What Is Happening in That Canadian Election?!?
by: Peter Marmorek on April 28th, 2011 | 25 Comments »
We elect a new government next Monday in Canada after a one month election that began with a lot of whimpering, but seems to be ending with a remarkable bang. To the surprise of media, pundits, and most of the country, the NDP, the socialist party that has been forever mired in third place federally (behind the Liberals and Conservatives) has suddenly surged into second, closing fast on the governing Conservatives (3% behind at the last poll). The second place Liberals, who have been advocating that NDPers vote strategically for them on an ABC (Anybody But Conservative) rationale are catatonic with horror as the same rationale rolls round onto them.
Fortunately, Ian Welsh is around to explain what this all means, who the players are, and who owns the teams on which they play. I’ve deeply admired Ian’s analyses (of politics both Canadian and International) over the years in the Agonist, in Pogge, in Firedoglake, and now on his own website. Here’s a taste of his explanation, which aligns with mine so precisely as to make any further comment of mine redundant. His whole piece is well worth reading!
The scourge of the NDP has been the perception that they can’t win Federally. As a result, in most Federal elections vote switching has often cost them at least 5% of their vote, and I’d argue up to 10%….As a result, parties that range from Center to Left (the Liberals, NDP and Bloc) have regularly pulled in about 60% of the vote, and yet the Conservatives have had minority governments for much of the last decade. This is also due to the fact that, like the US system, ours is first past the post, winner take all.
….There are other factors. Ignatieff, the Liberal leader, is a sleazeball who apologized for torture…. So when the Liberals went on the offensive against the Conservatives, claiming Conservatives couldn’t be trusted with Medicare (which in Canada means universal single payer health care), I suspect that many Canadians thought “well, that’s true. But I don’t think I can’t trust you with it either.” ….Whatever one thinks of the NDP, even its detractors know that the NDP loves universal healthcare.
So, what’s outcome of this election going to be? Damned if I know. The polls are all over the place. The most likely outcome remains a Conservative minority government. The second most likely outcome seems to be that the NDP and Liberals, together, get more seats than the Conservatives, in which case they could form a coalition government, probably with the NDP as the senior coalition member
How good a government Layton would run I don’t know. I don’t have a good feel for the wonks behind him, or for how strong a leader he’d be. Nonetheless I am confident that of the possibilities, he’s the best man for the job. Ignatieff is a weasel, and no one who has apologized for torture should be in charge of anything, anywhere, while Harper is a conservative ideologue who thinks that Canada should be more like the US, as well as being an autocrat who spits over Canada’s democratic and parliamentary traditions. The sooner he retires, the better.
The outcome is still uncertain…. But still, for the first time in a long time, I am actually seeing some hope for the future.
I am a Canadian and in general I agree with this analysis. This is one of the most interesting elections that we’ve had in decades. I, too, would be glad to see Mr. Layton and his NDP party having a lot more power. And Harper and his crew terrify me. By the way, for this blog especially, Harper and his party have been courting the right-wing Jewish vote. Their stands on Israel and the Middle East are well to the right of the Likud and the Republicans. No surprise there, really, as many of the Conservatives are evangelical Christians. If they got a majority, I fear that Canadian women might lose their right to choose, and a great many other rights as well.
Hi Marcia,
I agree with you, though as of Friday morning, top Conservatives are admitting they won’t get a majority (http://tinyurl.com/3jb8ox9). It has been a long time since I looked forward to an election as much!
Interesting stuff. My cousin (Nova Scotian) has been trying to explain the whole thing to me but I guess I need pictures or something to really “get it.”
I think I have a bit of a clearer understanding of the Canadian system reading Ian’s whole thing… but I know I didn’t quite get the comment, “…no one who has apologized for torture should be in charge of anything, anywhere…” I would think coming clean for a crime would be an honorable or at least welcome thing. Guess I have to Google the apologist to see if I can figure out what Ian means.
Meanwhile I’m glad your “Medicare” will remain intact, while our weird version gets dismantled by our owning class. I’m no longer religious, but I pretty much pray that someday we’ll have something you guys do. A guy can dream, right?
I’ll be glad to testify for you if you decide to e/immigrate, JJ ;~)
Ignatieff defended the Guantanamo torturing of suspected terrorists on the grounds of expedience, and it is in that sense that he was an apologist for torture.
I’m Canadian, and this surge of the NDP is the best political news,( for me at least) since the Obama campaign (before he sold out). I actually had a smile on my face when I read some encouraging polls about the campaign a couple of days ago ( a smile for me is rare ,facing all the bad news and corruption, and violence I read about every day).It looks like , at least, that these conservative reactionaries who run the Canadian governement will not be returned with a majority, which would have steamrolled us with Republican type policies. Also, this upcoming probable third minority Conservative government will now face a bunch of more aggressive progressives in Opposition. The NDP actually attacks banks and corporations , which is so rare anywhere in the First World; I mean business is untouchable everywhere, even after the Financial crisis!
There is even the possibilty that the NDP and Liberals form a coalition government , since between the two of them they have a majority. However that is unlikely because that would be undemocratic, and possibly unconstitutional. A pretty grave constitutional crisis might be unleashed if the non-Conservative parties ask our Governor General (a vestige of Monarchical power in canada) to approve a left Coalition. Best to avoid that.The Conservatives have a right to govern again if they get a plurality , I believe, even if they are insensitive people who care nothing for the environment, unions, welfare recipients, native people, prisoners, etc.. the usual litany.
Coalitions aren’t undemocratic: we’ve had them in Ontario, and they’re working in the UK and have in Australia. By current polls, NDP + Liberal = 52%, Cons get 38%. So how does one call the politicians who represent 52% of the voters forming a government undemocratic?
Canada has had two Federal coalitions, and 5 provincial ones. And in many of those cases the second and third place parties were the ones who joined together. You can find a good historical summary on the CTV website: http://www.ctv.ca/CTVNews/QPeriod/20081202/coalition_govts_081202/
To Peter Marmorek: Well, coalitions are not undemocratic per se,true, but it would be more democratic that a party with a minority plurality should govern. I am not up on the constitutional details here, but any Canadian observer should remember the acrimonious constitutional discussions that occurred here when there was talk of replacing a Harper minority with a possible Liberal -lead Coalition in late 2008 (because of the crisis set off by the Financial meltdown). That discussion has not broken out yet, but it might, if it is a close 3 way race on monday (the election day).Anyways, if it is deemed constitutional that an NDP or Liberal led coalition is OK, that would be great! But I am afraid that the Conservatives do have a case. Well, we shall see what happens. Monday will be an interesting nigh!
From today’s Toronto Star:
“If the election is, as polls suggest, inconclusive, [Govenor-General] Johnston can, by law, ask Layton and Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff and Bloc Quebecois Leader Gilles Duceppe if they could form a government that would have the confidence of Parliament.”
Both by law and by tradition, that’s how it works. I can think of reasons why the Liberals wouldn’t want to support the NDP, but they sure don’t want another election immediately with Iggy as leader.
As you say, interesting times. Shame the Habs are out though.
Hi, Peter M. : I don’t see how the election can be “inconclusive”. Whatever party that gets a plurality, even if a minority, should rule. However, in the unlikely event that the NDP and the Conservatives are tied, then an NDP-Liberal Coalition (even with the Bloc) would naturally result, I think.Otherwise, the Tories should be allowed, and will be allowed ,to rule again. As I mentionned in a previous post, and if I remember correctly, even Constitutional scholars were divided as to whether former Governer General Michaelle Jean could have allowed the Left coalition to take over in late 2008, 2 months after an election and Conservative minority victory. It was a very acrimonious debate, but a necessary one.
It was nice to read today that the Toronto Star endorsed the NDP, but they also suggested that voters might think to support any other left party in a good position to defeat a Conservative.Exactly what I suggested in a letter to the editor that did not get published across Canada. I personally have already voted, and voted NDP , but had the race in my riding been going to a Conservative, I would have voted Liberal to contribute to his defeat. As it is the Liberal in my riding is a shoe-in, but with less votes probably than before. So I had the luxury to vote for whoever I wanted. This lesson in strategic voting came after I saw Nader contribute to Gore’s defeat in 2000, and I swore I personally would never repeat that mistake again here . So , to my american friends: even if Obama has sold out, he will be better than any Republican , so , PLEASE, vote for him again in 2012! Even if you have to hold your nose.And to any other Canadians reading this, PLEASE, IF there is a close race in your riding, vote for the Left candidate in the best position to defeat a Conservative, even if that is not your first choice.
I have to say that a new third Tory Minority government will demoralise a lot of Conservatives (especially social conservatives), even if they win, in my opinion. These people have been building up to this for 20 years, and they will see their dream shatterred without a majority, as they realise that Canada will never become a predominently conservative nation like the USA. I hope many will be emotionally devastated because I dislike conservatives: they care for nothing except rich people, and radical reactionary funadamentalist Christianity.
As far as the Habs, I don’t follow hockey or the Royals. When I see the ignorant masses go crazy over hockey and royalty, I despair for the future of democracy, and humanity.
Hey, check this out, Peter M. : the NDP at….45% support in Quebec (in La Presse-Montreal, Toronto star poll today)! Incredible! and NDP: 46% in Atlantic Canada. Wow.
And there is a consitutional article on the op-ed pages of today’s Globe and Mail.
That Atlantic figure is up… I’d been on top of numbers for Quebec, in which I grew up which explains the Habs. It’s sort of a religion dans la belle province, and it sure is political, as Dryden/Salutin’s play “Les Canadiens” makes clear.
This is from the always excellent pogge.ca.
Harper mum on post-election governing scenario
Stephen Harper is refusing to say whether he would accept a decision by the Governor General to hand power to the opposition parties in wake of the May 2 election.
… he declines to say whether he’d accept a decision by the Queen’s representative in Canada to give an opposition party the chance to govern – rather than, say, demanding the Governor General call another election instead.
When you consider that it’s the Conservatives who have been playing the patriotism card at every turn in this campaign, I think this amounts to reanimating irony’s corpse so it can be beaten to death all over again. Harper continues to refuse to state that he would abide by the constitution. Whether he’s doing this to motivate his base or to threaten his opposition (or both), he suggests that he would continue to challenge and subvert every institution and tradition of government we have in an effort to cling to power.
http://www.pogge.ca/archives/003268.shtml
The Conservatives are freaking out , witness this passage from a critique by arch-reactionaryTerence Corcoran of the National Post (a paper started by Conrad Black, who was put in jail for fraud for 5 years):
| “The CBC’s Leslie MacKinnon recently reported on the NDP’s official constitution, a 2003 document that specifies why the NDP exists. It turns out the NDP constitution is itself a hidden agenda.
First, here’s a core statement from the preamble outlining the “principles of democratic socialism” that guide the party:
•That the production and distribution of goods and services shall be directed to meeting the social and individual needs of people within a sustainable environment and economy and not to the making of profit;
•To modify and control the operations of the monopolistic productive and distributive organizations through economic and social planning. Towards these ends and where necessary, the extension of the principle of social ownership….
•The New Democratic Party is proud to be associated with the democratic socialist parties of the world and to share the struggle for peace, international co-operation and the abolition of poverty.
The above NDP constitutional extract is unfortunately not available on the NDP website. Ms MacKinnon asked about this omission and was told that the party’s constitution is an “internal” document that is only available to members, not to voters who might be interested in NDP principles. Other questions raised appropriately by Ms. MacKinnon: “Does the NDP have a problem with the making of profits? Does social ownership mean the nationalization of certain industries? And does the NDP still deeply believe in these precepts, or has it repudiated them?”
Or does the NDP have a hidden agenda well beyond the fat agenda in the election platform? ”
Well, the NDP sure does not sound that they are that socialist publicly, but still they are more to the Left than the Liberals, and that is what is important.The NDP is going to have to clear this up, because they will be under more intense scrutiny now.Even I think this socialism is too extreme; I beleive in a humane fair capitalism, with strong State regulation ,if needed.
Nothing there that strikes me as extreme, which of course may say more about where I am than anything else ;~) We have a nationalized health industry, and almost all Canadians support that. And I certainly put a higher value on sustainable environment than say, BP who wants oil wells in the Arctic ocean. (Gee, what could go wrong with that?)
But I’m not surprised the PCs are panicking (They called on liberals to strategically vote for them to keep the socialists out… lot of liberal love for Harpo I’m sure.)
And here are today’s (Sunday) polls:
The survey has the Conservative Party with 35 per cent support from decided and leaning voters, the NDP with at 33 per cent and the Liberals at only 19 per cent, which is an all-time low for the once-dominant party.
Source: http://www.themarknews.com/articles/4974-tories-and-ndp-fight-to-the-finish
Yeah, re your link to that poll, I just saw something similar on another site. Wow, imagine: the NDP could win! Unlikely, but you never know…And it would only be a Minority. Still… Opposition seems most likely…This could be like when the Parti Quebecois won in 1976 in Quebec, no one thought that possible, even them. Then again the PQ are a straight centrist social-democratic party, and always have been. Even the NDP, when it has ruled in provinces, were not radical; in fact they ruled like Liberals. Except possibly for Dave Barrett’s government in BC from 1972-1975. Barrett ,by the way, was the only major Canadian politician I ever got to know a bit . We chatted informally often, and it was a pretty strange and fascinating experience talking extensively to someone who had actually been Prime Minister of a province (for you Americans, that is the equivalent of a Governor of a State). He was a pretty open and cool guy, and what an incredible orator: the best I’ve ever heard in Canada.He told me he once tried to convince Prime Minister of Canada Trudeau to nationalise all the oil companies, but obviously Trudeau refused. Barrett put a stop to much urban expansion to save agricultural and natural land, which totally freaked developers…One of his ministers walked around the BC Parliament in sandals…I could go on…Liked to call himself “Little Fat Dave”. Great guy!!
Well, I am off. Tomorrow is going to be one exciting day!
I’m in one of the ten per cent critical “swing” ridings-vote Liberal or usher in a Harper Con. I’m a social democrat from the get-go (I was actually dumped by the NDP in my youth as part of a stronger left movement, the Waffle, within the party.)
This election has left me at times agonized. I fear Harper, a Canadian Republican, and his appalling “Security Perimeter” to ring Canada and the USA together in an unlovely weapons halo.My Harper horror is balanced by my seeing the decency and brilliance of the Liberal candidate here, one of the finest students I ever taught, so I’m not looking at supporting an Ignatieff torture toady by any means.
Still: I’ve thrown myself into defeating Harper by advancing the Liberal candidate with profound sadness, with desperation at times. It’s still a kind of necessary betrayal. I will not, for example, be scrutineering for the Liberal party. It would be too painful to sit near an NDP scrutineer and not be that person.
Marie Lloyd: You are doing exactly the right thing in supporting a Liberal to block the Conservatives, even though that was not your first choice. I would have done the same thing, but my riding is one of the safest Liberal seats in the country , so I had the luxury of supporting the NDP…If a Conservaive had a good chance of winning in my riding, I would have voted for ANYONE else that had the best chance of defeating said Conservative (still ,this Liberal in my riding is facing an unexpected stiff challenge from one of the rare Conservatives on the ascendant in this part of Canada, but he, the Liberal, should make it anyways). So don`t feel so bad, please: there are a lot of decent Liberals on the party`s Left wing, if that helps you swallow the medecine! Although I do understand how you feel. I am with you all the way!
I feel bad a bit too, but for other reasons. Due to health reasons, I cannot help the NDP to get the vote out or make calls. So that is bugging me. But we do what we can…..eh?
ANYBODY BUT HARPER!!!
It’s kind of quiet in these comments today. I get a sense of the shock that many of you must feel after learning of the results of Canada’s election. However, I would advise those of you who have an ‘ideological’ dislike of Stephen Harper to get over your ‘fear’ , and learn to appreciate the man. He has accomplished an amazing feat in a country as diverse as Canada. Trained as an economist, Stephen has led Canada through a very difficult time, which has shaken the entire world, yet our economy is considered to be the strongest and most stable of the G20 countries. If you doubt this, check out what is going on in Europe, and of course, in the US.
I know many of you think he is a rigid ideologue, but I disagree. He is tough minded, a man of principle, but he has clearly demonstrated an ability to negotiate and compromise as necessary, as evidenced by the fact that he has led a MINORTIY government for 5 years. you all understand that it is impossible to pass legislation in a minority parliament without the support of opposition members? He clearly runs a ‘tight ship’ and controls the message within his party and among his MP’s, but every strong leader does that, especially if he wishes to survive in the political arena. He is intelligent, is a brilliant strategist, and is quite clear and focused on the priorities ahead of him. These are: 1. Economy and Jobs , 2. Helping families and seniors 3. Fully supporting and enhancing healthcare, and 4. Increased (victim-centered) crime prevention. He also promises not to raise taxes. At this time in history, this seems to me to be a very reasonable and balance agenda.
His message and his vision obviously resonates strongly with Canadians, and after 5 years of minority leadership, he was given a very strong mandate, with a clear plurarity of votes, to govern as a majority party. This is a high degree of trust that I am sure he will honor. The repudiation of the lIberals, and especially the near demise of the Bloc, and even the one seat to Green, indicates a collective wisdom of the population that is amazing to see. It has been fascinating listening to the party leaders making spending promises with other people’s money, in the case of liberals and ndp, one heck of a lot of new spending plans to put money in lots of people’s pockets. But they neglected to mention that they were going to reach into mine to get it. And the liberals and ndp both proposed big taxes on that little element that is the basis of life, and the associated gas that plants need in order to grow, which would make it even more expensive to heat our homes, and drive to the supermarket. We don’t want that here in Canada. We’re under snow for nearly six months of the year. We tend to be conservative, as opposed to profligate spending idealists! Know what I mean?
While the NDP have made historical gains, they are clearly not ready to run a government. Most Canadians do not have the same level of socialist tendencies and the urge to spend money that the NDP seem to have, so they will need to gain experience and learn to deal with the Canadian reality in ‘loyal opposition’. Hopefully the debates will be about policy and substance, rather than the constant bickering and mud slinging in the minority parliament setting. It should be interesting.
Also, as a Jew, I really appreciate Stephen Harper’s outspoken courage in support of Israel, without any qualification. He understands more clearly than any other Canadian political leader, the threat against Israel, and to the western world in general, and he has withstood much criticism for his stand, but has not budged. It may be because he is a Christian, but persoanlly I prefer his unequivocal support for Israel than that of the Court Jews of the J-Street and their hangers on. I know Israel can count on Harper!
So, folks, my advice to you Canadians, in the clear light of the Conservative victory, is to learn to relax and enjoy the ride. Stephen will be around for at least another four years, perhaps much longer. Ladies, you won’t lose any rights! Conservatives and even Evangelicals are especially kind to women, and tend to be reasonable and polite people. He’s not a dictator, he isn’t declaring war on women, or on the CBC, or on the arts, or whatever other personal paranoia you might be suffering. These are difficult times. Everyone is feeling the pinch. Much of what’s going on is global, and not in our control. But, we will weather the storm, and will even prosper, when you guys sit back and let the adults responsibly manage the country. Be nice, not hateful. If you have a thoughtful proposal for a better Canada, for some affordable and reasonable policy, then state your case calmly and intelligently. It will no longer help to use insults, fear mongering, class warfare, and every other form of defamation that tends to come non-stop especially (but not entirely) from the left when they contemplate their political opponents. But, Stephen is now the PM over all Canadian, from all sides of the spectrum. As in an airplane, it takes two wings to fly straight and level. We need all points of view to feed into the upcoming national debate. Think bigger than ever before!
Just one man’s humble opinion…..
TeeJay
Thank you TeeJay, for your contribution, which illustrates clearly and cogently a particular perspective amongst Conservative supporters. I will be posting on the Tikkun Daily Blog early next week, discussing what we can learn from analyzing the entrails of this fascinating and volotile election. Time pressures don’t allow as full a response as your piece warrants, but I’ll just note a few things for any readers who are unfamiliar with Canadian reality.
Well he got 40% of the votes, as opposed to the left of centre parties, who took 60% of the vote. That produced a majority of seats with a minority of votes, which leads to a discussion of FPTP voting systems. He still has minority support.
. We tend to be conservative, as opposed to profligate spending idealists! Know what I mean?
No. I know what you’re saying, but as Harper inherited a balanced budget and plunged it into the negative, as “Provinces with New Democrat governments are more likely to have surplus budgets than governments of any other political party, a new report from the Government of Canada indicates.”, I don’t know what you mean.
I really appreciate Stephen Harper’s outspoken courage in support of Israel, without any qualification.
I agree that Harper is unqualified, but not that he is supporting Israel. He supports the Israeli government, and unquestioning support for the current administration of Israel is in my view, in the view of most Tikkun supporters incredibly destructive to Israel. It is the equivalent of supporting an alcoholic by giving him a bottle, or supporting a pyromaniac by giving him matches.
Conservatives and even Evangelicals are especially kind to women, and tend to be reasonable and polite people.
Particularly as long as they stay barefoot and pregnant, eh? A fuller description of the billions Harper has cut from national child care programs, closing 12 out of 16 offices of the Status of women Canada, refusing to support pay equity challenges, can be found here
Be nice, not hateful.
ROTFLMAO. Coming from a party that was the first in Canadian history to be found in contempt of parliament for repeatedly lying, coming from a party that imported the toxicity of American attack ads into Canada, coming from a party whose leader says, ‘We have determined a series of cuts, … which will be announced…. They are our position. And…anyone [who] has got any problem with that — who says anything about it — is going to have a short political career.’ I find that pretty funny.
I confess I spent a while trying to decide if your piece was satiric, mocking the PCs or authentic. Poe’s law is an Internet adage reflecting the fact that without a clear indication of the author’s intent, it is difficult or impossible to tell the difference between sincere extremism and the satirical parody of extremism. If you were being satiric, it was well played. If you weren’t, then exposure seemed called for.
Hi Peter..here are a few more comments, in response to yours (MINE IN BOLD):
Well he got 40% of the votes, as opposed to the left of centre parties, who took 60% of the vote. That produced a majority of seats with a minority of votes, which leads to a discussion of FPTP voting systems. He still has minority support. THAT IS EXACTLY THE SAME PERCENTAGE OF VOTES THAT JOHN CHRETIEN’S LIBERALS WON A MAJORITY GOVERNMENT WITH. WAS THERE A CLAMOR FOR FPTP VOTING THEN? AS A MATTER OF FACT, IN THE RECENT UK REFERENDUM ON FPTP vs AV, THE RESULTS WERE ABOUT 70% TO 30% TO KEEP FPTP. FPTP tends to produce more stable governments.
. We tend to be conservative, as opposed to profligate spending idealists! Know what I mean? No. I know what you’re saying, but as Harper inherited a balanced budget and plunged it into the negative..
YES, IT’S TRUE. BUT DO YOU REMEMBER SEPT 2008. THERE WAS A NEAR GLOBAL COLLAPSE OF THE MONETARY SYSTEM, SUPPOSEDLY. AN ALMOST UNIVERSAL ‘STIMULUS’ STRATEGY WAS IMPLEMENTED IN ALMOST EVERY WESTERN NATION. THE LEFTIST PARTIES WANTED EVEN MORE SPENDING THAN THE CONSERVATIVE WOULD HAVE LIKED. AND, NEED I POINT OUT AGAIN, THAT IN A MINORITY GOVERNMENT, EVERY BILL IS PASSED ONLY WITH THE BLESSING (IE VOTES) OF THE OPPOSITION PARTIES, SO TO HANG THE BLAME FOR THE DEFICIT ON HARPER ALONE IS DISINGENUOUS.
I really appreciate Stephen Harper’s outspoken courage in support of Israel, without any qualification.
I agree that Harper is unqualified, CHEAP SHOT. NOT FUNNY! HIS SUCCESS IS PROOF OF HIS COMPETENCE.
but not that he is supporting Israel. He supports the Israeli government, and unquestioning support for the current administration of Israel is in my view, in the view of most Tikkun supporters incredibly destructive to Israel. It is the equivalent of supporting an alcoholic by giving him a bottle, or supporting a pyromaniac by giving him matches. THIS IS A MAJOR POINT OF DISAGREEMENT BETWEEN THE MINORITY OF FAR LEFT JEWS, AS REPRESENTED BY TIKKUN AND J-STREET, AND THE MAJORITY OF JEWS, NEITHER IN THE US, NOR IN ISRAEL, THAT DO NOT SHARE YOUR VIEWS. AS LONG AS ISRAEL HAS A LEGITIMATE GOVERNMENT ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE OF ISRAEL, TO SUPPORT ISRAEL IS TO SUPPORT THE ISRAELI PEOPLE. IT IS EXTREMELY ARROGANT TO ASSUME THAT YOU ‘KNOW BETTER’ THAN THE COLLECTIVE WILL OF THE PEOPLE OF ISRAEL. TO EVEN CONSIDER SUCH OPTIONS AS BDS, OR TO TRY TO USE THE UN TO ‘FORCE’ A UNILATERAL SOLUTION UPON ISRAEL IS MISGUIDED AND TREACHEROUS, IN MY OPINION. I ADAMANTLY OPPOSE THIS POSITION, ESPECIALLY COMING FROM JEWS, AND AM GRATEFUL FOR THE STRONG SUPPORT BY STEPHEN HARPER AND MY MANY CLEAR SIGHTED CHRISTIAN FRIENDS!
Conservatives and even Evangelicals are especially kind to women, and tend to be reasonable and polite people. Particularly as long as they stay barefoot and pregnant, eh? THIS IS AN IGNORANT REMARK THAT DOES YOU NOT CREDIT IN A REASONED AND AMICABLE DISCUSSION.
A fuller description of the billions Harper has cut from national child care programs,
CONSERVATIVES PHILOSOPHICALLY OPPOSE LARGE NATIONAL PROGRAMS THAT BECOME, IN TIME, INEFFICIENT BUREAUCRACIES, AND ON-GOING ENTITLEMENT EXPENDITURES, WHICH IS THE PREFERENCE OF LIBERALS. CONSERVATIVES PREFER TO GIVE TAX BREAKS AND CREDITS AND EVEN PUTTING SUBSIDIES DIRECTLY INTO THE HANDS OF PARENTS. MY OWN VIEW IS BASED ON EXTENSIVE PERSONAL IN GOVERNMENT, MUCH OF IT IN RESCUING FAILING PROGRAMS, AND IN TRACKING DOWN HUGE AMOUNT OF ‘MISPLACED’ PUBLIC FUNDS. WE NEED LESS GOVERNMENTS PROGRAMS, LOWER TAXES LEAVING MORE MONEY FOR INDIVIDUAL, AND MORE PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY IN SOLVING PROBLEMS. THIS ELECTION RESULTS THANKFULLY REFLECTED THAT VIEW AS WELL. THIS DISCUSSION IS PART OF THE LARGER DIALOGUE REGARDING ENTITLEMENT SPENDING THAT IS ONGOING IN CANADA AND THE US AND WONT BE RESOLVED HERE BY US.
closing 12 out of 16 offices of the Status of women Canada,
WOMEN HAVE ACHIEVED TREMENDOUS FREEDOM IN CANADIAN SOCIETY OVER THE PAST 40+ YEARS. tHE SOW SECRETARIAT HAS DONE SUCH AN EXCELLENT JOB IN ACHIEVING ITS ORIGINAL MANDATE THAT IT IS NO LONGER NECESSARY. IT WAS NEVER SET UP TO BE A PERMANENT BUREAUCRACY. WE HAVE NO ‘SACRED COWS’ HERE.
ROTFLMAO. Coming from a party that was the first in Canadian history to be found in contempt of parliament for repeatedly lying, coming from a party that imported the toxicity of American attack ads into Canada, coming from a party whose leader says, ‘We have determined a series of cuts, … which will be announced…. They are our position. And…anyone [who] has got any problem with that – who says anything about it – is going to have a short political career.’ I find that pretty funny.
PETER, THIS ISSUE WAS BLOWN WAY OUT OF PROPORTION AND, AS THE ELECTION RESULTS SHOWED, IT WAS NOT OF INTEREST TO THE PUBLIC. INFORMED PEOPLE UNDERSTOOD THAT THIS WAS A PLOY BY AN OPPOSITION DOMINATED COMMONS COMMITTE TO HOLD THE CONSERVATIVES ‘IN CONTEMPT’ FOR STONEWALLING ON SOME PROGRAM COSTS. IT WAS A LAME HIGHLY POLITICIZED STRATEGY TO DEAL WITH FOR A COMMON GOVT PROBLEM, TO BE USED (INEFFECTIVELY) FOR CAMPAIGN ATTACKS. AND GIVE ME A BREAK ABOUT ATTACK ADS – ALL PARTIES ARE EQUALLY TOXIC, IF THAT’S THE WORD YOU WANT TO USE. AND, FINALLY, HOW QUICKLY WE FORGET ADSCAM AND THE LIBERAL THUGOCRACY THAT PRECEDED AND PRECIPITATED THE HARPER RISE TO POWER.
Peter, I appreciate the civility of your response, although that cannot be said for several of the other rude and intellectual inferior contributors, who are not worthy of my attention to their nonsense. The ‘truth’ if it can be found, will generally encompass elements from many different perspectives. I hope that you can other reasonable readers can accept that there is validity to a conservative viewpoint. Often, the differences in opinion are those between idealism and, for lack of a better word, realism, both of which are valid. It is so common that certain solutions are adopted with the greatest of intentions, but which yield unintended consequences, or are economically unsustainable, or the underlying assumptions were wrong. In every case, reality and experience trump theory and ideals (not Donald – lol). I hope these exchanges are helpful in bridging our views, ultimately for the betterment of all humanity, an ideal that we both share.
Even if one disagrees with Stephen Harper’s political stance, it must be admitted that he has achieved a very impressive feat of political leadership!In just nine years, from his early days as leader of the Canadian Alliance party, Stephen Harper has managed to unite the right, and has led the Conservatives into four elections, serving as PM for the last …five years with a minority government, and now has led the party to a strong majority. He is widely respected on the international scene as well.
In closing, I’d like state the obvious, ie, that Stephen Harper and the majority conservative government are here to stay, for at least four year, and very likely many more. Please, don’t fret about it. Learn to relax and enjoy the ride. I believe that the country will not only survive under his leadership, but will in fact thrive, despite the challenges of operating within a global system over which we only have limited control. The conservative approach brings balance and stability, responsibility, as well as compassion, to their governing. I realize that most readers of this blog do not believe that, and one of them has counseled the rest of you to not listen to me, insisting that I am a liar. I have seen this reaction before, by people who are threatened by alternative points of view that they are unwilling to even consider. Rambam, on the other hand, insisted that we examine all points of view in seeking the truth of a matter. I will leave it to the intelligence of each individual to decide for themselves if my words have any merit whatsoever. In the meantime, I would like to recommend several recent articles by well know Canadian authors, that will hopefully give a larger perspective to the recent election results.
Conrad Black: The full measure of Harper’s triumph
http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/05/07/conrad-black-the-full-measure-of-harper%e2%80%99s-triumph/
The man who remade Canada’s political landscape – The Globe and Mail
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/the-man-who-remade-canadas-political-landscape/article2013137/
Here’s why Stephen Harper really won – The Globe and Mail
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/heres-why-stephen-harper-really-won/article2010333/
Please excuse the many typos in my earlier comment. It was a late night!
TO THE READERS OF TIKKUN: You can disregard the lies and hypocrisy of the Conservative Canadian called TeeJay who wrote his idiotic comments, just above. The fact is that this Canadian Conservative Party that won a majority governemnt is riddled with harsh reactionary fundamentalist Christians and dogmatic free markeeteers. It’s just that they cannot fully implement their mean agenda…yet, so they try to reassure possibly worried Canadians that they are in fact just nice decent reasonable people, who won’t let you die if you are poor and sick. For now, perhaps not, but later, after possible successive (but improbable) governments? Their ultimate goal is to war on poor people, environmentalists, unions, pro-choice women, Native People, and the rest of the people they despise. When one of their ilk was Prime Minister of Ontatio in the mid-90′s, that government cut welfare rates by 20% with workfare provisions, opened a boot camp for young offenders, shot a Native protester DEAD at Ipperwash Ontario, and I could go on…Their welfare minister told people, to buy 69 cent cans of tuna in damaged tins if they could not make ends met (in other words : FUCK YOU, you poor lazy beer-swilling welfare bastards, and , hey, have you heard the “Good News” about GEEZUS?) .
While the new Prime Minister Stephen Harper felt he needed to reassure Canadians today that he would not dismantle our public-health system, here is what the editorial board of Canada’s very influential premier hard-right “Christian” free enterprise newspaper had to say today:
National Post editorial board: What we want to see from a Harper majority:
3 Offer all Canadians full freedom of choice in health care. Starting immediately, the government should suspend the application of the Canada Health Act for the duration of its mandate, to allow provinces freedom to experiment with alternate financing and delivery models, including private insurance and hospitals
There you have it.Harper might not be able to do it yet, but that is the ultimate goal: private health care like in the USA and to hell with poor people who might get sick (hey, maybe fundi Christians can lay hands on the sick and heal thenm, if they can’t get in to see a doctor…).So, in sum, TEEJay is a liar.Don’t beleive anything he writes. And don’t forget that a very left-wing party is in strong Opposition in Canada (over 100 seats in parliament), and they will confront this odious reactionary governement every day and at at every step…and , now, with my help.
Dear Gene,
I certainly agree with much of the political stance you take above, as my response to TeeJay makes clear. But avoid personal attacks on this board, please. Our comment policy says “Wishing for respectful dialogue that invites participation in a collaborative, empathic community, we will delete any comments that are abusive, off-topic, or include personal attacks.”, and mocking others religious views is pretty close to the line.
It was an emotionally painful night in many ways, so I won’t pull any triggers, but Tikkun readers will be better served by the exposing of fallacious argumentation, than by vituperative abuse.
All the best,
Peter (who’ll see you in the demos)
To Peter Marmorek: I don`t care about Tikkun`s comments policy. What are you people, the “spiritual police? This TeeJay deserves no respect, and he, therefore, did not get it from me. What he got was an appropriate angry verbal condemnation.
Now you all know who was back, as I am sure you suspected. But I won`t anymore, because you people and I are incompatible, as I had to find out again. I will never treat a conservative with respect. They don`t deserve it. The Tar Sands project will now proceed , for instance, full speed ahead, as part of Harper`s economic mission from Hell ; with a continuing ripping and desecration of the land into a moonscape, and cancers for the Native people living near there. And you Tikkunites want me to “respect” Harper and Teejay, who support environmentally destructive mega-projects, because, after all, they too are Children of “God”? HAHAHAHA. What a joke! They dislike me, and I dislike them. End of story. If you people wish to live in your Ghandian never-never land, go right ahead. And I will not join you at any demos; I won`t have some pacifist start preaching superficial “peace and love” to me.. Not that I have anything against peace and love, but my version of these noble sentiments is radically different from those of most pacifists and “spiritual” people.
So Bye bye.
Well that was Marco, back as a blast from the past.
I may say I owe a debt of gratitude to him for this visit: it’s always a challenge to me whether I find bombast and invective as offensive when I agree with its target as when I don’t. Folks, I passed the troll test.
To Peter Marmorek: I don`t care about Tikkun`s comments policy. What are you people, the “spiritual police?
We hope to be promoted to that height some day. At this point we’re the troll police. Other end of the spectrum, really.