2004 Democratic Primary

[Canadian observer]

The Canadian Alliance (CA) is the only major federal party that would ideologically be the closest to American conservatives.  In Canada, CA is considered as right wing, but I think this party might be considered as centrist in the US.

The Liberal Party of Canada (LPC) and the Conservative Party (PC) should be considered as liberal leaning, although PC's considered here in Canada to be centre-right, while LPC's viewed as centre-left.  However, the ideological position of the Liberals is highly debated, as their policies might be centre-right, centre-left, and centrist as well.

The Bloc Québécois (BQ), minus their separatist agenda, and the New Democratic Party (NDP) are definitely left-wing by American standards and I'm sure that if Pat Buchanan ever knew their existence, he would have castigated these parties as "being even more socialistic than the Commies".

Generally speaking in the media and political discussions, Canadian federal electoral analyses consist of grouping the electoral dynamics of six large regions :

1. The Atlantic, which comprises New Brunswick (NB), Prince Edward Island (PEI), Nova Scotia (NS), and Newfoundland (NF)

2. Quebec (i.e. the Province of Quebec)

3. Ontario

4. The Prairies, which comprises Manitoba and Saskatchewan

5. Alberta

6. British Columbia

Each of these broad regions has parties which perform better than other and issues that tends to be more important than in any other areas.

1. In the Atlantic, high unemployment and fisheries are continuously the biggest issues.  At the provincial level, especially in NB and NS, the issues of car inssurance gained prominence as voters complain of hikes in their prenium payment.  The LPC is very strong federally in each of the four provinces.  PC was traditionally strong in southern NB and NS, but now, this is the only region where PC can elect its candidates.  NDP has surprisingly surged in the Atlantic since the 1997 election, and succeed in a couple of ridings since, the party is strong in NS, especially in Halifax, one of the few cities that's not entirely devoted electorally to the Liberals.

2. In Quebec, the issue has always been about the province's constitutional place in Canada.  There is not yet a "right-left political polarization", the polarization is "federalism-sovereignty" (or remaining in Canada or separate from Canada).  Needless to say that the BQ is the party of the Quebec sovereignty (advocating Quebec independance or secession from Canada).  Since the last 2000 election, the LPC has succeeded in regrouping almost all the Quebec federalist voters under its banner.  A startling case concerns the fact that the two other federalist parties, NDP & CA, have only single-digit support from voters and are in no position to make a breakthrough.  The LPC tends to do well in urban areas such as Quebec City and Montreal; southern regions of the province, such as the Outaouais and the Eastern Townships are Liberal strongholds.  BQ performs well in rural areas, especially on the St.Lawrence valley, and the northern and eastern regions.  The BQ has nevertheless succeeded at electing candidates in surburban ridings of Montreal and Quebec City.

3. In Ontario, everything currently seems going well.  Despite the SARS scare in Toronto, the biggest province and economic powerhouse of the country look far from being in crisis.  In provincial elections, Ontario tends Conservative, but federally it's Liberal and it's even more since the PC collapse that occured in the last decade.  Rural regions are the areas from which the PC and CA get most of their support in Ontario.  The Liberals are in a hegomonic position as all cities tend to vote for their party.  Since 1993, you can count on your fingers how many elected Ontarian MP were not Liberal...

1993: only one from the Reform Party
1997: only one Conservative and an independent
2000: two from the CA, and one from the NDP

4. In the Prairies, agricultural issues do have prominence.  This is the region where there's an almost perfect three-way race between the LPC, AC, and the NDP.  All three consistently succeeds at getting candidates elected.  The NDP is succesful in rural areas of Saskatchewan and Manitoba, and makes good showing in Winnipeg.  The Liberals do well in Winnipeg too.  The CA was particularly strong in the rural areas too since 1993, let's see how it's going to be in the next election.

5. Alberta is the craddle of the CA party, and the province the most supportive of the Alliance.  Mismanagement cases of Taxpayers' money from the federal government seem getting an stronger echo in their electorate than it would be the case in other regions.  Distrust of big government is another characteristic.  The only place that is usually less supportive of the CA is the city of Edmonton, where the only Liberal MP's have been elected since 1993.

6. In British Columbia, 1993 was quite a big swing, most federal MP's were elected under the banner of the Reform Party (which changed its name for the Canadian Alliance).  In 1988, most were from the NDP, that's what I'd call "ideological gymnastic".  Since then, the CA has made strong showing in the province, the party attracts support mainly from Vancouver suburb and the BC interior.  The NDP and the LPC get most of their support from urban and coastal areas, especially in Vancouver.

[Canadian observer]

Maurice Le Noblet Duplessis (1890-1959)[/i]

Maurice Le Noblet Duplessis (simply called Duplessis, or nicknamed "Le Cheuf" [French slang for "Chief"]) was born in Trois-Rivières in 1890.  After his legal practice, in 1927, he got elected MLA in Trois-Rivières for the waning Quebec provincial Conservative Party (PC).  He became PC leader in 1932.

During the last term of Quebec Liberal Premier Louis-Alexandre Taschereau, a group of Liberal MLA, led by Paul Gouin, broke out from the Liberal caucus and then create a party named "Action Libérale Nationale" (ALN).  Meanwhile, the Duplessis-led PC was morphing and changed its name to "Union Nationale" (UN).  The ALN and UN began cooperating and made a deal for the 1935 provincial election, which consisted to oppose only one candidate, from the ALN or UN, to every QLP incumbent.  The two parties almost succeeded to prevent a Liberal legislature majority.

1935 QC ELECTION
QLP: 46.5% (47 seats)
ALN: 29.5% (25 seats)
PC: 19.0% (17 seats)
Ind. Liberals: 4.0% (1 seat)


Louis-Alexandre Taschereau (1867-1952)[/i]

After the election, the ALN merged with the UN, the new party kept the latter name.  Duplessis quickly took over the leadership and push out the last ALN remaining people from the party power centres.  Meanwhile, scandals plagued the Liberal government and legislative inquiries over government dealings on a host of issues mushroomed.  This led Taschereau, Premier since 1920, to resign in June 1936 and let Adélard Godbout to succeed him at the helm of the QLP and the provincial government.  Election is rapidly declared and Godbout Liberals suffered a crushing defeat.

1936 QC ELECTION
UN: 56.9% (76 seats)
QLP: 39.4% (14 seats)


Joseph-Adélard Godbout (1892-1956)[/i]

During his first term, Duplessis began showing the features of his personality that will make him known for generations to come.  He reneged on his promises to nationalize electricity utilities; and as a staunch anti-communist and anti-socialist, the Legislative Assembly enacted the "Loi du cadenas" (Padlock Act, it's my tentative English translation), which is meant to curb and eliminate communist propaganda.  Notice that "communist activity" had a very large definition that included almost any activities the Duplessis government didn't like, that was like McCarthy's witch hunt.  Paradoxically, the Duplessis governement implemented the earliest features of the Quebec social democratic state, such as the minimum wage, financial support for mothers in need, and insurance credit for farmers.

In September 1939, right after the outbreak of the Second World War, Duplessis declared an anticipated provincial election, sensing he would need a strong mandate to oppose the federal Liberal Prime Minister Mackenzie King if the latter would ever implement conscription of men for war effort (the idea of conscription was always deeply opposed among Quebecers, especially among French speakers; that was even the case in 1917).  During the campaign, King promised not to establish conscription, thus preventing Duplessis from having a horse to do war with.  Other issues during the campaign concerned Duplessis' quite chaotic term, so chaotic that some UN MLA's went back to the QLP fold they had quit a couple of years before.  The King promises helped Godbout-led Liberals to win back a strong majority.

1939 QC ELECTION
QLP: 53.5% (69 seats)
UN: 38.6% (15 seats)
Ind.: 1.1% (2 seats)


William Lyon Mackenzie King (1874-1950)[/i]

Adélard Godbout regained the Premiership he lost three years before.  Ironically, King did implement conscription in 1942, that didn't help Godbout, who faced the electorate in 1944.  During Godbout's Premiership, Duplessis kept his official opposition leader post, that period was seen as Duplessis' desert crossing, a desert the latter seemed to have gone through in 1944.

1944 QC ELECTION
UN: 38.0% (48 seats)
QLP: 39.4% (37 seats)
Oth.&Ind.: (6 seats)

Duplessis' victory was the start of a 15-year reign as Quebec provincial Premier.  During his second tenure, his administration oversaw the construction of electrical utilities in rural areas.  In 1948, Duplessis introduced the Quebec provincial flag, confirming again his nationalist credentials.


Quebec provincial flag[/i]

In 1954, the provincial income tax is established, thus making Quebec the only province where tax payers have to fill two income tax declarations.  Most of the Quebec hospitals were founded during Duplessis' Premiership tenure.  Those achievements were Duplessis' brightest.  However, he is better remembered for darker deeds.  He was business friendly like…

… like preventing the establishment of independent workers' unions, except Catholic unions (Catholic unions were means to spy on various labour sectors, as Duplessis' government had connections with the Quebec Catholic clergy).

… like crushing workers' strikes harshly, and accuse strikers of sedition.  The figure case is the 1949 Asbestos strike, police came, then violence, shooting and killings erupted (that was a Quebec-style Pullman strike).  Of historical interest, the future Canadian PM Pierre Elliott Trudeau witnessed the 1949 strike as a journalist, he vilified Duplessis.  Duplessis declared having known nothing about the police intervention, assertion not viewed as credible…


1949 strike in the city of Asbestos, Eastern Townships, Qc[/i]

… and Duplessis was business friendly like giving away access to natural resources at ridiculous prices, but not for a ridiculous period of time.  Exhibit A, the UN government, in 1946, granted access to iron minerals in northern Quebec to companies at one cent per ton produced, the access was granted for 99 years.  The once again Liberal opposition leader Godbout quoted, "Ce n'est pas le scandale du siècle, mais bien le scandale d'un siècle." (This isn't the scandal of the Century, this is the one-Century scandal).

Premier Duplessis was a deeply religious conservative.  In those years, that wouldn't cause any electoral problem, as French Quebec society was as conservative.  He let hospitals, elementary and high schools, and other social services entirely under the management of the Catholic clergy.  That surely saved moneys in salaries, but let orphanages and asylum totally under religious control, in those years, and then 40 years later, you get sexual abuse scandals.  The same happened in other Canadian provinces such as Newfoundland, New Brunswick, BC, etc.

Duplessis may have been intolerant too.  In the 50's, his government constantly prevented a Jehova's witness bar owner to obtain a permit to sell alcohol.  The case went in courts and the bar owner won his case.  Censure was pervasive in education as many books or other pieces of art were put in the index.  Of them figured the French movie "Les enfants du paradis", and the book "Le deuxième sexe" from Simone de Beauvoir, who's Jean-Paul Sartres' wife.

Needless to say the Duplessis' administration quicly came corrupted.  From the 40's, the UN devised a sheme by which any company that wins a government contract bid must give an amount of money, equaling 10% of the contract value, to the UN campaign coffers.  The UN party was consequently flushed with money and Duplessis succeedingly won provincial elections in 1948, 1952 and 1956.

In September 1959, while visiting northern Quebec, Maurice Duplessis died.  His death marked the end of a 15-year period later called "La Grande Noirceur" (The Great Blackout), period generally marked by a bossy Premier and the conservative social pressure.  Today, in Quebec, calling a politician or candidate a "Duplessis" is one of the biggest insults, it means he or she is bossy, dictatorial and close-minded.  In 1978, Radio-Canada aired a biographical TV series, based on a play, simply called "Duplessis", the show was prematurely withdrawn after complaints from viewers who were old enough to remember Duplessis.  The series was aired again in reruns more than a decade after.  It's one of the best political historical series ever done in Quebec.  The picture looks like in the series "Me, Claudius, Emperor".  I've never watched the entire "Duplessis" series, though I viewed some of them in reruns a couple of years ago and even some my high school history class.

I hope that helps you, but I still can't figure out what Duplessis has got to do with your cousin's thinking on the NDP's fortunes in Quebec.

Cheers, and here are famous quotes from Duplessis, enjoy :-)

La Cour supreme c'est comme la Tour de Pise, elle est toujours penchée du même bord

"The Supreme Court [of Canada] is like the leaning tower of Pisa, it always leans toward the same side."
-Maurice Duplessis in 1936 referring to the 1927 Supreme Court decision that didn't give Labrador to Quebec, but to the Newfoundland British Colony-


Chers électeurs, électrices et électricité…

"Dear electors (voters) and electricity…"
-Maurice Duplessis introducing one of his speeches during an electoral campaign by referring to his achievements in the construction of electrical utilities in rural areas-

[jmfcst]

nym90

Posts like your last one are aggravating because I don’t feel like explaining clear and recent history to you!

---

The Economy:  

Bush’s economic policies did NOT take effect until 2001Q3, the PRECEDING four quarters saw GDP growth at +0.6% (2000Q3), +1.1% (2000Q4), -0.6% (2001Q1), and -1.6% (2001Q2).  Therefore, it is DISHONEST of you to blame Bush for the recession since there were no changes in policy; rather Bush inherited an economy in decline following a boom (which Bush was warning about in during the Fall of 2000).

In contrast to the liberals blaming Bush, I do NOT blame Clinton for the recession because I am HONEST.  There is STILL something called the “business cycle.”  The economy was simply extremely overextended by the summer of 2000.

Bush’s policies were signed into law in 2001Q3 and were followed by an attack worse than Pearl Harbor (Sept 2001), corporate scandal (Summer 2002), and a long lead up to war (June 02 – April 03).

In retrospect, any HONEST (key word) person would have to say that the economy has held up remarkably well giving everything that has come against it.

Also, Bush’s policies were signed into law in 2001Q3, every single quarter of GDP growth after 2001Q3 has outperformed every one of the four quarters prior to 2001Q3.



The Deficit:

During the boom years of the stock market, Capital Gain taxes were generating between $200B-$400B PER YEAR of tax revenue.  With the bursting of the stock bubble, a bubble that simply was NOT sustainable, we’ve lost that tax revenue.

And that revenue will NOT be coming back anytime soon since losses are carried forward each tax year.  I, myself, still have $120k in losses that I carry forward, since I am only able to deduct $3k in capital gains losses per year on my tax returns.  Meaning…I will have to generate $120k in additional stock market gains to even begin to start paying taxes on Capital Gains again!!!

The economic slowdown that Bush inherited (though NOT Clinton’s fault, but simply a function of the normal business cycle) has drained other tax revenue from the Fed, stemming from lower corporate profits and personal income.

The events of 9/11 and the war on terror have meant an 80% increase in defense related spending, amounting to an addition cost $200B per year!

The tax cuts account for only $100B of the deficit.

…but, it takes HONESTY to view the deficit in this manner.


Iraq:

Success in Iraq is NOT measured by the number of US combat causalities.  If that were the case, victory could have been “won” by not fighting in the first place. Instead, true and honest progress is measured by the US ability to build better lives for the Iraqi people.  

HONESTY dictates the realization that terrorists’ attacks in Iraq are NOT stopping the US from restoring electricity, water, and basic economical functions to the Iraqi people.  And the Iraqi people are realizing that the terrorists are the enemies of Iraq, not the Americans.

But, the success of the terrorism in Iraq is measured at home, because certain liberal “Metrosexuals” are trying to use images of the attacks to weaken the American resolve, in order to gain political power.  

Albert Einstein reportedly once said that someone who keeps doing the same thing over and over, thinking they will get a different result, is insane...The voters saw through the Dem geopolitical weakness in 2002, and they will see through it again in 2004.

As far as Iraqi WMD ending up in Syria, google the topic.  Israel had given the US heads up as early as last Spring, and the US has come around to the same conclusion.  But, Bush doesn’t have to go after Syria, all he has to do is give the green light to Israel, which is why we just saw Israel strike deep into Syrian soil for the first time in 30 years.

---

The Liberal motivation:

There are two ways to deal with the shame of sin:  

…One can repent, which requires effort and humility…

or,…One can try to outlaw morality so that everyone is morally corrupt.  Therefore, instead of coming to terms with one’s shame, the person can merely pass it off to someone else.

[Peter]

I shall also point out that Clare Short has commited crimes against the British Constitution and lost a lot of respect amongst fellow socialists and certainly respect she had for being consistent with her opponents.

After saying she would resign and vote against any Iraq war without the UN, she did a U-turn and didnt resign. Later she did resign over the issue but by then her reputation was in tatters.

As to her Constitutional Crimes: in the vote over Foundation Hospitals, she did not take part despite there being a three-line whip. She said that she "forgot". No, failure to obey collective cabinet responsiblity means that you should resign on grounds of principle, not abstain. For this reason she commited a Crime against the Constitution.

Peter

[Canadian observer]

Quote: from nclib on 6:34 pm on Aug. 8, 2003
Canadian Observer,
 I was just wondering what parts of Canada (cities, provinces, etc.) were liberal and which ones were conservative. What are the top political issues in Canada?

Just click on the Natural Resources Canada web site[/u].  They feature a map showing the results of the 2000 federal election; the riding colors are based on their winning party.

Here's another map showing the 1997 results.  By the results, you may see that Canadian politics is highly regionalized.


KEY

Liberal Party of Canada (LPC)
Reform Party (RP) which later became the Canadian Alliance (CA)
Bloc Québécois (BQ)
New Democratic Party (NDP)
Progessive Conservative Party(PC)

[Peter]

There are constantly health worries surrounding Menzies Campbell, so he couldnt be leader. If anybody looks cut out to lead the Lib Dems its Simon Hughes, but it looks like they are sending him into the four horse fight for control of London, now that will be the most contested election in the country come May.

Peter

[jmfcst]

<<Don't you mean "democrat"?>>


No, rather Im talking about a large portion of Southern Dems that reject the national Democrats.

You really need to read Zell Miller's book.  He compares the modern Dem party with the Whigs.

here is an excerpt:

"...I own a fiddle that supposedly belonged to Zeb Vance, the great North Carolina mountaineer who was elected that state's governor in 1862. He opposed much of what Confederate President Jefferson Davis was doing in Richmond. He was too young to be involved in the Whig Party at the height of its popularity, but he had been "born a Whig" and many thought this moderate, independent-minded, vigorous young leader might be the one to keep the party alive in the South.

When he was approached to do so in 1865, Vance was typically direct: "The party is dead and buried and the tombstone placed over it and I don't care to spend the rest of my days mourning at its grave."

Like that Whig Party of the late 1850s, the Democratic Party of today has become dangerously fragmented, and considering the present leadership it can only get worse. Compromise will become increasingly difficult and no leader's goal will be to reach consensus or common ground. Instead, they will more than ever blindly champion this group and that group...."

Sounds a lot like the Cal recall, doesn't it?!

---

Zell continued...

"...A demagogue is defined by Webster as "a political leader who gains power by arousing people's emotions and prejudices." Isn't that exactly what some of them are doing? Some of the liberal media excuse these actions by calling them "populism." Populism, my butt! Its demagogy, pure and simple.

Howard Dean, while not alone, is the worst offender, and it says a lot about the current Democratic base that he has emerged as the front-runner for the Democratic nomination for president. He likes to say he belongs to the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party, but I say he belongs to the whining wing of the Democratic Party...."


http://www.ajc.com/opinion/content/opinion/1103/02miller.html

[Michael Z]

It's a shame Paddy Ashdown is no longer party leader; if he was I wouldn't hesitate putting money on the Lib Dems being the official opposition in 2005. A well-spoken, articulate man, and one of the few politicians I genuinely respect.

The London election next year will definitely be interesting. If I'm honest Simon Hughes doesn't really look "mayoral" to me (though of course it's early days so a well-organised campaign could still change my mind), but if Labour can come up with a credible candidate (Glenda Jackson perhaps) as opposed to a dead duck then they will get my vote. If not then I'll just have to hesitatingly vote Livingstone again.

[Demented Voter]

Jmf... LOTS of Dems in the South have voted GOP in Presidential elections for about 40 years.
It's not exactly new.

[Demented Voter]

Blunkett is a classic Sheffield Labourite(left on economics, centre-right socially), and has said he would "love to be Chancellor in a Brown government".

Cook is an adulterer(very bad for a political figure over here), and is hated by the rank and file.

Short is facing possible de-selection in Birmingham Ladywood, and is hated more than Cook.
And ignoring a three line whip is NOT a good idea if you want to be P.M(ask IDS).

It's worth remembering that most Labour members(and voters) supported the war on Iraq.

All senior Labour members regard themselves a Socialists(Blair mentioned in the conference speech for example), although until recently they had been playing it down a little.

[Demented Voter]

I've just voted in the poll to support Michael Portillo. A man of such erudition and electoral saavy would make an excellent leader and a better PM than Phoney Tony Blair. The only person I would even consider as a better PM in 2005 would be Charles Kennedy.

Sorry to disapoint you, but Portillo ain't reknowned for "electoral savvy".
He went down in 1997 if you remember.

[Demented Voter]

You make your comment about the Liberal Democrats with an utter failure to see the alternative. I don't see how Charles Kennedy could be any worse than the recent PMs which were a harpy with ice water running through her veins, a do-nothing silly billy-goat, and the current PM, a functionary of the inimical trades unions.

Blair is a member of the TGWU,  but does disagree with them a bit... although by U.S standards Labour do take a lot of money from the Unions.
But the giveaway is the word "Labour".

[migrendel]

I'll remind RealPolitik of the scores of Tory MPs that lost in 1997, the only ones remaining were those in seats resembling Kensington & Chelsea, Huntingdon, and Maidstone and the Weald. His loss in Enfield Southgate was, from an electoral standpoint, inevitable.

[Demented Voter]

Not quite true.
Heathcoat-Amory and Gill managed to hold on to seats that were considered more vunerable than Enfield-Southgate(Wells, Ludlow, although when Gill retired in 2001, the local Tories selected someone even more right-wing than Gill(!), and lost to the Liberals in the biggest upset of the night).

However Portillo was a very different person then(he was basically a right-winger living in denial of his Spanish roots and his Homosexual past), and for most people seeing him go down in Enfield was the highlight of the night.
He was also a crap constituancy MP, which was almost certainly what got him in the end.

After defeat he utterly re-invented himself, and became far more acceptible to the electorate...
Which meant he stood no chance of becoming Tory leader.

Portillo is nowadays a "wet". And the last wet to be Tory leader was Ted Heath...

[Michael Z]

That's exactly right, RP. Though it's somewhat ironic that Portillo, who (alongside people like Redwood, Howard, Bottomley, etc) was regarded as the source of anti-Tory contempt back in 1997 is now seen by many as the party's potential saviour.

But then his post-97 transformation did seem very sincere. It's obvious that he was quite shocked by what happened in Enfield, so much so he changed his entire political outlook. As opposed to other senior Tories he realised that the country had changed, the world had changed, and that far right politics no longer won elections.

Or maybe we're now seeing the 'real' Portillo, what went before having been a denial of his past like you mentioned. In a way there is something grimly Oedipal about the son of immigrants acting like a tough mean xenophobe. (Not dissimilar to a certain Tory MP with Romanian-Jewish heritage, come to think of it...)

Anyway, as I said before, it's telling that modernisers like Portillo do not stand a chance of leading the Conservatives. Try as they might, they just can't stop acting like a bunch of mean-spirited contemptous toffs. It's a culture the likes of Thatcher, Tebbitt, Powell et al drilled into the party thirty years ago and it may take another thirty years for them to get rid of it completely.