A slight clarification...

I made a post last week titled, "What's wrong with the PCPO Executive?" I realize now that I should have been more specific and should have said, "What's wrong with the PCPO Executive that actually voted for the June convention".

I see here from Perez Hudak that there is at least one member of the executive that was standing up for the membership. So thank you Robert Elliott, too bad more members of the executive didn't follow your lead.

Anti-Hillier bias at the PC website?

On March 29th the PC Party website announced that Frank Klees was running for leader. The website made no mention of Randy Hillier announcing on March 30th. In fact there is two news releases from March 30th and one of them mentions a policy proposal from Tim Hudak.

I am left wondering why Tim Hudak and Frank Klees get special treatment; or is it Randy Hillier that is getting the special treatment?

Highlights of Randy Hillier's Speech

As mentioned by Ken in a previous post, Randy Hillier has announced his candidacy for leader of the PC Party. He made what has to be the best speech I have heard from a Canadian politician in years. Here are the highlights and greatest quotes:

“Our economy has gone from first place to last place in Confederation and we have a government that behaves and believes that its only role is to spend more, tax more, regulate more. They do not realize that when you’re deep in a hole, you ought to stop digging the hole deeper.”

“Every society known to mankind is comprised of individuals. It’s evident that if individuals are responsible, self-reliant and independent, their society will also be responsible and self-reliant.”

“We are no longer responsible for our actions when we allow ourselves to blame others for our actions.”

“The proper and honest role of government is not every role. It has a role to insure that freedom and justice is found throughout the land.”

“It has become a legal system that preys on the financial weakness and ignorance or common people. It’s now a never-ending system of little justice where a guilty plea is less costly than a strong defence of innocence.”

“It is said by many that politics is the art of compromise. I believe this statement to be untrue. The true art of politics ought to be honesty. That requires principles and convictions, not compromise.”

“Spin is the omission of relevant facts and pertinent information. Political spin shields politicians from their actions and disguises poor policies with fancy words. The day of spin must come to an end.”

“The PC Party cannot simply disguise itself as a Liberal Party lookalike, holding a different coloured shovel while digging the same hole and expect Ontarians to choose us and not the Liberals.”

Let the race begin!

Frank Klees officially entered the leadership race yesterday. Today, Randy Hillier officially announced his candidacy. I really like Hillier's official campaign website, as well as that he actually has 3 concrete platform proposals (plus his speech today was amazing!):

- The Freedom of Association and Conscience Act
- Abolishing the Ontario Human Rights Commission
- Senate elections in Ontario

The Western Standard is already going Hillier crazy with 3 posts in a row this morning:
Randy Hillier announces bid for leadership of Ontario Progressive Conservative Party
What does Randy Hillier stand for?
Hillier vs. Harper

While Tim Hudak and Christine Elliott have not officially begun their campaigns, it is obvious to everyone that they are running. This is great for the party. I think all four of these candidates are an improvement for our party, so no matter who wins, the Ontario PC Party has a much better chance to win in 2011.

Frank Klees to enter leadership race

Yesterday I attended the founding of a PC Youth Association in Hamilton and was somewhat surprised to see Frank Klees, the provincial member from Newmarket-Auroa, also attending the founding meeting. There has been a rumour that Frank Klees would run for the leadership ever since John Tory stepped down. After listening to him speak, I am now willing to give credence to those rumours. He did not mention the leadership race directly but he made a leadership like speech, claiming that the next leader of the party will be the next premier.

After the meeting I called a few friends who I thought might know more, and they confirmed my suspicion. I am now willing to assert with a high level of certainty that Tim Hudak, Christian Elliott, Randy Hillier, and now Frank Klees are going to be the leadership contenders.

Though I have not yet decided who to support, I welcome Frank Klees to the race. In the last leadership contest he was bold enough to propose healthcare reform in the direction of two tier health care. I expect and hope that Frank Klees will once again contribute to a positive debate on policy. It is that sort of debate that this party needs to rebuild and reenergise.

I fear that this leadership race may be a missed opportunity for the PC Party to rebuild and rebrand itself. After two disastrous leaders we need a leadership race that will bring as all together in a grand debate about the future of the party. Though sadly we don’t have enough time to do it properly, the more candidates that participate the greater the party renewal shall be.

Supply/Demand and the drug war

The greatest and truest study of human nature is economics. There is very little about human behaviour that cannot be explained in economic terms. Even poetry and the great literature of love and passion do not capture mankind as completely as a supply and demand chart.

This can easily be extended to the drug trade. It is pointless to try and prevent people from consuming drugs or selling drugs. As long as there is a demand someone would provide the supply. Don't you think it would be better for the supply to come from honest businessman rather than criminals?

Oh Shut up Lisa MacLeod (iv): PC Leadership Edition

If there is someone out there who is a big fan of Lisa MacLeod, it wouldn’t be me. She is my least favourite member of caucus. She has in the past demanded that the legislature move to half days, that the taxpayers pay to take care of her kids, and she said some of the dumbest things during the leadership review. So imagine my lack of enthusiasm when I found out that she was supporting Tim Hudak.

I liked Tim Hudak, but I have become increasingly concerned about the number of former John Tory hacks that have lined up in his camp. John Tory alone was not the problem. It was in large part the people he surrounded himself with. The PC Party of Ontario needs renewal and I’m no longer convinced that Mr. Hudak is that man to do that.

PC executive member defends the decision to have a June leadership election

My blogging partner posted his criticism of the voting rules for the PCPO leadership race. Then one of the executives actually responded. The response was silly enough that I am devoting a whole post to it. The stuff in brackets is my commentary.

M. Wensley, Regional v said...
Not very sure of yourself, are you. (I’m pretty sure he was sure of himself.) Sitting behind an faceless anonymous blog bitching and complaining that you don't like the decisions made. (I’m not anonymous and my partner has published his real name, ‘Ken.’ Some people may not know who he is but many people do. So you can hardly call him anonymous.)

Did you stop to think that the executive carefully weighed a number of factors before making the decision? (The issue was that they made the wrong decision not how they arrived at that decision) Did you stop to think that just maybe we have the best interest of the Party at heart, not the best interest of any one candidate (I would buy that if someone could provide a real argument for having it in June. I have yet to hear one.) or any faceless bitch and moan artist? (Personal attacks? From a member of the executive? How very usual.)

The idea of the Markham convention is a new one (no it’s not) put forth by the Party President in an effort to generate some interest in the media and the average voter. (Not sure exactly how watching people wave signs around and yelling would hold people’s interests. Last time it was a bit of a bust. Besides, making policy based on earning a couple days of news is idiotic.) I have every confidence that anyone connected to a campaign will want to ensure that the hall is packed with people that wish to enthusiastically greet the new Leader and show the voters of Ontario that we are a dynamic Party that has what it take so form a government. (How do people shouting slogans prove that a party can form a government?) From your comments I assume that you have no intention of helping the Party put on a good face to the public. (How can you assume that? Because he thinks you are wrong suddenly he is against the party?)

Now, if you think that sitting on the couch by yourself and posting drivel on the internet is really helpful to the cause of electing a PC government in 2011, (hang on...isn’t that exactly what you are doing?) I can tell you right now that you are the reason that we did not win in '07. (Ken was the Track Right chair of his local campaign. How exactly did he contribute to the defeat in 2007?)

As for not supporting members of the executive that supported June, I guess you don't like any of us, (yep) because there were damn few hands that went up to choose a date other than June. (I like the people who put their hands up for that. In fact want to thank them for bravely going against the rest of the executive.)

Like it or not, many of the rank and file members that executive members spoke with prior to the meeting told us that they either wanted June or did not care. (How does this prove that it wasn’t stupid to have it in June? How would this prove it even if anecdotal evidence wasn’t meaningless?)

Making a decision not to your liking does not make us incompetent, (nope making incompetent decisions make you incompetent) nor does it mean that we are trying to help any one leadership candidate over another.
(All in all Mr. Wensley, I will be encouraging everyone I know in the GTA West Region not to re-elect you.)

*update*

Here is some advice to any public figure that wishes to enter the internet's discourse. Mr. Wensley should pay paticular attention to points 1 and 3.

What's wrong with the PCPO Executive?

After the PCPO executive meeting this Sunday, I have no other explanation for the absurd leadership rules than to think that the PCPO exec have no idea what they are doing.

A June leadership election is clearly too early to grow the membership base and properly elect a leader (we could have had the leadership race be 100% longer if it was September - with more members and less bitter feelings). I had just assumed that party president Ken Zeise and other exec members probably wanted Tim Hudak as the leader when we first heard they wanted a June leadership election. While this still could be true, I'm not too sure of this now. I am now leaning towards the exec being incompetent. (This should be the next Draft a Leader / Grassroots Voice poll: Are the PCPO Executives 1: Biased towards Hudak; or 2: Just Incompetent)

The part that seems really strange is that the voting happens June 21st and 25th, but the convention is on the 27th. So there is going to be a short buildup to a anti-climatic ending. What is the point of even showing up to Markham? I remember 2004 where there were speeches and excitement (followed by suites) on the Friday night and then voting/results on the Saturday (even if figuring out the 2nd ballot results did take too long). There was a reason to be there. Now the new leader is going to be announced in front of a small room of people, and it could be even smaller if the results are leaked before the 27th. Awesome job PCPO exec!

Side Note: If anyone knows which members of the PCPO executive that voted for the June convention date and the voting/convention days, please let me know in the comments. I want to know who not to vote for at the next AGM.

Side Note 2: If I find out that Tim Hudak's people were pushing for a June leadership race, I am going to rank him last on my ballot (unless his policies are, by far, the best). June may be best for Hudak, but the party he will inherent will be worse than if we had time to grow for 3 more months.

Conservative blog worth reading

Derek Filderbrandt, the founder of the Reagan-Goldwater Society and now an employee at the Tax Payer Federation, has moved his blog to a new address.

He doesn't blog on a regular bases, but when he does it is always worth reading.

Red Eye insults Canada: why would you give a shit?

Several people, including a number of BloggingTories, are up in arms because a comedy show made some jokes about the Canadian Forces. Seriously how oversensitive can people get? You can say that it isn't funny and I'll agree with you. The only amusing part of this clip is when they started talking about fundamentalist Norwegians invading the United States, yet being unamused is not the same as being outraged. There is no reason, as some people are doing, to be blaming the United States in general for the antics of some comedian.



For context here are other video clips:







*Update*

The host of Red Eye said that he is sorry and people misunderstood the purpose of his jokes. Is that good enough for everyone, or do you need the Human Rights Commission to award you some of his money?

PCPO Leadership election will be too soon

The date for the leadership race has been set for June 27th. This is very unfortunate. The party is in shambles with fewer than 5 000 members around the province. We need a longer leadership race to engage the base and to sell memberships. You simply cannot rebuild a party with a rushed leadership race. There is no reason to be in this much of a hurry.

PCPO president Ken Zeise said, “This is an exciting time of renewal for our Party. People are
engaged in the process and are looking forward to working with the new Leader
to defeat Dalton McGuinty in 2011.” Indeed this is an exciting time and a chance to reverse a steady decline. But if the executive was really interested in engaging people they would allow for more time to become engaged.

An Ontario flag made in China is still an Ontario flag

NDP Member of Provincial Parliament Peter Kormos is complaining that the provincial legislature is buying Ontario flags from China. He appears very distraught about it and calls it an insult to Ontario workers. Members from all the different parties are lining up to agree that the committee in charge of making procurement decisions made an unpatriotic decision.

Who cares where a flag was made. Honestly it does not change the symbolism of what the flag means nor does it diminish pride in one’s home. Simply put if the Chinese supplier better fulfills the government/consumer’s needs, then I am glad that they made this decision. It shows that they have a respect for taxpayer’s dollars over petty idiotic politics.

Mr. Kurmos said that he will refuse to hand out made-in-China flags. He said that it would be ‘thrown into his face.’ That’s fine; in fact it makes the deal better. Perhaps the government will save the $1000 that his office is allotted for flags and pins.

Campus Conservative conspire to be conservative

I served on the Campus wing of the PCPO’s executive for three years. I found it to be a rewarding and often amusing experience. Amusing because every once in a while some loon would attack us with crazy accusations and innuendo. The past week has really made me miss the time I spent with the Ontario Progressive Conservative Campus Association (OPCCA). The Ryerson Free Press, known for its journalistic standards, released what can only be described as an attack article.

Here are some samples of the author’s stupidity (the author is listed as ‘admin.’ Obviously whoever wrote it is too embarrassed to put their name on it):

At a session held in early February by the Ontario Progressive Campus Conservative Association...discussed strategies to gain funding from student unions for the Conservative Party and ways to run for—and win—positions within student unions.

Gain funding for the Conservative Party? From student governments? Conservative campus clubs get the same funding from student governments as every other club, including the Liberals and the NDP. Besides the Conservatives are by far the richest party, why the hell would they launder money from a student government? That is just idiotic.

Also, young political activists talking about how to win positions on student government? That is outrages. How dare these youngsters wish to be involved in campus politics! Don’t they know that they must either be communist or apathetic?

The leaked materials were posted on WikiLeaks.org over the weekend and add to the growing body of evidence that the Conservative Party has a strategy for interfering in campus student unions.

It should be noted at this point that OPCCA and the Conservative Party have no relation to each other. Throughout this article every time that they say ‘Conservative Party’ they really mean OPCCA. And yes there is evidence that OPCCA has a strategy for interfering in campus student governments. Mainly the evidence involves them saying so repeatedly in public for the last twenty years. But I am interested in what evidence this ‘newspaper’ has to offer.

In early 2002, the campus press first learned of a secret Millennium Leadership Fund that the party’s campus wing used to fund candidates in student union elections.

Yes the secret Millennium Leadership Fund that was written into the constitution that is publically available. I say was written because it was removed a couple of years ago. It was removed (by my initiative) because the MLF hasn’t actually existed in nearly a decade. So it was a publicly published secret that didn’t actually exist that was revealed seven years ago. Great evidence there Sherlock, I’m sure you could have found something better than that. Like maybe look at the OPCCA mission statement.

Also the Conservative Party didn’t exist in 2002, so how can this be evidence that they had a strategy for anything? The writer’s inability to separate OPCCA from the CPC demonstrates the single minded stupidity of...well of the sort of person that would write an article like this.

My Favourite part of the article is this:

Shelley Melanson, Chairperson of the Canadian Federation of Students-Ontario was surprised when told of the leaked strategy. “Campus students’ unions are there to represent students and should be free from the partisan interference of federal and provincial parties,”

Really? Should we take a second and investigate the relationship between CFS and the NDP. Truly the ability of these people to say things like this marvel me to no end.

Through all the innuendo and paranoia, this article has one piece of news in it. Young conservative activists plan on being actively conservative in youth politics. Well done Ryerson Free Press.

(original article and OPCCA response)

OPCCA’S RESPONSE TO OPIRG’S LEAKED TAPE

(Press release from the OPCCA executive)

A recent campus activism training session held at the Wilfrid Laurier University and hosted by the Ontario Progressive Conservative Campus Association (OPCCA) was taped and then leaked by a representative from the Ontario Public Interest Research Group (OPIRG).

The OPIRG representative lied about their identity in order to gain entrance to the meeting and has leaked the tape in an attempt to make false accusations about OPCCA and the Conservative Party of Canada. We will consider legal action against said individual.

The Ontario Progressive Conservative Campus Association is not affiliated with the Conservative Party of Canada.

Federal representatives were present at the meeting on their own accord. The Member of Parliament in question spoke on the importance of getting students involved in democratic processes and on his recent experience during the past election. He did not speak on the topics contained in the tape.

The training sessions brought together groups of small 'c' conservatives in an effort to encourage involvement on campus. The fact some of the attendees are members of political parties does not bar them from having the right to get involved on campus to promote their beliefs.

OPCCA does not apologize for encouraging the involvement of conservatives on campus through either partisan or issue-based groups. This contributes to bringing alternative views to campus to enhance academic dialogue and is part of its mandate.

OPIRG is attempting to distract students from the reality that their money is being taken from them to promote extremist causes they may not identify with. This lack of transparency should alarm students regardless of ideology. Their lack of respect for privacy, by lying to gain entry and tape recording the session, should alarm us all even more. Clearly, they will stop at nothing to stifle alternative points of view on campuses across the province.

Freedom & Beer

People that know me will know that I love both freedom and beer, so I was obviously pretty annoyed when I read that the New Brunswick government is planning on having their own brand of beer! What's even worse, is that the government is going to sell this beer at $18.67 per 12 pack, which is apparently lower than any other companies are allowed to sell their products for unless they apply for a special license.

Setting aside the fact that $18.67 for 12 beers is the price floor in the province is freaking ridiculous, it is even more ridiculous for the government to sell below what private companies are allowed to. For the standard Canadian style lagers, many micro-breweries are able to compete by providing similar products at lower costs. These breweries will obviously be directly hurt by the government infringing on their market share.

While on the topic of freedom & beer, the incredible Reason.tv recently has a video on this very topic (you must watch this if you are a fan of beer): Beer: An American Revolution.

Manning Centre: Barry Goldwater is dead

A speaker at the Manning Centre's Conference named Ken Boessenkool made a statement that at first stunned me and then caused me to clap enthusiastically.

He said "Moderation in the pursuit of liberty is no vice."

The quote is modified from a famous Barry Goldwater speech. Mr. Goldwater said "I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue"

In a lot of ways we have Goldwater to thank for the modern conservative movement. He excited a generation and reversed the onslaught of the New Deal coalition. Intellectually and politically, Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, and Preston Manning can all trace their influence back to this man. The words he spoke inspired what we now think of as conservative.

When Ken Boessenkool spoke his words he was really saying that the spirit of conservatism for the last few decades was wrong. He is saying that we might as well give up on principled stances and surrender any thought of achieving greater liberty.

His words caused me to clap because it was the most honest statement I have ever heard. It was a complete betrayal of the spirit and movement that Barry Goldwater gave birth to. It represented the state of the Conservative Party in Canada today.

Andrew Coyne stood up a moment later to explain why he thought that conservatism in Canada is dead. Ken Boessenkool had just done that in terms far better than anything Mr. Coyne had said.

Are Libertarians part of the conservative movement?

Conservative activists of all types and description have gathered at the Manning Centre’s Networking Conference. Any time you gather conservatives inevitably a discussion begins on what exactly is a conservative. Usually these conversations involve shouting and snide comments but today it is actually a very civilized and healthy conversation. There is one sticking point, however, that has continued to arise. Is a libertarian a conservative?

Strictly speaking a libertarian is a liberal. The word liberal has been warped and misshapen to the point that it no longer means what it originally meant. Those that believed in personal liberty and the coercive nature of the state had to change what they called themselves. So the liberal became the libertarian.

At the same time there was a shift in conservatism. They moved from the paternalism of Disraeli to the ‘fiscal conservatism’ of Mike Harris. Being conservative now meant that you wanted smaller government and, in effect, greater economic liberty. This shift meant that many of the goals of the classical liberals and the conservatives became the same.

Libertarians have worked with in various conservative parties in various countries ever since this shift. Yet there has always been a tension. Today at the Manning Centre libertarian activist Karen Selick denied having any part of the ‘conservative family.’ She claimed that the intellectual bases were different though some of the final goals were the same.

A day earlier the Prime Minister defined libertarians out of his idea of what it means to be conservative. At first I was extremely annoyed by this, but upon reflection I accepted it as the normal course of events. If libertarians are part of the conservative family then they are the uncle that no one seems to like.

The truth is that conservatism is not an ideology or a single set of ideas. It is a collection of ideas that have enough in common that they are willing to form a coalition. Earlier today I briefly discussed the regional differences in conservatism. It is hard to point to a single thing that makes someone conservative in Canada. It is even harder to create an international concept of what is conservative. The reason for this is that conservative is merely a title that is given to an ideological coalition.

Do libertarians have much intellectually in common with classic toryism or Edmund Burke? No of course not, but are libertarians part of the coalition of ideas that is referred to as conservative? In this country at this time, yes.

Manning Centre: Regional Differences in conservatives

The Manning Centre Networking Conference started with an attempt to define conservatism in Canada, or rather to describe what conservatism means in different regions. They opened the discussion by saying that attacking other conservatives at this conference would not be appreciated. A comment that I thought came too late considering the speech that took place last night.

The panellists came to certain conclusions about conservatives in their own regions that were interesting.

Prairies

Conservatism in the prairies has been defined by rebellion. From the days of Louis Reil to the populism of Preston Manning, prairie conservatism is about not telling them what to do. More specifically it is about eastern Canada not bossing western Canada around.

The North

In the north it is defined by people who wish, in part, to escape into the wilderness from the reach of government. It is also defined by the entrepreneurial spirit that began during the gold rush. This was also the only region that had defined any part of its constituency as being libertarian.

British Columbia

Politics in general in BC is defined by polarization. You are either a socialist or not a socialist. As a result of this the true conservative voice has been lost. There was a great deal of discussion about how to break through the partisan system and bring about a conservative party.

Quebec

Conservatism in Quebec was defined as a spirit of self reliance and personal responsibility. It was suggested that French nationalism could be appealed to without trying to buy Quebec’s loyalty.

Ontario

In Ontario it was defined as a tension between the progressive and small-c factions. I’m not a huge fan of these terms but it is fair to say that there is a conflict between different strategies. It was suggested, by Tom Long, that conservative policies should be promoted unashamedly.

East

Eastern Canada was the most interesting region in many ways. It was defined as being ‘classical tories.’ The panel went as far as to claim that Edmund Burke has a lasting influence on conservatism in the Maritime Provinces.

This of course is very simplistic, but it does raise an interesting question. In a country that is divided in more ways than it is united, how do you create a national conservative movement?

PC Leadership Race goes to the Manning Centre

This is always an interesting time in politics for rumor and speculation. The days before candidates start announcing can be a great deal of fun for the sort of people that like to guess what their present is before they open it. In that spirit I can speculate that based on the opening of the Manning Centre conference, Christine Elliot, Tim Hudak, and Randy Hillier are all running.

Mr. Hudak was seen throughout the evening shaking hands as if he was a candidate already. He had staffers taking random pictures of him, presumably for some future website.

Ms. Elliot held a social event at a bar in the Market (the bar district). This is generally the sort of thing you do when you are about to run for something. Though I did not get an opportunity to talk to her.

Mr. Hillier also held a meet and great at the Parliamentary Pub. There I got to talk to the man for the first time and was handed a free copy of "Landowner." Again this is the sort of thing you do when you are planning on running.

So I this is how the race is going to shape up; Hudak, Elliot, and Hillier.

Ontario PC Leadership - It's All About Policy

If there is one thing the 2004 leadership election should have taught us, is that by picking a leader that is the most "electable". While Jim Flaherty and Frank Klees both had policies that they were discussing, John Tory ran on being able to win an election. I attended debates, read all the campaign literature and was at the leadership convention, yet I still did not know what type of platform John Tory would run on in 2007. This may have not caused the disastrous platform that we had in 2007, but it certainly facilitated it. Tory was not on the record of supporting anything, which allowed him to have a platform of nothingness and faith-based schools.

When I choose to support a candidate, I do not need to know every detail of their 2011 election platform, but I do expect to have an idea of where they want to take this party and the province. The three candidates I'm giving the closest looks to now is Randy Hillier, Tim Hudak and Christine Elliott.

As I mentioned in this post, Randy Hillier has been my favourite MPP since being elected. Hillier has been consistent in his support of liberty. When I have spoken to him, he doesn't sound like a typical politician - he actually listens to what you say, and then answers you like a real person. I know it is a novel concept, but it's true. If Hillier enters the race, I can guarantee that everyone will know what he thinks about policy and I will probably find it awesome. If this happens, I will have have a difficult time to not support him.

Tim Hudak is great on so many issues. My issue with him is that he had a private members bill on income splitting that I am violently opposed to. We need to simplify the tax code, not give a tax advantage to stable relationships so that young people, widows and single parents pay a larger share of the tax burden. (I may write a full post on income splitting later if Hudak does decide to campaign on this.) I hope Tim Hudak supports a flat tax or some other form of tax reduction that actually will be beneficial.

I do not know that much about Christine Elliott's policies. However, I have heard from people that she is a strong fiscal conservative, so I hope that if she shows this if she enters the race.

Ron Paul style Randy Hillier jokes

A while back I posted a list of style Chuck Norris Ron Paul jokes. Whoever is running the Draft Randy Hillier twitter has a similar sense of humour. These are some of the tweets:

• Randy Hillier does not get frostbite. Randy Hillier bites frost
• As an infant, Randy Hillier's parents gave him a toy hammer. He gave the world Niagara Falls
• Randy Hillier once fought himself. He went undefeated.
• Some people wear Superman pajamas. Superman wears Randy Hillier pajamas.
• Paper beats rock, rock beats scissors, and scissors beats paper. Randy Hillier beats all 3.
• If at first you don’t succeed, you’re not Randy Hillier.
• Randy Hillier knows everything there is to know - Except for the definition of losing.
• Most tough men eat nails for breakfast. Randy Hillier does all of his grocery shopping at Home Depot.
• There is no 'ctrl' button on Randy Hillier's computer. Randy Hillier is always in control.

Draft a Leader: the PCPO leadership race

During the leadership review last year 'Draft a Leader' was one of the strongest voices saying that John Tory should step down. Now the website is reborn as an aggregator for everything involving the PCPO leadership race.

In the words of Paul Synnot;

The unofficial portion of the 2009 PCPO Leadership race has begun so I thought now would be a good time to fire up DraftALeader.com again.

Draft A Leader will be a non-partisan information centre for everythng and anything related to the leadership race. In addition to tracking main stream media articles, news reports and blog posts the site will also be posting articles from guest authors. In the planning stages is live-streaming of campaign events where possible, along with interviews with each of the confirmed candidates. We will be tracking and posting all information from the party along with relevant dates, times and information as required.

Draft A Leader began in November of 2008 with a goal of giving a voice to grassroots members of the party. That goal remains today.

This sounds like it will be a great tool to help party members to make their decision. I encourage everyone to check it out throughout the campaign.

PCPO Leadership - Early Internet Battle

There are no candidates for the PC Party of Ontario leadership race, but this doesn't mean I can't start ranking the favourites so far in possibly the least scientific based method I can think of - based on the web presence of their supporters 4 days after Tory has stepped down. While this isn't the most rigorous way to determine support, it probably gives a good idea of who members are enthusiastic about. I have two categories to rank the candidates, regular websites and Facebook groups.

Regular Websites:
Only two websites have been created so far, one for Randy Hillier and one for Tim Hudak. Randy Hillier takes this one by a wide margin. While the site is still simple, the graphics look clean and the writing gets to the point. Tim Hudak's site has odd flash intro that does nothing other than makes the site take longer to load. When you get into Hudak's site it just looks thrown together, with plenty of grammar errors.

Facebook Groups:
Facebook groups have been created for (in decreasing order as at the time of this post) Tim Hudak (178 members), Randy Hillier (106 members), and Frank Klees (45 members) and Christine Elliott (7 members). These are just the numbers for the biggest group for each candidate. Hudak had multiple groups, but it appeared there were many of the same members, so it wouldn't be fair to double count these. So Tim Hudak is the clear winner of Facebook so far, with Randy Hillier in 2nd place.

With the leadership race going on for 4 days, it appears Hillier and Hudak are neck and neck. Let me know if I missed anything in this post, I am just going by what I have seen.

Stimulus spending explained

A friend of mine posted this as a note on Facebook. I thought that is deserved a wider audience.

This is how my professor explained stimulus spending to my class:

An economics student asks his professor to explain how the stimulus will help the economy. The professor replies that he doesn't have time to explain it now, but if the student will come by his house in the evening he will do his best to explain it.

The student shows up that night and the professor asks him to help him with an issue in his pool first. "Take this bucket and fill it with as much water as you can from the deep end of the pool. Then, carry it around and pour it into the shallow end."

Confused, the student complies, but quickly becomes frustrated. Finally he puts down the bucket and says, "This is pointless! I've been doing this over and over again and now I'm tired. Besides, it hasn't changed anything!"

The professor smiles and says, "Exactly."

U of T President condemned by SAIA

The Students Against Israeli Apartheid made this video:



The pictures of the war machines as President Naylor talks about Israel's scientific achievements is disgusting. Groups like this like to reduce all of Israel into a country war loving murderers. Regardless of what you think of the Middle East conflict, this is a gross exaggeration. The SAIA should be ashamed of themselves. President Naylor should be proud of his school's connections to the international community.

Ridiculous G&M Poll

Here is a ridiculous poll question from globeandmail.com:

Poll Question: What's the best way to reduce gang violence?

• Tougher sentences

• Stricter enforcement of existing laws and prevention

How about the solution the Economist gave: Legalize drugs.

June is too early for a PCPO Leadership Election

There is a rumour that the Ontario PC Executive are trying to ram through a quick leadership race, for some unknown reason. This is simply ridiculous. Whatever your opinion of John Tory was, I think everyone can agree that the party needs to rebuild around a new leader. Why rush the selection?

The party's constitution says that the Executive must call a leadership election within 18 months of the selection of an interim leader. Voting for the leader must occur within 6 months from the date the leadership election was called. This means the party has up to 2 years to hold the leadership vote. Clearly 2 years is too long with an October 2011 election coming up, but waiting until September or October seems to be the most prudent course of action.

The problem with a June leadership election is that there isn't enough time for candidates to raise funds and develop a proper platform. The only candidates that could come close to this are the ones that already have teams together. Why should this be a requirement? Tory just lost his by-election on Thursday night, is it reasonable to expect that all potential leadership contenders should have been preparing for this? With the limited number of potential contenders for a June race, there wouldn't be time for the members to decide who they wish to support. I certainly don't know who I'm supporting yet, especially since we have no candidates yet.

Another problem of this is that the membership cutoff date for voting could be as early as the end of April, depending on when in June the vote is. The constitution says that membership cutoff for voting can be as early as half the time between the election is called and the voting date. This means by the time all the candidates' platforms will be out, the membership cutoff date may have already happened! Do we not want the party to be bigger? Shouldn't we allow time for our membership base to grow?

A September/October leadership election would allow potential candidates to fund raise, get their team together and have a properly thought out platform. They will be properly vetted by the media and party members. The candidates will have time to travel across the province to give the members a chance to actually meet and ask questions of them. Our new leader has a good chance of being the next Premier of Ontario, surely we can spend another couple months on the selection!

The summer is usually a dead time for politics. There seems to be little benefit for having a party leader selected the time of the year when the electorate is paying the least attention. A September/October leadership election still gives our new leader two full years at the helm heading into the October 2011 election.

Both Hugh and Christian Conservative agree with me on this. I hope the party Executive listen and wait until after the summer to hold this important leadership race.

There is racism on campus, but this isn’t it

I asked a friend of mine to report what happened at a Canadian Federation of Students opeeeeen forum on racism. This is what he wrote:

The meeting of the Canadian Federation of Students Taskforce Against Racism was held in a nondescript classroom on the University of Toronto Campus, with little fanfare despite being advertised fairly well. About 50 people attended.

You could be forgiven for thinking that this was a run-of-the-mill campus event, where students were invited to share their views on racism on campus. It is a subject worth discussing, and on this particular week- the fifth annual Israeli Apartheid Week, or IAW as it came to be known- racism on campus was certainly a hot topic.

This was a week in which a Jewish U of T student was attacked by private security, hired by the organizers of IAW. His crime was demanding that a question asked by another student be answered. Reportedly, he was told by a security guard that if he didn't shut up, he would have his head "sawed off.."

The event received a write up in The Newspaper, one of the smaller campus newspapers, and has been brought up on the National Post's Full Comment blog. But apart from these few testimonials, the campus at large seemed to be unaware that anything had happened.

Surely, then, this meeting- devoted to anti-racism and advertised as a student-positive space- would be the perfect place to discuss the incident. Chaired by two candidates for the University of Toronto Student Union, this meeting could have generated constructive solutions to racism on campus and defuse the type of atmosphere that had contributed to the incident at IAW just a few days ago. The three moderators, to their credit, began the event with a fairly short introduction and an invitation to speak freely.

Unfortunately, things didn't go as planned.

Within the first twenty minutes of opening the floor, U of T had been described as perpetuating a "white supremacist culture"; as a place where "repression of dissent" was common; where "all that is talked about is white men and their ideas"; and where students must do all they can to "resist" U of T's "racist policies".

The students had no shortage of stories that demonstrated, as far as they were concerned, that our campus seethed with hatred. A speaker at an alumni association breakfast for International Women's Day, for example, made reference to the fact that women were excluded from U of T for a long period of time, but did not specifically mention black women or Native women. Also a letter from the University that described a group of protestors as "thuggish", and "a mob"- deliberate references, we were told, to their skin colour and race.

Then there was the "bureacratic veil" that the university employed when making decisions to cut programs that served minority students or "bodies of colour" as they were called. Specifically, when U of T decides to cut funding for a specific program, and they say it is due to the current economic situation, don't be fooled- their real motive is to target minority students.
If you want to raise tuition fees (as President David Naylor apparently does in his "20/30" plan for the University of Toronto) so that you can attract the "cream of the crop" to your university, that's racist as well. Because, you see, marginalized people of colour cannot afford higher tuition fees, so the "cream of the crop" will no doubt turn out to be white privileged Europeans exclusively.

Or, if you want to condemn Israeli Apartheid Week for being offensive to Jewish students- as some Canadian university presidents have done- you are perpetuating systemic racism against Palestinians.

This is why, we were told, that it is not enough merely to condemn specific incidences of racism, or possible racism on campus- like when a Jewish student is told he will have his head "sawed off." No, the entire culture of the university must change.

That is why we must implement- so we we’re told- a ‘don't ask-don't tell’ policy where university applications cannot ask about an applicant's immigration status. This is why the outsourcing of employees by Aramark- a private food provision service on campus- must end. This is why "people with six-figure incomes" should not be determining the outcome of students' lives. And, of course, hiring at U of T should reflect the demographics of the city of Toronto- no more, no less.

If you think the University of Toronto's anti-racism office, Women's Centre, and LGBTQ centre could have provided these students with any solutions, think again. Firstly, the head of the anti-racism office was accused of not getting back to some complainants quickly enough. Secondly, having to tell and retell stories of being subjected to racism and homophobia is psychologically damaging. Finally, because the university is involved in "neo-colonialism" globally, there really is no reason to trust any office affiliated with U of T, is there?

These were the evening's more rational proposals. The prospect of ending capitalism was also warmly received, as was a proposal to mobilize to protest the upcoming meeting of the G-8 in Huntsville, Ontario and defeat it; as students "defeated" the FTAA in Quebec some years ago. Re-implementing affirmative action was also discussed, but in the end it was dismissed as being "too regressive."

The president of one of U of T's main Jewish groups was present at the meeting. He wanted to make a statement about IAW, but he left early, because he didn't think his statement would be well received.

As all of this was happening, the moderators sat quietly, breaking their silence only to congratulate speakers for having the courage to tell their stories. As the meeting came to a close, one of the moderators told the audience that the dialogue would continue until a solution could be reached.

But if this meeting was any indication, no new solutions are necessary. These students have already found the perfect solution to ending racism on campus.

First, you label every action that affects you negatively as racist in intent. Because after all, you really can't prove these actions *aren't* racist in intent. Then, you label the entire culture as racist and therefore unsalvageable, setting the stage for radically transformative proposals by a minority of students. Then, you enforce these proposals on the rest of the student body and administration through loud activism. Most of all, you must place a higher premium on "bodies of colour" than on other minorities.

And the majority of university students- the ones who spend their time trying to finish their degrees and securing a better future for themselves- will not be able to stop you until it is far, far too late.

The PC Leadership should be in September not June

I’ve heard rumours from several sources (including a fellow Blogging Tory) that the majority of the PC Party of Ontario’s executive are pushing for a June leadership election. This would be a huge mistake.

The PCs have experienced seven years of two disastrous leaders. Both of these leaders were the front runners during the leadership races and both of these leaders were welcomed as the savours of the party. I would have hoped that the executive would have learned their lesson.
A coronation is not what this party needs. After nearly a decade in the wilderness we must rebuild the party, but first we need to have a real conversation about who we are and how we would govern. This sort of conversation cannot be rushed; 3 months is too short of a time to hold a real contest.

There are some members of the executive and members of caucus who are pushing for the leadership election to be in September. This makes a great deal of sense. The summer is the perfect time for members of the party to gather and discuss the direction that they want to take the party. The seven months will also give both the membership and the media a chance to vet the candidates. This is likely the most important decision that the PCs have had to make since the election of Mike Harris. Who is it that can truly return us to power and represent conservative ideas? We must have the time to learn all we can about the candidates.

There should be no rush. If the vote is held in September there will still be two years before the next general election. This is plenty of time for a new leader to rebuild and strengthen the conservative movement in Ontario.

PC and Liberal ads in By-elections

I don't remember ever seeing video ads for a by-election before, but I here we have them.





I doubt that much money was spent on either ad because both are a little dry and lack any flash. Still I find it interesting that both parties are putting so much resources into this by-eletion.

Statement made by assaulted Jewish student

As reported earlier a Jewish student was assaulted by security hired by "Students Against Isreali Arpartaid." This is the statement that same student made in a Facebook note:

A few people have asked me this morning about what happened last night at UofT. I attended the Israel Apartheid Week event with a few friends and was prepared to ask a couple questions. The girl sitting next to me asked a question to one of the speakers about the problems with Hamas's Charter. The speaker answered the question by discussing occupation and Israel's "racist" policies, etc, instead of actually addressing the issue of Hamas's Charter and denial of Israel's right to exist. A couple people in the crowd, including myself, shouted out to the speaker "answer the question!" (It is generally fair game at these events where there are more activists present than observers to request that the speaker focus on the question asked). At this point, one of the (probably unlicensed) private security guards hired by SAIA approached me from behind. When I turned around in my seat to look at him, he grabbed and squeezed the back of my neck and growled at me from about 10 inches in front of my face "you shut the fuck up! shut the fuck up!" At this point I kept my cool moved back and I was like "get away from me bro, don't touch me!" One of the event organizers called for someone to ask the police standing outside in the hallway to come in to remove me for "causing a disruption" at which point I encouraged the police to come in to record the name and identity of the individual who assaulted me. I left the room promptly and reported the incident to the police. I will be filing a formal report later today with Metro Police.

I personally believe in freedom of speech and that students should be allowed to book lecture halls to present speakers who express radical, even extreme views. The presence, however, of (probably) unlicensed, private security gaurds wearing bullet proof vests and leather jackets who physicaly assault people who speak up against those radical, extreme views, must be confronted. SAIA must not be allowed to bring hired goons onto campus to intimidate people who oppose their views. I feel ashamed as a UofT alumnus.

I am also ashamed of the University of Toronto.

Jewish Student beaten during Israeli Apartheid Week Event

Every year events are held at several Universities with the purpose of discrediting Israel. These events have often been accused of antisemtism and yesterday the truth of these accusations were demonstrated dramatically. Jewish students stood up to comment on what was being presented in "Israeli Apartheid Week." According to one eye witness after asking if Israel has the right to exist;

The Palestinian “security” smacked a student in the head and grabbed him by his neck, while another “security” officer told a second Jewish student to “Shut the F**ck up or he’ll saw his head off"

This was done in front of a large crowd and thus far no legal action has been taken.

*update*

The security gaurds were hired by "Students Against Israili Apartartheid." They wore bullet proof vests and assaulted a Jewish student. You may draw your own conclusions.

Jim Rogers: we should all become farmers

(found this video at the Western Standard)

Native Governance: Little tyrannies in a democratic state

Native communities all over the country face great social problems to various degrees of severity. The origins of these social problems are numerous but many of the problems were caused by very bad government policies. So it is understandable that some people would be suspicious of a native governance bill being formed in secret. The truth is that this is exactly the sort of bill that is needed and this is the only way to do it.

Indian Affairs Minister Chuck Strahl is catching heat due to the revelation that the Conservatives may be revising some version of the failed ‘First Nations Governance Act.’ It was originally put forth by a Liberal government in 2002. This act sought to create rules for the election of native leaders that would be in line with Canadian democratic norms. The bill was abandoned because it wasn’t worth the political capital to fight the native chiefs.

In my mind few controversies would be as worthwhile as this one. There are now, in this country, our fellow Canadians, our fellow human beings, who are being ruled by corrupt political systems. The lack of secret ballot or oversight in these elections tarnish Canada’s claim to being a democratic society.

Can you imagine a municipal election with no secret ballot or no written rules? Would you tolerate such a thing or allow emotional appeals for the traditions of a now long dead society to deter your outrage? These people are receiving public funds, our tax dollars, and we have no way of knowing if they were selected in a fair process. We have reserves not of native culture but of little tyrannies ruling over our fellow Canadians.

I have friends that like to speak of the importance of liberating the people of Iraq and Afghanistan, and of giving them democracy. I say that we should liberate those who live on reserves and give them democracy. Though it is done in secret, I would support government legislation with this goal in mind.

Congressman Paul Ryan and the Republican road map

The ranking Republican on the House Budget Committee, Paul Ryan, wrote an opinion piece in the Wall Street Journal. In it he blasts Obama for increasing the size of government and proposes four policies to help the economy.

- A pro-growth tax policy. Rather than raise the top marginal income tax rate to 39.6%, it should be dropped to 25%. The lower tax brackets should be collapsed to one 10% rate on the first $100,000 for couples. And the top corporate tax rate should be lowered to 25%. This modest reform would put American companies' tax liability more in line with the prevailing rates of our competitors.

- Guarantee sound money. For the last decade, the Federal Reserve's easy-money policy has helped fuel the housing bubble that precipitated our current crisis. We need to return to a sound money policy. That would end uncertainty, help keep interest rates down, and increase the confidence entrepreneurs and investors need to take the risks required for future growth.

- Fix the financial sector. A durable economic recovery requires a solution to the banking crisis. There are no easy or painless solutions, but the most damaging solution over the long term would be to nationalize our financial system. Once we put politicians in charge of allocating credit and resources in our economy, it is hard to imagine them letting go.

- Get a grip on entitlements. With $56 trillion in unfunded liabilities and our social insurance programs set to implode, we must tackle the entitlement crisis. President Barack Obama deserves credit for his recent efforts to build a bipartisan consensus on entitlement reform. But we can't solve the entitlement problem unless we acknowledge why the costs are exploding, and then take action.

I am glad to see that more and more Republicans are coming out and denying that they are Keynsians. I have great hope that the Republican Party will become a born again free market party.

You can read the rest of the article here.

Manning Centre: bringing together the conservative family

The Manning Centre is hosting the Manning Networking Conference & Exhibition 2009 from March 12^th to 14^th. This is a rare opportunity in the Canadian conservative movement. Too often conservatives are divided into factions that have little to do with each other outside of political parties. The Manning Centre is giving a forum for not just members of the provincial and federal parties to interact. Small c organizations and organizers from across the country that usually have nothing to do with each other will be there; and they will be networking.

The Manning Centre is offering more than what the usual partisan conference can offer. The Networking Conference will be bringing speakers from both the United States and the United Kingdom. As activists we will have the chance to learn how things are done outside of Canada and perhaps find some tactics or strategies that could be used to strengthen conservatism in this country.

From the United Kingdom we have Tim Montgomerie founder of the Conservative Home, and we have Mathew Elliott the Executive Director of the TaxPayer’s Alliance. Both of these speakers will give attendees a window into what is working in Britain and what can be applied here.

From the United States we have Liz Mair, the director of online communications for the Republican National Committee. It is undeniable that American politicians are ahead of any Canadian political party in this area. You will have the chance to learn firsthand how the Republican Party is able to utilize social media.

The most exciting foreign speaker will be the legendary Frank Schubert. Mr. Schubert is one of the most successful issues campaigners in the United States. He has a ballot initiative record of 27-31 and he is the only person to twice receive the prestigious award from the American Association of Political Consultants as the country’s most valuable public affairs professional. According to his website, Mr. Schubert has worked on issues such as, “land use, insurance policy, education reform, tort reform, taxation, environmental issues and healthcare.” Mr. Schubert will be speaking Friday during the ‘practical politics’ section of the conference.

This is a great opportunity for young activists that want to learn and for more seasoned activists to encounter new members of the conservative family. Check out more details here, and register!