Quick thoughts on the ‘Plan B’ party
Seems a bit extravagant to go to all the effort of launching a new party when it would be so much easier to launch a hostile takeover of an existing party.
Really how many members do the Communists have? I’d run under the red banner if it were in the name of free speech. We could even bring in Mark Steyn and Ezra Levant, give them airy titles like Commissar for Legal Affairs, and Commissar for Foreign Relations. Kathy Shaidle could be Commissar for Multiculturalism.
It’s extreme, ill-considered, and profoundly dick-ish. Just my cup of tea – it feels so right.
A suggestion seulement.
As for the actual Plan B? If you want to f*ck over the Tories, volunteer for the Liberals. You’ll save the $20,000 or more dollars the Plan-B project would entail, and you’d have a credible chance at effecting the outcome of the election.
At the moment, I’m ambivalent about the Tories. I’ve not renewed my membership, and I’m not returning their emails. But all the effort and self regard required to get behind a Plan B movement – it’s too much to swallow. Don’t get me wrong, I have a sufficient amount of respect for most of those involved – but I can’t see where they’re coming from on this.
Fair enough. But a couple of points.
The CPC overwhelmingly passed a resolution to repeal s.13, the CHRC’s hand picked investigator said, “Nuke it”, every editorial board in Canada is against it, several members of the Liberal caucus have come out against s. 13, Canadian Civil Liberties Association and Pen Canada say repeal it. Harper says no.
Why? Because he can. After all, who are we speechers going to vote for? The Liberals? (Well more now than with Dion but I digress.)
His calculation is that the Lying Jackal is so big and mean that he will rouse the vismins to a fury and they will not vote for a CPC seen as being against “Human Rights”. Steve hates losing votes, so under the bus goes repeal of s. 13.
The objective here is to create counter pain. But intelligent, focused, counter pain. 20-40 seats where the CPC won or lost by 2000 votes. So now Steve has to weigh the Jackal rousing the vismins – whose votes the CPC was unlikely to get anyway – against sticking to a position which could cost the CPC 20-40 seats where they are close.
Steve is not an idiot – he’s a cynic which is different.
Plan B imposes a cost on his cynicism. The fact it is being discussed throughout the righty blogosphere is a cost. The skepticism about his leadership is a cost.
At some point PMSH will have to ask himself if saving the CHRC’s jurisdiction over speech is worth it. Or should he cut his losses with a two line bill?
(I like the idea of “Kathy Shaidle could be Commissar for Multiculturalism.” but that implies running to win. Plan B is all about losing very, very, efficiently.)
Jay Currie
January 13, 2009 at 7:03 am
My main point is that it doesn’t seem cost effective. Your ability to shape the debate doesn’t seem proportional to the amount of money and effort involved.
Robert Jago
January 13, 2009 at 7:25 am
I support the spirit of this ‘Plan B’. However, I think it will only cause short term gain, long term pain.
Perhaps if this were approached somewhat differently, we could make it work – using a constructive instead of destructive approach.
It seems to me that with the increasing number of parties in our Parliament, we will have fewer and fewer majority governments. In a situation like this, a small – but ‘dependable’ (i.e. respectable, not flaky – you know, not like the Greens) party that could deliver 10-15 seats in the House could hold some influence…. Perhaps not the 1st election, but, slow and steady wins the race.
(And, in the ‘free speech’ battle, short term results are really irrelevant… if we wish to regain – and retain – our freedoms, we must be thinking in the long term.)
In ridings where ‘Conservative’ is a dirty word, a ‘freedom-type’ party, if positioned correctly (and this would have to be done extremely cautiously, before anything is launched or a word is breathed to the public: first impressions count), could potentially harness the ‘right-of-middle’ or ’small government’ vote and win a couple of seats. The name would be important – to have ‘electability’, it has to be positiones ‘just so’ – or it fails to be viable. Also, the ridings would have to be chosen extremely carefully in order to maximize impact – a fledling party needs that to survive.
This action would be much more constructive than trying to split the ‘Conservative vote’ – but far more influential in its impact on policy formation if a minority Conservative government depended on this little party’s support to pass legislation (assuming they succeeded in getting their candidates elected).
There are ‘people’ who have been considering this carefully for a while now (no, I am not one of them – but am aware of them…). Strategic alliances?
Think about it.
P.S. – I do not believe that Harper is saying that HE is REFUSING to abolish Section 13. Not at all. Instead, he is stating the unpleasant reality that right now, it is simply not possible. Those are two very different things – and different messages – and warrant different reactions.
xanthippa
January 13, 2009 at 11:17 pm
[...] JAGO HAS Quick thoughts on the ‘Plan B’ party …. [...]
Steynian 308 « Free Canuckistan!
January 14, 2009 at 1:18 pm