Beyond The Commons

 Beyond The Commons

Aaron Wherry covers all the goings-on in and around Parliament Hill. Follow Aaron on Twitter: @aaronwherry

Categories: Beyond The Commons, Capital Read

Au revoir, Chuck Strahl and John Cummins

by Aaron Wherry on Saturday, March 12, 2011 1:19pm - 45 Comments

The Transport Minister and the Conservative backbencher will also refrain from seeking reelection. Both were members of the Reform party’s class of 1993.

Since the last election, Jay Hill has resigned, while Jim Abbott and Keith Martin have announced they will not seek reelection. Assuming that all those who remain decide to stand for reelection and are subsequently relected, that class is poised to be reduced to six after the next vote: Diane Ablonczy, Leon Benoit, Garry Breitkreuz, John Duncan, Stephen Harper and Dick Harris.

Tags: , , , , , , , , , ,
Bookmark and Share
  • M_A_D_world

    Seams a fair tally have decided they have either accomplished what they set out to do or have decided that they have had enough.
    Turnover within a party can be healthy but one has to wonder about the number of MP's retiring that once voiced fairly strong opinions.
    Ottawa needs people that can be more than mere followers.

  • madeyoulook

    That class is poised to be reduced to BETWEEN ZERO AND SIX after the next vote. The voters also have an occasional say in the retirement of our MPs.

    • Mike T.

      Did AW edit his post, because the sentence accounts for that now.

    • EeeOar

      AW did preface "…that class is poised to be reduced to six after the next vote…" with "Assuming that all those who remain decide to stand for reelection and are subsequently relected…"

      • madeyoulook

        Maybe I missed the "and are subsequently re[-e]lected" preface yesterday — I just can't remember it from my first read. So oops on me!

        • Mike514

          Not necessarily! It wouldn’t be the first time AW changes his blog post without alerting anyone. I once questioned something he wrote about Ignatieff getting a little powder, mentioning how it sounds like a drug reference. Sure enough, commenters were asking what I was talking about, because AW without notice changed the original sentence.

          Most bloggers would strike-through the original text, or add an update, or something. But AW has no problems scrubbing the original post and simply rewriting it. A little disingenuous in my opinion. Macleans should come up with simple guidelines for their bloggers to follow when such a thing occurs.

          • Jenn_

            I've been caught by a Wherry rewrite myself, and find it astounding that he doesn't give an UPDATE or any other clue on it. That said, I'm not sure I want bloggers to have guidelines (or not many, anyway).

            Besides, it does make for an interesting read, when half the earlier posts are going on about something not in existence.

          • madeyoulook

            OK, but before we gang up on Aaron too much, it's possible in this instance that my speed-browsing skills just failed me. I do not have enough confidence to say that phrase wasn't there in the first place.

          • Jenn_

            This must just kill him and his policy never to reply to the comments, huh?

        • EeeOar

          Perhaps that typo – relected vs reelected – is indicative of a hasty, unattributed edit. ;-)

          I'm sure that there is a fair amount of unattributed editing that goes on, and in many cases that is probably fine. Ie, if a Maclean's staffer had pointed out the clarification to AW, then an unattributed edit wouldn't be so bad. But after one of "us" points out the shortcoming it makes more sense to include a notice.

          Anyhoo, onwards and upwards!

          • Mike T.

            For a fact perhaps, but that was just a detail or quibble. And the CPC could run a piece of string in most of those ridings and it would still finish first past the post. :)

          • madeyoulook

            Well, that's why I started this thread in the first place, as a cheeky retort to (what I thought was) Aaron's assumption that the re-election of these six would be automatic.

          • EeeOar

            If AW did add the clarifying words afterward, we can at least be thankful that this isn't a story about a Minister inserting a poorly annotated NOT.

  • OriginalEmily1

    Maybe when they're all gone we can get back to something approaching normality in this country.

    • Mr Irrelevant

      Are you talking about the term of government prior to 1993?

      • OriginalEmily1

        No, prior to 2003.

      • chet

        The "sinking ship" analogy is interesting.

        A fascinating display of desperate wishful thinking taking the place of rational thought.

        It seems to be pretty clear that an election is afoot. As a conservative I am very much looking forward to the Harper – Iggy head to head fight.

        Those who inhabit this site seem to think their hatred of Harper permeates all of Canada and his poll numbers an aberration. They also seem to act as if Iggy really isn't part of the equation, as if Canadians won't actually have to make a choice between Iggy and Harper. Critcising Harper, and exxagerating those criticisms seems to be enough around here.

        As the election day draws near, watching the reality unfold of Canadians making that choice will be very, very interesting.

        Actively choosing Iggy to be our Prime Minister?

        My call is the Liberals will do considerably worse than under Dion.

        • Matlock

          I disagree Ignatieff's fight is with Harper. Consider the 2006 and 2008 election results:

          2006

          Conservative – 5,374,071
          Liberal – 4,479,415
          Bloc – 1,553,201
          New Democrats – 2,589,597
          Green – 664,068

          Total votes: 14,817,159

          2008

          Conservative – 5,208,796
          Liberal – 3,633,185
          Bloc – 1,379,991
          New Democrats – 2,515,561
          Green – 937,613

          Total votes: 13,834,294

          From 2006 to 2008 no one – Harper included – made any gains. The only difference is that Harper's ads convinced approx 1 million Liberals to stay at home.

          Ignatieff's battle will not be with Harper. It will be to convince those 1 million voters who stayed home to come out and vote. I can't imagine these are votes that'd go to Harper, else why did they stay home in 2008?

          Meanwhile, I find it hard to believe Harper is making gains anywhere. He has only been successful at moving Liberal votes to "none of the above", leaving his approx 5 million voters with a larger share of a smaller pie.

          I'd be amazed if he actually increases his vote total from 2008 of 5,208,796. The question is what happens to the Liberal (and NDP/Bloc/Green) votes.

          • chet

            CPC vote totals are dropping because of so many "sure winning" ridings.

            If you live in rural Alberta, you're a CPC supporter and they're projected to take 85% of the vote, your vote becomes largely symbolic.

            In the closer ridings the votes are shifting. As noted by Hebert (and maybe Ivision…could have been another Globe writer), conservative leaning Liberals are shifting to the CPC – given the party's lurch leftward.

            In the TO suburbs, it's shaping up to be a massive shift to the CPC. It won't be pretty for Iggy on election night.

          • Matlock

            Actually, looking at the raw data and comparing the 2006 Conservative vote to the 2008 Conservative vote, it is amazing how little the number of Conservative votes moved, with only a couple exceptions.

            2008 Conservative vote as a percentage of the 2006 vote (by province):
            (data taken from Elections Canada raw data, http://www.elections.ca)

            NL – 33.2%
            PEI – 102.74%
            NS – 80.28 %
            NB – 99.57%
            PQ – 86.46%
            ONT – 101.78%
            MB – 103.49%
            SK – 99.38%
            AB – 88.24%
            BC – 116.87%

            In only 5 out of 10 provinces did the vote change by more than a mere 3%, and in 4 of those 5 cases the CPC vote dropped (NL, NS, PQ, and AB). You've noted Alberta already, however NL, NS and PQ do not fit your "sure winning" theory at all as the Tories lost seats in these areas. Harper made significant gains in just one province out of ten – British Columbia. The remaining 5 provinces (AB, SK, ON, NB, PEI), the CPC vote hardly moved at all, up or down.

            BC notwithstanding, I think this supports the theory that Harper has a solid base of approximately 5 million votes, but it is not likely to grow or shrink – he has not proven capable of attracting new voters or votes away from the other parties.

            The battle for Ignatieff will not be winning Harper votes, it will be to convince those who did not vote in 2008 to come out.

          • Halo_Override

            Good eye.

          • Richard_S_Argent

            Excellent post, Thanks!

        • gottabesaid

          'The "sinking ship" analogy is interesting.

          A fascinating display of desperate wishful thinking taking the place of rational thought.'

          Holy crap, I actually agree with chet! Well, nothing after those two sentences, but those first two I agree with.

          Strahl, Cummins and Day have been around for a while. Why is it unusual for these guys to pack it in? Rats abandoning a sinking ship? Hardly. I'm sure they're just sick of things. Although we'll probably disagree on the who's to blame for the toxic environment on Parliament Hill, it's undoubtedly there, and I can't imagine anyone but a select few having a prolonged tolerance level to it all.

          Also, the Conservatives (as far as I can tell) don't have any reason to be abandoning ship. The ship, in terms of political longevity, is sailing smoothly. If they're rats abandoning ship, they know something I don't.

  • McC_

    Strahl will be missed. Here's hoping his health hasn't taken a turn for the worst, and that's he's decided to go out on (or near the) top of his game

    • Stewart_Smith

      Agreed, Strahl was one of those rare politicians who always seemed to put the country first.

      • Reverend_Blair

        I disagree. He was neck-deep in attempts to undermine the democratic process of CWB elections. That is not the action of an honourable man putting the country first, but of a demagogue attacking the rights of others.

  • chet

    And on election night,

    I will come here to take my lumps if I am wrong…..

    But will gloat if I am right.

    I hope to see all of the regulars here then.

    • Reverend_Blair

      You seem to lack the wherewithal to understand that politics is not a hockey game, chet.

      • Halo_Override

        Meh, you win some, you lose some. Whatevs.

      • chet

        Yes, only conservatives want to "win" the election, I suppose, the Liberals' are much more nuanced. Conservatives actually wanting to "win" is so pedestrian…. so "hockeygamish".

        As a conservative, I lack the intellectual capacity to appreciate these nuances. The "wherewithal" so to speak.

        And if by some miracle the Liberals should actually win the upcoming election, I suppose there would be no gloating by the commenters here.

        That's what I love about today's progressive left.

        So willing to accept reality.

        • Reverend_Blair

          At no point did I mean to imply that your lack of nuance was due to your political leanings. In fact, I suspect that your political leanings lead to lack of understanding of the nuance. Before you reply, no it's not the same thing.

  • Halo_Override

    Chuck Strahl, although he certainly did things that bugged me a couple of times, strikes me over the long run as being a pretty respectable guy.

    John Cummins, I wouldn't know if I found him in my soup.

    And Doris, well, I'll hold my tongue.

  • Mr. King

    There are also eight presently-serving Conservative MPs first elected in 1997:

    Gary Lunn
    Deepak Obhrai
    Jason Kenney
    Rob Anders
    Peter Goldring
    Rick Casson
    Gerry Ritz
    Maurice Vellacott

    Dona Cadman of Surrey North is also the widow of Chuck Cadman, first elected as a Reformer in '97.

  • Mr. King

    Depending on whether you consider the Canadian Alliance equivalent to Reform or an early form of the CPC (a little of both, in my opinion), you may also consider the nine* Conservative MPs first elected as Alliance representatives in 2000 with the above:

    James Lunney
    James Moore
    Kevin Sorenson
    Rob Merrifield
    Lynne Yelich
    David Anderson
    Vic Toews
    Scott Reid
    Cheryl Gallant

    *not counting Day

  • Holly Stick

    Maybe they figure the next scandal will be the overall picture of all the tax money th at is supposed to go to government services being spent on electioneering and partisan fundraising.

    For instance $26 million in 3 months for Election Action Plan advertising:

    "…A marketing specialist says the outlay is more cash than a big advertiser like Procter and Gamble would spend in a year in Canada…"
    http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/breakingnews/har…

    Ajnd it's not as if those ads are giving Canadians any useful information.

    • Holly Stick

      Oops, did I write "Election Action Plan"? I meant to write "Economic Action Plan", really I did. But it works the other way too.

  • Richard_S_Argent

    One thing I've noticed is how relatively short political careers are in Ottawa. Even with all the advantages inherent in incumbency, we just don't see the same length of careers as they do in Washington. I can't really think of too many Ted Kennedy/Robert Byrd/Ted Stevens types in the House of Commons.

    Politics seems to be a relatively young man's game in Canada….I wonder why?

    • peter

      Since you are listing senators, perhaps you should do the same for Canada. As for MPs, it is good that they 'turn over" as they do. In the House of Reps in the US there is less turnover than in the politburo of the former USSR. (the last few election cycles being notable abberations in the long term trend.)

      In my experience it takes most MPs about five years to figure out the system…at that time they either try and change it…see Reform, Alliance, or they try and "manage it", see CPC, or they pump it for what they can get, see LPC.

      The bottom line is that the largely unquestioned "institutional inertia", directed out of the PCO, pollinating (or poisoning), every department entertains time lines far beyond the capapacity of elected "tourists" to alter too much. How those policies are arrived at and how those who promulgate them "arrive" is a question that really needs to be addressed.

  • Holly Stick

    Rats. Ship. 1993 election coming up soon.

  • Crit_Reasoning

    Clearly, the Conservatives are poised for a catastrophic defeat at the hands of a resurgent Ignatieff. That's the only rational way to interpret this. ;-)

  • Jan

    Wasn't Kim Campbell polling fairly well before the 1993 election?

  • WDM

    Class of '93, but I don't count Harper along with the rest seeing as how he left for awhile.

  • M_A_D_world

    Her personal polling numbers were higher but not the party's. Right up until the unfortunate ad mocking Chretien's facial paralysis.
    Still ranks as one of the worst political miscues in the history of political ads. Makes one wonder if some the "great" minds have found their way from the 93 campaign have to the current Conservative strategy room.
    If they'd accepted the coming change in government , it might not have nearly wiped the PC's to extinction in the House.

  • madeyoulook

    I remember a genuine attempt to bring democracy and human rights to every Native person on reserves across the country. Stymied by the "Racist White Man!" crap from those most satisfied with their kleptocratic standard of living.

  • Leo

    Interesting…..if he is anything like his father, should be a good bet.

    Chuck Strahl's son Mark announced Monday he would seek the Conservative party nomination for Chilliwack-Fraser Canyon in the next election.
    http://www.chilliwacktimes.com/news/Chuck+Strahl+…

Previous

Next

From Macleans