The Shotgun Blog
« Are Canadians trying to "preact" to the American election? | Main | Swing state hysteria »
Tuesday, October 07, 2008
2005: The White Flag for conservatism.
Apparently Andrew Coyne warned us that this would happen in 2005.
He wrote about the fact that one thing that was handily stifled at the party's 2005 policy convention was debate. As a "politically mature" party, the Conservatives were happy knowing they were now electable. The price for this, though, was many of conservatives' core principles.
Here's what Coyne had to say for a Liberal-lite CPC:
"A party that plays on its opponents’ pitch, that lacks the self-confidence to define the terms of debate for itself, will soon find that even if it wins it loses. Either the Conservatives really mean it when they promise they will privatize nothing, deregulate nothing, and make no significant cuts in spending -- in which case they will have achieved nothing but to preside, temporarily, over an unchanged Liberal apparatus that will not thank them for putting their old friends out of jobs. Or they are simply lying, misrepresenting their true intentions in their consuming lust for power: in which case, they will find their reward is a poisoned chalice, a government without a mandate. Having been elected as Liberals, they will be judged by Liberal standards, and meet the fate that previous Liberal impostors met."
Eerie how much of the write-up rings true.
hat tip: Ker.
Posted by Janet Neilson on October 7, 2008 in Canadian Conservative Politics | Permalink
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e201053562b3e4970b
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference 2005: The White Flag for conservatism.:
Comments
In fairness to Harper, a program of privatization and spending cuts would be death to any minority government. It's surprising just how far he could push the opposition on a lot of issues, but I don't think that they would get pushed very far on those issues.
Posted by: Dennis | 2008-10-08 8:31:59 AM
Without a policy of privatization and spending cuts, as Coyne eloquently points out, Harper is running a liberal-lite interventionist-state care-taking operation. Never mind the minority, it will be worse once he gets a majority. It's small consolation that the most one can hope for of a manager of a failing operation that instead of changing the system, attains his management position by promising not to accelerate the failure by some nebulous margin. Even Mulroney achieved some privatization.
Posted by: John Chittick | 2008-10-08 10:10:28 AM
Harper’s “Conservatives”
By Stephen J. Gray
“He [Harper] can be slippier [sic.] than a greased pig” (Paul Wells, Maclean’s Magazine, September 17, 2008).
Conservative leadership is the buzz word of the election campaign. And Mr. Harper is being touted as a “leader.” So let us examine what Mr. Harper the leader says and does on a number of issues:
Free Speech: “Human rights commissions, as they are evolving, are an attack on our fundamental freedoms and the basic existence of a democratic society,” says Stephen Harper, president of the National Citizens' Coalition. “It is in fact totalitarianism. I find this is very scary stuff.” [1]
Yet, the Harper government intervenes against free speech: “The Attorney General of Canada, the Canadian Human Rights Commission, the Canadian Jewish Congress, the Simon Wiesenthal Centre and B'nai Brith Canada will be intervening in the Lemire case in support of Section 13, arguing that it is a reasonable restriction on freedom of speech” (Canadian Constitution Foundation Letter of April 28).
Bilingualism: “As a religion, bilingualism is the god that failed. It has led to no fairness, produced no unity, and cost Canadian taxpayers untold millions.” (Stephen Harper) [2]
Now Mr. Harper says this: “My friends, for me a prime minister should speak French,” Harper said, calling French “the founding language of this country” (Source: The Gazette, Sept 8, 2008 [3]).
Same-sex marriage: “I don't see reopening this question [of same-sex marriage] in the future.” (Stephen Harper, CTV News Dec. 7, 2006 [4]).
Sexual orientation and its illegitimate offspring “same-sex marriage” were never in the Charter, yet we had the silly spectacle of a supposedly “conservative government introducing a motion on this that they knew would be defeated. A government with principles would have used the not-withstanding clause to return sanity to this country. But unfortunately Mr. Harper is on record as saying, regarding this nonsense called same-sex marriage, “I will never use the notwithstanding clause on that issue” (Lifesite News December 16, 2005, [5]).
The Status of Women: This group achieved increased funding under the Harper Conservatives as witness the following quote from a minister’s speech: “As a demonstration of our firm commitment to the success of Status of Women Canada, Budget 2007 provided $10 million in funding to the Agency, bringing the total budget to $29.9 million, a record for Status of Women [emphasis added] Canada” (Speech for The Honorable Josée Verner, P.C., M.P., Minister of Canadian Heritage, Status of Women and Official Languages, on the occasion of an appearance before the Standing Committee on the Status of Women, House of Commons, Ottawa, February 5, 2008, [6]).
Abortion: “The Conservative government won't be initiating or supporting abortion legislation, and I'll use whatever influence I have in Parliament to be sure that such a matter doesn't come to a vote…” (Stephen Harper, [7]).
And we thought we lived in a democracy? Or is it a hypocrisy?
And talking about hypocrisy, based on the evidence we have seen from Mr. Harper’s government, are they really a conservative government? Or is it back to the days of the Red Tories and the Mulroney government? A former Reform party member and MP had this to say about Mr. Harper: “he will be remembered as an opportunistic, masterful tactician who, in the course of only three years completely purged the Conservative party of its Reform ideals and restored the Mulroney model of government.” (Lee Morrison, former Reform M.P. in the Calgary Herald, September 14, 2008 [8]).
Furthermore, a former Mulroney supporter is now in “charge of various files…” Read this:
“[Senator] Ms. LeBreton is one of the women Mr. Harper put in Cabinet and trusts. She was a staunch Progressive Conservative, most closely tied to Brian Mulroney, and made it into Mr. Harper's inner circle despite her vocal opposition to his vision to unite the right (the former Reformer Party/Canadian Alliance and Progressive Conservatives). Mr. Harper appointed her Conservative leader in the Senate and put her in charge of various files,...” (National Post, September 22, 2008).
This makes one wonder, is Ms. LeBreton now in charge of the abortion “file?” Ms. Breton has said this on abortion:
“… there are certain issues, particularly those that concern women and children, and those of particular concern to women, and here I will use the abortion issue as an example, where even if 99.9 per cent of the members of my party were going one way, I would not support any policy that did not give women the right to choose” (http://www.parl.gc.ca/infoparl/english/issue.htm?param=147&art=983).
And on the “right to choose,” Mr .Harper is on the record as saying this: “Let me be very clear on the positions I’ve have taken on that. I want there to be no misunderstanding. I’ve said repeatedly, that I will not, that my Conservative government will not be tabling any legislation impacting in any way a woman’s right to choose” (June 27, 2006, LifeSiteNews,
Mr. Harper is heading for a majority government. But on moral issues is there really any difference between the “conservatives” and the other parties? Are we now immersed in “throw the dogs a bone politics” where we are being promised all kinds of goodies with our own tax dollars and moral issues are not even discussed? Are we back to what a former Reform M.P. called in his Calgary Herald article, “Liberal, Tory, same old story?” And will social conservative people buy the “story” that we have a “conservative” party to vote for and allow themselves to be fooled a second time by the Harper “conservatives?”
For, as Andrew Coyne wrote in MacLean’s of September 10, 2008,
“…Harper's whole time in office has been spent reassuring the public he has no plans to lead them anywhere, that under a Conservative government nothing much would change — they would govern much like the Liberals,…” [9]
Stephen J. Gray
October 6, 2008.
graysinfo@yahoo.ca website: http://www.geocities.com/graysinfo
Posted by: Stephen J. Gray | 2008-10-08 10:14:06 AM
Pragmatism is the key to survival in a minority parliament.
As long as Harper positions himself as guardian of the little guy's ability to look after himself, he is the only alternative we have right now for individual freedom and individual responsibility.
All the other options offer even higher levels of state intervention ... classic marxist class warfare in Layton's case and redistribution through a consumption tax in the Liberal's case.
Unfortunately, it will take some time to undo the damage of Trudeau's nanny state entitlements and for self-sufficiency to take hold.
Posted by: set you free | 2008-10-08 10:36:45 AM
"Even Mulroney achieved some privatization."
~John Chittick | 8-Oct-08 10:10:28 AM
Mulroney was elected, first time, with the largest majority in Canadian history.
The Opposition benches were so empty, Mulroney actually invited the MSM to serve as the Opposition in their stead.
Posted by: Speller | 2008-10-08 11:03:19 AM
As long as Harper positions himself as guardian of the little guy's ability to look after himself, he is the only alternative we have right now for individual freedom and individual responsibility.
Posted by: set you free | 8-Oct-08 10:36:45 AM
That is a pretty good observation provided that Harper actually did more than merely "position himself" as gaurdian of the little guy. The Liberal apparatus is still in place and the little guy still has to deal with every kind of bureacracy you can imagine. In other words small business is just as stifled as it has ever been. perhaps more so. (but that's the whole idea isn't it?)
Posted by: JC | 2008-10-08 11:05:12 AM
Set You Free-
I am with you 100%. Harper is the best politician the canadian Conservative movement has had in decades.
And in the end, it's about politics. That why the Liberals have been in power so long.
Incrementalism and securing power are the key to instituting conservative policies in society. It doesnt work the other way around (see Preston Manning).
Posted by: Q | 2008-10-08 11:38:14 AM
Another "white flag" surrender? See article below SJG
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081007.welxnfilmfund1007/BNStory/Front
Artists happy Tories scrap controversial film tax plan
TOBI COHEN
Canadian Press
October 7, 2008 at 6:32 PM EDT
MONTREAL — Conservative Leader Stephen Harper's promise to reverse plans to scrap tax credits for productions deemed offensive to Canadian viewers came as a pleasant surprise Tuesday to those in the film and television business and a major blow to the religious right.“The arts community I think can almost relax and unpack their bags,” actor Gordon Pinsent said in a telephone interview with The Canadian Press.Mr. Pinsent said he never would have expected such a change of heart from the Conservatives and wonders whether it means Mr. Harper may be open to other new ideas.“This flexibility shows he can be flexible again.”Mr. Harper unveiled the change of heart as part of his party's much anticipated election platform.While Mr. Pinsent suspects the decision, which came just a week before the election and with the Conservatives flagging in the polls, was largely political, he said he'll take what he can get.Mr. Harper will surely be hoping the reversal will help his party at the ballot box next Tuesday, particularly in Quebec, where opposition to Tory cuts to cultural programs has been the fiercest in Canada.The controversial changes to film and television tax credit eligibility were folded into a massive 569-page, highly technical tax reform bill that passed in the Commons earlier this year despite widespread protest.The government argued the provision was needed to keep tax dollars from funding objectionable productions and Heritage Minister Josee Verner was to spend the next year consulting with industry to find a formula for assessing taxpayer-subsidized productions.A film about the sex lives of young singles entitled Young People Fuckin g – which coincidentally comes out on DVD he day of the election – became a lightning rod in the debate over the bill. (emphasis added)Producer Steve Hoban called Tuesday's decision “good news all around” and a sound economic move given the worldwide market meltdown.He said the plan would have ultimately killed the domestic film industry at a time when it's growing and generating billions in economic spinoffs.“It would have been a really dumb move to do that to an industry that's actually contributing to our economy,” he said.“What this would have meant is that banks would not have known for certain whether productions would get that tax credit or not and if a production was not certain to get it, the bank couldn't guarantee it.“If a bank couldn't guarantee it, it meant we wouldn't have that chunk of financing to make the films with in the first place.“There would be 140,000 people thrown out of work immediately and there would be billions of dollars of economic benefit to Canada disappear overnight.”While the tax credit received for his last, highly controversial, $1.5-million film was just under $100,000, his next movie will benefit from a $1.3-million tax credit deemed integral to the production.With a price tag of $26-million, Splice, starring Sarah Polley and Adrien Brody, is among the most expensive films to come out of Canada. Mr. Hoban said $20-million of it was raised outside the country but will be spent locally.“It's an investment in our economy, it's not a handout,” Mr. Hoban said of the tax credit. “I don't think [the Conservatives] will be more friendly to the arts but what [this experience] will hopefully have done is opened their eyes... Arts contribute not just to the culture of this country but to the economy of this country.”Still, the abrupt change in Conservative strategy did not please everybody. Prominent evangelical leader Charles McVety, who boasted last winter that his lobbying for “conservative values” had influenced the Harper government's decision to include the tax provision, suggested Tuesday's move was little more than a desperate play for votes.“Unfortunately I think the prime minister is pandering to some vocal people and in turn abandoning his conservative base,” he said.“Now you have four parties that are all socially left so who do you vote for?”Mr. McVety said Mr. Harper has repeatedly forsaken his social conservative values in funding the CBC and reversing his decision to support a controversial private member's bill that supported unborn victims of crime.“When you abandon your principles on one issue, people don't believe you'll maintain other principles and Stephen Harper fought for these issues over an extended period of time and then the polling numbers go down and he rolls over,” he argued.
Posted by: Stephen J. Gray | 2008-10-08 12:15:33 PM
JC:
With apologies to Winston Churchill; Stephen Harper may be the worst candidate for Prime Minister out there ... except for all the rest.
Posted by: set you free | 2008-10-08 12:33:55 PM
So what I'm hearing from the faithful is that once Harper gets his majority he will initiate a conservative policy agenda that we haven't yet been privy to. If that's the case, it makes him either a liar or someone with a hidden agenda. In either case he will do to the Conservatives what Mulroney did to the Progressive Conservatives. There is a political axiom that a government is only as good as the means by which it achieves power. You can't successfully give a conservative government to an electorate that will only vote liberal or liberal-lite.
I still agree that he is the lessor of the (serious party) evils (as per SYF - above).
Thatcher wasn't into incrementalism.
Posted by: John Chittick | 2008-10-08 3:59:09 PM
John
"So what I'm hearing from the faithful is that once Harper gets his majority he will initiate a conservative policy agenda that we haven't yet been privy to. If that's the case, it makes him either a liar or someone with a hidden agenda."
Well, technically, I find little with which to disagree.
Except, of course, results. If it results in changes in the right direction, atom by atom, molecule by molecule, until, just in time, for my children to benefit from large scale changes...so be it.
I only wish I could foretell the future.
Posted by: h2o273kk9 | 2008-10-08 6:00:40 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.