Harper Government: Honest

[bloodyminded]

I'm not sure what you mean by the term Socialist Conservative - that's really an oxy-moron.

Would not Big Agri-business--The corn industry, for example, which uses "traditional values" as its selling points for products, but receives massive subsidies (one of the main reasons our junk food is so cheap..actually, below production costs in many cases)...they are socialist-conservatives.

Edited December 31, 2009 by bloodyminded

[Smallc]

I think the definition that I provided is pretty close to the mark as it relates to American politics and still accurate in Canada, but a little more diluted.

Your definition is close. His really wasn't.

[Wild Bill]

No. I'm saying that if the Conservatives are not financial thieves, that does not automatically make them an "honest government."

Obviously, honesty and dishonesty are not soley the providence of money matters.

Kind of a stretch, but if we allow it for purposes of discussion, you seem to imply that when it comes to honesty in government political gamesmanship is the only yardstick of honesty that matters. You leave the impression that STEALING MILLIONS OF DOLLARS AND INFLUENCING BANK DECISIONS are "no big deal", by comparison!

I'll grant your definition only as an academic technicality. By any sense of objective perspective, Harper is nowhere near being in the same league as his Liberal predecessors.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Kind of a stretch, but if we allow it for purposes of discussion, you seem to imply that when it comes to honesty in government political gamesmanship is the only yardstick of honesty that matters. You leave the impression that STEALING MILLIONS OF DOLLARS AND INFLUENCING BANK DECISIONS are "no big deal", by comparison!

I'll grant your definition only as an academic technicality. By any sense of objective perspective, Harper is nowhere near being in the same league as his Liberal predecessors.

And....

So is that like saying there is rankings in this league where there are degrees of badness?

[ironstone]

Totally off topic here but I wanted to sneek in best wishes for everyone,left,right,wherever you stand, in the new year.Hopefully good things are ahead in 2010 for the world.Be safe tonight!

[Wild Bill]

And....

So is that like saying there is rankings in this league where there are degrees of badness?

Certainly! The big obvious one is that political tricks are a normal part of government. The fact that they can be distasteful is just our country's way of making it Canadian!

AdScam, Shawinigate and many of the other Liberal scandals were clearly legal crimes. The OP referred to legal crimes, not government actions that a partisan might disapprove.

As I said, I'm hardly Harper's biggest fan but what offends me about the argument from some posters in this thread is that they equate not liking the man as a blank cheque to consider him the SAME as a law-breaking thief, even though there's no evidence he actually broke the law and stole something in the same manner that the Liberals did for all those years!

"Yep, pardner! We'll just have a phony trial. No need to actually have any evidence. We've never liked ole Jake anyway so let's just hang 'em! Any body we don't like doesn't deserve a fair trial!

As an afterthought, let's hang his horse, too!"

This kind of attitude truly scares me...

[Jerry J. Fortin]

Certainly! The big obvious one is that political tricks are a normal part of government. The fact that they can be distasteful is just our country's way of making it Canadian!

AdScam, Shawinigate and many of the other Liberal scandals were clearly legal crimes. The OP referred to legal crimes, not government actions that a partisan might disapprove.

As I said, I'm hardly Harper's biggest fan but what offends me about the argument from some posters in this thread is that they equate not liking the man as a blank cheque to consider him the SAME as a law-breaking thief, even though there's no evidence he actually broke the law and stole something in the same manner that the Liberals did for all those years!

"Yep, pardner! We'll just have a phony trial. No need to actually have any evidence. We've never liked ole Jake anyway so let's just hang 'em! Any body we don't like doesn't deserve a fair trial!

As an afterthought, let's hang his horse, too!"

This kind of attitude truly scares me...

You know what...I will grant you your point. You are right he is simply not in the same league as the other thieves. His agenda seems different than theirs as does his methods.

[capricorn]

The Conservatives have won an arcane court battle with Elections Canada that will force the agency to accept a $591,000 cheque from the party.

"This may be the first time in history that a political party went to court to try to give money back to Elections Canada," said a Conservative memo released on Thursday.

The Conservatives say they had brought the application against Elections Canada in the Ontario Superior Court of Justice to prevent so-called "rebate double-dipping."

The Tories explained that "double-dipping" happens when political parties receive both a GST rebate and an Elections Canada rebate for the same campaign expenses.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20100101/Tories_Rebates_100101/20100101?hub=QPeriod

What the Tories have done is returned money to the taxpayer which in good conscience they could not accept. I don't know who, other than Elections Canada, would have standing to appeal this decision. An appeal in this case would certainly draw more attention as the remedy would necessarily amount to continuing the practice of double dipping by political parties into public funds. This is something to watch.

If nothing else, the court action brought by the Conservatives shows that they are mindful that the party should not take undue advantage of public money. That counts for something.

[Smallc]

What the Conservatives have done is poked the Liberals again. That was their true goal.

[capricorn]

What the Conservatives have done is poked the Liberals again. That was their true goal.

I know what you're saying Smallc. And it's a known fact that Conservative coffers are not hurting for cash. But wouldn't most political parties just say "the hell with it, let's keep that extra cash" even if they had moral objections to what they were doing?

We pay enough taxes in this country. Any time political parties are prevented from dipping deeper into taxpayers' pockets, especially via dubious schemes, is a win for us, not just the Tories.

[Smallc]

I know what you're saying Smallc. And it's a known fact that Conservative coffers are not hurting for cash. But wouldn't most political parties just say "the hell with it, let's keep that extra cash" even if they had moral objections to what they were doing?

No, you see, from what I've read, now every party has to return the same money or they won't be able to spend as much during the next campaign. It may be the right thing to do, but it's also the convenient thing to do.

Edited January 2, 2010 by Smallc

[William Ashley]

No, you see, from what I've read, now every party has to return the same money or they won't be able to spend as much during the next campaign. It may be the right thing to do, but it's also the convenient thing to do.

Since when have the Cons followed election law?

[capricorn]

No, you see, from what I've read, now every party has to return the same money.

That's even better. The beneficiary that counts the most here is the taxpayer. And there are more of us than all of the political parties put together.

It may be the right thing to do, but it's also the convenient things to do.

I'm sure the three opposition parties can make up the reimbursed funds they were not entitled to by holding one or two additional fundraisers. How hard or painful can that be. Supporters should be prepared to back their parties.

[waldo]

No, you see, from what I've read, now every party has to return the same money or they won't be able to spend as much during the next campaign. It may be the right thing to do, but it's also the convenient thing to do.

apparently... the ndp has not applied for GST rebates. So, from that standpoint it's a jab at the Liberals. Principally though, it allows for increased Conservative national campaign spending limits - spend more, since actual campaign costs are reduced by the effective amount of the GST rebate. It would also, it appears, be an attempt to bring down the overall spending number in the "still" before the courts, "2006 Conservative in and out scheme"... you know, the thing Harper keeps dodging. We should all thank capricorn for reminding us that the "in and out scheme" is "still" yet to completely unfold... good on her!

[Smallc]

In other words, motives are not always so pure and true as they may seem.

[Topaz]

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20100101/Tories_Rebates_100101/20100101?hub=QPeriod

What the Tories have done is returned money to the taxpayer which in good conscience they could not accept. I don't know who, other than Elections Canada, would have standing to appeal this decision. An appeal in this case would certainly draw more attention as the remedy would necessarily amount to continuing the practice of double dipping by political parties into public funds. This is something to watch.

If nothing else, the court action brought by the Conservatives shows that they are mindful that the party should not take undue advantage of public money. That counts for something.

The saying if something is too good to be true it probably is applies here. By the Tories giving back the rebate they now can spend more money on their elections campaigns.Its all about them.

[ToadBrother]

In other words, motives are not always so pure and true as they may seem.

Was there anyone who thought that this was an altruistic battle?

[Smallc]

It seems some people here did.

[Jerry J. Fortin]

The Conservatives wanted good media....they planned it out, and they costed it out, and they got what they wanted at a bargain basement price.

[Wild Bill]

I'm still not clear here. I know from enough other posters that the Tories are bad no matter what they do and that if they discovered a cure for cancer it would only be so they can take away doctor's jobs.

Still, what about the Liberals? Are they or are they not "double dipping"?

[Jerry J. Fortin]

I'm still not clear here. I know from enough other posters that the Tories are bad no matter what they do and that if they discovered a cure for cancer it would only be so they can take away doctor's jobs.

Still, what about the Liberals? Are they or are they not "double dipping"?

The Liberals have and will once again "double dip". Here is the thousand dollars question....who will not?

[capricorn]

Still, what about the Liberals? Are they or are they not "double dipping"?

I can't find a source one way or another. The NDP has said they don't claim the rebate.

A spokesman for the New Democrats said the party has never applied for the GST rebate.

However, the Liberals responded as follows.

The Liberals, in Sudbury, Ont., for their summer caucus where they threatened Tuesday to bring down the Harper government at the earliest opportunity, dismissed the Conservative suit as mischief.

"We're looking into it, but at first glance it smells of Tories continuing to play partisan games with our institutions," said Liberal party spokesman Dan Lauzon.

http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/Politics/2009/09/01/10705746-cp.html

What the Liberals failed to note is that Elections Canada was in breach of government accounting practices.

According to an independent analysis by KPMG this amounts to a violation of Canada’s accounting rules under Generally Accepted Accounting Practices (GAAP)

---

“It is ridiculous that a government body would refuse to take taxpayers money back, when it’s clear they have made a mistake,” continued Gaudet. Elections Canada should require all political parties to pay back this over-payment.”

http://www.taxpayer.com/federal/political-parties-owe-taxpayers-millions

Any time welfare payments made to political parties from the public purse are reduced is cause for celebration by taxpayers. Even better when those payments were obtained via an accounting "mistake".

Of course, all this derives from political parties enjoying the status of non-profit organizations. But that's another discussion altogether.

[Smallc]

Any time welfare payments

[waldo]

whaaaaa! Just look at past Liberals... whaaaa! No need to stand on Steve's accountability posturing... cause... just look at past Liberals! Whaaaa!

[August1991]

Aren't you missing the point? August started out by comparing Harper's government to all those years of Liberal/Chretien corruption, scandal and so on that ended up with millions of dollars stolen in AdScam.

Now you blithely blow off the present government being "not on the take." as "That's good, though hardly praiseworthy."

Yes, they're all supposed to be honest but for decades they haven't been! That was the flippin' point!

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.