Canada goes conservative

Message Bookmarked

Bookmark Removed

Any opinions on this? Are Canadian conservatives like American conservatives or are they just less generous with the maple syrup?

― Latham Green (mike), Wednesday, 25 January 2006 05:31 (twenty years ago)

Canadian conservatives would like very much to be like American conservatives, but the rest of us won't let them.

― J-rock (Julien Sandiford), Wednesday, 25 January 2006 05:54 (twenty years ago)

is all of north america ruled by complete douchebags now? who'm i forgetting?

― j blount (papa la bas), Wednesday, 25 January 2006 05:56 (twenty years ago)

Canadian conservatives are also cowboys, here is the proof:

http://www.valleyskeptic.com/stephen_harper_village_peop.jpg

This picture really can't be posted often enough.

― NoTimeBeforeTime (Barry Bruner), Wednesday, 25 January 2006 05:59 (twenty years ago)

Canada goes minority government again = I'm entertained.

― Ned Raggett (Ned), Wednesday, 25 January 2006 06:02 (twenty years ago)

is all of north america ruled by complete douchebags now? who'm i forgetting?

some dudes in Idaho with bunkers fulla ammo

― Thomas Tallis (Tommy), Wednesday, 25 January 2006 06:05 (twenty years ago)

those dudes rule

― j blount (papa la bas), Wednesday, 25 January 2006 06:08 (twenty years ago)

Somebody should photoshop Harper's photo so it looks like he wet his pants.

― That I Could Clamber to the Frozen Moon and Draw the Ladder (Freud Junior), Wednesday, 25 January 2006 06:22 (twenty years ago)

The Liberals should have centred their attack ads around that photo.

― NoTimeBeforeTime (Barry Bruner), Wednesday, 25 January 2006 06:26 (twenty years ago)

what's taking Harper so long to give the signal to Bush to send the tanks over the Border??

― jean cretin, Wednesday, 25 January 2006 06:41 (twenty years ago)

god i hate so much that that douchebag is going to be our prime minister now.

― s1ocki (slutsky), Wednesday, 25 January 2006 07:01 (twenty years ago)

fu-uh-uh-uhck. yeah. I did not contribute to this. at least we'll we do what we can do, right?

― rrrobyn (rrrobyn), Wednesday, 25 January 2006 07:06 (twenty years ago)

layton in 2007

― superultramega (superultramarinated), Wednesday, 25 January 2006 07:09 (twenty years ago)

is all of north america ruled by complete douchebags now?

isn't mexico going to elect that socialist mayor this year? not that he'll necessarily be a big improvement. and running mexico isn't like a plum assignment.

but to be fair, paul martin was kind of a douchebag too, right? doesn't this theoretically give the liberals the chance to clean house and come back in a few years?

― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Wednesday, 25 January 2006 07:10 (twenty years ago)

at least he was a douchebag who pushed through gay marriage

― s1ocki (slutsky), Wednesday, 25 January 2006 07:10 (twenty years ago)

also iraq, missile defence etc

― s1ocki (slutsky), Wednesday, 25 January 2006 07:11 (twenty years ago)

i mean i know it's not all martin, but still i can't see shit going the same way under harper

― s1ocki (slutsky), Wednesday, 25 January 2006 07:11 (twenty years ago)

So is Canada going to have its youth drafted and sent off to Iraq now?

― DV (dirtyvicar), Wednesday, 25 January 2006 11:08 (twenty years ago)

So, North America goes right-wing while socialists keep having one victory after another in Latin America... Does this mean there'll be some intercontinental tension?

― Tuomas (Tuomas), Wednesday, 25 January 2006 11:36 (twenty years ago)

David Miller for prez

― Chuck_Tatum (Chuck_Tatum), Wednesday, 25 January 2006 12:37 (twenty years ago)

Tuomas, the only TENSION in North America is our hatred of people who use our precious ENGLISH LANGUAGE WORDS incorrectly!

― A BOLD QUAHOG (ex machina), Wednesday, 25 January 2006 12:49 (twenty years ago)

Time to move to New Zealand. Oh, wait, it's about to get crappy too.

What kind of grounds would Harper have for repealing gay marriage? Would he seriously put it to a referendum?

What's the deal in Montreal these days? How'd that pan out there? Haven't had time to really sit down and get it all in.

― Guymauve (Guymauve), Wednesday, 25 January 2006 14:40 (twenty years ago)

harper ain't touching gay marriage.

― s1ocki (slutsky), Wednesday, 25 January 2006 16:00 (twenty years ago)

If his gov't lasts a year, I expect some backbencher will eventually launch a private member's bill on it. There's some real (dangerous) loonies with their fingers close to the BUTTON. (In Canada, our button calls for a Parliamentary Page to come and bring a refreshing glass of glacier water)

― Huk-L (Huk-L), Wednesday, 25 January 2006 16:04 (twenty years ago)

Oh Jon. You can be such a wanker sometimes.

― Kv_nol (Kv_nol), Wednesday, 25 January 2006 16:16 (twenty years ago)

To be fair our Conservative party are still a few steps closer to reality then Bush and Co (for the most part), and they are at the moment forced to work within the contraints of a minority government.

Should I make McKenna 2006 or Dryden 2006 buttons?

― Rufus 3000 (Mr Noodles), Wednesday, 25 January 2006 16:16 (twenty years ago)

Ignatieff Oct. '06, followed by Stronach Nov. '06

― Huk-L (Huk-L), Wednesday, 25 January 2006 16:17 (twenty years ago)

Satan Dec '06.

― Rufus 3000 (Mr Noodles), Wednesday, 25 January 2006 16:43 (twenty years ago)

I think the Liberals would be wiser to go with a Stronach than an Ignatieff at this point. Despite her dubious allegiances/motives, Stronarch has that Martha Stewart "i'm of the people, but not really" charm that people seem so eager to sympathize with and I think the Liberals need that to get back on top. Martin and his gang perhaps seemed to Elite-y and a big brain like Ignatieff would just be further down that road. I mean, why not JRSaul, who's at least semi-cuddly.

― Huk-L (Huk-L), Wednesday, 25 January 2006 16:49 (twenty years ago)

Stronach would get murdered by Harper and Layton (and Duceppe) in a debate.

― NoTimeBeforeTime (Barry Bruner), Wednesday, 25 January 2006 16:51 (twenty years ago)

Harper's big job will be keeping the more looned wing-nut MPs on the far fringes from saying ANYTHING publicly.

― peepee (peepee), Wednesday, 25 January 2006 17:20 (twenty years ago)

You know, although the Conservatives made some big gains in Central Canada since 2004, those two provinces still elected more Bloc and Liberal MPs respectively. Everywhere else, there was either little net change (Atlantic Canada, Prairies, The North), or the NDP made net gains and the Tories lost seats (thank you, B.C.).

This isn't so bad, as much as it's embarrassing to have that douche represent us out there in the world. It's a temporary swing to the centre right, a time out for the Liberals who can now go clean their rooms and be ready to join us again when they're done. Not only that, but the NDP have made great gains, which shows that social democratic viewpoints are far from dead in Canada.

― David A. (Davant), Wednesday, 25 January 2006 18:14 (twenty years ago)

Come on, unless there's way more pro-war support in the Liberal back benches than I realized (which is possible), there's no way Harper's going to bring us into Iraq and certainly no way he'd be able to repeal gay marriage or even really slash social spending. AFAICT he'll probably just try to administer things a little more economically (and probably piss off Quebec, I'll grant) and hopefully more honestly. I seriously think this will probably be a pretty good short-lived little administration. I wasn't being facetious on the other-thread either. I don't really see any reason why a minority govt living hand-to-mouth for two years until the people get to make another democratic choice isn't a good way to run a country. It forces compromise, consultation, and democracy. Trudeau's first minority govt was probably the best govt we've ever had, right?

xpost

― Sundar (sundar), Wednesday, 25 January 2006 18:18 (twenty years ago)

"... honestly (and probably piss off...)"

"other thread"

― Sundar (sundar), Wednesday, 25 January 2006 18:22 (twenty years ago)

Hopefully this will just be one of those times we use the PCs as a stick we occasionaly beat the Liberals with as opposed to a Brian Mulroney era.

― Rufus 3000 (Mr Noodles), Wednesday, 25 January 2006 18:25 (twenty years ago)

The gay marriage thing (along with abortion, supporting the Iraq war etc) was a red herring put forward by Harper's opponents to scare people away from voting for him. No surprises it didn't work since more than 50% of Canadians were against gay marriage in the first place. It played well in the big cities and in the media, though.

Most of the issues that actually affect our lives (healthcare, housing, education) were pretty much buried in this campaign. I mean, I work in social housing so I know literally hundreds of people screaming out for assistance and there's one tiny office 3,000 miles away trying and failing to deal with it. The Conservatives only promise on this is to give tax breaks to developers in the hope that somehow this will create more homes. This is no more or less than the Liberals have been doing for the last 5 or 6 years.

For those of us who are not millionaires or aristocrats, the Conservatives will be doing exactly what the Liberals did: Fuck All.

No change.

― everything, Wednesday, 25 January 2006 18:32 (twenty years ago)

I think you're being cynically optimistic, Everything. I think Harper's Little Rascals will chip away at some of their pet issues, and take every opportunity to advance their agendas (which are myriad). A lot of the Conservative MPs are definite loonies, and I can't see some of them keeping their yams buttered very long now that the election is over.

― Huk-L (Huk-L), Wednesday, 25 January 2006 18:49 (twenty years ago)

(and probably piss off Quebec, I'll grant)

The Conservatives are now the #2 party in Quebec, which nobody believed could be possible after this election -- if anything, I'll think he'll pander more to Quebec.

― NoTimeBeforeTime (Barry Bruner), Wednesday, 25 January 2006 18:57 (twenty years ago)

But isn't that where the Liberals went wrong?

― Huk-L (Huk-L), Wednesday, 25 January 2006 18:58 (twenty years ago)

Wait, MAYOR of MEXICO?

― Dan (Big-Ass City) Perry (Dan Perry), Wednesday, 25 January 2006 19:00 (twenty years ago)

Mulroney had bigass majority governments both terms and was a real coalition-builder. He was more ideologically moderate to begin with. Plus, he really managed to bring Quebec sovereigntists (a strongly left-leaning group, normally!) on his side along with disgruntled Western conservatives and rural voters. I just don't see Harper accomplishing anything similar.

3xpost Well, if NTBT's right, then maybe he will. I have trouble imagining Harper coming up with anything that will really appease sovereigntist interests but it's possible. In any case, if Harper does end up becoming a Mulroney type, he'd have to really water down his ideology. I hope.

― Sundar (sundar), Wednesday, 25 January 2006 19:04 (twenty years ago)

Plus, he really managed to bring Quebec sovereigntists (a strongly left-leaning group, normally!) on his side
Until they realized they so much on his side that they realized they'd be better off without him!

― Huk-L (Huk-L), Wednesday, 25 January 2006 19:10 (twenty years ago)

On the plus side, the NDP made some serious gains, especially here in BC where the Conservatives lost a bunch of seats. Plus, it's pretty cool that we have four parties with decent representation in parliament, plus one or two others that get a respectable amount of votes. Thank god we're not in a two party situation.

― everything, Wednesday, 25 January 2006 19:10 (twenty years ago)

Yeah, strong non-big-two parties keeps everything a little more palatable. I'd hate to think of the disastrous results of having to pick only between a profoundly adrift and formerly corrupt Liberal Party and a woefully inexperienced, naive, stupid, wrong, and evil Conservative Party.

― Huk-L (Huk-L), Wednesday, 25 January 2006 19:14 (twenty years ago)

Well, yeah, that's part of why it'll be harder for Harper. They've got their own party now.

2xpost Yeah, that's related to why I think minority govts are a good thing. (Some, well at least one, of my US friends are now worried about the spectre of moving to an effective one-party system!)

― Sundar (sundar), Wednesday, 25 January 2006 19:15 (twenty years ago)

There are plenty who will argue that the US is already a one-party system, pointing out that the reason the Dems can't capitalize on Bush's numerous disasters because they effectively support them.

― everything, Wednesday, 25 January 2006 19:21 (twenty years ago)

But isn't that where the Liberals went wrong?

The Liberals have always been strong in Quebec, so they could er, "justify" their actions as "strengthening their base" in a way that Harper won't be able to do. Ten seats in Quebec is no small potatoes though -- they took seats away from the Liberals AND the Bloc and they'd be stupid to not capitalize on that unexpected momentum.

― NoTimeBeforeTime (Barry Bruner), Wednesday, 25 January 2006 19:22 (twenty years ago)

four parties and one psychotic independent

― s1ocki (slutsky), Wednesday, 25 January 2006 19:41 (twenty years ago)

He'll be joining the Conservatives soon enough, I bet. He just needs to tone down the "Africans = Cannibals" rhetoric a bit.

― everything, Wednesday, 25 January 2006 19:50 (twenty years ago)

Wait, Mel Lastman won a seat in Quebec City?

― Huk-L (Huk-L), Wednesday, 25 January 2006 19:52 (twenty years ago)

there's a special place in hell for quebec talk radio hosts, i think

― s1ocki (slutsky), Wednesday, 25 January 2006 19:52 (twenty years ago)

Sorry Slutsky but we had to clear out Trinity Bellwoods at some point and the radio stations were hiring.

― Rufus 3000 (Mr Noodles), Wednesday, 25 January 2006 20:18 (twenty years ago)

Harper has said he intends to reopen the SSM marriage issue. He wants an open vote and he will lose.

I'm sure that over 50% of Candians are in favour of it, btw.

― Thermo Thinwall (Thermo Thinwall), Wednesday, 25 January 2006 21:17 (twenty years ago)

I was thinking that as well Thermo.

Now if Harper opened the S&M marriage issue I'm sure their would be some interesting debates.

― Rufus 3000 (Mr Noodles), Wednesday, 25 January 2006 21:20 (twenty years ago)

And it might bring Kim Campbell back to Ottawa.

― Bryan (Bryan), Wednesday, 25 January 2006 21:24 (twenty years ago)

Possibly... it would help if he were to show up in the cowboy outfit.

xpost.... !

― Thermo Thinwall (Thermo Thinwall), Wednesday, 25 January 2006 21:25 (twenty years ago)

And... inho the best possible replacement for Martin is the least likely... Carolyn Bennett.

― Thermo Thinwall (Thermo Thinwall), Wednesday, 25 January 2006 21:27 (twenty years ago)

I think the talk about reopening the SSM issue (or the swingers clubs!) is a bunch of hot air right now. This might be the most fragile parliament Canada has ever had and the only thing that will hold it together will be public distaste over the prospect of a second election in 2006. I can't see the Conservatives risking a potentially hugely humiliating defeat on SSM right off the bat (not necessarily a collapse of the govt, but a loss in political prestige). However, I'm in favour of anything that involves Stephen Harper dressing up in that cowboy outfit.

― NoTimeBeforeTime (Barry Bruner), Wednesday, 25 January 2006 21:58 (twenty years ago)

A recent poll in the Globe said 55% percent didn't want the Conservatives shouldn't mess with SSM, but here's a poll from before the legislation went through:

On 2004-JAN-15, Ipsos-Reid conducted a poll of 1,055 randomly selected adult Canadians for the Globe and Mail newspaper and the CTV television network. The margin of error is 3.1%. The national results were:

48% said that Paul Martin should not amend Canada's marriage laws to include same-sex marriages.

47% said that he should

5% had no opinion.

Support for SSM was:

58% in Quebec

50% in British Columbia

49% of urban dwellers

41% of rural dwellers

51% of women

43% of men

32% of those with some high school or less

42% of those who completed high school

48% of college graduates or some post-graduate education

56% with at least a bachelor's degree

42% among those earning less than $30,000 annually

45% among those earning $30 up to 60 thousand

54% among those earning over $60,000

60% of those aged 18 to 34

48% of those aged 35 to 54

33% of those aged 55 and above. 7

― everything, Wednesday, 25 January 2006 22:41 (twenty years ago)

99 out of 100 people can quote statistics with a 1% variance 19 out of 20 times.

― Rufus 3000 (Mr Noodles), Thursday, 26 January 2006 01:18 (twenty years ago)

In terms of the popular vote only 65% of Albertans voted Conservative in spite of the fact they swept the entire province. The NDP outperformed the Bloc nationally, but got less seats. I'm not sure that I believe in proportional representation because I could see it limiting the government's ability to get things done, but the issue should at least be explored. It would also loosen the Liberals' grip on major urban centres and provide some measure of hope to western progressives. Plus, according to the numbers, the Greens deserve to have at least a couple seats in parliament.

― J-rock (Julien Sandiford), Thursday, 26 January 2006 02:17 (twenty years ago)

Wait, MAYOR of MEXICO?

the mayor of mexico city, whatsisname...(quick g00gle)...Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, is the presumptive frontrunner for this year's mexican presidential election. the ruling party tried to block his candidacy by charging him with some apparently trumped-up thing, but it didn't work. anyway, he's a socialist and he's freaking out all the same people freaked out by morales, chavez, etc.

― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Thursday, 26 January 2006 02:22 (twenty years ago)

As an American who doesn't know much about Canadian politics (or Canada outside of Montreal, which I have visited many times for work and to visit friends), I'm confused about the Conservative Party's gains at the expense of the Bloc in Quebec. Are there really voters moving from the Bloc to the Conservatives, or it just a higher proportion of voters (who may be new residents of Quebec or hadn't voted before) voting Conservative? Or did traditional Bloc voters stay home? Or is there some political reason I'm missing? It seems odd that a separatist would vote for a federalist candidate.

― Nemo (JND), Thursday, 26 January 2006 02:29 (twenty years ago)

Not all Quebecers support the notion of a sovereign Quebec! It shows that there are a lot of voters there who are fed up with the Liberals but don't favour the pro-separatist policies of the Bloc.

As for why these ex-Liberal voters don't vote NDP instead, the provincial NDP is pro-sovereign and the federal NDP isn't, so those two branches of the party have nothing to do with one another. Many people who share values with the federal NDP can be expected to vote for the Bloc instead.

― NoTimeBeforeTime (Barry Bruner), Thursday, 26 January 2006 03:01 (twenty years ago)

I know not all Quebecers support sovereignty, but I thought the Bloc was pro-sovereignty? The Bloc is the federal Parti Quebecois, isn't it?

― Nemo (JND), Thursday, 26 January 2006 03:05 (twenty years ago)

You said it seemed odd that a separatist would vote for a federalist candidate. Well, they're not, they're most likely voting for the Bloc.

― NoTimeBeforeTime (Barry Bruner), Thursday, 26 January 2006 03:09 (twenty years ago)

Yes, I was asking, in a too convoluted way, what accounts for the rise of Conservative votes at the expense of Bloc votes in Quebec, but I think you answered it: the Bloc voters weren't switching, it was former Liberal voters (or new voters, possibly). I was just surprised, from what I know of Montreal and the people I've met there, that the Conservative Party gained there at all. But what do I know, I'm a tourist there.

― Nemo (JND), Thursday, 26 January 2006 03:16 (twenty years ago)

Yeah, the Liberals are strong in Montreal.

― NoTimeBeforeTime (Barry Bruner), Thursday, 26 January 2006 03:24 (twenty years ago)

And Montreal is not necessarily representative of Quebec as a whole, I'm sure.

― Nemo (JND), Thursday, 26 January 2006 03:25 (twenty years ago)

How conservative is Harper, really, compared to American conservatives? I get the feeling that conservatives in Canada would be to the left of Hillary Clinton if they ran here.

― Nemo (JND), Thursday, 26 January 2006 03:29 (twenty years ago)

The fact of the matter is that it is difficult to say exactly how conservative Harper really is given that he really hasn't down anything yet. We'll see over the next few months just how batshit he really is.

― Simon H. (Simon H.), Thursday, 26 January 2006 04:14 (twenty years ago)

Yes and no -- we know what he stands for because we know his party's platform. As for what he'll be able to push through out of that platform, you're right, we'll have to wait and see. Starting with who he appoints to his cabinet.

Harper is definitely to the right of American Democrats (well, most of them I guess), but the old Progressive Conservative party that governed during the 80's was probably more liberal than many Dems in 2006.

― NoTimeBeforeTime (Barry Bruner), Thursday, 26 January 2006 04:28 (twenty years ago)

Stephen Colbert took credit for this tonight: "I fixed Canada!"

― gypsy mothra (gypsy mothra), Thursday, 26 January 2006 04:45 (twenty years ago)

You must be logged in to post. Please either login here, or if you are not registered, you may register here.