matthewwhatever
Member
John Duncan...? *checks Google to confirm I didn't make that up* John Duncan, one month ago!
And if there are seriously party insiders who dismiss the web, I'm...not shocked, but still saddened.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Canada Poligaf - The Wrath of Harperland
- Thread starter DreamMachine
- Start date
- Status
John Duncan...? *checks Google to confirm I didn't make that up* John Duncan, one month ago!
And if there are seriously party insiders who dismiss the web, I'm...not shocked, but still saddened.
they tried to get rae to run which failed, then they fucked up Carney. Party insiders are effectively castrated and a running joke with most members I know.
gutter_trash
Banned
that would be a big LOL of an indication how it might play out for the rest of us in 2015
Watching the Calgary Centre byelection was a textbook case of Tory-Green vote split letting Harvey get as far as he did, doubly funny watching the grit volunteers bitch about how the greens should have cooperated with them when the greens in Alberta were largely environmental conservatives.
gutter_trash
Banned
on the provincial front :
Doctor Philippe Couillard just won the leadership of the PLQ (Quebec Liberals).
Doctor Philippe Couillard just won the leadership of the PLQ (Quebec Liberals).
A good read about the Ministry of Truth... previously known as the Prime Minister's Office; wish stories like this would go national:
Documents show PCO tried to downplay Parks Canada's role in Sable Island project
Documents show PCO tried to downplay Parks Canada's role in Sable Island project
You Are Viewtiful
Member
Commons passes transgender rights bill, despite Harper's opposition.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2013/03/20/pol-transgender-rights-bill-approved.html
What a sad, despicable piece of shit :/ Thankfully, at least some Tories have their heads on straight.
Hopefully he can fry the PQ on the spending cuts they said wouldn't happen.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2013/03/20/pol-transgender-rights-bill-approved.html
What a sad, despicable piece of shit :/ Thankfully, at least some Tories have their heads on straight.
Hopefully he can fry the PQ on the spending cuts they said wouldn't happen.
The interesting thing about the transgender bill to me is that it also passed the last parliament (but didn't get through the senate before the election), but with a slimmer majority (in spite of there being more conservatives in this parliament). And it passed with the support of a few conservatives who voted differently last time, including mine (Laurie Hawn), who even sent a letter to someone I know that detailed his opposition based on the same arguments that were clearly party line for the CPC both times (doesn't define gender expression or gender identity).
firehawk12
Subete no aware
I wonder why an NDP and several Liberals abstained....
gutter_trash
Banned
double post
gutter_trash
Banned
Jean Lapierre hints that the Conservatives are gonna do a cabinet shuffle this summer with younger MPs and more women to counter Justin.
He says that Flaherty will trade with Baird for Foreign Affairs to give the latter Finances
He says that Flaherty will trade with Baird for Foreign Affairs to give the latter Finances
firehawk12
Subete no aware
Well, Layton booted a Dipper out for not voting for gay marriage way back when, so at least in their case I'd like an explanation. Maybe that person was just sick or away on business or something.
I assume the indie that abstained is that Quebec shock jock radio guy that keeps winning every time?
gutter_trash
Banned
oh by the way, Flaherty is raising tariffs from 70 countries.
so you electronic goods such as iPhones will cost more.
so you electronic goods such as iPhones will cost more.
I'm 50/50 on the grits on this vote, largely because there's leadership shit going on, though asshats like Alan Tonks make me nervous.
Moist as cookie-cutter budget.
Great....
BladeWorker
Member
Is anyone else's mind blowing from the prospect of an interventionist Conservative? I thought the whole point of conservatism was to reduce government interference in the economy, and here's Flaherty and the merry band of Blue saying that they need to restructure skills training, calling banks to tell them to change their mortgage rates, and now shifting the tariff structure on imported goods. AND, going further to take CIDA off the map and tie foreign aid to trade interests.
Seriously, who ARE these guys?
And then we had Mulcair's recent comments on Flaherty's actions toward the banks. "Banana Republic Tactics". Really? The message to stay away from the banks is coming from the NDP, of all parties?
The world is on its head. Cats, dogs sleeping together.
Ether_Snake
å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®
Well personally, I kind of agree that the government shouldn't have told Manulife to raise its rate.
The government has the means to filter out people who can't afford a home from buying one, and THAT is what it should do. Raise the minimum down payment to 15%, keep the cap at 25 years. On the other hand, raise the minimum people can take out of their 401k for the down-payment to 35000 but only if they are single.
Let people profit from lower interest rates, instead of forcing people to accumulate more debt.
Couillard is totally corrupt, he won't last long in the current environment. With all the focus on corruption and the commission on corruption expanded an extra 18 months, he is fucked. Outside of the commission's work the focus on corruption in general continues and scandals come up every day. There was already information distributed about Couillard on the day of the vote, it's only the beginning.
The government has the means to filter out people who can't afford a home from buying one, and THAT is what it should do. Raise the minimum down payment to 15%, keep the cap at 25 years. On the other hand, raise the minimum people can take out of their 401k for the down-payment to 35000 but only if they are single.
Let people profit from lower interest rates, instead of forcing people to accumulate more debt.
Couillard is totally corrupt, he won't last long in the current environment. With all the focus on corruption and the commission on corruption expanded an extra 18 months, he is fucked. Outside of the commission's work the focus on corruption in general continues and scandals come up every day. There was already information distributed about Couillard on the day of the vote, it's only the beginning.
I agree in principle that the government shouldn't be encouraging consumers to leverage themselves up, but a couple things should be considered. Interest rates are extremely low, if the consumer is going to leverage themselves up, now is a good time to be doing so. It is likely that a lot of people can afford this debt while interest rates are low. The concern is when interest rates rise.
The difference between a 3% and 5% bi-weekly $187k (25 years) mortgage is nearly a $100. I sure hope people buying now can afford those payments when interest rates rise.
Lets also not pretend that Flaherty's attempted moral suasion has really accomplished anything. You can still get sub 3.00% mortgages at many financial institutions (Link).
I think interest rates will stay low for a long time because central banks are extremely good at controlling inflation now days. Still, it doesn't take much of a rise in rates for interest payments to start digging into consumers disposable income in a significant way. Makes you wonder how people afforded mortgages in the 80's/90's.
The difference between a 3% and 5% bi-weekly $187k (25 years) mortgage is nearly a $100. I sure hope people buying now can afford those payments when interest rates rise.
Lets also not pretend that Flaherty's attempted moral suasion has really accomplished anything. You can still get sub 3.00% mortgages at many financial institutions (Link).
I think interest rates will stay low for a long time because central banks are extremely good at controlling inflation now days. Still, it doesn't take much of a rise in rates for interest payments to start digging into consumers disposable income in a significant way. Makes you wonder how people afforded mortgages in the 80's/90's.
hypostasis
Banned
"According to a study in Ontario, up to 55% of Canadians age of 15 to 16, and 89% of individuals in their early forties have antibodies to HSV-1"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epidemiology_of_herpes_simplex#United_States
More like Herpiesland, amirite?!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epidemiology_of_herpes_simplex#United_States
More like Herpiesland, amirite?!
You Are Viewtiful
Member
5 bucks this study was done in London.
gutter_trash
Banned
where is your documented proof of Couillard being corrupt?
where is there any proof of Jean Charest himself ever being courrupt?
Lots of mudslinging on social media without much proof, and indictiemnts.
Pauline Marois used more than 800K tax payer dollars to renovate her office toilet during the Bouchard era
Link up, proof up you allegations.
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
While this is true, I'm not sure why the two parties are singled out. All parties do this, especially in Canada. Hence why Canada's politics have historically been termed brokerage politics--FPTP, coalition-building, a majority government requiring a bridge across the nations and across the regions--no one in Canada's history has ever been ideologically principled. Pragmatic politics. That the NDP would succumb to this after a period of explosive growth (and particularly a massive regional shift, and particularly because they have been invested with the hopes of Quebecois soft-nationalism) is no surprise.
Moreover, all of Canada's alternative parties have started as populist movements... SoCred, CCF, NDP, Reform, Canadian Alliance... all broadly populist regardless of where you'd situate them ideologically... look at the original Reform manifestos and calls to action, all "beyond left or right" "the people come first" gibberish.
The surprising thing is that Coyne doesn't seem to betray any awareness of this as a part of our political history writ large; especially in the last paragraph, his speculation about the level of populism the country can sustain...
gutter_trash
Banned
such populism always has been regional in spawn points.
-NDP from the farmers in the prairies
-Reform from the alienated west (formely alienated)
-Bloc from nationalists who gave up on Mulroney's attempts to fix things with Meech.
-NDP from the farmers in the prairies
-Reform from the alienated west (formely alienated)
-Bloc from nationalists who gave up on Mulroney's attempts to fix things with Meech.
BladeWorker
Member
All of that notwithstanding, it's still two parties that have built their brands on economic stances at polar opposite ends of a spectrum trading places for a day.
It's a startling example of "no principles in politics" if only in its timing, even if we know full well that the axiom is, and has always been, true.
firehawk12
Subete no aware
God damn, The National did a puff piece on the Liberals tonight (and also a story about Fifa 13 hacking and Xbox Live, of all things).
I suppose if nothing else, Trudeau's coronation is giving the party extra coverage. Although the reporter did use the phrase "hit rock bottom" a couple of times. lol
I suppose if nothing else, Trudeau's coronation is giving the party extra coverage. Although the reporter did use the phrase "hit rock bottom" a couple of times. lol
I'd raise the question of how winning the popular national vote is a coronation like that other guy getting 99% of 2000 delegates, but I don't think anyone here is gunning to use the term remotely accurately so, meh. In any case, it seems like Trudeau's victory, and his legion of 10k volunteers are a part of a larger trend towards general idiocracy achieved by the rest of the parties already. The Liberal Party, and its representatives are whatever the general populace wants them to be, and if it's shit then well, it's just a reflection of the people at this point.
matthewwhatever
Member
...wait, what? Are you arguing that getting more people involved in the party is a *bad* thing? (And, if you are, then secondary question: did you work on Paul Martin's campaign?)
no and no.
gutter_trash
Banned
Justin's leadership campaign donations have surpassed what is allowed under party rules. The surplus goes to the party.
The party is happy and have not seen a money raising machine like him in a long long time and they will need all the help they can get to go against the Conservative war chest that is armed to the gill.
Joyce Murray comes off as a western female version of Stephane Dion
The party is happy and have not seen a money raising machine like him in a long long time and they will need all the help they can get to go against the Conservative war chest that is armed to the gill.
Joyce Murray comes off as a western female version of Stephane Dion
Disagree. Stephane Dion had a plan he wanted everyone to rally around that extended far beyond just "beat Harper".
BladeWorker
Member
The media love to cover things that aren't doing well, and/or to declare others' hubris when it doesn't necessarily exist (anymore). When the Tories got ripped to shreds in 1992, for at least a short time, it got more press coverage than the GST and the nation's debt loads. It's not personal, it's just what sells papers/gets ratings.
Buba Big Guns
Banned
Canada pulls out of a UN convention that helps fight desertification, a massive problem around the world.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2013/03/27/un-droughts-deserts-convention-canada.html
Canada is now the only country not part of the agreement.....
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/story/2013/03/27/un-droughts-deserts-convention-canada.html
Canada is now the only country not part of the agreement.....
Wasn't Fantino quoted as saying something along the lines of "We weren't seeing enough results"? As if the 280k for 2010 and 2012 is somehow hurting the books more than the million they recently wasted on that Religious Freedoms office.
gutter_trash
Banned
Left column = 2011 results.
Middle column = Liberals without Justin
Right column = Liberals with Justin
Mulcair to me has been a big disappointment with his double-speak. I hope Trudeau can stand his ground and get ready for the Harper attack machine.
Stumpokapow
listen to the mad man
This is actually typical of nominally fiscal conservatives around the world: Use a "Death by 1000 cuts" to cut a bunch of tiny programs that progressives like but that you roll your eyes about, use very rational terms to justify cuts on performance or fiscal basis.
It took Harper about, I dunno, 2 weeks from his first PM mandate to start on that kind of thing. They cut the prison tattoo safe needle program, which costed something like $1 million a year and actually had a net negative cost because the medical bills it prevented (to say nothing of the human cost of HepC) exceeded the cost. From a fiscal standpoint it's small potatoes and irrelevant. But if you approach it from "Harm reduction is intellectually bankrupt, bad people need to be punished", then it's a perfectly logical cut.
Then the Court Challenges Program. That was the program that the feds funded for groups to be able to file charter violation lawsuits against the government in order to a) establish a body of jurisprudence on major charter issues, and b) ensure that active steps were taken to maintain equity in Canada. I think the cost was around $10 million a year or so? In terms of the number of cases it funded, it was fairly cheap, and when you think about it, a brand spanking new constitution needs a lot of court exposure to bang out the key issues and really get a sense of what our obligations actually are, under the charter. But what it comes down to is that Harper's chief of staff was Ian Brodie, and his PhD thesis was basically "Feminists and leftist activists want to use the court to overthrow Real Canada and replace it with a hippie paradise, and the court challenges program enables this" and "The government doesn't pass unconstitutional laws, so why should we pay people to challenge them?" and Ted Morton weighed in too--you can very clearly see who has the Prime Minister's ear and what their advice was--and the program was cut.
Flash forward a few years. PromArt is cut. Is it a huge expenditure? No, and especially not if you take into account the way that cultural expenditures redistribute themselves through the economy and boost employment. So, fiscally, not a big deal. But if you approach it from "The government gave money to a band that has the word 'Fuck' in their name. Those lefties and their anti-God anti-Values art need to be cut off." then it's a perfectly logical cut.
I can't for the life of me figure out how drought prevention is at odds with anything, but same thing there. I would guess it's a reflection of broader skepticism of international law, the United Nations, multilateralism, etc in favour of "doing the right thing", "you're with us or against us", closer ties to the US and an American approach to international issues, etc. It's not about the cost, it's about the symbolism of the convention. I'm sure there are analysts more clued in to international law who can better assess Harper's record on it.
Ditto closing Status of Women and having Bev Oda saying "Women are equal, case closed". Ditto the religious freedom thing you mention. In each case, the public justification was primarily fiscal and about good fiscal stewardship, but in each case there's an implicit or explicit "but, while we're talking about it, we also don't agree with the idea of these programs"
Obviously it's the government's prerogative and there's nothing illegitimate about the cuts--and in fact depending on your perspective some or all of them might be a good move. I don't really have any desire to debate the wisdom of any individual cut or the government's approach as a whole. The Court is really the only issue of the above that's directly something I'm interested in. I just want to highlight that the public fiscal justification ("good value", "bad value", "can't afford", "necessary expense") of some of these cuts or spending is actually a veneer for an intellectual, philosophical objection to the programs on the part of the government.
They didn't withdraw from the drought treaty because of the piddling cost obligations, they withdrew from it because they didn't like something about the obligations it placed on Canada or the symbolism of it.
matthewwhatever
Member
It seemed like oddly specific to cut to me too, until I read your post, and then it all came together: like most Harper policies, it's something he's taken from the GOP. They obviously hate the UN, but in recent years, their fears have centred around one very specific UN program: Agenda 21. (If you have time and don't mind going down into the weirder places of the conservative internet, just google "Agenda 21" and whatever your search suggests...it leads to some scary places. Also, Glenn Beck apparently wrote a book about it.)
Sure, enough, if you go to Section 12 of Agenda 21..." Managing Fragile Ecosystems: Combating Desertification and Drought". So there's the symbolism you're looking for -- the Treaty is one part of some wide-reaching conspiracy to take away our golf courses and enslave us all in death camps.
gutter_trash
Banned
if Harper was PM in 2003, he would have followed the US into the Iraq war. Thankfully he was not PM yet
Ether_Snake
å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®
I think it's because Harper and Co. know that there are proposals for a world water bank for which Canada would be asked to contribute heavily to. By not being there, they can't be blamed for refusing the plan, and it would sound silly for a plan to be formulated that makes Canada a big contributor when Canada isn't even there to begin with, it would be seen as a hostile move even by Canadians, the equivalent of countries agreeing to take Canada's water. So by not being there, this plan can't even be formulated with Canada as part of it.
It's preemptive, they know what will be discussed.
It's preemptive, they know what will be discussed.
Oh, I realize this is another in the Conservatives "turn up the heat slowly until the <animal> doesn't realize it's been boiled alive" style of cutting back, it just sickens me, as this wasn't even a drop in a drop in the pot.
We're becoming a pariah state and people can't be bothered to care, or cheer it on at worst. I think this is the part that bothers me most, that a majority of the population is so disinterested and/or cynical that he'll continue to get away with it untouched.
gutter_trash
Banned
fair point, I haven't thought of it that way.
If that's the case, then... fair enough.
If that really is the reason, I find it.... slightly less despicable. But only slightly.
Ether_Snake
å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®
Doesn't mean Canada couldn't easily contribute to it though, it's just that doing so would invariably mean that facilities that would have been put in place by the private sector for bottled water would now be put in place for this, and it's not like only Canada would be asked to contribute.
I guess we'll see what the topics cover at the UN meeting next month.
I guess we'll see what the topics cover at the UN meeting next month.
matthewwhatever
Member
Wait, is there any evidence of a "world water bank" being proposed? Or is Ether Snake just spouting his usual nonsense? Because, as I said, it seems a lot more likely that Harper is abandoning the treaty because Republicans think it's part of some UN conspiracy (since nearly everything he does can be tied into some GOP idea) than he's doing it because of some conspiracy involving the World Bank. Harper's a pretty mainstream Republican conservative, not some nutty anti-globalization nutcase.
Ether_Snake
å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®å®
There are countless other things his government is involved with at the UN that they haven't pulled out of.
Plus, the government said this in 2007
Suddenly they change course and get out of what no other country has exited from, to save a few thousand bucks. They gain nothing from doing this, only more backlash.
Wait till the UN meeting takes place. Then you'll see based on what comes out of it what his government didn't want to be involved with. They want to avoid being part of any discussion that would put targets for Canada, same as Kyoto before.
The Harper war machine is all set and ready to kick in with the attack ads the very next day after the Liberal leadership results are announced on April 14... it's going to be a long two years until the next election. :\
Conservatives have attack ads set to launch against Justin Trudeau
Conservatives have attack ads set to launch against Justin Trudeau
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked
- Locked