Things about the Tory government which disappoint me.

[jdobbin]

Would you put it past him given his reputation as a chess player and tactician?

So you are saying he has a hidden agenda?

[capricorn]

So you are saying he has a hidden agenda?

I'm not denying it. But hey, I almost feel part of the "in crowd".

[jdobbin]

I'm not denying it. But hey, I almost feel part of the "in crowd".

And yet the Tories bristle at the hidden agenda tag.

For example, Harper says he believes in global warming science and some of his supporters here who don't believe in global warning say he really doesn't mean it.

By that same toke when it is presupposed that the change in advocating for clemency for Canadians facing the death penalty outside of Canada is incrementalism to bringing back the death penalty in Canada, we are told Harper will never do that.

[bk59]

Of course, double standards or the accusation of them are a large part of what politics are all about. Don't be so sanctimonious.

Sorry, but that is complete BS. It's now sanctimonious to think that we should expect better from our politicians? Double standards may be part of the political scene right now, but Canadians deserve, and should expect, better both from their elected officials and from each other. This is why so many people get turned off of politics. Not only are politicians seen as useless, but their partisan supporters and their open willingness to throw rationality out the window also drives people away. Thinking we can all do better isn't sanctimony so much as it is optimism.

Which is never adhered to unless a party knows they are going to get creamed in the next election and want to hang on to power till the last possible second.

And since the "fixed election date" has obviously not changed that practice in the least you can see why I consider the legislation impractical. I'm willing to bet that even in a majority the governing party won't stick to the fixed election date.

Maybe so, maybe not but you still won't say if you would commit to Octobert 2009 as the next date.

There is nothing maybe about it. Harper is doing what he used to complain about and what he promised not to do.

Incidentally, me committing to an election in October 2009 is the same as me committing to reaching the moon by October 2009 (i.e. irrelevant since I have no control over elections or space travel). I'm not the Governor General (yes I know, that will come as a surprise to many of you), nor do I control a political party. As I said before, even if I had a choice of date for an election it would be irrelevant to this discussion about Harper changing his position on fixed election dates.

[bk59]

So you are saying he has a hidden agenda?

That's not really a hidden agenda though. What politician does not want to lead a majority in Parliament? A hidden agenda generally refers to policy not to campaign tactics.

Although if Harper is saying that he expects another minority then the next obvious question is, why is he thinking about calling an election if he does not think anything will change?

I'm guessing he does think something will change, but realizes that Canadians don't like it when their politicians start talking about winning majorities.

[capricorn]

And yet the Tories bristle at the hidden agenda tag.

Which politician wants to divulge his/her strategies? Strategic thinking and actions are integral to politics.

For example, Harper says he believes in global warming science and some of his supporters here who don't believe in global warning say he really doesn't mean it.

By that same toke when it is presupposed that the change in advocating for clemency for Canadians facing the death penalty outside of Canada is incrementalism to bringing back the death penalty in Canada, we are told Harper will never do that.

Yes dobbin, I read your posts and am well aware of your opinion on the modus operandi of Conservatives.

[capricorn]

I'm guessing he does think something will change, but realizes that Canadians don't like it when their politicians start talking about winning majorities.

I agree bk. Harper sweetened the pot when he said there may be a Conservative OR a Liberal minority. Whether intended or not, this had the effect of stroking scared voters to calm their fears. Even I feel more secure now, and I'm presently a supporter.

[jdobbin]

Yes dobbin, I read your posts and am well aware of your opinion on the modus operandi of Conservatives.

We have been told by Tom Flanagan in his Globe and Mail article that the Tories will try to achieve their aims by incrementalism. Think we can say that has been demonstrated on a number of issues.

[HisSelf]

Apologies if anyone has mentioned this. Maybe I missed it. Another thing that disappoints me about the Tories is their abrupt cancellation of the income trust regime. This tax regime built out the western oil and gas industry before the big commodity boom came along. Because of income trusts (Oil Sands Income Trust, anybody?) we were ready when the boom came along.

Harper's (and Flaherty's) mis-step on this issue hurt many many small investors - especially retirees, whom the Harper government has been trying very hard to suck up to ever since. It really angered a lot of very serious business people, not only in the west, but also on Bay Street.

What made it even more egregious is the fact that, when he was running for PM, Harper told us all that he would not touch income trusts.

Would you buy a used investment from this guy?

Edited September 3, 2008 by HisSelf