Election 2015

[dapaterson]

Could be, but they and the chattering classes came to believe it. Years and years ago I heard a political science professor from Queens (I think) expound at length on why the PCs could never win an election. His reason was something like that there were too many different factions in the PC party to ever be able to cooperate and form a united front.

The Liberals really had no compelling philosophy except to retain power at all costs.

So, you're saying that the two parties have switched, then...

 

[Harrigan]

http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/the-conservative-plan-to-become-canadas-natural-governing-party

Both the Liberals and CPC aspire to be the 'natural governing party'.....

The Liberals really had no compelling philosophy except to retain power at all costs.

And yet the electorate has been electing Liberals more often than not for a hundred years.....  clearly there must be something about their policies that people have agreed with.  I suspect it is the 'balance' that they have traditionally held between conservatism and progressivism.  Most people are not complete devotees of either side, but reside in the "mushy middle", as Mr.Campbell has correctly described it. 

....and the Liberals are certainly waist-deep in the "mush", don't you think?  ;D

Harrigan

 

[Kilo_302]

More on the Eve Adams debacle. I cannot for the life of me understand the appeal of Trudeau:

http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/michael-laxer/2015/07/eve-adams-shows-trudeau-jig

The calculation was obvious. The NDP was supposedly "finished" and the Liberals simply had to show that they were ready to govern and to appeal to soft Conservative voters who felt that Harper had gone too far.

Trudeau thought he could take "progressive" voters for granted.

The NDP had dimmed in the polls, Mulcair was not terribly popular personally and the traditional Ottawa narrative of red vs. blue seemed to have reasserted itself after an interregnum of a couple of years.

In these circumstances it seemed that getting behind candidates like Eve Adams and taking a completely gutless and pandering stance voting for, while also supposedly "opposing", Bill C-51 probably made sense to Trudeau and his "brain trust".

Not so much anymore.

Parachuting in such a grotesquely opportunistic "liberal" and backing her candidacy was profoundly cynical on Trudeau's part and his own party, as his star fades, has now directly repudiated him.

While Trudeau has attempted to shift left lately, it looks to be too little too late.

He has already allowed the mask to fall. There was no principle there -- nor even the flawed though very clear vision of his father. There was simply a desire to take power.

This is a common affliction these days in mainstream bourgeois politics and Trudeau is certainly not the only leader guilty of it.

But in a morally empty art where the execution is the key he has failed spectacularly in something to which he had hitched his name.

It is another indication that, in all likelihood, as with Dion and Ignatieff before, a truly weak supposed Liberal saviour has been exposed as little more than a sad and tired farce.

 

[a_majoor]

The Liberals have been successful despite their lack of principle (or principles) precisely because they were much more skilled as a "Transactive" party, able to use a growing economy to pay off various factions and supporters for votes.

This works when there are few eggs to juggle (Big Banks, Big Business, Big Labour), but eventually conditions change and deal making becomes more difficult or counterproductive. The LPC was able to squeeze out a few more years in the 1990's since the political "right" was divided, but it was clear by the mid 90's, when they were using the same "Red Book" platform as they did in 1993 that they were running out of steam, and by 2006, the bottle was empty (how many election cycles in a row can you promise "National Day Care" as the ruling party?).

They failed to renew themselves multiple times, Mr Dithers could never explain why he wanted to be Prime Minister, Mr Dion and Mr Ignatieff also failed to explain in any coherent way just what they were planning for Canada (the Dion plan was incoherent, and Ignatieff's "Big Thinker" conference simply ended up with "more of the same"). The LPC attempt to replace ideas with celebrity is also not working very well for them either. In the mean time, demographics, economic power, technology and society was evolving to the point that many of the Liberals ideas and institutions were largely irrelevant or even counterproductive as far as Canadians are concerned, which is why the two "Transformative" parties are now running neck and neck, and the Liberals behind in third place.

Appealing to past history is instructive in understanding how *we* got here, but like a mutual fund disclaimer suggests: "Past performance is no grantee of future results".

 

[George Wallace]

More on the Eve Adams debacle. I cannot for the life of me understand the appeal of Trudeau:

http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/michael-laxer/2015/07/eve-adams-shows-trudeau-jig

Just another case of the hypocrisy to be found in his leadership.  Don't forget his hypocritical action in parachuting Andrew Leslie into the Orleans constituency, as 'his' candidate for that seat in the coming election.  He says one thing, and then contradicts it with these two cases.  Definitely was not a point to swing me to vote for him or any of his candidates.  He hasn't even been elected and has broken his word.

 

[Edward Campbell]

It's rare that I would agree on anything with Michael Laxer (I would agree on nothing with his father, ever) but he's right: the Liberals, Team Trudeau anyway, were complacent and cynical and they for burned for being both.

I reiterate: I wish the Liberal Party well: I would rather see a Conservative (centre-right & centre) vs Liberal (centre & centre left) axis around which government would rotate than a Conservative (which would become right of centre & centre right & (less and less)centre) vs NDP ((a little bit) centre & centre left & left of centre) axis.

I would, in my perfect world, like to see a four party system:

                                                                        A right and right of centre party, let's call it Reform;

                                          A centre right and centre party, let's call them the Conservatives;

                          A centre & centre left party, lets call them the Liberals; and

    A left of centre and left wing party which we can call the NDP.

Of course there are is always room on fringes for regional protest groups, like the BQ, and fruitcakes like the Greens and the Christian Heritage Party.

 

[Rocky Mountains]

The only situation in which I can imagine that happening is if there is a large Conservative majority, say 160+ of the 170 seats needed, but M Mulcair, with, say, 125 seats, supported by M Duceppe (8 seats) and Ms May (2), decides to make a grab for power and asks M Trudeau (40 seats) to join . M Trudeau then fails to consult his caucus widely enough or deeply enough, and when he decides, "Yes, I'll join" and then announces his decision to the LPC caucus five to even ten of his members cannot stomach the decision and jump ship and promise to vote with the CPC on the confidence motion. A few of that small number might, indeed, move to the CPC but I think it is more likely that the rebel leaders would select one of their own to make a bid for the leadership of the LPC.

(Clear as mud but covers the ground?)

The scenario of who takes power if a Conservative minority is defeated in Parliament is irrelevant.  A new election is the only possibility.  I am confident Harper asked the Governor General before appointing him what he would do in such a situation and Harper recently re-appointed him to a 2 year term.  The interesting thing in a new election is the opposition would be broke and likely deep in debt.

 

[Edward Campbell]

The scenario of who takes power if a Conservative minority is defeated in Parliament is irrelevant.  A new election is the only possibility.  I am confident Harper asked the Governor General before appointing him what he would do in such a situation and Harper recently re-appointed him to a 2 year term.  The interesting thing in a new election is the opposition would be broke and likely deep in debt.

It depends, I think, on when the defeat happens.

If the government falls very, very early in the life of a new parliament (i.e. only a few months or even weeks after an election) the GG might, arguably should decide to ask the opposition leader to try to gain the confidence of parliament and pass an interim supply motion, at least.

The GG is bound, by the (unwritten) Constitution to listen to the PM; the GG is not obliged to obey the PM. The GG has powers of his/her own and (s)he has skilled constitutional law advisers to help in the exercise of those powers. The GG's duty is to have a functioning government, (s)he calls elections when, either, required by law or when a PM asks for one because, for example, the legislative mandate is done, or when the PM can no longer secure the confidence of the house and it seems unlikely that any other leader can, either. When there is a good possibility that another leader can secure confidence the GG should give him/her a chance to try ... it's the King-Byng Thing.

 

[Oldgateboatdriver]

The King-Byng Thing did not change any ultimate outcome, other than delaying the election some and resulting in the Balfour Declaration of 1926, leading to the Statute of Westminster and independent governor-generals not answering to the colonial office any more.

In Australia, you have had the constitutional crisis of 1975, where a GG used his reserve powers to dismiss a prime minister and appoint the opposition leader. Again, it changed nothing other than delaying the election some while ruffling feathers of the elected politicians and electorate to no extent. That GG is reviled in Australia.

Since then, and quite correctly in my estimation, no GG has dared to refuse to follow the advice of a PM in a British Parliamentary system. And I firmly believe that it would lead to an even greater constitutional crisis if they ever did as our democracy has evolved to the point where Canadians do not see the GG as anything else than a figure head, who must follow the advice of the duly elected politician, who are the ones we chose.

 

[dapaterson]

The King-Byng Thing did not change any ultimate outcome, other than delaying the election some and resulting in the Balfour Declaration of 1926, leading to the Statute of Westminster and independent governor-generals not answering to the colonial office any more.

In Australia, you have had the constitutional crisis of 1975, where a GG used his reserve powers to dismiss a prime minister and appoint the opposition leader. Again, it changed nothing other than delaying the election some while ruffling feathers of the elected politicians and electorate to no extent. That GG is reviled in Australia.

Since then, and quite correctly in my estimation, no GG has dared to refuse to follow the advice of a PM in a British Parliamentary system. And I firmly believe that it would lead to an even greater constitutional crisis if they ever did as our democracy has evolved to the point where Canadians do not see the GG as anything else than a figure head, who must follow the advice of the duly elected politician, who are the ones we chose.

Except a Prime Minister is not duly elected.  The PM commands a majority in the House of Commons; they are not elected by the population by popular suffrage.  Thus, their legitimacy rests on their ability to control the Commons.

 

[McG]

But we, the voters, do not chose a Prime Minister.  Parliament chooses (and for all practical purposes, the lead party chooses who gets fist shot at that).

So, if more parliamentarians can work with the guy from second place party, then that does see Canadians getting what they voted for.

The only way parliamentarians get to choose if they will support the second guy is if the GG extends the opportunity.

Simply following the direction of the leader of the first place party when he looses confidence in the first weeks ... that is not following the advice of the duly elected representatives (all Parlaiment); it is catering to the wants of a political party.

 

[Jed]

But we, the voters, do not chose a Prime Minister.  Parliament chooses (and for all practical purposes, the lead party chooses who gets fist shot at that).

So, if more parliamentarians can work with the guy from second place party, then that does see Canadians getting what they voted for.

The only way parliamentarians get to choose if they will support the second guy is if the GG extends the opportunity.

Simply following the direction of the leader of the first place party when he looses confidence in the first weeks ... that is not following the advice of the duly elected representatives (all Parlaiment); it is catering to the wants of a political party.

Probably technically correct. I believe OGBD has the right take on what the average Canadian voter will adhere to.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I believe that our, Westminster, system of responsible, parliamentary government is superior to e.g. the US model of representative government, but our, Canadian, implementation needs some work.

    First: we need to reform our legislative structure so that the House of Commons is much, much more equitable in its levels of representation and so that our Senate (which I believe is necessary) more adequately
    reflects a 21st century liberal-democratic country.

    Second: the sovereign's residual powers are important and we should not be afraid to allow her/him to use them when the time is right. Because of the nature of power on our parliamentary system, the sovereign's powers act as a needed check on the elected executive.

    Third: the sovereign needs to be be patriated.

    Fourth: party leaders must be accountable to and selected by their parliamentary caucuses. Allowing parties to select leaders, in the name of "grassroots democracy" simply hands political office over to special interests and partisans.

    Fifth our constitution needs to be abolished ... repealed, cancelled, annulled, whatever. Written constitutions, even the best (and ours is not the best by any stench of the imagination) are always problematical because they cannot help but reflect the issues and attitudes of
    their time. An unwritten constitution "lives" and "grows" in step with the society it serves. (Israel, New Zealand and the United Kingdom are examples of successful, sophisticated, modern, liberal democracies that do not have written constitutions.) Admittedly Canada, being
    a federal state (and likely, being "two nations" within a state, needing to remain a federation) needs a "Basic Law" to define the division of powers, at least, but such a basic law can be thorough and clear and very limited in its scope. Rights (and duties) and even principles
    need not be written down.

 

[Edward Campbell]

In this article, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail, NDP insider Gerald Caplan launches a blistering, but cogent attack on Prime Minister Stephen Harper and explains why he, Caplan, believes that he, Harper, is undeserving of re-election:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/this-election-the-question-is-does-harper-deserve-another-term/article25719375/

This election, the question is: Does Harper deserve another term?

GERALD CAPLAN
Special to The Globe and Mail

Published Monday, Jul. 27, 2015

Gerald Caplan is an Africa scholar, former NDP national director and regular panelist on CBC’s Power and Politics.

As every political insider will tell you, the real purpose of all campaigning is to establish the ballot question – that is, what each of us should be thinking when we actually vote. For the good of Canada, here’s what I hope the ballot question proves to be on October 19: Can Stephen Harper be trusted with another term in office?

In elections, we vote for a party and especially its leader not just on the basis of its contrived election-time platform but because we think we can trust them when unpredictable events take over the agenda, as they always do. There’s no way to plan or prepare for such phenomena – wars, recession, terrorism. Who knows what’s next? A leader’s character determines how he or she will respond to the unexpected.

In a real sense, the entire history of Mr. Harper’s almost 10 years in office has revolved explicitly around trust. Time after time, his government pushed initiatives that were harshly criticized by experts in the field. Each time, we had to ask ourselves: Do I believe what the government is telling me or do I go with the scientists, academics, health experts, constitutional maven and all the other specialists who have attacked so many of the government’s initiatives?

This past week has offered yet another example of this curious ritual. The Parliamentary Budget Officer Jean-Denis Frechette reported that the government will run a billion-dollar budget deficit this year, despite explicit assurances from the Prime Minister and Finance Minister Joe Oliver that the budget will be balanced.

What should us poor citizens do in the face of such a disagreement? How can we know what’s true? Since most of us can hardly be experts in all areas of governance, we really have no choice but to accept one side or the other. The answer, as so often in the past nine years, boils down to this: We can only believe the government’s blanket assurances if we disregard the evidence of the experts.

When the Harper government tells us that certain forms of asbestos are not necessarily toxic, yet virtually all scientists agree that all asbestos kills, there is no middle ground. We need to decide which side has the most credibility. This is not a hard one.

When the overwhelming number of scientists believe climate change is a clear and present danger but our government refuses to take the issue seriously, implicitly denying the scientific findings, whom do we believe? Another no-brainer, I’d say.

When the government actively pursues its law ‘n’ order agenda while Statistics Canada reports that violent crimes in Canada have generally fallen for the eighth straight year, what should we believe about how dangerous our streets are? And why does this issue remain a Harper government priority when the facts tell a different story? Are we talking about ideology and political opportunism, or evidence-based public policy?

What were we to think last year when literally hundreds of political scientists and constitutional experts told us the Fair Voting Act was deeply flawed, even antidemocratic, while day after day Pierre Poilievre for the government summarily dismissed every one of their concerns? Who was more credible?

Or when a large variety of experts warned against the excesses and dangers of the anti-terrorist bill C-51, while the government turned a completely deaf ear? There was no middle ground: You had to trust either the government or its authoritative critics. Again, not a particularly hard choice.

And the examples multiply still. When the Prime Minister and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada publicly disagree, who do we believe? When armed forces veterans and the government bitterly disagree, what do we think? When the Prime Minister insists he had nothing to do with Mike Duffy being paid $90,000 by the PM’s own chief of staff, can we believe Mr. Harper? Wouldn’t that depend on how credible he’s been on other matters?

For many, Mr. Harper’s omnibus budget bills are among the best reason to mistrust him. John Ralston Saul neatly describes them as “a thick jungle hiding dozens of dangerous traps.” Mr. Harper has dropped eight such traps on the House of Commons, some with over 400 pages covering issues that are wholly unrelated to each other. How could MPs even know all they contained? This newspaper editorialized that such bills reflect the Harper government’s “contempt for parliament.” Pretty straightforward on this one, then.

Any Canadian who has followed the practices of our government over the past decade will have her own examples of its integrity: The way they vilify and smear their opponents, perhaps; their contempt for democracy as well as Parliament; their foreign policy based on electoral considerations; their seeming indifference to aboriginal peoples. At bottom, all of these are issues that tell us how our government thinks and operates. They tell us whether the Prime Minister and his team can be trusted. Or as Chico asked Groucho, “Who you gonna believe? Me or your own eyes?” Gotta love those Marxists.

Now, with the exception of one point, I disagree, quite vehemently, with Mr Caplan. The point on which we do agree is that the question of Prime Minister Harper's fitness for another term IS a valid "ballot question."

I know that at least some of you will agree with Gerald Caplan and I commend his article to you. Those who are likely to disagree, however, should also read it with care because this will be a large part of the NDP's argument for themselves.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

"Gerald Caplan is an Africa scholar, former NDP national director and regular panelist on CBC’s Power and Politics."

Of course he is. His partisanship shines as an aura around him and his prose.

"This past week has offered yet another example of this curious ritual. The Parliamentary Budget Officer Jean-Denis Frechette reported that the government will run a billion-dollar budget deficit this year, despite explicit assurances from the Prime Minister and Finance Minister Joe Oliver that the budget will be balanced."

Nobody serious about the election or goings on in Parliament can take this serious. The MSM is trying to make this a horrible story.

In reality, it's like me being $10.00 short on my weekly budget of $1000.00. Nothing to see here.

"When the overwhelming number of scientists believe climate change is a clear and present danger but our government refuses to take the issue seriously, implicitly denying the scientific findings, whom do we believe? Another no-brainer, I’d say."

Except that GW has been debunked by more specialised and highly respected scientists. The MSM cannot publish or listen to them because if global warming became a non starter, their partisan readership would shrivel. Really, the leading spokesman for GW is Al Gore. C'mon.

"When the government actively pursues its law ‘n’ order agenda while Statistics Canada reports that violent crimes in Canada have generally fallen for the eighth straight year, what should we believe about how dangerous our streets are? And why does this issue remain a Harper government priority when the facts tell a different story? Are we talking about ideology and political opportunism, or evidence-based public policy?"

Of course that 'law and order agenda' has absolutely nothing with the dropping crime rates :

"When the Prime Minister insists he had nothing to do with Mike Duffy being paid $90,000 by the PM’s own chief of staff, can we believe Mr. Harper? Wouldn’t that depend on how credible he’s been on other matters?"

No, it will depend on the outcome of the court case. More NDP 'guilty until found innocent' claptrap.

"What were we to think last year when literally hundreds of political scientists and constitutional experts told us the Fair Voting Act was deeply flawed, even antidemocratic, while day after day Pierre Poilievre for the government summarily dismissed every one of their concerns? Who was more credible?"

Political scientist, by and large, have their own agenda. As do the constitutional experts (these are like military experts, basically, anyone the press can get a quote on for a story). Again, let's wait until it goes before the Supremes. Otherwise, it's bad press and rumour mongering.

"Or when a large variety of experts warned against the excesses and dangers of the anti-terrorist bill C-51, while the government turned a completely deaf ear? There was no middle ground: You had to trust either the government or its authoritative critics."

More bullshit. This is another one for the SC. Anyone nowadays can be an 'expert'. There is nothing magical or profound coming from the chattering classes.

"Mr. Harper has dropped eight such traps on the House of Commons, some with over 400 pages covering issues that are wholly unrelated to each other. How could MPs even know all they contained? This newspaper editorialized that such bills reflect the Harper government’s “contempt for parliament.” Pretty straightforward on this one, then."

How about they do what they're paid for and read the fucking thing. Bunch of trained seals bellyaching and barking because the whip said so. Not because they know why.

"This newspaper editorialized that such bills reflect the Harper government’s “contempt for parliament.”

The MSM are the last ones that anyone, with any sort of brain, should be looking to for 'expert' analysis.

As is Mr Caplan.

 

[Brad Sallows]

Law and propriety are both relevant - Two Concepts of Legitimacy (Andrew Potter, in Macleans, 2008).

 

[Brad Sallows]

The weakness of citing "experts" is that on matters with political impact, "experts" keep getting caught with their thumbs on the scales.  If everything were black or white, lawyers would mostly be unemployed.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I believe that our, Westminster, system of responsible, parliamentary government is superior to e.g. the US model of representative government, but our, Canadian, implementation needs some work.

    First: we need to reform our legislative structure so that the House of Commons is much, much more equitable in its levels of representation and so that our Senate (which I believe is necessary) more adequately
    reflects a 21st century liberal-democratic country.

    Second: the sovereign's residual powers are important and we should not be afraid to allow her/him to use them when the time is right. Because of the nature of power on our parliamentary system, the sovereign's powers act as a needed check on the elected executive.

    Third: the sovereign needs to be be patriated.

    Fourth: party leaders must be accountable to and selected by their parliamentary caucuses. Allowing parties to select leaders, in the name of "grassroots democracy" simply hands political office over to special interests and partisans.

    Fifth our constitution needs to be abolished ... repealed, cancelled, annulled, whatever. Written constitutions, even the best (and ours is not the best by any stench of the imagination) are always problematical because they cannot help but reflect the issues and attitudes of
    their time. An unwritten constitution "lives" and "grows" in step with the society it serves. (Israel, New Zealand and the United Kingdom are examples of successful, sophisticated, modern, liberal democracies that do not have written constitutions.) Admittedly Canada, being
    a federal state (and likely, being "two nations" within a state, needing to remain a federation) needs a "Basic Law" to define the division of powers, at least, but such a basic law can be thorough and clear and very limited in its scope. Rights (and duties) and even principles
    need not be written down.

One aspect of our liberal, democratic political system, of whatever model, is that it is, generally, "party" structured: people of similar (or, at least not too dissimilar) views band together to push their legislative agenda. (You can blame Robert Walpole, the "Great Man" of British politics for that, too, if you like).

Parties are, broadly and generally, "good things," they bring some order to the process. But, perhaps, we put too much faith in parties and leaders. The Globe and Mail, in an editorial says, sadly but correctly, "But Canadians usually vote far more on the basis of parties and leaders than local candidates. And they don’t like politicians who brazenly switch sides. Floor-crossers tend to be seen as opportunistic and unreliable; they usually don’t get re-elected ..." I say "sasdly" because too much slavish party loyalty risks losing sight of the fact that one of the great strengths of our system is that Members of parliament represent communities; they were elected, one hopes, because they, themselves, are "good people," not just because they are loyal party hacks. It is also a bit sad that floor crossers are, almost always, punished ... remember that Winston Churchill was a floor crosser: twice! In fact he quipped, after crossing back, in the 1920s, to the Conservatives ( from the Liberals) that "anyone can rat, but it takes a certain ingenuity to re-rat." ("Rat" was the old term for a floor crosser or, more generally, for anyone who turned on his friends.)

Sometimes some people (Ms Adams was, quite clearly, not one of them) "rat" on matters of principle ... they should not be punished for having principles.

 

[Kilo_302]

Of course he is. His partisanship shines as an aura around him and his prose.

"This past week has offered yet another example of this curious ritual. The Parliamentary Budget Officer Jean-Denis Frechette reported that the government will run a billion-dollar budget deficit this year, despite explicit assurances from the Prime Minister and Finance Minister Joe Oliver that the budget will be balanced."

Nobody serious about the election or goings on in Parliament can take this serious. The MSM is trying to make this a horrible story.

In reality, it's like me being $10.00 short on my weekly budget of $1000.00. Nothing to see here.

"When the overwhelming number of scientists believe climate change is a clear and present danger but our government refuses to take the issue seriously, implicitly denying the scientific findings, whom do we believe? Another no-brainer, I’d say."

Except that GW has been debunked by more specialised and highly respected scientists. The MSM cannot publish or listen to them because if global warming became a non starter, their partisan readership would shrivel. Really, the leading spokesman for GW is Al Gore. C'mon.

"When the government actively pursues its law ‘n’ order agenda while Statistics Canada reports that violent crimes in Canada have generally fallen for the eighth straight year, what should we believe about how dangerous our streets are? And why does this issue remain a Harper government priority when the facts tell a different story? Are we talking about ideology and political opportunism, or evidence-based public policy?"

Of course that 'law and order agenda' has absolutely nothing with the dropping crime rates :

"When the Prime Minister insists he had nothing to do with Mike Duffy being paid $90,000 by the PM’s own chief of staff, can we believe Mr. Harper? Wouldn’t that depend on how credible he’s been on other matters?"

No, it will depend on the outcome of the court case. More NDP 'guilty until found innocent' claptrap.

"What were we to think last year when literally hundreds of political scientists and constitutional experts told us the Fair Voting Act was deeply flawed, even antidemocratic, while day after day Pierre Poilievre for the government summarily dismissed every one of their concerns? Who was more credible?"

Political scientist, by and large, have their own agenda. As do the constitutional experts (these are like military experts, basically, anyone the press can get a quote on for a story). Again, let's wait until it goes before the Supremes. Otherwise, it's bad press and rumour mongering.

"Or when a large variety of experts warned against the excesses and dangers of the anti-terrorist bill C-51, while the government turned a completely deaf ear? There was no middle ground: You had to trust either the government or its authoritative critics."

More bullshit. This is another one for the SC. Anyone nowadays can be an 'expert'. There is nothing magical or profound coming from the chattering classes.

"Mr. Harper has dropped eight such traps on the House of Commons, some with over 400 pages covering issues that are wholly unrelated to each other. How could MPs even know all they contained? This newspaper editorialized that such bills reflect the Harper government’s “contempt for parliament.” Pretty straightforward on this one, then."

How about they do what they're paid for and read the ******* thing. Bunch of trained seals bellyaching and barking because the whip said so. Not because they know why.

"This newspaper editorialized that such bills reflect the Harper government’s “contempt for parliament.”

The MSM are the last ones that anyone, with any sort of brain, should be looking to for 'expert' analysis.

As is Mr Caplan.

We should all give thanks to recceguy for providing his informed opinion and saving us from the "chattering classes."

Your zealous faith in our government is strong, and I look forward to the day when people like you rescue us from democracy, lead us in the escape from freedom and show us how to reject any rational fact-based opinions as "bullshit" and "claptrap."

OR, you could go do some "recce" in a library, or perhaps speak to one of these people with those pesky opinions.  :facepalm:

 

[a_majoor]

Since Recce is:

1: expressing an opinion, and

2: expressing an opinion based on research and facts,

he is acting as an exemplary model of a citizen, and not just blindly expousing and following a "narrative". Just because people like he and I are not following your narrative does not mean we are necessarily following your opponent's narrative; as a small "L" libertarian I only find part of the CPC agenda convincing, but (sadly for the two brave and also exemplary Army.ca members who are actually running for the Libertarian Party), find the CPC is the best vehicle to get "half a loaf" of somewhat smaller government and lower taxes, since the Libertarian party in its current state is still akin to people herding cats.

I say this with a great deal of love too. I attended a Libertarian Party "Meet and Greet" for two London candidates where there were a total of 6 people in attendance besides me (including the candidates) and there was virtually no points of agreement between anyone there, hardly a winning formula for gaining and exercising political power.

So, like a lot of people (outside of thiose who would vote for a potted plant if it was branded with their party logo), I have to consider all the arguments against the evidence of the outside world and make the "least worst" choice.