Should Stephen Harper Resign?

[maplesyrup]

Liberals have been winning on fear for a long time. For quite awhile it was Quebec separation issue. Now it is "the Barbarians are at the Gate".

Nothing new here.

[takeanumber]

They need to move to the centre.

And the people who control the levers of power in the party (agenda control), won't allow it.

And if you think it's all grassroots, just know this: yes: the grassroots members have voting power.

But it's the people who control the agenda that control the party.

All of this 'democratic reform' crap is just that: crap.

The party is intellectually dishonest.

Slightly better than the Liberals, a lot better than the NDP...but a far cry from what they proport to be.

[maplesyrup]

Same defect hampers the leaders

The most lasting image of election 2004 may be the face of Stephen Harper the day after.

Peering from a limousine upon his return to Ottawa, a pouting Harper looked not only glum, but downright miffed, even indignant — like an athlete might look after being wrongly deprived of a medal or Princess Diana after discovering Mrs. Parker-Bowles' business card in her husband's underwear drawer.

The Conservative leader is not what you'd call a gracious loser. After the Liberal victory in the 2000 election, Harper, then president of the right-wing National Citizens Coalition, joined other petulant Alberta conservatives in urging the province to build a "firewall," presumably to shield itself from the leftist hordes running loose beyond its boundaries.

Harper was more careful this time, but some of his supporters were quick to suggest that the West had every right to feel bitter toward the rest of the country for refusing to co-operate with Conservative plans to fundamentally reshape Canada along lines established by George W. Bush's Republicans.

This is an odd notion of democracy. Most Canadians apparently didn't care for the package the Conservatives were offering — privatization, downsizing government, beefing up the military, rejecting Kyoto. Isn't that our right? Would Conservatives ever contemplate voting for a party whose platform they found fundamentally repugnant, in order to make some part of the country feel "included."

[caesar]

Liberals have been winning on fear for a long time. For quite awhile it was Quebec separation issue. Now it is "the Barbarians are at the Gate".

Of course; but is it their problem that they are the only party centalled enough to be trusted not to cause more problems than they will solve.

The two other main contenders are too far off center to be trusted. The right will give all our money to the rich; the NDP would give all our money to the poor; Us middle income people get stuck footing the bill. The proposed costs were much higher than that of the Liberals for both of the other parties.

I don't like a lot of things the Liberals and Paul Martin, in particular, have done. Our choices were not the best. A Liberal minority seemed to me to be the best outcome. As I am SLIGHTYLY left wing myself I do like the NDP influence. The only Conservative idea that I back is no national daycare. I believe that should be Provincial territory and limited to giving single or low income parents a hand up and ensure they can survive off the welfare rolls. I do not see why it is my responsibility to pay day care for two working parents.

I did vote NDP at the last moment as I did not like the fact that our riding had one of Paul Martin's hand picked candidates. Despite my own vote; I did hope for a Liberal minority backed up by the NDP.

[takeanumber]

I just want moderation.

It's possible to get change through moderation.

You don't have to resort to far right solutions, or far left solutions.

[August1991]

And for me, the belief that the median voter agrees with them is patently false. I see it with my own eyes in the CES 2000 and CES 1997, I see it in Cardy Cross and Young, and I even see it in other datasets and studies.

For any electoral success, the party needs to move to the median voter, and morevoer, the elite need to move even farther than it's members. And you know, I don't think the elite of the party can bring themselves to 'water down' any of their beliefs.

The whole discussion strikes me as bogus. The median voter theory amounts to an arbitrary way to choose a dictator. It requires a single dimension issue where voters can choose their position. This is obviously false but it does offer some insights into US voting with only two parties.

In Canada, this is complete nonsense. Canadians vote primarily for regional interests. (What is the BQ? What was Reform?) Ideology takes second place.

Anyway, you can dismiss what I've just said, but you know, I used a lot of that material to predict the election correctly, so, that should be enough to bolster my cred.

I never saw your numbered predictions here, TalkNumb. Am I mistaken?

[Bro]

Wrong, that's what the Liberals said. What Stephen Harper said was that he would hold a free vote and might use the notwithstanding clause to over-ride the Supreme Court's ruling in order to keep gays from marrying.

Harper's party has also come out against abortion rights for women, the Supreme Court's duty to interpret laws, and they have spoken against hate crime legislation.

No ,I am sorry,you are very wrong.A free vote,to clear the issue,by all mp's,not just the Conservatives,would be the best way to handle this.The obstacle,liberals have to vote the party line,whether or not their constituents agree with it.Which is more democratic,a free vote,or an orchestrated liberal party vote?I will still vote for a party that allows the voice of their constituents to be heard,and in the liberal party this is not an option.

[takeanumber]

The whole discussion strikes me as bogus. The median voter theory amounts to an arbitrary way to choose a dictator. It requires a single dimension issue where voters can choose their position. This is obviously false but it does offer some insights into US voting with only two parties.

In Canada, this is complete nonsense. Canadians vote primarily for regional interests. (What is the BQ? What was Reform?) Ideology takes second place.

QUOTE

Anyway, you can dismiss what I've just said, but you know, I used a lot of that material to predict the election correctly, so, that should be enough to bolster my cred.

I never saw your numbered predictions here, TalkNumb. Am I mistaken?

My predicted numbers are under "A conjecture about the polls".

As for the median voter theory, it's not just one issue. You can load hundreds of different factors and collapse them down into one dimensional, two dimensions, or go Euclidean n-space and use 100 dimensions.

It's a theory that's very applicable to Canada.

[maplesyrup]

Wrong, that's what the Liberals said.  What Stephen Harper said was that he would hold a free vote and might use the notwithstanding clause to over-ride the Supreme Court's ruling in order to keep gays from marrying.

Harper's party has also come out against abortion rights for women, the Supreme Court's duty to interpret laws, and they have spoken against hate crime legislation.

No ,I am sorry,you are very wrong.A free vote,to clear the issue,by all mp's,not just the Conservatives,would be the best way to handle this.The obstacle,liberals have to vote the party line,whether or not their constituents agree with it.Which is more democratic,a free vote,or an orchestrated liberal party vote?I will still vote for a party that allows the voice of their constituents to be heard,and in the liberal party this is not an option.

A free vote is code for discrimination.

Discrimination against women, gays and lesbians, etc.

Michael Hardner during the election tried a little experiment. Free votes are fine when you know the views of the prospective MP. One slight problem. The Cons tried as much as possible to hide the views of their potential MPs. The whole thing is a crock.

You mess with the Charter at your peril.

[playfullfellow]

A free vote is code for discrimination

What? This is very typical socialist type views that goes back to the party mantra of "power of the few over the many". If we start using the free vote system, then politicians have to start voting the way their constituents want them to vote, not toe the party line all the time. If they don't vote the way the constituents want them to, then they will get booted the next election. What makes you think the party's always know what is best for us as a society?

[August1991]

As for the median voter theory, it's not just one issue. You can load hundreds of different factors and collapse them down into one dimensional, two dimensions, or go Euclidean n-space and use 100 dimensions.

Oh really?

Below happens to be the first site that google gave me.

XI.              Multiple Voting Dimensions

A.                The Median Voter Theorem only strictly holds if there is a single issue.

B.                If there are two or more issues that parties take stands on, but only one election, there is no guarantee that the median voter's preference will prefer on any issue.

There are solutions, I think, through side payments but I'm not certain if they work.

In Canada, BTW, with three parties on a single dimension, there is no solution either.

******

TalkNumb, your beloved Morton had a letter in the NP this morning suggesting that the left and "centre-left" won the election. Are the Liberals centre-left? News to me.

[takeanumber]

So you know how to use Google.

Do you want a banana?

Seriously. I've been doing research in the field for years. You got an outmoded source.

[August1991]

Seriously. I've been doing research in the field for years. You got an outmoded source.

I'd love to see your proof.

1. Where do two soft drink sellers stand on a 300m ocean beach?

2. Where do three soft drink sellers stand on a 300m ocean beach?

2a. Where do the three stand if the beach is on a round lake?

And did you see this (from the same source as above)?

D. At this point, you might say: "But all real-world elections have multiple issues.  So the Median Voter Theorem is useless."

E. Possibly so, but matters are more complicated than that.  In particular, we will see that to a large extent, platforms empirically boil down to a single dimension - in the U.S., position on the liberal-conservative spectrum.

"Possibly so"! "More complicated"! "...empirically boil down to..." Ha, ha, ha...

The math of social scientists is a joke. But at least you economists attempt to speak Math rather than most left wing types who are abjectly unilingual mutes.

[takeanumber]

I won't attempt to explain.

I understand that stats and things like factor analysis are hard, which is why I just don't bother.

[August1991]

You resign! Accept defeat? "Factor analysis?" "Multicollinearity?" "Eigenvectors?" No!!!

TalkNumb, your election predictions were almost dead on.

Anyway, IMV, it's Morton that's clueless. And I read Flanagan's stuff on Indians. Well, I spent a month in Northern Ontario and then a night in Calgary's bus station. IMV, Flanagan is a jerk. Jerk? Could anyone on the left get that satellite to Saturn?

Mathematics is the "precise language" of the future. Or rather, mathematics is the language that uses probability to express "imprecision" best.

Let us ensure that our children are "bilingual".

[maplesyrup]

A free vote is code for discrimination

What? This is very typical socialist type views that goes back to the party mantra of "power of the few over the many". If we start using the free vote system, then politicians have to start voting the way their constituents want them to vote, not toe the party line all the time. If they don't vote the way the constituents want them to, then they will get booted the next election. What makes you think the party's always know what is best for us as a society?

pff........a majority is only as good as how it treats its minorities. It's heathy to be challenged, to be a bit uncomfortable. It's only then that society has the opportunity for growth.

[playfullfellow]

pff........a majority is only as good as how it treats its minorities. It's heathy to be challenged, to be a bit uncomfortable. It's only then that society has the opportunity for growth. 

MS, I am a minority, I am an immigrant who is now a Canadian citizen. I grew up with discrimination, got picked on a lot in school for having an accent. What did I do, learned to speak english with no accent and learned how to write english the best I could. This has all made me a much stronger person now. I think we as a society are beyond picking on the minorities in our laws. Obviously biased laws would generally be unacceptable in our society. And are the wishes of minorities always the right thing too?

[August1991]

It's heathy to be challenged, to be a bit uncomfortable. It's only then that society has the opportunity for growth.

Don't be hard, MS. I prefer to be open to a conversation,whatever the accent, even foolish. Who knows where the accent will lead?

Playfull is right. There is no clear answer. The evident accent is not an obvious answer. Hollywood!

[maplesyrup]

Conservatives must look beyond neo-con agenda

No doubt we will face a flood of commentaries warning of an impending Liberal-NDP alliance that will plunge Canada into socialist policies, as well as predictions, by professional promoters of Western alienation, of Western alienation. Yet, on the big issues, the interests of Canadians in Alberta or other parts of Western Canada are the same as they are for Ontario or New Brunswick or Quebec voters.

So neoconservative propaganda should not be treated as serious analysis — this is largely ideological rant.

We were treated to a similar outburst of neoconservative hysteria when the Bush administration invaded Iraq and Canada held back. Canada had no business holding back when the United States decided that war was necessary, we were told, with warnings that we would be harshly punished by the Bush administration for failing to follow orders.

One National Post commentator, Andrew Coyne, warned "we will be paying the price for generations." If we were to believe that, then in 2050 Americans would still be seeking ways to punish us. What nonsense.

Mort Glanville, a London lawyer and former president of the old Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, had wiser words this past weekend.

Conservatives, he said, should "accept that Harper has brought the party as far as he can and coalesce behind a moderate new leader who can bind the divergent groups together to recognize that moderation and compromise are concepts integral to the Canadian nation and those who would aspire to lead it."

I kinda agree with Glanville.