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

[Argus]

Update: my sources tell me that the G20 dinner cost $10 million - including 40K for an ice sculpture !

OOOoooooooo.

Well, a while ago I would have said that was ridiculous. I'm still unsure how that could possibly be the case, though I suppose depending on how many people were eating, and how many security personnel were included in the bill anything is possible.

Five years ago Harper would have fired anyone who proposed a $40,000 ice sculpture for any dinner at which he was responsible for the bills. I'm not sure this Harper is paying that kind of attention to the bills any more. When you're throwing money around in the tens of billions even the guy you delegate to is delegating little jobs like arranging dinners.

My problem remains the same, though. I have seen no indication whatsoever that any other party has the least concern with overspending except for wanting to shake their fists at the cameras and pretend to look outraged for votes. The idea the NDP or BQ would cut back on anything is a joke. As to the Liberals, nothing about Ignatieff, a laid back, left-liberal intellectual indicates any interest in small government and pinching pennies.

[Argus]

And? Requiring someone to speak a non official language would be discrimination...

Izat a fact? So then if a hotel in Toronto required staff to be bilingual that would be discrimination? If Banff tried to advertise for jobs for people who could speak Japanese that would be discrimination? If Vancouver shops tried to hire mandarin speakers that would be discrimination?

[August1991]

I'm confused. What does Quebec have to do with a bilingual Canada? Quebec is a province full of backward bigots who reject bilingualism in terror it might damage the pristine purity of their idiot language.

I may be naive but I still believe that a federal conservative party can find someone who can speak to you, and to me.

I think Argus that you and I can agree that the federal government spends too much money.

Stephen Harper, apparently, does not have the talent to speak to us. Then again, other politicians might.

And then again further, my friends say that I'm foolish optimist.

Edited July 1, 2010 by August1991

[Smallc]

Izat a fact? So then if a hotel in Toronto required staff to be bilingual that would be discrimination? If Banff tried to advertise for jobs for people who could speak Japanese that would be discrimination? If Vancouver shops tried to hire mandarin speakers that would be discrimination?

Only two provinces have official languages.

[Jack Weber]

I feel sick.

One of my (rich) neighbours paid about $40,000 in federal taxes. I think Stephen Harper should send him a personal letter thanking him for the money, and explaining that it was used for an ice sculpture at the G20 in Toronto.

Harper sends personal letters apparently to the parents of kids killed in Afghanistan, explaining why their son died. Is a tax of $40,000 any different? When the government spends money in this way, on some international political bureaucratic meeting, it changes the future of our children - they have less money. Heck, because of this ice sculpture, our soldiers in Afghanistan have less money.

I voted for Harper with pride when he was honest. Harper lost my vote when he wasted my tax money on this stupid media show in Toronto.

This is not why I joined the Conservative Party, and not why I have contributed to it over the years.

----

I sincerely hope that the federal Conservative Party finds a new leader who can explain basic fiscal conservative beliefs, in two languages, to different Canadians - women and men both - because Stephen Harper is clearly incapable of doing this.

I want a federal Conservative leader who has some gumption. I don't want a Mackenzie King, circa 2010, Conservative Party in name who can't even win seats in Quebec.

Gawd, I have no patience for Harper anymore.

He wastes our money, and he can't draw us together. We pay him to learn on the job, and he still doesn't know what a smart leader should.

Harper may be elected in Calgary, but he's from Leaside. This has nothing to do with Alberta.

----

Harper wasted over $1 billion of our tax money. Even Sarkozy has said he'll spend less.

Be done with him, please.

You could move to Alberta,join the WRAPers...Or better yet,Join Hydraboss in the Alberta secessionist movement...

That's probably not good for your long term health....

Edited July 1, 2010 by Jack Weber

[Jack Weber]

Izat a fact? So then if a hotel in Toronto required staff to be bilingual that would be discrimination? If Banff tried to advertise for jobs for people who could speak Japanese that would be discrimination? If Vancouver shops tried to hire mandarin speakers that would be discrimination?

In Vancouver,that would be called good business...

[August1991]

You could move to Alberta,join the WRAPers...Or better yet,Join Hydraboss in the Alberta secessionist movement...

I could move to France and vote for Sarkozy.

Weber, you miss my point.

[Smallc]

I could move to France and vote for Sarkozy.

Oh, that's interesting....

[Jack Weber]

I could move to France and vote for Sarkozy.

Weber, you miss my point.

No I did'nt...

Mr.Harper is awash in some Liberalesque fog and you don't like it.You either want him to return to a conservativism closer to his previous form in Alberta or you want someone new who will fulfill that promise...

If that's what you truly want,I suggested moving to a place where that level of conservativism seems quite at home...

[DrGreenthumb]

Well, a while ago I would have said that was ridiculous. I'm still unsure how that could possibly be the case, though I suppose depending on how many people were eating, and how many security personnel were included in the bill anything is possible.

Five years ago Harper would have fired anyone who proposed a $40,000 ice sculpture for any dinner at which he was responsible for the bills. I'm not sure this Harper is paying that kind of attention to the bills any more. When you're throwing money around in the tens of billions even the guy you delegate to is delegating little jobs like arranging dinners.

My problem remains the same, though. I have seen no indication whatsoever that any other party has the least concern with overspending except for wanting to shake their fists at the cameras and pretend to look outraged for votes. The idea the NDP or BQ would cut back on anything is a joke. As to the Liberals, nothing about Ignatieff, a laid back, left-liberal intellectual indicates any interest in small government and pinching pennies.

The Bloc or the NDP might not spend less but they damn sure would spend it a lot more wisely, on stuff for the people, not on perks for rich elites. I could see that money being spent by the NDP or the Bloc but at least we'd have something to show for it, like national early learning centres, pharmacare, or a properly funded old age security system.

[Keepitsimple]

The Bloc or the NDP might not spend less but they damn sure would spend it a lot more wisely, on stuff for the people, not on perks for rich elites. I could see that money being spent by the NDP or the Bloc but at least we'd have something to show for it, like national early learning centres, pharmacare, or a properly funded old age security system.

And who would pay for all that......I guess the rich elites would, eh?

[Wild Bill]

The Bloc or the NDP might not spend less but they damn sure would spend it a lot more wisely, on stuff for the people, not on perks for rich elites. I could see that money being spent by the NDP or the Bloc but at least we'd have something to show for it, like national early learning centres, pharmacare, or a properly funded old age security system.

"...more wisely"? As an Ontarioan who witnessed Bob Rae's NDP government first hand, I think you would first have to define 'stuff for the people' more precisely.

From what I saw, an NDP government would dive into a program to put bike racks on all public buses, while blissfully ignoring the fact that the streets have so many huge pot holes that the buses can't travel through the city anyway!

After critics point this out, they would then give every citizen a bike, since bikes can more easily navigate around potholes.

Before you try to claim I'm exaggerating, I personally saw Bob's government hire guys for unnecessary highway work crews in order to give them enough weeks to qualify for EI. They put them on the highway with NO safety training, pouring concrete in bitterly cold January. The concrete of course froze and had to be replaced in the spring.

Many experienced old hands were so disgusted at this and many other examples that they took early retirement, causing a 'brain drain' that the dept has not recovered from to this day.

Edited July 4, 2010 by Wild Bill

[Argus]

The Bloc or the NDP might not spend less but they damn sure would spend it a lot more wisely, on stuff for the people, not on perks for rich elites. I could see that money being spent by the NDP or the Bloc but at least we'd have something to show for it, like national early learning centres, pharmacare, or a properly funded old age security system.

Well, let's see. Mcguinty's been in power in Ontario for years now. He's vastly increased taxes, and vastly increased spending on health care and education. Whooppee! Uh, except that almost all the additional health care spending went to increased salaries for doctors, nurses, and unionized hospital staff, and almost all the increased funding for education went to increasing salaries and decreasing workloads for teachers.

Health care improvement: 0

Education improvement: 0

[segnosaur]

Hey, you know, I'm still waiting to see you answer those questions. Just let me refresh your mind August1991...

- If you think the conference is too expensive, then do you favor Canada withdrawing from the G8/G20

Look at Molly's quote. I don't object to eating food, but that doesn't mean I approve a $1000 restaurant meal.

I already debunked Molly's posting when I pointed out that the article she referred to contained quotes from experts pointing out that the costs were not necessarily out of line. Seems Molly didn't want to quote that particular part of the article. I wonder why.

I also pointed out that the earlier conference held in Alberta when Chretien was P.M. (The one that you praised) had costs that were pretty much in line with this conference.

So, once again... If you think the conference is too expensive, then do you favor Canada withdrawing from the G8/G20

If you still want Canada to stay in the G8/G20 then where exactly should they cut spending when they host these conferences?

Dunno.

So, you don't know where exactly they're wasting money, but you automatically assume that they are, even before we've had a proper auditing.

Given the fact that you seem to be rather vocal in your condemnation of Harper, shouldn't you, you know, actually get some facts to back up your condemnation?

- What exactly makes you think that Quebec (you know, the country you're claiming Harper "has" to win) has a significant population base that wants cuts to taxes/social programs like a true Fiscal conservative would?

You've lost me here.

Not sure why I had lost you, considering the number of times I explained it.

But let me try once again...

- The quebec population is, for the most part, pro-socialist/left-leaning. The opinion polls demonstrate that. (I've referred to those polls multiple times.) Quebecers want large-scale social spending/taxes

- Fiscal conservatives want to reduce taxes

- Because what fiscal conservatives want differs from what the Quebec population wants, any conservative politician will be at a disadvantage.

So, what makes you think Quebec voters are in any way willing to embrace cuts to taxes/social programs?

[August1991]

I already debunked Molly's posting when I pointed out that the article she referred to contained quotes from experts pointing out that the costs were not necessarily out of line. Seems Molly didn't want to quote that particular part of the article. I wonder why.

And an expert might agree that spending $500,000 for a Mercedes S600 is not out of line - but as Molly pointed out, I wouldn't buy one.

I also pointed out that the earlier conference held in Alberta when Chretien was P.M. (The one that you praised) had costs that were pretty much in line with this conference.

I never praised the International conference in Alberta, but it did cost considerably less than this ridiculous boondoggle in Ontario.

Segnosaur, as you would say, I'm wrong on facts. Well in politics, it's perceptions not facts that matter. And I think I am right in saying that most Canadians perceive that a PM who asks Canadians to accept less government spending, indeed organizes a summit and calls for international reductions in government deficits, has spent too much if the summit costs $1.2 billion.

Liberal MP Mark Holland (Ajax-Pickering, Ont.), his party's critic for the G8 and G20 summits, and whose riding is in the GTA, said that city officials were not consulted in the planning process leading up to the summit, and the responsibility for what went wrong should fall squarely on the Harper government.

"This is going to be a really big blow to anybody who has Conservative aspirations in the GTA. At my annual garden party on the weekend there were more than 400 people, it was a community event, and I've never heard people be more upset. They're really angry about how this was managed; they're angry that it was put at the last second into the city, that their city was shutdown like this and the disruption was there, and obviously at the protests and the damage. They're angry about that, and they're angry about the horrific costs of this thing and how it got so out of control. I have no doubt that it's going to cost them in the GTA," he said.

Hill-Times

Sure, Holland's a Liberal but Segnosaur, if you think that Stephen harper can go before the Canadian people and openly defend this expenditure (as you apparently try to do on this forum), you don't understand politics. Harper haswisely shut up about the whole cost thing and is hoping that everyone will forget about it.

Not sure why I had lost you, considering the number of times I explained it.

But let me try once again...

- The quebec population is, for the most part, pro-socialist/left-leaning. The opinion polls demonstrate that. (I've referred to those polls multiple times.) Quebecers want large-scale social spending/taxes

- Fiscal conservatives want to reduce taxes

- Because what fiscal conservatives want differs from what the Quebec population wants, any conservative politician will be at a disadvantage.

So, what makes you think Quebec voters are in any way willing to embrace cuts to taxes/social programs?

And what I tried to explain to you is that there are many Quebecers dissatisfied with the size of government, how it taxes and spends money and how it regulates but unfortunately the opinions of these Quebecers have been lost in a loud, acrimonious debate about the National Question. Quebec society has numerous issues to deal with but all have taken second place to the issue of independence.

The Conservatives in 2006 and 2008 in particular had a genuine chance to break this logjam. Many, many Quebecers are anxious for a way out and would have taken it - but then Harper utterly botched his intervention.

To succeed, a federal PM has to unite several (but not all) regional Canadian groups. So far, Harper has at best united rural Westerners and rural Ontarians. (Allow me to utter a sarcastic: Wow, I'm impressed!) Harper has not brought in women, Quebecers or urban Canadians. He has largely lost the Maritimes.

----

Segnosaur, if you want to defend the cost of the Ontario Summit, go ahead. But every time you raise the issue, you just lose another vote. Harper's no fool. He will do everything to avoid the topic because he knows that it's a vote loser.

[PIK]

August and I disagree more often than not; but you're misapprehending his point. His point here is all about fiscal conservatism; and I think a lot of conservatives (big "C" and small) are disillusioned by Harper's decidedly anti-conservative behaviours, both economically and in how he deals with pesky matters like Parliament.

This country has changed so much in the last couple of decades, that you just can't be one to all,every PM is going to have to be con and lib together. This country IMO must be the hardest in the free world to lead.Canadians have become so lazy and spoiled , leaders have to lie to the people ,because the people can't handle the truth. Edited July 5, 2010 by PIK

[segnosaur]

And an expert might agree that spending $500,000 for a Mercedes S600 is not out of line - but as Molly pointed out, I wouldn't buy one.

Main problem with your argument is that at this point we still don't know if the $1 billion dollar price tag is "too much".. One of the references in the article specifically mentions that the costs are not out of line with what should be expected with conferences of this type.

You keep chanting this mantra of "It can be done cheaper" as if its a done deal, yet your only evidence seems to be A: assumptions and B: Some newspaper article that actually gives contradictory information.

I never praised the International conference in Alberta...

But you did hold it up as an example of "better spending".

... but it did cost considerably less than this ridiculous boondoggle in Ontario.

Except that Alberta conference A: was shorter, and B: had fewer participating countries.

Go back in this thread. You can see a post where I actually do calculations that show the cost of the G8/G20 summit was in line with the earlier Alberta G8 summit when you consider the changes in scope, inflation, etc.

Segnosaur, as you would say, I'm wrong on facts. Well in politics, it's perceptions not facts that matter.

So, because you're ignorant, you feel it proper to condemn Harper?

You know, if you came out and said "I hate Harper because I'm a socialist", or "I hate Harper because I'm a Quebec nationalist" your position would be understandable, almost respectful. But your "I hate harper because I'm a fiscal conservative" makes absolutely no sense.

And what I tried to explain to you is that there are many Quebecers dissatisfied with the size of government...

And just how many is "many"? 90%? 80%?

Here's a suggestion... go back and look at the references I posted. You'll see that while there may be some Quebecois who are dissatisfied with the size of government the majority want spending to continue.

You know, earlier on you said you were "wrong on facts", but frankly, your inability to understand that most Quebec residence (regardless of whether they are federalist, nationalist, or apathetic) want continued government spending. Lots of it. They may not care about spending on the G8/G20, but they still want expensive social programs. Not fiscal conservatism.

And no party who says "I want to cut taxes and spending" will find much favor in Quebec, regardless of all your valueless claims about Quebecers hating spending.

The Conservatives in 2006 and 2008 in particular had a genuine chance to break this logjam. Many, many Quebecers are anxious for a way out and would have taken it - but then Harper utterly botched his intervention.

And do you know how he "botched things up"? Harper tried to cut Arts funding!!!. In other words, he was trying to do what "fiscal conservatives" do, and Quebec voters turned against him!!!! (See: http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1452324720081015)

So, tell me, where was this huge Quebec voter base who wanted to cut spending? When someone actually tries, he looses support. So, just how is some 'fiscal conservative' supposed to gain power in Quebec if the moment they try to do something to cut spending they loose support?

Segnosaur, if you want to defend the cost of the Ontario Summit, go ahead. But every time you raise the issue, you just lose another vote. Harper's no fool. He will do everything to avoid the topic because he knows that it's a vote loser.

Ummm... first of all, I want to deal with facts, not idiotic mantras and claims without evidence like you seem to be doing.

Secondly, it seems to be you that originally brought up the cost of the G8/G20 summit. And you did so by expressing your ignorance. Since I like to deal with, you know, facts.

[xul]

I think Harper will unlikely lose votes from peoples like August1991 because they have no alternative choice.

[segnosaur]

I think Harper will unlikely lose votes from peoples like August1991 because they have no alternative choice.

the thing is, if August1991 were actually thinking logically, if he actually were a "fiscal conservative", and he actually put some thought into his vote, he would have no alternative choice. (Well, no mainstream alternative choice.)

Unfortunately, either:

A: He's not really a "fiscal conservative" (and his suggestion that he might vote for the Bloc suggest that that might be the case). He just wanted to claim he was so it would supposedly have more impact when he "rejected Harper".

B: He is incapable of logical thought, or is just plain ignorant (since he seems to fault Harper because of deep seated pro-socialist beliefs of the Quebec population.)

Given either of those factors, its quote possible that they might 'loose his vote'. Of course, they don't do a brain cell count before they give you a ballot, so of course he has every right to use any criteria he wants to select an MP, even if his reasoning doesn't make sense.

[August1991]

Add this to my "why Harper has lost my vote":

If there’s one area where the conservative movement is consistently losing the battle, it’s on the so-called “nanny state” issues — the useless encroachment of government into more and more aspects of our lives.

Usually, these types of interventionist laws and regulations are created with good intentions — banning this or that harmful product, or disincentivizing this or that hazardous behaviour. But they rarely result in an improvement of the common good: More often than not, the end result is more government jobs, increased costs and headaches for regular citizens and dangerous unintended consequences.

Link

----

In federal politics, I want a fiscal conservative politician/person who can speak in French and English (accented, whatever) and explain why the federal government has reduced/cut its cultural budget. I will vote for a party who has a leader who can go to Red Deer, or La Beauce, and explain this - and connect with people.

At the moment, we do not have a federal leader capable/with the talent to do this.

I think Harper will unlikely lose votes from peoples like August1991 because they have no alternative choice.

I live in a BQ/Liberal riding so my vote is largely irrelavant. Harper has lost my vote, but he has also lost my federal Conservative party mail-in contributions.

Believe me: As a fiscal conservative, I made my opinion clear about this $1 billion summit in Ontario. If Stephen Harper can spend $1 billion of taxpayer money on a three-day summit in Ontario, then I cannot trust him or his party with my meagre party contribution.

I have stopped sending money to the CPC, and I will likely not vote for Harper's candidate.

Edited July 8, 2010 by August1991