for them; given their dominance of those areas, these are wasted votes. With the first past the post system, the Tories will sweep most of those seats anyway.
In BC, there are 3 parties slugging it out in truly democratic fashion. Unlike the near group-think found in Alberta, BC voters take their politics seriously, and toss politicians of all shades out on their ear if they do not deliver what they promised. Vancouver is a fierce battleground between the Liberals, the Tories and the leftwing NDP. Vancouver’s 21 seats are up for grabs: in 2004 the Libs won 6, Tories 11 and NDP 3 (one independent). The Tories might increase by less than a handful if the polls do not change. Outside Vancouver, the remaining BC seats total 14, and the Tories won 11 of those in 2004 and stand to win that number or more this time around if the polls do not shift.
In Ontario, we find a similar breakdown in voters as in the US. Like the Democrats, the Liberals power lies in the big cities, and they have a lot of strength amongst the ethnic groups. Tory strength is in the suburbs, like the Republicans: small city, suburban areas; soccer moms, professedly more religious, with a deep distrust of city mores. Tories – like Republicans – believe in the father-figure structure of the family; Liberals and NDPers, believe in the nurturing family structure, similar to the Democrats.
What is happening in the polls? Overall, a large swing to the Tories since the start of the year, driven by disgust with Liberal corruption and a stealth campaign by the Tories (Harper is practising the guerrilla tactics of Abramoff’s buddy, Reed: stay in the bushes virtually out of sight until you have power). The sanitization of Harper and his party has lead to momentary surge in votes for them.
But now the Liberals are outlining the differences in a stark and uncompromislng manner. Paul Martin has chose the battleground of “values” – just as Howard Dean is advising the Democrats to fight on the values terrain, Martin is asking voters to compare basic values. The attack ads are focused on the fissure between Harper’s and his party’s neocon values, and the values of the majority of Canadians. Harper is the equivalent of a US-neocon transplant into the Canadian body politic. Like Reed, he was hoping to sneak into power without having to talk about the fundamental policies of his party. But the Liberals are calling him and his party on it, and the cracks are starting to show.
What Allan Gregg, some other pollsters and the traditional press are not showing it the impact on voters of this values conflict. Harper is losing steam in Ontario, with the Liberal support and NDP support turning upwards. Harper is also losing the sheen of his carefully controlled campaign in Ontario. Check the daily poll at the site http://www.sesresearch.com/main, which gives a much better idea of what has happened in the trenches over the past few days. Tories lost ground in Ontario with Libs holding their own and NDP edging up a bit – January 10-11, decided voters with accuracy 6% (11% of voters are undecided in Ontario, nationally 14%). More importantly, the values debate took some of Harper’s luster over the past three days – he spiked above Martin in the daily performance chart on January 9/10, and has edged downwards.
As other posts have mentioned, Harper is now outlining some of his policies, and I would expect the luster to lose more of its shine this weekend, as those policies and the attack ads bite into voters’ awareness. Against Kyoto? Taking commitments to the First Nations off the table? In favor of Bush’s star wars boondoggle? What else, Mr. Harper? Do tell …