normanchateau

<{POST_SNAPBACK}> Oh no, a week old! Imagine expecting Harper to have not changed his position or not flipflopped for an entire week. That is expecting a lot

When did the Conservatives say that they have no interest in cutting personal or business taxes? <{POST_SNAPBACK}> The Conservatives have said they'll reduce the GST. If they also plan to cut personal or business taxes, they've not said so. This is why numerous economists have come out today against Harper's plan to cut the GST rather than corporate and personal taxes.

Are you seriously equating Grewal taping a conversation and the millions of dollars stolen from Canadian taxpayers and then funneled back to the government party for use during election campaigns? I wasn't even referring to the tapes. Grewal was involved in numerous sleazy antics and was still under investigation for two charges when he resigned "for the good of the party". But let's return to my questions. The liar Stephen Harper stated on November 24th that the Liberals were "guilty of breaking every conceivable law in the province of Quebec." Can you name a single Liberal MP running in the January election who has broken every conceivable law? Can you name a single Liberal MP running in the next election who has broken even one law? Harper might try being honest for a change instead of fabricating stories.

It definitely is surprising that the Conservatives have no interest in cutting personal or business taxes. That was certainly the policy of Preston Manning and the Reform Party. But then again, Preston Manning and Stephen Harper had a falling out which neither seems keen to discuss. Preston Manning was a populist who did remarkably well in BC. Harper has not only lost most of the former PCs but he can't even keep the BC Reform Party supporters.

Would your response have been more in acceptance if he had cited a Liberal or an NDP source? It was very appropriate to cite a source the conservatives themselves consider to be credible. It may be seldom, but very notable when a think tank or a lobby group one normally disagrees with has some points one can agree with. What I find more interesting is where the Liberals were criticized of buying votes, the Conservatives are now doing the same. Such habit is not new to Harper. <{POST_SNAPBACK}> Thank you Daniel for explaining precisely why I used a financially conservative economist as my source. My comment would have been discounted had I used a Liberal or NDP source. As is, the Harper supporters on this site have yet to provide a single sound, economic reason to refute Dr. Grubel's point that a reduction in personal and business taxes is far more stimulatory to Canada's economoy than a 2% reduction in the GST. But perhaps, as you point out, Harper believes this will buy him a few votes. I think it will buy him a view votes but only among those with no appreciation of what drives an economy. It must be especially galling to CPC supporters to have Canada leading all G-8 nations in economic growth then trying to tout an econmoic lightweight like Harper as someone who will stimulate the economy by a 2% cut in the GST. He should stick to what he knows best...social conservatism and intolerance.

Looks like CPC has completely blown it once again. In the November 22, 2005, issue of the Vancouver Sun, reporter Peter O'Neil published an economist's opinion on the proposed 2% cut in the GST. The economist is Dr. Herb Grubel (PhD in Economics) of the Fraser Institute. Grubel was a Reform MP in the 90's. Grubel was Reform's first Finance critic in 1993 and 1994, was co-critic along with Stephen Harper in 1995, and was again sole Finance critic in 1996 and 1997. To quote Grubel, "Cutting the GST rather than business or personal income taxes may be good politics but it is definitely very bad economics." Grubel said numerous studies have shown business and personal income taxes are three times more damaging to the economy than the GST in terms of acting as a disincentive for Canada's workforce. Looks like Harper doesn't understand rudimentary economics or even worse, understands them but chooses not to follow them. No wonder Grubel, and not Harper, was Finance critic when both of them were in the Reform Party. Grubel is a sound financial conservative and Senior Fellow at the Fraser Institute. Even a right wing think tank like the Fraser has problems with Harper's take on economic issues. Harper's expertise appears to be more in the realm of social conservatism. Alas for Harper, there aren't enough Bible thumpers in all of Canada to ever get him elected.

Of course I favour freedom of religion and that includes defending the freedom of Harper and his supporters to be intolerant and hate lesbians if that's what their religion preaches. But the irrational fear that religious people will be arrested for hating gays is one which seems to be unique to the religious zealots and Bible thumpers surrounding Harper and his party. The Bible already says hateful things about other ethnic groups and religions but Harper and the Bible thumpers don't seem to have irrational fears about being arrested for preaching on those issues. They seem only to be worried about arrests for saying hateful things about gays and lesbians. Too bad Harper has allowed the religious zealots in his party to decide what issues are important to him. No wonder Canadians will reject him at the polls.

Oh that nasty, nasty Gilles Duceppe. It's all his fault that Harper acknowledged to reporters that he'd revisit C-38 if elected Prime Minister. This issue alone is sufficient to finish off Harper in Quebec and BC.

C-250 added sexual orientation to the list of criteria in hate crimes legislation. The legislation is now in place because the Liberals, NDP and PQ unanimously supported it. It is not a crime to say unflattering things about homosexuals nor was it a crime before C-250. However, if someone physically assaults or murders an individual merely because he's gay, C-250 stiffened the penalties. Harper opposed that, i.e., he opposed adding gay bashing to hate crimes legislation. This issue has especially inflamed voters in Quebec and BC who believe such intolerance, motivated by irrational religious motives, are not the characteristics they want in a Prime Minster. :angry:

Aren't you forgetting that Harper did raise a far more important issue on the very first day of the campaign? He said that he'd revisit bill C-38. Yes, trying once again to prevent lesbians from marrying is an even more important issue to Harper than Adscam. Gilles Duceppe expressed surprise that Harper chose this as his first issue in the campaign and said, with respect to Harper's plan, "I will oppose it with all my strength." Quebec favours SSM more than any other province in Canada. Second comes British Columbia. CPC candidates in those two provinces can thank Harper for campaigning on taking away the rights of lesbians to marry. No wonder CPC is projected to win zero seats in Quebec and lose up to half of their BC seats. Yesterday the unfortunate CPC candidate in Vancouver Centre distanced himself from Harper's remarks, Harper has an amazing capacity to stagger from stepping in cowpies to sinking in quicksand.

Depends on whether you want him to win or lose. Those who want him to lose I'm sure would rather that he campaigned on Adscam and "Liberal corruption." It resulted in Harper getting only 29.6% of the popular vote in 2004 and given the enthusiasm of most Canadians for this issue, it will likely produce an even lower percentage in 2006.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}> I'm sure CPC supporters don't care and would much prefer that the rest of Canada forgets where Harper stands on gay bashing.

So Harper saying that the Liberals were "guilty of breaking every conceivable law in the province Quebec" is taking the high road? By the way given Harper's claims of "Liberal corruption", can you name a single Liberal MP running in this election who has broken a law in Quebec or any other province?

As long as neither Harper nor CPC is the topic, the Conservatives are doing well. Not talking about the economy is also a good strategy for the Conservatives given that Canada leads all the other G-8 nations on most measures of economic success.

You've missed the point as to why Harper opposes bill C-250. C-250 added sexual orientation to hate crimes legislation. Harper has no problem with hate crimes legislation per se. He's 100% in favour of hate crimes legislation for crimes motivated by a person's race, ethnicity or religion. He only opposes it if it's for gay bashing. So Harper favours hate crimes legislation if someone is killed for being Christian, or Chinese or Irish. But he opposes it if someone is killed for being gay. With that kind of logic, it's no wonder that Harper will never, never appeal to a majority of Canadians. Most Canadians are logical and fair-minded.

Relook? I agree: SSM is an issue of such little significance that I can't imagine why we'd be talking about it when there's so many real issues to be addressed. -k <{POST_SNAPBACK}> We're talking about it in part because it's CPC policy. At their last major policy convention, CPC approved opposition to C-38 as part of their platform Obviously they think it's a real issue.

With Harper at the helm, CPC has managed to drop into the high 20's territory in BC in the last few months. First Harper lost the PCs and now even the Reform/Alliance types are slipping away. Great leader of the "unite the right". Bye bye CPC.

You must not have gone to the link I provided. If you go that link you'll see Harper said that the Liberals were "guilty of breaking every conceivable law in the province Quebec." You actually view that statement as quoting the truth? Every conceivable law? These are exactly the type of lies we've come to expect from Harper. Can you name a single Liberal MP running in the January election who has broken every conceivable law? Can you name a single Liberal MP running in the next election who has broken even one law? The "Liberal corruption" chant and drone didn't work last time and it won't work this time. Canadians are fair-minded. They know that their current Liberal MPs had no more to do with adscam than the other CPC MPs had to do with the antics of Grewal or the NDP MPs had to do with Svend's ring. Bye bye Harper and save your lies for the CPC supporters.

Harper has flipflopped and dithered so many times that few even know his current position on healthcare. Here's what it was last year when he actually attacked the Preston Manning and Mike Harris position on health care: http://www.vivelecanada.ca/article.php/20050430091919834

Actually Negative Stephen Harper beat him to the punch by four days: http://www.politicswatch.com/election-nov24-2005.htm

CPC currently holds 22 seats. Most projections have them losing half of them based on the fact that they're now polling 30% or lower. Your projections must be based on something other than polling data. Could it beishful thinking?

I can understand your frustration in supporting a candidate with such weak prospects for remaining leader after January, let alone ever becoming Prime Minister. But in future I will not respond to personal attacks, however inappropriate they might be. :angry:

Fair question. While I think it highly unlikely that Harper will win even a minority, it is even less likely that Martin will win a majority. In my opinion, Harper will disappear rather quickly after the next election. Following the 2004 election, he disappeared for months, apparently brooding and trying to decide whether he should stay on. Whether he quits or is dumped, I believe he'll disappear fairly soon. I'm not quite so sure about Martin. Certainly the Liberal knives will be out to get him but whether he'll go quietly or go at all is hard to say. I think he's stronger than most people realize. He has the dubious distinction of taking down a sitting Prime Minister of his own party. By contrast, Harper's attempts to deal with Manning were relatively unsuccessful so he quit Reform, joined NCC, until that party, recrystallized as Alliance, dumped Manning. I see Harper as a very weak leader compared to the other three. He wasn't able to get rid of Grewal until Grewal resigned. He wasn't able to keep the religious zealots out...people like Darrel Reid, former President of Focus on the Family, the Richmond, British Columbia CPC candidate who is not only anti-abortion but also anti stem cell research. Even many US Republicans favour stem cell research given it's potential to treat Alzheimer's and many other debilitating illnesses. I suspect it is people like Reid who are responsible for Harper's statement yesterday that he'll revisit C-38. To be fair to Harper, I don't think he cares a damn about SSM one way or the other. But the religious zealots in his party do and he seems unable to control them in my opinion. The former PCs kept the religious zealots away which is perhaps one reason why they were viewed as a credible alternative to the Liberals.

Remarkable indeed. In British Columbia in 1997, the Reform Party picked up 43% of the vote and the PCs 6-7%. In British Columbia in 2000, the Alliance Party picked up 49% of the vote and the PCs 6-7%. In British Columbia in 2004, after the two parties united under Harper's leadership, the Conservatives picked up 36% of the vote. And if an election were held today, somewhere between 25 and 35% of British Columbia voters are projected to vote for the Conservatives and the Conservatives are expected to lose at least half of their BC seats. Not only has Harper failed to retain most of the PC voters, he even seems to have alienated many former Reform and Alliance voters who are migrating to the Liberals and NDP. Preston Manning was a fiscal conservative but he managed to distance himself from the religious zealots and Focus on the Family types now so prevalent in CPC. I can't imagine Manning saying he would revisit C-38 if elected. And I can't imagine Manning leading a campaign to exclude gay bashing ftom hate crimes legislation. Time for a change in leadership CPC!

Oh really? Then why did Harper and his party vote against C-250? And why has he promised to revisit C-38? And why does the party have a huge number of religious zealots, anti-abortionists and Focus on the Family types running in this election? See: http://www.valleysceptic.com/conservatives...by_zealots.html