Quote:
Harper will cater to whims of wealthy, predicts Linda McQuaig
Jan. 15, 2006. 01:00 AM
More than 600 people filled the hall in downtown Toronto last Thursday night to watch what promised to be a contentious all-candidates debate about Canada's role in fighting poverty, both at home and abroad.
Stephen Lewis, Canada's sharpest debater, had taken time from his busy schedule as UN special envoy for African AIDS victims to be there as a questioner, so that candidates would feel some real heat over the poverty issue, which had barely surfaced in the campaign.
The television cameras were ready to roll. Only one problem: the Conservative candidate hadn't shown up.
And he never did.
So the debate went ahead with an empty chair representing the party that appears poised to form the next government of Canada.
Why should the Conservatives bother to send someone to a debate about poverty? What's in it for them? Probably not many votes.
Their main policy for dealing with the poor seems to be tougher crime laws, and a cut in the GST, which would allow those earning under $12,500 a year to save $64 — enough to start a new life.
If the Conservatives don't show much interest in poverty before the election, are they likely to afterwards?
Stephen Harper's Conservatives have run a slick, tightly controlled campaign. With the Liberal sponsorship scandal providing a great punching bag, they've been largely able to keep the focus off their own agenda, which, among other things, is about expanding the rights of the well-to-do.
Harper has spent most of his adult life working for right-wing political parties, either in the backrooms or as an MP.
One of his few "outside" jobs, from 1998 to 2002, was heading the National Citizens Coalition, a lobby group founded in the 1960s by wealthy businessman Colin Brown, expressly for the purpose of preventing the establishment of public health care in Canada.
Despite a hefty corporate-funded war chest, the NCC failed to stop medicare.
Another pet cause of the NCC has been fighting laws aimed at restricting the power of corporations to influence election outcomes through advertising.
Happily, the NCC lost that battle too, despite Harper's vigorous efforts on behalf of the over-privileged.
In 2002, Brown's son, Colin T. Brown, presented Harper with the NCC's "medal of freedom," praising him for the consistency of his commitment to NCC causes. Previous winners include Conrad Black.
All this right-wing stuff seems far from mind these days, as Harper manages to present himself — with the media's help — as a moderate, even a unifier, who's mostly interested in cleaning up corruption and improving the lives of ordinary Canadians.
No matter how skilful his makeover, Harper's real agenda, the one he's dedicated himself to throughout his adult life, is divisive. It's about championing the already well-secured rights of those at the upper end of the income scale.
As for those at the bottom end, the empty chair at last week's debate says it all.
|
Additional Comment:
Oh look.. a letter from a concerned AMERICAN, in TheStar:
"As an American, I believe in the right of all voters to shoot themselves in the foot (repeatedly, in our case). I can't vote here yet and have no say in your election. But since Canada has been and continues to be our best friend and this is now my home, I figured I had to at least speak out publicly, and not just shrug and say it's a Canadian affair.
Too often before our invasion of Iraq I heard Americans dismiss the objections of those who disagreed with it if the objectors weren't American because "they weren't attacked on 9/11," so their objections didn't matter. Instead, they listened to the repeated lies, deceptions and propaganda of the Bush administration, and now we Americans have to live with the consequences of eating what was being shovelled. Would that we had listened more critically.
I would hate to see Canada make the same mistake. Maybe the conservatives here are different than the ones in the United States but I've heard Stephen Harper say he admires them.
Maybe Canada will continue to support us militarily with discretion in the future, like you did in Afghanistan and you didn't in Iraq. But I heard Harper say he would have helped us illegally invade Iraq, without UN backing, to help the terrorists.
Maybe the Conservatives here will not, once in power, outspend the Liberals in "pork" (pet projects designed to keep them in power) and corporate welfare while cutting services to those who most need them. Maybe the tax cuts Harper proposes (and those he hasn't proposed yet) will not, in conjunction with added expenditures, cause Canada to run up a huge deficit. Maybe he will not undermine the Charter like George Bush undermines the constitution. Maybe they will keep their word.
Don't buy something for the shiny packaging, buy it for the substance. Maybe things are different in Canada and politicians actually keep the promises they make to get elected.
Do you really think Harper has changed so dramatically in the last two months, as the poll numbers suggest, that he was "born again" a few weeks ago? From what I've seen, the numbers on Harper have changed not because of substance but because of a change of packaging.
Please, don't take the keys away from one driver because he's swerving all over the road and you're worried he might wind up in the ditch, and then give them to someone you know will drive the car over a cliff."