Monday, May 24, 2004
A metre long stream of electoral drool
Things I should have pointed out this morning, but didn't:
1. After reading the Journal's promise of a focus on young voters and non-voters, which includes the statement that "every Wednesday we'll publish content aimed at youth, including cool information about how fans of some of the biggest musical acts feel about important issues," I've decided that low political participation is all the media's fault.
2. The New Democrats have repeatedly said that they will demand action on proportional representation as a condition of their propping up a Liberal minority. If we take this statement at face value and understand it to mean that the New Democrats will vote against a Liberal confidence motion - even a budget reflective of New Democratic values (which rather calls into question the NDs' devotion to ideals over politicking, but this should come as no surprise) - then we may expect a Bloc Québecois that will be very cooperative with the Liberals. The only party that stands to lose more from the advent of PR than the Liberals is the Bloc, and the Liberals could convincingly argue that the Bloc's support of the government is necessary to stave off the threat to both parties. The fact that most of Team Martin in Québec is composed of Québec nationalists, including many former members of the Bloc and a couple of former Bloc MPs.
3. Martin seems intent on duplicating the strategy that Chrétien successfully used against Stockwell Day in 2000. This is risky, because in order for it to work on Stephen Harper, Canadians must be convinced that Harper has a chance at victory. Harper, unlike Day, is a thoughtful and articulate man, with an understanding of relevant policy. It was easy to convince Canadians that they did not want to support Day under any circumstances; most Canadians are less likely to feel the same way about Harper, though they won't want him as Prime Minister. Speaking of Day, though, Paul Wells made an interesting point a couple of weeks ago (of course, none of you need me to tell you that, since you all read him daily, right?): Stockwell Day has been the external affairs critic in every Alliance/Conservative shadow cabinet since Stephen Harper won the leadership. Why aren't the Liberals making hay of this, asking Canadians if they want Day as their Minister of External Affairs? In addition to the fact that Canadians' answer is likely to be "no", it places Harper in the uncomfortable position of having to defend a man for whom he clearly feels nothing but contempt.
4. In Alberta, at least, the Liberals will benefit to an end to Liberal-P.C. vote splitting. Count on it.
|
Things I should have pointed out this morning, but didn't:
1. After reading the Journal's promise of a focus on young voters and non-voters, which includes the statement that "every Wednesday we'll publish content aimed at youth, including cool information about how fans of some of the biggest musical acts feel about important issues," I've decided that low political participation is all the media's fault.
2. The New Democrats have repeatedly said that they will demand action on proportional representation as a condition of their propping up a Liberal minority. If we take this statement at face value and understand it to mean that the New Democrats will vote against a Liberal confidence motion - even a budget reflective of New Democratic values (which rather calls into question the NDs' devotion to ideals over politicking, but this should come as no surprise) - then we may expect a Bloc Québecois that will be very cooperative with the Liberals. The only party that stands to lose more from the advent of PR than the Liberals is the Bloc, and the Liberals could convincingly argue that the Bloc's support of the government is necessary to stave off the threat to both parties. The fact that most of Team Martin in Québec is composed of Québec nationalists, including many former members of the Bloc and a couple of former Bloc MPs.
3. Martin seems intent on duplicating the strategy that Chrétien successfully used against Stockwell Day in 2000. This is risky, because in order for it to work on Stephen Harper, Canadians must be convinced that Harper has a chance at victory. Harper, unlike Day, is a thoughtful and articulate man, with an understanding of relevant policy. It was easy to convince Canadians that they did not want to support Day under any circumstances; most Canadians are less likely to feel the same way about Harper, though they won't want him as Prime Minister. Speaking of Day, though, Paul Wells made an interesting point a couple of weeks ago (of course, none of you need me to tell you that, since you all read him daily, right?): Stockwell Day has been the external affairs critic in every Alliance/Conservative shadow cabinet since Stephen Harper won the leadership. Why aren't the Liberals making hay of this, asking Canadians if they want Day as their Minister of External Affairs? In addition to the fact that Canadians' answer is likely to be "no", it places Harper in the uncomfortable position of having to defend a man for whom he clearly feels nothing but contempt.
4. In Alberta, at least, the Liberals will benefit to an end to Liberal-P.C. vote splitting. Count on it.
