Has anyone else been watching the election campaign in Canada? Things are starting to look pretty alarming up there. The Liberal Party is in a free-fall while the right is resurgent. And this new Conservative Party isn't the Progressive Conservative Party of old--the purported "merger" between the Alliance & the PC seems more of a devouring--& they seem dedicated to the wholesale importation of U.S.-style hard right ideology, complete with the politics of culture war. Of course, that evangelical/fundamentalist social conservatism that is such a potent force in America doesn't seem to sell with the Canadian electorate, thus Stephen Harper is playing it down while hoping that the members of his caucus can keep their traps shut long enough that his party can slide into power. But despite his equivocation of such things as curbing abortion, bringing back capital punishment, etc., the one social issue on which he has articulated a position is . . . gay marriage. In short, he'll outlaw it, or, as he states it, draft a federal law on marriage that would overrule Ontario, Quebec & B.C., those provinces where it is already allowed. He appears willing to invoke the Notwithstanding clause to overrule the courts on the issue in order to deny equality to gays & lesbians.

I'd love to hear from some of our Canadian posters who might be more knowledgeable on this. Is the fate of same-sex marriage tied to the fate of the Liberal Party? Are Liberal MPs, especially those who voted against same-sex marriage in defiance of the Liberal cabinet, feeling the heat from constituents? Is there more of a backlash against same-sex marriage than we know? Is there any real chance that Stephen Harper could become PM? It seems like this is one of the most unpredictable elections ever for Canada.


[Thread title modified for clarity. - Outsports moderator]

[ June 26, 2004, 02:59 PM: Message edited by: m1 ]

Billy:

I'm a Canadian (chew on that PF) and here is my opinion. I also value Canmarks opinion highly, so I hope he'll respond to this as well.

First, it is starting to look like a Conservative minority gov't. But it could also be a Conservative majority gov't. God forbid either will happen, and there are some factors starting to work against them.

First. Tax Cuts

Harper has promised 50 BILLION (600 billion in US equivilant) in tax cuts over 5 years. He has also promised to increase defense spending, fully fund health care, increase transfer payment to provinces, and pay down the deficit. Total cost over 5 years? 90 Billion. That's over 1 TRILLION dollars in the US economic equivilent.

Canadians are not stupid. Most are looking at this and thinking "yeah right. You know you can't deliver". Most will expect him to fund health care, and back off tax cuts. If he gives the tax cuts, and can't fund health care 100% without running a deficit, he will be hated.

He would also run the risk of riots. I'm serious here. If ANY government tried to tinker with Universal health care, it would get real ugly, real fast. It is a cornerstone of what defines us as Canadian, something we are ALL deeply proud of. I know very few Canadians who beleive that ANY health care provider (hospital or clinic) should be operated at a profit. By Canadian law, all must be non-profit institutions.


Second His shadow ministers have gotten him in deep shit recently. The latest one, Gallant, has said that the hate crimes laws protecting gays should be repealed. Add that to the minister who said official bilingualism should be cancelled, and the one who said that a woman's right to abortion should be "modified" to allow for mandatory counselling, and it is painting a picture of real western Bubba politics.

Martins problem is that he has inherited the Chretien legacy. That legacy is the former PM's arrogance.

Third. Gay rights

Harper has said that he will withdraw the question from the Supreme Court, and allow a free vote in the House of Commons.

This is a double edged sword. First, if he has a free vote, using the "notwithstanding" clause to define marriage as a man and a woman only, he stands a risk of it being defeated. Even the liberals who are against gay marriage, and some of the conservatives, (former progressive conservatives), as well as the Bloc Quebecois, and the NDP (New Democratic Party) would vote against using the clause to over ride the charter of rights.

Canadians are deeply proud of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We only got it in 1983, and most Canadians do not beleive it should be tinkered with at all. To cheapen it would drive a lot of moderates away from them. And most Canadians would not look on ANY gov't that changed the charter of rights. They also look on the Supreme Court as a counter balance to the House of COmmons.

If he passes a regular law, it will be challenged to the Supreme Court, where gay marriage will once again be defined. He would then have to use the notwithstanding clause in another bill, which would not work.

Even if a law passes, with the notwithstanding clause used, it is only good for 5 years. He will be hated by then.
Either way, marriage in Canada will happen.

And even Harper is in agreement with "civil unions" giving ALL the benefits of marriage. Whether the Bubba's from Alberta in his caucus will agree with him is another thing.

Conservatives in Canada = Democrats in America

Maybe the Southern Wing of the Democrats will fall in that category... not all. Hell Nancy Pelosi is so far left she could make Jack Layton look like Preston Manning. eek!

Rhetorical question, would an 8 month Harper government (a la Joe Clark 1980) be that horrible to endure? Harper's party unity could self destruct in that time leaving it wide open for Martin (or another Liberal leader) to come in as the hero on the white horse.

Hmm.. 90 billion of new spending...50 billion in tax cuts....man, you sure George W Bush isnt running for the PM of Canada?!

Very good questions, Billy Bones, but I will try to limit myself to one in particular that you have raised:

Unfortunately yes, based on the latest polls. Even in vote-rich Ontario, which has elected massive numbers of Liberal MPs in the last three elections, the allegedly 'moderate' new Conservative party and the Liberal party are in a virtual dead heat, which means that Harper will likely pick up lots of seats there, essential for him if he expects to form a government. Like other Canadians, voters in Ontario are angry over the Liberal 'sponsorship scandal', but there is an added twist. Voters in Ontario are upset with their provincial Liberal government which recently introduced big tax increases, contrary to what they had been promised. Whether logical or not, Ontarians are using that as an additional reason to punish the federal
Liberals.

In Quebec, the (pro-sovereignty) Bloc Quebecois is expected to make significant gains over the Liberals. It is highly unlikely that the Conservatives will take any seats there, but Martin's Liberals are urging BQ supporters to consider strategically voting for his party because fewer Liberal MPs in Quebec means a better chance for the Conservatives to form the government.

In my own province of Alberta, it's a foregone conclusion that the Conservatives will once again take almost every seat (groan). I happen to live in one of the few constituencies which went against that trend last time by electing Joe Clark (former Prime Minister and leader of the old Progressive Conservative party). Clark has had his share of criticism in the past, but he's a decent man and very supportive of gay rights, in fact the large 'gay vote' here in Calgary Centre helped elect him. To his credit, Clark always opposed the merger of his party with the Reform/Alliance. He has now retired from politics, after refusing to join the new Conservatives, citing their extreme positions on social issues, which Harper is desperately trying to portray as moderate. The other western provinces will very likely also elect many Conservatives, although not quite to the same degree as Alberta.

I called Stephen Harper's office yesterday to express concern about Conservative MP Cheryl Gallant(previously mentioned by LkSimcoe) in Ontario who has compared abortion to the beheading of Nick Berg in Iraq and who has questioned the inclusion of gays in hate-crimes legislation, saying that it will 'protect pedophiles'). I received a call back from someone who said that the comments were those of an individual member, and were 'not representative of party policy.' And yet in the newspapers today, Harper himself said that his party may re-examine the law 'in order to protect religious freedom' and to 'clarify the definition of sexual orientation'. I guess some idiots in his party still think that 'pedophilia' is a type of orientation.

Despite this, I'll concede that Harper comes across as a bit more credible and moderate than his predecessor Stockwell Day, and that may be enough to get his party elected as a minority government, given the anger across Canada to the sponsorship scandal (for which former PM Jean Chretien deserves just as much blame as Paul Martin is getting). A Conservative minority government would be forced to seek support from one or more other parties (NDP, BQ or even the Liberals) which would be much harder for them, given their ideology, than it would be for the Liberals to do in a minority situation. Thus BPT336's scenario of a Conservative government self-destructing in less than a year is quite plausible, paving the way for another election and a probable Liberal majority.

[ June 09, 2004, 12:22 AM: Message edited by: Marc ]

I agree with everything that you said, but a new wrinkle as of this morning.

Harper has said that he supports limiting the power of the Supreme Court over Charter or Rights issues. This means that the government in power, can pass any "Charter of Rights" legislation they want, and the Supreme Court couldn't do anything about it. For example. They could declare the 5 year maximum between elections unconstitutional, and stay in power as long as they want.

Or what they would PROBABLY do, is rremove all protections for the GLBT community from ALL legislation, and the Supreme Court could not go against it.

And it is very plausible. Harper is a fundamentalist evangelical Christian minister. He said many years ago, that the GLBT community should have NO rights.

And this man might be our Prime Minister.

THAT, is truly scary, and means that if it happened, Canada would become a Conservative dictatorship.

Posted by Lk Simcoe:

Sorry LkSimcoe, but it sounds to me that you must be thinking of the former Alliance leader, Stockwell Day (who is still an MP, unfortunately). Although Harper is a member of an evangelical church, I don't think he was ever a pastor. Also, I don't think he has ever stated a view quite that extreme.

Day on the other hand, is both a strident fundamentalist and well-known for his homophobic views. He was a Member of the Alberta Legislature and held several cabinet positions under Ralph Klein. I will never forget how, in the 1990s, Day was the most outspoken opponent of the Alberta Human Rights Commision's efforts to include sexual orientation in the provincial legislation (to provide protection from discrimination in areas such as housing and employment). It was only after a long battle that went all the way to the Supreme Court in 1998 that Alberta became one of the last provinces to provide this basic protection. Even then, Day and some of his fellow Tories wanted to use the 'notwithstanding' clause to exempt Alberta from the Supreme Court's decision, but in one of the few intelligent things Klein has done during his 11-year rule in this province, Alberta accepted the court's ruling and changed the legislation.

I'll take you at your word as you're from Alberta, but I'll do some research. I beleive in his VERY early days in parliament, he did advocate getting rid of the Charter of Rights. A lot of Reform did, and it was even brought up at their party convention a few times in the '90's as a possible addition to their platform.
Mannin, wisely, stopped it, but I don't beleive Harper ever did.

And as for Doris Day, he's a joke.

Agreed! Which is why he was dumped as the Alliance party leader. And which is also why I think Harper, much as I dislike him and his party, has tried to come across more moderate and as a result has been somewhat more successful than Day (although we won't know for sure until June 28). If he was a clone of Doris, I doubt if he would be getting much support at all in Ontario or even out here in the west.

Stuff from today's press:

"Stephen Harper is using old political tricks to distract from the Conservative Party's new policies, The Gazette's Mike De Souza reports from Quebec City. As Harper held an unexpected news conference at the Chateau Frontenac on Monday, party officials got a crowd of 30 people (apparently the entire local membership) to break into not-so-spontaneous applause. Whenever reporters tried to follow up ambiguous answers with tough questions, they would be cut off by a 10-to-15-second ovation for Harper. The interruptions helped kill time, allowing the testy leader's handlers to cut off questions before things got ugly. Reporters were zeroing in on plans to repeal or strike down changes to anti-hate law, which now includes sexual orientation."

And, coincidently, this:

"The Conservatives got a boost with the defection of maverick Liberal Senator Anne Cools to the Tories. Cools says she has become disillusioned with Prime Minister Paul Martin... "The Liberal caucus has no room for debate, diversity or difference of opinion."

Yeah, that's right. She's looking for "debate, diversity and difference of opinion." So she's joining the Tory/Reform Con-jobbers. Bwahahaha! Politicians are just plain wacky.

Questions about gays continue to hound Stephen Harper and the Conservatives:

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...s_name=&no_ads=

Playing on the social conservative aspect is the only way the Liberals have found to turn their campaign around. Maybe they'll win by default.

The media focus on some Conservatives statements while some Liberals MPs share the opposition to same sex marriages.

From the Ottawa Sun:

"Dozens of Liberals, however, hold views very similar to the Conservative candidates who were pilloried this week in an effort to scare voters away from Stephen Harper.

Last September during a Commons debate on same-sex marriage, Scarborough East's McKay complained that the institution of marriage was being treated like a contract for goods and services.

"By dumbing down marriage to two persons with a pulse having sex, we have destroyed the conventional and replaced it with the contractual."

London MP Pat O'Brien, a devout Catholic, said he wasn't going to check his conscience at the door of the House of Commons.

To redefine marriage to include same-sex relationships, he said, "would be illogical and, in the minds of millions of Canadians, immoral."

The Liberal MP also took issue with supporters of same-sex marriage who called it an issue of human rights. O'Brien said the argument was "bogus."

Brampton Grit MP Sarkis Assadourian agreed, saying, "... there is no jurisdiction in the world that defines marriage of same-sex couples as a human rights issue."

"Tomorrow it will be marriage of three, four and five people together, because society evolves that way," warned Quebec Grit MP Clifford Lincoln during a Commons debate.

He dismissed the contention that it is just part of an evolution, suggesting the next step could very well be a man marrying more than one wife.

Sun Media's calls to several social conservative Liberal MPs to see if they were upset at their party's attacks on Conservatives who hold such views were not returned."

I have a more general question for my Canadian brethren back home. Seph may be best positioned to hazard a guess.

From what I've seen of the poll results, unless the Libs can manage to get a fair chunk of Quebec, a plausible scenario is that the Conservatives get the largest number of seats, but not enough to form a majority. That would leave the Bloc with the balance of power. Would the Bloc form a coalition with Martin's Libs in order to prevent the conservatives from forming the government? If so, what deals would they cut to agree to that? Alternatively, what would Harper need to offer the Bloc to keep them from bringing down his government? Any thoughts?

JC

When this election started, it appeared that in Quebec, the issue was how many seats were the Bloc going to lose. With an incredible amount of anger, plus VERY VERY savvy marketing by the Bloc, it looks like the Bloc Quebecois will take the majority of the seats in QUebec. Duceppe has made it publically clear that even though they are a separatist party, this election is is NOT about sovereignty, but what Quebec can get.

This plays very well in Quebec. Not only are the sovereigntists voting Bloc, but nationalists. It's purely a "how much can we get from Ottawa" vote.

Even if t he Bloc holds the balance of power, it will do 1 of 2 things. First, an Alliance with the Bloc will play VERY poorly in Western Canada, the conservatives power base. Secondly, Harper will have to give in on almost all of his major policies to stay in power.

The Bloc has made it clear that in order for them to support the Conservatives, Kyoto cannot be withdrawn. Health care funding MUST be increased. Quebec must have total control over it's immigration. Bilingualism must be retained and expanded. The Bloc supports Same Sex marriage, and has made it clear. Also, the Conservatives wish to reduce the power of the supreme court on charter rulings, something else that the Bloc is against.

Any of those would piss off the western conservatives. Harper will need to walk on eggshells.

This is an anger vote, and I think Martin is toast. If he loses big, he will resign, and we will have a new liberal leader. And that would be the perfect time for Harper to call another general election, when the Liberals are leaderless. They would then come back with a majority, and we would be totally f**kED.

Seeing that Quebec is one of the three provinces that officially have it, I'd hope so.

I am finding this discussion terribly interesting. (Yeah, I'm a geek! ) Just starting to sound like "ya'll" up there are going to have your own version of Florida-2000. Who will end up with the most seats, Martin or Harper? The margin will probably end up very small by the end of the campaign.

Here are some things I do not exactly understand about the race. What is a "Red Tory"? I am assuming here that they are the economically liberal, socially conservative wing of Harper's party... or is that reverse? What are the Progressive Conservative party members who did not want the merger doing in this race? Are they sitting out, or are they voting Liberal/NDP/PQ? Could Martin tap into their disenfranchisement?

As far as coalition building, would the “Grand Coalition of the Left” of Liberal/NDP/PQ work for a year or two? This would be similar to Sweden where the non-socialist political parties combined sometimes create a majority coalition. The three parties have a lot of common ground on policy matters, and Layton and Duceppe could offset each other’s regional pressures. Canadians may be seeing a political realignment taking place like in 1993 where you have only one party (this time the Conservatives) that will ever have a chance to form a majority government as they are represented in all regions.

Really, I think your next government will have to play "pork barrel" politics to accomplish anything, but by then, the anger against the Liberals may have subsided allowing them to regain a majority.

Ah, the Red Tories...a brief history lesson: The red tories were the left wing of the old Progressive Conservative party, which reached its apex of power under Joe Clark's brief government in '79-80. They were fiscally conservative in the sense that they were determined to reduce/eliminate the deficit, but they lost the 1980 election in large part due to the proposed tax hikes in their budget, so they were definitely not like American Republicans. They are also fairly progressive on social issues--really you can probably think of them as Clinton democrats. The Progressive Conservative party basically fell apart in the early 90's, between the rise of the ultra-conservative Reform Party (later called the Alliance), and the Bloc Quebecois. The PC's labored on as a minor party until recently merging with the more powerful Alliance party to form the "new" Conservative party, which has appropriately dropped the "progressive" part of the name. This is a very different party, anti-abortion, anti-gay marriage, pro-tax reduction, similar to the Republicans. A number of the so-called Red Tories fought the merger (Joe Clark prominent among them), some of whom will now run as independents, while others have formed the "Progressive Canadian Party" reclaiming the progressive part of the old PC name. At least, I assume that the Progressive Canadian party is staffed by former "red" tories--not having lived in Canada in 12 years, I'm not that familiar with their members.

BPT, it continues to look like we will end up with a minority government, probably Conservative. The required number of seats to form a majority is 155, but neither Harper nor Martin is likely to achieve that magic number. You were asking about 'red Tories'...just to follow-up on JC's comments, another example of a 'Red Tory' from the former Progressive Conservative party is Scott Brison, who along with Joe Clark, (to both men's credit) refused to embrace the new further-right Alliance-dominated Conservative Party. Brison is openly gay, and that was a factor in his decision not to join the new party, citing that he would not feel comfortable in such a socially-conservative party. In fact, Brison is now running as a Liberal candidate in the Nova Scotia riding which he had represented as a Progressive Conservative, and indications are that he will be re-elected. Also, Joe Clark himself has publicly endorsed Brison's campaign. Clark, as I mentioned in my first post on this thread, was my MP but has now retired from politics.

By the way, as Zeno alluded to earlier, some of the other parties have their share of 'social conservatives' too. The Liberal Party is by no means uniformly 'liberal' on social issues such as abortion and same-sex marriage. Even the left-leaning NDP has at least one candidate who said she would abstain from voting on the same-sex marriage issue because it is not consistent with her Muslim faith (that candidate happens to be the wife of Mehrer Arar, who made headlines last year, but that's a whole other story!) And on the other hand, there is at least one Conservative candidate who supports same-sex marriage...Belinda Stronach, who in fact ran for the leadership of the new party but lost to Stephen Harper.

I'm not sure about this 'Progressive Canadian' party, JC. It certainly isn't getting any media attention up here, and I don't know where they are running candidates. Surprisingly the Green Party is fielding candidates in all 308 ridings this time, and have an outside chance of winning a seat in British Columbia. The Green Party is understandably upset about being excluded from the national leaders debate tonight (English) and last night (French).

BPT, I've suspected for awhile that you're really a Canadian masquerading as an American, partly due to your interest in the political scene here and because your favourite hockey team is the Canucks (what could sound more Canadian...well there's that team in Montreal too, I suppose). But your use of "y'all" is a dead give-away to your American heritage....nobody talks like that up here! (but it is rather charming)

[ June 16, 2004, 12:14 AM: Message edited by: Marc ]

JC, Marc -- Thanks for the history lesson. I thought they were more the Rockefeller Republican type.... oops!

Cough, cough! splutter! eek! Please, I am only Canadian when it is used as slang for gay! Not to throw the thread off topic but I admit I root for a hockey team from Canada, I did make love Canadian style once, and I enjoy a good Molson that doesn't have only 5% alcohol content per volume ... but I also refuse to add that damn "u" to anything like "favourite, can't speak a lick of French outside of: "Voulez-vous coucher avec moi ce soir, si vous-plait?" and "Frappez-moi comme un gong bon marché". eek! So does that make me a bad person to ya'll?

Oh and I'm only using ya'll so I don't get confused with being a "Yank" I root for the Mets and any team playing the Yankees...

The Vancouver Canuks?

That only makes him a Canadian wannabee.

How about

Edmonton
Calgary
Ottawa
Montreal, or the team that IS Canada

THE TORONTO MAPLE LEAFS <sound of crowd cheering>

I watched the debates last night, and I have to say that I thought it was a draw. Martin could have done better, but if Layton would have SHUT THE f**k UP, and let other people talk.

Harper came across as a used car salesman.

Where I thought Martin made the most points was the national child care strategy. SSM might help, but all in all, it was a waste of 2 hours of my time.

Martin is toast. Minority Conservative gov't, possible majority, gay rights will go back 10 years.

I weonder if I can move to England

I would beat you with a stick, but you would enjoy that WAY too much. Instead, I'll now be cruel and inhuman and wish for a Harper majority. eek! eek! eek!

Beating me with a stick I would not enjoy. But if you tie me up and spank me, WELL that's another story.

Oh, and scuttlebut on the hill is that the Ottawa GLBT community (a friend who lives there sent me an email this morning) is SO pissed off at Harper and the lies he told last night, that a prominent anti-gay conservative is gonna be outed.

And apparently, his proclivities have a lot of letters after them. I'm still begging for a name, or at least a riding.

Hope it's true.

The one legitimate use of outing, in my opinion, is to expose and discredit anti-gay hypocrites ... so I also hope this is true.

I'm not sure who to vote for on the 28th or if I will at all. :confused: I belong to the liberal party, but I certainately will not be voting for the local candidate. He's a former mayor of the city, who is useless. He's also against same-sex marriage, which is especially weird given the rumours about him being gay.

None of the other candidates in my area impress me. I was thinking of voting conservative to him them defeat the liberal my area, but that might help harper become PM. The last thing I want is electng the George Bush of Canada.
I do hope Paul Martin continues to be PM because overall the liberals have made the right choices for the country since '93.

Not even in Southern Canada?

So when is the election in Canada, anyway?

No, not even in the 'Deep' South (Windsor, Ont) Joe! wink Our election is on June 28. By the way, there has been some talk of having fixed election dates every four years (as opposed to 'fixed elections' ) like you have in the United States, but I can't see it changing any time soon; it certainly wouldn't be practical in a minority government situation.

It will be interesting to see what happens when the next set of published public opinion polls come out - likely over the weekend. Just before the Monday and Tuesday night debates most polls had the Conservatives up by 2 points in the 34% - 32% range, but according to a friend of mine some Liberal internal tracking polls over the last 48 hours, since the debates, show the Liberal slide seems to have stopped and in fact they have climbed back up 3 points to 35, and the Conservatives have dropped 2 to 33. Let's hope this trend is real and continues for the next 10 days to the election.

[ June 17, 2004, 04:03 PM: Message edited by: Travelpat ]

In another thread, Cattledog posted

Marc, I wish you would start a thread to educate us about the Canadian election. Yesterday's Toronto Globe and Mail said it was going to be very close.


Marc replied

Cattledog, if you check P & R: 'Same sex marriage...things fall apart' [Thread title changed - Moderator], there has been a fair amount of discussion about the Canadian election, including some posts from yours truly. There have been no posts since June 17, and knowing how quickly threads get buried in P & R, it may take awhile to find it.

There are certainly other issues besides same-sex marriage, although that one keeps popping up whenever a Conservative MP puts his foot in his/her mouth (as happened again yesterday) and Stephen Harper has to hastily do damage control. In fact, this latest gaffe by the 'new' Conservatives might just be enough to tip the scales back in favour of Paul Martin's scandal-plagued Liberals. I doubt if the election is getting much attention in the US media, but stay tuned, it's gonna be a cliffhanger, and either way will likely be a minority government.


Adam replied

The LA Times has offered some excellent coverage of the upcoming Canada election, alluding to the scandals in the Liberal Party but not going in depth. It's made for good reading. (I also pick up Macleans on occasion...)

[ June 26, 2004, 03:16 PM: Message edited by: m1 ]

posted June 26, 2004 11:07 AM
--------------------------------------------------
(moved from another thread)
An 'open letter' from Ralph Nader to Canadian voters has been published in some newspapers here, just days before our election. Just as some American voters are concerned about Nader becoming a spoiler for the Democrats, some Liberals here are saying that Nader's urging voters to support the left-leaning NDP could in effect help the Conservatives. Personally, I doubt it will be a big factor. I'm thinking now that the Liberals might squeak out a victory (although with a minority of seats) thanks to the self-destructing 'new, moderate' Conservatives once again spouting their right-wing venom on certain social issues.

http://www.cbc.ca/stories/2004/06/24/canad...er_letter040624

[ June 27, 2004, 11:28 AM: Message edited by: Marc ]

Canadians will listen to Nader about voting for the NDP as much as they will listen to Michael Moore telling them to vote Liberal (which he did last week).

My HUSBAND and I will both be voting tonight, and will vote liberal.

I do not like them this time around. Our Liberal MP has retired, and the seat is one of those in the "905" belt around Toronto that will go conservative.

I stressed the word husband, because after 24 years, his lordship finally made an honest man of me. And it's legal, binding, and for-f**king-ever.

And if the facists in the Conservative party think they'll take it away from me?

Out of my COLD DEAD HANDS.

And to celebrate getting married, I bought myself a big-ass SUV.

Whichever way ya'll are voting (had to put that in for you Marc ) just be sure to do one thing:

Vote early, vote often, just vote dammit!

Well from some of the early returns i'm looking at (God bless the CBC) it looks like the Liberals have picked up a couple of seats in the Maritimes. Maybe the old Progressives are voting Liberal after all?

I am watching CBC via C-Span and the Liberals win, but with a minority government though. I think you can rest somewhat easier, right Marc? wink

Yeah I just threw C-SPAN on and It's looking like Martin will not need the Bloc for support and will be able to govern with just some NDP support. Libs are going to be around 140 which is a shock given the polls saying so close. Hmmmm... sounds like what we had in 2000 eh??

Zeno, I can't find my predictions, but how close did I come to calling it? I know my Liberal/Bloc split was a bit off, but not by too much. Did I beat Gerbil on this??

Now one hopes that the U.S. voters will be just as enlightened as our neighbours to the north.

Well said, Puckman....we can only hope that the majority of Americans express similar wisdom and compassion when they go to the polls in four months -- and my confidence is growing with each passing week that will indeed become a reality on November 2nd.

~Joe

Canada is once again safe to emigrate to!

Whoo Hoo!!!!

During Sunday's Pride Parade in Toronto, I was pleased to see a large group (AIDS Action Now, was it?) passing out signs reminding people to get out and vote. They didn't tell you who to vote for, they just said get out and vote.

There was a small group of Conservatives in the parade (who were booed). Then came a massive group of NDP's. I overheard some people around me suggesting that voting for the NDP was equivalent to a vote for the Conservatives. (I have to disagree with these "strategic voters." I think it's important to vote for the individual or party you want. As it happened, the NDP greatly improved their standing in seats and total votes in the election.) There was a large group of Liberals, who received the most cheers.

I also like to think that Michael Moore's Farenheit 9/11 might have encouraged young people in particular to turn out and vote against Steven Harper's Conservative party, as he seems to want to American-ize Canada (in the bad ways, not the good).

The final results show Canada to be very regionalized politically.

B.C.: 22 Conserv., 8 Lib., 1 NDP, 1 Other
Alta: 26 Conserv., 2 Lib.
Sask: 13 Conserv., 1 Lib.
Man: 7 Conserv., 4 NDP, 3 Lib.
Ont: 75 Lib., 24 Conserv., 7 NDP
Que: 54 Bloc Que., 21 Lib.
N.B.: 7 Lib., 2 Conserv., 1 NDP
N.S.: 6 Lib., 3 Conserv., 2 NDP
P.E.I: 4 Lib.
Nfld: 5 Lib., 4 Conserv.
Yuk: 1 Lib.
NWT: 1 Lib.
Nun: 1 Lib.

Party: # of seats, popular vote
Liberal: 135, 37%
Conservative: 99, 30%
Bloc Quebecois: 54, 12%
New Democratic Party: 19, 16%
Other: 1, 4%

[ June 29, 2004, 07:58 PM: Message edited by: canmark ]

Canmark, thank you for the political breakdown of each Province. Made for some interesting comparisons.

I can't declare you the winner. The prediction I got from you was 147 Lib - 98 Cons. I can't find your numbers for the other parties (you left 63 seats from the total to others). So it's difficult to compare the other numbers. But you got the Conservative total almost exactly. For that you are the winner. Unless things change after recounts, the total today is 135 Lib; 99 Cons; 54 Bloc; 19 NDP.

Gerbil predicted 150, 87, 49, 22. (the predictions were made at the start of the campaign).

"Better to go with the devil you know than the devil you don't know." That seems to sum up the better than expected showing for the Liberals. Many Canadians (myself included) were angry over the Liberals' scandals, but were also justifiably wary of voting for the Conservatives. Stephen Harper's attempt to portray a 'kinder, gentler' party backfired when he ran out of duct tape to seal the mouths of several Conservative candidates who exposed their intolerant views. Already, Harper who has led the 'new' party for just a few months, is contemplating resignation due to the party's failure to make more significant gains in eastern Canada.

However, the Liberals have their work cut out for them when our Pizza Parliament resumes, because the combined Liberal-NDP seat totals still falls short of a majority. I expect we will see another election within 18 months.

You guys get all the fun! wink

And I finally beat the Gerbil! :cool:

Just as a postscript to the election, the voter turnout was the lowest ever in Canadian history, at just over 60 percent, or 13.5 million votes cast out of 22.3 million eligible voters. In fact, the voter turnout has been steadily declining over the past four elections (in 1988, it was 76 percent).

Although 60% is nothing to boast about when compared to voter turnout in some European countries and in Australia (where, I might add, voting is compulsory), that figure is higher than in the United States. I was rather surprised to see that the voter turnout for federal elections in the US has been mired in the 50-55% range since 1972.

I thought this thread was officially dead now that the election has been over for more than two weeks, but here's a story worth checking out. I'm sure Michael Moore isn't losing any sleep over it, but there is a possibility he could be charged with interference under the Canada Elections Act. And yet when Ralph Nader did the same thing, there was no outcry.

http://www.canoe.ca/NewsStand/LondonFreePr.../15/543117.html

BTW, what's up with this new colour/font scheme for the Politics & Religion thread?

[ July 15, 2004, 10:15 PM: Message edited by: Marc ]

I saw something about that earlier

nice to know that the US doesn't have a monopoly on right wing nuts