According to this article Peter Donolo, Liberal leader Michael Ignatieff’s new Chief of Staff, will work hard to depress the NDP vote.
I would wholeheartedly support such an action, because for years the NDP vote has depressed me.
But seriously, while working as a pollster Donolo repeatedly declared that for the Liberals to win a majority, they must steal voters away from the NDP.
As he once told the media, the Liberals have to "polarize the electorate" and make the Liberal leader the default for voters who dislike Prime Minister Stephen Harper.
For this to happen Donolo says support for the NDP needs to be pushed down to the 10 percent range.
What does this mean for Ignatieff?
Well I guess it means we can soon expect him to go around telling people that his favourite book is the Capitalist Manifesto, that his favourite song is Solidarity Forever and that his favourite colour is orange.
Who knows, this could work? Recall how former NDP supporter and union boss, Buzz Hargrove embraced the Liberals in 2006. Or was it the Bloc Quebecois, he supported?
Anyway, the point is the Tories will have to counteract this Liberal plan.
How?
Simple. They just have to make left winger voters angry. It’s a well known fact that when socialists get angry they instinctively stick to their usual political collectives.
And luckily for the Conservatives making socialists angry is easy.
Here, for instance, are five sure-fire measures the Tories could do right now to rile up the left and keep them voting NDP:
* Have Prime Minister Stephen Harper say something controversially pro-American, such as “the United States is not the centre of all evil in the universe.”
* Whenever an NDPer exalts the name of Tommy Douglas, any nearby Tory MP should automatically respond by asking: “Tommy who?”
* The Conservative government should say it’s considering handing over the operations of our health care system to Walmart.
* Declare the Alberta tar sands a national treasure.
* Threaten to invade Venezuela.
Trust me, anyone of these ideas is guaranteed to have enraged left-wingers marching on Parliament Hill in no time.
Monday, November 09, 2009
Saturday, November 07, 2009
The real struggle
What do the results of the recent elections in America really mean?
Here's what Professor Don Boudreaux of George Mason says in a letter to the Washington Post.
Dear Editor:
Michael Gerson, Charles Krauthammer, and Eugene Robinson speculate today about Tuesday's election results.
What do these results signal about the Republican and Democratic parties? About Pres. Obama? About Michael Steele? Sarah Palin? Glenn Beck?
Speculations centered on party struggles are tiresome.The real struggle is between persons who love liberty and persons enthralled with power.
A liberty lover refuses to exercise power over others and, therefore, has solid principles upon which he can stand when defending himself against those who would exercise power over him.
In contrast,someone enthralled with power - by endorsing its exercise over others -kicks out from beneath his own feet the principles he will need to stand on when the time comes for him to defend himself against the power of those who would force him to submit to their will.
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Chairman,
Department of Economics
George Mason University
H/T Cafe Hayek
Here's what Professor Don Boudreaux of George Mason says in a letter to the Washington Post.
Dear Editor:
Michael Gerson, Charles Krauthammer, and Eugene Robinson speculate today about Tuesday's election results.
What do these results signal about the Republican and Democratic parties? About Pres. Obama? About Michael Steele? Sarah Palin? Glenn Beck?
Speculations centered on party struggles are tiresome.The real struggle is between persons who love liberty and persons enthralled with power.
A liberty lover refuses to exercise power over others and, therefore, has solid principles upon which he can stand when defending himself against those who would exercise power over him.
In contrast,someone enthralled with power - by endorsing its exercise over others -kicks out from beneath his own feet the principles he will need to stand on when the time comes for him to defend himself against the power of those who would force him to submit to their will.
Sincerely,
Donald J. Boudreaux
Chairman,
Department of Economics
George Mason University
H/T Cafe Hayek
Friday, November 06, 2009
Compassion in politics
Here's a letter I sent to the Brantford Expositor in response to this puff piece on Justin Trudeau:
Dear Sir/Madam:
Liberal MP Justin Trudeau talks about the need for “compassion” in politics “Trudeau brings message of 'respect, compassion” November 6.
Sounds good, but your readers should beware.
When left-leaning politicians like Trudeau talk about “compassion” it’s usually code for “we need bigger government and higher taxes.”
Trudeau, like his late father, believes the way to solve our country’s ills is to throw endless amounts of tax dollars at them.
It’s a policy approach, unfortunately, which ends up making us all poorer.
That’s not to say compassion has no place in politics.
I just wish politicians displayed some for over-burdened taxpayers.
Dear Sir/Madam:
Liberal MP Justin Trudeau talks about the need for “compassion” in politics “Trudeau brings message of 'respect, compassion” November 6.
Sounds good, but your readers should beware.
When left-leaning politicians like Trudeau talk about “compassion” it’s usually code for “we need bigger government and higher taxes.”
Trudeau, like his late father, believes the way to solve our country’s ills is to throw endless amounts of tax dollars at them.
It’s a policy approach, unfortunately, which ends up making us all poorer.
That’s not to say compassion has no place in politics.
I just wish politicians displayed some for over-burdened taxpayers.
Thursday, November 05, 2009
Harper called it in 1999
I came across this ancient (more than 10 years old) web site featuring essays by various conservative/libertarian writers.
Found this dusty op ed I wrote a long, long time ago when I still had some hair, called "Romancing the left."
More interestingly, here's an essay on the site written by Prime Minister Harper back in 1999 when he was still president of the National Citizens Coalition.
It's called "Conservative divisions are here to stay" and in the concluding paragraph he makes this startling prediction:
"Within the next decade we will have a situation where no one party can credibly hope to form a national majority government. And it is this, not the United Alternative, which will make things really interesting."
Guess he was right.
Found this dusty op ed I wrote a long, long time ago when I still had some hair, called "Romancing the left."
More interestingly, here's an essay on the site written by Prime Minister Harper back in 1999 when he was still president of the National Citizens Coalition.
It's called "Conservative divisions are here to stay" and in the concluding paragraph he makes this startling prediction:
"Within the next decade we will have a situation where no one party can credibly hope to form a national majority government. And it is this, not the United Alternative, which will make things really interesting."
Guess he was right.
Free speech and liberty
I will be participating in a symposium on Free Speech and Liberty in Ottawa on December 7.
The event, which is being organized by the Canadian Centre for Policy Studies, will be held at the Crown Plaza Hotel 101 Lyon Street from 9 am to 4 pm.
For more information visit www.freespeechandliberty.ca where you can also register.
Deadline for registration is December 2.
Other speakers include John Robson, Brian Lee Crowley, Peter Stockland, Barbara Kay, Bjorn Larsen, Karen Selick and many more…
Prices include full lunch and complimentary ticket to a private Christmas dinner/debate on the future of conservatism in Canada at the Parliament Restaurant later that evening which will feature myself, John Robson, Joseph Ben-Ami and Don Lenihan.
Space is limited so please don’t delay.
Hope to see you there!
The event, which is being organized by the Canadian Centre for Policy Studies, will be held at the Crown Plaza Hotel 101 Lyon Street from 9 am to 4 pm.
For more information visit www.freespeechandliberty.ca where you can also register.
Deadline for registration is December 2.
Other speakers include John Robson, Brian Lee Crowley, Peter Stockland, Barbara Kay, Bjorn Larsen, Karen Selick and many more…
Prices include full lunch and complimentary ticket to a private Christmas dinner/debate on the future of conservatism in Canada at the Parliament Restaurant later that evening which will feature myself, John Robson, Joseph Ben-Ami and Don Lenihan.
Space is limited so please don’t delay.
Hope to see you there!
Libertas Post update
I have posted some interesting items over at the Libertas Post:
* Blogging Tory Raphael Alexander worries about our eroding liberties.
* Joseph Quensel says it's time for conservatives to cut Quebec some slack.
* Former soldier, John Thompson (currently of the Mackenzie Institute) reminds us of what Remembrance Day is all about.
* Wendy Stewart explains the "Blame Game".
* There's the regular Freedom Update.
And of course, you can also vote on our online survey. This week's topic: The H1N1 controversy.
* Blogging Tory Raphael Alexander worries about our eroding liberties.
* Joseph Quensel says it's time for conservatives to cut Quebec some slack.
* Former soldier, John Thompson (currently of the Mackenzie Institute) reminds us of what Remembrance Day is all about.
* Wendy Stewart explains the "Blame Game".
* There's the regular Freedom Update.
And of course, you can also vote on our online survey. This week's topic: The H1N1 controversy.
Wednesday, November 04, 2009
McQuaig and extremism
Yesterday Linda McQuaig had a column in the Toronto Star suggesting Prime Minister Stephen Harper had a reputation for "extremism."
In response I sent the following letter to the Star:
Dear Sir/Madam:
Linda McQuaig declares in a recent column (“Harper's extremism is showing” November 3) that Prime Minister Stephen Harper has a “past reputation for extremism.”
That’s quite a serious charge, if not an outright smear.
Yet McQuaig doesn’t even bother to explain the nature of Harper’s so-called “extremism”.
Maybe that’s because she can’t actually back up her outrageous claim.
In fact, as someone who worked with Stephen Harper quite closely in the days he headed the National Citizens Coalition, I can tell you he believed in and promoted mainstream Canadian values.
As NCC president, Harper pushed for smaller government, lower taxes and individual freedom.
Is that what McQuaig considers extreme?
In response I sent the following letter to the Star:
Dear Sir/Madam:
Linda McQuaig declares in a recent column (“Harper's extremism is showing” November 3) that Prime Minister Stephen Harper has a “past reputation for extremism.”
That’s quite a serious charge, if not an outright smear.
Yet McQuaig doesn’t even bother to explain the nature of Harper’s so-called “extremism”.
Maybe that’s because she can’t actually back up her outrageous claim.
In fact, as someone who worked with Stephen Harper quite closely in the days he headed the National Citizens Coalition, I can tell you he believed in and promoted mainstream Canadian values.
As NCC president, Harper pushed for smaller government, lower taxes and individual freedom.
Is that what McQuaig considers extreme?
Obama or no Obama,anti-Americanism lives
Writer and columnist Rondi Adamson is now writing for the Examiner, an American online news site.
Here's her first column which examines that age-old Canadian tendency: anti-Americanism.
Check it out.
Here's her first column which examines that age-old Canadian tendency: anti-Americanism.
Check it out.
Tuesday, November 03, 2009
Rating the government's flu response.
Have an opinion on the federal government's handling of the H1N1 pandemic?
Well here's a chance to have your say.
Vote on the Libertas Post's online survey
Well here's a chance to have your say.
Vote on the Libertas Post's online survey
Monday, November 02, 2009
Democracy is about ideas, not just tactics
Hey, here’s a great way to improve our democratic system!
Let's give voters less choice!!
That's the brilliant idea Michael Byers, a political science teacher at UBC, spelled out in this Toronto Star column.
The way Byers, who once ran as a NDP candidate, sees it, there's only one way to prevent the Nasty Harper Tories from winning a majority government and that's for the New Democrats and Liberals to form a pact.
He is not suggesting a Liberal-NDP "coalition" or anything sordid like that, but merely a political arrangement of convenience.
"The Liberals and NDP," Byers writes, "should agree to not run candidates against each other in the next campaign. In each riding, the party whose candidate fared worst in the last election would pull its current candidate out, or refrain from nominating one. Both parties would win more seats, with the Liberals potentially forming a majority government."
Interesting idea.
Yet let’s face it, this will never happen. There’s no way in Narnia the Liberals and NDP would ever agree to pull candidates out of the race just to help each other out.
That would be like the Toronto Maple Leafs throwing games to help the Montreal Canadiens make the playoffs. (This assumes the Maple Leafs were actually good enough to actually throw games.)
But even if Byers' plan was realistic and even it were put into practice would it work?
The short answer is: nope.
The problem with Byers' idea is that he assumes there is a mass and widespread hatred among Canadians directed against Prime Minister Harper and his Conservative government. He likely assumes this because he has a mass and widespread hatred of the Harper government as do all his academic friends.
So a victim of his own groupthink, he believes if you deny a Liberal voter the chance to vote for a Liberal or a NDP supporter the chance vote for a New Democrat, these orphaned voters will automatically vote for whichever candidate is left opposing the Tories.
NDPers would embrace Michael Ignatieff and Liberals would warm up to Jack Layton.
But there are also other equally plausible scenarios. It’s possible there are many Liberals who don’t like and would never support the NDP and vice versa.
As a result, if their favourite party is not running in the race they might just stay home and not vote.
Or they might just vote Conservative. Certainly many Liberals would find more in common with the Conservative Party than they would with the socialist, big-union-dominated NDP.
And let’s not forget, there’s a populist element in the NDP (especially in Western Canada) that would rather cast its support with the Tories than with the adscam-stained, urban-oriented Liberals.
In other words, Byers’ scheme might actually help the Conservatives win a majority government.
Ironic isn’t it?
That’s why instead of playing these silly tactical games, political parties should simply provide voters with a vision of where they want to take the country and leave it at that.
Democracy usually works better that way.
Crossposted at Libertas Post.
Let's give voters less choice!!
That's the brilliant idea Michael Byers, a political science teacher at UBC, spelled out in this Toronto Star column.
The way Byers, who once ran as a NDP candidate, sees it, there's only one way to prevent the Nasty Harper Tories from winning a majority government and that's for the New Democrats and Liberals to form a pact.
He is not suggesting a Liberal-NDP "coalition" or anything sordid like that, but merely a political arrangement of convenience.
"The Liberals and NDP," Byers writes, "should agree to not run candidates against each other in the next campaign. In each riding, the party whose candidate fared worst in the last election would pull its current candidate out, or refrain from nominating one. Both parties would win more seats, with the Liberals potentially forming a majority government."
Interesting idea.
Yet let’s face it, this will never happen. There’s no way in Narnia the Liberals and NDP would ever agree to pull candidates out of the race just to help each other out.
That would be like the Toronto Maple Leafs throwing games to help the Montreal Canadiens make the playoffs. (This assumes the Maple Leafs were actually good enough to actually throw games.)
But even if Byers' plan was realistic and even it were put into practice would it work?
The short answer is: nope.
The problem with Byers' idea is that he assumes there is a mass and widespread hatred among Canadians directed against Prime Minister Harper and his Conservative government. He likely assumes this because he has a mass and widespread hatred of the Harper government as do all his academic friends.
So a victim of his own groupthink, he believes if you deny a Liberal voter the chance to vote for a Liberal or a NDP supporter the chance vote for a New Democrat, these orphaned voters will automatically vote for whichever candidate is left opposing the Tories.
NDPers would embrace Michael Ignatieff and Liberals would warm up to Jack Layton.
But there are also other equally plausible scenarios. It’s possible there are many Liberals who don’t like and would never support the NDP and vice versa.
As a result, if their favourite party is not running in the race they might just stay home and not vote.
Or they might just vote Conservative. Certainly many Liberals would find more in common with the Conservative Party than they would with the socialist, big-union-dominated NDP.
And let’s not forget, there’s a populist element in the NDP (especially in Western Canada) that would rather cast its support with the Tories than with the adscam-stained, urban-oriented Liberals.
In other words, Byers’ scheme might actually help the Conservatives win a majority government.
Ironic isn’t it?
That’s why instead of playing these silly tactical games, political parties should simply provide voters with a vision of where they want to take the country and leave it at that.
Democracy usually works better that way.
Crossposted at Libertas Post.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
