|
By Lloyd Mackey
 IT HAS been less than two weeks since Prime Minister Stephen Harper stood in the rose garden at Rideau Hall -- the governor-general's residence -- and announced the October 14 election.
The other side of the equation is that it is still almost a month before the vote takes place. And, if 15 minutes in politics is a lifetime, then almost anything can happen on polling day, despite the best-laid plans of strategists from all parties.
During that rose garden media scrum, Harper suggested that he hoped, during the campaign, to talk about "our plans to preserve for seniors, the opportunity to live out their golden years with the financial security and health care they expect."
He also indicated reassurances about safe streets, secure borders and a united country.
But the mention of seniors (of which your humble scribe is one) could be instructive, because some friends have been communicating in recent weeks about concerns of seniors who may have been hurt by the now-seemingly-distant decision to tax income trusts.
Was Harper's reference to financial security for seniors meant to be a hint of possible help -- direct or indirect -- for seniors who might get hurt from either the income trust decision or other past present or future economic tremors?
From this vantage point, the answer lies in the approach to economic issues being taken by the prime minister. That approach is causing the leaders of the other four parties to adjust their previous emphases on the environment as an issue, to a blended accenting on family and economic matters.
Both the family-friendly "sweater-vest" advertising in the Conservative campaign and the subsequent Liberal spots on Stephane Dion helped to set the stage. Particularly, for the Tory leader, there was a need to try to shift the image from "tough guy" to "nice guy."
Even Harper's sitting down at a piano in Halifax to demonstrate his now-rusty Toronto Conservatory-acquired classical keyboard skills helped to burnish that image. As it happened, it also gave him opportunity to build some bridges into the cultural communities, some of whose leaders are miffed at proposed changes in arts funding formulae.
But, long before the election campaign began, reporters were being encouraged to watch for the family-friendly approach, one that could appeal to both social and economic aficionados from the centre and right segments of the political spectrum. And the subliminal message in that approach seemed to be that ideology would give way to flexibility.
(The Tories seem to be counting on the fact that support for left wing economic and social proposals will be split between the Liberals, Greens and NDP, as well as, in Quebec, the Bloc.)
Added to all this is economist Harper's continued reference to "households" in his economic comments. This reference is drawn, of course, from basic microeconomic theory, but it resonates well at the moment, with a family-friendly approach. In an economic environment, "households" and "firms" interact with each other. And, in a moderately-conservative world view, the roles of government, financial institutions and the international markets sketch themselves into the background, rather than tightly controlling those basic interactions.
So there is no talk about abortion, same-sex marriage or -- conversely -- state-controlled day care or other items that could soon serve up considerable political radioactivity. Rather, the various releases and announcements, so far, enable social and fiscal conservatives to nestle their own approaches into the broader family-friendly picture.
Undoubtedly, the campaign, so far, has been impacted in some measure by the emergence of Sarah Palin as the Republican vice-presidential hopeful. She has brought renewed attention to the idea of families where both parents work and, at the same time, raise more than the oft-lauded 2.2 children. And, to boot, the importance of both church and union membership and activity is seen as a plus, rather than a minus, because such activities, in their finest form, enhance households in their interaction with firms.
* * *
So where do the seniors fit into all this?
An October 10 story in the Globe and Mail, written by Tu Thanh Ha and Virginia Galt, is entitled 'More Canadians delaying retirement, study finds: Trend in line with changes in labour-market demand, analyst says.'
The story is based on data from last year's census, confirming that "growing numbers of Canadian workers are actually postponing their retirement plans."
The article pointed out that "in 1997, about 17 per cent of men between 65 and 69 were still working. In the (2007) census, that share has risen to 25 per cent."
Continue article >>
|
Quoting Terence Yuen, a researcher with Toronto-based consulting firm Watson Wyatt, the article noted: "The survey was conducted at the peak of an economic boom, at a time when 'everybody has a job, the financial market is doing well and people might have less concern about retirement.'
"If the survey was conducted this year, the same respondents might be far more worried about their ability to afford a comfortable retirement. 'They might see that their mutual funds' value has declined significantly . . . If you did it this year, when the market is really volatile and people are worried about where the economy is going, they might be more worried about the adequacy of their retirement.'"
That may well be why we might expect some discussion during this campaign, about financial security for seniors. And don't be surprised if announcements tie in both to health care and income security.
Readers who have been following OttawaWatch for the past three years will be aware that the health care afforded by the Canadian system, not the least of which was the contribution of the Ottawa Heart Institute, has given this particular journalist a new lease on working life.
All of which causes me to be grateful to God, some very good cardiologists, a supportive spouse and an economic system that will permit me to do useful work as long as renewed health permits.
* * *
Lloyd Mackey is a member of the Canadian Parliamentary Press Gallery in Ottawa. He is also author of Stephen Harper: The Case for Collaborative Governance (ECW Press, 2006) and More Faithful Than We Think: Stories and Insights about Canadian Leaders Doing Politics Christianly (BayRidge Books, 2005). He can be reached at lmackey@canadianchristianity.com.
Related stories:
Prominent evangelical "anoints" Sarah Palin as Biblical prophet
A prominent evangelical figure in the U.S. this week said Republican vice-presidential nominee Sarah Palin is a modern-day incarnation of the Biblical prophet, Deborah -- primed to miraculously slay her nation's enemies on the battlefield. Writing in his influential magazine, Charisma, editor J. Lee Grady likened the 44-year-old Alaskan governor to Deborah, the Old Testament prophet "who rallied God's people to victory at a time when ancient Israel was being terrorized by foreign invaders."
Douglas Todd, The Search, Vancouver Sun, September 12
Quebec's double standard
Bloc Quebecois leader Gilles Duceppe has taken umbrage because a candidate for the Conservative party, Nicole Charbonneau Barron, running in the South Shore Montreal riding of St. Bruno-St. Hubert, is a member of Opus Dei, a personal prelature within the Catholic Church. Attempting to whip up fears that the Tories want to take away a woman's right to choose, Mr. Duceppe complained that "those people are against a lot of things that are generally accepted in Quebec." It is true that members of Opus Dei do not support abortion. On the other hand, "those people," do not sympathize with Hamas and Hezbollah or believe Jews are legitimate targets for terrorism, surely views that are not "generally accepted in Quebec" as well? Which brings me to what should be the actually worrying case of Samira Laouni, the NDP candidate for the riding of Montreal-Bourassa. Some of us in Quebec who keep our eye on activities and players in the Islamic community wonder why Mr. Duceppe is so fascinated by Ms. Charbonneau Barron's privately held views on abortion, but is not at all exercised by Ms. Laouni's enthusiasm for shariah law and anti-Western agents provocateurs.
Barbara Kay, National Post, September 12
Media probe Palin's evangelical views
Visitors flock to Wasilla wondering how her faith will affect public policy
Toronto Star, September 15
Catholics, Protestants no longer a split vote
A propensity for Roman Catholics to vote for the Liberal Party, while their Protestant counterparts lean toward the Conservatives, may no longer be as evident as once believed by Canadian political scientists and those studying voting tendencies, according to a new study. The study, conducted by the Laurier Institute for the Study of Public Opinion and Policy (LISPOP), found that Catholics and Protestants from less-strict denominations such as the United Church and Anglicans, exhibited nearly identical voting patterns in the most recent federal election. The real difference in voting habits comes from more evangelical Protestant denominations, which overwhelmingly flock to the Conservative vote, LISPOP found.
National Post, September 16
Minority faiths tend to go liberal
The Liberal party continues to garner huge support from Jews, Muslims and other non-Christian religions, according to a new report studying public opinion and voting trends in Canada. The study, conducted by the Laurier Institute for the Study of Public Opinion and Policy (LISPOP), used data collected by the polling firm Ipsos Reid from 36,000 respondents on the 2006 election day. It found voters who identified themselves as non-Christian believers, be they Jewish, Muslim, Hindu or Sikh, overwhelmingly supported the Liberal party.
National Post, September 17
September 18/2008
|
