- Harper, 'Mover and Shaker'? How about 'Hodger and Podger'
Posted: 4/12/2010 3:10:26 PM The Globe and Mail
Douglas Bell critiques the movers and shakers in Canadian politics, Globe and Mail, 12 Apr.'10
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/douglas-bell/coalition-redux/article1531226/tab 3
Stephen Harper and his Con's have a core of die-hard supporter - approx 33% in the polls - centred in Alberta, that will vote Con pretty much no matter what, they are also the source of finances and manpower in elections. To get a majority they need merely attract one or more well identified groups to vote Con. These do not have to be core-supporters, but merely vote for them. Hence the very narrowly defined, high profile, emotionally based policies like 'tough on crime'. If one were to look at the Harper 'tough on Crime policy' rationally and logically, which people have, it simply doesn't work. It didn't work for G.W. Bush's America and it won't work for Canada, the reason it's simply is not the right (morally right that is) way to go about it.
If one looks at the 'though on Crime' legislation Harper has introduced it is a miss-mash of one-off's of a very narrow, to say the least, applicability, so as to represent a superficial revision, but are high profile, very emotionally charged and easy to expound in a short 'sound-bit' - something like reducing the GST- pretty much useless as to its effect, and in fact harmful to Canada's finances, but very 'sound-bitable'.
As a result with Harper and the Con's we have a hodge-podge of policies, right wing and to the extreme that are designed to satisfy small groups of people on the far right wing of Canadian society. There is no underlying principle that unifies this country, in fact it tends to polarize and cause factional differences that fracture Canada's social fabric. This is in line with Harper's long-time goal of tearing Canada, as a nation, asunder.
So the Liberals with a set of unifying underlying principles designed with the benefit of all Canadians at it's heart, is the way to go. Ideology, especially if it is right wing or left wing leads to the type of government we see with Harper and the Con's, perhaps some other small sector(s) benefiting.
Jack Layton's dream is to supplant the Liberals and so is not likely to support them.
That leaves three possibilities if the 2/3 rds of Canadians opposed to Harper and the Con's are going to join forces and defeat him. Either Ignatieff and the Liberals adopt centre to left policies (similar to Pearson) and attract the vote, the Liberals and the NDP for a formal co-alition or Layton steps down and a more pragmatic person steps into the position of NDP leader.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
Douglas Bell critiques the movers and shakers in Canadian politics, Globe and Mail, 12 Apr.'10
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/douglas-bell/coalition-redux/article1531226/tab 3
Stephen Harper and his Con's have a core of die-hard supporter - approx 33% in the polls - centred in Alberta, that will vote Con pretty much no matter what, they are also the source of finances and manpower in elections. To get a majority they need merely attract one or more well identified groups to vote Con. These do not have to be core-supporters, but merely vote for them. Hence the very narrowly defined, high profile, emotionally based policies like 'tough on crime'. If one were to look at the Harper 'tough on Crime policy' rationally and logically, which people have, it simply doesn't work. It didn't work for G.W. Bush's America and it won't work for Canada, the reason it's simply is not the right (morally right that is) way to go about it.
If one looks at the 'though on Crime' legislation Harper has introduced it is a miss-mash of one-off's of a very narrow, to say the least, applicability, so as to represent a superficial revision, but are high profile, very emotionally charged and easy to expound in a short 'sound-bit' - something like reducing the GST- pretty much useless as to its effect, and in fact harmful to Canada's finances, but very 'sound-bitable'.
As a result with Harper and the Con's we have a hodge-podge of policies, right wing and to the extreme that are designed to satisfy small groups of people on the far right wing of Canadian society. There is no underlying principle that unifies this country, in fact it tends to polarize and cause factional differences that fracture Canada's social fabric. This is in line with Harper's long-time goal of tearing Canada, as a nation, asunder.
So the Liberals with a set of unifying underlying principles designed with the benefit of all Canadians at it's heart, is the way to go. Ideology, especially if it is right wing or left wing leads to the type of government we see with Harper and the Con's, perhaps some other small sector(s) benefiting.
Jack Layton's dream is to supplant the Liberals and so is not likely to support them.
That leaves three possibilities if the 2/3 rds of Canadians opposed to Harper and the Con's are going to join forces and defeat him. Either Ignatieff and the Liberals adopt centre to left policies (similar to Pearson) and attract the vote, the Liberals and the NDP for a formal co-alition or Layton steps down and a more pragmatic person steps into the position of NDP leader.
Lloyd MacILquham cicblog.com/comments.html
posted by wlloydm at
12:14 PM
<< Home