The Shotgun Blog
Monday, November 28, 2005
Paul Martin's campaign of fear
All but a very few lines of the Liberal leader's campaign launch speech was about either Stephen Harper or the Bloc.
Nothing positive. Nothing to offer.
All about fear, going after the Liberal base in Atlantic Canada, anglo- and allo-phone Montreal, and the GTA.
Mr. Martin's message to his base?
"Be afraid. Be very afraid."
If I were Mr. Martin, I'd be scared, too.
Posted by Russ Kuykendall on November 28, 2005 | Permalink
TrackBack URL for this entry:
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Paul Martin's campaign of fear:
There is no way Martin could be as scared as the Liberal candidates in Alberta. While their basic survival is assured, their self-esteem will be tested to its extreme limits. I wonder how they find people year after year to suffer so much. I almost pity them.
Posted by: Scott | 2005-11-28 5:47:44 PM
Perhaps the Liberal candidates' self esteem would be worthy of less disgust if their team wasn't stealing the citizens' income.
Posted by: Vitruvius | 2005-11-28 6:21:25 PM
Mr. Harper now needs to offer the something positive that Martin and friends can not. And I would further suggest the positive platform Mr. Harper sets forth has to be able to persuade an electorate who doubt, question and fear his leadership. Here's a suggestion. Commit to the Canadian people that given a majority government he (our new PM Harper) will implement said positive platform within his first year in office or resign and call another election. Martin and the Liberals haven't got anything close to the integrity needed to pull this off. Mr. Harper does! And so he should let Canadians know he truly can be trusted and counted upon to keep his promises.
Posted by: George | 2005-11-28 6:37:23 PM
PMPM called me a neo-con! All I want is stiffer penalties for criminals, less government, changes to the equalization formula and an elected senate! But now I'm a neo-con! Coooool!
Posted by: Lemmytowner | 2005-11-28 6:37:58 PM
A relative told me that Martin will run his campaign on a theme of anti-Americanism. Isn't this the same party that ran in 2004 promising to improve relations with the US? Geez, these people don't think much of the electorate.
Well, they can't exactly run on their record, can they? :)
Posted by: Scott | 2005-11-28 7:14:52 PM
I guess I'm a neocon because I'd like to have a little less than 50% of my income confiscated by conspiring levels of government and frittered away on gun registries and Liberal friendly ad firms.
Posted by: Joel | 2005-11-28 7:20:00 PM
Lemmytowner, I wanna be a neo-con too. They sound like they have so much fun.
How can I join up? Is there an initiation ceremony? Dues? Secret passwords and handshakes? Do I get a secret decoder ring? Is there a Canadian version of Karl Rove?
Posted by: Kathryn | 2005-11-28 7:20:26 PM
apparently just questioning Liberal motives is enough for you to become a neo-con. Beats being a commie, er socialist I mean.
Posted by: Lemmytowner | 2005-11-28 7:30:56 PM
Commie, socialist = toMAYto, toMAHto
I like the neo-con tag. I've been a conservative for so long, the proper term would be paleo-con, but that makes me sound old, so neo-con it is. I'll wear it with as much pride as I do knuckle-dragging redneck.
Posted by: Kathryn | 2005-11-28 7:46:00 PM
Better a NeoCon than a ConArtist.
Posted by: NCF TO | 2005-11-28 9:44:20 PM
Are we clear?
The governments of Jean Chrétien and Paul Martin, in power federally since 1993, have also been accused of neoconservative or neoliberal economic policies, particularly in their drive to reduce the federal deficit and debt through spending cuts.
Mike Harris, Progressive Conservative Premier of Ontario from 1995 to 2002, is widely and uncontroversially considered a economic neoconservative, but he almost completely ignored issues of purely social concern such as same-sex marriage and abortion. Ernie Eves and John Tory, his successors to the Ontario Conservative leadership, are considered more Red Tory than Harris. Both won the leadership over more neoconservative candidates such as Tony Clement, Jim Flaherty and Frank Klees.
Ralph Klein, Progressive Conservative Premier of Alberta since 1992, is usually considered to be a neoconservative. Gordon Campbell, Liberal Premier of British Columbia since 2001, may be considered a neoliberal. While both governments share similar economic beliefs, Campbell does not share Klein's socially conservative values.
Jean Charest, a federal Tory leader and later Liberal Premier of Quebec, has variously cast himself as a Red Tory and a neoliberal. His provincial government has adopted neoliberal stances, and one of the opposition parties in Quebec, the Action démocratique du Québec under Mario Dumont, has advocated neoconservative policies.
Interest groups associated with Canadian neoconservatism include the Fraser Institute, a think tank, and the National Citizens Coalition, a lobby group.
Neoconservatism in Canadian media
There is currently no major national Neoconservative newspaper. While Sun Media has many local or regional papers which have a strong neoconservative editorial presence (such as the Calgary Sun), both major national papers have a decided pro-Liberal slant in most of their articles.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neoconservatism_and_neoliberalism_in_Canada"
Posted by: Lemmytowner | 2005-11-28 10:35:17 PM
Did you notice the second tactic is to make us believe there is a Quebec issue. Like, where'd that come from? The Liberals are supposed to be able to work on resolving anything. They'd have to get their hands out of the cookie jar first. Liberals don't speak for me in ANY issue, even if it isn't manufactured.
Posted by: Ottawa Man | 2005-11-28 10:50:09 PM
Just curious, and I watched all the speeches, but what exactly did Harper offer? With all his prep time could he have come up with ONE concrete initiative to bring to the table?
The guy is a flake. Did you catch his one real bonehead statement? Something to the effect of "How bad the Liberals? So bad that they chose US to run against?"
What the hell was that? Like the Liberals have a choice? Or that the Liberals get to pick the opposing parties? Or that there are BETTER options for opposition?
Hey, I'm as tired of the Liberals as the next person, but why the hell did the Alliance have to pick such a complete boob to campaign behind?
Ontario has elected Tory governments 8 out of the last 11 elections, but the Alliance can't seem to find within their ranks a person to lead them that could put them over the top in Ontario.
And I don't think Hapless is going to do it this time either.
Posted by: zeppo | 2005-11-29 9:44:44 AM
Zeppo- the problem the CPC have with outlining a specific table of Things-We-Will-Do is that the Liberals have a long history of simply grabbing each and every item tabled and marketing it as their own. Since the Liberals are 'in power', then, the public accepts these agendas as theirs. But- they were stolen from the Conservatives. That's why the CPC are forced to 'keep quiet'.
This is a problem that has arisen because of the unique political structure of Canada. We have not developed a self-definition of ourselves where we can set up a list of variables and define a political party by its attitude to the Left or Right. For example:
1. Nature of Economy:
Left: via gov't intervention....>Right: no gov't
2. Foreign Policy:
Left: Act only with others...>Right: Make up own mind.
etc. The NDP is the only party that has aligned itself on this path, but, it doesn't form, ever, the national gov't.
This means that Canada is always, Middle of the Road. All parties that are elected, are elected to Be Middle of the Road.
Why? Canada has always been 'middle'. It hasn't matured as a country. Up until and including the two world wars, it was embedded in the Commonwealth. It went to war IF the Commonwealth made that decision. The constitution may have been 'repatriated' but Canada didn't grow up.
Instead, it chose a strange and ultimately, disastrous path. It did a very strange thing. Canada, rather than acknowledging the reality-on-the ground of its population, its geography, its economy, etc..set out to MAKE a society, based on artificial Ideals. That's the agenda of fascism, of communism, of Plato. That's where you first define the nature of the country..and then, force the population to be like that.
So- we set up ourselves within this Fictional Canada as: (1)bilingual (but we are not!);
)2)all have the same economic results (but our material resources and population sizes are different; we can't all have the same economic results!)
(3) all of us are equal - and therefore health care is reduced to the lowest common denominator of what can be afforded to ALL
(4) all of us are equal - and therefore, differences are reduced to 'cultural expressions' - and are 'multicultural'. Differences are balkanized.
(5) all of us are equal - and therefore, no group is enabled to develop large surplus monies to invest in high risk, high cost industrial dev't and research. Result- we are forced to rely on foreign investment to build the industries and take the risks; we are all 'equal' middle class workers in this piggy-backed economy.
(6) all of us are equal and therefore, no dissent is allowed. Canadians are 'tolerant'; they don't make decisions; they accept everything and everyone as 'equal' (relativism triumphs!)
7) all of us are equal - and as such, we have no identity. We are forced into a self-definition which is only negative. We are Not-American. We have no idea, of course, what we are, because we are 'in the middle'.
(Ever see the film Chicago- and the Song of Mr. Invisible'? "You can walk right by me..and never know I'm there". That's Canada - on the world scene.
Compare with Australia, which did mature. It made some decisions, based on acceptance of hard reality - of what they, as a people, ARE. Not this Trudeau- communist style utopian idealism, where you first insert the Ideal Definition and then force the people into that mould. Australia defined itself - reworked its gov't, setting up elected positions, an elected senate, and so on.
And Australia, makes its own decisions. Canada? Never. It is either NOT the USA, or, embedded within the UN, the corrupt UN.
Posted by: ET | 2005-11-29 10:10:21 AM
Errr, I'm sorry, but are you suggesting that the CPC has a secret agenda that they want us to believe in but can't reveal for fear of it being stolen by the big bad Fiberals, but we should just vote for it sight unseen under the assumption that it's gonna be kick-ass?
And no, posting generalizations about political theory don't count. Especially when you include the one:
2) Foreign Policy
Left: act only with others. Right: make up your own mind
at the same time as the stated difference in policy between the two from Harper is that the Liberals are TOO independant and TOO at odds with Washington and Steve's going to go and suck up to GW and make it all better.
Because, you see, I don't care about the labels. Liberal Commie Pinko Spendthrifts or NeoCon Christo-fascist Warmongerers, or whatever gets used to generalize people unfairly.
I need to see stated policy and evaluate how it is going to maintain our low unemployment, our low inflation, our low interest, and our balanced budgets.
It really shouldn't be too much to ask for.
Posted by: zeppo | 2005-11-29 10:55:01 AM
Zeppo- the Liberals don't make up their own minds on foreign policy. They are either embedded within the UN (Chretien) or will do whatever the US is NOT doing. That's hardly a self-organized decision.
No - Canada doesn't have 'low unemployment, low inflation and balanced budgets' due to the Liberals. Its employment sector is heavily within the public service rather than private industry; that is - our high taxes are supporting this bloated bureaucracy.
The Canadian economy is fine ONLY because it is embedded within that of the US; Canadians are employees of US-owned secondary factories. And this piggy-backed economy will, in the long run, lead us into trouble. A country which itself lacks the ability to develop those high cost and high risk industries is a dependent economy. That's Canada. A country with 85% of its exports going to only ONE country, is a dependent economy. That's Canada.
The results of this economy, dependent on the US, rather, than, let's say, Russia, is a safe, even, middle class life style. That's due to the US, not the Liberals.
Posted by: ET | 2005-11-29 11:01:27 AM
Oh bullshit. And you have to do better than disprovable jingoism to win elections.
The Federal Public Service topped out at 315K at the end of Mulrooney's tenure. By '97 it was down to 269K and as of 2003 was down to 170K. Not saying there isn't still bloat there, but you can hardly claim that it has ballooned under Liberal stewardship.
As to foreign policy, of course Canada is bound to the UN. We are, after all a member. But various initiatives sponsored by various Canadian governments (Conservative and Liberal) have also been adopted through that venue, so we have also been able to impact it. And, of course, we have been free to sign or not sign initiatives as we've felt neccessary
As to the notion that all there is now is knee-jerk reactionism to the US, you again do the truth a disservice. You just can't say that looking at the simplest example: we ARE in Afghanistan but not Iraq. Our agreement or non-agreement with the US is reflected across multiple areas of policy and we are with them as often as we differ. Paul achieved much economic consensus with GW at the most recent G8 meeting as it was a multilateral declaration on many issues that was agreed to there.
And regardless of the "high risk" industries you want to embark on, the issue of our "embeddedness" with the US remains. They have proximaty and purchasing power that makes it easier for our industry to sell to them than elsewhere. And the antidote is expanding markets as much as it is expanding industries, and putting programs in place to help our existing industries sell to wider consumer bases.
Now then, once again - what is the Conservative plan to achieve that? Besides "let Alberta keep it's money" I mean, and hope that Ralph performs this great miracle to the benefit of all Canada. This is, after all, a FEDERAL election and you need to engage Ontarians on how THEY'LL improve - not just how Albertans will.
So far your very posting demonstrates your ability to do little more than
what the subject complained about towards the Liberals - show negativity.
Really guys, if all you have here are tired, over-simplified mantras then you aren't helping the cause a whole lot.
Posted by: zeppo | 2005-11-29 12:44:39 PM
zeppo, go read the freakin' policies. You're smart enough to post on a comment board; you should be smart enough to go the CPC website and read about their policies. And, please don't start with the "well, if I have to go aaaaaall the way to a website, well, that's too much work." Please tell me where you saw all the other party's policies trotted out during the "government just fell" speeches. The only boneheaded thing I heard last night was pm telling his MPs that he was proud of "each and every one of them." How would you like to be one of the honest ones lumped in with the criminals in that statement? Assuming that some of them aren't criminals, of course.
As much as you protest labels, you seem too hung up on them to excercise your right to educate yourself.
Posted by: Ham | 2005-11-29 12:49:45 PM
Come on Ham!
You don't expect a liberal to be able to look up www.conservative.ca on the internet do you? Just look at the website at www.conservative.ca and see how hard it would be with such a misleading website address as www.conservative.ca
Next you'll be telling the dippers to look it up - then you'll really be asking the impossible.
The reason that the MSM and the Liberal/dippers think the agenda is scary and hidden is that they would never think that the conservatives website could be places at such a non-intuitive website address as www.conservative.ca
You can see the problem here right? It's just too well hidden for the average liberal.
Posted by: Warwick | 2005-11-29 1:10:30 PM
Zeppo - you are obviously a Liberal plant.
You are behaving the same as your friend Paul. Insults.
(1) I'm not talking 'jingoism'. Don't use the Liberal tactic of insults.
(2) The federal civil service remains high and going higher. How did they accomplish the Cuts on The Surface? By splitting the public service into different sections - and the current public service count now excludes the employees working in, for example: Revenue Canada, Parks Canada, Food Inspection, Navigation, About 60,000 employees 'disappeared' off the public service rote - simply by that tactic of cutting the service into different Sections.
I quote from Stats Canada: "Over 70 per cent of the occupational groups in the federal Public Service posted an increase in their workforce for fiscal 2000-01 compared with 62 per cent in the preceding fiscal year" and "March 2000 to March 2001, the federal Public Service grew by 5.9 per cent, an increase of 8,671 employees. The number of employees in the federal Public Service has thus risen for the second year in a row"
(3)No. Canada is not bound to the UN. No country is bound to the UN; that would mean giving up their sovereignty to a bureaucracy - which is all that the UN is. And a corrupt bureaucracy at that. Canada does not make its own decisions; it trickles along, following the leader. Compare with Australia, which does make its own decisions.
(4) Of course there is a knee-jerk reactionism to the US. Why do you ignore reality? You ignore the cabinet ministers and their 'Bush is a moron'; you ignore the journalists in Canada; you ignore the constant editorials, the journal articles, the TV mocking of the US, the constant denigration of the US etc, etc. We are in Afghanistan - not because of the US, but because of the UN.
You are speaking in such general terms - just like a Liberal - that your sentences are essentially without meaning. What does "our agreement or non-agreement with the US is reflected across multiple areas of policy". My god- that sounds just like the empty non-answers that Martin, McLellan etc give in the House. I call that Smother Talk, for it fogs the issue, and is, like fog, empty of any information.
And 'it was a multilateral declaration...on many issues...that was agree to". Do you realize how informationally empty these phrases are??
(5) You aren't addressing the problem of our embeddedness with the US. Your statement that they have 'purchasing power' is irrelevant. My point is that Canada is failing to enable its citizens to accumulate surplus to, themselves, develop highcost and high risk industrial devt and therefore, must rely on foreign investment to achieve those tasks. An economy that functions this way - is in trouble.
Furthermore - you don't address the problem of a dependence on exports to one country. All you say is 'so what'? That's irresponsible.
And your statement "putting programs in place to help....sell to a wider basis'..is yet again, Liberal Smother Talk. It's empty. And it's also Top Down - what programs? Why doesn't the gov't get its hands out of the board rooms of companies and allow companies to self-organize themselves?
(6) You are a Liberal- and a centralist - and all for 'equalization' -which is a cover-term for reduction of all to the LCD - the lowest common denominator. This may be OK for a summer camp, but a modern industrial economy cannot be run by homogeneity. There MUST be asymmetry, or fiscal imbalance. There MUST be surplus, to invest in long-term, future oriented industries, where returns are far in the future. Your equalization seals the Canadian economy into a lower middle class economy, dependent on foreign investment and the US consumer.
Now, Zeppo- What 'Cause' are you talking about? And what are your solutions?
Posted by: ET | 2005-11-29 2:15:36 PM
Well thank you two for responding to me with exactly the sort of purile personal attacks that you ascribe to Liberals (of which I am not by the way).
And on a thread that complains about this very thing.
If you don't see where blind jingoism of the sort that ET engaged in fails to win support for the party, then may you please never LEAD the party. Because that sort of dumb rhetoric fails FROM BOTH SIDES. And I can do devils advocacy quite nicely.
You see - I don't need a reason NOT to vote for the Liberals. But you guy sure do sweet FA as far as giving people a reason TO vote for your guy.
And if you don't think that this is the battle you face in Ontarion, then you really haven't been paying attention.
Posted by: zeppo | 2005-11-29 2:17:02 PM
“Putting programs in place to help our industries sell to a wider customer base.”
Zeppo, like Justin, doesn’t answer questions but here goes anyway.
Specifically what genius in Ottawa is capable of putting such “programs” in place? Someone in HRDC? No, this is just more Dipper/Liberal meddling with what should be left to free-markets.
The solution is to fire the expensive Ottawa geniuses and use the money saved to cut business taxes so businesses can invest and grow. No central-planning apparatchik in Ottawa knows more about business than business people. Conservative policy is to get government out of the way, not hire bureaucrats pretending at business with expensive “programs”.
But to be fair, Zippo asks some good questions. For example, how are we going to stay down at these low interest rates when US rates are rising? Canadian rates have never being this much lower then US rates for any length of time. In fact historically Canadian rates have almost always been higher. There’s something very odd about this situation.
We’ve had Liberals in power for 12 years, I wonder if they would be able to tell us what this interest rate aberration really means? Does it mean that Canada has become a more attractive place to invest than the US; therefore our interest rates can be lower? I don’t think so. I wonder what manipulation is really going on? Whatever it is, it is a high risk game to be lower than the US for this long a period when we know a recession will happen sooner or later and then how are we going to drop rates when the US starts dropping to fight the recession? We are totally dependent upon the US economy and we are playing a high risk game with interest rates.
I’d like Goodale and Dodge to tell us more about their interest rate “policy”. Good question Zeppo, thanks.
Posted by: nomdenet | 2005-11-29 3:36:36 PM
I think Martin is the one experiencing fear
Posted by: Duke | 2005-11-29 3:38:03 PM
In reply to ET and Ham, most of the world has embraced Reaganism and Thatcherism into their political party manifestos, case in point is the Alistair Campbell inspired Blair Labour Party.
The Liberals and most centralist or left leaning parties have been doing this in most of the world for the last 15 or so years and we have much to thank for this even though our conservative family never gets into power. We only win government when we are seen to be hugging the middle and the general electorate does not feel a threat for that change to happen.
In the UK case, after 18 years of Thatcher and Major, the great majority of the electorate turfed out the tired Conservatives for a more "lite' Thatcherite Labour Party where dissidents and red de factos like George Galloway were well clamped down on in the party.
In Australia, a similiar growth of revitalised conservatism actually grew out of Queensland that had a coherent impact on the national scene where conservative policies were initiated alongside social conservative ones which were more palatable to the electorate.
Parties of this nature have been successful in the UK, Oz, Eire and the former communist bloc nations of pro enterprise Central Europe where political ingenuity in policy is being blended with red tory policies that the elctorate and party policy is being weaned off as a direct backlash against the former communist state.
In the UK case (Howard has more grip in Oz then his unregenerated Labor crowd), the pendulum post Blair will swing back to the Conservatives under David Cameroon once the party rises into a neocon social form where manifesto becomes again palatable to the center ground because of government mismanagement.
The difficulty with the current Harper move is this, it is a gamble that has to pay off to win the middle ground of the electorate whereby the issues are mixed with an innovative stance that the electorate in Ontario will feel secure in excepting a moderate right agenda for the sake of change.
In the past forty years that is how former PC was elected when the status quo was not threatened to boot out the dominant party. In most former British commonwealth countries, that is pretty much the legacy that occurs and when one examines the brilliance of Alistair Campbell (yes, it was from a hack)with Tony Blair, the Calgary Club "policy committee' better take note or on January 23 it will be so long Steve. The fact to date we have not made inroads into Quebec as a national party may hurt us again. This should have been a priority to attract star candidates here that were either anglo or allo Quebecers in at least the Ile de Jesus region of Montreal that would have embraced policy and our idealism.
It was no help for instance yesterday having the Harris park incident comment coming up in a court of law to remind voters why they turfed provincial and fed conservatives in the first place.
Should the road of dogmatism prevail, there will be no grabbing victory from the jaws of defeat and startegy of winning hearts and minds will have to be the course of the coming weeks with some brilliant innovation that illustrates common ground with voters. Good policies. as ever, are remembered by voters.
Posted by: Steve Kelly | 2005-11-29 5:48:01 PM
ET, maybe "jingoism" was the incorrect word, however you speak in partisan absolutes which do nothing for selling your party.
And in case you haven't guessed it, I'm that undecided Ontario voter who you need to convert. Not thrilled with the Liberal Party, although unable to argue with the record of economic success and looking for how the CDC is going to at least maintain our present position without adversely impacting some social causes that I believe in.
Now, to your list:
2) Stats from 2001 are of little relevance to the Martin record. King Jean and his lackeys are gone in case you haven;t noticed. You accuse "bloat" but when I point to the fact that PSAC has been cut more than 40% since Brian's time at the helm your response is that I need to assume a certain quantity of invisible employees. In other words, you need me to take it on faith. I don't. I don't take on faith statements by ANY partisan.
3) You claim that Canada does not make our own decisions vis-a-vis the UN. Yet Canada indeed has been a champion in the UN helping lead such initiatives as the Land Mine Treaty, and the ICC. This does not imply subservience but rather a desire to work within that framework as originally intended. So, what decisions HAVEN'T we made on our own? Just because you or I don't agree with a specific decision doesn't mean that it wasn't made after all.
4) I DON'T deny that I read a lot of knee jerk reacionism in the press. However, last time I checked the press was't the government and so that is an irrelevant comment. But despite recent disagreements over Iraq and a couple of trade disputes, Canada also worked cooperatively in Afghanistan, has been working together on other trade issues such as resolving salmon disputes, the recent border air treaty update, established the binational planning group to help manage emergencies in 2002, and have generally worked well with the US recently on matters of 3rd world debt forgiveness at the G8, and on expanding trade to asia. Stating that official policy is one of blanket beligerance is totally unfounded.
As to your assertion that Canada is in Afghanistan because of the UN, that is a bald-faced lie. Canada was the FIRST country to assign human assets to Centcom to go after the perpetrators of 9/11 long before any resolutions hit the floor of the Security Council, and any UN approval on that action would not have compelled Canada to join the effort. The UN may sanction actions, but it does not require members get involved.
Our involvement in that effort is a source of great pride to me and our nation, and your attempt to pretend that it was not entirely our decision to join it belittles our men and women (including my familly members) who participated.
5) as to our "embeddedness" with the US as you put it, the most recent StatsCan statements put US direct investment in Canada at $183 Billion, and Canadian investment in the US at $134 Billion. Yes, that makes them the largest investor in us and us only the sixth largest investor in them, but it is hardly as inequitable on a dollar value given the relative sizes of our economies.
We live next door. We do a lot of trade. That has not, historically, benn a bad thing for Canadian business. Yes we should become less dependant, but by the same token through 2002/3 we expanded our economy at a faster rate than the US, so clearly we aren't just the tail being wagged by the dog either.
But I certainly did NOT say "so what" regarding our dependance on the US. Clearly.
6) The issue is that you seem to be looking towards provincial interests instead of what the FEDERAL government is designed to manage. You state that trans-provincial equalization degrades the surplus, but what you mean are that this degrades Alberta's surplus. Nationally it remains constant. Now then, how does it help Canada as a whole if some provinces can attract new business but others cannot? And how does impoverishing some provinces help boost your economy when so much more of it for most is dependant on intra-provincial trade instead of international? And, once again, with all of the revenue and sound fiscal underpinnings of your provincial government, how has it not possibly start to do this magic trick on it's own?
And where would alberta be if the rest of Canada had had your attitude 40 years ago? And if the Federal efforts to fund research projects into how to get the damn oil out of the tar had not been made?
Right, but now that you have a bit of economic advantage via accident of geography, it the big "piss off" to the rest of the country.
How do you honestly think that attitude helps sell your party in Ontario? You remember us, the province that happily subsidized yours for decades WITHOUT complaining about it?
This is another part of my issue with the CPC. It remains, to many Ontarians, the party of Western Interest. We not stupid you know. We understand WHY that came about, and we certainly understand that you got screwed occassionaly in favour of Quebec (as did we). However, how does voting for a party that seems tilted towards Alberta and against us provide us with comfort? We should vote to give disproportionate interest to you instead of Quebec? That is a selling point for us? No. It serves us not at all - surely you must realize that.
Anyway, you can call me a "liberal" if you like labels and all that (although it should be painfully obvious that the economic health of our country is a primary concern to me - which at least implies fiscal conservatism), but that doessn't get us anywhere.
My "cause" is one thing. The good of the country, and as good a future for my children as we can manage. That is the only thing that concerns me regarding this election.
And what the CPC STILL has to get a handle on is why they can't seem to sell themselves in a province that has voted in Conservative provincial governments 8 out of the last 11 elections.
And so far, Harper isn't doing for me either.
And the usual method that we keep hearing here of Albertans screaming at us as being "blind stupid Ontarians sucked in by Liberal fearmongering" is not the way to endear us to the party either. You want knee-jerk reactionism? Tell a person he's an idiot an you'll usually get it. But so many Westerners seem to use that approach.
It's becoming a self-fulfilling prophesy....
Posted by: zeppo | 2005-11-30 8:10:15 AM
In reply to Steve, I wouldn't define capitalism and small'l' liberalism (pro individualism) as 'Reagan/Thatcher' but simply leave it with its original political terminology. It is the basis for a robust economy.
I think that Quebec now has transformed the Bloc into a 'national' wing of a federal party. I'm actually suggesting that the Bloc is not separatiste (as is the PQ) but is for a decentralized federation. Quebec has always been socialist; it has had that luxury because it has been embedded within Canada. Socialism IS, as Europe is finding out, a luxury that can't last unless some Parent Country pays the bills. Therefore, I don't think that the CPC should bother to 'make inroads' into Quebec; instead, it should work with the Bloc to promote a decentralized federation.
In reply to Zeppo - you are an 'undecided Ontario voter'? Yet, you call Martin - 'Paul'? And your verbiage is the same empty rhetoric? Sorry- you seem pretty decided. A Liberal.
I don't think Canada shows 'economic success'. The current evaluation (Conference Board of Canada) for example, show that Canada has slipped badly over the past five years and is on a downward slope.
2)No, my stats are facts. There's no need for you to take them on faith. I supplied you with quotes from Stats Canada - that at least 60,000 positions were maintained but removed from the stats of the Public Service. They are now under the rubric of Revenue Canada, etc. The public service is a major employer in Canada and is rising over the last two years.
3) I still claim that Canada doesn't make its own decisions. Joining in with the ICC - is neither a decision that originated within Canada (the ICC is not a Canadian creation) and is hardly a decision of which to be proud for it removes national sovereignty. Equally, it doesn't take any grit and determination to sign up with the Land Mine Treaty. How about some hard decisions, that aren't Grandmother Loves Everyone, but are hard choices? None.
4)A government is not simply the House of Commons. A government is the people, and importantly, all those appointed patronage positions. That includes the head of the CBC - which is, by appointment, a gov't position. That also includes the cronies of the Liberal gov't, who own the Globe and Mail, CTV, and cronies of the Star and the National Post - all Liberals and etc. These are all biased towards the Liberals.
The CRTC, a gov't agency, permits/rejects all media outlets in this country and for years, refused an outlet to Fox News. It has only reluctantly granted Fox News in - but - not to the masses. Only on expensive digital.
Our gov't in Ottawa has promoted and encouraged anti-Americanism. That includes Chretien's support for his minister's insults to Bush, Martin's support for his Minister's insults to Bush (he only fired Parrish when she bad-mouthed him, not for stomping on the doll of Bush); that includes the BMD reaction; that includes the ridiculous Dion statement that the reason Canada's pollution emissions are higher than those of the US, are because the Canadian economy is 'better'. That includes the verbiage from Ontario - and Martin - that the reason for gun violence in Canada is because the guns come from the US. The Liberals constantly threaten Canadians to retain public health care, or 'become like the Americans', which is set up as evil.
Journalists who criticize the Liberal Party - get sent libel letters from the Liberal party.
This gov't intrusion into free speech sets up a scenario where the only accepted press, is a pro-Liberal and anti-American press.
I am not stating that OFFICIAL policy is one of 'blanket belligerance'. Official policy is not relevant; it's the verbiage and the actions that are public that count. And those, (see above) are all, openly and explicitly, anti-American. That includes the softwood lumber dispute, in which Canada doesn't inform the public about its low stumpage fees which DO act as a subsidy and so on.
The behind the scenes, low level, US-Canada interactions are NOT what is provided in the press (again - those newspapers and TV stations are all owned and operated by the cronies of the Liberal Party; the CBC is run by a patronage appointee of the Liberals).
I still say that Canada is in Afghanistan because of the UN. The intervention in 2002, was UN authorized. But -Who went there first? The US and the UK. And the Australians. Then, the Canadians - who, AFTER the Taliban fall, went into Kandahar, with 800 military, to 'root out' the remaining Taliban. Then, Nato took over from the UN to set up the ISAF (international security assistance force), made up of 35 nations, and Canada took over that. Now, the big players are out - and Canada remains, working with Nato which took over from the UN. Canada's involvement may indeed be a great source of pride to you, but, that doesn't change facts. It began with the US; was ratified by the UN.
5) My point about our embeddedness with the US, is that it is comfortable for Canada to have a ready-consumer at our doorstep; no matter what we produce, we don't have to market it on the world competitive market- we just ship it south. Easy.
And - we don't need to enable Canadians to accumulate wealth to build our own industries; we simply 'call in the Yanks'.
That may FEEL like a comfortable way to live, as a nation, but such dependency is not a robust economy.
6)No, I mean what I say. Equalization degrades surpluses and prevents regions from accumulating surplus to self-develop. I'm not talking about Alberta or any province. I'm talking about a system - and I'd analyze this the same way in any region of the world.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by 'your provincial gov't'. I live in Toronto.
What I'm talking about is an economic system that is focused around homogenization and equalization. This is disastrous for an industrial economy. The reason for this is because an industrial economy, unlike a hunting/gathering economy, or a peasant agriculture, MUST develop surpluses. High surpluses. It must enable at least 20% of its population to accumulate at least 70-80% of the wealth. This surplus is then invested in long-term future-oriented capital-intensive and high risk enterprises. That 'sets up' the future for the country.
You are focusing on homogenization; this works only in a peasant, no-growth economy, which does indeed operate by 'sharing', where no sector can accumulate enough to 'look into the future' and plan for it. Peasant economies rely on faith and god - and, if a famine occurs (eg Irish potato) or disease (smallpox) etc - they are finished. An industrial economy, with its enormous population, can't operate within a peasant-style economic mode of homogenization.
Therefore, surplus MUST be encouraged and individuals/shareholders must be encouraged to self-organize and invest. Your homogenization has nothing to invest.
No- there is no such thing as the 'poorer' sections of Canada. They are now poor because they have been falsely maintained by welfare statism that supports them, rather than allowing the people in those areas to self-develop their owon economies, relevant to the local ecology, and find out how much population that local economy in that local environemt..will support. But, federalism has set up fake economies, funded by make-work projects, set up public bureaucracies there to hire people..set up welfare reliance..and the people have become aliented from the realities of What Can The Local Env't Economically Produce and Support.
A local business does NOT have the requirement to 'Help Canada As A Whole'. No business has that requirement. Can you imagine, in the US, a business being set up in Vermont - and asked, 'Now, how does your business Help the US as a Whole'??? Nonsense. It's there to exist within the local env't.
A local business has the requirement to exist in the local env't and maintain that local env't as strong and robust. That's all. Such local strength will 'help the world' - just by its own self-reliance and self-sufficiency.,
Alberta would now, be a lot better off if the Federal Gov't energy program of 40 years ago hadn't practically destroyed it.
There is no need for federal research funds. If the feds would get out of such high taxation, each province could fund their own research projects quite well. But, the feds take all the tax money, and they control the research allotments. Did you know that the West receives about 12% less in research funds than its population and taxation base? And that Quebec is the only province to receive MORE research funds than its population base (12% more). Hmmm. Did you know that the head of the research funding agencies is a francophone? That all the reviewers have to be bilingual? Hmmm.
Again- don't jump to conclusions. I live in downtown Toronto. Not in the West. My analysis of Canada is based on an analysis of economic and political structures.
I don't agree that the CPC is 'western oriented' and against Ontario. That is your view, but I don't agree with you. I'm an Ontarian! I'm in favour of the CPC! - And I don't see it as Western oriented. I see it as progressive, because it is aware that the old style of gov't in Canada is no longer functional.
The old style? Centralized, focused around the original settlements of Ontario-Quebec. Focused around a homogenous people (now, forced to be bilingual, to retain the idealism of 'homogeneity'). But, with the change in demographics, and the rise of population in the west, and the rise of economic activity in the West, this traditional, old style of gov't - which worked in a population of 11 million, with most of that in Ontario-Quebec - WON'T WORK ANYMORE. I'm working only from analysis of demographics and economic structure. I'm not pro-Alberta, anti-Alberta, pro-Ontario. I don't give a damn about such delineations. I'm working strictly on demographics and politcal and economic structure.
Therefore, the basic tenets of the CPC - which promote local enterprise, regional enterprise, rather than centrally subsidized fake enterprises which are fragile... and lower taxation to enable the accumulation of wealth and enable these self-organized economies. (Northern Ontario is an economic mess)..are values which will help all Canadians.
Equally, the electorate has lost control of the gov't. The authority in our gov't is now vested in, not elected positions, but in appointed positions. All appointments are unvetted, unaccountable, and made by the PM. That's not a democracy. The CPC will reject this oligarchy and restore power to the people. It will stop unvetted patronage appointments, and insert vetting and accountability of all appointments, insert fixed terms, an elected senate and so on.
Again- I'm NOT a Westerner. I was born in Toronto, lived in Quebec for quite a few years; I'm now living in Toronto. So? I still support decentralization and the CPC!
Why do Ontarians vote Liberal? Because they've been brainwashed from the Trudeau era - into supporting such empty platitudes as bilingualism, equalization, homogeneity etc. They are living in a cocoon and don't see how the economy, health care, etc, are falling apart.
My research is in information dynamics - and - social structures. So, I'm aware of the different structures of societies, their political and economic structures. That's why i say that a centralized homogeneous nation, with a population kept 'equalized' by 'equalization' is disastrous for an industrial economy. That was the idealism of communism - and look what happened. That was Trudeau's ideal, an 'innocent in Red China', it's Platonism - and it's ONLY viable in small population, peasant economies. It's disastrous for a large population industrial nation. Such as Canada is trying to be.
Posted by: ET | 2005-11-30 9:31:28 AM
"That's why [I] say that a centralized homogeneous nation, with a population kept 'equalized' by 'equalization' is disastrous for an industrial economy. [...] That was Trudeau's ideal, an 'innocent in Red China'..."
Any wonder why the former Maoist "Red Guard" Jan Wong[*] writes for the Mope & Wail?
* - read a review of her autobiography "Red China Blues"
Posted by: jwkozak91 | 2005-11-30 11:41:54 PM
The comments to this entry are closed.