Inner-circle exodus spells trouble for Tories

[Oleg Bach]

So you think the public education system is doing an excellent job of educating kids?

There is no education given to our kids pulically - Do you really believe we are releasing enlightened and free thinking graduates from our institutions? It's very doubtful that we are. We are releasing conditioned and programmed individuals that will fit nicely in the mundane corporate world. Those in the know and who can afford it send their children abroad to learn ----how our systems truely work --- they do not teach our students the truth....Educational creditation can be summed up in this real question that a corporate employer will ask..."Have you been conditioned by OUR system - and are you dulled enough through a sense of pride in false knowledge too be of use to us and maintain submissive compliance?" In the by gone era - the question would be - can you think? Do you understand the world and buisness - religion and politics - do you have ethics?

[August1991]

Don is a Calgary native based in Ottawa

But don't let facts get in the way.

I think Warren Kinsella is a Calgary-native also. And whoever says Ottawa-based might as well say Toronto-based.

A former senior Conservative Hill staffer agreed. "It's pop psychology disguised as political journalism," said the source and as for Mr. Muttart's departure following a "blow up" with the Prime Minister, he said: "Prime Minister having a blow up with his advisers is not exactly news. That happens as regularly as old faithful....They would be more likely to leave if he gave them all a big hug and told them how much he loved them. That would probably cause more concern than a blow up."

Hill Times

I think it's a slow news time. The big headline now is the economic crisis and most journalists don't understand complicated things like that. In addition, many journalists are seriously thinking about whether they'll have a job next year. Their minds are occupied elsewhere.

[Progressive Tory]

When I see 9 year olds swear in front of their parents, and their parents react like nothing is wrong....this shows me that our country is going downhill. Private schools actually EDUCATE kids. Public schools try to manipulate kids.

Parents allowing foul language from a 9 year old, are not the norm; and I don't really view that as a social problem.

I went to a separate school where catechism was taught for the first hour of every day. We were told that only Catholics were going to heaven and it was a sin to enter any other church. I met a new friend at the beginning of the summer when I was about eight, but was devastated when I learned that she was Protestant. I avoided her after that. I vowed that my children would never be taught such narrow minded views. They all went to public school and are doing fine. The manipulation is in faith based schools.

There is a blogger that I like to read from time to time. He is an Evangelist who graduated from Briercrest Bible College. One post entitled "Be Careful... You might go Liberal" (you'll have to scroll down about half way for this post) discusses what he achieved from Briercrest; a grounding in his faith and a secure foundation in the scriptures. However, he also studied 'philosophy' bible school style, which did nothing to prepare him for the real world.

"Philosophy involved challenging one's deeply held beliefs and searching out logical argumentation to support each one. That was something I had not been taught in the few courses I took in philosophy at college. In fact, the idea of examining one's deeply held beliefs for the corresponding logical argumentation seemed to be lacking from most of my bible courses. Assumptions were made and we worked from there. Now I loved the time I spent at college, but unfortunately I was not taught to examine my beliefs in an appropriate manner."

"So they say going to university makes you a liberal. It has the potential to destroy your faith. They say that the more education you get, the more you tend to be liberal. In Evangelical circles, Liberal is a bad word.... The funny thing is, I still hold the same theological principles that most of them do.... I don't think Liberal is a bad word. Does more education 'turn you liberal'? Maybe it does - if what education does is open your mind to properly and carefully examine one's belief such that they are appropriately justified through some logical mechanism, even if that logical mechanism leaves some gaps or holes to be filled in by faith. Does education 'turn you liberal'? Maybe it does - if it teaches you to understand that people are different and that one view of the world is not the only view held, and that the diversity of views is a good thing."

Not all Evangelicals are Conservative. Not all 'good' children go to private faith-based schools. Children need to understand that one's religion does not give them any special place in the 'real' world by divine right. It may give a good grounding, depending on your views, but at some point they have to be able to 'mingle' and open their minds to other possibilities.

There can be more than one definition of 'family', and I'm glad that I live in a world that is moving toward acceptance of that.

[Progressive Tory]

Right now all I see Harper doing is being PM of ALBERTA and trying to get Quebec back.

If the Reformers do regroup and break away, I don't think Harper will have Alberta sewn up. I've gone down the list and don't see any prospective leader being able to get support but both wings. Prentice is liberal minded and not socially conservative. MacKay the same. Charest won't be welcome in the West, and Stockwell Day won't win support in the East.

The Globe and Mail gave quite a list, but left out Bernard Lord, that I saw in another article; and John Baird's name has also been tossed around. (One poor soul suggested Maurice Vellacott. Egads!)

It's going to be an interesting year.

[jdobbin]

And whoever says Ottawa-based might as well say Toronto-based.

And what exactly is your criticism of Toronto or Ottawa? That they aren't Canadian?

I think it's a slow news time. The big headline now is the economic crisis and most journalists don't understand complicated things like that.

Didn't seem like Harper understood either. It is a great time to buy! Plenty of opportunities! That is if you have a job, house or access to credit!

In addition, many journalists are seriously thinking about whether they'll have a job next year. Their minds are occupied elsewhere.

It must warm the hearts of the right wing. If only there was no media.

[ToadBrother]

If the Reformers do regroup and break away, I don't think Harper will have Alberta sewn up. I've gone down the list and don't see any prospective leader being able to get support but both wings. Prentice is liberal minded and not socially conservative. MacKay the same. Charest won't be welcome in the West, and Stockwell Day won't win support in the East.

The Globe and Mail gave quite a list, but left out Bernard Lord, that I saw in another article; and John Baird's name has also been tossed around. (One poor soul suggested Maurice Vellacott. Egads!)

It's going to be an interesting year.

What it's going to boil down to is electability. By now, all but the lunatic fringe realize that any chance of forming a government (minority or majority) requires the party to keep to the center. There's simply no way for the Conservatives to form a government if either the Reform rump departs or everyone heads more rightward to Reform territory. It's just that simple. Whoever succeeds Harper is going to have to do what he's done, basically absorb all the right wing rhetoric, and then simply ignore it.

[Progressive Tory]

Whoever succeeds Harper is going to have to do what he's done, basically absorb all the right wing rhetoric, and then simply ignore it.

Exactly, but how long will the Right Rump allow themselves to be spanked?

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

It's true though. It's clear that he knows what Canadians want to hear, so quiets the social conservatives. However, they are not stupid, and will eventually figure it out. I can't think of anyone right now who can appease them, while keeping them quiet. They bring a lot of money into the coffers. Maybe James Moore?

[ToadBrother]

Exactly, but how long will the Right Rump allow themselves to be spanked?

Sorry, I couldn't resist.

It's true though. It's clear that he knows what Canadians want to hear, so quiets the social conservatives. However, they are not stupid, and will eventually figure it out. I can't think of anyone right now who can appease them, while keeping them quiet. They bring a lot of money into the coffers. Maybe James Moore?

I think pretty much everyone except the grass roots in some of the more ultra-conservative ridings can read the writing on the wall; a divided conservative movement means a free ride for the Liberals. The conditions are considerably different than they were in the post-Mulroney 1990s. The discontent may still be there, but it's significantly more low key. I simply can't see the Conservatives splitting again along geographical-ideological lines. There's too much invested, too much at stake, to blow it all over issues like abortion and gay rights. If there was a split, I would expect it to be mainly the ultra-right wing social conservatives, the kind of people that tend to orbit awfully close to the Christian Heritage Party.

The Reform/Alliance experiment is dead, and I don't think there are too many people out there that think otherwise. They'll raise a glass to Preston Manning at every opportunity, but that's where it ends nowadays.

[Wild Bill]

I think pretty much everyone except the grass roots in some of the more ultra-conservative ridings can read the writing on the wall; a divided conservative movement means a free ride for the Liberals. The conditions are considerably different than they were in the post-Mulroney 1990s. The discontent may still be there, but it's significantly more low key. I simply can't see the Conservatives splitting again along geographical-ideological lines. There's too much invested, too much at stake, to blow it all over issues like abortion and gay rights. If there was a split, I would expect it to be mainly the ultra-right wing social conservatives, the kind of people that tend to orbit awfully close to the Christian Heritage Party.

The Reform/Alliance experiment is dead, and I don't think there are too many people out there that think otherwise. They'll raise a glass to Preston Manning at every opportunity, but that's where it ends nowadays.

I've been reading posts from both you and Progressive Tory and I think you have a completely wrong idea of what were the core values of Reform. Both of you seem to have it in your heads that it was some kind of Jimmy Baker Christian Right party and seem incapable of seeing it as anything else.

This is completely contrary to what I experienced as not just a member but a strong supporter who served as a riding director for some years.

You seem to think that any dissatisfaction must be over social conservative/religious lines. My experience was that few members could have cared less about those issues!

No, there were some FAR stronger differences between Reform and the present CPC, such as the end of ruthless party solidarity. Sometimes we see some freedom as with how Ingnatieff allowed his Nfld MPs to break ranks but only as a token, toothless gesture.

Fiscal responsibility? The masses in Central Canada want bailouts. When that doesn't work they're not going to blame themselves. They'll blame Harper for doing what they wanted!

Senate reform? Harper caved to expediency.

How about something simple and democratic, like party members determining party policy from the grassroots up? Today we have exactly the same situation that caused so many voters like myself to abandon the old PC party. They will sign you up for lots of committees but it's all smoke and mirrors. Absolutely nothing you decide will ever be binding on the party leadership.

PT seems to want us to believe that the old PCs were conservatives. By what definition? By word and deed they were just a slightly different flavour of Liberal. Why would anyone who believed in Preston's message support a new clone of the old PC party? Why not just vote Liberal?

I just don't find your arguments objective but...you are certainly entitled to your own POV. I just could never agree with you, unless alzheimer's kicks in and I totally forget any and all experiences I had with Reform.

[ToadBrother]

I've been reading posts from both you and Progressive Tory and I think you have a completely wrong idea of what were the core values of Reform. Both of you seem to have it in your heads that it was some kind of Jimmy Baker Christian Right party and seem incapable of seeing it as anything else.

I think no such thing.

This is completely contrary to what I experienced as not just a member but a strong supporter who served as a riding director for some years.

You seem to think that any dissatisfaction must be over social conservative/religious lines. My experience was that few members could have cared less about those issues!

Well, in my riding, that was a major part of it, and I know for a fact that in the "Bible Belts" in BC and Alberta there were a rather large number of social conservatives.

No, there were some FAR stronger differences between Reform and the present CPC, such as the end of ruthless party solidarity. Sometimes we see some freedom as with how Ingnatieff allowed his Nfld MPs to break ranks but only as a token, toothless gesture.

Fiscal responsibility? The masses in Central Canada want bailouts. When that doesn't work they're not going to blame themselves. They'll blame Harper for doing what they wanted!

That's politics. The party in power when an economic crisis ensues always gets blamed. In reality, I don't think any Canadian government has had much of a hand in this, our woes are due to our close relationship and reliance on the US economy. The fault lies south of the border, but, in the world of politics, there's a reality distortion field.

Senate reform? Harper caved to expediency.

Senate reform is pretty much impossible. Maybe in thirty years, when the demographics of the country have shifted further westward, we might see it happen, but right now it's a nonstarter. It isn't going to happen, and the sooner the Reform rump gets over it, the better for the Conservative party at large.

How about something simple and democratic, like party members determining party policy from the grassroots up?

That was tried, and the Liberals spent over a decade in power without even having to try very hard.

Today we have exactly the same situation that caused so many voters like myself to abandon the old PC party. They will sign you up for lots of committees but it's all smoke and mirrors. Absolutely nothing you decide will ever be binding on the party leadership.

If you guys split from the Conservatives, then you might as well just join the Liberals. There is nowhere for you guys to go.

PT seems to want us to believe that the old PCs were conservatives. By what definition? By word and deed they were just a slightly different flavour of Liberal. Why would anyone who believed in Preston's message support a new clone of the old PC party? Why not just vote Liberal?

I just don't find your arguments objective but...you are certainly entitled to your own POV. I just could never agree with you, unless alzheimer's kicks in and I totally forget any and all experiences I had with Reform.

Hey, it's not my problem. I don't belong to any political party, nor will ever dedicate in perpetuity my vote to any party. But if a pack of "grass roots" voters abandon the Conservatives now, then it's on *your* heads that the Liberals regain power. I can tell you right now that Iggy and Company are praying to whatever dark and loathsome political gods they have (perhaps a multitentacled statue of Trudeau) that you guys have another temper tantrum and split the Conservative vote.

[August1991]

You seem to think that any dissatisfaction must be over social conservative/religious lines. My experience was that few members could have cared less about those issues!

I tend to agree WB. The Liberals/Left/NDP/Toronto/urban falsely tried to portray Canada's (western) right as fundamentalist yokels.

This was highly divisive since Canadian federal politics are largely about regions. I have always rolled my eyes when Liberals claim to be the party of "national unity".

----

In a parliamentary democracy, a leader must keep the caucus happy. Harper has done that. Harper's misfortune is that he has yet to enjoy a majority. For someone constantly in the thick of things without a moment to step and think, Harper has a sure foot and has done remarkably well.

I know that Coyne has gone on an anti-Harper "failed conservative" jag but on second thought, I found this past budget remarkably clever. If one can fault Harper, he is too clever. He finessed the coalition too well and wound up facing Ignatieff across the floor.

As to the base, which party can raise millions of dollars through $50 and $100 donations? The Liberals certainly can't. I think Harper's core support (around 30%) is solid and deep. He must go back to the salt face and chip away.

[Progressive Tory]

I've been reading posts from both you and Progressive Tory and I think you have a completely wrong idea of what were the core values of Reform. Both of you seem to have it in your heads that it was some kind of Jimmy Baker Christian Right party and seem incapable of seeing it as anything else.

I have always said that I respected Preston Manning's good old common sense. However, you can't deny that the Refom/Alliance had a social conservative agenda. If you need proof, I can supply it. They were always outspoken when it came to social issues.

Because the majority of Canadians are more liberal minded, all opposition parties were able to exploit those very public views for political gain. Not just the Liberals. (In fact, the PCs may have been worse, which is probably why so many dislike MacKay, causing Harper to start throwing chairs at a convention). As a result, Harper had to insist that his MPs keep their views to themselves until they get a majority.

At present, any split in the Party will be seen as handing power over the Liberals. I agree on that point. However, depending on how things play out over the few months; the 'in and out' scandal which still needs to be dealt with and the opening of the boxes to determine how the Conservatives fundraise. The Reform/Alliance members who are still very strong in the Party will not want to wear a scandal that they may not have been involved in. I did see the list of MPs in the 'in and out', and can't remember if any of the so-cons were involved.

I think they also know that Harper cannot get them a majority. He blew his last best chance, and he himself, just doesn't seem to have his heart in it anymore. The majority of Canadians just don't like him, and if members of his own Party are less than enthusiastic, his days are numbered.

[Wild Bill]

I have always said that I respected Preston Manning's good old common sense. However, you can't deny that the Refom/Alliance had a social conservative agenda. If you need proof, I can supply it. They were always outspoken when it came to social issues.

<snip>

I think they also know that Harper cannot get them a majority. He blew his last best chance, and he himself, just doesn't seem to have his heart in it anymore. The majority of Canadians just don't like him, and if members of his own Party are less than enthusiastic, his days are numbered.

I'd like to see some proof, PT! Just don't confuse any factors. It's obvious that there were some social conservatives in the old Reform Party. However, the party also specifically kept religion and social conservative values out of core policy. They WERE in favour of free votes and better yet, national referenda on important social issues. Unlike the other parties, they believed that the people of Canada as a whole had a right to decide such things for themselves. Even the 'social conservative' members were perfectly willing to abide by the will of the majority, as opposed to the other parties who traditionally just impose their own values if they happen to hold a majority at the time.

So don't give me examples of the mere fact that Reform had some bible thumpers in the ranks as indicative of the entire party's philosophy. Liberals and PCs had some extremists too. Hedy Fry, Elsie Wayne or Carolyn Parrish ring any bells?

You may or may not be right that the majority of Canadians don't like Harper. The scene hasn't totally played out yet so we can't be sure. However, history HAS clearly shown that far more Canadians supported Reform than the old PC party. Just look at the numbers of what a pittance was left of the old PCs at the time of the Reform/Alliance merger. The PCs were desperately trying to maintain official party status! One more election would probably have finished them off completely.

The Reform movement came from nowhere to Official Opposition status in about a decade or so. The entire Alliance trip was done not because Reform had peaked and had no room for growth. It simply wasn't growing fast enough to suit its leadership! Meanwhile, the PCs were shrinking every year and showed no signs at all of ever staging a comeback.

If the Right splits again it's entirely possible that Reform values may again assert themselves and the party resume a slow growth towards an eventual majority. Better late than never.

Or, the Liberals may see the parade and once again morph their values to suit getting out in front to lead it! They have no fixed ideology or values at all and historically have shown many times that they are willing to be whatever it takes to assume power. They may become Reformers! Not in name of course but maybe in word and deed.

Either way, many of us believe it would be good for Canada.

Meanwhile, perhaps it's the resemblance to the old PC party that is at fault for holding Harper away from any majority! One thing's for sure, Canadians are in no hurry to revive the PCs!

[ToadBrother]

I'd like to see some proof, PT! Just don't confuse any factors. It's obvious that there were some social conservatives in the old Reform Party. However, the party also specifically kept religion and social conservative values out of core policy. They WERE in favour of free votes and better yet, national referenda on important social issues. Unlike the other parties, they believed that the people of Canada as a whole had a right to decide such things for themselves. Even the 'social conservative' members were perfectly willing to abide by the will of the majority, as opposed to the other parties who traditionally just impose their own values if they happen to hold a majority at the time.

This depends on what is meant by "social policy". If you're talking about whether homosexuals can enjoy equal protection under the law, then I would think having such a human right dependent on the whims of the majority is pretty frightening. Since issues like this have a constitutional component, I don't really see how a referendum result would, if it was seen by the Supreme Court to deprive some group of a constitutional right, stand up any better than one formulated in Parliament. And this is what troubled some of us about Reform's ideas, mainly because a lot of the social conservatives had it in for the courts.

For the record, I don't think human rights should be decided by a plurality of votes. That would lead not to democracy, but to mobocracy, the same thing that ended up seeing the Athenians vote in favor of forcing Socrates to commit suicide.

So don't give me examples of the mere fact that Reform had some bible thumpers in the ranks as indicative of the entire party's philosophy. Liberals and PCs had some extremists too. Hedy Fry, Elsie Wayne or Carolyn Parrish ring any bells?

But when never got the feeling with the Liberals that these folks were really going to have that much influence over public policy. Reform had a series of rather obnoxious gaffes. I'm not saying the views were always fair, but populist movements are often undermined by the lunatic fringe much more than centrist movements.

You may or may not be right that the majority of Canadians don't like Harper. The scene hasn't totally played out yet so we can't be sure. However, history HAS clearly shown that far more Canadians supported Reform than the old PC party. Just look at the numbers of what a pittance was left of the old PCs at the time of the Reform/Alliance merger. The PCs were desperately trying to maintain official party status! One more election would probably have finished them off completely.

But Reform still hit a brick wall. It could not form a government, it couldn't make breakthroughs west of Manitoba. It was a regional rump party.

The Reform movement came from nowhere to Official Opposition status in about a decade or so. The entire Alliance trip was done not because Reform had peaked and had no room for growth.

And the Alliance turned into every bit the disaster. Ousting Manning in favor of that twit Stockwell Day has to go down in history as just about the most moronic thing a major political party has ever done.

It simply wasn't growing fast enough to suit its leadership!

It wasn't growing at all. It was a Western-based protest party.

Meanwhile, the PCs were shrinking every year and showed no signs at all of ever staging a comeback.

If the Right splits again it's entirely possible that Reform values may again assert themselves and the party resume a slow growth towards an eventual majority. Better late than never.

Reform would never get the support in Ontario, would never get elected in Quebec or the Maritimes. If the party split, the Liberals would be guaranteed majority governments in perpetuity.

Or, the Liberals may see the parade and once again morph their values to suit getting out in front to lead it! They have no fixed ideology or values at all and historically have shown many times that they are willing to be whatever it takes to assume power. They may become Reformers! Not in name of course but maybe in word and deed.

They certainly stole Reform's economic policy. So, in a way, Reform had an enormous effect on how Canada was governed. Maybe, in a way, having a Liberal majority with Reform as the Official Opposition is much more desirable than where we are now.

Either way, many of us believe it would be good for Canada.

Meanwhile, perhaps it's the resemblance to the old PC party that is at fault for holding Harper away from any majority! One thing's for sure, Canadians are in no hurry to revive the PCs!

I think one would have to live in fantasy land to think that the Centrists in the party are holding the Conservatives back.

[Progressive Tory]

Meanwhile, perhaps it's the resemblance to the old PC party that is at fault for holding Harper away from any majority! One thing's for sure, Canadians are in no hurry to revive the PCs!

Perhaps. As far as evidence just read Hansard and the bills presented and rejected by the party.

However, while Canadians may not be ready for a return of the PC's; there seems to be a growing number who want a return of the Reform Party.

"the more obvious it gets that they have no principles left-over from the Alliance, let alone the Reform days of yesteryear, replaced by an overriding sense of power and perhaps blinded vision of the patronage it holds (who would be the first Tory Senator selected, not elected by a Prime Minister Harper?)."

"From Mulroney (with Elmer and the Air Bus) to Mulroney (with Peter and the Grounded Planes), who would have believed Reform would have turned into the Alliance only to morph into the Tories in less than 20 years while the Bloc Québécois (remember that Kick the Bloc campaign anyone?) actually kept their principles, policies and its democratic promise to their grassroot members ... Is it possible for us Reformers to go back to the future, keep our own principles and save our own party of the past?"

I took their poll and the majority seek 'Social Reform'. I also skimmed through the original Reform platform, but bookmarked it as well out of curiosity.

And of course the Five Stages of Grief:

"Ms. Kheiriddin and other Canadian conservatives should not be too surprised by Mr. Harper's spend-happy budget. After all, the Harper Tories sold their ideological soul a long time ago. In fact, they never were a truly conservative party

"But now things are different. Ever since the Liberal-NDP-Bloc coalition nearly toppled his government late last year, Mr. Harper has become the political equivalent of a 98-pound weakling."

[madmax]

I tend to agree WB. The Liberals/Left/NDP/Toronto/urban falsely tried to portray Canada's (western) right as fundamentalist yokels.

When both Bible Bill, and the parade of Baptist CCF leaders swept the Provinces clean, it was neither a right or left issue. It was a populist issue. And many political parties do not like populist elements, because they can't be controlled by establishment. The Biggest hatred I found for the Reform Movement came from PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVES. Now, the intent of the Canadian Alliance and its takeover of the Progressive Conservatives have successfully shut the mouths of the Populists and the Religious elements.

The NDP were not attacking, Reform, or Stockwell Day, that was the Liberals and Progressive Conservatives. The NDP were too busy watching the Liberals dismantle decades of Social Programs and reduction of Transfer payments to be bothered with Reformers, who were forcing the Liberals to make these cuts. The NDP were neutered as a party. Once the Conservative party formed, and the Populist elements silenced, the NDP have actually become stronger and do challenge the Conservative Platforms. But it is the Liberals and former Progressive Conservatives who have not accepted the merger, that direct their attacks upon the Social Conservatives.

This was highly divisive since Canadian federal politics are largely about regions. I have always rolled my eyes when Liberals claim to be the party of "national unity".

YUP

I found this past budget remarkably clever.

Clever is not a term I can attach to this budget.

[Progressive Tory]

Clever is not a term I can attach to this budget.

'Clever' is not what comes to mind for me either.

You are right about the PCs and Liberals exploiting the religous elements of the Alliance/Reform; though it was usually as a result of some insane rant or homophobic remark. And let's not forget Stockwell Day's suggestion that man must have roamed with the dinosaurs because every word in the Bible is historical fact, and earth is only a few thousand years old.

Canadians have a right to know that, because let's face it...he's nuts. The fact that he now thinks 4 + 5 = 30; may not be his biggest problem.

The basic elements of the Reform Party platform were sound, but too many went off in a different direction. And then of course, after Preston Manning stated that he wouldn't live at Stornoway and the Party would never accept pensions and perks, until they became the official oppostion, and did an about face.

The new Conservative Party is a strange mix.

[Wild Bill]

'Clever' is not what comes to mind for me either.

You are right about the PCs and Liberals exploiting the religous elements of the Alliance/Reform; though it was usually as a result of some insane rant or homophobic remark. And let's not forget Stockwell Day's suggestion that man must have roamed with the dinosaurs because every word in the Bible is historical fact, and earth is only a few thousand years old.

Canadians have a right to know that, because let's face it...he's nuts. The fact that he now thinks 4 + 5 = 30; may not be his biggest problem.

The basic elements of the Reform Party platform were sound, but too many went off in a different direction. And then of course, after Preston Manning stated that he wouldn't live at Stornoway and the Party would never accept pensions and perks, until they became the official oppostion, and did an about face.

The new Conservative Party is a strange mix.

Once again I think TB and PT have missed an essential point. Reform never intended to curtail rights and privileges of any minorities. Or outlaw abortion or whatever. What Reform DID want was such issues to be put to the entire population of Canada and laws changed or left alone to fit populist values!

Look at how Harper introduced that same-sex marriage Bill as soon as the Tories had assumed power. It was obvious that it would never pass or reverse the decision to make such unions legal. That was never the point. What WAS important was to have a free vote in the Commons, something the Liberals had denied Canadians!

To my mind, you're either a democrat or an elitist. There's no middle ground. If you're so sure that your values are correct that you expect the law of the land to back you over the wishes of the majority of your country's other citizens then there's no way I can see how you can say you believe in democracy. What you're actually expousing is a 'tyranny of the minority', with a lot of rationalization to make excuses for your belief.

I support same-sex rights, including marriage. I favour drug legalization. I would repeal laws against prostitution. I believe in a woman's right to choose and also in a person's right to take their own life. Yet I enthusiastically became a Reformer!

Why? Because in my 50 some years on this earth they were the one and only party to ever even ask me what I thought and cared about!

The others all told me what I SHOULD care about, which is an entirely different thing!

To me, a citizen should NEVER hold blind trust in any political authority! I should think that anyone who actually looks at the words and deeds of governments would instantly see that often they make horrendous mistakes!

I suspect that we are too far apart in this area to ever change one another's mind. To me, it seems that many folks are not looking to their elected representatives and their parties to be a vehicle to ensure their personal freedoms but rather they are searching for some kind of "god father" who will "look after them".

Hence the virtual universal prevalence of brokerage politics in our political system.

As for Stockwell Day, he was a bitter lesson to Reformers but we shouldn't forget that he did get voted out at the first opportunity. Day kept his Creationism side well hidden during his leadership campaign. Most of us knew little or nothing about it. There was a feeling that Manning had become a bit to obvious at manipulating the membership and many of us felt that it might be better to have a change. When we saw what we had chosen as an alternative we were as horrified as anyone else!

To make the claim or implication that the majority of Reformers agreed with Day and his evangelical beliefs, or even knew about them before they cast a vote for him is simply not true. Frankly, its just an partisan slam made in ignorance.

Anyhow, as I said, I suspect we'll just have to agree to disagree.

[ToadBrother]

Once again I think TB and PT have missed an essential point. Reform never intended to curtail rights and privileges of any minorities. Or outlaw abortion or whatever. What Reform DID want was such issues to be put to the entire population of Canada and laws changed or left alone to fit populist values!

The thing that convinced me NOT to vote Reform/Alliance was the idea that issues of human rights could be decided by some sort of simple majority vote. We live in a constitutional representative democracy, which means that the majority is, by the very structure of our system, limited in how far they can push their will.

Look at how Harper introduced that same-sex marriage Bill as soon as the Tories had assumed power. It was obvious that it would never pass or reverse the decision to make such unions legal. That was never the point. What WAS important was to have a free vote in the Commons, something the Liberals had denied Canadians!

At some point the Supreme Court would have eventually forced the issue anyways, at which point all those Populists would have kicked and screamed about legislating from the bench. The free vote was a joke at any rate, an exercise in giving a meaningless nod to the social conservatives with absolutely no chance of passing.

To my mind, you're either a democrat or an elitist. There's no middle ground. If you're so sure that your values are correct that you expect the law of the land to back you over the wishes of the majority of your country's other citizens then there's no way I can see how you can say you believe in democracy. What you're actually expousing is a 'tyranny of the minority', with a lot of rationalization to make excuses for your belief.

So tell me, were the Athenians being true democrats when they democratically voted to force Socrates to drink poison hemlock? At what point would you constrain a majority opinion? Or would you constrain the majority opinion. Think very carefully here, your black and white view of Populism ignores thousands of years of lessons on the dangers. We live in a democracy, not a mobocracy. I want you to fully explain how Populism is not Mobocracy. What limits would you put on Populism?

[Progressive Tory]

Reform would never get the support in Ontario, would never get elected in Quebec or the Maritimes. If the party split, the Liberals would be guaranteed majority governments in perpetuity.

What I found interesting from the Back to the Future website, promoting the return of the Reform Party, is that they seem to have changed their platform. They still have a strong social conservative agenda, but are attempting to promote the Party, not as a Western protest group, but a national alternative to the present Conservative Party.

All criticism is aimed at Stephen Harper, the deficit, and the move away from their original principles. They plan to run candidates in all 308 ridings and now present a stronger economic and environmental platform.

A while back there was an announcement in our local paper of a meeting at a large local hotel, for all those interested in learning about the Reform Party, and the strides made to bring it back. I found it odd that they would hold such a meeting in Kingston, Ontario. I don't think we ever even had a Reform candidate run here, but they are obviously putting out feelers across the country.

I wish now that I had gone, just for curiosity sake.

[Wild Bill]

So tell me, were the Athenians being true democrats when they democratically voted to force Socrates to drink poison hemlock? At what point would you constrain a majority opinion? Or would you constrain the majority opinion. Think very carefully here, your black and white view of Populism ignores thousands of years of lessons on the dangers. We live in a democracy, not a mobocracy. I want you to fully explain how Populism is not Mobocracy. What limits would you put on Populism?

I'm missing something here. I would put NO limits on populism! At least, none other than what laws have been democratically enacted.

Where your argument confuses me is that I don't see where you think laws and civic values originate. Who decided that your values are right and others wrong? Who decides when a minority view should supercede that of a majority's? It's all very well to declare that a particular POV is "mobocratic" but from where is the authority to do so derived?

Does it come from you? From me? Celine Dion?

To me, a country's laws should all stem from its people. I guess I'm supporting the innate concept of British Common Law. I don't see from your argument where laws would come from, except from some kind of elite.

Perhaps you could elucidate.

[Wild Bill]

What I found interesting from the Back to the Future website, promoting the return of the Reform Party, is that they seem to have changed their platform. They still have a strong social conservative agenda, but are attempting to promote the Party, not as a Western protest group, but a national alternative to the present Conservative Party.

All criticism is aimed at Stephen Harper, the deficit, and the move away from their original principles. They plan to run candidates in all 308 ridings and now present a stronger economic and environmental platform.

A while back there was an announcement in our local paper of a meeting at a large local hotel, for all those interested in learning about the Reform Party, and the strides made to bring it back. I found it odd that they would hold such a meeting in Kingston, Ontario. I don't think we ever even had a Reform candidate run here, but they are obviously putting out feelers across the country.

I wish now that I had gone, just for curiosity sake.

Thanks for the link! I found it interesting. I'm not sure if it's a viable group behind it or just one or two "curmudgeons" like myself. I intend to check them out a little further.

Yes, you did indeed have a candidate in Kingston! More than one election, too. Reform took well over a million votes in Ontario at its peak. The numbers had been slowly growing, at least outside of the 416 area. Then again, any type of Tories never do well in the 416 so that was expected. The core of Toronto seems basically a welfare entitlement mentality that supports those who give them wealth rather than help them create it.

Anyhow, I suspect that the "Back to the Future" movement will need a charismatic leader a la Manning to have any hope of success. As I've often said, it's not enough to prove an incumbent choice bad. You have to also give an inspiring alternative.

If you're interested, you might want to google up "Centre for Conservative Studies", which is something Manning has been involved with for some time. He understood that the Liberals had held sway for so long that many people had never seen anything else! Conservatism needed to flow UP from a "grassroots" (there's that word again! I think MadMax was right when he said that the traditional parties hate and fear the grassroots. Mainly because the last thing they want to do is listen to them and be bound by them!) baseline!

[ToadBrother]

I'm missing something here. I would put NO limits on populism! At least, none other than what laws have been democratically enacted.

So no constitutional limits? Interesting, you actually seem to think mobocracy is a good thing.

Where your argument confuses me is that I don't see where you think laws and civic values originate. Who decided that your values are right and others wrong? Who decides when a minority view should supercede that of a majority's? It's all very well to declare that a particular POV is "mobocratic" but from where is the authority to do so derived?

Values, so-called, are the product of the society at large. Values, of course, are an ever moving target. What was permissible even thirty years ago may be seen as ridiculous or even horrific today.

Authority, of course, derives from the people, but even the majority must be checked. The individual must be protected, his or her rights assured, regardless of majority opinion. That's the nature of our civilization. No one's power, not even the majority's, should be absolute.

That is, after all, the whole point of a constitution, to lay out the framework of rights, powers and responsibilities of government. Short circuit that by simply allow rough-and-tumble majorities do whatever they want (like, for instance, voting to have Socrates drink poison or Stockwell Day change his name to Doris Day), then freedom becomes a tenuous creature, dependent solely upon the goodwill and whims of some majority.

Does it come from you? From me? Celine Dion?

To me, a country's laws should all stem from its people. I guess I'm supporting the innate concept of British Common Law. I don't see from your argument where laws would come from, except from some kind of elite.

Perhaps you could elucidate.

WTF does Common Law have to do with this? The Common Law wasn't the product of simple majorities. I know of no legal system in the history of the planet, beyond perhaps the most basic systems that one might find among small tribes and hunter-gatherers, that is arrived at simply by consensus. In fact, most legal systems have the origin in laws written by or at least enacted by decidedly undemocratic means.

Ancient Athens pretty much had a populist system (well, at least for free men, slaves and women couldn't vote, but then again they couldn't vote in many Western countries until the 19th and 20th centuries either). It was Athen's greatest strength, but also the source of its greatest tragedy, because as much as we like to believe large groups of people can behave in a rational fashion (and they often do), they can also fall victim to bouts of intense irrationality (nationalism, fear-mongering and so forth).

The whole point of representative democracies, in whatever form they take, is to remove by a step the capacity of simple majorities to do whatever they please. We have constitutions which put limits on what those representatives can do and the kinds of laws they can pass. That's a good thing. I don't want some nebulous or temporary majority simply deciding, for instance, to tear up the deed to my property out of some sense of common good. I don't want to have some majority decide who I can and cannot marry based on such traditional notions like race, creed, color or sex. I don't particularly want some legislature or some referendum deciding my rights. I think a government's role and powers should be limited, and that means, ultimately limitations on the powers of any majority.

Edited February 19, 2009 by ToadBrother

[Wild Bill]

Authority, of course, derives from the people, but even the majority must be checked. The individual must be protected, his or her rights assured, regardless of majority opinion. That's the nature of our civilization. No one's power, not even the majority's, should be absolute.

That is, after all, the whole point of a constitution, to lay out the framework of rights, powers and responsibilities of government. Short circuit that by simply allow rough-and-tumble majorities do whatever they want (like, for instance, voting to have Socrates drink poison or Stockwell Day change his name to Doris Day), then freedom becomes a tenuous creature, dependent solely upon the goodwill and whims of some majority.

WTF does Common Law have to do with this? The Common Law wasn't the product of simple majorities. I know of no legal system in the history of the planet, beyond perhaps the most basic systems that one might find among small tribes and hunter-gatherers, that is arrived at simply by consensus. In fact, most legal systems have the origin in laws written by or at least enacted by decidedly undemocratic means.

The whole point of representative democracies, in whatever form they take, is to remove by a step the capacity of simple majorities to do whatever they please. We have constitutions which put limits on what those representatives can do and the kinds of laws they can pass. That's a good thing. I don't want some nebulous or temporary majority simply deciding, for instance, to tear up the deed to my property out of some sense of common good. I don't want to have some majority decide who I can and cannot marry based on such traditional notions like race, creed, color or sex. I don't particularly want some legislature or some referendum deciding my rights. I think a government's role and powers should be limited, and that means, ultimately limitations on the powers of any majority.

I snipped a bit of your answer for brevity but in the entire thing I still never got an answer to my question! Do you misunderstand or are you simply dodging the issue?

Forgive the capitals but I see no recourse but to shout:

WHO DECIDES ON THE LAWS? WHO ESTABLISHES THE CONSTITUTION?

You say you fear some majority government doing what it pleases and trampling on your rights. Well, who defined your rights? I was there when the Liberals enacted the new Charter of Rights and our Constitution. There was no referendum. Many things were left out. Your realize that you have no right to your property, don't you? It's highly unlikely that any government would take it from you as a trivial incident but if the issue was important enough they could and would expropriate it and tell YOU how much is a fair price for it!

And you would be liking it!

Worse yet, it's never, EVER likely to change! The amending formula is a beaut. You should read it for yourself. There's more chance that you would win a national lottery 10 times than seeing any amendment happen in Canada. The wording appears democratic but it just could never happen.

We might be the only country in the world to have a constitution incapable of ever being changed. I guess we were so confident that our words were true, righteous and perfect that we cast them in stone, forever more. Surely all those other countries with all those amendments over the years were just a lot less intelligent and moral than we were.

So by your lights how should a country's laws occur? Should we have committees made up of yourself and those who agree with you? Or just me and my friends? Or the members of the Tragically Hip?

I was going to suggest Rush but I think their lyrics might frighten someone of your political persuasion.

Anyhow, I'd be interested in an actual answer. So far all I've heard is that you like things as they are. You haven't made a claim either way as to being an elitist but if it walks and quacks what should we believe?

Edited February 19, 2009 by Wild Bill

[ToadBrother]

I snipped a bit of your answer for brevity but in the entire thing I still never got an answer to my question! Do you misunderstand or are you simply dodging the issue?

I thought I answered it.

Forgive the capitals but I see no recourse but to shout:

WHO DECIDES ON THE LAWS? WHO ESTABLISHES THE CONSTITUTION?

Theoretically the people (that is you, me and everyone else) establishes the Constitution. In reality, a group of people we select do. In an ideal world, constitutions are written through constitutional conventions. In Canada, of course, it happened through rather ugly negotiations between provincial leaders. This would not be my ideal means of selecting a constitution.

But once a Constitution is enacted, for better or for worse, the majority are constrained. Even in Ancient Athens and the early Roman Republic, constitutions existed to set up the framework for how the democracy would effectively function.

You say you fear some majority government doing what it pleases and trampling on your rights. Well, who defined your rights?

I would accept the central axiom of many Enlightenment thinkers that rights are inherent.

I was there when the Liberals enacted the new Charter of Rights and our Constitution. There was no referendum. Many things were left out. Your realize that you have no right to your property, don't you? It's highly unlikely that any government would take it from you as a trivial incident but if the issue was important enough they could and would expropriate it and tell YOU how much is a fair price for it!

And you would be liking it!

Even in a country like the United States where property rights are more enshrined, Eminent Domain (there's a nice bit of common law for you) still permits the state to seize property.

Worse yet, it's never, EVER likely to change! The amending formula is a beaut. You should read it for yourself. There's more chance that you would win a national lottery 10 times than seeing any amendment happen in Canada. The wording appears democratic but it just could never happen.

I don't know where you got the notion that I liked our constitution. Quite frankly, compared to, say, the Napoleonic Code or the US Constitution, it's a terrible document. It's better than the old bill of rights, but it could, if Trudeau hadn't been more interested in his own legacy, been much much better.

We might be the only country in the world to have a constitution incapable of ever being changed. I guess we were so confident that our words were true, righteous and perfect that we cast them in stone, forever more. Surely all those other countries with all those amendments over the years were just a lot less intelligent and moral than we were.

The amending formula is there, it's just that the political reality of Canada makes amending it all but impossible.

So by your lights how should a country's laws occur? Should we have committees made up of yourself and those who agree with you? Or just me and my friends? Or the members of the Tragically Hip?

The laws should be passed as they have always been passed, but there must be a means of overturning laws that violate certain precepts. If a majority of people decide to call Stockwell Day "Doris Day", I do not think it should happen. Individual liberties must be protected.

I keep asking you, do you think Athenians should have had the democratic right to, by simple majority vote, order a man to commit suicide? I'm sure you're thinking "Reform would never demand it", but then again, in a way, constitutions are meant to enshrine protections against both the least and worst of abuses. You ought to review why precisely the Magna Charta was forced on King John (and another example of an important advance in English liberties that was most certainly not Populist, unless you consider a bunch of angry barons a Populist movement).

I was going to suggest Rush but I think their lyrics might frighten someone of your political persuasion.

Peart used Rand as a neat motif, and goodness knows but I do love 2112, but I don't necessarily think that I need to use some of the lyrics as socio-political model, any more than my enjoyment of John Lennon means I think we should all become Marxists.

Anyhow, I'd be interested in an actual answer. So far all I've heard is that you like things as they are. You haven't made a claim either way as to being an elitist but if it walks and quacks what should we believe?

There is no simple answer. I have enough knowledge of the history of true direct democracies to know that they are no panacea, that Populism can degrade considerably, that representative democracies are, to paraphrase a man whose political notions I admire greatly, the worst form of government, except for all the rest.

There is simply no model in our system of government for frequent referendums. Perhaps we could go to the Swiss model.

I unfortunately don't see what your ultimate point is. You give the example of Common Law, but that most certainly did not come about as some sort of populism. In fact, I can think of no political system that really came about through any sort of Populism. Even in the United States, ultimately, the Constitution was written by people I suspect you'd call "elitists"; people like James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, who were incredibly well-read and astute political thinkers who pretty much would agree with the idea I hold, that human rights are inherent, and do not require justification by or approval from a majority, and that while the majority will must be paramount, it cannot be absolute, or liberty becomes meaningless.

Edited February 19, 2009 by ToadBrother