|
|
Post by riley on Jun 14, 2004 8:07:06 GMT -5
I’m with Riley on this one. A two party system might just be the ticket. However it would have to be two worthy parties something we are sadly short of now. How dispiriting when something so important as the vote is reduced to which is the lesser of two evils. Just to clarify Rock, I'm not necessarily in favour of the Two Party system. I'll be voting NDP for a host of reasons, so I'm pleased to have an alternative our friends to the South do not. I think the lesser of two evils only comes into play from my position as practical because the right in this election is substantially more evil and scary than they have been in the past. I think there a lot of Canadians who might think Harper is a good idea right now, just like a lot of Americans thought Bush was a good idea. If Harper gets in, I think we'll see something to the effect of.... "So you think you know what a right wing party looks like in Canada eh? Well here's what a really conservative party looks like." My bias shines through brightly in these discussions, but I have a hard time with any conversation that mentions Canada and Conservative in the same breath, since the concepts would be best served as polar opposites imo.  |
|
|
|
Post by Dr. Drum on Jun 14, 2004 9:28:43 GMT -5
I guess I’d say yes and no, Riley. Stephen Harper is himself a social conservative and moreover, owes a big debt to social conservatives for his victories in the CA and Conservative leadership races. He’s a bit bland and he carries himself as an eminently reasonable man. He’s intelligent, probably the best political strategist running in this election and he doesn’t come off as doctrinaire in the way that Preston Manning or Stockwell Day did. In short, a guy with what I believe is a pretty retrogressive ideology who comes off as non-threatening and has the smarts to get elected.
That’s the 'yes' but here is where I say 'no'. What happens if he actually does gets in? To my way of thinking, undoubtedly he’d do damage but I don’t believe it would be irreparable. Ironically, most of it would probably be on the fiscal side of the ledger. The Centre for Policy Alternatives has looked at the platforms of the three main parties and says that while the Liberal and NDP programs would continue to keep us out of deficit, there’s just no way the Conservatives can carry out their promises without incurring one. You can’t dramatically ramp up military spending, redress the '‘fiscal imbalance' between Ottawa and the provinces, spend more money on health care, etc. plus make deep personal and corporate income tax cuts without running into deficit. It’ll be Mike Harris writ large.
That said, Canada is not the U.S. There’s no significant constituency here for the sort of permanent tax cuts and dramatic downsizing of government that is the aim of the American right. Polls consistently show that Canadians value our social programs and are willing to pay a level of tax commensurate to their maintenance.
As for the social conservative agenda, I think Harper is more likely to end up disillusioning his social conservative supporters than anything else. The abortion debate is finished, there’s no way that a Conservative minority (or weak majority) government will be in a position to implement a new law nor will they be willing to expend the kind of political capital that getting all hot and heavy back into this issue would require. Similarly, the courts have ruled on gay marriage; a free vote in the House of Commons will not overturn that. Unless Harper is willing to use the notwithstanding clause, that one’s all but a done deal, too and so far his vagueness on the issue seems to be signalling that he’s as much of a politician as he is a true believer. Push comes to shove, I think he’ll back down.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dr. Drum on Jun 15, 2004 3:58:51 GMT -5
Anybody watch the French debate last night?
|
|
|
|
Post by riley on Jun 15, 2004 5:27:47 GMT -5
Missed that, but I'm hoping to catch the English one tonight (I think it's tonight).
Anything telling?
|
|
|
|
Post by Dr. Drum on Jun 15, 2004 6:22:22 GMT -5
Well, watching the translated version on Newsworld was a little like watching those dubbed versions of Pippy Longstockings they used to have on when I was a kid but aside from that, my impression from the half or so of it that I caught was that everyone held up pretty well to the other guy’s fire. Although, Paul Martin needed to really sway Quebec voters back to him and though he looked OK, I’m not sure he’ll have been able to do that.
Oh and Gilles Duceppe is evidently as blunt in French as he is in English.
|
|
|
|
Post by riley on Jun 15, 2004 6:26:27 GMT -5
I saw a commentator who given the Bloc's share of the poll's equated Duceppe's campaign travel to a cross province tourism rally.
I'm getting the impression that whatever votes they manage to take, he and his party won't have to work very hard to get there.
Votes of circumstance so to speak.
|
|
|
|
Post by phil on Jun 15, 2004 6:30:47 GMT -5
Four men who spoke of four different countries ...
|
|
|
|
Post by Dr. Drum on Jun 15, 2004 6:30:57 GMT -5
Yeah, I heard some 'man on the street' reaction to the debate on the radio this morning. I think Quebecers are pretty much off the Martin bus and it's going to be damned hard to get them back on there. Which only leaves the Bloc since the Conservatives and NDP are nowhere in the province.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dr. Drum on Jun 16, 2004 3:58:07 GMT -5
No winner in the debate last night but as an NDP supporter I have to say it feels a lot like Robert Chisholm in 1999. Not a good thing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Meursault on Jun 16, 2004 7:13:11 GMT -5
Would u even vote for the LIberals just so the Conservatives don't get in, i'm thinking I may, and plus Scott Brison is supposedly and ok guy.
|
|
|
|
Post by riley on Jun 16, 2004 7:14:38 GMT -5
Yeah, we had some issues with how Layton handled himself. Much more antagonistic than I would have thought. Glad he challenged the old boys on the things the NDP need to be challenging on, but I'm not sure he won any favour with his approach.
I was extremely happy however, that he took Martin to task for Martin's comment in his opening remarks that made reference to it being "two parties" vying for the leadership. Fucking arrogant.
I thought Harper looked like he had been coached well and conducted himself in textbook debate fashion.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dr. Drum on Jun 16, 2004 7:56:55 GMT -5
Vote Liberal to keep the Conservatives out? Shane, you’re asking the wrong guy.  A bit over the top, Riley. However, with the media over the last week focusing (as usual) on the Liberal-Conservative horse-race and generally only mentioning the NDP in order to tell you that they’re struggling for attention and in danger of being squeezed out, I imagine that the NDP campaign game plan going into the debate was that Jack should be quite aggressive. The problem with that is it tends to come off badly on television. Thinking back to Robert Chisholm and the ’99 provincial debate again, I thought he did very well that night – better than Layton last night, in fact – but his going so hard after McLellan was read by people as impolite and arrogant. Meanwhile Hamm came off as a little flat and unengaged, kind of like Harper last night, but people read him as a guy with quiet resolve and a steady hand. I was feeling a little bit of déjà vu last night. That said, my take on both the English and French debates is that while there was no decisive 'winner', Gilles Duceppe fared best on both nights. Harper seemed to me to do poorly on the hot button social issues last night and I thought Paul Martin bested him whenever they got into financial issues. Paul looked awfully haggard, though. I imagine seeing something he’s worked 15 years for go down the drain is taking a major toll on him. ------- Don’t know how much play this story got yesterday, but I was pretty pleased to see the NDP besting even the Green Party on the Sierra Club’s environmental report card: www.sierraclub.ca/national/media/item.shtml?x=674 |
|
|
|
Post by riley on Jun 16, 2004 17:59:40 GMT -5
Thinking back to Robert Chisholm and the ’99 provincial debate again, I thought he did very well that night – better than Layton last night, in fact – but his going so hard after McLellan was read by people as impolite and arrogant. Meanwhile Hamm came off as a little flat and unengaged, kind of like Harper last night, but people read him as a guy with quiet resolve and a steady hand. I was feeling a little bit of déjà vu last night. www.sierraclub.ca/national/media/item.shtml?x=674Totally agree here Doc, which is a bit scary considering how the other one played out.  |
|
|
|
Post by Dr. Drum on Jun 17, 2004 4:18:48 GMT -5
Yeah, scary considering how things went in '99 but I think in this election voters, especially Ontario voters, are window shopping. They're tired of the Liberals but not really sold on Harper - he's basically plateauxed around 30%. I'm betting on a (Conservative) minority government but if it's a near tie or if the Conservatives are within a few seats of the Liberals, it's going to be an ugly parliament.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dr. Drum on Jun 18, 2004 2:51:26 GMT -5
|
|
