# Why Canada needs a liberal party



## Edward Campbell (13 Apr 2013)

This article, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Ottawa Citizen_ suggests that the Liberal Party of Canada needs a real (small l) liberal like Margaret Thatcher. I would go a bit farther and say that Canada needs a real (small l, Gladstonian)) liberal political party:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/opinion/columnists/Liberals+need+Margaret+Thatcher/8235786/story.html


> Why the Liberals need a Margaret Thatcher
> 
> By Brian Lee Crowley, Ottawa Citizen
> 
> ...




I've plowed this ground before, commenting on the tenets of liberalism and the drift away from them, in the Liberal Party of Canada ever since the Kingston Conference of 1960.

Gladstone stood for individual choice, limited government, protection of the individual from the government, fiscal prudence and equality. He was the antithesis of Pierre Trudeau, Brian Mulroney, Jean Chrétien and Stephen Harper all of whom ran or run too large, too intrusive, too expensive and too _privileged_ governments.


Edit: typo


----------



## ModlrMike (13 Apr 2013)

Ironic that Liberals today don't accept that they've strayed from the liberal path. For them to accept that the Torries are the closest thing to true liberals in Canada would send them into fits of apoplexy.


----------



## a_majoor (13 Apr 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> This article, which is reproduced under the fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Ottawa Citizen_ suggests that the Liberal Party of Canada needs a real (small l) liberal like Margaret Thatcher. I would go a bit farther and say that Canada needs a real (small l, Gladstonian)) liberal political party:



Say, Edward, aren't _you_ free these days....?


----------



## GAP (13 Apr 2013)

So..........you want to bring in a ringer?.................that didn't work out so well last time.......... :camo:


----------



## a_majoor (13 Apr 2013)

A ringer? Whatever do you mean? Edward is the very epitome of a Gladstonian politician, having learned from the master himself....


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Apr 2013)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> A ringer? Whatever do you mean? Edward is the very epitome of a Gladstonian politician, having learned from the master himself....




Nope; see the quote from Scutenaire in Journeyman's signature, not even advancing year can make me over.


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Apr 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> ...
> I've plowed this ground before, commenting on the tenets of liberalism and the drift away from them, in the Liberal Party of Canada ever since the Kingston Conference of 1960.
> 
> Gladstone stood for individual choice, limited government, protection of the individual from the government, fiscal prudence and equality. He was the antithesis of Pierre Trudeau, Brian Mulroney, Jean Chrétien and Stephen Harper all of whom ran or run too large, too intrusive, too expensive and too _privileged_ governments.
> ...




I'm putting this report, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Ottawa Citizen_, here because of it's connection to the highlighted bit, above:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/opinion/columnists/Liberals+rebuilding+still+come/8241541/story.html


> The Liberals’ rebuilding is still to come
> 
> By Andrew Cohen, Ottawa Citizen
> 
> ...




This is the important bit: _"For Trudeau, the good news is that the party has been in dire straits before ... He would be well advised to revisit how Lester Pearson rebuilt the party between 1958 and 1963 ... It means developing policy ... Pearson held the Kingston Conference, an incubator of ideas that filled the party’s intellectual reservoir for the 1960s."_

Now, it is no secret that the 1960 Kingston Conference did re-energize an old, tired and dispirited Liberal Party; it did make it attractive to a new generation of (especially) young, _leftist_ Quebecers (who were more _naturally_ inclined to either  the exiting NDP or a nascent left wing _Quebec nationalist_ party); but I would argue that it also led (drove?) the Liberals into a rash and naive set of social policies that had dire economic consequences for Canada.

In my opinion everything that is wrong with the 21st century Liberal Party of Canada is directly attributable to the Kingston Conference: it developed unsound policies which attracted the wrong new people who led the Party and the country down the socio-economic and political rabbit hole. The Kingston Conference gave us silly policies and Pierre Trudeau who led, directly, to Stéphane Dion and Michael Ignatief. 

Now, I think, Andrew Cohen is right. Justin Trudeau should (maybe must) try to repeat the success of Kingston 1960, but he has a chance to do what Lester Pearson could not do: he can lead (guide or direct) the process so that the output will be sensible - socially and economically sustainable. The risk is that sensible policies are unattractive. The _genius_ of Kingston in 1960 was that it offered the "big rock candy mountain," the problem was that it offered no plan to pay for it all. It was perfect for retail political professionals like Jim Coutts and Keith Davey and for ideological left wingers like Pierre Trudeau; it was bad for Canada. If M. Trudeau wants to undo the damage, if his interest is more about the country than the party, then he will seek to re-energize his party but his model will not be Jean Chrétien, nor his own father, nor Lester Pearson, it will be Louis St Laurent, a man who used _image_ politics to win elections but then governed on the pillars of moderate, affordable social progress, a robust foreign olicy and solid fiscal conservatism ~ a _Gladstonian_ Liberal.


----------



## a_majoor (15 Apr 2013)

Sadly, I see little evidence of Gladstone and a much higher proportion of that _other_ Justin character who is so popular outside of the political bubble. Is there any evidence *at all* to suport the idea that the Young Dauphin is capable of organizing a "Kingston 3.0" (Micheal Ignatieff attempted a Kingston 2.0 with his "Thinkers" conference), much less guiding it and leading the party behind the policy outputs of Kingston 3.0?

I think the real answer is far worse. Using your thesis, Edward, the Young Dauphin represents the triumph of the "Pearson, Trudeau, Chreitien" wing of the party and the crushing of the Laurier ("Manley" Liberals) wing of the party. The powers that be who do the organization and running of the party in the back rooms have a very effective "sock puppet" to mouth thier words and attract positive attention; they do not mean to give up their perques and power and are making a final throw of the dice to get access to the public trough.

There won't be an open revolt or anything like that, but the Blue Liberals will drift to the Conservatives in ever greater numbers, and I expect to see a trickle of Liberal MPs retire between now and the next election as well. What is left of the Liberal party will face a cage match in Quebec between them and the NDP and whatever Quebec Nationalist party that may arise as per your predictions, but I also see the NDP going full tilt against remaining Liberal strongholds in Urba Canada, while also having the means to fight the CPC for some of the suburban ridings as well. The Liberals will have a difficult time emerging from third place, if the CPC can maintain a lock on the "New Canada" running from Cornwall to the Pacific and the NDP hold Quebec and win some seats in Urban Canada, the Liberals have no place to go.


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Apr 2013)

Michael den Tandt gets it pretty much right, I think, in this column which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Ottawa Citizen_:

http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/national/Justin+Trudeau+Liberal+party+become+truly+liberal+party/8261550/story.html


> Can Justin Trudeau’s Liberal party become a truly liberal party?
> 
> By Michael Den Tandt, Postmedia News
> 
> ...




To create a truly _*liberal*_ party from the Liberal Party of Canada Justin Trudeau will have to say, "My favourite prime minister, my father, was fundamentally wrong in almost every social and economic policy he pursued; he governed with his heart, not his head; I will have to wring almost all of his ideas out of our government; he wasn't a real *liberal*; he was a social democrat and we Liberals are not."

In that, reminding us that Liberals aren't liberal, they are social democrats, Michael den Tandt is absolutely correct. 

His describes "fork" strategy: to the right of Stephen Harper's Conservatives on many economic, trade and foreign policy issues and to the left of Thomas Mulcair's NDP on many social issues. But he also needs to be firmly in the middle on many key issues (like defence and law and order). Thus he really needs a three pronged fork, a _trident_:


                                                               Liberals
                                                                     |
                                                                     |
Small Government                                   Defence                             Equality of *Opportunity*
    Fiscal Policy         Conservatives     Social Services     NDP                  Social Justice
        Trade                                           Law & Order                            Non-violent crime


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Apr 2013)

The _Good Grey Globe's_ Jeffrey Simpson offers a typical *big government* whinge explaining why we absolutely must have new, bigger taxes to keep on paying for everything that now exists and, presumably, add more to it, in this column which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/so-many-political-promises-so-little-money-coming-in/article11395088/


> So many political promises, so little money coming in
> 
> JEFFREY SIMPSON
> The Globe and Mail
> ...




Look at this list. It's HUGE, it tells us that we have a bloated, undeniably inefficient and ineffective bureaucracy; it cries out for cuts. *BUT* every single department, agency and office on that list has a "cheering section:" a segment of Canadian voters believes that Assisted Human Reproduction Canada, the Military Police Complaints Commission and Virtual Museum of Canada are all doing *vital* work for Canadians. I do not.

Look at the Os. I agree that the Office of the Commissioner for Federal Judicial Affairs Canada (FJA) (which provides administrative services to judges, keeping them properly _independent_ from the bureaucrats in the Justice Ministry) but I suggest that ALL of the others, including Office of Energy Efficiency, Office of the Commissioner of Lobbying of Canada, Office of the Commissioner of Official Languages, Office of the Communications Security Establishment Commissioner and Old Port of Montréal Corporation Inc. could be disbanded with minimal _damage_ to the core work of governments. Some functions of Office of the Superintendent of Bankruptcy and the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions are very necessary and can be, should be combined into a branch of Finance. Some "slashing and burning" is necessary, several agencies and offices have no _productive_ role; more _efficiency_ is required throughout.

A real *liberal* prime minister would start by completely reorganizing my cabinet. I would have a handful of real ministries:

     Aboriginal Affairs - it must exist because we have real moral and legal responsibilities towards aboriginal Canadians, responsibilities which we have, too often, ignored;

     Defence;

     Finance;

     Foreign Affairs;

     Home Affairs - a new ministry that would have many Associate Ministers for everything from fish and health and prisons and police to environment and resources;

     Industry - but without all the "economic" (subsidy) agencies from Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency to Western Economic Diversification Canada;

     Justice;

     Public Works ans Government Services; and

    Treasury - which would be, along with, PCO, the Prime Minister's department, restoring the "office" of _First Lord of the Treasury_.
  
Several agencies, large and small, are *vital* and must continue to exist, including: Auditor General of Canada; Bank of Canada; Canadian Deposit Insurance Corporation; Federal Court; FINTRAC; Geological Survey of Canada; International Joint Commission; NAFTA Secretariat; and the Tax Court of Canada. But at least an equal number can be wound up and their civil service employees can be given "pink slips and running shoes" as _Fibber Muldoon_ so famously put it back in the 1980s.

The bureaucracy is out of control; it serves special interests rather than the common good. This sort of thing is actually beloved of today's Conservative Party of Canada which wants to slice and dice and _serve_ Canadians in some of their multiple special interests. It's probably good politics but it is lousy policy.

Jeffrey Simpson is wrong. Governments don't need more revenue; they need to cut the fat - and there is a lot of it at every level.


----------



## Retired AF Guy (20 Apr 2013)

Not only could the federal government use a little trimming, but the trimming could also be extended to their provincial counterparts. Especially when you look at the overlap between federal/provincial agencies (e.g. health departments).


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 May 2013)

Liberal insider David Herle exporesses his dismay with the _evolution_ of government during Stephen Harper's time in office in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Toronto Star_:

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2013/05/02/democracy_and_the_decline_of_parliament_hepburn.html


> Democracy and the decline of Parliament: Hepburn
> *Growing disconnect between Canadians and Parliament may have serious consequences for democracy.*
> 
> By: Bob Hepburn
> ...




It is hard to know where to begin, but ...

It was Stephen Harper's stated intention to _shrink_ government or, at least, to make it less intrusive. It appears that, in the minds of David Herle and Bob Hepburn, he has succeeded. It is not, in any way, clear that Prime Minister Harper's aim was wrong. Canadian are, indeed, interested in "daily issues, such as their children’s education, looking after aging parents and getting decent health care" and it is equally true that "other than writing cheques to the provinces, Ottawa has opted out of health care, education, transportation and other issues that affect our normal lives." So what? Those "daily issues" are, as they always were, in the domain of provincial and local governments; Ottawa ought not to do much beyond writing the occasional cheque. I'm not sure why Canadians need to feel more "connected" to parliament; parliament already matters - the low voter turnout says a whole lot more about Canadians than it does about parliament. We are, broadly and generally, a fat, idle, lazy and greedy lot who want "free" this and "subsidized' that and who do not, in truth, give much of damn about who signs the cheques.

Stephen Harper has some real _liberal_ instincts, I think, but he is governing a profoundly _conservative_ country - conservative is the sense that John Stuart Mill used that term when he is reputed to have said that "although it is not true that all conservatives are stupid people, it is true that most stupid people are conservative," and conservative in the sense that they want to preserve the unsound, unaffordable socio-economic system that Pierre Trudeau tried to implement in the 1970s.


----------



## CougarKing (2 May 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> A real *liberal* prime minister would start by completely reorganizing my cabinet. I would have a handful of real ministries:
> 
> Aboriginal Affairs - it must exist because we have real moral and legal responsibilities towards aboriginal Canadians, responsibilities which we have, too often, ignored;
> 
> ...



I trust this list of yours is not exhaustive? I was wondering why you didn't include the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO), since the Canadian Coast Guard falls under that Department. The CCG's importance in roles such as SAR, icebreaking, maintenance of navigation aids, as well as their transport role for law enforcement agencies such as the RCMP in Canadian waters, cannot be overstated. 

Their supplementary role to the RCN and the RCMP for also showing the flag up north will also help enforce Canada's stances on Arctic sovereignty.


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 May 2013)

S.M.A. said:
			
		

> I trust this list of yours is not exhaustive? I was wondering why you didn't include the Department of Fisheries and Oceans (DFO), since the Canadian Coast Guard falls under that Department. The CCG's importance in roles such as SAR, icebreaking, maintenance of navigation aids, as well as their transport role for law enforcement agencies such as the RCMP in Canadian waters, cannot be overstated.
> 
> Their supplementary role to the RCN and the RCMP for also showing the flag up north will also help enforce Canada's stances on Arctic sovereignty.




I actually mentioned fish in the "Home Affairs" portfolio. But my list is not engraved in stone; the point is that we have too many ministries, most of which are, really, not worth a full time, full rate seat at the cabinet table and some of which intrude (too far, in my opinion) into areas of provincial jurisdiction.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (2 May 2013)

CCG came out of the melding of the Dept of Marine Transportation and RCAF air-sea rescue service, it lived under the Transport Canada umbrella, until punted to DFO to fuze the "3 fleets" together, with much kicking and screaming on all sides. The amount of vessels cut was significant, in the range of about 20 vessels on the west coast. Public Works also lost it's vessels around the same time.


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Sep 2013)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The _Good Grey Globe's_ Jeffrey Simpson offers a typical *big government* whinge explaining why we absolutely must have new, bigger taxes to keep on paying for everything that now exists and, presumably, add more to it, in this column which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/so-many-political-promises-so-little-money-coming-in/article11395088/
> 
> ...




Regarding the highlighted bit, this article, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, explains that a strong minister can gain and exercise proper control over his bureaucrats:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/globe-politics-insider/case-study-highlights-conflict-between-bureaucrats-minister-kenney-on-direction-of-multiculturalism-programs/article14394002/#dashboard/follows/


> Case study highlights conflict between bureaucrats, Minister Kenney on direction of multiculturalism programs
> 
> SUBSCRIBERS ONLY
> 
> ...




Mr Griffith's book, Policy Arrogance or Innocent Bias: Resetting Citizenship and Multiculturalism is available for E-readers. 

Note this: "Mr. Griffith’s decries the cutbacks that have degraded the bureaucracy’s ability to create and test policy ... one suspects that Mr. Griffith still believes the old ways and assumptions were better than the new Conservative ones." That is the standard position of the _Laurentian Consensus_ and a (still) decidedly _Liberal_ civil service; it is the duty of the politicians to bend to the _consensus_. Now, there is a civil service _national policy_, it has been there since Arnold Heeney and O.D. Skelton _managed_ the country of Prime Minister King's behalf. That _policy_ changes, to be sure, but slowly and, generally, without too much regard for the wishes and views of the government of the day. The main elements of the policy that still exists today were set forth by Norman Robertson and Robert Bryce in the 1950s and early '60s, they have survived Liberal and Conservative governments with leaders as diverse as Pierre Trudeau and Stephen Harper. Mr Kenney did what good ministers do: he changed the direction of one component of the _national policy_. Most ministers, including, almost always, the MND, lack either or both of the political _strength_ and top level support to do that.


----------



## pbi (19 Sep 2013)

[size=10pt]A high tone has been set, as ever. Discussions like this are some of the things that make this site such a great and unique place. (That, and we keep idiots out...)

To go back to the question that opened this thread, I'll open by saying that I'm a life-long Tory voter who is seriously reevaluating his voting choices, and has been for the last few years. Unfortunately, I don't really see a whole lot of realistic choices. My "gut feel" (ie: based on my own opinions and observations, not on research) worries about the current government are:

-they don't really believe in accountability and transparency any more than any other Govt ever has, and possibly less. They sometimes seem to regard public watchdogs as their enemy, to be thwarted at every turn, including by neutralizing the office in question;

-there seems to be a strong tendency to revert to the last refuge of the scoundrel: loud protestations of "patriotism" designed to characterize anybody who questions them as somehow unpatriotic, un-Canadian or perhaps in league with evil forces. Is this approach unique to the Tories of the 21st century? Probably not, but it seems more shrill and insidious with them. It reminds me too much of the "you hate America!" mantra we hear in the US political discourse;

-a nagging suspicion that they are, at heart, fundamentally antidemocratic. Prorogation and closure are certainly correct in the letter of the laws of our Parliament; my worry is whether or not their frequent use any longer has a place in a democratic government. Imagine, for a moment, if the President of the US attempted to foist those measures on Congress: an absolute nonstarter. (Granted on the other hand that he has veto powers that our PM may not...)

-a possibly unhealthy (if not to say unethical...) close relationship with big business. While I am not in any way in favour of punitive corporate taxes or "overweening unions", I am very, very much in favour of strict enforcement of environmental and safety regulations. How many times will we need to be reminded about this? I recently listened to the Minister of Transport talk about the TSB's revelation that the MM&A freight train that devastated Lac Megantic was carrying a misidentified cargo, far more volatile that what was officially reported. Her response was mealymouthed and evasive (nothing necessarily unique there) and what I was listening for but didn't hear was an expression of real concern about enforcing the laws to keep Canadians safe from disasters like this one; and

-a too-ready acceptance that more intrusive surveillance of Canadians, and more police powers, and more locking people up, are all good and useful measures. Maybe, in some specific and time-limited cases, these might be true. Might be. How all this squares with  freedom and individual rights I'm not clear.

So now that I've qualified (or disqualified...) myself, I'd say that we do need a liberal party (ala the party led by Laurier), and probably a Liberal Party too. It's already been noted that if you read some of the things Laurier said, and the positions his government took, you can see that he was much closer to "classic" liberalism than today's social democratic successors. However, I am not at all certain that the Tory party we see before us now is actually a "liberal" party, in its heart of hearts.

We also need a "Liberal Party" just as we need an "NDP", very badly, if only to avoid a slip into _de facto_ one party rule. Another thing that a three-way split helps to avoid is the monolithic division of political culture (and maybe society at large) that the US system seems to have created. I think the Tories are beginning to drink the old Liberal Koolaid of the "natural governing party": there has to be a healthy field of opposing political viewpoints to counter this: the Liberal Party, as unimpressive as it might be right now, is part of the mechanism that does this.[size=10pt][/size][/size]


----------



## Privateer (19 Sep 2013)

:goodpost:


----------



## Brad Sallows (19 Sep 2013)

There isn't anything in that list I couldn't apply to any other federal or provincial governing party in Canada, but I have a longer memory than most people I know when it comes to distasteful government behaviour.  I suspect that the slow boil of that arrogance, often garnished with an intolerable scandal, is what ensures - thankfully - a fresh party in government every few years.

A majority parliament is always fundamentally undemocratic.  It's simultaneously the strength and weakness which sets ours most apart from the US system.

What worries me most about an intrusive state security apparatus is that one day it will eventually be run by a "progressive" party.  And I question whether the CPC has more and more prominent ties to big business establishment Canada than the LPC.

I hoped that after Ignatieff the LPC would come to its senses and take up policy as its weapon rather than star personality.  But for Trudeau and the lemon gin* effect he has on the media, it might have.  There is one more election I'd like to see the Conservatives win, so maybe that will work itself out in 2016.

*colloquially named "panty remover" in the olden days


----------



## Edward Campbell (20 Sep 2013)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> There isn't anything in that list I couldn't apply to any other federal or provincial governing party in Canada, but I have a longer memory than most people I know when it comes to distasteful government behaviour.  I suspect that the slow boil of that arrogance, often garnished with an intolerable scandal, is what ensures - thankfully - a fresh party in government every few years.
> 
> A majority parliament is always fundamentally undemocratic.  It's simultaneously the strength and weakness which sets ours most apart from the US system.
> 
> ...




I think you are quite right on the highlighted bit. The Liberals were, since King in the 1930s, the party of big business ~ St. James Street and, later, Bay Street. The Tories were the party of small, main street, business. Early in this, the 21st, century the Liberals scored the _c_onservative double play: securing the explicit endorsement of *Big* Labour while retaining the loyalty of the *Big* Banks, *Big* Insurance, etc by promising *Big* Government.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (20 Sep 2013)

I came from a hardcore NDP family, supported the CPC mainly as they were the only party that cared even a little bit about me a gun owner. But now having served under both Liberal and CPC leadership, I am highly disappointed with both. I don't expect them to pander to my needs or even to get things right all the time. But we have gone from outright corruption, to incompetence/paranoia and a growing sense of entitlement. The CPC scapegoats me for being a Public Servant, the rest scapegoat me for being a gun owner, I can not win.

The problem is there is no viable alternative for me either Provincially or Federally, oh Rhino's where art thou?


----------



## Remius (20 Sep 2013)

I voted Conservative because of their Arctic Sovereignty plan.  Something that interested me and frankly will become amain issue this century.  But it's been all smoke and mirrors.  Plus they have been less than transparent in my mind.  it's going to be a tough choice come next election.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (20 Sep 2013)

I certainly haven't agreed with some of the stuff the CPC have done and am pissed about some of the stuff they haven't done.

It's still a no brainer for me though. There is absolutely nothing that any of the other parties have done, or promised to do, that has caught my fancy. Much also, that I am diametrically opposed to.

I'll still dance with the one that brung me. It's the devil I know, after all.

The CPC will get my vote.

Provincially, I'll also hold my nose and vote PC.


----------



## a_majoor (20 Sep 2013)

Sad but true assessment.

The current Liberal party has nothing to offer (based on the total absence of policy pronouncements, white papers etc.), while the NDP has the usual scary tropes against liberty, property ownership and Rule of Law (if anything they are the Anti-liberal party).

I believe it is Andrew Coyne who has suggested that the only way the LPC can survive is to actually become "Liberal" in the classical sense; advocating for policies that promote individual liberty, unfettered use of property and universal adherence to the Rule of Law (no "group rights" or special exemptions based on gender, ethnic origin, religion, regional residency etc.) 

This would be fine by me, this is the definition not only of Classical Liberalism as defined by philosophers like Edmond Burke but also the starting point of my own small "l" libertarian philosophy. If nothing else, it would provide a very clear and distinct point on the political spectrum that isn't "Left" or "Right" in the current sense, and would not be crowded out of the public sphere by the centerist leanings of the CPC and NDP. The only downside is discovering how many Canadians are actually true "Liberals" and would vote for a transformative party based on these principles as opposed to "Liberals" interested in the spoils that a transactive party can offer them?


----------



## Edward Campbell (21 Sep 2013)

I was never a committed Conservative; in the 1960s I voted Liberal, as much against John Diefenbaker's policies as for Lester Pearson's, in the 1970s I switched and voted *against* the Liberals because Pierre Trudeau's values and policies were, in my view (which is unchanged after 40 years) antithetical to Canadian and liberal values.

If I had to qualify myself it would be as a Manley Liberal ... but there's no such thing so I support, at the maximum legal financial limit, the Conservative Party of Canada because I believe it offers the better choice for Canada, clearly superior in most (but not all) important policy areas to the Liberals. There are some, actually several things the CPC is doing wrong, but they are, I think, easily correctable; by contrast, the parts of public policy that are harder to change are, in my opinion, in safe hands with Prime Minister Harper.


----------



## pbi (21 Sep 2013)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Sad but true assessment...The current Liberal party has nothing to offer (based on the total absence of policy pronouncements, white papers etc.), while the NDP has the usual scary tropes against liberty, property ownership and Rule of Law (if anything they are the Anti-liberal party).



This is what I was driving at.

I'm not at all happy with the Tory party I see today: in fact I grow increasingly suspicious of it. Its almost paranoid approach to information policies is one of the things that really turns on the warning light for me. When a Tory minister speaks, you can  hear them almost robotically reciting their media training:

"CLICK"-_now go to Bridging Technique_".... "CLICK"-_now disregard question and go to Messaging-"CLICK"- "Avoid Speculation"
_
Does everybody else do it? Yes, probably, but the argument that "_everybody else does it_" is possibly the weakest moral or ethical argument known to man,  which is probably why witless teenagers resort to it.

The tightening of the CF's media approach, arguably the most liberal of any Federal agency, was a case in point for me: it was almost palpable during my last few years in uniform.  I was recently told by a PAffO that "Connecting with Canadians" is a term we don't use anymore because it is a "Hillierism" (It predates Hillier as CDS by quite a bit, but anyway that is just one small symptom). 

I guess, like a naive fool, I hoped for something better when I cast a Tory ballot (and not just once...). Maybe they have fallen victim to that toxic Canadian political syndrome "Multiple Term-itis" (a sub-genus of the "Natural Governing Party"  disease).  The "slow boil of arrogance" referred to earlier.

I agree that right now there's no really good alternative on the political radar screen. And that's the sad thing.


----------



## Kirkhill (21 Sep 2013)

My sense is that I want the Tories around for a little longer, one election definitely and not more than two, so that they can continue to cause the unsettling of the bureaucracy (my condolences Colin).

I'm a firm believer that there was far too much stasis in the bureaucracy resulting in and from not just a Laurentian Consensus but a Trudeau - Boomer consensus. Trudeau's boomers are "shuffling off to Buffalo" or more precisely Arizona and Florida.  That makes this an opportune period for remaking the underpinnings of governance by resetting the bureaucracy.  Even if the resetting is as ham-fisted as chucking a grenade in a closed room and sorting out the pieces afterwards resetting is necessary from time to time.

With respect to the parties themselves, I've demonstrated my cynicism in the past.  As used to be said of disreputable young ladies: "They're no better than they ougtht to".  They are all about egos and followers and hangers-on.  Policy is a vehicle to power, fame and fortune.


----------



## a_majoor (21 Sep 2013)

My sense of CPC "messaging" is they are attempting to break the power of "narrative" which currently drives news and entertainment (and they have become almost the same thing) today. The Media wishes to run stories which support the "narrative", such as the age old "hidden agenda" trope, and the government wishes to present stories which support their programs (and their own "narrative" as well), leading to the battle we see in the media today.

In my opinion, Prime Minister Harper had hit on a brilliant strategy several years ago when he took the summer Barbecue circuit time to go to local radio stations and participate in call in shows. (This was prior to the 2006 minority victory, if I remember correctly). This allowed him to connect directly with the local population, bypass much of the media "narrative" and I also suspect to discover a great deal about the issues that voters are interested in as opposed to the "Laurentian Consensus" values of the Parliamentary Press Gallery and Toronto Centric media conglomerates (see "The Big Shift" for the origin and meaning of the term). Perhaps spending a lot more time "on the road" with senior cabinet ministers and MP's might provide that level of conectivity again, even if bypassing the national media drives the holders of the Laurentian Consensus crazy.


----------



## pbi (21 Sep 2013)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Perhaps spending a lot more time "on the road" with senior cabinet ministers and MP's might provide that level of conectivity again, even if bypassing the national media drives the holders of the Laurentian Consensus crazy.



I think the Tories desperately need to do this, but I don't think they are inclined to right now. They know populism is a two-edged sword.


----------



## PuckChaser (21 Sep 2013)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Perhaps spending a lot more time "on the road" with senior cabinet ministers and MP's might provide that level of conectivity again, even if bypassing the national media drives the holders of the Laurentian Consensus crazy.



Completely agree. Talk shows as you suggested are fantastic. In fact, take advantage of social media and do a few AMAs on RDDT with senior cabinet ministers. Let the population ask direct questions and get direct answers. Twitter does something similar to this as well. Young people are very connected now adays, and that's the votes you want to grab.


----------



## GAP (21 Sep 2013)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Completely agree. Talk shows as you suggested are fantastic. In fact, take advantage of social media and do a few AMAs on RDDT with senior cabinet ministers. Let the population ask direct questions and get direct answers. Twitter does something similar to this as well. Young people are very connected now adays, and that's the votes you want to grab.



Actually, that would be a show in of itself.....the questions tend to be preapproved and selected to put on a good show and not embarass the speaker... :


----------



## pbi (21 Sep 2013)

GAP said:
			
		

> Actually, that would be a show in of itself.....the questions tend to be preapproved and selected to put on a good show and not embarass the speaker... :



Sadly, I would replace "tend to be" with "are always".


----------



## Journeyman (21 Sep 2013)

PuckChaser said:
			
		

> Let the population ask direct questions and get direct answers.


Not going to happen.  The "news" would be the heckling idiots and protesters rather than any analytically-capable voter actually seeking information.


----------



## a_majoor (21 Sep 2013)

GAP said:
			
		

> Actually, that would be a show in of itself.....the questions tend to be preapproved and selected to put on a good show and not embarass the speaker... :



Depends on the market and the show. Smaller markets can't support a staff of pre screeners to vet calls, and some producers won't bother anyway. I recall fielding some pretty bizarre questions on local radio shows when running for municipal office (and even on panel shows when all the candidates were on), so it was clear there was no vetting to make some people look good or bad....

Proper field work and preparation is going to be needed by anyone attempting to do this successfully.


----------



## Colin Parkinson (23 Sep 2013)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> My sense is that I want the Tories around for a little longer, one election definitely and not more than two, so that they can continue to cause the unsettling of the bureaucracy (my condolences Colin).
> 
> I'm a firm believer that there was far too much stasis in the bureaucracy resulting in and from not just a Laurentian Consensus but a Trudeau - Boomer consensus. Trudeau's boomers are "shuffling off to Buffalo" or more precisely Arizona and Florida.  That makes this an opportune period for remaking the underpinnings of governance by resetting the bureaucracy.  Even if the resetting is as ham-fisted as chucking a grenade in a closed room and sorting out the pieces afterwards resetting is necessary from time to time.
> 
> With respect to the parties themselves, I've demonstrated my cynicism in the past.  As used to be said of disreputable young ladies: "They're no better than they ougtht to".  They are all about egos and followers and hangers-on.  Policy is a vehicle to power, fame and fortune.



My read is that the CPC actually had some sympathy in the PS, most level headed people were sick and tired of the Liberals and insulted by the corruption and arrogance. They were willing to give the CPC a chance. But the PR stranglehold, the out of the blue re-writes of legislation has burnt off that support. Re-writing legislation is a government prerogative, however claiming everything is a crisis and the re-write must be done overnight is weak and creates poorly written laws and regs. Listening completely to one side of an issue also creates bad law. For my own Act, they indicated that they wanted changes in 2009, so they had lots of time to go through public consultation on both sides and come up with good law with a fairly broad support of it. Instead most was done behind closed doors. Even with the Environmental law changes, many of the consultants and proponents were surprised at the sweeping changes, here in BC, we went from 500 environmental assessments to 12. Now industry is nervous that the First Nations may resort to court actions and civil disobedience.
Don’t misunderstand me, the Federal CEAA needed many changes, in particular the “Lawlist triggers” and going to thresholds was a good idea, but I think by the level of changes they made, they actually cut off at the knees many of the FN leaders that pushed for controlled development under that EA protection. These changes may weaken these leaders, causing many of the younger generation to seek other more direct ways of challenging the level of development in their traditional territories. 
Ottawa is realizing they are limited in how much they can impose onto the communities in these regions with Endbridge.


----------



## The Bread Guy (23 Sep 2013)

GAP said:
			
		

> .....the questions tend to be preapproved and selected to put on a good show and not embarass the speaker... :


.... or rigged to do nothing but make the guest look bad.  Check CBC's "As It Happens" on the radio sometime - it's hard not to get the impression that guests are either 1)  the underdog who can do no wrong, or 2)  the devil incarnate who can do no right.

At least the BBC lets you know ahead of time you're getting nothing but (2) in shows like "Hard Talk" - worth listening to a podcast or two.



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> Depends on the market and the show. Smaller markets can't support a staff of pre screeners to vet calls, and some producers won't bother anyway. I recall fielding some pretty bizarre questions on local radio shows when running for municipal office (and even on panel shows when all the candidates were on), so it was clear there was no vetting to make some people look good or bad....


True, that.  The downside of some smaller-market "work around the major media" outreach is that sometimes, the audience reached is like the folks who post comments on online stories - an .... eclectic .... bunch of listeners, indeed.


----------

