Just thought this article explains well where we are going... and why... PM Harper... is so predictable!
Must be why Mustard and Burbert are Soooo annoyed!!!
"Stephen Harper’s 10-year revolution
By Angelo Persichilli, Political Columnist, Toronto Star, Published On Sun Jun 12 2011
Even if it was almost a carbon copy of the one presented in March, last week’s federal budget was significant because it marked the end of the first phase of the Harperization of Canadian politics, and the beginning of the second phase that will unfold during the next four years and beyond.
The process has been driven by a combination of the dynamic leadership of Stephen Harper and the political vacuum afflicting the Liberal party. Harper’s changes are like the hands of a clock — if you watch them you don’t see any movement, but if you don’t pay attention for a few hours you realize you are late. And the Liberals are definitely late in dealing with the changes wrought by Harper.
Traditionally, the Conservatives were concerned mainly with generating wealth, while the NDP focused on splitting it evenly. The Liberals were the “natural governing party” because they were able to combine both approaches: helping the country make money and splitting it in a more or less equitable way to please Canadians. But lately, while the NDP has been trying to learn how to generate wealth and the Conservatives how to spend it evenly, the Liberals forgot how to do either, allowing the Harper Conservatives to move into Liberal territory.
That’s the context in which we have to view the budget and the disappointment of many critics who expected more action from a majority government. Tomasi di Lampedusa, the Italian author of the celebrated novel The Leopard, wrote that if you want things to stay the same, change everything. After the May 2 election, everything changed but the budget.
For the first time in five years, we have a majority government. For the first time in history, the NDP is the official opposition. For the first time ever, the Liberal party is at risk of extinction, while the Bloc Québécois is extinct and the Greens have one member in the House. While the political fortunes of leaders and opposition parties were being destroyed, rebuilt and crushed again, the only vessel that sailed steadily through this political tsunami was Harper’s Conservative party.
It wasn’t a coincidence. Harper has always preferred slow but steady change to quick and glamorous victory, and he has modelled his party in his image. An MP from 1993 to 1997, he left Ottawa because he was disappointed with the Reform party. Back in 2002, he replaced Stockwell Day as leader of the Canadian Alliance and leader of the opposition.
In 2003 he worked to unite the Canadian Alliance with the Progressive Conservative party, becoming the first leader of the new organization. He led the party in the 2004 election, reducing the Paul Martin Liberals to a minority government. In 2006, he squeezed the Liberals into opposition and formed his first Conservative minority government. In 2008, he won again, increasing the number of Tory MPs. On May 2, he won his first majority.
If we examine the numbers from 2002 up to May 2, we see that support for Harper has steadily increased, while support for the Liberals has steadily evaporated. This shows that Harper has slowly but surely moved to the centre, onto the Liberal party’s turf, while its leaders were sleepwalking.
The last opportunity for the Liberals to stop Harper’s occupation of their base was squandered by Michael Ignatieff in March 2009 when, in the middle of the recession, he decided to support a budget that he was badmouthing everywhere. They never recovered from that mistake for two reasons. First, you don’t attack a budget you support; second, it was a budget that any past Liberal leader would have supported.
That “liberal” budget confirmed the slow move of the Conservatives toward the centre and legitimized their new political brand. The Liberals, instead of fighting to retain their turf, moved to the left in an attempt to gain — at the expense of Jack Layton’s NDP — what they were losing on the right. That’s exactly what Harper hoped for.
Many commentators were disappointed that this latest budget was the same as the one produced in March — they were expecting a revolution. The reality is that the revolution had taken place over the previous 10 years and they missed it. On May 2, it was rubber-stamped by the voters who accepted a budget they had already approved three months earlier."
Must be why Mustard and Burbert are Soooo annoyed!!!
"Stephen Harper’s 10-year revolution
By Angelo Persichilli, Political Columnist, Toronto Star, Published On Sun Jun 12 2011
Even if it was almost a carbon copy of the one presented in March, last week’s federal budget was significant because it marked the end of the first phase of the Harperization of Canadian politics, and the beginning of the second phase that will unfold during the next four years and beyond.
The process has been driven by a combination of the dynamic leadership of Stephen Harper and the political vacuum afflicting the Liberal party. Harper’s changes are like the hands of a clock — if you watch them you don’t see any movement, but if you don’t pay attention for a few hours you realize you are late. And the Liberals are definitely late in dealing with the changes wrought by Harper.
Traditionally, the Conservatives were concerned mainly with generating wealth, while the NDP focused on splitting it evenly. The Liberals were the “natural governing party” because they were able to combine both approaches: helping the country make money and splitting it in a more or less equitable way to please Canadians. But lately, while the NDP has been trying to learn how to generate wealth and the Conservatives how to spend it evenly, the Liberals forgot how to do either, allowing the Harper Conservatives to move into Liberal territory.
That’s the context in which we have to view the budget and the disappointment of many critics who expected more action from a majority government. Tomasi di Lampedusa, the Italian author of the celebrated novel The Leopard, wrote that if you want things to stay the same, change everything. After the May 2 election, everything changed but the budget.
For the first time in five years, we have a majority government. For the first time in history, the NDP is the official opposition. For the first time ever, the Liberal party is at risk of extinction, while the Bloc Québécois is extinct and the Greens have one member in the House. While the political fortunes of leaders and opposition parties were being destroyed, rebuilt and crushed again, the only vessel that sailed steadily through this political tsunami was Harper’s Conservative party.
It wasn’t a coincidence. Harper has always preferred slow but steady change to quick and glamorous victory, and he has modelled his party in his image. An MP from 1993 to 1997, he left Ottawa because he was disappointed with the Reform party. Back in 2002, he replaced Stockwell Day as leader of the Canadian Alliance and leader of the opposition.
In 2003 he worked to unite the Canadian Alliance with the Progressive Conservative party, becoming the first leader of the new organization. He led the party in the 2004 election, reducing the Paul Martin Liberals to a minority government. In 2006, he squeezed the Liberals into opposition and formed his first Conservative minority government. In 2008, he won again, increasing the number of Tory MPs. On May 2, he won his first majority.
If we examine the numbers from 2002 up to May 2, we see that support for Harper has steadily increased, while support for the Liberals has steadily evaporated. This shows that Harper has slowly but surely moved to the centre, onto the Liberal party’s turf, while its leaders were sleepwalking.
The last opportunity for the Liberals to stop Harper’s occupation of their base was squandered by Michael Ignatieff in March 2009 when, in the middle of the recession, he decided to support a budget that he was badmouthing everywhere. They never recovered from that mistake for two reasons. First, you don’t attack a budget you support; second, it was a budget that any past Liberal leader would have supported.
That “liberal” budget confirmed the slow move of the Conservatives toward the centre and legitimized their new political brand. The Liberals, instead of fighting to retain their turf, moved to the left in an attempt to gain — at the expense of Jack Layton’s NDP — what they were losing on the right. That’s exactly what Harper hoped for.
Many commentators were disappointed that this latest budget was the same as the one produced in March — they were expecting a revolution. The reality is that the revolution had taken place over the previous 10 years and they missed it. On May 2, it was rubber-stamped by the voters who accepted a budget they had already approved three months earlier."
Comment