Harper bending over backwards

[Leafless]

Why is Stephen Harper trying to appease a province that does not support Conservative initiatives or issues concerning national interest but is only concerned with it's own self cultural issue's and demands.

Harper's latest offerings to Quebec which will allow Quebec to play a role in internationanl bodies and give it a more prominent voice around the world is ludicrous will water dow federal control and is only asking for more cultural problems and demands from the Canadian tax payer to fund their efforts like the Liberal francophonie organization initiatives resulted with Canadian tax payer being left on the hook.

I think the Conservatives should keep there election promises on a national level and if Quebec does not want to play ball --to bad!

See story at CTV.ca-" Harper promises more autonomy for Quebec."

[PocketRocket]

Harper is bending over backwards. Period. Not just for Quebec.

Moast everything he's said in the past couple years is being moderated in an attempt to broaden his appeal.

A necessary tactic, and a smart one, if he's to make inroads in either Quebec, or Ontario.

[Shakeyhands]

Simple answer to this. Harper is a whore who will do anything to get into power.

Why else would you water down your beliefs and policies? Be a man and say what you mean and stand for what you say. Just one more reason to be scared as hell of this man and party.

[Riverwind]

Simple answer to this.  Harper is a whore who will do anything to get into power.

Harper can't seem to get a break: if he sticks to his principals he is an out of touch ideologue. If he moderates his views he is a 'whore' seeking power.

Seems to me that we live in a democracy which means politicians get elected by supporting policies that people want. A willingness to listen to what people want in different parts of the country is an essential requirement of the PM's job. I am heartened that Harper is willing and able to do that.

In terms of Quebec, Harper will not likely get any votes from his annoucements but it is essential that Harper make it clear to Quebequers that not all federalists are Liberals.

[Biblio Bibuli]

Be a man and say what you mean and stand for what you say.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Those were the days my friend.

Haven't you noticed how, ever since women won suffrage, to be a man and say what you mean and stand for what you say is easier said than done.

I hope PR's happy!

[Shakeyhands]

Simple answer to this.  Harper is a whore who will do anything to get into power.

Harper can't seem to get a break: if he sticks to his principals he is an out of touch ideologue. If he moderates his views he is a 'whore' seeking power.

Seems to me that we live in a democracy which means politicians get elected by supporting policies that people want. A willingness to listen to what people want in different parts of the country is an essential requirement of the PM's job. I am heartened that Harper is willing and able to do that.

In terms of Quebec, Harper will not likely get any votes from his annoucements but it is essential that Harper make it clear to Quebequers that not all federalists are Liberals.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I see your perspective, but I don't agree that Harper has changed his stripes, one only need look at the current GOP south of the border to see that. Remeber, Bush was a uniter.

[Riverwind]

I see your perspective, but I don't agree that Harper has changed his stripes, one only need look at the current GOP south of the border to see that.  Remeber, Bush was a uniter.

And Bush is also starting to look like the biggest lame duck president in a long time. Harper will not get a majority so he really has no choice but to govern from the center if he wants his government to last more that 4 months.

[justcrowing]

Simple answer to this.  Harper is a whore who will do anything to get into power.

Harper can't seem to get a break: if he sticks to his principals he is an out of touch ideologue. If he moderates his views he is a 'whore' seeking power.

Seems to me that we live in a democracy which means politicians get elected by supporting policies that people want. A willingness to listen to what people want in different parts of the country is an essential requirement of the PM's job. I am heartened that Harper is willing and able to do that.

In terms of Quebec, Harper will not likely get any votes from his annoucements but it is essential that Harper make it clear to Quebequers that not all federalists are Liberals.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I see your perspective, but I don't agree that Harper has changed his stripes, one only need look at the current GOP south of the border to see that. Remeber, Bush was a uniter.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Bush will not be in power forever - his 2 terms are up. However, biting the hand that feeds Canada can also serve to starve Canada.

[Leader Circle]

The problem with Canada is: we are a bunch of self-serving assholes who want our gov't to pander to OUR needs alone and if they don't we whine. If people could come together on any topic we'd have a good gov't, but we can't.

So you get a liar like Martin to kiss people's asses while he takes their wallet!

If Harper were to tell it like it is, he'd never get elected.

I think more people need to be told what a POS they are and maybe they'd stop being useless.

[Leafless]

Sparhawk

You wrote- " And Bush is also starting to look like the biggest lame duck president in a long time. Harper will not get a majority so he really has no choice but to govern from the center."

GWB has many major problems to contend with worldwide and I think the Republicans are doing a terrific job under the conditions but could cause a few problems on their homefront.

The fact is the U.S. is a successful united country which unfortunately Canada is not.

Canada has been experiencing third world ununited political conditons for 138 years retarding the efficiency of our politcal system and placing abnormal constitutional problems on our leaders.

Up to now the Liberals have benefitted for many reasons, reasons basically that are at the root of indifference with Quebec.

The CPC currently headed under Stephen Harper is being hampered by this condition and this is why it is extemely hard for any party other then the Liberals to achieve the status of a majority government.

One hundred and thirty-eight years of abnormal politics is a bit much to take and I for one am looking forward to the day of a stable normalized Canadian political system, in fact I can't wait, time for a divorce is long due.

[justcrowing]

Sparhawk

You wrote- " And Bush is also starting to look like the biggest lame duck president in a long time. Harper will not get a majority so he really has no choice but to govern from the center."

GWB has many major problems to contend with worldwide and I think the Republicans are doing a terrific job under the conditions but could cause a few problems on their homefront.

The fact is the U.S. is a successful united country which unfortunately Canada is not.

Canada has been experiencing third world ununited political conditons for 138 years retarding the efficiency of our politcal system and placing abnormal constitutional problems on our leaders.

Up to now the Liberals have benefitted for many reasons, reasons basically that are at the root of indifference with Quebec.

The CPC currently headed under Stephen Harper is being hampered by this condition and this is why it is extemely hard for any party other then the Liberals to achieve the status of a majority government.

One hundred and thirty-eight years of abnormal politics is a bit much to take and I for one am looking forward to the day of a stable normalized Canadian political system, in fact I can't wait, time for a divorce is long due.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Good post and telling it as it is!!

[Riverwind]

Canada has been experiencing third world ununited political conditons for 138 years retarding the efficiency of our politcal system and placing abnormal constitutional problems on our leaders.

The problems in the Canadian political system are much less than the problems in the US political system. Washington is a rather pathetic place full of politicians that are bought and paid for by various lobby groups. The corruption is the US political system is so bad that state legislatures are allowed to manipulate the riding boundaries to ensure safe seats for almost all congressmen. There is absolutely no room in the American political system for any voice other than Democrat or Rupublican.

The CPC currently headed under Stephen Harper is being hampered by this condition and this is why it is extemely hard for any party other then the Liberals to achieve the status of a majority government.

The CPC cannot win a majority gov't because they tried to cater to social conservative base that is a small minority of voters in this country. This narrow minded view ensured that Quebequers (and most of urban Canada) would reject the CPC as alternative. If the CPC had tried to be a socially progressive but fiscally conservative party (like the BC Liberals) they would be looking a majority now.

One hundred and thirty-eight years of abnormal politics is a bit much to take and I for one am looking forward to the day of a stable normalized Canadian political system, in fact I can't wait, time for a divorce is long due.

Hardly, divorce is a nasty business that leaves everyone worse off.

[justcrowing]

Depends if you want a divorce badly enough or to stay in an abusive relationship?

[Riverwind]

Depends if you want a divorce badly enough or to stay in an abusive relationship?

The Canadian political problems are relatively trivial and are only a big deal to political junkies who post on boards like these. For the most part the economy works well, we get the services we want from gov't and people are more or less free to pursue their lives as they wish.

That said there is always room for improvement - we could certainly do better than we are doing but suggesting the that the federation is an abusive relationship is rediculous.

[justcrowing]

Depends if you want a divorce badly enough or to stay in an abusive relationship?

The Canadian political problems are relatively trivial and are only a big deal to political junkies who post on boards like these. For the most part the economy works well, we get the services we want from gov't and people are more or less free to pursue their lives as they wish.

That said there is always room for improvement - we could certainly do better than we are doing but suggesting the that the federation is an abusive relationship is rediculous.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So I take it then, you do not feel mismangement of tax dollars and patronage is not abuse of power? Oh well, to each his own!!

[cybercoma]

Why is Stephen Harper trying to appease a province that does not support Conservative initiatives or issues concerning national interest but is only concerned with it's own self cultural issue's and demands.

Harper's latest offerings to Quebec which will allow Quebec to play a role in internationanl bodies and give it a more prominent voice around the world is ludicrous will water dow federal control and is only asking for more cultural problems and demands from the Canadian tax payer to fund their efforts like the Liberal francophonie organization initiatives resulted with Canadian tax payer being left on the hook.

I think the Conservatives should keep there election promises on a national level and if Quebec does not want to play ball --to bad!

See story at CTV.ca-" Harper promises more autonomy for Quebec."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Autonomous means less dependant on Canadian taxpayers.

[Leafless]

cybercoma

You wrote- " Autonomous means less dependant on Canadian taxpayers."

The Liberals already tried that giving Quebec everthing but the Kitchen sink and their still not happy and I suspect they never will be as their society is severley handicapped being surrounded by a sea of English.

Dream on!

[err]

One hundred and thirty-eight years of abnormal politics is a bit much to take and I for one am looking forward to the day of a stable normalized Canadian political system, in fact I can't wait, time for a divorce is long due.

I would tend to think that 138 years of the same thing, by definition, would make that thing "the norm".... Perhaps it is you that is "abnormal"

[August1991]

If I go back to this thread's title:

Why is Stephen Harper trying to appease a province that does not support Conservative initiatives or issues concerning national interest but is only concerned with it's own self cultural issue's and demands.

Harper's latest offerings to Quebec which will allow Quebec to play a role in internationanl bodies and give it a more prominent voice around the world is ludicrous will water dow federal control and is only asking for more cultural problems and demands from the Canadian tax payer to fund their efforts like the Liberal francophonie organization initiatives resulted with Canadian tax payer being left on the hook.

What did Harper offer in his speech in Ste-Foy?

He said that he would meet with all premiers to discuss the so-called fiscal imbalance.

He said the federal spending powers should be better circumscribed.

He said that Quebec deserved a seat in certain international meetings such as UNESCO.

And finally, he said that he would be prepared to find a way "to integrate Quebec into the constitutional family".

This is a key quote:

Instead of the old paternalistic and arrogant attitude of the federal Liberals, and the blind and sterile obstruction of the Bloc Québécois, a Conservative government will practice an open federalism.  We will recognize provincial autonomy as well as the special cultural and institutional responsibilities of the Quebec government.  We will respect federal and provincial jurisdictions, as defined by the Canadian Constitution.  I want to emphasize specifically today that we will develop mechanisms to allow the provinces a greater role in their own jurisdictions as they relate to the international arena.  I know, for example, that the Charest government would like Québec to play a greater role in UNESCO-related competencies.  A new Conservative government will invite Québec to participate in UNESCO according to the model for the Francophonie Summit.  We will work to eliminate the fiscal imbalance between Ottawa and the provinces.

Harper's Speech

Harper is merely respecting the federal nature of Canada. I don't see anything here that implies Harper is "bending over backwards".

In many ways, these proposals are little different from what Martin spoke about two years ago.

----

If the CPC had tried to be a socially progressive but fiscally conservative party (like the BC Liberals) they would be looking a majority now.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

All things considered, I have to agree with that statement.

[willy]

The CPC cannot win a majority gov't because they tried to cater to social conservative base that is a small minority of voters in this country.

They have not. The core they are appealing to is the democratic roots of the Reform Party. They believe that everything should be decided by a vote. They believe the grass roots should run the agenda. Mr. Harper has tempered this by focusing on MPs being representative of constituents, but this is what drives the free vote on same sex marriage. By the way with a free vote even with a Conservative Majority it is likely to not change the last result.

Other than this one issue how is he catering to the social conservative base?

Putting drug dealers and violent criminals in jail for minimum sentences sure is not extreme. Is it?

Enforcing the current law is not extreme is it?

Taking money from in effective programs and redirecting it to policing resources seems a little like common sense.

Having a flexible child care policy that recognizes the diversity of needs for parents across this country seems to make sense from a federal government. This of course does not stop the provinces from filling in with more localized early child hood learning programs. Which with the fiscal imbalance addressed would be a real possibility.

It really burns my ass when on a discussion site the best many can do is continue with the rhetoric and not just focus on positive solutions. Any one can be a critic but what and how should they change the status quo.

If you have noticed the pressures on the health care system will only increase as the baby boom ages and retires. Jack Layton’s defense of Medicare is like losing weight by smoking. You may look better initially but eventually your teeth go black, your skin gets wrinkles, and you can’t breath. We need a government that will look to sustainability, practicality and effectiveness. I don’t only want public healthcare, I want to be able to access it and then I want it to be of the best quality. None of us wants a doctor who finished last in his class.

Sorry for the lack of focus but I have not posted in a while and it all builds up.

Harper is not pandering; he believes that these things will be good for the country. Quebec at some point needs to choose Canada. You can’t force people to embrace you. You follow the golden rule and work at providing value and you hope they really want to be around because of who you are and they like who they are when they are around you.

Canada can be that place.

[Riverwind]

Mr. Harper has tempered this by focusing on MPs being representative of constituents, but this is what drives the free vote on same sex marriage. By the way with a free vote even with a Conservative Majority it is likely to not change the last result.

Many of the CPC policies are sound and well thought out, however, they have undermined their message in critical areas of the country (Quebec and Urban Canada) by focusing on the SSM issue. That is why the SSM was/is a big mistake for the CPC.

[Slim MacSquinty]

You're buying into the Liberal divide and conquer scheme, it goes like this lets make it seem like Harper is willing to give it all away to Quebec so the righter side of the conservatives get all concerned and start yapping.

Well think about this, Harper has not changed his toon one iota, what he is really doing is pointing out how the conservative platform actually makes sense for Quebec. Not all the platform, no special deal, in terms of more autonomy for the provinces and in terms of better financial arrangements this is in every provinces best interest, for the first time in a long time the "every province" includes Quebec.

Don't get hung up on the spin.

[August1991]

Mr. Harper has tempered this by focusing on MPs being representative of constituents, but this is what drives the free vote on same sex marriage. By the way with a free vote even with a Conservative Majority it is likely to not change the last result.

Many of the CPC policies are sound and well thought out, however, they have undermined their message in critical areas of the country (Quebec and Urban Canada) by focusing on the SSM issue. That is why the SSM was/is a big mistake for the CPC.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Sparhawk, I think you are missing the gist of Willy's post.

It is wrong to describe the Conservatives as "social conservatives" if that term is to have any practical, horrific meaning. Even on the litmus test issue of SSM, if Harper formed a majority government, it would not pass a free vote. Harper's current position is really no different from Layton's with respect to Schreyer. Does that make Layton a so-con?

Willy's point, I think, is that tacking the word "social" onto Conservatives is more a question of perception. Even when it's an issue of substance (ie. sentencing for crimes, child care, policing), many Canadians would probably agree anyway.

----

With all that said, democratic politics involve image and perception since our single vote (and even our tax payments) are so divorced from anything real. The Liberals have successfully painted Harper as a so-con. It is up to Harper to present himself differently, and for the Conservatives to paint Martin as an old ward-heeler, or some other suitable stereotype.

[willy]

Sparhawk,

Either Mr. Harper runs on the voted for policy or he lacks integrity. All of this good policy is based on the democratic process that happened in Montreal last March.

Mr. Harper can not and should not change this policy with out consulting members. The policy was to hold a vote. The house of commons will decide the issue not a party whip or the Prime Minister.

I understand that in urban Canada, specifically the media centers of Montreal, Toronto and Vancouver that SSM is strongly supported. This does not make it a good issue because it acts like a wedge.

Rest assured the policy would only change a title to civil union. All the rights and relationship cities associated would be maintained. I don't think at this point you will find enough MP's to overturn the decision. This is about a free vote.

So the choice is a leader who does what he says and respects others beliefs and opinions or a leader who says anything to get elected and governs by polls with no clear direction for the country.

Personally I favour civil unions because I think it is important for same sex couples to be able to enter into long term committed relationships that are recognized. This recognition should guarantee access to property and representation i.e. hospital access etc. My on going concern with no legal designation or difference between same sex couple and opposite sex couples is that it will be used in courts to argue access and persecute religious teaching. The Charter that Mr. Martin speaks in defense of will be used to affect the activities of churches, mosques etc.

See that is the challenge, one decision for a good reason, can have a negative impact on anther group. The law of unintended consequences.

If this is just about election strategy and not the impacts of policy. You are 100% right this is a bad policy for the Conservatives. If it is about being a good policy for all Canadians well that is debatable and I am still willing to be convinced.

[!!!]

Rest assured the policy would only change a title to civil union. All the rights and relationship cities associated would be maintained. I don't think at this point you will find enough MP's to overturn the decision. This is about a free vote.

Um...the SCC has written that the "sperate but equal" civil union option is unconstitutional and would not survive a court challenge. So that leaves us with an eventual showdown over the Notwithstanding clause, which could get ugly. Why not just get over it and move on?

So the choice is a leader who does what he says and respects others beliefs and opinions or a leader who says anything to get elected and governs by polls with no clear direction for the country.

Problem is, Harper's "it's about a free vote" stance is completely disingeneous. His party had a free vote on this issue already. And even if the Tories gain power, they can't force the Liberal, Bloc or ND caucuses to hold free votes. So what Harper really means is he wants a do over to get the results they want. the "free vote" line is just window dressing for the party's true anti-SSM platform.