Don't expect to see too much change - bad or good - from the Conservatives. There might be a slight reduction in the goods and services tax and more nibbling away at the edges of medicare and other social programs, which is already happening anyway, but I doubt anything more dramatic that that. The Canadian electorate hasn't shifted the the right; the economy is doing well, but the Liberals have been mired in a series of kickback scandals and seem stale after having governed for the past 13 years, so the voters want to "punish" it and send Canada's traditional governing party to the sidelines for a while, which has frequrently happened before in Canadian history. A surge of gang violence in Toronto and elsewhere has also revived the law and order theme, so the Conservatives might make some breakthroughs in the suburban ridings round the big cities, especially in Ontario, the Liberal stronghold, where they're already certain to win rural seats.
But, especially in the cities, the population still supports the kind of policies favoured by liberal Democrats in the US, on everything from abortion, gay marriage, the environment, government's role in the economy, the social safey net, "multiculturalism", foreign aid, Iraq, etc., and that always determines the parameters within which Conservative as well as Liberal governments must govern. Harper will try to repair the frayed relationship with the US (as the Martin Liberals pledged to do when they took office) but no Canadian government could have joined the US invasion of Iraq, for example, or be seen to capitulate (openly, at least) to the US on lumber and other trade disputes which are a normal feature of the relationship. Canada does have troops in Afghanistan and Haiti, but these were dispatched there by the Liberals. Still, it will be easier to secure cooperation from the Conservatives on issues like these because of their base - outstanding issues which include Canada's participation in a common security perimeter around North America involving joint customs and immigration procedures, as well as a common missile defence system.
In general, it should be understood that though Harper holds an Alberta seat, he's from Ontario and represents the Bay Street wing of the Conservative party. He's not a social conservative but a yuppie libertarian. He engineered the reunfication of the divided party and defeat of its previous leader, Stockwell Day, a somewhat dim-witted Christian fundamentalist from Alberta, who was Canada's nominee in the George Bush look-alike contest. So, even if the government tilts slightly more to the right, Western Canadian right-wing base of the party will likely experience the same disappointment with a Harper government that the left traditionally experiences when social democratic parties are elected and administer the system from the centre.
Apart from the moderate conservatism of the Harper wing, the Conservatives will also be constrained by what is likely to be a minority government, and a shaky one at best. They will need the support of either the NDP and the BQ to pass legislation, and both these parties are liberal on social issues and foreign policy.
Harper could try to build bridges to the BQ by trying to get Quebec's "special status" recognized constitutionally, which was what enabled the Conservatives to win power under Mulroney in the 80's. But the effort to do so through the so-called "Meech Lake accord" was shot down by the rest of Canada, and the BQ resulted from that disappointment in Quebec. The Conservatives, especially in the West, would like to see a more decentralized federation to give the provinces more control over resources and social programs, but I doubt the basis for an alliance between decentralist Western conservatives and Quebecois independentistes really exists anymore. Quebec has clearly set its course for political sovereignity rather than "special status" within Canada, albeit in close "association" with the remaining provinces and within the the US-dominated North American economic and security framework.
The NDP has run a pretty bland campaign, IMO, jumping on the "anti-corruption" bandwagon at the expense of campaigning around the need to protect medicare and other social programs, but others on the list may have a different read on it. The party is probably worrying at this stage about last-minute crossover "strategic voting" to the Liberals by some of its supporters which happens when the Conservatives are running strong and there is alarm they will take power and send children back to work in the mines. So the party is continuing to concentrate its fire on the Liberals to the despair of some - including the autoworkers under Buzz Hargrove, who endorsed Paul Martin and the Liberals at the beginning of the campaign. This caused quite a stir on the left and nationally, but Hargrove has been nudging the autoworkers in that direction since the short-lived NDP government in Ontario in the 80s imposed a "social contract" on the labour movement. That loosened the traditional ties between the party and the labour movement, although it's only the autoworkers, who depend on federal government support to the industry - now more than ever in crisis - who have broken openly with the party farthest from the fold.
Here's a commentary on the BQ and the election by Richard Fidler in the latest Canadian Dimension, which provides a good summary of the BQ's sovereignist goals. He writes from a perspective to the left of both the NDP and the BQ.
http://canadiandimension.com/articles/2006/01/09/275/
Thanks for your nice comments. Hope this helps. --------------------------------------- ----- Original Message ----- From: "mike larkin" <mike_larkin2001 at yahoo.com> To: <lbo-talk at lbo-talk.org> Sent: Thursday, January 19, 2006 12:47 AM Subject: [lbo-talk] Marvin Gandall
> Interested in getting your thoughts on the Canadian
> election; it looks like a romp for Harper; what sought
> of damage will he do right off the bat? The
> Conservatives look like hard-core right wingers
> dressed in moderate clothing; is the electorate really
> shifting to the right? What are the NDP's changes?
> Your insights are always keen. Thanks!
>