Seperatists, firewalls and the West.

coyne, radwanski, cosh and wells are all getting into the post election debate about the west and the outcome. wells believes that the tiny few in alberta who voted this time for the liberals rather than the cons means that there is no 'western voting pattern'. here are amy emails to him and his non response:

Paul:

Yes, the liberals held the vote in alberta (i'm not sure why you draw so much significance from this). In Ontario, the combined conservative vote is less by about 4% than in 2000. The liberals only posted "losses" if that's what you want to call it, by going from 50% to 43% (even after the scandals). You say that there is no 'west' in terms of voting habits, but voting patterns do not support this conclusion: west of the manitoba border, the conservatives lead, by winning over 40%. East of this border, the liberals poll over 40%.

The point is that there is a correlation between geography and voting. While this may not be obvious to writers in Toronto, regionalism is a fact.
The funny part is that the more the eastern media establishment tries to downplay or disparrage this regionalism (coyne and radwanski are doing the same thing), doing so only contributes to its growth.

Paul Wells wrote:
Look at the popular vote numbers for Ontario and Alberta. Then look at the popular vote numbers for every province. Then tell me where "the West" is, except in the fantasies of the simple-minded. cheers pw


-----Original Message-----
From: Patrick McClarty [mailto:pmcclarty@yahoo.ca]
Sent: Wed 6/30/2004 8:03 PM
To: Paul Wells
Cc:
Subject: Western Seperatists


The place where Liberals held their own, of course, is Alberta. The place where Liberals posted losses, of course, is Ontario.

It is reassuring to note that Alberta separatists are no brighter than their cousins in Quebec.

Paul: i know you've been away from the national post for a while, so maybe its expected that you would make a comment like this. the point isn't whether the five albertan swing voters changed votes from ndp to liberal, or that ontario had more ridings that went conservative.

the point is that the west feels that its perspective and ideas will never be aligned with the rest of the country. a strong central government that attempts to keep a large, dissimilar regions of the country together with bribes, 'programs', coercion and whatnot is not working for the west. i can't speak for the rest of the country and i'm sure there are a million points of (30 M probably) view on this topic...

the point is that the west is just frustrated: it finally joins up with a 'mainstream' party, only to be demonized, vilified and pilloried again by the liberals, (and their enablers: the star, the cbc) who've decided on a scorched earth policy in the west again. "screw the west, take the rest" etc.... western interests (off shore oil, health care, the gun registry, softwood, pine beetles, alcan) will be managed by an abstract concept called "ottawa", a place farther and farther from small town western canada, a place that increasingly pays the bills.

is it stupid to feel frustrated by this?

i like that paul feels superior sitting at macleans telling westerners how stupid they are. that's not like the eastern media establishment is it? nope. radwanski says the same thing, and that the eastern prejudice is not only prevalent but justified...and why are those dumb westerners interested in seperatism again?

i can't imagine why.