What the Tories need to do

[Argus]

1) Get rid of social conservatism...

and finally

5) Get rid of social conservatism

...

The thing about people with no morality is that they believe everyone is like them.

Well, there in a nutshell is exactly why the CPC can never be permitted to be the government. It's the self-righteous mindset.

Oh please. No one is more of a self righteous moralizing prig than a leftist on a rant.

If you say people have "no morals" simply because they have different views than yours, they are going to recognize you as a dangerous extremist.

And if you tell people they should abandon what they believe in and simply base your platform on whatever you think is popular that makes you what? A Liberal?

Do you honestly think Liberals have any morals or ethics? That they care about ANYTHING but themselves and how much money they can loot? What policy or program are liberals dedicated to for purely moral or ethical reasons as opposed to vote getting?

... most conservatives want power in order to accomplish something.

Indeed. And most Canadian voters don't want those 'accomplisments'. There seems to be a reality-gap in the CPC ... they want somehow to get elected in spite of the voters' not wanting what they're selling.

The trick, if you believe in your cause, is to persuade otheres to believe, as well. If your cause has merit and logic and you have the ability to communicate then you ought to be able to win over those who disagree with you. Not the hysterical loonies of the Left, of course, but the mainstream.

Are Canadians against two-tier health care? I don't think so. I think they're against BAD health care. I think you can persuade them to embrace more private money in health care delivery if you communicate properly.

Do Canadians want gay marriage? Not really. And I bet you can easily win over the great majority by offering up some kind of civil union.

Would Canadians support a crack-down on crime? You're damned right they would, despite what leftists might think Canadians have been demanding tougher sentences for crime for years now. Someone who does more than just talk about it, but offers concrete examples of what they would do would draw in massive support.

[Argus]

The Conservatives must certainly make a clear and detailed and very specific proposal of what they wish to do with the healthcare system, to combat this sort of scare-tactic.

-kimmy

Obviously true. So the question is why have they not done so already? Two possible answers:

1. The policy they want IS in fact a privatized fend-for-yourself system.

or

2. A viable program is extremely difficult to devise. Rhetoric aside, there is no easy answer.

I think that the spin doctors have told them to stay away from any hint of privatization, even though that's clearly what is needed. Mention private funding and the media and other parties will scream "AMERICAN HEALTH CARE". It's very hard to put any details out there without mentioning fees. That's why I think they should select a European health system and then simply wave that as where you're going. It's damned hard to scream AMERICAN when the Tories are saying the new health care system will be like Frances', or Germany's or Finland's.

Either way, the Tory bastards have a major credibility gap.

Not nearly so much as the Liberal sons of bitches and the NDP assholes.

[Argus]

Well at least get a little closer to the center.  Joe Clark type Conservatives might have actually gotten a Conservative victory.  Harper and cronies are way too far right for reasonable working people.

And yet, oddly, it is those working people who tend to vote Tory. Liberal and NDP support tends to come from the upper middle class.

[Argus]

Federalize the National Health Care system. Too many right winged provincial government that like to slash and burn and use the money elsewhere.

Yeah, sure, then we'd have to pay kickbacks to the Liberal Party in order to get treatment.

[Fortunata]

Argus, are you saying that every Liberal MP, organizer, volunteer, supporter is on the take?

And you want to be taken seriously?

I think not.

[The Terrible Sweal]

... if you tell people they should abandon what they believe in and simply base your platform on whatever you think is popular that makes you what? A Liberal?

I thought the point of this thread was what it would take to make the CPC electable.

Do you honestly think Liberals have any morals or ethics?

Do you honestly think tories do?

The trick, if you believe in your cause, is to persuade otheres to believe, as well.

By telling them they have no morals?

If your cause has merit and logic and you have the ability to communicate then you ought to be able to win over those who disagree with you.

Like the Liberal Party has been doing electorally over the last 75 years.

[Argus]

Argus, are you saying that every Liberal MP, organizer, volunteer, supporter is on the take?

And you want to be taken seriously?

I think not.

Every one? Hardly. I'm saying, however, that the central organization, including, at the very least, almost all the Quebec cabinet ministers, are corrupt, and certainly had knowledge of what was going on there.

I'm also saying that what went on with the ad agencies in montreal almost certainly was duplicated elsewhere. And if the AG was free to dig, she'd find numerous other adscams.

[The Terrible Sweal]

... I'm saying, however, that the central organization, including, at the very least, almost all the Quebec cabinet ministers, are corrupt, and certainly had knowledge of what was going on there.

I'm also saying that what went on with the ad agencies in montreal almost certainly was duplicated elsewhere. And if the AG was free to dig, she'd find numerous other adscams.

And what Crystal Ball tells you all this, may I ask?

[kimmy]

Certainly with the number of high-profile and influential people from the Liberals' Quebec wing who have been fingered, it's becoming hard to believe that this was just "a rogue element" or some isolated individuals, as the LPC are claiming.

-kimmy

[The Terrible Sweal]

Certainly with the number of high-profile and influential people from the Liberals' Quebec wing who have been fingered, it's becoming hard to believe that this was just "a rogue element" or some isolated individuals, as the LPC are claiming.

-kimmy

I think the evidence so far is clear that it was a few individuals with important positions in the federal Liberal party in Quebec, working with a few highly placed individuals in Jean Chretien's administration.

[kimmy]

I think the evidence so far is clear that it was a few individuals with important positions in the federal Liberal party in Quebec, working with a few highly placed individuals in Jean Chretien's administration.

I certainly agree with that. I am sure that most Liberal MPs are honest people (as politicians go, anyway. )

The thing I'm having a problem with, though, is that when the relatively few people who have been implicated are so close to the top of the food-chain, and so central in the party's machinery, I question whether it makes sense to consider them "rogues" or "isolated".

-kimmy

[Argus]

... I'm saying, however, that the central organization, including, at the very least, almost all the Quebec cabinet ministers, are corrupt, and certainly had knowledge of what was going on there.

I'm also saying that what went on with the ad agencies in montreal almost certainly was duplicated elsewhere. And if the AG was free to dig, she'd find  numerous other adscams.

And what Crystal Ball tells you all this, may I ask?

Why don't you tell me why these individuals would take under the table money, and pressure suppliers to the government to hire relatives and party members, as well as kick back money to the liberal party... ONLY in the advertising business?

Why not do it with other suppliers? Why?

Ten billion dollars went into those "trusts", trusts set up by Paul Martin to hide money, set up deliberately exempted from the oversight of the Auditor General and from the Access to Information Act. Trusts run by Liberal Party patronage appointees.

Now again, tell me why such corruption was widespread within advertising, but NO OTHER INDUSTRY.

Are ad agency executives so much more corrupt than any other business executives? Would no other business executives be willing to kick back money to the Liberals in exchange for huge contracts?

When Martin or Chretien hold a fund raiser, and all those rich lobbyists and corporate operators show up, each paying ten thousand dollars a plate, do you actually think they do it out of charity?

[The Terrible Sweal]

... ONLY in the advertising business?

Why not do it with other suppliers? Why?

Targets of opportunity.

Why did big corporate meltdowns occur in energy and telecom recently? Opportunity.

[Argus]

... ONLY in the advertising business?

Why not do it with other suppliers? Why?

Targets of opportunity.

What makes the ad industry more easily exploitable than any other industry? You donate to my party I'll give you a big contract, which you don't have to actually do a lot for, and then you kick back some of the money to me.

You can't do that in other industries just as easily?

How about the Business Development Bank? This was clearly under Chretien and Jean Carle's close control. It was used to funnel money to a business partner of Chretien with a criminal record (the money was never repaid). How many other groups with Liberal ties got "loans" which they never paid back?

No, there are a million ways to extort money from government suppliers. There is absolutely no reason to confine it to just one industry.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Argus,

ONLY in the advertising business?

Why not do it with other suppliers? Why?

I am guessing that advertising is a service business, and not a goods business. The 'market' value of advertising is wide open for interpretation, whereas tangible goods such as vehicles, toilet seats, etc have a market value that is hard to stretch. Sure, they could have purchased a few $100,000 toilet seats, and asked for kick-backs out of the profits, but it is much easier to hide overpayment for a non-asset purchase.

[The Terrible Sweal]

What makes the ad industry more easily exploitable than any other industry?

Maybe it is or not. I'm saying that the policy of raising the federal profilein Quebec provided the oportunity for these activities in the ad industry.

You can't do that in other industries just as easily?

Not just any, certainly.

How about the Business Development Bank? This was clearly under Chretien and Jean Carle's close control.

You won't catch me defending Chretien. But these corruptions are so "small town cheap". It suggests a circle of corrupt cronies profitteering in their back yards, not a nation-wide criminal network.

[kimmy]

You won't catch me defending Chretien. But these corruptions are so "small town cheap". It suggests a circle of corrupt cronies profitteering in their back yards, not a nation-wide criminal network.

Or, a prosecutor might suggest, a "pattern of behavior".

One respect in which the sponsorship program may have been different from other government portfolios is that the Liberals say they intentially bypassed normal contract regulations in the interest of expediency. "We were saving the country!" they've said, by way of justifying their scoff-law attitude toward the rules in this instance.

Now, I don't know that it's true and I don't know that it's not true. Did Chretien go to Gagliano and Guite and say "Spend whatever money you need to, and damn the rules," or was that something that they didn't decide until after Sheila Fraser found the irregularities? I don't know, and in the big picture it doesn't matter that much. But in the question of whether the same kind of attitude went on in other departments, I suppose it's relevant.

Another thing which I suppose is somewhat relevant to the question of whether the same kind of practices went on in other programs, is that the RCMP has laid fraud charges against Guite and Brault in regard to bogus contracts for the gun registry as well as sponsorship.

-kimmy

[Argus]

Dear Argus,

ONLY in the advertising business?

Why not do it with other suppliers? Why?

I am guessing that advertising is a service business, and not a goods business. The 'market' value of advertising is wide open for interpretation, whereas tangible goods such as vehicles, toilet seats, etc have a market value that is hard to stretch. Sure, they could have purchased a few $100,000 toilet seats, and asked for kick-backs out of the profits, but it is much easier to hide overpayment for a non-asset purchase.

Please use a little imagination. The differences between prices for various goods can be enormous. You can buy a truck, say for the military, and the price can rise or fall by thousands without notice.

One of the things I've long heard is that CIDA is a huge source of rewards for government contributors. CIDA doesn't give money to foreign countries so much as allow them to purchase from government recognized suppliers. So the supplier jacks up his price by 10% and lowers the quality, and thus his cost by 20-30% and foreigners wind up purchasing (with our donated money) everything from tractors to machine parts which are far overvalued. The result is multi-million dollar profits for the recognized suppliers.

The last aircraft training contract awarded to bombardier by the military was worth tens of millions, and they have done an attrocious job, but will still collect the full payment.

The government is the biggest purchaser of goods and services in this country. And most of it goes unnoticed by the media. It also gives out massive numbers of grants and loans which are seldom remarked upon except when they sound odd, like 100k to study the mating habits of Australian swamp flies, or a 250k loan to a business partner of Chretien's(never repaid).

Studies, in fact, are very useful, and the price is just as easy to interpret. Then there's legal services. This govenment has set a record in purchasing outside legal services - how much of that has gone to Liberal friendly law firms, and at what rate? Just look at the Gomery Commision itself. The government set no rate limits when it agreed to pay for the lawyers of anyone and everyone involved. For that matter the lawyers representing the Liberal Party are being paid for by us - again with no rates set. They can charge whatever they want.

And again, those trusts. Ten billion dollars. And everything they do is in the form of prividing grants. To who? What is the criteria? Who is getting the money? What is the value to Canada? We don't know because Martin exempted them from the Auditor General and the Access to Information act. Why?

[Argus]

Another thing which I suppose is somewhat relevant to the question of whether the same kind of practices went on in other programs, is that the RCMP has laid fraud charges against Guite and Brault in regard to bogus contracts for the gun registry as well as sponsorship.

Does anyone here really trust the RCMP to fully and honestly investigate anything involving the government?The RCMP is in their pockets. The commisioner is nothing more than a lickspittle yes-man with a leather fetish. They had no trouble using the RCMP to harrass Francois Beaudoin in the BDC affair. I don't think they'd have trouble conducting an "investigatioin" which found no evidence linking the liberals to any wrongdoing.

[The Terrible Sweal]

You won't catch me defending Chretien.  But these corruptions are so "small town cheap".  It suggests a circle of corrupt cronies profitteering in their back yards, not a nation-wide criminal  network.

Or, a prosecutor might suggest, a "pattern of behavior".

Certainly, yes. But a pattern engaged in by who, specifically?

One respect in which the sponsorship program may have been different from other government portfolios is that the Liberals say they intentially bypassed normal contract regulations in the interest of expediency. "

I think that all of Canada's federal governments trhoughout our history have engage in practices which fit under that description. And you could substitute in the words 'patronage' or 'corruption' for expediency.

AND, electing the Torybastards, or the NDP for that matter, won't break that pattern just because we switch parties.

[kimmy]

If elections were criminal trials, you could probably get Paul Martin acquitted on a "reasonable doubt" defence. But elections aren't criminal trials, and Paul Martin doesn't have the right to be presumed elected until proven guilty.

Personally, while I think Paul Martin is probably a good person at heart, I'm just no longer confident in his abilities, and that's all the reason I need to not vote for his party next election.

There's also the question of how many of Chretien's old associates are still in prominent positions in the party. Even if one believes Martin was innocent and unaware of wrongdoing, what about the Chretienites in the party that are still there? If all the Chretien loyalists were defeated in the next election, would Paul Martin have enough seats to even be official opposition?

Further, even if one assumes Martin's innocence and ignores questions about remaining corrupt elements within the party, there's still the question of whether people can trust PMPM to deal with things in a thorough, complete, and effective manner. We've seen the resistance from within his own party. Do people really trust him to do a good (or "good enough") job of seeing justice done?

What I'm getting at, is that even if Paul Martin didn't personally do anything wrong, that's not a very compelling reason to vote for him.

-kimmy

[Argus]

AND, electing the Torybastards,

I notice you're starting to use this term in various threads. I'm not sure if you're under the mistaken impression that this is witty, whether you're baiting the moderator, or if you believe this is the type of word usage which impresses others. Would you care to clear that up for me?

[The Terrible Sweal]

Personally, while I think Paul Martin is probably a good person at heart, I'm just no longer confident in his abilities, and that's all the reason I need to not vote for his party next election.

Yes , but that's a different question.

There's also the question of how many of Chretien's old associates are still in prominent positions in the party. Even if one believes Martin was innocent and unaware of wrongdoing, what about the Chretienites in the party that are still there? 

... Do people really trust him to do a good (or "good enough") job of seeing justice done?

All good reasons to wait for the report.

[kimmy]

I've always been somewhat in favor of waiting for the report. I'll point out that the Liberals and their boosters haven't felt the same way until just a couple of weeks ago.

The recent bundling of Kyoto and Atlantic equalization measures was, allegedly, an attempt to provoke a non-confidence vote, apparently in the belief that the Liberals would fare better in an election now than they would after the Gomery report. And of course, prior to the last election, the opposition parties called in Martin to hold off on an election until after the results of the inquiry were known; Martin declined. His plea last week for the opposition to not defeat his government until after the report comes out was the first time they've said anything to the effect of not wanting to go to the polls until the report comes out.

Was this sudden interest in waiting for Gomery's report prompted by an epiphany of some sort? Or was this change of heart just the latest strategic decision in their "oh shit- what do we do now?" damage-control plan? Perhaps it was motivated by idealism, or perhaps it was motivated by political self-interest-- people will have to judge for themselves.

And the Conservatives' decision on whether to wait for Gomery's report or support a non-confidence motion? Perhaps that decision will also be made by idealism or perhaps political self-interest-- people will have to judge that for themselves too.

-kimmy