Saturday, May 18, 2013Mostly Cloudy 19°C
City

TO the Polls: The (7th) Week in Review

Posted by St Dan / January 15, 2006

This is how the leaders stood after the last election - how will they look after next week; will Jim Harris be amongst them?A weekly election crib-note

And in the seventh week, something completely different happened. After weeks of daily policy announcements, occasional scandals (and non-scandals made out to look worse than they were), a couple of debates, and plenty of bickering, the electorate finally took notice. The polls, after over a month of near stasis - lumbering unchanged despite the twists and turns evident to enraptured election-watchers - began to move: slowly at first as the Tories pulled even with the Grits, then later more rapidly as policy documents were released, promises were costed out, and the boogieman suit sent off to the drycleaners.

Perhaps the most interesting region in this election campaign is in the hinterland around Toronto - the 905 belt. Once solidly Tory, now (as with the rest of Ontario) Liberal, this region is highly volatile, and could determine the winner of the election. Expect to see numerous seats swing blue, and a handful possibly swing Orange as well. Other than the Reds and the Blues, the other parties generally kept their polling positions - although everybody expects that to change as the parties jockey for power in the upcoming week and make their penultimate pitches before election-day eve. The change in strategy was evident throughout the week as the parties realised that finally, people were watching.

The Liberals, noticing that their strategy of waiting for the Tories' campaign to implode (a successful strategy in every election since 1993) wasn't going to work this time, fell back on their other standby: the campaign of fear. Claiming, in effect, that the Tories were an anti-Canadian menace, and that a vote for the NDP would only help the Conservatives, the Grits appealed for votes from both sides of the spectrum.

The Tories spent much of the week (and will likely continue this next week) playing it as safely as possible. A comprehensive policy book (mostly of previously announced policies) was released, but beyond that Harper knows it's all about holding back and not doing anything stupid. Muzzeling his more vociferous MPs, and letting his proxies do much of the attack-work on the Grits, Harper's goal for the coming week will be to appear as Prime Ministerial - and unthreatening - as can be.

The NDP find themselves in much the same situation they were this time last election - people like them (and after Layton's performance in the last Parliament, trust them more) but worry that an NDP vote will be wasted on a party not interested in (or able to) holding power. Layton then, has a double burden ahead of him. In the next week, he must both reduce the population's fear of a Tory victory while at the same time promoting himself as the best alternative to the Tories. To fail at either would give people an excuse to vote Liberal instead, either out of fear or complacency respectively.

The Green Party has struggled to hold their place in the polls - fighting against a media conglomorate more interested in ease of reporting than fairness, they have been unable to get their platform into the public conciousness. At this point, while it is still possible for either Jim Harris or one of a handful of Vancouver candidates to win a seat, the battle is for recognition in the next election. The Greens need to appeal to people who want a fourth-way answer to the three major parties, and they need to do well enough that next election (which could be anywhere from six months to four years away) the media will take notice.

One week to go. Like an Olympic velodrom individual pursuit, the pacing laps are over - now it's time for the sprint.

Discussion

10 Comments

Paul / January 15, 2006 at 05:08 pm
user-pic
There's an interesting thread at Ask Metafilter about the Green Party; one post has a pretty comprehensive list of 'red flags' from their platform.

Here's the link:
<a href="http://ask.metafilter.com/mefi/30782#484155";>http://ask.metafilter.com/mefi/30782#484155<;/a>
St Dan / January 15, 2006 at 07:03 pm
user-pic
An interesting read - some of his complaints (such as the phasing out of Uranium) are valid, others he needs to put more thought into (such as him being against supporting Canadian cinema). Others though just suggest that he's not fully versed with the Charter (he seems to imply that currently somebody paying for an ad can say absolutely anything they want).

Thanks for the link.
Justin / January 15, 2006 at 08:02 pm
user-pic
The sad thing is that none of the above have demonstrated that they really deserve to govern. In fact all of them have really shown themselves to be a bad choice.
Sidd Pitt / January 16, 2006 at 10:30 am
user-pic
The sad thing is most canadians who are voting conservative are doing so because they think they are voting for the centerist Progressive Conservatives, not the hard right Conservatives under Harper.
St Dan / January 16, 2006 at 10:34 am
user-pic
Sidd:

I really don't think that that is very likely. Between Harpers personal profile and the Liberal attack ads on Harper and the Tories over the past few years (remember the 'hidden agenda'?) I'd be very surprised if even a sizable minority of Tory voters thought they were voting for the old PC party as it was under Clark.

That said, Harper has taken a significant turn for the red, and many of his policies now seem to reflect the old PC party, rather than his Reform roots.
Joe / January 16, 2006 at 04:45 pm
user-pic
Here's a thought: how much of the Tory support is based their actual policy, and how much is anger towards the Liberals? I mean, the Liberals have basically been running a campaign against themselves.

Does being mad at the party merit switching ideologies? (Or conversly, has this happened at all?)
Is anyone else angry that this is the only way we have to punish a ruling party?
nelly / January 17, 2006 at 09:13 am
user-pic
Unfortunately, the only way to be mad at a party is to vote them out, in our system. The Liberals really don't listen when in power, they simply tell us what is right. I make two points, however, re the Conservative surge. One, when in power it is very hard to lever the power to a personal agenda - there is a huge awkward civil service and one's own caucus, both of which can prove difficult. Two, it is very important that this country have two strong political parties, to keep each other honest. For too long, the National Post was this country's Official Opposition, and now it is owned by staunch Liberal supporters. Our democratic strengths are at risk without at least two political views that have national legitimacy. The existence of the Bloc makes that very tough, as they do not have a national view, so even though we may not agree with the Conservatives, there is a larger value in their turning the tables and achieving some sort of electoral roots.
iam4liberals / January 17, 2006 at 12:54 pm
user-pic
Conservatives = unemployment, recession, United States of Canada, ignoring human rights, mulroney, more mulroney, gst, no future, war, terrorists attack, canadians mistaken as americans
St Dan / January 22, 2006 at 05:14 pm
user-pic
Joe:

I'd suspect that for most voters, it's not a matter of changing their support of a POV, but rather realising that a viewpoint is something that they can accept, even if it isn't exactly what they want.

Voters know that it's time for a change, and they're realising that the Tories arn't the scary boogieman that Martin is trying to paint them as - so, they move.
St Dan / January 22, 2006 at 05:40 pm
user-pic
Iam4liberals:

What are you basing this on? Mulroney isn't in government any more, the Tories are the only party promising to cut the GST, the Liberals have taken us to war more often recently than the Tories.

Add a Comment

Other Cities: Montreal