Do the Conservatives Realize what a Minority Means?

[EnviroTO]

I just finished listening to Harpers speech and I think they have forgotten what a minority government means. Martin had a more stable minority and still worked more closely with the other parties to determine what the priorities of the government would be but meanwhile Harper seems to think he has the full mandate to do whatever he wants. How can he outline priorities of the goverment without consulting the other parties to see whether or not they have any support for his plan?

Who is going to support raising income tax on low income families for example which is required to pay for the GST cut? If the opposition parties make the issue more about the income tax increase on low income families they will look good blocking it.

Who is going to support cutting the Liberal initiated day care when the provinces agreed to the program, Quebec is a big supporter of the program, and the NDP is probably accepting of the program as well?

This is going to be the most interesting government in a long time. I wonder if Harper will break the Campbell or Clark records for short duration as prime minister. He certainly will be toast if he tries to do everything without the other parties in a less stable minority government than the Liberals had.

 

[Jarrek]

Only time will tell.

 

[unimaginative2]

The Tories will have total carte blanche for their first budget since the media would go ape if anybody forced an election. They'll take full advantage of that freedom.

 

[afransen TO]

Perhaps he is counting on the Liberals wanting this Parliament to last, now that their leader is a lame duck. It's risky business, but the Tories might want to get defeated quickly in the hopes they are then handed a majority because Canadians are getting fed up with minority parliaments.

 

[drunknsubmrnr]

None of the parties, especially the Liberals, have the money for another election right now. If the Conservatives rush the legislation through, they'll probably get it passed.

Kevin

 

[afransen TO]

I think it matters less how little money they have and more how broke they are relative to their opponents.

I think that a lot of their legislation will fail unless they make compromises. Their attempt at getting a budget through ought to be interesting...

 

[bizorky]

The house isn't even in session yet, so we'll have to see what they will plan to do. While no one wants another election, a fact not lost on the Liberals and the NDP, the Conservatives will become aware of this very quickly as well. This will mean that they will probably mix things up as they go. They will put through some free votes on such as same-sex marriage, and probably loose; try to pass problematic legislation that will not be an issue of confidence, and loose; and will pass some legislation that will look like items the Liberals were pushing forward when they were in power. Then they will come to their first budget, feel the pressure and be very cautious, but it will probably pass.

This is a small minority, it won't last a whole term. But you won't be seeing a quick election either since the Conservatives will want to generate a record of governing, and the Liberals need to find a new leader and do some house cleaning. The NDP will make noise, ally themselves with no one in particular, and the Bloc will be the semi-wild card in all of this.

 

[EnviroTO]

The Tories will have total carte blanche for their first budget since the media would go ape if anybody forced an election.

Based on that theory shouldn't the Liberals have had carte blanche as well during their minority? It didn't work out that way for them.

If the Conservatives rush the legislation through, they'll probably get it passed.

Won't any party voting in favour of killing one of their primary platforms be punsihed for it by their supporters in the next election? How popular would the Liberals be if they voted to approve cutting child care after making it their key issue and how would it go over with the NDP? I can see them getting the support for all their platforms but not the cuts to pay for them. I can understand the other parties not wanting to force an election but they aren't going to shoot themselves in the foot for the next election. I can see the NDP ads now "Liberals voted with the Conservatives to kill day care in Canada... Shame" or if the Liberals vote against the income tax increase I can imagine the ads "Duceppe and the Bloc pretend to be the protectors of Quebec's interests but they voted to raise income tax on low income Quebec families... vote Liberal".

Harper is in a much worse position than Martin's minority. Martin could go to Harper for right wing policy approval and to the NDP and Bloc for left wing policy approval. Harper can only go left... to a party he just defeated and constantly ripped apart as corrupt, to the NDP which would be against all his fiscal policies, or the Bloc which is probably the only place he will find any support but they are supposed to be protectors of Quebec interests and they have the most advanced day care system in the country.

 

[dan e 1980]

RE: Do the Conservatives Realize what a Minority Means?


yes. they make fun of them all the time. :\

 

[bizorky]

Based on that theory shouldn't the Liberals have had carte blanche as well during their minority? It didn't work out that way for them.

I'm basing this on the assumption that (1), no one wants another elcetion so soon, and (2) the Conservatives probably won't be doing anything very radical. They want to survive in order to develop a record of governing.

When Martin was PM, the Liberals had already been in power for years, they went from a majority to a minority, and Conservatives were united and finally ready to fight an election. The Liberals mixed up their budget with numerous NDP policy suggestions and secured a majority vote.

 

[mpolo2]

I kind of like the fact that Harper has confidence in his platform and expects to implement it - people voted for it afterall. It is a refreshing change for a leader to actually lead and not be dithering and stuttering a bunch of meaningless politician-speak. And why would he go into a negotiation w/ the other parties telling them in advance he is expecting to back down and give ground on issues. For what it is worth, I dont really see the NDP being any more conciliatory back (likely for the same reason).

 

[EnviroTO]

I kind of like the fact that Harper has confidence in his platform and expects to implement it - people voted for it afterall.

People also voted for public day care and for reductions in tuition fees too. The Conservatives with 36% only captured 6% more votes than the Liberals. You add up the Liberal and NDP votes and 47% aren't interested in his platform. Maybe 36% percent voted for the Conservatives and indirectly their GST cuts... but 64% voted against it.

 

[unimaginative2]

Tackle 'cultural Marxism,' U.S. writer urges Harper

By ALAN FREEMAN

Friday, January 27, 2006 Page A6

WASHINGTON -- A prominent U.S. right-wing commentator has welcomed the election victory of Stephen Harper and the Conservatives, expressing hope that the prime-minister-designate will work to eradicate the "cultural Marxism" he says infests the neighbour to the north.

In an on-line commentary published on his website, Paul Weyrich, chairman of the Free Congress Foundation, said that he hopes Mr. Harper will use the next four years to replace Liberal-named judges who back same-sex marriage and abortion with appointees who are more to his liking.

"As has been the case in the United States, cultural Marxism largely has been foisted upon Canada by the courts," Mr. Weyrich wrote, drawing a parallel with the right-wing analysis of what ails America. "If judges who respect the Constitution were to be appointed, they would confirm that such rights are not to be found in that document. Sound familiar?"

Yet Mr. Weyrich, 61, a veteran of the U.S. culture wars, said that despite his hopes for a sharp right turn in Canada, radical change could take a long time. "The people of Canada have become so liberal and hedonistic that the public ethic in the country immediately could not be reversed. But with leadership, it may well be possible to change the public ethic."

Mr. Weyrich acknowledges in the commentary that he evaded questions last week from Canadian journalists who called asking him about an e-mail he wrote to fellow conservatives urging them to stay mum if they were asked to comment on the coming Canadian vote.

In the e-mail, copies of which were obtained by The Globe and Mail and The Canadian Press, Mr. Weyrich said that voters in Canada had been led to believe that U.S. conservatives were "scary" so it would be best if right-wing leaders kept their mouths shut before crowing about a likely Tory win.

Last week, Mr. Weyrich declined to confirm that he wrote the e-mail and said he did not know Gerard Chipeur, the Calgary lawyer and Harper supporter who had asked Mr. Weyrich to get the no-interview message across to other U.S. conservatives.

But in this week's commentary, Mr. Weyrich recounted the story with some gloating. He explained how Mr. Chipeur had contacted him "out of concern for what the left-wing Canadian media could do to obtain from some unsuspecting United States conservative an off-the-charts quote which could be hung around Prime Minister-elect Stephen Harper's neck."

Mr. Weyrich described how he had asked his associate, Bob Thompson, to write up the e-mail seeking to muzzle his fellow conservatives until after the election, only to discover that the message had soon been leaked to the press.

"After speaking with two Canadian reporters, I chose not to return such telephone calls. In the end, there just wasn't enough there to make a fuss, although there was potential to blow this sky high. Conservatives did not conduct interviews. Small victory."

Mr. Weyrich compared Mr. Harper's win to a theoretical election victory for Senator Sam Brownback, a right-wing Republican from Kansas and anti-abortion activist, as governor of liberal Massachusetts.

He said that one Canadian Conservative had told him that at least 10 Liberals and some Bloc Québécois MPs would join with Mr. Harper and vote to reverse same-sex marriage in a free vote, convincing Mr. Weyrich that there are enough votes to overturn the same-sex marriage statute.

Mr. Weyrich said that Mr. Harper would greatly expand defence spending and that he opposes the Kyoto climate-change agreement and favours joining U.S. missile defence plans. Mr. Weyrich says, however, that Mr. Harper is unlikely to propose any anti-abortion legislation soon.
© Copyright 2006 Bell Globemedia Publishing Inc. All Rights Reserved.

 

[Observer Walt]

Enviro: It's a big leap of logic to say that voters voted for, or against, any one issue (GST cut, etc.) They voted for or against a party, with all sorts of planks in the platform. Some Conservative voters may not have been enthusiastic about every part of their platform, and likewise Liberal voters. For better or worse, one party comes out ahead, although not with a majority.

I said on another thread that there will not be another election for at least two years and I still believe that. All of the parties, and almost all of the public, are electioned-out. The parties are broke, and the Liberals don't have a leader. The Conservatives will get most of their platform through, if they are sensible about cutting deals with other parties and show some flexibility.

 

[EnviroTO]

Enviro: It's a big leap of logic to say that voters voted for, or against, any one issue (GST cut, etc.) They voted for or against a party, with all sorts of planks in the platform.

I agree. That is why I said "indirectly". My point is that shared platform objectives between the Liberals and NDP have more backing behind them than Conservative platform items not shared by the other parties both in seats and in public support.

The Conservatives will get most of their platform through, if they are sensible about cutting deals with other parties and show some flexibility.

What could the positive trade off with the Liberals, NDP, and Bloc be? You let me raise income taxes on low income Canadians and in turn I will give you _______. You let me cut public day care which was the Liberal core platform, is popular in Quebec, and the NDP supports and in turn I will give you ______. Fill in the blanks... what is worth it politically? What deals can they cut? Negotiating is give and take so what will the give be when the other parties need to prove the "Liberals vision of Canada is fundamentally different", the NDP "looks after working families", and the Bloc "protects Quebec's interests"?