Harper Government: Honest

[William Ashley]

we have a government that doesn't steal for personal benefit.

Yeah getting caught stealing because of ineptness usually doesn't benefit the theif.

Will Harper's cabinet suffer a scandal? Dunno.

Is this the gun harper has to the heads of the opposition - OH YEAH I'LL JUST PROROGUE PARLIAMENT ANYTIME YOU START TO ASK QUESTIONS ABOUT THE DOMESTIC AND INTERNATIONAL LAWS CRIMINAL CIVIL AND PROCEDURAL OUR PARTY BREAKS!!! SO THERE!!

Is that really the type of leader you want?

Does this method of government make for a better Canada? Dunno.

What Canada? Canada does not equal the Government it equals the people, and if the people have no say in how it is run - that is not a representational government, it is supression.

But for the first time in a long time, we have honest ministers.

Where?

Really is the butchering this guy and his party are writting and the potential starving and deadlock of parliament not something Canadians should prevent - without a passing budget there is no government. Without reasonable governance and reasonable NON political NUTS like Harper, there is no government, with no government a lot of services die. With the grandstanding and PARTISAN manouvering he and his party have pulled, can you honestly entrust the nation to this person when he is sacraficing the country for his own gain, day after day?

Edited January 7, 2010 by William Ashley

[madmax]

I think its time to change the title to

Harper Government: Status Quo

[DrGreenthumb]

If they wanted to really cut political party welfare they should make political donations non-tax deductible. The only money parties should get is the per vote allowance. The tax deduction only favours the parties that represent people with the most money. Most people that vote NDP for instance don't have an extra 1000 bucks they can donate.

[ToadBrother]

I had a longer post but because of Greg's "upgrade", or my incompetence, I lost it.

In essence, Wild Bill states my point.

For the first time in a long time (40 years or so), we have a government that doesn't steal for personal benefit. Will Harper's cabinet suffer a scandal? Dunno. Does this method of government make for a better Canada? Dunno.

But for the first time in a long time, we have honest ministers.

Who abused a Reserve Power in 2008 to evade a confidence motion.

[Mr.Canada]

Who abused a Reserve Power in 2008 to evade a confidence motion.

Seems Canadians agreed with Harper then doesn't it? 70% were against a coalition government at that time. So sorry doesn't hold water. Try again?

[nicky10013]

Seems Canadians agreed with Harper then doesn't it? 70% were against a coalition government at that time. So sorry doesn't hold water. Try again?

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/bureau-blog/prorogation-has-hit-a-nerve/article1422003/

[ToadBrother]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/bureau-blog/prorogation-has-hit-a-nerve/article1422003/

Like I said. The polls only seem to count when their against the other guy. They can be handwaved or ignored when they're against your team. What Canadians want more than anything else, I suspect, is for Parliament to bloody well do its job, and maybe, just maybe, if Iggy and the Liberals can pull off their little Rump Parliament scheme, they might actually convince Canadians that they deserve it more than the Conservatives.

[Mr.Canada]

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/blogs/bureau-blog/prorogation-has-hit-a-nerve/article1422003/

Lol, say whatever you want now but wait til Ignatieff starts opening his mouth again, his numbers will drop like a stone, the man is a PR disaster and loses the PR battles every time.

Like I always say when Ignatieff stays quiet, he rises in the polls and when he speaks his numbers drop quite predictaby I might add.

I'm not at all worried. Like Dief said "Polls are for dogs".

[nicky10013]

Like I said. The polls only seem to count when their against the other guy. They can be handwaved or ignored when they're against your team. What Canadians want more than anything else, I suspect, is for Parliament to bloody well do its job, and maybe, just maybe, if Iggy and the Liberals can pull off their little Rump Parliament scheme, they might actually convince Canadians that they deserve it more than the Conservatives.

Of course the way it goes. But the argument has always been that proroging hasn't hurt the Conservatives at all in the polls and that just simply isn't the case. Saying something over and over doesn't make it true.

[ToadBrother]

Lol, say whatever you want now but wait til Ignatieff starts opening his mouth again, his numbers will drop like a stone, the man is a PR disaster and loses the PR battles every time.

Like I always say when Ignatieff stays quiet, he rises in the polls and when he speaks his numbers drop quite predictaby I might add.

I'm not at all worried. Like Dief said "Polls are for dogs".

And Charles I say "Wadda I need Parliament for..." (well he didn't exactly say it, but it certainly summed up his feelings in 1629). There are lots of famous last words in this world, some more last than others.

[Pliny]

After a couple weeks preparation, here is what Michael Ignatieff said Friday - Liberals want to examine documents "whether Canada complied with International law and whether it has respected human rights - and a document about the conduct of our troops in the field". Ignatieff is no Stephane Dion. Ignatieff is a distinguished Harvard professor, with an excellent command of the English language, and with his carefully chosen words, there is no confusion as to what he said.

A stinging indictment if I ever heard one!

[DrGreenthumb]

You Conservatives are really pathetic. Hidng behind our troops to avoid criticism. Cowards.

[August1991]

You Conservatives are really pathetic. Hidng behind our troops to avoid criticism. Cowards.

Have Conservative ministers used our money to fly abroad, paint their houses?

How many Conservative ministers have hired friends as chauffeurs and taken them to Paris? How much has Harper allowed his ministers to spend in restaurants, or in airplanes?

The caucus and cabinet of Trudeau, Chretien and Martin were close to Ottawa. Harper has a different caucus. (Mulroney is a different story.) Yet, Harper has kept his caucus and cabinet in line.

There have have been no spending scandals. And the MSM says nothing. At most, there has been Richard Colvin, a civil servant with an iron rice bowl, who questions this government. Huh?

There are three possibilities:

1. The government is honest.

2. The opposition is incompetent.

3. The MSM (National Post, Le Devoir, Toronto Star, TQS etc) is bankrupt.

So far, I am inclined to say that Harper has kept his caucus honest.

[waldo]

There have have been no spending scandals.

this seems to align with the definition of "honesty" conveyed within your OP... one that (continues to) narrowly restrict, truthfully - or not, the measured level of decreed August1991 honesty to Harper Conservative spending actions? And if that's the case, where do such things as 'Shovelgate' and 'Logogate' fit... is that Canadians money, or Harper Conservative's money being used to win votes for local Conservative MPs?

[nicky10013]

Have Conservative ministers used our money to fly abroad, paint their houses?

How many Conservative ministers have hired friends as chauffeurs and taken them to Paris? How much has Harper allowed his ministers to spend in restaurants, or in airplanes?

The caucus and cabinet of Trudeau, Chretien and Martin were close to Ottawa. Harper has a different caucus. (Mulroney is a different story.) Yet, Harper has kept his caucus and cabinet in line.

There have have been no spending scandals. And the MSM says nothing. At most, there has been Richard Colvin, a civil servant with an iron rice bowl, who questions this government. Huh?

There are three possibilities:

1. The government is honest.

2. The opposition is incompetent.

3. The MSM (National Post, Le Devoir, Toronto Star, TQS etc) is bankrupt.

So far, I am inclined to say that Harper has kept his caucus honest.

The flight logs of the PM haven't been released. Nor have the logs of other cabinet ministers. Nor have spending figures on restaurants and the like have been released. Say what you want about the Liberals, at least they released the figures. The Conservatives haven't, so, who knows what they're hiding. One of the only things we do know is that in 4 years the Conservatives have spent 4x the amount of government money through the privy council on behalf of the PMO than the Liberals did in 12 on partisan polling.

Not to mention the fact that the CPC bribed a Chuck Cadman with a million dollar life insurance policy to attempt to bring down the Martin Government. No one likes to remember that littly diddy.

Edited January 12, 2010 by nicky10013

[August1991]

this seems to align with the definition of "honesty" conveyed within your OP... one that (continues to) narrowly restrict, truthfully - or not, the measured level of decreed August1991 honesty to Harper Conservative spending actions? And if that's the case, where do such things as 'Shovelgate' and 'Logogate' fit... is that Canadians money, or Harper Conservative's money being used to win votes for local Conservative MPs?

I think that an honest cabinet - ministers not on the take - is a good start. As a minimum, it starts to give the institution of government some credibility. (I must admit to some ambivalence on this point. I would prefer that people develop a healthy suspicion of all politicians and government bureaucrats. And yet, government plays a critical role in a civilized society.)

True, many Canadians fundamentally disagree with Harper, but Harper has made the federal government a trustworthy institution. Stephen Harper runs an honest government. Since 2006, there has been no "money in ministerial pocket" scandals.

Compared to previous federal PMs, on this point, Harper is remarkable. He's the U Thant of Canadian politics. Mr. Clean.

-----

I have a suspicion that much of the MSM/CBC amertume directed at Harper is due to cynical journalists/politicians who believed that politics is all about payoffs. This small country elite cannot believe that an honest person (Harper) can succeed in politics, not in Canada.

Edited February 22, 2010 by August1991

[waldo]

Stephen Harper runs an honest government.

I guess... if you solely register honesty on monetary based criteria... and you decide to ignore things like, as I stated, "Shovelgate" and "Logogate", or the rationale behind shifting campaign monies... well you can convince yourself of anything, August1991. However, if you were to express your own honesty in terms of open review of the Harper Conservatives, to include such little ditty's like perogy, like patronage, like refusal to provide Parliament detainee related documents, like the hidden agenda, like inaction over climate change, like, like, like... well, I wonder where that Harper Conservative honesty scale registers - hey?

I have a suspicion that much of the MSM/CBC amertume directed at Harper is due to cynical journalists/politicians who believed that politics is all about payoffs. This small country elite cannot believe that an honest person (Harper) can succeed in politics, not in Canada.

interesting - I hadn't attributed a/the populace failure in accepting "honest Harper"... to small country cynical journalists/politicians

[ToadBrother]

I have a suspicion that much of the MSM/CBC amertume directed at Harper is due to cynical journalists/politicians who believed that politics is all about payoffs. This small country elite cannot believe that an honest person (Harper) can succeed in politics, not in Canada.

Tell me, was it honest to call the 2008 Coalition a "coup"? Before you answer, ponder that I am not some moron who has no notion of how Westminster democracy works. So, with that in mind, was Harper honest in his appraisal?

[August1991]

I guess... if you solely register honesty on monetary based criteria... and you decide to ignore things like, as I stated, "Shovelgate" and "Logogate", or the rationale behind shifting campaign monies... well you can convince yourself of anything, August1991.

Tell me, was it honest to call the 2008 Coalition a "coup"? Before you answer, ponder that I am not some moron who has no notion of how Westminster democracy works. So, with that in mind, was Harper honest in his appraisal?

TB and Waldo, your disagreements with Harper are based on his policies or actions. You are perfectly right to criticise him but you cannot call Harper "dishonest" simply because you don't agree with what he has done.

"Dishonest" in my book means stealing for personal gain. Why? If you give even a cursory glance at the history of Canadian politics, you will quickly discover that money is at the heart of most scandals. (This differs from the US where abuse of power and sex are more often the downfall of politicians.)

From adscam to the Pacific Scandal, money is usually the corrupting influence in Canadian politics.

And so far, Harper has run a remarkably honest ministry. Harper may not do what you want but you must admit that he is honest.

Edited February 24, 2010 by August1991

[Wild Bill]

Not to mention the fact that the CPC bribed a Chuck Cadman with a million dollar life insurance policy to attempt to bring down the Martin Government. No one likes to remember that littly diddy.

It's been quite a while now since the Cadman affair was a current debate topic but I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me how you can get a life insurance company to give you a million dollar policy on a dying man.

Anyone who knew Chuck knew he wasn't the kind of man you could bribe. Harper knew him well. Yet the story is still being repeated.

Maybe the conspiracy is deeper than we thought. Perhaps the Alliance party owned all the life insurance companies and could force them to issue losing policies. Happens all the time, right?

[DrGreenthumb]

It's been quite a while now since the Cadman affair was a current debate topic but I'm still waiting for someone to explain to me how you can get a life insurance company to give you a million dollar policy on a dying man.

Anyone who knew Chuck knew he wasn't the kind of man you could bribe. Harper knew him well. Yet the story is still being repeated.

Maybe the conspiracy is deeper than we thought. Perhaps the Alliance party owned all the life insurance companies and could force them to issue losing policies. Happens all the time, right?

Harper's voice was on a tape admitting he knew that Conservative party operatives were planning on trying to bribe Cadman. Are you forgetting about that? I'm pretty sure the recording must be available online if you need to refresh your memory.

[eyeball]

TB and Waldo, your disagreements with Harper are based on his policies or actions. You are perfectly right to criticise him but you cannot call Harper "dishonest" simply because you don't agree with what he has done.

"Dishonest" in my book means stealing for personal gain. Why? If you give even a cursory glance at the history of Canadian politics, you will quickly discover that money is at the heart of most scandals. (This differs from the US where abuse of power and sex are more often the downfall of politicians.)

From adscam to the Pacific Scandal, money is usually the corrupting influence in Canadian politics.

And so far, Harper has run a remarkably honest ministry. Harper may not do what you want but you must admit that he is honest.

I'd say power is by far the more corrupting influence in the case of Harper. Most politician's greed for money is just skin deep but sometimes their thirst for power can go right to the bone. I'd hate to see what sort of real abuse Harper would make of it should he ever get it.

[August1991]

Finally, the MSM/CBC has found a slow deer to pounce upon.

All things considered, there is no evidence that Guergis took money personally or directed money to others. There was no personal gain. No one "on the take". But there seems to have been alot of bad judgment.

In any case, what does Harper do? After defending her for ages, he finally asks for her resignation not only from Cabinet - but from caucus.

----

For Harper, it's not sufficient to be honest in fact. Cabinet ministers must be honest, and also appear to be honest.

The CBC/MSM and posters here are entitled to disagree with Harper. They can claim that he's a knuckle-dragging neo-con, neo-liberal, neanderthal. They can say that he is destroying Canada. But they cannot say that he is on the take.

I'd say power is by far the more corrupting influence in the case of Harper. Most politician's greed for money is just skin deep but sometimes their thirst for power can go right to the bone. I'd hate to see what sort of real abuse Harper would make of it should he ever get it.

"Firewall" Harper? He's a neo-con who wants to limit the power of governments. Edited April 17, 2010 by August1991

[Smallc]

Finally, the MSM/CBC has found a slow deer to pounce upon.

All things considered, there is no evidence that Guergis took money personally or directed money to others. There was no personal gain. No one "on the take". But there seems to have been alot of bad judgment.

There are some allegations of just that...and like you've been told before, your definition of honest is pretty narrow.

[August1991]

There are some allegations of just that...and like you've been told before, your definition of honest is pretty narrow.

MSM allegations only.

And look where Guergis now sits in the House of Commons.

----

My main point stands, smallc. Harper has been PM for over four years. You have to go back to Pearson or St-Laurent to find a ministry without Cabinet ministers accused of stealing in one form of another.

Harper rightly defended Guergis under various allegations. (I suspect that his caucus made the decision to cut her adrift, and Harper's conscience agreed.)

However much you/the CBC/left wing fanatics disagree with Harper, everyone must admit that he is not on the take. In that sense, he's honest.

Stephen Harper, the WASP equivalent of Claude Ryan.

Edited April 17, 2010 by August1991