Harper a Jerk to Premier of Ontario

[BHS]

A few thoughts on reading this thread:

1 - McGuinty did the exact same thing the first time he met with Charest and there was far less coverage, and no mention of a 'snub' that I remember. This might mean that Ontario is getting very touchy about the amount of influence it has in Ottawa (which disproves a post I made earlier this week about Ontario's complacency about these things) or it might be another example of something being 'spun' with no response from the PM. Probaby a little of both.

2 - Several posts about McGuinty seem to be painting him as far more left wing than he is. How much of Harris' tax cuts did he claw back ? How about welfare cuts ? Harris was supposedly a monster for cutting welfare as he did, yet Dalton hasn't raised the rates yet as far as I know.

Dalton was elected leader because he was to the right of most Liberals in the party, and as far as I can see he hasn't gone that far left.

(Threadjacking in progress. Sort of.)

Good post. I've been woefully negligent following Ontario politics since the last election, but your second (and third) points sound correct to me. As I've mentioned before, I supported Mike Harris but voted for McGuinty to get rid of the Eves regime. I saw the difference between Harris and Eves as the difference between the Republican Congresses of 1994 and 2004 - newly elected idealists with a mission versus entrenched wastrels protecting their personal interests with mountains of pork and poll surfing. I took some heat for that too, from a member who thought it was crazy to vote against your own party no matter what the circumstances. But I'm an independant for the very reason that it allows me to remain true to my ideals.

I haven't yet decided whether I'll vote Conservative or Liberal in the next election. It depends largely on how John Tory (who hasn't ever impressed me) performs in the runup to the next election. As you've stated, McGuinty isn't exactly a lefty within the Liberal spectrum, even as he surrounds himself with socialist squishes like former rival Gerard Kennedy (who may well soon be involved in federal politics anyway). If the Conservatives can't do any better than to complain about how the Liberals didn't fulfill all of their election promises, or if they resort to vague ad hominem attacks about "ethics" etc. then I'll probably vote Liberal again. Just calling yourself a conservative isn't good enough - you've got to have some genuine, positive ideas that you espouse too.

[Hicksey]

I haven't yet decided whether I'll vote Conservative or Liberal in the next election. It depends largely on how John Tory (who hasn't ever impressed me) performs in the runup to the next election. As you've stated, McGuinty isn't exactly a lefty within the Liberal spectrum, even as he surrounds himself with socialist squishes like former rival Gerard Kennedy (who may well soon be involved in federal politics anyway). If the Conservatives can't do any better than to complain about how the Liberals didn't fulfill all of their election promises, or if they resort to vague ad hominem attacks about "ethics" etc. then I'll probably vote Liberal again. Just calling yourself a conservative isn't good enough - you've got to have some genuine, positive ideas that you espouse too.

I can't disagree with that. It's why the Democrats can't beat a president as weak as Bush.

[shoop]

Smugness. Hmmm, Carolyn Parrish stepped on a GW Bush doll, referred to one of his policies as a 'coalition of the idiots' and you equate that to the Prime Minister scheduling a meeting with McGuinty at a time that wasn't ideal for McGuinty.

That's a pretty big stretch. But keep at it BM. With such thoughtful analysis as that coming from the Liberals side you will only guarantee a majority for Harper.

It's hilarious how when Harper's diplomatic skills are on par with Carolyn Parrish, CPCers rush to defend him. It must be hard being smug when you're so hypocritical.

[apollo19]

Are you saying that entitles McGuinty to special privileges?

Why should Harper go out of his way to be nice to this guy? McGuinty campaigned against him, and changed his characterization of their meeting for political gain.

If McGuinty wants to be treated with more than just a base level of respect, he should start treating the Prime Minister with respect. Strange how that works.

August... I think you fail to realize that McGuinty is the Premier of the most populous Province in Canada, I don't live within Toronto City limits, you need to brush up on how many people live where?

http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/demo02.htm

There you go... Boy, the entire population of Alberta is less than the GTA.. neat!

No, it doesn't entitle McGuinty to anything special compared to the other provinces. But does Quebec get entitled to special things compared to other provinces? Harper is doing the exact same thing which caused the Reformers to split from the PCs (that is pandering to Quebec), all the while ignoring Ontario since he has given up on further political gains in the province. No matter how anyone looks at this, Ontario is essentially half of Canada -- and there is no way any politician with a shred of dignity would ignore it like Harper has. WRT Harper treating McGuinty without respect -- I was expecting something different from Harper like professional treatment, not the same old stuff Martin did with bashing people.

[BubberMiley]

Smugness. Hmmm, Carolyn Parrish stepped on a GW Bush doll, referred to one of his policies as a 'coalition of the idiots' and you equate that to the Prime Minister scheduling a meeting with McGuinty at a time that wasn't ideal for McGuinty.

No, but I equate it with him saying "the next premier of Ontario." Besides, she was a backbencher nobody ever heard of. He's the PM who must negotiate with the Premiers. It just shows he's not really cut out for the job.

[shoop]

Hmmm, I didn't see McGuinty (or any other Premier for that matter) complain about the UNESCO promise during the election.

Call it pandering if you were, but the CF-18 maintenace contract - THE main example of pandering to Quebec that lead to the rise of Reform was just plain wrong. Offering Quebec a seat at UNESCO and meeting with Charest will not lead to the formation of another right wing party of any significance. Have fun with those dreams though...

Harper hasn't *given up on further political gains* in Ontario. This summer will be full of negotiations to address Health Care wait times and the fiscal imbalance.

Will McGuinty enter those negotiations with a good faith attempt to strike a deal? Seems like politics are trumping the best interests of Ontarians in Dalton's mind at this point. Only 17 months till the next Ontario election....

No, it doesn't entitle McGuinty to anything special compared to the other provinces. But does Quebec get entitled to special things compared to other provinces? Harper is doing the exact same thing which caused the Reformers to split from the PCs (that is pandering to Quebec), all the while ignoring Ontario since he has given up on further political gains in the province. No matter how anyone looks at this, Ontario is essentially half of Canada -- and there is no way any politician with a shred of dignity would ignore it like Harper has. WRT Harper treating McGuinty without respect -- I was expecting something different from Harper like professional treatment, not the same old stuff Martin did with bashing people.

[Kiraly]

Harper is doing the exact same thing which caused the Reformers to split from the PCs (that is pandering to Quebec),

If that were the case, you would see a backlash from here.

What Harper is doing with a Quebec role at UNESCO is not even remotely close to what the Mulroney Conservatives had done to the west.

In my opinion, this is just another extremely lame attempt at creating controversy where there is none. As a former-reformer, I can tell you that this is a complete non-issue.

[apollo19]

Hmmm, I didn't see McGuinty (or any other Premier for that matter) complain about the UNESCO promise during the election.

Call it pandering if you were, but the CF-18 maintenace contract - THE main example of pandering to Quebec that lead to the rise of Reform was just plain wrong. Offering Quebec a seat at UNESCO and meeting with Charest will not lead to the formation of another right wing party of any significance. Have fun with those dreams though...

Harper hasn't *given up on further political gains* in Ontario. This summer will be full of negotiations to address Health Care wait times and the fiscal imbalance.

Will McGuinty enter those negotiations with a good faith attempt to strike a deal? Seems like politics are trumping the best interests of Ontarians in Dalton's mind at this point. Only 17 months till the next Ontario election....

This is what I don't understand about partisan politics -- people never see things for what they are. How is this Quebec situation different? Mulroney is a Quebecer and offered things to Quebec, so people disliked that. Harper is an Albertan and is offering things to Quebec, but people somehow think it is different because he is from Alberta? I never said anything about another right-wing party uprising and I wouldn't suggest anything of the sort, but Harper is indeed offering special treatment to Quebec. Also, from what has been shown so far, Harper himself has given up on Ontario. Some of the higher level Ontario people (like Flaherty) obviously care about Ontario, but in Harper's mind I have a feeling Ontario is off the radar compared to other regional concerns.

[Kiraly]

Also, from what has been shown so far, Harper himself has given up on Ontario. Some of the higher level Ontario people (like Flaherty) obviously care about Ontario, but in Harper's mind I have a feeling Ontario is off the radar compared to other regional concerns.

What has been shown so far to indicate that Harper has given up on Ontario?

The Conservatives have only been in power for about three months. A little early for such conclusions in my opinion.

[Michael Hardner]

Yeah...McGuinty didn't raise taxes. Yeesh.

Cybercoma - I think you misread my post. Read it again.

[shoop]

This is what I don't understand about partisan politics -- people never see things for what they are.

That one is kinda fun. We all approach things from different perspectives so you defiinition of "what things are" won't necessarily mesh with other people's perspective.

How is this Quebec situation different? Mulroney is a Quebecer and offered things to Quebec, so people disliked that. Harper is an Albertan and is offering things to Quebec, but people somehow think it is different because he is from Alberta?

This is a pretty weak question. People are viewing Mulroney and Harper differently for a two big reasons. 1. What Harper offered Quebec is substantially different than what Mulroney offered Quebec. 2. A number of things including: Meech Lake, Charlottetown, the second referendum, clarity act have all interceded since Mulroney first took office. The situation has changed as a result.

I never said anything about another right-wing party uprising and I wouldn't suggest anything of the sort, but Harper is indeed offering special treatment to Quebec.

What you did say is:

Harper is doing the exact same thing which caused the Reformers to split from the PCs.

Kinda seems to me like you were at least alluding to the rise of another right wing party.

Also, from what has been shown so far, Harper himself has given up on Ontario. Some of the higher level Ontario people (like Flaherty) obviously care about Ontario, but in Harper's mind I have a feeling Ontario is off the radar compared to other regional concerns.

Far, far from giving up on Ontario. The unpopular Liberal Premier of the province is picking a fight with him. How is that giving up on Ontario? The GST cut, and many of the other 28 tax cuts are directed with Ontarians in mind. Harper was at the event that started this thread to help John Tory get elected. A strong PC party of Ontario will only help the CPCs fortunes in the Province.

Harper has not given up on Ontario at all. Don't fall for McGuinty's baloney.

[BHS]

Smugness. Hmmm, Carolyn Parrish stepped on a GW Bush doll, referred to one of his policies as a 'coalition of the idiots' and you equate that to the Prime Minister scheduling a meeting with McGuinty at a time that wasn't ideal for McGuinty.

No, but I equate it with him saying "the next premier of Ontario." Besides, she was a backbencher nobody ever heard of. He's the PM who must negotiate with the Premiers. It just shows he's not really cut out for the job.

Call me cynical, but somehow I have the feeling you're going to be spending the rest of the duration of this government pointing to every piddling little squabble and burp as "proof" that Harper isn't fit to govern. I get that from you.

[BHS]

My two cents: the Conservative Party is obliged by political reality and by the traditionally effective snarking of the Liberals (think of all the "rump" party jibes) to develop a respectable presence in Quebec if they want to form a majority government. This means throwing Quebec a political bone every once in a while. No one should take these favours as being more than convincing Quebecers that a party with deep Western roots is not hostile to their province. My hope is that Harper et al have the brains to know where to draw the line. I personally disagree with taking this concept into the realm of international relations, but I'm no big fan of the UN in any case, and if shoop says it's cool I'll take it as given.

[shoop]

Thank you for your confidence.

UNESCO really isn't that big a deal. The Harper haters, come on up Normie Chateau, are the only people outside Quebec who are at all concerned about this. (It was Normie who started a thread on UNESCO and called it "Harper sells out Canada for his own political life?") Could anybody remotely unbiased actually call this move selling Canada out???

You are correct, this was throwing Quebec a political bone. A seat at the UNESCO table will appeal to some Quebecois. This moves us one step closer to accomplishing the goal of proving the CPC is not hostile to Quebec.

I think the Conservatives could make a *very* big move in Quebec in 2007.

People are pretty much done with the Bloc. Five straight Federal elections of the bloc winning the majority of Quebec seats in the house and just maybe the electorate is thinking it would be nice to back a winner in a big way.

Big gains in Quebec (20+ seats), coupled with very most gains elsewhere in the country and Harper has his majority.

Remember the budget went over *VERY* well in Quebec.

My two cents: the Conservative Party is obliged by political reality and by the traditionally effective snarking of the Liberals (think of all the "rump" party jibes) to develop a respectable presence in Quebec if they want to form a majority government. This means throwing Quebec a political bone every once in a while. No one should take these favours as being more than convincing Quebecers that a party with deep Western roots is not hostile to their province. My hope is that Harper et al have the brains to know where to draw the line. I personally disagree with taking this concept into the realm of international relations, but I'm no big fan of the UN in any case, and if shoop says it's cool I'll take it as given.

[BubberMiley]

(It was Normie who started a thread on UNESCO and called it "Harper sells out Canada for his own political life?")

Actually it was the fellow with the shakey hands.

[shoop]

My bad. Sorry Normie!

Actually it was the fellow with the shakey hands.

[Shakeyhands]

Geesh... it was a snub and it was intentional, and it will get Mr Harper no where...

As far as UNESCO goes, if we were talking about giving Quebec more say in a Canadian cultural or language group because of their language and customs I would have no issue, if approved this would mean that Quebec will have a seat as a seperate entity from Canada at a world organization level. Is that not what the seperatists oin Quebec want?

And Shoop, I respect you for the most part, I'm no more of a Harper hater than you are a Liberal hater, give it a rest. Its amazing the shift in this board, people forget the Liberal bashing from before the election. Not sure why you would be surprised if current policy wasn't picked apart. Quit yer whining.

[Argus]

It's hilarious how when Harper's diplomatic skills are on par with Carolyn Parrish, CPCers rush to defend him. It must be hard being smug when you're so hypocritical.

When Harper starts jumping up and down on a Dalton McGuinty doll saying how much he hates the bastard you might have a point.

But at the moment, you're just blowing out hot air.

[shoop]

I would have no issue, if approved this would mean that Quebec will have a seat as a seperate entity from Canada at a world organization level. Is that not what the seperatists oin Quebec want?

No it doesn't. Not even close. Quebec will have a bigger voice in the Canadian delegation but they will be no where near a separate entity at UNESCO.

And Shoop, I respect you for the most part, I'm no more of a Harper hater than you are a Liberal hater, give it a rest. Its amazing the shift in this board, people forget the Liberal bashing from before the election. Not sure why you would be surprised if current policy wasn't picked apart. Quit yer whining.

Your hatred for Harper is vile. Did I have issues with Martin, yes. The Liberals in general, not as many. Did it ever reach your level of hatred and misstatement? No.

Your lies and blatant mischaracterization goes too far.

Criticizing policy is fine. But characterizing the UNESCO dealind as "selling out Canada". wtf? A shade too much hyperbole with that one.

[Shakeyhands]

Your hatred for Harper is vile. Did I have issues with Martin, yes. The Liberals in general, not as many. Did it ever reach your level of hatred and misstatement? No.

Your lies and blatant mischaracterization goes too far.

Criticizing policy is fine. But characterizing the UNESCO dealind as "selling out Canada". wtf? A shade too much hyperbole with that one.

What? Give me a break! Take a look through the subjects in just todays posts, hardly can my title contain as much as others... Geesh!

And as far as Harper goes, no, I don't like him, but me thinks you dost protest too much, making much more out of anything that I have said. I think you may be confusing my posts with someone elses....

[BubberMiley]

When Harper starts jumping up and down on a Dalton McGuinty doll saying how much he hates the bastard you might have a point.

But at the moment, you're just blowing out hot air.

But again, Carolyn Parrish was a nobody backbencher who got fired for acting like an idiot. When Raymond Chretien said that he preferred Al Gore to win in 2000, conservatives were up in arms, saying he should be fired for his poor diplomatic skills. He probably should have been.

It's pathetic that Harper didn't learn from that at all, and even more pathetic to hear it coming from the Prime Minister.

[shoop]

The Raymond Chretien and Parrish incidents were far, far worse than what Harper did.

What did Harper say that was so offensive? He introduced John Tory? But didn't McGuinty campaign for the Federal Liberals in January? Quid pro quo Clarice. Quid pro quo....

There is a big difference between being involved in politics *in your own country* and meddling in the domestic politics of another country.

But again, Carolyn Parrish was a nobody backbencher who got fired for acting like an idiot. When Raymond Chretien said that he preferred Al Gore to win in 2000, conservatives were up in arms, saying he should be fired for his poor diplomatic skills. He probably should have been.

It's pathetic that Harper didn't learn from that at all, and even more pathetic to hear it coming from the Prime Minister.

[BubberMiley]

If McGuinty campaigned for the federal Liberals, he's as bad as Harper. No sitting Premier who has to negotiate with a government should publicly say they prefer one leader over another. It's jeopardizes his ability to negotiate effectively for the people who elected him should the other guy win. Acting in a manner that isn't in your constituents' best interests just because your opponent did is not quid pro quo: it's just bad judgement all around.

And sticking your nose in another country's politics is just bad etiquette.

[shoop]

McGuinty definitely campaigned for the Libs in January.

Regardless, this is all fury about nothing. If McGuinty would have stuck with what he said after his meeting with Harper none of this would have happened.

Now we are in an interesting situation. McGuinty tried to start a verbal war with Harper and the Prime Minister didn't take the bait.

If McGuinty campaigned for the federal Liberals, he's as bad as Harper. No sitting Premier who has to negotiate with a government should publicly say they prefer one leader over another. It's jeopardizes his ability to negotiate effectively for the people who elected him should the other guy win. Acting in a manner that isn't in your constituents' best interests just because your opponent did is not quid pro quo: it's just bad judgement all around. And sticking your nose in another country's politics is just bad etiquette.

[shoop]

That is the way it is played with domestic politics. But there is a substantive difference. Harper didn't complain to the media about McGuinty's campaigning. McGuinty did.

McGuinty was just trying to start a fight and Harper didn't take the bait.

This Vellacott thing may turn out to be a mixed bag. At least it will take the wind out of Dalton's whining for a while...

If McGuinty campaigned for the federal Liberals, he's as bad as Harper. No sitting Premier who has to negotiate with a government should publicly say they prefer one leader over another. It's jeopardizes his ability to negotiate effectively for the people who elected him should the other guy win. Acting in a manner that isn't in your constituents' best interests just because your opponent did is not quid pro quo: it's just bad judgement all around.

And sticking your nose in another country's politics is just bad etiquette.