Historical Revisionism 101 by S. Harper

7 posts / 0 new
Last post
Historical Revisionism 101 by S. Harper

I was listening to Peter Mansbridge ask PM Harper about the last 2 weeks and it's like I switched universes.  Instead of trying to obliterate the Liberals then were trying out policies with the expectation that they would work together to find common ground.  The Liberals are a well established party with a knowledge of how things work and if it wasn't for the machinations of the Bloc and the NDP, this whole mess could have been avoided.


Of course, the situation is everyone's fault but his, apparently.  I agree with you about the PM living in a parallel universe.

I am very disappointed in Peter Mansbridge's interviewing, however (not for the first time). I suppose it's not his job to challenge Harper's interpretation of events (such as his opposition conspiracy theory), but I wish Mansbridge would have asked the PM some harder questions. 

He should at the very least have asked Harper directly about his deliberate references to "separatists" which had the result of a newly resurgent Parti Quebecois, (many of whose MNAs attributed some of their unexpected success to his partisan comments).  I would've liked a question about the prorogation as well, and the fact that Canada is becoming a laughing stock around the world thanks to it.

As for what Harper had to say, well, I think that he is clearly reaching out to the Liberals -- and with news that Scott Brison is meeting with Flaherty today, it seems that they are likely to accept the olive branch.  In the meantime Harper will continue to marginalize (and perhaps even demonize) the Bloc Quebecois (having burnt his bridges with them) and the NDP.

After a year or so has passed, next fall, maybe, I expect he'll create a stand alone bill called "Political Party Finance Reform" or some such thing, declare it a matter of confidence, and dare the opposition to defeat him over it, and then fight an election on that basis to win his majority.  He was positively gloating over the fact that he had the Canadian people's support behind him over that question, according to polls.

A depressing interview:  I don't foresee an end to the bitter, acrimonious atmosphere in Parliament any time soon.   I can only pray Harper never wins his coveted majority.


Sean in Ottawa

I think we can go one better. Bring a private member's bill in to limit political donations to $100 an amount everyone can afford. If you take the $1.95 off the table for every voter then you should also take off these higher limits like $1,000.

The Cons had a lot of donations around that amount which is why the set their figure tehre. By reducing it from a higher figure they limited the support of the trully committed who are willing to put everythign to thier party, but kept it up high where only the "upper classes" could max out.

I think a lot of people would like to see less political advertising and more concentration on getting out a message that makes sense. Limiting the donations to $100 woudl certainly give Harper pause but if we are unable to back an ordinary voter with $1.95 why should we subsidize the opinions of only those with higher incomes? At $100 we can return to a level playing field. Parties borrow money and we should maintain the 1.95 and the higher limit for the next couple years and allow them to pay off some debt incurred under the old system but then change both together.

I think Harper might think twice if the subsidized donation amount were reduced as well as the $1.95.

aka Mycroft

Either that or eliminate or at least reduce tax deductions for donations to political parties. After all, if Harper's intent was simply to bring in an austerity measure and save money then curtailing tax deductions enjoyed mostly by people with means is certainly more democratic.


That is the question I asked a con friend. Why not drop the tax rebate on donations. Those are so heavily supsidized anyway. I would ove to see their donation list to see how many pay 1000 to those that donate 20 bucks. Like they say they do. If you are TRULY commited to your party you don't need the rebate. It would still benefit the cons as a lot of their rich friends(not the poor ones that don't know any better) would be willing to drop a g note to support their cuase. Or would they? I gave 400 to the NDP, but mostly cuz it would only cost me 100 bucks in the end. I think I would still donate 100 if they got rid of the subsidy. One day I may even join the party if the move the country leftward that is. But they are the only electable left group so they get my support monetarily in the meantime.

"Everybody's worried about stopping terrorism. Well, there's a really easy way: stop participating in it."
Noam Chomsky


 I am going to tell folks here something. I donate more money because of that rebate. Before one makes grand pronouncements, one needs to know about it. Another thing, there would not be a level playing field because those who are in positions to make these decisions are going to make them to work for them, not you and me and Mary and Joe mainstreet. 

I also think that some people vote a certain way by supporting their party for that 1.95, and so taking it off the table will also remove that incentive to vote a certain way. 

Our kids live together and play together in their communities, let's have them learn together too!


I predicted early in the days of the Coalition that even if it did not come to pass, Harpers days of bullying the Libs shamelessly were probably over.

I guess I'll take that back.

Not only is there this interview with Mansbridge; but while he is doing the good cop thing of saying he wants to talk to Iggy- the attack dogs are out on Day 1.

Tories take shots at Ignatieff


Probably the only thing that Harper has learned is to not try to ridiculously overplay his hand like he did 2 weeks ago. [And even that cannot be counted on.]

If Iggy goes with the confidence, then its the same old same old as the pathetic period of "opposition" when Dion was leader.