Why are we so easily satisfied?

[Argus]

So Harper got his rousing approval from the Tories. Eighty four percent thought losing an election which should have been in the bag, then utterly failing to adequately oppose a lame and confused government for a year, while gaining no support from the public was just peachy.

Earlier Martin got an even higher vote of confidence. Apparently dithering for a year while in office, inciting anger and disloyalty within the party, almost losing an election, and then dithering some more while accomplishing nothing was just what his party wanted.

Thirty million Canadians and these guys are the best we can do? These guys can incite crowds to cheer hysterically?

What is wrong with the system of government in this country which produces guys like Harper and Martin as our top choices? I wouldn't buy a used car from either of them. Neither has much charisma. Neither seems to have any ideas. Neither is overly familiar with honesty. I can see why so many people don't bother to vote.

Is it possible to get into the mindset of those crowds at the convention and find out just what they're so enthusiastic about? I just can't see it. I didn't like Trudeau, but the guy had charisma. The guy had ideas. Even Manning, who had no charisma, at least had ideas which drew crowds. What do we have now? Blah.

It seems good people, intelligent people, honest people, stay far away from politics. Or if they do get involved the system never lets them rise. What a shame for Canada, and what it could have been and still could be with decent leadership.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Argus,

I just can't see it. I didn't like Trudeau, but the guy had charisma. The guy had ideas. Even Manning, who had no charisma, at least had ideas which drew crowds. What do we have now? Blah.

It seems good people, intelligent people, honest people, stay far away from politics. Or if they do get involved the system never lets them rise. What a shame for Canada, and what it could have been and still could be with decent leadership.

I fully and whole-heartedly agree with your statement (although I liked Trudeau, just not the NEP). it seems, though, that having 'charisma and new ideas' are a threat to the status-quo, and Canadians seem to be firm believers in the old adage "Better to vote for the devil you know...."

[caesar]

Canadians seem to be firm believers in the old adage "Better to vote for the devil you know...."

I don't agree with this at all. I am a BCer; we sure don't vote for the devil we know. We always say they can't be worse (But they usually are)

Last election (federal); While we didn't know much about either as leaders; we did know there stand on aligning Canada with Bush; we figured we had a better chance staying Canadian with Martin. I didn't and don't care for wither of them but sure didn't want to go where Harper would have lead us.

[lammiBC]

caesar:

True story in BC eh, we don't let anyone stay around in the legislature for too long. Might see another change this May, and I really don't know if thats good or bad.

Argus:

The Conservatives will not win until they provide a platform that Canadians will vote them in on. They came closer to it this weekend, but I still think the Liberals are going to have to screw up bad (even more) for the Conservatives to win. I believe that most Canadians are ready for change, but they are not going to vote in a party that is willing to sacrifice Canadian values to keep corporations and the US happy. We don't want to see health care privatized or our troops in Iraq. (not saying they would necessarily do this, just some of the unappealing things they've talked about) The Conservatives need a new image. Someone needs to emerge as a promising leadership candidate so they can get Harper outta there. I don't completely agree with the their social policies, but would be happy to see a moderate Conservative government just for a change, give the Liberals some time to clean up their act.

[Argus]

The Conservatives will not win until they provide a platform that Canadians will vote them in on.

I believe one of the reasons the modern political system has gifted us with a long series of banal, dull-witted grasping, weaselly individuals as our "leaders" is the political wisdom which calls for politicians to find out what people want and then offer it to them. It is most unfortunate that it works so often, that people pay so little attention to the news or require so little information about those seeking their votes.

What I'd like a party to do, including the Conservatives, is to develop a set of goals, objectives and policies based on what their own intelligence and morality tells them is right and best for Canada and then campaign on that, persuade people of the rightness and righteousness of their vision.

Quaint, eh?

I believe that most Canadians are ready for change, but they are not going to vote in a party that is willing to sacrifice Canadian values to keep corporations and the US happy. We don't want to see health care privatized or our troops in Iraq. (not saying they would necessarily do this, just some of the unappealing things they've talked about)

The alternative to the present poor state of health care is not the elimination of the public health care system and no one in the Reform, Alliance or Conservative party has ever advocated that to my knowledge. Do you have any information to the contrary? As far as the provision of private health care services goes I believe most Canadians would support it - absent the fearmongering campaign by the Liberals, NDP and media. Private health care services exist throughout Europe, and we should stop suggesting that private health care is an American model.

As far as Iraq goes, I highly doubt that the Tories, even if we had troops to send, would get involved there given the abscence of public support.

In any event, suggesting policy objectives of this nature somehow go against "Canadian values" is more than slightly far-fetched. What you mean to say is they go against liberal values, which is not, you know, the same thing. And sacrificing conservative beliefs in order to appease liberals is a surefire way to failure. Why buy Liberal light when you've already got the real thing?

The Conservatives need a new image. Someone needs to emerge as a promising leadership candidate so they can get Harper outta there.

The Conservatives need a vision, something to challenge Canadians. Canadians do want change, but in the last election Harper didn't ofer one. The party needs to set out a clear vision of Canada which diverges from the Liberals, with bold new ideas which catch people's imaginations. Manning did that years ago, and despite a noted lack of charisma he really excited people. Now combine a unique vision with a bit of charisma and charm and they'll get their shot at power.

[willy]

The Conservatives need a vision, something to challenge Canadians.

They do have a vision. A trustworthy government that respects and serves Canadians.

Harper continues to grow into his position. He is a very bright person who has done the impossible and not only merged two parties but united them. I was at the convention and we are united.

Harpers charisma is growing and being at his speech everyone was ready to follow when he was done. The Conservatives have a team of strong young MP's that will emerge into a new great Canadian government.

I will also have to through Martin a complement and I don't do this often. His eulogy in Edmonton last week was a great speech. He showed great charisma and compassion.

Sometimes the glass is half full. It is very difficult to become a leader of a national party and the skills it takes to get there are many. I may fight the issues leaders stand for but I will always respect what it took for them to become leaders and serve us.

[daniel]

The Conservatives need a vision, something to challenge Canadians.

Harpers charisma is growing and being at his speech everyone was ready to follow when he was done. The Conservatives have a team of strong young MP's that will emerge into a new great Canadian government.

That's scary. Someone who can do more damage than Brian Mulroney or Harris.

[fellowtraveller]

As far as the provision of private health care services goes I believe most Canadians would support it - absent the fearmongering campaign by the Liberals, NDP and media. Private health care services exist throughout Europe, and we should stop suggesting that private health care is an American model.

Well said, though you do not present a more salient point- that vast majority of Canadian health care services are already provided by the private sector. This is something the idiots chanting 'Save Medicare' just don't seem to grasp.

The vast majority of doctors are private practitioners, and they are just the tip of the iceberg of privately provided services.

I want the most bang for my buck, and I don't care who provides it.

[daniel]

If you haven't noticed, group insurance health coverage is diminishing too meanwhile the premiums keep going up.

Hope we'll never end up with Total Managed Health.

[Argus]

The Conservatives need a vision, something to challenge Canadians.

They do have a vision. A trustworthy government that respects and serves Canadians.

Oh how original. Do we all get a slice of apple pie with that? Which party has NOT promised honest, trusthworthy government that resepects and serves Canadians? How about an original idea, hmm? Why does Harper want to be Prime Minister? What does he want to do that's different from what the Liberals at least SAY they want to do? Where does he want to take this country?

Harper continues to grow into his position. He is a very bright person who has done the impossible and not only merged two parties but united them. I was at the convention and we are united.

What do I care if you're united or not? I suppose that pleases the press, but a party with no naysayers and nobody daring to contradict the official position is not something I'm particularly looking for, thanks. I've already got that with the Liberals.

Harpers charisma is growing and being at his speech everyone was ready to follow when he was done. The Conservatives have a team of strong young MP's that will emerge into a new great Canadian government.

Aside from thoroughly disliking Martin I can see no reason whatever to vote for the Tories. What do they stand for? Uhm, multiculturalism, official bilingualism, more immigration, no private health care, sucking up to Quebec... or was that the Liberals? Oh wait, it's both!

Your party hasn't got an original idea in its platform. There's no vision, nothing inspirational, no economic ideas, no social ideas, no nothing. Just bland pablum dished out in a desperate effort to win approval from the media.

As for Harper's "growing" charisma? All I can say is it's got a lot of growing to do. He'll have a lot of time, of course, since I don't see anything but Liberal governments well into the future.

[willy]

Argus, what is your great new idea?

Honest government by the way is a good vision if you ask me and it is something we haven't had for a long time.

Policy to back it up: Less concentration of power in the PM's office, more free votes, Parliament appointed ethics commissioners.

I think you will also find on the health care front that the Conservative Party would allow the provinces to purse a balance of private and public delivery based on the principals of the Canada health act.

My party caries many principles of grass roots democracy. It was the members that set the policy this week and not Mr. Harper.

IMO, it is not new ideas we need but to actually use the ideas and policies we currently have. It is about actually doing something and executing change. If we can do that we will be a much different government than what the Liberals have provided for the last 12 years.

Just say no to HRDC scandal, Defense Contracts to HP, Ad Scam, ect.

[Argus]

Argus, what is your great new idea?

Honest government by the way is a good vision if you ask me and it is something we haven't had for a long time.

Yeah, sure it is. That's why Martin promised it to us. That's why Chretien promised it to us. That's why Mulroney promised it to us. Every one of them was going to be a new and fresh government which abandoned the crass patronage, favouratism and insider deals of the previous administration. They were all quite enthusiastic about it, too, right up until they got elected. So why should we believe Harper is any different? The man doesn't fill me with any great confidence in his honesty. Manning seemed honest. Clark seemed honest. Stupid, but honest. Harper seems like what he is, a smooth political operator from the back rooms.

Policy to back it up: Less concentration of power in the PM's office, more free votes, Parliament appointed ethics commissioners.

All right from the Liberal's Red book. Martin promised us all of that. He didn't actually mean any of it, of course.

I think you will also find on the health care front that the Conservative Party would allow the provinces to purse a balance of private and public delivery based on the principals of the Canada health act.

The Canada Health Act generally prohibits meaningful private health care delivery. If we actually abided by the principals of the Canada Health Act, ie, if the Liberals had any honesty in their self righteous defence of public medical care, we'd be closing down all those clinics in Quebec.

My party caries many principles of grass roots democracy. It was the members that set the policy this week and not Mr. Harper.

No, it was fear of the media and fear of fearmongering which set the policy this week, as the party frantically tried to dump anything which they thought the Liberals and media could use to portray them as intolerant.

[Argus]

Argus, what is your great new idea?

I posted this some time ago. It could use some polishing, but it's a start. Notice the actual details, something sadly lacking in the Tory's platform.

Vote for me

[willy]

Argus, I can now easily say that none of those ideas are new. They also are not electable and they don't spell out a cohesive vision. So it seems that the Argus party would rely on low expectations as well.

As you note the details I could note the omissions are many.

This is why policies are general and directional in nature. Tactical planning comes in the costing out and implementation of policy. Good policy lays out the values that drive future decisions and the general scope of applying the values to issues.

[willy]

No, it was fear of the media and fear of fearmongering which set the policy this week, as the party frantically tried to dump anything which they thought the Liberals and media could use to portray them as intolerant.

I was not afraid and I voted they way I wanted. What came out of the convention was what the members wanted to come out of it with. A strong party that can win an election that still represents the principals of its members.

I am no apologist for why the Liberals didn't follow the promise of the red book.

You have very little foundation for your view of Harper, at least I have met the man and had a chance to experience how he operates. Preston by the way was at the convention and he was indorsing Harper.

[Montgomery Burns]

No, it was fear of the media and fear of fearmongering which set the policy this week, as the party frantically tried to dump anything which they thought the Liberals and media could use to portray them as intolerant.

I agree. The Conservatives seem to waffle when it comes to being a true conservative party for fear that the liberal media will tear them up as being "intolerant."

Say that you are against reversing a 2000 definition of marriage. I see different polls, but I suspect that most Canadians agree with this. The referendum in 11 of the US states towards gay-marriage in their federal election was rejected in all 11 states - eeven the ones that Kerry won.

Say that you are against partial-birth abortion. I saw a Macleans poll and Canadians overhelmingly agree that murdering babies is wrong.

Campaign on getting rid of the state-run, taxpayer-funded, propagandic, Soviet style CBC. It is a drain on taxpayers and nobody watches it. The only thing they do well is Hockey Night in Canada. The latest ratings for the top 20 shows in Canada had 1 program from the CBC and that was a Harry Potter movie. 17 of the top 20 were American shows (CTV national news, Canadian Idol, and the Harry Potter movie on CBC were the only Canadian shows). Let the CBC go at it alone like the other stations have to.

Strongly assert that Canada's military needs much improvement. I'm sure that, deep inside, most Canadians agree with this. With a decent military, that might give Canadians some pride, and quell this knee-jerk jealousy of America.

And campaign on scrapping the ridiculous state-run day care. Campaign against making prostitution and drugs legal. These are moral issues and morality makes for a strong country. Look at what happened to Europe when some countries implemented the legality of these things. Now much of their citizens protest the liberation of 50 million people and demonize Israel (which used to be the only democratic country in the Mid East).

Morally bankrupt, bitter, unhappy (look at their suicide rates), and discouraged about their future (witness their small fertility rates for women); sadly, that is much of Europe.

[Argus]

Argus, I can now easily say that none of those ideas are new. They also are not electable and they don't spell out a cohesive vision. So it seems that the Argus party would rely on low expectations as well.

Not electable. In other words, you believe in choosing your policies based on what you think people want rather than what you think Canada should have. Instead of persuading, leading, people towards what you want to achieve you're content to just give them whatever it is they think they want - based on whatever the media has told them today.

I'm not pretending this is a "cohesive vision" but it is more than bland pablum. The Tories are hoping to get elected by people voting AGAINST the Liberals, for there's nothing there, no reason, to vote FOR them.

And why is it not "electable" btw? Please pick out which of the policies would be opposed by a majority of voters to the point you could not articulate a strong reason to them why they should support them. Exclude the 30% of the electorate who will NEVER vote Conservative for any reason from your thinking, btw, and focus on potential conservative voters. Which of those policies would be utterly rejected by them.

This is why policies are general and directional in nature. Tactical planning comes in the costing out and implementation of policy. Good policy lays out the values that drive future decisions and the general scope of applying the values to issues.

The problem is that without specifics they're just bland generalities and almost the same as we see from the Liberals. There's no reason to believe you actually mean to impliment them.

We will cut taxes!

Uh, how much, costed out how? When?

Don't ask me for details! Just vote for me!

Yeah. Okay. Sure.

[Argus]

No, it was fear of the media and fear of fearmongering which set the policy this week, as the party frantically tried to dump anything which they thought the Liberals and media could use to portray them as intolerant.

I was not afraid and I voted they way I wanted. What came out of the convention was what the members wanted to come out of it with. A strong party that can win an election that still represents the principals of its members.

So you're saying its members wanted a largely liberal policy platform?

You have very little foundation for your view of Harper, at least I have met the man and had a chance to experience how he operates. Preston by the way was at the convention and he was indorsing Harper.

I understand Joe Clark came off as very personable and friendly in person too. Of course, he was a clown in public, so that didn't really matter. How Harper comes off to you is similarly unimportant. It's how he appears to the public, and the man is hardly inspirational or charismatic. The only time the Tories had success in the last more than half century was under charismatic leaders (Diefenbaker/Mulroney). I'd think that would have taught you something.

[willy]

So you're saying its members wanted a largely liberal policy platform?

This is my last response in this tread as if I were to say the sky were blue you would likely tell me that it is smoggy out.

Our policy platform is what it is:

We believe that we need to see a plan on BMS before you say no.

We believe that parents should have choices on how they bring up their children.

We believe while extending benefits to same sex couple who enter unions the definition of marriage should remain one man and one women.

We believe that Senators should be elected.

Minimum sentences for violent offenders.

How we do things has more to do with facilitation through tax incentives and reducing barriers.

_______________________________________

The Liberals would like to build a national child care program for all people who have children.

The Liberals pick winners and losers in business by subsidizing their friends.

The Liberals would have us legalize drugs and prostitution.

Ann McClellan said it when she pointed out that Liberal politicians do not have to follow their policy.

________________________________________

ect.

I do think you are prejudging our policy, when the newly compiled document comes out give it a thumb through.

[Black Dog]

We believe that we need to see a plan on BMS before you say no.

Why? If I were to tell you that I wanted to build a rocket to Mars out of an old washing machine, would you want to see the plans before declaring it a stupid idea? BMD is a fundamentally flawed concept. It's poor execution is merely the icing on the cake.

We believe that parents should have choices on how they bring up their children.

I don't see what the beef is with having national standards. Wouldn't you feel better putting your kids in an accredited and certified child care facility than some fly-by-night?

We believe while extending benefits to same sex couple who enter unions the definition of marriage should remain one man and one women.

Well, i won't open this particular can of worms, but suffice it to say, this is one reason why I'll never vote Conservative.

We believe that Senators should be elected.

Instead of this fig leaf, why not PR, which would actually give the democratic process some real meaning?

Minimum sentences for violent offenders

Fine, provided there was some very specific criterea as to what is considered a "violent offender". Minimum sentencing has led to massive overpopulation in Ameriocan prisons and I'd hate to see us go down that road.

The Liberals would like to build a national child care program for all people who have children.

I haven't seen a plan yet. Is there a plan?

The Liberals pick winners and losers in business by subsidizing their friends.

And the HarperCons wouldn't? Riiiiight.

The Liberals would have us legalize drugs and prostitution.

If only they were that bold. I'd actually consider voting for them.

The problem is that without specifics they're just bland generalities and almost the same as we see from the Liberals. There's no reason to believe you actually mean to impliment them.

Argus, I believe we find ourselves in rare agreement.

[Argus]

So you're saying its members wanted a largely liberal policy platform?

This is my last response in this tread as if I were to say the sky were blue you would likely tell me that it is smoggy out.

Our policy platform is what it is:

Bland and without specifics. Look, there was article in today's Sun by Val Sears which said much what I'm saying. The Tories need to come out with a BIG policy, something which captures the public's imagination. And, as Sears said, but I haven't, they need to forget about Quebec, stop trying to design policies to appease Quebec, stop even thinking about it, and stop spending money there. They have virtually no chance of getting ANY seats in Quebec in the near future. Sears talked about the way Diefenbaker's strategists came up with the big concept to seize the public's imagination, and how they plotted to win without Quebec - and did.

Bland generalities about honest government aren't going to seize the public's imagination, especially with a guy like Harper, who has no charisma or public charm.

Without a new, exciting leader, or a new, exciting policy, you have to rely on enough people voting against the Liberals to get into power, because you're not going to get them voting FOR you.

[Michael Hardner]

I think the problem with managing our government is the same as we've seen in many businesses... that is, they're managed (ie. elected) based on gut-feel rather than numbers. This can only work for so long until the business fails. Management by numbers is what is required.

The first problem we need to tackle is an agreed upon channel of discussion as to what our goals should be, then a means to measure these goals and evaluate how our governments are doing.

Such an idea is practical and reasonable, but it is in no one's best interest to do so, only in the interests of the whole. This is why it hasn't been done.

I submit that web boards such as these could elect objective members to nominate clear and measurable metrics for government, then simply see how each government does against the metrics. That would act against much of the lying that goes into politics, though not all of it.

The more I talk to reasonable and informed conservatives on these boards, the more I respect their views and want to see them get some satisfaction in the political arena. When it comes down to it (and I know some will find this preposterous) I don't think centre-lefts and centre-rights are that far apart today. Both sides agree on the general need for social programs, but disagree about the approach.