I couldn't agree more and when Ontario figures out that the big spending, big government, stimulas package Harper tack record won't be continued, Ontario will take over and leave the West "out". In addition most of Harper's campaign promises are sure to provide the PQ with a handy narrative that will make a Yes referendum a cakewalk. At the end of the 41st Parliament there will be another seismic shift eliminating this Harper coalition Andrew Coyne is so breathless about.
The new NDP MPs are light years ahead of the neaderthals that came to Ottawa in the 1990s and early 2000s with the political tag team of Manning, Day and Harper.
Wrong peggy, Ontario voted for Harper's spend and borrow track record.
Over the past decade or so corporate tax rates have been decreased consistently and dramatically. Over the same period large corporations have accumulated roughly $80 billion in retained earnings mostly in the form of cash reserves. Given this fact it is very hard to argue that lower taxes result in corporate investment to achieve economic productivity or job creation.
I agree completely. Factors that influence economic productivity and job creation far more than tax rates are: 1) an educated and skilled work force; 2) modern efficient infrastructure and 3) reliable affordable access to health care for the workforce. Corporations evaluate these factors before they even consider tax rates when making investment decisions. All of these factors REQUIRE higher levels of government investment and hence corporate tax rates to effectively accomplish them.
I agree with Line M as far as the first paragraph. And it gets scarier.
Yesterday at the Globe and Mail, Tom Flanagan refused to even discuss "hypothetical" examples of what Harper might do and what the Governor General's response might be. He claimed that the Governor General could establish a new precedent after considering the probable unique circumstances presented by this election result. It's a scary thought that Harper is first purposely confusing the electorate and that untimately a Harper appointed Governor General, who previously bent over backwards to accomodate Harper in setting the rules for the Mulroney enquiry, will decide the fate of the next Parliament.
Yesterday at the Globe and Mail, Tom Flanagan refused to even discuss "hypothetical" examples of what Harper might do and what the Governor General's response might be. He claimed that the Governor General could establish a new precedent after considering the probable unique circumstances presented by this election result. It's a scary thought that Harper is first purposely confusing the electorate and that untimately a Harper appointed Governor General, who previously bent over backwards to accomodate Harper in setting the rules for the Mulroney enquiry, will decide the fate of the next Parliament.
Since he was faced with loss of power in 2008 Harper has done everything he could to confuse the electorate about what a coalition is and the legitimacy a coalition has in the Westminster Parliamentary system of government. It is obvious that you are confused.
The Bloc has been able to achieve success while consistently adhereing to the democratic rules estanlished in Canada by others. They act in the interests of the citizens who elect them and and behaved with integrity. They have not resorted to breaking electoral laws, bringing fraudsters into the political process or high office, shutting down Parlaiment, stuffing the Senate with partisan stooges some of whom are accused of ciminal actions, etc, etc. These are traiterous action, but you cannot accuse the Bloc of any of these thngs. On the other hand even you cannot claim Stephen Harper has not done these things.
![[Avatar]](/images/avatar26.png){kind=avatar}
Company