Politics in 2013

[dapaterson]

And in the Army, on the Radio, "No Duff" means what follows is real and not an exercise event.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Then there's the other Duff ....

 

[Remius]

Interesting - wonder who got the e-mail to CBC? 

Everything seems to be pointing at the CPC or someone there.  It makes sense really.  Some senators have spoken up and so have some MPs about how unhappy they are with Duffy.  In Stephen Harper's world, nothing is unscripted.  This is all a calculated move to discredit Duffy and show this as a Duffy issue not a conservative issue.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I'm not sure the headline writer has this exactly right, but Rex Murphy speaks for and about a lot of Conservative supporters - me included - when he says, in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the National Post, that "When this fades, as all scandals eventually do, it will have left a permanent scar:"

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/06/01/rex-murphy-how-a-90k-cheque-became-a-death-warrant-for-harpers-brand/

How a $90K cheque became a death warrant for Harper’s brand

Rex Murphy

13/06/01

The gods of irony never sleep: The formerly invincible federal Conservatives have all on their own done more to undermine their image, and shake their most loyal support, than any opponent — armed with attack ads or not — could have hoped for.

Originally, the current senatorial sensations did not, at their core, seem too serious. They were very clearly not on the financial scale of the sponsorship scandal, which nearly destroyed the Liberal party. But the Mike Duffy saga, and its satellite stories involving other Senators, are like sponsorship in one critical respect: They imprint a grim image of crony politics on a party, and on a leader, that once had created an appealing image as Ottawa outsiders.

The Conservatives’ vision of themselves as the party of the “little guy” and the Tim Hortons’ crowd takes quite a blistering when they are seen as both casual givers and receivers of 90-thousand dollar hush-hush bailout cheques. Or when, as audits are being conducted, Senators get to wipe their record clean by paying back what they should not have taken in the first place.

That’s not how life plays out in most people’s lives. Just ask any Tim Hortons cashier caught taking money from the till.

The average citizen never gets that leverage. He or she never gets a do-over. Large cheques from mere acquaintances do not show up like magic when most people have a moral or a potentially criminal challenge on their plates.

This is the one image that really bites the Conservatives: that $90K cheque that former Chief of Staff Nigel Wright wrote to a poverty-pleading Mike Duffy. That vignette is pulverizing their long-standing claims to be in touch with the “average” citizen. It reveals that there is, even in the Conservative party, two sets of rules — one for those high up, and one for all the rest. Become a Senator, be appointed by the Prime Minister, and suddenly you are in a new category. You’re a first-class passenger on the gravy-train express.

This affair hits dead centre at the Prime Minister’s own strong points. People have registered that Mike Duffy, Pamela Wallin and Patrick Brazeau were all put in the Senate by the current PM himself. Could a person of solid judgment and cool competence have made three worse picks?

Even people who are conservative by temperament, who want to go easy on Mr. Harper, can’t walk away from that fact.

Originally, it was just a “Senate scandal.” Expenses, travel claims, some tormented dispute over residency — green eyeshade sort of stuff. Bad, but hardly government-shattering. But all that changed when Nigel Wright made the decision to try to bottle up the whole storm by writing that huge personal cheque to Mr. Duffy.

Mr. Wright was not a private citizen when he did this: He was the Chief of Staff to the Prime Minister of Canada.

This was a bizarre turn. How someone at that level of government, with widely acknowledged skills and judgment from his days as a corporate titan, thought that he could privately — by using his own money — make the Duffy matter go away, and (he claims) not involve his boss, the Prime Minister, is staggering.

At the second that his signature hit that chequebook, the locus of scandal left the Senate and shifted immediately into the PMO itself. After Wright’s eccentric intervention, it was no longer just Mr. Duffy’s problem, or merely an example of some Senators pushing for their “entitlements.” It became a crisis for the Prime Minister and his party.

And it is really hurting. Only 13% of Canadians, according to a very recent poll, believe the PM is telling the truth when he claims that he was ignorant of Mr. Wright’s checkbook munificence.

When this fades, as all scandals eventually do, it will have left a permanent scar. The elements of the story have stripped the Conservatives of key elements of their brand.

A number of people in the Conservative administration, including Mr. Harper himself, began as outraged, reformist outsiders. The wheel has turned. They are now as cozy-looking, as easy with patronage, as relentless in their evasion-speak and robot talking points as ever the Liberals ever were.

There’s the damage flowing from this scandal: The Conservatives can rightly be accused of morphing into a twin of what they once so furiously opposed and condemned.

National Post

It's only 2013, we are, at least, two years, maybe 28 months away from a general election - that's 100 to 120 weeks, and, as British PM Harold Wilson so famously said, a week is a long time in politics. There is a lot that Prime Minister Harper and his team can do, likely will do to refurbish the Conservatives' reputation; there's also a lot that Messers Mulcair and Trudeau can, and likely will do to harm their reputations and causes. But a core element of the Conservative brand is damaged - maybe beyond repair ... unless the prime minister takes some bold, decisive, and very, very uncharacteristically apologetic action. As Rex Murphy says, Canadians, ordinary Canadians, including those who support the Conservatives, "get" this and what the get is that the Conservatives are no better than the Liberals. That hurts and it will still hurt in 2015.

I do not advocate fighting an election on the Constitution, much less on Senate reform. I'm guessing that the Supremes are going to tell him that:

    1. He cannot abolish the Senate ~ and, therefore, neither can the NDP; and

    2. He needs some significant - but not unanimous - level of provincial/regional support to, formally, reform it.

A proposal to informally reform the Senate - something like my "two letters" proposal - by Constitutional convention, however, might and, in my opinion should be one plank of the 2015 platform.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Lookit all the lookin'-into that's being done....

Marjory LeBreton, the Conservative government’s leader in the Senate, plans to ask the federal auditor-general to do a “comprehensive audit’ of Senate expenses, her office said Monday.Officials from the auditor general’s office said last week they had no plans to conduct a review of Senate expense claims, following an audit released in June 2012 that identified problems with a lack of documentation for some travel and living-expense claims, and delivered recommendations for improvement.

Experts have warned the auditor general’s mandate is limited and that the office might not be able to fully probe the political decisions behind the $90,000 payment ....

National Post, 3 Jun 13

The federal government should create one independent inquiry into the politically explosive Senate expenses scandal, instead of the overlapping and confusing investigations currently underway by the RCMP, Elections Canada, and the federal ethics commissioner, say opposition MPs.

“I think, unavoidably, because of how the government has handled this mess, there are a thousand rabbits running around in a thousand different directions. For a period of time, at least, it’s bound to be confusing,” said Liberal MP Ralph Goodale (Wascana, Sask.).

Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner Mary Dawson is looking into whether Nigel Wright, Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s former chief of staff who resigned last month, broke conflict of interest laws in giving then-Conservative Senator Mike Duffy $90,172 to cover his ineligible Senate expenses. If RCMP also decided to look into Mr. Wright’s actions, Ms. Dawson will halt her investigation.

Senate Ethics Officer Lyse Ricard was looking into whether Mike Duffy broke conflict rules in accepting the $90,172 cheque and not declaring it, but because the RCMP is looking at the case now, she will halt her investigation.

Deloitte, meanwhile, is widening its audit into now Independent Saskatchewan Sen. Pamela Wallin’s travel and housing expenses and will report back to the Senate’s Internal Economy Committee. The Senate Internal Economy will then look into it based on the report and report back to the Senate on whether she has to repay anything.

The RCMP was looking into all four Senators “for months” and has asked for all documents related to travel and housing expenses, including gas mileage and per diems, but last week the Senate referred Sen. Duffy’s case to the RCMP.

Elections Canada, meanwhile, is also looking into Sen. Duffy’s expense claims during the 2011 election campaign. There is an issue of “double dipping” by charging the Conservative Party and its candidates and then charging the Senate the same per diems ....

Hill Times, 3 Jun 13

 

[Edward Campbell]

It's not all bad, according to Andrew Coyne in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyrigth Act from the National Post:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/06/03/andrew-coyne-independent-thought-crawls-out-of-the-blasted-landscape-of-canadian-politics/

Independent thought crawls out of the blasted landscape of Canadian politics

Andrew Coyne

Last Updated: 13/06/04

You say Canadian politics has got you down? That it’s nothing but spin, talking points, and scandal, scandal, scandal? You say that politics in this country has never been more venal, more trivial, more devoid of intelligence?

What, you expected me to disagree with you?

And yet, there is some good news to report. While attention has focused, rightly, on the appalling state into which our parliamentary democracy has fallen — the sterility of the debates, the rigidity of party discipline, the autocratic powers of the prime minister — here and there on this blasted political landscape the first shoots of independent thought have begun to reappear.

It’s no thanks to our national political leaders — if they were as determined to stamp out corruption as ideas we’d have no word for scandal — but there have been signs of late of a loosening of the limits of political debate, a welcome burst of iconoclasm after many years of suffocating consensus. Ideas that were once unthinkable or impermissible to discuss are finding their way into the mainstream, with practical politicians leading the way. Taboos are being broken, third rails are being touched, without evident harm to the offenders. Some examples:

Supply management. It wasn’t long ago that supply management enjoyed the universal support of the political class. Every member of every party at every level of government swore undying fealty to a policy that makes food more costly for millions of families, for the benefit of a few thousand farmers. It’s still pretty monolithic, but the first cracks are appearing. Martha Hall Findlay campaigned on repeal of supply management during the Liberal leadership, and while she didn’t win, her stance on the issue does not seem to have hurt her. At the Conservative national policy convention in Calgary later this month, delegates will consider a motion for “an orderly transition away from supply management.” It won’t pass, but I doubt it would even have been proposed until recently.

Road tolls. Roads have been “free” for so long in Canada that people tend to assume this is the natural order of things, though tolls are common in other countries. As a result, no politician has dared go near the idea, certainly for existing roads: the Harris government in Ontario tested the limits of public tolerance by financing a new highway with tolls, and was pilloried for it. Even as congestion mounted, and studies piled up proposing “road pricing” as the solution, the consensus held — until this spring, when the new Liberal premier, Kathleen Wynne, broke ranks. It’s likely to be a central issue in the coming election.

Ms. Hall Findlay, Ms. Wynne, Mr. Hudak, and Mr. Harper, have all shown political courage, but credit also to
Joyce Murray and Nathan Cullen on electoral reform, Stéphane Dion on carbon pricing, and Mark Warawa, on
MPs’ rights, including the right to talk about abortion. At a time when politicians are in such bad odour, it’s
worth keeping these counter-examples in mind.
Canadian Press // Postmedia News

The Rand formula. The closed shop, in which workers are forced to belong to a union as a condition of employment, is illegal in Canada, as in most democratic countries: freedom of association and all that. Yet it is legal to force workers to pay dues to the union in their workplace: indeed, in most provinces it is mandatory. The compromise (or, if you prefer, hypocrisy) embodied in Judge Ivan Rand’s 1946 ruling has been sacrosanct ever since, if only because of the holy hell union leaders promised to make for any politician that crossed it. That was until a few months ago, when the Ontario Progressive Conservatives, under Tim Hudak, declared their intent to make Ontario Canada’s first “right to work” province.

Native property ownership. An unquestioned right for most Canadians, property ownership is denied entirely to natives living on reserve — at the insistence of many aboriginal leaders, for whom it is heresy. Yet this is now very much on the agenda, with proposed federal legislation that would allow, but not require, native bands to open reserve land to private ownership, at least by band members. Credit Stephen Harper for grasping this nettle, however gingerly: part of the subtext of last winter’s Idle No More protests was the alarm of native leaders opposed to this and similar reforms.

And these are just for starters. Carbon pricing, even a carbon tax, supposedly rendered permanently politically toxic by the Liberals’ defeat in 2008, is back. The NDP may protest their carbon trading scheme is nothing like a carbon tax, but several of the Liberal leadership contenders weren’t shy of using the T word. Electoral reform, likewise, once of interest only to academics, is now increasingly talked about as a serious possibility: Toronto city council, for example, will soon take up a proposal to move to a ranked ballot for municipal elections.

Even abortion, the ne plus ultra of Subjects That May Not Be Discussed, is forcing itself, inexorably, back into the public square. While there were wider issues at stake in the protests by Tory backbenchers this spring, to do with the right of MPs to represent their constituents free of the party whip, there’s no doubt that one consequence of a less regimented political system would be to provide more entry points for issues and ideas party leaders would prefer to avoid — like abortion. That’s a good thing, in case it needs saying.

Why have so many logjams come unstuck at the same time? Who can say, although I have a hunch it is not entirely coincidental. Perhaps it’s the influence of the internet and social media, with their broadly disruptive impact. Perhaps it is the knock-on effect of previous reforms, such as free trade.

But it is on no small part owing to individual acts of political courage. I’ve mentioned Ms. Hall Findlay, Ms. Wynne, Mr. Hudak, and Mr. Harper, but credit also to Joyce Murray and Nathan Cullen on electoral reform, Stéphane Dion on carbon pricing, and Mark Warawa, on MPs’ rights, including the right to talk about abortion. At a time when politicians are in such bad odour, it’s worth keeping these counter-examples in mind.

Indeed!

 

[Colin Parkinson]

tolls were common and we had then growing up on the lions gate bridge and since 1986 to 2010 on a highway here and on our new bridge. The fundamental issue people have with tolls are that the new generation of tolls will not be tied to a specific piece of infrastructure. So where does the money go and the people living in the areas considered are already bleeding disposable income and another tax means less money for local businesses. Most of the congestion I see seems linked to transit and traffic management schemes for the sole purpose of creating the issue and creating the conditions to support transit.

 

[Edward Campbell]

I'm not sure the headline writer has this exactly right, but Rex Murphy speaks for and about a lot of Conservative supporters - me included - when he says, in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the National Post, that "When this fades, as all scandals eventually do, it will have left a permanent scar:"

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/06/01/rex-murphy-how-a-90k-cheque-became-a-death-warrant-for-harpers-brand/

It's only 2013, we are, at least, two years, maybe 28 months away from a general election - that's 100 to 120 weeks, and, as British PM Harold Wilson so famously said, a week is a long time in politics. There is a lot that Prime Minister Harper and his team can do, likely will do to refurbish the Conservatives' reputation; there's also a lot that Messers Mulcair and Trudeau can, and likely will do to harm their reputations and causes. But a core element of the Conservative brand is damaged - maybe beyond repair ... unless the prime minister takes some bold, decisive, and very, very uncharacteristically apologetic action. As Rex Murphy says, Canadians, ordinary Canadians, including those who support the Conservatives, "get" this and what the get is that the Conservatives are no better than the Liberals. That hurts and it will still hurt in 2015.

I do not advocate fighting an election on the Constitution, much less on Senate reform. I'm guessing that the Supremes are going to tell him that:

    1. He cannot abolish the Senate ~ and, therefore, neither can the NDP; and

    2. He needs some significant - but not unanimous - level of provincial/regional support to, formally, reform it.

A proposal to informally reform the Senate - something like my "two letters" proposal - by Constitutional convention, however, might and, in my opinion should be one plank of the 2015 platform.

John Ivison, who is, pretty much, a solidly Conservative voice in the Canadian media, appears to agree with me in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the National Post:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/06/04/john-ivison-things-look-bad-for-the-tories-but-theres-life-yet-in-the-harper-conservatives/

Things look bad for the Tories, but there’s life yet in the Harper Conservatives

John Ivison

13/06/04

The steady drip, drip, drip of the Duffy affair has been like water torture for the Prime Minister during Question Period, despite his assurances Tuesday that he has been “very clear, very public and very consistent.”

The Conservatives are suddenly very jittery. They are behind in the polls and only one in six Canadians say they believe Stephen Harper’s account of the Mike Duffy Senate scandal.

But this too shall pass. Parliament will soon break for the summer — the session is scheduled to end on the 21st, or earlier if the Tories can convince the opposition parties to agree. Mr. Harper will have an opportunity to rally his troops at the Conservative convention in Calgary at the end of this month.

When it comes to stirring oratory, Mr. Harper is no Laurence Olivier but he, like Olivier’s Henry V, will have to convince Conservatives that the game is still afoot, if they can only stiffen their sinews and summon up the blood. As it is, morale is low and many appear to believe that their remaining years in office will be characterized by degeneration and decline.

It’s virgin territory for this government. Even during the coalition crisis in 2008, the Tories were ahead in the polls.

The challenge for the Harper government is to get its act together sufficiently that it can ride the breeze when the wind shifts, as it will eventually.

A Cabinet shuffle is coming, likely after the convention, and there may be surprises. Mr. Harper doesn’t like being “jammed” by his ministers and apparently he did not welcome the move by Jim Flaherty last week to ensure he is not shifted (the Finance Minister let it be known that he plans to stick around in his current position — despite speculation he may quit for health reasons).

One move that would make sense is to promote James Moore, universally seen as having done a good job at Heritage, to the Natural Resources portfolio, where the position of his native province, British Columbia, will dictate the future of the Northern Gateway pipeline. Last week, B.C. recommended against construction of the Gateway in its current form.

Once the shuffle is out of the way, Mr. Harper can concentrate on working up a Speech from the Throne that might convince voters the government is listening and hasn’t yet run out of steam.

All the signs point to the introduction of a new accountability act in the fall. John Williamson, the Tory MP from New Brunswick, introduced a private members’ bill into the House Monday that would ensure any MP or senator convicted of an indictable offence would lose their parliamentary pension.

The Prime Minister may yet decide to adopt the bill and wrap it with other measures, such as posting expenses online and expanding coverage of Access to Information legislation to include Parliament.

“It’s clear which way the wind is blowing on disclosure,” said one Conservative official.

The government will be further spurred to action by Liberal leader Justin Trudeau’s weekend comments in Vancouver that his party “will offer the kind of transparency that we haven’t seen before.” He referred to the disclosure of his inheritance and speaking fees during the Liberal leadership, which may not be the greatest advertisement for further transparency, given it revealed he was paid $20,000 by the Canadian Mental Health Association for a speech. Expect to hear more about that one during the next election campaign.

But it will be a foolish politician who prevaricates on ethics reform. The audit of Senator Pamela Wallin’s expenses is due this fall, which will likely re-kindle public anger at taxpayers’ money being abused. The likelihood is that the Tories will try to point to a new raft of measures aimed at bringing some discipline to parliamentary expense claims and then pivot to concentrate on the economy.

Approval of the Keystone XL pipeline; conclusion of a Canada-European Union trade deal; elimination of the deficit; and a lower unemployment rate would all bolster Tory prospects in 2015.

The more sanguine members of the Conservative caucus suspect that the shine will have worn off Mr. Trudeau by then and voters’ minds will be focused by the contextual choice of having to choose between real leaders and real platforms. “Pre-election polls are an abstract comparison against the standard of perfection, absent real context,” said one MP.

But you could be forgiven for forgetting all is not lost for the Conservatives, if you watched Question Period Tuesday. Mr. Harper cut a forlorn figure trying to answer questions with no good answers, such as: “Why did you choose Mike Duffy to be a senator?”

The summer break can’t come quickly enough for the Conservatives.

National Post

The Conservative Party of Canada is:

    1. In unfamiliar territory - not is John Ivison suggests, because they are not at the top of the polls but, rather, because they have failed to adjust to being in a majority government position;

    2. Adrift - which is a common problem for most governments at the mid-point of their mandate; and

    3. Unsure about what its own essential plurality of Canadians wants.

I think I can help with the last point and addressing it should help with the first two.

What do Canadians ~ the 40% of Canadians who want to support the Conservative Part of Canada ~ want?

Three things, I think:

    1. Solid, conservative fiscal management - less and less spending, better management of the spending that must be done, and lower taxes or, at least, no tax increases;

    2. Social moderation which means less intrusion into our lives. This must be balanced with the fact, and I believe it is a fact, that there is a large "law and order" constituency out there,
        especially amongst senior citizens who, wrongly, I think, believe that society is more dangerous to them; and

    3. Integrity; old fashioned integrity, à la Prime Minister St Laurent and Prime Minister and Mrs Diefenbaker who, famously, insisted on paying rent for 24 Sussex Drive, a custom that ended in 1971.

Canadians might not understand monetary policy or, even, defence spending but they do understand padding expenses (Duffy and Harb) and freeloading. Canadians ought not to be afraid to walk the streets of most urban centres but some, especially some seniors, are afraid - unreasonably, in my opinion, but afraid of things and people that are new and different. Canadians know intuitively that they are over-governed but they don't have any ideas of their own about how to deal with that ~ they expect governments to do that for them.

This government has 100 weeks to turn things around, to convince 40% of Canadians that they, the Conservative Party of Canada, deserve another majority government. Most of the 40% live and work West of the Ottawa River. That "most" can deliver 228 of 338 seats in the next election. If the CPC can hang on to 25 of the 27 "Old Canada" seats they won in 2011 then they need only hang on to the 147 seats they won in the North, West and Ontario to have a small majority in 2015. That is a highly achievable goal but it requires something other than "staying the course."

I think cabinet shuffles are overrated but I do understand the value of a visible and popular "team," especially when the prime minister is so unpopular with the media. I also don't think the "shine" will wear off M. Trudeau; he appears to be a smart and very pleasant young man; I expect many, many Canadians to like him. The trick is to temper their honest affection with doubts about his abilities to lead the country in the direct they 40% want to go.

 

[Edward Campbell]

But cracks are apearing in the Conservative wall:

    1. Defence Minister Peter MacKay suggests he would quit the party if the leadership selection rues are changed; and

    2. MP Brent Rathgeber has resigned from the CPC caucus because the party amended his financial disclosure private member's bill.

The leadership rules issue has been a problem since Harper and MacKay merged their two parties (Canadian Alliance and Progressive Conservatives) into today's CPC. The old Reform based Western populists want a one party member-one vote system while MacKay, and many others, want a one riding association-one vote system. I personally, am much, much closer to MacKay. I think our current system of leadership conventions is, actually, anti-democratic. The parliamentary leadership should be decided by a mix of riding associations and elected MPs - weighted in favour of the sitting MPs.

I am also on Brent Rathgeber's side. He made a good, useful proposal in his private member's bill; there is no upside to the party leadership's changes - they make the party look like it has something to hide and it cost them a member.

 

[Edward Campbell]

A series of tweets today by (generally) conservative National Post columnist Matt Gurney:

    "I hope a few other Tories follow Rathgeber's example.
        I sometimes wonder why anyone who really considers themselves a conservative, and does not expect/hope to lead the CPC, hasn't quit caucus.
          I mean, what's in it for a blue blood Tory backbencher? Is being a CPC MP instead of an independent worth signing off on massive deficits?
              Is it worth supporting supply management? And EAP ads? And blocking basic transparency measures? And appointing senators?
                I guess if you really think you're going to run the CPC one day, hang around. Everyone else? Quit. Save your integrity"

It's pretty straight shooting. I'll bet more than a few Conservative MPs are asking themselves the same questions.

 

[SeaKingTacco]

Edward-

With respect (and not excusing some recent poor Conservatives performances) the question that has to asked is not: Are the Conservatives Perfect? 

The questions are:  Are they still better than the alternatives?  Are we going to get more personal freedom and smaller government out of a Liberal Government?  What would deficits look like under an NDP government?

So- do all of these backbenchers resign in protest and trigger a confidence motion (and an election) the Conservatives get to fight as a split force?  1992 all over again?

 

[Nemo888]

We need a real alternative. Currently you cannot vote against corruption and nepotism. I'm tired of choosing the least worst flavour of shite to eat.

 

[Edward Campbell]

Edward-

With respect (and not excusing some recent poor Conservatives performances) the question that has to asked is not: Are the Conservatives Perfect? 

The questions are:  Are they still better than the alternatives?  Are we going to get more personal freedom and smaller government out of a Liberal Government?  What would deficits look like under an NDP government?

So- do all of these backbenchers resign in protest and trigger a confidence motion (and an election) the Conservatives get to fight as a split force?  1992 all over again?

Those are, indeed, the right questions; but, we liberals who are Conservatives ought to be pressing our preferred only choice to act in a better way. I stand by what I said yesterday: the CPC, under Prime Minister Harper have failed to adapt to power ~ hey are still stuck in a minority mentality: they should take a leaf from Joe Clark's book and "govern as though they have a majority."


I think the CPC is is the midst of the "mid term blahs," and I think there is plenty of time to turn things around, but it is the partisan centre that is the problem, not principled back-benchers - and some ministers, too, so I hear.

 

[Edward Campbell]

The Good Grey Globe's charter member of the Laurentian elite and head cheerleader for the Laurentian Consensus chimes in, in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail, on the Conservative base and demonstrates, yet again, that he, like most of the Laurentian elite just don't "get" 21st century Canada:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/dont-forget-the-base-you-can-bet-harper-wont/article12426834/#dashboard/follows/

Don’t forget the Base – you can bet Harper won’t

JEFFREY SIMPSON
The Globe and Mail

Published Saturday, Jun. 08 2013

The Base. If you want to understand the Harper government, never forget the Base. The Prime Minister doesn’t. He can’t afford to ignore it, but he can’t do everything it wants either, or his government will be defeated. He walks a tightrope, and until now he has done so quite successfully.

The Base doesn’t have many representatives in cabinet, but it is alive, well and increasingly restless on the Conservative backbenches. And it is very much kicking in Conservative constituency associations.

The Base is hard to precisely define. But among its elements are: a high degree of religiosity, a moralistic view of foreign policy, a populist dislike of government, a loathing of the media (except Sun News Network, Sun newspapers and a few very right-wing columnists), a distaste of anything that smacks of high culture, a reverence for the military, an abhorrence of abortion, a suspicion of “intellectuals” and their reasoning, a belief (against all evidence) that crime is out of control, a generalized sense that honest, God-fearing people like themselves have been marginalized and patronized by secular “elites,” a sense that produces bursts of resentment and anger about the state of the country.

The Base, of course, is critical to the modern Conservative Party. It supplies votes, fervour, commitment and money. Too much catering to The Base, however, spells trouble, because many policies the Base loves will scare off other potential Conservative voters.

Episodically, the Base has to be placated, which is what we are now seeing. Why, you might ask, would the Harper government be hesitating to ratify the new United Nations arms control treaty that attempts to regulate international trade in conventional weapons, making it harder for them to end up in the illegal market? When the measure hit the General Assembly, only three countries voted no: Syria, North Korea and Iran. So where’s the problem?

It lies in the Canadian gun lobby that, like the fanatical National Rifle Association in the United States, sees conspiracies to restrict rights of gun owners. Somehow, in the twisted thinking of the NRA and its Canadian imitators, this treaty might somehow hurt Canadian gun owners. John Baird, who as Foreign Minister one would have hoped to know better, even suggested in the Commons that this treaty might lead to a revival of the long-gun registry.

This is an assertion unworthy of a foreign minister, but if ministers have to look over their shoulders at the Base, statements like this happen.

Representatives of the Base will sometimes cause trouble by expressing dissent. As in, MP Brent Rathgeber’s resignation from caucus to sit as an independent because his desire to have all salaries in the public sector above $188,000 made public got watered down by the party leadership. This dilution, as he sees it, represents a sort of softening of the populist, anti-government, anti-intellectual positioning of true conservatives.

Mr. Rathgeber claims the Prime Minister’s Office treats MPs as “trained seals,” an ironic cliché since it used to be a favourite putdown from the Reform Party and the old Progressive Conservative party to describe government backbenchers when the Liberals were in power.

Brian Mulroney, as prime minister, used to say he wanted all caucus members to “sing from the same hymn book.” He saw to that by paying scrupulous attention to caucus with flattery, solicitousness and charm. That he held his caucus together though very tough political times testified to his political skills.

Mr. Harper has the same challenge, although with fewer MPs to keep in line than Mr. Mulroney had. Mr. Harper set up caucus committees to vet proposed legislation, and he tries to pay attention in caucus to gripes and suggestions. Ultimately, though, he holds it together by the glue of power and fear.

Abortion is another issue that fires up the Base. The pro-life group inside the Conservative Party is frustrated that the Prime Minister does not want the issue raised. He let it be debated once. He wants it to go away. But the Base wishes to keep raising the issue, inside or outside the House of Commons.

The Base won’t go away, after all, because it is a foundation stone of the modern Conservative Party.

What Simpson doesn't "get" (and what Bricker and Ibbitson do) is that there is not one, big, Western, rural, gun-toting, religious Conservative base. There are, at least, three:

    1. The Western, rural base Simpson describes;

    2. The Western urban base that represents all of Calgary, Lethbridge and Red Deer and most of Edmonton, Saskatoon, Regina and Winnipeg; and

    3. The BC and Ontario suburban and small town base.

Simpson gives of a list of the attributes of his base:

    1. A high degree of religiosity;

    2. A moralistic view of foreign policy;

    3. A populist dislike of government;

    4. A loathing of the media (except Sun News Network, Sun newspapers and a few very right-wing columnists);

    5. A distaste of anything that smacks of high culture;

    6. A reverence for the military;

    7. An abhorrence of abortion;

    8. A suspicion of “intellectuals” and their reasoning;

    9. A belief (against all evidence) that crime is out of control; and

    10. A generalized sense that honest, God-fearing people like themselves have been marginalized and patronized by secular “elites.”

Of course, few members of any of the three bases share all or even moist of those attributes; but they are the opposite of the core values of the Laurentian elite which is, broadly: irreligious, wedded to an amoral neutralist foreign policy, supportive of big government, "informed" by the CBC/TORSTAR/Le Devoir view of Canada, cultural nationalistic, anti-military, pro-abortion, suspicious of any "intellectuals" who do not share its beliefs, anti-police, and patronizing of the emerging, broad, anti-Laurentian consensus.

There is a divide in Canada:

    1. Most of "Old Canada,"* - everything East of the Ottawa River - is, if not supportive of the Laurentian view of Canada, suspicious of the "New Canadian" view; and

    2. "New Canada" - everything West of the Ottawa River - is divided -

        a. Large parts of it, in most rural, Western urban and most suburban areas is Conservative, while

        b. Many urban areas, especially in Vancouver, Toronto and Ottawa, are split between he Liberals and NDP.


_____
* I don't recall, exactly where I found the "old Canada"/"New Canada" idea, it's not original; I think I read it first in an article by Michael Bliss but Google doesn't help me to find it

 

[Edward Campbell]

Jen Gerson gives some advice to Prime Minister Stephen Harper in this column which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the National Post:

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/06/07/four-things-stephen-harper-can-do-to-fix-the-conservative-partys-problems/
My emphasis aded

Four things Stephen Harper can do to fix the Conservative Party’s problems

Jen Gerson

13/06/07

i]Senate spending scandals, robocall headlines, a simmering backbench and even one MP’s resignation: It’s been a tough few weeks for the Conservative Party. To judge by recent news coverage, Stephen Harper’s allegedly dictatorial style and seeming abandonment of his Reform roots are causing fractures in the once formidable governing party. Despite its mounting issues, though, few seem willing to throw in the towel on the Conservative Party just yet — especially with an election still two years off. The Post’s Jen Gerson surveys the party’s perceived problems, and possible solutions:[/i]

1. News Abhors a Vacuum

The scandals facing the Harper government — most notably the Wright-Duffy affair, in which chief of staff Nigel Wright offered Senator Mike Duffy a $90,000 cheque to cover wrongly claimed expenses — have been damaging. But the government hasn’t helped itself by giving Canadians very little else to talk about.

“I think that the government doesn’t really have a defined agenda at the moment,” said Tom Flanagan, a former Harper strategist and recently retired University of Calgary political scientist.

Free trade deals and pipelines are important, but both those priorities rely on decisions Mr. Harper can’t control.

“I think the way they’re addressing current problems is to be non-communicative about them,” Mr. Flanagan said. ‘‘I think that they need to address these problems and issues head on and then do it hard while filling in the news vacuum with an agenda.”

Stephen Taylor, director of the National Citizens Coalition, said the party needs to come up with ‘‘five priorities or something’’ to change the channel for the next election.

“It needs to have a clearly enunciated position that becomes the talk of the town,’’ he said, ‘‘instead of what they don’t want to be the talk of the town.”

Mr. Flanagan points to Brian Mulroney’s free trade agreement with the U.S. — a wildly polarizing proposition that split the left. Mr. Harper needs something like that to carry the party into the next election, Mr. Flanagan said.

“It has to be something that’s so polarizing that both the Liberals and the NDP will be forced to be on the other side. That’s how the Conservatives win, through polarization.”

2. The Poll-acles are Not Favourable

Recent polls suggest Justin Trudeau’s Liberals would sweep the ballot box to a majority government. So what?

It’s still two years out from an election and if the last Alberta and B.C. elections are any indication, pollsters have trouble predicting electoral outcomes, particularly where contentious incumbents are involved.

“Voters’ heads are not into politics at this time of year, or at this time in the mandate,” said Morten Paulsen, a long-time Conservative strategist whose Reform Party connections stretch back to the ’90s. “The only time polls really start to matter are in the final days of an election. That’s when voters start making up their minds seriously about who they’re going to vote for.”

Likewise, Mr. Flanagan said he wouldn’t be terribly concerned about polls, although they do indicate that Mr. Trudeau is an emerging threat. And Conservative attack ads against Mr. Trudeau don’t seem to be working as they have in the past.

“Negative advertisements don’t work well when the target is more esteemed in public opinion than the source, and that’s the case right now,” Mr. Flanagan said. However, he wouldn’t rule out the possibility that Mr. Trudeau is, in fact, in “over his head.”

The ads themselves are good, targeting Mr. Trudeau’s well-documented weaknesses. Negative advertisements also take time to worm their way in.

“The fact is that attack ads have a long and consistent track record of being effective,” Mr. Paulsen said.

3. The Backbench is Angry. And it’s Not Going To Take This Anymore

For a party that prided itself on a platform of reform, the Conservatives’ lack of transparency and openness, apparent fudging of election rules and free-spending ways are deeply alienating to the party’s grassroots. Mr. Harper’s attempt to keep the lid on the abortion debate has stirred up resentment among backbenchers. Exhibit A: Brent Rathgeber, who left the Conservative caucus after the government gutted a private member’s bill that would have disclosed the salaries of civil servants earning more than $188,000.

“It’s difficult as a lawyer and as a member of Parliament to find my role and to be subservient to masters half my age who work in the Prime Minister’s Office who are telling me how to vote on matters and are telling me what questions to ask,” Mr. Rathgeber said on Thursday in St. Alberta, Alta.

In an ideal world, it’s lovely to think MPs should be given the freedom to speak their minds and vote their consciences. Strategists, though, warn that letting backbenchers off their leashes could be disastrous for the party.

“For most Conservative parties anywhere in the world, the battle that often happens is between the social Conservatives and the economic Conservatives. I think Harper has dealt with that quite effectively by squashing the motion to re-open the abortion debate,” said Bruce Cameron, president of polling firm Return on Insight. As Alberta’s Wildrose party found out last year, letting obscure members step on podiums quickly leads to “Lake of Fire” level chaos.

“They lost the narrative. It spun out of control,” he said

Further, both Messrs. Flanagan and Paulsen maintained some cynicism about Mr. Rathgeber’s resignation. Backbench MPs didn’t seem to mind party discipline for the past seven years — as long as the party itself was ticking along.

“I do think modern parliamentary systems require discipline. It’s wrong to see discipline as the problem. Previous governments were equally as disciplined in dealing with policy in the House of Commons,” Mr. Flanagan said.

“I think it’s the discipline combined with the perceptions of ruthlessness and disregard for the rules that’s causing the problem.”

4. Stephen Harper Doesn’t Seem Very Nice

Some suggested Mr. Harper try to fix his likability deficit: “We should see him relaxed, engaged, not in a stuffy shirt for most of the summer,” Mr. Cameron suggested. “Maybe not canoeing or doing yoga, but as close as he can.”

Mr. Cameron, according to Mr. Flanagan and several others, is wrong: It would be folly for the Prime Minister to try to be cuddlier.

“He’s [perceived as] secretive, suspicious, vindictive and ruthless. OK. He is. Everybody knows it. I don’t see how he’s going to change that,” Mr. Flanagan said. “People don’t change their personalities. He can readily work with what he is.”

Mr. Harper has made it work for him in the past, he added. And he’s hardly the first Prime Minister with personality flaws. Mr. Mulroney seemed vain and avaricious, Mr. Flanagan said. Canadians still voted for him, as they have for Mr. Harper.

“To get people to vote Conservative, you have to get them to think about the benefits of voting Conservative. Not thinking that Harper is actually a very friendly guy.”

National Post

In other words:

    1. Propose a Big Idea that will divide the left;

    2. Get those attack ads ready and use them often and far in advance of the election when, not if, M. Trudeau stumbles;

    3. Don't fuss Brent Rathgeber's defection, but step out and address the misconduct and corruption issues; and

    4. Keep accentuating the positive ~ the things (policies and actions) that Canadians want from a Conservative government.

Sounds like pretty good advice to me.

 

[Edward Campbell]

The Good Grey Globe's charter member of the Laurentian elite and head cheerleader for the Laurentian Consensus chimes in, in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail, on the Conservative base and demonstrates, yet again, that he, like most of the Laurentian elite just don't "get" 21st century Canada:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/dont-forget-the-base-you-can-bet-harper-wont/article12426834/#dashboard/follows/

What Simpson doesn't "get" (and what Bricker and Ibbitson do) is that there is not one, big, Western, rural, gun-toting, religious Conservative base. There are, at least, three:

    1. The Western, rural base Simpson describes;

    2. The Western urban base that represents all of Calgary, Lethbridge and Red Deer and most of Edmonton, Saskatoon, Regina and Winnipeg; and

    3. The BC and Ontario suburban and small town base.

Simpson gives of a list of the attributes of his base:

    1. A high degree of religiosity;

    2. A moralistic view of foreign policy;

    3. A populist dislike of government;

    4. A loathing of the media (except Sun News Network, Sun newspapers and a few very right-wing columnists);

    5. A distaste of anything that smacks of high culture;

    6. A reverence for the military;

    7. An abhorrence of abortion;

    8. A suspicion of “intellectuals” and their reasoning;

    9. A belief (against all evidence) that crime is out of control; and

    10. A generalized sense that honest, God-fearing people like themselves have been marginalized and patronized by secular “elites.”

Of course, few members of any of the three bases share all or even moist of those attributes; but they are the opposite of the core values of the Laurentian elite which is, broadly: irreligious, wedded to an amoral neutralist foreign policy, supportive of big government, "informed" by the CBC/TORSTAR/Le Devoir view of Canada, cultural nationalistic, anti-military, pro-abortion, suspicious of any "intellectuals" who do not share its beliefs, anti-police, and patronizing of the emerging, broad, anti-Laurentian consensus.

There is a divide in Canada:

    1. Most of "Old Canada,"* - everything East of the Ottawa River - is, if not supportive of the Laurentian view of Canada, suspicious of the "New Canadian" view; and

    2. "New Canada" - everything West of the Ottawa River - is divided -

        a. Large parts of it, in most rural, Western urban and most suburban areas is Conservative, while

        b. Many urban areas, especially in Vancouver, Toronto and Ottawa, are split between he Liberals and NDP.


_____
* I don't recall, exactly where I found the "old Canada"/"New Canada" idea, it's not original; I think I read it first in an article by Michael Bliss but Google doesn't help me to find it

See, also, this interesting article about the urban core/suburban split in Toronto. It's about Rob Ford but it speaks to the divide that Bricker and Ibbitson describe in The Big Shift. Rob Ford may be grotesque but he is actively opposing the downtown Liberal/NDP branch of the Laurentian elite and he is attracting 50%-60% support in the suburbs of North York and Etobicoke. That's why Conervsatives represent all the suburbs West of the Ottawa River.

It's hard to shake those suburbanites' faith in Rob Ford; they support him even though they doubt him. It's going to be harder to shake those suburbanites' faith in Stephen Harper.

 

[OldSolduer]

Candace Hoeppner is cute.


Just sayin

 

[Edward Campbell]

Halifax journalist Dan Leger suggests, in this article which is reproduced under the fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Chronicle Herald, that Justin Trudeau may have just offered Prime Minsiter Harper a way out of the corruption mess (it isn't, really, a scandal ... yet):

http://thechronicleherald.ca/opinion/1134432-leger-just-deal-with-accountability-in-parliament

Just deal with accountability in Parliament

BY DAN LEGER

June 7, 2013

Justin Trudeau’s proposal to improve openness and accountability in parliamentary expenses gives the Liberals a potential leg up in the public-opinion wars over political entitlement and waste. It might also give the beleaguered Conservatives the out they so badly need.

The timing is good for the Liberals and their new leader, given the popular outrage over Mike Duffy and the Nigel Wright mystery cheque, Pam Wallin and the overall Senate expense scandal. The Liberal party once symbolized all that is wrong with Parliament, but it is acting like it’s born again in time to capitalize on all that public anger.

Trudeau’s promise to post expense and travel claims for Liberal MPs and senators is at least a step in the right direction. He also wants mandatory audits of the Commons and Senate every three years and an end to secrecy at the Commons Board of Internal Economy.

The Liberals are hoping to steal a march on their rivals by making positive proposals out of the morass of scandal in Ottawa. They sense Canadians want something positive from this, something that leads to genuine accountability.

But positive proposals can also work for the Tories, and if they know what’s good for them, they’ll realize that blocking reforms will only hurt them. They need to find a way past the most damaging events in the life of their government. Positive co-operation to reform Parliament can help do that.

After all, the Conservatives got elected on promises to clean up Ottawa. Now they have been tarnished by the scandals and their convoluted attempts at explaining it all away. They have fallen into a credibility gap that threatens to swallow the prime minister, all of his horses and all of his men.

As the only major party with no senators under suspicion, the NDP can easily agree to greater transparency as well. Tom Mulcair’s relentless interrogation of Prime Minister Harper put the Tories back on their heels and won him public respect.

But as to offering positive reforms in the Senate, the NDP is stuck calling for abolition, a constitutional proposal with no chance of success in 2013 Canada. In the short term, they can support accountability measures.

With the next election still far downrange, steps taken now to clean up the mess will help blow away the odour before voters actually have to decide anything. It matters less which party or which leader proposes it. Canadians want something done.

Demonstrating sincere support for reform might loosen the handcuffs now fastened on the Harper government. It is on the defensive, which is not natural Tory territory and never the favoured posture for any government. It faces two threatening opposition leaders in Trudeau and Mulcair and the scandals are causing divisions within.

Alberta Tory MP Brent Rathgeber quit the federal caucus when senior MPs gutted his private member’s bill aimed at bringing about public disclosure of the wages and expenses of public servants. But he was really talking about accountability.

Rathgeber says the Conservatives have mutated into the very beast they opposed before coming to power in 2006. “I thought we were somehow different, a band of Ottawa outsiders riding into town to clean the place up, promoting open government and accountability,” he wrote on his blog.

“I barely recognize ourselves, and worse I fear that we have morphed into what we once mocked.”

Rathgeber can take comfort in knowing he’s not alone. His discomfort about what his party has become is shared by many Canadians.

And that’s the real threat to the current government and to the prime minister. Any party that promises open and accountable government and delivers secrecy and entitlement instead is destined to be punished.

As we saw in the federal sponsorship scandal and MLA expense frauds in Nova Scotia, voters don’t care about partisan one-upmanship or who says what about reform and accountability. They just want it done.

Dan Leger is a freelance journalist in Halifax.

But, see this contrary opinion by the National Post's Terence Corcoran in which he says that the only result of so-called sunshine laws (public disclosures of salaries and expenses) "was outrageous breaches of personal privacy that have produced no benefit whatsoever."

There IS a right to privacy. How much of that right those who aspire to public service must surrender is open to debate. Sunshine laws are popular so Mr Leger is, probably, correct, in his analysis but how far should we go?

 

[Colin Parkinson]

Public servants salaries are public and our travel expenses and notes are subject to ATIP request. All people have to do is request my job title and work description and they know pretty close to what I make. Which means they are with a little work able to determine if my lifestyle is equal to my pay. This is a good balance for people at my level. When you start going up the food chain, that where problems lurk historical. I am all in favour of public disclosure of PS members who make $180,000 or more, because I struggle to comprehend why we we should pay that much or more for anyone. The thought that we are paying Civil Servants $440,000 and more just boggles my mind. I have not seen any decisions made in 15 years that warrant that sort of pay and most decisions are generally a large amount of group think and ponderous review anyways. (still they rarely get it right) 

 

[Infanteer]

I agree with Colin.  As has been explained in the past, PS salaries are traditionally lower than private sector but this was counter-balanced by iron-clad job security.

Now, some PS folks pull in 200k+ a year and get the job security.

For what its worth, the salaries of my fellow soldiers and I are available for all to see.  No privacy for us....

http://www.cmp-cpm.forces.gc.ca/dgcb-dgras/ps/pay-sol/pr-sol/rfor-ofr-eng.asp