Ignatieff Points out Key Difference (s) Between him and Harper

In his address to the Toronto Board of Trade earlier today, among all his enlightened economic proposals, he mentioned the key difference between him and Stephen Harper. Ignatieff believes in the role of government, Harper does not.

As Ignatieff perceptively observed “Stephen Harper thinks no taxes are good taxes because he believes that the only good government is no government at all." He went on to say that "Liberals say no. We don't believe in big government, but we do believe in good government”

Wouldn't it seem logical to elect a party to government that believes in that office, rather than a party that consistently undermines the ability of the government to discharge its responsibilities. How is the government supposed to operate if it does not receive enough revenue? There is only one way and that is cutting programs.

Stephen Harper may be cutting taxes, but Ignatieff has ideas that help the average Canadian far more than a tax decrease. In his speech he envisioned investing in manufacturing research and development, in regional economic development, in protecting Canadian companies from foreign takeovers, and in building new bridges to China and India.

Such policy shows that Ignatieff believes government can be a source of good greater than simply making business friendly decisions. These policies and initiatives would benefit every Canadian.

The greatest difference between Harper and Ignatieff is thereby clear. One uses his office, in general, to lessen the bad for the few. The other would use his office for the good of Canada. The choice is clear.

Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers If you liked this post, please vote for my blog at Canadian Blogosphere

Harper Intent on Government ads Promoting him, Rather than H1N1 Awareness

In figures recovered by the Canadian Press, Stephen Harper has spent $34 million on ads promoting his government's Action Plan, in comparison with a paltry $6.5 million. This means that the PM is spending more than 5 times the amount provided for H1N1 awareness for ads using government money to essentially promote the government, even falling in step with Conservative proclamations of "we can't stop now"

The ads promoting the Action Plan are clearly designed to convince the public that the Conservative government is doing a good job, claiming that 80% of the stimulus has already been implemented. Clearly these ads are not designed to inform the public of vital services provided the government, such as H1N1 vaccines, when they finally arrive, but rather to assure the public that the government is doing the right thing.

It would be different if the ads were informing the public about the home renovation policy, a specific program on which taxpayers need to act to benefit. In contrast, most of the spending referred to in the Action Plan ads benefits a passive public.

Wouldn't it be the right thing to do if the Conservatives were to run convincing ads adjuring the public to engage in preventative measures and obtain vaccinations? It would be.

But doing the right thing seldom seems to be a consideration Harper's Conservatives entertain much.

Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers If you liked this post, please vote for my blog at Canadian Blogosphere

Harper's Defence on Senate Reform (it's a poor one)

Harper, while not confirming his nine Senate appointments, did attempt to defend the 27 appointments he has made to the Upper Chamber in the last year. Unfortunately for him, it's a laughable defence at best:

"I’m willing to appoint elected senators, but so far only one province has held an election and that’s Alberta," Harper said in Quebec.

"Until senators are elected, this government will ensure that we have in the Senate people who will work hard and will support the elected government of this country. And that includes passing our anti-crime legislation and passing our democratic reforms which have been blocked in the Senate."

Sound inconsistent with Harper's pontifications on Senate reform? That's because it is. To hear Harper tell it a while back, he was ready to bring real reform to the Senate. The Conservatives were going to make significant changes to the gravy train that is Canada's Upper House, according to Harper.

However, once in power for a while, Harper has realized that having a Senate with a majority in his favour would be highly beneficial, and would streamline his legislation. So now, instead of senate reform being a federal responsibility, one that Harper partly campaigned on, it is now provincial.

It's not Harper's fault there's no reform. It's those backward provinces that don't set up elections for the senate. Let that sink in. Harper is saying that provincial governments should organize elections for federal posts.

Instead of being principled and accountable, two virtues on which he campaigned mercilessly, Harper is thinking up the most ludicrous excuses for his lack of principle.

Just wait. Perhaps the provinces are responsible for more than you think.

Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers If you liked this post, please vote for my blog at Canadian Blogosphere

Ignatieff squanders opportunity, again

Today Harper announced that his government would be working "to see her [Suaad Haji Mohamud] get on a flight back to Canada." What, you say, did Ignatieff offer up on the subject? What grand and eloquent words did he use in his defence of Mohamud against a neglectful government? Nothing.

With the end result being that Harper emerges virtually unscathed from an opportunity for the opposition to expose the sheer callousness of this government.

One wonders what Ignatieff will speak out on right now. Not much it looks like.

Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers If you liked this post, please vote for my blog at Canadian Blogosphere

Why are our leaders silent about Suaad Haji Mohamud's ordeal?

In the Suaad Haji Mohamud story what is conspicuous is the silence of our political leaders on the issue. In fact, the only one whose opinion I've come across is Dalton McGuinty's. As for the PM, and the Leader of the Opposition, they're keeping up their summer strategies of avoiding the public. Which baffles the mind.

It is demonstrably in favour of both leaders that they speak out on the issue. For Harper, he needs to seem apologetic for the ordeal this Canadian citizen has been through. He needs to seem compassionate and caring. However, he has not uttered a word on the subject, so far as I can see.

Ignatieff, on the other hand, comes across in much the same light. Of course, this does not affect him as negatively as Harper, after all it was not his government that remained inactive and uninterested in Mohamud's plight. But, there is no conceivable reason why he should not speak out on the behalf of a fellow Canadian, especially if she is being maltreated by the government he is supposed to oppose.

Harper has a lot more to lose by inaction, but Ignatieff had a lot more to gain. Not to mention common human decency.

Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers If you liked this post, please vote for my blog at Canadian Blogosphere

Ignatieff, give Canadians something to talk about around the barbecue

One would think the summer would be a perfect opportunity for Ignatieff to connect with Canadians on a greater basis, making sure they are familiar with him. As the novelty of his leadership has worn off, not much has been found in its wake. Seeing as the Liberals are now virtually tied with the Conservatives, it would seem reasonable to expect at the least one policy for Canadians to digest while we sit around our barbecues.

I have written before of some of the dangers involved in revealing certain policies before elections. However, that is not to say that there should be no policy positions revealed.

For instance, it is a good idea to reveal policy on wedge issues, controversial issues on which other parties would find it difficult to follow you. We saw such a policy with Dion's carbon tax.

Unlike Harper, Ignatieff has not had 3 plus years to show Canadians what his policies are through governing. Meaning that the onus is on him to make policy announcements, not on Harper.

What's more, on controversial issues it may be a good idea to reveal your policy so that you can prep the electorate for your election platform. If done right, this can also pique the nation's interest and form some manner of national debate. Granted, this gives Harper time unleash the formidable Conservative arsenal of attack ads, but it also gives time for your own ads.

With some thinking Harper might be eyeing yet another election in the fall, it's as good a time as any.

Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers If you liked this post, please vote for my blog at Canadian Blogosphere

And Stephen Harper's an economist? Make that libertarian or anarchist

I'm sure all readers have heard or read the Harper comments on taxes. What I wondered when I saw these comments was how Stephen Harper could claim to be an economist. How could any economist say that no taxes are good taxes? It doesn't stand to reason, and the inevitable conclusion is that Stephen Harper is a libertarian at best, an anarchist at worst.

As Jeffrey Simpson puts it in his column today:

"There is no “school,” to use Stephen Harper's word, anywhere in economics that says “no taxes are good taxes.” Not even Milton Friedman and the Chicago school think that. Nor do Mr. Harper's former mentors at the University of Calgary."

The problem is that through his actions, Harper seems to be putting into action the ideology his comment professes. Cutting the GST, for instance, whose negative repercussions can be detected in the ever-growing deficit being run by Ottawa.

On the topic of the deficit, Harper must realize that taxes would help to pull the government out of the red. In fact, he probably resents that truth.

I doubt these comments show that Harper is losing control. It is much more likely that this either pandering to his base, as an election in the fall is a real possibility, or under pressure, he uttered what he actually believes. Either option is concerning.

He either believes something no one else in his academic field does, or he's willing to go to any lengths, no matter any measure of economic integrity he may possess. Scary indeed, Jeffrey Simpson.

Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers If you liked this post, please vote for my blog at Canadian Blogosphere

Harper must be wondering why he instituted the parliamentary budget office

One of the measures that Stephen Harper has taken in his time in power is the formation of the parliamentary budget office. The goal was to create an office to ensure government was accountable. Those were the heady days when anything the Harperites did was in service to accountability.

I am sure that Stephen Harper never intended it to make him accountable. He most certainly conceived of it as check on Liberals, once they eventually got back into power.

However, it seems that the Conservatives, by Harper's own standards, are getting to be unreliable, and thus to a degree unaccountable. All this has been revealed by contradicting reports and statements issued by the government and by the parliamentary budget office.

For instance, the Conservatives are maintaining that the deficit we are seeing is in no danger of being structural. This flies in the face of a pending report from the parliamentary budget officer Kevin Page, predicting deficits seen through 2014, well after the economy, as predicted by this report, recovers.

Meanwhile, Flaherty and Harper cheerfully assert that these deficits are necessary, but once the economy recovers, so will the budgets.

Inconveniently, the parliamentary budget officer is getting it right more than Harper's government. He predicted larger deficits than the government originally did, and he was right.

Looks like he'll be right again, keeping Harper accountable. A nice twist of fate.

Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers If you liked this post, please vote for my blog at Canadian Blogosphere

Whoever disapproves of Harper's legislation is a pedophile, porn supporter etc...

His Prime Ministerialship has authorized ads that depict the Bloc Québécois as pedophiles, all because they refused to vote with the other parties in requiring minimum sentences for pedophiles.

This is clearly low blow politics at its best, from the best in the business. There are some pertinent reservations that Bloc MPs mentioned in relation to this bill. Their believing that minimum sentences are not dissuasive is an arguable position. What's more, not only might they be on to something, but in no way does this actually pledge the support of the Bloc to all pedophiles within Quebec, or even Canada.

It is not only illogical politics at its finest, it is utterly revolting. As Ignatieff commented today, these are ad hominum attacks that are unacceptable. To actually claim that a politician is a criminal because they conscientiously disapprove of your party's position is a childish game, and anyone should be able to see through it.

Thankfully, it seems that Canadian voters are able to see through such tricks. In 2004, the Conservatives, under guess who, tried the same thing. Paul Martin did not support their anti pornography ideas, and for that reason he was labeled a pornography supporter. Canadians seemed to see through this and elected Paul Martin anyway.

So we see that once again the Conservatives are being dirty. How does this fit in the scheme of things? Well, hopefully Ignatieff will use this to his advantage. The scandals keep coming up with the Conservatives, a list would be too exhausting (though the Liberals tried in the last election with their Scandalpedia).

The problem is making sure these scandals stick to the Conservatives. Hopefully Iggy will be better at that than Dion.

I mean, who wouldn't vote for Ignatieff? With him, if you opposed you're a Dipper or a Con, Bloquiste. Much better than being a pedophile.

Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers If you liked this post, please vote for my blog at Canadian Blogosphere

Partisan government advertising: A beloved Conservative tactic

As I was watching a part of question period today, Thomas Mulcair made a point that I noticed also. Last weekend, on Saturday to be exact, I was listening to my radio when I heard an ad praising all the work that the government has put into providing stimulus to the economy. It also mentioned the highly contentious figure of 80% of the stimulus being spent. So, as my attention was arrested by all these exploits of our beloved government, I almost missed the tagline at the end of the ad.

I had been expecting to hear, a message from the Conservative Party of Canada. After all, there is a potential election brewing, and it would be natural for the Conservatives to be issuing such ads. Seems that they have been, but they are using government money, and the authority of the government to get their message across.

This is underhanded politics at its best. Using all the powers of a government against other political parties is something the Conservatives should be ashamed of. In fact, it is so underhanded that I am surprised I have heard no outrage about it (maybe I haven't looked close enough). After all, the first outrage I've seen was today in Question Period.

So, here is your opportunity. Leave a comment and tell me what you think. I'm almost tempted to say that this is such a gross step over the line that Ignatieff should topple the government on this alone.

Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers If you liked this post, please vote for my blog at Canadian Blogosphere

They said Harper was smart... Looks like he thinks we're stupid

Which of course may reveal he's smart, at least in reference to some in the population. I'm not saying they're stupid per se, but they don't pay attention in politics and are easily fooled.

Anyway, why is this so? Looking at Harper's offer to the Liberals, only two options are clear: 1. he thinks we are easily hoodwinked. 2. He has lost his strategic touch, which may have never been there as much as the media said, but that's for future posts.

These conclusions are inevitable as Harper's offer to Ignatieff consists of as much real action as his policy on the environment. Offering to discuss the issues that Ignatieff has raised, after the vote, is ludicrous. This would have absolutely no effect in calming the Opposition parties, and rightly so.

Discussion of components of a stimulus package is not, reasonably, taken after a no-confidence vote. For, in this way, Harper can say to Ignatieff, trust me, we'll duke it out later, while he manages to stay on for another three months. Furthermore, during these three months of recess, Ignatieff has no power to change any of Harper's actions.

For all these reasons, Ignatieff has made the right move. It is necessary to talk about the four issues Ignatieff raised, if not more, before the vote so that the Liberals can vote in conjunction with our principles and views for the country.

So, Harper clearly thinks the general public cannot see this. Yet more evidence of a snobbish attitude. And he said that "Count" Ignatieff was aristocratic.

Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers If you liked this post, please vote for my blog at Canadian Blogosphere

Conservatives intentionally confusing themselves?

Well now all I can say is I'm confused. After Lisa Raitt has now apologized for her actions, did it constitute "cheap politics" to ask for action and call her out on this issue? Would seem that Harper has done an about-face.

Of course, it is possible that Stephen Harper's so used to attempting to confuse the public that now he's started getting confused himself. From all the antics of his government since he's been in power, there is no doubt that he's used to confusing people.

Since Harper has done such a good job confusing the public, so well in fact that he's now in office, it will be highly entertaining, as well as embarrassing and at times shocking and revolting, to see what other troubles these Conservatives get into.

Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers If you liked this post, please vote for my blog at Canadian Blogosphere

A list of Conservative "cheap politics"

1. Anyone remember the defecating puffin who just seemed to have an affection for Stephane Dion's shoulder?
2. While we're on Dion, character branding through low blow attack ads aimed at character and a French accent instead of policies.
3. No deficit. I swear guys absolutely no chance of a deficit. Okay maybe a little deficit. Oh look it must be the little deficit that grew, it's reached $50 billion now. What a good boy. (Harper)
4. Look, it's obvious that Brian Mulroney is not a Conservative. Sure he was a PM, in fact the last successful Conservative one. But he's definitely not a Conservative, there's no way he is.
5. Blame the Liberals for anything that goes wrong. Of course this is quite logical as they were the ones in power before you right? Kyoto, deficits, anything is fair game.
6. It is sexy to have problems. Enough said.


7. Oh, and finally before we forget, in and out scandal was clearly not an instance of cheap politics. I mean, look at how much extra money it cost us.

Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers If you liked this post, please vote for my blog at Canadian Blogosphere

Cheap politics is career advancements

Yesterday, Canadians were informed of the sexy allure of cancer and radioactive leaks, something I guess we must have all missed. And today, we were informed that being rightly outraged about this fiasco surrounding Lisa Raitt, and pointing it out in the House of Commons, is cheap politics.

Harper clearly is grasping at straws. Pointing out such an obvious flaw in the government's handling of issues certainly does not constitute cheap politics. As Michael Ignatieff pointed out, the fact that Lisa Raitt saw this as a career advancement opportunity is a much greater instance of cheap politics. She is hoping for sexy problems for her to solve. What is cheaper?

Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers If you liked this post, please vote for my blog at Canadian Blogosphere

Let's get a steadier hand at the tiller

In the last election campaign, one of Stephen Harper's recurring messages was that the Conservatives would be able to keep a steady hand at the tiller. We were told that only they could successfully navigate the murky and dangerous economic waters ahead. Now fast forward to today. Does this assertion seem to be true?

If it is, then I don't know what a steady hand at the tiller is. Does a sudden increase in projected deficit figures seem like that to you? Because that is what the "steady hand at the tiller" Conservatives are presenting us with. A few months ago, the federal deficit was going to be only $34 billion. Now it's $50 billion. Who knows what it will be next.

Flaherty, and his Prime Minister, have shown that they are anything but steady hands at the tiller. I appreciate and fully support the creation of stimulus packages for the economy. I understand that this stimulus requires deficit spending. However, what I fail to understand is how the Conservatives can be considered good fiscal managers?

Previously, they maintained that there wasn't even going to be any deficit. They clearly are out of touch with the economy. So when Ignatieff says that he is contemplating an attempt at a mid-summer election, I agree. We need to get government that is at least able to predict deficits, and have the courtesy to warn the public. Unlike the Conservatives, who tell half-truths to get elected.

Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers If you liked this post, please vote for my blog at Canadian Blogosphere

Chalk River leak reveals who are the elitists, and no it's not Ignatieff

As was predicted by Linda Keen a year and a half ago, the reactors at Chalk River have run into a new series of problems, and being one of two sets of reactors producing critical medical isotopes, these problems are of quite a stature. A heavy water leak is the problem this time. And, much to Conservative anguish, this could have been prevented, by their government. If only they weren't elitists.

Who fired Linda Keen for informing government that the best strategy would be to renovate the reactors? The Conservatives. And when did they fire her? At 10 o'clock at night. The Conservatives look more and more awkward on this issue. They looked awkward then, but think of what they look like now.

They fired, in a very ungraceful manner, the person who predicted this whole fiasco. And now, either they implement the strategy that she suggested, or we are hit with another such event a few years down the road. Meanwhile, Harper will also face international pressures to bite the bullet and admit that Keen was right, as a result of the international reliance on this reactor.

Of concern here is that this is a trend in the Conservatives governing patterns. They continuously have proven to be elitist, arrogant and brutish, not accepting the advice of their civil service. So really, who is the elitist in Canadian politics at the moment. It could possibly not be Harper, but it certainly is not Ignatieff, and it's one of the two.

Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers If you liked this post, please vote for my blog at Canadian Blogosphere

"Harper, he's only in it for the attack ads"

Here's (the last one on the page, bottom right) one of Harper's attack ads that he unleashed today at Ignatieff. It says Ignatieff is only launching attack ads, at poor innocent Steve. That Iggy lacks a policy on the economy and that attack ads are his only policy.

Sound familiar by any chance. I should say it sounds more like His Innocence Stephen Harper.

Instead of "Ignatieff, he's just in it for himself", I suggest the Liberals hit back with "Harper, he's only in it for the attack ads"

Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers If you liked this post, please vote for my blog at Canadian Blogosphere

Harper, the great LIBERAL strategist?

Ever since Harper entered politics, his defining characteristic as determined by the media and his supporters has been his strategical genius. Supposedly, our Prime Minister has a brilliant tactical mind that could win the world chess championships if he hadn't entered politics (okay maybe no one has claimed that... still).

However, ever since he took office, this well-built reputation has been taking a toll. From the Chuck Cadman bribing rumors to the underhanded attempt at cutting off party subsidies in his Fall economic update, Harper has been making poor tactical decisions, giving plenty of ammunition to his opponents. And now, hopefully, it has finally cost him.

The latest installment of his ineptitude has been this whole fiasco with the issue of whether or not Brian Mulroney, the most successful Conservative PM in 50 years, is a Conservative. Harper's intentions for announcing that the former PM is not a card-carrying member are obvious. With the Karlheinz Schreiber-Brian Mulroney inquiry taking place, the PM cannot, in his mind, afford to be associated with such a scandal. In other words, for Harper, the priority is to ensure that his government's image, such as it is, doesn't take a turn for the worse because of some party affiliations.

Therefore, to deal with the issue, he decided to proclaim that Mulroney was no longer a Conservative. I'm supposing that in the great strategist's mind, this move ensured no scandal could ever reach his party. How wrong he was. The strategic brilliance of this plan is equal to Obama deciding to go around the country holding rallies telling all those that voted for him "No we can't".

Sure enough, as with all of Harper's brilliant moves (Economic update anyone?), there were some unforeseen consequences to his actions. This further reveals how misplaced the label of "strategist" is. A proper strategist considers the consequences of his plans within a wide range of areas and possibilities. Harper has revealed himself to be very narrow-minded. That is the only explanation for the decisions Harper has taken.

One of the areas that Harper should have considered was the effect of a move to proclaim the false political excommunication of a revered leader with Conservative circles on his own caucus. Either he does not know his caucus, or did not think of this action possibly dividing caucus, both of which scenarios are of serious concern. Of even more serious concern is that it is highly probable that Stephen Harper is lying to the nation.

To continue, the effects of this latest Harper gaffe have been to create rifts within the caucus, such that prominent members such as MacKay are speaking up for the Prime Minister who gave his father a cabinet post. The party is clearly fighting among itself, and Harper has seemed to lose control of some of his party.

This all leads me to declare, in the final analysis, that Harper is after all a great strategist. It's just we didn't know he was helping the Liberals.

Recommend this Post at Progressive Bloggers If you liked this post, please vote for my blog at Canadian Blogosphere