A short leash
After I write this James Bow’s beer money is on its way. I was entirely wrong as to my projection of a 50 seat CPC caucus. Crow for dinner for a few days.
That said, this was hardly a triumph. 124 seats is barely enough to govern and certainly not a mandate for significant change. The most encouraging element of the CPC win was that they managed to elect a surprisingly large caucus from Quebec.
What is a bit disturbing is that the Tories were skunked in the City of Vancouver and the City of Toronto. These urban voters were unimpressed with the CPC though the Tory vote overall went up 6.7%.
For Harper to govern he is going to have to develop a series of coalitions on particular issues. In effect Harper is in the same position as the Dumpling was. The main difference being that he does not have the baggage.
The dumpling has never looked better than he did in his rather jaunty concession and resignation speech. He looked like a man who, have been shouldered with a burden far heavier than he could bear, was relieved to be rid of the weight of office. I was watching the election with Kevin Grace and we speculated as to the Liberals trying to stay on; one look at Martin made it very clear he hadn’t the stomach for it.
The big winner of the evening was, of course, the NDP. Ten new seats. The ability to look Buzz in the eye and say drop dead.
From my own political perspective the universe unfolded as it should. The CPC won but did not win big enough to implement much in the way of socon social policy. The Liberals have been sent to the wilderness to cleanse themselves of the arrogance and hubris which accumulated over their years in office.
For the Tories the next year or two will be an opportunity to demonstrate their fitness to govern and their ability to avoid the traps the socon wing may set. The fact the CPC did not win a seat in Vancouver or Toronto will be attributed to many factors but it would be foolish to discount the impact of the SSM farce.
For this mandate the Tories need to govern with their eye firmly on their next, real, mandate. The good news is that the Opposition, while it will certainly give the Tories a chance, will be in a position to yank the chain if the fundys attempt to impose their agenda. Unfortunately, this also means that the Conservatives will have a difficult time implementing such things as the renuciation of Kyoto, the rollover provisions for capital gains taxation, revisions to the Indian Act or support for American and world efforts to contain Iran’s nuclear ambitions.
Harper ran a far better campaign than I thought he would. Focused, intelligent, policy driven and, most importantly, disciplined. As importantly, the media – perhaps embarassed by its performance last election, perhaps fed up with the Dumpling – was at least reasonably fair to the Tories.
The other element which I think shiffted was that the scare tactics of the Maude Barlow left were less effective this time round. They still worked to a degree, but the sheer panic at the thought of a Harper government seemed absent. If the CPC works at it, it should be able to entirely marginalize the Barlows of this world. And the place to start is to cut off the funding to the assorted agencies and organizations which support such people.
Harper and the CPC have won a trial run. A chance to prove that they can run the government and propose and pass a relatively cautious legislative program. With luck they will understand that they do not have a majority and should not govern as if they do.
Finally, the CPC needs to recognize that the next campaign has started. Thje same discipline is needed, the same capacity to focus on policy, the same caution on socon issues are the only way that the Tories can ensure that they will be in a position to earn the trust and the mandate of Canadians.
I have a question for you Western folks. How does Stephen Harper (though I expect I should call him Harpo to match your Dumplingisms) navigate between handing policy over to the nuts or governing from the centre and being accused of selling out to central Canada?
Not SSM. Uncertainty over abortion is what cost the CPC in the large cities. Although Harper’s policy is actually rather clear, there was a short clip of an interview during which he failed to answer the question directly. If his policy is (as he has stated) to not introduce a bill and to work against (not merely avoid supporting) a private bill, that has to be the answer, delivered firmly and confidently.
I think you missed one connection. The NDP not only rid itself of Buzz but also Maude. It became its ouw source of authority, largely due to the heavy presence of Ed but also the successful passing of his torch to Jack. I would have preferred 35 at the expense of the Grits to ensure a true two party coalition.
But doesn’t the lack of seats in the cities suggest that voters in the large urban cities are seriously out of touch with mainstream Canada. Honestly, most of what I love about Canada is not found in the three large urban cores.
I think that the fact that both the liberals and NDP were shut out of one of Canada’s largest province is significant. Then couple it with the in roads the tories made in Quebec and there is a new reality to be faced within both opposition parties..
And PEI. PEI is out of touch with the 36.7% of Canada that is “mainstream”. Maybe new reality of bad math.
By “urban voters” you obviously don’t mean Ottawa, Quebec, St. John’s, Saskatoon, Kelowna, Kamloops, almost 1 in 4 Toronto and Vancouver voters, and the entire cities of Edmonton and Calgary.
The NDP may have won as far as seats go, but they only gained less than 2% in the pop. vote. Less than 2%.
The last polls I saw regarding SSM (right before the vote on it) had 35-40% in favour, and 53% with the exact same view as Harper- equal rights and benefits but call it “civil union”, which is what France has (of course, France is nothing but a far-right extremist country, heh) – so I don’t think being on the side of the majority will hurt him.
The losers are the Bloc. They’ve been losing support for a while and now that Harper has done so well there and shown he’s an federal alternative, more of the anti-Lib, Bloc voters will vote Tory next time.
“.... navigate between handing policy over to the nuts or governing from the centre …”
Classy.
I am constantly amazed at the right’s constant slamming of the media. The media is not composed of just the CBC and the Globe and Mail. The National Post along with much of the existing major Canadian Dailies have long backed the Conservatives even overwhelmingly writing pro-conservative editorials on the weekend before election day. It is not just newspapers either, Global has long been on the Tory bandwagon. Another key component of the media this time was the massive debt the libs and the ndp are in which allowed the Tories to in my view bombard the networks with the most advertisements. The liberals and the ndpers were essentially forced into response mode from the get go because they were running this election on the cheap.
I listened to Buzz this morning on The Current, braying about how great the NDP results were… don’t even think about crawling back you treacherous git – you made your bed with the Libs, go sleep in it…
I think at least five seats were influenced in B.C. BY THE ACTIONS OF FEAT OF B.C.
The cons candidate for West Vancouver lost to the liberal candidate by about 900 votes.
The cons candidate would not support the Bill C459 while the Liberal candidate would. This was published by Feat
900 would be about the no of autisic votes in the westvan riding
Flea: He should take care of the West, of course. Screw the rest of Canada.
Outside of Alberta, the Tories performed poorly in all of the major cities of Canada. They were also shut out of Montreal and Halifax. They were unable to topple Telegdi in Waterloo or Redman in Kitchener.
The majority of Canadians live in the urban centres where the Tories fared poorly. Are the majority of Canadians out of touch with the “mainstream” of Canada?
“Outside of Alberta, the Tories performed poorly in all of the major cities of Canada. ”
Wrong. Look at jasper’s post above…
“By “urban voters” you obviously don’t mean Ottawa, Quebec, St. John’s, Saskatoon, Kelowna, Kamloops, almost 1 in 4 Toronto and Vancouver voters, and the entire cities of Edmonton and Calgary.”
And Vancouver means Metro Van, since greater Van (where most Vancouverites live) – Coquitlam, E Richmond, Maple Ridge, Abbotsford, POCO, and Surrey – are Tory.
Just checked “Major Centres” at Elections Canada …
-Tories got 5 out of 8 seats in Ottawa.
-3 of 7 in Halifax (Libs 2, Dippers 2)
-4 of 7 in Quebec
-3 of 4 in Regina
-3 of 8 Winnipeg (Libs 2, Dips 3)
-2 out of 2 in St. John’s
-all 8 in Calgary
-all 8 in Edmonton
-all of Saskatoon
In Montreal area, the Tories received 122,000 votes. NDP got 78,000, Bloc 265,000, Libs 317,000.
In TO the Tories got MORE total votes (264,000) than the NDP (227,000) even though no seats, and alomost half of what the Libs (565,000) got.
In Metro Van the CPCs had 55,000, the NDP 74,000, the Libs 104,000.
There’s definately Tory support in those cities, and lots of Tory support in all other major cities in Canada.
Jasper: You might not think it’s “classy” but people who believe the Earth is 6000 years old are still “nuts”. And those nuts, and their semi-rational and permanently agrieved buddies, are going to turn on Mr. Harper the minute he does something perceived to be in the national interest rather than their regional, factional and anything but mainstream fancy.
Look, this isn’t rocket science; it is a problem that Conservative leaders have faced over and over again and there is no reason to think Mr. Harper is not going to have to navigate these same waters. It is a problem CPC supporters should ask themselves. Fortunately, it is not my problem seeing as I am part of the majority of Canadians who fall outside the CPC fantasy ideology “mainstream”.
[Dear Flea,
I think you failed to notice Japser used “heh” in an parenthetical comment. That means it must be so. It really must.]
What I really am enjoying is that now that the Tories are the new boss they will no longer be able to bitch from the bleachers without concern for the art of the possible or the need to compromise. That is all gone. It will be interesting to watch the dreamy anarcho-libertarians and socon new nannies deal with practical reality and wait for the train to hit the wall.
But I am only someone in the majority, not the mainstream (heh).
Bill, my point was in response to Kateland’s posts. If we wanted to consider the Greater Toronto Area as well as Greater Vancouver, then you get Conservative seats. I’m just bridling at the suggestion that because we disagree on politics, we’re to be shoved in little boxes and declared “not mainstream”.
How unmainstream of you. Boxing people in and labelling them and bad/other is very mainsteam.
There are lots of us who are religious; who don’t believe the world is 6000 years old; who don’t worry too much that others do; and who can argue intelligently for the SoCon position on SSM and abortion from non-religious arguments (in fact, I always leave my religion out, unless I know the other person claims the same faith). You belittle your own intelligence when you mischaracterize us.
Flea, I couldn’t agree more.
Yep, “nuts”. Know what else is “nuts”? Christians. Who in their right mind believes that a man can rise from the dead, or awake the dead? Muslims and Jews with their “God said this”, or “Allah told me that” bullcrap aren’t much better. How can anyone believing those impossible ideas be allowed a voice in this democracy. They will obviously destroy Canada, take it back to the stone age. The Earth sits on a turtle and Gods with more than 2 arms – nuts. Mary a virgin, yeah right, nuts. Reincarnation, definitely nuts. We, as true mainstream Canadians, must not let believers of any of these crazy views (whether or not they actually believe 100% every literal word doesn’t matter) be allowed a voice in politics, even if their concerns have nothing to do with their religious views.
Let’s not stop with the religious nuts (admittedly, we don’t actually know for sure who believes what and how adamant they are in their faith, although a majority of Canadians believe in God, crazy jerks). How about those idiots believing in aliens. Now those guys are nuts, let’s not ever pander to them, even if they never mention Spock. We must mock them with Alf dolls like tolerant, non-bigoted mainstream Canadians would.
Some of the biggest nuts are secular, and I’m not even talking about Stalin, Hitler, or Saddam. The far left extremists who scream bloody murder when Harper says “God bless Canada” after his speeches seem a little nuts, especially with the whole freedom of expression and freedom of religion stuff. I saw even crazier nuts on the news last night who suggested conservatives don’t belong in Canada, they should move to the US, and that Harper would destroy Canada. It’s probably safe to say that everyone who did not vote for Harper believe this to be true. These far left people always call themselves “progressives and moderates”, and call conservatives “far right” Bush lovers. Anyone suggesting that some Conservatives are anti-religion or aren’t Bush lovers are nuts. Also, all evangelicals and religious nuts are always Conservative. The Liberals or NDP have never had “bitching from the bleachers without concern for the art of the possible or the need to compromise”, which is why they’ve never forced Cabinet to vote as a block.
Some of the most dangerous nuts like to demonize Alberta, purely for political gain. These are the same nuts that Quebec has a problem with. Debate about fixing our health care is also nuts. Who cares if Canada has slipped to 28th in the world, and that the best health systems have some type of public/private mix. And believing that we’ve had our military for anything but peace keeping is nuts. The war in Bosnia (which the UN did NOT sanction and was led by the US) and in Afghanistan, and Korea, and everything before the year 1947, is not part of our history. People saying otherwise are nuts.
Tolerant and non-bigoted Canadians must continue to ridicule people that have beliefs and views dissimilar to our own.
-Canadians are mainstream if they did not vote Liberal. Same if they did not vote Conservative, and the same for the NDP. Wow, what a concept. It’s been that way for the last 6 or 7 elections. Differences in opinion, beliefs and ideas IS mainstream in Canada.
Actually, the world is 4.5 billion years old +/-, and I’m a conservative. What’s your problem? As for the religious, there are religious groups in all the parties. Some may think the world is flat, only 6000 years old or that women take a lesser position, but they all came here to get away from the control freaks at one time or other. As for the “left” side of the equation, I think socialists and environmentalists are cults. They are pretty dogmatic and stubborn in their outlook and resist a proper dialogue. You should be proud of yourselves for being so reactionary. Your anti-conservative, conservatives are less Canadian comments really serve to just continue the politics of exclusion. Not healthy in a democracy. Do I detect some sour grapes?
Jasper
Hear hear
It is amazing how intolerant the far left are. It almost seems that the definition of far left is hypocrite.
“The majority of Canadians live in the urban centres where the Tories fared poorly. Are the majority of Canadians out of touch with the “mainstream” of Canada?”
Maybe, maybe not. But we do know that, according to Paul Martin, they are “oppressive”, and must be stopped.
Since the majority is oppressive, only minority voices should count.
Thanks for using the term “the left”. That clarifies everything. 36.5% majority + 63.5% left = Canada. That is such an easy way to understand it all. Thanks!
It’s the new, new, math Alan.
Jasper: You fall into that all too common internet fallacy that in order to be Christian you have to be a moron. Pandering to the nuts is not respectful of Christianity; it is the same bogus tolerance the left preaches and never means. There is an important difference between faith, or a belief in the miraculous, and subscribing to nonsense made up by nineteenth-century end-times lunatics. Knowing the difference would suggest an authentic respect for Christianity, and Christians, even if you are not a man of faith yourself.
It is also a fallacy – but one of the most successfully invented ones – that North American rightist evagelical protestantism is some how mainstream “Christianity” in a way that traditional antimaterialist, charitable, humble, not making a show of yourself, not worried about getting yourself in heaven churches are. The reinvention of certain denominations for political ends is one of the great secular achievements of the last few decades but how it fits in with Gospel truth as opposed to Flea’s description of pandering escapes me.
With my small children about I am more a social than a practicing member of the Anglican Church; but I am always amused at the pretence of the fundys in assuming that I could not possibly be religious and hold many of the views I do.
The nutter Christian right is all about damnation and as the Flea puts it so well, “subscribing to nonsense made up by nineteenth-century end-times lunatics”. They are, of course, welcome to believe whatever they want…I just don’t want their beliefs becoming my law.
My favorite story on this line came from my Dad, a United Church Minister (an admission in itself which should bring out the thoughtless scoffmongers).
When the UC decided in the 80s to stop ministers asking about sexual orientation, a group of churches in the presbytery were led away as splintering schismists under the leadership of a right thinking loudmouth man-with-dog-collar. Within a few months that new denomination was suffering a crisis as the right thinking loudmouth man-with-dog-collar had run off with the cop’s wife, leaving his own family.
This may appear just a mean spirited unkindness (even if true and humourous illustration of the foibles of humankind) except there is a real problem in the evangelical set with the breakdown of family from this sort of sinnery or the sins of materialism that lead to debt and excess. As always, ye without sin cast the first stone.
That being said, I do not think the nutters are a about damnation. I think they are all about the damnation of everyone else. They are also all about feeling good about securing their own place to the detriment of their own calling to help the poor and all those others Christ called to himself. My concern is not so much for the political usurpation of these denominations but the consequent inversion of the actual tenents of the faith. I think I wrote a few days ago over at my place that you cannot do just anything you want and call it Christianity. Well, you can but (on a temporal level) don’t expect anyone to take you seriously if you haven’t co-opted them already. As to the wisdom of following false prophets, well that is up to the guy who had to sit Job down and explain the Levianthan to him.
Justification for bigotry always amuses me. Don’t worry, everyone has their prejudices, thinking that their views are the correct ones. It’s the rationalization of it that is funny.
Obviously, evangelicals are considered nutters because, as Flea says, “people who believe the Earth is 6000 years old are still “nuts”, and that “there is an important difference between faith, or a belief in the miraculous, and subscribing to nonsense made up by nineteenth-century end-times lunatics”
I’m gonna take a wild guess and suggest it’s their “faith” that leads them to believe the 6,000 y.o. thing, and their “belief in the miraculous” for this to have occurred.
Then we have your true version of Christianity, in which it’s “miraculous”, not nuts, that a man was born of a virgin – the father being God of course – and walked on water, and awoke the dead, and turned water into wine, and was the savior, and died and went to heaven and retuned, and to believe this is to have true faith rather than “subscribing to nonsense made up by [first]-century end-times lunatics”. Gotcha.
I’m told that evangelicals are some type of radical perversity of the true and traditional mainstream Christianity (interesting subject, your version of traditional Christianity), wishing to implement their crazy beliefs into Canadian law. Not only should these nuts be ridiculed for diverging from tradition – a diversion harmful to Christianity and society – they should also be shunned from government.
I hope you guys don’t get too tired from hopping over that fence when the discussion turns to same-sex marriage.
It’s also interesting to see you won’t be swayed to consider it actually possible that not all 6,000 year old earthers want to force their religion on you, that they are not “all about the damnation of everyone else”, that not all are right of the political spectrum, and that many actually belong to certain churches more due to family, friends and community (sort of like most churches) rather than the absolute need to think there were no dinosaurs. However, it’s entirely possible that your painting of every one of these “nutters” with the same brush is coherent, but I have a suggestion – you might want to get a bigger paint brush, because why stop with these deviants of your version of true Christianity. Or even stop at Christianity. Orthodox Jews aren’t entirely mainstream in Canada, are they.
Obviously your traditional Christianity began from something else, and that one began from something else, and on and on. The true Gospels you talk about aren’t actually the original gospels – the Logia ( or Quelle/source ) as known by first century followers of Christ and spread by the tireless efforts and story telling of Paul. These Gospels had already started to morph Jesus into a soteriological deity after a few decades and finished after the next couple centuries, in the form of the New Testament, which then began its’ own radical and continuous changes – to say nothing of the helping hand of the Romans. Helping hand, now there’s an understatement.
And let’s not even begin to talk about the splinter groups in the first years, what with the Jews for Jesus and desert Christians, some keeping the strict literal-word-faith to this day as they always have. And the power struggles, WOW. Orthodox east and west, crazy. From the beginning (and even up to the present), an easily understood and single mythology doesn’t form in a society until the other understandings of Jesus are suppressed, and not usually all that justly. So many traditional Christians, so little time to demonize them. But I’m sure that your traditional Christianity is the true and final one forever, never to be altered.
My point is, it’s stupid to suggest one sect of Christianity is to be allowed and another is to be shunned in a democratic nation which protects freedom of religion. World history has some disgusting examples of religious intolerance, most based on ignorance and fear-mongering, slander and exaggeration… “My pop told a story of a crazy man delusional about his view of Christianity, so obviously every single person in his church is also crazy and delusional.” “They are also all about feeling good about securing their own place to the detriment of their own calling to help the poor and all those others Christ called to himself.” – well, thanks for explaining their true nature without using stereotypes or rash generalizations. I might also suggest you spread the news around of them drinking the blood of babies.
Christians – Protestant, Catholic, Orthodox, Evangelical etc, Jews and Muslims of all sects, as well as non-God based religions like radical environmentalism, secularism, and the progressive-or-else groups, are all allowed to be heard in Canada and all have a right to be elected democratically and govern as they wish. If it’s not what the public wants then they’ll be voted out.
Small (radical in some cases) non-religious groups enforce their beliefs on Canadians all the time, but whooptee doo. Recently a minority group wanting exactly that (the NDP) held another minority group desperate for national power (Liberals) hostage until they radically revamped the budget 4.6 bil to satisfy their wants. A massive change in the budget affecting every Canadian – 85 % of whom don’t support NDP – due to a minority group’s “beliefs”.
Conclusion – NDP nuts all drink babies’ blood.
The Left has always preached about how intolerant the Right is. Time and time again they claim the high, moral ground of tolerance. However the reality is that if you don’t agree with the Left they denigrate. This is the basest form of intolerance, and a constant in their behaviour
hi.
you guys were talking about urban voters. then you were talking about religeon. so typical of canadians to be so distracted with chest beating. talk up a storm but never arrive at any conclusion. what have we taken from this? what conclusion have we drawn about majority vs mainstream, the christian left vs the christian right, religeous tolerance vs (what i perceive to be) the insecurity of those with no faith (uh-oh…), etc…
round tables are good but i like action plans better. something with a basis for future action. something that actually makes sense. lets walk on the highway, not on the twisting paths.
bye.