So it's a Conservative minority, though a weaker one than most expected.

Nonetheless, after listening to practically every right-wing pundit in the country complain endlessly for over a decade about how politically retarded Canada is for sticking with the Liberal 'one party state,' it appears, as I've stated previously, that all conservatives needed to do to be given a chance by us nanny-state addicted zombie robots was

a) Stop fighting with each other, and

b) Act like you don't hate the country you want to govern.

Although he ran a skillful campaign, and managed to hit some nicely nationalistic notes (especially on asserting sovereignty over the north), I'd say Stephen Harper's past baggage (statements re: 'Northern European welfare states,' ect.) may have stalled what could have been a bigger Conservative win. Indeed, had the Liberal attacks on Harper not been undermined by various moronic assertions ('soldiers in our cities') and insane policy ad-libs (Paul Martin's pledge to ditch the constitution's notwithstanding clause), the Liberals might have pulled this one out.

I expect that Harper, who's biggest political strength is that he's a quick study who learns from the past, will use the office of Prime Minister to shore up his Captain Canada credentials. I'm wondering, for instance, if he'll pull some clever and perhaps unexpected foreign policy moves, or make some winning overtures to Quebec Premier Jean Charest (if Charest can win re-election, there will be a decided mood of relief in the country from which any sitting Prime Minister would likely benifit). As always, Harper's achilles heel may well be the guys around him; is Stockwell Day really going to be foreign minister? (Maybe I'm underestimating Day; he might go down well in Washington these days.)

One of the real positives of this federal election is that we now have two major national parties...more or less. The Liberals are now completely shut out of Alberta, which could be an issue down the road. The Tory breakthrough in Quebec has provided citizens of that province with two viable federalist options. It's simply not healthy for the Liberals to have a corner on the federalist market in Quebec; as we've seen, if the Liberal brand becomes tainted, the entire cause suffers.

As for the Liberals, the famous machine imploded. Paul Martin's goon squad of advisors--the gang who wrestled the party from Chretien--sowed so much acrimony and backlash that the Liberals started to look like the old Tories. Martin's departure paves the way for an interesting leadership contest. Watch for the famous Liberal discipline to return in time, and the party's relatively strong showing means that they'll be better positioned for a comeback than if they'd suffered a genuine rout. Again, though, leadership contests take a while, and Harper will not dither in the meantime.

Looking at British Columbia, I was initially suprised that the Conservatives didn't do better, but after a closer look at the results, maybe it's not such a stunner after all. In 2004, the NDP lost a handful of very close ridings to the Tories as a result of a last minute 'stop Harper' left-wing swing to the Liberals. You see, when the politically illiterate try their hand at strategic voting, they sometimes get it wrong.

This time, there was no last minute desertion, and the NDP candidates in a lot of these ridings held their ground. For example, Dawn Black in New Westminster. Last time, she lost by about a hundred votes after some of her support drained to the third-place Liberal candidate. This time, she held her vote (maybe even got some Liberal votes), and gained the riding. The NDP gains in BC are not so much a breakthrough as a correction.

It's also notable that, with the exception of Vancouver East, all the ridings in the city of Vancouver proper, and many of it's adjacent municipalities (Richmond, North Van, West Van) are solidly Liberal. This is something that has developed over the past 10 to 15 years, and it brings the core of the Lower Mainland into line with the city centres of Toronto and Montreal. We speak of east vs. west, and yet it increasingly appears that many Vancouverites have more in common with their big city eastern siblings than with the rest of their own province.

I periodically tune into Coronation St. for a stretch, somewhat in the way that one revisits an old album. Seeing a fresh round of Sally Webster serious faces and Gail Roberts hand-to-hip stances is like putting on a ragged but comfortable sweater.

So I switch it on the other night, and who is playing the role of a sketchy novelist but Sir Ian McKellan!

And he fits right in!

Who's next? How about the return of some long lost teen strumpet, now grown and sophisticated, and played by Helena Bonham Carter?

********

Speaking of Coronation St., I was reading an article on The Smiths' 'The Queen is Dead' album. The inner sleeve bears a famous photo of the band standing on Coronation St. itself, in front of the Salford Lads Club.

After the photo, Morrissey sent a card to the photographer that included this reflection:

"Fatal Regret: I should have worn my mud-coloured cardigan."

Time for another entry in my 'Six Favorite Songs' series.


She Loves You - The Beatles

“I distinctly remember walking down the road with a transistor radio. Then I heard ‘She Loves You.’ That turned me on. It took me to another place - and I’m still there now. If there wasn’t The Beatles, I don’t think I’d have got involved with music with such a passion.”

-Ozzy Osbourne.

Same here, Ozzy. And, you know, I’ve occasionally been told by people that they don’t like early Beatles; that it’s the ‘more serious’ music of the Fab Four’s later Sixties output that they prefer.

This sort of thing leaves me puzzled, even peeved. I figure this type of sentiment is the result of a couple of things.

First of all, the sound is of a different era. Author Ian MacDonald, in his superb book ‘Revolution in Your Head,’ notes the difference between ‘Pop’ and ‘Rock.’ The Beatles started as a pop band, more concerned with melodies, and the chords that supported them, than with grooves or riffs.

Perhaps this gives their early sound a more quaint dimeanor. A bit like an old movie, with a slightly antique intonation and less familiar styling.

And just as old films feature more careful, less natural dialoge, the lyrical themes of early Beatles tunes are more polite, and less vulgar. But does that make them less accomplished?

‘She Loves You’ is a prime example of early Beatledom. It’s got a catchy melody and an innocent theme. And yet there’s more to it, and to the early Beatle sound in general. Underlying the pretty harmonies and sweet melodies, there is a raw masculinity.

Starting with Ringo Starr’s thundering tom-tom doublets, the drums pound throughout the song, and are made all the more raucous by Starr’s patented open high hat. And the guitars dominate the sound of ‘She Loves You,’ giving it a rawness that early Sixties pop songs often lacked.

Add to all that McCartney’s typically pulsing (and underrated) bass playing, and the ‘yeah yeah yeah’ gang vocal chorus, and you have a song with plenty of moxy.

I don’t think the Beatles are ever given credit for the masculinity in their sound; they always seemed to be held up against the likes of the Stones and The Who and, though respected for their talent, are seen as not quite as swaggering. And yet they were veterans of hundreds of gigs in some of the toughest clubs in Hamburg and Liverpool, far more schooled in hard knocks and rock debauchery than any of their London contemporaries.

To use a hockey metaphor, they seem to be viewed as a great finesse player that stays away from the rough going, whereas in truth they had both skill and toughness.

As for the lyrics, the third party perspective of ‘She Loves You’ remains fairly unique. I think it’s cool. In reality, the first hints of romance or attraction are often passed on through a third party. The message of ‘She Loves You’ rings true, and the excited urgency of the song’s delivery makes it more resonant than most of the ‘mature’ rock songs that are often held up as lyrical classics.