A Harper majority would cripple Ottawa - ?

mostlymad · 02-07-2007, 09:40 AM

pretty harsh article with comments by Joe Clark:

Quote:

February 7, 2007
WINNIPEG FREE PRESS

A Harper majority would cripple Ottawa
Frances Russell

Frances Russell Canadians might want to think twice before giving Prime Minister Stephen Harper a majority, according to former Progressive Conservative Party leader and prime minister Joe Clark.

Getting a majority drives everything Harper does, Clark told a CBC Montreal radio audience last week. But Canadians have "no idea" what he would do with it.

Harper's "principal goal... is to come back with a majority and I think he's going to go where a majority will take him," Clark continued.

Harper will abandon his doctrinaire positions on issues such as the environment in the short term, he predicted. "But what is his long-term commitment? What would he do with a majority government? There is reason for concern about what he would do."

A new poll by Harper adviser Greg Lyle's Innovative Research Group, published in this newspaper Saturday, gives Clark's fears an Orwellian twist. Borrowing a leaf from the U.S. Republican playbook written by Karl Rove and Frank Luntz, Lyle advises Harper to basically ignore the 55 per cent of voters who won't vote Conservative under any circumstances and the 28 per cent who are committed Conservatives and use wedge issues like crime, Canada's relations with the U.S. and ethics to play on the fears and emotions of the 17 per cent "open" to his party.

Negative politics is a perversion of democracy. It divides rather than unites, breaks down consensus rather than builds it and pits citizen against citizen, group against group. The very word "democracy" ceases to have meaning once politicians scoff at the majority and seek to win by pandering to the separate fears of a collection of often-antagonistic minorities.

One Canadian academic has peered into the crystal ball of a Harper majority. He calls Harper Canada's "Great Dismantler" and warns that "ultimately, all his policies are designed to dismantle the federal government as a force in Canadian economic and social policy."

Trent University historian Dimitry Anastakis lays out the Harper blueprint: starve Ottawa by endless tax cuts and cripple it by parcelling its powers out to the provinces.

"From his days as the Reform party's 'wonder boy,' to his time in the anti-government National Citizens' Coalition, to his writing of the infamous anti-federal 'firewall' letter following the 2000 Liberal election victory, Harper has espoused a patently anti-federal government ideology," Anastakis said in The Toronto Star recently. "Now, after a year, we can see his ideology in action."

Harper began by attacking Ottawa's fiscal capacity. "Instead of using deficits as a reason to slash taxes, as (former Ontario premier Mike) Harris did, Harper and the Conservatives act just as U.S. President George W. Bush did, using hard-earned federal surpluses as an excuse to cut taxes, which are, in essence, service cuts.

"In Harper's logic, having deficits or surpluses are a reason to cut taxes -- it doesn't matter since the only goal is to cut taxes."

The one-point drop in the GST was hardly noticed by all but the richest Canadians. But it deprived Ottawa of $5 billion. "More importantly for the Conservatives, the phantom GST cut means that the federal government can no longer use that $5 billion to pay for any other programs," Anastakis says.

Second, Harper dismantles social programs even though there is a surplus, destroying the Liberals' nascent national early learning and child-care program and replacing it with a taxable cheque to parents.

"Remember," Anastakis warns, "Harper is not in the business of building. He is in the business of dismantling."

Third, is Harper's anti-democratic assault on the Canadian Wheat Board.

Fourth, is Harper's plans to elect senators without first reforming the upper chamber. Anastakis says this will create parliamentary gridlock, a conscious assault on federal authority. The Senate has co-equal power with the House of Commons except it cannot originate money bills. The current appointed body lacks the legitimacy to frustrate the will of the House of Commons. But an elected Senate would feel emboldened, perhaps even obliged, to do so. Especially to protect provincial rights. "True to form, Harper will have succeeded in paralyzing the federal government while claiming to make it more 'democratic,'" he says.

And finally, Harper wants to abolish the federal spending power, "long a demand by premiers and anti-federal conservatives. Such a measure would mean a final total victory of the provinces over the federal government in the age-old tension between them, a tension that has helped to give Canada one of the best standards of living on the planet."

Anastakis says Harper's abhorrence of government means he's trying to impose a 19th-century state on a 21st- century nation. Only strong national governments can manage the challenges posed by the environment, globalization and the need to create a knowledge-based economy, he said in a telephone interview.

"Now, more than ever, we don't need a dismantled state. We need a state that is powerful and proactive."

Harper could be the second Conservative leader in a generation to utter Brian Mulroney's 1984 election appeal to "Give me four years, and you won't recognize this country."

Taurkon · 02-07-2007, 13:50 PM

Quote:

Negative politics is a perversion of democracy. It divides rather than unites, breaks down consensus rather than builds it and pits citizen against citizen, group against group. The very word "democracy" ceases to have meaning once politicians scoff at the majority and seek to win by pandering to the separate fears of a collection of often-antagonistic minorities.

The entire election campaign of the Liberals was based on fear. Who was it that said Harper would have troops on the streets?

Quote:

One Canadian academic has peered into the crystal ball of a Harper majority. He calls Harper Canada's "Great Dismantler" and warns that "ultimately, all his policies are designed to dismantle the federal government as a force in Canadian economic and social policy."

Sounds like a liberal that is promoting fear?

Programs that were cut were either grossly inefficient and need to be reworked, or were replaced with something else, such as the child tax credit.

Quote:

"In Harper's logic, having deficits or surpluses are a reason to cut taxes -- it doesn't matter since the only goal is to cut taxes."

Would be nice if Anastakis backed up his ideas with some facts. He is surmising that Harper is an idiot and just does things for the hell of it. Does not say much about Anastakis.

Quote:

"Remember," Anastakis warns, "Harper is not in the business of building. He is in the business of dismantling."

Like the Conservatives have been dismantling the Armed Forces the Liberals built up? Doh!

Quote:

Fourth, is Harper's plans to elect senators without first reforming the upper chamber. Anastakis says this will create parliamentary gridlock, a conscious assault on federal authority. The Senate has co-equal power with the House of Commons except it cannot originate money bills. The current appointed body lacks the legitimacy to frustrate the will of the House of Commons. But an elected Senate would feel emboldened, perhaps even obliged, to do so. Especially to protect provincial rights.

I would agree that there needs to be reforms before moving to an elected Senate. In the mean time, why not just abolish it? Anastakis also indicates an elected senate would feel emboldened to protect provincial rights? And? If those rights belong to the province, why should they not be protected?

Quote:

"Now, more than ever, we don't need a dismantled state. We need a state that is powerful and proactive."

We have had a broken and regional state for some time now. Neither the Conservatives or Liberals have addressed those problems. Harper has at least tried to mend some of those wounds with Quebec. However, if Canadian governments continue to ignore regional grievances, we will truly have a splintered and broken country.

mostlymad · 02-07-2007, 14:07 PM

Has Clark always been at odds with Harper?

Canmoore · 02-07-2007, 16:25 PM

Joe Clark was a Progressive Conservative , stephen Harper was apart of the Reform party, later turned Canadian Alliance party.

In 2002, Stephen Harper who had ousted Stockwell Day as leader of the Canadian Alliance, wanted to forge a closer bond between the PC's and his party, the reasoning was simple, the right in Canada was split between the PC's and the Reform/Alliance this ment that any anti-Liberal vote was going to be split up between the Alliance/Block/PC/NDP parties

Harper wanted a unified Conservative party to better fight the Liberals.

Since the merger in 2003 of the PC and Canadian Alliance, forming the Conservative party of Canada. Clark has been critical of the new Harper and the new party, during the 2004 election he endorsed Paul Martin, saying that Canadians should trust the "devil they know" meaning, Martin over Harper.

So basically yeah, this isnt old news. Just more fear mongering against Harper, he and the Liberals did it in the 2004 and 2006 election, and now they are going to do it again in any 2007 election. Nothing new to see hear, only I suspect that Canadians have gotten a glimpse at Harper and like what they see enough to give him a Majority.

Dion looks like he is going to turn his party into a one trick pony over the environment, thus giving Harper an even larger advantage by dumping the 13 year Liberal record on the environment down the throats of Canadians in any election.

mostlymad · 02-08-2007, 09:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Canmoore

Nothing new to see hear, only I suspect that Canadians have gotten a glimpse at Harper and like what they see enough to give him a Majority. Dion looks like he is going to turn his party into a one trick pony over the environment, thus giving Harper an even larger advantage by dumping the 13 year Liberal record on the environment down the throats of Canadians in any election.

thanks for the history on Clark/Harper, Canmoore.

I can't see Harper getting in with a majority as things stand, though. My job involves looking at many sources of info every day, and analyzing them, making projections, identifying trends, etc. Our organization has to be non-partisan, so my reports have to be the same, regardless of my personal politics. So far, I've managed to keep them impartial at work.

I'm not seeing this going CPC majority, unless something suddenly happens to turn it around. Could go either way, right now, I think.

Also, there are more and more indicators that people are fed up with the "13 years of Liberal mismanagement and neglect" answer CPC gives to so many questions. If they come up with a fresh, new strategy, maybe, but I doubt it. Disgust for the Libs helped CPC win last time, but now more people want to know what Harper has done, what he will do, and why he should be re-elected. You may feel he should get a majority, but I don't think the majority of Canadians are seeing it the way you do.

Harper is also in a tough position trying to shift policies a little to the centre to get those votes he needs for a majority. He starts talking green to accommodate the growing concern many Canadians have over climate change, but risks alienating some of his previous supporters. He needs to win support in Quebec, but risks loosing ground in the West. He strengthens the military, but that's again taking changes with Quebec support...

We'll see, though. Now Flaherty says the budget will be delayed again, so there's still time for all parties to try and turn things.

**ZFBoxcar** · 02-08-2007, 09:38 AM

I don't believe Harper is risking support in the West simply because conservative Westerners have absolutely nowhere else to turn. Even if they don't like Harper focusing on the environment, they know anybody else would be "worse."

mostlymad · 02-08-2007, 09:50 AM

The comments I'm seeing relating to Western alienation have had nothing directly to do with the new environmental concerns, so far. They have more to do with fiscal imbalance and the perception that Harper is going to be too generous to QC at the expense of other provinces. Also, the Canadian Wheat Board issue is giving some flack. I find it hard to believe the West could shift significantly as well, and it isn't likely it will be by much, if at all, I'm just saying that trying to curry favour in QC and ON ticks off the West, generally.

Taurkon · 02-08-2007, 11:17 AM

I cannot begin to fathom what it would take to get at least Alberta voting Liberal, never mind NDP.

mostlymad · 02-08-2007, 11:21 AM

just tried picturing Dion in a cowboy hat and nearly fell off my seat

Canmoore · 02-08-2007, 11:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mostlymad

They have more to do with fiscal imbalance and the perception that Harper is going to be too generous to QC at the expense of other provinces.

I'm just saying that trying to curry favour in QC and ON ticks off the West, generally.

Jean Charest is knocking on Stephen Harpers door asking for money to fix the "fiscal imbalance", this could mean 1.5 billion dollars to Quebec. If harper does this for the Federalists in Quebec, then it would be the straw that broke the Camels back for the Seperatists in Quebec.

However, Politics is a two way street. In doing this, Charest will owe Harper a huge favour, and in any Federal Election Charest would throw his support for Harper. Hopefully giving him a Majority Government.

Of course, this all requires that to work. In doing this, and the Quebec is a nation course. The west is hoping that it pays out, because if 1.5 billion dollars goes to Quebec, and Charest is defeated. Just as you said, the west is going to be some pissed off at Harper.

I would also like to disagree with a point you made about Harper being a one trick pony over the Libs 13 year history in power.
I do not believe that Harper is becoming a one trick pony, his government in just over a year now, have done more for this country than the Liberals did in the last 6 years. He is showing Canadians that he is a leader, willing to lead. Not by words, but by actions.

What can Dion say to counter that? he has nothing, his Liberal parties greatest accomplishments during there 13 year reign, was in the early part of that reign. The last half was filled with nothing but dithering and corruption.

And you canot say that by attacking Liberals innefectiveness during that 13 years in a one trick pony, because in those 13 years there are so many things that the Liberals didnt do, or didnt do right. Harper can hone in on anyone of those things, Dion is faced with the task of making Canadians feel that his party is new and fresh, so how does he do that?

He cant draw on anything that his past government did, because that was the old corrupted government. He, not Harper is on the spot for coming up with new ideas that do not draw from the past. Harper can slam everything Dion says with the Liberals past record, and what can Dion say to counter that?

"I will be different? Sure I was apart of the same government that brought you Shawinigate and Adscam. But I am different" ?

Harper has the upper hand here, and if he plays his cards right, he will get his Majority I feel.

Taurkon · 02-08-2007, 12:06 PM

Quote:

just tried picturing Dion in a cowboy hat and nearly fell off my seat

LMAO.

1.5 million to Quebec would be a small price to pay for many westerners if it meant a Conservative majority government, considering Alberta, BC, and Saskatchewan will all run a surplus for 06', with Alberta's over 8 billion and BC's over 3 billion.

Canmoore · 02-08-2007, 12:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Taurkon

LMAO.

1.5 million to Quebec would be a small price to pay for many westerners if it meant a Conservative majority government, considering Alberta, BC, and Saskatchewan will all run a surplus for 06', with Alberta's over 8 billion and BC's over 3 billion.

Ontario just lost 2000 jobs, Chrysler jsut announced it will cut 2000 jobs in Ontario, 20% of the 10,000 they are cutting accross the board.

Brampton and Windsor, the auto-industry is the Economic furnace for Ontario...this is not good.

Taurkon · 02-08-2007, 14:05 PM

What I'd like to see from the Feds are some true economic growth initiatives without the involvement of politics. Separate independent comities set up to forecast international product and service demand, evaluation of regional skill set strengths, and then provide accountable low/no interest loans to regions where economic prosperity is lacking.

In areas such as you described Canmoore, perhaps there are opportunities for retooling and training in Aerospace or alternative transportation industries. When looking at the big picture rather than individual regions (provinces), one may be able to identify how different regions could actually work. For example, build oil refineries in Ontario and pump the crude from the west to central or eastern Canada for refinement if economically viable.

Just some thoughts off the top of my head...

mostlymad · 02-08-2007, 14:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Canmoore

I would also like to disagree with a point you made about Harper being a one trick pony over the Libs 13 year history in power.

This is not what I said. I said “there are more and more indicators that people are fed up with the "13 years of Liberal mismanagement and neglect" answer CPC gives to so many questions.” This is what I have noticed through my work.

Canmoore · 02-08-2007, 16:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mostlymad

This is not what I said. I said “there are more and more indicators that people are fed up with the "13 years of Liberal mismanagement and neglect" answer CPC gives to so many questions.” This is what I have noticed through my work.

Ok, misread your post.

02-07-2007, 16:25 PM	#4 (permalink)
Canmoore *Senior Contributor* Join Date: 05-18-06 Location: Canada Posts: 1,330 Country:	Joe Clark was a Progressive Conservative , stephen Harper was apart of the Reform party, later turned Canadian Alliance party. In 2002, Stephen Harper who had ousted Stockwell Day as leader of the Canadian Alliance, wanted to forge a closer bond between the PC's and his party, the reasoning was simple, the right in Canada was split between the PC's and the Reform/Alliance this ment that any anti-Liberal vote was going to be split up between the Alliance/Block/PC/NDP parties Harper wanted a unified Conservative party to better fight the Liberals. Since the merger in 2003 of the PC and Canadian Alliance, forming the Conservative party of Canada. Clark has been critical of the new Harper and the new party, during the 2004 election he endorsed Paul Martin, saying that Canadians should trust the "devil they know" meaning, Martin over Harper. So basically yeah, this isnt old news. Just more fear mongering against Harper, he and the Liberals did it in the 2004 and 2006 election, and now they are going to do it again in any 2007 election. Nothing new to see hear, only I suspect that Canadians have gotten a glimpse at Harper and like what they see enough to give him a Majority. Dion looks like he is going to turn his party into a one trick pony over the environment, thus giving Harper an even larger advantage by dumping the 13 year Liberal record on the environment down the throats of Canadians in any election. Last edited by Canmoore : 02-07-2007 at 16:30 PM.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Urgent Update from Ottawa!	bjr70	Political Discussions	0	02-18-2007 15:21 PM
Canada is all MUSCLES	Ray	Political Discussions	29	02-01-2007 12:36 PM
Harper to shuffle cabinet	Ironduke	Political Discussions	2	01-04-2007 15:41 PM
Harper Woos Quebecers	smilingassassin	Political Discussions	2	12-21-2006 06:54 AM
Slim majority wants Canada's Afghan troops brought home: poll	troung	Operation Enduring Freedom	7	10-06-2006 16:16 PM

02-07-2007, 14:07 PM	#3 (permalink)
mostlymad Contributor Join Date: 09-10-04 Posts: 561	Has Clark always been at odds with Harper?

02-08-2007, 09:38 AM	#6 (permalink)
ZFBoxcar Moderator Join Date: 08-03-03 Location: Montreal, Canada Posts: 2,125 Country:	I don't believe Harper is risking support in the West simply because conservative Westerners have absolutely nowhere else to turn. Even if they don't like Harper focusing on the environment, they know anybody else would be "worse."

02-08-2007, 09:50 AM	#7 (permalink)
mostlymad Contributor Join Date: 09-10-04 Posts: 561	The comments I'm seeing relating to Western alienation have had nothing directly to do with the new environmental concerns, so far. They have more to do with fiscal imbalance and the perception that Harper is going to be too generous to QC at the expense of other provinces. Also, the Canadian Wheat Board issue is giving some flack. I find it hard to believe the West could shift significantly as well, and it isn't likely it will be by much, if at all, I'm just saying that trying to curry favour in QC and ON ticks off the West, generally.

02-08-2007, 11:17 AM	#8 (permalink)
Taurkon Regular Join Date: 12-05-06 Location: Calgary, Ab Posts: 93 Country:	I cannot begin to fathom what it would take to get at least Alberta voting Liberal, never mind NDP.

02-08-2007, 11:21 AM	#9 (permalink)
mostlymad Contributor Join Date: 09-10-04 Posts: 561	just tried picturing Dion in a cowboy hat and nearly fell off my seat

02-08-2007, 14:05 PM	#13 (permalink)
Taurkon Regular Join Date: 12-05-06 Location: Calgary, Ab Posts: 93 Country:	What I'd like to see from the Feds are some true economic growth initiatives without the involvement of politics. Separate independent comities set up to forecast international product and service demand, evaluation of regional skill set strengths, and then provide accountable low/no interest loans to regions where economic prosperity is lacking. In areas such as you described Canmoore, perhaps there are opportunities for retooling and training in Aerospace or alternative transportation industries. When looking at the big picture rather than individual regions (provinces), one may be able to identify how different regions could actually work. For example, build oil refineries in Ontario and pump the crude from the west to central or eastern Canada for refinement if economically viable. Just some thoughts off the top of my head...

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)