On The Throne Speech
As expected, both the Bloc and the NDP will not support the Throne Speech, leaving it up to the Liberals, who are in a state of national disarray, to decide if a federal election is to be called or not. Personally, I don’t think the Liberals will bite, though stranger things have happened.
One of the most important aspects of the speech was the government’s assertion that Canadian military participation in Afghanistan last until 2011, claiming that objectives within the country should be reached by then – the foremost being the training of the Afghan military and police. Interestingly, much of the Afghan military’s command infrastructure is comprised of ex-Northern Alliance leaders who have experience in such matters, leaving one wondering why their expertise isn’t enough given that they’ve spent years involved in that nation’s ongoing conflicts. Perhaps it’s simply a matter of financial support, or the use of our forces, and others that comprise ISAF, in an attempt to degrade the Taliban to a point where the Afghan army can handle them. Of course, the Taliban have only gained in strength since they were all too easily overthrown in 2001, and are currently displaying the sort of guerrilla based fortitude that has defeated foreign occupiers in Afghanistan for more than a century. Thus, in a purely military sense, will four years make a difference? Will ten?
There is a reason why Hamid Karzai’s government has made overtures of late to the Taliban’s leadership regarding their participation in the political process – it’s because historical precedent does not favour current policy and the inclusion of foreign powers in its execution. There will come a time when either the government of Afghanistan will have to yield to some of the Taliban’s demands or look to those currently occupying the nation to alter their tactics drastically and undertake operations bent on the systematic annihilation of the Taliban and its support networks, civilian or otherwise, both in Afghanistan and Pakistan, as such overtly brutal tactics are the only way that conventional forces can successfully deal with an asymmetric situation.
No matter the government’s assertion in the Throne Speech, make no mistake, Canadians remain involved in combat operations, and are, by no means, limited to training operations - something that was not mentioned in the speech, and for obvious reasons. The government’s entire focus on Canadian involvement in Afghanistan was cast in the simplest and cleanest of lights, completely disregarding both historical precedents and the fact that the enemy now being fought has only grown and diversified despite the efforts of ISAF to counter them.
The bottom line is that 2011 will turn into 2015 and so on. To deal with the situation we have to be willing to look at the regional realities involved, at the complicity of elements within Pakistan, even within aspects of the Pakistani military itself. Ultimately, like it or not, a decision has to be made regarding the military situation as it applies to ISAF; that either the mission is altered and overwhelming, unrelenting force is used to combat those now being fought, including the civilian apparatuses that support it, or diplomacy is employed to bring those Afghan elements involved to the table in hopes of an agreement being reached. That will, unfortunately, not occur, until the foreign occupation of the country is either ended or severely limited – something that the government of Afghanistan and its Western backers will never agree to. And so, like numerous powers before us, we may very well find ourselves in a protracted conflict that will place us in a position of waiting for domestic pressure to end our involvement to become overwhelmingly popular. As to how many lives will be lost in the process, who can say.
Like Vietnam before it, Afghanistan is a nation that has been plagued by conflict for centuries. Thus, to think that a military solution is the most viable option with regards to securing a lasting peace is to simply repeat the mistakes of those that have come before us. The imposition of democracy is no different than the imposition of Communism – it is still an imposition at its core, and one that cannot realistically be expected to succeed in such short a period without key roles being played by the nation’s various groups.
Obviously security is an issue, but it must be one that is overseen by an impartial entity, such as a newly constituted UN commanded force that is put in place for the sake of ensuring stability while diplomatic avenues are explored. The existence of an overwhelming Western military presence in the country is not going to be able to provide such an atmosphere, only project what is the current reality – that the government of Afghanistan is a construct of Western foreign policy designs and exists to placate them. Unfortunately, like it or not, not even democracy can be forced on a people, even if just a portion, without their consent and contribution to its institution. That is, I am afraid, the truth of the matter.
Beyond Afghanistan, the government declared the Kyoto Protocol a dead issue, outlined new crime legislation, and focused on the lowering of taxes.
In Addition
Updated: Thursday, October 18th, at 12:27 CST
Want to bookmark or share this entry?
This entry was posted on Wednesday, October 17th, 2007 at 11:32 am. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can skip to the end and leave a response. Pinging is currently not allowed.
October 17th, 2007 at 11:54 am
Those comments sound a little anti-conservative…..just a question Matt, what do you think of Harper? (minus the Afghanistan issue) If a election was to happen now, who would you be voting for and why?
October 17th, 2007 at 11:58 am
I am not fond of Harper whatsoever. As for global warming - it’s one of the largest problems that we face.
October 17th, 2007 at 11:59 am
My comment will be anti-conservative:
Not surprisingly, the throne speech had a very United States of America taste to it. Am I using an old crappy cliché?
1. The death of the Kyoto Protocol:
As we all know, George W. Bush has never signed it and now Harper has decided it was not going to be respected.
2. Tax cuts:
I’m all for paying less money. But the difference between the US and Canada is that we’ve based our economical system on taxes. In exchange, we get free medical care, cheaper schools, etc. In the US, tax cuts are something very useful because the money you don’t give the government can go on paying medical care and school. Here, it will just lessen the quality of these services.
3. Afghanistan 2011:
At first, we were supposed to leave Afghanistan in 2009. But Harper tries to emulate the “war president” and our soldiers will keep getting killed in Afghanistan for 2 more years. Plus, as Matt said, 2011 will become 2015 and so on…
There’s more of course but I can’t cover everything here.
I don’t think the Liberals will vote against it. Simply because Stéphane Dion is stuck in the corner. He is seen as a bad leader, the Liberal Party is seen as a bad party and is still suffering from the sponsorship scandal. Yesterday, a survey showed that the conservative party would have gotten around 34% of the votes if an election had taken place in the first week of October. So they can’t afford an election right now. And what’s better: a minority government with Stephen Harper leading or a majority government with Stephen Harper leading?
Furthermore, the environment is something very important to Canadians and Stéphane Dion. So basically, what our Prime Minister is telling the country is “Just take it and shut up!”
October 17th, 2007 at 12:04 pm
I was a little more than disappointed in the speech, especially the fact that the environment was ostensibly buried at the back almost as a second thought.
It was doubly troubling to see a bulk of a speech meant to capture the will of Canadian’s focus so much on military action and less so on issues of importance to the actual wellbeing of the population.
I also had to wonder what went through the minds of the Senators during the portion of the speech that declared them to be pretty much useless in the eyes of the Tories.
I honestly really wouldn’t mind if an election was called right now, not after this government has done so much to irk Canadians with their environmental catastrophes, financial meddling and chopping social programs to pieces.
This throne speech does nothing to make me think the Conservative government has any real idea of what most Canadians want. Let’s not forget that the last federal election had a turnout rate of something like 60 percent with under 40 percent of the total vote being cast for the Tories. So really, he’s representing what? Maybe a quarter of the real population? If that?
October 17th, 2007 at 12:07 pm
The “lower tax” issue pisses me off. I could care less if I spent 7% on GST or 10%… as long as we saw more social programs and things of that nature.
October 17th, 2007 at 12:15 pm
And to add to my comment, I think either the Liberals will vote against it or they will claim they are against it but suddenly, everyone in the Liberal party will be sick apart from 3 or 4 members…
October 17th, 2007 at 12:15 pm
So where’s the part that says how much of the war profit I’m going to be getting from this prolonged struggle?
October 17th, 2007 at 12:24 pm
I’d rather have a higher tax rate too and better social programs. The medical system in this country is falling apart, and something needs to be done before it’s too late. I had to pay out of pocket for the ambulance I was in in November, and all over the doctor’s office this morning were signs of this nature “need a doctor’s note? - $15. need form 1? - $10. need form 2? - $20.”
The small incremental charges aren’t anything to get amazingly worked up over yet, but I think it’s the first few steps down a path that ultimately ends in a completely broken, multi-tiered medical system. The fact that they exist at all is proof that the system is underfunded, or potentially mismanaged.
October 17th, 2007 at 12:27 pm
Here is the thing with the Kyoto Protocol. Countries that have signed on have done just that, signed on…yet they have not actually done much to meet its goals, if anything at all. What is the point to sign on to some enviromental bill when the worlds largest polluters are NOT on board? There is no point, any good you do with it will only be offset by those other countries. Thats besides the point that Kyoto is a useless anyways. The targets we might be able to reach…if we wanted to destroy our economy and our living standards….
October 17th, 2007 at 12:31 pm
I agree with Rebecca on the tax issue, very unsettling.
The part I am confused with is
”
If all 304 sitting MPs show up and vote on the throne speech after a debate in the House of Commons that is scheduled to last six days, the Conservatives will need at least one other party on their side to win a majority.
Some political observers believe that the Liberal front bench — Dion and his shadow cabinet — will vote against the throne speech and that the backbenchers will either abstain or not show up, which would allow the throne speech to pass.
”
Why do people say that if the Liberals turn it down an election will happen, but the last sentence says the throne speech will pass?
I am new to this stuff.
I also didn’t see anything on security changes in there. That worries me! I do not want to live in the US where everything I say and do is recorded and used against me whenever possible, and is never used to defend me when falsely accused.
I don’t trust Harper at all. I’ve heard mixed reviews of the Liberals being ready for an election, some saying they are not and Harper knows this, some say they are. That’s good, keep the people guessing, but hopefully they have a bunch of tricks up their sleeves and will form an election.
I agree with defending the North, but not because “we want that oil, it is ours”(Bush). I agree because there will be a mad rush to claim that oil and at least if we are patrolling we can blame the appropriate countries to clean up the oil spills.
I agree we should be improving our military equipment. The Sea Kings were not hybrid Helicopter/Submarine experiments, despite some speculation on that. Our equipment, even in the factories, is quite out dated and should be revamped. At least we still kick butt with telecom/computers.
That surplus should definitely go to the provinces to spend on public social programs, such as needle exchanges, AIDS awareness, school system (at least in the elementary and secondary institutions), housing problems (2000 in Vancouver), medical facilities for the mentally ill, etc…
I will say I definitely approve of the criminal law changes, getting tougher is better. It would be nice to improve the situations in the jails as well. Instead of reducing costs, increasing populations without capacity increases, reducing guard numbers, etc… they could actually improve the situations significantly so rehabilitation might actually work!
But at Matt already said, that would be a parallel universe.
October 17th, 2007 at 12:42 pm
the Liberals, under their current ‘leader’ wouldn’t stand a chance at this time, and they know it.
October 17th, 2007 at 12:56 pm
Harper is nuts if he think the situation is going to be stabilized in Afghanistan by 2011, the British who have long experience there think the conflict will last decades.
[quote]There is general recognition that the Nato alliance and the Taliban, who are increasingly relying on amateurish suicide bombings, have fought each other to a standstill. Nato partners such as Germany, the Netherlands and France are tiring of a war that British commanders admit may take ‘30 years to win’. British ministers have suggested talking to the Taliban - something President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan has offered to do. Earlier this month he made a personal plea to Mullah Omar to negotiate and stop ‘the destruction of [his] country’.[/quote]
There’s an entire Taliban state developing along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border that neither the Pakistani nor Afghan governments have the strength to defeat. Foreign forces operationing in Afghanistan just increase the Taliban support in this region.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/story/0,,2190873,00.html
October 17th, 2007 at 1:29 pm
What’s next…
Harper government starts using Friedman Units in its projection of when the war will be concluded?
October 17th, 2007 at 1:35 pm
I love how it seems as though the Liberals will vote against the speech to save face with their public supporters yet will likely not show up to vote officially so the speech will pass. Good ol’ toothless Canadian policy that only fights for the people in a purely symbolic sense. A majority of the government, like a majority of the public disagrees with the speech yet it will pass anyway. Fun, fun.
October 17th, 2007 at 1:38 pm
[quote comment="29689"]
The part I am confused with is
”
If all 304 sitting MPs show up and vote on the throne speech after a debate in the House of Commons that is scheduled to last six days, the Conservatives will need at least one other party on their side to win a majority.
Some political observers believe that the Liberal front bench — Dion and his shadow cabinet — will vote against the throne speech and that the backbenchers will either abstain or not show up, which would allow the throne speech to pass.
”
Why do people say that if the Liberals turn it down an election will happen, but the last sentence says the throne speech will pass?
[/quote]
My guess is (and someone please correct me if I’m wrong) that this move would allow the Liberals to save face to some degree by being able to say they opposed the Throne speech and the direction that is laid down therein, but not provide enough opposition to actually prevent it from passing.
Seems they’re just playing with numbers of votes in order to send a message but allow the government to stand.
I’m torn on the whole issue. I’d love to see Harper denied for both war and environmental reasons, however, elections do cost a lot of money. And with the Liberals in their current state, there’s no guarantee that the Tories wouldn’t just be reelected with a minority or something along those lines.
October 17th, 2007 at 1:39 pm
Koyoto turned into another Israeli-Palestinian accord. In 1993, Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin and Foreign Minister Shimon Peres of Israel and the Palestine Liberation Organization chairman, Yasir Arafat signed the accord infront of the white house. People cheered and everyone thought that peace will finally win, but it’s 2007 and still no peace in sight, and so the fate of Kyoto… And the fate of afghanistan will follow. People don’t realise how complicated the situation is and thanks to political spin doctors most of the public remain unaware of what is really going on outside their borders. Heck sometimes they don’t even know what’s going on with in them.
October 17th, 2007 at 2:24 pm
The Liberals need to change their leadership and get rid of Dion as soon as possible.
As a member of the Liberal party, I wasn’t in favour of Dion winning the leadership of the party, but i accepted it at the time. However, over the past months, it’s become abundantly clear that Dion does not have the ability to run this party successfully….and things are only getting worse, especially if you look at the polls.
So, there are two options:
1. keep Dion as the leader, lose to the Conservatives in the next election and have Dion step down afterwards as we have to endure several more years of Stephen Harper. or,
2. shake up the party right now, have Dion step down, and try to get things back on track as quickly as possible.
Either scenario involves the inevitability of Dion stepping down. I’m just hoping that scenario 2 plays out, so we don’t have to suffer through any more of Stephen Harper.
October 17th, 2007 at 2:35 pm
The conservatives have been doing everything they can to destroy Dion as an opponent from the moment he won the Liberal leadership. They want the Liberal party to turn against it’s own leader so they don’t have any real political opposition in this country.
Like him or not, Dion is the only real political alternative to Harper at this moment.
The stakes are also so high now any mistakes that give the conservatives a majority will have consequences for generations of Canadians.
October 17th, 2007 at 2:48 pm
Right now, Duceppe seems to be the strongest opposition leader. As much as I disagree with his party’s stance on Quebec’s sovereignty, at least there’s SOMEBODY who is actually capable of standing up to Harper. Dion doesn’t and never did deserve to be Liberal leader, and Layton needs to focus more on issues and less on selling his party to former Liberal voters.
October 17th, 2007 at 2:52 pm
“Obviously security is an issue, but it must be one that is overseen by an impartial entity, ”
I think secutiry is THE issue. Also, I think Canada’s role as a nation - (whether we should be there or not) - is about as impartial as you can get in this world.
October 17th, 2007 at 2:59 pm
[quote comment="29703"]Right now, Duceppe seems to be the strongest opposition leader. As much as I disagree with his party’s stance on Quebec’s sovereignty, at least there’s SOMEBODY who is actually capable of standing up to Harper. Dion doesn’t and never did deserve to be Liberal leader, and Layton needs to focus more on issues and less on selling his party to former Liberal voters.[/quote]
Politics in Canada are very complex and Dion has been doing a good job just holding his party together under the pressures on it from all sides. Duceppe represents the forces that want to divide the nation and Harper represents those that want to bring us into a larger North American Union that will fundamentally change the nature of this nation.
Dions seeming weakness is an indication of how deeply divided this nation still is and he offers a middle way between the two extremes. In my view you don’t get any more Canadian than that.
October 17th, 2007 at 3:05 pm
I think Canadians should be offended by the Liberal party. One representative yesterday stated Canadians would not be discussing the “Throne Speech in Tim Hortons”. Also, by Dion and the Liberals stating as of now, they do not plan to vote down the government on basis of the speech, we should be at the very least offended; as in the words of Ignatieff, the speech was “…vague, and disappointing”. By the Liberal party stating this afternoon that they are going to do what they believe to be in the best interest of Canadians, they are sending us a clear message:
We support a vague and disappointing plan written by the Conservative Party and believe this plan to be in the best interest of Canadians.
I think Dion, as well as many fellow Liberals, to be cowards. How can they suport this speech as it does not comply with the 4 demands they made? It goes against many of the parties principles. And also, how pathetic will it look to Canadians if they abstain from voting. Wow, what better way to show Canada, and the world for that matter, that the Liberals don’t even have the balls to make decisions. Way to gain support!
October 17th, 2007 at 3:18 pm
Sorry I think I timed out or something.. but here’s my edited, opinion:
I think Canadians should be offended by the Liberal party. One representative yesterday stated on CBC that Canadians would not be discussing the ”Throne Speech in Tim Hortons”. Also, by Dion and the Liberals stating as of now, they do not plan to vote down the government on basis of the speech, we should be at the very least offended; as in the words of Ignatieff, the speech was ”…vague, and disappointing”. By the Liberal party stating this afternoon that they are going to do what they believe to be in the best interest of Canadians, they are sending us a clear message:
We support a vague and disappointing plan written by the Conservative Party and believe this plan to be in the best interest of Canadians.
I think Dion, as well as many fellow Liberals, to be cowards. How can they support this speech as it does not comply with the 4 demands they made? The speech goes against many Liberal Party principles. Dion himself said on CBC with the man, Peter Mansbridge, that how could he and the Liberals support a speech that disagrees with their views and demands?
One more thought, sorry this is so long, how pathetic will it look to Canadians if they abstain from voting. Wow, what better way to show Canada, and the world for that matter, that the Liberals don’t even have the balls to make decisions. Way to gain support!
October 17th, 2007 at 3:44 pm
Dion didn’t create the hostile environment that exists now in our political arena, he’s doing what he can to see that his party has the best chance for success in the upcoming elections.
The Throne Speech was intended as a political trap, why treat it as anything else.
October 17th, 2007 at 4:23 pm
Dion was a poor choice from the start. Great strategist, not a leader… the Libs are not going to the polls until they rebuild, so the PC can do whatever they want for now!
October 17th, 2007 at 4:24 pm
Yes, Kyoto doe not go nearly far enough, but we have to start somewhere, and that is what it is, a start. And yes, the fact that China, the US are not on board is extremely disappointing, but that’s no excuse for other countries not to do what needs to be done to rescue the planet. As for it destroying the economy, you just keep drinking that kool-aid kanji.
October 17th, 2007 at 5:01 pm
What’s a “stable situation”? Until that is defined we won’t know for sure if we are closer or further. Time to get real on some definitions of terms we throw around that result in dead bodies.
October 17th, 2007 at 5:03 pm
[quote comment="29686"]I’d rather have a higher tax rate too and better social programs. The medical system in this country is falling apart, and something needs to be done before it’s too late.
I had to pay out of pocket for the ambulance I was in in November, and all over the doctor’s office this morning were signs of this nature “need a doctor’s note? - $15. need form 1? - $10. need form 2? - $20.”
The small incremental charges aren’t anything to get amazingly worked up over yet, but I think it’s the first few steps down a path that ultimately ends in a completely broken, multi-tiered medical system.
The fact that they exist at all is proof that the system is underfunded, or potentially mismanaged.[/quote]
My father was scheduled for potentially life saving surgery today for a bulging, aortic aneurysm that has another stemming from it and running to his kidney.
They’ve been “monitoring” the situation for some time and, back in late August decided that it was “urgent” that he get in ASAP for emergency surgery (as he’s a ticking time bomb without it). They’d put it off as long as possible, as he’s just battled through cancer and that took a toll on him (we nearly lost him).
I’d scheduled time off work, he’d gone for all the pre-op tests and was packed and ready to go for 7 this morning.
We got the call yesterday afternoon at 3 in the afternoon that his surgery was being cancelled, as there were no available beds for him in the ICU.
Now, at the best of times this in itself would create anxiety and worry. But this is kind of the worst of times for us.
We lost my Mom in April due to inoperable brain cancer that was caught too late (because of similar circumstances and being “put off”). I’m already wrestling with the guilt of “could I have done more?”. We’d admitted Mom to the ER several times and each time she was sent home the same day because “they didn’t have a bed” for her.
The last time I insisted that they keep her in for further testing (and threatened the ER doctor with a lawyer)…they found her a bed AND then they found her tumors.
The health care system is the first thing on my priority list.
(oh, and to add insult to injury - over the past month, Dad has received three, separate “ambulance” bills for Mom’s transfers from hospital to hospice, etc. His wife of 50 years just died and this is like a hammer over the head every time he opens one of them. We didn’t get them “after the fact”…they’re now arriving, 6 months after her death. One by one - not all at once. We never even arranged an ambulance for her - the hospital moved her. Needless to say, I’ve contacted ambulatory billing and addressed my concerns there and they’ve “corrected” things. But it shouldn’t be this way. You can’t take away the pain that those pieces of paper created for him.)
Off topic, but I sure hope some of the “savings” are spent on healthcare.
On topic…
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20071017.wharper1017/BNStory/Front
October 17th, 2007 at 5:04 pm
[quote comment="29712"]Dion was a poor choice from the start. Great strategist, not a leader… the Libs are not going to the polls until they rebuild, so the PC can do whatever they want for now![/quote]
Dion has taken an unprecedented political assualt on his leadership from day one. The conservatives have made it clear from their actions they’re far more concerned about power than good governance. The fact that Dion has stood up as well as he has under these conditions says to me the Liberals chose the right man in 2006. He’s got strength and depth that most politcal figures in Canada lack these days, all the shit heaped on him by the character assassins on the right just make it hard to see that though.
In the same way the far right condemns Gore in the US while carrying out some of the most immoral foreign, domestic and environmental policies ever. Policies that our current Canadian government is acting to support.
October 17th, 2007 at 5:09 pm
2011? Ug….
October 17th, 2007 at 5:10 pm
Anyone who thinks we should raise taxes, cannot possibly be in a taxable situation. Middle classed Canadians are taxed to death. You cannot sustain social programs when you tax such a small part of a population. Those who earn more money than they could ever spend contribute the least. We need to eliminate tax write-offs for anyone. Make big business, small business, and all working individuals across the board pay a maximum 10% income tax. The real problem in Canada is, we have so few supporting so many and way too much greed at the top. The supression of the middle class is the route cause of health, family, financial and mental problems. This all leads eventually to two distinct groups- very rich and very poor. I guess that will be the time we will need our soldiers back in Canada to clean up the mess here. In our concern with world problems we are not looking after our own house. We should be ashamed of the way our children are being raised, our lack of self respect and lack of self preservation. We have a beautiful country that we are standing by and watching turn to shit.
October 17th, 2007 at 5:24 pm
A maximum 10% would not provide the social services we currently enjoy. If you can think of a way that it would you have my support for Minister of Finance.
I am for efficient use of tax dollars - monetary and fiscal policies should always be invoked with those means in mind.
October 17th, 2007 at 5:33 pm
I’m sorry filbertfancy but I’m at the poorest end of middle class and yes, taxes are a good thing. We’re not living in the US. Taxes are necessary for us to take advantage of all the free services we get in exchange. I’m happy to pay taxes because if my wife goes into labour, it’s not going to cost me a dime, because if our children go to college, it’s not gonna cost me 12, 000$ a year.
I’m not saying that the tax system is well balanced. But reducing taxes is not the solution to that.
October 17th, 2007 at 5:55 pm
Perhaps they should spend the surplus money on finding moderate Islamic theologians to help the Afghans help themselves to develop a better Islamic model that their people could embrace. They don’t need more training in violence; Maybe they need training in reasoning? If the West has been deemed to be enemies of Islam based on our view of separating state/government and religion, it wouldn’t seem like we’re in any position of credibility over there.
I struggle to understand the roots of this conflict/war. I can’t imagine how any semblance of order could be restored. I’m not even sure it was there in any recent time.
What a mess. Layers and layers of issues and motivations.
October 17th, 2007 at 6:08 pm
[quote comment="29692"]Harper is nuts if he think the situation is going to be stabilized in Afghanistan by 2011, the British who have long experience there think the conflict will last decades.
[quote]There is general recognition that the Nato alliance and the Taliban, who are increasingly relying on amateurish suicide bombings, have fought each other to a standstill. Nato partners such as Germany, the Netherlands and France are tiring of a war that British commanders admit may take ‘30 years to win’. British ministers have suggested talking to the Taliban - something President Hamid Karzai of Afghanistan has offered to do. Earlier this month he made a personal plea to Mullah Omar to negotiate and stop ‘the destruction of [his] country’.[/quote]
There’s an entire Taliban state developing along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border that neither the Pakistani nor Afghan governments have the strength to defeat. Foreign forces operationing in Afghanistan just increase the Taliban support in this region.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/afghanistan/story/0,,2190873,00.html/quote
After reading that article (took a LONG time but is an incredible summary), it is amazing the Taliban has any foothold. There are so many different leaders, so much intermixing, overlapping, differences of who is in control, who’s the fight against, etc… add to that the army of each country in agreement on some issues…
It certainly is unpredictable what will happen. Is 2011 enough? Well if they want to defeat the Taliban, clearly annihilation is the only way, but that will clearly be a very bloody battle. Support form all over that area, plus tiring troops/allied armies, rising of Taliban, even if they don’t all agree who’s in control, they will most likely still attack the Western forces.
What happens if they leave with peace talks? They will definitely take over again, impose their beliefs, but will they still attack as the US predicts?
I wonder, since so many groups are more concerned about money and less about religion… what if several key people were bought, added to that secret “new recruits” as in hundreds of them, you could possibly add even more confusion, to the point where the Taliban fighters (both sides of the border) turn on one another and reduce their own numbers.
I wonder if that were possible? Turn them against themselves?
Anyone see potential in this plan? Operation Infiltrate, confuse, and self-destruct?
October 17th, 2007 at 6:11 pm
I see by the comments on this topic, the governing “conservative” party has succeeded in taking the focus off what they’re doing and having the general public focus on what the Liberal Party supposedly isn’t doing.
At this point in time, Stephane Dion is damned if he does, damned if he doesn’t.
The fact is, Canadians don’t want an election right now. Stephen Harper’s hands are tied in calling one since they’re the ruling party that created the fixed election date law. Stephen Harper wants an election right now. He wants to get a majority government so he can push through laws that suit his own ideology rather than the current checks he has to under a minority government. Being that he’s already reversed his stance on many of his so-called plans, he can’t call an election that flies in the face of something he “championed”.
His action? Try to force the opposition into voting against it so he can get his way.
Stephane Dion cowardly? I think not. Here is a man that doesn’t get the face time on the national front given he’s leader of the opposition. The only time you hear something from the mainstream media is when something happens amongst the Liberals that has a negative slant. Stephane Dion has received a lot of negative media coverage that has nothing to do with his character and his passion for this country. He’s a man that was blasted in the Quebec media on personal levels that none of us has ever had to endure. And not once has he lowered himself to the level to which he’s been attacked and fought back.
He’s a man with a vision. He’s a man of integrity. Maybe if the average Canadian did some research on Mr. Dion before believing everything they’ve heard of him through the msm, they’d realize that for themselves. I’m surprised that members that read this site, who are normally educated on such matters, haven’t done that yet.
First ask yourself if you want an election. Personally I do. I think once we’re in election mode the media will have to at least appear unbias. They’ll have to at least try to report facts instead of personal opinion. I find that the media in this country in general has been so bullied by this government and been denied access and they’ve submitted to it instead of fighting it.
An election at this point will just return what we have now. Another minority government. So why spend those millions of dollars to get what we have now. Instead the governing party must work TOGETHER to give Canadians what they want. Instead we’re always seeing posturing by the government. “Do this or we go to the polls” “13 years of Liberal inaction has lead to this.” Last I checked 13 years of Liberal action brought us a stable economy. Sure there were problems. There always are. But what has this government done for us in the past 2 years? They’ve spit on Kyoto, they’ve ripped up the Kelowna Accord, they ripped up and taped back together portions of the Atlantic Accord, they voted against the UN Declaration on Indigenious Rights, they cancelled the National Child Care Agreements, etc.
Those that live in conservative MP ridings, stop focusing on the leader of the opposition and focus on your MP. TELL them that you want them to work in parliament. TELL them your vision of this country. Stop the constant campaigning on taxpayers’ dollars. Heck, even if you live in a non-conservative riding, let your MP know how you feel. This country is, last I checked, a democracy. Exercise your rights as a citizen.
Email your Prime Minister and tell him what you want. Not that he cares. He’s too busy laughing that he’s got everyone focused on others instead of what he’s doing to this country.
October 17th, 2007 at 6:38 pm
I think Dion would’ve loved to clober Harper but couldn’t because he knew he himself could never win, even a minority government. So, he instead made the lambasting/critical speech against Harper and the Conservitives, and then… quietly chose to leave things be, claiming he feels ‘Canadians don’t want another election.’ Harper is a sly cat, he sees it all falling into place.
October 17th, 2007 at 7:28 pm
[quote] Matt Good:”the fact that the enemy now being fought has only grown in strength despite the efforts of ISAF to counter them.”[/quote]
This is where in my opinion things get fuzzy. You have people who say the Taliban keeps growing in strength and numbers yet an officer who worked closely with the Afghan police was telling me that the Taliban are losing numbers, and other soldiers who saw action in OP Medusa and served on the 2006-2007 tour have told me this. It makes sense that the Taliban are trying to replenish their forces and in fact are doing so, but I find it hard to believe that they are stronger than ever after the pounding they took over the last year.
I don’t get it, where are people getting this info that the Taliban are growing in strength and numbers? They’ve lost so many combatants…
October 17th, 2007 at 8:09 pm
Canada’s 14 billion dollar surplus was applied to our 479 billion “debt” with the Federal Reserve that was created out of thin air. It wouldn’t even put a dent on the principle, which is precisely the plan. Social programs? Come again??
Revolution!
October 17th, 2007 at 8:53 pm
[quote comment="29726"]
After reading that article (took a LONG time but is an incredible summary), it is amazing the Taliban has any foothold. There are so many different leaders, so much intermixing, overlapping, differences of who is in control, who’s the fight against, etc… add to that the army of each country in agreement on some issues…
It certainly is unpredictable what will happen. Is 2011 enough? Well if they want to defeat the Taliban, clearly annihilation is the only way, but that will clearly be a very bloody battle. Support form all over that area, plus tiring troops/allied armies, rising of Taliban, even if they don’t all agree who’s in control, they will most likely still attack the Western forces.
What happens if they leave with peace talks? They will definitely take over again, impose their beliefs, but will they still attack as the US predicts?
I wonder, since so many groups are more concerned about money and less about religion… what if several key people were bought, added to that secret “new recruits” as in hundreds of them, you could possibly add even more confusion, to the point where the Taliban fighters (both sides of the border) turn on one another and reduce their own numbers.
I wonder if that were possible? Turn them against themselves?
Anyone see potential in this plan? Operation Infiltrate, confuse, and self-destruct?[/quote]
Taliban groups have already been bought off, but whether they’ll stay that way is another story. I don’t think our government has a clue of the real situation there, they’ve bought into this Bush “War on Terror” and don’t see the real threat. We’re helping to provoke a cultural, religious backlash that can potentially reach back to Canadian shores.
As I don’t believe the US administration has a clue either, the only solution I see is to get out, it’s harsh but there’s not going to be an easy answer to this one.
Nice post Tania, I see I’m not alone in my views about the Harper government.
October 17th, 2007 at 9:56 pm
[quote comment="29682"]The “lower tax” issue pisses me off. I could care less if I spent 7% on GST or 10%… as long as we saw more social programs and things of that nature.[/quote]
Jack Layton is that really you?!?
just kidding. I would care though if they raise the GST again. If they want to raise taxes, do it for the financial elites. 10% GST wouldn’t help the lower-incomers or working class, it would likely offset most new social programs the govt could install
October 17th, 2007 at 10:06 pm
And now Dion has said they’ll support the Speech because ‘Canadians don’t want another election right now.”
Well, nice to finally have it confirmed that Dion has no ideals and no balls.
WE DON’T HAVE TO HAVE AN ELECTION Stephane! Form a coalition with the NDP. Problem solved. You can do everything you want to do and you don’t have to give in to Harper on anything.
I don’t want to hear any crap about ‘oh, well, it’s not the Canadian way’ or something stupid like that.
DO IT! I’m so sick of the Tories I could puke.
October 17th, 2007 at 10:46 pm
If you’re sick of the Tories, I’d almost guarantee an NDP-Liberal coalition would sink the grits even further. Then you’d have Prime Minister Harper at the helm of his majority government for a whole four years. Not that I’d object, I think the Conservatives are doing a fine job.
October 17th, 2007 at 10:47 pm
I think taxes play an important role ins supporting the welfare state, but increasing a regressive tax like the GST is not the way to go. We need more progressive income taxes.
October 17th, 2007 at 10:51 pm
[quote comment="29740"]WE DON’T HAVE TO HAVE AN ELECTION Stephane! Form a coalition with the NDP. Problem solved. You can do everything you want to do and you don’t have to give in to Harper on anything.[/quote]
I’d say there’s a greater chance of the Tories changing their official colour to hot pink and wearing assless chaps to the House of Commons than there is of getting the NDP and Liberal party to merge. Not a chance in HELL that Layton would go back to not being a leader, and there’s no way in HELL that the Liberals would let Layton run the merged party.
October 17th, 2007 at 11:21 pm
[quote comment="29727"]
Those that live in conservative MP ridings, stop focusing on the leader of the opposition and focus on your MP. TELL them that you want them to work in parliament. TELL them your vision of this country. Stop the constant campaigning on taxpayers’ dollars. Heck, even if you live in a non-conservative riding, let your MP know how you feel. This country is, last I checked, a democracy. Exercise your rights as a citizen.[/quote]
I don’t think the conservative MP in my riding cares too much about democracy, he’s decided he doesn’t even have to wait for an election to take over representation of Skeena-Bulkly from NDP MP Nathan Cullen.
[quote]An aggressive Conservative plan has bestowed a group of British Columbians with a representative from the governing party before they’ve voted one in.
Houston Mayor Sharon Smith has been appointed “government go-to person” for the NDP-held riding of Skeena-Bulkley Valley by the federal Conservative caucus chair for B.C., Dick Harris.
The MP for Cariboo-Prince George justifies his action with some pretty blunt opinions about how government really works in this country.
He says that, realistically, it’s not possible for Nathan Cullen, the elected New Democrat representing Skeena, to access government services on behalf of his constituents in the manner that an MP of Conservative stripe would be able to.[/quote]
http://forums.canadiancontent.net/canadian-politics/66525-conservatives-trying-undercut-other-parties-5.html
October 17th, 2007 at 11:43 pm
“I’m all for paying less money. But the difference between the US and Canada is that we’ve based our economical system on taxes. In exchange, we get free medical care, cheaper schools, etc. In the US, tax cuts are something very useful because the money you don’t give the government can go on paying medical care and school. Here, it will just lessen the quality of these services.” - Prosis
I think we need some lessons in economics here. Tax cuts are not necessarily a bad thing even for a country that uses the tax revenue for such things as health care, especially if we’ve been running surpluses for some time now. The whole point is to free up some income for consumers to give incentives to either consume more, or save it so it can be used in the economy for investment in new capital. If you don’t have experience with economics, don’t assume cutting taxes will be necessarily a bad thing. It can swing both ways. Economic growth is important, and cutting taxes (a lot of it is cutitng taxes for businesses), frees up funds to use to increase productivity.
As for Harper as a leader, I honestly don’t have a problem in comparison to what else our country has to offer for leadership. As far as I’m concerned, he is the only one of them all fit to lead at this point (I personally can’t stand Stephane Dion).
The Throne Speech was well-planned by the Conservatives in terms of what it was meant to do. The ratings for the Conservatives are as high as they’ve ever been, and what better thing to do than to deliver a speech that will get every party to vote against it, heading to an election and a majority government? There won’t be an election because Dion knows that his party will lose. The speech was purposefully vague in some areas, and had some comments that were aimed to hit the other parties into a non-confidence vote.
October 18th, 2007 at 1:21 am
If the Liberals don’t vote this down on principle, they are done. At least in my books.
October 18th, 2007 at 4:07 am
AHermann: I’m not saying it’s a bad thing. What I mean is that it’s a lure. Because I get the impression that Canadians think with an American mindframe when it comes to taxes.
October 18th, 2007 at 5:34 am
*sigh*. Silly..silly..silly. In North America, Capitalism trumps Democracy EVERY time. We are Dollars first, Diplomacy second. The Environment will also come a distant second to Economics. A typical throne speech or election campaign will always resonate with something like “WE’RE LOWERING TAXES SO YOU CAN BUY IPODS! (but by the way, we’re not leaving Afghanistan until the 25th century and we’ve spent the money for that new MRI machine on some used British submarines)”. As for protecting the planet and managing global warming, well, there’s simply NO MONEY IN IT! It’s a big, fat expense! Raising expenses won’t win votes or appease multi-national corporations! Like “duh”!
AHerman said it perfectly…..
“I think we need some lessons in economics here. Tax cuts are not necessarily a bad thing even for a country that uses the tax revenue for such things as health care, especially if we’ve been running surpluses for some time now. The whole point is to free up some income for consumers to give incentives to either consume more, or save it so it can be used in the economy for investment in new capital. If you don’t have experience with economics, don’t assume cutting taxes will be necessarily a bad thing. It can swing both ways. Economic growth is important, and cutting taxes (a lot of it is cutitng taxes for businesses), frees up funds to use to increase product.”
This is absolutely correct but about as warm and fuzzy and socially conscious as a prostate exam.
SPEND, SPEND, SPEND! CONSUME! CONSUME! CONSUME! If we all do that properly, (oh and only the wealthy and educated are smart enough and have the resources to do so), that $50.00 Ambulance ride will feel like chump change! Just throw it on your instant debit MasterCard at 18.5%! The ambulance drivers all have wireless handheld transaction devices!
No matter the colour of our government, be it Blue, Red, Orange, Green. Priority #1 is ALWAYS the budget. Say the word “Surplus” and everybody orgasms while immediately forgetting about anything truly important like Global Warming, Darfur, Afghanistan or the torture someone’s Grandfather has to go through to get brain surgery in Scarborough.
I’d cynically rant more, but I have some wealthy clients who are paying me large amounts of money to tax plan for…….as the rich get richer and don’t pay taxes along the way.
October 18th, 2007 at 5:53 am
Colbert 4 Prez in 08!!
October 18th, 2007 at 6:30 am
Might “whatsoever” be an overstatement? Or are you of the opinion themes concerning parliamentary accountability & Senate reform are there to appease a predetermined base?
October 18th, 2007 at 7:04 am
[quote comment="29679"]My comment will be anti-conservative:
Not surprisingly, the throne speech had a very United States of America taste to it. Am I using an old crappy cliché?
1. The death of the Kyoto Protocol:
As we all know, George W. Bush has never signed it and now Harper has decided it was not going to be respected.
IT’S FINE TO SAY THIS, BUT I AM WILLING TO SUPPORT HARPER’S PLAN AS OPPOSED TO… LACK OF A PLAN. LET’S GET OTHER OPTIONS ON THE TABLE AND DISCUSS THEM.
TRUE, HARPER IS THE FIRST PM (TO MY KNOWLEDGE) TO OPENLY- AND CLEARLY - STATE CANADA CANNOT MEET ITS TARGETS. BUT I CERTAINLY DON’T BLAME HIM FOR GETTING TO THIS POINT.
2. Tax cuts:
I’m all for paying less money. But the difference between the US and Canada is that we’ve based our economical system on taxes. In exchange, we get free medical care, cheaper schools, etc. In the US, tax cuts are something very useful because the money you don’t give the government can go on paying medical care and school. Here, it will just lessen the quality of these services.
OUR SOCIAL ECONOMIC SYSTEM, YES. THE KEY TERM IS ‘SOCIAL ECONOMIC’. I AM SUPPORTIVE OF WHAT YOU CALL “FREE” HEALTH CARE, AND THE CHOICE TO PURSUE A HIGH-STANDARD/GOVERNMENT FUNDED EDUCATION; BUT YOU’RE LISTING THE NO BRAINERS.
3. Afghanistan 2011:
At first, we were supposed to leave Afghanistan in 2009. But Harper tries to emulate the “war president” and our soldiers will keep getting killed in Afghanistan for 2 more years. Plus, as Matt said, 2011 will become 2015 and so on…
I AGREE WITH MATT. AND THE GOVERNMENT NEEDS A PLAN TO:
1) GET OUR TROOPS OUT OF KANDAHAR
2) CHANGE THE NATURE OF OUR PRESENCE, QUICKLY.
3) POLITICS ASIDE, DEDICATE OURSELVES TO ENSURING STABILITY AS A RESPONSIBILITY TO THE AFGHAN PEOPLE
I WOULD BE SERIOUSLY SURPRISED IF OUR CURRENT MILITARY COULD SUSTAIN A PROLONGED FORCE, AS IT STANDS, HOWEVER. WHICH, I THINK, IS SUPPORTIVE OF THE ABOVE.
There’s more of course but I can’t cover everything here.
I don’t think the Liberals will vote against it. Simply because Stéphane Dion is stuck in the corner. He is seen as a bad leader, the Liberal Party is seen as a bad party and is still suffering from the sponsorship scandal. Yesterday, a survey showed that the conservative party would have gotten around 34% of the votes if an election had taken place in the first week of October. So they can’t afford an election right now. And what’s better: a minority government with Stephen Harper leading or a majority government with Stephen Harper leading?
STRONGER FEDERAL OPPOSITION LEADERSHIP WOULD BE OF BENEFIT.
Furthermore, the environment is something very important to Canadians and Stéphane Dion. So basically, what our Prime Minister is telling the country is “Just take it and shut up!”[/quote]
October 18th, 2007 at 7:09 am
I think the lower taxes is a very old issue politions have been saying “I will lower taxes” as part of thier campaign promises for longer than I have been around, THIS IS NOT THE PROBLEM.
Matt said it good I really don’t care of my taxes I mean I mean my eyes kinda spring open every 2 weeks as they take basically 50% of my pay but the main thing is doing something positive with it.
basically 2 weeks ago in Ontario we had a provincial election the liberals said they would do away with the health care tax, that made me really really mad, we can’t keep GP’S wait times have gone down for cancer patients but those are the only ones but I have seen the figures it is alittle over 20% of the health care tax goes to health care.
And we are still subsidizing the hydro and gas you use in your home thus making it easier to increase the climate problem, why not use those dollars to subsidize the alternative fuels and engery resources since the rebates you get right now for it are incredibly weak.
If people were paying full price for hydro or natural gas it might help jump start people to use those alternative sources.
I have a friends that are in the LIberal, Conservative, and Green Party and even though I use to be very much to the conservative side of things the green party is really starting to make sense.
And believe me I have no political affiliations it just seems to be the only that has its head on straight
October 18th, 2007 at 7:18 am
[quote comment="29753"]
IT’S FINE TO SAY THIS, BUT I AM WILLING TO SUPPORT HARPER’S PLAN AS OPPOSED TO… LACK OF A PLAN. LET’S GET OTHER OPTIONS ON THE TABLE AND DISCUSS THEM.
TRUE, HARPER IS THE FIRST PM (TO MY KNOWLEDGE) TO OPENLY- AND CLEARLY - STATE CANADA CANNOT MEET ITS TARGETS. BUT I CERTAINLY DON’T BLAME HIM FOR GETTING TO THIS POINT.
[/quote]
How is it that Canada could meet the targets back when it signed the protocol but now couldn’t? I am strongly against putting the economy in front of long term environmental care. What will our children and our children’s children care of our current economy. We have to find a way to meet the Kyoto targets and if that means that some oil companies will have to make less than billions of profits in a year then so be it. How come these companies are the only ones who never have a deficit at the end of the year? No one’s going to make me believe they can’t afford it. Furthermore, if plans were made for optimal public transit, getting rid of plastic bags in every store for them to be replaced with either paper bags which can be recycled and are not made of petrol or reusable fabric bags, if something was made to help electric car development, etc…we could meet the the Kyoto targets which, let me remind you, were a bare minimum.
[quote comment="29753"]
OUR SOCIAL ECONOMIC SYSTEM, YES. THE KEY TERM IS ‘SOCIAL ECONOMIC’. I AM SUPPORTIVE OF WHAT YOU CALL “FREE” HEALTH CARE, AND THE CHOICE TO PURSUE A HIGH-STANDARD/GOVERNMENT FUNDED EDUCATION; BUT YOU’RE LISTING THE NO BRAINERS.
[/quote]
So what if I’m listing the no brainers. Education and Health are the two pillars of society…or at least they should be. Because an educated and healthy society can only lead to a efficient and wealthy society.
[quote comment="29753"]
STRONGER FEDERAL OPPOSITION LEADERSHIP WOULD BE OF BENEFIT.
[/quote]
We both agree on that. Which is why I’m happy that Stéphane Dion decided to not vote against it even if he won’t vote for it. That way, the government doesn’t fall, we keep all those million dollars an election costs in our pockets so they’re not used only to result in the exact same government situation we currently have to to get Harper elected as a majority.
October 18th, 2007 at 7:51 am
I like your style, but there are some fundamentals we probably won’t agree on - which undoubtedly leads to some good discussion. Maybe we should look into being on a panel : )
As for your question, “How is it that Canada could meet the targets back when it signed the protocol but now couldn’t?”
You should look into reading Jeffrey Simpson’s new book “Hot Air”. I am in the middle of it, very interesting read.
October 18th, 2007 at 8:03 am
colbert for president? how about rick mercer for prime minister!
October 18th, 2007 at 8:15 am
[quote comment="29756"]I like your style, but there are some fundamentals we probably won’t agree on - which undoubtedly leads to some good discussion. Maybe we should look into being on a panel : )
As for your question, “How is it that Canada could meet the targets back when it signed the protocol but now couldn’t?”
You should look into reading Jeffrey Simpson’s new book “Hot Air”. I am in the middle of it, very interesting read.[/quote]
A panel would be interesting indeed! :)
October 18th, 2007 at 8:32 am
[quote comment="29727"]I see by the comments on this topic, the governing “conservative” party has succeeded in taking the focus off what they’re doing and having the general public focus on what the Liberal Party supposedly isn’t doing.
At this point in time, Stephane Dion is damned if he does, damned if he doesn’t.
The fact is, Canadians don’t want an election right now. Stephen Harper’s hands are tied in calling one since they’re the ruling party that created the fixed election date law. Stephen Harper wants an election right now. He wants to get a majority government so he can push through laws that suit his own ideology rather than the current checks he has to under a minority government. Being that he’s already reversed his stance on many of his so-called plans, he can’t call an election that flies in the face of something he “championed”.
His action? Try to force the opposition into voting against it so he can get his way.
Stephane Dion cowardly? I think not. Here is a man that doesn’t get the face time on the national front given he’s leader of the opposition. The only time you hear something from the mainstream media is when something happens amongst the Liberals that has a negative slant. Stephane Dion has received a lot of negative media coverage that has nothing to do with his character and his passion for this country. He’s a man that was blasted in the Quebec media on personal levels that none of us has ever had to endure. And not once has he lowered himself to the level to which he’s been attacked and fought back.
He’s a man with a vision. He’s a man of integrity. Maybe if the average Canadian did some research on Mr. Dion before believing everything they’ve heard of him through the msm, they’d realize that for themselves. I’m surprised that members that read this site, who are normally educated on such matters, haven’t done that yet.
First ask yourself if you want an election. Personally I do. I think once we’re in election mode the media will have to at least appear unbias. They’ll have to at least try to report facts instead of personal opinion. I find that the media in this country in general has been so bullied by this government and been denied access and they’ve submitted to it instead of fighting it.
An election at this point will just return what we have now. Another minority government. So why spend those millions of dollars to get what we have now. Instead the governing party must work TOGETHER to give Canadians what they want. Instead we’re always seeing posturing by the government. “Do this or we go to the polls” “13 years of Liberal inaction has lead to this.” Last I checked 13 years of Liberal action brought us a stable economy. Sure there were problems. There always are. But what has this government done for us in the past 2 years? They’ve spit on Kyoto, they’ve ripped up the Kelowna Accord, they ripped up and taped back together portions of the Atlantic Accord, they voted against the UN Declaration on Indigenious Rights, they cancelled the National Child Care Agreements, etc.
Those that live in conservative MP ridings, stop focusing on the leader of the opposition and focus on your MP. TELL them that you want them to work in parliament. TELL them your vision of this country. Stop the constant campaigning on taxpayers’ dollars. Heck, even if you live in a non-conservative riding, let your MP know how you feel. This country is, last I checked, a democracy. Exercise your rights as a citizen.
Email your Prime Minister and tell him what you want. Not that he cares. He’s too busy laughing that he’s got everyone focused on others instead of what he’s doing to this country.[/quote]
This reply makes me want to stand up and applaud.
I did a decent amount of research on Stephane Dion back when he was running for leadership of the Liberal Party, and his credentials and education speak for themselves. He looks far more harmless than he is, considering his past history of intellectually dismantling his foes. Nonetheless, he took over a party that needed deserpate restructuring, and he’s barely been given the opportunity necessary in order to get the ball rolling. He has been seen as an impending failure from day one.
October 18th, 2007 at 9:55 am
[quote]I see by the comments on this topic, the governing “conservative” party has succeeded in taking the focus off what they’re doing and having the general public focus on what the Liberal Party supposedly isn’t doing.[/quote]
It makes me grin when the conventional partisan reaction to the Conservative government was that they were TOO conservative… but are you suggesting the Harper government is now “conservative”?
I am of the philosophy there are four distinct genres of conservatives making up the present base of the Party; social conservatives, libertarian conservatives, statists and red tories (Liberals).
Harper shows all the traits of a libertarian conservative with his emphasis on economic freedom and tax cuts. I guess we should have seen this coming, he has a background in conservative economics.
[quote]At this point in time, Stephane Dion is damned if he does, damned if he doesn’t.[/quote]
He brought this on himself. While his record on Kyoto is deplorable, and he was a member of the government that invaded Afghanistan in the first place, he has abandoned all principle in favor of a politics as usual approach. Stephane Dion could give, to use an American example, the Gettysburg Address and no one would listen to him.
[quote]
The fact is, Canadians don’t want an election right now. Stephen Harper’s hands are tied in calling one since they’re the ruling party that created the fixed election date law. Stephen Harper wants an election right now. He wants to get a majority government so he can push through laws that suit his own ideology rather than the current checks he has to under a minority government. Being that he’s already reversed his stance on many of his so-called plans, he can’t call an election that flies in the face of something he “championed”.[/quote]
Not sure I follow the last part. The first part is correct, though. He wants an election because he thinks he has enough support from the Canadian people to win a majority.
[quote] His action? Try to force the opposition into voting against it so he can get his way. [/quote]
The opposition is completely welcome to represent their agenda by taking a principled stand by way of tabling measurable plans and goals. If you disagree with the mandate of the Throne Speech - use the system to trigger an election and show your principles carry more weight to Canadians. That’s democracy, for you.
[quote] Stephane Dion cowardly? I think not. Here is a man that doesn’t get the face time on the national front given he’s leader of the opposition. The only time you hear something from the mainstream media is when something happens amongst the Liberals that has a negative slant. Stephane Dion has received a lot of negative media coverage that has nothing to do with his character and his passion for this country. He’s a man that was blasted in the Quebec media on personal levels that none of us has ever had to endure. And not once has he lowered himself to the level to which he’s been attacked and fought back. [/quote]
Clarity Act (with respect to Quebec comment). Neglecting to act on Jamie Carroll. Lack of Kyoto credibility. Losing a bi-election in a stronghold… With the exception with ARGUABLY the latter, you can’t blame the media.
[quote] He’s a man with a vision. [/quote]
But no credibility. Ask his Party.
[quote] He’s a man of integrity. Maybe if the average Canadian did some research on Mr. Dion before believing everything they’ve heard of him through the msm, they’d realize that for themselves. I’m surprised that members that read this site, who are normally educated on such matters, haven’t done that yet.[/quote]
I am not going to pretend to know what the MSM is.
[quote] First ask yourself if you want an election. Personally, I do. I think once we’re in election mode the media will have to at least appear unbias. They’ll have to at least try to report facts instead of personal opinion. I find that the media in this country in general has been so bullied by this government and been denied access and they’ve submitted to it instead of fighting it. [/quote]
To reiterate, Dion has been the author of his own undoing - so far. Maybe he’ll turn things around. I think he’s a nice guy, but so is Joe Clark. I think, for starters, as leader he has to DEFINE his Party, other than being well-branded and anti-Conservative. Ignatieff has done the best job of this so far with his “Building Citizenship” speeches across the country a la Paul Martin.
[quote]An election at this point will just return what we have now. Another minority government. So why spend those millions of dollars to get what we have now. Instead the governing party must work TOGETHER to give Canadians what they want. [/quote]
The problem is the Liberals still think they’re governing. I.E. the Senate.
[quote]Instead we’re always seeing posturing by the government.[/quote]
We? As in the Liberals?
[quote]“Do this or we go to the polls” “13 years of Liberal inaction has lead to this.” Last I checked 13 years of Liberal action brought us a stable economy. [/quote]
The balancing of the budget was a major accomplishment. It was also in Chretien’s first term. And hey, I would have much rathered him than Stockwell Day but that doesn’t excuse inaction - or worse - abusing the public trust by way of several highly noted scandals (e.g. Krever, AdScam, etc…).
By mentioning the economy, you undermine an otherwise principled - albeit thinly veiled - attack on the Conservative Party for pursuing strategies to make it stronger.
Do you want to live in an economy or a society? Personally, I like a balance. But your argument isn’t linear.
[quote] Sure there were problems. There always are. [/quote]
You said it.
[quote] But what has this government done for us in the past 2 years? They’ve spit on Kyoto, they’ve ripped up the Kelowna Accord, they ripped up and taped back together portions of the Atlantic Accord, they voted against the UN Declaration on Indigenious Rights, they cancelled the National Child Care Agreements, etc.[/quote]
There is no balance to your argument. You can’t knock journalists if you’re going to contextualize within your own bias yourself. Particularly, as an Atlantic Canadian, I believe the breakdown on the Atlantic Accords issue was nothing more than unsubstantiated assumption as the result of poor provincial leadership on the issue. That is, MacDonald went on the record saying a bunch of things… Harper responded in saying, if they were true, MacDonald should sue him… MacDonald put himself in a corner where he couldn’t… Then after the dust settled a functional conversation happened which resolved the issue for both sides.
And you don’t mention Income Trusts - which would have been solid.
[quote]Those that live in conservative MP ridings, stop focusing on the leader of the opposition and focus on your MP. TELL them that you want them to work in parliament. TELL them your vision of this country. Stop the constant campaigning on taxpayers’ dollars. Heck, even if you live in a non-conservative riding, let your MP know how you feel. This country is, last I checked, a democracy. Exercise your rights as a citizen.[/quote]
Well said.
[quote] Email your Prime Minister and tell him what you want. Not that he cares. He’s too busy laughing that he’s got everyone focused on others instead of what he’s doing to this country.[/quote]
Assume he cares.
October 18th, 2007 at 2:25 pm
Chris, why are you carrying off my quotes as yours? It looks like you’re arguing with yourself.
I don’t have to assume he cares. I know he doesn’t. If he did, he wouldn’t be electioneering for the past 12 months.
October 18th, 2007 at 11:28 pm
Harper is doing a lot more than just electioneering, he’s changing the structure of our government. He’s concentrated most of the power in the PMO and has limited press access to government ministers to the point where it’s almost impossible to know what really going on in our halls of power.
Harper has even considered plans to replace the National Press Gallery with a government controlled press center meaning even less access to real information on what Canadas New Government is up to.
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20071015/harper_media_071015/20071015?hub=Canada
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/story/2007/10/15/media-pm.html
He’s only made one appearance at the National Press Theatre, coincidentally on the same day Jean Chretein was once again prominent in the press due to health concerns.
October 19th, 2007 at 7:49 am
My editing time elapsed before I could figure out how to structure my arguments properly - which I am sure is pretty easy to figure out. I’ll figure out this interweb thing, in lieu of natural conversation, eventually… sigh… : )
If I were to elaborate on my last point, I prefer to assume a less cynical - and more invested - approach of using the democratic system to either get my point across or replace him. I think that’s every Canadian’s responsibility, but given civic engagement is on the decline it’s not a conventional one… which, in effect, degenerates the effectiveness of our democracy.
The fact is, all of the parties are campaigning a whole lot more these days (agreed). They’ve effectively become campaigning mechanisms - which is dangerous. It’s current Republican, American dangerous.
But Stephen Harper is not the guy who thinks he needs to be on television all the time (that’s Doug Finley’s job), and I think he’s proven that with his Trudeau-esque treatment of the press. I would say Jack Layton is the model for a “campaign all-the-time” strategy. Or to a lesser degree than the NDP, Stephane Dion. I think the Layton-model, if I can call it that, comes from a lack of palatable ideas within the Party.
I hope when Harper is not vying for press, which is usually, he’s actually performing his duties as our Prime Minister. I am not saying you have to agree with him, there are fundamentals to which we’re never going to agree, but it’s my hope (and belief) there’s more of a recognition within the movements that aren’t Liberal that democracy (rule by the people… not just the Party) carries importance - and there is less of a culture of entitlement, appointment and backroom Eddie Goldenberg/Jean Pelletier authoritarianism behind the scenes.
October 19th, 2007 at 10:12 pm
bc_boy is terrifyingly correct. I know individuals who have and/or do work in various aspects of the government and in each there has been a serious effort, unlike anything seen before, to stick loyalists into positions of power. In some instances, he’s loosening or even cutting ties; in others, he’s creating them where they did not previously exist. Even movies we export now say “The NEW Government of Canada” under the Film Board logo. And the restructuring never seems to make the news.
October 20th, 2007 at 3:52 pm
The conservatives are attacking some of the basic foundations of democracy in this country with little or no attention from mainstream media.
As I’ve posted already the conservative MP from my riding has been interfering with the ability of NDP MP Nathan Cullen to represent his constituents in the neighbouring Skeena-Bulkly Valley riding. It angers me that my MP is using his position of trust to further his and his parties intersets at the expense of our political freedoms. I wonder how many other opposition ridings are experiencing this kind of political attack.
http://www2.parl.gc.ca/HousePublications/Publication.aspx?Language=E&Mode=1&Parl=39&Ses=2&DocId=3079312#OOB-2175988
This is Nathan Cullen speaking from the Hansard record.
[quote]On August 21, the member for Cariboo—Prince George issued a press release which stated:
[The] MP for Cariboo–Prince George has named Houston Mayor and Conservative candidate Sharon Smith as the person that residents of Skeena–Bulkley Valley can contact when they have concerns or issues with the federal government…I and other BC Conservative MPs will work closely with Sharon Smith as she represents constituents of her riding to the government members. It will be a bonus for people of Skeena–Bulkley Valley to have direct representation to the government on so many issues.
This is a direct quote from the press release, Mr. Speaker.
The member then went on to give a number of interviews to the press, the transcripts of which I have previously forwarded to you. I believe that when you review the original press releases as well as those transcripts, that you will find that the member for Cariboo—Prince George was intentionally informing the media, and through them my constituents, that someone else was the de facto member of Parliament for Skeena–Bulkley Valley.
It is my contention that this is an obstruction of my ability to do the job that my constituents elected me to do in the last election.
Mr. Speaker, I draw your attention to page 87 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice by Marleau and Montpetit which quotes Speaker Bosley, from May 6, 1985, saying:
“It should go without saying that a Member of Parliament needs to perform his functions effectively and that anything tending to cause confusion as to a Member’s identity creates the possibility of an impediment to the fulfilment of that Member’s functions. Any action which impedes or tends to impede a Member in the discharge of his duties is a breach of privilege. There are ample citations and precedents to bear this out”.[/quote]
Clearly what my MP is doing is interfering with the ability of an opposition MPs ability to perform his functions and is a breach of privilege.
October 20th, 2007 at 4:07 pm
Reading further down, it appears that the Harper government no longer responds to opposition members requesting ministerial assistance on behalf of their constituents. This is taking partisan politics to an extreme not seen in this country for many years.
[quote]Mr. Paul Szabo (Mississauga South, Lib.):
Mr. Speaker, just this past week I had a case in my constituency office requiring the urgent intervention by a minister to get a family member to come over to attend to a terminally ill child.
We wrote to the minister but we did not get a response within a reasonable period of time. We made the necessary inquiry. We were told directly that the department no longer responds to opposition members’ requests for assistance and ministerial intervention.
If in fact the situation here is that there is another designate that will get the attention of the minister, who is not an elected person, what do we do in a riding like mine where there is no nominated candidate for the government party?
My privileges as a member of Parliament to get the services from ministerial staff on matters of urgency and compassion have been impinged upon because I have been told that they will no longer even consider our requests for a ministerial permit. This is standard practice. It is the right thing for us to do as parliamentarians. This is not a partisan issue but the government has made it a partisan issue. It has taken away the privileges, the rights, the responsibilities and the tools to discharge those responsibilities of members of Parliament by taking this political stance. Those are the examples.
Mr. Speaker, I would be prepared to table with you or in the House the full details of this case and the names and contacts of all the people who have indicated that information and I will testify in front of the procedure and House affairs committee if necessary to the veracity of the information being tabled.[/quote]
Tell me if this has anything to do with better goverment or a single party bent on aquiring as much power as possible?