Daily Archives: 3/1/2007
Harper’s High Road Bites His Ass
| 3/1/2007 | Posted by Patti under Canadian Politics, Ethics, Harper |
Back in the days when the boy Harper was in his best role, as leader of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition he went on the attack at then Prime Minister Paul Martin for his use of government jets for personal flights. He claimed the cost of these flights were $11,000 per hour while the Prime Minister did reimburse the public purse for his families flight to Morocco for their vacation based on the cost of commercial flights and then almost doubling it which, of course, was no where near the cost Harper claimed.
Martin paid from his own pocket, not from party funds. Much of the figure that Harper came up with is cost that would have to be paid whether the government’s Challenger jet was in the air or not. Now to keep some perspective here, it is a security requirement that the Prime Minister can not fly on commercial flights so it isn’t like this is a subject that can be killed by the PM flying like the rest of the population.
So now, the table has turned. The boy Harper is Prime Minister and he’s the one using the government Challenger. Today’s Toronto Star takes a look at the example he’s setting. The Conservative party is paying for flights Harper takes for personal or partisan reasons. It is the rate at which their paying that is hypocritical.
The article used the example of a flight Harper took on Feb. 10, 2007 for which the military billed the PMO for 3.1 flying hours at $2,139/hour = $6,639 to which the PMO responded that an equivalent flight at commercial rates return would have been $484 per person. The commercial rate was paid for each staffer on board and $3,144 was remitted. Based on the figures the Globe & Mail reported in their story on this, Paul Martin would have been paying a bit less than $6,288 based on the commercial rate x almost 2 which they said Martin paid from his own pocket.
But ah, there is another twist to the compensation story. Seems that in subsequent trips for partisan or personal reasons the PM has been known to manage to schedule some ‘government business’ like a roundtable meeting with Block Parents and thus the public purse pays the whole tab. How convenient.
Jeff at A BCer in Toronto writes:
But let’s use that base figure for our calculations. We know that for the two trips the CPC reimbursed the people of Canada $9624.00. We know that total flight time for the trips was appx. six hours. At the very conservative (small ‘c’) operating cost of $2,233/per hour, that would cost $13,398. Which means Harper shortchanged the taxpayer by at least $3774. More, when you factor in the flight crews, ramp fees and other costs. Or, if Harper was telling the truth in opposition when his MPs would routinely say the true cost was $11,000/hour, then he owes the taxpayers some $56,376.
Cameron over at Cameron’s House of Fun makes the point that really the cost of flights for the PM, any PM shouldn’t be an issue. I do agree with that, I remember at the time that the boy was trying to hammer Martin over it that it was nothing but petty politics and something that would never be an issue for the boy’s hero Bush. Our Prime Minister might not be the head of state but he’s the head of the government, if security dictates that he fly private then we pay.
So what’s the fuss over? I like Cameron’s comment:
As the article notes, Harper attacked the Liberals for using the jet service, in fact he went on about it a fairish amount. It was all part of the “look they are elitist, snobby shits, not like us common folks” offensives. Good politics. Smart politics. Apparently politics that wins elections.
The problem with this kind of politics is that it comes back and bites you on the ass, hence the uproar.
I don’t have a problem with someone taking a principled stand on an issue. Just remember that when you’re in a position to carry through on that stand, be just as principled or honest enough to admit your perspect was wrong. OH, wait, I am talking about Harper admitting error, that would be a frosty Friday in hell.
Having said all the foregoing, if Prince Charles, the future King of this country, can fly commercial as an example of environmental stewardship, how come the PM can’t do likewise and still be provided adequate security?
Travers on Harper and Dion
| 3/1/2007 | Posted by Patti under Canadian Politics |
James Travers, political opinion columnist at the Toronto Star, writes a rather interesting and well articulated column today on both Harper and Dion’s approaches to their positions. It isn’t often that I agree with much of anything that Travers writes but I have to give him his due on this column.
He lays out a good argument that both of these leaders are engaged in playing to the sound bites for the evening news. Using a whole lot of fiction wrapped in just enough truth to trap the unwary the two of them are infecting Canadian politics with US tactics:
The scurrilous Conservative suggestion that Liberals are flip-flopping on anti-terrorism to protect extremists combined with Liberal environmental fear-mongering are pushing the quality of debate to new lows.
Blending a little truth with a lot of fiction has defined U.S. politics for a long time. But dismissing what’s happening here as just catching up would be to ignore the obvious pitfall.
Politicians who get too far out in front of reality lose credibility and ultimately support when voters catch up to them after finally catching on. Dion and Harper are making themselves vulnerable to that phenomenon.
Screaming for an apology or ‘consulting legal counsel’ every time Harper jerks the line is not going to show either Dion or his fellow Liberals as competent, pragmatic or a steady hand on the tiller. Harper is sly enough at the game of bully politics that he doesn’t blink or allow himself to be seen as reacting emotionally. Dion is going to need to learn likewise but on a higher level, which with some of the Conservatives behaviour, that wont be too high a step up.
Follow Me!