Liberals were too late to adapt to a Friendlier Stephen Harper
The Liberals War-Room this election used the exact same strategy they used last election- and Canadians were unmoved. Last Election Harper was pro-American and the positive commericals talked about the economy. This election's strategy was identical but Harper's persona was not. Last election, Harper was delivering his speeches from a podium in front of wealthy conservative supporters. This election Harper delivered his message from an electronics store before Christmas with 5% GST stickers on Big Screen TV, he was at a Toronto Youth Centre hitting a boxing pad, and he spent most of campaign in Quebec and he looks like it paid off.
The Liberals didn't change their campaign till Harper took the lead and it looked like he could win a majority government. The Liberals new strategy failed because it looked desperate. Martin pledging to remove the notwithstanding clause and the super negative ads hurt the liberals worse than Brault's testimony. Also what is the liberals obsession with abortion. Harper isn't suicidal- he's not going to introduce a bill to outlaw it. A sizable amount of his own members would vote against it to save their ridings.
Martin should have focussed on other issues that the Conservatives have made a public statement on. They plan on increasing taxes for Canadians in the lowest income tax bracket, not abide by the Kyoto treaty, not recognize the latest agreement with Native Canadians, and ASK Washington if they can re-enter in the missile defense shield that doesn't even work and Congress might cancel because of the US's massive deficit.
Another area of attack could have been Team Harper- Not Just Stephen. The Liberals could have brought out their heavy guns in commericals: Dryden, Dion, Brison, and Dosanjh. They could have attacked MacKay for his duct tape remark and said Martin doesn't have to hide his liberals. Alas it's too late. But if the current polls hold up it looks like a minority government could limit Harper to 2 years. If Harper gets a majority he wants fixed election dates in the spring or fall and there might not be another election for 4 and a half years.
posted by canadianwild.ca @ 1/19/2006 08:06:00 PM
1 comments
1 Comments:
Has the leopard changed its spots?
Interesting article in today’s Toronto Star by David Crane, which summarizes the discomfort felt by many at Harper’s apparent “evolution” (as Harper describes it). Some extracts follow (my capitalization):
“Crane: Has Harper really moved left?
Jan. 20, 2006. 07:48 AM
DAVID CRANE
.... Yet big questions remain about what a Harper government would be like. Has Harper really changed from a right-wing ideologue to a middle-of-the-road Conservative? IS THE NEW HARPER MORE THAN SKIN DEEP? OR IS HIS CAMPAIGN SIMPLY AN EXPEDIENT RESPONSE TO INTENSIVE CONSERVATIVE POLLING?
Harper's history is of a strong believer in small government and especially a weak national government, devolution of power to the provinces, as well as being a social conservative seemingly more in tune with the religious right than mainstream Canadian values.
In a telling profile by Marci McDonald in Walrus magazine of members of the so-called Calgary School, a group of Alberta academics who have an almost pathological dislike of both the federal government and Ontario, Harper's neoconservative credentials as part of that group are spelled out. THE ARTICLE QUOTES TED BYFIELD, A LEADING VOICE OF A QUASI-SEPARATIST WESTERN CANADA AND HARPER SUPPORTER AS SAYING AFTER THE 2004 ELECTION, "THE ISSUE NOW IS: HOW DO WE FOOL THE WORLD INTO THINKING WE'RE MOVING TO THE LEFT WHEN WE'RE NOT."
On Canada-U.S. relations, he says he would "demand" the United States repay the duties on Canadian softwood that it illegally collected. But what does that mean? Harper has said he would have supported the U.S.-led invasion and occupation of Iraq, has talked of a customs union with the United States, shares the Bush administration's opposition to the Kyoto accord and other strong action to deal with climate change, and would review Canada's position on ballistic missile defence.
On the big issue of the fiscal structure of Canada — the division of spending and taxing powers of the federal and provincial governments — Harper believes in reducing the role of Ottawa and handing over powers and revenue to the provinces. He calls this correcting the "fiscal imbalance" but is vague on what this would mean.
The danger is that it could end up meaning a much weaker national government able to act on behalf of all Canadians.
The single most damaging promise he has made is to replace Canada's initiative on early childhood development and replace it with a family allowance of $100 a month for every child under 6. Harper's plan is based on the idea that women should stay at home and not work, since they are the main beneficiaries of his proposal, while early childhood development is about ensuring youngsters are ready to learn when they enter the school system.
In many respects we are entering uncharted territory. It would be easier if we knew which is the real Stephen Harper.”
Post a Comment
<< Home