# Harper achieves new levels of stupid



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

The parliamentary secretary to Francophonie can't speak French

I'm sorry, but how stupid can you get? Even if he didn't need the support of the Bloc, this would be a stupid, stupid move. Even if he didn't need the Maritimes and Quebec to find growth in seat numbers, this would be a stupid, stupid move. Even if he weren't looking at least a little bad because he made cabinet appointments on the basis of patronage, this would be a stupid, stupid move. Given that all of those things ARE true, this is idiotic beyond belief.


----------



## sketch (Sep 10, 2004)

I agree. How embarrassing. Well, so far it's been an interesting post-election.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

The Harper cabinet seems really short of qualified people - overall, the first week as been a disaster for the Cons and by extension Canada.
- Brian Pallister want's to quit the federal level and run for the Con leadership in Manitoba.


> Less than a week after winning his seat in the House of Commons, Conservative MP Brian Pallister has made a stunning political move. View video
> 
> Today he met with Prime Minister Designate Stephen Harper to take himself out of the running for a cabinet position.


http://www.canada.com/globaltv/manitoba/story.html?id=9e0af984-8254-4b16-89e7-8f6663a56780
and
http://a123.g.akamai.net/f/123/12465/1d/www.canada.com/globaltv/manitoba/videos/jan27.rm
Harper of course support this decision 


> Harper supports MP's decision to mull run at provincial Tory leadership
> He has been an important part of our success. I understand the difficult decision he is undertaking and we will support whatever choice he makes.


http://www.canada.com/topics/news/n...=054bc59e-deb6-4562-b369-6aaa74709dfa&k=95452
- Micheal "I didn't want to run...'cause I didn't have to" Fortier gets a backdoor entry into the cabinet - talk about killing all your credentials with this piece of cronyism.
- Harper refused to meet with the ethics commissioner on the Grewal Screwball affair.
- Appointing a defence lobbyist to Minister of Defence - said minister did receive campaign contributions from defence contractors.
- Peter McKay releases this: " The Government of Canada will continue to promote a better understanding of Islam internationally, in partnership with Muslim communities."... wtf?
http://news.gc.ca/cfmx/view/en/index.jsp?articleid=196239&
- Harper not selling off a money losing corporation (aren't these guys all about privitazation?"


> Tories axe plan to privatize port
> Defector Emerson has spoken against Liberal selloff of B.C. terminal
> 
> tephen Harper's new government has cancelled the proposed sale of a money-losing coal terminal in Prince Rupert that had been opposed by the former Liberal industry minister who defected to the Conservatives this week.
> ...


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060208.wxridley08/BNStory/National/home


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

and the hits just keep on coming...


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

- We have a bunch of failures showing up in cabinet who used to be Harris stalwarts. Our new finance minister once helped ruin Ontario's economy - let's see what he can do to Canada's.

- All Emerson, all the time

- Stockwell "I walk with dinosaurs" Day in charge of spying and security...


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Our new finance minister once helped ruin Ontario's economy - let's see what he can do to Canada's.


How did he do that? You may argue about long-term fiscal sustainability (that will get into accounting details), or deteriorating social and physical infrastructure (linked back to long-term) but Ontario's economy has been doing quite well for some time, especially considering the drag of energy prices, SARS and, more recently, currency appreciation.

I'm still looking for your definition of neocon, if you don't mind.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

The Globe who backed Harper has some sharp words



> POSTED ON 10/02/06
> 
> *The risky calculations Stephen Harper makes*
> Perhaps the Conservatives would not look quite so hypocritical if they had not promised so much to so many hopeful souls. It is only five days since Stephen Harper grandly unveiled his principled 60-page guide to ministerial accountability and his 34-page conflict-of-interest code. *But that highlight seems an eternity away, given the ensuing stumbles, scandals and blithe shrugs. The new Prime Minister has surely set a dismal record. He has managed to aggravate his caucus with inappropriate cabinet appointments, provoke an unseemly scuffle among the provinces, fuel a saucy New Democratic Party insurrection and puzzle his flabbergasted supporters. What on Earth can he be thinking?*
> ...


http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/LAC.20060210.EHARPER10/TPStory/

The question arises did he really have any given the almost complete inexperience of the party in forming and more important RUNNING a government.

Why do I think this is going to be a raucous parliament. 

And this editorial is from the paper that SUPPORTED him.


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

> saucy New Democratic Party insurrection


I love it!


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

The west is IN.....image comes to mind. 










complete with.....ahem.......yahoos...


----------



## bryanc (Jan 16, 2004)

HowEver said:


> And don't forget: Stockewll Day in charge of CSIS, the RCMP, public safety and anti-terrorism!
> 
> The man who *thinks* dinosaurs and humans walked the earth simultaneously! The man who did not know which way Niagara Falls/the St. Lawrence seaway goes!
> 
> Shudders.


T,FTFY

Cheers


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Maybe the Liberals should go calling .....



> Halton MP in hot water over Emerson
> Feb. 10, 2006. 11:55 AM
> STEPHEN THORNE
> CANADIAN PRESS
> ...


http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...ageid=968332188492&col=968793972154&t=TS_Home

We'll all watch a game of musical chairs......... ..aka parliamentary seat switching.


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> The question arises did he really have any [political bearings] given the almost complete inexperience of the party in forming and more important RUNNING a government.


When during the latter half of the campaign the media pundits were jumping up and down promoting Harper's alleged strategic prowess ("He's a great chess player), I remained unconvinced, although the smoothness of his campaign made me start to think I might have been wrong. But I think my assessment of his political skill that I offered during the Grewal affair still stands. In that case he showed complete befuddlement that anyone would see a problem with him continuing to support Grewal. As many are saying in the last couple of days, Harper and many around him appear to be politically tone deaf. So deaf in fact that they can't even understand why their own supporters are upset, never mind their opponents.

He doesn't understand at all why anyone would be upset with the Emerson and Fortier issues. It must be just superficial criticism, he thinks. Take your head out of your butt, Harpo. He met with Garth Turner yesterday, the Halton Con MP who publicly rebuked him on the Cabinet appointments and basically told him to keep his mouth shut. Turner writes all about it in his blog. Turner was a folk hero in the making, with lots of his Conservative constituents solidly behind him, but now has decided to reluctantly follow orders.

Harper may have thought it was a brilliant chess move to scoop Emerson up and it had the advantage in his mind of kicking the Libs in the guts for the Stronach defection. Did anyone notice the size of his grin as Emerson was being sworn in? I bet there were some high-fives after that one. Now he's as flabbergasted as Emerson that anyone, especially his supporters who really, truly believed his government would be about unassailable ethics, are a little ticked off. As Bugs Bunny used to say, "What a maroon!"

Every time Harper announces something it seems to be the wrong move, with the Anglo parliamentary secretary appointment being the latest. Harper may be a good chess player, but chess while strategically a complex game, is one where it's not necessary to mask the fact that you are a ruthless opportunist who will do anything necessary to win. In chess, that's a given. In politics, there must remain a veneer that you have some principles, even if you don't, such as with Chretien, a ruthless opportunist if there ever was one. Eventually Chretien's veneer wore off, but it took a decade.

Harper had crafted that veneer during the campaign, but tossed it aside 30 seconds after setting foot in Sussex Drive. D'oh!


----------



## GratuitousApplesauce (Jan 29, 2004)

bryanc said:


> T,FTFY
> 
> Cheers


Huh? I can't puzzle that acronym out.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

.


----------



## HowEver (Jan 11, 2005)

.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

T'FTFY.......put Dino boy in the present tense.....cute pun on a number of levels. :clap: 

_thought_........_THINKS!_

I missed it too...=...delayed ROTFL

•••

Honeymoon awfully short....


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

> "...I will be returning to Manitoba and consulting with Manitobans as to whether they wish me to enter the race for the Provincial PC leadership.
> 
> Following these consultations I will announce my intentions.
> 
> I should emphasize that it will require compelling evidence of support to encourage me to redirect my political efforts towards building the provincial party." - Global News


*LOL** Maybe... if I lived in Manitoba I could be convinced to vote PC... 

I have to wonder where Harper is headed with all this... he's not a stupid man from what I know of him... *insert paranoid emoticon**


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Short honeymoon....


----------



## jlcinc (Dec 13, 2002)

I have been reading Garth Turners blog http://www.garth.ca/weblog/2006/02/10/fool-on-the-hill/ and the comments after and I am very surprised at how nasty the conservative supporters of Harper are. (I don't really know why I am surprised) 

"Garth my Dad used to say “a wise man listens and waits for the perfect opportunity to speak”. The constant bull**** coming from you is starting to make me gag. You are starting to sound self rightous and will not make a bit of difference in the big picture. I wish you were in my constituency so I could start a petition to get your sorry ass out of Ottowa." 

Just one of the negative comments. I have to say most of the comments commend Garth and I do as well. I don't care about the bad press the PM gets over this I care about the good government policy he ran on and I don't think this bodes well. I don't want another election soon but if he continues like this I don't think anything can stop that from happening.

John


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I haven't been on the board a long time so pardon the question: has ehMac arranged with all of the major newspapers and wire services to give users blanket permission to reprint the entire contents of copyrighted articles, photos and political cartoons? If so, it sounds like a great forum to reprint all of the material I find insightful or humorous.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Interesting.
...
I found it ironic this afternoon in talking to one veteran Tory MP from Alberta – who called me in support of my stance against the party bosses – that we’d almost reversed roles. Here I was, a former Progressive Conservative, in trouble for talking about the need for more democracy while key former populist Reformers around here were fighting for less of it. But as this guy said, *“I didn’t hang around Ottawa for 12 years in opposition to be told to shut up now.”*
...

Welcome to 'power'. Opposition is a relatively easy gig.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

Beej: it is rather stunning to see how people of all political stripes can ruin an opportunity handed to them on a silver platter. As a smal "L" libertarian, I'm mostly interested in Harper's promises of less government, lower taxes, transparent taxes, etc. But angering your own supporters doesn't seem to make much sense, especially on such a slim victory. 

I am fascinated by some truly odd bits of strategy. Did George Bush nominate Harriet Meyers for the Supreme Court only because he intended to remove her--showing his supporters he was responsive to them? Some U.S. pundits suggest this was exactly what happened. If Harper has a reason for what he's doing, we may not know for a few months.

I think people have every right to be outraged by Harper when he acts exactly as Paul Martin did (though Liberal supporters seemed OK with Martin doing these things first). 

I do think it's premature to suggest that "Harper achieves new levels of stupid." He's got pretty high standards of "Stupid" to contend with. But I'm curious to see how it all plays out over the first few months.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> I do think it's premature to suggest that "Harper achieves new levels of stupid." He's got pretty high standards of "Stupid" to contend with. But I'm curious to see how it all plays out over the first few months.


perhaps the "new level" refers to complaining and campaigning on the Lieberal mistake and then making them himself.

"Stupid is as stupid does"
- F. Gump


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

MacSpectrum: specifically which Lieberal mistakes are you thinking of here?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Macfury said:


> MacSpectrum: specifically which Lieberal mistakes are you thinking of here?


Adscam, gun registry budget out of control, Ignateiff candidacy appointment.
Senate should have been abolished years ago to keep it from becoming a retirement home for party hacks.


----------



## Macfury (Feb 3, 2006)

I getcha. You're not referring to Harper making the same mistakes he campaigned on--just new ones.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

> The Emerson appointment has generated the most heat, especially in British Columbia and even inside Harper's own caucus, but it's the Fortier placement that may reveal more about the streak of superior defiance running through this new prime minister.
> It's the convergence of symbols in that Fortier decision — putting an unelected party loyalist into the Senate even though he said he would only put elected senators in that chamber; plucking this partisan from Quebec, home of the Liberal sponsorship scandal and finally, with almost a belligerent flourish, putting Fortier in charge of the very department at the centre of the Liberal ethics controversies. It almost seems that Harper is daring his critics in some way.
> One long-time Quebec Conservative, closely associated with Premier Jean Charest's government in Quebec, *slapped his forehead in exasperation as he talked about the Fortier appointment in the immediate aftermath this week. "What's Harper doing? Is he trying to say that all Quebec wants to be at the trough? Is he trying to tell the rest of Canada something? We don't need this."
> Some have speculated that this week's almost bizarre display of controversy *courting is a product of Harper's own hard-line attitudes toward the Ottawa establishment. While he was willing to use and accommodate the lobbyists, the media and the political-player class to get to power, Harper has now retreated back again behind "the B team," said one Tory insider.


http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/Co...ageid=968332188492&col=968793972154&t=TS_Home

Harper will make new and old mistakes -


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

I think we are reading too much into Fortier appointment. Given the Francophone secretary appointment who doesn't speak French I'd say charitably it's inexperience.
Too likely - poorly thought out and hasty - aka STOOPID! 

Sorry but what I've seen so far is NOT IMPRESSIVE. I WAS willing to cut some slack to see what he would DO instead of talk about.

So far what he is DOING.....is laughable or a crying shame depending on my mood.

I guess my big annoyance is not so much current pragmatism as much as "can't stick to policy"

That is REALLY scary on the slash and burn front given the triumvirate from Harris holding the purse strings


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

appears Harpo is taking a page out of Joe Clark's playbookd and "running his gov't as if he had a majority"


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

MacDoc said:


> Given the Francophone secretary appointment who doesn't speak French I'd say charitably it's inexperience.
> Too likely - poorly thought out and hasty - aka STOOPID!


Menzies ties to the Francophonie seems to be disappearing.... 


> TED MENZIES
> 
> Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Cooperation


http://www.pm.gc.ca/eng/new_team_1.asp



> Ted Menzies
> Macleod (Alberta)
> Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Cooperation


http://www.pm.gc.ca/eng/media.asp?id=685


----------



## RevMatt (Sep 10, 2005)

Macfury said:


> I do think it's premature to suggest that "Harper achieves new levels of stupid." He's got pretty high standards of "Stupid" to contend with. But I'm curious to see how it all plays out over the first few months.


I meant new for him, not for humanity or the Canadian political establishment. 

And yes, if this is part of some big reversal strategy, that will be interesting. I will be highly surprised if it works, though.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

Maybe it's something in the air.......Alberta...or Ottawa??.....now there's the question 

Let's move the capital to Winnipeg......really "clean House" 

( maybe Mississauga and put Hazel in charge  )


----------



## jlcinc (Dec 13, 2002)

Okay another post by one of the conservative hacks(I think the posts like this are delivered by Harper PR people)

http://www.garth.ca/weblog/2006/02/11/no-quitter/

"Good job Garth
By being such a media whore you have the Liberals making noises about a quick return to power...Maybe a man of such high principles such as yourself can do us all a favour and join them!!! Keep reading your press clippings it will remind you of how important your are!!!

Asshole"


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

http://andrewcoyne.com/2006/02/enough.php#comments

A long piece by Andrew Coyne, but it's an interesting summary of what many are probably thinking about Harper's appointments.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Beej said:


> http://andrewcoyne.com/2006/02/enough.php#comments
> 
> A long piece by Andrew Coyne, but it's an interesting summary of what many are probably thinking about Harper's appointments.


oh please, that piece was so full of; well he did something bad, but in the long run it will be something good

"The point has been made. It's time to move on."
or stay the course as the shrub would phrase it

what ever happened to cause and effect?

i assume that his cheque cleared to write such a column
journalist? hardly.
apologist is more like it

ps - where is the crown commission to investigate harpo's lack of cooperation in the grewal affair?
how very Mulroney of him


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Quote from the article:
In my opinion, the appointments were unprincipled at best, unethical at worst. 
...
And none of this -- not the broken promises, not the undemocratic appointments, not the crossing of party lines or the dangling of cabinet posts -- none of it is redeemed a whit by the observation that it has all been done before, that "the Liberals were worse." Yes the Liberals were worse, far worse. Yes, the Tories are being held to a higher standard. Why is that a complaint? Would their supporters prefer that the Tories were held to the same standard -- that is, that people expected them to be no better than the Liberals? The Tories are being held to a higher standard for the same reason they were elected: because they set a higher standard for themselves.
...
AND THAT'S that. Even if the government does hold byelections now, the damage has been done. And if it doesn't? The country is not going to collapse because of a couple of broken promises, and neither is the government. The point has been made. It's time to move on.
...

Once again, your insights are remarkable Macspec.


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

it called "the slippery slope" or "thin edge of the wedge" or "where there's smoke there's fire"

but you prefer to cover your ears and eyes and yell; "la la la la I can't hear and see you"

you don't see any correlation between harpo's recent political appointments and his future and that's because you don't care to see
more the pity

how many promises must be broken before we should worry?
or just keep moving on and staying the course?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> http://andrewcoyne.com/2006/02/enough.php#comments
> 
> A long piece by Andrew Coyne, but it's an interesting summary of what many are probably thinking about Harper's appointments.


So that's how some Harper Apologists are trying to twist it - man, his brain must hurt after that convoluted thinking...


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

Ok, so I lied when I said I was a millionaire honey. Can't we move on?


----------



## Pelao (Oct 2, 2003)

> AND THAT'S that. Even if the government does hold byelections now, the damage has been done. And if it doesn't? The country is not going to collapse because of a couple of broken promises, and neither is the government. The point has been made. It's time to move on.


At what point will it _not_ be time to move on? What will have to happen for it to be considered something that needs to be addressed?

Harper's moves are so important precisley because _he_ made them important. He asked for accountability - he promised he would be held accountable. 

It is not about the country collapsing literally - but it may well be about further erosion of public trust in government and the democratic process. 

The sponsorship scandal was a relatively small sum of money - but the principles involved are enormously important. The Liberals continue to pay a price for foolish decisions.

Makes one wonder what it is we have to do, or what crisis we need to undergo, in order to deserve some decent leadership. Also makes one wonder about the value we place on democracy and representation if we are prepared to elect on statements and promises and then just "move on" when they are so blatantly washed aside. 

No, I cannot let this set of abuse go. I am deeply disappointed because although I do not support the Conservative platform, I do want to support whatever government is elected, give them a chance to perform. I do want effective political leadership for our country. We still do not have this leadership.

Stephen Harper is what he is, and although a tight script and discipline allied with Liberal failures made him PM, they cannot hide his true nature. The campaign discipline is gone. The cloak is off. Opportunity lost. And it is not his opportunity that was lost, it is ours. We need leadership.

All he had to do was show some momentum and direction while the Liberals wallowed in leadership angst for a year or so and he would win the benefit of the doubt from many voters. What a foolish, foolish man.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> it called "the slippery slope" or "thin edge of the wedge" or "where there's smoke there's fire"
> 
> but you prefer to cover your ears and eyes and yell; "la la la la I can't hear and see you"
> 
> ...



What on earth are you chattering about? Is making stuff up fun for you? 

Show me where you got:
"you don't see any correlation between harpo's recent political appointments and his future and that's because you don't care to see
more the pity"?

I see Harper's recent appointments as indicative that he's just another politician who will say one thing and do another, and he has hurt his credibility because it was based on many people believing otherwise. I found the column set out a number of common arguments from both sides and discussed implications. 

You go on about:
....
i assume that his cheque cleared to write such a column
journalist? hardly.
apologist is more like it
....


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Pelao said:


> Stephen Harper is what he is, and although a tight script and discipline allied with Liberal failures made him PM, they cannot hide his true nature. The campaign discipline is gone. The cloak is off. Opportunity lost. And it is not his opportunity that was lost, it is ours. We need leadership.
> 
> All he had to do was show some momentum and direction while the Liberals wallowed in leadership angst for a year or so and he would win the benefit of the doubt from many voters. What a foolish, foolish man.


:clap: 

And overall thoughtful post, instead of just sneering one-liners. I just focussed on the end part, but the whole thing was interesting.


----------



## MacDoc (Nov 3, 2001)

1,000 words etc......


----------



## jlcinc (Dec 13, 2002)

Oh that's good.

John


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

Pelao said:


> All he had to do was show some momentum and direction while the Liberals wallowed in leadership angst for a year or so and he would win the benefit of the doubt from many voters. What a foolish, foolish man.


Excellent post!

I'll bet Harper is betting that all this will have blown over by the time the next election rolls around in 18-24 months, that the folks complaining loudest wouldn't vote for him in any case, and the benefits of these appointments will outweigh the downside in the long haul.

He may well be right, but it would have been nice to see the Tories hold themselves to a higher standard, rather than just doing what seems to be expedient.


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

> I'll bet Harper is betting that all this will have blown over by the time the next election rolls around in 18-24 months, that the folks complaining loudest wouldn't vote for him in any case, and the benefits of these appointments will outweigh the downside in the long haul.


Hah! Not likely for me... but then I didn't vote for him in the first place.

However as my civic duty I will pleased to remind you all of this before the next (s)election in case you forget...


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

Dreambird said:


> Hah! Not likely for me... but then I didn't vote for him in the first place.


Exactly!

I'm sure he figures the folks that are going to vote Tory will continue to do so, even after these antics. This is the sort of thing I would have expected from the Cretien Liberals, not the folks that were pushing accountability and Senate reform...


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

> I'll bet Harper is betting that all this will have blown over by the time the next election rolls around in 18-24 months, that the folks complaining loudest wouldn't vote for him in any case, and the benefits of these appointments will outweigh the downside in the long haul.


i wonder if the people of Vancouver - Kingsway will re-elect Emerson under a con banner?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

PenguinBoy said:


> He may well be right, but it would have been nice to see the Tories hold themselves to a higher standard, rather than just doing what seems to be expedient.


Expedient is not the wording I would use - but nevertheless this Con government's actions have pretty much eroded any leeway I was ready to give them.


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

MACSPECTRUM said:


> i wonder if the people of Vancouver - Kingsway will re-elect Emerson under a con banner?


I doubt they will elect *any* Conservative.

My bet would be on the NDP, as they have strong support in the riding and the NDP supporters who voted Liberal to keep a Conservative out of office will know better next time!


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

the NDP should use Emerson as the poster boy for why NOT to vote Liberal or Con

emerson's defection might just start a grass roots movement by riding assoc. to have candidates sign non-competition agreements


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> ...this Con government's actions have pretty much eroded any leeway I was ready to give them.


But you probably didn't have much time for the Tories to start with!

The question is how much this nonsense will hurt them among those who support their policies, or who are sitting on the fence and would consider voting Tory.

My guess is that the Conservative supporters will *still* vote for them next time, even if they don't like these appointments. So the question will be the folks that could go either with the Liberals or the Tories, and this will depend on how effectively the Liberals can rebuild in the next 18-24 months, and how much the Tories screw up in the next 18-24 months. My crystal ball is a bit cloudy this morning, so I'm not able to predict how that will turn out...


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

PenguinBoy said:


> But you probably didn't have much time for the Tories to start with!


I have time for the Torie way of thinking but they have been so ineffectual while governing. There seems to be a chasm between what is preached and real world results (especially vis-a-vis the economy).


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> I have time for the Torie way of thinking but they have been so ineffectual while governing.


They haven't governed since 1993, and the newly elected government isn't even sitting yet, so I don't know how they can be "ineffectual while governing".

They may well turn out to be ineffective, but we won't really know for at *least* a few months, and possibly longer.


ArtistSeries said:


> There seems to be a chasm between what is preached and real world results (especially vis-a-vis the economy).


Care to elaborate?


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

PB, it seems that the Cons in are inept as fiscal responsibility. I'm not only talking about Canada but in general. GW Bush has raked up enormous deficits, the Harris goverment in Ontario was by most accounts a disaster for that Province (and Harper is using members of _that team_), Quebec Liberal in name only Charest administration has killed the economy and is rather unpopular because of it's policies. The common thread is that they are all Con.

As for Harper, he made an issue by decrying the way Ottawa was run and in his first week seems to have broken many of his own tenets with his cabinet selection. Instead of "new and improved", we received "same old". I was willing to give a change but because of the Hypocrisy and records of previous Con governments, I'm not as accepting of his double standards and seemingly mismanaged efforts to date.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Quebec Liberal in name only Charest administration has killed the economy and is rather unpopular because of it's policies.


I'm not familiar with the QC situation. How has he killed the economy?


----------



## PenguinBoy (Aug 16, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> PB, it seems that the Cons in are inept as fiscal responsibility. I'm not only talking about Canada but in general. GW Bush has raked up enormous deficits, the Harris goverment in Ontario was by most accounts a disaster for that Province (and Harper is using members of _that team_), Quebec Liberal in name only Charest administration has killed the economy and is rather unpopular because of it's policies. The common thread is that they are all Con.


I don't much care for Bush, and I think his economic policies are reckless and short sighted, but he is a US Republican, not a Canadian Conservative. I don't think *any* modern Canadian politician would agee with Bush's deficits, they all seem to agree on balanced budgets now, which is a good thing in my books.

I don't really have an assessment of the Harris government so I'll take you at your word, but other provincial Conservative governments have done a good job managing the economy in other provinces. While I certainly don't agree with everything the Provincial Tories have done here in Alberta, they have done a good job keeping the economy shiny side up and between the lines, even *before* the current oil boom started.

The Liberals in Quebec are not Conservatives, nor for that matter are the BC Liberals, even though some folks that don't like their policies describe them as such.

My point is, we don't have any recent history to use to judge the way the Federal Conservatives will manage the economy. Since we seem to be well into the current economic expansion, they may well have their work cut out for them if they are still in power when the inevitable downturn comes, but it is too early to judge their economic policies at this point.


ArtistSeries said:


> As for Harper, he made an issue by decrying the way Ottawa was run and in his first week seems to have broken many of his own tenets with his cabinet selection. Instead of "new and improved", we received "same old". I was willing to give a change but because of the Hypocrisy and records of previous Con governments, I'm not as accepting of his double standards and seemingly mismanaged efforts to date.


Agreed! Harper had a golden opportunity hold himself to a higher standard, instead we see some of the same old garbage we saw from the federal Liberals. While none of this violates the letter of his proposed accountability act, it would be nice to see him working in the spirit of the act as well.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

PenguinBoy said:


> The Liberals in Quebec are not Conservatives,


Jean Charest is/was a Federal Conservative. He's applied Conservative inspired policies since taking office. He threw his support behind Harper during this last election.
Quebec's economy is the second worst in Canada (PEI is first).
Today he's meeting with Harper for Lunch - Charest really needs to make headway with Harper on certain issues in Quebec or the PQ (with a rather uninspired team) will defeat him in the next elections.


----------



## NBiBooker (Apr 3, 2004)

ArtistSeries said:


> Jean Charest is/was a Federal Conservative. He's applied Conservative inspired policies since taking office. He threw his support behind Harper during this last election.
> Quebec's economy is the second worst in Canada (PEI is first).
> Today he's meeting with Harper for Lunch - Charest really needs to make headway with Harper on certain issues in Quebec or the PQ (with a rather uninspired team) will defeat him in the next elections.


Quebec's economy is the second worst in Canada because of high taxation and overpaid union labour. That drives away the private sector which drives the economy. It's spending way to much on a social safety net which has become a hammock for some of its citizens. 

/Rant.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Quebec's economy is the second worst in Canada (PEI is first).


I assume that's by some short-term indicators? Please expand on this criteria.

The actions needed to move QC into the successful economy it should be (beyond the occasional favourable indicator) may be classed as 'neocon' by some. Like deep tax cuts, deregulation of a key industry or two and a couple other things.

What has Charest done to kill the economy aside from continue with the existing incompetence of many QC policies? I can agree that he hasn't done enough but I suspect that you would be much angrier had he done what was needed to 'fix' the economy. 

Please explain some details behind what you've claimed.


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

> It's spending way to much on a social safety net which has become a hammock for some of its citizens.


I'd like to see some qualifications of what this means... in my experience it's easy for someone to knock the social safety net until they need it themselves... tptptptp


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Dreambird said:


> I'd like to see some qualifications of what this means... in my experience it's easy for someone to knock the social safety net until they need it themselves... tptptptp


There are a lot of different experiences out there, especially on that subject.


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

Your opinion... my question stands...


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

I don't agree with the statement, but I don't know of special safety net features aside from child care. You didn't seem big on listening with the: tptptptp . We'll see if the original poster wants to respond to something like that. 

I think QC has just generally mismanaged its economic policy for a while. Add in the separatist threat and you've got trouble. I'm more concerned about their ongoing addiction to corporate handouts/protection + high taxes for all and support for bad EI policy. The government and the people put themselves in this position. The province has been given plenty of opportunity from Federal help to natural endowments; it's time they added better policy to the mix.


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

Au contraire... I heard you...  You gave your opinion however the statement was:
"It's spending way to much on a social safety net which has become a hammock for some of its citizens."

Social safety net covers a lot of things to me... unemployment insurance, health care, child care, pension, disability plans etc... I'd just like to know more about which ones people are using for a "hammock" and how so.

I'm not familiar with Quebec so I asked.

I'm also not familiar with Quebec's EI policy... it's certainly not a "hammock" by any stretch of the imagination in these parts... unless it's a hammock that rats have been eating holes into...


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

Oh the tptptptp:

Maybe  or  might be better or nothing at all... there's not a lot to choose from here...


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

Dreambird said:


> I'm also not familiar with Quebec's EI policy... it's certainly not a "hammock" by any stretch of the imagination in these parts... unless it's a hammock that rats have been eating holes into...


The EI policy is Federal, but what QC often pushed for is the warped regional subsidy formulae currently at work. It is the Feds fault, but QC politicians certainly seemed more interested in the damaging regional subsidy aspects of EI rather than its use as a national safety net for individuals. Surprise! :lmao: 

Of recent, things have been quieter because the Liberals kept caving in to pressure. So now, if you're unemployed in Calgary you are treated differently than if you're unemployed in a less successful region. It's one of many hidden regional subsidies that really messes things up (immigration funding was another...Martin may have fixed that one for ON). Equalization is not best achieved though a potpourri of cross-purpose programs. They tend not to server any of their purposes too well.

Back on topic...I'm not familiar with QC programs either. To all: Aside from child care, what other special elements does QC's social safety net have? A certain je ne sais quois?


----------



## Dreambird (Jan 24, 2006)

Good grief... I *know* EI is federal... I was referring to the "regional" differences... I thought perhaps Quebec was getting something different than normally applies to the rest of us?  I know EI benefits are tied to how "successful" a region is.

Other things are at least partly under provincial jurisdiction... disability or income supplement plans, health care to a point, some pensions.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> To all: Aside from child care, what other special elements does QC's social safety net have? A certain je ne sais quois?


Parental leave is different, Paternity leave another one (both from UI). 
Healthcare is much more private than other provinces (and really sucks).



To Beej: Looking for an online source on Quebec's economy as it was a news report.


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

AS: StatsCan. They have lots of stuff in the Daily reports and they also have an online free stats section.


----------



## jlcinc (Dec 13, 2002)

This thread is dying because the new pm Harpo and his party are not talking to the press. Loose lips sink ships. I guess Emerson helped sink a ship.

John


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

does Harpo hope to never speak to the press or the people until the next election call?


----------



## used to be jwoodget (Aug 22, 2002)

David Emerson will never face voters again. Based on his contempt for the people who elected him, I would expect that he will resign/decide not to run again by the next election since he does not have the backbone for defeat (just as he sees no point in sitting in Opposition). His defection played right into the hands of the opposition parties and I wouldn't even be surprised if the Liberals somehow engineered Emerson's "defection" as a Trojan Horse (except that Emerson clearly took the job to keep a hand on the levers of power). 

So which poor Conservative will fall on their sword in Emersons riding at the next election? Anyone seen Kim Campbell?


----------



## MACSPECTRUM (Oct 31, 2002)

naw, kim is very happy with her self imposed exile in L.A.
pool boys a plenty


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Beej said:


> I assume that's by some short-term indicators? Please expand on this criteria.


The data comes from the execrable Fraser institute. I figured you'd be please that I use NeoCons to judge a Con provincial government.  

http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/admin/books/chapterfiles/feb06fffiscal.pdf#


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> The data comes from the execrable Fraser institute. I figured you'd be please that I use NeoCons to judge a Con provincial government.
> 
> http://www.fraserinstitute.ca/admin/books/chapterfiles/feb06fffiscal.pdf#


I hope that smile means that you're kidding. You would never allow that source of 'proof' without some sort of reaction.  Dismissing them sometimes but pulling them out if they can make your point is odd...maybe stick to the content! 

Ignoring the source, how does it say Charest is 'killing' the economy? It has them dropping to last place for the spending sub-category, but they make progress by reducing top marginal rates. I didn't read it word for word, so I may have missed the part where they single him out for killing the economy.

Is it that Charest is largely continuing with historically incompetent QC governance (implicitly supported by the populace), or that he is actively doing worse? You seemed to be quite hard on him considering that, to me, he doesn't seem to be doing a worse job than his dubious peers. 

Maybe this would be more accurate 'Charest continues to beat the deadhorse of the QC economy, long after past governments have killed it.' 

Just kidding. I think QC has tonnes of untapped potential, but a long-standing populist support for bad fiscal management.


----------



## ArtistSeries (Nov 8, 2004)

Policies pushed by Charest and his government are accelerating the decline of the economy (amongst other factors). He is actively doing worse. He is pro-business (we have the lowest corporate tax rate) yet our economy is still going downhill. One would hope that from a fiscally responsible Con government this would not happen - lol... 
There always seems to be a whiff of scandal in everything he does - from even more private health care to running traditional cash cows...


> Saq admits price-fixing scheme
> Two vice-presidents behind plan to profit from lower euro
> 
> 
> ...


http://www.canada.com/montrealgazette/story.html?id=0b2a8099-11d8-42c7-8f8c-283584c4d2c1&k=8578


> After a series of scandals, and even more controversy today, Quebec's own auditor-general is in the media saying he'd love to crack open the books at the Crown corporation.
> Renaud Lachance tells La Presse that he's waiting for the green-light from the National Assembly to examine the liquor monopoly's finances.
> But so far, that go-ahead has yet to be issued.
> The system stands in stark contrast to other provinces, where an auditor-general can simply investigate without getting approval from the government.
> ...


http://www.940news.com/locale.php?news=2150


----------



## Beej (Sep 10, 2005)

ArtistSeries said:


> Policies pushed by Charest and his government are accelerating the decline of the economy (amongst other factors). He is actively doing worse.
> ...
> He is pro-business (we have the lowest corporate tax rate) yet our economy is still going downhill.
> ...
> There always seems to be a whiff of scandal in everything he does - from even more private health care to running traditional cash cows...


Which policies?
...
He is raising the large corp. tax rate and dropping the capital tax (horrid tax idea used too commonly in Canada). Also 'pro-business' doesn't mean: quick economic results and doesn't mean the same thing in QC as it does in other provinces. He is 'pro-business lite'. 

Again, there may be specific short-term indicators suggesting that the economy is going downhill. What are they, and why do you think they are indicative of his governance? Specifics please.
...
There's a whiff of scandal in so much of what governments do. People tend to notice 'scandal' based on their politics, just like 'media bias'. I don't know if this applies to you because I can't answer the following for Quebec: Is it more frequent and/or more material than previous governments?


----------

