Canada's Election

[MRMARCUS]

Oh yeah joe blow is going to lower taxes and improve dis and dat.

 

[Fortunato]

And his latest gaffe was to comment about how gay rights weren't enshrined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

Ummm... you can argue about whether or not they SHOULD be included, if you want (and whether or not it should be ammended), but the TRUTH is that... as it stands RIGHT NOW... they AREN'T. (...and, by the way, that isn't his fault, either... he never wrote the thing....)

Since when is telling the truth a "gaffe"?

What was he thinking?

Maybe that politicians should tell the truth?

I hope he keeps doing that right up until election day.

I wish they ALL would try it for a little while. I think you'd find it a real "eye-opener"...

...so they're not really paying any attention to Harper's right wing tendencies or to the possibility that he might have to climb into bed with the Bloc to form a government.

More likely that they aren't irrationally terrified of labels such as "right wing", realising that "right wing" in Canada is still pretty far left...

...or that they see that, for both the politicians and the public, fringe social issues aren't important (notice how "abortion" and "gay marriage" became issues, and all of this "right-wing" fear mongering only came about AFTER the Liberals started to lose their grip on the lead...). Over the last 30 years, has ANY politician's belief on these topics, one way or another, had ANY impact on public policy?

...or, better yet, it may be that they are starting to understand that Canada needs LESS government instead of more and more and more, considering where that trend has gotten them....

There are way too many elegible voters in this province who haven't a clue about politics or what is going on.

The one point we agree on. Almost.


Best regards,

F.

 

[Fortunato]

just remember this is the party of peter "the liar" mackay and Brian "love those separtists" mulroney

No it isn't. THAT party effectively dissolved when their leader (Mr. "Love those separatists" Mulroney), abandoned the primary beliefs of the majority of conservatives, and through his actions behaved even more LEFTIST than the opposition (tax and spend), despite his rhetoric.

This is the re-introduction of a party that believes in TRUE conservative/libertarian values, not Neo-cons... "fertilizer".


Best regards,

F.

 

[james t kirk]

I wonder when Stephen Harpe would introduce legislation to crack down on the hobby?

Couple of months in I would bet.

 

[kmark2000]

Would you be thinking differently if Belinda were the leader?

The Conservatives are not a bunch of religious idealoques from the Bible-thumping West. There are the right of centre party to the Liberals.

Don't forget that the hospital waiting lists were from Paul Martin's $25 Billion reduction in transfer payments to the provinces. Where did it go? A billion for HRDC scams, a billion for a partly working gun registry, millions to Chretien cronies in ad agencies and contracts.

Mulroney was lock-step with Reagan's supply-side economics, needed at the time to kick start the economy that suffered from high interest rates and high inflation. The prosperity of the 90s was begat from Conservative policies in the 80s.

Oh and Layton's idiotic comments about the end of the auto industry is lame. If the manufacturers are competitive (without government handouts) then they will stay in Canada.

 

[Fortunato]

Then I quess you can't be that happy that it is Mulroney and his buddies that are the behind the scenes power of Harper and the New Conservatives. Why do think Clark and Brison left the party prior to a platform being created.

Belinda was their pony, not Harper. If you actually READ the platform, very different from Brian's views.... (and if he actually believes this now, then my quarrel with him is over...).

Clark has always been a Red conservative. If we wanted a proven one of those, we'd just stick with Martin....

It's funny most Canadains are frightened by your so-called conservative/libertarian values that you attrbute this party, and true believers of Harper and his gang are frightened of Mulroney and his group - me both of them make me sick.

The "fear" is mostly a facade.

And yes, the "true believers" are sickened by Mulroney... because he was a liar. Note the similarities with the Liberal faithful towards Chretien/Martin.

Also the Charter of rights requires no admendment since the Supreme Court has ruled that current laws on marriage violate the charter concerning the concept of Gay marriage and has ordered the Feds to re-write the laws.

Gay marriage is not the "end all" of gay rights.

 

[Fortunato]

I don't fear Conservatives if they stick to reducing big government and managing the economy more responsibly than the typically free spending left wing. But that doesn't mean I support Harper's promise of free votes on gay rights, same sex marriage, freedom of choice/abortion and capital punishment. Those are freedoms that I think define Canada and I'd hate to see them removed. That was always my concern with the Alliance party and I have that same concern with Harper's Conservatives. They have too much religious fervour, they're too intolerant, too judgemental and just too doctrinaire. I can accept Joe Clark and a very long list of conservatives who are still liberal thinking and open to more freedom of choice. But don't give me a Preston Manning or a Stockwell day in sheep's clothing.

Why would a free vote on these topics frighten you? Ok, I MIGHT see you being worried if the Whip was trying to press through an agenda, but knowing that the Conservatives are FAR from unified on the topic, and every other party is more tolerant... is there even a chance in heck that anything you would find offensive would pass (even with a massive Conservative majority)?

This is why Harper is saying that these aren't campaign issues - because he will not table anything in this regard. There would be no mandate for it (even within his own party).

And as for freedom of choice? Please. The majority of conservatives believe MORE in the freedom of choice than do other parties (not less), because they believe in SMALL government (not just a budget figure, but a principle... the less government involves itself in, the better... and that legislation should be a LAST resort to resolving ANY problem). The religious/intolerant/judgemental labels are just campaign tactics by political opponents, because they KNOW it's been 50 years since any of these issues have truly been relevant to governing.


Best regards,

F.

P.S. A Martin government does not frighten me either (even though I think we can do better). A Liberal/NDP government, however....

 

[Fortunato]

Belinda was no ones pick other than her fathers

Nope. Brian was very close to Daddy... Brian et. al. were supposed to bring her along as the more "centre" alternative in the leadership race.

Problem is that the former PCs are now the "tail", not the "dog".

...since when did Mulroney allow anything as trivial as ideology stop him from lusting for power - I think he see's Harper as a means to an end.

I can't understand why... Harper is truly conservative... you know, the guys who rejected PCs because of Mulroney.

Brian won't have any say on policy or government, either now or after the election.

I was talking about Clark and Brison leaving before the platform - again I don't think Mulroney gives a rats ass about Harper and his platform at this time.

More to the point that Harper doesn't give a rat's ass about Mulroney....

Clark is (and always has been) even further "left" than Mulroney (who is further left of Martin). He believes in big government. He rejected a combination of the PCs and the Alliance to begin with (the exception was if the Alliance joined the PCs and accepted him as their leader, and adopted his policies).

He has never been a political force.

I think the term is red tory but I think that isn't a very accurate discription of Clark's politics - he has shared views with people further to the right of himself over the years

No, he hasn't. Unless you consider Charest (now the Liberal leader in Quebec) to be "conservative".

...and this time can't bring himself to support what is being called conservative these days.

He's always opposed a true conservative agenda. He believes in big government. In truth, he should be in a different party, but he comes from a part of the country where that would have seen him dismissed long ago....

As for Brison he was greatly offended by Harper's remarks about Atlantic Canada being lazy etc., that he jumped ship even though it is very likely that he will go down to defeat in his traditional Tory riding.

Also another "Red Tory" (as you prefer).

Why do you see "losing" these folks as a weakness? Like I said, if we wanted the type of government that they would bring, we would vote Liberal (who are currently even more conservative than these guys). If they cannot support a true conservative agenda, they don't BELONG in a conservative party (remember the PC's? THAT is what happened to THEM).

As for Gay rights - ok Gay marriage may not be the all of it but it does cover most of the issues - medical coverage, pension rights etc. What the Supreme Court was saying that the current law on marriage prohibting same sex marriages violated the Charter of Rights - you see the Charter works fine as it is and most of the issues Gays are looking for are covered by the ability to marry. The only ones talking about amending the Charter of Rights are those who would like to use it exclude Gays from the same rights we have.

No, it isn't. The benefits you discuss are indeed the topic de jour (they are benefits, by the way, not "rights"), but by excluding sexual preference from the Charter (which it IS), you can actually (legally) discriminate against homosexuals. Things like "we don't serve your type here", and "you sit at the back of the bus", and "we found out you're gay, so we have to let you go", etc. Yes you could wait for a series of court cases... but what if one doesn't go your way?

Not that I'm encouraging such behaviour, or believe that it will really happen in this day and age, but if you want to talk about gay "rights", it's MUCH more than a discussion about marriage benefits....

 

[james t kirk]

a billion for a partly working gun registry,

You should have said, "a billion for a partly working gun registry THAT EVERY POLICE CHIEF IN THE COUNTRY IS PUSHING FOR."

 

[Fortunato]

I know these topics [abortion/freedom of choice, gay rights, capital punishment etc.] aren't clearly labelled as campign issues and I think that is because Harper would be penalized if he dared to openly include them.

Penalised, to be sure. But why? Because he (and his party) recognises that these aren't issues that should be determining who should govern, when so many more pressing issues face us....

I assume he wouldn't be able to pull it off because he won't have enough seats and/or his coalition partners won't support it
but, I can't be sure. If he got a majority he could try.

Not in a million years. He would not risk a non-confidence vote on one of these issues, so it would remain a free vote. And even in a landslide Conservative majority, his party has no consensus, so the odds of it passing would be so unbelievably miniscule.

Why would I vote for a party that would even try this?

Well, the trouble with the party system is that we are pretty much limited to voting for one of three "leaders". Maybe you've found one that agrees with you on every single issue... but I certainly haven't. As for who to pick, you are left with deciding which issues are truly important to you, and on those issues, who is closest to your views.

So, I guess, if these fringe topics are so critical to you, and that even the thought of a free vote destined to die on first reading terrifies you so, then by all means, you should vote your conscience.

Myself, I have a different priority of the issues... I'm more concerned with the size of government, the misuse of my money, and the economic future of Canada... and on those issues, the Conservative platform is superior.

...mind you, I also know that if Harper lies and moves to make one of these "non-issues" an issue... or if he lies about his core platform promises... it wouldn't be the end of the world... there is nothing he can do that couldn't be un-done by the next government. So I chose NOT to be dissuaded by what is (in my opinion) unfounded fears, on issues that haven't been contemporary since before I can remember.


Best regards,

F.

 

[Fortunato]

F - Believe what you want - but watch MacKays role in any Harper government - or watch what happens if Harper is unable to form a government this election or the next which should be October - or November if the polls remain as they are.

I will.

As for MacKay, he will probably get Deputy PM… or, any other portfolio that he wanted, with the exception of Finance. Harper will keep that for a former Alliance body that he can trust.

You speak with such authority that you are unable to believe your wrong

I can believe that I'm wrong, if a compelling argument is made. In all of our discussions, you've yet to do that.

- you know very little about the Conservative history in Canada or the power players in Ontario and Quebec Conservative ranks and believe me their agenda is way diffrent from Harpers.

Yes, yes, yes. The stories that “Brian”, along with old Maz and Elmer, were the real “architects” of the new Conservative Party. And, in convincing young MacKay to betray Orchard, all of the old “evil” is back.

If you are saying that there are people… even groups of people… within the Conservative party that are more concerned with power than platform, this I have never disputed (they are within every party, to be sure… and many have even accused Martin of this). If you are NAMING these people as the ones above… heck, I’m still not disagreeing.

But you seem to be confused as to where the power base lies with the Conservative party. There is a reason that MacKay is not leader (even beyond the fact that he didn’t run…). There is a reason that Belinda (Brian’s pony) is not leader (and the only reason that she got 35% was the way the point system was worked, if I recall). That reason is that the party does not broadly espouse the agenda that these "power players" hold. It is truly conservative, not the "red hearts in blue jackets" that the old (and quite dead) Progressive Conservatives used to be.

You illistrated this to me with your Charest and Quebec Liberals - you forget the Provincial Parties are very independent of the Federal Party and Quebec is a perfect example - the Liberal Party of Quebec has been right of center since the 60's and remains more conservative than Martin's Federal Party.

No, I haven't. Perhaps you could argue that Quebec Liberals are the most "right" in the province (probably true, given the PQ, and the virtual non-existance of a conservative party there), but I’ve yet to see any evidence that Quebec Liberals, or Charest, are “right of centre”.

But you say that Quebec Liberals are more "right" than Martin? How so? Have they materially cut taxes? Or reduced spending? Streamlined government? Chretien and Martin did SOME of these things... but last I checked, Quebec is still a pretty left-wing, tax and spend, "big government" kind of place....

Just saying things like that doesn't make it true, even if that is what THEY say themselves. If nothing else, the Mulroney experience should have taught us THAT.

I wonder, can you tell me what Conservative Leader broke with the Western Conservatives and threw them out of the PC Party - it's not Mulroney.

…you don’t give much to go by, but I assume you are speaking about Joe’s disagreement over the proposed PC merger with Reform to create the Alliance party.

Curious interpretation... "threw them out of the PC party". But then, ask yourself why... did he do it because they were "too left"? No. Did he "throw out” ANYONE for being "too left"? No. So if you are trying to demonstrate that Clark can sympathise with the true conservative viewpoint, I don’t think this does it….

Again, you seem to miss the point. The PC party imploded because the leadership abandoned the principles of its base (those of conservatism). Went from roughly 170 seats to 2. If this party does it (embraces the Mulroney agenda, even through a Trojan horse like the younger MacKay), it will implode... again. This is NOT the Progressive Conservative party, with its old "neo-cons" leaders and it's old power bases... if it were, I myself would vote Liberal. Or for the new party that would undoubtedly be formed, where all of the true conservatives would once again congregate.

The only reason to vote for the conservatives is that they NOW truly are conservative... they believe in less government; that the people are capable of running their own affairs and wisely spending their own money in their communities; that (with very few exceptions), every time government gets involved, things get worse. If they can’t show their intention to “stick to the knitting” on this, they will (once again) die out.

 

[Fortunato]

Look I don't mind a debate but I do mind when people will dismiss out of hand other people - I think I have to agree with OTB - you just want the last word. If it makes you feel good go ahead - but time will prove I'm right.

You should probably put me on "ignore", then, because I don’t seem to hold your opinion in very high regard. You'll sleep better.

(...and, again, I'm confused... what will you be "right" about? That Mulroney will run the party? That Charest is "right" of Martin? Seriously, I can't follow you long enough to figure out what you're arguing.... let alone care about it….)

Yours in leaving this tedious discourse,

F.

 

[Fortunato]

you don't care because you don't think any of these other issues will impact your way of life. but what if it was you or your daughter who could not get an abortion, or you wanted to marry your partner who is dying of cancer, but cannot- should we just tell them to hang on until the next gov't corrects things?

Possibly. But you're full of assumptions here, Sport. I may believe in the right to life, and not care. I may believe in the religious aspect of marriage and fundamentally disagree with gay marriage... and not care. And, either way with capital punishment (whether or not I was on "Death Row"), I really don't care.

...and that's POSSIBLY because I don't think affects me.

But it's more likely that I don't think it will affect anyone. In truth, I don't believe that these are election issues because, despite the rhetoric and noise we hear about them every four years, when it comes time to govern they are so far down the agenda of ANY party that it really doesn't matter.

So, if you feel that these issues are the "burning issues" that government must tackle with an immediate mandate, or if you are so stricken with terror, by all means vote whatever way you can think of to make that happen....

...but I still don't think much will come of it....

 

[Fortunato]

See F you proved you know very little - actually it was Bob Stanfield that booted out the Western element that Harper represents today - most of those conservatives joined the Social Credit Party, which eventually joined Manning's Reform movement.

Well, yes, Joe was indeed a guess... like I prefaced, when the question is as ambiguous as that, I assumed you were trying to keep on topic (our discussion to the point had been on whether or not Joe was a "Red" or "Blue" Tory), but you fooled me again with yet another tangent. Kudos.

There has always been strong diffrences between Western Conservatives and Eastern. The term Red Tory comes from the Stanfield split with the West and is used by people today with a lack of Canadian political knowledge to describe all those Conservatives that some might want to call Liberal. Well Mulroney was and still considers himself a Red Tory he was one of Canada's most Conservative leaders - Have you ever heard of the Big Blue Machine - these are the guys that cut their political teeth in the Bill Davis days and it's these guys who are planning to give Harper just enough rope to hang himself before they and Mulroney take back Conservative politics.

Difference between words and deeds. Mulroney spent like a drunken sailor, increased taxes, and dithered around on constitutional nonsense. He was a little right of Trudeau, perhaps, but in comparison to him, Chretien and Martin look like Manning. That is why all the conservative people left the PC party. (The Quebec PC defection had a different premise).

Do you think it is any mistake that Harper is running a smarter campaign than Manning/Day and seems to have more money. Get it thru that thick head of yours F - nobody expects Harper to win a majority government, this election or the next.

When have I argued this? Yes, he now has deeper pockets thanks to a broader (possibly even more lucrative) base in the East. The party IS bigger. Yes, most folks didn't (don't?) expect him to win, especially a majority.

But get it through YOUR thick skull... Mulroney-style "conservativism" will NOT fly with this party. The conservative base WILL flee AGAIN if the platform changes to tax-and-spend, big government agenda that Brian ended up supporting. And he'll be back there with his two seats, wondering why.....

Like I said time will prove me right.

...and like I said, no one can figure out in regards to what....

On Charest - boy do you prove your ignorance here - the Quebec Liberals have been more Conservative than their Federal counterparts - thats a Political fact - the only thing they share in common other than name is their belief in Federalism.

Again, I'd like for you to show me how. How has Mr. Charest ever done ANYTHING MATERIAL to suggest he believes in conservative government.

You can keep saying it... HE can keep saying it. It still won't make it "a fact".

 

[onthebottom]

And I thought our political system was messed up, do you have a party for every 15 people?

OTB

 

[Fortunato]

Nearlynormal suggests that abortion rights legislation could be voted out by a Harper majority and this is your comment - that it can't happen. It most certainly can - how does he risk a non-confidence motion here - Do you even know how a non-confidence motion comes about? With a majority Harper can create whatever legislation he wants provided that it passes the Supreme Court.
No consenus - Since when is a Landside Majority not a consenus? Ok, I think we all know now "F" your just arguing for arguing sake.

Within THE PARTY, there is no consensus on these "fringe" issues (indeed, in society they are hotly contested). Hence, the agreement is that they will focus on what they have in common (blue and red), primarily financial discipline and limiting the role of government.

Mr. Nearlynormal (whos opinion I do not share, but I do respect) is suggesting that Harper could push this through if he had a landslide majority in the election. I don't believe he could, for a number of reasons:

1. He would need to force members of the "red" persuasion within his own party to follow along... to have a majority, there would need to be many of these "reds", and I don't think they would go along with it (especially since he would be betraying them from the original understanding). IF he were to have 60% of the seats, only 15% (three in twenty) would need to vote against it to kill it.
2. Even if it passed the House, it would not pass a VERY liberal senate (stocked thoroughly over the last decade). So pissing off 1/3 of your party to have it die anyways is not clever.


As for "non-confidence", roughly that same 3 in 20 are all that would be required for a non-confidence vote to lose (and, if he did this, you can surely expect a motion). That isn't much, especially when we are talking about betrayals.


So yes, if you interpret my "not in a million years" as a statistical measure, then yes, I'm out of line. Mr. Nearlynormal strikes me as more than bright enough to recognise it as a figure of speech, reflecting on the improbability of any such move on Harper's part.

You don't, but I don't care what you think on the topic anymore.

 

[Fortunato]

and better advice

No. There is no way to tell what advice he is getting, what the quality of it is, or what he is heeding.

and this advice is coming from the eastern conservatives -

The money is (at least proportionately to the growth), and I imagine some policy lobbying is going as well.

Still waiting for the insight.

what happens when Harper can't form a majority government in the next two elections - you think these people headed by Mulroney will wait.

The party would likely chose a different leader, if they believed that is necessary. "Mulroney" people would just be one contingent within the party, mind.

Unless a big change happens between now and the election there is no way Harper can form any kind of Government.

You are quite possibly right. But that does not mean that they will revert to being tax-and-spend, "big government" idealogues. Again, THAT would cause a defection of at least 2/3 of the party.

As for Mulroney not being a conservative - look at his mentor Ronald Reagan who spent more money than anyone else in history."

And who is credited with being the first "neo-conservative", who TALK like conservatives, but behave considerably different. Remember that Reagan's deficit spending was very unpopular among the conservative base... but at least he cut some taxes (Brian didn't... he raised them).

G.W.B. is also of this bend, and the conservative base is likewise unimpressed.


...you know Sport, there is supposed to be more to a political party than just the card they give you... the ideas behind it are supposed to MEAN something.

I believe Charest started his government with an ill advised tax cut. But it's not just Charest it's the history of the Quebec Liberal party.

Couldn't have been a material one... they are still among the highest taxed, biggest spending provinces. Let them get even below AVERAGE (with the Maritimes, Saskatchewan and BC, that shouldn't be TOO hard), and I'll let you call Charest and his liberals "conservative" without calling you on it....

*F* give it up, you keep digging a bigger hole for yourself each time. Why can't accept my comment that time will prove me right regarding Mulroney and the future Eastern control of the Conservative Party.

Because you don't seem to understand that this is the man that drove the "conservatives" from the Progressive Conservative party. If he were to gain control, and I am even willing to concede that this could happen, the true conservatives WILL leave again... and while he might control what is left of the party, it will NOT be the same entity (with the same supporters) that you see now.

...and, if it WERE to happen, no one will really care because they will be as irrelevant as the PCs have been over the last dozen years or so....

By your defination of Conservatism you should be in love with the Martin Liberals.

My definition? Pretty simple... Fiscal restraint, small government, libertarian rights for citizens. It's also pretty consistent with what others view as "conservative". It seems your definition of conservative is anyone who calls themself that....

As I said, I have little problem with Martin. But we can do better.

 

[Mr. Downtown]

I just got back home from driving to Burlington and back via the QEW and Lakeshore. This is a pet peave of mine which climbed to monumental heights today but if I ever run for election, the first thing I would do would impose a $5,000 head tax on ever stupid f-ing Van and SUV driver in this province in order to partially make-up for the social cost of dealing with the complete incompetent driving skills these people have, bar none.

 

[Back Burner]

Harper scares me

 

[johnhenrygalt]

Re: Social conservatives

There are social conservatives in all four parties. It's strange to see the Tories get attacked for having a few social conservatives in their ranks, while the Liberal party is riddled with them, and there are NDP candidates who don't support gay-marriage and are anti-abortion.

Re: Quebec politics

Charest hasn't cut any taxes here. Those who think he has are badly misinformed. The provincial Liberals are a centre / centre-left party and has been since the 1960s. None of Bourassa, Ryan, Johnson or Charest could be considered "right wing". Johnson had a reputation for being right of centre, but having lost the 1994 election and barely winning the 1995 referendum he never really exercised any power. Bouchard and even Landry were to the right of Bourassa on many issues. To the extent there is a right-of-centre party in Quebec it is the Action démocratique du Québec. Charest was a red tory like Joe Clark. Mario Dumont is a fiscal conservative.

Back to the federal election:

Tonight's debate should be good. My money is on Harper to put forth a surprisingly solid performance (not surprising for anyone who knows Harper, but surprising for most of the people around here who don't know who he is).