The Iron Lady

The Iron Lady, she was known as, was one of the stalwart figures of English conservatism.  During the 1980's, at a time when the U.S., Canada, and Britain all had conservative leaders, you can undoubtedly know that both Ronald Reagan and Brian Mulroney admired her big-time.

If only more conservatives could live up to her defense of liberty.  Her strong defence of the Falkland Islands, her stance against world socialism during the Cold War, are the pillars in which she help define our future in the Western world.

Rest in peace, Baroness Thatcher.  And thank you.

Here's a list of some of her famous statements, which I wholeheartedly agree with:

• "If a Tory does not believe that private property is one of the main bulwarks of individual freedom, then he had better become a socialist and have done with it." - Article for Daily Telegraph ("My Kind of Tory Party") (30 January, 1975)

• "And I will go on criticising Socialism, and opposing Socialism because it is bad for Britain — and Britain and Socialism are not the same thing. (...) It’s the Labour Government that have brought us record peace-time taxation. They’ve got the usual Socialist disease — they’ve run out of other people’s money." - In a speech to the Conservative Party Conference (10 October, 1975) [1]

• "Some Socialists seem to believe that people should be numbers in a State computer. We believe they should be individuals. We are all unequal. No one, thank heavens, is like anyone else, however much the Socialists may pretend otherwise. We believe that everyone has the right to be unequal but to us every human being is equally important." - In a speech to the Conservative Party Conference (10 October, 1975) [2]

• "A man's right to work as he will, to spend what he earns, to own property, to have the State as servant and not as master: these are the British inheritance. They are the essence of a free economy. And on that freedom all our other freedoms depend." - In a speech to the Conservative Party Conference (10 October, 1975) [3]

• "They're casting their problem on society. And, you know, there is no such thing as society. There are individual men and women, and there are families. And no government can do anything except through people, and people must look to themselves first. It's our duty to look after ourselves and then, also to look after our neighbour. People have got the entitlements too much in mind, without the obligations, because there is no such thing as an entitlement unless someone has first met an obligation." - Interview 23 September 1987, as quoted in by Douglas Keay, Woman's Own, 31 October 1987, pp. 8–10. 

Waves of provincial and federal party support

A poll was just released showing 3/4 Ontarians want Liberal Premier Dalton McGuinty and his party out (29% support) and Tim Hudak's PCs in (41% support).

In last night's election in New Brunswick, the PCs trounced the incumbent Liberals, 42 to 13 seats. (It could be argued though that the PCs were even to the left of the Liberals there.)

Many believe that this wave of 'conservatism' on a provincial level directly translates to votes for conservatives on a federal level.  It doesn't.  While there are numerous examples, let us look at Ontario's recent history, because how Ontario votes federally basically determines who wins for the whole country.

In Ontario in the 80's, Mulroney's federal PC government dominated Ontario, yet provincially at that time, Ontario was Liberal. And then Bob Rae's NDP came in.

Then in 1993, once Ontario went with Chretien's Liberals, a couple years later, Ontarians went with Mike Harris' provincial PCs.  Then Paul Martin (tending to be a bit more conservative than Chretien) was PM and Ontario goes Liberal provincially with Dalton McGuinty. Soon later, Ontarians support Harper's Conservatives federally.

So my theory, backed up by strong evidence mind you, is that Ontarians, feeling like they are the big province that holds the country together, generally like to balance out their politics between who's in power federally versus provincially.

So for you Ontario Conservatives who are cheering for a potential Tim Hudak PC win, keep in mind the recent history, which dictates that soon after, Ontario federally will eventually switch to the Liberals putting the Liberals back in power. 

Which is why you'd better hope to heck that after the next federal election when Ignatieff's Liberals lose, that they replace him with Bob Rae, because I don't think Ontarians are that gullible to support him again, and will hopefully make an exception to my theory.

Hopefully.

Reintroducing Senate Term Limits

It's interesting to read CBC.ca about the Prime Minister's latest prorogation of Parliament and why they think the only reason was the Afghan detainee issue.  Funny how a bunch of legislation that died on the order paper was previously modified and watered down by Senate committees, if not stalled all together.  One of those bills was Senate term limits, which I think is the real reason for prorogation.

Oh you've heard Liberals go on and on that this bill or provincially elected senators do not represent "meaningful senate reform", that while they're for senate reform (!) they're not for "peacemeal" reform.   This is a term I have coined "insenaty", where you're for senate reform but don't do anything about it, especially when you're a senator yourself.

Not surprised, but I was delighted to read on CTV.ca that the Conservative government is going to reintroduce the bill to limit Senators to eight years.  Some Liberals, seeing inevitability, are pushing for twelve.

The latest prorogation not only killed bills stuck in committee, but it allows the government to reset, including the committees themselves.  There are now five Senate seats vacant, and if Harper appoints them (read: 'recommends to the Governor General to appoint them') the Conservatives will have a plurality of seats in the Senate.  AND if Harper takes it another step further, he can request 8 (I think it's 8) more Senators, just as Brian Mulroney did to pass the GST.  The committees will then have Conservative control and bills won't get watered down, including the Senate term limit bill.

So with term limits, current and future Prime Ministers may be quite busy in terms of continually making appointments to fill the vacancies. So why not let the people decide?  If you're such a good senator, then run for election again and again, just like MPs have to do.

Harper has stated clearly that if provinces want to have senate elections that they just go ahead and do it.  Thing is, not all provinces really want to do it and there doesn't appear to be anyone wanting to open the Constitution, as long as the Quebec separatists are still around fanning the flames. 

The CTV article states that Quebec has no interest in Senate reform, and Ontario Premier Dalton McGuinty has stated he'd rather abolish it.  Makes sense for both provinces.  With the status quo, Quebec keeps a quarter of the Senate seats and still hold sway, where by abolishing it, Ontario will continue to hold about a third of the seats in the House of Commons.  This thinking is an absolute slap in the face to the regional-provincial disparity of this great nation.

Now, are both scenarios fair to the rest of the provinces?  HELL NO!  Why have unequal provinces? Why should one province matter more than another?


I get pretty tired arguing with people that don't think we also need an equal senate just like large geographical countries such as the U.S. and Australia have.  They say, "But Ontario has the largest population, they should have the most senate seats."  Um, no.  They ALREADY have the most seats in the Commons, why do they need it AGAIN in the senate.  They don't.  There needs to be balance between population and regionalism in a bicameral legislature.  But then they say that we already have regional equality of the five regions of Canada.

I don't hear ANYONE in the U.S. saying their bicameral representation isn't fair, that California and Texas dominate the government.  Each state is EQUAL.

I hope to live to see the day that Canada has, say, six senators per province, and two per territory, no exceptions and to be able elect them, no matter which province I live in.

But for now, I'll take eight year senator term limits.

When the Schreiber hits the fan

Do you get the feeling that Karlmarxheinzketchup Schreiber is using the Liberals to stay his extradiction to Germany?

Of course. Everyone knows it, but no one is saying it publicly in the House of Commons.

Do you also get the feeling that the Liberals are seeking revenge and are trying to find that magic bullet scandal against the Conservatives, similar to what they endured under Martin?

Of course. They don't care about the truth. They only care about throwing mud at the government. Do you think some of them are frustrated with their own leader, standing in the polls, so they're trying to deflect that negative attention onto the Conservatives.

They think they're onto something here. Again, not the truth, but how Canadians will perceive the supposed connection between Mulroney's shady dealings and the current government.

With phrases coming from the Liberals like "Mulroney infested party", "that party's elder statesman", "top political adviser", and seeking to find out about every governmental minister relationship with Mulroney, you wonder what the Liberals really stand for, if anything, other than seeking power.

They're trying to do the same thing with the so-called "In and Out Scandal" which they cry that shady transfers of money between the Conservative party HQ and local ridings for local TV ads was illegal. The Conservatives are suing the Liberals, and are providing evidence that every party does the same thing and that this transfer is not illegal.

During Question Period in the House of Commons, whenever Liberals ask the government why certain things aren't being done, the simple repetitive answer has been, "But we have already done that when the Liberals sat on their hands. In fact, Mr. Speaker, we've done more about solving that issue in the last 22 months than the Liberals ever did in 13 years!"

And you know what? Canadians aren't buying into the Liberal crap being thrown and if they throw too much BS, it's not going to hit the fan, it's going to blow right back in their face and the Liberal party will stink even more than they do--which of course, isn't a bad thing, just don't stand next to them.

On the Senate, House, and Mulroney

On the Senate...

The Conservative government has reintroduced two bills into the House of Commons--one to limit senator terms to eight years (instead of up to 45) and the other to consult voters by province on who they want as senators which the prime minister would appoint. Last year, this was introduced and stalled in the Senate (due to "insenaty"). But now that's they're being introduced in the House and if they pass, they will go on to the Senate. Will the 99% appointed Senate defeat it and go against the wishes of the electorate?

If so, then the Conservatives are going to support an NDP bill to hold a referendum to abolish the senate altogether. And while this isn't really a binding referendum because in order to turf the upper chamber, that would require a constitutional amendment.

Again, there hasn't been this much activity regarding senate reform since the Meech Lake and Charlottetown Accords under Mulroney. What Stephen Harper is doing here though is instead of opening up the constitution, he's doing everything else to push senate reform to the forefront and continue on his path to rid Canada of Liberal politicians. While he won't likely get rid of them all, he's certainly giving it a good run.

On the House...

Today the government tabled a bill to give more seats to British Columbia, Alberta, and Ontario and have this in place by 2012. Using Quebec as a benchmark, as we know they and PEI have a disproportionate number of MPs compared to their population, BC will get 7, Alberta 5, and Ontario 10, upping the total number from 308 to 330. I really wonder if there's any room left in the House. Seriously. It's bloody packed in there. Eventually, it's going to look like the British House of Commons where there's no desk, just benches.

So I say they also introduce a bill to limit the total seats in the House to the maximum number of desks it can actually fit in there. And instead of buying new seats, I guess if they abolish the senate, they can always use those ones, and their offices too.

On Mulroney...

Steve Janke at Angry in the Great White North has been following the intricacies of the Mulroney-Schreiber affair. Schreiber has actually been in contact with a Liberal MP. In fact, while Stephane Dion slams Harper for having known about this issue seven months ago, so did the Liberals and NDP, all receiving letters from Schreiber on this issue, who is doing everything he can to avoid extradition to Germany for all sorts of criminal dealings.

Mulroney continues to maintain his innocence and has called for an inquiry himself. Warren Kinsella guesses that Mulroney knew one was coming and was able to hit the media first. Sounds reasonable.

The Liberals and NDP have done a good job on slamming the government, and although their claims are hypocritical in a sense, Harper has called for an inquiry, but to the avail of a dip in the polls for the Conservatives--especially in Ontario, where just last week, they were ahead of the Liberals after the tax relief announcement. This is just a blip although it shows that Ontarians don't like Brian Mulroney or that Harper has him as an advisor.

It will be interesting to see how much play the Mulroney Schreiber affair gets in the national media. Will the Conservatives be able to spin it back onto the Liberals? They might want to only do it once, as it will only prolong the issue in the media.

In summary, neat and crazy things are happening in Canadian politics, which only makes it all that much more fun.

(Senate and HOC images courtesy of the Parliamentary website (www.parl.gc.ca). Mulroney image courtesy of LA PRESSE CANADIENNE/Adrian Wyld.)

One Liners

• The Conservative government tax relief package passed through the house. With the Liberals having sat on their hands throughout, you wonder who's more relieved. Too bad gas taxes weren't also lowered. (Plop plop fix fix..)
  
  
• Today, the Conservative government is tabling "An Act to provide for consultations with electors on their preferences for appointments to the Senate." Of course, Liberals will cry their usual "insenaty": -- "I've always been in favour of senate reform, but not piecemeal reform like this." In consulting with electors, I think they're sick of hearing you say that. (Not so much..? How's this one...)
  
  
• As you may have read, Brian Mulroney has called for a full inquiry into his dealings with Schreiber; this time he really wants to clear the airbus. (Ba dum dum!)
  
  
• Prime Minister Harper's poll numbers are up and Dion's are way down. After the tax package was announced, Conservative numbers went up and Liberals went down. Now after the Mulroney-Schreiber affair, Conservative numbers are down and Liberals are up. Is this what we call poll dancing? (Yes? Yes? Ok, no...)