Wednesday, October 26, 2005

The CPC Just Doesn't Get The Concept

If I had any delusions about the Conservative Party of Canada having something resembling common sense.

For the last few weeks, the party has been madly trying to make something out of the David Dingwall Affair. Of course, the whole affair is rapidly fizzling into irrelevance. Audit findings released today make it quite clear that Dingwall wasn't abusing his position as head of the Royal Canadian Mint. I'm no fan of Dingwall - nor the Martin Liberals come to that - but good enough is good enough. An audit has been performed (and before the Conservatives go whinging about the "terms of engagement" or the "independence" of the auditors, I'll point out that the Auditor General was the person who broke open the Sponsorship Scandal - deal with it)

This evening, as I'm driving home, I hear MP Brian Pallister flapping his lips on CBC's "As It Happens". Of course, he's still trying to wring something credible from this whole business. Frankly, he comes off as a complete oaf about things. Not only is he unwilling to accept the auditor's report as having any validity, he continues to try and spin things to make it look as though the Liberals are doing something malfeasant.

Apparently, the CPC hasn't got the message yet from the polls. Canadians aren't interested in being told that the Liberals are corrupt. We know that already. Canadians want to know what to vote for. So far, every time the CPC pops up, they seem to be busy telling us that the Liberals are corrupt. Not what their policies are, not what their vision for Canada is, nothing that would compel me to vote for the party. Voting against the Liberals is not magically a vote for the CPC - there's a plethora of other parties that are giving me a much better sense of their vision and direction.

So far, a scan of the CPC web page for policy shows me little policy snippets, some of which are at odds with known party dogma. The latest gem being some goofy attempt to describe a policy to give people incentives to go into the trades. Lessee - this is the party that is supposedly "stay out of the market", "let business decide" and "less government is better" now wants to stick its oar into the business marketplace? What the heck is that all about? Realistically their "we aren't Liberals" platform is completely unconvincing - the policy bits they release sound awfully similar to classic Liberal party platforms, and yet the rhetoric they spew sounds decidedly "let's emulate the US Republicans". What are you boys? Fish or Fowl?

Which brings me to my other point about the CPC. I want a party in power that is going to represent Canada - not sell it out to Washington. Martin's made it pretty clear where he stands; so has Jack Layton of the NDP. So where do you stand, Stephen? (or kneel - as the case may be).

The CPC needs to become a few things before it will get any credibility outside of the Alberta voter:

1. Consistency
2. Vision
3. An ability to communicate their vision
4. Passionately Canadian. (and I don't mean "flag waving" either)

1 comment:

Anonymous said...

Q: What are you boys? Fish or Fowl?

A: Foul Fish

SB