If you want to watch the PM answer questions from folks via Youtube, here is the link:
http://www.youtube.com/user/TalkCanada#p/u
I watched it and I thought he did very well!
Wednesday, March 17, 2010
Has the Conservative Party become Un-Conserservative?
With every budget that our Conservative government introduces, it seems that the topic of how un-conservative the government is continues to come up. Last March Andrew Coyne spoke on this topic at the Manning Centre Conference (see youtube clip here) and it continues to to be a topic of discussion in the media and among fellow Blogging Tories. So I'm asking the question, has the Conservative Party really become un-conservative?
I've heard some interesting analysis on this subject. Many out there believe that because the government is a minority government, Harper is being as conservative as he can be without jeopardizing his party's ability to govern. To be too conservative in a minority would not be a wise idea. That's one train of thought out there.
Then there are those who say Harper has just abandoned all of his Reform roots and for the sake of power is doing whatever it takes to remain in government. Coyne says the Conservative Party moved itself too far over to the left to make itself a govern-from-the-centre party instead of pursuading the Canadian public to move to the right and call that the new centre.
I think that part of the problem with this issue is that there are so many different interpretations of conservatism. To some, being conservative has more to do with fiscal conservatism than anything else. A budget with lower taxes and a lower deficit is proof of a conservative government. Others see tough on crime and reduced bureaucracy (social programs) bills as proof of a truly conservative government. Others want to see all of the above or else it's just another Liberal government in Conservative clothing.
Within the conservative party itself there are those of us who define ourselves as conservatives in very different ways. Some of us are from the Reform school of thinking, others from the old PC days of Mulroney. Some of us are red tories, some of us are true blue. Is one more conservative than the other? Does Stephen Harper's government have to be conservative all the way to truly be considered a government that rules from the right side of the political spectrum, despite being in a minority position?
I have come to conclude that we will never be able to please everyone. For those who are happy with a true blue conservative government, there will be others in the party that will feel neglected because they are red tories. To be too red infuriates the die-hard, my blood is blue tories. The fact that our government is in a minority position prohibits Harper from being able to give too much to either camp of supporters within the party. I believe that if and when a majority government takes office, it will be the real defining moment as to the level of conservatism this party has. There would be more room to please red tories, reform tories, and true blue tories.
Have I been thrilled with the last few budgets that have come out? Not entirely. But I do not see the logic in putting forward a real slash and bash budget just to make the government a deeper shade of conservative blue and run the risk of being demoted back to the opposition benches. The party can do more for our country in government than sitting on the sidelines. Because I think this, does that make me a sell-out too? I don't believe in power at all costs. Maybe it's because I'm more of a red tory that I don't feel the party has sold its soul just yet. I respect those who choose to stand by their conservative principals, even if it means going back to the opposition benches. That takes guts. But when it comes to politics, is that really the wisest decision?
PS- as I write this post, outside there are bagpipes playing ( I live downtown), how appropriate and how conservative ;-)
I've heard some interesting analysis on this subject. Many out there believe that because the government is a minority government, Harper is being as conservative as he can be without jeopardizing his party's ability to govern. To be too conservative in a minority would not be a wise idea. That's one train of thought out there.
Then there are those who say Harper has just abandoned all of his Reform roots and for the sake of power is doing whatever it takes to remain in government. Coyne says the Conservative Party moved itself too far over to the left to make itself a govern-from-the-centre party instead of pursuading the Canadian public to move to the right and call that the new centre.
I think that part of the problem with this issue is that there are so many different interpretations of conservatism. To some, being conservative has more to do with fiscal conservatism than anything else. A budget with lower taxes and a lower deficit is proof of a conservative government. Others see tough on crime and reduced bureaucracy (social programs) bills as proof of a truly conservative government. Others want to see all of the above or else it's just another Liberal government in Conservative clothing.
Within the conservative party itself there are those of us who define ourselves as conservatives in very different ways. Some of us are from the Reform school of thinking, others from the old PC days of Mulroney. Some of us are red tories, some of us are true blue. Is one more conservative than the other? Does Stephen Harper's government have to be conservative all the way to truly be considered a government that rules from the right side of the political spectrum, despite being in a minority position?
I have come to conclude that we will never be able to please everyone. For those who are happy with a true blue conservative government, there will be others in the party that will feel neglected because they are red tories. To be too red infuriates the die-hard, my blood is blue tories. The fact that our government is in a minority position prohibits Harper from being able to give too much to either camp of supporters within the party. I believe that if and when a majority government takes office, it will be the real defining moment as to the level of conservatism this party has. There would be more room to please red tories, reform tories, and true blue tories.
Have I been thrilled with the last few budgets that have come out? Not entirely. But I do not see the logic in putting forward a real slash and bash budget just to make the government a deeper shade of conservative blue and run the risk of being demoted back to the opposition benches. The party can do more for our country in government than sitting on the sidelines. Because I think this, does that make me a sell-out too? I don't believe in power at all costs. Maybe it's because I'm more of a red tory that I don't feel the party has sold its soul just yet. I respect those who choose to stand by their conservative principals, even if it means going back to the opposition benches. That takes guts. But when it comes to politics, is that really the wisest decision?
PS- as I write this post, outside there are bagpipes playing ( I live downtown), how appropriate and how conservative ;-)
Tuesday, March 16, 2010
What is and is not acceptable behaviour for any Member of Parliament
Since getting involved in politics I have met my fair share of politicians. What I have come to discover is that there seems to be 2 different kinds of behaviour you can expect to see in an MP, Minister or not.
There are those MP's who you wouldn't know were MP's unless you were told. They are easy to talk to, very approachable and you are never made to feel like you were somehow less important to them. You walk away feeling appreciated, listened to and willing to support them anytime. Then there are those who you know before you walk into a room or get anywhere near them that they are an MP and expect to see a red carpet rolled out somewhere for them to walk on. It's not that they are rude to you (well, unless you work in airport security), but they consider the fact that they are a Member of Parliament to be their trump card and think nothing of using it whenever and however they please to ensure they receive the treatment and attention they feel they deserve.
On what basis do I justify my argument? Experience. There is more to this behaviour pattern. MP's who like to have everyone know who and what they are, are typically backbench MP's or MP's in cabinet that are clearly on their way down. MP's who bring a little humility with them wherever they go are usually ones that have been around for quite some time, have held important cabinet positions or positions of leadership at one point or another.
Sometimes being a nobody in the political sphere is a good thing. It allows you to see which politicians genuinely care about the little guy and who just wants your vote and who doesn't give a damn what you think. I have little respect for politicians who have no time for the little people. I have no time for politicians who want to ensure that everybody knows how important they are. Politicians like that won't make it for long. And its rather unfortunate that Conservative MP Helena Guergis has decided to be one of those politicians.
I can name several MP's who fit the self-important profile, but I won't. Eventually, most people will know who they are anyways because their behaviour will make it rather obvious. I will however name politicians that I have personally met with and spoke to who despite their high profile have never made me feel less important or treated others badly.
Peter Mackay is one of them. Of all the politicians I have met, he is very personable and very humble. You can never walk away from a conversation with him without feeling listened to and appreciated.
Jim Prentice is another. I worked as an intern in his office for one summer. He always treated us interns with the utmost respect and made an effort whenever he could to include us in projects and valued our opinion. I've spoken to him at several Conservative events and his attitude is still the same. It's no wonder why he is respected and has done so well in cabinet.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper is another. I met him when he was still leader of the opposition. I had no idea what to expect, infact, I was a bit afraid (thanks to the media). But when I shook his hand and spoke with him I immediately noticed his sense of genuiness and I felt like he really did appreciate me coming out to see him. I have met with him several times at various party functions and at his summer BBQ at 24 Sussex and he's still the same guy I met 4 years ago. He's a Kraft dinner and weiners kinda guy, and that's the kind of people he chooses to relate to.
Former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney is another. I wouldn't have guessed it either. After everything I read about him in the media, I had a very different opinion on him. I emailed him not too long ago about an issue that was making the news at the time and he personally called me to thank me less than an hour after I sent the email. Who am I that he should call me? From Florida no less? I was floored. He was so kind and so interested in who I was and thanked me for my email. Wow, what an example of humility, not to mention political smarts. This is why politicians who exhibit Helena's type of behaviour don't get too far.
There is a fine line between being confident, thick skinned, and a go-getter and a self-absorbed a-hole. I don't want someone who will become a doormat and not take charge. However, when it turns into temper tantrums and name calling (for the place you are staying) because you're waving your "I'm important, I'm an MP" card around and nobody gives a crap, you've crossed the line. You have made politics about you and not about serving those who have elected you. You've essentially given yourself a pink slip with an expiry date. And that you cannot blame on anyone but yourself.
There are those MP's who you wouldn't know were MP's unless you were told. They are easy to talk to, very approachable and you are never made to feel like you were somehow less important to them. You walk away feeling appreciated, listened to and willing to support them anytime. Then there are those who you know before you walk into a room or get anywhere near them that they are an MP and expect to see a red carpet rolled out somewhere for them to walk on. It's not that they are rude to you (well, unless you work in airport security), but they consider the fact that they are a Member of Parliament to be their trump card and think nothing of using it whenever and however they please to ensure they receive the treatment and attention they feel they deserve.
On what basis do I justify my argument? Experience. There is more to this behaviour pattern. MP's who like to have everyone know who and what they are, are typically backbench MP's or MP's in cabinet that are clearly on their way down. MP's who bring a little humility with them wherever they go are usually ones that have been around for quite some time, have held important cabinet positions or positions of leadership at one point or another.
Sometimes being a nobody in the political sphere is a good thing. It allows you to see which politicians genuinely care about the little guy and who just wants your vote and who doesn't give a damn what you think. I have little respect for politicians who have no time for the little people. I have no time for politicians who want to ensure that everybody knows how important they are. Politicians like that won't make it for long. And its rather unfortunate that Conservative MP Helena Guergis has decided to be one of those politicians.
I can name several MP's who fit the self-important profile, but I won't. Eventually, most people will know who they are anyways because their behaviour will make it rather obvious. I will however name politicians that I have personally met with and spoke to who despite their high profile have never made me feel less important or treated others badly.
Peter Mackay is one of them. Of all the politicians I have met, he is very personable and very humble. You can never walk away from a conversation with him without feeling listened to and appreciated.
Jim Prentice is another. I worked as an intern in his office for one summer. He always treated us interns with the utmost respect and made an effort whenever he could to include us in projects and valued our opinion. I've spoken to him at several Conservative events and his attitude is still the same. It's no wonder why he is respected and has done so well in cabinet.
Prime Minister Stephen Harper is another. I met him when he was still leader of the opposition. I had no idea what to expect, infact, I was a bit afraid (thanks to the media). But when I shook his hand and spoke with him I immediately noticed his sense of genuiness and I felt like he really did appreciate me coming out to see him. I have met with him several times at various party functions and at his summer BBQ at 24 Sussex and he's still the same guy I met 4 years ago. He's a Kraft dinner and weiners kinda guy, and that's the kind of people he chooses to relate to.
Former Prime Minister Brian Mulroney is another. I wouldn't have guessed it either. After everything I read about him in the media, I had a very different opinion on him. I emailed him not too long ago about an issue that was making the news at the time and he personally called me to thank me less than an hour after I sent the email. Who am I that he should call me? From Florida no less? I was floored. He was so kind and so interested in who I was and thanked me for my email. Wow, what an example of humility, not to mention political smarts. This is why politicians who exhibit Helena's type of behaviour don't get too far.
There is a fine line between being confident, thick skinned, and a go-getter and a self-absorbed a-hole. I don't want someone who will become a doormat and not take charge. However, when it turns into temper tantrums and name calling (for the place you are staying) because you're waving your "I'm important, I'm an MP" card around and nobody gives a crap, you've crossed the line. You have made politics about you and not about serving those who have elected you. You've essentially given yourself a pink slip with an expiry date. And that you cannot blame on anyone but yourself.
Friday, March 12, 2010
Tax slavery a heavy burden for residents in Ontario under McGuinty
Taxes are there to enable the state (in this case, the province) to provide necessary services to its citizens such as health and security. Certain social programs that allow citizens who are disabled or elderly to live in some measure of comfort and care are also an important part of taxes. Taxes themselves are not evil, but when political leaders abuse their positions of power to the detriment of the people they were elected to serve, the burden placed on the citizens becomes greater and greater until it is no longer a system to benefit them, but a system designed to hurt them and benefit the few instead of the many.
Today's article in the National Post about the $25 milllion payout to bureaucrat employees sickened me to my stomach. The utter abuse of tax payer dollars during these uncertain economic times going on under Premier McGuinty is astounding. McGuinty states that his government has a responsibility to respect the contracts it signs. Really?
The first and most important contract that needs to be respected above all else, is the one made between an elected politician and the citizens that brought him or her into office. And those are the people that pay the taxes. Those are the people that get up everyday at 5 am and go work 12 hour days in less than ideal conditions each and every day just to get by. Yes, bureaucrats pay taxes too, but if you were to compare the number of bureaucrats that pay taxes versus the rest of Ontario's citizens, I think the average citizen would out number them by a long shot. Then again, we are talking about Dalton McGuinty, that gap may have closed.
To add insult to injury, "The government says taxpayers won't lose out because the money for the payouts will be covered from funds put aside every year in the budget to provide severance due to job loss and attrition." HELLO?? Where the hell do they think those funds come from? Unbelievable.
As citizens, if we don't pay taxes, we end up in trouble. The government has the power to reach into your personal bank accounts and take whatever amount of money it deserves. You paid off your mortgage, you think you own your house? No, the government lets you live there but they can take it away anytime, just don't pay your property taxes and you'll see. The government desides how much and the government desides when. Aside from placing heavy pressure on politicians by us regular joe taxpayers and marking an "X" on the ballot every 4 years, we have little choice but to obey the whims of the government's decisions. In this regard, we feel more like slaves than free citizens.
How much more does the McGuinty government expect tax payers to put up with? How much more are people going to be expected to endure financially? At this point folks, I don't think I want to know the answer.
Tell Dalton what you really think:
https://www.premier.gov.on.ca/feedback/feedback.asp?Lang=EN
Today's article in the National Post about the $25 milllion payout to bureaucrat employees sickened me to my stomach. The utter abuse of tax payer dollars during these uncertain economic times going on under Premier McGuinty is astounding. McGuinty states that his government has a responsibility to respect the contracts it signs. Really?
The first and most important contract that needs to be respected above all else, is the one made between an elected politician and the citizens that brought him or her into office. And those are the people that pay the taxes. Those are the people that get up everyday at 5 am and go work 12 hour days in less than ideal conditions each and every day just to get by. Yes, bureaucrats pay taxes too, but if you were to compare the number of bureaucrats that pay taxes versus the rest of Ontario's citizens, I think the average citizen would out number them by a long shot. Then again, we are talking about Dalton McGuinty, that gap may have closed.
To add insult to injury, "The government says taxpayers won't lose out because the money for the payouts will be covered from funds put aside every year in the budget to provide severance due to job loss and attrition." HELLO?? Where the hell do they think those funds come from? Unbelievable.
As citizens, if we don't pay taxes, we end up in trouble. The government has the power to reach into your personal bank accounts and take whatever amount of money it deserves. You paid off your mortgage, you think you own your house? No, the government lets you live there but they can take it away anytime, just don't pay your property taxes and you'll see. The government desides how much and the government desides when. Aside from placing heavy pressure on politicians by us regular joe taxpayers and marking an "X" on the ballot every 4 years, we have little choice but to obey the whims of the government's decisions. In this regard, we feel more like slaves than free citizens.
How much more does the McGuinty government expect tax payers to put up with? How much more are people going to be expected to endure financially? At this point folks, I don't think I want to know the answer.
Tell Dalton what you really think:
https://www.premier.gov.on.ca/feedback/feedback.asp?Lang=EN
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)