You may remember the Canadian Reform Party. They were the populist, right-of-centre, small state, low tax, anglophone party that came from nowhere in 1993 to win 52 seats in Canada’s federal parliament.
Indeed. I remember, in particular, how the national networks pronounced Reform an electoral failure that evening – before the first returns were in from west of Ontario.
cgh, will have to agree with you that any of the other choices in Canada are completely unpalatable. However, given how optimistic I felt about things when the Reform party first came into existence, I don’t feel nearly as optimistic now. It seems that once politicians go to Ottawa, brain rot sets in. Politicians I’ve known personally, such as Keith Martin, appear to have deteriorated neurologically after spending time in Ottawa. I worry that the same process is happening to PMSH. Nuking Ottawa is one option, but there are other options.
Perhaps the solution is to change the capital of Canada to a yet to be built city located on northern Baffin island. The CAGW adherents should have no trouble moving there considering that they assert the arctic is warming faster than any other area of the planet. Also, by requiring all snivel servants to either move there or find other employment, I suspect that he size of the snivel service will be significantly reduced. The arctic is very nice in the summer and the winter depression that would affect a large part of the surviving snivel service would result in a decrease in statist regulation for at least 6 months of the year. The city of Ottawa could then be used to house the homeless from around the country and the parliament buildings could be a museum of statist excesses. If Canada owned a piece of the S. pole, I’d advocate moving the capital of the country there but unfortunately northern Baffin island is the furthest we can move the statists. The green party leader has enough subcutaneous insulation to swim with the beluga’s and perhaps she’d feel more at home there.
Such a move would be a major jobs producer in the remainder of Canada and would result in opening up the NWT (or whatever they’re called nowadays). If we get really lucky, the new house of parliament will sink without a trace into the permafrost as a result of botched snivel service “maintenance”.
In the meantime, I’d suggest that people who are as pissed off at the statist excesses of the “Conservative” government as I am to let their local MP know about this. I’ve met my local Conservative MP just once and should remind her that she agreed with me about getting rid of the gun registry when I talked to her before the last election; she agreed with me that C68 should be repealed in its entirety. Rather than ranting online, rant at your Conservative MP if you have one. Moonbats are already doing this and it’s time to get some balance in what they’re hearing. Also, DON’T support the Conservative party financially; support local anti-statist MP’s who get to keep 80% of any political donation you make to their riding association. Gary Breitkreuz is particularly deserving of support. By voting with your money, it should be a wakeup call for the CINO’s who have infiltrated the party, that’s if they’re capable of understanding what’s going on.
The long form census. I had forgotten that one. Every census time here in Vancouver, people on open line radio would be in full “piss and moan mode. “There go our rights to privacy”, None of their business”,”they threaten us with jail, as they ask these intrusive question”. And of course when the story got out that the “Evil Tories”, were going to scrap it you would have thought the hounds of hell were being released onto an unsuspecting public. The long form census was suddenly a “mainstay of confederation”,”t is horrible what the Cons are doing to the country!” .. It is sad what is happening to our beloved Canada .The west coast has been invaded by libs, and dippers, all with their hands out.Every major decision is announced with statements leading with”first nations consultations, meaning haggling over the price.Preston Manning was the first politition I ever heard that when asked a question spoke the truth plainly and simply. You didn’t have to parse every statement of his. Best Prime Minister we never had.
Oops, major geographic error in my previous post; the new capital of Canada should be built at the northern end of Ellesmere island. Already have the military base there at Eureka and I’m sure that the 5 people currently there would appreciate some more company.
…wondering why my post from this afternoon didn’t pass moderation? That’s never happened before.
Some inneresting back ‘n forth. PMSH nailed some good ones – wheat board, gun registry, rebuild the military, a bit of immigration reform. For a while now tho things seem to be standing still.
For the life of me i don’t see why they don’t clip the CBC’s wings shorter, reduce funding by 50% – get a new conservative oriented head of CBC. Doubt really that it would cost them that much political capital – lots of empty screaming and yelling from the left. Could actually serve as a useful distraction as we as being entertaining.
Loki I agree,except that for political inclusiveness, the capitol must go to the exact geographical centre of Canada.
Near Baker Lake Nunavut.
Best way to reduce the leech population and then I will become head of the Aircraft Refuelers Union.
My calling Harper an incremental Liberal was not criticism, I can picture the death by a 1000 cuts and I’m loving it when the CBC moan and whinge.
I miss Debra Grey, that rare honesty is needed more not less.
I just do not know if there is enough time to save the Canadian Bureaucratic state, with a “surplus” of 6 billion projected for 2015, it will only take 125 years to pay down our debt.
So in 2138 our decedents will finally be free of our stupidity?If interest stays at 0%.
The CBC will,unfortunately, be with us forever. That poor excuse for a parliamentarian,”can’t push away from the table” James Moore is not of a mind to defund the CBC. In
fact he has increased their funding.
Loki, very few who are not in the middle of governing a country have any idea of just how difficult it is even with a majority government.
“It seems that once politicians go to Ottawa, brain rot sets in.”
No. In any political system short of an absolute dictatorship it’s impossible to put through a pure agenda. Conflict in Ottawa, or any other national capital, simply reflects the fundamental conflict and disagreements that exist within all nations. There’s no getting around it; you have to deal with groups who fundamentally disagree with you.
Would you rather our politicians settle their differences by debate and compromise, or with bullets? If you prefer the latter, welcome to Syria, Libya, former Yugoslavia.
This is why folks like LAS will always be shrieking on the margins, utterly unable to get any of their views seen as anything other than bizarre. The opposite of statism is not libertarian freedom. The opposite is Hobbesian anarchy. The question is how much anarchy you are prepared to put up with to avoid statism.
“However, given how optimistic I felt about things when the Reform party first came into existence…”
Optimism is not soemthing that you can afford as a participant in any political process. In politics, any victory is temporary; any defeat is just a setback. What is important is the direction that is being maintained, if it is being maintained.
You jokingly refer to the “solution to the problem” being to move the capital. This misses the point. There are no “solutions” in politics, ever. As noted above, there are no final victories, ever. Politics starts first and foremost with we as Canadians and our fundamental disagreements. These disagreements are transported by the people we elect to Ottawa, where they come into conflict with others who we did not elect.
Politics then is the only method we have to make decisions binding on everyone WITHOUT killing each other. So you have a choice: deal with politics as it is, as messy as it is, or adopt the methods of Robespierre, Stalin, Hitler or any of history’s other tyrants. Understand two things: 1. that there’s no middle ground, it’s politics or it’s tyranny; and 2. that tyrants nearly always come to a very bad end.
cgh, what you say is true, but. I am seventy years old, have been interested in politics for fifty-five of those years and watched decade after decade of what used to be classical liberals impose a radical leftist agenda. Even Mulroney was a huge disappointment, as he turned out to be a Liberal in disguise shilling for Quebec and betrayed western Canada, particularly with the F-18 maintenance contract.
Now, the best we have to hope for is small incremental changes that will be easily rolled back once entitlement minded Canadians return the natural governing party.
What is particularly galling is the likes of James Moore rather than maintaining the funding of CBC or reducing it, or even privatizing it as many of us would like, actually increased the funding. There have been similar other issues that suggest allegiance by many at the top to conservatism or to a classical liberal philosophy is lukewarm at best.
Yes, there are many great MPs among the group, and yes, I have contacted our local MP and even other ones on some issues.
Many old Reformers on here. I didn’t make it to Winnipeg but had already joined the movement leading to Reform’s creation. I think Reform’s orginal strength was the grassroots in many rural ridings. People when presented with facts usually make sound decisions. Canadians by nature are conservatives.
The key weakness in our system, IMHO, is that progressives will insert themselves in what ever situation which will benefit themselves. This existed in Reform and exists in the CPC today. Once Reform formed the Opposition the process of gagging the grassroots really accelerated. The Left actively broadcasted grassroots opinions as party policy and thusly promoted the ‘redneck’ moniker. It worked.
My issue always was that ‘cleaing’ the message up reinstituted the top down political structure.
Back to progressives. I have concluded there will be no stopping these people until a final fiscal collapse occurs. They control the education system, the media and the government bureacracy. They do not exist for philosphical reasons. They exist for what the system can provide for them financially. Many have no other way of making their way in life otherwise. The more the system can be divorced from financial reality the better control these people can exert.
As an aside. We organized Kootenay East and had a membership of + 1500. When it came to nomination for the federal election we had a MLA, Jim Chabot, try for the nomination. He had no connection to the party. IMO an opportunist. Social Credit was tanking and he saw an opportunity with Reform in a riding with victory written all over it. Many wanted him to get the nomination as he had perceived appeal. In those days our riding association was still strong enough to fight that sort of thing off and Jim Abbott was nominated and sat as MP for 14 years.
That strength does not exist anymore in the riding. IMO if Kootenay East(Columbia) is at risk for the CPC then most CPC ridings are at risk. The CPC and PMSH are not doing a good enough job at educating the country to core values.
I neither “Piss nor Moan” about Harper Sync – I simply relay facts. If they are inconvenient to partsian sentiment, so be it. The truth is often ugly. The real betrayal of reason is to make apologies for corruption, cowardice and broken promises and to accept mediocrity where excellence was expected.
Yes Harper has been the better of a series of bad federal regimes, but he seems scared of media and senior bureaucracy opposition in realizing the things he was sent to Ottawa to accomplish. His and Flannagan’s “Incrementalism” relies upon a political dynasty to effect change over the course of decades. The unfortunate part of this theory is that the nation, its democracy and institutions were damaged so much by the corruption and patronizing statism of the last Liberal regimes, that immediate measures are needed to save what is left of representative civilly responsive democracy. With the way the liberals set up parliament as a power brokerage house where the public sector unionism, NGOs and corporate patrons vie for patronage, this has yielded a bureaucracy and government responsive to “interests” not individuals. Parliamentary reform and government down-sizing are priorities in this scenario I we ever want to se government responsive to public will. Currently the continuity mechanisms of status quo Ottawa politics will resist and defeat incremental change. This is the very reason Harper fears the unions and senior bureaucrats and is dragging his feet on down sizing.
Oh, how naive you are.
There’s actually no need for men of good will to disagree on anything of substance. They don’t need to make laws. God, who knows men better than they know themselves, has done that for them better than they ever could. The only legal code any country needs can be found in any Bible. It is no wiser or more necessary to “compromise” on it than it is to compromise on the laws of arithmetic, which are also God-given (a building block of the order of His creation). All that is required of the community is that as a group they are able and willing to see the law of God strictly enforced.
What we actually have is not enforcement of the will of God but of the will of men. When you give men any say as to what the law will be, they will make it whatever they think is most convenient for themselves. It is only a matter of time before the privilege of making laws falls into the hands of those who believe there is no God, right and wrong is whatever big fellows with guns will let you get away with, and rule accordingly—making the whole of the law whatever suits themselves and their cronies, and silencing anybody who complains. If too many of the plain people object, no great loss—drive them into exile or extinction, and resettle the land with people who don’t complain as much.
Elections, meanwhile, are propaganda tools only suffered to take place when the powerful can rest assured nothing will actually change. Thomas Mulcair’s only real quarrel with Stephen Harper is that Harper gets the nice house on Sussex Drive and Mulcair doesn’t. Under no circumstances are the plain people be allowed to select rulers who might do what is just in God’s eyes, because when that happens our rulers are finished. There is no more need to compromise with such people than there is with a poisonous snake or a rabid dog.
(Why our rulers want our guns so badly is left as an exercise to the reader.)
But no, you’re right—moving the scumbags to Iqaluit wouldn’t change a thing. All the real decisions are made on Bay Street anyway.
Politics- the art of the possible. When you take a look at this country and it’s regions, it’s a wonder it works at all. Fish world, quebec, Ontario….??? Hell what is the compelling reason for Canada to even exist as a country?
Place all these regions and their various demands together and then let’s see how it can be governed. Remember that the ‘conservatives’ formed the majority but garnered less than 40% of the popular vote. That is the reason why incrementalism exists in a democracy.
I don’t like it either but like Kulak above I’ve been watching and involved in this process a long time.
If jr. takes over think it will get any better? Swallow the medicine – in Canada this is as good as it ever will ever get unless something like 1929 comes along. Enjoy it while you can
If jr. takes over think it will get any better?
At least he’ll take a saner approach to drugs. And get rid of Flaherty. He might even keep Kevin Page!
“The only legal code any country needs can be found in any Bible.”
The vast majority of Canadians disagree with you. How do you propose to correct that? Burn the heretics at the stake? And whose interpretation of the Bible do you propose is the one? Catholics, Bapists, Mennonites, United Church, Presbyterian, Anglican?
“All that is required of the community is that as a group they are able and willing to see the law of God strictly enforced.”
Again, the vast majority of Canadians are opposed to this. And you raise another interesting point. Enforced by whom?
“When you give men any say as to what the law will be, they will make it whatever they think is most convenient for themselves.”
So presumably for you the best law is one that men cannot touch, alter or change in any way. Again, most Canadians disagree with you deeply. Again, how do you propose to enforce such. More witchtrials, or do you expect the wrath of God to be made manifest? For all the thousands of years that man has been making law to suit the needs of society rather than your absolute revealed truth, God seems to be notably missing in action.
“Under no circumstances are the plain people be allowed to select rulers who might do what is just in God’s eyes…”
Ah, the best yet. And how do we know what is just in God’s eyes? The truth revealed by Dick Slater? The truth revealed by the prophet Mohammed? The truth revealed by Pope Francis? But by all means keep talking, Dick. Every time you speak you simply make my point that much stronger.
I mostly agree with what you said Occam with one exception. Incremental change facilitates longevity and that yields long term change. IMHO.
Valid points cgh, but PMSH has not utilized his majority government as it should have been used. Cretin had no compunction in over-riding the national consensus when it came to passing C68 and PMSH has not demonstrated any intention of repealing this statist monstrosity. There are some ideologic peculiarities of the “Conservative” government such as not decriminalizing cannabis. The majority of the population of Canada wants this done yet the current government has instead passed harsher laws — this is bordering on the idiotic. Cannabis has been de-facto legal in BC for decades now and the status of cannabis is what determines how a good fraction of the BC population will vote. Having been involved in trying to get a common libertarian viewpoint with potheads and gun owners in the past, it’s tough, but eventually both sides see what they have in common and how statists are making paper criminals out of them.
There comes a time when fundamental change is needed and this is one of those times. As a frog placed in slowly heated water fails to notice in time that it’s been boiled before it has time to escape, so is the incremental process of creeping statism destroying western civilization. Under PMSH, the steady accretion of regulations in government departments has continued unchanged with the resultant increasing restrictions on what one can no longer do in Canada.
My personal approach to this is to simply ignore any regulation I find statist. I can get away with this as I’ve managed to make myself very difficult to replace where I’ve moved to. I also avoid getting entangled in the culture of privilege that seems to affect everyone who becomes involved in politics.
A friend of mine was high up in the BCMA some years back and it was curious seeing him go from a fairly radical libertarian to making deals with the commie government of BC. He used some of the similar arguments that you have about governing a country. However, what I suspect was more the case was that he got to enjoy the access to people in power and was sucked into their weltanschauung. He admitted as much when I talked to him some years after he was no longer in this position.
There is a political culture that exists in places like Ottawa which is very resistant to change and that’s why the radical solution in the form of moving the capital of Canada is required. Only about 5% of the population is interested enough in politics, or worked up enough that they get involved. Right now there is a political culture that does a good job of ensuring that those of the activist 5% who do make it to Ottawa are brainwashed into following the rules of the self-selected ruling elite that calls the shots.
The first time that I saw any attempt to change this totally broken model of governance was when the Reform party came out and there was a lot of local interest in Vancouver. Many people have a vague feeling that the political system is totally dysfunctional but are not sure how to fix it. Every attempt that has been made to reform the political system has been one which would drive it towards a more statist model.
One action, short of destroying the statist culture of Ottawa by moving the capital, would be to create another elected counterpart to parliament except that the sole function of this elected body would be to repeal legislation. One of the major failings of parliamentary democracies is that it is easy to get legislation passed but almost impossible to repeal it. Thus the end result is a steady growth in government as well as so many laws that eventually anything one does is illegal under some regulation or another. While the steady growth of tumor metasteses may be seen as a matter of pride by a cancer cell, eventually metastatic cancer kills the person. Similarly, unless there is a formalized means of repealing legislation by a group of individuals whose sole job it is to repeal legislation, then eventually the cumulative effect of legislation in a country will be the equivalent of progressive atherosclerosis which clogs the heart arteries and the organism dies.
Every biologic system spends as much time tearing down things as it does building them. In mammalian systems, when the balance between construction and destruction is lost, then one ends up with things such as morbid obesity, widespread cancer, osteoporosis and a host of other diseases. The same organizational principles apply to governments which are another complex dissipative structure on a higher level built up of subunits which are themselves complex dissipative structures. New emergent phenomena occur as one steps up a level, but many of the principles which result in anti-fragile design patterns in lower-level complex dissipative structures also hold at the higher level. Governments can’t understand the concept of anti-fragility and are obsessed with “efficiency” which is often the last thing that one wants in government. Also, governments seem to be blissfully oblivious to scalability of their plans in the real world.
As abtrapper noted, it will likely take a total economic collapse to get people interested enough in dealing with the structural problems of the current highly dysfunctional system of government. Even so, it’s no guarantee that people will get it right as the start of the USSA was in the 1930’s in a response to the great depression.
Loki, you raise a strong point in your last post, one that you know I agree with strongly, re. cannabis, as evidenced by our debates in other threads. This however is the one I would like you to think about for a bit with me.
“PMSH has not utilized his majority government as it should have been used”
To start with, it should be “could” not “should”. Yes, a majority government provides sweeping powers to make, amend or erase statutes. Yes, Harper has done far less with his majority government than was possible. However, there’s a catch, and it’s a very large one.
It is I think obvious to all of us that a large part of Canadian society is uncomfortable with the first Conservative majority government since 1992. The sheer vitriol coming from the MSM is a symptom of this. They still from time to time bleat on about the “hidden agenda”. For most of Confederation, Canada has been ruled by Liberals. It’s a political tradition, and right now it’s Canada’s default political setting.
What Harper needs to do, and what we need Harper to do, is to change that default setting from the now left-of-centre Liberals to the right-of-centre Conservatives. And that kind of shift can only happen after years of safe (as a majority of Canadians would see it), predictable governance. The last thing we need is for the Tories to be a one-term wonder, banished to their usual place in the opposition benches for another decade or two.
And this is why LAS and the rest of the crowd are dead wrong. They operate under the delusing that elections and politics are about ideas. They’re not. Kim Campbell in 1993 was bang on when she said elections are no place to be debating important ideas. Elections are about flash, glitter, mini-scandals of the minute, and the fundamental comfort level Canadians have with the leader and his party.
And Harper has several significant handicaps. 1. He’s hated by the MSM. 2. He’s not the most charismatic guy in the world. 3. Tories have a tendency to go flying off on various pet causes or crusades unless kept under tight supervision. He has one big thing going for him: Canadians generally see him as by far the most competent and stable of the bunch.
So to keep that momentum going, he has to make change slowly, gradually, letting Canadians get comfortable with it before moving on to a new project.
I agree with you that the War On Drugs was policy insanity from the get-go. It was doomed to fail just as Prohibition failed. But remember, until the Great Satan to the south of us learns that lesson, we’re going nowhere on that policy. Because of the Yanks, we are not and never will be masters of our own house.
What Harper needs to do, and what we need Harper to do, is to change that default setting from the now left-of-centre Liberals to the right-of-centre Conservatives.
And what Harper has actually done is make his party into basically the Liberals 2.0, reinforcing the statism of the system.
So to keep that momentum going, he has to make change slowly, gradually, letting Canadians get comfortable with it before moving on to a new project.
That’s never happened and it’s not going to. If your plan depends on staying in power forever AND that power not corrupting Our Savior, then your plan sucks. ALL movements to freedom have been abrupt. NAFTA, CWB abolition, ending the draft, etc
And this is why LAS and the rest of the crowd are dead wrong. They operate under the delusing that elections and politics are about ideas. They’re not.
Thanks mostly to people like you. In America dedicated gun-rights activists reversed the tide because they were more willing to forget about The Party and The Leader. They fought for an idea. They succeed where you fail.
Loki, great use for the Senate.
Repeal legislation.
Audit government departments.
Execute bureaucrats caught stealing and abusing their authority.
Power to dismiss with prejudice any govt employees who fail to testify before the senate inquisition.
Without creative destruction, this system is doomed.
The message I heard in Ron Paul’s speech; “Never mind your ideology, can you add?”
The 10% solution is a cost society can carry, never more than 1 parasite for every 10 productive people.
Canada is at 1:4, simple math says its done.
Never mind the Quango’s, NGO’s, Regulation Boards, Safety twits, which bring us closer to 1:1 every day.
We are very close to having a political/safety commissioner escorting each real worker.
cgh, first of all I’ll say you’re probably right about the glacial change of pace happening under PMSH. As someone whose only influence from the MSM is the glimpse of an occasional headline in a newspaper box if I look in that particular direction while walking by, I’ve found that I’m much happier getting most of my news from SDA. I have patients appearing mystified as I haven’t heard of the latest manufactured outrage by the MSM and expect where that’s most of the delusional thinking about politics comes from. I suspect that Sun News will have a huge effect in the future but the first thing is ensuring they survive. Despite multiple emails I’ve sent them offering to buy access to their videos online I haven’t gotten a single response.
As far as charisma, I must admit that’s something I have no understanding of. My primary criterion for judging politicians is based on what they’ve accomplished before they went into politics, the reasonableness of their ideas and their ability to put forth their ideas clearly. I found Preston Manning “charismatic” in that his ideas and vision resulted in my joining the Reform party — this was despite my dislike of his father whose scowling visage hung on every classroom wall in my Calgary high school. Similarly, I find PMSH to be far superior to any of the incompetents that are trying to become PM. He just has what it takes. FWIW, I thought Turdeau was a total idiot in the 1960’s and his war measures act implementation in 1970 is what made me into a Libertarian.
If by “charisma” you mean the tendency of excited journalists to hump the leg of a politician because of how they feel about that politician emotionally, then it’s way beyond time that the MSM should cease to exist as an entity. If this type of “charisma” is what influences voters, then it’s time for a voter political IQ test before they’re allowed to vote.
I know we agree about cannabis but the simplest thing for PMSH would have been to do nothing. I know that mentioning illegal psychoactive drugs to Conservatives is a sure fire way to set off often vicious debate but the role of a party leader is to decide what legislation gets introduced and what doesn’t. This particular “law and order” measure should have never seen the light of day. Maybe PMSH is trying to sneak in decriminalization via the back door now that medical marijuana is going to be the exclusive domain of physicians and there will only be licensed suppliers allowed to grow it who will dispense it after getting a prescription. Aside from the fact that I’m suddenly going to be deluged with new patients wanting medical sanction for their recreational use, the effect of this measure is going to be an absolute mess for the medical system. Maybe that’s the desired effect at which point decriminalization happens. The medical applications of cannabinoids are well proven and their use in medicine will expand in the future.
What impresses me about PMSH is his ability to think 10 steps ahead of the opposition and repeatedly show them up as fools. However, that is no barrier to being elected as the recent presidential election in the USSA has shown. Gradualism is an effective policy but I’m impatient. Gradualism is very effective for groups that think in terms of centuries, such as muslims. By converting their women into baby producing machines, they will eventually crowd out any population that they settle among.
John Robertson, that’s an excellent use for the senate and probably doable. Considering that there have been proposals to abolish the senate, then I think it would be appropriate to do so and create another elected body whose only role is to either refuse to allow passage of legislation passed by the house of commons, or to repeal legislation. Perhaps it would be better to restrict their function to repealing legislation only and putting a time limit on when legislation passed by the HOC expires. Right now a bill that’s passed is forever and putting expiry dates on every piece of legislation would be a good start.
So, cgh, I’m not about to stop voting Conservative in federal elections, but I’m going to be sending a lot more letters to politicians. Where I currently live I hear a lot of grumbling about excessive regulation, worries about cops raiding their house because they have guns and, not a single complaint about the demise of the long form census.
I have been reading this discussion, which has been very good on all sides, with great interest. I’d chime in at this point with a couple of thoughts:
1. I am indifferent to any change in the legal status of cannabis. It has never effected my life, and it should come as no surprise to anyone that Mr. Harper is not in favour of liberalization in this area, as he has made it abundantly clear since his return to public life that he is opposed to this: he did so during the Conservative leadership race in early 2004 and he has done so again multiple times since, during a period in which he has, so far, only gained in electoral support.
If the answer is outright legalization and de-regulation, fine (which is my alternative to Mr. Harper’s position; good luck with that one), but any libertarian or Liberal proposal to “legalize, regulate and tax” (LRT — sounds like a public transit line in Toronto that Rob Ford doesn’t like) is risible on its face (I hope I don’t have to explain that oxymoron, again). Overall, Canadians might say to pollsters that, as a theoretical proposition, it’s a good idea, but they don’t really mean that — people motivated to go to the polls on the issue are the “LRT” crowd, and the users are generally too under-motivated to go vote (according to several mental health care professionals I know, anyway; I wonder if there is a correlation between cannabis users and Justin Trudeau “supporters”?). So, I hope our great march forward doesn’t founder on this bad sausage minutiae.
2. Channeling Maggie Thatcher a bit, wherein she noted that governments can only influence the big things, and have no control whatsoever over the outcomes (or words to that effect; I can get the actual quote if anyone needs it), there are several areas of Harper government policy that have been overlooked in this particular thread, unfortunately (despite their (Stephen’s?) singular clarity and long-term implications, which will stand us all in good stead, I believe). They would be:
– Resource development (including, yes, the pipelines; with Ottawa’s support and encouragement, as opposed to Ottawa’s interference and, dare I say, rent-seeking).
– defacto gutting of the Canada Health Act. In this regard, generally, I will confess some surprise on this thread that some commentators’ predilection is for the Dominion government to do more of this and less of that; the biggest financial and regulatory problems we have today are at the provincial level — the four most populous provinces, actually. I have never accepted the idea that you need to vote for the federal Liberals to make sure that the provincial governments aren’t screwing you — “Vote Liberal, because you’re too stupid to control your provincial government!” (which position they promptly abandon once they’re in office — a la Chretien-Martin, 2005). I hope I don’t need to explain that oxymoron, again, either.
– Senate reform: Mr. Harper recently referred the matter to the Supreme Court for an opinion, and I now understand that all provinces have intervened in the matter. Whatever one thinks of the current Court, this was the correct move: which steers us, again, away from the show-boating of the Mr. Trudeau, Sr. years, from which the Liberal Party never really recovered.
The more interesting question, IMHO, in light of the BBC article, is whether Mr. Trudeau, Jr. will be able to make the transition that Mr. Farage will need to make (identified in my first post), and which Preston Manning, for all his greatness, was not able to do. As a matter of historical fact, in the 20th Century, the only — only — person in the English-speaking world who has been to accomplish that feat was Winston S. Churchill. I would be prepared to explain the oxymoronic position of Mr. Trudeau, Jr., if anybody really cares.
Incidentally, the reason, IMO, for the drop off in “palace guards” defence of Stephen Harper is that most of us are a bit tired of making the case that this is a short-term gain thing. In this regard, I would reference my absolute favourite Churchill speech (1940; not among his most famous):
“Death and Sorrow will be the companions of our journey,
Hardship our garment; constancy and valour our only shield.
We must be united.
We must be undaunted.
We must be inflexible.
Our qualities and our deeds must burn and glow through the gloom of Europe,
until they become the veritable beacon of its salvation.”
I apologize for the length of this post.
What David Southam sez
No need to apologize – great Churchill quote.