The Shotgun Blog
« Fresh Pope! | Main | Set your VCRs – Joe Clark on CTV February 4th »
Thursday, January 26, 2006
Breaking Down The Ontario Vote
Let's take a closer look at what happened in Ontario on election night. On the whole the Liberals took 54 seats, the Tories 40, and the NDP 12. The Liberals dropped from nearly 45% of the vote in the 2004 election to 39%, the Tories only climbed marginally to 35%, and the NDP took 19%. One short analysis is that a buncha social conservatives just joined the CPC Ontario caucus. Good. Another is that the Liberals have largely been isolated to the GTA and that Toronto is shut out from power. Voter turnout was 73% in Ottawa and the Tories did very well in Eastern Ontario.
I'm going to riff off my article "How The Liberals Will Lose Ontario", written three and a half months ago, to see how the 27 vulnerable Liberal ridings I identified turned out, my predictions are in italics. All vote breakdowns and riding profiles from the very excellent CBC Canada Votes 2006 website.
Beaches-East York: Maria Minna vs. Marilyn Churley vs. Green leader Jim Harris. Give Minna the edge here but this will be a good fight.
Minna took it down by a comfortable margin. But WTF is up with Green Party leader Jim Harris only winning 6% here? There are lots of enviroweenies in this riding; a piece of tofu could run for the Greens here and get 6%.
Maria Minna LIB 20675 40.36% X
Marilyn Churley NDP 17943 35.02%
Peter Conroy CON 9235 18.03%
Jim Harris GRN 3107 6.06%
Barrie: Lib incumbent Aileen "Too Rye Aye" Carroll won by only 1200 votes in 2004 and is vulnerable to colourful CPC retread candidate Patrick Brown.
I’m glad Brown won here but if he ever puts out another Liberal/progressive style press release like this I'd start looking for another candidate.
Patrick Brown CON 23999 41.86% X
Aileen Carroll LIB22476 39.2%
Peter Bursztyn NDP 6984 12.18%
Etobicoke-Lakeshore: Incumbent Jean Augustine may retire, Tory support is relatively strong here for a 416 riding.
Torture Boy ended up winning by nearly 5000 votes. I suppose this is good in that he will be an endless source of amusement to those of us to find him a pseud.
Michael Ignatieff LIB 24641 43.88% X
John Capobianco CON 19651 34.99%
Liam McHugh-Russell NDP 8710 15.51%
Parkdale-High Park: Looks like Lib incumbent Sarmite (Sam) Bulte will be defeated by Dipper Peggy Nash.
Thank goodness Ms. Copyright Nazi didn’t get re-elected, welcome to Ottawa, Peggy Nash!
Peggy Nash NDP 20690 40.31% X
Sarmite Sam Bulte LIB 18489 36.02%
Jurij Klufas CON 8767 17.08%
Chatham-Kent-Essex: The Tories lost this one by only 400 votes in 2004; paint it blue.
I am especially happy to see DVK win large here, he’s a good social conservative. We – the people who still have a shred of moral decency - are behind you 100%, old chap.
Dave Van Kesteren CON 20818 42.88% X
Jim Comiskey LIB15131 31.17%
Kathleen Kevany NDP 10865 22.38%
Kenora: This rural riding was a 3 way race last time and could go any way. Not a safe Liberal seat in any case.
It did turn out to be a true 3 way race but the bad guys won:
R oger Valley LIB 9465 35.47% X
Bill Brown CON 8429 31.59%
Susan Barclay NDP 8109 30.39%
Nickel Belt: Lib
incumbent Ray Bonin seems to be popular here, but this is union country
and The Dippers are my favourites here. Paint it orange.
Turns out he was more popular than I thought. Here is CBC’s take on this riding: “The riding has a strong francophone presence. In the 2001 census, 43 per cent listed French as their mother tongue. More than two per cent of the population are aboriginal. Natural resources, especially mining, play an important part in the economy. Average family income is $60,237 and unemployment is a high 10 per cent.“
Raymond Bonin LIB 19775 43.14% X
Claude Gravelle NDP 17668 38.55%
Margaret Schwartzentruber CON 5822 12.7%
Nipissing-Timiskaming: Paint this one Blue; a great opportinity for the CPC to pick up a seat in Mike Harris country.
Whoops, I missed this one too. I’m sorry to see Chirico emerge nonvictorous here. As some have pointed out, Harris vote does not equal CPC vote and the CPC needs to figure out why that is and fix it. Rota must be one hell of an MP, that’s all I gotta say.
Anthony Rota LIB 21393 44.69% X
Peter Chirico CON 16511 34.49%
Dave Fluri NDP 8268 17.27%
Ottawa Orleans: Former Liberal Royal Galipeau is running for the CPC this time; carpetbagging Anglo Walter Robinson nearly won this fairly french riding for the CPC last time.
This is a sweet win for the CPC, I mean really sweet. Long story short: if Royal doesn’t bring home the bacon to a riding that can fairly be described as neglected for two decades then this riding goes back to Red.
Royal Galipeau CON 25414 41.04% X
Marc Godbout LIB 24215 39.11%
Mark Andrew Leahy NDP 9339 15.08%
Ottawa South: Former Tory MP Barry Turner is running against Dalton's little brother. Give the edge to the Liberals, but don't be surprised if Gorbachev buddy Turner pulls a rabbit out of his ass here.
I’m disappointed as hell about this. I hope the CPC can find good use for a good man, Allan Cutler, who knows a thing or two about the public service. Those McGuinty boys are ferocious campaigners.
David McGuinty LIB 27162 44.15% X
Allan Cutler CON 23038 37.45%
Henri Sader NDP 81381 3.23%
Ottawa West-Nepean: Johnny Baird is going to paint this one blue, book it.
Consider it booked:
John Baird CON 25607 43.13% X
Lee Farnworth LIB 20244 34.09%
Marlene Rivier NDP 9569 16.12%
Neil Adair GRN 2932 4.94%
John Pacheco IND 905 1.52%
A good portion of those 905 votes won by marriage advocate John Pacheco would’ve gone Tory under different circumstances, and Farnworth did surprisingly well against such a high profile candidate. Baird needs to perform or this riding could go back to the Liberals.
St. Catharines: CPC
candidate Rick "Lenny" Dykstra has a good chance to knock off Liberal
incumbent "Walt Lastewka" as there appears to be a good Tory base here.
This ranks with Ottawa-Orleans as the sweetest of CPC wins in Ontario and it came down to 244 votes.
Rick Dykstra CON 2166837.46% X
Walt Lastewka LIB21424 37.04%
Jeff Burch NDP11849 20.48%
Whitby-Oshawa: Jim Flaherty has a good chance to take this one from Lib incumbent "Judi Longfield."
Welcome to Ottawa, Jim! This will drive the statists nuts.
Jim Flaherty CON 29293 43.86% X
Judi Longfield LIB 25882 38.75%
Maret Sadem-Thompson NDP 8720 13.06%
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell: Don Boudria is gone, though I think the Libs may pull this one out.
Holy moley! I did not think the Tories would win this one. Lt. Col (ret.) Pierre is a good social conservative, good family man, and a professional engineer; future cabinet material? I’d like to see him there.
Pierre Lemieux CON 22996 41.59% X
René Berthiaume LIB 22786 41.21%
Jo-Ann Fennessey NDP 7010 12.68%
Northumberland-Quinte West: Libs won this very rural riding by only 300 votes last time, paint it Blue.
Yes! Norlock The Narc is in the house! Rick is a retired cop, a democrat, a social conservative, and somebody I’m happy to see in parliament representing George Hees country. The CPC defence policy and guarantees to CFB Trenton sealed this one, I think. In reviewing the Liberals MPs I found Paul Macklin was one of the better ones, so he can hold his head high.
Rick Norlock CON 25841 41.27% X
Paul Macklin LIB 22563 36.04%
Russ Christianson NDP 11265 17.99%
Trinity-Spadina: Layton
squeeze Olivia Chow only lost this by 800 votes last time to former
Black Sabbath guitarist Tommy Iommi. NDP candidate is undeclared at
this point, but go ahead and paint this one orange.
Notice the high voter turnout:
Olivia Chow NDP 28753 46.02% X
Tony Ianno LIB 25086 40.15%
Sam Goldstein CON 5629 9.01%
Ancaster-Dundas-Flamborough-Westdale: A
rematch of the last election which saw Liberal Russ Powers get 21935
votes to David Sweet's 19135. It won't take much of a swing for this to
go Tory.
And it didn’t. My Canada includes Christians, particularly ones with morals, so I’m especially happy to see David Sweet win here.
David Sweet CON 24523 39.12% X
Russ Powers LIB 21630 34.5%
Gordon Guyatt NDP 13359 21.31%
Burlington: Another rematch, this one between Lib Paddy Torsney (27423) and CPC Mike Wallace (23389). Libs are probably a slight favourite, but the CPC needs only a small swing to win this one.
Attaboy, Mike! According to the CBC riding profile “The economy is highly dependent on manufacturing industries. Many residents commute to Toronto or Hamilton to work.”
Mike Wallace CON 27984 43.09% X
Paddy Torsney LIB 25414 39.13%
David Laird NDP 8081 12.44%
Halton: Garth Turner takes this one, book it.
This one was close, but the crafty hardworking pro took it. I wonder if the 4026 Green voters know that Mr. Turner is on the Board of Directors of the Sierra Legal Defence Fund?
Garth Turner CON 30578 44.18% X
Gary Carr LIB 28498 41.17%
Anwar Naqvi NDP 6110 8.83%
Kyle Grice GRN 4026 5.82%
Hamilton East-Stoney Creek: Tony Valeri won this by less than a thousand votes last time out. Dipper support seems strong here and this riding is a good opportunity for the NDP to pick up a seat.
Given that Valeri only lost by 400 seats here give some credit to the bloggers.
Wayne Marston NDP 19271 35.87% X
Tony Valeri LIB 18878 35.13%
Frank Rukavina CON 13578 25.27%
Hamilton Mountain: Another
Hamilton riding the Libs won by less than a thousand votes. Incumbent
Beth Phinney isn't running, this one is up for grabs.
And the NDP grabbed it, though I’m surprised the Tories did relatively well here.
Chris Charlton NDP 21869 37.33% X
Bill Kelly LIB18697 31.92%
Don Graves CON 15915 27.17%
Posted by Anonalogue on January 26, 2006 | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e200d834a4c68769e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Breaking Down The Ontario Vote:
Comments
I'm curious about your comments about Paul Macklin being one of the good guys. Maybe he was; I don't know much about him personally. But I did have the opportunity to interview him on our radio station which broadcasts into Quinte West, and I couldn't believe how much he towed the party line on things that are pretty much indefensible in this riding.
In particular, he voted no on raising the age of consent; believes the gun registry was successful; voted for same sex marriage; thinks Paul Martin handled our relationship with the United States well; supported national day care; "wishes Parliament had lasted longer so we could have heard the recommendations from Gomery" (that's like saying we Liberals don't know how to clean up government unless someone tells us); and voted against mandatory sentences for gun crimes.
All of those views aren't highly regarded in this southeastern Ontario neck of the woods. I interviewed Bob Vaughan, the Liberal candidate for Prince Edward Hastings, and at least he didn't tow the party line on everything. But Macklin did. It was actually kind of funny.
Maybe he is a good guy in his personal life (and I have no reason to think otherwise), but from the reaction I got from my interview (which you can read at http://hipathome.blogspot.com and scroll down to the bottom of the page), people didn't share that opinion of him politically around here.
Posted by: SheilaG | 2006-01-26 7:48:18 AM
An aside to the above post, is the invalid binarism now being promoted on the MSM - that the CPC win is a 'rural' versus 'urban' vote. This is completely false.
The three large cities in Canada, Toronto at 4 million, Montreal at 3 million and Vancouver at 2 million, went Liberal/NDP. But, the other cities went CPC or a mixture. These other cities, such as Ottawa at 1 million, Edmonton at 800,000, Calgary 800,000, Hamilton 600,000 etc.. (all figures rounded)..cannot be redefined by the MSM as 'rural'.
I am convinced that Canadians in these citizens do not, unlike their rural co-citizens, wake up every day to the cows and the barn, but instead to the public transit and elevators and computers of a city.
Furthermore, for the MSM to redefine any and all cities in Canada that are less than one million as 'rural' ignores that a majority of major cities in the world, are less than that magic number. Amsterdam- 729,000; Stockholm-744,000; Copenhagen- 500,000; Lyon -422,000; Genoa-655,000. Why, our Edmonton at 863,000, Calgary at 822,000, Quebec, at 672,000, Winnipeg at 677,000 etc..are larger than some of these major business and political centres!!
Therefore, the urban/rural divide that the MSM and journalists are attempting to establish as the infrastructure of the Conservatives in Canada - is - "an urban myth". It is false.
There are reasons why these three large cities remain socialist and embedded in a mode of thought that prefers a welfare state top-down parental mode of governance and a passive, 'kept' citizen - but the urban/rural divide is not one of these reasons.
Posted by: ET | 2006-01-26 7:51:23 AM
Wow sounds exciting for you.
So bring on the free vote on marriage!! You people have been obsessing over it for months now and you've got your chance. Let's see 'what Canadians want'!
Posted by: Justin | 2006-01-26 7:54:20 AM
Sheila I found out about Rick Norlock from your excellent interview with him. While researching my infamous Deck Of Liberals (http://anonalogue.blogspot.com/2005/12/deck-of-liberals.html) Macklin was one of the few Liberals who didn't have some sort of scandal or a bad record attached to his name. To answer your question I know squat about him beyond that. I've spent quite a bit of time between Oshawa and Belleville on business, though, so I hear you when you suggest Macklin's position on social issues were out of whack with the people of the riding.
Posted by: Anonalogue | 2006-01-26 9:01:08 AM
We now have a Franco/Anglo divide in Canada. It has always been there, and it is getting worse by the decade.
Anybody who does not see the Urban/City divide and the reasons for it has probably fallen total prey (may well be unconsciously) to the Liberal brand of Ideology/Legislation/Policies/Ways of "doing business" since 1968.
The far left and the far right are not likely to impose their will on the majority for very long. We are in a period of transition. I hope that enough thinking people in M/T/V will have the courage to both look at and moreso have the courage to get Canada into a blue liberal/red tory type of balance. The Farther Left and the Farther Right will always be there to keep the ruling group a little left of centre - and I believe this is a good thing. The liberals have gone far to much to the left and PMSH is not likely going to take Canada in the direction of the Far Right. Soooo people - chill out a bit - and lets talk about how to make things work - not rip them apart.
For the first time we have a PM who is not beholden to "big eastern financial business" and this must be very confusing for them right now. How this unfolds is going to be very interesting and make no mistake - it is going to be crucial for Canada as a nation.
For sure - don't believe all you hear/see in the MSM
Posted by: calgary clipper | 2006-01-26 9:08:53 AM
I still do not understand why the mega-cities are “entitlement” oriented and the smaller Ottawa cities are more like the ROC. Would one reason be because mega-cities lack a sense of community? Therefore “big Liberal daddy” is a proxy for community?
Also, isn’t the reality that big chunks of the population like to be told what to do rather than aspire to the individualism that conservatives champion? Do submissive people move to the mega-cities where there are bureaucratic-defined jobs with an in and out basket and lots of supervision. I hope I’ve got that wrong, because if that’s the case, then conservatives will always be a minority at best in mega-cities. Which may be why Bush has moved so far into the middle, maybe he’s calculated that the GOP can’t survive as pure conservatives of the William F Buckley variety.
Finally I also agree with ShielaG’s observations. But I think the abortion issue is more than just about abortions. I'm guessing women use the abortion issue as a proxy for women’s rights in a very general sense. Canvassing door to door in both 2004 and 2006 in Toronto has led me to this conclusion. Conservatives had better figure this one out. Because the mega-cities are packed full of BA’s in Gender Studies and we’ll never get anywhere without a proper analysis of what’s going on in the minds of this "in-out basket" crowd in the mega-cities.
Posted by: nomdenet | 2006-01-26 9:26:44 AM
Calgary Clipper - I don't accept the urban/city divide, for the reasons I outlined above, and I haven't fallen prey to the Liberal ideology.
Most certainly, there is an anglo-franco divide; that has been with us from the beginning of Canada as Upper and Lower Canada. However, I think that Harper's tactic of decentralization of ALL provinces, allowing each region to self-define and self-organize their economic and social realities, is the correct means to address this problem. Therefore, rather than Quebec vs the ROC, it will be Quebec as one region, along with other equally self-defining, and self-organizing regions.
I also disagree with your hope for a monoculture, ie. one type of perspective in Canada. I think that we require a two-party rather than one party government, for that enables dialogue and analysis. A one-party state permits only compliance with its theories - as we've seen in the Liberal campaigns where it is 'unCanadian' not to follow all Liberal policies.
And I agree with nomdenet - the 'big Liberal (or NDP)daddy' is a community mind-set where the individual is subsumed within a Greater Authority. That's very much the way it is in bureaucracy, in gov't, in our socialist universities. Our three megacities operate in this cocoon-like and protected, no-risk manner. But, a population that insists on constant care and refuses to take risks is a dependent population. And - as I keep ranting - we are only allowed the luxury of such passive safe dependency, because our neighbour to the south, takes all the risks, foots all the bills and supports us. We certainly don't look after ourselves - either economically, intellectually or socially.
Posted by: ET | 2006-01-26 9:46:30 AM
Would analysing the degree of spin helped you in making your predictions? I wish I had seen the http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn8615 page before the election. SheilaG, how much of Paul Macklin interview was spin?
Posted by: jmrSudbury | 2006-01-26 9:46:55 AM
Nomdenet - your're probably right that M/T/V will remain solidly Liberal/NDP for a long time to come - including the MSM. I posted under the Tribune post so won't repeat myself. It has to do with ethnic politics combined with the old economic elite that are based in the M/T environs.
It also has a lot to do with people in the smaller cities who are likely to have relatives, friends, contact with rural people - often they have rural properties themselves. Much of their business tradtionally has been done by word of mouth and a handshake. The paranoia that city-only people have regarding firearms is also a divide that is never going to be resolved. Doing something very tough with the people who misuse firearms is the real issue and the Liberals have totaly ignored this.
Puleeezzzeeeee louizzzeeeeee - the issues of abortion and SSM are total red hearings. For my part they are human rights issues that become issues of convenience for politicians at election time. Anybody who wants to run as an MP and is totally out of wack with a large part of his constituents should go down - regardless of the party represented. There will always be the Pro Life and the Pro Choice and this is fine - do it from a Lobby Group (not funded by taxpayers) - because the realities of running a country must prevail - and it won't be on these two issues. Single issue candidates are bound to be defeated.
AB is solid Blue. This certainly does not mean that AB is full of people who want to/would re-visit either of these two topics - I don't believe there is any appetite to appeal Roe v Wade. The issues of law, order, and good government will surely become the focal point while these two issues are allowed to ruminate.
The Supreme court/most provicincial courts have has ruled on these issues. If the lobby is strong enough one way or the other, there will be court challenges.
Posted by: calgary clipper | 2006-01-26 10:12:10 AM
" We certainly don't look after ourselves - either economically, intellectually or socially."
ET, your national pride in your country would be characterized by your American buddies as unpatriotic. So please leave, because a vast majority of Canadians find your ideas abhorrent (if not just plain mad). You'll never be happy here. Go and find peace - you need it.
Posted by: Justin | 2006-01-26 10:12:44 AM
jmrSudbury--
I wish I could run Macklin's interview through that thing, but I can't!
But I'll tell you that from talking to him, it seemed almost all was spin. It was interesting how both he and Bob Vaughan had virtually identical answers to some questions (especially childcare).
But I respected Bob Vaughan immensely more because he was willing to break with the Liberal party line on the gun registry and on raising the age of consent for sexual activity. I think anyone who follows the party hook, line and sinker as if there is no other way to think is just plain weird to talk to. Even a Conservative who did that I would find a little weird (for instance, I'm Conservative 125%, but I would favour income tax cuts over GST cuts, but I'll take it where I can get it).
Maybe they were just trying to maintain party discipline or something, but it just sounded plain bizarre. Not as bizarre as the Paul Martin interview (Canadian values are municipal water systems! Check http://hipathome.blogspot.com to read it), but bizarre nonetheless.
Posted by: SheilaG | 2006-01-26 10:43:11 AM
Its the whole social conservative thing. People in the big cities just don't hate gay folks. Sorry about that.
Posted by: Mike Jones | 2006-01-26 10:57:30 AM
Calgary Clipper, I think I know what you meant by the ethnic comment, I’m guessing it’s the guilt trip: “you owe us Liberals forever for allowing you into Canada”. True enough. But the good news is, again form canvassing and speaking with new immigrants as well as immigrant academics like Salim Mansur who has a good column on Saturdays in the Toronto Sun; nearly all would say that they: "escaped cultures to come to Canada’s culture and for God's sake stand up for this culture and don’t dilute it with multi-culturalism, these third world cultures contain some toxic elements that need to left behind."
Justin, I’ve left twice. Came back twice. May leave again. May come back. May not. It’s called mobility as opposed to dependency on your Liberal entitlements that encourage submissiveness, like a lap dog. My conservative brain and capitalist wallet allows me to move around on this planet pretty much as I please. I love my life, especially when Liberals aren’t running it.
Posted by: nomdenet | 2006-01-26 11:04:42 AM
Tony Ianno went down, what does that say for their Ministry of childcare?
its not fair to all children!
see yah tony
Posted by: Sara | 2006-01-26 11:06:28 AM
Just a comment on the false MSM newstory about Canada's three largest urban areas shutting out the CPC. Metro Vancouver is indeed just under 2 million people and depending what you consider "Metro Vancouver" to be, it electected between 4 and 6 CPC MPs. The Vancouver that is listed on the Elections Canada website (with all of six ridings and a pop. of 540,000) is the City of Vancouver. MetroVancouver is made up of a almost 20 separate municipalities with distinct city councils whose combined population is around 1.7 mill. Therefore, the CPC was not shut out of Canada's 3rd largest metro area, and I don't understand why the MSM can't wrap their mind around this. Any comparison of Vancouver to Metro Toronto and MetroMontreal must include the Vancouver suburbs of Richmond, Surrey (which will probably surpass Vancouver in population one day), Burnaby, Delta etc. I mean really, didn't anybody in the Central Canadian media wonder why Calgary had 60% more registered voters than Vancouver on the Elections Canada website, and how this could be possible if Vancouver is larger than Calgary? This whole news story has, for me, illustrated too well either an apalling ignorance of BC by the Central Canadian media, or else a serious lack of critical thinking skills on their part regarding this story.
Posted by: Don | 2006-01-26 11:09:08 AM
Calgary Clipper - I would disagree that people in the 'other cities' in Canada are 'rural'. Remember, the MSM definition of cities, which refers only to the megacities of Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, is out-of-line with the global definition of cities. As I said, Amsterdam, Stockholm, Oslo, Copenhagen etc have smaller populations than Edmonton, Calgary, Ottawa and so on..and can hardly be classified as 'rural'.
I think that the 3 big cities have a particular mindset that is, as nomdenet pointed out, bureaucratic and socialist rather than self-referential and self-organizing. They expect Government to look after them.
I don't agree with you that abortion and SSM are 'human rights'. They are not; they are social values. Marriage is not a human right; it's a social decision and usually has economic links. Abortion is hardly a human right (whose, the child's or the mother's?); again, it's a social decision.
And Mike Jones - that's a strange statement - that 'people in big cities just don't hate gay folk'. That doesn't make sense; are you saying that IF you live in a big city, THEN, you will like gays? What is it about the big city that leads to such a result? Amsterdam is smaller than our big cities, and there's no hostility to gays. So? And cities in Iran are far larger than our big cities and are hostile to gays. So???
I again, suggest that the major problem in our three megacities is the view of people who live there that the gov't, like the Owner of the company for which most of these people work (who is usually a foreign-owned agent) is a distant and inaccessible patriarch - who provides wages, benefits, pensions..and you are a passive recipient. That is the result of our particular Canadian economy, which is made up of industries and services which are, for the most part, foreign owned and foreign generated. As a dependent economy, we don't take responsibility for the results of this economy. And this passive insistence on benefits - is the hallmark of these megacities.
Posted by: ET | 2006-01-26 11:19:08 AM
ET -
IF you live in a big city THEN you'll met gay folks.
IF you meet gay folks THEN you won't be afraid of them.
Posted by: Mike Jones | 2006-01-26 11:26:04 AM
This is off topic, but just wanted to provide a link regarding a CBC "mistake" in linking Stephen Harper with "heil", you know who we're talking about:
http://www.proudtobecanadian.ca/blog/index/weblog/3618/
Posted by: Cathy | 2006-01-26 11:26:43 AM
Vancouver is not a megacity. It's a smallish urban centre ringed by suburbs that are slowly replacing it as the commercial and economic centre of the BC Lower Mainland. Heck, the majority of the ports of the Port of Vancouver are located outside of the City of Vancouver. Also, a lot of the people who voted for the Liberals in metroVancouver were still thinking of Paul Martin as "Paul Martin the Finance Minister". I'm not sure what this says about these voters and how closely they watch the news, but... With Martin gone, the fact that Premier Campbell is a Harper supporter, and with the addition of a couple of high profile CPC candidates, the CPC will pick up more seats in Metro Vancouver next election.
Posted by: Don | 2006-01-26 11:40:41 AM
Nomdenet
guilt trip - interesting - do read my other post under Tribune.
What you "know what I know" is next to nothing.
Posted by: calgary clipper | 2006-01-26 11:54:26 AM
Mike Jones - you haven't read what I said. I said that your conclusion that 'people in big cities don't hate gays' is illogical. I gave you two city sizes: Amsterdam, which is about 729,000 and far smaller than our Edmonton, Calgary..never mind the 'Big Three' of Vancouver, Toronto, Montreal...and Amsterdam is hardly against gays! And, I gave you an example of big cities, in Iran, where they DO hate gays.
So- my outline was geared to showing you that whether a city is big/small is not correlated with hating/not-hating gays. Yet- you come back with a post affirming that 'in big cities' you meet gays and so are not afraid of them. Tehran has about 10 million - and is hardly amenable to gays! So- what's your point?
(What does fear have to do with any of this?).
Posted by: ET | 2006-01-26 12:00:41 PM
The urban/rural divide is a myth. As Laurent at Polyscopique wrote,
"It would be impossible to understand the Liberal victory in the 2000 election without recognizing the extent to which their strength outside Quebec hinges on the support of Catholics and Canadians of non-European origin. These two groups constitute the core of Liberal support outside Quebec. Fifty-four percent of Catholics and 70 percent of Canadians of non-European origin voted Liberal. The Liberal lead outside Quebec is thus heavily dependent on the strong support of these two groups.
The example of Niagara Falls district versus Welland is interesting. Low foreign born population, most before 1991, yet Welland goes Liberal and NF goes CPC. NF is majority Protestant and Welland majority Catholic. Hamilton and Burlington. Lib/NDP and CPC. Hamilton-Centre majority Catholic. Burlington majority Protestant. Halton where Turner won for CPC. 22% foreign born makes it a good candidate for Libs, however, it goes CPC, majority Protestant riding.
Algoma-Manitoulin-Kapuskasing is very rural Northern Ontario. It goes Liberal with a big Catholic majority. Nickel Belt very rural, very Catholic, goes Liberal. Sudbury, very rural, very Catholic goes Libs. It's not a perfect correlation. There are exceptions, like the Ottawa area, but that also involves favourite son issues. John Baird is an anomally.
Posted by: DJ | 2006-01-26 12:06:28 PM
CC
I did read it. Agree, I was dumbfounded about Sharia law even coming up. If it had of gone through, we were leaving Ontario.
That’s not racist; I have Muslim friends that were worried about it.
Your Bar story I didn’t quite understand.
But I actually don’t agree with you when you say the SC is favouring individual rights. I fear they support the collective. Although I was happy about the Quebec Health Care case. However that was only won by whisker and I don’t believe the leftist Rosalie Abella had landed, she would vote against. So if we keep putting Liberals in power the SC will eventually run the country and we can kiss individualism good-bye.
Posted by: nomdenet | 2006-01-26 12:14:05 PM
DJ,
It's an intersting correlation that Laurent found. However, as a way of understanding voting patterns, correlating religious affiliation with voting patterns is not very meaningful since with Protestants and Catholics, the majority who state a religious affiliation on their census forms do not practice their stated religion. For example, approximately only 30-35% of those who identify as Catholic are practicing Catholics (e.g. regularly attend Mass). Since most of those identifying as Protestant or Catholic are not actively practicing/following their identified religion, it is a weak piece of data to try and correlate other actions with.
Posted by: Don | 2006-01-26 12:33:15 PM
ding dongggg
The SC is and has been running this country since 1968. If you want this to continue - then by all means support the Liberals.
I have never supported the Liberals since Trudeaumania (and what a mistake this was to have this person come to power). At the time, it looked great but here we are - The Trudeau Legacy (the great exercise is social engineering) is a truism and it is not pretty.
Posted by: calgary clipper | 2006-01-26 1:06:47 PM
Agreed most don't practise the religion they identify with,however, it does correlate, not exactly, but strongly with ethnicity. For instance Welland, according to Stats Canada 2001 Census map, of a population of 108,875, 14,575 are immigrant. However, vismins are only 3,470, most of whom arrived after 1991. According to the 2001 census, 95.5% of the population is Caucasian, however there is a strong Francophone community plus Italians, Ukrainians, Poles and Croats. IMO the religious identifier correlates strongly with French and other southern and eastern European ethnicities, who maintain a very strong allegiance to the Liberal Party. Another example is Burlington. An immigrant population,(from Stats Can)of 24,655 of a total population 117,345. Total vismin is 8,035. At 21% immigrant, according to the study Laurent cites, makes it a good candidate to be Liberal. However, Wikipedia states that Burlington is 91.9% Caucasian, mostly English, Irish, Scottish, and German. Stats Can states that 53,145 of a total population of 117,345 are Protestant. Catholics total 35,295.
Look at Calgary-Centre. Total population 117,435. Immigrant is 24,420, with vismin pop at 15,200. At 21% immigrant Calgary-Centre could be a good candidate to go Liberal. However, Protestants are a majority at 37,720. And sure enough, if you look at Calgary's demographics (from Stats Can) it is majority northern European origin.
Where it doesn't hold up is where populations are homogeneously of British origin. St. John's NFLD. is majority Catholic, however both seats went CPC.
Posted by: DJ | 2006-01-26 1:20:04 PM
calgary clipper wrote: "AB is solid Blue. This certainly does not mean that AB is full of people who want to/would re-visit either of these two topics - I don't believe there is any appetite to appeal Roe v Wade."
I believe Roe v. Wade was an American ruling and not part of Canada's rich abortion heritage.
Which leads to my hobby horse. As Rick Mercer has so famously demonstrated, our American neighbours have very strong opinions on subjects they know absolutely nothing about. Even on Roe v. Wade, opinion polls have shown that while the US public has strong opinions about it, most Americans do not have a clue what it actually says.
And so too in Canada, people have all sorts of wonderfully strong opinions about abortion in Canada, and are -- we are told -- content with the status quo, but I'd bet anyone here a 6 month supply of Timbits that 90% of Canadians are not even aware of the current legal situation in their own country. I suspect a decent chunk would agree with the statement: "Stephen Harper should not try to overturn Roe v. Wade." ;-)
In the UK, "the abortion debate" was reopened because a high profile case drew the attention of many to the suprising baby-like-ness of a 20 week old, um, baby. Most Brits said they supported abortion up to 20 weeks, but it turns out they didn't know what abortion at 20 weeks actually involved. Strong opinions on subjects they know nothing about.
My point is that Canadians would probably discover a sudden interest in "reopening the abortion debate" if they were to be informed that the unborn have no legal status in their country right up to birth.
Posted by: FormerFoetus | 2006-01-26 1:28:56 PM
DJ,
I guess it's really the ethnicity factor, and not religion. It's also generational. Another point about St. John's is that religious practice is higher in NL than pretty much anywhere else in the country.
It also depends on who votes, and we can't get a breakdown along ethnic and religions lines of who voted. The local candidate also matters, and very importantly where the riding is located. For example, the riding of Kootenay in BC voted PC, yet it is a majority of East and Southern European heritage. My riding of Vancouver Quadra is white, wealthy and less than 20% nominally Catholic and voted overwhelming Liberal. Of course, BC always was a little weird.
Posted by: Don | 2006-01-26 1:43:39 PM
Don, Kootenay-Columbia, at least according to Census 2001, is majority Protestant. Total population, 2001 Census, 88,640. Immigrant population 9,075 with vismins being 1,950. Protestant is 34,040 and Catholic is 17,515.
Vancouver-Quadra still fits the mold. True it is majority Protestant, however, of a total population, 2001 Census, of 112,985, 40,820 (37%) are immigrant. Vismins, largely Chinese, are 33,305. Based on those numbers and the huge allegiance by immigrants to the Liberal Party, it's almost inconceiveable that VQ ever goes CPC.
Posted by: DJ | 2006-01-26 1:59:39 PM
nomdenet
I went back to my Bar comment - I wasn't clear
The bartender is very concerned that if he stops somebody at the door from entering his bar (as in a patron appearing argumentative, already under the influence, looks like trouble, etc) - he is more than concerned that he will be labelled or possibly sued if that person is a visibile minority. In this case there was a stabbing in his bar. The case for prosecution against a bartender prohibiting an entry would become a charter issue - and sadly, the bartender would more than likely lose.
Police in many jurisdictions are being hammered for stopping a visibile minority person in a vehicle these days - fear of having to face a charge under the Charter of Rights whether it has legs or not. Of course, the police are not always right/proper but........
Political Correctness has gone to extremes - to the point of law, order, and good government being at high risk. The Social Engineering Laws of the Liberal Gov't along with decisions from the SC have allowed this to shape society in a very negative way.
A while ago, some guy walked into a bar (Calgary) with a sawed off rifle (highly illegal). The bar tender was shot to death and the perp ends up with 8 years for manslaughter. The gun registry is a joke, just as is the issue of banning handguns totally a joke.
The Liberals philosohpy of Hug-a-Thug is totally misguided and much more of a problem than firearms per se.
Your point on rights. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms is all about individual rights. Having said that - it was a very hard core "group" that put forth the case for Sharia law. This is no different from my point on individual rights. Had it succeeded, it would have been bizzare. In this case - the Individual and "the group" are one and the same as far as I am concerned. It is the divisive hard core minority groups that have to be most controlled but which are gaining power because of Charter rulings. Most newcommers to Canada are petrified of retribution if they speak out about against these hard core groups that are all about creating divisiveness in Canadian society. Under the Liberals, these groups have often been financed from taxpayers money and have been allowed to flourish. Time to put an end to this. Let them have a voice, lobby whomever - but just don't expect me to cave into their demands.
Posted by: calgary clipper | 2006-01-26 2:21:03 PM
Former Foetus
Point well taken. The Pro Choice/ Pro Life positions I haven't thought deeply about. I come down more on the pro-choice side (and know why) but am not going to an election on an "either/or" position on the issue.
Perhaps it is an "either/or" position for some people. The fact that Martin used this as a wedge issue during the campaign is deplorable as far as I'm concerned.
Probably true - I shouldn't have mentioned the Roe v Wade case. Although it is American, it would likely be used in terms of weighing precedents in terms of a global setting - but not being a lawyer, I wouldn't know.
By all means, convince anyone you can on your point of view. I'm not trying to convince anyone on this issue. My point - there are a whole lot of more important issues to deal with to keep a country rolling.
Posted by: calgary clipper | 2006-01-26 3:13:58 PM
DJ
Very interesting data correlations you've made.
Sorry, it was my mistake about Kootenay. I was working from memory from when I lived there. Plus, Catholics, nominal or practicing, have always been a small minority in BC - I believe all districts in BC would have a "Protestant" majority. As for the visible minority in Quadra, I can only go by my personal experience, and that is that most of the ethnic Chinese I know in Quadra support the CPC, whereas most of those of European heritage vote Liberal. The chattering elite classes are mostly white - at least in BC. And of course, some people are more likely to vote for a member of their ethnic group regardless of party affiliation, so in the Lower Mainland of BC the CPC should perhaps consider this fact.
It's too bad we don't have the exit polls they have in the States where pollsters collect demographic info from people leaving the polling station and also ask how they voted. Then we'd actually have some solid data to use. I am tentative to draw any conclusions about voting patterns based on religion and ethnicity when we don't know the make-up of the population that actually voted. I guess it is because my personal experiences don't particularly correlate with the broad statistical data that is sometimes used to analyze voting patterns.
Posted by: Don | 2006-01-26 4:36:25 PM
Don, Agreed, US style exit polls are superior. Caution is justified, however, the study Laurent cited is of the 2000 election results and there have been two further elections since. The correlations are not wildly speculative. And yes the Chinese you know may support CPC because the study number is 70% of vismins support the Libs.
It's in the numbers. Owen won ~49% of the vote. National turnout was ~65%. Of 112,985 total pop, ~73440 voted. Of the 40,820 vismins 26,533(65%) voted. If 70% vote Libs it's 18,573 for Owen. Of the 73,440 who voted Owen got ~36,000(49%) votes. He's got 18,000 vismins votes and gets another 18,000 elswhere, which is only 36% of the non-vismin vote. By getting just over a third of the white vote he wins big-time.
The bizarre thing is CPCs immigration policy. Why do they support continuous mass immigration when it is undermining their constituency?
Posted by: DJ | 2006-01-26 6:18:07 PM
"The bizarre thing is CPCs immigration policy. Why do they support continuous mass immigration when it is undermining their constituency?"
If the CPC allows the same 250,000 or so per year but tweaks the criteria (to favour some of the fifty to a hundred million evangelical Chinese who come pre-educated with degrees, for example) or even better were to recruit the best and the brightest from around the world they can make the situation work for them.
We know what the deal is on immigration: a CTV poll prior to the writ drop noted that 90% of Canadians are opposed to an increase in immigration - and roughly 100% of Canadians are too scared to broach the subject. In light of this the CPC's policy makes sense to me at this time, until the Canadian people feel more confident in publicly sharing their immigration views. The CPC would've gotten creamed had they ran on a less-immigration platform.
Posted by: Anonalogue | 2006-01-26 6:36:54 PM
Whoaaa - it has been decades of Liberal government that has been doing this. Conservatives were in from '84 to '93 but the last 13 years (Liberals) has been, to my mind, very devastating.
The Liberals brought in the 1982 Charter of Rights and Freedoms when they had a majority government. Had this gone to a referendum, it would not have been enacted. Official Bilingualism is based on 30% French speaking vs 70% Anglophone/Allophone.
Immigration/Refugee/Multiculturalism Acts/Policies are in need of a major overhaul.
Posted by: calgary clipper | 2006-01-26 7:05:26 PM
"Do submissive people move to the mega-cities where there are bureaucratic-defined jobs with an in and out basket and lots of supervision. I hope I’ve got that wrong, because if that’s the case, then conservatives will always be a minority at best in mega-cities."
I don't think that mega-cities come into existence, after which the inhabitants are slowly lobotomized and descend into a state of socialist mental sloth ... mega-cities are created by governments, and the pro-government attitude is naturally assumed by all of their dependent minions.
A city is usually founded for purely business reasons - a good seaport, the center of a rich agricultural area, etc. Next come government bureaucrats and politicians, who come to the cities in order to be close to the money, so that they can grab it and distribute it to their friends. Then come lobbyists, rent-seekers, etc. who are attracted to the presence of large amounts of government money and great amounts of power. The politicians and bureaucrats then start to build many monuments to themselves in the cities where they live, such as schools, stadiums, concert halls, museums, etc. which attract still more people to the city, people whose government-derived income and benefits mean that they are going to be dyed-in-the-wool socialists. The legislators are going to create piles and piles of laws and regulations which will make it harder and harder for anyone to do business in the country, unless they set up headquarters in the city where all the politicians and bureaucrats are, so that their accountants, lawyers, lobbyists, etc. can have direct access to the political power. All of these classes of people are totally committed to the idea of greater and greater government power, because they are all direct and indirect beneficiaries. A vicious circle sets in, in which the tax levels and lack of jobs outside of the cities cause greater and greater hardship in the hinterland, which causes more and more people to move to the cities, which gives even more power and money to the politicians and bureaucrats, which means that they can dole out more money, which kills more jobs outside of the city, which brings more people to the city ...
This is the birth of a mega-city, and this is why virtually no one who lives in a mega-city can conceive of an existence without a huge government to feed them and care for them. Socialist countries always have one or two mega cities full of glittering towers, surrounded by hundreds of thousands of square miles of improvished rural areas. Think of Mexico City, Sao Paulo and Rio de Janeiro, and you will get an idea of where Canada is headed.
This is why it's ridiculous for conservatives to think that they're going to refloat the ship of state by making the government even bigger. Oh yeah - bigger, but "more accountable". This policy will be fantastic for the politicians and their back-room supporters, and for the bureaucratics, but it does nothing constructive whatsoever for the mass of people who elected them.
If you want to kill a rattlesnake, don't feed it - cut off the head. Which means, abolish government departments and agencies, sell off crown corporations, and wipe out protections, subsidies and entitlements. Help those city slickers rediscover their inner conservative.
Posted by: Justzumgai | 2006-01-26 8:35:43 PM
Anonalogue, I understand where you are going, however, larger numbers of Chinese immigrants will not help the CPC. The pattern will continue with 70% voitng Liberal. Additionally the is a 700,000 person backlog to clear. The immigrant shift would have to be to people of Northern European origin to enhance the CPC constitutency. The suggestion has been made before, however, unfortunately, it's no longer a 'Canadian' value.
The fact is that those, as outlined by a United Way study in Toronto in 2004, who suffer the most from mass immigration, are the recent immigrants. Any look at poverty in Toronto neighbourhoods strongly correlates with recent immigration. Essentially what the Liberals have accomplished, in an effort to secure votes, is to create a massive underclass. The CPC call for a moratorium on this basis, let's stop immigration until the recent immigrants get a leg up, I feel, based on conversations with recent immigrants, would be welcomed. The howls of racism will abound, however who is the greater perpetrator of evil; those that bring educated immigrants here with false promises who end up cleaning toilets or those that say stop, close the door, and first help those already here to succeed.
Posted by: DJ | 2006-01-26 9:55:29 PM
"The immigrant shift would have to be to people of Northern European origin to enhance the CPC constitutency."
No, no, no a thousand times no, I cannot stress this enough. And you're not telling me a single thing I don't already know in your post. Keep thinking about why past performance may not necessarily be enitrely accurate in predicting future performance.
Pay particular attention to the part where I suggest this is merely one option. You are painting me into a corner here by not entirely getting what I'm saying, even if that's not your intention, which is part of the reason why there is not a robust debate on immigration in the first place. It's not worth the headache for me or other bloggers to broach the subject if other commentors don't excercise great care in discussing such a touchy subject. Sorry if I sound touchy, but I gotta defend my words.
Posted by: Anonalogue | 2006-01-26 10:23:39 PM
Anonalogue, Do you actually believe, and maybe I'm too dense to appreciate the subtlety, that if we say 'best and brightest' people won't unveil what that means? If the headache is too great, possibly it should be left to the commentators to catch the heat for vigorous direct debate. That way the bloggers can distance themselves.
Posted by: DJ | 2006-01-26 10:59:27 PM
Here I can only speak for the West Side of Vancouver and for Richmond, but the voting patterns of immigrants depends a lot on the candidate. For example, the Chinese-Canadian voter in these areas overwhelmingly support the right-wing Liberal Party of BC under Gordon Campbell (of course the very fact the provincial gov't has the name "Liberal" in the name must cause confusion for new immigrants when it comes to federal politics). They are not supportive of nanny-state policies. In Quadra the Chinese community supported Sam Sullivan for mayor, a man who publicly supported CPC policies. However, the Conservatives needed to attract some better candidates in key Vancouver area ridings if they wanted to unseat incumbent cabinet ministers. Quadra is a case in point - they need to get a better candidate than a former Socred cabinet minister from the 1980's. Ditto for Richmond. No-name candidates don't do well against sitting cabinet ministers.
Another point to bear in mind is that not all people in an immigrant population can vote, since they are not all citizens. So their impact on the election result is less than what census data would indicate.
I was suprised at how well maverick candidates did in the Lower Mainland. One can only hope that in a minority Parliament where no one wants an election that MPs will finally be able to vote with their conscience. Okay, let's be realistic, this won't happen with the NDP and Bloc MPs.
Posted by: Don | 2006-01-27 9:38:38 AM
All this talk about the urban/rural divide in Ontario just does not pan out ! At the very least acknowledge that it should be urban/northern vs. southern rural. Kenora, both Thunder Bay's,Algoma-Manitoulin,Nickel Belt, Sudbury and Timiskaming-Nipissing all stay Liberal and none are "urban" ridings. Parry-Sound Muskoka falls by 24 votes ( pending recount) and it certainly can be argued whether Muskoka is North at all. The other 2 northern seats stay NDP with Liberals finishing second. In Algoma-Manitoulin-Kap for example.. Libs were down 3%, NDP up 3% and CP exactly where they were in 04.
Posted by: North of French River | 2006-01-27 10:50:49 AM
NFR, Algoma-Manitoulin, Nickel Belt, Sudbury and Timiskaming-Nipissing all have large French Catholic majorities. As the study cited Catholics are pretty loyal to the Libs. It's no coincidence that Trudeau, Clark, Turner, Muroney, Chretien and Martin are all Catholics. Thunder Bay district, according to Census 2001 is majority Catholic. Kenora district is 35% Aboriginal who seem loyal to the Libs.
http://www.apc-cpa.ca/iav_e.aspx
"Elections are about choices, and a vote for a Liberal candidate will ensure that the Conservatives, who carry the ideological baggage of the old Alliance party and who demonstrate contempt for the historic Aboriginal rights and agreements entrenched in Canada’s Constitution, will not have a chance to carry out their destructive and assimilationist policies for Aboriginal peoples."
Posted by: DJ | 2006-01-27 11:38:16 AM
The comments to this entry are closed.