1.18.2006

on the record

I'm not convinced the Conservatives will win this election. If they do, I think it will be with a minority government.

This is not based on any one particular thing, but the sum total of what I'm seeing and reading, and what does and doesn't ring true.

I'm not predicting the Liberals will win, but I won't surprised if they do. I think much of the talk of "punishing them" and "needing a change" is just talk. And I'm hoping, push come to shove, Canadians will not punish themselves, and will instead ask "Change to what?"

I realize this may be wishful thinking, or my greatly skewed impressions from reading too many progressive Canadians' thoughts. But still.

In comments, Wrye posted a prediction round-up. Feel free to keep that coming.

49 comments:

ALPF said...

Hey L-Girl

I'm still here!!
I just want to pass on that I have been pretty hard at work preparing graphics and boards for our braodcast election night. What I have been building is making me sick... CONSERVATIVE MAJORITY THIS, CONSERVATIVE MAJORITY THAT. If I have to cut out another photo of that beeny eyed weiner and place it on a board that says "Canada's New Prime Minister" I'm going to be nauseous. I actually felt a little better yesterday afternoon when our producer handed me the predictions for every riding and it only had 131 seats going Conservative. That's around 20-25 short of a majority.

The site is democraticspace.com that we have been using.., It's pretty cool.
Here is the riding prediction page...
http://democraticspace.com/canada/2005election/latest-projections.pdf

Those number have been going the right way in the past few days thankfully... They once had it at 145-150 Conservative.

It also has the breakdown of strategic ridings where an NDP votes should swing Liberal and vice-versa. My riding is one that Liberal supporters should swing NDP for this election to stop the Tory. I going to do my part and vote NDP.

Back to work.

Masnick96 said...

I agree with you Laura...I've got a feeling too

L-girl said...

Yay ALPF! I'll post on this later today, or else tomorrow morning.

Nick: cool. :)

RobfromAlberta said...

You might be surprised to hear that for many on the right side of the Canadian blogosphere, a Conservative minority is the preferred outcome. The socon voices in the party have shown a lot of restraint during the campaign in order to avoid sabotaging the party's chances. If they win with a minority, those same groups will be forced to keep the muzzles on. If the CPC gets in to power and more people get used to PM Stephen Harper without the baggage of religious conservatives periodically shooting from the lip, the party's future will be brighter down the road. We need to adopt a slow-and-steady approach if we are going to make the Conservative Party into a real alternative to the Liberals.

ALPF said...

We had a couple of political strategists in last week and they were talking off camera about how the Liberls want a Conservative minority so that that can have a good bleeding... They claimed that Ken Dryden is already under enormous backroom pressure and that he will emerge as the new leader and then it will be "game over" for the rest of the parties. He is still huge in Quebec and the rest of the country and he wasn't around during adscam. If the Tories get a minority now... in 2 years you are going to see a landslide Liberal majority like the ones in 90's.

RobfromAlberta said...

That is certainly a possibility. I would never underestimate the Liberal Party. However, if it happens that Canada once again becomes a one-party state, I think it will be the beginning of the end of Confederation. About a quarter of the population of this country feel absolutely disenfranchised by the dominance of the Liberal Party in Canadian politics. That is a situation which simply cannot be maintained in perpetuity.

ALPF said...

It's funny how Jack Layton is perfectly aware that this is what is gong to happen...
"Lend us your vote for a couple of years" we will take care of all you you Liberals while they go into
"the repair shop" as he put it.

Then in a couple years when the Liberals are all fixed everything will back to "normal".

Canrane said...

Rob, I've been reading this blog for almost a year, and have therefore seen you mention many times that a lot of Canadians (especially out West) will feel completely alienated if the Liberals win again. But I'm curious about why you think a conservative win will change that.

As you yourself have noted, the only reason the Conservatives are doing so well in Ontario at all is because they have been reigning in the hard-liners within the party, and moving their position towards the centre. So even if Harper does get elected, Ontario will have chosen a very different Harper from the one that Western Canada wants.

What is a Conservative minority/majority really going to accomplish? Either Harper will govern like pre-election-Harper thereby pissing off all the Ontarians who voted for him expecting Election-Harper. Or he'll govern like Election-Harper which is pretty much what Martin was like when in power and what Westerners are obviously sick of.

I don't see how this would in any way make Westerners feel closer to the rest of Canada.

Wrye said...

Rob, I don't think "One Party State" means what you think it means. But I'm sure 30% of Albertans feel the exact same way. Just not about Liberals, if you catch my drift.

This argument is stale. Do you favour proportional representation, Rob? I think there's something to *that* idea.

RobfromAlberta said...

To be honest, I don't think most Westerners are as far to the right some in the East (including myself, once upon a time) perceive them to be. There are the rural religious conservatives who expect Harper to pander to their socon agenda, but that simply won't happen. If, however, Harper sticks to the centre-right, increases defense spending, improves Canada-US relations and delivers some modest tax cuts, all things that many people in eastern Canada could live with, I think the level of western alienation would drop dramatically. I think what is really important is the symbolism of seeing an Albertan in the PMO (and no, that little Joe Clark tease doesn't count).

Wrye said...

Democratic Space, in addition to having polls, also has strategic voting guides for all three parties. Their take (via pogge):

Important:
DemocraticSPACE does not endorse strategic voting (i.e. where voters cast their ballot for their second choice party to prevent a less favourable party from winning). We believe that Canada should explore options of adding an element of proportionality into our electoral system to ensure fair and accurate representation in parliament. See “Making Every Vote Count: Towards Fair Representation in the Canadian Parliament” (756kb PDF). However, strategic voting happens in Canada. DemocraticSPACE.com believes that it is better to make informed choices than misinformed choices. Therefore, this guide is meant to help voters who are thinking of voting strategically.

Are you in a position where your first choice party/candidate cannot win your riding? Are you thinking of voting for your second choice party/candidate? This guide is meant to inform you of whether voting strategically in your riding or not can make a difference.

In order for a riding to qualify for strategic voting, we feel 3 conditions must be met:
1. It must be a close 2-way race (i.e. the two other parties must be within 5%)
2. The chances of your party winning riding are remote (i.e. support < 25%)
3. Small number of votes will make a difference (i.e. < 1 in 3 voters).


Guides then follow for all three parties.

RobfromAlberta said...

Rob, I don't think "One Party State" means what you think it means.

Actually, it means exactly what I think it means, a government completely devoid of any opposition. We have a Liberal-dominated senate, a Liberal-appointed Supreme Court and a Liberal-friendly mass media. Therefore, a Liberal majority can rule completely unopposed. The closest thing we have to opposition in such a scenario are the provincial premiers and as long as you can get the Ontario premier on side, you can ignore the rest.

RobfromAlberta said...

Do you favour proportional representation, Rob? I think there's something to *that* idea.

No, I don't. The prospect of minority governments for eternity doesn't appeal to me. I would prefer runoff elections. We have a preliminary election to select the top two candidates in each riding, then have a runoff election between the two. It would mean going to the polls twice which will surely be unpopular, but it would be the most democratic way to decide elections.

M@ said...

I'm not sure about the Supreme Court, but otherwise, the "one-party state" you describe sounds like the late Mulroney years.

Places with a true one-party state don't have power actually transferring from one party to another, because there are no other parties to transfer it to. 'Cause there's only one.

Does anyone have any thoughts on the single transferable vote system? My biggest opposition to it is that we'd have to go to computerized voting. Otherwise, it makes a lot of sense.

RobfromAlberta said...

I'm not sure about the Supreme Court, but otherwise, the "one-party state" you describe sounds like the late Mulroney years.

Mulroney never controlled the senate. It even imposed an election on him in '88.

Does anyone have any thoughts on the single transferable vote system? My biggest opposition to it is that we'd have to go to computerized voting. Otherwise, it makes a lot of sense.

It does look interesting. An improvement over the current system. I think it would still result in a lot of minority governments, though.

sharonapple said...

(and no, that little Joe Clark tease doesn't count).

I have a lot of respect for Joe Clark. Clark was a man who was conservative but not regressive. The Conservative party needs more people like him.

Actually, it means exactly what I think it means, a government completely devoid of any opposition. We have a Liberal-dominated senate, a Liberal-appointed Supreme Court and a Liberal-friendly mass media. Therefore, a Liberal majority can rule completely unopposed. The closest thing we have to opposition in such a scenario are the provincial premiers and as long as you can get the Ontario premier on side, you can ignore the rest.

I think the Liberal media is a bit of an exaggeration. Global and CTV have been highly critical of the Liberals -- Global might as well be campaigning with the Conservatives. As for the Senate -- it can't press its hand too much, or it can get the fact that it's unelected thrown in its face. Plus, during Mulroney, most of the opposition was organized by Trudeau. With Trudeau gone, I can't see another Liberal leader with the charisma and the force of argument to rouse the bunch of rubber-stampers, unless it's a truly serious matter. (It does sound as though they do overreach when they do this -- but they did stop Kim Campbell's abortion legislation, but only by one vote.)

There's an Albertan writer, Satya Das, who wrote that maybe we should do away with ideology in politics and simple create groups that would compete to see who could govern the country the best. Maybe we should breakdown barriers and force parties to have various voices. One study of judges found that if you had a group of conservative judges, their judgements became even more conservative. The same was true of liberal judges -- they became more liberal. Groups can become their own echo chamber. Mixed groups are moderate and often express views and have more balanced judgements. Anyway, it's something to consider.

RobfromAlberta said...

Global and CTV have been highly critical of the Liberals -- Global might as well be campaigning with the Conservatives.

I will concede that the media has taken a harder line with the Liberals of late, much like the US media did with Bush when his poll numbers started to fall. The media blows in the wind of popular opinion. When the Liberals are riding high, the media gives them a free ride. On the other hand, the Conservatives are always in the media crosshairs, no matter how popular they may be.

redsock said...

I will concede that the media has taken a harder line with the Liberals of late, much like the US media did with Bush when his poll numbers started to fall.

That harder line the US media took with Bush = not shining his shoes and bringing flowers to press conferences.

It's a slight exaggeration, but if most Canadians saw the US media being what passes for critical in the US, they accuse them of being suckups.

M@ said...

Mulroney never controlled the senate. It even imposed an election on him in '88.

Note that I said the late Mulroney years.

In 1993, when Chretien took power, the composition of the senate was

Liberal - 41
Conservative - 58
Independent - 5

I'd call that conservative-controlled. Even with 14 appointments at the end of Mulroney's reign, the senate was conservative.

This is what I'm going on. Why do you say it wasn't Mulroney-controlled?

RobfromAlberta said...

Note that I said the late Mulroney years.

I concede your point. Mulroney appointed a lot of senators in his second term. In any case, that brief period of Conservative domination was followed by complete devastation, whereas even when the Liberals do everything wrong, they still manage to hold a minority. That is as close to a one-party state as a democracy can get.

Wrye said...

That is as close to a one-party state as a democracy can get.

I cordially invite you to move to Japan, Mexico, or Singapore to understand just how wrong you are.

Rob, you aren't playing to the choir, here. I love rhetoric and hyperbole as much as the next person, but this is a discussion, not a rally, hmm?

RobfromAlberta said...

Instead of just saying I'm wrong, why don't you actually make an argument. Explain how a Liberal majority government is, in any way, constrained by any opposition.

L-girl said...

Catching up on comments...

You might be surprised to hear that for many on the right side of the Canadian blogosphere, a Conservative minority is the preferred outcome.

Sheesh, you're so reasonable! Something I hardly associate with conservatives, given my background.

If the Tories get a minority now... in 2 years you are going to see a landslide Liberal majority like the ones in 90's.

ALPF, thanks for the insight. Very interesting to me, as a newcomer to this political scene.

It's funny how Jack Layton is perfectly aware that this is what is gong to happen...

I've always thought Layton is a very shrewd politician. To a progressive American, it's a wonderful breath of fresh air. In the US, lefty folks are the least politically savvy people in the world. They seem determined to shoot themselves in the foot at every turn. And of course the media is happy to help them do it.

L-girl said...

What is a Conservative minority/majority really going to accomplish? Either Harper will govern like pre-election-Harper thereby pissing off all the Ontarians who voted for him expecting Election-Harper. Or he'll govern like Election-Harper which is pretty much what Martin was like when in power and what Westerners are obviously sick of.

Canrane, this is an excellent point!

L-girl said...

If, however, Harper sticks to the centre-right, increases defense spending, improves Canada-US relations and delivers some modest tax cuts, all things that many people in eastern Canada could live with, I think the level of western alienation would drop dramatically.

Lots of people throughout Canada (not just in the east) do not want "improved Canada-US relations" with the US the way it is now (and likely to stay for a long time). With the Bushies in power, improved relations means going along with whatever the US wants, including sending Canadian troops to the next invasion. That's not centre-right, that's hard-right, in Canadian terms.

PS Rob, I thought you were going to avoid political discussions! I'm glad you're not, it keeps this blog so much more interesting.

L-girl said...

Does anyone have any thoughts on the single transferable vote system? My biggest opposition to it is that we'd have to go to computerized voting. Otherwise, it makes a lot of sense.

I like the idea of transferable votes, but DO NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES support computerized voting. DO. NOT. [insert flashing red lights, air-raid sirens and horror-movie music here]

L-girl said...

I think the Liberal media is a bit of an exaggeration. Global and CTV have been highly critical of the Liberals -- Global might as well be campaigning with the Conservatives.

Am I the only one who thinks CBC has been critical of the Liberals? I don't think they get a free ride at all. I don't get that impression at all.

L-girl said...

if most Canadians saw the US media being what passes for critical in the US, they [would] accuse them of being suckups.

Yes. This is where my comment --

Am I the only one who thinks CBC has been critical of the Liberals?

-- comes from.

When Allan and I watch Tony Blair face the British press corps or Paul Martin face the Canadian media, we are simply dumbfounded by the spectacle of journalists doing their jobs.

In my limited experience, the Canadian media is way tougher on the Liberals than the US mainstream media ever was on Bush - ever.

I realize that sets the bar pretty low. But it's also a sign of things going right.

Wrye said...

I'm trying to be polite Rob, and I'm not going to recycle what others say. But it's clear to me at least that it's not liberals you object to, it's Parliamentary Democracy and the power held by a majority government. Which is fine.

So, again. What do you propose?

Wrye said...

To forestall the inevitable, let me be clear, Rob:

All thread, you've been talking about the current condition as if it were a permanent thing. But it isn't, and the fact is that we've had non-Liberal Majority governments before. Very recently, in fact, and there were no checks on their power, either. You want to argue that they somehow don't count, which is fine, believe what you want, but you've then left the realm of facts which most of us lived through and I'm no longer interested in debate about assertions, religious tenets and why I'm a bad heathen who won't convert to the one true political faith. I'm not arguing because there is no argument there to be had. The Mulroney Years happened, sir. He passed the GST, sir. The Global and CTV networks, all major metropolitan newspapers(except the TO Star), and just about any Radio station not playing music all skew right, sir. You're telling me the three major dailies around here and the Globe and fucking mail skew LEFT? We're in a space where words don't mean the same to you and me.

So again, fine. Tell me your policy proposals to fix the lack of checks on executive power. Tell us how you think we should fix the Senate We can have a discussion about that. But not about why you think it is night when I see day. It is a waste of my time and yours.

doug said...

you know Global is owned by the Aspers and there mandate is to make the Global network the right-wing voice of Canada and as for the newspapers besides the Sun papers which are trailer park right-wing, I really think the media is tired of the Liberals and is wanting change from the CBC, Ctv etc., it's just all tired rhetoric in dealing with the Liberals. I want the Libs but you know to tell you the truth I am tired of them as well, it's just Liberal fatigue from voters, media etc, and that's their biggest obstacle I feel that they can't overcome.....

sharonapple said...

Instead of just saying I'm wrong, why don't you actually make an argument. Explain how a Liberal majority government is, in any way, constrained by any opposition.

There is opposition -- Rick Mercer and This Hour Has 22 Minutes.

Jokes aside, they're not while they're in power, but the public loves voting parties out who go too far. The PC got voted almost out of existance after being given a large majority that they ended up squandering with bad policies. Trudeau almost got turfed after his first term for acting too much like a king. Currently, most of the Liberal's policies have been popular -- staying out of Iraq, balancing the budget, the Clarity Act, keeping the Kyoto accord, promoting trade with America while at the sametime criticising its policies, and squashing Conrad Black's attempts to be a Canadian Lord. It was the Gomery report, not bad policies that brought the government down.

In my limited experience, the Canadian media is way tougher on the Liberals than the US mainstream media ever was on Bush - ever.

Other than the fact that the media is too close with the government, especially Fox, I've heard that people feel constrained from criticising the President, because of the belief that you have to respect the office of the Presidency. There's no such belief in Canada -- everyone feels free to take a swing at whoever is the PM. People gave Mulroney the finger. Someone threw a pie at Chretien. Heck, protestors pelted Trudeau with garbage and potatoes ... and then they were offended when Trudeau gave them the finger... which is funny if you think about it.

I've always thought Layton is a very shrewd politician.To a progressive American, it's a wonderful breath of fresh air. In the US, lefty folks are the least politically savvy people in the world. They seem determined to shoot themselves in the foot at every turn. And of course the media is happy to help them do it.

Layton's okay. He's no Tommy Douglas or Stephen Lewis, but he's okay.

except the TO Star

Interesting thing about The Toronto Star, it has to follow the principles given by Joseph Atkinson:

1. A strong, united and independent Canada: Atkinson argued for a strong central government and the development of distinctive social, economic and cultural policies appropriate to an independent country.

2. Social Justice: Atkinson was relentless in pressing for social and economic programs to help those less advantaged and showed particular concern for the least advantaged among us.

3. Individual and Civil Liberties: Atkinson always pressed for equal treatment of all citizens under the law, particularly minorities, and was dedicated to the fundamental freedoms of belief, thought, opinion and expression and the freedom of press.

4. Community and Civic Engagement: Atkinson continually advocated the importance of proper city planning, the development of strong communities with their vibrant local fabrics and the active involvement of citizens in civic affairs.

5. The Rights of Working People: The Star was born out of a strike in 1892 and Atkinson was committed to the rights of working people including freedom of association and the safety and dignity of the workplace.

6. The Necessary Role of Government: When Atkinson believed the public need was not met by the private sector and market forces alone, he argued strongly for government intervention.

Since the company owns Harliquin romance, it's not likely to go out of business. But being actively liberal hasn't hurt its circulation, which is the highest in the country.

L-girl said...

Other than the fact that the media is too close with the government, especially Fox, I've heard that people feel constrained from criticising the President, because of the belief that you have to respect the office of the Presidency. There's no such belief in Canada

There's been no such belief in the US either, until now. Media never had a problem trashing Clinton. Remember, it was the supposedly liberal (ha!) New York Times that introduced Whitewater to the world. The media never had a problem trashing Jimmy Carter - or Nixon, for that matter.

This administration has restricted media access to all but kiss-ups, and they've bought and paid for the rest.

With all due respect, that is not the problem in the US, and it ain't just Fox.

L-girl said...

the fact is that we've had non-Liberal Majority governments before. . . . The Mulroney Years happened, sir. He passed the GST, sir. The Global and CTV networks, all major metropolitan newspapers(except the TO Star), and just about any Radio station not playing music all skew right, sir. You're telling me the three major dailies around here and the Globe and fucking mail skew LEFT?

[announcer's voice] Ladies and Gentlemen, in this evening's performance, the part of Lone Primate will be played by Wrye. Thank you very much and enjoy the show.

. . .

[Laura's voice] Thanks, Wrye. Whenever Rob talks about the "one-party state", I always wonder about this. A, it's not true. B, it's not like they appoint themselves. And C, I get the Globe & Mail delivered to my door every morning, and all the various channels on cable, and the media here ain't exactly what I'd call NDP.

doug said...

not only do people throw pies etc. at prime ministers, prime ministers (Chretien) also throw punches in return, imagine that happening in the States...

you know with all the run-up to the election the talk has been on what form the government will take, there is been little on how the government will work, let's say the conservatives get 133 seats

we were talking last night (some buddies)and we were discussing the fact that this will be one of the mosr powerful minority governments in the countrys history due to a number of reasons..

1) voters have been to the polls twice in two years, in Ontario we have municipal elections coming in November and it will be a tough go in Toronto , so voters don't and won't want to go back to the polls anytime soon

2)Liberals will hold a leadership convention which will take at least a year to sort out

3)parties need to fill there coffers, they will need to re-group at least a year or two window

4) Harper has a shelf life of 4 years max.as he's not the most charismatic of leaders.

so I'll concede that two issues will be off the table (abortion, same-sex) you would think but the conservatives know they have a two year window so they may do what the Harris government did, carpet bomb and then run, the Conservatives could take this 2 year window and be politicians or decide to push their agenda knowing the opposition will be powerless for at least a year.

it will be interesting to see how they play it..

Canrane said...

If, however, Harper sticks to the centre-right, increases defense spending, improves Canada-US relations and delivers some modest tax cuts, all things that many people in eastern Canada could live with

If I recall, those goals were also shared by the liberal party, both this election and last (whether they actually achieved them is a whole other issue). So Canadians *can* get a centre-right party without the risk of it turning into a super-right party. That's the main reason a lot of people I know are voting liberal this time. They get the same results without all the risk.

And if electing a Western PM is going to do so much to ease western alienation, then perhaps you should field some Liberal or NDP candidates :)

Seriously, there are pockets of strong liberalism in Alberta, and BC is quite willing to vote in NDP. I don't know why there has been a strong socially progressive leader out of Western Canada since Joe Clark.

Canrane said...

Playing a little catch-up here, I jus wanted to comment on Rob's run-off election idea.

The idea actually strikes me as *anti-democratic*. You reduce choice. Why should I be forced to choose between two parties I do not support?

I think that it would eventually force a 2-party system. As we've seen with the US, that can leave a *lot* of people feeling like no party reflects their views, and any party that does can easily be marginalized.

And why should the winner, the "lesser of the two evils" get majority powers in parliment? It's possible that a party with a minority of direct votes (in the first preliminary election) could end up with a strong majority in parliment. That's skewing the wishes of Canadians more than anything I can think of.

It all depends on how you look at minority situations. I don't think they're thaaat bad. The party leaders just need to put their disappointed prime-ministerial dreams aside and do what's best for the country (i.e. work together to represent their voters). Good things can, and have, happened with minority governments, we just need people with the right attitude.

Canrane said...

Actually, I'd say the media has been almost uniformly anti-liberal (or more specifically, anti-Chretien) for at least 10 years. Ever since the GST cutting thing went down, they've been on Chretien's back. Heck, towards the end there, I was beginning to wonder if Martin was paying these people to help unseat Chretien. For all his arrogance, the man did a lot of good for Canada and it seems like the media has forgotten all that.

He brought Canada out of the red. His trade missions were a novel way to increase our visibility overseas. He took some strong positions (Cuba, Iraq, Land Mines, Internationl Criminal Court) and he said what a lot of people were afraid to say (think anniversary of 9-11). Yet what do we remember him for? The broken GST promise, the pepper-spray incident, his man-handling that guy, the sponsorship scandal, bungled gun-registry, deep cuts to health-care etc. (I'm not saying those things didn't happen, but the coverage has been overwhelmingly negative). Hardly a liberal-friendly media.

RobfromAlberta said...

All thread, you've been talking about the current condition as if it were a permanent thing.

I never claimed it was always the case and I would never suggest that it always will be either. However, it is the case now and likely to remain so for the forseeable future. Furthermore, given demographic trends, the situation is likely to become more extreme, not less so. The fastest growing sectors of our population are the immigrant communities and they overwhelmingly vote Liberal.

The Mulroney Years happened, sir. He passed the GST, sir.

Yeah, so?

The Global and CTV networks, all major metropolitan newspapers(except the TO Star), and just about any Radio station not playing music all skew right, sir.

The Sun papers skew right, I'll grant you that. But the G&M, MacLean's, the CBC and just about every other major newspaper in the country are not considered rightwing by anyone who actually considers themselves conservative. It's a matter of perspective, I suppose.

I always wonder about this. A, it's not true. B, it's not like they appoint themselves.

Oh, but they do. Sure, they have to get elected to Parliament, but every other lever of power is controlled by the PMO. The G-G, the SCC, the Senate, all appointed by the prime minister with zero oversight.

I get the Globe & Mail delivered to my door every morning, and all the various channels on cable, and the media here ain't exactly what I'd call NDP.

True, but, at best, the NDP commands 12-15% of the popular vote in Canada. They are, by no stretch of the imagination, mainstream. So, yes, the MSM is not NDP left, but it is generally pro-Liberal.

RobfromAlberta said...

we were discussing the fact that this will be one of the mosr powerful minority governments in the countrys history due to a number of reasons..

I think it will depend on the size of the minority. Personally, I think it be a pretty thin minority (assuming the CPC even wins, which I doubt) and if that is the case, they won't last the year. The Liberals will take first opportunity to get revenge on the Tories.

If they win 140 or more seats, however, the opposition might be more inclined to give us a break for awhile before bringing down the government. Either way, the Conservatives will be in power for 18 months at most and then we'll be ready for another 12 years of Liberal majorities.

L-girl said...

I get the Globe & Mail delivered to my door every morning, and all the various channels on cable, and the media here ain't exactly what I'd call NDP.

True, but, at best, the NDP commands 12-15% of the popular vote in Canada. They are, by no stretch of the imagination, mainstream. So, yes, the MSM is not NDP left, but it is generally pro-Liberal.


I shouldn't have exaggerated to make my point.

My point was that the Canadian media does not seem pro-Liberal. Most seem centre-right, some seem just plain right.

Since I've started watching Canadian media, anyway - very recently, for sure - they have been very hard on the Liberals. Whenever I hear you or any Canadian Conservative talk about the liberal media, I have no idea where you're getting it from.

It's not as outlandish as the claims in the US (which is pure hoax), but it still seems like nonsense.

RobfromAlberta said...

Whenever I hear you or any Canadian Conservative talk about the liberal media, I have no idea where you're getting it from.

Like I said, the MSM has been harder on the Liberals lately. But one thing you will almost never see in Canada is the media uncovering government scandals. We count on the Auditor-General to be the watchdog. The Conservatives, on the other hand, are completely scrutinized, even though they are not in power. Every offhand remark by some low level functionary is given front page coverage. A couple of months ago, a small group of nobodies in the Quebec wing of the Conservative party called for Harper to step down. If this happened in another political party, if wouldn't even have warrented pg.10 in most papers, but it was covered for two days by the national press as if it signalled the inevitable collapse of the party.

doug said...

here's a breakdown on Canwest, Global T.v's holdings, when they were run by Izzy Asper they were pro-Liberal and in fact any editorial that wasn'rt pro-Chretien led to the re-writing , firing of the editor...but since Izzy died Leonard, David the sons took over and thet are die-hard conservatives so the paper, t.v. focus has changed....they have remarkable coverage int his country, controlling the newspaers witht eh highest circulation, plus t.v. stations ...where's the crtc...see more google in Canwest Watch and theres tons of stuff on them and there wicked ways...

Nationwide:
The National Post daily newspaper. *Circulation: 250,442

Competition:
The Globe and Mail (Bell Globemedia). *Circulation: 327,665


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Calgary:
Calgary Herald daily newspaper. *Circulation: 120,129
Global TV Calgary

Competition:
Calgary Sun (Quebecor). *Circulation: 70,696
CFCN (CTV affiliate)
CBC Radio One
A-Channel (Craig Media)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Edmonton:
Edmonton Journal daily newspaper. *Circulation: 134,760
Global TV Edmonton

Competition:
Edmonton Sun daily (Quebecor). *Competition: 75,029
Edmonton Examiner weekly (Quebecor)
CBC Edmonton, CBC Edmonton en fran├žais
A-Channel (Craig Media)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Montreal:
Montreal Gazette daily newspaper (only English-daily in Canada’s second largest city). *Circulation: 146,170
CH Montreal TV station

Competition:
All French language dailies available in Montreal – La Presse, Le Soliel, La Droit, La Tribune owned by Power Corporation.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ottawa:
Ottawa Citizen daily newspaper. *Circulation: 141,540

Competition:
Ottawa Sun (Quebecor). *Circulation: 50,697
CBC Ottawa
Le Droit (French - Power Corporation)
CJRO TV (Chum)
CJOH (CTV TV)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regina:
Regina Leader-Post daily newspaper (only English-daily). *Circulation: 50,979
Regina Global TV

Competition:
L’Eau Vive (French)
CKCK Regina (CTV TV)
CBC TV (both French and English)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Saskatoon:
Saskatoon Star-Phoenix. *Circulation: 57,165
Global TV Saskatoon

Competition:
CBC Saskatchewan
CFCR Radio (community independent)
CFQC (CTV TV)
The Outlook (weekly)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Vancouver:
Vancouver Province daily newspaper. *Circulation: 166,049
Vancouver Sun daily newspaper. *Circulation: 195,161
Global TV Vancouver

Competition:
The Georgia Straight (weekly)
BCTV (CTV TV news channel)
CBC Vancouver
City TV (Chum)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Victoria:
Victorial Times-Colonist. *Circulation: 70,631
CH Vancouver Island

Competition:
The New VI (Chum)


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Winnipeg:
Winnipeg Global TV
CJZZ Winnipeg radio station


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Community papers in British Columbia:
Port Alberni Westerly News
Burnaby Now
New Westminister Record
The Now Community (Surrey)
Langley Advance
Abbotsford Times
Chilliwack Times
Maple Ridge Times
Coquitlam Now
Richmond News
Delta Optimist
Vancouver Courier
North Shore News
Campbell River Courier Islander
Comox Valley Echo
Cowichan Valley Citizen
Oceanside Star
Harbour City Star



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CanWest TV stations:
Calgary
Edmonton
Lethbridge
Saskatoon
Regina
Winnipeg
Toronto
Montreal
Halifax

Independent CanWest TV stations:
CH Hamilton
CH Vancouver Island
CH Montreal


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

CanWest Radio Stations:
CKBT 91.5
Kitchener
CJZZ 99.1
Winnipeg

sharonapple said...

The Sun papers skew right, I'll grant you that. But the G&M, MacLean's, the CBC and just about every other major newspaper in the country are not considered rightwing by anyone who actually considers themselves conservative. It's a matter of perspective, I suppose.

Maclean's current editor was the former editor of the National Post, Ken Whyte. He's a guy who's known for his conservative views. I used to read Maclean's, but it's turned a hard right recently. I mean they have Linda Frum there. (I dislike her as much as her husband. Axis and Evil creation and bragging... and all.)

http://haldenjohnson.net/2005/12/21/macleans-gradual-demise/

I think it will depend on the size of the minority. Personally, I think it be a pretty thin minority (assuming the CPC even wins, which I doubt) and if that is the case, they won't last the year. The Liberals will take first opportunity to get revenge on the Tories.

It won't be the Liberals. The real question is that with a minority is who will the parties form alliances with to stablize the government. The Conservative's politics make it difficult for other parties to join with them without ticking off the people who support them. Currently, in the election, they may have alienated themselves from the Bloc by appealing to their separtist voters (hey, anything to divide the separtist movement, isn't a bad thing, but it might lead down the road Mulroney went down...) and the NDP (those bad mustache ads in BC).

Lone Primate said...

Places with a true one-party state don't have power actually transferring from one party to another, because there are no other parties to transfer it to. 'Cause there's only one.

Yeah, you know, like Alberta since the days when we still had silver quarters and dimes.

Lone Primate said...

Explain how a Liberal majority government is, in any way, constrained by any opposition.

Explain how ANY majority government is constrained by any opposition. The Senate is no real obstacle. Really, the only limit is the Constitution... you know, that thing whose head Harper keeps talking about holding under the cold water of the notwithstanding clause. Even Mulroney didn't dare.

RobfromAlberta said...

Really, the only limit is the Constitution... you know, that thing whose head Harper keeps talking about holding under the cold water of the notwithstanding clause.

All Harper has to say about the notwithstanding clause is that he will not use it. What a cad.

sharonapple said...

All Harper has to say about the notwithstanding clause is that he will not use it. What a cad.

Then why hold the vote on same-sex marriage at all? The status quo might be maintained, but it's sad to appease a base (and it's a scary base) by playing around with the rights of a minority. Around 54% of Canadians think it should stay -- only 39% believe it should be taken down. In the latest polls two thirds of Canadians believe that we should just move on.

Lone Primate said...

The Mulroney Years happened, sir. He passed the GST, sir.

Yeah, so?


So the point is, 57% of us voted against him in 1988 and he still did that. Where were these checks and balances you seem to think constrain everyone but the Liberals then? Where were they when he embarrassed the Queen by "requesting" her consent to stacking the Senate to force it through? I defy you to name ANYTHING the Grits have done in the last 13 years that odious on so many levels. You're entitled to your opinions, of course, but the manifest one-sidedness of them is sometimes offensive. One-party states, the Liberals have everything rigged so Conservatives (who always play fair) can't get a fair shake... it's high school stuff. The world isn't that black and white, and you've got to know that.