Rule One in the national capital is that rules are made to be broken. From the most stringent election statute to the most flaccid regulation, rules crack under the weight of self-interest and are then reshaped by the law of unintended consequences.

It's entirely possible, even probable, that some future auditor-general deconstructing some future Conservative horror will echo Sheila Fraser's memorable phrase that all the rules were broken. What stands between that haunting past and a predictable future is leadership.

Not so good at following rules, this town is superb at reading the subtlest signals. It grasped that serial prime ministers didn't want information to flow too freely and it will ensure this one gets as much accountability as he wants.
How much does Harper want? Well, that's either the heavy load promised by his proposal or the much lighter one suggested by his actions.

As in most organizations, actions speak louder here than words. A prime minister who promises to change everything by making Ottawa transparent also appointed an arms-industry lobbyist defence minister, named backroom organizer Michael Fortier to the unaccountable Senate while making him minister of ethically challenged public works, and is demonstrating an almost pathological need to control everything.
If that sounds like same old, same old, it is. If that sounds like a recipe for more broken rules, it is.
Harper is telling the capital: Do as I say, not as I do. What it will hear is the opposite.

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1144878609726&call_pageid=968256290204&col=968350116795


One day after tabling landmark legislation with a promise to clean up Ottawa and do things differently, Prime Minister Stephen Harper's government has found a new job for an old friend.

http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/westcoastnews/story.html?id=4ee9f2c3-640e-4b93-814f-dcdba7184987

AS, you have to admit that doing it this way makes life so much simplier for the PM. Now, if he and his cabinet did not have to see the media at any point to explain any of their votes, laws, policies, appointments, statements, etc, they would be a most happy group of people. Of course, the country would not be fully served, but at least they would be happy. We shall see. Paix, mon ami.

What next - divine right of Harpers http://us.st11.yimg.com/store1.yimg.com/I/4crests_1887_38021

Motto Pleasant and brave

"What next - divine right of Harpers". Maybe someone sent the Prime Minister the book "The World of Winning Politics" by MacNutt?

...Maybe someone sent the Prime Minister the book "The World of Winning Politics" by MacNutt?

I think he actually received one of the noted author's earlier works of fiction, a Great Canadian Novel, such a stunning and sprawling work chock full of delightfully imaginitive logical curlicues: "I Speak A Big Wind".

http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/Article_Type1&c=Article&cid=1144878609726&call_pageid=968256290204&col=968350116795


http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/westcoastnews/story.html?id=4ee9f2c3-640e-4b93-814f-dcdba7184987
Got anything to put forward that is NOT anti Harper?

If so, let me know. If not, perhaps try to use your time more productively. :)

Got anything to put forward that is NOT anti Harper?
I guess you'll have to talk to the journalist and ask them to rewrite their neutral articles and facts...

The Economist hardly has an axe to grind......here's their take.

For now, banging out his five-note tune may work for Mr Harper. But many interest groups are pressing for a more detailed vision. Business organisations sense a kindred spirit. They will be watching the budget, due in a few weeks, to see if action will follow the speech's throwaway reference to competitiveness and productivity.

Others want more details because they suspect that the moderate and centrist positions Mr Harper adopted to win the election do not reflect his real leanings. For most of his political career he has campaigned for smaller government and family values, causes championed by the Conservative government in his adopted province of Alberta (see article).

“He's more ideological than he makes out,” says Jim Stanford, an economist at the Canadian Auto Workers Union. He compares Mr Harper with John Howard, Australia's conservative prime minister, whose agenda did not become clear until after he won a majority. Since Mr Howard has been in office for a decade, that comparison might not displease Mr Harper. In fact, the Australian is more moderate than he sounds. And for now, Mr Harper seems happy to keep Canadians guessing.

http://www.economist.com/displaystory.cfm?story_id=6772407

Sinc, AS has certainly been more consistent on his views of Harper than say....YOU :D ;)

The Economist hardly has an axe to grind......here's their take.

ArtistSpammer just referenced all the cuts to Environment Canada climate programs. But... not a single person is going to lose their job. Does that sound like a small government idiologue to you?

This reporter also didn't mention the double digit growth in government employees in the last few years under the Liberals. This growth rate was not sustainable. Harper has to pull government growth back.

I guess this reporter missed the memo saying the whole fear mongering hidden agenda thing backfired on the Liberals last election. Harper has been very public with his five priorities. He will accomplish most or all of them, subject to the opposition. His minority government will be a big contrast to Martin's who accomplished very little and had no direction.

This reporter also didn't mention the double digit growth in government employees in the last few years under the Liberals. This growth rate was not sustainable. Harper has to pull government growth back.
....
I guess this reporter missed the memo saying the whole fear mongering hidden agenda thing backfired on the Liberals last election.
....
Harper has been very public with his five priorities. He will accomplish most or all of them, subject to the opposition.
....
His minority government will be a big contrast to Martin's who accomplished very little and had no direction.

Things were a little out of control the last couple years; some good was done or, at least, talked about being done.
...
True. It was odd to see the Liberals run the same campaign as in '04. Did they think nothing had changed? Maybe they had alienated the real force behind the Big Red Machine. I heard a fair amount of rumblings and read about more.
...
He's going to have to do more, even if he does focus attention on 'Promises made, promises kept.' They're working on enviro plans right now and I hope they're at least not worse than the Liberal plans. I'm not very optimistic but there is a good amount of room for them to really adopt moderate green policies (as opposed to rhetoric). This should be a very interesting year.
...
Probably. Not a very high standard to set though; many in Martin's party are quite open about how flawed that government was. There were some good ideas but no real policy or direction (governance/leadership); I think Axworthy referred to it as 'News Release policy' or something like that.

"Back fired"......nice spin but wrong.

You clearly don't live in Ontario. You still can't get it through your Harper bedazzled brain that much of the Con vote was a "vote the Liberals out".

The Con candidate here in my riding was called for a 10% victory margin instead lost by that amount to an unknown.

Harper has much proving to do - so far .......marginal record at best.

The shame is not only the inexperience of Harper's crew
http://www.thestar.com/images/thestar/img/060410_moudakis_cartoon_450.jpg

ArtistSpammer just referenced all the cuts to Environment Canada climate programs. But... not a single person is going to lose their job. Does that sound like a small government idiologue to you?
The whole point was the cuts to the programs, not the employees. :rolleyes:
This has nothing to do with "small government idiologue (sic)". Unless you are trying to prove that by keeping the employees, Harper once again goes against one of his campaign promises of smaller government?

This is one fine example of Con circular logic:

failure of Kyoto by our erstwhile Minister of Natural Resources is becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy, do so. Short version -
Step 1: Ambrose says Canada can't possibly meet it's Kyoto commitments.
Step 2: Conservative government cuts programs to fight global warming by 80% and those to study climate change 40%
Step 3: Canada doesn't meet is Kyoto commitments and there is celebrating in the Conservative Party headquarters because they were right in Step 1.
Step 4: Celebration unfortunately can't continue onto the golf course because they are either dried out and brown or half-flooded owing to erratic and extreme weather.


If you want the polite version of it, here it is:

Ottawa plan hacks green programs
MARTIN MITTELSTAEDT AND MICHAEL DEN TANDT
From Thursday's Globe and Mail
The new Conservative government has decided to slash spending on Environment Canada programs designed to fight global warming by 80 per cent, and wants cuts of 40 per cent in the budgets devoted to climate change at other ministries, according to cabinet documents obtained by The Globe and Mail.

The documents also say that the Conservatives' campaign promise of tax breaks for transit passes would cost up to $2-billion over five years, but would result in an insignificant cut in greenhouse-gas emissions because the incentives are expected to spur only a small increase in the number of people willing to trade using cars for buses and subways.

The section of the documents on the budget cuts, written by an unidentified government official after a cabinet meeting in late March that approved the reductions, also said the Tories want to try to claw back $260-million the Liberals had pledged to the United Nations to fund its international climate-change programs.

According to the documents, the Tories have yet to develop their unique Canadian-based set of actions.

"No process has been put in place to determine next steps on climate change or to develop the new 'made in Canada' climate plan," the documents said.

"What is clear is that staff will have little to do and that they will have no budgets to spend over the next year and that more cuts are coming."

According to the documents, the programs are being eliminated to help fund tax cuts, including the GST reduction the Tories pledged during the election, and to fund the transit-pass scheme.

The global-warming programs are being eliminated even though a Treasury Board review of government spending found that the vast majority of 166 such programs run by Ottawa were considered cost effective.

The review, which was begun by the Liberals and completed last fall, found only 22 programs were ineffective. The Treasury Board information was supposed to be used to reallocate funding from programs that weren't working to those that were achieving better results.

The documents also show that senior officials in the Environment Ministry have told the government that its proposed tax credit for transit users will have virtually no impact on greenhouse-gas emissions and only a small effect on riders.

But its benefits to transit users may be nullified, the memo states, because "it could be quite easy for the transit authorities to raise their fares to absorb the benefit of the tax credit."

The Canadian Urban Transit Association has estimated that the proposed tax break would increase transit use by up to 30 per cent by 2016. But in another Environment Minister memo drafted for Ms. Ambrose, ministry officials say that, based on a 1997 Canadian study, as well as a U.S. Department of Labour survey in 2004, use can be expected to increase between 2 per cent and 4 per cent. That means the effect on emissions will be negligible, the documents show.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20060413.wxclimate13/BNStory/National/home

So this new lean/mean government is cutting effective programs, replacing them with either nothing and/or a campaign promise that does nothing for the environment. :eek:




This reporter also didn't mention the double digit growth in government employees in the last few years under the Liberals. This growth rate was not sustainable. Harper has to pull government growth back.
This has NOTHING to do with government growth.



I guess this reporter missed the memo saying the whole fear mongering hidden agenda thing backfired on the Liberals last election. Harper has been very public with his five priorities. He will accomplish most or all of them, subject to the opposition. His minority government will be a big contrast to Martin's who accomplished very little and had no direction.
While Vandave is still on the campaign trail for the Cons.... it is very reminiscent of young children covering their ears and eyes singing nonsense not to hear or see any thing happening around them....

So this new lean/mean government is cutting effective programs, replacing them with either nothing and/or a campaign promise that does nothing for the environment. :eek:


First, it is weird seeing the transit tax rebate being connected with climate change. The Conservatives shouldn't be doing this because it has so little to do with climate change; it is a targetted tax cut of questionable value.

Second 'effective programs' remains to be seen. Accountants may call them effective in that they accurately tracked and accrued everything -- that's not effective with respect to climate change. If the estimates don't deal head on with very large possible 'free rider' problems, they may be quite inefficitive even if auditors like it.

An example: the government could attach a $1 rebate to every 'enerstar' appliance in every store then, when people buy the appliance, the government can claim that their program caused the energy savings and take credit for X kwh. Signing up for the rebate doesn't mean the rebate caused the change. I don't know if the departments estimated realistic free-ridership; if they did, good for them, if not, the 'effectiveness' will be dubious.

Damn Beej, that was a good post.

Damn Beej, that was a good post.

(Two common Beejist traits are good posts and huge egos. Scientists have yet to determine the causality.)

Oddly enough I think private iniatives for smaller scale changes may be a better approach ( educating the public in the meanwhile to it's importance ) as individuals are best able to determine what is appropriate for them.

I would prefer to see the gov involved in massive Superfund projects like Toronto's cooling pipe and funding of clean energy sources especially more hydro and wind and offering long term funding for large buildings like co-ops and apartments to undertake energy efficiency refits.

Local initiatives like fast lanes for 2+ occupants are good for municipal projects.

I'd prefer in general to see a bottom up approach with local push for projects the that is locally analysed then vetted by the funding program up the line.

Top down......ugh - look at fisheries. :rolleyes:

Tax break incentives for proven efficiency/clean energy programs/projects should be a given and relatively red tape free.

I'd prefer in general to see a bottom up approach with local push for projects the that is locally analysed then vetted by the funding program up the line.

Exactly.

The push has to come from people that are able to effect change. It can't come from some bureaucrat in Ottawa.

I have noticed a change in your thinking this past year to a more provincial / municipal power structure, as opposed to a grand unified national structure. You are starting to see the light. Before you know it, you might vote Conservative.

The government also has to be receptive to private enterprise that wants to get involved in alternate power generation.

Some of the big projects will probably require government funding (or selective private sector involvement), like the piping in Ontario. We need more good ideas like that and need to act on them.

So this new lean/mean government is cutting effective programs, replacing them with either nothing and/or a campaign promise that does nothing for the environment. :eek:
.

Give them a chance to come up with a policy before you judge it as a failure. Wait till the budget comes out. Their approach will probably be announced at that time.

Give them a chance to come up with a policy before you judge it as a failure.
...
Wait till the budget comes out. Their approach will probably be announced at that time.

Good advice. We shall see.
...
I'm not sure they should rush it. I'd rather they work through the summer and fall consultations for the 2007 budget to really get it right, but I'll be happy to be surprised with a sensible plan in such a short time.

Good advice. We shall see.
...
I'm not sure they should rush it. I'd rather they work through the summer and fall consultations for the 2007 budget to really get it right, but I'll be happy to be surprised with a sensible plan in such a short time.

That is part of the problem however, when issues such as the environment become politicized rather that prioritized nothing is done and in the long run we continue to fail in changing our business practices and behavior that is causing damage to the environment in the first place.

So now we wait for the 2007 budget... and after that? This constant waiting only shows me the consistent and pervasive lack of leadership in regards to environmental concerns from both the Liberal's and Conservatives.

That is part of the problem however, when issues such as the environment become politicized rather that prioritized

I has to be politicised for it to be prioritised, otherwise we will continue with our current structure of embedded subsidies for energy use, sprawl, travel and more energy use. It really blows, but the politicians must do something different than the status quo (muni, prov, fed, whatever) so it must be politicised in some way.

That is the problem with normal 'externality' issues, much less international externality issues: the politics are immensely more complex than anything else we're used to dealing with by marking an 'X'.

Vandave don't be foolish - you haven't been around here long enough to know. :rolleyes:
I've consistently been strong on local authority and provincial and muncipal powers.
I've promoted new powers for Toronto for years and a better balance between provinces and Ottawa. If you would get the rose coloured glasses off you'd know that a centrist position doesn't equate with huge central government.

Don't give me the crap that NeoCons are for smaller govs etc. - the record doesn't show it anywhere including Klein's.

I've said for year's the PMO's office has too much power as does the executive branch in the US.

Federal gov neds to do things on a national scale and not micromanage.
Having 5,000 bureacrats in Ottawa for education is ludicrous when it's a provincial jurisdiction.

There needs to be a better balance between provincial and federal authority but our imbalanced provinc size makes it tough unlike Australia where there are five relatively balanced regions and an effective upper house to represent them.

That said there are far too many Mikey harris slash and burn economists in Harper's gov for my comfort and it's starting to show....in just the kind of nonsense spouted in this thread. Say one thing do another.

I stated all along, and I'm not alone, that what this gov DOES, not says will determine it's future.
So far count me unimpressed.

NeoCons

It would be helpful to see you definition too, to compare and contrast with AS's. If it's wiki that makes it straight-forward, but do you think that definition fully aligns with your sense of the term? If not, please describe.

Note: ducks and geese aren't a definition unless it's like the porn definition: I can't define it, but I know it when I see it. Troublesome, but a practical way to define a grey term even if some may define Calvin Klein ads as pornography. :D

I has to be politicised for it to be prioritised, otherwise we will continue with our current structure of embedded subsidies for energy use, sprawl, travel and more energy use. It really blows, but the politicians must do something different than the status quo (muni, prov, fed, whatever) so it must be politicised in some way.

That is the problem with normal 'externality' issues, much less international externality issues: the politics are immensely more complex than anything else we're used to dealing with by marking an 'X'.

I tend to disagree with this to a point... at issue here is the public interest as opposed to the corporate (sic. special interest) interest. At some point society reaches an apex in regards to issues which are contrary (in conflict) with the public interest.

Smoking is a case in point. The smoking lobby has/is/was an immensely powerful special interest group representing various corporations and industries. At some point the influence of that lobby group was disenfranchised because the politick balance shifted from the corporate interest to the public interest.

The politick of this issue became the understanding that the costs involved in rendering long term health care for the victims of smoking far outweighed the short tax/patronage/kickback, etc... benefits from the smoking lobby.

Here's the kicker... at some point things changed... I don't exactly know when, where or how... but a meme kicked in and the public interest came first and foremost.

What's at issue here is the same sort of meme kick-start at the politick level needs to be addressed. Every time a new government comes in it puts that kick starting of the meme in the back seat. That's what I see as happening here. And while Vandave may say "lets wait and see what they come up with?" It is only one more nail in the coffin. Action needs to happen now. Killing off programs is NOT the right action. Adding MORE programs to curb our impact on the environment is the RIGHT action.

This is a poltical issue, the social meme is gathering strength... the fact that the Conservatives are killing these programs is a detriment to the public interest.

The politick of this issue became the understanding that the costs involved in rendering long term health care for the victims of smoking far outweighed the short tax/patronage/kickback, etc... benefits from the smoking lobby.


We disagree. Your GHG emissions don't harm you to any significant extent. This is a large externality to personal choices.

I think that while growing public sentiment will make it easier to implement the necessary changes (like high cigarette taxes and restrictions were allowed by public sentiment), this will not happen with feelings alone; policy action is needed.

An SUV doesn't hurt the atmosphere and using it has a neglible affect -- 500 million of them moving 30,000 km per year, however, is an issue. This isn't about the lobbying, people must face higher costs for what they want or it won't happen (technology breakthroughs can also 'solve' it, but depending on that is very risky). There is no big bad cause for this, just billions of people making little decisions without taking the true costs to the atmosphere into account.

Give them a chance to come up with a policy before you judge it as a failure. Wait till the budget comes out. Their approach will probably be announced at that time.
Yes but the Father figure Conservative government has stated that they had a made in Canada solution - sounded good - only problem is that they have sweet FA and are gutting what is there....

It would be helpful to see you(sic) definition too, to compare and contrast with AS's.
Why? I'm not writing the bible on Neocons and you have had some hints and definitions already. And some of it may resemble Wiki's, if it did not, I would be worried....

Why? I'm not writing the bible on Neocons and you have had some hints and definitions already. And some of it may resemble Wiki's, if it did not, I would be worried....

For a term used so frequently, if it doesn't have some sort of definition (like wiki, for example) then it just sort of seems like an empty slur to substitute for relevant comments.