What happened in the federal elections?

DISCLAIMER: I am not a professional political analyst. I do not read all the news and only seldom watch the TV news. This is only my opinion.

Why? Why did the political landscape in Canada change so much? Why did the Conservative Party and the NDP go up, and the Liberals and the BQ go down so dramatically? There are many reasons, and a thousand analyses in the press will cover them all. But to me there are two important factors that have substantially contributed to the results of yesterday’s elections. The first one is that the traditional asset of the Liberal Party, being in the middle of the road, became a liability. When both the Conservatives and the NDP did not seem so “extreme” for some tastes anymore, the Liberal got squished. It did not help, either, having a couple of not very charismatic leaders (Dion and Ignatieff) and platforms that seemed lost in times of crisis. At least the Conservatives and the NDP (and, of course, the Green Party) seemed to have clear agendas, which meant you either agreed with them or not. With the Liberals it was unclear what they really wanted and what they would do with the power. In more stable times, that is actually an attractive proposal, not to rock the boat. But just emerging from a recession, decisive action and clear direction toward the economy and social spending are what people want.
I feel sorry for Ignatieff. He was mercilessly attacked, and I would think he is an intelligent and honest man. In addition, being uncharismatic is something you could also say about Steven Harper. But not having a lot of charisma added to a fussy political platform is a bad combination. With Harper, people may think he is robotic, emotionally uninvolved, monotonous in his discourse, but nobody doubts he is a very good strategist and his ideas and political direction are very clear. You either like him or not (or perhaps love him or hate him) but you cannot ignore him. Furthermore, he was in power. Once you are in power, you are visible, more in what you do and say than in your image. Ignatieff did not have the benefit of showing what he could (or not) do. He had to rely on his image to get to people, and being a somewhat aloof intellectual was not the road to political fame. His history did not help either, having lived outside of Canada for a long time, and calling himself a liberal, but having supported some Bush policies, like the Iraq war.
Jack Layton, on the other hand, is quick, funny and charismatic. You may not like his ideas, but you cannot disregard him as a murky blob in the political spectrum. In a difficult economic time, he embodies very clearly Harper’s political opposite: if Harper’s recipe is to strengthen the economy through reducing government spending (especially cutting social spending) and creating an attractive field for private investment (lowering taxes and offering an advantageous legal framework), Layton proposes strengthening social services and support networks. It is easier to decide between one and the other, instead of trying to find out exactly where the liberals stand.
The second reason for the results is local politics. I believe that the fact that the liberals have dominated the provincial political landscape of the two more populated provinces in Canada (Ontario and Quebec) in the last few years works as a disadvantage for them. It is true that provincial and federal politics are very different, but I think people make some connection between the two of them. If they feel the premier has not responded to the people’s needs, it is more difficult to trust a federal government that, at least in principle, belongs to the same party. Both McGuinty and Charest are in quite a low point in terms of popularity in their provinces. People think they have not responded as they should have to counteract the effects of the recession. And the fact that the Conservatives have not recently had a premier in any of the most populous province (with the exception of Alberta, where both the economy and the political views are at odds with the rest of Canada) has given them a sort of political carte blanche. They have not had to fight any political perception at the provincial level, they have not had to justify why the premier of their party did this or did not do that.
And what about the Bloc Québécois? I think they are in a very difficult position, with an agenda that only interests one province. Still, why did they not get more seats in Quebec? Well, perhaps of the second reason, the provincial politics, but with a twist. The federal candidates actually are provincial ones: they only come from Quebec, and their platform only affects Quebec. And although they are not in power in the province, their MPs have not delivered from the federal level. The same problems, the same complains, are present among the voters every election. Even people who would like Quebec to separate may think: “Well, if we are going to play the federal game, at least we should get some results from the party,” which has not happened in a way that meet people’s expectations. On top of that, their main point, the separation of Quebec, seems to be dormant. The BQ itself does not seem to believe in it so fiercely anymore. They do not mention it as often, they do not propose a lot of things that require the separation to work, they do not offer unique solutions to the problems of the province that would be better served by separating from Canada.
I think this neglect is on purpose. Of course, the most obvious reason would seem that the political moment is not propitious to debate that subject, but I also think they do not think it is the best moment for the separation to actually take place. With a stronger Canadian economy and currency than the American counterparts, is it not wise to stay in Canada instead of hoping to get a privileged partnership with United States?