Archives

A sample text widget

Etiam pulvinar consectetur dolor sed malesuada. Ut convallis euismod dolor nec pretium. Nunc ut tristique massa.

Nam sodales mi vitae dolor ullamcorper et vulputate enim accumsan. Morbi orci magna, tincidunt vitae molestie nec, molestie at mi. Nulla nulla lorem, suscipit in posuere in, interdum non magna.

Harper’s meagre goals accomplished & looking forward.

Prime Minister Harper and his supporters decided to throw a five year anniversary party over the weekend;I’d surmise part of that was to celebrate that they’d managed to stay in power for five years without the benefit of a majority – which is no small feat, I’ll concede.

However, can you name any Conservative goals or policies noteworthy in the past five years that Harper and his Conservatives did that didn’t involve trying to turn back the clock, or at least try and turn back the clock on previous Canadian government’s policy? I can think of many things he did to try and do that – such as trying to destroy the Canadian Wheat Board, trying to end the long-gun registry, ending (for now) the Mandatory Long Form Census, trying to destroy Parliamentary accountability by proroguing Parliament twice in the span of two years, bringing in destructive personal attacks in US Republican style negative attack ads inside and outside of an election writ, delaying and obstructing international climate change treaties. There isn’t not a lot of original substance or visionary Conservative policy there; it has been an attempt to try and undo as much of what Harper sees as a bad liberal Canada, as he is allowed to do within the confines of a minority government.

What of his future policy goals? Why, all he offered was the pie-in-the-sky notion of Senate reform; something he has undermined himself. He is the Prime Minister now known as having made the most partisan Senate appointments in the shortest period of time, and then ordering those appointed Senators to block the will of the House of Commons where it passes something inconvenient or embarrassing to his government. His other major goal? Why, they’re going to revisit the long-gun registry when they can and still try to kill it. This is not exactly an ambitious bunch of Conservatives we have in government right now.

Harper’s perceived future goals for his government while he remains in power seem very meagre, and will likely continue to be nothing more then trying to cripple liberal institutions or laws of Canada that he does not like.

55 comments to Harper’s meagre goals accomplished & looking forward.




  • Get your free CRUSH Steve Harper 2011 Calendar:

    http://tiny.cc/CRUSH_2011__Calendar



    .
    …………(0 0)
    .—oOO– (_)—–.
    ╔═════════════════╗
    ║ tiny.cc/CRUSH……….…║
    ╚═════════════════╝
    ‘———————-oOO
    ……..|__|__|
    ………. || ||
    ……. ooO Ooo


  • THE TARNISHED JOURNEY TO HARPERLAND

    We are the Sheeple, master; we shall go
    Always a little further: it may be
    Beyond that last blue mountain barred with votes,
    Across that angry or glowering Harper,

    Whilst on my throne or guarded in a cave
    There lives a puppetteer who understands
    Why men were born: but surely we are brave,
    Who take the Tarnished Road to HarperLand.

    Sweet to ride forth at evening from Mr. Baird
    When shadows pass gigantic on the Duff,
    And softly through the weave drip hairgel
    Along the Tarnished Road to HarperLand.

    We travel not for trafficking alone;
    By mighty winds our fiery mouths are fanned:
    For lust of knowing what should not be known
    We make the Tarnished Journey to HarperLand.

    .
    .
    .
    .
    .
    .

  • Gayle

    I am amused at all the people pretending the LPC could have stopped Harper from being in power, when everyone also knows the party was broke and broken. Stop pretending the LPC did not vote non confidence for any reason other than they could not afford an election. And if Layton supports the budget this time around it will be for the same reason.

    • Kring

      So when it came to a choice between letting the destroyer of Canada keep doing what he is doing over and over again on the one hand, and not defeating this government on the other because we don’t have as much money as we’d like to have in order to run an election camapgin the way we’d like, the Liberals’ choice was to talk a big game, clutch their piggy-bank, and do nothing time and again.

      No wonder people with any credibility in the Liberal party fled the prospect of leadership like a vampire away from sunlight.

      • Redrum

        @Kring, you know very well, or should, that tactically it would be disastrously self-defeating:

        it they voted non-confidence on everything, particularly early on in the mandate when there was still hope that Harper would actually abide by his platform on running a responsible, open & accountable gov’t, and triggered more elections that’d surely piss-off the election-weary public , the results would be:

        an even stronger minority, and then a majority, & then the loss of the subsidies, all of which would leave the Liberal party broke, dispirited, a shell of itself, w. maybe just 40 MPs again, w. the public angry at it for the ‘naked power grabs’ and for being ‘sore losers’ etc. etc. — and so be completely unable to do anything to stop the Harpernaut for, like, 10 years, until the gov’t inevitably goes down in a heap of scandals & public disgust.

        so your continued haranguing at the Liberal Party for not wanting to run head-long into machine-gun fire is the true hypocrisy: it was prudent of them, the very thing you’re willing to defend about Harper re: his many compromises & betrayals of his original principles (on the Senate, on balanced budgets, on no corporate welfare, on protectionism, on not cancelling the income trusts, and on and on).

        • Kring

          Shorter Redrum – “Liberal political expediency at the cost of principles. Shut-up and leave us alone”.

          You’re still making excuses. You don’t get to call a PM a dictator and anti-democratic, and then turn around while your party does nothing when they have the power to defeat him, claim how politically inexpedient it would be to do so, and then claim to have principles. Well, I guess you can…….if your a hypocritcal Liberal. 😉

        • Redrum

          @Kringing to Power, except — again — it’s not “my party”; I’m just someone who votes federally that way more often than not; I’m not & have never been a member of it; I wasn’t too motivated to get engaged politically for the past 15 years or so until my disgust at this bullying, devious & unaccountable PM’s ways finally hit toxic proportions; and I didn’t even claim to be principled, BTW:

          I’m just calling Bull! on you saying no one should be able to criticize the PM if they intend to vote for a party that didn’t vote non-confidence whenever it could.

          But, tell you what, if that alleged — and purely fanciful — hypocrisy on the critics’ part is the only issue that’s preventing you from honestly taking a good hard look at some of the ways this PM has been abusing democracy

          (rigidly stage managing access to real questions from the public & journalists; smothering access to information; vetting & controlling every public announcement; transforming non-partisan government sites to CPC-hued ones; gagging MPs & civil servants; firing & transferring watchdogs & sr. public servants who speak truth to power or who do their jobs too well; progroguing Parliament twice at critical junctures, to circumvent a confidence vote & keep away inconvenient questions on the tortured Afghan detainees; trying to bankrupt & cripple the opposition parties by removing an important part of their funding; spying on and misnforming the populace with a series of TAXPAYER-FUNDED operatives being dedicated to monitoring various forms of media & running interference with barrages of comments to counter criticisms of the CPC…. the list goes on.)

          well, tell you what, I’ll promise not to vote for the Liberals, if that’ll help; I’ll be like many columnists, who are critical of ALL parties when they do something wrong, & who opt not to vote, so they can maintain a non-partisan status.

          Because you’re really missing the point:

          Attacking the critic / messenger / prosecutor for their imagined failings really does NOTHING to defend your client / idol against the charges.

      • Gayle

        @Kring,No, that is not what I said at all. You really have trouble understanding plain English.

        Harper has not had free rein and you know it. He has been restrained by the fact he only has a minority. Thanks to the LPC he STILL only has a minority – and Canada is better off for it.

  • Kring

    “Harper’s not a secretive, bullying autocrat cuz _I_ could have stopped him & didn’t? WTF?! Psst… reality check: this isn’t the HOC; none of us kibbitzers here are MPs, or have any power over their decisions. We’re just people who wish things were different.”
    =======================

    You sound like a teenager desperatley scrambling for excuses when they dent the fender on daddy’s car “I didn’t do it, the mailbox was in the way”.

    No, the “reality check” is that the party YOU support could have stopped him and the Tories anytime with those 100 or so confidence votes in the last five years. For Liberal supporters to cry “dictator” or “bully” and do nothing about it (even, at times, voting with them) when the party they support had the power to do so is, well, hypocritical. Calling the Prime Minister “anti-democratic” is just silly when the party you support could have said “no” any time they wanted to but enabled him those 100 times.

    You “wish things were different”, but the Liberal party lacks the principles to stand up and be counted when it came time to make that difference. Stop making excuses.

    • Paul Raposo

      @Kring,

      Calling the Prime Minister “anti-democratic” is just silly when the party you support could have said “no” any time they wanted to but enabled him those 100 times.

      So what you’re saying is that parliament is not dysfunctional? So do you now accept the fact that Harper was undemocratic in proroguing parliament under the guise of dysfunction, when it clearly was not?

      • Kring

        So what you’re saying is that parliament is not dysfunctional? So do you now accept the fact that Harper was undemocratic in proroguing parliament under the guise of dysfunction, when it clearly was not?

        Yep, there is that central them once again – “Harper the undemocratic Prime Minister”. He is the one that the Liberals let govern despite dozens of chances to vote non-confidence and defeat his government.

        Parliament is working just fine. It is Liberal whiners on the other side of the fence they used to their advantage when it suited them (that the other guys are now using) that are “dysfunctional”.

        • Paul Raposo

          @Kring,

          Parliament is working just fine. It is Liberal whiners on the other side of the fence they used to their advantage when it suited them (that the other guys are now using) that are “dysfunctional”.

          Actually, Kring, it was Harper who has consistently said that parliament is dysfunctional. So much so, that he asked the GG to prorogue parliament, because it was dysfunctional.

          You stated that parliament is working fine. So what you’re saying is, Harper was undemocratic in shutting down a functioning parliament.

          So why are you supporting the leader of the CPC, who lies about the functionality of parliament, to shut down parliament to avoid confronting the loyal opposition?

    • Redrum

      @My Kringdom for a Post,
      No, foolish man: I didn’t dent the car because “the mailbox was in the way” – but because I wasn’t driving, I wasn’t in the car, I wasn’t in the same province, and there isn’t even an actual Liberal ‘driver’ (MP) in my riding that I could contact to urge them to (well, in this analogy…) drive more aggressively.

      ANd though it seems to give many of you Harper cheerleaders comfort to think that the absence of close nonconfidence votes (one of which he ran away from by proroguing) somehow equates to a “Get Out of Criticisms for Free” card, it doesn’t:

      Since you like ‘going postal’ so much, let’s use that as an analogy, then:

      If a madman starts shooting people in Arizona or at l’Ecole Polytechnique and none of the bystanders intervened (whether it was because they were personally afraid for their survival or because they had commitments to others such that they felt it would be irresponsible to throw their life away in a futile effort), do you really think it’s a credible defense to say, “Ha! He’s not really a murderer, because if he were, they should and would have stopped him. So since they didn’t, he’s either innocent, or they’re as much to blame as him, nyah, nyah!” Some defense.

      So, fine, maybe everybody should vote Green.

      • Kring

        That is cute analogy, comparing a helpless bystander in a murder rampage to impotent and hypocritcal Liberal MPs.

        Stop making excuses. Your party had dozens of occasions where they could have stopped Harper, but didn’t. It doesn’t give the Prime Minister a “get out of criticisms free card”, you guys are ALWAYS free to criticise. But maybe your party should start acting on it’s principles for a change when they say things like this government is the worst ever, or is destroying Canada, or when it’s supporters say things like “undemocratic” or “autocratic” or “dictator” – but then do NOTHING when they have had a chance (MANY chances) to put a stop to it. Stop being hypocrites and start taking responsibility for your rhetoric for once.

        • Redrum

          @Kring, again, m.o.r.e. s.l.o.w.l.y. t.h.i.s. t.i.m.e. s.i.n.c.e. y.o.u. h.a.v.e. s.o. much trouble understanding:

          the people making the critical comments on blogs like this are not ‘THe Party,’ they’re not MPs, they don’t have any power: they’re just people who don’t like many of the things the Prime Minister does.

          You lot who keep calling the private citizen critics hypocrites because of what the MPs do & intimate that we should STFU remind me of bullying husbands who say to the neighbours, “Yeah? Don’t like me staying out all night drinking & carousing & spending our mortgage & kids’ college money? tough; she should either divorce me or you should all STFU; I won’t change.”

  • MoS

    “…they’d managed to stay in power for five years without the benefit of a majority – which is no small feat, I’ll concede.” Really, Scott, do you want to push that button? Harper “managed” to stay in power for five years thanks to the Liberal Party and its milquetoast leadership. Without their faithful assistance Harper’s survival might have indeed been “no small feat.” It’s been your party, Scott, that has failed this country in allowing Harper free reign.

  • Gayle

    Hmmm. It IS kind of cute the way Sandy lists a bunch of crime measures AND the Tackling Violent Crime Act, which, you know, enacted the very same measures she listed under separate headings.

    In any event, the question was naming achievements that were “noteworthy”. Simply governing is hardly noteworthy. Should we celebrate every time the mail man delivers our mail?

    • Kring

      Should we celebrate every time the mail man delivers our mail?

      What a Liberal supporter considers notworthy, I will take with a grain of salt or not at all. When the last mailman kept bringing me the wrong mail or not delivering it at all, of course I am going to celebrate the new mailman that finally does.

      Plus, I like getting my mail at home now. It sure beats having to go all the way to the post office to get it. 😉

  • Kring

    “Do you mean Harper’s government, or the Canadian government?”
    ==================
    It is ALWAYS the Canadian government; that goes without saying. I say “Harper government” because that is a term that I mockingly borrow from you guys who like to use it all of the time to try and demonize them.

    • Paul Raposo

      @Kring,

      It is ALWAYS the Canadian government;

      Really? So why did you post a link titled, Harper Gov’t Record of Accomplishments if you meant the Canadian Government?

      that goes without saying.

      Not really. You claimed Harper’s government managed to push through that work in parliament, because you need to give the impression that Harper, through sheer willpower, accomplished those things.

      To admit that it was not Harper, but rather the Canadian parliament who accomplished those actions, you will have to admit Harper could not accomplish those actions on his own, but with the help of parliament and ALL it’s parties. Which then belies Harper’s bleating about a “dysfunctional” parliament.

      I say “Harper government” because that is a term that I mockingly borrow from you guys who like to use it all of the time to try and demonize them.

      No. You wrote Harper’s government because you want to give credit to one man–not even the entire CPC. To say differently would show that Harper is merely one man in parliament, and cannot accomplish anything without all parties deciding what he may, or may not do.

  • Kring

    ….and when I did identify one for you, you just confirmed Scott’s thesis: that the main — and sometimes only — operative principle for those decisions that Gov’t has taken the lead on is just to undo the previous governments’ discretionary programs for ideological reasons.

    So you cherry pick, try to distort, and move goalposts. I’d say that is par for the course.

    You ask which were operative. Sandy has already highlighter that in 20 of the lot.

    And even IF we engage your little imagination and undoing a previously wasteful governments “progressive” spending ended up being their ONLY accomplishment, I would still call that a job well done. That is why they are “discretionary programs”; we obviously don’t need them to get by.

    Hurts, doesn’t it, realizing that Ignatieff will never be PM. 🙂

    • Redrum

      @Kring Kwrong, no, it hurts more, realizing Harper is. You know, the most spendthrift, secretive, unaccountable, anti-democratic & autocratic ruler the country’s had since Confederation.

      • Kring

        Yeah, such a horrible, terrible Tory government that the Liberal party let survive with all those confidence votes that they could have brought them down with when the other parties didn’t support and voted against the government. What is the toll up to now, over 100? But the Tories are sooooooo anti-democratic and autocratic, the worst in our country’s history and you guys………let them continue to govern when you could stopped them with any one of those confidence votes.

        But you didn’t.

        Have a nice night.

        • Redrum

          @Kol. Kringk, Harper’s not a secretive, bullying autocrat cuz _I_ could have stopped him & didn’t? WTF?!

          Psst… reality check: this isn’t the HOC; none of us kibbitzers here are MPs, or have any power over their decisions. We’re just people who wish things were different.

  • Kring

    Okay Pertwee, how is the accomplsihments on that “blogger’s list” not factually true? Don’t strain yourself now.

    • Jon Pertwee

      @Kring, well it’s hard to determine whether they are proper accomplishments or not, seeing the tendency to silence dissenting voices at Crux of the Matter.

      If I wanted to hear how dreamy Harper was, I’d go to Crux of the Matter.

      • Kring

        No one is asking you to comment, just to follow the link and read for yourself. That is, if your so inclined to disabuse yourself of the absurd notion that the Prime Minister and the Tories didn’t accomplish anything.

  • Kring

    No, not YOU personally on a blog; I meant Liberals – in general and as a party. That day is done. 🙂

    You asked for proof, you get it, but you squeal. Too bad.

    • Jon Pertwee

      @Kring, Crux of the Matter is hardly proof. I thought it was a parody at first. When’s that hockey book getting finished? I heard he’s learning Spanish now.

      • Kring

        Those things that were done are merely pointed out by Sandy. They are a matter of record.

    • Redrum

      @Kring, That proof was a proof? I’m still waiting for you to identify which Conservative goals or policies were operative in those 69 rinky-dink items.

      Most of them, and in wilson’s list, were:

      – cut taxes, cut taxes, cut taxes (to cripple government’s ability to accomplish anything good)

      – only cut programs that advance progressive causes

      • Kring

        “….cut taxes, cut taxes, cut taxes (to cripple government’s ability to accomplish anything good)”.
        ========
        In other words, Ignatieff wants the money for Liberal pet projects and the big bad PM took that away. Sorry, like I said, those days are done.

        …… only cut programs that advance progressive causes.”
        =========
        Thankfully. Hopefully when he gets his majority, he will do it some more.

        You guys asked for proof and you got a line item list. You received. You only can call it “rinky dink” and move the goal posts by demanding something more “operative” because you don’t like the fact you got called out after asking. Too bad, so sad. 🙂

        • Jon Pertwee

          @Kring, no we asked for actual proof. Not some blogger’s list. You have failed miserably on all fronts.

        • Redrum

          @The Kring Who Would Be Man, we didn’t get ‘called out’ by that list of tax cuts & credits, apologies & reparations for previous govts’ actions, announcements of dead-end reports or student exchange programs, etc:

          you couldn’t even identify which if any policies were operative in them,

          and when I did identify one for you, you just confirmed Scott’s thesis: that the main — and sometimes only — operative principle for those decisions that Gov’t has taken the lead on is just to undo the previous governments’ discretionary programs for ideological reasons.

  • Kring

    Okay, so we get asked to name ANY goals or politices achieved, and once that is done, you guys call it “cut and paste” and move the goalposts.

    Typical and convenient, but don’t think the electorate is going to let you get away with it any more.

    • Redrum

      @Kring, yeah, because, clearly, “the electorate” is carefully watching what happens on this blog, and expects it to be scrupulously fair & non-partisan. What a maroon!

    • Paul Raposo

      @Kring,

      Kring, you do realize Harper’s minority government didn’t do those things–the Canadian parliament, with help from the Liberals, accomplished those things.

      And you need to further correct your link; it’s not the Harper Government Record, it’s the Canadian Government Record.

      • Kring

        Kring, you do realize Harper’s minority government didn’t do those things–the Canadian parliament, with help from the Liberals, accomplished those things.

        With help from the Liberals. Right. I’ll try to remember that when your party says that they will run against this government’s terrible record.

        • Paul Raposo

          @Kring,

          they will run against this government’s terrible record.

          Do you mean Harper’s government, or the Canadian government?

  • TofKW

    Speaking of disruptive idiots paid by the CPC …here’s ridofbrain!

  • TofKW

    Redrum, wilson is indeed a she. And as you are well aware by now, she is the official ‘cut & paste’ girl for the CPC. From the amount of time it must take for her to travel far and wide across the internet – from blog, to media site, to blog – spreading her butt-cheeks and dropping fresh, steaming loads upon any discussion …we can only deduce that wilson does not have what one would call ‘a real job’.

    What I do not understand is why is anyone still letting Wilson troll Liberal blogs after almost five years now? (I can trace her comments as far back as 2006.) Delete her comments. She’s a disruptive idiot, and probably being paid by the CPC.

    • Redrum

      @TofKW, what about ‘Observant’ / Harry S / Consistent etc… what’s the story on him or her? They’ve been all over Kinsella’s site like a bad rash.

      And is CanadianSense a he or she?

  • ridenrain

    Clearly, the only ones that matter are ones the Liberal party does.

  • wilson

    I guess the new talking points have moved off ‘Harper can’t get a majority’
    to ‘Harper has no legacy’.
    Then why are 35% of Canadians loyal to the core, with such a do nothing PM?

    -Reduced the GST and personal income taxes, 5 years later, the average family pays $3000 less per year in taxes
    – seniors received an additional tax savings thru income splitting
    – the ‘beer and popcorn’ money for children under 6
    -tax free savings accounts
    -bringing in changes to EI to include self employed
    -separated the EI Fund from general revenues, in response to the Chretien/Martin governments raiding the fund of $54 Billion (2001-2005) to fake surplus’

    -cut off the funding to Liberal special interest groups that were bleeding the public purse, such as the Courts Challenge program
    -reversed the Liberal fence sitting policy on Israel’s right to exist
    -deemed the Tamil Tigers a terrorist group, no more Liberals doing lunch at their fundraisers
    -brought pride back to Canada and our forces by bringing our military out of the Liberal Decade of Darkness
    -pushed the other parties into supporting the CPC crime agenda (even in election campaigns), moved the country off hug a thug mentality on to victim rights

    -put Arctic Soverignty on the national agenda (something Bill Graham scoffed at in 2006)
    -stopped the devastation of the West’s economy thru Liberal back door enviro policy
    -negotiated more free trades deals in 5 years than Canada has seen in 2 decades

    there’s more, but just a few top of the mind in ‘Harper’s Canada’

    • Redrum

      @wilson, Atta boy, wilson — way to bounce back.

      But your forgot: Support the Snoops!

      “Feds spend millions to watch media’
      www + .torontosun.com/news/canada/2011/01/22/16994106.html

    • Beerbob

      @wilson,
      -By borrowing it.
      -By borrowing it.
      -By borrowing it.
      -By borrowing it.
      -EI still more than pays for itself. It’s a regressive tax on individuals and small businesses, and does not touch the wealthy except as a expense deduction on any businesses they may run.
      -Funding for Liberal special interest groups. That’ll break the economy. Yawn.
      -Israel can take care of itself. Besides, it has powerful friends. This is less about Canada’s association with Israel, and more about the Reform’s association with Republican evangelicals.
      -One man’s terrorist is another’s freedon fighter.
      -Pride wins no wars and pays no bills. Stop with the dog whistle statements please.
      -All politicians are terrified of the aging boomer cohort. The Cons stoke their fears, blather about “unreported crime” (that one got coffee out of my nose), and point out that anyone who’s against huge new prisons is encouraging the bad people to come after YOU, GRANDMA! So, don’t you vote for those thug-hugging Liberals!
      -We’re dealing with the Americans and Russians here. I don’t know who will screw us worse. Probably the Americans. Remember, who cares which country “owns” the piece of ocean floor that the corporations will be drilling. More of us will see tar balls than money out of that no matter what happens.
      -Good for you. The corporations are making a bit more money now. I toast your success with a glass of Athabasca river water. Guurg…
      -I suppose some people still think free trade, and its sidekick, labour arbitrage, is a good thing.

  • Paul Raposo

    Something else Harper accomplished, Scott, trying to vote down equal marriage for all Canadians.

    In Harper’s Canada, gay people shouldn’t be permitted to get married.

    • wilson

      It was a free vote, and put the issure to rest.
      Kinda like your Liberal motion on abortion, issue put to rest by social-conservative Liberal MPs.
      Of which the Liberal ‘big tent’ has 19 so-cons.

      • Paul Raposo

        @wilson,

        Harper made it clear he would use the Notwithstanding Clause to override the SCC and the charter.

        As you pointed out sometime back on Jeff’s blog, Harper is a man who keeps his promises.

        You’re correct that the Libs are a big tent party. Why don’t you tell us how many social progressives belong to the CPC?

  • Kring

    However, can you name any Conservative goals or policies noteworthy in the past five years that Harper and his Conservatives did that didn’t involve trying to turn back the clock, or at least try and turn back the clock on previous Canadian government’s policy?

    http://crux-of-the-matter.com/2010/09/16/the-accomplishments/

    You’re welcome. 🙂

    • Redrum

      @Kring, You know that’s satire, right? Harper has “69” accomplishments?!

      Anyhow, it’s better than nothing, but you’d have to go through that list of penny ante announcements one by one to see if & defend whether ANY fit the bill, of being:

      1) actual Goals or Policies: so, not just announcements about some Report that came out or some commission to study something, or some new funding announcement, but: what was that trying to achieve?

      2) That are the result of _Conservative Party_ initiative (rather than being the culmination, continuation, or rebranding of something that was initiated by the LPC);

      3) That are Noteworthy: e.g., “(51) Poland — Youth Mobility Agreement — Signed on July 14, 2008 that allows youth from either country to work and travel for up to one year”?! Um, ok, but WTF? Who knew it took that long for the iron curtain to unfold yet a little more, but… hardly a stop the presses moment. And there were lots of little boutique tax credits in there, in service of reducing taxation, and some trade agreements to promote free trade, but how many of them really made much of a difference (e.g., “Students exempted from taxation for scholarships, bursaries and fellowship” – um, how many FT students make enough to pay taxes, anyway?); and how many of them were actually followed up and acted on (as opposed to being shelved or stifled from actually acting on their mandate).

      4) That didn’t involve trying to turn back the clock, or at least try and turn back the clock on previous Canadian governments’ policy: like many of the crime announcements, like raising the age of consent back up to 16, and making things like running a bawdy house into a federal crime.

    • Beerbob

      @Kring, Yay, they’re running the country. Lots of nuts-and-bolts stuff. The problem is, it’s the general direction that’s been taken. With some exceptions it’s not even particularly conservative. Economic conservatives don’t like what’s going on. We’ve got $220B as a deficit, about $20B due to the recession, and the rest due to increased government spending and tax cuts. Cons don’t like “tax-and-spend liberals”, but it’s cheaper than borrowing and spending because you don’t have to pay interest, your financial ratings are better, you’ve got more flexibility to deal with sudden costs. Damn, I’m sounding like a conservative.

      In many ways, I think the minority government situation is causing policy to be shaped by politics. The purpose of many policy initiatives in this environment is to get another, I don’t know, maybe five percent (in the right places) or so of the voters to go for a Tory next time round, and as a result a fair number of less important legislative efforts will go towards the left end or the middle of the spectrum. The big items, like building prisons for old people (har har, it’s because old people like prisons), and making mandatory minimum sentences for “easy bust” (victimless) crimes, are purely political, but generated out of an ideological mythology held by old folks, that is either either shared with or is being exploited by the formulators of the policy. Sure, serious crimes get minimums as well, but having more prisons and longer sentences doesn’t make it easier to catch and successfully prosecute real criminals. Clearly, this is a vote getter in this age of a greying populstion. There are the occasional hijinks that just make you wonder if they really want a majority. The stupid census. Give me a break. This kind of ideological base-baiting loses more votes than it gains, and it keeps happening.

      If a majority is attained, the world isn’t going to end. Maybe they’ll bring down expenditures somehow. EI’ll probably get smaller, maybe we won’t need as many cabinet ministers, maybe even some kind of co-pay in Medicare, just enough to encourage more people to get their hips (see the way I worked in the old folks again) in India. Or Mexico. Or Guatamala. One of my worries is the religious freaks getting some of the things they want. I didn’t think it was a big deal when we brought it back, but now I’m a bit older and wiser (maybe), and I’m glad we have a Constitution. It’s not perfect, and there probably are ways of weasling around it in some cases, but it might dampen down the looniness a bit.

unique visitors since the change to this site domain on Nov 12, 2008.