40th Canadian Federal Election - Welcome to another Conservative Minority (whee!)

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by driveway

I actually am fine with that. If a government is balancing the budget, keeping us out of unnessescary wars, and slowly-but-surely dealing with environmental issues - I have no problems with them skimming a little.

No harm, no foul.

Yikes! I wouldn't go that far.

There was harm and foul, but I think much of it has been blown out of proportion. The Chretien/Martin years were very good for Canada overall for the reasons you mentioned and others, but they weren't blemish-free.

[octothorp]

The NDP has actually profited from the Green Party, at least for the time being. While not being prominent enough to cause the NDP to lose any seats (maybe one or two in BC), the Green Party has also shifted the entire political frame in Canada slightly to the left: the NDP is no longer the fringe left party, they're now the center-left party, liberals are still the center party, and the conservatives represent the entire right, from center-right to fringe-right.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

I understand this, but to me it doesn't make sense. You'd think the Liberals that dislike Dion would be the more right leaning ones, since Dion tends to be pretty left as far as Liberals go. As far as punishing the Liberals, why vote for the party that is most likely to get (back) into bed with them and prop up a Liberal minority government.

Frankly, I think it speaks poorly about the people of Ontario, Quebec and the Maritimes if they would rather vote for extreme fringe parties than for a party that reflects their views because the leader is Albertan and they merged with the Reform party. Its pretty petty and ignorant, it smacks of the same kind of deplorable POV that Chretien shouldn't have been elected because he looks funny due to a stroke.

Are you saying the NDP are a fringe party?

They aren't someone I would vote for, but they have been around an awful long time. And as mentioned more than a few times in the debate thread, Layton has more charisma than a lot of candidates.

A good chunk of the people who may vote for them aren't doing it because they are voting for the NDP policies. They are doing it because they don't trust either the Liberals or the Conservatives.

[Ronald Pagan]

Originally Posted by driveway

I actually am fine with that. If a government is balancing the budget, keeping us out of unnessescary wars, and slowly-but-surely dealing with environmental issues - I have no problems with them skimming a little.

No harm, no foul.

This I do not agree with.

No matter how good you are doing, abrogating your responsibilities to the public is never acceptable. This is how ruinous governments begin like in Thailand and Russia.

With that said, no one Liberal MP or senior Liberal party member where implicated in the sponsorship scam. The commission turned over every stone to the point that they were sued for character defamation. If there was dirt out there, they would have found it.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Yikes! I wouldn't go that far.

There was harm and foul, but I think much of it has been blown out of proportion. The Chretien/Martin years were very good for Canada overall for the reasons you mentioned and others, but they weren't blemish-free.

That's because we had a very high-quality Opposition Leader in Parliament for 1993-2000. There is no doubt that Preston Manning had a huge ethical and philosophical on government during those years.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

I guess it all depends on your POV. East of Manitoba, the Reform Party was seen as an "extreme fringe party", and the current CPC is largely regarded as a continuation of that party with much of the same leadership but a new name. Harper isn't even from Alberta originally, and his province of residence has absolutely nothing to do with his lack of appeal to Ontario, Quebec, and Atlantic voters. When Joe Clark led the PC Party (and represented the Alberta riding of Calgary Centre), he had no problems winning votes in Eastern and Central Canada.

It really is POV. I've always read that two major knocks on Reform were:
1. the same reason why the Bloc would be a colossal failure outside of Quebec. Ontarians and Maritimers felt that Reform was a misguided protest party, protesting against them. The CA was the first step to change that image, with a new leader... but they dropped the ball on that one.
2. The Social Conservatist streak personified by Stockwell Day (who succeeded in splintering the CA itself). This demon was largely exorcized with the election of a very libertarian leader in Harper, and his subsequent forcing to the outside many of the hardcore party members, who frankly, every party have in their fold.

One would think with 1 and 2 dealt with, the aura of Reform would be lost.

Lets also not forget Joe Clark was a minority leader when he was PM, was buoyed by the West, and only won because of Liberal discontent. He also oversaw the death of the PC Party, who failed to crack Ontario and Quebec with much force, with 20 and 12 seats under his watch. It could be said that he failed even moreso than Harper, Day and Manning did to lure Ontario. One can guess as to why, but with Clark considered to be the winner of the 2000 debate, it surely wasn't the PC policy people weren't voting for.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by peter12

That's because we had a very high-quality Opposition Leader in Parliament for 1993-2000. There is no doubt that Preston Manning had a huge ethical and philosophical on government during those years.

Not to mention the economic policies undertaken by the Liberals more often than not looked suspiciously like something found in a certain Green book.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

Are you saying the NDP are a fringe party?

They aren't someone I would vote for, but they have been around an awful long time. And as mentioned more than a few times in the debate thread, Layton has more charisma than a lot of candidates.

A good chunk of the people who may vote for them aren't doing it because they are voting for the NDP policies. They are doing it because they don't trust either the Liberals or the Conservatives.

Yes I am. The NDP really only appeals to a small group of personal interests, and their brash ideology tends to attract arts students and disenchanted youth. Which is why their sudden support jump is interesting. Its an interesting place for disenchanted voters to park their vote, that's for sure.

The Greens are aiding that image, but they represent harsher left views than even the deepest Liberal fringe. Sure they've been around for a long time, but never a major player, and never a government.

Layton's charisma is largely due to his ability to shout and attack other leaders with no fear of reprisal. He has no "legacy" of a previous national NDP government blunder, and typically, the other parties rarely felt the need to point out how his policies are not possible/advisable, aside from the occasional remark about being too socialist, which largely goes unnoticed.

Canada's party system should look like the US's since, like the US, there are only two dominant parties, but with the NDP, it gets muddled. Like the Dems and Reps, the Liberals and Conservatives represent the spectrums of policy that are governable. Everything outside is either too hypothetical, extreme, tyrannical or illogical to work as government policy. The CA flirted with being outside the governable realm (arguably with Day they were past the line too), but the NDP are past the line.


This is very roughly that the main parties look like on a VERY general scale (note the CPC/Lib overlap):

<--MLPC--Green--NDP-><----Liberal-<--->--- CPC---> <-----CHP----->
Left------------------[-----------Center-----------]----------------Right

[Governing Range in parenthesis]
* The Bloc are somewhere between the NDP and slightly right of centre depending on policy.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

Not to mention the economic policies undertaken by the Liberals more often than not looked suspiciously like something found in a certain Green book.

Or were taken directly out of the certain Green book. Manning does not deserve his reputation as a crazy. In fact, in my mind any accusation of that kind is akin to slander. More and more the guy is emerging as a very credible public intellectual and someone who was behind the scenes of some very smart moves during the 1990s. It's a shame Day stole the leadership from him.

[MarchHare]

Lets also not forget Joe Clark was a minority leader when he was PM, was buoyed by the West, and only won because of Liberal discontent. He also oversaw the death of the PC Party, who failed to crack Ontario and Quebec with much force, with 20 and 12 seats under his watch. It could be said that he failed even moreso than Harper, Day and Manning did to lure Ontario. One can guess as to why, but with Clark considered to be the winner of the 2000 debate, it surely wasn't the PC policy people weren't voting for.

How many more seats would a Joe Clark-led PC Party have won if the Alliance wasn't dominant in the West and there wasn't vote-splitting on the right in the East? His party lost a lot of votes because people who wanted the Liberals out thought the best way to achieve that was to support the Alliance.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by driveway

I actually am fine with that. If a government is balancing the budget, keeping us out of unnessescary wars, and slowly-but-surely dealing with environmental issues - I have no problems with them skimming a little.

No harm, no foul.

Please tell you meant that to be typed in GREEN.

[MarchHare]

That's because we had a very high-quality Opposition Leader in Parliament for 1993-2000. There is no doubt that Preston Manning had a huge ethical and philosophical on government during those years.

1. The Bloc was the official opposition from 1993-1997.

2. The Liberals had large majorities all through those years. They didn't need to change their agenda at all to appease Manning or anyone else. If anything, it was Paul Martin who was responsible for the Liberals' fiscal conservatism under Chretien. After the 1990 Liberal leadership selection, Chretien had to make numerous concessions to Martin to unite the party. The 1993 Red Book, which was largely authored by Martin and his staff, spoke of balancing the budget and fiscal responsability.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

How many more seats would a Joe Clark-led PC Party have won if the Alliance wasn't dominant in the West and there wasn't vote-splitting on the right in the East? His party lost a lot of votes because people who wanted the Liberals out thought the best way to achieve that was to support the Alliance.

Good question. Unfortunately, we'll never know for sure. However, one would think with Day being such a disaster socially, strategic voting would have worked more in Clark's favor, and would have represented a more palatable alternative to Chretien. More than the 10 he won outside the west surely, unless something else was in play.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

The Liberals had large majorities all through those years. They didn't need to change their agenda at all to appease Manning or anyone else.

Not appeasement, you're right. However, simple recognition that the vagueness of the Liberal plans allowed free lifting from the Reform playbook, knowing full well Reform's fiscal policies were better. There was no consequence for this either, since Reform was unelectable east of Manitoba anyway.

[MarchHare]

the vagueness of the Liberal plans

Actually, the 1993 Red Book was very notable because of its specificity. No party has released a more detailed platform document either before or after it, primarily because it's impossible to implement everything and voters will hold a party accountable if they don't deliver on 100% of their platform.

[Thunderball]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Actually, the 1993 Red Book was very notable because of it's specificity. No party has released a more detailed platform document either before or after it, primarily because it's impossible to implement everything and voters will hold a party accountable if they don't deliver on 100% of their platform.

Ironically, I was vague on what I meant by vagueness. The book was indepth, but how they planned on implementing it all was vague. In the end, what they did looked a lot like the Reform plan. Maybe they were both right, or maybe the Liberals took some policy from them.

[Bobblehead]

Originally Posted by peter12

Or were taken directly out of the certain Green book. Manning does not deserve his reputation as a crazy. In fact, in my mind any accusation of that kind is akin to slander. More and more the guy is emerging as a very credible public intellectual and someone who was behind the scenes of some very smart moves during the 1990s. It's a shame Day stole the leadership from him.

The first time I heard Preston Manning speak was at McMaster in the early 90's (I'm guessing 90 or 91). This was when the Reform was still a western party. I also went to speeches/presentations by Michael Wilson (who was Finance Minister at the time) and John Crow (Governor of the Bank of Canada)

The venue (University Hall - same place John Crow spoke) was packed. His visit had garnered a lot of interest.

He spoke and then took questions after.

I came away from that with the distinct impression of a smarmy politician who I would never vote for. Maybe that isn't what he is like, but that is how he came across to me and many of the people who heard him. Evasive, not answering questions, promising he'll, "Get back to you next week". An all around poor showing. That has stayed as my impression of him.

[First Lady]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

I don't think he will either, but his popularity is getting way too high.

As long as the Bloc also hold a balance, its not as bad... but if NDP + Liberal > CPC + Bloc, we're all in big trouble. You do not want a weak leader like Dion with Layton pulling his strings.

Agreed. I would rather a party like the Bloc, that understands Provinical
jurisdiction and stands up for it than Dion, who sees it as blackmail.

As he once accused my husband of ....

Prime Minister Chretien suggested the two CA MPs were "traitors." Mr. Thompson dared Mr. Chretien to make that accusation to his face. "Tough Love" Minister Stéphane Dion attacked CA leader Stockwell Day for not rebuking MPs Stinson and Thompson: "It's a mistake, a moral mistake to blackmail your fellow citizens with separatist blackmail. You should say to them, 'You don't have a case.'" Suddenly Alberta separatism was more lively than at any time since the halcyon year of 1982. Pretty good work for a previously unknown 29-year-old Calgarian named Cory Morgan.

http://www.freedominion.com.pa/phpBB...pic.php?p=1920

Years ago.... but like Adscam.... not forgotten.

[peter12]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

The first time I heard Preston Manning speak was at McMaster in the early 90's (I'm guessing 90 or 91). This was when the Reform was still a western party. I also went to speeches/presentations by Michael Wilson (who was Finance Minister at the time) and John Crow (Governor of the Bank of Canada)

The venue (University Hall - same place John Crow spoke) was packed. His visit had garnered a lot of interest.

He spoke and then took questions after.

I came away from that with the distinct impression of a smarmy politician who I would never vote for. Maybe that isn't what he is like, but that is how he came across to me and many of the people who heard him. Evasive, not answering questions, promising he'll, "Get back to you next week". An all around poor showing. That has stayed as my impression of him.

Personally, Manning is a very shy person and certainly early on in his political career, before he was even elected, I could see this having an impact on his public speaking. However, he is not a smarmy or dishonest person at all.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Thunderball

Ironically, I was vague on what I meant by vagueness. The book was indepth, but how they planned on implementing it all was vague.

I'm still not sure what you mean by vagueness. The Red Book contained not just specifics about the Liberals' policies, but also how they intended to pay for them.

From the wikipedia (consider the source) link I posted:

Perhaps most central was that the Liberal Red Book gave costs for each of their promises and summed them. Never before had a party attempted to clearly prove that its promises were fiscally responsible and practical.