CTKShadow

As I said, the evidence doesn't support this. Harper is one of very few Prime Minister's that inherited a sound fiscal structure, and by cutting GST against the advice of experienced economists he still managed to create a structural deficit - before the recession hit. This is not the point though. I'm not looking for his faults, of which I am aware of many. I'm looking for his merits. The two major factors that drove so much manufacturing out of Ontario was higher electricity costs (Ontario Liberal's fault) and the stronger Canadian dollar, caused by increased oil output. It is not fair to blame the oil boom on Harper, but he didn't help the situation either, and his partisan nature has prevented effective dialogue between the different levels of government. Again, as with the rest of your points, quite valid arguments but not the topic of discussion. I understand party loyalty. I just don't understand Harper.

Thank you all for your input. While I don't necessarily agree with all points raised, I appreciate the insights and can accept that many points boil down to differences of opinion and/or values. I've included counterpoints on positions where I can see things from a different angle - feel free to continue the discussion It was online newspaper comments that prompted my question. The level of dialogue is mind-bogglingly childish. A centre or left supporter: "I can't believe Stephen Harper is implementing regressive policy __________" A support of the right: "Yeah but Justin Trudeau said __________" or "Yeah but just look at the Ontario Liberals" A supporter of the centre or left will counter with an ad hominem of their own and it's all downhill from there. I'm no fan of taxes, but as just one example, the GST cut was pretty harmful to the economy - although I can acknowledge it was good politics. I am a fan of scientific research, and the reports on that aspect are terrifying. His law and order agenda is often panned, something about the fact that it is more effective from a crime reduction standpoint to focus on rehabilitating criminals, rather than increasing punishment which just increases the chances of re-offending. I don't feel that it's fair to call Harper honest, even by politician standards. I will concede that he is honest in ways most politicians aren't, but in other ways he is very, very dishonest. What I mean by this is that he does place great stock in keeping most of his election promises (GST cut, scrap the long gun registry, income splitting, etc). Many politicians aren't. His dishonesty is on full display with virtually every new attack ad he and his party releases. If you look at the things he said as opposition leader, and compare them with his actions as prime minister, he is his own worst critic. He commonly promotes new laws as one thing while they are in truth something completely different (Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act, anyone?). Compare his rare show of non-partisan solidarity with the other parties in the wake of the Parliament Hill shootings with his comments after Opposition parties asked why our troops in Iraq are in situations that were explicitly ruled out when the mission started - now the NDP are teary-eyed jihadist supporters. Really? What does the man truly believe? As for Harper doing what is politically expedient instead of what he ought to do...this really is the problem. If it is acknowledged that he routinely does the wrong thing, for political reasons (ie. to retain power), then what is the point of having that power? Power for the sake of power? As for committing the government to large ideologically driven programs...I guess it depends on what you consider to be large. I would argue that FIPA was a huge mistake, and can't be undone for more than a generation. Income splitting will be easy to administer, but the price tag is in the billions. Futher, while I am the first to acknowledge the government isn't always great at implementing large programs, that doesn't mean they are inherently bad - few Canadians oppose Medicare, for example. The Ontario Liberals are terrible, but several (not by any means all) aspects that have caused Ontario's decline were out of their control. The rise in the Canadian dollar over the last decade would have created challenges for any government with a strong manufacturing and export economy. The Ontario Liberals have done a poor job, even considering the hand they were dealt, and are corrupt to boot, but this just goes to show what happens to a weak team when things go badly. As I originally mentioned, upon close examination Stephen Harper's economic record is not necessarily as strong as it is perceived to be - he has however been very, very lucky. There is no evidence to show his competitors cannot manage the economy just as well. And while, in a vacuum, I would certainly choose Stephen Harper, alone, over Justin Trudeau, alone, to run the economy, that is not actually the way governments work. There should be no doubt Justin Trudeau is capable of attracting intellegent, capable talent to his tent, so as long as Trudeau remains humble enough to listen to advice and recommendations from people smarter than himself, attacks about his personal credentials won't really stick. 1. The issue isn't with Harper reducing taxes/introducing tax credits, it's the taxes he's reducing and the tax credits he's introducing that are debatable. I would take a revenue neutral swap between a greater GST and lower income tax any day. Likewise, I would pay more for gas via a carbon tax if I get to keep more of my income (hello BC), and I drive more than the average Canadian so I'd probably even come out behind on the deal until I make adjustments. Income splitting is widely panned. Increasing TFSA contribution room to $10000 has been talked about...how many Canadian families can put away $1650 per month (two adults = $20000) to save in a TFSA? 2. More or less granted, and thank you. Valid point, in my opinion. 3. The federal NDP has proposed a $5 billion per year plan to create 1 million daycare spaces for $15 per day. This means the cost is about $12 per Canadian, per month (5B / 36M Canadians, /12 months), plus the parents paying about $330-$360 per month, as opposed to current (in my experience) $800 per month fronted entirely by the parents. In other words, this will save working parents of young children $400-$500 per month and make it much easier for both parents to work, which is good for the economy and for overall family income. Conversely, income splitting and the upgrade to the child tax benefit will cost no less than $3 billion, or $7 per month, per Canadian. This will put between $60 and $227 per month ($2000/12 + $60) in the hands of parents, weighted in favour of wealthier families, and does not benefit the economy to anywhere near the same degree as adding potentially hundreds of thousands to the workforce. Which is the better program? Not all spending programs are bad, is what I'm trying to say. You can argue that we shouldn't play favourites with parents, it's not fair to those who choose to stay single, not have kids etc, but clearly at least the CPC and the NDP disagree - so if we're going to do it, why not do it well? 4. Is this about the long gun registry? Because that was about tracking guns, not taking them away. I wouldn't consider "he won't take ____ away" as a valid reason unless there is grounds to believe all the other options would take ____ away. 5. Our single most important ally, the United States, does not respect Stephen Harper. The Obama administration's attitude toward Keystone XL should make that abundantly clear. 6. This is a matter of opinion. FIPA was bad, and even CETA has it's issues. Canada has lost a disproportionate number of lawsuits under NAFTA, we do not have a winning record on the free trade. I support free trade...but as the issues with major pharmaceuticals and CETA show, free trade isn't necessarily "free." 7. Yes the CPC will, but there is no evidence to support the idea that harsher/stronger laws are an effective way to reduce crime. In fact, for offenders, harsher sentences result in higher recidivism. 8. Harper has had little focus on Ontario as well, but we will just look at your point which is east of the Ottawa river. This is not the way a leader should behave. How is ignoring a third of the country a merit? Maybe a national leader should focus on the whole nation and help the "non-productive Canada" become productive? A LPC or NDP supporter could just as easily claim that Justin Trudeau or Thomas Mulcair are worth of merit because they are not beholden to Alberta and Saskatchewan. 9. This is a fantastic point. I haven't seen this brought up anywhere, and hadn't considered it. Development of the north and northern sovereignty are both important to Canada's future, and Stephen Harper does appear to have interest in this file. +1 for Harper 10. Stephen Harper's record is good, mixed, or poor, based on an individual's values. He is consistent - another Harper majority would be more of the same. Consistency is a merit, but I don't know how many swing voters would consider his record a positive.

Hello, I'm new here in search of a discussion on what are the merits of Stephen Harper as Prime Minister. In other words, I want to know why someone might suggest someone should vote for Stephen Harper's CPC. Please note that I am not looking for reasons why someone should not vote for Justin Trudeau or Thomas Mulcair. Justin Trudeau's gaffes are well documented elsewhere and either an individual thinks much of them or they don't. Thomas Mulcair has struggled to connect with new voters and the reasons for that are a discussion for another time. I am doing my very best to remain impartial. I can provide a significant list of factual reasons (as well as some reasonable conclusions) to vote both for or "against" Justin Trudeau's LPC and Thomas Mulcair's NDP. I can also list many reasons why someone might choose to vote "against" Stephen Harper's CPC. However, there are only three narratives I have seen that support a vote for Stephen Harper's CPC. 1) He is a sound economic manager. I personally don't believe the evidence supports this, but let's also not debate this topic at this time. We will for now accept this as fact. 2) He is the leader best able to protect us from extremists who seek to threaten our freedoms (and similar). This is possibly true. Many agree, while others believe Stephen Harper is the greatest threat to our freedoms since the second world war. Again, let's not debate this (at least not yet). Let's assume that the voter you are trying to convince to vote for Stephen Harper is at least as concerned about Stephen Harper's democratic record as they are about extremists, and thus this is not a selling feature. 3) Justin Trudeau is in over his head, loves Islam, has never had a real job, is a trust fund baby that doesn't understand the middle class, wants to impose Sharia law, doesn't have a plan, thinks Quebec is better than the rest of Canada, thinks budgets balance themselves, loves China's dictatorship, etc, etc. Once again, these are reasons (assuming they are true and in context, which we will not debate here) to not vote for Justin Trudeau. They are not reasons to vote for Stephen Harper. So, to recap the question. What has Stephen Harper done, or promised to do, not listed above, that would merit a swing voter deciding to vote for a candidate for his party?

I agree that Laureen Harper has the potential to cause an uptick in voting intentions for the CPC. However, I don't think she will make a material difference in how the election plays out for the CPC, for two reasons. First, if a voter thinks Steven Harper is an evil dictator after 9 years in power, Laureen Harper isn't going to change that. Where Laureen will help the CPC vote is there may be a few people who are disillusioned CPC supporters that might get out to vote (when they otherwise would have stayed home) because of Laureen. This may translate into a few extra seats in swing ridings, but is unlikely to bridge a gap between minority and majority territory. Second, and more importantly, how the election plays out will likely be determined by three major factors that at this time are unknowns: How domestic and international security plays out between now and the election, the leader's debates, and the platform of the LPC. If tensions significantly escalate with ISIS and/or Ukraine, this will benefit the CPC (rightly or wrongly, they are widely perceived to be strongest on this file). If there are no further major attacks (or minor attacks within Canada), this will benefit the LPC (or NDP). The English leader's debates are where Justin Trudeau will either surprise with a strong performance, hold his own, or get skewered by Mulcair. The first two will shore up LPC support and likely result in a LPC minority, whereas the last will likely cause the LPC/NDP vote to split as well as increased CPC turnout causing another CPC majority. Lastly, the details of the LPC platform will either undermine or vindicate the CPC narrative that Justin Trudeau doesn't have a plan. At the end of the day, Justin Trudeau needs to present a reasonable platform once the writ drops, hold his own in the English debates, and hope that nothing happens that justifies a ground war. If that happens, he will get a strong minority, and if not the CPC will get either a minority or majority depending on how bad things get. Laureen Harper won't change any of that. As an aside, Stephen Harper won't ask the GG to go to the polls early unless there is a major international terror attack. If there is, he will go to the GG to ask to head to the polls immediately seeking a mandate for a significantly increased role in the Middle East. If there is no major attack, he will wait until October, as the longer he waits the greater the chance there will be an attack. Please don't misunderstand me; I'm not saying Harper is hoping for an attack, I'm just saying he will take advantage of one if it happens.