The Latest "Free Dominion" Debacle ...
http://www.canada.com/edmontonjournal/news/cityplus/story.html?id=7f65d11d-f37b-4a33-a3d7-f911a50fb088&k=52072
Here we go again ! The John Birch Society (North) is at it again.
As if real Tories need even more reasons to not vote for the republican CPC ...
We now have the sad spectacle of Alberata Separatism rearing its very ugly head within that political party. This merely confirms what I have been detailing all along: The CPC is basically nothing more than the Reform Party, reconstituted. It is not representative of anything remotely - and traditionally - conservative in the Dominion.
It is controlled by the Americanophile "Calgary School" and an Alberta Legion of Festering Rednecks (ALFR) - most of whom have never been east of Saskatoon, I would venture. They have nothing in common with traditional Canadian Toryism, and are more dangerous in my opinion, than even the NDP. (Western separatists are merely the "flip-side of the same coin" as Quebec separatists, and this sad episode again proves the point. Both are enemies of the Federation - and traitors to their Queen and Country.)
The fact that Gordon Stamp was Peter Goldring's Campaign Manager speaks volumes about the company the Alberta Reformers keep - and keep too close, apparently. It is one thing if this person's neanderthal-like political musings came from the cake-hole of a low-level party functionary; but it is quite another thing entirely, if they come from someone in a high position of trust within the local party organisation.
This is quite another thing entirely.
Of course, Goldring and the CPC will point to the fact that Stamp has been rusticated and/or has resigned, as proof that the party will not put-up with such sentiments. Those of us with a long history in Conservative politics know better. This is the tip of the iceberg ...
posted by Aeneas the Younger @ 8:41 pm
5 Comments
5 Comments:
Aeneas, it's only one guy. It proves nothing. Every party has their share.
We're both Tories, you and I, in the traditional sense. Only my inspiration goes back further than Disraeli, to the great William Pitt the Younger himself. You seem to get more inspiration from the communitarianism of One Nation conservatism, whereas I'm more attached to the uncoloured traditions, where Tories used to revel in the cut and thrust of English Parliamentary debate. There's no fire in our politicians anymore. There's no eloquence. There's no spirit. It's sad really. Nobody cares.
bb:
The Pitts are heroes to me. Disraeli was a vertibable master of "cut & thrust" in parliamentary debate - one of the best, actually. I am in the middle of Hibbert's latest Personal History about him, that I received from Christmas.
Disraeli's One Nation Conservatism appeals to me because it is applicable to contemporary society, yet maintains the best of Conservatism in principle. The world of the Pitts is long gone, unfortunately (in many ways ...).
Have you been to Free Dominion? Have you seen the internal Polls that indicate that 47% of their repsondents favour annexation to the USA? Have you seen the "Republic of Canada" Discussion Board? Have you read the tirades from Separatists?
I spent the years 1979 to 1988 working for the PC Party, and I can tell you that there was a always a sizable contingent of extreme radicals - and most of them were from Alberta. I hate to generalise like that, but it was the tendency I picked-up on. As well, the sweeping-in of Quebec Nationalists by Mulroney, created huge problems for the Party - as was later proven by the Lucien Bouchard debacle.
On eloquence and fire - I agree. However, with the exception of Joe Clark, every Canadian PM since Trudeau has weakened the parliamentaty tradition in over-strenghtening the PMO. (Actually, John Farthing saw this trend beginning under Mackenzie King.) The only solution, which I have advocated for years, is to double the amount of MPs (similar to the UK) and thus create real room for parliamentary dissent - and thereby make debate necessary to the process again.
A spendid idea that would never pass the muster with the electorate. With twice as many MPs though, at least a PM wouldn't be able to put them all in Cabinet! It is shocking how big Cabinet is, how the PMO uses it essentially as sheep patronage. There was a time when the PM owed his very existence to the confidence of his Cabinet colleagues. Now it's just another mechanism by which the PM rewards his herd to keep them all in line.
bb:
Just because the electorate doesn't like it doesn't make them right (as you know ...).
If ANY of the Party Leaders wanted to reform Parliament they would suggest the expansion of the Commons as a means of making the PM accountable to the House.
I like an appointed Upper Chamber as well, and think that the only reform that House needs is one of (re)apportionment.
Canadians are not necessarily well informed enough to make such distinctions. They are typically fodder for demagogues.
MPs have not proven much better - my solution to that is to pay them more. This would attract better candidates.
Remember your Burke:
"Your representative owes you, not his industry only, but his judgment; and he betrays instead of serving you if he sacrifices it to your opinion."
Better MPs in numbers sufficient to keep the Cabinet honest and responsive would be able to provide this superior type of representation.
One of the major things I hated about Reform/Alliance was their desire for more referenda. Mob Rule is the only result of such nonsense.
Correcting the "democratic deficit" is easy - but it does require courage and a sense of honour. Two attribtues largely missing in the Rogue's Gallery we call Canadian politics.
Let me add onto your idea. Double the number of MPs and shrink the debating area of the House of Commons by half. Take away their school kid desks and cram them onto padded bleechers as they do in Westminster. Turn it into a real debating chamber by removing the incentive to yell and point across. That would both improve the civility and raise the theatre.
I disagree with doubling their pay however. It's already been doubled in the past decade from $80,000 to $160,000 without improving the quality. In Churchill's time they got paid nothing. The MPs were the society elites of the day and were in it solely for the public glory.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home