Progressive Tory

You're right Mr. C. It was Paul Martin who started it, but Harper was very vocal in protest over the practice. That's fine by me though, because we borrowed from his Coalition idea. However, in light of what's at stake, I think it was a good idea. Not an honourable one perhaps, but a wise political move. Get the bad news out of the way. He's fighting for his political life, and needs to use whatever he can to turn public support back his way. I would expect nothing less, no matter who was in power. If he came out today and sprung the notion of a 64 billion dollar deficit, without preparing us for it .... Yikes! I was upset when Paul Martin did it (never liked or voted for him as PM), but he opened the door.

Then why would the Party's money guy tell the delegates at their own convention that they would be in the black only after receiving this 10 million? They may fundraise but also spend, spend, spend. 26 billion more taxpayer dollars then they took in. Harper gambled and lost. Another interesting thing from the convention: "Not only were Tories debating policy changes that threaten to expose divisions in their party, but the Harper government is increasingly at risk of running a deficit and under pressure to bail out industries. These are scenarios that its Reform and Canadian Alliance predecessor parties abhorred." He spoke at that convention but obviously didn't listen.

I can assure you that the Coalition is anything but dead and is free of cracks. In fact, the solidarity has been strengthened the past couple of weeks. As for Layton's wad. He's been given Viagra and is raring to go. 1. Show me the money 2. No broad based tax cuts. Unwavering.

WHAT? "the entire Liberal camp here was saying that Ignatieff must vote down the budget" The Liberals and Ignatieff have been saying all along that they were going to wait and see what was in it. Except for time of extreme provocation, like when the Parliamentary budget office told us the true state of the books, I've always said that I hoped the budget would pass, because the Cons shouldn't get off that easy. They spent a 13 billion dollar surplus and an additional 13 billion that we didn't have. This from a man who said he would never run a deficit. I don't know what Liberal camp you've been visiting, but the 'Tory bandwagon' has yet to come clean about our economy. 'We have a surplus...we will have a technical deficit...we may have a deficit...we could be in a depression...12 billion dollar defitict...30 billion dollar deficit....64 billion dollar deficit.' This budget has nothing to do with bringing relief to Canadians. It's all about saving Harper's job. Read the Calgary Herald.

For some Canadians (Progressive Tory comes to mind), whatever Harper does, it's wrong. Jdobbin started the thread with an article from the Canadian Press about pre-election spending. The opposition assumed Harper was a man of his word, so thought they had another year to prepare. They should have known better. It's not about who spends the most on travel, entertainment, etc. It was about his Party taking an unfair advantage because the Conservatives could use taxpayers money to campain.They did the same with the pre-election pamphlets that got them into hot water. They were the only ones who knew that Harper was about to break his own fixed date election law. This saved the Cons a lot of money because we paid for their first leg of the campaign. We just didn't realize it until later. I've always tried to give Stephen Harper the benefit of the doubt, but his actions during this Parliamentary crisis, I now have no doubt. He is a man of no integrity.

Ignatieff was living in the US at the time and like most living in the aftermath and atmosphere of 9/11 was ready to fight anyone (and if he dared say otherwise would have been arrested under the Patriot Act). I think his initial support of the Iraq War may have even been about the desire to remove Sadham (and of course those weapons of mass destruction). I think Bob Rae also thought we should remove the man. (In fact the US hired him to help with the transition team) It's no longer an issue.

Actually, my update this morning, is very clear about what Ignatieff and the Liberals want. Two priorities which were huge. 1. The true state of our books. The Liberals will not even consider the budget unless the Conservatives make this clear to the Canadian people. As it stands today, before any stimulus, we have a 13 BILLION DOLLAR DEFICIT. That has to go on record and cannot be neatly tucked away under deficit spending to stimulate the economy. That one is non-negotiable. (For me as well) 2. The budget cannot include any broad-base tax cuts that will extend the deficit once the recession is over. Ignatieff has always been very clear on this point. Recent polls have shown that Canadians do not want tax cuts - just infastructure spending. I know the budget includes the latter, but if the former is in play, the budget will probably be defeated. Hopefully, Flaherty is listening to the Canadian people and not his corporate cronies. Otherwise, he'd better see if they have a job for him, because he will no longer have this one.

I knew someone would jump on that, but when I think in terms of social programs, and yes 'families'; I see the broader picture. Most civilized countries encourage population growth in the form of procreation or immigration. It's just what they do and most governments work hard to ensure that continuity. I suppose it's really the topic of a separate thread because it involves a great many issues. However, 'families' are an integral part of society. Maybe I'm alone in that thought. Wouldn't be the first time.

There is something that many of you are overlooking here. Why was this made such a public issue? Let's look at the last Conservative Convention and their economic update, shall we. "On Saturday morning, delegates learned the party is in robust financial health. The head of the federal Conservative fundraising machine said the party will soon be debt-free and have cash in hand once $10-million in Elections Canada rebates are returned to the party following last month's election victory." http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/sto...l_gam_mostrecom So why a week and half later did Harper risk the 10 million that was going to get them out of debt and give them cash in hand? He knew he wouldn't have to. He had no intention of taking it away but knew that the opposition would react. They did. It became the biggest issue in the update, concealing what should have been the biggest issue in the update. The fact that we were already in a deficit buried in the 'proposed' selling off of Canadian assets. Why would they cave so quickly? Come on. When does Harper cave as quickly as he did over this isssue? Very clever. The news of the day was 'political welfare' and the media ran with it. We've become a nation of pawns waiting for cheap political tricks and media spin to do our thinking for us. You won't get Harper to take away that $ 1.95 for anything. His party would throw him out so fast his head would spin. He knew what he was doing. Sadly, you didn't. The Conservatives will not slit their own throats; not intentionally anyway.

I don't think a Social Conservative will take his place. However, after the merger, even Harper knew that he had to appease them. They are still a very large and vocal group and can't be silenced forever. The challenge will be to make them think they're the bride, while creatively postponing the wedding. But for how long?

I think we discussed this topic before but I took your poll.

I have heard from other people that Alberta does have a very good tax system. However, federally you're the same, or is there a system to offset federal taxes?.

Yikes! I wouldn't say that too loudly. The Convention I spoke of revealed pretty clearly what the priorities were. Abortion and the Human Rights Commission (against both). How long can Harper ignore them, or in fact any Conservative leader? They're a stronger presence than you think. If they broke away and formed their own Party or revived the Reformers, the Conservatives would be in serious trouble.

We'll call it flat tax with bumps. The theory is sound. Did it work in Alberta under Stockwell Day? Does anybody know?

I can only go by what I read in the papers. The Party blames Harper for the mess and have warned him to get them out of it, or else. Canada Press today states that they are putting out feelers for four possible candidates: Jean Charest, Bernard Lord (former Premier of New Brunswick), Jim Prentice and Peter Mackay. I'm a new supporter of the Liberal Party, but my years as a PC supporter gives me some insight as to the priorities of at least the Red Tories. Can't speak for the So-Cons.

I've addressed that with my response to Madmax. I wasn't here two months ago and the political climate has changed a lot in those two months.

I'll try to answer that. 1. I'm fairly new here so did not have an opportunity to weigh in on those topics. 2. The Dion factor was not the only thing that changed the direction of the Parliamentary Crisis. The theme of the counter attack was the issue of the Coalition itself being a 'coup', 'treason', undemocratic'. All terms used by the Tories. However, evidence of Harper's so-called 'coup' in 2004 surfaced and put a different perspective on the issue. But perhaps the worst Tory attack was 'separatist', suggesting that by making a deal with the 'Bloc', meant an attempt to divide the country. Again, another hypocrisy since Harper's own coalition included the Bloc. 3. The Dion issue, though I don't think I've used that much recently, was actually raised by others when discussing Ignatieff's shadow cabinet. 4. The Conservative leadership issue has become more of a 'front burner' issue with the revelations I've mentioned above. It is a very real possibility, more so now than a month ago when more Canadians were behind Harper. This budget is all about HIS job. He knows it, the media knows it, and most people here know it. A new Conservative leader is also on the minds of Conservatives, who according to the Canadian Press "Have begun putting out feelers".

The last Conservative Convention brought out some interesting priorities, but it wasn't a Leadership Convention. Your views are shared by many though it seems. The Party is moving away from it's original goals and needs someone to get them back on track. The scandals must be hurting them as well. Preston Manning was a much better leader, in terms of Social Conservatism and fiscal responsibility.

Exactly. Harper is not only on probation with the Opposition, but also with the Conservative Party. I just don't know if he can live within those confines. It's not in his nature to be conciliatory.

You're probably right to a certain extent. But what about extra tax credits for the disabled or the most vulnerable in our society?

I hope not. Harper is no longer in a position to play antagonist. He only has his own Party's support and even that is wavering. If he tries to pull anything now we can only assume that he no longer wants to be PM or Leader of the Conservative Party.

That's interesting. Is that anything like Stockwell Day's "flat tax" in Alberta, or are you only thinking in terms of tax deductions and credits? I'm all for a fairer tax system, especially for families.

When Mike Harris was caught on tape meeting with a known member of organized crime; he took one for the team and resigned. But what many people don't know is that the same man also donated heavily to the campaigns of Jim Flaherty ($ 40,000), John Baird and Tony Clement. However, in my local paper this morning they've brought up a couple of people I hadn't really considered. From a Canadian Press story: "...Supporters of at least four potential successors - Quebec Premier Jean Charest, former New Brunswick Premier Bernard Lord, Environment Minister Jim Prentice and Defence Minister Peter Mackay - have begun putting out feelers. Should the government be defeated over the budget, many Tories privately predict Harper would be toast." They don't mention John Baird so maybe he knows he wouldn't stand a chance.

I really think that the budget will pass, though I expect with a little bit of back and forth. However, the spirit of non-confidence will remain, with the looming threat of a similar motion in the future. We should see a less partisan Stephen Harper, more willing to work with the opposition.

Shouldn't this be under the pro-marijuana thread? LOL. Sounds like Eutopia, but not at all practical.