Apparently, that’s what the mainstream press tagging along with Team Harper have glibly dubbed His party’s campaign jet. And not unjustifiably so, I would say, given what has been witnessed thusfar from his stump speeches to ethnic crowds in the burbs of Toronto. There, the theme of “stability” that would come from a majority Conservative government and untold chaos in the wake of a “reckless coalition” seizing power was repeatedly hammered home.

I suppose in a sense all this talk of a “reckless coalition” is a brilliant ploy — by the way, did Team Harper purchase that hallmark expression from Frank Luntz, do you think? — but isn’t it really a frivolous distraction from why we are presently in an election?

When push came to shove, it was the result of a confidence motion on a breach of trust and contempt of parliament. While some contend that what the Harper government did (or, more precisely, wilfully didn’t do) to precipitate the vote of non-confidence in the House constitutes a “crime” — a position that I don’t happen to concur with, btw — it’s still an important matter that cuts to essence of what makes the Harper Conservatives so deeply objectionable.

Given the entire campaign lasts only six weeks, no more time should be wasted by any party on all this ridiculous, hypothetical scare-mongering about coalitions. Let’s get back to the issues… whatever they may be.



Filed under 2011 Canadian Election, Conservative Party of Canada, Media, Stephen Harper

8 responses to “Scare-MongAIR

  1. AB

    Healthcare. I am looking forward to seeing the parties platforms. Thats when this should all get interesting.

    I also want to know exactly how much the new Conservative prisons are really going to cost.

  2. Isn’t Healthcare a provincial matter? Aside from enforcing provisions of the enabling legislation (Canada Health Act) and providing funding in accordance with that, WTF does the federal government have to do with it?

    As for the prisons, I agree. Not only should we know what the changes in legislation will cost, but also what the ultimate goal is. Do we really want to emulate the USA; that has the most people incarcerated of any country on the planet and where prisons have become an “industry” of sorts?

  3. AB

    Historically there has been alot of give and take between the federal level that pays and the provincial level that adminsters (e.g. national standards). I don’t mind the check and balance this provides. We have got an ageing population. Costs are going to go up. How are we going to pay for it? Are there smart ways to decrease cost? (no to death panels for example lol)

    I am hoping the platforms speak to this. I don’t think the voters will let a politician get away with the comment that it is just a provincial matter end of story.

    I agree though with your post. I am getting tired with all the right wing punditry pontificating on the constitutional ramifications of a coalition.

  4. It’s always something akin to a tug-of-war over jurisdiction when it comes to the matter of healthcare, but I think we need to be clear as to who is responsible for what. It seems to me that the federal parties routinely bank on the widespread ignorance of the public regarding this issue and pretend that they can directly affect the delivery of healthcare options — which they cannot.

  5. Prairiekid

    Someone told me that the plane was carrying Canadian troops. And they are going to be stationed in our cities. Troops . . . on our streets . . . . now I’m doubly scared.

  6. PK: LOL. That’s so 2005.

  7. Beijing York

    I respectfully disagree. Healthcare in terms of federal transfer of funds and the regulations attached to using those funds is very important to me. I definitely would like to see the expanded prison and crime bills explained and financially accounted for. Statistics have shown consistently that crime in general is on the decline. So what is the justification for more prisons?

    And on that note, I would like someone, anyone, to take Harper to task on his gross mishandling of Statistics Canada. Anyone who uses statistics, from businesses to academics to non-profit groups know the incredible value of having solid, reliable, unbiased statistics. Can the long form survey or any other StatsCan tool be improved? Certainly. But to scrap it is an idiot move.

  8. Well, as someone who is currently waiting for another hip surgery (3 months now and I don’t even have an ortho lined up yet and they messed getting an MRI because they screwed up my phone number!), I guess it’s important to me also, but I don’t think for a moment that a change in leadership at the federal level will make the slightest bit of difference to the management of my own situation…

    As for the census fiasco, I couldn’t agree more.

    Interesting side note on that issue is a similar debate over this issue in Britain in the context of their austerity measures. (It was “Census Day” today.) There however, it’s more a conflict over large numbers of people refusing to complete the survey for various reasons — laziness, privacy concerns, irrational fear — without realizing that in doing so their local areas will be deprived of social services if they opt out.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s