Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Canadian Political Free-for-All -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: marcos who wrote (3140)	10/17/2003 12:16:17 PM
From: SofaSpud	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 37260

Well, you've asked me on a day when I'm feeling particularly cynical and a bit unwell, so take what follows with more than the usual grain of salt: One of the things that energized the early Reform movement was the fact that policy was king, and that policy was something the rank and file members could genuinely influence. Sometimes that didn't always make for the best policy, and the process was seldom pretty to watch, but it was democratic. In large part all that was a reaction to the disappointment after Mulroney's elevation in 1984. We'd been in the wilderness for years, being done-unto by the Trudeauites. We had spent some of that time figuring out how things ought to be done differently, and wrote that out as the PC policy manual. What a surprise, then, to find that the leader didn't seem to follow the script. Far from being bound by the party platform, he didn't even seem to see it as a guideline. The result was more of the same kind of government, and assuredly not what we had voted for. Hence the rise of Reform. I thought for a long time that Reform would get its breakthrough in Ontario once the first cadre of MPs had been in Ottawa long enough to seem, to the central Canadian media, indistinguishable from the old-style politicians. The accolades Manning got when he retired showed that that process was well on its way, because Manning had much moderated his tone (or, to use his 80s phrase, he'd become well Ottawashed). The optics of Deb Gray's pension fit here as well. I think this merger will effectively complete the process. This will re-create the pre-1993 Tories. To be successful, they will get rid of all that embarrassing grass roots nonsense, and there is no question that a fresh-faced leader will heartily embrace the policy of expediency, rather than having his shoes nailed to any plank of a platform. No one is happier than I am at the prospect of an opposition that might actually get the Liberals' attention. If this merger can be accomplished on time, without more than the minimum necessary rancour and bitterness, and if they can come up with a leader who is perceived to be credible & at least somewhat attractive to the Ontario voter, then there will have been a short- to medium-term gain. It will check Liberal arrogance, and prevent Martin from playing as much to the electoral threat on his left as he might otherwise. I'm afraid, though, that the long-term message, particularly to those in the West who worked hard for Reform, is that there's no place for you in the system if you don't like the way the game has always been played. You get to shut up and pay your taxes and feed the beast, whether it be fountains in Shawinigan, cancellation fees on helicopters we never got, or some new vision of Maurice Strong that PM will dazzle us with as his legacy. Geez, that's a long way of getting to my point of saying, "why bother joining; it probably won't make a bit of difference in the end." I can't tell you how much I hope I'm wrong. But so far the only winners in Canadian politics have been the ones who play by the Liberals' rules.

To: marcos who wrote (3140)	10/17/2003 5:23:18 PM
From: Gulo	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 37260

The merger is a step forward, and a somewhat smaller step backwards. Pros: 1) Social conservatives will be reduced to a squeaky voice in the background. That suits me, and the libertarian mainstream reformers, just fine. 2) We get over the "western interests only" stigma. 3) We greatly increase our chances of winning - from 1% to 10%. Cons: 1) The libertarian voice will be drowned out by the statist conservatives. 2) Some of the more radical economic reforms proposed will be more difficult to keep in the party platform. The chances of renewing Canadians' interest in personal liberty are much lower with the new party, but at least we have a chance to get the socialists out. I am eager to see the new party's platform and policies. If the new party avoids corporate donations, maintains a focus on fiscal responsibility, and supports the strengthening of the division of jurisdictions in the constitution, I'll go along. -g