Susan Delacourt points this out in her blog this morning. Some examples are cited. One of which, the most obvious and recent, was in this legislation to scrap the long gun registry, those Harpercons have decided to scrap all the data that came with it, yanno, to make sure that not only put provincial governments like Ontario and Quebec, which have hinted about implementing their own registries (by the by, Harpercons, I thought the idea was to allow the provinces more of their own powers. Guess that only applies when it’s ideologically conveeenient), but also, to make sure a future, more gun control friendly government can’t implement such a registry evuh. Again.
Asked what motivated the destruction of data, Public Safety Minister Vic Toews, the lead minister, said the Conservatives want to thwart the ability of any other party, such as the NDP, to reestablish it in the future.
“We won’t have these records loose and capable then of creating a new long gun registry should they ever have the opportunity to do that,” Toews said at an Ottawa Valley farm.
No, we can’t, eh, ol’ Vic?
Susan Delacourt also points us to another, perhaps, even more handcuffing act those Harpercons have been doing. That would be the tax cutting, and spend! Spend! Spend! We all know that this is what Rethuglicans do in the US and other right winged governments, in an effort to gut those pesky social safety nets they despise so much. The Harpercons are no different. However, that is just the tip of the iceberg. That wasteful spending and tax cutting is also their way of preventing future, more progressive leaning governments of implementing their own programs. From 2008, it is obvious that ol’ Tom “I know where you live” Flanagan is all ga ga giddy:
Tom Flanagan says Conservatives are gradually “tightening the screws on the federal government,” leaving more money in taxpayers’ pockets and making it harder for Ottawa to spend.
To launch any big-ticket initiatives over the next few years a prime minister — whether Harper or a successor — would either need to risk political suicide or hope for an economic miracle.
That’s because raising taxes, returning to a deficit or slashing existing programs could be the only ways to pay for new spending, barring an unexpected economic boom.
“They’ve gradually re-engineered the system. I’m quite impressed with it,” said Flanagan, who ran the 2004 Conservative campaign and has been a longtime confidant and former chief of staff to Harper.
“They’re boxing in the ability of the federal government to come up with new program ideas . . . The federal government is now more constrained, the provinces have more revenue, and conservatives should be happy.”
Like I said, ga ga giddy and euphoric is more like it. That article and quote I linked to was from 2008. Look at how much more they’ve spent on typical right winged frivolities.
Yes, I know Brian Topp has taken the daring step of talking about higher corporate taxes and taxing the most wealthy, along with potentially hiking the GST ‘when economic times improve’. However, I don’t think he’s the right person to sell it. He just doesn’t have a strong enough personality or seem even willing enough to really get in Stevie Spiteful’s face, which is what will be required to beat him in any future election. Plus, I don’t think it’s a coincidence that he talks about this during the Occupy movements. I have to wonder if he would’ve dared talked about those ideas openly were it not for the occupy movement? Also, will he change his mind later once he gets a great idea what it’s like to be the patsy of Stevie’s attack ad machine?
Funny, how the Harpercons whine about not wanting to be held to what previous governments did:
Mr. Speaker, the law of our constitutional system is extremely clear. A previous government cannot bind a future government to its policy.
True. Ms Delacourt has no argument with that neither. However, as Ms. Delacourt says, our constitutional system should not be used to hamstring a future government neither. How is tying the hands of future governments democratic? Furthermore, it would indeed motivate Canadians to go to the polls even less at election time. But, then, maybe that is the ultimate goal of Stevie Spiteful–to have no one go to the polls, or anoint himself PM for life.
That sign and slogan was from the east end Montreal riding of Hochelaga, during the November 2009 by-election.
Here’t the English translation below, for my readers who don’t understand French:
Opening frame: Stephen Harper’s dicatorial slogan. Action. No elections.
Dialogue: Here is Conservative Party’s slogan: Action! No Election!
Hey! That is a dictator’s slogan!
Hey! Take a good look at this.
Furthermore, He wants nothing to change.
Do you know what that means?
Action! No Election!
After that, the narrator invites viewers to share their comments about Stephen Harper’s ridiculous slogan.