Thursday, September 18, 2008

Canadian Election cont'd

In my last Political blog, I tried to give an overview of the parties, remaining somewhat unbiased in my analysis.

I'll let my true colours show now, and explain my stance on an issue or two.

As for Dion - I can take some of my previous blog posts on how to handle the economy, and see them reflected in his Green Shift Plan. He had me sold at higher taxes on carbon pollution, with the revenues being put toward Green jobs and subsidies for greener housing. The only idea I missed hearing, and that doesn't mean it wasn't there, was the promise of a subsidy on hybrid or electric cars built in Canada.

But there's more than just the promise of jobs and subsidies. It's putting accountability and pressure on oil companies to decrease the dirtiness of tar sands production. If the government ramps up pollution taxes enough, while offering subsidies for green alternatives such as injecting the pollution back into the earth, then everybody wins.

I compare this with Harper's let them pollute all they want mentality. Economy before environment.

That shouldn't be. The environment is more important than the economy, but if you can keep both going well, as Dion is suggesting, then more power to you.

Yesterday Harper wood Quebec with rhetoric about legislating equal representation for French speakers on the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC).
While slashing arts and crippling Canada's creative instinct, he reaffirms that Quebeckers will have their part in our crippled arts system. They already do, he just wants to make it the law.
Good one Harper. And while your at it, I think the following changes should be legislated for the CRTC immediately as well.

One Chinese Canadian on the board to represent Canada's largest ethnic minority.
A rotation between an Indian Canadian and a Pakistani Canadian to represent their stake in Canada's vibrant minority populations.
A rotation between a Native Canadian, A handicapped person, A Latin American, and a midget, to successfully represent the interests of their groups.
Don't forget equal representation to reflect Canadian religious groups. Athiest/Agnostic, Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, Buddhist, etc.
etc, etc, all of which must be rotated in fairly to the CRTC.

You get my point. I have an intense dislike for quotas. I object to being asked whether I consider myself a visible minority on a job application. I don't think it's Harper's job to be the saviour and protector of the French language. The pride of French Canadians can do that for itself and suggesting otherwise is an insult to their intelligence.

It always irked me that Stephen Harper travels with his own makeup maven. Or as some people might prefer to say, image consultant. I'm not the most gifted dresser myself, in fact my taste in clothes is rather abysmal, but for important events, I have my own image consultant who doesn't charge anything. My wife.

My point is, Stephen Harper wears makeup!

Did you hear the latest joke?

What's the difference between a Stephen Harper at a pitbull?


I can say that. I'm not a certified member of the Liberal party, just a voter. Even though my thoughts sometimes push the boundaries of good taste, it's not like I wish someone dead from listeriosis.
That's one of the scariest things about the conservative party. The comments they make...
Peter Mackay calling Belinda Stronach a dog.
Agriculture Minister Gerry Ritz' comments on a Prince Edward Island listeriosis death he said he hoped was Liberal agriculture critic Wayne Easter.
Most irksome for me were the brutal attack ads on Stephan Dion. "Stephan Dion is not a leader!"
Stop lying. He's the leader of the Liberal Party, plain and simple. You can puffin poop on his shoulder all you want, that doesn't change the fact that he is the "LEADER" of the Liberals.

And these gaffes are with Harper trying to keep his party muzzled! Imagine what they'd say if the muzzles came off completely!

What are their true intentions?

Spend lavishly; make their friends rich; pump Canadian money into Conservative-friendly companies; keep a piece of George Bush type politics alive and well in the world?

The only thing I can do is look at trends. The last time the Conservatives were in power, they racked up huge deficits and were hard on the economy. The Liberals, after some effort, sound economic management, and a bit of economic luck, managed to reverse those deficits into surpluses and ride a wave of bull markets.

The market has dropped to lower than when Stephen Harper took office three years ago. Canada's surpluses are shrinking, and despite pumping a crapload of oil out of Alberta, we're looking at Conservative deficits again. If Harper had managed to create a $40 billion surplus to counter-balance his predecessor Mulroney's run of $40 billion deficits, I might consider voting for the guy.

Something that really confuses me, is why do the Conservatives liberally overspend, while the Liberals show fiscal conservativeness?

Isn't that backwards? Shouldn't it be the other way around?

For sensitive issues such as gay marriage and immigration, I don't always see eye to eye with the Liberals. But these are relative non issues for me in comparison to the economy and environment. For these, I'm in line with the liberal party, which means being conservative.

I want a better future to pass onto my children. Not one of embarrassing national debt and a decimated environment.

My last word, I'll vote strategically for whoever is likely to beat the conservatives in my riding. Whether that's Liberals, NDP, or Greens, it doesn't matter. I just can't stand to think we are being hoodwinked by George Bush in disguise. I don't want to be paying higher taxes for years to come simply to pay off more conservative overspending.

No comments: