The merits of Stephen Harper

[CTKShadow]

Hello, I'm new here in search of a discussion on what are the merits of Stephen Harper as Prime Minister. In other words, I want to know why someone might suggest someone should vote for Stephen Harper's CPC. Please note that I am not looking for reasons why someone should not vote for Justin Trudeau or Thomas Mulcair. Justin Trudeau's gaffes are well documented elsewhere and either an individual thinks much of them or they don't. Thomas Mulcair has struggled to connect with new voters and the reasons for that are a discussion for another time.

I am doing my very best to remain impartial. I can provide a significant list of factual reasons (as well as some reasonable conclusions) to vote both for or "against" Justin Trudeau's LPC and Thomas Mulcair's NDP. I can also list many reasons why someone might choose to vote "against" Stephen Harper's CPC. However, there are only three narratives I have seen that support a vote for Stephen Harper's CPC.

1) He is a sound economic manager.

I personally don't believe the evidence supports this, but let's also not debate this topic at this time. We will for now accept this as fact.

2) He is the leader best able to protect us from extremists who seek to threaten our freedoms (and similar).

This is possibly true. Many agree, while others believe Stephen Harper is the greatest threat to our freedoms since the second world war. Again, let's not debate this (at least not yet). Let's assume that the voter you are trying to convince to vote for Stephen Harper is at least as concerned about Stephen Harper's democratic record as they are about extremists, and thus this is not a selling feature.

3) Justin Trudeau is in over his head, loves Islam, has never had a real job, is a trust fund baby that doesn't understand the middle class, wants to impose Sharia law, doesn't have a plan, thinks Quebec is better than the rest of Canada, thinks budgets balance themselves, loves China's dictatorship, etc, etc.

Once again, these are reasons (assuming they are true and in context, which we will not debate here) to not vote for Justin Trudeau. They are not reasons to vote for Stephen Harper.

So, to recap the question. What has Stephen Harper done, or promised to do, not listed above, that would merit a swing voter deciding to vote for a candidate for his party?

[Derek 2.0]

That’s a rather pointed question, I’ll give it a go (as a biased Tory voter):

1. The Tories/Harper will continue to reduce taxes/Government revenue, returning to Canadians their own money…..which is good of course, but will also make it harder for other parties to promise lavish spending programs without raising taxes or going into deficit (Or as rumored with the Liberals, robbing the CPP piggybank)

2. The Tories/Harper will continue to reduce the size of Government, i.e. spending the money that they do take from me better.

3. The Tories/Harper are less likely to promise some new lavish taxpayer funded social program…….also minding the money they take from me

4. The Tories/Harper won’t try and take my guns away on the promise to appease apart of their supporters baseless fears……

5. On the international stage, Prime Minister Harper is respected by our Allies that mater and disliked by all the rest……which suits me fine.

6. The Tories/Harper are the most likely to continue to sign free trade agreements with other nations, which I feel are good for Canadians overall

7. The Tories will continue to strengthen laws (other than terror laws as you mentioned), further reducing crime across Canada.

8. The Tories/Harper are not beholden to Quebec or the East Coast, instead focusing on “productive Canada” West of the Ottawa river

9. The Tories/Harper are actually attempting to both secure and develop Northern Canada, which in my view is an untapped resources oblivious to most Canadians, and in turn historically received little political attention.

10.The Tories/Harper have done overall a good job in power (in my opinion) and I don’t see a reason why they won’t continue to do so……..oh and they’ll continue to lower taxes…….

[Argus]

Harper seems, within the context of politics and government, to be a reasonably honest man. I don't mean he's not given to political speechmaking and accusations, but that he seems disinclined to consider the public purse as his to play with. The patronage which seems a necessary part of government has been the lowest under his government than any government I've ever seen. I don't see broad swaths of government business (even business which doesn't need to be done) going to friends of the government. I rarely see funds being dispersed on unnecessary projects strictly to benefit government ridings, especially as compared to his predecessors. Nor is there anything of the graft we saw with Chretien. This is something which gets little note but is to be applauded.

Harper, for the most part, seems a practical man. Sometimes this is can be a curse, as he ignores what he ought to do, by inclination, in favour of what is politically expedient. Nevertheless, he is not prone to committing the government to large ideologically driven programs or policy changes which would cause any great degree of upheaval. He has resisted urges to commit the government to large scale social engineering experiments which his predecessors delighted in. His government does not continually come up with new ways to tell me how to live my life and how I ought to be behaving, thinking and acting.

I do not like Harper, nor dislike him. His government is a reflection of his introverted personality, and has aspects of behaviour which I dislike, notably its fetish for secrecy and its caustic approach to politics. But Harper has a capable, workmanlike, generally low-key governing style which seems to have been effective in producing a well-run country. If you wish a contrast, or what can happen in other circumstances, you have no better example than the Ontario Liberals, whose disastrous economic policies, self-serving corruption, and hamfisted, ideologically driven energy, education and labour policies have put the province into a very, very deep hole of fiscal imbalance which will take a generation to dig out.

[Keepitsimple]

I agree with Argus - especially as it relates to the Province of Ontario and the Wynne Liberals.

One of my measurements for competent government is to "do no harm". I agree with Argus - especially as it relates to the Province of Ontario and the Wynne Liberals - a grotesque example of the harm that can be done. Harper subscribes to "incremental" change - doing things a little bit at a time - over a longer period. Taxation and immigration are prime examples. Contrary to the fear-mongering of the Left, his appointments to the Supreme Court have been unremarkable and rooted in legal competence. It may be decades before he is given his due but history will show that his opposition to being a "leader" on Global Warming has warded off shocks to our economy, if not saved it - in that our largest trading partner has effectively done nothing - again - do no harm.

[eyeball]

So, to recap the question. What has Stephen Harper done, or promised to do, not listed above, that would merit a swing voter deciding to vote for a candidate for his party?

Nothing, but here's the thing, I'm a lefty who's given up on left wing politicians. I think the only way forward now is to keep driving Canada off a cliff and nothing will get us there faster than the right wing under Stephan Harper.

[Topaz]

Well, if one visits other political forums and read comments made by Canadians on online newspapers, Harper doesn't have much support as PM. Since the economy and jobs are tanking, and the gun registry is done and gone, Harper seems to be uses the "terrorists" as a campaign issue, which I think the Tories are in. There no time limits when a election campaign can start and Harper has been doing that for several months. IF Harper has any merits , they have all been erased by the lies, scams and schemes and the cheaters within his party, which it seems his supporters don't mind. He also doesn't care what Parliament or the Supreme Court has to say. Harper doesn't want any body government to tell him what to do but he sure wants us to do what he tells us what Canadians can and can't do. I'm sure when pressed, he'll say "I didn't know the troopers were on the front line", after all he is our "I didn't know" PM.

[CTKShadow]

Thank you all for your input. While I don't necessarily agree with all points raised, I appreciate the insights and can accept that many points boil down to differences of opinion and/or values. I've included counterpoints on positions where I can see things from a different angle - feel free to continue the discussion

Well, if one visits other political forums and read comments made by Canadians on online newspapers, Harper doesn't have much support as PM.

It was online newspaper comments that prompted my question. The level of dialogue is mind-bogglingly childish.

A centre or left supporter: "I can't believe Stephen Harper is implementing regressive policy __________"

A support of the right: "Yeah but Justin Trudeau said __________" or "Yeah but just look at the Ontario Liberals"

A supporter of the centre or left will counter with an ad hominem of their own and it's all downhill from there.

One of my measurements for competent government is to "do no harm".

I'm no fan of taxes, but as just one example, the GST cut was pretty harmful to the economy - although I can acknowledge it was good politics. I am a fan of scientific research, and the reports on that aspect are terrifying. His law and order agenda is often panned, something about the fact that it is more effective from a crime reduction standpoint to focus on rehabilitating criminals, rather than increasing punishment which just increases the chances of re-offending.

Harper seems, within the context of politics and government, to be a reasonably honest man. I don't mean he's not given to political speechmaking and accusations, but that he seems disinclined to consider the public purse as his to play with...

Harper, for the most part, seems a practical man. Sometimes this is can be a curse, as he ignores what he ought to do, by inclination, in favour of what is politically expedient...

Nevertheless, he is not prone to committing the government to large ideologically driven programs...

If you wish a contrast, or what can happen in other circumstances, you have no better example than the Ontario Liberals, whose disastrous economic policies, self-serving corruption, and hamfisted, ideologically driven energy, education and labour policies have put the province into a very, very deep hole of fiscal imbalance which will take a generation to dig out.

I don't feel that it's fair to call Harper honest, even by politician standards. I will concede that he is honest in ways most politicians aren't, but in other ways he is very, very dishonest. What I mean by this is that he does place great stock in keeping most of his election promises (GST cut, scrap the long gun registry, income splitting, etc). Many politicians aren't. His dishonesty is on full display with virtually every new attack ad he and his party releases. If you look at the things he said as opposition leader, and compare them with his actions as prime minister, he is his own worst critic. He commonly promotes new laws as one thing while they are in truth something completely different (Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act, anyone?). Compare his rare show of non-partisan solidarity with the other parties in the wake of the Parliament Hill shootings with his comments after Opposition parties asked why our troops in Iraq are in situations that were explicitly ruled out when the mission started - now the NDP are teary-eyed jihadist supporters. Really? What does the man truly believe?

As for Harper doing what is politically expedient instead of what he ought to do...this really is the problem. If it is acknowledged that he routinely does the wrong thing, for political reasons (ie. to retain power), then what is the point of having that power? Power for the sake of power?

As for committing the government to large ideologically driven programs...I guess it depends on what you consider to be large. I would argue that FIPA was a huge mistake, and can't be undone for more than a generation. Income splitting will be easy to administer, but the price tag is in the billions. Futher, while I am the first to acknowledge the government isn't always great at implementing large programs, that doesn't mean they are inherently bad - few Canadians oppose Medicare, for example.

The Ontario Liberals are terrible, but several (not by any means all) aspects that have caused Ontario's decline were out of their control. The rise in the Canadian dollar over the last decade would have created challenges for any government with a strong manufacturing and export economy. The Ontario Liberals have done a poor job, even considering the hand they were dealt, and are corrupt to boot, but this just goes to show what happens to a weak team when things go badly. As I originally mentioned, upon close examination Stephen Harper's economic record is not necessarily as strong as it is perceived to be - he has however been very, very lucky. There is no evidence to show his competitors cannot manage the economy just as well. And while, in a vacuum, I would certainly choose Stephen Harper, alone, over Justin Trudeau, alone, to run the economy, that is not actually the way governments work. There should be no doubt Justin Trudeau is capable of attracting intellegent, capable talent to his tent, so as long as Trudeau remains humble enough to listen to advice and recommendations from people smarter than himself, attacks about his personal credentials won't really stick.

That’s a rather pointed question, I’ll give it a go (as a biased Tory voter):

1. The Tories/Harper will continue to reduce taxes/Government revenue, returning to Canadians their own money…..which is good of course, but will also make it harder for other parties to promise lavish spending programs without raising taxes or going into deficit (Or as rumored with the Liberals, robbing the CPP piggybank)

2. The Tories/Harper will continue to reduce the size of Government, i.e. spending the money that they do take from me better.

3. The Tories/Harper are less likely to promise some new lavish taxpayer funded social program…….also minding the money they take from me

4. The Tories/Harper won’t try and take my guns away on the promise to appease apart of their supporters baseless fears……

5. On the international stage, Prime Minister Harper is respected by our Allies that mater and disliked by all the rest……which suits me fine.

6. The Tories/Harper are the most likely to continue to sign free trade agreements with other nations, which I feel are good for Canadians overall

7. The Tories will continue to strengthen laws (other than terror laws as you mentioned), further reducing crime across Canada.

8. The Tories/Harper are not beholden to Quebec or the East Coast, instead focusing on “productive Canada” West of the Ottawa river

9. The Tories/Harper are actually attempting to both secure and develop Northern Canada, which in my view is an untapped resources oblivious to most Canadians, and in turn historically received little political attention.

10.The Tories/Harper have done overall a good job in power (in my opinion) and I don’t see a reason why they won’t continue to do so……..oh and they’ll continue to lower taxes…….

1. The issue isn't with Harper reducing taxes/introducing tax credits, it's the taxes he's reducing and the tax credits he's introducing that are debatable. I would take a revenue neutral swap between a greater GST and lower income tax any day. Likewise, I would pay more for gas via a carbon tax if I get to keep more of my income (hello BC), and I drive more than the average Canadian so I'd probably even come out behind on the deal until I make adjustments. Income splitting is widely panned. Increasing TFSA contribution room to $10000 has been talked about...how many Canadian families can put away $1650 per month (two adults = $20000) to save in a TFSA?

2. More or less granted, and thank you. Valid point, in my opinion.

3. The federal NDP has proposed a $5 billion per year plan to create 1 million daycare spaces for $15 per day. This means the cost is about $12 per Canadian, per month (5B / 36M Canadians, /12 months), plus the parents paying about $330-$360 per month, as opposed to current (in my experience) $800 per month fronted entirely by the parents. In other words, this will save working parents of young children $400-$500 per month and make it much easier for both parents to work, which is good for the economy and for overall family income. Conversely, income splitting and the upgrade to the child tax benefit will cost no less than $3 billion, or $7 per month, per Canadian. This will put between $60 and $227 per month ($2000/12 + $60) in the hands of parents, weighted in favour of wealthier families, and does not benefit the economy to anywhere near the same degree as adding potentially hundreds of thousands to the workforce. Which is the better program? Not all spending programs are bad, is what I'm trying to say. You can argue that we shouldn't play favourites with parents, it's not fair to those who choose to stay single, not have kids etc, but clearly at least the CPC and the NDP disagree - so if we're going to do it, why not do it well?

4. Is this about the long gun registry? Because that was about tracking guns, not taking them away. I wouldn't consider "he won't take ____ away" as a valid reason unless there is grounds to believe all the other options would take ____ away.

5. Our single most important ally, the United States, does not respect Stephen Harper. The Obama administration's attitude toward Keystone XL should make that abundantly clear.

6. This is a matter of opinion. FIPA was bad, and even CETA has it's issues. Canada has lost a disproportionate number of lawsuits under NAFTA, we do not have a winning record on the free trade. I support free trade...but as the issues with major pharmaceuticals and CETA show, free trade isn't necessarily "free."

7. Yes the CPC will, but there is no evidence to support the idea that harsher/stronger laws are an effective way to reduce crime. In fact, for offenders, harsher sentences result in higher recidivism.

8. Harper has had little focus on Ontario as well, but we will just look at your point which is east of the Ottawa river. This is not the way a leader should behave. How is ignoring a third of the country a merit? Maybe a national leader should focus on the whole nation and help the "non-productive Canada" become productive? A LPC or NDP supporter could just as easily claim that Justin Trudeau or Thomas Mulcair are worth of merit because they are not beholden to Alberta and Saskatchewan.

9. This is a fantastic point. I haven't seen this brought up anywhere, and hadn't considered it. Development of the north and northern sovereignty are both important to Canada's future, and Stephen Harper does appear to have interest in this file. +1 for Harper

10. Stephen Harper's record is good, mixed, or poor, based on an individual's values. He is consistent - another Harper majority would be more of the same. Consistency is a merit, but I don't know how many swing voters would consider his record a positive.

[Derek 2.0]

1. The issue isn't with Harper reducing taxes/introducing tax credits, it's the taxes he's reducing and the tax credits he's introducing that are debatable. I would take a revenue neutral swap between a greater GST and lower income tax any day. Likewise, I would pay more for gas via a carbon tax if I get to keep more of my income (hello BC), and I drive more than the average Canadian so I'd probably even come out behind on the deal until I make adjustments. Income splitting is widely panned. Increasing TFSA contribution room to $10000 has been talked about...how many Canadian families can put away $1650 per month (two adults = $20000) to save in a TFSA?

In my opinion, as a fiscal Conservative, there isn’t any form of tax cut/credit that I don’t like……as a bias supporter of the Tories, politically, it sandbags the other parties that attempt to bribe voters with lavish programs……one can’t promise something if they have no way of paying for it.

3. The federal NDP has proposed a $5 billion per year plan to create 1 million daycare spaces for $15 per day. This means the cost is about $12 per Canadian, per month (5B / 36M Canadians, /12 months), plus the parents paying about $330-$360 per month, as opposed to current (in my experience) $800 per month fronted entirely by the parents. In other words, this will save working parents of young children $400-$500 per month and make it much easier for both parents to work, which is good for the economy and for overall family income. Conversely, income splitting and the upgrade to the child tax benefit will cost no less than $3 billion, or $7 per month, per Canadian. This will put between $60 and $227 per month ($2000/12 + $60) in the hands of parents, weighted in favour of wealthier families, and does not benefit the economy to anywhere near the same degree as adding potentially hundreds of thousands to the workforce. Which is the better program? Not all spending programs are bad, is what I'm trying to say. You can argue that we shouldn't play favourites with parents, it's not fair to those who choose to stay single, not have kids etc, but clearly at least the CPC and the NDP disagree - so if we're going to do it, why not do it well?

As I said, it comes down to ideology, I don’t want more social programs….granted promising people free stuff paid for by others is smart politics…..unless you can’t pay for it.

4. Is this about the long gun registry? Because that was about tracking guns, not taking them away. I wouldn't consider "he won't take ____ away" as a valid reason unless there is grounds to believe all the other options would take ____ away.

Both the Liberals and NDP (more so the NDP) have elements within their parties that despise legal firearms ownership…….neither party, as a gun owner, has said anything to make me feel they are at least gun neutral and would leave everything as is.

5. Our single most important ally, the United States, does not respect Stephen Harper. The Obama administration's attitude toward Keystone XL should make that abundantly clear.

Obama is a lame duck and I feel his refusal of Keystone is more to do with domestic politics than our Government….

8. Harper has had little focus on Ontario as well, but we will just look at your point which is east of the Ottawa river. This is not the way a leader should behave. How is ignoring a third of the country a merit? Maybe a national leader should focus on the whole nation and help the "non-productive Canada" become productive? A LPC or NDP supporter could just as easily claim that Justin Trudeau or Thomas Mulcair are worth of merit because they are not beholden to Alberta and Saskatchewan.

Partisan, regional politics…..nothing more. Historic Governments, both LPC and PC required the support of Quebec to govern, Harper has shown how to govern without Quebec…….

10. Stephen Harper's record is good, mixed, or poor, based on an individual's values. He is consistent - another Harper majority would be more of the same. Consistency is a merit, but I don't know how many swing voters would consider his record a positive.

I disagree, by this summer, said swing voters will be receiving their tax refunds and will get to decide, more of the same or the other guy that wants to legalize dope, tax carbon and rob the Canadian Pension plan to finance his election promises……..and said Ontario voters will remember all too well how Liberals manage their tax dollars, and now they’re going to manage their pensions?

[ReeferMadness]

CTK, welcome to MLW.

You seem to be smart enough to see through the BS tossed out by all the true believers around here who don't seem to give a rats ass what happens to the country, as long as their taxes are low and nobody is counting their guns.

A couple of points about Harper that have been missed or inadequately covered:

1. Sound economic manager - depends on what you mean. Harper is draping himself in glory for balancing the budget but the enormous deficit is something he created by cutting the GST. How much credit should be get for fixing a problem he created himself? And by focusing on resources, he has created a dangerous dependency on commodities, which are known for being wildly volatile. And now, since the price is oil, is killing the economy (because of the dependence on commodities he helped foster), he's attempting to change the channel by introducing controversial terror legislation. Which brings us to:

2. Less government - again, depends on what you mean. He has certainly cut back on government programs, from the environment to scientific research to foreign aid. If you think that oil companies based in China should be able to determine for themselves how much risk to take when it comes to destroying Canada's environment, Harper's your guy. On the other hand, he is making changes that make government far more intrusive, allowing a wide variety of "security agencies" to essentially spy on you at will, with minimal oversight. Careful what you type - someone could be watching you. And what of the huge increase in people that are being sent to jail, often for minor crimes? How does that square with less government? Instead of less government, it should say different government. One more focused on military and crime than helping people.

3. Partisan politics - this is an area that hasn't been covered enough. From the parliamentary budget office to the supreme court to Elections Canada to the Governor General. Harper is constantly fighting with or using what should be non-partisan bodies for partisan purposes. How about giant "Action Plan" cheques with the conservative party logo?

4. International reputation - another under-appreciated aspect of Harper's disgraceful legacy. Repudiating Kyoto (and undermining of every climate conference his government has attended). His arrogance in dealing with the US on Keystone. His one-sided support of Israel. International embarrassment over the muzzling of scientists.

5. Political gamesmanship - every major party plays political games (which is why I tend not to vote for them) but he's pushed it to a whole new realm. Negative attack ads similar to those previously seen only in the US. Wedge issue politics like long gun registry and terrorism. A completely unnecessary and disenfranchising "Fair Elections Act". Recently changing the law to better enable his attack ads by allowing political parties to use news stories for free.

[CTKShadow]

A couple of points about Harper that have been missed or inadequately covered:

1. Sound economic manager - depends on what you mean. Harper is draping himself in glory for balancing the budget but the enormous deficit is something he created by cutting the GST. How much credit should be get for fixing a problem he created himself?

As I said, the evidence doesn't support this. Harper is one of very few Prime Minister's that inherited a sound fiscal structure, and by cutting GST against the advice of experienced economists he still managed to create a structural deficit - before the recession hit. This is not the point though. I'm not looking for his faults, of which I am aware of many. I'm looking for his merits.

And by focusing on resources, he has created a dangerous dependency on commodities, which are known for being wildly volatile. And now, since the price is oil, is killing the economy (because of the dependence on commodities he helped foster), he's attempting to change the channel by introducing controversial terror legislation.

The two major factors that drove so much manufacturing out of Ontario was higher electricity costs (Ontario Liberal's fault) and the stronger Canadian dollar, caused by increased oil output. It is not fair to blame the oil boom on Harper, but he didn't help the situation either, and his partisan nature has prevented effective dialogue between the different levels of government. Again, as with the rest of your points, quite valid arguments but not the topic of discussion. I understand party loyalty. I just don't understand Harper.

[Argus]

I'm no fan of taxes, but as just one example, the GST cut was pretty harmful to the economy - although I can acknowledge it was good politics.

You are incorrect. The GST cut was good for the economy. It was bad for the government's budget, however. I was opposed to it, but even so, I wasn't opposed because I foresaw what was coming in terms of a recession.

His law and order agenda is often panned, something about the fact that it is more effective from a crime reduction standpoint to focus on rehabilitating criminals, rather than increasing punishment which just increases the chances of re-offending.

You can't have one without the other. I agree rehabilitation is important, where possible. Unfortunately, for a number of hardened individuals, it's not. Further, we can't ignore the need for punishment, particularly for violent offenders. I think previous liberal governments had gone in for the rehabilitation approach in the same way they decided to handle mental health. I.e, they closed down the mental health hospitals but never actually implemented the needed community and at-home treatment for those with psychological problems. Prison was handled the same way. Light sentences so they could be rehabilitated. Only problem was they forgot the rehabilitation part.

His dishonesty is on full display with virtually every new attack ad he and his party releases.

All politicians lie in campaign ads, and the Liberals invented the attack ad, not the tories. I care more about his honesty as Prime Minister in taking care of my money and not using it as his own piggy bank.

If you look at the things he said as opposition leader, and compare them with his actions as prime minister, he is his own worst critic.

"Zap, you're frozen!" Pierre Trudeau ran an entire election campaign on opposition to price controls, then turned around and implemented them within months of the election. He ran another campaign against Joe Clark's gas tax, after voting no confidence in his government because of it, then once in office he implemented a gas tax within months. Chretien likewise promised open government, said lobbyists would be looking for another job once he got into power, lied about the CH101, costing the government hundreds of millions of dollars when he cancelled it. Do we really need to get into the honesty of Mulroney?

He commonly promotes new laws as one thing while they are in truth something completely different (Protecting Children from Internet Predators Act, anyone?).

That's simply sloganeering.

Compare his rare show of non-partisan solidarity with the other parties in the wake of the Parliament Hill shootings with his comments after Opposition parties asked why our troops in Iraq are in situations that were explicitly ruled out when the mission started - now the NDP are teary-eyed jihadist supporters. Really? What does the man truly believe?

The hypocrisy of the opposition in complaining about the mission was pretty dishonest, too. Everyone knew that if we put people on the ground training and advising Iraqis they would be near fighting. No one ruled it out. Other nations are doing the same thing.

And by the way, "teary eyed jihadist supports' doesn't sound like him. Do you have a cite?

As for Harper doing what is politically expedient instead of what he ought to do...this really is the problem. If it is acknowledged that he routinely does the wrong thing, for political reasons (ie. to retain power), then what is the point of having that power? Power for the sake of power?

Chretien did exactly the same. Trudeau has not indicated he will be any different. His abortion proclamation, for example, was pure politics.

I do think Harper has worked to accomplish things where he believes he can do so without harming his re-election chances.

As for committing the government to large ideologically driven programs...I guess it depends on what you consider to be large. I would argue that FIPA was a huge mistake, and can't be undone for more than a generation. Income splitting will be easy to administer, but the price tag is in the billions.

I don't disagree necessarily, though I do believe that there was a fairness issue with regard to income splitting which needed to be addressed. But I don't need to support every policy a government has in order to support that government. As to Harper himself, I will not cry at his departure, but I would hope it would be because a better replacement is in the offing, and I don't believe Trudeau is that replacement.

[On Guard for Thee]

How can they continue to reduce the size of gov when all they have done is expand. Harper is a joke on the world stage. Harper will once again present a deficit budget. Shall I go on

[PIK]

Rad heather malicks latest puke she wrote about harper the other day.( got to get in those Nazi remarks) Is she their for comic relief or do people actually believe her. And if people like guyser or topaz get their news form her and others at the TO star ,then I understand how they have no clue to what is going on. Or harper has done such a wonderful job , it is that reason why there spew so much crap trying to find something that sticks. But when you do not steal from from the taxpayers ,people respect that. And of course there is the people that want the governments to look after then from birth to death.

[On Guard for Thee]

Rad heather malicks latest puke she wrote about harper the other day.( got to get in those Nazi remarks) Is she their for comic relief or do people actually believe her. And if people like guyser or topaz get their news form her and others at the TO star ,then I understand how they have no clue to what is going on. Or harper has done such a wonderful job , it is that reason why there spew so much crap trying to find something that sticks. But when you do not steal from from the taxpayers ,people respect that. And of course there is the people that want the governments to look after then from birth to death.

I thought her comment about Macarthyism in motion was quite apt. Maybe she can explain to him the meaning of the word accompany.

[jacee]

Great pics of the 'fearless leader'!

[jacee]

bye bye Baird

http://m.thestar.com/#/article/news/canada/2015/02/02/john-baird-to-resign-cabinet-post-report-says.html

maybe who is why

http://www.cbc.ca/m/news/politics/ex-aussie-pm-kevin-rudd-wants-john-baird-to-help-him-fix-who-other-un-organizations-1.2940040

or ... tension with Harper

http://ca.reuters.com/article/topNews/idCAKBN0L705Z20150203

.

Edited February 3, 2015 by jacee

[ReeferMadness]

the rats are abandoning the ship.

emphasis on rats.

[On Guard for Thee]

Yes that was a surprise, or maybe not when you talk about the sinking ship concept. But I seem to recall a while back when he was the heir apparent if harper decided pass the torch before the ext election. Id have loved to been a fly on the wall for that one.

[Michael Hardner]

bye bye Baird

http://m.thestar.com/#/article/news/canada/2015/02/02/john-baird-to-resign-cabinet-post-report-says.html

maybe who is why

http://www.cbc.ca/m/news/politics/ex-aussie-pm-kevin-rudd-wants-john-baird-to-help-him-fix-who-other-un-organizations-1.2940040

or ... tension with Harper

http://ca.reuters.com/article/topNews/idCAKBN0L705Z20150203

.

New thread on this:

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums/topic/24251-harper-loses-baird/

[scribblet]

He's young enough to get into the private sector and he's giving the PM enough notice so they can nominate a new candidate. Possibly the pension change is part of it, the reason why so many are not running this year. Too bad, he was a very capable minister.

[Moonbox]

5. Our single most important ally, the United States, does not respect Stephen Harper. The Obama administration's attitude toward Keystone XL should make that abundantly clear.

The Obama administration is the problem, not the USA proper. Obama has made no effort to be a friend to Canada and has been a complete disaster on the foreign stage. At this point the only real positive his administration could claim is, "Hey, at least we didn't invade Iraq!". Considering how bad Bush was, perhaps we can consider that a win. Regardless, the guy's a jerk and has been quoted/recorded on numerous occasions insulting foreign allied leaders. He has the professionalism of a potato and the convictions of a criminal lawyer, showing over and over again that he can't get much of anything done.

[bush_cheney2004]

Polled Canadians overwhelmingly supported President Obama's election and re-election. Be careful what you wish for from across the border.....

[PIK]

Trudeau is our Obama, I just hope we don't make the same mistake ,to vote for some one because he is cool. But latest poll shows harper is respected leader while trudeau is the respected baby sitter.

[Moonbox]

Polled Canadians overwhelmingly supported President Obama's election and re-election. Be careful what you wish for from across the border.....

No doubt, but I think a lot of that support comes from residual anti-Republican (thanks to George W), the fact that Obama's black and that he supports some form of universal health care. The average Canadian, I would suspect, has literally no idea what his administration has accomplished (or failed to).

[bush_cheney2004]

No doubt, but I think a lot of that support comes from residual anti-Republican (thanks to George W), the fact that Obama's black and that he supports some form of universal health care.

American foreign policy has not changed appreciably with President Obama, with one exception being direct opposition to cross border projects desired by Canada. President Obama is multi-racial, and he never proposed the universal, single payer health care plan that exists in Canada because it would be DOA. But I understand that perception is reality....even in Canada.