Harper Government: Honest

[August1991]

My, how the goal posts march! Honesty has now been redefined to mean 'hasn't been caught red-handed, shoveling stolen money directly into ones own pocket, yet'.

Molly, is Stephen Harper guilty of such? Has any one even accused him of this?

Your reference to goal posts confuses me.

----

Frankly, I am anxiously waiting for Harper to show that he is dishonest. I tend to believe that all politicians are dishonest. (One reason that I am not a socialist is that democratic socialism would permit someone like Harper to make all decisions for the collective.)

I am impressed that so far, Harper appears to be honest.

[Molly]

Well, August, when my mother demanded that I be honest, it meant a lot more than "Don't get caught at thieving for direct, personal gain."... yet that is the excruciatingly narrow definition required to make any claim of honesty for this man.

How many years in office did it take for Mulroney and Chretien to personally fail that narrow test?

[Dave_ON]

Ridiculous! The present CPC has ALREADY been taken over by the PC wing of the party! In all word, deed and philosophy it is a clone of Mulroney's PC party. There is NOTHING left of Reform or Alliance in the CPC!

If you dealt more with what parties actually DO and not with labels you might have found this to be obvious!

My interpretation of TB's post was the reverse is true; that the CPC is swallowing the last vestiges of the Progressive element in their party, i.e. the former PC's. Far be it from me to speak on his behalf.

Indeed they have become surprisingly more liberalesque of late, and frankly that's worked in Harper's favour. There's a reason why the LPC was called "the natural governing party", it's because by far and in large they governed in such a way that most Canadians didn't really object to.

[Wild Bill]

My interpretation of TB's post was the reverse is true; that the CPC is swallowing the last vestiges of the Progressive element in their party, i.e. the former PC's. Far be it from me to speak on his behalf.

Indeed they have become surprisingly more liberalesque of late, and frankly that's worked in Harper's favour. There's a reason why the LPC was called "the natural governing party", it's because by far and in large they governed in such a way that most Canadians didn't really object to.

"Indeed they have become surprisingly more liberalesque of late"? Dave, that's what proves my point!

Perhaps we have an age difference here that made us come to different conclusions. One of the biggest criticisms Reform made against the PC's was that they were so very similar to the Liberals! In fact, at the time Reform appeared there was a strong popular feeling that Mulroney had turned out to be the same as what we'd had before, only better at it! It was "Meet the new boss! Same as the old boss!"

Historically, Liberals have never shown any fixed principles except the principle of being whatever was likely to get them into power. This principle didn't necessarily extend to actually DOING it once they got into power! Trudeau proved that time and time again with his price and wage controls, gasoline taxes and the like.

There were minor differences but on matters of substance the Liberals and the PC's seemed very much the same. As you can imagine, this had produced a pent up frustration with those voters who wanted something different. Both the parties paid lip service to this demographic but it was always understood that you never actually had to do something to please them. Why? Who else could they vote for?

So when a new choice finally appeared it took off like a rocket! It doesn't matter if you agreed with the Reform principles. It can't be denied that in just 10 years or so they came from nowhere to become the Opposition! During that time at one point they had driven the PC's down to just TWO seats!

The NDP would have given a sack of diamonds and their left testicle to have had that kind of success, as the old saying goes.

So thank you for emphasizing my point!

[Dave_ON]

Perhaps we have an age difference here that made us come to different conclusions. One of the biggest criticisms Reform made against the PC's was that they were so very similar to the Liberals! In fact, at the time Reform appeared there was a strong popular feeling that Mulroney had turned out to be the same as what we'd had before, only better at it! It was "Meet the new boss! Same as the old boss!"

Historically, Liberals have never shown any fixed principles except the principle of being whatever was likely to get them into power. This principle didn't necessarily extend to actually DOING it once they got into power! Trudeau proved that time and time again with his price and wage controls, gasoline taxes and the like...

So when a new choice finally appeared it took off like a rocket! It doesn't matter if you agreed with the Reform principles. It can't be denied that in just 10 years or so they came from nowhere to become the Opposition! During that time at one point they had driven the PC's down to just TWO seats!

The NDP would have given a sack of diamonds and their left testicle to have had that kind of success, as the old saying goes.

Yes there likely is an age gap, as I was an infant when Trudeau was in power, but I grew up in a Trudeau hating home, so ironic given my current leanings. My mom always used to say “We used to have rights in this country but Trudeau took them all away and the B@$tard LPC took our flag too!” The loss of the Union Jack was a particularly sore point for most Maritimers. However I digress.

I wasn't disagreeing with you in the least, I was agreeing with you.

You're point that the then Reform Party took off like a rocket serves to illustrate my central point. They did indeed manage to capture the opposition position in short order and there they remained, and why? Because by far and in large most Canadians didn't truly want their brand of reform. Look at their power base in the beginning, Alberta, decidedly anti-Liberal, then SK, MB and BC. They had no seats in the East whatsoever. In fact it was not until the unite the right campaign and a second name change to CPC and their third leader that the party actually gained any traction whatsoever in the East. They figured out what the LPC has known for the better part of a century, you've got promise much, and deliver little. Polls suggest that Canadians are warming up to Harper and the CPC, and why? If you ask most Canadians it's because they don't really notice much of a difference between this and the last government. I'm not talking about political junkies like those of us who frequent this board, I'm talking the average Canadian that get's their news by watching the Rick Mercer Report or Colbert.

[Wild Bill]

You're point that the then Reform Party took off like a rocket serves to illustrate my central point. They did indeed manage to capture the opposition position in short order and there they remained, and why? Because by far and in large most Canadians didn't truly want their brand of reform. Look at their power base in the beginning, Alberta, decidedly anti-Liberal, then SK, MB and BC. They had no seats in the East whatsoever. In fact it was not until the unite the right campaign and a second name change to CPC and their third leader that the party actually gained any traction whatsoever in the East. They figured out what the LPC has known for the better part of a century, you've got promise much, and deliver little. Polls suggest that Canadians are warming up to Harper and the CPC, and why? If you ask most Canadians it's because they don't really notice much of a difference between this and the last government. I'm not talking about political junkies like those of us who frequent this board, I'm talking the average Canadian that get's their news by watching the Rick Mercer Report or Colbert.

Sorry I misunderstood you. I really should wait for my morning coffee before posting sometimes!

I disagree that Reform stood no chance in the East. I was a Director here in my Ontario riding and of course followed the Ontario election results quite closely. We DID have one or two seats once or twice! So "no seats whatsoever" is not quite true, although not by much.

Still, what is important is the popular vote and the number of ridings where we were eating into the former PC vote. We were up to a couple of million votes and each election the percentage in many ridings grew and grew. In many ways it was a parallel to the situation of the present CPC, which keeps growing in popularity once you get outside of the big city cores like metro Toronto.

We were just on the verge of starting to win Ontario seats in serious numbers. We were making inroads in the Maritimes. Even in Quebec we were showing some hope in a few ridings! Then two things happened that brought the growth to a screeching halt.

First, the party turned away from Manning in favour of Stockwell Day. We didn't really know much about Day but the image was of someone younger and more photogenic. There was a feeling that Manning had peaked and it was time for someone new. So we threw him over in favour of Barney the Dinosaur!

After he had won the leadership Day let his evangelical beliefs dominate his politics. This was precisely what Manning and Harper had warned about from the beginning. Canadians don't feel comfortable with mixing religion and politics. Day did it and the party was promptly hammered in the polls!

Second, the party got impatient. They really thought that if they could merge the two conservative parties together it would be instant majority. Of course, that was incredibly naive. Die-hard progressive Conservatives were too left of centre to ever feel comfortable with any merger with Reform/Alliance. Most of them chose to drift to the Liberals.

So Harper retreated to the old Mulroney approach that had worked for previous generations. He allowed the new party to become a clone of the old PC rump. This would make it more attractive for those PC types who were left. Meanwhile, once again the old Reform core was left with no alternative but to vote for the CPC, even though it no longer represented anything of the Reform philosophy. The Liberals were an even worse choice so, just like the days of yore, the Reform wing had to hold its nose and vote CPC.

As I keep saying, it makes you wonder why Manning ever bothered! Over a decade of popular activism became a futile waste of time.

However, after being disappointed twice in the same way within one lifetime, the Reform demographic voter is even hungrier for change! If another alternative ever comes again out of the wilderness, this time it may very well totally destroy the present CPC! When you burn a voter twice and he finally gets another choice your chances of keeping his vote are essentially zero. I have no idea what this choice will be. Maybe the Wild Rose will field a federal party once they totally win over Alberta. It's hard to see clearly at this point.

Harper still has a bit of time to head this off, of course. All he has to do is throw his Reform wing a bone or two. So far he seems content to let them starve to death. Maybe he thinks he needs to wait until he wins a majority. Somehow, if he pulls that off without any enthusiastic Reform support I don't see why he would bother at that point. To him and his advisors it would look like they had been successful in their strategy, so why change?

More likely, only an actual visible threat of another party more appealing to the Reform demographic would be enough to force a change, IMHO. Of course, by that time it would likely be too late. As I said, when you burn a voter twice in his lifetime...

Who knows, maybe the Liberals will actually become classic Liberals! If they became more of the laissez-faire capitalists of classic Liberalism they might actually be able win that demographic away from Harper?

These are interesting times...

[ToadBrother]

Harper still has a bit of time to head this off, of course. All he has to do is throw his Reform wing a bone or two. So far he seems content to let them starve to death. Maybe he thinks he needs to wait until he wins a majority. Somehow, if he pulls that off without any enthusiastic Reform support I don't see why he would bother at that point. To him and his advisors it would look like they had been successful in their strategy, so why change?

But what bone? That's the key problem. Considering that a bunch of Reformers got together at the last convention and tried to light a match under the abortion issue, Harper has little choice but to distance himself. You blame Day for too obviously wearing his Evangelical stripes, and yet there were other Reformers who had been doing precisely that.

This is the perennial conundrum of Conservatism in Canada. If you pick the social conservatives as your core constituency (which, whether we like it or not, is precisely what Reform did), you become that much less attractive to key blocks of voters. If you move to far to the center, or perhaps even a little further (which is what Mulroney did), you will ultimately anger the social conservatives.

Manning may have been making some progress, but it was extraordinarily slow, and in the meantime Chretien and Martin were ripping off the fiscal elements of the Reform movement and creating an extraordinarily effective electoral machine. I honestly doubt that Reform would have ever achieved Government under Manning. The problem, simply put, is that Manning's ideology, that MPs should have as much freedom as the system allows, and shouldn't be centrally managed, while laudable in and of itself, hamstrung his ability to fulfill that key role of party manager. Chretien was able to capitalize on this, and skillfully made every minor gaffe by some minor MP in Nowheresville, Alberta look like official Reform policy (even as some Liberals proved to be not so dissimilar in general worldview). Sometimes, it wasn't just minor MPs either. Randy White was ever a ready source of poorly worded hyperbolic social conservative edicts. He didn't survive the transition, and for good reason, the man was a lightning rod.

The problem, at the end of the day, isn't Manning or Reform, it's that our system simply doesn't approve of MPs having too many liberties. We'll sit here and go "MPs should represent their constituents, and not the Party HQ", but the way Parliament works, without all the ducks lining up in a row, a government looks weak (that's what destroyed Paul Martin). The way I see it, Manning was the better man (and probably one of the noblest Parliamentarians in the last generation or two), but Harper is the better politician. It's little wonder Manning dislikes Harper so much, Harper is ultimately everything Manning dislikes in career politicians.

Edited December 24, 2009 by ToadBrother

[Wild Bill]

But what bone? That's the key problem. Considering that a bunch of Reformers got together at the last convention and tried to light a match under the abortion issue, Harper has little choice but to distance himself. You blame Day for too obviously wearing his Evangelical stripes, and yet there were other Reformers who had been doing precisely that.

This is the perennial conundrum of Conservatism in Canada. If you pick the social conservatives as your core constituency (which, whether we like it or not, is precisely what Reform did), you become that much less attractive to key blocks of voters. If you move to far to the center, or perhaps even a little further (which is what Mulroney did), you will ultimately anger the social conservatives.

Manning may have been making some progress, but it was extraordinarily slow, and in the meantime Chretien and Martin were ripping off the fiscal elements of the Reform movement and creating an extraordinarily effective electoral machine. I honestly doubt that Reform would have ever achieved Government under Manning. The problem, simply put, is that Manning's ideology, that MPs should have as much freedom as the system allows, and shouldn't be centrally managed, while laudable in and of itself, hamstrung his ability to fulfill that key role of party manager. Chretien was able to capitalize on this, and skillfully made every minor gaffe by some minor MP in Nowheresville, Alberta look like official Reform policy (even as some Liberals proved to be not so dissimilar in general worldview). Sometimes, it wasn't just minor MPs either. Randy White was ever a ready source of poorly worded hyperbolic social conservative edicts. He didn't survive the transition, and for good reason, the man was a lightning rod.

The problem, at the end of the day, isn't Manning or Reform, it's that our system simply doesn't approve of MPs having too many liberties. We'll sit here and go "MPs should represent their constituents, and not the Party HQ", but the way Parliament works, without all the ducks lining up in a row, a government looks weak (that's what destroyed Paul Martin). The way I see it, Manning was the better man (and probably one of the noblest Parliamentarians in the last generation or two), but Harper is the better politician. It's little wonder Manning dislikes Harper so much, Harper is ultimately everything Manning dislikes in career politicians.

Sorry, I simply can't agree. You see, Reform had ZERO social conservatism in its party platform!

The whole social conservative thing was a caricature used by Reform's opponents (mostly Liberals) to attack them in the media. It's true that many of their ideas, like fiscal responsibility, Senate Reform and populism were embraced by an older crowd more often found outside of large urban centres. It may also be true that many people in those areas were Christians. Does this make a connection? Many of them were likely Monty Python fans, considering the age demographic. Does this mean that most Reformers were also upper class Twits who had arguments with their dead pet parrots?

It's a logical non sequitur, like claiming that marijuana is a gateway drug to heroin, because most heroin users have smoked it. Most heroin users have also at one time used aspirin or even Preparation H. Does that mean that Preparation H is a gateway to heroin use? Just because A=B does not mean that B=A.

You've taken this stand many times and I'm always struck by how you believe something about the Reform Party completely different than my personal memory and experience. Perhaps you might want to actually read the party's official Constitution and maybe the Blue Book, which limns their policies. Frankly, I just don't believe that you already have. You always sound like you're quoting what Reform stood for according to Jean Chretien or even Joe Clark.

This might be useful to you:

http://contentdm.ucalgary.ca/cdm4/document.php?CISOROOT=/reform&CISOPTR=197

I 'm willing to grant that there may have been minorities within the party that were socially conservative but except for Day they never held any power and Day achieved that by false pretences, hiding his colours during his leadership campaign and then acting as if his values were held by a majority of the membership once he had won! Hey, the Liberals have and have had Hedy Fry and Carolyn Parrish. Nobody tries to claim that the entire Liberal Party represents their beliefs.

Once your reply got beyond the social conservative thing we fall into better agreement, except that my premise is that the progress was NOT "extraordinarily slow". To accomplish all that they had within a decade is incredible, by most yardsticks! Are you seriously suggesting that a new party should be able to spring up from nothing and achieve power in only two or 3 elections?

Looking at the growth rate I would have expected them to reach their goal within another 5-10 years, except for the Stockwell Day debacle. There was no sign that the PC's would ever again rise from their ashes. The Liberals had nowhere to go but down, especially since the longer they held power the more arrogant and corrupt they seemed to become.

Whatever. It's all water under the bridge, as it were. Please don't misunderstand me. I'm not denying at all that Harper had to change the party in order to attract a larger voting demographic. My point is simply that he seems to have TOTALLY abandoned anything from the Reform wing! Who ever would have expected that a merger between a giant and a midget would have resulted in the midget calling ALL the shots?

The end result does not appear to have been a merger. It's more like a reverse takeover. The Reform documents I suggested you read have pages and pages of party planks that have nothing to do with social conservatism. As I've said repeatedly, in those days Manning and even Harper warned that such would be the kiss of death for the party.

Surely today Harper could find one or two to toss to his Reform base! Even small, insignificant ones just to show an effort!

So far, it just doesn't look like it's ever going to happen.

[DrGreenthumb]

Randy White, lol, that guy is a real piece of work. I think he is as stupid as a person can actually be and not need life support. I think he runs some kind of drug policy lobby group that poses as a research institute now. Every once in a while he rears his ugly(and I do mean ugly) head and insists that pot causes demonic possession or something equally moronic. You can actually describe absolute stupidity by invoking Randy 's name. eg. "he wasn't just stupid, he was Randy White stupid."

[Pliny]

Randy White, lol, that guy is a real piece of work. I think he is as stupid as a person can actually be and not need life support. I think he runs some kind of drug policy lobby group that poses as a research institute now. Every once in a while he rears his ugly(and I do mean ugly) head and insists that pot causes demonic possession or something equally moronic. You can actually describe absolute stupidity by invoking Randy 's name. eg. "he wasn't just stupid, he was Randy White stupid."

Have another toke an forget it! Merry Xmas!

[normanchateau]

Harper still has a bit of time to head this off, of course. All he has to do is throw his Reform wing a bone or two.

Harper's been throwing a bone or two since becoming Prime Minister:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/07/AR2006120701684.html

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/02/28/film-tax-credits.html

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=e3f8a100-2f8e-4b73-b131-3411c2619f58

Small bones perhaps to some from the Reform wing but a good predictor of the large bones to come should the deplorable Harper hoodwink enough Canadians to score a majority.

Stockwell Day and Stephen Harper share similar social conservative beliefs. Harper is smart enough to conceal them until he scores a majority. Stockwell Day made the error of being honest about his beliefs. Harper won't repeat that error.

[Wild Bill]

Harper's been throwing a bone or two since becoming Prime Minister:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/12/07/AR2006120701684.html

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2008/02/28/film-tax-credits.html

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/story.html?id=e3f8a100-2f8e-4b73-b131-3411c2619f58

Small bones perhaps to some from the Reform wing but a good predictor of the large bones to come should the deplorable Harper hoodwink enough Canadians to score a majority.

Stockwell Day and Stephen Harper share similar social conservative beliefs. Harper is smart enough to conceal them until he scores a majority. Stockwell Day made the error of being honest about his beliefs. Harper won't repeat that error.

More non sequiturs! The "Reform Wing" is NOT equivalent to social conservatives! Do you actually read posts before you respond to them? Have you actually ever read any Reform party policy? Must be nice to know everything in advance, by some kind of biased esp.

Link 1 talks about the same sex debate. Reform had no official position on same sex marriage, except that they wanted a free vote so that it would reflect the wishes of each MP's riding. Harper knew that he would lose that debate. It was just a facade to allow his MP's a free vote and make the other parties look bad if they whipped their MP's to a party line, AGAIN! So the Reform wing got a free vote that meant nothing. Any social conservatives in ANY party got a placebo bone!

Link 2 refers to arts funding being better monitored. I don't see this as a party issue at all. It's just common sense. There is funding that most Canadians support and there is also funding handed out to what many would call crap. In fact, literally crap! Some artists have received funding over the years for smearing their feces on canvas and tying bottles of urine to figures of the Pope.

Is it your position that only "Reform social conservatives" take exception to this? That there are no Liberal or even NDP taxpayers that think this is lunacy?

As for the last link, Reform never had a position on marijuana. I will agree that Harper's government seems to be appealing to the "reefer madness" crowd but again, social conservatism and Reform were not the same thing. Frankly, I don't understand why Harper is doing this. I don't believe there were ever enough social conservatives around that gave a damn about who smoked what. So what will he gain? Unless he's just doing the old trick of putting some excessive stuff in a Bill so that he can trade it away to get Opposition support. He IS running a minority government, after all! The Opposition can block the Bill, saying the marijuana stuff is too harsh. Harper tones it down and all the rest of his Bill passes. He gets what he REALLY wants with justice reform and the Opposition gets a chance to look like heroes by "saving all the tokers".

Sorry, you'll have to do better than this.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

More non sequiturs! The "Reform Wing" is NOT equivalent to social conservatives! Do you actually read posts before you respond to them? Have you actually ever read any Reform party policy? Must be nice to know everything in advance, by some kind of biased esp.

Link 1 talks about the same sex debate. Reform had no official position on same sex marriage, except that they wanted a free vote so that it would reflect the wishes of each MP's riding. Harper knew that he would lose that debate. It was just a facade to allow his MP's a free vote and make the other parties look bad if they whipped their MP's to a party line, AGAIN! So the Reform wing got a free vote that meant nothing. Any social conservatives in ANY party got a placebo bone!

Link 2 refers to arts funding being better monitored. I don't see this as a party issue at all. It's just common sense. There is funding that most Canadians support and there is also funding handed out to what many would call crap. In fact, literally crap! Some artists have received funding over the years for smearing their feces on canvas and tying bottles of urine to figures of the Pope.

Is it your position that only "Reform social conservatives" take exception to this? That there are no Liberal or even NDP taxpayers that think this is lunacy?

As for the last link, Reform never had a position on marijuana. I will agree that Harper's government seems to be appealing to the "reefer madness" crowd but again, social conservatism and Reform were not the same thing. Frankly, I don't understand why Harper is doing this. I don't believe there were ever enough social conservatives around that gave a damn about who smoked what. So what will he gain? Unless he's just doing the old trick of putting some excessive stuff in a Bill so that he can trade it away to get Opposition support. He IS running a minority government, after all! The Opposition can block the Bill, saying the marijuana stuff is too harsh. Harper tones it down and all the rest of his Bill passes. He gets what he REALLY wants with justice reform and the Opposition gets a chance to look like heroes by "saving all the tokers".

Sorry, you'll have to do better than this.

These tyhings reveal the true agenda of the Conservatives. Bible thumping right wingers, pro business and anti little guy.

[normanchateau]

The "Reform Wing" is NOT equivalent to social conservatives!

No doubt it's mere coincidence that Preston Manning stated "homosexuality is destructive to the individual, and in the long run, society," and that the Reform Party of Canada opposed adding sexual orientation to the Human Rights Act on the grounds that it would lead to a redefinition of marriage:

http://books.google.ca/books?id=AwD3FNUJjXwC&pg=PA176&lpg=PA176&dq=human+rights+act+amendment+reform+party+of+canada+sexual+orientation&source=bl&ots=UMzPyOS4-g&sig=7eqLtAFd7yZq1bTaIKAxSEXeA0o&hl=en&ei=_do1S_LANMm8lAfhvuCZBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CA0Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=human%20rights%20act%20amendment%20reform%20party%20of%20canada%20sexual%20orientation&f=false

Perhaps it's also mere coincidence that Preston Manning and Stephen Harper are members of the Christian and Missionary Alliance Church.

And it must be yet another remarkable coincidence that Stephen Harper left BOTH the Progressive Conservatives and the United Church of Canada when he joined the Reform Party of Canada, became "born again" and converted to the Evangelical and socially conservative Christian and Missionary Alliance Church:

http://communities.canada.com/vancouversun/print.aspx?postid=238678

Probably just a coincidence that Paul Wilson worked for Preston Manning, Stockwell Day and now Stephen Harper:

http://www.xtra.ca/public/National/PMO_shuffle_puts_evangelical_Christians_in_top_political_jobs-6320.aspx

[Wild Bill]

No doubt it's mere coincidence that Preston Manning stated "homosexuality is destructive to the individual, and in the long run, society," and that the Reform Party of Canada opposed adding sexual orientation to the Human Rights Act on the grounds that it would lead to a redefinition of marriage:

http://books.google.ca/books?id=AwD3FNUJjXwC&pg=PA176&lpg=PA176&dq=human+rights+act+amendment+reform+party+of+canada+sexual+orientation&source=bl&ots=UMzPyOS4-g&sig=7eqLtAFd7yZq1bTaIKAxSEXeA0o&hl=en&ei=_do1S_LANMm8lAfhvuCZBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CA0Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=human%20rights%20act%20amendment%20reform%20party%20of%20canada%20sexual%20orientation&f=false

Perhaps it's also mere coincidence that Preston Manning and Stephen Harper are members of the Christian and Missionary Alliance Church.

And it must be yet another remarkable coincidence that Stephen Harper left BOTH the Progressive Conservatives and the United Church of Canada when he joined the Reform Party of Canada, became "born again" and converted to the Evangelical and socially conservative Christian and Missionary Alliance Church:

http://communities.canada.com/vancouversun/print.aspx?postid=238678

Probably just a coincidence that Paul Wilson worked for Preston Manning, Stockwell Day and now Stephen Harper:

http://www.xtra.ca/public/National/PMO_shuffle_puts_evangelical_Christians_in_top_political_jobs-6320.aspx

I see, guilt by association, eh? If you belong to a particular church then you must be a certain type of person.

Do you realize how prejudiced your argument sounds? What happens if you replace "Missionary Alliance" with "Muslim". Would that make Manning a closet terrorist?

I have been an atheist almost my entire life, or at least, a devout agnostic. What does that make me? In the entire Reform riding where I was a director, I didn't know ANY evangelical Christians, let alone such that believed in mixing religion and politics.! By your perspective, there should have been all kinds of them.

You seem to have a strong bias against Christians. Just because you don't belong to their church doesn't make them boogeymen.

Whatever Manning or Harper personally believe, they were part of the ONLY party in Canadian history that put the values of the majority of their constituents over their own beliefs in Parliament votes and policy. In effect, it no longer mattered what the party leader believed. If the majority of those who elected him or her believed differently then that's the way they were legally bound to go! If a Reform MP was elected in a riding where most folks wanted to legalize marijuana he would have had to vote in favour, no matter how he personally felt about the issue!

No wonder the other parties still hate them so much. Elitists, the lot of them!

Edited December 26, 2009 by Wild Bill

[Molly]

"If the majority of those who elected him or her believed differently" then why the heck did they elect him or her?

This is one of those Reform articles of faith that has never, ever made sense to me. It asks that our MPs become nothing more than overpaid, underqualified pollsters.

[Smallc]

I have been an atheist almost my entire life, or at least, a devout agnostic. What does that make me?

An oddity in what was the Reform Party.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

It ( the C.P.C. ) is a long way from the Reform Party now.

[Wild Bill]

"If the majority of those who elected him or her believed differently" then why the heck did they elect him or her?

This is one of those Reform articles of faith that has never, ever made sense to me. It asks that our MPs become nothing more than overpaid, underqualified pollsters.

Well Molly, I guess it depends if you're the kind of person that follows their own mind or just follows!

Some folks have their own values already. They follow issues and make up their own minds. These people want their political representatives to be an extension of their values into the political system.

Other folks are looking for a leader, or perhaps "father figure". This is someone who will make all the decisions for them and "show them the way". Someone who will do the hard thing of THINKING for them!

The slogan was "Your Reform MP will be your representative to Ottawa, instead of Ottawa's representative to YOU!"

That is the essence of populism, that a government follow the will of the people, not impose its will on its people. The people can be wrong at times, of course. That can give harsh lessons that tend to correct. Still, MP's are FAR from infallible as well!

What you are asking Molly is for a citizen to just vote for an agent and give him a free rein, to follow him with blind faith. If he disappoints too many times then your only option is to vote against him years later at the next election. Of course, usually you can't do that either. Since our parties practice such strong solidarity, citizens have to accept a party as one entire lump! You don't get to pick and choose issues and values. This means that if someone like myself is disappointed with Harper my only option may be to vote Liberal. However, the Liberal party may have taken the same stand on that issue! Or it may have many other party planks that I just can't agree with!

So the only real option is to grit your teeth, hold your nose and stay with the bastards. Hence the phrase "disenfranchised conservative".

Reform never did work out an effective means of "polling". They never really had the time to work out all the details. Some MP's tried harder than others, having community "town halls" and making the rounds of the local Timmys. Still, we considered this to be at least a huge improvement over the other parties, who didn't believe in the concept at all.

Some folks make up their own minds. Others just swallow the kool-aid, I guess.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Yet when the crunch came Reform failed to come through.

[Wild Bill]

Yet when the crunch came Reform failed to come through.

No, they didn't. Pity.

How do you like things now?

[Jerry J. Fortin]

No, they didn't. Pity.

How do you like things now?

You know what? I really didn't like Preston, but I did like the party. Then again I was once a member of the Social Credit Party of Alberta. There are lots of things the Harper government has done that I do like and have and will benefit from. Yet the guy seems like a used car salesman to me, I don't like him either. There simply isn't a national leader that I do like like right now. I would like to see Brian Tobin come back to the political scene, and there are folks from both the NDP and the Conservatives that I would like to see return to federal politics.

[DrGreenthumb]

I see, guilt by association, eh? If you belong to a particular church then you must be a certain type of person.

Do you realize how prejudiced your argument sounds? What happens if you replace "Missionary Alliance" with "Muslim". Would that make Manning a closet terrorist?

I have been an atheist almost my entire life, or at least, a devout agnostic. What does that make me? In the entire Reform riding where I was a director, I didn't know ANY evangelical Christians, let alone such that believed in mixing religion and politics.! By your perspective, there should have been all kinds of them.

You seem to have a strong bias against Christians. Just because you don't belong to their church doesn't make them boogeymen.

Whatever Manning or Harper personally believe, they were part of the ONLY party in Canadian history that put the values of the majority of their constituents over their own beliefs in Parliament votes and policy. In effect, it no longer mattered what the party leader believed. If the majority of those who elected him or her believed differently then that's the way they were legally bound to go! If a Reform MP was elected in a riding where most folks wanted to legalize marijuana he would have had to vote in favour, no matter how he personally felt about the issue!

No wonder the other parties still hate them so much. Elitists, the lot of them!

I wouldn't be worried about a PM being a member of a muslim church. Now make that a member of a radical devout muslim church and I would start to get stressed. I am a Luthern Christian. I like Christian people, have no problem with their beliefs, I share most of them. Would I feel nervous about having a Luthern, Anglican, Unitarian, or Catholic PM? Probably not. Fundamentalism and "religious insanity" are not too common among them. I have never met any that was one of the whacky born-again types that believed in speaking in tongues, demonic possession etc. Would I trust some of the more fanatical Christian groups to determine what freedoms Canadians should have? No Friggin Way. There are religious extremist Christians that worry me just as much as muslim extremists. Mennonites, are very nice people who do plenty of good work in Canada and around the world. I would not appreciate them being in power and forcing their moral ideals on the rest of us. Missionary Alliance are whacko fundamentalists too. People who blindly believe in taking the bible literally should not be put in charge of anything bigger than a church bake sale.

NDP policy is decided at convention by the grassroots, definitely bottom up, so saying the reform is the only party that did that is pure BS, the NDP is no elitist party. The CPC abondoned all the good parts about Reform, and kept all of its worst bigots.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

I wouldn't be worried about a PM being a member of a muslim church. Now make that a member of a radical devout muslim church and I would start to get stressed. I am a Luthern Christian. I like Christian people, have no problem with their beliefs, I share most of them. Would I feel nervous about having a Luthern, Anglican, Unitarian, or Catholic PM? Probably not. Fundamentalism and "religious insanity" are not too common among them. I have never met any that was one of the whacky born-again types that believed in speaking in tongues, demonic possession etc. Would I trust some of the more fanatical Christian groups to determine what freedoms Canadians should have? No Friggin Way. There are religious extremist Christians that worry me just as much as muslim extremists. Mennonites, are very nice people who do plenty of good work in Canada and around the world. I would not appreciate them being in power and forcing their moral ideals on the rest of us. Missionary Alliance are whacko fundamentalists too. People who blindly believe in taking the bible literally should not be put in charge of anything bigger than a church bake sale.

NDP policy is decided at convention by the grassroots, definitely bottom up, so saying the reform is the only party that did that is pure BS, the NDP is no elitist party. The CPC abondoned all the good parts about Reform, and kept all of its worst bigots.

All policy is grassroots driven. That is until a government is formed, then it becomes the policy of the leader.

[ToadBrother]

No doubt it's mere coincidence that Preston Manning stated "homosexuality is destructive to the individual, and in the long run, society," and that the Reform Party of Canada opposed adding sexual orientation to the Human Rights Act on the grounds that it would lead to a redefinition of marriage:

http://books.google.ca/books?id=AwD3FNUJjXwC&pg=PA176&lpg=PA176&dq=human+rights+act+amendment+reform+party+of+canada+sexual+orientation&source=bl&ots=UMzPyOS4-g&sig=7eqLtAFd7yZq1bTaIKAxSEXeA0o&hl=en&ei=_do1S_LANMm8lAfhvuCZBw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3&ved=0CA0Q6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=human%20rights%20act%20amendment%20reform%20party%20of%20canada%20sexual%20orientation&f=false

Perhaps it's also mere coincidence that Preston Manning and Stephen Harper are members of the Christian and Missionary Alliance Church.

And it must be yet another remarkable coincidence that Stephen Harper left BOTH the Progressive Conservatives and the United Church of Canada when he joined the Reform Party of Canada, became "born again" and converted to the Evangelical and socially conservative Christian and Missionary Alliance Church:

http://communities.canada.com/vancouversun/print.aspx?postid=238678

Probably just a coincidence that Paul Wilson worked for Preston Manning, Stockwell Day and now Stephen Harper:

http://www.xtra.ca/public/National/PMO_shuffle_puts_evangelical_Christians_in_top_political_jobs-6320.aspx

There's a healthy amount of revisionism going on in the old Reform camp. I suppose, in part, they're regretting selling their souls for the promise of success east of Manitoba. But if anyone is pretending that the vast bulk of Alberta and many British Columbia Reform MPs weren't social conservatives, then they're full of crap. I respect Manning, and he was probably more moderate than many of his MPs, but the Reform Party was filled with social conservatives. How could it not be, considering they all despised Mulroney and the Red Tories. Harper has certainly sublimated a lot of that, and I don't know if I buy into the conspiracy theories, but we know enough of Harper's views to know that he falls to the right of Manning.