the clan of the claw
Posts: 1,976 
January 17th, 2006, 11:41 AM
Quote:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...tory/National/
Web-exclusive comment
Stephen Harper's Canada?
Just look at John Howard's Australia. Tuesday, January 17, 2006 Posted at 12:56 AM EST
Special to Globe and Mail Update
The resemblance between this federal election and the Australian one of 1996 is uncanny. In both cases, a centre-left government has been in office for 13 years - the Liberals in Canada and the Australian Labour Party (ALP) in Australia. And just as a tired ALP headed by Paul Keating faced a resurgent conservative force led by current Australian Prime Minister John Howard a decade ago, Paul Martin is facing a confident Conservative Party led by Stephen Harper today.
But more important for Canadians is the fact that Mr. Harper's party is employing the same campaign tactics that Mr. Howard first used in 1996 for his landslide win and that he has used to great effect in three successive elections.
As The Globe and Mail disclosed on Jan. 7, it's no accident that the Harper campaign feels like it has been ripped straight from the pages of the John Howard campaign manual. Mr. Howard's national campaign director, Brian Loughnane, is advising the Conservatives; last fall, Conservative Party strategists closely watched the tactics used by Mr. Howard to record his fourth election victory.
Mr. Howard's electoral success can be put down to his capacity to capture the support of working-class and lower-middle-class families who used to vote for the ALP; he did this by lining their pockets with tax cuts and middle-class welfare payments, such as cash bonuses for new mothers. And he appealed to their moral conservatism and desire to slow down the pace of social change.
Advertisements
In 1996, Mr. Howard's campaign slogan was "For all of us." Mr. Howard said the ALP was more interested in what he called "elite" issues such as aboriginal reconciliation, Australian republicanism and the arts.
Mr. Howard's phrase for those who have switched their support from the ALP to his Liberal Party is "mainstream Australians." These voters, who primarily live in the western suburbs of Sydney and southeast Queensland, don't like gay marriage. They fear social change; Muslim and Asian migrants moving into their neighbourhoods scares them. They believe aboriginal Australians get too much welfare. They like tough-on-crime policies. And they focus on their economic bottom line - they like tax cuts and low interest rates.
The beauty of capturing these voters' support is that, for a left-of-centre political force such as the ALP to win them back, it has to shift to the right - and that causes public brawling among its membership and makes the party seem a weak alternative to Mr. Howard's.
Mr. Harper's strategy appears to be a carbon copy of that adopted by the Liberal Party in Australia. Just as Mr. Howard uses the phrase "mainstream Australians," Mr. Harper talks about giving "mainstream Canadians" a tax cut and offering tough anti-crime policies.
And just as Mr. Howard accused Mr. Keating's ALP government of pandering to special interests, a key plank of Mr. Harper's campaign rhetoric is to accuse both the Liberals and the NDP of being out of touch with "ordinary" Canadian families. The NDP, Mr. Harper said, is "for high taxes, it's soft on crime, and it puts the demands of special interests ahead of the needs of ordinary working families."
Mr. Harper and Mr. Howard parallel each other in one other key respect. Mr. Howard is the most conservative prime minister in postwar Australia. He is determined to dismantle his country's egalitarian societal values and replace them with a society that is underpinned by concepts such as rewarding self-reliance, small government, tougher welfare policies, and moral conservatism.
What has made Mr. Howard so politically ruthless is his belief that his conservative predecessor, Malcolm Fraser (prime minister from 1975 to 1983), squandered an opportunity to do what Mr. Howard is now doing.
As Globe columnist John Ibbitson has noted, Mr. Harper was disappointed that the Mulroney government had not pursued a harder-edged libertarian agenda. If Mr. Harper wins this election, he will no doubt put that right.
If Canadians are asking themselves what a Harper government would do to their country, they just have to look at John Howard's Australia today.
Greg Barns, a lawyer based in Australia, is writing a book comparing Canada and Australia over the period 1968 to 2004.
Stephen Harper's Canada?
Just look at John Howard's Australia. Tuesday, January 17, 2006 Posted at 12:56 AM EST
Special to Globe and Mail Update
The resemblance between this federal election and the Australian one of 1996 is uncanny. In both cases, a centre-left government has been in office for 13 years - the Liberals in Canada and the Australian Labour Party (ALP) in Australia. And just as a tired ALP headed by Paul Keating faced a resurgent conservative force led by current Australian Prime Minister John Howard a decade ago, Paul Martin is facing a confident Conservative Party led by Stephen Harper today.
But more important for Canadians is the fact that Mr. Harper's party is employing the same campaign tactics that Mr. Howard first used in 1996 for his landslide win and that he has used to great effect in three successive elections.
As The Globe and Mail disclosed on Jan. 7, it's no accident that the Harper campaign feels like it has been ripped straight from the pages of the John Howard campaign manual. Mr. Howard's national campaign director, Brian Loughnane, is advising the Conservatives; last fall, Conservative Party strategists closely watched the tactics used by Mr. Howard to record his fourth election victory.
Mr. Howard's electoral success can be put down to his capacity to capture the support of working-class and lower-middle-class families who used to vote for the ALP; he did this by lining their pockets with tax cuts and middle-class welfare payments, such as cash bonuses for new mothers. And he appealed to their moral conservatism and desire to slow down the pace of social change.
Advertisements
In 1996, Mr. Howard's campaign slogan was "For all of us." Mr. Howard said the ALP was more interested in what he called "elite" issues such as aboriginal reconciliation, Australian republicanism and the arts.
Mr. Howard's phrase for those who have switched their support from the ALP to his Liberal Party is "mainstream Australians." These voters, who primarily live in the western suburbs of Sydney and southeast Queensland, don't like gay marriage. They fear social change; Muslim and Asian migrants moving into their neighbourhoods scares them. They believe aboriginal Australians get too much welfare. They like tough-on-crime policies. And they focus on their economic bottom line - they like tax cuts and low interest rates.
The beauty of capturing these voters' support is that, for a left-of-centre political force such as the ALP to win them back, it has to shift to the right - and that causes public brawling among its membership and makes the party seem a weak alternative to Mr. Howard's.
Mr. Harper's strategy appears to be a carbon copy of that adopted by the Liberal Party in Australia. Just as Mr. Howard uses the phrase "mainstream Australians," Mr. Harper talks about giving "mainstream Canadians" a tax cut and offering tough anti-crime policies.
And just as Mr. Howard accused Mr. Keating's ALP government of pandering to special interests, a key plank of Mr. Harper's campaign rhetoric is to accuse both the Liberals and the NDP of being out of touch with "ordinary" Canadian families. The NDP, Mr. Harper said, is "for high taxes, it's soft on crime, and it puts the demands of special interests ahead of the needs of ordinary working families."
Mr. Harper and Mr. Howard parallel each other in one other key respect. Mr. Howard is the most conservative prime minister in postwar Australia. He is determined to dismantle his country's egalitarian societal values and replace them with a society that is underpinned by concepts such as rewarding self-reliance, small government, tougher welfare policies, and moral conservatism.
What has made Mr. Howard so politically ruthless is his belief that his conservative predecessor, Malcolm Fraser (prime minister from 1975 to 1983), squandered an opportunity to do what Mr. Howard is now doing.
As Globe columnist John Ibbitson has noted, Mr. Harper was disappointed that the Mulroney government had not pursued a harder-edged libertarian agenda. If Mr. Harper wins this election, he will no doubt put that right.
If Canadians are asking themselves what a Harper government would do to their country, they just have to look at John Howard's Australia today.
Greg Barns, a lawyer based in Australia, is writing a book comparing Canada and Australia over the period 1968 to 2004.
Super Genius
Posts: 1,458
Location: Toronto
Location: Toronto
January 17th, 2006, 12:03 PM
Australia in the past few years especially has had a 'robust' foreign policy which I admire. They are punching above their weight internationally. In contrast, Canada loves to talk high and mighty and pretend like we are some kind of moral superpower while lacking the guts to translate words into actions.
Australia in the past few years especially has had a 'robust' foreign policy which I admire. They are punching above their weight internationally. In contrast, Canada loves to talk high and mighty and pretend like we are some kind of moral superpower while lacking the guts to translate words into actions.
Member
Posts: 71
Location: Alberta
Location: Alberta
January 17th, 2006, 12:45 PM
That muscle just doesn't show in foreign affairs. In the last Olympics, from a population base less than 2/3 that of Canada, they were fourth in the world in medals. 17 Gold, 16 Silver, 16 Bronze.
Canada was 21st. 3 Gold, 6 Silver and 3 Bronze.
Seems like we want all things Canadian to have about the same standing in the world as our health care services.
Quoting
Not only is Australian foreign policy getting noticed around the world.
Australia in the past few years especially has had a 'robust' foreign policy which I admire. They are punching above their weight internationally. In contrast, Canada loves to talk high and mighty and pretend like we are some kind of moral superpower while lacking the guts to translate words into actions.
That muscle just doesn't show in foreign affairs. In the last Olympics, from a population base less than 2/3 that of Canada, they were fourth in the world in medals. 17 Gold, 16 Silver, 16 Bronze.
Canada was 21st. 3 Gold, 6 Silver and 3 Bronze.
Seems like we want all things Canadian to have about the same standing in the world as our health care services.
Member
Posts: 109
January 17th, 2006, 06:18 PM
it's also interesting to note, that since John Howard's government took power, Australia's quality of life has increased, and surpassed Canada. Meanwhile Canada's quality of life has been declining.
The same is exactly true with the U.N HDI rating. Australia is now in 3rd place worldwide, Canada has dropped several spots to somewhere below that.
Australian's pay less for health care per capita, have better service, more doctors per capita, more MRI machines per capita, longer life expectancy
The list goes on...
So if this is what Canada will look like with Harper, I say great
it's also interesting to note, that since John Howard's government took power, Australia's quality of life has increased, and surpassed Canada. Meanwhile Canada's quality of life has been declining.
The same is exactly true with the U.N HDI rating. Australia is now in 3rd place worldwide, Canada has dropped several spots to somewhere below that.
Australian's pay less for health care per capita, have better service, more doctors per capita, more MRI machines per capita, longer life expectancy
The list goes on...
So if this is what Canada will look like with Harper, I say great
Bright Spark
Posts: 277
January 17th, 2006, 06:35 PM
Harper's Canada will include criminal laws in which Svend Robinson the NDP Thief wouldn't be going 'boo hoo' after strealing a 50,000 in propery and not going to jail (and then being enthusiastically embraced by Jack Layton to run for the NDP again)
I'll find some links and post them.
Harper's Canada will include criminal laws in which Svend Robinson the NDP Thief wouldn't be going 'boo hoo' after strealing a 50,000 in propery and not going to jail (and then being enthusiastically embraced by Jack Layton to run for the NDP again)
I'll find some links and post them.
Bright Spark
Posts: 277
January 17th, 2006, 06:39 PM
Maclean's Magazine:
http://www.macleans.ca/topstories/po..._118179_118179
"Svend, send him packing". NDP's poster boy for what the NDP represents....thievery.
Maclean's Magazine:
http://www.macleans.ca/topstories/po..._118179_118179
"Svend, send him packing". NDP's poster boy for what the NDP represents....thievery.
Ponderous Intellect
Posts: 4,465
Videos: 1
Location: Surrey, British Columbia
Videos: 1
Location: Surrey, British Columbia
January 17th, 2006, 07:11 PM
In my opinion, I would have seen no purpose in having had imprisoned Mr. Svend Robinson for his crime; the ring was returned, and community service was performed. There was no outstanding damage to correct, and he was not a danger to society — in my opinion, incarceration would have been useless.
In my opinion, I would have seen no purpose in having had imprisoned Mr. Svend Robinson for his crime; the ring was returned, and community service was performed. There was no outstanding damage to correct, and he was not a danger to society — in my opinion, incarceration would have been useless.
Member
Posts: 109
January 17th, 2006, 07:14 PM
I'm sorry fiveparadox, but your logic is horribly flawed
Quoting
In that case, I'm gonna go "borrow" a BMW from the car dealership.
In my opinion, I would have seen no purpose in having had imprisoned Mr. Svend Robinson for his crime; the ring was returned, and community service was performed. There was no outstanding damage to correct, and he was not a danger to society — in my opinion, incarceration would have been useless.
I'm sorry fiveparadox, but your logic is horribly flawed
Steven Hawking's Tutor
Posts: 4,838
Location: Independent Palestine
Location: Independent Palestine
January 17th, 2006, 07:16 PM
No not really. The guy didn't commit a crime before hand. He returned the ring and apologized and received community service.
Now this would be on his record for life, wouldn't it, for a politician, who only did that once that is enough, having other people remember what you did.
No not really. The guy didn't commit a crime before hand. He returned the ring and apologized and received community service.
Now this would be on his record for life, wouldn't it, for a politician, who only did that once that is enough, having other people remember what you did.
Ponderous Intellect
Posts: 4,465
Videos: 1
Location: Surrey, British Columbia
Videos: 1
Location: Surrey, British Columbia
January 17th, 2006, 07:16 PM
nomore, my opinion is that persons should be incarcerated only where they pose a danger to society; in my opinion, imprisonment should be more of a method of protection for society than punishment for the offender.
This issue was discussed at length on another thread; if you'd like to talk about it in another thread, then I would invite you to create it, and I would be more than happy to engage you in a friendly exchange of opinions. ^_^
nomore, my opinion is that persons should be incarcerated only where they pose a danger to society; in my opinion, imprisonment should be more of a method of protection for society than punishment for the offender.
This issue was discussed at length on another thread; if you'd like to talk about it in another thread, then I would invite you to create it, and I would be more than happy to engage you in a friendly exchange of opinions. ^_^
Member
Posts: 109
January 17th, 2006, 07:28 PM
"The judge handed him a conditional discharge, meaning Mr. Robinson will not have a criminal record or serve any jail time."
Fiveparadox, think of the concequences if everyone started stealing things and then "gave them back" when they get caught. It's called anarchy.
I have no need to start a thread about this, since it is blatently obvious that it was wrong. Plus, I didn't start this subject in this thread.
Quoting
From the National Post, August 7, 2004.
Now this would be on his record for life, wouldn't it, for a politician, who only did that once that is enough, having other people remember what you did.
"The judge handed him a conditional discharge, meaning Mr. Robinson will not have a criminal record or serve any jail time."
Fiveparadox, think of the concequences if everyone started stealing things and then "gave them back" when they get caught. It's called anarchy.
I have no need to start a thread about this, since it is blatently obvious that it was wrong. Plus, I didn't start this subject in this thread.
Ponderous Intellect
Posts: 4,465
Videos: 1
Location: Surrey, British Columbia
Videos: 1
Location: Surrey, British Columbia
January 17th, 2006, 07:31 PM
Well, it's good to know that my opinion is blatently wrong.
So much for friendly debate.
Returning to the Topic at Hand
It is an interesting question, as to whether or not Stephen Harper is going to have the influence that he would need in order to create "his" Canada. He would almost certainly require a majority, since the left-wing (and left-of-centre) Opposition to this prime ministership would likely defeat pieces of overtly conservative legislation (in regards to non-fiscal matters).
Well, it's good to know that my opinion is blatently wrong.
So much for friendly debate.
Returning to the Topic at HandIt is an interesting question, as to whether or not Stephen Harper is going to have the influence that he would need in order to create "his" Canada. He would almost certainly require a majority, since the left-wing (and left-of-centre) Opposition to this prime ministership would likely defeat pieces of overtly conservative legislation (in regards to non-fiscal matters).
