Canadian election

by Richard on January 24, 2006

So the canadians have a new government and Prime Minister, albeit one with a very slim grip on power. If you’re after insight into the Canadian election, can I suggest you visit Bene Diction Blogs On. Lots of good stuff there.

The way the election result is being reported here, it isn’t clear whether Canadians have cast their votes *for* the Conservatives, or *against* the Liberals, who have been in power for a long time and have had their share of scandal.

It remains to be seen whether Mr Harper is going to be able to form an effective government.

{ 21 comments… read them below or add one }


dh 01.24.06 at 8:52 pm

Really enjoyed our discussion over at Bene’s site. Did you get the impression he was a little frustrated with me? Oh well. At least together our insights come full circle. Your great Richard. :)


Richard 01.24.06 at 9:20 pm

It’s kind of you to say that, dh - except of course it wasn’t me over at Bene’s blog, but a different Richard altogether. He’s great too, and Canadian to boot which makes him a bit more qualified to have an opinion on Harper’s speech than me.


Bene Diction 01.24.06 at 9:22 pm

I like what Conservative Diana Ablonczy said: ‘Canadians decided that they wanted a change, but they want to take the Conservatives for a test drive, and we’re happy with that.’”

DH: No, it isn’t frustration…trust me, you’d know if it was. Remember our discussion about the BBC? That was frustration.:^)

I’m just tired, my blog has been really busy and being the news junkie I am, I stayed up very late to listen to all four party leader speeches.


malc 01.24.06 at 9:36 pm

Fool!!! I remember staying up to see how the US election would come out, with my little map of the country and list of available Collage Votes and then Ohio went and took four days to decided……. bloody Ohio……


Bene Diction 01.24.06 at 10:07 pm

I am a fool Malc!!! I’m paying today.;^)

arr arrr arrr!

R&R…a nickname blog friends have for two Richards who bless many of our lives online. They challenge teach and encourage; get me howling with laughter, I could not ask for more mature and balanced friends.

Richard Hall is from Yorkshire, now in Wales, he lets me post here at connexions without letting me see him cringe. He has a physics degree, is a Reverend and Superintentent in the Methodist Church of Wales and works in Chaplaincy at the University in Swansea.

Richard Bott is Canadian, and I can’t count all his degrees. He has a BA from Queens, I forget where his MA is from and has at least one PhD, maybe two.
So he is The Reverend Doctor Bott (Dr. Rev?) of the United Church of Canada. He is also a certified mediator in the province of Ontario. He is minister at St Mary’s among myriad other responsibilities.

R&R, blogging buddies.


dh 01.24.06 at 10:18 pm

Bene what was our discussion on the BBC? I don’t remember. I woud like to know to see if I got you going and where if any I need to appologize.


dh 01.24.06 at 10:29 pm

Well just a little info on myself. I’m a guy from KC, MO USA who was raised in a Southern Baptist church who accepted Christ in my home and was guided by my dad in that decision and continued in the Faith by my family (mom, dad and brother). Became an Evangelical non-denominational at 14 years old. Had a Holy Spirit experience at 18. Was part of a BaptaNazaCostal non denominational church at 20 and currently attending a Nazarene church but still believe in eternal security and gifts of the spirit from my previous two church roots. :) Have a BS in Finance from Kansas State and a MBA from Keller Graduate School of Management. I have enjoyed in the past Messianic Jewish fellowships as well as American Anglican churches (if you get my drift). Well enough said about me. I hope this in light of all of my posts show how (unlike popular opinion) I can’t be lumped in with Jerry Falwell even though some of what he says is good but he just takes to an extreme. LOL :)


Kim 01.24.06 at 11:25 pm

So Mr. Harper wants to make “God bless Canada” his slogan. Uh oh. Need I tell you, as a brother from the bush to the south, that recent precedents are not good? Better a wise atheist than a bone-headed tub-thumping Christian in positions of national leadership.


Bene Diction 01.25.06 at 3:50 am

Thanks for that DH, it helps me understand a bit of ‘how’ you think.

Kim, I have no idea if Harper is a Christian or not, he attends the Christian and Missionary Alliance (evangelical 4 square gospel). He’s no dummy, if he can buckle down and do his job, great.
Will Ferguson (Cdn humorist/historian) wrote a book on Canadian Prime Ministers called Bone-heads and Bastards. The chapter for Harper has not yet been written, he is a work in progess.

He was in his home riding, doing the we won speech - he could have said God bless the Calgary Flames for all it was worth. He said God Bless Canada last week too.
First one’s a pass, the second red flagged…;^)


Eugene McKinnon 01.25.06 at 5:15 am


You don’t live here. I am tired of corrupt Liberals and I am happy that the Conservatives have won a minority. And frankly it’s refreshing that someone will ask God to bless my beleaguered country. We are not like America and neither is Harper. The Conservatives also have Muslims (Raheen Jaffrey) and Sikhs (Nina Grewal) in their Caucus. We in Canada are different than the Americans. Besides its a minority government. The possibility of a hostile takeover by evangelicals (which I as an evangelical is not comfortable with) will not happen.



Eugene McKinnon 01.25.06 at 5:27 am

Here’s a quote from Harper from the Canadian Broadcasting Corp (CBC) website about the hard fought leadership campaign for the Canadian Alliance Party (which later merged in 2003 with the Progressive Conservative Party to form the Conservative Party).

Harper’s rival Stockwell Day brought in a large body of new members from conservative churches to shore up his leadership. Harper beat him and then went on to set up a ‘business merger’ of the two divergent parties.

On the issue of faith and politics Harper said in an interview.

2001, Harper was off the sidelines and back in the game. When Reform became the Canadian Alliance and Stockwell Day imploded as leader during the 2000 election campaign, Harper started thinking about party politics again.

What followed was a hard-fought campaign during which his volunteers managed to stave off an influx of new party members the Day team recruited from conservative church congregations, a development that Harper deplored in one interview.

“My view is that the purpose of a Christian church is to promote the message and the life of Christ. It is not to promote a particular political party or candidacy. I don’t think this is good religion, besides being bad politics at the same time.” In the end, he defeated Day to take the Alliance’s top job in 2002.

There you go Kim,

Eugene McKinnon


Kim 01.25.06 at 9:54 am

Happy to hear it, Eugene, and glad to be put straight. Thanks. The principle of my last sentence stands, but it is very good to know that it is inapplicable for Canada’s new leadership.

With every blessing for your country’s future.


dh 01.25.06 at 2:30 pm

Kim, you proved my point you don’t want God promoted in a country but atheism. Wise atheist? that is an oxymoron for the bible say that those who continue to reject God are “fools”.


Kim 01.25.06 at 3:43 pm


Have you never met an atheist who said wise things and did good things, or a Christian who said idiotic things and did evil things? Then you really ought to get out more and, at the same time, read some of the indisputably great theologians, from Augustine through Calvin to Barth. For Pete’s sake, man, even Paul cites a Stoic philosopher and a pagan poet with approval (Acts 17:28). Don’t be so small-minded, mean-spitited and, indeed, sectarian!


dh 01.25.06 at 4:34 pm

We don’t know that they were Stoic. Just because someone says a smart (I refrain from wise because Paul addresses the difference whith “wise in your own eyes” and the difference between mental and Spiritual wisdom) doesn’t mean they are wise. They obviously at the time before some accepted Paul were not wise in that they believed in other gods and thus were considered fools according to the Bible. Some by accepting Christ became wise and others stayed in their foolishness and rejected Paul. The Bible is very strong that those who don’t believe in God are fools even Paul mentions this. I agree that Christians have said idiotic things but that doesn’t make them unwise just because of one statement as well. This isn’t mean spirited for the “message of Christ is foolishness to those who don’t believe.” I wouldn’t call Pauls statement approval of where he is inrelation to Christ but am acknowledgement of where they were at that time. There is a difference.


Richard 01.25.06 at 4:52 pm

Here’s what John Wesley says of the words paul quotes in Acts 17;28
“Aratus, whose words these are, was an Athenian, who lived almost three hundred years
before this time. They are likewise to be found, with the alteration of one letter only, in the hymn of Cleanthes to Jupiter or the supreme being, one of the purest and finest pieces
of natural religion in the whole world of Pagan antiquity. ”

As for me, I know nothing of pre-Christian Greek poetry. I’m fairly sure they were neither Christians nor Jews, though!


dh 01.25.06 at 4:57 pm

Richard the first sentence of my previous post needed to have been removed. My point is there is a difference between smart and wise and my previous post explains that.


Kim 01.25.06 at 7:27 pm

Hi Canucks!

Is it okay to say something about Canada even though, as Eugene declaims, “You don’t live here”? I certainly don’t want to diss your great nation (which, in my view, would do a lot of good were you able to throw more of your weight around on the world stage). I love you guys: you’re kind of like Americans without the bloated egos - and the guns. That you’ve got a blessed beaver as a national emblem compared to our scavanger of a bald eagle says more in an image than a thousand words.

I’ve just been reading that The Globe and Mail editorialises that “Canadians did not endorse neo-conservatism when they elected [Stephen Harper]. . . They voted against a Liberal Party that had become smug and arrogant.” That sounds reassuring to me.

On the other hand, the Independent reports that “Mr. Harper does not place a high premium on safeguarding the global environement” (he rejects the Kyoto Protocol); that he “seems to be something of a social reactionary” (he is against same-sex partnerships having legal status); and - most worryingly of all - he is keen to draw closer to US President Bush (he supported the war in Iraq and he “suggests he will reverse Canada’s decision not to rejoin the US anti-ballisitc missile shield”). That does not sound reassuring.

I guess it’s watch this space. At least, I trust, Canadian Conservatives are more intelligent than American Republicans, about whom Lyndon Johnson remarked that they “are so ignorant they wouldn’t know how to pour piss out of a boot - even if the instructions were printed on the heel.”

Oh, one more thing: a little less with the stick and puck, a little more with the bat and ball, and I reckon Canada would be heaven!

Yours in good faith,


malc 01.25.06 at 7:35 pm

I’m sorry, coming from a man who’s home cilty has how many hockey teams….?? Rangers, Islanders, the Devils…..if anything, least Canada doesn’t have that pin-stripped baseball team….

The Rangers may make the playoffs (this year) but they’re going to meet at least two (if not all three, if Montreal buck up their game) in the conference finals…… I shall look forward to seeing them being knocked out…..

Go Leafs Go!!!


Eugene McKinnon 01.25.06 at 7:53 pm


Given that it is a minority government I don’t think you have too much to worry about coming out of Ottawa. However given that this election was triggered by the fall of a previous minority government, and Canadians are tired of nothing getting done (for 12 years to be exact) you will not have to worry about Stephen Harper doing anything wild and crazy in his first 100 days as PM.

Harper is opposed to same-sex marriage in Canada we have the term for same-sex union defined by the word marriage and that is what Conservatives like me are offended by). We would not have a problem if it was a civil union (even Conservatives in Ontario proposed such an arrangement) instead they used a more culturally loaded term to define their relationships.



Kim 01.25.06 at 8:38 pm

Thanks for the clarification about same-sex marriage, Eugene.

And touché about hockey in the tri-state area, malc! (malc knows I’m a Ranger fan - and he also knows I have a soft spot for the Maple Leafs - my daughter studied at Toronto for a year). And “Amen!” about the Pin-Stripers from the Bronx: my Mets are “wicked”, but the Yankees are evil!

Leave a Comment

You can use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>