• Thanks for stopping by. Logging in to a registered account will remove all generic ads. Please reach out with any questions or concerns.

Conservative minority government

Just finished watching the news. Last story a 30 yr bureaucrat explaining the in's and out's of adjusting loyalty to the new party in power and their need to educate the new party in power about how things are done in Ottawa. Harper's first move should be doing a little "out with the old and in with the new". Having watched that interview it is now a little clearer why things never change.
 
I'm looking forward to the new government.  harper has a lot of power on hand even with minority in which he can prove to Canadians that 1) the conservatives are not sracey and 2) the Liberal are not that natural ruling party of canada.

The first thing he should do is force the liberals to pay back all the money they stole from canadians not just some amount as the martin government said was okay.  They also need to look into all finances and deals the liberals have done in the last few years to make sure they are clean and legal. After all the liberals are corrupt for a reason.

Second they should keep all of their promises, just by doing that they prove how much more hones they are then martin or the Liberal party ever were.  and in keeping their promises they need to stay mid of road to prove they can work with all parties, again something martin was unable to do.

The other thing I'm hoping to see come out of this is a new position for the NPD.  To finally get out and take over the position of the liberal party.  To not just be voice, but to be actually a party that can get things done; and unlike liberals actually have policies and stand by them.  The reason the liberals have done so well in the past is not their good government ( or lack of it) but they ability to read the polls and stay  in the mid no matter what.
 
Not sure who'se got the haze discoloured vision.
I'm not expecting much......
 
The Conservatives have five key pledges, which are supported in one form or another by one or more opposition parties. They are:

http://www.conservative.ca/EN/1738/37446

•  Clean up government by passing the Federal Accountability Act;

•  Provide real tax relief to working families by cutting the GST;

•  Make our streets and communities safer by cracking down on crime;

•  Help parents with the cost of raising their children; and

•  Work with the provinces to establish a Patient Wait Times Guarantee.

There are some tactical advantages to each one,

The Federal Accountability Act can hang the Liberals out to dry for a very long time (we KNOW of over 10 years of scandals, what HASN't come to light yet), which may be pleasing to all the other parties;

Tax relief will make the voter base happy and gain some converts, especially given the proven ability of tax relief to energize the economy;

No one is FOR crime (at least not as a party platform plank, anyway);

Child tax credits reinforces the voter base; and,

The Wait Time Guarantee will play well to the socialist hordes, Red Torys and Liberal supporters (who can be reminded this was promised in each and every Liberal "Red Book" in some form or another). Personally I think such a thing is useless, only privatization and exposure to market forces could save the Canadian health system, but the mass of Canadians will have to be led to this conclusion in slow steps.

Most of these ideas can be played directly to the electorate in Reaganesque fashion (Harper as the "great communicator"?), putting some pressure on MPs as well as opposition parties ("We were defeated because Party X dosn't support us on accountability"), and I think Harper himself is made of sterner stuff than anyone expects (although after welding the Alliance and former PC parties together, people should have taken notice of his political skills). Look for a lot of stick handling in and out of Parliament as parties and MPs get courted on a case by case basis to pass each of the five major bills.

Where does that leave us, the Service Members? We will see a very modest increase in capabilities, but nothing earth shaking. We will be able to enjoy a bit more of our take home pay, but not driving around in new tanks; neither Parliament or the electorate sees the CF as "Job One", and unless a suitcase nuke detonates in Toronto, probably never will.

Given the depleted states of all the parties and their apparatus (and the patience of the electorate), I will go on record as saying Prime Minister Harper will have at least three years in power.
 
Bill Davis - Premier of Ontario

1971 (Majority)
1975 (Minority) - 51 Tory, 38 NDP, 36 Libs
1977 (Minority) - 58 Tory, 33 NDP, 34 Libs
1981 (Majority)
1985 (Retired)

Bill Davis hired Hugh Segal as his Legislative Secretary in 1975 after only gaining a minority.  Hugh stayed on through the next minority as well.  Note that it lasted 4 years.

Hugh Segal is now Senator Hugh Segal and acting as advisor to Stephen Harper.

A couple of good Bridge players I'm thinking.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bill_Davis


 
Gunner said:
Look what happen to Joe Clark's 100 day government in 1979...

I think we are going to see that Steven Harper is made of different stuff than Joe Who ever was!
 
glad to hear your opinions guys.
the PC have a weaker minority than the Liberals had and their reign was cut short for all sorts of reasons.
the PC will have to grease the way with a lot of listening to what the NDP and the Bloc are saying...
PC + NDP = 153
Lib + Bloc = 154
+ 1 nutcase independent.....
 
What do we know about that independant, aside from him being some sort of disk jockey?

Anybody got a link to a bio?

DG
 
Here you are

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20051231/ELXNARTHUR31/National/Idx

QUEBEC -- More than 200 people packed a local restaurant in the small community of Saint-Raymond-de-Portneuf last week to help launch Quebec's legendary radio host André Arthur on a possible new career in federal politics.

The invective king of Quebec radio had just completed his final show at CKNU in Donnaconna, where he has been in exile since being dumped from what was once one of Quebec City's top radio stations. The Roi Arthur, as everyone called him in honour of his 35 years behind a microphone lashing out at the establishment, had once again lost his throne when the station's new owners did not renew his contract.

Now, he intends to run as an independent candidate in the riding of Portneuf-Jacques-Cartier in the hopes of defeating the Bloc Québécois incumbent and bringing the aggressive style and verbal attacks he so often aimed at politicians into the House of Commons in Ottawa.

In his final days as a radio host, about 500 people responded to his invitations to have coffee and discuss politics at local restaurants, sending a clear signal to his opponents that Mr. Arthur was no symbolic candidate. The outspoken radio host said he was in it to win, and given the level of enthusiastic response to his candidacy, he might just pull it off.

"For the first time, I've entered a race with the intention of winning. I have this strong desire to fight after my adventures in radio that were provoked by the federal authorities," Mr. Arthur said in an interview. He said the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission was behind his firing.

In 1994, Mr. Arthur ran provincially as an independent, finishing second in the Quebec City riding of Louis-Hébert. He once campaigned to become mayor of Sainte-Foy by telling everyone he didn't want to win. This time, he is seeking revenge against those in Ottawa who he says have conspired to silence him.

Throughout the communities spread out over the 7,000-square kilometre riding, André Arthur is a household name. Everyone knows him for his hard-hitting comments and his war of words against the CRTC. Anyone interested in the gossip and rumours about political leaders and venting their anger at the established order would tune in to his open-line radio show.

Now the 62-year old Mr. Arthur wants to become the lightning rod for all those fed up with politics and seeking a way to protest against what he calls political corruption.

He said the only honourable badge a politician can carry these days is that of independent. He said that the most striking comments received from average citizens who are federalists is that many have not voted federally for years but are now willing to support him.
 
Some of the stuff about the political conspiracy to silence him sounds a little out there but he did say one thing I liked:

He said the only honourable badge a politician can carry these days is that of independent.

He obviously won because the majority communit feels they represent them.
And, hey, one less Bloc MP.
 
Finessing the votes in Parliament could be interesting, but for the person who pointed out Conservatives + NDP = 153, the Liberals and Non Democrats are a more natural partnership; and rebalancing Federal and Provincial powers is certainly something the Bloc will support (I am no separatist, but this is something which is long overdue anyway).

Meanwhile, on a slightly different note:

http://anglosphere.com/weblog/archives/000243.html

January 24, 2006
Harper's Anglosphere Option

Harper's win in Canada is welcome news to the entire Anglosphere. This is not so much on account of what Harper may do, although there are some interesting possibilites, but at a minimum for what he will not do: ride anti-Americanism as his substitute for an honest patriotism. The fundamental problem with the Liberals is that ever since Trudeau deconstructued the basis of historical Canadian patriotism, the Liberals have not been able to construct an adequate substitute. They are almost embarassed to love the real, historical Canada, (they are too busy apologizing for it) unless that sentiment can somehow be tied into America-bashing. Dudes, get a life -- and while you're at it, get a national narrative that consist of something else besides "I'm not them."

I have been thinking about the critical question of what Harper can do even with no majority.  His legislative agenda probably needs to focus on government process -- transparency primarily, to decouple the Liberals' cash machine, and secondly disintermediation, to finish the end run around the CBC and the press oligopoly.  The Bloc Quebecois and to some extent the New Democratic Party can get behind that agenda, even if as leftists they cannot support much of the Conservative substance.

But aside from that, the Prime Minister's office is a pretty good bully pulpit, and he would be smart to use it to start deconstructing the Trudeavean deconstruction of the old Canada.  He should make sure the Canadian troops in Afghanistan are decorated in a visible and public ceremony, exactly what has been denied to them to date.  He should make a show of honoring the Canadian WWII veterans conspicuously and repeatedly, and having a substantial ceremony on every one of the big Canadian military anniversaries: Vimy, Dieppe, D-Day, etc.  He might bring back the Red Ensign in a historical context -- ordering it flown as a "veteran's memorial flag" on select days like D-Day, and for Canadian ships to fly the Blue Ensign on a suitable day as well, maybe November 11th.  It would be very hard for people to criticize him for remembering the veterans more conspicuously. And perhaps he might even consider a surprise visit to the forces in Afghanistan.

In foreign policy, he and his external affairs minister can do a lot to change the tone without legislation.  Rather than being conspicuously closer to Bush, (which the media is waiting to jump on him for) he should become buddies with John Howard of Australia and to a lesser extent Tony Blair (while inviting the new British Tory leader Cameron to Ottawa for a visit. Cameron might spend some time thinking about why his party is now the only major Anglosphere right party to be out of power.)

Rather than bilateral meetings with Bush, he should set up some trilateral meetings with Bush and Howard in a Pacific venue, and focus on Pacific affairs, the neglect of which is another Liberal shortcoming. 

(The Liberals have the curious habit of looking at the Pacific the wrong way around, essentially viewing it from Brussels, rather than from the natural vantage-point of Vancouver with its capital and technology, or Calgary with its energy resources. That is to say, they tend to share the French self-delusion that China is going to do their heavy lifting in "counterbalancing" American power, at great potential cost to China and little real benefit.)

Harper should make a point of going to India and elevating Canadian-Indian relations in an Asian-Pacific context.  This might get some of the Indian immigrants wondering why they support what is essentially the suck-up party to Chinese ambitions in Asia

Secondly he should become more proactive in Caribbean affairs and pick up some of the position the British have historically held with the Anglo-Caribbean states, including a muscular support of those states in their ongoing disputes with the Caribbean Hispanosphere states.  Particularly this is so with Guyana, which is in the sights of Venezuela's Chavez, and whose natural ally in that dispute has always been Britian.

In regard to Cuba, he can appoint a new ambassador with instructions to reach out to and suppport the Cuban dissidents. The rationale for Canada's relations with Cuba has always been that engagement brings more results in reform than isolation. So far there has been little to show for it. Harper has a very valid right to step up the pace of the engagement effort.

Harper and the Tories have a very solid reservoir of very Canadian ideas, symbols, and traditions that have been ignored or suppressed for decades, but that can be pulled out again selectively

The Liberals and the media are waiting for him to become a "clone of America" -- but by taking an Anglospherist tack he can throw them off balance and turn the negative Canadian nationalism (in the form of anti-Americanism) into positive Canadian patriotism. America (and the Anglosphere) doesn't need a lackey of America on its northern border -- it needs a neighbor that has abandoned its touchy defensiveness and can take its proper place in the English-speaking community, of which it used to be a leading member.

Posted by James C. Bennett at January 24, 2006 09:23 PM | TrackBack
 
a-major i went over your priority list for Harper,why isn't gun registry on that list.Alot of his support came from gun owners,he better throw them a bone don't ya think.If he doesn't that could alienate some of his grass roots supporters.On a personnel note i like a minority gov makes all the politicians earn there money.Also no more snowballin the sheeple.When it comes to the gun registration i hope they allow a free vote by all MP's,i think its the only way to put that white elephant down.        comments
 
Since Harper has a minority, it will take a lot of skill and attention to move on the five priorities. In our terms it is called Selection and Maintenance of the Aim; and Economy of Effort (Force).

The gun registry can simply be suffocated by not allocating any more funding, but in order to keep on track with the tough on crime stance, the PM might use some clever slight of hand; i.e. "The previous government spent x billion or more dollars on the Gun Registry, which has had no impact on crime. We intend to take that funding and apply it to hiring y new RCMP officers, Customs Officers, building and modernizing z new prison spaces for repeat offenders...."

If he were to say something like that, closing the Gun Registry is a positive, and keeping it hinders the anti-crime efforts of the government.
 
Remember that the registry replaced the old Green Sheet sytem that has been used since 1934 to register handguns and full autos.  All he needs is an order in council to stop registering non-restricted firearms, and repeal the order in coucil that prohibited the FAL, AR-10, etc.  This will keep the full autos and pistols the way they were back when (for now).

Then, establish a class of license that automatically tracks any criminal who is convicted of a violent or gun crime.

Bingo.

He just kept 3,000,000 votes.

Tom

 
I get the feeling that a lot of Liberals felt that the whole gun registry, at least as implemented, was a huge white elephant that they couldn't get rid of without serious loss of face.

I don't think anyone will fight to keep it.

DG
 
RecceDG said:
I get the feeling that a lot of Liberals felt that the whole gun registry, at least as implemented, was a huge white elephant that they couldn't get rid of without serious loss of face.

I don't think anyone will fight to keep it.

Except maybe MPs in heavily urban ridings.
 
In terms of registration of non-restricted firearms, the only thing that can be done through order in council is push the date upon which it becomes an offence not to have registered non-restricted firearms.  As for prohibited firearms those are now prohibited by statute instead of Order in Council, specifically via s.12(1-6) of the Firearms Act.

I don't expect in the government to be able to deliever on many of the promises that appealed to the Tory faithful (gun control, stiffer sentencing, tax reform or defence spending) any initiatives on this front will be sufficiently watered down to gain the support of other parties.
 
I don't believe the gun registry was the issue that got the Liberals out. Those gun owners were around during the last few elections. They need to just look at a more efficient way of running it.
 
The gun registry wasn't the main reason it was part of the equation.Whats that saying total power corrupts totatally something like that.Any way my point is there should be a better way to vote something like that registry in or out.Say on the ballet,the party choice's and do you vote for the act or against.I would like to see the regular guy have more say in whats beein ramed down are throats.Not just the gun registry but any contraversial act or law.Lets face it are MP's don't always vote with there constituates in mind,they usually are told how to vote by there leader.I think MP's should be responsible to there constituants not tow the party line.Maybe thats part of the reason voter turnout is the way it is.Just some of my thoughts about are system.
 
Back
Top