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

Election 2015

Status
Not open for further replies.
Shared under the usual Copyright caveats.

Canada won’t be blue forever, Rae says

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/1109774--canada-won-t-be-blue-forever-rae-says

Susan Delacourt Ottawa Bureau

OTTAWA -- Bob Rae, the interim Liberal leader, isn’t buying all the talk about Conservatives permanently changing the face of Canada.
“I think there’s no question the Tories are doing damage. But I’m not one of those people who says that the damage is irreparable,” Rae said in a year-end interview with the Star.
“Only in their own minds do they (Conservatives) believe that they are effecting a permanent ideological change to Canada and that we can never get it back. We can always get our country back. We just have to have the political will to do it.”
Rae says it’s worth remembering that Ontario Conservatives, under former premier Mike Harris, tried to make long-lasting changes in the province’s political culture in the 1990s, especially in the realm of education, health care and social services.
“The Conservative agenda can be reversed,” Rae says. “I think that in Ontario, we’ve seen that. Where they tried to turn our schools into ideological playgrounds, I think Premier (Dalton) McGuinty’s done a good job of saying ‘No, we’re going to rebuild that; we’re going to rebuild health care.’”
Prime Minister Stephen Harper himself has said he adheres to the legal principle that no government can tie the hands of a future government.
Still, eight months into Conservative majority government, much of the year-end commentary for 2011 has been focused on whether Harper is on a quest to permanently recast Canada as a more Conservative country – in style and in substance.
Critics point to small measures, such as putting the word “royal” back into the military, and large measures, such as scrapping the Wheat Board and abolishing all evidence of the gun registry, as permanent makeovers of the “old” Canada.
Former Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff is one of the people who fears that the recent health-care funding announcement sends Canada down a path from which it won’t be able to retreat, even after the Conservatives are out of power.
On his Facebook page after the Flaherty announcement, Ignatieff wrote: “Let’s be clear where this will take us. We will cease to have a national health-care system. Instead we will have 13 systems, with different standards of treatment and care, and no incentives to learn from each other, share best practice or collaborate to lower costs.”
Rae shares Ignatieff’s concern about the Conservatives’ view of federalism.
“I’m a big believer that the country is a partnership and it’s not a one-man show,” he says.
Rae, a former Ontario premier, says Harper should have been holding regular first ministers’ conferences over the past six years. (Apart from one informal gathering at 24 Sussex soon after Harper was elected in 2006, there have been none.)
“I think it’s partly that he doesn’t like sharing an agenda with anybody else,” Rae says. “And I think it’s partly that has a very ideological view of the federation – that it’s made up of watertight compartments, where you do your thing and I’ll do mine, and we’ll see you later. And that to me is a ludicrous way to run a country.”
Rae, in taking the job as interim leader, agreed to the Liberal party’s condition that he not run for the permanent job – though there’s repeated speculation that this condition will be lifted before the next leadership contest in a year or two.
And though some gloomier – some say more realistic – Liberals believe that Harper may have another eight years in power, Rae continues to tell the party that anything is possible in Canadian politics and it’s entirely reasonable for Liberals to set their sights on a comeback to power when Harper’s current majority ends in 2015.
If that happens, he said, a future government will have some unraveling to do of the Conservative agenda. He says that his chief priority would be dismantling the Harper government’s so-called “law and order” changes to the Criminal Code.
“The Criminal Code is now twice as thick as it was when I went to law school,” says Rae, 62, who attended law school in the 1960s. “I honestly don’t believe the social problems are any more or less complex than they were…. It’s just getting too complicated, it’s too micro-managed… this government is trying to dictate every outcome.”

I'm near speechless ( I know, hard to believe). Maybe they're finally accepting that they lost, maybe not.

There is no damage, only in the eyes of the liberal faithful that won't take off their blinders. Those that can't see that Canadians were tired of the 'Great Social Experiment' that the liberals fousted on us.

The country is changing because the people wanted it changed. The libs are threatening to turn back the clock (in 4 or 8 years) to the disfunctional, socialist society that they have made us into. The one that if it was so good, Iggy would be PM.

Iggy lost. He should mind his business. The Feds are finally divesting themselves of the nanny status that has made the Provinces dependent, instead of dealing head on with THEIR problems.

The damage that Rae did to Ontario, is still being felt. He can't blame it on Harris or give credit to McGuinty. We're trapped and wallowing because of Rae.

The Criminal Code has doubled in size, not because of Harper, but because of the namby pamby, hug a thug, revolving court justice brought in and instilled by the liberals and NDP.

NDP people like Bob Rae.

 
Vowing to simplify the Criminal Code is probably their one good idea, so far.

And Rae is right- the Conservatives will not be in power forever.  It maybe 2015, 2019, etc- but they will, eventually, be defeated.  By some party (Liberals? NDP? Something else that does not even exist today?).  And they will probably deserve it, too.  It is the way of the world.
 
SeaKingTacco said:
Vowing to simplify the Criminal Code is probably their one good idea, so far.

And Rae is right- the Conservatives will not be in power forever.  It maybe 2015, 2019, etc- but they will, eventually, be defeated.  By some party (Liberals? NDP? Something else that does not even exist today?).  And they will probably deserve it, too.  It is the way of the world.

No arguement. It needs to be simplified. No more two (three) for ones. No probation. Mandatory sentences, remove discretion from the judges for criminal offences. Prisoners rights need to go back to basic rules of incarceration, etc.

They will get defeated, eventually. Hopefully, whoever replaces them will look back and learn, and instead of regressing twenty years past, move forward and build upon the good things wrought by all parties.

There is no doubt the Opposition landscape will be very different than it is now. Just as, I'm sure, the CPC position will be when that time comes.

We have to ensure that whoever it is, they understand implicitly, that they work for us. Not us for them, and we won't tolerate them bullying us or treating us like long term lab rats.

Whoever they are.
 
The howler in the article is Rae's asserting rolling back the changes of the "Common Sense Revolution" was a good thing. I don't suppose he has thought about Ontario's current unemployment figures, $100 billion debt or projected $16 billion deficit for the coming year under the current Liberal government? Or maybe that is his definition of what good government looks like.


 
The Good Grey Globe's John Ibbitson asks the right question ("Will this ... help save John McCallum’s hide in 2015?") in this article, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/john-ibbitson/saving-john-mccallums-seat-will-be-true-measure-of-liberal-reforms/article2290817/
Saving John McCallum’s seat will be true measure of Liberal reforms

JOHN IBBITSON

Globe and Mail Update
Published Wednesday, Jan. 04, 2012


Next week about 1,500 Liberals will gather in Ottawa to debate the future of their party at its biennial convention. The outcome could decide whether John McCallum gets to keep his seat.

web_John_McCall_1359010cl-3.jpg


The Grits are feeling much better about themselves than they did after their thrashing last May. Interim Leader Bob Rae has performed effectively; fundraising has been going relatively well; the NDP’s uncertain performance under their interim leader, Nycole Turmel, has opened vistas of gains in Quebec next time out.

But this is superficial progress. The party remains dangerously weak: estranged from voters in most regions of the country and devoid of policies or long-term leadership to counter Stephen Harper and his Conservative government.

Will the delegates take the risks needed to fundamentally renew a gravely damaged political brand? Or will the old guard undermine reform in the interests of protecting what little turf is still left to them?

Based on conversations with people who spoke candidly in exchange for anonymity, the news for Liberals is mostly encouraging.

The key issue is over the selection of the next leader, who will be chosen sometime in 2013. The outgoing executive is proposing a high-risk/high-reward road to reform.

If adopted by the convention, the party will allow anyone to declare themselves a Liberal supporter. Supporters will pay no fee and will not be party members, though they must sign a declaration of Liberal principles. By signing up they will qualify to cast a vote for the next party leader – either through a series of primary contests similar to the ones now underway in the United States or all together on a single day.

The risk is that the Conservatives and NDP will try to rig the choice of leader by having their own partisans sign up as supporters. The reward is the possibility that hundreds of thousands of Canadians could get involved, creating a buzz around the next leader that would vault the Grits back into contention. The word is that the delegates like the proposal and will adopt it.

Other proposed reforms are meeting more resistance. Allowing supporters to vote for nominees at the riding level, an idea the executive is also proposing, has some delegates worried that special interests could game the system by, say, foisting an anti-abortion or pro-marijuana candidate on the party. This would be easier to achieve at the riding level than in a national leadership campaign.

Some Liberal MPs are grumbling about a resolution that would strip incumbents of any protection from nomination challenges. And a move to eviscerate the provincial wings of the national party, so that head office can centralize riding renewal efforts, is also under attack, especially from the party’s Quebec wing. The turf-protectors may prevail on these counts.

Then there are the specific policy proposals generated by the various wings of the party. Most of them are motherhood: fighting poverty, protecting the environment, supporting post-secondary education.

Others are exotic: One resolution, if adopted, would eliminate the Queen as Canada’s head of state. Another would legalize marijuana. A third would scrap the penny.

In all their deliberations, the delegates should ask themselves one simple question: Will this resolution, if adopted, help save John McCallum’s hide in 2015?

Mr. McCallum is the MP for Markham-Unionville, a suburban riding in what used to be the Liberal bastion of Greater Toronto. Last May, the former cabinet minister, who used to win by a margin of 20,000, clung to his seat by a mere 1,700 votes. The riding is now virtually surrounded by Tory constituencies. Unless the trend reverses, Mr. McCallum will be defeated next time out.

Reversing that trend – in urban Ontario, in Quebec and in the West – is the do-or-die proposition that Liberals face.

Opening the party to millions of potential new supporters could be the essential first step. As for legalizing marijuana and turfing the Queen – well, that’s for the delegates to decide.

Québec, urban Ontario, the West ... the Liberals must rebuild there, at the expense of both the Conservatives and the NDP if they are going to return to official opposition status in 2015 and to government in 2019 or 2023.
 
For a party that needs to re-establish itself in the West, the Liberals seem to miss every opportunity to miss opportunities.

Notice how their major meetings occur in one of three palces:  Toronto, Montreal or Ottawa.

I suspect a minor change of geography would serve them well.
 
Reading Ibbitson's piece suggests to me that the Liberals may be setting themselves up for a David Orchard.  In fact I understand that he is still available.

Some friends are worse than enemies.
 
Kirkhill said:
Reading Ibbitson's piece suggests to me that the Liberals may be setting themselves up for a David Orchard.  In fact I understand that he is still available.

Some friends are worse than enemies.


We might credit Orchard with saving the Tories. He switched his support to MacKay who promptly stabbed the stupid SOB (Orchard) in the back and "united the right" with Harper's Alliance. Dumb as a bag of hammers might be the best way to describe Orchard - which makes him an almost perfect Liberal ...
 
E.R. Campbell said:
We might credit Orchard with saving the Tories. He switched his support to MacKay who promptly stabbed the stupid SOB (Orchard) in the back and "united the right" with Harper's Alliance. Dumb as a bag of hammers might be the best way to describe Orchard - which makes him an almost perfect Liberal ...

Fair comment.
 
If this is how the Liberals are going to ger more seats ( ;)) there will be some very interesting moments in the House and in caucus:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/01/10/kelly-mcparland-lise-st-denis-pokes-another-pin-in-deflating-ndp-bubble/

Kelly McParland: Lise St-Denis pokes another pin in deflating NDP bubble

Kelly McParland  Jan 10, 2012 – 11:49 AM ET | Last Updated: Jan 10, 2012 11:56 AM ET

Lise St-Denis never expected to be elected, wasn’t given a top job in the NDP caucus and has had plenty of time to sit in the back benches since May and watch the House of Commons in action.

She realizes she only won her seat because Quebec voters suddenly fell in love with Jack Layton. After 10 years with the party, she considered herself a loyal NDP member, but once she got that seat in the Commons and saw how things worked, a new reality dawned. The NDP, she saw, wasn’t ready for prime time.

She was disillusioned by some of their positions, in particular the decision to withdraw support for the bombing mission in Libya after initially backing the campaign. She didn’t like the way the decision was reached. She also wasn’t wild about the party’s performance in defending Quebec interests, even though 59 of its 103 seats were in Quebec. It struck her that the Liberal party, which had been reduced to a humiliating 34 seats, did a better job. So yesterday she jumped, quitting the NDP after just eight months in Ottawa and joining the Liberals.

In terms of numbers and the balance of power, it means nothing. The Tories can look on with bemusement as the little people play musical chairs. But it’s a moral boost for Bob Rae and his Liberals, and an embarrassment for the NDP, which has to start taking such warning signs seriously.

At a press conference to reveal her decision, Ms. St-Denis didn’t come across as the sort of embittered backbencher who felt her ambitions had been foiled by higher ups. “I never believed I would be elected,” she readily admitted. She was one of those NDP candidates who did the party a favour by contesting what were largely viewed as hopeless cases, especially so in her case as she was running in St-Maurice— Champlain, once held by former prime minister Jean Chretien. But she won, and went to Ottawa, and, to her surprise, discovered she felt the Liberals would be a better fit.

“The Liberal Party has a great deal of experience in decision-making,” she said. The party has a “more open, comprehensive, global view” than the New Democrats. As far as Quebec goes, she concluded, the Liberals “can do a better job defending Quebec’s place in Confederation than other parties.”

So take that, NDP. It might have been better for the former socialists if Ms St-Denis had showed herself to be more of a malcontent, maybe a bit of a whiner. Then they could have written her off as a thwarted small-timer who resented being bypassed by other party members. Instead she seemed entirely reasonable, and that’s what may hurt most. Ms St-Denis had been supporting the leadership bid of Thomas Mulcair, who until May was the only NDP MP in the province, and remains the leading Quebec candidate for the leadership. She still says she wishes him well, but it doesn’t say much for her confidence in Mulcair that she would prefer to sit with a third-place party holding just seven Quebec seats, rather than the Official Opposition he might soon be leading. She wasn’t even willing to wait a few more months to find out who won, deciding she’d take the Liberals even though they don’t have a full-time leader, won’t get around to selecting one for almost two years, and are meeting this weekend to begin what’s expected to be a long, uncertain process aimed at establishing a new package of policies and, not least, a reason the party should continue to exist.

Her departure comes as polls show a slow deflation in the bubble of enthusiasm that worked so well for them in Quebec. And with the leadership campaign well underway, the absence of national excitement is notable. Who’s going to come out ahead? Brian Topp? Paul Dewar? Mr. Mulcair? A dark-horse?

For the most part, Canadians don’t seem to care. Eight months after the dawn of the NDP revolution, that’s a pretty sad commentary on its performance.

kmcparland@nationalpost.com

In a different article, the MP is quoted as saying "They voted for Jack Layton. Jack Layton is dead,", indicating she at least understood the primary reason the NDP was able to make such historic gains (and why it will be very difficult to consolodate and grow from there)
 
In watching Power Play tonight Jean Belavance brought up the point that most NDP's higher ups were hoping it was Lise St-Denis that was crossing the floor. She turned out to be a sever pain in the a$$, and they wished her on someone else, especially the Liberals or maybe the BQ
 
It is, in a way, rather sad that the Liberals and the NDP must fight over the remains of old, lesser Canada while the Conservatives solidify their hold on new, growing Canada. But that's what this article, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail, says is happening:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/john-ibbitson/defection-reminds-ndp-and-liberals-its-quebec-or-bust/article2298466/
Defection reminds NDP and Liberals it’s Quebec or bust

JOHN IBBITSON

Ottawa— Globe and Mail Update
Published Wednesday, Jan. 11, 2012

The Great Game is afoot in the province of Quebec.

Saint-Maurice-Champlain MP Lise St-Denis’s defection from the NDP to the Liberals on Tuesday is more than a preconvention boost for a party that needs one.

She reminds us all that, for the Liberals and NDP, the fight for Quebec is the fight that matters above all.

As Ms. St-Denis put it with unnecessary bluntness: Last May, Quebeckers did not vote for the NDP. They “voted for Jack Layton. Jack Layton is dead.”

The party’s 59 Quebec MPs are mostly young, inexperienced or both. It is an accidental caucus.

If the Official Opposition wants to remain the Official Opposition after the 2015 election, it must replace the giddy infatuation that drove Quebeckers to abandon the Bloc Québécois with something more sober and more real. Otherwise, the NDP will go back to being what it always was: an English Canadian party of social protest that attracts the support of about one Canadian in six.

For the Liberals, the stakes are equally high. Within the present political reality, they have no hope of picking up 50 seats in Ontario next time out. The suburban sprawl of Greater Toronto will remain lost to them until the province’s political fundamentals realign, which isn’t going to happen anytime soon. The prospects in British Columbia’s Lower Mainland are hardly less bleak.

The path to returning to official opposition status – the sine qua non of a Liberal revival – runs through Quebec. Tuesday was one down; 58 to go.

Unless the Bloc Québécois stages a Lazarus-like revival – and with Quebec politics, who knows? – this is strictly a Liberal/NDP fight. The Conservatives may or may not win a few extra seats in the Quebec City region next time out; they are going to unseemly lengths to unseat Irwin Cotler in his Montreal riding, and there are always hopes for a pickup in the Eastern Townships or in the national capital region.

But the Conservative coalition runs from Southern Ontario west to Vancouver Island. Prime Minister Stephen Harper long ago abandoned his dream of winning over Quebeckers by respecting their aspirations for domestic autonomy.

Loan guarantees for Lower Churchill. Putting the Royal back in the Navy and Air Force. The national securities regulator. The Senate reform bill. Does this look to you like a government determined to make gains in French Canada?

So it’s down to the two opposition parties. The New Democrats have the advantage of incumbency. The Liberals have the advantage of historical ties. Neither has a leader.

Strangely, Tuesday’s bit of floor crossing boosts the campaigns of Thomas Mulcair and Brian Topp. Talk to NDPers without a notebook in your hand, and they speak of stark fears that they will lose in 2015 everything they gained in 2011. Under the circumstances, the argument in favour of choosing a leader of and from Quebec is compelling.

And here’s a question, for those who support closer co-operation between the Liberals and the NDP: How can the two parties work together when neither can prosper without defeating the other in Quebec?

Lise St-Denis did more than just cross the floor. She woke everybody up.


The "old Canada/new Canada" (East and West of the Ottawa River) thesis is not mine (and I cannot find the article (by Michael Bliss?) from which I took the thought) nor is it uncommon. The fact, and it is a fact, is that "old Canada" (NL through to and including QC) is stagnant, Eurocentric, statist (conservative) and always in search of the "brass ring," the big project that will turn everything around. (Although, in fairness, NL might be turning away from this model.) "New Canada" (BC through to and including ON) is bustling, increasingly Asian, individualistic (liberal) and too busy making money to search for a "brass ring."

I will repeat myself: to govern Canada in the 21st century means to govern from "new Canada," and that means learning to win and to govern without Québec - not against Québec, just without very many MPs from la belle province. It also means accepting, even embracing the French Canadian nation but treating Québec as "une province, comme les autres".
 
The NDP must be in bad shape if she jumped from Official Opposition to the third party.

 
I think her main point, that Québec voted for Jack Layton, not the NDP, is valid.

If the Dippers want to hold on to some of their Québec MPs in the 2015 election they had better elect Mulcair as leader. Even with Mulcair they will lose some seats and we may see, with the new seats added, something like this:

Conservatives:        175±
Liberals:                  70±
NDP:                        63±
Other QC Party:        25±
Greens & Others:      5±
TOTAL                    338
 
Preston manning on what ails the LPC, and what may happen to the CPC as well. I note that one advantage the CPC has is their intellectual "establishment" of Classical Liberal think tanks and policy groups is largely supported by private donors (like me), unlike the government funded machine Mr Manning describes. Still, complacency is a danger to be avoided at all costs:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/because-one-day-tories-youll-be-out-of-office-too/article2297893/print/

PRESTON MANNING
Because one day, Tories, you’ll be out of office too
preston manning
From Wednesday's Globe and Mail
Published Wednesday, Jan. 11, 2012 2:00AM EST

What can the federal Conservatives, Canada’s governing party, learn from the decline of the federal Liberals from “natural governing party” to third-party status?

One lesson worth considering is this: When you’re the governing party, especially for a long time, you begin to rely more and more on the civil service and taxpayer dollars for everything – including the key elements required to keep your party vigorous, strong and relevant.

Does your party need intellectual capital – a steady stream of policy analysis and ideas? As the governing party, you can always expropriate some of it from your political opponents. But the longer you are in office, the more likely you are to get an increasing proportion of your intellectual capital from the civil service or by the use of taxpayer dollars to fund research projects and policy studies on any subject.

Does your party need trained human resources to help guide and run your political machinery as well as the government? You can get and maintain those resources by placing persons sympathetic to your partisan cause in political staff positions within the government and funded by the taxpayer. You can upgrade their knowledge and skills from time to time by sending them on courses or bringing in training consultants, again at taxpayer expense.

You can even use the civil service itself as a reservoir of potential candidates for elected office – the Liberal Party of Canada, for example, drawing two of its most prominent leaders, Mackenzie King and Lester Pearson, from the civil service.

Does your party need ever-expanding communications capacity to get out its messages? The party itself will have a small communications staff, but, if you’re the governing party, you can increasingly draw on the communications offices of 30 government departments and dozens of Crown corporations and agencies to help craft and deliver your key messages, again all at taxpayer expense.

But then, alas, the fateful day comes – as it did for the Liberal Party of Canada – when you’re no longer the governing party. No longer do you have access to the intellectual capital-generating capacities of the civil service. No longer do you have access to the human resources and training budgets of a $265-billion-a-year taxpayer-funded enterprise. No longer do you have access to the hundreds of communications personnel and vehicles that were once at your beck and call.

To make matters worse, during the long years as government, most of the alternative sources of these resources were neglected and allowed to atrophy. Thus, the Liberals now find their federal party intellectually bankrupt, lacking in the ability to attract and nourish talented people, and its once-loud voice reduced to a whimper because of drastically reduced communications capacity.

Our advice to our political friends? Build and maintain your “democratic political infrastructure” – the intellectual capital generators for politicians, the training programs for political activists, and the political communications vehicles – when in opposition but continue to build and maintain it, outside of the civil service and through private donations, even after becoming the governing party.

To fail to do so is to court eventual political collapse and impotence from which it may take years, even decades, to recover – witness the current state of the federal Liberals.

Preston Manning is president and CEO of the Manning Centre for Building Democracy.
 
Mr. Harper is starting to slip in the eyes of many right-leaning British Columbians.  First by intervening in an area of provincial jurisdiction (natural resources/environment) and now by cozying up to Premier Clark and the BC Liberals, who are toxic to everyone, left and right.

Alex Tsakumis is a former advisor to Socred Premier Bill Vander Zalm and Prime Minister Mulroney.  He has been very active with the BC Social Credit, federal Conservatives, and Vancouver's free-enterprise Non-Partisan Association.

http://alexgtsakumis.com/2012/01/16/dear-prime-minister-harper-are-you-feeling-well-sir-what-the-hell-were-you-thinking-most-disappointingly-you-werent/

Dear Prime Minister Harper: Are You Feeling Well, Sir? What the Hell Were You Thinking?! Most Disappointingly, You Weren’t…



Right after I appeared on Brian Lilley’s exceptional Sun TV show just one week before the last federal election (May of 2010), I was removing my mic and fighting with the bit of make up that ended up in my eye, when a former Sun colleague listening to the interview emailed me:

“Are you sure about your prediction of a Conservative majority? There’s little chance of that, don’t you think?”

“No, they’ll have it,” I wrote. “My only concern is that, as per every single historical implosion at that level, some entirely self-absorbed asshole in the backroom, who views Einstein as a lightweight, will advise the Prime Minister to do something incredibly stupid, that will end the majority support–beginning in BC and if it happens–followed by acrimonious finger-pointing, the party will split again, I assure you. Just watch. The idiots on the far right are as stupid as those on the far left–neither can escape their own detonation radius. But I have faith in the Prime Minister, he’s a very good man. When it comes down to it, it’s his decision that’s final. Though, if he blows a few key ones, it’ll be tough to recover. The ego will get in the way, naturally, and you can forget pulling the nose up…it’ll be one huge induced swan dive…let’s see happens, anyway. But the first six months will tell the tale”

Sometimes, I hate being right.

It’s been six months exactly, if you deduct for short holidays on both ends of the fall.

The Tories, far from perfect ball, have had a fairly easy ride considering the Fiberals and the Dippers continue to shoot themselves in both sets of feet.

But I’ve noticed a disturbing trend. One which I think speaks volumes about how unfortunately prophetic the reply to my former colleague was.

Without getting into the minutiae of the Tory tenure, thus far, they’re slipping on key issues.

The marijuana legalization dunces (I know, this is redundant) have come out swinging (waving a half eaten slice of pizza). No coordinated reply from the government; no stats (ample as they are) to show how wrong these idiots are, nothing. No national drug strategy. Just what’s in a crime bill that in some parts is too hard and in others too soft. The Grits have handed them a golden opportunity with the passing of their insane legalization motion at the convention over the weekend, and NOTHING from the government that ran on protecting your families from crime. Not a peep about addiction, not a single effort to corral the dozens of addictionologists across the country clamoring for an audience the mainstream press refuse to provide.

A contradiction in how provincial independence will work. Lots of talk about regional autonomy, but little real work on that file except window dressing. A classic example is the Enbridge pipeline, which is completely wrong-headed and absolutely certain to cost the Tories seats in BC, where they can ill-afford to lose them. In fact, with the Liberals taking a decided left turn on the weekend–most appealing to La Belle Province, and the NDP holding at least half the Quebec seats they gained last May, where is the other province the Tories can make gains in? Are they annexing Michigan?

Nevermind the idiotic alarmism last week about gay marriage being revisited (it’s not and never will be)–no one consulted a lawyer but instead relied on the CBC’s extraordinary bias–and in this case, fiction. Notwithstanding the Prime Minister’s reasonable and appropriate comments on social issues, the idea that there be no party solidarity behind NOT reopening abortion or gay marriage has spawned various backbench dwelling imbeciles and their archaic brains to spout bone-chilling codswallop about when life begins and ‘gayness’ that can be “corrected” through some church in Edmonton. Honestly….

On the one key issue they ran on, the economy, their strategy–too simple by half, seems to be holding spending while praying the tax breaks they instituted will buoy our bottom line enough that we simply tread water. This is visionary? What if the United States dips again? If they develop the flu once more, we’ll have to come running with our emergency life support unit, never mind the Kleenex box. Then what? While the HST sits, nothing is moving and no plan exists to hasten the unfairness of the current circumstances. I’m hearing from staunch Conservative circles in this province that inside complaints to Ottawa are falling on deaf ears. Goodness, they sure forgot our numbers rather quickly after we secured them a majority.

But there in no greater crazy-making by the federal Tories than what I’m about to show you.

During the BC Liberal leadership race, the Prime Minister’s office asked Premier Clark’s very close pal, Mr. Boessenkool (a senior Tory stroker) and now Chief of Staff, to cool his tummy-rubbing of the dimwitted one. Federal Tory hierarchs would NOT take sides, they were told, and the Prime Minister’s closest people, past and present, were also told to forget making endorsements or providing support. No congress, of any kind, please, we’re Conservatives…

Well, what a difference almost a year makes. Ms Clark, having once again cheated to win, is now the Premier. Previously, when she was an afternoon embarrassment at CKNW radio, Mr. Clark routinely PUMMELED Stephen Harper, black and blue, and always without a stitch of reason or purpose.

Then, when she ran for the leadership, other than the smidge of cocktail conservatives that remain (I believe there are still a few left in the dupe troop), she surrounded herself with what was left of the FEDERAL LIBERAL crew Dave Basi and Bob Virk expertly put together for her, to once again win the Indo Canadian community, and the usual FEDERAL LIBERAL retreads her ex-husband, FEDERAL LIBERAL operative Mark Marissen cobbled together, to carry the day.

In the first nine months of her incumbency as Premier, Ms. Clark has gone from one monumental gaffe, where the federal Tories are concerned, to another. Be it agreed-to joint announcements that she went off and did on her own, or claiming credit for federal decisions that had nothing to do with her or her failing government or demonstrating her lack of intelligence when speaking of the Senate, Christy Clark’s been a colossal nightmare (just have a look at the tape of her deer-in-the-headlights comments today on national health matters followed by Premier Redford of Alberta and her articulate brilliance–more ignominy at the hands of the most unqualified person to ever hold public office in BC).

Not to mention Premier Clark’s  ongoing denials about how she never had anything to do with the sale of BC Rail (Chapter One: giving away Cabinet secrets to admitted bribers of public officials, who were your friends and associates, may be viewed as grounds for charges of breach of trust–but not by politically bias prosecutors or the feckless RCMP in this province).

And now that the BC Conservatives (led by a former Harper caucus member no less) are EVEN in the polls with her free-falling BC Liberals, excuse me, Christy party/government, here is how the Prime Minister of this land–a man whose whole electoral byline screamed ethics, morals, values, ideals and virtues not eight months ago, comports himself.



This, unbelievably, is a picture of the Prime Minister of this land, who ran on an ample platform of ethics in government, sitting next to the most spectacular phony and fraud in BC political history. They attended the weekend hockey game of Ms. Clark’s pawn, excuse me, son, Hamish Clark-Marissen. The request came from the Premier’s office and the complete morons running the show for the PM, well, I’m told most of them. agreed (although a few, are livid). If only you knew the firestorm of anger this has caused many long-time and prominent supporters of the Prime Minister in BC. An incredibly stupid move if there ever was one. The only silver lining is that it, once more, verifies what a political whore Ms. Clark is.

And again.

Young Hamish must have saved that goal, but the real winner of the game in the stands was Ms. Clark, who managed to use the federal Tories post-election arrogance to her advantage. Of course she wants to stem her party’s bleeding by being seen as ‘a BC conservative’ since those very same people have sensibly left her corrupt party and precisely because of her and her incompetent, shameful team. Of course the idiots who advise the Prime Minister and agreed to this think anyone but the NDP in this province would be better for the feds (not smart boys, think it through again…) and of course Mr. Boessenkool, whose federal Tory work is reportedly uneven, helped concoct such a coup as getting the PM to show up sitting next to Premier Clark, for yet ANOTHER shameless photo op (these pictures were splattered across her twitter and facebook pages–TWICE).

And the Prime Minister fell for it, every bit of it, hook, line and sinker. For shame, Sir. For shame.

Corrupt is, as corrupt does. If the federal Conservative meatheads (both in downtown Vancouver and in Ottawa) that allowed for this treason, think some of us will stand idly by while they sell this province to the absolutely unethical group that has infested Victoria along with Ms. Clark, then you can count this blog as unfriendly territory if I see this nonsense happen again.

And that’s not a warning shot.

Check your bow. Not fazed? Neither was Sam Sullivan.

Or Christy Clark.

I don’t give a damn about your pipeline.

There is nothing more important that a full public inquiry into the sale of BC Rail.

The the PM doesn't want to lose seats in BC, he should stay away from Christy Clark and the BC Liberals.
 
On the NDP front, some dual citizenship questions popping up for Mulcair....
NDP leadership hopeful Thomas Mulcair holds dual Canadian and French citizenship and vows to keep both even if he should one day become Canada's prime minister.

That would set Mulcair at odds with the man he seeks to succeed, Jack Layton. Layton, in 2006, said he thought it inappropriate that Stephane Dion hold dual French and Canadian citizenship as leader of the Liberal Party.

"I would prefer that a leader of a party hold only Canadian citizenship, because one represents many Canadians, and for me that means that it's better to remain the citizen of one country," Layton said in 2006.

And yet, none of Mulcair's opponents - either from other parties or within his own party - were prepared Monday to say they agreed with Layton.

The Liberals supported Mulcair's view as did leadership rival Nathan Cullen.

The Conservatives and every other leadership rival except for Niki Ashton refused to comment. Ashton could not be reached.

French language television network TVA reported Monday that Mulcair has been a French citizen for 20 years.

Though he was born in Ottawa, Mulcair was able to apply for and receive French citizenship because his spouse, Catherine, was born in France.

Under French law, spouses of French citizens can apply, as Mulcair did, to become citizens themselves after five years of marriage and after demonstrating their ability to speak French.

"Mr. Mulcair is very proud to share the nationality of his wife, who shares his," Mulcair spokesperson Chantale Turgeon told TVA. "He sees no conflict with his Canadian citizenship or duties. Dual citizenship is a reality for many Canadians who are proud of their origins and a source of enrichment for our diverse society."

The Mulcairs' two children are also citizens of both Canada and France.

Among other things, Mulcair's citizenship gives him the right to vote in French elections. It's not clear though if he has ever exercised that right even though his wife ran unsuccessfully in 2008 for the Assembly of French Citizens Abroad, a political body that represents French citizens outside

France. Mulcair's team was unable to say if he had voted ....
QMI/Sun Media, 17 Jan 12
 
This and this article, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail may well frame the 2015 election debate:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/second-reading/bruce-anderson/harpers-davos-speech-puts-canada-on-the-path-to-substantive-politics/article2318782/
Harper’s Davos speech puts Canada on the path to substantive politics

BRUCE ANDERSON

Globe and Mail Update
Posted on Sunday, January 29, 2012

For much of Stephen Harper’s time in office, his critics have charged that almost every move he made was calculated to win short-term electoral advantage. To some, he looked like a man without a long-term plan, the exact opposite of what they had expected.

With his speech in Davos, PMSH 2.0 has emerged. His declaration that Canada needs to overhaul its pension approach is clearly not borne of a zeal to win more votes. No, this is one of those things that – in theory anyway– people say they want politicians to do. Take a tough issue, find a solution you believe in and press ahead, make your case. The PM is putting political capital on the line for ideas he believes in. He undoubtedly knows there is more political risk than reward in what he is doing.

The substance that Mr. Harper proposes will be debated at length as details emerge; my comments are only about political communications.

Mr. Harper's overarching message was that the developed world has been living high on the hog, is out of shape and needs to go to boot camp. And not just a two-week boot camp, more like a 20-year one. The assertion that we have become complacent and take prosperity for granted may have a ring of truth for many people. They might agree that we need to improve our economic fitness. But they may be thinking about walking a bit more and eating a bit less – not about years of endurance and making do. There’s a reason why fitness infomercials spend so much time telling us that making progress will be easier than we think: it’s what makes us pick up the phone.

The Davos speech included a few passages that might make the average Canadian feel proud of what has been built in this country. But not many. There was a fair bit of “every silver lining has a dark cloud,” and Mr. Harper draws more on the fear of going over a cliff than the promise of reaching new heights. It’s often true that unless people are fearful of the consequences of doing nothing, nothing can change. But getting people to accept tough change in a democracy often requires more than explaining why not doing so will be awful. Attention spans are getting shorter, especially for bad news. Finding the right blend of worry and optimism is tricky, but essential.

In the hands of his opponents, the PM's pitch can be recast to sound like: things are pretty good in Canada, but the rest of the world has made a bunch of mistakes, and now Canadians are not going to be able to retire as early or as comfortably as they had dreamed. To say this is politically vulnerable would be an understatement. The Maginot line had a better chance of holding back its enemies.

If they are going to win this debate (not just pass a law sometime during this term), the Conservatives will likely need to paint a brighter picture of the future. Canadians may need to see the “after” shot: what our life looks like when boot camp is over. The Davos speech more or less described success as survival.

Finally, it’s risky to talk about changing pension entitlements without talking about protection and care for the most vulnerable. Many Canadians have come to expect they will be on their own when it comes to planning for their retirement. But the instinct to want to protect our poorer older citizens remains very powerful in Canada. It’s easy to imagine centre and left voters coalescing around an alternative approach that is almost as fiscally cautious, but imbued with the desire to ensure our older citizens live in dignity.

Many will take issue with lots of the ideas in Mr. Harper’s speech in Davos. But after years of wishing that Canadian politics would be about important issues, even those who disagree with him should welcome the fact that he is laying out a substantive path, with a focus on the long term, not next month’s poll. And that we are launched into a debate that will challenge our political leaders to make their best case, on subjects that matter.


I think there is some political reward is saying, "We are making the tough choices now, for your and your children's futures," but I also agree with Anderson that Harper must protect his weak flank: Canadian's inchoate desire to "protect" the old and vulnerable. I think Anderson has the right answer but for the wrong reason; the risk, I believe, is not that the left and some of the centre will coalesce around that issue - they'll do that no matter what, the risk is that Harper already equates to "hard," "uncaring," even "mean" and he needs to put forward a "soft," "caring" side to a tough programme.
 
While we are talking about the Federal election three years from now, it is worth thinking about how the various provinces are shaking out. While political preferences at the provincial level don't automatically translate into federal preferences (and it used to be a truism that Ontario would vote one way provincially and the opposite way federally), they do identify trends that could be used to advantage by the federal parties:

http://aprogressiveconservativesview.blogspot.com/2012/01/looking-to-2012-2013-provincial.html

Looking Forward to Provincial Politics in 2012, 2013 

In 2011 we saw that Canadians, overwhelmingly, chose to keep governing parties in power. In Yukon, Saskatchewan, New Brunswick, and Newfoundland conservative parties (ascribing to various names) were resoundingly re-elected. Federally the same was true. In Manitoba it was a very close race, by votes cast, but due to oddities in the first-past the post system the NDP was re-elected with a strong majority. In Ontario voters settled on a re-elected Liberal minority government. That was the 2011 election cycle. It was exciting for me and reassuring. All of the provinces that elected conservative parties seem to be settling on a consensus that free-market policies are undoubtedly the way forward for Canadians. Nationally, one hopes, we are coming towards this consensus as well. Manitoba and Ontario both look ripe for political change in their next round of elections, which is likely to benefit conservative parties and the well-being of the provinces themselves. What of the provinces that are set to vote in the next two years? Here I think things get quite exciting too.

In Quebec the CAQ presents an exciting new alternative to the old sovereignist-federalist battle lines and, perhaps more importantly, is soundly based in free-market, entrepreneurial policy that is sure to benefit the province and our country. We already saw a huge shakeup in Quebec politics with the federal election and witnessed the destruction of the Bloc Québécios. We can only hope the CAQ can deliver a death-blow to soverignty in Quebec by giving the Parti Québécios a terrible showing. The Liberals there have done a respectable job of managing the economy but are elected largely because of the bi-polar nature of Quebec politics (the result of the sovereignty debate). This results in voters feeling forced into voting one of two ways and settling on a party that is increasingly shrouded in controversy and scandal. The Liberals have lost their right to govern but free-market oriented voters as well as federalists, until recently, only had one feasible option. Political observers will be watching this one intently.

In Alberta, it seems, the groundwork is laid for another historic shakeup. Alberta has been governed by four political parties, in succession, since its beginning. First by the Liberals, then by the United Farmers, followed by the Social Credit for 36 years and the Progressive Conservatives (PC) for 41 years. Historically, each party governs with very little opposition until the next 'dynasty' emerges and overtakes the old one. Many observers, including myself, feel Alberta has reached this critical juncture. The PC's have shifted to the left of the political spectrum as Alberta, and Canada, shifts to the right. It has left them more open to attack on the right which is exactly where the Wildrose Party exists. Alberta came to a consensus centered around modern conservatism over seventy years ago and when the dynastic party moves away from it, naturally, another dynasty will come in to fill the void. It seems quite likely that the Wildrose Party will win the Alberta provincial election this year.

In British Columbia we have, perhaps, the most unpredictable set of circumstances. This is primarily because in Alberta and Quebec a great amount of realignment has already occurred while in BC, the realignment I'm both advocating for and predicting hasn't entirely taken shape yet. BC, along with Quebec, is a very bi-polar province politically. The province is largely separated into two camps: free-market advocates and their allies and proponents of command economy models (represented by the unions and the NDP). The province has been characterized by this two-party system since the early 40s when the NDPs emergent popularity made necessary a 'merging' of the political center-right. When the Social Credit party collapsed at the start of the 90s, and without an appropriate party to pick up the center-right banner, the NDP entered into the decade of destruction, during which it was able to turn BC into a have-not province. In a decade of economic prosperity across the western world, BC was brought into a decade of economic stagnation. Roughly half of this province never has and never will vote for the NDP. More than that, presumably, understand the economic record of NDP governments in this province; anytime they've come into power we've gone into a period of stagnation or decline. At the same time the BC Liberals are losing the approval of a great number of those voters who won't vote NDP. The reasons for this are multiple and I plan on blogging on it more in the future.

Enter the BC Conservatives. They are looking increasingly capable of governing this province. Their base is still small; the fear that many British Columbians have of another NDP government is so strong that many feel bound to the BC Liberals. I recently escaped from my self-inflicted captivity in the BC Liberals to join the BC Conservatives. The situation of so many supporters feeling hostage to the increasingly misguided and liberal BC Liberals is not healthy for democracy. My hope is that the BC Conservatives are able to position themselves as filling the increasing void on the center-right left by the drifting and tired BC Liberals.

Canada's 2nd, 3rd, and 4th largest provinces are set to offer up some major political shake ups. It also seems quite likely that two powerful Liberal parties are likely to face the same fate as their federal counterparts. The cause of which, in all three cases, seems to be the overwhelming sense of entitlement, lack of ethics, and disregard for citizen input on the part of Liberal parties across the country.  I feel trends point to a crisis within Liberal ideology and the Liberal vision for Canada.  The trends also point to a shifting of the political center in the country that clearly benefits conservative parties and governments.
 
Pretty good article, but to be fair Ontario and Manitoba were more lost rather than won. Both suffered from lack luster Conservative campaigns with predictable results. It will be interesting to see where AB, QC and BC go this year.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top