Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« The little engine that couldn’t | Main | Martin takes back all those things he said about the NDP »

Monday, June 28, 2004

The blame game

I'm sure that social conservatism will be blamed for the poorer than expected showing today for the Conservatives. But overall, the Ontario contingent is about evenly split for the Tories (and all but one pro-life Liberal won re-election on Ontario); I've never been convinced that social conservatism is the electoral albatross that the media, political strategists and libertarians believe it to be. The Conservatives lost for a constellation of reasons but the most important, I think, is the issueless campaign that Stephen Harper ran. The Canadian people were never given a reason to vote Conservative; the best we offered was that we weren't corrupt Liberals. That, we've learned the hard way, just won't do.

Posted by Paul Tuns on June 28, 2004 in Canadian Conservative Politics | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200d83456438569e2

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference The blame game:

» Election Day from Ghost of a flea
International Flea-readers have a ring-side seat for more mind-grippingly fascinating Canadian federal election coverage! Watch this space for evening updates. In the meantime, spare a thought for Shania Twain. An Alberta rose (hint hint) and an exemp... [Read More]

Tracked on 2004-06-28 10:13:09 PM

Comments

You may not be surprised to learn I believe the poor showing for the new Conservative party in Ontario is entirely down to the socon agenda. First, those of us with reservations about the new party were not reassured. Second, as you point out, there was no need for socons to vote Conservative when they could rely on Liberal candidates to represent their views.

Posted by: Ghost of a flea | 2004-06-28 10:09:55 PM


Four of my relatives who usually vote Conservative voted Liberal or NDP this time. When I asked why, the most common response went something like, "Stephen Harper will send women back to the stone ages."

They're fiscal conservatives only. They were rock-solid Harper supporters until chunderheads like Randy White beaked off to the media. To the so-cons I say, "j'accuse."

Posted by: Sean | 2004-06-28 10:10:23 PM


Paul I have to agree with you on the social issues....Most Canadians are by a slight majority against Gay Marriage (I can't believe it isn't higher) and most Canadians favor the death penalty......Only on Abortion would we be trending against a majority....

And I agree again that Stephen did not make his standings more clear.....and I think it was out of fear because of how the liberal press would savage him....If stephen would come out and say he is against the current immigration, for free votes and referundums on Social issues, and speak out against our brutal high taxes and our need to dismantle some of the Mommy State, I have no doubt most Canadians would support such initiatives.....

Thankfully, I don't think it will be long until the next election too see if Stephen shows a little more gumption!!

Devon Hill

Proud Albertan

Posted by: Albertadude | 2004-06-28 10:12:55 PM


I agree with Sean and Ghost of a Flea below. Unless the Conservatives can send the paleolithics like Randy White packing into the Christian Heritage Party where they belong, they will never hold power in Canada. I voted for Gary Mitchell here in Vancouver Centre but I would never have voted for any of your socons. And I know I am not alone in this. You can put your fingers in your ears and deny this all you like but that is futile. I hope your party makes the effort to modernize itself on these issues, and finally give a fiscal conservative war hawk like me the government I think this country needs.

Posted by: randall g | 2004-06-28 10:25:16 PM


Sean, welcome to my blogroll. Randall, start a blog! We need more fiscal conservative warhawk voices in this country.

Posted by: Ghost of a flea | 2004-06-28 10:27:27 PM


well, If you're sure the so-cons are going to be blamed, I'm not far behind you. I think it's right. The Canadian people have spoken, and what they want is the Friends universe, they don't want personal responsibility, they don't want freedom, they don't want moral certitude. That's OK, I'm not going to blame them. All I really needed to know is what the Canadian People wanted. Thanks. Now I know what to do. It has solved a lot of problems. I know where I don't want to live any more and a lot of the things I couldn't make up my mind about have been taken care of. All the things I thought about Canadians have been proven right. I feel much better.

HJW

Posted by: hilary | 2004-06-28 10:48:23 PM


"If stephen would come out and say he is against the current immigration, for free votes and referundums on Social issues, and speak out against our brutal high taxes and our need to dismantle some of the Mommy State"

He did. On numerous occasions. Unfortunately I had to go sifting through all of the "FANATIC", "HITLER", "TAKE AWAY A WOMAN'S RIGHT TO CHOOSE", and "CHILD PORNOGRAPHY" news stories to find them.

Bill Clinton had "bimbo eruptions". Stephen Harper had "Bible eruptions". Those eruptions dragged the media's attention away from what was an exceptionally solid platform.

Ralph Klein didn't help either, and I've addressed that elsewhere. It's time he got bitchslapped too.

Posted by: Sean | 2004-06-28 10:50:12 PM


Good going, your party lost West Vancouver and North Vancouver to the Liberals, as well as several other seats in BC. National popular vote was 30%, down 8% from combined PC/Alliance. Are you still trying to convince yourself you don't have a social conservative problem? I remember polls from the last election that asked PC voters in Ontario who their second choice was. It was more often Liberal than Alliance. That should tell you something. Vote splitting was not the cause of your problems.

On the other hand, Randy White won his riding by a huge margin. Too bad there are only a very few ridings like that in this country.

The Liberal scare ads worked very well. I could tell when I heard the most recent ones over the last few days that the Liberals would form the next government, despite the hopeful polls and seat projections in the main papers. They may have been exaggerations or outright lies, but people believed them for a reason.

GoaF, I have a blog, follow the link below. It has two posts and no readers :-)

Posted by: randall g | 2004-06-28 11:07:42 PM


*sigh*

I shouldn't but Okay, I will bite.

Had the Tories won, with so-con support, wouldn't the so-cons be justified in trying to get some of the things they would like to have? That would presumably include talking about some of the changes they would like to make.

Nobody will blame the NDP for trying to get some of the things that they want from this minority government. It should be the same for the so-con wing of the Tories.

Posted by: Rick Hiebert | 2004-06-28 11:11:23 PM


"Had the Tories won, with so-con support, wouldn't the so-cons be justified in trying to get some of the things they would like to have?"

AFTER they had won, sure. But is a little discretion in the run up to the election too much to ask for?

Posted by: Sean | 2004-06-28 11:19:19 PM


"Unless the Conservatives can send the paleolithics like Randy White packing into the Christian Heritage Party where they belong, they will never hold power in Canada."

Without speaking specifically to Randy White, you then lose the socon NDP vote in Saskatchewan and elsewhere. That's the conundrum - the west is socially conservative, across the spectrum of parties. You loosen up on that, you don't distinguish yourself from the liberals and national NDP. As much as this is the birthplace of medicare, it isn''t the safe haven for issues like gay marriage and abortion.

Posted by: Kate | 2004-06-28 11:39:27 PM


"Had the Tories won, with so-con support, wouldn't the so-cons be justified in trying to get some of the things they would like to have?"

That depends. Does having those things depend entirely on denying other people their marriages and control over their bodies? If so, then no.

How about a socon agenda that asserts positive change rather than the habit of finger wagging disapproval you share with the socialists?

Posted by: Ghost of a flea | 2004-06-29 7:56:53 AM


"Had the Tories won, with so-con support, wouldn't the so-cons be justified in trying to get some of the things they would like to have?"

And the answer seems to be a resounding "NO!"

Isn't it a basic rule of Canadian politics that politicians should be able to:

1. Advocate what they want. (This includes talking about it.)

2. Try to get some of the things that they want passed as laws, even if they have to be compromised or watered down somewhat.

Nobody is blaming the NDP for trying to get some of their concerns addressed in the upcoming government. Layton talked about it. The talking heads talked about it. (You could perhaps make a case that some of the things that they want are as "stupid" as what the so-cons want, correct?)

As a matter of practical politics, so-cons should be respected in the new Tory party. One would think that the last ten years of federal politics would imply this, no?

Posted by: Rick Hiebert | 2004-06-29 9:31:09 AM


"Had the Tories won, with so-con support, wouldn't the so-cons be justified in trying to get some of the things they would like to have?"

And the answer seems to be a resounding "NO!"

Isn't it a basic rule of Canadian politics that politicians should be able to:

1. Advocate what they want. (This includes talking about it.)

2. Try to get some of the things that they want passed as laws, even if they have to be compromised or watered down somewhat.

Nobody is blaming the NDP for trying to get some of their concerns addressed in the upcoming government. Layton talked about it. The talking heads talked about it. (You could perhaps make a case that some of the things that they want are as "stupid" as what the so-cons want, correct?)

As a matter of practical politics, so-cons should be respected in the new Tory party. One would think that the last ten years of federal politics would imply this, no?

Posted by: Rick Hiebert | 2004-06-29 9:31:16 AM



The comments to this entry are closed.