Canadian Politics: The Harper Era

[Dr. Drum]

I was actually kidding about this last night since it's hard to imagine the Liberals actually voting with the NDP and the Bloc to trigger an election in the middle of their leadership campaign. Figured they were going to be put in the embarrassing position of having to support the government on this. Maybe Harper wasn't quite so convinced of their reliability, though, since somewhat surprisingly, he's caved. Presumably the Cons will now use whatever procedural crap they can come up with in committee to tie this one up for as long as possible.

[Dr. Drum]

Harper focuses on pleasing core supporters

Harper's "Republican" Conservatives replicate their U.S. soulmates. Many of the issues that mobilized Republicans for Bush are now front and centre in Canada.

Frances Russell
Winnipeg Free Press
November 1, 2006

The combined opposition has seized control of Parliament – and Prime Minister Stephen Harper and his Conservatives couldn't be happier. They probably set their opponents up, using "narrowcasting," a political strategy right out of U.S. President George W. Bush's playbook.

"Narrowcasting" appears counter-intuitive to a minority party's pursuit of a majority government. Instead of moving to the centre to lure the moderate majority, narrowcasting tailors its appeal to the minority party's core support to the exclusion of everyone else. The idea is that a solid, mobilized and happy base will influence undecided friends, neighbours and relatives. These swing voters will start thinking that the government would be good for them, too.

Harper's "Republican" Conservatives replicate their soulmates south of the border. Many of the issues that mobilized Republicans for Bush are now front and centre in Canada.

Take a look at the Conservative agenda the combined Liberal, NDP and Bloc Québécois opposition is blocking. It is:

stoutly religious (the repeal of same-sex marriage and, failing that, a Defence of Religion Act);

pro-gun and militaristic (the abolition of the federal long-gun registry despite its strong support in urban Canada, the big increase in defence spending and the extension and expansion of Canada's Afghan mission into outright war);

anti-equality (the elimination of the Court Challenges Program, national day care and women's advocacy initiatives and major cuts to aboriginal programs);

anti-Kyoto Accord (the change-the-subject Clean Air Act which targets smog, not greenhouse gases, even though smog helps slow global warming by reducing the sun's heat);

staunchly law and order (the plethora of crime legislation including the three strikes bill with its odious reverse onus provision);

and economically libertarian (the planned destruction of the Canadian Wheat Board by any means necessary, including breaking the law itself, and trampling over democratic norms by disqualifying some voters half-way through board of director elections.)

These are all politically incendiary "wedge" issues. Because they deal with peoples' fundamental beliefs and self-perceptions, they relegate bread-and-butter issues like the economy and broad social policy to the back seat. The Globe and Mail political columnist John Ibbitson believes crime and religion are "wedges" that could work for Harper. In a recent column, he pointed out the Conservatives need the support of about 35 per cent of voters to stay in office and about 40 per cent to form a majority government.

Then he asked this question: "What percentage of the population do you think would like to see tougher sentences for all criminals, dangerous offenders locked away indefinitely and religious rights protected for devout political officials? Exactly."

The Prime Minister is already in full campaign mode, exhibiting rage and indignation at the opposition's cavalier behaviour, describing it as "arrogant and anti-democratic." He disregards his words as leader of the Official Opposition less than a year ago that a minority government must consult and work with the opposition. Instead, he issues dire warnings that his rivals will pay a heavy price for stalling or defeating his agenda.

Greg Lyle, former Manitoba premier Gary Filmon's political strategist, has worked for the B.C. Social Credit Party, the B.C. Liberals and former Ontario Conservative premier Mike Harris and is now a pollster with Innovative Research Group in Toronto. He described the Republicans' narrowcasting technique to The Hill Times' Simon Doyle:

"It's a proven model of success for electoral support," Lyle said. “The truth of it is that there are sort of 30 per cent that are with the Tories no matter what, and 50 per cent that will never vote for them, and maybe one-in-five Canadians that are open to them and that aren't solidly with them.

"You may not be one of the groups that benefits from one of these narrowcast issues, but you see people you identify with benefiting, and so this says that this is a government and a leader that could care about people like you," Lyle continued. "One of the inadvertent benefits of narrowcasting is actually a macro benefit."

Manitoba Conservative Leader Hugh McFadyen is doing some narrowcasting of his own with his proposal to fine parents for not supervising their children. He was reacting to news that a 12-year-old girl, two 14-year-old girls and a 15-year-old boy had been arrested in connection with a recent beating death in Winnipeg.

"At the end of the day parents need to be held responsible at one level or another," he said.

As a lawyer, McFadyen has to be aware of the dire social problems in Winnipeg's inner city, including dysfunctional or virtually non-existent families and the devastating impact of fetal alcohol syndrome on children. Attempting to fine parents is worse than useless in this context because it further victimizes families who already cannot cope.

Politically, however, any simplistic "crime crackdown" is gold to politicians like Harper and McFadyen, appealing to their conservative base on two levels. It avoids the public investment necessary to attack homelessness, unemployment, poverty and urban decay while it fuels the pursuit of ever-lower taxes.

[Dr. Drum]

Almost as much as anything else, I hate this way of doing politics; where the notion of pursuing the common good – from whichever political perspective – is continually subordinated to (or replaced by) the cultivation of the "wedge".

[phil]

Junior's Buddy better take a good look at last night US elections results
and think of the implications they could have for his own way of doing things here !!

[Dr. Drum]

I think they're probably looking at things closer to home, like this poll. And I hate to say it but considering that:

• they're on the wrong side of the majority of people on a whole host of issues,
  
• they've been taking flak on some issue of substance or style ever since the Emerson thing (on the day they were sworn in, no less),
  
• Harper's dislikeability factor is higher than average,
  
• they now own Afghanistan,
  
• they've hobbled themselves in Quebec,
  
• their legislative program is dead in the water,
  
• they just took a hit on income trusts (and mainly with their base);

from their point of view, a dead heat with the Liberals can't be considered a bad thing. (Even if, realistically, since their overwhelming Western support is propping that number up, it means they're actually a little behind the Liberals nationally.)

They're still basically in position to win the next election. Probably another slim minority if they did, but still, to be holding up this well – they must be reasonably pleased.

Though, of course, I'm not.

[Dr. Drum]

A very long piece but I hope you have the time... A great unsung Canadian.

[phil]

Too bad ... !

[phil]

All that's missing is the Christmas tree ...

[Dr. Drum]

Harper always looks fetching when he plays dress-up, doesn't he?

Burning question of the day: do Newfoundlanders now also form a nation within a united Canada?

[phil]

Depends ...

Historicaly ...

What language do they speak ?
Where did they "majoritaly" came from ?
Did they have their own different culture ... ?
Did they have their own religion ?
Did they have their own set of laws ?

Most importantly, do Newfoundlanders want
to be recognized as a nation ... ??

That being said, I don't give a flyin'fuck
about what politicians may say about Québec ...

[Dr. Drum]

B'y, if dere's one t'ing we got covered on dis one, it's wedder or not we got ar own language. ;D

More seriously, fairly good section to be found on the notion of Newfoundland as a nation in this article. Touches, at least, on most of the points you raised, Phil. As you know, of course, Newfoundland actually was an independent nation (albeit only nominally in the last 15 years of its status as such) up until 1949. My parent's generation will still tell you great stories about the two referendum campaigns that preceded union with Canada. Bitter, bitter fight at the time (I'm sure Quebecers can relate…) and still very much within living memory. A lot of people back home still mourn, in some sense, for the loss of the "country".

BTW, absolutely no slight intended toward Quebec. I guess I just find myself closest to (the now totally outflanked) Stephane Dion on this one. I sympathize on the question of recognizing identity but the word "nation" has a specific meaning. So they'll put it in a "symbolic" resolution and claim, on the other hand, that nothing really flows from it but where does that really get us?

[phil]

So they'll put it in a "symbolic" resolution and claim, on the other hand,
that nothing really flows from it but where does that really get us?

Exactly !!

[Rit]

intruiging.

[Dr. Drum]

It gets a whole lot more intriguing when you read the background story as to how this motion came about.

Inside Story: how the Quebec motion was hatched

Chantal Hébert

I feel a bit less concerned about this today – Duceppe seems to have been thrown off-stride by the whole thing, which I suppose is always a good sign. Though I note that the first thing I saw on the television last night was André Boisclair claiming that it made his job easier.

[Rit]

Hebert said: "Anything less than decisive action would precipitate his government in the kind of existential crisis that was dividing the Liberal party, as well as hand the Bloc a huge stick with which to beat federalist candidates over the head in Quebec in the next campaign"

I guess that's the best explanation going round for the motion currently. (Hebert's great, by way. I always find her clear headed and on point.)