Conservative Party of Canada

203 posts / 0 new
Last post
NorthReport

Harper's in deep do-do now with such a pathetic negotiating approach. Following in Mulroney's footsteps it is obvious Canada and Canadians are going to get screwed once again like we are every stinking time we negotiate a trade deal. First he is giving hundres of thousands of Canadian jobs away to with his foreign workers program, and now because of his current political crisis he tells out trade negotatiators to cut any deal, no matter how bad it is for Canada. Jeesh!

Duffy scandal has weakened Canada’s negotiating position for EU trade deal

Stephen Harper is in desperate need of some good news.

The Prime Minister was roasted like a rotisserie chicken over the Senate scandal during Question Period Tuesday.

Thomas Mulcair did a good job of looking exasperated at Mr. Harper’s vague responses: “We are asking very simple, straightforward questions and the Prime Minister is not answering them. That is the problem. Canadians want answers.”

But the leader of the Opposition doesn’t really want answers — he wants to turn the spit slowly until the Prime Minister’s reputation is well and truly cooked.


 

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2013/05/28/john-ivison-duffy-scandal...

NorthReport

Oh my, is there no end to the sleaze?

Documents contradict Fantino office’s claim that it had nothing to do with posting partisan letters to government website

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/05/30/documents-contradict-fantino-off...

NorthReport

Seeing as changing the name of the PCs seemed to work in Sask., will Harper now be considering changes to the now, more than the tarnished, Conservative brand in Canada? Might be a good question to start circulating around Ottawa.

NorthReport

Nigel Wright of course is going to get severance pay from Prime Minister Harper because Liberals and Conservatives reward bad behaviour with cash!   

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

NorthReport wrote:

Nigel Wright of course is going to get severance pay from Prime Minister Harper because Liberals and Conservatives reward bad behaviour with cash!   

You seem to be channeling the BC Liberal attack ads against Dix for taking his severance after resigning for back dating a memo.

Paladin1

Are attack adds different than calling someone a Nazi or refering to them as Hitler?

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

OathofStone wrote:

Are attack adds different than calling someone a Nazi or refering to them as Hitler?

WTF is this question about?

Paladin1

kropotkin1951 wrote:

OathofStone wrote:

Are attack adds different than calling someone a Nazi or refering to them as Hitler?

WTF is this question about?

 

Well I was thinking a bit.  The Conservative attack ads were disgusting, immature, dirty and pathetic.  A common theme I've noticed when discussing politics is to accuse a party of acting like Nazi's or being Nazi's. It's also common to see political leaders refered to as Hitler. I wonder if I should consider them in the same boat.

kropotkin1951 kropotkin1951's picture

Then start a thread about it

janfromthebruce

Emmulating the cons on a progressive board is not good. Stay classy and don't attack the person.

Sean in Ottawa

No comparison. And I think the answer is on topic here.

Calling someone a Nazi is an insult, it is hyperbole.

Attack ads could use hyperbole and could be insulting. They could also be truthful and accurate. unfortunately Conservative ones tend to be false, misleading, deceptive and when it comes to vote influence border on fraudulent. No, just calling someone a name is nothing like the organized campaigns of lies the Conservatives create.

When it comes to attack ads against Liberals -- New Dems should not be smug. The victim of an attack ad you could say is a Liberal in the case of Dion etc. But really it is the public who are deceived, their choices damaged by deception and the system discredited such that few have any faith in anything anyone says now. We all suffered by these ads. The crap the Conservatives pull with the NDP is similar. The fact that the information is untrue is more comparable to fraud of the poll-station moving variety etc. than it is to just calling someone a name even a vile one or one that minimized others experiences. Where you say something that is disturbing that is clearly opinion and can be evaluated easily by the public for what it is, is very different from lying. Nothing is lower than what the Conservatives do constantly.

And as much as hyperbole is a rhetorical technique some comparisons to extremes are themselves useful. Comparing the actions of a political party to the worst on record due to something they have in common in approach or style is freedom of speech. If it comes as conclusion based on accurately stated facts then there should be nothing wrong with it and the audience can decide if it is tasteful, fair or accurate as an interpretation.

Paladin1

Thanks for the thoughtful response Sean, lots for me to think over.  I would still like to see all attack ads banned and politics more polite. I realize that is naieve of me. I think I would be more interested in politics if there was more respect for each other.

Paladin1

***

janfromthebruce

I think of an attack (can't remember if it was made into an ad) but about Layton and massage parlour in the last week of the election in sun media. Now I always figured that it was the Libs who did that dirty business because it was Toronto specific and Kinsella of Libs worked for Sun media. It just had his operative all over it.

It was total crap and public didn't buy it.

Brachina

There was no ad, just the Sun spouting off. Warren tried to distance himself from it, Harper went no where near it, and neither did Iggy. Honestly as bad as Harper and Warren I don't think either had anything to do with it. I think it was the owner of Sun media.

gadar

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

When it comes to attack ads against Liberals -- New Dems should not be smug. The victim of an attack ad you could say is a Liberal in the case of Dion etc. But really it is the public who are deceived, their choices damaged by deception and the system discredited such that few have any faith in anything anyone says now. We all suffered by these ads. The crap the Conservatives pull with the NDP is similar. The fact that the information is untrue is more comparable to fraud of the poll-station moving variety etc. than it is to just calling someone a name even a vile one or one that minimized others experiences. Where you say something that is disturbing that is clearly opinion and can be evaluated easily by the public for what it is, is very different from lying. Nothing is lower than what the Conservatives do constantly.

Very thoughtful post. Also when politically aware people repeat the attack ad talking points they enable the deception. 

JKR

It looks like anti-union policy proposals are going to be prominent at the upcoming Conservative convention.

Conservative Convention - Policy Priority Resolutions

Quote:
Economic Development – 3-05-074 - EN

EDA – Nepean - Carleton

Section F - 32 - Labour (MODIFICATION)

Amended:

iv) Be it resolved that the Conservative Party believes unions should be democratic and voluntary, and labour laws should empower workers with:

a) Secret ballot votes on certification, strikes and ratifications;

b) Protections against forced union dues for political and social causes that are unrelated to the workplace;

c) Respect for Article 20.2 of the United Nations Declaration on Human Rights: “No one may be compelled to belong to an association”.

...

Economic Development – 3-19-077 - EN

EDA – Perth Wellington

Section F - 32 - Labour (MODIFICATION)

Amended:

iv) That the Conservative Party of Canada supports;

a) right to work legislation to allow optional union membership including student unions.

b) requirements for clarity and public transparency in financial returns from labour unions.

...

91 Economic Development – 3-24-079 - EN

EDA – Alfred-Pellan

Section F - 32 - Labour (MODIFICATION)

Amended:

iv) The Conservative Party of Canada shall strive to properly restructure legislative protection of the Rand formula so as to provide full and effective protection to the right of all workers not to associate with broad political positions that they deem oppressive of their respective personal identities. Contributions for initiatives not immediately relating to workplace conditions or union administration matters must be collected on a voluntary basis.

gadar

Seems like it is going to get a lot worse for the workers. Meanwhile the oposition parties can keep arguing among themselves about who wins and who loses in the daily question period and who scores point over each other. This kind of stuff that hurts everyday joe doesnt hurt the rich cats running all the parties.Thats why politics is just a sport for them. If our team doesnt win this time we will try next time and if not then, well there is always next time. While people keep getting hurt by anti worker anti poor policies of the government. Nobody seems to be interested in stopping this outrage. Fuck them all.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

gadar wrote:

Seems like it is going to get a lot worse for the workers. Meanwhile the oposition parties can keep arguing among themselves about who wins and who loses in the daily question period and who scores point over each other. This kind of stuff that hurts everyday joe doesnt hurt the rich cats running all the parties.Thats why politics is just a sport for them. If our team doesnt win this time we will try next time and if not then, well there is always next time. While people keep getting hurt by anti worker anti poor policies of the government. Nobody seems to be interested in stopping this outrage. Fuck them all.

You know, you make a reasonable point, but given the fact people can't get the truth from  the MSM, it is hardly a surprise that this has happened.

onlinediscountanvils

[url=http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/mp-brent-rathgeber-resigns-from-conservat... Brent Rathgeber resigns from Conservative caucus[/url]

Unionist

gadar wrote:

Seems like it is going to get a lot worse for the workers. Meanwhile the oposition parties can keep arguing among themselves about who wins and who loses in the daily question period and who scores point over each other. This kind of stuff that hurts everyday joe doesnt hurt the rich cats running all the parties.Thats why politics is just a sport for them. If our team doesnt win this time we will try next time and if not then, well there is always next time. While people keep getting hurt by anti worker anti poor policies of the government. Nobody seems to be interested in stopping this outrage. Fuck them all.

Just wanted to repeat this, again. Lots of truth in those few lines.

 

Slumberjack

That there is.

janfromthebruce

gadar, I agree and disagree with your statement. At this point, until the conservatives bring forward their anti worker motion for debate it still remains within the preview of the party but it is coming forward in the House.

I don't believe that all parties are the same and that they see themselves as rich fat cats. If this was true, for instance, than the NDP would not be trying to abolish the senate, an institution that is wholly created and representative of elites and their patronage.

In other news today, Walkom from TorStar talking about the conservative coalition and highlighting Gregory Thomas, federal director of the low-tax advocacy group. Embattled Stephen Harper now under attack from fiscal right: Walkom

Thomas says a fair person would have to acknowledge that Harper has been in office during the worst recession since the 1930s. But as he correctly points out, such mitigating factors would never have mattered to the old Stephen Harper.

“He didn’t get to be prime minister by being fair,” Thomas writes. “He built a reputation as a conservative hardliner on his merciless critiques of Brian Mulroney, Jean Chrétien, Paul Martin, even Preston Manning.”

Walkom queries: "Which is why its decision to launch a direct attack on the prime minister just three weeks before a Conservative Party convention is so interesting."

I've thought about the answer. For sure, it could be about leadership and trying to get Harper to step down but I don't think so. I think it's about pushing Harper and the conservative members to go "hard right". Harper feels embattled and thus he's weakened and thus to once again get his base back is to go hard right: thus that anti worker legislation will be a done deal.

And remind all, Harper does have a majority. And also remember that a Liberal govt although it may run against that legislation, well it's provincial cousins (eg. BC & ON) both put forward anti labour legislation themselves so workers in general and unions will most definitely be under attack.

Sean in Ottawa

Unionist wrote:

Just wanted to repeat this, again. Lots of truth in those few lines.

What I wrote in another thread applies perfectly here:

http://rabble.ca/comment/1401127#comment-1401127

I don't crosspost often but this time I think I would write exactly the same thing in this context.

I don't accept that the Liberals and NDP are on the same side and just bickering as some want to make out. It does make all the difference who wins in that context.

We don't know if the NDP will do what they say and deliver what we expect and cannot trust them automatically.

We do know that the Liberals will screw us for certain depending on when they feel the need and that the Conservatives will look for every opportunity to do so and will start the screwing as soon as they can.

No, it is not great. But I'll vote for the people who support workers most of the time even with the fact they cannot be trusted to always over the people who can be trusted to screw workers every chance they can get (Conservatives) or as soon as there is something in it for them (Liberals)

Here is that post.

******

When it comes to unions there is a difference between the Liberals and the Conservatives.

No point saying they are the same.

Here it is:

The Conservatives want to smash unions on principle and look for any excuse, overhanded or underhanded way to damage them. They will seek out mechanisms to do broad swipes at the union movement as it is popular with their base to be seen attacking unions. In short the Conservatives don't need a reason to attack unions as that is their default position.

The Liberals want union votes and don't have the same public point of view about unions. They pretend, when convenient, to be friends of workers and unions in a way that the Conservatives never do. However, the Liberals will stab unions and workers in the back whenever it is convenient or they have a disagreement with them. The Liberals also serve the big business managements and will screw the unions when requested. So, while the Liberals will not attack unions for no particular reason, they cannot be trusted with workers' rights and will sell them out at any time. Liberals, even with large numbers of workers' votes will turn around and break a union if they think there is any benefit in doing so. Liberals sniff the polls and if the population is anti-union they will deliver some attack as well.

I always think it is useful to tell the difference between Liberals and conservatives as it helps understand them and fight them. It is grossly naive to suggest that they are just the same. They aren't. But that does not make the Liberals into anything good. In this case it makes the Liberals equally dangerous and less predictable. Liberals also take up electoral space-- they absorb votes from people who support workers due to their lies and use that space they gain against those voters. At least the Conservatives never pretend to want to be fair to workers and any worker that votes for them knows what they are getting. People paying attention should know what you get when you vote Liberal as well: nice words and a stab in the back when convenient. That is the other difference if you want a metaphor: Conservatives stab you in the front while yelling invectives and Liberals stab you in the back while whispering sweet nothings in your ears. In terms of strategy this is a big difference but in either case you are going to get stabbed.

 

Sean in Ottawa

There is some speculation about the possibility of a Harper resignation. An article in Macleans  By Paul Wells suggests that we should not take that seriously. I disagreed and replied as follows:

Maybe your explanation in part explains the tentativeness of the suggestions. It

does not suggest a reason not to consider them.

First, the logic presented here, suggests that there is no point in changing leaders

to improve a party's position, but surely that can't be true. Changing leaders

(except when the leader goes for personal reasons) is a mark of desperation. There

is a cause and effect problem here. If the new leader is unable to reverse the

damage using your logic we would blame the change in leadership for the loss. In

fact perhaps it is more a question of overstaying. People like the job and the power

and are reluctant to leave. If a leader stays till it is too late to reverse the

trend the problem would not be with the change in leadership but the that it was

done too late. All three examples you mention could be argued as overstaying

leaders.

Second, while I am not a Liberal, I can certainly attest to the fact that Liberals

can win elections and are the most successful federal electoral franchise in

history. To suggest the Liberals are not a threat seems naive. We are also comparing

to a different Conservative party than what governed for many years. Harper's

support has always been a bit tepid and he has always gone up against Liberal

leaders with massive disadvantages-- carrying scandal, unable to speak English well,

unable to connect facing a surging NDP and working without significant support from

Québec. Most PMs come in stronger not taking 2 terms to get to a majority in

extraordinary circumstances. Arguably Harper has very little cushion.

Harper's advantage is minimal against these leaders. Trudeau is perhaps not as

formidable an opponent rhetorically, but Mulcair is expected to be. Even if people

don't elect an NDP government, Mulcair is going to do some serious damage. And

Harper is presenting a pretty good target now. A narrative has taken shape. A Harper

minority government in 2015 is inconceivable. None of the opposition parties will

hold him in power.

Lastly consider Ontario gave Harper his majority. Nobody has ever had a majority

without either getting one in Ontario or failing that going almost wall-to-wall in

Quebec (1988, 1980, 1972). The last time the federal Conservatives got back to back

majorities in Ontario was 1958 when they did it in Quebec as well. History is not on

Harper's side.

I believe that there is a battle between the NDP and the Liberals. If one wins that

battle solidly that winner will govern. Only if there is a real draw do the

Conservatives even have a chance and even then it is a slim one. I suspect none of

the parties will get a majority. And Harper would not want to go out losing the

majority that took 4 campaigns to build.Maybe your explanation in part explains the

tentativeness of the suggestions. It does not suggest a reason not to consider them.

First, the logic presented here, suggests that there is no point in changing leaders

to improve a party's position, but surely that can't be true. Changing leaders

(except when the leader goes for personal reasons) is a mark of desperation. There

is a cause and effect problem here. If the new leader is unable to reverse the

damage using your logic we would blame the change in leadership for the loss. In

fact perhaps it is more a question of overstaying. People like the job and the power

and are reluctant to leave. If a leader stays till it is too late to reverse the

trend the problem would not be with the change in leadership but the that it was

done too late. All three examples you mention could be argued as overstaying

leaders.

Second, while I am not a Liberal, I can certainly attest to the fact that Liberals

can win elections and are the most successful federal electoral franchise in

history. To suggest the Liberals are not a threat seems naive. We are also comparing

to a different Conservative party than what governed for many years. Harper's

support has always been a bit tepid and he has always gone up against Liberal

leaders with massive disadvantages-- carrying scandal, unable to speak English well,

unable to connect facing a surging NDP and working without significant support from

Québec. Most PMs come in stronger not taking 2 terms to get to a majority in

extraordinary circumstances. Arguably Harper has very little cushion.

Harper's advantage is minimal against these leaders. Trudeau is perhaps not as

formidable an opponent rhetorically, but Mulcair is expected to be. Even if people

don't elect an NDP government, Mulcair is going to do some serious damage. And

Harper is presenting a pretty good target now. A narrative has taken shape. A Harper

minority government in 2015 is inconceivable. None of the opposition parties will

hold him in power.

Lastly consider Ontario gave Harper his majority. Nobody has ever had a majority

without either getting one in Ontario or failing that going almost wall-to-wall in

Quebec (1988, 1980, 1972). The last time the federal Conservatives got back to back

majorities in Ontario was 1958 when they did it in Quebec as well. History is not on

Harper's side.

I believe that there is a battle between the NDP and the Liberals. If one wins that

battle solidly that winner will govern. Only if there is a real draw do the

Conservatives even have a chance and even then it is a slim one. I suspect none of

the parties will get a majority. And Harper would not want to go out losing the

majority that took 4 campaigns to build.

NorthReport

Let's get real about the resignation of Brent Rathgeber from the Conservative caucus

http://www.straight.com/news/389956/daniel-veniez-lets-get-real-about-re...

Brachina
janfromthebruce

Leftdog is right on this one. From what I have read, it appears that again it was and cont to be the NDP you fights for war vets and their disability pensions, pay and compensation. They are workers.

Brachina

Yep, the Tories lose interest in supporting the troops when there no longer of use in thier wars.

Bluegreenblogger

janfromthebruce wrote:

I think of an attack (can't remember if it was made into an ad) but about Layton and massage parlour in the last week of the election in sun media. Now I always figured that it was the Libs who did that dirty business because it was Toronto specific and Kinsella of Libs worked for Sun media. It just had his operative all over it.

It was total crap and public didn't buy it.

 

Actually, I seem to recall that Kinsella blogged about that tidbit. He did say that this piece of 'information' was making the rounds years ago, and was shopped to the Liberal War room by a disgruntled copper years ago, but he refused to use it, it was of dubious provenance, and was a personal attack of limited value. He was slagging the CPC for pushing it out via Sun. I think that ridicule is more Kinsellas style. I could dig up a reference if you like.

Bluegreenblogger

janfromthebruce wrote:

Leftdog is right on this one. From what I have read, it appears that again it was and cont to be the NDP you fights for war vets and their disability pensions, pay and compensation. They are workers.

It is hard to disagree. I came close to joining the Army back when I was 16, and desperately broke in Montreal in 1982. The pay was crap, but there was the chance of an education, and the pension was full pay (even if the pay was minimal) after 20 years service. God help you now if you happen to get hurt 'on the job'. You will be discarded without even the pittance that is on offer to a retiree. What is particularily outrageous is that i9n any other occupation, if you are hurt on the job, or worse, crippled or disabled, then Workers Compensation allows you to live without the fear of penury, and with assurances of decent medical care. Should you be hurt in the forces, carrying out the commands of your political masters, and in the service of your fellow citizens, you have no such support system. If you ask me, the Ministry of Defence is loaded up with penny pinching fucks, incuclated with contempt towards their own, as this behaviour does not seem to change whoever is in Government.

bekayne
janfromthebruce

Bluegreenblogger wrote:

janfromthebruce wrote:

I think of an attack (can't remember if it was made into an ad) but about Layton and massage parlour in the last week of the election in sun media. Now I always figured that it was the Libs who did that dirty business because it was Toronto specific and Kinsella of Libs worked for Sun media. It just had his operative all over it.

It was total crap and public didn't buy it.

 

 

Actually, I seem to recall that Kinsella blogged about that tidbit. He did say that this piece of 'information' was making the rounds years ago, and was shopped to the Liberal War room by a disgruntled copper years ago, but he refused to use it, it was of dubious provenance, and was a personal attack of limited value. He was slagging the CPC for pushing it out via Sun. I think that ridicule is more Kinsellas style. I could dig up a reference if you like.

Yes, I remember Kinsella blogging about it and no I don't buy that he didn't releak the information but in turn provided cover for himself. Considering, for example, the whole coop housing supposed "scandal" is still put out there and originated by the Liberal Star doesn't give me a comfort that Liberals are New Dems friends.

Bluegreenblogger

Actually, I seem to recall that Kinsella blogged about that tidbit. He did say that this piece of 'information' was making the rounds years ago, and was shopped to the Liberal War room by a disgruntled copper years ago, but he refused to use it, it was of dubious provenance, and was a personal attack of limited value. He was slagging the CPC for pushing it out via Sun. I think that ridicule is more Kinsellas style. I could dig up a reference if you like.

Yes, I remember Kinsella blogging about it and no I don't buy that he didn't releak the information but in turn provided cover for himself. Considering, for example, the whole coop housing supposed "scandal" is still put out there and originated by the Liberal Star doesn't give me a comfort that Liberals are New Dems friends.

Hey, I am not exactly suggesting that the Liberals are New Dems friends. I did read Kinsellas first book, and read his blog pretty regularily, and he definitely sets limits around what is fair game and what is not. What I do remember is that he had that information about Layton 3 years before the Sun splashed it out in the last election, and he was pretty specific about how and when it came to him. He was down on the Sun, not the CPC for publishing a stale and phoney story, which tends to lend credence since he is employed by the Sun, and as you pointed out he is a Liberal, criticizing his employer for a below the belt blow on Layton. Incidentally, part of his critique was that any copper who would be stealing and illegally supplying confidential info to the press is suspect, as there is no way to legally verify, and the very act of leaking demonstrates a serious overdose of partisan zeal. You know, most people in politics know and follow some rules of decency, and there is a certain amount of 'honour amongst thieves'. Or at least there used to be. Even modern Conservatives have a number of straight arrows intheir midst, although I must confess that my faith in human nature has been stretched pretty damned far by the harper crew.