Wither goest Canuck politics?

[killarney_sailor]

I do apologize for being away sailing and hence missed some of the stories. In fact, I think I should take personal responsibility for Mr Harper's majority as I was out of the country and did not vote for the first time in my life.

Anyway, to the topic at hand. I recently heard a Peter Mansbridge interview with Alison Redford and I must say I was impressed with her but a little bit perplexed as she did not sound like what one expects from an Alberta premier - very much middle of the road. So there is one trend (or not).

In the federal election we get a Conservative majority government, but the NDP have enormous success. How can get a trend to the right and to the left in the same election?

In the Ontario election (voted in this one!), a very right wing Conservative enters the campaign with a very big lead but ends up blowing it (although increasing seats) with a pretty tired Liberal government winning again and the NDP doing better.

In Toronto, they elect a mayor who would feel very much at home in the US Tea Party - takes the electorate about 3 days to realize they have done something really stupid.

Are all of these idiosyncratic results or is there a general trend that I am missing here?

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by killarney_sailor

I do apologize for being away sailing and hence missed some of the stories. In fact, I think I should take personal responsibility for Mr Harper's majority as I was out of the country and did not vote for the first time in my life.

Anyway, to the topic at hand. I recently heard a Peter Mansbridge interview with Alison Redford and I must say I was impressed with her but a little bit perplexed as she did not sound like what one expects from an Alberta premier - very much middle of the road. So there is one trend (or not).

We were hoping, but I am not so sure. She is preferable to Gary Mar, who she just sent to China. And she is way more preferable than Ted Morton, who with Harper is part of the Calgary school of economics with tues to the Fraser Institute.

I hope the the Alberta PCs are going back to the Lougheed principles.

In the federal election we get a Conservative majority government, but the NDP have enormous success. How can get a trend to the right and to the left in the same election?

Jack Layton - progressive, personable, principled, bilingual and Quebecois.

In the Ontario election (voted in this one!), a very right wing Conservative enters the campaign with a very big lead but ends up blowing it (although increasing seats) with a pretty tired Liberal government winning again and the NDP doing better.

In Toronto, they elect a mayor who would feel very much at home in the US Tea Party - takes the electorate about 3 days to realize they have done something really stupid.

And Calgary elects a 'liberal" Muslim mayor who as a university professor is quite smart.

Are all of these idiosyncratic results or is there a general trend that I am missing here?

It might be a polarization. Or folks might have tied of minority governments. Personalities have a lot to say.

Unfortuanely I am still stuck with the worst MP - Rob Anders

[bljones]

The trend you are missing is a desire for change- in quebec, the electorate wanted a change from the PQ, in liberal Canada they wanted a change from Michael Ignatieff, in Toronto they wanted a change from tax-and-spend.

The Ontario conservatives are hugely frustrating. This is the second time they have snatched electoral defeat from the jaws of victory. Again, Dalton McGinty (Man, doesn't the name just tell you that this is a guy who got his lunch money stolen, a LOT, in high school and is now getting payback) has a campaign strategy that boils down to "Yeah, we screwed up and wasted your money and got stuck in scandals and indecisiveness and skanky deals, but at least we're the devil you know." In fact I had the opportunity to explain to Mr. Hudak, the erstwhile leader of the PCs, how and why he lost my vote:
See, I am the core of the PC constituency- upper middle class, self-employed, fiscally conservative, socially liberal- in other words, a progressive conservative. Here is what I am worried about: The economy.
Here is what I am NOT worried about: crime.
immigration.
health care.

What did the PCs campaign on? Crime, Immigration and Health Care. come on, a pledge to spend $25 million tax dollars on a publically accessible sex offender registry? First, the info is already available to every police force who can make it public as they see necessary based upon demands from the public, second, how the hell can it take that much money to set up what is essentially an excel spreadsheet...of info already collected, collated and available?
Frankly, the Toronto Star's and the CBC's handwringing aside, the city of Toronto has not fallen apart under the reign of Rob Ford. He's done some things that have made me wince, like snubbing the gay pride parade, but he is also having a conversation that the center of the universe has been avoiding for too long- if amalgamation was suppose to increase efficiency and cut costs by shedding redundancy, then how come there are 17000 more people employed by the city of Toronto after amalgamation than before?

Besides, "This hour Has 22 minutes " should put Rob Ford on their Christmas card list simply for getting them attention that they could never get on their own. A painful homegrown comedy show that rarely finds more than a quarter million viewers has the mayor to thank for a) reminding people that yes, it is still on the air, and b ) it is on the CBC, we're more than just hockey and Dragon's Den, y'know.

You know what makes Canada the best damn country in the world? That our problems are this small.

[killarney_sailor]

Originally Posted by bljones

The trend you are missing is a desire for change- in quebec, the electorate wanted a change from the PQ, in liberal Canada they wanted a change from Michael Ignatieff, in Toronto they wanted a change from tax-and-spend.

The Ontario conservatives are hugely frustrating. This is the second time they have snatched electoral defeat from the jaws of victory. Again, Dalton McGinty (Man, doesn't the name just tell you that this is a guy who got his lunch money stolen, a LOT, in high school and is now getting payback) has a campaign strategy that boils down to "Yeah, we screwed up and wasted your money and got stuck in scandals and indecisiveness and skanky deals, but at least we're the devil you know." In fact I had the opportunity to explain to Mr. Hudak, the erstwhile leader of the PCs, how and why he lost my vote:
See, I am the core of the PC constituency- upper middle class, self-employed, fiscally conservative, socially liberal- in other words, a progressive conservative. Here is what I am worried about: The economy.
Here is what I am NOT worried about: crime.
immigration.
health care.

What did the PCs campaign on? Crime, Immigration and Health Care. come on, a pledge to spend $25 million tax dollars on a publically accessible sex offender registry? First, the info is already available to every police force who can make it public as they see necessary based upon demands from the public, second, how the hell can it take that much money to set up what is essentially an excel spreadsheet...of info already collected, collated and available?
Frankly, the Toronto Star's and the CBC's handwringing aside, the city of Toronto has not fallen apart under the reign of Rob Ford. He's done some things that have made me wince, like snubbing the gay pride parade, but he is also having a conversation that the center of the universe has been avoiding for too long- if amalgamation was suppose to increase efficiency and cut costs by shedding redundancy, then how come there are 17000 more people employed by the city of Toronto after amalgamation than before?

Besides, "This hour Has 22 minutes " should put Rob Ford on their Christmas card list simply for getting them attention that they could never get on their own. A painful homegrown comedy show that rarely finds more than a quarter million viewers has the mayor to thank for a) reminding people that yes, it is still on the air, and b ) it is on the CBC, we're more than just hockey and Dragon's Den, y'know.

You know what makes Canada the best damn country in the world? That our problems are this small.

I think that people were looking for change is an interesting one. I might disagree that 'change' was involved in the collapse of the federal libs - more that they had just picked the wrong leader again. Bet it will be more than a few years before they choose another university professor - although Layton was one when he was not being a politician (which was most of the time).

I totally agree about Hudak, what a joke that he has been kept on as leader. Must make McGuinty rub his hands with glee. I think some of the best government I have seen were the old PC ones of John Robarts (probably the best), and Bill Davis - not old enough to really remember much about Leslie Frost.

I know that Layton was from Quebec orginally, but had been a Torontonian for many years. No one talks about it, but the migration of anglophones from Montreal to Toronto cost the former an immense number of talented, often richer people, and added same to Toronto. I am old enough to remember when Montreal was the biggest city in Canada and the most important economically. Now any comparison is ludicrous. A lot to pay for the Quiet Revolution.

Your comment about amalgamation in Toronto includes one giant assumption - that bigger is better and more cost effective and I don't think there is any real proof. My personal experience was in education where 6 school boards were joined into 1. Certainly it was less effective in meeting educational and community needs. Cost savings were not huge - there was one director instead of 6 and likely a few less superintendents but that is miniscule compared to the immense budget. To my way of thinking, if amalgamation was such a good thing why was it not pushed for 905 regional municipalities like Durham, York, Peel and Halton. In these areas the ratio of governments to people was much worse than in Toronto so there was much room for efficiencies. But those were Mike Harris strongholds and Toronto was not. I think forced amalgamation was really a punishment.

Let me throw out another idea. In the United States politics is polarized regionally. Given a few minutes one could come up with a list of Republican states and a list of Democratic states, with only a few that change - and typically decide presidential elections. In Canada, I wonder if our polarization is between areas of the country that are highly urbanized (lets say cities > 500,000) and rural/small city and towns areas. The urbanized areas tend to vote Liberal and/or NDP and the other areas (don't want to call them rural because probably more people in them live in smaller urban areas than out in the country) tend to vote Conservative. This was brought to mind by a map of the Ontario results. In Southern Ontario it looked all blue with little areas (with most of the people) red or orange) and yet the Liberals won. In Alberta I know that Edmonton is quite different from the rest of the province although I think that Calgary is pretty much Conservative. I think the analysis works well in BC too. In Quebec, there is a difference between Montreal and the Hull area and the rest (including Quebec City). Anyway, I think it is interesting, but poses particular problems for the Conservatives since their areas of support do not have growing populations as a rule. I think that this may explain why the Conservatives are working so hard to appeal to the ethnic vote - in particular Chinese and South Asian, because this is where the population growth is. I get a sense that these recent immigrants are conservative (note small 'c') in nature, especially fiscally so there are possibilities but not with a leader like Hudak. Harper has done a bit better but he always look uncomfortable when he is at some ethnic event, in particular if he has to wear something - but he looks pretty uncomfortable when he wears a cowboy hat too.

[killarney_sailor]

Originally Posted by jackdale

Unfortuanely I am still stuck with the worst MP - Rob Anders

Lets be fair to your MP. Consider this a multiple choice question (you can take the teacher out of the classroom but not the classroom out of the teacher).

!. Rob Anders:
a) was really focussed on the beautiful words of the speaker and did not want his concentration interrupted by any visual stimuli
b) had been working so hard on Jackdale's behalf that he was exhausted and needed a catnap
c) with what happens in the House of Commons wouldn't you fall asleep too?
d) all of the above
e) none of the above

[bljones]

Originally Posted by killarney_sailor

Your comment about amalgamation in Toronto includes one giant assumption - that bigger is better and more cost effective and I don't think there is any real proof.

Logic tells you that the staffing levels should have remained static or dropped. For example, with one municipal government instead of six you don't need five receptionists, five city managers, five maintenance managers, five police chiefs, five fire chiefs, etc., etc., - logically, staffing should be cut...
...Not increased by 17000.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by killarney_sailor

Lets be fair to your MP. Consider this a multiple choice question (you can take the teacher out of the classroom but not the classroom out of the teacher).

!. Rob Anders:
a) was really focussed on the beautiful words of the speaker and did not want his concentration interrupted by any visual stimuli
b) had been working so hard on Jackdale's behalf that he was exhausted and needed a catnap
c) with what happens in the House of Commons wouldn't you fall asleep too?
d) all of the above
e) none of the above

The answer is always "C"

When I was still with the Calgary Board of Education I told my sailing students;

By vocation I am a teacher
By vacation I am a sailor
By avocation I am a sailing instructor

Now the latter is a bit more of a vocation.

[danjarch]

Originally Posted by killarney_sailor

Let me throw out another idea. In the United States politics is polarized regionally. Given a few minutes one could come up with a list of Republican states and a list of Democratic states, with only a few that change - and typically decide presidential elections. In Canada, I wonder if our polarization is between areas of the country that are highly urbanized (lets say cities > 500,000) and rural/small city and towns areas. The urbanized areas tend to vote Liberal and/or NDP and the other areas (don't want to call them rural because probably more people in them live in smaller urban areas than out in the country) tend to vote Conservative. This was brought to mind by a map of the Ontario results. In Southern Ontario it looked all blue with little areas (with most of the people) red or orange) and yet the Liberals won. In Alberta I know that Edmonton is quite different from the rest of the province although I think that Calgary is pretty much Conservative. I think the analysis works well in BC too. In Quebec, there is a difference between Montreal and the Hull area and the rest (including Quebec City). Anyway, I think it is interesting, but poses particular problems for the Conservatives since their areas of support do not have growing populations as a rule. I think that this may explain why the Conservatives are working so hard to appeal to the ethnic vote - in particular Chinese and South Asian, because this is where the population growth is. I get a sense that these recent immigrants are conservative (note small 'c') in nature, especially fiscally so there are possibilities but not with a leader like Hudak. Harper has done a bit better but he always look uncomfortable when he is at some ethnic event, in particular if he has to wear something - but he looks pretty uncomfortable when he wears a cowboy hat too.

Your more right then you know. Even as you think of Texas as one of the states that are permanently "republican", most of it's major cities are controlled by "democrats". Including Dallas, Houston, and Austin, it's three biggest.

The states that are known to "swing" are those that are almost evenly split between "rural and suburban", and urban. A good example is Florida. The south is controlled by the large urban Miami/Dade county. While the north is still largely rural and suburban. Mostly farming and timber with the largest city, Jacksonville based more on military then anything else.

The leaves the Interstate 4 corridor that includes Daytona, Orlando and Tampa in at the intersection between the two regions. It's a great example because the state is almost literally cut in half. But that region is where all the potential candidates do their serious campaigning. Dems go to south Florida for money but come back up to campaign for votes. Reps start in north Florida for money then work down for votes. America is split by region but more so along the urban versus rural lines. The swing states are those that split with in their own borders.

Other then that, your also right on the split between social and fiscal conservatives. Personally, I couldn't care less if queers want to marry. If anything, maybe it will help them become more stable, but since voting for liberals in the US means more tax and spend policies that don't help the economy, my hand is forced.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by bljones

Here is what I am worried about: The economy.

As an Albertan and retired teacher I have reason not to be worried that much about the economy in the short term. In the long Alberta really has to diversify; we should have a much more dynamic food industry.

Here is what I am NOT worried about: crime.
immigration.
health care.

I agree wholeheartedly on the first two. That omnibus crime bill is a waste of resources, especially money. The provinces, as the administrators of justice, will end up paying for much of it. While there may be a public perception of more crime, in fact, it is declining.

Immigration is going to be what sustains us in more than one way.

Health care is a concern after Flaherty's pronouncement about funding. It is simply overloading onto the provinces once again.

[johnnyandjebus]

Originally Posted by jackdale

As an Albertan and retired teacher I have reason not to be worried that much about the economy in the short term. In the long Alberta really has to diversify; we should have a much more dynamic food industry.



I agree wholeheartedly on the first two. That omnibus crime bill is a waste of resources, especially money. The provinces, as the administrators of justice, will end up paying for much of it. While there may be a public perception of more crime, in fact, it is declining.

Immigration is going to be what sustains us in more than one way.

Health care is a concern after Flaherty's pronouncement about funding. It is simply overloading onto the provinces once again.

Great thread
Jack I have to disagree with you on your healthcare comment. What the cons did with this is one of the few things I agree with, where their policies are concerned. IMHO health care spending is completely out of control. I'll take it one step further and say spending is out of control for most government agencies at all levels.
If we can't afford to fund healthcare at the rate of inflation then we can't afford it at any price. Yes they are downloading the cost on to the provinces but to be fair only the provinces can control spending levels. We need to take a hard look at how money is being spent, as it relates to healthcare and this won't happen as long as the feds keep shoveling money into the system.

We are in for hard times, healthcare wise, the demographics are not in our favor. Sadly I don't see politicians at any level having the guts to address the problem head on. Yes I did say all levels, my home town of Kingston added a surcharge to our municipal taxes last year, to fund a "donation" to our local hospitals. This is now a permanent part of my tax bill.
The funding system is broken and needs to be fixed, my salary isn't increasing but my tax bill/s are... enough already.

John