When Should Harper Pull the Plug?

[fracan]

As neither an Albertan nor a Quebecer, I guess I'm just being optimistic that both sides can reach common ground... The only animosity I have is for complacency with Liberalism, which has led us to this brink...

As for SSM, I guess I'm being too much philosophical, not enough legal.

[Argus]

All Layton has done is reveal himself to be a whore. A whore with a high price, to be sure; $4.5 billion of our money. And Martin showed he didn't mind spending that money, billions of dollars, to prop up his government

Then again, he and his people have been running around the country for the last few weeks scattering our money around as "gifts" for us.

When a Con gets pissy about Layton, you know Jack's on to something.

Layton, like most of his followers, is usually nothing more than a laughable irrelevancy. But when he actually manages to affect billions of dollars worth of waste, money which the NDP has never been able to understand is not manufactured in a basement in Ottawa but comes from real people's wallets, then it's certainly time to point out how much of our money he is responsible for throwing down the old toilet.

As an Abertan, I know that provincial autonomy is a big issue. but I can't imagine the idea of the Cons playing footsies with the Kay-beckers (as they're known out here) playing well with their western base, given the traditional western (read: Albertan) animosity towards all things Quebec.

Is that animosity any greater than the traditional way the NDP and eastern Liberals see all Albertans, as ignorant, backward, redneck hillbillies who have sex with their children?

[Black Dog]

Layton, like most of his followers, is usually nothing more than a laughable irrelevancy. But when he actually manages to affect billions of dollars worth of waste, money which the NDP has never been able to understand is not manufactured in a basement in Ottawa but comes from real people's wallets, then it's certainly time to point out how much of our money he is responsible for throwing down the old toilet.

Conservative priorities: environment, social housing, foreign aid and student tuition=waste.

Tax cuts for corporations (which, in Canada, are mostly foreign owned)=A Good Thing

Yeah, those Cons have their ear to the street alright: Bay Street.

Is that animosity any greater than the traditional way the NDP and eastern Liberals see all Albertans, as ignorant, backward, redneck hillbillies who have sex with their children?

I'v enever met an easterner of any political afiliation who's held thos eopinions. There's an abundance of misconceptions and animosity concerning our Canadian bretheren, the existence of which fails to undermine my point. In fact, it seems like, rather than making a meaningful contribution to the flow of the discussion, you just opted to slur easterners. May I make a sugestion?

[cybercoma]

Layton, like most of his followers, is usually nothing more than a laughable irrelevancy. But when he actually manages to affect billions of dollars worth of waste, money which the NDP has never been able to understand is not manufactured in a basement in Ottawa but comes from real people's wallets, then it's certainly time to point out how much of our money he is responsible for throwing down the old toilet.

Conservative priorities: environment, social housing, foreign aid and student tuition=waste.

Tax cuts for corporations (which, in Canada, are mostly foreign owned)=A Good Thing

Yeah, those Cons have their ear to the street alright: Bay Street.

Is that animosity any greater than the traditional way the NDP and eastern Liberals see all Albertans, as ignorant, backward, redneck hillbillies who have sex with their children?

I'v enever met an easterner of any political afiliation who's held thos eopinions. There's an abundance of misconceptions and animosity concerning our Canadian bretheren, the existence of which fails to undermine my point. In fact, it seems like, rather than making a meaningful contribution to the flow of the discussion, you just opted to slur easterners. May I make a sugestion?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Why should I pay for babysitters and crackhouses?

And the majority of those foreign owned businesses probably employ the majority of Canadian citizens. They could invest in other countries that aren't so busy threatening the apocalypse should the Liberals loose power. This kind of instability is not one of the "assets" corporations look for when investing.

Not to mention the on again, off again nature of these tax cuts.

But sure, if you don't mind a bunch of unemployed people living off the hard earned money of the employed because you want to make Canada look instable and you want to tax corporations more, that's just fine. At least there'll be more housing, babysitters and a bunch of people standing around a lake talking about how clean it COULD be.

Your tax dollars hard at work.

[fracan]

If you read Paul Wells' blog (although without comments I'm loathe to call it a blog) you might have caught a post a couple days ago that illustrated how the tuition cut will benefit students who do not have loans or grants, and that students with financial need are actually worse off thanks to Layton's deal... The blog doesn't even have proper archives or permalinks either... Here's the link though, for the time being.

[Black Dog]

Why should I pay for babysitters and crackhouses?

Because you clearly need someplace to drop the kids off while you go get your fix.

And the majority of those foreign owned businesses probably employ the majority of Canadian citizens. They could invest in other countries that aren't so busy threatening the apocalypse should the Liberals loose power. This kind of instability is not one of the "assets" corporations look for when investing.

Most Canadians are employed by small businesses (y'know, the ones that get squat from corporate tax cuts). Corporate cuts don't encourage investment: demand does. If there's no demand (because, say, people are spending more of their income on hings like housing and child care), there's no investment. Instead, thet money simply heads offshore, never to be seen again.

[cybercoma]

Why should I pay for babysitters and crackhouses?

Because you clearly need someplace to drop the kids off while you go get your fix.

And the majority of those foreign owned businesses probably employ the majority of Canadian citizens. They could invest in other countries that aren't so busy threatening the apocalypse should the Liberals loose power. This kind of instability is not one of the "assets" corporations look for when investing.

Most Canadians are employed by small businesses (y'know, the ones that get squat from corporate tax cuts). Corporate cuts don't encourage investment: demand does. If there's no demand (because, say, people are spending more of their income on hings like housing and child care), there's no investment. Instead, thet money simply heads offshore, never to be seen again.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So let me get this straight, when people spend their money on housing and child care, that money heads offshore?

[Argus]

Conservative priorities: environment, social housing, foreign aid and student tuition=waste.

There is already too much money commited to the environment without any real plan for using it. Money for social housing is money taken from productive members of society and given to unrproductive members of society. Foreign aid is money thrown into a toilet to no useful purpose. And the education system is a giant sucking hole given the egrageous salaries given to teachers and professors. You want to improve the systems and make for a better education system for our young? Fire all the teachers and professors and hire new ones at half the salary.

Tax cuts for corporations (which, in Canada, are mostly foreign owned)=A Good Thing

If they lead to increased job creation then they can be.

Is that animosity any greater than the traditional way the NDP and eastern Liberals see all Albertans, as ignorant, backward, redneck hillbillies who have sex with their children?

I'v enever met an easterner of any political afiliation who's held thos eopinions.

You haven't met many then. Hell, you haven't even been looking at television and listening to politicians.

[Guest eureka]

It is not federal encroachment on provincial jurisdiction that fuels seoaratism, Fracan. It is the desire to garner yet more federal powers.

In spite of all you read about federal encroachment, the reality is the opposite. Provinces have been encroaching on federal jurisdiction for the best part of a century now. The consequence is that the federal government has few powers remaining.

The ignorance of Canadians about this is appalling. If Argus were not so completely irrational, you could almost believe his vitriolic attacks on teachers. If Canada ever does break up - which will not happen without civil war, as I have tried to get through the thick skulls of the separatists - then it will be that ignorance that will be the cause.

Canada has already become almost ungovernable because of the lack of authority of the federal government. Further moves in that way will lead to just fading away.

And, there is no demonstrated "criminality" by the Liberals. To this point, there is only talk of the corruption of a handful of party members - just as there was in the same advertising scams under the Mulroney government.

Just as there is in Quebec where the Governments - particularly the PQ - have been spending taxpayer money on propaganda for their cause for a ver long time.

[shades]

Anyway you look at it the Liberals are crooks and the Canadian electorate are to stupid to get rid of them .Just last week we learn about a liberal senator that is given a 20 year lease with the federal government on a building he owns outside of Ottawa, in the middle of nowhere, that the taxpayers have been paying rent on for the past year, while the building has been empty.Canada has to be the only Country on the planet where the electorate would still vote for these losers.Paul Martin doesn't even have the fortitude to stick to his principles on economic policy.Instead he sells himself out to the pathetic NDP just so he can stay in power.The whole system of government has to change in Canada.The senate has to be completely revamped so that these guys are elected not appointed by the current government in power.

[Capnkirk]

I was listening to English CBC radio phone-in today and the topic was "should we have a federal n election".  Without exception, they all said no, with a plaintive hint of fear and desperation.  (Many were from Westmount which, if you don't know, is English-Canada's snob-central.)  These people are federalists well before they are democrats.

The fact of the matter is that the BQ, the NDP and the Tories cannot support this government much longer.  Any supporting opposition party risks being sucked into the strange moral black hole of PM PM and his office. ("Canadians need more information before deciding how to vote... ")

I have no doubt whatsoever that if the shoe was on the other foot, the PM PM and the Liberals would not hesitate for two nanoseconds in calling/engineering an election.  (Imagine that Harper had been caught in bed with the proverbial cheerleader.)  According to some (ie. Kimmy),  PM PM was "planning" to lose a confidence vote as recently as a few weeks ago.

I think Harper has no choice but to make this government fall.  He has no choice because if he hesitates, he will appear incompetent.  A loser.

For many Canadians, a Tory vote will be a leap of faith.  Harper has to appear capable of leading the country.

As an election strategy, he might try the lines (Jimmy-Carter style) "My government will not steal money from you" or "I will be Prime Minister for all Canadians".

OTOH, many Canadians (in particular women) absolutely dislike Harper.  Maybe he should not pander to such people since he will never get their votes whatever he says or does.  He won't even get their respect.

Whatever the strategy, Harper himself must take the high road.  All the ugly accusations must come from someone else's mouth, not Harper.  At most, Harper can use the derisive "there you go again" to Martin when PM PM uses Argument #137 to explain what happened.

At the end of the day, Harper must live with the fact that he will never be a loved PM and many won't even respect him.  He's a Margaret Thatcher-style politician.  Some will simply and always hate him.  IOW, Harper must play to those people who will potentially vote for him.  And he will lose their vote if he doesn't unplug this government soon.

How to do it?  Easy.  The BQ cannot vote for any motion that supports this government.  Even the NDP can't do it.  These guys are toxic.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The problem is Harper and his associates do not have the mental where withall or the experience to pull this off. They are not really sure of procedure and one false move or mistake and it's all over.

As well even if the government does fall the best Harper can hope for is a minority. Just how long do you figure he would last put in the same position. Not long I'm afraid.

There is too much "old alliance" in this conservative party. If harper had any brains he'd be appealing to the all the people Peter MacKay p*ssed off.

[kimmy]

The Conservatives and the Bloc are on the same side of the issue of federal encroachment on provincial jurisdiction. That's the issue underlying separatism, in my opinion. A Conservative minority would be able to work with the Bloc on many issues relating to this.

As an Abertan, I know that provincial autonomy is a big issue. but I can't imagine the idea of the Cons playing footsies with the Kay-beckers (as they're known out here) playing well with their western base, given the traditional western (read: Albertan) animosity towards all things Quebec.

I'm not aware of any animousity towards all things Quebec (although I can see where people might confuse an intense dislike of official bilingualism with an animousity towards all things Quebec.)

More than other Canadians, Albertans tend to feel common groud with the Quebecers when it comes to provincial autonomy issues, as you mention. When it comes to Quebec separation, other Canadians are more likely to respond with anger than Albertans; Albertans are more likely to respond with indifference than other Canadians. In Ontario I found that the subject was enough to get people's blood boiling; in Alberta I don't know anybody who feels any passion towards the subject at all; most seem to view it with "que sera sera" calmness. Albertans watched last year's leadership debates and thought Gilles Duceppe seemed like a swell guy.

Cooperating with the BQ on a non-confidence vote probably will cost Harper support in Ontario and other places where people actually feel passion about the BQ. But you're not seriously suggesting it'll cost Harper support here, are you?

-k

[err]

Today's polls, announced on the CBC show that HARPER HAS LOST HIS LEAD. It would be stupid for him to call an election right now. So he's going to have to try to appear to keep his word and pretend to try to bring the government down.... while telling a few MPs to stay at home, because he probably won't win an election right now.

The only party to benefit from this whole thing is the NDP party, shown to be ahead of the Conservative in major urban centres....

[Guest eureka]

If Albertans thought Duceppe was a "swell guy," then I have to think that they are no longer antipathetic to Communists: that those who continually accuse Trudeau of being one are actually a rare species.

Duceppe was a Communist and a real one. He switched to separatism for political purposes.

Or is it just another example of Albertan ignorance of all things beyond the "Firewall."

[kimmy]

If Albertans thought Duceppe was a "swell guy," then I have to think that they are no longer antipathetic to Communists: that those who continually accuse Trudeau of being one are actually a rare species.

Duceppe was a Communist and a real one. He switched to separatism for political purposes.

Or is it just another example of Albertan ignorance of all things beyond the "Firewall."

Did you have a point? I merely point out that Duceppe's performance during the English-language leaders' debate was well-received in Alberta. I don't think I suggested support for his economic platform or ideological leanings, just that he's not the reviled figure Black Dog seems to suggest.

What is this blather about a "firewall"? Why does a rejected policy proposal from several years back, made up entirely from planks already in effect in Quebec, Ontario, or both, continue to cause such anxiety for people like yourself?

-kimmy

[Guest eureka]

There is a very sharp point. I am constantly having to read ferocious attacks, mostly from the "Right" in Alberta as reflected here, on every politician who has a human side. They are all communists.

Duceppe was officially one until he joined the PQ. Still is, I suspect, in sympathy.

The "rejected" proposal from years back is Harper. That it was rejected is completely irrelevant since it is evidence of how he sees the country: a disparate collection of sheikdoms.

As is his proposal on medicare evidence of how he wishes to end a national programme and to end universality.

Leopards do not change their spots and Harper's soft pedalling now has not changed his thinking. That is clear from his reluctance to say what he does believe in.

[kimmy]

There is a very sharp point. I am constantly having to read ferocious attacks, mostly from the "Right" in Alberta as reflected here, on every politician who has a human side. They are all communists.

So, in other words, nothing of relevance to anything being discussed in this thread; just a chip you felt like getting off your shoulder.

The "rejected" proposal from years back is Harper. That it was rejected is completely irrelevant since it is evidence of how he sees the country: a disparate collection of sheikdoms.

Yes, I'm well aware that it was Harper. I'm just curious to know why such a big deal is still made of it.

Really, if federalist Canadians in Ontario or Quebec are so offended by the proposals in the infamous "firewall" letter, why aren't they marching in the streets to have their own provinces tear down their own equivalent "firewalls"? Again, every proposal in the "firewall" letter is a policy already in force in one or both of Canada's largest provinces. Why do these policies only constitute a threat to the nation when the #4 province considers adopting them?

-kimmy

[Guest eureka]

There is no chip on my shoulder. There is a capacity to confront reality and to oppose it when it is not a uyuseful one. Attempting to divert is not a very bright tactic, Kimmy, and is unworthy of you.

The idea of a "firewall" around any provinces is ludicrous. Harper's use of the term does, as I said, indicate where he is from in his political thinking. He is one of the extreme provincialists and is in federal politics for no other purpose than to rear down the federal system.

How it is possible for anyone to not understand that is beyond my comprehension since he has made it clear throughout his career.

[kimmy]

There is no chip on my shoulder. There is a capacity to confront reality and to oppose it when it is not a uyuseful one. Attempting to divert is not a very bright tactic, Kimmy, and is unworthy of you.

Attempting to divert? Coming from a guy who brought firewalls and communists into a discussion about how cooperating with the BQ would play in Alberta, the irony is rich.

The idea of a "firewall" around any provinces is ludicrous. Harper's use of the term does, as I said, indicate where he is from in his political thinking. He is one of the extreme provincialists and is in federal politics for no other purpose than to rear down the federal system.

How it is possible for anyone to not understand that is beyond my comprehension since he has made it clear throughout his career.

Harper's position on the centralization/decentralization theme is entirely clear. The challenge you face is not convincing people of that, but rather of convincing people that it's the apocalyptic catastrophe you believe it to be.

-kimmy

[Guest eureka]

Firewalls have everything to do with the assessment of political aims at this time. Both Harper and the Bloq have made a religion out of "Provincial autonomy" as it is called. I wonder have you ever tried ti think through what that means. I have tried in thread after thread to get though the FACT that Canada is the most decentralized nation in the world. It is decentralized to the point that it is almost impossible to govern as a country.

That is the reality and it is the root of the Sponsorship affair as well as most of the problems that the federal government experiences with just about everything it needs to do in the national interest.

And, Communists are very relevant when one of the chief ploys of the Alberta "Right" is to label so many of their opposing "Left" and centrists (like Trudeau) as Communists.

[Argus]

There is no chip on my shoulder. There is a capacity to confront reality and to oppose it when it is not a uyuseful one. Attempting to divert is not a very bright tactic, Kimmy, and is unworthy of you.

The idea of a "firewall" around any provinces is ludicrous. Harper's use of the term does, as I said, indicate where he is from in his political thinking. He is one of the extreme provincialists and is in federal politics for no other purpose than to rear down the federal system.

For some reason you snipped this part below without replying. I'd actually like to see an answer to it.

Really, if federalist Canadians in Ontario or Quebec are so offended by the proposals in the infamous "firewall" letter, why aren't they marching in the streets to have their own provinces tear down their own equivalent "firewalls"? Again, every proposal in the "firewall" letter is a policy already in force in one or both of Canada's largest provinces. Why do these policies only constitute a threat to the nation when the #4 province considers adopting them?

[Argus]

Leopards do not change their spots and Harper's soft pedalling now has not changed his thinking. That is clear from his reluctance to say what he does believe in.

I wonder what that means, then, given Paul Martin's Quebec lieutenant is one of the founders of the BQ. And what do you think about other Quebecers in Martin's cabinet? Do you actually think their first loyalty is to Canada and not to Quebec? Pierre Petigrew has been quoted as saying that his loyalty is with Quebec, and that if it seperates he would leave with it. No doubt others have similar sentiments.

[Argus]

Firewalls have everything to do with the assessment of political aims at this time. Both Harper and the Bloq have made a religion out of "Provincial autonomy" as it is called. I wonder have you ever tried ti think through what that means.

Probably that over the many years of the Liberal Party screwing over various parts of the country they have managed to engender a great deal of resentment towards Ottawa.

I have tried in thread after thread to get though the FACT that Canada is the most decentralized nation in the world.

No doubt the Swiss would be surprised at that.

[Guest eureka]

Your ignorance and prejudice shines through clearly in your last comment about Switzerland. It takes away any need to respond to your drivel in everything else.

Switzerland is far more centralised than Canada. In Switzerland, as I have pointed out on previous occasions, the central government spends more on regional matters than does the Canadian government.

The central government in Switzerland has jurisdictional interest in education and healthcare and in welfare. In Canada, the central government does not.

Switzerland, too, is a confederation of separate states brought together for defensive purposes: not at all comparative to Canada. Yet, it has had the wisdom to give its federal government the jurisdictional authorities to govern as a nation.

[Argus]

Your ignorance and prejudice shines through clearly in your last comment about Switzerland.

Congratulatioins. You are going from sullen and sulky, to sullen, sulky, and ignorant to boot. The more likely a conservative victory becomes the more frantic and shrill you become in your increasingly wild and venomous diatribes against them and anyone who appears to defend them.

It takes away any need to respond to your drivel in everything else.

It must give you great comfort, then, given your inability to respond to anything with more than insults and shouted accusations.

Switzerland is far more centralised than Canada.

No, it's not.

In Switzerland, as I have pointed out on previous occasions, the central government spends more on regional matters than does the Canadian government.

That really isn't relevent.

The central government in Switzerland has jurisdictional interest in education and healthcare and in welfare. In Canada, the central government does not.

Nonsense.

Now how about you try and deal with the questions raised rather than veering wildly off onto side issues in your desperate efforts at avoiding the actual topic.