A clear win­ner.

The McLeod River Post - - Front Page - Ian McInnes The McLeod River Post

The fed­eral elec­tion is done and dusted and watch­ing it on elec­tion night it looked pretty much a done deal al­most from the get go when At­lantic Canada re­jected the Con­ser­va­tives. Ul­ti­mately a very large part of Canada re­jected the Con­ser­va­tives and NDP both and in what I thought was a very short time in­deed. Very soon news pun­dits were declar­ing Justin Trudeau the win­ner.

The cam­paign was one of the longest on record yet what should have proved an ad­van­tage to the Con­ser­va­tives with deeper pock­ets never seemed to get go­ing. To me any­way, as an im­par­tial and un­fran­chised ob­server, the Con­ser­va­tives seemed to adopt a take me or leave me stance and ap­peared un­in­ter­ested in win­ning oth­ers to their cause. Maybe the idea was that the Lib­er­als and NDP would knock them­selves out and the de­pend­able Tory vot­ers would carry the day. Not so.

I sup­pose there was a clue when the Lib­er­als be­gan to pull ahead in the polls close to vot­ing day but the pre­dic­tion seemed to be that it would still be a close race. In Al­berta blue dom­i­nated the scene and lo­cally Jim Eglin­ski eas­ily re­tained his seat but must now sit on the op­po­si­tion benches do­ing what he can for his rid­ing.

I stayed up for the speeches and was might­ily puz­zled by two of them. First of all Tom Mul­cair was amaz­ingly up­beat for some­one that had just been soundly beaten in the elec­tion. Stephen Harper’s speech was even more sur­pris­ing, all pazazz and glitz. I was con­fused. I ac­tu­ally thought that Harper had won from the way he was speak­ing. I con­cede that he won his rid­ing but that was not the speech of a man who had just been de­ci­sively beaten at the

polls.

As Harper was es­corted away the CBC re­ported that a re­lease co­in­cid­ing with the speech con­firmed that Harper had re­signed as leader of the Con­ser­va­tive Party and here per­haps is a clue as to why he may have lost in the first place. When the leader loses an elec­tion the buck stops with them and them alone yet Harper did not ad­mit any mis­takes or mea culpa, quite the re­verse in fact. It’s a char­ac­ter trait he seemed to have al­ways dis­played kind of my way or no way and I think this cost the party dear.

Never mind the me­dia, peo­ple don’t like it when politi­cians dodge ques­tions and in my opin­ion Harper did this too much and far too of­ten. Cou­ple that with at­tack ads, which many peo­ple don’t like either and you get the re­sult we saw. I won­der if some of the min­is­ters that re­signed pre-elec­tion may now re-emerge as lead­er­ship hope­fuls.

Look­ing at the cam­paigns I think the Lib­eral one was the only one with an up­beat “yes we can,” kind of mes­sage and I think this cou­pled with a high turnout res­onated with a good deal of the elec­torate. I also think there was a strong de­gree of anti Harper sen­ti­ment too.

Fi­nally, a word about sour grapes about los­ing of which I’ve seen a lot on the In­ter­net. This was a free and fair elec­tion un­der the elec­toral sys­tem that we have and to be hon­est the in­cum­bent gov­ern­ment had plenty of op­por­tu­nity to change it. The re­sult is what it is. Get over it.

Newspapers in English

Newspapers from Canada

© PressReader. All rights reserved.