The Canadian Federal Election will probably be October 14th

[Flubber]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi



War and recession would be good examples of cases where a deficit would be warranted. Neither of which applies to the 8 percent increase in government spending at a boom time.

A few points

1. As was pointed out, we are not yet in deficit.

2. I was wondering how much of the increase in spending was incremental increases to the military or part of the Afghanistan mission? I would have thought that the Conservatives much touted refurbishment of the armed forces would raise the armed services budget by far more than 8%

3. Regardless of the fiscal situation there are ALWAYS some increased expenditures that could be worthwhile.

--Imagine we could cut greehouse gas emissions in Canada by 90% countrywide but it would take a 2 billion dollar federal expenditure

--Imagine another Hitler emerged and only spending to build am army could keep our people safe

4. I think we are of a similar opinion in that we generally prefer a government to live within its means. Running up debt is unacceptable. But I don't really mind if debt repayment is a long process-- If debt as a precentage of GDP is shrinking anyway through growth of the economy, the interest becomes less and less significant anyway-- Alberta is a good example of a place that focused too much on debt repayment and now faces some crushing infrastructure needs as they try to play catch-up in a boom economy with a labour shortage

[Asher]

--Imagine another Hitler emerged and only spending to build am army could keep our people safe

The people in Toronto believe that Harper is the next Hitler.

[Asher]

The Star is stepping up its campaign to demonize and alienate Harper.

Top stories in today's The Star and local Metro...

http://www.thestar.com/FederalElection/article/505531

Harper's goal a right-wing Canada

Stephen Harper is often accused of having a "hidden agenda" and yearning to form a majority government so he can implement it.

In fact, though, there is nothing "hidden" about what Harper wants, which is to change Canada fundamentally from a centre-left country into a small-c conservative, right-wing nation.

The only question is how fast he will be able to do.

If he wins a majority in the Oct. 14 election, the transformation may happen very quickly.

Indeed, Harper leaves no doubt what he wants to do.

"I said for a long time, and nobody listened to me for the longest time, that my goal was to make conservatism the natural governing philosophy of the country," he said in a recent interview with the National Post. "I think we're moving the country in the right direction and I also think our party is becoming, I wouldn't say centrist, maybe more pragmatic."

To drive home that theme, Harper told reporters on the campaign trail last week that he is fully convinced Canada has become more conservative over the last 20 years.

He also argued that Canadians are more accepting of his positions on crime, taxes, national unity and social policies relating to families.

Is Harper correct? Are we becoming more conservative, more right wing as a nation?

While Harper may have an argument when it comes to wanting better controls on government spending, especially after the runaway deficits under the last Conservative prime minister, Brian Mulroney, he is way off base when it comes to social issues.

For years, Harper has talked about the death of the Left.

Such talk is conventional wisdom in the conservative movement, especially in the United States, where Harper gets his political inspiration. He particularly likes the anti-government, socially conservative agenda espoused by the late U.S. president Ronald Reagan.

His dislike for Canada as a centre-left nation with strong social policies was well illustrated in a 1997 speech he gave when he was vice-president of the right-wing National Citizens Coalition to a conservative American think-tank. He told the crowd that Canada is "a northern European welfare state in the worst sense of the term, and very proud of it."

He went on to praise the U.S. right wing, saying: "Your country, and particularly your conservative movement, is a light and an inspiration to people in this country and across the world."

In Harper's ideal world, he would give away most powers of the federal government, slash government funding of the arts (he claims ordinary folks don't care about the arts), get tougher on criminals and further reduce taxes.

Also, he would ease regulations on businesses, promote more free trade, allow more privatization of essential services, cozy up more to Washington and abandon Canada's traditional role as an "honest broker" on the world stage.

But as much as Harper would like to deny it, Canada has long been one of the world's most successful small-l liberal countries.

And as much as he would like to ignore it, most Canadians don't share his views. That's reflected in polls that show that, while the Tories are ahead, some 65 per cent of us support the centrist Liberals and the left-leaning NDP, Greens and Bloc Québécois.

In fact, small-l liberalism remains strong in Canada.

Polls consistently show we are a compassionate nation, strongly supporting universal medicare, tough environmental laws and significant foreign aid. We back same-sex marriage, abortion and a ban on capital punishment, issues on which conservatives find themselves opposed to the mainstream.

The left and centre-left want more money to fight poverty, to help natives, to create more daycare spaces. They back racial and gender equality, multiculturalism and don't consider the phrase "politically correct" to be a bad thing.

Not a bad list.

So, if voters in the centre and on the left fail to deliver a clear message to Harper on election day and hand him a majority government, will he really remake Canada in his own right-wing image?

For that, just listen to Harper himself, who, in the interview in which he touted a conservative governing philosophy, stated flatly: "I am not in politics to be loved, I'm in politics to get things done and make a difference."

That's not a "hidden" agenda.

http://www.thestar.com/FederalElection/article/505680

Harper a man who 'lives in a bubble'

Tory campaign goes to extraordinary lengths keeping him from public
Sep 25, 2008 04:30 AM
Be the first to comment on this article...
Richard Brennan
Tonda MacCharles
Joanna Smith
OTTAWA BUREAU

OTTAWA–Prime Minister Stephen Harper is shielded from the public as he criss-crosses the country, campaigning in a political bubble.

No handshakes on street corners or rallies in the parks. Only highly staged backdrops for his daily political message, and assemblies where Tory staffers and security officers closely monitor the crowds.

It's a classic "front-runner" technique – a safe, tightly scripted and controlled campaign – taken to a whole new level.

Rallies are off-limits for any member of the public who just shows up. Nobody gets in unless they have been pre-registered by the local riding association. Even local media are asked to sign up in advance.

Anyone wanting to attend an event featuring Harper has to have his or her name vetted by the RCMP, said a source at Conservative campaign headquarters, who would only talk on background yesterday. He said this rule applies even outside the campaign period, so no one – even a staffer not scheduled to be there – can show up unannounced at a Harper speech and expect to be let in.

The Harper campaign keeps a short leash on national and local media, limiting questions and access to local candidates, sometimes calling on RCMP security to block reporters from doing their jobs.

Harper "hides from Canadians. He lives in a bubble," Liberal Leader Stéphane Dion said last night in Winnipeg.

Tensions peaked Tuesday night in Surrey, B.C., when Conservatives called on the RCMP to shield Harper and local candidate Dona Cadman after a partisan rally.

Cadman, a candidate in Surrey North, has been mum since alleging months ago that top party officials offered her dying husband, independent MP Chuck Cadman, a $1 million life-insurance policy if he would cast his vote to topple the former Paul Martin Liberal government in May 2005.

When reporters tried to speak to Cadman this week, Harper's staff ordered the RCMP to block journalists, and she was whisked away.

"Keep them out!" an aide shouted to the police officers.

Harper spokesperson Kory Teneycke said there was no need for the national media to interview local candidates. "Local candidates' priority is in the local ridings and not talking to the national media," he said.

RCMP spokesperson Sgt. Sylvie Tremblay denied any interference.

"In no way were the officers assigned to protect the Prime Minister attempting to interfere with journalists trying to interview Ms. Cadman," she wrote in an email yesterday, explaining they were just trying to make sure Harper was able to leave the area safely.

But Harper had already left when it happened.

It was not the first time the campaign team had been quick to call for help.

In the campaign's opening days, when reporters at a photo opportunity in St. Eustache, Que., wanted to question Harper about his decision to suspend communications director Ryan Sparrow over a partisan jab at a dead soldier's father, a senior Tory communications official ordered the RCMP to get "that camera out of here." RCMP pushed the reporters back.

Last week, in Kitchener, the RCMP blocked about a dozen Canadian Auto Workers members protesting Harper's failure to aid jobless manufacturing workers.

Last night, Dion said Harper is keeping himself isolated from regular Canadians.

"He cannot stand talking to people who do not share his right-wing opinions. He used the RCMP to hide from the media," Dion told supporters in Winnipeg.

Tremblay said the RCMP officers are mandated to ensure the personal safety of the Prime Minister, and, during a federal election campaign, leaders of all parties with official status. She said measures are constantly reviewed, but security reasons prevented her from divulging rules of engagement.

Tremblay also said RCMP media liaison officers join reporters on the Harper tour to facilitate media access "in secure areas."

The Conservatives also restrict public access to local candidates.

Conservative candidates may give interviews with local media on local issues only. If reporters seek comment on national issues, they must go through the national campaign spokespeople instead.

The other campaigns, including Dion's and NDP Leader Jack Layton's, are far less restrictive, sometimes delivering announcements or holding rallies in parks or on street corners.

The Liberals say their doors are open.

"Wide open. Even had a heckler at the event in Calgary where 600 people showed up the other night. And unlike Harper we didn't have the RCMP remove the person. ... We don't ask for ID at the door. Come one, come all," Liberal spokesperson Mark Dunn said.

A handful of protesters showed up at an NDP rally in Edmonton Saturday to express disagreement with Layton's proposal to allow provinces and cities to ban handguns.

The RCMP asked them to leave a room, but allowed the protesters to stay when several other reporters – some with television cameras – arrived to see what was going on. An NDP media officer said later she was surprised when she learned security had tried to get them to leave.

"As long as they don't disrupt, people are allowed to be there and participate in the democratic process," NDP spokesperson Karl Belanger said.

A protester did manage to get into a Harper rally in Rockland, Ont., last week. Mounties pounced when Joel Harden stood up and called on Harper to stay the deportation of American war resister Jeremy Hinzman.

Harden was hustled out and ordered off hotel property onto the road, as were the reporters who wanted to interview him.

[Wezil]

I'm surprised your hand isn't tired yet.

[Asher]

Copying and pasting isn't too much work.

Just ask the Liberals about their Green Shift plan.

[Wezil]

I refer to your Harper wet dreams not the copy and pasting. This isn't a debate/discussion thread it is an Asher wankfest.

[Asher]

I can't help the fact that you have nothing interesting to add. If you want to prevent it from being an "Asher wankfest", consider contributing something other than thinly veiled come-ons to me.

It's odd you consider it an Asher wankfest when the last two articles I quoted are anti-Harper, not pro?

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Asher

It's odd you consider it an Asher wankfest when the last two articles I quoted are anti-Harper, not pro?

Disingenuous arguments like this are why I won't contribute.

The articles were posted as a bash against the silly Toronto Star (hence your laughing smiley at the end). The post was pro Harper.

Why not talk about Harper's "cut and run" policy wrt Afghanistan or perhaps a mention of Ritz the moron? Nope, that wouldn't suit your fantasy. Instead you post Star articles to mock Liberals.

Edit - Besides, I have already schooled you twice in this thread and you have yet to acknowledge either lesson. What's the point?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Wezil


Disingenuous arguments like this are why I won't contribute.

The articles were posted as a bash against the silly Toronto Star (hence your laughing smiley at the end). The post was pro Harper.

Why not talk about Harper's "cut and run" policy wrt Afghanistan or perhaps a mention of Ritz the moron? Nope, that wouldn't suit your fantasy. Instead you post Star articles to mock Liberals.

Edit - Besides, I have already schooled you twice in this thread and you have yet to acknowledge either lesson. What's the point?

I don't disagree with his policy in Afghanistan. What is there for me to discuss?

And I'm absolutely disgusted by the media coverage of the Ritz "fiasco". It's so ****ing stupid I don't even know where to begin. The fact that no one is discussing such stupidity on Apolyton is something to be celebrated. If you want to fixate on a bad joke for weeks on end, stick to reading The Sun.

We've got an NDP party that wants to destroy the economy and have an All-Canadian Primetime policy (among other things), a Liberal party that is in complete disarray with a leader nobody likes and policies that do threaten national unity as well as economic stability, and you and most of your Ontario media cohorts want to fixate on demonizing Harper or discussing a bad joke by some minister. Time to get your priorities in line.

Let's talk real politics. How is our economy going to get fixed? Who is going to do it? Nobody talks about that in Ontario, they're too busy wanking over the Ritz comments or equating Harper to Bush and (I'm not making this up) Hitler.

Feel free to defend The Star's articles. I posted them complete and unmodified. I personally find the blatant attempts by the Toronto media to demonize Harper to be amusing, if you don't...that's your problem. Your standards on acceptable media conduct by being an avid Canoe.ca and Sun reader are not really important to me.

[Asher]

This is why I think it's an important issue to discuss the media bias in Toronto. It's no wonder it's such an NDP/Liberal-only zone.

These are serious opinions by Torontians:

not right wing

Most Canadians are not right wing. For Harper to say so is like saying most Tibetans favour Chinese occupation. Unfortunately, with just 35% of the vote this self-centred power monger could get a majority. People complain about what they call a "nanny state". Wait till they get a taste of Harper's Big Brother state. I notice in this and other papers, that whenever a writer says something about Harper that the tunnel-visioned right wingers don't like, they jump all over that writer and call him "lefty" and "red". Let's not forget that Harper himself uses the RCMP to interfere with the press at every opportunity. Give him a majority, and we could wind up with an "official" state press.

This guy is just awesome. Stephen Harper is an Alberta separatist, and it'd be best if Alberta did separate because they don't share their "bounty" with the rest of Canada. Never mind that per capita, by far, Albertas are the most generous contributors to federal coffers and give billions of dollars to the rest of Canada in equalization payments yearly.

HARPER ..... anti-humanitarianism .... ANTI-CANADIANISM

STEPHEN HARPER is the most IDEOLOGICAL driven POLITICIAN CANADA has ever seen. His crude RIGHT-WING view of the world is not affected by any sense of HUMANITARIANISM at all. It is all about his NARROW ideas and not about people at all. Look into his eyes and you will see a COLD, COLD IDEOLOGUE unaffected by concern for people. WE ARE A NATION OF PEOPLE. His ideas / values more reflect those of REPUBLICAN AMERICANS and ALBERTANS. They DON'T BELONG in the rest of CANADA or the rest of the WORLD for that matter. He really is an ALBERTA seperatist .... and perhaps it would be best for CANADA if ALBERTA did seperate. ALBERTA really DOES NOT SHARE it's bounty with the rest of CANADA and for the most part seems to hold much of the rest of CANADA in CONTEMPT. I would much rather see STEPHEN HARPER as PRIME MINISTER of ALBERTA than PRIME MINISTER of CANADA.

This is my favourite: most of the pro-Harper posts must be part of some insidious right-wing propaganda machine. Reality check: polls up the conservatives on the path to a majority or near-majority gov't..

Beware The Posts On This Web Site Folks

I think it is time that we all became aware of the massive effort underway to control the online spin of this election. The Star, CBC, Globe and Mail web site comments are all flooded with disdainful right wing zealots posting comments on every anti-Harper story. In my opinion, some of these are legitimate people offering opinion However, I think the MAJORITY of the posters are working indirectly or directly with the Conservatives. Perhaps, some are even from the Tory War Room in Ottawa. This is right wing politics 101 folks. Get out there and control the message. Shoot everyone with an alternate opinion. Make it APPEAR that there is a vast uprising in support from the grass roots. Phooey. Enough astroturf postings please!

This guy clearly doesn't even understand Harper's platform:

1 step forward, 10 steps back.

this is the man that should be leading us?? why do we want privatization? capital punishment? rejection of the G7? why would we want to give up our rights to be free to worship our own ways, to be pro-choice & for reserch that can possibly find cures for diseases like cancer and aids (stem cell reserch). how far back into the stone age do we have to slip before all our rights as human beings are lost to us and we're no better than the third world countries we try to help. we will have no rights if we aren't white and christan and can afford to pay for the right to a healthy, happy life.

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Wezil
Edit - Besides, I have already schooled you twice in this thread and you have yet to acknowledge either lesson. What's the point?

[Asher]

If you're not going to contribute, just don't post. You're making a lot of posts saying you're not posting.

Smarten up and get out of here, or smarten up and post something with substance or is at least interesting.

Don't sit there whining that this thread is an "Asher wankfest" when you refuse to discuss anything to the contrary.

[Fake Boris]

What is your source for claiming that auto plants will be exempted from the Green Shift plan?

[Fake Boris]

Also Wezil, what happens to our bet if the conservatives get more seats than the libs but there's a lib/ndp alliance?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris
What is your source for claiming that auto plants will be exempted from the Green Shift plan?

It is widely known that gasoline for cars is exempt from the green shift. Doing so would raise the price of driving further, which would then lower demand for automobiles...

It's not so much the auto plants are explicitly exempt, it's that there has been subsidies announced to "aid" the trucking industry (which is a major part of auto manufacturing, if you did not know) and no additional tax on gasoline for cars (even though this is one of the country's largest polluters). The Liberals are ensuring that they minimize the impact of the Green Shift on the auto-manufacturing industry by sheltering it from decreasing demand due to the green shift, and subsidizing its trucking operations (since the diesel tax will increase trucking costs).