Putting the NDP in power would be “devastating,” Harper says - Macleans.ca

Putting the NDP in power would be “devastating,” Harper says

Conservative party turns on Layton’s NDP with days to go before the vote


With just a few days before the federal election on May 2, Conservative leader Stephen Harper is warning that an NDP-led “band of opponents” would bring “devastating” tax hikes should they take power, Postmedia reports. The Tories looked to be headed for a majority, but are now under threat from Jack Layton’s surging NDP party. While campaigning in Niagara Falls, Ont., Harper singled out certain NDP platform promises, such as an increase to EI and CPP premiums and a $20 billion carbon tax, which he said were deemed by experts to lead to massive tax hikes. He went on to say the NDP surge “lays out for Canadians how clear and stark the choice is,” noting that the opposition will bring “enormous increases” in expenses of all kinds, and a “devastating effect on consumers’ pockets and ultimately on our economy.”


Filed under:

Putting the NDP in power would be “devastating,” Harper says

  1. Canadians, don't buy the FEAR…

    The New Democratic Party in the year 2011 are a CENTER-LEFT party, if you want to talk political spectrum. NOT an "EXTREME-LEFT", "FAR-LEFT", "SOCIALIST", 1902 un-democratic cut off your head if you don't comply, party…

    In the year 2011? in our DEMOCRATIC country? where the politicians are accountable to the PEOPLE?, NOT the other way around…(like Harper would have) The 1902 FEAR MONGERING catchphrases are just ridicules American style babble.

    The CENTER-left NDP will do whatever it takes to stay in power, no differently then ANY other political party, & WOW?! if they make mistakes? like EVERY other party in history?!, then VOTE them out. Back in the CONTEXT that these FEAR MONGERS are trying to use them in today?, they had NO VOTE.

    All I know is JACK is a SAINT compared to Harper. BY FAR the hardest working MP in Parliament for the PEOPLE, not to mention his team. The only thing any Canadian who cares about what's LEFT of Canada should FEAR is the Harper Regime.

    Anyone tells you different?, they are just trying to SCARE you into not voting for JACK, Boo!…

    • At this point "+10" = ten people who don't spend much time on these forums.

    • I hope he has been working hard – check out what he has been spending. The most in Ottowa. Ouch. Check out his wife as well. They make a good team. :)

    • Well said. It's refreshing to hear the truth about the NDP. I'm tired of uninformed people comparing them to communists.

  2. Devastating for Harper to be sure.

    How long would Harper last if a Liberal backed NDP takes power? He'd be lucky if he was able to grab his jacket before being thrown out the door, I'm betting.

    • Liberal Party support would *COLLAPSE* and whatever Conservative leader was at the helm would be assured a huge majority at the next election, which he could call at his leisure with Bloc support.

  3. What would be devestating to our country is a Harper majority. He has done incredible damage as a minority, just think of the carnage with a Harper majority.

    • scare tactics anyone?

      • The CPC's conduct the last few years has done serious damage to Parliament, and Canadian democracy, so the statement is not without merit. Though I doubt the poster had as much in mind when he stated it.

  4. .
    Ignatieff wants 'intense scrutiny' of Layton.

    What is this? The MacCarthy era? A Harper/Ignatieff extraordinary rendition of the NDP? Are they going to call in the CIA bizjets and whisk them away to Gitmo?

    That pair is making my voting choice easier every time they open their jaws.

    • Should we not carefully scrutinize Jack's platform? And ask him how he's going to pay for it? The media used to do things like that.

  5. Seems to me David Peterson tried to scare the bejeesus out of Ontario voters just before Bob Rae took him to the woodshed. I don't think Layton's going to take Harper to the woodshed, but I don't think trying to scare the bejeesus out of people at this late hour is going to help, either.

    • I wondered aloud earlier this morning if, in fact, there really is no way for Harper to target Layton without giving him even more votes. People are sick of Harper's fear-mongering, so responding by ramping up the fear-mongering is just going to reinforce their decision and drive more voters into the big Orange tent. He's so trashed Ignatieff's image that there's no way to resuscitate it at this late stage. Dusting off the fuzzy blue sweater would have worked three weeks ago, but now it's way too late to play the warm, nurturing parliamentarian.

      I think Harper's really boxed in.

      • Interesting point. Maybe Harper is hoping that some Liberals will run to him, out of fear of the Red Menace.

        We just saw it happen today with the Globe and Mail’s endorsement.

        I criticized Andrew Coyne today for his careless dismissal of the NDP’s credentials but I do credit him for having a great enough commitment to democracy to resist endorsing Harper.

        It’s time for the real liberal democrats to stand and be counted.

        • I think the is that the center leaning Liberals vote CPC. At least that is the strategy.

          • They might vote for a Red, but most won't vote for Harper.

        • Maybe Harper is hoping that some Liberals will run to him, out of fear of the Red Menace.

          This does appear to be the CPC "strategy" right now. It must really be frustrating Harper, Giorno, and Byrne to have that amazing war room ready to pound the world with their message and be forced to simply sit on their hands for the next few days.

          With a week or two, they might be able to delicately poke at some of Layton's scabs to see what might be worth targeting with the big guns. With only a day left before the Royal wedding (and the associated distraction of voters), they really don't have time to do anything but carpet-bomb. And that may be just as destructive for them as it is helpful.

          • Layton's platform has numbers and rows and columns that add up to something. For most voters, that's sufficient and indistinguishable from the platform of any other party.

            The more time the CPC and LPC spend trying to fight him on platform costing, the more time is wasted in mounting an effective defence against his personality. Voters aren't voting for the NDP platform, they're voting in Jack because he's not either of the other two guys. That's a pretty hard thing to target without reinforcing it.

            Jack's hurting himself right now, though, by denying interviews and avoiding reporters. But with two days left, it's probably not enough to seriously weaken his numbers.

    • I voted strategically! NDP don't have a chance in my riding so I voted Liberal.

  6. A lot of people said the same things about the Conservatives just before they took power in 2006. Indeed, Stephen Harper himself opened the door to the NDP or another new party taking power in Ottawa. The Conservatives that took power in 2006 were essentially a new party, carrying only a small rump of the Tories of old. Neither Stephen Harper nor his ministers had ever been Federal ministers and virtually none of his MPs had ever sat on the Government benches. A few had been provincial cabinet ministers, but they were sparse indeed.

    If the NDP become the governing party in the future, it will be because Stephen Harper made it possible. And he may have cause to regret that.

    • It's all about personal responsibility. Do you want the government to run your life (like Bob Rae/Stalin and other tax and spend dictators) or do you want to run your life? Do people really have such short memories that the Bob Rae era no longer plays into this? What about Glen Clark and his scandalous tenure in BC. Really people. This is a much simpler decision if you really look at it objectively. Low taxes mean fewer social programs. No duh. Do you want to be served hand and foot by your government for the rest of your life or do you want to have a sense of accomplishment by being self-responsible and hardworking? The first nations of this country are a perfect example of how throwing money at a situation can backfire. It is your and my fault (through the allocation of our tax dollars) that is crushing the spirit of these people and giving them no sense of self worth or value in our society.

      • "Bob Rae/Stalin"


      • Social Programs exist out of a need… people didnt elect the party promising them because they thought it a nifty idea, or because the strain of personal responsibility was too great. They are necessary because the goernment has failed to address the structural deficiencies of our economic system. Because while our economy generates incredible wealth, that wealth has only reached small precentage of the population. Because as the driing force of our domestic economy crumbled and people found it increasingly difficult to service their basic needs the government was forced to step in and forcefully redistribute wealth in order to meet its obligations.

        Is this a necessary or acceptable situation? No. But you can strip away as many social programs as you want, but will it benefit our people or economy? No. Social Programs didnt not create the sickness, and their elimination will do nothing to remedy it. Eliminate social programs by eliminating their NEED. No party is suggesting anything that will address this. This election boils down to three parties pandering to niche voters.

        • Lower corporate taxes do not increase wages, decrease costs, or lead to meaningful job creation. Only increasing the market can reliably do so, and no party is proposing anything to this end. Eliminating GST taxes is evidence of regressive tax policies which only hurt Canada in the end.

          The solid performance of Canada's economy is largely a ruse suppourted by unemployment numbers that do not account for low wage part-time, or temp workers and further obscurred by rising commodity and resource costs in a country that increasingly relies on selling off its natural resources to countries that actually build and produce things.

          This is not a condemnation of any party in particular, but of all parties. Canada will not do worse under any of these parties, but it will not do well under any either. Arguing for the end of social programs as a means of helping Canadians is silly however, if you are not suggesting or suppourting anything which will eliminate their neccessity. Without structural reform to our economic model we are better off with them, than without.

          • But, look at Ireland where low corporate taxes have the Celtic Tiger, envy of the world! While in Germany, with its huge corporate taxes, the economy has been so utterly destroyed that Germans are eating their lederhosen!

        • social programs are not wrong. Heavy Government funding of them is! If people were empowered out of their own strength of will to do better for themselves we wouldn't have as much of a welfare state. Again, the programs aren't wrong because there is legitimate need for them but government run programs are inefficient, abused and ineffective to a large degree. It's too easy to say "the government should be helping that person". It's much harder to say "I'm going to go over and help that person" and care about my fellow "man". It's also much more fulfilling to offer a helping hand to someone than to expect the government to always do it. Idealistic yes, but true.

          • Bootstrap theory is great for those who can afford the boots.

  7. .
    Those two-bit land-line polls have the PM and his vote-siding sibling scared out of their wits.

    Would a future debate have Mr. Harper and Mr. Ignatieff demanding Jack's Birth Certificate?

    • "Hitler had a distinctive mustache. Coincidence?"

  8. Is that why the G&M is now endorsing Harper? I think some big names fear Layton, not while he is power, but after.How much damage will he do.{lots!!!}

    • Jack cant do any worse than the tories. Come on folks, the tories have contempt of parliament, Carson, Senetors, highest deficit, highest dept and on and on and on. And you say Jack is bad for Canada? Right!

      • Right, Jack would be bad for Canada. Especially now.

        • Harper is the worst thing that ever happened to Canada and thats saying something when there was Mulrony!!!

          • Wow – I am surprised you didn't put that in all caps. lol

          • no need to, its common knowledge in Canada.

  9. The NDP in their very worst day could not do the damage to individuals in this country as the Conservatives do if they get elected!

    The Conservatives (And Liberals) are targeting work-a-day individuals with hard hits to their monthly incomes. (Health care 150.00 to 400.00 per month for only a partial coverage through private insurance; Water when put under NAFTA will routinely run to 150.00 or more per month to meet the prices in the US. On top of this the way the Conservatives work, the pipelines will be charged to the taxpayers and the profits go to the corporations)

    Just look to Alberta for the scenario; it is already in place!

    I would prefer a straight out Carbon line tax. Having said that there is nothing at all to support his 20 billion dollar figure on Carbon in that time frame but, there sure as hell is hard figures to support how much to support he is going to pull much more than that out of individual's wallets in that same period!

    Think low numbers as in 200.00 per family per month. 20 million Canadians estimate 15 million separate bills at 200.00 per month Per year? And, over 10 years?

    At the end of that time corporations will be paying no tax in Canada and we will still be in a deficit position.

    • lol, and you say this because you live in Alberta?

    • We will get private health insurance no matter who gets in, unless it's Layton, as he has promised to use the Notwithstanding clause to overrule any Charter ruling against the CHA.

  10. Hubris and Second Son Syndrome, with undertones of Brylcreem?

  11. After all the Lies and Corruption from previous Tory and Liberal Governments, I’m willing to give the NDP a try…perhaps it will smarten the other two up…And keep in mind, ALL the broken election promises of the past…I doubt the NDP will be any different…so I’m not too worried about them bankrupting us from everything they said they’d do.

    I want a Government that isn’t going to finish the job Mulroney started…selling us out to the U.S.
    Harper is a wannabe American Republican, 5 years under him and we’ll likely all be flying American Stars & Strips flags.
    I want A Government that takes care of our Basic Needs…like, Healthcare, Defense, Law & Order, Retirement/pension, Safe Water & Food, etc, etc, etc…

    We’ve recently seen how well the private sector self-regulates itself with the Global economic meltdown.

    I recently watched the movie, ‘Inside Job’…I’m about ready to turn into a Marxist = Kill the Rich.

    • where do you people get this stuff?
      Seriously, is there a website out there that invents this for you to spread?

      • We get it from Harpers record and actions.

        • sure you do, and from the voices in your heads I am assuming. . .

      • What part of what I said is wrong?
        1) Are you saying everyone hasn’t made promises they didn’t keep?
        2) Are you denying that Harper is a wannabe Republican?
        I voted for Manning and Day, but when Harper took over, he was too Pro-American for my liking, and comments he made while in that Citizens Coalition really turned me off, He hasn’t done or said anything since to change my mind. I’ll NEVER vote or support him.
        3) Are you saying De-regulating the Financial sector was a good thing?

        • Most of what you said was wrong.
          1) almost every politician makes promises that they don't keep, and the NDP are politicians. That they are above the fray is wrong.
          2) Harper is no a wannabe Republican. If I denied it, that would imply that it was true, and I wasn't admitting it. Not the case.
          3) Who did, or tried, to 'de-regulated' the financial sector?

          How about 'selling us to the US', and 'stars and stripes' 'gov't that cares . . .' 'Kill the Rich'. Too much to comment on, but all wrong.

          • 1) I didn’t imply they (NDP) were above the Fray when it comes to breaking election promises. I said I didn’t expect them to be any different then the others that have broken promises.

            I don’t know why I bother trying to reason with some people….

            I’m Sure Harper could go out and Gas/Kill 500,000 people tomorrow and many of these Cons would still lick his boots and applaud his actions.

          • The reason you aren't good at reasoning with people is that you don't use facts, or 'reason'.

            Read your first post, and tell me how much of it you can back up with facts or quotes. Once you have done that, you will realize that you are trying to 'reason' with your own opinion. I am always ready to listen to facts and reason.

        • It is a cute way for Nader to get some publicity – "open letter . . ."

          It was an opinion piece, and was just that – Naders' opinion. He has a clean reputation, but I wouldn't go to him for advice.

    • If you're concerned about how the rich manipulate the economy and the financial system for their own benefit, I highly recommend reading Robert Kyosaki's Conspiracy of the Rich. The beauty about Kyosaki is that he sees government spending and the corporatist agenda as two sides of the same coin. The socialists hose the middle class, but somehow the rich manage to protect their assets, even if it requires trillion dollar bailouts. He sees most government programs as little more than sops to keep the middle class dependent, stupid, and poor.

      There has been an increasing number of comentators in recent years who fiercely critical of corporatism and high finance, yet are just as fiercely anti-bureaucracy and anti-government. Kyosaki is one. Nassim Nicolas Taleb is another. Both are worthy reads. And both are a million times more skeptical and more informed than a Naomi Klein.

      • Raging_Ranter,

        Thanks for those recommendations.

        Like John Lennon said…..
        Keep you doped with religion, sex and TV.
        You think you’re so clever, classless and Free.
        But your still F**king Peasants as far as I can see.

        From the song…Working Class Hero.

  12. ummm ok.

  13. If Harper would resign and allow a more principled person to take the reigns, the CPC would easily get their coveted majority. Harper needs to realize HE is the one holding them back. He needs to quit blaming others and take a good hard look in the mirror.

    • I don't think its so simple. Fundraising/volunteers is a big source of relative advantage for the Tories. A more moderate and conciliatory leader might be more appealing to the electorate, but would be less appealing to the rabid base upon which the Tories rely for money and volunteers. And lest we not forget which party Harper was in when he first entered parliament.

      I'm not saying you are wrong – I actually agree that Harper has erred on the side of being a jerk, but there are limits to how far the CPC can move without:
      A. losing $ and volunteers
      B. fomenting a right-wing revolt that costs them the west

      • As long as Conservatives run away from themselves, they'll be far from power. How successful have the Ontario PCs been since Harris left? Neither John Tory nor Ernie Eaves – both moderate "Reds", could even come close to winning an election. Conservatives always make the mistake of trying to make themselves inoffensive. They need to realize that a full 50% of the population will NEVER vote for them, and focus on the other half who might. Trying to make themselves appealing to the progressives simply won't work, and they need to stop trying.

        • John Tory would have beat McGuinty except for the immoderate promise to extend funding to all religious schools. If not for that one thing, the rest of JT's moderate conservatism would've swayed Ontarians.

          • I Voted for Harris in Ontario twice, but They lost me when they talked about privatizing Hydro and how competition was going to lower the price of it…although every other jurisdiction that had done that didn’t result in lower prices, (ei. Calif. & England).
            I still haven’t forgiven them for that. Our Hydro prices now are going through the roof.
            AND Then Tory promised that religious school funding, when I don’t agree with funding the Catholic School Board…not a chance.
            I waste it and vote Green in Ontario.

          • Your hydro prices are going through the roof even though it hasn't been privatised. That should tell you something right there. The assertion that they would go down once privatised was a bit of wishful thinking (aka a lie), but the idea that hydro must absolutely be publicly owned is just as incorrect. There are plenty of examples of privately owned utilities that provide reliable, competitively priced power. Just as their are plenty of examples to the contrary, both publicly and privately owned. California was a victim of its own idiotic regulations, not of private companies. The wholesale price of hydro was deregulated (it had to be – california is a net power importer) but they did not deregulate retail rates. When a shortage occurred, the wholesale price spiked, but they could not pass the spike on to consumers. The utilities quickly went bankrupt. Publicly owned BC hydro, however, made $21 billion in profits that year, due to it's exports to california and its astute derivatives trading to take advantage of the crisis.

  14. Before casting your ballot on May 2, may I suggest you "Google" NDP Platform 2011, and read what Jack Layton and his Party's plans are for Canada.
    The Platform makes frightening reading for anyone but those on the far Left of the political spectrum.

      • Please email that question to various media types and demand that they ask the same.

  15. On G-8 funding, there may have been a violation of the law. In that case, lawbreakers certainly must be brought to justice. However a leaked, unofficial draft of the auditor-general's report is definitely not up to the standard of a courtroom, and shouldn't be sufficient evidence in the court of public opinion (though doubtless it is for many, especially those who have already mentally convicted the Prime Minister of a litany of worse crimes). Was overspending an issue? Possibly, but it wasn't "fake lakes" or gazebos that broke the bank, it was security spending (nor was security spending that far off from previous G-8 meetings when you consider that they hosted two events). Ultimately, they should have done one event, and it should have been in Toronto, but we are talking about potential savings that are pretty small, especially compared to the impact of the G-8 meeting. I mean not just the maternal health initiative, but more importantly, the defeat of a global bank tax that would have been terrible for Canada (it was no mean feat either, since both the Americans and Germans supported it).

    Finally, there is the issue of Carson. If Carson did his time, then I see no reason why that should prejudice his ability to serve in the PMO. Indeed, isn't the idea that people can be rehabilitated a cornerstone of the justice policy of both the Liberals and the NDP? I also don't care that he is married to a former prostitute – and find it equally funny how prudish Liberals and Dippers get when they are talking about the supposed misconduct of others. Michael Ignatieff divorced his wife of 20 years to marry his publicist, moving 6000 km from his teenage kids. He's not going to win father of the year, but it doesn't mean he would be a bad Prime Minister.

    Is Canada on a slippery slope to tyranny? Well, slippery slope arguments are just that – slippery. Please let me know when we have reached the critical line between tyranny and not tyranny, and I'll start to care. And if you've noticed, changing governments has been a pretty poor hedge against crooked, arrogant Prime Ministers – most successful Canadian Prime Ministers are bastards (Pearson is the only clear exception, and even then he failed to win a majority), most losers are nice guys.

    • Wow this is one of the best reads I have had in a while. Where have you been?

    • Let me tell you why Canadians hate Harper. He is AMERICAN! and we do not want to be AMERICAN! We are Canadian and proud of it. We do not want a religious right, republican country. We are Canadians and we will fight him every step of the way! Vote ABC…

      • You just superseded your previous level of retardedness with that post. No easy feat. Harper is not, and never has been American. He has imported some of the nasty Republican style campaign tactics for sure. But he is not, nor ever has been, American. There are approximately 1/3 of Canadians who would identify themselves as "right leaning." This does not make one third of us American. I have no intention of ever becoming an American, and I can assure you that goes for most of the other 1/3. So, sadly for you, we aren't going anywhere. Outnumbered by progressives we may be. But we'll stick around making things miserable for you, because we too happen to love this country.

        • Call me what you want. I'm not saying he is an American citizen I am saying he is a wannabe American. He wants us to be American, he hires American republican stratigists, copies American republican policy, copies American republican ads and speeches so as I said… he is American and I am Canadian!
          Lets get this straight while we are at it. I dont want you to go anywhere. As a left leaning Canadian I do not hate you like the right hates anyone that does not agree with them. I do however hate Harper. I do not question your love for this country either like the right wing questions our love for our country. I do question how you can support such a dangerous man though. I see the right as money centered as if that is ALL that matters when at the end of the day, and at the end of your life believe me, money will be the last thing you think or care about. So I repeat Vote ABC.

          • read this polling companies and the Conservatives are all in bed together, manufacturing an NDP surge to combat the Liberals and then tell me harper is not American!!!

    • Yes, people cry about Harper's nastiness. How quickly they forget the campaigns to vilify him in 2004 and 2006. And the constant lies and hysteria spread by the Liberal party and their fellow progressives regarding an honest and decent man like Preston Manning. Manning was a nice guy, and never got close to the throne. If Harper were nice like Manning, he'd enjoy the same level of electoral success.

      • There is a reason lefties like nice conservatives… they like it when conservatives lose.

        • Well said, both of you. Harper is a decent man and does not deserve the vitriol he gets. Your analysis of the various issues is accurate – for the most part they were all overblown, and they were all attempts by the opposition not to oppose, but to embarrass, so that the left could re-assume control of the country.

        • Exactly. The Liberals spent 20 years talking about how much they "feared" the return of Joe Clark. Jean Chretien never hesitated to praise Clark when asked about him, talking about how much he respected him and what a "formidable" opponent he would make, should he decide to return (which he ultimately did). The truth was, the Liberals never had it so easy as they did against Clark. They knew a good thing when they saw it.

        • Nonsense. Harper is the first Conservative leader to NOT be nice… and he's the one that's losing. People might be surprised to know, for example, that it was the Progressive Conservative party that proposed the first ever amendment to the human rights act to protect gay people (justice minister Kim Campbell, December 9, 1992). Back then, conservatives would never stoop to making a partisan issue out of an obvious problem like discrimination or envrionmental damage. If the Conservatives replace Harper with someone who sticks to the laissez-faire economics and does their best to help all Canadians, regardless of stripes, I'll be happy to sit back and stop criticizing.

          • There is no way Mulroney counts as a nice Tory. You are talking about a guy who stacked the senate in order to pass the GST, and took hundreds of thousands in kickbacks from an Airbus lobbyist.

          • When Mulroney wasn't accepting bribes, he was a princely fellow I'm sure.

    • Comparing the Canadian and American economic conditions is of no value. It was not solid stewardship of the economy that averted the crisis that America faced, it was an absence of the conditions which led to the American crisis. Our financial sector, mocked for its lack of risk taking, was on solid stable footing – which had nothing to do with Harper or the CPC. And our economy was markedly different, based on the exportation of resources, which have escalated in price dramatically.

      The appereance of strength in our economy is only that – appearance. Stats don't lie, but neither do they tell the truth. You can say the unemployment levels in Canada are actually lower than before the recession, but that obscures the truth. The numbers aren't nearly so rosy when you look at the percentage of part-time, low- wage, and temp workers that are bolstering them. Full time employment is still well under pre recession levels.

      • As to the stimulus, I have serious issues with the use of those funds. Certainly stimulus funding was needed, but I think the Economic Action Plan is given more credit than it is due. How much of the money was effectively used? And how much was used to service municipality wish lists? Festivals are necessary infrastructure spending? Arenas? Museums? How much of it was actual economic stimulus, and how much of it was handouts to endear local groups to the CPC?

        • You have given unreserved praise to the CPC and Harper for all of these, with seemingly no consideration to their actual worth and yet on his numerous violations of public trust, stifling of dissent, and assaults on the authority of Parliament – the highest institution in our democracy, you say 'meh'? A party which actually trained MPS to disrupt Parliament, breaking a promise they made to the people to force an election? Refused the legitimate excercise of Parliamentary power on numerous occasions – even prorouging in order to deny its, or the peoples, right to information. You say these issues are unimportant… but if that is so, what will they do in the case of issues which are? If they will abuse Parliament with a minority over 'trivialities', what happens when serious issues arise? You dismiss their abuses because you deem the reasons for them as negligible – or because it serves your own intrests… Have you not given any consideration to the willingness to abuse power that this displays?

          • excellent post. how can anyone dispute these facts?

    • Did you read the open letter from Ralph Nader to Stephen Harper?

  16. the prisons might be cheaper than having 41,000 'refugees' 'waiting' around Canada for us to find them and deport them. . .

  17. Wow – that was convincing. I am voting NDP as well. For all of the reasons listed above, that are surely true, and documented.


    • Yeah, WictorWictor's comment was some was pretty weak partisanship compared to "Bob Rae/Stalin and other tax and spend dictators".


      • It was weak compared to an argument backed up by facts.

        • Facts like "social programs cause low self-esteem"?

          • I didn't see that fact in WictorWictor's post.

          • Correct. But it was certainly in Watchman's.

          • I was commenting about WictorWictor's post.

          • I get that, but his post was written in response to Watchman's. Seemed basic enough to me to contrast them since you were pointing out what you saw as weakness in Wictor's.

            (All this "Wictor"ing makes me want to rewatch the new Star Trek movie, btw.)

  18. Harper finally drives a nail in the coffin of the Liberals. Only too late will he realize what a Pyhric victory that is. (Yes, I know I spelt 'pyrhic totally wrong, but seriously, does anyone know how to spell that?)

    • 1. You are right. Without the Bloc or the Liberals, Canada will become a 2 or 2.5 party system. That means that the crucial battleground will shift to the left, and so too must their policies. Plus, the NDP surge has definitely killed his dreams of a majority.
      2. I think its got two r's. Pyrrhic?

      • The surge totally blind-sided him too. He focused so narrowly on Ignatieff for so long that he's got no bullets ready for Jack.

  19. Trudeauvia, formally Canada, is inevitably and predictably coming apart at the seams. Is anyone really surprised.

    • Actually, with Quebec voters choosing by a plurality a federalist party, Canada seems to be sewing back its' seams.

      • There's no doubt you're allegiances to Trudeauvia are strong, along with you're unflappable belief in pollsters, but I'm not convinced just because you say so.

  20. Canadians, It's time, ….We Need a Majority Conservative Government ~ May 2
    Let's Stop the Turmoil, Bickering & Power Struggles in Ottawa from the Opposition Parties.
    We the Canadian citizens are all so tired of!
    Thanks to Conservative's Action Plan to Stimulus for our Economy & it has worked
    ….Did you miss the BMO report & $$ dip at the thought of NDP lead coalition
    He'll Bankrupt the Country in No Time, Jack thinks Money will fall from heaven,
    How Else Could HE Pay for His Promises??? We cannot afford to make a Left Turn Now!
    THE Media is driven Orange Waves in Quebec; it Won't Materialize West of Quebec
    …Jack is Too Radical–He'll Bankrupt the Country in No Time.
    Jack Layton, NO Snowball Chance in Hell to form,
    Any Government ON YOUR OWN, unless it is Propped Up.
    Who's going to pay for these? Your promises; "National Daycare"?? Health Care??
    We were being taxed to death & in the worst deficit we have ever been under the Liberals.
    f we handled our businesses this way we would all be bankrupt 10 years ago!
    .…What is wrong with people? You are Voting on the Future of Your Country,
    Not Voting for an Episode of Canadian Idol or voting off the Island of Survivor!
    ……If you vote against a conservative majority don't be surprised when in just a short
    while you are kicking yourself all the way to the unemployment office.
    The Libs & NDP will tax us to death and the cost of living will go up thus closing down many businesses. ….
    “They are nothing but a Double Talking Hypocrite's”
    They Will Say & Do Anything to Get & Siege POWER!!
    …Canadians, It's time ….Let's Not Flip – Flop like Iggy, Jack is Too Radical—
    Did you miss the BMO report & $$ dip at the thought of NDP lead coalition
    He'll Bankrupt the Country in No Time, Jack thinks Money will fall from heaven,
    How Else Could HE Pay for His Promises? We cannot afford to make a Left Turn Now!
    Thanks to Conservative's Action Plan to Stimulus for our Economy & it has worked,
    Canada's positioned with the Best Recovery Plan of the Recession!

    THE Media is driven Orange Waves in Quebec; it Won't Materialize West of Quebec Canadians,
    It's time just 12 -15 more seats; Go Harper Go!!
    …. Canada wide A Conservative's Action Plan For Stronger Economy, Low Taxes,
    We all Can Immerse from this Recession & Enjoy a Stronger & United Canada!
    May 2 ~ A Majority Conservative Government is with our grasp

    • Holy crap! HOLY CRAP!


      • Bullsh*t

    • I'll pass on Harper's crap – thanks but no thanks.

    • Gawd, this is as bad as "Layton Mania"'s posts.

  21. Just a point of clarification – Layton has included restrictions on the PM's ability to prorogue, requiring concent of Parliment and excluding its use entirely when facing a confidence issue.

    • Consent of parliament?!?

      Sounds like socialism.

  22. Putting the NDP in power would be devastating…to Harper. He spent so much money attacking Ignatieff, thinking everyone would come running to him. He underestimated how much most Canadians despise him…and the Canadian people went running in droves all right….to the NDP.

      • I read it already! Not surprised at all…..I wish more media would cover this.

        • Er, no offence to both of you– happy to see the back of Harper as any non-CPCer, but really, the Canadian media should pay more attention to a letter sent by a minor American political figure? You'd be screaming blue murder if the media here paid attention to a letter from, say, Pat Buchanan.

          • There's actually more to the issue than the actual physical letter. The acutal "letter" is no big deal at all. It is the agreements being signed with the USA with little media attention that I am worried about.

  23. Speaking of devastating, I wonder what Harper would say about a government that had spent the surplus, created billions in deficit, destroyed Canada's reputation internationally, plans on spending billions more on jets, prisons and tax benefits for corporations and the wealthy, tried to get out of obligations to our wounded veterans, paid off the Integrity Commissioner with $524.000 and a gag order for a job badly done. had a 5 time convicted con artist pouring through secret files in the PMO and was found guilty of Contempt of Parliament, if he was leader of an opposition Party?

    • I'm sure some right winger on here will say something to you about this post to deflect reality. If you get under their skin they may even call you retard or delusional… take it as a compliment!
      Vote ABC

  24. Can't stop laughing….thanks for that!

  25. Socialism spreads poverty around, it would be devastating for our economy, average people would be hit really hard, and everyone's standard of living would go down – the only people who enjoy socialism are powerful politicians and their rich friends.

  26. Hoser, you couch you arguments in reasonable, non-vitriolic terms, so kudos for that. But your whole post amounts to "nothing to see here, move along." Both prorogations were extremely anti-democratic– and I agree, all parties should vote to abolish that procedure/manoeuver. The Olympics are no excuse to withhold the detainee documents– either we support the Geneva Conventions or we don't. Add in the firing of Linda Keen, the census trashing/Sheik resignation and NOTgate and there is a clear pattern of abusing Parliament.

    Perhaps all of the above would've happened under a different CPC leader, we'll never know. But there is something particularly icy/robotic/just plain unlikeable about the way Harper communicates these decisions that lead people who aren't diehards to intensely dislike/fear the man.
    When most people get mad a politician for a decision, they still give credit for how such unpopular decisions are communicated. Harper is actually close to Trudeau in this respect, in that his simplistic/dismissive explanations to the public smack of unhearing Father-Knows-Best-ism. This is equally as irritating as Nanny-State-Knows-Best-ism on the other side. The federal Tories could be in much better shape if they just plain had someone more likeable implementing the same policies (well, except for prorogation and census shredding IMO).

    • Maybe Harper just appeals to the icy robot in me. I suspect that I am different from a lot of people here in that I really don't care about process – I care about results. I just fail to see where any of these process issues tie into actual policy outcomes that might impact people's lives. Nor do I see much from the opposition in terms of making that point. The detainee issue shouldn't have been about "contempt of parliament", it should have been first and foremost about Canada's reputation abroad, and the plight of the Afghan people.

      I suppose I also differ in that I don't really care about the reasons politicians give for their actions. I operate under the assumption that all politicians care primarily about getting re-elected, and very secondarily about implementing a preferred agenda. What I care about is the substance of the actions themselves. For instance, I find the way you emphasize the census issue interesting. I agree that Harper made a grievous error in gutting the census. However, I really don't care about whether Sheik felt he was mistreated. I care about the census because we need accurate data for effective policymaking.

      Finally, let me disagree that the Tories need a popular leader. I do think Harper needs to fire Giorno, but the kind of charismatic easy-going centrist the press dreams of would be terrible for the Tories. A lot of Tory MPs are idiots, who will sink their party if allowed to speak. The CPC activist base would view a centrist leader as a traitor, eliminating the fundraising and volunteering advantages of the Tories. Finally, if such a leader won a supermajority, it would probably burst apart, leaving the Tories in the wilderness for decades (as has happened after all Conservative administrations in the 20th century). In the long run, it is better for the Tories to broaden their coalition slowly, sticking to the smallest number of people needed to win a majority.

  27. For what it's worth, I'd like to flog a NON-dead horse here: with another party forming Government, I really hope they change the rules regarding the Census so that it's compulsory but with no jail time. Apart from the Carson/Integrity Commish/ other sleaze etc etc, I think this decision by Harper was the most misguided of all. Apart from corrupting the data, what this whole debacle showed was that the government truly believed that only spin, not facts matter. We have to promote a culture where actual factual data still matters.

    • I guess what you mean is, "we" ( the Government) have to socially engineer a culture where actual, intrusive data is used for the purpose of Government enforced tribalism, while continuing to deny, distort, and destroy factual Canadian history and traditions. That sounds quite (nefarious) to me… LOL.

      • So, the mere collection of data is social engineering in itself, if you're a far neocon? At this rate it's a wonder Tupperware or Spanx have even been invented.

        • In general, we neocons are happiest if the government knows as little about us as possible.

          If you want to understand the mindset, think about how leery you are about corporations collecting consumer data on you. Corporations can basically use that information to get more money from you. Government can not only get more money from you, but pretty much influences every aspect of your life.

          I know the government to the wage-earning consumer left is largely just a distant benevolence that doesn't interfere with your lives much unless its to give you a social program benefit or a paycheck. Many others who are self-employed or are involved in certain industries that vote conservative generally don't have such a rosy relationship with big brother.

          • "In general, we neocons are happiest if the government knows as little about us as possible". sorry to break this to you but…it's too late.

  28. The NDP-Liberal coalition need not be the great disaster for the economy and social peace, but it would require a lot of "Nixon to China" moments. For example, it would be wonderful if the NDP would be able to do the just and righteous thing of allowing mixed public and private healthcare. They would be the most trusted to undertake the reforms by those who are terrified of "two-tier" healthcare, of US style healthcare. Another thing which the NDP-Liberal coalition would be uniquely suited for would be challenging the federal bureaucracy to make it smaller, more modern (why I can't I do most of the forms I need to do automatically online?), and more efficient.

    Of course, if the NDP is still the party whose members have wet dreams about collectivization (such as the baffling support for the CWB) and believe there is no place that the government shouldn't intervene and control (nationalizing corporations, centralizing government control, increasing taxes beyond 50% of income etc. etc.) then we are are in for some rough times.

  29. All supporters of the Liberal Party who are honest and realistic will admit that the chances of a Liberal Party win in next week's election are nil. Therefore if they are truly interested and concerned about Canada's political future direction, they must decide whether Canada should continue its present course or form a coalition with Layton and the Bloc Quebec and make a 180 degree turn towards the far left.
    It is my hope that most Liberals will "hold their nose" and vote Conservative–by far the lesser of the two evils.

    • Unfortunately some of us can only hold our noses for so long…. 4 years would be too much to bear.

  30. Anyone have a look at the online MP expenses. Layton spent over $600,000, HIS WIFE blew over $500,000, Iggy came in at almost $600,000 and Harper–UNDER $300,000. The parasites will be jealous. The diminsihing number of 'hosts'–completel and total outrate.. Surely signs of things to come. I guess the good times had to come to a complete end sooner or later.

  31. Steve's and Jim carefully costed out their economic program on the back of a Tim Horton's serviette a couple of weeks ago.

  32. Japan's financial sector may be similar but any kind of comparison of the two economies ends rather abruptly there. Japan's crisis was exactly Canada's strength – explaining the different fates. Japan's economy took a rather severre hit due to rising commodity prices, where Canada's economy fell into a windfall for the same reason. Japan builds finished goods, Canada ships raw resources. If you look into Canada's manufacturing, the two are doing comparably. The difference being that Canada's manufacturing is substantially weaker as a percentage of economic production.

    As to the Global Bank Tax – there is no reason to suggest any other party would not do the same, since the tax was unduly punitive on Canada.

    Same goes for the stimulus plan. I have bery serious questions about its implementation and effectiveness, but ignoring that, would it have been any different under another government? The CPC was not even in favour of stimulus spending, they were forced into it by other parties. Would a Liberal government had done anything truly different? Not likely, good and bad both.

  33. As far as your comments on our democracy I can't even say that I can have any kind of respect for your position, so debating you will bring us nowhere.

  34. with much reason!