Comments on: Harper’s next big chance

By: wilson

wilson — Sun, 13 Sep 2009 11:23:16 +0000

NOT getting his major policy thru parliament (without the policy being badly watered down) is why PMSH gets stronger minorities each election.
Crime and the economy are Conservative priority policy, and they are top of the mind with many Canadians,
more so than bringing Kahdr home, public daycare or govt funded injection sites.

The unelected leader of the Liberals backed down over his EI threats because PMSH would have won, period.
And maybe a majority.

By: wilson

wilson — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 21:08:08 +0000

''1… The Fall Economic Statement where he almost got himself booted out just after an election ''

The coalition of losers was well underway BEFORE the Econo Stmnt,
as evidenced by the 'Layton tape', Dippers and Bloc had been in negotiations for a 'long time'.

If you remember, the last week of the election campaign, a LibDipper coalition came up, and Dion said 'no way'.
(one of the key reasons the GG gave PMSH his prorogation)
Cons already knew what was coming and thusly the 3 poison pills in the update: party financing, right to strike, equity pay.
Layton gambled on a cabinet seat as a 'sure thing', rather than killing the Bloc and Libs with one bullet, no more party financing.

By: wilson

wilson — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 20:36:24 +0000

'Harper has one plan in mind'
What a totally laughable statement. The Harper Government has already got a plan re: the economic recovery phase planned. PMSH likely had that figured out, in detail, with multiple alternatives,
before the January 2009 stimulus budget.

It's the Liberals that have one plan.
No Conservative government has ever survived re-election thru a recession (Lib govts have) ,
all bets were on "Harper wears this recession".
Oh oh, now it looks like 'Harper wears the recovery'.

By: wilson

wilson — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 12:40:42 +0000

By: wilson

wilson — Fri, 11 Sep 2009 02:25:10 +0000

''1… The Fall Economic Statement where he almost got himself booted out just after an election ''

The coalition of losers was well underway BEFORE the Econo Stmnt,
as evidenced by the 'Layton tape', Dippers and Bloc had been in negotiations for a 'long time'.

By: wilson

wilson — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 02:04:20 +0000

''I know many people are tired of the games. ''

Like non-stop threatening to bring down the government only to back down.

By: wilson

wilson — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 02:04:20 +0000

''I know many people are tired of the games. ''

Like non-stop threatening to bring down the government only to back down.

By: JPro

JPro — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 21:48:28 +0000

All the Liberals in this thread,

Let's mug James Halifax and steal his wallet.

By: James Halifax

James Halifax — Mon, 06 Jul 2009 21:34:18 +0000

Don't worry my Liberal Friends……if Harper cuts public funding to political Parties, your Liberal Party will find some other pot of public money to steal from to support their ambitons.

There are a few things Liberals are VERY GOOD at:

Pandering to every immigrant group that can vote……and stealing our money for their personal benefit.

By: Observateur

Observateur — Thu, 02 Jul 2009 20:50:50 +0000

"2. The Conservative policies are resonating with the times while the Liberals strayed too far to the left under Dion, a trend that started in the waning days of the Martin regime;"

Seriously, what policies? Other than short term vote buying ploys that can hardly be considered conservative (baby bonuses) and policies forced on them by the opposition (economic stimulus) what policies have they actually implemented? I'm really trying to think of some. The tax on income trusts, I guess. I had thought the national securities regulator, but that seems to be moving at a glacial pace if at all.

By: Terren

Terren — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 17:02:21 +0000

Please tell us – election in the fall of 2009 or winter/spring of 2010?

By: John

John — Wed, 01 Jul 2009 06:27:05 +0000

The only thing wrong with the Tories' fall economic update was that eliminating subsidies for political parties wasn't in their platform in the previous election. I think it would be a great centrepiece for the next election. Why on earth should voters be forced to give money to political parties they don't support? That's what the current system does. Eliminating the subsidies would force parties to craft a message capable of making people reach into their pockets, and that would be a great thing for Canadian democracy.

By: janicemaerose

janicemaerose — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 19:30:38 +0000

Well, (no pun intended) this article sure sparked some interesting debate; particularly between a few posters.

I've admired Macleans comment section for its more mature and even informed contribution to the articles, as compared to cbc.ca or other news magazines. Sorry guys, but a couple of you were on the verge of denegrating to QP antics. Let's make the fight a little cleaner next time eh?

By: janicemaerose

janicemaerose — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 19:29:22 +0000

Well, (no pun intended) this article sure sparked some interesting debate; particularly between a few posters.

I've admired Macleans comment section for its more mature and even informed contribution to the articles, as compared to cbc.ca or other news magazines. Sorry guys, but a couple of you were on the verge of denegrating. Let's make the fight a little cleaner next time eh?

By: janicemaerose

janicemaerose — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 18:38:30 +0000

Pretty darn frustrating. The Libs need some real strategic advisors, and Iggy needs an executive/image coach.

As much as I disagree with almost everything SH stands for and does (because they are not mutually inclusive); he's a nasty master manipulator.

By: janicemaerose

janicemaerose — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 18:28:28 +0000

Unfortunately, I think the CPC would always be more successful in seeking private funding because most of their supporters are neo-cons who believe strongly in private enterprise; and those are people who have money in the first place and want to perpetuate their own interests. In fact, it would be interesting to see the income levels of all those who contributed to the Conservative party.

The rest of the population believe in social programs or are poor and could not financially support the libs or other non-neo-con parties.

By: sea_n_mountains

sea_n_mountains — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 05:06:22 +0000

this might be a good idea…given the junk we are getting pre- and post-writ I would love anything that forced parties to actually do more with less….. get rid of all the stupid photo ops and hopping from dumb event to event…..the cheapest part of any campaign these days is the generation of a policy platform if a party bothers at all (less of course those that require a pro photog to create a photo album of the leader in endearing sweater vests).

By: sea_n_mountains

sea_n_mountains — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 05:02:30 +0000

"You suffer the consequences of ignoring your donor base. Just as you sufer the consequences of ignoring electors. To the extent you break promises and suffr no consequences tells you how important those promises were or werent in the first place. Make no mistake about it though, parties listen to the financial base"

Sorry Stephen but there is a catastrophic flaw in your reasoning. do the degree that your donor base feels they have not better option and continue to give you money because they see you as the lessor evil.

"Isnt it better that parties focus on outreach, which gets them into a conversation."

Well it depends, like Thwim well laid out, not necessarily.

By: sea_n_mountains

sea_n_mountains — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 04:50:34 +0000

agreed Thwim.

By: sea_n_mountains

sea_n_mountains — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 04:49:21 +0000

to the degree that you are talking about a country that has historically had a relatively low formal political participation rate (e.g., party membership), has a plurality of parties that attract a large-ish percentage of the pop vote, and that party membership is declining as a general international trend (see Putnam and more recently Savoie) than I am highly skeptical that emergent parties can compete with the established parties and hence parties like the greens who get to a certain level are highly reliant to get over the next hurdle and avoid a glass ceiling.

recognizing that the reform and the bloc requires no bias, just an accurate recounting of history.

while i don't completely disagree with some the incentives you list for parties that are reliant on individual donations, i also not their are other concerns, that i think outweigh the incentives you list.

By: Jack Mitchell

Jack Mitchell — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 04:18:50 +0000

I'm not some anti-Conservative fanatic, William; it's precisely because, like you, I think we need balance that I wish the Conservatives would quit with the song-and-dance schtick and actually govern like Conservatives: then the country could decide if it liked that or not (or some elements and not others). What I loathe is this Brezhnev-era stagnation we've got going. Eventually everybody is going to realise that, given the Bloc, life is to short to scheme for majorities, that the country needs leadership, and that providing some leadership is better than all this bickering. Which you probably agree with, but I wish it would filter through to the Little Shop of Tories.

By: Andrew (not P or C)

Andrew (not P or C) — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 03:33:45 +0000

All this talk of enlargement… maybe jarrid isn't a conbot but rather a spammer.

By: Sea Otter

Sea Otter — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 02:32:54 +0000

Ah yes, that huge Red Tory voting bloc. That is the same group responsible for Joe Clark's triumph in 2000, n'est ce pas? Newsflash – to the extent they ever really existed, those voters have long since made their peace with the existing choices. Most went Conservative, and a small handful went to the Liberals. That happened three elections ago, in 2004. If Liberals want to cling to a fantasy suggesting that an army of David Crombie and Flora Macdonald fans didn't vote in the last three elections but are just waiting for a reason to emerge from the closet to vote for them, go right ahead, but I predict you might be disappointed.

By: kcm

kcm — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 00:55:04 +0000

Nothing vague about calling Harper a fanatic Charles, there's lots of circumstancial evidence for that assertion. Although i must agree with you that something more substantial from the Liberals on the policy front would be welcome.

By: kcm

kcm — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 00:38:46 +0000

The question of eliminating the subsidy was not raised as an election issue, and i very much doubt Canadians would have supported eliminating it with little or no debate. I believe other polls show it as a non issue for most people.

By: scf

scf — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 00:21:55 +0000

There is no principle that dictates five parites are better than two or three.

By: scf

scf — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 00:20:47 +0000

Fringe parties have a voice. The only people that don't have a voice are mutes.

By: scf

scf — Tue, 30 Jun 2009 00:19:29 +0000

No, Dakota had a point. You claim to be non-partisan, then you let loose with a ridculous partisan rant. Then you whine about the reaction to it, and exhibit your arrogance by threatening to "continue to ignore you". How scary. Feel free to ignore me too, I can handle it.

By: Crit_Reasoning

Crit_Reasoning — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 23:54:35 +0000

Thanks, scf, but I've been denounced from the 'right' many times in my responses to Steyn columns A number of Steyn fans seem to view me as some kind of Lib-left activist. I think that is what Jack was referring to.

By: jarrid

jarrid — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 23:16:09 +0000

You left/lib commenters have become ever so sensitive since Iggy blinked at the OK Corral last week. In addition to enlarging your circle of friends, you may want to look into enlarging your interests. Politics isn't everything.

By: Andrew (not P or C)

Andrew (not P or C) — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 22:52:03 +0000

So you're arguing for plutocracy because it gives parties feedback between writ periods. Wow.

I might see the case for donations from individuals alone if they were capped at $20/yr.

By: Andrew (not P or C)

Andrew (not P or C) — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 22:43:00 +0000

Seeing as corporate donations are prohibited, there is no relationship to speak of.

Where did Harper get his leadership funds, by the way?

By: sea_n_mountains

sea_n_mountains — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 22:39:39 +0000

uhmmm, enough said CR?

(I swear I didn't post the above to support my case).

By: Andrew (not P or C)

Andrew (not P or C) — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 22:33:33 +0000

To answer your question, because it goes beyond petty partisan politics to a matter of principle. I know the conservatives don't talk much in terms aside from short-term partisan interest, but it's entirely possible that a Liberal supporter might not want to stack the system in favour of their party, and put more weight on ensuring a greater proportion of Canadians are engaged in the political process.

By: jarrid

jarrid — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 22:13:29 +0000

You need to enlarge your circle of friends and accept that not all people think alike.

By: jarrid

jarrid — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 22:12:40 +0000

Jack, all I can tell you is I've taken a fair amount of abuse in the last week or so, in fact the most since I've been commenting around here since last August. I attribute it to general frustration by Liberal and left/lib partisan commenters at recent political events. Most wanted to go to the polls and are lashing out. It's water off a duck's back to me, but it's worth noting since we're talking about commenter etiquette.

By: Thwim

Thwim — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 22:07:45 +0000

Both of which have just as much liklihood as Charles implied scenario as well.

By: Thwim

Thwim — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 22:07:09 +0000

Would you care to point out where the EU economy would be now if various countries of the EU had NOT spent absurd amounts on stimulus packages?

Saying, "Hey, I didn't throw myself on that grenade and I'm fine" doesn't mean that things would be the same if nobody else had either.

By: jarrid

jarrid — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 21:57:23 +0000

The left liked Clark for the same reason the right started to take a shine to Dion, his ineptitude helped the implementation of their agenda.

By: Candace

Candace — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 21:53:03 +0000

I guess you missed the articles about the overwhelming support Canadians had for eliminating public financing? Most weren't aware it was taking place. From an Ipsos-Reid poll in December:

"Regardless, a majority (61%) does not believe that political parties should receive this taxpayer funded subsidy"

http://www.ipsos-na.com/news/pressrelease.cfm?id=…
(you have to go to the last few paragraphs for that nugget.

By: sea_n_mountains

sea_n_mountains — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 21:36:54 +0000

to what end?

as you seem to allow below, in response to Jack, there are more ad hominem attacks from the right than from the left.

further, it was/is fairly widely accepted that the Cons do a better job of disseminating and generating take up of their talking point than any of the parties of the centre-left. hell it was even a source of CPC pride.

I think we can reasonably easily agree that both of these behaviours do not add to the quality of discussion on issues such as the ones presented in this story, no?

By: Ed_Sweeney

Ed_Sweeney — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 18:36:13 +0000

"Evidence points toward it leading to extremist parties"
What evidence are you talking about, and what do you mean by extremist parties?

I believe your argument goes along the following lines:
Lowering the tax deduction on political contributions weakens public interest in politics.
This promotes polarization.
Polarization strengthens peoples interest in politics, e.g. Obama v. Bush.

Then, a concluding argument along the lines that:
There is too much power in the hands of political donors; therefore, we need to support political donations.

My own opinion is that the tax deductions should be kept at the current rate to entice more people to take an active interest in politics. Unfortunately, the majority of Canadians feel otherwise, if the 65% polling figure, against the current level of subsidies is correct.

By: Thwim

Thwim — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 18:33:12 +0000

I'd say perhaps after they exhibit some. While I feel Harper is probably a sociopath (under the definition here; http://www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html) that doesn't discount that he's managed some reasonable turns of strategy.. probably the strongest was buying Peter MacKay and the Progressive Conservatives with a promised cabinet seat.

By: Thwim

Thwim — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 18:32:20 +0000

I'd say perhaps after they exhibit some. While I feel Harper is probably a [url="http://www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html"sociopath/url, that doesn't discount that he's managed some reasonable turns of strategy.. probably the strongest was buying Peter MacKay and the Progressive Conservatives with a promised cabinet seat.

By: Thwim

Thwim — Mon, 29 Jun 2009 18:29:32 +0000

I'd say perhaps after they exhibit some. While I feel Harper is probably a sociopath" rel="nofollow">http://www.mcafee.cc/Bin/sb.html">sociopath, that doesn't discount that he's managed some reasonable turns of strategy.. probably the strongest was buying Peter MacKay and the Progressive Conservatives with a promised cabinet seat.