[Canada] Canadian Politics Redux

[viper37]

They'll be proven right when a "terrorist" does get in. Else, they're not proven right at all.

then we'll say "We told you so".
You will answer: "It's too soon to lay blame, let's concentrate on the dead"
I will answer: "That's not what the left did the last time, they immediatly blamed Harper's "warmongering ways" for the attack.
Then we'll wait for an official answer to our questions that will never really come and the matter will be swept under the rug like all the war criminals the Liberals let in and even sometimes protected, during their reign.


EDIT:
to make it serious, I do not fear a terrorist from Syria coming here and blowing something up in the next 2 years.  I fear agents of radicalizations working on young canadian muslims and convincing them to blow something up or inspire recent converts to kill people somewhere in the long term.  These are the people I'd like to be screened out of our immigration process especially when you rush things.
And the numerous war criminals on all sides that would seek to escape their situation.  It's not like it didn't happenned before and the Liberals have never really been pushing this issue either, chasing them down, I mean.

[Barrister]

Jen Gerson: Were the Conservatives right to hate the Ottawa establishment?

Jen Gerson | November 9, 2015 1:04 PM ET
More from Jen Gerson | @jengerson

To think we would live to see these dark times renewed: Canada can once again take comfort in its self-satisfied faith that it is, indeed, a progressive nation.

Maybe.

You see, I don't think this current venting of venom toward Stephen Harper is about ideology. Nor was it ever, really; Harper's approach proved to be incremental enough to inspire a Conservative malaise in this country after a decade of power. And I don't think the tough on crime, low taxes bit remains unpopular.

I'm not even convinced that Harper's personality or autocratic style accounts for it — although it wouldn't have hurt the former prime minister to have figured out how to hold a baby in front of a camera without cringing.

No, the heart of the thing has always been about power. And, specifically, the shift of power from Canada's traditional strongholds in urban Ontario and Quebec to the demographically emerging prairie and western provinces (although we'll certainly see how long that trend holds with $40 per barrel oil).

There were many bills and practices of the previous government one fairly could criticize — there always are — but nothing that could supplant the calcified distrust between the old guard and the new when Harper took power. The Conservatives never seemed to get over the rigid paranoia that comes with living in hostile territory. Meanwhile, the established Ottawa machine, the bureaucrats, the academics and, yes, even the media never shook the sense that the Conservative decade was not so much a democratic triumph a generation in the making, but rather a coup, a takeover by a subversive foreign element.

I can also empathize with a feeling of outsiderness so bitter that it should still be entrenched after 10 years of power
.
This is why Friday's episode in the halls of the Department of Foreign affairs was so telling and distasteful. As the new Prime Minister and his minister of foreign affairs arrived, the supposedly neutral civil service coalesced and began cheering as if it were some kind of partisan rally. They even booed a reporter who asked uncomfortable questions of Dion. Public servants are supposed to be servants of the public, regardless of which government that public elects. Open partisanship is not only unprofessional, it undermines the bureaucracy's credibility. It supports the notion that Conservative distrust of the establishment was reasonable.

(And, no, I do not buy the argument that this example can be explained away as a spontaneous rapture brought about by the vicious and dictatorial conditions imposed by Harper et al. on the beleaguered civil service. We are talking about professional adults, not abused puppies.)

Harper's government has always been touched with an aura of illegitimacy. Whispers of voter suppression that never came to anything, dodgy robocalls that never really had an impact on any electoral outcome, distrust for a first-past-the-post system that could grant the Tories a majority mandate with a mere 40 per cent of the popular vote. (Funny how no one seems to be complaining about that now.)

Our new Prime Minister is so much Stephen Harper's antithesis — young, open, charming — that it's easy to ignore the fact that he is the personification of old world power, or the closest thing we've ever had to it in this country.

Yet even the fact that his ascension marks the beginning of our first familial dynasty in federal politics is treated like a charming footnote, instead of what it is. It's no coincidence that Trudeau's nickname before assuming office was the Dauphin. Margaret Trudeau is now marked with the rare public distinction of being both a mother and a wife to a prime minister, like some kind of democratic dowager queen.

I note a conspicuous silence from progressive corners who have become quick, of late, to express skepticism toward white men elevated to positions of authority aided by ancient social and familial connections. Privilege is apparently nixed when such leaders promise to ban abortion debates and run deficits. That, or royal blood is back in vogue. Because it's 2015, I guess.

The transition from one era to another is always exciting. And I can't begrudge the aura of glamour Trudeau has cast around himself and his family, nor the theatrics of his swearing in. However, some of the adulation is so obsequious, the obituaries to Harper so ungracious, that it's fair to wonder if the Conservatives paranoid style wasn't justified. I have real objections to the way the Tories treated journalists, for example. Admittedly, this is self serving, but refusing to take questions or explain policy shows disrespect not just to the media, but to the citizenry and the electorate we inform. That said, I can also empathize with a feeling of outsiderness so bitter that it should still be entrenched after 10 years of power.

"Ottawa Returns to normal after dark decade of Stephen Harper," read one particularly revealing column in the Toronto Star. It painted a picture of a post-Harper Ottawa as a war zone after a cease-fire agreement is announced. It refers to Harper as a "Hun." Tories are "hordes" and "renegades."

Or take the exclusive backstage access Peter Mansbridge parlayed into a 25-minute documentary about Trudeau's first day on the job. Watch, rapt, as Trudeau puts up a flag, talks about Wilfrid Laurier's pen, compares tie colours with Mansbridge, and talks about how he touched the picture frame of Pierre Elliott Trudeau a few times. The most useful moment of that item came when Trudeau, tired of Mansbridge's mawkishness, gave the journalist a hard time about being a bus snob.

It's difficult not to like Trudeau in this moment. It's difficult not to like Trudeau. He's made it very easy for us to do so. And we're making it awfully easy for him.

http://news.nationalpost.com/full-comment/jen-gerson-were-the-conservatives-right-to-hate-the-ottawa-establishment

Sounds about right to me.

[Grey Fox]

(And, no, I do not buy the argument that this example can be explained away as a spontaneous rapture brought about by the vicious and dictatorial conditions imposed by Harper et al. on the beleaguered civil service. We are talking about professional adults, not abused puppies.)

That is very naive, Jen.

[viper37]

but it's the truth.  Some things that were totally blocked under the Conservatives suddenly "unblocked" themselves a day after the election, even before there was a transition of power.  It's been known for decades that the top bureaucrats are Liberal supporters put there by Trudeau, Chrétien and those he named.

[viper37]

So, Famhy is complaining about his situation.
I understand the guy.  I would not want to spend one day in an Egyptian cell.

But despite all the protests against Harper, the guy was eventually freed.  Alive and unmolested.
Compare this with the Liberal's track record where we have one Canadian-Iranian dead and one Canadian-Syrian tortured with the complicity of our government, I'd say he was lucky we had a conservative government working to get him out of there.

[Jacob]

That article makes little sense when you look at the map. Plenty of blue in Southern Ontario, and significant amounts of red (and orange) in parts of the "Prairie and Western provinces."

This British Columbian - and most other British Columbian if you look at the election results - do not appreciate being lumped into the rhetoric of the Albertan Conservative project.

The "air of illegitimacy" was Harper's - or his party's - own doing. They should have avoided having his party attempt to engage in voter suppression and fraud. Saying it "never amounted to anything" (you know, other than actual convictions) does not remove the air.

And yeah, when people have a boss who treats them with contempt they will be happy when that boss is gone.

So yeah... doesn't sound about right to me.

Not that you are surprised

[viper37]

And yeah, when people have a boss who treats them with contempt they will be happy when that boss is gone.

how where they treated with undeserved contempt?

[Barrister]

That article makes little sense when you look at the map. Plenty of blue in Southern Ontario, and significant amounts of red (and orange) in parts of the "Prairie and Western provinces."

This British Columbian - and most other British Columbian if you look at the election results - do not appreciate being lumped into the rhetoric of the Albertan Conservative project.

The "air of illegitimacy" was Harper's - or his party's - own doing. They should have avoided having his party attempt to engage in voter suppression and fraud. Saying it "never amounted to anything" (you know, other than actual convictions) does not remove the air.

And yeah, when people have a boss who treats them with contempt they will be happy when that boss is gone.

So yeah... doesn't sound about right to me.

Not that you are surprised

As a one-time federal public servant... I never felt like I was "treated with contempt".  Hell, even under a government I despise do not agree with, I do not feel like I am treated with contempt.  Anyone who uses that kind of language is projecting their own feelings onto the government, not the other way around.

There has always been an element of "Harper derangement syndrome" in covering Ottawa the last ten years.  I think it had far more to do with the reporters own perspective, and far less to do with the policies of the government.

[viper37]

The "air of illegitimacy" was Harper's - or his party's - own doing. They should have avoided having his party attempt to engage in voter suppression and fraud. Saying it "never amounted to anything" (you know, other than actual convictions) does not remove the air.

if you want to get technical...

On April 24, 2014, Commissioner of Canada Elections Yves Cote issued a press release that stated, "the Commissioner has concluded that, following a thorough investigation by his Office, the evidence is not sufficient to provide reasonable grounds to believe that an offence was committed. Therefore, the Commissioner will not refer the matter to the Director of Public Prosecutions"

So, it ammounted to nothing.
Wiki link

And you have this in parallel:
Liberal scandal
And the NDP use of public funds to finance their partisan activities.  And the illegal financing of their political activites by unions.

Yet, these parties were considered "clean". 

[Jacob]

As a one-time federal public servant... I never felt like I was "treated with contempt".  Hell, even under a government I despise do not agree with, I do not feel like I am treated with contempt.  Anyone who uses that kind of language is projecting their own feelings onto the government, not the other way around.

There has always been an element of "Harper derangement syndrome" in covering Ottawa the last ten years.  I think it had far more to do with the reporters own perspective, and far less to do with the policies of the government.

Well yeah, if you feel you are being treated with contempt that's your own perspective. That seems reasonable enough.

As for whether Harper actually objectively treated the civil service with contempt, that seems one of those online semantic arguments which we used to have but which aren't that much fun anymore if you ask me. However, it does seem you agree that there was some sort of relationship troubles between Harper and (significant parts of) the civil service - whether you call it "treated with contempt" or "Harper derangement syndrome" depends, I suppose, on what you think of Harper. As for the cause of it, I suspect it may have to do as much with managerial decisions as with policy, but it's mostly speculation.

[viper37]

Montreal allowed to throw its sewers in the St-Lawrence.  8 billion liters of used waters to be rejected.

So much for environmental protection.  I guess anything goes between Liberals.  Business as usual

[crazy canuck]

That article is exactly what the Conservatives don't need.  The Conservatives wont learn the proper lessons from this defeat if they don't think their policies and rhetoric were too extreme.  The Conservatives are never going to be in power again if they only appeal to the right wing that appreciated both those things.  Faithful readers of this thread will remember that when the Liberals collapsed I thought it was a good thing for Canadian democracy because I thought it would force both the NDP and Conservatives to be more moderate in their policies in order to attract voters left in the middle vacated by the Liberals.  The NDP tried that strategy but surprisingly the Conservatives moved even further right.  A big part of the NDP demise was Canadians were desperate not to elect a Conservative government who was moving even further to the right and when it became apparent the Liberals were the best option we know the result.

All of that was missed by the article.  The Conservatives didn't lose the election because of a vast media conspiracy, or because of Ottawa insiders (putting aside for the moment that the Conservatives were the insiders), or because of some need by central Canada to exert control over the west (which really deserves the tinfoil hat award).  The Conservatives lost because about 70% of the population didn't want them anymore.  The Conservatives need to figure out why that was and not engage in this kind of self pity that it wasn't actually their fault.

[Malthus]

That article is exactly what the Conservatives don't need.  The Conservatives wont learn the proper lessons from this defeat if they don't think it their policies and rhetoric were too extreme.  The Conservatives are never going to be in power again if they only appeal to the right wing that appreciated both those things.  Faithful readers of this thread will remember that when the Liberals collapsed I thought it was a good thing for Canadian democracy because I thought it would force both the NDP and Conservatives to be more moderate in their policies in order to attract voters left in the middle vacated by the Liberals.  The NDP tried that strategy but surprisingly the Conservatives moved even further right.  A big part of the NDP demise was Canadians were desperate not to elect a Conservative government who was moving even further to the right and when it became apparent the Liberals were the best option we now the result.

All of that was missed by the article.  The Conservatives didn't lose the election because of a vast media conspiracy, or because of Ottawa insiders (putting aside for the moment that the Conservatives were the insiders), or because of some need by central Canada to exert control over the west (which really deserves the tinfoil hat award).  The Conservatives lost because about 70% of the population didn't want them anymore.  The Conservatives need to figure out why that was and not engage in this kind of self pity that it wasn't actually their fault.

The only nit I would pick with this is that I think the Cons did, at least initially, move more into the center - but lurched further right in this latest election, I suspect in a misguided attempt to snatch short-term progress in Quebec to destroy the threat from the NDP. That was of course symptomatic of deeper problems.

My prediction is that, unless the Libs screw everything up in short order (or get unfairly blamed for something like a new Depression), we are likely to see another period of lengthy Lib dynasty. Until they grow as odious, in their own way, as the cons.  It is natural that the media is fawning over Trudeau - we are in the "honeymoon" period - but I expect that to end once he is forced to go off-script in response to a major problem - in, say, a few months.

[crazy canuck]

I agree that under the influence of Flaherty the Conservatives did move more to the middle.  When he left the remaining moderates did not have enough influence to stop the lurch to the right. That is my point.  The Conservatives lost this election because they lost what the media are again dubbing the Red Tories and Blue Liberals that had voted for the Conservatives last time.  I think it is more simple than that. There is a large amount of voters in this country who want responsible fiscal governance without social conservatism.  The Conservatives failed on both counts.  They ran out of steam on policies to portray themselves as good fiscal managers and instead resorted to gimmicks and then, perhaps in desperation, they started down the social conservative road.

I also agree with your prediction.  And particularly if a new proportional vote is introduced.  There is no chance the Conservatives will ever see power again under that kind of model. They will never get more that about 40% in a very good election and the other parties will never cooperate with them.  At least, as you say, until the Liberals become more odious again.   

[Malthus]

I agree that under the influence of Flaherty the Conservatives did move more to the middle.  When he left the remaining moderates did not have enough influence to stop the lurch to the right. That is my point. 

Yup. No disagreement there.

The Conservatives lost this election because they lost what the media are again dubbing the Red Tories and Blue Liberals that had voted for the Conservatives last time.  I think it is more simple than that. There is a large amount of voters in this country who want responsible fiscal governance without social conservatism.

Agreed as well.

The Conservatives failed on both counts.  They ran out of steam on policies to portray themselves as good fiscal managers and instead resorted to gimmicks and then, perhaps in desperation, they started down the social conservative road.

The only nit I have with that is that I don't think the Cons actually ran out of policies on fiscal management - they just got overshadowed by other issues, like open governance, their obscurantism on matters scientific, etc. I agree they ended up resorting to gimmicks and short-sighted, short-term electoral strategies.

The problem for them was that the 'we are wise fiscal managers' message simply wasn't enough to overcome the other problems they had with governance - it was there, but after 10 years in government, Canadians have simply taken that for granted, and aren't impressed with it or weigh it all that highly compared against the really annoying stuff the Cons did. One question, over the term of the next government, will be how Trudeau and team manage to balance all of their (more or less expensive) election promises against the possibility of reminding us just what unwise fiscal management really looks like.  Part of the problem, I suspect, with a "team approach" is that each Minister will want their wonderful, important pet projects to go ahead - and it takes a strong PM to reign them in and avoid spending the country into the ground ...