Maclean's: How Justin Trudeau and Andrew Scheer could both lose

  • 主题发起人 主题发起人 ccc
  • 开始时间 开始时间

ccc

难得糊涂
管理成员
VIP
注册
2003-04-13
消息
239,188
荣誉分数
37,447
声望点数
1,393
upload_2019-10-21_12-47-51.png


GettyImages-1176890718-810x445-1571668057.jpg


Scheer takes photos with supporters during a campaign stop on Oct. 19, 2019, in Brampton, Ont. (Cole Burston/Getty Images)

If we finish the day, as seems likely, with a weakened Liberal government, the leaders of both of our big parties will be seen to have lost the election and face uncertain futures in their jobs.

Since Confederation, in 1867, we have not had an election where neither of the big parties won the support of at least a third of Canadian voters, which is what the polls say will happen today.

The Liberals are going to lose support compared to 2015. The NDP will have a similar result. The beneficiary is not the Conservatives, but the Bloc Quebecois, the Greens and the Peoples Party, all of whom are projected to win more votes than last time, however many MPs they get. In this, Canada is following an international trend. Nationalist and Green parties are increasing their vote totals in elections in other democracies, the result of rising anxiety about both immigration and climate change, and a fragmentation of the media landscape that is undermining consensus positions.

It was not inevitable, though, that both of our big parties would lose ground. Justin Trudeau and Andrew Scheer were both fighting headwinds, but both had opportunities to take different tacks that likely would have produced a better result.

For Trudeau, the disappointing outcome appears mostly to be the result of his own failures of judgement, personal and political.

This time last year, having delivered a new free trade agreement with the United States, Trudeau seemed assured of another majority. While he had looked foolish on his voyage to India, he had managed to manage Donald Trump, avoiding a devastating trade war. He could make a strong argument that his government had made progress on inequality, climate change and reconciliation with Indigenous Canadians, key issues for the progressive voters who gave him his 2015 mandate.

Then came the SNC-Lavalin affair, a slow motion garbage-truck fire that led to the departure of Jody Wilson-Raybould and Jane Philpott, and raised serious questions about Trudeau’s judgement and political acumen that have not yet been laid to rest.

If Trudeau and his aides thought it was okay to interfere in a corruption prosecution, what else were they up to? And why, once that interference was revealed, did Trudeau fail to take steps to quickly contain the damage and explain himself? His maladroit handling of the affair left those questions open, and if he is to preside over a minority government, they will be explored at leisure by his opponents in the months ahead.

Unless the Liberals manage to win a majority, the other parties will control the committees, and they will surely open inquiries into the SNC-Lavalin affair, demanding documents and forcing officials to testify, pushing the story back onto the front pages, and, depending on what we learn, shortening Trudeau’s career.

Already, Liberals are quietly wondering if they would be better off with someone new at the helm. Foreign Affairs Minister Chrystia Freeland looks like she has the management and communication skills to take over the government tomorrow, although her French is a question and we have no idea about her ability to campaign or organize politically.

Disenchanted Liberals are also no doubt sending gift baskets to Mark Carney, who finishes up as governor of the Bank of England in January. Carney, who has managed the British banking system in the run-up to Brexit without ever seeming to break a sweat, would likely get the job if he is inclined to take it. He is one of the world’s top experts on both banking and climate change, and he has managed to handle Fleet Street’s worst, so he is almost overqualified for 24 Sussex.

I think we would be lucky to have him, although, as with Freeland, we wouldn’t know if he has political instincts until he was in the job.

Scheer’s political future is no more certain than Trudeau’s. Depending on the seat count, he may have to watch for knives. Even if he has a bigger caucus than he did when the writs were dropped, Conservatives will be wondering why he lost an election that seemed to be within his grasp.

Canadians did not warm to the friendly family man during the campaign, as I thought they would. Although his team did a lot of things right, focusing effectively on affordability, which is top of mind for the voters they needed to convince, he was not convincing on two key issues. He refused to speak openly about his views on same-sex marriage and abortion, failing to give comfort to voters who are uneasy with social conservatives.

And the Conservative environmental plan was unacceptable to anyone with any concern about climate change. Scheer put opposition to the carbon tax at the heart of his policy, and failed to promise to replace it with any other meaningful policy, as he could have. You could tell as the campaign went along that it wasn’t working, because he soft-pedalled it and spoke instead, whenever he could, about the need for more pipelines.

As a result, he has more support in Alberta and Saskatchewan than is electorally useful and not enough in Ontario or Quebec, where significant numbers of voters are more interested in the environment than in expanding pipeline capacity.

There is a stark division of opinion between petroleum-producing areas and the rest of the country, which, Conservative strategists would be wise to note, is the bigger part. If Conservatives want to win, they should have a leader who can go to a Pride parade, talk about the environment without sounding like a pipeline promoter and then go on to complain about Trudeau’s many misdeeds.

If there is a push for a change in Scheer’s party, expect the Westerners who have held sway since the party was created to fight like hell to keep a progressive Conservatives from taking the reins.

I don’t think Jason Kenney can move from Alberta back to federal politics, but his side of the party will surely find a champion if the knives come out for Scheer.

Peter MacKay seems to want the job, and he has the experience and connections to build the party out in Eastern Canada, where it needs to grow if it is to win elections, although he is at least as gaffe-prone as Trudeau.

Neither party will want to decapitate itself in the midst of the tense parliamentary gamesmanship that it is an inevitable part of minority politics, but after an election like this, both parties will have no choice but to consider their options.
 
It is what it is. CANADA VOTE!

啥结果都是民主的结果,选民的意愿。选符合自己理念的候选人。

像论坛上某神父靠造谣抹黑对手的,真是让人不齿,是华人的shame。
 
哈,Maclean's一上来就假定是自由党少数政府了。
If we finish the day, as seems likely, with a weakened Liberal government, the leaders of both of our big parties will be seen to have lost the election and face uncertain futures in their jobs.
 
哈,Maclean's一上来就假定是自由党少数政府了。
If we finish the day, as seems likely, with a weakened Liberal government, the leaders of both of our big parties will be seen to have lost the election and face uncertain futures in their jobs.

没说多数还是少数。:p
 
五、六个党去竞选,还有地方党,能选出多数政府,越来越是奇迹。
 
没说多数还是少数。:p
意思明显就是自由党少数政府了,如果还是自由党多数政府,特鲁多就不是loser。如果是保守党少数政府,希尔也不是loser。看来大家都相信民调了:今天会是自由党少数政府。
 
加拿大应该立法最终只能两个政党参选,其他小党的都变成是独立候选人:buttrock:两轮选举制,第一轮,选出两个大党,第二轮,选两党之一组阁执政,4年期限:jiayou:
 
加拿大应该立法最终只能两个政党参选,其他小党的都变成是独立候选人:buttrock:两轮选举制,第一轮,选出两个大党,第二轮,选两党之一组阁执政,4年期限:jiayou:

这太麻烦了。

简单的办法,议会选举选出议员后,议员再投票选出总理。:D
 
这太麻烦了。

简单的办法,议会选举选出议员后,议员再投票选出总理。:D
这样全民参与性减半了。:(不够热闹:rolleyes:
 
这太麻烦了。

简单的办法,议会选举选出议员后,议员再投票选出总理。:D

选出了总理,如果是少数党,议案投票时还是不够半数, 还是麻烦不少
 
It is what it is. CANADA VOTE!

啥结果都是民主的结果,选民的意愿。选符合自己理念的候选人。

像论坛上某神父靠造谣抹黑对手的,真是让人不齿,是华人的shame。

最关键的是还不是一个神父,是全加若干个华人神父们在若干个论坛同时有组织的造谣抹黑,不以为耻反以为荣。
 
是全加若干个华人神父们在若干个论坛同时有组织的造谣抹黑

有组织的造谣抹黑? 有这事? 为啥?
 
后退
顶部