Election 2015

[Edward Campbell]

In this column, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail, Jeffrey Simpson laments the demise of the "moderate Conservative" (the Red Tory) in Canada, and the "moderate Republican" in the USA, and he implicitly blames Prime Minister Harper for following the evil Yanks:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/the-disappearance-of-the-moderate-conservative/article25836587/

The disappearance of the moderate conservative

JEFFREY SIMPSON
The Globe and Mail

Published Wednesday, Aug. 05, 2015

They laid the redoubtable Flora MacDonald to rest last Sunday, the same day Conservative Leader Stephen Harper called an election.

The juxtaposition called to mind the disappearance of moderate conservatives – and Flora, as everyone called her, was defiantly one of those – from the Conservative political world.

Mr. Harper personally, and his party in general, has no time for what used to be called “Red Tories,” or moderate conservatives of the kind that used to populate the former Progressive Conservative Party. Mr. Harper dislikes these kinds of people even more than New Democrats and Liberals, who were never part of the conservative world.

When Mr. Harper, an early Reform Party advocate, entered politics, it was to transform the conservative world into a political force with much sharper ideology, less inclination to compromise (or temporize as he saw it), less interest in finding common ground with others, in Canada or abroad. It would be a party of steel, but without much of a heart.

Mr. Harper has been spiteful toward these moderate conservatives. He refused to attend the ceremony for the unveiling of the official portrait of former PC prime minister Joe Clark in the House of Commons. Naturally, the Prime Minister spurned Ms. MacDonald’s funeral, although NDP Leader Thomas Mulcair attended, a classy act.

Mr. Harper’s office issued a brief, bloodless testimony to Ms. MacDonald, a former foreign minister. Mr. Harper’s relations with former PC prime minister Brian Mulroney, a very moderate conservative by today’s standards, are strained.

Today, moderate conservatives are without a political home. Ms. MacDonald in her later years leaned to the NDP; other moderates still vote Conservative but with little enthusiasm.

They are without any influence in the party, witness to which was the sad capitulation of Peter MacKay, once considered a moderate, to the shrill talking points of the new party. He parroted the party line as the price for being in power, but was a marginal figure in cabinet despite his lofty titles as justice and defence minister. Now he is leaving, but not before showering Nova Scotia with money.

The virtually complete disappearance of moderate conservatives within the Harper Conservative Party mirrors, and draws inspiration from, the general drift toward sharper conservative ideology throughout English-speaking democracies.

Moderate Republican is an oxymoronic phrase in U.S. politics. Long gone are the progressive voices in the party of Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Wendell Willkie, Nelson Rockefeller, George Romney and senators such as George Aiken, Charles Percy, Robert Stafford, Gaylord Nelson, Margaret Chase Smith.

The party has become hard-edge on every issue from immigration to defence, from fiscal policy to abortion, with an array of candidates for the party’s nomination trying to outdo the others in strident ideology. When Jeb Bush portrays himself as a moderate, he mocks the word but also endangers his chance of winning. Not one candidate reflects what Lincoln once suggested leadership should be about: to seek the “better angels of our nature.”

In Britain, prime minister Margaret Thatcher systematically weeded out the “wets,” or moderates, from her Conservative Party, although some of them (Geoffrey Howe, Nigel Lawson, Michael Heseltine, inter alia) got their later revenge by contributing to her loss of the leadership. “Wet thinking” has never returned, and Little England has never been stronger.

In Australia, Mr. Harper’s friend Tony Abbott (who is in desperate political trouble and has abandoned anything approximating a balanced budget) takes a much more hard-edged approach than the man from whom he wrested the Liberal Party leadership, the widely respected (outside his party), urbane and worldly Malcolm Turnbull.

Canadian conservatism offers a domestic twist to this pattern of thinking in what is sometimes called the “Anglosphere” about the incapacity of the state to solve social and economic problems – a political pattern that has been supported in think tanks, the right-wing media and among conservative intellectuals.

The Manning Institute, based in Calgary, and the distinctly conservative program to teach would-be politicos and staffers at Carleton University in Ottawa, are part of a successful institutional attempt to buttress this way of conservative thinking.

The older conservative idea of society as an organic whole and of the state’s capacity to defend and promote a common, collective interest, remembering the less fortunate among us, has all but disappeared in the Conservative Party.

I think that, as he so often does, Jeffrey Simpson gets it all back-asswards.

Mr Simpson wants to blame Stephen Harper for leading Canada in the footsteps of the USA. In fact, I believe, Prime Minister Harper is, generally, a "follower," not a leader, and he is "following" Canadians, not Americans.

Canadians follow American leads in damned near everything, and it is only normal, even natural that our political proclivities are shaped as much by what we see on CNN or MSNBC or Fox News as by what we see on CTV or read in the Sun newspapers. American "moderation" began to die in 1964, when Doyle Dane Bernbach, (now DDB Worldwide Communications Group Inc) released the famous "Daisy" ad. That, 50 years ago, not Stephen Harper in the 2000s in when politics, in all of North America, began to shift from "moderates in the middle" to more and more extremism, wtth the middle both shrinking and becoming less engaged. Canadians went along with it ...

                                  Canada, too, abandoned non-partisan "moderation" and embraced differing ideologies: right and left leaning

By the 1980s and '90s the "moderates" were already dying, on the vine, and the extremists were gaining control.

We have what we have ... but it's wrong, and unfair, to blame Stephen Harper for leading us there. You want someone to blame? Look in the mirror ...

 

[Humphrey Bogart]

I agree Edward.  For the record, I consider myself to be a Red Tory who is also a swing voter.  I would vote for either a Conservative or a Liberal; however, scoring my vote is dependent on policy and the personality of the leader.  Right now I think Justin Trudeau is taking the LPC in the wrong direction so I'm seeing blue but if  someone like Paul Martin were the leader, I would be seeing red. 

 

[Kilo_302]

In this column, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail, Jeffrey Simpson laments the demise of the "moderate Conservative" (the Red Tory) in Canada, and the "moderate Republican" in the USA, and he implicitly blames Prime Minister Harper for following the evil Yanks:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/the-disappearance-of-the-moderate-conservative/article25836587/

I think that, as he so often does, Jeffrey Simpson gets it all back-asswards.

Mr Simpson wants to blame Stephen Harper for leading Canada in the footsteps of the USA. In fact, I believe, Prime Minister Harper is, generally, a "follower," not a leader, and he is "following" Canadians, not Americans.

Canadians follow American leads in damned near everything, and it is only normal, even natural that our political proclivities are shaped as much by what we see on CNN or MSNBC or Fox News as by what we see on CTV or read in the Sun newspapers. American "moderation" began to die in 1964, when Doyle Dane Bernbach, (now DDB Worldwide Communications Group Inc) released the famous "Daisy" ad. That, 50 years ago, not Stephen Harper in the 2000s in when politics, in all of North America, began to shift from "moderates in the middle" to more and more extremism, wtth the middle both shrinking and becoming less engaged. Canadians went along with it ...

                                  Canada, too, abandoned non-partisan "moderation" and embraced differing ideologies: right and left leaning

By the 1980s and '90s the "moderates" were already dying, on the vine, and the extremists were gaining control.

We have what we have ... but it's wrong, and unfair, to blame Stephen Harper for leading us there. You want someone to blame? Look in the mirror ...

I disagree with your analysis. One of the main factors behind the success of conservatives in the US was the rise of the "moral majority" and the right finally realizing it had to organize to win. The same strategies (and strategists) that helped put Reagan, Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. in the White House have migrated north. Perhaps a chicken before the egg type argument, but Canadian conservatives have seen the light, and have become extremely efficient at organizing, largely through appealing to a base of voters that are further right than the traditional "Red Tory."

 

[Edward Campbell]

If you like the "Moral Majority" as the catalyst for change (and I'm happy to agree that it played some role in the "rise of the right" which began in the 1950s and '60s) then you still must not blame Stephen Harper. The Moral Majority was founded in the 1970s and was disbanded in the 1980s, when Stephen Harper was fresh faced young aide to progressive Conservative MP Jim Hawkes. I do not deny, for a moment, the Canadian Conservatives learned from their cousins in the US GOP; but so did the Canadian left from their cousins in the US Democratic Party. The fact is that Canada and Canadians changed, following the US lead, and Stephen Harper just joined the parade.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Gwyn Morgan, not loved by the political left, has lashed out at a lazy, uncritical media, including the Globe and Mail which publishes his columns, for failing to think about the drivel that gushes from the mouths of Messers Mulcair and Trudeau and their spokespersons, in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/rob-commentary/media-failing-to-provide-perspective-on-conservatives-economic-record/article25834784/

Some vital perspective on Conservatives’ economic record

GWYN MORGAN
Special to The Globe and Mail

Last updated Wednesday, Aug. 05, 2015

Several years ago, a Report on Business story highlighted this newspaper’s commitment to providing “perspective” in its news stories. I have long considered that a laudable and necessary component of professional journalism. Unfortunately, it’s all too rare in today’s print and electronic media.

One of the most egregious examples of failure to present perspective came in the aftermath of the Parliamentary Budget Officer’s report that the federal government’s forecasted $1.4-billion surplus for the 2015-16 fiscal year may turn into a $1.5-billion deficit. Opposition critics smelled blood. NDP Leader Tom Mulcair told reporters, “The Conservatives have always talked a good game on the economy, but they’ve never delivered on either.” Liberal Finance critic Scott Brison said, “Their economic record is in tatters.”

Such over-the-top commentary is just part of the political game, especially so close to an election. But that doesn’t excuse reporters for failing to lend perspective. The most obvious question for Mr. Mulcair and Mr. Brison is, “How significant is a $2.9-billion change in an $890-billion budget?” The answer is that it amounts to less than one-third of 1 per cent.

Despite diligent searching, I couldn’t find any media reports that offered that vital perspective. Virtually all parroted the Mulcair and Brison laments about government fiscal mismanagement. Days later, a new Globe and Mail/Nanos poll found that the Mulcair NDPs had suddenly overtaken the Harper Conservatives as the best choice to improve the country’s economic prospects. That impression will be very hard for Mr. Harper to turn around so close to an election. Some may be happy about that and others will not, but regardless of one’s political alliances, lack of cogent questioning and thoughtful analysis by reporters is anathema to presenting important perspective to voters.

Now let’s add another “perspective” question that alert reporters would have asked: “Given collapsed oil prices and the China-driven downturn in mining and forestry, isn’t it surprising that Canada can remain the only G7 country besides Germany not facing a major deficit?”

Failure of reporters to ask such a relevant question reveals a wider naivety among Canadians of the economically vital importance of Canada’s resource industries. The degree of that importance can be found on the Natural Resources Canada website. In mining, Canada is the world’s top potash producer, second-largest uranium producer and third-largest aluminum and platinum producer; Canada also ranks as a top-five producer of other key minerals and metals. In energy, Canada is the world’s third-largest natural-gas producer, fifth-largest oil producer and the third-largest producer of hydroelectricity. In forestry, Canada ranks first in newsprint and second in softwood lumber and wood pulp. In 2014, capital expenditures by natural resource companies totalled $126-billion. Natural-resource exports totalled $259-billion, more than half of all merchandise exports. The sector employed 1.8 million Canadians across the country. Notably, Ontario led with 237,000 resource jobs followed by 210,000 in Alberta and 178,000 in Quebec. Resources accounted for almost a third of GDP in Newfoundland and Labrador, Alberta and Saskatchewan.

Unfortunately, the outlook for 2015 isn’t so rosy. Lower oil prices are expected to knock more than $4-billion off federal revenues and even more for producing provinces. The slowdown in China is having a major impact on our mining and forestry industries, further reducing government revenues and employment from coast to coast. And given that resource exports are the mainstay of Canada’s balance of trade, the Canadian dollar has weakened considerably.

Whether it’s a company or a country, the measure of wise financial management is taking advantage of the good times to build resilience for the inevitable bad times. In 2006 and 2007, the Harper government posted surpluses that positioned Canada to weather the 2008 financial crisis better than almost all other countries. Meanwhile, rather than building financial resilience during the extended pre-2008-boom, euro zone countries spent and borrowed as if the good times would never end, placing them in the dire debt predicament we see today.

Now, as Canada’s most important industrial sector faces difficult times, our economy faces another major challenge. Those often-criticized tough spending decisions taken to rebuild financial resilience will be key to carrying us through. That our government can even come close to balancing its books in the face of these circumstances should be a cause for rejoicing. But where else have you heard that perspective?

A few days ago I explained my socio-economic views, including my belief in low spending as the better choice for national fiscal management. That puts me at odds with some people here and with both the Liberal and New Democratic Parties.

Mr Morgan, nearly alone, asks the important question: how is it "that Canada can remain the only G7 country besides Germany not facing a major deficit?” I believe that sensible Canadian voters need to ask that question of the candidates on their doorstep. I also believe that Liberal and NDP candidates will hem and haw and stumble because, quite frankly, their either don't know or, if they do, are afraid to say that it was good, sound, austere fiscal policies ~ not austere enough, in my opinion ~ that did the job. Messers Mulcair and Trudeau want to turn that around; they want to spend, wildly; they want to buy your votes with your grandchildren's money; they are irresponsible ... but many of you will vote for them, anyway.

 

[Bird_Gunner45]

I disagree with your analysis. One of the main factors behind the success of conservatives in the US was the rise of the "moral majority" and the right finally realizing it had to organize to win. The same strategies (and strategists) that helped put Reagan, Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. in the White House have migrated north. Perhaps a chicken before the egg type argument, but Canadian conservatives have seen the light, and have become extremely efficient at organizing, largely through appealing to a base of voters that are further right than the traditional "Red Tory."

I disagree with your disagreement. The biggest factor in the Conservatives fortunes was uniting the Reform and PC parties. If you look at the 1997 election results, for instance the total "right wing" vote was 38.19% (Reform and PC) with the total left wing vote adding to 49.51% (liberal and NDP). The remaining 12% would be your Bloc Quebecois largely along with the minor parties.

Further, to state that the Conservatives are appealing to the voters further right of the "Red Tory" is misguided IMHO, as those votes would vote Conservative no matter what the case... what other real option, outside of fringe parties, do they have? Further, unlike in the US, those voters make up a very low number of persons, and outside of a few ridings would have only a minor effect at the best of times. I would say that the Conservative party is trying to distance themselves from those voters if anything.

On the left spectrum, the people significantly "left of red tory" traditionally went to the NDP. With the NDP now moving into a position to make a legitimate shot at power, they are equally attempting to distance themselves from their fringe elements on the left and move into the centre. That's why the liberals seem out of sorts- they're not right enough to be right and not left enough to be left.

 

[Rocky Mountains]

Opposition party supporters are going to beat the "mood for change" drum.  Government party supporters are going to beat the "no appetite for change" drum.  It is election time.  Every reporter's bias is subject to examination - after applying the customary assumption that only 1/3 of reportage is an accurate reflection of reality.

And 47 % of statistics are made up on the spot.

 

[Rocky Mountains]

It is supposed to prevent red streets.

Guns in the streets?  That was Shiny Pony's dad.

 

[larry Strong]

Guns in the streets?  That was Shiny Pony's dad.

Never knew PM Harper went up against PET....IIRC it was Mr. Dithers who was running the show......



Cheers
Larry

 

[Rocky Mountains]

Never knew PM Harper went up against PET....IIRC it was Mr. Dithers who was running the show......

Cheers
Larry

The last person to physically have guns in the streets was Mr. Fuddle Duddle in 1970.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

The last person to physically have guns in the streets was Mr. Fuddle Duddle in 1970.

Your quote is more famous from P Martin Jr's campaign.

Also, many of us were armed during the '76 Olympics in Montreal, you just didn't see it 

 

[Good2Golf]

Your quote is more famous from P Martin Jr's campaign.

Also, many of us were armed during the '76 Olympics in Montreal, you just didn't see it 

Luckily they took photos...er...well, made paintings of your company...this was before you got your 'hooks', right RG?  47th Grenadiers deployed up the river from Quebec?

 

[Fishbone Jones]

Luckily they took photos...er...well, made paintings of your company...this was before you got your 'hooks', right RG?  47th Grenadiers deployed up the river from Quebec?

Just got busted in rank........again.  8)

 

[a_majoor]

Your quote is more famous from P Martin Jr's campaign.

Also, many of us were armed during the '76 Olympics in Montreal, you just didn't see it 

Plenty of guns at the Vancouver Olympics and the G-8/G-20 meetings as well, but once again, just carried very discreetly. And plenty of guns did come out when Parliament hill was attacked (but the armed presence in Canadian cities now is the police, not the Armed Forces).

 

[Edward Campbell]

In this video John Ibbitson suggests that a long campaign may be dangerous for Prime Minister Harper. The PM is an introvert, Ibbitson says, and a long campaign may wear him down and cause him to make mistakes.

 

[PPCLI Guy]

Messers Mulcair and Trudeau...... want to spend, wildly; they want to buy your votes with your grandchildren's money; they are irresponsible ...

Is it any less irresponsible to buy critical 905 swing votes using those very same swing voters own money via the Renovation Tax Credit?

 

[PuckChaser]

Is it any less irresponsible to buy critical 905 swing votes using those very same swing voters own money via the Renovation Tax Credit?

A tax credit that's clearly stated to hinge on a balanced budget, something Muclair and Trudeau hasn't (and will not ever) promise? They'd rather just raise taxes to fund whatever vote buying they can think up.

 

[Remius]

A tax credit that's clearly stated to hinge on a balanced budget, something Muclair and Trudeau hasn't (and will not ever) promise? They'd rather just raise taxes to fund whatever vote buying they can think up.

Aren't they already claiming that they balanced the budget?

 

[PuckChaser]

They technically did, but the economy taking a big crap unbalanced it shortly after. That still doesn't change the fact that they're the only party putting a caveat about economic stability on thier campaign promises. What's $15 a day daycare going to do to the budget?

 

[ballz]

Is it any less irresponsible to buy critical 905 swing votes using those very same swing voters own money via the Renovation Tax Credit?

I'm not supporting the CPC, but yes, it is less irresponsible to let people keep their own money. The problem is, as you alluded to, the government arbitrarily picking and choosing who it lets keep their money.