I am currently reading Political Marketing in Canada, a collection of articles edited by Alex Marland, Thierry Giasson and Jennifer Lees-Marshment.
Now I am about a third of the way into the book but there is one thing that just keeps bothering me about how the Conservatives got their majority...They did it by appealing to small pockets of groups. Basically, they don't represent the majority of Canadians because of this. We have a leader who doesn't represent the values of the majority of Canadians.
So now I can understand why there is so many pro-life/anti-abortion petitions being presented in Parliament...and also the Motion to define when life begins. Also, that whole department of Religion thingy about a year of go that caught me off guard. Yes, the Conservatives appealed to religious groups. It also explains the whole gun registry elimination. These are not things that benefit Canada as a whole...They only benefit those groups that support and payed Conservative donations. The Conservatives are only doing what they are supposed to do...make their supporters happy and show that they are doing all they can to show that they represent those that support them.
The book explains how messaging has changed and how parties are targeting a small number of voters, enough to get elected, and even a majority, at the expense of the majority of Canadians. This is very dangerous.
I understand that MP's are to represent their Ridings, but the Leaders are to try to appeal to the majority of Canadians...right?
I was so confused about why Harper won. His campaign was boring. He did stick to the script to appeal to those who don't pay attention to the news by saying that this is an "unnecessary election" that Canadians don't want another election and if you vote for him and give him a majority there would not be another election for a while. Well that worked on my sister. She doesn't watch news and didn't understand why there was an election. She voted Conservative.
Democracy is at stake here. I have always believed that the Government of Canada, must represent the interests of the majority of Canadians. During the last election, polls showed that Health Care was the number one issue with Canadians. Now the Conservatives have cut Health Transfers from 6% to align it with GDP to a min of 3% as of 2016. Canadians did not vote for that! When was the last time Harper sat at the table with the premiers to discuss Health Care.
And one very important point that the Harper Government does not represent the people...they did not except any of the 700 amendments in the largest Budget omnibus implementation bill in Canadian History, which made changes to 70 laws and 2/3 of the bill and items in it that were not even budget related. Come on. This is an abuse of power.
We have three years to get Canadians to wake up and start caring about their country as a whole again. We desperately need to increase voter turnout and make Canadians want Leaders that will represent the majority of Canadians.
O.k. more to come. I am going back to read the book. Good book by the way. I recommend it to all!
You write:
ReplyDelete".......and how parties are targeting a small number of voters, enough to get elected, and even a majority, at the expense of the majority of Canadians. This is very dangerous."
It sure is. Twisting the language always is.
A "majority" is, in fact, a "majority".
And it's with the "majority" that our Democracy appoints it's leaders.
If Harper got a "majority", he didn't do it at the "expense of the majority".
He did it at the expense of the minority!
Polititions have given me a great sense of respect for a used car salesman
ReplyDeleteYou talk as if Canadians are looking for wholesale political change because we supposedly have had bad government this past nine years. I am not convinced that that thiught is anything more than political wisful thinking. The problem with the political agenda of the left-leaning parties is that they are desperately trying to outduel each other to become that agent of change. When the Canadian electorate finally gets to choose who will have to pick between the thread-bare promises of change as toted by two parties in opposition as much to each other as to the governing Conservatives.
ReplyDeleteThe real game breaker comes if and when both parties can merge, which is hardly likely given their history and appetite for power.
You talk as if Canadians are looking for wholesale political change because we supposedly have had bad government this past nine years. I am not convinced that that thiught is anything more than political wisful thinking. The problem with the political agenda of the left-leaning parties is that they are desperately trying to outduel each other to become that agent of change. When the Canadian electorate finally gets to choose who will have to pick between the thread-bare promises of change as toted by two parties in opposition as much to each other as to the governing Conservatives.
ReplyDeleteThe real game breaker comes if and when both parties can merge, which is hardly likely given their history and appetite for power.
Was John Harrobin previously the chief marketing officer of Verizon
ReplyDeleteWas John Harrobin previously the chief marketing officer of Verizon