Here is something I wrote today on the G&M article, yesterday, "A well-shaped package would be worth the wait", Jack Mintz …"The real reason for their consternation is that the opposition could be kneecapped by the Conservative proposal to eliminate federal taxpayers' subsidies to political parties by April 1. "
I posted an abridged version to the G&M this morning.
_____________
To all those that think that this is all about the Conservatives eliminating the subsidies to the political parties . . .
"It's the People, Stupid!"
I can only suggest that you meet all our fellow Canadians who lose their jobs, or otherwise suffer sever economic injury, between now and the Conservatives decide to implement a meaningful and effective stimulus package and explain why it was right for Canadians to wait.
Every economy based major political entity in the world is acting immediately to attempt to reduce the damage caused not only to their economy but, much more importantly, to the people in their countries. These actions are all being taken since the Federal election. They are based on current and currently projected economic forecasts, not on something based on the situation a year ago.
To tell people to wait until sometime next year for their budget is something like saying to the people of New Orleans to wait until after Katrina hits to see where the weaknesses are in the restraining walls in order to decide what to do. What about all those people that suffer because of the delay in action when the dam bursts.
Harper and Flaherty ought to have introduced a meaningful and effective stimulus package last week in their update. It was worse than negligent to do otherwise.
That Harper and Flaherty would abstain from performing their duty and instead attack public servants and the Opposition parties, is bizarre, indicative, not of a Prime Minster seriously addressing one of the worse crisis in Canada's history, but of a politician and party trying to take advantage of the serious situation to undermine the opposition parties.
This was not a miscalculation by some advisor.
This was a well thought out scheme based on the Harper and Conservative extreme right wing ideology to take advantage of the serious economic crisis to further their extreme right wing agenda. One need only listen to the very well prepared “Harper Black Friday Promulgation” and his blunt and ominous statement that the Opposition Parties do not have the right (despite having the support of almost 2/3rd of the Canadian voters) to join together to run this country without an election, but that only he, Harper, and the Conservatives, are the only ones (with only 36% support of the Canadian votes) that have right to run the country. One must ask them self just what is it, the underlying “hidden” message Harper is asserting.
Lloyd MacIlquham
30 November, 2008
29 November, 2008
- Conservative Immigration Policies – More Right Wing, Extremist Ideology
The Conservative policies on Immigration are indicative of a total misunderstanding of the significance and importance of Immigration to Canada and Canadian society. Also, statements like “Should we find that one sector is in real trouble a few months from now, we can obviously modify the instructions to reflect that” is simplistic and hopefully intended merely as “Spin” to try and sell their policies and not an indication of their lack of comprehension.
The above was posted to the G&M article:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081128.wPOLimmigration1128/BNStory/politics/home
“Tories unveil immigration reforms”, Romina Maurino, Canadian Press, 28 Nov.’08
Lloyd MacIlquham
The above was posted to the G&M article:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081128.wPOLimmigration1128/BNStory/politics/home
“Tories unveil immigration reforms”, Romina Maurino, Canadian Press, 28 Nov.’08
Lloyd MacIlquham
- Harper “Black Friday Promulgation”
It seems that Harper is the only one that thinks that “Stephane Dion does not have the right to take office without an election”. However, one can only wonder what it is that Harper is saying exactly. Is this just rhetoric or is this a much more sinister message.
It is hard to think that Harper’s speech was simply the irrational ranting of a person soon to be dethroned. He seems to be saying that the previous vote trumps the Constitution, the will of Parliament and Governor General. Given that his minority party is the government of the day as a result of the Constitution, Will of Parliament and Governor General, his logic seems a bit self-defeating. Almost 2/3 rds of the Canadian people voted against Harper.
By his own logic, Harper would not have the right to take office. According to our Constitution however, he had the right to so do. According to our Constitution it behooves a minority government to form a consensus or it runs the risk it will fall. The Office of Prime Minster simply does not have the authority to determine whether after they fall there will be an election or not. Harper seems to be confusing Canada with the United States where they actually vote for and elect their head of the executive. Sorry to have to be the one to inform you, Mr. Harper, but this is Canada.
The last election did not elect him ‘Prime Minister”, it elected MP’s whose job it is to represent their constituency. According to our Parliamentary system, his party may form the government and it’s leader become Prime Minister provided, and as long as, it has the confidence of Parliament. This is not a ‘presidential’ system, where the election elects the President for a definite period of time. If one were to apply Harper’s argument our parliamentary system would be thrown out the window.
It is clear that the Governor General has the authority, and the duty, to consider, in these circumstances, whether a stable coalition can form a government and if so to invite them to so do.
It seems to me that, instead, the Constitutional experts should be deciding whether Harper would have the right to suspend Parliament until sometime after the New Year or even sine die, prior to a Confidence vote. Given his statements it seems he has backed himself into having to either reach out and work with the Opposition Parties or do something extreme like try to suspend Parliament. It seems to me that progressive, moderate, middle of the road parties would reach out and try to form a consensus. Only extremist ideologies allow for in your face government by minority.
An abridgement was posted to the G&M article:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081128.wGG29/BNStory/politics/
“GG would have little choice but to accept coalition pact, experts say”,Gloria Galloway, 29 Nov.’08
Lloyd MacIlquham
Lloyd MacIlquham
It is hard to think that Harper’s speech was simply the irrational ranting of a person soon to be dethroned. He seems to be saying that the previous vote trumps the Constitution, the will of Parliament and Governor General. Given that his minority party is the government of the day as a result of the Constitution, Will of Parliament and Governor General, his logic seems a bit self-defeating. Almost 2/3 rds of the Canadian people voted against Harper.
By his own logic, Harper would not have the right to take office. According to our Constitution however, he had the right to so do. According to our Constitution it behooves a minority government to form a consensus or it runs the risk it will fall. The Office of Prime Minster simply does not have the authority to determine whether after they fall there will be an election or not. Harper seems to be confusing Canada with the United States where they actually vote for and elect their head of the executive. Sorry to have to be the one to inform you, Mr. Harper, but this is Canada.
The last election did not elect him ‘Prime Minister”, it elected MP’s whose job it is to represent their constituency. According to our Parliamentary system, his party may form the government and it’s leader become Prime Minister provided, and as long as, it has the confidence of Parliament. This is not a ‘presidential’ system, where the election elects the President for a definite period of time. If one were to apply Harper’s argument our parliamentary system would be thrown out the window.
It is clear that the Governor General has the authority, and the duty, to consider, in these circumstances, whether a stable coalition can form a government and if so to invite them to so do.
It seems to me that, instead, the Constitutional experts should be deciding whether Harper would have the right to suspend Parliament until sometime after the New Year or even sine die, prior to a Confidence vote. Given his statements it seems he has backed himself into having to either reach out and work with the Opposition Parties or do something extreme like try to suspend Parliament. It seems to me that progressive, moderate, middle of the road parties would reach out and try to form a consensus. Only extremist ideologies allow for in your face government by minority.
An abridgement was posted to the G&M article:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081128.wGG29/BNStory/politics/
“GG would have little choice but to accept coalition pact, experts say”,Gloria Galloway, 29 Nov.’08
Lloyd MacIlquham
Lloyd MacIlquham
22 November, 2008
- Liberals should replace the leadership convention
I submitted the following to Scot’s Diatribes on 21 Nov.’08. They later truncated it saying it was too long. I am posting here in its entirety.
http://scottdiatribe.canflag.com/2008/11/21/liberals-should-replace-the-leadership-convention/#comment-17208
17208. wlloydm said on November 21, 2008 at 3:17 pm
…
In reply to “Liberals should replace the leadership convention. “
I posted a quite in depth discussion of the issue you raise on my Blog on 2 Nov.’08:
http://cicblog.com/comments.html
“Liberal Leadership Race - As far as Gerard Kennedy throwing support to Dion.”
Also,
On 14 Nov ’08 I posted a response to the G&M article “Dropping gloves early, Rae walks out on forum”
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081116.wliberalleadership1116/CommentStory/politics/
. . .
At least Bob Rae is on the right track. He should go that step further and suggest that there should be a number of votes - one for each province and where it is not the delegates that votes but the grass roots of the party. Each of these votes produces a number of delegates for each candidate. I know, it sounds familiar. But, it is a very successful formula for democratic participation and getting people at the individual level involved and [engaged]. Who knows perhaps if people feel they are involved and their opinions count they may even decide to support the party and actually vote Liberal come election day – and that’s a good thing.
and,
On or about 29 Oct I sent an E-mail to Greg Fergus, National Director, Liberal Party of Canada, upon his invitation to send feedback, regarding the very issue you mentioned:
(the essence of which is set out below see below).
If I recall I also sent a similar E-mail Douglas Ferguson, upon similar prompting.
I sent another E-mail to Greg Fergus, on around 11 Nov.’08, asking for his reply.
I have, as yet, received no reply from either to this issue
___________________
http://cicblog.com/comments.html
“Liberal Leadership Race - As far as Gerard Kennedy throwing support to Dion.”
. . .
In the national context all parties find themselves in, as long as the Liberal Party sticks with this form of electing a leader there will always be a very significant risk that a leader will be chosen that does not resonate with the general population. And, with modern technology there is no need to hold Party elections in this fashion. This form of election tends to alienate and not activate the grass roots members or the population in general.
It was successful previously for one because of the rules for political donations – i.e. there were very few restrictions on who and amount. Consequently, there were relatively few, but they were large and from corporations and individuals, who in many cases very politically active. The “back room boys” (this includes ‘girls’ as well) system is a natural manifestation of this old political contribution regime. The Liberals not only excelled at this but their whole structure developed around it – including the Riding Association – delegate – convention - committed first round vote.
This system is self perpetuating for two reasons. Many of the ‘powers that be’ in the Liberal Party are there because of this system and thrive off it. Also, it is the back room boys, and girls, that attend these conventions (delegates that are chosen pursuant this system) that vote on whether the next leadership race will have the same format (compare 2006). Is it any surprise they vote to perpetuate it. It allows those who make large contributions, both monetarily and otherwise, to have a direct and significant say in who gets elected as leader and makes it clear to those running “to whom they are indebted”. On the other hand, it makes it easier for those running since they have a relatively few, well defined, sources of support they can focus on – as opposed to something as diffuse as the whole Liberal Membership, each individually. This latter aspect, in essence, makes it possible for a large number of people to run for leadership since they need a relatively small number of supporters, amongst politically very savvy people who are looking for a ‘house to back’.
The draw backs are:
- for one that the leader that is selected may very well not be the ‘people’s choice’. For an organization, generally, this may not be significant – i.e it may not be important that the general public perceive the organization’s leader as the person to leader them as a nation. But, where the whole purpose is to elect someone whom the ‘people’ will identify with and vote for to lead our great nation, it is inevitable that now and again it will fail in this objective.
- it does not activate people at the grass roots to be involved. The above can make people more jaded and cynical of the political process and in actuality turn them off. This can lead to a reduction in the number of people making financial contribution, volunteering their time during an election campaign and, voting for the Party, or coming out to vote at all.
It is only reasonable to conclude that where the people were not activated in selecting the leader the chances of choosing a leader that resonates with them is reduced and the amount and the extent that they participate in an election, whether contributing money, time or voting, is reduced. With the current political donations regime which excludes corporate donors and large donations, this can be fatal.
The extent to which the above plays a role in the Liberal fortunes in this last election – you be the judge.
___________________
contents of:
29 Oct.'08, E-mail to Greg Fergus
and,
1 Nov.'08, E-mail to Douglas Ferguson
Inability to raise funds is generally acknowledged as a major problem for the Liberal Party. I submit that there is a direct co-relation between this and the lack of direct involvement of individuals, at the grass roots as they say, in the Party and how it conducts business. It is generally observed that prior to the changes to the fund-raising provisions in the Elections Act, the Liberal Party relied to a very large extent on large donations from businesses and a relatively elite group of individuals.
Now, with the restrictions this is obviously not a viable alternative. It is submitted that the manner in which the leadership is determined – delegates selected by Riding Associations voting at a convention, was well suited and went hand-in-hand with former type of fund raising i.e. it left the selection of the leader to relatively a few, hard core Party members, which in turn allowed a more direct say by those contributing. This form of delegate convention also was well suited to the behind the scenes power brokering and, yes, “king making”. This form of electing the leader obviously leaves out the input by the individual Party members and, in fact, it is suggested, alienates them. In the case of the last leadership race, Dion was not a front runner during the campaigning and as such was not scrutinized by the media to any real extent which in turn did not allow Canadians to see who he was and respond.
Once elected of course the media attention was on him and, it is submitted he simply didn’t resonate as a leader with the grass roots Canadians. Dion suggests that the attack ads are why he did not ‘catch on’ with Canadians. Attack ads do have an impact (and I read somewhere that Attack ads must be countered within two days or they sink into the psyche, or subconscious). However, it is submitted that if they resonate with what people’s instincts are telling them and put to words what people are already feeling but have not formulated into words, they have a much greater impact.
It is hard to see how a response will purge this type of impact. Being coroneted as Liberal Leader does not transform the person into a leader that will inspire the people. I find it hard to believe that Pierre Trudeau was just some run of the mill Joe who upon being made Leader transformed into this dynamic, charismatic leader. What being elected leader did was bring him to the attention of all Canadians who could see in him these leadership qualities.
Allowing all Liberals to have a direct vote allows them to vet all the candidates and support the one(s) that “inspires” them. It is submitted that this direct involvement not only tends to result in a more popular leader, generally, but promotes involvement at the grass roots which is bound to carry forward with ongoing support with respect to fundraising, volunteers and votes. It also tends to eliminate the “power brokers” and back room deals that result in a leader who only a relatively very few people want and for reasons that might not be for the best as far as the Party is concerned and promotes the electing of a leader that Canadians can identify with. With modern communications allowing all Liberals to vote is certainly quite feasible either thru the Internet or telephone calling.
Making it easy for people to join the Liberal Party, assuming they hold Liberal values and of course pay their 10 bucks, to vote would broaden the base. Modern technology and banking facilitates these large numbers of people contributing small amounts which is also in line with the Elections Act. If it is too difficult to get the powers that be in the Liberal Party to change over, then perhaps a middle ground where regional delegate are voted on in a serious of preliminary votes in various set regions of the country open to all Liberals in that region would help. It may be trhat this typ eof process has been suggested before but I am hoping that results of this last election and the difficulty ion raising finds impresses upon all the members of the Party the importance of this type of “grass roots” process in electing a leader.
The attack adds did have an impact and I read some where that Attack ads must be countered within two days or they sink into the psyche, or subconscious.
____________________
http://scottdiatribe.canflag.com/2008/11/21/liberals-should-replace-the-leadership-convention/#comment-17208
17208. wlloydm said on November 21, 2008 at 3:17 pm
…
In reply to “Liberals should replace the leadership convention. “
I posted a quite in depth discussion of the issue you raise on my Blog on 2 Nov.’08:
http://cicblog.com/comments.html
“Liberal Leadership Race - As far as Gerard Kennedy throwing support to Dion.”
Also,
On 14 Nov ’08 I posted a response to the G&M article “Dropping gloves early, Rae walks out on forum”
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081116.wliberalleadership1116/CommentStory/politics/
. . .
At least Bob Rae is on the right track. He should go that step further and suggest that there should be a number of votes - one for each province and where it is not the delegates that votes but the grass roots of the party. Each of these votes produces a number of delegates for each candidate. I know, it sounds familiar. But, it is a very successful formula for democratic participation and getting people at the individual level involved and [engaged]. Who knows perhaps if people feel they are involved and their opinions count they may even decide to support the party and actually vote Liberal come election day – and that’s a good thing.
and,
On or about 29 Oct I sent an E-mail to Greg Fergus, National Director, Liberal Party of Canada, upon his invitation to send feedback, regarding the very issue you mentioned:
(the essence of which is set out below see below).
If I recall I also sent a similar E-mail Douglas Ferguson, upon similar prompting.
I sent another E-mail to Greg Fergus, on around 11 Nov.’08, asking for his reply.
I have, as yet, received no reply from either to this issue
___________________
http://cicblog.com/comments.html
“Liberal Leadership Race - As far as Gerard Kennedy throwing support to Dion.”
. . .
In the national context all parties find themselves in, as long as the Liberal Party sticks with this form of electing a leader there will always be a very significant risk that a leader will be chosen that does not resonate with the general population. And, with modern technology there is no need to hold Party elections in this fashion. This form of election tends to alienate and not activate the grass roots members or the population in general.
It was successful previously for one because of the rules for political donations – i.e. there were very few restrictions on who and amount. Consequently, there were relatively few, but they were large and from corporations and individuals, who in many cases very politically active. The “back room boys” (this includes ‘girls’ as well) system is a natural manifestation of this old political contribution regime. The Liberals not only excelled at this but their whole structure developed around it – including the Riding Association – delegate – convention - committed first round vote.
This system is self perpetuating for two reasons. Many of the ‘powers that be’ in the Liberal Party are there because of this system and thrive off it. Also, it is the back room boys, and girls, that attend these conventions (delegates that are chosen pursuant this system) that vote on whether the next leadership race will have the same format (compare 2006). Is it any surprise they vote to perpetuate it. It allows those who make large contributions, both monetarily and otherwise, to have a direct and significant say in who gets elected as leader and makes it clear to those running “to whom they are indebted”. On the other hand, it makes it easier for those running since they have a relatively few, well defined, sources of support they can focus on – as opposed to something as diffuse as the whole Liberal Membership, each individually. This latter aspect, in essence, makes it possible for a large number of people to run for leadership since they need a relatively small number of supporters, amongst politically very savvy people who are looking for a ‘house to back’.
The draw backs are:
- for one that the leader that is selected may very well not be the ‘people’s choice’. For an organization, generally, this may not be significant – i.e it may not be important that the general public perceive the organization’s leader as the person to leader them as a nation. But, where the whole purpose is to elect someone whom the ‘people’ will identify with and vote for to lead our great nation, it is inevitable that now and again it will fail in this objective.
- it does not activate people at the grass roots to be involved. The above can make people more jaded and cynical of the political process and in actuality turn them off. This can lead to a reduction in the number of people making financial contribution, volunteering their time during an election campaign and, voting for the Party, or coming out to vote at all.
It is only reasonable to conclude that where the people were not activated in selecting the leader the chances of choosing a leader that resonates with them is reduced and the amount and the extent that they participate in an election, whether contributing money, time or voting, is reduced. With the current political donations regime which excludes corporate donors and large donations, this can be fatal.
The extent to which the above plays a role in the Liberal fortunes in this last election – you be the judge.
___________________
contents of:
29 Oct.'08, E-mail to Greg Fergus
and,
1 Nov.'08, E-mail to Douglas Ferguson
Inability to raise funds is generally acknowledged as a major problem for the Liberal Party. I submit that there is a direct co-relation between this and the lack of direct involvement of individuals, at the grass roots as they say, in the Party and how it conducts business. It is generally observed that prior to the changes to the fund-raising provisions in the Elections Act, the Liberal Party relied to a very large extent on large donations from businesses and a relatively elite group of individuals.
Now, with the restrictions this is obviously not a viable alternative. It is submitted that the manner in which the leadership is determined – delegates selected by Riding Associations voting at a convention, was well suited and went hand-in-hand with former type of fund raising i.e. it left the selection of the leader to relatively a few, hard core Party members, which in turn allowed a more direct say by those contributing. This form of delegate convention also was well suited to the behind the scenes power brokering and, yes, “king making”. This form of electing the leader obviously leaves out the input by the individual Party members and, in fact, it is suggested, alienates them. In the case of the last leadership race, Dion was not a front runner during the campaigning and as such was not scrutinized by the media to any real extent which in turn did not allow Canadians to see who he was and respond.
Once elected of course the media attention was on him and, it is submitted he simply didn’t resonate as a leader with the grass roots Canadians. Dion suggests that the attack ads are why he did not ‘catch on’ with Canadians. Attack ads do have an impact (and I read somewhere that Attack ads must be countered within two days or they sink into the psyche, or subconscious). However, it is submitted that if they resonate with what people’s instincts are telling them and put to words what people are already feeling but have not formulated into words, they have a much greater impact.
It is hard to see how a response will purge this type of impact. Being coroneted as Liberal Leader does not transform the person into a leader that will inspire the people. I find it hard to believe that Pierre Trudeau was just some run of the mill Joe who upon being made Leader transformed into this dynamic, charismatic leader. What being elected leader did was bring him to the attention of all Canadians who could see in him these leadership qualities.
Allowing all Liberals to have a direct vote allows them to vet all the candidates and support the one(s) that “inspires” them. It is submitted that this direct involvement not only tends to result in a more popular leader, generally, but promotes involvement at the grass roots which is bound to carry forward with ongoing support with respect to fundraising, volunteers and votes. It also tends to eliminate the “power brokers” and back room deals that result in a leader who only a relatively very few people want and for reasons that might not be for the best as far as the Party is concerned and promotes the electing of a leader that Canadians can identify with. With modern communications allowing all Liberals to vote is certainly quite feasible either thru the Internet or telephone calling.
Making it easy for people to join the Liberal Party, assuming they hold Liberal values and of course pay their 10 bucks, to vote would broaden the base. Modern technology and banking facilitates these large numbers of people contributing small amounts which is also in line with the Elections Act. If it is too difficult to get the powers that be in the Liberal Party to change over, then perhaps a middle ground where regional delegate are voted on in a serious of preliminary votes in various set regions of the country open to all Liberals in that region would help. It may be trhat this typ eof process has been suggested before but I am hoping that results of this last election and the difficulty ion raising finds impresses upon all the members of the Party the importance of this type of “grass roots” process in electing a leader.
The attack adds did have an impact and I read some where that Attack ads must be countered within two days or they sink into the psyche, or subconscious.
____________________
- Our Dysfunctional Parliament
This was written in response to the Toronto Star article, “More polite but still dysfunctional”, Nov 22, 2008 04:30 AM , James Travers
http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/541607
The Toronto Star allows only 1000 spaces in reply so I was unable to post all of this but only a small part.
___________________________
I think you [James Travers] have identified a very serious problem and the cause. Since Paul Martin's minority government Harper and the Conservatives have done everything he, and they, can, irrespective of decorum, to pull Martin down and cling to power. Their approach is completely new and different and, in my opinion, something that the Canadian people are really not totally tuned into, because, quite simply, no one and no party has acted in such a fashion before. There has never been such an extremist party in power in Canada. People may view the Harper and the Conservatives as the old Progressive Conservatives, (by name identification), who were moderate (in comparison) and employed moderate means, within the Canadian norms. The Harper and the Conservatives tactics are the Hallmark of extremists. These including walking out of the house, to the deliberate and well developed plans, (or conspiracies), by Harper and the Conservatives since in power with the only objective to maintain and increase their grip on power.
Their tactics which include: Secrecy, muzzelling and suppressing his cabinet and MP’s, restricting access by the Press, obstructing Access to Information, in-your-face confrontational approach as opposed to discussion, negotiation and compromise, responding in Parliament to legitimate and important questions for which the Opposition not only have a right to ask but have a duty to the people of Canada, with insults instead of answers that the Canadian people require, abusing power by making non-confidence motions confidence motions in order to force their narrow ideology on the people, to burying controversial and non-confidence type legislation that they have no hope of having pass in Bills of confidence, are all the Hallmark of extremism, in this case Right Wing.
The basis of our form of democracy is that their are a number of parties. These parties vie to form the government. But in exchanged they give the people what is beneficial to the people. That is, there is an exchange: you give us what we and a country needs and we will let you run the ship. This, of course, leads to an adversarial approach between parties and vigorous debate and holding to account in the House of Commons. Of course, this is precisely what it is designed to do and much of our society is premised on the "adversarial" approach.
However, our form of democracy works only when the Opposition and ultimately the Canadian people have knowledge of what the government is doing, i.e. transparency, and is able to hold the government to account, i.e. raising these issues in the House of Commons. The above cited tactics by Harper and the Conservatives thwarts this and, I suggest, this is no accident. For any open, free and tolerant society, the Purpose is: to build a nation where everyone can attain their potential and join together to help those that need help and protect those that need protection; through: informed, open and transparent discussion leading to a truly democratic solution for the good of all.
To me the solution is that the people of Canada become aware of what the Harper and Conservatives represent and they stand up and be counted. As long as the Opposition are so polarized it seems to me that Harpe will be able to get away with his scheme. I don't think it is a question of the Opposition Parties uniting, with leaders such as Jack Layton it is not likely to happen. The 62% of the Canadian people, who voted against Harper, will have to unite.
Lloyd MacIlquham
http://www.thestar.com/comment/article/541607
The Toronto Star allows only 1000 spaces in reply so I was unable to post all of this but only a small part.
___________________________
I think you [James Travers] have identified a very serious problem and the cause. Since Paul Martin's minority government Harper and the Conservatives have done everything he, and they, can, irrespective of decorum, to pull Martin down and cling to power. Their approach is completely new and different and, in my opinion, something that the Canadian people are really not totally tuned into, because, quite simply, no one and no party has acted in such a fashion before. There has never been such an extremist party in power in Canada. People may view the Harper and the Conservatives as the old Progressive Conservatives, (by name identification), who were moderate (in comparison) and employed moderate means, within the Canadian norms. The Harper and the Conservatives tactics are the Hallmark of extremists. These including walking out of the house, to the deliberate and well developed plans, (or conspiracies), by Harper and the Conservatives since in power with the only objective to maintain and increase their grip on power.
Their tactics which include: Secrecy, muzzelling and suppressing his cabinet and MP’s, restricting access by the Press, obstructing Access to Information, in-your-face confrontational approach as opposed to discussion, negotiation and compromise, responding in Parliament to legitimate and important questions for which the Opposition not only have a right to ask but have a duty to the people of Canada, with insults instead of answers that the Canadian people require, abusing power by making non-confidence motions confidence motions in order to force their narrow ideology on the people, to burying controversial and non-confidence type legislation that they have no hope of having pass in Bills of confidence, are all the Hallmark of extremism, in this case Right Wing.
The basis of our form of democracy is that their are a number of parties. These parties vie to form the government. But in exchanged they give the people what is beneficial to the people. That is, there is an exchange: you give us what we and a country needs and we will let you run the ship. This, of course, leads to an adversarial approach between parties and vigorous debate and holding to account in the House of Commons. Of course, this is precisely what it is designed to do and much of our society is premised on the "adversarial" approach.
However, our form of democracy works only when the Opposition and ultimately the Canadian people have knowledge of what the government is doing, i.e. transparency, and is able to hold the government to account, i.e. raising these issues in the House of Commons. The above cited tactics by Harper and the Conservatives thwarts this and, I suggest, this is no accident. For any open, free and tolerant society, the Purpose is: to build a nation where everyone can attain their potential and join together to help those that need help and protect those that need protection; through: informed, open and transparent discussion leading to a truly democratic solution for the good of all.
To me the solution is that the people of Canada become aware of what the Harper and Conservatives represent and they stand up and be counted. As long as the Opposition are so polarized it seems to me that Harpe will be able to get away with his scheme. I don't think it is a question of the Opposition Parties uniting, with leaders such as Jack Layton it is not likely to happen. The 62% of the Canadian people, who voted against Harper, will have to unite.
Lloyd MacIlquham
20 November, 2008
- Innovative Research Group Poll:
Innovative Research Group – who would be worst of four possible Liberal leadership contenders to lead Canada through the current global economic crisis
My post to teh G&M article "Rae to formally launch campaign Thursday"
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081119.wrae20/CommentStory/politics/home#commentLatest
1. You (lloyd macilquham, from Canada) wrote: This “poll” represents much that is bad about Polls. By their own admission it was one question “tacked on” to another Poll, the substance of which - i.e. questions, sequence of asking, results, was not revealed, nor “for whom the Poll tolled” (i.e who commissioned it, who asked that this question be tacked on).
Clearly, by conducting a poll in this way, the result for the “tacked on” question can be manipulated to give just about any result – i.e the answer to the last question is dependent on the former questions – what a revelation!
Further, by not revealing who requested the question and the fact that it was a “rival Liberal camp” that released the result of the Poll for this question, makes the actual wording of the Poll in its entirety and who requested the addendum becomes even more important and tends to make the results very questionable. By saying that it was not commissioned by a rival leadership camp and was not intended to be made public does not, obviously, redeem it.
Also, asking simply one question gives meaningless results as far as who is best qualified to be the Liberal Leader and go on to lead the Liberals to victory in the next election.
Everyone has strong points and everyone has weak points. For example, for Ignatieff, it is lack of experience not only at the head of a government, but leading the Party in an election.
And, of course, as Bob Rae, himself points out, 20% saying he is the worst of the four (three now) indicates that 80% don’t think he is the worst candidate to lead Canada through the current global economic crisis. Given that, in those polled there are likely between 30 – 36% Conservative, 17 – 20% NDP some Greens and some Block. Really, can it be said that 20% has any meaning since those 20% could easily be people who are not going to vote Liberal anyway.
Lloyd MacIlquham
o Posted 20/11/08 at 2:07 PM EST
*******
continuation of Post to G&M
*******
You (lloyd macilquham, from Nanaimo, Canada) wrote:
I suggest that if the other Liberal Leaders want to play fair, and be transparent, they should demand whomever it is in their camp that leaked the poll, or have other information regarding it that is not known to the public, generally, to step forward and reveal all the details so that all Liberals may make informed and enlightened decisions.
By all the candidates insisting on muck throwers not hide behind anonymity but step forward, it will, in my opinion, reduce the amount of muck thrown. And that is a good thing. The Liberal Candidates should be ensuring that the Liberals’ put their best foot forward while the spotlight of the country is shining on them during this leadership campaign.
When you look at Ignatieff not agreeing to an open debate last weekend, one can only wonder how open and transparent he would be as Leader or even Prime Minister. We don’t know who, and from which leadership camp, leaked the results of the Poll.
I think it is safe to say that it wasn’t from Bob Rae’s camp. That leaves only Michael Ignatieff’s and Dominic LeBlanc’s camp and we can only wonder from which. At least we know what we are getting with Bob Rae and he can say he is, so far anyway, an advocate for openness and transparency. Lets have a poll on that issue.
Lloyd MacIlquham
o Posted 20/11/08 at 2:27 PM EST
My post to teh G&M article "Rae to formally launch campaign Thursday"
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081119.wrae20/CommentStory/politics/home#commentLatest
1. You (lloyd macilquham, from Canada) wrote: This “poll” represents much that is bad about Polls. By their own admission it was one question “tacked on” to another Poll, the substance of which - i.e. questions, sequence of asking, results, was not revealed, nor “for whom the Poll tolled” (i.e who commissioned it, who asked that this question be tacked on).
Clearly, by conducting a poll in this way, the result for the “tacked on” question can be manipulated to give just about any result – i.e the answer to the last question is dependent on the former questions – what a revelation!
Further, by not revealing who requested the question and the fact that it was a “rival Liberal camp” that released the result of the Poll for this question, makes the actual wording of the Poll in its entirety and who requested the addendum becomes even more important and tends to make the results very questionable. By saying that it was not commissioned by a rival leadership camp and was not intended to be made public does not, obviously, redeem it.
Also, asking simply one question gives meaningless results as far as who is best qualified to be the Liberal Leader and go on to lead the Liberals to victory in the next election.
Everyone has strong points and everyone has weak points. For example, for Ignatieff, it is lack of experience not only at the head of a government, but leading the Party in an election.
And, of course, as Bob Rae, himself points out, 20% saying he is the worst of the four (three now) indicates that 80% don’t think he is the worst candidate to lead Canada through the current global economic crisis. Given that, in those polled there are likely between 30 – 36% Conservative, 17 – 20% NDP some Greens and some Block. Really, can it be said that 20% has any meaning since those 20% could easily be people who are not going to vote Liberal anyway.
Lloyd MacIlquham
o Posted 20/11/08 at 2:07 PM EST
*******
continuation of Post to G&M
*******
You (lloyd macilquham, from Nanaimo, Canada) wrote:
I suggest that if the other Liberal Leaders want to play fair, and be transparent, they should demand whomever it is in their camp that leaked the poll, or have other information regarding it that is not known to the public, generally, to step forward and reveal all the details so that all Liberals may make informed and enlightened decisions.
By all the candidates insisting on muck throwers not hide behind anonymity but step forward, it will, in my opinion, reduce the amount of muck thrown. And that is a good thing. The Liberal Candidates should be ensuring that the Liberals’ put their best foot forward while the spotlight of the country is shining on them during this leadership campaign.
When you look at Ignatieff not agreeing to an open debate last weekend, one can only wonder how open and transparent he would be as Leader or even Prime Minister. We don’t know who, and from which leadership camp, leaked the results of the Poll.
I think it is safe to say that it wasn’t from Bob Rae’s camp. That leaves only Michael Ignatieff’s and Dominic LeBlanc’s camp and we can only wonder from which. At least we know what we are getting with Bob Rae and he can say he is, so far anyway, an advocate for openness and transparency. Lets have a poll on that issue.
Lloyd MacIlquham
o Posted 20/11/08 at 2:27 PM EST
14 November, 2008
Rae to focus on economy in battle with Ignatieff
Comments I posted 14 Nov to G&M in response to their article:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081113.wliberals14/BNStory/politics/home
************
You (lloyd macilquham, from Nanaimo, Canada) wrote:
Bob Rae’s running the Ontario economy is history. Steven Harper and Jim Flaherty’s timely stripping the Federal government’s safety nets just prior to the world economic downturn, forcing a deficit and applying their sink or swim approach to private industry in Ontario is current. If Bob Rea made mistakes in dealing with the recession in the early 90’s, and this is by no means conceded, he has had 15 years to learn from his experiences.
Harper and Flaherty are still making their mistakes – perhaps they should step down and come back in 15 years so that we may benefit from the wisdom and experience they, presumably, would have gained. Certainly if either Harper or Flaherty have as an illustrious career after their stint in power and make as great a contribution to Canada as Bob Rae has, then I may consider them myself (ha ha ha).
If it wasn’t for the Liberal’s 5 point as expounded by Dion during the election, Harper and Flaherty would be continuing with their “steady as she goes”, sink or swim, formula for disaster.
The fact of the matter is that when Bob Rae took over as Premier of Ontario, Ontario, the rest of Canada and the United States were entering into recession. No matter what party was in power or who the leader was, this was the realities – the recession was unavoidable.
I just thank God that Mike Harris wasn’t the Premier and Flaherty the Finance Minister at the time.
The criticism Bob Rea’s term as Premier was and is (although the Harper criticism is conspicuously divest of rational, concrete basis) the ‘Rae Days’. The Purpose was to save 10’s of thousands of public servants from losing their jobs. It was unpopular because it cost public servants 5 days of pay. Boy what a mistake! This was actually a very bold action, especially for an NDP leader. On the other hand getting 100’s of thousands of public servant upset with you is a politically questionable strategy.
*********
You (lloyd macilquham, from Nanaimo, Canada) wrote: Armins copy of Swank from Canada writes: lloyd macilquham from Nanaimo, Canada writes: If Bob Rea made mistakes in dealing with the recession in the early 90’s, and this is by no means conceded,
________________
Actually, he conceded in his book that he was unprepared to win and that he DID make mistakes. I hope he "wins" the Liberal "leadership". That'll be the last nail in their coffin.
________________
[my reply]
Actually . . . as per CBC: Rae said his experience governing during tough economic times should be seen as a strength. "We made some critical decisions as a province and I'm very proud of those. Did I learn some tough lessons in the course of it? Absolutely. But I think those lessons are very, very helpful," he said.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/story/2008/11/13/ignatieff-leadership.html
This is hardly a “mia culpa”. Perhaps you can refer to the actual section of his book where he made his alleged concession – quoting the partagraph (within the context) would be nice.
(PS – “and this is by no means conceded” is referring, of course, to me as per the context.)
Comments I posted 14 Nov to G&M in response to their article:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081113.wliberals14/BNStory/politics/home
************
You (lloyd macilquham, from Nanaimo, Canada) wrote:
Bob Rae’s running the Ontario economy is history. Steven Harper and Jim Flaherty’s timely stripping the Federal government’s safety nets just prior to the world economic downturn, forcing a deficit and applying their sink or swim approach to private industry in Ontario is current. If Bob Rea made mistakes in dealing with the recession in the early 90’s, and this is by no means conceded, he has had 15 years to learn from his experiences.
Harper and Flaherty are still making their mistakes – perhaps they should step down and come back in 15 years so that we may benefit from the wisdom and experience they, presumably, would have gained. Certainly if either Harper or Flaherty have as an illustrious career after their stint in power and make as great a contribution to Canada as Bob Rae has, then I may consider them myself (ha ha ha).
If it wasn’t for the Liberal’s 5 point as expounded by Dion during the election, Harper and Flaherty would be continuing with their “steady as she goes”, sink or swim, formula for disaster.
The fact of the matter is that when Bob Rae took over as Premier of Ontario, Ontario, the rest of Canada and the United States were entering into recession. No matter what party was in power or who the leader was, this was the realities – the recession was unavoidable.
I just thank God that Mike Harris wasn’t the Premier and Flaherty the Finance Minister at the time.
The criticism Bob Rea’s term as Premier was and is (although the Harper criticism is conspicuously divest of rational, concrete basis) the ‘Rae Days’. The Purpose was to save 10’s of thousands of public servants from losing their jobs. It was unpopular because it cost public servants 5 days of pay. Boy what a mistake! This was actually a very bold action, especially for an NDP leader. On the other hand getting 100’s of thousands of public servant upset with you is a politically questionable strategy.
*********
You (lloyd macilquham, from Nanaimo, Canada) wrote: Armins copy of Swank from Canada writes: lloyd macilquham from Nanaimo, Canada writes: If Bob Rea made mistakes in dealing with the recession in the early 90’s, and this is by no means conceded,
________________
Actually, he conceded in his book that he was unprepared to win and that he DID make mistakes. I hope he "wins" the Liberal "leadership". That'll be the last nail in their coffin.
________________
[my reply]
Actually . . . as per CBC: Rae said his experience governing during tough economic times should be seen as a strength. "We made some critical decisions as a province and I'm very proud of those. Did I learn some tough lessons in the course of it? Absolutely. But I think those lessons are very, very helpful," he said.
http://www.cbc.ca/canada/ottawa/story/2008/11/13/ignatieff-leadership.html
This is hardly a “mia culpa”. Perhaps you can refer to the actual section of his book where he made his alleged concession – quoting the partagraph (within the context) would be nice.
(PS – “and this is by no means conceded” is referring, of course, to me as per the context.)
- Roy McMurtry and Alvin Curling Report on Youth Violence
I was going to post this as a comment to the following but missed the cut-off by seconds.
Youth violence tied to racism, report says
CAROLINE ALPHONSO
Globe and Mail Update
November 14, 2008 at 11:11 AM EST
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081114.wyouthviol1114/BNStory/National/home
Hi Alvin, nice to see you back in action – sorry I mean town.
An analysis of all the comments made here might be interesting.
I am not sure that spending a lot of money as suggested is the answer.
As far as youth gang violence is concerned it seems to me that until the communities in which they live and thrive decide to do something about it at the “grounds” level, so to speak, no amount of money or effort by any level of government will have much effect – unless, of course, you are considering a military type occupation with 4 –5 police on every street corner – compare New York City. Even this does not cure the problem but it does tend to suppresses the violence. To be clear I would not support such a “solution”. But nor do I support the government, no matter what level, simply throwing money at the problem.
Lloyd MacIlquham
Youth violence tied to racism, report says
CAROLINE ALPHONSO
Globe and Mail Update
November 14, 2008 at 11:11 AM EST
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081114.wyouthviol1114/BNStory/National/home
Hi Alvin, nice to see you back in action – sorry I mean town.
An analysis of all the comments made here might be interesting.
I am not sure that spending a lot of money as suggested is the answer.
As far as youth gang violence is concerned it seems to me that until the communities in which they live and thrive decide to do something about it at the “grounds” level, so to speak, no amount of money or effort by any level of government will have much effect – unless, of course, you are considering a military type occupation with 4 –5 police on every street corner – compare New York City. Even this does not cure the problem but it does tend to suppresses the violence. To be clear I would not support such a “solution”. But nor do I support the government, no matter what level, simply throwing money at the problem.
Lloyd MacIlquham
02 November, 2008
- Liberal Leadership Race - As far as Gerard Kennedy throwing support to Dion.
The following is in part my response to:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081101.WBSteele20081101193706/WBStory/WBSteele#commentLatest
Apparently, Gerard Kennedy is leaning strongly to running in the leadership as the party renewal candidate.
I don’t think you can blame Kennedy since he was simply playing the game as it was defined. In other words, riding associations selecting delegates who are bound in the way they vote only on the first round of voting, is ideally suited, and I suggest designed for, the vary purpose – i.e. back room wheeling and dealing. In fact, his inner circle was, obviously, very good at it since, they say, around 92% of Kennedy’s supporters swung to Dion - who would have thought it possible. So, in other words, not only was he playing the game as it was designed, he, or should I say his inner circle, excelled at it.
Bottom line is that we must blame the delegate – convention system of voting and not Kennedy.
In the national context all parties find themselves in, as long as the Liberal Party sticks with this form of electing a leader there will always be a very significant risk that a leader will be chosen that does not resonate with the general population. And, with modern technology there is no need to hold Party elections in this fashion. This form of election tends to alienate and not activate the grass roots members or the population in general.
It was successful previously for one because of the rules for political donations – i.e. there were very few restrictions on who and amount. Consequently, there were relatively few, but they were large and from corporations and individuals, who in many cases very politically active. The “back room boys” (this includes ‘girls’ as well) system is a natural manifestation of this old political contribution regime. The Liberals not only excelled at this but their whole structure developed around it – including the Riding Association – delegate – convention - committed first round vote.
This system is self perpetuating for two reasons. Many of the ‘powers that be’ in the Liberal Party are there because of this system and thrive off it. Also, it is the back room boys, and girls, that attend these conventions (delegates that are chosen pursuant this system) that vote on whether the next leadership race will have the same format (compare 2006). Is it any surprise they vote to perpetuate it. It allows those who make large contributions, both monetarily and otherwise, to have a direct and significant say in who gets elected as leader and makes it clear to those running “to whom they are indebted”. On the other hand, it makes it easier for those running since they have a relatively few, well defined, sources of support they can focus on – as opposed to something as diffuse as the whole Liberal Membership, each individually. This latter aspect, in essence, makes it possible for a large number of people to run for leadership since they need a relatively small number of supporters, amongst politically very savvy people who are looking for a ‘house to back’.
The draw backs are:
- for one that the leader that is selected may very well not be the ‘people’s choice’. For an organization, generally, this may not be significant – i.e it may not be important that the general public perceive the organization’s leader as the person to leader them as a nation. But, where the whole purpose is to elect someone whom the ‘people’ will identify with and vote for to lead our great nation, it is inevitable that now and again it will fail in this objective.
- it does not activate people at the grass roots to be involved. The above can make people more jaded and cynical of the political process and in actuality turn them off. This can lead to a reduction in the number of people making financial contribution, volunteering their time during an election campaign and, voting for the Party, or coming out to vote at all.
It is only reasonable to conclude that where the people were not activated in selecting the leader the chances of choosing a leader that resonates with them is reduced and the amount and the extent that they participate in an election, whether contributing money, time or voting, is reduced. With the current political donations regime which excludes corporate donors and large donations, this can be fatal.
The extent to which the above plays a role in the Liberal fortunes in this last election – you be the judge.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081101.WBSteele20081101193706/WBStory/WBSteele#commentLatest
Apparently, Gerard Kennedy is leaning strongly to running in the leadership as the party renewal candidate.
I don’t think you can blame Kennedy since he was simply playing the game as it was defined. In other words, riding associations selecting delegates who are bound in the way they vote only on the first round of voting, is ideally suited, and I suggest designed for, the vary purpose – i.e. back room wheeling and dealing. In fact, his inner circle was, obviously, very good at it since, they say, around 92% of Kennedy’s supporters swung to Dion - who would have thought it possible. So, in other words, not only was he playing the game as it was designed, he, or should I say his inner circle, excelled at it.
Bottom line is that we must blame the delegate – convention system of voting and not Kennedy.
In the national context all parties find themselves in, as long as the Liberal Party sticks with this form of electing a leader there will always be a very significant risk that a leader will be chosen that does not resonate with the general population. And, with modern technology there is no need to hold Party elections in this fashion. This form of election tends to alienate and not activate the grass roots members or the population in general.
It was successful previously for one because of the rules for political donations – i.e. there were very few restrictions on who and amount. Consequently, there were relatively few, but they were large and from corporations and individuals, who in many cases very politically active. The “back room boys” (this includes ‘girls’ as well) system is a natural manifestation of this old political contribution regime. The Liberals not only excelled at this but their whole structure developed around it – including the Riding Association – delegate – convention - committed first round vote.
This system is self perpetuating for two reasons. Many of the ‘powers that be’ in the Liberal Party are there because of this system and thrive off it. Also, it is the back room boys, and girls, that attend these conventions (delegates that are chosen pursuant this system) that vote on whether the next leadership race will have the same format (compare 2006). Is it any surprise they vote to perpetuate it. It allows those who make large contributions, both monetarily and otherwise, to have a direct and significant say in who gets elected as leader and makes it clear to those running “to whom they are indebted”. On the other hand, it makes it easier for those running since they have a relatively few, well defined, sources of support they can focus on – as opposed to something as diffuse as the whole Liberal Membership, each individually. This latter aspect, in essence, makes it possible for a large number of people to run for leadership since they need a relatively small number of supporters, amongst politically very savvy people who are looking for a ‘house to back’.
The draw backs are:
- for one that the leader that is selected may very well not be the ‘people’s choice’. For an organization, generally, this may not be significant – i.e it may not be important that the general public perceive the organization’s leader as the person to leader them as a nation. But, where the whole purpose is to elect someone whom the ‘people’ will identify with and vote for to lead our great nation, it is inevitable that now and again it will fail in this objective.
- it does not activate people at the grass roots to be involved. The above can make people more jaded and cynical of the political process and in actuality turn them off. This can lead to a reduction in the number of people making financial contribution, volunteering their time during an election campaign and, voting for the Party, or coming out to vote at all.
It is only reasonable to conclude that where the people were not activated in selecting the leader the chances of choosing a leader that resonates with them is reduced and the amount and the extent that they participate in an election, whether contributing money, time or voting, is reduced. With the current political donations regime which excludes corporate donors and large donations, this can be fatal.
The extent to which the above plays a role in the Liberal fortunes in this last election – you be the judge.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)