Opposition blows gasket as PM jets to Canucks-Bruins game

Opposition blows gasket as PM jets to Canucks-Bruins game:

Prime Minister Stephen Harper is being accused of wasting taxpayer dollars for his decision to use a government jet to attend the Stanley Cup finals in Boston on Wednesday.

As the Conservatives are scrambling to find billions in cuts in Ottawa, Mr. Harper will reimburse the cost of tickets to Game 4 of the Boston/Vancouver finals for himself and his daughter, as well as the equivalent cost of a commercial roundtrip for two.

However, the Prime Minister is forbidden from going on commercial flights for security reasons, which forces him to use a Canadian Forces jet for the trip. According to the government’s estimates, a flight on the Challenger costs more than $10,000 an hour, which the opposition deemed too expensive two days after the government announced a new wave of austerity in Ottawa.

“Using those types of tax dollars for his personal entertainment? No, that’s simply not on,” NDP MP Peter Stoffer said. “He should do what we all do, which is watching the game on TV and hoping the Canucks score a victory.”

... The PMO said Mr. Harper, his daughter and Mr. Moore will each be paying $500 for their tickets, and $530 each for the flight.

Forget what Tories say, Ottawa has structural deficit

Stephen Gordon: Forget what Tories say, Ottawa has structural deficit

Yesterday’s budget was an implicit admission of a problem whose existence the Conservatives had spent quite some time denying: the federal government is running a structural deficit that will not go away on its own when the economy fully recovers from the recession. If the deficit were purely cyclical -- that is, if the deficit could be completely explained by recession-induced increases in spending and reductions in revenue -- then the government wouldn’t be in a position where it would feel obliged to commit to large, unspecified spending cuts in order to balance the budget.

Many commentators have suggested that the structural deficit was created by increased spending, so spending cuts are the appropriate remedy. I don’t see how this hypothesis fits the data, and the fact that the necessary spending cuts have yet to be specified suggests to me that there’s no expensive new program that can be blamed for the structural component of the deficit.

Gordon's analysis is that the GST cut was responsible for the structural deficit.

The raft of tough-on-crime legislation Tories have yet to pass

Preview of the upcoming tough-on-crime omnibus bill: The raft of tough-on-crime legislation Tories have yet to pass

Harper's Throne Speech delays dealing with hard decisions

Jeffrey Simpson: Harper's Throne Speech delays dealing with hard decisions

Financial crises are a real drag. They pull down economies very quickly, but recovery is prolonged, tough and uncertain.

That tough recovery provides the context for Friday’s Speech from the Throne and, more important, Monday’s budget. The economic picture has soured from the pre-election budget to today, especially the economic news from the United States. The souring will mean much harder decisions for Stephen Harper’s government than it appeared would be necessary a few months ago.

... This summer, a subcommittee under Treasury Board President Tony Clement will begin reviewing government spending, with cuts presumably to be contained in the budget of 2012. These cutting exercises have failed more often than not in Ottawa. The Conservatives now have a majority government that should steel their resolve, but they have also been a party that let spending rip before the recession.

Hard spending decisions have never been a hallmark of Mr. Harper’s governments, which have cut taxes, dramatically increased the number of civil servants, driven up spending, eliminated the surplus and produced big deficits, but will now be preaching restraint and cutbacks.

Trade Minister launches blistering attack on NDP

Trade Minister launches blistering attack on NDP:

In a downtown Ottawa speech Thursday morning, International Trade Minister Ed Fast launched a fresh partisan attack on the new Official Opposition, accusing New Democrats of being set on policies that would “stall growth, kill jobs and set Canadian families back.”

Listeners could be forgiven for wondering whether the 41st election campaign was still being contested. The broadside against the NDP suggests the perpetual campaign the Tories waged during their minority government years will not be wound down soon.

Lawrence Martin: Has the fourth estate lost its tenacity?

Lawrence Martin:

Much wonderment has been expressed recently on why stories of abuse of power don’t seem to hurt Stephen Harper’s government. The stories don’t stick, it is said. The reason may well be, to cite Mr. Thomson’s cautionary words, because we in the media don’t stick to them. It’s episodic journalism. We report one story, then move on. We don’t probe deeply. If a Watergate was happening, the public would never know it.

It’s not because journalists don’t sense there is something very serious going on. The conservative Sun chain recently went after the government’s penchant for muzzling critics. The conservative National Post wrote that there is no excuse “for the paranoia, secrecy, rule-bending, shirking of due process and committee bullying that has rightly become the subject of opposition ire in recent years.” That list is quite an indictment. It’s the type of stuff that in the 1970s would have spawned all kinds of Woodwards and Bernsteins. Not today, though.

During the election campaign, there were stories of voter-suppression tactics by the Tories, of barring people from rallies, of pork-barrelling with G8 funds and the like. In the last week of the campaign, there was a seeming attempt by a Conservative operative to present Michael Ignatieff as an Iraq war planner. One can imagine what would happen if this kind of thing, straight out of Nixonland, happened in a U.S. campaign. The media would blow the roof off. Here, the story passed in a day or two without further comment.

First he routed Liberals – and now Harper hopes to bankrupt them

The Globe and Mail:

Stephen Harper is expected to move quickly to kill the per-vote taxpayer subsidies to political parties in an effort to kill the Liberal Party of Canada, according to a former colleague of the Prime Minister.

“Ever since his days at the [National Citizens Coalition], Stephen talked about eliminating the Liberals as a political force in Canada,” former NCC executive Gerry Nicholls said. “This was both for personal and tactical reasons. He didn’t like Liberals – he always viewed them as biased against Alberta.”

Tories back off campaign pledge to show a surplus by 2014-15

Globe and Mail:

With the election results barely a week old, Conservatives are muddying the waters around a central – and surprising – campaign pledge.

The revised 2011 budget that the government will present next month will not show a surplus by 2014-15 as promised in black and white in the Conservative campaign platform, even though the government insists it still intends to deliver on the election promise.

... The Conservative election platform states that: “Through accelerated reductions in government spending, a re-elected Stephen Harper government will eliminate the deficit by 2014-15.”

The new landscape: Conservatives vs. NDP

Harper's long-term goal is to make federal politics look like provincial politics in BC. There's a dominant conservative party (Social Credit and then the BC Liberals in BC) facing off against an NDP opposition. It's very polarized: you get wide swings in policy whenever government changes hands.

We'll see if Harper succeeds in keeping the Liberals out of the game. He's promised to eliminate the $2-per-vote subsidy, which will affect the Conservatives less than the other parties--they get a tremendous amount of money in direct donations from their base. I'd also expect more attack ads against both Layton and the new Liberal leader. (Why wait until the next election?)

Jeffrey Simpson:

Mr. Harper got what he wanted almost as much as an overwhelming victory: an overwhelming Liberal defeat. Not just the defeat but the destruction of the Liberal Party was Mr. Harper’s political objective, because he believed the Liberals’ disappearance would pave the way to a long period of Conservative dominance.

Mr. Harper believes that Canada is fundamentally not a social democratic country but a conservative one. To put matters another way, in a straight-up fight between conservative and left-wing forces, conservatives will win most of the time. The big, sprawling Liberal Party got in the way of this right-left showdown (and a left-wing surge, until this campaign). The Liberals’ demise spells long-term good news for the Conservatives.

Harper wins a majority

Looks like I'll be continuing this blog!

The Conservatives have taken 166 seats, with 39% of the vote; the NDP have 108 seats (including 60 in Quebec). The Liberals are down to 33. The Bloc only has four seats, so they no longer have official party status.

Harper to move fast to use his new authority

Mr. Harper’s long game, as he’s discussed in years past, is to shift Canada rightward politically so that the Conservatives replace the Liberals as the “natural governing party” in the eyes of voters. That’s not going to occur overnight and it’s not going to happen by spooking voters with radical changes from a party the Tory Leader has acknowledged is more conservative than the Canadian public.

The Conservative Leader will likely seek to change Canada more incrementally.

As pledged, the Tories will move rapidly on a far-reaching rewrite of Canada’s crime laws. They’re planning to bundle 11 pieces of law-and-order legislation they’d failed to enact as a minority government into one omnibus bill that will be passed within 100 days of taking power.

Measures would include an end to house arrest for serious and violent criminals, tougher sentences and mandatory jail time for sexual offences against children and a crackdown on the handling of violent and repeat young offenders.

Say goodbye to the long-gun registry and $2-per-vote subsidies for political parties now that Stephen Harper has full control over the levers of power in Ottawa.

And get ready for term limits on senators and greater foreign ownership of companies that offer telecom services such as cellphones.

About the Harper Government

Stephen Harper is the leader of the Conservative Party of Canada, and the current Prime Minister.

Lately it seems that Harper believes he can operate with impunity, that the other parties (Liberals, NDP, and Bloc Quebecois) are too weak to oppose him. Last year, the Conservatives received $17.7 million in donations, while the Liberals received $6.6 million. This gives Harper enough money to bury the Liberal leader (previously Stephane Dion, now Michael Ignatieff) under a blizzard of attack ads, before an election even starts.

I decided to start writing this blog after reading the latest story:

Public servants from four different departments have confirmed to The Canadian Press that they received a directive late last year that the words "Government of Canada" in federal communications be replaced with "Harper Government."

Stockwell Day's response:

"If you think you're on to something that is going to ignite people from coast to coast in a fury of rage, maybe we'll look at it. But this is the first I've heard of it, so good luck with it."

If you feel like strengthening Harper's opposition, I'd suggest sending some money their way:

Donate to the Liberals.

Donate to the NDP.

If you see a story that you think should be posted here, email me at harperwtf@gmail.com.