Posted on 01/28/2006 4:48:50 AM PST by goldstategop
Canadians brought about a minority Conservative government on Monday by electing a House of Commons in which 60 percent of the members will be out to destroy it.
That is, they gave Prime Minister-elect Stephen Harper's Conservative party 124 seats, outgoing Prime Minister Paul Martin's Liberals 103, the socialist New Democratic Party 29, and the Bloc Quebecois (whose declared purpose is to take Quebec out of Canada), 51. There was one independent.
As soon as the results were in, Martin announced that he would not lead the Liberals in another election.
The Conservatives formed a government that 36.3 percent of the electorate voted for, and the rest voted against. However, since that was 4 percent better than Conservative support in the last election 20 months ago, which elected a minority Martin government, Canadian public opinion must be minutely changing. The turnout – 65 percent of registered voters this time against 61 percent last time – also implied a modestly aroused public interest.
However, it didn't extend to eastern Canadian cities. The Conservatives won no seats whatever in Montreal and Toronto, and none in the core of Vancouver. In Calgary and Edmonton, by far the two fastest-growing urban areas in Canada, Harper took every seat. In fact, he claimed all 28 seats in his home province of Alberta. But the urban voter, outside Alberta, has clearly not embraced his conservative cause.
Finally, much of the Liberal cabinet, which now occupies the opposition benches, will initially know the problems of government far better than the novice Tory ministers.
So the question is: How conservative can a Conservative government be in such a precarious situation? The liberal media – which include most newspapers and commentators – were profuse with advice to the new prime minister, chiefly advice that he keep the conservative element in his party "under control," meaning not introduce any legislation that might be considered conservative.
But in so advising, they were underestimating Harper, something they have been doing since he won the leadership of the old Alliance Party four years ago, united it with the Tories, and has now brought it to power. At each stage, doubtful media commentators pronounced him a failure: "The Conservatives won, in a manner of speaking, and will form a minority government," wrote the Globe and Mail's Jeffrey Simpson last week. "But it will be a weak one, 31 seats shy, farther from that threshold than the Conservatives had believed, hoped and expected." So his victory was a defeat. The remark was typical.
But Harper is no fool. He knows that if the opposition defeat him immediately, they will bring on another election, the third in three years, and be charged with not giving the man a chance.
Therefore, he can be expected to do the very reverse of what they're urging upon him. Now, rather than later, is the time to introduce the legislation they don't like – repealing the disastrous gun control law, restoring to the provinces the powers that Liberal governments have usurped, vastly strengthening the armed forces, regaining the confidence of the United States by restoring Canada's role in continental defense, cutting the federal sales tax from 7 percent to 6 percent, paying a day-care allowance to parents (rather than establishing a federally funded day-care system) and allowing a free vote on a bill to repeal the gay marriage law passed by the Liberals.
Such a fulsome program would establish his government as one that is out to make changes and intends to do what it promised. If the opposition defeated it, the Liberals would bring on an election in which they themselves could conceivably be leaderless. If they passed it, they would have in effect endorsed the Tory program.
There have been two other minority Tory governments in the last half-century. One of them, headed by Joe Clark in 1979, brought in a budget that imposed heavy taxes on gasoline. The Liberals and other parties defeated the budget in the house; the Liberals successfully portrayed Clark as a tool of the Alberta oil industry, won the election and then imposed even high taxes on gasoline.
The other, headed by John Diefenbaker in 1957, waited for the Liberals to pour scorn on its efforts to govern. Then Diefenbaker abruptly dissolved the house himself and in the ensuing election successfully portrayed the Liberals as arrogant power mongers. He defeated them soundly and won the biggest majority in Canadian history.
So, Harper's predecessors have lost one and won one. It all depends on how he handles it.
(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")
I certainly hope that Harper has the same approach to governing and to the media that President Bush has.
(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")
I am reminded of the American media pronouncing Bush a failure even before he was sworn in the first time. If Harper is anything like our president (he's the Canadian ezuivilant of an iggorant cowboy, too) then there is hope he may succeed in the trend to turn the Canadian government from it's perverse insistance on giving Canada official Third World status.
That would be misunderestimated...;^)
Not a Canadian but a couple of thoughts:
1.Conservative in Canada does not = Conservative in the U.S.
2. You want to have a couple of new senators to the left of the two female senators from Washington state, just add the "new" state of British Columbia.
3. No major Canadian party, Conservatives included, challenge a woman's decision to abort her unborn child right up to the moment of birth. Additionally Harper has promised a free vote in Parliament on the gay marriage issue decided by the Supreme court. Gay Marriage will likely pass with support from members of all three parties
4. Bottom line:Canada is just a lot more socially liberal and adding three western provinces as states would add 4, 5 or 6 liberals to the Senate and make implementing the conservative adgenda that much more difficult.
From your keyboard to my heart!
Alberta separatist sentiment may pause for breath right now to see how Harper and the Conservatives do. I hope they do well.
Then I hope we separate.
Cheers
Jim
The west may sucede at some far future date (but it's even more unlikely now) but they won't join the US. Not on the radar. There could be economic agreements but that's it.
It's even far less likely now than ever that Alberta splits off because we've got one of our own in power. Stephen Harper knows how much damage an anti-west government can wreak on the west. He would have lived through the 'bust' in the 1980's after the great economic boom. The terrible times of the 'bust' were brought on by the Liberals' disastrous National Energy Policy instigated to bring Alberta to its knees because it was too wealthy - and it worked. At least, Harper will protect Alberta from this happening again. It could have happened if the Martin Liberal government had been returned to power again.
Reducing the GST, if he can make it actually happen, will make PM Harper a lot of friends across Canada. The Liberal Party promised to get rid if this cursed tax and reneged. People never did forget.
(Denny Crane: "I Don't Want To Socialize With A Pinko Liberal Democrat Commie. Say What You Like About Republicans. We Stick To Our Convictions. Even When We Know We're Dead Wrong.")
I thought it was very clever when Stephen Harper came up with that plan. I don't think there is one single Canadian who would say don't cut the GST. It's universally hated, and most especially in Alberta, which doesn't have any other sales tax. Cutting 1% is also achievable as you said.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.