Generally, this is good analysis, but I think he has hyped up just how right wing Harper is. I think if he had his druthers, he'd govern further to the right than he would be able to. But it also should be made clear that he is not Bush, either by disposition or ideology. And, perhaps more to the point, his party isn't, although clearly elements within it are GOP style rightwingers. However, they are still mostly regionally confined to rural BC and Alberta. Most of the Maritime Tories, the Quebec Tories, and many of the Ontario Tories are considerably more "liberal."

The nature of Parliament right now pretty much dictates not much will change in Canadian politics, although Harper will present a diplomatically more friendly face to the US. However, it is also likely on issues like Canada's "arctic sovreignty" and the dispute over softwood lumber exports, Harper won't really be any different than Martin.

But more basically, polling on basic ideological self-identification as well as on questions of morality and religiousity show that Canada just is not the kind of fertile ground for Bushism. The reason Bush is able to do what he does even with the barest of margins is that he is working with a much larger ideological base, so even when he alienates 50 to 60% of the country, he can still rely on the undying loyalty of about 30 to 40% of the voters. Harper could probably count on about 15 to 20%.

Harper has a decision: basically govern like an old Progressive Conservative and stay in power, or govern like a wingnut and last less than two years, potentially putting the Liberals back in power with a majority.

BTW, Harper isn't an evangelical. He's right wing, certainly economically, but he's not particularly committed to social conservatism. All the social conservative stuff is going nowhere. Indeed, Harper'd probably wish it would all go away. But he's made promises to certain voters and MPs to keep shut during the campaign in return for a "free vote" on gay marriage - which will lose.

You ask how this has been reported in the U.S.? That's easy: It's been ignored. There has been just a bit of discussion, but frankly, most people in the U.S. sincerely couldn't care less about Canada.

Canada is a gigantic, cold, empty forest up north of Duluth. 90% of the Canadian population lives within 100 miles of the U.S. anyway--they're practically "Americans!"

For those with the statistical syndrome (like me), the near-final results to chew on and compared to the 2004 elections (ordered according to popular vote rather than seats):

* Turnout: 64.9% (up 4.0 percentage points [pp] from 2004 record low)

1. Conservatives: 36.3% (+6.7pp), 124 seats (+25)
   
2. Liberals: 30.2% (-6.5pp), 103 seats (-32)
   
3. New Democrats (progressive left): 17.5% (+1.8pp), 29 seats (+10)
   
4. Bloc Québécois (leftist French-Canadian nationalist): 10.5% (-1.9pp), 51 seats (-3)
   
5. Green Party: 4.5% (+0.2pp), no seats
   
6. Independent: 0.5% (+0.2pp), 1 seat (+/-0)
   
7. Christian Heritage Party (fundies): 0.2% (-0.1pp), no seats

Ah, shuks, but more than 60% still vote left. (I note the funny thing about the 2004 elections was that while the popular vote for leftist parties increased, due to the union of the two main conservative parties and thus single candidates, the Left lost seat-wise.)

I was curious about the loss of the Bloc - checking provincial results, I find that that province was decisive. Major swings both from the Bloc and the Liberals to the cons (but also to the harder leftist parties):

* turnout: 63.3% (+2.8pp)

1. Bloc Québécois: 42.1% (-6.8pp)
   
2. Conservative: 24.6% (+15.8pp)
   
3. Liberals: 20.7% (-13.2pp)
   
4. NDP: 7.5% (+2.9pp)
   
5. Green Party: 4.0% (+0.8pp)
   
6. Independent: 0.9% (+0.8pp)

_{*Lunatic*, n.
One whose delusions are out of fashion.}

Thanks very much for this. I've long been interested in Canadian politics, but don't always have time to keep up with it as I should. The CBC site is also excellent. On the interactive section you can run your mouse over the seats in each province and get the results.

The one thing (just about the only thing) that I love about first-past-the-post systems is that you get all of those really cool names for the ridings/constituencies/districts. Look at some of the names: Western Artic, Bonavista-Gander-Grand Falls-Windsor, Thunder Bay-Superior North, Cypress Hills-Grasslands. Great local names that convey a real sense of communities coming together.

Did Ignatieff win a seat, and if so does he look to become a more influential figure within the Liberal Party>

A society committed to the notion that government is always bad will have bad government. And it doesn't have to be that way. — Paul Krugman

Another good site for info is

canada.com

Pogo: We have met the enemy, and he is us.

It appears Harper is sensitive to accusations of being a Bush puppet and has started his career as PM with a cute little nationalist nose-thumbing gesture.

Nichols writes Don't Cry for Canada, in refutation of rightwingnut crowing and posturing in the US ("Canada has seen the light and turned right" etc).

Jury still out...

The difference between theory and practise in practise ...

And here is a more alarmist view

At a conference staged in Vancouver, November 11-12, 2005, the major opponents of Medicare, including the Fraser Institute and American and European insurance companies, openly discussed strategies on how to destroy the Canadian health care system. As a high level participant, Preston Manning, the Reform party's founder, presented a "substantive prescription" that could be summed up as: "Completely dismantle national medicare, have the federal government hand over more taxing power to the provinces and let them handle health as they please" (Toronto Star, November 26, 2005). In essence what they recommended was American style health care delivered by American multinational corporations in partnership with insurance companies.
[...]
n the previous Parliament about half of Harper's members were "religious social conservatives," and perhaps an equal number or more were elected this time. Many of them, including Harper and the upper echelon of his party, have strong connections to the American Council for National Policy, an extreme right-wing Christian fundamentalist body that's been reputed to have poured in billions of dollars to right-wing Christian activists (Robert Dreyfuss in Rolling Stone, January 28, 2004). One of their objectives is to train a new generation of Canadian conservatives on how to bring religion into politics. It's to this organization that Stephen Harper said as a guest speaker in 1997 that "your conservative movement . . . is a light and an inspiration to people in [Canada] and across the world."

I fear for my prospective country.

The difference between theory and practise in practise ...