Jump to content

The shame and disgrace that is Stephen Harper


dagger

Recommended Posts

You conservative boot-lickers were warned about Mr. Mean.

This man doesn't care about Canadians. He just lusts for power. He's willing to eviscerate our democracy for his own crass ends.

A pathetic creature, and everyone is catching on, even the conservatively minded like Radwanski:

------

"Indeed, the most important characteristic Mr. Harper has shown over 33 months in office is a capacity to grow. There is no reason to think he won't continue along the same trajectory if re-elected — a good thing, too, since there is much more for him to learn."

So said this newspaper less than two months ago in its endorsement of Stephen Harper's Conservatives. Without speaking too much for my colleagues, I think it's fair to say none of us were anticipating what's unfolding today.

It takes a special kind of immaturity to look at an economic crisis - one that has people worried about their jobs and their homes and their life savings - and consider only how it might be turned to your advantage. But then, for all his ideological roots, Harper has demonsrated time and again that nothing interests him so much as cementing his hold on power. He may have evolved in terms of openness to pragmatic policies when they suit his political interests. But this is a leader who very clearly sees politics as a game, and who sees government - rather than what you do with it - as the ultimate victory.

You could say the same thing, to somewhat lesser degrees, about many who've come before him - not least Jean Chretien. But even Chretien, who clearly enjoyed elections more than he enjoyed actually governing, never devoted his time in office to rigging the rules to ensure that he'd win the next campaign, and the one after that - something he could have done rather easily, with a majority government and a divided opposition. And it's hard to imagine him - or Brian Mulroney, or Pierre Trudeau, or any other prime minister of any signficance - looking at a fiscal update in the middle of an economic meltdown as a chance to put the boots to his opponents.

The problem for the opposition is that it won't be difficult for the Tories to spin their outrage with the proposed elimination of public funding as the naked self-interest of people reliant on the public purse. "We're prepared to give up our public funding and rely solely on grassroots support," they'll say. "Why aren't the Liberals?"

Rhetoric like Pat Martin's "war" cry - even if for once his hyperbole was justified - won't help counter that case. What the opposition parties need to do - in addition to attacking the Tories for being interested solely in their own political fortunes rather than the well-being of Canadians - is rationally explain why it means war.

It really shouldn't be that hard, because what the Tories are proposing is fundamentally undemocratic. To scrap public funding without lifting the ban on corporate and union donations (and raising the cap on personal ones) means there's simply not enough money in this country for a multi-party system. The governing party might be able to cobble together enough to spend the limit during a campaign, but nobody else will.

That's a somewhat ironic argument for the Liberals to make, given that it was Chretien who introduced rigid donation rules in the first place. But the only possible compromise on this legislation would be a concurrent loosening of the contribution limits - or, I suppose, a much lower limit on how much parties are allowed to spend during campaigns.

The likelihood of the Tories agreeing to either of those measures, though, seems pretty minimal. So unless the Liberals and the other opposition parties are prepared to sign their death warrants, or public pressure compels the Tories to back down altogether, the opposition may have little choice but to bring down the government - triggering either yet another election or, depending what the Governor-General thinks, a weird and very unstable coalition government, presumably led by a party that's basically between leaders.

The timing of either of those chaotic situations would be absolutely awful, given what's going on in the world right now. But such is the potential consequence of having a prime minister who evidently hasn't grown very much at all.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 194
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Cry me a river. If the Liberals were so good, why were they not elected to power????????? biggrin.gif

By the by, it would be great if you also gave the link to the paper you are quoting.

It's the Globe

Obviously you care little about our democracy. Go get the shoe polish, boy, Stephen is calling.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest rattler

It's the Globe

Obviously you care little about our democracy. Go get the shoe polish, boy, Stephen is calling.

Ah, the Liberal boot licker (or should I say poodle) has awakened. biggrin.gif

Your idea of democracy seems to be that only a Liberal Lead democracy is a democracy. Mine encompasses one lead by the party elected by the majority of the voters, even if it was a Liberal party in power, but I guess that is not likely for a while. cool.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ah, the Liberal boot licker (or should I say poodle) has awakened. biggrin.gif

I don't trivialize our democracy like you do. I don't call it a game of chicken. And thanks to Harper, we can waste $300 million on an election we absolutely don't need. Nobody with a shread of intellectual honesty can say that what Harper is doing is warranted or needed.

It would serve him right if the Liberals were granted the right to form a government with the support of the other two parties. Then we would get some serious government, not this ridiculous ploy by a power-mad lunatic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Do you really think the Liberals could make that tough decision???  Would Mr Dion allow it???

Sure

By the way, no Green Shift in this campaign either.

Here's more outrage against Vladimir Harper.

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/f...al-fantasy.aspx

So seriously is that threat being taken that former prime minister Jean Chretien has been called in to try and broker a deal between outgoing leader Stephane Dion and the three leadership candidates to see if an new leader could be crowned in time to fight a snap election....

An election might catch the Liberals financially flat-footed and between leaders, but the public outrage at a election-triggering stunt perpetrated by the prime minister would unleash a backlash of historic proportions - and the reaction would be angriest in Quebec...

While the merits of political funding might be worth a debate during calm prosperous times, it has no place on an agenda that should now be devoted to important decisions.

The result of such reckless shenanigans would be a $300-million electoral exercise at the precise moment the country needs firm and united parliamentary leadership the most.

To put the entire federal bureaucracy on hiatus, which always happens during a writ period, so financially insolvent parties can clash over a $30-million savings, would trigger an unholy public brouhaha, not only against the unforgivable waste of money and time but for the risk of exacerbated economic damage while the MPs hustle votes.

While not as politically egregious, the fiscal update was almost as pointless as Harper’s move to use his economic update as stealth cover to sabotage his political opponents.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Cry me a river. If the Liberals were so good, why were they not elected to power????????? biggrin.gif

By the by, it would be great if you also gave the link to the paper you are quoting.

You've got to be kidding, rattler! I supported the man, but this latest move is every bit as cynical as selecting Sarah Palin as a running mate! I will be writing a very pointed letter to his office.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest rattler

I don't remember saying it is right (where did I say that? what I asked was if the Liberals would stand by their principles and force an election (at least words to that effect).

further on the subject from the Globe and Mail

Opposition parties denounced the proposal to end per-vote subsidies in the name of economic restraint as a partisan power play.

“They're using the update to hurt their rivals … it's playing Karl Rove politics – getting people upset against the political class generally,” said NDP finance critic Thomas Mulcair, referring to a former adviser to U.S. President George W. Bush.

The Tories are expected to make it costly for rival parties to fight their proposal by introducing legislation to eliminate the subsidy, worth $1.95 per vote annually. The legislation is expected to be a money bill and therefore a confidence vote, which means defeating it could trigger another election. If this happened, the Tories could blame rival parties for refusing to make sacrifices.

“We will see who wants to lead by example,” Conservative government House Leader Jay Hill told MPs in the House of Commons yesterday.

The Tories would lose the most money in absolute terms – because the subsidy is distributed according to the number of votes received in the last election – but the proposal would hit other parties such as the Liberals and Bloc Québécois more because these organizations are less successful at fundraising and more reliant on the per-vote subsidy.

Liberal finance critic Scott Brison said his party was still deliberating on whether to oppose the proposal, but said it marks an early return to political gamesmanship by the Tories after the election.

“Stephen Harper is trying to change the channel,” he said, accusing the Tories of trying to redirect attention from Ottawa's weakened financial state.

The Tories, however, will defend their proposal, saying parties would still benefit from generous tax credits for individual political contributions and taxpayer reimbursement of candidates' expenses.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...y/politics/home
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Diane Francis also gives him failing grades for the fiscal update.

http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/f...cy-to-jolt.aspx

My guess is that the Prime Minister, who hinted at APEC last week that he understands the world's dire condition, is trying to behave as though it's business as usual when it isn't. Canada is going to have to join the other members of the G20 in pulling its fiscal weight through dramatic stimulus packages or face the ire of the Americans upon whom much depends. Canada is America's biggest export market and a failure to keep consumption, both individual and industrial, up will be taken as disloyal and unacceptable.

The Prime Minister should have made it very clear that Canada faces difficult circumstances too and, as the Economist Magazine said of him two months ago, "have the decency to panic" somewhat. He should lead the premiers in devising strategies to cushion the coming blows and to accelerate infrastructure projects that needed doing anyway to mitigate the unemployment scrolls.

Ottawa and the provinces must spend on infrastructure, broaden entitlement programs such as Employment Insurance and immediately slow down immigration except for skilled workers with jobs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest rattler

Her key point is and the problem we all face is that we don't know exactly how the big guy south of us will react.

The great big unknown

But the biggest contingent liability that Canadian taxpayers face is the new Presidency south of the border. Canada could face increased protectionism; the need to help bailout Detroit or lose all assembly plants in Canada; the need to bankroll carbon sequestration and other environmental safeguards to keep the oil sands projects viable and growing.

Canada could also face deep tax cuts for American businesses, capital gains and sales taxes which, if unmatched in Canada, will add to economic problems here.

My guess is that the Prime Minister, who hinted at APEC last week that he understands the world's dire condition, is trying to behave as though it's business as usual when it isn't. Canada is going to have to join the other members of the G20 in pulling its fiscal weight through dramatic stimulus packages or face the ire of the Americans upon whom much depends. Canada is America's biggest export market and a failure to keep consumption, both individual and industrial, up will be taken as disloyal and unacceptable.

And of course there were other items covered in additon to the loss of money by the political parties.

The minister confirmed Canada is falling into a "technical recession" of two negative quarters of growth - the fourth quarter of 2008 and first of 2009 - and that without action Ottawa is heading for the first deficit in 13 years.

But the finance minister said he will save money by selling $2.3 billion in government assets - including property - and another $2 billion in cuts, particularly salary controls for public servants as well as MPs and senators.

The move was immediately lampooned by Liberal MP Scott Brison as a firesale of assets into a buyers' markets.

The government also said it will temporarily remove the right to strike in the public service, an ideological red flag that Mulcair said the NDP would never support.

"These are not easy times," Flaherty told the House of Commons.

"But we must not forget that our country has been through plenty of hard times before and we'll get through these ones the same way."

According to the economic projections tabled Thursday, it will be highly unlikely that the government will avoid a budgetary deficit next year despite its restraint measures.

That's something Stephen Harper and Flaherty vowed would never happen under their watch.

The government is projecting a 0.3 per cent growth rate next year and 0.6 per cent in 2010 - a rosy outlook considering many economists are now forecasting a deepening recession.

That would still result in a paper-thin $100-million surplus in each of the next two years after the new measures, or a $5.9-billion deficit next year followed by a $3.4 billion shortfall the following year if Ottawa had done nothing.

But Flaherty conceded that the times are so uncertain "no one could unconditionally guarantee the fiscal projections contained in today's statement."

Flaherty also signalled strongly that he will introduce a multibillion-dollar fiscal stimulus package that includes major infrastructure spending and possible help for the auto sector in the next federal budget expected in late January.

"Any additional actions to support the economy will have an impact on the bottom-line numbers in our next budget," he said, all but conceding that a deficit of several billion dollars is in the offing.

Measures introduced Thursday include:

-A clamp-down on discretionary spending for ministers and deputy ministers on travel, hospitality, conferences, exchanges and professional services, including polling and consultants.

-Capping public service raises, including for politicians, to 2.3 per cent this year and 1.5 per cent annually the next three years.

-Tying future equalization payments to growth of the economy saving an estimated $7 billion over two years.

-Accelerating program spending review to find more savings in departments.

-The sale of $2.3 billion in Crown assets next year and $1.1 billion in 2010-2011.

In a minor boost to the economy, the government said it will inject another $700 million through its agencies to provide additional credit for Canada's struggling corporations. Six billion dollars in already approved infrastructure payments will be spent next year.

Flaherty also moved on the pension issue, but not as much as many had wanted.

The government said it would double to 10 years the time federally-regulated pension plans have to make up shortfalls.

As well, individuals were given a one-time chance to reduce the amount they must withdraw from their registered retirement income funds, known as RRIFs, by 25 per cent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Her key point is and the problem we all face is that we don't know exactly how the big guy south of us will react.

We know exactly how he is going to react. He held three press conferences this week and spelled it out. He wants a stimulus package on his desk to sign on January 20 - the day he's inaugurated!

Plain enough?

And mandatory RRIF withdrawals should have 0%, or no more than 50%. Requiring 75% of normal withdrawals won't undo the damage of the crash.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest rattler

We know exactly how he is going to react. He held three press conferences this week and spelled it out. He wants a stimulus package on his desk to sign on January 20 - the day he's inaugurated!

Plain enough?

No doubt he does, as to what it will contain, perhaps you know but I don't. I would however be very surprised if we like it and that would be the time to react and take steps to mitigate the inevitable negative effect on our economy, to guess and react before seeing the final package would just be premature and dumb.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No doubt he does, as to what it will contain, perhaps you know but I don't. I would however be very surprised if we like it and that would be the time to react and take steps to mitigate the inevitable negative effect on our economy, to guess and react before seeing the final package would just be premature and dumb.

He talked about infrastructure spending.

Spending on roads and schools. A green energy grid and alternative energy.

And we know it's going to be north of $500 billion, perhaps closer to $750 billion.

But why would we want to imitate what Washington does? Or London? Aren't we capable of independent thought?

Maybe we have our own infrastructure priorities? Do you not think that there are transit projects in a number of cities ready to roll? If you're don't you're either living in a cave or incredibly naive.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest rattler

He talked about infrastructure spending.

Spending on roads and schools. A green energy grid and alternative energy.

And we know it's going to be north of $500 billion, perhaps closer to $750 billion.

But why would we want to imitate what Washington does? Or London? Aren't we capable of independent thought?

Maybe we have our own infrastructure priorities? Do you not think that there are transit projects in a number of cities ready to roll? If you're don't you're either living in a cave or incredibly naive.

Of course there are infrastructure projects, there always are but when it comes to what we should do to survive the punch we will be getting from the south, these are not major items. Most projects for 2009 have already been identified and funded. For Instance: http://www.transportation.alberta.ca/2616.htm

The ones for 2010 and beyond are what I would be most concerned about.

Also of course if you took the time to read what I said, I am very concerned regarding what the US Giant may do to us but until that is finalized, guessing is rather counterproductive. We should leave any major action until such time as we know the facts rather than the guesses. Running around like poodles chasing our tails might feel good but will not achieve much except possibility a pain in the ass. cool.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dagger, RRIF withdrawals can be "in kind". The underlying asset does not need to be sold, just transferred out of the RRIF. Of course the amount of the withdrawal will be counted as income for tax purposes. I think the government is being extremely generous by reducing the required withdrawal at all. These people got the tax break when they made the deposit and now it's time to ante up. Fair is fair.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Personally, I'd like to know how I'm supposed to contribute to the coffers of the Liberal Party executive.

Do I:

1) contribute directly to the party mailing address

2) meet them in a restaurant with an envelope of cash in hand

or

3) wait until they're in power & figure out a way to siphon it off our taxes

Dagger...any ideas?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest rattler
Personally, I'd like to know how I'm supposed to contribute to the coffers of the Liberal Party executive.

Do I:

1) contribute directly to the party mailing address

2) meet them in a restaurant with an envelope of cash in hand

or

3) wait until they're in power & figure out a way to siphon it off our taxes

Dagger...any ideas?

biggrin.giflaugh.gifrolleyes.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You know what, I've been not so lucky/lucky....

Lived in the Maritimes with terrible Liberal governing, now I am in Alberta, where Ralph Klein was majestic, and I watch Danny Williams in Newfoundland, who is an example.

Harper, I can live with, the rest of the gang, whoooo...

Give me the name of a good leader of the Canadian government, at this time, to get us thru these tough times...

Cheers...

Anybody,,,Anybody

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest rattler

What I find amazing is that anyone would expect a politician not to act like a politician. Going for the throat of the opposition is fair game in politics. Not fair, not right but that is way it has always been. What is funny is that the Liberals are crying the most now but you only have to look back at their performance in the past to understand that they were no different. Of course this time around, they were screwed by one of their own who brought in the contribution limitation that we see today.

Mind you,I only go back to P.E.T. who I helped to elect (campaigned for him in Vancouver). Seemed like a good idea at the time, but in retrospect ................ smile.gif

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What I find amazing is that anyone would expect a politician not to act like a politician.  Going for the throat of the opposition is fair game in politics. Not fair, not right but that is way it has always been.  What is funny is that the Liberals are crying the most now but you only have to look back at their performance in the past to understand that they were no different.  Of course this time around, they were screwed by one of their own who brought in the contribution limitation that we see today.

Mind you,I only go back to P.E.T. who I helped to elect (campaigned for him in Vancouver).  Seemed like a good idea at the time, but in retrospect ................  smile.gif

You mean a politician shouldn't respect the just-expressed will of the people, or put country before party?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.




×
×
  • Create New...