Here's Stephen Harper's plan to win the 2015 election

340 posts / 0 new
Last post
clambake

I've been lurking on this board over the past couple of months, and it seems apparent that the crux of Debater and Pondering's argurments rest solely on the fact that the Liberals are the party to vote for based on current polls and the apparent likelihood of them being the main alternative to Harper.

I find this strange, given that is clearly obvious that visitors of this site care about social and economic justice, and the main objections to the Liberal Party have nothing to do with irrational hatred, but rather their record in power and the current (few) positions and policies held by Trudeau. We don't want to vote for the lesser of two evils, we want to vote for social democracy, similar to those in Scandinavian countires and less like corporatist US Democrats. The fact that Trudeau is seen as a vacuous, empty suit adds to the frustration, but it is not the primary reason Babbler's are not fond of him. It's what he and his party stands for.

It'd be nice to hear an argurment from Liberal supporters as to why they need to be in power again from a policy standpoint, given their record corporate welfare, social safety net slashing and terrible record on the enviroment.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

clambake wrote:

I've been lurking on this board over the past couple of months, and it seems apparent that the crux of Debater and Pondering's argurments rest solely on the fact that the Liberals are the party to vote for based on current polls and the apparent likelihood of them being the main alternative to Harper.

I find this strange, given that is clearly obvious that visitors of this site care about social and economic justice, and the main objections to the Liberal Party have nothing to do with irrational hatred, but rather their record in power and the current (few) positions and policies held by Trudeau. We don't want to vote for the lesser of two evils, we want to vote for social democracy, similar to those in Scandinavian countires and less like corporatist US Democrats. The fact that Trudeau is seen as a vacuous, empty suit adds to the frustration, but it is not the primary reason Babbler's are not fond of him. It's what he and his party stands for.

It'd be nice to hear an argurment from Liberal supporters as to why they need to be in power again from a policy standpoint, given their record corporate welfare, social safety net slashing and terrible record on the enviroment.

Do you really believe that the NDP will provide you with such a country?

They've all long been sold out to business.

Fact is,if you want to live in a Scandinavian system,you have no choice but to actually live there.

Jacob Two-Two

Yes, give up! That should be the Liberal slogan. You might as well vote for us and let us rob you and lie to you for another four years because politics is so corrupt you can't expect anything better.

Liberals, the party of hope. Hope they don't rob, cheat, and swindle us too badly this time.

alan smithee alan smithee's picture

It's not about giving up. It's about resigning to the fact that the big 3 and little 2 is business first,second and last..Fuck the environment and fuck society and everyone in it.

My vision of Canada? The Danish model for social programs and their fiscal policy because it seems to be working just fine.I'd also like to see my city (Montreal) become the North American Amsterdam,re-establish the red light discricts of all our big cities and I'd like to see minimum wage become a living wage,more affordable housing (see the Danish model)

But I'm a mere pinko kook and the Scandinavian model of social justice will never be adopted in Canada because (A) we share a border with lunatics and (B) our politicians are all paid for by big business.

I'm not a pessimist,I'm a realist.

Jacob Two-Two

Is that what realists do? Assume things will never get better? To my reading, history defies your realism.

Sean in Ottawa

Debater wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I completely disagree with you if you are suggesting that the Trudeau Liberals would support Harper in a minority even if he has the most seats. Trudeau is not that experienced, may not be the most brilliant and he is certainly not the most articulate but he is not stupid. Trudeau and the Liberals understand that to support Harper after the next election if he has less than 50% of the seats would be absolute suicide. Most likely the Liberal party would lose MPs and never, ever recover. This is not the same situation Ignatieff was in.

You're right, Sean.  It's one of the many smears made here against Trudeau by the NDP partisans, and it's why Liberal supporters find reading stuff like this so galling.  Not only do they insult Trudeau's intelligence, his character, his mother, his physical appearance, etc. but they also claim without any evidence to support it that Justin is a Harper supporter even though he gets trashed by CPC attack ads every day.  Just last week the CPC accused Justin of basically being an Al-Qaeda agent working with terrorists.  Justin is not going to support Harper.

It is a challenge trying to find reasonable between the extremes.

I accept that Trudeau is differnet than Harper.

I accept that Trudeau will not support Harper in the House.

However:

I don't see anything to suggest that Trudeau will even consider the policies that could improve the lives and environment of Canadians

While he may stop the lurch to the right Canada has taken I don't see any evidence that he will reverse it and recover what has been lost.

I have not missed the small signs that he is better than Harper but I don't consider him adequate forwhat I want to see. Mulcair is way better and I am not even sure that he is adequate either but I'll take better over worse any day.

Sean in Ottawa

I agree with Clambake - The Liberals here should make a case for why they should govern -- what they will do.

For that matter the NDP must make the same case even if they have the advantage on the credibility front due to long-time positions.

montrealer58 montrealer58's picture

Hope for the best, expect the worst, and get something in between.

Pondering

clambake wrote:
I've been lurking on this board over the past couple of months, and it seems apparent that the crux of Debater and Pondering's argurments rest solely on the fact that the Liberals are the party to vote for based on current polls and the apparent likelihood of them being the main alternative to Harper. 

Then perhaps you should have been reading rather than just lurking. The reason I am voting Liberal is because they have more to offer me than the NDP this time around.

clambake wrote:
I find this strange, given that is clearly obvious that visitors of this site care about social and economic justice, and the main objections to the Liberal Party have nothing to do with irrational hatred, but rather their record in power and the current (few) positions and policies held by Trudeau.

The reason I am voting for Trudeau Liberals is because I care about social and economic justice.

clambake wrote:
It'd be nice to hear an argurment from Liberal supporters as to why they need to be in power again from a policy standpoint, given their record corporate welfare, social safety net slashing and terrible record on the enviroment.

Had you been reading you would have read several, but I will give you a nutshell version.

1) I believe the Liberals will do just as much on the environmental file as the NDP would were they elected. Mulcair's support of Energy East is no better than Trudeau's support of Keystone. Mulcair's reason for supporting Energy East is that it would create jobs in Canada. Trudeau's reason for supporting Keystone is that it has passed all environmental assessments and it has social license which are his criteria for supporting a pipeline. The Trudeau family love nature and the wilderness and Marc Garneau also has an appreciation for it. Dion is close to Trudeau and very knowledgable about policy.

2) Trudeau is supporting marijuana legalization, something that is long overdue and will boost Canada's economy not only through recreational use but through medical and industrial research and development and provide money for social services. Guess the NDP isn't that dedicated to social justice.

3) Much of what Harper has undone was instituted by the Liberals and I have no doubt that they will seek to restore their legacy.

4) Trudeau fully supported the Clarity Act and spoke up in the defense of minorities in Quebec and is a staunch federlist.

5) In my view Mulcair is too much of a decentralist and caters to Quebec nationalists.

6) In my view a clear majority of NDP members would have voted for marijuana legalization had they been permitted to vote. They were prevented from voting on it so NDP's championing of democratic reform seems like lip service. In contrast, not only members but also supporters were able to vote for the Liberal leadership and we didn't have to be able to afford to attend a convention to do it.

7) Mulcair/the NDP is more concerned with marketing than reality as evidenced by their roll up the red carpet door. I prefer Trudeau's approach of getting on with what can actually be accomplished. Trudeau walks the talk. He exposed his personal finances more deeply than is required even for the PM. He voluntarily started having all Liberal MPs and senators post their expenses online, and then expelled Liberal Senators from caucus so he no longer controls them.

 

Jacob Two-Two

I can't write an essay right now but I'll just deal with the first point since it says so much about how Pondering approaches this.

It is utterly hilarious that you try to give the Liberals an edge on the environmental file based on the fact that Justin's family loves nature. You know full well, of course, that Mulcair was actually an environment minister who had a strong reputation as a dogged enforcer of standards, and who quit that government over an issue of conscience concerning the environment. Meanwhile the Liberal record on the environment is shameful. A national tragedy. You praise Justin for his total lack of any environmental credentials while utterly ignoring Mulcair's impressive credentials. It speaks volumes to the intellectually dishonest manner in which you make these evaluations. Starting with the notion that the Liberals are better (which no honest appraisal of facts could support) you just make any rationalisation you need to.

Justin's family loves nature. Obviously that's better than a person who is widely known for his experience and moral resolve on environmental issues.

montrealer58 montrealer58's picture

Where is the evidence that the Trudeau Liberals support social and economic justice?

Pondering

Jacob Two-Two wrote:
I can't write an essay right now but I'll just deal with the first point since it says so much about how Pondering approaches this. It is utterly hilarious that you try to give the Liberals an edge on the environmental file based on the fact that Justin's family loves nature....It speaks volumes to the intellectually dishonest manner in which you make these evaluations.

I did say "in a nutshell" but you are right in character by resorting to personal attack.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_Trudeau

.... He also started a Master of Arts degree in Environmental Geography at McGill University before suspending his program to seek public office.[13]

Jacob Two-Two wrote:
You know full well, of course, that Mulcair was actually an environment minister who had a strong reputation as a dogged enforcer of standards, and who quit that government over an issue of conscience concerning environmental matters.

No he didn't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Mulcair#Departure_from_cabinet

During a February 27, 2006 Cabinet shuffle, Charest offered Mulcair the position of Minister of Government Services in the Quebec government, and Mulcair chose to resign from cabinet rather than accept the apparent demotion.[23] 

Mulcair did not quit over an issue of conscience and he is still supporting pipelines so I don't see any superiority on the environmental file nor on the intellectual honesty front.

 

 

Sean in Ottawa

Let us consider the previous Liberal government's environmental record for a moment.

It was so bad that this writer thinks that all the tearing down Harper has done could end up being a positive so that we could start again.

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/commentary/2014/07/31/stephen_harper_the_...

He makes the point:

"In a 2005 study, a year before the Conservatives took office, Canada ranked 28th out of 30 industrialized countries for environmental performance."

The Liberals had been in power 12 years when that study was done.

The short version of the article is that The Liberal environmental policies were so bad that Harper did the environment a favour by tearing them down and firing up environmentalists.

I worry that Trudeau will restore the Liberal legacy. I sure hope he does not get the chance and that we can build something better.

 

Pondering

From the same article which is by Rick Smith is Executive Director of the Broadbent Institute (www.BroadbentInstitute.ca ):

This brings me to the second environmental legacy of the Harper years: a fierce and rejuvenated environmental movement. The great irony of the much-reported, politically motivated Canada Revenue Agency assault on environmental charities is that it has made traditionally cautious and low-key individuals and groups very angry. Blatant injustice tends to have that effect on people.

Correct, and the progress of climate change has had a strong impact on public opinion. Dion was skewered over his carbon tax plan because the public still wasn't ready for serious measures He was ahead of his time and will have a cabinet position along with Marc Garneau.

Arthur Cramer Arthur Cramer's picture

Pondering wrote:

From the same article which is by Rick Smith is Executive Director of the Broadbent Institute (www.BroadbentInstitute.ca ):

This brings me to the second environmental legacy of the Harper years: a fierce and rejuvenated environmental movement. The great irony of the much-reported, politically motivated Canada Revenue Agency assault on environmental charities is that it has made traditionally cautious and low-key individuals and groups very angry. Blatant injustice tends to have that effect on people.

Correct, and the progress of climate change has had a strong impact on public opinion. Dion was skewered over his carbon tax plan because the public still wasn't ready for serious measures He was ahead of his time and will have a cabinet position along with Marc Garneau.

It doesn't matter. The LPC had governance and did NOTHING. That's ALL that matters. Leader get out of the way. It's time for the LPC to get out of the way. They had their chances and failed misers illy. Te's up!

montrealer58 montrealer58's picture

Yeah. That's funny. The Liberals did such a bad job on the environment, Trudeau will put Dion (who failed) in his cabinet. Thing is, Trudeau has to survive the Conservative onslaught. The Tories will dumb issues down and look to be on the side of 'fairness'. Because Trudeau has to stick to his corporate and foreign policy obligations, there will be no room for him to move to the left. Having nowhere else to go, Liberal supporters will go to web fora more friendly to the left, and look pretty desperate.

Pondering

montrealer58 wrote:
Yeah. That's funny. The Liberals did such a bad job on the environment, Trudeau will put Dion (who failed) in his cabinet. 

Dion has never been Prime Minister so if he failed at all it is that he failed to get elected.

montrealer58 wrote:
Because Trudeau has to stick to his corporate and foreign policy obligations, there will be no room for him to move to the left. 

Mulcair is pretty corporate friendly himself. I think you over-estimate the support for left-wing economic policy.

montrealer58 wrote:
Having nowhere else to go, Liberal supporters will go to web fora more friendly to the left, and look pretty desperate. 

We shall have to wait and see but so far Liberal support is strong and they haven't suggested they will be any farther left than Chretien or Martin were on the economy (to my knowledge). I think the notion that voters just don't Liberal history is far-fetched. I think people do know Liberal history and don't percieve it the same way you do.

 

Jacob Two-Two

If they don't perceive it as a history of lies, theft, corruption and corporate toadyism then they just don't know it. Those are the facts.

Jacob Two-Two

Pondering wrote:

Jacob Two-Two wrote:
I can't write an essay right now but I'll just deal with the first point since it says so much about how Pondering approaches this. It is utterly hilarious that you try to give the Liberals an edge on the environmental file based on the fact that Justin's family loves nature....It speaks volumes to the intellectually dishonest manner in which you make these evaluations.

I did say "in a nutshell" but you are right in character by resorting to personal attack.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Justin_Trudeau

.... He also started a Master of Arts degree in Environmental Geography at McGill University before suspending his program to seek public office.[13]

Yeah he also started an engineering degree and didn't finish that either. He's quite the quitter, that Justin. But y'know, there's school and then there's the real world. If you needed surgery would you go to a guy who hadn't finished medical school, or the guy that has been working as a surgeon for years who has distinguished himself in that field? I think we both know the answer to that, even if you won't admit it in print.

But on to my "personal" attacks. I keep telling you guys, it's not a personal attack if I'm simply describing your behaviour. If you tell a lie, and I call you a liar, that's not ad hominem, it's fair comment. In this case, the dishonesty of your views is clearly shown in the things you choose to emphasise or ignore in your "nutshell". That term usually means that you're painting something in broad strokes, just giving the most relevent points and leaving out the finer details. You leave out the revelent points, like qualifications, experience, reputation, and political record, so that you can focus on irrelevent finer points, like his family's love for nature, or the fact that he knows Stephane Dion (who, by the way, has an abysmal record as environment minister, despite only being such for two years). This is not the broad strokes of the issue. This is you cherry-picking little factoids, desperately trying to craft a narrative that doesn't expose Justin for what he is: A guy that has no experience, qualifications, reputation, or political record on the environment file.

Pondering wrote:

Jacob Two-Two wrote:
You know full well, of course, that Mulcair was actually an environment minister who had a strong reputation as a dogged enforcer of standards, and who quit that government over an issue of conscience concerning environmental matters.

No he didn't.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Mulcair#Departure_from_cabinet

During a February 27, 2006 Cabinet shuffle, Charest offered Mulcair the position of Minister of Government Services in the Quebec government, and Mulcair chose to resign from cabinet rather than accept the apparent demotion.[23] 

Mulcair did not quit over an issue of conscience and he is still supporting pipelines so I don't see any superiority on the environmental file nor on the intellectual honesty front.

Wow, a wikipedia article. Pretty impressive, Pondering. It would have been even more impressive if you had managed to read the sentence right after the one you quoted, but I know that's asking a lot.

"There was speculation that his contrary opinion on a project that would have transferred lands in Mont Orford Provincial park to private condominium developers led to his removal as Minister of Sustainable Development, Environment and Parks."

When you think about it for two seconds (which, I realise, isn't something that's encouraged in the Liberal party) the narrative of Mulcair leaving the provincial government over a demotion doesn't really make any sense. This always happens in governments. Portfolios shift around, people fall into favour and out of favour, and files get awarded accordingly. If you are someone who cares primarily about their own advancement, the logical thing to do is what most Liberals do in these circumstances. You keep kissing ass and try to get back into the good graces of the Premier. What you definitely don't do is leave the government altogether so that you can throw in with a third place federal party that has no presence whatsoever in your home province, and try to build that from the ground up. That was a total longshot that happened to pay off, but it clearly wasn't the act of an opportunist. He might have been demoted by Charest, but he demoted himself even further. He ran a very real risk of taking himself right off the political map.

So that version of events doesn't hold water. Obviously it was something besides his own advancement that prompted his departure, and I can't think of a scenario that makes more sense than the one he claims himself: that he left because he wanted to make a real difference on the environmental file and the Quebec Liberals were preventing him from doing that. Logic tells us that it wasn't ego or ambition, but an ethical stand. You'll never admit it, of course, since a fact that doesn't help your Liberal cheerleading doesn't count as a fact in your world, but that's still the only explanation that makes sense.

wage zombie

A lot of people don't perceive it that way.  They perceive the Liberals as "good economic managers", and they have a false belief that the reason that Canada wasn't plunged into economic chaos during the 2008 housing crisis was solid management by Paul Martin.

They don't actually know much about Kyoto or how that emissions grew when they were supposed to be decreasing.

And the Liberal govt fell because of a) the sponsorship scandal and b) the recombination of the rightist parties.  It did not fall because people had enough of Paul Martin's terrible cuts to the social safety net.

I think people are sick of hearing the Liberals whine about how they couldn't do anything on childcare or FN reconcialiation.  I think people knew that if it had been a priority for them, they would have done it.

But, I don't think people understand how complicit the Liberal govt was, and how deep the cuts were.  And I don't think that will be held against them in 2015 (unless the public can understand the sequence of Mulroney->Chretien->Martin->Harper).

Pondering

montrealer58 wrote:
Where is the evidence that the Trudeau Liberals support social and economic justice?

Legalization of Marijuana is a social and economic justice issue and so far it is the most transformative change being offered.

Jacob Two-Two wrote:
If they don't perceive it as a history of lies, theft, corruption and corporate toadyism then they just don't know it. Those are the facts.

The Liberals have a lot to be proud about in their history too. Any political party that has a long history of being in power will have had periods of corruption, even the NDP and they have only been in opposition. A lot of people have a more balanced memory of the past as evidenced by the current popularity of Trudeau and the Liberals. 

Jacob Two-Two wrote:
It is utterly hilarious that you try to give the Liberals an edge on the environmental file ...

I wasn't giving them an edge on the environmental file, I am saying they will accomplish as much as the NDP would in the next four years. In my view both Trudeau and Mulcair have expressed concern for the environment but neither the NDP nor the Liberals are promising transformative change beyond restoring former protections and perhaps enhancing them. Apparently the NDP does plan some sort of carbon tax/trade or equivalent thereof but that was in Dion's platform too. I am not claiming that the Liberals are superior to the NDP on the environment. I agree that Mulcair has shown that he cares deeply about the environment but he is still supporting Energy East so he is obviously willing to bend to political pressure to some extent. Maybe he will put something big in the platform but as of right now I don't see the NDP saying anything significantly different on the environment.

Jacob Two-Two wrote:
If you needed surgery would you go to a guy who hadn't finished medical school, or the guy that has been working as a surgeon for years who has distinguished himself in that field? I think we both know the answer to that, even if you won't admit it in print.

I don't expect a Prime Minister to be an expert in every field. That's why nominations are important. I don't want Trudeau to be a one man band like Harper. I like the way he listens to the people that he recruits as he has with regional chief Jody Wilson-Raybould concerning the transparency bill. He is building an impressive team of advisors. I agree with Trudeau's vision of Canada more than I do Mulcair's and that matters to me.

Jacob Two-Two wrote:
But on to my "personal" attacks. I keep telling you guys, it's not a personal attack if I'm simply describing your behaviour. If you tell a lie, and I call you a liar, that's not ad hominem, it's fair comment. In this case, the dishonesty of your views is clearly shown in the things you choose to emphasise or ignore in your "nutshell".

That's nothing but an excuse to make a personal attack. If the argument I present is weak then it is easy to demolish without the personal insults.

Jacob Two-Two wrote:
That term usually means that you're painting something in broad strokes, just giving the most relevent points and leaving out the finer details.

"In a nutshell" also means a casual summation especially in the context of a post on a message board. A weak summation is not a valid reason for personal attacks.

Jacob Two-Two wrote:
This is not the broad strokes of the issue. This is you cherry-picking little factoids, desperately trying to craft a narrative that doesn't expose Justin for what he is: A guy that has no experience, qualifications, reputation, or political record on the environment file.

Another smear statement bereft of any value.

Jacob Two-Two wrote:

Wow, a wikipedia article. Pretty impressive, Pondering. It would have been even more impressive if you had managed to read the sentence right after the one you quoted, but I know that's asking a lot.

Do you think your personal attacks are clever or meaningful? From my perspective you are only illustrating your own stupidity. The second sentence does not refute the first and there is nothing wrong with using Wikipedia in this context.

Jacob Two-Two wrote:
Portfolios shift around, people fall into favour and out of favour, and files get awarded accordingly.

He did not resign as a result of the Mont Tremblant decision. He resigned after he was offered a lesser portfolio which he then refused following which he resigned. A perfectly reasonable choice but had he kept the environmental portfolio I don't believe he would have resigned.

Jacob Two-Two wrote:
If you are someone who cares primarily about their own advancement, the logical thing to do is what most Liberals do in these circumstances. You keep kissing ass and try to get back into the good graces of the Premier.

What a surprise, more smearing. People in any profession, politicians included, often switch "companies" if they percieve themselves blocked or consider themselves demoted. I do not recall Mulcair denouncing his Liberal past. You see these comments as some sort of condemnation of Mulcair but I don't see them as such because I don't see the radical difference between the parties that you seem to. I do believe that the environment is the cause closest to Mulcair's heart, but that isn't stopping him from supporting Energy East, which he must do to get elected. You could look at it the nasty way and call him a sell-out, or recognize that political reality dictates acceptance in principal of pipelines.

 

Pondering

wage zombie wrote:
A lot of people don't perceive it that way.  They perceive the Liberals as "good economic managers", and they have a false belief that the reason that Canada wasn't plunged into economic chaos during the 2008 housing crisis was solid management by Paul Martin......

And the Liberal govt fell because of a) the sponsorship scandal and b) the recombination of the rightist parties.  It did not fall because people had enough of Paul Martin's terrible cuts to the social safety net.

Correct, which is why the NDP is so centrist now.

wage zombie wrote:
I think people are sick of hearing the Liberals whine about how they couldn't do anything on childcare or FN reconcialiation.  I think people knew that if it had been a priority for them, they would have done it.

There I disagree. The Kelowna Accord is pretty well known as was the plan for National Daycare because that was highlighted when Harper chose to hand out tax credits for parents instead of creating daycare spaces. It was pretty high profile. Saying they could have done it sooner is meaningless because that is true of all government programs.

wage zombie wrote:
But, I don't think people understand how complicit the Liberal govt was, and how deep the cuts were.  And I don't think that will be held against them in 2015 (unless the public can understand the sequence of Mulroney->Chretien->Martin->Harper).

It won't be held against them because at the time it was considered the right thing to do. The public has been completely sold on the importance of balancing the budget and slaying deficits. No political party is seriously challenging that viewpoint. None are talking about the pooling of wealth in the hands of a tiny minority. None are talking about how the free trade deals are being written to benefit corporations over people and allowing corporations to force us to pay them if we try to pass environmental laws in our own communities.

I would guess that on average NDP members are more progressive than average Liberal members but I am not voting for members. I am voting based on the decisions being taken by the leaders of the parties. I don't agree with every position Trudeau has taken but I agree with more of his than I do Mulcair's.

 

 

Jacob Two-Two

Pondering wrote:

Jacob Two-Two wrote:
If they don't perceive it as a history of lies, theft, corruption and corporate toadyism then they just don't know it. Those are the facts.

The Liberals have a lot to be proud about in their history too. Any political party that has a long history of being in power will have had periods of corruption, even the NDP and they have only been in opposition. A lot of people have a more balanced memory of the past as evidenced by the current popularity of Trudeau and the Liberals. 

See, this kind of thing is exactly what I'm talking about. You know precisely what I'm going to say to this because we've already had this argument a half-dozen times, and every time you keep throwing out the same talking point as if I had never taken it apart multiple times before.

As I've said over and over, the good things that the Liberals have done (mostly under duress) are all in the party's far past, while their corruption and criminal behaviour is very recent, from the very last time they had any power. It is representative of who they are now. It is not "balance" to say that these cancel out somehow. The party of old that once did some good is not the corrupt, criminal party of today. People who can't see that are not perceiving the situation clearly.

Quote:

Jacob Two-Two wrote:
It is utterly hilarious that you try to give the Liberals an edge on the environmental file ...

I wasn't giving them an edge on the environmental file, I am saying they will accomplish as much as the NDP would in the next four years. In my view both Trudeau and Mulcair have expressed concern for the environment but neither the NDP nor the Liberals are promising transformative change beyond restoring former protections and perhaps enhancing them. Apparently the NDP does plan some sort of carbon tax/trade or equivalent thereof but that was in Dion's platform too. I am not claiming that the Liberals are superior to the NDP on the environment. I agree that Mulcair has shown that he cares deeply about the environment but he is still supporting Energy East so he is obviously willing to bend to political pressure to some extent. Maybe he will put something big in the platform but as of right now I don't see the NDP saying anything significantly different on the environment.

Exactly. "Saying" anything different. That's why you left things like real world experience and actual accomplishments out of your little nutshell, because you wouldn't want the conversation to become about "doing" instead of "saying". Mulcair has a proven record of pursuing his goals and getting things done on the environmental file. He has stuck his neck out for his principles. In contrast, Justin has no record on any file. No accomplishments in the political world of any kind beyond getting himself elected. I don't really believe that you think these men will be equally effective at protecting the environment. That's too foolish of a premise for someone as smart as yourself.

Quote:

Jacob Two-Two wrote:
If you needed surgery would you go to a guy who hadn't finished medical school, or the guy that has been working as a surgeon for years who has distinguished himself in that field? I think we both know the answer to that, even if you won't admit it in print.

I don't expect a Prime Minister to be an expert in every field. That's why nominations are important. I don't want Trudeau to be a one man band like Harper. I like the way he listens to the people that he recruits as he has with regional chief Jody Wilson-Raybould concerning the transparency bill. He is building an impressive team of advisors. I agree with Trudeau's vision of Canada more than I do Mulcair's and that matters to me.

Another great example of you running out of arguments and just launching into a stock Liberal press release. We were talking about the environmental file specifically, remember? One person has a history of experience getting results on that file, and the other studied it for a few years in school. One has built the skills needed to protect Canada's environment in his long record of public service, and the other hasn't. These people are not on equal footing.

Mulcair's advantage on this file is obvious, despite the irrelevancies of Justin's family's love of nature or his closeness to a former terrible environment minister. Again, I can't buy the notion that you believe these are sound arguments.

Quote:

Jacob Two-Two wrote:
But on to my "personal" attacks. I keep telling you guys, it's not a personal attack if I'm simply describing your behaviour. If you tell a lie, and I call you a liar, that's not ad hominem, it's fair comment. In this case, the dishonesty of your views is clearly shown in the things you choose to emphasise or ignore in your "nutshell".

That's nothing but an excuse to make a personal attack. If the argument I present is weak then it is easy to demolish without the personal insults.

Well, I suppose you're right, but honestly Pondering, I get tired of demolishing the same old speils from you over and over, presented unchanged no matter how often they're countered. The mockery keeps me engaged. The first few times, it's interesting enough just to craft the argument, but as you approach the fourth or fifth go-round, you gotta throw in some laughs just to keep typing.

Quote:

Jacob Two-Two wrote:
That term usually means that you're painting something in broad strokes, just giving the most relevent points and leaving out the finer details.

"In a nutshell" also means a casual summation especially in the context of a post on a message board. A weak summation is not a valid reason for personal attacks.

No, but a summation that is blatantly misleading by leaving out any information that might be relevant to the issue is a valid reason to call someone out on being blatantly misleading.

Quote:

Jacob Two-Two wrote:
This is not the broad strokes of the issue. This is you cherry-picking little factoids, desperately trying to craft a narrative that doesn't expose Justin for what he is: A guy that has no experience, qualifications, reputation, or political record on the environment file.

Another smear statement bereft of any value.

Well, I am making an assumption about your motivations here, I'll admit, but I just can't see any other way to explain how you would think that a summation of NDP vs. Liberals on the environment should include the fact that Justin's family loves nature, and not include the experience or qualifications of either leader on this file. That's the kind of omission that's not very credible as an oversight. I think I'll be sticking with my theory.

Quote:

Jacob Two-Two wrote:

Wow, a wikipedia article. Pretty impressive, Pondering. It would have been even more impressive if you had managed to read the sentence right after the one you quoted, but I know that's asking a lot.

Do you think your personal attacks are clever or meaningful? From my perspective you are only illustrating your own stupidity. The second sentence does not refute the first and there is nothing wrong with using Wikipedia in this context.

I admit my snarkiness is totally indulgent, but I feel that you earn a little ribbing with stuff like this. The second sentence doesn't refute the first, but it refutes the point you were trying to make by quoting the first, which was that Mulcair's departure was a matter of ego or ambition. I said it was a matter of conscience, and you knew exactly what I was talking about, but still quoted only the first sentence and omitted the second. Did it hurt your wrist to get the whole paragraph? No. It just didn't fit your argument, so you excised it. That's how you roll.

Quote:

Jacob Two-Two wrote:
Portfolios shift around, people fall into favour and out of favour, and files get awarded accordingly.

He did not resign as a result of the Mont Tremblant decision. He resigned after he was offered a lesser portfolio which he then refused following which he resigned. A perfectly reasonable choice but had he kept the environmental portfolio I don't believe he would have resigned.

Of course he wouldn't have, because he would have been making progress and getting things done. He was removed for being too effective, which wasn't what they wanted from an environment minister. Mulcair wants to get things done and make a difference. His record shows that. That's why he was a Liberal in the first place. Because he wanted to be in government where he could make real change. When it became clear they weren't going to allow that, he left. left to build an NDP Quebec movement from nothing.

From the standpoint of an opportunist, that move made no sense. From the standpoint of a guy who wanted to make real change in politics, it made perfect sense. He tried being the maverick in the mainstream party, and it didn't work. So instead he joined Layton in building a more radical party into an electoral success. A longshot, but the only shot that could give him what he wanted: a chance to have a real impact on the nation.

Quote:

Jacob Two-Two wrote:
If you are someone who cares primarily about their own advancement, the logical thing to do is what most Liberals do in these circumstances. You keep kissing ass and try to get back into the good graces of the Premier.

What a surprise, more smearing. People in any profession, politicians included, often switch "companies" if they percieve themselves blocked or consider themselves demoted. I do not recall Mulcair denouncing his Liberal past. You see these comments as some sort of condemnation of Mulcair but I don't see them as such because I don't see the radical difference between the parties that you seem to. I do believe that the environment is the cause closest to Mulcair's heart, but that isn't stopping him from supporting Energy East, which he must do to get elected. You could look at it the nasty way and call him a sell-out, or recognize that political reality dictates acceptance in principal of pipelines.

 

You could certainly do either of those things, yes. But that wasn't what we were talking about. We were talking about why Mulcair left the Quebec Liberal government. Yes, people switch organisations. My point (that you are dancing around as usual) was that opportunists switch from positions of lower notoriety and opportunity to positions of higher notoriety and opportunity. Mulcair did the opposite, which makes him the opposite of an opportunist in that instance. It was clearly an ethical move.

Pondering

Jacob Two-Two wrote:
 See, this kind of thing is exactly what I'm talking about. You know precisely what I'm going to say to this because we've already had this argument a half-dozen times, and every time you keep throwing out the same talking point as if I had never taken it apart multiple times before.

As I have taken apart yours. That you disagree with my reasoning doesn't mean it's wrong.

Jacob Two-Two wrote:
As I've said over and over, the good things that the Liberals have done (mostly under duress) are all in the party's far past, while their corruption and criminal behaviour is very recent, from the very last time they had any power. It is representative of who they are now. It is not "balance" to say that these cancel out somehow. The party of old that once did some good is not the corrupt, criminal party of today. People who can't see that are not perceiving the situation clearly.

Adscam is old news and a limited number of individuals were involved.  You aren't ready to move on, that's fine, you are entitled to put whatever significance you want on it. Other people are not wrong for being willing to move on and give a new leader a chance.

Jacob Two-Two wrote:
Another great example of you running out of arguments and just launching into a stock Liberal press release. We were talking about the environmental file specifically, remember? One person has a history of experience getting results on that file, and the other studied it for a few years in school. One has built the skills needed to protect Canada's environment in his long record of public service, and the other hasn't. These people are not on equal footing.

Trudeau isn't running to become the Minister of the Environment, he is running to become Prime Minister. He doesn't need to write the actual laws. Trudeau calls for environmental assessments and social licence because he respects the will of the people, and the ability of regular people to decide for themselves if a project is sound even if we aren't trained engineers or environmentalists.  Trudeau's appreciation for nature and his interest in environmental geography tells me he is informed enough to understand the parameters involved in protecting the environment.  Neither Mulcair nor Trudeau have to be economists to be Prime Minister either. I place more emphasis on their values and vision for Canada as well as the party's ability to administrate the country based on the expertise of MPs.

Jacob Two-Two wrote:
 Again, I can't buy the notion that you believe these are sound arguments.

If my arguments are so unsound then they will fail to convince anyone. Many Canadians support Trudeau's Liberals. I can only share my reasons but everyone else has their reasons too and I would be some of them are not far off of mine. Trudeau scores particularly high on shared values.

Jacob Two-Two wrote:
The second sentence doesn't refute the first, but it refutes the point you were trying to make by quoting the first, which was that Mulcair's departure was a matter of ego or ambition. I said it was a matter of conscience, and you knew exactly what I was talking about, but still quoted only the first sentence and omitted the second. Did it hurt your wrist to get the whole paragraph? No. It just didn't fit your argument, so you excised it. That's how you roll.

Let's review the passage in question:

During a February 27, 2006 Cabinet shuffle, Charest offered Mulcair the position of Minister of Government Services in the Quebec government, and Mulcair chose to resign from cabinet rather than accept the apparent demotion.[23] There was speculation that his contrary opinion on a project that would have transferred lands in Mont Orford Provincial park to private condominium developers led to his removal as Minister of Sustainable Development, Environment and Parks.[17][24]

The second sentence states there was speculation that the reason he was removed as Minister was due to the Mont Orford disagreement; not the reason he resigned, the reason he was removed as minister.

Jacob Two-Two wrote:
That's why he was a Liberal in the first place. Because he wanted to be in government where he could make real change. When it became clear they weren't going to allow that, he left…..From the standpoint of an opportunist, that move made no sense. 

Opportunist was a poor choice of words on my part because it carries a negative connotation which I didn't intend to convey.  I believe Mulcair chose politics as a profession and that he cares about the environment. Had he been given a different but equally prestigious portfolio I don't think he would have quit the cabinet. That's just my opinion.

Then there is this:

http://www.ndp.ca/tommulcair

He resigned from cabinet in 2006 on a matter of principle after he refused to sign an order that would have transferred lands in Mont Orford Provincial Park to private condominium developers.

But that isn't when he resigned. He didn't resign until after the cabinet reshuffle.  I suppose it could be a coincidence but I think the more likely explanation is that he quit over the demotion.

That the demotion was due to his stance on Mont Orford doesn't mean he resigned over the Mont Orford decision.

Pondering

Jacob Two-Two wrote:
You know precisely what I'm going to say to this because we've already had this argument a half-dozen times, and every time you keep throwing out the same talking point as if I had never taken it apart multiple times before....

People who can't see that are not perceiving the situation clearly.....

 That's too foolish of a premise for someone as smart as yourself....

Another great example of you running out of arguments and just launching into a stock Liberal press release. We were talking about the environmental file specifically, remember?...

Well, I suppose you're right, but honestly Pondering, I get tired of demolishing the same old speils from you over and over, presented unchanged no matter how often they're countered. The mockery keeps me engaged. The first few times, it's interesting enough just to craft the argument, but as you approach the fourth or fifth go-round, you gotta throw in some laughs just to keep typing....

No, but a summation that is blatantly misleading by leaving out any information that might be relevant to the issue is a valid reason to call someone out on being blatantly misleading....

Well, I am making an assumption about your motivations here, I'll admit, but I just can't see any other way to explain how you would think that a summation of NDP vs. Liberals on the environment should include the fact that Justin's family loves nature, and not include the experience or qualifications of either leader on this file. That's the kind of omission that's not very credible as an oversight. ...

I admit my snarkiness is totally indulgent, but I feel that you earn a little ribbing with stuff like this....Did it hurt your wrist to get the whole paragraph? No. It just didn't fit your argument, so you excised it. That's how you roll.

You present your weak reasoning, declare yourself right then get offended that I don't agree to justify personal insults. That's lame and trolly.

Jacob Two-Two

Well, first off you are wrong that I am offended by anything you do, so you can lay your mind at rest there.

You are also incorrect in your assumption that the reason I mock you is because I disagree with you. I don't bother writing anything unless I disagree with somebody, and most of the time I'm quite civil. I make fun of you because no matter what gets said or how the discussion goes, your lines never change. Real discussion is interaction. Both parties are affected. You just quote passages as an excuse to launch into the same thirty-odd talking points over and over. It's like arguing with a Teddy Ruxpin doll.

Jacob Two-Two

Pondering wrote:

Jacob Two-Two wrote:
As I've said over and over, the good things that the Liberals have done (mostly under duress) are all in the party's far past, while their corruption and criminal behaviour is very recent, from the very last time they had any power. It is representative of who they are now. It is not "balance" to say that these cancel out somehow. The party of old that once did some good is not the corrupt, criminal party of today. People who can't see that are not perceiving the situation clearly.

Adscam is old news and a limited number of individuals were involved.  You aren't ready to move on, that's fine, you are entitled to put whatever significance you want on it. Other people are not wrong for being willing to move on and give a new leader a chance.

Yes, that's right Pondering. That's what you say at this point, and then I point out that it makes no sense to say that the Liberal's crimes don't count anymore because they're in the past, while simultaneously saying that the good that the party did cancels out the bad, when the good is even farther in the past.

You are not logically consistent. You don't make sense and you don't care that you don't make sense.

Go on. Your turn.

Pondering

Jacob Two-Two wrote:
Yes, that's right Pondering. That's what you say at this point, and then I point out that it makes no sense to say that the Liberal's crimes don't count anymore because they're in the past, while simultaneously saying that the good that the party did cancels out the bad, when the good is even farther in the past.

You are not logically consistent. You don't make sense and you don't care that you don't make sense.

Go on. Your turn.

Okay.

All parties have a general identity or brand and the Liberal brand remained strong despite their banishment to the hinderlands. Pierre Trudeau is still considered the best modern Prime Minister by a landslide. Immigrants in particular remember him fondly due to his support for multiculturalism and family reunification. When Justin spoke out against the hijab ban he was recognized as his father's son. He recently mentioned family reunification. Martin still has a reputation as a great economic manager. (Harper won his majority based on economic management.)

The Liberal brand is solid economic management coupled with social progressiveness, but not at the expense of the economy. The cuts to the social safety net of the 90s were accepted based on economic necessity. Whomever was going to condemn the Liberals based on their past already has. So, using past "sins" as an argument against Trudeau is ineffective. You aren't telling anyone anything new.

I would not promote the Liberals by referring to their past. Whether or not the Liberals should have a good brand is immaterial. They do have a good brand and it is helping them. 

Jacob Two-Two wrote:
You are not logically consistent. You don't make sense and you don't care that you don't make sense

People discuss separatism and nationalism in terms of the right to self-determination and official policies. That is about the levers of power, not about the love and connection a person feels for their city, province and country. As I went through the exercise of responding to you I have come to realize how much of my support is based on Trudeau's vision of renewed federalism. I love Canada and I fervently believe that our future will only be safe-guarded by becoming more united not less so.

My support for him is rooted in a sense of shared values and vision of Canada. If Trudeau were running the NDP, I would vote NDP.

Brachina actually articulated what I meant better than I did in another thread when she referred to Mulcair/NDP support for Quebec opting out of federal programs.

Since writing the above I have read two histories of the NDP with a focus on Quebec. They were written just after Layton's win.

http://policyoptions.irpp.org/issues/the-winner/ndp-hits-the-jack-pot-in-quebec-from-decades-of-work-to-overnight-success/

http://canadiandimension.com/articles/5196/

I think both are fair accounts. I want to quote them both extensively because I have a gazillion things to say about them but at their core they explain the relationship between nationalism and the NDP in Quebec. They were written prior to Trudeau's ascendency to the Liberal leadership. If I am correct about 2015, the histories hold prophetic clues of a Shakespearean style tragedy to come for the NDP.

Little did anyone know at the time that Pierre Trudeau’s switch to the Liberals and his win over Charles Taylor in Mount Royal that year would set in motion a chain of events that would cause the NDP to crash on the launching pad in Quebec three years later. The mid-1960s were a good time to be a New Democrat in Quebec. The party’s openness to special status for Quebec (a policy also adopted by the federal Progressive Conservatives of that era) was getting noticed, and the NDP started assembling a dream team of candidates for the next election

...The first flirtation between the NDP and the voters of Quebec seemed to show potential — but then Quebec (along with the rest of Canada) was swept off its feet by another suitor, Pierre Elliott Trudeau. Needless to say, Trudeau’s centralizing “One Canada” vision of federalism left no room for the asymmetrical federalism proposals involving special status for Quebec coming out of both the NDP and the Progressive Conservatives. The newly burgeoning Quebec independence movement also had little interest in anything that smacked of “renewed federalism.”.... In the wake of the collapse of the Meech Lake Accord, the Bloc Québécois was created and that party very quickly siphoned away virtually all of what was left of the NDP’s support in Quebec. In some ways, for the NDP it was like being in a casino for hours, pumping coin after coin into a slot machine, then walking away only to see someone else put in one coin, pull the lever and have a cascade of coins fall into their lap.

Pasted from <http://policyoptions.irpp.org/issues/the-winner/ndp-hits-the-jack-pot-in-quebec-from-decades-of-work-to-overnight-success/>

In 2011 the NDP took back the Bloc voters and they will probably keep many of them but at great cost. Justin Trudeau will not sweep Quebec but he will get a lot of support. My support fpr Trudeau originated from his support of a strong federal government and the NDP's more accepting attutude towards nationalist (not separatist) aspirations. My gut feeling is that many Quebecers are tired of being excluded from power in Ottawa and even nationalists are tired of the nationalist debate and everyone wants Harper out. Quebecers are much more concerned about the economy and moving forward on projects. They know Couillard and Trudeau will work well together. I suspect the casino has reopened and Trudeau is the coin the Liberals just put in the slot. In 2015 the lever will be pulled and the coins will cascade into his lap, supposedly undeserved. (but he does deserve them).

I spoke at length about the hijab issue in another thread so I will move on to the reactions to the Quebec Charter.

http://www.ctvnews.ca/politics/ndp-leader-thomas-mulcair-slams-quebec-s-...

"It has nothing to do with some high-sounding value. This has everything to do with the most base politics. It's undignified and we're going to fight it straight up," he said during a break from a two-day caucus retreat.
...

The federal NDP leader was passionate in his opposition to the Parti Quebecois government's discussion paper outlining its plans to ban public servants from displaying religious head wear and other symbols.

Describing the charter as a "dark cloud" hanging over multi-ethnic constituents in his own Montreal riding, Mulcair said it's those people who make him "emotional about somebody trying to use them for a political purpose."

...

he show of emotion was in stark contrast to Mulcair's initial subdued, wait-and-see response to the charter when news of its contents first began leaking out weeks ago.

Outside Quebec, his comparative silence on the matter was contrasted unfavourably with Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau's immediate and repeated denunciations of the idea, prompting accusations that Mulcair was pandering to the NDP's nationalist base in Quebec.

Maybe pandering is too strong a word or carries the wrong connotations but I strongly favored Trudeau's immediate and repeated condemnation. There was no need to wait for the wording. Some here will criticise Trudeau, say he spoke too soon, reacted emotionally, but the message it sent to me was "this man intrinsically shares my values".  He didn't need to formulate a response.

From the same article:

...Having spent five months barely acknowledging Trudeau's existence, Mulcair has recently begun taking aim at the Liberal leader directly. He said Tuesday that he won't sanction negative personal attack ads against Trudeau but he won't shy away from ads that criticize Trudeau's record, his policies or what he called the Liberal party's history of promising one thing during an election and doing another afterward.

I have been accused of repeating talking points but the talking points above pop up a lot too. Instead of criticizing his policies the NDP seems to pretend he doesn't have any but the other two are constantly front and center as though they are trump cards.

The Liberal Party's history only matters to me in the sense that it provides Trudeau the expertise and credibility he will need to win the election and the administrative capacity to run the country.

One last point (for this post)

The NDP in government – Adapting to neoliberalism

Furthermore, the NDP itself has disappointed many who look to it as a means of achieving some meaningful improvement in their lives. The NDP has at various time formed the government in five provinces (British Columbia, Saskatchewan, Manitoba, Ontario and Nova Scotia) and one territory (Yukon). The historical record reveals a clear transition in the party’s politics from its original Keynesian framework to a somewhat incoherent social liberalism as successive NDP governments adapted to neoliberalism.

http://canadiandimension.com/articles/5196/

This is another factor in my support for Trudeau Liberals. I simply don't believe that once in power the NDP would be all that different from the Liberals in terms of strenthening and providing social programs or environmental protection or social justice in general.

Trudeau doesn't have to think twice about saying that FN students should receive the same educational funds as other Canadian children, or to denounce the Transparency act while supporting internal transparency for FNs, or to denounce the hijab ban and the Charter the moment it leaked. These are all social justice issues as is marijuana legalization and they tell me that Justin Trudeau shares my values.

Thomas Mulcair guardedly shares some of my values, supports a less centralized federal government than I do, and the NDP isn't championing Scandinavian style government. Focus on Justin Trudeau's lack of record or the Liberals history just tells me the NDP has so little to offer that they are campaigning on not being Harper or the Liberals and it being their turn to govern. It's not going to cut it. 

Debater

Another CPC MP Announces Retirement:

---

Norlock won't seek re-election

Monday, August 18, 2014

NORTHUMBERLAND - It was this past spring break when Rick Norlock and his wife Judy went south with the sole purpose of deciding whether the Northumberland-Quinte would seek re-election next year.

After a discussion that focused on spending time with his young grandchildren and doing some of the things retired people want to do (including hunting and fishing), "I just felt that it was time to retire," Norlock – who has been the local federal riding MP since 2006 – said in an interview Monday.

After informing Prime Minister Stephen Harper, Norlock said he shared the news at a party BBQ in Baltimore this past weekend "to inform friends and supporters" and then issued the planned official release Monday morning to inform all of his constituents, he said.

At the Conservative party riding event, Norlock said he told them "Rick Norlock's best before date is October, 2015" – the time when the next federal election takes place.

---

http://www.northumberlandtoday.com/2014/08/18/norlock-wont-seek-re-election

Pondering

Apparently Harper isn't interested in everyone's votes:

WHITEHORSE - Prime Minister Stephen Harper says police investigations, not a national inquiry, are the best way to deal with crimes involving missing and murdered aboriginal women.

But Harper, who is in Whitehorse as part of his yearly trek to the North, says most such cases are addressed — and solved — by the police.

He says it's important to keep in mind that these are crimes.

"We should not view this as sociological phenomenon," the prime minister told a news conference Thursday.

"We should view it as crime. It is crime against innocent people, and it needs to be addressed as such."

...

When told of the prime minister’s comments, Manitoba Minister of Family Services Kerri Irvin-Ross, went quiet on the phone and then said, "There have been a number of people asking for a national inquiry. It’s a national issue - the loss of aboriginal girls and women in Canada - and we need to understand what’s happening."

When asked her if she was surprised or flummoxed by Harper’s comments, she said she was shocked.

 

laine lowe laine lowe's picture

Is he for real? It is a sociological phenomenon and a national disgrace. Harper is extremely ignorant or purposely obtuse for someone with a social sciences background (economics).

To call the systemic attack on aboriginal girls and women a case of random violence is shocking.

Debater

And another Conservative MP announces retirement - 2nd one this week after Rick Norlock, above.

I think Alice Funke of Pundit's Guide said there are 20+ CPC MP's now calling it quits in 2015.

----

Aug 22, 2014

Brian Storseth, critical of temporary foreign worker changes, won't run in 2015

Just days after saying he was "really putting [his] career on the line" by disagreeing with the government, a Conservative MP from Alberta has announced he won’t run in the next election.

As the MP for Westlock-St. Paul, Brian Storseth publicly criticized the government’s changes to the temporary foreign worker program.

----

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/brian-storseth-critical-of-temporary-for...

Sean in Ottawa

I understand it is 25 -- 18 who say they won't run again and 7 who are already gone.

I have said that I don't think Harper can govern until next September. PMs rarely allow an MP who has announced she/he will not run again to be in the Cabinet.

The Conservatives do not have the bench strength if a significant number of current cabinet members are no longer cabinet options.

This is a combination of those who are not trusted by Harper; those whose views are too extreme to be politically tolerable in the lead-up to an election; those not competent enough to hold the position.

If Harper calls an early election asking for a manadate needing new blood, he won't be lying. And I doubt many people would complain for more than a day or so.

I expect an election in May.

Debater

Luckily for Harper, many of the MP's who are leaving are from pretty solid Conservative seats, but it could be a reflection of growing divisions in the CPC caucus.

montrealer58 montrealer58's picture

If these Tory members are from 'solid' Conservative seats, maybe they have seen some writing on the wall which has not made it to the media yet. You have certain people in your riding who are 'bellweather', or at least talk to a lot of people.

Albertans are seeing as well as anyone else that in the USA and Germany the money is chasing the renewables. If the Liberal-Conservative Party stays with hydrocarbons, Alberta is going to be left behind. No one is going to want their goo.

Sean in Ottawa

I would not read that much into it-- some been there a while. Some may not want to return to opposition. It does not have to be fear of personal defeat.

Debater

The Harper government’s lonely struggle against reality

http://www.ipolitics.ca/2014/08/22/the-harper-governments-lonely-struggl...

Debater

Stephen Harper blasted for remarks on missing and murdered aboriginal women

http://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/stephen-harper-blasted-for-remark...

Debater

laine lowe wrote:

Is he for real? It is a sociological phenomenon and a national disgrace. Harper is extremely ignorant or purposely obtuse for someone with a social sciences background (economics).

To call the systemic attack on aboriginal girls and women a case of random violence is shocking.

It's good that even right-of-centre newspapers like The Ottawa Citizen (I just posted a link) are publishing articles critical of Harper on this.

Harper came into power because the fooled people into thinking he was a moderate Conservative.  In the last couple elections, voters forgot that Harper is not from the Progressive Conservative party of Joe Clark or Brian Mulroney.  He is still dedicated to the right-wing Reform/Alliance ideology.

His attack on the Supreme Court (including Chief Justice McLachlin herself), his attack on left-wing organizations & charities under the guise of a CRA audit, and his attack on scientists are revealing his true colours.  During this Majority term, he has begun to let slip more & more of who he is which he did a better job of concealing when he had a Minority.

He also has a 1950's conservative black & white view on foreign policy, and now he refuses to acknowledge the greater societal sociological problem facing violence against Aboriginal women.

Sean in Ottawa

Harper is very clear that he is not a Prime Minister of all Canadians and has no desire to be one. He is the advocate and representative of a segment of Canadian society holding the office of PM so the power of the country can be used exclusively for his supporters.

Harper may even show politically astute moments of sympathy for other Canadians, much like some Canadians may have for the people of another country, but he feels no obligation to them. His sympathetic noises are only to satisfy some minimum charitable impulse of his class of people. That is why he can respond through misinformation without concern that the people actually affected know he is lying-- he is simply not talking to them and does not care what they think. Veterans learned this the hard way. They thought they were in his camp but they never were. Instead there is a segment of Harper's supporters who want to think they are doing the right thing for veterans and as long as he can convince them of that, what the actual veterans think and experience is not relevant.

Harper is following the template of Mike Harris who became leader of Ontario in name but was very clear that he only represented those who supported him and had contempt for everyone else. This is a contrast to people of a strong ideology who still were motivated to convince the rest of the population of their position over time. An example of a person who wanted to convert everyone is Mulroney.

Harper is more realistic about his opposition. He wants to control the country for the exclusive use of the people who support him and has no interest in engaging anyone else. So long as he can obtain enough power to deliver to his supporters what they want he is satisfied to write off everyone else. This makes him more cold and callous than Mulroney ever was and completely unreachable provided he thinks he can get a plurality. In this context his objective is to motive his supporters and try to suppress the vote of opponents.

 

 

Debater

Hopefully the campaign that some of the Veterans are doing against Harper will cause him to lose votes.  Some of the Veterans have been on Power & Politics several times and have said they will not be voting Conservative in 2015.  I forgot his name off the top of my head, but one Veteran in particular has pullled no punches against Harper & Fantino and called the situation "bullshit" right on air with Evan Solomon.  I think he was one of the Veterans who was in the room when the Veterans had that televised confrontation with Fantino earlier in the year.

Debater

Here's Dr. Carolyn Bennett's piece - yes, she is a Liberal, but I think shes a Liberal MP that is also liked by some of her NDP constituents:

Harper Lacks Compassion and Leadership When it Comes to the Safety of Indigenous Women

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/hon-carolyn-bennett/harper-indigenous-girls...

Debater

For Stephen Harper, governing means never asking why: Tim Harper

http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/2014/08/24/for_stephen_harper_governi...

thorin_bane

Debater wrote:

Sean in Ottawa wrote:

I completely disagree with you if you are suggesting that the Trudeau Liberals would support Harper in a minority even if he has the most seats. Trudeau is not that experienced, may not be the most brilliant and he is certainly not the most articulate but he is not stupid. Trudeau and the Liberals understand that to support Harper after the next election if he has less than 50% of the seats would be absolute suicide. Most likely the Liberal party would lose MPs and never, ever recover. This is not the same situation Ignatieff was in.

You're right, Sean.  It's one of the many smears made here against Trudeau by the NDP partisans, and it's why Liberal supporters find reading stuff like this so galling.  Not only do they insult Trudeau's intelligence, his character, his mother, his physical appearance, etc. but they also claim without any evidence to support it that Justin is a Harper supporter even though he gets trashed by CPC attack ads every day.  Just last week the CPC accused Justin of basically being an Al-Qaeda agent working with terrorists.  Justin is not going to support Harper.

Boohoo, you mean like Taliban Jack? Seems you like that little moniker when it suited your purpose a few years ago. Except Justin has in the past supported Harper when he could have voted against. Just check when we had a minority and how the libs kept proping up harper.

Sean in Ottawa

I'd prefer that the name calling on all sides be stopped so that people can look at the attributes of each candidate. I don't want the NDP to do the same as the Conservatives with Trudeau even though I can see the temptation especially as there are a good number of Liberals who do the same. The "Angry Tom" name seems more popular among Liberals than Conservatives for example.

I think the party that gains the most out of maximum nastiness is the Conservatives as it fits best in their vision of politics and the country.

This is why I stopped using words like "Lieberals" (if I do it now it would be a typo). Instead I try to rely on facts, explanation and argument.

The NDP and the Liberals hate each other becuase they consider each to betray the other. The only solution is to be better educated about what the parties stand for and where they are philosophically and stop pretending any different.

The Liberals have to stop pretending to be moderate New Democrats and the NDP have to stop buying into that and feeling that the Liberals are betraying something they never really stood for. The NDP has to stop pretending there is no differences between the Liberals and the Conservatives.

Each of the parties has a fairly clear philosophical approach to government and policy. While the NDP and the Conservatives have opposing moral, political and social philosophies they can understand each other as they are driven by their respective visions. The Liberals have a more flexible view of the world and can't be pinned down so easily -- in fact that is what characterizes their political philosophy. For those with a specific political vision it is easy to respect another vision while disrespecting one that is elusive, inconsistent and ultimately untrustworthy when it comes to values that are at times borrowed and at other times betrayed. For the NDP the Conservatives are the real opposition but often the Liberals are "in the way."

 

Debater

thorin_bane wrote:

Boohoo, you mean like Taliban Jack? Seems you like that little moniker when it suited your purpose a few years ago. Except Justin has in the past supported Harper when he could have voted against. Just check when we had a minority and how the libs kept proping up harper.

I've never used the term Taliban Jack, so if right-wingers out there did that it has nothing to do with me.

Justin Trudeau was not leader when the Liberals were in Official Opposition, so he was not in charge of their strategy then.  You have to evaluate what the Liberals have done under his leadership, not someone else's.  And the Liberals did eventually bring down Harper, even if it ended up bringing them down, too.

The point is that both Liberals & NDPers should agree to not engage in name-calling.  You can dislike the other side's leader, but let's keep the personal attacks out of it.  Whatever you can say about me, I don't refer to Mulcair as 'Angry Tom' on this board, and I haven't made fun of his physical appearance, even though I've seen some Babblers doing that to Trudeau.  I could make fun of Mulcair for being short and overweight, but I haven't done so.  I've tried to keep the level of debate from sinking that low.

Sean in Ottawa

Well all in good fun. If Mulcair's beard goes any whiter you could punch him in both eyes and call him a panda. But that does not approach the subtext of the comments about Trudeau's appearance-- that is that his appearance is his best feature. Nobody has ever said that about Mulcair -- at least not in recent decades.

Debater

I was referring more to the negative comments about Trudeau, rather than the positive ones (eg. that he's good-looking.)

I've seen some Babblers refer to Trudeau as a 'fop', and also try to take a page out of the CPC playbook by implying that he is too flamboyant and not masculine enough.  That's not something NDPers shouild encourage.

So I've tried not to make fun of the fact that Mulcair is the shortest of the 3 main leaders or that, like Harper, he has quite a prominent stomach and is not as fit as say, Jéan Chrétien was at Mulcair's age.

I just don't think it's a good thing to get into.  It would go back & forth and not get anywhere.

 

thorin_bane

I haven't seen any sort of thing like that Debater. And I never called Justin names, other than an empty suit. MY point was he voted with the liberals on all the votes. He could have disented and still not changed anything. HE chose to vote with the party 79 times in a row to keep Harper in power. Harper brought his own party down, he called the election, not the liberals jumping on a grenade to save all of Canada. You also might remember at the time all the pundits said it was the NDP that pulled the trigger and it would wipe the party out. Kady even made mention of it last week in an article.

BTW nice passive agressive..oh no I didn't say mulcair is short yada yada though i could have (you did by just doing so) . I am SHORT you asshole and that is pretty damn offensive, because you did say it even when you pretend you didn't.

thorin_bane

Debater wrote:

I was referring more to the negative comments about Trudeau, rather than the positive ones (eg. that he's good-looking.)

I've seen some Babblers refer to Trudeau as a 'fop', and also try to take a page out of the CPC playbook by implying that he is too flamboyant and not masculine enough.  That's not something NDPers shouild encourage.

So I've tried not to make fun of the fact that Mulcair is the shortest of the 3 main leaders or that, like Harper, he has quite a prominent stomach and is not as fit as say, Jéan Chrétien was at Mulcair's age.

I just don't think it's a good thing to get into.  It would go back & forth and not get anywhere.

 


Saving this in case you try to weasel your way out like always.

Pages