No Mandate

[Occhidiangela]

Harper Edges Into PM Slot
For our Canadian friends: will Mr. Harper's taking over for Martin make that much of a difference? The trading of one minority government for another strikes me as the checks and balances working vis a vis potential runaway policy changes.

I noted, in other articles, Mr. Martin's attempts to dispose of the "notwithstanding clause." How big a factor was that in the recent election?

Occhi

[Jester]

Harper Edges Into PM Slot
For our Canadian friends: will Mr. Harper's taking over for Martin make that much of a difference?  The trading of one minority government for another strikes me as the checks and balances working vis a vis potential runaway policy changes.

I think the biggest impact will be that nobody will talk to Canada at international conferences. Prime Minister Harper lacks a certain affability.

They can't pass any legislation, unless it is either a) harmless or b ) passing power to the provinces (in unholy alliance with Le Bloc). We'll see if he makes any strong moves on "b", but I'm pretty sure he'll keep himself to "a" in hopes of a majority next time.

Or, he'll face a back-bench revolt from the crazies, and we'll end up with idiotic resolutions on everything from shopping on sundays to gay marriage to the right to mount artillery on your truck. If that happens, he's sunk, and the liberals will pick up again next election. We shall see, but the crazies on the Albertan far right have been waiting for decades to get into power.

I noted, in other articles, Mr. Martin's attempts to dispose of the "notwithstanding clause."  How big a factor was that in the recent election? 
[right][snapback]100034[/snapback][/right]

As far as I could tell, it wasn't. It was just another (somewhat meaningless) salvo in the fight over gay marriage. It is the aspect of the notwithstanding clause that the *provinces* can inovke (and that Martin couldn't change, without amending the charter) that is really the most relevant issue. Martin's attack on the *federal* version is almost irrelevant. If the parliament really wants to change legislation, well, they'd be the people to do it. There is little need for a clause that lets them override the courts. Plus, Harper has already said he won't invoke the notwitstanding clause on gay marriage, although we'll see if he sticks to it.

-Jester

Oh, and PS: Stick to your own country and stop meddling!

J/K, ;)

[Chaerophon]

Harper Edges Into PM Slot
For our Canadian friends: will Mr. Harper's taking over for Martin make that much of a difference?  The trading of one minority government for another strikes me as the checks and balances working vis a vis potential runaway policy changes.

I noted, in other articles, Mr. Martin's attempts to dispose of the "notwithstanding clause."  How big a factor was that in the recent election? 

Occhi
[right][snapback]100034[/snapback][/right]

Occhi,

I don't personally think that Harper will have much chance to make a significant impact. He doesn't have anything close to a Mulroney-sized mandate. The Liberals and the NDP will have popular opinion on their side if he attempts to do any of the following things: ban abortion, agree to missile defense, send troops on any US-led extravaganza, enact anything remotely recognizable as two-tier health care. He goes there, and he loses.

Then again, he may be able to sufficiently damage our tax structure to further necessitate the latter in ten or so years time...

The Conservative vote in Ontario was nothing more than a temporary protest. I suspect that we'll have another election in 1-1.5 years, at which time Michael Ignatieff (maybe Brian Tobin?) will be leader of the Liberal Party. At that point, we'll have another Liberal majority.

As far as the notwithstanding clause... I'm not sure of how concerned your average Canadian was with that provision (although I'm sure that the Quebecois were not fans).

The media is suggesting that it was Harper's comments re: abortion that did the most damage to him in the Toronto area, which led to the slimness of his minority. The NDP surge in BC was another contributing factor (resulting from issues having to do with our Liberal provincial government whose platform is more in line with the federal Conservatives than the Liberals... confusing I know).

One positive that came for this election - the candidate that I voted for in my riding won! First time that's ever happened! :D

[Ammonium]

Bah who cares? Not like Canada is a real country anyway! :P

[SwissMercenary]

The NDP surge in BC was another contributing factor (resulting from issues having to do with our Liberal provincial government whose platform is more in line with the federal Conservatives than the Liberals... confusing I know).

Considering that even the Liberals made gains in BC, I'd call the Conservative efforts here an abysmal failure.

Then again, can anyone remind me why we should be unhappy with our 'Liberal' government? I mean, I haven't heard them being anti-abortion, anti-healthcre, we're paying less taxes then we used to, our budget's finally balanced, and average class sizes remained the same.

Oh, wait, I'm paying 3x more tuition then I would have. That's surely a cause to despair over. After all, things were so much better with the ridicilous excesses and waste under the NDP.

[skana]

Bah who cares? Not like Canada is a real country anyway!  :P
[right][snapback]100060[/snapback][/right]

idiots ..its a great thing for canada, a new pm ,with the checks and balances built in with the evil bloc and the people friendly ndp, its the best thing thing that
could have happened.

[SwissMercenary]

idiots ..its a great thing for canada, a new pm ,with the checks and balances built in with the evil bloc and the  people friendly ndp, its the best thing thing that
could have happened.
[right][snapback]100082[/snapback][/right]

Umm, last I checked, the Tories + NDP are just short of 50%.

Why'd the Tories want to negotiate with them, when they have to suck up to another party anyways?

Sure, the NDP got more votes, but they certainly don't seem to be in the deal-maker position anymore.

[Occhidiangela]

Oh, and PS: Stick to your own country and stop meddling!

J/K, ;)
[right][snapback]100056[/snapback][/right]

*Snort.* The line is "if you don't live here, your opinion is irrelevant." :P

Thanks for the insight, all of you, I had read a number of US news articles on the topic, and wonder how skewed the view is in The Lower 48.

Occhi

[ShadowHM]

One of the more interesting outcomes of the election is the dichotomy between urban and rural votes. The three biggest cities in the country have elected rather a lot of Liberals, while the rural areas have supplied most of the Conservative seats.

It will be interesting indeed to see how that affects any negotiations regarding policy and legislation on urban issues.

[Occhidiangela]

One of the more interesting outcomes of the election is the dichotomy between urban and rural votes.  The three biggest cities in the country have elected rather a lot of Liberals, while the rural areas have supplied most of the Conservative seats.

It will be interesting indeed to see how that affects any negotiations regarding policy and legislation on urban issues.
[right][snapback]100102[/snapback][/right]

Two rejoinders on that trend.

1. For an American to see a Canadian Conservative in the same light as a Pat Buchannan or a Ronald Reagan would probably be an error. The "conservative" label seems (from here in the Lower 48) to be relative to a slightly more "liberal" middle-of-the-road. (whatever "liberal" means anymore :wacko: )

2. The Urban-Rural split mirrors that of America, for similar reasons if not the same reasons.

Is there a "silent majority" potential, or do Canadians tend to vote in high percentages of the "voter eligible" population?

Also, have "neo-conservatives" made any inroads in Canada, or has the RCMP (or whoever is your "border patrol" agency) successfully repelled their attempts at illegal immigration? :whistling:

Occhi

[ShadowHM]

Is there a "silent majority" potential, or do Canadians tend to vote in high percentages of the "voter eligible" population?


[right][snapback]100120[/snapback][/right]

If I have the numbers right, last election we had a 61% voter turn-out, and this time we managed 63%.

Not an encouraging number, but at least it changed in the right direction.

[Occhidiangela]

If I have the numbers right, last election we had a 61% voter turn-out, and this time we managed 63%.

Not an encouraging number, but at least it changed in the right direction.
[right][snapback]100121[/snapback][/right]

That's a bit better than we did in 2004, hitting the finish line at about 60.5% based on the study done at George Mason University. (Trivia: GMU is near my Mom and Dad's town in Virginia. I once saw HMS Pinafore performed there.)

Occhi

[Jester]

1.  For an American to see a Canadian Conservative in the same light as a Pat Buchannan or a Ronald Reagan would probably be an error.  The "conservative" label seems (from here in the Lower 48) to be relative to a slightly more "liberal"  middle-of-the-road.  (whatever "liberal" means anymore  :wacko:  )
[right][snapback]100120[/snapback][/right]

Historically and generally, that is true.

Stephen Harper, however, is an exception to the rule. It is clear (at least to me) that he has been, for most of his life, a right-libertarian, very much in tune with the Milton Friedman-CATO institute crowd. His ideological basis is American, fundamentally.

His "conversion" (which I put in quotes because I suspect it is a sham) to a more Canadian brand of conservatism is recent, and probably motivated by his desire to get into power.

I don't think it makes sense to read into this election that Canadians are moving in the direction of American conservatism. You're bang on about Pat Buchanan, and that kind of message has very little play up here. Actually, I suspect one of the reasons that the conservatives recieved such a tepid endorsement is due to how troubling the swing towards religious neo-conservatism south of the border. Very few people in Canada want anything to do with Dubya, although most would like to see relations with the US get a little warmer.

-Jester

[Occhidiangela]

Actually, I suspect one of the reasons that the conservatives recieved such a tepid endorsement is due to how troubling the swing towards religious neo-conservatism south of the border. Very few people in Canada want anything to do with Dubya, although most would like to see relations with the US get a little warmer.

-Jester
[right][snapback]100274[/snapback][/right]

Come on down to Texas in July, and I can give you more than a little warmer. :D

Some cold Shiner Bock as well as BBQ ala Rogue . . .

Mr Harper has all the rope he needs, eh? Will he pull some folks along, or hang himself? Coudl be entertaining.

Occhi