Stephen Harper Wins Another Minority.

Well, well, well...Prime Minister Harper won another minority government tonight, and a stronger one at that (at this point, it's around 143 seats for the Conservatives). They needed 155 to win a majority, but 143 is not bad at all, considering they had something like 124 or 127 previous.

My local Conservative Party candidate did not win - he, unfortunately, got trounced by a former Liberal cabinet minister, who doesn't even live in this area, but that is neither here nor there. Voters in this area are so fickle. I was one of two people within visible walking distance who had election lawn signs up - in fact, I had two on my property. My neighbour, who is obviously of a different political stripe than myself, mocked me (jokingly - or was it?) about me voting Conservative, and I tell you, it was hard to bite my tongue and merely give him the fake neighbourly smile I've given him for the past eight years.

The left wingers are chiding the election results, suggesting that they won, as they denied Harper a majority government. This, in part, is from the same Liberal party that had its worst showing since like 1984, and not too far removed from a loss in 1867, the year of confederation. Personally, I think this is both a hollow and a weak argument. Harper's Conservatives have been voted in twice, with the second minority much stronger. Doesn't sound like a weak leader to me. What cost Harper is the uneven distribution of representation by population, and I'm talking about the province of Quebec here, which happened to vote in large numbers for the separatist Bloc Quebecois (as an aside, I must say how pleasantly surprised I am to see visible minority members in the Bloc - and I also have to confess that I've always thought Gilles Duceppe was a great character for the federal scene. Don't agree with much of his viewpoints, but I love his sense of humour). Anyhow, this country is still a fairly fragmented country when it comes to regional politics. Case in point - Atlantic Canada voted almost all Liberal, Quebec is mostly Bloc, Toronto is all Liberal and NDP, Alberta is mostly Conservative and BC is 99% Conservative representation. Not sure about Saskatchewan or Manitoba and the territories, and I'm too lazy to find out.

So what's a minority mean for Harper? Well, it still means he can't push through things without getting some sort of support from at least one other party. For instance, his commitment to end the federal long gun registry will simply have to sit on the back burner for another few years - I can't forsee any other party supporting it. Another thing that a minority does is essentially force a checks and balances type of political co-operation. I think it provides good balance in that you don't get one party (and consequently one political stripe) dominating the making of laws, government spending and support of programs, etc. I know, it may be hard to hear that coming from someone who people view as narrow minded and a one-party guy. But look at what has happened elsewhere, namely in the U.S. With a Democratic House, Senate and President, government spending goes out of control. Similarly, I am not in favour of all branches of government being dominated by the Republicans. Does that mean that I am in favour of a politically pluralistic makeup of a government? Not entirely, but I think it's important at least to ensure that divergent voices are heard, so it doesn't run like a dictatorship.

Did you watch any of the Canadian leaders' debates? I watched the French one (kind of hard to understand the translation as the translators were talking over one another - each candidate had its own translator dubbing in his/her voice, to make it look more like an exchange rather than single statements from one single voice that translates for all the candidates) as well as the English one. I personally did not like that round table format. It made interrupting more easily accomplishable, as the candidates were obviously sitting more in a casual environment, and as such, all natural debate decorum went out the window. Steve Paikin was an effective moderator, but the close proximity in which the candidates sat made it much more easier to talk over the moderator.

I really question what Elizabeth May was doing there. Sure, the Greens had one seat in the House (which incidentally was not an elected seat - just an elected MP that switched parties). Some people will chastise me for my criticism of May, accusing me of being sexist. Not at all. May's gender had nothing to do with my belief that she shouldn't have been there. Her lack of party members elected had something to do with it, but let's be honest - she was so damn annoying. Contrast this to former federal NDP leader Alexa McDonough. She belonged in the debates as the NDP had more than a few seats and she at least had some debating skills. May came across as loud-mouthed and obnoxious. Did you see the one part where she was just reaming on Harper and Harper gave her that smiling look, you know, the one he gives people when he's about to choke them. But he showed tremendous restraint in not reacting to May; as a result, she looked like an idiot talking to herself.

I guess if I were to think long about this, I would probably not support the BQ being on the debate either. Sure, they have around 50 seats, which is noticeable, but as they are not a national party, I'm not sure why they would be in the debates - at least spare them from the English one, since they don't speak English for anything. Notice how the rest of the leaders inject French in their speeches and remarks, whereas the BQ never does? Sometimes I think Quebec has Canada by the balls way too often, and it's time the federal government stop catering to a special interests.

Of course, the biggest consequence tonight will be what will happen to that hapless fellow Stephane Dion? He ran a pretty poor election, which I don't really mind, since I don't vote Liberal, but honestly - he had all the issues wrong. His "Green Shift" carbon tax plan no one really cared about at the end, especially when the economy was the prime focus. He also didn't spend too much time explaining the exact details of the Green Shift plan to the electorate, and that brings me up to another point - his English is REALLY BAD. Chretien had an accent, but you could make out what he was saying. Dion, being in federal politics for so long - I'm surprised that his English is not much better. Hard to show that you are a leader when your communication and linguistic skills are not up to snuff.

Which leads me to my last point that I sincerely believe that this is not only the first kick at the can for Dion, but it will for sure be his last. The Liberals, at current count, have around 76 seats - that's down from 95. The Conservatives and NDP picked up a number of seats, while the BQ stayed the same. The Liberals lost quite a few seats. And even if it wasn't Dion's fault entirely (I believe it was, for a large part), he is the current leader and so he needs to take the first arrows. My guess is that he'll resign in a few days, and then the vultures will gather around and prepare for the second iteration of the modern day Liberal convention. All I can say is...anyone but Michael Ignatieff. That guy is one of those "as slimy as they come" politicians. Dude hasn't live in Canada for 40 years, and now is back...and for what - trying to become Prime Minister? I'd much rather see Gerard Kennedy, and to a lesser extent, Bob Rae. Anyone but Ignatieff. But like I said, I don't really care, since I don't vote nor support the Grits anyways.

Do you have any thoughts on the election? Please share them here.