• 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

Globe and Mail

Tories see majority in gaining women’s vote

JOHN IBBITSON AND JOE FRIESEN
OTTAWA AND TORONTO— From Saturday's Globe and Mail
Published Friday, Mar. 25, 2011 10:00PM EDT
Last updated Friday, Mar. 25, 2011 10:03PM EDT


Stephen Harper embarks on his fourth national election campaign in seven years with a mission: to finally secure a majority government. And he plans to achieve that majority by convincing more women to vote Conservative.

Above anything else, this election is about Mr. Harper, a determined if extremely partisan leader whose personality earns the respect of some and the distrust of others.

All elections are referendums on the leader of the day. This election hinges on the question of whether Canadians want Mr. Harper to lead them for four more years in a majority government, less than that in a minority, or not at all.

Mr. Harper visits Governor-General David Johnston Saturday morning to tell him that his government was defeated by the combined opposition Friday, on a motion of contempt of Parliament that was also a question of confidence.

To earn a new mandate, the Conservatives are courting groups that they haven’t often been able to count on. They have already made inroads among seniors and new Canadians.

But it is undecided women voters who will determine the outcome of this election. And the Tories have a shot.


While women have traditionally heavily supported Liberals over Conservatives – they preferred Jean Chrétien and Pierre Trudeau by 20 percentage points over their opponents – through the past four elections that support has largely evaporated.

A Nanos Research poll conducted for The Globe and Mail and CTV shows that decided women voters are no more likely to vote Liberal (21 per cent) than are men (22 per cent).

Sandy Grewal is exactly the sort of convert that the Tories have been courting. The 30-year-old bank employee shares her home with her young nieces and nephews in Brampton West, one of a crucial band of Toronto-area ridings that the Liberals hold and the Tories want.

She appreciates the Conservative emphasis on fighting crime and, as a South Asian, believes that the party is more in line with her family values.

Ms. Grewal was particularly impressed with how the Conservatives have managed the economy.

“I think the biggest concern for everyone is how we’ve recovered from the recession,” she explained. “We were the last [country] in and the first [country] out.”

But the Conservative Leader hasn’t won women over yet. That same Nanos poll shows 27 per cent of them are undecided, as opposed to 17 per cent of men.

Undecided women are “the one group of voters who are up for grabs,” pollster Nik Nanos said. “This is the group of voters who are likely to move around during the election and who, for all intents and purposes, will decide who wins and by what margin.”


One of them is Latika Kothari, a 48-year-old homemaker and mother of two, who lives in the suburban riding of Mississauga-Brampton South.

Ms. Kothari, who came to Canada from India 12 years ago, said that the party that earns her vote will address her political priorities: the environment, and especially education.

“Education is very important to me,” she said. “This generation will be tomorrow’s leaders. That’s the reason I came to Canada.”

All four parties will spend the next five weeks driving home their core messages to voters. The part of the Tory message that emphasizes money for the military and for new prisons doesn’t really resonate with most women, whose focus is on providing for their families.

That is why Finance Minister Jim Flaherty’s budget, which will now become the party’s election platform, made no mention of plans to acquire a new fleet of F-35 jets or to expanding and building new jails.

Instead, five of six faces on the cover of the budget document were women. (The sixth was a visible-minority male.)

And over and over that budget targeted women, especially those caring for the young and the infirm.

A tax credit for caregivers; relief for medical expenses; a tax credit for children enrolled in arts and crafts programs.

And since women look after their parents more than men, every budget measure that aimed at keeping seniors in their homes and active in their communities was also intended to appeal to women voters.

But the Liberals are hardly prepared to cede one of their core constituencies. Leader Michael Ignatieff has been rolling out policies for months that target the needs of women in families, including the equivalent of unemployment insurance for family members caring for an aging relative. And there will be other initiatives when the party unveils its election platform within the next week or so.

The NDP platform will focus on the needs of women struggling in lower-income families.


Janelle St. Omer, 28, has yet to choose between Mr. Ignatieff and NDP Leader Jack Layton. While concerned about the economy, Ms. St. Omer is turned off by the hard edge of the Conservatives and is more interested in preserving social services.

“The Liberal Party is the party I have the most affinity for,” she acknowledged, “but Michael Ignatieff is not the leader I have an affinity for. From what I’ve seen there’s just something lacking.”

While women voters are not generally attracted to a conservative message, they do value strong and consistent leadership. More women voted for Mike Harris’s strongly Conservative Ontario government in the 1990s than for other parties because they preferred his leadership to that of opponents perceived to be weaker.

Which leader has the strength of will and the message that will resonate with undecided women voters is what this campaign will decide.
 
If a Liberal candidate comes to your door and says that one of the reasons the government should be defeated is the potential purchase of the JSF, ask him/her how the Sea King helicopter replacement, the CH-148 Cyclone, is coming along and why we can't expect the same result if they cancel the F-35 purchase.
 
Prince Michael Ignatieff appears to have put paid to the coalition issue, according to this article, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ignatieff-rules-out-coalition/article1958015/
Ignatieff rules out coalition

JANE TABER
OTTAWA— Globe and Mail Update

Published Saturday, Mar. 26, 2011

Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff launched his campaign for the May 2 election Saturday by ruling out forming a coalition government _ an issue that had threatened to dog him during the campaign.

In a statement, Mr. Ignatieff noted the party that wins the most seats on election day will form the government. He says he will not ask the NDP or the Bloc to serve in his government, if he is asked to form one.

“We will face Parliament with exactly the same team, platform and agenda that we bring to Canadians during this election,” he said in a statement issued Saturday morning. “What Canadians see in this campaign is what Canadians will get if we are asked to form government.

He added: “We categorically rule out a coalition or formal arrangement with the Bloc Québécois.”

Mr. Ignatieff fumbled Friday _ just after the government was defeated _ when asked about the coalition issue when he attempted to dodge the coalition question.

The Conservatives attacked him for his evasive answers. And, in announcing May 2 as the election date, Conservative Leader Stephen Harper continued to push the issue, accusing the Liberals of harbouring "a hidden agenda." Mr. Harper said that the Liberals have tried to form a coalition before.

The Liberals tried to get ahead of the issue, releasing the statement even before the writ was dropped:

“Whoever leads the party that wins the most seats on election day should be called on to form the government,” Mr. Ignatieff said. “If that is the Liberal Party, then I will be required to rapidly seek the confidence of the newly-elected Parliament. If our government cannot win the support of the House, then Mr. Harper will be called on to form a government and face the same challenge. That is our Constitution. It is the law of the land.”

He also described coalitions as "a legitimate constitutional option," but vowed to work with other parties on an issue-by-issue basis.

He then tried to turn the tables on Stephen Harper, asking him why he insists on “fabricating lies about an impending coalition, something he knows is false?”


I say “appears” because I expect the Conservatives to do whatever they can to tell Canadians that a Liberal/BQ/NDP alliance is only a step away. Plus, of course, after a Conservative minority government is installed and has had a few weeks to fumble function there is nothing in that bare statement to say that the coalition idea cannot be reborn.

 
One of the most telling statements made this morning by someone (I can't remember who) on CTV National, is that the Liberals cannot remove a leader under their party constitution, until he/she has had the opportunity to weather an election within their mandate.....The Liberals have a leadership convention in June....Great timing...

that pretty much says it all
 
Then all the parties are not going to waste any time getting rid of the chaff, once the election's done....
 
E.R. Campbell said:
Prince Michael Ignatieff appears to have put paid to the coalition issue, according to this article, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ignatieff-rules-out-coalition/article1958015/

I say “appears” because I expect the Conservatives to do whatever they can to tell Canadians that a Liberal/BQ/NDP alliance is only a step away. Plus, of course, after a Conservative minority government is installed and has had a few weeks to fumble function there is nothing in that bare statement to say that the coalition idea cannot be reborn.

Exactly. The way the self servers flip flop, and the weak leadership, I have no doubt Count Iggy would issue a statement along the lines of "Upon further reflection and having taken the recommedations of my caucus, we've decided the best way for this government to serve Canadians is with a full operating concensus of the three minority parties. Yada, yada, yada"
 
GAP said:
One of the most telling statements made this morning by someone (I can't remember who) on CTV National, is that the Liberals cannot remove a leader under their party constitution, until he/she has had the opportunity to weather an election within their mandate.....The Liberals have a leadership convention in June....Great timing...

that pretty much says it all

I have no doubt that ALL parties are looking at this is a face saving exersize to replace any of their losers. Duceppe and Layton are stale and becoming a liability from boredom and Ignatieff is just plain incompetent and doesn't have anyone's support (Rae has been sharpening the knives all along)
 
I'd be very happy if the Liberals pick up Bob Rae as the new leader. They'd be kissing the Ontario vote goodbye.
 
PuckChaser said:
I'd be very happy if the Liberals pick up Bob Rae as the new leader. They'd be kissing the Ontario vote goodbye.

Well, it would give Power Corporation a tie to a House leader that they are currently missing, for the first time in a long time. The Raes, Martin, Chretien, Mulroney and even McGuinty (the federal one) are all tied to PC. The current leaders are not, that I can find anyway.

Can't find my tinfoil hat picture, but this one will do for now ;D

 
:warstory:I remember that. Too funny!  ;D What about the one where JC chokes the bystander.
 
recceguy said:
Can't find my tinfoil hat picture, but this one will do for now ;D

I have probably said this before, but every time that I see that picture, it fills me with a shame that is probably shared by most in uniform.  Although I was not there, other uniformed members were, and they allowed the leader of our nation to embarrass himself rather than help the man out. 

Having said that, given the glee with which military personnel point to this picture as somehow emblematic of the government of the day's military and foreign affairs policies, perhaps the shame is not "probably shared by moist in uniform" after all.
 
PPCLI Guy said:
I have probably said this before, but every time that I see that picture, it fills me with a shame that is probably shared by most in uniform.  Although I was not there, other uniformed members were, and they allowed the leader of our nation to embarrass himself rather than help the man out. 

Having said that, given the glee with which military personnel point to this picture as somehow emblematic of the government of the day's military and foreign affairs policies, perhaps the shame is not "probably shared by moist in uniform" after all.

I agree, I felt the same at the time it ocurred but I have moved on and now am one of the people who see it as emblematic of the support for the military by the Liberal gov't of the day.
 
This election is going to be a difficult one for many of us. There does not seem to be one party that covers the many things I believe in.  Economically and socially left but to the ride for law enforcement and defence.
I believe in a fair tax system that would require ALL Canadians, people and corporations, would pay accordingly.
Many say that it is the Cocervative gov's policies that are helping Canada weather this current crisis. In fact it also has to do with past decisions of former ruling parties. I don't like the way he has gone about several things and that he does appear to be very contemptuous of parliamentary policies.
I find that the current Concervative party has very little in common with the old PC party.

The big questions for me also include such things as:

1) How do we increase the buying power of the average person? Buying power allows for continued economic flow.

2) How do we convince corporations that paying a fair share of tax is better than taxing the middle class to death?

3) How do we increase education spending, military and health spending with out any large tax increases?

 
I'll help you with Number 2.

Corporations do not treat getting taxed in the same way that you or I do.  Corporations do one of four things when faced with a tax bill:

1)  Pass the cost of the tax on to their customers.  This, obviously, lowers the buying power of the consuming public.  It also makes the corporation less competitive internationally, if they happen to export.

2)  Cut Dividends to shareholders, if they are publically traded companies.  This is my favourite one, because when certain Federal Parties (cough**NDP** cough) advocate for more taxes on corporations, they are implying that a faceless rich guy will pony up the money.  In actual fact, most publically traded companies in Canada are owned by Pension funds (ie- you) or by Mutual Funds (ie- you again).  How do really feel about your retirement funds being taken away from you by Dividends that you did not receive? 

3) Cut their work force.  Labour is usually the largest cost for a company.  Tax a company enough and they will shed workers in a bid to stay profitable- I guarantee it.

4) Go out of business or leave the jurisdiction.  If taxes are high enough, corporations just pack up and leave.

In a perfect world, Corporations should pay no tax.  But, because Canadians are economic illiterates (tip of the hat to ER Campbell), that would never fly.

Have fun researching who to vote for!

 
SeaKingTacco said:
In a perfect world, Corporations should pay no tax.  But, because Canadians are economic illiterates (tip of the hat to ER Campbell), that would never fly.

Yes, Edward's tax talk is pretty good; I've learned a lot from it.

Ideally, we'd have a respectable consumption tax (ie - a national sales tax of 10-20%) across the board and a decent flat income tax (10%).  The average Canadian get's dinged twice - once when they get their money and once when they spend it.  The second doesn't have to be as bad as the first (more savings).  Cut off all the hidden taxes, the goofy taxes (corporate tax, employee tax, etc, etc) and just put it up front.
 
Donaill said:
I believe in a fair tax system that would require ALL Canadians, people and corporations, would pay accordingly.  Many say that it is the Conservative gov's policies that are helping Canada weather this current crisis. In fact it also has to do with past decisions of former ruling parties. I don't like the way he has gone about several things and that he does appear to be very contemptuous of parliamentary policies.
I find that the current Conservative party has very little in common with the old PC party.

1) How do we increase the buying power of the average person? Buying power allows for continued economic flow.
2) How do we convince corporations that paying a fair share of tax is better than taxing the middle class to death?
3) How do we increase education spending, military and health spending with out any large tax increases?

One would expect to increase buying power by increasing productivity.  Many socialist countries borrow and spend instead like Greece.

Inanimate imaginary creations don't pay tax.  People pay tax.  There is a world out there, much of it with better tax regimes than us.  Treat business like dirt and it will die or move, as much of it has already.  Much of the corporate world is owned by pension funds.

You do not increase education, military, or health spending without pain.  Since education and health are provincial matters, you're barking up the wrong tree.

And are you telling me that Harper treats Parliament with more contempt than Chretien?  I wouldn't think it possible.  Is Harper more socially conservative than Chretien?  I don't see any signs of that.
 
Back
Top