Is Harper just a continuation the Mulroney years?

[windyman]

In some ways, I think Harper is just a continuation of Brian Mulroney. He sucks up the the USA by putting American interests before Canadian interests (Harper did it in a military way in Afghanistan, while Mulroney completely Canada out to Reagan and Bush senior with FTA in 1989 and NAFTA in 1992), both try desperately to appease Quebec nationalists, and both were corrupt in their own little ways (the only difference was that Harper already has scandals going into his 3rd year while Mulroney managed to last much longer).

Between the two, I would even say that Mulroney was in some ways better. He was open minded towards Native issues, while Harper just shums the issue completely, and Mulroney helped set up employment and assistance funds for new immigrants while Harper rejects them because they're not white.

Nonetheless, the similarities are clear. Harper is another Mulroney in the making, both had weak and useless Liberal leaders to oppose them.

[Moonbox]

I think your comparison for Harper to Mulroney is baseless.

I would also say that the only reason for your comparison is that they were both right wing and the opposite to whatever left or centre left party you vote for blindly.

BTW the Liberals sent Canada to Afghanistan. Once there, it's hard to get out. So what you're really saying then is that the Liberals were sucking up to the USA right?

Harper is rejecting new immigrants because they're not white? How about how he is going to be fast tracking foreign students and people with work visas into the country ahead of other immigrant applicants? Why spend money getting unqualified workers jobs when you can get the qualified ones here on a temporary basis to stay for good as permanent residents? I think you don't know what you're talking about and are just blowing hot air.

[Topaz]

I think your comparison for Harper to Mulroney is baseless.

I would also say that the only reason for your comparison is that they were both right wing and the opposite to whatever left or centre left party you vote for blindly.

BTW the Liberals sent Canada to Afghanistan. Once there, it's hard to get out. So what you're really saying then is that the Liberals were sucking up to the USA right?

Harper is rejecting new immigrants because they're not white? How about how he is going to be fast tracking foreign students and people with work visas into the country ahead of other immigrant applicants? Why spend money getting unqualified workers jobs when you can get the qualified ones here on a temporary basis to stay for good as permanent residents? I think you don't know what you're talking about and are just blowing hot air.

You say its hard to get out of Afghanistan, then when Harper says we are out 2011, then he's lying, because it TOO HARD to get out??? The military says they need 7000 yearly just to maintain the military now that we are sending our troops into danger and losing their lives, how are we going to be able to keep the numbers up unless Harper makes it mandatory 5 years of service and IF he doesn't get that majority he won't be able to do it.

[August1991]

I think your comparison for Harper to Mulroney is baseless.

I would also say that the only reason for your comparison is that they were both right wing and the opposite to whatever left or centre left party you vote for blindly.

On the contrary, Harper seems to have put back together the coalition that Mulroney forged between the West, small town Ontario and Quebec outside Montreal. In a different era, this is what kept Sir John A. Macdonald in power for so long.

There is no doubt in my mind that Harper is PM now because he won 11 seats in Quebec in 2006 and he won those seats because Mulroney had made the Tories viable in Quebec after many decades when they weren't. What is remarkable now is that Harper is a WASP whose French is less than perfect. Yet, his support in Quebec is personal and he is not using a proxy or lieutenant.

Regionalism, not ideology, drives Canadian politics.

This election has the potential to cement what Mulroney started. Harper may do very well in Quebec and if news reports during the campaign imply this, then some Ontario voters might shift to the Tories to choose a "national" party.

[Ontario Loyalist]

In some ways there is a similarity with Diefenbaker. I don't think it's a coincidence that Harper just happened to be in the arctic shortly before this election and that the new boat will be named after Dief.

[Moonbox]

I'll just take each post one at a time.

As for Afghanistan, yes, it IS hard to leave once you've invested time and lives into it. If you invade another country, topple its government and hope to set up a democracy, you can't just leave halfway through the job. If you do leave before things are stable, the insurgency you have been fighting takes over and you end up with a government that's even more hostile and dangerous before. If that happens, then 100 Canadian soldiers, who likely believed they were fighting for a reason, will have died to make things worse in another country. Tell THAT to their families.

Again, the Conservatives didn't send the troops there in the first place. The liberals did. The CPC is just looking at the situation from reasoned perspective rather than knee-jerk partisanship like the Liberals would.

As for Mulroney deriving support from Quebec and the West:

Umm...Okay? I thought the idea was to gather support in important areas so that you can win the election...Saying Harper is similar to Mulroney on that basis is like saying Dion is similar to Paul Martin because they focus on Ontario. Yes, politics are regional. What is your point as pertaining its relevance to this thread?

Finally, yes, it was definetly tacky IMO to name that ship the Dief.

[M.Dancer]

In some ways there is a similarity with Diefenbaker. I don't think it's a coincidence that Harper just happened to be in the arctic shortly before this election and that the new boat will be named after Dief.

The old Icebreaker is named Louis St laurent. Dief was the next PM after St. Laurent. In 30 years time the next one will i would wager be named Pearson.

[Moonbox]

ah good to know. Never even thought of that.

[normanchateau]

In some ways, I think Harper is just a continuation of Brian Mulroney.

Yes and no. Yes, he's a continuation in that Mulroney was a big spender and Harper is a big spender. Neither is behaving in a way you'd expect a financial conservative to behave. Mulroney drove the country into deficit. Harper is taking us in that direction with his out-of-control spending and multibillion dollar handouts such as 4 billion dollars from the rest of Canada promised to Quebecers to buy their votes:

http://www.taxpayer.com/main/news.php?news_id=2954

No, Harper's not a continuation in that Mulroney was socially moderate and an environmentalist. Harper is so socially conservative that he even voted against making it a hate crime to promote or advocate the killing of homosexuals. The legislation passed thanks to support from the Liberals, PCs, Bloc and NDP. But religious nut Harper voted against it. Yet Harper has no problem with hate crime legislation per se.

[Ontario Loyalist]

The old Icebreaker is named Louis St laurent. Dief was the next PM after St. Laurent. In 30 years time the next one will i would wager be named Pearson.

So what? There's no rule about it having to be named after the next PM.

No, the next one will be named after a PM from the party in power, and any of these parties still exist by that point... just that the Louis St. Laurent was... perhaps the CCGS Elizabeth May ?

Edited September 8, 2008 by Ontario Loyalist

[M.Dancer]

So what? There's no rule about it having to be named after the next PM.

No, the next one will be named after a PM from the party in power, and any of these parties still exist by that point... just that the Louis St. Laurent was...

I agree. So what. Another non issue.

[Ontario Loyalist]

I agree. So what. Another non issue.

Yes, I've noticed that about your posts...

[normanchateau]

(the only difference was that Harper already has scandals going into his 3rd year while Mulroney managed to last much longer).

Depends on how you define scandal. The following cabinet ministers resigned or were fired for wrongdoing during Mulroney's first term in office: Robert Coates, Marcel Masse, John Fraser, Sinclair Stevens, André Bissonnette, Roch La Salle. Not a cabinet minister but equally embarrassing to the Conservatives was Quebec MP Michel Gravel, who in 1986 was charged with 50 counts of fraud and influence peddling. He later pleaded guilty to 15 charges, paid a $50,000 fine and served four months in jail.

If Mulroney is any example, Harper could have large numbers of scandals and still be re-elected with another majority. No one is going to vote against lawbreaker Harper for breaking his own election date law. Even a recording of Harper talking about a bribe to Cadman won't do him in. Nor will profligate spending nor a history of social conservatism and intolerance. Nothing will prevent Harper from getting a majority at this point.

For all intents and purposes, the election campaign is over.

[Moonbox]

Yes, I've noticed that about your posts...

I'm more inclined to notice it about yours. You tried to draw a comparison between Harper and Dief (who only had that they were conservatives in common really) based on the naming of an Icebreaker of all things.

We were kindly provided with the rationale for the naming of the ship, even then you tried to make that into a partisan issue. Dancer's reply to you was spot on.

[Ontario Loyalist]

I'm more inclined to notice it about yours. You tried to draw a comparison between Harper and Dief (who only had that they were conservatives in common really) based on the naming of an Icebreaker of all things.

We were kindly provided with the rationale for the naming of the ship, even then you tried to make that into a partisan issue. Dancer's reply to you was spot on.

No, I think the whole arctic thing in general was taken from Diefenbaker, who also tried to use it to define his reign. Dief also used to whine about the media, just like Harper. The true degree of emulation will only be known once the books start to be written...

[Wild Bill]

You say its hard to get out of Afghanistan, then when Harper says we are out 2011, then he's lying, because it TOO HARD to get out??? The military says they need 7000 yearly just to maintain the military now that we are sending our troops into danger and losing their lives, how are we going to be able to keep the numbers up unless Harper makes it mandatory 5 years of service and IF he doesn't get that majority he won't be able to do it.

What are you talking about? I genuinely can't figure out the logic behind your post.

Mathematically, 7000 out of a population of over 30 million is "mice nuts"! The problem is not in getting people. We have more than enough applying, or would have if we treated out troops better.

The problem is that we have starved our military so badly for resources that after someone signs up we might need a year before we have a bunk available in training camp! Or an instructor available to train them!

Even if we did need something as crazy as a mandatory draft to come up with only 7000 applicants per year we couldn't get them trained and into uniform until we fixed the REAL problems!

Next you'll be blaming Harper for hurricanes and earthquakes.

[Moonbox]

This whole thread is fascinating...in the sense that it's interesting to wait and see what sort of wacky theories/opinions people come up with.

Edited September 8, 2008 by Moonbox

[normanchateau]

The problem is that we have starved our military so badly for resources

In his 2005 budget, Paul Martin increased military spending by 12.8 billion dollars over five years. Buy how much has Stephen Harper increased military spending beyond that?

[Moonbox]

Not enough to really make a difference. Our military budget needed increases unless we wanted our soldiers driving Honda Civics rather than APCs.

[normanchateau]

Our military budget needed increases unless we wanted our soldiers driving Honda Civics rather than APCs.

Paul Martin increased it by 12.8 billion. How much did Stephen Harper increase it by?

[Argus]

In some ways, I think Harper is just a continuation of Brian Mulroney. He sucks up the the USA by putting American interests before Canadian interests

It's always gratifying when a poster reveals in his very first sentence that reading any further would be a waste of time.

[Argus]

Paul Martin increased it by 12.8 billion. How much did Stephen Harper increase it by?

If I recall my ancient history, Martin slashed military spending repeatedly during his time as Finance Minister. He proposed to add billions more in a budget which sent something like this.

1st year Six dollars more.

2nd year Eight dollars more.

3rd year Twelve dollars more

4th year 1 billion dollars more.

5th year 11 billion dollars more!

Of course, any real boost in military spending required he be in power for 5 year and that, come year five, he actually live up to his promise.

[jdobbin]

Of course, any real boost in military spending required he be in power for 5 year and that, come year five, he actually live up to his promise.

The Tories have lived up to his continued support for the health system as noted in both the Globe and National Post. It is one of the reasons that Harper didn't face the hue and cry from the provinces on this particularly sensitive matter.

The Tories also kept up with most of the Liberal military spending promises although they cancelled the supply ships and patrol ships.

[Smallc]

cancelled the supply ships

Well, technically, the process was restarted. A setback, but not a cancellations.