Let's be clear, Harper didn't call election because Parliament was dysfunctional. He did it to win
By LORRIE GOLDSTEIN, TORONTO SUN
Today let's ask Prime Minister Stephen Harper a simple question.
What are you going to do now regarding the Canadian economy that you couldn't have done before Sept. 7, when you called the election, which has just given you a second minority mandate?
When Harper called the vote, he said he needed a fresh mandate in order to manage the economy through perilous times and because Parliament was dysfunctional.
But when, during the election, those perilous times arrived faster than anyone, including Harper, thought, the prime minister never explained what he would do differently with a new mandate compared to the one he already had. He still hasn't.
Since the election, Harper has announced a six-point plan that contains nothing he couldn't have done before Sept. 7 -- meeting with international leaders and the premiers to discuss a co-ordinated approach on the economy, ensuring Canada's government and financial system are running efficiently, delivering a fall financial statement to Parliament, etc.
During the election, Harper asked the organizers of the leaders' debate to devote a special section to the economy, to which they agreed.
But when the subject came up, all Harper said of note was that unlike Americans, Canadians were only worried about their stock portfolios, not losing their homes and jobs, which undoubtedly came as a shock to the hundreds of thousands of Canadians who have lost their jobs in the manufacturing sector over the past few years.
Green Party Leader Elizabeth May asked Harper why he had asked for special time to talk about the economy, if he had nothing new to say.
It was a good question then. It's a good question now.
When pressed following the leaders' debate, in the face of declining polls showing Canadians weren't impressed with his advice that crashing stock markets presented some good buying opportunities, Harper said he would maintain his "steady hand" on the economy as he had since being elected in 2006.
He added his government had already prepared Canada for tougher times by its actions over the previous two-and-a-half years, by cutting taxes and paying down debt.
Uh ... OK, but if that's his argument, the only logical inference is Harper already had the tools he thought he needed to manage the economy during his last minority government, which means Parliament was not, as he claimed, dysfunctional.
Thus, there was no reason for him to force an election violating the spirit, if not the letter, of his fixed election date law, which would have seen the vote held on Oct. 19, 2009.
Actually, I agree with Harper that a fixed election date law is irrelevant in a minority Parliament and opposition arguments he should have adhered to it, when they wouldn't have if it had been to their political advantage, are nonsense.
But there's the rub.
Is there anyone who doesn't believe Harper called the election not because he wanted a new mandate on the economy, but because he thought he could win a majority?
Even on that point, Harper was disingenuous because when he called the vote, he said he expected to win another minority.
In other words, Harper's argument, if we are to believe it from his statements before, during and after the election, is he had to force an early election to give him another minority government so he would have the powers he already had to do what he was already able to do, to effectively manage Canada's economy. Right.
WHY THE CHARADE?
Wouldn't it be easier if politicians just admitted the obvious when they call or force an election -- that they're doing it, assuming they can control the timing, because they think they can win, or convert a minority into a majority, or prolong a dynasty?
Why go through the charade of giving phony reasons for an election?
Harper called this one because he thought, wrongly as it turned out, he could win a majority.
Stephane Dion delayed it for as long as he could by propping up Harper's government because he thought, rightly as it turned out, that once it was called, he'd lose.
It's not rocket science.
Toronto Sun
So, why did we spend 300 million again?
So harper could go against his own law to make things the same.
Wow, that's some good management of our tax dollars in troubling times.:roll:
By LORRIE GOLDSTEIN, TORONTO SUN
Today let's ask Prime Minister Stephen Harper a simple question.
What are you going to do now regarding the Canadian economy that you couldn't have done before Sept. 7, when you called the election, which has just given you a second minority mandate?
When Harper called the vote, he said he needed a fresh mandate in order to manage the economy through perilous times and because Parliament was dysfunctional.
But when, during the election, those perilous times arrived faster than anyone, including Harper, thought, the prime minister never explained what he would do differently with a new mandate compared to the one he already had. He still hasn't.
Since the election, Harper has announced a six-point plan that contains nothing he couldn't have done before Sept. 7 -- meeting with international leaders and the premiers to discuss a co-ordinated approach on the economy, ensuring Canada's government and financial system are running efficiently, delivering a fall financial statement to Parliament, etc.
During the election, Harper asked the organizers of the leaders' debate to devote a special section to the economy, to which they agreed.
But when the subject came up, all Harper said of note was that unlike Americans, Canadians were only worried about their stock portfolios, not losing their homes and jobs, which undoubtedly came as a shock to the hundreds of thousands of Canadians who have lost their jobs in the manufacturing sector over the past few years.
Green Party Leader Elizabeth May asked Harper why he had asked for special time to talk about the economy, if he had nothing new to say.
It was a good question then. It's a good question now.
When pressed following the leaders' debate, in the face of declining polls showing Canadians weren't impressed with his advice that crashing stock markets presented some good buying opportunities, Harper said he would maintain his "steady hand" on the economy as he had since being elected in 2006.
He added his government had already prepared Canada for tougher times by its actions over the previous two-and-a-half years, by cutting taxes and paying down debt.
Uh ... OK, but if that's his argument, the only logical inference is Harper already had the tools he thought he needed to manage the economy during his last minority government, which means Parliament was not, as he claimed, dysfunctional.
Thus, there was no reason for him to force an election violating the spirit, if not the letter, of his fixed election date law, which would have seen the vote held on Oct. 19, 2009.
Actually, I agree with Harper that a fixed election date law is irrelevant in a minority Parliament and opposition arguments he should have adhered to it, when they wouldn't have if it had been to their political advantage, are nonsense.
But there's the rub.
Is there anyone who doesn't believe Harper called the election not because he wanted a new mandate on the economy, but because he thought he could win a majority?
Even on that point, Harper was disingenuous because when he called the vote, he said he expected to win another minority.
In other words, Harper's argument, if we are to believe it from his statements before, during and after the election, is he had to force an early election to give him another minority government so he would have the powers he already had to do what he was already able to do, to effectively manage Canada's economy. Right.
WHY THE CHARADE?
Wouldn't it be easier if politicians just admitted the obvious when they call or force an election -- that they're doing it, assuming they can control the timing, because they think they can win, or convert a minority into a majority, or prolong a dynasty?
Why go through the charade of giving phony reasons for an election?
Harper called this one because he thought, wrongly as it turned out, he could win a majority.
Stephane Dion delayed it for as long as he could by propping up Harper's government because he thought, rightly as it turned out, that once it was called, he'd lose.
It's not rocket science.
Toronto Sun
So, why did we spend 300 million again?
So harper could go against his own law to make things the same.
Wow, that's some good management of our tax dollars in troubling times.:roll: