Thursday, December 11, 2008

Harper's Job Creation Program

Promise Made.

Promise Broken. Again.

I guess by now, we shouldn't be surprised, eh?

One interesting twist to Harper's announcement that he will fill the Senate with Tory hacks is the possibility of an Ontario MPP going in, opening up a seat for John Tory to run in.

Labels:

posted by calgarygrit at 6:24 p.m.

40 Comments:

  • Harper can act like any PM and appoint whomever he wants as a senator.

    By Blogger Unknown, at 6:29 p.m.  

  • If anyone is surprised by Conservative hypocrisy these days they obviously don't watch the Conservatives that closely.

    The best way to tell what a Conservative is going to do is to listen to what they say they're not going to do.

    By Blogger Hishighness, at 6:29 p.m.  

  • LOL,as opposed to 58 liberal hacks.Gee Grit since Rae was usurped by Iggy you have become illiberal.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 6:34 p.m.  

  • White Man speaks with forked tonque

    By Blogger JimTan, at 6:37 p.m.  

  • I read that the coalition had agreed to stack it with separatist bloc senators, and ugh... Ellie May. So, PM Harper is doing us all a big favor putting some sane federalist folks in there.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 6:40 p.m.  

  • I've always wondered if a province like Alberta could bring in legislation to impose a one hundred per cent tax on the senatorial income of unelected senators from their province. Does anyone know if it would be legal/constitutional?

    By Blogger nuna d. above, at 6:41 p.m.  

  • "I read that the coalition had agreed to stack it with separatist bloc senators, and ugh... Ellie May. So, PM Harper is doing us all a big favor putting some sane federalist folks in there."

    Nice try and LYING there, bud but NOWHERE is there any verifyable proof that the Coalition EVER said that senate appointments for the Bloc or to Elizabeth May was part of the arrangements.

    Back to the "war room" for some more Kool-aid bub. And while you're at it read a book will ya?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 6:53 p.m.  

  • Interesting that the other promise in the heading of the article that you linked to was fixed election dates.

    Promise broken.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7:32 p.m.  

  • PM Harper appointing senators doesn’t bother me. That he is doing it while parliament is prorogued does. Do I have to mention that he is the first PM to prorogue simply to avoid a confidence motion? Until he confirms his support from the House his authority to make such appointments is questionable. The GG should have suspended the PMs power to make appointments until the House returns in late Jan.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7:33 p.m.  

  • The Alberta government imposed a tax only for NHL hockey players and gave the money to the Oilers and the Flames to cope with the pre-lockout hockey economic situation. So the precedent for taxing non - elected senators is set and shouldn't be a stretch.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7:42 p.m.  

  • Honestly, I don't think it would be that hard for Harper to move on Senate reform. Reagan and Obama, Kennedy and many others knew the value of talking to the people. Harper's a good enough PM, but his PR sucks, and he is, in this respect, a total fool to not clue in. I'm sure Chucker could write him an excellent speech for free, and he's got a budget to hire speechwriters. Harper's failure to enact Senate reform is his alone. There are obstacles to overcome, yes - but nothing worth doing is ever easy. Canadians could be persuaded behind a Triple-E senate easily enough. Pointing out how Barack Obama and JFK and RFK (I think...) came out of the Senate would be a salient point for Canadians to ponder over.

    I'm not questioning his sincerity or intelligence on the matter of Senate reform, but the "master tactician" is a hopelessly clueless fuck-up when it comes to strategy on this one. He has no plan and no hope to actually reform the Senate. It's easy to blame the Liberal Red Chamber, he can get people to hold protests against a coalition government -- why can't he get people to hold protests against an appointed Senate? Either he's bullshitting everyone about his belief in reform (which I doubt), or he's twiddling his thumbs.

    By Blogger Jacques Beau Vert, at 7:43 p.m.  

  • Of course, the unelected senator could make Ottawa their home and escape this tax.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 7:44 p.m.  

  • Harper can act like any PM and appoint whomever he wants as a senator.
    Legally, yes. Morally, no.

    The best way to tell what a Conservative is going to do is to listen to what they say they're not going to do.
    The old familiar refrain... Liberal, Tory, same old story.

    White Man speaks with forked tonque
    Oh, the hurtful barbs against my proud and noble race - we all shake in our collective white skins.
    PS You really need some new material, this one's getting old.

    I read that the coalition had agreed to stack it with separatist bloc senators, and ugh... Ellie May
    I read that, too. Never saw any proof or evidence, though.

    Look, I can agree May's an asshole, but why save your contempt for her instead of the separatists? Just idly curious, no big deal.

    By Blogger Jacques Beau Vert, at 7:48 p.m.  

  • "Do I have to mention that he is the first PM to prorogue simply to avoid a confidence motion?"

    Wrong! John A. Macdonald prorogued in 1873 to avoid losing a VONC over the Pacific rail scandal. Prorogation didn't save him, however, and parliament still voted him down.

    Frankly I'm glad Harper isn't going to reform the senate, as I am in favour of a strong parliament (I'm okay with senate abolition) over the kind of gridlock you see in the US.

    By Blogger french wedding cat, at 7:58 p.m.  

  • In Ontario, we call them MPPs!

    By Blogger Padraic, at 8:42 p.m.  

  • Harper can be as hypocritical as he wants and lie as much as he wants because he knows Canadians don't really have a choice. Once the Liberals clean up their own act we will.

    Until then all we can do is choose our favourite among the lying, hypocritical, party-first partisans. And at least Harper looks good in a sweater vest.

    By Blogger Robert Vollman, at 8:59 p.m.  

  • What are the odds that Mike Duffy ends up a Senator?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 9:17 p.m.  

  • What's wrong with Elizabeth May? She wiped the floor with everyone else in the debates. She's articulate, well-spoken, and backs up her opinions with hard facts.

    I did not vote for her party, but I feel that she merits due respect and consideration.

    By Blogger leonsp, at 9:19 p.m.  

  • When the only way to reform an institution is from within, one must allow those who wish to see reform to gain entry to the institution.

    The Liberals refused to even consider Senate Reform, and blocked a lot of serious legislation.

    If every single one of these 18 appointments are dyed-in-the-wool Conservatives, the Liberals will still command a majority of 58-38 in the Senate, and will continue their obstructionist ways.

    So your point is what, exactly?

    By Blogger Paul, at 10:17 p.m.  

  • You forget - Jean Chretien parogued parliament to delay Fall 2003 Sheila Fraser from tabling the AdScam report in the HOuse.

    Then Chretien appointed hundreds of his friends and after doing that quit and left Paul Martin with the mess when the House reconvened a few months later.

    It is just that the media did not make a big deal of it back then. It was Liberals after all.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 10:56 p.m.  

  • Anon- Chretien never said he'd bring in an elected Senate.

    By Blogger calgarygrit, at 11:45 p.m.  

  • What's wrong with Elizabeth May?

    She's an asshole?

    She wiped the floor with everyone else in the debates.

    Uh, which debate?

    She's articulate, well-spoken, and backs up her opinions with hard facts.

    She's articulate, she lacks presence (so do they all). She backs the Liberals, the most anti-environment party we've got in Parliament. Cognitive dissonance much, Elizabeth?

    Harper deserves criticism, but when asked to say something nice about the person sitting opposite, she couldn't be bothered. That's classless. Ergo, she's classless.

    I did not vote for her party, but I feel that she merits due respect and consideration.

    Well, I DID vote for her party, but I did so against my judgment of her.

    A) Someone who refuses to say something nice when requested does not merit respect.

    B) Any asshole who challenges a popular Cabinet minister instead of giving it a serious shot in a winnable riding does not merit consideration. She wasted the Green Party's best ever shot at representation in the House, and I doubt she even wants to be an actual MP. She's a pig, leadership is a trough.

    By Blogger Jacques Beau Vert, at 11:51 p.m.  

  • When the only way to reform an institution is from within,

    If anyone needed further proof that Paul is a hypocritical partisan twisting in the wind (and no one did), here it is.

    Harper's barely lifted a finger to reform the Senate. The only reasonable "action" he's taken is to not appoint, and now he's taken that away.

    He's a hypocrite who has never once taken to the airwaves to ask Canadians for their support in writing to Senators and MPs to demand a Triple-E Senate. His PR sense is as finely tuned as my Japanese fluency.

    By Blogger Jacques Beau Vert, at 11:54 p.m.  

  • People who respect Elizabeth May need their heads examined. She probably could have won Parkdale-High Park, or several BC ridings. There's other ridings she could have contested.

    What a joke she is. Her supporters are an even bigger joke.

    By Blogger Jacques Beau Vert, at 11:57 p.m.  

  • Hi CG

    A suggestion

    Why not have a reasoned debate on election / party funding?
    Why not have a reasoned debate on senate reform?

    What we don't need is divisive, knee-jerk, opportunism and pandering...from either side

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11:58 p.m.  

  • Elizabeth May is utter trash, so I do hope she doesn't get mixed in with the recycling at Green Party HQ. I don't understand how anybody could like her, given the profoundly passive aggressive and contradictory nature of her politics.

    She took a Green party that represented a genuine pseudo-libertarian alternative to the big parties (I strongly considered voting Green in Ontario in both 2003 and 2007) and turned it into a less inclusive version of the NDP (no hard-hats allowed). In doing that, and in focusing her entire campaign on Harper-bashing, rather than introducing distinct ideas (can anybody name a single interesting policy proposal from May?).

    At the same time, however, she made a deal with Stephane Dion, endorsing him as Prime Minister, and urging her own candidates to basically drop out, or at least phone it in, so the Liberals could win in their riding.

    May's strategy split the vote, while her tactics sought to undermine those effects. Frankly, if she wanted to elect Dion as PM, she had an option: destroy her own party. If she wanted to provide a genuine alternative to the four parties with seats, she could have done that.

    She opted for doing neither. As a result she took away just enough Liberal votes to give Harper a strong minority, but made sure she performed badly enough as Green leader that they won no seats and had no impact on the discourse within the election.

    By Blogger french wedding cat, at 12:13 a.m.  

  • What Hoosier said. Utter trash.

    By Blogger Jacques Beau Vert, at 12:24 a.m.  

  • “Oh, the hurtful barbs against my proud and noble race - we all shake in our collective white skins. “

    I think that this is a very relevant analogy.

    In the old days, the whites looked down on natives. But, the whites (in power) were very often hypocrites and liars.

    Today, the conservatives are very similar. The lying, dishonesty, criminality and malice are the hallmarks of the conservative politician in the States and Canada. Stephan Harper is a sterling example.

    Why is this so? It comes down to personality. Poorly educated, they tend to be 'simple', bigoted and intolerant. They can not accept other POVs. They are ideologically shackled like their leftist compadres.

    Why do you allow these pitiful specimens of humanity to run the country into the ground, as they did to the States?

    By Blogger JimTan, at 3:40 a.m.  

  • Bo, you lost me when you said the Liberals were the "most anti-environment party" in parliament. I can't argue that they've failed on many accounts when it comes to action and words, but 'most anti-environment party'? Can you tell me where they sabotaged an international meeting, demanding essentially that we should be the last one to commit to action, holding the door until China and India cross that threshhold? Or in establishing complete bogus intensity targets for your grandchildrens grandchildren? I guess you don't have much time for David Suzuki, but I'd say he's got some credibility on this subject. You're brain-farting in the wind on that one.

    By Blogger rockfish, at 3:41 a.m.  

  • The Harper gov't has been inactive on the environment, and that's by far my biggest criticism of them -- I think everyone knows that because I never shut up.

    However, I'm angrier with the Liberals because of their hypocrisy on the issue. I'm tired of the party saying and pretending that it really, really, really cares, and then acting outraged when others don't do the right thing.

    This is NOT a defence of the Cons when I say: At least they don't run as a green party, they're pretty obvious about not giving a fuck.

    Watching from space, who knows - I might say the Cons are worse. But from here, the Libs's make-believe on the topic has really frustrated me for too long.

    And, to me it is "anti-environment" to put on a public show about crusading while failing to act. It's using the issue for press and power, without any concern.

    By Blogger Jacques Beau Vert, at 8:59 a.m.  

  • David Suzuki is a joke, Rockfish. Please - you know nothing of what you're talking about, and your ignorance and apologism shows.

    This is a man who campaigned fervently against over-population, while having more than 2 children. Hypocrite much?

    This is a man who travelled cross-country on fossil fuels to campaign against fossil fuels because he "couldn't afford" the insurance to retro-fit his bus with a greener engine.

    Sorry, but if David Suzuki can't pony up the cash, how are my mom and clients and neighbours supposed to?

    It was a chance to do something publicly show-y, and make a statement that would be in the media and get people watching, at least for a little while.

    The whole thing was a "publicize Suzuki" show, not a campaign for a greener earth.

    He could have held those seminars live from his living room, in a nation-wide broadcast into every auditorium he visited. That's the future of green publicity, not highway tours.

    He's full of excuses and he wastes excellent opportunities. Doesn't say "green" to me.

    I don't want to give Chernushenko too much credit here, but I certainly hope that with a Suzuki-sized public image he could do a lot more to rally people onboard his cause.

    Just because the Cons are dolts on the environment doesn't make Suzuki a saint. He's very, very, very not. However, I *am* curious how Suzuki ties into the Liberal's record of finger-fucking on the environment....?

    By Blogger Jacques Beau Vert, at 9:06 a.m.  

  • Well Jim, I'm not really much for re-hashing the past - I know you get a lot of personal satisfaction from it and it makes you feel empowered and potent, but to me it's the present and future are of much greater concern. The past is a curiosity, but it's not an area of passion for me, really. But please, live there if it makes you feel stronger -- I think we're all better off without you in the present, anyway!

    By Blogger Jacques Beau Vert, at 9:13 a.m.  

  • Anon - I'm all for a reasonable debate on any topic. I think it would be great if the PM proposed a round table debate on senate reform to try and sell his position to the Canadian people on this topic.

    By Blogger calgarygrit, at 10:24 a.m.  

  • Despite the, uhh, unflatering words being used to describe Liz May here, I wouldn't have a huge problem with her being appointed to the Senate. It would give the Greens a seat and she'd be able to speak out on behalf of her issue of interest from within government.

    By Blogger calgarygrit, at 10:25 a.m.  

  • Green - In fairness, Dion did go down fighting for the environment the last election when he probably shouldn't have (politically speaking).

    Although your point about them doing nothing while in power is well taken.

    By Blogger calgarygrit, at 10:27 a.m.  

  • I think Dion should have led the Green Party, but it is what it is.

    I'm frankly suspicious that a Liberal caucus would have ever given any real, actual support to Dion on the environment. I just don't believe that, not for a second.

    However, I completely agree with you that Dion's devotion to the environment is sincere and genuine. You are absolutely correct.

    And I still think he should replace May in the Green Party - he'd win at least 2 or 3 seats, I bet. He'd certainly take it more seriously than May.

    By Blogger Jacques Beau Vert, at 10:44 a.m.  

  • Senate. It would give the Greens a seat .....to speak ..... from within government.

    Hmm, that's an excellent point. I think she'd be ineffective because she reiies on insults too much (which you'd think I'd actually admire...) but you do make a knock-out point. You're right, and I've changed my mind.

    Making May a Senator would speak volumes if Harper did it. Bitter pill to swallow, but it would probably really change his image right now.

    Thanks, I love having my views changed.

    By Blogger Jacques Beau Vert, at 10:48 a.m.  

  • In fact, I'm going to write a letter to the PMO suggesting May, or Chernushenko.

    By Blogger Jacques Beau Vert, at 11:02 a.m.  

  • "I think we're all better off without you in the present, anyway!"

    Unfortunately, the harperites exist in the present and future. Much to be done.

    By Blogger JimTan, at 11:40 a.m.  

  • It's all wrong what you're writing.

    By Anonymous sex shop, at 5:22 p.m.  

Post a Comment

<< Home