What David Davis and Tommy Douglas Have in Common

Workfare

On its face, a comparison between British Haltemprice and Howden MP David Davis and former NDP leader (the late) Tommy Douglas would seem entirely unreasonable.

One is a Conservative Tory MP, defeated by David Cameron in his bid to be Conservative leader. The other was, as leader of the NDP, the father of Canadian healthcare.

One is a former Shadow Deputy Prime Minister. The other is an icon of the Canadian left.

But as it turns out, they each have one thing in common: they both believe in workfare. (Or rather, Davis believes in workfare, and Douglas believed in workfare.)

Recently, Davis suggested that British welfare recipients should be put to work building rural broadband networks.

"A workforce of the unemployed should build the superfast network we need so urgently," Davis remarked. "Building a superfast rural broadband network is largely low-skill – digging trenches, laying pipes, filling them in. Only a small fraction of the cost is in high-tech materials."

Naturally, advocates for welfare recipients -- in both Britain and Canada -- would accuse Davis of barbarism; they would likely compare his proposal to advocating slavery.

When Douglas was the NDP Premier of Saskatchewan, his government implemented workfare. Able-bodied men who were beneficiaries of welfare were required to provide service to the state, often remarkably similar to what Davis has suggested.

It's something that the Canadian left will likely decline to mention when the British left rushes to condemn David Davis. Which makes it all the more worth mentioning.

The Time to Release Tommy Douglas RCMP File is Now

CSIS refusal to relinquish Tommy Douglas files dubious at best

Writing for the National Post Full Comment, John Baglow -- whose knee-jerk defenses of the most vile indulgences of the far left -- writes about the refusal of CSIS to divulge the files the RCMP compiled on former (and original) NDP leader Tommy Douglas under a freedom of inormation request.

CSIS is refusing to release the files under the auspices of national security. This lacks credulity.

But those who believe the Douglas files will feature any shocking revelations will be sorely disappointed.

Regardless of what Douglas' RCMP file contains, one thing will be certain: it will be a product of its time.

Douglas rose to political prominence at a time when Soviet communism seemed to be an omnipresent threat. Although the Soviet Union would formally be Canada's ally during the war against Nazi Germany -- a war that Douglas, at odds with his pacifist colleagues in the CCF courageously supported -- Canadians of varying political stripes were aware of the threat communism posed.

This included the thousands of citizens of Saskatchewan of Ukrainian descent, many of whom immigrated to Saskatchewan fleeing from Soviet communism and the Holodomor perpetrated by Joseph Stalin the Soviet state.

Adherents to the Greek Orthodox Church proved to be as asiduously opposed to Douglas and the CCF agenda as the Catholic Church and Mennonites. Their suspicion of the CCF brand of socialism did not fester unaided.

The Liberal Party of James Garfield Gardiner exploited Canadian horror at Soviet communism by insisting that the CCF would impliment a similar system in Saskatchewan. The Gardiner Liberals insisted that the CCF would confiscate farms, homes, and the life savings of individuals. They also insisted the CCF would close pubs and churches.

After leaving provincial politics for federal politics -- joining William Lyon MacKenzie King's government as the Minister of Agriculture -- Gardiner worked for the federal Liberals as their Saskatchewan lieutenant. He continued to apply his bag of political tricks -- which reputed to include hiding prohibited alcohol in the homes of political opponents then calling the police -- as a member of King's cabinet, then as a member of St Laurent's government.

It isn't at all unthinkable to suspect that Gardiner may have had a hand in at least the RCMP's post-war attentions to Douglas. Furthermore, it would be interesting to see if Douglas' CSIS file contains what could be the first substantial evidence of Gardiner's alleged trickery.

(Then again, considering how smooth an operator history reputes Gardiner to have been, it would be foolish to bank on it. And while John Diefenbaker would smile from beyond the grave, he'll have to save that smirk -- perhaps indefinitely.)

Looking back on Canadian history, it's easy to underestimate the urgency many Canadians felt in opposing communism. While the Communist Party of Canada only ever elected a single MP -- Fred Rose, whose tenure in Parliament was ended by a prison sentence for non-specific charges filed against him in the wake of the Gouzenko revelation.

The Gouzenko affair underscored for Canadians the breadth and depth of the Communist threat, and the pall of suspicion cast by the affair wasn't restricted to Fred Rose. It was also borne by Tommy Douglas and the CCF.

Whatever national security value the RCMP files on Douglas may hold would very likely be tenuous at best. If the files actually are so sensitive, CSIS will need to make its reasoning clear.

(It would be difficult to believe that the RCMP hasn't altered the methods by which it monitors suspected subversives -- be they suspected terrorists or suspected revolutionaries -- in more than 60 years. If the RCMP hasn't, that is a problem in and of itself.

Anyone intending to use the RCMP's Douglas files to retro-actively indict Canadian government or Canadian law enforcement will be sorely disappointed. The RCMP files on Tommy Douglas will inevitably reflect their day and age.

Using those documents to judge the Canada of the 1940s, 50s and 60s will prove untenable. One cannot reasonably judge a country under the threat of communist subversion by the standards of a time when the country is under no risk of it.

The Road to Universal Health Care Begins At the State

Speaking via ForaTV, TR Reid has a message for US President Barack Obama:

You're going about health care reform all wrong.

Reid uses the story of the evolution of Canadian health care as an example of how Obama should develop his own reforms.

As Reid notes, Canadian health care wasn't originally a child of the federal government -- it was a child of the Saskatchewan Provincial government of Tommy Douglas.

Beginning in Saskatchewan, Douglas' program was eventually implemented by the federal government.

Reid does make a few errors in his description of the evolution of Canadian health care. First off, doctors didn't flock from the other Provinces to Saskatchewan begause they "knew they'd get paid". Doctors flocked from other Provinces to Saskatchewan because doctors in Saskatchewan went on strike after Douglas introduced universal health care in that Province.

Nor did universal health care become implemented at the federal level because the other Provinces demanded it -- although the "demonstration effect" was almost certainly a factor. Rather, universal health care was implemented at the federal level because Lester Pearson needed Douglas' support to keep his minority government alive.

(Although Pearson dearly wanted a majority government, he never managed to secure one.)

Universal health care was implemented federally largely incrementally. Tommy Douglas can certainly take the lion's share of the credit, but policies instituted by Louis St Laurent, John Diefenbaker, Pierre Trudeau and Brian Mulroney (among many, many others) contributed to the slow evolution of Canadian health care into what it is today.

It started, however, with the successful implementation of the model in a single province. This is a lesson that US President Barack Obama should take to heart.

Instead of ramming a single 1000-page bill through both the House of Representatives and the Senate (a fool's errand in any case), Obama could instead make additional economic stimulus funds available to states that wish to implement their own form of health care reform.

As Reid notes, this could allow for something of a "policy laboratory" to emerge in various US States in order to find a package of reforms that works for the specific needs of the United States.

As TR Reid concludes, any governor that could plant that first seed of a successful health care reform program could some day be the United States' very own Tommy Douglas -- not only the father of universal health care, but perhaps even win a Greatest American poll someday.

Michael Ignatieff: The Anti-Obama

While featuring an unfortunate partisan flourish in the opening seconds of this video -- a clip of the irresponsible "Just Visiting" campaign ads the Conservative party has recently deployed -- this video of Michael Ignatieff speaking to a Liberal party rally in Hamilton should remind many people that, while Michael Ignatieff is certainly a considerable step up from his predecessors of as leader of the Liberal party, he holds the same attitude that many Canadians find distressing about the Liberal party.

"We created the country you live in," Igatnieff says. "Never forget it."

For a party working so hard to emulate US President Barack Obama, this is the kind of thing that demonstrates that they simply don't get it. For anyone who's actually paid attention to Obama, to his rhetoric, and to the nature of his politics, this kind of language seems utterly alien to the political approach of the American President.

In insisting that the Liberal party created Canada -- at least in its modern-day form -- Ignatieff insists that the Liberal party is entitled to all the credit for the shape and form of modern-day Canada.

Within an argument like this no credit would be due, for example, to the NDP for Canada's public health care system. The NDP essentially forced Lester Pearson's government to implement public health care -- which Tommy Douglas had successfully introduced in Saskatchewan -- under risk of losing their government.

As someone who boasts about how he knocked on doors for "Mike" Pearson, Michael Ignatieff knows this full well.

With an argument like the one Ignatieff has used, John Diefenbaker would receive no credit for reforming immigration policies that had once been designed to minimize the influx of non-European migrants to Canada, nor would Diefenbaker receive any credit for writing the Bill of Rights.

Moreover -- and most seriously -- with an argument like the one Michael Ignatieff has used the Canadian people who be entitled to no credit for their own, day-to-day efforts in building Canada.

The doctor who healed patients within the universal health care program that the Liberals tried like hell to never create would receive no credit. The school teachers who educate Canadian citizens would receive no credit. The Canadian soldier who deploys to distant lands in support of the Canadian values of peace, order and good government would receive no credit.

Ignatieff's insistence that "we [the Liberal party] created the country you live in" is distinctly at odds with Barack Obama's empowering message of "yes we [together] can".

It speaks to an attitude of smug selfishness in which the Liberal party, as a "national institution" feels it's entitled as the "natural governing party" to forever dictate the direction of this country, and that even a ten degree change of political course should be considered intolerable simply because it upsets the Liberal party-approved status quo.

It is this attitude, if unchanged, that will permanently hobble the Liberal party and, so long as this party remains Canada's "natural governing party" will also hobble the country as a whole -- limiting the range of the actions that we as a country would consider, and maintaining one small elite group's belief that they are entitled to monopolize the marketplace of Canadian ideas.

One can say what they will about Barack Obama. One would never find him declaring that he, and he alone, is entitled to the credit for anything his administration may accomplish. One would never hear him echoing Michael Ignatieff, telling the American people, "we have built your country. Give us your votes, give us your tax dollars, and get out of our way so that we may set the stake of American politics."

Yet that is precisely how Ignatieff speaks to Canadians.

This is why, although the Liberal party will try, Michael Ignatieff could ever be Barack Obama.

The Coalition That Wouldn't Go West

Western Canada a key factor in Ignatieff's decision to kill coalition

As Michael Ignatieff continues to kiss up to western Canadians during a foray away from Ottawa, he offered a wry wink to western Canadians who opposed the proposed Liberal/NDP coalition government.

Ignatieff, it seemed, decided to turf the coalition as part of his strategy to rebuild the Liberal party in Western Canada.

"You are, after all, looking at someone who turned down the chance to become prime minister of Canada, and I did so, in part, because I felt that it would divide the country," Ignatieff told reporters. "I want to be someone who unites the country, and that includes the West."

The wholesale rejection of the coalition by western Canadians underscores the historical turn of fortune for both the Liberals and the NDP in the west.

The NDP, with its roots as the Cooperative Commonwealth Federation, was actually born in the west. In 1968, under the exemplary leadership of Tommy Douglas, the NDP won nearly half of the Parliament seats allotted to Saskatchewan. In 1972, under David Lewis, they won five seats there, and would continue to win seats in Saskatchewan until being wiped out in 2004. They haven't held seats in Saskatchewan since.

Linda Duncan's 2008 win in Edmonton-Strathcona was the first seat won by the NDP in Alberta since 1988, when they also won a single seat there.

Likewise, the Liberal party dominated Saskatchewan as recently as 1949, before they were significantly undercut by the CCF and then finally wiped out entirely by John Diefenbaker.

If Michael Ignatieff dreams of reachieving the Liberal glory days in western Canada he clearly has his work cut out for him. Having a western strategist as "talented" as James Gardiner -- who once ran the province of Saskatchewan with an iron fist -- would clearly help.

Unfortunately for Ignatieff, the best his party can currently muster in Saskatchewan are Ralph Goodale and David Orchard, the latter of whom will likely carry the label of political loose cannon for the remainder of his days.

Ignatieff certainly seems to understand that, given the current political situation in Canada, the road to a Liberal majority leads through Western Canada. Failing that, as he looks ahead in Parliament, Ignatieff may be set to propose a coalition of a different variety: not a governing coalition, but rather a legislative coalition.

"I'm in this business to win a majority Liberal government," Ignatieff explained. "But I have to also responsibly say, if we fall short of that, then it might be conceivable to be in discussions with, say, the NDP. Not on a coalition basis, but, ‘Let's get some legislation through. How do you feel about that?' That's the normal business of Parliament, and so I wouldn't exclude that. But I think we've had an interesting debate about coalition in Canada, and we've decided that we're not comfortable with it."

Canadians all over Canada have voiced their agreement on numerous occasions. Now all that remains to be seen is whether or not Ignatieff's overtures toward the west are truly sincere.

A Debate To Be Remembered

Even if the leaders aren't up to snuff, the stakes in the 2008 federal election are historic in nature

Stephen Harper is no John Diefenbaker. Nor is he even Joe Clark.

Stephane Dion is no Lester Pearson, and he certainly isn't Pierre Trudeau.

Diefenbaker possessed the ability to rail vocally against outrage and injustice in a manner so intensely that he could make believers out of even cold-hearted listeners.

Lester Pearson, for his notorious lack of oratorical skills, always tended to know a good idea when he saw it. If one were to ask Diefenbaker himself, peacekeeping was one of those very ideas, deftly snatched by the Chief by Pearson.

Joe Clark had a broad-sweeping vision for Canada: his decentralized "communitiy of communities" that was so idyllic that it was almost utopian.

Pierre Trudeau was a mericless debater and oratorical master without compare. For his own part, he didn't merely adopt the great ideas of others. He also came up with a few of his own, evenif he could never be bothered to actually implement them.

Diefenbaker vs. Pearson and Clark vs. Trudeau stand among Canada's most historical and defining electoral contests. In each case, each man exchanged electoral victories over the issues that defined their times.

For Pearson and Diefenbaker it was Canada's role in the Cold War vis a vis nuclear weapons. For Trudeau and Clark, it was Canada's economic course in a post-OPEC petro-economy.

Harper is no Diefenbaker. His speeches may be elctrifying to the most partisan of his supporters, but they still fail to impress his political opponents. Nor is he a Joe Clark. Whether Conservative voters are comfortable enough to admit it or not, he has no grand vision for Canada. He barely has a vision at all, aside from "tightening the screws" of government via budget and tax cuts.

Dion is no Pearson. His Green Shift economic policy, as championed by Scott Brison and Green party leader Elizabeth May, is so ill-concieved that it can't seem to drive voters away from his party quickly enough. Nor is he a Trudeau. The man seems like he couldn't muster a believable ounce of passion is his life depended on it, nor is he resolute enough to stand by his policies no matter how unpopular they may seem. Pierre Trudeau would never have been caught dead tailoring a policy like the Green Shift to the likes of farmers. Not only were they too far out of the urban elite circle he prided himself on travelling in, but they were unlikely to vote for him regardless.

Yet Harper and Dion, like Trudeau and Clark and Diefenbaker and Pearson before them, do have a historical matter that will be decided in the course of this federal election: namely, the issue of climate change.

Canadians have a historical choice before them: a choice between the frugal, cautious economic environmentalism of Stephen Harper, sprinkled with a healthy dose of skepticism, or the risky approach of Stephane Dion, tearing up Canada's taxation regime in the name of leftist apocalypticism.

Harper's approach, stretching reductions in greenhouse gas emissions over a period longer than 40 years, or Stephane Dion's imaginings that, given what he feels is the proper economic incentive, Canada's biggest polluters will pull off the feat in time to comply with the Kyoto protocol.

As was the case with Trudeau/Clark and Diefenbaker/Pearson, the outcome of this election likely won't be up to the contestants alone. While the Presidential election in the United States may keep individuals such as Al Gore and Barack Obama too busy to attempt an intervention in the Canadian campaign, the individual gaffes offered up by each campaign -- there have already been many, and there will likely be many more still -- may yet prove to be decisive by the time this election concludes.

Then, of course, there's always the NDP. The "conscience of the nation", as it were, may yet prove to tip the scales in this election. Jack Layton holds a very powerful position in the country right now, as did Tommy Douglas and Ed Broadbent before him.

And as with Trudeau/Clark and Diefenbaker/Pearson, the next 20 years of Canadian history may be charted by the outcome of this election.

One way or another, this federal election will be one for Canadians to remember. Canadians may remember the outcome -- and, no matter how one slices it, the potential consequences -- for longer still.

Why Doesn't the United States Have a Stable, Viable Social Democratic Party?

An unlikely source provides the answer

If there is one great unanswered question about American politics, it's probably "who really killed JFK?"

At least, if you're a nutbar.

If, like the rest of us, you aren't a conspiracy-peddling, Manitoba-cigarettes-smoking weirdo, that question is probably "why doesn't the United States have a viable, stable social democratic party?

A passage from Al Franken's The Truth (With Jokes) ironically provides an answer -- and it's an answer that "progressives" like Franken probably won't like.

Starting on page 119, and continuing onto page 120:

"It is actually illegal for tax-exempt religious organizations to engage in partisan political activity. But that didn't stop the Bush-Cheney campaign from encouraging clergy in battleground states to do their civic duty. In Pennsylvania, for example, recieved this e-mail from a Bush-Cheney staffer:

"Subject: Lead your congregation for President Bush

The Bush-Cheney '04 national headquarters in Virginia has asked us to identify 1600 "Friendly Congregations" in Pennsylvania where voters friendly to President Bush may gather on a regular basis. In each of these friendly congregations, we would like to identify a volunteer coordinator who can help distribute general informatinon to other supporters. If you are interested, please email Luke Bernstein at LBernstein@GeorgeWBush.com your name, address, phone number and place of worship.

Thanks,
-Luke

Paid for by Bush-Cheney '04, Inc

Jesus Christ! And this from a Bernstein?!

Look. Churches are always going to be involved in social justice issues, on one side or the other. Just as Dr. Martin Luther King (for) or Dr. Jerry Falwell (against). ANd some congregations certainly have a political bent, such as Our Lady of Gun Control in Bayside, Queens. But this was ridiculous. Even the campaign's allies thought the White House had gone too far, considering the state of the law at the time.

There was only one solution. Change the law."

Oooh! Those dastardly Republicans, right?

Right?

Hold that phone.

"In early June 2004, Republicans in the House Ways and Means committee added an ammendment to H.R. 4520, the American Job Creation Act of 2004 (which cut corporate taxes, thereby creating jobs for people who gild bathroom fixtures), that would allow churches to commit three (count 'em, three) "unintentional violations" of legal restrictions on political activites each year without losing their tax-exepmpt status. I call that the "four strikes and you're out" law. Even more exciting, clergy would now be allowed to endorse candidates, as long as they made it clear they were acting as individuals and not on behalf of religious organizations.

Thankfully, when even the Southern Baptist Convention said the Republicans were getting a little too cute, the "Safe Harbor for Churches" amendment died a quiet death."

Hooray! A victory for the separation of church and state, right? Right?

Well, that is important. But, at the same time, there are numerous questions. What about the right of Pastors to express their opinions (politically or otherwise), alternately known as free speach? What about the right of religious congregations to organize as they see fit (again, politically or otherwise)?

Of course, these are important questions, but not necessarily pertinent for our purposes here. For that, we have to turn to the development of Canada's social democratic party, the New Democratic Party. (While the Bloc Quebecois often claims to be a social democratic party, they don't count because they are founded almost entirely on an exclusionary racial ideology.)

The NDP was formed in 1961 as a political merger of the CCF (Cooperative Commonwealth Foundation) and the Canadian Labour Congress. The annointed leader, Tommy Douglas (quite possibly one of the three best Prime Ministers Canada never had) was actually an ordained Baptist minister. (That's right, you read it -- Baptist.)

Both the CCF and the NDP after it were based almost entirely on the Protestant Social Gospel. The Social Gospel advocated that Christian values demanded a more generous and inclusive society (aforementioned by Al Franken as social justice).

It probably helped that in Canada churches were allowed to hold and express political opinion. An obsession with politically marginalizing religion certainly isn't anything that has never manifested itself in Canada (see: modern NDP), but it has yet to establish the stranglehold on religion that exists in the United States.

Comparing the two case studies, one can't help but draw the conclusion that the failure of the United States to produce a relevant social democratic party is at least partially due to its legal muzzling of religious movements.

Of course other factors, such as an obsessive, fearful suspicion of communism (although suspicion certainly was warranted, at least on a limited basis -- read: not McCarthy-esque) certainly played a role, one has to wonder what would exist today.

Maybe -- just maybe -- a stable, viable social democratic party.

(If you're reading this, Ralph Nader, you don't count. And it certainly was a shame that Howard Dean -- whom history may recognize as one the best Presidents the United States never had -- was judged to be too scary by Democrats.)

Naturally, the blending of politics and religion can go too far, and George W Bush is a fairly decent example of that (although most of the Republican party's intractable opponents find Mike Huckabee even more threatening). But one should also keep in mind that a liberal mixing of politics and religion can also have positive results.

Canadian public health care is, without a doubt, history's greatest example of this.

But before the specific values of the Social Gospel can take root, as they have north of the 49th parallel, religious organizations have to be allowed to at least knock at the door. It's ironic that some of those who most decry the lack of social democrats in the United States are the ones most determined to see that this is never allowed.

Grudge Match: Religious Right vs. ...Conservative Partyt!?

Christian activists seek to crucify Garth Turner

It is safe to say that politics and religion are, more often than not, a volatile combination.

Sometimes politics and religion go hand-in-hand. When the need arises, religious

leaders of varying stripes can be effective organizers. Many would consider this to be mainly true of right-wing conservative parties. This isn't necessarily so. Tommy Douglas, the greatest leader ever offered by a Canadian left-wing party, drew his roots directly from Gospel Protestantism -- a socialist breed of Christianity.
But the opposite is just as often the case -- if not more so.

Lately, Conservative MP Garth Turner has had an interesting fight on his hands. At a time when many critics of the Conservative party want to accuse it of being too close to Christian fundamentalists (for the past ten years, in fact), Turner has seemingly incurred the wrath of Charles McVety.

McVety, who is active with a number of Canadian Christian advocacy groups -- including Defend Marriage Canada, the Canada Christian College and the Canada Family Action Coalition -- recently shared a disagreement with Turner over the role of a Christian activist. McVety believes that this role is to defeat "anti-Christian, anti-marriage, anti-life" Conservative MPs with "family-friendly" Christian candidates.

Naturally, with talk such as this, the subject was same-sex marriage. Naturally, it is safe to assume that McVety is opposed to it.

"[McVety's] group, as you can see in the post below, is after my political head since I trashed their stated plans to swamp nomination meetings of Tory MPs who support gay marriage and are otherwise morally deficient," Turner writes on his weblog, The Turner Report. " I said I disagree with any special interest candidates who are foisted on a party or a riding in a stacked nomination meeting, especially when a sitting MP – electable and experienced – is the victim of a one-night hijacking."

The one-night hijacking in question are schemes in which McVety organizes individuals sympathetic to his cause to purchase Conservative party memberships, and flood pre-election nomination meetings in order to help install a candidate who will support his agenda.

Hijacking isn't a new trick for McVety. He has been known to register online domains under the names of politicians, particularly those who oppose his views. Many critics consider this to be cybersquatting. However, because he uses these sites to express opinions regarding each particular politician's views, the law allows him to do so under tenets of acceptable use.

Charles McVety is not a man who believes in the separation of church and state. His plan to supplant the candidates of a political party with religious activists is chilling to those who believe in the secular state. This is precisely what Turner was alluding to when he wrote: "Faith-based politics is fine. It has a long tradition. It can accomplish a lot of good. But when one religious or cultural group engineers a coup, overwhelming existing political party members and workers, and replacing a politician elected by a plurality of people with a single-issue monochromatic militant, well, kiss democracy goodbye."

Supporters of McVety would later try to use this statement to paint him as an anti-religious zealot. Perhaps a person may suggest it would take a zealot to know one, and if this was true McVety would certainly know one if he saw it.

Along with his wife and children, McVety attended the 2005 Liberal party convention aboard his famed "Defend Marriage" tour bus. About the experience he wrote the following: "As in the days of Lot the penalty for the righteous was that they knocked on the doors of Lot and demanded his young men for their sexual pleasure. This was the penalty for the righteous being “wrong” in their eyes. As I stood on a rally platform outside the Convention Centre we prayed that marriage would be defended Canada protected. Hecklers cursed and swore at us and held up a sign displaying the word 'Immoral'."

This would certainly be a frightening bundle of rhetoric, if it didn't instead provoke one very simple response: what the fuck?

He noted that his daughter, confronted by the contempt and fury of the Liberal attendees, asked him: "daddy, why are they spitting at us?" He neglects to mention that he exposed his children to this behavior (as unacceptable as it may indeed be) knowingly and willingly. Which would make a certain amount of sense: his crusade against same-sex marriage is "for the children".

Let it also be known that this is a man who has organized boycotts against Famous Players theatres (for showing an advertisement supporting same-sex marriage) and the Da Vinci Code (apparently for being a fictional book about Christ).

If allowed to garner any significant amount of influence in the Conservative party, McVety would prove to be one of the greatest liabilities in the party's history. Those who suspiciously eye the Conservative party as crusaders aching to turn the clock back to the days when religion took a direct role in governance would suddenly have their poster boy -- a bigger, better poster boy than Stockwell Day ever could have been.

On the other hand, Turner is an absolute treasure for the Conservative party. He is an MP who defies the typical stereotype that critics of the party would like to promote. He may have a firey personality. He may love to get down and scrap with his opponents, but he stands for what he believes in. Most importantly, he is an indispensible voice of dissent within the party -- without such voices, the Conservatives risk becoming victim to that pitfall that has so entirely entrapped the Liberal party: groupthink.

In short, Turner is a Conservative who's not afraid to think outside that little conservative box. Consider this in comparison to McVety, who obviously believes it is some sort of grievous sin to think outside the pages of the Bible. This is like mixing Jedi and Sith: bad fucking idea.

The Conservative party needs to pull Turner in and hold him close, and push McVety as far away as it can. Only then can it step forth from the shadow of Christian fundamentalism, and get on with the business of being a secular political party.
After all, religion and politics can be a nasty mix.