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

[Mr.Canada]

Stephen Harper is far too much of a socialist for my liking but he's the best the conservatives have right now in their movement.

If someone much more conservative wants to lead the party I'd be happy with that or if a new party formed I'd also be happy with that as well.

[PIK]

Le Blanc has a better chance than the rest of them, but I suspect he simply doesn't have the influence in the party. It's all about power.

Despite what happened, I think Paul Martin would put them all to bed. He's the only one who makes any goddamned sense anyway.

So since everyone is blaming harper for everything what about martin and others leaders that promised in ''05'' that everyone with aids would have the the drugs available, this year. Did they even make a attempt to do it?

[PIK]

Go back and read the quote, Kimmy.

For an Albertan, no populist politician should say: "To get power, local Albertan voters matter. In power, foreigners (Quebecers and people in Ontario) matter more."

Look Kimmy. A federal Prime Minister has to make many, many, many people happy. It's a hard slog, en deux langues mêmes, with different religions and places. Years ago, I stood beside Chretien (and Mulroney) meeting various school groups in Ottawa. Each kid was in Ottawa for the first time. It`s like meeting Santa Claus. (Chretien was a master. Whatta guy. He loved the kids and the kids loved him. Heck, the bus drivers loved Chretien.)

So, why has Stephen Harper lost my vote?

First, he spends my tax money foolishly. WTF? $1.2 billion for politician summits? Harper will be a fool if he asks Quebecers to accept federal restraint.

Second, he's at most an amateur international bureaucrat. And I'm paying for his on the job training.

Third, he can't talk to Canadians. I want a federal politician who can explain to women in French why we as a society must change our spending priorities. Stephen Harper cannot do that. In fact, Stephen Harper is an utter incompetent when it comes to explaining anything in French to anyone, a woman or a man.

I want someone like Chretien, but who does good...

----

If Stephen Harper and Flaherty can approve spending $1.2 billion of federal taxpayer money on a three day international summit in Ontario, then Harper and Flaherty have lost my vote, and lost any contribution I would make to their party.

I'm just some guy, but I have already made this point known to Irving Gerstein.

All this money you talk about was spent in canada, not on some ''trade trip'' to china that really was chretein setting up his retirement. I would love to know how much of our money was spent by chretien while HE WAS STILL IN OFFICE to set up his business plans in china.And that is a major NO NO when still in office ,remember the mulroney show, that point was brought up a few times by the left. Time for the chretien show to begin.

[August1991]

Once again we see how the values of a Quebecer are vastly different than those of much of English Canada. August, if Harper pleased Quebec in the manner you describe we would indeed have another Chretien.

You've lost me here, Wild Bill.

I am simply asking for a reasonably honest federal politician who can spend taxpayer's money carefully, and can speak to all Canadians in a way that they understand - even if they may disagree. I thought that Stephen Harper was that kind of politician. But he can't speak to Quebecers, and he can't speak to women. He may be honest in his personal affairs but he is unable to control the spending of bureaucrats around him. (And as an ex-bureaucrat, believe me, we know how to spend other people's money... )

That international affairs quote is just weird though. I reckon that it's a glimpse into Harper's attempt to learn on the job. It's as if Harper were the President of the Red Deer High chess club and then he got the chance to go to Calgary where - surprise, surprise - there are more chess players. But as I say, the quote is dumb on several levels.

You August1991 are boxed into a corner. I will bet you will vote Conservative in the next election and the Conservatives are betting on it too.

Eat it and weep.

Madmax, I fear that you are right. And I fear that Harper (and some smart minions) have calculated this.

First, call me naive but I think it's possible to do good honestly. Not much good comes in the long run when you attempt to do good dishonestly. Second, a different leader of Canada's federal Conservative Party would not have Stephen Harper's lack of, let's say, interpersonal skills. In a profession that requires communication skills, Stephen Harper is remarkably bad at communicating with some key core groups - notably women and francophones.

Why isn't the ADQ (which has conservative policies) making more headway? (Or, if there are specific problems with the ADQ, why has some other conservative/nationalist or conservative/federalist party appeared in order to capture the "right wing" votes if there are so many?)

Segnosaur, your question deserves a thread of its own. At present in Quebec, there are many voters - absolutely fed up of the National Question debate and who desire a change in the role of the State. Unfortunately, the National Question still dominates Quebec politics. I had hoped (and so did Mario Dumont to a degree) that Harper had the potential to change this impasse. Clearly, Harper utterly botched this potential.

At the end of the day August, if you don't like Harper, then don't vote for him. But using Quebec as a bench mark is short sighted. When is the last time a Westerner PM won big in Quebec?

As I say, Harper has probably lost my vote. I can also stop contributing to the federal Conservative Party, and I can badmouth him on places like this forum.

Diefenbaker won about 50 seats in 1958 but that's not what you meant, I think. In fact, Stephen Harper - a typical WASP born in a Toronto suburb, elected in Calgary - had every chance to win many seats in Quebec in 2008, after remarkably winning 10 seats in 2006. And then, he bungled it.

All this money you talk about was spent in canada, not on some ''trade trip'' to china that really was chretein setting up his retirement. I would love to know how much of our money was spent by chretien while HE WAS STILL IN OFFICE to set up his business plans in china.

Please don't ask me to defend Chretien but in fact, Chretien/Martin reduced (according to official statistics) federal spending in the mid-1990s.

More important, sure, the $1.2 billion was spent in Canada - but as a taxpayer, I didn't spend it. Why is it supposedly good for the Canadian economy if money is taken from me and given to someone else, in Canada? This "spent in Canada" argument has got to be the biggest fraud imaginable.

If a thief steals your money and "spends it in Canada", is that a justification of theft? Does it mean the thief has a better right to your money than you do?

Edited June 28, 2010 by August1991

[August1991]

I've made this point a number of times and you've never challenged it. Quebec will NEVER show any affection, interest or loyalty in a non-Quebecer and non-Francophone. Never. At best some of them will be grudgingly willing to park their votes with him if bribed heavily, but only when there is no Quebec Francophone to vote for. And they will desert him in an instant of indignation at the suspicion he isn't properly respecting their glorious culture.

Ah yes, and Stéphane Dion was such a political success in Québec.

----

Argus, you understand Quebec as it was perhaps 50 or 100 years ago. Let me give you two modern counter-examples, from the world of politics: Amir Khadr and Joseph Facal.

IMHO, any English-Canadian who could speak in the cadence of Quebec and who could speak about a different role for the State would have tremendous political success. Harper apparently can't do that - anymore than Harper can speak to women.

And Kimmy, that's my best answer to your post above.

Edited June 28, 2010 by August1991

[August1991]

I have looked through my recent responses to this thread, and I am afraid one basic point may have been lost.

I want a Prime Minister who limits federal government spending. Stephen Harper and Jim Flaherty just allowed various bureaucrats to spend $1 billion. On this single point alone, Stephen Harper and Jim Flaherty are incompetent and I cannot vote for them, or their party.

I'm no libertarian. I realize that we need government and sometimes for "macroeconomic reasons", governments must spend taxpayer money. $1 billion for a meeting of politicians is not a "macroeconomic reason".

The irony is that Stephen Harper has spent $1 billion of Canadian taxpayer money to hold an international meeting of government leaders with the message of - reducing government deficits!

----

Stephen Harper has lost my vote because I simply cannot condone or encourage such foolishness. If I were to vote Conservative in the next federal election, I would in effect accept this behaviour - and I can't.

Edited June 28, 2010 by August1991

[madmax]

Canadians don't like deficits, but Canadians are spoiled. They'll all tell you not to overspend your budget, but look at the great hew and cry whenever the tories cut even small programs.

LOL, The Liberals provided a decade of budget surpluses. The Conservatives frittered those surpluses and then campaign from cloud 9 in September of 08. These goofs are as disconnected as anyone else. Don't go blaming the Canadian public for Corporate handouts.

Cutting a few arts programs nobody heard of cost them all their gains in Quebec. You think they didn't learn anything from that? You think the Liberals didn't? Canadians have come to believe they are entitled to have their cake and eat it too, and no politician is going to tell them different with an election around the corner.

Who was that singing as that Gala Ball. Wasn't that "Stephen Harper" getting high with his friends....

[segnosaur]

Why isn't the ADQ (which has conservative policies) making more headway? (Or, if there are specific problems with the ADQ, why has some other conservative/nationalist or conservative/federalist party appeared in order to capture the "right wing" votes if there are so many?)

Segnosaur, your question deserves a thread of its own.

But its directly related to this thread, and to your opening post.

At present in Quebec, there are many voters - absolutely fed up of the National Question debate and who desire a change in the role of the State. Unfortunately, the National Question still dominates Quebec politics.

Which of course is irrelevant.

Like I said, if voters truly wanted "right wing" policies then they would support parties that met those needs. If no party existed, then such a party would be created that meets their nationalist needs.

And as I pointed out, opinion polls show a strong majority of Quebec voters want socialist policies. Why exactly did you ignore that particular point? It totally debunks your argument that "voters only vote for left wing parties because there are no alternatives".

As I say, Harper has probably lost my vote. I can also stop contributing to the federal Conservative Party, and I can badmouth him on places like this forum.

Yes, you certainly have the right to badmouth him. However, other people (myself included) have the right to point out how illogical, hypocritical and all around foolish your arguments are.

Claiming you won't vote for Harper because he "didn't win in Quebec" is an idiotic argument... Once again, Quebec is traditionally a province that favors high government spending/social programs. Any fiscally conservative party is going to find it difficult to gain support.

More important, sure, the $1.2 billion was spent in Canada - but as a taxpayer, I didn't spend it. Why is it supposedly good for the Canadian economy if money is taken from me and given to someone else, in Canada? This "spent in Canada" argument has got to be the biggest fraud imaginable.

Well, we're still waiting to hear where exactly you'd cut the budget for the G8/G20 summit.

Many of the expenses involve security. You favor holding a summit with the heads of the most powerful governments in the world with security that was done on the cheap?

[PIK]

The only way you can speak to the quebecers is with a wad of money in your hand, and I and the rest of canada is sick and tired of this same old tactic, the best thing that could happen is a majority without quebec. And don't come back with the BS that we will leave if that happened ,well you ain;t going anywhere and the separtists know it. You would be a 3rd world country without the rest of us paying your bills.

[August1991]

Is winning the support of any specific group of voters (women, Quebecers, Albertans, Christians, aboriginals, Philippinos, Rastafarians, Pastafarians, mooks, unionists, cheerleaders, whatever) an objective in itself? Is winning a majority an objective in itself?

In federal Canada, yes.

[August1991]

But its directly related to this thread, and to your opening post.And as I pointed out, opinion polls show a strong majority of Quebec voters want socialist policies. Why exactly did you ignore that particular point?

Let me put your question into an Albertan perspective. Remember the NEP? How would Albertans answer a poll question in 1983, say, about the role of federalism in society?

Segnosaur, you may be preoccupied with socialism but many people in Quebec have other concerns.

Edited June 28, 2010 by August1991

[segnosaur]

Let me put your question into an Albertan perspective. Remember the NEP? How would Albertans answer a poll question in 1983, say, about the role of federalism in society?

Segnosaur, you may be preoccupied with socialism but many people in Quebec have other concerns.

Please provide evidence that a majority of Quebec voters are not in favor of high taxes/high spending.

I've provided plenty of evidence that they are. All you've done is make pointless and irrelevant statements about how "they don't care about nationalism".

Edited to add: And I'm still waiting to hear where exactly you'd cut the budget of the G8/G20 summit.

Edited June 28, 2010 by segnosaur

[August1991]

The only way you can speak to the quebecers is with a wad of money in your hand, and I and the rest of canada is sick and tired of this same old tactic...

And this explains why Flaherty and Harper just just gave about a billion or so to white fat male donut-eating mason Irish protestant cops in overtime. (I'll leave aside the GM bail out in Oshawa.)

Sorry for being so politically incorrect - but since PIK, you threw the ball to me...

Please provide evidence that a majority of Quebec voters are not in favor of high taxes/high spending.

Segnosaur, I think a federal politician should bring Canadians together - even if I am not worthy of such goodness.

Edited to add: And I'm still waiting to hear where exactly you'd cut the budget of the G8/G20 summit.

Uh... The Summit itself? Or, Harper could have done like Chretien (horrors) and held it in southwestern Alberta. I'd agree to anything if it cost less than $1.2 billion.

Harper wasted our taxpayer money. Do you get my basic point, segnosaur and PIK?

Edited June 28, 2010 by August1991

[segnosaur]

Please provide evidence that a majority of Quebec voters are not in favor of high taxes/high spending.

Segnosaur, I think a federal politician should bring Canadians together - even if I am not worthy of such goodness.

So, you don't actually have any evidence....

Your whole "bring Canadians together" should be recognized for what it is... Bull cr*p. The fact is, Different provinces will always have different concerns and different ways they think government should be run.

A left wing politician will likely never gain significant following in Alberta, because on average people in Alberta favor lower taxes and reduced spending. Its this little thing called reality. Not sure why it seems like such a foreign concept to you.

And I'm still waiting to hear where exactly you'd cut the budget of the G8/G20 summit.

Uh... The Summit itself?

Yet earlier in the thread I asked you point blank whether Canada should withdraw from the G8/G20. Don't think you responded to that question.

So, are you in favor of withdrawing from the G8/G20?

Or, Harper could have done like Chretien (horrors) and held it in southwestern Alberta. I'd agree to anything if it cost less than $1.2 billion.

The cost of the 2002 G8 summit (held in Alberta) was around $300 million. The G20 summit has more than twice as many countries and the combined G8/G20 summit combined lasted longer. So, the $1 billion cost isn't exactly out of line with the previous conference.

Not only that, holding it in a more remote location may not save money since:

- Significant security will still be required

- A smaller venue may not have the facilities to host such a large event

- It will add to the cost/difficulty of transportation

Harper wasted our taxpayer money. Do you get my basic point, segnosaur and PIK?

He participated in an international conference.

If you want Canada to withdraw from all such conferences (and thus loose influence in the world) then fine. Otherwise, please point to any expenses in the current conference that were excessive and that could be cut back.

[August1991]

The cost of the 2002 G8 summit (held in Alberta) was around $300 million. The G20 summit has more than twice as many countries and the combined G8/G20 summit combined lasted longer. So, the $1 billion cost isn't exactly out of line with the previous conference.

Where did you study math?

Segnosaur, Stephen Harper - a supposed fiscal Conservative from Alberta - somehow allowed alot of our money to be wasted. Mistakes happen.

My response? He wasted my tax money, I will not vote for Stephen Harper's candidate in the next election. I will no longer contribute to his party.

Segnosaur, let's keep this simple.

He participated in an international conference.

Fine, Harper did. And you can encourage him to waste more of your tax money, but don't ask me to participate in such nonsense. I prefer to send a message to politicians.

It may take ten or twenty years for them to understand but I want them to understand eventually that spending $1 billion on an international summit is too much. As long as politicians spend tax money this way, I will vote against them.

----

Stephen Harper became Prime Minister because the federal Liberal Party abused public money.

I think that Harper has made a very grave mistake in spending tax money this way.

Edited June 28, 2010 by August1991

[segnosaur]

Where did you study math?

Well, obviously I seem to know more than you do...

2002 G8 summit in Alberta:

Cost: $300 million

Length: 2 days

Countries attending: 8 (full participants)

Cost per country per day: ~19 million

2010 G8/G20 summit:

Cost: $1.2 billion

Length: 3 days (combined G8 + G20, 2 days each, overlapping)

Countries attending: 20 (full participants)

Cost per country per day: ~20 million

Granted, there a larger conference would have more "economy of scale", but then, it has been almost a decade so there also is inflation.

Segnosaur, Stephen Harper - a supposed fiscal Conservative from Alberta - somehow allowed alot of our money to be wasted. Mistakes happen.

My response? He wasted my tax money, I will not vote for Stephen Harper's candidate in the next election. I will no longer contribute to his party.

Once again... waiting to here where exactly the money was wasted.

Or once again, would you prefer to withdraw completely from the G8/G20?

Segnosaur, let's keep this simple.

I'd rather keep it factual and logical.

I myself have provided many facts and much logic.

You have provided many bizarre rants that don't really make sense.

Still waiting for your evidence that a majority of Quebec voters are willing to embrace "fiscal Conservative" policies.

And I'm still waiting for your list of things at the conference itself that the government wasted money on.

Edited June 28, 2010 by segnosaur

[August1991]

Well, obviously seem to know more than you do...

2002 G8 summit in Alberta:

Cost: $300 million

Length: 2 days

Countries attending: 8 (full participants)

Cost per country per day: ~19 million

2010 G8/G20 summit:

Cost: $1.2 billion

Length: 3 days (combined G8 + G20, 2 days each, overlapping)

Countries attending: 20 (full participants)

Cost per country per day: ~20 million

Granted, there a larger conference would have more "economy of scale", but then, it has been almost a decade so there also is inflation.

What was Obama's line? "You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig."

Stephen Harper wasted taxpayer money on these summits.

Segnosaur, how much more clear can I make this (and it's not my opinion, it's the opinion of ordinary Canadians, particularly among women and people in Quebec). Stephen Harper, a supposed fiscal conservative, wasted taxpayer money and now has no credibility when he asks local groups to accept a cut in their subsidy.

If I want to hire a politician who will explain how tax funds are used wisely, I will not hire Stephen Harper.

Edited June 28, 2010 by August1991

[Smallc]

Segnosaur, how much more clear can I make this (and it's not my opinion, it's the opinion of ordinary Canadians, particularly among women and people in Quebec).

Uhhh...yeah....no.

[kimmy]

I have looked through my recent responses to this thread, and I am afraid one basic point may have been lost.

I want a Prime Minister who limits federal government spending. Stephen Harper and Jim Flaherty just allowed various bureaucrats to spend $1 billion. On this single point alone, Stephen Harper and Jim Flaherty are incompetent and I cannot vote for them, or their party.

(...)

Stephen Harper has lost my vote because I simply cannot condone or encourage such foolishness. If I were to vote Conservative in the next federal election, I would in effect accept this behaviour - and I can't.

Had you stopped there, I would have no objection to your view at all.

Where you lost me was your points #2 and #3. They're silly.

I am simply asking for a reasonably honest federal politician who can spend taxpayer's money carefully, and can speak to all Canadians in a way that they understand - even if they may disagree. I thought that Stephen Harper was that kind of politician. But he can't speak to Quebecers, and he can't speak to women.

When you say "he can't speak to Quebecers", are you referring to language issues?

When you say "he can't speak to women", I know you're not referring to language issues.

Women understand Harper when he speaks. They (in large measure, anyway) just don't like what he has to say.

He can speak to women in a way that they understand. But they disagree.

Is winning the support of any specific group of voters (women, Quebecers, Albertans, Christians, aboriginals, Philippinos, Rastafarians, Pastafarians, mooks, unionists, cheerleaders, whatever) an objective in itself? Is winning a majority an objective in itself?

In federal Canada, yes.

In Canada, one vote is worth no more or less than any other (subject to variances in riding populations and voter turnout, etc). Be it cast by a male, female, Quebecer, Albertan, Christian, Muslim, aboriginal, immigrant, or whatever.

In Canada, one riding is as valuable as the next, be it Hinton or Baie Comeau.

That Harper doesn't do well with female voters is of minor importance if he does well enough with male voters to make up for it. That Harper doesn't win many seats in Quebec doesn't matter if he wins enough seats elsewhere to make up for it.

Some Quebecers seem to think that a PM is not really a PM unless he is embraced in Quebec... that to be PM one must win Quebec and carry enough seats among the "TROCs" to make up the balance. Simply not true. Who's your PM? Stephen J. Harper. Quebec or not.

We have known for a long time that a Prime Minister can get by without the support of large areas of the country. For half of my life, we've had Prime Ministers who had precious little support west of Sault Ste Marie.

-k

[msdogfood]

Had you stopped there, I would have no objection to your view at all.

Where you lost me was your points #2 and #3. They're silly.

When you say "he can't speak to Quebecers", are you referring to language issues?

When you say "he can't speak to women", I know you're not referring to language issues.

Women understand Harper when he speaks. They (in large measure, anyway) just don't like what he has to say.

He can speak to women in a way that they understand. But they disagree.

In Canada, one vote is worth no more or less than any other (subject to variances in riding populations and voter turnout, etc). Be it cast by a male, female, Quebecer, Albertan, Christian, Muslim, aboriginal, immigrant, or whatever.

In Canada, one riding is as valuable as the next, be it Hinton or Baie Comeau.

That Harper doesn't do well with female voters is of minor importance if he does well enough with male voters to make up for it. That Harper doesn't win many seats in Quebec doesn't matter if he wins enough seats elsewhere to make up for it.

Some Quebecers seem to think that a PM is not really a PM unless he is embraced in Quebec... that to be PM one must win Quebec and carry enough seats among the "TROCs" to make up the balance. Simply not true. Who's your PM? Stephen J. Harper. Quebec or not.

We have known for a long time that a Prime Minister can get by without the support of large areas of the country. For half of my life, we've had Prime Ministers who had precious little support west of Sault Ste Marie.

-k

True So are you a fan of this PMO???.

[segnosaur]

What was Obama's line? "You can put lipstick on a pig, but it's still a pig."

Please point out where exactly my line of reasoning was incorrect.

The G8 summit hosted by Chretien in 2002 cost around $300 million. The 2010 summit lasted longer and had more countries participating. Why exactly do you think that the cost wouldn't have increased proportionally?

Stephen Harper wasted taxpayer money on these summits.

Segnosaur, how much more clear can I make this...

You've already made it clear... your posts have no real facts or logic behind them.

Now, let me ask you once again....

Ether tell me whether you think Canada should withdraw from the G8/G20 summits,

Or

If you think they should continue going to them tell me what exactly they spent money on that you think was unnecessary.

Until you do, your posts are worthless.

Of course, I don't exactly expect you to answer either of those questions... you've been caught making foolish statements and there is no way for you to redeem yourself. I just like to continue pointing out your foolishness.

If I want to hire a politician who will explain how tax funds are used wisely, I will not hire Stephen Harper.

And I guess they wouldn't hire you, considering you can't answer a couple of basic questions, like whether we should withdraw from the G8/G20, or where exactly we

[madmax]

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

I'd normally associate that with the Big Business Conservatives. Fat Cats at the table.

Harper doesn't throw money at things, he throws money away.

[Molly]

Please point out where exactly my line of reasoning was incorrect.

How about right here: the numbers you cite are not what it costs, but what was spent.

I can buy a car for $100,000... but I can buy a car for $500. Trotting out either number to say 'this is what cars cost' is an idiots game.

I do not, cannot, will not accept that a weekend whoop-up must necessarily set us back $1.2 billion (excluding damages inconvenience and lost opportunity). If it truly costs $40 a nose for every man woman and child in this entire country, then no, we can not afford it... but I do not for one millisecond believe that it must cost that much.

Start trimming out the gazebos and fake lakes, the 'party on the government dime' delegation members and the $100,000/weekend police officers... you might be surprised at how much savings could be found.

[Pliny]

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.

"A billion here, a billion there, after awhile you are talking about some real money."

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?

I think he is talking about the loss of national sovereignty.

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.

Quebec is not a conservative land. If a guy from Alberta can make any inroads at all it would be a surprise. I think he has.

As for women, if a guy from Alberta.....

Harper apparently learns as he goes.

I would count that as a plus point. Better than somebody who already knows everything like the guy they have in the States.

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

His hands are kind of tied being a minority government.

English Canada, surely, can do better.

You mean someone who speaks French with a better accent....Colin de bin!

----

[Pliny]

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

Can't get anything done? Wishful thinking.