Sand in the Shorts: Hysteria Aside, Kramp and the Conservatives Are Canada's Best Bet (Full Version)

This column appeared (in edited form) in the Intelligencer, Saturday, April 30th, 2011


With this being my last column before the election on Monday, May 2, I figured I would join so many others in endorsing my candidates of choice, for both MP for Prince Edward – Hastings, and for Prime Minister of this great nation. Now, I realize that most of you can guess who these will be. While I always strive to be even-handed news wise, I have never made any attempt to hide my beliefs on the opinion side. So rather than simply saying whom I shall vote for (for the one position I can vote for), I will try to explain why I made this choice, in hopes my logic will motivate you, dear reader, similarly.

First, I am heartily endorsing Daryl Kramp for another term as Member of Parliament for Prince Edward – Hastings. Mr. Kramp has continued the trend of strong MP's for this riding, vigorously acting on behalf of his constituents whenever the need arises. It is noteworthy that even many local voters who might not support the Conservatives as a party, look upon Daryl as a quality representative, and the man they've voted for before, and will again. He is someone who, through his involvement in municipal politics, as well as being a small business owner, has gotten to know many people in the constituency.

While Peter Tinsley's CV is impressive, and he is clearly a smart man, he has yet to develop his place in the community as fully, and as such needs some seasoning (I know the issue well!). Michael McMahon is known by many after teaching them science, but in this riding the NDP, barring a miracle, has not moved beyond third party status, and Mr McMahon's demonstrated intensity when dealing with some issues might not fit the riding's make up either. Patrick Larkin, the Green Party candidate, is, like Mr. McMahon, a strong candidate for a party with little to no chance in this riding, but left me wondering where he stands on many issues of importance locally. Tim Hickey, the lone independent candidate, has a vision for the nation, but neglected to share one of what he sees as being important for local constituents, and where he stands on key issues. Andrew Skinner, the Progressive Canadian Party candidate, the last of the candidates, needs to work on toning down his use of anti-American rhetoric as a means of contrasting himself with the other candidates, and make sure he boosts his knowledge of the issues and the area.

Moving on to my endorsement for Prime Minister, I believe Stephen Harper is the best candidate for the job. Having governed already since January 2006, he has done a good job of governing through a vicious global recession, maintaining a non-ideological stance where necessary to govern, but not abandoning the principles which have driven support for the Conservatives since 2003. While his time in office hasn't been without problems, it is important to consider what his strengths are, and also who the options are.

Stephen Harper comes from the libertarian stream of Canadian conservatism, seeing a need for a preservation of what is essential to our nation but unwilling to die for issues which, while important to some, aren't essential. He is the quintessential small-c conservative, working to limit the growth of government spending, while careful not to cut away programs which are necessary for things other than making work for bureaucrats sucking at the public teat.

He is a supporter of human rights, demonstrating that all the more with his proposal for an office to advocate for religious freedom internationally. He is a strong proponent of opening up Canada's Arctic and of having a strong national defence, as demonstrated by his decisions to purchase new main battle tanks for the Army, build new icebreakers and an Arctic deep water port, replace the aging CF-18 fleet, and bolstering Canada's Special Forces capabilities. And he has returned us to an era when Canada was a respected player internationally by working with the Liberals in a minority parliament to extend the Canadian contribution to Afghanistan, and by sending Air Force and Navy assets to help protect Libyan civilians and rebels.

Michael Ignatieff is a brilliant man, with, based on his writings before he came back to Canada, strong, principled views on areas such as human rights. Unfortunately, since his return he has flip-flopped on issue after issue, which has only served to highlight the fact that the Liberal party needs – for all of Canada's sake – a ground up rebuild. This is a party which has lost it's way, has lost it's principles, existing now only to be elected. Canada needs two strong, electable parties. Hopefully the Liberals take this opportunity to leave Trudeau and Chretien behind and give a total re-think to what their party stands for.

Jack Layton is probably a nice guy, and pretty smart. But his ethical choices have not always been well thought out, and his opening up of the Quebec-Constitution can of worms shows him to be a dumb opportunist. No good will come of this, and indeed it could stir up a waning separatist movement – never a smart idea. He also abused publicly subsidized housing in Toronto while serving as a city councillor, and more recently refused to take action when deputy NDP leader, and House Leader, Libby Davies questioned the right of Israel to exist. These are not the makings of a Prime Minister.

As to the Green Party, Elizabeth May needs to get herself elected before they deserve to be considered a legitimate party in the sense that the Conservatives, Liberals and NDP are. At least the nut-bar separatists of the Bloc Quebecois have seats in the Commons (hopefully many less, soon) – even if they are illegitimate leeches feeding on the Canadian body politic until they reach satiation and retire.

That, then, is my take. Regardless of whether you agree or disagree, please remember this: if you don't vote, you don't matter. Get out and vote for your candidate of choice – it's the very least a Canadian who loves their country can do.

Sand in the Shorts: Seniors Behaving Badly

This column appeared in Saturday's (April 23rd, 2011) Intelligencer


On Wednesday night, the second “All-Candidates” meeting in the riding took place at Loyalist College. You may have noted I put quotation marks around All-Candidates. I put these in quite deliberately, as the machinations of the lobby group Canadian Association of Retired Persons led to it being a “Some-Candidates” meeting, and an ambush attempt at questioning the candidates by organizer Mary Robertson ended the night poorly.

All-candidates events are often hosted by interested groups of voters, sometimes with distinct opinions or agendas, and who seek answers to specific questions. So the idea that the questions asked at such an event might hit harder at one party or candidate is not surprising or unexpected. But what happened last night was altogether different.

While there were some ignoramus' hollering from the crowd at Daryl Kramp, the machinations of CARP stood out as marking an odd nadir in the recent history of local politics, because this group deliberately sought to exclude two candidates from an all-candidates meeting. When Tim Hickey, an independent candidate, called Tuesday to confirm his participation with Ken Prue of the Brighton-Belleville-Quinte West chapter of CARP, all seemed fine. But on the day of the event itself, he was told only the major parties (NDP, Conservative, Liberal, and, in a significant promotion, Green) would be involved. Only with some argument was Hickey able to participate.

Maybe it's an old-fashioned idea, but it seems to me that if one is going to call an event an “all-candidates meeting”, all the candidates for the riding should be invited and allowed to participate. But with the attempt to exclude Hickey, and the lack of an invitation to Progressive Canadian Party candidate Andrew Skinner, this was anything but an all-candidates forum, which was a disservice to those who came hoping to hear all of the candidates comment on how they see, and would attempt to deal with, the issues facing seniors and other Canadians today.

As if this wasn't enough in the category of strange machinations on the part of CARP, though, they then decided to spring an ambush on the candidates in the form of a “rapid fire” question and answer session to conclude the evening. This would involve local CARP board member Mary Robertson throwing questions at the candidates with responses limited to “yes” or “no”. Daryl Kramp and Peter Tinsley both objected to this, stating they couldn't give a simplistic answer for potentially complex issues. This should have been a “no brainer”, as the saying goes, because if politics were about simple answers, the issues faced at each election, and between elections, wouldn't need such thorough debate.

Ms. Robertson, when asked if she thought Kramp and Tinsley's objection to the format was reasonable, answered, “not really”, stating that the candidates also could have just said pass if they couldn't answer in the required manner. This, though, would have given the advantage to the candidates for parties with little chance of election. If the odds of victory are slim, one can promise the moon without fear of being called upon to fulfill that commitment.

She also mentioned the format was accepted the night before at a similar meeting in Quinte-Northumberland riding, and that it was well received by the crowd there. While I am sure the crowd at Loyalist would have liked the format, the matter of it's previous acceptance by candidates of another riding is irrelevant. If she wanted the format in so badly, it should have been in the proposal.

This and that: With just over a week left in the election, there are hints starting to appear in some polls that disaster may be nigh for the Liberals. With a new poll putting the NDP in the lead in Quebec, ahead of the Bloc, there is a question if some “blue-dog” (centre/centre-right) Grit voters may move their vote to the Conservatives. The blog “Sort of Political” suggests this may lead to a gain of 9 new seats for the Tories in La Belle Province. Regardless, a re-engagement of Quebec voters in the House by way of a rejection of the Bloc Quebecois can only be seen as good news for Canada.

The Second "All Candidate's" Meeting, Hosted by CRAP - er, CARP

I attended the second all-candidates meeting for Prince Edward – Hastings tonight. As I have a more important turkey to roast this evening (see my column for the Intelligencer on Saturday, also available on jamesphieffer.com early Saturday morning) I will be brief.

Tim Hickey - Independent

After a solid debut on Monday night, his performance slipped, but with mitigating circumstances (see Saturday's column for more on this, as well as Progressive Canadian Party candidate Andrew Skinner's non-appearance). He played to the crowd but was seriously missing specifics. He kicks off with the presentation of his platform in downtown Belleville's Market Square on Thursday April 21 at 11 AM.
Grade: D

Daryl Kramp – Conservative

In spite of a crowd with some real idiots in it (yes, I mean you, guy with gray hair and a pony tail who hurled crude invectives at random intervals), he did well, never losing his cool regardless of being misquoted, etc. Calm, friendly, measured, clear.
Grade: A




Patrick Larkin – Green
After a strong outing Monday night, he was reduced to political/Green cliches in a performance which left me wondering who the real Larkin is.
Grade: C-

Michael McMahon – NDP

Another candidate who posted a strong performance on Monday, but seemed to fall off tonight. He continues to pursue a virtual 'hands off' approach to the Liberal candidate, focusing his attacks on the Conservatives. The problem with this approach is even if he is able to convince a voter not to support the Conservatives, he has neglected to point out why the NDP is the superior choice vs. the Liberals. A strong presence, tactically strong but strategically weak.
Grade: C

Peter Tinsley – Liberal

After a lackluster performance on Monday, the Liberal candidate came back with a vengeance. Demonstrating a strong grasp of the issues, and staying away from political cliches and invective, he demonstrated himself as a strong candidate, with the calm, steady demeanor which was missing for much of Monday night, but which his biography had led me to expect. He has moved himself to the head of the group of challengers to Daryl Kramp.
Grade: A-

Andrew Skinner – Progressive Canadian Party

As much as I was unimpressed with him Monday night, his absence is part of a massive issue with this event for which the blame lies with the Canadian Association of Retired Persons, for whom the acronym CARP has never been so appropriate on so many levels (see Saturday's column). As such, he and those who might have considered him were done a grave dis-service, as was the cause of democracy itself.
Grade: Not present due to actions of CARP organizers.

Kramp Relaxed, Educational McMahon, and Tinsley Bumps Into a Door

Monday night saw the six candidates for Prince Edward – Hastings coming together for an all-candidates meeting at downtown Belleville's Empire Theatre. Hosted by the Belleville Chamber of Commerce, and with Quinte Broadcasting's Jody Brooker handling moderator duties, this was the first, and maybe last, opportunity for voters to see all of the candidates for the May 2 vote together answering questions from the Chamber and the audience.

While I had an opportunity to talk to all the candidates except the Green Party's, my in depth coverage will come in the next few days. For now, here's my quick rating of each of the candidate's performances.

In alphabetical order:

Tim Hickey:

The lone independent candidate, Hickey was handicapped at times by questions which focused on national issues and what the party platforms were. When facing these questions, he spoke of his vision for Canada which, while entirely lacking specifics (he promised these would come later this week), was presented in a folksy manner which was appealing enough. Reality is, though, in the current electoral era, an independent is virtual roadkill unless they present themselves as aligned with one of the major parties ideologically. Bonus points for not jumping on the anti-Kramp express.

Grade: C+ Performed as well as expected with material available, but needs to make clear what his political ideas are.

Daryl Kramp:

The primary target of four of the other five candidates, the current Member of Parliament for Prince Edward – Hastings was hit by anti-Conservative rhetoric from the others. He was also the target of an unreasonable (my words) amount of heckling and catcalling from a part of the audience theatre audience. In the face of this, he was measured and clear in his responses, answering questions clearly, and ignoring the voices from the peanut gallery. He was clearly familiar with the Conservative platform, but also demonstrated a strong knowledge of his parliamentary bailiwick, answering with specific figures a question on changes in the trade balance between Canada and China. He also maintained a relaxed presence throughout.

Grade: A

Patrick Larkin:

The candidate for the Green Party came across as anything but a wild-eyed tree-hugger. Impeccably dressed, he was calm and professional throughout, and skirted most of the anti-Harper rhetoric. A revelation, and, aside from his party affiliation, a legitimate contender. The Greens should consider him when Lizzy May is given the boot after losing this election.

Grade: A-

Michael McMahon

The NDP candidate was clear and concise, coming across as the teacher he is while constructing a clear argument the sensibility of the NDP platform. That didn't fly, at least from the author's viewpoint, but he put himself forward as a serious candidate - until he neglected to rebut the Liberal candidate's blanket dismissal of the legitimacy of the other candidates as challengers to the Conservatives. Instead, he continued to attack the Conservatives, leaving the Liberal challenge uncontested. He did have the line of the night, though, when in response to a question about allowing voting on post-secondary campuses, he responded strongly in the affirmative, saying, "They wouldn't let their grandparents choose their dates. At least, they shouldn't”.

Grade: B

Andrew Skinner

The candidate for the Progressive Canadian Party happily tossed about ideas and suggestions which demonstrated the party is potentially as left-wing as the NDP, but without the maturity of thought and pro-American tendencies, and that he sees those who are of a more conservative bent as un-Canadian. He had rendered himself irrelevant by the end of his opening comments. But well spoken. A little experience might help tone down some of his hyperbole.

Grade: D

Peter Tinsley

When I read the campaign literature of Peter Tinsley, he came across as a strong candidate for the Liberals – even spoken of as a “star” candidate by some. Well, what a letdown. A shaky opening was lifted up slightly by a strong answer to a question about parliamentary coalitions – but with his complete dismissal of the other challengers to Daryl Kramp he ended a very weak evening. Strong on hyperbole, weak on the facts (making numerous factual mistakes) he was a complete disappointment. The clear loser of this debate.

Grade: F