Harper's words a gift for opponents
- Thread starter mentalfloss
- Start date
You have many times equated the Harper gov't, or mostly Harper himself to be responsible for everything from oil prices to native problems. You have made certain that nobody with an ounce of sense pays attention to you.
Skook, what is more alarming is a lack of taking responsibility for the horrid mess his Province is in.
Certainly you are not suggesting Ms. Wynne is somehow responsible for the failure of the main manufacturing sector province to benefit from conditions favourable to manufacturing such as a real low Canadian dollar?
Yup, even when it was high there was no excuse. Operating costs and labour don't vary with the dollar.
I blame the Dutch and the disease they have.
Mr, Wynne is probably part Dutch
Fingas: Will Prime Minister Stephen Harper kill off his own party?
Regina News - Breaking News & Latest Headlines | Leader Post
Stephen Harper has long operated on the principle that what's best for his own political fortunes is necessarily the best political choice for his party.
And supporters far more focused on clawing their way to power than living up to the principles that once motivated them have been happy to play along.
But Harper soon might have to choose between fighting a losing battle to lengthen his own time in office or maintaining his party's viability in the years to come.
And it looks like the same myopia he's shown in governing Canada might soon boomerang against the Conservatives.
Harper's theoretical goal has long been to build a "default governing party." And on paper, the political systems of Canada's Western provinces were supposed to provide the template.
In Alberta and British Columbia, right-wing parties have often governed for stretches of time exceeding those of left-wing alternatives. And that pattern can be explained by their use of many of Harper's favourite tactics - including the strict suppression of dissent and scandal, which delays a government's day of reckoning and allows a party to cling to power longer than it might otherwise.
But those tactics carry some costs.
A systematic effort to stifle information and debate tends to result in the voter fatigue and outrage that topple a government materializing all at once - rather than emerging gradually with time, permanently tarring the party as unfit for office.
And with both first-choice and second-choice supporters fleeing the Conservatives in droves, the next federal election could see Harper reach the point of no return.
What 's more, Harper has seriously weakened the building blocks necessary for the Conservatives to rebuild in their current incarnation.
Years of branding based on economic management are at risk as Harper and company deny, then evade, an economic downturn for the second time. And the Conservatives' one-time rhetoric about ethics has given way to a steady stream of investigations, trials and scandals.
Meanwhile, Harper has tried to prevent threats to his own leadership by stifling the growth of any other internal power bases. But now, most of his plausible successors are going or gone as the opportunity to lead the Conservatives loses its appeal.
So what's left for a party with a tarnished brand, few if any viable successors waiting in the wings and no apparent interest in renewal? B.C. and Alberta often have seen deposed conservative governments shed their skin and resurface under a new party name. But that's possible in large part due to lax fundraising laws that allow corporate donors to transfer gobs of money to whichever right-wing party seems to be on the upswing.
That option isn't available under federal financing rules that prohibit corporate donations. And it's far from clear how one would go about transferring the Conservatives' remaining financial and organizational support to another party.
Of course, Harper could try to preserve the brand the Conservatives already have at the expense of some short-term disruption.
He could soften his party's edges rather than perpetually operating in attack mode, reach out to voters who have been seen as beyond the party's coalition (and thus its interest) over the years, address economic realities rather than endlessly trumpeting his own infallibility.
He could allow for the development of independent thought within the Conservative tent.
But after a decade of entrenched habits, it's probably too late to expect that type of self-awareness and change.
And Harper's stubbornness in the face of lengthening odds of holding onto power in the short term might herald the end of his longterm goal.
Fingas is a Regina lawyer, blogger and freelance political commentator who has written about provincial and national issues from a progressive NDP perspective since 2005. His column appears every Thursday. You can read more from Fingas at Accidental Deliberations.
Fingas: Will Prime Minister Stephen Harper kill off his own party?
Regina News - Breaking News & Latest Headlines | Leader Post
Stephen Harper has long operated on the principle that what's best for his own political fortunes is necessarily the best political choice for his party.
And supporters far more focused on clawing their way to power than living up to the principles that once motivated them have been happy to play along.
But Harper soon might have to choose between fighting a losing battle to lengthen his own time in office or maintaining his party's viability in the years to come.
And it looks like the same myopia he's shown in governing Canada might soon boomerang against the Conservatives.
Harper's theoretical goal has long been to build a "default governing party." And on paper, the political systems of Canada's Western provinces were supposed to provide the template.
In Alberta and British Columbia, right-wing parties have often governed for stretches of time exceeding those of left-wing alternatives. And that pattern can be explained by their use of many of Harper's favourite tactics - including the strict suppression of dissent and scandal, which delays a government's day of reckoning and allows a party to cling to power longer than it might otherwise.
But those tactics carry some costs.
A systematic effort to stifle information and debate tends to result in the voter fatigue and outrage that topple a government materializing all at once - rather than emerging gradually with time, permanently tarring the party as unfit for office.
And with both first-choice and second-choice supporters fleeing the Conservatives in droves, the next federal election could see Harper reach the point of no return.
What 's more, Harper has seriously weakened the building blocks necessary for the Conservatives to rebuild in their current incarnation.
Years of branding based on economic management are at risk as Harper and company deny, then evade, an economic downturn for the second time. And the Conservatives' one-time rhetoric about ethics has given way to a steady stream of investigations, trials and scandals.
Meanwhile, Harper has tried to prevent threats to his own leadership by stifling the growth of any other internal power bases. But now, most of his plausible successors are going or gone as the opportunity to lead the Conservatives loses its appeal.
So what's left for a party with a tarnished brand, few if any viable successors waiting in the wings and no apparent interest in renewal? B.C. and Alberta often have seen deposed conservative governments shed their skin and resurface under a new party name. But that's possible in large part due to lax fundraising laws that allow corporate donors to transfer gobs of money to whichever right-wing party seems to be on the upswing.
That option isn't available under federal financing rules that prohibit corporate donations. And it's far from clear how one would go about transferring the Conservatives' remaining financial and organizational support to another party.
Of course, Harper could try to preserve the brand the Conservatives already have at the expense of some short-term disruption.
He could soften his party's edges rather than perpetually operating in attack mode, reach out to voters who have been seen as beyond the party's coalition (and thus its interest) over the years, address economic realities rather than endlessly trumpeting his own infallibility.
He could allow for the development of independent thought within the Conservative tent.
But after a decade of entrenched habits, it's probably too late to expect that type of self-awareness and change.
And Harper's stubbornness in the face of lengthening odds of holding onto power in the short term might herald the end of his longterm goal.
Fingas is a Regina lawyer, blogger and freelance political commentator who has written about provincial and national issues from a progressive NDP perspective since 2005. His column appears every Thursday. You can read more from Fingas at Accidental Deliberations.
Fingas: Will Prime Minister Stephen Harper kill off his own party?
Because you read it in a paper?
The country is doing fine, except in print, lol.
As opposed to yours?
Then why do you do it all the time?
We're in a recession?
Because an economist in a paper said so?
Actually yes, yes he is. By spreading his doom and gloom crap.
Mostly meant to simply smear Harper, but does in fact cause some people, usually really stupid people, to pull back, because they believe the stupidity.
Flossy can answer that for you.
It isn't gullibility, it's partisan stupidity.
Asks the guy that tokes and drives.
No, no, he wouldn't suggest that.
But he would ignore her and her predecessors, seriously flawed policies that have severely damaged the manufacturing sector in Ontario.
Economics is often little more than financial philosophy. At best.
At it's worst, well, break out the tarot deck and start shuffling.
Well if you look closely at the articles posted/written, they speak of 'coming recession'. So it's a prediction, at best, and fear mongering at worst. The technical definition of a recession is two consecutive quarters of negative growth measured by the GDP. From what I'm seeing, most of this talk revolves around the oil industry here in Canada. But the oil industry accounts for only a small percentage of GDP, although to be fair it's not all that cut and dried, straight correlation like that. Still, those are some of the variables.
And, of course, the other very big variable in all of this is politics. Spin, spin, spin and you can pretty much make mountains out of whatever molehills you want to.
I'd be willing to bet that for every article written about how we are, or are likely to be, heading into a recession, there is one out there to counter that.
Which of course is the basis of all these doom and gloom threads by partisan morons.
I just watch trends that actually happen. Like rail traffic, infrastructure growth, construction.
They've never lied, nor can they spin optics. They are what they are. Excellent market indicators. And the indicators indicate we're ok.
Unless you're a partisan moron that only believes what Op/Ed pieces tell you to believe.
They should probably get out more.
Bank rate cut challenges Harper’s claims on economy
Suddenly Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s breezy assurance that Canada has “some of the best growth prospects” around is looking shaky. And Finance Minister Joe Oliver’s recent insistence that “we’re not in a recession” looks plumb wrong.
Canadians have plenty of reason to be worried about the economy and the Conservative government’s stewardship of it, heading into the federal election. The Bank of Canada certainly is. Governor Stephen Poloz was concerned enough on Wednesday to cut the bank’s benchmark overnight rate to 0.5 per cent from 0.75 per cent, hoping to stimulate some momentum to offset faltering global growth, slumping prices for oil and weak exports.
Moreover Poloz’s bleak forecast confirmed what many feared: Canada suffered a “mild contraction” in the first half of the year; the economy shrank at an annual rate of 0.6 per cent in the first quarter and 0.5 per cent in the second. That’s a recession.
And we can’t hope for any speedy relief. Poloz has sharply downgraded the bank’s growth forecast to a thin 1.1 per cent this year. It forecast 1.9 per cent just a few months ago.
The dismal Big Picture leaves Harper’s mantra that the Conservatives still represent “security over risk” sounding hollow. A lot of Canadians aren’t buying it; they want change in this election. The Tories are in trouble in the polls.
People are genuinely worried about the dimming prospects, a growing income gap, youth unemployment and unmet social needs. Many feel let down by a government that has set its sights on deficit reduction and bet the farm on the Alberta oilsands instead of encouraging business investment and building up the manufacturing sector.
..more..
http://m.thestar.com/#/article/opin...nges-harpers-claims-on-economy-editorial.html
Suddenly Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s breezy assurance that Canada has “some of the best growth prospects” around is looking shaky. And Finance Minister Joe Oliver’s recent insistence that “we’re not in a recession” looks plumb wrong.
Canadians have plenty of reason to be worried about the economy and the Conservative government’s stewardship of it, heading into the federal election. The Bank of Canada certainly is. Governor Stephen Poloz was concerned enough on Wednesday to cut the bank’s benchmark overnight rate to 0.5 per cent from 0.75 per cent, hoping to stimulate some momentum to offset faltering global growth, slumping prices for oil and weak exports.
Moreover Poloz’s bleak forecast confirmed what many feared: Canada suffered a “mild contraction” in the first half of the year; the economy shrank at an annual rate of 0.6 per cent in the first quarter and 0.5 per cent in the second. That’s a recession.
And we can’t hope for any speedy relief. Poloz has sharply downgraded the bank’s growth forecast to a thin 1.1 per cent this year. It forecast 1.9 per cent just a few months ago.
The dismal Big Picture leaves Harper’s mantra that the Conservatives still represent “security over risk” sounding hollow. A lot of Canadians aren’t buying it; they want change in this election. The Tories are in trouble in the polls.
People are genuinely worried about the dimming prospects, a growing income gap, youth unemployment and unmet social needs. Many feel let down by a government that has set its sights on deficit reduction and bet the farm on the Alberta oilsands instead of encouraging business investment and building up the manufacturing sector.
..more..
http://m.thestar.com/#/article/opin...nges-harpers-claims-on-economy-editorial.html