The real Stephen Harper

[hiti]

Stephen Harper’s attempts to crowd the centre of the political spectrum are belied by his stand on gay marriage. That is Harper’s social conservatism at his basic hard core. The rest of Harper's agenda is totally social conservative as well.

The Tory day-care scheme, like all the tax relief Harper is promising, is part of Harper's social conservatism. Harper is arguing that we must trust individual Canadians to do what they want and we must regard the state as a collective bully always sticking its nose in the private affairs of its citizens.

Everything from the shaving of the GST by a couple of points is geared by Harper to Canadians as individual taxpayers and not as members of that dreaded alternative, the state.

Harper's two-tier medicare position is the same. Political expediency made Harper seem to support medicare, but if there’s any waiting time that’s a bit too long well then go to a private clinic and medicare will pay for it.

Harper has been "a lifelong opponent of public medicare." When Harper headed the National Citizens Coalition he was overwhelmingly against public medicare. Harper is a prot é g é of Preston Manning who was, and is now, the leading opponent of public medicare.

Harper's stand on childcare is part of his social conservatism. Harper was "a career opponent of publicly funded childcare." Now he’s posing as "the working parents' best friend."

Harper is trying to help stay-at-home moms in preference to moms who need to work and need day care for their children. Harper is like Bismarck, saying a woman's place is in the kitchen and at home.

Harper's law-and-order stand is also very socially conservative. Harper would abolish the gun registry, but has no plans to outlaw handguns. Harper sees handguns as a gun collector's individual right over the need to control handguns and their use in crimes and killings.

Harper's cut in the GST is a tax break that mainly benefits bigger spenders in upper income brackets. Harper's GST cut favours the rich over the ordinary Canadian.

"Your country and particularly your conservative movement is a light and an inspiration to people in this country and across the world." Canada, said Harper, "was a Northern European welfare state in the worst sense of that term."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/viewpoint/vp_zolf/20051219.html

[Argus]

Stephen Harper’s attempts to crowd the centre of the political spectrum are belied by his stand on gay marriage. That is Harper’s social conservatism at his basic hard core. The rest of Harper's agenda is totally social conservative as well.

The Tory day-care scheme, like all the tax relief Harper is promising, is part of Harper's social conservatism. Harper is arguing that we must trust individual Canadians to do what they want and we must regard the state as a collective bully always sticking its nose in the private affairs of its citizens.

Everything from the shaving of the GST by a couple of points is geared by Harper to Canadians as individual taxpayers and not as members of that dreaded alternative, the state.

Harper's two-tier medicare position is the same. Political expediency made Harper seem to support medicare, but if there’s any waiting time that’s a bit too long well then go to a private clinic and medicare will pay for it.

Harper has been "a lifelong opponent of public medicare." When Harper headed the National Citizens Coalition he was overwhelmingly against public medicare. Harper is a prot é g é of Preston Manning who was, and is now, the leading opponent of public medicare.

Harper's stand on childcare is part of his social conservatism. Harper was "a career opponent of publicly funded childcare." Now he’s posing as "the working parents' best friend."

Harper is trying to help stay-at-home moms in preference to moms who need to work and need day care for their children. Harper is like Bismarck, saying a woman's place is in the kitchen and at home.

Harper's law-and-order stand is also very socially conservative. Harper would abolish the gun registry, but has no plans to outlaw handguns. Harper sees handguns as a gun collector's individual right over the need to control handguns and their use in crimes and killings.

Harper's cut in the GST is a tax break that mainly benefits bigger spenders in upper income brackets. Harper's GST cut favours the rich over the ordinary Canadian.

"Your country and particularly your conservative movement is a light and an inspiration to people in this country and across the world." Canada, said Harper, "was a Northern European welfare state in the worst sense of that term."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/viewpoint/vp_zolf/20051219.html

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So?

[err]

So?

So if you accept any of the above as true (which it is), you'd have to be a moron to vote for him.......

[Slim MacSquinty]

hiti:

Well you are such a breath of fresh air, I hadn't heard any of these things before, you are wise and insightful and most surely a Liberal.

It's a little like kindergarten isn't it? If you say it over and over again you hope it'll be true.

Well you just click your heels together and say "there's no place like home, there's no place like home"

[lovecanada]

hiti:

Well you are such a breath of fresh air, I hadn't heard any of these things before, you are wise and insightful and most surely a Liberal.

It's a little like kindergarten isn't it? If you say it over and over again you hope it'll be true.

Well you just click your heels together and say "there's no place like home, there's no place like home"

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Killing myself laughing on that response. Think you have her number Slim, but burn it LOL

[Leader Circle]

Stephen Harper’s attempts to crowd the centre of the political spectrum are belied by his stand on gay marriage. That is Harper’s social conservatism at his basic hard core. The rest of Harper's agenda is totally social conservative as well.

The Tory day-care scheme, like all the tax relief Harper is promising, is part of Harper's social conservatism. Harper is arguing that we must trust individual Canadians to do what they want and we must regard the state as a collective bully always sticking its nose in the private affairs of its citizens.

Everything from the shaving of the GST by a couple of points is geared by Harper to Canadians as individual taxpayers and not as members of that dreaded alternative, the state.

Harper's two-tier medicare position is the same. Political expediency made Harper seem to support medicare, but if there’s any waiting time that’s a bit too long well then go to a private clinic and medicare will pay for it.

Harper has been "a lifelong opponent of public medicare." When Harper headed the National Citizens Coalition he was overwhelmingly against public medicare. Harper is a prot é g é of Preston Manning who was, and is now, the leading opponent of public medicare.

Harper's stand on childcare is part of his social conservatism. Harper was "a career opponent of publicly funded childcare." Now he’s posing as "the working parents' best friend."

Harper is trying to help stay-at-home moms in preference to moms who need to work and need day care for their children. Harper is like Bismarck, saying a woman's place is in the kitchen and at home.

Harper's law-and-order stand is also very socially conservative. Harper would abolish the gun registry, but has no plans to outlaw handguns. Harper sees handguns as a gun collector's individual right over the need to control handguns and their use in crimes and killings.

Harper's cut in the GST is a tax break that mainly benefits bigger spenders in upper income brackets. Harper's GST cut favours the rich over the ordinary Canadian.

"Your country and particularly your conservative movement is a light and an inspiration to people in this country and across the world." Canada, said Harper, "was a Northern European welfare state in the worst sense of that term."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/viewpoint/vp_zolf/20051219.html

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I still say the two tier boogeymen are coming to take you away!!

LOL

I say Stephen run the whole campaign on promoting two tier health!

He'll win by a landslide!

[normanchateau]

If you say it over and over again you hope it'll be true.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah, imagine saying that Harper is a social conservative! Shame on you Hiti. Just because the evidence suggests he's a social conservative, doesn't mean that he's a social conservative. Besides, as we saw in the 2000 election, even the socially conservative Alliance Party captured almost 30% of the Canadian vote. Next you'll be saying that 70% of Canadians support political parties to the left of Harper's.

Besides, social conservatives have been known to become Prime Minister of Canada, perhaps not in this century or the last, but take a look at who won in 1878, 1882, 1887 and even 1891.

[daniel]

I find it hard to believe that Harper would throw away everything he's stood for in the past 18 years only to suddenly appear like a true moderate in the last six months.

Could it be:

1) he has finally matured and accepted Canada's diversity (in opinion as well as culture)?; or

2) he's learned to stoop as low as the Liberals and say anything to get elected?; or

3) is he just a flip-flopper?; or

4) he has no intention of keeping any of his feel-good promises.

I laughed when he made his opening statement during the Leaders Debate in English. When he said to the viewers to "Ask yourself which party would be accountable for the ordinary Canadian...." my immediate response was the NDP.

It was Harper who opposed to the Budget Amendment which supplied funding for municipalities and the homeless.

[PocketRocket]

The Tory day-care scheme, like all the tax relief Harper is promising, is part of Harper's social conservatism. Harper is arguing that we must trust individual Canadians to do what they want and we must regard the state as a collective bully always sticking its nose in the private affairs of its citizens.

The state SHOULD be keeping its nose out of the vast majority of its people's affairs.

Everything from the shaving of the GST by a couple of points is geared by Harper to Canadians as individual taxpayers and not as members of that dreaded alternative, the state.

And???

Harper's two-tier medicare position is the same. Political expediency made Harper seem to support medicare, but if there’s any waiting time that’s a bit too long well then go to a private clinic and medicare will pay for it.

Well, if I urgently need surgery, and the line is too long, and Medicare will pay for me to have this surgery done SOONER in a private clinic, then what's the downside???

Harper's law-and-order stand is also very socially conservative. Harper would abolish the gun registry, but has no plans to outlaw handguns. Harper sees handguns as a gun collector's individual right over the need to control handguns and their use in crimes and killings.

No matter how often it is pointed out that responsible gun owners who register their firearms are NOT the ones doing the drive-by shootings, someone still seems to thinks that taking guns out of the hands of the responsible owners will cause all the illegal, black-market guns to mysteriously vanish into thin air.

How many of the kids on Jane and Finch have their handguns registered???

Zero???

Oh. Gee. "Responsible" firearm owners, all.

I'm sure a firearms ban would see ALL of them running to turn in their illegal weapons

Harper's cut in the GST is a tax break that mainly benefits bigger spenders in upper income brackets. Harper's GST cut favours the rich over the ordinary Canadian.

"Your country and particularly your conservative movement is a light and an inspiration to people in this country and across the world." Canada, said Harper, "was a Northern European welfare state in the worst sense of that term."

http://www.cbc.ca/news/viewpoint/vp_zolf/20051219.html

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well, living in Ontario, for every dollar I spend, I have to add another $0.15 in sales and GS taxes.

If that comes down to $0.12, then that's another $30.00 remaining in my pocket for every $1,000.00 I spend.

Seems like small beans, but it helps everyone who actually goes into a store.

HITI, for someone who dislikes Harper, you sure make a good case for him.

I also dislike Harper, but this post has backfired as it has swayed me more in Harper's direction.

[Argus]

So?

So if you accept any of the above as true (which it is), you'd have to be a moron to vote for him.......

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It's all so much drivel. It's the same twisted bs we saw last election and the one before that. That's what I meant by "so?". Why anyone would post this is beyond me. This heaping load of festering manure has been trotted out time and time again by the venal, self-serving Liberal crowd, each time to great applause from their mind-numbingly stupid supporters.

[Kiraly]

I also dislike Harper, but this post has backfired as it has swayed me more in Harper's direction.

She does have that affect on people.

[Kiraly]

It's all so much drivel. It's the same twisted bs we saw last election and the one before that. That's what I meant by "so?". Why anyone would post this is beyond me. This heaping load of festering manure has been trotted out time and time again by the venal, self-serving Liberal crowd, each time to great applause from their mind-numbingly stupid supporters.

Don't mind her...

...she has a very odd fixation with the current leader of the Conservatives.

[Kiraly]

There's two of them???

Harperstein

[southerncomfort]

It's all so much drivel. It's the same twisted bs we saw last election and the one before that. That's what I meant by "so?". Why anyone would post this is beyond me. This heaping load of festering manure has been trotted out time and time again by the venal, self-serving Liberal crowd, each time to great applause from their mind-numbingly stupid supporters.

Don't mind her...

...she has a very odd fixation with the current leader of the Conservatives.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Hiti is actually a social conservative, she just hates Harper cos he beat out old Stocky. Nothing like having hissy fits years after the event.

[hiti]

Ah..... I see, again, the Harperites cannot refute or dispute what Harper is really like under all that sugar-coated "me-too" policy that he has been sprouting these past weeks, so they attack me instead.

If that comes down to $0.12, then that's another $30.00 remaining in my pocket for every $1,000.00 I spend.

Pocketrocket, you do your math the same as your fearless leader, Harper. The savings in your example would be $3.00 and not $30.00 but that's okay. Harper isn't very good with a calculator either. He said that a family making $60,000 would save $400 with his GST plan. He also plans to build $2 billion worth of icebreakers that will cost $3 billion.

[PocketRocket]

Ah..... I see, again, the Harperites cannot refute or dispute what Harper is really like under all that sugar-coated "me-too" policy that he has been sprouting these past weeks, so they attack me instead.

If that comes down to $0.12, then that's another $30.00 remaining in my pocket for every $1,000.00 I spend.

Pocketrocket, you do your math the same as your fearless leader, Harper. The savings in your example would be $3.00 and not $30.00 but that's okay. Harper isn't very good with a calculator either.

Actually, I didn't use a calculator as it is not hard to figure out that 3% of $1,000.00 is $30.00.

Second, Harper is a far cry from being my "fearless leader".

Have another look at what I actually said in my post, and perhaps some of my other posts on Harper, and you will find that I have actually spoken out against Harper the vast majority of the time.

But when you come to a forum site ONLY at election time to pump your own agenda, and further, read only the posts which apply to said agenda, then I guess you don't really pick up on these things.

It seems your math skills are second only to your ability to comprehend what you read.

He said that a family making $60,000 would save $400 with his GST plan. He also plans to build $2 billion worth of icebreakers that will cost $3 billion.

I didn't hear him talk about GST.

And as far as the $2B worth of icebreakers for $3B, well, that's better than a $2M gun registry that has, so far, cost over $2B, and has not taken a single, illegal, unregistered firearm out of the hands of a criminal.

But hey, it plays well to southern Ontarians, and makes them feel a bit more snug and secure in their 24-storey apartment buildings.

[PocketRocket]

Hello??? HITI???

No reply??? Calculator broken???

Now what were the percentages of that happening

[kimmy]

If that comes down to $0.12, then that's another $30.00 remaining in my pocket for every $1,000.00 I spend.

Pocketrocket, you do your math the same as your fearless leader, Harper. The savings in your example would be $3.00 and not $30.00 but that's okay. Harper isn't very good with a calculator either.

Actually, I didn't use a calculator as it is not hard to figure out that 3% of $1,000.00 is $30.00.

-k

[kimmy]

Ah..... I see, again, the Harperites cannot refute or dispute what Harper is really like under all that sugar-coated "me-too" policy that he has been sprouting these past weeks, so they attack me instead.

Well, it seemed like more of the usual "don't listen to him, he's scary! scary, people!" ranting that we've become quite used to. But if you insist, ok.

Stephen Harper’s attempts to crowd the centre of the political spectrum are belied by his stand on gay marriage. That is Harper’s social conservatism at his basic hard core. The rest of Harper's agenda is totally social conservative as well.

The Conservative position-- equal rights for gay couples under the term "civil union" while retaining the name "marriage" for traditional marriages-- is hardly the stuff of wild-eyed extremists. It's a compromise that polls found was acceptible to Canadians. It was PMPM's own position up until it became politically expedient to say otherwise.

The Tory day-care scheme, like all the tax relief Harper is promising, is part of Harper's social conservatism. Harper is arguing that we must trust individual Canadians to do what they want and we must regard the state as a collective bully always sticking its nose in the private affairs of its citizens.

Everything from the shaving of the GST by a couple of points is geared by Harper to Canadians as individual taxpayers and not as members of that dreaded alternative, the state.

What's bad about taking less money from people? I don't understand your objection.

Harper's two-tier medicare position is the same. Political expediency made Harper seem to support medicare, but if there’s any waiting time that’s a bit too long well then go to a private clinic and medicare will pay for it.

"A bit too long" has been interpreted by the Supreme Court as violating someone's right to security of person. If the government can't make these "bit too long" waiting lists "a bit shorter", then it is violating the Charter. Given that Paul Martin defines his #1 job as "Defending the Charter! ™ " dismissing the waiting times as "a bit too long" is something that not even he can get away with. Are private clinics inherently evil? They're already a part of our healthcare network. They've increased steadily under the Liberals' reign, and not just in Alberta.

Harper's stand on childcare is part of his social conservatism. Harper was "a career opponent of publicly funded childcare." Now he’s posing as "the working parents' best friend."

Harper is trying to help stay-at-home moms in preference to moms who need to work and need day care for their children. Harper is like Bismarck, saying a woman's place is in the kitchen and at home.

How does it help stay-at-home moms in preference to moms who work outside the home? It's fair to both, unlike the Liberals' plan. The Liberal strategy only helps families where both parents work. They're essentially subsidizing one lifestyle choice at the expense of the other; is that really fair?

Critics of the Conservative proposal point out that $100/month isn't enough to pay for daycare. Fair enough. But why must the taxpayer subsidize the entire cost? It seems to me that families with two incomes can pick up a share of the cost themselves.

A quick check of a couple of professional daycare facilities gave me a figure somewhere around $650 a month; rather than beer or popcorn, Harper's plan would cover 15% of that. There are cheaper options; one of my cousins-- a "stay at home mom"-- cares for a number of friends' children during the day at a much more modest cost; $1200 a year would cover the entire cost for her clients.

And then there is the question of wait times. Quebec's daycare system is supposedly so wonderful that there are enough spaces for only a fraction of the people that want to make use of it. (how fair and inclusive is THAT?)

Harper's law-and-order stand is also very socially conservative. Harper would abolish the gun registry, but has no plans to outlaw handguns. Harper sees handguns as a gun collector's individual right over the need to control handguns and their use in crimes and killings.

No plan to ban handguns? That's a big fat red herring. As both Harper and Layton have pointed out in wake of the Boxing Day shootings, handguns are already so strictly regulated as to be virtually banned. Both leaders contend that stronger enforcement of existing laws and control of border crossings-- areas that were decimated during the Liberals' reign.

But Layton also took a jab at Martin's handgun-ban policy.

"Since it would appear that these crimes were committed with handguns, it is almost certainly true that all of the weapons involved are already illegal – already banned," Layton said.

"So it is important for Canadians not to be diverted by election rhetoric."

Layton said the government must focus on getting illegal handguns off the streets by bringing in tougher border controls, tougher sentencing for weapons offences, and tougher anti-gang policing, prosecutions and sentencing.

CBC-- leaders react to Boxing Day violence

Layton sensibly dismisses Martin's handgun ban for what it is: electioneering. How socially conservative could Harper's stance on handguns be when Jack Layton, of all people, is on the same page?

Harper's cut in the GST is a tax break that mainly benefits bigger spenders in upper income brackets. Harper's GST cut favours the rich over the ordinary Canadian.

The rich will not benefit disproportionately from the cut to the GST. The GST is a great tax, and I'm not actually thrilled that Harper is cutting it at all. What is great about the GST is (aside from its transparency) is the across the board fairness. It does not disproportionately punish any group, and the reduction will not disproportionately benefit any group either.

-k

[willy]

The Conservative position-- equal rights for gay couples under the term "civil union" while retaining the name "marriage" for traditional marriages-- is hardly the stuff of wild-eyed extremists. It's a compromise that polls found was acceptible to Canadians. It was PMPM's own position up until it became politically expedient to say otherwise.

Good post Kimmy, and I just wanted to add a little timely context. The Conservative position is the same as what they have done in England and a couple of weeks back was endorsed by Elton John. He celebrated this right to civil union. If it was good enough for Elton it is good enough for me.

Under the Conservative plan if an individual church thought it right to sanctify the union as marriage they could do that. It would be in the church context to debate the theology behind such decision and not up to our charter or our politicians. In keeping the church and state separate, sanctification represented in marriage is a church debate to me. While the legal union is definitely a state decision. On that matter a number of churches in Canada would already agree to sanctifying Gay Marriage. (e.g. United Church in Vancouver)

So all I have argued would take place only if a free vote turned over the current position and a new law was put in its place that may then be challenged under the Charter. The Conservatives did state they would not use the not with standing clause and so if it was overturned we would be back where we started.

So practically, what is the big deal?

[Guest eureka]

Kimmy, I would think it is time to put your intelligence to better use. I have not dissected your last post and I agree with much of it on a cursory reading.

However, your comments on the GST are infuriating ninsense.

The average foodbank recipient as has been highlighted in several studies, has a couple of dollars a week available for discretionary spending after rent and and food not supplied by the Banks.

Tell me how much they save from a GST reduction! Tell me that they are benfiting as much as the rich!

My contempt for Harper grows with each "policy" announcement.

[Canuck E Stan]

Eueka,

This is a cut for everyone.

if your concern is totally for the average foodbank recipient,

I suggest two things,

1. Do something to reduce the number of recipients,(which the Liberals have done nothing)

2. Start making larger personal donations to help these poor folks out.Maybe even volunteer your time at the foodbank.

[BubberMiley]

How do you know he doesn't volunteer at a food bank? If he doesn't, would it be hypocritical for him to advocate for food bank recipients? I think your reply demonstrates typical conservative evasion of issues by going after the person asking the question.

[Canuck E Stan]

Blubber,

evasion of issues

An evasion of issues is why after 12 years in government the LIberals have done nothing for the foodbank recipients except make their numbers grow larger.

What is the income tax cut that the Liberals are proposing going to do to cut these numbers?

Where is the Liberal solution?

And as usual the blame goes to the "typical conservative".

[BubberMiley]

I dunno. I ain't a Liberal.