• 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

Remaking Stephen Harper in Canada’s image

Is this really the only way that Messrs Ibbitson et al can come to terms with Stephen Harper's success?  Come to terms with their own failures?  Not that he better read the country mood than they.  Not that he managed to create a following.  Not that he has slowly, and in the face of continuous opposition, brought 40% of the voting populace to put their faith in him and his party..... But that "they" have changed "him".

On the subject of arrogance and self-delusion.....

 
Agree.

In the years ahead, Mr. Harper will expand the Conservative majority in the Senate by nominating more bagmen, defeated candidates and other partisans, thereby making that body even more compliant to his wishes. Very little, institutionally speaking, will stand in the way of the full sway of prime ministerial power.

Alberta has no Conservative bagmen as senators.  We elect our senators.  The rest of the country should stop whining and just do it.  We do have Liberal bagmen in the senate as Chretien would not appoint our elected senators.
 
jwtg said:
EDIT: If you don't feel like checking the link, it's an article about the Sherbrooke MP who is 19 years old.

"Recently-elected 19-year-old Pierre-Luc Dusseault is one win away from a $30,000 pension at the age of 25":
http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/TopStories/20110508/mps-new-pensions-110508/
 
Perhaps the reason the pundits were so spectacularly wrong was they were not reading the (human) terrain properly:

http://canadiancincinnatus.typepad.com/my_weblog/2011/05/tom-flanagan-is-wrong-about-the-nature-of-moderation-in-canada.html

Tom Flanagan is wrong about the nature of moderation in Canada

In this analysis, Tom Flanagan - the former advisor to Stephen Harper (and also his former professor) - explains how the preponderance of moderate voters in the political middle ensures that the parties on the left and the right will converge ‘in the middle’ in a two party system. While some of his conclusions are not far off the mark, Flanagan’s analysis itself couldn’t be more wrong, mostly because he has made two serious errors: he completely misunderstands the nature of the moderate voter, and he has too much faith in the one-dimensional model of politics.

Lets look at the second error first. The one-dimensional model states that ‘political space’ can be described with one parameter, usually by a big government index. According to this model, the NDP is on the left, the Bolsheviks are on the far left, small-c conservatives are on the right, and Ann Rand objectivist are on the far right. But if this model describes the key features of politics adequately, how come Hitler’s National Socialists are universally considered to be on the far right? And how come socially conservative, big government populists like Pat Buchanan and libertarians - who believe in small government and personal freedom - are both classed as right-wing parties. If the one-dimensional model is right, shouldn’t Pat Buchanan be a lefty moderate while a gay libertarian is a right-wing extremist!

In reality, one parameter is nowhere near enough to describe important features of the body politic.

In science, there is a saying: all models are wrong but some are useful. What makes the one-dimensional model useful is that the parameter it uses – economic freedom – is usually dominant. But this is not always the case. Take Quebec, where politics is split on federalist-separatist lines. There the conventional left-right split occurs within the parties themselves. In the real world, all political parties are expedient coalitions of diverse interests and how they come together depends on specific circumstances.

Another place where the one-dimensional model doesn’t work is a blue collar riding like Oshawa where voters are socially conservative but economically socialist. Because the main parties are split along conventional left-right lines, there is no party that really services them. They alternate between Conservatives and the NDP, depending on whether social issues (like gun control or family values) or economic issues (like free trade and middle class entitlements) predominate. A conventionally moderate candidate who is socially liberal but economically conservative, like say John Tory or Scott Brison, are poison to them. The one-dimensional model does not explain the Oshawa voter.

Now lets tackle Flanagan’s first error, a misunderstanding of what political moderation is. As I explained in this post, the moderate voter in the middle is not somebody whose political philosophy lies in the statistical midpoint of politics space. Rather, he is simply an apathetic voter who doesn’t care about politics at all. What political scientists like Flanagan see as a preference for moderation is really just a sensible desire to not rock the boat when things are OK. These people believe that there are a lot more ways to break things than there are utopian schemes that will actually make things better.

The flip side of this sentiment is a preference for decisive action when they see the wheels coming off the machine. This is why Margaret Thatcher, Ronald Reagan, Mike Harris and Rob Ford are popular, even though they were decisively to the right of the people who elected them. In serious times, the moderate voter wants – nay, demands - a leader who offers him a credible answer to the problem of the day and then boldly carries it out. A ‘moderate’ split-the-difference solution just repels him. Because Thatcher, Reagan and Harris offered convincing solutions that worked, they succeeded in moving the statistical middle towards them.

So when times are good, splitting the difference Median-Voter-Theorem-style works. But when the seas get choppy, you better have an answer that isn’t a weasely half-measure.
 
Kirkhill said:
Not that he has slowly, and in the face of continuous opposition, brought 40% of the voting populace to put their faith in him and his party..... But that "they" have changed "him".
Hey, I'm still coming to terms with the CBC "How-to-vote" gimmick that, no matter what options/preferences you typed in, said "You should vote Liberal !"

How could that have gone so horribly wrong?!  ;)
 
Journeyman said:
Hey, I'm still coming to terms with the CBC "How-to-vote" gimmick that, no matter what options/preferences you typed in, said "You should vote Liberal !"

How could that have gone so horribly wrong?!  ;)

somebody snitched!!!
 
To be fair, I used that vote compass and I got Conservative. Of course, that was because I deliberately answered every question in line with Conservative ideals which probably forced it concede defeat or reveal itself as a complete sham. ;D
 
E.R. Campbell said:
It figures; the one Conservative promise I described as being ”Nonsense” and monumentally stupid” is the one Prince Michael Ignatieff likes, 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/ottawa-notebook/a-tory-promise-mr-ignatieff-actually-likes/article1978697/
I’ll repeat my objection: just as the state has no business in the bedrooms of the nation (even Trudeau could be right now and again, rather like a stopped clock cannot help but be right, momentarily, twice a day) so our nation has no business in the temples of other nation-states. They have their religions, for good or ill,mostly ill – and, if this monumentally stupid idea is ever implemented then I will write to the Conservative PM and Foreign Minister on a regular basis reminding them that I am a long standing (and maximum level) donor to the Conservative Party and demanding that we hector and harass Iran and Saudi Arabia, and several other Arab and Muslim states for their lack of religious freedom for anyone except Muslims.
In related news from south of the border....
The House is on the verge of voting to create a new diplomatic post charged with defending religious freedom overseas, following a string of attacks against religious minorities in the turbulent Middle East and beyond.

The envoy would be charged with monitoring discrimination in dozens of countries, including in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, Egypt and Libya, among others.

According to the legislation, the new diplomat -- to be appointed by the president -- would be tasked with monitoring discrimination and religious violence against minorities and working with foreign governments to deal with "inherently discriminatory" laws ....
Source:  Fox News, 28 Jul 11
 
This, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Ottawa Citizen might shed some light on the NDP's success:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/business/Unions+spent+plus+federal+election/5524199/story.html
Unions spent $400,000-plus on federal election ads

By Glen McGregor, The Ottawa Citizen

October 8, 2011

OTTAWA — As the NDP faces questions about money it received from labour unions for convention advertising, newly-released financial reports show unions spent more than $400,000 on political ads during the spring federal election campaign.

Reports filed with Elections Canada show public sector and trade unions funded third-party ad buys in newspapers, websites and on radio across the country leading up to voting day on May 2.

Most of the union-funded ads were non-partisan on their face, but opposition parties were the likely beneficiaries of campaigns that questioned the wisdom of cutting public service jobs — as advocated by the Conservatives.

Among the biggest advertisers was the Public Service Alliance of Canada, which spent $134,000, mostly on a radio blitz the day before Canadians went to the polls.

In the week before voting day, PSAC launched radio ads encouraging Canadians to vote in support of the public service, with spots heard on radio stations in Ottawa, Vancouver, Winnipeg, Saskatoon and elsewhere.

PSAC also paid for lawn signs in Miramichi, New Brunswick, encouraging voting for “Anyone but Tilly” — a reference to local Conservative MP Tilly O’Neill-Gordon. PSAC targeted the riding because of fears that unionized employees who work on the federal gun registry would be laid off. O’Neill-Gordon was re-elected, despite PSAC’s efforts.

The Professional Institute of the Public Service (PIPS) spent $166,000, much of it on promoting a debate it hosted at the University of Ottawa that saw federal candidates discussing the future of the public service. PIPS also paid to set up forthepublicgood.ca, a website highlighting the value of the public service.

The Canadian Union of Public Employees, the Canadian Auto Workers, the B.C. Teachers Federation and the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union of Canada also reported third-party advertising during the campaign.

Elections Canada is looking into a complaint that the NDP accepted thousands of dollars from unions for advertising at the party’s national convention in June. The Conservatives allege the ads were a scheme to skate around the law that forbids corporations and unions from making donations to political parties. The NDP says the ads were sold at fair-market value and were entirely legal.

Unions also indirectly funded third-party ads by giving to advocacy groups, such as Child Care Advocacy Association of Canada, which received $5,000 from each of PSAC and the Canadian Federation of Nurses Unions.

Les Sans-Chemise received $34,000 from Quebec trade unions for radio ads, placards and signage. And the Canadian Health Coalition, a union-funded organization that advocates for publicly funded health care, spent $33,000 on printing and postage for flyers.

Third parties are limited by Elections Canada to spending $188,250 nationally and $3,765 for ads in each riding that promote or oppose a candidate. Although the Harper government lowered the limit on contributions to federal parties to $1,100 per person, there is no limit on contributions made to third parties to fund their ads.

The third-party reports show the conservative advocacy group National Citizens Coalition took in $168,960 to fund its advertising purchases, with 12 donors giving amounts greater than the $1,100 cap that would restrict them had they made donations to political parties.

The NCC received four donations of $10,000 each, including one from Robert Colborne, president of Pacific Western Transportation in Calgary and another from Bruce Orr of Vancouver’s Intercity Realty.

During a hiatus from serving as an MP, Prime Minister Stephen Harper worked as the NCC’s director and led its court challenge against the third-party spending restrictions. His group lost before the Supreme Court in a case styled — to opposition parties’ continued delight — as Harper v. Canada.

© Copyright (c) The Ottawa Citizen


While I support limiting direct donations to political parties, by individuals, corporations and trade unions, I oppose trying to limit the free speech of unions or corporations or even individuals. Those unions or corporations or individuals should not be restricted for advocating for an issue or against a candidate - but not for a specific candidate or a party because that is, de facto, the same as making a political contribution to a party.
 
Six months later we are of about the same opinions, according to this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/six-months-in-tories-peak-and-ndp-shows-staying-power-in-polls/article2222401/
Six months in, Tories peak and NDP shows staying power in polls

ÉRIC GRENIER
Globe and Mail Update

Published Wednesday, Nov. 02, 2011

Despite changes in leadership for three of the four opposition parties, the federal voting intentions of Canadians have shifted very little since they cast their ballots six months ago. But contrary to some of the expectations immediately after the results of the federal election became known, the New Democrats are proving to be no flash in the pan.

And the Conservatives may have peaked at the right time.

An aggregation of every public opinion poll released since the May 2 election, heavily weighted toward the most recent data, indicates Stephen Harper’s Conservatives still lead six months into their four-year mandate. The Tories have the support of an estimated 38.2 per cent of Canadians, down merely 1.4 points since the election.

The New Democrats are virtually unchanged with 30.4 per cent support. The Liberals have picked up more than three points and now stand at 22.4 per cent support under Interim Leader Bob Rae, up from their historic worst of 18.9 per cent six months ago. And the Bloc Québécois is at an estimated 4.1 per cent support nationally, tied with the Greens.

If these voting intentions are translated into seats in Canada’s current 308-seat House of Commons, the Conservatives would win 150 seats, down 16 from their current standing and in minority territory. The New Democrats would win 107 and the Liberals 49, the latter picking up 15 seats. The Bloc Québécois would be reduced to only one seat, while Elizabeth May could expect to be re-elected in British Columbia.

But with the Conservatives introducing legislation to increase the size of the House of Commons to 338 MPs, Mr. Harper would likely see his party win 168 seats in the expanded legislature, one seat shy of a majority. This re-distribution improves the Tory situation as most of the new seats will be created in Alberta, British Columbia, and Ontario, particularly in the suburban regions that the Tories dominated in the 2011 election.

Those extra seats will come in handy, as the Conservatives have taken a step back in most parts of the country.

nw-number-cruncher_1336972a.jpg


The most important drop is in Ontario, where the Conservatives now stand at 40.5 per cent support, down almost four points since the election. Only the Liberals, up three points to 28.3 per cent, have taken advantage of the Conservative slip. The NDP’s support has changed very little, and stands at 25.3 per cent.

British Columbia is another sore spot for the Tories, as they have dropped 5.9 points to 39.6 per cent. This still gives them an 11-point lead over the New Democrats, who are down almost four points, but is nevertheless a worrying sign for the Conservatives in what is a battleground province. The provincial B.C. Liberals, whose supporters are generally drawn from the federal Conservative Party, have slipped in the polls and trailed the provincial NDP in the most recent survey to come out of the province.

The federal Liberals have benefited, as they are up 10 points in British Columbia. However, that still puts them well behind the others, with 23.5 per cent.

The Tories have also dropped in Alberta, Saskatchewan, and Manitoba, but are still the choice of the majority of the residents in these three provinces. However, a net gain of almost seven points on the Tories by the NDP in Saskatchewan and Manitoba would open up several seats to the New Democrats on the Prairies in an election.

The one province in which the Conservatives have improved their standing is Quebec. But despite the loss of their popular leader, the New Democrats under Interim Leader Nycole Turmel are still poised to virtually sweep the province. They stand at 44.1 per cent support, slightly higher than their election result.

Their chief rival in Quebec now appears to be the Tories. They are up more than two points since the election and stand at 18.7 per cent, putting them ahead of the Bloc Québécois for second in the province. The leaderless Bloc is down almost six points to 17.9 per cent. If they took those numbers into an election, all but one of their four MPs would likely be defeated.

The Liberals are still very low in Quebec with 14.9 per cent support, but are competitive enough in Montreal to have their seven MPs from the island re-elected.

That is if they can hold the Tories off. The latest poll out of Quebec showed the Conservatives running slightly ahead of the New Democrats in the voting intentions of non-francophone Quebecers, a demographic the Liberals once owned. It is not impossible that two or even three Conservative MPs could be elected in the West Island if this occurred in the 2015 election.

With the Bloc choosing its leader later this year, the NDP next March, and the Liberals in 2013, Canadians may wait until these leadership races are completed before changing their minds. Waiting to see how the Conservatives will govern with a majority, after they finish checking-off their campaign promises, could also be a factor in explaining the relative status quo. But half of a year after the last federal election, most Canadians do not yet seem to be regretting the choices they made on May 2 very much.

ThreeHundredEight.com’s projection model aggregates all publicly released polls, weighing them by sample size, date, and the polling firm’s accuracy record. The seat projection model makes individual projections for all 308 ridings in the country, based on the provincial and regional shifts in support from the 2011 election and including the application of factors unique to each riding, such as the effects of incumbency. With the actual vote results of the 2011 federal election, the model had a margin of error of +/- 2.4 seats per party.


While a week is a long time in politics, six months is just a drop in the bucket for the regeneration of the Liberals and the (eventual, I am certain) decline (and fall?) of the NDP.

If Grenier is right the Conservatives would have a minority (by one seat) in a 338 seat HoC if the polling data held true for a November 2011 election. I expect the Conservatives to work harder and harder in BC, AB and ON to earn at least 10 of those 30 new seats.
 
Back in Decemeber 2011 the Globe and Mail's John Ibbitson wrote an interesting column about the collapse of what he calls the Laurentian Consensus. A few weeks later he went to Toronto, one of the two focal points of that consensus, and explained his thesis to some folks who are probably deeply committed to it. His talk was saved by TVO (one of the best public networks in Canada, head and shoulders better than the CBC) and you can see/hear it here. I think it's worth your time to consider his views on what changed between about 2000 and 2011 and to wonder if the Laurentian Consensus can ever be rebuilt or if there is an irreparable divide, defined by the Ottawa River between "New Canada (oriented towards the Pacific)" and "Old Canada (still attached to European values)."
 
Whle the column, the interview and the book "The Big Shift" all are good explaining what happened, I am pretty sure Preston Manning had actually anticipated this by many years in hs book "The New Canada", which also anticipated a Canada that could work without Quebec, but should be "attractive enough" to bring a "New Quebec" on board.

Manning spoke in terms of populist reform politics (with roots in the Maritimes and the Praries) rather than demographics and economics, but the end results are quite similar. Coupling populist politics to growing economic and demographic power is probably the "wining" formula for now and the forseeable future; most of us reading this will be long gone by the time Canada's demographic "bust" happens and creates an entirely new and different political, ecoomic and social landscape.
 
Back
Top