• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

The 2008 Canadian Election- Merged Thread

Simpson does an interesting round up on the election

Source


Campaign endnotes: Tory gains, NDP pains
Article  Comments (6)  JEFFREY SIMPSON

From Saturday's Globe and Maiil

E-mail Jeffrey Simpson | Read Bio | Latest Columns
October 17, 2008 at 6:46 PM EDT

The Harper Conservatives were certainly stiffed in Quebec, but they made progress elsewhere toward becoming the country's dominant party.

Since the 2006 election, the Conservatives have made special efforts to woo multicultural Canadians, most of whom had habitually voted Liberal. It would appear they made significant gains.......

Wooing multicultural Canadians was always going to take time and consistent effort. But if these electoral results are any indication, the Conservatives are well-launched toward success, with an approach that mixes specific policies for particular groups with an overall emphasis on low taxes, family and entrepreneurship. Liberals, who had things their way for so long in most of multicultural Canada, are now being challenged. The result is good for competitive politics.

Another, smaller part of the old Liberal coalition also went partly Conservative: francophones outside Quebec.

.....

And still another, smaller part of the old Liberal coalition went partly Conservative: aboriginal Canada. ...

The addition of more multicultural, aboriginal and francophones outside Quebec will make the Conservative caucus somewhat more moderate, because the caucus will be somewhat more representative of Canada's diversity. From diversity in politics comes the need to compromise and accommodate.

Put another way, the more the Conservative Party looks like Canada, the more pragmatic and moderate the party will be, because that is the essence of Canada – and the way to ongoing success in Canadian politics.
.......


I disagree with Mr. Simpson on the highlighted points. 

I think it displays a difference of understanding.  He sees ethnic, francophone and aboriginal Canadians migrating towards the Conservatives (perhaps as a result of that charismatic magnetism of Stephen Harper - or some other equally unknown force) and concludes that this will make Conservatives more "moderate", more "Canadian" or dare I say more "Liberal".

I rather choose to think that those ethnic, francophone and aboriginal voters that chose to vote Conservative did so because they chose Conservative policies over the Liberal induced phobia of Harper/Day/Manning et al. 

I think Simpson is right when he says that moderation is the key to success in Canadian politics.  But moderation is hard to define.  Moderation, like porn, is recognized only by the beholder.  The critical issue in politics is to be perceived to be moderate.

When it was only redneck WASPs voting for Reeefoooooorm, it was easy to marginalize them and paint them, and by extension their policies, as immoderate. 

It is considerably harder to paint Conservatives as anything other than Canadian when the supporters of the party's policies include all species of Hyphenated Canadians (and that includes my many hyphenated self).

I don't think that the Conservatives will become more moderate in the sense Mr. Simpson expects.  I do think that they will be perceived as being more moderate and thus their policies will become more acceptable.....except in the Ghettoes of Academia and the CBC.
 
Thucydides said:
On the other hand, should Senator Obama win, he will be in a difficult position. The Democratic congress will not feel beholden to him, which should make governance especially rocky in these tough economic times.
You're quite right.

Just ask Jimmy Carter.
 
Hot Lips said:
Pretty sure we won't see any majorities in this country...there are too many parties...seems like common sense to me... ::) too many to share votes over...
Actually (and forgive me if my ignorance about Canada is showing) they do a lot more damage than that. They make the attainment of a majority government by a national party almost impossible by taking out of circulation between 45 and 60 ridings. If the Bloc gets, say, 50 ridings (less than they hold now) there are 258 ridings left available to the national parties. Take away another 15-30 for the NDP, and that leaves roughly 240 ridings available and in order to form a majority government either the LPOC or the CPC needs 2/3 of the remaining ridings. A pretty daunting task. The Bloc then can throw its weight around and has much more power than Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition. Thus, they are worse than obstructionists; they are minority dictators (again, I may be wrong since as a Yank I know little about how your country works).
Hot Lips said:
Perhaps that's why the Americans only have the two...

My .02

HLW
Since we're not a parliamentary country the issue of a "majority government" doesn't really apply. The fact is we have almost no party discipline here. The party leader, President and/or Presidential Candidates have zero influence over who the local candidates are.

The reason for the two party system is the fact that the Electoral College system makes it almost impossible for 3rd parties to even get a seat at the table.
 
Fairly good analysis JBG, and something most Canadians probably don't recognize as a dynamic in our elections.
 
Here's a view from south of the Border:

The Bulletin Newspaper
Philadelphia's Family Newspaper

Article Link


So Near But So Far
By James G. Wiles, For The Bulletin

10/17/2008

Sometimes you just need to take a vacation in your mind. So I did.

Did you know that Canada had a national election on Tuesday?

Only if you're a political junkie. Like those weather maps which, for some reason, show America's neighbor, ally and biggest trading partner as a blank space, a bellwether election to our north only three weeks before our own appeared at best as a fleeting blip on the radar screens of most American media.

The whole process took less than 30 days, from sea to shining sea. As a result, the campaign cost mere pennies.

Know which party won? The Conservatives, by a larger margin than last time. America's friend, Stephen Harper, will again be prime minister.

It took all of three and a half hours to count the vote and decide who'd won. PBS began broadcasting the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation's election night coverage - live from Toronto! - at 8 p.m. on Tuesday. It was all over in time for Charlie Rose.

America's love affair with the Archangel Barack is out of sync with the rest of the Free World.

Italy, Germany, France and Canada all now have conservative governments, as do most of the liberated nations from the former Soviet Empire. It's likely Great Britain will return the Tories to power when they next hold elections.

All those European governments which we keep hearing George Bush supposedly "offended" so grievously have, in fact, fallen from power.

A Philadelphian tired of the permanent campaign that American politics has become since Bill Clinton's election in 1992 may look in wonder at how differently the political system operates only two hours away.

It's worth pointing out some of the reasons for that striking difference.

* Canada's population is only one-tenth of ours.

* Since it has a parliamentary system, Canadians don't need primaries. The leaders of the four national parties in the Canadian Parliament are chosen by the M.P.'s themselves.

* Because of the Prime Minister's Questions and parliamentary debates, voters already know a great deal about the respective party leaders.

* Canada's population is largely homogenous. Ethnic/racial politics are pretty much limited to Quebec, home of the Frenchspeaking population and the Inuit.

* Since the end of the Second World War and Korean Wars, Canada has deliberately abandoned its status as a great power. Today, in a nation of 33 million, total Canadian active duty personnel are around 62,000.

So should we all move to Canada if Barack Obama wins? Well, stop, look and listen. Canada in many ways is a tranquil and beautiful land of many contradictions. Yes, it has a conservative government. But, to an American eye, la Canada - especially outside of Quebec - is a strikingly secular place.

Canada's decision to no longer be a major military power dates from 1970. On the other hand, the Royal Canadian Regiment, Princess Patricia's Canadian Light Infantry and the French-speaking Royal 22th Regiment are fighting with us in Afghanistan. There is no gun culture.Hockey and soccer are the national sports.

Conservatives actually make up only about 40 percent of the voters. The average Liberal, NPDer and Bloc Quebecois voter, by contrast, is likely to be an Obama Democrat on steroids.

Nor, as columnist Mark Steyn can tell you, is political speech in Canada necessarily free. One thing the Harper government hasn't done is dismantle the political and legal culture of stifling political correctness and multiculturalism, which the Liberal Party put in place when it was in power.

Canada has no First Amendment. Provincial human rights commissions attempt to enforce a speech code scarily similar to that already in place on many American college campuses.

Canada also has national health care. It's so bad that Canadians regularly come to the States for medical care, especially for surgery.

At the same time,Canada has an amazingly laissez faire business culture. There are no national securities laws. Stock exchanges, especially in the so called Wild West, are basically wide open. Caveat emptor style business practices which have been illegal here for decades still flourish in Canada.

Legal redress is limited. Class action litigation is unknown; contingency fees are banned; andmost business laws which allow lawsuits to be filed have a deterrence damages scheme rather than a compensation one.

It's so quick and easy to visit Canada. I wouldn't like to have to live there.

James Wiles is a Philadelphia lawyer. He can be reached at jwiles@thebulletin.us

©The Bulletin 2008
 
Legal redress is limited. Class action litigation is unknown; contingency fees are banned; andmost business laws which allow lawsuits to be filed have a deterrence damages scheme rather than a compensation one.

It's so quick and easy to visit Canada. I wouldn't like to have to live there.

James Wiles is a Philadelphia lawyer.

Killing myself laughing.
 
At the same time,Canada has an amazingly laissez faire business culture. There are no national securities laws. Stock exchanges, especially in the so called Wild West, are basically wide open. Caveat emptor style business practices which have been illegal here for decades still flourish in Canada.


This guy is funny. He wants us to adopt the American system? The American system which is now bankrupt? The American system which is bankrupting the American middle class?

I'll take our "laissez faire" system over theirs anyday. It apparently works... (Though, I was under the understanding that we have much tighter controls then the Americans do... But then, I am not an economist, so what exactly do I know? These are my own ignorant comments, feel free to correct me, I do want to know better.)
 
Teeps74 said:
This guy is funny. He wants us to adopt the American system? The American system which is now bankrupt? The American system which is bankrupting the American middle class?

I'll take our "laissez faire" system over theirs anyday. It apparently works... (Though, I was under the understanding that we have much tighter controls then the Americans do... But then, I am not an economist, so what exactly do I know? These are my own ignorant comments, feel free to correct me, I do want to know better.)
Some rather influential and formerly wealthy adventurers may be in trouble. We're hardly bankrupt or finished.
 
Wow interesting article.  It is always nice to read what foreigners think of us.

(the following is meant as a joke)

Yes it is true,  Americans have elections like married women argue with their partner - it is never really over, there are just lulls while they collect ammunition/dirt, and it seems to flair up in regular cycles.  There are ONLY TWO involved, if a third is introduced it is looked on as scandalous.

Canadians have elections like drunken frat guys.  They start the moment they think the woman (The GG) says the election is on,  they are short, intense, sloppy with no real finesse or subtlety.  Any name calling is amusing only in the "wow he actually said that and didn't get slapped?"  The more parties involved, the interesting the outcome. Even after the election we have people 'crossing the floor', party whips and bi - elections.

(okay, the rest, while funny, is just a personal comment on things most people know but never really focused on)
In the article it mentioned that outside Quebec Canada is very secular - most Canadians would misread that to think "they think we don't believe in God".  It actually means that if we had a leader of a political party give a speech with a bible in one hand and claiming that god spoke to them and they will do gods work... we'd laugh, then feel very awkward.  It is considered something very personal up here,  and people who put it on display to appeal to voters cheapen their beliefs. (they look like hookers)

The article also mentioned that we don't have the same regulations as in the states.  This is very true.  It also is at the heart at another difference between our cultures - we're fiscally conservative.  *gasp and clutch pearls*  I would point out a major difference is in how we do accounting.  Canadian GAAP (Generally accepted accounting principles) are like "general rules and guidelines".  There are very few "hard if this you do that" rules.  It is based upon the ethics and judgement of the accountant.  Auditors will look to see if the accountant's work is a "fair and accurately reflects the economic reality" and that's it. In the states they have FASB - a book thick enough to crush an elephant, filled with rules.  If you find a loophole that allows you to tweak your books,  good for you.  Our stock exchanges reflect these differences in our cultures.  Enron got away with it because they found 'quirky loopholes' and the banks in the states thought it was a great idea to give mortgages to people who couldn't afford they pay them back because they were allowed to tweak their books and present the "loans" in a certain way.  (they couldn't do that up here and hence no Canadian bank is in trouble)  (gee sound principled approach vs clever tricks to make quick money)

During our last election,  the Conservatives hammered the Liberals with "you'll run a deficit".  As a few people suspected,  we were already running a deficit. Somehow cutting 50 billion in tax revenues and increasing spending meant that the Federal government  was spending more than it earns.  *shocking* Conservatives being bad with budgets?  I thought they were all good with money like George Bush and Brian Mulroney.  Funny how Bush was given a huge surplus and turned it into a deficit,  while action pious about the need for tax cuts on the wealthy, it looks like Stephan Harper has done the same.  (Supply side economics, aka trickle down theory, aka 'peeing on the poor', isn't the economic cure all. Sometimes the economy needs other tools used to stimulate it - but if the only tool you have is a hammer, every problem you see begin to look like nails)

In Canada the political leader that was the most conservative - Jack Layton.  He was the only one who said he would restore the corporate tax rate.  So insted of having the lowest rate in total,  we'd be 'middle of the G8'. 

Now,  funny thing,  I think the yanks go to the polls on Nov 4th... we almost have enough time to get another election in before then :-D  We could get voter turnout to record lows again - think of it 5% of the population could put in place a majority government!
 
The election isn't over for some people. What is really frightening is the intemperate language being used; in legal terms they are openly calling for an overthrow of the lawfully elected government. Since from appearances most of these people would have a hard time organizing a hockey tournament, I don't think we are in any danger (yet), but eventually constant repetition will get some people thinking....

The more realistic option of the Liberal Party splintering is also discussed. I know Edward may be nostalgic for the Liberal "brand" and the proud traditions of Laurier, but lets face it; it hasn't been that party for decades. I believe a new Centre Left party will arise from the Liberal Rump, disgruntled Dippers and Greens (leaving a smaller far left rump), but it took the Reform/Alliance/Conservatives a decade of hard work, so don't expect anything until we are reaching the 2020's

http://stevejanke.com/archives/276775.php

From Lloyd Axworthy's union of the left to riots in the streets
Tuesday, October 28, 2008 at 01:06 PMComments: 20
Previous Post
Frankly, people opposed to the Conservatives just can't seem to accept that they lost an election.  The reactions range from wishful thinking to the deranged.  The thing that links them together is the notion that the Conservatives have to be removed from power, now, immediately, before they destroy everything.

Lloyd Axworthy starts off his op-ed in the Ottawa Citizen with a cliche, and that is never a good sign.  It suggests that the rest of the essay is going to offer nothing original, or else that gem would have been used to lead off the piece.

Instead we get that old canard about how the majority of Canadians did not vote for the Conservatives:

More than 60 per cent of those who cast ballots in the last election did not support the Harper government. If you count in all those who did not participate out of choice or indifference then you likely have a much larger cohort of Canadians who are not in favour of the agenda espoused by this government.

Yes, but an even larger percentage voted against the Liberals.  Looking at the numbers, the vote for NDP barely registered, and the Green Party share of the ballots cast was mathematically insignificant.  The Bloc Quebecois?  Only in Quebec.

But somehow that never seems to be noted by the majority-voted-against-Harper club, of which Lloyd Axworthy seems to be a card-carrying member.

Why is that?  Because when faced with the Conservatives in power, some people become so unhinged that they imagine that the Liberals, the NDP, the Green Party, and yes, even the Bloc Quebecois, are all just variations on a theme:

First, the opposition parties must begin immediately to have direct conversations about the forthcoming parliamentary session....This de facto parliamentary alliance, while troublesome for partisans, is a must and is clearly mandated by their electors who were asked to vote Liberal, New Democrat, Green or Bloc to stop Mr. Harper.

Stopping Harper.  Not defeating Stephen Harper at the next election.  Stopping him.  Now.

The theme is that the votes that went to the Liberals or the NDP or the Bloc or the Green Party weren't awarded by voters who support free trade (the Liberals) or those that don't (the NDP) or those who want Quebec sovereignty (the Bloc) or those who are environmentalists first and foremost (the Green Party), but by some imaginary notion that the votes went to these parties primarily to Stop Harper.

Not only is this the way Lloyd Axworthy chooses to interpret the impetus behind these votes.  He says that this is the mandate clearly delivered by these voters.  Unfortunately, this clear mandate was splintered between these parties.  He's just repairing this clear mandate.

Clearly mandated?  Well, let's be clear.  Stephane Dion did ask voters to vote for the Liberal Party to stop the Conservatives.  Jack Layton did ask voters to vote for the NDP to stop the Conservatives. Gilles Duceppe did ask voters to vote for the Bloc Quebecois to stop the Conservatives.

But if it was so important to beat the Conservatives, why didn't two of the leaders throw their voters to the third?  I mean, if these parties existed for the sole purpose of stopping Harper, it wouldn't matter which got elected.  If it was so clear that the votes that they were getting were not in support of their policies, but just an attempt by confused voters to deliver a mandate to stop the Conservatives, then pooling their votes together ahead of election day would have made sense.

Heck, that's exactly what Elizabeth May did, asking on three different occasions that Green Party supporters to vote for someone else.  Net effect?  No Green Party seats and a strengthened Conservative minority.

The other party leaders didn't go that route.  Jack Layton believes every vote he got was in support of the NDP platform, and not merely parked with the NDP as a convenient spot to put the anti-Harper vote.  The same goes for the Stephane Dion and for Gilles Duceppe.  Lloyd Axworthy is asking these party leaders to repudiate their platforms, and indeed, their own parties, and imagine that all the votes earned were purely protest votes against the Conservatives (his imagined "clear mandate").

I guess we could throw in the Green Party votes too, if they joined in, though their contribution to the seat count in parliament would be, well, nothing.

Does Lloyd Axworthy think this is just about voting for or against this bill or that?  If so, then this will happen anyway, and it always does in parliament, especially in a minority parliament.  What a waste of ink if that's all this is about.

No, he's talking about something long term:

It is the mirror image of the politics of the 1990s when the Reform-PC split gave Liberals a built-in advantage. This is compounded by the shifts going on in the diverse demographics of the country and the advancement of a new generation that does not have the same political loyalties of old. So, as uncomfortable as it may be, there will have to be realignments, along with a serious look at electoral reform.

Google as I might, I can't seem to find any references to Lloyd Axworthy demanding that Canada's right merge in order to give his Liberal Party serious electoral opposition, or that the ruling Liberals suggest a different voting system to give the Progressive Conservatives or the Reform Party a leg up in seat count.

But Lloyd Axworthy seems to think that there is a serious likelihood that the Liberal Party, and the NDP, and the Bloc Quebecois, can actually merge.  If Lloyd Axworthy thinks the NDP and Liberals ought to merge based on some significant overlap in philosophy and platform, and no deeply held positions or philosophies in the two parties would stand in the way, fine.  I'd like to see a serious deconstruction of their platforms and philosophies to show that a merger would actually work.  Really impress me by adding columns for the Bloc Quebecois and the Green Party, and show that there is nothing holding back full consolidation of what I think is inaccurately labeled "The Left".

Inaccurate because it is only Liberals like Lloyd Axworthy that talk about mergers. Others like me realize that the Liberals aren't on the Left, or not by much.  We recognize that it would be much easier to remove the Liberal Party altogether, and have right-of-centre Liberals drift to the Conservatives, and left-of-centre Liberals join the NDP.

Really, that's far more likely to work than trying to merge the Liberals and the NDP.  Let's not even imagine trying to shoehorn the Bloc and the Green Party into that.

When Lloyd Axworthy brings up mergers with the Liberal Party, smart people think dissolution of the Liberal Party.  You would think Lloyd Axworthy would do well to be quiet and just work on fixing the Liberal Party, assuming it can be repaired.  But instead, Lloyd Axworthy opens this can of worms.

What is it that inspires people like Lloyd Axworthy into these wild flights of fancy?  It comes back to this notion that Stephen Harper has to be stopped.

There seems to be a feeling on the left that something terrible has happened, or is going to happen.  It makes people like Lloyd Axworthy say silly things.  He's not the only one.

Consider Progressives for Dion.  This group of earnest, well-meaning women seem to think a coup is in order, and that Stephane Dion needs to be the Liberal leader for it to work:

We the people are asking the establishment to keep Dion on as leader. He was barely supported by the power brokers and was left to fend for himself against all odds. If Dion is ousted the party will lose its grassroots support and because of lack of funding it will wither away. Harper is a crook and we cannot defeat him in the conventional way.

To replace Stephen Harper using conventional means, we hold an election and then the parties duke it out.  These progressives do not explain what unconventional means will be necessary to replace the Conservatives, and why an election wouldn't work.  Really, though, the word conventional is nearly analogous to legal.  When I read about people considering unconventional methods, well, I worry.  There aren't too many unconventional methods that are also legal.

And in any case, these progressives are calling Stephen Harper a criminal (though they don't mention what crime, other than to call him a "crook").  What unconventional methods wouldn't be justified to eject a criminal from office?

They remain tantalizingly silent on that point.

But at the Stop Stephen Harper blog, a more detailed plan is laid out, based on a letter writing campaign to the Governor General.  If the Governor General doesn't take action to do what the electorate did not do and stop Stephen Harper, there will be fighting in the streets:

Canadians have voted not to give the Conservative Party an overall majority in this election. The result clearly shows that an overwhelming majority of the voting public do not support the Conservative Party, and therefore do not wish to see Stephen Harper continue as prime minister of Canada.

Mr. Harper may petition you to be allowed to continue as prime minister with a parliamentary minority. I beg you not to grant his request immediately. Instead, I respectfully request that you stay your official permission until the four opposition parties, or at least those whose candidates have been elected to sit as members of the 40th parliament of Canada, are given time to try to form a coalition government.

I believe that a coalition government holding a majority in parliament would be in the best interests of Canada at this time. To allow Mr. Harper to continue as prime minister would have many damaging consequences that could undermine the peaceful order and good government of this country.

A minority Conservative government would expose Canada to policies that the majority of Canadians clearly do not want. They could diminish Canadian sovereignty by integration into a continental union with the United States, and further undermine the supportive social programs and civil liberties that Canadians citizens have come to enjoy.

Another minority government would frustrate those Canadians who have rejected Mr. Harper’s platform and past policies, possibly leading to civil unrest.

Civil unrest?  Is he serious?  The author, Stuart Hertzog, is a failed NDP and Green Party candidate in British Columbia.  I haven't heard of riots out west, where the Conservatives did very well indeed.  The Conservatives increased their seat count by five (holding 22 of 36 seats), took seats from both the NDP and the Liberals, and came close in several other seats.  That was on the strength of a 45% share of the popular vote.

Perhaps Stuart Hertzog thinks the civil unrest will start elsewhere and spread to British Columbia.  Perhaps he's hoping it will.

Perhaps that what the Progressives for Dion mean by unconventional methods.  Demonstrations.  Or worse.

Who knows?

The path of least resistance for left-of-centre Canadians is consolidation, not union.  We'll all watch carefully as the Liberal Party attempts to revive itself.  If it fails, it will splinter and disappear, and the NDP and the Conservatives will both benefit.  It's a realistic prediction.  Why?  Because I don't predicate my predictions on the premise that the Conservatives have to be forever frozen out of power, at any cost, using any plan no matter how bizarre.
 
This is my greatest concern.  I alluded to it in the comments on the US election.

The problem, as I see it, is that too many people are becoming too heavily invested in the political process.  They are no longer willing to "play up, play up and play the game".

Western Democracies function because people accept the peaceful transition of governments.  They must accept that all candidates are reliable, honourable people that, while they have different views on policy, they are all equally committed to the well being of local society and will do nothing to damage that fabric.

When that trust erodes how far removed are we from Kenya?

The woman that faked the attack by an Obama supporter.  Obama supporters macing a McCain office because they believed they were stealing signs.  White thugs planning to assassinate Obama....................and many more.

All indicative of the break down of civility.   


The young, radical left has always preached against the hypocrisy of society that allows people to exchange pleasantries, smile, shake hands, with people with whom they violently disagree.    And yet it is that very hypocrisy, that willingness to suspend disagreements and adhere to convention in the interest of "peace, order and good governance" that permits western democracies to survive.

My concern is that that is also the weak flank of civilization.

If society can be polarized, as it has been (and maybe it is a natural progression) then it becomes harder to see the "opposition" as "one of us".

And that way lie dragons.....
 
As I've said before: if the people who support the parties not currently in power can't be happy with anything less than never-a-Conservative-government, it will end in gunfire.  Here is the stark reality for the non-CPC voters: you have to be willing to put up with at least two solid terms of majority CPC government once in a while.  If you can't do that, let's start negotiating the breakup of the country to ensure everyone has a region suited to their cultural/political preferences right now.
 
The problem (on both sides of the border) is the stakes have become far too high. The "Progressives" want the levers of government and the resources of the State in order to institute their program, while "Classical Liberals" need to deny these resources to the progressives to protect small government, property rights, freedom of speech and association and the Rule of Law (but alas, fall prey to temptation to use the power and resources of the States all to easily). The problem is summarised:

The problem is that once the scope of government is vast and sweeping, and the power of the office is enormous; once you get to where you must have vast sums to get the office, and you must win because otherwise you are ruined by your borrowing, and possibly up for prosecution for criminalized policy differences -- then you are where the Roman Republic was, and it is worth everything to win.

http://www.jerrypournelle.com/view/view507.html#scope
 
Thucydides,

I find your reference actually quite spot on.  I must however take issue with the conclusion you drew.  I don't think it was the "progressives" (which I think you mean non Tory) that passed laws in America that concentrated power in the executive,  nor did they pass laws that striped citizens of civil protections most English speaking people have 'enjoyed' since the Magna Carta.  In Canada,  we can thank the Liberals for our proud moments of rendions and the laws that allow actions that were outlawed near the end of the dark ages.

Also the idea that "progressives" are the bane of small government is false.  Both in America and in Canada Conservatives were given huge surpluses when they started,  in both cases they cut taxes AND increased spending.  In Canada,  a month before they Tories drooped the writ (against the spirit of their own election promise and the law they enacted) they worked hard to increase spending by 19 billion.  Announcing 8 billion-ish the week before the election on programs they previously said they wouldn't support.  Going into the election,  the Tories were running a deficit.  (14 billion surplus - 19 billion increase in spending - 50 billion in cooperate taxes = Big government that runs a deficit)

I'm from Alberta, my family lost allot of money when Treadu enacted the national energy program.  I remember the disdain for the liberals the view being "take from Alberta and give to Quebec".  I know personally a few Conservative MPs,  good guys.  I now live dt Toronto,  I can say the feeling isn't 'anti Alberta' it is mostly people who are 'uncomfortable' with the rhetoric coming from the 'political right'.  Talk of things ending in gunfire,  forcing two terms of Marjory Tory governments on people... seeing what the Tories did to the budget after one minority government,  gritting out teeth waiting to hear what will happen to our children's money (federal debt is our children's money)  When people metion "Tory majority" it is spoken with genuine dread.

 
905?  eeeew. (kidding)  I'm dt, 416 -  slightly east of the Eaton Center.  (oh my I should be nicer here,  I put it out there where I am and I do look just like my pic)



 
Zell_Dietrich said:
Thucydides,
...  forcing two terms of Marjory Tory governments on people... When people metion "Tory majority" it is spoken with genuine dread.

I take it you are talking about Mike Harris' two majority terms. If so, I would remind you that no one forced Harris on the people of Ontario. He came to power through a fair and democratic election, not by coup d'etat.
 
I do not propose to force two terms of CPC majorities on anyone.  What I state is this: for any franchise-based system of selecting governments, the structure only lasts as long as the losers in each round concede peacefully (if not gracefully) and stand aside until, inevitably, they are allowed their turn back at the wheel.

What the Tories did to the budget after one minority government is just what the Liberals did to the budget over the last few years of majority government - Chretien et al.  Look at the trends in federal spending.  There is a dip right around the time the major shifts were made to eliminate the deficit; once the economy (and hence federal revenues) picked up steam, the spending proceeded apace to new heights.

Everyone who tells me now that Tory spending is unreasonable, or that a government elected by less than 50% of the popular vote has no legitimacy, is either uninformed or worse (ie. ignorantly or hypocritically dismissive of past governments).  Here is one example.  If governments of every stripe continue to spend as heavily as they believe they can, then the "progressives" have won the big- vs small-government battle and have no reason to complain except for this: they disagree only on how the money is spent.

Gunfire will not come to pass unless we enter a prolonged period of one-party rule.  If that happens, it is highly improbable that the party will be the CPC.  If Canada ever has an oppressive federal government, it is most likely to occur under LPC or NDP rule.  While there is plenty of vile rhetoric emanating from supporters of all points of the political map, I find it instructive that among the very small educated and intelligent fraction of the population the distribution is not as uniform.  When I wish to read spittle-flecked invective from the supposed intelligentsia, I mostly find it on the left.  I simply can't find many in the commentariat who describe Liberal and NDP governments in Canada in the same overblown terms inflicted upon the Conservatives.

Consider the problem this way: if you convince people there is nothing more than this life, but insist on telling them how it must be lived, why should they submit?  If there is no higher power to which people are accountable, then they will either tolerate what they can or resist what they can not.
 
The difficulty lies in the comment "but they are prone to temptation". The CPC, American Republicans, British Tories and virtually every other party in the world which supposedly stands for "Classical Liberal" values seem to end up like kids in a candy store once they achieve office. Even if they implement part of the program, they don't provide the entire loaf: even Mike Harris failed to reduce spending along with taxes (in fact, as anyone with a passing knowledge of economics could forecast; revenues increased markedly during the Harris years, which they government proceeded to spend. Had they cut spending when elected and then used the revenues to pay down debt, we might be sitting pretty like Alberta with little or no debt).

The other part (which events south of the border are making pretty clear) is that so much power has been appropriated by non elected functionaries, and if they are working to maximise their power (either through greed or to increase the powers of the State or both), then only an active and uncorrupted legislature will be able to stop them. The "long march" of the Left through our institutions doesn't help either; once again this is something that legislatures *could* deal with, but as we saw with the Democratic Congress (or the Liberal "Ethics" committee chair), the temptations of power are very great...
 
Back
Top