Centerfield

This strikes me more as a protest vote than anything else. The Canadian public seems to remain largely liberal; this vote is more a reaction to the scandals of the Liberal Party. I doubt Canada is going to undergo an ideological conversion anytime soon, so this may be a very temporary victory. Or it might be something like the US used to be until 1980, where moderate Republicans (Eisnehower, Nixon)were able to win the White House even thought the Democrats controlled Congress. Policy really didn't change too much under the Republicans.

BTW,

I seem to have lost my posting privileges. I am locked out of Moveable Type. I tried to e-mail Centristcoalition.com but my Outlook Express did not recognize the address. Can whoever is running the site please help? Pat, sorry to hijack your thread.

Marc, e-mail Rick for help with that.

(steering back onto the track)

I don't pretend to know enough about Canadian politics to know if there is anything more to this than scandal backlash. Ideological shifts take a long time to happen. Look at how long it was between Goldwater's loss and Reagan's win. Even if it didn't start out as a shift, if the Conservatives are able to accomplish some good and popular things, that could start one.

Pat,

Actually, I think it's a little more complicated than that. I don't think Stephen Harper is looking at a coalition government whatsoever. Unlike some European Parliamentarian systems, Canada's Parliament doesn't necessarily require an operational majority to govern on a day-to-day basis-- the "government is the government unless it is defeated or resigns," as Lloyd Robertson might say. The way it works is that the leading party (in this case, the Conservatives) automatically get the day-to-day control of the government (read: the Cabinet), but have to "find" another 30+ votes in order to pass any legislation. Failure to pass any single piece of legislation means that legislation falls, but the government stands -- unless it is a budgetary vote (or a no confidence motion), in which case the Governor General (the de facto head of state) can either call a new election or ask the second-leading party (in this case, the Liberals) to try and form a government.

Now I suspect Harper is going to try and go it alone while building ad hoc bridges to the 29-seat NDP on some issues (such as improving transparency and accountability in the government) and the 51-seat Bloc Quebecois on others (such as restoring provincial rights and powers). I even suspect that some legislation might pass with Liberal backing, but don't quote me on that one.

But if he does build a coalition government, it almost certainly won't be with the NDP with whom he still can't even get the 155-votes he would need. It's far more likely that he will do so with the Bloc, whose politics are left-of-center, but whose real interest lie in restoring the provincial rights and powers that are believed to have been absorbed by the federals in recent years. Ironically, this position corresponds rather closely with the Western (Alberta and Sasketchewan provinces) base of the Conservatives, albeit for somewhat different reasons -- the Bloc wants greater autonomy to preserve the French identity of their constituency, while the Conservatives want greater autonomy for the Western provinces whose resources and revenues are believed to be the lifeline of the Canadian government. I'm not so sure if this "New Federalist" alliance can work out, though, which is why I'm pretty sure Harper is going to eschew the coalition approach for the issue-by-issue method.

But that remains to be seen.

Thanks for the insight, Bobby. My initial take was based on a variety of nuances in the articles and blogs I read, which included quotes from a Conservative MP to the effect that the country wanted to take them for a test drive before handing over the keys.

Yeah, that's the thing about a minority government-- because they require bipartisan consensus in order to pass any legislation, including the budget, they're highly volatile and generally short-lived. My guess is that Harper is going to use this period not to pass any of the conservative legislation that American conservatives so desperately want to see him do, but rather to demonstrate to "middle Canada" that his Conservative Party is a mainstream political movement dedicated to the best interests of the Canadian people. I think he will focus on consensus-building legislation, try and build bridges to the other parties on specific acts that is popular with the Canadian people, and then call for an election when he's demonstrated his party's reliability (likely in about two to three years).

But I'm not the Canadian in my relationship, and I would have to ask her what she thinks before I attached any confidence interval to predicting Harper's next move.

One of Harper's first tasks will be to get back the $5 billion dollars that the U.S. stole with their illegal softwood lumber tariffs.

I don't really see US-Canada relations thawing anytime soon, even with the Tories in power.

We love you guys too, BC. Thanks for harboring all our cowardly draft dodgers for us, eh?

That's not to say I approve of some of the protectionist measures the Bush Administration has taken with regards to steel and timber. The U.S. has been pretty heavily thumped in front of the WTO and NAFTA hearing panels on the issue BC raises. But we were losing a lot of jobs and money ourselves because of Canada's cheaper timber, so it's hardly very friendly to use terms like "stole".

Thanks for the insight, Bobby.

I'm assuming, based on what you shared with us, that the big issue with conservatives--repealing the legislation that recognized gay marriage--has no real chance of passing. Regardless of whether or not they have a chance of updending it, it will be interesting to see how the conservatives approach this issue. My guess is that in the interest of appearing more progressive, they will make a half-hearted effort to appease the far right portion of their base, but quickly brush it under the carpet in the interest of avoiding brutal partisanship.

My impression (along with Ed Kilgore's) was that this was an election, not so much about love for Mordecai's policies, as it was about hatred for Hamen personally.

Abel,

Obviously, it's hard to say, but I'm being told that the first four policies on his agenda are most likely to be: a government accountability and transparency act, a 1% reduction in the Goods and Services Tax rate (followed by another 1% reduction later), increased funding for the Canadian Forces, and a child care credit (usable by both those using child care or stay-at-home parents alike). I'm told his fifth and curiously unspoken agenda item would be to improve relations with the US, although tellingly, I was told: "Of course, he can't actually come out and say that yet."

I asked my Canadian consiglieres, all of whom are active in Albertan (read: Conservative) politics what they thought the election meant for the Conservative social agenda, and they all claimed he won't even touch any of those issues, including gay marriage, until way later down the road and "probably not until after he can get a majority government." They think he will appease the right-wingers by pushing for a restoration of provincial rights and powers--sort of a devolution of government power from the national to the provincial level-- a move that would also increase his party's appeal to French-Canadian voters in Quebec. But, interestingly enough, they believe the Canadian Right would rather see that than overturning gay marriage. As one put it, "I know social issues are a really big deal in the States, but our Conservative movement really resembles more of your old Dixiecrats than it does your Christian Coalition. That stuff just doesn't resonate with voters here."

So my guess is we won't see him touch the social issues, and will keep himself occupied with building a majority constituency out of his more mainstream "limited government" initiatives.

Also, I'm supposed to point out that this isn't actually a "return to power" for the Conservative Party of Canada, but rather their historic first-ever opportunity to form a government. The old "conservatives" were the Progressive Conservatives of Brian Mulroney, a coalition of Western provincialists, Quebec nationalists, and Ontario commercial interests. After the PCs complete collapse in 1993 (for which, interestingly enough, they all blame Mulroney and see Kim Campbell as his scapegoat), the Bloc Quebecois emerged as the party of Quebec nationalists, while the previously-existing Reform Party (later renamed the Canadian Alliance) assumed responsibility for representing the Westerners. The PC's existed as a mere shadow of their former selves.

The merging of the Progressive Conservatives and the Canadian Alliance (as what we're now calling the Conservative Party of Canada) didn't come until three years ago, and was marked with a high degree of infighting as the former Canadian Alliance took control of the newly unified Party -- Stephen Harper was, in fact, leader of the Canadian Alliance, not the PCs.

Apparently, the former Alliance party members have since gravitated to most of the major positions within the Party, and this was significant because having formerly been such a radical and regional movement, they were largely distrusted by Canadians outside of the West (Alberta, Sasketchewan, and Manitoba)-- a key part of their history that the Liberals liked to key on during elections. However much like the American South's historic hatred of the Republican Party, time and political maneuvering has allowed the Conservatives to realign their positions in accordance with the larger Canadian identity. This is no small accomplishment for Stephen Harper, and perhaps explains why he commands such a huge respect from his constituency.

In any case, Conservatives appear to trace their lineage not through the old Progressive Conservative Party, but rather through the Canadian Alliance (and its ancestor, the Reform Party) and thereby see this election as a historic first.

For what it's worth...

Here's the vote breakdown....
Conservatives: 124. Liberals: 102. Bloc Quebecois: 51. New Democratic Party: 29. Independent: 1.

I'm to understand that the folks in B.C. voted very left and that Harper had to distance himself from Bush and his brand of conservatism a much as he could.
from December
"On Iraq, while I support the removal of Saddam Hussein and applaud the efforts to establish democracy and freedom in Iraq, I would not commit Canadian troops to that country. I must admit great disappointment at the failure to substantiate pre-war intelligence information regarding Iraq's possession of weapons of mass destruction."
and there's this about his evolution from the
Tyee

The real downside I think is that he'll do for Canadian health services what Reagan did for California education and mental health facillities.

Anyway if much of his win can be traced to the Canadian voters punishing the Liberals he'll have quite a tightrope to walk.