Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the
Globe and Mail, is Jeffrey Simpson's 'takeaway' from yesterday's election with my comments following each 'point:'
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/an-abundance-of-teachable-moments/article2007587/
An abundance of teachable moments
JEFFREY SIMPSON
From Tuesday's Globe and Mail
Last updated Tuesday, May. 03, 2011
What did the last five years, capped by Monday night’s election results, teach us and the political parties?
For starters, negative television attack ads work. They will now become a fixture, if they are not already, of Conservative Party politics. Since imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, other parties might follow along.
The intimidating attack ads directed by the Conservatives against Liberal leaders Stéphane Dion and Michael Ignatieff framed them for Canadians before they could frame themselves. The ads worked, in other words, and they will be used again. Their use, in turn, showed the importance of fundraising, which means mobilizing the party’s base to give money all the time. Fundraising means playing on fear of the other party.
Valid points. I don't really like attack ads but I agree they are here to stay. I
feared that the last minute, scurrilous,
sneak attack on Jack Layton would backfire and work
for him – and it might have but it did not hurt the Tories as badly as it might have done.
Second, a Conservative government under Stephen Harper that was in some respects more right-wing than any previous conservative government ultimately produced a more polarized electorate. To oppose the Harper government, non-Conservatives swung not to the traditionally more moderate Liberals, but to the untested and more left-wing New Democrats. Opposites do not attract, they repel, which explains in part the determination of those who did not like the Harper government to opt for the party least like the Conservatives.
It is not just the Canadian electorate that is so
polarized; we have seen very similar things in America, Australia and Britain. We have all imported aspects of the US
culture wars, which go back to the mid 1960s. It is silly to blame Stephen Harper for Johnson vs. Goldwater, but Simpson doesn't much like Harper, so ...
Third, Mr. Harper got what he wanted almost as much as an overwhelming victory: an overwhelming Liberal defeat. Not just the defeat but the destruction of the Liberal Party was Mr. Harper’s political objective, because he believed the Liberals’ disappearance would pave the way to a long period of Conservative dominance.
Mr. Harper believes that Canada is fundamentally not a social democratic country but a conservative one. To put matters another way, in a straight-up fight between conservative and left-wing forces, conservatives will win most of the time. The big, sprawling Liberal Party got in the way of this right-left showdown (and a left-wing surge, until this campaign). The Liberals’ demise spells long-term good news for the Conservatives.
It is too soon to tell if the Grits are about to disappear, but I agree that is Harper's aim.
Fourth, Quebec political nationalism remains consequential for Canadian federal politics. In the post-Trudeau era, the party that appeals most directly to Quebec nationalism has the best chance of winning in the province, as Brian Mulroney did in 1984 and 1988, the Bloc Québécois thereafter, and now the NDP, with its promise to reopen the Constitution, give more power to Quebec, and to allow Quebec’s language law to trump the Official Languages Act.
Québec nationalism is a snake, best not touched. I have often said that the Canadian
national political party that learns to win (and govern) without Québec – actually without many Québec members – but manages to serve Québec's best interest while serving the broader national interest (in other words governs without Québec, not against Québec) will win. See, also, my oft repeated “new Canada/old Canada” arguments. In short: Layton is welcome to Québec, for now.
That the NDP was not the Harper Conservatives, centralist Liberals or has-been Bloc Québécois was a key factor in the party’s success in Quebec, as were its promises to spend more on social programs and do more for the environment. But the NDP’s blatant nationalist appeal was the key difference between this election for the NDP and the previous ones.
Agreed, and I expect they will pay a price for that – sooner, rather than later.
Fifth, ordinary people seldom dislike parties and leaders as much as their political opponents do. The Liberals thought Canadians in the majority really disliked the Prime Minister. They therefore directed heavy fire against his controlling style: prorogation, contempt of Parliament, media control, lack of access, generalized sourness. These attacks counted for the core Harper-haters, but did little for Canadians who do not follow politics closely, or care much about government. Lessons: Canadians are so cynical about politics that many of them just expect that this is the way democracy works.
Valid observation, invalid conclusion. Canadians are not cynical about politics; they are simply bored with the procedural slight of hand practised by both parties. The big lesson here is for the media: Canadians do not care about the things that matter to the Ottawa press gallery.
Sixth, sunny ways are usually more appealing that dark ones. In a contest between a dour Prime Minister and an academic Leader of the Opposition, Jack Layton seemed like the guy people could relate to. He rose during the campaign in popular appeal, whereas Mr. Harper stalled and Mr. Ignatieff declined. Mind you, Mr. Layton presented himself in the same way against Mr. Harper and Stéphane Dion in 2008 and didn’t go very far. Lesson: Timing and circumstance are hugely important.
True enough; Layton ran a good campaign – trading, only a wee bit shamelessly, on his obvious fortitude. It is hard not to like him, as a person. Harper, too, ran a good campaign in the last three days – when it really counted. But, back to the top: it was those attack ads that slowed Ignatieff – he was stopped by a neatly timed question about attendance in the HoC from Jack Layton – and that allowed Layton to campaign so effectively against the Liberals. The big, Big, BIG story isn't the Conservative majority, it is the Liberal/NDP battle royal – which is far from over.
Seventh, the huge advantages of being in power for five years – massive spending on programs and advertising, almost complete policy freedom, manic message control, a sometimes weak opposition, vastly better fundraising, policies directed blatantly at narrow swaths of voters – did slightly increase the Conservatives’ share of the popular vote. They won many seats because the NDP took votes from the Liberals, thereby allowing the Conservatives to win three-way races.
That the Conservatives, despite these advantages, have not become a more dominant party, means Mr. Harper, with his style and tactics, turns off more Canadians than he attracts. But the collapse of the Liberals allowed his Conservatives to win their coveted majority.
The last but is just sour grapes.
