Your premise, namely that this budget somehow improves the political fortunes of the conservatives, is remarkably flawed. It has made the party look weak AND unprincipled, confused AND desperate. When the next election invariably rolls around, what message do we run on? "Vote for us, we can best manage the economy?" That is no longer credible. It would have been far better to go down on principle (heaven forbid) and make the liberals either destroy themselves with an untenable coalition, or rush into an election they would invariably lose, again.

Instead, we've now undeniably given them the upper hand. The writing is on the wall for this group, and as an unhappy conservative, I might say none too soon.

"It has made the party look weak AND unprincipled, confused AND desperate"

and what sort of political calculation was made there? The only motive there was survival in my opinion and that is unfortunate. I wish Canada was more conservative so that if the Liberal-NDP-Bloc said no to a sincerely conservative budget than the obvious political calculation would have been "fine then, let's rumble" and go to the polls.

I hope for a country where one day the chattering class looks at a budget such as this and says "this is too much spending" rather than "this is moderate enough".

In fairness, the other parties I suspect are frustrated too. Yet again the Libs,I believe for the fourth consecutive year have had to support or let the Conservative budget pass. Why? Because for all of their bluster about how Canadians should fear the Cons. they the Liberals fear Canadians even more.

I always liked the "You get the gov't you deserve." line. I think many in the Conservative party knew this could happen when they fell short of the majority. The city of Toronto is disfunctional because of astonishingly poor leadership in city council. They deserve it. Canadians voted this parliament and as a result some power was handed to parties that have nothing in common with other large segments of Canada. Whenever the next election is it will be up to them to reconsider where they want to go.

The regionalisation of Canada is nearly complete. You'd better get used to it. Whether it's Consevative , Liberal or any other, minority gov'ts could be the norm from here on in.

The "Huffin' Puffin" did as predicted. He made some noise , displayed his feathers, and supported the budget.

Next crisis please.

"A political party’s first and last job is to get elected. If you thought that the Conservative Party should have held its ground, flipped off the opposition, delivered $30 billion in tax cuts and went out in a blaze of glory then you have the benefit of layering fantasy on a wholly incongruent political landscape where the pragmatists thrive".

You're constructing a bit of a straw man, here. I'm one of those "ideologues" that you speak of. But I consider myself a pragmatists and an incrementalist.

I am honestly not aware of any educated individuals in the fiscal conservative and libertarian movements that wanted and/or expected the Conservatives to deliver "$30 billion in tax cuts". I think we'd agree, given the fiscal situation that probably no tax cuts were feasible at this time. At least without reductions in spending to counter them.

Part of what us "ideologues" believe, is that this massive government incursion into the economy of the country is going to do, is protract this economic contraction and stagnate growth in the long term.

I might add that Stephen Harper, Jim Flaherty, and in fact, most conservatives previous to this dilemma believed such to be true, as far as economics go. The conservative movement (and the broader middle-of-the-road political movements) over that past 30 years embraced market liberalization, removal of trade barriers and central banking policies that attempted to mirror the Monetarist school of thought.

There was good reason for conservatives to embrace these concepts, as there was every bit of empirical evidence that previous economic worldviews–namely supply-side economics and specifically Keynesianism– were demonstrated to have been utter failures.

There is no good evidence that increasing government spending for investment in infrastructure, or even giving broad-based tax breaks has any lasting impact on the economy. For those who disagree, I would direct people to read through a slew of economic analysis that looked at attempts by Japan, Canada and Australia in the late 1980's, early 1990's to use government spending to stimulate the economy. Then contrast that with the radical non-interventionist policies of say, Margaret Thatcher in the UK during the same period.

The UK saw a massive increase in economic productivity, lowering of unemployment, and general economic expansion in that period, contrasted to Canada, Australia and–to a lesser extent in the early 90's, Japan and then moreso later–of economic stagnation through the middle of the decade.

Eventual cut backs in Federal expenditures by the Chretien government starting in 1993, coupled with similar measures by the Ontario Harris government in 1995, and continuing on towards the end of the decade, saw Canada transition towards the darling of the G7 for economic growth and job expansion.

We can write an entire book contrasting the universal failures of "government funded simulus" and the universal successes of "government non-intervension". In fact, many have been written.

I am a logical positivist. I am attracted to what works, or rather, what has been demonstrable proven to work. When it comes to a situation like this, where the Conservatives are walking down the rabbit hole (regardless of what the rest of the world is doing--insert cliff analogy here), you expect me to just sit down and simply accept that the Conservatives had to do it.

Not only to a believe that Harper has played his cards poorly. But I believe that Canadians would have accepted a balanced-budget, prudent approach, if Harper has stayed strong on the issue. Polls before, through and up until recently have shown a public willingness to accept the slow-and-steady approach. But Mr. Harper conceded defeat even before the polls showed any drop in support for his economic vision. When the coalition was ready to force their way into power, the CPC polling shot up to near 50%.

If they had put together a belt-tightening budget, that did it's best to balance the budget, and provide modest tax relief (and maybe some extension of EI benefits), the public would have likely gone along, because most Canadians instinctively know that running a deficit is bad. They remember the bad old days.

I'll invoke Mr. Mulroney here: "You had a option, sir"

I should add that my comment about tax breaks not having a positive effect is a bit poorly said. I do believe tax breaks are a net positive, but that they do not have any immediate effect in the economy. The Bush tax rebates were good examples of where economists detected no appreciable effect.

Over time, increases in economic freedom through tax reduction improve economic productivity. But these factors play out in the long-term, not the short-term. And this reality is fundamentally accepted by economists.

Brock, this is not a condemnation of the conservative movement, it is a call to action.

Sorry Stephen, the CPC's job is not to stay in power at all costs. Ernie Eves did that in Ontario, and look what it got the Ontario PC Party.

Logically then, your argument is that it is sometimes a political party's job to lose.

Look. I'm saying that the party is a shell by definition. As a movement, we need to fill it. We need to do a better job.

"Logically then, your argument is that it is sometimes a political party's job to lose."

No, actually. That does not logically follow. That's a false dichotomy.

In any situation where there are competing interests there are always winners and losers. And even that's not completely true–I'm brushing over a great deal of Game Theory to make a point–but the losers don't ever lose because it's their job to lose. They lost because well... they didn't win.

Some would argue that Conservatives lost anyways. And that by selling themselves out, they doubly lost. Firstly, because they are being politically cornered which will be their political undoing. And secondly, they have undone themselves by coming to stand for nothing.

Sometimes it's better to leave with your integrity, than leave with material spoils.

i agree with Mark. What we have in this Budget is an abandonment of the values that the Conservative Party ran on in the recent election. It is an admission that Harper either lied about the future of the economy or was unaware of the dire situation.

Your comment that the Conservatives should do what it takes to win means that all they will become is a sad shadow of the Liberal Party. A Party must have values and should stick by them. It is only by doing so that the electorate is given a choice. What we have now is an open admission by the Prime Minister that his platform in the last election was wrong so now he is going to do whatever keeps him in power.

That is pathetic.

Here is the difference: there is a conservative movement. The Liberals only have the election machine.

Selling one's values out to remain in power is a movement? At least the Liberals acknowledge that they are a centrist party that governs pragmatically. The conservative "movement" apparently does the same thing but only whitewashes it with principles that are to be abandonned as necessary.

I hope I don't have to draw you a diagram Jim because that's not what I meant at all. Please read just 10 words of my article to understand the clear difference between "party" and "movement". The Liberals don't have a movement, the conservatives do. Movements are sustained by issues. I can think of at least 20 issues that a conservative movement is sustained by and 20 issues a socialist movement is sustained by. I cannot think of what Liberals get excited for besides winning elections and Justin Trudeau.

Stephen, you are correct in calling the liberals an election machine but to infer they have no principles or issues is patently false. The thing the libs have going is to generally understand the electorate better than any other party going. There is nothing wrong with that approach because generally the electorate is correct in their wishes, apprehensions and aspirations.

You're too far down the tory pipe to understand flexible politcal movements like the Libs as there are several other social/Liberal democratic parties like them in Europe.

"The thing the libs have going is to generally understand the electorate better than any other party going"

Huh! Last time I checked they have been out of power for three years and got decimated in the last election. That's some understanding.

Terry, don't get too excited at me for calling the Liberals an "election machine". I mean this so far as to describe what they are, not what condition they are in.

The machine is rusty and seized up under Dion. Now, I wonder if Iggy's got enough oil to make it run again.

The Conservative Party has a fine-tuned machine in their fundraising and voter ID capacity. However, this only makes it good at winning. We, as the movement and as ideologues, need to set the ground so that the machine wins meaningful victories.

As for the european social democratic movement? It's home in Canada is the NDP.

Moderation; neither straying to far to the right or the left, is a movement all its own my friend; and more importantly, it's the scope in which the majority of Canadians base their values.

"For both excessive and insufficient exercise destroy one's strength, and both eating and drinking too much or too little destroy health, whereas the right quantity produces, increases or preserves it. So it is the same with temperance, courage and the other virtues... This much then, is clear: in all our conduct it is the mean that is to be commended." ~ Aristotle

There's a reason Harper cannot win a majority.

"What we have in this Budget is an abandonment of the values that the Conservative Party ran on in the recent election. It is an admission that Harper either lied about the future of the economy or was unaware of the dire situation. "

That's absurd. The Canadian election was called on September 7, 2008.

Initial indications of significant financial concerns were in the news when Lehman's filed for bankruptcy on September 15, a week later. The Bush administration's refusal to step into the brink was hailed as a truly conservative moment, as it expected the market to right itself.

And it was all downhill from there.

So how is it that PM Harper, alone among world leaders, is to be held accountable for not foreseeing this pretty-much unprecedented global meltdown? Many laugh at Americans viewing their new president as a messiah, but what does your statement say about your expectations around PMSH?

"Your comment that the Conservatives should do what it takes to win means that all they will become is a sad shadow of the Liberal Party...What we have now is an open admission by the Prime Minister that his platform in the last election was wrong so now he is going to do whatever keeps him in power."

Your statement displays incredible naivete. If the Conservative Party has any hope at all of dragging this country's centre more to the right (or, realistically, political middle as things go in Canada), they have to actually be in power to make that happen.

And I should CERTAINLY hope that PMSH is focused on staying in power - do you really want Jack! within spitting distance of the country's chequebook? You're bi*ching about THIS budget? The mind boggles at what might have happened had the coalition of weasels taken over in December.

You're conservatism appears to be skin deep.

it is comments like this:

"Your statement displays incredible naivete. If the Conservative Party has any hope at all of dragging this country's centre more to the right (or, realistically, political middle as things go in Canada), they have to actually be in power to make that happen."

that lead people to believe that the Conservative Party has a "secret agenda". The Conservative Party should run on the principles and platform that it wants to achieve not on a false platform that can get it elected and then do something else. If you believe in the princiles then the Conservative Party should run on them. That is how a Party should act not on some switcheroo once in office.

Further during the campaign it was obvious to every leader of every country in the world except for Harper that there was an economic crises. McCain suspended his election campaign to work on the solution. Harper merely said that it was a good time to get into the stock market. I am not saying he should be held accountable for the financial collapse but I am saying that he clearly should be held accountable for either lying about it during the campaign or not understanding the consequences of what was happening in our economy. For a self proclaimed economist his performance during the election was unforgivable. Tragically it has deteriorated since then.

"that lead people to believe that the Conservative Party has a "secret agenda""

No, I think the Coalition of the Weasels put that to bed. And there IS no secret agenda. Respect of provincial/federal jurisdiction. Put into action what Trudeau said "the state has no business in the bedrooms of the nations" or to paraphrase, the families (ie no nationalized daycare). Lower taxes, etc.

"McCain suspended his election campaign to work on the solution." McCain "suspended" his campaign because he was losing. And I believe that was about a week before we voted?

" he clearly should be held accountable for either lying about it during the campaign or not understanding the consequences of what was happening in our economy"

Well then, let's fire every world leader that was in power at the time, or running for election, because NOBODY HAD A CLUE. You really think Dion would have been the better bet?

The PM can and should carry the banner of conservatism. We cannot only depend upon him and the party to drive change and change the country. To be sure, they are quite a visible and powerful marketing machine, but it is the role of the movement to back them up so that their marketing campaign is salable to Canadians.

Brock, well done. The best comment I have read so far on this debacle. Stephen I understand where you are coming from, but you did put up a straw man and I refuse to swing at it.

Good post. Constructive writing was losing its edge on Blogging Tories over the economic plan.

Cheers.

Well-written, Stephen. I appreciate the "gun to the head" quote - that's exactly what I thought yesterday when the budget was being revealed.

>>The Conservative party is what we make of it; our model is bottom-up, not top-down.

I think that's an increasingly tough claim to make - another place conservatives have a lot of work to do.

We must never allow the Conservative party to lose its ability to be influenced by the grassroots.

Here is my take on yesterday's budget:

Canada’s 2009 Federal Budget in numbers which sober-minded Canadians should understand:

You have a mortgage of: $233,000

You had 2008 family income of: $112,000

Going into 2009, you have living
expenses of: $112,000

of which mortgage interest is: $15,000

After your spouse/kids start whining, you decide to go on a spending spree of an additional $17,000 in 2009 and $15,000 in 2010.

Over the next 5 years, you hope to wean your family from these spending habits. In the
meantime, your mortgage will be: $275,000

We have become a nation of beggars!

Source: Numbers have been extracted from 2009 Federal budget and proportionally adjusted

The activities since the end of November up to and including the content of the budget are the result of having, yet another, minority government. Because of the 4 party, publicly funded system now in place we are in the position of having permanent minority governments. Chretien gained majorities only when the conservatives were in disarray and once the conservatives became organized Martin could only achieve a minority. Since then we have had 2 more minority governments.
This is why PMSH was correct to introduce the cancellation of the funding for political parties. If this is not eventually implemented then the results of future elections could very well be minorities as election after election
fringe parties are given public money to continue their existence.

He didn't introduce a cancellation (public) funding for political parties, he cancelled the aspect of it which benefits his party, relatively speaking, the least. I'm constantly amazed by people who claim to want a democracy, but then are upset by what a democracy gives them.

Excellent Post !
Unfortunately the "Blathering Blowhards of Blognegativity" aren't having any of it.
They scream and wail for the Conservatives to do a "Joe Clark".
The reality of the political and economic situation just is not going to interfer with their immovable ideology.
I totally support what the Conservatives have done.

Perhaps all the conservative ideologues should run for office in nonTory territory, so they get a better understanding of the compromises needed to stay in office, and run this country.

First we have to win, then we can effect change, at a pace Canadians, who do not vote Tory, are able to digest.
PMSH now owns center, and can bend right, but not to the breaking point.

I won't ever vote Dipper, but as Conservative as I am (old Reformer), I will not vote for the right 's equivalent of the Dippers narrow hard lines either.

When my neighbour loses his job, I care.
I do not believe that being a Conservative means I care more for 'principle' than people.
To me the opposite is true.

This government believes in victim rights (vs Liberal criminal's rights)
This government believes in a strong, well funded and a celebrated military (vs Liberal Decade of Darkness)
This government believes in the people making choices (vs Liberal special interest groups driving the agenda)

These fundamentals have not changed,
but to survive, PMSH's government has taken center and forced Iggy to either go left or right of him.
Iggy will go left, because of the heavy Dipper infestation invited in by his party, to survive.
Then, on firm footing, we can bend right, slowly.

Game on Iggy.

"Perhaps all the conservative ideologues should run for office in nonTory territory, so they get a better understanding of the compromises needed to stay in office, and run this country."

So where did Harper compromise? Seems to little ol' me that he is leading the charge not trying to find some compromise between a basic conservative position and the Liberal position. He's going where neither the Liberals nor the NDP were suggesting he needed to go.

I'm reminded of Ralph Klein's mantra about getting out in front of the parade.

You can't stop a stampede. You will get run over.

You can only get out in front and try to divert if where you want it to go.

The military analogy is giving an unpopular order and discovering a grenade with no pin beneath your cot.

Ted, your party is saying that the PM "listened" to them on the budget.

You need to update your talking points.

Well said, Wilson!

Indeed.

Let me see if I understand your logic, Stephen.

The Conservative Party of Canada had absolutely no choice but to introduce a budget that Coyne described as one "Trudeau could only dream of", that shatters spending records that the Conservatives have already shattered, expands government into economic activity that the Liberals and NDP have never even proposed before, and basically out NDP the Liberals and the NDP... because... they had no other option??? And it is not the Conservative Party's fault but the conservative movement's fault? That sounds an awful lot like both massive rationalization and passing the buck.

You've created a false dichotomy between massive tax cuts, spending cuts and rolling back of the government vs. this $85 billion deficit creating stimulus package. If there was a shred of "conservative" left in this Conservative government, then there were plenty of other options.

Ted, you obviously do not understand movement politics because you are a Liberal. For the movement, the glass is always half empty; a declared "failure" is rather a call for action to do better and to do a lot more.

Are you really trying to score points on "hidden agenda"?

What did we expect with a gun to there head???? Sure as hell didn't expect them to cry like babies and yell UNCLE....

“Well, what the hell else do you expect us to do with a gun to our head” remarked one ministerial staffer

Ah but who put that gun to their head? They did with that silly economic statement last year and because of that the party is at fault for what transpired yesterday.

"They did with that silly economic statement last year and because of that the party is at fault for what transpired yesterday."

BS McClelland. Polls showed overwhelmingly that the majority of Canadians were onside with the economic statement and did not want a Coalition. Fortunately, Harper would not force the country to another election just to prove a point. So, yes, the coalition held a gun to their heads and they responded. Of course, now the Coalition says don't do all the things they were crying about being done back in December.

The CPC are damned if they do and damned if they don't. Unfortunately, there seem to be many who cannot see that.

There seem to be many who thought damn the torpedos - take this country hard right, we've waited long enough.

To them I say, if that had happened, you would have been waiting forever.

I would encourage all of you to google Corus radio and listen to Dave Rutherford's interview with Mike Duffy to get a now "insiders" view of the situation. You might be very surprised.

No, I believe polls showed that Canadians were neither onside with the update nor in support of the coalition.

John C:

I’m a card carrying Conservative, and the only reason my card isn't cut up and in the garbage is that I want to vote for the next Conservative leader just as soon as we can get rid of our current disingenuous, self-described, conservative.

I invite all genuine small-c fiscal, social and/or judicial conservative to join the Party for the solitary reason of ensuring that we elect one of us during what hopefully will be a leadership election soon.

Machiavelli, unless we have a strong conservative movement to provide conservative cover for a Conservative leader, it doesn't matter who we elect to lead.

One thing is for certain, Harper is the movement's best choice that I can see. He's done the hard work in the trenches for the movement when he wasn't an MP. Problem is, he doesn't have the movement backup he needs. The problem isn't the party or its leader, it's that we need to make Canada more conservative using our movement.

That was the point of this article.

I don't think they're buying it any more, Stephen.

Do you remember right after the `06 election when Layton held out an olive branch to Harper with his suggestion that Canada needs a stable coalition government? I was just wondering if you or any of the cons here now regret that Harper slapped it away?

"I was just wondering if you or any of the cons here now regret that Harper slapped it away?"

=============================

After what we've seen from Layton, I would wager "not for one single solitary second".

"Problem is, he doesn't have the movement backup he needs."

Yep. I'll get right on that in a bit.

I wrongly figured that others would naturally begin to pick up the slack as time went on.

I should just skip the whole bit and become the PMO's back room PR.

I'm not even kidding, I would do it for free too and kindly put the MSM in its place at the same time.

I've been too much of a hermit-head as of late.... If I really begun to belt out my thoughts on everything these needless opposers would be left buckling at the knees. And yes every last "Don Martin"/pocket pundit$ in Canada would be rightfully left out of a job since their near-useless opinions would finally be exposed for their pointlessness.

hmm.... in fact....

To anyone condemning the PM:

You are starting to sound like Liberals and New Democrats. Nothing is ever good enough! What would you have said if PMSH dug in his heels, refused to move at all and then the Coalition came to power because the budget was voted down?

I have a feeling a lot of you say something like: "Well maybe he could have given in somewhat, for the sake of trying to stay in government! He didn't, so get rid of Harper! He allowed them to seize power!"

But wait, it's that he gave in too much now??? As Stephen said in his post, it's about winning elections too. Lets say that this budget had nothing that the Liberals would support. They vote against it and the GG is asked to appoint the Coalition or call an election.

So she calls an election: The parties yell and scream about the Conservatives "not providing enough money in these dangerously uncertain times, not doing nearly enough to help Canadians and the Economy! They are too stuck in their ways and won't listen to anyone!"

How is that election going to play out? Hmm? I see losses of seats and loss of power. Sure, the Libs will be hammered over the coalition idea, but that won't be enough. Because people want answers to the economic situation, not a brick wall.

I think that they gave too much, yeah. But I think it was worth it. Plus, we are at like 30% debt compared with others in the G7 at 60% due to 'economic stimulation.' When people see that this stimulus plan is useless and a waste. They'll see that the Harper Conservatives didn't just jump on the bandwagon as the Liberals and NDP, and even the US. They tried their way but were held hostage. And for the sake of keeping Canadians from another election and a coalition that would FAR WORSE for the economy, they gave in somewhat and protected Canada overall. And that, that is what could give the Conservatives a majority.

Stephen:

I agree, the conservative movement must do more to win the "war of ideas" to push not just the Conservatives but also the Liberals in the right direction. It's also important by the way for the "movement" not get too attached to any particular party. We must be willing to criticize any party of it falls off the rails. And that's why conservatives should be screaming bloody murder about the Tory budget, just as we screamed bloody murder when Bob Rae went on a spending splurge.

But there's another point Stephen. If the conservative movement is to be sucessful it will need help from political leaders. Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher, Mike Harris, all these people used their positions of power to promote free markets and less government. In the process, they energized and mobilized the conservative movement.

By contrast, Prime Minister Stephen Harper never extols conservative values or principles. Indeed, he often uses the rhetoric of Liberals. The net effect is too undermine the conservative cause in this country.

After all, to the average Canadian, conservatism now means bloated deficits and massive spending.

Also, it's an unfortunate truth that when some of us tried to create the conditions of "ideological survivability" the Tory party did not react well.

In short, the Conservative Party needs to remember who their friends are.

"In short, the Conservative Party needs to remember who their friends are"

Given how you have been the toast of the PPG lately, I would say that you are definitely NOT one of those Gerry.

You didn't allow my comment the other day when I suggested you were a bitter man. That claim stands.

Alberta Girl, you are giving me too much credit when it comes to blocking comments on my blog. I wouldn't even know how to do that! Not sure why your comment didn't appear but plenty of other anti-Gerry comments do appear, so clearly I am not censoring it.

As for the idea of friendship, well I think a true friend tells the truth even if it hurts. Too many Tories blindly follow the the party even if it is heading in the wrong direction. That's not friendship. You know how true friends don't let friends drive drunk, well true conservatives shouldn't let conservatives move left.

As Stephen says, the movement must push conservative ideas to create a climate where conservatives can win. But you can't do that by abandoning principles.

Gerry, the Harper sock puppets will hang onto Stevie to the bitter end - like they did with Mulroney, Kim and Charest.

Gerry we need to put the horse before the cart and put them on the right path. I believe that your approach isn't working because you would have us tip over the cart.

Sorry but the cart' is already tipped over, it's wheels are broken and it's stuck in the mud.

Well said Stephen.

All I can say is: Bang on, Stephen :-).

At first I thought you were absolving the government of its sins. But then your subtle thesis lept off the page at me.

You're right, the government is just a reflection of the people so how can we blame it (essentially the voters) for being who they are or who they represent.

Make the people more conservative and get the government you want no matter it's name. That's what the conservative movement is for... I'm in, so what do we do now?

That's what I'd like to know too. How do we convince Canadians to become more conservative? How do we grow the movement?

Prime examples.

Don't force ideals onto others but rather lead by example.

Do things that aid the person in being able to do so if they so choose.

Don't let mistakes, mishaps, troubles hold them back from being able to recover from consequence...

Otherwise it'll more often than not just lead to more problems.

The first line kinda nips the rest in the bud before the issues even sprout in the first place.

The latter makes for a decent contingency plan.

If your completely lost on what I'm on about than this isn't likely directed at you.

Gonna leave it at that. Use your own discernment on how to apply what I mean.

So Taylor, you're saying to quietly espouse certain philosophies... A hand-up rather than a hand-out. No criminal coddling, etc.

Did I get that right, or am I 'completely lost?'

"It was certainly a policy delivered in the context of a deficit pushing $1 trillion in the US, where every other government in the industrialized world is running deficits..."

That along with the fact Obamania is sweeping our country, the new spending messiah coming to visit us in a few weeks, are in a nutshell the reasons why Harper and Co. came up with such a budget.

It's all to build more popularity for the Conservative party in the long run. Our medias are sucking on lemons as they proclaim it a good budget. "What happened to the evil neo con Stephen Harper who's just like the American prez, d'eh, uh, oh ????"....Remember folks, Bush is gone now and if Harper can portray himself as an Obama minded, it's hello majority next time.

IMO next election: This fall...the poison pill? : Abolishing Federal political party funding by taxpayer: A money bill = A vote of confidence.

"A political party's first and last job is to get elected."

Naive old me. While I know the above statement is the overriding philosophy of ALL political parties, I was labouring under the impression that the first and last job of a political party was to act in the best interests of the nation, based upon the espoused principles of that party.
Adherence to the principles delineated by the opening line is the reason why politicians have so little value in Canadian society.

That should be the first and last job of a government, but the role of a party is to get elected, and the role of the movement is to back up the party so it always stands on principle.

I would love to see a country where this sort of budget is called "atrocious" by the media for being too leftwing rather than "moderate" for not being too rightwing.

You can't campaign on a balanced budget then turn around and deliver a $38 billion deficit and expect to retain credibility. This is crass politics at its worst. Better the coalition than a complete abrogation of principle. They would have imploded in short order anyway.

Hi Stephen,

The Conservative Party is not bottom up. Just check the facts re Manning and Harper.

As for the status of the movement - if we had much called for reforms in the charitable laws in Canada - conservatives would be able to build a movement and fund.

All we have now is the government funded think tanks like CIGI and other left of centre groups driving the message. This is after three years of having our "friends" in Ottawa.

The CPC is not interested in creating a bottom up movement or this would have been done by now - as we have been asking for it.

Let is remember - when the movement is betrayed - people stay home (just Ernie Eves or John Tory). This might not matter much for the folk in Alberta - but the party needs to win in Ontario and across the country. That means we need to trim government; reform immigration; fight Islamists by supporting true moderate muslims; fight the war on terrorism; support our troops; and keep our spending in check.

This budget is worst that what Mulroney or Trudeau would have done.

It is time we tell it to those Conservatives (MPs, Staffers and paid lobbyists (aka strategists) who are busy drinking the water in Ottawa that they are on the right if they are hoping to see Ignatieff elected as PM in one years time.



NEOCON AND PROUD

That's it Stephen, tow the party line and drink the koolaid.

Now how about you turn over blogging tories to a conservative?

If there are any left in this country.

AtlanticJim, you must have very poor reading comprehension... you missed the point entirely. Here, read this:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/...

For anyone who thinks that three years of a Conservative gov't would change the mindset of a nation of entitlement dependants is living in a dream world. We have a huge mountain to climb; brains need to be retrained; people need to be weaned off of their government-mandated welfare.

You give up now and let the Libs have another crack at the can, our work will be so, so much harder. More social programs, more pork. Go ahead. See if you're happier with all of your principles intact while your taxes go up and up and your hope for a conservative nation will never, ever have a chance. do you honestly think Harper would have brought down a budget like this if there were no recession and he didn't have the threat of a disastrous coalition on the nation? You are dreaming in technicolour. For pete's sakes, the Libs haven't shut up about a national child care system. You want to be saddled with that crap forever? How about a national pharmacare program? Sure! Because the Libs wouldn't hesitate to add more entitlement spending that goes on forever. Harper's spending is short term and has an end date. The Liberals NEVER put end dates on their spending.

Compared to the alternative, I'll take Harper any day of the week.

Good one, Soccermom!

Yeah - because that is just sooooo inspiring....

I like how Monte Solberg phrased it in today's Sun:

" This budget isn't a conservative document so much as it's a political document; a document that will give the Conservative government the room necessary to craft a compelling conservative vision for the future.

They must craft that vision without hesitation, and they must do it in a way that makes people want to be a part of it. "

The number one job of a political party is not to get elected.

It's to get it's policies based on it's principles enacted.

And it doesn't have to be in power to do this, the reform alliance got the Liberals to balance the budget in the first place and the Liberals just got the Conservative to run massive deficits. You cowardly, unprincipled so-called conservatives are going to find that if you continue along this hard line socialist path, in the end, you will neither be in power or ever have any truly conservative policies enacted.

Don't tell me you had a gun to your head, you had a choice, and you choose to tuck your tail between your legs, stain the carpet and hide under the bed whimpering.

I am through with you people.

Applause. It is also interesting to see how the other side thinks. Harper has undone himself. Deficits are not tied to the Conservative brand. One wonders if his supporters are even aware of his Section 13 betrayal.

Why do we even have policy conventions? The only thing harper is good at is hanging onto his 34 percent of the vote. The rest of the country hates us, and we are further than ever from having a majority.

Jordon, you are correct in your assessment. I do beleive that Harper will not be around after this summer as he will resign knowing he cannot win a majority and thus cannot fulfill his right wing agenda.

Precisely, wilson.

Good to see people understand how politics in this country works.

So conservatives have to trick the Canadian public to gain power, at which point they can actually do something productive... Smells like a hidden agenda to me.

2004 called and they want their talking points back

Stephen -

You just put words to what I have been feeling in the pit of my stomach for the past month or two ... thank you.

The movement will always outlive parties. We need to do more to make give our parties the foundation to work.

A principled conservative government reluctantly doing liberal things does not make me happy, but it's far better than an unprincipled Liberal government doing Liberal things enthusiastically and gleefully. More important, it is far preferable than doggedly sticking to principles like the NDP or even the Marxists, and being reduced to defiantly standing outside the tent, pissing in through the screens. Being in power and getting a portion of what you want beats being perpetually in opposition and getting nothing.

Really? Because Flaherty looked pretty happy when he annuced 64 billions in money pits

The Conservative Party of Canada only exists because of the conservative movement. If one fails, they both have.

The movement had better success getting conservative things done in opposition than they have in power, I really could not care less what the name of the party in power is, as long as the cause is furthered. PMSH is taking us backward.

So what you are saying is: $30 BILLION IS A SMALL PRICE FOR CANADIANS TO PAY FOR THE PRIVILEGE OF A CONSERVATIVE PARTY MINORITY.

Well, no one wil accuse you of being an ideologue. Cling to power at any cost! YA!

aa, you need to read my article again. The point is that we're all ideologues in the movement. We need to do better to build the conservative infrastructure needed to provide the ideological roots needed for conservative policy pushed through a Conservative party. Read this article where this blog post is quoted:
http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/...

Pretty sure the Conservative party is now top down as the national council which is supposed to represent members largely accepts any demands that come from the PMO

John, the movement is bottom-up. There is no Liberal movement. The only time Liblogs got upset was when Dion had no chance of winning and when Canada was supporting Israel instead of condemning it. That's not a movement.

Blogging Tories is an element of the movement and we need to influence the party from the right so that the party isn't only hearing the eternal whining on the left.

What movement? I never mentioned anything about the Liberals. I simply mentioned that the body which is supposed to represent grassroots members gave its power over to the Leader and as a result decisions in regards to the party are controlled by the PMO. I never heard any blogging tories take on national council for this decision.

Stephen,

You use to be a principle political wonk, but you really have lost your way. You can tap dance all you want around the issues and the subjects, but in the end you are still trying to put lipstick on a pig and take to prom and declare you have a hot date.

You need to stop trying to make the conservative kool-aid, while trying to serve it to a crowd that isn't willing to drink any more, all at the same time you pounding back glasses of the stuff to try and keep yourself properly medicated.

Face it Stephen you sound exact like Jason of Liblogs, mixing and drink your kool-aid doesn't work.

Just my observation and opinion

Zorpheus, you fail English? That's unpossible!

Now, class...
Q: what is Stephen Taylor's thesis?
A: The Conservative party is just a vehicle. The movement is what drives it. Stephen Taylor is encouraging conservatives to invest their time and effort into the movement (like Blogging Tories and the Fraser Institute, for example) to provide a sound ideological foundation for real conservative change. Our vehicle needs gas.

My opinion is the opposite of Jason's. The party takes orders from the movement. The movement doesn't take orders from the party. Though as movement conservatives we need to get to work and must know that simply voting for a party every few years isn't enough of an investment in it's success. We need to change the ideological landscape to allow a truly conservative budget to be presented by any party.

There have been many versions of the "Conservative" party in the past... the conservative movement will outlive each and every one of them by their nature.

Though if we want real change, we need to invest in the movement.

Errr, yes, I did fail English, so it is truelee pissible ;-)

As to the rest of your comment and argument Stephen, you are trying to get people to suck and blow at the same time ;-) You can't do both at the same time and not expect people to passout for the lack of fresh air. How was the prom?

Our vehicle needs gas.

Gas will do you no good when Harper drives you to the ditch and you need tow truck.

Oh BTW, I have some juicy inside Liberal news for you,... It seems that Iggy is not going to anointed liberal leader without a challenge. It seems that there is new up and coming liberal star who is going to challenge iggy for the Liberal Party Throne after all,... Yup Stephen Harper is now positioning himself as the Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada ~giggle~

One could probably accept the budget if there was any vision behind it. The only destination presented was DEBT. First leader to present a vision (eliminating/beating the Liberal party is not a vision) and the confidence that he can lead us there wins. Right now, my money is on Ignatieff. I keep waiting for one from Harper, but all I get are short-term tactics.

Q: what is Stephen Taylor's thesis?
A: The Conservative party is just a vehicle. The movement is what drives it. Stephen Taylor is encouraging conservatives to invest their time and effort into the movement (like Blogging Tories and the Fraser Institute, for example) to provide a sound ideological foundation for real conservative change. Our vehicle needs gas.

Uhh, teach - I think that many in the class are telling you that the vehicle may now have the wrong driver.

The secret to remaining the driver is to drive down the middle. With these last two budgets, he's lurched from one shoulder to the other. Ignatieff was so pleased with this budget that the only change he could think of was the decidedly conservative amendment of adding regular reviews to it.

Gas helps, if it's quality and not full of impurities or unstable elements that foul the engine. To regain the middle, the Conservative party may also have to remove some cruft from the tires that keep causing it to lurch hard right.

Have we exhausted this metaphor yet?

I'm not sure what the addendum is for Stephen. I clearly interpreted this as a call for action. Perhaps some people didn't make it past the 4th paragraph? This Budget has been a tough pill to swallow and the events surrounding it clearly instructs us to the fact that there is a lot of work to be done. All the best.

Thanks!

Stephen, re: conservatism. Is there some kind of primer on what actually constitutes Canadian conservatism?

I did a cursory search on google on conservative principles, and found an interesting piece by Russell Kirk (American). It's a bit dated (it was a lecture delivered in the mid 80s), and found some interesting points there.

Here are Kirk's ten conservative principles (adapted from the link provided)
http://www.heritage.org/research/politicalphilo...
(Archived document, may contain errors)

TEN CONSERVATIVE PRINCIPLES
by Russell Kirk

«It is not possible to draw up a neat catalogue of conservatives' convictions; nevertheless, I offer you, summarily, ten general principles; it seems safe to say that most conservatives would subscribe to most of these maxims.
… the diversity of ways in which conservative views may find expression is itself proof that conservatism is no fixed ideology. What particular principles conservatives emphasize during any given time will vary with the circumstances and necessities of that era.

1. First, the conservative believes that there exists an enduring moral order. That order is made for man, and man is made for it: human nature is a constant, and moral truths are permanent.

2. Second, the conservative adheres to custom, convention, and continuity. It is old custom that enables people to live together peaceably; the destroyers of custom demolish more than they know or desire. It is through convention … that we contrive to avoid perpetual disputes about rights and duties: law at base is a body of conventions. Continuity is the means of linking generation to generation; it matters as much for society as it does for the individual; without it, life is meaningless.

3. Third, conservatives believe in what may be called the principle of prescription … that is, of things established by immemorial usage ... There exist rights of which the chief sanction is their antiquity--including rights to property, often. Similarly, our morals are prescriptive in great part. Conservatives argue that we are unlikely, we moderns, to make any brave new discoveries in morals or politics or taste. It is perilous to weigh every passing issue on the basis of private judgement and private rationality.

4. Fourth, conservatives are guided by their principle of prudence. ... Any public measure ought to be judged by its probable long-run consequences, not merely by temporary advantage or popularity. … The conservative declares that he acts only after sufficient reflection, having weighed the consequences. Sudden and slashing reforms are as perilous as sudden and slashing surgery.

5. Fifth, conservatives pay attention to the principle of variety. They feel affection for the proliferating intricacy of long-established social institutions and modes of life, as distinguished from the narrowing uniformity and deadening egalitarianism of radical systems. … The only true forms of equality are equality at the Last Judgment and equality before a just court of law; all other attempts at leveling must lead, at best, to social stagnation.

6. Sixth, conservatives are chastened by their principle of imperfectibility. ... Man being imperfect, no perfect social order ever can be created. … All that we reasonably can expect is a tolerable ordered, just, and free society, in which some evils, maladjustments, and suffering will continue to lurk. By proper attention to prudent reform, we may preserve and improve this tolerable order.

7. Seventh, conservatives are persuaded that freedom and property are closely linked. … For the institution of several property--that is, private property--has been a powerful instrument for teaching men and women responsibility, for providing motives to integrity, for supporting general culture, for raising mankind above the level of mere drudgery, for affording leisure to think and freedom to act. … The conservative acknowledges that the possession of property fixes certain duties upon the possessor; he accepts those moral and legal obligations cheerfully.

8. Eighth, conservatives uphold voluntary community, quite as they oppose involuntary collectivism. Although Americans have been attached strongly to privacy and private rights, they also have been a people conspicuous for a successful spirit of community. In a genuine community, the decisions most directly affecting the lives of citizens are made locally and voluntarily. … Whatever is beneficent and prudent in modern democracy is made possible through co-operative volition.

9. Ninth, the conservative perceives the need for prudent restraints upon power and upon human passions. … Knowing human nature for a mixture of good and evil, the conservative does not put his trust in mere benevolence. Constitutional restrictions, political checks and balances, adequate enforcement of the laws, the old intricate web-of restraints upon will and appetite--these the conservative approves as instruments of freedom and order. A just government maintains a healthy tension between the claims of authority and the claims of liberty.

10. Tenth, the thinking conservative understands that permanence and change must be recognized and reconciled in a vigorous society. The conservative is not opposed to social improvement … When a society is progressing in some respects, usually it is declining in other respects. The conservative knows that any healthy society is influenced by two forces, which Samuel Taylor Coleridge called its Permanence and its Progression. The Permanence of a society is formed by those enduring interests and convictions that give us stability and continuity … The Progression in a society is that spirit and that body of talents which urge us on to prudent reforms and improvement; without that Progression, a people stagnate. ... »

The reason I'm asking about a Canadian "primer" is because in the discussion pro & con the budget, it seems there are very divergent views on what being a conservative really means, and what strategies conservatives can use to increase our effectiveness. Other than the Daifallah-Kheiriddin book "Rescuing Canada's Right" (which I must confess I've not yet read - sorry, Adam!) are there other books outlining Canadian conservatism's philosophical tenets?

If Elizabeth May can write a book entitled "Global Warming for Dummies" maybe a young conservative can write a "Canadian Conservatism … for all”

Perhaps the fiscal conservatives who are outraged by this budget do not believe in the philosophical foundations of conservatism. Or maybe they're not really as conservative as they proclaim themselves to be ... just wondering.

Funny Stephen,

Is this really a call for action, or is it just an effort to absolve the Conservative Party from any responsibility, moral or otherwise, to actually stand up for conservative values. What your saying is that it isn't Harper's fault. He's just a politician doing what politicians do. He should just keep on doing whatever it takes to stay in power, while continuing to enjoy the benefit of our money and our support. It should be up to us, not the party, to move public opinion towards conservatism, while hoping that the CPC will eventually follow the opinion polls in the right direction. That sounds to me like a total cop out. Whatever happened to the idea, which Reagan, Thatcher, Gingrich and Harris had, which was that conservative parties should exist to sell conservative ideas to the electorate (they tended to win more and bigger victories than the CPC by the way). The Harper CPC seems to exist to erratically copy whatever the electorate and its main opponents want at any given time with little concern for the future, ideology or the best interests of the country. It's kind of like a company that tries to deal with the problems caused by an awful sales team by changing all of its products. In real life, that kind of company would go bankrupt very quickly, and if all other businesses followed its lead, we'd still be enjoying the benefits of an improved horse and buggy.

Which is why I won't be giving them any money again for a very long time, and will likely do only the bare minimum for my local candidate (i.e. sign nomination papers, attend campaign launch and put up a couple of signs) come the next election.

LOL - so Stephen, those that believe in something are now idealogues? LOL. Pragmatism. It is not just the amount. Answer me this. If Harper had to spend so much money why no broad based tax cuts? Why no money for the military? Why fund culture, and money for crap like Canadian programming, and the money pit of social housing?

In any case whose to say the Liberals would have voted against a balanced budget? And if they did - then the Canadian public would have pummelled them come election time. And no, a majority means squat. What did Mulroney do with his majority. He didn't cut one damn penny from the budget. Dalton Camp is proof that by abandoning principle Conservative Parties are rejected.

And blaming the conservative movement for Harper's failures is laughable at best - if not downright offensive. We, that is us conservatives gave Harper power and we expect him to act like on of us. When the Liberals return then is the time for us to advocate. But for now we expect Harper to act like, I dunno, like a conservative.

Is this really what the Harper sock puppets in Parliament think about us? I know they hate us Reformers - especially Red Tory assholes Harper has advising him.

Stephen you should never have to sell the party to its base. It is the Parties job to represent its members, that is why we wrote policy resolutions and support the party. When the party doesn't support the base why should the base support it.

Sure Stephen, we can keep pouring tons of gas into a crap vehicle that doesn't. Or we can fix that vehicle (leadership race), or buy a new one (right-wing anchor party). Is the CPC the only vehicle that we can ever possibly use to get us to where we want to go?

Sure we lack gasoline and more would always help, but pouring gas into a broken vehicle won't make it move.

Stephen, if I read your post correctly, I think your entire thesis is basically Canada is not a very Conservative country. Until we are, we should not be able to expect Conservative policy from our Conservative party.
Fair enough. But my question to you is why bother supporting the party if it's not any more Conservative than the Liberals? What difference does it make if the Liberals or the Tories are in power if you end up with the same policy? There are a lot of angry people here. I doubt any of them are going to turn in their beliefs and become Liberals. I doubt any of them are going to start supporting the Liberals, or stop trying to convince their fellow citizens the virtues of what they believe; stop trying to work towards the day where Canada is a more conservative country. But many of them may stop voting Conservative, because the Conservative party doesn't really represent them, does it? I don't see why we need fake Conservatives in power to try to convince more of this country to think like us. It doesn't help.

What policies have the Conservatives brought in that would have been implemented by the Liberals as well?
• Accountability act? Maybe now that Obama has brought one in too, limiting lobbyists, the Liberals would too.
• Lower GST? No, the Liberals have stated time and again it was a mistake to lower it.
• Child benefit? Umm, no. Canadian parents would waste that money on beer and popcorn, remember?
• Tax Free Savings Account? Don't think so. Liberals think only they know how to manage our money.
• Reduction of corporate and personal income taxes? What? And not be able to boast about a surplus?

Those are only a few of the measures brought in during the three years the Conservatives have been in government. If you want to see a much longer list of this government's record, go here:
http://crux-of-the-matter.com/2009/01/23/first-...

True, under different conditions, at a different time, the Conservatives would not have brought in this kind of budget. But don't politicians have to deal with the realities at hand, just like the rest of the population? We live in the here and now, not in a "woulda coulda" world.

You are so right. Unfortunately Canadians on the whole are not intellegent enough to see the pitfalls of
Liberalism. I don't know what has to happen for Canadians to vote for a full conservative Government.
All those who hailed Obama as the Savior of the world can now see, from where the wind is blowing.
I don't like this excessive spending and seriously believe that it is not needed to this extend. But we are
being pushed into it by the fearmongering left.
God only knows where we go from here.

Interesting post, although I think a lot of the Conservative base may be need to brush up on their Canadian history and realize Canada has NEVER elected a Conservative government in the definition that most describe as conservatism. Harper is still more right wing than Diefenbaker, Stanfield, Clark, Mulroney, Campbell, Charest, and MacKay. True he is not as right wing as the Reform party and Alliance since coming to power, but considering they only got around 20% of the popular vote, never won more than 2 seats in Ontario and never won any seats in Quebec or Atlantic Canada, it probably is a good sign that this type of ideology doesn't sell in Canada. Canadian conservatism is very different from the American brand of conservatism which is what most seem to advocate the Conservative Party should be. Canadian conservatism is about putting the interest of the community ahead of the individual and protecting and preserving government institutions. It is essentially Burkean Conservatism and also what is referred to as Red Toryism. American conservatism is a cross between classical liberalism and social conservatism. Now it is true that outside of Atlantic Canada, that style of conservatism has largely disappeared, but my point is Harper was never a conservative in the Canadian context to begin with neither was Manning or Harris. Manning and Harris were both American style Conservatives not Canadian style.

As for why ideological conservatism won't sell in Canada, there are a number of reasons. As a country with two languages, many cultures and diverse regions, this has led to Canadians wanting parties that seek compromise and consensus, not ones that are ideological which is why both the ideological right and ideological left are quite weak in Canada compared to other countries. Never mind, exactly how would an ideological conservative win a majority. Atlantic Canada and Quebec have 1/3 of the seats in Canada and asides from Rural Southern New Brunswick and the Appalaches-Chaudiere region, such a party would get wiped out in the rest of this region. I suspect Mike Harris would have been clobbered in both Quebec and Atlantic Canada. Finally Ontario and the West may have areas that are quite conservative, but certainly not all areas and definitely not enough to compensate for a near shut out in Quebec and Atlantic Canada.

As for those using other examples, I should point out that asides from perhaps Berlusconi, Harper is still probably one of the most conservative leaders in the Western world. Lets remember Australia and United States both dumped their conservatives ones while in Britain, Germany, France, Benelux Countries, and Scandinavia, their conservative leaders are all pretty moderate and close to the middle. Harper is to the right of David Cameron, Sarkozy, and Merkel, so I would argue ideological conservatism is out of style globally not just in Canada.

As for past ones, I explain why they got elected and why it wouldn't work in Canada.
Ronald Reagan - the United States has always been more conservative than Canada. Their country has been based on the idea of smaller government whereas we have not. The idea of universal health care is still opposed by half the population, while Canada the debate is over what role the private sector should play not over whether we should have universal health care or not. Likewise over half of the population supports the right to carry a concealed weapon and a sizeable chunk thinks one should be able to own a para-military assault style weapon while both views are very much the minority in Canada. Canadians may oppose the gun registry, but that doesn't mean they support the right to keep and bear arms. Americans have long had a strong fear of government, whereas Canada hasn't. Besides the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, our health care, peacekeeping, multiculturalism, and bilingualism are all concepts Canadians say makes them proud to be Canadian and all centre-left concepts.
Margaret Thatcher - She replaced the Labour Party who back then were more like the NDP than Liberals. Government was nationalizing everything including even steel and the trucking industry, the unions were out of control, taxes were ridiculously high and government was a lot bigger. If Jack Layton were prime-minister for three terms, then maybe Canadians would be supportive of such a PM, but not now. Had Britain not swung so far to the left in the first place, should would have never been elected. Essentially, her conservative policies cancelled out Labour's more socialist ones thus bringing Britain back to the centre.
Mike Harris - He was the antithesis of Bob Rae so that is why he won while in 1999 the economy was doing well largely due to the strong economy in the United States so he was able to take credit for that. He is not as popular as some conservatives believe he is. I suspect if he ran today in Ontario, he would lose. And even if he could win, I doubt he would be popular enough in Ontario and Western Canada, to overcome a wipeout in Quebec and Atlantic Canada.

That being said as an ex-Progressive Conservative and current Blue Liberal, I might actually some day return to the Conservatives once they get rid of all the ideological ones who I cannot stand and feel would do more harm than good for our country. I could never vote for Harper, but I might be able to support the next leader, if he is a moderate one such as MacKay, Prentice, or Lord.

As for red Tories like your self good riddance. You are in the right party. True fiscal cns like us can't stand you either.

At least Mulroney got us the Free Trade Agreement. Harper just spent more money than Trudea.

Good post Miles..

It is the long game with PM Harper, one day you will be back in the fold..

Miles Lunn has absolutely nailed it.

Those who don't learn from history are condemned to repeat it, so I really don't understand why anyone would think that the CPoC should model itself after the Reaganesque/Bushy US right, especially after just witnessing how this brand of conservatism has failed SO spectacularly in the US.

(slight derail - the corpse is still twitching, and holding up the stimulus bill in the US. This is required viewing: Rachel Maddox, MSNBC )

Like Mr Lunn, I once was more sympathetic to the conservative view, till the Re-FOOOOOOOOORM party chased the Progressive out of the PCs.

There IS a place for conservatism in Canada, but as long as the PCoC base think we should turn Canada into Texas or Utah, it will miss the mark.