Harper told to smarten up

[B. Max]

Good advice. Don't make the same mistake the republicans made. They went to washington to change government and ended up becoming government.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/st...4a-3f8f3a913f13

[August1991]

If Preston Manning and Mike Harris had their way, the Harper Conservatives would be more conservative.

The Reform party founder and the former Ontario premier are calling on the federal government to implement massive tax reforms, cut the size of government, strip away regulations governing businesses and individuals and rein in spending.

Among other things, Ottawa should slash the corporate tax rate in half and eliminate the cap on Registered Retirement Savings Plan contributions, says a paper by Manning and Harris, to be released today by the right-wing Fraser Institute.

CanWest

Hear, hear.

[kimmy]

Taking advice from Manning and Harris would be an excellent way for Harper to avoid turning into "big government", because it's a surefire way to get back on the Opposition side of the House.

-k

[Riverwind]

eliminate the cap on Registered Retirement Savings Plan contributions

I don't understand why this is an issue. The cap is high enough that only people earning 100K+ are affected by the cap and if you are earning that much money you probably should be putting your money into non-RRSP investments. What the gov't needs to do is raise the percentage of eligible income that is used to calculate your limit so people with lower incomes have an incentive to save more.

[B. Max]

Taking advice from Manning and Harris would be an excellent way for Harper to avoid turning into "big government", because it's a surefire way to get back on the Opposition side of the House.

-k

I totally disagree. They are headed there now and they haven't been taking any advice from them.

[kimmy]

The fact that Harper is in danger of losing the next election already doesn't make Manning or Harris any more believable.

Manning never achieved any real electoral success with his policies... and a phone-booth would be big enough to hold the audience for a Mike Harris speech these days.

-k

[B. Max]

The fact that Harper is in danger of losing the next election already doesn't make Manning or Harris any more believable.

Manning never achieved any real electoral success with his policies... and a phone-booth would be big enough to hold the audience for a Mike Harris speech these days.

-k

Since the liberals took over you could probably get Ontario's economy in there also.

[normanchateau]

Harper will ignore what Manning and Harris have to say just as he did last year when Manning and Harris proposed scrapping the Canada Health Act. To his credit, Harper called last year's Manning and Harris proposal

"naive" and "misguided". Story here:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/viewpoint/vp_zolf/20050509.html

[August1991]

Taking advice from Manning and Harris would be an excellent way for Harper to avoid turning into "big government", because it's a surefire way to get back on the Opposition side of the House.

Kimmy, do you disagree with the advice or with the people who are offering it?

Harper was elected to reduce the growth of federal government spending and reduce federal taxes. I still think that if he followed those objectives, more than anything else, he would get re-elected.

Harper will ignore what Manning and Harris have to say just as he did last year when Manning and Harris proposed scrapping the Canada Health Act.

The Supreme Court has done that by ruling on Quebec's wait times. Neither the Quebec government nor Harper have come up with a credible solution.

eliminate the cap on Registered Retirement Savings Plan contributions

I don't understand why this is an issue. The cap is high enough that only people earning 100K+ are affected by the cap and if you are earning that much money you probably should be putting your money into non-RRSP investments. What the gov't needs to do is raise the percentage of eligible income that is used to calculate your limit so people with lower incomes have an incentive to save more.

No savings should be taxed. RRSPs are one of the different ways to accomplish this.

[Mimas]

Taking advice from Manning and Harris would be an excellent way for Harper to avoid turning into "big government", because it's a surefire way to get back on the Opposition side of the House.

Kimmy, do you disagree with the advice or with the people who are offering it?

Harper was elected to reduce the growth of federal government spending and reduce federal taxes. I still think that if he followed those objectives, more than anything else, he would get re-elected.

Haha! Mike Harris was conservative enough - big tax cuts, budget deficits. His party took a huge beating as a result. It's grand of Mike to give Harper advice.

[Black Dog]

Harper was elected to reduce the growth of federal government spending and reduce federal taxes. I still think that if he followed those objectives, more than anything else, he would get re-elected.

Er..no. Harper was elected because the people were sick of the other guys and wanted a change. Don't confuse electoral success (which came be attributed to a wide variety of factors) with broad support. That's the surest way to wind up on the sidelines.

[August1991]

Haha! Mike Harris was conservative enough - big tax cuts, budget deficits. His party took a huge beating as a result. It's grand of Mike to give Harper advice.

I can't speak for Mike Harris (although I note that he was elected twice in Ontario).

The federal government is too big, it spends too much money and it taxes too much. It must regulate less and have fewer employees.

[Riverwind]

No savings should be taxed. RRSPs are one of the different ways to accomplish this.

Huh? RRSP savings are taxed - they are just not taxed right away. This means that it is generally a bad idea to put too much money into RRSPs because the mandatory withdrawals that start at age 69 will force some people to pay more taxes than they would have if they had stuck with non-RRSP investments and paid the taxes upfront. The only virtues that RRSPs have is they are a way to encourage people to put retirement savings money in a place that is not easy to get at. For that reason, increasing the percentage of earned income allowed makes more sense than increasing the limit.

[Mimas]

Haha! Mike Harris was conservative enough - big tax cuts, budget deficits. His party took a huge beating as a result. It's grand of Mike to give Harper advice.

I can't speak for Mike Harris (although I note that he was elected twice in Ontario).

The federal government is too big, it spends too much money and it taxes too much. It must regulate less and have fewer employees.

This may be so, but the federal government has a huge debt that it needs to pay down. It is irresponsible to cut taxes instead of paying its bills. After all, those bills come with over $20 billion price tag in interest every year.

[kimmy]

Taking advice from Manning and Harris would be an excellent way for Harper to avoid turning into "big government", because it's a surefire way to get back on the Opposition side of the House.

Kimmy, do you disagree with the advice or with the people who are offering it?

Both. I think following this advice would be a surefire ticket back to opposition status. It's not what voters want. And, there's a reason Manning never won an election. There's a reason Harris's party was crushed in their last election. There's a reason both of these guys now write reports for think-tanks instead of competing in the public sphere.

Harper was elected to reduce the growth of federal government spending and reduce federal taxes. I still think that if he followed those objectives, more than anything else, he would get re-elected.

I disagree. I believe that primarily, voters wanted to punish the Liberals. Harper was able to convince Ontario voters to give him a chance because he distanced himself from the hard-core conservatism of Manning and Harris. The only reason Harper's victory wasn't more thorough is that many Ontario voters remained skeptical that he'd distanced himself from those policies.

Harper never had a mandate to implement Harris style cuts. It's not what he campaigned on and not what voters elected him for. Interpretting his falling polls as an indicator that voters are disappointed that he failed to follow through on promises he never made and they never voted for is ... goofy, to say the least.

What's the saying... if you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras? If Harper's polls are falling, it seems more logical to look to the two issues that have dominated headlines for months: Afghanistan, and the environmental plan.

-k

[August1991]

The federal government is too big, it spends too much money and it taxes too much. It must regulate less and have fewer employees.

This may be so, but the federal government has a huge debt that it needs to pay down. It is irresponsible to cut taxes instead of paying its bills. After all, those bills come with over $20 billion price tag in interest every year.

Mimas, it's good that we agree on one thing. I'll leave to another thread a discussion about interest on the debt.

Harper was elected because the people were sick of the other guys and wanted a change. Don't confuse electoral success (which came be attributed to a wide variety of factors) with broad support. That's the surest way to wind up on the sidelines.

If so, the "other guy" had a reputation for cutting government spending and from what I can gather, that's Harper's reputation too.

Harper was elected to reduce the growth of federal government spending and reduce federal taxes. I still think that if he followed those objectives, more than anything else, he would get re-elected.

I disagree. I believe that primarily, voters wanted to punish the Liberals. Harper was able to convince Ontario voters to give him a chance because he distanced himself from the hard-core conservatism of Manning and Harris. The only reason Harper's victory wasn't more thorough is that many Ontario voters remained skeptical that he'd distanced himself from those policies.

Harper never had a mandate to implement Harris style cuts. It's not what he campaigned on and not what voters elected him for. Interpretting his falling polls as an indicator that voters are disappointed that he failed to follow through on promises he never made and they never voted for is ... goofy, to say the least.

What's the saying... if you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras? If Harper's polls are falling, it seems more logical to look to the two issues that have dominated headlines for months: Afghanistan, and the environmental plan.

Harper ran on five priorities one of which was cutting the GST. He also announced that he would ensure that federal spending would not grow faster than economic growth. In their first budget, the Tories a variety of tax measures to refund the surplus. They have also cut several subsidies to lobby groups.

Apparently Kimmy, you and I don't agree on why the Tories won or didn't do better.

IMV, fears of social conservative hordes and the perception that Harper was an Albertan redneck prevented the Tories from getting a majority. There are many Canadians who are fiscal conservatives but social liberals and in the past election some voted Tory but many voted Liberal. This was particularly the case in urban central Canada and among women. (Don't get me wrong. These people would never vote NDP and they don't listen to the CBC.)

Afghanistan is an issue because Canadians wonder why our young soldiers are dying there and they also wonder why we are spending all that money to be there. Canadians look at the US and wonder whether our budget will resemble the US federal budget in a few years.

The environment is an issue because it appears to many central Canadians that Harper is defending the interests of Calgary oil barons.

I'll agree Kimmy that Harper did not seek a mandate to slash government spending. But it's clear that he wants to limit the size of government and cut taxes.

There are numerous faultlines running through Ottawa: some are ideological, some regional. Harper's fiscal conservative credentials better be solid if he has any hope to remain in power.

[Black Dog]

If so, the "other guy" had a reputation for cutting government spending and from what I can gather, that's Harper's reputation too.

Again: no. The other guy(s) had a reputation for being corrupt, feckless ditherers

[apollo19]

IMV, fears of social conservative hordes and the perception that Harper was an Albertan redneck prevented the Tories from getting a majority. There are many Canadians who are fiscal conservatives but social liberals and in the past election some voted Tory but many voted Liberal. This was particularly the case in urban central Canada and among women. (Don't get me wrong. These people would never vote NDP and they don't listen to the CBC.)

I think August has hit the nail on the head here with regards to the feeling of Canadians. There is a large pool of social liberal/fiscal conservative people in the big cities (read: Toronto and Vancouver) that Harper and the CPC just cannot tap into. Instead of trying to grow into this area of people with moderate tax cuts and leaving social issues at the status quo, Harper is being a clown and stirring things up, thereby letting people default back to (or remain at) the Liberals. I think that he could take some, but not all, of the things Harris and Manning said and implement them, such as halving the corporate tax rate, with support coming from Toronto. But he should stop being naive about his positions on everything, or else all the non-religious voters I know will be voting Liberal again.

[BHS]

Er..no. Harper was elected because the people were sick of the other guys and wanted a change. Don't confuse electoral success (which came be attributed to a wide variety of factors) with broad support. That's the surest way to wind up on the sidelines.

SWEET!!! I've just updated my signature.

[normanchateau]

There is a large pool of social liberal/fiscal conservative people in the big cities (read: Toronto and Vancouver) that Harper and the CPC just cannot tap into.

I am one of those people. My Vancouver riding some years ago had an excellent PC MP who consistently won the riding. But once Reform appeared on the scene and split the fiscal conservative vote, the riding went Liberal. It has remained Liberal ever since as local voters see a Harper-lead CPC as another version of Reform/Alliance. Almost the entire PC vote went to the Liberals. CPC can probably recapture that former PC vote by selecting a leader who is not perceived to be a so-con. Harper's well-established position on marijuana, lesbians and other issues will make it impossible for him to shake the so-con image even if he tried.

[Mimas]

There is a large pool of social liberal/fiscal conservative people in the big cities (read: Toronto and Vancouver) that Harper and the CPC just cannot tap into.

I am one of those people. My Vancouver riding some years ago had an excellent PC MP who consistently won the riding. But once Reform appeared on the scene and split the fiscal conservative vote, the riding went Liberal. It has remained Liberal ever since as local voters see a Harper-lead CPC as another version of Reform/Alliance. Almost the entire PC vote went to the Liberals. CPC can probably recapture that former PC vote by selecting a leader who is not perceived to be a so-con. Harper's well-established position on marijuana, lesbians and other issues will make it impossible for him to shake the so-con image even if he tried.

But if he goes so-lib, next thing you know Preston will be starting his new Reform Party in Alberta and we'll be back to 1993.

[BHS]

...there's a reason Manning never won an election.

Let's be fair. Preston Manning was elected to the House of commons repeatedly as an individual MP, so he did in fact win an election or two. Let's look at his accomplishments: Preston took a regional grievance movement from zero representation in the House to being the more viable contender for small c conservatism in Canada and the Official Opposition in 1997. His party may never have won an election under his leadership, but it did go from winning a single seat in 1989, to forming the dominant core of the governing party in 2005. And according to Wiki, Stephen Harper was Preston Manning's chief policy adviser and the architect of Reform's 1988 election strategy, so while it's fair to say that Harper has distanced himself from iron-fisted conservatism (which he undoubtedly has) it isn't fair to characterize the difference as Manning v. Harper.

There's a reason Harris's party was crushed in their last election.

Actually, there are a number of bona fide reasons why the PCs lost the last Ontario election. Chiefly, these are:

-Mike Harris retired from the Premiership in 2002, after which an un-retired Ernie Eves took control of the party and immediately began backtracking on a number of Common Sense Revolution initiatives. I'm not saying that the PCs would have won a third election, but by 2003 it was very clear that the Common Sense Revolution was over in Ontario. It's not accurate to call the 2003 election whupping a repudiation of Mike Harris and his policies, though many vested interests (see third point below) do.

-voter fatigue is inevitable everywhere except, apparently, Alberta.

-the PCs faced vigorous opposition throughout their two majority mandates from public sector unions, NGO political activists, and a traditionally anti-PC media. Combined with the first two points it's not surprising that the PCs lost.

There's a reason both of these guys now write reports for think-tanks instead of competing in the public sphere.

Hey, didn't Harper used to work for a think-tank? Imagine that. (Go ahead. Argue that think-tanks and lobby groups are two totally different concepts, except in that, um, they both aim to shape public policy.)

I believe that primarily, voters wanted to punish the Liberals. Harper was able to convince Ontario voters to give him a chance because he distanced himself from the hard-core conservatism of Manning and Harris. [And himself, as noted above. -ed] The only reason Harper's victory wasn't more thorough is that many Ontario voters remained skeptical that he'd distanced himself from those policies.

That and, as you've noted, a Reform-based party had never had much electoral success east of Manitoba. A minority government was a predictable breakthrough. You have to crawl before you run.

Harper never had a mandate to implement Harris style cuts. It's not what he campaigned on and not what voters elected him for. Interpretting his falling polls as an indicator that voters are disappointed that he failed to follow through on promises he never made and they never voted for is ... goofy, to say the least.

What's the saying... if you hear hoofbeats, think horses, not zebras? If Harper's polls are falling, it seems more logical to look to the two issues that have dominated headlines for months: Afghanistan, and the environmental plan.

-k

I think his poll numbers are falling because the electorate isn't paying attention to what little political theatre Ottawa is providing for entertainment at the moment. Call it voter fatigue.

[Black Dog]

SWEET!!! I've just updated my signature.

Cute. But perhaps you've heard the expression "apples and oranges"?

[hiti]

Well Harper could take some advise on his spending after he increased the government spending in the past 10 months by 6.1 per cent.

Promises made, promises broke.

[kimmy]

...there's a reason Manning never won an election.

Let's be fair. Preston Manning was elected to the House of commons repeatedly as an individual MP, so he did in fact win an election or two. Let's look at his accomplishments: Preston took a regional grievance movement from zero representation in the House to being the more viable contender for small c conservatism in Canada and the Official Opposition in 1997. His party may never have won an election under his leadership, but it did go from winning a single seat in 1989, to forming the dominant core of the governing party in 2005. And according to Wiki, Stephen Harper was Preston Manning's chief policy adviser and the architect of Reform's 1988 election strategy, so while it's fair to say that Harper has distanced himself from iron-fisted conservatism (which he undoubtedly has) it isn't fair to characterize the difference as Manning v. Harper.

Yes, Manning had considerable success running for office in Alberta. And the Reform Party had considerable success right here at home. And in rural areas of BC, and in the other prairie provinces as well. I certainly don't dispute that. I respect Preston Manning. And I'm actually somewhat proud that our little regional protest party has had such a profound role in shaping Canadian politics in the past 20 years or so.

That said, they hit a brick wall. And while August might be right in asserting that a prejudice or skepticism towards outsiders might have played a role in central Canada's reluctance to embrace the Reform Party, I don't think it can be overlooked that Harper overcame that factor only after he'd adopted a more moderate set of policies.

There's a reason Harris's party was crushed in their last election.

Actually, there are a number of bona fide reasons why the PCs lost the last Ontario election. Chiefly, these are:

(...)

Be that as it may, "Common Sense Revolution" policies are about as popular as dealcoholized beer or venereal disease in Ontario right now.

There's a reason both of these guys now write reports for think-tanks instead of competing in the public sphere.

Hey, didn't Harper used to work for a think-tank? Imagine that. (Go ahead. Argue that think-tanks and lobby groups are two totally different concepts, except in that, um, they both aim to shape public policy.)

Does that matter? Manning and Harris have both vanished into political obscurity for more or less the same reason: Ontario voters don't care for their policies. Harper has emerged from political obscurity and achieved some measure of success in large measure because he stepped away from the arch-conservative policies promoted by Preston and Harris, and adopted more moderate policies that were more in sync with Ontario voters.

I think his poll numbers are falling because the electorate isn't paying attention to what little political theatre Ottawa is providing for entertainment at the moment. Call it voter fatigue.

Maybe. My chief point is that it's somewhere between foolish and ridiculous to somehow interpret Harper's current polls as a signal that ought to be more like Mike and Preston.

For the future? Personally I am skeptical of the theory that the Liberals will gain momentum once they choose their new leader. I think people are overly optimistic about what they're going to get. I mean, people were looking forward to Star Wars: The Phantom Menace... until they actually saw it. People were probably looking forward to the Edsel and the Hindenburg and the Titanic. It's like looking forward to the super-awesome toy that you asked Santa for... and once Christmas morning arrives and you've got your super-awesome toy... you realize it's not actually all that great. I think that once the Liberals choose a leader, the fantasy will be gone and the reality will set in... and people will realize it's not actually all that great.

-k