The Shotgun Blog
« A rat is a pig is a dog is a Holocaust victim | Main | Nothing Here To See »
Monday, July 25, 2005
Pick your sides
The Hill Times has two articles that, depending on which side of SSM you are on, will infuriate you or give you confidence. First comes the report that the Conservatives will fight same-sex marriage law in the upcoming election.
...Conservative MP Vic Toews (Provencher, Man.), his party's high-profile justice critic and a former Manitoba justice minister, told The Hill Times that the Conservatives will definitely make it an election issue out on the hustings and said if the federal Conservatives win the next election they will attempt to repeal the law. "The Conservative government will bring forward an alternative; that's what political parties and governments do," Mr. Toews said in an interview last week with The Hill Times in regards to whether it's worth repealing the new law. "They offer alternatives and this is a commitment that we've made as an alternative to what the Liberals have forced on the Canadian people. I can't see how one can avoid it being an election issue. There's a very clear distinction between the Conservatives and all the other parties on that issue."
The Conservatives must be continuing this fight becuase they will feel it will help them in the next election. They are figuring that in their target ridings this could swing 3-4% of the vote their way and gain them seats. On the other hand it makes dozens of urban seats a write off. Arguably they already were but,
...in 2004, the scariness for these urban Canadians in cities such as Vancouver, Montreal, Toronto, London, Windsor, Ottawa, they found that the Conservatives were seen as having socially Conservative views that would've impacted on individual freedoms. Harper is seen as intolerant." One of these "freedoms," Mr. Marzolini said, is same-sex marriage. "Same-sex marriage is a voting issue to maybe one or two people out of every 100 voters. It doesn't have any more impact than that except on style issues." Mr. Marzolini said in order for the federal Conservatives to move ahead of the Liberals, they have to move on and talk policy instead of social values. "Even with people who disagree with same-sex marriage," he said. "It was like the abortion issue. Even people who don't like the abortion laws, they did not want Stockwell Day in 2000 or Stephen Harper last year raising the issue again. They're saying, 'Close it up. We had that fight 20 odd years ago. Let's not keep bringing up old stuff. We want issues and policies to do with quality of life and standard of living.'" Mr. Marzolini said the Conservatives need to move past the "tinkering issues" and start talking about concrete policies for their party rather than harping on the Liberals' misdeeds.
I know several Blogging Tories have serious doubts about the Conservatives strategy here and there is enough data to back them up on this. I am very curious to see what ultimately happens here. I still think it is too early to reach conclusions.
Cross-posted to PoliticalStaples
Posted by Greg Staples on July 25, 2005 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200d834840fe569e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Pick your sides:
Comments
(Off topic and Appologies to Greg) but since Hill Times is mentioned, the following is my lettter they have published as well, in their letters section.
The Hill Times, July 25th, 2005
LETTERS
Johnson too kind to Globe and Mail: reader
Re: "Johnson says in general national media 'ignorant' on big issues," (The Hill Times, July 18). It's an interesting piece. William Johnson is very kind to The Globe and Mail. In my view, the Globe is basically Liberal lick-spittle in the news-disseminating business and quite comfortable supporting the government as witnessed prior to the last election. Continuing to smear Conservative Leader Stephen Harper means it still favours the Liberals over clean conservative administration. Mr. Johnson is too kind to Jeffrey Simpson and company.
Joseph Molnar
Woodstock, Ont.
My view remains that MSM is conservatisms greatest foe in Canada.
J.
Posted by: Joe Molnar | 2005-07-25 6:36:26 AM
It doesn't really matter what the Conservatives do going into the next election with respect to SSM. The Liberals will just keep repeating that the CPC is a party that restricts individual freedoms, using the SSM vote as "proof".
Harper's best strategy to win urban ridings, which he desperately needs to do, would likely be to have individual candidates in target ridings talk about SSM and try to keep the national campaign focussed more on economic issues. This will be extremely difficult since the media are likely to continually ask him questions with regard to what he will do with SSM if elected. He better have a good answer.
Posted by: Alex | 2005-07-25 9:40:31 AM
Regardless of whether the Tories win with this strategy being against Gay marriage, IT IS the right thing too do and to hell with the results...
The Hell we have opened up on our society by allowing Gay marriage is simply immeasurable..
If Canadians are so amoral and immoral to allow this travesty to continue, then it is time for us Westerners and Albertans in particular to finally leave this wretched country!!
This evil must be fought forever just as the evil of abortion is still rightly fought regardless of gutless red tories and the morally relative left!!
Posted by: Albertanator | 2005-07-25 10:04:57 AM
I think that a couple of the above comments illustrate that Conservativism's greatest foe is itself rather than the media.
The Globe and Mail frequently publishes commentary that supports a more 'conservative' viewpoint on economic issues, even though it also publishes Buzz Hargrove and Naomi Klien on occasion. The Toronto Star's editorials lean decidedly to the left, but they're often so poorly argued that they undermine the views they set out to support.
The Conservative Party could do very well if it battled the war of ideas on economic issues and stayed out of the social realm. If they try to use SSM as an election issue, they'll lose my support and many others who otherwise would support the party. SSM isn't a big issue for me; I'd endorse a party that wasn't in favour of SSM. However, I can't support a party that's actively working against SSM.
It's a fine line, but it's significant enough to undermine the party's ability to attract voters and its ability to attract people willing to help campaign in the next election.
Posted by: Mike Kerrigan | 2005-07-25 11:00:59 AM
Me too I'm afraid.
It's too bad the Conservative party keeps shooting itself in the foot on these social issues, because I support a lot of their fiscal policies and I would be very interested in stronger immigration controls. I guess they will just keep loosing elections until they figure it out. Even the right can only beat a dead horse for so long. At some point they are going to have to decide, do they want to promote a puritanical, religiously driven, social agenda or do they want to govern Canada.
I'll likely vote Green again, because I live in Calgary. But if I lived in a riding where it was close, I'd probably vote Liberal, because that way all it would cost me is money, which I value less than freedom.
Mont D. Law
Posted by: montdlaw | 2005-07-25 11:41:31 AM
I'll have to chime in hear as well. My political leanings have been pretty much Conservative, Reform, Alliance, Conservative but I don't think I can vote for the Conservatives this time around if they keep this up. This issue has been decided by a vote in our Parliament, under a minority government no less. You know … democratically. Those going on about how it needs to be overturned remind me of the Democrats in Florida. Mulligan! Mulligan!
The Conservatives need to let it go and move onto more important issues. Corruption anyone? Health Care? The Gun Registry? Terrorism? Hello? Hello? Is this thing on? Can anyone hear me?
I can't bring myself to even consider voting for the Liberals and the complete financial ruin of the country is too high a price to pay for the occasional social issue that the NDP gets on the right side of. I guess I'll have to take a closer look at the Greens or deliberately spoil my ballot next time around.
Posted by: Travis | 2005-07-25 12:13:28 PM
"At some point they are going to have to decide, do they want to promote a puritanical, religiously driven, social agenda or do they want to govern Canada."
At what point did we become a country that wants politicians that are only interested in power?
Isn't this what we always complain about?
Also being in favor of civil unions and not "SSM" is hardly "puritanical"
Posted by: Pat (C) | 2005-07-25 12:41:11 PM
Next time y'all are talking to a Liberal or NDP supporter, ask them why they support the pro-divorce anti-child anti-family platform of The Martin-Layton coalition and ask them if you can count on their support for the CPC's efforts in making child-friendly amendments to The Divorce Act. From Conservative.ca:
“We recognize that it is advantageous for the well-being of children to have the opportunity to develop and maintain a connection with both parents – and even grandparents, when it is safe and positive to do so,” (Lynne Yelich) Blackstrap MP stated in her remarks.
The Conservative Party, Yelich noted, is committed to making the necessary changes to the Divorce Act to accomplish such. The party’s policy declaration passed this past March included a ‘shared parenting’ resolution. “The Conservatives have demonstrated a firm commitment to amend the (Divorce) Act to ensure children have the opportunity to build a meaningful relationship with both parents and both grandparents when a family breakdown occurs – unless it is clearly demonstrated not to be in the child’s best interest.”
Or, keep dicking around with gay marriage.
Posted by: Anonalogue | 2005-07-25 12:51:41 PM
No question...It's time for the CPC to move on from SSM. It's a losing issue and it's been decided. So long as Harper sticks with refusing to use the notwithstanding clause no one is going to take his position seriously in any event.
Which is not to say there are not plenty of ways for the CPC to hit the Grits on real family issues. Start with the Tax Act which penalizes stay at home parents. There are a lot more stay at home parents in Canada than there are marriage minded homosexuals and cutting them a break is, dare I suggest it, a vote winner.
Posted by: Jay Currie | 2005-07-25 2:06:20 PM
I think that SSM is a winner for the Conservatives for the following reasons:
About a year ago, Faith Today magazine (magazine of the Evangelical Fellowship of Canada, has a wide distribution among evangelical leaders) did a study that showed that Canadian evangelicals vote more or less the same as the general population - about 40% L, 30% C, 25% NDP, 5% other.
But SSM could change this because it is such a hot button issue. Canada does not have a strong religious right like the States but this issue could do it. Evangelicals make up about 7-10% of the Canadian population, but if their votes swing dramatically and more of them come out to vote, it will bump the conservatives a few percentage points.
Add in conservative Catholics moving their votes and you get a few more percentage point bumps.
Add this in with getting any Muslims to vote for the conservatives (in last election it was about 1 or 2% according to other posts I've seen on the Shotgun) and people of other faiths as well and the conservative vote goes up more.
There are a lot of people of faith who are really upset about this and will make it a single issue vote, and they will come out in numbers to vote on it.
As for the urban ridings, forget it (at least in Toronto) and let the NDP and Liberals fight over them. Unless the conservatives basically adopt every liberal policy they won't win there. People in those ridings vote Left because they want the cash to keep flowing to them via various social projects. Does it really matter if the conservatives lose urban ridings by 5,000 votes instead of 10,000?Conservatives are better to fight where they can truly be conservative and win.
SSM is a winner. Martin rushed it through Parliament this summer and clearly is not interested in making it election issue. And politics aside, it is the right thing for Harper and the conservatives to do.
Posted by: Timmyz | 2005-07-25 2:07:34 PM
The conservatives would be wise to shelf plans to re-debate SSM. How on earth can the copnservatives win an election if they don't win in the cities, and they don't win a seat in Quebec?
The best they can do in that case is a very small minority government, if that, and one that couldn't push through a change in SSM, anyways.
Fred
gayandright.blogspot.com
Posted by: Fred Litwin | 2005-07-25 2:25:42 PM
Perhaps this is appropriate:
http://tinyurl.com/adc7o
Posted by: Left Exposed | 2005-07-25 3:24:59 PM
About a year ago, Faith Today magazine . . . did a study that showed that Canadian evangelicals vote more or less the same as the general population - about 40% L, 30% C, 25% NDP, 5% other.
But SSM could change this because it is such a hot button issue.
If that is the case, why did the Conservatives not win the last election? Liberal policy was pretty clearly favorable to SSM at that point.
Add in conservative Catholics moving their votes and you get a few more percentage point bumps.
In the thread on why Catholics vote liberal, the article makes it clear that Catholics, practicing or not favor the Liberals. Again, Liberals were pretty much promising this legislation prior to the last election and the Catholics didn't switch. Why now?
Add this in with getting any Muslims to vote for the conservatives (in last election it was about 1 or 2% according to other posts I've seen on the Shotgun) and people of other faiths as well and the conservative vote goes up more.
Muslims are not going to leave the Liberal party over this. Immigration is their hot button issue and correctly or incorrectly they don't really see SSM as a threat to them. The Muslim Canadian Congress endorsed it, Canadian Islamic Congress didn't, but the Conservative party is seen as hard on immigration and immigrants which pretty much gut's them with Muslims.
As for the urban ridings, forget it (at least in Toronto) and let the NDP and Liberals fight over them.
Except that without any hope in Quebec, Harper needs the cities to win. Also the urban ridings are where most of the Canadian Muslims and likely English speaking Catholics live.
Does it really matter if the conservatives lose urban ridings by 5,000 votes instead of 10,000?Conservatives are better to fight where they can truly be conservative and win.
Not really, but the opposite is also true. Does it really matter if the Conservatives win Calgary North Hill by 5,000 votes instead of 10,000 votes?
Conservatives are better to fight where they can truly be conservative and win.
And just where would those ridings be?
Mont D. Law
Posted by: montdlaw | 2005-07-25 5:04:59 PM
At what point did we become a country that wants politicians that are only interested in power?
Governing Canada is, the last time I looked, the goal of the Conservative party. Should they pursue that power in an illegal manner? No. But if they are ever going to achieve their goal, the Conservatives are going to have to show some flexibilty in their policy. Which they clearly know and accept.
Mont D. Law
Posted by: montdlaw | 2005-07-25 5:16:20 PM
But Travis,
The gun registry "issue has been decided by a vote in our Parliament." By your reasoning, once something has been voted up once, there is no justification for revisiting it....
Posted by: cam | 2005-07-25 7:02:21 PM
The "Silent Majority" in Canada - including Toronto - is against SSM. The polls consistently bear this out. It is a no-lose position to take - not to mention, a principled position to take. It will piss off the G&M and CBC, but there's no hope of getting a fair shake from them, anyway. Those who say "it's a settled issue" are insane (hello, Jay Currie) - how can it be that the overthrow of the fundamental building block of modern western society (the contractually-bound, monogamous nuclear family) has become "a done deal" virtually overnight? If nothing else, Harper is a brilliant strategist, and he knows a good opportunity when he sees it.
Posted by: NCF TO | 2005-07-25 10:02:26 PM
PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE have the Conservative's take up the issue of SSM in the next election again. That will guarantee that they don't take Ontario or Quebec again and we all know that you don't need either of those to hold power in the House.
DUH!
Anyway SSM is a lock. You lost and all you can do now is hide your boys!! I'm coming to...uh...marry them!!
Posted by: Justin | 2005-07-25 11:15:48 PM
Cam,
Good point. I'll skip around the other arguments for and against SSM and the registry to address it specifically. We now have ample evidence to demonstrate that the registry is far too expensive and not at all effective. That's more than ample reason to revisit the issue, even if you thought registering long guns was a good idea to start with. The same can't be said for SSM.
Are heterosexuals suddenly divorcing each other because of this bill? Are they less committed to their spouses? Do they love their children any less? Is there any reason to think any if that will come to pass?
I understand the conservative argument that we have changed a rather fundamental institution and while it is a valid argument, it's not a compelling one. We have changed that institution before in the name of equality (property rights for women, votes for women, women as persons under the law...). All of those had far more profound impacts on marriage than SSM does.
This is a minor tweak by comparison. But it's a tweak that on the one hand codifies hospital visitation rights, inheritance rights etc. for a group that has lacked them up until now, and on the other hand lets true proponents of marriage say “marriage is the ultimate form of commitment, it’s what we should all aspire to. Gay or straight, religious or not”. How more fundamental can you get?
Posted by: Travis | 2005-07-26 5:53:35 AM
"You will respect our right to remove it, democratically and legally. Please note that this is not a request. It's a statement. You will respect us, whatever has to be done to you to compel that result."
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Oh God ebt. Jesus Christ this is your best post yet.
I'll start respecting you when you stop hiding.
Posted by: Justin | 2005-07-26 5:51:17 PM
I am with you ebt and so are MANY Canadians I know, even some left wingers!! It is too ridiculous 'looking' for most of us to really visualize two people of the same sex actually getting married. Really it is!! We have all put our heads in the sand and pretended that it just was not 'real'.
When we are forced to obay the 'new laws' that this insane folly will produce we will be sorry and we will vote for REPEAL!! The lawyers are rubbing their hands in glee because now no 'arrangement for living' is safe. For example, my ex-roomates were a group of five girls in my university days; some of us lived together for five years, with this new legislation we could all sue each other for support due to the fact that we were all 'dumped' for men!!
With this new law, I could marry (or shack up with) my maiden aunt and collect my cousins share of her inheritance. Incest you say? No the new law will say it is O.K. because incest is against the law only because it produces feeble minded offspring.
Poor, silly, feeble-minded Canada; don't blame the loony left MPs - blame the voters who voted the ND/Liberano/Bloc into power.
Posted by: jema54 | 2005-07-27 3:02:57 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.