Harper to address caucus

[jdobbin]

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...0421?hub=Canada

A source said the prime minister will address the issue Wednesday as Conservative MPs meet for the first time since that fractious gathering.

A minister caught in the centre of the disputatious caucus dismissed talk of disciplinary action when asked whether Harper might seek to punish those who complained.

I think Harper is going to find that more of his MPs are going to fight him on no contact with Mulroney.

What is he going to do: Fire MacKay?

[cybercoma]

If Harper (read: any politician) thought he could win an election by doing so, he would fire his own mother.

[Keepitsimple]

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/stor...0421?hub=Canada

I think Harper is going to find that more of his MPs are going to fight him on no contact with Mulroney.

What is he going to do: Fire MacKay?

The story is not about MacKay - it's about Marjorie LeBreton......and you know as well as I that MacKay never had a planned meeting with Mulroney - he just bumped into him at a hockey game....and Harper has no problem with incidental "pleasantries". Some quotes from your article:

"Mr. Mulroney was also a prime minister and had a cabinet," she said in an interview.

"I'm sure that in his innermost thoughts he fully understands the position Prime Minister Harper took. Because it's the only position you can take when the government and cabinet are faced with a situation like this."

"As the prime minister said, it's been a very difficult time for all of us," she said.

"But I don't do anything that I personally am uncomfortable with or that I personally can't look at myself in the mirror (over). The Mulroney government had a great record. The country benefited greatly from his leadership and I was happy to defend him.

"But this new circumstance -- as the prime minister has said -- is a very difficult situation for all of us."

[Dave_ON]

I think the issue is not as settled as LeBreton and Segal would like to think. This whole affair has done far more internal damage to the CPC than they care to admit and the amount of public impact will be relatively minimal in comparison. The nigh on 25 year old misdeeds of a former PM are not at the forefront of the Canadian electorates psyche especially considering present economic conditions. But the devastating impact this has had on those old PC CPC members who have widely regarded Mulroney a hero of modern day conservatism is irreparable. Even those from the old Reform camp acknowledge Mr. Mulroney was a key player in the inroads they made in Quebec, which Mr. Harper single handedly manage to destroy.

It's unfortunate, and I find it fascinating how quickly political fortunes can change. My hope is that the CPC will learn from this, make the right call and elect a more moderate, less partisan and polarizing party leader and restore the true conservative/liberal balance that in integral part of Canadian politics. Our system is dependent on a strong government, tempered by a strong opposition. This is something that we have been lacking since the annihilation of the PC party in 1993.

[jdobbin]

The story is not about MacKay - it's about Marjorie LeBreton......and you know as well as I that MacKay never had a planned meeting with Mulroney - he just bumped into him at a hockey game....and Harper has no problem with incidental "pleasantries". Some quotes from your article:

I wasn't talking about MacKay's meeting at a game but his advocacy for Mulroney in caucus.

We don't know if some other Tory MPs have had contact with Mulroney but we do know that caucus security is being breached every time they have one of these meetings on Mulroney.

Edited April 22, 2009 by jdobbin

[Wild Bill]

It's unfortunate, and I find it fascinating how quickly political fortunes can change. My hope is that the CPC will learn from this, make the right call and elect a more moderate, less partisan and polarizing party leader and restore the true conservative/liberal balance that in integral part of Canadian politics. Our system is dependent on a strong government, tempered by a strong opposition. This is something that we have been lacking since the annihilation of the PC party in 1993.

True Dave, that 'annihilation' splintered the right for a decade. However, you have to ask why did it happen? Why did Reformers and the BQ leave the 'Big Tent'?

Speaking for myself, I found no sense of identity with the PC party of the day. To me it seemed like the same old 'top down' party politics. No sense of principles, no sense of populism, just a demand for us mules to raise money and bang in those lawn signs but not to ask questions and to just do what we were told.

For those of us who see the situation in that light, what choice do we have but to leave? People forget that originally Manning and many others were members of the PC party and tried to change it from within. They found it an impossible task and that's why they finally gave up and started a new party.

Now it seems we are right back where we started in the late 80's. What are we supposed to do? Accept that Manning should never have bothered and support a party that has become a clone of what we rejected all those years ago? Just to prevent another schism?

Sorry Dave! To me and I suspect many others it's becoming just too high a price to pay. While it likely would mean another few decades of "Liberals forever" what would be the difference to those of us who see little or no difference between the Liberal style and that of Mulroney 'conservatism'? Either fate is the same to us. Effectively, we have been disenfranchised. We have no party for which to vote that identifies with our values. We can either try to change the CPC, which is all but impossible under its new structure, start a new party or just STAY HOME!

If the CPC wants our support couldn't they at least throw us a SMALL bone or two?

[Shakeyhands]

If the CPC wants our support couldn't they at least throw us a SMALL bone or two?

W. Bill. What would constitute a small bone?

[Dave_ON]

Sorry Dave! To me and I suspect many others it's becoming just too high a price to pay. While it likely would mean another few decades of "Liberals forever" what would be the difference to those of us who see little or no difference between the Liberal style and that of Mulroney 'conservatism'? Either fate is the same to us. Effectively, we have been disenfranchised. We have no party for which to vote that identifies with our values. We can either try to change the CPC, which is all but impossible under its new structure, start a new party or just STAY HOME!

If the CPC wants our support couldn't they at least throw us a SMALL bone or two?

W. Bill you make an excellent point and it is indeed a difficult spot to be in. I'm certainly far from a CPC insider but it seems to me that a new leader would make all the difference. At least it would in terms of PR for the party. The problem with Mr. Harper is he can't help himself. He's a politician but he's not a pragmatist. He's a highly partisan and polarizing figure and by far and in large that doesn't resonate with most Canadians. He's very much a “my way or the hi-way” type person and, by all appearances, he runs the CPC the same way he attempted to run the country. This of course results in the top down problems you referred to in your post.

Like I mentioned I'm not in the CPC inner or even the outer circle. Clearly there are larger issues at play. I suppose my question to you is what do you see as the problems with the current incarnation of "conservatism" in Canadian politics? I'm a firm believer in the delicate political balance in Canada, and while I don't share the values of many conservatives, I can see the merit in them and recognize it as part of the fabric of our society.

Having two strong federal parties keeps the other in check. If we don't have a strong opposition then corruption, affluence and apathy sets in which of course no one, save those at the top, benefits from.

[Alta4ever]

W. Bill you make an excellent point and it is indeed a difficult spot to be in. I'm certainly far from a CPC insider but it seems to me that a new leader would make all the difference. At least it would in terms of PR for the party. The problem with Mr. Harper is he can't help himself. He's a politician but he's not a pragmatist. He's a highly partisan and polarizing figure and by far and in large that doesn't resonate with most Canadians. He's very much a “my way or the hi-way” type person and, by all appearances, he runs the CPC the same way he attempted to run the country. This of course results in the top down problems you referred to in your post.

Like I mentioned I'm not in the CPC inner or even the outer circle. Clearly there are larger issues at play. I suppose my question to you is what do you see as the problems with the current incarnation of "conservatism" in Canadian politics? I'm a firm believer in the delicate political balance in Canada, and while I don't share the values of many conservatives, I can see the merit in them and recognize it as part of the fabric of our society.

Having two strong federal parties keeps the other in check. If we don't have a strong opposition then corruption, affluence and apathy sets in which of course no one, save those at the top, benefits from.

I disagre on the idea that a new leader would make the diference. If the wrong one is chosen, say a bernard lord or Jim prentice type, you could see more of a party split. There are many out this way who never want to see a "red" tory leader again. The leader we have is the best the party can hope for in the near future, there are some in the party who given time could step up to the role and strongly unfy the party, those that would run today, are not the right ones for the job. While you and many others have derided Harper on his leadership in the party, their are none today who could have done better.

[Wild Bill]

I disagre on the idea that a new leader would make the diference. If the wrong one is chosen, say a bernard lord or Jim prentice type, you could see more of a party split. There are many out this way who never want to see a "red" tory leader again. The leader we have is the best the party can hope for in the near future, there are some in the party who given time could step up to the role and strongly unfy the party, those that would run today, are not the right ones for the job. While you and many others have derided Harper on his leadership in the party, their are none today who could have done better.

Well, by your argument I would say that so far Harper has been a failure! A red Tory is essentially just another liberal, who has no fixed principles and will change with the wind to achieve or hang on to power. When I think of Liberals I think of the classic definition of the difference between a statesman and a politician, where the statesman governs for the good of the country first and the politician governs first for the good of his party and himself.

To answer the question of what would be most important to me as a change in the CPC, that's a good one considering that I'm not a conservative! I guess the label that would fit me best is a CLASSIC Liberal, what today would be a Libertarian. Reform attracted me for its streak of populism. Members established committees and workshops to draft up party policy, WHICH WAS BINDING ON THE PARTY AND ITS LEADERSHIP! Today, we still see some workshops but if you take the trouble to dig you find that they are all NON-binding on the leadership! This is exactly the same as it was in Mulroney's time.

Reform believed that power should flow from the people up and not from the top down. Although they never did have enough time to work out the mechanics they believed that MP's should represent the majority views of the consituents in their riding who had elected them and carry these views to Ottawa. This is vastly different than the status quo, where MP's come back and TELL US what their party is going to do!

The beauty of such a philosophy is that the personal values of an MP become less important that the values of his 'people'. He may be a social conservative, an evangelical Christian or a believer in Sharia Law but if the majority of his constituents believe differently then he is expected to bow to their wishes in Parliament.

What's more, on all but the most important Bills an MP is expected to vote freely. Reform would have ended the practice of ruthless party solidarity on every Bill, no matter how trivial. They would have amended the rules that only such important Bills were matters of Confidence that could bring down a government. Right now I swear you could topple a government over a Bill to choose the flavour of the TimBits for the next committee!

We've made a token improvement in this area. Party Whips are well aware that the Canadian people do not respect party solidarity and WANT their MP to represent THEM! Many if not most of them erroneously thought that they always did! So now we sometimes see various MP's voting against their party as a matter of conscience or the wishes of their riding's population. However, it's always first cleared with the party Whip who has done a 'nose count' to make sure that the contrary vote(s) will not make any difference to the outcome. That way the party gets what it wants and the 'pretense' of voting freely is preserved.

Harper started off in the right vein when he held a free vote on same sex marriage. I happen to support same sex marriage but I had no respect for the 'rigged' vote held by Paul Martin's government. I wanted it to be voted in a manner that reflected the majority of Canadians wishes, instead of for the whims of some minority of elitists! To me that was a far worse outcome! Harper held a free vote and same sex marriages passed.

Of course, Harper got scant praise for allowing a more democratic process, just criticism for allowing any kind of populist choice at all.

Oh well, that was then and this is now! Harper sold his soul to deny the 'Unholy Coalition' power. It looks to me like he paid too high a price. I happen to believe that if he had of allowed the Coalition to topple his government the other parties would have paid a hugely negative price next election! If they didn't then Canadians deserved whatever they got! Still, I had and have more confidence in the will and wisdom of the people. The Coalition would have been Dion's biggest mistake and he would have taken the others down with him.

Anyhow, we have to live with the cards we are dealt and right now I think we've been dealt no face cards and maybe a pair of threes in the hole. Perhaps I should go back to sleep for an election or two.

Edited April 22, 2009 by Wild Bill