Red Tories Must Prevail

Posted on Monday, May 23 at 13:45 by Anonymous
At the time of the coalition between the Alliance and Progressive Conservative Party the Alliance was a dead-ended regional party with declining fortunes. It was probably only an election away from extinction. Along comes Peter Mackay and obligingly provides cheap accommodation and another incarnation. Though they have changed their name (but one more time), Alliance values dominate this new party. As events of the last few months have been damaging to the governing Liberal Party, so too has the newly-minted CPC brought disgrace upon itself. When Paul Martin made the reasonable request that judgment be deferred until the Gomery inquiry was complete, Harper’s Conservatives were not to be deterred in their cynical opportunism. When Belinda Stronach tried to caution her leader that toppling the government at this time was not wise she was met with scorn and derision. Harper, who at this point is an experienced politician, forgot his own party is new and in itself a coalition, and charged blindly ahead. Instead of consolidating his coalition he recklessly fractured it, losing a key caucus member at a crucial time; and went on to lose the confidence vote. Whatever Stronach’s motives, her defection served the national interest. To have an election now would be utterly destructive to the country, further empowering the BQ, resulting in another minority government, and the possibility that Harper’s Conservatives might be asked to form government - a party clearly not ready to assume governance. This was to be the big tent party – a home for all conservatives. Stronach’s defection proves it is not. It appears rigidly authoritarian and surely the last bastion of ribald sexism. As she crossed the floor of the House there was no shortage of sexist slurs on her character from eminent conservatives across the country. The abusive ghost of Reform/Alliance persists. While Peter Mackay plays the role of the forlorn lover betrayed it is hard to have much sympathy for him. Now, maybe, he has some empathy for the members of the late Progressive Conservative Party who, thanks to him, saw their party stripped from under them. For a deputy leader to enter into a romantic liaison with a caucus member is less than wise. Romancing colleagues doesn’t wash well at the office and it certainly doesn’t enhance Parliament as we see our national legislature turned into a soap opera. If Stronach is the “blonde bimbo,” Mackay could be cast as the potato head from Nova Scotia. He suffers from cyclical bad judgment. As the Opposition tried to win a vote of non-confidence, polls showed Canadians did not see the Conservatives under Harper as an acceptable replacement, and rightly so. In its present form the CPC is not a party for the future but one of the past. It is at odds with the very precepts of conservatism, with a corrupted value system. It does not have the discipline or moral authority to be an effective opposition. The Reform/Alliance keeps shedding its skin but is still the awkward squad practising the politics of vindictiveness. Equanimity is a quality that eludes it. Harper has shown he does not have the political skills or acumen to be an effective Leader of the Opposition, let alone be handed the keys to Sussex Drive. This was his acid test and he failed it. Peter Mackay allowed the Alliance takeover of his party and left it to dominate this coalition. Mackay would be wise to do some soul-searching of his role as capitulator and deputy leader in this failed and ill-advised power grab. The Canadian ideal is peace, order and good government. Intrinsic to this is a vigorous and healthy two-party system, which through most of our history we have enjoyed. Now, however, the choice is between corrupt undeserving Liberals and incompetent Conservatives of an aberrant type. As long as this coalition is dominated by the Reform/Alliance the Conservative Party of Canada will not form government. Martin’s Liberal government has gained a reprieve - a stay of execution - and it must now prove itself. For a bumbling Conservative opposition there is no such reprieve. It must purge its leadership, let its moderate Red Tories come to the forefront, and patiently prove itself worthy of forming government. Canadians will not settle for less. Sincerely, Robert Billyard Langley BC May 21st 2005 [Proofreader's note: this article was edited for spelling and typos on May 23, 2005]

Contributed By



Article Rating

 (0 votes) 

Options




Comments

  1. Mon May 23, 2005 9:21 pm
    Harper's party is much too eager to aswer "aye aye captain" to any request out of Washington, and to rapidly devolve power to the provinces.
    Until those facts change, the most important short term goal remains keeping them out of power, even if they soften up on other social issues like abortion and same-sex marriage, and even if the Liberals remain hopelessly corrupt.
    On the longer term, of course, a true national alternative needs to build itself in Quebec, be it the NDP or a re-constituted PC party, or something else.

  2. by avatar trevor
    Mon May 23, 2005 9:43 pm
    Though it would appear that I've been brainwashed by the Liberals, I'm afraid I agree that Mr. Harper is an inappropriate and ineffectual leader for the CPC. Even if he was frustrated at the page-a-day corruption issuing from the Gomery Inquiry, and Paul Martin's delay tactics, and the Stronach defection--and I don't blame him--he still has, in my opinion, comported himself poorly. We are perhaps beyond the age of statesmen/women, but I distrust a leader who resorts to sarcasm and disrespect (his describing Martin's TV plea as a "sad spectacle," for example, should have been below him). When Stronach bailed on him he let his ego draft his reactions, making fun of Stronach's intelligence, talking of "betrayals," etc. . . . call me naive, but a more suitable response would have been for him to voice his disappointment at losing a valuable cabinet member (whether he felt so or not) at such a crucial moment, but to then pledge a renewed vigor and hunger to attain the goals of his party, which he believes more closely parallel those of Canadians, "sic semper tyrannis!", etc. It would go a way in improving his reputation among Canadians who don't trust him as a statesman. (Let me also say that I'm not defending Stronach, whose impeti for "immigration" are probably a mix of both ambition and patriotism--though let each person calculate the ratio for him/herself.)

    Harper never seems to be addressing Canadians in his speeches, only his party.

  3. Mon May 23, 2005 9:51 pm
    There would have been a lot of dead Canadians in Iraq should Harper have had his way. What would he be trying to convince Canadians of then? He is pissing himself to get in bed with Bush. How naive he is he to think Bush would treat him as an equal. No pride in his power struggle. Then we have Marty and his band of merry men trying to give to themselves and we are expected to think the Liberals as the poor people. Canada we have a very grim political future.

  4. Mon May 23, 2005 10:17 pm
    It seems to me that the Conservatives constant accusations of power hungry liberals doing anything and everything to to hold onto power is hypocritical.

    The conservatives themselves are playing a childish game. Calling their rivals names, disrupting the flow of government, all in hopes to go to election. An election with the hopes of more power, more seats.

    It seems to me that one year ago Canada Voted, and we chose a liberal government with a very strong check and balance with the other parties. Canada said we are tired of corruption but we are not ready to trust anyone else. The conservatives are not ready to govern.

    Harper needs to accept the role that was his mandate, rather then playing the political game, and prove himself with this role before Canada decides what they want next time around.

    I say help each other, work together and ensure that every voice is heard, rather then trying to shout the loudest overtop all the other noise. Grow up, and lets move forward.

    Had Harper not decided to vote against the budget, the librals would not have had to make such a huge promise to the NDP. A promise that goes against everything the Conservatives wanted, but forced the Liberals to accept.

    Of course the Liberals want to stay in power. Any party that we elect should want to stay in power. They should do everything they can to represent our vote and make the country work with all parts co-operating. Shame on all these games of politics, lets get back to governing shall we?

  5. Mon May 23, 2005 10:59 pm
    Riiiight.

    Except, for instance, that the Conservatives have been the only ones willing to stand up to Washington on the Canadian beef issue. If you're trying to paint Stephen Harper as Bush's would-be poodle, you'll have to try harder.

  6. Mon May 23, 2005 11:02 pm
    What I like here is the emphasis on the fact that Stephen Harper doesn't speak for all conservatives, and that there ARE Canadian conservatives who in fact want to <i>conserve</i> some of the things we define as Canadian. Sadly it seems as though such classic Canadian conservatism has been largely discredited and consigned to the fringes of politics, even as Harper takes pains to appear more "moderate". He actually would do so if he allowed such traditional conservatives a real space within the new "united right". However, perhaps it is less dangerous this way, since if Harper allowed the Red Tory voices in the party to come to the forefront it might end up becoming simple political obfuscation more than anything and used to hide or gloss over the more radical neoconservative agenda that he has always advocated. I guess I prefer a wolf in wolves' clothing over a sheep in wolves' clothing. <P> One quibble with this article--Canada's system isn't a true two-party system, at least not just yet. That's the U.S. And I think the trend that way could and will be reversed when we bring in some form of proportional representation, which seems so much more achievable at the federal level now that several provinces are experimenting with the system.<p>---<br>Now call it extreme if you like, but I propose we hit it hard, and we hit it fast, with a major, and I mean major, leaflet campaign.--Rimmer, Red Dwarf<br />

  7. by Innes
    Mon May 23, 2005 11:10 pm
    That might be valid except all they have done is blame the Liberals.

  8. Mon May 23, 2005 11:43 pm
    Where was stephen harper when the corporations took the lion's share of the Federal Government's Beef Aid package? Where was Harpo on Softwood Lumber, Atlantic overfishing - oh yeah, we were all "defeatists". Who, has had meetings with GOP officials long before his ascent to power within the Conservative party? Who has a racist american for a close political advisor.

    His "stand" as you call it is mere political grandstanding trying to show them how they stand up for the 'everyman', yet they have a clear record of bending to corporate interests within this country and south of the border for years.

    Is that "better" enough for you? Riiiiiight!

  9. by hoopoe
    Tue May 24, 2005 12:07 am
    Get real!! These people, along with Ralph Klein's conservative party, went to Washington to bootlick, promising anything to get the Americans to open the border to Canadian cattle. What a sorry lot of unimaginative brown nosers. This whole beef business could have been over and done with by now if Klein and Harper had gotten together with the Liberal government and had told the American packers where to get off, set up our own packing plants, tested every cow for export, and then develop our own export market outside of the US. Put the blame where it belongs; these people are so short-sighted that they can only see one solution, which is nothing beyond the status quo that existed before the border was closed.

  10. by hoopoe
    Tue May 24, 2005 12:18 am
    The red tories would do themselves and this country a big favor is they would get together like the Alliance members such as Deborah Grey, Chuck Strahl, etc. did and use this as the beginnings of an actual conservative alternative to the Liberals rather than the Canadian Republican Party, which in reality is the choice that Harper is presenting to Canadians.

  11. Tue May 24, 2005 12:33 am
    Stephen Harper is just too bland and unemotional, like a robot. And he’s too angry. Yeah, that’s the ticket: he’s too bland and unemotional and too angry and emotional. That’s why we can’t ever vote for him. And he has a secret agenda. You can’t ever prove it but you know it’s there – otherwise, see, it wouldn’t be a secret. If he denies it, that just proves it’s a secret. Yeah, that’s the ticket. We can’t vote for him because of the secret agenda and because he’s too emotionally angry and too blandly unemotional... Max West thepolitic.com

  12. Tue May 24, 2005 1:32 am
    no actually it isn't the secret stuff, it is the 'we must stand with our friends' kinda stuff, no matter that the war was illegal, unnecessary, based on lies, and that thousands of innocent people were killed in the process! It is the 'we must find an alternative to healthcare, oh no wait, maybe we could support the Canada Health Act...not sure...still thinking...what do the polls say?', kinda stuff that tells us he does know what he wants to do, but that he also knows it would be better to surprise us then to tell it like it is. It is the I have no manners, whatsoever attitude he displayed publicly, when he lost the election,and when his rival walked across the floor, it is his attacking people and failing to lead or set an example for his own members; those are not leadership qualities! It is the blocking of the House to force the Packing plants to open their books, which might have revealed where Canadians tax dollars really ended up going, because they know it didn't go to the family farm, that makes one see just how much he is concerned about solutions to the BSE crisis.

    Those are a few reasons, that we(I) can't vote for the Harper Republican party!

    ---
    If I stand for my country today...will my country be here to stand for me tomorrow?

  13. Tue May 24, 2005 2:49 am
    Let's see here. If I really hated Canada, I would do the following:
    1. Spew hatred about Americans and their president, making sure they notice so that it damages our trading relationship and costs hard-working Canadians lots of money.
    2. Continually vote for a federal government that insists on turning us into a socialist wasteland.
    3. Continually vote for a federal government that steals millions from the public purse in order to get re-elected.
    4. Continually give multi-million dollar grants away to corporate sinkholes like Bombardier so they can keep donating back to my party.
    5. Educate children, starting in kindergarten (soon preschool) to believe that Canada has no real identity, other than being anti-american, multicutlural and bilingual.
    6. Remove any legitimate Canadian history from schools, replacing it with "social studies", in which we learn the value of bilingualism, multiculturalism, and the UN, and why the government needs to spend millions on these things, every year.
    7. Raise taxes to the point where people can't afford to have kids anymore, so the birthrate falls below replacement levels, and the country relies completely on immigration to sustain the population.
    8. Create a system where as many citizens as possible are dependent on one form of government assistance or another, ensuring that they have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, and furthering the socialist rot that elites consider "progress".
    9. Fund various special interest groups, noisemakers, squeaky wheels, professional victims, and career whiners so that they can lobby the government to provide more of the same.
    10. Appoint judges who feel that they, not Parliament, have the ultimate authority to govern the country, and go on molding the nation according to their own idea of what a progressive society should look like.

    In short, I would support the Liberals (or their impatient little brothers & sisters in the NDP). If I truly hated Canada, I can't imagine expressing my hatred in a more effective way than to continue to support the Liberals, and the path to obilivion that they have put us on.

    (Posted at SDA by Raging Ranter at May 23, 2005 04:35 PM, and definitely bears repeating here!)

    - eh?!

  14. Tue May 24, 2005 2:53 am
    There is no point in having Red Tories, policies would then become just as wasteful and pointless as current Liberal policies - with all the inherent avenues for corruption, theft, cheating, lying etc. etc. that typify the 'Canadian Values' the Liberal Party wants people to adopt.

    Red Tories should wake up and join the criminals in the Liberal Party with their new Canadian values.



view comments in forum


You need to be a member and be logged into the site, to comment on stories.




Your Voice

To post to the site, just sign up for a free membership/user account and then hit submit. Posts in English or French are welcome. You can email any other suggestions or comments on site content to the site editor. (Please note that Vive le Canada does not necessarily endorse the opinions or comments posted on the site.)

canadian bloggers | canadian news