If Harper forms a minority government...

[August1991]

I don't think Harper will get the most seats, so I don't think he'll get a chance to form a government, but this is an Internet forum and one can hypothesize.

Harper may not want to call Parliament until late in the spring, or even the fall. (I don't know if the GST cut requires legislation.)

Then, he should present a budget with major tax cuts, and passing off tax points to the provinces. This would be popular with the BQ and guarantee the budget's success. Harper should take a leaf out of Bush Jnr's economic policies and not in the least worry about a deficit. In fact, Harper should get the message out that a deficit doesn't matter.

I'm convinced that provoking a deficit is the only way to get federal spending under control.

The longer Harper manages as PM, the more chance he has of getting re-elected. BTW, there is a "conservative" supreme court judge Harper will have to replace. If Harper wins, he'll have some breathing room as the Liberals pick a new leader.

With a budget out of the way, Harper could take on the BQ directly by negotiating a constitutional agreement with Charest. But now the hyoptheticals are off the chart...

[shoop]

Interesting hypothesis.

I think *when* the Conservatives win the house will sit in February. They will want to get on their agenda as soon as possible.

The Conervatives have seen the Liberals ads, and are ready for them. There doesn`t appear to be too much in them that will be unexpected. They will fight back, but keep on the policy-driven campaign.

I think that is the best strategy for them to follow.

They are doing everything right so far. If the public doesn`t warm to Harper with the campaign he has been running they never will. No reason to get nervous and try and cobble together a new strategy at this point.

[Riverwind]

I'm convinced that provoking a deficit is the only way to get federal spending under control.

This has to be the dumbest thing that I every heard. The Bush regime destroying the future wealth of America by driving up the deficit - there may be short term gains but in the long term Americans will have a lower standard of living because of the short sighted Bush policies. That money has to paid back some time and as interest rates go up the amount of money sucked out of the US economy used to paid foreign bond holders will only go up.

Such a policy would even be dumber for a Canadian govt who does not have the luxury of borrowing in its own currency which means the wealth sucked out of the country by debt payments would only increase as the currency drops.

[Leader Circle]

Interesting hypothesis.

I think *when* the Conservatives win the house will sit in February. They will want to get on their agenda as soon as possible.

The Conervatives have seen the Liberals ads, and are ready for them. There doesn`t appear to be too much in them that will be unexpected. They will fight back, but keep on the policy-driven campaign.

I think that is the best strategy for them to follow.

They are doing everything right so far. If the public doesn`t warm to Harper with the campaign he has been running they never will. No reason to get nervous and try and cobble together a new strategy at this point.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree, if the voters can't get over themselves long enough to see the shit the Libs are spreading, then so be it. Most urban Canadians are a lost cause, because they can't think of the country before themselves. If they love Canada so much, why put a useless Liberal gov't in place to destroy it??

We need a bit more American style politics here and let the provinces have more power.

[Argus]

I don't think Harper will get the most seats, so I don't think he'll get a chance to form a government, but this is an Internet forum and one can hypothesize.

Don't know what they would do. I know what I would do if I were them. First, I would introduce legislation to greatly expand the role of the Auditor General, to increase her budget and give her power to examine the books of every government department or agency, or any other organization the government gives money to. Then I would request audits of the Business Development Bank, CIDA, and those foundation trusts where Martin stashed billions of dollars. You would have no difficulty getting any of this through the House.

Next, I would put in place a new system of appointments to high offices through non-partisan boards, especially judges and groups with judicial power, like parole boards and immigration panels. Again, this would easily sail through the Commons and be very popular.

I would have my health minster lead a high profile team to Europe to examine health care systems there. This is to get Canadians out of their habit of thinking it's our way or the American way. Then I would move slowly to introduce some of the private sector health financing as seen in Europe. The Bloc would probably support this as Quebecers are in favour, and have a lot of private health care clinics already which the BQ has defended.

I would announce new money and new equipment for the military - immediately, not five years down the road as the Liberals have done. I would announce the re-introduction of the Canada Ports Police to combat organized crime at our ports, new money for the RCMP and Border Security specifically to fight gun smuggling, sales and posession. I would then introduce stringent new laws with mandatory minimum sentences for smuggling, and illegal selling, buying, posession and use of firearms. Again, this would probably pass, since the other parties would not want to be seen as being soft on firearm violence. Depending on the mood of the country, on polls, on the party's standings, they might also want to test the waters of the notwithstanding clause by introducing legislation to smooth expelling foreign criminals from Canada. It now takes years, with all the various expensive appeals, and it would take the notwithstanding clause to allow them to just boot these criminals out. I think most Canadians would support that, and the opposition probably wouldn't want to vote down the government on the subject of defending foreign criminals rights to stay here.

It's important, I think, to be seen as racking up victories early, so Canadians see the new government as working and doing things they want done. This makes it much more difficult for the Libs to decide to bring it down early. And the longer he's in power the more comfortable Canadians will be with Harper. People fear the unknown, after all.

Their first budget should contain a small tax cut. They should not go overboard on this. They'll need extra money for the military, security, and other programs they want to impliment. They can cut billions from the present budget which go in pork barrel schemes through the various "regional development" agencies, but I wouldn't go overboard on budget cutting in the first budget. Canadians are afraid of a slash and burn government, and since a minority likely wouldn't last they need to reassure them. Also, don't cut anything the opposition can oppose and potray themselves as saving social services from the evil tories.

I would announce a major initiative to study a new relationship between the federal govenrment and natives. The present one doesnt' work and has never worked. Think outside the box. Yes, this would eventually be very controversial, but such a study would take at least a couple of years to report, so all that will be seen is the Tories looking for answers, looking for new ways, for change. And Canadians would approve.

Similar initiatives could be announced. The major task of the government should be to survive long enough for Canadians to grow comfortable with them, while being seen to be doing positive things.

[August1991]

I'm convinced that provoking a deficit is the only way to get federal spending under control.

This has to be the dumbest thing that I every heard. The Bush regime destroying the future wealth of America by driving up the deficit - there may be short term gains but in the long term Americans will have a lower standard of living because of the short sighted Bush policies. That money has to paid back some time and as interest rates go up the amount of money sucked out of the US economy used to paid foreign bond holders will only go up.

Such a policy would even be dumber for a Canadian govt who does not have the luxury of borrowing in its own currency which means the wealth sucked out of the country by debt payments would only increase as the currency drops.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

The Bush Administration did nothing of the sort and all I can say is that you are about 30 or so years behind economic theory.

As I have repeatedly argued, and as most macroeconomists since Barro (if not Ricardo) would agree, government borrowing is nothing at all like a family borrowing.

However, Sparhawk, if you feel this way about government deficits, then I suspect many Canadians feel the same way so in fact, the issue is not economics but rather perception and politics.

I suspect however that many Canadians would be happy to have a large tax cut, and the media would be quite happy to hear many well-known economists arguing that the deficit is not a problem. For the chattering classes, it would give them something anodine to talk about.

Bush has wisely made future government spending difficult in the US. Harper could do the same here, while also solving the problem with the provinces.

----

I think Harper could do this, just like Harper could negotiate on Quebec, because he would be running counter to stereotype.

[Riverwind]

As I have repeatedly argued, and as most macroeconomists since Barro (if not Ricardo) would agree, government borrowing is nothing at all like a family borrowing.

It is different but the effects are similar. Governments that borrow money from foreign bond holders will eventually become beholden to them and lose all control over fiscal and monetary policy. This story has been repeated over and over again in the last 30-40 years (1997 Asian economic crisis was the most recent). Economists that ignore the detemental effect of excessive government debt on the standard of living in a country are simply in denial.

That said, there are two countries where special rules could apply: US and Japan. The US has the luxery of having a reserve currency which central banks want to hold even if the investment value of that currency is questionable. Japan has a trade surplus a massive pool of domestic savings that allows it fund the debt internally. However, in both cases, the debt will reduce the standard of living of future generations.

Bush has wisely made future government spending difficult in the US.  Harper could do the same here, while also solving the problem with the provinces.

Ah no. If Harper did that he would prove that the Liberals have been right all along that Harper is a neo-con Bush wanna be. He would be booted from office so fast he would not what happened to him.

[Rovik]

Don't know what they would do. I know what I would do if I were them. First, I would introduce legislation to greatly expand the role of the Auditor General, to increase her budget and give her power to examine the books of every government department or agency, or any other organization the government gives money to. Then I would request audits of the Business Development Bank, CIDA, and those foundation trusts where Martin stashed billions of dollars. You would have no difficulty getting any of this through the House.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree

Next, I would put in place a new system of appointments to high offices through non-partisan boards, especially judges and groups with judicial power, like parole boards and immigration panels. Again, this would easily sail through the Commons and be very popular.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree

I would have my health minster lead a high profile team to Europe to examine health care systems there. This is to get Canadians out of their habit of thinking it's our way or the American way. Then I would move slowly to introduce some of the private sector health financing as seen in Europe. The Bloc would probably support this as Quebecers are in favour, and have a lot of private health care clinics already which the BQ has defended.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So basically, send an expensive high profile team to Europe to go through the motions and afterwards introduce private sector health financing (like there was ever any question it was going to be done anyway.) The public won't like this.

[

I would announce new money and new equipment for the military - immediately, not five years down the road as the Liberals have done. I would announce the re-introduction of the Canada Ports Police to combat organized crime at our ports, new money for the RCMP and Border Security specifically to fight gun smuggling, sales and posession. I would then introduce stringent new laws with mandatory minimum sentences for smuggling, and illegal selling, buying, posession and use of firearms. Again, this would probably pass, since the other parties would not want to be seen as being soft on firearm violence. Depending on the mood of the country, on polls, on the party's standings, they might also want to test the waters of the notwithstanding clause by introducing legislation to smooth expelling foreign criminals from Canada. It now takes years, with all the various expensive appeals, and it would take the notwithstanding clause to allow them to just boot these criminals out. I think most Canadians would support that, and the opposition probably wouldn't want to vote down the government on the subject of defending foreign criminals rights to stay here.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I agree on some principles of new money and equipment for the military as long as it's not used for offensive missions such as if Canada went into Iraq like the Conservatives wanted at the beginning of the Iraqi war. I also agree on new laws as long they do not impact human rights and are not too intrusive. Using the notwithstanding clause is opening up a can of worms for it could be creating a precedent. A floodgate could be opened in which the notwithstanding law could be used in a frivilous manner or could be used to attack basic human rights such as SSM.

It's important, I think, to be seen as racking up victories early, so Canadians see the new government as working and doing things they want done. This makes it much more difficult for the Libs to decide to bring it down early. And the longer he's in power the more comfortable Canadians will be with Harper. People fear the unknown, after all.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Well if they stick to the centre, they could fool Canadians in thinking they are not as scary as people make them out to be but if they won a majority afterwards...now that would be scary for many non-Conservative and center-left Conservative supporters.

Their first budget should contain a small tax cut. They should not go overboard on this. They'll need extra money for the military, security, and other programs they want to impliment. They can cut billions from the present budget which go in pork barrel schemes through the various "regional development" agencies, but I wouldn't go overboard on budget cutting in the first budget. Canadians are afraid of a slash and burn government, and since a minority likely wouldn't last they need to reassure them. Also, don't cut anything the opposition can oppose and potray themselves as saving social services from the evil tories.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Some of these "regional development" agencies are not as terrible as you make them out to be. ACOA has helped produce many successes in Atlantic Canada. Granted there has been some failures but there is never anything such as a 100% success rate.

I would announce a major initiative to study a new relationship between the federal govenrment and natives. The present one doesnt' work and has never worked. Think outside the box. Yes, this would eventually be very controversial, but such a study would take at least a couple of years to report, so all that will be seen is the Tories looking for answers, looking for new ways, for change. And Canadians would approve.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There has been numerous studies over the years examing the relationship between the Federal gotv. and natives. How do you think another study would be any different, in my opinion, it would just be a waste of money

[Montgomery Burns]

I'm convinced that provoking a deficit is the only way to get federal spending under control.

This has to be the dumbest thing that I every heard. The Bush regime destroying the future wealth of America by driving up the deficit - there may be short term gains but in the long term Americans will have a lower standard of living because of the short sighted Bush policies. That money has to paid back some time and as interest rates go up the amount of money sucked out of the US economy used to paid foreign bond holders will only go up.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't think it is the "dumbest thing I have ever heard". I agree that the Republicans and President "compassionate conservatism" Bush should cut way back on his domestic spending, but Reagan ran deficits over 20 years ago and the US standard of living as hardly dropped.

[BubberMiley]

In my day, conservatives were appalled at deficits in general; now they rush to defend empire-crushing deficits. I vote NDP and would love to see some strong federal balanced budget legislation. It's topsy-turvy land.

[Riverwind]

I don't think it is the "dumbest thing I have ever heard".  I agree that the Republicans and President "compassionate conservatism" Bush should cut way back on his domestic spending, but Reagan ran deficits over 20 years ago and the US standard of living as hardly dropped.

Only because the administration under Clinton cleaned up the mess. If deficit spending had continued through the 90s the US would be in much worse shape today. In any case, the US is a special case because it's currency is a reserve currency. If Canada followed that logic it would end up looking like Argentina.

[Guest eureka]

I wish you would lose your fixation on European health systems, Argus. Most European systems are running into difficulties at this time: most European systems have no more private input than the Canadian system. The difference is only in what is Private and what is public.

There are few European critics of health systems (outside of the Private concerns) who do not rate the Canadian system as better.

We need to fix our problems not to exchange them for another set of difficulties.

[speaker]

If Harper wins a minority he should immediately ask his natural allies the Liberals to support him in his effort to turn us into Americans, that accomplished he should then proceed to do that. black cat, white cat, buwahahaha

no but seriously folks if Harper and the conservative liberals form the next government they really should consider the state of our nations nature. our economic/financial debt is pretty serious, but what percent of our viable agricultural land can you see even on a clear day from the CN tower? How healthy are the great lakes compared to 50 years ago, and what are they likely to be like 50 years from now.

We just gotta get away from this idea that we stand a chance of fooling the public until we can get a majority. The only ones who are being fooled are the me firsters that expect to gain directly from one party or another. Sink us further into debt either financially or ecologically to support all those lazy corporate, criminal, or communist citizens who can't see their way clear to do honest work that respects the planet and you increase the likelihood of worse dieback.

[I Miss Trudeau]

In any case, the US is a special case because it's currency is a reserve currency. If Canada followed that logic it would end up looking like Argentina.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Which has caused a lot of financial types to get a little antsy. As the USD is slowly becoming less and less the currency of the world, Bush has done nothing to alter policies to reflect that.

[August1991]

In any case, the US is a special case because it's currency is a reserve currency. If Canada followed that logic it would end up looking like Argentina.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Which has caused a lot of financial types to get a little antsy. As the USD is slowly becoming less and less the currency of the world, Bush has done nothing to alter policies to reflect that.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Alot of financial types? Who? Where?

The fact that the US dollar is a major reserve currency is important to the US economy and critical to the US Fed but that's not the key point of US debt held abroad. US debt is entirely denominated in US dollars. That is more relevant.

In fact though, the real issue is the US federal government's ability to tax and that is virtually limitless. The US economy can generate huge tax revenues any time the US federal government wants to tap into them. Holders of US government debt know this and that is why the interest rates on such debt is so low. (This is why Argentina is the wrong example. The Argentine government cannot tax like that.)

Getting back to the thread's title, Harper would be wise to do the same in Canada. It makes sense politically and economically - (I think Martin made a big political error in not cutting taxes.)

----

First, I would introduce legislation to greatly expand the role of the Auditor General, to increase her budget and give her power to examine the books of every government department or agency, or any other organization the government gives money to. Then I would request audits of the Business Development Bank, CIDA, and those foundation trusts where Martin stashed billions of dollars.

Housekeeping. Mulroney had Neilsen do the same. I don't know if Harper really wants to take on the bureaucracy with a minority government.

Next, I would put in place a new system of appointments to high offices through non-partisan boards, especially judges and groups with judicial power, like parole boards and immigration panels. Again, this would easily sail through the Commons and be very popular.

The trick is to make it impervious to lobbying. Elected senators would be a start. Campaign finance reform another.

I would have my health minster lead a high profile team to Europe to examine health care systems there. This is to get Canadians out of their habit of thinking it's our way or the American way.

Pointless. Harper is not going to change the Canada Health Act. The Tories need only implement their campaign promise about wait times, and then leave it up to the provinces to work out the details.

I would announce new money and new equipment for the military - immediately, not five years down the road as the Liberals have done.

As promised.

Their first budget should contain a small tax cut. They should not go overboard on this. They'll need extra money for the military, security, and other programs they want to impliment. They can cut billions from the present budget which go in pork barrel schemes through the various "regional development" agencies, but I wouldn't go overboard on budget cutting in the first budget.

I disagree strongly. Big tax cut, but modest attempt to lower pork. The screams of those cut will dominate the news and Harper would lose control of the agenda.

I would announce a major initiative to study a new relationship between the federal govenrment and natives.

Constitutional can of worms.

A politician who has several "major initiatives" quickly turns into Paul Martin.

It's important, I think, to be seen as racking up victories early, so Canadians see the new government as working and doing things they want done.

It is important that Harper do what he says he'll do so that some measure of trust is restored.

To form a majority government in a subsequent election, he is going to have to gain support in Quebec somehow to show to Ontario/Maritime voters that he is a "national" leader. I think English-Canada is ready now for a Meech Lake type agreement. Harper has credibility on the issue (in English Canada) and Trudeau is no longer around to sabotage it.

[Riverwind]

In fact though, the real issue is the US federal government's ability to tax and that is virtually limitless.  The US economy can generate huge tax revenues any time the US federal government wants to tap into them.

I am not going to argue about the merits of this policy for the US - I still think it is a dumb policy but the US is big enough that the long term effects may not be catastrophic (however, that is not certain - a sudden meltdown of the US currency could happen at anytime).

Getting back to the thread's title, Harper would be wise to do the same in Canada.  It makes sense politically and economically - (I think Martin made a big political error in not cutting taxes.)

Tax cuts to bring the government revenues in line with expenditures make sense. Deficits do not. Canada is like Argentina in that respect and must keep its fiscal house in order.

[August1991]

Getting back to the thread's title, Harper would be wise to do the same in Canada.  It makes sense politically and economically - (I think Martin made a big political error in not cutting taxes.)

Tax cuts to bring the government revenues in line with expenditures make sense. Deficits do not. Canada is like Argentina in that respect and must keep its fiscal house in order.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I don't know if we want to get into this discussion again, Sparhawk, but a belief that balancing a government budget is good economics is very similar to the US Fed's belief in 1930 that a sound money policy was good economics too. Adherence to such simple-minded platitudes ("countries like families must live within their means") can be catastrophic for an economy.

Canada is nothing like Argentina. The Canadian economy generates a huge flow of wealth and the Canadian federal government can tax that wealth at any time without any problem. The Argentine government has no such power.

At the same time, I don't want to lose sight of Harper's main purpose: governments must reduce their spending. Cutting taxes, provoking a deficit may be a start on the road to doing that. The tax cut certainly solves many political problems.

I worry that the provinces would just take up the tax slack and Canadians would wind up with more government than before. But that would be an issue decided at the provincial level where there is more mobility.

[Argus]

I wish you would lose your fixation on European health systems, Argus.

They appear to work better than ours.

There are few European critics of health systems (outside of the Private concerns) who do not rate the Canadian system as better.

Really? Name two who think our system is better.

We need to fix our problems not to exchange them for another set of difficulties.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Fixing our problems means changing the Canada Health Act, not embracing it like the Bible.

[Argus]

I would have my health minster lead a high profile team to Europe to examine health care systems there. This is to get Canadians out of their habit of thinking it's our way or the American way. Then I would move slowly to introduce some of the private sector health financing as seen in Europe. The Bloc would probably support this as Quebecers are in favour, and have a lot of private health care clinics already which the BQ has defended.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

So basically, send an expensive high profile team to Europe to go through the motions and afterwards introduce private sector health financing (like there was ever any question it was going to be done anyway.) The public won't like this.

My reasoning is the public has to be broken from its belief that it's either our system or the US system. They have to be introduced to a third way. This will allow the conservatives to introduce changes without squeals from the left that they're introducing an American style health care system. Nobody sane wants a US style system, but the European systems appear to work better than ours.

they might also want to test the waters of the notwithstanding clause by introducing legislation to smooth expelling foreign criminals from Canada. It now takes years, with all the various expensive appeals, and it would take the notwithstanding clause to allow them to just boot these criminals out. I think most Canadians would support that, and the opposition probably wouldn't want to vote down the government on the subject of defending foreign criminals rights to stay here.

I agree on some principles of new money and equipment for the military as long as it's not used for offensive missions such as if Canada went into Iraq like the Conservatives wanted at the beginning of the Iraqi war. I also agree on new laws as long they do not impact human rights and are not too intrusive. Using the notwithstanding clause is opening up a can of worms for it could be creating a precedent. A floodgate could be opened in which the notwithstanding law could be used in a frivilous manner or could be used to attack basic human rights such as SSM.

The Notwithstanding Clause is part of the constitution and meant to be used. It has only been used by Quebe so far. I think using it on immigration would make sense, and many would support it. Since the Bertha Wilson decision granted complete Charter rights to everyone the instant they step off a plane Canada has spent billions and billions in legal fees and expensive, multiple appeals for people who clearly are economic refugees. We've also spent a fortune trying to deport obvious criminals to little affect. I note the story in the papers today about the outrage of Toronto police that a high profile gang leader was granted yet another stay in his deportationi for yet another appeals hearing. They've been trying to deport him, a Sri Lankan street gang leader for 5 years and he's still here.

Their first budget should contain a small tax cut. They should not go overboard on this. They'll need extra money for the military, security, and other programs they want to impliment. They can cut billions from the present budget which go in pork barrel schemes through the various "regional development" agencies, but I wouldn't go overboard on budget cutting in the first budget. Canadians are afraid of a slash and burn government, and since a minority likely wouldn't last they need to reassure them. Also, don't cut anything the opposition can oppose and potray themselves as saving social services from the evil tories.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Some of these "regional development" agencies are not as terrible as you make them out to be. ACOA has helped produce many successes in Atlantic Canada. Granted there has been some failures but there is never anything such as a 100% success rate.

The success rate is minimal, especially given the money put into them. Even those wich actually create jobs usually do so at such a high price it would have been cheaper to just hand the money to the would-be workers.

I would announce a major initiative to study a new relationship between the federal govenrment and natives. The present one doesnt' work and has never worked. Think outside the box. Yes, this would eventually be very controversial, but such a study would take at least a couple of years to report, so all that will be seen is the Tories looking for answers, looking for new ways, for change. And Canadians would approve.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

There has been numerous studies over the years examing the relationship between the Federal gotv. and natives. How do you think another study would be any different, in my opinion, it would just be a waste of money

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What I'd like to see is something major, something huge, like a massive withdrawal of federal oversight on the reserves and giving money directly to natives instead of to their often corrupt chiefs. I'd also like to see more urban reserves, a lot more. We could fund their creation in exchange for natives on them paying taxes once they're in place. I think urban reserves are the only way to go, a kind of halfway house before natives simply abandon the reserves altogether and live amongs everyone else.

[Argus]

First, I would introduce legislation to greatly expand the role of the Auditor General, to increase her budget and give her power to examine the books of every government department or agency, or any other organization the government gives money to. Then I would request audits of the Business Development Bank, CIDA, and those foundation trusts where Martin stashed billions of dollars.

Housekeeping. Mulroney had Neilsen do the same. I don't know if Harper really wants to take on the bureaucracy with a minority government.

It's not housekeeping. The role of the AG is set by law. The AG is not permitted to investigate certain agencies, and is only permitted to run, I believe, a handful of audits outside the normal bounds of oversight in a given year. I'm speaking of tripling the size of the AG's office and giving them oversight into any agency they want, much like the US General Accounting Office. The higher echelons of the public service will be against them regardless. They are, after all, all Liberals. There will have to be some people dumped there, and quickly.

I would have my health minster lead a high profile team to Europe to examine health care systems there. This is to get Canadians out of their habit of thinking it's our way or the American way.

Pointless. Harper is not going to change the Canada Health Act. The Tories need only implement their campaign promise about wait times, and then leave it up to the provinces to work out the details.

I disagree. They need to actually do something, not just pretend to do something. The provinces are hamstrung by the CHA. But this country has it in its mind that it's either the CHA or the USA. This needs to be addresed. People's eyes need to be opened up.

Their first budget should contain a small tax cut. They should not go overboard on this. They'll need extra money for the military, security, and other programs they want to impliment. They can cut billions from the present budget which go in pork barrel schemes through the various "regional development" agencies, but I wouldn't go overboard on budget cutting in the first budget.

I disagree strongly. Big tax cut, but modest attempt to lower pork. The screams of those cut will dominate the news and Harper would lose control of the agenda.

The good thing about cutting those "development" agencies is there isn't going to be any way to call them heartless monsters who are taking the bread out of poor people's mouths. The people are tired of pork. If they want to encourage development in certain areas they can lower taxes there, for a time.

To form a majority government in a subsequent election, he is going to have to gain support in Quebec somehow to show to Ontario/Maritime voters that he is a "national" leader.

That is never going to happen. Quebec will never vote for a non-Quebecer, so there's no point in his wasting his time on them.

[mowich]

I don't think Harper will get the most seats, so I don't think he'll get a chance to form a government, but this is an Internet forum and one can hypothesize.

Don't know what they would do. I know what I would do if I were them. First, I would introduce legislation to greatly expand the role of the Auditor General, to increase her budget and give her power to examine the books of every government department or agency, or any other organization the government gives money to. Then I would request audits of the Business Development Bank, CIDA, and those foundation trusts where Martin stashed billions of dollars. You would have no difficulty getting any of this through the House.

Next, I would put in place a new system of appointments to high offices through non-partisan boards, especially judges and groups with judicial power, like parole boards and immigration panels. Again, this would easily sail through the Commons and be very popular.

I would have my health minster lead a high profile team to Europe to examine health care systems there. This is to get Canadians out of their habit of thinking it's our way or the American way. Then I would move slowly to introduce some of the private sector health financing as seen in Europe. The Bloc would probably support this as Quebecers are in favour, and have a lot of private health care clinics already which the BQ has defended.

I would announce new money and new equipment for the military - immediately, not five years down the road as the Liberals have done. I would announce the re-introduction of the Canada Ports Police to combat organized crime at our ports, new money for the RCMP and Border Security specifically to fight gun smuggling, sales and posession. I would then introduce stringent new laws with mandatory minimum sentences for smuggling, and illegal selling, buying, posession and use of firearms. Again, this would probably pass, since the other parties would not want to be seen as being soft on firearm violence. Depending on the mood of the country, on polls, on the party's standings, they might also want to test the waters of the notwithstanding clause by introducing legislation to smooth expelling foreign criminals from Canada. It now takes years, with all the various expensive appeals, and it would take the notwithstanding clause to allow them to just boot these criminals out. I think most Canadians would support that, and the opposition probably wouldn't want to vote down the government on the subject of defending foreign criminals rights to stay here.

It's important, I think, to be seen as racking up victories early, so Canadians see the new government as working and doing things they want done. This makes it much more difficult for the Libs to decide to bring it down early. And the longer he's in power the more comfortable Canadians will be with Harper. People fear the unknown, after all.

Their first budget should contain a small tax cut. They should not go overboard on this. They'll need extra money for the military, security, and other programs they want to impliment. They can cut billions from the present budget which go in pork barrel schemes through the various "regional development" agencies, but I wouldn't go overboard on budget cutting in the first budget. Canadians are afraid of a slash and burn government, and since a minority likely wouldn't last they need to reassure them. Also, don't cut anything the opposition can oppose and potray themselves as saving social services from the evil tories.

I would announce a major initiative to study a new relationship between the federal govenrment and natives. The present one doesnt' work and has never worked. Think outside the box. Yes, this would eventually be very controversial, but such a study would take at least a couple of years to report, so all that will be seen is the Tories looking for answers, looking for new ways, for change. And Canadians would approve.

Similar initiatives could be announced. The major task of the government should be to survive long enough for Canadians to grow comfortable with them, while being seen to be doing positive things.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

(quote]

YOU GO ARGUS!!!!

Why aren't you running in this election our party could use you especially as you have so many good sound ideas for better government? I agree with you on all policies. I can only hope the Conservatives have someone monitoring these forums for policy ideas just like yours. Well done.

[newbie]

Sorry to wreck this little Con love fest, but I believe Harper will probably die on the first confidence vote.

[Slim MacSquinty]

Sorry to wreck this little Con love fest, but I believe Harper will probably die on the first confidence vote.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You miss the point newbie, what Argus has layed out would, in all likelyhood, be supported by enough of the other parties to fly.

If the Libs are boinked out of power, they'll be so busy putting knives in each others backs that a small number of them at least will actually support some of this stuff.

Right on argus! Lets hope it happens, we really need a change. I figure this is the most important election since free trade, maybe moreso.

[shoop]

Slim,

It is because newbie and his martinite buddies miss the point that the CPC will win a minority.

The only contribution that he can make to an internet message board qondering *if* Harper gets a minority is to arrogantly say it won't happen.

A lot of plausible stuff has been posted on this thread. The key to all of it is that the Liberals will devolve into a civil war if they lose this election, an outcome that is looking increasingly more likely. That much is a given.

You miss the point newbie, what Argus has layed out  would, in all likelyhood, be supported by enough of the other parties to fly.

If the Libs are boinked out of power, they'll be so busy putting knives in each others backs  that a small number of them at least will actually support some of this stuff.

Right on argus! Lets hope it happens, we really need a change. I figure this is the most important election since free trade, maybe moreso.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

[reddy_the_tory]

Hmmm, if Mr. Harper does form a government I wonder who will form his cabinet? Traditionally, the government (no matter how long it lasts) usually has a cabinet member from every province...I think he may have to use some Senators as cabinet members in order to represent a few provinces...