Topic
What might he do with a majority? Well, he once called his country a "welfare state in the worst sense." Here's that speech.
Cartoon by Greg Perry.
The Conservative Leader's sound bite file on everything from taxes to Iraq, health care, gay marriage, nature, left wingers and keeping
Insiders say he's changed his image, not beliefs.
Who gets credit for the Tories' revival? Keynes and Ignatieff.
[Editor's note: Fourteen years ago Stephen Harper was vice president of the National Citizens Coalition, an Alberta-based think tank that crusades for smaller government and less taxes.
Today, on the eve of another federal election, the NCC's web site says: "Is Canada today perfect? Far from it. Have we conservatives been able to accomplish everything we want? Not by a long shot. But we now have the people, the tools and the political will to help bring Canadians the government they deserve at a price they can afford."
Next week Stephen Harper will begin his fourth try at winning a majority government for the Conservative Party he welded together from its predecessors, the Reform Party and the Progressive Conservatives.We thought it might be a good time to run in its entirety the speech Harper gave to a June 1997 Montreal meeting of the right-wing U.S. Council for National Policy, in which he spoke frankly about the aspirations and criticisms he holds for Canada.]
Ladies and gentlemen, let me begin by giving you a big welcome to Canada. Let's start up with a compliment. You're here from the second greatest nation on earth. But seriously, your country, and particularly your conservative movement, is a light and an inspiration to people in this country and across the world.
Now, having given you a compliment, let me also give you an insult. I was asked to speak about Canadian politics. It may not be true, but it's legendary that if you're like all Americans, you know almost nothing except for your own country. Which makes you probably knowledgeable about one more country than most Canadians.
But in any case, my speech will make that assumption. I'll talk fairly basic stuff. If it seems pedestrian to some of you who do know a lot about Canada, I apologize.
I'm going to look at three things. First of all, just some basic facts about Canada that are relevant to my talk, facts about the country and its political system, its civics. Second, I want to take a look at the party system that's developed in Canada from a conventional left/right, or liberal/conservative perspective. The third thing I'm going to do is look at the political system again, because it can't be looked at in this country simply from the conventional perspective.
First, facts about Canada. Canada is a Northern European welfare state in the worst sense of the term, and very proud of it. Canadians make no connection between the fact that they are a Northern European welfare state and the fact that we have very low economic growth, a standard of living substantially lower than yours, a massive brain drain of young professionals to your country, and double the unemployment rate of the United States.
In terms of the unemployed, of which we have over a million-and-a-half, don't feel particularly bad for many of these people. They don't feel bad about it themselves, as long as they're receiving generous social assistance and unemployment insurance.
That is beginning to change. There have been some significant changes in our fiscal policies and our social welfare policies in the last three or four years. But nevertheless, they're still very generous compared to your country.
Let me just make a comment on language, which is so important in this country. I want to disabuse you of mis-impressions you may have. If you've read any of the official propagandas, you've come over the border and entered a bilingual country. In this particular city, Montreal, you may well get that impression. But this city is extremely atypical of this country.
While it is a French-speaking city -- largely -- it has an enormous English-speaking minority and a large number of what are called ethnics: they who are largely immigrant communities, but who politically and culturally tend to identify with the English community.
This is unusual, because the rest of the province of Quebec is, by and large, almost entirely French-speaking. The English minority present here in Montreal is quite exceptional.
Furthermore, the fact that this province is largely French-speaking, except for Montreal, is quite exceptional with regard to the rest of the country. Outside of Quebec, the total population of francophones, depending on how you measure it, is only three to five per cent of the population. The rest of Canada is English speaking.
Even more important, the French-speaking people outside of Quebec live almost exclusively in the adjacent areas, in northern New Brunswick and in Eastern Ontario.
The rest of Canada is almost entirely English speaking. Where I come from, Western Canada, the population of francophones ranges around one to two per cent in some cases. So it's basically an English-speaking country, just as English-speaking as, I would guess, the northern part of the United States.
But the important point is that Canada is not a bilingual country. It is a country with two languages. And there is a big difference.
As you may know, historically and especially presently, there's been a lot of political tension between these two major language groups, and between Quebec and the rest of Canada.
Let me take a moment for a humorous story. Now, I tell this with some trepidation, knowing that this is a largely Christian organization.
The National Citizens Coalition, by the way, is not. We're on the sort of libertarian side of the conservative spectrum. So I tell this joke with a little bit of trepidation. But nevertheless, this joke works with Canadian audiences of any kind, anywhere in Canada, both official languages, any kind of audience.
It's about a constitutional lawyer who dies and goes to heaven. There, he meets God and gets his questions answered about life. One of his questions is, "God, will this problem between Quebec and the rest of Canada ever be resolved?'' And God thinks very deeply about this, as God is wont to do. God replies, "Yes, but not in my lifetime.''
I'm glad to see you weren't offended by that. I've had the odd religious person who's been offended. I always tell them, "Don't be offended. The joke can't be taken seriously theologically. It is, after all, about a lawyer who goes to heaven.''
In any case. My apologies to Eugene Meyer of the Federalist Society.
Second, the civics, Canada's civics.
On the surface, you can make a comparison between our political system and yours. We have an executive, we have two legislative houses, and we have a Supreme Court.
However, our executive is the Queen, who doesn't live here. Her representative is the Governor General, who is an appointed buddy of the Prime Minister.
Of our two legislative houses, the Senate, our upper house, is appointed, also by the Prime Minister, where he puts buddies, fundraisers and the like. So the Senate also is not very important in our political system.
And we have a Supreme Court, like yours, which, since we put a charter of rights in our constitution in 1982, is becoming increasingly arbitrary and important. It is also appointed by the Prime Minister. Unlike your Supreme Court, we have no ratification process.
So if you sort of remove three of the four elements, what you see is a system of checks and balances which quickly becomes a system that's described as unpaid checks and political imbalances.
What we have is the House of Commons. The House of Commons, the bastion of the Prime Minister's power, the body that selects the Prime Minister, is an elected body. I really emphasize this to you as an American group: It's not like your House of Representatives. Don't make that comparison.
What the House of Commons is really like is the United States electoral college. Imagine if the electoral college which selects your president once every four years were to continue sitting in Washington for the next four years. And imagine its having the same vote on every issue. That is how our political system operates.
In our election last Monday, the Liberal party won a majority of seats. The four opposition parties divided up the rest, with some very, very rough parity.
But the important thing to know is that this is how it will be until the Prime Minister calls the next election. The same majority vote on every issue. So if you ask me, "What's the vote going to be on gun control?'' or on the budget, we know already.
If any member of these political parties votes differently from his party on a particular issue, well, that will be national headline news. It's really hard to believe. If any one member votes differently, it will be national headline news. I voted differently at least once from my party, and it was national headline news. It's a very different system.
Our party system consists today of five parties. There was a remark made yesterday at your youth conference about the fact that parties come and go in Canada every year. This is rather deceptive. I've written considerably on this subject.
We had a two-party system from the founding of our country, in 1867. That two-party system began to break up in the period from 1911 to 1935. Ever since then, five political elements have come and gone. We've always had at least three parties. But even when parties come back, they're not really new. They're just an older party re-appearing under a different name and different circumstances.
Let me take a conventional look at these five parties. I'll describe them in terms that fit your own party system, the left/right kind of terms.
Let's take the New Democratic Party, the NDP, which won 21 seats. The NDP could be described as basically a party of liberal Democrats, but it's actually worse than that, I have to say. And forgive me jesting again, but the NDP is kind of proof that the Devil lives and interferes in the affairs of men.
This party believes not just in large government and in massive redistributive programs, it's explicitly socialist. On social value issues, it believes the opposite on just about everything that anybody in this room believes. I think that's a pretty safe bet on all social-value kinds of questions.
Some people point out that there is a small element of clergy in the NDP. Yes, this is true. But these are clergy who, while very committed to the church, believe that it made a historic error in adopting Christian theology.
The NDP is also explicitly a branch of the Canadian Labour Congress, which is by far our largest labour group, and explicitly radical.
There are some moderate and conservative labour organizations. They don't belong to that particular organization.
The second party, the Liberal party, is by far the largest party. It won the election. It's also the only party that's competitive in all parts of the country. The Liberal party is our dominant party today, and has been for 100 years. It's governed almost all of the last hundred years, probably about 75 per cent of the time.
It's not what you would call conservative Democrat; I think that's a disappearing kind of breed. But it's certainly moderate Democrat, a type of Clinton-pragmatic Democrat. It's moved in the last few years very much to the right on fiscal and economic concerns, but still believes in government intrusion in the economy where possible, and does, in its majority, believe in fairly liberal social values.
In the last Parliament, it enacted comprehensive gun control, well beyond, I think, anything you have. Now we'll have a national firearms registration system, including all shotguns and rifles. Many other kinds of weapons have been banned. It believes in gay rights, although it's fairly cautious. It's put sexual orientation in the Human Rights Act and will let the courts do the rest.
There is an important caveat to its liberal social values. For historic reasons that I won't get into, the Liberal party gets the votes of most Catholics in the country, including many practising Catholics. It does have a significant Catholic, social-conservative element which occasionally disagrees with these kinds of policy directions. Although I caution you that even this Catholic social conservative element in the Liberal party is often quite liberal on economic issues.
Then there is the Progressive Conservative party, the PC party, which won only 20 seats. Now, the term Progressive Conservative will immediately raise suspicions in all of your minds. It should. It's obviously kind of an oxymoron. But actually, its origin is not progressive in the modern sense. The origin of the term "progressive'' in the name stems from the Progressive Movement in the 1920s, which was similar to that in your own country.
But the Progressive Conservative is very definitely liberal Republican. These are people who are moderately conservative on economic matters, and in the past have been moderately liberal, even sometimes quite liberal on social policy matters.
In fact, before the Reform Party really became a force in the late '80s, early '90s, the leadership of the Conservative party was running the largest deficits in Canadian history. They were in favour of gay rights officially, officially for abortion on demand. Officially -- what else can I say about them? Officially for the entrenchment of our universal, collectivized, health-care system and multicultural policies in the constitution of the country.
At the leadership level anyway, this was a pretty liberal group. This explains one of the reasons why the Reform party has become such a power.
The Reform party is much closer to what you would call conservative Republican, which I'll get to in a minute.
The Bloc Quebecois, which I won't spend much time on, is a strictly Quebec party, strictly among the French-speaking people of Quebec. It is an ethnic separatist party that seeks to make Quebec an independent, sovereign nation.
By and large, the Bloc Quebecois is centre-left in its approach. However, it is primarily an ethnic coalition. It's always had diverse elements. It does have an element that is more on the right of the political spectrum, but that's definitely a minority element.
Let me say a little bit about the Reform party because I want you to be very clear on what the Reform party is and is not.
The Reform party, although described by many of its members, and most of the media, as conservative, and conservative in the American sense, actually describes itself as populist. And that's the term its leader, Preston Manning, uses.
This term is not without significance. The Reform party does stand for direct democracy, which of course many American conservatives do, but also it sees itself as coming from a long tradition of populist parties of Western Canada, not all of which have been conservative.
It also is populist in the very real sense, if I can make American analogies to it -- populist in the sense that the term is sometimes used with Ross Perot.
The Reform party is very much a leader-driven party. It's much more a real party than Mr. Perot's party -- by the way, it existed before Mr. Perot's party. But it's very much leader-driven, very much organized as a personal political vehicle. Although it has much more of a real organization than Mr. Perot does.
But the Reform party only exists federally. It doesn't exist at the provincial level here in Canada. It really exists only because Mr. Manning is pursuing the position of prime minister. It doesn't have a broader political mandate than that yet. Most of its members feel it should, and, in their minds, actually it does.
It also has some Buchananist tendencies. I know there are probably many admirers of Mr. Buchanan here, but I mean that in the sense that there are some anti-market elements in the Reform Party. So far, they haven't been that important, because Mr. Manning is, himself, a fairly orthodox economic conservative.
The predecessor of the Reform party, the Social Credit party, was very much like this. Believing in funny money and control of banking, and a whole bunch of fairly non-conservative economic things.
So there are some non-conservative tendencies in the Reform party, but, that said, the party is clearly the most economically conservative party in the country. It's the closest thing we have to a neo-conservative party in that sense.
It's also the most conservative socially, but it's not a theo-con party, to use the term. The Reform party does favour the use of referendums and free votes in Parliament on moral issues and social issues.
The party is led by Preston Manning, who is a committed, evangelical Christian. And the party in recent years has made some reference to family values and to family priorities. It has some policies that are definitely social-conservative, but it's not explicitly so.
Many members are not, the party officially is not, and, frankly, the party has had a great deal of trouble when it's tried to tackle those issues.
Last year, when we had the Liberal government putting the protection of sexual orientation in our Human Rights Act, the Reform Party was opposed to that, but made a terrible mess of the debate. In fact, discredited itself on that issue, not just with the conventional liberal media, but even with many social conservatives by the manner in which it mishandled that.
So the social conservative element exists. Mr. Manning is a Christian, as are most of the party's senior people. But it's not officially part of the party. The party hasn't quite come to terms with how that fits into it.
That's the conventional analysis of the party system.
Let me turn to the non-conventional analysis, because frankly, it's impossible, with just left/right terminology to explain why we would have five parties, or why we would have four parties on the conventional spectrum. Why not just two?
The reason is regional division, which you'll see if you carefully look at a map. Let me draw the United States comparison, a comparison with your history.
The party system that is developing here in Canada is a party system that replicates the antebellum period, the pre-Civil War period of the United States.
That's not to say -- and I would never be quoted as saying -- we're headed to a civil war. But we do have a major secession crisis, obviously of a very different nature than the secession crisis you had in the 1860s. But the dynamics, the political and partisan dynamics of this, are remarkably similar.
The Bloc Quebecois is equivalent to your Southern secessionists, Southern Democrats, states rights activists. The Bloc Quebecois, its 44 seats, come entirely from the province of Quebec. But even more strikingly, they come from ridings, or election districts, almost entirely populated by the descendants of the original European French settlers.
The Liberal party has 26 seats in Quebec. Most of these come from areas where there are heavy concentrations of English, aboriginal or ethnic votes. So the Bloc Quebecois is very much an ethnic party, but it's also a secession party. In the referendum two years ago, the secessionists won 49 per cent of the vote, 49.5 per cent. So this is a very real crisis. We're looking at another referendum before the turn of the century.
The Progressive Conservative party is very much comparable to the Whigs of the 1850s and 1860s. What is happening to them is very similar to the Whigs. A moderate conservative party, increasingly under stress because of the secession movement, on the one hand, and the reaction to that movement from harder line English Canadians on the other hand.
You may recall that the Whigs, in their dying days, went through a series of metamorphoses. They ended up as what was called the Unionist movement that won some of the border states in your 1860 election.
If you look at the surviving PC support, it's very much concentrated in Atlantic Canada, in the provinces to the east of Quebec. These are very much equivalent to the United States border states. They're weak economically. They have very grim prospects if Quebec separates. These people want a solution at almost any cost. And some of the solutions they propose would be exactly that.
They also have a small percentage of seats in Quebec. These are French-speaking areas that are also more moderate and very concerned about what would happen in a secession crisis.
The Liberal party is very much your northern Democrat, or mainstream Democratic party, a party that is less concessionary to the secessionists than the PCs, but still somewhat concessionary. And they still occupy the mainstream of public opinion in Ontario, which is the big and powerful province, politically and economically, alongside Quebec.
The Reform party is very much a modern manifestation of the Republican movement in Western Canada; the U.S. Republicans started in the western United States. The Reform Party is very resistant to the agenda and the demands of the secessionists, and on a very deep philosophical level.
The goal of the secessionists is to transform our country into two nations, either into two explicitly sovereign countries, or in the case of weaker separatists, into some kind of federation of two equal partners.
The Reform party opposes this on all kinds of grounds, but most important, Reformers are highly resistant philosophically to the idea that we will have an open, modern, multi-ethnic society on one side of the line, and the other society will run on some set of ethnic-special-status principles. This is completely unacceptable, particularly to philosophical conservatives in the Reform party.
The Reform party's strength comes almost entirely from the West. It's become the dominant political force in Western Canada. And it is getting a substantial vote in Ontario. Twenty per cent of the vote in the last two elections. But it has not yet broken through in terms of the number of seats won in Ontario.
This is a very real political spectrum, lining up from the Bloc to reform. You may notice I didn't mention the New Democratic Party. The NDP obviously can't be compared to anything pre-Civil War. But the NDP is not an important player on this issue. Its views are somewhere between the liberals and conservatives. Its main concern, of course, is simply the left-wing agenda to basically disintegrate our society in all kinds of spectrums. So it really doesn't fit in.
But I don't use this comparison of the pre-Civil War lightly. Preston Manning, the leader of the Reform party has spent a lot of time reading about pre-Civil War politics. He compares the Reform party himself to the Republican party of that period. He is very well-read on Abraham Lincoln and a keen follower and admirer of Lincoln.
I know Mr. Manning very well. I would say that next to his own father, who is a prominent Western Canadian politician, Abraham Lincoln has probably had more effect on Mr. Manning's political philosophy than any individual politician.
Obviously, the issue here is not slavery, but the appeasement of ethnic nationalism. For years, we've had this Quebec separatist movement. For years, we elected Quebec prime ministers to deal with that, Quebec prime ministers who were committed federalists who would lead us out of the wilderness. For years, we have given concessions of various kinds of the province of Quebec, political and economic, to make them happier.
This has not worked. The sovereignty movement has continued to rise in prominence. And its demands have continued to increase. It began to hit the wall when what are called the soft separatists and the conventional political establishment got together to put in the constitution something called "a distinct society clause.'' Nobody really knows what it would mean, but it would give the Supreme Court, where Quebec would have a tremendous role in appointment, the power to interpret Quebec's special needs and powers, undefined elsewhere.
This has led to a firewall of resistance across the country. It fuelled the growth of the Reform party. I should even say that the early concessionary people, like Pierre Trudeau, have come out against this. So there's even now an element of the Quebec federalists themselves who will no longer accept this.
So you see the syndrome we're in. The separatists continue to make demands. They're a powerful force. They continue to have the bulk of the Canadian political establishment on their side. The two traditional parties, the Liberals and PCs, are both led by Quebecers who favour concessionary strategies. The Reform party is a bastion of resistance to this tendency.
To give you an idea of how divided the country is, not just in Quebec but how divided the country is outside Quebec on this, we had a phenomenon five years ago. This is a real phenomenon; I don't know how much you heard about it.
The establishment came down with a constitutional package which they put to a national referendum. The package included distinct society status for Quebec and some other changes, including some that would just horrify you, putting universal Medicare in our constitution, and feminist rights, and a whole bunch of other things.
What was significant about this was that this constitutional proposal was supported by the entire Canadian political establishment. By all of the major media. By the three largest traditional parties, the PC, Liberal party and NDP. At the time, the Bloc and Reform were very small.
It was supported by big business, very vocally by all of the major CEOs of the country. The leading labour unions all supported it. Complete consensus. And most academics.
And it was defeated. It literally lost the national referendum against a rag-tag opposition consisting of a few dissident conservatives and a few dissident socialists.
This gives you some idea of the split that's taking place in the country.
Canada is, however, a troubled country politically, not socially. This is a country that we like to say works in practice but not in theory.
You can walk around this country without running across very many of these political controversies.
I'll end there and take any of your questions. But let me conclude by saying, good luck in your own battles. Let me just remind you of something that's been talked about here. As long as there are exams, there will always be prayer in schools. ![[Tyee]](http://thetyee.cachefly.net/ui/img/ico_fishie.png){kind=small}
97
Login or register to post comments
zalm
2 years ago
Pretty much...
... all the argument I need to accuse the Prime Misfit of treason. Out of his own mouth yet.
Jeffrey J.
2 years ago
Harper's ideology chilling!
Harper's speech to US neocons and theocons in 1994 in Montreal is chilling. Replete with messiah like certainty and a rigid logic that makes most socialists look positively wishy-washy. Harper is a true ideologue and like past historical examples, is a danger to himself and others. Handle with care!
Historical demagogues were all initially dismissed as lightweights and extremists until they seized power. This is almost universal.
Harper oozes enough rigidity and fanaticism to potentially do catastrophic damage to a society.
Are Canada's other ruling elites strong enough to stop him? Debatable. Both 1936 Italy and Germany featured weak elites who dithered and were eventually shoved aside by stronger fanatics. Recall the weak League of Nations. Sound familiar?
This speech has been discussed for many years but impossible to read the whole thing. A major scoop for the Tyee!
Fiat lux
2 years ago
A Harper majority would mean
A Harper majority would mean the end of Canada and of any civilized form of life and real private enterprise, with the gangs of the multinational corporate mafia roaming the country, collectivizing and taking all control over the economy in the best Soviet fashion
Not with bayonets, but with the perceived power of imaginary money, applauded by so called "economists" of the Harper kind, as "growth".
When will people realize that communism and capitalism are brothers under the skin, the best example is China, and that today's "conservatives" are nothing more than fascists in disguise.
And I should know it as I grew up and was educated in that system and can see the growth of it all around us here and all over the world.
Ed Deak.
dorothy
2 years ago
Could he
smear himself and Canada flatter along the ground if he tried? Fee! Fie! Foe! Fum!
I smell the blood of a sycophant...
Apart from being a very fragmented and poorly written speech (YAWN!), you have this eerie sense of being a fly on the wall when people who offered up their country's secrets to the enemy were unloading. Yes, I know they're not secrets, and the guys south of the border are not 'the enemy', really (many of my best friends are American), but the creepy tone is there, nevertheless, as in when the 'rat' in a classical plot approaches the rich but villainous character saying 'Sir, sir - I have INFORMATION that might be worth your while, and a bit of money...'
Somehow that feeling's gonna be hard to shake. Eeek.
Van Isle
2 years ago
Didn't Harper make a comment
Didn't Harper make a comment sometime ago that he doesn't watch Canadian television news but prefers to watch American news such as CNN and Fox?
peetey
2 years ago
gasp
Couldn't make it all the way through....
My blood pressure monitor went off.
Fiat lux
2 years ago
Van.....Perhaps Harpo is
Van.....Perhaps Harpo is scared to see his own face on Canadian TV and prefers the others who don't even know where Canada is ?
Ed Deak.
cyberhino
2 years ago
Holy Crow!
I expected to see a lot more comments by now, but I think we're knocked speechless. Don't we have enough on this sociopath and his handlers to arrest them?
Fiat lux
2 years ago
He has a good chance to get
He has a good chance to get a majority with all the money and corporate media behind him.
The question is who has the guts to stop him?
And I don't mean any form of violence, but the awakening of the people to what this guy really is, what he stands for and his intentions are, and send him off to his string of lucrative directorships.
Ed Deak.
morechatter
2 years ago
Who has a guts to stop him
Canada's government is for the people, by the people who have the right and a duty to vote.
Will they step up to the task and reward a man who has taken the people out of Government and made it his own?
Will they reward Harper's Government for its openness,honesty, and transparency and the all out absurd?
Will it be big business that gets all the strokes?
Will the people wake up and find a new government, one they can call their own?
A spring election will tell.
morechatter
2 years ago
Ed Deak
I admire your writing and your input is superior. Your use of language always hits the mark and your spelling and grammar speak for themselves.
I want to write like you.
But see it is going to take more than desire.
And a great deal of hard work.
Fiat lux
2 years ago
Come now, "more", you must
Come now, "more", you must be joking. English was my 5th language and I never had an English lesson in my life. Learned by reading the papers with a dictionary and going to the movies.
I write simply by sound, listening how it sounds to me, and keep it simple as that's is the only way I know.
Anyway, many thanks and I hope I can hit a few more inflated egoes before I drop.
Ed Deak.
rangergord
2 years ago
Cons=confidence men=neoconservative republicans
At least it is all laid out straight from the horses mouth and not just conjecture. I found it an interesting read. The cons are admitted social conservatives but not really libertarians. They really do not have any idea how to be social conservatives and yet preserve separation of church and state. If it were not for the electorate opposed to it they would beat the drums of holy war. The speech also exposes the other major parties as the dinosaurs they really are. The PC's murdered and dead. The NDP with no idea where money comes from except debt and taxes. The Liberals who still have not made any real changes of policy or direction that could possibly inspire canadians to get out and vote for them. The bloc which is only concerned about Quebec. All of them think they can just vote no confidence and Canadians will just up and elect them to power. Not going to happen. Less than 60% of voters actually vote. At least 30% of those are Cons. The other less than 30% of Canadians will split their votes amongst the rest but get nothing for it. The established parties have all refused to establish electoral reform to improve proportional representation and so some more parties will have to die before anything could possibly change. Without electoral reform we will continue to move closer to a two party system. The only question being which two parties will they be and will there really be any difference between them?
Amelia Bellamy-Royds
2 years ago
So do people change?
The question, of course, is, does he still think that way (e.g. about the "Northern European welfare state in the worst sense")? Or, has the experience of actually governing made him re-examine some of his easy ideological assumptions?
I do like his analogy of the Canadian party system of the mid-90s with the U.S. pre-civil war regional disputes. I'm not sure I agree with it, but anything's better than trying to squeeze all the nuances of Canadian politics onto the tired old left-right spectrum.
I also found this comment to be quite spot-on: "[The Liberal Party has] put sexual orientation in the Human Rights Act and will let the courts do the rest." Many conservatives and others complain about judges interfering in policy, but usually it is a matter of politicians entrenching a vague goal or ideal in legislation or the constitution. The courts are then obligated to take this to its logical conclusions.
But, in the end, the most insightful and powerful section of this analysis is his description of the role of the different elements of government and the power of the Prime Minister. He wasn't factoring in the complications of minority governments, of course, but "a system [of] unpaid cheques and political imbalances" seems like a good description of the expected level of political accountability if a PM with a strong political agenda gets a majority in the House.
cboo44
2 years ago
Well, Let's See Shall We ?
There is a real possibility that the Iggy Lieberals, Jack's Dippers and the separatist swine will get in bed together to form a coalition. OH BOY ! Even a BETTER chance for those Bloc-heads to blackmail more "special favours" for Quebec! We already know the Iggy Lieberals will cave to their demands. They always have. Even in AdScam, they paid off some Bloc clingons. WHICH the taxpayers have NOT been reimbursed for, by the way.
Unprincipled scum.
Skywalker
2 years ago
Anything is better than ...
...Harper's hacks.
North of Hope
2 years ago
The Cons roadblock
I am tired of the Bloc being demonized because they were elected to represent the people of their riding. The majority of MP's are not Cons and they represent their ridings. THe MP's duty is to see that Canada is governed. The major roadblock to that happening is not the Bloc but the Cons under Harper.
If Harper was interested in the will of the people, he would look for compromises and reflect a government that the citizens have elected.
However he is not a democrat, he just wants to be boss have have his own way. If he doesn't get it, then he should just go home and cry like the spoiled brat that he is.
cboo44
2 years ago
Compromise?
So Jack goes to Harps, with "A wish list" they go back to Jack with a revised "wish list", Jack says "Nope, it's the whole list or nothing."
That your idea of compromise?
The Bloc wants $2 Billion EXTRA for Quebec, or no support. THAT your idea of "compromise"?
That's OUR MONEY they're talking about. Remember?
frank2
2 years ago
Judging by this speech, the
Judging by this speech, the only change in Harper has been the loss of a rudimentary sense of humour.
cboo44
2 years ago
Cons=confidence men=neoconservative republicans
Funny, the real Republicans think he's a socialist!!
Fiat lux
2 years ago
It is also OUR MONEY that
It is also OUR MONEY that these pathetic psychopaths want to give away to the multinational, minimum wage paying, part time employer, corporate mafia, who get instant "national treatment", otherwise known as citizenship, the minute they enter Canada, by WTO and NAFTA rules, with mile long fines and convictions on their records all over the world.
Compared to those giveaways, Harpo wants to increase, what the PQ wants if chickenfeed.
Ed Deak.
John Corman
2 years ago
What's the Beef
I read most of the comments and, with the exception of Amelia Bellamy-Royds, not one has actually addressed the content of the speech. I thought it was a pretty good history lesson.
There must be something in the speech that isn't true to have so many lefties wanting to commit Hari Kari after reading it.
Fiat lux
2 years ago
Can you define what the hell
Can you define what the hell a "leftie" is?
What do they want ?
Ed Deak.
Skywalker
2 years ago
A wish list?
Well cboo44 maybe the $50-60 a month didn't cut it for Jack. Maybe those items that they moved on, they didn't move far enough. You play silly games like move on 4 of 6 items but you move so little that it really means squat and then you grant a big tax cut to your friends instead. I mean how dumb does Harper think everyone is anyway? To hear all the conservative MP rant about the other three you would think that they had eliminated poverty among seniors. Maybe they are all tired of the emperor with a minority pushing his weight around as if he had a majority.
As for the speech...well it sounds like Harper wanting to be the next Ronnie Raygun. I guess he wants to be more like a president. No thanks. Here is a Reformer who took over the conservative party and made it into something more right wing than it historically was. The reactionary reform movement survived the traditional conservatives did not. Now we have our own version of Raygun and Thatcher.
Anything else is an improvement.
MacKenna
2 years ago
Why are so many Canadians blind to his intentions?
I understand how Harper first got elected but have been trying to understand why people keep voting for him.
Harper hijacked the Conservative Party name and covered up nasty extremist Reform with it. Then he pretended to be a moderate, reasonable guy. He was also untried and untested and made the most of Adscam to discredit the Liberal Party.
Since taking power, however, his achievements primarily consist of creating the biggest deficit in Canadian history (you’d think this would discredit him) and being held in contempt of parliament. No mean feats. What most people seem to forget is the deficit began BEFORE the recession and before Harper even acknowledged a US and global recession were underway. In fact, he had the country in a deficit position in Sept 2008 and denied any recession was happening or would happen.
Additionally, he has displayed more arrogance than any PM preceding him. He orders the military to salute him every morning and civil servants are required to call the Government of Canada The Harper Government.
He's the first Canadian PM to emasculate the long form Census and cancel numerous other important surveys that provide data on the evolution and characteristics of populations and communities.
Harper also has the mass media on his side. Most of the mainstream papers are rightwing. They portray Harper in a favourable light and paint the opposition as a bunch of lame ducks who can’t govern. Harper's oft repeated "there is no alternative" is now mouthed even by normally thoughtful people I know. I squarely blame the mainstream media for this.
I'm not sure the opposition realizes what it's dealing with here and they'd better wake up soon. If Ignatieff continues to communicate in the manner of John Kerry, he is sunk. He needs to be hard-hitting and he needs to be tough. Not below the belt slanderous and dirty like Harper, but more of a street fighter, like Chretien. I don't know what to say about lame Layton who has collaborated endlessly with Harper. The NDP could use a new leader.
lynn
2 years ago
Thanks for the reminder.
What distaste he consistently shows for his own country and what relish he takes in demeaning Canada.
And then here:
"To give you an idea of how divided the country is, not just in Quebec but how divided the country is outside Quebec on this, we had a phenomenon five years ago. This is a real phenomenon; I don't know how much you heard about it."
And here:
"This gives you some idea of the split that's taking place in the country."
Is 'an opportunity not be missed ' being revealed here?
Apparently Mr. H.'s election slogan is:
"Here for Canada".
Oh yes, siree, exactly.....
How could it be otherwise?
Your helping hands having exposed
Every fault line.
Your smirk lit by lies of biblical
Proportion, delighted by Revelations
Of every crack found in our foundation.
Oh yes, your Friends are indeed
Here.
Waiting. Impatiently now.
Here, on our shores.
Here.
For Canada.
All of it.
Oh! what big teeth you have, Stephen.
MacKenna
2 years ago
Further...
It needs to be understood that most Canadians who can vote don't vote. This I find unforgivable. It's because of them this extremist "faith-based" bunch of cretins continues to hold office. Most Canadians aren't fundamentalist Christians, but they also seem to be disinterested in the political and economic affairs of their country.
Fish-counter
2 years ago
Harper is genuinely dangerous
But I love Flaherty's comment that he wasn't going to negotiate with the other parties on the budget. That is precisely what he is supposed to do in a minority government.
I dread to think what Canada would look like under a Harper majority government and I would gladly pay large dollars to never have to see, or hear of, John Baird, ever again. [INFLAMMATORY AND INAPPROPRIATE COMMENT REMOVED. -MODERATOR.]
Schouten
2 years ago
agree with Harper
I actually like Harper's vision of Canada. To get government out of our face, balance the budget and encourage individual responsibility leads to the best kind of country. Unhappily, Harper has not yet had the freedom to do what he should. The people who read this paper and leave comments under articles like these live in a fantasy universe with childlike faith in the left wing gods of the age.
Fiat lux
2 years ago
To get government out of our
To get government out of our face and replace it with the multinational corporate mafia collectivizing the economy in their hands, killing all forms of private enterprise and freedoms here in Canada, in Europe under the EU and all over the world.
The world's food supplies are now concentrated in the hands of a handful of corporations, with Cargill at the top, destroying family farms by the millions and forcing people into mega city slums where they have to buy everything.
As an independent manufacturer and rancher in BC since 1957, I have seen the destruction done by the FTA and NAFTA and now by Cargill in control of Canada's meat suplies. In the name of "free enterprise", of course.
Is this the picture of "individual responsibility", or Soviet style collectivization ?
Stalin and Mao couldn't even dream of such success.
Does this make me a "leftie" ?
Ed Deak.
John Corman
2 years ago
Fish-counter - [EDITED]
This is a very common conception of Lefties by the rest of us. [VIOLENT AND OFFENSIVE CHARACTERIZATIONS REMOVED. -MODERATOR. ]
Fiat lux
2 years ago
How about people who used to
How about people who used to sit by their phones and now by their computers, or have automatic computers, buying and selling stocks after holding them only for few seconds, or minutes ???
Are they "lazy slobs" or "activists" ?
How about an economic system taught in our universities, with Harper having a Masters in it, that has only "credit" columns, but no "debits", or liabilities, as long as a few parasites can steal the world blind, killing 30 million a year, mostly little kids, with starvation, to "round up their holdings" ?
Ed Deak.
John Corman
2 years ago
Scary [EDITED.]
It is some times frightening to actually hear what true Lefties are actually about.
[SNIDE COMMENT DIRECTED AT ANOTHER COMMENTER REMOVED. -MODERATOR.]
RickW
2 years ago
Ted Menzies opined......
.....that many seniors about to receive that $50/month grew up through the Depression and would be glad to have that $600 a year.
Does that mean we're going back to 5 cent a cup coffee and $2000 houses?
Mr. Corman -- what say you?
John Greg
2 years ago
John Corman ...
You really don't like truth and facts, do you.
Marysue52
2 years ago
Harper is an American and should go there
Fiat Lux is right and Schouten is wrong. There is no freedom when you're poor, disabled, mentally ill, brain damaged, old and infirm, ill, etc. We are responsible not merely for ourselves, but for others who need help. There is no reason for poverty in a land as rich as ours. The government is supposed to be us--not Telus, Chevron, Suncor, Big Media, Banksters, Monsanto, Merck, CN, Manulife, Accenture, et al. We the people should have control over our resources, instead of giving those resources to the rich, foreign and corporate, and then allowing these skanks to ship our RAW resources abroad (using way too much fuel) to unspeakable sweatshops abroad where our raw products are made into something we used to make ourselves, better and longer lasting. Then the sweatshops send the finished flimsy products back (using all that fuel again) for us to buy at Canadian prices.
Thank God American-Harper hasn't been able to do all the damage he's wanted to do to wreck our sovereignty, our country and our lives. Mind you, Mulroney, Martin and Diefenbaker were no hell, either. Our responsibility is to help our unemployed, people with special needs, etc., as per the story of the Good Samaritan. How dare we take a heartless attitude to others less fortunate! We are, indeed, our brother's keeper. It is our Karma to do Good to others and preserve the habitat in which we all must live. We all must do our bit, or we will have ever more over-crowding, famine, war and intolerable insecurity and environmental degradation.
Fiat lux
2 years ago
Sorry John, but I always
Sorry John, but I always managed to help myself in 4 countries, under every known ideology, even when the commies, the idiot twins of today's capitalists, sentenced me to the gulags, but they never caught me.
You see, I happen to be ,what's known as a workaholic, who always believed in self sufficiency and not in stealing from others, under ideological licences.
In short, kidddie, I can run circles around the brainwashed faithful, like yourself.
What can you do when the depression comes ?
We're well equipped. Are you ?
Ed Deak.
Fish-counter
2 years ago
Sorry guys, but I am not left wing
I don't believe in politics, period. Harper's double "pro-roguing" of parliament is an offence against democracy. Suspending parliament is illegal.
His hiding of the biggest line items in this budget is dishonest. The in-out election funds are illegal and should be prosecuted under the Elections Act.
Harper's directive to the civil service to refer to The Government of Canada as "The Harper Government" is the thin end of the fascist wedge. That is why he is dangerous, and "The Harper Government" is big government, in-your-face government and John Baird is an obnoxious, obese bully. I just don't like guys who bully their way into parliamentary committees. It has nothing to do with their politics.
Jim Flaherty's budget interview was the first time I have heard a minister other than Baird and Harper speak in the last year. In coalition governments, the parties negiotiate budgets and policies. The message from the electorate is clear, and it s "We don't want extreme agendas". Every country that has a minority govenrment applies this simple principle, but Steven Harper is an asshole by any standard and he can't negotiate with anyone.
The attack ads against Ignatieff are again a violation of the Elections Act. I don't like Michael much, or Jack Layton, and I can't see why Gilles Duceppe bothers to go to Ottawa when he wants to burn the place down anyway.
A headline in the Manchester Guardian 30 years ago summed up Canada nicely then and now. It read, "Nice country. Nice mess". The RCMP are dangerously out of control and we ned to address that problem before they kill more people. Harper's program is to build more prisons. What kind of political goon is he? We need a change of lizards (not leaders, because we don't have any) in Ottawa, just because changing lizards is a good idea and it is the very essence of democracy.
alive
2 years ago
being realistic
cboo44
You got a problem with the word "coalition"?
Or does it bother you that people from different parties can agree that Harper is bad for Canada?
Get used to minority governments and the fact that more than one party will be needed to get bills passed.
Frank
2 years ago
Don't worry about John Corman
It took him a few weeks to even show his face around here again after he demonstrated zero knowledge of economics and laughingly put forward two points that contradicted each other.
I have a feeling he's a high school student, probably in ChristyFan's grade.
Frank
2 years ago
Schouten
blah blah blah, what I found hilarious was y'all believed in the gods of right-wing economics till you drove the financial system into the toilet.
Then you guys couldn't use taxpayer money to bail out the finance houses and major corporations fast enough.
Your belief in small government and individualism ends when you lose a buck, then you suddenly turn into a very vocal socialist. Or at least socialism for you and individualism for everyone else.
The hypocrisy of the Right over the last few years has been well recorded by your own corporate media, gonna take you a long time to live down those quotes and headlines.
mary jane
2 years ago
an election soon YES
We can only hope harpo will be gone soon He and his friend Groucho / gordo Aren't these 2 of the 3 Marks brothers. Or were there 4 ?? Marco - Harpo and Groucho My memory isn't working well enough for the answer
mary jane
2 years ago
Corporate welfare
harpo has given out $$ to big business
these companies should have managed the $$ more responsilble
RockyRacoon
2 years ago
People have a lot of good reasons not to vote and to be cynical
they have alot of good reasons not to trust government's or trust union's or trust communists for that matter. Well, I think what we really need to try is socialism. We need more of that not less. We need more crown corporations, not less. It has always been taxpayers money and crown corporations that built this country and some private dough behind the scenes making the most of it. Our mistake was to give in to the overwhelming pressure that the capitalist class and their government's put on people. We all know the truth about our system of government and our political economy as well. We need more and better crown corporations to develop this country properly and it has to be written that they can never be privitized under any circumstances-better taken apart and buried brick by brink than sold off to Mr Grinch. Good to see that speech finally make it into print somewhere-no surprise it would turn up here this little paper deserves national attention. And you are getting it...Thanks for being here,
RR
Fiat lux
2 years ago
I feel sorry for the poor
I feel sorry for the poor suckers who are putting their life savings into stocks, with all the precedents showing the rackets stockmarkets are, designed to strip people and make a few rich.
The rising gold prices and the Chinese new millionaires buying up Canadian real estate are the best examples how much they believe
in this fraudulent, imaginary economy pushed by Harper and the rest of the gang.
"Individual responsibility", the biggest laugh, designed to "create wealth" for a few, by stealing the public blind.
Ed Deak.
Rolf Auer
2 years ago
Time for the Tories to exit, stage right..
Harper's government is unfit to govern Canada.
Cdns say Medicare is top priority: Poll.. not the economy.
"Harper's Government: Privatize Medicare" (medium length article)
It's not difficult to see what the Tories would do with a majority.
www.clearpolitics.wordpress.com
(Click "About" re reading posts, or on my picture.)
@Rolf_Auer
Fish-counter
2 years ago
The difference between a tragedy and a disaster...
In the Victorian Era, William Ewart Gladstone and Benjamin disraeli duked it out verbally in parliament. Their exchanges were the very essence of brilliant sarcasm and politically-sharpened wit.
Disraeli once remarked that, "If Mr. Gladstone were to fall into the River Thames and drown, that would be a tragedy. But if someone were to rescue him, that would be a disaster".
I feel the same way about Stephen Harper and John Baird. These two in particular have shown a contempt for parliament that transcends party politics and demands dismissal and prosecution under the elections act.
Tories marvel at their accomplishments but everyone else shudders at them. Just because the conservative way of handling government is efficient, that does not make it right or legal. Ransacking the social structure of Canada for quick coins for cronies is not correct. There have been so many conflicts of interest that one loses count. We need a new government in Ottawa and I hope it is a Liberal one, not because I like the Liberals more than the Tories, but because I detest them less.
Coalition governments sit down and hammer out their differences and reach a compromise. Harper cannot do this and he needs to go; whether it is by ballot or bullet is of no consequence to me, but I do not want to see parliament suspended again. That is the act of a desperate man and we do not need such desperate measures in this country.
As for me being a Liberal; I think this would be a much more interesting country if our politicians were fighting in Afghanistan and the soldiers were working in Ottawa. Those who send others to war should at least have the courage and honesty to go themselves. That is precisely how politics were done back in the day and you can call me old-fashioned, but if it worked in 1066, it could be made to work today too.
macsasquatch
2 years ago
Stephen the Canadian
I thought the speech kind of interesting.
It reflects the idea that Canada and its politics are just an extension, a branch plant, of USA politics...maybe delayed a few decades because of our (to USA-o-phile Stephen)clumsy Westminster Parliamentary system.
He sure is hung up on Quebec sovereigntists. (To me, the Bloc has some of the better members contibuting to the work of the House of Commons - and , as a party caucus, they are effective as well)
I think that in previous comments people have rightly mentioned the absence of recognition of corporate board room power in the political mix.
When I was a kid, about Grade 5 or 6, I remember a teacher telling us about the anger of the French peasant before the French Revolution. He said that there were, in the French countryside, two classes, the peasantry, and the nobility. He said that the peasants would plant their potato,beans or grain, and then watch helplessly while the nobles, with impunity,galloped throught the crops on their hunting forays.
As fiat lux has mentioned(from time to time) this teacher's teaching contaminated my thinking.
Today, I see two classes: the human citizen, helpless, whining about it all into a message board like this; and the corporation, running rough shod through our carefully tended crops, and taking all of our common wealth for themselves.
When Stephen, his National Citizens Coalition, his Harper Government, and its supporters talk of reducing government and letting every individual be free, they neglect to mention that the individuals who will be especially free will be corporations.
(I think that the one liner is: 'Every man for himself' sang the elephant dancing among the chickens.)
I notice his mention of Preston Manning. I have always thought Preston a fellow who was successful at selling 1920's corporatism as a new idea. I thought, too, that Preston's constitutional ideas were glosses on his Dad's ideas.(Nothing wrong with that, building on the past,...but Preston successfully sold the impression that they were new.)
I cannot figure out how the final line, about prayer, fits the rest of Stephen's speech...maybe he forgot to take out his note for another speech.
Anyway, always good to look at what a politico has said or written to see what his or her real agenda is. I think that Stephen and his politburo are governing us into ever more of a branch plant status on this continent.
Maybe not even a branch 'plant;' more of a repository of natural resources - hewers of wood,and drawers of bitumin.
(Oh...I should be honest, I don't think that my Grade 5/6 teacher used the word 'impunity' on us.)
cboo44
2 years ago
Our Money
The "budget" has been under negotiations between parties since Christmas. Think an agreement could have been reached by now?
It is ALSO "our" 300 million dollars that costs to have an election, when there is one scheduled next year anyway? So, please don't whine about "no support" in the budget for YOUR agenda, when YOUR party of choice forces the NON-BUDGETARY expense of $300 Million, OK?
Fiat lux
2 years ago
Mac....When we were living
Mac....When we were living in England, just outside of Cambridge, between 1948 and 55, the foxhunters were still freely galloping all over cultivated fields and nobody dared to stop them. There was a case, when a farmworker shot a fox that ran into the farm's chicken house and was fired on the spot, because one wasn't supposed to shoot foxes chased by the "gentlemen"
Here's another pitiful example of what ingrained brainwash does to people:
In the society I grew up only "gentlemen" had guns and were permitted to hunt.
In Feb. 1945 I was standing guard on the top of the dike of the Bobr river, then in Silezia, now in West Poland, with a lance corporal on a bitterly cold night. The snow was blowing horizontally, luckily from our backs. The Russians were just across the valley, probably 1 km. from us. We were starving, virtual skeletons, with nothing to eat sometimes for a couple of days, if and when some food managed to come through.
All of a sudden, we saw a shadow coming toward us from the darkness and snow. We had our rifles pointed at it, when we saw that it was a deer.
The poor thing could have fed our machinegun squad for days, but we never even thought about shooting it, because it wasn't within our standing.
The same is going on all over the world, but these Middle East revolutions and the events in Wisconsin seem to show that humanity may just start waking up against the million years of Royal screwing.
Hopefully, not by violence, but by a revolution of minds, telling the lords to do the Royal screw to themselves.
Ed Deak.
Frank
2 years ago
cboo44
You're spouting the party line.
The government was going to fall because it was found in contempt of parliament and the Cons figured it was better optics to fall on the budget.
Either way, an election would have to be held this Spring unless you think losing a non-confidence vote after being found in contempt was going to just blow over.
OwlRol
2 years ago
Not how much but where.
Preston Manning advanced the Reform party out of western alienation and disgust with Mulroney. Fairly articulate, he and his colleagues were/are blinded by this U.S. style, wild west, rugged individualism. Over one decade ago, he stated that the Canadian work force should not have to contribute to the CPP, but invest that money in the stock market as they see fit.
I'm no fan of how the CPP invests funds on morally questionable corporations, but if the govt. of the day had gone Manning's route, a lot of marginally poor retirees would have less than nothing to live on today.
I'm not a Liberal fan but I think they got it right on many issues in this 2011 budget.
Its not about the "Tax & Spend" that the neocons paint both Liberals and NDP with, while the Harper govt. racks up the deficit, but rather about the choices on where to spend the money.
1 billion = 1000 million.
A few hundred million to slightly help the poorest of retirees vs. 20+ billion (actual total still unknown) for a couple handfuls of attack stealth fighters. Mr. Harper stated that it meets the needs of the Canadian military without telling us what those needs could possibly be. Coalitions against small nations like Libya, but not Burma/Myanmar? Not useful in the Arctic without numerous, high maintenance cost airfields. (When do we get our nuclear powered, arctic aircraft carrier?) Showing off at air shows?
Diddly squat for so called alternative energy development vs. billions for big corporate tar sands project subsidies.
Next to nothing for victims of crime compensation or youth crime prevention programs vs. many billions for U.S. style super prisons that the provinces will have to pay for to maintain.
Transfer payments to the provinces for health care and education likely to be reduced in a year or two.
And worst of all, as evidenced above, a govt. that wants to ignore our diverse nation and divide this country into 2 parties (like the U.S.) that won't even sit down and talk to each other.
And much more.
How to wake up over half the Cdn. voters to really pay attention a little beyond their immediate needs?
Jerry Munro
2 years ago
A Waste of Tax Dollars I...
And it's not because Canadians don't value even what passes for democracy in this bourgeois tradition. They certainly do. And rightly so... the working class won it. It wasn't given to them.
It's that they are smarter than most of the good folks sitting in judgement over them, even if they don't have it all quite so well articulated, I think. Even then, one might well be surprised, as I am all the time, what other folks in my class get.
First, the average working class Canadian knows as well as I do that all the parties to the status quo parliamentary system... EXCEPT for the Conservative/fascists, are more alike than they differ. They all suck up to the ruling business class, without exception... that it is Socialism for the rich and corporate class and Capitalism for the working class. WE know that. Simply fact.
Secondly, we know that the only time we will be briefly courted before we are left at the alter for the voluptuous ruling class blonde with big tits, is in the run-up to the actual election itself. The promises and sweet nothings in our collective ears will flow like warm red wine. Fact. We all know that.
And the day after the election, our collective working class needs will be shunted off on a rail into the wilderness, and they will/would ALL, without exception, thereafter until the next election round, serve the business shadow cabinet and lobbyist special business class interest. What? You think the working class majority doesn't know that"
The problem is, and we all instinctively know this too, though we maybe haven't put it into so many words yet, there is, again, EXCEPT for the Conservative/fascists, no really distinctive alternative to the best we can get with this business class serving "party lot"... minority governance. And we have come to fear at every election that one or another of the bastards will actually get a majority, and then they'll, regardless of which Party, just roll the business class bus right over us and our needs, and there won't even be any slowing them down. As at least this minority government situation does. It limits how much they can actually fuck us, somewhat. Folks friggin' know this too.
continued next post...
John Corman
2 years ago
Come on guys - try to focus
There are a couple of thoughtful comments here but, I can't find one that actually addresses the contents of Harper's speech. This is the first time I've read it and was expecting something quite diabolical thanks to Murray Dobbin's rants over the years.
But, I don't see what the fuss is about and hope that some of you will enlighten me on what is not factual in his speech.
Jerry Munro
2 years ago
A Waste of Tax Dollars II...
continuing from previous post...
The central problem is, of course, that in order to fully break out of this fascist rightward drift, with which all the parties are going along, more or less, even being held to a creep as it is, something, some shit is going to have to happen to polarize it even more. The Right is having its day right now, because it has succeeded in doing what the "serious" Left has not/can not. It has succeeded at creating a broad right-wing united front around an "aggressive", right wing business class serving agenda... That is committed to removing the final vestiges of the old Welfare State and turning back time, to around the lead up to the 1930s, before there there were trade unions, there was no public medical care or social safety net, and the working class had to be grateful for whatever crumbs fell from the ruling class table.
The Left on the other hand has been largely decimated by the anti_Left pogroms of the postwar II period. All that is left is, this kiss-ass NDP, wanting to be, or part of, the Liberal Party
Now, while I know most of my fellow working class folks don't have it this far thought out, given the survival busyness of their daily lives... It is going to take a further deepening of the current crisis of capitalism, the environment AND emerging neocon fascism to polarize social and political reality enough that a truly "Serious Left" is recreated. And the polarization is going to have to be of such an order of magnitude, this Left is going to be driven to form into a united front around an equally, nay MORE aggressive agenda of "deep social change", for economic democracy, equality and a co-operative economic and social order, as can match and overwhelm this United Right that is the Conservative Party. A fact too, if not immediately apparent.
Until then, folks are instinctively right. Might as well make do with what is. It's the best we are going to get with these players. There indeed is, nor should be any rush for an election right now. It's a waste of time at best, and a potential disaster that could happen at worst.
But in the case of this latter scenario, 8-D possibly the best polarizing thing that could happen, in one perverse sense. For what's needed here, to break this stalemate/logjam, like we it or not, and one cannot create it or stop it artificially, is greater polarizing forces. And The Right has been delivering us this, so far, and I expect they will continue to do so.
Love, Peace and Revolution
Jerry
http://coyotetimesca.blogspot.com/
Fiat lux
2 years ago
Jerry, the biggest problem,
Jerry, the biggest problem, and the main reason, for the acceptance of conservative/fascist/ capitalism is that the economists of all parties have been brainwashed with the same textbooks as students and had to write the same fraudulent answers in their term and exam papers to pass, and so they're giving the same destructive advice to the politicians of all parties.
I have checked this out years ago with economists and students. In other words, they and we are the victims of the same faith based crap that won't change until society demands a strict examination of what is being taught?
When I started reading economics textbooks in 1982, literally, from the first page on I couldn't help asking :"Does anybody really believe this crap ?"
Students and the public are forced to believe it and until this is changed, these elections are nothing more than bad jokes, because all governments are following the same destructive paths, albeit some with packages of band aids that won't help at all.
Ed Deak.
RickW
2 years ago
Frank
So very, very true!
realisticman
2 years ago
Ipsos
"If an election were held today, 43 per cent of the national vote would support Stephen Harper’s Conservatives, while Michael Ignatieff and the Liberals would receive 24 per cent, according to the poll."
March 24, 2011
Jerry Munro
2 years ago
Does Anybody Believe This Crap????
"When I started reading economics textbooks in 1982, literally, from the first page on I couldn't help asking :"Does anybody really believe this crap ?"
And I agree with you of course, Ed. It's just that I think the real lessons of life (and economics) come out of real life (and economics) rather than books. It's a working class thing. 8-D lol
You're a good man, Ed. I know that. And I know that you know.... You've lived it. :-)
Fiat lux
2 years ago
When you have been to hell
When you have been to hell and back a few times, you can either join the crooks who sent you there, or keep on fighting them.
I fought the commies for 45 years and will spend the rest of my life fighting their partners in crime, the capitalists.
At least, when I croak I'll have the satisfaction to say that I have done my job as a human being.
I just don't like dictatorships, no matter what they call themselves and what colour flags they wave.
Ed Deak.
Jerry Munro
2 years ago
No Matterr What...
"I just don't like dictatorships, no matter what they call themselves and what colour flags they wave." Ed Deak.
Amen. I hear ya, brother. :-)
zalm
2 years ago
Fishcounter
Yours are the finest words of the week - on any thread. Take a bow.
zalm
2 years ago
Corman
You want to address 14-year-old arguments? From what perspective? I think what most have been doing is demonstrating Harper's smarmy attitude in talking down to Americans back then matches his smarmy attitude talking down to Canadians now.
But if you insist....
"Canada is a Northern European welfare state in the worst sense of the term, and very proud of it. "
I think we very nicely dealt with that last week in The Economist where Schumpeter, the neo-liberal columnist in the magazine, made clear that a new index of entrepreneurship, the GEDI by Acs and Autio, shows that social-welfare countries such as Denmark, Netherlands, Sweden, Switzerland, and yes, Canada have the highest levels of entrepreneurship, and the vivid economies that go along with them.
http://www.economist.com/node/18227144?story_id=18227144
Harper appears unaware of this in his speech. He seems unaware of it as well today. That's why his pet hobby of "drowning government in a bathtub" goes over so poorly in Canada. And will go over poorly once more in an election, no matter how much you Objectivists may like to fancy yourselves the only realists in the world.
cboo44
2 years ago
You're spouting the party line.
So easy to blow people's opinions or observations with that line isn't it?
Contempt of parliament? How ? EXACTLY. Because a committee, loaded with opposition members that were predetermined to create an excuse for an election decided that? RESEARCH THE FACTS. Find out for yourself what REALLY happened. The committee got EVERYTHING it asked for from government, then complained that it was too much information and declared their finding. The finding was lame and predetermined. Political BS. We are going to pay $300 MILLION for Iggy's last kick at the cat.
AND just remember, the federal Liberals in BC are ALL part and parcel of the Crusty Clark Gang, including the movers and shakers in the BC Rail giveaway/bribery/corruption/lobbying scam. Yeah, let's hear from the Liberals about ethics and contempt.
Frank
2 years ago
cboo44
You think withholding information from parliament as to the new fighters and the cost of prisons is okay, you don't expect government to tell parliament the truth, fine. We get that.
However, parliament does expect that. To them its not being "political" to be upset they were told lies about what the price tag is for jets and prisons.
Then there's Bev Oda who literally flat-out lied to parliament.
On top of that the Cons can't even run a fair election campaign.
"We are going to pay $300 MILLION for Iggy's last kick at the cat. "
You're contradicting yourself by beating that horse. You just said above that we would have had an election next year. Well, guess what, if we have one now we won't have one next year. So there you go, no money wasted at all unlike a few years ago when Steve pulled the plug on his own government and broke his own election law.
paperazzi
2 years ago
What alarms me the most...
...is the fact that "The Harper Government" (as it wants to be known) wants to spend countless billions on new jails and fighter jets.
Why, indeed?
When a dictatorship is gearing up to hammer the masses hard in the near future, what better way to do it than with military might, a la Gadhafi style? Best to sneak these kinds of toys in, thought, when the masses still thinks it's a democracy.
realisticman
2 years ago
paperazzi
Do you think that prisoners should be kept in old crumbling jails and that we should disband the air force?
Frank
2 years ago
r'man
From your post one would assume, as usual, you don't understand the issues in play.
So you don't think we should have a parliament? Or just that they shouldn't be told the cost of anything? Or perhaps that our constitution and traditions are just scraps of paper and all that counts is what Der Steve says?
Conservative supporters don't like democracy I guess, why am I not surprised?
Frank
2 years ago
Steve's folly
This afternoon the government will probably fall as the result of a non-confidence vote.
From a news story : "The motion says the House agrees with a committee report tabled earlier this week that found the government in contempt of Parliament, "which is unprecedented in Canadian parliamentary history, and consequently the House has lost confidence in the Government."
Steve was hoping it would be over the budget, guess he doesn't want to campaign fighting a contempt of parliament charge.
Frank
2 years ago
Ed Deak
Although economics is at this time still dominated by the neo-classicals who took over in the late 1970s from the Keynesians there are a lot of economists that don't buy in to those failed beliefs.
Paul Krugman who writes for the NY Times is one but there are lots of others and their numbers I'm sure get stronger every day as they look at how the Right got us into this financial mess and can't get us out of it.
So the pendulum will swing back.
G West
2 years ago
Much ado about nothing
I've read and seen a lot of wailing and gnashing of teeth over the cost of a federal election.
It's amazing that anyone would 'seriously' suggest $300 million for a Canada wide election is problem of any kind for a large modern country of a little fewer than 34,000,000 individuals.
I mean, really folks, do the math. The cost per person for a federal election is a little more than $8.00.
A pretty small price to pay to ensure we have a functioning democracy.
In fact, they can hold federal elections as often as necessary...the REAL problem is the fact there are so many people in this country who don't take the exercise seriously.
G West
2 years ago
@fishcounter
I agree completely with zalm's conclusion about your remarks above us here.
Take a well-deserved bow.
John Corman
2 years ago
Thank You Zalm
I give you credit for being the first person to actually debate the comments Harper made in his speech. It's strange that so many off topic comments can be made in, what appears to be, an attempt to voice outrage but not really knowing what is outrageous.
The rest of Harper's speech that you refer to was;
"First, facts about Canada. Canada is a Northern European welfare state in the worst sense of the term, and very proud of it. Canadians make no connection between the fact that they are a Northern European welfare state and the fact that we have very low economic growth, a standard of living substantially lower than yours, a massive brain drain of young professionals to your country, and double the unemployment rate of the United States."
Now, you might not like his attitude but, is there something in that paragraph that wasn't true fourteen years ago?
G West
2 years ago
Measuring relative standards of living
I don't think you actually 'want' to go there John Corman. In fact, Canadians' standard of living today is substantially lower than it was when Pee Wee came to power. Research funding for universities today is significantly less than it was when Pee Wee came to power...
As for unemployment, it's about the same as it was when Pee Wee came to power.
Now what was it you wanted to debate?
I'd be much more interested in hearing your thoughts about this:
http://www.policyalternatives.ca/publications/monitor/neo-con-economics-and-canadian-well-being
Because it's the gang you cheer for which is most responsible for this mess.
G West
2 years ago
And maybe
You and Pee Wee should compare some of those Northern European welfare states - Norway, Denmark and Sweden - with what's going on today in Pee Wee's favorite state - the United States of America.
What's really sad is that there should be enough ignorant people in this country to have actually elected this fascist to two minority governments.
I take it you're aware of his attitudes concerning freedom of speech and freedom of expression?
G West
2 years ago
And, for those who like Pee Wee stories, here's another
This one from Lawrence Scanlan, which appeared in the Victoria Times-Colonist on August 1, 2010.
I'll quote the important part from the article which was entitled:
APATHY LEADS TO TRAMPLING OF FREEDOMS
By Lawrence Scanlan, Special to Times Colonist August 1, 2010
There’s been a sea change, a darkening of the political climate in this country. The first instinct is to discount such troubling thoughts. So perhaps the view of someone born elsewhere, but long on our shores, is more to be trusted.
Ursula Franklin — the celebrated physicist, pacifist, author and Companion of the Order of Canada — recently spoke to CBC Radio’s The Current. She had survived a Nazi death camp and come to Canada hoping for better. Now 88, Franklin is “profoundly worried about the absence and erosion of democracy in Canada.”
Democracy, I heard her say on the radio, is a slow and messy process. When Franklin sees cabinet ministers holding press conferences to discuss legislation not yet debated in the House of Commons, she sees that process being skirted.
And when she hears the prime minister saying he does not “trust” the Opposition, she sees contempt for democracy itself. “Who wants to live in a country,” Franklin asked, “where those who don’t think like you are deemed untrustworthy?”
A German reporter here to cover the G20 summit likened Toronto’s walls to the Berlin Wall and Checkpoint Charlie. Walls fall in one place, rise up in another. But surely not here?
The annual gathering of the Writers’ Union of Canada took place in Ottawa in June, with many former chairs on hand to offer memories of their time in office. Susan Crean remembered encountering a young, blue-eyed politico at a constitutional conference in Calgary in 1992. When the man learned that she had co-authored a certain book about American domination of Canadian and Quebec politicians, the man responded: “You should not have been allowed to write that book.”
The man was Stephen Harper. Crean never forgot his words, especially the word allowed.
(emphasis mine)
John Corman
2 years ago
G West - Very Wierd
You stated:
"You and Pee Wee should compare some of those Northern European welfare states - Norway, Denmark and Sweden - with what's going on today in Pee Wee's favorite state - the United States of America."
What has any of that got to do with fourteen years ago when Harper made his speech.
What's really sad is that there should be enough ignorant people in this country to have actually elected this fascist to two minority governments.
I take it you're aware of his attitudes concerning freedom of speech and freedom of expression?
=============================
Now, that's a incredibly wierd statement. One way to differentiate you socialists and left Liberals from the rest of us is our belief that you're allowed to say anything you want. Our Human Rights Tribunals have made it very clear that that's not our option any more. Sadly.
margsview
2 years ago
Not to Believe in Anything
This is the real essence of Harper, he constantly refers to the US, but his main love is the power others will some day see in him. Especially those who think they run and control the global economy. He appears to fashion himself as a better spoken Bush. But being rash and arrogant is quite a handicap as he has found out in the past. Thus secrecy and shades of veneer continue to be his only protection.
OwlRol
2 years ago
John C., I cannot value the
John C.,
I cannot value the analogy to U.S. pre-civil war politics (that Harpo did in this speech), so much as the politics of the German Weimar Republic as the Great Depression set in and shortly after that.
I do not put the term "Fascist" into my comments about most of our Conservative politicians because I don't believe that they think like those sub humans.
But their are numerous analogies that we must be wary of.
Minority governments worked for the most part until the post 1929 years. With the effects of ongoing recession, even lefties shifted far right under the impression that the state could no longer help them.
A political system with numerous right or left centrist parties (Christian Democrats, Social Democrats, etc.) were polarized into 2, and ultimately, through violence and murder, a single ruling party. Furthermore, power became centralized in the leaders office and all official ranks towed the party line.
Propaganda exploded on this and other issues. Workers organizations and anyone who raised the alarm on intrinsic problems with the system were labelled as what we now call "special interest groups" and painfully dismissed or eradicated.
Through U.S. loans German industry boomed but always had this debt yoke (due to WW1 reparations payments) that they shook off under the Nazi regime.
During the 20s women gained considerable political and social rights. These got rolled back in the Nazi regime, big time.
Homosexuality came out of the closet briefly before being stomped on. Likewise so called "degenerate art" and modern music.
Germany spent billions on militarization, starting 6 years before WW2.
Yes, there surely are many significant differences between then and now, but fewer than now and pre U.S. civil war politics that Harper refers to.
And likewise the risks are much higher.
But why has Harper referred to U.S. history so much and even now, as he stated, watch only U.S. news. Does he want us to be like them, or worse, part of them? Makes that Ignatief attack ad look rather hypocritical.
G West
2 years ago
What's weird?
Is the fact anyone can't understand that Pee Wee's fascination with dissing northern European socialist states seems pretty fucking stupid in light of what's actually happened during the period which has elapsed since he made his ignorant little speech.
He was paying homage to America and American values and he was dissing his own country.
What's weird is that so many people in Canada can't see that Harper's little wet dream was actually a bizarre nightmare.
Instead of becoming more like such places as Norway and Denmark - YOUR avatar is still doing everything he can to tie this country more and more tightly to a failing and hegemonic American culture.
AS for Pee Wee's Rambo (which is what I call Stephen Harper) and his attitude toward freedom of speech and expression....what's also WEIRD is that you apparently didn't 'read' what I wrote:
Harper said these words to an award-winning Canadian author who had published a book HE
DIDN'T AGREE WITH:
“You should not have been allowed to write that book.”
Did you miss that?
These are not the words of someone who really cares about freedom of speech.
These are the words of a fascist control freak...
Blake
2 years ago
Cynical
These are the words of a cynical man. A man who dislikes the country he lives in and so wishes to change it to be something else. A man who was brain washed in the economic business schools of Friedman and Rand. A man who holds contempt when he is in contempt. A man who we all must be weary of as he turns Canada into the USA. The economists have been busy while we have been sleeping.
zalm
2 years ago
John Corman
"Now, you might not like his attitude but, is there something in that paragraph that wasn't true fourteen years ago?"
Yes - there wasn't a scrap of truth in it. Canada stayed only marginally competitive with the US by shifting the burden of competitiveness at least partly to the backs of its own people with ruthless budgetary cuts, while the US merely exported theirs and hollowed out their industry, productivity and educational system as a result.
A rising GDP and inflated currency doth not a success make. Matt Barrett (Bank of Montreal) said so himself so many years ago once he got over the anger of the Liberals rejecting his overtures to amalgamate with other Canadian banks "in order to be able to compete on the world stage." That was after he went to National Bank of Scotland - the "stuffy, clubby uncompetitive world of British banking" that got shaken into disaster in 2008 following exactly the prescription Harper (and by extension, you) seem to think so valuable and productive.
You'll find all kinds of countries all over the world with lower unemployment, higher growth rates, higher standards of living, and brain bulges to boot - does that invalidate Canada's success or the kquality of life so many of us enjoy here?
According to Harper, it does. Which is yet one more reason why I've so little respect for his attitude or his intellect.
John Corman
2 years ago
One More Time
I get the feeling that many of you have not bothered to read and critic the speech but rather have accepted Murry Dobbin's view that it was conceived in the depths of Hell.
Here, again, are the main points in the paragraph that is so often quoted.
(1) Canada is a Northern European welfare state
(2) we (Canada)have very low economic growth
(3) (Canada has) a standard of living substantially lower than yours (American)
(4) (Canada has) a massive brain drain of young professionals to your country (US)
(5) (Canada has), double the unemployment rate of the United States.
Please someone tell me, directly, what is inaccurate in those five statements about Canada's condition fourteen years ago.
G West
2 years ago
John Baby, those statements are, simply
LIES.
But don't worry your little head about that, Harper has plenty more lies to go with them.
Canada, when the costs of medical care are taken into account, has a significantly higher standard of living than the US now - as it did when Harper made his stupid little speech.
I also notice how studiously you've avoided addressing the fact that your little hero really doesn't believe in freedom of expression and academic freedom.
There is simply not other way to parse these words: “You should not have been allowed to write that book.”
Dobbin didn't create the impression that Pee Wee has ascended from the depths of hell - Harper created the impression himself.
G West
2 years ago
correction
There is simply no other way to parse these words: “You should not have been allowed to write that book.”
And there's no other possible interpretation of what such an attitude means.
The man is a pretentious ass and a control freak; why ANY sane Canadian would vote for another term (of whatever length) with him at the helm of this country is a mystery of enormous proportions.
The man is not a conservative, conservatives have principles and values - he is a fascist.
zalm
2 years ago
One last time
John Corman, you are more than obstreperous insisting on arguing 14-year-old history from a position of ignorance. Get behind The Economist firewall to have a look at their data from 1997 and later on Canada.
You'll find that Canada had a melt-down in 1996 due to the Asian crisis, and growth fell to 1.6% as a result, but bounced back in 1997 to second in the OECD at 3.7%, right behind America at 4.0%. The GDP grew by 3.5%, only one point behind America at 3.6%, and consumer prices grew far less, at 1.9% compared to 2.5%. A year later in 1998, Canadian growth exceeded American growth by 3.6% to 2.7% while American inflation continued higher. In each case, the current account deficit was substantially less in Canada than in America.
http://www.economist.com/node/243386
http://www.economist.com/node/108439
As to the rest of the bumph, Canada is no Northern European welfare state, if only because it's not in northern Europe. In actuality, it is so unlike northern Europe, from its frostly labour relations, to its abandonment of early and middle school education, to its vastly different taxation principles - there is absolutely no comparison with Finland, Denmark, Sweden, or other European countries.
The brain drain turned the other way some years ago with doctors and nurses (among other professions) fleeing the US and other countries to come to Canada, where we still turn out 400-600 fewer doctors than we need each year, relying on other countries to make up the difference.
Unemployment could be a case for consideration, were it not a byproduct of interest rate policy by the Bank of Canada, which set inflation-fighting and management of the deficit and national debt as its prime targets, and making unemployment subservient to both. At least in the 1980s, when the government acknowledged that it was setting out to fight inflation on the backs of the unemployed, it felt it had the responsibility to provide for them through UIC. Nowadays, there isn't even that much respect.
Harper was talking through his hat then. It's more than likely likely he's talking through his hat now. But you can believe any fairy tale you like.
zalm
2 years ago
Muffled by a cheap fedora
More blather through the bowler:
"Of our two legislative houses, the Senate, our upper house, is appointed, also by the Prime Minister, where he puts buddies, fundraisers and the like. So the Senate also is not very important in our political system."
Gawd, that one was funny!
John Corman
2 years ago
Well Zalm, you've given your best. but.....
You are really all over the place, aren't you.
(1) you didn't really address this but if you were speaking to conservative Americans and described Canada to them you'd compare us to Northern European countries becauase of the massive proprotion (greater than 50%) of the GDP consumed by the state. (in 1997)
(2) You agreed with Harper here. According to you the next year was a little better.
(3) You didn't seem to want to address this for good reason. In 1997 GDP per capita was $30k and $20k for the US and Canada respectively.
(4) You agreed with Mr Harper on this issue.
(5) You agreed with Mr Harper on this also. Some how you brought the banks into the converstation for, who knows what purpose.
In other words, you basically agree with Mr Harper about the condition of your country in 1997.
Frank
2 years ago
zalm
You're wasting your breath, like most Conservatives John is deaf to everything except that which he agrees with.
G West
2 years ago
John Corman
YOU STILL HAVEN'T DEALT WITH THE REALITY OF THE ATTITUDES THIS MAN HAS TOWARD HIS OWN COUNTRY.
In fact, zalm has torn your facile argument to shreds AND given you chapter and verse as proof. You've done little more than spin your wheels and spit mud.
How come neocons are incapable of actually defending their own turf with anything more than piss and vinegar?
Why?
How many people in the United States had no health insurance 14 years ago?
Putting more GDP in the hands of the private sector has done sweet bugger all for the average American - although it's done a lot for folks like Warren Buffett.
But even Warren Buffett knows better than to try and argue the points you can't defend.
In fact, you and Harper and Neocon mantra of tax cutting are just indulging in a giveaway to the rich masquerading as a new way of stimulating the economy and balancing the budget. In fact, cutting taxes DOESN'T stimulate the economy and it doesn't reduce spending either, as the US experience clearly shows.
Bring on the Northern European juggernauts - they know how to create a decent society for the vast majority of their people - something neither Stephen Harper nor most Americans care even a tiny bit about.
We should be so lucky.
Frank
2 years ago
Nice
Nice to see this is the "most read" article on the Tyee at present.
Hopefully everyone will spread the word.
zalm
2 years ago
John Corman
Why do I waste my time?
(1) Canada and the US are nearly the same in the mid-teens, while the Nordic welfare states are all in the high twenties. http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/eco_wel_sta_the_wel_sta_and_soc_exp_of_gdp-welfare-state-social-expenditure-gdp
These rankings and percentages are exactly the same as in 2001.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_state
Harper's wrong. You're disingenuous.
Total government expenditure in 1997 was 44.5% of GDP. You're wrong.
(2) In 1997 our growth was better than anyone else's in the OECD except the US, and that by only 0.3%. You, and Harper were disingenuous again, just like minister Oda.
(3) GDP isn't wealth unless you compare it to PPP - purchasing power parity per capita. And you won't find that because it's a new meausre. The old one had to be calculated after the fact, and I'm sure neither you nor Harper did that. However, in 2007, you'll find Canada at $38,000 vs, the US at $45,000 - not too shabby for a country without multinationals to bring up its stats, or a multi-trillion-dollar military to seize assets for its use. And I'm sure you'll notice that the US fell behind Norway and Luxembourg in that race - I'm sure you've got an answer for that too.
http://www.nationmaster.com/time.php?stat=eco_gdp_pur_pow_par_percap-purchasing-power-parity-per-capita&country=ca-canada
When you look at what social goods our taxes pay for, you'll find economists who rate Canada's standard of living as higher than that of America's. That would make both you and Harper... disingenuous. Again.
(4) It wasn't massive - it was tiny, it's reversed, it's part of the reversible flows that have ococurred between the two since 1867; and what hasn't reversed is the large number of professionals who have always sought out Canada from places as distant as South Africa, Israel, and the USA. Harper may not have been wrong, but, like the photographer who accused his subject of being blind because he blinked during the shot, Harper was pandering, and now so are you.
(5) We can talk there, if you're ready to concede how government works. We could have had a much lower rate of unemployment were we willing to take the fall on a lower dollar (which exporters wanted) and higher interest rates (which financial institutions wanted). But you'd have to acknowledge the significant differences between the two countries that make statistics difficult to compare, starting with the US being a reserve currency. Until you do that, there's no point arguing unemployment without arguing all the other factors that bring it about. Unemployment is now the tail of the dog, and the head that wags it is monetary policy. You're obviously not an economist - so you get a bye, but Harper claims to be one, so he's disingenuous.
Word of the day - poltroon. It fits Harper - will you wear it too?
zalm
2 years ago
The real insult
This is what Harper thinks of Canadians, the very people he expects to vote for him.
"It may not be true, but it's legendary that if you're like all Americans, you know almost nothing except for your own country. Which makes you probably knowledgeable about one more country than most Canadians."
He's no economist, he's certainly no statesman, he's not trustworthy, and he's not the guy I'd want running the country. He's a Dogberry, lucky enough to be in the right place at the right time, but without the wits or grace to genuinely serve others without unleashing his inner demons on all his neighbours.
Some future Shakespeare will write a tragicomedy about him some day. Harperus Andronicus, perhaps, or Much Agog about Nothing. It'll be a study in cupidity (Harper's) and stupidity (anyone who voted for him). And the world will shake its collective head and go about its business.
morechatter
2 years ago
European Welfare State
Harper wasn't impressed with Europe's social programs. He is going to hate the ban on oil sands that is about to take place in Europe for the sake of the environment.
Corporations are set to get additional tax breaks plus the HST and families are also looking at exemptions. Harper made it part of his campaign. Where is government going to get its money from and how will it pay down the debt? I can understand Harper giving families a break but corporations are doing better than okay. Shawn makes record profits, lays off 500 employees, streamlining its operations, the latest trend.
morechatter
2 years ago
Harper puts business first/families last
To/À: Conservative Caucus
PMO Communications
Date:
January 23, 2010
Re/Object:
Tax Cuts for Job Creators As we have repeatedly stated, the economy remains our Conservative Government’s top priority. With the economic recovery still fragile, we are focused on creating jobs and economic growth. That is why we are reducing taxes for job creators. In 2007, we enacted into law ambitious plan to reduce business taxes. Our goal was to have the lowest tax rate for new business investment in the G-7. We are close to achieving that goal. The latest legislated tax reduction came into effect on January 1, 2011. As a result of our actions, as of January 1 the tax rate on job-creating businesses is 16.5 per cent. That is down from 18 per cent last year and 22 per cent in2007. Next year, we will achieve our goal when the fifth round of already legislated tax cuts comes into effect, dropping the federal business tax rate to 15 per cent. Combined with the efforts of provincial governments across Canada Liberal, Conservative, and New Democratic Canada business tax rate is on track to be 25 per cent. There has been a lot of misinformation spread about why we are lowering taxes on job creators and job-creating businesses. The answer is simple: our low-tax agenda is continuing to create jobs and economic growth. Stephen Harper’s low-tax agenda means Canadian job creators have more money to investing their businesses to help them expand and grow. For example, our low-tax agenda means they will be able to invest in:
•
new machinery and equipment to build more products
•
marketing campaigns to enter new markets
•
new employees to do the additional work The benefits of these investments are felt throughout the entire economy....
US and Canada help Ford out with its debt. Ford closes its door on operations in US and Canada and heads to Mexico, where labor is third of the cost. Another trend is setting up operations in countries where labor is cheaper and regulations are non existent.
If families didn't have to pay any taxes it would be grand and they would have more money for vacations and other things.
Instead families will have to pick up the tab for business who is no longer paying their fair share of tax for streamlining operations and making record profits for investors.(not job creation)
Harper promises families a break 5 years from now.
cw
2 years ago
Lies, Damn Lies and Statistics
They're all deserving of more respect than his speech.
morechatter
2 years ago
lies, and more lies and statistics
http://www.economyincrisis.org/content/unemployment-benefits-more-important-economy-tax-cuts