Great people seek power for the betterment of their communities, and are willing to create and defend strong policy positions to do so. This week Macleans Paul Wells sat down with me as part of Macleans Magazine Parliamentarian of the Year awards. You can watch our discussion here macleans.ca/politics/ottawa/paul-wells-in-conversation-with-michelle-rempel/. The question I wish I had more time to respond to was the one put last; (summarized version) your party received a majority mandate in 2011 and everyone expected things to be completely stable and they werent so what about that? Anyone sensible managing the affairs of a nation, much like a captain of a large ship, knows that success in mandate means that eyes are kept on the horizon. Obstacles are to be anticipated, managed, and actioned; keeping your eyes on your destination while never losing sight of the safety and dignity of those you are responsible for. Also, knowing that a one degree course correction can change the direction of your passenger and cargo manifest over time. Incrementalism takes patience; course setting and correction takes will, intelligence, and a firm hand on the tiller. In this, I believe our government has been successful in achieving the mandate it received in 2011. Our budget is on track to balance, we have constantly reviewed the efficacy and efficiency of government programming; increasing funding where justifiable, reducing it where redundant, seeking improvements to the service delivery we provide to Canadians, returning savings to taxpayers, reducing debt, and investing in our future. This is what any good manager, be it in public, private, or not for profit, sectors, does. In the interview I posted above, Mr. Wells asked if It was possible to work with others in the Commons of differing political stripe, or if it is a combative free for all. Its no secret I have respect and friendship with members of the opposition. The NDP MP from Halifax, is a good example. For my own electoral success I sometimes wish she was a lesser parliamentarian; she has firm and articulated view on public policy. In most instances my position is one of fundamental disagreement of her ideology. However, she is infuriatingly competent in communicating the merits of her position. Iron sharpens iron. While we often disagree on the course we need to set to achieve the goal on the horizon, I have found that because of our mutual respect for the position of public trust that we hold; which means conducting research, articulation of position, structure of argument, building coalitions, etc - we can sometimes come together, and sometimes, we cant. But we often understand each others positions and vision. If I had five more minutes in the above interview on the subject of collaboration in Parliament - Id say, there will always be disagreement in the development of public policy. That said, in order for there to be dialogue, one needs to articulate a position. This brings me to the current state of the Liberal Party of Canada. I find it a curiosity that the LPCs strategy thus far in this election cycle has be to 1) bank on the manufactured charm of their new leader while 2) trying to disguise his complete ignorance on the state of public affairs in Canada and the Canadian electorate by 3) creating a communications strategy seemingly reliant upon Kardasian-esque tabloid photo spreads. Near to when he jumped into his pool with his clothes on for Chatelaine magazine, he also poo-pooed the need for Canada to take a direct role in the containment of ISIL(beheadings, rape, forced marriages, oppression of minorities, hatred of Canada and its pluralism, intolerance, treating women as subspecies, general barbarism, etc). When his obfuscation and lack of fortitude and apparent *NEED TO BE LOVED* led him to completely drop the ball on this file, he sent out a (former?) leadership rival, Order of Canada recipient, Marc Garneau to hold his excrement-filled bag in House of Commons debate. So, can one achieve a mandate and out ride the bumps? Can one do this and work with others of different political stripe? Id say not always, but sometimes yes, provided one can articulate a policy position and earn a mandate from the electorate to achieve it. This is, of course, is the antithesis of being generally full of unicorns that fart rainbows in ones reactance to commit to a position on an issue. Example: This week, the September-issue-Trudeau!-endorsed candidate for Banff-Airdrie-Cohrane had an unfortunate LPC induced existential crisis. A former employee of the Pembina Institute, this man is on the record saying KXL should be shelved and the energy sector in Canada curtailed. Ideologically, hes likely a better fit Mulcairs NDP or Mays Greens. Instead of being true to his left-leaning ideals, for the last few months, he seems to have been been running an apologist campaign; claiming to support the interests of the community while locking his anti-energy sector bias in his metaphorical spare bedroom - nothing to see here, folks. At least the electorate in his riding knows where his opposition candidates, of all political stripe, stand on these issues. This week however, he went off the deep end when he: A) was quoted by a national news network as making comments at a public forum similar to the infamously arrogant beer and popcorn statement of #lpc past in relation to tax cuts and benefits for Canadian families; then B) doubled down by claiming the family tax cut proposal our government recently put forward was a tax avoidance scheme for the wealthy; then C) When called on his obfuscation, asked for a retraction from the news network that printed the article on the same when; D) An audio recording of his comments had been posted by said news network a day earlier; and then E) claimed it wasnt his voice in an agitated video that harkened of Dions Blair Witch Project styled post-coalition film So yes, MPs can in theory, work with someone we dont ideologically agree with. However, they should be able to articulate a consistent policy position and be able and willing to defend it. Great people and nations seek power for the betterment of their communities, and are willing to create and defend and fight for ideology to do so. However, people who seek power for powers sake, with no position and platitudes for their vision, are often left as footnotes 1. ----------- 1 -calgarysun/2014/11/18/liberals-want-more-of-your-money-2
Posted on: Fri, 21 Nov 2014 06:33:38 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015