Disgruntled Tories consider refounding Reform Party

[Michael Bluth]

But as far as this discussion is concerned, I already stated it - both tried to please fiscal and social conservatives at the same time as trying to please moderates (and even centre-left to some degree). Both ended up not winning too much support while pissing off many people in their base.

Not even close to accurate. Your comparison is completely off base in what you ascribe to Bush.

George W. Bush turned the surpluses of the Clinton years into huge deficits. Thanks in large part to the war in Iraq, the most expensive war in American history. Not pleasing to fiscal conservatives at all.

What do you think Bush has done to appeal to moderates?

So the comparison between Bush and Harper is pretty weak.

But it is fostered by the left because it adds credence to scary scary scary.

[BC_chick]

Bush made many social conservatives angry by not amending the constitution against gay-marriage.

Harper made many social conservatives angry by closing the book when the issue was voted down in parliament.

Bush made fiscal conservatives angry by signing billion dollars bills for prescription drugs for the elderly, starting wars, nation-building....

Harper made fiscal conservatives angry by giving Quebec huge chuncks of money, not cutting taxes, and taxing income-trusts.

Bush didn't manage to win too many hearts and minds amongst the left despite preaching to be a conservative and then governing from the centre.

Harper didn't manage to win too many hearts and minds (36% is pretty much where he was Jan06 also) amongst the left despite preaching to be a conservative and then governing from the centre.

As for brining this up in a Canadian political forum.... I didn't make a huge deal of it, I mentioned it en passant just to say that he should've learned from Bush a lesson or two about trying to please everyone at the same time. If anyone's making a big deal of it now, it's certainly not me.

[gc1765]

Bush made many social conservatives angry by not amending the constitution against gay-marriage.

Harper made many social conservatives angry by closing the book when the issue was voted down in parliament.

They both did what the could to get rid of gay marrige...they just didn't have the support they needed to do so.

This part is probably true:

Bush made fiscal conservatives angry by signing billion dollars bills for prescription drugs for the elderly, starting wars, nation-building....

Harper made fiscal conservatives angry by giving Quebec huge chuncks of money, not cutting taxes, and taxing income-trusts.

...although Bush cut taxes (at the expense of the debt). Do fiscal conservatives in the U.S. care about deficits? Or do they just want tax cuts? I don't know.

Bush didn't manage to win too many hearts and minds amongst the left despite preaching to be a conservative and then governing from the centre.

Harper didn't manage to win too many hearts and minds (36% is pretty much where he was Jan06 also) amongst the left despite preaching to be a conservative and then governing from the centre.

I wouldn't say Bush governed from the centre...

[Michael Bluth]

I wouldn't say Bush governed from the centre...

Nobody would, unless trying to draw unfair comparisons between Harper and Bush.

The comparisons are so tortured.

No National leader is going to make everybody happy with all of their decisions. That is what leadership is.

To use those examples as why Harper hasn't learned from Bush is ridiculous. They are such minor points of what both have done in Government.

The left tries to make the comparison because of the general, and well-founded, dislike for Bush that many Canadians feel.

[gc1765]

The left tries to make the comparison because of the general, and well-founded, dislike for Bush that many Canadians feel.

There are a few comparisons that can be drawn, such as support for the Iraq war, or opposition to SSM...but governing from the centre is not a comparison that can be made, IMO.

[scribblet]

Trying to compare Harper to Bush is stereotyping strictly for polemic reasons.

[Michael Bluth]

Trying to compare Harper to Bush is stereotyping strictly for polemic reasons.

Completely agreed.

But that's the key for the hateocracy. It's all about attacking. At least BC chick tried to make an argument. She didn't do very well, but kudos for trying.

[noahbody]

Besides, my point was that Haper can't please his social-conservative base, his fiscally-conservative base, AND the rest of Canada at the same time. His flip-flopping policies on the environment and income-trusts only demonstrate that point.

Explain how his 'flip-flopping' on the environment and income trusts only demonstrate that point. Explain why you call these "flip-flopping" while you're at it. As far as income-trusts goes, there was no flip-flop, the circumstances changed. If the Liberals were in power, they would have had to do the same thing.

I don't think we can forget that Harper is governing as if he is in the minority. If he was more conservative, he'd be criticized for governing as if he has a majority.

[Michael Bluth]

Explain how his 'flip-flopping' on the environment and income trusts only demonstrate that point. Explain why you call these "flip-flopping" while you're at it. As far as income-trusts goes, there was no flip-flop, the circumstances changed. If the Liberals were in power, they would have had to do the same thing.

I don't think we can forget that Harper is governing as if he is in the minority. If he was more conservative, he'd be criticized for governing as if he has a majority.

Yet another example of BC_Chick's polemic reasons for posting here.

The "flip-flops" weren't that at all.

[geoffrey]

The "flip-flops" weren't that at all.

He didn't say this?

I'd be ok with a flip flop if it made sense, but there has yet to be ANY independant evidence in favour. In fact, all evidence is to the contrary. Harper made a play to appease Quebec (going after Alberta's income trust dependant junior oil companies), and the Quebeckers weren't very impressed.

Oh well. It was a flipflop regardless of the outcome or "goodness" of the move.

[Figleaf]

...If the rich were smart, they'd either direct the Liberals or the CPC into that social middleground that Harper seems to have found, and then push the pro-business agenda.

That's the history of the Liberal party in a nutshell.

It's a winning ballot in Canada. Harper has been very unimpressive on the tax cuts, and the business community has been highly critical of many decisions (foreign investment, income trusts, corporate regulations). He's an economist trying to run a real economy, in the history of Canada we've learned that it's best to leave that to the businessmen (Martin is the best example of a competent Finance minister, Flaherty is a hack). Idealistic views on the economy are silly at best.

Excellent point.

[geoffrey]

That's the history of the Liberal party in a nutshell.

And a reasonable statement about all conservative governments that have won majorities.

[Figleaf]

... If he were smart, he'd cut a bunch of stuff, open health care up to privatisation and slash our taxes... he'd at least win over a segement he can hold. Instead, he panders on social programs, to Quebec and on ridiculous environmental inititives.

Holding the base means never winning a majority. I think Harper sees that as a dead end; line up with the NDP for proportional representation and perpetual minorities.

[Michael Bluth]

I'd be ok with a flip flop if it made sense, but there has yet to be ANY independant evidence in favour. In fact, all evidence is to the contrary. Harper made a play to appease Quebec (going after Alberta's income trust dependant junior oil companies), and the Quebeckers weren't very impressed.

Oh well. It was a flipflop regardless of the outcome or "goodness" of the move.

Nobody is questioning the promise that was made.

noahbody said it best. Circumstances changed.

Had Telus and BCE announced that they were examining converting to trust status when Harper made the promise? No.

Was it fair to assume that other large companies would have to follow suit for competitive reasons? Yes.

Did this signal the circumstances changed? Yes.

Was it a flip flop? No.

[gc1765]

Had Telus and BCE announced that they were examining converting to trust status when Harper made the promise? No.

Is it not foreseeable that if you promise not to tax income trusts, companies are going to want to convert in order to avoid taxes? It was a stupid promise to make, and I'm sure most people could see what was going to happen.

[Michael Bluth]

Is it not foreseeable that if you promise not to tax income trusts, companies are going to want to convert in order to avoid taxes? It was a stupid promise to make, and I'm sure most people could see what was going to happen.

Easy to say in hindsight.

Maybe it was a stupid promise to make. But they did.

Would it have been smarter to keep the promise to avoid being called flip-floppers?

[gc1765]

Easy to say in hindsight.

Not really, I saw it before it happened, and I'm no expert. Companies were already converting to trusts, and if companies knew they weren't going to be taxed (if they trusted Harper) of course more would convert.

Would it have been smarter to keep the promise to avoid being called flip-floppers?

No. I'm not critical of their decision. I think they shouldn't have made the promise in the first place.

[geoffrey]

Is it not foreseeable that if you promise not to tax income trusts, companies are going to want to convert in order to avoid taxes? It was a stupid promise to make, and I'm sure most people could see what was going to happen.

I don't want to get too much into the Trust situation on this thread as I've covered it in depth in the thread titled Income Trusts, but the bottom line is that the Trust decision was wrong when Harper promised to never tax trusts... and was wrong when he decided to.

The situation had changed, but in favour of opening up Trusts.

The Income Trust decision was a very poor decision for all Canadians and our future economic prosperity. All the independant evidence agrees with me as I've posted a few reports in the Income Trusts thread. To this point I've found zero (and no one has posted any) independant research to the contrary.

He flipflopped, no doubt... but really I could care less. I care far more that his flipflops were bad choices.

[Michael Bluth]

Not really, I saw it before it happened, and I'm no expert. Companies were already converting to trusts, and if companies knew they weren't going to be taxed (if they trusted Harper) of course more would convert.

How much money did you make by going short on income trusts?

Seriously.

[gc1765]

Not really, I saw it before it happened, and I'm no expert. Companies were already converting to trusts, and if companies knew they weren't going to be taxed (if they trusted Harper) of course more would convert.

How much money did you make by going short on income trusts?

Seriously.

I said I could predict that companies would convert to trusts IF trusts weren't being taxed (I don't think that's hard to predict). I didn't predict Harper going back on his word.

...besides, I don't invest much (don't have much to begin with )

[BC_chick]

At least BC chick tried to make an argument. She didn't do very well, but kudos for trying.

Yet nobody touched that post except gc who agreed with some of my points. Yes, kudos to me for at least trying to make an argument - good or bad, at least I presented one, unlike you and your camp.

All you say is "oh no, the big bad left makes unjust comparisons to fear-monger."

Yet, when presented with multiple examples thereof, you are all strangely silent.

[BC_chick]

I wouldn't say Bush governed from the centre...

I wouldn't say he governed from the right either, and he certainly didn't govern from the left. Fiscally, he spent more than Clinton who was infamous for his spending and of all the three hot-topic social-conservative issues, SSM, Roe vs. Wade and stem-cell research, he only put his foot down on the easiest one - stem-cell reseach.

[betsy]

The split within the party is between people like myself and people like Michael Bluth (on this forum). He wants Tory power at all costs, I want less government in my life. That's what Harper was supposed to stand for, I like him because he wasn't a social conservative, at least not in dealing with others (much like myself, I am disgusted by gay marriage and abortion and those that are involved in it, but I don't seek to really get involved, not my issue). He was the ultimate small government guy coming from an organization I strongly supported, the NCC.

Instead we have the biggest government ever, social engineering left and right... it's terrible.

That's the split in the party. Not between the fiscal and social conservatives. Between the power at all costs people and those with princples that aren't willing to change just to see 'their boy' in the PMO.

I too, am dismayed at how Harper had turned his back on SSM, the Environment...and like you, I want LESS Government.

However, having said that....I am a realist I guess. If it's choosing between a Conservative-inclined leader or a looney left that wants control, control, control.....yes, I'd want for Harper to stay in power at all costs.

I can see that Harper is left with no choice but to appease...and pander to the demands of left-leaning population. This is the result of 13 years under the Liberal government. A lot of young people today have grown on Liberal ideology. Our Public School System is one big training ground!

As a new comer to this country decades ago, an old-timer immigrant teaching a newbie like me had said: " Liberals are our friends. Conservatives are racists." And why is the Liberal Party the "party for immigrants?" Because a lot of us are just simple folks, grateful to be out of corrupt, war-torn, poverty-stricken countries....like babes, easier to manipulate and "educate to certain thinking and idealogies."

And how about the lotus-eaters? Give them their clinics and let them be happy.

And Canada, being a socialist society....well, even a lot of those professing to be small conservatives...tend to lean more to the left! Harper is fighting a strong current.

If ever any of these looney lefties ever get into power now....we'll see the likes of control-binges we've never seen before!

You can just imagine the kinds of controls they'll do to meet the target Kyoto at all cost (for starters).

The Universal Brainwash Daycare, that will ensure the lefties' hold on power for eternity (Public School system will no longer be good enough). Mould those little minds to liberal ideology....it becomes second-nature.

More power to the Gay Rights Movement...and to all other movements under the sun...that had worked hard to bolster up the lefties.

Some of the rights we've enjoyed all along will most probably go down the tube!

Free speech will be a goner! Freedom of religion will be a goner! Freedom of choice will be a goner!

And then, they go into your own home. On the pretext of protecting the children. Protecting your own health.

Protecting the environment.

We've now got expropriation of certain properties without compensation...in the name of ecology....environment!

Depending on what looney left gets into power....we may even end up losing our homes.

EQUALITY FOR ALL.

If the left gets hold of the government now.....we may never see any Conservative-inclined government ever again.

[Argus]

Your looking at the problem completely wrong. The only reason I want to see Reform back is that things were far more fiscally conservative with Chretien and Manning fighting back and forth than with Harper in power.

The split within the party is between people like myself and people like Michael Bluth (on this forum). He wants Tory power at all costs, I want less government in my life. That's what Harper was supposed to stand for, I like him because he wasn't a social conservative, at least not in dealing with others (much like myself, I am disgusted by gay marriage and abortion and those that are involved in it, but I don't seek to really get involved, not my issue). He was the ultimate small government guy coming from an organization I strongly supported, the NCC.

Instead we have the biggest government ever, social engineering left and right... it's terrible.

That's the split in the party. Not between the fiscal and social conservatives. Between the power at all costs people and those with princples that aren't willing to change just to see 'their boy' in the PMO.

What you seem to be suggesting is that you want a government which does everything you want, and does nothing you don't want.

Good luck with that.

Even with the compromises they've made Harper's party is still not close to the kind of majority territory they need to be able to put aside immediate political worries and go for the fiscally conservative policies that, let's face it, we know they want to bring in. Do they want to get rid of the CBC, for example? Of course they do. But they can't do it now so there's really no point talking about it. Do they want to slash the budget? Sure. But Canadians are addicted to programs. They've been taught for most of the last generation that government is responsible for solving all their problems, and that someone else will happily pay for it. Given a choice between a Tory government which tells them we need to make huge slashes, and an opposition promising everything they want at no cost to them, Canadians will flock to the opposition.

Chretien and Martin might have been more fiscally conservative in the early going, but that was because they had no opposition to worry about, no credible threat to their rule, and were of a mentality that basically was not interested in doing anything unless there was political benefit to them in it. But we saw, once the new Tory party became an actual threat how quickly the money taps were turned full on and the money lavished on every interest group.

To suggest that splitting the right vote, and thus putting the Liberals back in office would somehow result in more conservative policies is absurd. Dion is not Chretien. Chretien cared about nothing but power. Dion is an academic, and academics love their paper theories. He would easily outdo Harper on spending, while bringing in more and more social control and engineering programs and projects. Not to mention spending billions and billions more on reducing emissions - not because he cares about that, but because he's tied his entire political existence to the being Mr. Environment.

Be satisfied with having some of what you want, hope the Conservatives get better at shaping public opinion, and stop looking to unrealistic alternatives.

[scribblet]

What is clearly missing from all this is the fact that this is a minority gov't, it changes how a party governs but no one seems to consider that. If they tried to govern as if they had a majority there would have been an election by now. The gov't has to try to appease everyone, they have to try to keep savage dogs at bay (well watch question period - ) and so far they've done a good job at it.