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

[Argus]

The greatest myth of modern politics is that conservatives are fiscally responsible. Past experience in Canada and the U.S. indicates that conservatives' long term strategy is to ruin the effectiveness of government, so that there is no public watchdog that their corporate friends and benefactors will have to answer to.

Always nice to hear from the tinfoil hat brigade.

I don't suppose it's occurred to you that for decades all the big corporate interests in Canada backed the Liberal party and not the Conservatives? No, probably not. Further, since no corporate donations are legal any more why do you imagine the Conservative party is willing to destroy the country's economic infrastructure for the benefit of corporate canada?

[Bonam]

Harper and the conservatives certainly aren't perfect, but are there really any better choices? The liberals would do no better, the NDP are fringe socialists, the bloc is only looking out for Quebec. Voting isn't always about picking a leader who you are truly enthusiastic about, more often, it's simply an exercise of picking the least of several evils.

[eyeball]

Harper and the conservatives certainly aren't perfect, but are there really any better choices? The liberals would do no better, the NDP are fringe socialists, the bloc is only looking out for Quebec. Voting isn't always about picking a leader who you are truly enthusiastic about, more often, it's simply an exercise of picking the least of several evils.

Voting is also a stamp of approval for the depressingly uninspiring electoral system we use. Stop participating in it and maybe it will go away.

[Keepitsimple]

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.

I've voted Liberal and Conservative over the years but the Liberal Party of the past 10 years has given me absolutely nothing to convince me to vote for them. We used to have Liberals that acted like Conservatives. Now we have Conservatives that are acting more like Liberals. The truth is that Canadians occupy the Center - sometimes a little to the Left - sometimes a little to the Right. Because of the Economy and concerns about Crime and terrorism, the world - including Canada - has nudged itself to the Right. You're obviously entitled to your opinion but I would comment on your points as follows:

1) I can't argue with that statement but you can bet that Conservatives have a more natural instinct to rein in expenses that do Liberals - regardless of the Paul Martin fan club.

2) If you read your article, he never said that international matters are more important than domestic. He said that when you're in opposition, you tend to focus almost entirely on domestic matters.....but when you actually form government, you quickly realize how much time, effort and importance go into international affairs. I found the quote to be quite realistic and not in any way reflective of how you understood it.

3) No Federal party is going to win Quebec until the Bloc are gone. They did marvellous by winning 10 seats even though it's unlikely they'll hold all of them. As for women, the latest polls show that he's doing as well as the Liberals and when the polls are up - as they will likely be again - the Conservatives have been at all time highs in terms of their female support.

[bloodyminded]

I've voted Liberal and Conservative over the years but the Liberal Party of the past 10 years has given me absolutely nothing to convince me to vote for them.

That sounds reasonably sane to me at the moment.

We used to have Liberals that acted like Conservatives. Now we have Conservatives that are acting more like Liberals. The truth is that Canadians occupy the Center - sometimes a little to the Left - sometimes a little to the Right. Because of the Economy and concerns about Crime and terrorism, the world - including Canada - has nudged itself to the Right.

I'm not declaring you're absolutely wrong, but this is far from clear. "Left" and "right" are fairly shifty categorizations; and the "centre," which is a (often smug) self-appellation of those Canadians who consider themselves uninfluenced by extremes---incorrectly, in my view, as many of them are profoundly extreme on some issues--is also a highly nebulous label.

As for "the world" shifting to the Right...I'm just not seeing it. Really difficult to measure, at any rate.

[eyeball]

Left and right are so passé.

The real polarity of our times is between the governed and governments.

[Jack Weber]

Left and right are so passé.

The real polarity of our times is between the governed and governments.

Interesting...

If your take is that the political class in this country is completely disconnected from the reality of everyday life for most Canadians,I tend to agree...

[dre]

Do you even know what being a "fiscal conservative" is? You're really illustrating yourself to be quite ignorant.

Its easy to forget because fiscal conservatives have basically been extinct for more than 30 years as a mainstream political movement. Parties that label themselves "conservative" these days are some of the biggest spenders and defecit financers in politics, and no real fiscal conservative would ever have anything to do with them.

[eyeball]

Interesting...

If your take is that the political class in this country is completely disconnected from the reality of everyday life for most Canadians,I tend to agree...

Stephan Harper probably has more in common with Kim Jong Il than he does with us. Even more so this weekend.

[Keepitsimple]

I'm not declaring you're absolutely wrong, but this is far from clear. "Left" and "right" are fairly shifty categorizations; and the "centre," which is a (often smug) self-appellation of those Canadians who consider themselves uninfluenced by extremes---incorrectly, in my view, as many of them are profoundly extreme on some issues--is also a highly nebulous label.

As for "the world" shifting to the Right...I'm just not seeing it. Really difficult to measure, at any rate.

I suppose people can look at it a little differently but the way I see it, the center is a healthy balance between individual responsibility and the government re-distributing income to help the less fortunate. Where the Left and Right clash is how to define the "less fortunate". So as you work your way out from the center - you get further redistribution plans going Leftward and a holding pattern or even tightening up of redistribution as you move to the right. Most voters (Liberals/Conservatives) are only slightly to the Left or Right if not right in the middle. What I meant by the world shifting to the right is best exemplified by Greece....who have given such lucrative pensions and early retirement - amongst other benefits - that they have driven themselves near bankruptcy - as have several other European countries.....so they'll have to claw back a lot of those "progressive" social benefits. Perhaps I should have said that these countries have to go back towards the center - but it is a rightward shift. These countries had veered so far towards socialism that it finally hit them in the face that the whole schamozzle was unsustainable.

Edited June 26, 2010 by Keepitsimple

[Topaz]

I say Dominic Le Blanc could take Quebec away from the Bloc and the Tories.

[capricorn]

First he'd have to take the leadership away from Ignatieff and Rae.

[Sir Bandelot]

I say Dominic Le Blanc could take Quebec away from the Bloc and the Tories.

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.

[Sir Bandelot]

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.

Welcome, brother, to the disabused, disenchanted, island of unwanted conservatives.

[Jack Weber]

Welcome, brother, to the disabused, disenchanted, island of unwanted conservatives.

There are the wacko WRAPpers in Alberta?

[August1991]

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.

Fiscal conservative is one of my three points. The other two are his "now I see the Big Picture" admission, and his inability to win a majority because of his inability to get votes among women and in Quebec.

I pointed to Quebec's higher tax rate. (I even gave a web site allowing you to compare the income tax rate in different provinces!)

I pointed to some of Quebec's spending on social programs.

And guess what? Those are the traits of a "social democrat" system!

Do you even know what being a "fiscal conservative" is? You're really illustrating yourself to be quite ignorant.

What exactly about Quebec makes you think that its population, in any way, is oriented to the "political right"?

There are some 7 million Quebecers. Many of them disagree with the policies of various governments but sadly, the national question has dominated all other debates over the past few decades. Harper had a wonderful opportunity to slice through this question but then he hamfistedly stole political incompetence from the jaws of political acumen.

When Harper in the last election started talking about cultural galas and how crime was a major problem, he simply showed how out of touch he was with most Quebecers. To put this in English Canadian perspective, he sounded like the stereotypical oblivious American tarvelling abroad.

But let me give you an even more damning example. James Moore, Harper's choice for federal culture minister, goes on Quebec's most popular talk show and demonstrates that he doesn't know who Guy Laliberte, Robert Lepage or Felix Leclerc.

Oh, and I notice that once again, you have ignored several issues/questions that were raised:

- If you are opposed to spending on a G8/G20 meeting, do you want Canada to withdraw from all such meetings (and thus loose any influence we might have at them)?

- if you really are a "fiscal conservative", why would you consider voting for the Bloc, when they are a party that wants to increase spending and increase taxes?

I am not opposed to eating food but that doesn't mean I would spend $1000 on a restaurant meal. Segnosaur, $1.2 billion (and counting) is too much.

As for voting Bloc, I don't know what else I can do. I call it my "tit-for-tat" voting strategy. I will keep changing my vote (even randomly choosing parties) until a government manages to control government spending honestly.

Harper says nothing of the sort.

Your premise is entirely bogus.

Try again.

Go back and read that Harper quote in the OP, and keep in mind that Harper had essentially never travelled outside of Canada until he became PM at the age of 47. It's a surprising time to suddenly develop an intellectual curiousity for foreign affairs.

I fear rather that Harper's comment naively shows that like most politicians, he's a control freak and as PM, he now understands that world affairs limit his control.

But as I say, the comment is dumb on several levels.

Edited June 26, 2010 by August1991

[kimmy]

Harper has probably lost my vote on three basic points:

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

I can certainly respect this one.

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

That's a ridiculous, and I assume intentional, misrepresentation of the quote you provided.

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

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?

Should I think more highly than I do of Chretien, on the grounds that he was somewhat more successful than Harper in Quebec or with women?

Third, Harper doesn't have the numbers.

If you're basing your voting intentions on whether a politician "has the numbers" then I assume you're also a big fan of "Avatar" and of boy-band music. If you're basing your voting intentions on whether a politician is likely to win a majority, I assume you're planning on spoiling your ballots for the foreseeable future.

In Quebec, Harper is a loser. This is not the kind of federal PM that Canada deserves.

English Canada, surely, can do better.

Of course. You're still waiting for some leader who will offer Quebec some fictional "compromise" that would make the BQ obsolete, right?

-k

[bloodyminded]

I suppose people can look at it a little differently but the way I see it, the center is a healthy balance between individual responsibility and the government re-distributing income to help the less fortunate. Where the Left and Right clash is how to define the "less fortunate".

I take your point, but these parameters themselves are notable mostly by how unclear and shifty they are. Almost everybody, a few anarcho-capitalists and hardcore socialists aside, believe in some sort of balance between two poles; but no one can agree on where that balance is currently, much less where it should be.

The fact that I personally have been deemed a "communist," merely for placing emphasis on a slightly different balance that do my debate opponents (even though they also support such "balance"), suggests that we can't even agree on where the centre is...much less Left and Right.

What I meant by the world shifting to the right is best exemplified by Greece....who have given such lucrative pensions and early retirement - amongst other benefits - that they have driven themselves near bankruptcy - as have several other European countries.....so they'll have to claw back a lot of those "progressive" social benefits. Perhaps I should have said that these countries have to go back towards the center - but it is a rightward shift. These countries had veered so far towards socialism that it finally hit them in the face that the whole schamozzle was unsustainable.

OK, you're talking strictly in economic terms. But leaving aside the fact that since the Right tends to advocate for more military spending and harsher judicial systems, they are more socialist (or, if you prefer, statist) in at least a few regards than are the Left....when I think of "left" and "right" I think of a whole host of issues, not only strictly economic/social-spending ones.

Edited June 26, 2010 by bloodyminded

[Argus]

When Harper in the last election started talking about cultural galas and how crime was a major problem, he simply showed how out of touch he was with most Quebecers.

No, he showed how in touch he was with non-Quebecers. It's not his fault Quebecers are out of touch with Canadians, and have completely different priorities. English Canadians, for example, want safer streets. Quebecers don't care about safer streets so long as arts groups they've never heard of contiue to suck at the public trough.

Again, your ludicrous suggestion is that Harper should base his entire campaign strategy on what Quebec wants, and screw everyone else. That ain't going to happen.

And even if it did. Even if Harper tailored his entire campaign to Quebecers, with oodles and oodles of extra money and praise and programs tossed their way, the instant a French guy says "bonjour" they'd all abandon him anyway.

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.

If Quebec found out Satan spoke French no goat in the province would be safe from the sacrificial knfe. That's just the way they are.

Edited June 26, 2010 by Argus

[Jack Weber]

No, he showed how in touch he was with non-Quebecers. It's not his fault Quebecers are out of touch with Canadians, and have completely different priorities. English Canadians, for example, want safer streets. Quebecers don't care about safer streets so long as arts groups they've never heard of contiue to suck at the public trough.

Again, your ludicrous suggestion is that Harper should base his entire campaign strategy non what Quebec wants, and screw everyone else. That ain't going to happen.

And even if it did. Even if Harper tailored his entire campaign to Quebecers, with oodles and oodles of extra money and praise and programs tossed their way, the instant a French guy says "bonjour" they'd all abandon him anyway.

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.

If Quebec found out Satan spoke French no goat in the province would be safe from the sacrificial knfe. That's just the way they are.

Kinda like the way Albertans instinctively vote for any "Anti-Ottawa" con hack who brings up the words "Trudeau" and the acronym "NEP"?

[August1991]

That's a ridiculous, and I assume intentional, misrepresentation of the quote you provided.

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."

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?

Should I think more highly than I do of Chretien, on the grounds that he was somewhat more successful than Harper in Quebec or with women?

If you're basing your voting intentions on whether a politician "has the numbers" then I assume you're also a big fan of "Avatar" and of boy-band music. If you're basing your voting intentions on whether a politician is likely to win a majority, I assume you're planning on spoiling your ballots for the foreseeable future.

Of course. You're still waiting for some leader who will offer Quebec some fictional "compromise" that would make the BQ obsolete, right?

-k

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.

Edited June 26, 2010 by August1991

[Wild Bill]

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.)

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...

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. Harper would only hold most of Quebec and Ontario. Like Chretien, he would do very poorly for seats in the rest of Canada. Like Chretien, he no doubt would still try to claim his was a truly nationalist party!

Although I would prefer that Quebecers WANT to stay in Canada, more and more when I read posts like yours I am coming to think that perhaps our cultures ARE too different! That no party could EVER please the ENTIRE country!

Certainly, except for Mulroney's two massive majorities we haven't seen such a government in a long, long time. We all saw what happened to Mulroney's "big tent", as well.

If the culture of Quebec and that of all the other provinces are so truly different then perhaps we all would be better off if Quebec did leave! Certainly, the rest of Canada would see a financial advantage.

Just as a matter of interest, if separation did occur, wouldn't that mean Quebec would be far too small to be represented at the G20? Certainly, they could not be a member of the G8!

[madmax]

----

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 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.

[segnosaur]

I pointed to Quebec's higher tax rate. (I even gave a web site allowing you to compare the income tax rate in different provinces!)

I pointed to some of Quebec's spending on social programs.

And guess what? Those are the traits of a "social democrat" system!

Do you even know what being a "fiscal conservative" is? You're really illustrating yourself to be quite ignorant.

What exactly about Quebec makes you think that its population, in any way, is oriented to the "political right"?

There are some 7 million Quebecers. Many of them disagree with the policies of various governments...

Yes, I'm sure many do disagree with various spending policies... But they (meaning the majority of voters) keep electing governments that have left-wing policies.

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?)

And why, in a 2007 poll, did a clear majority of Quebecers state that social programs "should be as generous as possible, even at the risk of indebting future generations." (see: http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/story.html?id=30152692-af20-442e-aff8-faa631e249a9&p=1} That's not the attitude of a "conservative" right-wing voter base, that's a left-wing voter base.

But let me give you an even more damning example. James Moore, Harper's choice for federal culture minister, goes on Quebec's most popular talk show and demonstrates that he doesn't know who Guy Laliberte, Robert Lepage or Felix Leclerc.

There are thousands of artists/performers/etc. all across the country. I could probably point to a lot of English language performers that Moore would probably also say "Who is that?"

Oh, and I notice that once again, you have ignored several issues/questions that were raised:

- If you are opposed to spending on a G8/G20 meeting, do you want Canada to withdraw from all such meetings (and thus loose any influence we might have at them)?

I am not opposed to eating food but that doesn't mean I would spend $1000 on a restaurant meal. Segnosaur, $1.2 billion (and counting) is too much.

Fine, tell me, what should they cut out.

Much of the cost involved security. Should they eliminate that?

The fact is, as expensive as this meeting is, it seems to be the going rate for hosting these type of events.

- if you really are a "fiscal conservative", why would you consider voting for the Bloc, when they are a party that wants to increase spending and increase taxes?

As for voting Bloc, I don't know what else I can do. I call it my "tit-for-tat" voting strategy. I will keep changing my vote (even randomly choosing parties) until a government manages to control government spending honestly.

Soo... your plan is to show displeasure over a company that is spending more than you'd like, by voting for a party that wants to spend even more of your money? Don't you think that's extremely counter productive?

Go back and read that Harper quote in the OP, and keep in mind that Harper had essentially never travelled outside of Canada until he became PM at the age of 47.

Which, of course, doesn't mean that he doesn't understand foreign affairs or how Canada fits in to the global community.

It's a surprising time to suddenly develop an intellectual curiousity for foreign affairs.

Once again, this appears to be an incorrect interpretation of Harper's statements.

[sharkman]

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?