Canada's Conservatives

[kimmy]

The reality is the Gomery commission has severely damaged you Liberals  ...

I'm not a Liberal.

Like Argus says. Some of the arguments you've made over the past couple of months in support of the Liberals have seemed so strained that I've wondered if you were on the payroll. And, I mean, I understand you blasting the CPC on a regular basis, but in the "cities" thread where you essentially accused Jack Layton of being Buzz Hargrove's hand puppet? Chee. That was pretty over the top.

-k

[I miss Reagan]

... you've referred unflatteringly to the NDP, and certainly you hate the Tories. And you've been one of the strongest defenders of the Liberals on this site.

I simply oppose false and unethical accusations in general.

I hate to agree with Argus but he's right. Of any group you seem to be most closely aligned the Liberals, and you obviously loathe the Conservatives. Oddly, true classical liberals or libertarians usually find the most common ground with the conservative parties.

[The Terrible Sweal]

The reality is the Gomery commission has severely damaged you Liberals  ...

I'm not a Liberal.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

... in the "cities" thread where you essentially accused Jack Layton of being Buzz Hargrove's hand puppet? Chee. That was pretty over the top.

You think so? Hm. When it was time to cut a deal with PM and support the budget, who was at the table with Jack close it? Who was at his side when he announced it to sanctify it?

Sure I was trying to get bigdude's goat a little, but I was pointing out a real problem the NDP has in making themselves more broadly palatable. They are rightly perceived as too beholden to Big Labor.

I hate to agree with Argus but he's right. Of any group you seem to be most closely aligned the Liberals, and you obviously loathe the Conservatives.

It is true that of the three major parties as they stand now, I believe the best choice to govern federally is the Liberals. But I desperately wish there were better realistic options. I find myself drawn in some ways to the Canadian Action Party, but I worry there may be a hidden leftist or establishment agenda under the economic nationalism. The Greens have some appeal too.

Oddly, true classical liberals or libertarians usually find the most common ground with the conservative parties.

There's a couple of muddles in that sentence, which is causing your confusion perhaps.

First, classical liberalism should not be confused with libertarianism. The latter has a more pronounced philosophical antipathy to co-operative/state action.

Your use of the term conservative to describe parties today involves its confused and contradictory modern understanding. When the terms liberal and conservative first entered the lexicon they were philosophical opposites on the issue of whether to change social organization to accommodate individual liberty or to conserve the existing social organization sustained by class (or other group) determinism.

In intervening years, the liberal philosophy won out in our 'western society', to the extent that liberal philosophy has effectively been implemented in the form of our present institutions. During this process of change, the term 'conservative' lost it's specific association with monarchial feudalism, and came to represent all impulse against liberal change as it occured from moment to moment. That is, while conservatives of the 1790s opposed changes from conditions as compared to the 1740s, conservatives of the 1860s did not oppose changes from the 1740s, they opposed changes from the 1810s. Conservatism's objectives evolved as they continued to lose ground to liberalism.

By the late 20th century, most western states had reached the point that the institutional liberal agenda had been substantially completed. This means that a classical liberal can look at out institutions and say "Yes, these institutions provide for what I think are the necessary underpinnings for society." Accordingly, a classical liberal would find himself wishing no longer to change the institutions, but to preserve them ... or conserve them, if you will. So, in this sense classical liberals now find themselves in the position of being 'conservative' in some sense.

But, the 'conservative' parties are something else entirely. They may in part comprise classical liberals who believe that the purpose of the party is to preserve classical liberal institutions (or even roll back socialistic influences). But they also comprise many other influences which, in my opinion, a classical liberal would have to blind himself to to support the party. Specifically, I refer to (1) theocratic (or similarly ideological) elements who seek dramatic changes to remake our institutions along dogmatic lines; or (2) social atomists who object to the apparent burdens imposed by social organization.

[bigdude]

Demise of the Conservatives?

Canadian Catharsis

The Liberal Party will remain the dominant party in Canada - in fact, I think it will come out even stronger once all this is over.

The Conservative Party of Canada will most likely fall apart and open the door to the revival of the former Progressive Conservative Party. But even then, it will remain a fringe party only.

The NDP will see its numbers go up and may even become the official opposition.

It is quite clear, I think, that Canadians are moderate and mainstream voters, with the majority situated either in the centre or to the left. This alone will boost the fortunes of both the Liberals and the NDP.

[August1991]

By the late 20th century, most western states had reached the point that the institutional liberal agenda had been substantially completed. This means that a classical liberal can look at out institutions and say "Yes, these institutions provide for what I think are the necessary underpinnings for society." Accordingly, a classical liberal would find himself wishing no longer to change the institutions, but to preserve them ... or conserve them, if you will. So, in this sense classical liberals now find themselves in the position of being 'conservative' in some sense.

But, the 'conservative' parties are something else entirely. They may in part comprise classical liberals who believe that the purpose of the party is to preserve classical liberal institutions (or even roll back socialistic influences). But they also comprise many other influences which, in my opinion, a classical liberal would have to blind himself to to support the party. Specifically, I refer to (1) theocratic (or similarly ideological) elements who seek dramatic changes to remake our institutions along dogmatic lines; or (2) social atomists who object to the apparent burdens imposed by social organization.

Sweal, this is a lot of sophistry and self-rationalization.

I don't know how anyone who claims to be a classical liberal can in any way condone the absurd levels of government intervention proposed by the Liberals. Canadian governments take half our income, spend a big chunk of that on stuff nobody really wants and then shuffles what is left over between us in a crazy shell game. They also have a tendency to regulate us literally to death.

I am only looking at this issue from an economic standpoint. If I look at it from the political standpoint, the federal Liberal Party over the past 40 years or has done tremendous damage to what used to be a common sense of place. Now, Canada is just a series of competing regions, each wanting to get their piece of the pie.

TS, I suspect that you don't like the Conservatives for the simple reason that you favour gay marriage. That's it. You're a one issue voter, and the Liberals have conned you.

As for myself, I happen to favour same sex marriage but the Conservatives have proposed civil unions and I can live with that. IMV, the issue just isn't that important when set up against other factors.

[Guest eureka]

Classical liberals would not oppose government intervention. Can you find anything in say, Bentham or Smith, or Mill that opposes government intervention.

Governments do not take half our money in taxes: more like a third, or just over that.

In the past 40 years, we have had significant periods of Conservative government at both federal and provincial levels. I believe it is in those periods that most of the damage to the Canadian fabric has been done.Canada has become just competing regions and it has been Conservative policy to make it that - and still is their policy to exacerbate the pain.

[The Terrible Sweal]

I don't know how anyone who claims to be a classical liberal can in any way condone the absurd levels of government intervention proposed by the Liberals.  Canadian governments take half our income, spend a big chunk of that on stuff nobody really wants and then shuffles what is left over between us in a crazy shell game.  They also have a tendency to regulate us literally to death.

I don't condone over-regulation or excessive government. But neither do I measure the overness or excess from an ideologocal presumption that our government is necessarily malevolent or incompetent, or an external force acting against us.

I agree that our government has substantial folly and inefficency. I'm pissed at the Liberals for their many faults. But our realistic options are not better. The Liberals are imperfectly liberal, but neither the CPC nor NDP are liberal at all.

TS, I suspect that you don't like the Conservatives for the simple reason that you favour gay marriage.  That's it.  You're a one issue voter, and the Liberals have conned you.

A one issue voter? No, 'fraid not. As for SSM, my main interest is what it represents in terms of unreasoning theocratic influences creeping into mainstream politics.

[Cartman]

Sweal said:

I'm pissed at the Liberals for their many faults. But our realistic options are not better. The Liberals are imperfectly liberal, but neither the CPC nor NDP are liberal at all.

How are the other two options not liberal at all (while the Liberals are)? I believe that the Liberals and Conservatives are pretty much the same and that explains why we seem to hear of so many defections going to the other side.

[August1991]

Classical liberals would not oppose government intervention. Can you find anything in say, Bentham or Smith, or Mill that opposes government intervention.

I'm not opposed to government intervention, I just think it should be limited or reduced. The worst offense is through various regulations, price controls, subsidies - you name it, our governments do it.

Governments do not take half our money in taxes: more like a third, or just over that.

Some quick 2003 Statcan numbers:

GDP $1,200 billion

Consolidated government expenditure $460 billion

Consolidated government purchases $280 billion

Consolidated transfers to people $130 billion

Interest on debt $50 billion

Expenditure is all outlays including transfers to people and interest payments. The transfers include CPP and EI.

That puts put tax at about 40% and purchases of stuff at about 25%.

Crown corporations and government agencies are excluded from the above. That's why I gave the "half our income" quote.

How are the other two options not liberal at all (while the Liberals are)? I believe that the Liberals and Conservatives are pretty much the same and that explains why we seem to hear of so many defections going to the other side.

As a minimum, the Tories would be a new gang. But I happen to think that the Tories are sincere about trying to make government smaller and, to take a page from Blair and Clinton, to make government work better.

Around the world, other governments have clued into using markets and more sophisticated economic policies. In Canada, I get the impression there is a time warp - it's still tax-and-spend.

[kimmy]

Demise of the Conservatives?

Canadian Catharsis

Well golly! If "abacus" at the CanadaRocksThaHizzy.ca message board says the Conservatives are done for, then it must be so! I'm sure we can all agree that if there's one person in this country whose analysis is just on a higher level, it's "abacus" at the CanadaRocksThaHizzy.ca message board.

-k

[August1991]

CanadaRocksThaHizzy.ca

Huh? ... goes to dictionary:

4. Hizzy

A ho, or hizzho. Or a woman built like a brick house.

Yo, that bordello bitch is built like a brick house. What a fuckin' hizzy. She's a one-woman ho-house.

Right, get it. *Sigh*

[kimmy]

CanadaRocksThaHizzy.ca   

Huh?  ... goes to dictionary:

4. Hizzy

A ho, or hizzho. Or a woman built like a brick house.

Yo, that bordello bitch is built like a brick house. What a fuckin' hizzy. She's a one-woman ho-house.

Right, get it. *Sigh*

2.  hizzy

house

center of power

the place you call home

abercrobmie humor shirt

with photo of US Capitol dome and the

words "Take it to the Hizzy"

(although, your notion does make for a more vivid mental picture...)

-k

[bigdude]

Harper eases up on election posture

With seasoned communications staff leaving for greener pastures, ongoing internal grumbling over the Gurmant Grewal debacle and a new poll showing Conservative support sinking nationally, Harper has his own world of misery to face.

Two respected communications professionals have announced in the last week they’re leaving the Conservatives and there are rumblings of others bailing out.

While Mike Storeshaw and Jim Armour insist publicly and privately that their departures have nothing to do with the party’s direction, Harper is developing a reputation for letting good people slip away.

I actually think Harper (AKA Fraser Institute) should leave now with his tail between his legs. What an unmitigated disaster his leadership has turned out to be for the Conservatives. I think we now are facing a possible scenario that Albertans will be be voting Liberal in the next federal election to try and block or stop the Layton New Democrats.

[Canuck E Stan]

Yes, Alberta voting Liberal, yes that will definately happen, and the Liberals will win big in Quebec. And the GST will be dropped and the NDP will form the next government, and Paul Martin will defect and join the NDP and.........

[bigdude]

Have you heard the latest about everyone's favourit MP Grewal - there is something in the news tonite that may knock your socks off.

They are not even sure according to some news reports that he entered Canada legally.

[bigdude]

Why Tories Can't Win

The Tories have another major problem. All across the country they are nominating or are about to nominate right wing Christians. I’ll get into why that’s a bad thing in a later column but let it be said that the right wing political agenda is not that of the average Ontarian who is not going to let gay marriages bother him too much and certainly isn’t going to return to the pre Morgenthaler days on the abortion issue.

It might be argued, I suppose, that most Canadians are a godless lot which, if true, only makes the fundamentalist Christian look even more out of place on the overall political landscape. There is something about the preachy, stiff collared, morality pest that turns off all but the farm belters. Since it’s the cities in Ontario which must be captured by the Tories, the image of new Tory campaigners with floppy hats and string ties carrying the Good Book under their arm makes them look like space invaders to city folk.

The Tories have another major problem. All across the country they are nominating or are about to nominate right wing Christians. I’ll get into why that’s a bad thing in a later column but let it be said that the right wing political agenda is not that of the average Ontarian who is not going to let gay marriages bother him too much and certainly isn’t going to return to the pre Morgenthaler days on the abortion issue.

It might be argued, I suppose, that most Canadians are a godless lot which, if true, only makes the fundamentalist Christian look even more out of place on the overall political landscape. There is something about the preachy, stiff collared, morality pest that turns off all but the farm belters. Since it’s the cities in Ontario which must be captured by the Tories, the image of new Tory campaigners with floppy hats and string ties carrying the Good Book under their arm makes them look like space invaders to city folk.

And this from an old Socred right winger. He is on the money though with several but not all of his comments.

I wonder if the Conservatives are going to realize what a dud they have for leader before or after the next election. If I were a Conservative supporter I would definitely want Harper replaced before the vote. At this point I am not willing to give Harper's Conservatives 75 seats in the next federal election.

[bigdude]

A cure for what ails Conservatives

Which brings me back to Stephen Harper, the man whose eyes gleam these days with intimations of his own demise. I am told that he is the smartest person on his staff, that he can't be managed, and that he prefers to give rather than take advice. To date, that approach has left him fighting to stay ahead of Jack Layton and the NDP in the opinion polls and so far behind the Liberals he can't even see the tail-lights of the getaway car.

Even young blue eyes can't deny he has been dealt some pretty good hands: Adscam, Liberal turncoat purchasing, dud subs, even, for a fleeting moment, a babe with a bank account bigger even than Stephen's strangely unsettling ambition to be boss. So far, he hasn't won a pot.

Now he has the Supreme Court of Canada and the Canadian Medical Association making the case that the guys who lied, cheated and stole are also killing us with a great idea that no longer works -- our dearly held and deeply troubled universal health care system. If Harper can't win this hand, that card he has just drawn will add up to aces and eights.

I agree this is another golden opportunity, perhaps the most significant one since he became leader, however I am not confident that Harper has the smarts to grasp it.

Do you?

[The Terrible Sweal]

Why Tories Can't Win

The Tories have another major problem. All across the country they are nominating or are about to nominate right wing Christians. ...

The Tories have another major problem. All across the country they are nominating or are about to nominate right wing Christians. ...

And this from an old Socred right winger. He is ...

Dude, it's bad enough you clog the threads with long quotes, but you really don't need to repeat the same text.

BTW, the healthcare ruling is not a great opportunity for the tories. They will grasp a handful of nettles if they try to do aything with it.

The ruling is a great opportunity for the NDP if they have they smarts to use it.