If we truly consider ourselves respectable, mature, and somewhat intelligent individuals capable of responsible verbal dialect even in the midst of heated passionate debate and disagreement then we should also be just as responsible in owning up to the reality that those people/politicians/ideologies we stand by and support will at times fall short. We must come to expect that there will be those on the other side of the forum who will be quick to point it out. That is part of the adrenaline rush of debate. The other question is "Are we willing to acknowledge it when it does happen?" Because regardless of one's political stripes it is always inevitable that somewhere down the line the party in power will drop the ball big time.
But I must admit it is quite the challenge when one is about to embark on a mission of exposing a hypocritical position taken by the one they support. Such is today's entry on my Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper. I voted for this man thru my local representative and for the most part I have been proud to call him my leader. He is consistent, he has kept just about every promise he has made (the only struggle being he is dealing with a minority parliament which can make it a lot tougher) and unlike a liberal, he does not pay attention to the latest polls. He is quite capable of making a decision. I have more respect for someone who is willing to make decision (even if it turns out to be the wrong one) then one who is afraid to make one at all. (See previous Prime Minister, Paul Martin)
However that being said, recently there has been a huge kerfluffle when Prime Minister Harper reneged on a campaign promise to not tax income trusts. I am actually providing the smoking gun evidence to you right here:
Yes that is my Prime Minister sticking both feet in his mouth. One thing that can be very frustrating for any of us is when we place a government in power only to have them blatantly disregard a political campaign promise. Here is the thing though. I actually agree that he and his Finance Minister, Joe Flaherty, came to a very responsible and tough decision. It just irks me to no end that they said they would not do this. Why could they not have said during the election "It is not our intent..." because at the time it most likely was not. Instead they place themselves in the position of being portrayed as blatant liars because they made it a promise as opposed to an area they would try to avoid taxing.
The decision itself was a good one. Considering a conservative government is often accused of getting into bed with corporate America the opposite has taken place in this instance. Income Trusts were beginning to get out of hand with big money corporations such as Telus & BCE investing big money without paying any taxes on it due to tax loopholes on investments. If it is one thing the Harper government cannot be accused of it is "sucking up to the corporate world". In fact the Prime Minister is quoted as saying :
"Everyone in this country knows that in the last few months, what we have seen is the beginning of the conversion of major corporations to income trusts, which would have resulted in them paying no taxes whatsoever,"
"It would have shifted the tax burden to ordinary Canadians,"
"That is not fair, that is not what the government promised. This government is determined to have a fair system of taxation. . . "
The other thing to keep in mind here is that Finance Minister Joe Flaherty did not try and go around the campaign promise and put political spin on it. He simply acknowledged that they did indeed say they were not going to tax the Income Trusts but when he discovered what the Prime Minister acknowledged his response was:
"But this was ... necessary, regrettably necessary, but necessary for fairness and for the sake of the Canadian economy."
I agree with the decision. I just do not agree with the way it all went down. Unfortunately they make themselves out to be liars even though they have the best interests of Canadians in mind.
On a side note, here are some of my favourite poitical photo's for my fellow "lefty" pundits.
For Lucy,
And for KA, Karen, Nog, and Dr. Marco,
Nothing like a Canadian Conservative shaking hands with your boss! (LOL)
Until next time...
12 comments:
Your political objectivity, to my mind, has never been in doubt and i respect that unlike some who refuse to even entertain that there is such a thing as an opposite viewpoint and dismiss anything other than that which validates their position.
With regards to your picture, I always wondered if those right wing blgs who had gushing pictures of Tony Blair on their blogs knew that they were praising a socialist. A very poor one but a socialist all the same.
Hopefully you will start off a trend of bloggers writing a post pointing out the restrictions of their own beliefs.
OUCH! OW! Jumpin'Jehozephat! Easy Boy...
You sure tore him a new one!
Heh. heh.
:-D
Wouldn't ya just love to slap the smirks off'n George and Tony, BTW? Put their two mugs side -by-side, both facing front, and what a comical sight that would be!
Weeellll...I'd hoped for something more...caustic. Left bleeding on the floor. But your a 'the glass is 1/2 full' kinda guy, I suppose.
I thought this kinda funny:
unlike a liberal, he does not pay attention to the latest polls
Seeing as our own chimp-in-charge is playing games w/gas prices (election time over? Up they go again! My ratings are down? Down go the prices!) - surprisingly (sarcasm intended), the commander-in-thief is most distinctly not listening to his constituency.
Aren't the polls the predictor of what the constituency wants?
Lucy,
I have always been aware of Tony's "socialist" position. I agree with you that he does not seem to fit the mold of his chosen ideological belief
KA,
"Weeellll...I'd hoped for something more...caustic."
Hey pal, this is Canadian politics. Belinda was about as juicy as it gets. Stephen Harper, love him or not, does not carry a lot of dirty laundry around with him. Most politicians save their "sexcapades" for their spouses not their interns :)
What you see here was about as much "exposure" I could give to the man. For the most part he is a stand up guy. BUT I had to call him on something and this is the most recent firestorm brewing up here right now. Nothing like a politician contradicting himself on video. To their credit they acknowledge the contradiction or "about face". The liberals, on the other hand, back in 1993 swore to abolish the GST (Goods and Services tax) on video and in their platform policy book. With the smoking gun evidence 2 years later they pulled a Bill Clinton, looked at us all over the airwaves and told us they NEVER said that. If Harper had done that with the Income Trusts I would have had a far more scathing post about it.
"Aren't the polls the predictor of what the constituency wants?"
Up here polls don't mean squat. They change week to week like the wind. We can simply go back to the gay marriage debate. Two years ago Canadians across Canada were asked if they would support it. 72% said although they would support a "civil union" they would not support re-defining marriage. So the Liberals voted it in anyway. See, polls don't mean anything.
72%?
I don't remember seeing that. Where is it?
Ispos Reid ( a liberal polling company BTW) was conducting polls consecutively for 5 months leading up to the eventual "Force fed" gay marriage bill being passed.
Starting out in February of 2005 the percentage began at 55% and steadly climbed as the debate wore on. By May and June it held steady. Some other polling companies were reporting as high as 78% others were coming in at 68%.
Where is it now? These were conducted two years ago. Contact them and request a copy. (If they are still available???)
They were displayed thru out local media sources (newspaper) Unless of course you read liberal rags like the Toronto Star or watch liberal friendly news like CBC or CTV. They conviently seem to over look those polls during the debate in the house.
Compas polling and Ispos Reid are only their buddies when they conduct a poll that supports their "non objective" agenda.
Thanks.
I went to Ipsos and could not find the stats you mention. (not surprising as I am not that adept).
However, I did find that in 2004 "52% Would Accept Decision To Make "Marriage" A Word For All Couples- While 45% Want "Marriage" Restricted To One Man One Woman."
Remy,
I tracked this down for you and I guess it will be left up to yourself how you choose to view it.
In a Decmeber 2003 Compas poll:
2003-DEC: Compas Inc.
They asked each of the 1,000 subjects whether they "support or oppose keeping the definition of marriage as a union of one woman and one man to the exclusion of all others? … Do you strongly or somewhat [support/oppose] this definition?"
Results were:
48% strongly support retaining the current definition of marriage.
15% somewhat support.
13% somewhat oppose.
18% strongly oppose.
6% didn't know or no response.
(When you combine strongly support and somewhat support Traditional marriage your figure is at 63%)
They gave the subjects three options concerning same-sex relationships:
30% don't recognize them at all.
37% recognize them as civil unions, not as marriages.
31% allow same-sex couples to marry.
2% don't know or no response.
Combining those who do not support/recognize gay unions with those who will recognize a "civil union" not a marriage your figure is now at 67%
You have to look at an overall poll in it's context and then determine these factors. Many of these numbers indicate there is not a lot of support for gay marriage BUT there was more support had it been classified as a "civil union"
Here is the link
I have been challenged by you though to dig further for the results I spoke of. I was very involved in the debate back in 2004/2005 but really did not think I would still require these figures 2 years later.
I admit I was going from memory however I am not a radical who likes to inflate numbers. I will do my darndest to track down those figures. I wish I had kept all my paper files on this subject.
Apparently the debate is long from over.
Thanks, I am often unwilling to take stats at face value.
"..the debate is long from over."
I never would have thought that we'd agree on something!
Good post and very good stand point in the world of politics.I think if you were running for any public office,with this conscious,I would have voted for you.Loved it.
Thanks for the vote of confidence Jeff :)
Post a Comment