CBC projects Conservative government

[Hipster Duck]

+1

People might see this as bad. But I think this is great for Toronto in the long run. Now that TO and the inner GTA is fully in play, you can bet that the goodies will start rolling in. Or at the very least (if the government is cutting back), Toronto and the GTA won't be picked on.

Toronto is now plugged into the rest of Canada.

I don't disagree with you about Toronto getting more representation, but I disagree with you about Toronto getting goodies. In order to get goodies, you have to have a somewhat consistent wish list. Frankly, if I was a federal politician of any stripe, I would seriously reconsider giving Toronto any infrastructure money because our demands seem to change like passing fads. I blame Rob Ford and David Miller equally for dreaming up personal pet projects that made a mockery of long term transportation planning.

Vancouver, in contrast, has a pretty concrete wish list and a hierarchy of priority projects that is unlikely to be ransacked by some incoming municipal politician. At the end of the day, Vancouverites usually get what they want, despite the fact that they don't have any better federal representation than we do, and we usually end up with nothing.

 

[grey]

Vancouver, in contrast, has a pretty concrete wish list and a hierarchy of priority projects that is unlikely to be ransacked by some incoming municipal politician. At the end of the day, Vancouverites usually get what they want, despite the fact that they don't have any better federal representation than we do, and we usually end up with nothing.

For the same reason, I find it hard to believe that any significant "private-public parnerships" would be possible with such an erratic entity as the City of Toronto.

 

[kEiThZ]

There are some seriously twisted Reform backbenchers...

And I wouldn't be surprised to find some seriously nutty, Liberal, NDP, or BQ members. Personally, I just think those parties are better at screening them out and/or muzzling them. And I think this is exactly why Harper is such a control freak (particularly on PR). He knows he's got those crazies and he knows he's gotta keep them in the closet. This won't change with a majority.

Besides...how much power do backbenchers really have? Don't forget what Trudeau said about them....

 

[kEiThZ]

grey, hipster

Why so pessimistic boys?

I actually think the smart play here will be help their Ford beachead along. Ford will now claim that he helped turn the 416 for the federal Conservatives and that they owe him. He won't do it publicly. But you can bet that he'll be making that pitch behind closed doors.

We might see some more federal goodies finally. Though I still maintain that the province should be stepping up and the feds should be out of the business of handing out pork arbitrarily....

 

[TonyV]

I wonder (openly) how this will affect the provincial Liberals in the October election.

Very frequently the Ontarians put in a government that is opposite of the federal one, but that is not necessarily the case moving forward. There seems to be a blue tide around.

 

[Hipster Duck]

For the same reason, I find it hard to believe that any significant "private-public parnerships" would be possible with such an erratic entity as the City of Toronto.

I know this is OT, but I think proves our point:

Rob Ford wants to disband Waterfront Toronto, a public-private company started under Mike Harris, no less, whose board of directors includes an IBM executive, the VP of a pharmaceutical company, the VP of a venture capital firm, an executive of Brookfield properties, and the COO of the Canadian Football League (and I thought Ford loved football, but maybe it's only American football).

This isn't a bunch of humanities students or OCAP protesters with dreadlocks - these are big, Bay street fish. These are exactly the kind of people that Ford expects will pitch in 100% to pay for such stellar, guaranteed-ROI investments as an NFL stadium and a $4B Sheppard subway. Rob Ford still hasn't learned not to shit where he eats.

grey, hipster

Why so pessimistic boys?

I actually think the smart play here will be help their Ford beachead along.

There is no Ford beachhead. Toronto gained conservative MPs in moneyed, influential ridings, not in decaying working class suburbia where people swallow Ford's populist tripe. My point above about how Ford will trample over a Harris-founded PPP that is run by millionaire businessmen leads me to believe he won't get very far.

 

[kEiThZ]

There is no Ford beachhead. Toronto gained conservative MPs in moneyed, influential ridings, not in decaying working class suburbia where people swallow Ford's populist tripe. My point above about how Ford will trample over a Harris-founded PPP that is run by millionaire businessmen leads me to believe he won't get very far.

I should clarify. I am not suggesting that Ford established a blue beachead. But he will certainly claim that he did to get concessions out of the federal (and possibly Provincial) Conservatives. He'd be a fool not to. Then again....its' Rob Ford we're talking about.

Though, I am surprised that anybody would label Scarborough Centre, Scarborough Southwest or Etobicoke Centre or even Scarborough-Pickering as "moneyed". Middle class perhaps. Moneyed though?

 

[urbandreamer]

Really I think upper middle class established Canadians combined with conservative new Canadians swept both Ford and Harper into gov't. So many new Canadians read the Sun at work--it's about as much English as they can bear to read--and love the right wing conservative values the Conservatives appear to rep'.

Contrast to downtown Toronto, where the urban elite have more in common with the Quebecoise than one might imagine....

For Brandon, ironic that the very cause he believes the Conservative's are inhibiting--immigration to Canada--is the real cause of his grief.

 

[ungodlycrosscheck]

There are some seriously twisted Reform backbenchers...

That's kind of a overgeneralization on a couple of grounds:
1. The natural process of retirements and new blood mean there is an ever dwindling number of old Reform MPs in CPC benches
2. There is in your comment an implication that the Reform Party was a free range insane asylum

Finally, even were your point true who cares? The backbenches of any government always have a few special people... I'd be more concerned if they were in the front row. Not being defensive or partisan here, but I'll guarantee you that the Conservative MPs in the 41st Parliament will perform a hell of a lot more professionally than what we're about to see from Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition.

Rather than let the smear just pass, I'd like to give you the opportunity to please identify who meets your test for being a "twisted reformer" and moreover on what grounds you categorize them as such. You may be right in a few instances, but rather than lump the good with the bad, I'd like to see who you consider to be nutty and I'd like to understand your rationale.

Over to you...

 

[grey]

Over to you...

Hahaha.

I completely agree -- it's mostly a non-issue at the present because Harper succeeded in muzzling the more "colourful" Reform MPs during the their 2005 policy convention in order to avoid spooking progressive Ontario voters (a very good idea, it turned out). And that muzzle is precisely why they'll likely be more civil than the opposition.

If you're genuinely interested, there's actually a handy, very detailed rundown in this book, which cites specific party members and organizations.

 

[MisterF]

Not necessarily. They have a majority now. Their objective will be to prove to all Canadians that they are capable of leading, and to allay the irrational fears of centrist and left Canadians. To do anything else, which is to say to pursue an extreme right wing social/moral agenda would ultimately mean the end of the Conservatives come the next election, and the end of everything that has been rebuilt over the past twenty years. If nothing else Harper has shown himself to be a patient and long term thinker. He wants to build the Conservative brand, not destroy it.

Look, at the end of the day you could be right and Harper could be a wolf in sheep's clothing. At least now we'll get the chance to see. Choices in 2015 would be very clear for once, based on reality rather than fear-mongering. In the meantime even Harper can't destroy Canada or its democracy.

For now, Toronto/Ontario is in a much better position in terms of government largesse which may just end the stalemate of funding we have suffered for decades. This alone is reason to celebrate.

I'm talking about his record, which is reality, not fear mongering.

Reminds me of the Chretien years.

Chretien ran a tight ship but his government was never as closed off and manipulative as Harper's.

 

[ungodlycrosscheck]

Grey... when I saw your link I was guessing the Marci MacDonald book would pop up and voila! Agreed that some of the more outspoken and less polished old C.A. and Reform MPs were muzzled and locked in the cellar with a jar of pickles, but there were very few what I'd call kooks in the party, certainly I'd wager no more as a percent of caucus than the Liberals or the NDP or Bloc have/had. And certainly no offense but the Marci MacDonald book is so poorly researched its bears little resemblance to reality, it belongs more appropriately in the "science fiction" section of the bookstore rather than "policy and politics".

My perspective is based on being the former Executive and Legislative Assistant from 99-02 to two of MacDonald's targets in her book.

I can't help but reflect that it's funny how scared Canadians were of crazy old Alliance and Reform types, like Chuck Strahl and Stock Day, and yet when they got named to cabinet and had a chance to perform in the spotlight, very few of even their staunchest critics would have upon reflection called them scary. Just saying.

 

[Urban Shocker]

You don't think that having a federal party leader and potential Prime Minister who believed that dinosaurs walked the earth at the same time as humans was scary?

 

[ungodlycrosscheck]

^ Actually a person's personal religious beliefs and their views of creationism are simply that -- personal. So long as the MP or party leader does not force their views on anyone, or make policy decisions on the basis of their religious beliefs it's not offensive to me. I'll give an example from my past working on the Hill, in 2002 there was a tremendous amount of debate, discussion and controversy over Bill C-56, a Government bill that related to assisted human reproduction. Several sections of the bill established guidelines and rules for the use of embryonic stem cells for therapeutic and experimental purpose, as such the bill caused a moral stir amongst members of all caucuses who were personally opposed to using fetal stem cells for research. The MP I was working for asked me to write up his speech, normal job duties for my position, as a part of the process he would outline points he wanted me to touch on and we'd then vet and edit my draft later. Central to the speech was to bring up the abortion discussion and the "immorality" of using fetal stem cells given that positive results were being demonstrated with adult stem cells that did not require the destruction of embryos. I knew instantly I'd have a problem writing the speech, and after several aborted (inappropriate pun) attempts I approached my MP and explained I could not in all good conscience find the words to a compose speech where he and I differed almost completely. Rather than react negatively my MP understood the moral dilemma he had placed me and assigned me another task so he could (in between a very busy schedule) find his own words. There was no browbeating, no harsh words exchanged, there was mutual respect. That type of respect for divergent opinions on tricky social issues was not the exception in C.A. offices it was the norm.

So to your initial question, no I don't find a person's view of creation scary. What I do find scary is that in a liberal democracy like Canada so many self branded liberals (noticed I used the small "l") behave so illiberally when it comes to the presentation of views that are in conflict with their own viewpoints... I'm not pointing a finger at you, I'm speaking on general terms.

Mr. Day and Mr. Strahl both are religious, social conservatives... they oppose abortion, and they opposed same sex marriage (to bring up another debate of our time). But both accept the will of the majority, which in Canada is a woman has a right to an abortion and same sex couples are entitled to the same marital rights as heterosexual couples. Neither of them, in the performance of their duties as front row Minister's in the previous two governments forced their views on anyone, quite the opposite, they acted instead with dignity at all times, and as such had the respect of members from all sides of the political fence.

 

[Observer Walt]

^ Shocker, that's a bit much, don't you think? I have not seen any quote from Harper to such an effect, and I think if he had ever said such a thing, it would have become headline news and would have been exploited to no end.

Harper's challenge over several years has been to rein in a few of the fringe elements who choose to park themselves in his party. These people have been pretty effectively "muzzled" as already mentioned. Wait until the first 22-year-old NDP rookie sticks his (her) foot in it with a blatantly foolish statement. It's just a matter of time. I for one will probably spend a minute laughing at it, but won't try to pin it on Jack Layton, who has more sense.