Conservatives cancel $4.7M arts travel program

[Argus]

Stephen Harper is spending more on the CBC than Martin did:

http://friendscb.org/News/Friends_News/arc...les08160803.asp

Do you suppose it's because Harper suddenly cares about the CBC? This is the sheer blinding hypocrisy of the Conservative Party.

Harper is in a minority government, which means doing all sorts of deals with the opposition, and not doing a lot of things he would almost certainly prefer to do - like getting rid of the all-but-useless CBC.

Now suppose you give me a reason why the Liberals, flush with cash, would not put money into a very obviously ailing health care system until their poll numbers started to fall.

Edited August 23, 2008 by Argus

[normanchateau]

Harper is in a minority government, which means doing all sorts of deals with the opposition, and not doing a lot of things he would almost certainly prefer to do - like getting rid of the all-but-useless CBC.

If Harper's actions as leader of a minority government merely reflect deal making rather than his actual beliefs or principles, should Canadians expect him to show his true colours as leader of a majority government?

If Harper were to achieve a majority and continue to fund the CBC generously, would you rationalize this as something he must do for subsequent re-election?

What deal was Harper doing with the opposition when he introduced USA-style legislation that one marijuana plant would warrant a mandatory sentence of six months in jail?

How are voters to analyze the spate of inconsistencies and determine which of Harper's actions reflect his true beliefs and which are motivated solely by deal making with the opposition?

[Smallc]

What deal was Harper doing with the opposition when he introduced USA-style legislation that one marijuana plant would warrant a mandatory sentence of six months in jail?

Well, actually its not really US style, it stems from the fact that he doesn't believe in or like drug use. I happen to agree with him, and though it may not solve anything, it may make some users think twice.

[Argus]

If Harper's actions as leader of a minority government merely reflect deal making rather than his actual beliefs or principles, should Canadians expect him to show his true colours as leader of a majority government?

I sure hope so. I hope he'd be more conservative. But who knows. He is a politician, after all.

If Harper were to achieve a majority and continue to fund the CBC generously, would you rationalize this as something he must do for subsequent re-election?

I would certainly wonder why he wasn't putting it up for sale, and why I had to continue to pay for your entertainment.

What deal was Harper doing with the opposition when he introduced USA-style legislation that one marijuana plant would warrant a mandatory sentence of six months in jail?

I would imagine that had nothing to do with the opposition, but more of an attempt to crack down on crime. I don't agree with that particular aspect, btw. I would far rather see severe crackdowns on those who use violence against others. I don't particularly care if someone is growing a few plants for his own use.

How are voters to analyze the spate of inconsistencies and determine which of Harper's actions reflect his true beliefs and which are motivated solely by deal making with the opposition?

Are you implying the task is somehow more difficult than analyzing what the Liberals say prior to an election, and what they say after they've won one? Because their "priorities" while in opposition and while campaigning seem to undergo drastic changes come the day after a winning election.

[normanchateau]

I sure hope so. I hope he'd be more conservative. But who knows. He is a politician, after all.

If you are referring to fiscal conservatism, I agree. His spending has been out of control.

On the other hand I am concerned that with a majority government, his social conservatism will result in further legislation to erode our civil liberties. While arguably Section 120 of Bill C-10 is not actual censorship but merely denial of tax credits for certain sexually explicit films, it creates a potential slippery slope towards government censorship of sexually explicit material. No wonder anti-pornography crusaders like Charles McVety support Bill C-10.

[guyser]

Well looky here...all these lousy artists and the arts community provide a rich benefit to Canada.

Who knew? Seems some didnt.

http://www.torontosun.com/Money/2008/08/27/6583916-sun.html

The 60-page study by the Conference Board of Canada, working in collaboration with the federal government, argues that culture generated $84.6 billion in economic benefits last year, or 7.4% of gross domestic product.

[jefferiah]

Well looky here...all these lousy artists and the arts community provide a rich benefit to Canada.

Who knew? Seems some didnt.

http://www.torontosun.com/Money/2008/08/27/6583916-sun.html

Well, if that's the case they should not need tax funding.

[guyser]

Well, if that's the case they should not need tax funding.

Uh...really? Did it state that the artists recieved the $84B?

[jefferiah]

Uh...really? Did it state that the artists recieved the $84B?

Did it state what "culture" encompasses?

[guyser]

Did it state what "culture" encompasses?

Huh?

[jefferiah]

Huh?

Well "culture" is a pretty broad term isn't it. Within the funding that goes into "culture" there are multiple programs, some more efficient than others. Billions are spent in funding this broad-ranged "culture industry", the tories want to slash close to 50 million I think.

Edited August 28, 2008 by jefferiah

[bk59]

Well, if that's the case they should not need tax funding.

Your point does not follow logically from the statement that culture provides economic benefits. Just because small businesses contribute to the economy does not mean that we should get rid of all incentives for small businesses. Just because youth make up a particular percentage of the workforce does not mean that we should get rid of all incentives to hire younger workers just entering the workforce.