Why Harper must love the loony left.

[Senator Clay Davis]

The crime bill seems especially weird to me, because Harper has to know the second he's gone from the PM office its going to be repealed. We will not tolerate wasting billions on a prison system that by its very existence requires prisoners to fill the prisons and has proven to be one of the biggest waste of taxpayer dollars in (borderline bankrupt) US America.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

The crime bill seems especially weird to me, because Harper has to know the second he's gone from the PM office its going to be repealed. We will not tolerate wasting billions on a prison system that by its very existence requires prisoners to fill the prisons and has proven to be one of the biggest waste of taxpayer dollars in (borderline bankrupt) US America.

The Crime Bill is dreadful, terrible government policy, but it's a brilliant political manoeuvre for Harper. He gets to rile up his conservative base, he can accuse any party who proposes repealing it of being "soft on crime" and "siding with murderers, rapists, and child pornographers", and (best of all!) he doesn't even have to worry about paying for its implementation because the costs are being off-loaded to the provinces.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Its an interesting approach if he does go for the "Tougher on crime" approach, because being "Tougher on crime" means he's going completely against fiscal conservatism. More prisons to build, more prisoners to house and more guards to pay, all of which will increase over time, is the exact opposite of fiscal conservatism, its massive waste of taxpayer dollars.

[Bobblehead]

Even the article in the OP mentions how the fiscal conservative policies never materialized.

He increased federal government spending 19 per cent even before embracing Keynesian stimulus spending with the fervour of a convert. He expanded the federal civil service by 13 per cent. He supported supply management, expanded regional development agencies, interfered with foreign investment, and implemented a series of tax reforms that made economists cringe. “Wait until the majority,” tearful fiscal conservatives whispered to themselves. “Wait until the majority.”

Then came the majority. And not much changed.

Fiscal conservatives did a little better than social conservatives in the first year of the Harper majority, but the emphasis must be on the word “little.” The budget which had been touted as “transformational” was nothing of the kind. Yes, there were modest cuts, but orthodox Keynesianism calls for spending to be curtailed after a recession passes and the economy is moving up the business cycle, so there was nothing particularly radical about that. The simple truth is that the prime minister’s first budget with the free hand of a majority could have been delivered by a Liberal government led by John Manley or Paul Martin.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by zuluking

As per Mulcair-as-leader rating, dude is an unknown commodity to Canadians and is riding the "fairy tale that has become Jack Layton" legacy to great leadership ratings. I expect it won't take many trips to the national stage to see his rating drop way back. He strikes me as a loudmouth with a broken filter between his brain and his lips.

As well as someone who is completely out of tune with reality.

His latest NDP commercial is a bunch of hooey. Makes it seem like they actually accomplished anything besides winning a bunch of seats and still having no voice in parliament.

[jammies]

As I was discussing last night in the real (kinda) world, no party is going to screw too much with the status quo. Canada is fat and happy, comparatively, and once you're in power, you don't want to do anything to jeopardize that. 90% of the policies you'd see from a Liberal or even NDP government would strongly resemble what we're getting now from the Conservatives; there are no more radical differences between the parties like you would see 50 or even 30 years ago.

[CaptainCrunch]

Mulcair will self destruct at some point. He has more enemies in his own party then friends and the only reason why he got the leadership gig is that the rest of the leadership hopefuls were pretty terrible.

Its going to be tough for the NDP in the next election, they have the Conservatives and the Liberals targeting them.

Of course it looks like Bob Rae does want the Liberal Leadership role.

[OffsideSpecialist]

My one socialis, NDP supporter roommate seems to despise Mulcair. He calls him an elitist that is out of touch with the reality of the working man that the NDP supposed y stand for.

As for Rae, there would be no better way for the Liberals to self-destruct than elect him as their leader. The residents of Ontario despise him and don't forget his time as premier

[Azure]

Didn't Mulcair promise victory in the next election today?

[OffsideSpecialist]

He's been promising victory in those stupid ads on TV. Makes him look like a bit of an arrogant arse in my opinion to be starting a victory campaign three years before the election.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by OffsideSpecialist

He's been promising victory in those stupid ads on TV. Makes him look like a bit of an arrogant arse in my opinion to be starting a victory campaign three years before the election.

Especially when he was/is essentially a nobody.

Lets face it, Layton built the NDP into what it was. Mulcair is a nobody and will probably be a nobody in the future.

Apparently he's a nobody that happens to be an arrogant #######.

[CaptainCrunch]

I don't think too many people actually voted for the NDP and what it stood for in the last election.

They voted in protest, they voted for a guy with a lot of charisma who looked very brave hobbling around on a cane.

Mulcair doesn't have the charisma, he's pissed off a lot of senior NDP members, and his stunt in parliament today where he basically accused the government of racism shows that he and the NDP weren't serious about bringing civil debate to parliament.