BELOW(30)(30)(30)(30)(30)30)(30)(30)(30)(30)(30)30)(30)(30)(30)(30)(30)30)(30)(30)(30)(30)(30)(30)(30)(30)30)(30)(30)(30)(30)
«¤»¥«¤»«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»¥«¤»§«¤»
From: "Brian Graff" Subject: RE: C/C/NET EXTRA: Responses to 4:00 P.M.
Hi Joe:
I liked Anne's comments enough to send them to someone I know, in the hope that they will seer the light, just a little.
A Harper Majority is still a possibility - because the Green vote has grown, but not enough to elect more than one or 2 MPs at absolute best, if you remove that 10% of the vote the Greens will get, then Harper's 35% of the vote is more like 39% pre-Green party era vote .
A Harper Majority will mean no election for 4 years, and it will mean that there are no constraints on Harper, save for an outright caucus revolt.
No poll shows the Liberals close enough to form a minority.
So I would like to encourage everyone to vote strategically to keep Harper to a minority - which means voting Liberal or NDP, depending on which party is stronger in your riding.
Brian
===================================
From: "John Nesling"
Subject: Re: C/C/NET EXTRA: Response anyone?
Hi Joe,
Anne Dickinson's article was excellent. My own two pennyworth is somewhat as follows: Stephane Dion is almost certainly honest - putting the well-being of the nation first. He has an important message which is absolutely appropriate for our time, even despite the stock market collapse, but he has failed to properly deliver this message. He finally got some fire in his belly, but it all seems rather late.
Jack Layton puts Jack and the NDP first and Canada second. Remember, Jack effectively put the Conservatives in power in the 2006 election - a campaign which he spent beating up on Paul Martin's Liberals. Paul Martin should have been given another chance. So Jack put the Conservatives in power and got the NDP another couple of seats.
Elizabeth May is a decent, honest politician, who puts the Nation ahead of all else. She is knowledgable and articulate. Her opponent in Nova Scotia is Peter MacKay. Peter Mackay is a political creep - he puts Peter first, the party second, and the nation last. He betrayed David Orchard and sold out the Progressive Conservative Party to Stephen Harper's Neo-Cons.
David Orchard is honest and incorruptible - he scares everyone. He is a crusader who puts the nation above all else. His book, "The Fight for Canada", explains everything.
Finally we come to Stephen Harper. He puts America first, Stephen second, the party third and Canada last. Is that actually true, or have I done him an enormous disservice? Perhaps he sees American and Canadian interests as synonymous and Canada as the junior partner? He should never be trusted with a majority.
Unfortunately at this late date, it would seem the best we can hope for is for Stephane Dion to hold Harper's Conservatives to a minority, and hope that Dion will really get his act together. As a bonus, it would be a wonderful thing if Elizabeth May could beat Peter Mackay in Nova Scotia or even for one Green to be elected. Finally, if David Orchard could win his northern Saskatchewan seat, it would almost begin to seem as though there is sometimes some sort of vindication for simple decency and integrity.
Thanks and best wishes. John Nesling
===================================
From: "Anne Dickinson"
Subject: Re: C/C/NET EXTRA: Responses to 4:00 P.M.
Hi Joe-
I would like to assure Mr.Booiman that voting for the Liberals or for anyone else to ensure the control of Central Canada would be pretty well the last thing this bluenoser would ever do. I must say the remark about racism is baffling.
As for voting Conservative, I was a supporter of the Progressive Conservative Party, and they had my vote for years. I reserved judgement regarding the new Conservative Party which seemed to be too right wing for my taste, They have done nothing to change that assessment, nevertheless, though I have voted for other parties, I have not been able to bring myself to vote Liberal until now. And as I mentioned this may be the very well be the first and last time.
Ron Gladstone, thank you for wishing me a Happy Thanksgiving,the same to you.
H Col Finestone. Idiocy?Spewing? There's a place for you in the Conservative War Room.
I certainly understand those who, like Phyllis Wagg, agree with me to some extent, but are voting for another party. I gave my reasons for
voting Liberal this time only, but I am not suggesting that everyone should agree with me.
I very much appreciate the comments of those who do agree with me..We will have to keep our fingers crossed that enough people are on side that Harper and his merry band can be held in check.
Efstratios, I find a lot of your responses interesting but there are just so many of them!
Cheers and Happy Thanksgiving all,
Anne Dickinson
===================================
From: Peter Williams
Subject: Re: C/C/NET EXTRA: Response anyone?
Joe,
I am not sure who this person is, but if she purports to be a member of the Conservative Party, she is totally misguided' about how she is going to vote tomorrow if she intends to vote for Dion and the Liberals.
Those of us who believe in the principles and policies of this great Party are not in a "Quandry" about what to do tomorrow.
If Dion loses the election - and he will - it is not our concern whether or not he loses his job and is eventually replaced by 'Buffalo' Bob Rae. He would not be a formidable opponent as everyone in Ontario will remember how he practically destroyed the province in the early 90's.
No, I think Ms Dickinson should turn in her PC card and join the Liberal Party where she will probably be more at home.
Peter Williams
===================================
Subject: Re: C/C/NET EXTRA: Responses to 4:00 P.M.
From: Brian Hargadon, Quebec Refugee
Subject: Response
Two years ago I went over to France and Belgium to visit graves of neighbours that were killed in WW. II I lived through the war in Westmount Que. (the Rhodesia of Canada) and read daily of the casualties, about 85-90% English. This year, Back to Vimy, Dieppe and Juno-Normandy to visit more memorials of both World Wars, again, 85-90% casualties of English descent. Then it hit me. At least 80% of the children or grand-children of the veterans of these wars, living or dead,could forget about getting a Federal Government or government related job because of language requirements. Dying for your country never required bilingualism and it is the same today in Afghanistan.
Have we not spent enough time having a Quebec born leader control our destiny through the Liberal party?
Let's face it ,Dion is toast, the vultures are circling overhead and we sure don't need Buffalo Bob leading our country unless it's into bankruptcy. Choose wisely!
===================================
Subject: RE: C/C/NET EXTRA: Responses to 4:00 P.M.
From: "New Ostrog Monastery"
MY COMMENT
Joe,
I have been a Progressive Conservative since "Dief was Chief." I have heard enough about the Mulroney Legacy and about Harper's strong leadership. The fact is that deregulation and privatization are at the root of the present economic catastrophe, and deregulation and privatization are Neo-conservative policies. Mulroney and Harper are as much a part of that disastrous ideological movement as Thatcher, Reagan and the Bushes have been. It is true that Dion's "Greenshift" will pinch, but to accept the Neo-con idea that we can conduct business nearly as usual and still survive is unmitigated madness. We cannot allow ourselves to be led into an irreversible ecological disaster by people whose blind ideology denies the expanse and immediacy of climate change. Farmers in Western Canada will reap scant benefit from slightly lower fuel prices when drought one summer and violent storms the next repeatedly wipe our the crops, when the levels of the prairie rivers are so low that they cannot provide the water that towns, or even Calgary, need in order to survive. Yes, I am voting Liberal this time, even though it galls me to do so. The manipulative and devious Mr. Harper is not the man to handle today's problems. He is a blind ideologue who can see only the oil companies and not the realities of what is facing the Canadian people. The only real act of leadership that I can laud him for was his success in staring down the fanatical religious fringe in is party. But even that was done from narcissism, not from real conviction.
Archbishop Lazar Puhalo.
===================================
From: Wendy Watkins
Subject: Re: C/C/NET EXTRA: Response anyone?
Joe, You know I have been reading you for as long as I've known about your messages. I have a sister who was a PC and now will be voting Liberal for the same reasons Anne suggests. Harper simply cannot be trusted. For all his shortcomings, Dion can.
I will be voting NDP ; the Liberal has no chance and the Conservative, a very good man, is running third. Green is a poor fourth as David has decided not to run here.
So I'll support the NDP. When the riding looked to be in doubt, I was going to vote Liberal. Have done that in several past elections as a strategic vote.
Were I in your place, I would certainly vote Liberal.
Thanks to you for passing on an extremely thoughtful message and thanks to Joe for forwarding it.
Best tomorrow!
Wendy
===================================
From: "Kenneth Umpherville"
Subject: Re: C/C/NET EXTRA: Response anyone?
Hi Anne
Good thoughts, I to will be voting liberal for the first time, but they should'nt rely on me next time arournd.
Time will tell. I say best choice this time, but then, anything is better than what we now have.
Kenneth Umpherville
===================================
From: "John Halonen"
Subject: Re: C/C/NET EXTRA: Response anyone?
Like most I would consider that "Harper is by far the most dangerous choice".
Lack of informing the Canadian Public is by far the most important reasoning in not voting Conservative. This seems to be a following of the BUSH doctrine but there it is actually to late for their own citizens.
It really is a flip of a coin between the other two, but am leaning NDP as they have indicated as a Party they will discontinue talks regarding the SPP and that is my most important concern.
John Halonen
===================================
From: "Jennifer Pollock" <jennifer.pollock@shaw.ca>
Subject: RE: C/C/NET EXTRA: Responses to 4:00 P.M.
Hi Joe,
I come down on the side of Stéphane Dion.
His leadership has already moved our country toward a more environmentally sound future.
Dion's support for the Green Party and Elizabeth May's leadership has enriched our politics.
He supported May and maintained his focus on advocating for a sustainable future in spite of the intimidation and lies spread by those who were self serving.
As far as appearance goes, Dion will be an improvement on Harper.
As far as behavior goes he is much more respectful and dignified than Harper.
As far as a democrat goes Harper cannot make ANY claim to listening to the people.
Dion is a very different sort of Liberal leader.
Dion believes that he will have to earn respect and he is doing his best to earn it.
Dion is principled and honest. He will not abuse the power of his position.
I too am concerned that some Liberals will want to replace Dion with a power oriented leader.
Vote Dion. Vote ABC.
I really don't understand those that use scare tactics when economists and scientists agree with Dion.
I don't understand those that defend a Prime Minister that has mistreated individuals and the public.
De-regulation has caused the death of 20 people, no apology or accountability. This is INSENSITIVE.
Offering financial assistance to an MP who is NOT in your party in return for a vote is ILLEGAL.
Repeating lies and distorting the platform of the Liberals is DISHONEST.
Promising not to tax income trusts to get votes and then breaking the promise and blaming the investors and lying about the tax effect is UNTRUSTWORTHY behaviour.
Avoiding the public during the election, keeping the candidates away from debates and controlling the media as much as possible is ANTIDEMOCRATIC.
I live in Alberta.
I do not trust Mr Harper.
He does not embody or attempt to represent Canadian values, or Alberta values, for that matter.
Please do not support this man or his candidates.
Jennifer Pollock
Calgary
===================================
From: "John Gibbons"
Subject: Ref CC Net Extra
I trust Mr. Harper further than I could throw the CN Tower (not at all). He
has proven time and again that he can't be trusted, starting with alienating
NL, NS and Sask by putting 50% of non-renewable natural resources after out
and out saying that he wouldn't put these in the equalization.
He then taxed Income Trusts after promising that he wouldn't at a cost of
Billions to people who had retired, forcing many to go back to work after
having retired. This was supposed to get taxes into the federal coffers but
according to many economists, the opposite happened, it actually cost the
federal government tax money. In fact in the Globe and Mail of 23 Sep, I
believe it was, he was quoted as saying that the Liberals would not be able
to keep their promise to change the Income Trusts back to the way they were
and that he knew when campaigning in the last election that he would have to
tax them.
Here also is a man who promised an open and accessible government. Nobody
is allowed to talk to the press unless it is approved by the PMO. He tried
to bully the press into doing what he wanted and then took his ball like a
child and went off in a huff.
Less than 18 months ago, he put in place a bill setting fixed date
elections, the first for Oct 2009. He also put in a clause that allowed him
to "advise" the GG and she listened to him rather than asking Mr. Dion to
see if he could form a government. He probably could have made a coalition
with Stevie Boy as he helped him 43 or 44 times to stay in power. And on
and on the lies go.
John Gibbons
Cape Broyle, NL
===================================
From: "Nancy Clarke"
Subject: Re: C/C/NET EXTRA: Responses to 4:00 P.M.
For those whose opinion is to stay the course with Harper, have you thought of where that course is leading us to in the face of climate change, the world wide economic melt down and the emerging economic power houses of China and India. Have you thought of what it might look like in 20 or 30 years, if Canada continues on Harper's course? Do very little is not what Canada needs.
What is needed is vision which Harper has little of. He once remarked in the last election, Canadians won't recognize Canada. Well, he is right and that depends on what part of Canada that you hail from. The jobless in the forestry and fishery industries would have a different viewpoint than the commuter caught in rush hour worrying about losing his job; as would the stay-at-home mom who is searching for help for her kid who is starting to slide into high-risk activities. Have you thought of Harper being understanding that people have problems and from time to time people need help from the government?
Lets just hope his children will grow up into productive adults, because it is a sure sign of successful parents, raising children who do not turn to crime, get involve with drugs and all the other dangers that are out there. Parents can't be successful without support, nor can a government and that is any government without the support of its people. This is where Harper fails. He fails to listen to the majority. He would rather call them names, belittle them when he fails to win them over or as his followers would likely do when someone who opposes their sides - IDIOTS.
Check out the conservative blogs where you only need one post that is not favourable for Harper and the far ultra right - for them to pounce on and is never done in a civil matter. Lets talk about the increase in old-aged pensions. It is not enough to buy a cup of coffee. Lets talk about the 300 % increase in the ferry run from North Sydney to Port aux Basques, NL since Harper came into power. A family of four now cost 600.00 returned. Lets talk about the recent decision of allowing the Americans to fished 100,000 tons of yellow-tailed flounder within the 200 mile limit of the Grand Banks fishing grounds in exchanged for increase trade. Once again NL fish is being used for trade and it puts more people out of work in the fishery. Lets talk about our natural resources being shipped out raw, and is returned to us in the form of products which has increase under Harper's watch.
By all means vote for Harper if you want to work on the behalf of other countries, eating food that has been processed in far-off countries whose standards are far below Canadian standards and have been partial to put non-food chemicals to improve the protein count, texture and maybe even the taste, and lastly, sub-standard products that do not come from the North American sector - that may or may not cause our deaths but it will certainly in the near future raise our insurance bills. Example being sub-standard tires hailing from China. I was a victim of them twice. The first time I blamed the roads, the second time I vowed only to buy tires made in North America. Yes, even the insurance upon renewal had a question on what kind of tires that I had on the car. Thankfully, I did not see an increase in the bill. What will happen, if North America stops producing automobile tires? Will the insurance industry rake in another billion for additional fees? Most certainly they would.
This is why we need a leader with vision who is willing to listen. A leader who looks at the big picture. We had a taste of Harper, and that taste is a very bitter pill to swallow especially when one is considered a small C and a small L. Harper's party there is no room for the moderates. Harper's party work for the business elite, and there is not enough room for compassion, caring unless you have the money to purchase it.
===================================
From: "Mark Garstin" <mgarstin@eol.ca>
Subject: RE: C/C/NET EXTRA: Responses to 4:00 P.M.
Hi there Joe, long time no submissions from me.
Yes, it has been over a year since I last submitted to the Digest and a lot has changed since then. First off, I'm no longer just across the lake from you in Mississauga – Brampton South; I'm now out west in a small quiet town in the BC mountains called Anmore (a rather fantastic offer from a company in Burnaby has drawn me and my wife out here).
But now to comment somewhat in response to Anne Dickenson's submission to the Digest and her impressions/fears about Stephen Harper and the Conservatives. True enough, Stephen Harper's style, approach, policies and philosophies may not be in-line with other peoples' thoughts and opinions and there is nothing at all wrong with that, that is what democracy is all about. What concerns me in Ms. Dickenson's submission (and what I hear in the opinions of a lot of other people) is more fear and emotion rather than rational reasoned thought. There are a number of holes, misconceptions and outright misunderstandings in Ms. Dickenson's concerns (many of which have already been addressed by other responders to her submission) but those fears have been promulgated and fostered by the opposition in an attempt to discredit the Conservatives and, in particular, Mr. Harper. The tactics have been classical Machiavellian politics which I find patently un-Canadian and degrading to the Canadian political process (OK, I admit that the Conservatives have not been above the same type of tactics but the opposition, all of them, have been especially denigrating in this respect which renders their righteous indignation over Mr. Harper's comment about Mr. Dion's stumble in an interview especially hypocritical).
What bothers me is the fear tactics that the opposition (especially the Liberals) use against the Conservatives. They stir up fear in people so as to provoke them into making irrational decisions about who to vote for based on emotion, not on rational, balanced and well informed judgment. These are the sorts of tactics that I see coming out of the US Presidential race, in particular out of the Republican party. This past week saw an appalling display of fear mongering by McCain and Palin that verged on incitement of hatred in the listening crowd towards Obama. The similarities I see between these sorts of charades and the tactics of the opposition up here in Canada are not all that far removed. And, unfortunately, I see people like Ms. Dickenson getting drawn into these sorts of deceptions, being made to fear some imaginary bogy man and then being influenced to cast their vote in an irrational fashion (I find it quite ironic that the Liberals and the NDP take every occasion to tie Harper to Bush and accuse him of espousing Bush's policies yet it is the Liberals and the NDP who act the most like Republican politicians in their fear mongering tactics and character assassinations… me thinks they doth protest too much).
But at the end of the day I can only shrug my shoulders because, after all, democracy allows us all to vote in any way we see fit, whether it is rational or irrational.
Hmm, but there is something that I can do and I'm doing it right now, and that is submitting my thoughts to the DD. So, here's some thoughts I would like to throw out there for some to consider.
The opposition has assailed the Conservatives for doing nothing about the economy and allowing the country to go into recession. Yes, all of the opposition parties have proclaimed at one time or another that Canada IS in a recession. A recession is defined as follows (unashamedly copied from Wikipedia):
The U.S. based National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) defines a recession more broadly as "a significant decline in economic activity spread across the economy, lasting more than a few months, normally visible in real GDP, real income, employment, industrial production, and wholesale-retail sales."
A more general definition of a recession is negative growth in GDP for two or more consecutive quarters. According to Statistics Canada the growth in GDP for Q2 of this year was 5.2% ( http://www40.statcan.ca/l01/cst01/indi01b.htm). Q3 hasn't yet been calculated but even if it is in negative territory it is only one quarter. But in the meantime what sort of anecdotal evidence do we have of economic problems in Canada?
· Well, have any banks or financial institutions gone bankrupt in Canada?
· Have any even thrown up any red flags about being in distress?
· Has there been any call on the government to bail-out or even assist any financial institution in Canada?
· Has there been any mass foreclosures in Canada?
· Has the foreclosure and/or the personal bankruptcy rates in Canada gone up any in the past 3 months?
· Has the unemployment rate in Canada gone up?
· Has the government gone into deficit?
· Has inflation gone up?
Can anyone provide any hard factual information that would provide a yes answer to any of those questions? If so then I would really appreciate seeing it because, so far, I have not seen any real evidence that Canada is on as hard of times as what the opposition states as facts (obviously I'm implying there that the opposition is lying to the electorate through its teeth about the economy in order to stir up fears and to scare people away from the Conservatives). Not to say that the economy hasn't gone soft in Canada, we are not an economic island in this work after all but we are in the best financial situation of any country in the world (can anyone argue to the contrary on that statement of fact). In trying to argue that Canada is in a recession and that Harper is to blame for it, one is going to have to explain how Canada created 107,000 new jobs in the month of September if we are supposedly going into (or are already in) a recession.
Hey, all those people who just a week ago decried Stephen Harper as being totally out of touch with the economy when he said, "Now's a good time to buy into the stock market", are they now kicking themselves for not buying into the stock market before it did its record one day increase today of over 900 points? Who is really out of touch with the economy?
BTW, I am not a 'Harperite' (name calling only discredits the person doing the name calling), I don't agree with everything that he does (the GST discount I feel was the wrong move, I feel that Insite in Vancouver should be kept open and funded by the federal government… and a few other minor things) but I strongly disagree with the policies and leadership of the other parties so, perhaps, I support the Conservatives as the lesser of all evils.
There, I've said my bit. Perhaps some of you may wish for me to stay quiet for another year and a half again (I have plenty to say about the carbon tax and the hypocrisy behind it but this submission is already way too long).
To Anne personally, please don't take offence to what I have said; at the end of the day the important thing is that you vote and after you have voted that you go to bed feeling that the decision that you have made is your own decision for your own reasons and not the coercion of me, of anyone on the DD, of any political party or of anyone else at all. I only hope that you are as informed in your vote as possible. If you can do that, if we can all do that then democracy has been served.
Cheers,
Mark Garstin
Anmore, BC
"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent."
--Isaac Asimov
===================================Date: Mon, 13 Oct 2008 19:21:07 -0700
From: John Murray
Subject: Re: C/C/NET EXTRA: Response anyone?
Sorry Joe, I couldn't disagree with Anne more.
She has a number of her facts quite wrong.
1. Should Dion carry the day the 'big Liberal fixers' she deplores will still be there - supporting Dion, as he will have earned their support. (They helped put him there in the first place.) She will not be free of them!
2. Government of Canada speaks for Canada - now and in the past. That has not changed - and will not change. Canada speaks for Canada. Canada is a federation, however, and each province does have the right to promote its own resources and industry in the international field.
3. Canada is a huge geographic entity with many regions with differing characteristics, interests, cultures and yes, even values. It is NOT - and never can be - homogeneous. Failure to recognize this diverse nature of Canada, failure to recognize our regional differences is a recipe for disaster - as we have so very nearly experienced with Quebec. It is not a case of weakening the centre; it is a matter of recognizing that our country is made up of a variety of diverse interests, needs and concerns - and responding to this reality in respectful ways while maintaining the national interest.
4. As for 'frittering away the oil money' it is not true that Canada has been doing that. What it has been doing is paying down the debt. And please, please, let us not forget that the oil is not 'Canada's' (except in the case of off-shore resources); natural resources such as minerals, forests and petroleum resources belong to the Provinces, not to Canada.
Some countries (including Britain I think) have established capital funds using oil revenues; Alberta has its 'Heritage' Fund for the same purpose. (It hasn't managed it wisely - but that's another topic.) This is a good way to go, creating a legacy of capital to preserve value from the resource for future generations - but so is paying down the debt! That too benefits future generations.
Key is NOT to increase taxes - of any sort - to fund these capital pools, these Sovereign Wealth Funds - the money for these should come from existing revenue streams governments already glean from these resources. Adding more taxes just makes them uneconomic and destroys jobs, destroys the revenue stream for governments.
5. The fact is that deregulation WAS NOT responsible for either the listeriosis or Walkerton incidents. No changes had been made in the food inspection system; some had been talked about, but no decision had been made to implement those changes - and there is no reason to believe they would have made any difference in whether or not the listeriosis outbreak occurred. As for Walkerton the reality is some employees simply did not do their jobs - and lied about it. The regulations were in place; the employees falsified records and analytical results. They knew there was a problem, but tried to hide it. No amount of regulation/inspection will thwart someone who is determined to be dishonest and to flout the system.
6.What Mr. Dion has proposed may be new, but it is patently NOT fair - it is extremely risky, and destructive to Canada's economy and to our society and culture. And (I submit) would do massive damage to our environment and ecology - maintaining a healthy environment costs money. It is fashionable to say that 'a healthy economy depends upon a healthy environment' but in reality it is the reverse that is true: without a healthy economy there are no funds to address the environment. For those who have been paying attention this was very well illustrated when the Iron Curtain came down and the devastation of Eastern European environments resulting from the lack of resources in communist economies was revealed. Countries that had/have trouble feeding their populations had/have no time or resources to worry about the their environments or ecology.
7. Harper HAS a plan - and it is clear he has been following it - and that it is working. He and his government recognized some time ago that global economies were facing danger and he has been preparing for it with close monitoring of the banking system, and (again) paying down the debt (among other measures). It is no accident Canada's banking system is the world's strongest, or that the OECD says Canada's economic outlook for 2009 is the best of the G& countries.
Far from being discredited, Harper's government's plans and performance are being praised by independent international leaders and experts. For these reasons Harper's is demonstrably the hand we DO need on the tiller in these parlous times.
8. I have spoken to our Conservative candidate and he is adamant that there has been no 'gag order' put on him. C'mon folks, we've been around long enough to understand NOT to believe everything we read and hear in the media. Surely!
9. All, repeat ALL, of the leaders have 'hidden behind scripted, managed affairs'! It is disingenous for Anne to attack Harper for this - all the while decrying the 'Harperites' for pointing out Dion's interview 'gaffe' - wherein he tried to redo the take at least three times in order to get back 'on script' and 'on message'.
10. Anne finds it unfair that Conservatives have reacted (naturally) to attacks and fear-mongering, yet I do not recall her opposing or decrying that same scaremongering - and outright blatant lies and untruths about Harper and his party, either today or in the last election campaign. This perhaps tells us more about Anne than it does about Harper and his team.
11. Anne argues Conservatives 'have shown what demonizing and fear mongering is all about' in this campaign. Surely, she has NOT been paying attention! No-one has been 'fear-mongering' more than Dion with his climate change statements and creeds, and as for demonizing no-one in this campaign surpasses Layton in his attacks on ' capitalists' and 'Corporations', and on Harper. I thought that jaded, nonsensical divisive old-school rhetoric had died with David Lewis!
12. As for vicious attacks on character I suggest both Dion and Layton (and Duceppe) have been far more outrageous in their attacks on Harper. Layton is simply a bully - as he amply demonstrated in the televised debates. Talk about character ..... give me a break.
Harper is the leader who has demonstrated that he understands the challenges ahead, and that he has and is prepared for those challenges. We face challenging times in the next few years ahead; it is not a time for 'on-the-job' training and implementation of radical sweeping 'new ideas'. It is a time for practical experience, for a cool head under pressure, a time for someone who has the foresight to see the 'Big Picture' as Steven Harper clearly does.
The last thing we need at a time like this is a situation like we had in the seventies when Liberals under Trudeau (with strong assist from David Lewis and his NDP pulling the puppet strings in a minority government situation). Then, together the Liberals and NDP destroyed our economy, destroyed our dollar and took us to the brink of disaster from which only the emergence of Reform Party (with a strong assist from pressure from international agencies such as the IMF) rescued us. As a consequence of those pressures Conservative Finance Minister Michael Wilson was able to put in place the measures necessary to trurn the ship around, to address the structural elements in our economy that produced unending deficits. Without those changes Paul Martin would not have been able to claim success.
It took us a generation to recover from that one!
For a strong and prosperous Canada as well as a healthy environment vote Conservative tomorrow.
John
===================================
Subject: Re: C/C/NET EXTRA: Responses to 4:00 P.M.
From: "Michael Watkins"
Garry Holland writes:
> I could only suggest to her that we know what Mr.
> Harper has accomplished;
Indeed, he has:
1. Reduced the fiscal capacity of the federal government substantially
not, as popular lore would have it, to put more money in our jeans but to
prevent any future government from enacting new federal programs of any
substance. He's using financial tools to make Canada look like the
Dominion of Canada as of the BNA Act of 1867. While some persist in
arguing that quaint definition of separation of power made sense then and
must still do now, those same folks will argue that globalization means
harmonization across the board intra and inter country. Well, which is it
folks?
The non-dogmatic answer is that Canada is a much more complex beast than
at Confederation. Part of our identity is defined by a past willingness to
look at certain issues from a shared national perspective. I value that in
Canada.
Harper does not and he's doing everything he can to eliminate that ability.
2. Put Canada 10.3 billion in debt (as of July) plus added another 25
billion in liability (via the bank bailout) plus cut the revenue stream to
the bone based on budget projections that would have been made in the rosy
times of growing economic expansion and commodity prices rising across the
board. Neither of those latter two assertions hold true any more. There is
going to be a shortfall of significant proportions which we'll only learn
of post election in the weeks and months to come. Add that to our already
growing debt.
3. Savaged the very meaning of democracy in this country. Whether its the
Emerson or Fortier appointments (anyone wish to bet against him doing that
again?) or obstructionist tactics in committee, in the House, calling
everything a confidence motion, attacking parliamentary officers, and
breaking his own amendment to the Elections Act, Harper has proven that
raw basic democracy isn't very interesting to him nor is it worthy of his
support.
Reformers used to crow on about the elites destroying democracy in Canada.
Progressive Conservatives used to talk about democratic deficit and what
we'd change. This new version of the Canadian Alliance is doing neither -
its taken an already bad situation and made it worse.
In the end Harper doesn't much care if there is one Canada or ten little
ones.
>we have absolutely no
> idea what Mr. Layton or Mr. Dion think of doing except to establish taxes
> to spend monies in uncertain and unproven remedies.
> We know Mr. Harper has a strong background in
> economics; we don't know if Mr. Dion or Mr. Layton has any kind of an
> intellectual grip on this issue.
If Mr. Harper's grip on economics was sound he would have angled for an
election in the spring. Many of us who monitor economies and markets very
closely have been fully expecting a serious economic downturn as well as
significant market turmoil for many months, but this was not the concensus
view. Harper took the consensus view that Canada would be affected but not
greatly so. This view is wrong, and most senior economists in the country
have shifted their view substantially towards those who were sounding the
clarion bell. Harper's talent as an economist ought not to be heralded as
there is zero evidence that he brings any unique perspective.
Put far more simply, if Harper were a stock, I'd have shorted him just as
I shorted both Canadian and world markets this year.
> They certainly have only made suggestions
> of huge and precipitous change. Now is not the time for sweeping changes,
But in fact sweeping change is exactly what is needed. Mark these words
for you will hear them often soon enough:
Trust will be legislated.
I'm not talking about environmental issues here, yet. There will be calls,
and action, for very significant financial reforms not just in the U.S.
but also here. If this global system of cobweb-like financial filaments
are to hold together going forward, there will be substantial change under
the covers. The status quo will not persist. Regulation will be on the
rise, an anathema to "Conservatives". But it will happen.
> nor for the inauguration of greater National Debt.
Mr. Harper has already started the debt ball rolling. The numbers are all
there in The Fiscal Monitor issued for every monthly period by the
Ministry of Finance. I've calculated the operational debt for every period
and year this decade and plotted them on a chart. This year Harper has run
up more debt by this time than at any other period in the past eight
years. The trend line is very worrisome indeed, plus when you add the
sudden (to some) change in economic outlook, this country virtually can
not help to go deeper in the hole by fiscal year end.
> We know that less than 10 days ago, the
> International Monetary Fund and the World
> Economic Forum BOTH, independently, asserted that
> Canada, our country, has the most secure National
> Treasury and the most sensible Monetary Policies.
1. The IMF also ranked Australia high on the list yet their financial
institutions are under considerable duress, right now.
2. The World Economic Forum has among its members a large contingent of...
banks. Including all of Canada's major banks. Are you quite sure that the
self-opinion of banks should be fully trusted? Nevertheless I would agree
that Canada's banks are substantially stronger than the U.S. counter
parts. I do my homework for a good old fashioned "conservative" reason:
profit, as I had put significant short positions on both Canada and U.S.
banks. Due to the differences I knew to take profits in my Canadian bank
short positions far earlier than I did from the U.S. positions I held.
> Both those same world organizations also stated
> that Canada, our country, has the strongest, safest and most prudent
> banking system in the world.
3. The relative strength or lack thereof has very little to do with the
current administration but is as a result of an amalgam of decisions (or
lack of decisions) made by numerous Canadian governments of all stripes on
how our banking sector is regulated.
Repeating talking points from the CPC media release section (or the IMF
for that matter) isn't sufficient to justify a position on the subject.
> We need to keep things that way: and thank you
If you wish to keep banks that way - if that was your sole requirement for
casting a vote, then the very last party you could possibly give your vote
to would be a Conservative government led by Stephen Harper.
Why? Very simple:
- deregulation is a constant mantra
- opening up foreign investment is a stated objective, supported by
specific action taken in even the last parliament
Lack of regulation and insufficient oversight is what got markets into
this mess all over the world.
We are not as immune as Harper would lead you to believe. While our
banking system is less exposed, that doesn't mean there isn't exposure to
the very same problems plaguing the U.S., U.K. and other nations. Among
the similarities Canada has its own housing bubbles popping in various
regions of Canada. Some may not realise this but the U.S. did not have one
giant housing bubble - the problems there were very much regional in
nature, and so too will our own experience with this.
Using Vancouver as an example, with average house prices well over 800
thousand dollars we can see that even a 50% retracement of the rise out of
the last price plateau will wipe approximately 175 to 250 thousand dollars
off the average detached home price in this city. Such a decline will put
many buyers of the last two years into a negative equity position. Couple
that with rising mortgage rates (caused either by credit market
instability or by tighter lending standards) and we'll see some real pain.
Regardless any significant contraction in housing prices tends to
accelerate economic stress and intensify a downturn. Now if it were only
Vancouver at risk perhaps the country could sigh in relief, but we see
similar conditions throughout much of the destination-oriented /
retirement oriented coast and southern interior of B.C; certainly the
Calgary area; Edmonton, Regina, parts of Ontario and so on.
The bottom line: there is a significant slowdown coming. We've seen a
world-changing economic meltdown that will require new approaches to
things, not the same old same old. Amid all this for those of us who
believe environmental change is not merely a necessity but inevitable we
have to figure out how to fit that into the future too.
Harper does not impress on economic leadership and his record is a broken
record of using the same old approaches. He's using them because they can
be wrapped up in populist measures and packaged for electoral purposes. It
doesn't matter to him *why* he cuts taxes only that he does it deeply
enough to shackle the hands of anyone who sits in the PM's office, even if
its another Conservative one day.
With the provinces on their own and no effective (funding is a key element
of an effective government) federal government, Harper can laugh all the
way to retirement knowing nothing will be done on any meaningful national
issue whether it be the environment or otherwise.
That's not what he's selling Canadians.
I will not vote for a leader who is content to see a fragmented Canada in
his or her future. Bernier, apparently an intellectual lightweight, voiced
that he was unafraid and prepared for a separate Quebec. Harper, quite the
opposite in thinking capacity, has long signalled that he'd be prepared to
help make a fragmented Canada a reality. This issue in my mind cuts across
every other.
I know there are many pro-Canada supporters within the ranks of the merged
party. They really need to consider why they support a leader who does not
share their love of country.
Bottom line: For those who love their unified Canada a Harper minority is
as equally bad an outcome as a Harper majority.
I don't expect many to bother to make the minuscule effort required to
rise above the mantra of "lower taxes good" and actually think about the
longer term strategic implications of cutting the federal government's
fiscal capacity to the bone, but perhaps a few will make the journey with
me.
===================================
No comments:
Post a Comment