Tories jump into clear lead

[Nono]

From the Toronto Star -- http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Con...d=968332188492

OTTAWA—The election campaign has taken a dramatic turn, with the opposition Conservatives jumping into their first real lead over the governing Liberals, a new poll shows. The survey, conducted by EKOS Research Associates for the Star and La Presse, found that 36.2 per cent of decided voters say they will support the Conservatives, while 30.4 per cent favoured the Liberals. The NDP is supported by 17.9 per cent of voters, while the Bloc is at 10.4 per cent nationally and the Green party is at 4.7 per cent. If the numbers hold up, it would mean a Tory minority government. (...)

If. We'll see. It's quite a feat for the Tories to take the lead at all with such a loser as their leader.

This could be an interesting election, maybe even a cliff-hanger. Usually things are all wrapped up by the time the polls close in Quebec and Ontario. But this one could be decided further west, in Saskatchewan or British Columbia.

Hafta make me a pot of strong coffee. :)

[Disinterested]

Quote by: Nono From the Toronto Star -- http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Con...d=968332188492 If. We'll see. It's quite a feat for the Tories to take the lead at all with such a loser as their leader. This could be an interesting election, maybe even a cliff-hanger. Usually things are all wrapped up by the time the polls close in Quebec and Ontario. But this one could be decided further west, in Saskatchewan or British Columbia. Hafta make me a pot of strong coffee. :)

Well, there is that small matter of the financial scandal that the Martin and the liberal party are in the midst of. I'm not sure the poll numbers reflect approval of the conservatives as much as it does disapproval of the liberals as a result of the scandal.

[Nono]

Quote by: Dis Well, there is that small matter of the financial scandal that the Martin and the liberal party are in the midst of.

Yes, it is a small matter from what I've heard, if it can even be described as a scandal. And in any case the Conservatives are the national headquarters of scandal, if one remembers the last Tory (Mulroney) government.

The Liberals -- once again -- have been in office practically for ever. People may just want a change. But any swing still has to translate into seats, and to even draw even with the Libs the Tories will have to take 18 seats away from them.

So we'll see.

[Disinterested]

Quote by: Nono Yes, it is a small matter from what I've heard, if it can even be described as a scandal. And in any case the Conservatives are the national headquarters of scandal, if one remembers the last Tory (Mulroney) government. The Liberals -- once again -- have been in office practically for ever. People may just want a change. But any swing still has to translate into seats, and to even draw even with the Libs the Tories will have to take 18 seats away from them. So we'll see.

Vote topples Canadian government
Election set for January 23

Tuesday, November 29, 2005; Posted: 10:32 a.m. EST (15:32 GMT)

(CNN) -- After months of political instability, the government of Canadian Prime Minister Paul Martin fell Monday evening when three opposition parties united to topple him with a no-confidence vote in the House of Commons.

Martin's center-left Liberal Party had been dogged by a corruption scandal. It will now face voters in an election set for January 23 that could end 12 years of Liberal rule in America's largest trading partner. The election forces a campaign over the Christmas holidays that the prime minister argues most Canadians don't want.

After losing the vote, a smiling and upbeat Martin rallied his Liberal caucus before they return to their home constituencies to "get fitted for snowshoes."

"The decision about the future of our government will be made by Canadians. They will judge us, and they will judge our performance," said Martin. He said his party would run on its record of "hard work and good management."

Addressing his troops, Conservative leader Stephen Harper called Monday "an historic evening."

"This is not just just the end of a tired, directionless, scandal-plagued government. It's the start of a bright new future for this great country," Harper said.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/WORLD/americ...da.government/

[Nono]

Methinks you're mixing up your scandals there, Dis, which perhaps isn't surprising given that both the Liberals and the Tories are in bed with Big Business (as in Tweedledum and Tweedledee).

If a "financial scandal" has affected opinion polls, it must be the allegations that Liberal government insiders may have leaked market-moving information related to tax policy on income trusts.

Was this an issue when your CNN article was published? No. So it can't be that which Harper was referring to, though it ain't always clear what that dude is on about. :)

[Disinterested]

Quote by: Nono Methinks you're mixing up your scandals there, Dis, which perhaps isn't surprising given that both the Liberals and the Tories are in bed with Big Business (as in Tweedledum and Tweedledee). If a "financial scandal" has affected opinion polls, it must be the allegations that Liberal government insiders may have leaked market-moving information related to tax policy on income trusts. Was this an issue when your CNN article was published? No. So it can't be that which Harper was referring to, though it ain't always clear what that dude is on about. :)

I'm referring to the one unearthed in early 2005 by a blog/news aggregator no less:

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/9906

[rmnunez]

Maybe its how Canadians are expressing repudiation for intervention in Iraq?

[SteveA]

I admit I'm lacking in knowledge of Canadian political parties but I did some looking around and must admit that at least from looking at party platforms, in some ways the conservatives seem like the big government, socialists compared to the liberal platform.

Here's a checklist of these issues in Canada though that seems to agree with the typical conservative/liberal contrasts seen in America:

http://www.canadawebpages.com/pc-election2004.asp

All parties support a balanced budget (obviously, as what party would want to say otherwise).

Conservatives want tax cuts, Liberals appear mixed. Score 1 for conservatives

Liberals seem to want a flatter tax system though with little discrimination upon income, except in regards to the income tax. Score 1 for Liberals

Conservatives are more in opposition to the nation healthcare. Score 1 for conservatives.

Liberals support increasing the Pension Plan ... score 1 for conservatives.

Conservatives seem to support some sort of reform on the election of senators ... I have no idea whether that's good or bad or what abuses could result from it.

Conservatives seem to support greater military spending ... (I don't really know whether the Canadian military is seen as adequate but if it were the U.S, I'd say score 1 for liberals)

Liberals support gun registration ... score 1 for Conservatives

Liberals support gun control ... another point for Conservatives

They both support free trade ... assuming this simply means little government involvement in foreign trade, they they both get a point.

The Conservatives seem to reject making sacrifices in order to try to achieve a closer relationship with the U.S., whereas Liberals seem to support actively closer U.S. relations. Though I'm certain a closer relationship could be beneficial, there's no reason this should be done by Canadians sacrificing any of their own interests. It's a bit mixed but how about half a point for conservatives?

Conservatives appear less hyped over environmental issues than Liberals ... another point for conservatives! (I'm not saying some environmental issues aren't legitimate, but that too often overreactions seem to limit the benefit of environmental policies)

Liberals want to continue funding for national media programming ... score one for conservatives.

Liberals want to decriminalize marajuana ... score 1 for liberals

Liberals want to add same sex marriages, conservatives want to continue legalized hetero sexual marriages ... neither gains a point as they're both missing the fact that marriage should have never been some legislated by politicians in the first place.

So we have a final score of Conservatives 8 1/2 to Liberals 3.

Assuming the platforms don't get waylaid soon afterwards, I extend a welcome to conservatives in Canada. :) Congratulations. I must have misunderstood some things in the on-line party platform I read, or maybe it's that Canada has a larger more active government in general and so even moderate proposals sound extreme in comparison. Anyway, I think it's a victory for most everyone, assuming they truly reduce the size of government and drop a lot of the burdens in the process. That's one problem in the U.S. ... occasionally they drop some of the less desirable government programs but then they simply shift resources elsewhere and expand something else instead of truly reducing it.

I seriously hope it doesn't turn out like Bush though where the good ideas aren't pursued and instead the few bad issues turn out to be the ones enforced.

[Disinterested]

Canadian politics can be summed up as follows:

a) Apathy by most of western canada since Quebec and Ontario take all the federal money for themselves, but now that Alberta is oil rich because of the price of oil and their sand tar oil Quebec wants their oil proceeds and Alberta is fighting back. British Columbia is for all intents and purposes another country especially since China got back Hong Kong and many wealthy citizens of Hong Kong have moved to Vancouver.

b) Strong, vocal, separatist minority that's almost a majority in Quebec represented by Bloc Quebecois who every few years manages to stage a referendum for Quebec to secede and it almost has passed a couple of times.

c) Very socialist in terms of spending on national health care, pensions, etc.

d) Libertarian. Marijuana and hash are basically legal in coffee houses and for personal use all over British Columbia just as they are in Amsterdam. Quebec just legalized clubs for swingers where sex can be had by multiple partners on the premises.

[Nono]

Quote by: Dis Apathy by most of western canada since Quebec and Ontario take all the federal money for themselves, but now that Alberta is oil rich because of the price of oil and their sand tar oil Quebec wants their oil proceeds and Alberta is fighting back. British Columbia is for all intents and purposes another country especially since China got back Hong Kong and many wealthy citizens of Hong Kong have moved to Vancouver.

Quebec and Ontario have the biggest populations and economies. Actually the flow of federal money is more in favour of the less rich provinces. So that point's wrong.
And is BC limited to Vancouver? No. And is BC any less part of Canada than California is part of the US? No.

Strong, vocal, separatist minority that's almost a majority in Quebec represented by Bloc Quebecois who every few years manages to stage a referendum for Quebec to secede and it almost has passed a couple of times.

Kinda wobbly on your facts, Dis. There have been a sum total of two referendums, the last 10 years ago. The Anglo-French thing is a Canadian perennial. But I think that serious separatism has had its day.

Very socialist in terms of spending on national health care, pensions, etc.

"Very socialist" from a US standpoint. But as Churchill said of Sir Stafford Cripps, "He looks at foreign affairs through the wrong end of a municipal drainpipe".

Libertarian.

Thought you just said there was a finance-warping federal gov. and heavily socialist policies. Make up your mind.

Canada is an inherently centrifugal confederation, with all extremities resenting the centre.

[Disinterested]

Quote by: Nono Quebec and Ontario have the biggest populations and economy. Actually the flow of federal money is more in favour of the less rich provinces. So that point's wrong. And is BC limited to VAncouver? No. And is BC any less part of Canada than California is part of the US? No. Kinda wobbly on your facts, Dis. There have been a sum total of two referendums, the last 10 years ago. The Anglo-French thing is a Canadian perennial. But I think that serious separatism has had its day. "Very socialist" from a US standpoint. But as Churchill said of Sir Stafford Cripps, "He looks at foreign affairs through the wrong end of a municipal drainpipe". Thought you just said there was a finance-warping federal gov. and heavily socialist policies. Make up your mind. Canada is an inherently centrifugal confederation, with all extremities resenting the centre.

on a recent survey I read in The Economist. I guess they're wrong about Canada on many aspects then. However, having traveled the world and having held conversations with everyone fromt taxi drivers to c-level executives throughout Europe and South America about politics and culture in their nations and having heard them exclaim in surprise how do I know so much about what's going on in their countries and having replied to them I simply read The Economist each week, I'll stick by The Economist's analysis.

[Nono]

I read the same piece in The Economist. What specifically do you disagree with in my post?

[Disinterested]

Are you seriously claiming that Ontario and Quebec don't receive the lion's share of Canada's federal budget? If you are, please prove it with Canadian federal budget outlays that are broken out by province. I'm more than willling to say I'm incorrect but I would need proof. We can go over the other points one by one, but let's start with the first one about budget outlays.

[Nono]

Quote by: Dis Are you seriously claiming that Ontario and Quebec don't receive the lion's share of Canada's federal budget?

As a sum of money? No, I don't. But then Ontario and Quebec have the lion's share (by far) of Canada's population, so it stands to reason that more dollars and more cents of federal money would be spent there (hell, the federal capital straddles the border of those two -- huge -- provinces). It would be mighty strange if that weren't the case.

The provinces always complain they don't receive enough federal money (and I'm not saying they're always wrong). A far better example of perceived injustice than the West is the East. The Maritime provinces really are poor. To a great extent the province of Newfoundland lives on federal money.

[Disinterested]

Quote by: Nono As a sum of money? No, I don't. But then Ontario and Quebec have the lion's share (by far) of Canada's population, so it stands to reason that more dollars and more cents of federal money would be spent there (hell, the federal capital straddles the border of those two -- huge -- provinces). It would be mighty strange if that weren't the case. The provinces always complain they don't receive enough federal money (and I'm not saying they're always wrong). A far better example of perceived injustice than the West is the East. The Maritime provinces really are poor. To a great extent the province of Newfoundland lives on federal money.

Having agreed on the point that Ontario and Quebec already receive the lion's share of federal outlays, do you think Alberta has a right to be upset about the federal government wanting a share of their oil revenues for redistribution to other provinces since according to federal law provinces get to keep 100% of the revenues from things like oil, coal, and gas?

[Nono]

If the Albertans are upset, they can take the federal government to court.
Personally I have zero sympathy with them. They have benefited from a huge windfall, and they should share it with their less fortunate compatriots. That's my view.

This isn't new by the way. During the oil crisis in the 1970s, there was a popular bumper-sticker in Alberta: Let the Eastern bastards freeze in the dark!

[Disinterested]

Quote by: Nono If the Albertans are upset, they can take the federal government to court. Personally I have zero sympathy with them. They have benefited from a huge windfall, and they should share it with their less fortunate compatriots. That's my view. This isn't new by the way. During the oil crisis in the 1970s, there was a popular bumper-sticker in Alberta: Let the Eastern bastards freeze in the dark!

It would seem to me that if the parliament ganged up on Alberta and passed legislation changing the current law that Alberta would have a right to be upset. Furthermore, the western provinces have been ignored throughout history by Ontario and Quebec so why should Alberta owe the rest of Canada anything?

[Disinterested]

Quote by: Nono Kinda wobbly on your facts, Dis. There have been a sum total of two referendums, the last 10 years ago. The Anglo-French thing is a Canadian perennial. But I think that serious separatism has had its day.

Personally, I think the separatist parties are just biding time and waiting for when the time is right to hold another referendum. I think the separatist movement is just as strong, but not as fiery now that bouchard is out of the picture. I think it's more of a mature, organized movement and more feasible as a result. In addition, with all the turmoil going on currently at the federal level, both separatist parties are forging with the conservatives to get more power and weaken the liberal party in the stronghold of Quebec which bodes well for the separatist movement.

Here's what Global Security has to say about it:

Recent events have led some to question the future of the sovereignty question. One would be that the coming generation of young Quebecois does not remember the time when the Quebecois were almost treated as second-class citizens virtually unable to use French in public places. Since the language laws passed in the 1970s protected the use of French in Quebec, Quebecois have achieved, at the very least, equal status in Quebec. The sense of anger that fueled the first two referendums has accordingly dropped. Another issue is that of Montreal, which is increasingly bilingual and multiethnic and not the separatist hotbed that it was. In fact, the defeat in the 1995 referendum could be blamed on several ridings in east Montreal that while traditionally separatist, voted against the referendum. As for the political scene, Lucien Bouchard resigned as Premier and leader of the Parti Quebecois in 2001 following the Bloc Quebecois's poor performance in the federal elections and a scandal involving anti-Semitic remarks made by a member of the Parti Quebecois. Bernard Landry became Premier following the resignation of Bouchard, but lost power to Jean Charest and the Liberals in April 2003. Many thought that this signified the beginning of the end for the Parti Quebecois and by extension the sovereignty question. However, the Bloc Quebecois, led now by Gilles Duceppe, enjoyed considerable success in the most recent federal election, becoming the Official Opposition. It is difficult to say if this is a sign of renewed interest in separation, or simply a way for Quebec to rattle its saber to Ottawa and get attention. The Parti Quebecois and the Bloc Quebecois both say that the sovereignty question is not off the table and will wait until the time is right before holding another referendum.

http://www.globalsecurity.org/milita...war/quebec.htm

[Nono]

Quote by: Dis It would seem to me that if the parliament ganged up on Alberta and passed legislation changing the current law that Alberta would have a right to be upset.

I repeat: Let them seek judicial redress.

The western provinces have been ignored throughout history by Ontario and Quebec.

Oh yeah, Dis. That's why Sir John A. Macdonald built the Trans-Canada Railway, for example. Out of sheer apathy. Jeez.

As I said before, Canadian Confederation is inherently centrifugal: everybody at everybody else's throat. The only thing they can all agree on is how much they hate Ontario.

[Nono]

Quote by: Dis ...the liberal party in the stronghold of Quebec...

At the moment the Liberals -- in contrast with past parliaments -- hold only a small portion of Quebec's seats in the house of commons.

The GS piece is a bit dated, but backs up what I said about the best days of separatism being behind us. The Bloc québécois is a great vehicle for a protest vote. Quebeckers love to bitch (in keeping with their Gallic culture) and so there's a temptation to move away from the traditional Liberal stranglehold.