Is the Conservative Party spineless and cowardly?

[Argus]

Sometimes I think Andrew Coyne is an idiot, and sometimes I think he's pretty savvy. This tends to depend, of course, on how much he agrees with me, or I with him.

Today's column is noteworthy because it crystallizes the problems I have had with the Conservatives for years, and why I liked the Reform Party so much more. The Reform Party stood for something, and it did so unapologetically. It believed certain things were wrong and needed to be changed, and didn't hesitate to say so. As opposed to the Progressive Conservatives, who simply made mouth noises but rarely followed through. Then there was Stephen Harper, the great pragmatist, who never wanted to rock the boat. Harper's Conservatives were huge supporters of the military, but did nothing for them. They complained about health care, but did nothing about it. They tinkered slightly with immigration without any major reforms. They accomplished nothing with regard to the native issue. They did nothing with regard to inter-provincial trade barriers. Hey, how about a free trade system INSIDE Canada?!  They were terrified to even bring up any sort of social issue, like the death penalty or maybe doing some sort of compromise to put in place the kind of mild regulations on abortion such as Sweden or France have. They caved in to the opposition and indulged in a huge amount of deficit spending. They governed like anything but conservatives.

And today, what does Scheer stand for anyway? What do today's Conservatives want to accomplish while in office? What to do about natives, about health care, about the freight train of unemployment headed down the tracks at us in the near future when AI takes over so many jobs? What big, bold, visionary ideas are they proposing? I can't think of a thing. "Hey, we're better than Trudeau at least" will probably be their campaign slogan in a couple of years, and they'll approve a few niche programs to enlist voters from those groups, and then they'll lose. You can't outspend the Liberals, because they really don't care how deep the deficit goes. That means you need some big bold ideas, as Coyne says. And those have been sorely lacking from the Conservative party of late.

http://nationalpost.com/opinion/andrew-coyne-canadas-conservatives-wont-start-winning-until-they-know-why-they-want-to-win#comments-area

[The_Squid]

31 minutes ago, Argus said:

 

Sometimes I think Andrew Coyne is an idiot, and sometimes I think he's pretty savvy. This tends to depend, of course, on how much he agrees with me, or I with him.

 

 

Most reasonable people think “that Coyne is pretty savvy, even if I don’t agree with everything he says”.  

That quote shows how unreasonable your position towards anyone with a different opinion than you is. 

[Argus]

5 minutes ago, The_Squid said:

Most reasonable people think “that Coyne is pretty savvy, even if I don’t agree with everything he says”.  

That quote shows how unreasonable your position towards anyone with a different opinion than you is. 

And your shows what a petty little obsessive you are. You've got nothing to say on the topic but you can't resist posting a shot at me over a clearly self-deprecating opening line. Go stalk someone else, loserboy. 

Edited February 8, 2018 by Argus

[?Impact]

1 hour ago, Argus said:

That means you need some big bold ideas

Yes, but what are those ideas? It seems that the derogatory labels are always put on when those ideas do not agree with those using the labels. Yes, appealing to a broad base by some might be considered spineless, but perhaps it is just reflective of society.

[Argus]

2 hours ago, ?Impact said:

Yes, but what are those ideas? It seems that the derogatory labels are always put on when those ideas do not agree with those using the labels. Yes, appealing to a broad base by some might be considered spineless, but perhaps it is just reflective of society.

But what's the point of getting into power if you don't want to do anything but BE in power? What did Harper accomplish in nearly a decade?

And yes, it's hard to get things through the sphere of outraged opinion. Remember when Stockwell Day had to resort to holding up a stupid sign at a debate to show he wasn't interested in US style  health care? Anyone who talks about reforming health care gets attacked in the same way. But if you're not going to push to solve things then all you are is someone in it for the money.

As for free trade internally, I honestly don't know what he feared there, or what the Liberals fear now except parochial local interests putting up a fuss (mainly, I suspect, in Quebec). I think most Canadians would have supported the effort, though, just as they would support an attempt to reform health care or address the native issue or stand up for things like pipelines and resource development. I think most Canadians want the military properly equipped, too. I would say judicial reform ought to be high on the list, as well. I remain disgusted by how long our courts take to decide even the simplest matter, criminal or otherwise, compared to the British courts. Big reforms in a lot of areas should be considered and haven't even been addressed.

 

 

[Queenmandy85]

Ideology is a fun debate in Poli-Sci seminars but it has no place in government. It is folly to think there is one all- encompassing theory that will solve all problems. 

Political parties have one purpose; to win elections. Governments have one responsibility; to do what the voters want and, more importantly, not do something voters do not want. Voters do not want to pay for a viable military. Voters in BC do not want a pipeline for fear a spill could damage the environment. Voters do not want to pay for more courts, judges, Crown Prosecutors, police, and prisons to speed up the court system. Those "parochial local interests" are voters. Failing to heed what the mainstream of the voting public wants is anti- democratic and political suicide.

As for Reform, they are nothing but a front for the Socialist Credit party. We suffered under those thieving bast**ds in BC. They confiscated (stole) money making free enterprise companies and turned them into bloated money losing crowns. 

[Argus]

Just now, Queenmandy85 said:

Political parties have one purpose; to win elections. 

To what end?

Just now, Queenmandy85 said:

Governments have one responsibility; to do what the voters want and, more importantly, not do something voters do not want.

So leadership is not to be expected from government? Have I got that right? 

Just now, Queenmandy85 said:

Voters do not want to pay for a viable military.

And you know this how?

Just now, Queenmandy85 said:

Voters in BC do not want a pipeline for fear a spill could damage the environment.

It's not their environment, and not their coast. It belongs to Canada. I don't want a big chunk of my taxes going to other provinces but that's part of being a country.

Just now, Queenmandy85 said:

Voters do not want to pay for more courts, judges, Crown Prosecutors, police, and prisons to speed up the court system.

Have you asked them? I bet you're wrong. Besides, who's to say it would cost a lot more? Perhaps changing the system would vastly improve speed without increased cost. The point is no one is even addressing the issue.

Just now, Queenmandy85 said:

Those "parochial local interests" are voters. Failing to heed what the mainstream of the voting public wants is anti- democratic and political suicide.

We're back to political parties simply following the polls and not trying to show leadership on issues. Which begs the question of why we have political parties at all. Why not just do away with them and have the place run by public opinion polls?

 

[Queenmandy85]

3 hours ago, Argus said:

To what end?

Power.

So leadership is not to be expected from government? Have I got that right? 

Governments are led by the will of the voters. That is Democracy.

And you know this how? (Paying for the Military)

The role of Defence Policy is to defend the realm against all comers. This would require a Swiss model of Defence Policy. Lets see any government put that into effect and survive.

Queenmandy85 said:

Voters in BC do not want a pipeline for fear a spill could damage the environment.

 It's not their environment, and not their coast. It belongs to Canada. I don't want a big chunk of my taxes going to other provinces but that's part of being a country.

People living in the path of the pipeline are afraid of a spill that would damage the creeks in their area. Whether their fears are rational or not, that is how they are going to vote. The Government needs those ridings in the next election.

Voters do not want to pay for more courts, judges, Crown Prosecutors, police, and prisons to speed up the court system.

Have you asked them? I bet you're wrong. Besides, who's to say it would cost a lot more? Perhaps changing the system would vastly improve speed without increased cost. The point is no one is even addressing the issue.

The courts are backlogged because there are too few Judges, Courts and Crown Prosecutors. These vacancies have not been filled to save money. How would you change the system?

We're back to political parties simply following the polls and not trying to show leadership on issues. Which begs the question of why we have political parties at all. Why not just do away with them and have the place run by public opinion polls?

Political Parties exist to win elections. The party that wins acquires a lot of power to reward it's supporters. When I ran for a Federal Nomination in the Kootenays years ago, when I asked for support, the response was "what do I get in return?" I was naive and believed good government was their reward. I didn't win.

Governments do show leadership, but it must always be tempered by the art of the possible. The carbon tax is an example.  They could have waited and then brought in strict carbon rationing. They have also risked their seats in BC and possibly re-election, by approving the Kinder-Morgan pipeline. They also signed NAFTA against a great amount of opposition. The better political move would have been to negotiate to the bitter end and then announce they could not sign a deal that was not good enough, then say to pro free traders that they tried and to the opponents, we wouldn't sign a deal not good for Canada. Brian would still be PM.

I sympathize with your frustration. We all want our ideas to be imposed by a strong leader (preferably me), but the mainstream voters disagree. I am a militant monarchist. I don't expect the government to do what I want, just as I don't expect them to quadruple our taxes and invoke universal conscription to create a viable military.

I must add that political parties are different from the candidates who run. Most of the ones I have met, are honourable and capable. They understand that polls are a means to know what the voters (their bosses) want them to do.

 

 

Edited February 9, 2018 by Queenmandy85

[Bonam]

5 hours ago, Argus said:

To what end?

Individuals who hunger for power enough to dedicate their life to it go into politics. That's the sole and only reason for parties to want to win: power hungriness of the individuals that comprise them. 

[kactus]

4 hours ago, Bonam said:

Individuals who hunger for power enough to dedicate their life to it go into politics. That's the sole and only reason for parties to want to win: power hungriness of the individuals that comprise them. 

That pretty much sums up Donald Trump right now...

[Queenmandy85]

10 hours ago, Bonam said:

Individuals who hunger for power enough to dedicate their life to it go into politics. That's the sole and only reason for parties to want to win: power hungriness of the individuals that comprise them. 

The individuals who actually go in to politics are driven by motivations that are somewhat different from the Parties that support them. Activists in the party want the party to win in order to implement their own personal agenda such as the list Argus articulated in the original post or, for me, re-instate the power of the Crown. While Argus' views at least hold theoretical potential, mine, like many others across the spectrum of political activism, are so divorced from the slightly left of centre beliefs of the majority of Canadian voters that we are doomed to perpetual frustration.

The actual politicians who go to parliament are motivated by a sense of public service, the pursuit of power to effect change, a desire for prestige and a need to be loved. The last two are more doomed than my desire to return to the Devine Right of Kings. The desire to effect change is ultimately frustrated by the fact that available actions by a government are confined to a narrow range. Politics is "the art of the possible."  Even King Charles II accepted that. Johnny Wilmott wrote:

We have a pretty witty king,
Whose word no man relies on,
He never said a foolish thing,
And never did a wise one"^[

^{To which His Majesty replied: My words are my own but my actions are those of my Ministers. (Stolen from Wikipedia)}

 

Edited February 9, 2018 by Queenmandy85

[bush_cheney2004]

6 hours ago, kactus said:

That pretty much sums up Donald Trump right now...

 

Trudeaus, both of them, were in politics far longer than Donald Trump.

[Argus]

12 hours ago, Bonam said:

Individuals who hunger for power enough to dedicate their life to it go into politics. That's the sole and only reason for parties to want to win: power hungriness of the individuals that comprise them. 

What power do any of them actually exert, other than the PM? They go where they're told, do what they're told, and say what they're told. 

[Queenmandy85]

1 hour ago, Argus said:

What power do any of them actually exert, other than the PM? They go where they're told, do what they're told, and say what they're told. 

Backbenchers and Cabinet Ministers do have potential power over the PM. They hold the power of no confidence. The PM's position relies on their support. (Just ask John Diefenbaker) They can force the PM to discard the silly idea that the party leader has to sign their nomination papers if they had a mind to.

Edited February 9, 2018 by Queenmandy85

[Argus]

19 minutes ago, Queenmandy85 said:

Backbenchers and Cabinet Ministers do have potential power over the PM. They hold the power of no confidence. The PM's position relies on their support. (Just ask John Diefenbaker) They can force the PM to discard the silly idea that the party leader has to sign their nomination papers if they had a mind to.

Back benchers are sheep, and have been for decades. And as more and more power has accrued to the PMO even cabinet ministers have very little power.

[kactus]

3 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Trudeaus, both of them, were in politics far longer than Donald Trump.

True....but they both don’t size up to the power hungry Trump.

[bush_cheney2004]

1 minute ago, kactus said:

True....but they both don’t size up to the power hungry Trump.

 

Trump has a long way to go compared to Pierre Trudeau.

By definition, a Canadian PM has far more unchecked political power than a U.S. president.

[kactus]

11 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Trump has a long way to go compared to Pierre Trudeau.

By definition, a Canadian PM has far more unchecked political power than a U.S. president.

Hope not too long for Trump fir the sake of the second term....

Pierre Trudeau unlike Trump has not used his power to cosy up to the Russians for his failed hotel businesses. Lest we forget.

That is a conflict of of interest of being a president and using power for personal gain imo.

[bush_cheney2004]

2 minutes ago, kactus said:

Hope not too long for Trump fir the sake of the second term....

Pierre Trudeau unlike Trump has not used his power to cosy up to the Russians for his failed hotel businesses. Lest we forget.

That is a conflict of of interest of being a president and using power for personal gain imo.

 

And yet, it is Justin Trudeau who has been found guilty of four ethics violations....not Trump.

[Omni]

29 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

And yet, it is Justin Trudeau who has been found guilty of four ethics violations....not Trump.

Um, Mueller's not done yet. Wait for it!

[?Impact]

6 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

Trudeaus, both of them, were in politics far longer than Donald Trump.

Trump has been in politics since at least 1988, that is 30 years. Trudeau Jr. would be 17 then.

[bush_cheney2004]

3 minutes ago, ?Impact said:

Trump has been in politics since at least 1988, that is 30 years. Trudeau Jr. would be 17 then.

 

Pierre Trudeau was not 17 in 1988...his ex-wife and children were part of the show.

Edited February 9, 2018 by bush_cheney2004

[Omni]

8 minutes ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

Pierre Trudeau was not 17 in 1988...his ex-wife and children were part of the show.

Trudeau Jr's name is not Pierre. 

[Queenmandy85]

3 hours ago, Argus said:

Back benchers are sheep, and have been for decades. And as more and more power has accrued to the PMO even cabinet ministers have very little power.

The stages of a campaign are:

-attracting the vote

-identifying the vote

-getting out the vote.

If you perform these three tasks better than the opposition, you will probably win. These tasks are true in the nomination campaign as well as the election. If you nominate and elect sheep, that is your doing. You need to select a candidate that is not a lamb and is able to gather support. Politics, at it core, is all about gathering and maintaining support.

On another note, have you ever noticed that the people who are most obviously ambitious, never make it?  I knew dozens of future Prime Ministers in the Progressive Conservative Student Federation. 

[Argus]

3 hours ago, bush_cheney2004 said:

 

And yet, it is Justin Trudeau who has been found guilty of four ethics violations....not Trump.

Vladimir Putin hasn't been found guilty of ethics violations, so I guess he's a nice, honest guy.