Evolution of the PM’s website

The Prime Ministerial website is accessible at http://pm.gc.ca and besides the changing of the guard over the years (from Chretien to Martin to Harper), the website has not really changed that much and still remains quite simplistic in its presentation and web standards. Click each image to enlarge.

pm-122196.jpg
December 21, 1996

pm-050398.jpg
May 3rd, 1998

pm-120500.jpg
December 5th, 2000

pm-121501.jpg
December 15th, 2001

pm-061004.jpg
June 10th, 2004

pm-020606.jpg
February 6th, 2006

The current version of the website, which features our new Prime Minister Stephen Harper, is still quite antiquated by web standards. For example, the buttons on the left use simple javascript rollover functions instead of CSS.

harper-page2.jpg

Also, the website asks the user to submit their email address to subscribe for ’email updates’. Of course, email updates are still useful to many, however, enabling web 2.0 features on the website (especially RSS) would extend the website’s usefulness to many, many more users on a variety of platforms. Further, the Conservatives have been quite succesful in featuring podcasts on their main website at www.conservative.ca and on their youth-themed website at www.cpcenergy.ca. Mr. Harper’s speeches could be featured as audio or video podcasts on the PMO website.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper campaigned on a platform of changing the way government works for all Canadians. A new, refreshed and modern web presentation of the Prime Ministerial website could help signal the Conservative drive for renewal.

UPDATE: www.stephenharper.ca goes to the PM’s official website. Years ago, I remember hearing about a news story in which a reporter asked then Prime Minister Jean Chretien what he thought about not owning his own domain name (it was snapped up by a cybersquatter). Of course, Chretien didn’t have a clue what the reporter was talking about.

Harper: GST from 7% to 5%

harper-gst-cut.jpgA Conservative government under the leadership of Stephen Harper will reduce the GST from 7% to 6% immediately and then to 5% within five years.

This announcement generates a mixed reaction from me, but it’s mostly good.

First of all, small ‘c’ conservatives argue that we should be moving away from income taxes and towards consumption tax as taxing savings and wealth generation discourages investment. However, lowering consumption taxes encourages consumerism which will certainly stimulate the economy from everyday items such as newspapers to big-ticket items such as cars and homes.

While the latest announcement isn’t necessarily reflective of Mr. Harper’s masters degree in economics, he should be awarded a doctorate in politics. Today’s announcement will certainly get voters excited and has the added benefit of dragging the Liberals through the inevitable ‘but some critics say’ angle from the MSM. You see, some critics say that voters don’t trust politicians on GST promises, but then again, we’re talking about Liberals specifically. Remember the broken promise about eliminating the GST in the Red Book? Sheila Copps resigned over that Liberal broken promise.

“I’ve already said personally and very directly that if the GST is not abolished, I’ll resign. I don’t know how clear you can get. I think you’ve got to be accountable…and you have to deliver on it” — Sheila Copps, Globe and Mail, March 11, 1996

So, Stephen Harper gets to make a wildly popular announcement while skeptics can only cite a flaw by pointing out one of the biggest Liberal flip-flops in Canadian history.

Policy wise, is this a good move overall in the eyes of small ‘c’ conservatives? Well, the net reduction of taxes is a conservative ideal, so the reduction of the GST is a victory for small ‘c’ conservatives and the taxpayer. Will we move to a consumption based tax system in the future, eliminating income tax entirely? Perhaps that’s well off into the future, but for the present a 2% reduction in the GST will win the Conservative Party a lot of support.

Canadian Taxpayer’s Federation National Director John Williamson agrees,

“The idea of reducing the GST is just as valid as any other tax-reduction proposal we have seen to date. I think it is one that will prove to be popular with a lot of voters.” — John Williamson

Paul Martin had this to say about the GST in 1989:

“Mr. Speaker, the goods and services tax is a stupid, inept and incompetent tax.” — Paul Martin, November 28th 1989

And today, Mr. Martin had this to say:

“I don’t believe that is the path to follow … Canadians have been down this road before. They’ve heard this story.” — Paul Martin

Didn’t Paul Martin author the Liberal’s broken GST promise in the Red Book?

On comparing the Conservative Party to Democrats

Some in the Canadian Conservative movement have half-correctly compared our party to the Democrats in the United States. While the philosophy shared between the two parties is as different as it is similar, our predicament can draw a few parallels.

For instance, like the Dems we are perennially without power in our country; our members find their party in the wilderness. We both watch desperately as our good people and good thinkers are shut out the executive (Paul Martin’s appointment of the crypto-loyalist Michaelle Jean), the legislative (we cannot form government without Ontario), and the judiciary (rehearing of Chaoulli supreme court decision, the appointment of Supreme Court judges). Indeed, like the Democrats we are left helpless as our respective visions for our respective countries rest unimplemented.

Fortunately, unlike the Democrats, the new Conservative Party of Canada has a strong philosophical base; for the most part, we have not reverted to chaos in order to determine what we stand for. The party has matured, found its footing and is almost ready for power. While our party may disagree on a couple of social issues, these are not significant hurdles to the actual issues of governance. The Democrats however, find themselves turning hard-left under Chairman Howard Dean while rushing towards the centre with presidential front-runner Hillary Clinton. In contrast, Stephen Harper through his leadership has induced moderation and a common direction for the party. However, many on the outside, and those that channel PMO spokesman Scott Reid, still have the belief that Harper harbours undesirable motives. Therefore, the only similarity that can be drawn with the Democrats with this respect is that Conservative Party messaging is impotent; we cannot effectively control the message. Some say that this is a problem with “the mainstream media”.

Now, let’s be realistic. Whether or not our perceived uphill battle against “the media” is true or not, it is how it should be. The media should be hard on us, however, let me qualify by saying that it should be hard on anyone that desires to run this country (Liberal party included). As a Canadian first, and a Conservative second, I would ask nothing less of the fourth estate than adequate scrutiny of anyone who wishes to lead this country. However, the media should be fair. Enter the blogosphere.

Unlike the Democrats, we are winning the blogwars. I often attribute the greater order and dominance of the Canadian Conservative blogosphere to the very fact that our voices are marginalized and that our official party messaging implodes every time Don Martin points out a fault. The Democrats are losing the American struggle for blog dominance for one simple reason. While their messaging is equally troubled and their voices marginalized (yet not to the same degree despite the ‘dominance’ of Fox News), they do not speak with any semblance of unity. For the most part, Canadian Conservative bloggers are focused, organized and thrive in their cohesion.

At the core of their repective problems, the Conservative party and the Democrats are quite different yet similar in the end. While being anti-war could be the most identifiable casus belli of the Democratic party, they lack unity on this issue with John Kerry’s voting for/against the war and Hillary Clinton’s equally polyvalent stance. Comparatively in Canada, no Conservative is ‘pro-Adscam’, however, we fail for the same reason as the Democrats. In the end, the Conservative Party and the Democrats must offer real solutions and positive vision for our respective countries.

If we should lead, our party should look forward. If not, we fill find ourselves mired in regress.