babble home
rabble.ca - news for the rest of us
today's active topics


  
FAQ | Forum Home
  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» babble   » archived babble   » election 2006   » What would Canada look like on Jan. 12, 2008 if...?

Email this thread to someone!    
Author Topic: What would Canada look like on Jan. 12, 2008 if...?
dgrollins
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5268

posted 12 January 2006 01:30 PM      Profile for dgrollins   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Steven Harper and the Conservatives were to win a majority government this month?

In real terms , what do you think it would look like?

What policies do you believe will have changed, what impact will hose policies have on Canadians, etc.

I’ve used a two year figure to allow for a full establishment of the party’s policy.

So...what does a Harper led Canada look like?

Edited for spelling

[ 12 January 2006: Message edited by: dgrollins ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
Suaros
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10562

posted 12 January 2006 01:51 PM      Profile for Suaros     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
-5% GST, but PST goes up to "compensate" for fiscal imbalance
-house cleaning performed a la Campbell in 2001 in BC
-lower income taxes
-Canada's military stronger + involved in Iran (possibly if we go to war)
-tons of bureaucrats get pink slips
-more Canadian agencies get distributed amongst the provinces (eg how the Tourism was recently moved to Vancouver by Emerson)

I don't think the CPC could really do too much more... it would likely only be a minority government, and they aren't hell-bent on radicalizing the feds.


From: Toronto | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
BigLebowski
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11662

posted 12 January 2006 01:56 PM      Profile for BigLebowski     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Lower taxes and more power to the provinces and hopefully less corporate welfare a la Bombardier
From: Montreal | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
robbie_dee
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 195

posted 12 January 2006 01:58 PM      Profile for robbie_dee     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
What would Canada look like?

From: Iron City | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Loretta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 222

posted 12 January 2006 02:06 PM      Profile for Loretta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
*More people living on the street
*More families losing their children to adoption and foster care due to poverty
*More seniors not able to obtain homecare and medication as well as being separated from their spouse (living in communities hours apart by car travel) when needing long-term care,
*More women making less than a fair wage
*More money to private healthcare and private education less to public services
*Peacekeeping role continuing to wane with active combat activities increasing
*Increasing state police and encroachment on individual rights
*Decreasing support and compliance with UN Conventions
*Increasing power to the PM's office a la George Bush

.....one can go on and on....

[ 12 January 2006: Message edited by: Loretta ]


From: The West Kootenays of BC | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Albireo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3052

posted 12 January 2006 02:09 PM      Profile for Albireo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Canada? What Canada? Isn't that a brand of ginger ale?
From: --> . <-- | Registered: Sep 2002  |  IP: Logged
dgrollins
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5268

posted 12 January 2006 06:33 PM      Profile for dgrollins   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Albireo:
Canada? What Canada? Isn't that a brand of ginger ale?

I appreciate you are being flippant, but do you actually believe that a Conservative government would literally lead to the destruction of Canada? Or just a certain "type" of Canada?

I posted this thread because I am legitimately interested in hearing some substantive responses. I hear a lot of "sky is falling" predictions about a Conservative government; I'm curious to understand specifically why people think the sky would fall?

So...bump...anyone else?

What--specifically--does a Harper government look like in two year’s time?


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
dgrollins
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5268

posted 12 January 2006 06:37 PM      Profile for dgrollins   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Loretta:
*,
*More women making less than a fair wage

[ 12 January 2006: Message edited by: Loretta ]



Thank you for your response.

I understand where you are coming from on most of your points. However, I found the above interesting.

Is there a specific policy that you are thinking of that would lead to a reduction in women's gains in the workplace?


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 12 January 2006 06:39 PM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Western conservatives will finally have to stop blaiming Ontario and the east and then apologize when things get worst.

Pigs will learn to fly.


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Lennonist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10861

posted 12 January 2006 06:47 PM      Profile for Lennonist        Edit/Delete Post
Harper will be the President of Alberta telling Saskatchewan and Manitoba to stop crying about the Americans raping their resources and stop asking for hand-outs from the Republic of Alberta.
There will be winners and losers when Canada gets chopped up into tiny republics. Alberta will do well and so will Ontario and BC, I am not too sure about the other republics. They will be forced to sell out to American interests for survival.

But then when Harper always talked about western separation he never really cared about anybody except Alberta. He just uses the entire west for more clout. When he chops up Canada into little fiefdoms it will be every republic for themselves.

The GTA could probably survive as a city-state like Singapore but the GTA knows that it is part of the greater good that is Canada.


From: Laytons Riding | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
dgrollins
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5268

posted 12 January 2006 06:48 PM      Profile for dgrollins   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by No Yards:
Western conservatives will finally have to stop blaiming Ontario and the east and then apologize when things get worst.

Pigs will learn to fly.


But wouldn't the Conservatives argue that flying pigs are an abomination and a threat to the institution of traditional pigdom?

I would think that flying pigs would by far more accepted by progressive politicians, don't you?


From: Toronto | Registered: Mar 2004  |  IP: Logged
stupendousgirlie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11076

posted 12 January 2006 07:02 PM      Profile for stupendousgirlie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
To quote "Ghostbusters"...

quote:
Doctor Peter Venkman: This country is about to face a disaster of biblical proportions.
Mayor: What do you mean, "biblical?"
Doctor Raymond Stantz: We mean real wrath-of-God type stuff. Plagues, darkness--
Winston Zeddemore: The dead rising from the grave!
Doctor Egon Spengler: Forty years of darkness! Earthquakes, volcanoes--
Doctor Peter Venkman: Riots in the streets, dogs and cats living together, mass hysteria!

From: Wondering how the left can ever form a national government | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
Modest Mook
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11282

posted 12 January 2006 07:02 PM      Profile for Modest Mook     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Y'know I hate how most of the responses here are silly and sarcastic without even thinking about it. Like Harper will somehow manage to set Canada on fire all at once.

I see a few positive changes about a Harper govt
- GST cut. Not nessicarily the best cut, but it is still a tax cut.
- Cleaned up and much more transparent Gov't
- 100$ per kid under the age of 6 per month. Might not be the best way of addressing the issue, but it can have a positive effect
- repairing past Martin damage to the relationship with the US
- A resolution to softwood dispute (debateable, but I think Harper will be stronger on the issue then Martin's all words and no action)
- A stronger wheatboard for farmers (debateable if it's the best plan, but it's effect will be positive)


Couple points I see as could go either way
- Stronger Canadian military presence
- Stronger police presence

And a few points I don't like
- Revisting of social issues that should be done with, such as SSM
- Actually, lets jump all the social policy here
- And healthcare.

I cannot explain the irrational fear that some people have, like Loretta... Is Harper going to introduce a bill that ensures females get paid 25% less? Is he going to evict as many poor people as he possibly can? We're still Canadians and we are still going to hold these values and no conservative government is going to be able to suddenly take them away.

[ 12 January 2006: Message edited by: Modest Mook ]


From: Calgary, Canada | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Loretta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 222

posted 12 January 2006 07:03 PM      Profile for Loretta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I believe that gains such as pay equity, human rights on the basis of gender and sexual harassment policies will be lost or severely undermined under the Conservatives. The poor have been lacking appropriate help under the Liberals (through cuts to EI eligibility and lack of accountability of the provinces around social assistance money) but I expect that would grow more severe with a Conservative government.

This has happened here in the province of BC under the right-wing provincial Liberals who are the ideological equivalent of the federal Conservatives. Pay equity legislation was reversed, the Human Rights Commission was scrapped and now children (beginning at age 13) can legally work. Income assistance rates have, in real terms, been reduced and eligibility requirements have been so strictly tightened that many women lack this vital means of help when it's needed.

These are losses for many individual women and children but also a loss for the whole of society.


From: The West Kootenays of BC | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Loretta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 222

posted 12 January 2006 07:11 PM      Profile for Loretta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
I cannot explain the irrational fear that some people have, like Loretta

Perhaps it has something to do with living in a place where my "irrational fears" have been realized.

I have met and know of other young women (with babes in arms) hitch-hiking to obtain meager social assistance because services have been so badly cut and access has been reduced.

I know women who don't qualify for day-care subsidies because their low income (just barely above minimum wage) is too high for them to qualify.

I know of families whose children have been taken into foster care because they couldn't afford to pay their outstanding hydro-bill and their homes were deemed unhealthy for children without hydro. I see people approaching churches for food every single day of the week.

I don't think these are "irrational fears" -- they are the reality of living under a right-wing government.

[ 12 January 2006: Message edited by: Loretta ]

[ 12 January 2006: Message edited by: Loretta ]


From: The West Kootenays of BC | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Modest Mook
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11282

posted 12 January 2006 07:15 PM      Profile for Modest Mook     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Thanks Loretta, I very much appriciate your post
quote:
I believe that gains such as pay equity, human rights on the basis of gender and sexual harassment policies will be lost or severely undermined under the Conservatives.

Under the Liberal gov't we saw child poverty hit record hieghts and one of the sorriest environmental records I have seen (which I am exceedingly ashamed of as a Canadian). I'm not sure if Harper could do any worse.

Nor am I sure if we'll see gains made in previous years lost. I can see the gains being put on hold and no further progress being made... But I don't see a reversal of the gains we have already made.

I also see this as an opp for Harper... Theres enough weight and enough pressure on him to avoid becoming exactly what the liberals sad he was. If he wishes to continue to be in Canadian politics, he is going to have to prove to voters for the next elections beyond this that there isn't the need to fear him. I doubt Harper (or any conservative member) would do what Martin says he would lest they risk the entire Conservatives political future in Canada.
addited:

quote:
I have met and know of other young women (with babes in arms) hitch-hiking to obtain meager social assistance because services have been so badly cut and access has been reduced.


And the 13 years of liberal gov't addressed this how?

quote:

I know women who don't qualify for day-care subsidies because their low income (just barely above minimum wage) is too high for them to qualify.


Wouldn't Harpers plan of 100$ per month per child 6 and under be a partial solution to this? (sorry if I'm blind to what you're saying, I'm not exactly the brightest at times) And you're right... I'd much prefer to have the NDP version of childcare, but atleast Harper is introducing something that would aid the issue in some manners.

[ 12 January 2006: Message edited by: Modest Mook ]


From: Calgary, Canada | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
mary123
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6125

posted 12 January 2006 07:16 PM      Profile for mary123     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Harper will give in to bank mergers against the wishes of Canadians and watch our bank fees increase for lesser services and less banking competition.

Harpers mantra:

capitalism for the average people
socialism for companies.


From: ~~Canada - still God's greatest creation on the face of the earth~~ | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Loretta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 222

posted 12 January 2006 07:24 PM      Profile for Loretta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Let me ask you to consider this, Modest Mook -- do you really want to give Canada a chance to find out what it will be like? Is Harper, whose support comes from those who support extremely conservative social and fiscal policies (a la George W. Bush), likely to be able to hold the status quo with respect to human rights, poverty, public services and equity issues? Having seen G. Campbell in action, I very much doubt it and I think it will be the beginning of many a dark day for lots of us if Harper gets elected.

quote:
Wouldn't Harpers plan of 100$ per month per child 6 and under be a partial solution to this?

No, for one thing because it's likely that the provinces will claw it back as most of them now do with the National Child Benefit. As well, my daycare is considered very affordable by most standards and I pay $25/day. That's $125/week -- how will $100 month make a dent in this for those who are poor?

I don't want the Liberals either, thanks. They have done horrible things with respect to the poor.

As was raised above, the Liberals have also taken on military commitments that go against what the majority of Canadians want, in very surreptious ways and despite Paul Martin's claims. The Conservatives scare me with respect to that aspect of their policy -- I want our government to work on expanding opportunities for peacekeeping and peacemaking. They would openly send our CF members off in support of G.W. Bush to defend corporate interests.

[ 12 January 2006: Message edited by: Loretta ]


From: The West Kootenays of BC | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
TonyToo
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11421

posted 12 January 2006 07:25 PM      Profile for TonyToo     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
According the Liberal Party of Canada, Canada will have,

wait for it,

dum didi dum dum,

dum didi dum dum,

THE!

In our cities.

And our towns.

In Harbour Grace.

In Burlington.

In Regina.

Well you get it . . .


From: here | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 12 January 2006 07:33 PM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
The difference between the CPC and Liberals when it comes to social programs.

The Liberals will gut social programs, see that people are suffering, talk about all the ways they are going to rebuild the social safety net, but act to further cut the system.

The CPC will gut social programs, see that the people are suffering, blame the people that are suffering for causing their own suffering and then take measures to stop all these suffering people from leaching off society by further cutting their social services and throwing the poor in prisons and institutions.

P.S.

Conservatives will naturally outlaw the unnatural act of flying pigs.


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
Suaros
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10562

posted 12 January 2006 07:42 PM      Profile for Suaros     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by mary123:
Harper will give in to bank mergers against the wishes of Canadians and watch our bank fees increase for lesser services and less banking competition.

Harpers mantra:

capitalism for the average people
socialism for companies.


There is plenty of banking competition, you just need to be a smart consumer. There are tons of foreign banks where your investments are safe, and they offer the same services as regular schedule 1 banks (such as debit cards, online banking, etc).


From: Toronto | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
ceti
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7851

posted 12 January 2006 07:45 PM      Profile for ceti     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Because of the surplus, the Conservatives have a lot of room to manoeuvre. This is Martin's "gift" to the next government, and they will make full use of it to push through populist legislation like tax relief and such (Bush did this by giving $300 to everyone in 2001). However, the long term implications is that if the economy tanks, more people will be on the streets or in a tough situation.

The big policy changes will be on the international scene. A much stronger pro-Israel tilt, with a tough approach to other left governments in the Hemisphere (the Conservatives have a lot of Christian Zionists who are much more driven by end times scenarios). Ideologues in the Conservative party will throw their full support to the right wing globally. While the Liberals did this quietly, the Conservatives will be a lot more noisy with their political inclinations, thus severely undermining the left globally, and putting Canada firmly in the ranks of oppressor nations.

Policy Reversals: Kyoto, Missile Defense, Votes in the UN general assembly (will line up with the US), global treaties, etc. Much more Alberta-driven policies.

Haiti and Afghanistan will intensify. More people in jail. More antagonism with First Nations and particular immigrant communities (Arab, Caribbean, Latin American, etc.)

On the social front, there will be some thunder, but the Conservatives know this is bound to create problems. What they will do instead is quietly increase support for faith-based initiatives, as well appoint evangelicals and fellow travelers to important posts.

If they stay in power long enough, they will pick some conservative Justices.


From: various musings before the revolution | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Lennonist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10861

posted 12 January 2006 07:46 PM      Profile for Lennonist        Edit/Delete Post
I think the moderate conservatives, Bill Davis types, would see the outlawing of pigs flying as the last straw and finally leave the security of the 35 redneck seats that the Reformatories bring to the party and will re-establish the Progressive Conservative Party with the distraught right-wing Liberals while the left-wing Liberals join forces with the NDP.

Denying SSM and a denying a womans right to choose is tolerable but to deny a pig the right to fly is a non-starter. You have to draw the line somewhere.


From: Laytons Riding | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
radiorahim
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2777

posted 12 January 2006 08:10 PM      Profile for radiorahim     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
It all depends on whether he's in a majority or minority situation.

The biggest thing I see him moving on is decentralizing power away from the federal government towards the provinces.

Whatever is left of the social safety net will be replaced by a patchwork of provincial programmes...and there'll be more privatization.

There'll be more deregulation and less enforcement of what little regulation the federal government does these days.

I don't see him doing very much on SSM and abortion. He'll let the fundie ideologues have their "free vote", it'll lose and that'll be the end of that.

I agree...a Harper government will have its nose stuck firmly up Bush's ass. But despite this, the softwood lumber issue will still be with us. Mulroney was the biggest braun noser of them all and still didn't solve the softwood lumber crisis.

The CF will find themselves on more combat missions...that they're ill-equipped to handle.

I think we'll see more social deterioration in large urban areas and a generally higher crime rate as a result. We'll probably see more prisons being built...privatized of course.

A number of the promised tax cuts won't materialize or will be eaten up by tax increases by other levels of government. The corporate tax cuts will end up being delivered.

On the positive side...the left will be forced to mobilize again. There'll be a whole lot more demonstrations and protest marches. I see alot more strikes too.


From: a Micro$oft-free computer | Registered: Jun 2002  |  IP: Logged
gram swaraj
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11527

posted 12 January 2006 08:21 PM      Profile for gram swaraj   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by dgrollins:
do you actually believe that a Conservative government would literally lead to the destruction of Canada? Or just a certain "type" of Canada?

Canada, a brand of ginger ale.

It was once something that could pass off being called a "country," but two years after the election of a Harper Conservative government (be it a majority or a strong minority in collusion with the BQ), powers have been so devolved to the provinces that a break-up of Canada is now clearly visible on the horizon.

Our soldiers will be sent to Iran, under de facto American command. Quebecers won't go, though. It'll be a caricature of the WWI conscription crisis. And forget trying to fulfill that Kyoto thing. Corporate rule is all that matters. Goodbye healthcare. The WTO's GATS (General Agreement on Trade in Services) provisions will enable private medical "care" to move in on all of Canada, once one province, probably Alberta, opens the floodgates.

More inaction on climate change. Harper will contribute greatly to the desertification of his home province.

Canada Dry, that is.


From: mon pays ce n'est pas un pays, c'est la terre | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
mary123
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6125

posted 12 January 2006 08:22 PM      Profile for mary123     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I don't want to spend my time marching against bigots like Harper ... been there done that during the Mike Harris years and it's boring.

I want to have a great quality of life and prevention is the key.
DO NOT ELECT THE BIGOTS.

I want to have great race relations in Canada and it will not happen under Harper, these neo cons encourage uncivil unrest, poverty it's good for business. Just like in George Bush's America it's a freaking mess down there.

Quality of life, quality of life is key. America is not a good model for quality of life.


From: ~~Canada - still God's greatest creation on the face of the earth~~ | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
BCastro
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11420

posted 12 January 2006 08:24 PM      Profile for BCastro     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Liberal Ad:

[ 12 January 2006: Message edited by: BCastro ]


From: Halifax | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
mary123
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6125

posted 12 January 2006 08:27 PM      Profile for mary123     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post

[ 12 January 2006: Message edited by: mary123 ]


From: ~~Canada - still God's greatest creation on the face of the earth~~ | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Skinny Dipper
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11459

posted 12 January 2006 08:49 PM      Profile for Skinny Dipper   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
I am reading lots of good points.

My thoughts:

-GST down to 6%;
-PST up 1%;
-Constitutional discussions will start-up again. Quebec's status and Senate reform. Throw in property rights. Transfer of powers to provinces.
-Problems will occur with federal public service. Either wage/salary limitations or freezes. Powers may be transferred to the provinces. Federal employees won't necessarity go work with the provinces. Jobs contracted out to private sector.
-Day Care, $1200 tax credit--not free money.
-Aboriginal affairs--More self-government but less funding.
-Relations with U.S. will improve for Harper. He may not be overly chummy with GWB, but will wait until the next president of the American Republic.
-Repeal of same-sex marriage will be voted as a private members' bill. It will be defeated.
-The Conservatives will pass a meaningless definition of "traditional" marriage as being between a man and a woman. "Modern" marriage between any two adults won't be touched.
-Abortion rights won't be touched. This is a provincial responsibility.


From: Ontarian for STV in BC | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Loretta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 222

posted 12 January 2006 09:24 PM      Profile for Loretta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
-Abortion rights won't be touched. This is a provincial responsibility.

What's to stop the Conservatives from getting abortion back under the Criminal Code?

I don't understand the measure of trust that they (the CPC) seem to be engendering . Isn't Ontario's experience with Harris or BC's experience with Campbell enough to inform people that the right-wing will play the moderate game in order to get into power and then impose an extreme agenda?

[ 12 January 2006: Message edited by: Loretta ]


From: The West Kootenays of BC | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
Andy (Andrew)
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10884

posted 12 January 2006 09:29 PM      Profile for Andy (Andrew)   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Harper has promised again and again he won't touch abortion rights. The most he'll do is de-fund it. For verification of that please see the campaign life election site where it shows CPC candidates saying they'll support that.

He will privatize health care.

He will have a free vote on marriage.

He will give pink slips to government employees. My hope is that those who voted CPC get them first. I think that's a much fairer way than seniority.


From: Alberta | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
mary123
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6125

posted 12 January 2006 09:34 PM      Profile for mary123     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yeah remember the "Compassionate Conservative" George Bush line he used before the US elections? George was just 'acting' like a compassionate conservative to win over naive voters. He was all soft and cuddly just like Harper is trying to be now.

George Bush was no compassionate conservative. And neither is Harper. They are both lying to their population. Look at the corruption scandals in America because of George Bush. Our scandal is nothing compared to the George Bush corruption scandals.

Stephen Harper is no more a "compassionate conservative" than Paris Hilton is a virgin.


From: ~~Canada - still God's greatest creation on the face of the earth~~ | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
Andy (Andrew)
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10884

posted 12 January 2006 09:38 PM      Profile for Andy (Andrew)   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
George Bush isn't a liar. He was clear about his views on abortion, on same sex marriage, on the war, and on privatizing social security.

Steven Harper is campaigning considerably left of what he actually intends.


From: Alberta | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
mary123
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6125

posted 12 January 2006 09:40 PM      Profile for mary123     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Canada doesn't need a George Bush groupie like Stephen Harper.
From: ~~Canada - still God's greatest creation on the face of the earth~~ | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
mary123
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6125

posted 12 January 2006 09:52 PM      Profile for mary123     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Examples of George Bush (and if elected Stephen Harper) "compassionate conservatism."

Scenes from the Katrina Hurricane in New Orleans.
Stephen Harper hates black people and Indians and gays and lesbians and ....

[ 12 January 2006: Message edited by: mary123 ]


From: ~~Canada - still God's greatest creation on the face of the earth~~ | Registered: Jun 2004  |  IP: Logged
red shoes
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6710

posted 12 January 2006 10:06 PM      Profile for red shoes     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
- U.S. backsides fully and lovingly kissed.
- No abortions, no gay marriage, no anti-jesus thinking.
- Weakened infrastructure, strengthened corporate welfare.
- Alberta uber alles.
- Fast talk, no action.

From: Harrisburg, PA, Blue States of America | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
Loretta
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 222

posted 12 January 2006 10:06 PM      Profile for Loretta     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Harper has promised again and again he won't touch abortion rights. The most he'll do is de-fund it.

Sounds pretty innocuous, put that like -- don't people realize that this puts abortion out of the reach of many, if not most, women? Poor women, who can least support a child, can't afford to pay anything...what is it about this that folks don't get?

This would create a situation of going back to the 70s and before, when women carried their babies to term so that they could be scooped for adoption.

[ 12 January 2006: Message edited by: Loretta ]


From: The West Kootenays of BC | Registered: Apr 2001  |  IP: Logged
JKR
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7904

posted 12 January 2006 10:07 PM      Profile for JKR        Edit/Delete Post
Yeah, it'll be a repeat of Harris, Klien, GW Bush and Gordon Campbell. This movie seems to be repeating itself too often. Taxes will be cut, deficits will appear, they'll say there's not enough money for social programs, more people will use food banks....

What's really unfortunate is that Layton and the NDP have given Harper and the neo-Cons a free ride. They won't tell voters that Harper is just another Harris-Klien-Dubya-Gordo monstrosity because they're afraid that would chase voters to the Liberals. But who's to say that voters wouldn't come to the NDP instead?

Let's just hope the Conservatives are limited to a minority. Of course, the NDP is in a position to do a lot more then hope. They could have a media-campaign against the neo-Cons. But my guess is that they care more about winning a few more seats. They're willing to trade off getting a neo-Con majority in return for getting a few extra seats in Ontario. But here in BC the races are mostly between the NDP and Conservatives. It would seem that winning seats in Ontario is more important then winning seats in BC and Saskatchewan.

[ 12 January 2006: Message edited by: JKR ]


From: Vancouver | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
red shoes
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6710

posted 12 January 2006 10:10 PM      Profile for red shoes     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Hey Andy (Andrew)... what a cute Canadian goofball you are. Bush doesn't lie? Pull your head out of your backside for a minute. Guess what? The Chimp lies every day. Cheney lies every minute. Have you been here? To the Fascist States? Wait for your Lord Harper, Andy. Then we'll all be one happy bible-licking, corporatocratic war machine.
From: Harrisburg, PA, Blue States of America | Registered: Aug 2004  |  IP: Logged
island empire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8064

posted 12 January 2006 10:15 PM      Profile for island empire     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
don't forget that the reformatories have long promised to privatise the cbc, to abolish the wheat board, and to force every man and woman in the country to eat .6 kilos of beef per day (gay men and lesbian women would have to eat .8 kilos per day).
From: montréal, canada | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
Sifo-Dyas
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11116

posted 12 January 2006 10:43 PM      Profile for Sifo-Dyas     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Deleted

[ 22 May 2006: Message edited by: Sifo-Dyas ]


From: --- | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
CanadianAlien
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1219

posted 12 January 2006 11:20 PM      Profile for CanadianAlien   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Bad relationship with the US? It is a bad relationship with the Bush administration, something that every country currently enjoys.

There are 290 million people in US and 50 states - Canada has a great relationship with the majority.

The only relationship Harper will improve will be one with Bush administration and that is nothing to campaign on.


From: Toronto | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Michael Watkins
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11256

posted 12 January 2006 11:31 PM      Profile for Michael Watkins   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Andy (Andrew):
George Bush isn't a liar. He was clear about his views on abortion, on same sex marriage, on the war, and on privatizing social security.

I disagree, slightly. Three out of four ain't bad I guess, but that life-lovin' president down thar is responsible for an illegal war that he lied through his teeth to shove it all the way deep down the American people's(1) throats and that same life-lovin' "don't let a brain-dead vegetable(2) die" president is directly culpable in the deaths of tens of thousands of livin' breathin' actually functioning innocent people.

So yes, Bush didn't lie about his views on abortion, social security or same sex marriage but who gives a damn when his big sin makes him the equivalent of any war criminal?

quote:
Originally posted by Andy (Andrew):
Steven Harper is campaigning considerably left of what he actually intends.

Full points there Andy.

And before anyone gets on a moral high horse with me, I'd like to point out that

(1) three quarters of my family is American including my wife and all but one of them agree with me on the legality, validity and utility of Bush's illegal war; one of them worked in the region professionally and two of my cousins are ex US military and agree.

(2) I know very well what its like to disconnect someone from life support and extreme measures, from very personal experience.

The entire Bush life-lovin' theme makes me want to barf in disgust every time I hear him utter those lies.

[ 12 January 2006: Message edited by: Michael Watkins ]


From: Vancouver Kingway - Democracy In Peril | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
No Yards
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4169

posted 12 January 2006 11:50 PM      Profile for No Yards   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Andy (Andrew):
George Bush isn't a liar. He was clear about his views on abortion, on same sex marriage, on the war, and on privatizing social security.

Steven Harper is campaigning considerably left of what he actually intends.


Well, yes, he was clear about this intentions, which were to outlaw abortions, outlaw same sex marriages, go to war, and privatize social security.

So he went to war, and his failure on Social security might be claimed to not be his fault, but he lied (to his right wing Christian Fundamentalist constituency) on the abortion and marriage issues.

A Republican president with republican majorities in both houses, and a republican majority in the SC, and he was unable to pass a couple of bills that would be popular with a majority of the voting public? I don't think one can consider it anything else than a lie.

It's obvious that Bush doesn't want to "win" those issues, they are the perfect wedge issues with which to rile up his base to come out to vote ... "win" those issues and there might not be anything left to rally the troops.


From: Defending traditional marriage since June 28, 2005 | Registered: Jun 2003  |  IP: Logged
pookie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11357

posted 13 January 2006 12:13 AM      Profile for pookie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Andy (Andrew):
Harper has promised again and again he won't touch abortion rights. The most he'll do is de-fund it.

Exactly how will Harris defund abortion? The federal government can't dictate which health services provinces choose to fund.

Additionally, targetting abortion funding specifically as a condition of federal transfers would violate women's equality rights.

In any event, provincial abortion funding is pretty pitiful right now in medieval places like New Brunswick.

Actually, all Harris has to do isnwith respect to abortion is...absolutely nothing.


From: there's no "there" there | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
lonewolf2
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10589

posted 13 January 2006 12:27 AM      Profile for lonewolf2     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Modest Monk posted:

quote:
I cannot explain the irrational fear that some people have, like Loretta... Is Harper going to introduce a bill that ensures females get paid 25% less? Is he going to evict as many poor people as he possibly can? We're still Canadians and we are still going to hold these values and no conservative government is going to be able to suddenly take them away.

....ummm, Mike Harris and his 'Common Sense Revolution' did enough damage in his first 5 years to damage all social programs in Ontario such that it will take 15 or 20 to restore them (if ever).

Canadians with values who want to disagree after a Conservative majority will find themselves in street protests getting their heads bashed by riot police.

I'm not making this up.

It happened.

Really.

(cue ominous music)

P.S. Modest Monk is in Calgary, so hasn't experienced the wrath of a once rejected Conservative like Mike Harris.

[ 13 January 2006: Message edited by: lonewolf2 ]


From: Toronto | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 13 January 2006 12:41 AM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Giving powers to the provinces will empower the West rather than send Quebec packing, (Conservative Maurice) Vellacott said.

"The federal government, with their spending power, has kind of bought their way into a bunch of other areas that nobody asked them to be involved in and are much better handled closer to home at the provincial and the municipal levels of government," he said.
Like . . . medicare . . . child care . . . post-secondary education . . . environmental programmes . . . the Trans-Canada Highway . . .

The Library of Parliament says:

quote:
The spending power thus became the main lever of federal influence in fields that are legislatively within provincial jurisdiction, such as health care, education, welfare, manpower training and regional development. By making financial contributions to specified provincial programs, the federal government could influence provincial policies and program standards.

Similarly, although international trade is exclusively within federal jurisdiction, many provinces maintain at least one trade office abroad.



From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
Skinny Dipper
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11459

posted 13 January 2006 04:48 AM      Profile for Skinny Dipper   Author's Homepage        Edit/Delete Post
To those who didn't like my predictions,

These are not my desires, but what I think will really happen.

Harper will allow for a free-vote in the House of Commons on same-sex marriage. A lot of people in this forum will be mad that he is bringing back this issue. For Harper, that's OK. Same-sex will be a diversionary issue. Why many of you will be complaining about all the homophobes in the Conservative Party, hard economic issues will be dealt with such as cutbacks in programs, and tax-cuts for corporations and the well-off. You'll probably ignore these economic issues.

I do think that Harper will be like Mike Harris in the sense that Harper is an economic conservative. He is not much of a social conservative but he does play the social card to please his supporters at times such as opposing anti-hate legislation against gays and lesbians.

Much like Harris, Harper will know how to "play the crisis card." That is why same-sex marriage issue will be brought back. Canadians will be pre-occupies with this issue while Harper reshapes the economy for better or worse.


From: Ontarian for STV in BC | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Wilf Day
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3276

posted 13 January 2006 09:48 AM      Profile for Wilf Day     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Andy (Andrew):
Harper has promised again and again he won't touch abortion rights.

He will have a free vote on marriage.



And on abortion.

We need to listen carefully. He likes free votes. Whenever he says "my government will not use the notwithstanding clause to do (whatever)" think private member's bill.


From: Port Hope, Ontario | Registered: Oct 2002  |  IP: Logged
ceti
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7851

posted 13 January 2006 09:56 AM      Profile for ceti     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Looks like Harper is beginning to get out some of his more startling policies like getting out Kyoto and into missile defense.

Here's go, that earlier post with the picture from Apocalypse Now might not be farfetched.


From: various musings before the revolution | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
BigLebowski
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11662

posted 13 January 2006 10:08 AM      Profile for BigLebowski     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by mary123:
Stephen Harper hates black people and Indians and gays and lesbians and ....

[ 12 January 2006: Message edited by: mary123 ]



Wow people are really coming undone...help! help! the sky is falling!!


From: Montreal | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Crippled_Newsie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7024

posted 13 January 2006 10:08 AM      Profile for Crippled_Newsie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by No Yards:
Well, yes, he was clear about this intentions, which were to outlaw abortions, outlaw same sex marriages, go to war, and privatize social security.

So he went to war, and his failure on Social security might be claimed to not be his fault, but he lied (to his right wing Christian Fundamentalist constituency) on the abortion and marriage issues.

A Republican president with republican majorities in both houses, and a republican majority in the SC, and he was unable to pass a couple of bills that would be popular with a majority of the voting public? I don't think one can consider it anything else than a lie.


What's so silly is that anyone believed him on outlawing abortion and (further) outlawing gay marriage (that is, beyond the federal DOMA). It is not, and never was, in his power to do so-- both require US constitutional amendments, ratified by a super-majority of legislatures of the several states.


From: It's all about the thumpa thumpa. | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged
het heru
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11011

posted 13 January 2006 10:36 AM      Profile for het heru     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
2008, hmm?

Are we still in Iran with the US, or do you think someone might actually be planning an actual "exit strategy" this time?

How are you going to be after two years of living under people who say things like "Immigrants are choking welfare systems, contributing to high unemployment, and many cannot read." And: "We are committed to this war, to win it, and we're going to win it for righteousness and morality in our society."


Holy hell people, punish the Liberals, not Canada.


From: Where Sekhmet sleeps | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
Modest Mook
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11282

posted 13 January 2006 10:44 AM      Profile for Modest Mook     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Is Harper, whose support comes from those who support extremely conservative social and fiscal policies (a la George W. Bush),

Harper is not Bush... You do not need to make that comparisson. If anything Harper is closer in policy to a Democrat then Republican. We are Canadian and we still have our values.

Bush - Pro Iraq war.
Harper - Has critisized the US on the war

Bush - Anti-abortion
Harper - Repeatadely has said (in debates as well) that revisiting abortion is an absolute no go.

Theres tons of other examples out there that Harper differs from Bush on to the point that I'd consider Harper closer to what Kerry would have been had Bush been defeated.

Plz don't get me wrong, I agree that alot of Harpers social policies are backwards. But this incessant fear that voting Harper means our entire nations values will suddenly become American and look out Apocalypse now!!! is nauseating. This over the top fear is the Liberal legacy.


and ps... Lonewolf is right, I'm from Calgary and haven't seen what Mike Harris has done in Ontario, the same way I doubt you're from Saskatchewan and saw the mess the NDP left there ^^.

[ 13 January 2006: Message edited by: Modest Mook ]


From: Calgary, Canada | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
sofun
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11376

posted 13 January 2006 10:57 AM      Profile for sofun     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Modest Mook:

Harper is not Bush... You do not need to make that comparisson. If anything Harper is closer in policy to a Democrat then Republican. We are Canadian and we still have our values.

Bush - Pro Iraq war.
Harper - Has critisized the US on the war

Bush - Anti-abortion
Harper - Repeatadely has said (in debates as well) that revisiting abortion is an absolute no go.

[ 13 January 2006: Message edited by: Modest Mook ]


You're joking, right?

- When the US invaded Iraq, Harper stood in the House and blasted the government for not "standing by its friends" in their time of need

- Harper is strongly anti-SSM; he just knows that he won't have the clout to overturn it without a majority and Notwithstanding

- Harper, like Bush, will cut taxes and public services

- Harper and Bush's primary backers are the energy industry and strongly-right wing intellectuals

I'd go as far to say that if Harper wins a majority, he needn't bother appointing a Foreign Affairs Minister - he will just take direction from Washington. Pulling out of Kyoto, re-opening missile defence, joining a potential Iran invasion, just to name a few. With sufficient seats, I can't think of a single foreign policy of the US which a Harper government would oppose.

Harper is only closer to Kerry in the sense that they are both wolves in sheep's clothing, while Bush is a wolf in wolf's clothing.

[ 13 January 2006: Message edited by: sofun ]


From: Barrie | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Modest Mook
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11282

posted 13 January 2006 11:05 AM      Profile for Modest Mook     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
- Harper is strongly anti-SSM; he just knows that he won't have the clout to overturn it with a majority and Notwithstanding

Free vote... But I also think that Harper won't shoot himself (and the party) in the foot for the election after this. Had Harper followed through on any hated policy that the Liberal attack ads said he would (and he denied), he would seriously jeopardize Canadian Conservative future hopes.

And unless I'm wrong... The cbc had an article that stated Harper critisized the Iraq war. It'd be stupid for him not to


From: Calgary, Canada | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Lennonist
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10861

posted 13 January 2006 11:20 AM      Profile for Lennonist        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
he would seriously jeopardize Canadian Conservative future hopes.

Why will their be a need for Canadian Conservative future hopes? Harper along with the Bloc will transfer all powers to the provinces. Within months the federal government will be rendered useless. Alberta and Quebec will ride off into the sun and the other fiefdoms will be more worried about their own fortunes. Harper only needs one parliment to dismantle Canada. Duceppe wants an EEC clone, Alberta will take it or leave it as long as they are unimpeded.

There will be no Federation of Canada left to fix. You guys are living in a bubble actually thinking you will punish Harper in the next federal election. There will be no next federal election.

I am resigned to this truth. I'll be alright, I am white, I am male and I have marketable skills in the progressive dynamic city of Toronto. I feel sorry for a lot of others who on a lark want to give Harper a chance.

It was game over when Layton insisted on saying Harper is not scary.


From: Laytons Riding | Registered: Nov 2005  |  IP: Logged
Michael Watkins
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11256

posted 13 January 2006 11:41 AM      Profile for Michael Watkins   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Modest Mook:
If anything Harper is closer in policy to a Democrat then Republican. We are Canadian and we still have our values.

Bush - Pro Iraq war.
Harper - Has critisized the US on the war


Incorrect. Harper has only jumped on the other side of the Bush war in fairly recent times.

edit: Why? because the war is now clearly unsaleable in Canada, not because he didn't fully support Bush in the years before.

Harper was *fully in support of Bush* in everything he's done since 2001 9/11. Continental integration; security trumps all (a convenient marketing point for ramming through policy which we would ordinarily object to); and fully in support of the Iraq war.

Harper stood up in our House of Commons, many times, giving impassioned oratory as to why Canada should be standing shoulder to shoulder with the Americans in Iraq. He fully bought all the BS that Bush was selling.

Don't we expect more from a Prime Minister?

For an accounting of the BS bought and a link to Harper's full speach of Oct 2, 2002, Visit Here. While reading what I wrote, keep in mind that I am a CPC member and long time conservative activist.

quote:
Originally posted by Modest Mook:
Bush - Anti-abortion
Harper - Repeatadely has said (in debates as well) that revisiting abortion is an absolute no go.

But this incessant fear that voting Harper means our entire nations values will suddenly become American and look out Apocalypse now!!!


Two things - yes, he's said that "his government will not introduce new legislation on the matter of abortion".

But back benchers, in a potential majority parliament, will.

Secondly, I believe Harper will attempt to put the lid on these folks, at least until Harper has a significant majority government underneath him, but if they eek through a small majority, somewhere along its mandate the radical religious right (RRR) in the party will call in their chips.

Harper owes them big time and they know it; even if Harper himself is not a member of the RRR, he has depended on their support in a very big way.

He'll have to throw them a bone on something in order to keep their support for the bigger projects Harper hopes to undertake.

- radical changes to the supreme court
- radical changes to our system of government

Harper's goal is a more American Canada, there are no doubts about this. Its not inappropriate to be concerned about this... you are on thin ground for ridiculing people for saying the "sky is falling" when in fact it actually is.

This from a long time conservative supporter and activist; long time anti-Harper activist. He and his close buddy Flanagan and Morton and hangers on like Byfield do not represent my Canada.

[ 13 January 2006: Message edited by: Michael Watkins ]


From: Vancouver Kingway - Democracy In Peril | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
JackAverage
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11559

posted 13 January 2006 11:59 AM      Profile for JackAverage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Modest Mook:
[QB]

and ps... Lonewolf is right, I'm from Calgary and haven't seen what Mike Harris has done in Ontario, the same way I doubt you're from Saskatchewan and saw the mess the NDP left there ^^.

This cannot go unchallenged. Either you meant to say Conservatives instead of the NDP or your talking out of your ass.

[ 13 January 2006: Message edited by: JackAverage ]


From: Heart of Darkness, Calgary SouthWest | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275

posted 13 January 2006 12:02 PM      Profile for Lard Tunderin' Jeezus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
There is plenty of banking competition, you just need to be a smart consumer. There are tons of foreign banks where your investments are safe, and they offer the same services as regular schedule 1 banks (such as debit cards, online banking, etc).
Now there's a good answer - even more foreign control of Canadian capital.


From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Modest Mook
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11282

posted 13 January 2006 12:06 PM      Profile for Modest Mook     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Harper's goal is a more American Canada, there are no doubts about this.

I agree with you on this Michael, and I'm not one to welcome it either. How that suddenly equates to apocalypse now as if Canada is going to dump every last value we hold doesn't make sense to me.

Remember fear of the conservatives is only going to appeal to a certain section of voters. Where I am, threads like this tend to bolster Harpers sympathy support and further bolster antiliberal sentiments here.

addit:

quote:
This cannot go unchallenged. Either you meant to say Conservatives instead of the NDP or your talking out of your ass.

What are you talking about? Have you been on the streets campaigning and talking to people? I hear very consistant cheap shots taken at the NDP for past BC and Sask provincial govt's.

[ 13 January 2006: Message edited by: Modest Mook ]


From: Calgary, Canada | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
BCastro
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11420

posted 13 January 2006 12:16 PM      Profile for BCastro     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post

From: Halifax | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
JackAverage
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11559

posted 13 January 2006 12:24 PM      Profile for JackAverage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Modest Mook:

What are you talking about? Have you been on the streets campaigning and talking to people? I hear very consistant cheap shots taken at the NDP for past BC and Sask provincial govt's.

[END Quote]

What are you talking about? In 1982 when the Conservatives took power they inherited a province with no debt, a balanced budget and a one billion dollar Heritage Fund. Nine years later they left a province with a huge debt, massive budget deficit and no Heritage Fund.

In 1993 the Saskatchewan NDP became the first government in Canada to balance its budget (one year ahead of Alberta). Since then then the SK NDP has been re-elected three times, the last time with an increased popular vote. Is this the mess the SK NDP created that you're refering to?

Of course you're not going to hear anything good about the SK NDP here in Calgary. Have you noticed who owns and controls the media here?

[ 13 January 2006: Message edited by: JackAverage ]


From: Heart of Darkness, Calgary SouthWest | Registered: Jan 2006  |  IP: Logged
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275

posted 13 January 2006 12:28 PM      Profile for Lard Tunderin' Jeezus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Allow me to respond to Modest Mook, who claimed that Harper will deliver:

- Cleaned up and much more transparent Gov't

This first claim is surely his most puzzling. I can only ascribe it to hallucinogenic drugs. With Mulroney in the backroom, and Klein's Alberta as a model, suffice it to say I foresee continuing exploitation of the middle-class taxpayer with decreasing benefits accruing to our poorest citizens.

- 100$ per kid under the age of 6 per month. Might not be the best way of addressing the issue, but it can have a positive effect.

But under the NDP plan, you could still have 5/6ths of that money for the family and 200,000 new daycare spaces. It is mind-boggling that this isn't even mentioned in the MSM.

- repairing past Martin damage to the relationship with the US

How will Harper's obsequiousness defend our sovereignty? (Not that Martin's passivity did us much more good.)
You'll find that most of us here think that 'bent over and lubed up' isn't a negotiating position.

- A resolution to softwood dispute (debateable, but I think Harper will be stronger on the issue then Martin's all words and no action)

Insanity. Harper will get our 5 billion back by giving them 10 billion for missile defense - And you'll fall for it.

- A stronger wheatboard for farmers (debateable if it's the best plan, but it's effect will be positive)

Our marketing boards would not survive a single challenge under a Harper government.


From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Modest Mook
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11282

posted 13 January 2006 12:32 PM      Profile for Modest Mook     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Of course you're not going to hear anything good about the SK NDP here in Calgary. Have you noticed who owns and controls the media here?

Oh ya, the media here disturbs me. Actually, the media in general distrubs me. You have the harshly biased Global Media that would make Harper look like a leftist at times, the CFCN local station thats not quite so bad as it semi-ignores most politics except all the greatness of King Ralph, and then the CBC channels which are just on the other end of the spectrum. There is no media I can watch in Canada that I don't have to be exceedingly wary of it's political motivations

quote:
Is this the mess the SK NDP created that you're refering to?

Perhaps, I don't know the ins and outs of it. I do know that if you ask one of the many conservative supporters originally from Sask, they are more afraid of a NDP gov't then they are Harper. I know I've had more saskies swear at me then people from any other province when on the streets.

addited to include a response to LTJ. BTW, most of my fight here is vs Con supporters and information like you have given me is gold

quote:
You'll find that most of us here think that 'bent over and lubed up' isn't a negotiating position.

I think you'll find as many are as fed up with whining and complaining at the US yet not doing anything. I'd prefer to see a) improve all trade relations, b) harshly attack US trade until they deal with us fairly. The whining Martin has done is a consistant sore spot here. Actually, Laytons taxxing back the money on other goods is an interesting discussion and some will refer to that as the NEP and others will call it a tough stance on the US, about time.

quote:
But under the NDP plan, you could still have 5/6ths of that money for the family and 200,000 new daycare spaces. It is mind-boggling that this isn't even mentioned in the MSM.

That is soemthing that needs to be stressed much much more. Although the NDP have the better idea here, sadly the 100$ policy is much better known and I found myself having to describe what all the NDP plan would cover and that the cost of it doesn't even come close to the cost of the 1% gst cut.


quote:
and Klein's Alberta as a model

I'm curious about that as Klien is consiered a Red Tory in alot of peoples eyes. What exactly do you think Kliens Alberta holds for the future of Canada? Ya think everyone will get a $400 King Ralph check in the mail?

[ 13 January 2006: Message edited by: Modest Mook ]


From: Calgary, Canada | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275

posted 13 January 2006 01:04 PM      Profile for Lard Tunderin' Jeezus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Neo-con governments are very fond of writing cheques. It is associated with friendship in their minds - after all, all their corporate 'friends' write them big cheques in return for their favours.

Mike Harris also wrote cheques. And Klein, while perhaps not fascist enough for the fringes, is far from a 'red tory'.


From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
faith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4348

posted 13 January 2006 01:47 PM      Profile for faith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Here are some ways that women will be shoved to the margins and have the old carpet pulled out from under them a la Campbell de BC
-take all the funding away from women's centres that help abused women find a new start and counsel rape victims
-any unions with a great many women workers such as the teacher's unions and the hospital worker's union - make them essential services, take away their rights to negotiate a contract, and then rip up the old contract to push down wages
-close as many public service centres as possible - this has a double whamy effect- not only have these centres been under government hiring practices and so have hired more women than some of the private sector- but women being the primary caregivers of children use these service centres more than the general population. Double financial bonus there.
-take away funding for legal aid - women fighting for custody or child support will no longer be able to access legal representation in court
- Immediately reduce welfare benefits for everyone including single mothers- in BC benefits went from around 950.00 a month for a woman with a child to about 675.00 a month as soon as Campbell was elected
-defund programmes for kids at risk that have left home and change the definition of kid from 18 years of age to 16 years of age - then raise transit rates. Any kid living on the margins is now expected to fend for themselves before they've finished high school and make their way to school themselves- what do you think happens to 16 year old girls and boys forced onto the streets?
-Find a way to reduce the minimum wage by calling it a training wage - that way all the women you've forced into the job market will now be 'training' at 25% less than they would have received before you cut their welfare benefits
-Change labour laws so that part time workers have fewer rights and fewer employer financed benefits - as more part time workers are women this will have a bonus effect of adding more profit for your supporters in the business community and remind women that they have no power over their own lives. Change the age that children may enter the work force. In BC children may now work at 12 years of age, this means that the women you have kicked off welfare can get her child a job at the same place as she is working - what a great way to solve the latch key kid problem your financial policies have created.
-Another step one must take if trying to shift the wealth in society from the poorest to the richest in 4 short years, you must cripple the ombudsman's office so that your policies cannot be investigated
-disband the human rights commission

I could go on with more specifics but I don't have time and anyone who doesn't get the picture - just doesn't want to see.


From: vancouver | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Modest Mook
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11282

posted 13 January 2006 01:52 PM      Profile for Modest Mook     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Thankyou so much for that Faith thats information I can use (and what I think the poster of this thread intended). It's nice to see real useable examples as opposed to end of the world and apoc now scare tactics.
From: Calgary, Canada | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
faith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4348

posted 13 January 2006 02:02 PM      Profile for faith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I have a family member who counsels children at risk - she has become so worried about the young people she tries to help she had to take a leave due to stress.
I can assure you Modest Mook (?) that a woman who has no where to turn, has seen her wages reduced by 25% overnight through the dismantling of her union contract, cannot get help getting her child support and now cannot afford childcare and possibly her rent, sees her life in apocalyptic terms.

From: vancouver | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275

posted 13 January 2006 02:15 PM      Profile for Lard Tunderin' Jeezus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
As much as I agree with the gist of faith's posts, in the specifics there are some problems: many of the issues of which she speaks are provincial jurisdictions.
From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Nemo
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7925

posted 13 January 2006 02:44 PM      Profile for Nemo        Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by dgrollins:
In real terms , what do you think it would look like?

Cant think of anything harper would do that Trudeau or Pearson wouldn't

were they that bad or have liberals just forgotten their roots?


From: winnipeg | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
fake_oxygen
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8898

posted 13 January 2006 03:28 PM      Profile for fake_oxygen     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
"As much as I agree with the gist of faith's posts, in the specifics there are some problems: many of the issues of which she speaks are provincial jurisdictions."

Yes but then there's the possibility of reduced transfer payments to the provinces that would result in forced neglect of provincial jurisdiction.


From: Peterborough | Registered: Apr 2005  |  IP: Logged
gram swaraj
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11527

posted 13 January 2006 03:30 PM      Profile for gram swaraj   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by CanadianAlien:
The only relationship Harper will improve will be one with Bush administration and that is nothing to campaign on.

And that means a better relationship with the bible-licking, corporatocratic war machine. (What a great description! Take it from someone in the belly of the beast.)

Hey BigLebowski and BCastro, the sky may not be falling, but the atmosphere sure is getting hotter.

On King Ralph as a “Red Tory”: all things are relative, aren’t they?

quote:
Originally posted by Modest Mook:
How that suddenly equates to apocalypse now as if Canada is going to dump every last value we hold doesn't make sense to me.

Yes, Modest Mook, "Apocalypse Now" is a little overstated. Disaster won't fall upon us after a Harper victory, or even two years after one. Can't we all see that it will take a little time for things to degenerate? Let's all calm down and call it "apocalypse soon."


From: mon pays ce n'est pas un pays, c'est la terre | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
Erstwhile
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4845

posted 13 January 2006 03:48 PM      Profile for Erstwhile     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Modest Mook:

Perhaps, I don't know the ins and outs of it. I do know that if you ask one of the many conservative supporters originally from Sask, they are more afraid of a NDP gov't then they are Harper. I know I've had more saskies swear at me then people from any other province when on the streets.

addited to include a response to LTJ. BTW, most of my fight here is vs Con supporters and information like you have given me is gold


Most Conservatives don't like the NDP.

Saskatchewan Conservatives hate the NDP. There are few things that makes a Tory more furious than an NDP that wins elections.

Speaking personally, I have some issues with the Saskatchewan NDP. However fiscal mismanagement is not one of them.


From: Deepest Darkest Saskabush | Registered: Jan 2004  |  IP: Logged
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275

posted 13 January 2006 03:54 PM      Profile for Lard Tunderin' Jeezus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Yes but then there's the possibility of reduced transfer payments to the provinces that would result in forced neglect of provincial jurisdiction.
And there is the likelihood of further devolution of jurisdictions to the provincial and municipal level - without any plans for appropriate revenue streams to fund them, of course.

....which is why I did agree with the gist of what faith had to say.


From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Modest Mook
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11282

posted 13 January 2006 04:02 PM      Profile for Modest Mook     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Saskatchewan Conservatives hate the NDP. There are few things that makes a Tory more furious than an NDP that wins elections.

Ya you're telling me. Many of em go out of the way to make sure I know how much they hate NDP.

quote:
Yes, Modest Mook, "Apocalypse Now" is a little overstated. Disaster won't fall upon us after a Harper victory, or even two years after one. Can't we all see that it will take a little time for things to degenerate? Let's all calm down and call it "apocalypse soon."

Hehe, Apoc soon... Thats much more appropriate ^^


From: Calgary, Canada | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
faith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4348

posted 13 January 2006 04:06 PM      Profile for faith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
While I realise I am listing actual policy from my own provincial government the gist of what I was saying was that the attitude will be the same.
Some people on here don't seem to be able to apply their imaginations to come up with possible strategy to which a Conservative government might subscribe. There are a ton of federal employees- many of them women - many of them unionised.
As an example think back to the debates where the bloc leader Gilles Duceppe kept bringing up the thousands of healthcare workers in Ottawa that served administrative functions - how many of them do you think are women and if Gilles wants them gone wouldn't that be a nice gesture on Stephen's part? I am not saying this will happen, but I won't be the least bit surprised if it does.

From: vancouver | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
Suaros
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10562

posted 13 January 2006 04:54 PM      Profile for Suaros     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
quote:
Originally posted by Lard tunderin' jeesus:
Now there's a good answer - even more foreign control of Canadian capital.


What is the problem with foreign banks? I'm not talking about US banks, I'm talking about ones from countries like France, Germany, and England. Do you have something against those countries? What is with your idea of Canadian superiority, and the fact that other people aren't good enough for resources?


From: Toronto | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Lard Tunderin' Jeezus
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1275

posted 13 January 2006 05:10 PM      Profile for Lard Tunderin' Jeezus   Author's Homepage     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
I'd rather not derail this thread. If you want to start another on the subject, I might participate.
From: ... | Registered: Aug 2001  |  IP: Logged
Suaros
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 10562

posted 13 January 2006 05:14 PM      Profile for Suaros     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Alright. Well continuing on with the topic with the recent poll numbers in mind, I still think that nothing drastic will happen -- if this Jan12/08 is assuming that there would be a new election, then it would probably be a Conservative majority. Then would come the cleaning house and transfer or powers to provinces (constitution opened up).
From: Toronto | Registered: Oct 2005  |  IP: Logged
Vigilante
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 8104

posted 13 January 2006 05:35 PM      Profile for Vigilante        Edit/Delete Post
What may ask is harper's position on the CRTC?
From: Toronto | Registered: Feb 2005  |  IP: Logged
Rufus Polson
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 3308

posted 13 January 2006 05:52 PM      Profile for Rufus Polson     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
As to banks--kill 'em all, do your finances with credit unions.
I really appreciate Faith's contributions. And while some of the things she listed are purely provincial, others aren't. The Federal government employs a lot of people. If they start ripping up contracts on those people the way the BC Libs have, and privatizing services to kill the unions, that could screw up a lot of people's lives. That potentially includes military personnel, incidentally--again, you can look at the US where the Bush administration chants "Support our troops! Support our troops!" while quietly chopping their medical care and veteran benefits, creating massive hoops to jump through to get the promised education benefits, and so on.

If we ask ourselves what a Conservative majority government would do, one place to look is "Shooting the Hippo" by Linda McQuaig. Now that was written when cutting social programs in the name of deficit slaying was a big deal, which dates it a bit in that respect. But it outlines the common principles and communications network of the hard right worldwide (or at least, throughout the english speaking world) and the principles that hard right think tanks have come up with for how to push through a program of action once in power, and none of that is out of date. The right in Canada, the US, England, New Zealand and Australia all listen to the same intellectuals, the same think tanks, and go to the same conferences with the same gurus talking. So what do those gurus say?

They say this: Once in power, the way to proceed is through shock tactics. Pass laws and make changes as quickly as possible, so nobody has a chance to react. Don't study the problem, don't worry much about the specifics of issues, just apply the formula we know to be true. And that formula is basically, cut social programs, privatize everything you can, deregulate (as in, kill environmental, safety and labour laws), cut taxes (especially for the rich). Because private is better, social programs distort the free market and anyway anyone who needs them is a deadbeat, government should be small, the free market needs to be unfettered by rules, and the rich are the entrepreneurs who create wealth so you have to leave them all their money.

Stephen Harper believes all this free market stuff. There's no doubt about that. He always has, his entire politics from the beginning has been built around the undoubted superiority of the unfettered free market and the miraculous ability of entrepreneurs to create wealth. Any distinction between his politics and those of the Bush league can be traced purely to differences in what people in the US and Canada think they can get away with.
This election, he seems to have finally given up on trying to convince Canadians that they're wrong and is going for the full-out "lie like crazy" approach. But I see no indication of him saying why he suddenly sees a role for the public sector when he never did before. Once in office with a majority, it seems to me reasonable to assume that his approach would be like that of Harris or Campbell or those guys in New Zealand who in many ways set the template. That is, all his promises will disappear like dew at noon and he'll ram through as much "tough medicine" as possible as fast as possible. If he wants to be re-elected he will then quiet down for the next three years in hopes that people will forget what he did. It always amazes me how often that works.

So. What will we probably see?
--Tax cuts for the rich.
--Cuts to social programs.
--If he can manage, he'll cut taxes so far that he creates a deficit and then say that hundred a month per child will have to go.
--Removal of regulations, big time. Environmental regulations will get hacked, emissions standards will disappear, inspectors (environmental, meat, you name it) will go poof!, oversight in terms of approving drugs will become a rubber stamp, pressure on government scientists to toe the corporate line will escalate even further. Anything unjustly infringing the right of corporations to do business fraudulently will be excised; more Bre-Xes, here we come.
--Privatization . . . is there anything federal left to go after? Well, maybe not if you're just thinking small with Crown corporations and such, but there are plenty of possibilities for irresponsible outsourcing, P3s, hiring American corporations to do the finances (and then be forced by American law to hand all the info to the American government). In the process, public money will be wasted/siphoned on a scale that will make the sponsorship scandal look like a bake sale.


From: Caithnard College | Registered: Nov 2002  |  IP: Logged
ggs
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6875

posted 13 January 2006 06:05 PM      Profile for ggs        Edit/Delete Post
Medi-care gone. Life expectancies falling, infant and child mortality rising.

Death penalty in. Inevitably resulting in the odd inocent person being executed.

Abortion gone.
Not withstanding clause in.

More wealth for the rich; but, more people living in poverty.

More prisons, and more police; but, more violence (because of more poverty).

No more Liberal scandals. Conservative scandals instead.

Lower taxes; but, a big deficit.

No more Quebec? and no more Canada?


From: Ontario | Registered: Sep 2004  |  IP: Logged
faith
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 4348

posted 13 January 2006 06:06 PM      Profile for faith     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Listen to Rufus Polson people - this is a tried and true formula of the right, reintroduced in the last century by Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan and we've been going downhill ever since.
Clinton gave us a brief rest along with Chretien. Their elections didn't turn things around but just slowed them down a bit. If Harper gets elected be prepared to consider what part of your life you're going to change. Slash and burn political policies create casualties and unless you're a millionaire that is well connected you will feel the effects of far right ideology.

From: vancouver | Registered: Aug 2003  |  IP: Logged
ceti
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7851

posted 13 January 2006 06:50 PM      Profile for ceti     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Just the Republicans used the Bush election to seize complete control all three branches of government, I bet the Cons also have this idea to guarantee the left never ever comes close. Also look to vindictive behaviour towards the Liberals to complete their annihilation as a party.

It will in fact be worse than in the US which at least has a united Democratic Party (long moribund though) as opposed to smaller parties fighting for the spoils of the Left.

They will be getting a lot of advice from their friends in Washington and the Fifth Column here at home, as in the Fraser Institute, CD Howe Institute, etc.

The absolute worst case = United States of North America and Republique du Quebec (which will quickly beg to be annexed as a territory of the US due to economic pressures).

[ 13 January 2006: Message edited by: ceti ]


From: various musings before the revolution | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged
pookie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11357

posted 13 January 2006 07:44 PM      Profile for pookie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Another reason it could be far worse here than in the US is that our Parliamentary system practically invites abuse of power when a majority government is in charge.

Say what you will about current politics in the US; the presidential system at least offers some reciprocal safeguards between the executive and legislature.


From: there's no "there" there | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged
josh
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2938

posted 13 January 2006 07:46 PM      Profile for josh     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Not in the current executive and congress.
From: the twilight zone between the U.S. and Canada | Registered: Aug 2002  |  IP: Logged
pookie
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 11357

posted 13 January 2006 07:49 PM      Profile for pookie     Send New Private Message      Edit/Delete Post
Yes, when one party dominates. But at least there is the possibility of change every two years.

Actually even the current Congress has had disagreements with Bush, and has forced him to amend legislative proposals.

I'm talking structure here.

[ 13 January 2006: Message edited by: pookie ]


From: there's no "there" there | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged

All times are Pacific Time  

   Close Topic    Move Topic    Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
Hop To:

Contact Us | rabble.ca | Policy Statement

Copyright 2001-2008 rabble.ca