Why I think Stephen Harper has lost my vote...

[August1991]

First, this $1 billion doggle. Well, not really. I can live with a PM who wastes/spends alot of money if it's for a good cause. I cannot live with a federal PM who wastes/spends $1 billion and then undercuts his ability to cut other government spending.

I want my federal PM to reduce government spending. I want my feeral PM to have credibility when he asks the local cultural group to accept that federal money is no longer there. How the F*** can Harper ask these groups to cut back when he and Flaherty and Clemente just spent a billion on a summit in Huntsville/Toronto wherever?

On this point alone, Harper has lost my vote.

Second, this ignorant interview (supposedly sophisticated):

HARPER: My observation would be that, generally, opposition parties are almost exclusively concerned with domestic policy. I think if you look around the globe, David, thats what youll find. And then when you become government, foreign policy becomes a much bigger part of your reality. I would say the one thing that has really struck me in the last four years has been the degree to which everything is international. There are just so many important issues . Economy - the biggest one - climate change, you just go through the list, even sport with Canada hosting the Olympics. Everything now has such important international dimensions. The economy especially. Theres lots were doing in Canada to improve the relative performance of the Canadian economy. And we talk about how were doing better than the Americans or better than other Western developed economies but nevertheless the trajectory of our economy is still determined by whats happening globally because were in a global economy.

Canoe

WTF is Harper saying here? As an opposition politician, Harper cared about ordinary Canadians but now that he's PM, he cares about control... Or is he trying to say that before he was PM, he didn't understand how complicated the world was?

Third, Harper's non-success in Quebec and among women. Harper was elected PM in 2006. He had two groups to seduce: Quebec and women. Since then, he has utterly botched both.

Harper's Alberta message for (non-Montreal) Quebec is so obvious, so easy, I thought that he could manage it well. He didn't. Harper went off on a crazy jag of crime and culture. As for women, Harper just can't connect - whatever the age group, whatever the geographic.

-----

I'm no Harper-hater. I have met the guy, spoken to him, shaken his hand. He's a Canadian WASP politician. I'm a fiscal conservative, a social liberal. I joined this forum (and the Conservative Party) in 2004 because I swore that if Canada had a Conservative Party, I would join it. Having been abroad too long, I thought that it was time for me to get out of the bed, and get back into life, and talk to people.

But I think that Harper has lost my vote. First, I simply cannot approve spending $1.2 billion of taxpayer money on a three day party for bureaucrats, security, logistical, protocol, politicians: hangers on. (Been there, done that. Saw the limos drive away.)

If it were simply the 1.2 billion, Harper would probably still have my vote. But his basic amateurishness (point two) has tried me too me much. I want a fiscal conservative, social liberal who can speak in public. Harper apparently learns as he goes.

Third, Harper doesn't have the numbers. In Quebec, Harper is a loser. This is not the kind of federal PM that Canada deserves.

English Canada, surely, can do better.

----

Admittedly, I have few choices now. It's the Conservatives, the Liberals, the BQ or a strike through my ballot.

At present, Harper has forced me to choose between the BQ and a strike through my ballot.

Edited June 24, 2010 by August1991

[Shady]

Admittedly, I have few choices now. It's the Conservatives, the Liberals, the BQ or a strike through my ballot.

At present, Harper has forced me to choose between the BQ and a strike through my ballot.

I agree that Harper hasn't done a good enough job cutting spending, and other budget related issues. I don't think waiting until 2015 for a balanced or surplused budget is a fast enough goal. But if I thought that voting for another party or leader woud expedite the process, I certainly would do so.

Unfortunately, when you get right down to it. There are currently no better alternatives. My hope is that Harper feels the pressure, and adjusts appropriately.

[PIK]

First, this $1 billion doggle. Well, not really. I can live with a PM who wastes/spends alot of money if it's for a good cause. I cannot live with a federal PM who wastes/spends $1 billion and then undercuts his ability to cut other government spending.

I want my federal PM to reduce government spending. I want my feeral PM to have credibility when he asks the local cultural group to accept that federal money is no longer there. How the F*** can Harper ask these groups to cut back when he and Flaherty and Clemente just spent a billion on a summit in Huntsville/Toronto wherever?

On this point alone, Harper has lost my vote.

Second, this ignorant interview (supposedly sophisticated):Canoe

WTF is Harper saying here? As an opposition politician, Harper cared about ordinary Canadians but now that he's PM, he cares about control... Or is he trying to say that before he was PM, he didn't understand how complicated the world was?

Third, Harper's non-success in Quebec and among women. Harper was elected PM in 2006. He had two groups to seduce: Quebec and women. Since then, he has utterly botched both.

Harper's Alberta message for (non-Montreal) Quebec is so obvious, so easy, I thought that he could manage it well. He didn't. Harper went off on a crazy jag of crime and culture. As for women, Harper just can't connect - whatever the age group, whatever the geographic.

-----

I'm no Harper-hater. I have met the guy, spoken to him, shaken his hand. He's a Canadian WASP politician. I'm a fiscal conservative, a social liberal. I joined this forum (and the Conservative Party) in 2004 because I swore that if Canada had a Conservative Party, I would join it. Having been abroad too long, I thought that it was time for me to get out of the bed, and get back into life, and talk to people.

But I think that Harper has lost my vote. First, I simply cannot approve spending $1.2 billion of taxpayer money on a three day party for bureaucrats, security, logistical, protocol, politicians: hangers on. (Been there, done that. Saw the limos drive away.)

If it were simply the 1.2 billion, Harper would probably still have my vote. But his basic amateurishness (point two) has tried me too me much. I want a fiscal conservative, social liberal who can speak in public. Harper apparently learns as he goes.

Third, Harper doesn't have the numbers. In Quebec, Harper is a loser. This is not the kind of federal PM that Canada deserves.

English Canada, surely, can do better.

----

Admittedly, I have few choices now. It's the Conservatives, the Liberals, the BQ or a strike through my ballot.

At present, Harper has forced me to choose between the BQ and a strike through my ballot.

If it is between harper or the bloc, then don't BS us , you sound like a whinny quebecer, that likes to take his ball home if he does not get his way. Who forced harper to spend us into a debt again. And this boondoggle you talk about well do some more reading on it , it seems the other hosts are not telling how much they actually spent and how many hosted both G8 and G20?. Womens groups, I understand harper is actually spending more then previous goverments but cut some programs that were a waste, and these women groups you talk about is it the ones that promote hatred of Isreal and only back the palastine cause but don't give a shit about the women of afghanistan, the most opressed in the world?

[Jack Weber]

It's a sad commentary on federal politics in this country when,as voters,we are forced to vote for:

(a)Stephen Harper,who seems to have sold out his Western Canadian conservative priciples for the expediency of power.

(b)Michael Ignatieff,who seems to be incapable of fufilling the promise of those in his party who desperately want to be back in power.He now seems more of a lame duck leader who's going to be on the first plane back to Harvard as soon as he can

©Jack Layton,who occassionally acts like the maturest guy in the room,but represents a party that has policies so far to the left of where most people are they have no hope of being elected.The Libby Davies idiocy last week just amplifies this...

(d),In Quebec,a traitor...

No wonder we get uselss minorities that can't get anything done.We have near useless leaders that can't get anything done!!!

Edited June 24, 2010 by Jack Weber

[Jack Weber]

If it is between harper or the bloc, then don't BS us , you sound like a whinny quebecer, that likes to take his ball home if he does not get his way. Who forced harper to spend us into a debt again. And this boondoggle you talk about well do some more reading on it , it seems the other hosts are not telling how much they actually spent and how many hosted both G8 and G20?. Womens groups, I understand harper is actually spending more then previous goverments but cut some programs that were a waste, and these women groups you talk about is it the ones that promote hatred of Isreal and only back the palastine cause but don't give a shit about the women of afghanistan, the most opressed in the world?

Speaking if whiners...Mr.Harper could have handed the ball over to a dead end coalition that would have dissintegrated within months...He probably would have got his majority he,and his minions,desperately crave.

He did'nt,for the sake of power,and gave in to the very people he tried to stop to save his government.

The expediency of power over principles...The culture of lower,short term,expectations...

We all deserve better than this....

[segnosaur]

...I don't think waiting until 2015 for a balanced or surplused budget is a fast enough goal. But if I thought that voting for another party or leader woud expedite the process, I certainly would do so.

Unfortunately, when you get right down to it. There are currently no better alternatives. My hope is that Harper feels the pressure, and adjusts appropriately.

Kind of agree with your sentiments here.

Remember, when Harper first prorogued parliament to prevent an opposition coalition from taking over, the reason is that the Liberals/NDP/Bloc didn't like the fact that there was no stimulus spending proposed by the conservatives. (In fact, I think the conservatives were actually planning on cutting spending.) While it may be easy to complain about the conservatives for not "sticking to their guns" and keeping costs low, the alternative (letting the coalition take over) would also have lead to large deficits.

[Michael Hardner]

We all deserve better than this....

In this world there are only two tragedies. One is not getting what one wants, and the other is getting it. - Oscar Wilde

[segnosaur]

Speaking if Mr.Harper could have handed the ball over to a dead end coalition that would have dissintegrated within months...He probably would have got his majority he,and his minions,desperately crave.

Just wondering why exactly you'd expect that the coalition would have the coalition disintegrate, followed by a conservative victory? Not that I'm saying it wouldn't happen, just that there was no guarantee it would happen either. I could point out the situation in Ontario in the 80s where a conservative government lost power to a coalition of Liberals/NDP; when that coalition ended, the Liberals ended up winning a majority in the following election.

Turning over power to a coalition you think might collapse would be extremely risky... the coalition might last longer than you think, or it might have somehow convinced voters that the opposition parties were worth supporting in later elections. (That would end up with the conservatives being stuck in opposition for years again.) Given those chances, simply holding onto power might have been the best move.

[August1991]

If it is between harper or the bloc, then don't BS us , you sound like a whinny quebecer, that likes to take his ball home if he does not get his way. Who forced harper to spend us into a debt again....

Harper/Flaherty/Clemente did not spend the Cdn$1.2 billion in Quebec. They spent it in Ontario. Ontario contractors/policemen got the cash and the overtime.

So, WTF is whiny again?

---

I started this thread to explain why Harper has probably lost my vote. You can add a the 4th point that Harper has succeeded in dividing Canadian regions but all federal political politicians invariably do that.

Harper has probably lost my vote on three basic points:

1. He wasted my tax money on nonsesne. I voted for a fiscal conservative.

2. He's incompetent, an amateur PM. No Canadian PM should say that international matters are more important than domestic matters, ever.

3. To win a majority, all he needed was women and Quebec. He got neither.

Edited June 24, 2010 by August1991

[Jack Weber]

Just wondering why exactly you'd expect that the coalition would have the coalition disintegrate, followed by a conservative victory? Not that I'm saying it wouldn't happen, just that there was no guarantee it would happen either. I could point out the situation in Ontario in the 80s where a conservative government lost power to a coalition of Liberals/NDP; when that coalition ended, the Liberals ended up winning a majority in the following election.

Turning over power to a coalition you think might collapse would be extremely risky... the coalition might last longer than you think, or it might have somehow convinced voters that the opposition parties were worth supporting in later elections. (That would end up with the conservatives being stuck in opposition for years again.) Given those chances, simply holding onto power might have been the best move.

The coaliton would have disintegrated because it was made up of people who,had not only just been essentially rejected by the populous,but had a seperatist element that was entirely unplatable to most people.That's the main reason why I could'nt support it.

I also think it's fairly obvious,that the Liberal party was(and still is) in complete disaray and very few people within that coalition had alot of confidence in Mr.Dion,or the coaltion itself.Basically,it was a coaliton of "Anything but Harper" and that was only going to carry them so far.I don't think the Ontario situation in the '80's is applicable because there was no seperatist faction in the province,and the leader of the PC's then was a dufus named Frank Miller...Nice guy,but a clueless twit...

Again,I don't think that coalition would have lasted more than 90 days tops...And Mr.Harper could have very easily won a majority in the next election based on the complete incompetence of the Lib/NDP/Traitor.He chose to run away,and then essentially give in to the demands of that coalition to keep power...

Tacticly,it was very short sighted...

Edited June 24, 2010 by Jack Weber

[ZenOps]

Yeah Harper does like to throw money at things. Normally I'd associate that with the NDP.

[segnosaur]

Second, this ignorant interview (supposedly sophisticated):Canoe

HARPER: My observation would be that, generally, opposition parties are almost exclusively concerned with domestic policy.... And then when you become government, foreign policy becomes a much bigger part of your reality. I would say the one thing that has really struck me in the last four years has been the degree to which everything is international.

WTF is Harper saying here? As an opposition politician, Harper cared about ordinary Canadians but now that he's PM, he cares about control... Or is he trying to say that before he was PM, he didn't understand how complicated the world was?

I just think he's trying to point out how opposition parties tend to raise issues that they think will score points with ordinary Canadians. The NDP can complain all they want about questions of torture in Afghanistan, but that might not raise as much interest among Canadian voters as things like the risk of loosing your job, or of increasing crime statistics.

And its quite likely that it isn't that he didn't know how much foreign policy was an issue, just that it was a case of having to "see it to believe it".

Third, Harper's non-success in Quebec and among women. Harper was elected PM in 2006. He had two groups to seduce: Quebec and women. Since then, he has utterly botched both.

I'm not surprised that the conservatives have trouble in Quebec. After all, Quebec has traditionally been the province that seems to hold mostly left wing, "socialist" views, and the conservatives (even "moderate" conservatives) would have an uphill battle to gain votes there.

I do have to wonder why that is an issue for you though, since:

- What other people think/vote for shouldn't be an issue in deciding which party best meets your views

- every party has demographics that, for whatever reason, they just can't manage to break into. The Liberals and NDP for example can't seem to get much support in Alberta.

But I think that Harper has lost my vote. First, I simply cannot approve spending $1.2 billion of taxpayer money on a three day party for bureaucrats, security, logistical, protocol, politicians: hangers on. (Been there, done that. Saw the limos drive away.)

Is it that you don't think such meetings are necessary at all? Or is that you just don't like the price tag?

If its that you don't think such meetings are necessary, well, most politicians think that actually meeting people in person has some value. If its the cost, well, can you point to any particular cost (except for perhaps the 'lake') that is unnecessary?

Remember, G8 meetings were also held by Chretien and Trudeau. (The meetings are rotated among various countries) I suspect the G20 meetings will end up having a similar rotating format eventually.

Hey, I have no problem with valid concerns about the conservatives. I just get troubled when people criticize the party for things that also apply to other parties.

[dre]

First, this $1 billion doggle. Well, not really. I can live with a PM who wastes/spends alot of money if it's for a good cause. I cannot live with a federal PM who wastes/spends $1 billion and then undercuts his ability to cut other government spending.

I want my federal PM to reduce government spending. I want my feeral PM to have credibility when he asks the local cultural group to accept that federal money is no longer there. How the F*** can Harper ask these groups to cut back when he and Flaherty and Clemente just spent a billion on a summit in Huntsville/Toronto wherever?

On this point alone, Harper has lost my vote.

Second, this ignorant interview (supposedly sophisticated):Canoe

WTF is Harper saying here? As an opposition politician, Harper cared about ordinary Canadians but now that he's PM, he cares about control... Or is he trying to say that before he was PM, he didn't understand how complicated the world was?

Third, Harper's non-success in Quebec and among women. Harper was elected PM in 2006. He had two groups to seduce: Quebec and women. Since then, he has utterly botched both.

Harper's Alberta message for (non-Montreal) Quebec is so obvious, so easy, I thought that he could manage it well. He didn't. Harper went off on a crazy jag of crime and culture. As for women, Harper just can't connect - whatever the age group, whatever the geographic.

-----

I'm no Harper-hater. I have met the guy, spoken to him, shaken his hand. He's a Canadian WASP politician. I'm a fiscal conservative, a social liberal. I joined this forum (and the Conservative Party) in 2004 because I swore that if Canada had a Conservative Party, I would join it. Having been abroad too long, I thought that it was time for me to get out of the bed, and get back into life, and talk to people.

But I think that Harper has lost my vote. First, I simply cannot approve spending $1.2 billion of taxpayer money on a three day party for bureaucrats, security, logistical, protocol, politicians: hangers on. (Been there, done that. Saw the limos drive away.)

If it were simply the 1.2 billion, Harper would probably still have my vote. But his basic amateurishness (point two) has tried me too me much. I want a fiscal conservative, social liberal who can speak in public. Harper apparently learns as he goes.

Third, Harper doesn't have the numbers. In Quebec, Harper is a loser. This is not the kind of federal PM that Canada deserves.

English Canada, surely, can do better.

----

Admittedly, I have few choices now. It's the Conservatives, the Liberals, the BQ or a strike through my ballot.

At present, Harper has forced me to choose between the BQ and a strike through my ballot.

You arent the only one...

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN0721079820100607

OTTAWA, June 7 (Reuters) - Public support for Canada's ruling Conservatives is dropping amid controversy over how much a pair of big international summits will cost, and the party might not win a viable minority government if an election were held now, according to a poll released on Monday.

Support for the Liberals is down too.

[Shady]

2. He's incompetent, an amateur PM. No Canadian PM should say that international matters are more important than domestic matters, ever.

I agree with you about the fiscal issues. But to assert that he's incompetent or amateurish just doesn't reflect reality.

[segnosaur]

Just wondering why exactly you'd expect that the coalition would have the coalition disintegrate, followed by a conservative victory? Not that I'm saying it wouldn't happen, just that there was no guarantee it would happen either.

The coaliton would have disintegrated because it was made up of people who,had not only just been essentially rejected by the populous,but had a seperatist element that was entirely unplatable to most people.That's the main reason why I could'nt support it.

I also think it's fairly obvious,that the Liberal party was(and still is) in complete disaray and very few people within that coalition had alot of confidence in Mr.Dion,or the coaltion itself.Basically,it was a coaliton of "Anything but Harper" and that was only going to carry them so far.I don't think the Ontario situation in the '80's is applicable because there was no seperatist faction in the province,and the leader of the PC's then was a dufus named Frank Miller...Nice guy,but a clueless twit...

Again,I don't think that coalition would have lasted more than 90 days tops...And Mr.Harper could have very easily won a majority in the next election based on the complete incompetence of the Lib/NDP/Traitor.He chose to run away,and then essentially give in to the demands of that coalition to keep power...

You need to keep a few things in mind though...

- The provinces most opposed to the Bloc probably were voting conservative anyways

- Ontario seems to be a province that is willing to "play nice". As such, Ontario voters may have continued to support the Liberals even if the Liberals had previously been aligned with the Bloc

- Working with the Bloc might have actually helped gain Liberal seats in Quebec, if voters thought that by aligning with the Bloc, the Liberals were more tuned in to Quebec issues (i.e. why vote for the Bloc when I can vote for the Liberals, a party that will address my issues and has more chance at power)

And relying on the 'incompetence' of other leaders can be a mistake. After all, politics is risky and a politician's status can change. (Recall Duceppe and his famous "cheese hat"... however, years after that he's often seen as being the "best" leader, even in English Canada.)

[August1991]

I just think he's trying to point out how opposition parties tend to raise issues that they think will score points with ordinary Canadians.

You mean ordinary Canadians are parochial?

Worse, we paid Harper to learn about the world? WTF is Harper saying here? Is he stupid?

I'm not surprised that the conservatives have trouble in Quebec. After all, Quebec has traditionally been the province that seems to hold mostly left wing, "socialist" views, and the conservatives (even "moderate" conservatives) would have an uphill battle to gain votes there.

I am terrified that Harper shares your viewpoint about Quebec. If so, this is not the federal PM I want. He may be WASP, but I didn'y think that he was stupid.

Is it that you don't think such meetings are necessary at all? Or is that you just don't like the price tag?

Price tag.

I want to have a politician in power who can spend money wisely (gumption). With Harper, that's what I thought we get.

[August1991]

I agree with you about the fiscal issues. But to assert that he's incompetent or amateurish just doesn't reflect reality.

Shady, go back and read that quote.

Or how about Harper's handling of Quebec and women.

Or worse, how did the federal government agree to spend $1.2 billion on these summits. Harper should have said no, and if he could be PM for another 10 years, that's what he would say.

IOW, we are paying for Harper to learn on the job.

[g_bambino]

On this point alone, Harper has lost my vote.

Putting aside my strong suspicion that you don't live in Harper's riding and thus could never vote for him anyway, I'd've thought his being a monarchist would've alone driven you to vote for some other party. The Bloc certainly side with you on that matter.

[segnosaur]

At present, Harper has forced me to choose between the BQ and a strike through my ballot.

1. He wasted my tax money on nonsesne. I voted for a fiscal conservative.

Ummmm... just wondering... do you recognize the contradiction of suggesting you might vote for the Bloc, and the fact that you voted for a "fiscal Conservative"? After all, in previous elections, the Bloc wanted:

- Multi-billion dollar increases in social spending in Quebec

- Increase taxes on oil companies

- Increase spending on social housing

Not to mention the fact that when the Harper government was confronted with the possibility of loosing power to a coalition, the Bloc wanted more stimulus spending.

So, if you're truly a fiscal conservative, you should be avoiding the Bloc like the plague.

http://www.blocquebecois.org/fichiers_public/blq-depsyntese-anglo.pdf

2. He's incompetent, an amateur PM. No Canadian PM should say that international matters are more important than domestic matters, ever.

Where exactly did he say that international maters are more important than domestic matters? He may have claimed that they take on a greater role than they did when in opposition, and that there is a certain amount of interaction between domestic matters and international, but that doesn't make international issues more important than domestic issues overall.

3. To win a majority, all he needed was women and Quebec. He got neither.

And again, Quebec is traditionally a party that leans to the political left. As such, any conservative party will have a difficult time gaining support in the province.

[Argus]

I want my federal PM to reduce government spending.

Then find another country to live in. Because for the foreseeable future, and I'm talking the next decade, at least, there will be no big push to reduce spending due to a series of minority parliaments. Right now you have the Tories, spending tons of money trying to buy votes. In the event we see a Liberal/NDP government you'll see tons more money being spent as the Liberals try to buy people's affections and the NDP try to force expensive new social policies so they can crow to their people about how they made the Liberals implement them.

Second, this ignorant interview (supposedly sophisticated):

You're feeling angry and frustrated at him so you're pissed off at everything he says. In reality, there was nothing wrong with that interview, at least, not the portion you quoted.

Third, Harper's non-success in Quebec and among women. Harper was elected PM in 2006. He had two groups to seduce: Quebec and women. Since then, he has utterly botched both.

Harper bent over backwards to please Quebec, from appointing second rate Quebec MPs to cabinet, to gifting Quebec with billions more in transfer payments (I don't recall you bitching over that), to giving them the recognition of Quebecers as a "nation". All of that goodwill evaporated over a period of a month or so because Quebecers got outraged he cut funding to a few hitherto completely unknown arts groups.

And, principally, because he's not French. Ultimately, Quebecers are far too bigoted to ever give much support for a party not led by a Quebecer. Despite all his efforts, their approval of him - un maudit anglais - was tissue thin, and easily whipped away on the phony indignation the BQ whipped up of him cutting a few arts groups' funding.

Harper's Alberta message for (non-Montreal) Quebec is so obvious, so easy, I thought that he could manage it well. He didn't. Harper went off on a crazy jag of crime and culture.

Imagine the gall of the man playing to a non French audience!

Ultimately, there are two possibilities for crime, come down hard on it, or do the hug-a-thug routine the French love so much. But in the end, there are more votes in English Canada than among French Canadians, and unlike the French, the English aren't as likely to be pulled away in an instant because they don't like his language.

I've said it before. Neither Harper nor Ignatief will ever gain major support in Quebec. Quebecers, as a people, are too insular, too ethnophobic, too bigoted and nationalistic, too tribal. They will NEVER give their loyalty or any true affection for anyone not of their tribe.

As for women, Harper just can't connect - whatever the age group, whatever the geographic.

You could also say Ignatieff can't connect with men, whatever the age group, whatever the geographic.

Third, Harper doesn't have the numbers. In Quebec, Harper is a loser. This is not the kind of federal PM that Canada deserves.

English Canada, surely, can do better.

No, in fact, it cannot. No Anglo from English Canada will EVER gain any measure of real favour in Quebec.

At present, Harper has forced me to choose between the BQ and a strike through my ballot.

And here we have the heart of it. Because everything you've expressed about Harper, all your self-righteous indignation about him wasting money, about the need for conservatism, can be blown away by throwing up your hands and retreating to vote for - da french guy! The BQ is everything you've complained about Harper. There wasn't a single moment in time the BQ has ever called for cutting costs or taxes. There wasn't a single program for spending they opposed. The BQ is a very left wing, socialistic party which is all for high taxes and high government spending.

But... they're French. So that doesn't really matter that much.

If you're going to vote for a maudit anglais, he has to be perfect, the perfect Conservative, the perfect leader, the political animal. If not, screw it, you're gonna vote for the French guy.

[Smallc]

Then find another country to live in. Because for the foreseeable future, and I'm talking the next decade, at least, there will be no big push to reduce spending due to a series of minority parliaments.

I don't agree. Canadians don't want to see the country stay in deficit. There won't be any push from anyone (save maybe the NDP) to keep Canada there.

[segnosaur]

I just think he's trying to point out how opposition parties tend to raise issues that they think will score points with ordinary Canadians.

You mean ordinary Canadians are parochial?

More or less yeah. (Although that probably deals with politicians from every country.)

For example, polls in 2004/2006 showed that Health care was the most important issue for Canadians, which beat out any sort of international issue.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/background/public-opinion/

Worse, we paid Harper to learn about the world? WTF is Harper saying here? Is he stupid?

Once again, I don't think he necessarily said he had to "learn about the world". But, there is a difference between 'knowledge' and 'experience'. He said he was "struck by" the effort surrounding the international stuff. Could simply mean that, as much as you 'know' something, its always different when you actually experience it.

Of course, without actually talking to Harper directly, we can't tell exactly what he was thinking, but I certainly wouldn't get overly concerned about something that can be seen as misinterpreted wording. (Can you point to any significant blunders Harper has made?)

I'm not surprised that the conservatives have trouble in Quebec. After all, Quebec has traditionally been the province that seems to hold mostly left wing, "socialist" views, and the conservatives (even "moderate" conservatives) would have an uphill battle to gain votes there.

I am terrified that Harper shares your viewpoint about Quebec. If so, this is not the federal PM I want. He may be WASP, but I didn'y think that he was stupid.

Ummmm... first of all, I never claimed that it was Harper's belief that Quebec was more left wing than most of the rest of Canada, it was my own personal analysis.

Secondly, not sure why exactly you'd have any doubts about that. Consider:

- The sales tax rates are higher in Quebec than in the western provinces (and right behind Ontario, a province run by a center-left party)

- Income taxes are higher in Quebec than in other provinces (See: http://lsminsurance.ca/calculators/canada/income-tax)

- Quebec also has social programs that many other provinces lack, including subsidized day care

In my opinion a society that favors higher taxes/higher spending is more left wing than a society that favors lower taxes/lower spending.

Re: G8/G20 meeting

Is it that you don't think such meetings are necessary at all? Or is that you just don't like the price tag?

Price tag.

In that case, what exactly do you think that they spent money on that wasn't necessary?

The 'artificial lake'? The cost of that was a lot less than initial media reports. I'm sure there were some mistakes in spending, but this is an international event, with people from all over the world. As long as its necessary to stage these meetings some money will have to be spent to handle security, transportation, etc.

I want to have a politician in power who can spend money wisely (gumption). With Harper, that's what I thought we get.

I'd like that too... I would have liked a party in power that would have cut the CBC, that wouldn't have bothered bailing out the car companies, etc. Obviously I didn't get that. But given a choice between a party that gives some of what I want, and a party (like the Bloc, or Liberals, or NDP) who will likely spend even more, well, I'll take the partial victory.

[segnosaur]

I don't agree. Canadians don't want to see the country stay in deficit. There won't be any push from anyone (save maybe the NDP) to keep Canada there.

I subscribe to a more cynical view.... people are idiots.

Canadians want to see a balanced budget. But they want taxes cut. They want improved health care. Unfortunately there's no way to get everything you want. People don't always see the connection between these issues.

Reminds me of a Simpsons episode, where the town implements a "Bear Patrol" (complete with air patrols by stealth fighters) when their citizens demand it, but then complain when their taxes go up to pay for it.

[Smallc]

Canadians have already done it once before. They'll do it again.

[August1991]

Harper bent over backwards to please Quebec, from appointing second rate Quebec MPs to cabinet, to gifting Quebec with billions more in transfer payments (I don't recall you bitching over that), to giving them the recognition of Quebecers as a "nation"....

Argus, you don't get it.

And apparently, Harper doesn't get women, or Quebec either.

----

If that were only the problem, I could live with it. But I don't want a federal politician who approves billions on a three-day summit.

What do you think Argus? You're a federal bureaucrat. Do you think Harper and the Conservatives have control of the bureaucracy, or are they amateurs?