New poll: Harper - Conservatives headed for third place next election?

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by Fuzz

I do understand that the China human rights thing is unwinnable, I just feel like Harper has given them a major pass on it. In the past governments would at least make our position known, whereas he has taken the position it is better not to bring it up.

Not sure that's true. Chretien was very pro China.

[Cuz]

Originally Posted by Resurrection

Worst Prime Minister in my lifetime.

Surely you're old enough to have lived through both Kim Campbell and Paul Martin?

[edslunch]

Originally Posted by Daradon

I don't disagree that we can't do much, but that's not his fault. We're a small country. We have taken a tougher stand than the US and especially the EU though.

As far as international diplomacy being out of his reach, I dont know. As I said already I don't like the guy and won't be voting for him. But I think he's a decent statesman. I think a comment like that is just out of anger. Can you educate or remind me about major flubs? Besides sucking up to the US and the NSA too much. I'll concede that right now.

Not being combative, actually asking.

For one, not securing a seat at the security council when it was 'our turn'. I won't discount the influence of stupid UN politics but many observers blamed it in large part on Canada's blinkered approach to the Middle East.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Cuz

Surely you're old enough to have lived through both Kim Campbell and Paul Martin?

Kim Campbell was a lame duck who didn't spend enough time in office to accomplish anything (good or bad). She ran a terrible campaign that saw her party decimated at the polls, but most of the blame for that can be attributed to how unpopular the PCs were after the Mulroney years.

Paul Martin could have been a great PM were he not handcuffed by Chretien's scandals. Even still, he leaves a legacy of his three years in office a history of balanced budgets, economic growth, and the nation-wide legalization of gay marriage.

Harper, on the other hand, has overseen the regression of Canada in more ways than I can enumerate. Just off the top of my head, here are the ways in which he has been worse than both Campbell and Martin:

- The "war on science"
- Scrapping the long-form census against the advice of the nation's chief statistician
- 2% reduction of the GST against the advice of every economist in the country
- Erosion of civil liberties, increased spying on Canadian citizens (Bill C-51)
- Income splitting that only really benefits wealthy couples with a stay-at-home parent
- A "tough on crime" agenda with mandatory minimum sentencing (Bill C-10) that even far-right Republicans in the US admit is a failed policy

[Daradon]

Originally Posted by edslunch

For one, not securing a seat at the security council when it was 'our turn'. I won't discount the influence of stupid UN politics but many observers blamed it in large part on Canada's blinkered approach to the Middle East.

Didn't know we were up for a seat, but I'll take your word for it.

Dunno if it makes a difference anyway. The big five never agree. Russia would veto. Most likely China too. Security council has been a stalemate for 20 years.

[Caged Great]

It is really unfortunate that the only two options are a very left wing party that has no experience at running a country, and a centrist party that keeps having leaders that are terrible choices for the job. The Liberals should take this election easily, but Trudeau is a poor leader and it will cost him and the Liberals again, just like with Dion and Ignatieff.

It might become necessary for the NDP to move more to the center so they can pick off the liberal left and become the dominant party. Ever since the Conservatives combined, the vote splitting by the NDP and Liberals has cost them.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

- The "war on science"
- Scrapping the long-form census against the advice of the nation's chief statistician
- 2% reduction of the GST against the advice of every economist in the country
- Erosion of civil liberties, increased spying on Canadian citizens (Bill C-51)
- Income splitting that only really benefits wealthy couples with a stay-at-home parent
- A "tough on crime" agenda with mandatory minimum sentencing (Bill C-10) that even far-right Republicans in the US admit is a failed policy

Just to address this stuff as someone who's casually engaged with Canadian federal politics but not by any means following it with any real zeal...

I really liked Paul Martin. I actually liked Ignatieff too, personally speaking (heard him speak a number of times and spoke to him at an event), but not as a politician.

But if this is the whole case against Harper, it's not much of a case for me. The long-form census means nothing to me; I have no sense that the GST reduction had any negative consequences in particular (happy to be educated on this point); the "erosion of civil liberties" is a paper tiger IMO and I'm pretty confident in the Supreme Court's willingness to deal with those issues; income splitting is fine with me even though it doesn't benefit me (not what I would spend the money on but I can't quibble with it policy wise).

I agree on the baffling crime agenda, but that alone isn't enough to make me want to turf the guy. As for the "war on science", that's a nice tag line but I'm only vaguely aware of the existence of such a campaign. If it's spelled out for me during the lead up to the election it might influence my vote.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

The long-form census means nothing to me

Government agencies at all three levels, non-profit organizations, and businesses alike depend on data from the long-form census to make informed decisions.

I have no sense that the GST reduction had any negative consequences in particular (happy to be educated on this point)

The past several years that The Harper Government has run budgetary deficits would not have happened if the GST had remained at 7%. It was an ill-advised tax cut that resulted in billions of dollars in increased national debt than was necessary.

the "erosion of civil liberties" is a paper tiger IMO and I'm pretty confident in the Supreme Court's willingness to deal with those issues

Depending on the Supreme Court to un-do the damage of the sitting government is not a good solution, IMO. Better to have an elected government that doesn't pass the kind of laws that are over-turned by the SC to begin with.

income splitting is fine with me even though it doesn't benefit me (not what I would spend the money on but I can't quibble with it policy wise).

To each their own. I think it's a terrible economic policy. It benefits only about 10% of Canadian households (typically the ones who are already wealthy and least in need of a tax break), so the rest of us receive a relatively higher tax burden to make up the difference.

I agree on the baffling crime agenda, but that alone isn't enough to make me want to turf the guy.

Its long-term effects haven't started to materialize yet. Unless the policy is changed, soon we'll be spending a fortune on prisons to lock up people long-term for relatively minor offenses. As a social policy, it's a bad move because it will make it harder for petty criminals to re-integrate into society. As a fiscal policy, it's an absolute disaster.

As for the "war on science", that's a nice tag line but I'm only vaguely aware of the existence of such a campaign. If it's spelled out for me during the lead up to the election it might influence my vote.

http://scienceblogs.com/confessions/...al-indictment/

http://www.academicmatters.ca/2013/0...-no-democracy/

http://www.thestar.com/opinion/comme...vengeance.html

[Daradon]

The GST rollback, while popular as any tax reduction would be, was widely panned by economists before and after.

The war on science is not a myth. Sorry you feel this way. Other countries have actually had marches on our behalf to 'unmuzzle' our scientists. It appears MarchHare already has some links for us. Troutman has posted many about it in the past.

[White Out 403]

Originally Posted by Cuz

Surely you're old enough to have lived through both Kim Campbell and Paul Martin?

neither of them were hard core right wing loons who wanted to erode our freedom like harper. hes our answer to dubbya.

[Antithesis]

Originally Posted by Resurrection

neither of them were hard core right wing loons who wanted to erode our freedom like harper. hes our answer to dubbya.

Harper's time leading our country is filled with enough concrete examples of poor decision-making on its own. Hyperbole such as this doesn't exactly lend credibility to your argument.

[White Out 403]

Hyperbole is my 2nd language

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Resurrection

neither of them were hard core right wing loons who wanted to erode our freedom like harper. hes our answer to dubbya.

Dubya isn't really an apt comparison for Harper. History will remember him as Canada's version of Nixon or Cheney.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

Harper, on the other hand, has overseen the regression of Canada in more ways than I can enumerate. Just off the top of my head, here are the ways in which he has been worse than both Campbell and Martin:

- The "war on science"
- Scrapping the long-form census against the advice of the nation's chief statistician
- 2% reduction of the GST against the advice of every economist in the country
- Erosion of civil liberties, increased spying on Canadian citizens (Bill C-51)
- Income splitting that only really benefits wealthy couples with a stay-at-home parent
- A "tough on crime" agenda with mandatory minimum sentencing (Bill C-10) that even far-right Republicans in the US admit is a failed policy

- Destroyed the surplus pre-recession.
- Intended to go for austerity over stimulus during a recession until his hand was forced by opposition.
- Prorogued parliament to avoid a confidence vote.

[sworkhard]

Originally Posted by rubecube

Because it's largely a contradiction. Socially liberal, or progressivism, is generally in favour of equal rights as in equality in result, as opposed to formal equality. This is basically impossible to achieve without some sort of wealth redistribution.

When people tell my fiscally conservative, socially liberal I usually think libertarian or classic liberal.

I think what most Canadians want is fiscally prudent, socially slightly liberal. This does involve some wealth redistribution, but I think think that's a good thing for both the wealthy, the middle class, and the poor.

Consider some examples of what prudent fiscal policy with some wealth redistribution does for everyone involved...

1. Provides everyone with a baseline level of opportunity to acquire the skills they need to compete and hopefully excel in life. This improves the productivity of the country as a whole, and for the rich, increases their property values and provides them with a larger pool of talented people to hire. Benefits the whole spectrum, including those who are taxed higher to provide the services.

2. Reduces the number of people that end up economically ruined due to health problems. The number one cause of bankruptcy in the US until recently at least was health bills. If the government doesn't redistribute the wealth, the higher prices companies have to charge due to high rates of bankruptcy does it instead, but the pain and suffering caused is much higher when bankruptcy is involved than when it is not.

3. Provides people who due to circumstance or poor decisions fall into economic ruin the opportunity to rebuild their lives quicker. Just one thing this does is it helps keep criminal activity low as everyone can hope for a better future. A safe country benefits everyone.

While none of these things are fiscally conservative, they don't need to be fiscally liberal either. There are a numbers of ways in which prudent fiscal policies can be implemented, the best of which take into account human qualities like laziness, greed, limited will power, etc.

For example, our country right now is missing a bridge out of welfare for those who want to work, but don't have the skills, or are constrained in other ways (think, for example, of young single mothers who have to take care of their child since they can't afford child care and find a way to make a living without any skills). A solution that was trialed in some poor areas of the country was to allow something like 10000/year in income before welfare payments reduced and then tapered the benefits off slowly as income increased beyond that. It was a resounding success as people used the extra income to get the formal education they needed to do higher paying work. I'd love to see something like this re-introduced in Canada.

[flamesfan6]

More of something I heard about a while ago, but I really like Harper quiet deals with China, mainly the Canada-China Foreign Investment Promotion and Protection Act, which allows Chinese governments to sue Canada if we do anything that hinders Chinese companies profits.

Chinese investors will have the right to challenge our laws with no recourse to Canadian courts

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2014/09...n_5836348.html

"If this treaty comes into effect, and there's any Chinese ownership whatsoever in assets related to this pipeline—minority ownership, ownership we generally don't know about—then Canada will be exposed to lawsuits under this treaty, because the BC government will be discriminating against a Chinese investor, which is prohibited by the treaty."

http://www.vancouverobserver.com/sus...-policy-expert

"It is true that Chinese investors can sue Canada for any actions by the federal government or the B.C. government (or legislature or courts) relating to Chinese assets connected to the [Enbridge] Northern Gateway pipeline," Van Harten said.

http://www.vancouverobserver.com/new...orce-october-1

and the best part of it all is everything can be handled secretly in tribunals we will never hear about.



I wish this was more upfront in the news and that people knew about this, this deal with China is so utterly stupid and was debated in parliament for 1 hour....

[kn]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

As for the "war on science", that's a nice tag line but I'm only vaguely aware of the existence of such a campaign. If it's spelled out for me during the lead up to the election it might influence my vote.

Here's a blog post outlining each of the issues:
http://scienceblogs.com/confessions/...al-indictment/

The one in particular that makes my blood boil is 16 natural lakes quietly being reclassified as 'toxic dumps' for the mining industry:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/lakes-...sites-1.733972

Beyond recycling, I don't really do much for the environment, so I'm not a tree-hugger. But the PC record on science and the environment is inexcusable.


Edit: MarchHare beat me to it.

[Flash Walken]

Thursday was a busy day for the Harper government. Consider just some of what went on:

• There was the continuing fallout over the revelation that officials in the Prime Minister’s Office had posted two videos online, taken during Stephen Harper’s recent visit to Iraq, that showed the faces of Canadian special forces soldiers — in violation of security protocols. When brought to light, the PMO first insisted protocols had not been violated, then claimed the videos had been vetted by defence officials, then issued a slippery half-apology that was evasive and insincere even by their own standards. Thursday, the Toronto Star reported the PMO officials, who had promised to “review” the protocols, had been briefed on them, twice, before the trip.

• There was the entry into evidence at the Mike Duffy trial of emails, previously unreleased, spelling out how officials in the PMO, together with Conservative senators, conspired to tamper with an audit into the disgraced senator’s expenses, the better to encourage his silence. (In one email the prime minister’s then chief of staff, Nigel Wright, explains the rationale as being to “prevent him from going squirrelly in a bunch of weekend panel shows.”)

The emails, leaked to the press the day before, dominated Question Period, where virtually every question was answered, not by any responsible minister, but by Paul Calandra, MP. When last in the news, Calandra was sobbing in shame over the performance he had put on some days earlier in Question Period, when he had answered serious questions about serious matters — in that case, the military mission against ISIL — with personal attacks and irrelevant asides. He has apparently recovered.

• There was the similar performance by Pierre Poilievre, insisting — on the slimmest possible grounds — that the Liberal plan to cut taxes on the middle class was in fact a plan to raise taxes on the middle class. The minister followed it up with a fundraising email that scaled new heights of dishonesty. Not content with warning that Liberal Leader Justin Trudeau would roll back higher limits on Tax Free Savings Accounts and cancel income-splitting for couples with children — Tory election promises the Liberals have indeed promised to repeal — it flatly declared that “he will cancel income-splitting for seniors,” and “take away Tax Free Savings Accounts altogether.”

• There was the laying of charges under the Canada Elections Act against Reg Bowers, official agent for former Conservative cabinet minister Peter Penashue during his 2011 election campaign. It was the controversy over that campaign that caused Penashue to step down from cabinet and run, unsuccessfully, in a byelection two years later.

...

The point is, this was all in the space of 24 hours. If one were to draw up an indictment of this government’s approach to politics and the public purpose, one might mention its wholesale contempt for Parliament, its disdain for the Charter of Rights and the courts’ role in upholding it, its penchant for secrecy, its chronic deceitfulness, its deepening ethical problems, its insistence on taking, at all times, the lowest, crudest path to its ends, its relentless politicization of everything.

But you’d think you would need to look back over its record over several years to find examples. You wouldn’t think to see them all spread before you in the course of a single day.

The National Post

[rubecube]

^^Yeah but an NDP or Liberal government would be worse because inexperience, hair, reasons.

[Blaster86]

The first one in that list still boggles my mind. How could a PM and a PMO be so ridiculously clueless and desperate for a photo-op that they punt that one so hard.