Paul Tuns has a review for my book Loyal to the Core.
Check it out.
Also Loyal to the Core is now out in paperback so what are you waiting for?
Order your copy today.
Wednesday, October 21, 2009
Media Alert
I am doing a radio interview this morning at 11:30 AM EST on the Tom Young Show to talk about the top five dumbest political mistakes in Canadian political history.
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
Canada's Top Five Political Blunders
Ever wondered what were the worst political blunders in Canadian history.
Well wonder no more -- here's the official list.
Well wonder no more -- here's the official list.
Writing right
I have some advice for my friends over at the National Citizens Coalition: hire a writer.
Simply put, whoever writes the NCC's blog postings must have skipped all his or her grade school grammar classes.
Here's an actual, cringe-inducing sentence from the latest NCC posting: "First of all, the so-called ‘logo-gate’ scandal has received far too much outcry from the Liberals as Prime Minister Jean Chretien and his party was masters at it when they were in power and made no apologies for it."
Huh?
I am not saying the NCC blog posts should read like Hemingway or anything, just that they should contain coherent sentences.
Simply put, whoever writes the NCC's blog postings must have skipped all his or her grade school grammar classes.
Here's an actual, cringe-inducing sentence from the latest NCC posting: "First of all, the so-called ‘logo-gate’ scandal has received far too much outcry from the Liberals as Prime Minister Jean Chretien and his party was masters at it when they were in power and made no apologies for it."
Huh?
I am not saying the NCC blog posts should read like Hemingway or anything, just that they should contain coherent sentences.
Monday, October 19, 2009
Our best buddy Mao
Former Prime Minister Jean Chrétien reportedly is bemoaning about how Canada is no longer communist China’s best friend.
And it’s true.
Once upon a time Canada and China were the best of friends.
We would hang around at the malls together, go out on double-dates and every once in a while we would pull the odd prank at the United Nations.
But then Stephen Harper became Prime Minister and things started turning sour. For one thing, Harper -- spoiled sport that he is --- started talking about “serious” stuff, such as human rights abuses.
So naturally this put off our formerly best buddies, the Chinese who can be very sensitive when it comes to how they torture, murder and imprison people.
They were used to Liberal leaders like the late Pierre Trudeau who realized that while Chinese dictators such as Mao Tse Tung might have slaughtered several million people, it was all really done with the best of intentions.
Hey, you can’t make a communist utopia without breaking a few eggs.
Hopefully current Liberal Michael Ignatieff can help restore our “special” relationship with China.
A good start would be for Ignatieff to film his next political ad in Tiananmen Square.
(After, of course, he got permission from the Chinese political censors)
Crossposted at the Libertas Post.
And it’s true.
Once upon a time Canada and China were the best of friends.
We would hang around at the malls together, go out on double-dates and every once in a while we would pull the odd prank at the United Nations.
But then Stephen Harper became Prime Minister and things started turning sour. For one thing, Harper -- spoiled sport that he is --- started talking about “serious” stuff, such as human rights abuses.
So naturally this put off our formerly best buddies, the Chinese who can be very sensitive when it comes to how they torture, murder and imprison people.
They were used to Liberal leaders like the late Pierre Trudeau who realized that while Chinese dictators such as Mao Tse Tung might have slaughtered several million people, it was all really done with the best of intentions.
Hey, you can’t make a communist utopia without breaking a few eggs.
Hopefully current Liberal Michael Ignatieff can help restore our “special” relationship with China.
A good start would be for Ignatieff to film his next political ad in Tiananmen Square.
(After, of course, he got permission from the Chinese political censors)
Crossposted at the Libertas Post.
Saturday, October 17, 2009
Libertas Post Update
Some interesting stuff recently added to the Libertas Post.
* Radio host Rob Breakenridge says it's time for the Nanny State to butt out.
* Martin Masse, of Le Quebecois Libre, wonders if all the hysteria about H1N1 is just another example of somebody crying wolf.
* Wendy Stewart worries about voter apathy.
* Radio host Rob Breakenridge says it's time for the Nanny State to butt out.
* Martin Masse, of Le Quebecois Libre, wonders if all the hysteria about H1N1 is just another example of somebody crying wolf.
* Wendy Stewart worries about voter apathy.
National Post slams Tory hubris
The National Post has an excellent editorial today which goes after the Conservative government's blatant use of tax dollars for partisan self-promotion.
Here's a sampling:
The latest uproar, over the government's propensity for including its party logo on giant ceremonial cheques used to distribute stimulus money, could be dismissed as just more of the same, were it not for the brazenness of the Tory reaction.
The Prime Minister's Office sent out a memo to MPs advising that logos were not allowed, but chief spokesman Dimitri Soudas assured local MPs there was nothing to stop them putting their own names on the cheques, and defended their right to claim credit for successfully funneling public money to benefit their ridings.
That's an attitude we've seen before, from haughty and complacent Liberal regimes so accustomed to power they came to treat it as a right. After less than four years in office, the Harper government appears to have similarly lost sight of the fact the money it spreads around so enthusiastically belongs to Canadians, not to Conservatives.
The aim of stimulus money is to offset the worst effects of a re-cessionary economy, not to win votes for the local Tory MP.
This government spends heavily on promoting itself. Canadians have become accustomed to TV ads presenting its economic program as a Conservative good deed, paid for with taxes that could have been put to better use elsewhere. When Conservative MPs hand over money, they not only put their own name on the cheque, the do their best to prevent MPs from any other party showing up to share in the credit.
Mr. Harper is fortunate for the moment in facing a disorganized and ineffective opposition, but Michael Ignatieff may yet figure out how to offer a viable alternative.
Hypocrisy and hubris lost the Liberals the support of Canadians, and cost them their hold on power.
They could do the same for the Conservatives if they continue disregard the principles they were elected on.
Here's a sampling:
The latest uproar, over the government's propensity for including its party logo on giant ceremonial cheques used to distribute stimulus money, could be dismissed as just more of the same, were it not for the brazenness of the Tory reaction.
The Prime Minister's Office sent out a memo to MPs advising that logos were not allowed, but chief spokesman Dimitri Soudas assured local MPs there was nothing to stop them putting their own names on the cheques, and defended their right to claim credit for successfully funneling public money to benefit their ridings.
That's an attitude we've seen before, from haughty and complacent Liberal regimes so accustomed to power they came to treat it as a right. After less than four years in office, the Harper government appears to have similarly lost sight of the fact the money it spreads around so enthusiastically belongs to Canadians, not to Conservatives.
The aim of stimulus money is to offset the worst effects of a re-cessionary economy, not to win votes for the local Tory MP.
This government spends heavily on promoting itself. Canadians have become accustomed to TV ads presenting its economic program as a Conservative good deed, paid for with taxes that could have been put to better use elsewhere. When Conservative MPs hand over money, they not only put their own name on the cheque, the do their best to prevent MPs from any other party showing up to share in the credit.
Mr. Harper is fortunate for the moment in facing a disorganized and ineffective opposition, but Michael Ignatieff may yet figure out how to offer a viable alternative.
Hypocrisy and hubris lost the Liberals the support of Canadians, and cost them their hold on power.
They could do the same for the Conservatives if they continue disregard the principles they were elected on.
Friday, October 16, 2009
Media Alert
I am scheduled to be a guest on the The Afternoon News with Tom Young at 11:10 AM EST to discuss my National Post column on "logo-gate."
Canada's balloon boy
All the recent drama concerning that "balloon boy" kid, reminded me a of a column I wrote a little while ago about Canada's very own balloon boy, an artist who managed to get a very large government cheque.
Check it out over at the Libertas Post..
Check it out over at the Libertas Post..
Why "logo-gate" is bad for democracy
Poor Gerald Keddy.
He's the Tory MP taking all the heat because he plastered a Conservative Party logo on one of those oversized novelty cheques.
But really, Keddy is just a sympton of a larger problem. After all, since the summer Tory MPs have handed out enough oversized cheques to wallpaper the Great Wall of China.
And that's bad for democracy.
I explain why in this column which appears in today's National Post.
He's the Tory MP taking all the heat because he plastered a Conservative Party logo on one of those oversized novelty cheques.
But really, Keddy is just a sympton of a larger problem. After all, since the summer Tory MPs have handed out enough oversized cheques to wallpaper the Great Wall of China.
And that's bad for democracy.
I explain why in this column which appears in today's National Post.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
Media Alert
I am scheduled to be a guest on the World Tonight with Rob Breakenridge (CHQR Calgary) this evening at 10:00 PM EST.
Topic: Logos, as in the Conservative logo appearing on government cheques.
Topic: Logos, as in the Conservative logo appearing on government cheques.
Responding to a left-wing columnist on taxes
I sent the following letter to the Winnipeg Free Press in response to a column by the left-wing writer Frances Russell:
Dear Sir/Madam:
Frances Russell must secretly be yearning for a Conservative majority victory in the next election.
Why else would she suggest that Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff adopt a pro-tax agenda?
“Liberals could fight Tories on taxes” October 14.
Surely Russell understands that Canadians are fed up with paying taxes that are already too high and burdensome.
The last thing voters want to hear is a politician promising to make that burden even harder to bear.
What Canadians really want is for politicians to make more efficient use of the tax dollars they already have.
It’s time, in other words, for government to provide the services we deserve at a price we can afford.
Crossposted at the Libertas Post.
Dear Sir/Madam:
Frances Russell must secretly be yearning for a Conservative majority victory in the next election.
Why else would she suggest that Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff adopt a pro-tax agenda?
“Liberals could fight Tories on taxes” October 14.
Surely Russell understands that Canadians are fed up with paying taxes that are already too high and burdensome.
The last thing voters want to hear is a politician promising to make that burden even harder to bear.
What Canadians really want is for politicians to make more efficient use of the tax dollars they already have.
It’s time, in other words, for government to provide the services we deserve at a price we can afford.
Crossposted at the Libertas Post.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
Bailout Redux
With all this talk about oversized cheques and stimulus spending, I thought it might be a good time to revisit a column I wrote last July entitled, Bailout Bozos.
It still stands up.
It still stands up.
Stop the logo abuse
I want to talk about an issue that’s suddenly at the forefront of our national consciousness and which threatens to explode into a national scandal, and that issue, of course, is logos.
Or more properly, the issue is logo abuse.
You probably know what I am talking about.
It’s all over the news about how the Conservative Party is slapping its logo everywhere with reckless abandon.
The party logo --- a stylized “c” gulping down a red maple leaf ---is showing up on everything from Olympic team jackets to over sized, cardboard “economic stimulus” cheques.
Anything it seems associated with government is in danger of being “logoized.”
Word even has it that the Tories are actually planning to tattoo their logo on Peter Mansbridge’s forehead.
(Ironically about the only place you can’t see the Tory logo is on their TV attack ads.)
Clearly, this has got to stop.
Political logos are designed to appear in only certain special settings, such as those polling graphs seen on TV.
To use political logos for any other purpose violates the all-important, constitutional ideal normally referred to as the separation of state and trademark.
Or more properly, the issue is logo abuse.
You probably know what I am talking about.
It’s all over the news about how the Conservative Party is slapping its logo everywhere with reckless abandon.
The party logo --- a stylized “c” gulping down a red maple leaf ---is showing up on everything from Olympic team jackets to over sized, cardboard “economic stimulus” cheques.
Anything it seems associated with government is in danger of being “logoized.”
Word even has it that the Tories are actually planning to tattoo their logo on Peter Mansbridge’s forehead.
(Ironically about the only place you can’t see the Tory logo is on their TV attack ads.)
Clearly, this has got to stop.
Political logos are designed to appear in only certain special settings, such as those polling graphs seen on TV.
To use political logos for any other purpose violates the all-important, constitutional ideal normally referred to as the separation of state and trademark.
Raising taxes not the answer
In response to this column which appeared in the Metro News, I sent the following letter to the editor which appeared in today's paper.
Dear Sir/Madam:
Charles Davies suggests that to reduce the national deficit, the federal government will likely have to raise taxes. (“Higher taxes may be the only solution”, October 13)
Certainly that will be the likely solution of politicians, which serves to remind us that today’s deficits are really tomorrow’s taxes
Of course, raising taxes is not the only way to trim the deficit.
A better way is for the government to cut its spending, not ours.
As former US president Ronald Reagan, once put it, “The problem is not that people are taxed too little, the problem is that government spends too much.”
Dear Sir/Madam:
Charles Davies suggests that to reduce the national deficit, the federal government will likely have to raise taxes. (“Higher taxes may be the only solution”, October 13)
Certainly that will be the likely solution of politicians, which serves to remind us that today’s deficits are really tomorrow’s taxes
Of course, raising taxes is not the only way to trim the deficit.
A better way is for the government to cut its spending, not ours.
As former US president Ronald Reagan, once put it, “The problem is not that people are taxed too little, the problem is that government spends too much.”
Tuesday, October 13, 2009
Forbes stands up for free markets
Capitalism is under heavy attack these days.
But fortunately, the free market also has its defenders, people like Steve Forbes who has written a fantastic article called Capitalism: A True Love Story.
Forbes makes the case for the morality of free markets.
Here's a sampling:
But fortunately, the free market also has its defenders, people like Steve Forbes who has written a fantastic article called Capitalism: A True Love Story.
Forbes makes the case for the morality of free markets.
Here's a sampling:
This is how wealth is produced in society: Countless individuals seek to meet their own needs by meeting the needs and wants of others. That's indeed the moral basis of capitalism. It is the antithesis of greed. Forming networks of cooperation, individuals create businesses that produce innovations--not just pencils but inventions ranging from laptops to washing machines. In the process of providing for themselves, people generate the capital and innovations that yield economic growth, improving living standards and enabling society to advance.
Talking liberty
Here's three interesting articles recently posted over at the Libertas Post:
Joseph Ben Ami, a conservative commentator and writer, says the time has come for the Conservative Party to make a choice -- are they true conservatives or not.
Tim Mak, a reporter for NewMajority.com, exposes the serious (and scary) inefficiency plaguing the US Census Bureau.
Blogger Raphael Alexander worries about our eroding liberties.
Joseph Ben Ami, a conservative commentator and writer, says the time has come for the Conservative Party to make a choice -- are they true conservatives or not.
Tim Mak, a reporter for NewMajority.com, exposes the serious (and scary) inefficiency plaguing the US Census Bureau.
Blogger Raphael Alexander worries about our eroding liberties.
Gaudet vs Kenney
One of the good things about Twitter is you get to eavesdrop on conversations.
For instance, last week I noticed an interesting exchange between the current head of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, Kevin Gaudet, and Jason Kenney, a former president of the CTF who today serves as the Conservative Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism.
It began when Kenney “tweeted” about the federal government’s stimulus package thusly: “The Libs say our infrastructure projects are only going to CPC ridings. Really? I've announced 2 projects in opposition ridings in 2 days.”
This led Gaudet to reply: “@MinJK You wouldn't have bragged of this when you were a fiscal conservative.”
To which Kenney countered “@KevinGaudet I'm proud to belong to a conservative government that has cut taxes by $190 billion, to their lowest level in 4 decades.”
In other words, Kenney was essentially saying, “don’t worry we are still fiscal conservatives because we are cutting taxes.”
The problem with that argument is the Conservatives are actually raising taxes not cutting them.
It’s just that their tax hikes have been put off into the future.
After all, the Tories have burdened the country with a $56 billion deficit. Sooner or later that will have to be paid, either through massive spending cuts or through tax increases or both.
I just hope they don’t put a tax on tweets!
Crossposted at the Libertas Post.
For instance, last week I noticed an interesting exchange between the current head of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, Kevin Gaudet, and Jason Kenney, a former president of the CTF who today serves as the Conservative Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism.
It began when Kenney “tweeted” about the federal government’s stimulus package thusly: “The Libs say our infrastructure projects are only going to CPC ridings. Really? I've announced 2 projects in opposition ridings in 2 days.”
This led Gaudet to reply: “@MinJK You wouldn't have bragged of this when you were a fiscal conservative.”
To which Kenney countered “@KevinGaudet I'm proud to belong to a conservative government that has cut taxes by $190 billion, to their lowest level in 4 decades.”
In other words, Kenney was essentially saying, “don’t worry we are still fiscal conservatives because we are cutting taxes.”
The problem with that argument is the Conservatives are actually raising taxes not cutting them.
It’s just that their tax hikes have been put off into the future.
After all, the Tories have burdened the country with a $56 billion deficit. Sooner or later that will have to be paid, either through massive spending cuts or through tax increases or both.
I just hope they don’t put a tax on tweets!
Crossposted at the Libertas Post.
Friday, October 09, 2009
Adler gives dramatic reading to Libertas Post letter
One of Canada's top radio hosts, Charles Adler, read my letter to the Nobel Prize Committee on the air.
It's a beautiful reading!
Listen for it aout 28 seconds in.
Crossposted at the Libertas Post.
It's a beautiful reading!
Listen for it aout 28 seconds in.
Crossposted at the Libertas Post.
Media Alert
I am scheduled to be a guest on the Ryan Doyle Show (News 1010 Toronto) tonight at 7:45 PM to talk about Obama's Nobel prize.
How to win a Nobel Prize
I just sent the following letter to Norway:
Dear Nobel Prize Committee:
I believe in peace and fervently hope that all nations can be really nice and kind to each other.
I dream of a world where lunatic Iranian leaders will make Israelis their Facebook friends, where demented, egomaniacal dictators will use their nuclear reactors to power Ferris Wheels instead of bombs and where Al Qaeda terrorists will exchange their box-cutters for X-Boxes.
And I pray every night for sunshine and rainbows
Now that you know where I stand, when can I collect my Nobel Prize?
Yours truly,
Gerry Nicholls
Crossposted at the Libertas Post
Dear Nobel Prize Committee:
I believe in peace and fervently hope that all nations can be really nice and kind to each other.
I dream of a world where lunatic Iranian leaders will make Israelis their Facebook friends, where demented, egomaniacal dictators will use their nuclear reactors to power Ferris Wheels instead of bombs and where Al Qaeda terrorists will exchange their box-cutters for X-Boxes.
And I pray every night for sunshine and rainbows
Now that you know where I stand, when can I collect my Nobel Prize?
Yours truly,
Gerry Nicholls
Crossposted at the Libertas Post
Me on the Commentary.ca
Did an interview on The Commentary.ca.
We discussed politics, the Libertas Post and of course, The Office.
Check it out.
We discussed politics, the Libertas Post and of course, The Office.
Check it out.
Poetic injustice
Yesterday Marni Soupcoff had a column in the National Post which revealed Toronto had hired a left-wing activist to serve as the city's "poet laureate."
This led me to write the following letter to the editor, which was published in today's paper:
Poetic injustice
Re: A Job No Outspoken Poet Would Want, Marni Soupcoff, Oct. 8.
So Toronto is paying Marxist and militant feminist Dionne Brand a cool $30,000 to act as the city's "poet laureate."
It's news like this which makes me wish I could hire a poet laureate of my own.
I need somebody to help me find a phrase which rhymes with "ridiculous waste."
This led me to write the following letter to the editor, which was published in today's paper:
Poetic injustice
Re: A Job No Outspoken Poet Would Want, Marni Soupcoff, Oct. 8.
So Toronto is paying Marxist and militant feminist Dionne Brand a cool $30,000 to act as the city's "poet laureate."
It's news like this which makes me wish I could hire a poet laureate of my own.
I need somebody to help me find a phrase which rhymes with "ridiculous waste."
Thursday, October 08, 2009
The Libertas Post
As some of you may know, I am working on an exciting new website called Libertas Post.
“Libertas” is Latin for “freedom” And freedom is what I want this site to be about.
More specifically, I want to provide a conservative voice for Canadians who cherish things like free markets, smaller government and individual freedom.
My hope is that this site will not only provide a conservative perspective on political events, but that it will also energize the conservative community into helping make this country a freer better place.
Fighting for freedom isn’t new for me. For 22 years I worked with the National Citizens Coalition, overseeing that group’s communication and media campaigns.
Now I want to continue fighting the good fight through the Libertas Post.
I encourage everybody out there to check it out. I also encourage everybody to post blogs, to leave comments, to fill out our surveys and to subscribe to our free newsletter.
And if these words don't stir you to action, just get a load of my first-ever video:
“Libertas” is Latin for “freedom” And freedom is what I want this site to be about.
More specifically, I want to provide a conservative voice for Canadians who cherish things like free markets, smaller government and individual freedom.
My hope is that this site will not only provide a conservative perspective on political events, but that it will also energize the conservative community into helping make this country a freer better place.
Fighting for freedom isn’t new for me. For 22 years I worked with the National Citizens Coalition, overseeing that group’s communication and media campaigns.
Now I want to continue fighting the good fight through the Libertas Post.
I encourage everybody out there to check it out. I also encourage everybody to post blogs, to leave comments, to fill out our surveys and to subscribe to our free newsletter.
And if these words don't stir you to action, just get a load of my first-ever video:
Wednesday, October 07, 2009
Party's Over
According to a Canadian Press report "Michael Ignatieff is preparing to embark on a politically risky 'adult conversation' with Canadians about the painful measures necessary to eliminate the country's ballooning deficit - including the possibility of tax hikes."
Brilliant.
This idea is to political strategy what Kamikaze pilots are to World War II.
Brilliant.
This idea is to political strategy what Kamikaze pilots are to World War II.
Baseballmania
Here are my predictions for the MLB divisional series:
Bronx Bombers over Twinkies.
Bosox over Halos.
Rocks over Phils.
Dodgers over Red Birds.
Update: Paul Tuns has a slightly more detailed analysis of three division playoff battles.
Bronx Bombers over Twinkies.
Bosox over Halos.
Rocks over Phils.
Dodgers over Red Birds.
Update: Paul Tuns has a slightly more detailed analysis of three division playoff battles.
Media Alert
I am scheduled to be a guest on the Joe Easingwood Show (CFAX Victoria, B.C.) at 12:30 PM EST to talk turkey.
Tuesday, October 06, 2009
List of Cannots
The source of this quote is unknown but it rings true.
The Ten "Cannots" of Political Economy:
You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot help small men by tearing down big men.
You cannot help the wage-earner by tearing down the wage-payer.
You cannot further the brotherhood of mankind by encouraging class hatred.
You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.
You cannot establish sound security on borrowed money.
You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than you earn.
You cannot build character and courage by taking away man's initiative.
You cannot help man permanently by doing for them what they could do and should do for themselves.
Source: Libertarian quotes.
The Ten "Cannots" of Political Economy:
You cannot bring about prosperity by discouraging thrift.
You cannot strengthen the weak by weakening the strong. You cannot help small men by tearing down big men.
You cannot help the wage-earner by tearing down the wage-payer.
You cannot further the brotherhood of mankind by encouraging class hatred.
You cannot help the poor by destroying the rich.
You cannot establish sound security on borrowed money.
You cannot keep out of trouble by spending more than you earn.
You cannot build character and courage by taking away man's initiative.
You cannot help man permanently by doing for them what they could do and should do for themselves.
Source: Libertarian quotes.
How to trigger an election
Things are looking good for Prime Minister Stephen Harper these days; he’s riding high in the polls, the economy is looking better and he is a serious contender for a Grammy nomination, in the “Best vocals by a world leader” category.
Yup, this would be a good time for Prime Minister Harper to call an election. Except there’s one slight problem: for the past few months he’s been telling everyone who would listen that this would be a bad time for an election.
So what he needs is a little strategy. He has to somehow force the Opposition parties into voting against his government so that it will fall.
But this is easier said than done because, after all, the other parties aren’t crazy, the last thing they want to do right now is go to the polls.
This means the Conservatives must employ the old “poison pill” tactic, put some measure before the House which the other parties would find so offensive or repugnant they would have no choice but to vote against it.
Right now, no doubt, the Tories are crafting just such a pill.
To help them out, I am offering a few suggestions:
* To get Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff going introduce the following resolution in the House of Commons: “Be it resolved that Yale’s debating team could trounce Harvard’s debating team any day of the week.”
* Propose legislation which would require CUPE union boss Sid Ryan to actually make sense. There’s no way the NDP could support such a bill.
* And to get the Bloc Quebecois to vote against the government appoint as the Official Languages Commissioner, Don Cherry.
Now if none of this works, the government still has one option, which is certain to trigger an election call: end the welfare for politicians scheme, under which taxpayers subsidize political parties.
Recall the last time the government tried this it led to a near political mutiny.
Indeed, the Opposition leaders would probably rather swallow a real poison pill than get kicked off the dole.
Of course, I might be wrong about the government wanting an election. The Prime Minister might want to hold off, at least until after the Grammy awards.
Yup, this would be a good time for Prime Minister Harper to call an election. Except there’s one slight problem: for the past few months he’s been telling everyone who would listen that this would be a bad time for an election.
So what he needs is a little strategy. He has to somehow force the Opposition parties into voting against his government so that it will fall.
But this is easier said than done because, after all, the other parties aren’t crazy, the last thing they want to do right now is go to the polls.
This means the Conservatives must employ the old “poison pill” tactic, put some measure before the House which the other parties would find so offensive or repugnant they would have no choice but to vote against it.
Right now, no doubt, the Tories are crafting just such a pill.
To help them out, I am offering a few suggestions:
* To get Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff going introduce the following resolution in the House of Commons: “Be it resolved that Yale’s debating team could trounce Harvard’s debating team any day of the week.”
* Propose legislation which would require CUPE union boss Sid Ryan to actually make sense. There’s no way the NDP could support such a bill.
* And to get the Bloc Quebecois to vote against the government appoint as the Official Languages Commissioner, Don Cherry.
Now if none of this works, the government still has one option, which is certain to trigger an election call: end the welfare for politicians scheme, under which taxpayers subsidize political parties.
Recall the last time the government tried this it led to a near political mutiny.
Indeed, the Opposition leaders would probably rather swallow a real poison pill than get kicked off the dole.
Of course, I might be wrong about the government wanting an election. The Prime Minister might want to hold off, at least until after the Grammy awards.
Monday, October 05, 2009
Political Turkeys
Thanksgiving is nearly here, which of course means it's time for my annual "Top Political Turkey" list, which appears in today's Sun media.
Sunday, October 04, 2009
Canada's Political Idol
In a stunning political move, Prime Minister Stephen Harper scored a “game changer” on Saturday night when he wowed a National Arts Centre gala by playing the piano and belting out a Beatles tune.
When the surprising performance was over, the crowd, made up of artists who are typically hostile towards the Prime Minister, stood up in unison and chanted. “We want a grant, we want a grant.”
A senior Conservative strategist later told the media, “We wanted to show the country that the Prime Minister wasn’t just a policy wonk, but a policy wonk who could play a musical instrument.”
Caught off guard by the new Conservative strategy, the other parties are now scrambling to play catch up.
Word has it that Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff will stand up in Question Period tomorrow, slip on a fedora, and croon the Leonard Cohen hit “Closing Time.”
Meanwhile, NDP leader Jack Layton and the Bloc Quebecois’s Gilles Duceppe have joined forces to create a rock band called “The New Coalition.”
“We are primarily going to be a Rolling Stones cover band,” explained Layton. “We will not allow the Prime Minister to corner the market on golden oldies. If anyone should represent 1960s attitudes it’s us.”
In a related development, Elections Canada recently announced that Simon Cowell will determine the winner of the next Canadian election.
When the surprising performance was over, the crowd, made up of artists who are typically hostile towards the Prime Minister, stood up in unison and chanted. “We want a grant, we want a grant.”
A senior Conservative strategist later told the media, “We wanted to show the country that the Prime Minister wasn’t just a policy wonk, but a policy wonk who could play a musical instrument.”
Caught off guard by the new Conservative strategy, the other parties are now scrambling to play catch up.
Word has it that Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff will stand up in Question Period tomorrow, slip on a fedora, and croon the Leonard Cohen hit “Closing Time.”
Meanwhile, NDP leader Jack Layton and the Bloc Quebecois’s Gilles Duceppe have joined forces to create a rock band called “The New Coalition.”
“We are primarily going to be a Rolling Stones cover band,” explained Layton. “We will not allow the Prime Minister to corner the market on golden oldies. If anyone should represent 1960s attitudes it’s us.”
In a related development, Elections Canada recently announced that Simon Cowell will determine the winner of the next Canadian election.
Friday, October 02, 2009
Thursday, October 01, 2009
Time for a new Liberal leader?
A consensus seems to be emerging that Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff is a dud, a Stephane Dion 2.0.
Yet, even as Ignatieff continues to drop in the polls, his loyal Liberal MPs are rallying around their beleaguered leader, as this makes it easier to stab him in the back.
All of this has led me to “jump the gun” a bit and to ponder who the Liberals could get to succeed Ignatieff.
And so after an exhaustive 10 seconds of research, I have come up with a list of five potential Liberal leaders along with their “pros” and “cons.”
Here it is:
Bob Rae
Pros – Rae is media savvy, smart, tough, and as former Ontario Premier he has tons of political experience.
Cons – Voters remember Rae’s handing of the Ontario economy, the way military historians remember General Custer’s handling of Indian relations or the way boating enthusiasts remember the Titanic’s handling of ice bergs.
Ken Dryden
Pros – As a former NHL hockey star Dryden enjoys fantastic name recognition.
Cons – Zzzzzzzzzzzz …. Oops sorry guess I dozed off there for a second
Dominic Leblanc
Pros – This New Brunswick MP is young, bright and telegenic.
Cons – Who?
Justin Trudeau
Pros – Let’s face it, he is blessed with a magic and legendary political name – Justin. Also his father was kind of famous and he can count on the endorsement of family friend Fidel Castro.
Cons – To use the correct political science term, Trudeau is a "flake".
Roman Polanksi
Pros – A famous Hollywood director, Polanski would win the support of the trendy and hip culture crowd.
Cons – He will soon be a con.
That's my list.
I hope in some small way it is helpful to the Liberal Party, which these days needs all the help it can get.
Yet, even as Ignatieff continues to drop in the polls, his loyal Liberal MPs are rallying around their beleaguered leader, as this makes it easier to stab him in the back.
All of this has led me to “jump the gun” a bit and to ponder who the Liberals could get to succeed Ignatieff.
And so after an exhaustive 10 seconds of research, I have come up with a list of five potential Liberal leaders along with their “pros” and “cons.”
Here it is:
Bob Rae
Pros – Rae is media savvy, smart, tough, and as former Ontario Premier he has tons of political experience.
Cons – Voters remember Rae’s handing of the Ontario economy, the way military historians remember General Custer’s handling of Indian relations or the way boating enthusiasts remember the Titanic’s handling of ice bergs.
Ken Dryden
Pros – As a former NHL hockey star Dryden enjoys fantastic name recognition.
Cons – Zzzzzzzzzzzz …. Oops sorry guess I dozed off there for a second
Dominic Leblanc
Pros – This New Brunswick MP is young, bright and telegenic.
Cons – Who?
Justin Trudeau
Pros – Let’s face it, he is blessed with a magic and legendary political name – Justin. Also his father was kind of famous and he can count on the endorsement of family friend Fidel Castro.
Cons – To use the correct political science term, Trudeau is a "flake".
Roman Polanksi
Pros – A famous Hollywood director, Polanski would win the support of the trendy and hip culture crowd.
Cons – He will soon be a con.
That's my list.
I hope in some small way it is helpful to the Liberal Party, which these days needs all the help it can get.
Wednesday, September 30, 2009
Media Alert II
I am scheduled to be on the Charles Adler Show (Corus Radio Network) at 4:30 PM to talk about honesty in politics. (We I seem to be an expert on this subject since the National Post picked up on my recent blog posting.)
Media Alert
I am scheduled to be a guest on the Tom Young Show (88.9 News St. John New Brunswick) at approximately 11: 10 AM EST to talk about honesty in politics.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Politics is no place for honesty
Poor Gordon Landon.
He, of course, was the Conservative Party candidate for Markham-Unionville who got dumped because he seemed to openly suggest his riding was missing out on the pork gravy train simply because the voters there had mistakenly voted in a Liberal MP.
Now I suppose Landon deserved to get turfed for making such a major politically incorrect “gaffe”, but let’s face it, his comments as they were perceived reflect a political reality.
The fact is if you want to get dough it helps if your MP is on the government side of the aisle, it helps even more if your MP is in cabinet, it helps even more if your MP is in cabinet and represents a riding in Quebec.
That’s what big government politics is all about.
So shouldn't we actually be praising Landon for his candour? Indeed, maybe we should insist on total, brutal honesty from all our politicians.
But what would such unabashed political sincerity actually sound like?
Well it might just sound something like this:
An honest New Democrat MP
“Look I know we haven’t got a hope of ever forming the government. And that's actually a good thing because, heck the idea of Jack Layton being Prime Minster scares even me! But still Canada needs a strong NDP to do the important job of making the Liberals look good by comparison.”
An honest Liberal MP
“Sure we have no policies, no ideas and no vision. And yes our leader, Michael Ignatieff, has all the pizazz of a pickled kumquat. So what? The important thing is we have been out of government since 2006. And it’s driving us crazy. You don’t know what it’s like. It’s awful. If we don’t get back into power soon, we might lose it altogether and try something desperate. Think we’re kidding? Ever hear of Bob Rae? Yeah, that’s right we are warning you….”
An honest Conservative MP
“Some people say we have a hidden agenda. That’s absolutely preposterous. Our agenda isn’t hidden … it’s lost. I mean it. We can’t find it anywhere. We have looked under the bed, behind the filing cabinet, even in Julie Couillard’s apartment. This is serious. If you see our agenda, please let us know. It’s kind of important.”
An honest Bloc Quebecois MP
“Bonjour. Comment-allez vous? Ca va bien merci. Ooh la, la, la chocolat tante Louise. Au revoir mon ami.” (Sorry I figure an honest Bloc MP wouldn’t speak English, and this is all the French I know.)
An honest Green Party Wannabe MP
“This is not a traditional, quote, unquote party. This is a party that basically serves as a travelling road show for our leader Elizabeth May, who figures the best way to save the environment is to run and lose in a different federal riding each election.”
OK, so maybe it isn’t such a good thing if our politicians are brutally honest.
He, of course, was the Conservative Party candidate for Markham-Unionville who got dumped because he seemed to openly suggest his riding was missing out on the pork gravy train simply because the voters there had mistakenly voted in a Liberal MP.
Now I suppose Landon deserved to get turfed for making such a major politically incorrect “gaffe”, but let’s face it, his comments as they were perceived reflect a political reality.
The fact is if you want to get dough it helps if your MP is on the government side of the aisle, it helps even more if your MP is in cabinet, it helps even more if your MP is in cabinet and represents a riding in Quebec.
That’s what big government politics is all about.
So shouldn't we actually be praising Landon for his candour? Indeed, maybe we should insist on total, brutal honesty from all our politicians.
But what would such unabashed political sincerity actually sound like?
Well it might just sound something like this:
An honest New Democrat MP
“Look I know we haven’t got a hope of ever forming the government. And that's actually a good thing because, heck the idea of Jack Layton being Prime Minster scares even me! But still Canada needs a strong NDP to do the important job of making the Liberals look good by comparison.”
An honest Liberal MP
“Sure we have no policies, no ideas and no vision. And yes our leader, Michael Ignatieff, has all the pizazz of a pickled kumquat. So what? The important thing is we have been out of government since 2006. And it’s driving us crazy. You don’t know what it’s like. It’s awful. If we don’t get back into power soon, we might lose it altogether and try something desperate. Think we’re kidding? Ever hear of Bob Rae? Yeah, that’s right we are warning you….”
An honest Conservative MP
“Some people say we have a hidden agenda. That’s absolutely preposterous. Our agenda isn’t hidden … it’s lost. I mean it. We can’t find it anywhere. We have looked under the bed, behind the filing cabinet, even in Julie Couillard’s apartment. This is serious. If you see our agenda, please let us know. It’s kind of important.”
An honest Bloc Quebecois MP
“Bonjour. Comment-allez vous? Ca va bien merci. Ooh la, la, la chocolat tante Louise. Au revoir mon ami.” (Sorry I figure an honest Bloc MP wouldn’t speak English, and this is all the French I know.)
An honest Green Party Wannabe MP
“This is not a traditional, quote, unquote party. This is a party that basically serves as a travelling road show for our leader Elizabeth May, who figures the best way to save the environment is to run and lose in a different federal riding each election.”
OK, so maybe it isn’t such a good thing if our politicians are brutally honest.
Future of conservatism in Canada
One of my favorite topics is the future of conservatism in Canada.
So it was lucky that the Young Conservative Forum has invited me to be part of a panel that will address this important issue in Montreal on October 29.
Also scheduled to be on the panel will be such conservative stars as Adam Daifallah, Joseph Ben Ami and John Robson.
Believe me, this is going to be a fun and informative event, that no consevative would want to miss.
I hope to see you there.
Here are the details of where, when and why.
So it was lucky that the Young Conservative Forum has invited me to be part of a panel that will address this important issue in Montreal on October 29.
Also scheduled to be on the panel will be such conservative stars as Adam Daifallah, Joseph Ben Ami and John Robson.
Believe me, this is going to be a fun and informative event, that no consevative would want to miss.
I hope to see you there.
Here are the details of where, when and why.
Friday, September 25, 2009
Donuts before Liberals
Somebody is trying to start up a viral campaign based on the theme of "PM puts donuts before planet".
There's a Youtube video, a Facebook page, email messaging, etc.
Anyway, the general thrust of the message is that Prime Minister Stephen Harper hates the planet because he opted to pass on a United Nations assembly meeting on "climate change" so he could hold a news conference at a Tim Horton's.
Well if you ask me the Prime Minister made exactly the right choice.
If the choice is between a tasty, sugary, scrumptious donut and an Al Gore-inspired, global socialist scheme to destroy our industrial economy, well the answer is obvious: take me to Tim Horton's.
In fact, Harper should run the next election campaign on this slogan: "Donuts yes; socialism no."
There's a Youtube video, a Facebook page, email messaging, etc.
Anyway, the general thrust of the message is that Prime Minister Stephen Harper hates the planet because he opted to pass on a United Nations assembly meeting on "climate change" so he could hold a news conference at a Tim Horton's.
Well if you ask me the Prime Minister made exactly the right choice.
If the choice is between a tasty, sugary, scrumptious donut and an Al Gore-inspired, global socialist scheme to destroy our industrial economy, well the answer is obvious: take me to Tim Horton's.
In fact, Harper should run the next election campaign on this slogan: "Donuts yes; socialism no."
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
Politicians and plans
In a recent speech Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff claimed Canada needed a "plan" for growth.
That led me to send the following letter to the editor to the Globe and Mail:
Dear Sir/Madam:
Beware of politicians bearing “plans.”
Take Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff. He says he has a plan for economic growth. ("Ignatieff pushes ‘good government'and growth instead of tax cuts", Sept 22)
Translation: he wants to subsidize industries, regulate trade and generally pick winners and losers in the economy.
We’ve tried this sort of planning before.
It doesn’t work.
Rather than creating economic growth, it creates big, costly and inefficient government.
That’s why the only thing our politicians should be planning is how they can leave the economy alone
That led me to send the following letter to the editor to the Globe and Mail:
Dear Sir/Madam:
Beware of politicians bearing “plans.”
Take Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff. He says he has a plan for economic growth. ("Ignatieff pushes ‘good government'and growth instead of tax cuts", Sept 22)
Translation: he wants to subsidize industries, regulate trade and generally pick winners and losers in the economy.
We’ve tried this sort of planning before.
It doesn’t work.
Rather than creating economic growth, it creates big, costly and inefficient government.
That’s why the only thing our politicians should be planning is how they can leave the economy alone
Taxing propaganda
I got quoted in this Canadian Press story about those partisan ads the Conservative Party … oops I mean the Conservative government is running.
You know the ads I mean; the slick ones with all those chipper actors gushing about how much they love the government’s stimulus package because it’s creating jobs, stopping the recession and putting rainbows in the sky.
When I first saw the ad on TV I fully expected the Tory logo to pop up at the end. Instead, of course, the ad offered viewers a website address so they could access yet more material explaining why a $56 billion deficit is a good thing.
Some argue these ads are merely informational, but let's be serious; they are clearly propaganda, designed to put the government and its policies in a positive light. The government is essentially using tax dollars to brag about how many tax dollars they are spending.
This has always been a pet peeve of mine. Simply put, it’s wrong and undemocratic to force citizens to support a political agenda. I don’t like it when union bosses do it with forced dues; I don’t like it when politicians do it with tax dollars.
And yes – the Liberals were just as bad at this sort of thing when they were in power, if not worse.
The problem is this kind of abuse is hard to control. Governments have an overwhelming temptation to use tax dollars to promote themselves in the guise of “informing Canadians.”
Where do you draw the line between providing information (here’s how to sneeze into your arm) and propaganda (thanks to the great and glorious government I now know how to sneeze into my arm)?
Who decides?
The only answer as far as I can see, is get government to spend less and do less.
Maybe if government was doing less it would have less to brag about.
You know the ads I mean; the slick ones with all those chipper actors gushing about how much they love the government’s stimulus package because it’s creating jobs, stopping the recession and putting rainbows in the sky.
When I first saw the ad on TV I fully expected the Tory logo to pop up at the end. Instead, of course, the ad offered viewers a website address so they could access yet more material explaining why a $56 billion deficit is a good thing.
Some argue these ads are merely informational, but let's be serious; they are clearly propaganda, designed to put the government and its policies in a positive light. The government is essentially using tax dollars to brag about how many tax dollars they are spending.
This has always been a pet peeve of mine. Simply put, it’s wrong and undemocratic to force citizens to support a political agenda. I don’t like it when union bosses do it with forced dues; I don’t like it when politicians do it with tax dollars.
And yes – the Liberals were just as bad at this sort of thing when they were in power, if not worse.
The problem is this kind of abuse is hard to control. Governments have an overwhelming temptation to use tax dollars to promote themselves in the guise of “informing Canadians.”
Where do you draw the line between providing information (here’s how to sneeze into your arm) and propaganda (thanks to the great and glorious government I now know how to sneeze into my arm)?
Who decides?
The only answer as far as I can see, is get government to spend less and do less.
Maybe if government was doing less it would have less to brag about.
Tuesday, September 22, 2009
Anti-Car bias
Was surprised this afternoon to see Yonge Street in downtown Toronto closed to traffic.
What happened?
Was there some sort of horrible accident? Had a crime occurred? Were the streets being cleared to practice for a Maple Leaf Stanley Cup parade?
Nope. Turns out it's "Car Free Day."
Or perhaps a better name would be "Anti-Car Propaganda Day."
It seems for lefties, bashing cars is trendy.
But I like cars. They enable us to travel great distances, at great speed in comfort.
And if you don't think comfort is important try riding a horse for three weeks.
What's more cars provide us with freedom, making our lives easier.
So let's hear it for cars!
(This does not mean I endorse bailing out auto makers.)
Media Alert
I am scheduled to be a guest on the Gary Doyle Show today at approximately 1:00 PM EST.
Topic: The Conservative government's taxpayer-funded propaganda ... oops I mean informational ad campaign.
Topic: The Conservative government's taxpayer-funded propaganda ... oops I mean informational ad campaign.
We don't need Ignatieff's plan
Yesterday in his speech Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff declared Canada needed a “plan for growth.”
“Plan” --- one of the scariest words in a politician’s vocabulary.
Show me a politician who thinks he can “plan” economic growth and I’ll show you a politician who has not learned the lessons of the Soviet Union.
Rember the Soviets?
Besides being big on conquering Europe, they were all about planning.
They had massive centralized bureaucracies dedicated to allocating resources, creating industries, funding research and drinking vodka.
Yet despite all the planning and despite the fact they could impose these plans at the point of a bayonet, the Soviet economy still ended up wreck.
That’s because the economy is not like a car, it’s not just something you can “steer” in the right direction. It's more like a force of nature---difficult to predict, hard to control and impossible to direct.
Yet, there are always intellectuals like Ignatieff who think they are smart enough to plan for growth -- a tax here, a subsidy there, maybe a tariff or two and voila the country is rich.
What the Ignatieff’s of the world just don’t understand is their intellect is no match for the wisdom displayed every day by the millions of decision-makers in the market. People who are actually working for a living, in the real world.
It’s these people, when allowed to pursue their interests freely, who create wealth and prosperity.
That's why we don’t need fancy government plans for economic growth.
The best government can do is get out of the way.
“Plan” --- one of the scariest words in a politician’s vocabulary.
Show me a politician who thinks he can “plan” economic growth and I’ll show you a politician who has not learned the lessons of the Soviet Union.
Rember the Soviets?
Besides being big on conquering Europe, they were all about planning.
They had massive centralized bureaucracies dedicated to allocating resources, creating industries, funding research and drinking vodka.
Yet despite all the planning and despite the fact they could impose these plans at the point of a bayonet, the Soviet economy still ended up wreck.
That’s because the economy is not like a car, it’s not just something you can “steer” in the right direction. It's more like a force of nature---difficult to predict, hard to control and impossible to direct.
Yet, there are always intellectuals like Ignatieff who think they are smart enough to plan for growth -- a tax here, a subsidy there, maybe a tariff or two and voila the country is rich.
What the Ignatieff’s of the world just don’t understand is their intellect is no match for the wisdom displayed every day by the millions of decision-makers in the market. People who are actually working for a living, in the real world.
It’s these people, when allowed to pursue their interests freely, who create wealth and prosperity.
That's why we don’t need fancy government plans for economic growth.
The best government can do is get out of the way.
Sunday, September 20, 2009
Macleans to Harper: Protect Free Speech
Maclean's magazine has a great editorial urging our politicians to scrap the infamous "Section 13" of the Canada Human Rights Act, which is used to squelch free speech.
Writes Macleans:
Stephen Harper used to have very clear—and colourful—ideas on human rights commissions and what should be done about them.
“Human rights commissions, as they are evolving, are an attack on our fundamental freedoms and the basic existence of a democratic society,” he said in a 1999 interview with Terry O’Neill of BC Report news magazine.“ It is in fact totalitarianism. I find this is very scary stuff.” He went on to complain about the “bastardization” of the entire concept of rights in modern society.
Of course, that was back when Harper was president of the National Citizens Coalition. Today he’s Canada’s 22nd Prime Minister. And he appears to have lost his fear of totalitarianism.
Let's hope the Prime Minister regains, if not his fear of totalitarianism, at least his respect for free expression.
Section 13 has got to go.
Writes Macleans:
Stephen Harper used to have very clear—and colourful—ideas on human rights commissions and what should be done about them.
“Human rights commissions, as they are evolving, are an attack on our fundamental freedoms and the basic existence of a democratic society,” he said in a 1999 interview with Terry O’Neill of BC Report news magazine.“ It is in fact totalitarianism. I find this is very scary stuff.” He went on to complain about the “bastardization” of the entire concept of rights in modern society.
Of course, that was back when Harper was president of the National Citizens Coalition. Today he’s Canada’s 22nd Prime Minister. And he appears to have lost his fear of totalitarianism.
Let's hope the Prime Minister regains, if not his fear of totalitarianism, at least his respect for free expression.
Section 13 has got to go.
The language of freedom
I am currently reading The Mother Tongue: English and how it got that way, by Bill Bryson, a book which explores the English language.
It's a fun, interesting read.
Bryson not only looks at the history and evolution of English, but also highlights some of its quirks.
For instance, English has a large number of negative words for which there is no positive counterpart: inept, disheveled, incorrigible, ruthless, unkempt.
When was the last time praised you somebody for being ept or kempt?
One other interesting point Bryson makes is that there is no national academy or official state agency regulating or governing the language.
English simply evolved in its own way.
There was a movement in the 18th century in both the United Kingdom and the United States to create some sort of language regulatory body similar France’s Acadamie Francaise, but it never took off.
And this is for the best.
As Bryson notes the Acadmie Francaise often regulates French with almost “ayatollah-like conservatism” stultifying the language's growth and development.
English, on the other hand, develops freely.
One scholar noted French was similar to the severe and formal gardens of Louis XIV, whereas English was “laid out seemingly without any definite plan, and in which you were allowed to walk everywhere according to your own fancy without having to fear a stern keeper enforcing rigorous regulations.”
Consequently this is why English has one of the richest vocabularies and is the most adaptable language in the world.
It’s too bad we don’t apply this lesson to other aspects of our society.
A lot less regulating and a lot more freedom in both our economic and political spheres would make Canada a richer place in more ways than one.
It's a fun, interesting read.
Bryson not only looks at the history and evolution of English, but also highlights some of its quirks.
For instance, English has a large number of negative words for which there is no positive counterpart: inept, disheveled, incorrigible, ruthless, unkempt.
When was the last time praised you somebody for being ept or kempt?
One other interesting point Bryson makes is that there is no national academy or official state agency regulating or governing the language.
English simply evolved in its own way.
There was a movement in the 18th century in both the United Kingdom and the United States to create some sort of language regulatory body similar France’s Acadamie Francaise, but it never took off.
And this is for the best.
As Bryson notes the Acadmie Francaise often regulates French with almost “ayatollah-like conservatism” stultifying the language's growth and development.
English, on the other hand, develops freely.
One scholar noted French was similar to the severe and formal gardens of Louis XIV, whereas English was “laid out seemingly without any definite plan, and in which you were allowed to walk everywhere according to your own fancy without having to fear a stern keeper enforcing rigorous regulations.”
Consequently this is why English has one of the richest vocabularies and is the most adaptable language in the world.
It’s too bad we don’t apply this lesson to other aspects of our society.
A lot less regulating and a lot more freedom in both our economic and political spheres would make Canada a richer place in more ways than one.
Saturday, September 19, 2009
Free Advice for Michael Ignatieff
The National Post, probably realizing I was one of the top 5 political minds in the country, asked me to provide free advice to Liberal Leader Michael Ignatieff.
The result is posted here.
The result is posted here.
Friday, September 18, 2009
Cool gimmick
Have you seen the Conservative Party's great new interactive online gimmick?
It's called "Moving Forward: Join the conversation" and features Senator Mike Duffy giving a Tory pitch.
What's cool about it, however, is that you can plug in your name so that Senator Duffy actually sounds like he is talking directly to you.
For instance, for me Duffy says, "Hi Gerry, my man."
Awesome!
And imagine the effort that must have entailed. I mean Senator Duffy must have had to say hundreds of names from Aaron to Zachary.
Who says Senators don't do any real work?
But, of course, he couldn't say every name in existence. When I typed in the name "Hymie", the Senator just looked flustered for a second, then he carried on.
Nevertheless that online appeal is the ultimate in technological outreach.
I just wish the Conservatives spent as much time coming up with ways to reduce the deficit as they do on fancy computer tricks.
It's called "Moving Forward: Join the conversation" and features Senator Mike Duffy giving a Tory pitch.
What's cool about it, however, is that you can plug in your name so that Senator Duffy actually sounds like he is talking directly to you.
For instance, for me Duffy says, "Hi Gerry, my man."
Awesome!
And imagine the effort that must have entailed. I mean Senator Duffy must have had to say hundreds of names from Aaron to Zachary.
Who says Senators don't do any real work?
But, of course, he couldn't say every name in existence. When I typed in the name "Hymie", the Senator just looked flustered for a second, then he carried on.
Nevertheless that online appeal is the ultimate in technological outreach.
I just wish the Conservatives spent as much time coming up with ways to reduce the deficit as they do on fancy computer tricks.
Thursday, September 17, 2009
Offending Communists is OK
Yesterday's National Post ran this story about the National Capital Commission's recent decision demanding the word "communism" be removed from a proposed "Tribute to Liberty" monument as this might offend communists.
This led me to write the following letter to the editor which appears in today's paper:
Dear Sir/Madam:
So, the NCC is worried a proposed memorial to the victims of totalitarian communism(Is there any other kind?) might offend communists.
I guess it has not occurred to the NCC that communism itself is offensive.
Recall that communists enslaved nearly half the world, denied basic democratic rights to whole nations and murdered untold millions in cold blood.
That's precisely why we need a memorial. It's important to remind ourselves why our freedoms are worth defending.
And if that offends any crackpot communists still lurking about, we should just consider that a bonus.
This led me to write the following letter to the editor which appears in today's paper:
Dear Sir/Madam:
So, the NCC is worried a proposed memorial to the victims of totalitarian communism(Is there any other kind?) might offend communists.
I guess it has not occurred to the NCC that communism itself is offensive.
Recall that communists enslaved nearly half the world, denied basic democratic rights to whole nations and murdered untold millions in cold blood.
That's precisely why we need a memorial. It's important to remind ourselves why our freedoms are worth defending.
And if that offends any crackpot communists still lurking about, we should just consider that a bonus.
Wednesday, September 16, 2009
Liberals mock outrage
The Liberals are apparently shocked and aghast because Prime Minister Stephen Harper recently called left-wing fringe groups, “left-wing fringe groups.”
Mind you, the Liberals are not really shocked or aghast, it’s more like fabricated outrage.
They are trying to bend, twist and distort the PM’s comments to make the case that by attacking left wing groups he is also attacking women/gays/minorities.
Well here’s a news flash for Liberals: just because you are a woman/gay/minority doesn’t also mean you automatically support left wing causes.
For instance, I am sure there are many women/gays/minorities who fully support the idea that taxpayers should not be forced to support left wing court challenges.
That’s why the Liberal PR offensive on this issue is going to fall flatter than one of Michael Ignatieff’s TV commercials.
The only people who will truly be offended by the Prime Ministers comment on left wing fringe groups, will be left wing fringe groups --- like the NDP.
Mind you, the Liberals are not really shocked or aghast, it’s more like fabricated outrage.
They are trying to bend, twist and distort the PM’s comments to make the case that by attacking left wing groups he is also attacking women/gays/minorities.
Well here’s a news flash for Liberals: just because you are a woman/gay/minority doesn’t also mean you automatically support left wing causes.
For instance, I am sure there are many women/gays/minorities who fully support the idea that taxpayers should not be forced to support left wing court challenges.
That’s why the Liberal PR offensive on this issue is going to fall flatter than one of Michael Ignatieff’s TV commercials.
The only people who will truly be offended by the Prime Ministers comment on left wing fringe groups, will be left wing fringe groups --- like the NDP.
Talking conservative talk
For years now I have been urging Prime Minister Stephen Harper to sound less like a Red Tory and more like a true conservative.
Whenever I do this, partisan Tories inevitably barrage me with personal slurs and criticisms.
Typical reaction: “Gerry you knucklehead. No one likes your ridiculous radical, right-wing, redneck opinions. You’re too stupid to realize that Harper has to shed his former principles and adopt the guise of a moderate, otherwise we will lose power.”
OK fine.
So you would think these same partisans would have been horrified to hear that famous “behind closed doors speech” where the Prime Minister sounded an awful lot like his old National Citizens Coalition persona blasting as he did “left wing fringe groups”, “socialists” and “separatists.”
Yet such was not the case.
In fact, they heaped praise on the Prime Minister for his right wing sounding rhetoric and even congratulated him for “tricking” the Liberals into leaking a video of the speech to the media as this ensured maximum coverage possible.
So maybe my advice wasn't so bad after all?
Anyway, I just hope the Prime Minister continues to talk like a conservative and that he starts acting more like one too.
That would help the party, the conservative movement and most importantly the country.
Whenever I do this, partisan Tories inevitably barrage me with personal slurs and criticisms.
Typical reaction: “Gerry you knucklehead. No one likes your ridiculous radical, right-wing, redneck opinions. You’re too stupid to realize that Harper has to shed his former principles and adopt the guise of a moderate, otherwise we will lose power.”
OK fine.
So you would think these same partisans would have been horrified to hear that famous “behind closed doors speech” where the Prime Minister sounded an awful lot like his old National Citizens Coalition persona blasting as he did “left wing fringe groups”, “socialists” and “separatists.”
Yet such was not the case.
In fact, they heaped praise on the Prime Minister for his right wing sounding rhetoric and even congratulated him for “tricking” the Liberals into leaking a video of the speech to the media as this ensured maximum coverage possible.
So maybe my advice wasn't so bad after all?
Anyway, I just hope the Prime Minister continues to talk like a conservative and that he starts acting more like one too.
That would help the party, the conservative movement and most importantly the country.
Tuesday, September 15, 2009
Jack and Stephen sitting in a tree..
So it looks like the embryonic Liberal-Socialist-Separatist Coalition is about to suffer a premature death.
That's because the "Socialist" part of the troika, the NDP, seems ready to support the Conservatives thus ensuring the government survives.
This is quite surprising.
Who would have ever thought NDP leader Jack "Remember Me?" Layton and his gang of progressive, "we would rather bike than drive", oh so politically correct, defenders of the proletariat MPs would prop up the left-wing fringe hating, hidden agenda harbouring, Bush-war-supporting, tar -sands-loving, Stephen Harper.
What a world!
I suppose we can next expect to see Hugo Chavez join the "Sarah Palin for President" Facebook page or perhaps Michael Moore's next documentary will be a homage to Ronald Reagan.
Ideology sure aint what it used to be.
That's because the "Socialist" part of the troika, the NDP, seems ready to support the Conservatives thus ensuring the government survives.
This is quite surprising.
Who would have ever thought NDP leader Jack "Remember Me?" Layton and his gang of progressive, "we would rather bike than drive", oh so politically correct, defenders of the proletariat MPs would prop up the left-wing fringe hating, hidden agenda harbouring, Bush-war-supporting, tar -sands-loving, Stephen Harper.
What a world!
I suppose we can next expect to see Hugo Chavez join the "Sarah Palin for President" Facebook page or perhaps Michael Moore's next documentary will be a homage to Ronald Reagan.
Ideology sure aint what it used to be.
Monday, September 14, 2009
Pork Power
Parliament is back in session today, meaning our hard-working politicians are once again performing the important parliamentary task of hurling insults at each other during Question Period.
But this session will be unlike any other.
Why?
Because I have it on good authority that a new Parliamentary Coalition of 74 MPs is about to be formed, called the “Parliamentary Coalition of 74 MPs.”
This new coalition will be an alliance of MPs representing all ideological stripes, political persuasions, religious beliefs and hair colors.
In fact, the only thing these politicians will have in common is the shared desire to leap into the MP pension trough.
You see there are 74 MPs who have not yet qualified for the “gold-plated” parliamentary pension plan, a pension plan which could only exist in the fantasy world, otherwise known as government.
In the real world, your typical citizen must work 40 or 50 years to qualify for a pension so small it will barely pay for shuffle board lessons.
MPs, on the other hand, qualify for a pension after only six years of “work”. And what’s more, retired MPs can start collecting wheelbarrows full of pension money the day they hit age 55.
It’s a sweet deal.
Unfortunately, however, 74 MPs currently in the House of Commons have not yet served the full six years, meaning if an election is held this fall, and they lose, that’s it, no pension!
They will have to make due with a paltry severance package worth about $35,000.
Faced with this stark reality the “Parliamentary Coalition of 74 MPs” will band together to thwart any attempt to dissolve the House.
“Hey, hey, ho, ho, we won’t go til we get our dough” will likely be the Coalition’s slogan.
But this session will be unlike any other.
Why?
Because I have it on good authority that a new Parliamentary Coalition of 74 MPs is about to be formed, called the “Parliamentary Coalition of 74 MPs.”
This new coalition will be an alliance of MPs representing all ideological stripes, political persuasions, religious beliefs and hair colors.
In fact, the only thing these politicians will have in common is the shared desire to leap into the MP pension trough.
You see there are 74 MPs who have not yet qualified for the “gold-plated” parliamentary pension plan, a pension plan which could only exist in the fantasy world, otherwise known as government.
In the real world, your typical citizen must work 40 or 50 years to qualify for a pension so small it will barely pay for shuffle board lessons.
MPs, on the other hand, qualify for a pension after only six years of “work”. And what’s more, retired MPs can start collecting wheelbarrows full of pension money the day they hit age 55.
It’s a sweet deal.
Unfortunately, however, 74 MPs currently in the House of Commons have not yet served the full six years, meaning if an election is held this fall, and they lose, that’s it, no pension!
They will have to make due with a paltry severance package worth about $35,000.
Faced with this stark reality the “Parliamentary Coalition of 74 MPs” will band together to thwart any attempt to dissolve the House.
“Hey, hey, ho, ho, we won’t go til we get our dough” will likely be the Coalition’s slogan.
Who knows we may never have an election again.
For more on the MP pension payouts check out this Canadian Taxpayers Federation report.
Sunday, September 13, 2009
What's a majority?
According to news reports this is the anniversary of a former prime minister named Brian Mulroney winning something called a "majority government".
What exactly is this strange term "majority government?"
No one really knows for sure as the mysterious phrase's meaning has been lost in the mists of time.
But political historians point to existing archaeological evidence which suggests that at one time these "majority governments" were actually quite common, though certainly one no alive can remember seeing one in action.
Radical theories have emerged of late suggesting the words refer to a government which won a majority of seats in the House of Commons, which meant it could enjoy a lifespan of longer than three months.
Most experts, however, argue it's positively preposterous to suggest any government could possibly survive for such an incredibly long period of time.
A more likely explanation, they say, is that the word "majority" is simply a linguistic corruption of the word "margarita" a cocktail many politicians probably imbibed after an electoral victory.
Anyway, that's enough history.
After all, we have an election this week, which promises to be even more exciting than the one we had last week.
What exactly is this strange term "majority government?"
No one really knows for sure as the mysterious phrase's meaning has been lost in the mists of time.
But political historians point to existing archaeological evidence which suggests that at one time these "majority governments" were actually quite common, though certainly one no alive can remember seeing one in action.
Radical theories have emerged of late suggesting the words refer to a government which won a majority of seats in the House of Commons, which meant it could enjoy a lifespan of longer than three months.
Most experts, however, argue it's positively preposterous to suggest any government could possibly survive for such an incredibly long period of time.
A more likely explanation, they say, is that the word "majority" is simply a linguistic corruption of the word "margarita" a cocktail many politicians probably imbibed after an electoral victory.
Anyway, that's enough history.
After all, we have an election this week, which promises to be even more exciting than the one we had last week.
Saturday, September 12, 2009
Media Alert
I am scheduled to be on the Roy Green Show today at 4:00 PM EST to discuss election politics.
King "Deficit" Kong
Remember how we all cringed back in December when the Stephane Dion-led Socialist-Separatist Coalition talked about racking up an insane $30 billion deficit?
Fortunately, of course, the Conservatives managed to maintain their grip on power, meaning the deficit ended up being a more manageable $20 billion ... oops no it was actually $30 billion ... sorry make that $50 billion ....wait, the figure is really $56 billion ...at last count.
And here's more good news.
Canada's Finance Minister, Jim "The Drunken Sailor" Flaherty, has promised to balance the budget "roughly around the time Mankind starts to colonize Mars."
How will the budget get balanced?
Well, both the Liberals and Conservatives agree the deficit will just "magically disappear somehow."
Me I don't believe it.
I think the deficit will keep getting bigger and bigger and stronger and stronger, until one day it will break free of its chains and escape.
Then, after a murderous rampage through city streets, the deficit will climb atop the CN Tower, where it will be shot down by fighter planes.
Hey, if politicians can fantasize about how they will kill the deficit, why can't I?
Fortunately, of course, the Conservatives managed to maintain their grip on power, meaning the deficit ended up being a more manageable $20 billion ... oops no it was actually $30 billion ... sorry make that $50 billion ....wait, the figure is really $56 billion ...at last count.
And here's more good news.
Canada's Finance Minister, Jim "The Drunken Sailor" Flaherty, has promised to balance the budget "roughly around the time Mankind starts to colonize Mars."
How will the budget get balanced?
Well, both the Liberals and Conservatives agree the deficit will just "magically disappear somehow."
Me I don't believe it.
I think the deficit will keep getting bigger and bigger and stronger and stronger, until one day it will break free of its chains and escape.
Then, after a murderous rampage through city streets, the deficit will climb atop the CN Tower, where it will be shot down by fighter planes.
Hey, if politicians can fantasize about how they will kill the deficit, why can't I?
Friday, September 11, 2009
Media Alert II
I am scheduled to be on CBC Newsworld this afternoon at approximately 5:30 PM EST to talk about my c2c Journal column.
Update: make that 5:15 PM EST.
Update: make that 5:15 PM EST.
Media Alert
I am scheduled to appear on the Afternoon News with Tom Young, at approximately 11:10 AM EST to talk about my c2c Journal article.
Setting things right
Yesterday's news about the ever-increasing Conservative deficits makes a piece I wrote for the c2c Journal pretty timely.
It's about how those of us who call ourselves conservatives can set things right.
It's about how those of us who call ourselves conservatives can set things right.
A horrible day
It's hard to believe anyone would ever want to deliberately kill thousands of regular people, leading regular lives.
Yet that's what happened eight years ago today -- 9/11.
I wish I could block the memory of that day from my memory, yet the horrific images still haunt me.
And perhaps that's how it should be.
We should always remember that there are evil forces in the world who would do us harm.
Anyway, I just hope President Barack Obama doesn't mark 9/11 by issuing an apology to Osama Bin Laden
Yet that's what happened eight years ago today -- 9/11.
I wish I could block the memory of that day from my memory, yet the horrific images still haunt me.
And perhaps that's how it should be.
We should always remember that there are evil forces in the world who would do us harm.
Anyway, I just hope President Barack Obama doesn't mark 9/11 by issuing an apology to Osama Bin Laden
Thursday, September 10, 2009
What the secret speech really is about
The media has pounced on Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s “secret” speech declaring it evidence that the Tories have some sort of “hidden agenda.”
But, as usual, they got it wrong.
That speech had one purpose and only one purpose: to mobilize conservatives unhappy with the government’s left-wing tilt.
What he is saying in that speech is this: "You may not like some of the stuff I have been doing lately but the only alternative to me is the scary and dangerous “Socialist- Separatist- Coalition” party.
Strategically it's a good idea because no two words will push a conservative’s hot buttons like “socialist” and “separatist.” Put them together and you have dynamite.
The drawback of this scheme, of course, is that by embracing such ideologically-tinted language, the Prime Minister is undermining his “Don't be afraid I’m really a Liberal” strategy of the past five years.
Hence the need to deliver this message in secret.
Of course, in this day and age where everybody has a camera in their hip pocket, there is no such thing as a secret speech.
That’s why rather than delivering the “Socialist-Separatists are threatening Armageddon” message himself, he should rely on friendly Third Parties to do to the deed.
This is the kind of thing the National Citizens Coalition used to do so well.
The only other alternative is for Harper to speak like a conservative in public as well as private.
But, as usual, they got it wrong.
That speech had one purpose and only one purpose: to mobilize conservatives unhappy with the government’s left-wing tilt.
What he is saying in that speech is this: "You may not like some of the stuff I have been doing lately but the only alternative to me is the scary and dangerous “Socialist- Separatist- Coalition” party.
Strategically it's a good idea because no two words will push a conservative’s hot buttons like “socialist” and “separatist.” Put them together and you have dynamite.
The drawback of this scheme, of course, is that by embracing such ideologically-tinted language, the Prime Minister is undermining his “Don't be afraid I’m really a Liberal” strategy of the past five years.
Hence the need to deliver this message in secret.
Of course, in this day and age where everybody has a camera in their hip pocket, there is no such thing as a secret speech.
That’s why rather than delivering the “Socialist-Separatists are threatening Armageddon” message himself, he should rely on friendly Third Parties to do to the deed.
This is the kind of thing the National Citizens Coalition used to do so well.
The only other alternative is for Harper to speak like a conservative in public as well as private.
Liberal slogan gets it right
Check out my latest Sun Media column. I examine what is surely Prime Minister Stephen Harper's greatest asset: Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff.
Tuesday, September 08, 2009
Tim Horton's vs Starbucks
Jeff Jedras aka "A BCer in Toronto" makes a good point about the Conservative Party's communication strategy with its emphasis on populist class warfare.
Writes Jedras: "The Conservatives seem to be against internationalism, against success, against education."
I think he's right, that does seem to be the Tory message: pander to Tim Horton's drinkers; alienate Starbucks patrons.
Simply put, that's a poor strategy.
Now don't get me wrong, I have nothing against "wedge style" politics, but I believe it should be done on an ideological not class basis.
For conservatives that means polarizing voters on issues like tax cuts, smaller government and individual freedom. And yes, some Starbucks drinkers could be won over with such an approach.
Instead the Tories are focused on a populist style approach, reminiscent of what the NDP does with its own version of class war rhetoric.
And populism is not conservatism. See a column I wrote on this topic not too long ago.
Writes Jedras: "The Conservatives seem to be against internationalism, against success, against education."
I think he's right, that does seem to be the Tory message: pander to Tim Horton's drinkers; alienate Starbucks patrons.
Simply put, that's a poor strategy.
Now don't get me wrong, I have nothing against "wedge style" politics, but I believe it should be done on an ideological not class basis.
For conservatives that means polarizing voters on issues like tax cuts, smaller government and individual freedom. And yes, some Starbucks drinkers could be won over with such an approach.
Instead the Tories are focused on a populist style approach, reminiscent of what the NDP does with its own version of class war rhetoric.
And populism is not conservatism. See a column I wrote on this topic not too long ago.
Sunday, September 06, 2009
Liberals go bland
Wow, just checked out the new Liberal TV ads which will air this week.
What can I say except: Yuck!
Did Warren - "I am an Ass Kicking, Prince of Darkness"- Kinsella really give these bland, boring videos the OK?
If he did, he must be slipping.
These ads are what you would expect the candidate running for high school president to produce, not a guy looking to knock off the Prime Minister.
What's wrong with them?
Well strategically speaking they make no sense. These kind of positive, hokey ads only work if your guy is way out in front. If that's the case then you can afford to take the high road and make cutesy ads, with smiling candidates emitting vague platitudes in a bucolic setting.
These sort of ads also work if your candidate has slightly more charisma than a wet sponge -- which Ignatieff does not.
The fact is, according to the polls, Ignatieff faces a tough uphill fight. Canadians just aren't warming up to the guy.
Now that wouldn't matter if the Liberals could offer voters an exciting policy agenda. But let's face it, when it comes to policy the Liberals have nothing to offer Canadians that's any different from what the Tories are doing.
Basically both parties stand for bigger government and more spending.
Under such circumstances, the Liberals only have one choice when it comes to ads:go negative.
To be blunt, it's much easier for the Liberals to make voters dislike Harper than it is for them to make voters like Ignatieff.
This is not rocket science.
What can I say except: Yuck!
Did Warren - "I am an Ass Kicking, Prince of Darkness"- Kinsella really give these bland, boring videos the OK?
If he did, he must be slipping.
These ads are what you would expect the candidate running for high school president to produce, not a guy looking to knock off the Prime Minister.
What's wrong with them?
Well strategically speaking they make no sense. These kind of positive, hokey ads only work if your guy is way out in front. If that's the case then you can afford to take the high road and make cutesy ads, with smiling candidates emitting vague platitudes in a bucolic setting.
These sort of ads also work if your candidate has slightly more charisma than a wet sponge -- which Ignatieff does not.
The fact is, according to the polls, Ignatieff faces a tough uphill fight. Canadians just aren't warming up to the guy.
Now that wouldn't matter if the Liberals could offer voters an exciting policy agenda. But let's face it, when it comes to policy the Liberals have nothing to offer Canadians that's any different from what the Tories are doing.
Basically both parties stand for bigger government and more spending.
Under such circumstances, the Liberals only have one choice when it comes to ads:go negative.
To be blunt, it's much easier for the Liberals to make voters dislike Harper than it is for them to make voters like Ignatieff.
This is not rocket science.
Friday, September 04, 2009
Why Ignatieff should pull the plug
Pundits are saying Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff would be making a big mistake if he forced an election this fall.
I disagree.
In fact, here are five reasons Michael Ignatieff should pull the plug:
* If Canada has 10 elections before 2010, the next one is free.
* Running in the fall will provide the Liberal leader with great anecdotes for his lectures when he returns to University teaching in the winter.
* Improving economy means all the Liberal MPs sure to be defeated will have an easier time finding a job.
* May distract Warren Kinsella enough to keep him suing anybody.
* A federal election in November will help prepare Canadians for the next federal election in December.
I disagree.
In fact, here are five reasons Michael Ignatieff should pull the plug:
* If Canada has 10 elections before 2010, the next one is free.
* Running in the fall will provide the Liberal leader with great anecdotes for his lectures when he returns to University teaching in the winter.
* Improving economy means all the Liberal MPs sure to be defeated will have an easier time finding a job.
* May distract Warren Kinsella enough to keep him suing anybody.
* A federal election in November will help prepare Canadians for the next federal election in December.
Thursday, September 03, 2009
Adamson goes to Whole Foods
Rondi Adamson has an interesting column in today's National Post which looks at capitalism, Whole Foods and the mystery that is ideology.
Media Alert
I will be a guest on the Michael Coren Show tonight on CTS.
Topic: A bunch of stuff, mainly associated with federal politics.
Topic: A bunch of stuff, mainly associated with federal politics.
Wednesday, September 02, 2009
Media Alert
My interview on the Gary Doyle Show scheduled for yesterday got bumped to today at 1:30 PM.
Also, even though I was on the road all day yesterday I managed to squeeze in two interviews, one on the Charles Adler Show and one on The Afternoon News with Tom Young.
The topic: What are the Liberals thinking?, which just happened to be the topic of my Sun Media column yesterday.
Also, even though I was on the road all day yesterday I managed to squeeze in two interviews, one on the Charles Adler Show and one on The Afternoon News with Tom Young.
The topic: What are the Liberals thinking?, which just happened to be the topic of my Sun Media column yesterday.
Tuesday, September 01, 2009
Media Alert
I am scheduled to be a guest on the Gary Doyle Show (570 News Kitchener) this afternoon at 1:30 PM EST to talk about Senate reform.
Our never-ending election saga
Here's my latest Sun Media column, I examine the Liberal Party and its desire to lose an election.
Monday, August 31, 2009
A licence to cut
I recently attended a "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" conference in Eastern Ontario and in the parking lot I saw a car with this great licence plate.
Turns out the car belonged to my friend Karen Selick, who works for the Canadian Constitution Foundation.
I should have known.
Sunday, August 30, 2009
God's verdict
According to a media report Prime Minister Stephen Harper is more concerned with "God's verdict" than he is with what historians will ultimately say about his government.
This got me to thinking as what it will be like when Harper does one day meet his maker at the Pearly Gates.
It might go something like this:
God: OK, what's your name and where are you from?
Stephen Harper: My name is Stephen Harper and I am from Canada.
God: Canada? Refresh my memory, where is that again?
SH: It's on Earth; in North America.
God: Yes, yes, yes. Canada. Hmmm the last thing I remember doing for Canada was helping Paul Henderson score that goal. Wow, that was some series. Tell me have the Maple Leafs won the Stanley Cup yet?
SH: No! But wait a second, are you telling me you don't know what happened in Canada since the early 1970s? You're God aren't you supposed to know everything?
God: Look, buddy, I have to keep track of the whole cosmos ... do you have any idea of how big that is? Do you really expect me to keep an eye on your little country, located on a second rate planet circling an insignificant star?
SH: Well I ...
God: Hey, I am sorry. I didn't mean to blow up like that. It's just I am in a bad mood. The inhabitants of Rigel V really ticked me off and I had to smite them ... smite them good.
SH: Why, what did they do? Did they build a false idol?
God: Worse. They put their planetary budget into deficit; they packed their upper house with partisan hacks and they actually appointed a socialist as ambassador to Vega 2. It made me so angry I nearly took my own name in vain. Anyway, that's enough about Rigel. Let's get back you. I need to bring down a verdict on your life. Tell me, what was your job in Canada.
SH: Well, er, um ... I was president of the National Citizens Coalition.
This got me to thinking as what it will be like when Harper does one day meet his maker at the Pearly Gates.
It might go something like this:
God: OK, what's your name and where are you from?
Stephen Harper: My name is Stephen Harper and I am from Canada.
God: Canada? Refresh my memory, where is that again?
SH: It's on Earth; in North America.
God: Yes, yes, yes. Canada. Hmmm the last thing I remember doing for Canada was helping Paul Henderson score that goal. Wow, that was some series. Tell me have the Maple Leafs won the Stanley Cup yet?
SH: No! But wait a second, are you telling me you don't know what happened in Canada since the early 1970s? You're God aren't you supposed to know everything?
God: Look, buddy, I have to keep track of the whole cosmos ... do you have any idea of how big that is? Do you really expect me to keep an eye on your little country, located on a second rate planet circling an insignificant star?
SH: Well I ...
God: Hey, I am sorry. I didn't mean to blow up like that. It's just I am in a bad mood. The inhabitants of Rigel V really ticked me off and I had to smite them ... smite them good.
SH: Why, what did they do? Did they build a false idol?
God: Worse. They put their planetary budget into deficit; they packed their upper house with partisan hacks and they actually appointed a socialist as ambassador to Vega 2. It made me so angry I nearly took my own name in vain. Anyway, that's enough about Rigel. Let's get back you. I need to bring down a verdict on your life. Tell me, what was your job in Canada.
SH: Well, er, um ... I was president of the National Citizens Coalition.
Putting Ted Kennedy into perspective
Professor Don Boudreaux of George Mason University and one of the people behind Cafe Hayek, recently sent the following letter to the New York Times:
Ted Kennedy’s canonization is too much.
Every day brings the deaths of thousands of people, the vast majority of whom are known only to their families and friends. These people aren’t mourned by politicians, reporters, or the general public.
Yet almost every one of these unheralded persons has been more productive than has Ted Kennedy – or Chuck Grassley, Nancy Pelosi, the Georges Bush, or any other politician you name, whether he or she be still breathing or buried.
Who installed the windows in my house? I don’t know. Yet he provided value to me and never forced his hand into my wallet or his nose into my eating habits.
Who will fly the plane that will carry me home tomorrow from Michigan to Virginia? I have no idea. Yet that pilot will render unto me (and dozens of others) a valuable service in exchange for funds that I voluntarily paid to his or her employer. That pilot doesn’t force me to fly. Nor does he or she presume to know better than I do what is best for my family and me.
Who caught the fish that I will eat tonight? Who trucked it from the sea to my hotel? Who will cook that fish? Who designed the dishwasher that cleaned the plate and utensils that I will use?
I know almost none of the millions of people whose daily efforts make possible my life and that of countless other Americans. These people don’t hatch grand plans for arrogantly re-working society.
They offer only to deal voluntarily with me and with others, never pretending – unlike Mr. Kennedy – to be endowed with a mysterious genius and a saintly inspiration justifying haughty intrusions into the affairs of others.
Politicians are mortals. But as their greedy lust for power and glory reveals, they are mortals especially flawed.
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Ted Kennedy’s canonization is too much.
Every day brings the deaths of thousands of people, the vast majority of whom are known only to their families and friends. These people aren’t mourned by politicians, reporters, or the general public.
Yet almost every one of these unheralded persons has been more productive than has Ted Kennedy – or Chuck Grassley, Nancy Pelosi, the Georges Bush, or any other politician you name, whether he or she be still breathing or buried.
Who installed the windows in my house? I don’t know. Yet he provided value to me and never forced his hand into my wallet or his nose into my eating habits.
Who will fly the plane that will carry me home tomorrow from Michigan to Virginia? I have no idea. Yet that pilot will render unto me (and dozens of others) a valuable service in exchange for funds that I voluntarily paid to his or her employer. That pilot doesn’t force me to fly. Nor does he or she presume to know better than I do what is best for my family and me.
Who caught the fish that I will eat tonight? Who trucked it from the sea to my hotel? Who will cook that fish? Who designed the dishwasher that cleaned the plate and utensils that I will use?
I know almost none of the millions of people whose daily efforts make possible my life and that of countless other Americans. These people don’t hatch grand plans for arrogantly re-working society.
They offer only to deal voluntarily with me and with others, never pretending – unlike Mr. Kennedy – to be endowed with a mysterious genius and a saintly inspiration justifying haughty intrusions into the affairs of others.
Politicians are mortals. But as their greedy lust for power and glory reveals, they are mortals especially flawed.
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Saturday, August 29, 2009
Taking taxpayers for a ride
While getting on the bus the other day I was handed a pamphlet detailing "New Transit Service Changes."
Always intrigued by the workings of mass public transit I eagerly started reading.
It began promisingly enough: "Oakville Transit is offering more convenience, more choice and more connections than ever before. This is the first step in a multi-year plan to offer Oakville residents and visitors the type of transit system they have been asking for."
But then a few sentences later the pamphlet drops this bomb: "Route 11 (which is the bus I take) will move to a 60 minute service instead of a 30 minute service."
What!
Since when is doubling the wait time for a bus more convenient? And I don't remember "asking for" 60 minute service!
Oh and did I mention, the town recently raised taxes.
So I am paying more money for less service. And the public transit people think this is an improvement.
Typical government logic.
Mind you, it's not a total loss. Maybe now I will take the car more often which will add to global warming, which will aggravate David Suzuki.
Always look on the bright side, I say.
Always intrigued by the workings of mass public transit I eagerly started reading.
It began promisingly enough: "Oakville Transit is offering more convenience, more choice and more connections than ever before. This is the first step in a multi-year plan to offer Oakville residents and visitors the type of transit system they have been asking for."
But then a few sentences later the pamphlet drops this bomb: "Route 11 (which is the bus I take) will move to a 60 minute service instead of a 30 minute service."
What!
Since when is doubling the wait time for a bus more convenient? And I don't remember "asking for" 60 minute service!
Oh and did I mention, the town recently raised taxes.
So I am paying more money for less service. And the public transit people think this is an improvement.
Typical government logic.
Mind you, it's not a total loss. Maybe now I will take the car more often which will add to global warming, which will aggravate David Suzuki.
Always look on the bright side, I say.
Friday, August 28, 2009
A modest proposal for Senate reform
All this news about Prime Minister Harper's Senate appointments has once again triggered talk as to how we can reform the Upper House.
And one idea which keeps popping up is that Senators should be elected.
But alas it seems there are too many political and constitutional obstacles to making the Senate more democratic.
Does this mean we should give up?
Of course not. It just means we need to be more imaginative.
Luckily I have a wonderful imagination and after giving the idea serious thought for about five seconds, I have come up with a great way to reform the Senate: What if the Prime Minister selected Senators by pulling names of Canadians at random out of a hat?
I'm serious!
Every Canadian eligible to vote would be a potential candidate. (Admittedly this will require one very large hat.)
Not only would this end the odious practice of making patronage appointments, but it would provide the basis for a great new reality TV show: "Canada's Next Senator".
Imagine the excitement as names were selected on national television; every citizen would be glued to their set wondering if they will win the Senate appointment, meaning they would get a "job" for life and a wonderful salary and tons of perks.
Now you're probably saying to yourself: "Gerry you are admittedly a top political mind, but won't your idea mean unqualified people could enter the Senate?"
To which I reply, the only qualification needed to be a Senator is that you can efficiently and effectively do nothing.
My dog is qualified to be a Senator.
Besides there's a precedent. The ancient Greeks chose political leaders by lot, and they invented democracy, right before they invented the gyro.
And by the way, this proposal of mine has nothing to do with any disappointment on my part that I wasn't named to the Senate -- even though let's be honest, I would have made an excellent Senator.
And one idea which keeps popping up is that Senators should be elected.
But alas it seems there are too many political and constitutional obstacles to making the Senate more democratic.
Does this mean we should give up?
Of course not. It just means we need to be more imaginative.
Luckily I have a wonderful imagination and after giving the idea serious thought for about five seconds, I have come up with a great way to reform the Senate: What if the Prime Minister selected Senators by pulling names of Canadians at random out of a hat?
I'm serious!
Every Canadian eligible to vote would be a potential candidate. (Admittedly this will require one very large hat.)
Not only would this end the odious practice of making patronage appointments, but it would provide the basis for a great new reality TV show: "Canada's Next Senator".
Imagine the excitement as names were selected on national television; every citizen would be glued to their set wondering if they will win the Senate appointment, meaning they would get a "job" for life and a wonderful salary and tons of perks.
Now you're probably saying to yourself: "Gerry you are admittedly a top political mind, but won't your idea mean unqualified people could enter the Senate?"
To which I reply, the only qualification needed to be a Senator is that you can efficiently and effectively do nothing.
My dog is qualified to be a Senator.
Besides there's a precedent. The ancient Greeks chose political leaders by lot, and they invented democracy, right before they invented the gyro.
And by the way, this proposal of mine has nothing to do with any disappointment on my part that I wasn't named to the Senate -- even though let's be honest, I would have made an excellent Senator.
Thursday, August 27, 2009
Good Tory news at last
If this is true, it's the first good news I have heard about the Conservative Party in a long time.
John Williamson is a great guy, a good communicator and a true conservative.
Update:
It's definitely true. So congratulations John and good luck.
John Williamson is a great guy, a good communicator and a true conservative.
Update:
It's definitely true. So congratulations John and good luck.
Angling for a job
Despite what I have written or said in the past, I firmly believe Stephen Harper is the greatest, most magnificent, most brilliant Prime Minister in the history of the universe.
And I look forward to one day serving the Great Leader with unthinking, blind obedience and with complete loyalty.
(There, if that doesn't get me a Senate appointment, I don't know what will.)
And I look forward to one day serving the Great Leader with unthinking, blind obedience and with complete loyalty.
(There, if that doesn't get me a Senate appointment, I don't know what will.)
Wednesday, August 26, 2009
Politics of summer
A couple of days ago I posted about why we shouldn't take August polls too seriously.
Well this Globe and Mail cartoon sums it up perfectly.
Conservatism and spending
My column in the Sun Media yesterday, in which I proposed a conservative-sounding speech for Prime Minister Stephen Harper, generated an incredible response.
Most of it was positive, along the lines of "I wish the Prime Minister really would talk like that."
But it wasn't all supportive.
I got a negative reaction from the usual left-wing types and also from people who support the Conservative Party's current Liberal-lite approach.
One "Blogging Tory" in particular got all out of sorts.
Among other things, he or she took me to task for my idea that a conservative government should cut its spending.
This individual says conservatives actually only believe in eliminating "ineffectual spending."
This I suppose is in contrast to the Liberals whose slogan in the last federal election was "vote for us because we support ineffectual spending."
Anyway, one problem with this Blogging Tory's approach is that while it's easy to say you are opposed to ineffectual or wasteful spending, it's a lot harder to actually find it.
In fact, what constitutes wasteful government spending is a matter of opinion. Every single cent the government spends is crucial or important to somebody.
In other words, you will find someone or some organization to passionately defend every government expenditure no matter how outrageous it may seem to ordinary taxpayers.
So to say you favour eliminating only ineffectual spending is basically the same as saying you won't cut any government spending.
And indeed, that's why governments rarely do cut spending.
Yet if you agree that government is too big, that it's too intrusive and that it takes too much of our money, then its spending must be cut.
That's not a fantasy or an extreme ideology, it's just a fact.
Most of it was positive, along the lines of "I wish the Prime Minister really would talk like that."
But it wasn't all supportive.
I got a negative reaction from the usual left-wing types and also from people who support the Conservative Party's current Liberal-lite approach.
One "Blogging Tory" in particular got all out of sorts.
Among other things, he or she took me to task for my idea that a conservative government should cut its spending.
This individual says conservatives actually only believe in eliminating "ineffectual spending."
This I suppose is in contrast to the Liberals whose slogan in the last federal election was "vote for us because we support ineffectual spending."
Anyway, one problem with this Blogging Tory's approach is that while it's easy to say you are opposed to ineffectual or wasteful spending, it's a lot harder to actually find it.
In fact, what constitutes wasteful government spending is a matter of opinion. Every single cent the government spends is crucial or important to somebody.
In other words, you will find someone or some organization to passionately defend every government expenditure no matter how outrageous it may seem to ordinary taxpayers.
So to say you favour eliminating only ineffectual spending is basically the same as saying you won't cut any government spending.
And indeed, that's why governments rarely do cut spending.
Yet if you agree that government is too big, that it's too intrusive and that it takes too much of our money, then its spending must be cut.
That's not a fantasy or an extreme ideology, it's just a fact.
Tuesday, August 25, 2009
Media Alert
I am scheduled to be a guest on the The Afternoon News with Tom Young (News 95.7 Halifax) at 1:00 PM EST to talk about my column in today's Sun Media.
Speaking for Harper
Back when Stephen Harper was president of the National Citizens Coalition, I used to help him write his speeches.
So maybe that's why in my latest Sun media column, I offer a speech for the PM, which I sure wish he would deliver.
Check it out.
So maybe that's why in my latest Sun media column, I offer a speech for the PM, which I sure wish he would deliver.
Check it out.
Monday, August 24, 2009
Another August poll
OK here's another poll, this time from Harris-Decima, which has the Liberals and the Tories in a dead heat.
Earlier today, an Ipsos-Reid poll showed the Conservatives way ahead.
How to explain the discrepancy?
Easy.
Like I said before, it's summer time and nobody is focused on politics. (Except for the anonymous Tory partisans who love to read my blog to get a political education.)
Earlier today, an Ipsos-Reid poll showed the Conservatives way ahead.
How to explain the discrepancy?
Easy.
Like I said before, it's summer time and nobody is focused on politics. (Except for the anonymous Tory partisans who love to read my blog to get a political education.)
About that poll ....
An Ipsos Reid poll shows the Conservative government has jumped into an 11 point lead over the Liberals.
This almost puts the Tories into the hallowed territory of Majority Land.
Reactions are predictable: Liberal partisans suggest it's the biased work of Canwest News, which sponsored the poll, while Conservative partisans are already planning the victory parade.
Yet there is something both sides should keep in mind -- opinion polls conducted in the heart of August are virtually meaningless.
Canadians these days are more focused on cottage parties than on political parties.
This almost puts the Tories into the hallowed territory of Majority Land.
Reactions are predictable: Liberal partisans suggest it's the biased work of Canwest News, which sponsored the poll, while Conservative partisans are already planning the victory parade.
Yet there is something both sides should keep in mind -- opinion polls conducted in the heart of August are virtually meaningless.
Canadians these days are more focused on cottage parties than on political parties.
Media Alert
I am scheduled to be on CBC radio's The Current, this morning somewhere before 8:00 AM to talk about the government's foreign policy.
Monday, August 17, 2009
Freedom to get a tan
Check out my latest column which appears in today's Sun media.
It's about freedom, politics and summer . . . oh yeah, I also mention mud wrestling.
It's about freedom, politics and summer . . . oh yeah, I also mention mud wrestling.
Sunday, August 16, 2009
Murphy nails it
Rex Murphy had a good piece in the Globe and Mail yesterday on how the Liberals and Conservatives are mirror images of each other.
About Prime Minister Harper, Murphy writes:
"Stephen Harper, despite the image he bears of being a dogmatic, ideologically fired conservative, is as Liberal as Liberal can be when it matters most. Whether it's a bailout for the auto companies or a blissful embrace of the return to deficit financing, Mr. Harper is as flexible as the most pliant Liberal. The stimulus funds that are being dispersed these days – for those of us with long memories – have all the focus of those programs the Liberals used to scatter across the land to build tiny bridges over dried-up streams or paint the larger rocks in village playgrounds. They also did a lot for graveyard upkeep, a forgivable piety perhaps, but not one that should be confused with an industrial strategy for those above ground."
Read the rest.
About Prime Minister Harper, Murphy writes:
"Stephen Harper, despite the image he bears of being a dogmatic, ideologically fired conservative, is as Liberal as Liberal can be when it matters most. Whether it's a bailout for the auto companies or a blissful embrace of the return to deficit financing, Mr. Harper is as flexible as the most pliant Liberal. The stimulus funds that are being dispersed these days – for those of us with long memories – have all the focus of those programs the Liberals used to scatter across the land to build tiny bridges over dried-up streams or paint the larger rocks in village playgrounds. They also did a lot for graveyard upkeep, a forgivable piety perhaps, but not one that should be confused with an industrial strategy for those above ground."
Read the rest.
Saturday, August 15, 2009
Keeping NDP delegates in line
Was watching the NDP convention last night (perhaps evidence of hidden masochistic tendencies?) and I saw something rather interesting.
At one point, after a spirited debate as to the validity of a sub-amendment to an amendment to a motion, two members of the party’s “Anti-Harassment Committee” took the stage.
Their job was to remind delegates of the NDP’s strict anti-harassment policies. Delegates were told what constituted harassment (essentially saying anything that would offend just about anybody) and the strict punishments they could expect should they dare engage in harassing anybody.
This got me thinking. If the NDP sees the need for special squads of anti-harassment police just to keep their own super-politically correct socialists in line, what would they have in store for the rest of us non-Marx reading, unenlightened, bourgeoisie?
At one point, after a spirited debate as to the validity of a sub-amendment to an amendment to a motion, two members of the party’s “Anti-Harassment Committee” took the stage.
Their job was to remind delegates of the NDP’s strict anti-harassment policies. Delegates were told what constituted harassment (essentially saying anything that would offend just about anybody) and the strict punishments they could expect should they dare engage in harassing anybody.
This got me thinking. If the NDP sees the need for special squads of anti-harassment police just to keep their own super-politically correct socialists in line, what would they have in store for the rest of us non-Marx reading, unenlightened, bourgeoisie?
Friday, August 14, 2009
Red-Tory Tosh
I have a letter to the editor in today's Globe and Mail responding to a column by Lawrence Martin who was praising Prime Minister Harper for embracing Red Toryism:
"Lawrence Martin says Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s move to the left has “validated” Red Toryism (The Resurgence Of The Red Tory Brand – Aug. 13).
Isn’t it a little soon to make such a statement?
After all, Mr. Harper’s Red Tory policies – increased government spending, bailing out failed corporations, racking up monstrous deficits – could lead to serious economic problems down the road.
Politically speaking, his embrace of Red Toryism has essentially made the Conservative Party a carbon copy of the Liberal Party, meaning the Prime Minister is in danger of alienating his small “c” conservative base. It’s hard to win a majority if you don’t keep your base loyal.
History may yet show that both Canada and the Conservative Party would have been better off had Mr. Harper stuck to his free-market principles."
"Lawrence Martin says Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s move to the left has “validated” Red Toryism (The Resurgence Of The Red Tory Brand – Aug. 13).
Isn’t it a little soon to make such a statement?
After all, Mr. Harper’s Red Tory policies – increased government spending, bailing out failed corporations, racking up monstrous deficits – could lead to serious economic problems down the road.
Politically speaking, his embrace of Red Toryism has essentially made the Conservative Party a carbon copy of the Liberal Party, meaning the Prime Minister is in danger of alienating his small “c” conservative base. It’s hard to win a majority if you don’t keep your base loyal.
History may yet show that both Canada and the Conservative Party would have been better off had Mr. Harper stuck to his free-market principles."
Thursday, August 13, 2009
With friends like these ...
As someone who has been critical of Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s move to the left, I must concede his unconservative policies have achieved at least some successes.
They have, for instance, won him new friends from Canada’s left-wing establishment.
Case in point is journalist Lawrence Martin who praised the Prime Minister in today’s Globe and Mail.
Martin writes approvingly as to how Harper has abandoned his principles and wholeheartedly embraced Red Toryism.
The Conservative Party’s “migration to the moderate middle, evident in so many policy areas,” writes Martin “denotes a triumph of the traditional Tory way.”
And the “traditional Tory way” translates to acting and governing like Liberals.
For Martin this is a good thing,
“You get the impression,” he writes “that the office has matured him, (Harper) broadening his perspective from that of a regional man to a leader who sees the country and the world in a more enlightened context.”
Yes thank goodness Harper no longer stands for the unenlightened concepts of smaller government and balanced budgets.
Of course, the real reason Martin is praising Harper isn’t that he suddenly likes him, it’s that Harper has helped put conservative ideals into disrepute.
And Martin will go on liking Harper for that reason, all the way into the ballot box … where he will vote Liberal.
Some friend.
They have, for instance, won him new friends from Canada’s left-wing establishment.
Case in point is journalist Lawrence Martin who praised the Prime Minister in today’s Globe and Mail.
Martin writes approvingly as to how Harper has abandoned his principles and wholeheartedly embraced Red Toryism.
The Conservative Party’s “migration to the moderate middle, evident in so many policy areas,” writes Martin “denotes a triumph of the traditional Tory way.”
And the “traditional Tory way” translates to acting and governing like Liberals.
For Martin this is a good thing,
“You get the impression,” he writes “that the office has matured him, (Harper) broadening his perspective from that of a regional man to a leader who sees the country and the world in a more enlightened context.”
Yes thank goodness Harper no longer stands for the unenlightened concepts of smaller government and balanced budgets.
Of course, the real reason Martin is praising Harper isn’t that he suddenly likes him, it’s that Harper has helped put conservative ideals into disrepute.
And Martin will go on liking Harper for that reason, all the way into the ballot box … where he will vote Liberal.
Some friend.
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
Tuesday, August 11, 2009
Writing the Bloc's obituary
In today’s National Post, my friend Adam Daifallah speculates about the future of the Bloc Quebecois should its leader Gilles Duceppe decide to resign in the near future.
Without its charismatic leader, argues Daifallah, the Bloc would lose its relevance and “the federal political dynamic would be redrawn in Quebec and the door would be thrown wide open for the Harper Conservatives to stage a comeback.”
Maybe he’s right.
But then again many predicted the Bloc would fall apart when its first charismatic leader, Lucien Bouchard, stepped down back in 1996.
In fact, people have been writing the Bloc’s political obituary for years and yet the party stubbornly keeps on ticking, winning enough seats election after election to maintain itself as a force in federal politics.
And it achieves this success without even offering the possibility of ever winning power.
What’s the Bloc’s secret?
Well, I am certainly not an expert in the murky world of Quebec politics, but it seems to me the Bloc succeeds because it alone among the major federal parties reflects the modern Quebecois political mindset.
The fact is many Quebecois simply don’t see themselves as “Canadian” and hence they have no emotional connection to either the Liberals or Conservatives.
The Bloc, on the other hand, not only offers them the emotionally satisfying vision of an independent Quebec, but it speaks for them culturally like no other federal party ever could.
To be blunt, comparatively speaking the Liberals, Conservatives and NDP are led by outsiders.
That’s why I don’t think Duceppe’s departure would change this political dynamic.
With or without his leadership, the Bloc will be around for a long time.
Update: Adam Daifallah responds to my commentary
Without its charismatic leader, argues Daifallah, the Bloc would lose its relevance and “the federal political dynamic would be redrawn in Quebec and the door would be thrown wide open for the Harper Conservatives to stage a comeback.”
Maybe he’s right.
But then again many predicted the Bloc would fall apart when its first charismatic leader, Lucien Bouchard, stepped down back in 1996.
In fact, people have been writing the Bloc’s political obituary for years and yet the party stubbornly keeps on ticking, winning enough seats election after election to maintain itself as a force in federal politics.
And it achieves this success without even offering the possibility of ever winning power.
What’s the Bloc’s secret?
Well, I am certainly not an expert in the murky world of Quebec politics, but it seems to me the Bloc succeeds because it alone among the major federal parties reflects the modern Quebecois political mindset.
The fact is many Quebecois simply don’t see themselves as “Canadian” and hence they have no emotional connection to either the Liberals or Conservatives.
The Bloc, on the other hand, not only offers them the emotionally satisfying vision of an independent Quebec, but it speaks for them culturally like no other federal party ever could.
To be blunt, comparatively speaking the Liberals, Conservatives and NDP are led by outsiders.
That’s why I don’t think Duceppe’s departure would change this political dynamic.
With or without his leadership, the Bloc will be around for a long time.
Update: Adam Daifallah responds to my commentary
Monday, August 10, 2009
The name game
Sometimes picking a name can be the hardest part of creating a political organization.
You want a name that says who you are but which is also catchy and interesting.
And getting agreement or consent as to what constitutes a good name is nearly impossible. Usually you end up with a name which everybody hates the least.
That's why I have some sympathy for the socialists at the New Democratic Party, who are contemplating a name change.
And I can understand why some think a change is needed; I mean how long can you be considered "new."
Yet they should proceed with caution.
Years ago, when I worked at the National Citizens Coalition, we once considered changing our name.
We just believed "National Citizens Coalition" didn't properly convey our mission, that we were a group promoting free enterprise and less government. Plus, "citizens" and "coalition" were words commonly found in the names of left-wing groups.
What we wanted was a name that declared our dedication to freedom!
Anyway, an American political consultant talked us out of it.
His point was that over the years we had given "National Citizens Coalition" meaning; establishing a brand which people recognized.
It's probably the same for the NDP. Yes, it's bit of a dorky name, but over the years they have given it meaning.
So maybe they should keep the name, and just change their policies.
You want a name that says who you are but which is also catchy and interesting.
And getting agreement or consent as to what constitutes a good name is nearly impossible. Usually you end up with a name which everybody hates the least.
That's why I have some sympathy for the socialists at the New Democratic Party, who are contemplating a name change.
And I can understand why some think a change is needed; I mean how long can you be considered "new."
Yet they should proceed with caution.
Years ago, when I worked at the National Citizens Coalition, we once considered changing our name.
We just believed "National Citizens Coalition" didn't properly convey our mission, that we were a group promoting free enterprise and less government. Plus, "citizens" and "coalition" were words commonly found in the names of left-wing groups.
What we wanted was a name that declared our dedication to freedom!
Anyway, an American political consultant talked us out of it.
His point was that over the years we had given "National Citizens Coalition" meaning; establishing a brand which people recognized.
It's probably the same for the NDP. Yes, it's bit of a dorky name, but over the years they have given it meaning.
So maybe they should keep the name, and just change their policies.
Mr. Nicholls goes to Washington
I was in Washington DC last week for a few meetings and while there I stopped by the Cato Institute to attend a talk by Tyler Cowen, an economics professor and blogger.
Tyler was talking about his recently released book, Create Your Own Economy: The Path to Prosperity in a Disordered Word.
Ironically, the book isn’t about economics, it’s about information and about how the Internet is changing the way we categorize information.
Cowen thinks this is all for the good.
He also hopes the spread of information will defuse what he calls the “Us vs Them” and the “demonize your opponent” mentalities which dominate political discussion.
Cowen, who considers himself a “small l libertarian”, says if we could get away from “conclusion-based” thinking and focus on building bridges to those who share “similar thinking patterns” political discussion would be a lot more civilized.
He also says he is less worried about influencing public opinion and more worried about the prospect that he might be wrong.
It was all interesting stuff, very philosophic, very wonky.
But for a guy who has a background in advocacy, it’s hard for me to get away from “conclusion-based” thinking.
Plus, I am not even sure politics would exist without an “Us vs. Them” mentality.
Anyway, like I said it was an interesting talk.
Tyler was talking about his recently released book, Create Your Own Economy: The Path to Prosperity in a Disordered Word.
Ironically, the book isn’t about economics, it’s about information and about how the Internet is changing the way we categorize information.
Cowen thinks this is all for the good.
He also hopes the spread of information will defuse what he calls the “Us vs Them” and the “demonize your opponent” mentalities which dominate political discussion.
Cowen, who considers himself a “small l libertarian”, says if we could get away from “conclusion-based” thinking and focus on building bridges to those who share “similar thinking patterns” political discussion would be a lot more civilized.
He also says he is less worried about influencing public opinion and more worried about the prospect that he might be wrong.
It was all interesting stuff, very philosophic, very wonky.
But for a guy who has a background in advocacy, it’s hard for me to get away from “conclusion-based” thinking.
Plus, I am not even sure politics would exist without an “Us vs. Them” mentality.
Anyway, like I said it was an interesting talk.
Update:
Thanks to the magic of the Internet you can watch Cowen's talk.
H/T Paul Tuns
Friday, August 07, 2009
Bad sign for freedom
Check out my column which appears in today's Sun media chain.
I make the case that government has no business being in the sign business.
I make the case that government has no business being in the sign business.
Wednesday, August 05, 2009
Finding history in Washington
Just got back from a business trip to Washington DC.
And the coolest thing I saw while there, wasn't the monuments or the museums, but this:
That's a first edition issue of Adam Smith's The Wealth of Nations from 1776.
It's on display at the Cato Institute.
Monday, August 03, 2009
A different take on Aboriginal issues
There's an excellent new blog out there called Indigenous Analysis which discusses aboriginal issues from "a non-conventional perspective."
And by non-conventional I mean it takes a "classical liberal" point of view: ie why individual rights and economic self-sufficiency are important for First Nations.
So check it out if you want to get a different take on this topic than you usually get in the MSM.
And by non-conventional I mean it takes a "classical liberal" point of view: ie why individual rights and economic self-sufficiency are important for First Nations.
So check it out if you want to get a different take on this topic than you usually get in the MSM.
Saturday, August 01, 2009
A Liberal takes me to task and makes good points
A few days ago I posted my views on the Cato Institute's Will Wilkerson's idea that libertarians should seek some sort of fusion with liberals.
In the process I made a few cracks about the Liberal Party, comments which Ron McKinnon a former Liberal candidate and current president of the Port Moody – Westwood – Port Coquitlam Federal Liberal Association took exception to.
He wrote a thoughtful letter to give his side of the story and made some interesting points. I asked his permission to reprint the letter and he agreed. (Please note - his comments contain to personal attacks or insults, no profanity and no knee-kerk partisan responses. I found it quite refreshing.)
Here it is:
In his opinion "Can libertarians and liberals learn to be friends?" (July 27, 2009) Gerry Nicholls discusses Cato Institute Will Wilkinson's argument for Libertarians to seek alignment with left-wing-liberals.
An odd juxtaposition to be sure, but Mr Nicholls sprinkles his discussion with a number of contentious asides, of which I address three:
1. "Besides the fact that liberals just don't like capitalism ...”
2. "The best way to convince the Liberals to adopt a pro-freedom agenda ..."
3. “... Tories, the more natural allies of freedom.”
These comments suggest a striking misunderstanding of liberalism, yea even Liberalism, for which freedom of the individual is a fundamental tenet.
According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, et al, liberalism is “... a political and economic doctrine that emphasizes the rights and freedoms of the individual and the need to limit the powers of government.”
More particularly, the constitution of the Liberal Party of Canada itself affirms that the Party “... is dedicated to the principles that have historically sustained the Party: individual freedom, responsibility and human dignity in the framework of a just society, and political freedom in the framework of meaningful participation by all persons.”
It is hard to see where Liberals need in any way to be convinced to adopt a pro-freedom agenda, nor that freedom has any more-natural allies.
From freedom of the individual flows the right for an individual to own his/her labour and the product of such labour, and the right to give or exchange these with others in non-coercive transactions.
Free markets and capitalism itself follow from this. Hence it is similarly hard for me to reconcile the general notion that followers of such a philosophy dedicated to freedom "...just don't like capitalism."
On this point, however, while I contend that Mr Nicholls errs in the general case, I will grant some truth as regards some of our more extreme 'left-leaning' friends: while celebrating the right of an individual to own his/her own labour and the product of their own labour, they do seem to lose track of this by the time such value accrues and is used to capitalize ventures that create profit (even while arguably creating employment and opportunity for others, as well).I find this odd, too, but the crux of the matter is that even rights that we fully recognize are not necessarily unfettered.
Living in a society of free persons means that our individual freedoms must by times be bounded such as to also give meaning to the rights of those other persons. That's where it gets difficult, and that's where it gets really interesting.
That's where we have to find and strike a balance. Such balance will vary of course from person to person according to their individual circumstances, values, understanding and experience.
And reasonable people do sometimes differ, wherein arises our great political conversation that will dwell long into the future.
Ron McKinnon
Port Coquitlam
In the process I made a few cracks about the Liberal Party, comments which Ron McKinnon a former Liberal candidate and current president of the Port Moody – Westwood – Port Coquitlam Federal Liberal Association took exception to.
He wrote a thoughtful letter to give his side of the story and made some interesting points. I asked his permission to reprint the letter and he agreed. (Please note - his comments contain to personal attacks or insults, no profanity and no knee-kerk partisan responses. I found it quite refreshing.)
Here it is:
In his opinion "Can libertarians and liberals learn to be friends?" (July 27, 2009) Gerry Nicholls discusses Cato Institute Will Wilkinson's argument for Libertarians to seek alignment with left-wing-liberals.
An odd juxtaposition to be sure, but Mr Nicholls sprinkles his discussion with a number of contentious asides, of which I address three:
1. "Besides the fact that liberals just don't like capitalism ...”
2. "The best way to convince the Liberals to adopt a pro-freedom agenda ..."
3. “... Tories, the more natural allies of freedom.”
These comments suggest a striking misunderstanding of liberalism, yea even Liberalism, for which freedom of the individual is a fundamental tenet.
According to the Encyclopedia Britannica, et al, liberalism is “... a political and economic doctrine that emphasizes the rights and freedoms of the individual and the need to limit the powers of government.”
More particularly, the constitution of the Liberal Party of Canada itself affirms that the Party “... is dedicated to the principles that have historically sustained the Party: individual freedom, responsibility and human dignity in the framework of a just society, and political freedom in the framework of meaningful participation by all persons.”
It is hard to see where Liberals need in any way to be convinced to adopt a pro-freedom agenda, nor that freedom has any more-natural allies.
From freedom of the individual flows the right for an individual to own his/her labour and the product of such labour, and the right to give or exchange these with others in non-coercive transactions.
Free markets and capitalism itself follow from this. Hence it is similarly hard for me to reconcile the general notion that followers of such a philosophy dedicated to freedom "...just don't like capitalism."
On this point, however, while I contend that Mr Nicholls errs in the general case, I will grant some truth as regards some of our more extreme 'left-leaning' friends: while celebrating the right of an individual to own his/her own labour and the product of their own labour, they do seem to lose track of this by the time such value accrues and is used to capitalize ventures that create profit (even while arguably creating employment and opportunity for others, as well).I find this odd, too, but the crux of the matter is that even rights that we fully recognize are not necessarily unfettered.
Living in a society of free persons means that our individual freedoms must by times be bounded such as to also give meaning to the rights of those other persons. That's where it gets difficult, and that's where it gets really interesting.
That's where we have to find and strike a balance. Such balance will vary of course from person to person according to their individual circumstances, values, understanding and experience.
And reasonable people do sometimes differ, wherein arises our great political conversation that will dwell long into the future.
Ron McKinnon
Port Coquitlam
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
