My take on Harper....
- Thread starter Cdn Blackshirt
- Start date
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
GUNS said:
Mr Prime Minster the right Honourable Steven Harper is not a member of the MP pension plan, he on principle opted out of the plan years ago just as he promised he would. Guess that lets the air out of your leftist pink balloon floating along above the hot air produced by protesters. I hope it lands in the forrest bursts into flames and kills some tree huggers while producing more green house gases. Oh Im getting carried away.....F(*&^ tre huggers, whale kissing, seal pup lovin, yogurt eaten, SPCA donating, Burlap bag wearing, anti gun speaking........please let it stop.....liberal voting.....anti nuc protesting....
- Reaction score
- 5,554
- Points
- 1,260
I find this, reproduced here, from today’s Globe and Mail, under the Fair Dealing provisions (§29) of the Copyright Act, interesting, plus ça change and all that:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20070512.TORIES12/TPStory/TPNational/Politics/
Not all of you will remember politics in the late ‘80s and the ’93 general election.
Many, possible most Canadians were sick and tired of a dysfunctional Ottawa. Brian Mulroney was a deeply unpopular politician – not, especially, for his decisions or his vision but, rather, for his personality – which did not ‘work’ on TV. He had endured two political misfortunes:
1. A global recession – he adjusted, a bit, and actually managed to balance the national government’s programme budget* but our deficits remained in the $40 Billion/year range because that represented the ever increasing interest on the out-of-control national debt; and
2. An institutionally hostile media. I personally recall the election night coverage in Sep 84 – we were just posted back to Ottawa, from overseas, and we watched the returns from what is now the Marriott on Queen Street. I think it was Pamela Wallin‡ (CTV) who said, roughly, “We [the media] will have to become the unofficial opposition – because John Turner’s Liberals are so weak, having been reduced to a 40 seat rump.”
The media played gotcha journalism – highlighting all of Mulroney’s personality failures and foibles. Canadians were invited to scorn his attractive wife and Gucci loafers. His economic policies – which were an anaemic response to a crisis – were decried as cruel. He was, let there be no doubt, the author of his own misfortunes: we was a smarmy, old fashioned, Irish blarney politician type; his constitutional proposals (the Meech Lake and Charlottetown Accords) were ill conceived; and he and his staff never managed to ‘handle’ the media.
Added to a deeply unpopular prime minister was a circus like parliament:
• There was the infamous ‘Rat Pack’ – Sheila Copps, Don Boudria, John Nunziata and Brian Tobin – which managed, through its verbal and physical antics, to embarrass Canadians ad did more than Mulroney to sour Canadians to politics and politicians;
• There was the kazoo incident when Liberal senators, led by Royce Frith and Gil Molgat, disrupted the business of parliament to try to derail Mulroney’s GST; and
• There was Mulroney’s incessant profanity, used even on the floor of the house.
Into this mix stepped Parson Manning with his Reform Party which promised, famously, to “do politics differently.”
In the ’93 general election the Conservatives were reduced to two seats and the new, separatist Bloc Québecois became the official opposition. There was, however, no cry from the media that they should become the unofficial opposition – presumably because safe, comfortable, known, Liberal Jean Chrétien could be trusted.
The Reform Party brought many changes to Ottawa – including red neck buffoons like Myron Thompson and Darrel Stinson who were such perfect caricatures of all that was suspicious about Reform that they completely overshadowed solid MPs like Dian Ablonczy and Chuck Strahl. Despite Manning’s undoubted honesty and intelligence he could never overcome the Thompson/Stinson image and Reform could never become anything but a Western populist protest movement.
In my opinion Manning, above all others, gave us 10 years of Chrétien’s bullying buffoonery.
Now sidelined, maybe exiled and unrepentant Reformers like Connie Wilkins of Free Dominion** fame want to revisit 1993 all over again and give us 10 years of Stephane Dion and Denis Coderre. No thanks!, from me.
Stephen Harper is not my favourite prime minister (that ‘honour’ goes to Liberal Louis St Laurent). I am non enamoured by all, even most of his policies but I regard him as infinitely preferable to anyone on the Liberal benches today and, sight unseen, anyone who will satisfy the political lusts of Free Dominion’s Wilkins.
----------
* Spending on departmental programmes – defence, health, etc – but not spending to service the debt
‡ Not a flaming Liberal partisan but, rather, like many (most?) of her colleagues (then and now) deeply suspicious of anything conservative
** I am about 99% certain that there are some (at least one) Free Dominion senior members here on Army.ca. Understandably they might have different views, but my distaste for religiously based populism is boundless
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20070512.TORIES12/TPStory/TPNational/Politics/
Not all of you will remember politics in the late ‘80s and the ’93 general election.
Many, possible most Canadians were sick and tired of a dysfunctional Ottawa. Brian Mulroney was a deeply unpopular politician – not, especially, for his decisions or his vision but, rather, for his personality – which did not ‘work’ on TV. He had endured two political misfortunes:
1. A global recession – he adjusted, a bit, and actually managed to balance the national government’s programme budget* but our deficits remained in the $40 Billion/year range because that represented the ever increasing interest on the out-of-control national debt; and
2. An institutionally hostile media. I personally recall the election night coverage in Sep 84 – we were just posted back to Ottawa, from overseas, and we watched the returns from what is now the Marriott on Queen Street. I think it was Pamela Wallin‡ (CTV) who said, roughly, “We [the media] will have to become the unofficial opposition – because John Turner’s Liberals are so weak, having been reduced to a 40 seat rump.”
The media played gotcha journalism – highlighting all of Mulroney’s personality failures and foibles. Canadians were invited to scorn his attractive wife and Gucci loafers. His economic policies – which were an anaemic response to a crisis – were decried as cruel. He was, let there be no doubt, the author of his own misfortunes: we was a smarmy, old fashioned, Irish blarney politician type; his constitutional proposals (the Meech Lake and Charlottetown Accords) were ill conceived; and he and his staff never managed to ‘handle’ the media.
Added to a deeply unpopular prime minister was a circus like parliament:
• There was the infamous ‘Rat Pack’ – Sheila Copps, Don Boudria, John Nunziata and Brian Tobin – which managed, through its verbal and physical antics, to embarrass Canadians ad did more than Mulroney to sour Canadians to politics and politicians;
• There was the kazoo incident when Liberal senators, led by Royce Frith and Gil Molgat, disrupted the business of parliament to try to derail Mulroney’s GST; and
• There was Mulroney’s incessant profanity, used even on the floor of the house.
Into this mix stepped Parson Manning with his Reform Party which promised, famously, to “do politics differently.”
In the ’93 general election the Conservatives were reduced to two seats and the new, separatist Bloc Québecois became the official opposition. There was, however, no cry from the media that they should become the unofficial opposition – presumably because safe, comfortable, known, Liberal Jean Chrétien could be trusted.
The Reform Party brought many changes to Ottawa – including red neck buffoons like Myron Thompson and Darrel Stinson who were such perfect caricatures of all that was suspicious about Reform that they completely overshadowed solid MPs like Dian Ablonczy and Chuck Strahl. Despite Manning’s undoubted honesty and intelligence he could never overcome the Thompson/Stinson image and Reform could never become anything but a Western populist protest movement.
In my opinion Manning, above all others, gave us 10 years of Chrétien’s bullying buffoonery.
Now sidelined, maybe exiled and unrepentant Reformers like Connie Wilkins of Free Dominion** fame want to revisit 1993 all over again and give us 10 years of Stephane Dion and Denis Coderre. No thanks!, from me.
Stephen Harper is not my favourite prime minister (that ‘honour’ goes to Liberal Louis St Laurent). I am non enamoured by all, even most of his policies but I regard him as infinitely preferable to anyone on the Liberal benches today and, sight unseen, anyone who will satisfy the political lusts of Free Dominion’s Wilkins.
----------
* Spending on departmental programmes – defence, health, etc – but not spending to service the debt
‡ Not a flaming Liberal partisan but, rather, like many (most?) of her colleagues (then and now) deeply suspicious of anything conservative
** I am about 99% certain that there are some (at least one) Free Dominion senior members here on Army.ca. Understandably they might have different views, but my distaste for religiously based populism is boundless
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 410
Edward, I couldn't agree more on the idea of a return of Reform. A divided right would only lead to another decade of darkness. Besides that, the people envisioning this return are idiots, I mean look at the things they are blaming PM Harper for...
1. "capitulation on same-sex marriage" - Um, excuse me? Didn't the motion to revisit that issue get voted down by our duly elected government? What do they want a night of the long knives?
2. "a settlement with Maher Arar" - Who was found to have been railroaded by the RCMP. The supreme court made that ruling, there is no higher legal authority to appeal to so what was the government supposed to do?
3. "a reversal on income trusts" - A move supported by everyone who does not have a political dog in the fight. Economists say that income trusts would have destroyed a good part of our tax base if the government hadn't acted.
4. "complete about-face on the environment" - I dare say if the Conservatives had not done something on the environment we would already be living under Citizen (of France) Dione's unintelligible rule. I (personally) do not see the Conservatives as having sold out on the environment but as having hedged their bets politically in order to be able to fight another day.
These wannabe Reformers are the NDP of the right, unelectable by most, small tent, protest vote, fundamentalists. They are the lunatic fringe of the old reform party, the ones that Preston Manning and Harper spent so much time cleaning up after.
1. "capitulation on same-sex marriage" - Um, excuse me? Didn't the motion to revisit that issue get voted down by our duly elected government? What do they want a night of the long knives?
2. "a settlement with Maher Arar" - Who was found to have been railroaded by the RCMP. The supreme court made that ruling, there is no higher legal authority to appeal to so what was the government supposed to do?
3. "a reversal on income trusts" - A move supported by everyone who does not have a political dog in the fight. Economists say that income trusts would have destroyed a good part of our tax base if the government hadn't acted.
4. "complete about-face on the environment" - I dare say if the Conservatives had not done something on the environment we would already be living under Citizen (of France) Dione's unintelligible rule. I (personally) do not see the Conservatives as having sold out on the environment but as having hedged their bets politically in order to be able to fight another day.
These wannabe Reformers are the NDP of the right, unelectable by most, small tent, protest vote, fundamentalists. They are the lunatic fringe of the old reform party, the ones that Preston Manning and Harper spent so much time cleaning up after.
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 560
I agree for the most part. Given the Conservatives are in a minority government situation, their arcs are pretty narrow. On the other hand, as a "Conservative" government, they could/should have shown more restraint on spending and delivered some broad based tax relief.
My concern in the economic sphere is the huge overhead of government spending and accumulated debt gives Canada as a whole limited flexibility in the event of an economic disruption or slow down. The possible trigger would be the election of a Democratic president in 2008; a large jump in US taxes will cause their economy to slow down, and the Canadian economy will be in the same position as you when you rear end a loaded semi....
The other possible trigger could be the "colateral crisis", given the softening of the US housing market. Since most Americans use the value of their houses to finance their consumer spending, the sudden drop in housing values would devastate large areas of the American economy, the tax base of many cities and the ripple effect would be horrible to contemplate (Canadians are not as leveraged in housiing because our tax laws are different, however many people I know are using similar leveraging of their houses). This might take place regardless of which party controls the White House or the Congress.
Prime Minister Harper may have to do some very fast moving if and when that happens.
My concern in the economic sphere is the huge overhead of government spending and accumulated debt gives Canada as a whole limited flexibility in the event of an economic disruption or slow down. The possible trigger would be the election of a Democratic president in 2008; a large jump in US taxes will cause their economy to slow down, and the Canadian economy will be in the same position as you when you rear end a loaded semi....
The other possible trigger could be the "colateral crisis", given the softening of the US housing market. Since most Americans use the value of their houses to finance their consumer spending, the sudden drop in housing values would devastate large areas of the American economy, the tax base of many cities and the ripple effect would be horrible to contemplate (Canadians are not as leveraged in housiing because our tax laws are different, however many people I know are using similar leveraging of their houses). This might take place regardless of which party controls the White House or the Congress.
Prime Minister Harper may have to do some very fast moving if and when that happens.
P
PeptoBismarck
Guest
I know this is tad bit off the topic :
but everyone here is commenting on the economics of the situation. Isn't the economy the hardest to change for a government? I mean, it'll take a good long time to fix up Canada's economy, especially if the Canadian voters don't give Harper a majority. I would frankly be more pleased with Harper if he gets some work done on our basic freedoms (i.e. finally oust gun control, implement same kind of freedom of speech as the US, etc). It seems Canadians are afraid of having anything in common with the US, whereas imho the closer we are to them, the better off we are. Frankly, I'm scared to shit knowing that we could never overthrow our government even IF we all agreed about it. :threat:
but everyone here is commenting on the economics of the situation. Isn't the economy the hardest to change for a government? I mean, it'll take a good long time to fix up Canada's economy, especially if the Canadian voters don't give Harper a majority. I would frankly be more pleased with Harper if he gets some work done on our basic freedoms (i.e. finally oust gun control, implement same kind of freedom of speech as the US, etc). It seems Canadians are afraid of having anything in common with the US, whereas imho the closer we are to them, the better off we are. Frankly, I'm scared to shit knowing that we could never overthrow our government even IF we all agreed about it. :threat:
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
The economics issue is the most important single issue after security.
And Harpers' an economist. NOT another effing lawyer.
It's a good thing to have a bunch of loonies on the far right
to make Harper look far more reasonable than the liberals would
paint him.
Splitting the conservative vote could be solved with a coalition
government but I'm not a fan of european style minority government.
The environment was the "gun to the head " issue.
Personally I would be fine with Rona Ambroses plan.
You know, fix the pollution we KNOW is killing people
not go nuts over a theory just because Suzuki says so.
Pragmatism is the thing and I believe Harper is a pragmatist.
No weird social engineering or new wrinkles on political
correctness. - just running things the old fashioned way.
( with a modicum of dignity and integrity )
And Harpers' an economist. NOT another effing lawyer.
It's a good thing to have a bunch of loonies on the far right
to make Harper look far more reasonable than the liberals would
paint him.
Splitting the conservative vote could be solved with a coalition
government but I'm not a fan of european style minority government.
The environment was the "gun to the head " issue.
Personally I would be fine with Rona Ambroses plan.
You know, fix the pollution we KNOW is killing people
not go nuts over a theory just because Suzuki says so.
Pragmatism is the thing and I believe Harper is a pragmatist.
No weird social engineering or new wrinkles on political
correctness. - just running things the old fashioned way.
( with a modicum of dignity and integrity )
P
PeptoBismarck
Guest
I agree with you Flip. I just think that Canada would be better served the more American it was. Especially in regards to rights and freedoms. I mean, the state of the current hate speech laws is shameful and the fact that there isn't totally free speech is rather ridiculous. Freedom of speech = freedom of thought. How dare they limit it. Anyways, I refuse to take part in all the political correct bulls**t. I mean, look at the US, the black people nowadays are slaves just like before. Back then they were slaves to plantations, now they are slaves to Affirmative Action and social programs. Kudos to the minority of blacks that see it that way. Anyways, I'm getting way the hell off track. Suffice it say that I think Harper's doing a pretty good job considering. He's the best we got and there's just no other way to put it. If Canada doesn't re-elect him and give a majority then they deserve what's coming to them.
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 530
PeptoBismarck said:
You do realize the inherent contradictions in your very questionable diatribe, do you not?
On one hand you claim to want to be more like America, and on the other point to the disenfranchisement of the black population which are the result of the policies there....
Bottom Line: The United States has its own problems and I have no interest in rushing to emulate what they do poorly. Instead I would propose we need to stop being ideologically lazy and instead objectively research all the world's nations and pick individual policies from all over our planet and apply them where appropriate.
Matthew.
RangerRay
Army.ca Veteran
- Reaction score
- 3,603
- Points
- 1,260
As a westerner who has voted Reform since 1993, I never saw it as a "religious" party like those from back East did (members and non-members). For me and most other British Columbians at the time, they promised democratic reform and and we wanted in the decision making that we have long been shunted out of. Hence why Reform got a good deal of it's support in BC from NDP members. It had nothing to do with extreme bible-thumping ideology like many former eastern Reformers like to delude themselves into thinking.
Having said that, as a former Reform voter, this movement to restart that party is lunacy. As others have said, these morons think they have more influence as opposition rather than as government. In fact, I would say that this may help PM Harper broaden his appeal to centrist voters and show that if the extremists in the "conservative" movement are upset with him, then he may not be so bad afterall. With Dion, Layton and May staking out very left wing territory, there is an opportunity for the PM. Of course the PM is limited in what he can and a can't do with a minority, but I also think that he is acting like a pragmatic leader. Sure, he could go ideologically extreme right, even with a majority, but would he survive the election? I wouldn't think so.
I'm willing to give the PM a majority or two before I decide if he is a compromised politician like all the others since St. Laurent. So far, while not perfect, I have been very happy with the direction that he is moving. After all the other clowns I've observed since Trudeau, he's a breath of fresh air! ;D
Having said that, as a former Reform voter, this movement to restart that party is lunacy. As others have said, these morons think they have more influence as opposition rather than as government. In fact, I would say that this may help PM Harper broaden his appeal to centrist voters and show that if the extremists in the "conservative" movement are upset with him, then he may not be so bad afterall. With Dion, Layton and May staking out very left wing territory, there is an opportunity for the PM. Of course the PM is limited in what he can and a can't do with a minority, but I also think that he is acting like a pragmatic leader. Sure, he could go ideologically extreme right, even with a majority, but would he survive the election? I wouldn't think so.
I'm willing to give the PM a majority or two before I decide if he is a compromised politician like all the others since St. Laurent. So far, while not perfect, I have been very happy with the direction that he is moving. After all the other clowns I've observed since Trudeau, he's a breath of fresh air! ;D
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 430
E.R. Campbell said:
Edward before this comment fades into the ether I want to note how well you summarized Harper's attitude towards the Canadian military (IMHO). This paragraph has been rolling around in my head all day and I want to recognize you as the author.
- Reaction score
- 7,953
- Points
- 1,160
You can only lead where the crowd is willing to follow. Step one is to get the crowd to trust you enough to let you lead it. That means getting the crowd to accept that you are essentially one of them.
Before Harper can lead where the crowd currently doesn't want to go he has to get them to accept his leadership. That means implementing policies that the majority can agree with most of the time.
That way he MIGHT get a majority next time around, and assuming sufficient trust, start heading the crowd in a dfferent direction.
It seems to me that the way you head off a stampede is first of all you run with the herd to get to the front. THEN you can start redirecting it.
Before Harper can lead where the crowd currently doesn't want to go he has to get them to accept his leadership. That means implementing policies that the majority can agree with most of the time.
That way he MIGHT get a majority next time around, and assuming sufficient trust, start heading the crowd in a dfferent direction.
It seems to me that the way you head off a stampede is first of all you run with the herd to get to the front. THEN you can start redirecting it.
- Reaction score
- 35
- Points
- 530
Kirkhill said:
Harper also has to do a better of job of mastering the 15-second soundbite that makes up news casts to lead from the front. Giving a protracted 4 or 5 minute diatribe against something does not fit well into today's catchphrase environment.
Ask a protestor why they're against the deployment to Afghanistan, you'll generation get something quick & dirty like "It's an occupation."
You want to counter that, you've got to come up with something that is equally as short and to the point, even if it's not exactly 100% true.
Example: "We're there so that 4 million little girls who otherwise wouldn't be allowed to, get to go to school."
Now every time a reporter asks Harper or ANY of his MP's, they repeat that line fourteen million times.
Do the ignorant hippies really want to be against that? No.
Seriously, this is not rocket science. Harper's communication team should all be canned....they're pathetic. REALLY pathetic.
Matthew.
- Reaction score
- 3
- Points
- 430
Kirkhill said:
And that folks is Politics 101 in a nutshell.
And until Harper masters 101 he appears stuck at a glass ceiling in the approval ratings.
- Reaction score
- 0
- Points
- 210
+1 Kirkhill. That is what a democracy (on paper) is supposed to be. A democracy involves one person from the nation leading it and making the best decisions based on the people. Since people today are very skeptic about politicians, Harper must convince the public that he is not a warmonger and wants to take away a woman's right to vote :Kirkhill said:
. Once that is done, the public will trust him and his approval will rise.
- Reaction score
- 5,554
- Points
- 1,260
There is an old aphorism which says that political leadership involves watching and waiting, patiently, to see where the mob is headed and then rushing to the front to lead them there.
Similar threads
