Harper & the Gender Gap

[Bryan]

Nice try but hardly a response to my questions. Harper opposed C-250 either because he's a social conservative and religious nut.

No, he opposed it because it was bad legislation. All people regardless of their affiliations already have the right not to be slandered, threatened, assaulted, or killed. The only thing this legislation did was restrict freedom of speech. It was a slippery slope that would have turned the CHRC into a full blown gestapo. No leader worth anything would have allowed it to pass, regardless of their opinion of the whole hate crime issue.

[guyser]

Since about 70% of Canadians are Christians I guess 70% of Canadians are religious nuts by your observation.

70% ?

[Mr.Canada]

70% ?

Ah sorry, 77% of Canadians are Christians. Thanks for pointing that out.

16.2% of Canadians claim no religion.

[guyser]

Ah sorry, 77% of Canadians are Christians. Thanks for pointing that out.

16.2% of Canadians claim no religion.

OK, how does that match the 17% who go to church.

What I was born into has absolutely no context in your stats. Because 70%+ say they were born Christian means nothing.

It certainly does not mean that 70% + are all in the same boat. Because if that were true, how come majority didnt oppose gay marriage., abortion and so on?

[Mr.Canada]

OK, how does that match the 17% who go to church.

What I was born into has absolutely no context in your stats. Because 70%+ say they were born Christian means nothing.

It certainly does not mean that 70% + are all in the same boat. Because if that were true, how come majority didnt oppose gay marriage., abortion and so on?

This is census information not birth information. Gay marriage was never put to a referendum neither was abortion. Both of these were rammed through the Supreme courts. Nice try. Toronto is not the majority of Canada. It just thinks it is.

[jdobbin]

Not necessarily. That is a subject that was a central pillar of The Reform Party. It's one of the things they had to put on the back burner to get the PCs to sign on to the new party. Since electoral reform is such a hot button issue right now, and senate reform is something that Harper himself has brought back to the forefront, I think having this as a separate ministry is appropriate at least temporarily.

This is not the Reform party. It wasn't a major Alliance plank or a PC one. It wasn't listed as a priority in the last platform.

http://www.conservative.ca/media/20081007-Platform-e.pdf

The government introduced legislation on democratic reform which went... no where. It entailed Senate changes and reform for the electoral process. The changes to the election financing were the only thing the Tories got through and this was not to make things more democratic (since it was something Harper had said out of government was anti-democratic).

In any event, there is a minister in charge of working on Senate changes where possible: That is the Intergovernmental affairs minister. The Government Leader would handle issues related to some reforms within House and Senate functions and finance.

I see it as wasteful spending to establish a separate person to handle what should be the Government Leader's job.

Steve Fletcher is a Reform/Alliance guy, and an incredibly ambitious hard worker, so he won't be just paying lip service to the title. If there is a chance for even incremental improvements in our system, Fletcher is the guy to do it.

And Peter Van Loan wasn't?

Besides that, I think expanding cabinet in general is appropriate on a temporary basis at this time. Give the ministers whose portfolios are most directly involved in economic considerations for the country a more streamlined task list to concentrate on, and let other keeners work on the tasks that are more social than fiscal. If anything, they probably could have done a little bit more of this, as long as it was short term.

This is sort of like running a deficit on a temporary basis. It just goes on and on and gets bigger and bigger.

The one change I'm most happy with is Prentice out as Industry Minister. I don't doubt his integrity or sincerity, but he was simply out of touch with the issues involved with the copyright legislation he was trying to bring forward. I think Clement will be more sympathetic to the personal property issues involved in this legislation, and that Prentice's tough approach will be more appropriate in environment (a portfolio that has had two weenies in a row).

I think you are dreaming about changes on copyright. The pressure coming from industry and from the U.S. has Harper attention.

More women is a good thing. Harper has more qualified women than he has places to put them right now. It also has the nice effect of cutting off any attempt by the Liberals to try to claim to be the party of women in the next election.

Too bad he didn't dump Lunn and Ritz completely so that he could have a smaller and more focused cabinet.

One big mistake, IMO, is keeping Strahl at Indian Affairs (why has that portfolio not been renamed to something more appropriate yet?). There are several strong aboriginal Conservative MPs, should have made a change here.

Probably because Strahl has some deals that were almost complete prior to the election.

As for the name change, it has been debated several times and there is controversy about anything different.

[normanchateau]

His spending and budgets don't really mesh with him being a social conservative since becoming PM.

Are you saying that the fact that he's not a fiscal conservative proves that he's not a social conservative?

[cybercoma]

Because 70%+ say they were born Christian means nothing.

Nothing irritates me more than people being born a religion. Children are not born capitalists or born liberal. Why then do we insist on giving them a labeled belief system that they couldn't possible be because it is beyond their comprehension? It makes absolutely no sense to me.

[normanchateau]

Nothing irritates me more than people being born a religion. It makes absolutely no sense to me.

Functionally it makes sense. If society is to indoctrinate people with absurd beliefs like omnipotent bearded fairies in the sky, eternal hell and other mumbo jumbo, it is important to assign a religion before children actually begin to think for themselves. If children were not assigned a religion at birth, children might actually select a religion which made sense to them rather than mindlessly follow that of their parents. Or they might even select no religion.

[August1991]

That's absurd. Quebec was winable. Harper blew the big one by cutting culture and then dismissing Quebecers opposition to it and threatening to throw their kids in prison for life. Trying to appeal to the west ended up offending Quebec.

There are two things Quebec holds sacrosanct - their kids and their language and culture - and it was on those things that Harper lost Quebec totally by himself.

Culture is a code word for language. Quebec has one of the lowest birth rates in western societies. It's a third-rail, sensitive issue but not because of "kids". [Margaret Atwood wrote a silly book entitled "Survival" referring to a theme of "English-Canadian" literature. Her thesis might apply to French Canada. As to Canada itself, if it has a theme, it would rather be "compromise". I don't know if English-Canadian literature has a theme because I'm not certain what exactly is English-Canadian literature.]

Easy to say for someone on the sidelines. It comes down to whether a goal is achievable and I don't think winning seats a majority of seats in Quebec is achievable goal for any federalist at this time because of the self-obsessed nature of Quebec politics. Harper could have handled the culture issue better but my feeling is such a trivial gaff should not have had that big effect on the electorate. The fact that it did suggest the problem is with a fickle electorate rather than the political leadership.

I disagree, Riverwind. Harper was poised to win as many as 30 seats in Quebec in the past election.

Then, he blew it. It wasn't so much his comments about culture, or budget cuts or even about youth detention. It was the awkward way that the Conservatives explained themselves and ran their campaign. As opposed to the Bloc, they weren't present. And when they were, they read like the instructions contained in a clock manufactured in China.

There was/is a tremendous goodwill/desire to find an alternative to the PQ/Liberal divide. This explains the rise of the ADQ and the federal Conservatives. In Quebec politics, Charest has somehow managed to channel Bourassa and make himself into a new politician. The Bloc seems to be recreating itself too as a "voice for Quebec in Ottawa".

If you are a federalist, Harper threw away a golden opportunity. [Harper seems to be applying tough love to Quebec now. It has been noted in editorials in Quebec.]

This cabinet is too big. Why did he need 7 more cabinet ministers?

Because he needed chairs for all those female Secretaries of State.

Getting back to the thread title, someone should give a detailed look at voting data. I suspect that Harper's gambit worked particularly in Ontario. It was women who switched to the Tories and gave them the 20 extra seats. I could be wrong but I think women's votes (immigrants or otherwise) were critical in suburban/905 ridings.

Harper's choice of cabinet very much reflects this analysis of voting patterns.

[Riverwind]

Either Harper's 'cultureless' gaff was that important (and I believe it was), or he never had the numbers he claimed in Quebec.

I believe the latter. Any support in Quebec for any federalist party is fair weather at best and the voters will go scurrying to the BQ at the first sign of trouble. Harper wasted a lot of time and money trying to build his support in Quebec and that was all forgotten come voting time. If he played his cards better he might have got a few extra seats on election day but that support would have likely vanished within a few months anyways so he did not really lose much in the long run.

[Riverwind]

There was/is a tremendous goodwill/desire to find an alternative to the PQ/Liberal divide. This explains the rise of the ADQ and the federal Conservatives.

I have heard this before but I don't really believe it. Good will presumes some willingness to put up with something less that perfection, however, it appears that perfection is the required standard for an English politician in Quebec.

If you are a federalist, Harper threw away a golden opportunity.

Actually, I think the federalist cause is better suited by a minority without Quebec representation. A majority supported by Quebec seats would have raised expectations to the point where they could not possibly be achieved. This would inevitably lead to a backlash and loss of support for the federalist option.

Too many Quebequers appear to be 'conditional' federalists. This makes them a completely unreliable base of support for any English federalist politician. Unless something changes we are likely facing a generation of minority governments but that is not necessarily a bad thing. But it does mean that it is a mistake to judge a politician's worth on their ability to deliver a majority.

Edited November 1, 2008 by Riverwind

[Argus]

Nice try but hardly a response to my questions. Harper opposed C-250 either because he's a social conservative and religious nut.

He opposed it because he didn't want some judge drunk on his own power (which is most of them) ruling the bible was hate literature and banning its sale or use.

[Argus]

Are you saying that the fact that he's not a fiscal conservative proves that he's not a social conservative?

I think Harper is both a fiscal and a social conservative. I question whether his government has been either, however.

[Argus]

That's absurd. Quebec was winable. Harper blew the big one by cutting culture and then dismissing Quebecers opposition to it and threatening to throw their kids in prison for life. Trying to appeal to the west ended up offending Quebec.

There are two things Quebec holds sacrosanct - their kids and their language and culture - and it was on those things that Harper lost Quebec totally by himself.

Ludicrous. They hold their kids so sacred they couldn't be bothered to have any. As to culture - he increased spending. The three small programs cut were, even by the estimation of some arts groups, peripheral and not very well used. And if Quebec's culture is so bloody important it shouldn't need hundreds of millions in subsidies from English Canada to survive in what is, apparently, a very inhospitable land for culture.

[M.Dancer]

Ludicrous. They hold their kids so sacred they couldn't be bothered to have any.

Good point. Quebec has the highest birth rate in Canada if Nunavut, Northwest Territories, Alberta, Saskatchewan, Manitoba and the Yukon Territory are not counted.