Election 2015

[Brad Sallows]

I think Radwanski over-reacted to what is basically a textbook vote split - the kind with which BC is well acquainted.  If Wildrose had gone into the night the most people would be talking about would be a surprisingly strong NDP showing and how much discontent it represented.  Number crunching and analysis are still important.

 

[GAP]

Only five months until the federal election.  It will probably take a year and a half for the socialists to totally destroy the Alberta economy, even from the sad state it is in currently.  Alberta will elect a few Bolsheviks.

A lot will depend on their first budget. They won't make major changes to the tax base until the second or third budget.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Parties usually try to make their big unpopular changes within the first two years.

 

[stealthylizard]

Big, scary words....... socialist and communist  :  The PC's screwed up too much too often, and frankly after 44 years in power it was time for them to go.  The biggest boost for Rachel Notley came from the debate.  Brian Jean would not and did not stray from one phrase the whole time... lower taxes.  The voters need more than that. 

Rachel is an Albertan, and knows the oil and gas sector feed the province.  She isn't going to bite that hand.  Yes, I voted for the NDP.  I compared the platforms of the Wild Rose party, Progressive Conservative party, Liberal party, NDP, and the Alberta party.  The only one that stood out was the NDP. 

The one main thing that grabbed my attention and my vote was upgrading/expanding domestic refining.  I don't think it will make an impact on prices, but there is no reason for Alberta not to refine more of our fossil fuels. here, at home.  The second issue that solidified my vote, came about from the political compass test (it said I was aligned with the PC's), and that was mandatory vaccination.  The NDP and Alberta Party were the only ones to support mandatory vaccination for school children (currently, it's a parental decision).

It isn't the end of Alberta, it's the start of a new chapter.

 

[GAP]

Parties usually try to make their big unpopular changes within the first two years.

In this case, I suspect the big bearded brother is whispering that she should not rock the boat until after the federal election......

 

[Remius]

Not trying to take anyone on a tangent and maybe I'm wearing my tin foil hat but when we look at the Alberta results and combine that with election results in every single province except Saskatchewan we see a large country wide rejection of conservative parties.  Not a rejection of Conservatism per se but it seems that Conservatives on the whole have been either unable or unwilling to get their message across to Canadians.  Or that Canadians seem to reject what those parties are offering despite facing some terrible incumbents (Ontario comes to mind).  Defeats in Alberta, Ontario, Quebec (the PQ is/was a loose coalition of separatist conservatives and leftists), New Brunswick etc etc

I realise that in many cases like Ontario and Alberta that voters voted against something rather than for something but it just seems like it is becoming more of a trend.

Will this translate federally?  I'm not sure since there are so many fundamental differences between federal and provincial politics but it will be interesting to see where this might end.

 

[George Wallace]

I am not sure that it is actually a rejection of Conservatism, as much as having candidates who ran very weak and poorly thought out campaigns.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Not trying to take anyone on a tangent and maybe I'm wearing my tin foil hat but when we look at the Alberta results and combine that with election results in every single province except Saskatchewan we see a large country wide rejection of conservative parties.  Not a rejection of Conservatism per se but it seems that Conservatives on the whole have been either unable or unwilling to get their message across to Canadians.  Or that Canadians seem to reject what those parties are offering despite facing some terrible incumbents (Ontario comes to mind).  Defeats in Alberta, Ontario, Quebec (the PQ is/was a loose coalition of separatist conservatives and leftists), New Brunswick etc etc

I realise that in many cases like Ontario and Alberta that voters voted against something rather than for something but it just seems like it is becoming more of a trend.

Will this translate federally?  I'm not sure since there are so many fundamental differences between federal and provincial politics but it will be interesting to see where this might end.

I think the biggest threat facing the CPC is time ... they've been in office for nine years and Canadians are tired of them because they, the Conservatives, are tired of governing: they have too few new, good ideas.

It may well be that one or the other opposition party can offer change ...

         

              ... in an attractive, new package (that would, most likely, be M. Trudeau).









Or, maybe, it's just time to ...

                   

                          ... throw the rascals out.

 

[Kirkhill]

Interesting review of Minorities and Coalitions by the Hansard Society of the UK.

http://www.hansardsociety.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/A-Numbers-Game-Hansard-Society.pdf

Their view on two critical points:

The government does not have to have the largest party although it helps.

It is not enough that the Prime Ministers party is defeated in the General Election, nor even that he and his party are defeated in the House.  The Queen must not be deprived of council until there is a replacement.  Accordingly the other parties not only have to demonstrate that the PM does not command the House but that one of them can.

It is the UK society but as all Westminsters are linked I think it fair to assume that a similar rationale would apply over here.

Could Trudeau and Mulcair find enough common ground policies - that would not taint either one in the long term - that they could co-operate?  And how long would such a minority government last?

We know that Harper can manage a minority without a formal coalition.  Mulcair is probably bright enough to manage it.  Would Trudeau be bright enough to either do it himself or let Mulcair do it?  Jury's out, here.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>In this case, I suspect the big bearded brother is whispering that she should not rock the boat until after the federal election......

Since it's only a few months away and nothing happens over summer, I am compelled to agree.

 

[Brad Sallows]

>I'm not sure since there are so many fundamental differences between federal and provincial politics but it will be interesting to see where this might end.

With NDP in AB, Liberals in ON and QC, and either a Lib minority or Lib/NDP coalition in Parliament?  Probably a new NEP at the least.  Such an alignment of opportunity is unlikely to occur again anytime soon.

 

[Kirkhill]

Matthew d'Ancona - The Guardian (Not normal for me to peruse that Rag - but at least I didn't have to pay for it).

This is a vindication of Lyntonisation

Boris Johnson MP (again) said at his count that we didn’t need “fancy constitutional experts” to tell us what the election signifies. But that will not stop pundits, pollsters and political scientists sifting through this unexpected result more obsessively than any since 1992.

Even the most Panglossian, hyper-optimistic Tories I spoke to in the last 48 hours of the campaign thought that 290 was the upper limit they could reasonably expect. Planning a second interparty alliance, they were fixated instead by the likely Lib Dem outcome, and, specifically, Nick Clegg’s fate in Sheffield Hallam.

So now they are wondering, unexpectedly, exactly what went right. How did the party that failed to reach its own fiscal targets, that slashed 9% off departmental budgets, that allegedly presided over a “cost of living crisis”, that lost its hard-won credibility over the NHS with a disastrous plan, that has never quite shaken the image of the “nasty party”, hold on to power? (By the Lord Harry but that sounds astonishingly familiar to Canadian ears - KH)

This is a vindication of Lynton Crosby’s insistence, long before the campaign proper, that the party identify a clear palette of issues and stick to it. In the determinedly straightforward formula devised by the Australian electoral consultant, Cameron offered “competence” versus supposed Labour chaos, and stress-tested leadership versus a man who could not handle a bacon sandwich, let alone HM government.

There were calls – I made one or two of them – for more vision, for more of what Bill Clinton calls “the future business”. But credit where it’s due: the “Lyntonisation” in which Cameron urged his colleagues to have faith delivered on the day. This was a referendum on trajectory (the country’s economic direction) and his character (who should occupy No 10).

Change? Change? You don't want Change.  Look at what Change gets you in Alberta (Cue Ms Drever's 15 minutes of fame).  Look at what Change gets you in Europe and the US.  And we'll not be 'avin' none of that artsy-fartsy VISION nonsense.

A decent day's pay for a decent day's work and we'll leave you alone to spend it as you will.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Well, in the UK, the polling was wrong and conservatism lives on. More likely, just a strong distaste for the loony-left 'economics' of the SNP, especially, and an even greater distaste for the idea of the Scots tail wagging the English dog through a Labour/SNP coalition, led to a working Conservative majority.*

The polls are still suspect, despite Alberta, in my opinion, and, as Alberta showed, united conservatives still command a great deal of respect or, at least, support.

_____
* Although a real majority requires 326 seats (out of 650) the fact is that Sinn Fein never take their (four, again) seats in Parliament so the HoC is really 646 seats so a working majority is 324, including the speaker.

 

[Kirkhill]

Well, in the UK, the polling was wrong and conservatism lives on. More likely, just a strong distaste for the loony-left 'economics' of the SNP, especially, and an even greater distaste for the idea of the Scots tail wagging the English dog through a Labour/SNP coalition, led to a working Conservative majority.*

The polls are still suspect, despite Alberta, in my opinion, and, as Alberta showed, united conservatives still command a great deal of respect or, at least, support.

_____
* Although a real majority requires 326 seats (out of 650) the fact is that Sinn Fein never take their (four, again) seats in Parliament so the HoC is really 646 seats so a working majority is 324, including the speaker.

Agreed on all points - current standings give the Tories 329 and a clear, if slim majority.

The Aussie played the Scots like a fiddle.  The SNP eviscerated Labour AND performed nobly in uniting the English - always at their best when facing a common foe.

There is some discussion about whether Cameron will deal with the Scots or the Europeans first.  My bet is he will play both together.  Scots may enjoy the odd punch up with the English but are they really thrilled about becoming Europeans dancing to the tune of Spanish and Belgian Tories (Tories on the basis that Europe's aristocrats long ago figured out there were two ways to survive: run to Britain or becomes leaders of the proletariat).

My guess is that while the Scots don't like being 10% of Brits they will detest the idea of being 1% of Europeans. The SNP followers really envy those cousins that ruled the Highlands and Islands for the best part of a thousand years - The Norwegians.  And the Lowlanders, like the Northern English - have more in common with the Danes.

Neither the Norwegians nor the Danes make good Europeans.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I wonder where the usual commentariat is this morning after the Aberta NDP won with 40 percent of the vote...you know, that ones that call for proportionate representation because the federal Conservatives keep winning with 39 percent of the vote. Which is undemocratic, don't you know? 

And the UK election will add fuel to the fire:  :

    1. The Conservatives won a slim but serviceable majority with less than 37% of the vote;

    2. The SNP won 8% (56) of the seats with 4% of the popular vote; and

    3. The UKIP got three times as many votes as the SNP, more than ⅓ of Labour's vote, and got only 1 seat (against 56 for the SNP and 232 for Labour.)

 

[Edward Campbell]

I wonder if there are lessons in the recent UYK election for the Conservative Party of Canada ... this aricle, about Prime Minister Cameron's campaign manager, Lynton Crosby, called the "Wizard of Oz" for his tactical acumen, is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Mail Online:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3073850/The-Wizard-Oz-Cameron-s-sweeping-success-Election-guru-Lynton-Crosby-credited-winning-campaign.html

The 'Wizard of Oz' behind David Cameron's sweeping success: Election guru Lynton Crosby is credited for winning campaign
    + Australian election campaign manager credited with resounding victory
    + The Tories stunned their political opponents to win 331 seats and majority
    + Lynton Crosby is famed for his brilliant campaign strategies and tactics
    + Nicknamed the 'Wizard of Oz', he was born in South Australia in 1957
    + He helped former Australian prime minister John Howard to four victories

By COREY CHARLTON FOR MAILONLINE

PUBLISHED: 8 May 2015

Australian Lynton Crosby's reputation as one of Britain's most powerful electoral strategists remains intact after the Tories' stunning demolition of Labour.

Nicknamed the Wizard of Oz, election advisor Crosby has been credited with pulling David Cameron over the line after a late switch in tactics to counter the rise of Labour in the pre-election polls.

The 58-year-old came in for criticism after the early Tory election strategy appeared to be failing miserably.

Lynton Crosby - David Cameron's political strategist - has emerged from the election with his reputation not only intact, but significantly improved

Conservative attacks on Labour were criticised as too negative, while the decision to contrast Tory consistency against a chaotic Ed Miliband-led Labour was deemed ineffective.

It was only when Cameron offered a show of passion - which many claimed he had been sorely lacking - in a speech ten days before the election did the tide start to turn.

Following this, the Tory emphasis on the threat of a SNP-Labour coalition helped claw back voters from the Lib Dems and Ukip - placing the Conservatives on course to claiming today's majority.

The Conservatives stunned their political opponents to win 331 seats, securing the outright majority which eluded Mr Cameron in 2010

Since his return to the Conservative campaign headquarters at the end of 2013, Crosby has established himself as a leading figure among the cabinet.

Blunt-talking Mr Crosby has been called 'the Wizard of Oz' because of his legendary success in political campaigns, including winning four terms for former Australian PM John Howard and helping Boris Johnson to two Mayoralty victories.

His supporters have called him one of the most brilliant political strategists of his generation.

Born in 1957 in Kadina, South Australia, the economics graduate soon discovered he had a flair for advising parties on election-winning strategies.

Infamously, he was associated with claims in the 2001 Australian general election that asylum seekers had thrown children into the sea.

Witty, foul-mouthed and a workaholic, 'the Wizard of Oz' is blunt to his political masters.

In the 2008 London Mayoral campaign he told Boris Johnson: 'If you let us down we will cut your f****** knees off'.

The Mayor of London is said to have little doubt about Mr Crosby's abilities - he was once reported to have told Tory backbenchers they should 'break the piggybank' to hire him and give him a 'free hand' to take control of campaigning.

Those close to Mr Crosby are not offended by his plain speaking – and say it is all part of his charismatic personal style.

He is also known as the ‘attack dingo’, and for a long while was synonymous with ‘dog whistle politics’ – the repeated use of coded language which plays to the worst fears of certain voters.

-------------------------​

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3073850/The-Wizard-Oz-Cameron-s-sweeping-success-Election-guru-Lynton-Crosby-credited-winning-campaign.html#ixzz3Zk3FENhd
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook

I also read that the centrepiece of Mr Crosby's campaign strategy was to focus on only those seats that were competitive (a two or three way race) and in which Tories had a fighting chance to win. He ignored the sure "losers" (bridge players will understand that) and paid scant attention ot the sure winners.

So, lessons:

    1. Personality (passion about issues) matters ~ that's easier for M Trudeau than it is for Messers Harper and Mulcair, but Prime Minister Harper can (has in the past) shown some "passion" for some issues. He needs to do so, again;

    2. Fight where you can win ~ that's the suburbs and small cities/towns for the CPC;

    3. Well crafted, well timed attack ads work ~ damned well, sometime; and

    4. People's biases and fears are fair game ~ go for it.

 

[CougarKing]

Pre-election debate in the news:

Ottawa Citizen

Conservatives say Harper won’t participate in traditional election debates run by broadcasters

THE CANADIAN PRESS  05.11.2015

(...SNIPPED)

The party has already accepted an offer from TVA for a French language debate and one from Macleans/Rogers for an English language debate.

And Teneycke says the Conservatives are willing to take part in another French to debate and up to two more English ones.

(...SNIPPED)
The consortium of Canadian broadcasters had proposed two English and two French debates for this year’s election.

Plus, a former Tory candidate who was simply "messing with the party" for an "art project"? 

Ottawa Citizen

Conservative opponent in Justin Trudeau’s riding resigns after admitting he was just in it as an art project

Lloyd, a performance artist originally from Saint John, N.B., has a blog called Dear PM in which he details his long-running project of communicating with the prime minister daily.

The biography on the blog lists his occupation as “secret agent” and his interests as conservative politics and art.

The CBC attended a talk Lloyd gave in March in Fredericton in which he said he was committed to defeating Trudeau in Montreal’s Papineau riding. But he had other motivations as well.

“I’ve been telling the prime minister about this whole thing from, like, the get-go with all sorts of imaginings and fantasies and options, like, ‘Yeah, I’m going to become the candidate, I’m going to like mess with your party, I’m totally, like, going to wait till the writ is dropped then it’s going to be party time,” he said, according to a CBC report Tuesday.

(...SNIPPED)

 

[Kirkhill]

And the UK election will add fuel to the fire:  :

    1. The Conservatives won a slim but serviceable majority with less than 37% of the vote;

    2. The SNP won 8% (56) of the seats with 4% of the popular vote; and

    3. The UKIP got three times as many votes as the SNP, more than ⅓ of Labour's vote, and got only 1 seat (against 56 for the SNP and 232 for Labour.)

Apparently Labour won a majority in 2005, under Blair with 35% of the vote.

UKIP and the SNP are problems - for different reasons.

As you note UKIP is radically under-represented. 

Conversely, and more dangerously, the SNP is over-represented.  With 1.4 million supporters getting out to vote is now claims to represent 4 million registered voters.  In UK terms those 1.4 million supporters now claim to set the agenda for 45 million registered UK voters.

Tail truly wagging dog.

 

[Retired AF Guy]

Conservatives say Harper won’t participate in traditional
election debates run by broadcasters

I don't know about you guys, but I've always considered TV debates to be a waste of time. To me it just looks like a bunch of children in a sandbox throwing crap at each other.

 

[Rocky Mountains]

The debates are really childish and pointless and few watch them but all await the verdict of the Media Party to tell us who won.  It isn't always the person who I think won because I prefer substance over shrill.  Debates, once we are told who won, sometimes seem to make a difference.