Martin a la Harris savages Harper!

[waldo]

Ouch! This kind of commentary cannot go unanswered...

Party of One: Stephen Harper and Canada’s Radical Makeover - by Michael Harris

Party of One is a differently styled indictment. It’s a searing, heavily sourced dissection of Mr. Harper’s “anti-democratic” methods. Former Commons speaker Peter Milliken tells Mr. Harris: “Harper can’t go much further without making the institution dysfunctional … In fact, [the House] will have to be returned to its former state by someone if we are to have a democracy.”

Is it that bad? Robert Marleau, a former commissioner of information who had a close-up view of Mr. Harper’s actions in respect to freedom of speech told the author: “Mr. Harper has not played within the rules. Having attained absolute power, he has absolutely abused that power to the maximum.” Many others testify, including former auditor-general and Liberal slayer Sheila Fraser (sponsorship scandal).

The important question is the one invited by Mr. Milliken and others – where is all this heading? Mr. Harper’s methods have already brought so much dysfunction to the system. If his ways are vindicated with another election victory, then what?

Those who say it’s old stuff, that the book is beating a dead horse, miss the point. The story isn’t old – it’s ongoing, with a vengeance. Mr. Harper doesn’t stop. He has been asked many, many times to clean up his act, including by members of his own Conservative flock. He ignores such warnings.

During his minority governments, defenders said he had to act like an autocrat in order to save his government, that things would be different with a majority. But how different, Mr. Harris asks, have Conservative actions been in regard to the Senate scandal, the robocall scandal, the omnibus bills, the F-35 procurement process, the blocking of parliamentary reform, the vindictive attacks on those who disagree?

It’s cost him. Mr. Harper’s on track to lose the next election less because of his policies than because of his operation (and because of Mr. Trudeau’s popularity). There’s something pathological at work here. Mr. Harper’s drive to subjugate the system to his will is something he cannot shed – it’s compulsive. Party of One is rooted in a pathology of one.

Edited October 21, 2014 by waldo

[Topaz]

There is truth to what Harris is saying and I think Canadians and some of the world agree . Harper will go down as one of the worse , if not the worse PM we've had. Many Canadians are hurting caused by some of the laws and changes he's brought in and the fact, Harper doesn't like being told what he CAN do and tries to change the rules so he can. The downfall of Harper is attacking the CPP and EI.

[Shady]

You mean like Chretien attacked EI?

[Topaz]

How? Do you mean by taking money from there and making it a surplus? Then Harper did, who knows what with it and then Harper has made it harder to get EI.

[Smallc]

It should be harder to get EI. The easier it is, the more it costs every worker.

[Argus]

Ouch! This kind of commentary cannot go unanswered...

Party of One: Stephen Harper and Canada’s Radical Makeover - by Michael Harris

In what way is Parliament different under Harper than it was under Chretien?

[cybercoma]

It should be harder to get EI. The easier it is, the more it costs every worker.

What do you care? The program is profitable. What is with you people attacking the poor, elderly, and disabled in the name of profits when there isn't even a problem? EI is an insurance fund that has tripartite management. It's not a tax the government gets to screw around with.

[Smallc]

Because with my job, I pay the employer and employee portion of EI, as well as the same for my parents and the employer portion for 3 - 4 other people. EI is expensive. The less people that are using it (I know far too many who abuse it) the better.

[cybercoma]

You don't know anybody abusing it. That anecdotal garbage was utterly destroyed with Harris's reporting line and numerous studies done on EI abuse. The number of people abusing EI is a tiny fraction and even then most of it is procedural mistakes and oversights.

You keep drinking that War on the Poor Kool-aid though. Someday you'll be the one in need and wonder what happened to the help that you tirelessly advocate for destroying.

[scribblet]

I disagree he will go down as the worst PM especially since Canada has fared very well over his years. Chretien was known as the little bully or little dictator, and his gov't was known for gutting transfer payments in the billions... Disagreeing over policy and ideology is one thing, but the hysterical paranoia many people show over Harper is weird. Harris is an example of that, in fact.

Does anyone have a cite for the Peter Miliken quote in Harris's book.. (other than Harris)

[cybercoma]

Oh that's priceless! A true blue Conservative criticizing Chrètien for cutting transfer payments. lmfao

Now I've seen everything.

[waldo]

Oh that's priceless! A true blue Conservative criticizing Chrètien for cutting transfer payments. lmfao

Now I've seen everything.

now, now... there are good 'true blue Conservative' transfer payment cuts and then there are all the other bad kinds... even if they're imaginary!

[scribblet]

Oh that's priceless! A true blue Conservative criticizing Chrètien for cutting transfer payments. lmfao

Now I've seen everything.

I'm sure you've heard it before and not just from moi.. He also gutted the military budget and the resulting spending by provinces was brutal resulting from the gutting of health transfers. You don't need links from me to confirm that one.

Not to mention Martin's proposal to screw seniors with his plan to gut the old age pension. Of course, none of that is relative when it comes to the CPC

So, anyone have a cite for Harris Miliken quote, not to mention that it's obvious Harris only interviewed people who supported his narrative. A paranoid message within his own little Harris bubble of hate.

[overthere]

Oh that's priceless! A true blue Conservative criticizing Chrètien for cutting transfer payments. lmfao

Now I've seen everything.

But have you seen a squirrel with two heads?

[overthere]

What do you care? The program is profitable. What is with you people attacking the poor, elderly, and disabled in the name of profits when there isn't even a problem? EI is an insurance fund that has tripartite management. It's not a tax the government gets to screw around with.

The program is not profitable. It has a surplus. Different thing. The main reason it has a surplus is because the economy is in fair condition overall, despite being in crap condition in the places in Canada where it is always in crap condition.

The poor, elderly and disabled do not collect EI because in general they are unlikely to have jobs.

EI is only barely an insurance fund. It is so weighted with political freight and uneven treatment of claimants by region it barely quailifies. Really, in some of the country it is a social benefit, in other parts really hard to get and for reduced time periods.

Yes, it is most defitniely a program the government gets to screw around with, since it is a part of the economy of the country that they govern. Its pretty generous now, don't expect that to last forever.

[On Guard for Thee]

There is truth to what Harris is saying and I think Canadians and some of the world agree . Harper will go down as one of the worse , if not the worse PM we've had. Many Canadians are hurting caused by some of the laws and changes he's brought in and the fact, Harper doesn't like being told what he CAN do and tries to change the rules so he can. The downfall of Harper is attacking the CPP and EI.

And let's not forget the SCC.

[segnosaur]

What do you care?

Probably because money that gets paid into EI comes out of his pocket (and the pockets of employeed people across Canada.)

The program is profitable.

Irrelevant.

If the EI program is running surpluses, then in theory the government could reduce the contribution rates, leaving more money in the pockets of the consumer.

Most people probably don't mind paying for things that are necessary/important. They don't like paying for things that are unfair/wasteful.

What is with you people attacking the poor, elderly, and disabled in the name of profits when there isn't even a problem? EI is an insurance fund that has tripartite management. It's not a tax the government gets to screw around with.

There are several issues here...

In most insurance systems, your premiums increase according to your risk. That doesn't happen with EI. People pay the same whether they've been working for the past 2 decades for the same company or for some new start-up that can go bankrupt tomorrow.

Secondly, the government does "screw around" with the EI system... Chretien took millions out of the fund to reduce the deficit... But that's not what the fund was meant for. They also use the fund as a form of socal programs, using it for things like maternity leave, which is not what an insurance program is used for (i.e. handling unexpected catestrophic situations.)

[On Guard for Thee]

There is truth to what Harris is saying and I think Canadians and some of the world agree . Harper will go down as one of the worse , if not the worse PM we've had. Many Canadians are hurting caused by some of the laws and changes he's brought in and the fact, Harper doesn't like being told what he CAN do and tries to change the rules so he can. The downfall of Harper is attacking the CPP and EI.

And let's not forget the SCC.

[waldo]

So, anyone have a cite for Harris Miliken quote, not to mention that it's obvious Harris only interviewed people who supported his narrative. A paranoid message within his own little Harris bubble of hate.

time to reduce your intake of that special brew of Ezrant Media Party conspiracy!

[segnosaur]

I always find it amazing when people take what is in effect an opinion piece, and assume that it serves as some sort of evidence or smoking gun about how "evil" some politician or group is.

Ouch! This kind of commentary cannot go unanswered...

Party of One: Stephen Harper and Canada’s Radical Makeover - by Michael Harris

Party of One is a differently styled indictment. It’s a searing, heavily sourced dissection of Mr. Harper’s “anti-democratic” methods. Former Commons speaker Peter Milliken tells Mr. Harris: “Harper can’t go much further without making the institution dysfunctional …

So, is that typical of the evidence provided in Harris' work?

Milliken was a house speaker (a position that might require nutrality in the house), but he was elected as a member of the Liberal party. You don't think a member of the Liberal party might be, ahem, a little biased when discussing the leader of the Conservative party? Yet you seem to have provided the quote as if it were engraved on a stone tablet, and Harris was a political Moses carrying it down from the mountain.

The conservatives are not perfect... far from it. (Their habit of using omnibus bills is one I'm not happy with.). I'm quite willing to criticize them over things that they've actually done wrong or things I disagree with... but claiming Harper is making parliment "dysfunctional" is they type of "Harper Derangement Syndrome" that ads very little to political discussion.

[Keepitsimple]

I always find it amazing when people take what is in effect an opinion piece, and assume that it serves as some sort of evidence or smoking gun about how "evil" some politician or group is.

So, is that typical of the evidence provided in Harris' work?

Milliken was a house speaker (a position that might require nutrality in the house), but he was elected as a member of the Liberal party. You don't think a member of the Liberal party might be, ahem, a little biased when discussing the leader of the Conservative party? Yet you seem to have provided the quote as if it were engraved on a stone tablet, and Harris was a political Moses carrying it down from the mountain.

The conservatives are not perfect... far from it. (Their habit of using omnibus bills is one I'm not happy with.). I'm quite willing to criticize them over things that they've actually done wrong or things I disagree with... but claiming Harper is making parliment "dysfunctional" is they type of "Harper Derangement Syndrome" that ads very little to political discussion.

Well said....

[Argus]

You don't know anybody abusing it. That anecdotal garbage was utterly destroyed with Harris's reporting line and numerous studies done on EI abuse. The number of people abusing EI is a tiny fraction and even then most of it is procedural mistakes and oversights

See no evil.

Tons of people abuse EI. A lot do it quite legally, since the government has turned it into a welfare/job subsidy program. Lots of people are on it every year, year after year after year.

[Smallc]

Exactly what I'm talking about.

[scribblet]

I always find it amazing when people take what is in effect an opinion piece, and assume that it serves as some sort of evidence or smoking gun about how "evil" some politician or group is.

So, is that typical of the evidence provided in Harris' work?

Milliken was a house speaker (a position that might require nutrality in the house), but he was elected as a member of the Liberal party. You don't think a member of the Liberal party might be, ahem, a little biased when discussing the leader of the Conservative party? Yet you seem to have provided the quote as if it were engraved on a stone tablet, and Harris was a political Moses carrying it down from the mountain.

The conservatives are not perfect... far from it. (Their habit of using omnibus bills is one I'm not happy with.). I'm quite willing to criticize them over things that they've actually done wrong or things I disagree with... but claiming Harper is making parliment "dysfunctional" is they type of "Harper Derangement Syndrome" that ads very little to political discussion.

Very well said !!!

[On Guard for Thee]

I always find it amazing when people take what is in effect an opinion piece, and assume that it serves as some sort of evidence or smoking gun about how "evil" some politician or group is.

So, is that typical of the evidence provided in Harris' work?

Milliken was a house speaker (a position that might require nutrality in the house), but he was elected as a member of the Liberal party. You don't think a member of the Liberal party might be, ahem, a little biased when discussing the leader of the Conservative party? Yet you seem to have provided the quote as if it were engraved on a stone tablet, and Harris was a political Moses carrying it down from the mountain.

The conservatives are not perfect... far from it. (Their habit of using omnibus bills is one I'm not happy with.). I'm quite willing to criticize them over things that they've actually done wrong or things I disagree with... but claiming Harper is making parliment "dysfunctional" is they type of "Harper Derangement Syndrome" that ads very little to political discussion.

But as you point out Harper loves to ram everything including the kitchen sink into an omnibus bill, and then and then invoke closure so there is no real debate and then ram it through. Then the SCC has to weed out the bits where he has contravened the constitution. It not only goes to rendering parliament dysfunctional, it's also damned expensive and a waste of time.