[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[crazy canuck]

The Libs are now finally providing details of the tax reform proposals that should have been given at the beginning of the consultation period.  A reasonable inference is that they just didn't think about all the unintended consequences when they first presented the proposals.

At least they are starting to consider the details now and so all is not lost.  If they are able to admit their initial error and concede that more time is required to study the details that are finally emerging then they may recover some credibility on the competence front.  But that is going to be hard to do after they disciplined an MP for taking that position.

[crazy canuck]

We had a discussion earlier about the notion that political left-wingers are increasingly demanding a kind of ideological purity - that it isn't enough to do the right thing, but you must think the right things as well.

In that context there's been a minor story about the chairmanship of the chairmanship of the House Status of Women Committee.  Traditionally that position is held by the opposition.  So recently when Andrew Scheer appointed MP Rachel Harder to the position, but the Liberals were outraged.  The problem?  Rachel Harder is pro-life.  Not that she is going to use the position to try and ban abortion, or do much anything on the topic of abortion.  But her personal opinion on the topic apparently invalidated her.

In the end the Liberals took the highly unusual position of electing Conservative MP Karen Vecchio, over Vecchio's objection, to the position.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/anti-abortion-mp-s-nomination-for-status-of-women-chair-defeated-1.3616995

Pretty much a dead issue now.  But I am curious about why we would not want politicians to do the right thing for the right reason - and particularly in this case.  The person the Cons were proposing may well not take a position that is anti-abortion as chair.  But could she be trusted to assiduously protect a woman's right of choice?

I find Scheer's politics of this decision concerning.  Why take the risk of reminding the electorate that the social conservative wing of the party supported him in the end during the leadership contest?  Especially during a time when the Liberals were busy inflicting wounds on themselves.  A reasonable conclusion one might make is because Scheer does want to appease the social conservative wing.

[Malthus]

The Libs are now finally providing details of the tax reform proposals that should have been given at the beginning of the consultation period.  A reasonable inference is that they just didn't think about all the unintended consequences when they first presented the proposals.

At least they are starting to consider the details now and so all is not lost.  If they are able to admit their initial error and concede that more time is required to study the details that are finally emerging then they may recover some credibility on the competence front.  But that is going to be hard to do after they disciplined an MP for taking that position.

Liberal blundering on taxes is very unsettling.

The Libs have to position themselves as at least competent managers.

[Jacob]

On the other side of the aisle, Scheer seem disinclined to distance himself from the odious right: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/scheer-walks-out-on-media-when-asked-about-campaign-managers-rebel-ties/article36610946/?service=amp

[crazy canuck]

A rambling article - not clear if the press conference was breaking up at that time anyway and he declined to answer that last question or whether he ended the press conference because the question was asked.  From the article it seems more likely to be the former than the latter.

But it highlights that, just as Harper did, Scheer would be well served to make it clear he is not going down the social conservative path when ever the issue arises.

[Barrister]

A rambling article - not clear if the press conference was breaking up at that time anyway and he declined to answer that last question or whether he ended the press conference because the question was asked.  From the article it seems more likely to be the former than the latter.

But it highlights that, just as Harper did, Scheer would be well served to make it clear he is not going down the social conservative path when ever the issue arises.

You keep using this phrase "social conservative".  I do not think it means what you think it means.

The Rebel isn't really categorized as "Social conservative".  It's really following a Trump-style anti-islam populism, and will embrace gays if anything.  I see on it's front page there is one story about a university pro-life group, but that's more of a "conservatives are being picked on" story than being anti-abortion.

[crazy canuck]

I do not think it means what you think it means.

What do you think it means?

[Grey Fox]

A rambling article - not clear if the press conference was breaking up at that time anyway and he declined to answer that last question or whether he ended the press conference because the question was asked.  From the article it seems more likely to be the former than the latter.

But it highlights that, just as Harper did, Scheer would be well served to make it clear he is not going down the social conservative path when ever the issue arises.

You keep using this phrase "social conservative".  I do not think it means what you think it means.

The Rebel isn't really categorized as "Social conservative".  It's really following a Trump-style anti-islam populism, and will embrace gays if anything.  I see on it's front page there is one story about a university pro-life group, but that's more of a "conservatives are being picked on" story than being anti-abortion.

No, he's using it right.

[Barrister]

I do not think it means what you think it means.

What do you think it means?

Social conservatives are concerned with a variety of cultural issues.  Most notably for you they are anti-gay and anti-abortion.  They would tend to be pro-marriage, anti-divorce, anti-sex outside of marriage.  They'd also be anti-drinking and anti-gambling, and in general just pro traditional morality.

What so cons aren't is anti-muslim.  In fact traditional muslim morality meshes well with the so con world view and they can be allies.

Now obviously there is the well-covered phenomenon of social conservatives supporting Trump.  There's also a lot of tension within social conservative groups because of this since Trump is thrice-married, boasts about committing sexual assault, used to be a casino magnet, and lies every time he opens his mouth.  But that support doesn't make Trump a social conservative, and doesn't make those taking Trumpian points of view social conservative.

[crazy canuck]

I am not sure when I claimed Trump was a social conservative, but in any event, your definition of the movement is a good reason for the caution which was in my post.

[Ancient Demon]

On the other side of the aisle, Scheer seem disinclined to distance himself from the odious right: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/scheer-walks-out-on-media-when-asked-about-campaign-managers-rebel-ties/article36610946/?service=amp

What's so odious about being against special treatment for Muslims?

[Ancient Demon]

You keep using this phrase "social conservative".  I do not think it means what you think it means.

The Rebel isn't really categorized as "Social conservative".  It's really following a Trump-style anti-islam populism, and will embrace gays if anything.  I see on it's front page there is one story about a university pro-life group, but that's more of a "conservatives are being picked on" story than being anti-abortion.

Yes, indeed I wouldn't be surprised if most social conservatives vote Liberal these days.

[Barrister]

On the other side of the aisle, Scheer seem disinclined to distance himself from the odious right: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/scheer-walks-out-on-media-when-asked-about-campaign-managers-rebel-ties/article36610946/?service=amp

What's so odious about being against special treatment for Muslims?

Meowtf?

[Ancient Demon]

On the other side of the aisle, Scheer seem disinclined to distance himself from the odious right: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/scheer-walks-out-on-media-when-asked-about-campaign-managers-rebel-ties/article36610946/?service=amp

What's so odious about being against special treatment for Muslims?

Meowtf?

That's much of what Rebel Media was covering last time I looked. Maybe you were unaware, or maybe Jacob meant something else.

[Jacob]

On the other side of the aisle, Scheer seem disinclined to distance himself from the odious right: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/scheer-walks-out-on-media-when-asked-about-campaign-managers-rebel-ties/article36610946/?service=amp

What's so odious about being against special treatment for Muslims?

I don't think publishing conspiracy theories about Muslims perpetrating the Quebec mosque shooting, hiring the founder of the EDL (Tommy Robinson) as their British correspondent, hiring Jack Buckby (white nationalist of the BNP) to write for them, keeping Gavin McInnes on after his "10 things I hate about Jews" rant full of neo-Nazi anti-semitic talking points can accurately be described as "being against special treatment for Muslims." Nor can hiring Jack Posobiec - a prominent promoter of "pizzagate" and other conspiracy theories - as their Washington correspondent.

All of those things does, however, make them odious.