Have Conservatives Run Out of Gas?

[jdobbin]

John Ivison's column in the National Post.

http://www.canada.com/nationalpost/news/st...4a66ffd6be1&k=0

Even the backdrop of 80 fresh-faced Conservative interns was not enough to add zest to the latest democratic reform initiative announced by the government this week.

The announcement that the Tories will introduce legislation to open the polls on the two Sundays before an election in an attempt to boost voter turnout brought forth a collective shrug from bemused tourists watching the proceedings on the steps of Parliament Hill, and allegations of intern abuse from amused opposition MPs. It had all the hallmarks of a government light on ideas to fill the parliamentary order paper.

The Conservatives have worked their way through their election platform and have, quite literally, arrived at the back page.

"We're running on vapour," said one MP.

Even within the party, there is a feeling the government has lost its vital spark.

Stephen Harper, so sure-footed when events correspond to his game plan, has looked off-balance when forced to make policy on the hoof.

I'm sure they thought they'd be in an election right now. The build up was there. The budget voted on. Huge spending promises, the Quebec election out of the way and then: The polls dropped.

Three of the last polls have the Liberals either ahead or tied with the Tories.

They have some time before Parliament breaks and nothing seems to be in the cupboard.

[jbg]

Some people must love more Harper threads. Especially the "anti-" variety.

[jdobbin]

Some people must love more Harper threads. Especially the "anti-" variety.

Some observers, including a generally supportive National Post columnist, are wondering if there are some plans in the works for a longer session of government. At present, there appears to be drift.

Do you have any comments on that? Iif you wish to attack me though, I understand that too.

[Figleaf]

Some people must love more Harper threads. Especially the "anti-" variety.

Quick advisory for you, jbg. This is a Canadian politics discussion forum, and Steve is the Prime Minister of Canada.

Meanwhile, absolutely the Conservatives have hit the wall. In terms of ideas, certainly, but also in terms of public acceptance for their sleazy politics, and their preoccupation with politics over good government.

[jbg]

Some people must love more Harper threads. Especially the "anti-" variety.

Quick advisory for you, jbg. This is a Canadian politics discussion forum, and Steve is the Prime Minister of Canada.

Meanwhile, absolutely the Conservatives have hit the wall. In terms of ideas, certainly, but also in terms of public acceptance for their sleazy politics, and their preoccupation with politics over good government.

And the Liberal Party ideas are????

[noahbody]

Meanwhile, absolutely the Conservatives have hit the wall. In terms of ideas, certainly, but also in terms of public acceptance for their sleazy politics, and their preoccupation with politics over good government.

With this is a minority government, the comment about preoccupation with politics is better suited towards the opposition parties. The cons have put forth initiatives such as the crime bill that Canadians would like passed. The game though is that everything has to be rewritten. Not because the original is broken, but so the opposition parties can put their stamp on it. Simply passing bills, and getting things done would make the government look good, which would mean the Libs wouldn't get back in for years.

As far as the topic of the day goes, the environment, what the cons have proposed is an example of good government as it considers the economy and all Canadians that would be affected. The opposition wanting to meet the Kyoto commitment no matter what, would, if they were in power, be an example of irresponsible, dangerous govermnent. Please debate this if you wish. And please remember kyoto is a liberal problem, signed by a PM with no intentions of meeting the targets, as Eddie Greenberg now admits. That is poor govenment and putting politics first.

As far as the sleazy politics goes, you'd likely shouldn't get into a debate over that one. Just so you know, I had the highest hopes for Paul Martin as PM. I figured if he turned out to be a decent pm, he'd look the the best pm in history as he'd be compared to his predecessor. Turned out I was wrong. Now it's Harpers turn. I'd suggest his biggest drawback is that he believes in merit verses kissing ass. In Ottawa, the latter is how it is traditionally done. He at least puts Canada first. Even if you don't like the guy personally, why not support him when Canada if the benefactor. Isn't moving Canada forward the only thing that really matters. Who different does it make which colours the party wears?

[Cameron]

Good post Noah.

[jdobbin]

With this is a minority government, the comment about preoccupation with politics is better suited towards the opposition parties. The cons have put forth initiatives such as the crime bill that Canadians would like passed. The game though is that everything has to be rewritten. Not because the original is broken, but so the opposition parties can put their stamp on it. Simply passing bills, and getting things done would make the government look good, which would mean the Libs wouldn't get back in for years.

This is what Harper said in Opposition.

"We'll support the government on issues if it's essential to the country but our primary responsibility is not to prop up the government, our responsibility is to provide an opposition and an alternative government for Parliament and for Canadians."

Stephen Harper

The Opposition's duty is to present alternatives.

[jbg]

The Opposition's duty is to present alternatives.

But when they present legislation which they knew, while in government, was irresponsible, that's irresponsibility and opportunism, not "alternative".

[Topaz]

The worst enemy to the Cons is themselves and we, Canadians, who watch C-pac, can watch that for the last 2-3 weeks of how they handled the detainees situation. It may not have been as bad, if Harper hadn't said over and over again, this govt was going to be honest and clear and not hid anything. As for the voting on Sunday, maybe some people will vote but I think most of the people who don't vote are people who don't trust government and think it doesn't whose in, they are all crooks, which Harper is proving to be true.

[Wilber]

You have evidence that Harper or anyone else is a crook? You had better contact the police.

[jdobbin]

But when they present legislation which they knew, while in government, was irresponsible, that's irresponsibility and opportunism, not "alternative".

I have no idea what legislation you are referring to.

The duty of the Opposition isn't to sit in nodding agreement with the government. Harper repeatedly said that when he was in Opposition.

[Argus]

With this is a minority government, the comment about preoccupation with politics is better suited towards the opposition parties. The cons have put forth initiatives such as the crime bill that Canadians would like passed. The game though is that everything has to be rewritten. Not because the original is broken, but so the opposition parties can put their stamp on it. Simply passing bills, and getting things done would make the government look good, which would mean the Libs wouldn't get back in for years.

This is what Harper said in Opposition.

"We'll support the government on issues if it's essential to the country but our primary responsibility is not to prop up the government, our responsibility is to provide an opposition and an alternative government for Parliament and for Canadians."

Stephen Harper

The Opposition's duty is to present alternatives.

They haven't actually done so. Where is Mr. Green's plan for the environment? All I hear from him is bland, vague feel-good suggestions and thunderous denunciations about how the Tories want to destroy the environment. Given the environment is the mainstay, probably about 75% of what the Liberals now talk about, you'd think they'd have come up with at least a few big, fleshed out, costed-out ideas now on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Nope. Nada. Just the continuing drone of "we can reduce greenhouse gas emissions to nothing without damaging the economy and while making oodles of money! Trust me! Trust me!" The Liberals have long known that the way to Canadians' heart is to promise them they can have their cake while eating it too. It's resulted in electoral success but lousy government. And it certainly doesn't look like they plan to change their ways any time soon.

[jdobbin]

They haven't actually done so. Where is Mr. Green's plan for the environment? All I hear from him is bland, vague feel-good suggestions and thunderous denunciations about how the Tories want to destroy the environment. Given the environment is the mainstay, probably about 75% of what the Liberals now talk about, you'd think they'd have come up with at least a few big, fleshed out, costed-out ideas now on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Nope. Nada. Just the continuing drone of "we can reduce greenhouse gas emissions to nothing without damaging the economy and while making oodles of money! Trust me! Trust me!" The Liberals have long known that the way to Canadians' heart is to promise them they can have their cake while eating it too. It's resulted in electoral success but lousy government. And it certainly doesn't look like they plan to change their ways any time soon.

The Opposition made their plan clear when they they sent the amended Clean Air Act back to the House. There was very little vagueness in it.

[Argus]

They haven't actually done so. Where is Mr. Green's plan for the environment? All I hear from him is bland, vague feel-good suggestions and thunderous denunciations about how the Tories want to destroy the environment. Given the environment is the mainstay, probably about 75% of what the Liberals now talk about, you'd think they'd have come up with at least a few big, fleshed out, costed-out ideas now on reducing greenhouse gas emissions. Nope. Nada. Just the continuing drone of "we can reduce greenhouse gas emissions to nothing without damaging the economy and while making oodles of money! Trust me! Trust me!" The Liberals have long known that the way to Canadians' heart is to promise them they can have their cake while eating it too. It's resulted in electoral success but lousy government. And it certainly doesn't look like they plan to change their ways any time soon.

The Opposition made their plan clear when they they sent the amended Clean Air Act back to the House. There was very little vagueness in it.

Oh really? So there were solid plans and goals along with the costs involved? Could you please point me to where I can find this?

[jdobbin]

Oh really? So there were solid plans and goals along with the costs involved? Could you please point me to where I can find this?

Here it is. It includes the original bill, the amendments proposed by the Tories, the amendments proposed by the Opposition, minutes from those meetings and everything else related to the bill. Hope that helps.

http://www.parl.gc.ca/common/bills_ls.asp?...b&Parl=39&Ses=1

[Michael Bluth]

Some people must love more Harper threads. Especially the "anti-" variety.

Some observers, including a generally supportive National Post columnist, are wondering if there are some plans in the works for a longer session of government. At present, there appears to be drift.

Do you have any comments on that? Iif you wish to attack me though, I understand that too.

How is that an attack? Is anything jbg said incorrect?

Your persecution complex is really quite sad.

This is not the best site for never ending attacks on the Government. Try Rabble if you are going to whine every time someone questions your motivations for starting a thread. They'll love your rabid anti-Harperism.

This is yet another thread you started and painted the government as negatively as possible.

There is some merit to the thread, so let me continue.

The biggest reason the Conservatives didn't go to the polls is the public did not want an election. That would have been the issue. Not a good issue for a minority Government to run an election on.

Yes, they are running on vapours now.

I fully expect Harper to spend the summer in an intese post-mortem of the first year and a half of his Government. He will then come up with a legislative agenda for the next year.

If an election comes before hand the remainder of the agenda will be the platform for that election.

[noahbody]

This is what Harper said in Opposition.

"We'll support the government on issues if it's essential to the country but our primary responsibility is not to prop up the government, our responsibility is to provide an opposition and an alternative government for Parliament and for Canadians."

Stephen Harper

The Opposition's duty is to present alternatives.

This is a three part quote. I don't think you'll disagree with the first two messages which to paraphrase are "If it's good for the country, we'll support it" and "if it's incompetence, we won't." This governement, is far from incompetent. Their initiatives have for the large part been ones of common good and practicality. This includes the ones for which they've been criticized the most, such as the environment and daycare. Neither Kyoto or a universal daycare system are achieveable. They are only alternatives to common sense.

Harper is far from perfect too. I do fault Harper for the Dion ads. They were likely the idea of some party stategiest who's thinking they would be good for the party. They were not good for setting a tone for working together obviously, not a good example of leadership and not good for Canada.

Harper seems to understand policy better than he does people. Unfortuately, some are immediately against his good ideas, because they don't like him. Has he ran out of ideas? No. Better put, the problem is that he has ideas. To paraphase a quote, "if it doesn't make others uncomfortable, it isn't an idea." This is why some consider him scary.

Canada is at a time where it does need ideas. We've rested on our laurels for far too long. Or health care system is on its last limbs due to the aging baby boomers. It would be nice to see all parties unpolicize this and stop defending a failing system. I digress.

As to the backend of the quote, he also once said, "The Leader of the Opposition's constitutional obligation - the obligation to Parliament - it's the reason we did the merger! - is to make sure Canadians have an alternative for government." He is a traditionalist, but in oppositon in government he's shown he will put Canada first, which is the good.

Harper is about taking the bad with the good. You don't have to like him personally to respect that he wishes to make the country a better place to live. He's not evil. Evil is David Suzuki:)

[Shakeyhands]

Some people must love more Harper threads. Especially the "anti-" variety.

Some observers, including a generally supportive National Post columnist, are wondering if there are some plans in the works for a longer session of government. At present, there appears to be drift.

Do you have any comments on that? Iif you wish to attack me though, I understand that too.

How is that an attack? Is anything jbg said incorrect?

Your persecution complex is really quite sad.

This is not the best site for never ending attacks on the Government. Try Rabble if you are going to whine every time someone questions your motivations for starting a thread. They'll love your rabid anti-Harperism.

This is yet another thread you started and painted the government as negatively as possible.

There is some merit to the thread, so let me continue.

The biggest reason the Conservatives didn't go to the polls is the public did not want an election. That would have been the issue. Not a good issue for a minority Government to run an election on.

Yes, they are running on vapours now.

I fully expect Harper to spend the summer in an intese post-mortem of the first year and a half of his Government. He will then come up with a legislative agenda for the next year.

If an election comes before hand the remainder of the agenda will be the platform for that election.

Well first of all Ricki, you chose not to include what could be considered an attack in your quote. Secondly, its quite obvious to me that you weren;t a member of this forum when the Liberals formed the last government, all we heard was bitching and moaning from your side of the fence over every little thing. If you guys can't handle the heat of having your party leading the government then I suggest you all stay home during the next election or perhaps you can leave here and join a forum that is little more than a CPC circle jerk. Your choice.

[Michael Bluth]

you chose not to include what could be considered an attack in your quote. Secondly, its quite obvious to me that you weren;t a member of this forum when the Liberals formed the last government, all we heard was bitching and moaning from your side of the fence over every little thing. If you guys can't handle the heat of having your party leading the government then I suggest you all stay home during the next election or perhaps you can leave here and join a forum that is little more than a CPC circle jerk. Your choice.

Are you replying to my post?

I quoted the jdobbin's post exactly.

Take a look at my post that lead to your diatribe.

I agreed the Conservatives have run out of things in their current agenda.

So, I'm not looking for a CPC circle jerk.

[jdobbin]

This is a three part quote. I don't think you'll disagree with the first two messages which to paraphrase are "If it's good for the country, we'll support it" and "if it's incompetence, we won't." This governement, is far from incompetent. Their initiatives have for the large part been ones of common good and practicality. This includes the ones for which they've been criticized the most, such as the environment and daycare. Neither Kyoto or a universal daycare system are achieveable. They are only alternatives to common sense.

I've never heard him say universal daycare is impossible.

I also didn't say the government was incompetent. I said it isn't the job of the Opposition to support government policy without interjecting criticism and amendments.

In numerous cases, Parliament has voted unanimously on motions. Even some of the crime bills that the Tories were complaining were being delayed were brought back the House and voted in precisely the average amount of time and mostly intact save for some amendments that even the government said improved the bills.

The argument of this thread is one that even some Tory MPs have been saying privately to the media: That they didn't expect to still be Parliament and don't have a plan of action for an extended time in the House.

[Figleaf]

You have evidence that Harper or anyone else is a crook? You had better contact the police.

Now there is comment rich with irony, considering:

http://www.mapleleafweb.com/forums//index.php?showtopic=8744

[Shakeyhands]

you chose not to include what could be considered an attack in your quote. Secondly, its quite obvious to me that you weren;t a member of this forum when the Liberals formed the last government, all we heard was bitching and moaning from your side of the fence over every little thing. If you guys can't handle the heat of having your party leading the government then I suggest you all stay home during the next election or perhaps you can leave here and join a forum that is little more than a CPC circle jerk. Your choice.

Are you replying to my post?

I quoted the jdobbin's post exactly.

Take a look at my post that lead to your diatribe.

I agreed the Conservatives have run out of things in their current agenda.

So, I'm not looking for a CPC circle jerk.

You are correct and I therefore stand corrected, my apologies. I must have confused two posts.

[jbg]

But when they present legislation which they knew, while in government, was irresponsible, that's irresponsibility and opportunism, not "alternative".

I have no idea what legislation you are referring to.

The duty of the Opposition isn't to sit in nodding agreement with the government. Harper repeatedly said that when he was in Opposition.

Legislation to enforce Kyoto, for one. The Liberals correctly realized that actually complying with Kyoto would be irresponsible. They are quite prepared, however, to place that monkey on everyone else's back.

[jdobbin]

Legislation to enforce Kyoto, for one. The Liberals correctly realized that actually complying with Kyoto would be irresponsible. They are quite prepared, however, to place that monkey on everyone else's back.

The Conservatives were free to bring down the government during the Martin years over Kyoto and are free now to reject Kyoto legislation.

The Conservatives are free to criticize the Liberals over the issue as well. It still doesn't mean that the Opposition should sit like ditto heads about whatever direction that the Tories are going in.