It's Bush-Gore all over again.

quote:

---

Can anyone remember a Conservative minority government that lasted longer than 6 months?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Euhemeros:

I can't even remember the last conservative government!

---

A. Don't be cheeky, youngster.

quote:

---

Originally posted by mary123:
Nope Paul Martin might not concede.

It's Bush-Gore all over again.

hahahhahahahaha

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by mary123:
I believe that Martin must concede defeat. The NDP will not work with the Liberals.

---

On the other hand, this is far from the majority Harper and the talking heads were predicting.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Contrarian:
Geez, I can almost remember Diefenbaker's government!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by beluga2:
I dunno. After having been kept locked in a closet in the deepest dungeon of the Conservative HQ with duct tape over their mouths for two months, the party's Reform/Christo-fascist troglodytes might lose all control. Now that they have a taste of actual power, they might not be able to restrain themselves from rounding up the queers and slapping chastity belts on every woman of child-bearing age they can get their hands on.

Chairman Harper's gonna have to crack the whip relentlessly to keep his loonies in line.

---

I agree with this completely and have said much the same thing in another forum. It's one thing to keep the looneys quiet for a couple of weeks and quite another to keep them from self destructing during day after endless day of the grind that is Question Period.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Stargazer:
That Clement win is subject to a revote. We can only hope someone miscounted.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Contrarian: Geez, I can almost remember Diefenbaker's government!

---

quote:

---

then posted by Boom Boom: I do remember, and I do remember the cancellation of the Avro Arrow. grrrrrrrr!!!!!

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by beluga2: ... the party's Reform/Christo-fascist troglodytes might lose all control. ... Chairman Harper's gonna have to crack the whip relentlessly to keep his loonies in line.

---

quote:

---

then posted by Sandy47: ... It's one thing to keep the looneys quiet for a couple of weeks and quite another to keep them from self destructing during day after endless day of the grind that is Question Period.

---

He can also remind them of Joe Clark, and his six-month government.

So he has a few weapons to use against the Myron Thompson's and other old time Reformers (of course the question is does he want to?).

He will have a hard time picking a cabinet. He doesn't have a lot of bench strength, and some positions are already spoken for, such as Stockwell Day in foreign affairs (which is only fitting because most anything that requires thought would be foreign to that guy).

It's true that there will be people who will be expecting a cabinet position, and are not likely to enjoy being passed over.

I remember Diefenbaker, the minority government, then the majority, then oblivion.

That could very well play out now in the same way. A cautious minority government, not doing anything to far-out, taking it slow, them calling an election when the time is right, and becoming a majority.

Then the inevitable pressure from the nut cases in the party to get tough and enact a bunch of stuff that the electorate doesn't like, then another election, and bye-bye. We'll see.

I must pass on this little sign I saw on the drive today.

A picture of Stephen Harper with the slogan,

quote:

---

Then the inevitable pressure from the nut cases in the party to get tough and enact a bunch of stuff that the electorate doesn't like, then another election, and bye-bye. We'll see.

---

Now Harper is Ottawa, and right wing heads will begin to explode if he fails to deliver the much wished for conservative utopia within a year or two.

Harper needs the rest of the country if he is ever going to get a majority. To get the rest of the country, he has to betray his base. It's the Conservative conundrum, and it's been the same for at least the last 50 years.

I don't see Harper as the man to break the pattern either. He'll likely cater to his base. He is, after all, a key part of that base. His more crackpot minions will find themselves in front of microphones and tv cameras far more than could ever be healthy for the Conservative party, and the shit will hit the fan.

Reminds of when Gordon Campbell came into power in BC. He started using the term "heartlands" - a term very distinctly American. He was referring to the BC interior and no one up to then had referred to our interior as the heartlands.

quote:

---

Originally posted by beluga2:
I dunno. After having been kept locked in a closet in the deepest dungeon of the Conservative HQ with duct tape over their mouths for two months, the party's Reform/Christo-fascist troglodytes might lose all control. Now that they have a taste of actual power, they might not be able to restrain themselves from rounding up the queers and slapping chastity belts on every woman of child-bearing age they can get their hands on.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Contrarian:
I think I remember watching the leadership convention where Stanfield was chosen.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Briguy:
What's the scoop on that Montreal-area shock jock? Is he conservative?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Carter:

Ideologically, he's further to the right than Cheryl Gallant, but not quite as far to the right as Myron Thompson.

---

In other news, the U.S. media is already gobbling it up:

Conserva tive Party Wins in Canada Election

quote:

---

Relations with the Bush administration will likely improve under Harper as his ideology runs along the same lines of many U.S. Republicans.

---

Gawd, even the US media knows it.

quote:

---

The Conservative victory ended more than a decade of Liberal Party rule and shifted the traditionally liberal country to the right on socio-economic issues such as health care, taxation, abortion and gay marriage. Some Canadians have expressed reservations about Harpers' views opposing abortion and gay marriage.

---

Some? SOME? Indeed... MANY Canadians are going to regret casting their ballot for the Cons. Idiots.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Jacob Two-Two:
Actually, I think this will happen now. Nutcases aren't known for their patience. When's the next convention?

---

The Conservatives had a National Convention in March 2005; by their constitution they need to have one every two years, however they can delay one if there is a reasonable expectation of a general election being called. Chances are they will avoid one in 2007 or have it as early as possible / when the house is not sitting in 2007. Since they tend to be money making affairs, having one is a good thing, pre-election.

What happens now is all up to Harper and how much the socon/moderate/quebec coalition hangs together.

I disagree with those who are certain that the socons will erupt in a stream of inflamatory rhetoric, from being shut up for so long; I don't think this is certain at all. They've every reason to bite their lip. Perhaps a few defeated candidates might provide some sport, but the elected ought to continue to self-muzzle, with a little help.

If we don't hear crazy talk by the end of the week, and especially after cabinet is announced, you can assume that Harper's Henchmen have well done their job in warning these folks off.

quote:

---

Gawd, even the US media knows it

---

The only people that don't seem to know this is the Canadian media ... which Harper can thank for his minority win.

quote:

---

I think that Harper is going to pleasantly surprise a lot of his skeptics, and be able to secure a majority in 2 years' time.

---

I just got off the phone with my parents, who are snowbirds, spending winters in southwest Florida. My mother said that the media down there reported a Conservative victory, but there was no word of whether it was a minority or a majority government. News reports also said that the Bush administration can now anticipate Canadian support for missile defense as well as improved Canada-US relations.

My dad, an American, said that Americans have no understanding of the parliamentary system.

Edited to correct a quote.

[ 24 January 2006: Message edited by: Sineed ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sineed:

I just got off the phone with my parents, who are snowbirds, spending winters in southwest Florida. My mother said that the media down there reported a Conservative victory, but there was no word of whether it was a minority or a majority government. News reports also said that the Bush administration can now anticipate Canadian support for missile defense as well as improved Canada-US relations.

My dad, an American, said that Americans have no understanding of the parliamentary system.

Edited to correct a quote.

[ 24 January 2006: Message edited by: Sineed ]

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by No Yards:
The only people that don't seem to know this is the Canadian media ... which Harper can thank for his minority win.

I certainly hope that there is a calling to account of the media for hiding from Canadians what even the US media saw as obvious.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Sineed:
That is certainly his goal, but I doubt the knuckle-dragging elements of the party can keep their mouths shut for that long. They "ought to continue to self-muzzle" if they want to acheive real power, but if they were intelligent enough to do this, they would be intelligent enough not to be socially conservative in the first place.

---

Political instincts don't require intelligence. Self-preservation is a gut thing. Remember - they've been muzzling themselves now for the better part of two years (since Election 2004).

What people opposed to the socon tide need to do is this: make your plans based on the assumption that the socons are not going to make your life easy by spouting off.

quote:

---

the socon tide

---

Did he not promise a cabinet post to every Con who managed to win a seat in la Belle Province? Now he has a lot more Quebeckers than he thought he would I bet. 10 Quebec ministers would be half(yes/no-how many are there?) of the total. Will they keep still and play nice if he doesn't come through? Will their constituents, who may haved voted CPC simply because they thought they were sending a minister to Ottawa?

He may have just been presented with more problems than he's equipped to deal with.

[ 24 January 2006: Message edited by: Sandy47 ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Doug:

---

I must needs spread this across the internet.

Efdited for spooling.

[ 24 January 2006: Message edited by: Sandy47 ]

quote:

---

What people opposed to the socon tide need to do is this: make your plans based on the assumption that the socons are not going to make your life easy by spouting off.

---

But today, unlike the past two years, there is a Conservative Prime Minister. And the more neolithic elements of the Conservative party must be chaffing at all this concealment. Considering that their belief system is based upon moral certitude, they might think that passing judgements on the behaviour/beliefs of others is a righteous duty that exceeds any ambitions they might have.

quote:

---

Huh? The Cons formed a Minority Governement, 2/3 of Canadians voted the exact opposite of Right. The Socons overestimated their power and allure. The Liberals are getting a timeout, stupid of Canadians for sure but it doesn't mean anyone has actually been assimilated to the dark side.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by up:

I always get confused. This week the Liberals are left-wing on the board?

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by up:

I always get confused. This week the Liberals are left-wing on the board?

---

I read it as the "perceived" idea that Liberals are a "centre-left" party. Hence, the number of seats they STILL managed to get in this election, even running one of the worst political campaigns EVER.

As for the last half dozen posts above: Wow, guys. I love the way you are looking at the situation. Great posts!!

There's a thread somewhere about "scapegoats" during this election... well I for one am looking square into the MSM. Man, I'd love to see mass protests outside the MSM's head offices for their absolutely RIDICULOUS reporting during this election. Josh was it??.. I think you nailed it on the head in that post above.

We have GOT TO to find some way of bringing the MSM in line. They are the most DANGEROUS influence during elections and they keep on proving it time and time again. I'm absolutely certain that the NDP would have done much, much better if they had received proper air time.

Secondly, the hype surrounding Harper was seriously too much. And it's true, as far as I'm concerned... Voters start repeating these stupid lines from the MSM after they've been brainwashed repeatedly into listening to/reading them. I'm sick and tired of being told what to think.

When are the majority of Canadians going to tune out to this BS??? You would think they know better after watching the circus down south. But so many sit there and are critical of, or amused by, the MSM circus to the south -- yet they don't even notice when Canadian MSM plays them like a fiddle.

...And the really disgusting part: Many Canadians will continue to see the Liberals as "a centre-left party that is fiscally sound", and the Conservatives as the "slightly scary, fiscally sound party."

I can only hope that after the gains we made today, the NDP will be seen less as the "can't handle the books, union loving, never form gov't party". That's just bullshit and I sincerely hope the NDP PROVE IT to Canada this time around.

Sorry... ranting a bit. Pretty pissed with my riding of Van Centre. I expected better of them, but at least they didn't elect a Con. Still, the NDP did very well tonight and they will be a strong team in the house. I have much confidence in them. AND way to go to all the new female dippers in the house!!!

Edited to add: Sorry Carter... I see now that it was both you and Josh that made the comments I refered to in my post.

[ 24 January 2006: Message edited by: West Coast Tiger ]

We're headed again to financial disaster with these Conservatives, just like Mulroney years. Harper's platform will even be worse for Canada than was Mulroney's devastating economic destruction. Mike Harris, a Harper twin, added $80 billion to Ontario's debt, more than any government in our history, and left a $6 billion deficit in a booming economy no less. Mulroney jacked the debt from 160 billion to $580 billion with a $42 billion deficit in a massively booming economy of 1984-1989, and here we go again.

Harper's platform will outdo both of these horrid Conservatives, and will decimate so much of what is good about Canada in it's wake.

Just one thing to say to those who voted even marginally for these Reform/Conservative ideological troglodytes, who do we smack when our whole world goes in the dumper?

Already there are also conferences taking place, how to privatize healthcare now that Conservatives fooled, "tricked" enough people to give them a slight minority, which Harper now calls "a mandate". And the prognosis is "employer health insurance", will cover some care for "the employee", the employee must pay part of that cost out of their own wages, and must pay for the rest of their family coverage entirely. If you have a sick family member your cost is going to be bizarre, and can be refused coverage. Most employers will not cover their employees at all. Call your lawyer so you can read the fine print in these contracts, you won't know what you're about to get. Many will be without insurance, and the costs for healthcare are going to be profitized. 5000 Walkerton residents, now suffering life-long health crises thanks to Harper buddy Mike Harris' cuts to environmental inspectors (decimated environment ministry), are now going to be in serious trouble, as are most Canadians, but rich will make out fine.

And all coverage will be pared down to "some" healthcare items, as established by "your employer", but many will not be covered for huge parts of their healthcare needs. Majority of Canadians will not be covered AT ALL. Be prepared to lose your home if you get sick, or pay for the rest of your life if you have an accident.

Apparently they brag in the new model, "public administration is being removed", and replaced by "accountability". The new buzz word for everything Harper, which means goodbye to equality, access, and universality. On CPAC, lawyers for big business are already at the table discussing privatization is here, and nothing we can do about it. Now the NCC, and the big money Harper coalition for private healthcare is in charge. With free trade, we cannot reverse this once it starts, so we're screwed.

The topic originator says jump for joy, finally the Conservatives get in? Forget that sick idea. People will regret giving this whack group of Conservatives even a day in office.

Harper said today "with his mandate for change, he will implement his priorities" like he's a majority already. Harper says he will be meeting with Premiers soon to outline his healthcare agenda, which will force provinces to pay for all private healthcare infiltration from U.S. Multinationals ON OUR PUBLIC PURSE, and they are swarming in as we speak to bust our budgets.

Public healthcare, despite the overwhelming opposition of Canadians, is being dismantled, and with this tiny minority, Harper will make it happen. We will be treated worse than Americans, we always are. And they are in pitiful shape when it comes to healthcare.

Employers won't want to pay a dime, or they will pick up and move shop. Just a huge reason for more jobs to leave Canada. Our public system was our big advantage for jobs to locate here. Coupled with the rest of Harper's tax policies, hard times are on their way for Canadians, and within about 4 years (lag time for all of this to really cause massive deficits and full implementation), Canada will be worse off than in Mulroney's devastation in the early 1990's.

Get lost with the three cheers for Conservatives whackos.

U.S. style healthcare, U.S. takeover of this entire sector is already begun, and it won't take long.

So, don't dare tell people to rejoice at your loser slim victory. There's plenty of damage going to come from this Conservative disaster. These are not Progressive Conservatives. They're Americans, not Canadians at heart. We've been taken over.

It's a true shame for Canada. Just when we were slated for really good times, and an ability to rebuild everything in this country with our surplus, just as wages were starting to grow, tax cuts for the middle and lower income people, just as public healthcare was massively set to improve, we take this montrous party into government?

How deceived are those who voted for these animals? Get out of here with the praise of Harper Conservatives. Regrets will be unprecedented, just wait until about 3 to 4 years from now when all of this is fully implemented, and the economic consequences are fully realized. Nothing happens instantly, but this won't take all that long to destroy and reverse Canada's current prosperous future.

But it will take him through to a majority in the next election, before these policies filter through the system, and voters will be fooled just long enough to make all of this a sure reality.

We led every industrialized country in the known world economically. Now we will be heading to damning times, just because our American dominated media, tricked enough people into putting this agenda to work. Makes me sick.

See the economic devastation we will face in just a few years (4-5 years at most for the damage to fully impact us, and could be sooner if the huge tax cuts for the rich, and major strategic industrial investment initiatives fail to materialize, since Harper Conservatives have flat out refused to make these necessary investments.) once these policies move through our economy:

» election 2006 » Economist says Tories gave him incomplete platform - Wheel Falls Off Harper's Bus

http://www.rabble.ca/babble/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=35&t=001832 once Harper done with budget no healthcare, devastated economy will develop

edited for clarification

[ 27 January 2006: Message edited by: happy go leftie (Red Tory) ]

I agree with some of what you said. The problem at this point from my perspective is: HOW do we change that situation? How can we get the MSM to stop spewing all this shit and actually balance out the media for ALL parties during elections. How can we correct democracy in this country and give some balance all away around? I think it's a really big problem that needs addressing... I have no answers, but I think PR might be a good start.

happy go leftie (Red Tory):

Great post. I feel the same way in many respects.

You know, the day before the election, I went and scanned a whole bunch of message boards and such at CBC, CTV and many other places to see if I could get a feel for how the electorate was prepared to vote. I was absolutely shocked with what I read. People had/have all these false ideas of how "fiscal" the Conservatives are. Many people talked about how "the Conservatives will clean corruption out of the house", "put in fresh ideas", and "bring in a better election system". It will be interesting to see if they do any of the above.

I imagine that they WILL try to keep up this 'moderate' image and they will implement *some* things -- But overall, I think they will just sucker the nation until they find a way to form a majority... And then, all Hell will break loose.

The object for lefties and centre-lefties at this point, I feel, is to to keep exposing the Cons for what they really are. Until the Liberals clean up their party, and the NDP develop a stronger following, we have to keep cracking away at the Cons to make sure the facts about the Cons are there for Canadians to see. We can't let them pull the wool over Canadian's eyes.

quote:

---

Finally the Conservatives get in!

---

With the weakest mandate in Canadian history.

• Create a crisis in a system by breaking said system
• "Fix" by dismantling broken system
• Give away for profit rights to US corporate imperialists
• Repeat

Note: Breaking a system may include any or all of:

• underfunding
• increasing costs to frightening levels
• provoking confrontation with public workers
• creating conflicting laws
• direct lies repeated until generally believed
• harnessing existing bigotry
  

[ 27 January 2006: Message edited by: No Yards ]

quote:

---

Mike Harris, a Harper twin, added $80 billion to Ontario's debt, more than any government in our history, and left a $6 billion deficit in a booming economy no less.

---

On this subject, here is an article I posted in an earlier thread:

from: The dangerous myth of Conservative fiscal discipline

Ottawa - Conservative parties everywhere preach the myth of fiscal discipline, but it's only that - a myth. The reality that died long ago. In fact, they have proven themselves to be dangerous spendthrifts, once elected to office.

Experience over the past 25 years has shown repeatedly that conservatives cannot be relied upon to protect the public purse. Again and again, they have raided their national treasuries for the benefit of the wealthy and left public finances in tatters.

The truth is that conservative leaders have an unmatched record of fiscal mismanagement in Canada, the United States, Britain and beyond.

Balanced budgets, historically a conservative hallmark, have drowned in a vast tide of red ink generated by profligate neo-conservative spenders and tax cutters like Ronald Reagan, Margaret Thatcher and Brian Mulroney, not to mention each of the war-mongering George Bushes.

In Canada, another Conservative icon who spouted endless rhetoric about fiscal prudence while wrecking public finances and services was Ontario Premier Mike Harris (and his successor Ernie Eves). When the Harris/Eves Tories were finally tossed out last fall in Canada's largest and most populous province, it was revealed that they had simply lied to voters about balancing their budgets. The province had a deficit of more than $6 billion.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Boom Boom:

Ottawa - Conservative parties everywhere preach the myth of fiscal discipline, but it's only that - a myth. The reality that died long ago. In fact, they have proven themselves to be dangerous spendthrifts, once elected to office.

Experience over the past 25 years has shown repeatedly that conservatives cannot be relied upon to protect the public purse. Again and again, they have raided their national treasuries for the benefit of the wealthy and left public finances in tatters.

---

quote:

---

Starve-the-beast or choke-the-beast is a conservative political strategy which uses budget deficits to force reductions in government expenditure, especially spending on social security programs. The term "beast" is used to denote government and the social programs it funds, including publicly funded healthcare and welfare, the implication being that expenditure on such programs, or the programs themselves, is wasteful or destructive.

A current example is the tax cutting policy of the Bush administration in the United States. A well-known U.S. proponent of the strategy is Grover Norquist.

It appears the earliest reference to "starving the beast" as a doctrine was made during the Reagan administration by White House budget director David Stockman, to describe its fiscal philosophy.

---

The Liberals and NDP together got 47.6% compared to the Cons’ 36.3% of the popular vote. Add the Bloc, which has mostly progressive policies and the combination rises to 58.1%.

This could be translated immediately into a form of proportional representation in the House of Commons if the opposition parties could get past the huge mistakes that have been made in calling this election and conducting this campaign. Instead of trying to justify the decision to go along with the election call and greasing the wheels of the Cons agenda tank, the NDP must unite anti-Cons forces for survival. In the House of Commons, vote the Cons out and with a negotiated accord, implement an agenda that represents the preservation of social programs and redistribution of wealth.

Mike Williams:

quote:

---

I think that Harper is going to pleasantly surprise a lot of his skeptics, and be able to secure a majority in 2 years' time.

---

This is clearly the Cons strategy, but don't be surprised when the election is called earlier than 2 years. The real question is, will Jack Layton grease their path by “co-operation” or will he work to achieve a form of proportional representation in the immediate future by negotiating a pact with the other parties who are not neoCons and BLOCK the neoCons agenda?

West Coast Tiger:

quote:

---

I imagine that they WILL try to keep up this 'moderate' image and they will implement *some* things -- But overall, I think they will just sucker the nation until they find a way to form a majority... And then, all Hell will break loose.

The object for lefties and centre-lefties at this point, I feel, is to keep exposing the Cons for what they really are. Until the Liberals clean up their party, and the NDP develop a stronger following, we have to keep cracking away at the Cons to make sure the facts about the Cons are there for Canadians to see. We can't let them pull the wool over Canadian's eyes.

---

“Keep exposing the Cons”??? Sadly, the NDP attack on neoCons went so soft during the campaign, the public perception was that Martin was exaggerating the potential harm of a Cons agenda. Instead, NDP and Bloc effort was directed at Martin and the Liberals, not attacking program but on “honesty and integrity”, thus shoring up the Cons campaign. Interesting that it was not until after the election that a report came out that Harper had refused for months to meet with the parliamentary Ombudsman regarding the Grewal affair. Wasn’t this something the NDP could have talked about during the campaign?

The lack of focused attack on the Cons in the campaign will be the albatross for the NDP and the Bloc. A majority Cons was avoided only because strategic voting was successful. The SES (CPAC) poll was most accurate:

quote:

---

On the eve of election day, CPAC-SES final poll results put voter support for the Conservatives at 36.4% (Election Result 36.3%), the Liberals at 30.1% (Election Result 30.2%), the NDP at 17.4% (Election Result 17.5%), the BQ at 10.6% (Election Results 10.5%), and the Green Party at 5.6% (Election Result 4.5%). The margin of error is ±3.1%.

---

There’s a huge difference between the Liberal program of $5 billion for child care in child care spaces and the Cons $9.3 billion in child care deductions, between the Liberal program of $3 billion on military spending and the Cons of $7 billion, between a Liberal parental leave program and a Cons cut of EI of $1 billion, between the Liberal deal with municipalities and aboriginals and the Cons, no deal and between the Liberal adoption of equal pay for work of equal value and the Cons total repudiation of it.

We know that the NDP program is the most progressive, but the campaign message was false. While saying that the NDP made the difference in the minority government and then saying the NDP could work with Harper, the impression was left that it didn’t matter which party formed the minority government. Unfortunately, West Coast Tiger, the NDP lost the opportunity to expose the fundamental differences between the neoCons and the other parties, instead shoring up the Cons in their “integrity” con. The biggest failures of this strategy were the failure to inform and expose the neoCons and the failure to build alliances to deal with the possibility of a Cons minority after the election.

West Coast Tiger:

quote:

---

AND until the other two parties are in better positions to fight the Cons...

---

Excuse me!?! Have you looked at the first item on the neoCons agenda?

The Cons want to legislate the Accountability Act as the first matter of business. READ CAREFULLY.

quote:

---

With many accountability measures to be introduced, the Act will change the way business is done in Ottawa by:
· Banning corporate and union donations, while limiting personal donations to $1,000;
· Overhauling lobbying laws and banning all ministers, ministerial staffers or senior public officials from lobbying government for five years after leaving their post;
· Give more power to the Lobbyists Registrar, Ethics Commissioner, Information Commissioner and the Auditor General, and;
· Give the Auditor General a mandate to conduct a complete review of the more than $30 billion in annual federal grants, contributions and contracts.

---

Accountability Act

While NDP strategists attack Buzz Hargrove and his vision and union leadership, they merrily propose to “co-operate” with Harper, who will gut the NDP's funding source of union donations and begin an Auditor's review that will be the foundation for ending federal support for socially progressive programs!

In 1988, the NDP went soft on the free trade battle and progressive votes went to the Liberals who focused the debate. My prediction is that the Cons will create a soft image, a phony crisis and blame the opposition parties for thwarting their ability to carry out their so-called "mandate". The next election will come sooner than anyone can imagine, likely even before the Liberal leadership convention, and the next election will be like the 1993 election for the NDP. The problem we are facing is that it won’t be the same for the Cons.

Even as a minority government, the damage the Cons do will be serious – the infrastructure will be radically changed. Strategically, it is essential to fight the media coronation and the concerted attempt to now claim that Harper has a mandate. Mulroney got away with claiming a mandate for free trade when two-thirds of the voters opposed him. What to do to stop a repetition of this tactic? (Harper's advisors are Mulroneyites)

Wakkom:

quote:

---

Put simply, Harper has promised to radically alter the relationship between Ottawa and all of the provinces. He would have the federal government tax less so that the provinces can tax more.
In practical terms, this means that Ottawa could no longer afford a host of social and industrial programs — from funding medicare to supporting aerospace firms.
On paper, there might still be, say, a national medicare scheme. But with fewer funds at its disposal, the national government would be unable to entice provinces to play by national rules.
Nor, in such a world, would Ottawa strike deals with cities to build subways or social housing. Instead, the federal government would direct urban supplicants to the newly tax-rich provinces.

---

David Olive wrote similarly during the campaign

quote:

---

But Harper's critics are off the mark in imagining that he has a hidden agenda to gut social programs, re-open the gay marriage debate and turn back the clock on abortion rights. His preoccupation is, and always has been, to dismantle federalism in its current form and replace it with a system bearing a striking resemblance to the U.S. version.

---

Buzz Hargrove laid out the foundations for a strategy that can expose the differences between the neoCons and other parties - a joint pact that could unite the progressives in the Liberal, ND and Bloc parties, clarify the government's mandate and stall the erosion:

quote:

---

1. renewing the child care deals;
2. maintaining Kyoto
3. implementing the aboriginal commitment
4. finalizing bankruptcy protection legislation
5. keeping health care public
6. not dismantling the gun registry
7. completing planned fiscal transfers to the cities
8. no new votes on abortion or equal marriage rights

---

Deep integration with the USA is on the horizon. Remember Allende.

quote:

---

Stephen Harper wants to refashion the country. It is his big idea, his theme. On the one hand, he wants to radically decentralize power and taxing authority so that the federal government no longer plays a significant role in social areas, like medicare, that Canadians regard as national institutions. On the other, he wants to focus and strengthen Ottawa's role in areas such as defence so that Canada can more effectively join the United States in what Harper has called the great moral battle against tyranny and terror. His twin ideas — decentralize internally; focus externally — promise to inform everything he does as prime minister.

---

Conservatives sold off Ontario hydro assets, and stranded $20 billion in debt from that alone, added to the public debt. With the hydro assets gone for "fraction of their true value", the assets that secured and easily paid for that debt were gone. While foreigners own hydro assets for a fraction of their "true value", and we "get to keep the debt"? When have you ever heard of selling off major company, and the seller keeps the debt? And yet they sold Bruce Nuclear for a song, which is now under investigation, if they can ever find all of the "non-shredded paperwork", and if they can prove this was a sham of a deal (which it was, since Bruce was worth way more than they sold it for). No, don't try to whitewash Harris. It won't fly.

Conservatives sold off everything for a song they could get their hands on, and ran a disturbing racket when it came to budgeting.
Debt for the Harris years rose by $80 billion. Most of it was off balance sheet debt, that Harris crew hid, was discovered in the lockup by financial experts, when it was found that the Conservatives kept "two sets of books". When the last year's budget of Ernie Eves was exploded with this news, all Flaherty could say was "well we don't count that, since we're going to sell off lots of Ontario's assets to cover it, so that's why we have separate amounts?" People were in absolute unbelievable shock when they heard this, but it was not new, as Flaherty himself stated at the time.

As Harris Conservatives sold off vital assets for fractions of their true value, like Highway 407 (estimated sold for $500 billion less than it's earnings potential in net profits over a 100 year contract), our Hydro assets, including Nuclear plants, our natural gas system, we, in Ontario are now strapped with paying more than 300% higher bills on all of these and more.

Our healthcare system was crippled by Conservatives with secret privatization deals out of the Premier's office, giving $13 billion in pure profits off our public purse to their big "foreign" Corporate election contributors, while the health system was slashed to pieces, but is now recovering under restructuring and buy backs by McGinty. But the debt is still high, and they left a $6 billion deficit.

The public was left holding the bag to pay out of pocket for huge expenses that were never necessary to begin with. This was deliberate by these New Conservatives. They think anything that is "regulated" or "not for profit" run is SOCIALISM (even though more efficient and cheaper), must be sold to foreign Multinationals for a song. Conservatives of this new breed will destroy everything in sight that looks like it might make the poeple's lives easier and better, it's PURE PROFITIZATION for Multinationals, and screw the people. You are meant to be a slave labourer, and survival in this new realm is all up to you. The poor, disabled, seniors, the working poor, the middle class are all going to be given the royal shaft, and this time it will be the team work of Mike Harris, Mulroney and Harper. This is going to be unbelievable.

But this Harris Conservative Party never reduced that debt enough, and Ontario's debt went up by far more than what Bob Rae's government ever did, yet Harris Conservatives were in a booming economy, and Rae was faced with the most devastating recession in half a century. And Rae in these horrific times did not cut Ontario's services. Yet while in a boom economy Harris Conservatives cut every Ministry to the point of complete collapse, including the healthcare services, environmental protections for life and death of Ontarians, you name it.

So Harris, as with Harper Conservatives had a real agenda, and it wasn't the public interest. Money, where it went, would take a real amazing effort to track it all, as before Harris crew left office, there were shredder trucks lining the streets in front of every ministry, shredding public documents. Talk about scandalous government. Yet, Harris got to walk off scott free? Media didn't dog Harris, but went after Martin like hell for a measely $40 million? Not great, but sure as hell isn't massive billions that Conservatives "gave away" to their "Multinational, mainly U.S. backers". Don't know how anyone will ever know the rest of where this money went, but it is GONE.

This is how the Conservatives ran things, and they ran deficits every single year, despite their claim to have "balanced budget legislation". That was just a FRONT, a tool to fool the people. They just proceeded to parcel off huge parts of Ontario's major assets, sell them off a fire sale prices to their "big foreign election campaign donors", and bust Ontario's coffers every possible way they could. This was not just bad management, this was their goal, it was done most deliberately. It is a core belief system of this New Conservative group. Their agenda was to bust Ontario, make it just like Mulroney left the federal government in overwhelming debt and deficit. Now Conservatives will do the same federally, and nationwide, strip Canada of everything in terms of vital social services, and change Canada in ways you will never dream possible. And don't think for a minute that a minority of only 124 seats will stop them. You wait and see.

Harris decimated Ontario, and we are about to get this done to the entire nation under Harper, Mulroney as his main advisor, and Mike Harris Conservatives there to give Harper the "repugnant" expertise he will need to do this to all of Canada.

There is a "global" elite of Corporate masters who will control everything, and will drain you as their working "cash cows". A return to the pre-industrial revolution, where the owners were the bosses, and the workers were just replaceable units to be burned out. You will pay, work, pay more than ever for your goods and services (whatever they demand, and no regulations or protections for workers, for consumers), work longer, and the workforce is not meant to get ahead. There will be far less people able to afford an education. Educated masses are not desirable with this new global power elite. Just the opposite. The more difficult your life, the more obedient a society you will be.

quote:

---

Connect the dots between David Emerson's head-spinning political reincarnation as a Conservative cabinet minister and the upcoming departure of Paul Martin as Liberal leader and what you have is the imminent end of a remarkable 13-year fling between corporate Canada and the federal Liberal party.

For more than a decade, Martin was corporate Canada's dominant political figure. Over his years as finance minister, the Liberals displaced the Conservatives in the affections of his former fellow CEOs.

. . . .

In fact, for a long time, corporate Canada did not feel a pressing need to look beyond Martin. It took Jean Chrétien's last year in office, complete with a high-profile feud with the White House on Iraq, to give new impetus to corporate efforts to force the two small-c conservative parties back together.

Now Martin's matchmaking services are coming to an end and with corporate favourites for his succession already out of the running, a realignment is poised to take place.

Beyond the nods to the cities of Vancouver and Montreal, Emerson's recruitment as international trade minister for the Conservatives and the appointment of the unelected Michael Fortier at public works are winks to the business communities of Quebec and British Columbia.

They complement the appointment of Jim Flaherty as federal finance minister, a nomination that does more to reassure corporate Canada than to assuage the concerns of Ontarians in general and Torontonians in particular as to the directions of the new government.

All three moves make up for Stephen Harper's outsider status vis-à-vis the business establishment. They are meant to reopen the channels of communications between his fledging government and corporate Canada.

As such, they are key pieces of the ongoing reconstruction of the Conservative party as a national institution and as the natural home of the country's business establishment.

---

Link (scroll to the graphs)

The deficits were about 8.5 billion in 95-96, 7B in 96-97, 4B in 97-98 and 2B in 98-99. The surpluses from 99-00 to 02-03 added up to 3 billion. So the total debt grew up by about 19 billion.

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreenNeck:
To be fair, Ontario was in deficit for the first 4 years of Harris government, and then in surplus for the next 4.

---

You did see the note at the bottom of your graph, didn't you? It says "source: provincial forecast".

quote:

---

Originally posted by S1m0n:

You did see the note at the bottom of your graph, didn't you? It says "source: provincial forecast".

It's citing the phony, unaudited numbers. The real numbers are decidedly different.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by GreenNeck:
To be fair, Ontario was in deficit for the first 4 years of Harris government, and then in surplus for the next 4. That figure of 20$ billion deficit in a single year cannot be correct.

Link (scroll to the graphs)

The deficits were about 8.5 billion in 95-96, 7B in 96-97, 4B in 97-98 and 2B in 98-99. The surpluses from 99-00 to 02-03 added up to 3 billion. So the total debt grew up by about 19 billion.

---

Also, it isn't enough to just add up the annual deficit numbers. To look at "the amount of debt added" by a particular government, you'd have to take into account the growth of the debt due to interest. If it grows by more than you are paying down, you are increasing your debt. Taking this into account, and most of the additional 5.5-Billion deficit from 03-04, it is fair to say that the Harris regime added well over $20-Billion in debt (in total, as I said -- I'll leave Red Tory to defend his own numbers). Note that all of this occurred during a strong economic boom that started a year before Harris took power. It is precisely during these times that you are supposed to work down the debt, rather than adding even more debt.

My own claim above was that they added between $20- and 30-Billion in debt overall. Red Tory was arguing for much higher numbers, not because of what appeared on paper (or in your chart from BMO Nesbit Burns), but rather because higher "real" deficits were being masked by the sell-off of public assets, like parts of Ontario Hydro and highway 407. To take an extreme example: if you were to sell off your house and make $100K on the transaction, and at the same time quit your $60K job and increase your spending up to $90K, you could produce a budget that shows a "surplus" of $10K. But of course, that would be a sham.

There are other interesting angles on what "real" debt or deficit is, outside of just the numbers that show up on provincial balance sheets, and even leaving aside a deficit being masked by the one-time sale of public assets. How much net cost did the Harris Conservatives dump onto municipalities, hospitals and universities by cutting transfers, and effectively transferring debt to those institutions (and leaving them to deal with it by increasing their own debt, or by cutting services), while the Conservatives collected the glory of cutting taxes? What about hiding your fiscal deficit in an infrastructure deficit? Suppose you really need to spend 2 billion dollars over a given period to properly maintain highways, roads, water pipes, sewage systems, etc -- all of the infrastructure of the province. But you're a cheapskate and you want to look good on paper now, so you only spend half that amount, and you have "saved" a billion dollars from your budget. But, of course, you haven't really saved anything, because years down the road another government will have to spend even more just fixing all of the infrastructure that you have allowed to decay and break down.

quote:

---

Embassymag:

What better place for Parliament's most eligible bachelor to hang out his shingle than at the helm of the Foreign Affairs department? Who needs Belinda when the world awaits?

Potential bride searches apart, however, what sort of a minister will Peter MacKay make?

His arrival in the office is the result of a rather clever series of decisions to avoid creating rifts. Prime Minister Stephen Harper solved the problem of who to pick as his deputy --useful Quebecer Lawrence Cannon or deputy party leader MacKay-- by not picking one at all.

Mr. Harper then resolved the problem of how to avoid offending former Canadian Alliance Leader and Conservative foreign affairs critic Stockwell Day, by sending Mr. MacKay to Foreign Affairs.

As the former leader of the Progressive Conservatives, Mr. MacKay was the one person who had equal or higher seniority dibs on the Foreign Affairs job if he wanted it, which he obviously did.

The appointment of Mr. MacKay -- who many expect to one day have his own shot at being prime minister -- also sends a signal to the department, and the diplomatic community, that this new government does place great importance on Canada's role in the world.

It will be interesting to see how an Atlantic politician, whose region is used to dealing with both U.S. neighbours and old European friends will fair in dealing with Canada's growing interests in Pacific Asia.

Then again, Mr. MacKay has West Coast minister David Emerson as International Trade Minister, and his home city Vancouver is known as the Gateway to the Pacific.

Perhaps the bigger challenge will be convincing Ontario and Quebec that their interests are being sufficiently promoted by an East Coast-West Coast tag team.

---