Stephen Harper continues to play the politics of provocation, even though he has just been re-elected to a minority government. This week’s economic update quite pointlessly included a poison pill whose sole aim was to goad the opposition. It intentionally stirred up ill-will by introducing a minimal cut to government spending that happens to be the lifeblood of the other parties.
With this admittedly brilliant tactical stunt Mr. Harper managed to embarrass the other parties, but he did not do much to flatter himself in the process. It serves to highlight his weakness for bullying, a trait that many Canadians find unappealing. It seems to be in Mr. Harper’s nature to be callous and to constantly in search of an advantage. As virtuous as cunning may be to certain ways of life, including politics, it doesn’t inspire much admiration, and in being so forthright about his evil ways Mr. Harper continues to evade the popularity he needs in order to form a majority government.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
How is it minimal and yet the lifeblood of the political parties?
In addition wasn't it instituted during a time of fiscal freedom due to higher GXT income and created by a government in power who profitted the most from said legislation?
Oh and used to help support useless advertising... I'll let that lie
All parties would have lost income but then used it to support the economic crisis. Why is that wrong?
Why should the public taxpayer fund the political parties in a recession?
Also I doubt that Stephen Harper is the sole mastermind behind the idea, remember it is a house of commons and a parliamentary system not a presidential system...
I know let's create a coalition of people who profit the most from the legislation and run Canada with the support of a political group which wishes to seperate and form their own country! I'm sure Manitoba will do well with that government. Political parties on the whole disgust me.
It's minimal in terms of what it represents toward the entire federal budget.
It was instituted, rightly or wrongly to bring transparency to the process of political donations. In exchange for this votes=dollars format the political parties gave up the right to accept large corporate/union donations that would leave them beholden to special interests. It was legislated in the early '00 and had nothing to do with increased revenue from the GST which came into effect in 1990.
I didn't say anything about "useless advertising" I'm not sure what that means.
It was not wrong to want to find more money in a time of economic crisis, but it was wrong to insist on a measure that would be akin to hitting a wasps' nest repeatedly with a stick despite the fact that the people of Canada gave you a very short stick and told you to play nice.
If Harper was granted a majority he could put on his bee-suit and do whatever he pleased, but what the results of the election clearly said to him was: "we like you better than Stephan, but not by much, so be careful."
Harper has run his government more like Castro than Diefenbaker. He puts his hand in every pie and censures MPs who do not toe the line. Are you completely blind to his dictatorial ways?
This coalition may be evil and a very bad idea but it was the ineptitude of Stephen Harper and his top advisors that made this debacle possible. That is what you should be the most angry about and disgusted by.
Hmmm...
I agree it is small form a federal budget pov but it how could it have been afforded in a recession? I'm almost certain it would not have. And although I liked Chretein he wasn't as pure of heart as you are making it seem (see Ad scandal et al)
and by advertising I meant each parties useless attack ads and campaign (which is why more Canadians watched the US debatwes sadly)wasn't something you said. If this is what the money goes toward I'd rather buy a large slurpee thank you very much
(at least I get some satisfaction out of that - heartburn too but some satisfaction)
I agree that Harper was not "polite"
However I really don't care either, I lose money left right and center to taxes, bills etc and nobody makes nice to me. Harper has a personality issue no doubt about it, he seems to do and say what he thinks, he seems controlling but so was Trudeau (more so even) and Chretien. Once again I really don't care,
Get the job done
MPs truly represent their voting populace not their political party. That's if it is a parliamentary system and they should then poll their constituents (to see if they are offended by the comments) and respond accordingly then they are truly being democratic. Though I agree the coalition government is within their rights the goal is to have the house serve the interests of Canadians not political parties.
I think most people in Canada in this time of economic concern would not be that consoling to the ego of the political parties.
The oppositions response to enact outrage and threaten coalition is no better than Harper. Elect a leader his own party doesn't want? Rely on a seperatist to think about what is best for all Canadians so that they can wrest some power or prestige?
There is nothing here which suggests these parties care about Canada or Canadians. I'm now becoming embarassed that the rest of the world watches this travesty, suprising since I have always been proud to be a Canadian
Post a Comment