Thoughts on the election outcome
Well, we're on the cusp once more of an election campaign, and judging from the analysis and the pre-writ rhetoric, it's on track to be even nastier than the last one. Charming. I imagine that what will likely happen is that the Liberals will win another slim minority, perhaps an even smaller one than they currently have, and we'll be back into another few months or a year of minority government rigmarole and electioneering. Rather than getting into a debate over the likelihood of that outcome, though, I want to write about the alternative outcome that I feel would be much better for Canada and for the LPC: a Conservative government.I believe fundamentally in the principles and values of the Liberal Party, and volunteered extensively with my local LPC candidate in the 2004 election. I'll likely vote Liberal in this upcoming election, as well - but a Conservative government wouldn't be as bad a thing as many Liberal pundits and activists would like to suggest. A Stephen Harper government would not turn back decades of Liberal accomplishments, and it would be great for Canadian democracy and the long-term prognosis of the success of the LPC.
First of all, regarding what a Conservative government would do in Ottawa. Some partisans cry that he would dismantle public health care, criminalize abortion and otherwise destroy this nation's social fabric along with facilitating the separation of Quebec. I'll deal with these one by one. Regarding health care - think about the fact that Harper would have, at best, a minority government with which to work with, and passing such significant health care reform would be near impossible with all other Opposition parties likely voting against such a plan. And if you want a strong defender of public health care, are you really that enamored with Paul Martin? I know I'm not. On the other hand, we do need a degree of innovation in our health care system - unless we can find billions upon billions of dollars more, it's going to keep declining. Instead of more rhetoric and little action from Paul Martin, why not try something new? Harper likely wouldn't be able to make drastic changes, as I've mentioned, so we'd probably end up with a degree of innovation in health care, which'd be great. On abortion - Harper would have a minority, and he knows that any attempt to move against abortion would torpedo his chances of getting elected ever again. Case closed. On national unity - Harper knows, I think, that to preside over the breakup of the country would be disastrous, and I think he wants a united Canada as much as I do. He might not be an ideal defender of federalism, but look at what we've got right now. Ministers who call PQ Premiers of Quebec "losers", and a PM whose strongest argument for unity is that a sovereign Quebec would not be economically-viable (despite the fact that some of the strongest economies in the world are about that size or smaller)? Not to mention the whole sponsorship cloud that will hover over this Liberal reign until there's an interregnum of sorts. Furthermore, Paul Martin's assymetrical federalism, signing side deals with all of the provinces on different terms, in order to keep the country together? Not my idea of a strong defender of federalism. So I think we can rest assured that a minority Conservative government isn't going to dismantle everything that has been accomplished under Liberal rule - and you know what? A fresh look on the problems of the day from an outsider's perspective isn't necessarily a bad thing.
On Canadian democracy - you know, the same party has been in power since 1993. Consecutive majorities until last year. So many Canadians are becoming disillusioned with a system that continues handing victories to the Liberals. A shake-up would be a good breath of fresh air for a system in which voter turnout is in perpetual decline. A de facto one-party state democracy is no good.
Finally, on the benefits of a Conservative government for the LPC. Yes, Paul Martin would have to go - if you're a big Martin fan, you'll be disappointed with this no matter what. But let's be frank, here - the party is a juggernaut, a massive electoral machine that's been in power for a good 12 years straight, and I think it's fair to say that we're running out of steam. Starting to scrape the bottom of the barrel in terms of ideas. There are some members of the party who are starting to play the appropriate roles in a "culture of entitlement". None of that is any good at all. If the LPC wins the election, we get another year or so of Paul Martin, saying anything and everything, wandering all over the map in terms of policy, lacking any grand idea or vision for the country. The country, and Quebec in particular, gets more and more disappointed in a lack of federal leadership. The "culture of entitlement" about which Mr Harper speaks continues to set in.
A Conservative victory gives our party a chance to do some soul-searching and some bloodletting. It gives us a chance to reinvigorate ourselves with a leadership race that's about ideas, a chance to find a candidate who can put the divisions of the Chretien/Martin era behind us. It's a chance to learn from our 12 years in power, and to build a comprehensive and long-term vision for this country's future. This is going to be another election fought on corruption, no doubt - if we come back to the following election with a blueprint for the nation, a new, baggage-less leader and a more humble approach, we can return to the Government with new energy and ideas to put to use to govern the country.
That's why a Conservative victory wouldn't be the end of the world, and would in fact set the stage for better Canadian governance in the future with the hand of the LPC on the rudder.
I agree with you the fact that in order for democracy to work, we need to have some kind of rotating of the governing party. But I don't see how long a conservative minority would last. It wouldn't be a surprise that we get another election in another year or two. Also, there's the problem that not a single MP from Quebec belongs to the conservatives as of the election last year (http://www.parl.gc.ca/common/senmemb/house/members/CurrentMemberList.asp?Language=E&Parl=38&Ses=1&Sect=Hoccur&Order=OrganizationName), and note that the PC's don't even have a Quebec wing. How is the government going to run when close to one third of the population of Canada is getting no representation on the government side? One would expect a coalition formed between the PC and PQ, since both the Liberals and NDPs are out of question. Now is that going to help with the unity of our country. I doubt that.
Posted by
Anonymous |
2:42 PM
"A Stephen Harper government would not turn back decades of Liberal accomplishments, and it would be great for Canadian democracy and the long-term prognosis of the success of the LPC."
I could not disagree more. You are not the first person to make such a claim. It is time to kill such talk.
With no natural partner in the house,the Conservatives would seek out short term alliances. This would mean that they would join with the Bloc in robbing the Federal government of power (addressing the fiscal imblance is the word both use). This would not spell the end of various Liberal "acomplishments". It would however greatly reduce the ability of the Federal government to acommplish things in the future. A Conservative government would also team with the right side of the Liberals to boast military spending, deeper tax cuts and further intergration with the US. Oh Joy. Finally, there would also be an opportunity cost associated with having the Conservatives in power. Be rest assured while the Conservatives are in power there will be no socially progressive intiatives tabled.
Posted by
Anonymous |
3:51 PM
"On national unity - Harper knows, I think, that to preside over the breakup of the country would be disastrous, and I think he wants a united Canada as much as I do. He might not be an ideal defender of federalism, but look at what we've got right now."
Two points: One, are you talking about the same Stephen Harper who said that keeping Quebec part of Canada was secondary to reducing the size of government and the same Stephen Harper who has written 3 papers calling for Alberta to seek out a new relationship with Canada? Two, while Martin's decision to call the Gomery inquiry might very well spell the breakup of the country, the fact that Quebecers still prefer the Liberals over the Conservatives by a wide margin should tell you a great deal. Martin's brand of asymertical federalism is no answer. The only hope is that the values of Quebecers converage with the values of people in other provinces and that these values are reflected in federal legislation (e.g. gay marriage, decriminalization of pot, no to Iraq.) The things that conservatives value are not valued by the vast majority of Canadians, especially Quebecers. Stephen Harper's social conservativism will further alienate Quebecers.
Posted by
Anonymous |
4:06 PM
I don't know where you live, but I live in the heart of CPC country - Alberta.
Trust me, I wouldn't want the current bunch of senior CPC leadership anywhere near the actual wielding of power. My own MP is the most arrogant, self-satisfied twit I have ever had the misfortune to meet. His office ignores correspondence that doesn't meet their dogma-du-jour, and he himself is one of the most dismissive twits I've crossed paths with.
Meanwhile, in the department of open-and-transparent government, I'll point out that these boys largely idolize Ralph Klein. A man whose idea of transparent government is laughable at best (and who spends double what the White House does each year on propaganda).
I'm no fan of Martin, but Harper and his bunch of weasels I have even less confidence in. From a policy point of view, the current conservatives are a little too fast to jump into bed with the BushCo gov't in the US - a thought that just apalls me at the best of times.
Perhaps outside of Alberta you don't hear the wingnut faction of the CPC anymore - trust me, they haven't gone away. They are still there, and very powerful. Until the party structure takes steps to clearly divorce itself from those movements, I'd be very cautious indeed about letting Harper and his band anywhere near 24 Sussex.
Posted by
Anonymous |
5:48 PM
Excellent post, CP. I'm almost thinking you touched a nerve somewhat.
Posted by
Jim (Progressive Right) |
5:58 PM
Hey Grog, who's your MP Solberg?
I think a Conservative Minority would be a disaster. Because they would get in there and do all the right things, pretending they actually give a shit aobut anybody outside Alberta. Canadians would fall for it and wham Conservative majority. Then say goodbye to Canada and hello to U.S.A. North. Bye Bye Woman's Right to choose, Bye Bye any semblance of Gay rights. Hello Theocracy.
Posted by
Hishighness |
9:18 PM
No - Jason Kenney - a man who makes Solberg look almost good.
Posted by
Anonymous |
8:34 AM
Grog: "I'll point out that these boys largely idolize Ralph Klein." Bull$hit. Nobody idolizes Ralph, other than Ralph. Although Albertans keep voting him in, don't they?
His Highness:"Bye Bye Woman's Right to choose, Bye Bye any semblance of Gay rights. Hello Theocracy."
Where do you get that? The CPC & Harper have clearly stated that they will not table any, that's spelled A-N-Y, legislation on abortion. And if you look at last weeks' polling info on the subject, you'll see that the majority of Canadians, while not comfortable with unlimited on-demand abortion, are equally uncomfortable with any new legislation on it.
As for Gay rights, how is Harper going to close THAT particular barn door, with or without a majority?
Theocracy? How exactly is that going to happen?
Posted by
Candace |
12:41 PM
The Conservative party’s position on abortion going into the convention was exactly what it was going out. Confused. Harper has said the Conservative Party will not table legislation on abortion, but that he would allow private members bills and he would not instruct his caucus how to vote. However, he has also said that it is a provincial matter, presumably making any such potential vote unconstitutional. http://www.cbc.ca/story/election/national/2004/06/01/elxnharpabort040601.html
That said, confused policy is often good politics. By talking out of both sides of his mouth, Harper has managed keep his critics at by and “theo cons”, such as Mary Ellen Douglas, Ontario President of Campaign Life Coalition, happy. “I am happy to see that the Conservatives recognize that abortion funding is a provincial issue. We have been telling our provincial politicians that for years, but they keep insisting that the issue is federal.” http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2004/jun/04060102.html
Posted by
Anonymous |
3:16 PM
"As for Gay rights, how is Harper going to close THAT particular barn door, with or without a majority?
Theocracy? How exactly is that going to happen?"
Always grasping at straws, Conservative apologists like to point out that there are a group of Liberal back benchers who are opposed to gay marriage. 35 to be exact. (There is a world of difference between having the Conservative party brass talking up how SSM posses a threat to Canadian children and the homophobic dripple of a bunch of MPS who are slowly but surely being pushed out of the party (e.g., Kilger and O'Brien.) These anti gay marriage Liberals coupled with the odd Bloc MP would be enough to push the Conservatives over the top in a free vote. Conservatives are of one mind set when it comes to Gay marriage. Only 3 of 98 MPs supported it. Oh the irony, the regressive beliefs of a bunch of back bench Liberals are yet another reason not to vote Conservative.
Posted by
Anonymous |
3:32 PM
Candace:
Don't be so sure. There's a lot of people in Alberta that believe that Ralph is responsible for the province's current good fortunes.
Further, even if they don't "idolize Ralph", they certainly follow in the ideological footsteps of Ralph and his advisors. (not footsteps I admire or believe should be followed)
If they don't idolize Ralph (& Co), then why are they not standing up and calling Ralph out? (especially when Ralph's been so obviously wrong?) From my perspective, all I can assume is that they tacitly approve of Ralph & his gang of goons - and sharing certain ideological roots, would likely as not attempt to drive that same direction.
Whether or not the CPC wants to admit it, Ralph is seen as being ideologically parallel. If people want an idea of what's apt to happen, they look to Alberta, and possibly to Mike Harris era Ontario.
(as for the sheeple of Alberta that keep re-electing Ralph - that's a mystery I have yet to plumb the depths of - but that's way off topic)
Posted by
Anonymous |
5:01 PM
Great points CP ;). A CPC minority will not mix things up like some of you claim... and it will definitely accomplish more than a stagnant liberal reign. Why not give them a shot? A term won't make us the USA. That is ridiculous. It may, however, tidy up, introduce some new ideas, and keep our country moving forward.
Posted by
Anonymous |
4:45 PM