Transterrestrial Musings

Comments

As many reports have pointed out, the Harper victory is more a loss for the Liberals than proof that Canada has moved more to the right.

Of course, you can see it that way if it makes you feel better.

It will be interesting to see what happens when he calls the next election which is predicted to have to be quite close so he can try to get a bigger mandate.

It's unlikely that all that much will actually be able to change given the 4 party structure.

Posted by Daveon at January 26, 2006 12:19 AM

What Daveon says is true; Canadian politics haven't shifted to the right, the Conservatives have shifted their message to the middle (at least, during the election campaign). They promised not to send troops to Iraq, they promised to promote universal health care, and they promised not to touch abortion with a 10-foot pole. Harper said he'd allow a free vote on the definition of marriage, but with the clear majority of MPs being socially liberal there's no way that any kind of ban on gay marriage would pass. The fact that the Liberals lost several ridings to the NDP, the left-wing group, provides further evidence of the lack of any shift to the right.

As for the Michael Moore/Liberal business - why can't people disagree without being disagreeable?

Posted by James Antifaev at January 26, 2006 12:27 AM

Why is it that Consevatives or even Moderates never WIN? It's just that the Liberals lost.

Folks I don't care what the contest is, politics, curling or thumb wrestling in pudding cups, the opposite of loosing IS winning.

When the next election comes and the conservatives win, there will undoubtedly be a "voting / ballot scam" so the Canadian Liberals can say the Conservatives stole the election. Just the opposite of what has been said of American politics for the last 6 years.

The average Joe in Canada, just like here in the U.S., wants his kids educated not indoctrinated, wants his taxes lowered, wants his leaders to be somewhat honest and wants his country free.
That is why "W" got re-elected and why Mr Harper won.

The liberal, semi-quasicommunist crowd is loosing their hold. The wall came down, Russia is trying to compete as a for profit country, and Hong Kong will wind up ruling China, not the other way around. Face it you liberal communist twits you lost the war of wits because you were disarmed by our being quiet until we hit the polls. NBC, CBS, ABC AND CBC failed to fool us about who you really are.

Posted by Steve at January 26, 2006 09:06 AM

Steve, unlike some other Western countries, nobody up in Canada doubted the accuracy of our election results, and people have generally accepted the results whether they voted for the winning party or not. Your speculation of what might happen during our next election is contrary to Canadian historical precedent - it sounds more like you are unhappy about the last election in your own country.

As for the difference between winning and losing, yes, the Conservatives did win; the point is that they didn't win as a result of a significant shift in the political views of the Canadian electorate. They won because they correctly understood the views of the populace and tailored their campaign message appropriately. The Conservatives ran a very shrewd campaign, and it paid off.

"NBC, CBS, ABC AND CBC failed to fool us about who you really are."

Don't tell us who we are.

Posted by James Antifaev at January 26, 2006 09:52 AM

Steve: the opposite of loosing IS winning

The opposite of loosing is confining or holding :P

Posted by Mac at January 26, 2006 11:25 AM

Actually, the opposite of "loosing" is "confining." The opposite of "losing" is "winning."

I don't know why people have so much trouble spelling this word correctly.

Posted by Rand Simberg at January 26, 2006 11:28 AM

Maybe passion for what they're writing. Happens to everyone. You're so intent on the idea you want to express that you throw spelling to the wind.

Posted by Mac at January 26, 2006 12:19 PM

James Antifaev writes:

"Don't tell us who we are."

Um, James, being as how Canadians don't seem to know who they are beyond not being American, I think we Americans can be forgiven for trying to make informed guesses as to who Canadians are.

And as the Liberals enact things which are socialist, even quasi-totalitarian, on their faces, well.... actions speak louder than words, and it's those actions which inform our guesses.

Don't like that? Tough noogies-- welcome to the real world, which ain't no Workers' Paradise.

Posted by Hale Adams at January 26, 2006 12:28 PM

You're so intent on the idea you want to express that you throw spelling to the wind.

I don't think so--this is a very common error, that I see all the time. I think that many people just don't know how to spell the word "lose," because it has the "oo" sound in it.

Posted by Rand Simberg at January 26, 2006 12:49 PM

Hale (and Steve), please understand that my position is not one of undying love for the Liberals, nor one of a socialist revolutionary. I'd consider myself a moderate within the context of Canadian politics, as I agree with many points in both the Liberal and Conservative platforms. We are somewhat more socialist in Canada than in the US, but less so than most European nations or most South American Nations. As in many things, we tend to split the difference.

Also, our debate would be more credible if you'd refrain from making overzealous statements about the nature of Canadian society. We aren't communists, as Steve asserted, nor are we proposing to build any kind of "Worker's Paradise", as Hale suggested. What we have done is maintain a budget surplus, a growing economy, and decent unemployment rates at a time when the economies of most other Western nations, including our friends in the US, were not doing as well. To me that seems to suggest a relatively sound set of economic policies.

The US and Canada have different policies. That's allowed. But as friends and neighbors, I think we ought to be able to have a discussion about these differences without calling each other names.

Posted by James Antifaev at January 26, 2006 01:00 PM

What we have done is maintain a budget surplus, a growing economy, and decent unemployment rates at a time when the economies of most other Western nations, including our friends in the US, were not doing as well.

Just as an FYI for those that think the US enconomy is not doing as well as our friends in Canada:

Can unemployment: 6.5%
US unemployment: 4.9%

Can avg. hourly earnings: $US 16.30
US avg. hourly earnings: $US 16.34

Can GDP per capita: $US 32,678
US GDP per capita: $US 40,560

Looks pretty comparable to me. Obviously these are just a few data points, but given this:

Also, our debate would be more credible if you'd refrain from making overzealous statements about the nature of Canadian society.

I think maybe Hale (and Steve) aren't the only overzealous ones.

That having been said, I do agree that the recent Canadian vote appears to be more of a vote *against* the Liberals rather than a vote *for* the Conservatives. But ultimately the Conservatives now have a chance to prove to their constituents that they deserve to stay in power for more than a single election cycle. It's the same thing that the Republicans in the US have to prove.

-S

Posted by Stephen Kohls at January 26, 2006 01:48 PM

Stephen,

Perhaps I was... a couple of other interesting indicators are the Gini Index (33.1 Canada, 45 US, indicating a higher income disparity in the US), but constrasting this is the fact that fewer people in the US live below the poverty line (15.9% Canada vs. 12% US) - or so says the CIA world factbook. Of course, this can open up a debate about how accurate numbers like GDP/capita and average hourly earnings are when the averages are skewed by a smaller number of rich individuals...but one might counter this with the difference in unemployment rates. Also, countries often define "poverty" in different ways...

I'm curious to see some numbers on GDP/capita growth over the past few years, since the disparity between the US and Canada is the result of a decades-long difference in productivity growth rates and even if Canada began to outperform the US today, it would take a similar span of time to catch up.

A few other Western nations, for comparison:

United Kingdom
GDP/capita: $30,900
Unemployment: 4.7%

Australia:
GDP/capita: $32,000
Unemployment: 5.2%

Norway:
GDP/capita: $42,400
Unemployment rate: 4.2%

Interestingly, Norway is fairly similar to the US in these two respects, while Canada is more similar to the UK and Australia...

Posted by James Antifaev at January 26, 2006 03:57 PM

Don't forget Norway and Canada have 2 things in common, relatively small populations and large energy reserves. Those exports go a long way to paying for services.

Posted by Bill Maron at January 26, 2006 05:54 PM

Rand, you are completely right. Let lose with your criticism of those who misspell easily spelled words!

Posted by Astrosmith at January 26, 2006 06:27 PM

To Stephen Kohls:

Fair enough.

To James Antifaev:

If I seem "overzealous", it's only because so many Canadians cop an attitude that rubs us Americans the wrong way. If Canadians don't want to imitate us in the smallest detail, that's fine-- "variety is the spice of life" and all that.

But what gets us a bit tetchy is the smug superiority we get from Canadians: "Canada is sooooo much better than the U.S. because we in Canada have government-run healthcare/day-care/whatever, and have government guaranteed this-that-and-the-other-thing, etc., etc." Pride in one's country is fine, but condescension is a bit hard to take from someone whose countrymen tend to leave Canada for the U.S. in search of better healthcare, better jobs, better prospects, and a better life in many other ways.

And it's the incongruity between reality and the smug attitude that makes us fear for the mental acuity of Canadians who lecture us Americans, as if we were great unwashed masses in need of enlightenment.

My two cents' worth.

Posted by Hale Adams at January 26, 2006 10:20 PM

Hale,

I appreciate your point - Canadians (including myself, especially after a few beers) do have a tendency to become somewhat smug in their feelings about Canada, even though there are many areas in which we could learn a lot from the States (and when a lot of our successes are made possible by things like US subisdization of our defence spending, by export to the US, and so on). Sometimes one gets lost in the moment. I hope our conversation hasn't resulted in any long-lasting hard feelings.

Posted by James Antifaev at January 27, 2006 12:56 AM

for James Antifaev:

I am not only happy about the last 2 elecetions in my country, I am ecstatic. I was not trying to define anyone. Quite the contrary, I was pointing out that IN SPITE OF the onslaught of Liberal talking heads on U.S. and Canadian TV, the Liberals are loosing their hold on both our countries.

for Mac:
Lets play poker sometime, I'd love to see you try to form a coalition with the winner of a sizable pot because you had the second best hand in the pot. The oppisite of loosing is, was, and always will be W-I-N-N-I-N-G. Next you'll say poker and politics are not the same. I know poker is not politics, poker is much more serious.

Posted by Steve at January 27, 2006 04:06 AM

I stand corrected, I did use the incorrect word. I usually type my rants, spell check and then post. On my last 2 rants I did not do that.

What I should have done was loose my ideas and lose the misspelled words.

Thanks, I do appreciate it, it's one thing to appear politically strange or combative, it's quite another to appear ignorant.

Posted by Steve at January 27, 2006 04:17 AM

The low British unemployment figure is a bit of a fudge aka "lie". It's been that way since the 1980s when the then Conservative government wanted to find ways to make the massive unemployment numbers look better.

Posted by Daveon at January 27, 2006 04:58 AM

I stand corrected, I did use the incorrect word. I usually type my rants, spell check and then post.

A spell checquer won't help you when you use the wrong word. You really need to learn this one.

(Though it's a common enough error that perhaps some software could be written to look for these two words and at least ask: Are you sure?) Of course, I'd demand that this particular feature be able to be turned off...

Posted by Rand Simberg at January 27, 2006 07:51 AM

Just for completeness, here is the most recent data from the world bank (they tend to have the best numbers on this stuff):

GDP: 2004
Canada 979764183040
France 2002582110208
Germany 2714417758208
United Kingdom 2140898066432
United States 11667514589184

GDP Growth:
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004
Canada 5 2 3 2 3
France 4 2 1 0 2
Germany 3 1 0 -0 2
United Kingdom 4 2 2 2 3
United States 4 1 2 3 4

5 Year Average GDP Growth:
Canada: 3%
France: 1.7%
Germany: 1.3%
United Kingdom: 2.6%
United States: 2.6%

Keep in mind that the US data reflects a really bad recession, while the other countries were for the most part mildly effected by the US recession.

Posted by David Summers at January 27, 2006 02:17 PM

James Antifaev writes:

"Sometimes one gets lost in the moment. I hope our conversation hasn't resulted in any long-lasting hard feelings."

Not at all. In the end, it's just politics, nothing more.

Posted by Hale Adams at January 28, 2006 06:22 PM

Post a comment