Western Standard

The Shotgun Blog

« Another Fall Spent Bird Hunting In Alberta | Main | Silenced »

Sunday, October 17, 2010

Conservatism on Ice

Why is it that Harper Cabinet ministers, once they have left their lofty perches, begin sounding so very conservative?

That’s why I have huge sympathy for hockey fans in Quebec City. They love their Nordiques, and what’s not to love? In the short time they were around they produced some great stars and some truly exciting hockey.

That said it would be a big mistake to let our collective passion for hockey drive public policy. Forgive me, but even if Hollywood stars with their deep insights into pretty much everything rally for federal funding for a new NHL arena in Quebec City, it’s still a horrid idea.

It would be a horrid idea in those good times when the federal treasury bulged with over-taxation.

In times like these, it is doubly horrid. It borders on hideous. It hints at trouble. It flirts with disaster.

How can you think like that, and still have worked for Mr Big Spender himself? A few months after being kicked out of cabinet, Mad Max started channelling Murray Rothbard. So Monte's relapse into small governmentism is not an isolated phenomenon. There are a surprising number of good people in politics. The problem is we find out who they are only after they've left power.

Posted by Richard Anderson on October 17, 2010 | Permalink

Comments

Typical behaviour for someone out of power. Of course, it maybe that Max is positioning himself to challenge Harper for the leadership. After all, there is no way Harper can win in Quebec, unless he agrees to open the coffers and flood the province will cash. Every party before had to buy Quebec votes this way. Of course, Alberta already knows about Harper's antics and considers him to be a socialist of the worst kind. Which brings us back to Max. Max presents himself as a far more desirable option than Harper: he is a pretend conservative who can win Quebec. Ontario loves this kind of conservative. Look at the glory years of Brian Mulroney if you need a guide.

Posted by: AB Patriot | 2010-10-17 1:21:42 PM


Publius, are you saying that the Liberals, NDP, or Bloc would have spent less than Harper? Because "big spender" is a relative term; there is little point in complaining about one party's spending if you know the others would have spent even more (which they had promised to do).

Yes, I would have to say that the undercurrents of resentment, bitterness, and nihilism seem to run particularly deep at the Standard this month.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-10-18 6:42:57 AM


Talk is cheap, they talk small government in opeds, but the history is that Conservatives spend, and they spend a lot when in power.
As for the partisan rhetoric that the others would have spent more, well of course that is possibly true but the most recent standard of comparison is Chretien - who reduced spending. Harper is putting it up 50% over 10 years. Scare tactics fall on deaf ears with me given this reality.

Posted by: Mr. Smith | 2010-10-18 8:31:56 AM


Also Shane. You say the other parties promised to spend more. That is demonstrably not true.
The spending promises in 2006 of the Conservative party as documented in the National Post (a Conservative paper) indicated that the Conservatives programs would increase spending more than double the amount of either of the promises of Liberals or the NDP. The estimates of Conservative spending increases of a little over $50 billion have proven to be a good estimate 4 years later.

Posted by: Mr. Smith | 2010-10-18 8:36:18 AM


Conservatives have to spend lots of money, it costs a lot to run a police state, 1 billion for g20 security. Imagine how much they would of spent if our economy was really doing well.

Posted by: don b | 2010-10-18 8:59:28 AM


    Talk is cheap, they talk small government in opeds, but the history is that Conservatives spend, and they spend a lot when in power.

And, with the exception of Martin under Chretien, the same is true of the Liberals. The bloated Canadian CBC-style bureaucracy as we know it today is largely a Liberal construction.

    As for the partisan rhetoric that the others would have spent more, well of course that is possibly true but the most recent standard of comparison is Chretien - who reduced spending. Harper is putting it up 50% over 10 years.

No buts. The choice is not between Harper and Chretien; it's between Harper and Iggy/Layton/Duceppe. Now pick.

    Scare tactics fall on deaf ears with me given this reality.

ANYTHING falls on deaf ears where you are concerned, Smith. Your bias is quite evident.

    Also Shane. You say the other parties promised to spend more. That is demonstrably not true.

Actually, it is; among other things, Coalition 1.0 threatened to bring down the Tories on the grounds that they were cutting subsidies to political parties and not increasing EI payments enough. I'd like to see that link, though, if you can provide it.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-10-18 9:30:16 AM


Wow, some 'choice'. I'll take the coalition hands down-it'll get rid of Harper, who can be replaced by someone worth the time of day. Then we'll have a real choice.

Posted by: Cytotoxic | 2010-10-18 5:27:34 PM


Kind of funny talking above about how the bloat is due to Liberal policies, when the numbers say so much of the spending increases have come under the Conservatives.
The CBC is a problem, but the massive number of criminals Harper is trying to create with escalating the war on drugs, and other social engineering just waiting for a majority, will one of the most costly in the nationès history if not the worst.

Posted by: Mr. Smith | 2010-10-19 11:33:27 AM


    Kind of funny talking above about how the bloat is due to Liberal policies, when the numbers say so much of the spending increases have come under the Conservatives.

Even funnier to hear you compare the Tories to the opposition they would have faced fifteen years ago, instead of the opposition they face today. What's the matter, Smith? Just can't get excited about Iggy? I don't get it; the Liberals were so excited to get their hands on him they forsook the niceties of actually voting for a leader. And now look at them.

    The CBC is a problem, but the massive number of criminals Harper is trying to create with escalating the war on drugs...

Define "massive." Also describe the new laws Harper is passing to "create" criminals where no criminals existed before.

    and other social engineering just waiting for a majority, will one of the most costly in the nationès history if not the worst.

And THAT made no sense at all. By the way, if incarcerating criminals is too expensive a luxury for you, we could always hang them. With hemp ropes, yet. Now there would be a delicious little irony.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-10-19 2:05:49 PM


    Wow, some 'choice'. I'll take the coalition hands down-it'll get rid of Harper, who can be replaced by someone worth the time of day. Then we'll have a real choice.

What "someone"? Do you even know who it would be? Do you even care, so long as it isn't Harper? And what "choice" is there in a coalition whose first formal act was an attempt to wrest power from a democratically elected government mere weeks after the election? Not the people's "choice," certainly.

Did you put even a residue of thought into that post? Or did you merely slice open your spleen and let the juices flow?

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-10-19 2:12:02 PM


Maxine Bernier, who is out of favour, seems to be the only one with any sense. When Maxine suggested a BOC target of 0% inflation, his braindead Keynsian cabinet members were like "gosh, isn't deflation a bad thing?" DOH!

Posted by: Faramir | 2010-10-19 7:37:15 PM


Shane,

Someone = Bernier

I am speaking of the choice between parties that are too similar to care about. Can only change that with a CPC loss.

Posted by: Cytotoxic | 2010-10-19 8:05:38 PM


    I am speaking of the choice between parties that are too similar to care about. Can only change that with a CPC loss.

Or a change in CPC leadership? What proof have you that Iggy would change one whit if he won? Your endorsement of Bernier would have carried more weight if you'd brought him up before Faramir did. Again: How much thought have you really put into this? Surely a little critical thinking isn't too much to ask of a fourth-year biochem student?

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-10-20 7:25:25 AM


"Define "massive." billions just for corrections Canada. The exact numbers Harper tried to declare a national security issue, but they are out now.
This does no include the 10s of billions from property damage, ruined lives, and just how to value the dead in the streets from this social engineering I don't know.
Anyway when dealing with a conservative partisan it is clear their motto is now "what's a $billion" - an update from earlier years when a mere $million was a lot to waste.

Posted by: Mr. Smith | 2010-10-21 1:23:00 PM


    "Define "massive." billions just for corrections Canada.

You're really flogging this hobby horse, aren't you, Smith? Are you afraid of ending up in stir yourself?

    This does no include the 10s of billions from property damage, ruined lives, and just how to value the dead in the streets from this social engineering I don't know.

All that could be prevented by rounding up career criminals and shooting them in alleyways. Money is not your prime concern so don't try to pretend otherwise.

    Anyway when dealing with a conservative partisan it is clear their motto is now "what's a $billion" - an update from earlier years when a mere $million was a lot to waste.

Funny, Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition just got through saying the same thing about the gun registry.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2010-10-21 8:48:28 PM



The comments to this entry are closed.