tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14377350.post6511152130259542897..comments2024-01-27T03:52:35.624-08:00Comments on The Maple Three: Gun regristry, the god gays and gun crowd and Liberal Electoral fortunesKobyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03407275645274060038noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14377350.post-14714135897775759492009-03-25T02:27:00.000-07:002009-03-25T02:27:00.000-07:00"Same again on SSM ... it got all wrapped up in a ..."Same again on SSM ... it got all wrapped up in a legal discourse on charter rights, rather than talking about real life issues of medical consent, pension benefits, and their parents just wanting to attend their kids' weddings."<BR/><BR/>I always thought the straight man’s burden talking point disingenuous. The Liberal argument was that you cannot cherry pick rights and whether SSM was a cherry is really beside the point. I was told this position focus grouped far better than anything else. <BR/><BR/>However given what happened with the promise to ban using the notwithstanding cause, I doubt it moved anyone. Indeed, the reason SSM worked for the Liberals in places such as Vancouver had very little to do with what the Liberals were saying and much more to with what the Conservatives were saying, ideolgical similarity with the Bush administration and Reform party sterotypes. In terms of likely voters the numbers may have been with the Conservatives, but the debate hurt them more than issue helped. The arguments the Conservatives offered up were pathetic and worse were down right silly. Paul Forseth’s flyer warning not only of ‘moral decay’ but economic decay as well was laughed at by the media. The same fate greeted Rob Anders ‘homosexual sex marriage’ flyer. If that was not enough, the SSM debate enabled Conservative opponents to draw a straight line from Harper to Rove and Bush. <BR/><BR/>By switching the debate from one about ‘homosexual sex marriage’, volumes of homophobic comments by Reform MPs, pictures of Stephen Harper dressed up to look like one of the Village People and prideful talk about Americans fleeing “Jesus Land” to something that was utterly abstract, the Liberals allowed the Conservatives to at once save themselves from themselves and to distance themselves from Bush.Kobyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03407275645274060038noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14377350.post-77327745637600580002009-03-24T23:03:00.000-07:002009-03-24T23:03:00.000-07:00A very comprehensive review, Koby.Most of the seat...A very comprehensive review, Koby.<BR/><BR/>Most of the seats the Libs won in 1993 in western Canada were the result of vote-splitting on the right. But the members they sent in 1993 did not have a lot of influence in policy or discourse in Ottawa, with the exception of McLellan and Goodale; and even there ... Goodale just could never get the (largely eastern) cabinet to understand or care about the depths of the western grain crisis in the late 1990s, for example.<BR/><BR/>The fewer the seats the Liberals won out west, the less of a feel their government had for the west. Plus, they would run against the west in Ontario and Quebec, compounding their problems.<BR/><BR/>I should probably separate out BC from the above analysis, however, along with urban Manitoba.<BR/><BR/>Anyways, I don't think it was so much the long-gun registry that hurt Liberals out west, it was the way they talked about it, and who they sent to do it (urbane Allan Rock from Toronto, who is a very impressive person in Toronto and Ottawa, but was completely tone deaf to discourse out west).<BR/><BR/>Same again on SSM ... it got all wrapped up in a legal discourse on charter rights, rather than talking about real life issues of medical consent, pension benefits, and their parents just wanting to attend their kids' weddings.<BR/><BR/>Talking differently about those issues probably wouldn't have made much of a difference in seats, once the right united, but it affected the depth of antipathy towards the Liberals, and of course things went from bad to worse with the (Quebec) sponsorship scandal, and then the carbon tax.A readerhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10088629072037720322noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-14377350.post-37347230586125761362009-03-24T19:12:00.000-07:002009-03-24T19:12:00.000-07:00Excellent post Koby. I see it the way you do. Th...Excellent post Koby. I see it the way you do. There's always this move to make the West seem "alienated" by this group of Liberals, or a previous iteration (Trudeau, Chretien, etc.)... I would characterize the challenges in the West as more of an "urban/rural split", with the exception of Southern "Blue" Alberta (Calgary, in particular). <BR/><BR/>If you look closely at the "West", in EVERY province the Liberals with a bit of the NDP vote could dominate, or be the "main" force, or a "key player" in the major cities (Winnipeg, Saskatoon, Regina, Edmonton, Prince George, Kamloops, Greater Vancouver, Victoria, leaving out Calgary). The fact is, the Conservatives appeal more to an "agrarian", rural base (for the most part), while Liberals and New Democrats tend to appeal to the urban, cosmopolitan crowd. Higher education also tends to equate to a more centrist, or left of center vote...WesternGrithttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06658358114507615351noreply@blogger.com