# Election 2011 - The Aftermath for the Leaders



## ModlrMike (29 Apr 2011)

Not wanting to derail the major thread on the election, here's some food for thought.

What happens to the various party leaders after the election? My take based on various scenarios:

1. CPC majority, Liberals lose seats, NDP gains, Bloc loses seats = Harper retires gracefully before his term ends, Iggy gone soon, Layton stays, Duceppe gone soon.

2. CPC minority, remainder as above = Harper goes in 1-2 years time, remainder as above.

3. CPC reduced minority, all others gain = Harper goes in 2 years time, Iggy goes in 2 years, Layton and Duceppe stay.

There are a number of other possible outcomes, but I wager these are the most likely. Your thoughts?


----------



## GAP (29 Apr 2011)

Iggy will be gone in June, if not sooner. Jack just renewed his mandate with the dippers. Harper isn't going anywhere...aside from the fact there's no realistic candidates in the wings....McKay has seen his best before date.......


----------



## dapaterson (29 Apr 2011)

GAP said:
			
		

> Harper isn't going anywhere...aside from the fact there's no realistic candidates in the wings....



And that is perhaps the most troubling failure of his leadership.  Good leaders plan to ensure succession - with sufficient depth that if Bloggins leaves there's still another one or two in the wings.

A PM should be grooming successors within the party.


----------



## GR66 (29 Apr 2011)

Regardless of how the Conservative PARTY does in the election, Harper has "won".  A strong showing by the Liberals left open the opportunity for the Conservatives to lose the confidence of the house.  A resulting Liberal government could very easily have spelled the end of Harper's leadership.

I personally think that is very unlikely to happen now.  It would be political suicide for the Liberals to grasp for power after taking a drubbing at the polls and I can't see them handing the role of logical alternative to the Conservatives over to Layton and the NDP. 

Majority or minority, Harper WILL be Prime Minister for the next 1-2 years minimum (unless my Spidey-Senses are TOTALLY wrong and the NDP pulls off the political upset of the millenium and gets enough seats to be a legitimate alternative to the Conservatives in the House).  I don't think Harper's future as PM was nearly so certain just a few weeks ago.  

I strongly agree with dataperson on the "problem" of Harper's leadership as well.  I can't see him changing his style of governance willingly and if he remains PM it will be hard for anyone to force him to change.  That could spell trouble for the party in the longer term if their opponents actually manage to get their act together.


----------



## Haletown (29 Apr 2011)

Layton as Opposition Leader will have two ++problems.

The Bloc will have no reason to help him after the NDP eats Duceppe's political lunch.  Duceppe will likely have pressure to leave and let some new leader in.   As long as the Bloc sees the NDP as their political competition, there will be no love lost in Quebec socialist land.

Ditto for the Liberals  - no reason to support Jacko, just for different reasons - they need to finally do what they should have done five years ago -  they undergo major political surgery and rehabilitation.  It will start by amputating Iggy.

The Bloc and Libs don't have to "support" Harper either. They just won't show up for votes and Layton will be powerless  . . .  all the while the NDP policies will get some  well deserved exposure and Jacko will get asked a lot of very tough questions.

I think if it is a CPC minority, Harper will plan his exit for 2 years out.


----------



## Redeye (29 Apr 2011)

GAP said:
			
		

> Iggy will be gone in June, if not sooner. Jack just renewed his mandate with the dippers. Harper isn't going anywhere...aside from the fact there's no realistic candidates in the wings....McKay has seen his best before date.......



And polls suggest that MacKay may need to dust off his resume, too.  He's trailing, though the margin isn't massive.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (29 Apr 2011)

GAP said:
			
		

> Iggy will be gone in June, if not sooner. Jack just renewed his mandate with the dippers.



As for Layton, I think he will be gone pretty soon for health reasons. He just came off having a hip operation and is still battling prostate cancer. Also, his wife, Olivia Chow has also been battling thyroid cancer. He has been campaigning pretty hard and I can imagine that its taking a toll on him. I think we will see him gone by the fall.  



> Harper isn't going anywhere...aside from the fact there's no realistic candidates in the wings....McKay has seen his best before date.......



What about Maxime Bernier or Jason Kenny??


----------



## a_majoor (1 May 2011)

If Jack Layton has the remotest chance of pulling off a coalition, he will bring his IV drip into the House and debate from his hospital bed.

Ignatieff will go, but probably not quietly. The Liberal party may tear themselves apart in internal infighting; Rae vs the "entitled to their entitlements" challengers from Quebec; the Orange vs the Blue faction; believers of the Big Man theory flocking to the Young Dauphin....(I probably left out many more subfactions).

Prime Minister Harper will probably serve out another four years; in a minority or opposition bench telling us "I told you so" and continuing to work on the grand project of building a two party political system. If Prime Minister he will serve out his four years and retire with honour (after carefully preparing a succession plan; someting I don't think he has spent much time on).

Elizabeth May will probably be gone as well; the Green Party is probably regretting the time and money spent on her. I notice that the Greens have very little in the way of "ground troops" or effective riding associations. Of course running as NDP lite has the difficulty of trying to pry the votes from the real NDP or Liberals, so their party platform really needs to be rebuilt from end to end.


----------



## a_majoor (3 May 2011)

Well Igatieff might not even be around to kick around anymore.

Sun TV is rounding up a list of potential leadership candidates, talk about a "short list"...


----------



## ModlrMike (3 May 2011)

Duceppe has resigned as leader of the BQ. Even his hand picked successor was defeated.


----------



## Infanteer (3 May 2011)

Libs = Rae vs Trudeau?  Trudeau appealing for a return to his the party of his father by trying to capture the Liberal center (not the true center) back from despondancy/flirtation with Harper while Ray seeks to come out with a good seat in a move towards a NDP/Lib merger?  Like the legendary CCRAP that came out of the Reform/PC, maybe they'll get an awesome name too.

NDP = Layton's biggest test yet - he can throw stuff out from far left field as a "other party" but now he's got actual responsibilities and has to appease his large Quebec base.  Finishing off the Bloc and Libs for all their votes in the next election is probably what he wants (along with legitimizing the karate teachers and bartenders that make up his caucus).

Cons = Harper's got a lock on the next 4-5 years; can he make it past 10 years or does he start grooming a successor in the next 3-4 (Jason Kenney?)

BQ = Na na na na, na na na na, heeey heeey heeey, au revoir!

Green = WTF, over?


----------



## a_majoor (3 May 2011)

LPC will be on spin cycle for a while. Sun TV has read the "short list" of potential LPC leadership candidates, it is literally a short list.

Destruction of the National Socialist BQ is the result to be devoutly wished for; they will not be coming back

Jack Layton will be sticking around for a long while; he's got lots of work to do hammering his caucus of "traffic pylons" into an actual political unit but also to enjoy his new found position.

Elizabeth May will be around annoying people for yeas to come, now that she has gained some "legitimacy". Too bad she wasn't knocked off; the Greens could use a good housecleaning and one one level I sort of agree with them. It is hard not to be concerned about nature when living and working in the woods for most of my career (although dealing with -800 wind chill in Suffield or fighting bears in Gagetown were some parts of nature I could do without). Well NDP lite isn't going to make much headway against the real thing, just ask Micheal Ignatieff.


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 May 2011)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> As for Layton, I think he will be gone pretty soon for health reasons. He just came off having a hip operation and is still battling prostate cancer. Also, his wife, Olivia Chow has also been battling thyroid cancer. He has been campaigning pretty hard and I can imagine that its taking a toll on him. I think we will see him gone by the fall.
> 
> What about Maxime Bernier or Jason Kenny??




I'm inclined to agree. I'm about 99.99% certain that Layton wants to stay on but it may not be possible. sad, for him and the NDP, but true all the same.

I also think Harper needs Bernier back - for both local (QC) reasons and because he needs his highly fiscally conservative voice at the table. Kenny, I believe, has earned a promotion but he has done so well in the politically sensitive but *vital* immigration/multicult portfolio that he may want to stay there and Harper may want him there. Perhaps he will be given a cabinet committee to chair - a kind of promotion about which we do not hear very much.


----------



## Old Sweat (5 May 2011)

Which of course begs the question of potential NDP leaders waiting in the wings, or at least in the caucus. Thomas Muclair almost certainly, Joe Cromartin (sp?) perhaps, but I have trouble coming up with any other credible candidates, except maybe Bob Rae. (Joking, more or less.)


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 May 2011)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> Which of course begs the question of potential NDP leaders waiting in the wings, or at least in the caucus. Thomas Muclair almost certainly, Joe Cromartin (sp?) perhaps, but I have trouble coming up with any other credible candidates, except maybe Bob Rae. (Joking, more or less.)




I love the idea of Rae taking some Orange Liberals to the NDP and Brison leading some Blue Liberals to the Conservatives and the Liberals finally getting smart and rebuilding as a party of the 'radical centre:'

1. Fiscally conservative, at least as responsible as the Conservatives;

2. Committed to a big, united Canada with no 'special status' for anyone;

3. Committed to St Laurent's vision of Canada in the world; and

4. Socially liberal, taking e.g. abortion and gay marriage for granted.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (5 May 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> party of the 'radical centre:'
> 
> 1. Fiscally conservative, at least as responsible as the Conservatives;
> 
> ...



Sign me up!


----------



## dapaterson (5 May 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> ... and the Liberals finally getting smart and rebuilding as a party of the 'radical centre:'
> 
> 1. Fiscally conservative, at least as responsible as the Conservatives;



One hopes that they would be as responsible as Paul Martin was when he was in finance; regressing to the Conservative level would be bad.


----------



## Redeye (5 May 2011)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> One hopes that they would be as responsible as Paul Martin was when he was in finance; regressing to the Conservative level would be bad.



Spot on.

That's a party I'd happily support - socially liberal, fiscally conservative.  Harper et all saying they're not going to touch social issues (because it'd be political suicide) just isn't enough comfort for me.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (5 May 2011)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> One hopes that they would be as responsible as Paul Martin was when he was in finance; regressing to the Conservative level would be bad.




As responsible as taking the surpluses from the EI fund at the last minute to create a budget surplus to be announced proving their fiscal responsibility?


----------



## dapaterson (5 May 2011)

Reducing the GST was good politics but bad economics.

Whereas the introduction of the GST was good economics but bad politics.


----------



## acooper (5 May 2011)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Sign me up!



Ditto. Socially liberal, fiscally responsible sounds about like my position. I'm not a citizen yet, so I couldn't vote, but I do worry that with a majority, the Conservatives will try to "roll back" some of those things that make Canada CANADA to this immigrant. Things like health care, marriage equality, abortion rights, etc. I sure hope they see it as political suicide and don't attempt it. I also have a hard time believing that Harper can separate his religious beliefs (which he is more than entitled to) from his politics...


----------



## Poppa (5 May 2011)

Well it wasn't a problem when at least 2 Liberal, RC, Prime Ministers were in Office...Why should it be with the current PM?


----------



## Haletown (5 May 2011)

Jacko has to stay on . . .  he has important work to do.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/cartoon/editorial-cartoons-may-2011/article2006332/?from=2010333


----------



## Rifleman62 (5 May 2011)

acooper, you sound like you have been indoctrinated!

If you think the new government  will be bad for you IAW your indoctrination, then I recommend that you get your Bucket List in order and execute.

Thirty-nine to forty percent of Canadian citizens voted for Mr. Harper and his party's policies. *It can be stated* that another forty percent or so were happy with the status quo (Mr. Harper) and did not vote. Either way the newly elected government has a large majority.

In this election Canadian_ citizens_ voted for their vision of Canada. Apparently 





> not those things that make Canada CANADA to this immigrant


----------



## larry Strong (5 May 2011)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> acooper, you sound like you have been indoctrinated!
> 
> If you think the new government  will be bad for you IAW your indoctrination, then I recommend that you get your Bucket List in order and execute.
> 
> ...



My thoughts exactly.


----------



## Kirkhill (5 May 2011)

Discussions of country-shopping aside and returning to the main theme of this thread:  Leaders and leadership



			
				dapaterson said:
			
		

> And that is perhaps the most troubling failure of his leadership.  Good leaders plan to ensure succession - with sufficient depth that if Bloggins leaves there's still another one or two in the wings.
> 
> A PM should be grooming successors within the party.



As a result of this election I think you could safely add three names to the leadership pool:

Alexander;
Trottier;
Adams (Eve);

And both Prentice and MacKay are young enough to take another stab at leadership after Harper retires in 4 to 8 years.


----------



## dapaterson (5 May 2011)

Th acid test for the "new" Conservative party will be the election of its next leader.  There are still very real fissures between the Reform and PC sides of the party; the next leader could well split the party again.


----------



## Kirkhill (5 May 2011)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> Th acid test for the "new" Conservative party will be the election of its next leader.  There are still very real fissures between the Reform and PC sides of the party; the next leader could well split the party again.



Indeed,  as could the Waffle/Socialist (dare I say Quebec) Caucus split the NDP from its Unionist/CCF factions.  Or Blue and Orange Liberals (Manley vs Rae).  All parties have internal tensions.  

A chap name of David Fischer Hackett in a book called Albion's seed tracked modern US voting patterns to 17th century England.  I personally feel he stopped too soon and that you can track cultural tendencies back through Huguenot-Guise, Albret-Valois, Anjou-Capet, Carolingian-Ottonian, Franco-Saxon........animus.

It is not that the differences disappear.  It is that they are managed.  Harper manages those differences.  Laurier, King and St-Laurent managed their internal differences.  The secret for both the Liberals and the Tories will be to find conciliatory managers that still manage to hew to a recognized set of principles.


----------



## larry Strong (5 May 2011)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> The secret for both the Liberals and the Tories will be to find conciliatory *managers* that still manage to hew to a recognized set of principles.



And that's were I find we have a problem in Canada.....all we have are "Managers". This country has a large deficit when it comes to having "Leaders". And there is a big difference between the two words.

lead·er/ˈlēdər/Noun
1. The person who leads or commands a group, organization, or country.
2. A person followed by others.

man·ag·er/ˈmanijər/Noun
1. A person responsible for controlling or administering all or part of a company or similar organization: "the sales manager".


----------



## Kirkhill (5 May 2011)

Sorry Larry,

I don't want a Leader.   I just want a manager.  I don't want to be told where to go, what to do and what to think.  I get enough of that in my life without hiring someone to add to the misery.  

I want a good competent Secretary-Treasurer who will manage affairs to my satisfaction. 

The chap on the white horse at the head of the parade invariably leaves a trail of steaming ordure through which I must plod.  I'd rather he wasn't there.  The scenery also improves.


----------



## larry Strong (5 May 2011)

I quess we differ in our ideas of leadership, I view your definition as a "Boss" to me:

Leadership is a process by which a person influences others to accomplish an objective and directs the organization in a way that makes it more cohesive and coherent. This definition is similar to Northouse's  definition — Leadership is a process whereby an individual influences a group of individuals to achieve a common goal.


----------



## vonGarvin (5 May 2011)

Personally, I would much rather have a bonafide leader for the nation, one who offers a vision to Canadian of not how to spend money, but more of a philosophical ideal to which Canada should apsire.  Naturally, the devil is in the details, and that needs to be part of any government package, but people like Barack Obama, Adolf Hitler, John F Kennedy get elected not because of their policies, but because of their inspiring nature.

Using Hitler as an example is not meant to compare either Obama or Kennedy with him, but rather as a contrast.  All three were inspiring orators and really knew how to work a crowd.  They understood the pulse of their nations and were able to gain incredible support in their respective rise to power. The Hitler example serves as a warning for the rest of us that no matter how convincing that leader can appear to be, their true message needs examination.  But the first step, no matter what, is to inspire.


----------



## Kirkhill (5 May 2011)

Fair comment Larry.

However do "Leaders" have to be given power?   If they work by influence then surely they have all the power they need if they have a platform and freedom to speak and associate?  Do we really need to hand them the keys to the treasury as well?   

I'd rather separate the functions..... which brings to mind the division of duties amongst a King/Governor-General and his agent the Prime Minister and Parliament and its agent the Speaker.  King leads, Prime Minister defends, Parliament decides and the Speaker gives voice to Parliament's decisions to the King via the Prime Minister.

King/Speaker/Prime-Minister/Parliament (as keeper of the treasury keys) all roled into one doesn't suit me.  Even if the King pro tem is called a President.

I like the idea of a country of many "Leaders" influencing opinion with the Prime Minister merely taking advice from the populace.

TV - I agree that the precursor to everything is "inspiring" however for me it is enough that the person in question "inspire confidence".  I distrust people that "inspire" mass movements.  They are dangerous.  

Movements should not hinge on the actions of one individual.  Movements should occur over time as populations digest and consider the implications and adapt to the subsequent changes.

The most lasting changes are not those have have been imposed by revolution but those on which evolution has passed judgement.


----------



## mariomike (5 May 2011)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Naturally, the devil is in the details, and that needs to be part of any government package, but people like Barack Obama, Adolf Hitler, John F Kennedy get elected not because of their policies, but because of their inspiring nature.



From what I have read of the 1960 election, John F. Kennedy only inspired 49.7% of American voters to elect him, compared to Richard Nixon at 49.6%. 
Even that is not without controversy: 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1960#Controversies


----------



## Container (5 May 2011)

mariomike said:
			
		

> From what I have read of the 1960 election, John F. Kennedy only inspired 49.7% of American voters to elect him, compared to Richard Nixon at 49.6%.
> Even that is not without controversy:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1960#Controversies



Once Nov 22 rolled around Nixon didnt mind at all that Kennedy was in.....


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (5 May 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I love the idea of Rae taking some Orange Liberals to the NDP and Brison leading some Blue Liberals to the Conservatives and the Liberals finally getting smart and rebuilding as a party of the 'radical centre:'
> 
> 1. Fiscally conservative, at least as responsible as the Conservatives;
> 
> ...



I know you know this ERC, but I hope anybody rebuilding the party along those line would do their research right and find out the truth about St-Laurent's vision of Canada in the world: It was premised on strong, professional and recognized military forces as its backbone. 

BTW you all, a nice prankster here in Quebec took out a personal ad in a local newspapers. It read: "Seeking Ruth Ellen Brosseau - Please contact Jack".


----------



## GAP (5 May 2011)

Iggy has already landed a job at U of T as a senior lecturer....I forget of what...


----------



## Old Sweat (5 May 2011)

What a coincidence that a sinecure in academia just happened to come open a couple of days after he lost the election.


----------



## Journeyman (5 May 2011)

GAP said:
			
		

> Iggy has already landed a job at U of T as a senior lecturer....I forget of what...


Politics. 

"Those who can, do; those who can't, teach."   
His complete inability to "do" politics has groomed him to teach it.


----------



## Kirkhill (5 May 2011)

Senior Resident at Massey College

Previously held by Preston Manning, Bob Rae and Pierre Trudeau while they were "in transit".


----------



## observor 69 (5 May 2011)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> What a coincidence that a sinecure in academia just happened to come open a couple of days after he lost the election.



Perhaps this had something to do with it:

"The University of Toronto is where Ignatieff began his career in academia. He graduated from the University of Toronto with a history degree in 1969 and later earned his PhD at Harvard. He eventually taught at that alma mater as well, and other top-rated schools including Oxford, Cambridge and the London School of Economics."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/05/05/pol-ignatieff-massey.html


----------



## Journeyman (5 May 2011)

> John Fraser, master of the college, said the appointment follows a tradition of hiring well-known politicians
> or journalists who find themselves searching for work following retirement, *a brutal defeat or career setback*.


That's pretty stringent hiring criteria.  ;D


----------



## Old Sweat (5 May 2011)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> What a coincidence that a sinecure in academia just happened to come open a couple of days after he lost the election.



Do you wonder if he had shopped his resume around before the event? Just asking!

Bob, instead of answering go to the home of the Brewistas for el Cinco del Mayo.


----------



## GR66 (6 May 2011)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> Senior Resident at Massey College
> 
> Previously held by Preston Manning, Bob Rae and Pierre Trudeau while they were "in transit".



For some reason that old Sesame Street song keeps popping into my mind...

"One of these things is not like the others..."


----------



## PPCLI Guy (6 May 2011)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> What a coincidence that a sinecure in academia just happened to come open a couple of days after he lost the election.



Not a coincidence - he has impeccable academic credentials (I have a number of his books on my shelves, and I am willing to bet a pint of beer that Bob does too).  There was probably a long list of universities courting him.


----------



## a_majoor (6 May 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I love the idea of Rae taking some Orange Liberals to the NDP and Brison leading some Blue Liberals to the Conservatives and the Liberals finally getting smart and rebuilding as a party of the 'radical centre:'
> 
> 1. Fiscally conservative, at least as responsible as the Conservatives;
> 
> ...



And *here* is that party: http://www.libertarian.ca/


----------



## a_majoor (6 May 2011)

Looks like some battlespace preparation is taking place already:

http://cruxofthematterinfo.wordpress.com/2011/05/06/why-is-keynote-speaker-at-kincardine-s-s-symposium-justin-trudeau/



> *Why is keynote speaker at Kincardine S.S. symposium Justin Trudeau?*
> 
> May 6, 2011 by Sandy 4 Comments
> 
> ...


----------



## Cloud Cover (6 May 2011)

..."How Trudeau fits into that threesome is a puzzlement to me...'

- well.... after all he is his mother's son  :facepalm:.   


Perhaps he has been desensitized by the repeated character assassinations perpetrated on his family name and is thus the perfect political hunter/killer?


----------



## Redeye (6 May 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> And *here* is that party: http://www.libertarian.ca/



Wow.

No wonder they're a fringe party.


----------



## PPCLI Guy (6 May 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Wow.
> 
> No wonder they're a fringe party.



Hardly a fringe idea though.

I read the platform and shrugged.

So did Atlas  8)


----------



## Redeye (7 May 2011)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> Hardly a fringe idea though.
> 
> I read the platform and shrugged.
> 
> So did Atlas  8)


----------



## larry Strong (7 May 2011)

In light of Jack laytons health issues and a previously mentioned thought that he could be gone by fall, who would lead the NDP? I think it's a given that Thomas Muclair and Paul Dewar would throw in, and now that he is not in the Liberal fold you could possibly see Ujjal Dosanjh join the fray as well. But what about Linda Duncan?

 “She’s got tremendous personal credibility and experience on the environment file and she has tremendous contacts in Ottawa that preceded her being elected the first time around. She is really well connected with people across the board.” according to NDP MLA Rachel Notley. 

I have heard mention a couple times else where that Jack Layton came to Edmonton to unofficially 'crown' Linda Duncan as his replacement.

I would be interested in thoughts and opinions....


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (7 May 2011)

Larry Strong said:
			
		

> But what about Linda Duncan?
> 
> “She’s got tremendous personal credibility and experience on the environment file and she has tremendous contacts in Ottawa that preceded her being elected the first time around. She is really well connected with people across the board.” according to NDP MLA Rachel Notley.
> 
> I have heard mention a couple times else where that Jack Layton came to Edmonton to unofficially 'crown' Linda Duncan as his replacement.



Rachel Notley?  Did Twiddle Dum just do a free promotion for Twiddle Dee, the only other Socialist in Alberta.  They've come a long way since they met at Leon Trotsky's Proletariat Hairsylists.  One word - Makeover!


----------



## Fishbone Jones (7 May 2011)

There's no reason to think O Chow will leave politics when Jack does.


----------



## acooper (9 May 2011)

Who do you think I've been indoctrinated by? Honestly, most of those things that I'm concerned about don't directly affect me. I'm straight, married, and will never have an abortion in my life, ever. If the Conservatives see attempts to change such things as political suicide, great, that's better for all of us I think. 

To me, Canada is a country where equal rights for all are respected, and is a country that takes care of its people via health care. It's also a place of more civilized politics than where I grew up - the US. I'm not going to go running back if things get changed by the Conservatives - my husband is a CF member, and I know I'm in this for the long haul.  If Harper can show that he can keep his religion and politics separated, that will go a LONG way towards gaining my confidence. And yes, I'm intending to get my Citizenship as soon as is feasible for us, and I WILL vote.


----------



## Redeye (9 May 2011)

My wife immigrated to Canada from the United States in 2002 and became a citizen in 2007, and has made sure she voted in every election.  She grew up in the Deep South in a very conservative family but finds pretty much everything about their politics to be utterly revolting.  She would never go back, and actually made inquiries about renouncing her US citizenship when she became a Canadian to formally walk away.  Then Barack Obama won the election and she thought there may be some hope for them yet.

She sounds more or less like you - sees no reason to intrude on the freedoms of others which conservatives, especially in the US, seem hell bent on doing.  The idea of "small government" still deciding it should discriminate against homosexuals and make reproductive decisions for women is abhorrent to her and should be to anyone rational, I'd say.  As she put it, she'd doesn't think she could ever choose to have an abortion - but she's never been in the position, and wouldn't presume to make that choice for someone else.  Likewise, she sees no reason to deny anyone the right to marry the person they love, because that also shouldn't be for the state to decide.

Fortunately, it seems Harper has a good understanding that if he doesn't reflect social values of Canadians, he won't get to stay in office, because I suspect that reopening long settled debates would be an effective way of getting people out in droves to vote against him.  Hopefully the more fringe members of his party have made the same deduction.



			
				acooper said:
			
		

> Who do you think I've been indoctrinated by? Honestly, most of those things that I'm concerned about don't directly affect me. I'm straight, married, and will never have an abortion in my life, ever. If the Conservatives see attempts to change such things as political suicide, great, that's better for all of us I think.
> 
> To me, Canada is a country where equal rights for all are respected, and is a country that takes care of its people via health care. It's also a place of more civilized politics than where I grew up - the US. I'm not going to go running back if things get changed by the Conservatives - my husband is a CF member, and I know I'm in this for the long haul.  If Harper can show that he can keep his religion and politics separated, that will go a LONG way towards gaining my confidence. And yes, I'm intending to get my Citizenship as soon as is feasible for us, and I WILL vote.


----------



## Journeyman (9 May 2011)

PPCLI Guy said:
			
		

> (I have a number of his books on my shelves, and I am willing to bet a pint of beer that Bob does too).


I just happen to have _Virtual War_ and _The Lesser Evil_ at hand


----------



## Edward Campbell (9 May 2011)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> I just happen to have _Virtual War_ and _The Lesser Evil_ at hand




I too have Ignatieff on my book-shelf. His biography of Isaiah Berlin is exceptionally well written and, I think, offers us some insights into a Michael Ignatieff we did not see during his sojourn in Canadian politics. Ignatieff appears, to me - through the pages of _Isaiah Berlin: A Life_, to be a true *l*iberal who, really, belongs in a 21st century *c*onservative party, not in the Liberal Party of Toronto.


----------



## Infanteer (9 May 2011)

Politics is, as the one commentator noted, a bloodsport and Ignatieff's academic credentials/critical thinking abilities were moot - he couldn't master the arena and find an effective way to employ them (if there even is a way) and was fed to the lions.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (9 May 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> to me - through the pages of _Isaiah Berlin: A Life_, to be a true *l*iberal who, really, belongs in a 21st century *c*onservative party, not in the Liberal Party of Toronto.



When he was spouting Socialist rhetoric, I really didn't believe his sincerity, nor apparently did anyone else.

The Liberals simply have to make a break with the commies because in another 10 years when the Conservatives have earned an arse kicking, I want an alternative that won't ruin the country.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (9 May 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Fortunately, it seems Harper has a good understanding that if he doesn't reflect social values of Canadians, he won't get to stay in office, because I suspect that reopening long settled debates would be an effective way of getting people out in droves to vote against him.  Hopefully the more fringe members of his party have made the same deduction.



my question for you is this- The abortion and gay marriage legality was installed by the courts, and not by acts of parliament.  Not withstanding the argument for or against either of those issues, but do you want to live in a country where unelected and partisan judges make law, or in a country where elected members do so.  For my part, I would prefer to live in a country where laws are made to reflect the will of the people rather than the opinion of a judge.


----------



## GAP (9 May 2011)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> my question for you is this- The abortion and gay marriage legality was installed by the courts, and not by acts of parliament.  Not withstanding the argument for or against either of those issues, but do you want to live in a country where unelected and partisan judges make law, or in a country where elected members do so.  For my part, I would prefer to live in a country where laws are made to reflect the will of the people rather than the opinion of a judge.



It matters not if it is not directly affecting you.....


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (9 May 2011)

What if it is affecting me? What if the judge had said that abortion was illegal, and murder, and my wife and i wanted an abortion? Is it now just that the personal opinion of a conservative judge has affected my life?  And if so, what say do I have over this change? Can I un-elect the judge? nope.  That's the point... by having laws, or lack there of, dictated by the legal world instead of being implemented by a legally elected government we're essentially placing the power over our lives in the hands of those without any real accountability to the majority.

The outcome of the laws is not the important point... it's the implementation of social policy by those not accountable that is.  Dont confuse the fact that recent judicial decisions have benefited the left to be indicative of a permanent state of being... one conservative judge with the right case could really throw the left's udaloop out of whack.


----------



## dapaterson (9 May 2011)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> my question for you is this- The abortion and gay marriage legality was installed by the courts, and not by acts of parliament.  Not withstanding the argument for or against either of those issues, but do you want to live in a country where unelected and partisan judges make law, or in a country where elected members do so.  For my part, I would prefer to live in a country where laws are made to reflect the will of the people rather than the opinion of a judge.



I prefer to live in a country where Parliament is constrained by a constitution protecting me from Parliament.


----------



## Redeye (9 May 2011)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> What if it is affecting me? What if the judge had said that abortion was illegal, and murder, and my wife and i wanted an abortion? Is it now just that the personal opinion of a conservative judge has affected my life?  And if so, what say do I have over this change? Can I un-elect the judge? nope.  That's the point... by having laws, or lack there of, dictated by the legal world instead of being implemented by a legally elected government we're essentially placing the power over our lives in the hands of those without any real accountability to the majority.
> 
> The outcome of the laws is not the important point... it's the implementation of social policy by those not accountable that is.  Dont confuse the fact that recent judicial decisions have benefited the left to be indicative of a permanent state of being... one conservative judge with the right case could really throw the left's udaloop out of whack.



If a judge made a decision to prohibit something, then that's a different story.  In both cases referred to, the courts simply held that the applicable laws were not constitutional.  They cannot make laws, only the legislature can, but they can determine that laws aren't enforceable if they don't meet consitutional standards.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (9 May 2011)

You are correct... it is the absence of laws that in real terms makes both things legal, or at least the grey area of "not unlegal".  My point is what if the judge or supreme court read both cases the other way?  The government always selects justices who are more likely to back their particular views.  The judges and lawyers determine the validity of laws, which is their role.  However, it is still up to the government to close the holes.  I wish that the government would either A) Pass laws making such things legal, or B) make constitutional amendments (and go through the long process of getting an amendment made). 

Note- This view is free of a viewpoint on either subject.  Personally, I am pro-both.  I just want my elected representatives to,  as they say, s*it or get off the pot, and do their jobs, and not leave controversial subjects to unelected judges.


----------



## observor 69 (9 May 2011)

Infanteer said:
			
		

> Politics is, as the one commentator noted, a bloodsport and Ignatieff's academic credentials/critical thinking abilities were moot - he couldn't master the arena and find an effective way to employ them (if there even is a way) and was fed to the lions.



Or he couldn't overcome the handicap of his "academic credentials/critical thinking abilities" to become a true "politician  >."


----------



## ModlrMike (10 May 2011)

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> Or he couldn't overcome the handicap of his "academic credentials/critical thinking abilities" to become a true "politician  >."



Perhaps he relied too much on them. It's not a political sin to be a thinker, but that has to be buttressed by being a doer as well. Conversely, a doer can surround himself with thinkers and still get the job done. I think that people want their PMs to be good doers more than thinkers.


----------



## Kirkhill (10 May 2011)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Perhaps he relied too much on them. It's not a political sin to be a thinker, but that has to be buttressed by being a doer as well. Conversely, a doer can surround himself with thinkers and still get the job done. I think that people want their PMs to be good doers more than thinkers.



I think you're right Mike.

Over my career I have tackled lots of tasks, par for the course for anybody in the applied sciences.  One thing I discovered about myself was that I made a lousy serviceman.  It wasn't the quality of my diagnoses, or even my mechanical skills that were at issue.  It was that I could never state with certainty and confidence that my solution would fix the problem.  I always see things in terms of probabilities.  

Customers and voters don't want to be told "this will probably solve the problem but there is a 5% chance it could blow your plant/country up".

I eventually learned to work with some really confident, focused servicemen that would tell the customer "the problem is fixed".   (And when the plant blew up we sent in another serviceman  ;D)


----------



## a_majoor (10 May 2011)

A very valid point has been raised; how much authority does Parliament really have? Unelected judges can undo laws or "read in" things that the legislature never put into law. Bureaucrats can implement regulations which effectively have the force of law, and in the United States we see the use of "executive orders" which attempt to bypass the Congress and the Supreme Court (and given Canada is actually more centralized than the United States there is really no reason similar things can't be done through the PMO/PCO).

Prime Minister Harper effectively won his majority through tight management and control, which allowed him to shepard his government through several minorities while being able to pass legislation and lay the groundwork for the realignment we see today; one would hardly see him renouncing a "winning" leadership style, so the concentration of power in the executive will continue.

An unintended consequence (or perhaps an intended one) will be the diminishing powers of the bureaucracy; this government will gradually starve them out in the name of financial responsibility. 

The issue of the Judiciary is much harder to deal with; Judges are appointed and serve for extended periods of time, so their influence outlasts the government which installed them. I have seen few trial balloons from the government or the CPC on this issue, so have no idea what they might have in mind. Public hearings to find out where nominated individuals stand would be useful, and perhaps shorter judicial terms (perhaps a decade) to allow new blood to enter the system would be doable.

On one other issue I believe the Prime Minister could make a lasting impact on Canadian politics; formally recognizing the right to own property. This might be done as a Parliamentary resolution and instruction that any proposed legislation must be written with legal property ownership in mind. This would resolve the largest hole in the 1982 Constitution Act. 

It would also (in political terms) drive the NDP's socialist caucus wild (about 40% of the NDP caucus, if various different sources are right), unhinging the opposition. It would also nullify the various anti government enablers in the media, academia and the bureaucracy, since they wold be unable to craft a coherent "narrative" to bludgeon the government ("The evil Harper conservatives want you to be able to OWN PROPERTY!!!"). While coherence hasn't been much of a factor in the past, the continuing inability of the opposition and their enablers to make any coherent anti-government narratives will keep them on "ignore" for most of the population, and really put a crimp on Jack Layton or Elizabeth May to expand their appeal (which will also limit the ability of any successors to gain traction as well).


----------



## Infanteer (10 May 2011)

Thucydides,

1.  On the judiciary - they only enforce and interpret the Constitution that Parliament put into effect.  If we, through Parliament, don't like those interpretations then we should change the constitution.

2.  On reform of the PMO - yes, it has hard to ask someone to reform a system that created that person's success.  One can hope though....

3.  On judicial appointment and term length - definately worth exploring.

4.  On property - couldn't agree more.


----------



## a_majoor (11 May 2011)

The LPC leadership is simply not interested or capable of renewal. (Other blogs point out the reason to skew the rules for the interim leader is to prevent Bob Rae from taking the position. Freezing out what little talent you have is hardly a prescription for success):

http://stevejanke.com/archives/316004.php



> *Liberal leadership terrified of renewal*
> Tuesday, May 10, 2011 at 09:55 PM
> Comments: 5
> 
> ...


----------



## Rifleman62 (11 May 2011)

> .....really put a crimp on Jack Layton or Elizabeth May to expand their appeal.....



Elizabeth May is a nobody. She is going to be sitting in the last seat, top row, left hand corner, out of sight and out of mind.

She did whatever she could to get onto the gravy train.  I wonder what the voters of her riding were thinking to not elect a cabinet minister. Well it is the Left coast, BC.

We may hear May's trademark hysterical announcements from time to time when there are no cat deaths in Ottawa to report. 

The only thing that is going to expand is her, the consequences of eating in the Parliamentary Restaurant.

Layton is going to have a problem at the next NDP convention fighting off the ambitious Doubting Thomas.


----------



## GAP (11 May 2011)

NDP being offered the cream of Canada’s unions
BILL CURRY OTTAWA— From Tuesday's Globe and Mail  Tuesday, May 10, 2011
Article Link

Canada’s unions are offering their best and brightest for the large number of jobs the NDP must fill as soon as possible.

The huge growth of the NDP caucus means close to 300 positions are now open. Given that many of the MPs will be rookies themselves, hiring quality staff becomes even more important. 

On average, an MP will have about two full-time staff on Parliament Hill and another two in the riding office. But the NDP is also in line for a larger central staffing budget for research and communications in the OLO – Opposition Leader’s Office.

Unlike other parties that allow MPs to hire and fire staff largely at will, NDP staffers are unionized, meaning jobs must first be offered internally and decisions can be challenged.

On its face, that suggests added hurdles for a party that is under the gun to get ready for the new session. But given the sheer volume of openings, New Democrats insist the union rules aren’t likely to cause delay.

Jack Layton will make his first major speech as Opposition Leader on Wednesday when he addresses a meeting of the Canadian Labour Congress in Vancouver.

The NDP staff operate under Local 232 of the Communications, Energy and Paperworkers Union. Dave Coles, the CEP president, said he and other union leaders agreed Monday in Vancouver at the CLC conference to identify strong staff members to offer the NDP. 
More on link


----------



## Journeyman (11 May 2011)

GAP said:
			
		

> But given the sheer volume of openings opportunity to get their snouts into the cash trough, New Democrats insist the union rules aren’t likely to cause delay.


There was a slight typo there


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (11 May 2011)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Elizabeth May is a nobody. She is going to be sitting in the last seat, top row, left hand corner, out of sight and out of mind.
> 
> She did whatever she could to get onto the gravy train.  I wonder what the voters of her riding were thinking to not elect a cabinet minister. Well it is the Left coast, BC.
> 
> ...



Agree.  The Green Party won a seat, but lost a lot of popular support nation wide because their glorious leader decided that her time would be better spent ensuring that SHE had a job, and not looking out for the best interests of the party.


----------



## a_majoor (11 May 2011)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> Elizabeth May is a nobody. She is going to be sitting in the last seat, top row, left hand corner, out of sight and out of mind.
> 
> Layton is going to have a problem at the next NDP convention fighting off the ambitious Doubting Thomas.



While both these things are true; in the long run they are not only bad for their parties, but also the CPC and by extension, all of us. Reform put a lot of heavy pressure on the Liberal government of the day to finally take action against the deficit (the first Liberal Majority government in 1993 did not believe the deficit and debt were problems at all), and had they been more capable, they would have forced the government to consider changes to many other bills, and perhaps also to not use Enron like accounting practices to solve the deficit (putting billions off the books by shifting it to the provinces, for example, and raiding EI for another) .

A weak and incoherent opposition (which like it or not is what we have gotten for at least the next year, possibly longer) will not be able to challenge the government in any meaningful way, allowing complacency to set in. Classically educated readers will know it is a short step from there to _Hubris_; just before the Olympian gods destroy them.


----------



## a_majoor (11 May 2011)

Drum roll please:

http://www.kathrynmarshall.ca/uncategorized/a-look-at-possible-liberal-leadership-contenders/



> *A look at possible Liberal leadership contenders*
> 
> May 11, 2011
> 
> ...


----------



## observor 69 (12 May 2011)

And in QC today: #NDP MP Ruth Ellen Brosseau speaks! TVA has the exclusive 1st French interview: http://bit.ly/mc6Ksj #cdnpoli


----------



## Rifleman62 (12 May 2011)

To prove your point re the opposition Thucydides, I believe Jack campaigned on this course of action.  

*Clement hauls fuel industry onto carpet*

CP - May 12, 2011 

TORONTO - Federal Industry Minister Tony Clement wants gasoline refiners, distributors and retailers to show up in Ottawa and answer questions about volatile gas prices.

Clement told a news conference held outside the home of a Toronto MP that the government knows high gas prices are pinching the wallets of Canadians.

That's why the federal government is setting up a committee to look into the "complex" issue and get answers from oil executives about why gas is so expensive.

Clement did not say when meetings between the government and fuel producers would take place.


----------



## observor 69 (12 May 2011)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> That's why the federal government is setting up a committee  to look into the "complex" issue and get answers  from oil executives about why gas is so expensive.
> 
> Clement did not say  when meetings between the government and fuel producers would take place.



[Sarcasm on] Ya that ought to do it. [/Sarcasm]


----------



## Rifleman62 (12 May 2011)

True, and I scoffed at Jack's premise at the time of his announcement, as you scoff at the whole concept.

My point was that I was agreeing with Thucydides re the idea of a relevant opposition. 

Mr. Harper, it has been said, gets along with Jack for various reasons, while he did not get along with the LPC for one main reason.


----------



## CougarKing (12 May 2011)

Thucydides can add Marc Garneau to the list in his post above:



> *Garneau vies for interim Liberal leadership
> 
> Marc Garneau has officially put his name forward to be the interim leader of the federal Liberal Party, CBC News has learned.*
> 
> ...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (12 May 2011)

> Garneau vies for interim Liberal leadership
> 
> Marc Garneau has officially put his name forward to be the interim leader of the federal Liberal Party, CBC News has learned.
> Former Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff quit his post after leading the party to its worst showing in history in the May 2 federal election.
> ...



Of coarse! He will get the recognition he's been craving since being invited into such a sacrosanct group, without the responsibility, according to latest reports, of not having to run for the leadership position.

Imagine "I carried the party through this quagmire of rejection, and rebuilt them into the driving force and the 'Natural Governing Party' that we are entitled to."

He's just guaranteed himself a Senate appointment as soon as the libs can swing it. Really, other than being a tour guide at NASA, like I saw Marc Garneiu doing that on TV tonight, what else has he got going for himself (I haven't Googled it) . I won't deny the being an Astronaut is pretty cool and a highly skilled job. Being RANGER qual'd is pretty cool too. There is a gazillion things you can do, that others can't. There is no ladder to compare. Do JTF risk their lives more than Astronauts? These true Warriors do what they do out of a sense of duty. They do what they are trained to do, according to their job classification. It's got nothing to do with what's good for you regular Canadians and all about job security and money. I'll qualify that by saying there are MP's from all parties that would do their job for nothing, just for the privilege of serving their constituents. However, for many other MP's, it's a free ride to a good, cheap and early collectable pension. The previous seem to get poisened by the latter before too long.  Marc Garnieu's enemy was gravity, which we've pretty well tackled, Our Privates and Corporals are facing an enemy whose parameters can't even be defined at ground level.

I don't want to draw parallels, but I'm sure some wiil try. Before you do, imagine the difference between Fast Air (or  Artillery) and the guys in actual contact on  the ground in the grape vines. Who has the more intimate grasp of what is happening? Who should really be listened to.

The problem is, the libs are still trying to provide max control over their party. Look at the arguments about who can vote, who can input, who can decide. 

The only thing that makes this an existing party, is the fact that some of the shareholders that list the Liberal Party as their actual job, still need to maintain their job status.

This party needs to declare bankruptcy, go through a structured re-org, and reemerge as a NEW party. The LIBERAL tag in Canada is dead. They need to reinvent themselves. Give themselves a new mandate, and above all A NEW NAME without the word LIBERAL in it.


----------



## GAP (16 May 2011)

Four former Liberal leadership contenders still owe $576,000 in bank loans
Several of the candidates struggling to repay the five-year-old leadership loans were still fundraising as the May election approached.
By TIM NAUMETZ Published May 16, 2011 
Article Link

Four Liberal MPs who lost the May 2 election still owe a total of $576,000 among them in loans for the party's 2006 leadership campaign—and their chances of drumming up donations to pay it all off have slimmed considerably.

Martha Hall Findlay, toppled by a Conservative in her affluent Willowdale riding in Toronto, said it was tough to generate contributions as MP Hall Findlay, and it can only be tougher as ordinary citizen Hall Findlay.

She and several of the candidates struggling to repay the five-year-old leadership loans were still fundraising as the May election approached. They registered contributions with Elections Canada as late as March 18, only eight days before Prime Minister Stephen Harper (Calgary Southwest, Alta.) called the vote.

"For sure it's going to be more difficult," Ms. Hall Findlay told The Hill Times, arguing a unique Elections Act cap on contributions to leadership candidates and the unusually large field of candidates, 11, have made fundraising to repay the loans comparable to searching for rare coins or lost treasure.

Anyone who has donated to any of the candidates for the contest that took place more than five years ago, and has reached their $1,100 Elections Act limit in leadership contributions for that specific contest, is prohibited from donating any more money to any of the candidates, anytime.

Ms. Hall Findlay, who lent her own campaign $125,000, said the pool of willing and available donors was being shared by 11 candidates from the outset and it has only grown smaller as the big stars—former party leader Stéphane Dion (Saint-Laurent-Cartierville, Que.) recently resigned leader Michael Ignatieff and Toronto MP Bob Rae (Toronto-Centre, Ont.)—gobbled up large donations from the largest number of donors.

"It's so difficult anyway because the pool from which to gain any more contributions for a 2006 leadership was already diminished in 2007 and 2008," Ms. Hall Findlay said. "We all pulled together to get what we could, there just isn't that much out there."

Gerard Kennedy, whose Parkdale-High Park riding in Toronto reverted to New Democrat Peggy Nash, still owes $126,963 in loans and $37,230 in unpaid claims. Joe Volpe, who lost Eglinton-Lawrence in Toronto to Conservative Joe Oliver, has a debt of $73,079. Ken Dryden, who lost York Centre in Toronto despite a last-minute rally by Michael Ignatieff and former prime minister Jean Chrétien, still owes $91,603 in loans and $122,984 in unpaid claims. 
More on link


----------



## ModlrMike (16 May 2011)

GAP said:
			
		

> Four former Liberal leadership contenders still owe $576,000 in bank loans



Isn't there some form of time limit by which the loans have to be repaid?


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 May 2011)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Isn't there some form of time limit by which the loans have to be repaid?




Yes, but Elections Canada has granted waiver after waiver.

There are, I think two sensible options:

1. Forgive the parts of the debt that are _public_ - probably not too much - and allow the candidates to negotiate something just short of personal bankruptcy to manage the rest; or

2.  Have the debts paid for them. Again there are two options -

a. Force the Liberal Party of Canada to pay off the debts, or

b. Pay the debts from _public_ funds - your tax dollars and mine - and use that as a lever to force thoroughgoing reforms to political financing in Canada.


Edit: format/typo


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (17 May 2011)

I have donated to a leadership campaign a while back.  It was a $20 into a KFC bucket.  I suspect it and more put gas in the car on the way out of town.  I would not object to no laws on leadership campaigns.  If someone has no rich friends nor popular appeal, I guess they are not suited to lead.


----------



## ModlrMike (17 May 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Yes, but Elections Canada has granted waiver after waiver.
> 
> There are, I think two sensible options:



You forgot option 3:

Enforce the regulations, stop granting waivers and demand payment.


----------



## CougarKing (19 May 2011)

An update:

link



> *Rae gives up on permanent Liberal leadership, goes for interim post*
> By The Canadian Press | The Canadian Press – 58 minutes ago
> …
> ....OTTAWA - Bob Rae is shelving his long-term leadership ambitions in order to become interim leader of the devastated federal Liberal party.
> ...


----------



## Old Sweat (20 May 2011)

This column by Lawrence Martin from the Globe and Mail site is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provision of the Copyright Act. One suspects Mr Martin is warning the left of the dire (unstated) consequences to come. 


LAWRENCE MARTIN: 
Behold the most powerful PM ever

 Posted on Fri, May 20, 2011, 4:31 am by Lawrence Martin 


By historical standards, the Conservative majority that Canadians have elected is a small one. With 103 seats, the NDP has as much representation as any second-place party has ever had.

But to say Stephen Harper’s majority is smallish would be to veer wildly off the mark.

It could be argued that on May 2 Canada elected its most powerful government ever, a juggernaut stronger than the 200-plus seats majorities of John Diefenbaker or Brian Mulroney, a government with fewer obstacles in its path than the heavyweight Liberal governments, a government that could well be here for a three-term or 12-year run.

It sounds farfetched until you examine the infrastructure of power and the control Stephen Harper now has over it.

What other prime minister has enjoyed, in combination, all the following advantages:
•A fractured opposition and decimated Liberal party.
•An overpowering political machine that doubles and triples rivals in financial resources.
•A preponderant media advantage with most of the big fourth-estate players on side.
•A public service more submissive than ever before.
•Agencies and watchdog groups that are intimidated or stacked with governing party partisans.
•A majority in the Senate and the House, plus command over an increasingly dysfunctional parliamentary committee structure.
•A bossist structure in the governing party that allows no dissent from within.

Some governments have enjoyed many of these advantages, as well as some others listed below. But none has had them all. In the Canadian system, there are few checks and balances on a majority government. As has been written many times, power has evolved to the prime minister at an unrelenting pace. The trend reached its apex with the recent election. If there are any checks left, they are hard to find. Constitutional experts say it is largely up to the prime minister to respect the conventions of the system and establish his own limits of power out of respect for democracy.

But what gives this majority government even more thrust is the domineering character of Mr. Harper who has shown no hesitation in challenging the authority of the legislative branch and running roughshod over other obstacles.

Though few were impressed by his campaign, the election result turned out perfectly as far as he is concerned. The Liberals have been reduced to third place, an advantage Conservatives have never before enjoyed. Mr. Harper has the added benefit of having as his chief opponent a party of the left which, through its history, has rarely registered support above 20 per cent.

In the past, Tory majorities were usually reliant on a fragile coalition of the West and Quebec. Now the Conservatives have the West and Ontario, a more reliable alliance that will have added weight when, through redistribution, the West and Ontario gain 30 or more seats.

The fundraising advantage of the Tories is greater than ever, allowing this prime minister to pummel opponents with attack ads between elections — campaigns that opponents can’t afford to counter. It will only get harder for them when the PM fulfills his pledge to eliminate public subsidies for political parties.

In the media, the Harper superiority can hardly be overstated. Among the country’s major major media, the NDP, incredibly enough, does not have a single message supporter unless one counts the Toronto Star, which is traditionally Liberal. The country’s media proprietors are hardly fans of left-leaning ideology. By and large their sympathies reside with the Conservatives.

Two huge chains, Sun Media and Postmedia, are strongly conservative. The two national newspapers, the National Post and the Globe and Mail, are conservative. Maclean’s is run by a conservative. AM radio is largely right wing.

As with fundraising and seat distribution, the advantage on the media front is broadening. There is the addition of Sun TV, a network devoted to conservative causes run by a former Harper adviser. The Diefenbaker and Mulroney governments would have given anything to have so much support in the media infrastructure.

Controlling the message is the key to power. Many wonder why the many revelations of ethical corruption don’t stick to the Harper Conservatives. One reason is because the media — particularly the conservative media — don’t stick with them. They move on to the next-day’s news.

Mr. Harper’s well-known penchant for secrecy and message control got a welcome boost last week with a Supreme Court decision on privacy that his team will likely interpret as a licence to withhold any information it pleases. Retirements at the Supreme Court give the prime minister power to give the court, if he chooses, a more conservative lean.

Majority governments of old often faced challenges from within. In the cabinets of those administrations were regional power barons who could stand up to the prime minister of the day. Today’s cabinet is under Mr. Harper’s thumb. The prime minister faces no prospective challenger, unlike Jean Chretien, who enjoyed many of the same power advantages but was constantly looking over his shoulder at Paul Martin. In past governments such as that of Mackenzie King, senior civil servants held power that could put checks on the Prime Minister’s Office. Not so today. In past governments, watchdog agencies weren’t run by lapdog appointees.

Not to be overlooked on the power meter is the influence this government has gained in ethnic communities and in the powerful Jewish community that used to support the Liberals but now is largely behind the Conservatives.

Not to be overlooked — and a credit to Mr. Harper’s skills — is one of most powerful on-the-ground political organizations Canadian politics has ever seen.

All things considered, the prime minister is outfitted with a power package that is unprecedented in scope. A new conservative era has taken root and Stephen Harper is in position to reshape Canada for almost as long as he chooses.


----------



## Rifleman62 (20 May 2011)

Power, love it!

Who forced the election?

Old Connie Francis song: "Whose Sorry Now"    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjHJ_snG3RI

And the media did everything possible to make sure the  CPC went down to defeat, so 

"Cry Me A River"    http://www.last.fm/music/Julie+London/_/Cry+Me+A+River


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (20 May 2011)

Just remembered, from an old Roman cartoon (about Ex Rendez-vous 81):

"Power corrupts, and absolute power is even better".


----------



## Fishbone Jones (20 May 2011)

Boy, the libs and their supporters just can't stop living in denial and move on, can they?

Demonizing the PM, when their own past gov'ts like Chretien's (who also ruled with an iron fist) and was rife with proven corruption, (as opposed to the drummed up fantasy charges levelled at the CPC before the election) are conveniently forgotten.

Canadians saw through the charade of the charlatans and sent the instigators to oblivion. Unfortunately, for them and fortunate for Canadians, the libs are the only one in total disbelief and denial.

The country has moved on. If they don't, they belong in the past. They have absolutely nothing to blame for their demise, except their own egos, pompous arrogance and belief that they were the 'natural governing party' and Canadians were a flock of sheep to be herded for their own good, whether they wanted to be or not.


----------



## Redeye (20 May 2011)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> And the media did everything possible to make sure the  CPC went down to defeat, so



The media that almost universally endorsed Stephen Harper and the Conservatives?  Really?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (20 May 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> The media that almost universally endorsed Stephen Harper and the Conservatives?  Really?



Not until they realized it was a done deal, before coming on board. 

You can't seriously defend the State Broadcaster as pro CPC or the Red Star to name just a couple. Really?


----------



## GAP (20 May 2011)

With the exception of Sun News, and a couple of daytime talk hosts, most of the media played up the "what if" angle.....as said, once it was a done deal, they all scurried to climb onboard......strangely, it makes me think of rats huddling on a wooden plank, being tossed about by stormy seas..... :nod:


----------



## ModlrMike (20 May 2011)

A weak attempt by Mr Martin to blame the Conservatives for winning.


----------



## Old Sweat (20 May 2011)

And here is something for the Liberals to think about over the long weekend from the National Post website:

http://news.nationalpost.com/2011/05/20/government-to-end-party-subsidies-in-next-budget/


----------



## observor 69 (20 May 2011)

Globe Editorial
The Globe’s election endorsement: Facing up to our challenges 
From Thursday's Globe and Mail 
Published Wednesday, Apr. 27, 2011 10:42PM EDT
Last updated Saturday, Apr. 30, 2011 2:13PM EDT

"
Only Stephen Harper and the Conservative Party have shown the leadership, the bullheadedness (let's call it what it is) and the discipline this country needs. He has built the Conservatives into arguably the only truly national party, and during his five years in office has demonstrated strength of character, resolve and a desire to reform. Canadians take Mr. Harper's successful stewardship of the economy for granted, which is high praise. He has not been the scary character portrayed by the opposition; with some exceptions, his government has been moderate and pragmatic."

More at LINK


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (20 May 2011)

I have to say, I would agree (in part anyway) with one of the comments following that article in the National Post.

We should not act like hypocrites: If we take the view that we should not subsidize political parties from the public purse but leave it to the individuals to support the parties they will, then we should also dispose of the 75% tax credit that accompanies political donations. After all, that tax break a contributor gets is made up from the "extra" taxes I have to pay to cover my part of it regardless of whether I support that party or not.

I say end both (after all, with my "discretionary" funds, I can chose to buy a book - and get no tax break -or support a political party - in which case, why should I get a break?).


----------



## Edward Campbell (20 May 2011)

Oldgateboatdriver said:
			
		

> I have to say, I would agree (in part anyway) with one of the comments following that article in the National Post.
> 
> We should not act like hypocrites: If we take the view that we should not subsidize political parties from the public purse but leave it to the individuals to support the parties they will, then we should also dispose of the 75% tax credit that accompanies political donations. After all, that tax break a contributor gets is made up from the "extra" taxes I have to pay to cover my part of it regardless of whether I support that party or not.
> 
> I say end both (after all, with my "discretionary" funds, I can chose to buy a book - and get no tax break -or support a political party - in which case, why should I get a break?).




I agree with you in principle, OGBD, but not in practice. In practice, unless we want to let corporate and union money back in, we need some forms of public subsidies, including:

1. Tax breaks - which reward the $100.00 donor proportionately more than the $1,000.00 donor - to encourage even greater public participation; and

2. Free advertising on TV and radio -

a. as a condition of a broadcast licence,

b. in reasonable, including peak, listening/viewing hours, and

c. in proportion to the voters earned in the last general election.


----------



## observor 69 (20 May 2011)

And now for a man who knows he has increasingly slim odds of becoming a leader:

Thursday, May 19, 2011 2:45 PM EDT

Peter MacKay gets a wingman on military procurement 
JANE TABER 

Peter MacKay has to share his Defence portfolio with Julian Fantino now, a move revealed in a cabinet reorganization that’s fuelled speculation about his relationship with Stephen Harper.

It’s no secret that Mr. MacKay, who once led the Progressive Conservative Party, is not exactly best friends with the Prime Minister. Indeed, he has been gradually losing his powers.

After the 2008 election, the regional development agency he headed, ACOA, was taken away. And then at Wednesday’s swearing-in, Mr. MacKay found himself still at the helm of the Department of National Defence but with a seemingly lesser role after Mr. Fantino was named Associate Minister of Defence.

Dimitri Soudas, the Prime Minister’s director of communications, explained that Mr. Fantino – the former top cop in Toronto and Ontario – will be responsible for defence procurement. It’s a huge responsibility given the National Defence budget is about $22-billion and between 14 and 16 per cent is for procurement.

Later, however, Mr. MacKay made it very clear he still remains the chief, telling reporters that Mr. Fantino reports to him.

“He’ll be reporting up through me on these procurement files and Julian has tremendous experience within a chain of command, as you know, having worked in law enforcement,” Mr. MacKay said.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/


----------



## GAP (20 May 2011)

> 1. Tax breaks - which reward the $100.00 donor proportionately more than the $1,000.00 donor - to encourage even greater public participation; and



The Tax discount is already 75%....and you want to go higher?


----------



## Edward Campbell (20 May 2011)

GAP said:
			
		

> The Tax discount is already 75%....and you want to go higher?




Yes: let's give the smallest donor - party membership of $10.00 plus $10.00 per month = $130.00/year - an 85% tax concession. Let's make it really, really easy, even attractive for 'ordinary Canadians' without much spare money to get involved with the party of their choice. Let's give the people who donate up top $610.00/year (membership + $50 per month) a 70% _discount_ on the next $480.00, and let's give the remainder, folks like me, who give $1,100.00/year a 60% tax break on the remaining $490.00. That way we encourage political participation by everyone and, while we reward all those who donate, we reward the 'little guy' most.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (20 May 2011)

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> And now for a man who knows he has increasingly slim odds of becoming a leader:
> 
> Thursday, May 19, 2011 2:45 PM EDT
> 
> ...



Let's call this what it is, second guessing and hyperbole. Trying to create dissention where none really exists. Another case of the news media trying to create the news instead of reporting it.

Complete speculation. Fantino did a good job getting re-elected and is receiving his reward for doing so. Nothing more than that. This now positions him to take a more senior position, down the line, without being accused of inexperience.

If the press should have learned anything in the last 10 years, it's that the PM is normally about three steps ahead of anyone else that is watching him.


----------



## Dennis Ruhl (20 May 2011)

Laurie Hawn was A Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Defence.  There were 2 before, the title just sounds better.


----------



## Oldgateboatdriver (21 May 2011)

I agree with Recceguy's view of the article.

It was always clear that Mr. Fantino was destined to enter the cabinet and to get a senior post, and that he would need some experience as a junior minister first.

I cant think of too many senior cabinet members that would be as good as Peter Mackay to train and develop a new junior minister. If I was the Minister of Defense, I would actually be pleased and think it an honour that the Prime Minister selected me to mentor and bring Mr. Fantino up to speed.


----------



## Kirkhill (21 May 2011)

Not to mention the fact that having a single pair of eyes devoted to the procurement process solely can't be a bad thing.

Currently the MND has to oversee Operations, Policy and Procurement in a highly changeable environment.  Having a heavy-weight sidekick to ride shotgun on the relationships amongst DND, PWGSC, Industry, International Trade, Treasury Board, PC and the PMO doesn't seem to me to be a bad thing.


----------



## ballz (21 May 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Yes: let's give the smallest donor - party membership of $10.00 plus $10.00 per month = $130.00/year - an 85% tax concession. Let's make it really, really easy, even attractive for 'ordinary Canadians' without much spare money to get involved with the party of their choice. Let's give the people who donate up top $610.00/year (membership + $50 per month) a 70% _discount_ on the next $480.00, and let's give the remainder, folks like me, who give $1,100.00/year a 60% tax break on the remaining $490.00. That way we encourage political participation by everyone and, while we reward all those who donate, we reward the 'little guy' most.



I am a small "c" conservative but I really don't buy this supply-side tax break stuff. Somebody in the lowest tax bracket isn't going to cough up $100 bucks just because it's going to save him ($100 x 85% tax break x 15% tax rate = $12.75 tax savings) at the end of the year. Net loss is still $87.25, or better yet he's paying $87.25 for $100. Not that huge of a discount.

Since it's already 75%, raising it 85% would make a difference of $1.50 annually to someone in the lowest tax bracket. I doubt many people in the lowest tax bracket make $100 decisions based on an extra $1.50 in savings.

I haven't made any political donations so all that above is said based on the assumptions that the tax breaks work the same way as any other tax break, but even if it is calculated slightly different, raising the credit 10% for the first $130 isn't going to help much. And going by this supply-side logi, by lowering it for the people that actually see benefits of tax credits you are discouraging those paying more than $130 a year from donating...


----------



## a_majoor (21 May 2011)

Tax breaks won't attract most "severely normal" people with no interest in politics, but might work to attract people at the margins who might not otherwise choose to be involved. If I am reading Edward's argument correctly (and let me know if this isn't the case) the real need is to attract a larger and more diverse portion of the population into politics to make it meor relevant to all voters and citizens and to provide a much larger talent pool of people. The secondary aim is to provide political parties with pools of funds and volunteers large enough to discourage them from becoming captive to special interest groups.

Changing marginal behaviour can also start a preference cascade which has compounding effects in the future.


----------



## Old Sweat (21 May 2011)

As I understand it, and I contribute a fair amount to the CPC each year, the return is a tax credit. So if I decide to donate $100, and there is an 85% return, I have my federal tax payable reduced by 85 bucks. In other words, my $100 bucks becomes $15, but the party still receives $100.


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 May 2011)

Thucydides treads my intent correctly and Old Sweat is correct about the tax credits.


----------



## ballz (22 May 2011)

So political donations are not treated the same as other tax credits then? Which is what I assumed to come up with the above calculation. What you are describing to me is something I so far haven't heard of in my accounting/finance degree.

I receive an $800 per year tax credit for school. That is not $800 refunded to me. It is (800)(.15) refunded to me. If there were no tax credits and my income is 20,000, I pay 20,000(.15) = 3000 in taxes. The $800 tax credit is not subtracted from the $3000. It is subrated from the 20,000. So with the credit, I pay (20,000 - 800)(.15) = 2880. The difference between 3000 and 2880 is equal to (800)(.15).

I highly doubt the government is simply refunding you $85 on a $100 donation, that essentially means "if you pay $15, we will match that with a 587% donation," so if they are, then we need to get rid of that system altogether as it's a complete waste. What an 85% tax credit on the first $X is saying is "if you donate $100, we will make an extra $85 of your income exempt from being taxed."

Now I did notice donations to political parties was seperate on the tax forms, but it is not after the tax rate is applied, so because I don't have any tax forms with me in NB I am going to assume I'm right until someone offers me a better explanation.

As for your intent E.R., I guess I missed that and it is certainly a good intent, makes perfect sense and a good aim I think. I just don't believe the supply-side method of it would actually achieve that aim.


----------



## ballz (22 May 2011)

I just went over the Schedule 1 and Federal Political Tax Credit worksheet online and whatnot, because I had noticed it was seperated before but since I haven't donated anything never looked too closely.

It appears you are right. If you donate $400 you are really paying $100 out of your own pocket. This is a ridiculous waste of money IMO. :facepalm:


----------



## a_majoor (23 May 2011)

Why the Liberals will continue to have problems in the future. The internal structure seems frightenly similar to the maze of headquarters and staffs we encounter on our day to day work:

http://www.kathrynmarshall.ca/federal-politics/liberal-party-structure-holding-them-back/



> *LIBERAL PARTY STRUCTURE HOLDING THEM BACK*
> May 22, 2011Leave a comment
> 
> Before the Liberals paint the walls, they need to lay a new foundation. One of the biggest things holding the Liberal Party back from real change and renewal is their own internal party structure hampered by layers of bureaucracy and title holders. The way a party is structured affects its success as an organization and election fighting machine. It’s no wonder that the Conservatives and Liberals have exact opposite party structures.
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (25 May 2011)

If this is more than just a glitch then it spell real trouble for the LPC, since it means the partisan bloggers who advocate for their position in cyberspace and make up a "virtual" organization parallel to the Party have abandoned them:

http://thetrustytory2.wordpress.com/2011/05/25/it-sucks-to-be-a-liberal-when/


----------



## The Bread Guy (25 May 2011)

1)  





			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> Let's call this what it is, second guessing and hyperbole. Trying to create dissention where none really exists. Another case of the news media trying to create the news instead of reporting it ..... If the press should have learned anything in the last 10 years, it's that the PM is normally about three steps ahead of anyone else that is watching him.


More of crystal-balling from a QMI/Sun Media columnist:


> .... One military expert told me with the Afghanistan mission winding down, the real power and most important action in the years to come with the defence department is in the re-booting of it and that responsibility has been handed to Fantino.
> 
> “How Canada moves ahead with the purchase new (F-35) fighter jets and frigates is the number one defence priority going forward and the prime minister has selected his man to do that job,” he said.
> 
> ...



2)  So, is Bob Rae going into the interim leader's race as a bit of a pre-measurement of his chances?  ("If they want me as leader, they'll pick Garneau as interim")?


> Liberal MPs are expected to emerge from a caucus meeting Wednesday with their pick for interim leader.
> 
> Bob Rae and Marc Garneau are the only two MPs who have announced publicly they want the job, which opened up when Michael Ignatieff resigned as Liberal leader on May 3. The Liberals were reduced to third-party status in the House of Commons in the election a day earlier, and Ignatieff lost his own seat.
> 
> ...


----------



## observor 69 (25 May 2011)

Decision Day
Liberals name Bob Rae interim chief 
JANE TABER 
OTTAWA— Globe and Mail Update 
Posted on Wednesday, May 25, 2011 11:18AM EDT

Bob Rae says the Liberal Party should look to a new “generation of leadership” – but in the interim, he is happy to serve as leader. 

The 62-year-old Toronto Centre MP and former NDP premier of Ontario was named interim leader by the Liberal caucus on Wednesday morning. 

“The people of Canada gave the Liberal Party a very clear and tough message in the last election,” Mr. Rae said at a lunchtime news conference. “It's a message that we have received and understood.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/ottawa-notebook/liberals-name-bob-rae-interim-chief/article2034214/


----------



## Fishbone Jones (25 May 2011)

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> Decision Day
> Liberals name Bob Rae interim chief
> JANE TABER
> OTTAWA— Globe and Mail Update
> ...


They have received and understood many, many tough messages from the Canadian people in the past. They then decided, against all common decency, to tell the plebes they were wrong and the Natural Governing Nanny State knew what was best, and implemented measures, for them.

Nothing will change except the face of the party, which will spend it's time berating the CPC and continue to make promises they know they won't have to keep, a la the NDP before the election.

If there is one saving grace, their talk time in the Commons will now be severely curtailed compared to what they are used to. Although that won't stop the MSM from falling all over themselves to anoint Rae the new messiah.

Bet the party poobahs end up changing the rules to let him run in the leadership convention also, if he does well as Interm leader.


----------



## The Bread Guy (25 May 2011)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Bet the party poobahs end up changing the rules to let him run in the leadership convention also, if he does well as Interm leader.


I'd bet a loonie in that direction, too.


----------



## ModlrMike (25 May 2011)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Bet the party poobahs end up changing the rules to let him run in the leadership convention also, if he does well as Interm leader.



I'll take that bet too. The Torries should encourage this outcome at every opportunity. It will just about extinguish the Liberal party forever.


----------



## The Bread Guy (26 May 2011)

A bit more second-guessing from the _Globe & Mail_ on MacKay's position:


> The anticipated slash and burn of the public service by the newly-minted Conservative majority government could be starting at the Department of National Defence. Reports Thursday morning say 2,100 jobs will be cut over the next three years.
> 
> This as Defence Minister Peter MacKay attempts to defend what many see as his diminished role. In the cabinet swearing-in last week, Prime Minister Stephen Harper appointed Julian Fantino, the former top cop in Ontario, as Mr. MacKay’s Associate Minister in charge of procurement, which comes with a huge budget that is between 14 and 16 per cent of the department’s $22-billion total.
> 
> ...


----------



## Good2Golf (26 May 2011)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> A bit more second-guessing from the _Globe & Mail_ on MacKay's position:



Or it could be a succession plan, leaving MacKay clear for Deputy PM at some point...he is loyal and what I'd call a "plank holder" in the Caucus.

Regards 
G2G


----------



## Fishbone Jones (26 May 2011)

Utter tripe from the Mop & Pail.

A reduction in 2,100 jobs, _over three years_, could almost be done simply by attrition.


----------



## GAP (26 May 2011)

Especially with Fantino (former Bureaucrat) and Alexander (although, I would have thought he was headed to Foreign Affairs) being brought up to speed...

I can see the Associate being solely in charge of Purchasing.....it must take a real load off the Minister, just not sure of the reporting chain.....


----------



## Scott (26 May 2011)

Well the MSM's first kick at trying to create contrversy didn't work - so try to do it again. Same old BS. recceguy nailed it.


----------



## The Bread Guy (26 May 2011)

GAP said:
			
		

> Especially with Fantino (former Bureaucrat) and Alexander (although, I would have thought he was headed to Foreign Affairs) being brought up to speed...


I would have suspected Alexander would be tagged as PS for Foreign Affairs instead of the incumbent, who had this to say about Afghanistan in 2009:


> This is not a war. We are providing a secure environment in a country in which there was a complete loss of security. Let us get it very clear so the NDP can understand what a secure environment is and what a war is. A war is between two nations; a war is between two parties. There are not two parties there. This is a different kind of war. We are facing a terrorist organization that does not respect any rules of engagement.





			
				Scott said:
			
		

> Well the MSM's first kick at trying to create contrversy didn't work - so try to do it again. Same old BS. recceguy nailed it.


Yup.


----------



## dapaterson (26 May 2011)

GAP said:
			
		

> Especially with Fantino (former Bureaucrat) and Alexander (although, I would have thought he was headed to Foreign Affairs) being brought up to speed...
> 
> I can see the Associate being solely in charge of Purchasing.....it must take a real load off the Minister, just not sure of the reporting chain.....



MND still has to sign off requirements.  The Associate is also a sitting member of Treasury Board, though, which gives a voice in the room for the department besides the bureaucracy.

Procurement involves many players outside DND, so some skill in working the room is needed - you have to work with PWGSC & Industry Canada at the very least.


----------



## dapaterson (26 May 2011)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> I would have suspected Alexander would be tagged as PS for Foreign Affairs instead of the incumbent, who had this to say about Afghanistan in 2009



If you want well-rounded ministers you get them some breadth of exposure and experience; it's also handy to give a former member of the bureaucracy some breathing room before sticking them back as minister for the department.


----------



## The Bread Guy (26 May 2011)

dapaterson said:
			
		

> If you want well-rounded ministers you get them some breadth of exposure and experience[/b][/color]; it's also handy to give a former member of the bureaucracy some breathing room before sticking them back as minister for the department.


Seen - makes sense, then, to offer some Defence experience to someone who's been close to the AFG file.


----------



## a_majoor (28 May 2011)

Conrad Black on why the LPC will not be coming back:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/05/07/conrad-black-the-full-measure-of-harper’s-triumph/



> *Conrad Black: The full measure of Harper’s triumph*
> 
> Conrad Black  May 7, 2011 – 8:10 AM ET | Last Updated: May 6, 2011 1:20 PM ET
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (28 May 2011)

Interesting idea. The only thing the author overlooks is the possibility that the NDP may release a "constitution" for public consumption and have a different one for internal use. This sort of thinking just leads to recursive loops:

http://inspiringyoutothink.blogspot.com/2011/05/how-to-defeat-ndp-demand-their.html



> *How To Defeat The NDP: Demand Their Constitution Be Made Public*
> 
> How is a 'political opinion' established, then passed into law?
> Is it based on 'what is right' and 'what is wrong'?
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (7 Jun 2011)

More on the NDP. Like all parties there are various groups or wings, but I wonder how well Jack Layton will be able to reconcile the various competing factions, particularly radical socialists and the Quebec wing of the party?

http://pragmatictory.blogspot.com/2011/06/ndp-socialist-caucus.html



> *The NDP "Socialist Caucus"*
> 
> Now that the NDP have suddenly become the official opposition in Canadian Parliament, their party's self described "Socialist Caucus" is making demands. There aren't any surprises on the wish list, which includes shutting down the oil sands, nationalizing our banks, boycotting "Israeli apartheid", etc. These policies and positions have appeared in past and current NDP doctrine, the question is will the party turn right or left as it springs into the "mainstream"? How much is there left to win on the left? Clearly the only place to make significant electoral gains is to shift party policy towards the center, but somehow I doubt that Jack is going to do that. You don't become more mainstream by becoming more radical. We have seen in the past that Jack's idea of compromise is getting everything he wants.
> 
> What will happen next is the NDP convention when the left wing of the NDP will try and pass resolutions on these policy matters. *Layton and the party leadership do have mechanisms to kill or at least mute these resolutions.* We'll see what happens.



The bold line is probably referring to the opaque internal structure of the NDP. The mechanisms won't be on display for everyone (even party members) to see.


----------



## a_majoor (14 Jun 2011)

The Liberal Party president explains its core political philosophy. It seems the Liberals have not recognized either the contradiction inherent in the way this is formulated, nor the fact that Canadians have largely rejected this idea (over 70% of Canadians voted against the Liberals, after all  ):

http://www.barrelstrength.com/2011/06/14/the-liberals-are-still-looking-for-leviathan/



> *The Liberals are still looking for Leviathan*
> June 14, 2011 5:49 pm Dalwhinnie Canadian Politics, Political Correctness
> The following is evidence that the Liberal party has learned nothing from its defeat, and may be incapable of learning from its defeat.
> 
> ...



Interestingly, Libertarians also are all for individuals exercising sovereign power, but do not feel the need for the State to arbitrarily bestow "positive freedoms" in order for this to happen; rather the State exists to enforce "negative freedoms", protect the territory from internal and external enemies police and military forces) and provide impartial arbitration to disputes (the Courts of Law).


----------



## a_majoor (14 Jun 2011)

And an NDP proposal. The primary aim of this might actually be to prevent the Quebec block of NDP members from splitting and reconstituting some sort of "BQ lite" caucus. I know of no examples of members crossing the floor to the NDP, nor any NDP members crossing to the Liberals or BQ (Imagining a member of the CPC caucus crossing to the NDP or an NDP member crossing to the CPC is an exercse in high fantasy, and would need J.R.R Tolkein himself to write the scenario...)

http://hatrockscave.blogspot.com/2011/06/ndp-mp-wants-to-ban-floor-crossing.html



> *NDP MP wants to ban floor crossing*
> I'm now convinced that the NDP have no concept of how our parliamentary democracy actually works in Canada.
> 
> They want to abolish the senate.  But they also want proportional representation to reflect the actual percentage of the popular vote to match the number of seats per party in the lower house.  I've already explained their contradiction in this, but essentially, where are the members for these extra seats going to come from, since the public isn't voting for them specifically, so they only represent a party and not a district, and so how are they held accountable?  Their argument is that they want a check against our first-past-the-post system, but an equal and elected senate would actually cover that and balance it out. (I'll save my further arguments against proportional representation in another post.)
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (18 Jun 2011)

And the aftermath of the pollsters. Perhaps the most jarring line in the entire article is highlighted " It raises worrying questions about the nature and future management of Canadian democracy." Who do these people think they are? "Managing" Democracy? Really? The preference of the voters is what pollsters report on to their clients, but Push polling, "oversampling" of districts known to be for or against particular parties and other statistical tricks (and using polling results as a means to drive the narrative) have pretty much changed the nature of polling from statistical reporting to attempting to manipulate voters on behalf of the clients.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/a-pollsters-painful-reckoning-how-could-i-have-screwed-up-so-badly/article2065573/print/



> *A pollster’s painful reckoning: ‘How could I have screwed up so badly?'*
> Michael Valpy
> From Saturday's Globe and Mail
> Published Friday, Jun. 17, 2011 3:15PM EDT
> ...



Second interpolation: EKOS did not have the most accurate polling result in 2008 either, Angus Ried has that honour: http://www.sfu.ca/~aheard/elections/poll-results.html

Self promotion works better when you tell the truth.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (18 Jun 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> And the aftermath of the pollsters. Perhaps the most jarring line in the entire article is highlighted " It raises worrying questions about the nature and future management of Canadian democracy." Who do these people think they are? "Managing" Democracy? Really? The preference of the voters is what pollsters report on to their clients, but Push polling, "oversampling" of districts known to be for or against particular parties and other statistical tricks (and using polling results as a means to drive the narrative) have pretty much changed the nature of polling from statistical reporting to attempting to manipulate voters on behalf of the clients.
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/a-pollsters-painful-reckoning-how-could-i-have-screwed-up-so-badly/article2065573/print/
> 
> ...



The most interesting thing about this article is Mr. Graves' assertion that the statistical errors came from an over-representation of the youth vote and them not voting, as the youth are more likely to vote for the left wing parties.  I remember reading an article in MacLeans that states research that showed that all 3 major parties shared the same percentage of the youth vote (around 26%).


----------



## The Bread Guy (19 Jun 2011)

.... when they need this long to choose a new leader:


> Shattered Liberals will wait up to two years to choose a new leader, hoping the delay will give them a fighting chance against rival parties bent on wiping them off Canada's federal political map.
> 
> Some 2,000 delegates to a special "virtual convention" voted Saturday to postpone a leadership vote until sometime between March 1 and June 30, 2013.
> 
> ...


Source:  Canadian Press

Or is it a chance for Rae to build up his position as the boss?


----------



## GAP (21 Jun 2011)

Nik on the Numbers 

The Conservatives enjoy a comfortable 14 point lead over the New Democrats. At 42% support nationally, this is among the highest levels of support that Nanos has tracked for the Conservatives and could be considered akin to a honeymoon effect. The Conservatives have a comfortable lead west of the Ottawa River.

The NDP still holds a commanding 16 point lead in the province of Quebec where the BQ is at 14% (still much lower than their support during the last federal election). 

On the leadership front, Harper is ahead of Jack Layton with the Prime Minister's advantage largely driven by positive competence scores. Bob Rae has been added to the leadership Index and he noticeably trails both Harper and Layton on all the measures currently.

Healthcare and jobs/the economy are statistically tied for the top spot in terms of the national unprompted issue of concern.

The detailed tables and methodology are posted on our website where you can also register to receive automatic polling updates. 

  Methodology
Between June 16th and 19th, 2011 Nanos Research conducted a random telephone survey of 1,211 Canadians 18 years of age and older. A random telephone survey of 1,211 Canadians is accurate plus or minus 2.8 percentage points, 19 times out of 20. For 983 committed voters, it is accurate plus or minus 3.1 percentage points, 19 times out of 20. 


  National Ballot Question: For those parties you would consider voting for federally, could you please rank your top two current local preferences? (Committed voters only - First Preference) 

The numbers in parentheses denote the change from the last Nanos national omnibus survey completed between May 24th and 29th, 2011. (n=981) 

*Undecided represents respondents who are not committed voters (n=1,211). 

Canada (n=983 committed voters) 
Conservative 41.8% (+2.1)
NDP 28.0% (-1.9)
Liberal 22.3% (+0.8)
Green 3.7% (-1.1)
Bloc Quebecois 3.4 (+0.7)

*Undecided 18.8% (+0.2) 

Leadership Index Questions: As you may know, [Rotate] Bob Rae is the interim leader of the federal Liberal Party, Stephen Harper is the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, Jack Layton is the leader of the federal NDP and Elizabeth May is the leader of the federal Green Party. Which of the federal leaders would you best describe as: (n=1,211) 

The numbers in parentheses denote the change from the last Nanos national omnibus survey completed between May 24th and 29th, 2011. (n=1,205)

Readers should note that Gilles Duceppe has been dropped from the Leadership Index tracking. 

Leadership Index Score
Stephen Harper 104.5 (-1.4)
Jack Layton 81.9 (-15.5)
Bob Rae 27.3 (N/A)
Elizabeth May 12.4 (-4.1)

The Most trustworthy Leader (n=1,211)
Stephen Harper 32.3% (-0.4)
Jack Layton 29.4% (-5.8)
Bob Rae 8.4% (N/A)
Elizabeth May 5.6% (-1.3)
None 13.0% (+0.6)
Unsure 11.3% (-1.4)

The Most Competent Leader (n=1,211)
Stephen Harper 38.5% (-1.4)
Jack Layton 24.1% (-5.0)
Bob Rae 10.4% (N/A)
Elizabeth May 2.3% (-1.3)
None 9.9% (-0.3)
Unsure 14.7% (-2.5)

The Leader with the Best Vision for Canada's Future (n=1,211)
Stephen Harper 33.7% (+0.4)
Jack Layton 28.4% (-4.7)
Bob Rae: 8.5% (N/A)
Elizabeth May 4.5% (-1.5)
None 10.3% (-0.3)
Unsure 14.7% (-2.4)

Top Issue Question: What is your most important NATIONAL issue of concern? [Unprompted] 

The numbers in parentheses denote the change from the last Nanos national omnibus survey completed between May 24th and 29th, 2011. (n=1,205) 

Healthcare 25.7% (-2.3)
Jobs/economy 23.9% (+0.7)
Education 8.9% (+2.3)
The environment 8.6% (+1.4)
High taxes 5.6% (+0.1)
Unsure 5.5% (-4.1)


----------



## The Bread Guy (21 Jun 2011)

I wonder how many of the 1,211 respondents were from Ontario to give Bob Rae such a lower rating than Taliban Jack.


----------



## Rifleman62 (21 Jun 2011)

Why is Eliz May even on the list?  She proved her leadership abilities by focusing on self to get on the gravy train.

It appears she will attempt to get *her name* in the media by opposing everything rational.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (21 Jun 2011)

it's interesting that 25% of respondents name health care as their greatest concern, yet anyone who would ever try to change it would be treated as Satan himself


----------



## The Bread Guy (21 Jun 2011)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> it's interesting that 25% of respondents name health care as their greatest concern, yet anyone who would ever try to change it would be treated as Satan himself


Saying you're worried about it =/= saying what you think should happen.  It would be an interesting question asking the latter, though.


----------



## ModlrMike (21 Jun 2011)

I find it interesting that two of the top three concerns (healthcare and eduction) can only be peripherally influenced by the federal government. These are provincially managed areas, notwithstanding the (ever diminishing) portion funded by Ottawa. I think it shows a fundamental lack of understanding in the the division of provincial/federal jurisdiction.


----------



## a_majoor (3 Aug 2011)

The NDP's new (interim) leader comes with an interesting history. It seems the opaque internal process of the Party works against their own knowing what exactly is going on:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/story/2011/08/03/pol-turmel-mp-reax.html?ref=rss



> *Turmel's Bloc membership 'surprised' MPs*
> By Laura Payton, CBC News Posted: Aug 3, 2011 1:17 PM ET Last Updated: Aug 3, 2011 3:47 PM ET   Back to accessibility links
> 
> Two NDP MPs say they were surprised interim NDP Leader Nycole Turmel held memberships in two pro-sovereignty parties for several years before running for a seat in the House of Commons under the NDP banner. (Adrian Wyld/The Canadian Press) Close
> ...


----------



## Old Sweat (3 Aug 2011)

And Christie Blatchford adds some common sense in light of the NDP collective running around in circles. This column from the National Post is reprouduced under the Fair Dealing provision of the Copyright Act:

Christie Blatchford: With Turmel, the simplest answer is probably the truth

Aug 3, 2011 – 5:16 PM ET 

One aspect of the curious Nycole Turmel story is how it has cemented my longstanding suspicion that I am just not sophisticated enough to be a Quebecer, though in fact I am one born and raised, let alone a New Democrat.

Never having been a member of any political party, I suspect that if I had joined one, it would have been pretty much for life. I wouldn’t have had the required ability to change politics, let alone parties, the way other Canadians change underwear. And I certainly wouldn’t join a party purely to “support a friend,” as Ms. Turmel, the NDP’s interim leader, claims to have done on behalf of former Bloc Québécois MP Carole Lavallée.
Apparently, Ms. Lavallée was appropriately grateful; she once sang Ms. Turmel’s praises in the House, calling her “an extraordinary woman.”

I’ll say she’s extraordinary: I’d do many things for my women pals, and they for me, but none of us would dream of signing up as card-carrying members of a political party we already didn’t deeply believe in as a gesture of girlish solidarity.

Who does that?

It is merely the latest illustration of how those in the NDP expect voters to accept the most ridiculous and complicated explanations when more obvious ones are as plain as the beak on my face.

Everyone — including me — surely wishes the ailing Jack Layton strength and success in his renewed battle with cancer.

But his explanation a while back for his being found naked 15 years ago in a police raid at a Toronto rub-and-tug called the Velvet Touch (he said, invoking that grand old NDP touchstone, that he’d been merely visiting “a community clinic”) was preposterous, if hilarious.

So was his MP wife Olivia Chow’s: Why her hubby, she said, exercised regularly, was in a great shape, and simply had needed a massage, as though any of that went a centimetre toward explaining how this most urbane of men had mistaken a joint with a blaring red sign and a suggestive name for a proper studio.

That was just before Mr. Layton, Ms. Chow and their party vaulted to their best-ever finish in a federal election, winning status as Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition.

And just after the election, there was deputy party leader Thomas Mulcair on the CBC, musing aloud that he didn’t believe the Americans actually had pictures of Osama bin Laden’s body and hinting darkly that there was “more going on” behind bin Laden’s assassination.

Mr. Muclair’s explanation the next day?

Aaaah, he’d been overcome with too much celebratory joy and was suffering post-election “fatigue.’’

Clearly, the NDP struggles with what’s called Occam’s Razor, or in Latin lex parisomoniae, the law of parsimony which holds that the simplest explanation is usually, though not always, the correct one.

As rocket scientist James Longuski wrote in his 2006 book, The Seven Secrets of How to Think Like a Rocket Scientist, “Suppose you hear noises in the middle of the night and the next morning, you discover a broken lamp in your living room.

“You can construct a number of hypotheses to explain the events. Alien beings, from a small planet in the Orion Nebula, have landed their flying saucer in your backyard, tiptoed into your living room, and just before they were to abduct you and perform invasive biological experiments on you, they tripped over the lamp and were frightened off.”

Or, you forgot to let out the cat and the dog chased it and the lamp was a casualty of the pursuit.

That’s the NDP part of the equation: You have to be a conspiracy theorist to buy in (say with the Layton massage tale, that the Toronto Police conspired with the Toronto Sun, the newspaper that broke the story, which in turn conspired with the federal Conservatives or Liberals, who were running scared and desperate to slow NDP momentum) or you have to pretend you don’t notice the inherent contradictions.

The Quebecer part goes like this: Not for Quebec the stark black-and-white world of the rest of Canada.

Quebecers are pragmatic. They can vote for the Bloc one election, and the Liberals the next, depending on which party has most recently annoyed them, or even for the NDP, which dances the dance, a federalist party catering dangerously to the “Quebec is a nation within Canada” gospel.

You see? Formal political allegiances don’t mean to Quebecers what they seem to mean elsewhere. Exhibit No. 1, Nycole Turmel.

So as the outgoing leader of the powerful Public Service Alliance of Canada, the union endorsed some candidates for the Bloc; so she joined the Bloc herself in 2006 and quit it only a month before she announced herself as the NDP candidate for Hull-Aylmer; so she still belongs (though she has promised to quit) to the left-wing, separatist-leaning provincial Quebec Solidaire party.

None of that means Ms. Turmel is a sovereignist, heaven’s no. It means she was supporting a friend, and thus loyal. It means she shared the Bloc’s social values, and is merely left-of-centre. She says she’s a federalist and always has been; people should take her at her word.

It means that us têtes-carrées in the ROC just don’t get it. Such nuance is beyond us.

Me, I’m with the rube Stephen Harper, who Wednesday said, “I think Canadians expect that any political


----------



## Altair (4 Aug 2011)

I guess every Quebecer who ever voted Bloc in the past is a seperatist. Odd, that when the ROC tells Quebecers to ditch the Bloc and support a federalist party they will later jump on them for doing so.


----------



## WLSC (4 Aug 2011)

Altair said:
			
		

> I guess every Quebecer who ever voted Bloc in the past is a seperatist. Odd, that wheb the ROC tells Quebecers to ditch the Bloc and support a federalist party they will later jump on them for doing so.



No.  Not my case but, adscam, having the felling that no one in Ottawa was understanding Québec and all.  That why.  Dont forget that voting for a party and in a referendum is not the same.


----------



## a_majoor (5 Aug 2011)

The NDP is off to a shakey start with this. The real question should be "what does the Party expect to gain from this action?"

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/08/03/scott-stinson-nycole-turmel-and-the-ndps-lousy-vetting-process/



> *Scott Stinson: Nycole Turmel and the NDP’s lousy vetting process*
> 
> Nycole Turmel says she's not a separatist. Maybe she doesn't support unions either, though the evidence is against it
> 
> ...


----------



## Rifleman62 (6 Aug 2011)

What I find just as interesting is that a separatist, in 2000, became the President of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, the largest public sector union in Canada. Nycole Turmel held the position until 2006.


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Aug 2011)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> What I find just as interesting is that a separatist, in 2000, became the President of the Public Service Alliance of Canada, the largest public sector union in Canada. Nycole Turmel held the position until 2006.




Yes, it is disappointing; but, given the nature of the (largely public sector) labour movement in Canada, it is hardly surprising, is it?


----------



## The Bread Guy (8 Aug 2011)

Some are questioning whether she should have even been a member of any political party as president....


> The head of one of Canada’s largest public service unions says it's improper for people who hold jobs like his to exhibit political partisanship -- a reference to the fact that the interim head of the federal NDP was a New Democrat at the same time she was head of another major public-sector union.
> 
> Gary Corbett, the president of the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada which represents professionals within the public service, was asked Monday about the propriety of Nycole Turmel holding a party membership at the same time she was president of the Public Service Alliance of Canada (PSAC).
> 
> “The professional institute is non-partisan and, when you become partisan - I am not going to speak about Ms. Turmel per se - but when you display partisanship it impacts on your credibility,” Mr. Corbett said in reply to a reporter at a news conference. “It is an issue for Ms. Turmel,” he said ....


Source:  G&M, 8 Aug 11


----------

