Rating the government so far....

[Big Blue Machine]

I would rate the Conservative government 4.5 out of 5 stars in their first session in governing. They have done many positive things, such as their budget and newly announced military spending. Harper looks like a normal Canadian worker/dad.

[Charles Anthony]

I would give the federal government a 4 / 5 but I still do not understand the Emmerson deal. I hope that the prime minister is smarter than me (yeah, yeah, I know, you are all nodding your heads and saying "Yeah! No doubt! We hope so too!") but I can not help but think that the same deal with the Americans could have been reached by appointing or hiring Emmerson in some other capacity. The floor-crossing may likely have lost political points which would have otherwise been won.

To further expand on "Rating the government so far...." I would say that the whole minority government has been perfect: more interesting co-operation than we have ever seen in parliament in a long time. This is good for Canadian democracy.

[Topaz]

I'm not sure what to say. I know they plan to spend 15 BILLION on the miltary. I wonder is the reason for the "war expenses" is coming out of the "general fund" is because the govt can't really afford the war and the equipment. I just think if Harper had tried as hard to get along with the Libs, their budget would have made things alot better for people than the "CONS/ALLIANCE budget. I really don't like the comments on "question period". It seems everyone is "acting" for the cameras and seeing who can come up with the best line. I wonder if any of them has hired a "comedy" write???? Just watch Blair and how he handles his time to answer questions from England. I caught once on CBC and was really surprise how well he handles the questions unlike the Canadian politicans!

[sharkman]

I'm not sure what to say. I know they plan to spend 15 BILLION on the miltary. I wonder is the reason for the "war expenses" is coming out of the "general fund" is because the govt can't really afford the war and the equipment. I just think if Harper had tried as hard to get along with the Libs, their budget would have made things alot better for people than the "CONS/ALLIANCE budget. I really don't like the comments on "question period". It seems everyone is "acting" for the cameras and seeing who can come up with the best line. I wonder if any of them has hired a "comedy" write???? Just watch Blair and how he handles his time to answer questions from England. I caught once on CBC and was really surprise how well he handles the questions unlike the Canadian politicans!

You may not be aware, but the Liberals had multiple billions earmarked for the military over the next decade or so as the Conservatives do. Our military has become a joke under the Liberals who authored budget cut after base closure during their time in power. We couldn't even fly our own soldiers to Afghanistan when they originally were sent, and they also didn't have proper uniforms (desert colours) so they stuck out nicely for the enemy snipers.

I would give the Gov. 4.5 out of 5, Harper is really getting traction in Quebec.

[Big Blue Machine]

Maybe if we took the cameras out of the House, then politicans wouldn't put Question Period into Screaming Period.

[Leafless]

To further expand on "Rating the government so far...." I would say that the whole minority government has been perfect: more interesting co-operation than we have ever seen in parliament in a long time. This is good for Canadian democracy.

"This is good for Canadian democracy".

What co-operation are you talking about, that's good for Canadian democracy, whatever that's suppose to mean.

The way I see it, I would rate the Conservatives 2.5 stars.

Jumping into bed with Quebec when even the Liberals gave up does not ring any bells for me and suggests could this be a revival and extension of Mulroney's failed 'distinct society'? Gad, hope not.

Rushing into Afghanistan at the expense of loosing our 'peace keeping status' still a naked military but supported by U.S. firepower. Why not support the Iraq cause then?

The questionable soft wood lumber deal. Was it a good or bad deal. We still don't we know all the details.

Cancelling the gun registry a definite plus.

Middle Class tax credits, at the expense of poor Canadians', not so good.

Muzzling the press, a good move but not new, as the Liberals have done the same previously especially during the Chretien era and no one complained then.

But I'm encouraged when I hear Mr. Harper sound off with "God bless Canada" sentiments.

[Big Blue Machine]

Its the middle class that matters.

[Michael Hardner]

I can't believe I'm rating them higher than Leafless is, but .... 3/5 stars.

[theloniusfleabag]

Given the relatively 'young' gov't, it is more of a question of 'how they have avoided problems', rather than having new policies dictate their ranking. So, what is most important to me is that i am encouraged by what I see, rather than leery.

I'll give them 4/5...so far.

[apollo19]

I'll give them between 2.5 and 3 stars. Originally I thought Harper et al would be different in the way they played politics as a government, but they are worse partisans than the Liberals. Every opportunity they get, they compare something to the Liberals or sneak in a jab at the other parties. The tax cuts were not even proper ones, and in the end the income tax rate was RAISED half a point. Then there is the matter of the environment, where the CPC has managed to do nothing while the oil sands increase greenhouse gas emissions without worry because Harper won't let his home province and oil lobbyists be "harmed" economically. Another big point I dislike is ignoring Ontario while giving Quebec everything it wants -- I understand the political strategy here, but it is just a bad thing for a government to do.

I do like what they have done with this immediate spending on the military, although I wish they would have looked seriously at the Russian military equipment that was offered, instead of just jumping to a deal with Boeing. All in all, I actually liked Martin better, but I guess we have to start getting used to Harper since he will be here for atleast another year.

[Leafless]

Its the middle class that matters.

The problem is what exactly is middle class in relation to supporting the economy.

Last time I looked if I remember correctly 0-$25,000 accounted for around 9% of all total taxes paid, $25,000-$50,000 accounted for around 31% of all total taxes paid, $50,000-$100,000 accounted for around 31% of all total taxes paid and $100,000 and over around 26% of all total taxes paid.

Middle class would be in the $50k-$100k and over $100k upper middle class region. But people in this bracket generally are busy paying off potential assets, house and cottage mortgages and car payments and generally speaking have fewer expendable dollars but indeed keep the banks healthy.

I don't have the stats on this one, but from experience I suspect the people who keep a multitude of small buisnesses and the fast food industry going in Canada are lower income Canadians.

That is the 9% and the lower end 31% for a that forms a total of 40% of all taxes paid to this country and the group that has the most expendable income.

I think it is ludicrous to say the middle class is all that matters.

[betsy]

Well, just last Sunday on Question Period, Jane Taber, Craig Oliver, a lady representing Toronto Star and a man from Globe and Mail picked their "winner" and "loser".

Winner:

Stephen Harper - voted by Jane Taber (would've been seconded by Craig Oliver, but since Jane had already chosen Stephen, voted for Hillier instead, I think). Can't recall who the two others named....but definitely no one from the Liberals.

Loser:

Volpe - by Jane taber (I guess Volpe can kiss his leadership goodbye!)

Liberals - by Craig Oliver (for the way they are right now!)

People Who Voted For The Liberals - by the Globe and Mail guy (for thinking and expecting the Liberals to be an effective Opposition).

[betsy]

Me too. 4.5 for the Conservative.

Sort of out-of-topic, but just want to pass this info to you guys:

On Question Period Jane Taber was musing how "strange" Quebec is responding to Harper.

Harper's stance on Kyoto and Afghan War clearly go against what Quebec wants...and yet, he's still soaring and getting much more stronger. A CTV reporter hailed a cab in Quebec and all the cab driver could say was..."I like Harper! There's a guy who does what he says!"

[Guest Warwick Green]

Me too. 4.5 for the Conservative.

Sort of out-of-topic, but just want to pass this info to you guys:

On Question Period Jane Taber was musing how "strange" Quebec is responding to Harper.

Harper's stance on Kyoto and Afghan War clearly go against what Quebec wants...and yet, he's still soaring and getting much more stronger. A CTV reporter hailed a cab in Quebec and all the cab driver could say was..."I like Harper! There's a guy who does what he says!"

And age of consent, gun registry, SSM. Maybe it's just a reaction to all the years of the Liberals and the Bloc/PQ. Of course he is also offering more lolly through the fiscal imbalance. But Harper (and Charest) should enjoy it. It won't last. But Charest might eek out an election victory in the fall on Harper's coattails.

[Charles Anthony]

"This is good for Canadian democracy".

What co-operation are you talking about, that's good for Canadian democracy, whatever that's suppose to mean.

You are right. I should have defined my terms. Not everybody uses democracy for the same purposes.

To understand whether a democracy is "good" or not, you have ask yourself: "What would I think if I was in the shoes of my oppositions?? Do I have a voice?? Does my opposition get ANY representation??? Does my MP actually have a say or is he just a backbencher???" That is what makes a democracy "good" relative to an other. Whether you like or dislike the alliances (between parties or individual MPs) that are being made is irrelevant because each of them were elected.

My definition of "good" for democracy is anything that moves away from a majority government that plays Trudeaumania with our tax dollars and laughs at us all as they pay-off the jail guard and go straight to the bank. After decades of Chretien and Mulroney, I would gladly take our fractioned minority government.

[Leafless]

"This is good for Canadian democracy".

What co-operation are you talking about, that's good for Canadian democracy, whatever that's suppose to mean.

My definition of "good" for democracy is anything that moves away from a majority government that plays Trudeaumania with our tax dollars and laughs at us all as they pay-off the jail guard and go straight to the bank. After decades of Chretien and Mulroney, I would gladly take our fractioned minority government.

I think there is a major misconception in what democracy means in Canada and as a result Canadians are being shafted.

We are entitled to our choice of government with MP representation by being free to choose and vote for the government of our choice.

We EXPECT a government to behave in a DEMOCRATIC manner but not speaking for the Harper government (as it is to early to tell) we have been shafted by previous federal governments mainly Liberal who led the country with priorties (many constitional) best left for Canadians to decide (but didn't) as they were outside the role of NORMAL federal duties.

These undemocratic priorties were detrimental and affected everyones existing rights.

This is best refered to as TOTALITARIANISM or a DICTATORSHIP a government that some Canadians have appeared to accept and other Canadians who object left with NO democratic voice to express their dissent or worse still no one to listen.

On top of this our right MP representation to many important isssue's were none existent with MP's playing the party line rather than pay attention a groups concerns regarding a multitude of issue's.

I fully believe that due to the current political makeup of Canada, to run the country along election platforms and normal expected federal duties have been lost in favour of running the country in a TOTALITARIAN manner to appease undemocratic objectives namely appeasing constitutional blackmail.

[theloniusfleabag]

Dear Leafless,

I think there is a major misconception in what democracy means in Canada and as a result Canadians are being shafted.

I don't think there is a 'misconception' at all.

We EXPECT a government to behave in a DEMOCRATIC manner

What do you mean? What is a 'democratic manner'? The US has bills to vote on, which is more 'democratic', to be sure, but ours is a system where the gov't gets a 4 year 'mandate' to push the platform upon which they claim won them the election. We can't expect otherwise until we change the system.

[jbg]

I would give the federal government a 4 / 5 but I still do not understand the Emmerson deal. I hope that the prime minister is smarter than me (yeah, yeah, I know, you are all nodding your heads and saying "Yeah! No doubt! We hope so too!") but I can not help but think that the same deal with the Americans could have been reached by appointing or hiring Emmerson in some other capacity. The floor-crossing may likely have lost political points which would have otherwise been won.

To further expand on "Rating the government so far...." I would say that the whole minority government has been perfect: more interesting co-operation than we have ever seen in parliament in a long time. This is good for Canadian democracy.

I am not a Canadian, and my knowledge of your politics is limited.

However, from the perspective of the US rebuild of conservatism under Reagan most of the people involved were former Democrats:

1. 
   Reagan himself
   Jeanne Kirkpatrick
   Bill Bennett
   Paul Wolfowitz
   Rudolph Giuliani
   Michael Bloomberg
   

It seems to me that in our country, when the old Republican Party of the Nixon Era was wrecked by Watergate (similar to your PCPC implosion in the 1993 elections) the conservative alternative needs to be rebuilt. The logical source of a rebuild is disaffected former members of the Liberal Party in your case, the Democratic Party in ours.

Your Liberal Party went off the rails with its wholesale repudiation of your tradition as a proud, strong, free, English-speaking country, with Trudeau's attempt to Europeanize Canada. The US Democractic Party tried to pander to the "hippie" element of the late 1960's and has never really gotten over it.

The adults left behind, such as Emerson, are a logical building block of a new majority for the CPC, one that truly represents the broad spectrum of Canadian interests.

[Big Blue Machine]

I disagree, the liberals went off the rails because of the sponsorship scandal.

[Leafless]

Dear Leafless,

I think there is a major misconception in what democracy means in Canada and as a result Canadians are being shafted.

I don't think there is a 'misconception' at all.

We EXPECT a government to behave in a DEMOCRATIC manner

What do you mean? What is a 'democratic manner'? The US has bills to vote on, which is more 'democratic', to be sure, but ours is a system where the gov't gets a 4 year 'mandate' to push the platform upon which they claim won them the election. We can't expect otherwise until we change the system.

Canadians were not initially told the truth concerning the reasons regarding repatriation of Canada's Constitution, inclusion of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms into our constitution, official languages, multiculturalism, official federal bilingualism which resulted in major constitutional concessions for Quebec including transfer of certain federal powers and federal real estate.

Are you telling me it is NOT Canadians buisness NOT to have been involved in major constitutional changes within our own country? This is what I'm talking about when I refer to behaving in a "democratic manner".

The political problems of Quebec are impossible to deal without the federal government acting in a dictatorial manner against the goodness of the democratic manner they were elected into power by the citizens of CANADA.

The federal government in actual fact had 'no choice initially' but to show Quebec the door 'out of Canada' concerning it's ludicrous political demands but rather conditioned Canadians with outright lies to what repatriation of the constitution was all about, what offical languages were all about, what offical bilingualism meant in the federal public service, what Charter rights were meant to do for Canadians, what multiculturalism was meant to do for Canada.

Quebec was involved heavily within the Liberal party of Canada for years and in my opinion that party 'constitutionally cheated and lied' to meet the political demands of Quebec thus undemocratically degraded previous existing rights of Canadians with the federal government not worrying about any form of 'upheaval' as it was done over a period of time 'conditioning Canadians' to accept this undemocratic constitutional political manouver.

http://www.uni.ca/library/trudeau_const.html