Excerpt submitted to: Toronto Star, “Sham-Ocracy: Parliament's Fissures “, 27 June, 2009, James Traves,
http://www.thestar.com/news/insight/article/656838
Our current political situation is the net manifestation of all the forces that are at play, as is the case in any era. It is the inevitable effect of the number, nature and strength of these forces. There is not be meaningful change until these forces are identified and modified, in some cases harnessed, in other cases roped in and curtailed. Past generations have taken on this task, sometimes requiring catastrophic change. Surely it is our tern.
It is clear that one big problem is ‘Party’ politics. It is because the MP’s vote along party lines that gives the leader of the governing party all the power. Our Parliamentary system is based on MP’s representing their constituents. Voting on Party lines runs contrary to this and we can see the effect. This is particularly counterproductive when there is a minority government. Our parliamentary system, in some ways, was set up to have 308 ‘parties’ and not simply 4 or 5. However, this ‘Party’ politics is more the effect than the cause. Also, voting along party lines is not, per se, an ‘evil’. It is when this is done to the exclusion of all else. In other words, the balance has been distorted. This distortion has become increasingly pronounced over my lifetime, paralleling the increase in power and influence of the ‘News’ media since Watergate. Perhaps this is no co-incidence, thus identifying one of this ‘forces’ that has changed and upset the balance.
Another big problem is, of course, Transparency, Access to Information and the underlying force of Freedom of Information generally. Clearly this is one of the forces that must be strengthened and with easily predictable results. As I have suggested on numerous occasions, Freedom of Information ought to be enshrined in our Charter of Rights. Travers suggests that what Canada needs is a White Knight to champion the cause of Democracy. Certainly we need someone to fight, head-to-head and toe-to-toe the Black Knight, Steven Harper, but the change that is required will not likely come from ‘within’ the current political system. It is the true will of the people that must be expressed. Ironically, the ‘News’ media could play a very significant, and constructive role, if it so chose.
25 June, 2009
- ‘What If’ Harper and the Cons were to get a majority. All I can say is “then God Save Canada”
Excerpt submitted to:
Toronto Star, “Canadians are victims of a con game”, 26 June, 2009, James Travers
Harper and the Con’s since being elected have taken steps, systematically, to marginalize Parliament, the Senate, access to information, transparency, openness and certainly have their sights on such other fundamental institutions and protectors of our democratic rights as the Supreme Court of Canada and the Judiciary, itself. The effect, and to me the manifest purpose, is to concentrate power in the Executive, in other words, the Prime Minister.
Harper and the Cons have turned Parliament into not much more than a smoke screen, a diversion and, much to the assault on the integrity of all Canadians, their own focus group for their attack ads. The longer Harper is in power the more he will become entrenched.
Of course, Harper answers to the will of Parliament. So, we can turn to Parliament to protect us against dictatorial rule. And, then there is the Senate as well, with its sober second thought. Surely it will limit Harper and prevent him from implementing any right wing extremist ideologically based policies, especially those that lead to a de facto dictatorship. Harper himself told us that before he got elected. How could a dictator take over with Parliament and the Senate. Unless, of course, you dissolve Parliament when it goes to exercise its Will, call-to-arms a small but significant group of die-hard supporters, and abolish the Senate, or at least attack and hamstring it to the extent that it can’t protect itself, let alone Canada, all Canadians and our way of life. No Prime Minister would do such a thing. Would they?
Toronto Star, “Canadians are victims of a con game”, 26 June, 2009, James Travers
Harper and the Con’s since being elected have taken steps, systematically, to marginalize Parliament, the Senate, access to information, transparency, openness and certainly have their sights on such other fundamental institutions and protectors of our democratic rights as the Supreme Court of Canada and the Judiciary, itself. The effect, and to me the manifest purpose, is to concentrate power in the Executive, in other words, the Prime Minister.
Harper and the Cons have turned Parliament into not much more than a smoke screen, a diversion and, much to the assault on the integrity of all Canadians, their own focus group for their attack ads. The longer Harper is in power the more he will become entrenched.
Of course, Harper answers to the will of Parliament. So, we can turn to Parliament to protect us against dictatorial rule. And, then there is the Senate as well, with its sober second thought. Surely it will limit Harper and prevent him from implementing any right wing extremist ideologically based policies, especially those that lead to a de facto dictatorship. Harper himself told us that before he got elected. How could a dictator take over with Parliament and the Senate. Unless, of course, you dissolve Parliament when it goes to exercise its Will, call-to-arms a small but significant group of die-hard supporters, and abolish the Senate, or at least attack and hamstring it to the extent that it can’t protect itself, let alone Canada, all Canadians and our way of life. No Prime Minister would do such a thing. Would they?
22 June, 2009
- Tom, If it gets rid of Harper and the Cons then, even if it is another minority government, an election would be anything but ‘pointless’.
Posted to: Globe and Mail, Comments by Tom Flanagan, Monday, Jun. 22, 2009 09:57AM
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/coming-to-terms-with-minority-government/article1190248/
The only people that could benefit by downplaying this very serious political crisis are those that are in power, Harper and the Cons. As long as they are in power an election is ‘pointless’. Perhaps, this is why people like Tom Flanagan are referring to it as “pointless election”.
If Harper and the Cons were the Official Opposition, you can be sure they he, and they, would be yelling and screaming and obstructing and attacking and demanding an election like there was no tomorrow. And yes, Harper and the Cons would even walking out in Parliament in protest.
Harper and the Con’s since being elected have taken steps, systematically, to marginalize Parliament, the Senate, access to information, transparency, openness and certainly have their sights on such other fundamental institutions and protectors of our democratic rights as the Supreme Court of Canada and the Judiciary, itself. The effect, and to me the manifest purpose, is to concentrate power in the Executive, in other words, the Prime Minister.
Harper and the Cons have turned Parliament into not much more than a smoke screen, a diversion and, much to the assault on the integrity of all Canadians, their own focus group for their attack ads. The longer Harper is in power the more he will become entrenched.
With power concentrated in the hands of the Executive i.e. the Prime Minster, what Parliamentary constellation appears in Canada’s political cosmos is more astrology than astronomy. Unless of course, some catastrophic event occurred like Harper and the Cons got a majority – in which case if God created the Universe, then God save us.
Who is Prime Minister and what Party is in power does make a difference, whether there is a minority or a majority. It makes a huge difference, given the current imbalance of power in favour of the Executive (Prime Minister and governing party) over Parliament, the Senate and the Judiciary. Our parliamentary system was developed over hundreds of years to create a balance to protect our way of life and our freedoms. It is this balance that is being vigorously attacked by Harper and the Cons – e.g. dissolution of Parliament last December and his call-to-arms of his loyal supporters with his deliberately misleading and erroneous allegations on the workings of our Parliamentary System and those upholding it.
Fortunately, we still have elections (at least every four years … I think … we’ll have to see what Harper has in mind when the time comes).
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/coming-to-terms-with-minority-government/article1190248/
The only people that could benefit by downplaying this very serious political crisis are those that are in power, Harper and the Cons. As long as they are in power an election is ‘pointless’. Perhaps, this is why people like Tom Flanagan are referring to it as “pointless election”.
If Harper and the Cons were the Official Opposition, you can be sure they he, and they, would be yelling and screaming and obstructing and attacking and demanding an election like there was no tomorrow. And yes, Harper and the Cons would even walking out in Parliament in protest.
Harper and the Con’s since being elected have taken steps, systematically, to marginalize Parliament, the Senate, access to information, transparency, openness and certainly have their sights on such other fundamental institutions and protectors of our democratic rights as the Supreme Court of Canada and the Judiciary, itself. The effect, and to me the manifest purpose, is to concentrate power in the Executive, in other words, the Prime Minister.
Harper and the Cons have turned Parliament into not much more than a smoke screen, a diversion and, much to the assault on the integrity of all Canadians, their own focus group for their attack ads. The longer Harper is in power the more he will become entrenched.
With power concentrated in the hands of the Executive i.e. the Prime Minster, what Parliamentary constellation appears in Canada’s political cosmos is more astrology than astronomy. Unless of course, some catastrophic event occurred like Harper and the Cons got a majority – in which case if God created the Universe, then God save us.
Who is Prime Minister and what Party is in power does make a difference, whether there is a minority or a majority. It makes a huge difference, given the current imbalance of power in favour of the Executive (Prime Minister and governing party) over Parliament, the Senate and the Judiciary. Our parliamentary system was developed over hundreds of years to create a balance to protect our way of life and our freedoms. It is this balance that is being vigorously attacked by Harper and the Cons – e.g. dissolution of Parliament last December and his call-to-arms of his loyal supporters with his deliberately misleading and erroneous allegations on the workings of our Parliamentary System and those upholding it.
Fortunately, we still have elections (at least every four years … I think … we’ll have to see what Harper has in mind when the time comes).
19 June, 2009
- The problem is that Harper and the Cons have made it very clear that they simply do not compromise
Posted (excerpts) to:
20 June:
Saturday's Globe and Mail, Friday, Jun. 19, 2009 07:36PM EDT, Brian Laghi
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/shouldnt-this-man-be-smiling/article1190197/
19 June: Ottawa Citzen:
Ottawa Citzen, "The pause that doesn't refresh", 19 June, 2009, Susan Riley
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/pause+that+doesn+refresh/1711009/story.html#PostComment
You have it starkly wrong on Ignatieff’s position and actions this week. Generally, I found your article hard to follow.
The problem is that Harper and the Cons have made it very clear that they simply do not compromise. Unless, of course, they are taken to the brink of losing power.
This in-your-face, my-way-or-the-highway approach to governing by Harper and the Cons leaves the Opposition very little leverage except to use the ‘non-confidence’ card. Unfortunately there is a general feeling against another election right now. Anyone who forces an election right now runs a very serious risk of a voter backlash. If Ignatieff were to do so, there would be a very real risk of a Conservative majority, taking away the only leverage to force any type of bridle on Harper and the Cons in power.
Also, EI is very important and a very good and expedient way of getting money out to stimulate the economy. However, it is far from an ‘election defining issue’. Harper knew this and so did Ignatieff. Essentially Ignatieff leveraged a non-election issue into guarranteed non-confidence votes in the Fall where the battle can be waged on election defining issues, or a build-up of smaller issues, each by themself not sufficient to force an election.
The best that Ignatieff could do is to force Harper to agree to confidence votes in the future so that even he, Harper, would have some difficulty in shutting parliament down to avoid such again. That’s the realities of the current circumstances. In such context, Ignatieff did exactly the right thing, not only for his own good and the good of the Liberal Party but the good of all Canadians, as time will tell.
Ignatieff this week demonstrated the type of compromise and decisions making that a modern democracy with a complex, open and tolerant, multi-and-competing interest, commerce based society requires. The I’m-right-your-wrong, I’m-big-your-small, sink-or-swim extreme right wing, ideologue approach of Harper, Flaherty and the Cons has no place in it.
Lloyd MacIlquham, cicblog.com/comments.html
20 June:
Saturday's Globe and Mail, Friday, Jun. 19, 2009 07:36PM EDT, Brian Laghi
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/shouldnt-this-man-be-smiling/article1190197/
19 June: Ottawa Citzen:
Ottawa Citzen, "The pause that doesn't refresh", 19 June, 2009, Susan Riley
http://www.ottawacitizen.com/news/pause+that+doesn+refresh/1711009/story.html#PostComment
You have it starkly wrong on Ignatieff’s position and actions this week. Generally, I found your article hard to follow.
The problem is that Harper and the Cons have made it very clear that they simply do not compromise. Unless, of course, they are taken to the brink of losing power.
This in-your-face, my-way-or-the-highway approach to governing by Harper and the Cons leaves the Opposition very little leverage except to use the ‘non-confidence’ card. Unfortunately there is a general feeling against another election right now. Anyone who forces an election right now runs a very serious risk of a voter backlash. If Ignatieff were to do so, there would be a very real risk of a Conservative majority, taking away the only leverage to force any type of bridle on Harper and the Cons in power.
Also, EI is very important and a very good and expedient way of getting money out to stimulate the economy. However, it is far from an ‘election defining issue’. Harper knew this and so did Ignatieff. Essentially Ignatieff leveraged a non-election issue into guarranteed non-confidence votes in the Fall where the battle can be waged on election defining issues, or a build-up of smaller issues, each by themself not sufficient to force an election.
The best that Ignatieff could do is to force Harper to agree to confidence votes in the future so that even he, Harper, would have some difficulty in shutting parliament down to avoid such again. That’s the realities of the current circumstances. In such context, Ignatieff did exactly the right thing, not only for his own good and the good of the Liberal Party but the good of all Canadians, as time will tell.
Ignatieff this week demonstrated the type of compromise and decisions making that a modern democracy with a complex, open and tolerant, multi-and-competing interest, commerce based society requires. The I’m-right-your-wrong, I’m-big-your-small, sink-or-swim extreme right wing, ideologue approach of Harper, Flaherty and the Cons has no place in it.
Lloyd MacIlquham, cicblog.com/comments.html
18 June, 2009
- If Harper and the Cons were to get a majority all I could say is “God save Canada”.
Comment on: Toronto Star, Opinion, 18 June, 2009, Bob Hepburn
http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/652578
There is no question that Harper and the Cons need to be out’d and that Canada and all Canadians would be far, far better off.
However, I think that the polls accurately reflect the general mood that an election is not wanted right now.
A big consideration is, if Ignatieff calls an election now there may be a voter backlash against the Liberal Party and people might vote Conservative out of spite.
- If Harper and the Cons were to get a majority all I could say is “God save Canada”.
http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/652578
There is no question that Harper and the Cons need to be out’d and that Canada and all Canadians would be far, far better off.
However, I think that the polls accurately reflect the general mood that an election is not wanted right now.
A big consideration is, if Ignatieff calls an election now there may be a voter backlash against the Liberal Party and people might vote Conservative out of spite.
- If Harper and the Cons were to get a majority all I could say is “God save Canada”.
14 June, 2009
- Flaherty, lecturing the G8?
G&M, “Flaherty sees U.S. deficit as biggest threat to recovery”, 14 June, 2009, Eric Reguly
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/flaherty-sees-us-deficit-as-biggest-threat-to-recovery/article1181282/
Flaherty: “All participants realize the need to control public spending and control public involvement in the private sector”.
Sounds like a right-wing ideology to me – except that even before Harper and Flaherty were forced to admit there was a recession they were spending like crazy.
Does anyone really wonder why the stimulus spending hasn’t materialized yet. Clearly, Harper, Flaherty and the Cons are dragging their feet because their extreme right-wing ideology simply does allow for it. It simply doesn’t matter how many people lose their jobs, savings, homes, way of life, because of it – after all that’s what ‘sink-or-swim’ is really all about, isn’t it.
I guess Harper, Flaherty and the Cons are hoping for the recession to end or the US to do the spending for us.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/flaherty-sees-us-deficit-as-biggest-threat-to-recovery/article1181282/
Flaherty: “All participants realize the need to control public spending and control public involvement in the private sector”.
Sounds like a right-wing ideology to me – except that even before Harper and Flaherty were forced to admit there was a recession they were spending like crazy.
Does anyone really wonder why the stimulus spending hasn’t materialized yet. Clearly, Harper, Flaherty and the Cons are dragging their feet because their extreme right-wing ideology simply does allow for it. It simply doesn’t matter how many people lose their jobs, savings, homes, way of life, because of it – after all that’s what ‘sink-or-swim’ is really all about, isn’t it.
I guess Harper, Flaherty and the Cons are hoping for the recession to end or the US to do the spending for us.
09 June, 2009
- Cyclical ‘Dictatorship’ – The Harper Rule
excerpts submitted to:
- Toronto Star, “If Harper fixed his moat would we ever find out?”, 9 Jun.’09, James Travers
- Toronto Star, "Political apathy fuelled by diminishing role of our MPs and a lack of transparency", 21 Jun.'09, Bruce Campion-Smith
Never mind cyclical ‘deficit’. How about a cyclical ‘dictatorship’. Harper seems to think so. Fortunately we must have an election every four year, Harper himself made that law (or do we??? I’m not sure, ask Harper, I’m sure he will be more than willing to tell us, I think, sometime, or not, who knows).
One of the biggest defenses against dictatorial rule is Freedom of Information. This, of course, was one of the first things that Harper attacked, and vigorously, when he took office. It was not inadvertent or ancillary to good government.
What we need is a political leader, and party, to champion transparency, integrity openness in government and freedom of information. Wait a minute, wasn’t ‘transparency’ Stephen Harper and his Con’s battle cry before they got elected.
Of course, Harper answers to the will of Parliament. So, we can turn to Parliament to protect us against dictatorial rule. And, then there is the Senate as well, with its sober second thought. Surely it will limit Harper and prevent him from implementing any right wing extremist ideologically based policies, especially those that lead to a de facto dictatorship. Harper himself told us that before he got elected. How could a dictator take over with Parliament and the Senate. Unless, of course, you dissolve Parliament when it goes to exercise its Will, call-to-arms a small but significant group of die-hard supporters, and abolish the Senate, or at least attack and hamstring it to the extent that it can’t protect itself, let alone Canada, all Canadians and our way of life. No Prime Minister would do such a thing. Would they?
Lloyd MacIlquham
- Toronto Star, “If Harper fixed his moat would we ever find out?”, 9 Jun.’09, James Travers
- Toronto Star, "Political apathy fuelled by diminishing role of our MPs and a lack of transparency", 21 Jun.'09, Bruce Campion-Smith
Never mind cyclical ‘deficit’. How about a cyclical ‘dictatorship’. Harper seems to think so. Fortunately we must have an election every four year, Harper himself made that law (or do we??? I’m not sure, ask Harper, I’m sure he will be more than willing to tell us, I think, sometime, or not, who knows).
One of the biggest defenses against dictatorial rule is Freedom of Information. This, of course, was one of the first things that Harper attacked, and vigorously, when he took office. It was not inadvertent or ancillary to good government.
What we need is a political leader, and party, to champion transparency, integrity openness in government and freedom of information. Wait a minute, wasn’t ‘transparency’ Stephen Harper and his Con’s battle cry before they got elected.
Of course, Harper answers to the will of Parliament. So, we can turn to Parliament to protect us against dictatorial rule. And, then there is the Senate as well, with its sober second thought. Surely it will limit Harper and prevent him from implementing any right wing extremist ideologically based policies, especially those that lead to a de facto dictatorship. Harper himself told us that before he got elected. How could a dictator take over with Parliament and the Senate. Unless, of course, you dissolve Parliament when it goes to exercise its Will, call-to-arms a small but significant group of die-hard supporters, and abolish the Senate, or at least attack and hamstring it to the extent that it can’t protect itself, let alone Canada, all Canadians and our way of life. No Prime Minister would do such a thing. Would they?
Lloyd MacIlquham
06 June, 2009
- Ignatieff should be implementing his own “Getting tough on Cons” policy (‘Cons’ = ‘The Harper Gang’).
submitted to: Toronto Star, "Liberal revolt", 5 June.'09, Susan Delacourt
http://thestar.blogs.com/politics/2009/06/liberal-revolt.html
If mandatory jail sentences do not reduce the frequency of the crime, then not only is there no point, it is counter-productive. It is very expensive and amounts to little more than a mandatory 2 year stint at Con U (for clarification, here ‘Con U’ refers to ‘Convict’s University’ - i.e. the converting of those convicted into hardened criminals while in prison and their learning how to do it right the next time - and not, say, the Conservative election camp) . Harper and the Cons ought to present the evidence to show that this policy is effective in reducing crime.
Harper and the Con’s mantra is “getting tough on crime”. But, how, exactly is Bill C-15 doing it. It may be getting tough on the criminals – i.e. those who are convicted of committing such crimes. But where is the empirical connection between that and getting tough on ‘crime’. When you consider that the evidence apparently in the US is that these measures don’t work then the onus is even more on Harper and the Cons to produce the underlying evidence in support. Otherwise, one can conclude little more than this is being done for the optics, comparable to reducing the GST by 2%. We all, as Canadians, ought to be demanding this of Harper, and not just Ignatieff and the Liberals. It is a question of integrity.
Clearly in the next election Harper and the Cons will be referring to their “tough on crime” stance and it may be very difficult for Ignatieff to say “where’s the proof” at that time. Ignatieff should be implementing his own “getting tough on Cons” policy and now.
http://thestar.blogs.com/politics/2009/06/liberal-revolt.html
If mandatory jail sentences do not reduce the frequency of the crime, then not only is there no point, it is counter-productive. It is very expensive and amounts to little more than a mandatory 2 year stint at Con U (for clarification, here ‘Con U’ refers to ‘Convict’s University’ - i.e. the converting of those convicted into hardened criminals while in prison and their learning how to do it right the next time - and not, say, the Conservative election camp) . Harper and the Cons ought to present the evidence to show that this policy is effective in reducing crime.
Harper and the Con’s mantra is “getting tough on crime”. But, how, exactly is Bill C-15 doing it. It may be getting tough on the criminals – i.e. those who are convicted of committing such crimes. But where is the empirical connection between that and getting tough on ‘crime’. When you consider that the evidence apparently in the US is that these measures don’t work then the onus is even more on Harper and the Cons to produce the underlying evidence in support. Otherwise, one can conclude little more than this is being done for the optics, comparable to reducing the GST by 2%. We all, as Canadians, ought to be demanding this of Harper, and not just Ignatieff and the Liberals. It is a question of integrity.
Clearly in the next election Harper and the Cons will be referring to their “tough on crime” stance and it may be very difficult for Ignatieff to say “where’s the proof” at that time. Ignatieff should be implementing his own “getting tough on Cons” policy and now.
05 June, 2009
- So, why has Harper taken so long to take any type of action
Posted to: Globe and Mail, “Premiers rally behind Harper in fight against Buy American”, 5 June, 2009, Brian Laghi, Campbell Clark, Steven Chase and Barrie Mckenna
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/premiers-rally-behind-harper-in-fight-against-buy-american/article1169850/
t seems to me the ‘buy American provisions’ have been ‘in the news’ since the introduction of the Stimulus package. It does not take specific examples to be able to foresee the huge and terrible economic impact on Canadian companies.
So, why has Harper taken so long to take any type of action. As suggested in the article by the time Harper gets around to doing anything the money will have been spent.
Harper and the Cons seem to be able to take the initiative and be very fast with their negative and very non-constructive attack ads.
Why is it when it comes to doing anything constructive to benefit Canada during this economic recession Harper and the Cons are in denial and simply drag their feet regarding taking any meaningful action …
It must be Harper’s and the Cons’ extreme right wing ideological agenda.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/premiers-rally-behind-harper-in-fight-against-buy-american/article1169850/
t seems to me the ‘buy American provisions’ have been ‘in the news’ since the introduction of the Stimulus package. It does not take specific examples to be able to foresee the huge and terrible economic impact on Canadian companies.
So, why has Harper taken so long to take any type of action. As suggested in the article by the time Harper gets around to doing anything the money will have been spent.
Harper and the Cons seem to be able to take the initiative and be very fast with their negative and very non-constructive attack ads.
Why is it when it comes to doing anything constructive to benefit Canada during this economic recession Harper and the Cons are in denial and simply drag their feet regarding taking any meaningful action …
It must be Harper’s and the Cons’ extreme right wing ideological agenda.
04 June, 2009
- Thank God Harper and the Cons don’t have a majority.
Comment submitted to:
Toronto Star, “Learning the lessons of power”, 4 June, 2009, James Travers
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/645311
If they did, they would not have to worry about any ‘learning curve’ they would simply commence implementing their extreme right wing ideologically based policies and the ‘Good of Canada be Damned!’.
Now at least they have to take it a bit slower. They also have to do it covertly, which leaves the very undesirable prospect of the Canadian electorate not really having much of a clear idea of what Harper and the Cons are really up to. Hopefully, some of the damage will be reversible when Harper and the Cons are turffed from office.
Lloyd MacIlquham
Toronto Star, “Learning the lessons of power”, 4 June, 2009, James Travers
http://www.thestar.com/news/canada/article/645311
If they did, they would not have to worry about any ‘learning curve’ they would simply commence implementing their extreme right wing ideologically based policies and the ‘Good of Canada be Damned!’.
Now at least they have to take it a bit slower. They also have to do it covertly, which leaves the very undesirable prospect of the Canadian electorate not really having much of a clear idea of what Harper and the Cons are really up to. Hopefully, some of the damage will be reversible when Harper and the Cons are turffed from office.
Lloyd MacIlquham
02 June, 2009
- If Harper and the Con’s Had Never Taken the Helm of the Good Ship Canada Our Deficit Would be less than 10 billion
Submitted to Toronto Star, “Tories wield the deficit truncheonTories wield the deficit truncheon”, Linda Mcquaig, 2 June, 2009
http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/643832#Comments
Title: The problem is that Harper, despite having a minority and despite the necessity, logic and fairness of changing the IE benefits, is maintaining his ‘in your face … my way or the highway … Laissez-faire … sink or swim…if the Opposition Parties want it then I will oppose it … right wing extremist ideological …’ attitude.
Good Point:
The Harper and the Cons' self-serving and ill advised reduction of taxes solely to win votes amounts to $34 billion this year. Add in the huge increases in spending like to the military and other areas.
Conclusion: If Harper and the Cons had never taken office, the deficit would be a mere $10 billion or less.
Unfortunately we can’t just simply reverse the damage Harper and the Cons have done in this area, or any of the other areas.
It is very difficult to increase taxes and this, of course, is part of the Harper strategy – just compare some of the attack ads against Ignatieff (vis.: ‘Ignatieff calls himself a tax and spend Liberal’ – I don’t recall Ignatieff saying that, perhaps Harper can point to the sound bite where he says this). It is also very difficult to roll back spending.
This is why what the Liberals achieved in the ‘90’s – i.e. elimination of the deficit, is so outstanding. And, they will have to do it again.
Lloyd MacIlquham
http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/643832#Comments
Title: The problem is that Harper, despite having a minority and despite the necessity, logic and fairness of changing the IE benefits, is maintaining his ‘in your face … my way or the highway … Laissez-faire … sink or swim…if the Opposition Parties want it then I will oppose it … right wing extremist ideological …’ attitude.
Good Point:
The Harper and the Cons' self-serving and ill advised reduction of taxes solely to win votes amounts to $34 billion this year. Add in the huge increases in spending like to the military and other areas.
Conclusion: If Harper and the Cons had never taken office, the deficit would be a mere $10 billion or less.
Unfortunately we can’t just simply reverse the damage Harper and the Cons have done in this area, or any of the other areas.
It is very difficult to increase taxes and this, of course, is part of the Harper strategy – just compare some of the attack ads against Ignatieff (vis.: ‘Ignatieff calls himself a tax and spend Liberal’ – I don’t recall Ignatieff saying that, perhaps Harper can point to the sound bite where he says this). It is also very difficult to roll back spending.
This is why what the Liberals achieved in the ‘90’s – i.e. elimination of the deficit, is so outstanding. And, they will have to do it again.
Lloyd MacIlquham
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)