"Most people who oppose same-sex marriage are already voting Tory"
Wrong. Polls showed that around 40% of Canadians were OK with SSM, 15% were totally against it, and btween 50 & 55% had the same view as Harper - call the civil unions and keep traditiional marriage definition.
It really doesn't matter how public opinion is spread on the SSM issue - the courts have decided the matter. In that sense, the matter is closed. This is the antidemocratic downside of constitutionalism, à la Waldron.
Posted at 2005-11-29 13:40:58 [PermaLink]Once again: are the Tories TRYING to kiss Ontario bye-bye?
Posted at 2005-11-29 13:43:56 [PermaLink]No, he's not trying to kiss Ontario bye-bye. Read his intentions carefully:
1) He's calling for a true free vote in the Commons first. "True" because in the last one, the Liberal cabinet had to vote in solidarity, and there will be pressure in the NDP to be free as well (in the wake of Bev Desjarlais' expulsion). If the free vote fails, he'll drop it.
2) It's an appeal to the social conservative vote, all right, but that's not just the stereotypical Christian right. It's also a way to appeal to new immigrants and the various ethnic communities, who need assurance that the Tories won't ram a secular social change down their throats.
3) If Paul Martin attempts to play up the "intolerance" angle, Harper can counter that the Liberals were being intolerant by stepping over traditional beliefs -- and that by trying to keep the issue at the forefront, it's Martin who's being intolerant and hypocritically moral.
All that being said, Harper still has to sell the idea that there's room for improving the Civil Marriage Act (which there is) and that the Liberal thinking on gay marriage ISN'T the only way to deal with it (which it isn't).
"Mr. Harper should talk about the need to encourage more marriage, less divorce and more child-rearing. Let Paul Martin try to characterize that as extreme!"
Actually, I wouldn't vote for a party that spends all its time talking about encouraging marriage and babies and discouraging divorce. Not that I'm against marriage or family - on the contrary, I'm happy my folks decided to get hitched and have me, and hope to one day do the same. But to me, government has no business in these issues. They're personal.
Let me tell you what might sway me - a disgruntled Liberal voter - to consider voting Tory:
1) Everything Adam Daifallah said in his column. Gay marriage is legal - move on. The Liberals are corrupt - move on. Let's get something new into the mix please.
2) Smaller government. Run on a platform of cutting government spending and getting rid of useless departments, like the Aboriginal art fund or my favourite, the CRTC. In fact, anyone who vows to slash the CBC's funding altogether is pretty much guaranteed my vote.
3) Increased defense spending, and more streamlined peacekeeping. Instead of spreading our resources so thin that we're doing a whole lot of nothing, let's direct our foreign peacekeeping and military spending to prioritized areas where we can make a real impact. And let's increase military spending to a level at which the military can actually afford to buy a piece of equipment that was invented after 1950. If we're going to live in this world, we have to do our part.
4) No more GST. 'Nuff said.
5) A cohesive unity strategy designed to keep the country together. One of my main beefs with the Conservative Party is that they are seen as the party that may tear the country appart. Whether this is fair or not, their de facto alliance with the Bloc combined with their western separatist roots and their policy platform of decentralizing decisions to the provinces all adds up to a unity disaster. If you want to recruit me - a federalist Quebecker (and let's face it, people like me are the Tories' only hope of one day winning a seat or two in Quebec), then you need to put forth a strategy for keeping this country together that makes sense.
The courts have decided the matter? No, the Supreme Court refused to, and sent it back to parliament.
I thought the Conservative position was made pretty clear at their convention earlier this year when they voted in favour of enshrining the traditional definition of marriage.
That said, isn't it better to get this issue out in the open as early as possible in the campaign so that it doesn't come back to bite you? Otherwise the whole hidden agenda thing comes into play again.
Phantom, I think you're seeing more cleverness than Joe Voter will.
The call for a free vote can come back to bite Harper on the posterior. It's official party policy, we were banging on about it earnestly for years, and now, if a free vote fails, we'll just let it drop? A confusing message, to say the least.
I just don't see how Harper has anything to gain by playing chicken with Martin over this.
Hold up everyone! While some people may be shaking their heads at the Same Sex Marriage campaign fiasco that Martin is making, there is something to remember before getting whipped up in a tizzy:
It is only the first day of the campaign. Given the choice between talking about testy issues now or at day 55, I would say Harper is cleaning out house right now. By day 55, there will be nothing new to say on the issue, and it probably won't play heavy on most voters' minds.
[External Link]
Yes, TimG hit the crux of the issue dead on.
Posted at 2005-11-29 14:59:29 [PermaLink]Absolutely great news and a winner for the Conservatives.......this issue is far far far from dead........
Posted at 2005-11-29 15:08:03 [PermaLink]- "until the Supreme Court of Canada declares the "traditional" definition of marriage unconstitutional"
- Didn't the Supreme Court already mull this over, and then decided to just hand it back to Parliament?
segacs:
I disagree with the idea that government has no business in these issues -- encouraging marriage and babies and discouraging divorce. Lack of babies is a major national issue and the reason we are so dependent of immigration to sustain our aging population. Encouraging marriages and discouraging divorce may seem offensive to the liberatarian but look at the alternative – lack of marriage and increase divource means far more intrusive government intervention in our lives. As in when you can see your kids – how much you have to pay for their post secondary education etc…
chris... I may be the only one here with severe difficulty understanding that line of reasoning. Or perhaps I'm merely unwilling to make groundless assumptions.
Firstly, there is no gov't program, initiative or capacity I've ever heard of that can make a marriage happier and thus encourage both the numbers of married couples or the statistical success of marriages.
Well, maybe one: tax reduction and elimination. THAT, however, would reduce gov't, which would be to support Sari's #2 suggestion. (And mine.)
This IS a brilliant idea! Here's how it works:
By bringing up SSM and causing the Liberals to use their 'boogeyman' tactics, Stephen Harper has deprived the Liberals of their most powerful weapon.
In this phase of the campaign, the parties should be keeping their most powerful arguments for the final stage. By forcing the Liberals to respond now, their most dangerous argument is going to be exhausted before the end of the campaign, and the Liberal message will appear repetitive.
This is a risk, and will cause a bump in the polls for the Liberals, but it is a brilliant strategy which will ultimately help make a Conservative win happen.
Never doubt Stephen Harper's intelligence.
My concern is that Stevie Aitch seems, SSM aside, more and more like a PC. He may be still be to the right of Joe Clark, but that still leaves him left of Howard Dean.
Mark
Ottawa
segacs:
When a party talks about encouraging marriage and families, it really (in our current legal environment) means removing some of the discrimination against marriage and families. Higher per person tax rates on families, especially families with a parent at home; high taxes to fund government daycare, at the expense of families with a parent at home; no school choice - these policies all punish families with children. I'm not asking for government preference - neutrality would be fine. But if a government is going to have policies that either support or harm families and children, support seems better than harm.
Mark, the problem with what you said is that all politics involve making choices. Of course, supporting families is all very well and good.
You gave an example yourself, when you said "high taxes to fund government daycare, at the expense of families with a parent at home". Now, how do you think working women would react to having daycare options slashed because of a government that believes their role is in the kitchen, not in the workplace? As a woman with my own career, I can tell you that I'd be very reluctant to vote for any government who engages in that sort of social engineering.
Ditto with family allowances. Paying families to have more kids just creeps me out. Parents should have kids because they want to, not because of government incentives. Besides, the costs of raising children far outweigh any family allowance handouts.
Trudeau said the government should butt out of our bedrooms. I say the government should butt out of our private lives as much as possible. That applies to sex, marriage, religion, family, and pretty much anything else that's my business and not some bureaucrat in Ottawa's.
this gets ssm out and dealt with it, reducing hidden agenda, etc.
the alternative would be to duck the question, giving rise to hiden agenda bs.
do i want to be talking about this? hell no. but i don't want to be dogged by hidden agenda all campaign. i'll take this statement as an attempt to control the media and get out ahead of things.
there was so much going on today that this was one of the best days to talk about ssm. we had the Steve h doesn't love canada, when he said it was a great country rather than saying "yes"... total "when did you stop beating your wife?" question.
segacs: sooo many of us CPC people are there with you, we just want the government out of as much as possible. If they are going to be doing this stuff, I'd much rather treat all families equally with tax breaks/credits, rather than setting up a monstrous day care infrastructure run by the government, unionized to hell and indoctrinating kids.
All very clever, but once the 'undecideds' decide ..."see, we knew they were still riding that pony" it's all over but for the crowning of Emperor Martin.
Harper does NOT have this all sewed up; he needs the support of every middle of the road voter. He has to look and sound like a Prime Minister not a Baptist Minister. If he has to depend on Conservative voters, he's hooped.
I think its rather delusional to believe the issue is just going to go away if we choose not to talk about it. As much as people are ready to throw up their hands and pull out there hair wondering what Stephen is doing raising it, that's a knee jerk reaction.
If we didn't talk about it at all, the Liberal Party would claim we were going to rip up the Charter of Rights and Freedoms and that was part of our "secret agenda". Far better for us to come forward, state our actual intentions early on - this was what was agreed at when the party passed its policy document - and have some control over the dialogue regarding it.
Furthermore, I think the timing is also strategic. This campaign is essentially two monthes long. We've now allowed the issue to fizzle out in week one. Those who wanted to hear about it have heard about it. Those who didn't, now have a long time to forget about it, starting with the next media cycle two or three days into the future.
One the the very reasons gov't has become so intrusive is the because of the breakdown of traditional families.
All those new definitions of what constitutes "family" and "marriage" involve the participation AND intrusion of courts and various public bodies.
And, of course, with a dearth of children the need for increased levels of immigration becomes essential. Some immigrants, as we're now beginning to learn, are less than desirable and require a net output of public funds to keep themselves afloat
Here's a question I've always wondered about: If we whittle down gov't to virtually nothing, if we abolish this and privatize that, if we force the feds out of many of the spheres of activites they're now involved in, then what is the point of even voting?
If gov't is reduced to an impotent empty shell with little or no bearing on our daily lives or our living standards, then why even hold some stupid election?
It's always about "quantity" of gov't and never "quality", isn't it?
You can pare back all sectors of federal activities, but you do so at the risk of becomming "governed" (dictated to?) by the private sector, a sector into which we've little or no democratic input.
It,s funny how some here bristle at the thought of a democratically elected body deciding family policy, but yet turn a blind eye to private sector instrusions that end up dictating same.
One other thing; why do we denounce gov't as ineffective and inefficient, but yet leave what is perhaps the most important feature of civil society, NATIONAL DEFENSE, entirely in the hands of this unreponsive and "incompetant" body?
We complain that The Feds can't run a gun registry or even a national day-care, but yet even the most right-wing among us feel they can manage the Armed Forces with the speed and streamlined efficiency of a fast-food drive-thru.
Don't worry, despite the above observations I'll NEVERRRR vote either Lib or NDP.
Harper,s got inconsistencies, but he gets me vote!
Oh! One other question of grave national import; who's screwing Peter McKay this week?
JohnP, no sex till AFTER the election; they need to stay focused. ;)
Posted at 2005-11-30 19:27:54 [PermaLink]Looks like Harper's been reading my suggestions list:
"4) No more GST. 'Nuff said."
[External Link]
I'd like him to elaborate on how he's going to pay for it, mind you:
[External Link]
"JohnP, no sex till AFTER the election; they need to stay focused. ;)"
or as they say in Chinatown "No sex till after the erection..." :)
"No sex till after the erection".
That IS quite funny, as a matter of fact, DinV!
I haven't been to Chinatown lately, but I AM going to chinese buffet at noon...
Still, though, I've always wondered why the tenors of gov't reduction and privitization as a way of battling bureaucratic incompetance want leave the job of Nation Defense in hands of these very same bureaucrats.
I'm all for eliminating the GST, by the way.
Now I,ve a suggestion for a campaign theme (don't laugh!) that would attract a great deal of attention AND votes; bank "service" charges.
Everyone hates the banks and eveyone knows just how well UNDERserved" they are by these institutions.
We're being nickel and dimed to death by private sector *bureaucrats* who cover their loses AND their incompetance by upping (with no prior warning)their "service fees".
They could at least have the decency to change the term to "udder fees" because we the suc....er....customers are treated like cash-cows. Stupid cud-chewing cash cows!
And the "services" they provide could suck a teat right off a wallet
And no, criticising bankers is in no way a kind of anti-capitalist rant. Banks aren't free enterprise; they're a protected and mollycoddled monopoly that behaves like a spoiled brat.
Meant to say:" to leave the job of national defense"
Posted at 2005-12-02 08:47:45 [PermaLink]