Canada: Liberals Lose Parliament Control
Find a Conversation
| Tue, 06-29-2004 - 12:31am |
http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,1280,-4256685,00.html
The Liberal Party lost outright control of Parliament on Monday, ending an 11-year monopoly on power, but easily won the largest share of seats and will now try to lead Canada's first minority government since 1979.
Though dogged by scandal, and pressed hard by a newly unified Conservative Party, the Liberals of Prime Minister Paul Martin prevailed by largely holding their ground in Ontario, the most populous province and the pivotal battleground in the election.
Most minority governments in Canada's past have proven unstable and short-lived. The Liberals may try to govern in an informal coalition with the left-wing New Democratic Party, which favors higher taxes on the affluent.
The Liberals had won three straight landslide victories under Jean Chretien, starting in 1993, and there were signs during the campaign that many Canadians were disenchanted with the party and its recent entanglement in a financial scandal.
However, the results suggested a widespread reluctance to turn over power to the Conservatives' relatively untested leader, Stephen Harper, whose stances on tax cuts and social issues prompted concerns about unwelcome change.
Nearly complete returns showed the Liberals winning 134 seats overall, short of the 155 need to single-handedly control the House of Commons, but far more than 93 seats the Conservatives were projected to win.
In Quebec, the Bloc Quebecois, which advocates independence for the French-speaking province, did well at the Liberals' expense. The Bloc was on track to boost its share of Quebec's 75 seats from 33 to 56, a performance likely to fuel talk of another separatist attempt to hold a referendum on secession from Canada.
The New Democrats were winning 24 seats, which - added to the Liberals' share - would be just enough to forge a majority.
The final polls taken before the election suggested the Liberals and Conservatives were deadlocked, and many analysts had predicted the Conservatives would win the most seats.
Thus the results, giving the Liberals a comfortable plurality, were a relief to Martin, the 65-year-old Liberal leader who replaced Chretien as prime minister last year. He had called the election five weeks ago, hoping the results would provide a solid mandate for his administration.
The outcome was a deep disappointment for Harper and others who had worked relentlessly in recent years to merge rival right-of-center factions and the divisions that had enabled the Liberals to dominate recent elections. The merger took place last year, but the hoped-for breakthrough in Ontario - home to one-third of the population - failed to materialize.
Among the first-time Liberal winners in Ontario was hockey Hall of Famer Ken Dryden, former star goalie of the Montreal Canadiens.
Although the Liberals and Conservatives had much in common - including support for the national health insurance system and reluctance to deploy troops in Iraq - there were some key differences. Harper wanted to slash taxes for the middle-class, increase the military ranks from 60,000 to 80,000 and pull Canada out of the Kyoto Protocol, which commits industrialized nations to reduce emissions of greenhouse gases.
Harper, 45, started the campaign strongly, but was placed on the defensive by repeated Liberal claims that he would try to move Canada to the right on social policies. He denied that he would seek restrictions on abortion, but conveyed some doubts about Canada's steady move toward legalization of same-sex marriage, which already is legal in three provinces.
Roughly 22 million voters were eligible to cast ballots. In the last national election, in 2000, turnout was the lowest ever at 61 percent.
The new Parliament - with 308 seats - will have seven more members than the outgoing one, in which the Liberals hold 168 seats, the Conservatives 73, the Bloc Quebecois 33 and the New Democrats 14. There are nine independents and four vacant seats.


Pages
Hardly. Taxes have been much lower historically. Of course so has the citizen's dependence on the government.
"Isn't it a real bummer we actually have to help out other citizens? What is a selfish individual supposed to do? It's mine! All mine! And you can't have it!"
Huh? Taxes go down and charitable contributions go up, but of course that doesn't help the arguement for a more "involved" government. The "convservative" appealed for a reason. If Canadians want national everything great but they just can't hope to have tax cuts, freedom, and an ever larger central government. They don't mix.
Yeah, donations to the local not for profit yacht club went up.
How does freedom factor into that? Health care is going to eliminate freedom? Now that is a new argument I'd not heard before.
I think some of that is in fact possible. I live in Quebec (I'm NOT a separatist), and the child care plan that has been in place here is hugely popular (despite lots of disagreements before it was implemented). It has in fact helped the economy, despite its costs. Why? put money in the pockets of parents, who then spend it on other things. Like a house, car, etc.. Not to mention that it provides good quality (yet very inexpensive) to everyone, including those who otherwise would leave their children with sitters with little experience and who provide little or no educational stimulation to their children. Scores of children (averages) in school have gone up since the first children who benefited from it have started school. That in the end will also help the economy. Now of course that doesn't mean that all social programs are like that. Some of them are a waste of money. But I think the Quebec model for child care has worked well. So has the 'free dental care' for children, and preventive withdrawal from work (extended EI benefits for pregnant women in some types of jobs and nursing moms in jobs with chemicals). The latter caused a reduction of premature births and low birth babies, which all cost a lot on money to the health care system.
I think each program should be looked at to see if they do have a solid 'case' for short-term or long-term benefits. Sadly, this is not always the case (including in Quebec)
Higher Taxes = Lower discrentionary spending = fewer oppurtunties to spend said money = less freedom.
I agree. While I certainly haven't studied the childcare program enough to intelligently comment on its specifics, I will say this.
None of these programs are free. They come from taxes. Yes it frees up money from parents but takes money from non-parents to help subsidize the program. I'll defer to your local knowledge on the positive effects on the economy. In most cases I can't imagine how government spending can have a more positive effect on the economy than private spending. If it works for the citizens then more power to them.
>"Higher Taxes = Lower discrentionary spending"<
No health care insurance to pay,
Hmmmm....I don't have specifics so I can't really argue but I really doubt it is a wash.
But again it is just a "gut" feeling.
" having one 'carrier' would save $$$."
Monopoly....even regulated ones, are more wasteful. No incentive to cut costs and save customers' money. Competition is a much better solution.
>"= fewer oppurtunties to spend said money = less freedom."<
This had to do with higher taxes equaling less freedom. Higher Tax bills equal less free money, thus less freedom. I'd have to see comprehensive studies showing that the true costs of the healthcare program are offset by individual savings. I really REALLY doubt it.
"Snookums, I'm distraught. I wanted to buy the 150 foot yacht, but because we have to educate kids and make sure they have health care, I can only buy the 125' one. What will people think?"
Ah, yes... such a sacrifice of freedom.
Less freedom for taking care of others... hmmm. We have workers compensation, a system that infringes on the freedom of employer and employee... for just social reasons.
I hope this country does do look to do such programs. It is in the best interests of all of society, those that have kids or otherwise, to have these programs.
>"takes money from non-parents to help subsidize the program"<
Yes like the property taxes that pay for schools. My child's already grown & wasn't even educated in this state. Let the kids stay uneducated so I can have more money to spend on myself.
Pages