0
What now, Canada?
24 January 2006
Canada has voted, and in truly Canadian fashion has made a statement. Of sorts. Tentatively. Cautiously. We almost made a statement...
Voters sent a message to the Liberals and said: We're tired of the culture of entitlement, the scandals the abuse of power. But we still love you. They sent a message to the Conservatives: We want change, we want new blood, and a new vision. But not too fast there, Steven.
So neither party emerged as the clear winner or loser. Harper doesn't have the majority he wanted - and desperately needs to govern. The Liberals were not as severely defeated as many predicted (the gap between Cons and Libs in 2006 is only 21 - in 2004 the Libs were 36 up on the Cons).
Almost 65% of eligible voters turned out (14.815 million), but the result wasn't what anyone predicted. Or wanted. Polling fell short of weather and astrolgy for its predictive abilities. Canada's government remains locked in a precarious pushme-pullyou battle between understrength parties.
Martin was defeated, but it was nowhere near the cataclysmic event that happened to the Conservatives in 1993 after Brian Mulroney left office. At that point, Canadians, fed up with rampant Conservative abuse, reduced the party to two seats, although the fledgling Reform Party, similar in policy, took 52.
Nor can it rival the landslide Conservative victory in 1984 when Brian Mulroney's party took 211 seats and left the Liberals with a paltry 40 (only 10 more than the nascent NDP).
The results settled into a pattern very early and didn't change significantly all night. From the results posted on the Elections Canada site, here's the final tally:
The big winner was really the NDP, gaining ten seats across Canada. The New Democratic Party, Canada's most left-wing party, was riding high in the 1980s. In 1988 they won 43 seats, and took another in a by-election in 1989 to hold 44. But in 1993 they too were reduced by the Liberal landslide, gaining only nine seats. This is their biggest gain since the halcyon days of 1988. It vindicates Jack Layton as leader.
The NDP, while stronger than last time, unfortunately doesn't hold the balance of power. That's because even united, the Conservatives and NDP don't hold a majority - only 153 votes total. Even with that lonely Independent, they still can't hold it together unlesss some of the opposition members are not in their seats for a vote (a common occurrence).
The Bloc Quebecois also won large in 1993, taking 54 seats. Since then they've lost little of their power base. They won only 38 in 2000, but rebounded in 2004. But while 51 is only three seats less than in 2004, their popular support has slipped. They had a high of 13.52% in 1993 (1,835,784 votes). This year they got 1,552,043 (10.48%). More to the point, they have slipped from a high of 49% of the popular vote in Quebec to 42.5, an indication Quebecois are growing weary of the rhetoric without action.
That's modestly good news for nationalists.
The bad news is, of course, that Harper and the Conservatives will have to depend on the Bloc for their strength in order to get anything done. Which means more money, more favours, more patronage to Quebec. ALl at the expense of support from the rest of Canada. Funny, that's just how the Liberals got into this mess!
Once again, the separatist Bloc holds the balance of power in a federal parliament. Not very comforting news at all, outside Quebec. It will be the deal-with-the-devil all over again. Imagine how this sits with the Conservative ideologues... the Bloc is a left-wing party!
Pollsters were also thrown a loop in British Columbia, where the CPC was expected to do well. Voters rejected several Conservative right-wing Christian candidates in favour of more moderate Liberals and NDP candidates. Campaign comments about morality, Biblical authority, abortion, and God didn't win over BC voters, who are apparently too secular and multi-cultural to find the Christian approach appealing. In fact, that may have been the prevailing sentiment in many ridings across Canada.
Paul Martin wisely chose last night's defeat to air his resignation. However, with the currently fragile balancing-act of Harper's weak minority government, another election could tumble very quickly, leaving the Liberals leader-less at a critical moment. Let's see who emerges from the shadows to step onto the podium in the next few weeks.
Martin, a capable finance minister, was unable to prove himself the leader the party needed to continue its victories. Called "Mr. Dithers" by the media, his rational approach, honesty, willingness to compromise, and eagerness to weigh all sides of an issue were caricatured as faults, instead of strengths.
Certainly the results were a mixed blessing for Steven Harper. They proved his belief Canadians wanted change, but also showed we still don't trust him enough to grant him absolute authority. The dark shadow of Brian Mulroney still looms large over the Conservatives, and it might not dissipate for another generation. Mulroney remains the most despised man in Canadian politics, and even his departure from the party did not remove his stain.
Harper's overtly Christian fundamentalist morality also isn't attractive to a lot of Canadians, especially in Ontario. Voters obviously don't like to mix politics and religion, taking in part our fear from similar political changes down south of us. Harper didn't seem to learn that lesson. I personally believe that had Peter Mackay been at the helm instead of Harper, the Conservatives would have triumphed with a majority.
Locally, the Conservatives trounced all opposition. Compared to her meagre 100-vote victory in 2004, incumbent Helena Guergis swept the riding of SImcoe Grey with a huge majority of 12,000 votes.
What is interesting is the continued rise of the Green Party. While they didn't win any seats, the Greens garnered 4.5%of the popular vote nationwide, or 665,940 votes. That's a marginal increase over 2004 (4.3%), but keeps the party in the loop for federal funding, and in the news. Leaving the Greens out of the national leaders' debates while including the separatist Bloc made many Canadians angry over perceived media bias. But can they gain enough support to get a candidate a seat?
Sadly, the Rhinoceros Party, once the darling of political pundits Canada-wide for their vow to repeal the law of gravity, is no more. Canadians needed that sense of humour and satire in our oh-so-serious campaigns. However, in future we hope to see political satire return in the AAP (Absolutely Absurd Party).
And on a closing note, 16 parties fielded candidates in this election, from the fringe AACEV (Animal Alliance Environment Voters Party) which got just 72 votes, and the WBP (Western Block Party) - 1,094 votes. The FPNP (First People's National Party), an aboriginal party which might have scored well throughout the north, only received 1,340. The others included Libertarian, Marijuana Party, Communist, Marxist-Leninist, Canadian Action and PC Party (built from disgruntled former Progressive Conservatives when the party merged with the Canadian Alliance, this is a new party called the Progressive Canadian Party). None of these parties received more than 10,000 votes total.
The CHP (Christian Heritage Party) took far more than any of the other fringe parties - 28,279 votes this year. The CHP has been in steady decline since 1988 when it received 102,533. Perhaps that's a message that Canadians are not comfortable with fundamentalist Christians in politics. In the 2001 census, 16% of Canadians (4.8 million) professed to having no faith, or being atheists. That's up from 12% since the 1991 census. Non-Christian faiths saw the greatest growth, while Canadians professing to be Christian actually shrank from 80 to 72%. There's a lesson here.
Voters sent a message to the Liberals and said: We're tired of the culture of entitlement, the scandals the abuse of power. But we still love you. They sent a message to the Conservatives: We want change, we want new blood, and a new vision. But not too fast there, Steven.
So neither party emerged as the clear winner or loser. Harper doesn't have the majority he wanted - and desperately needs to govern. The Liberals were not as severely defeated as many predicted (the gap between Cons and Libs in 2006 is only 21 - in 2004 the Libs were 36 up on the Cons).
Almost 65% of eligible voters turned out (14.815 million), but the result wasn't what anyone predicted. Or wanted. Polling fell short of weather and astrolgy for its predictive abilities. Canada's government remains locked in a precarious pushme-pullyou battle between understrength parties.
Martin was defeated, but it was nowhere near the cataclysmic event that happened to the Conservatives in 1993 after Brian Mulroney left office. At that point, Canadians, fed up with rampant Conservative abuse, reduced the party to two seats, although the fledgling Reform Party, similar in policy, took 52.
Nor can it rival the landslide Conservative victory in 1984 when Brian Mulroney's party took 211 seats and left the Liberals with a paltry 40 (only 10 more than the nascent NDP).
The results settled into a pattern very early and didn't change significantly all night. From the results posted on the Elections Canada site, here's the final tally:
Party Seats % Popular Vote 2004/% Seat Change Conservatives 124 36.3 99/29.6 +25 Liberals 103 30.2 135/36.7 -32 Bloc Quebecois 51 10.5 54/12.4 -2 NDP 29 17.5 19/15.7 +10 Independent 1 0.5 1/0.1 NA There are 308 seats total. A majority is 155.
The big winner was really the NDP, gaining ten seats across Canada. The New Democratic Party, Canada's most left-wing party, was riding high in the 1980s. In 1988 they won 43 seats, and took another in a by-election in 1989 to hold 44. But in 1993 they too were reduced by the Liberal landslide, gaining only nine seats. This is their biggest gain since the halcyon days of 1988. It vindicates Jack Layton as leader.
The NDP, while stronger than last time, unfortunately doesn't hold the balance of power. That's because even united, the Conservatives and NDP don't hold a majority - only 153 votes total. Even with that lonely Independent, they still can't hold it together unlesss some of the opposition members are not in their seats for a vote (a common occurrence).
The Bloc Quebecois also won large in 1993, taking 54 seats. Since then they've lost little of their power base. They won only 38 in 2000, but rebounded in 2004. But while 51 is only three seats less than in 2004, their popular support has slipped. They had a high of 13.52% in 1993 (1,835,784 votes). This year they got 1,552,043 (10.48%). More to the point, they have slipped from a high of 49% of the popular vote in Quebec to 42.5, an indication Quebecois are growing weary of the rhetoric without action.
That's modestly good news for nationalists.
The bad news is, of course, that Harper and the Conservatives will have to depend on the Bloc for their strength in order to get anything done. Which means more money, more favours, more patronage to Quebec. ALl at the expense of support from the rest of Canada. Funny, that's just how the Liberals got into this mess!
Once again, the separatist Bloc holds the balance of power in a federal parliament. Not very comforting news at all, outside Quebec. It will be the deal-with-the-devil all over again. Imagine how this sits with the Conservative ideologues... the Bloc is a left-wing party!
Pollsters were also thrown a loop in British Columbia, where the CPC was expected to do well. Voters rejected several Conservative right-wing Christian candidates in favour of more moderate Liberals and NDP candidates. Campaign comments about morality, Biblical authority, abortion, and God didn't win over BC voters, who are apparently too secular and multi-cultural to find the Christian approach appealing. In fact, that may have been the prevailing sentiment in many ridings across Canada.
Paul Martin wisely chose last night's defeat to air his resignation. However, with the currently fragile balancing-act of Harper's weak minority government, another election could tumble very quickly, leaving the Liberals leader-less at a critical moment. Let's see who emerges from the shadows to step onto the podium in the next few weeks.
Martin, a capable finance minister, was unable to prove himself the leader the party needed to continue its victories. Called "Mr. Dithers" by the media, his rational approach, honesty, willingness to compromise, and eagerness to weigh all sides of an issue were caricatured as faults, instead of strengths.
Certainly the results were a mixed blessing for Steven Harper. They proved his belief Canadians wanted change, but also showed we still don't trust him enough to grant him absolute authority. The dark shadow of Brian Mulroney still looms large over the Conservatives, and it might not dissipate for another generation. Mulroney remains the most despised man in Canadian politics, and even his departure from the party did not remove his stain.
Harper's overtly Christian fundamentalist morality also isn't attractive to a lot of Canadians, especially in Ontario. Voters obviously don't like to mix politics and religion, taking in part our fear from similar political changes down south of us. Harper didn't seem to learn that lesson. I personally believe that had Peter Mackay been at the helm instead of Harper, the Conservatives would have triumphed with a majority.
Locally, the Conservatives trounced all opposition. Compared to her meagre 100-vote victory in 2004, incumbent Helena Guergis swept the riding of SImcoe Grey with a huge majority of 12,000 votes.
Party Candidate Votes % Christian Heritage Party P. Vander Zaag 1,585 2.6 Conservative Helena Guergis 30,045 49.9 Green Party Peter Ellis 3,372 5.6 Liberal Elizabeth Kirley 18,389 30.6 N.D.P. Katy Austin 6,784 11.3 Total number of valid votes cast in Simcoe Grey: 60,175
What is interesting is the continued rise of the Green Party. While they didn't win any seats, the Greens garnered 4.5%of the popular vote nationwide, or 665,940 votes. That's a marginal increase over 2004 (4.3%), but keeps the party in the loop for federal funding, and in the news. Leaving the Greens out of the national leaders' debates while including the separatist Bloc made many Canadians angry over perceived media bias. But can they gain enough support to get a candidate a seat?
Sadly, the Rhinoceros Party, once the darling of political pundits Canada-wide for their vow to repeal the law of gravity, is no more. Canadians needed that sense of humour and satire in our oh-so-serious campaigns. However, in future we hope to see political satire return in the AAP (Absolutely Absurd Party).
And on a closing note, 16 parties fielded candidates in this election, from the fringe AACEV (Animal Alliance Environment Voters Party) which got just 72 votes, and the WBP (Western Block Party) - 1,094 votes. The FPNP (First People's National Party), an aboriginal party which might have scored well throughout the north, only received 1,340. The others included Libertarian, Marijuana Party, Communist, Marxist-Leninist, Canadian Action and PC Party (built from disgruntled former Progressive Conservatives when the party merged with the Canadian Alliance, this is a new party called the Progressive Canadian Party). None of these parties received more than 10,000 votes total.
The CHP (Christian Heritage Party) took far more than any of the other fringe parties - 28,279 votes this year. The CHP has been in steady decline since 1988 when it received 102,533. Perhaps that's a message that Canadians are not comfortable with fundamentalist Christians in politics. In the 2001 census, 16% of Canadians (4.8 million) professed to having no faith, or being atheists. That's up from 12% since the 1991 census. Non-Christian faiths saw the greatest growth, while Canadians professing to be Christian actually shrank from 80 to 72%. There's a lesson here.
Fortunately, we prefer that our representative’s religious beliefs, if any, should be a personal matter. If professed, such profession is generally regarded as a negative. I think that concern for the underlying social conservative agenda of Mr. Harper and his Reform contingent is the overriding factor in the uneasiness associated with the Conservative Party. In the words of comedian Kenny Robinson, “Canadians would prefer to vote for corruption rather than intolerance“.
As for the Christian Heritage Party, at what point do we stop offering 20% of our public debate time to Dr. Peter to pander to people’s life-enhancing illusions? In the absence of a constituency that is large enough for any of the other candidates to take seriously and challenge, I for one just find his participation in the debates annoying.
A Man Called Papa