The Conservative platform

by Aaron Wherry

Surrounded by an enthusiastic studio audience, Stephen Harper tabled the Conservative party election platform in Mississauga this morning.

We will provide the steady hand needed to keep protecting and creating jobs and to complete our recovery from the global recession. We will eliminate the deficit and return to balanced budgets, without cutting transfer payments to individuals or to the provinces. And we will take the next steps to secure our borders and keep our cities and communities safe.




Browse

The Conservative platform

  1. Meanwhile, the NDP have proposed a policy where they will put 2500 new police officers on the streets and nearly double the money going into prevent crime.

    If that 2500 number sounds familiar, it's because it's the same number that Harper promised, and never took any steps toward delivering.

    • When did policing stop being a municipal/provincial responsibility and become a federal one?

      • Perhaps you've heard of the RCMP?

    • Can someone fill in the blanks here for me or am I way off?
      The guy from the Secirity Council? that did the security check on Carson is now the head of the RCMP?
      He is in charge of investigating himself for giving clearance to Carson?
      The RCMP are removing citizens from Harpers rallies for political reasons?
      The RCMP beat protesters at the G20 in Toronto?
      Harper wants more federal prisons?

  2. Meanwhile, the NDP have proposed a policy where they will put 2500 new police officers on the streets and nearly double the money going into prevent crime.

    If that 2500 number sounds familiar, it's because it's the same number that Harper promised, and never took any steps toward delivering.

  3. How close are Flaherty's economic growth predictions to the ones in 2008 that no economist on the planet believed were honest and that played a role in the other parties trying to remove the CPC from office?

    • Here's how they will balance the budget…
      …“It's past time the feds scrapped the Canada Health Act.” (Stephen Harper, then Vice-President of the National Citizens Coalition, 1997)

  4. How close are Flaherty's economic growth predictions to the ones in 2008 that no economist on the planet believed were honest and that played a role in the other parties trying to remove the CPC from office?

  5. When did policing stop being a municipal/provincial responsibility and become a federal one?

  6. "We will provide the steady hand needed to keep protecting and creating jobs and to complete our recovery from the global recession. We will eliminate the deficit and return to balanced budgets, without cutting transfer payments to individuals or to the provinces. And we will take the next steps to secure our borders and keep our cities and communities safe."

    We will wave a magic wand and make you forget all about what we actually said and did and tried to do leading up to the economic meltdown. We will wave that magic wand again and make you forget that not one single economic or fiscal prediction or projection that we have made has even come close to the reality, and also that only two weeks ago we said the deficit couldn't be eliminated until 2015. We will continue to tell you about promises from our 2015 election platform in the hopes no one notices we aren't doing anything for Canadian families right now. And then we will give everyone puppies (all those remaining who are not in jail that is).

  7. "We will provide the steady hand needed to keep protecting and creating jobs and to complete our recovery from the global recession. We will eliminate the deficit and return to balanced budgets, without cutting transfer payments to individuals or to the provinces. And we will take the next steps to secure our borders and keep our cities and communities safe."

    We will wave a magic wand and make you forget all about what we actually said and did and tried to do leading up to the economic meltdown. We will wave that magic wand again and make you forget that not one single economic or fiscal prediction or projection that we have made has even come close to the reality, and also that only two weeks ago we said the deficit couldn't be eliminated until 2015. We will continue to tell you about promises from our 2015 election platform in the hopes no one notices we aren't doing anything for Canadian families right now. And then we will give everyone puppies (all those remaining who are not in jail that is).

  8. Perhaps you've heard of the RCMP?

  9. They don't police the streets of Canadian cities unless they've been hired to do so by the municipal government.

  10. Perhaps you've heard that not all streets are in cities?

    • It doesn't matter if its a street in a city, a village, a town or a rural municipality. It's still a municipal-provincial responsibility. And the RCMP has no jurisdiction unless hired to be there.

      • So you're saying they don't get funding from the feds, now?

      • The Feds augment police funding.

  11. Perhaps you've heard that not all streets are in cities?

  12. It doesn't matter if its a street in a city, a village, a town or a rural municipality. It's still a municipal-provincial responsibility. And the RCMP has no jurisdiction unless hired to be there.

  13. I've got to say, I'm impressed.

    I thought for sure that the Tories were going to try to get away without putting out an election platform, the way they did last time. I never expected them to come out with a platform at all, let alone before the debates.

    • See, they have you playing into expectations so low they're absurd!

      • True, but think about what they've done to my expectations for Ignatieff!

        If Ignatieff can manage to get through the debates without either 1) burning a Canadian flag, 2) pledging allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, or 3) eating a giant bowl of caviar while complaining that the beluga was better back when the Tsar was alive, I'll be absolutely floored by his performance.

  14. I've got to say, I'm impressed.

    I thought for sure that the Tories were going to try to get away without putting out an election platform, the way they did last time. I never expected them to come out with a platform at all, let alone before the debates.

  15. Does this mean that Harper bashers like Wherry and gang will stop using the line "so long as he's Prime Minister in 2015" alongside Tory promises to be enacted with the elimination of the deficit?

    • Look at the platform. It has lines right in it that "This measure will be implemented when the federal budget is balanced in our next full term of office".. so, given that's it's factual, I doubt they'll feel any compunction to stop using the line.

      • Having a stable and responsible government in place means that some spending and tax benefits will have to be delayed while we all work to control the deficit.

        Having a Lib-NDP coalition government in place means that our spending and tax structure will be in shambles because of the necessity of the daily consultation needed from the coalition Godfather–Duceppe.

        • Why should we believe something when there is not a single shred of evidence to support it and all past history has been to the opposite?

          • Try letting your common sense guide you.

          • so harper and jim are lying?

        • You can lie all you want, but that doesn't make it either relevant or true.

      • If the budget is to be balanced in 2014, then it is not factual to keep claiming that it will be done in 2015, right? In fact, if the economy does better than expected, the budget may be balanced even earlier than that. But I guess being "factual" doesn't really matter when all someone cares about is getting Harper, does it.

          • What does a monthly jobs report have to do with balancing the budget? I thought some of you lefties valued education and intellectual arguments. Apparently not. lol

          • A healthy economy produces jobs Dennis….if you don't know that you shouldn't be using words like 'education' and 'intellectual'

            And stop walking into doors..

          • You clearly don't appear to be intellectual at all, because you have yet to address the issue at hand, which is balancing the budget. Do you even know what that means?

          • People who constantly walk into doors, have no idea what an intellectual is.

            You really should wear a helmet, Dennis.

          • What do economic indicators have to do with anything? It is a FACT that the budget will be balanced in 2015… or in 2014… or whenever Mr. Harper says.

          • Say what? Again, Larry, less anger, more reason. Then maybe someone might understand just what in the world you're getting at. And if it's the proposition that one monthly jobs report has any bearing on a balanced budget years from now, then you're on the same intellectual and moral ground as Nola/Emily is. lol

          • While I agree that one month's data is a very poor predicator of future budgets years down the road, it is still a piece of data. Which, in the world of factual debate, is about 45 times more significant than a promise made by any random politician and – to be even more precise – is exactly 432* times more significant than a promise made by a campaigning politician who is contradicting his own promise made only days previously.

            * Some figures estimated

        • Next full term of office.
          Terms of office are 4 years.
          2011 + 4 = 2015.

          • Why did you leave out the term "In?" According to your own cut and past, it's "in our next full term of office." And, according to their projections, the budget is to be balanced in 2014 of any full term in office.

            So, are you going to be "factual" and admit you were in error, or are you just interested in getting Harper, like most of Wherry and Co. are?

          • Tell you what, I'm ready enough to admit that it's possible they might do these by 2014, if you're willing to admit it's more likely it won't happen until 2015, when you take into account parliamentary schedules. (Of course, that's providing a huge benefit of the doubt, since the reality we're both aware of is that it's most likely it won't happen at all given Mr. Harper's track record on deficits)

            Then once we've got that done, you can get right back up on your high horse and ride out demanding that the press start saying "So long as he's Prime Minister in 2014" instead.

        • You can't actually have a "factual" argument about the future. It's like debating about which of the gods is bigger, stronger & faster. Feel free to debate your beliefs, but don't embarass the entire language by calling it a "debate about facts."

        • There isn't much evidence that their budget projections are credible. The PBO's projections show us with a deficit of $10 billion in '14-'15.

          • Then why were you referring to the Tory platform to make your point if they're not credible? You were obviously in error, and you don't have the decency to admit it. Hey, even Harper apologizes about his mistakes from time to time, doesn't he? I guess you don't.

          • What was I referring to? Huh? All I'm saying is that the probability that they will achieve their target date for deficit elimination based on their current plan is slim. I will gladly bet you dollars to donuts that they won't accomplish their goal without substantial other measures they aren't telling us about.

          • You said it was "factual" based on the Conservative platform itself to keep saying these promises will only be enacted if Harper is prime minister in 2015. Given that very platform you cited, 2014 would now be more accurate, wouldn't it? Or did you Harper bashers get the 2015 figure out of your hat? Comprendez? Of course not. Why be honest in your attacks against Harper? That wouldn't be fun, would it.

          • Well, I didn't believe that the budget would be balanced. Dennis, I can only take the at their word that they would implement those policies when the budget is balanced. Because I accept that doesn't mean I also accept when they project the budget to be balanced. There are less biased observers who have expresses skepticism in their projections. Besides, the government left themselves wiggle room. They said they would do it if/when the budget is balanced. They didn't say that that would necessarily be 2014.

  16. Does this mean that Harper bashers like Wherry and gang will stop using the line "so long as he's Prime Minister in 2015" alongside Tory promises to be enacted with the elimination of the deficit?

  17. So you're saying they don't get funding from the feds, now?

  18. See, they have you playing into expectations so low they're absurd!

  19. Look at the platform. It has lines right in it that "This measure will be implemented when the federal budget is balanced in our next full term of office".. so, given that's it's factual, I doubt they'll feel any compunction to stop using the line.

  20. From the RCMP website, the operative word being, under contrac,t:

    «The Royal Canadian Mounted Police is the Canadian national police service and an agency of the Ministry of Public Safety Canada.

    The RCMP is unique in the world since it is a national, federal, provincial and municipal policing body. We provide a total federal policing service to all Canadians and policing services under contract to the three territories, eight provinces (except Ontario and Quebec), more than 190 municipalities, 184 Aboriginal communities and three international airports.»

  21. Hm. I see the word municipal there. I wonder what that might mean?

  22. You mean after under contract, as in, under contract to more than 190 municipalities… The RCMP, our very own rent-a-cop police force.

    • Very good. Now tell me how any of this invalidates that the NDP have promised to provide enough funding so that there are 2500 more of those, as you call them, "rent-a-cops" (good to see you respect our police service-men and women so much there, by the way — had I known at the outset you just have a problem with law-enforcement officers we could have avoided this conversation entirely) are available to be contracted by.. what was it again? "more than 190 municipalities"?

      • The bottom line is this. If Mr Layton, a former city of Toronto counsellor, or Mr Harper, who should know which areas are of federal, provincial and municipal responsibility, feel that the federal government should help municipalities in policing the streets of our cities, villages and towns, they should do so as part of an overall "urban affairs" policy and not give the impression that they will put 2500 new police on the streets, of which cities, villages and towns by the way? But even there, cities are the creations of the provinces, so what are the feds doing in matters of provincial responsibility? What next: the'll start fixing the potholes too?

        • So basically you're saying you've got nothing, you just wanted to distract from what they're planning?

          Understood.

          • When the feds want to fix potholes, a job that belongs to municipalities and provinces (except for the Trans-Canada highway which is cost-shared), they negociate with provinces and municipalities an "infrastructure" program that sets out who pays what and where. The feds can then boast that they have stimulated the economy, created jobs, etc. while the municipalities can boast of having fixed x km of streets. To Caesar what belongs to Caesar and all that. But if Harper or Layton promised to fix 2500, or better still since we are in an election, 25,000 potholes, in the same fashion as they seem to have promised putting 2500 police on the streets, would you really take them seriously? No, no really. Potholes, Layton and Harper, shovel in hand, fixing potholes, filled with rainwater that is turning into beer.

  23. You mean after under contract, as in, under contract to more than 190 municipalities… The RCMP, our very own rent-a-cop police force.

  24. The Feds augment police funding.

  25. Conservative platform – a summary:

    "I will gladly pay you tuesday for a hamburger today"

  26. Conservative platform – a summary:

    "I will gladly pay you tuesday for a hamburger today"

  27. Having a stable and responsible government in place means that some spending and tax benefits will have to be delayed while we all work to control the deficit.

    Having a Lib-NDP coalition government in place means that our spending and tax structure will be in shambles because of the necessity of the daily consultation needed from the coalition Godfather–Duceppe.

  28. 'while we all work to control the deficit'

    'WE' didn't cause the deficit….Harper did

    And he intends to add to it by buying planes and building prisons.

  29. If the budget is to be balanced in 2014, then it is not factual to keep claiming that it will be done in 2015, right? In fact, if the economy does better than expected, the budget may be balanced even earlier than that. But I guess being "factual" doesn't really matter when all someone cares about is getting Harper, does it.

  30. Why should we believe something when there is not a single shred of evidence to support it and all past history has been to the opposite?

  31. I'm also wondering if there's any comment on here about the Liberal failure to outline any justice program whatsoever. They keep accusing the Conservatives of simply wanting to build prisons – part of a legislative agenda that the Liberals voted for, by the way – yet not one word about how they would do things differently.

    But I guess the Harper bashers don't care about holding everyone to the same standards, do they. They just want to feel good about getting Harper. Yay.

    • Quick everybody, look over there >>>>>>>>>>>

      No wait, look over here <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

      • Why are you so desperate to agitate for Liberals on here? In other words, you can't answer the question. You can't tell us why your party isn't releasing a justice platform. Interesting.

        For the record, I am discussing the topic of the blog post elsewhere in the comments. But Wherry doesn't want to post about this, so I thought I'd bring it up – especially since we're talking about party platforms, credibility, etc.

        Why is this such a horror to you? Wow.

        • Aren't you "agitating" for the Harper Party

          • Why? Because I ask legitimate questions that are too tough for some of you to answer? Why are these questions so hard for you? Wow.

          • Wow. A blind partisan whining about other blind partisans.

          • How is asking questions, and being able to defend your positions, an example of being a "blind partisan?" Just simple questions gets the Wherry gang all riled up. What a brave bunch you are!

        • BAM!

          He hit the door again, folks.

    • Since we have a decade of declining crime rates (unless you count the unreported crime spree occurring) it would appear the system is working "If it ain't broken don't fix it"

      Question: If a Conservative is creating a report on crime statistics how many unreported crimes should be added to each category? I like an equal distribution across the board that reflects an increase in all. What's your preference Dennis?

      • So are you coming on here and announcing that the Liberal justice platform is as follows: "If it ain't broke don't fix it?" I mean, some Liberal has to do it at some point in this campaign, don't they? Have you been signed up for the job?

        • No I just think the Conservatiive "Tough On Crime" and building mega prisons is a waste of tax dollars. The facts are that the crime rate has been in steady decline for the last decade. There is no justification for spending billions of dollars to build or expanding prisons when our tax dollars could be put to much better use.
          The Conservatives have chosen to ignore all the data that supports my position. I would rather see the money used to support programs that would educate Canadians and create good paying jobs. The cost to incarcerate someone means a heavier tax burden on the rest of the country as we reduce the incoming revenue from their work taxes plus the additional cost to house and feed them.
          Don't assume I am a Liberal supporter just because I refuse to accept your infantile rhetoric as gospel.
          And by the way what is your preference for adding unreported crime to the statistics ? You still haven't answered that question. Is it too hard for you?Wow

          • You know, you're a perfect example of what goes on here on Wherry's Harper bashing blog. Again, how can you spend all you time spitting at the Conservative crime agenda when the Liberals are terrified of unveiling their own. Why is that? Is it that Canadians support the very crime agenda you keep spitting on? Hmmm.

          • You still haven't answered the question. I fail to see how wanting to have my tax dollars spent on other areas is me spitting on the crime agenda. Your approach to defending your position is to ignore the question and rant. OMG are you John Baird?
            Answer the question. Would you place a larger number of unreported crime in the fraud column, the B & E catagory, Murder, White Collar crime, DUI . or in the garbage where they belong.

          • Let me get this straight. I keep asking for the Liberal crime platform, and you keep spitting on the Conservative crime platform. How do you expect your party to deserve governing if you can't even abide by your own standards? If it's only about sticking it to Harper?

  32. I'm also wondering if there's any comment on here about the Liberal failure to outline any justice program whatsoever. They keep accusing the Conservatives of simply wanting to build prisons – part of a legislative agenda that the Liberals voted for, by the way – yet not one word about how they would do things differently.

    But I guess the Harper bashers don't care about holding everyone to the same standards, do they. They just want to feel good about getting Harper. Yay.

  33. You can lie all you want, but that doesn't make it either relevant or true.

  34. Next full term of office.
    Terms of office are 4 years.
    2011 + 4 = 2015.

  35. Very good. Now tell me how any of this invalidates that the NDP have promised to provide enough funding so that there are 2500 more of those, as you call them, "rent-a-cops" (good to see you respect our police service-men and women so much there, by the way — had I known at the outset you just have a problem with law-enforcement officers we could have avoided this conversation entirely) are available to be contracted by.. what was it again? "more than 190 municipalities"?

  36. What does a monthly jobs report have to do with balancing the budget? I thought some of you lefties valued education and intellectual arguments. Apparently not. lol

  37. Quick everybody, look over there >>>>>>>>>>>

    No wait, look over here <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

  38. We will increase military spending, we will increase health spending, we will have to face higher interest rates to service our debt, we will offer tax exemptions to just about anyone, we will decrease our revenues in many ways. That's how we'll balance the budget.

    I'm a catholic and as such I believe in a lot of things, including the Immiculate Conception and transubstantiation. But when it comes to managing the public purse, I need more than blind faith.

    • Render unto Iggy the things which are Iggys….

    • We need toi think of Harper as Moses, and the deficit as the Red Sea.

  39. We will increase military spending, we will increase health spending, we will have to face higher interest rates to service our debt, we will offer tax exemptions to just about anyone, we will decrease our revenues in many ways. That's how we'll balance the budget.

    I'm a catholic and as such I believe in a lot of things, including the Immiculate Conception and transubstantiation. But when it comes to managing the public purse, I need more than blind faith.

  40. Those of us who choose to live here after the Election will be part of the deficit-slaying plan.

  41. Those of us who choose to live here after the Election will be part of the deficit-slaying plan.

  42. Try letting your common sense guide you.

  43. Why are you so desperate to agitate for Liberals on here? In other words, you can't answer the question. You can't tell us why your party isn't releasing a justice platform. Interesting.

    For the record, I am discussing the topic of the blog post elsewhere in the comments. But Wherry doesn't want to post about this, so I thought I'd bring it up – especially since we're talking about party platforms, credibility, etc.

    Why is this such a horror to you? Wow.

  44. You can't actually have a "factual" argument about the future. It's like debating about which of the gods is bigger, stronger & faster. Feel free to debate your beliefs, but don't embarass the entire language by calling it a "debate about facts."

  45. so harper and jim are lying?

  46. A healthy economy produces jobs Dennis….if you don't know that you shouldn't be using words like 'education' and 'intellectual'

    And stop walking into doors..

  47. Well, you're planning on separation anyway, so that's easy to say

  48. Actually, I was just using "Thwim's" term. In fact, I put it in quotation marks. You might have noticed that if you weren't so busy whining half the time.

  49. Aren't you "agitating" for the Harper Party

  50. BAM!

    He hit the door again, folks.

  51. What do economic indicators have to do with anything? It is a FACT that the budget will be balanced in 2015… or in 2014… or whenever Mr. Harper says.

  52. Why did you leave out the term "In?" According to your own cut and past, it's "in our next full term of office." And, according to their projections, the budget is to be balanced in 2014 of any full term in office.

    So, are you going to be "factual" and admit you were in error, or are you just interested in getting Harper, like most of Wherry and Co. are?

  53. The bottom line is this. If Mr Layton, a former city of Toronto counsellor, or Mr Harper, who should know which areas are of federal, provincial and municipal responsibility, feel that the federal government should help municipalities in policing the streets of our cities, villages and towns, they should do so as part of an overall "urban affairs" policy and not give the impression that they will put 2500 new police on the streets, of which cities, villages and towns by the way? But even there, cities are the creations of the provinces, so what are the feds doing in matters of provincial responsibility? What next: the'll start fixing the potholes too?

  54. You clearly don't appear to be intellectual at all, because you have yet to address the issue at hand, which is balancing the budget. Do you even know what that means?

  55. People who constantly walk into doors, have no idea what an intellectual is.

    You really should wear a helmet, Dennis.

  56. There isn't much evidence that their budget projections are credible. The PBO's projections show us with a deficit of $10 billion in '14-'15.

  57. In the past 40 years, the only governments to deliver anything close to balanced budgets have been Liberal (yes they delayed social programs they promised and cut taxes other than they said they would to do it).

    Flaherty has a proven track record of patently misleading numbers.

    • No, no, they stole your money because they has surpluses which they used to pay the debt.

  58. In the past 40 years, the only governments to deliver anything close to balanced budgets have been Liberal (yes they delayed social programs they promised and cut taxes other than they said they would to do it).

    Flaherty has a proven track record of patently misleading numbers.

  59. Since we have a decade of declining crime rates (unless you count the unreported crime spree occurring) it would appear the system is working "If it ain't broken don't fix it"

    Question: If a Conservative is creating a report on crime statistics how many unreported crimes should be added to each category? I like an equal distribution across the board that reflects an increase in all. What's your preference Dennis?

  60. Why? Because I ask legitimate questions that are too tough for some of you to answer? Why are these questions so hard for you? Wow.

  61. Again, where do the Liberals stand on crime issues during this election, except to vouch for a candidate who doesn't believe sex offenders should go to jail?

    How can Liberals expect to justify this election when all they do is spit at Harper, and not put up their own justice agenda?

    So much for fairness and democracy .

  62. Tell you what, I'm ready enough to admit that it's possible they might do these by 2014, if you're willing to admit it's more likely it won't happen until 2015, when you take into account parliamentary schedules. (Of course, that's providing a huge benefit of the doubt, since the reality we're both aware of is that it's most likely it won't happen at all given Mr. Harper's track record on deficits)

    Then once we've got that done, you can get right back up on your high horse and ride out demanding that the press start saying "So long as he's Prime Minister in 2014" instead.

  63. Thwim said it was a fact that Harper's platform made a certain claim. That's not the same as calling that claim "a fact." It's a fact that Harper made a projection, the projection itself is not a fact.

    You call yourself a professional writer, I certainly hope you have some other skills to fall back on.

  64. Thwim said it was a fact that Harper's platform made a certain claim. That's not the same as calling that claim "a fact." It's a fact that Harper made a projection, the projection itself is not a fact.

    You call yourself a professional writer, I certainly hope you have some other skills to fall back on.

    • No, he said it was "factual" to keep claiming, as Wherry and Co. keep doing, that Harper's promises won't come into effect unless he's "prime minister in 2015."

      Larry, I suggest you spend less time being furious at people and insulting them, and more time getting basic facts on here straight.

      For someone who keeps calling Harper and others liars, you don't seem too intent on the truth yourself. Interesting.

      • Well if that's the claim that Thwim was making then I'd agree that he was the first to misuse the word "factual." But you were the fellow that made the following claim : If the budget is to be balanced in 2014, then it is not factual to keep claiming that it will be done in 2015, right? and that is the comment I was addressing when I mocked you for abusing the word.

        I'm not furious at all, Dennis, although I will admit that I occassionally give in to the temptation to insult you. I pass up lots of chances but, hey, I'm only human.

        • That's because you have to insult people. How isn't that an example of being resentful and angry? And I was only using Thwim's term as a baseline. Yet not one peep from you towards him. Fascinating.

          • I took Thwim's initial use of the word "factual" in the wrong context. It only became clear during your subsequent discussion that he was misusing the term as well. And I go back to the same point I made initially; it is damnably stupid to make allegedly 'factual' claims about the future.

            If you think I am overly considerate of Thwim's feelings then you might ask him if he feels the same way. I doubt that he does. Please stop sniveling about how unfairly you are treated. You ought to be thankful that you are ignored as much as you are…

          • Larry, I was only using the term because he was. I think you're off the mark as much as you are because you're this angry and resentful. Why?

            You can fire away at me any time you want. I'm here and more than willing to deal with anything you have to offer. Thanks.

          • Yes, but you were both using the term incorrectly and that's what I said. If your defence is that "he did it first" well, congratulations, it appears that he did. I hope that he doesn't next fall into a pool of sharks or – if he does – that you do not see him do it for that would certainly spell your own doom as well.

            LOL

          • Larry, Larry, Larry. I even used the term in quotes. If you can't accept these basic facts, just what are you doing on here, buddy? Do you resent me that much? Are you that filled with anger?

  65. Why are you so terrified of answering the question? Is it because you're too dishonest, or too unintelligent? I'm still trying to figure out which. Maybe both! Ha.

  66. So basically you're saying you've got nothing, you just wanted to distract from what they're planning?

    Understood.

  67. Then why were you referring to the Tory platform to make your point if they're not credible? You were obviously in error, and you don't have the decency to admit it. Hey, even Harper apologizes about his mistakes from time to time, doesn't he? I guess you don't.

  68. Should there be? Could it be their justice program is "Status quo", thus doesn't need a specific program?

  69. Walking into doors has addled your wits, Dennis…..what wits you had that is.

  70. Walking into doors has addled your wits, Dennis…..what wits you had that is.

  71. No, he said it was "factual" to keep claiming, as Wherry and Co. keep doing, that Harper's promises won't come into effect unless he's "prime minister in 2015."

    Larry, I suggest you spend less time being furious at people and insulting them, and more time getting basic facts on here straight.

    For someone who keeps calling Harper and others liars, you don't seem too intent on the truth yourself. Interesting.

  72. Say what? Again, Larry, less anger, more reason. Then maybe someone might understand just what in the world you're getting at. And if it's the proposition that one monthly jobs report has any bearing on a balanced budget years from now, then you're on the same intellectual and moral ground as Nola/Emily is. lol

  73. What was I referring to? Huh? All I'm saying is that the probability that they will achieve their target date for deficit elimination based on their current plan is slim. I will gladly bet you dollars to donuts that they won't accomplish their goal without substantial other measures they aren't telling us about.

  74. So are you coming on here and announcing that the Liberal justice platform is as follows: "If it ain't broke don't fix it?" I mean, some Liberal has to do it at some point in this campaign, don't they? Have you been signed up for the job?

  75. If that's what it is, then why not come out and say it? Why hide it from Canadians? How is this an honest argument to be our prime minister, especially after living elsewhere for over thirty years? I don't think this is a way to gain our trust.

  76. If that's what it is, then why not come out and say it? Why hide it from Canadians? How is this an honest argument to be our prime minister, especially after living elsewhere for over thirty years? I don't think this is a way to gain our trust.

    • 'If that's what it is, then why not come out and say it? Why hide it from Canadians?'

      I agree… you have to be up-front about your intentions.

      BTW, I haven't read anything in the Conservative platform yet. What page is 'Global Warming is a Liberal Hoax' on?

      • Page 666.

      • That page has been re-titled 'voter Strategy for Newfoundland (we really do believe in reducing green house gas reductions to stop global warming, so we're giving them that loan guarantee).

        • NewFoundlanders will never see that loan gaurantee if Harper gets a majority. Harper needs Maritimers to go out west and work in the oil fields and to build up the west. It was eastern/central Canadian workers that built western Canada. The joke in the Maritimes is that Fort MacMurray is the second biggest city in NewFoundland. The last thing Harper wants to see is Maritimers heading back home to work on a mega project. It would bring western growth to a halt.

  77. Well if that's the claim that Thwim was making then I'd agree that he was the first to misuse the word "factual." But you were the fellow that made the following claim : If the budget is to be balanced in 2014, then it is not factual to keep claiming that it will be done in 2015, right? and that is the comment I was addressing when I mocked you for abusing the word.

    I'm not furious at all, Dennis, although I will admit that I occassionally give in to the temptation to insult you. I pass up lots of chances but, hey, I'm only human.

  78. No, no, they stole your money because they has surpluses which they used to pay the debt.

  79. Render unto Iggy the things which are Iggys….

  80. When the feds want to fix potholes, a job that belongs to municipalities and provinces (except for the Trans-Canada highway which is cost-shared), they negociate with provinces and municipalities an "infrastructure" program that sets out who pays what and where. The feds can then boast that they have stimulated the economy, created jobs, etc. while the municipalities can boast of having fixed x km of streets. To Caesar what belongs to Caesar and all that. But if Harper or Layton promised to fix 2500, or better still since we are in an election, 25,000 potholes, in the same fashion as they seem to have promised putting 2500 police on the streets, would you really take them seriously? No, no really. Potholes, Layton and Harper, shovel in hand, fixing potholes, filled with rainwater that is turning into beer.

  81. While I agree that one month's data is a very poor predicator of future budgets years down the road, it is still a piece of data. Which, in the world of factual debate, is about 45 times more significant than a promise made by any random politician and – to be even more precise – is exactly 432* times more significant than a promise made by a campaigning politician who is contradicting his own promise made only days previously.

    * Some figures estimated

  82. True, but think about what they've done to my expectations for Ignatieff!

    If Ignatieff can manage to get through the debates without either 1) burning a Canadian flag, 2) pledging allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, or 3) eating a giant bowl of caviar while complaining that the beluga was better back when the Tsar was alive, I'll be absolutely floored by his performance.

  83. You said it was "factual" based on the Conservative platform itself to keep saying these promises will only be enacted if Harper is prime minister in 2015. Given that very platform you cited, 2014 would now be more accurate, wouldn't it? Or did you Harper bashers get the 2015 figure out of your hat? Comprendez? Of course not. Why be honest in your attacks against Harper? That wouldn't be fun, would it.

  84. That's because you have to insult people. How isn't that an example of being resentful and angry? And I was only using Thwim's term as a baseline. Yet not one peep from you towards him. Fascinating.

  85. 'If that's what it is, then why not come out and say it? Why hide it from Canadians?'

    I agree… you have to be up-front about your intentions.

    BTW, I haven't read anything in the Conservative platform yet. What page is 'Global Warming is a Liberal Hoax' on?

  86. I took Thwim's initial use of the word "factual" in the wrong context. It only became clear during your subsequent discussion that he was misusing the term as well. And I go back to the same point I made initially; it is damnably stupid to make allegedly 'factual' claims about the future.

    If you think I am overly considerate of Thwim's feelings then you might ask him if he feels the same way. I doubt that he does. Please stop sniveling about how unfairly you are treated. You ought to be thankful that you are ignored as much as you are…

  87. Page 666.

  88. That page has been re-titled 'voter Strategy for Newfoundland (we really do believe in reducing green house gas reductions to stop global warming, so we're giving them that loan guarantee).

  89. No I just think the Conservatiive "Tough On Crime" and building mega prisons is a waste of tax dollars. The facts are that the crime rate has been in steady decline for the last decade. There is no justification for spending billions of dollars to build or expanding prisons when our tax dollars could be put to much better use.
    The Conservatives have chosen to ignore all the data that supports my position. I would rather see the money used to support programs that would educate Canadians and create good paying jobs. The cost to incarcerate someone means a heavier tax burden on the rest of the country as we reduce the incoming revenue from their work taxes plus the additional cost to house and feed them.
    Don't assume I am a Liberal supporter just because I refuse to accept your infantile rhetoric as gospel.
    And by the way what is your preference for adding unreported crime to the statistics ? You still haven't answered that question. Is it too hard for you?Wow

  90. Larry, I was only using the term because he was. I think you're off the mark as much as you are because you're this angry and resentful. Why?

    You can fire away at me any time you want. I'm here and more than willing to deal with anything you have to offer. Thanks.

  91. We need toi think of Harper as Moses, and the deficit as the Red Sea.

  92. Yes, but you were both using the term incorrectly and that's what I said. If your defence is that "he did it first" well, congratulations, it appears that he did. I hope that he doesn't next fall into a pool of sharks or – if he does – that you do not see him do it for that would certainly spell your own doom as well.

    LOL

  93. You know, you're a perfect example of what goes on here on Wherry's Harper bashing blog. Again, how can you spend all you time spitting at the Conservative crime agenda when the Liberals are terrified of unveiling their own. Why is that? Is it that Canadians support the very crime agenda you keep spitting on? Hmmm.

  94. Larry, Larry, Larry. I even used the term in quotes. If you can't accept these basic facts, just what are you doing on here, buddy? Do you resent me that much? Are you that filled with anger?

  95. Well, I didn't believe that the budget would be balanced. Dennis, I can only take the at their word that they would implement those policies when the budget is balanced. Because I accept that doesn't mean I also accept when they project the budget to be balanced. There are less biased observers who have expresses skepticism in their projections. Besides, the government left themselves wiggle room. They said they would do it if/when the budget is balanced. They didn't say that that would necessarily be 2014.

  96. You still haven't answered the question. I fail to see how wanting to have my tax dollars spent on other areas is me spitting on the crime agenda. Your approach to defending your position is to ignore the question and rant. OMG are you John Baird?
    Answer the question. Would you place a larger number of unreported crime in the fraud column, the B & E catagory, Murder, White Collar crime, DUI . or in the garbage where they belong.

  97. Wow. A blind partisan whining about other blind partisans.

  98. If you hate this blog so much, go read Small Dead Animals or something.

  99. Let me get this straight. I keep asking for the Liberal crime platform, and you keep spitting on the Conservative crime platform. How do you expect your party to deserve governing if you can't even abide by your own standards? If it's only about sticking it to Harper?

  100. I don't "hate" this blog. However, I prefer to confront people who disagree with me. Many of Wherry's gang seem terrified of the prospect. The Paper Tiger Bunch! lol. Interesting.

  101. I don't "hate" this blog. However, I prefer to confront people who disagree with me. Many of Wherry's gang seem terrified of the prospect. The Paper Tiger Bunch! lol. Interesting.

  102. How is asking questions, and being able to defend your positions, an example of being a "blind partisan?" Just simple questions gets the Wherry gang all riled up. What a brave bunch you are!

  103. Crap. Page 59:
    SUPPORT SUPPLY MANAGEMENT
    Supply management helps ensure the success of Canadian farmers,
    through price stability, predictable levels of imports, and reasonable
    returns for their production. It also helps provide a consistent supply
    of high-quality, nutritious food for Canadian consumers.
    Our Government has a strong record of defending supply management.
    For example, we have taken action on Article 28 under GATT
    to limit imports of milk protein concentrates, and we established
    cheese compositional standards to ensure that real milk is an ingredient in Canadian cheese.
    We will continue to stand up for Canadian farmers and industries,
    by defending supply management
    in all international forums and
    bilateral negotiations.

  104. I would support for life any political party that has the guts to finally put supply management on the table in trade negotiations. Not even necessarily get rid of it, but at least attempt to understand what could be gained from trade by showing some willingness to negotiate.

    In the interim, my belief is that any party that calls itself "Conservative" that supports supply management has hijacked the term from those of us who actually believe in free enterprise.

    • Yup. Just see how this sounds instead of the garbage they printed:
      SUPPORT CANADIAN CONSUMERS
      Supply management is government-enforced, anti-competitive distortion of the marketplace that, if it wasn't decreed by legislation, would have its practitioners facing unfair trade investigations, fines, and possibly prison. Families struggling to buy milk for their children are forced to subsidize dairy farmers who see no need to improve their efficiency or the quality of their product. Bizarre price controls have it that one litre of chocolate milk, on sale, is sometimes sold at a cheaper retail price than a litre of plain milk, in the same grocery store.
      Our Party used to believe in the wisdom of the marketplace to let producers and consumers make informed decisions in their respective best interests — and it is time we rediscover this important truth.
      We will phase out supply management over three years, redoubling our regulation and inspection of food safety and quality regardless of the country of provenance. As an added bonus, this posture favouring free trade will help advance trade negotiations with our trading partners, further enhancing our mutual prosperity and standard of living.

      • Well, if I were a politician I wouldn't be so strong as to say "we will phase out supply management over three years", rather I would just say we would be willing to negotiate the end of supply management with our trade partners. I think there would be great gains to be made for market access for the red meat sector were such negotiations to be had.

        Then again, I think we are speaking to this issue through two different lenses – yours through the eyes of the consumer (which I totally agree with), as well as from the point of view of other agricultural sectors who could stand to improve from increased access to export markets.

  105. I would support for life any political party that has the guts to finally put supply management on the table in trade negotiations. Not even necessarily get rid of it, but at least attempt to understand what could be gained from trade by showing some willingness to negotiate.

    In the interim, my belief is that any party that calls itself "Conservative" that supports supply management has hijacked the term from those of us who actually believe in free enterprise.

  106. Yup. Just see how this sounds instead of the garbage they printed:
    SUPPORT CANADIAN CONSUMERS
    Supply management is government-enforced, anti-competitive distortion of the marketplace that, if it wasn't decreed by legislation, would have its practitioners facing unfair trade investigations, fines, and possibly prison. Families struggling to buy milk for their children are forced to subsidize dairy farmers who see no need to improve their efficiency or the quality of their product. Bizarre price controls have it that one litre of chocolate milk, on sale, is sometimes sold at a cheaper retail price than a litre of plain milk, in the same grocery store.
    Our Party used to believe in the wisdom of the marketplace to let producers and consumers make informed decisions in their respective best interests — and it is time we rediscover this important truth.
    We will phase out supply management over three years, redoubling our regulation and inspection of food safety and quality regardless of the country of provenance. As an added bonus, this posture favouring free trade will help advance trade negotiations with our trading partners, further enhancing our mutual prosperity and standard of living.

  107. Well, if I were a politician I wouldn't be so strong as to say "we will phase out supply management over three years", rather I would just say we would be willing to negotiate the end of supply management with our trade partners. I think there would be great gains to be made for market access for the red meat sector were such negotiations to be had.

    Then again, I think we are speaking to this issue through two different lenses – yours through the eyes of the consumer (which I totally agree with), as well as from the point of view of other agricultural sectors who could stand to improve from increased access to export markets.

  108. Here's how they will balance the budget…
    …“It's past time the feds scrapped the Canada Health Act.” (Stephen Harper, then Vice-President of the National Citizens Coalition, 1997)

  109. How harper will balance the budget…
    …“It's past time the feds scrapped the Canada Health Act.” (Stephen Harper, then Vice-President of the National Citizens Coalition, 1997)

  110. How harper will balance the budget…
    …“It's past time the feds scrapped the Canada Health Act.” (Stephen Harper, then Vice-President of the National Citizens Coalition, 1997)

  111. Can someone fill in the blanks here for me or am I way off?
    The guy from the Secirity Council? that did the security check on Carson is now the head of the RCMP?
    He is in charge of investigating himself for giving clearance to Carson?
    The RCMP are removing citizens from Harpers rallies for political reasons?
    The RCMP beat protesters at the G20 in Toronto?
    Harper wants more federal prisons?

  112. NewFoundlanders will never see that loan gaurantee if Harper gets a majority. Harper needs Maritimers to go out west and work in the oil fields and to build up the west. It was eastern/central Canadian workers that built western Canada. The joke in the Maritimes is that Fort MacMurray is the second biggest city in NewFoundland. The last thing Harper wants to see is Maritimers heading back home to work on a mega project. It would bring western growth to a halt.

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *