Cabinet Shuffle- (Wednesday 26 July).

[brihard]

Centrist is an interesting term.

Centre of Canada. Centre of Government.

One of the major "innovations" adopted by government in the interests of saving money was the elimination of relocation for new hires. If you wanted a job in Ottawa you had to be living in Ottawa. That, with the bilingual requirement, tended to reduce the number of "fringe" elements in the "centre". That happened some years ago.

As a result there is a tendency for Carleton University to be over-represented in Ottawa and the Universities of Calgary and Laval to be under-represented. Together with their views and class-mates.

....

I had a conversation with a sister-in-law some years ago where I said that I didn't agree with the Globe and Mail and Maclean's. I was told that not to agree with those views put me in the fringes. I guess that must be true.

Centrist in the sense of our place on the so-called political spectrum, and that we aren’t wedded to one party or another.

You’re absolutely right about how many Carleton and UOttawa students there are in government- many enter as federal student jobs, and bridge over to full time public service after graduation. Carleton’s also got some decent graduate level public administration and policy programs. Though as a Carleton (under)grad myself I’ll be the first to poke fun at my alma mater.

 

[Kirkhill]

That’s just silly. “Freedom of speech” means you can express an opinion and you don’t face legal jeopardy. Any political party inherently has a need to tailor its platform positions, and to decide what portion of the political spectrum it wants to invite in and what part it wants to exclude. That has no bearing whatsoever on anyone’s rights or freedoms. If a group finds their particular stance on certain issues not welcomed or sought by an existing party, they can form their own- see, for instance, Bernier’s PPC offshoot.

Any party that can’t keep a grip on what’s attached to its name is a party that will not enjoy significant or meaningful representation in Parliament. And I know you know this, so I’m not really sure where this is coming from.

Any party is an institution. As an institution it has benefits. It presents an outward, totemic image around which people rally like a flag. They will follow that flag out of reflex.

Now, if you can capture that flag, capture that institution, then you will carry a large body of reflex followers with you.

It worked for Trudeau, Marchand and Pelletier.
It apparently worked for Trudeau Jr, Telford and Butts.
It almost worked for Alison Redford.

Far harder to raise a new flag and create a new following. Although it does happen occasionally.

....

A thousand years of uninterrupted British sovereignty has taught us one thing. If change isn't allowed to be a process, it becomes an event. Penny Mordaunt

Part of that process is ensuring that ALL voices have their opportunity to be heard within their institutions. And those institutions include their parties. And their parliament.

Fringe voices included.

 

[Kirkhill]

Centrist in the sense of our place on the so-called political spectrum, and that we aren’t wedded to one party or another.

You’re absolutely right about how many Carleton and UOttawa students there are in government- many enter as federal student jobs, and bridge over to full time public service after graduation. Carleton’s also got some decent graduate level public administration and policy programs. Though as a Carleton (under)grad myself I’ll be the first to poke fun at my alma mater.

Not wedded to one party or another...
But perhaps expecting either or all parties in power will reflect your views.
Others may not share that same mixture of views.

 

[Remius]

Any party is an institution. As an institution it has benefits. It presents an outward, totemic image around which people rally like a flag. They will follow that flag out of reflex.

Now, if you can capture that flag, capture that institution, then you will carry a large body of reflex followers with you.

It worked for Trudeau, Marchand and Pelletier.
It apparently worked for Trudeau Jr, Telford and Butts.
It almost worked for Alison Redford.

Far harder to raise a new flag and create a new following. Although it does happen occasionally.

....

A thousand years of uninterrupted British sovereignty has taught us one thing. If change isn't allowed to be a process, it becomes an event. Penny Mordaunt

Part of that process is ensuring that ALL voices have their opportunity to be heard within their institutions. And those institutions include their parties. And their parliament.

Fringe voices included.

No one says the fringe can’t have a view or express it. Or even let the fringe below its cause. Just don’t expect to win over those who prefer more moderation and less extremism. PP seems to have gotten the message, toned himself down and changed his entire approach after disappointing bi elections and less than stellar polling.

Now to see if the trend can continue or not,

 

[Kirkhill]

No one says the fringe can’t have a view or express it. Or even let the fringe below its cause. Just don’t expect to win over those who prefer more moderation and less extremism. PP seems to have gotten the message, toned himself down and changed his entire approach after disappointing bi elections and less than stellar polling.

Now to see if the trend can continue or not,

Nor should people at the centre be surprised if their views and positions are challenged from the fringes if the fringes don't see their concerns reflected at the centre.

Diefenbaker and Douglas were both fringe candidates.

 

[brihard]

Any party is an institution. As an institution it has benefits. It presents an outward, totemic image around which people rally like a flag. They will follow that flag out of reflex.

Now, if you can capture that flag, capture that institution, then you will carry a large body of reflex followers with you.

It worked for Trudeau, Marchand and Pelletier.
It apparently worked for Trudeau Jr, Telford and Butts.
It almost worked for Alison Redford.

Far harder to raise a new flag and create a new following. Although it does happen occasionally.

....

A thousand years of uninterrupted British sovereignty has taught us one thing. If change isn't allowed to be a process, it becomes an event. Penny Mordaunt

Part of that process is ensuring that ALL voices have their opportunity to be heard within their institutions. And those institutions include their parties. And their parliament.

Fringe voices included.

Not wedded to one party or another...
But perhaps expecting either or all parties in power will reflect your views.
Others may not share that same mixture of views.

You’re kinda contradicting yourself in these two replies. Parties are distinct from each other specifically because they differ in their views on some or many (but rarely most or all) issues.they compete for portions of the electorate by simultaneously flexing their platform to some extent to what the electorate wants, but also to trying to persuade the electorate to want their platform. The party that does this most succesfully probably gets to form government. The challenge is there are some three hundred and thirty six ridings that vary slightly or greatly in sentiment.

Remember that I was replying partly to that weird ‘freedom of speech’ tangent. Parties get to pick what views and policy options they embrace and invite, and it’s weird and unrealistic to think they wouldn’t need to.

 

[Remius]

Nor should people at the centre be surprised if their views and positions are challenged from the fringes if the fringes don't see their concerns reflected at the centre.

Diefenbaker and Douglas were both fringe candidates.

There is absolutely no surprise when the fringes challenge any view that isn’t on their far side of the spectrum. Right or left.

 

[Kirkhill]

There is absolutely no surprise when the fringes challenge any view that isn’t on their far side of the spectrum. Right or left.

There is a surprise when the fringes succeed. As occasionally happens.

 

[Remius]

There is a surprise when the fringes succeed. As occasionally happens.

Sure. But it seems that PP might be moving away from that fringe in his party. Time will tell what that brings. As someone said we’ll see if he gets accused of selling out. By that time it may no longer matter.

 

[Kirkhill]

You’re kinda contradicting yourself in these two replies. Parties are distinct from each other specifically because they differ in their views on some or many (but rarely most or all) issues.they compete for portions of the electorate by simultaneously flexing their platform to some extent to what the electorate wants, but also to trying to persuade the electorate to want their platform. The party that does this most succesfully probably gets to form government. The challenge is there are some three hundred and thirty six ridings that vary slightly or greatly in sentiment.

Remember that I was replying partly to that weird ‘freedom of speech’ tangent. Parties get to pick what views and policy options they embrace and invite, and it’s weird and unrealistic to think they wouldn’t need to.

My point is that while Parties market themselves as different, usually by appealing to the fringes, they are subject to the Mean Tendencies Rule. When people are asked to rate products on a scale of 1 to 10 they will tend to cluster around the middle. When politicians present a group of bureaucrats a range of options they will tend to cluster around the middle. Thus "Liberal, Tory, same old story." And the fringes look for other outlets.

A good leader, it seems to me, has to be able to hear those fringe voices and bring those people and people at the centre together. You don't get there by disregarding the fringes.

Unlike a taste panel you can't just chuck the outliers.

 

[Kirkhill]

Sure. But it seems that PP might be moving away from that fringe in his party. Time will tell what that brings. As someone said we’ll see if he gets accused of selling out. By that time it may no longer matter.

Is there a possibility that he can carry religious Christians, Muslims, Sikhs and Hindus and 30 year olds who want a house and family and win an election? As you say. Time will tell.

 

[brihard]

My point is that while Parties market themselves as different, usually by appealing to the fringes, they are subject to the Mean Tendencies Rule. When people are asked to rate products on a scale of 1 to 10 they will tend to cluster around the middle. When politicians present a group of bureaucrats a range of options they will tend to cluster around the middle. Thus "Liberal, Tory, same old story." And the fringes look for other outlets.

A good leader, it seems to me, has to be able to hear those fringe voices and bring those people and people at the centre together. You don't get there by disregarding the fringes.

Unlike a taste panel you can't just chuck the outliers.

Of course you can chuck the outliers. Or at least not give them an appreciable voice within your party. When have the major parties ever not done this? Keeping some ideological discipline is key to protecting the party’s brand from being hijacked by those who will hurt electoral chances. There have been multiple times on this site where conversation has turned to exactly that.

 

[Kirkhill]

Of course you can chuck the outliers. Or at least not give them an appreciable voice within your party. When have the major parties ever not done this? Keeping some ideological discipline is key to protecting the party’s brand from being hijacked by those who will hurt electoral chances. There have been multiple times on this site where conversation has turned to exactly that.

I'm wrong. You're right. You absolutely are able to chuck the outliers.

Keep on chuckin'.

 

[brihard]

I'm wrong. You're right. You absolutely are able to chuck the outliers.

Keep on chuckin'.

Ok, let me imagine a hypothetical here. I’m picking slightly outlandish examples here just to illustrate a point, not to suggest such things are likely:

Let’s imagine that, this coming week, we were to see, say… seven MPs of the CPC make a joint statement that they in fact think marriage is only between a man and a woman, and that they intend to introduce a private member’s bill to some how achieve this.

That same day, in a bizarre coincidence, another seven MPs from the LPC come out and say that they believe AR-15s should in fact be non-restricted and that anyone with a PAL should be able to get one along with thirty round mags. They too say they’re going to introduce a private member’s bill to this effect.

Do you imagine either party would be super happy with this and wouldn’t force some sort of party discipline to prevent these members from badly hurting them politically? I suspect that we’d see something ranging from rapid orders to STFU and retract, to ejection from caucus.

Deliberately simplistic examples, but illustrative of my point. In reality it would likely never come to this point because discipline within parties would deter things from getting to that point in the first place. Parties absolutely hate keep who gets seen and heard as representative of the party as a whole, or who gets to form tolerated factions within a party.

Does my point make more sense with this?

 

[Kirkhill]

Your point might make more sense but have you checked out Westminster recently to see the range of opinions publicly tolerated on both the Government and Opposition benches.

Both sides regularly find themselves with members breaching party discipline on any given issue and crossing the floor to vote in the other side's lobby.

Our version of party discipline has become a problem in itself. For the country to work cranks and eccentrics need to be given voice. Let them find out if they can win a debate on even terms. That is what the Houses of Parliament are for. Of course it makes governing difficult.

Revolutions result from disenfranchising the fringes. And revolutions make governing impossible.

Personally I think both of your hypotheticals should be put to the House and open debates had. In my opinion it would make both of the parties appear a lot more tolerant.

 

[RangerRay]

Any “right-leaning” “conservative” party that hopes to be a big-tent party that can form a majority government is committing political malpractice if it lets their fringe set have too big a voice. That tends to scare the normies needed to form government.

 

[RangerRay]

And on cue, The Line comes with something emphasizing my point.

Dispatch from the Front Line: Stop scaring the normies, CPC.

Also, are the Liberals planning to do the right thing, or the wrong thing?

theline.substack.com

Dispatch from the Front Line: Stop scaring the normies, CPC.​

Speaking of lost and useless, we’d like to note another entry into our notebook under the heading of “What the fuck, CPC?” After the new cabinet was announced, the Tories rolled out a series of attacks on the cabinet’s new members, including this one.
So. That’s … umm. Hmm.

Look, The Line has no desire to re-litigate every public-health measure we implemented during the pandemic, at least not in this dispatch. Yeah, sure, a full public inquiry — see, another one! — is warranted into our COVID response. Suffice it to say that while we accept that the public health interventions were well-intended, we also accept that some of them were either ineffective as designed, implemented too poorly to function as intended, or retained for political signalling longer than necessary. We also think that Canadian elected and public-health leaders continually downplayed or ignored a basic fact of political physics: every action has an equal and opposite reaction. But on the whole, we get the impression that most people have silently decided to just put COVID behind us and move on.

So using that quote to attack a new minister strikes us as all kinds of bizarre, on at least two levels. First: the vax passport had broad support at the time, including among such notoriously left-wing progs as Doug Ford and Jason Kenney. Though rightly noting at the time that it was largely a matter of provincial jurisdiction, the CPC’s policy during the 2021 election was itself not far off from a vax passport. For example, under the CPC plan, workers without a vaccine could offer a negative-test result instead. We can debate the nuances of the plans (we thought the CPC’s was fine, at the time they announced it), but the CPC can’t pretend that theirs didn’t also infringe on civil liberties.

But second: does the CPC really need that anti-vax vote or something?

Seriously. The PPC had shown some strength in the run-up to the 2021 election, The Line wrote about it at the time. But that fizzled, and the PPC tanked back to its baseline of rounding-error level of support since. Max Bernier just tried to win a byelection in about the most-PPC friendly riding we could imagine, and he lost to the Tory candidate, by a mere four-to-one margin, for God’s sake. The PPC is not a viable threat to the CPC’s right flank. The Tories don’t need to be picking fights here. At this point, we have to assume they’re doing this either because Valdez is otherwise beyond reproach, or because they just like talking about how much they hate vax passports.

Okay! Our sense is that if the CPC just focuses on the LPC’s horrible record on any number of files for the next year or two, they’ll win — perhaps win big. Their best chance of losing is to find new and interesting ways to live down to the worst fears of voters who’ll hold their noses and vote yet again for the Liberals just to keep the CPC out of office because they do stupid shit like talk about someone supporting vax passports back when most Canadians, including most Conservatives, felt basically the same way.

So who is the target voter here? Where do they live, how many of them are there? And those really the voters the party needs to win? Is this part of a plan to defeat the Liberals and form a government, or is this just some reflexive Lib-owning that they indulge in for the LOLZ and out of force of habit?

Guys, just be normal for a hot minute. Focus on normal things. The Liberals have already given you everything you need to defeat them. The only people who can stop the CPC are in the CPC, and gosh, do they seem determined to do exactly that.

Just when they start to get their act together, they pull this stupid shit. Or feeding WEF conspiracies. It’s like they can’t help themselves.

 

[brihard]

And on cue, The Line comes with something emphasizing my point.

Dispatch from the Front Line: Stop scaring the normies, CPC.

Also, are the Liberals planning to do the right thing, or the wrong thing?

theline.substack.com

Just when they start to get their act together, they pull this stupid shit. Or feeding WEF conspiracies. It’s like they can’t help themselves.

I like The Line’s stuff. I feel pretty bang on aligned with that particular take. It reads like Jen Gerson’s work.

 

[Fishbone Jones]

So, what is a fringe? At what point do the ideas say, "You're an outlier." Who gets to decide you're fringe? The people to your right or the people to your left? Do they really exist. Or are they simply the manifestation of someone's biases?

People have opinions and they are entitled to them. Some of those opinions form the backbone of their place on the scale. You can be fiscally responsible and believe in God. Which seems mainstream. However, if your belief in God, the bible and the ten commandment is strong and you think that's an important part of your lifestyle and political makeup, you're called fringe.

People don't seem to peg anyone as fringe, unless they are on the conservative right, and what they define as far right. I could just as easily say the left, especially the whole red liberal left are fringe, based on their belief. While the orange ones are more centrist.

And who is judging and making the determination? The media and their political bosses plant the seed and their unthinking followers pick up the torch. When a leader calls his opposition misogynist, unscientific, uneducated extremists he is defining the 'fringe' he wants ostracized asking what should be done with 'those' people. When in fact, they are not fringe, but just people that want a say in the way their life is lived.

Fringe is a quality with characteristics that don't meet your personal approval. Which is to say, your fringe is not necessarily someone else's and can't be defined by specific parameters.

It's just a bad, lazy personal descriptor

 

[Fishbone Jones]

And on cue, The Line comes with something emphasizing my point.

Dispatch from the Front Line: Stop scaring the normies, CPC.

Also, are the Liberals planning to do the right thing, or the wrong thing?

theline.substack.com

Just when they start to get their act together, they pull this stupid shit. Or feeding WEF conspiracies. It’s like they can’t help themselves.

WEF is not a conspiracy. It is a real, globalist, socialist organization with powerful people and lots of money. They have stated their goals and publicly discussed how they will accomplish it. We can see and feel their effects and progress. They have acolytes that agree with the movement and their goals. Like trudeau and freeland, who self identify. Simply because 'useful idiots' want to bury their heads and not acknowledge the reality doesn't mean it's a conspiracy theory.

Remember the phrase from Chamberland 'Peace in our time' while Churchill was portrayed as a warmongering, conspiracy hack for not believing hitler's head patting? Some conspiracy theory that turned out to be.