The Shotgun Blog

« Who has the support of the people? | Main | Dion says no coalition...two months ago »

Friday, November 28, 2008

Harper doesn't back down, delays vote

Moments ago, prime minister Stephen Harper stood in front of the press and declared that he won't back down. Here are some of the things he said:

"Less than two months ago Canadians gave us a stronger mandate to deal with the economic crisis"

He also listed a number of things that he did, including 'investing' in infrastructure. He makes it clear that he wants to do more (though personally I'd rather he didn't. Bailouts will only hurt the economy).

"While we were working on the economy the opposition has been working on a back room deal to overthrow the government without the approval of the people"

Makes the Liberals sound like they are plotting a coup, and in a way they are. It would be a peaceful and constitutional coup but still a coup. The question is who will the people support?

Harper points out that the Liberals said, "NDP policy is bad for the economy" during the election. This is perhaps the largest problem with a potential coalition. What parts of the NDP platform and what parts of the Liberal platform will be government policy in a coalition?

"Canada's government should be decided by the people not back room deals. It should be your choice not theirs. We have to stand up for Canadian's right to choose their own government"

Harper said that reducing subsidies for political parties is still an important part of his agenda.

Finally Harper indicated that the opposition day will be moved to a week later, on December 8th. Is he buying time to fight on the television and radio stations?

Posted by Hugh MacIntyre on November 28, 2008 in Canadian Politics | Permalink

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
https://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b5d69e201053629d624970c

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Harper doesn't back down, delays vote:

Comments

Liberals have not changed: they're still crooks. They don't care about the country, only about their own power and pockets. They should be disbanded just like the British Liberal Party. The Liberal Party of Canada has lost all legitimacy.

Posted by: Werner Patels @ The Right Comment | 2008-11-28 4:05:34 PM

Here are some words of encouragement for Mr. Harper in this time of trouble:

we shall fight on the seas and oceans,
we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Island, whatever the cost may be,
we shall fight on the beaches,
we shall fight on the landing grounds,
we shall fight in the fields and in the streets,
we shall fight in the hills;
we shall never surrender

Posted by: Zebulon Pike | 2008-11-28 4:07:23 PM

Or maybe

Half a league, half a league,
Half a league onward

Perhaps still too sone to tell.

Posted by: Hugh MacIntyre | 2008-11-28 4:10:39 PM

Sorry I meant 'soon' not 'sone'

Posted by: Hugh MacIntyre | 2008-11-28 4:11:12 PM

Harper is bringing this on himself...

After 2 years of curling up into the fetal position, the Liberals are finally getting some backbone and opposing his myriad of "confidence measures".

The idea of forming a coalition seems quite far-fetched, but Harper only has himself to blame. Why must *everything* be a confidence motion?

If he simply backs down from the political subsidy measure everything will be fine...

Posted by: The Voice of Sanity | 2008-11-28 4:28:10 PM

So in your opinion the whole issue is the political subsidy? Despite what they are all claiming. Even if that is what started this, cutting it out of the whole package won't help. The Liberals would look foolish if they back down after that. It would prove that they only care about their 'entitlements'.

Posted by: Hugh MacIntyre | 2008-11-28 4:36:39 PM

The idea of forming a coalition seems quite far-fetched, but Harper only has himself to blame. Why must *everything* be a confidence motion?

Posted by: The Voice of Sanity | 28-Nov-08 4:28:10 PM

Because he isn't a leader, he's a bully. He FORCES people to follow his "lead", not convinces them to do so.

----------

If he simply backs down from the political subsidy measure everything will be fine...

Posted by: The Voice of Sanity | 28-Nov-08 4:28:10 PM

If it is only over that, sure. But who knows, maybe Liberals, NDP and Bloc really don't think Harper is doing a job and see the world more realistically.

My gripe over the 30 million is not that they cut of funding to the parties, but that it is a joke considering how much money Harper has blown out the window over the last year alone, plus the 75 billion he threw at the "solid canadian banks".

Maybe Flaherty really doesn't get what is about to hit Canada, maybe he and Harper both see it but their ideology doesn't let them act in a sane way.

Either way. Harper wants to cut spending? How about cutting his cabinet down to size.

Reading sites likes WS is almost comedic, I am getting the feeling the majority of the posters on here must be taking migrane medication by the boat load in order to be able to reconicle Harpers behaviour and their stated beliefs, either that, or high percentage liquor by the Stein full.

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-11-28 4:41:31 PM

@Hugh MacIntyre: How is a coalition government "far-fetched"? It's common practice in most parliamentary democracies.

Granted, Canada hasn't had any since the Conservative/Liberal coalition government of 1917-1920.

Posted by: Adam King | 2008-11-28 5:03:26 PM

It's far-fetched, Adam, because most Canadians won't understand it and will probably bitterly resent having their votes negated by backroom political manoeuvring, especially by a party that is already losing support for its arrogance and corruption. If they stage what amounts to a coup, I do not expect Canadians (except for Torontonians) to be grateful for it.

The problem with the Liberals is they think that Toronto is all they need. The last two elections should have disabused them, but then again we're talking about a party who wants to crown Justin Trudeau the next Prime Minister because of his name.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-11-28 5:19:13 PM

Actually, Snowrunner, I heard on the radio today that the political subsidy measure has been removed from Monday's vote, but now the Fibs and the Dippers are saying it doesn't make any difference; their real concern is the way Harper is handling the economic crisis. This coming from a man who wanted to slap a carbon tax on anything that moved.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-11-28 5:21:02 PM

This coming from a man who wanted to slap a carbon tax on anything that moved.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 28-Nov-08 5:21:02 PM

Shane, doesn't the hypocrisy of it all just make ya wanna barf?
My God I can't believe we call this system a government.

Posted by: JC | 2008-11-28 5:54:34 PM

Removing the elimination of political subsidies from the bill indicates a lack of courage and commitment. He then talks of reducing the subsidies instead of eliminating them. Very disappointing.

In a time of economic recession (predicted at least), government must cut spending, not increase it, along with lower taxation, which is the key to stimulating the economy. The size and spending of government must be cut, which means axing many useless and expensive programs and even whole departments. If the socialists parties go ahead with a non confidence vote, they will pay the price.

Posted by: Alain | 2008-11-28 6:00:43 PM

Ironic that Harper, whose party engineered creative accounting to maximize elections canada funding, would then look to minimize party funding. Perhaps his party should simply repay what they defrauded from elections canada.

Posted by: AF | 2008-11-28 8:04:30 PM

I heard on the radio today that the political subsidy measure has been removed from Monday's vote, but now the Fibs and the Dippers are saying it doesn't make any difference; their real concern is the way Harper is handling the economic crisis. This coming from a man who wanted to slap a carbon tax on anything that moved.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 28-Nov-08 5:21:02 PM

Ah yes, the Carbon tax again. Did you actually look at the proposoal (read it)? Or did you just heard the word "tax" and turned off? I read the thing, it made a lot more sense than what Harpo wants to do "We do something, we can't tell you WHAT though, but we think paying market prices that we can't control is a way better way to handling things.".

I prefer to know what I have to shell out instead of waking up one morning and getting to pay "fair market value" that could end up costing me more. You know, fisical prudence and all that.

But you know, you have it ass backwards again, what HAS Harper and Flaherty actually done for the average person in Canada? Nothing, they gave money to some banks, they cut the GST by 2% which means zero for the majority of Canadians but played well to people like you.

But one thing I have to give both him and Flaherty: They are GOOD in playing to their audience, this website proves it on a daily basis. If you can't lead them, deceive them.

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-11-28 10:09:08 PM

Posted by: Alain | 28-Nov-08 6:00:43 PM

Really now? What would you cut? Come on, give me some examples of things that you think the Government should cut to avoid a deficit budget.

Just as a starting point, with all the spending Harper and Flaherty have done over the last year (and not counting for the promised spending) we need to find ~100 billion in the next budget.

Get cutting Alain, here are some higlights out of the 2007 budget:

* $39 billion in transfers to provinces for public services and infrastructure
* $2000/child tax credit
* Increase age limit for RRSPs
* $9.2 billion in debt reduction
* $550 million/year to combat the welfare trap
* $140 million to establish a Registered Disability Savings Plan
* Subsidies up to $2000 on low-emissions automobiles and a Gas-guzzler tax up to $4000
* $1.5 billion in transfers to provinces for projects that combat climate change and air pollution
* $400 million to implement national electronic health records
* $612 million to reduce hospital wait times
* $300 million for HPV vaccines
* $60 million increase in Canadian Forces wages
* $600 million for farmer savings plans
* $400 million to offset agriculture production costs

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-11-28 10:13:35 PM

Oh, I should add. The 100 billion is based on the assumption that tax revenue won't decline, consiering that:

a.) We are going into a recession (all praying to Harper won't help).
b.) You want to cut taxes

You need to adjust the number upwards, depending on how much you want to cut / expect revenue to decline.

Get crackin'

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-11-28 10:15:33 PM

We subsidize bank.

We subsidize soft wood.

We subsidize car industries.

We subsidize health care.

We subsidize farm.

We subsidize oil.

We subsidize culture.

We subsidize public transport.

...

And now we have to subsidize... POLITICIANS!

Subsidizing politicians, certainly a Keynesian stimulus that will solve the financial crisis...

This is pure madness...

Posted by: David Gagnon | 2008-11-28 10:26:58 PM

Got that gadfly itch again, eh, Snowrunner? Are you forgetting that at least one Liberal MP was caught writing on his blog that the true purpose of the carbon tax was as a vehicle to redistribute wealth? That has a very familiar ring.

Cutting the GST by 2 percent means zero to most Canadians? Only those who never buy anything, which I can only presume includes you. I just bought a car. That 2 percent less tax was very much apppreciated.

Where to cut? Start with the environment. Canada's environment is the envy of the world and anthropogenic global warming is one of the biggest scams ever played. Know why poor countries are filthy? Because cleanliness is a luxury. I'd rather have more smog for a few years than lose our auto industry forever.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-11-28 11:11:42 PM

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 28-Nov-08 11:11:42 PM

Right, and any "cap & trade" system as proposed by the Conservatives would be what?

-----------

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 28-Nov-08 11:11:42 PM

Yeah, and I just spent 2K on an Espresso Machine, so what? The 2% do mean little in daily life, essentials ARE excluded, most of my purchases do not carry the GST.

And hey, the GST is a consumption based tax. Don't consume, don't pay the tax, unless you want to go over to a "voluntary donation" driven Government they have to raise the money some way.

-----------------

"Where to cut? Start with the environment. Canada's environment is the envy of the world"

Uhuu, the tar sands are also one of the biggest black eyes on Canada's reputation, and I know this is going to have you will either chose to ignore the next point or get nasty over it but:

READ A BOOK some time, the impression of what the Canadian environment concerns is far from the reality. But I am sure you will detest that and claim it's all wrong. Suit yourself.

"and anthropogenic global warming is one of the biggest scams ever played."

Yeah, I still wait to actually see you provide a link that doesn't base it's "findings" on that? Yeah yeah, I am sure you'll drag one of the same five papers up again that are getting posted over and over as proof.

"Know why poor countries are filthy? Because cleanliness is a luxury. I'd rather have more smog for a few years than lose our auto industry forever."

Wow.... I could say I am shocked by how simple you see the world but I don't think there is anything you could say that would surprise me anymore. More than clueless is the only thing that comes to mind.

Where is your "conservatism" coming in? I take it it stops at your own wallet.

But hey, I am not mad / angry etc. Just like for Adam, I wish that you get to live in your own dream world, just as long as I don't have to be in it.

Posted by: Snowrunner | 2008-11-28 11:51:25 PM

The first vote will be a separate vote on whether to continue taxpayer-funded contributions to political parties.

Of the three polls I've seen on the question, the respondents have voted anywhere from 67 to 83% AGAINST this type of funding.

Second vote is on the economic statement.

The people of Canada understood the issue that they would rather have a steady hand steering the government than some risky ideas that may not even work (I'm just repeating the rhetoric of the campaign).

The voters of Canada clearly chose for the steady hand, giving Harper an increased minority.

In the real world, Flaherty has delivered a plan that he's convinced will keep the country out of a deficit position.

There is no housing crisis in Canada comparable to the 40-50% drop in value due to oversupply in the US.

My sister in Toronto told me earlier today housing prices there have dropped about 5%, pretty much the same as it is across Canada.

Heard in the last week that Toyota and Honda are either laying off workers or idling plants.

I find it curious that the only plant closure or layoff I've heard of from the Big Three is the Oshawa truck plant in GM sometime in March.

Why is it that the Big Three are not laying off workers?

Is their plan, like on the Saturday Night Live skit, to come back for another $25 billion in February, then another $50 billion in September.

If that's what passes for the economic stimulus the opposition are howling about, I find it hard to believe Canadians will buy that.

In the first place, Canada cannot make a move until the US does and Dubya said he would veto any bailout package.

That means nothing can be done in Canada until late January, at the earliest.

If workers are laid off, that's why we have, ahem, employment insurance.

Try to stick to the facts. It makes for a much more intelligent debate.

Posted by: set you free | 2008-11-29 12:09:13 AM

Snowrunner, the options for cutting is almost limitless. For example I would cut the entire Heritage department. But there are smaller cuts that you can make to. For example the Conservatives actually increased spending for the arts. I would cut that to zero.

Posted by: Hugh MacIntyre | 2008-11-29 7:52:57 AM

Snowrunner wrote: “1. Right, and any "cap & trade" system as proposed by the Conservatives would be what?”

1. Competition, because it allows polluters in an area to work things out among themselves instead of simply soaking them for money to give to welfare moms and drug addicts.

2. Then why are British Columbians in such an uproar over a 2% carbon tax on only a single product, gasoline? Hmm?

3. Then they can save money by having welfare recipients clean the streets and pick up the trash instead of paying unionized (and strike-prone) workers twice the mean Canadian wage to do it.

4. Yes, compared to the tar sands, the river pollution of eastern Europe, the oxygen dispensers on the streets of Beijing and the deforestation of the Amazon are small potatoes. Never mind the fact that industrial areas in Ontario are so barren that astronauts practiced Moon walking there in the 1960s.

5. How often do you actually go out in the environment, Snowrunner? I’m a hunter; I know what lies beyond our cities. Do you ever venture further into the wilderness than a suburban Starbucks?

6. How about the fact that the oceans aren’t rising? In spite of the Sierra Club’s infamous presentation that claimed that by 2100 most coastal cities would be underwater.

7. Your emotional response to anything is of no importance whatever; suffice it to say that no one gives a shit. This is not debate; it’s petulant bitching. So go crawl back under your stone.

8. Where is your “liberalism” coming in? When was the last time you invited a homeless person to shelter with you instead of carping that the government doesn’t do enough?

9. Snowrunner, you truly dwell in a world apart—for which I am very thankful.

Posted by: Shane Matthews | 2008-11-29 9:57:53 AM

Snowrunner's budget highlights were pasted straight from Wikipedia, and are missing some rather obvious information. Where are foreign aid and arts? I've been looking for those numbers, and I'm surprised that they aren't that easy to access.

I believe charity begins at home, so it seems to me we could save about $2 billion right there. If we pay of the debt, and go into surplus, we could reconsider. Most foreign aid does very little to help the citizens of these hell-holes anyway. You can't even find out where the money went, because it's funneled through private agencies. Most of it probably goes straight to a few dictators, with a nice little kick-back to the UN officials in charge.

Arts and entertainment should be considered luxuries. Only affluent societies can get away with allowing so many people to make a living without making a contribution to the real economy. If we pay off the debt, and go into surplus, we might reconsider.

Taxpayer contributions to political parties makes me want to give up, and just go on the dole. If it isn't done away with now, it should be phased out as soon as possible. So should funding to political agencies like the CBC. They've been meddling in politics too long.

There, we just saved billions.

Posted by: dp | 2008-11-29 10:39:46 AM

I am not a Canadian, but I think what Harper's on to is a good idea. I've seen op-eds attack him in the National Post and the Globe and Mail; but what he's doing is genius political strategy after the conservative party has been through hell for the past two decades.

I don't think Liberal-NDP coalition can function, and the Bloc Quebecois will put too much pressure on them being essential for the government's survival. Hence, even if Harper loses the confidence vote, the other three parties won't be able to govern. New elections will be hard on the Liberals because their party is beat down, and Stephan Dion is certainly no charismatic leader to build the party up. I think in the end Harper's move can probably get through, if just barely, and this will severely weaken the Liberals and NDP and allow Harper to finally win a majority in the next election.

Posted by: Omar Abu Hatem | 2008-11-29 8:43:14 PM

And just when Canada was in the best shape in the G8.
Great idea - let's destabilize, drive money out of Canada, and really sink us into the D word.

Posted by: Jerri | 2008-11-29 9:44:09 PM

Do we really think that a coalition will be any better, scary. Then what if they become worse then what. We no what to expect from Harper. Though are we prepaired to let The 3 Amigos run the Government or even The 3 Stooges. Seems that it all boils down to a $1.75

Posted by: Gordie | 2008-12-01 9:09:13 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.

Recent Posts

Recent Comments

Archives

The Shotgun Blog

Friday, November 28, 2008

Harper doesn't back down, delays vote

TrackBack

Comments