I fear, Alan, that you have managed to reason your way to a rather false conclusion; the very worse thing for Harper would have been a Tory win simply because our man John is all the red tory things Harper abhors. had he won it would have amounted to a repudiation of the sort Conservative party conservatives might support. John Tory was positioning himself to be the weak chinned David Cameron of Canadian politics, certain of nothing but his commitment to multi-cult lunacy and emission reduction.

He has now lost decisively to a miserable little man which strongly suggests that the conservative base was not drinking his watery Kool Aid. Which is grand news for Harper as it allows him to serve up the hard stuff.

Newfoundland does not matter...never has, never will.

Concur with Jay. What you saw here wasn't the turfing of any vestigial right-wing agenda... it was the rejection of a tone-deaf political idiot who proposed policies wildly out of tune with his base (and indeed, the electorate at large).

Just to chime in, doesn't Ontario have a history of electing opposites to provincial & federal governments? In which case, Harper won, big time, no?

I was thinking more or less the same thing as Candace earlier this morning: the provinces are setting themselves up well for opposition to the federal government. Well, the _have_ set them selves up. I doubt voters are really that strategic.

Danny won because he's Danny -- the closest NLers have come to actually getting the mythical chicken in every pot. John Tory got a well deserved trouncing, and good riddance. "Dalton McGuinty did this", "Dalton McGuinty did that". Okay.... so what are _you_ going to do. Bah.

Here's a nice description of Tory by my pal Rick in Ottawa:

<blockquote>
<p>
John Tory: Progressive Conservative
<p>
Where to start with this guy. First, he campaigns on a promise to fund faith-based schools of all denominations. I don't agree with him, but I respect him for standing up with what might be an unpopular change. But then he weasels out of it by changing his promise to merely holding a free vote on faith-based school funding. The Ontario PC party slogan is 'Leadership Matters' and this manoeuvre shows a marked lack of leadership. He wants it both ways. He started with a promise, then fell back to promising a vote. If he's elected and the vote fails, he can shrug his shoulders and claim he tried. Consider my respect withdrawn, and then some.

<p>
The PC ads are just killing me. Tory seems to have little to say about himself and his party. Everything's about the Liberals and how a PC vote will change things. This is a terrible campaign strategy for two reasons. First, when you talk so much about how you're not like the other guy, you tend not to talk about you. So great, Tory's not McGuinty. I get it. Who is he? I don't know. The other reason it's a bad strategy is when you're continually comparing your product to another, it's typically because the other is selling better, is held in higher regard, or simply is better. Steal their thunder by using their name. Too much of this and I investigate the other product, not yours.

<p>
Even worse, the 'C' in PC is supposed to stand for conservative. There's little in the PC platform putting the party to the right of the Liberals. I mean come on, funding religious schools? I'd expect the conservatives to promise to stop funding Catholic schools. And beyond the promises of fiscal responsibility, where's the talk of fiscal restraint and smaller government? There's a provincial party in Ontario with 'conservative' in its name, but there sure as hell is no mainstream party that is conservative.
</blockquote>

Hahahahhhhahhhahha!!! You conservatives bust me up. Where is this conservative base? The Greens and the NDP and other almost got as many votes as the Conservatives. This was clearly a vindication of the last term which was a was a rejection of Harris common sense, torynomic deficits and the rest.

Take a deep breath and try again.

Given this post and the ensuing comments, I would have to say it is ironic that over at bourque.org there is a "memo" from a disaffected federal Liberal calling for Dalton McGuinty to take over from Stephane Dion. A McGuinty-Harper showdown would settle some of the issues you guys are bringing up. Even if it was likely to happen, it wouldn't happen for at least 2-3 years.

Ah yes, 24 = 32. Is not also clearly ... following your logic ... a rejection of George Bush, Japanese-Croatian-ethnopolitics, gold-ribbon ice cream and the Wankel rotary engine?

It is good no? February's impending bleakness seems a bit lighter now. Bring on the holiday - cause my time is what really matters right?

Harper schmarper. He is an iffy choice in a sad field of choices. The libs don't need to hire rocket scientists to figure out a well timed leadership change will blow him and oilbertans out of the water.

I don't see this as a rejection of Harper and Harris, I see this as a rejection of funding religious schools.

It really did become a one-issue election.

As for how Harper might do in Ontario in a potential federal vote -- we'll see.

Don't see this as a rejection of Red Toryism, either -- all indications are, people liked John Tory and wanted to be able to vote for him. But they just couldn't. And then they started liking him less.

***

I don't think people were <i>happy</i> about voting for McGuinty. They more saw themselves as not having another choice.

Oh my God, I just sprayed coffee, David. Please warn me about your Tory tin-hatism: "there's a Bush hater in my closest!!!" <p>Anyway, here is another tidbit indicating how well Harper would now do in Ontario:<blockquote class="smalltext"> Harper appeared in Ottawa with Nova Scotia Premier Rodney MacDonald to announce they have resolved a clash over revenue sharing that is hurting federal Conservative fortunes in that province with a possible election looming. The compromise, which could provide an additional $1 billion over 10 years to Nova Scotia under its fiscal arrangements with Ottawa, could spark howls of outrage in Ontario, whose taxpayers provide the bulk of federal money that goes to so-called have-not provinces like Nova Scotia under the federal equalization program.</blockquote>"So-called" - see? Do you see? <p>So Harper picks up ten in Quebec loses twice as much in Ontario and Atlantic Canada and Saskatchewan and we have an even dumber minority government all the while he is only victorious when facing a cardboard cutout. Sad sad times. But as he is the only thing the conservatives have going for themselves he must be "One of the Greatest Prime Ministers of All Time"^{<small>tm</small>}.

I for one saw this as a "well, things are pretty good, so why change the management" combined with a bit of "well, I'm not completely happy with things, and to make things a little more in line with the way I'd like to see things, I'd like a bit of a swing to the (left or right depending on the economic base of the area speaking)" with another dollop to the north of us of "if I don't vote for Randy Hillier and get the loudmouth out to Toronto 5 days a week, he's going to keep disturbing us with his ranting and threatening of MoAg inspectors at the co-op".

Oh, cool, Hillier won.

If nothing else, debates at Queen's Park have just become much more interesting... :-)

A brilliant example Al: you cherry pick what you want to see out of many items, add a dollop of Crazy Whip™, and you've got your tell-all answer!

You can test you theory about Mike Harris easily enough: which Tories lost -- red or blue ones?

That is not the question - how many blue Tories won? How much support is there for anything right of a red Tory? Sub-20%. Why? Harris taught Ontario a lesson that is require clearly remembered.

PS: and you did <i>exactly</i> that to Hans. I was merely undertaking performance art to point out the irony of what you did. You can't pretend to be discussing the issues when you pull this sort of thing.

What did I do to Hans -- I've only replied to you. My apologies to Hans for this then -- it takes time to type.

When I can get a copy of the results (actually #s, not percentages), I'll run a few spreadsheets for a laugh. Long term PCs in/out, where did the Green vote come from, etc.

Oh, ok. I am strangely overly protective of Hans.

The green vote is very interesting.

Here are my riding's numbers:<blockquote>

John Gerretsen, Liberal, 23,273, 47.2 per cent (winner)<br>
John Rapin, PC, 10,994, 22.3 per cent<br>
Rick Downes, NDP, 10,126, 20.6 per cent<br>
Bridget Doherty, Green Party, 4,321, 8.8 per cent<br>
Chris Beneteau, FCP, 418, 0.9 per cent<br>
Mark Fournier, Freedom Party, 137, 0.3 per cent<br>

Total Eligible Voters : 88,584</blockquote>For my money, the Greens took from the PC if we are looking for available shifts. But that sort of fails to consider the shifting as not peer to peer but a messy all-over-the-place phenomena.

Hmmm...maybe not accorind to the Whig:<blockquote class="smalltext">Gerretsen was returned to Queen's Park last night, but for the first time in his provincial political career, the former mayor saw an erosion in his share of the popular vote. Gerretsen still managed to capture 47 per cent of the popular vote at press time, an impressive plurality no doubt, but the number represents a 13-point drop from his 2003 victory, in which he polled six out of every 10 votes cast.</blockquote>

The education funding issue has really been the powerhouse behind these results. If you are looking for a reason why the Greens gained support I propose that it is there position to not publicaly fund faith based schools AND to bring public funding for the separate school system to an end.

The Green -> PC shift seems hard to see but I almost did it so I wouldn't be surprised if others did.

They may simply be new voters.

If you don't like pink Tories and are unable to vote for a Liberal of any sort then the Greens make a weird sort of sense as a place to park your vote.

Are my ears burning? Thanks for your defence, Al, but I did not take David's remarks as an attack.

I find Ontario politics too large, vague and boring to comment intelligently.

As opposed to those jurisdictions where graft, ignorance and fantasy govern?

That's pretty much all jurisdictions -- present, past and future.

Are you saying Hans is copping out of his responsibilities as a good blog comment maker?

Steady....

Yes I do find it easier to comment intelligently about those jurisdictions where graft ignorance and fantasy govern i.e. PEI versus those jurisdictions where graft ignorance and fantasy exist but most people are so materially wealthy that they can't be bothered to engage or feel so distant from the arenas where graft ignorance and fantasy exist that they can't figure out how to engage i.e. Ontario.

I am glad you aren't using the "Nils Ling" (yes, a blantant and misrepresenting attempt to smoke out a troller) defence: it's all as bad or worse anywhere/everywhere else therefore do not acknowledge it or try to fix it. The mechanisms for graft of the Maritime sort to take hold here simply do not exist throught the rules for openness and transparency that we have to work with. Political interference is not a factor I have ever seen here.

I think that graft etc. exists (thrives?) at all levels of PEI/Maritime politics. It is very sleazy because it is very personal and livelihoods are often at stake. But there is also the corporate type of sleaze that sees big companies getting sweetheart deals from provincial governments. I think that exists in Ontario, too. It is less observable because it is just a bunch of bigwigs sitting around a table in a hi-rise. I don't think the low level "give me a job cuz yer my wife's nephew" exists in the Ontario government because it is just as easy to get a real job.

I don't know how sweetheart deals get through the law of tender and public procurement policies especially since the Bellamy Inquiry Toronto computer leasing scandal. Public procurement is pretty tidy stuff hereabouts and individual staff or politicians have nowhere near the level of power or interest in corrupution that can be found in the homeland.

I often use real-life Maritime examples of practice best avoided to help explain such forms of corruption when called upon. No one is useless - they can always serve as a bad example.

Newfoundland will always matter because it remains the world's single-largest -- oops, make that only -- producer of Newfoundlanders.

Al, isn't it a party foul to insult your guests?

And, I don't think I understand half of what you maple swillers are talking about.;)

It's never an insult when you almost apologize ahead of saying it.

I for one agree with Brother Iain. As a patriotic Canadian I only purchase Newfoundlanders Made in Newfoundland and Labrador. All other knock offs are inferior.

"Newfoundland will always matter because it remains the world's single-largest -- oops, make that only -- producer of Newfoundlanders."

I had indeed forgotten all about that critical export until I was sitting in the Four Seasons bar tonight with a brilliant, beautiful, Newfie lass. It all made sense. I fatally forgot to write, "Newfoundland politics....

Silly me.